Planning Committee Agenda Item No. 4
10th February 2009
Waste Planning Application, accompanied by an Environmental Statement, submitted by Veolia ES Landfill Limited
Development of a non-hazardous, non-inert waste landfill site at Rock Common Quarry, Washington, West Sussex
Application No: DC/401/07(WS)
Report by Divisional Manager (County Development)
Local Member: Mr Frank Wilkinson District: Horsham (Mr Colin O’Neill - acting)
Executive Summary
This report concerns a planning application (DC/401/07(WS)) submitted by Veolia ES Landfill Ltd for the development of a non-hazardous, non-inert waste landfill site at Rock Common Quarry, Washington.
The application was submitted in January 2007 accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) as required by the Town and Country Planning (Environment Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. The County Council requested that additional information in support of the application be submitted under the EIA Regulations in September and December 2007. Veolia submitted an Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (supplementary environmental information) in July 2008 and a further submission in October 2008 proposing revisions to the development scheme.
The report provides a generalised description of the site and a detailed account of the proposed landfilling operations and subsequent restoration proposals for the site. It is anticipated that the landfill operations will commence in 2009, subject to cessation of current mineral extraction, and will be completed by 2035. The landfill operations would be carried out in a minimum of 10 phases. It is estimated that the site will be capable of handling 7.3 million m3 or approximately 5.5 million tonnes of waste over a 26 year period (2009 to 2035), which equates to an approximate rate of fill of 212,000 tonnes per annum. The site is not allocated for waste disposal in the revised deposit draft West Sussex Waste Local Plan and waste would be deposited below the natural water table of a major aquifer.
The policy framework from national to local level, which governs developments of this kind, is set out in detail. National policy seeks an increase in diversion away from landfill and adopted and emerging regional policies set out the requirement for new non-hazardous, non-inert landfill sites in West Sussex. Emerging local policies establish the need for new waste management facilities, to allocate sites, and set out criteria for assessing site suitability for waste disposal operations. Environmental resources are also protected by existing and emerging regional and local planning policies, including landscape character, and water quality. Policies also seek to prevent pollution and protect general public amenity.
The views of consultees are set out and include comment upon the full range of matters to be considered. The proposals have raised two significant objections from the Environment Agency (EA) on the grounds of its potential impact on groundwater resources and the absence of an acceptable Flood Risk Assessment. Other consultees have also raised formal objections to the proposals on a number of grounds including the prematurity of the application pending the allocation of sites in the Minerals and Waste Development Framework; the lack of need for further landfill capacity within the County; the loss of the exposed quarry cliff face; visual impacts on the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB); impact on groundwater; volume of traffic; and impacts on public amenity.
Representations from members of the public raised concerns about the ‘need’ for additional landfill; impact on groundwater and surface water quality; flood risk; impact on the health and amenity for local residents; impact on the continued viability of local businesses; impact from increased traffic levels and congestion; visual and landscape impact; impact on historic heritage; impact on geology; impact on ecology; and cumulative impacts.
Consideration of Key Issues
The two principal planning matters to be considered in respect of this application are: • the need for additional non-hazardous, non-inert waste landfill capacity within West Sussex to meet future waste management obligations; • and the site's suitability for landfilling operations taking account of its potential environmental impacts and when considered against planning policies.
Need for Additional Non-inert Landfill Capacity
There is need to address a shortfall in non-inert landfill capacity in the County and the Council continues to update the evidence base. Under all the forecast scenarios, there is a projected shortfall in capacity. The extent of the shortfall varies but Rock Common Quarry could contribute substantially to meeting the shortfall. There is, however, a potential danger of oversupply if a substantial increase in recycling and the treatment of commercial and industrial waste to 2026 was to be achieved. It is necessary to consider the extent to which need is overriding and in so doing assess the risks and the significance of the environmental impacts likely to arise from proposed landfilling operations at Rock Common Quarry. These matters are discussed further in the main report but when viewed against the EA’s position it is unlikely that need will override risk. This is the application of the 'precautionary principle'.
Site Suitability for Landfilling Operations
The potential significant environmental impacts of the scheme fall into three broad categories (A-C): (A) significant environmental effects which, as a matter of policy principle, are judged unacceptable and justify planning refusal; (B) environmental effects, the significance of which cannot be given proper consideration because of a lack of adequate assessment within the ES); and (C) significant environmental effects which have been adequately assessed within the ES and which can be adequately mitigated, compensated for, or controlled, to reduce any potential impacts to within acceptable limits.
(A) Unacceptable significant environmental effects
Impact on Groundwater Quality
It is considered that on the EA’s advice and with reference to the inadequacy of the information submitted, non-hazardous, non-inert waste disposal at Rock Common Quarry is not in the long-term public interest because of the scale of potential risk of significant adverse impacts on groundwater and, as a matter of principle, a precautionary approach should be applied and the application refused. The development is considered contrary to PPS10, PPS23 and Policy NRM2 of the draft South East Plan, Policy ERA5 of the West Sussex Structure Plan, and Policy G4 of the Revised Deposit Draft Waste Local Plan Deposit Draft.
If the application is refused and the decision is challenged at appeal, consideration of the EA’s landfill location policy, which objects to proposed landfilling on or in a major aquifer as a matter of principle, would represent a national ‘test case’. In such circumstances, the County Council would be heavily reliant on the evidence the EA presented to the inquiry in support of its case. The EA has indicated its support in this matter.
(B) Environmental effects inadequately assessed in the Environmental Statement
Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)
The application is not accompanied by an adequate FRA and, therefore, it fails to meet the requirements of PPS25 and cannot be properly assessed against the requirements of Policy NMR4 of the draft South East Plan, Policy ERA4 of the West Sussex Structure Plan, and Policy G3 of the Revised Deposit Draft Waste Local Plan.
Hydrogeological Impact Assessment (HIA)
The HIA provides insufficient assessment of the environmental impact of the proposed dewatering operations at the site. In particular, it fails to assess the implications for the water quality, including ecology, and net flows of the Honeybridge stream when dewatering ceases at the site. On this basis, the application cannot be properly assessed against the requirements of Policy NRM1 of the draft South East Plan, Policies ERA2 and ERA5 of the West Sussex Structure Plan, and Policies G2, G3 and G4 of the Revised Deposit Draft Waste Local Plan.
Impact on Mineral Resources
The ES fails to adequately assess the impact of the proposed development on remaining mineral resources within the quarry, and those know to exist to the west of the site, with reference to minerals planning policy. It also creates uncertainty as to how the transitionary period between mineral extraction and commencement of landfilling operations would be managed. In the absence of clear statements and supporting information within the ES, the application cannot be properly assessed against the requirements of MPS1, (paragraph 9 and 13), Policy M5 of the draft South East Plan, Policy ERA6 of the West Sussex Structure Plan, Policy 2 of the Minerals Local Plan (2003).
Pre and Post-Settlement Rates and Resultant Landform
Insufficient information is provided to enable the robustness of the 15% settlement rate assumed for this site to be properly assessed and justified. Furthermore, there are no proposals to monitor actual settlement rates as phased operations progress. On this basis, the application cannot be properly assessed against the requirements of Policy W14 of the draft South East Plan, Policy LOC2 of the West Sussex Structure Plan, and Policy G10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Waste Local Plan.
Site Access
Insufficiently detailed revised drawing and plans have been submitted showing the repositioned site access and appropriate topographical surveys have not been undertaken to assess its construction impact. On this basis, the application cannot be properly assessed against the requirements of Policies DEV1 and NE17 of the West Sussex Structure Plan, and Policy G6 of the Revised Deposit Draft Waste Local Plan.
Impacts on Local Amenity (Air Quality, Noise, Dust and other Nuisance Effects)
The Regulation 19 Response has failed to fully address the inadequacies highlighted by the Environmental Health Officer at Horsham District Council and as requested by the County Council in the Regulation 19 request for further information. It is considered that the basis of the noise, air quality, and odour assessments are sufficiently flawed such that there is a lack of confidence about the potential significance of impacts and how these can be adequately controlled. On this basis, the application cannot be properly assessed against the requirements of PPS23, and PPS23 Annex 1; Policies NRM9 and NRM10 of the South East Plan; and Policy G7 of the Deposit Draft Waste Local Plan. The potential impact on local amenity, given the proximity of residential properties and nature of local businesses, adds weight to the level of overall concern about the appropriateness of landfilling operations at Rock Common Quarry.
(C) Significant environmental effects which can be mitigated, compensated for, or controlled
Impact on the AONB and Landscape Character
It is considered that the proposed post-settlement landform which would create a new domed hillock is acceptable in principle taking into account visual impacts on the Sussex Downs AONB. The restoration of the quarry to achieve a landform that relates more naturally to the surrounding rural landscape may be seen as an improvement. There will be more pronounced local visual impacts on nearby receptors during the construction and operational phases of the landfill prior to restoration. However, the proposed mitigation measures, including the screening bunds, along with an appropriate woodland management scheme for the western boundary of the site (which will need to be agreed by the County Council) can be carefully controlled via planning conditions to assist in reducing visual impacts for nearby local receptors.
Impact on Geology
The resultant proposed loss of the Regionally Important Geological site (RIG) status of the site and the habitats provided by the exposed quarry face remain a concern. Officers are not convinced that Veolia have explored all possible options to retain an exposed face as part of the final restoration proposals for the site. It is considered that further work on this matter should be carried out before a final decision on the acceptability of the proposal is reached.
Impact on Ecology
The proposed landfilling operations would not have an unacceptable impact on the ecology of the area. The restoration of the site and other mitigation and compensatory measures proposed, including the management of the SW field for nature conservation purposes, should provide for a range of new or replacement habitats to maintain and potentially increase the biodiversity of the area. These proposals are generally acceptable, subject to appropriate conditions attached to any planning consent requiring the implementation of a scheme of ecological monitoring and management.
Notwithstanding the conclusions drawn above, the EA have found the HIA to be inadequate, and conclude that the ES has failed to assess the ecological impacts on Honeybridge Stream when dewatering operations at the site cease.
Impact on Traffic and Highways
In conclusion, all Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) visiting the landfill site would abide by the Routing Strategy travelling to and from the site via the southern section of the Hollow between the site access and the A283 The Pike junction. The southern section of The Hollow between the site access and the A283 The Pike junction would be widened to a minimum of 6 metres to allow two HGVs to pass each other safely.
Capacity improvements would be undertaken at the A283/A24 Washington Roundabout, with the A283, Storrington Road and the A24, London Road and A24 Horsham Road arms widened to provide three lane entries. A Transport Contribution would need to be secured through a Section 106 agreement/unilateral undertaking towards road safety improvements at the Washington roundabout.
There are no capacity or road safety concerns, with the development traffic, at The Hollow/A283 The Pike junction. However, road safety improvements including new junction markings, anti-skid surfacing, and vegetation removal to be carried out at The Hollow/A283 The Pike junction would be required.
The proposed site access road junction with the Hollow has been redesigned to comply with the Road Safety Auditors recommendations.
Site Infrastructure Area
Further details relating to the location and design of two gas engines and the flare and the Modular Leachate Treatment Plant (MLTP), which are required to be operational during the early phases of the landfill, should have been submitted with the application. Prior to development commencing, revised drawings and plans for the phase one infrastructure area should, therefore, be submitted for approval showing the indicative location for the gas engine and flare and the MLTP along with the other ancilliary facilities to supercede that presently shown on Figure 10 of the ES Regulation 19 Response.
Cumulative Impact
The proposed landfilling operations at Rock Common will perpetuate potential adverse impacts on the local residents, businesses, and recreational activities following a long history of landfilling and mineral operations in the local area. The potential for cumulative impacts (including traffic, visual and environmental impacts, possible economic impact, as well as impacts on general amenity) to arise as a result of the proposed development, adds weight to other concerns set out in this report and the prevailing view that there is no overriding need for landfilling at this location in wider public interest taking all material considerations into account.
Impact on Historic Heritage
Subject to appropriate planning conditions to ensure that buried archaeological features in the south-west field are adequately investigated and recorded prior to development, the development proposals are considered acceptable. In respect of historic heritage, given the location and distance of the majority of Scheduled Ancient Monuments and listed buildings from the site, away from proposed traffic routes, the potential for traffic-induced damage to listed structures is considered to be negligible. The setting of listed buildings closest to the site, have already been detrimentally affected by past mineral operations. The eventual proposed restoration of the site may lead to improvement in this respect.
Overall Conclusion
Rock Common Quarry is not allocated for the disposal of non-inert waste in the revised deposit draft West Sussex Waste Local Plan (2004). Whilst there is a need to address a shortfall in non-inert landfill capacity in the County to 2026, having assessed the risks and the significance of the environmental impacts likely to arise from proposed landfilling operations at Rock Common Quarry, it is not considered that the need for further landfill capacity in the County overrides potential environment risk to groundwater resources in the wider public interest. Accordingly a 'precautionary principle' should be applied and the application refused. The County Council is progressing work on the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy which will allocate strategic sites to meet the projected shortfall in landfill capacity.
The ES and the ES Regulation 19 Response accompanying the planning application provides insufficient information in respect of flood risk, hydrological impacts, impact on mineral resources, settlement rate assumptions and monitoring, the site access, and impact on local amenity such that a full assessment of the significance of the environmental impacts cannot be properly assessed against planning policy. The ES as currently submitted, therefore, fails to meet the requirements of EIA Regulations.
Whilst the County Council has the option of continuing to pursue additional information from Veolia to address the inadequacy of the ES, it is not considered expedient to do so. The application is recommended to be refused on the advice of the Environment Agency as a matter of principle because of its location upon a major aquifer and its potential to have significant effects on groundwater resources. Under these circumstances, further discussion with Veolia would not serve any meaningful purpose.
The advice in Circular 02/99: Environmental Impact Assessment states that “if a developer fails to provide enough information to complete the ES, the application can be determined only by refusal (regulation 3).” The ES accompanying the application is judged to be non-compliant with the requirements of the EIA Regulations and it is recommended that planning permission is also refused for these reasons.
Notwithstanding the above, it should be noted that in respect of the potential impact of the proposed development on the Sussex Downs AONB and landscape character; ecological and geological interests; traffic and highways; the site infrastructure area; cumulative impact; and archaeology and historic heritage, officers are generally satisfied that adequate mitigation, compensatory measures or appropriate controls could be put in place via planning conditions or other means (e.g. legal agreement), to reduce any potential impacts to within acceptable limits.
Recommendation
It is recommended, therefore, that planning permission is refused for the following reasons:
(a) the use of the land at Rock Common Quarry for non-hazardous, non-inert waste disposal is not in the long-term public interest because its location on a major aquifer and its reliance on long-term active management measures, have a potential for significant environmental impacts on groundwater. Accordingly, the development is contrary to guidance in Planning Policy Statements 10 and 23 and the following statutory and emerging development plan policies: Policy NRM2 of the draft South East Plan; Policy ERA5 of the West Sussex Structure Plan; and Policy G4 of the Revised Deposit Draft West Sussex Waste Local Plan.
(b) the Environmental Statement (January 2007) and Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Responses (June 2008 and October 2008) provide insufficient information in respect of flood risk, hydrogeological impacts, impact on mineral resources, assumed settlement rates, the site access, and impact on local amenity, such that a full assessment of the significance of the environmental impacts arising from the development cannot be properly assessed against planning policy. Accordingly, the Environmental Statement and Regulation 19 Responses, as currently submitted, fail to meet the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999.
1. Introduction
1.1 This report concerns a planning application (DC/401/07(WS)) submitted by Veolia ES Landfill Ltd for the development of a non-hazardous, non-inert waste landfill site at Rock Common Quarry, Washington, West Sussex.
1.2 The application site comprises an existing quarry operated by Tarmac Ltd which has been worked for sand since the 1920s. Veolia propose to develop a self-contained, fully-lined landfill site within the quarry for the disposal of 7.3 million m3, or approximately 5.5 million tonnes, of non-hazardous, processed, source-separated (and hence residual), non-inert wastes. A field to the south-west of the site is proposed to be managed for the purposes of ecological mitigation.
1.3 The application was submitted on 17 January 2007 and was accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) as required by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (hereafter referred to as the 'EIA Regulations'). The development is included within the EIA Regulations Schedule 2 category 11b, that relates to ‘installations for the disposal of waste’, as a development likely to have a significant effect on the environment, as described at Section 8 of this report.
Additional Information
1.4 On 5 September 2007, following initial consultation on the application, the County Council requested additional information in support of the application under Regulation 19 (1), (2) and (10) of the EIA Regulations. This request was supplemented by a further letter sent on 7 December 2007 including information sought on behalf of the Environment Agency.
1.5 In summary, the requests for additional information related principally to the need for further assessment of: • archaeology and ecology, including further detailed information on the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures; • flood risk and further clarification of surface water drainage measures; • a revised HGV routing strategy supported by additional traffic surveys, data and information; • the potential effects arising from changes in hydrology on the integrity of the adjacent landfill sites to the east; • the impact of the development in terms of loss of mineral resources; • the assumptions used to inform the settlement rate and post restoration landform; and • noise, air quality and other nuisance.
1.6 Clarification was also sought on Veolia's justification for the development in the light of a policy objection lodged to the application by the Environment Agency on the grounds of its potential impact on groundwater. Other matters that required clarification related to the proposed dewatering operations, site infrastructure proposals, and the landscape treatment of the peripheral edge of the site during the operational phase.
1.7 On 8 July 2008, WSCC received the 'Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (additional information) June 2008' and subsequently a further supplementary submission on 7 October 2008 providing an 'Assessment of Ecological Impacts to the Hollow'. Hereafter, these are referred to in combination as the 'Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Responses'. Statutory consultation on the revised proposals and supplementary environmental information was completed at the end of November 2008.
1.8 The detail and adequacy of the information submitted is discussed in Section 10 of this report.
1.9 The application is for full planning permission and, therefore, all matters of significance to its determination need to be considered. Only detailed operational matters can be reserved for further consideration.
2. Site and Description
2.1 Rock Common Quarry, operated by Tarmac Ltd, is located to the north east of Washington village, north of the A283 and east of the A24. The existing site access is off a minor road, “The Hollow”, located to the east of the quarry, which connects the A24 to the A283 (see Location Plan - Appendix 1a and Site Plan - Appendix 1b).
2.2 Some residential properties and businesses are within close proximity of the site (as shown on the Location Plan). The closest properties are notably Green Barn Farm and Green Farmhouse, approximately 20m from the southern site boundary and Rock House Nursery approximately 30m from the northern site boundary. A limited number of other properties and businesses are also located off The Hollow to the north, including Castle Kitchens (a local business producing food products); and to the west off Sandhill Lane, including Washington Caravan and Camping Park. To the east lie three former landfill sites; the Windmill, the Rough, and the Rock, all of which are currently undergoing restoration. Public footpath no. 2701, including its junction with footpath no. 2700, circumvents the site to the north and west.
2.3 The site is within a rural area. The Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Chanctonbury Hill Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) lie to the south of the A283. The quarry is a designated Regionally Important Geological (and Geomorphological) Site (RIG).
2.4 The application site lies on a major aquifer, the geographical extent of which is considerable. The underlying aquifer (locally known as the Folkestone Formation) is a long but thin geological stratum. The stratum outcrops approximately 1km north to south and extends a considerable distance from 7km to the east where it reaches the River Adur and more than 10km to the west. The site and surrounding area has a long history of landfilling, mineral extraction, and dewatering operations. 2.5 Tarmac currently pump groundwater from the existing quarry and have consent to discharge into the Honeybridge Stream, which flows north from Washington and adjacent to the western boundary of the site. Veolia advise that the base of the quarry at its lowest point is approximately 10m AOD with surrounding ground level varying from 75m to the north-east to 50m to the south-west.
2.6 At the neighbouring Windmill landfill site, which is currently undergoing restoration, there is no engineered basal lining to control leachate as the site was developed on the 'dilute and disperse' principle. Therefore, there is an obligation under the terms of the waste management licence (WML) for groundwater to be maintained below the level of waste at 32m AOD to prevent groundwater pollution. There is a high degree of hydraulic connectivity between the Windmill site and Rock Common Quarry, and as a consequence of the WML requirements at the former, groundwater levels at the application site cannot rise above 32m AOD. This remains the case until the surrender of the WML for the Windmill site the timescale for which remains uncertain.
3. Planning History
3.1 Rock Common has been quarried for sand since the 1920s. Planning permissions for the extraction of sand and associated works and infrastructure have been progressively granted since 1953 cumulating in a Review of Minerals Planning Permission (ROMP), under the provisions of the Environment Act 1995.
3.2 The ROMP consent (WS/15/97) was granted on 16 September 2004, permitting mineral extraction to continue at Rock Common until 2020. The ROMP requires the Quarry to be restored to a landscaped lake for amenity and nature conservation purposes. The issues surrounding site restoration are discussed further in Section 10.
4. The Proposal
4.1 Veolia propose to develop a “self-contained, engineered, fully-lined landfill” within the existing void at Rock Common Quarry for the disposal of non-inert waste. The proposed site extends to 30 hectares to include a field to the south west of the existing quarried area, for the development of a wetland habitat.
4.2 The application does not include mineral extraction which will remain controlled under the existing ROMP. However, if the application is granted consent, the restoration proposals consented under the ROMP would be superseded, on implementation of the landfill, by the restoration proposals described at paragraph 4.25 to 4.27 of this report.
4.3 The description of the development below relates to the scheme as proposed to be amended by the Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Responses.
4.4 It was anticipated that the landfill operations will commence in 2009, subject to cessation of mineral extraction, and will be completed by 2035. The landfill operations would be carried out in a minimum of 10 phases. Veolia estimate that the site will be capable of handling 7.3 million m3 or approximately 5.5 million tonnes of waste over a 26 year period (2009 to 2035), which equates to an approximate rate of fill of 212,000 tonnes per annum.
4.5 The existing quarry would be filled with non-inert waste and landfilling would then continue above the existing rim to create a pre-settlement domed landform rising to 84m AOD at its highest point. A settlement rate of 15% has been allowed for so that the highest post-settlement landform is predicted to be around 76m AOD. The ground levels surrounding the quarry currently vary from 75m to the north-east to 50m to the south-west, with the highest localised high point at 76m AOD at the base of Rock Mill. (see Pre and Post Settlement Contours - Appendix 2).
4.6 During the operational phase, the side slopes along the northern and western edge of quarry will need to be stripped of existing trees and vegetation and re-profiled. When waste levels reach surrounding ground levels, 5m high screening bunds will be constructed in a phased and systematic manner. The bunds, which will help mitigate noise and nuisance from the site, will be covered in temporary restoration soils and the outer faces sown with grass seed to minimise visual impact.
Containment and Groundwater Management Proposals
4.7 The site is on a major aquifer and, therefore, measures are proposed to manage and monitor ground water levels in and around the site. Groundwater would be maintained at a level which Veolia consider would eliminate the risk of rising groundwater adversely affecting the integrity of the basal and side slope lining system. (see Diagram Illustrating Groundwater Levels - Appendix 6). An engineered containment barrier comprising a geomembrane and 1m of engineering clay is proposed to “hydraulically separate” the landfill from its immediate surroundings. Within the application documents Veolia advise that the landfill has been designed “to significantly minimise the risk the development may pose on the hydrogeological environment.”
4.8 A new perimeter ground water management system, comprising a ring of regularly spaced boreholes with high lift submersible pumps, will be installed to maintain ground water levels at or around 5m to 10m AOD for a period of 10–15 years. Additional groundwater control contingency measures will be provided by an underliner groundwater drainage system which will be installed beneath the base of the proposed landfill.
4.9 After a 10 to 15 year period, ground water is proposed to be managed and monitored to recover to its natural levels. It is proposed that the landfill be designed with benched walls or terraces enabling temporary dewatering boreholes to be installed beneath the line of the upper bench. These temporary measures are proposed to enable Veolia to control groundwater at progressively elevated levels as the site is developed. Each borehole is proposed to be raised vertically as the site is progressively filled, therefore maintaining continuity in the underlying groundwater control to avoid hydraulic uplift of the engineered liner system. Ultimately, it is proposed that groundwater levels will recover to pre-dewatering levels.
4.10 Veolia state that it may not be possible (at least initially) to restore the water table to a greater elevation than 32m AOD because of the existing waste management obligations at the neighbouring Windmill landfill Site (as discussed below at paragraph 4.12).
4.11 The non-inert waste landfill will generate leachate requiring active management. Again, within the application documents Veolia state that at Rock Common it would be “essential that the leachate level in the site remains hydraulically contained with respect to the surrounding groundwater for the duration of the operational and afteruse period where active management is undertaken. For Rock Common this will be 60 years following closure.” In practice, this means that leachate levels will need to be maintained approximately 2m below the level of surrounding groundwater in order to achieve ‘hydraulic containment’ i.e. groundwater has the potential to enter the site rather than leachate leaking out. A Hydrogeological Impact Appraisal (HIA) and Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) have been completed as part of the EIA.
4.12 The neighbouring Windmill landfill site currently relies on the existing groundwater management system at Rock Common Quarry to meet its WML obligation to maintain groundwater levels at 32m AOD i.e. 10m below its base level. The current Rock Common groundwater management system, associated with the mineral extraction, is installed within the base of the existing quarry and comprises “a series of numerous, closely spaced, shallow wells (well points), connected together using header pipes and flexible hoses”. Two high capacity vacuum pumps extract groundwater from the well points and discharge into Honeybridge stream.
4.13 Veolia advise that when groundwater management is no longer required at Rock Common, under the terms of its proposal, the operators of Windmill Hill will need to take independent action to maintain the minimum unsaturated zone below the Windmill landfill site necessary to meet their WML obligations. Veolia suggest that there may be an opportunity for the operators to take over the groundwater management system at Rock Common (as proposed in the application and referred to in paragraph 4.8). The ES states that there is no conflict between the respective levels at which groundwater levels need to be managed at the two sites.
Highway and Access
4.14 A new site access to the Quarry is proposed further along The Hollow just south of the existing access, which would be closed. The existing access is sub-standard with visibility splays below required highway standards.
4.15 The proposed routing strategy is for operational Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) to both enter and exit the site via the junction of the A283 (‘The Pike’) and The Hollow. The Hollow would need to be widened, where necessary, to at least 6m to enable HGVs to pass safely. The Hollow is designated as having a Notable Roadside Verge (NRV). A detailed vegetation survey has been carried out to assess the ecological impact of widening sections of the road and compensatory planting proposed for the loss of notable plant species. These include the translocation of a discrete area (5m2) of grassy habitat containing notable species to an area of adjacent roadside verge. With the intention of improving the ecological value of the whole length of The Hollow, monitoring and management of the NRV is proposed for a period of 5 years.
4.16 The junction of the A283 and The Hollow would require minor safety improvements to enhance its safe, future use. Vehicular access via the junction of the A24 London Road and The Hollow would be limited to employees and visitors only.
4.17 Further improvement measures to the Washington roundabout are proposed to mitigate the expected increase in queuing on three of its approach arms. Localised widening would increase the number of lanes from two to three on the A24 London Road, Horsham Road, and A283 Storrington Road approach arms.
Traffic Generation
4.18 Waste would be bought to the site by a combination of Refuse Collection Vehicles (RCVs) operated by District and Borough Councils (the 'Waste Collection Authorities') and HGVs such as bulkers or roll-on-off vehicles importing waste from transfer stations operated across West Sussex. Waste vehicle movements are forecast to vary over the life of the landfill site. Maximum forecast waste movements are predicted to occur between 2016 and 2035.
4.19 Based on a 10 hour working day, the weekday peak hour development traffic is estimated to be 56 two-way HGV trips during the am peak and 35 car/LGV trips for staff during the am and pm peaks.
4.20 On the assumption that operating hours will be restricted to 07.00–17.00 hrs Monday to Friday; 07.00–13.00 hrs on Saturday; and 07.00-16.00 hrs on Saturdays following bank holidays, HGV traffic movements would not occur during the pm peak hour 17:00–18:00 hrs.
Infrastructure Requirements
4.21 The landfill site management and infrastructure area would be developed in two phases, located in the north-east corner of the site, close to the proposed site access. (see Site Access & Infrastructure Phases 1 & 2 - Appendix 3).
4.22 Phase 1 would comprise site offices, car parking, a wheel-washing facility, weighbridge, and waste control area for inspection purposes. A sustainable energy system to generate electricity from the landfill gas would be constructed and operated from 2010 comprising two landfill gas engines and a flare. The general location of the gas plant within the site infrastructure area would be subject to review prior to installation.
4.23 Phase 2, comprising alterations and modifications to the infrastructure area, is likely in 2027. At present, only a conceptual plan is provided showing potential layout and plant requirements. It is anticipated, however, that this will include the construction of a new Environmental Services Compound containing a permanent leachate treatment plant and the landfill gas energy plant. The site access and internal layout to control and manage the reception and departure of HGVs would also need to be re-aligned. Once operational, the landfill site would employ 8 to 10 full-time staff.
4.24 Veolia request that the final layout and details of the plant to be constructed, be conditional upon approval prior to the commencement of the development of the second phase of the Site Infrastructure area, so that the most up-to- date technologies can be employed at the time.
Landscape - Visual Impact and Restoration
4.25 The pre-settlement landform would eventually create a pronounced mound, which at its highest point would be 84m AOD. Projection of tipped material above the rim of the pit, on the basis of the proposed location and phasing of tipping, would begin to become apparent after 2018. The visual impact would increase gradually between 2018 and 2035. Settlement would occur continuously over the active period of tipping. Further settlement would continue for many years after initial restoration, leading to gradual reduction in height and impact on the landscape.
4.26 The site would be progressively restored commencing in 2020 in the south of the site. The final, post-settlement, landform would be visible as an above ground mound with slope profiles comparable with those in the surrounding landscape. The raised landform would dominate views from the Caravan Park and properties off Sandhill Lane to the west of the site. When viewed from long distance viewpoints on Chanctonbury Hill, Veolia state that the site would “blend naturally into the surrounding rural landscape”.
4.27 The flattened high point of the post-settlement landform would be around 76m AOD so that it would not exceed the adjacent localised high point of the former Windmill site. Around the edge of the landfill, the slopes will be locally steepened to create an edge profile similar to that along The Hollow. The current exposed geological cliff face would be lost in its entirety.
Nature Conservation
4.28 The cliff habitat and much of the existing bare ground habitat would be lost, with consequential impacts on a pair of nesting peregrine falcons and ground dwelling and burrowing invertebrates. The restored landform would comprise a mixed end-use of grazing, woodland, and a series of habitats and nature conservation elements as described below. Veolia state that the overall restoration scheme will create habitats with equivalent or greater conservation value than most of the existing habitats in the quarry.
4.29 A ‘Wildlife Conservation Area’, primarily comprising an extended area of dry acid grassland, is proposed down the eastern side of the restored site adjacent to The Hollow with the aims of making a significant contribution at County level towards Local Biodiversity Area Plan (LBAP) targets.
4.30 Further ecological compensation is proposed, primarily by proposals in a field to the south-west of the existing quarry where new areas of open standing water and wetland habitat would be created along with a suitable receptor site for reptiles, to compensate for loss of these habitats in the existing quarry. Veolia propose to build in biodiversity interest to encourage bats, sand martins, and tunneling invertebrates to return to the site; to implement a suitable mitigation and monitoring strategy for badgers; and to monitor the ecological status of Honeybridge Stream before and during the development along with the introduction of further measures to enhance its ecological value.
5. Policy
5.1 There are a number of national, regional, county, and local policy documents relevant to this application. Key points are outlined below. A detailed summary of the specific requirements of each is set out in Planning Policies - Appendix 4.
Statutory 'Development Plan'
5.2 Planning applications must be determined in accordance with the statutory ‘development plan’ unless material considerations indicate otherwise. For the purposes of this application, the statutory ‘development plan’ comprises: • Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9, 2001) and revised Chapter 10 Waste and Mineral (2006); • West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016, February 2005 (saved policies); • West Sussex Minerals Local Plan 2003 (saved policies); • Horsham District Local Development Framework: o Core Strategy, (2007) o General Development Control Policies (2007) o Site Specific Allocations of Land (2007)
5.3 Emerging development plan policies include the draft regional South East Plan, as proposed to be modified (July 2008), which will replace RPG9 when approved.
European Policy
5.4 The following European policy is material to this application: • Waste Directive (2008/98/EC); • Waste Framework Directive (75/442/EEC as amended); and • Landfill Directive (93/31EC).
National Policies
5.5 Waste Strategy (2007) sets out the Government’s vision for sustainable waste management in England and Wales for the period up to 2020. The Strategy sets out various targets for diversion and recycling and emphasises the importance of the waste hierarchy which states that disposal of waste is a final option and only appropriate if options above cannot be employed. Landfill diversion remains a key objective. 5.6 Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) ‘Planning for Sustainable Waste Management' (2005) is of significant weight and it promotes sustainable development through driving waste management up the waste hierarchy by securing the recovery and disposal of waste without endangering human health or causing harm to the environment. Waste disposal is considered the last option, but one which must be adequately catered for.
5.7 Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS23) ‘Planning and Pollution Control' (2004) advises that planning authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced by the relevant agencies and therefore they should act to complement rather than duplicate controls. However, development control decisions on individual planning applications, particularly those for potentially polluting processes, can have an immediate impact on the local environment, human health and well-being.
5.8 In considering proposals for development, local planning authorities should take account of the risks of and from pollution and land contamination, and how these can be managed or reduced. PPS23 advises that any consideration of the quality of land, air or water and potential impacts arising from development, possibly leading to impacts on health, is capable of being a material planning consideration, in so far as it arises or may arise from or may affect any land use.
5.9 Guidance set out in Minerals Planning Statement 1 (MPS1) ‘Planning and Minerals’ (2006); Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7) ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’ (2004); Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) ‘Biological and Geological Conservation’ (2005); and Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) on ‘Development and Flood Risk’ (2006) is also relevant.
South East Plan (as proposed to be modified)
5.10 The South East Plan can be given considerable material weight since its policies are up-to-date, have been subject to examination and are consistent with national guidance set out in Planning Policy Statement 10: 'Planning for Sustainable Waste Management' (PPS10). The key policies are: Policy W7: Waste Management Capacity Requirements Policy W3: Regional Self Sufficiency Policy W4: Sub-Regional Self Sufficiency Policy W13: Landfill requirements Policy NRM2: Water Quality Policy NRM5: Conservation and Improvement of Biodiversity Policy C3: AONBs
West Sussex Structure Plan 2001–2016 (Feb 2005 with saved polices)
5.11 The key policies are: Policy LOC2: Countryside Policy NE13: Transport Policy NE17: Roads Policy CH2: AONBs Policy ERA2: Nature conservation Policy ERA4: Flooding Policy ERA5: Air, soil and water Policy ERA6: Minerals
West Sussex Minerals Local Plan (2003 with saved polices)
5.12 The key policy is Policy 2: Safeguarding mineral resources.
West Sussex Waste Local Plan: Revised Deposit Draft (2004)
5.13 The Waste Local Plan (WLP) was never formally adopted but was approved for development control purposes by the County Council in December 2005. It is not part of the statutorily adopted Development Plan but is a material consideration in development control decisions relating to waste. The key policies are: Policy N1: Need for Facilities Policy A4: Landfill Facilities (Allocations) Policy U8: Landfill (general) Policy G2: Character Policy G3: Environment Policy G4: Air, soil and water Policy G6: Transport Policy G7: Public Amenity Policy G10: Restoration
5.14 The Rock Common site was not taken forward as a possible allocation because the Environment Agency had indicated that it was likely to raise objections in principle to disposal of non-inert waste at the site. There were objections to the omission of the site from the Deposit Draft and Revised Deposit Draft.
West Sussex Minerals and Waste Development Framework
5.15 New development plan documents (DPD) are being prepared as part of the Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF). However, as they are at an early stage in their preparation, they can be afforded little weight at this time.
5.16 The Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD: Preferred Option (January 2007), however, gives an indication of emerging policy principles. Policy CSW8 (Landfill Sites) states that new proposals for the disposal of non-inert waste to land should not conflict with general policies which include, amongst other matters, protection of the intrinsic quality of water resources. Policy CSW9 (Landfill Site Allocations) identifies the use of mineral voids in clay areas provided that mineral reserves would not be sterilised. There was a focus on clay pits as proven technology could be used to address the potential impact of landfill on the water environment.
5.17 The Strategic Waste Site Allocations DPD: Preferred Option (January 2007) did not include the Rock Common site as a potential landfill site due to the application of the precautionary approach to site allocation outlined above.
5.18 Under the revised Minerals and Waste Development Scheme, the Core Strategy will now allocate strategic sites for minerals and waste rather than for such sites to be allocated in separate documents. It is due for submission in 2010 following stakeholder and public consultation and will need to identify sufficient additional landfill capacity to meet identified needs to 2026.
5.19 The work on identifying sites for landfill has recommenced and it will now consider all potential mineral voids, including non-clay pits. The potential impact of landfill operations on hydrogeology/hydrology will be assessed as one of the key criteria, and the work will identify whether there are ‘in principle’ barriers to the development of potential sites on these, and other key, grounds.
Horsham District Local Development Framework
5.20 The key policies of the adopted Core Strategy are: Policy CP2: Environment Policy CP15: Rural Strategy 5.21 The key policies of the adopted Development Control Policies DPD are: Policy DC1: Countryside Policy DC4: AONBs Policy DC5: Biodiversity and Geology Policy DC9: Quality and Amenity Policy DC40: Transport and Access
Summary of Policy Context
5.22 National policy seeks an increase in diversion away from landfill. Adopted and emerging regional policies set out the requirement for new non- hazardous, non-inert landfill sites in West Sussex. Emerging local policies establish the need for new waste management facilities, to allocate sites and set out criteria for assessing site suitability for waste disposal operations. Environmental resources are also protected by existing and emerging regional and local planning policies, including landscape character, AONBs, and water quality. Policies also seek to prevent pollution and protect general public amenity. 6. Consultations
6.1 Responses to the planning application and accompanying ES as originally submitted, following formal consultation in early 2007, were received from the Environment Agency; Natural England; Horsham District Council; the Highway Authority and other internal consultees; the South Downs Joint Committee; the South East England Regional Assembly; the National Trust; and a number of Parish Councils.
6.2 The majority of the consultees raised objections to the application. A full list and summary of all statutory consultation responses can be found at Appendix 5 - Consultee Responses.
6.3 The original objections raised by Natural England, the Environment Agency and the WSCC ecologist in respect of ecological impact have been resolved following further consultation between August and November 2008 on the additional information and revisions to the proposed scheme set out in the ES Regulation 19 Responses. Other objections raised by consultees remain outstanding relating principally to the prematurity of the application pending the allocation of waste sites in the Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF); the lack of 'need' for further landfill capacity within the County and that Rock Common is not allocated for such uses; the impact of the proposed restoration scheme which will result in the loss of exposed cliff faces and visual impact on the AONB; and potential impact on groundwater quality, volume of traffic, and public amenity.
6.4 Two significant objections remain from the Environment Agency. • Objection under the Environment Agency’s Landfill Location Policy (as outlined in Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice 2008; Environmental Permitting Regulations Regulatory Guidance Series No. LFD1 – Understanding the Landfill Directive; and Regulatory Guidance Note 3 version 4.0 December 2002) on the grounds that the risk assessment carried out as part of the ES does not demonstrate that the site will not require long-term active management in order to prevent significant environmental damage; and • Objection due to the absence of an acceptable Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) in accordance with the requirements set out in Annex E, paragraph E3 of Planning Policy Statement 25 – Development and Flood Risk. 6.5 A copy of the Environment Agency’s consultation response is provided in full at Appendix 7.
7. Representations
7.1 612 letters of objection were received to the original proposal and accompanying ES in 2007 including a submission from The Chanctonbury Landfill Action Group (CLAG) which has over 1,250 members. The CLAG submission was accompanied by an additional Opinion Survey, completed by 161 people, expressing preference for Rock Common to be restored as a lake and nature reserve in accordance with the extant ROMP consent. A further 544 signatory petition objecting to the development accompanied the submission from the Chanctonbury Village Residents Association (CVRA). Objections were also received from the Washington Caravan and Camping Park, Rock House Nursery, the Chardonnay restaurant and Shoots Nursery (a nearby Garden Centre).
7.2 Following a second round of consultation between August and November 2008 on the submitted ES Regulation 19 Response, additional representations were received from CLAG, CVRA, Castle Kitchens (a local business producing food products), Rock House Nursery and the Washington Caravan and Camping Park as well as from a small number of local residents maintaining their objections to the application proposals and which remain unresolved.
7.3 All the main reasons for objection, originally and subsequently submitted, can be summarised as follows: • lack of the ‘need’ for additional landfill capacity in West Sussex; • impact on groundwater and surface water quality and inadequate assessment of hydrogeological impacts and flood risk; • impact on the health and amenity for local residents (including general nuisance arising from smell, noise and dust); • impact on the continued viability of local businesses, in particular Castle Kitchens, Rock House Nursery, and the Caravan and Camping Park; • impact from increased traffic levels and congestion including the implications of longer opening hours at the site; • visual and landscape impact, particularly on the AONB and Chanctonbury Ring; • impact on cultural heritage resource including listed buildings and the designated Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Site; • impact on ecological interests and lack of adequate mitigation; and • longer-term cumulative impacts of past landfilling activity.
8. Environmental Impact Assessment
8.1 The proposals fall within Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations, under 11(b) ‘installations for the disposal of waste’. Under the Regulations, an applicant minded to make an EIA application may ask the relevant planning authority to state in writing their opinion as to the information to be provided in the Environmental Statement (a "Scoping Opinion"). The County Council issued a Scoping Opinion for the proposed development in June 2005 following a request from Veolia. The Scoping Opinion set out the issues that the County Council wanted to see dealt with in the Environmental Statement (ES).
8.2 In summary, the ES describes the development proposal in detail (including its construction and operations); sets out the ‘need’ case’ for additional landfill capacity within West Sussex; identifies relevant policies and plans; and assesses the impact of the proposal on land use, water resources, ecology, nature conservation, landscape, archaeology, cultural heritage, transport, air quality, noise and vibration and other nuisances, and social and community issues. 8.3 The EIA Regulations ensure that any determining authority for a particular development makes its decision in the knowledge of likely significant effects on the environment and the scope for reducing/mitigating predicted effects.
9. Departure
9.1 The proposed development does not accord with the provisions of the development plan in force in the area (or the West Sussex Waste Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft 2004) in which the land to which the application relates is situated. Accordingly, the application constitutes a departure as set out in section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultations) Departures Directions 1999 and, as a result, should this application be permitted, any decision would be referred to the Secretary of State for approval prior to its issue.
10. Consideration of Key Issues
10.1 The two principal planning matters to be considered in respect of this application are: • the need for additional non-hazardous, non-inert waste landfill capacity within West Sussex to meet future waste management obligations; and • the site's suitability for landfilling operations taking account of its potential environmental impacts and when considered against planning policies.
Need for Additional Non-Inert Landfill Capacity
10.2 The new EU Directive 2008/98/EC on waste management was published in November 2008. The Directive repeals, inter alia, the 2006 Directive relating to the handling of waste. The new Directive came into force on 12 December 2008 and applies the waste hierarchy with waste prevention being the first priority and disposal being the final option.
10.3 PPS10 also encourages a move away from landfill but it remains an option which must be adequately catered for. Existing and emerging regional policies place emphasis on achieving regional self-sufficiency in waste management and establishing targets for a reduction in disposal to landfill. The emerging South East Plan identifies a continuing need for landfill capacity within the region, including a need for West Sussex to manage a proportion of London’s waste arisings. Policy N1 of the WLP states that proposals for landfilling will not be permitted unless there is insufficient capacity to manage waste arisings through other means.
10.4 The current waste planning policy framework in West Sussex is in flux. However, as part of the ongoing work on the new Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework, the Council, using the most recent waste forecasts prepared by AEA Technology (the Council’s consultants), has updated the evidence base relating to permitted non-inert landfill capacity and the need for additional capacity in the future (see Update on need for non-inert landfill, January 2009 - Appendix 8).
10.5 It must be noted that all estimates of future need are based on a number of assumptions: i.e. that waste growth occurs in line with the base case growth rate; that waste arisings requiring landfill are as currently forecast; and that no additional landfill capacity comes forward from alternative sources (including current applications). There are also nationally and regionally acknowledged shortcomings in the accuracy of waste data for commercial and industrial waste, and construction and demolition waste.
10.6 There are currently three active non-inert landfill sites in the County, at Lidsey, Horton, and Brookhurst Wood. Permitted capacity at Horton is expected to run out by 2010/11 and capacity at Lidsey is expected to run out by 2012/13. This leaves one site, at Brookhurst Wood, which is expected to provide capacity beyond this period.
10.7 Despite a committed programme of continuing investment within West Sussex in facilities capable of dealing with municipal waste further up the waste hierarchy, there remains an ongoing reliance on landfill (particularly for commercial and industrial waste - C&I) which is likely to mean that the existing permitted capacity could be substantially used up by 2012/13. This would result in an identified shortfall of landfill capacity to meet future needs in the medium and long-term.
10.8 A range of scenarios have been developed by the County Council to establish the varying levels of landfill provision that may be required. The scenarios include a range of measures for increasing recycling and treatment of both municipal and Commercial & Industrial (C&I) waste. It should be noted, however, that the scenarios do not include any calculations of the amount of residual waste requiring disposal to land resulting from C&I treatment due to uncertainty about the type of treatment facility that would be provided. All of the options include a need for disposal of residual wastes but the extent of the need and resultant shortfall to 2026 varies considerably. At best, the anticipated shortfall is 1.5mt and at worst it is 5.1mt. It should also be noted that the forecasts do not include the potential requirement to accommodate a proportion of London’s waste, should that remain in the South East Plan when approved.
10.9 Scenario 5 is the most optimistic scenario in terms of achieving the waste management objectives for the County. It must be recognised, however, that this would require a major sea change in waste management, particularly by the private sector in dealing with C&I waste. It would, however, dramatically reduce the ongoing need for non-inert landfill capacity to the extent that the proposal at Rock Common could meet the totality of the projected need to 2026 and in the much longer period. There could, however, be a danger of potential over-supply of landfill capacity under this scenario which may undermine movement of waste up the waste hierarchy. Given the site characteristics at Rock Common Quarry and wider environmental problems, it is likely to prove difficult to control a phased approach to landfilling over the short-term and also over a substantially longer time frame. Any revised scheme that envisaged a reduced landfill capacity and site restoration would require a new planning application and ES.
10.10 Rock Common Quarry is neither an allocated site nor is it identified as a preferred option in the County Council’s emerging work on the new MWDF. Although also not statutorily allocated, two sites, at Laybrook Brickworks and Langhurstwood Quarry, are identified in both the existing WLP and the emerging MWDF as preferred options to meet future requirements.
10.11 There is no doubt that the proposed landfill at Rock Common could meet identified shortfalls in capacity, particularly post-2013. In determining whether need is an overriding factor, however, it is necessary to weigh that against the other material considerations.
10.12 European and national policy recognise the need to provide landfill disposal outlets, albeit as a last option, but stresses that in determining the appropriate level of contribution it is important to consider the wider environmental issues associated with such disposal. Article 13 of the new Directive states that: “Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that waste management is carried out without endangering human health, without harming the environment and, in particular: (a) without risk to water, air, soil, plants or animals; (b) without causing a nuisance through noise or odours; and (c) without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest."
Part (a) is pertinent in respect of the “in principle” objection raised by the Environment Agency. Given the level of risk to the water environment it is not deemed appropriate to balance in the favour of an overriding need. Indeed, this would be contrary to the extant and emerging planning policies.
10.13 In conclusion, there is need to address the shortfall in non-inert landfill capacity in the County and the County Council continues to update the evidence base. Under all the forecast scenarios, there is a projected shortfall in capacity. The extent of the shortfall varies but Rock Common Quarry could contribute substantially to meeting the shortfall. There is, however, a potential danger of oversupply if a substantial increase in recycling and the treatment of C&I waste to 2026 was to be achieved. It is necessary to consider the extent to which need is overriding and in so doing assess the risks and the significance of the environmental impacts likely to arise from proposed landfilling operations at Rock Common Quarry. These matters are discussed further in this section but when viewed against the EA’s position it is unlikely that need will override risk. This is the application of the 'precautionary principle'.
Suitability for Landfilling Operations
10.14 Rock Common Quarry is not proposed to be an allocated waste management site but it does meet some of the policy tests set out in the deposit draft Waste Local Plan (WLP) for suitability. The site is a suitable man-made, void, which landfilling would, over time, restore. There is an identified need for non-hazardous, non-inert waste disposal sites within the County that cannot be met on allocated sites (WLP: Policy U8). Furthermore, the site is centrally located to waste arisings within the County and is well-connected to the strategic road network (WLP: Policy G5 and G6). The key policy consideration is, therefore, the potential environmental impact likely to arise from the proposed use of the land at Rock Common Quarry for landfilling. 10.15 Where sites proposed for landfilling are unallocated, PPS10 advises that planning authorities should consider favourably proposals that are consistent with and support the policies in PPS10 and are suitable for development when judged against the following criteria (Paragraph 21): • the physical and environmental constraints on development, including existing and proposed neighbouring land uses; • the cumulative effect of previous waste disposal facilities on the well-being of the local community, including any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality, social cohesion and inclusion or economic potential; • the capacity of existing and potential transport infrastructure to support the sustainable movement of waste, and products arising from resource recovery, seeking when practicable and beneficial to use modes other than road transport.
10.16 Policies in the statutory development plan, the non-statutory West Sussex Waste Local Plan, and the emerging South East Plan also seek when accommodating new development to protect environmental resources such as biodiversity and geological features, landscape character, AONBs, air, soil and water quality, and general public amenity.
10.17 The Environmental Statement together with the further supplementary Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Responses assess the proposed development’s potential significant effects on the environment. The ES, together with any other information, comments and representations made on it, must be taken into account by the County Council in deciding whether or not to grant planning permission for the development. Circular 02/99 advises that where the EIA procedure reveals that a project will have an adverse impact on the environment, it does not necessarily follow that planning permission must be refused. It remains the task of the local planning authority to judge each planning application on its merits within the context of the Development Plan, taking account of all material considerations, including the environmental impacts.
10.18 The potential significant environmental impacts of the scheme fall into the following three broad categories (A-C) and are considered in the following paragraphs: (A) significant environmental effects which, as a matter of policy principle, are judged unacceptable and justify planning refusal (paragraphs 10.19 to 10.45); (B) environmental effects, the significance of which cannot be given proper consideration because of a lack of adequate assessment within the ES (paragraphs 10.46 to 10.76); and (C) significant environmental effects which have been adequately assessed within the ES and which can be adequately mitigated, compensated for, or controlled, to reduce any potential impacts to within acceptable limits (Paragraphs 10.77 to 10.133.) (A) Unacceptable significant environmental effects
10.19 There are a number of significant potential environmental effects which, as a matter of policy principle, are judged unacceptable and justify planning refusal.
Impact on Groundwater Quality
10.20 The Environment Agency (EA) have lodged an objection to the application which it considers fails to meet its Landfill Location Policy as outlined in Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice 2008; Environmental Permitting Regulations Regulatory Guidance Series No. LFD1 – Understanding the Landfill Directive; and Regulatory Guidance Note 3 version 4.0 December 2002.
10.21 Policy P31 of the “Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice” document sets out the EA’s approach to groundwater protection and management. It states that the EA will object to landfill sites located below the water table in any strata where the groundwater provides an important contribution to river flow or other sensitive surface waters, or is located on or in a Major Aquifer, where active long-term site management post closure has to be relied upon to prevent groundwater pollution.
10.22 The proposed landfill is located within the Lower Greensand, a major aquifer. Waste is to be deposited below the natural water table of groundwater that will provide an important contribution to the Honeybridge Stream.
10.23 The EA advises that the risk assessment set out in the ES fails to demonstrate that the site will not require long-term active management in order to prevent significant environmental damage to ground water resources. ‘Long-term’ is defined in LDF1, Understanding the Landfill Directive, as “extending throughout the aftercare period and up until completion and surrender of the permit”. Examples of active management cited in LFD1 as essential to prevent groundwater pollution include the reliance on pumped extraction of leachate more than thirty years following closure.
10.24 PPS23 advises that the role of the planning system is to focus on whether the development is an acceptable use of the land, and the impacts of those uses, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves which may duplicate controls properly administrated by other agencies (paragraph 10, PPS23).
10.25 Veolia will need to submit a separate application for approval to the Environment Agency under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 introduced on 13 December 2007. The EA will need to be satisfied that the development can be adequately regulated under the pollution control framework. In the light of its 'in principle' objection, the EA has indicated that an Environmental Permit is unlikely to be issued for the proposed development at Rock Common even if planning consent were to be granted. 10.26 The key planning consideration for the County Council is whether there is a reason to refuse the application based on land-use considerations in line with the advice in PPS23, taking account of the potential level of risk to groundwater quality and having regard to planning policy, so as not to duplicate pollution controls. Annex 1 of PPS23 (appendix 1D) states that it is a legal duty (under relevant EU Directives and UK legislation) not to cause or allow water pollution, as well as an environmental and social responsibility of individuals and organisations.
10.27 PPS23 advises that consideration of the quality of land, air or water and potential impacts arising from development, possibly leading to impacts on health, is capable of being a material planning consideration, in so far as it arises or may arise from or may affect any land use (paragraph 8). Matters that should be considered in assessing planning applications include the possible adverse impacts on water quality and the impact of any possible discharge of effluent or leachates which may pose a threat to surface or underground water resources directly or indirectly through surrounding soils.
10.28 Policy NRM2 of the South East Plan (as proposed to be modified), states that in determining planning applications local planning authorities should not permit development that presents a risk of pollution or where satisfactory pollution prevention measures are not provided in areas of high groundwater vulnerability (in consultation with the Environment Agency and Natural England).
10.29 Policy ERA5 of the West Sussex Structure Plan and Policy G4 of Deposit Draft Waste Local Plan also seek to protect the quality of water resources.
Assessment against Planning Policy
10.30 At Rock Common, the underlying aquifer (locally known as the Folkestone Formation) is a long but thin geological stratum. The stratum outcrops approximately 1km north to south and extends a considerable distance from 7km to the east, where it reaches the River Adur, and more than 10km to the west.
10.31 The EA does not consider that the ES has fully addressed the potential impacts that the proposed dewatering and subsequent cessation of dewatering operations will have on the long-term management of the proposed landfill at Rock Common given its close proximity to the Windmill site (see Appendix 7 – for a copy of the EA’s objection letter).
10.32 Under the WML for the adjacent Windmill site, currently operated by Biffa, there is a need to maintain an unsaturated zone keeping the water table at 32m AOD because it has no engineering basal lining. The ES states that "the managed recovery of groundwater at Rock Common will create an environment to hydraulically contain and seal the site”; and further states “since the basal elevation of the Rock Common site is significantly lower than that of the Windmill Site, there is no conflict between ensuring the former retains hydraulic containment whilst an unsaturated zone is preserved below the latter”. 10.33 Due to the proximity of the two sites, the EA’s view is that the controls required for the Windmill Landfill site will prevent the Rock Common site from being managed as proposed through a hydraulic containment system. The EA state that the natural groundwater rest levels at Rock Common are approximately 50m AOD and waste is to be deposited at this level and higher. However, under the terms of the WML at Windmill, groundwater levels cannot exceed 32m AOD.
10.34 It is the EA’s view that the requirement to maintain groundwater levels below 32m AOD at the Windmill site is a permanent requirement. This would, therefore, mean an associated requirement for long-term active management of leachate at the Rock Common site otherwise the leachate levels will exceed the groundwater levels giving rise to groundwater pollution risks in the locality and up stream of Honeybridge. (see Diagram Illustrating Groundwater Levels - Appendix 6).
10.35 PPS23 advises of the need to ensure that “the effects of existing sources of pollution in and around the site are not such that the cumulative effects of pollution, when the proposed development is added, would make that development unacceptable.”
10.36 There is a potential for cumulative adverse impacts. The location of Rock Common Quarry adjacent to the Windmill landfill site means that there is a potential risk to groundwater from the use of land for landfilling at Rock Common in addition to the risk that already exists at the Windmill site.
10.37 The symbiotic relationship between the active management measures required at the two sites is significant in assessing the weight to be attached to the level of risk to groundwater resources. It is judged that the level of potential risk to groundwater quality must be higher than the risk that exists with the extant planning consent (which permits mineral extraction and restoration of the site to create a landscaped lake) or indeed with other conceivable alternative uses for the site (such as the disposal of inert waste which are not reliance on long-term leachate management).
10.38 The consented restoration scheme for Rock Quarry under the terms of the ROMP permits dewatering operations to cease or be reduced at the site (following mineral extraction) and for groundwater levels to naturally rise to create a new lake with peripheral landscaped areas, albeit that groundwater cannot practically rise above 32m AOD. Conditions are in place to control: the method and manner in which dewatering operations at the site either cease or are reduced to take account of the potential implications arising for the quality of water in the restored lake, (given its proximity to the Windmill Hill landfill site and the potential for ingressing groundwaters to contain leachate); the potential implications for Honeybridge Stream (as a result of a reduction in discharge of water to that stream); and the need for the managed recovery of water to ensure stability of the restored quarry faces and lake margins. The consented scheme has less risk than the alternative proposal put forward by Veolia for the use of the site for non-inert landfilling, reliant as this proposed scheme will be on active long-term leachate management as well as and groundwater control.
10.39 Use of the site for inert waste landfill, would obviate the need for active, long- term leachate management, and would, accordingly, minimise the risk of further pollution to groundwater. It would not, however, reduce the ongoing requirement for dewatering given the proximity of the Windmill site.
10.40 PPS23 Annex 1 advises: “For the actual or perceived level of risk to be material to the consideration of a planning application, the land use planning consequences of such risks or perceptions should be clearly demonstrated. It is for the LPA to decide the weight to be attached to such risks or perceptions. Where the possible consequences are considered unacceptable and cannot be overcome by appropriate planning conditions, permission should be refused."
10.41 It advises that a precautionary principle should be invoked when • “there is good reason to believe that harmful effects may occur to human, animal or plant health, or to the environment; and • the level of scientific uncertainty about the consequences or likelihood of the risk is such that best available scientific advice cannot assess the risk with sufficient confidence to inform decision-making.”
10.42 The EA advise that there are very few examples nationally where the landfill locational policy has been applied, because the legislative requirement to consider the location of a landfill was only brought into force with the implementation of the Landfill Directive. Although the commencement date of the Landfill Directive was 16 July 2001, this was not implemented into UK law until the Landfill Regulations came into force on 15 June 2002. The EA advise that of the six case examples cited by Veolia in the Regulation 19 Responses where landfill sites have been located in similar sub-water settings, three of the sites were existing landfills pre-dating the implementation of the Landfill Directive. The landfill location policy, therefore, was not required to be applied by the EA in issuing appropriate licences. In the remaining three cases, the EA’s landfill locational policy was applied and development was found to be consistent with that policy given the particular specific characteristics of the respective sites.
10.43 Veolia predict that after 60 years, the site will be fully stabilised such that landfill gas and leachate are no longer produced. The EA advise that it does not have sufficient evidence that the technology involved in the design and operation of the site can guarantee that stabilisation would occur within the period of 60 years. It is considered that the groundwater factors applicable at Rock Common make the site too sensitive a location to effectively trial the technologies and processes outlined in the application. The consequences of technical failure would be of such significance that the use of the land for disposal of non-inert waste cannot be judged acceptable.
Conclusions and Implications
10.44 It is considered that on the EA’s advice and with reference to the inadequacy of the information submitted, non-hazardous, non-inert waste disposal at Rock Common Quarry is not in the long-term public interest because of the scale of potential risk of significant adverse impacts on groundwater and, as a matter of principle, a precautionary approach should be applied and the application refused. The development is considered contrary to PPS10, PPS23 and Policy NRM2 of the draft South East Plan, Policy ERA5 of the West Sussex Structure Plan, and Policy G4 of the Revised Deposit Draft Waste Local Plan Deposit Draft.
10.45 If the application is refused and the decision is challenged at appeal, consideration of the EA’s landfill location policy, which objects to proposed landfilling on or in a major aquifer as a matter of principle, would represent a national ‘test case’. In such circumstances, the County Council would be heavily reliant on the evidence the EA presented to the inquiry in support of its case. The EA has indicated its support in this matter.
(B) Environmental effects inadequately assessed in the Environmental Statement
10.46 There remain a number of matters, following the County Council’s request for additional information under Regulation 19 of the EIA Regulations, which cannot be properly assessed against planning policy because of a lack of a full assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of the scheme.
Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)
10.47 The EA have objected to the proposed development due to the absence of an acceptable Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). The FRA submitted as part of the ES Regulation 19 Response does not comply with the requirements set out in Annex E, paragraph E3 of Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25). The FRA does not, therefore, provide a suitable basis for assessment to be made of the flood risk arising from the proposed development.
10.48 The EA’s objection letter sets out in detail the outstanding concerns of the EA in respect of the FRA submitted by Veolia. (see EA’s Objection Letter - Appendix 7).
10.49 In conclusion, the application is not accompanying by an adequate FRA and, therefore, it fails to meet the requirements of PPS25 and cannot be properly assessed against the requirements of Policy NMR4 of the draft South East Plan, Policy ERA4 of the West Sussex Structure Plan, and Policy G3 of the Revised Deposit Draft Waste Local Plan.
Hydrogeological Impact Assessment (HIA)
10.50 The EA's objection letter also advised that the Hydrogeological Impact Assessment (HIA) provided insufficient assessment of the environmental impacts arising from the proposed dewatering operations and sets out in detail the Agency's outstanding concerns in respect of the HIA submitted by Veolia.
10.51 The main concerns relate to the inadequate assessment of the environmental risk to Honeybridge Stream when dewatering operations cease. The EA consider that given the difference in levels between the present groundwater and the Stream (approx 40-45 metres), there would be a reduced and possibly complete cessation of flows into the Honeybridge Stream for a period of time when dewatering ceases and until the groundwater has risen to a level to provide baseflow. 10.52 The EA consider the Honeybridge Stream to be a significant water dependant habitat. The impacts of the cessation of pumping on the water quality, including ecology and net flows of the Honeybridge Stream, and the need for any consequential measures to ameliorate adverse impacts, have not been assessed. In particular, no assessment has been made of the potential quality impact from the historic landfills with recovery of groundwater levels.
10.53 In conclusion, the HIA provides insufficient assessment of the environmental impact of the proposed dewatering operations at the site. In particular, it fails to assess the implications for the water quality, including ecology, and net flows of the Honeybridge stream when dewatering ceases at the site. On this basis, the application cannot be properly assessed against the requirements of Policy NRM1 of the draft South East Plan, Policies ERA2 and ERA5 of the West Sussex Structure Plan, and Policies G2, G3 and G4 of the Revised Deposit Draft Waste Local Plan.
Impact on Mineral Resources
10.54 The ES fails to assess the impact of the proposal on mineral resources. There is no up-to-date estimate of available permitted sand reserves remaining at the Quarry. Prior to the submission of the ROMP application, Tarmac’s assessment of available sand reserve amounted to approximately 483,500m3 (734,000 tonnes) of saleable sand. The ES Regulation 19 Response creates uncertainty with reference to previously inaccessible reserves (not quantified) under the silt lagoons that might now be worked prior to the commencement of landfilling operations. The potential impact of the scheme on sand reserves known to exist to the west of the site has also not been assessed. There is no assessment of the proposed scheme against the minerals policies.
10.55 The ES does not assess the environmental consequences of concurrent mineral extraction and landfilling operations. However, there is uncertainty as to how the transitionary period between the two operations would be managed. There is no estimated end date for mineral workings to cease (except that this is now post-2009). The current ROMP consent permits sand extraction at the site until 2020. Likewise, there is uncertainty as to when landfilling operations might commence. The ES states that “it is not envisaged that there will be any concurrent mineral extraction and landfilling” and that Veolia and Tarmac will cooperate and monitor mineral extraction to ensure “as far as possible” that permitted reserves are extracted prior to the commencement of waste operations. This is an application for full planning permission and the interfaces between the ROMP and the landfill proposals remain unclear. There is a risk that potentially significant resources would be sterilised and this is contrary to MPS1, (paragraph 9 and 13), Policy M5 of the draft South East Plan, Policy ERA6 of the West Sussex Structure Plan, and Policy 2 of the Minerals Local Plan.
10.56 If planning consent were to be granted, there would need to be stringent controls in place to prevent concurrent mineral extraction and landfilling activities at this site. It may be possible to cover this matter by planning condition and reference to phasing and timing. However, in the absence of clear statements in the information provided, it would be difficult to draft a clear and concise condition meeting the test of Circular2/85. 10.57 In conclusion, the ES fails to adequately assess the impact of the proposed development on remaining mineral resources within the quarry, and those know to exist to the west of the site, with reference to minerals planning policy. It also creates uncertainty as to how the transitionary period between mineral extraction and commencement of landfilling operations would be managed. In the absence of clear statements and supporting information within the ES, the application cannot be properly assessed against the requirements of MPS1, (paragraph 9 and 13), Policy M5 of the draft South East Plan, Policy ERA6 of the West Sussex Structure Plan, and Policy 2 of the Minerals Local Plan.
Pre and Post-Settlement Rates and Resultant Landform
10.58 The ES fails to provide adequate information to enable an assessment of the robustness of the 15% settlement rate assumed for this site and there are no proposals to monitor the actual rate of settlement as operations progress.
10.59 The 15% figure is significantly lower than the assumptions accepted and agreed by West Sussex County Council and the Environment Agency in respect of the settlement rates at the Horton and Brockhurst Wood landfill sites in recent planning decisions. Settlement rates in the order of 25-27% (based on past experience, recent research reports, and generally accepted best practice) are now considered to be a reasonably robust assumption based on the composition of non-hazardous, non-inert waste streams and how these are projected to change over time.
10.60 Where the anticipated post-restoration profile fails to be achieved as a result of incorrect assumption about settlement rates, adverse visual and environmental impacts and other potential ongoing management difficulties could arise. Often these problems are addressed by further applications to increase the level of waste to be disposed of to landfill to enable the agreed profile to be reached. Any planning consent should, therefore, be properly based on a robust assumption about settlement rates with adequate controls in place to ensure that monitoring of the actual rate of settlement for the different phases and areas of landfill over the lifetime of the site is carried out. Wherever possible, adjustments to the volumes and levels of tipping over different parts of the site should be made as early as possible in response to monitoring information and prior to any phased capping and restoration. Such a management approach should help to avoid significant departure from approved pre-settlement levels and the need for further planning approval to surcharge as the landfill site approaches its final capacity/approved pre-settlement contours.
10.61 In conclusion, insufficient information is provided to enable the robustness of the 15% settlement rate assumed for this site to be properly assessed and justified; and, furthermore, there are no proposals to monitor actual settlement rates as phased operations progress. On this basis, the application cannot be properly assessed against the requirements of Policy W14 of the draft South East Plan, Policy LOC2 of the West Sussex Structure Plan, and Policy G10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Waste Local Plan. Site Access
10.62 The ES Regulation 19 Response proposed revisions to the site access to move it 15m to the south to achieve highway safety standards and the required visibility splay to the left when exiting the site. However, insufficiently detailed accompanying drawings and plans showing the precise location of the repositioned access in relation to the existing access, have not been provided and the impacts associated with its construction have not been assessed. There are no plans or details explaining what will happen to the existing access or how the road frontage will be reinstated.
10.63 Veolia in their revised submission state “relocation of the site access road could, subject to the results of a topographical survey, require the felling of trees at the site frontage. The location of the proposed access junction will be investigated in more detail at the detailed design stage of the project at which time a topographical survey could be commissioned.”
10.64 All necessary and detailed surveys should be completed prior to determination of the planning application. This is a full planning application and it is not appropriate for detailed site access arrangements to be 'reserved' and controlled via planning conditions especially given the scale and nature of the proposed development and the significant generation of HGV traffic.
10.65 In conclusion, insufficiently detailed revised drawing and plans have been submitted showing the repositioned site access and appropriate topographical surveys have not been undertaken to assess its construction impact. On this basis, the application cannot be properly assessed against the requirements of Policy DEV1 and NE17 of the West Sussex Structure Plan, and Policy G6 of the Revised Deposit Draft Waste Local Plan.
Impacts on Local Amenity (Air Quality, Noise, Dust and other Nuisance Effects)
10.66 A large number of representations have been received objecting to the potential adverse impacts likely to arise from the proposal, in particular impacts on air quality, noise, odour, dust, health, and other concerns about the nuisance caused by wind blown litter, insects, vermin, and birds. The Environmental Health Officer at Horsham District Council has been critical of the robustness of the ES and ES Regulation 19 Responses in respect of a number of matters and other respondents, have also criticised the appraisal process.
10.67 A number of residential dwellings and businesses sensitive to potential adverse impacts arising from landfilling operations at this site, are located in close proximity to its boundary. The closest properties are notably Green Barn Farm and Green Farmhouse, approximately 20m from the southern site boundary and Rock Nursery approximately 30m from the northern site boundary. A limited number of other properties and businesses are also located off The Hollow to the north, including Castle Kitchens (a local business producing food products); to the NW, Shoots Nursery, and to the west off Sandhill Lane, including Washington Caravan and Camping Park. 10.68 Planning policies seek to protect public amenity. A key objective of PPS7 is to raise the quality of life and environment in rural areas by promoting thriving, inclusive and sustainable rural community, ensuring people have decent places to live by improving the quality and sustainability of local environments and neighbourhoods. Appendix 1 of PPS23 includes a list of matters that may be considered material in determining planning applications which includes the possible direct and indirect impacts on health or general amenity. Policies NRM9 and NRM10 of the South East Plan set out guidance on the need to control air quality and noise pollution and Policy G7 of the Deposit Draft Waste Local Plan also protects public amenity.
10.69 It is considered that the overall assessment of impact on local amenity within the ES and Regulation 19 Response, in particular the air quality and noise assessment, is not as robust as it should be. The Regulation 19 Response has failed to fully address the inadequacies highlighted by the Environmental Health Officer at Horsham District Council and as requested by the County Council in the Regulation 19 request for further information. It is considered that the basis of the noise, air quality and odour assessments are sufficiently flawed such that there is a lack of confidence about the potential significance of impacts and how these can be adequately controlled through the use of appropriate mitigation measures to within acceptable limits.
10.70 The Environmental Health officer at Horsham District Council has questionned degree to which noise, air quality and odour assessments are based on best practice advice, up-to-date guidance and are comprehensive in scope. The identified impact in respect of noise and odour for some sensitive receptors, most notable Green Farm House, the Caravan and Camping Park and Rock House Nursery, even with proposed mitigation may only just meet recommended standards and thresholds and/or may be breached at certain times during construction and particular phases of operations without careful control and monitoring. There is no base-line assessment of night-time noise or of noise potentially emanating from the phase one infrastructure area, including the proposed gas engines and flare which will operate at night. Under these circumstances, given the concern about the robustness of the assessment methodology, it is difficult to reach a judgement as to whether the proposed package of mitigation measures, (particularly in relation to noise) will be sufficient to avoid significant impact to local amenity for the closest sensitive receptors to the site. That is not to say that such impacts on local amenity arising from the proposed development could not be adequately controlled via planning condition (and the Environmental Permit) if an adequate assessment had been undertaken.
10.71 In considering potential implications for health, the Council should be mindful of PPS10 which states that modern, appropriately located, well-run and well- regulated, waste management facilities operated in line with current pollution controls techniques and standards, should pose little risk to human health. In addition, pollution controls and techniques are now arguably more advanced and regulated than previously was the case.
10.72 However, information on public health has been requested from West Sussex Primary Care Trust with a view to assessing whether there is any evidence that the health of the nearby resident population has been affected as result of previous landfilling operations within the local area. This information has not been presently received but will be verbally presented at the Committee.
10.73 In conclusion, the Regulation 19 Response has failed to fully address the inadequacies highlighted by the Environmental Health Officer at Horsham District Council and as requested by the County Council in the Regulation 19 request for further information. It is considered that the basis of the noise, air quality, and odour assessments are sufficiently flawed such that there is a lack of confidence about the potential significance of impacts and how these can be adequately controlled through the use of appropriate mitigation measures to within acceptable limits. On this basis, the application cannot be properly assessed against the requirements of PPS23, and PPS23 Annex 1; Policies NRM9 and NRM10 of the South East Plan; and Policy G7 of the Deposit Draft Waste Local Plan. The potential impact on local amenity given the proximity of residential properties and nature of local businesses adds weight to the level of overall concern about the appropriateness of landfilling operations at Rock Common Quarry.
Conclusion and Implications
10.74 The ES and the ES Regulation 19 Response provides insufficient information in respect of flood risk, hydrological impacts, impact on mineral resources, settlement rate assumptions and ongoing monitoring, the site access, and impacts on local amenity such that a full assessment of the significance of the environmental impacts cannot be properly assessed against planning policy. The ES as currently submitted, therefore, fails to meet the requirements of EIA Regulations.
10.75 The County Council has the option of continuing to pursue additional information from Veolia to address the inadequacy of the ES. However, it is not considered expedient to do so. The application is recommended to be refused as a matter of principle because of its location upon a major aquifer. Under these circumstances, further discussion with Veolia would not serve any meaningful purpose.
10.76 The advice in Circular 02/99: Environmental Impact Assessment states that “if a developer fails to provide enough information to complete the ES, the application can be determined only by refusal (regulation 3).” The ES accompanying the application is judged to be non-compliant with the requirements of the EIA Regulations and it is recommended that planning permission is refused for the above supplemental reason (paragraph 10.74).
(C) Significant environmental effects which can be mitigated, compensated for, or controlled
10.77 There are a number of significant potential environmental effects which have been adequately assessed within the ES and there is confidence that adequate mitigation or compensatory measures or appropriate controls can be put in place, via planning conditions or other means (e.g. legal agreement), to reduce any potential impacts to within acceptable limits. The key planning issues are judged to be: • the location of the site adjacent to the Sussex Downs AONB and the impact of the proposal on landscape character; • the impact on geology; • ecological impact associated with on-going dewatering operations and the loss of habitats and species that have colonized the existing quarry; • impact on traffic and highways; • site infrastructure; • cumulative effect of previous waste disposal facilities on the well being of the local community including any significant adverse impacts on social cohesion and inclusion or economic potential; and • impacts on historic heritage (archaeology/historic buildings).
Impact on the AONB and Landscape Character
10.78 The site does not lie in a designated or nationally protected landscape area but is adjacent to the boundary of the Sussex Downs AONB, and due to be designated as part of the South Downs National Park.
10.79 The existing quarry, although an accepted local landmark, is mainly visible in long distance views from the AONB. Its industrialised character and topography contrasts with the surrounding countryside. The proposed restoration of the site to achieve a landform that relates more naturally to the surrounding rural landscape may be seen as an improvement.
10.80 The existing void would be progressively filled, with the landform raised to no greater than 84m AOD. Settlement over time would create a domed hillock, at its highest point 76m AOD, similar to the surrounding landscape features.
10.81 The County Council has received objections to the proposed restoration scheme, with many respondents stating a preference for the consented scheme which permits the creation of landscaped lake once existing quarrying operations cease. Notwithstanding this preference, the proposed restoration scheme before the Council in association with proposed landfilling at the site must be considered on its merits against the policies in the Development Plan.
10.82 Adjacent to the AONB, the proposed operations will have some discernable impact on views enjoyed by users of the Downs. Policy CH2 of the Structure Plan states that development outside but near to an AONB should not detract from the natural beauty, distinctive character, and remote and tranquil character of the Area. This includes development which would be unduly prominent in the Area, or detract from views into or out of the Area, particularly when viewed from roads, public rights of way or other public places.
10.83 The visual impact within the wider landscape of the proposed pre and post- settlement landform is generally considered acceptable to the County Landscape Architect. The final levels and contours will merge appropriately with surrounding ground levels and profiles taking account of surrounding localised high points. Whilst there will be additional volumes of HGV traffic accessing the site, it is concluded that the significance of their impact would be negligible when viewed in the distance by users of public footpaths in the neighbouring AONB. 10.84 Pronounced local visual impacts are anticipated during the construction and operational phases of the landfill prior to restoration. The existing vegetation will need to be stripped and side slopes reprofiled along the northern and western edges of the site. Visual impacts will also arise when waste levels progressively become higher than the existing quarry edge.
10.85 Screening bunds, 5m in height, are to be constructed in a phased, systematic and incremental manner around the perimeter of the site when waste levels reach 50m AOD, and before waste becomes visible above the rim of the Quarry. Screening bund materials are to comprise a mix of sand, clay, sub- soils, soil forming materials, secondary aggregates, inert materials and restoration soils. Suitable materials will be treated, screened, and stockpiled on site. The bunds will be covered in temporary restoration soils, and the outer face sown with grass seed to minimise visual impact. The initial phased restoration of the southern and western edges of the sites from 2020 will help to screen the subsequent restoration of the northern and highest parts of the sites.
10.86 Veolia propose that the removal of vegetation and reprofiling of the western and northern ‘edges’ of the quarry will be required either prior to commencement of landfilling or when waste levels reach 54m AOD after approximately 19 years of waste operations. The steep bank of trees along the western and northern site boundary currently help to screen views into the quarry from the caravan park, residential properties in Sandhill Lane, and the public footpath adjacent to the boundary of the site.
10.87 Veolia propose that it is better to remove this vegetation and reprofile the banks of the site to gradients more conducive to tree growth in the early phases of work, so that the new trees could become established and form an effective screen before landfilling operations rise above the lip of the Quarry. As the trees are currently on an excessively steep bank, there is also concern as to their stability in the long-term and the potential risk to the safety of people using the footpath with the latter supporting the case for their earlier removal.
10.88 In response to concerns expressed by the County Council about the impact of these works on the amenity of local residents living in close proximity to the site boundary and users of the adjacent public footpath, Veolia, in the ES Regulation 19 Response, have proposed an alternative method of working which they advised could be implemented ‘if adjacent receptors favour the retention of the wooded embankment’.
10.89 Under this alternative, the existing tree cover would remain for a period of 19 years until Phase 6 (2028) of landfilling operations (as long it could be adequately managed and no significant safety issues emerged). When above ground works were required to the north-west boundary, the existing slope above the 54m contour would need to be removed and the edge of the landfill re-profiled to form a peripheral screening bund at gradients more conducive to tree growth. The early removal of the wooded embankment would substantially change the character and views of the site from the west as well as changing the 'experience' for users of the footpaths at an early stage in the life of the development. The length of time for the new trees to become established to recreate the ‘wooded feel’ of the area could be a significant consideration. Nevertheless, during the latter stages of the landfilling activities, the new tree planting would have been established reducing the visual effects of screening bunds that will need to be progressively constructed above the rim of the quarry during the remaining 6 years life of the site
10.90 Under the alternative proposal, whilst the wooded embankment would remain in place for 19 years, during the last 6 years of operations when its removal became necessary, the step-up phasing of perimeter bunding would be highly visible above the rim of the quarry and new tree planting on the regraded slopes would not then be established to screen views of the waste disposal operations.
10.91 Were the application not to be deficient in many other respects, the scope for a compromise landscaping solution should be explored. It may reasonably be expected that with some advance planting and careful selection of trees capable of being retained within a woodland management scheme, a 'thin' effective screen might be maintained not only for the 19 years referred to but also are capable of retention to ameliorate the visual impact of the final stages of the landfill. Enduring 6 years of unsightly views may be judged better than a dramatic change with slow recovery of the wooded landscape. The 6 years exposure of the tipping would, in any event, be shortly followed by views of the not unattractive grass sward on the restored hillock.
10.92 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed post-settlement landform which would create a new domed hillock is acceptable in principle taking into account visual impacts on the Sussex Downs AONB. The restoration of the quarry to achieve a landform that relates more naturally to the surrounding rural landscape may be seen as an improvement.
10.93 There will be more pronounced local visual impacts on nearby receptors during the construction and operational phases of the landfill prior to restoration. However, the proposed mitigation measures, including the screening bunds, along with an appropriate woodland management scheme for the western boundary of the site (which will need to be agreed by the County Council) can be carefully controlled via planning conditions to assist in reducing visual impacts for nearby local receptors.
Impact on Geology
10.94 Veolia do not propose to retain an exposed cliff face as part of the restoration of the site, with resultant loss of its Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Site (RIG) status and biodiversity value if development were to proceed. By way of mitigation, it is proposed to allow research geologists to record features of geological interest before the cliff faces are lost.
10.95 Paragraph 9 of PPS9 ‘Biological and Geological Conservation’ (2005) states that Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS) "have a fundamental key role to play in meeting overall national biodiversity targets; contributing to the quality of life and the well-being of the community; and in supporting research and education". As a matter of principle, geological conservation should be considered in planning decisions which should aim to maintain and enhance, restore or add to geological conservation. Policies in the West Sussex Structure Plan and revised deposit draft Waste Local Plan also seek to protect, conserve, and enhance geological features.
10.96 Officers are presently unconvinced that it is not feasible to retain an exposed cliff face which Veolia claim would lead to ponding on the site, exposing greater environmental risk to groundwater resources. The loss of the RIG status of the site and valuable habitats remains a concern. If negotiations with Veolia were to resume, the County Council may wish to seek advice on surface water management options from the Environment Agency to examine further whether an exposed quarry face could be retained (and its potential long-term visual impact) before ruling out this as an option.
10.97 In conclusion, the resultant proposed loss of the RIG status of the site and the habitats provided by the exposed quarry face remain a concern. Officers are not convinced that Veolia have explored all possible options to retain an exposed face as part of the final restoration proposals for the site. It is considered that further work on this matter should be carried out before a final decision on the acceptability of the proposal is reached.
Impact on Ecology
10.98 All necessary ecological surveys have now been carried out to the satisfaction of the WSCC Ecologist and Natural England.
10.99 The application site has no statutory designations; however, there are a number in the immediate vicinity. The Chanctonbury Hill SSSI is located approximately 850m south-east of the site and a number of other sites are within a 5km radius. Three non-statutory designated Sites of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI's) are located within a 2km radius of the site along with a number of ancient woodlands.
10.100 The ES concludes that there is likely to be no significant impact on statutory and non-statutory designations in the vicinity of the site as the proposed dewatering operations will not lower the groundwater below 5–10m AOD, the level at which it is current depressed as a result of existing operations at the Quarry. When dewatering operations cease, groundwater levels will return to normal rest levels. The ES concludes that, given the distance of these features from the proposed landfilling operations, no further significant impacts are likely to arise.
10.101 The main ecological impacts of the proposed scheme will arise from the loss of the existing habitats and species that have colonised the existing quarry, most notably some protected species (peregrine falcon, bats, badgers, suite of invertebrates, and grass snake); exposed quarry faces and bare ground; swamp (reedbed); and unimproved acid grassland (including notable road verges) as described in the ES and ES Regulation 19 Response submissions.
10.102 The original objections to the application and the ES raised by Natural England and the County Ecologist have been addressed by revisions to the package of measures for ecological mitigation and additional information on the long-term monitoring and management of the site. These are as set out in the ES Regulation 19 Response and summarised at paragraphs 4.28 – 4.30 of this report. The key mitigation and compensation measures include a ‘Wildlife Conservation Area’, primarily comprising dry acid grassland (to extend existing areas of acid grassland along The Hollow), proposed down the eastern side of the restored site adjacent to The Hollow. A new area of open standing water and wetland habitat will also be created in a field to the south-west of the site, including a number of specific initiatives to compensate for loss of habitats in the existing quarry.
10.103 The only significant loss of notable habitat that cannot be appropriately compensated is the existing exposed cliff face, also a designated RIG, which cannot be retained (as discussed in paragraphs 10.94-10.97 of this report). However, the ES concludes that the overall restoration scheme will provide an opportunity to create habitats with equivalent or greater conservation value than most the existing habitats in the quarry.
10.104 In conclusion, the proposed landfilling operations would not have an unacceptable impact on the ecology of the area. The restoration of the site and other mitigation and compensatory measures proposed, including the management of the SW field for nature conservation purposes, should provide for a range of new or replacement habitats to maintain and potentially increase the biodiversity of the area. These proposals are generally acceptable, subject to appropriate conditions attached to any planning consent requiring the implementation of a scheme of ecological monitoring and management.
10.105 Notwithstanding the conclusions drawn above, as set out at paragraphs 10.50-10.53, the EA have found the HIA to be inadequate, and concludes that the ES has failed to assess the ecological impacts on Honeybridge Stream when dewatering operations at the site cease.
Impact on Traffic and Highways
Routing Strategy/Widening The Hollow
10.106 The Highways Authority in their response to the original planning application, raised concerns regarding the Routing Strategy proposed, that all Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) departing from the proposed landfill development would go north via the A24/The Hollow junction. This junction lacks an acceleration merging lane and would result in slow moving HGVs accessing onto a high speed dual carriageway increasing the risk of accidents at this junction.
10.107 In the light of the above road safety concerns, the Highways Authority requested that a revised Routing Strategy be adopted where all HGVs from the proposed landfill site travel south along The Hollow via the A283 The Pike junction. To enable two HGVs to be able to pass each other when travelling along the southern section of The Hollow it would, in the interests of road safety, be necessary for The Hollow to be widened to a minimum six metre width.
10.108 Veolia have agreed to widen, where needed, the southern section of The Hollow between the proposed site access and the A283 junction. The local road widening is achievable within the public highway and land within the ownership of Wiston Estates and would be the subject of a planning condition. The road widening works on the public highway would need to be the subject of a Section 278 agreement between the applicant and WSCC to cover the detailed design approval, supervision of the works, and local traffic management measures. A local topographic survey of The Hollow would then be undertaken.
The Hollow/A283 Junction and Washington Roundabout
10.109 Capacity assessment have been carried out in accordance with the Transport Assessment guidance for the year of opening of the development (2010) and no less than five years after the date of the application (2015) for the Hollow/A283 The Pike junction and at the A24 Washington Roundabout.
10.110 The results of the modelling demonstrate that The Hollow/A283 The Pike junction is not expected to experience any queuing or capacity problems in 2015 with the development traffic. All HGV will use this junction with the Routing Strategy.
10.111 At the Washington Roundabout, the proposed landfill traffic is expected to increase the queues on the A283, Storrington Road and the A24, London Road approach arms by approximately 20 vehicles in the AM peak hour and approximately 18 vehicles in the PM peak hour respectively. To mitigate the impact, Veolia are proposing to increase the capacity of the roundabout by increasing from two to three, the entry lanes on the A24, London Road, the A24, Horsham Road and the A283, Storrington Road approach arms to the junction.
10.112 The results for the improved roundabout layout scenario in the year 2015 demonstrates that the proposed improvements would reduce the queues on the A283, Storrington Road and the A24, Horsham Road approaches to the junction by approximately 70 vehicles and approximately 10 vehicles respectively in the AM peak hour. In addition, the improvements are forecast to reduce the queue on the A24, London Road approach to the junction by approximately 13 vehicles during the PM peak hour. The Highways Authority has, in principle, welcomed the improved capacity improvements proposed for the roundabout subject to an independent Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and engineering details being submitted for approval prior to commencement of development.
Road Safety Audits at The Hollow/A283 Junction and Site Access
10.113 The County’s Road Safety Audit assessor has reviewed the submitted Road Safety Audits. In respect of The Hollow/A283 The Pike junction, it is concluded that this junction does not suffer from safety related issues as a result of HGV movements, and operates efficiently in the local road network. Minor improvements to be undertaken by the developer would enhance the safety record at the junction, including new junction markings, anti-skid surfacing, and vegetation removal in the west corner of the junction.
10.114 The proposed site access road junction with The Hollow has been redesigned to comply with the Road Safety Auditors recommendations and its design is now considered acceptable to the Highways Authority. However, revised supporting drawings showing the precise, repositioned location of the access, 15m to the south of the existing access, are inadequate as discussed in detail at paragraphs 10.62–10.65.
Road Accident Analysis
10.115 Personal Injury Accident (PIA) analysis was undertaken for the three year period up to November 2007 for the surrounding road network which includes The Hollow/A283 The Pike, A24 Washington roundabout and The Hollow/A24 junctions and the links in between. Having analysed the results, the Highways Authority view is that the proposed landfill development would add additional vehicle turning movements at the A283/A24 Washington Roundabout which suffers from a high accident record. It would, therefore, be reasonable to seek a financial contribution, through a Section 106 Agreement/unilateral undertaking from the development towards road safety improvements at the Washington Roundabout, if the development were to be approved.
Conclusion
10.116 In conclusion, all Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) visiting the landfill site would abide by the Routing Strategy travelling to and from the site via the southern section of the Hollow between the site access and the A283 The Pike junction. The southern section of The Hollow between the site access and the A283 The Pike junction would be widened to a minimum of 6 metres to allow two HGVs to pass each other safely.
10.117 Capacity improvements would be undertaken at the A283/A24 Washington Roundabout, with the A283, Storrington Road and the A24, London Road and A24 Horsham Road arms widened to provide three lane entries. A Transport Contribution would need to be secured through a Section 106 agreement/unilateral undertaking towards road safety improvements at the Washington roundabout.
10.118 There are no capacity or road safety concerns, with the development traffic, at The Hollow/A283 The Pike junction. However, road safety improvements including new junction markings, anti-skid surfacing, and vegetation removal to be carried out at The Hollow/A283 The Pike junction would be required.
10.119 The proposed site access road junction with the Hollow has been redesigned to comply with the Road Safety Auditors recommendations.
Site Infrastructure Area
10.120 No detailed plans have been submitted for the two proposed gas engines and the flare. The proposed location for this plant within the phase 1 infrastructure area has been removed from Figures 8 and 10 of the original submitted ES and is not shown in revised Figures 8 and 10 rev A of the Regulation 19 Response. It is not entirely clear from the ES when the gas engines and flare will need to be operational. However, the original ES suggest that the installations may need to be operational by 2010 and this is supported by information set out in the air quality assessment (Appendix 11). This indicates that the peak gas production rate arising from the disposal of waste is likely in the year 2016, with further reference to both gas engines being operational by 2015.
10.121 These facts suggest that the gas engines and flare will need to be constructed and be operational as part of the first phase of site infrastructure works and certainly before 2027 when work on the Phase 2 infrastructure area is proposed. Veolia state that the engine and flare types to be installed on-site will be decided once the landfill is operational and closer to the commissioning date. The lack of design detail submitted at this stage means that it is difficult to predict with certainty the potential visual impact of the gas engines and flare in the wider landscape. The gas engines and flare, along with the proposed leachate treatment plant, will be retained on site for the long-term and post site closure. The potential visual impact of this plant will need careful assessment when detailed drawings are submitted.
10.122 It should also be noted that the ‘set aside area’ shown for the Modular Leachate Treatment Plant (MLTP) has also been removed from original drawings (as referenced above at paragraph 10.120). It is not clear why this is the case, as the ES clear indicates that a MLTP will be required through out the initial phases of landfilling operations and its modular design (no details are submitted) means that it can be easily extended and developed to meet increased treatment demands as the site develops.
10.123 It would have been preferably for the submitted plans to show the proposed indicative location of the gas engines and flare and MLTP within the Phase 1 infrastructure area along with indicative design details. Nevertheless, the need for the plant is established and in principle its location within the Phase 1 infrastructure area is acceptable. However, this matter would be subject to condition, that prior to development commencing a revised layout plan for the Phase 1 infrastructure area be submitted for approval showing an indicative location for the gas engines and flare and MLTP. The layout for the infrastructure area will in part be determinate upon resolving the proposed alignment of site access (as discussed at paragraph 10.62 - 10.65 of this report. It should further be noted that the submission of subsequent detailed proposals for the gas engine and flare is likely to require additional supporting information in relation to its potential noise, visual and air quality impacts which have been insufficiently addressed in the ES.
10.124 In conclusion, further details relating to the location and design of two gas engines and the flare and the MLTP, which are required to be operational during the early phases of the landfill, should have been submitted with the application. Prior to development commencing, revised drawings and plans for the phase one infrastructure area should, therefore, be submitted for approval to the County Council showing the indicative location for the gas engine and flare and the MLTP along with the other ancilliary facilities to supercede that presently shown on Figure 10 of the ES Regulation 19 Response.
Cumulative Impact
10.125 PPS10 requires that the cumulative effect of previous waste disposal facilities on the well-being of the local community, including any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality, social cohesion and inclusion or economic potential, be considered in assessing the suitability of unallocated site for waste disposal.
10.126 In this respect, Veolia notes that in response to its own consultation, some residents felt that they had “done their time” and that alternative uses should be found for Rock Common given the proximity of the proposed site to the former Windmill, Rock, and Rough landfill sites. This view is reflected in the representations received by the County Council objecting to the proposed development. Four local businesses (Rock House Nursery, the Washington Caravan and Camping Park, Castle Kitchens and Shoots Nursery) have further raised specific concerns about the amenity impact of the proposals on their long-term viability given their proximity to the site.
10.127 The proposed landfilling operations at Rock Common will perpetuate potential adverse impacts on the local residents, businesses, and recreational activities following a long history of landfilling and mineral operations in the local area. The County Council must consider whether the need for additional landfill capacity within the County in the wider public interest is an overriding factor in justifying the continuation of major waste operations in this locality, with the potential for long-term cumulative impacts for the local community, taking all other material considerations into account.
10.128 Potential impacts on local amenity arising from this development may be adequately controlled and may not, alone, justify refusing planning consent. However, the fact that a range of potential impacts for the local community (including traffic, visual and environmental impacts, and possible economic impact, as well as impacts on general amenity) will be perpetuated over the long-term, does add weight to other concerns set out in this report about the overall appropriateness of proposed landfilling at this location compared to other appropriate uses for the site and alternatives that may come forward through the MWDF process.
10.129 In conclusion, the proposed landfilling operations at Rock Common will perpetuate potential adverse impacts on the local residents, businesses, and recreational activities following a long history of landfilling and mineral operations in the local area. The potential for cumulative impacts (including traffic, visual and environmental impacts, possible economic impact, as well as impacts on general amenity) to arise as a result of the proposed development adds weight to other concerns set out in this report and the prevailing view that there is no overriding need for landfilling at this location in wider public interest taking all material considerations into account.
Impact on Historic Heritage
10.130 Additional information on historic heritage (archaeology and listed buildings) was provided in the Environment Statement (Regulation 19 response - under the heading 'Cultural Heritage'). On the basis of the information provided, no objection on archaeological grounds is raised by the County Archeologist to the proposals, subject to safeguards to ensure that any buried archaeological features or finds within the south-western field (proposed Habitat Area) are the subject of further archaeological investigation, and where appropriate of detailed investigation and recording. These matters can be controlled via planning condition.
10.131 In respect of cultural heritage, there are four Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) within 2km of the site, all located within the Sussex Downs AONB, the closest being 1.4km away. Veolia state that English Heritage had no comment on the proposed development, although a copy of the consultation response is not provided in the Appendices to the ES as stated by Veolia. Given the distance of the SAMs from the site, it is judged that there will be no significant impact as a result of the proposed development.
10.132 The Regulation 19 Response further indicates that there are 28 listed buildings within 500m of the site, the majority located within Washington Village Conservation Area. However, four Grade II listed buildings lie around the periphery of the site; Sandhill Farmhouse, Rock House, Rock Windmill, and Green Farm House. It is considered that the likelihood of traffic-induced vibration causing damage to the structural integrity of listed buildings is negligible/slight. Veolia state that guidance on this subject set out in the ‘Design Manual for Roads and Bridges’ concludes that there is no research evidence to support the theory that traffic induced vibrations are a source of significant damage to buildings. It is also the case that the majority of listed buildings are not located alongside the proposed traffic route and operational traffic is unlikely to pass through the core of Washington village. Veolia consider that the setting of listed buildings in the vicinity of the site is likely to be improved when the site is restored post-closure. During operational phases, the setting of buildings in close proximity to the site will continue to be affected, although their historic setting is already detrimentally changed as a result of past mineral operations.
10.133 In conclusion, subject to appropriate planning conditions to ensure that buried archaeological features in the south-west field are adequately investigated and recorded prior to development, the development proposals are considered acceptable. In respect of historic heritage, given the location and distance of the majority of SAMs and listed buildings from the site, away from proposed traffic routes, the potential for traffic-induced damage to listed structures is considered to be negligible. The setting of listed buildings closest to the site, have already been detrimentally affected by past mineral operations. The eventual proposed restoration of the site may lead to improvement in this respect.
11. Overall Conclusion and Recommendation
11.1 Rock Common Quarry is not allocated for the disposal of non-inert waste in the revised deposit draft West Sussex Waste Local Plan (2004). Whilst there is a need to address a shortfall in non-inert landfill capacity in the County to 2026, having assessed the risks and the significance of the environmental impacts likely to arise from proposed landfilling operations at Rock Common Quarry, it is not considered that the need for further landfill capacity in the County overrides potential environment risk to groundwater resources in the wider public interest. Accordingly a 'precautionary principle' should be applied and the application refused. The County Council is progressing work on the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy which will allocate strategic sites to meet the projected shortfall in landfill capacity. 11.2 The ES and the ES Regulation 19 Response accompanying the planning application provides insufficient information in respect of flood risk, hydrological impacts, impact on mineral resources, settlement rate assumptions and monitoring, the site access, and impact on local amenity such that a full assessment of the significance of the environmental impacts cannot be properly assessed against planning policy. The ES as currently submitted, therefore, fails to meet the requirements of EIA Regulations.
11.3 Whilst the County Council has the option of continuing to pursue additional information from Veolia to address the inadequacy of the ES, it is not considered expedient to do so. The application is recommended to be refused on the advice of the Environment Agency as a matter of principle because of its location upon a major aquifer and its potential to have significant effects on groundwater resources. Under these circumstances, further discussion with Veolia would not serve any meaningful purpose.
11.4 The advice in Circular 02/99: Environmental Impact Assessment states that “if a developer fails to provide enough information to complete the ES, the application can be determined only by refusal (regulation 3).” The ES accompanying the application is judged to be non-compliant with the requirements of the EIA Regulations and it is recommended that planning permission is also refused for these reasons.
11.5 Notwithstanding the above, it should be noted that in respect of the potential impact of the proposed development on the Sussex Downs AONB and landscape character; ecological and geological interests; traffic and highways; the site infrastructure area; cumulative impact; and archaeology and historic heritage, officers are generally satisfied that adequate mitigation, compensatory measures or appropriate controls could be put in place via planning conditions or other means (e.g. legal agreement), to reduce any potential impacts to within acceptable limits.
11.6 It is recommended, therefore, that planning permission is refused for the following reasons:
(a) the use of the land at Rock Common Quarry for non-hazardous, non- inert waste disposal is not in the long-term public interest because its location on a major aquifer and its reliance on long-term active management measures, have a potential for significant environmental impacts on groundwater. Accordingly, the development is contrary to guidance in Planning Policy Statements 10 and 23 and the following statutory and emerging development plan policies: Policy NRM2 of the draft South East Plan; Policy ERA5 of the West Sussex Structure Plan; and Policy G4 of the Revised Deposit Draft West Sussex Waste Local Plan.
(b) the Environmental Statement (January 2007) and Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Responses (June 2008 and October 2008) provide insufficient information in respect of flood risk, hydrogeological impacts, impact on mineral resources, assumed settlement rates, the site access, and impact on local amenity, such that a full assessment of the significance of the environmental impacts arising from the development cannot be properly assessed against planning policy. Accordingly, the Environmental Statement and Regulation 19 Responses, as currently submitted, fail to meet the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999.
12. Crime and Disorder Act Implications
12.1 There are no implications
13. Human Rights Act Implications
13.1 The Human Rights Act requires the County Council to take into account the rights of the public under the European Convention on Human Rights and prevents the Council from acting in a manner which is incompatible with those rights. Article 8 of the Convention provides that there shall be respect for an individual’s private life and home save for that interference which is in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of (inter alia) public safety and the economic well being of the country. Article 1 of protocol 1 provides that an individual’s peaceful enjoyment of their property shall not be interfered with save as is necessary in the public interest.
13.2 For an interference with these rights to be justifiable the interference (and the means employed) needs to be proportionate to the aims sought to be realised. The main body of this report identifies the extent to which there is any identifiable interference with these rights. The Planning Considerations identified are also relevant in deciding whether any interference is proportionate. Case law has been decided which indicates that certain development does interfere with an individual’s rights under Human Rights legislation. This application has been considered in the light of statute and case law and the interference is not considered to be disproportionate.
13.3 The Committee should also be aware of Article 6, the focus of which (for the purpose of this committee) is the determination of an individual’s civil rights and obligations. Article 6 provides that in the determination of these rights, an individual is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal. Article 6 has been subject to a great deal of case law. It has been decided that for planning matters the decision making process as a whole, which includes the right of review by the High Court, complied with Article 6.
Michael Elkington Divisional Manager (County Development) Appendices Appendix 1(a) - Location Plan Appendix 1(b) - Site Plan Appendix 2 - Pre and Post-Settlement Contours Appendix 3 - Site Access & Infrastructure Phases 1 & 2 (a) Original layout (b) Revised layout Appendix 4 - Planning Policies Appendix 5 - Consultee Responses Appendix 6 - Diagram Illustrating Groundwater Levels Appendix 7 - EA’s Objection Letter (5 December 2008) Appendix 8 - Update on need for non-inert landfill (January 2009)
Background Papers • Waste Directive (2008/98/EC) • Waste Framework Directive (75/442/EEC as amended) • Landfill Directive (93/31EC) • Waste Strategy (2007) • Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) ‘Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (2005) • Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS23) ‘Planning and Pollution Control' (2004). • Minerals Planning Statement 1 (MPS1) ‘Planning and Minerals’ (2006) • Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) ‘Development and Flood Risk’ (2006)
• Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) ‘Biological and Geological Conservation’ (2005) • Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7) 'Sustainable Development in Rural Areas' (2004) • Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9, 2001) and Revised Chapter 10 Waste and Mineral (2006) • West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016, February 2005 (saved policies) • West Sussex Minerals Local Plan 2003 (saved policies) • Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy, (2007) • Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007) • Horsham District Local Development Framework Site specific Allocations of Land (2007) • Draft South East Plan as proposed to be modified (July 2008) • West Sussex Revised Deposit Draft Waste Local Plan 2001-2016 (2004). • West Sussex Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Preferred Option January 2007 • West Sussex Strategic Waste Site Allocations: Preferred Option January 2007. • West Sussex Minerals Development Plan Document: Issues and Options Consultation Paper (2005) • Scoping Opinion issued by West Sussex Council in June 2005 • Regulation 19 Request: Letter sent by West Sussex County Council on 5th September 2007 and 7th December 2007
Contact: Sam Dumbrell, ext. 56867