planning report PDU/2265c/02 26 July 2011 79-85 Beddington Lane, Beddington in the London Borough of Sutton planning application no. D2010/63071

Strategic planning application stage II referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008

The proposal A retrospective application for temporary planning permission for the continued use of land and buildings, and the retention of associated operational development as a waste transfer station and materials recycling facility. The applicant The applicant is Country Waste Recycling Ltd, and the planning agent is D.A. Lewis Associates.

Strategic issues The issues to reconsider were design/access, biodiversity, air quality, energy and transport.

The Council’s decision In this instance Sutton Council has resolved to grant temporary planning permission for a period of three years, expiring in July 2014. Recommendation

That Sutton Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority.

Context

1 On 26 July 2010, the Mayor of London received documents from Sutton Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Category 2B of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

1. “Waste development to provide an installation with capacity for a throughput of more than—

page 1 (a) 5,000 tonnes per annum of hazardous waste; or (b) 50,000 tonnes per annum of waste; produced outside the land in respect of which planning permission is sought.”

2.”Waste development where the development occupies more than one hectare.”

2 On 25 August 2010, the Mayor considered planning report PDU/2265c/01, and subsequently advised Sutton Council that although the application did not fully comply with London Plan for the reasons given in paragraph 65 of that report, it was acceptable in strategic planning terms on a temporary basis only. It was accepted that the majority of those reasons could not be addressed due to the temporary duration of the operations on site.

3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. Although the 2011 London Plan has since been formally published and is now the relevant document for purposes of the Statutory Development Plan, the essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and other relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. Information on this retrospective application have, however, been updated in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below).

4 On 6 July 2011, Sutton Council indicated that it was minded to grant planning permission for the revised application, and on 13 July 2011 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the interim decision to proceed unchanged, direct Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 26 July 2011 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

5 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

6 The decision on this case and the reasons behind it will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk.

Update

7 At the consultation stage, Sutton Council was advised that the whilst the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 65 of the above-mentioned report, but that the development was acceptable on a temporary basis only. Design and access issues

8 It would be recalled that this application was submitted to regulate the sprawling extent, intensification of use and detrimental visual impact of the waste tipping and processing operations taking place on the site on a temporary basis, pending a proposed permanent redevelopment for which planning permission was issued in May 2011, following a 2009 resolution by Sutton Council. It seeks to secure a planned transition between the expiry on 18 January 2009 of a temporary permission to continue the operation of a waste transfer, processing and recycling facility; and a permanent development of the site as a waste management facility with a detached staff office building, improvements to the adjoining highway and the provision of 23 car spaces, 60 heavy goods vehicle (HGV) spaces and 30 cycle spaces.

9 In view of this temporary nature, no additional work has been done to the existing buildings, plant and equipment, means of enclosure or hard landscaping on the site to enhance its urban design or architectural merit. The priority has been to direct capital expenditure to improving

page 2 throughput, environmental protection and controls, rather than elements that would need to be replaced once the temporary permission expires.

10 Some interim works have, however, been carried out to the site layout and operational infrastructure to meet Environment Agency and planning regularisation requirements, and to reduce its environmental impact in the transitional period prior to a permanent redevelopment. The works include the use of new technology and equipment to improve the recovery levels of recyclable and re-useable materials from various sorting and processing operations; the use of more effective measures to mitigate the impacts of noise and dust emissions, the migration of fugitive waste beyond the site boundaries and the tracking of mud onto the adjoining highway.

11 Despite this, the appearance of the site does not fulfil the relevant design criteria set out in chapter 7 of the London Plan 2011. If the application had been made for permanent rather than temporary permission in its existing state, significant improvements would have been sought to its overall appearance, to ensure full compliance with the strategic design policies. However, given that the relatively short duration for which permission is sought and the changes proposed for implementation as part of the permanently permitted redevelopment, it is considered unreasonable to seek further temporary improvements to the appearance of the site. Biodiversity

12 London Plan policy 7.19 (‘Biodiversity and access to nature conservation’) requires that, wherever possible, developments should make a positive contribution to the protection, enhancement, creation and management of biodiversity; and in particular, give strong protection to sites of metropolitan importance for nature conservation (SMIs).

13 Some 0.91 hectares, along the western periphery, of the application site (37% of the total) falls within the 201.2-hectare Beddington Sewage Works Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation. Consequently, the applicant was required, as a condition of the previous temporary permission (which elapsed in January 2009), to provide a safeguarded area of mitigation planting along the SINC section of the western boundary, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. That scheme was never submitted.

14 However, in the light of a dual land use designation of that part of the site as a preferred industrial area as well as an SMI/SINC; the granting of planning permission for 0.22 ha of it to be hard-surfaced; an encroachment and subsequent reduction in its size due to operational difficulties in containing the temporary storage of imported and sorted materials; and the Council’s own conclusion that the nature conservation value of the remaining area was negligible, it would be considered unreasonable to withhold temporary permission on SINC grounds alone, or require the implementation of further biodiversity measures for the short duration sought by this application, given the measures proposed as part of the approved and permanent redevelopment.

15 The agreed measures include: a retention of the now acquired and fully incorporated strip of soft landscaping and mature tree cover on the Beddington Lane frontage, beyond the original northern boundary of the site; the retention of a narrow strip of land for future soft landscaping/planting along the full extent of the western boundary; the creation of areas of nature conservation value totalling 0.9 hectares and the entry into a legal agreement to secure a financial contribution of £50,000 towards the implementation of two projects to enhance biodiversity in the adjoining Beddington Park.

16 These measures are considered satisfactory, provided that the relevant obligations are adequately enforced to ensure full implementation.

page 3 Air quality

17 London Plan policy 7.14 requires developments to minimise exposure to poor air quality and make provision to address local problems of air quality, particularly in Air Quality Management Areas; to be at least ‘air quality neutral’ and not lead to deterioration of existing poor air quality.

18 The application site is in an Air Quality Management Area. Whilst the open nature of the waster transfer and recycling operations have raised local concerns from commercial and residential neighbours in the past, it was accepted in the preceding report that a number of practical steps had already been implemented on site to reduce the impact of airborne particles and debris.

19 The measures include hard surfacing of most of the operational area of the site; the relocation and bunding of the wood chipping and concrete crushing processes; and the enclosure by high bunding of the refuse-derived fuel installation, which this application seeks to regularise, albeit, on a temporary basis. Water-borne dust suppression has been installed and protective netting extended at high level. The introduction of more advanced fixed and mobile plant and equipment to improve the control of emissions has also helped to improve air quality on the site and its surroundings.

20 As a result of those measures, a supplementary environmental statement accompanying this application confirmed that air quality had improved relative to the baseline criteria established on submission of the previous application for temporary permission. The operator has also confirmed willingness to accept an appropriate planning condition to address any remaining concerns.

21 Accordingly, conditions 9 to 12 of the Council’s draft permission notice requires:

 The submission to and approval by the local planning authority of a dust management plan, within three months of the date of permission.

 All stored materials to be appropriately profiled, conditioned with water or other conditioning agents, or protected by covering to ensure that there will be no visible emission of dust, particulates, fibres or other contaminant outside the site boundary or beyond 10 metres of the stored material.

 All material handling and processing (including loading and unloading of vehicles) to be carried out using whatever techniques, plant, covers, dust suppressing sprays and the like that are necessary to ensure that there will be no visible emission of dust, particulates, fibres or other contaminant outside the site boundary or beyond 10 metres of the stored/worked material.

 All commercial vehicles entering or leaving the site to be damped down or sheeted over as far as reasonably practical, to prevent the generation of dust from potentially dust-generating loads.

22 The effective implementation of these measures should ensure the existing operations are compliant with the requirements of London Plan policy and are, therefore, acceptable for the transitional period prior to implementation of the approved permanent development.

23 The permanent building would ultimately deliver substantial long-term benefits to reduce the adverse impacts of the waste transfer and recycling facility to a standard well above the existing largely open operations on the site.

page 4 Energy

24 London Plan policy 5.2 (Minimising carbon dioxide emissions) requires development proposals to make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the following energy hierarchy-be lean: use less energy; be clean: supply energy efficiently; be green: use renewable energy.

25 In this instance, however, the rationale of not requiring a policy-compliant energy strategy for the existing, temporary operations on the site is accepted by GLA and Sutton Council officers. This is because it would not be feasible to transfer and re-use any renewable or low carbon energy plant to the permanent new development, and the payback period required for it to be economically viable is longer than the transition period envisaged for the construction and occupation of the proposed new development.

26 It is pertinent to note, that in his consideration of the energy proposals made in support of the application for permanent redevelopment, the Mayor was satisfied that the planning conditions included in the Council’s draft approval notice were sufficiently robust to ensure compliance with his London Plan energy policies.

Transport for London’s comments

27 Transport for London raised a number of issues at consultation stage. Those issues have not been addressed by the applicant. However, given the fact that the application is a temporary permission, which would allow the existing use to continue operating for a limited (3-year) period and the fact that many of the issues raised would be satisfactorily addressed by the redevelopment of this site – as per the planning permission granted in 2009, TfL has no further comments to make.

Response to consultation

28 Sutton Council consulted 80 neighbouring addresses and advertised the application by local press and site notices. Four written objection were received by the Council on grounds relating to:

 Poor air quality: that airborne particles arising from the processing of waste affects nearby properties.

 Other environmental pollution: that allowing further continuation of the use would exacerbate the problems of dust, dirt, fumes, smells and increase traffic associated with the existing operations on the site.

 Noise: that the movement of vehicles and machinery to and from the site at night would further degrade the amenity of residential properties nearby.

 Traffic: the adverse effects of lorry movements on the adjoining highway, due to the dropping and spread of materials and debris from the transportation of skips.

 General disturbance: generated by the movement of material from internal stock piles, the loading of machinery and conveyor belt operations.

29 Some external organisations made the following representations on the application:

 English Heritage: Advised that no additional archaeological works were necessary.

 Environment Agency: Advised that as the approved permanent redevelopment had addressed their initial concerns, they had no objections to application presently submitted.

page 5  Natural England: Commented on the application for permanent development and have no objection to a retrospective application for temporary permission.

 Thames Water: Had no objection to the impact on sewage infrastructure

30 It is pertinent to state that the strategic issues relevant to the existing operations on the site have been considered in this and the preceding report. Whilst the current operations do not fully comply with all the relevant policies of the London Plan, the temporary nature of the activities and the imminent implementation of an approved, policy-compliant and permanent development on the site provide compelling mitigating circumstances to extend permission for the business to continue on a short-term basis.

Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority

31 Under Article 7 of the Order the Mayor could take over this application provided the policy tests set out in that Article are met. In this instance the Council has resolved to grant permission with conditions and a planning obligation, which satisfactorily addresses the matters raised at stage I, therefore there is no sound planning reason for the Mayor to take over this application. Legal considerations

32 Under the arrangements set out in Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has the power under Article 6 to direct the local planning authority to refuse permission for a planning application referred to him under Article 4 of the Order. He also has the power to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. In directing refusal the Mayor must have regard to the matters set out in Article 6(2) of the Order, including the principal purposes of the Greater London Authority, the effect on health and sustainable development, national policies and international obligations, regional planning guidance, and the use of the River Thames. The Mayor may direct refusal if he considers that to grant permission would be contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London. If he decides to direct refusal, the Mayor must set out his reasons, and the local planning authority must issue these with the refusal notice. If the Mayor decides to direct that he is to be the local planning authority, he must have regard to the matters set out in Article 7(3) and set out his reasons in the direction. The Mayor must also have regard to the guidance set out in GOL circular 1/2008 when deciding whether or not to issue a direction under Articles 6 or 7. Financial considerations

33 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government guidance in Circular 03/2009 (‘Costs Awards in Appeals and Other Planning Proceedings’) emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal.

34 Following an inquiry caused by a direction to refuse, costs may be awarded against the Mayor if he has either directed refusal unreasonably; handled a referral from a planning authority unreasonably; or behaved unreasonably during the appeal. A major factor in deciding whether the Mayor has acted unreasonably will be the extent to which he has taken account of established planning policy.

35 Should the Mayor take over the application he would be responsible for holding a representation hearing and negotiating any planning obligation. He would also be responsible for determining any reserved matters applications (unless he directs the council to do so) and determining any approval of details (unless the council agrees to do so).

page 6 Conclusion

36 The retention and regularisation of the present operations on the site for a further three years would provide an appropriate transitional period for a capital-intensive and permanent redevelopment of the site to the required design and environmental standards, in accordance with the proposals for which Sutton Council has granted planning permission.

37 It may, however, be appropriate to indicate that a further temporary application to continue the use in its existing form is unlikely to receive favourable consideration by the Mayor of London.

page 7

planning report PDU/2265c/01 25 August, 2010 79-85 Beddington Lane, Beddington in the London Borough of Sutton planning application no. D2010/63071

Strategic planning application stage 1 referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008

The proposal Retrospective application for a three-year temporary planning permission for the continued use of land and buildings, and the retention of associated operational development as a waste transfer station and materials recycling facility.

The applicant The applicant is Country Waste Recycling Ltd, and the planning agent is D.A. Lewis Associates.

Strategic issues The principal issue to consider is whether a further temporary permission is acceptable given the issues raised with the previous temporary permission relating to land uses in preferred industrial locations, waste management, the safeguarding of biodiversity interests, the impact on local air quality, ambient noise, overall sustainability, and the transport implications of the development.

Recommendation That Sutton Council be advised that the although the application does not fully comply with the London Plan for the reasons set out in paragraph 65 of this report, it is acceptable in strategic planning terms on a temporary basis only. It is accepted that the majority of these reasons cannot be addressed in view of the temporary duration of the present operations.

Context

1 On 26 July 2010, the Mayor of London received documents from Sutton Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 3 September 2010 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

page 8 2 The application is referable under Category 2B of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

1. “Waste development to provide an installation with capacity for a throughput of more than— (a) 5,000 tonnes per annum of hazardous waste; or (b) 50,000 tonnes per annum of waste; produced outside the land in respect of which planning permission is sought.”

2.” Waste development where the development occupies more than one hectare.”

3 Once Sutton Council has resolved to determine the application, it is required to refer it back to the Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal; take it over for his own determination; or allow the Council to determine it itself.

4 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

5 The Mayor of London’s statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk. Site description

6 The application site comprises numbers 79 to 85 Beddington Lane, which is approximately 2.42 hectares in size, roughly rectangular in shape and forms part of a much larger area known as Beddington Farmlands.

7 The site is bounded on the east by the B272 Beddington Lane, from which a widened vehicular access is available; on the south by the privately owned Mile Road, onto which a legal right of way allows vehicles to egress the application site; and on the north by a chain-link fence that separates the site from the adjoining 87 Beddington Lane. The western boundary of the site abuts a vast expanse of open land that includes Beddington Sewage Treatment Works, and to the west of that, a municipal waste landfill and transfer site.

8 The majority of the site is in use as a waste transfer and recycling facility, whilst the most recently acquired northern portion (85 Beddington Lane), which was previously used by the private bus operator, Mitcham Belle) is presently used for ancillary parking and storage.

9 Some of the original buildings on the site have been demolished, including a pair of semi- detached dwellings at numbers 79 and 81 Beddington Lane, which were situated in the corner of Beddington Lane and Mile Road. The latter is a private access road owned and previously used by Thames Water Utilities Ltd. Number 83, which fronts onto Beddington Lane further north, has been converted from its original residential use to provide staff welfare facilities including toilets, showers, changing rooms and a canteen.

10 In terms of its wider surroundings, the extensive and redeveloped Beddington Industrial Area lies to the east of Beddington Lane, stretching east towards the Purley Way retail and industrial parks of Croydon. The remnants of sludge beds for the sewage treatment plant are situated to the south of Mile Road. Open land to the north and west are dominated by Beddington Sewage Treatment Works.

11 Croydon Tramlink is located within 800 metres of the site, providing services to Wimbledon, Croydon and Beckenham Junction. Two bus routes serve Beddington Lane: the 463 and 455, providing services to Mitcham, Croydon and Purley. This gives the site a public transport

page 9 accessibility level (PTAL) of 2, on a scale of 1 to 6, where 6 is the highest. The site is approximately 1.6km north of the A232 Croydon Road, part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN), and 1.3km south of the A236 Croydon Road, which is part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN).

Details of the proposal

12 The previously approved temporary waste transfer and recycling station comprised:

 Staff facilities in the converted dwelling house at 83 Beddington Lane.

 A waste sorting, screening and recovery plant situated parallel to the extreme southern boundary of the site.

 An HGV weighbridge, ticket office and wheel-wash facility.

 A moveable paper and plastics baler.

 A mobile wood-chipping machine and concrete crusher.

 Dust suppression installations.

 Stockpile areas comprising reinforced concrete paving to the operational area of the waste transfer station.

 Extensive hard surfacing for vehicle parking and servicing on the northern-most portion of the site (85 Beddington Lane) previously used by a local bus operator.

 Protective netting to the Mile Road and Beddington Lane boundaries.

13 The related operations involve the importation of construction, demolition and excavation waste for sorting, separating and screening to recover discrete materials that have recyclable or direct re-use value, and for temporary storage for onward shipment to recycling specialists. Some recovered waste is refined or processed further by operations such as mechanical crushing (e.g. concrete, bricks and tiles), wood chipping, and the compacting and baling of paper and plastics. Only final and valueless waste residues are consigned to landfill outlets.

14 Following the expiry of the previous temporary consent, permission is sought to continue the use of the site as a combined waste transfer station and materials recycling facility, for a transitional period of three years, pending the construction of permanent buildings and infrastructure, for which a permanent consent has already been granted (see paragraph 18 below).

15 Retrospective permission is also sought for the following works, which have taken place since the temporary permission was issued:

 A two-storey prefabricated modular office building.

 Further extension of reinforced concrete paving to the operational area of the waste transfer station.

 A further extension of the pre-existing waste sorting and screening system parallel to the southern boundary.

page 10  Extension and reconstruction of the bunded materials storage bays parallel to the western boundary.

 Demolition of the buildings previously adapted and extended as heavy goods vehicle (HGV) and plant maintenance workshops, and erection of a refuse-derived fuel plant and perimeter pre-cast concrete panel walls. Case history

16 The site has a protracted planning history associated with the commencement of its use for waste transfer activities without the benefit of planning permission.

17 Sutton Council first issued a planning enforcement notice against the unauthorised use of the land in May 2000. An appeal was lodged against the notice but was subsequently withdrawn. Since then, there has been a chequered history of planning applications, enforcement notices and aborted appeals relating to the site, the most relevant of which are as follows:

 A temporary permission was granted in July 2000, for two years, for use of part of the premises as a heavy goods vehicle and plant depot, with improved access and egress arrangements.  Permission was granted in September 2001 on a permanent basis, subject to a legal agreement, for use of the assembled site as a waste transfer and recycling facility, with associated infrastructure.  A two-year temporary permission was granted in September 2002, subject to a legal agreement, to change the use of number 83 Beddington Lane from residential to an office (Class B1) ancillary to the waste transfer and recycling facility.

18 At the end of October 2002, the applicant secured a short-term leasehold interest in an area of land (85 Beddington Lane) adjoining the permitted waste transfer site. This culminated in the encroachment of waste processing activities onto a larger site, enforcement investigations by the local planning authority and the subsequent submission, in April 2003, of a planning application to extend the waste processing over an additional 0.68 hectares of land for a period of five years. The applicant lodged an appeal against non-determination by the Council in September 2003, but the scheduled public inquiry was cancelled following mutual agreement between the principal parties to allow negotiations for a fresh planning application.

19 Following a long impasse on the form and details of a revised application, local concern over the conduct of activities on the site and the sustained threat of enforcement action by Sutton Council, a retrospective planning application was made and initially referred to the former Mayor in May 2006. Although the application was not referred back to him until a year later, i.e. in July 2007, the former Mayor (report PDU/0993b/02) accepted the scheme in principle, but sought assurance in securing appropriate safeguards against its adverse environmental effects.

20 Permission was subsequently granted in August 2007 to continue the temporary use of land and buildings and the retention of associated operational development as a waste transfer, processing and recycling facility for a period of eighteen months, expiring on 18 January 2009. Since that date, those uses have been operating without planning permission or a certificate of lawfulness.

21 In February 2009, an application was referred to the present Mayor for a permanent redevelopment of the existing site to include a waste management facility, detached staff office

page 11 building, improvements to the adjoining highway, and the provision of 23 car parking spaces, 60 heavy goods vehicle spaces and 30 cycle spaces.

22 On 14 October 2009, the Mayor allowed Sutton Council to grant permission for the redevelopment without further intervention on his part. At the time of writing, however, an associated legal agreement between the applicant and the Council had not been completed for planning permission to be issued. Thus the permission remains in draft form at the present time. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

23 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Waste London Plan; the Municipal Waste Management Strategy; PPS10  Employment London Plan; PPS4; Industrial Capacity SPG  Urban design London Plan; PPS1  Access London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Transport/parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13;  Biodiversity London Plan; the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy; PPS9; draft PPS Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment  Air quality London Plan; the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy; draft replacement air quality strategy; PPS23  Ambient noise London Plan; the Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy; PPG24  Sustainable development London Plan; PPS1, PPS1 supplement; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; draft PPS Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate; the Mayor’s Energy Strategy; Mayor’s draft Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies; Mayor’s draft Water Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG

24 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is the December 2009 Sutton Core Strategy DPD, the ‘saved’ policies of the 2003 Sutton UDP not replaced by the adopted Core Strategy DPD, and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004).

25 The following are relevant material considerations:  The Consultation Draft Replacement London Plan, October 2009.  Site Development Policies (Proposed Submission) Document, January 2010.  South London Joint Waste Plan DPD (additional sites consultation), February 2010. Waste management, land use policy and the principle of retaining the use

26 From a land use perspective, the Purley Way/Beddington Lane Industrial Area is identified in the London Plan and its consultation draft replacement as a Strategic Industrial Location (in the Preferred Industrial Location category). That designation is further affirmed in the recently adopted Sutton Core Strategy DPD (Key Diagram, Figure 3).

27 In addition, however, the site forms part of the Wandle Valley Regeneration Corridor, whilst on its western side, over one-third of the site is included within a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation (SMI/SINC).

page 12 28 The present use of the application site (outside of the designated nature conservation site) is supported by strategic and local planning policy. London Plan policies 4A.23 and 4A.27 identify Preferred Industrial Locations as primary locations for the siting of waste management and disposal facilities, as does policy 5.17 (Waste Capacity) of the consultation draft replacement London Plan and policy BP8 (Waste reduction and management) of the Core Strategy DPD. Local employment areas and existing waste management sites are alternative locations for the type of activity proposed.

29 Collectively, these policies aim to safeguard existing waste sites, support their operations to maximise throughput, work towards the London Plan target to increase municipal waste recycling rates to 45% by 2015;1 and to achieve ultimate self-sufficiency in waste management throughout London. The policies do, however, require that waste transfer and recycling facilities are operated with due regard to the environmental impact on surrounding areas, particularly on air quality and odour, noise emission, visual amenity and water resources; the carbon footprint of waste treatment methods and technologies, including the transportation of waste, recycled material and waste- derived products; and the full transport impact of all collection, transfer and disposal movements- maximizing the use of rail and water transport on the Blue ribbon Network.2

30 Despite its unauthorised commencement, the principle of retaining the site as a waste transfer and recycling facility is no longer contentious, following the grant of planning permission for the use of part of the site for that purpose in September 2001; the temporary (18-month) consent granted in 2007 for retention of that use on the amalgamated site subject of this application; and the Council’s resolution in 2009 to allow a redevelopment of the site to consolidate the use on a permanent basis.

31 The policy issues summarised in paragraph 26 above were robustly assessed prior to granting temporary permission in 2007. Therefore, the principal issues for consideration are:

 Recent changes in planning policy (i.e. emergence of the consultation draft replacement London Plan and the adoption of the Sutton Core Strategy DPD in December 2009).

 Any material changes that have occurred on site to alter its impact on the local environment (e.g. erection of the temporary office block, any increase in waste received or the number vehicle movements).

 Whether to support a temporary permission for the full duration of three years, given that the existing business needs to be regularised and to continue operating to maintain its economic viability, despite the imminent issue of planning permission for a long-term redevelopment of the site. Design and access issues

32 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan and is specifically promoted by the policies contained within Chapter 4B which address both general design principles and specific design issues. Chapter 7 (policies 7.1 to 7.13) of the consultation draft replacement London Plan provides additional design guidance for developments of potential strategic importance and requiring the approval of the Mayor.

33 The current application is for a temporary retention of the existing site buildings, plant, hard landscaping, and the means of enclosure, which by reason of the unauthorised origin of the

1 London Plan policy 4A.21 and policy 5.16 of the consultation draft replacement London Plan. 2 London Plan policies 4A.21 to 4A.29 and policies 5.16- 5.19 of the consultation draft replacement London Plan.

page 13 primary activity, were organised entirely on functionality of the business, with most of the waste management operations taking place in the open air and with little or no regard given to urban design or aesthetic considerations.

34 In view of the temporary nature of current operations, the applicant still does not intend to invest substantial capital expenditure on components, features and finishes designed solely to enhance the appearance of the site or buildings. As part of its planning regularisation, however, significant interim changes have been made to the operational infrastructure and site layout to reduce its environmental impact during the transitional period, pending a permanent redevelopment of the site. These include the introduction of new technology and equipment to improve the levels of recovery of recyclable and re-useable materials from the various sorting and processing operations; and the introduction of a range of measures that have proven more effective in mitigating the impacts of noise and dust emissions, the migration of fugitive waste beyond the site boundaries, the tracking of mud onto the adjoining highway and, most significantly, the overall appearance of the site from public vantage points.

35 On inclusive access, whilst the applicant accepts that the present arrangements are unacceptable on a permanent basis, no changes are proposed or considered necessary to the provision previously allowed by the GLA and the Council on a temporary basis. Following a full assessment of the relevant planning application, however, adequate provision has been made to ensure that the permanent redevelopment complies with policies 4B.5 and 7.2 of the London Plan and the consultation draft replacement London Plan respectively. Biodiversity

36 London Plan policy 3D.14 (‘Biodiversity and nature conservation’) requires, amongst other things, that where, exceptionally, development is to be permitted because the reasons for it are judged to outweigh significant harm to nature conservation, appropriate compensation should be sought.

37 The issue of biodiversity is of particular significance for the site, in the light of the overlapping and potentially conflicting dual designation of its extreme western side within a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation (SMI/SINC 7) and a Preferred Industrial Location.

38 The temporary permission, which this application seeks to extend, was subject to planning conditions (particularly condition 9) that required a safeguarded area of mitigation planting along the SINC section of the western boundary. In reality, however, operational difficulties in containing temporary storage of imported and sorted materials resulted in an encroachment and subsequent reduction in size of the mitigation strip, much to the chagrin of Sutton Council officers.

39 Agreement has since been reached between the applicant operator and the Council that in addition to retaining a narrow strip of land for future soft landscaping/planting along the full extent of the western boundary, the applicant would protect and enhance the wide strip of soft landscaping and mature tree cover on the Beddington Lane frontage to the former Mitcham Belle (bus operator’s) land at the northern end of the amalgamated application site. The latter portion of land has now been acquired by the operator and is unlikely to be affected by permanent redevelopment; thereby offering both security of tenure and an opportunity for early implementation of those mitigation works as part of a temporary permission to retain the existing operations during the transitional period. This can be secured by appropriate planning conditions, if the Council resolves to grant the three-year permission currently requested.

page 14 40 In the light of the above agreement, the obligations imposed by the earlier planning conditions had not been fulfilled by the time the temporary permission expired in January 2009. The agreed mitigation strip has, nonetheless, been strictly preserved despite the recent construction of temporary storage bays (to which reference was made in paragraph 15 of this report) close to the western boundary of the site, as indicated on drawings submitted as part of this application. In addition, the legal agreement, to which permission for a permanent redevelopment of the site is subject, will secure a package of measures comprising an increased level of nature conservation and biodiversity provision; compensation by way of green roofs, living walls and additional planting within the development; and a financial contribution of £50,000 towards two projects within the nearby Beddington Park. The two projects are: improvements to the northern woodland edge, including provision of habitat for stag beetles and tree sparrows; and improvements to the pond incorporating areas of wet grassland.

41 The applicant is understood to have made considerable progress in preparing the full details of the mitigation scheme for submission to and approval of the local planning authority, either upon or shortly after the notice of permission for redevelopment has been issued. In effect, the prevailing circumstances provide reasonable prospects that the agreed mitigation would be delivered to meet the objectives of the London Plan biodiversity policies. Air quality

42 London Plan policy 4A.19 and policy 7.14 of the consultation draft replacement London Plan look to achieve a reduction in pollutant emissions and public exposure to pollution by ensuring, amongst other things, that the issue of air quality is taken into account at the planning application stage along with other material considerations, and that development proposals do not lead to further deterioration of existing poor air quality (such as in areas designated as Air Quality Management Areas).

43 The application site is in an Air Quality Management Area and the open nature of the waster transfer and recycling operations have raised local concerns in the past. The expired permission, for which a further temporary extension is sought, was subject to three planning conditions aimed at preventing a visible emission of dust, particulates, fibres or any other contaminant outside the site boundary or beyond ten metres of potential sources, including the storage, handling, processing and transportation of materials.

44 Whilst it remains unclear whether the relevant conditions were formally discharged prior to the expiry of that permission, some positive measures have taken place on site to mitigate the impact of operational activities on local air quality. Those works, albeit unauthorised, include extensive hard surfacing of most of the operational area of the site; relocation and bunding of the wood chipping and concrete crushing processes; and the enclosure by high bunding of the refuse- derived fuel installation for which permission is sought retrospectively.

45 Protective netting has been extended at high level, and temporary covers proposed to parts of the site identified as being particularly vulnerable to emissions and fugitive migration, with extended water-borne dust suppression installations. The recent introduction of more advanced fixed and mobile plant and equipment that enables better control of emissions have also contributed significantly to improving air quality on the site and its surroundings.

46 As a result of these measures, the supplementary environmental statement accompanying this application confirms that air quality has improved relative to the baseline criteria established in the environmental statement submitted in support of the previous temporary application.

page 15 47 To address any remaining concerns, the latest planning statement confirms the applicant’s willingness to accept an appropriate planning condition to secure a minimum air qualitative standard equal to that established for the previous temporary permission, and the recent resolution to grant permission for a permanent redevelopment of the site.

48 In any event, there is the assurance that a key feature of the permanent redevelopment is that the proposed building would deliver substantial long-term benefits to reduce the environmental impacts of this waste transfer and recycling facility over and above the existing and largely open operations on the site. Ambient noise

49 Potential concern over the impacts of noise is addressed by policy 4A.20 of the London Plan and policy 7.15 of the consultation draft replacement London Plan. Given the significant distance between the application site and the nearest noise-sensitive residential properties to the north and south, the potential impact of noise from activities on the site have been generally well controlled. Additional benefits are derived from improved technology and the introduction of new plant and equipment that generate significantly lower levels of noise and vibration.

50 Nonetheless, an updated Environmental Statement has been submitted to reflect the prevailing circumstances on the site relative to previous conditions. Assessed against the relevant British Standards (BS 8233 and BS 4142), the surveys confirmed that noise levels from the Country Waste Recycling site were not significant at any of the representative receptors. Energy

51 The London Plan climate change policies set out in chapter 4A collectively require developments to make the fullest contribution to tackling climate change by minimising carbon dioxide emissions, adopting sustainable design and construction measures, prioritising decentralised energy supply, and incorporating renewable energy technologies with a target of 20% carbon reductions from on-site renewable energy. The policies set out ways in which developers must address mitigation of and adaptation to the effects of climate change. Chapter 5 of the draft replacement plan sets out the approach to climate change and requires developments to make the fullest contribution to minimizing carbon dioxide emissions.

52 The applicant has not assessed any renewable or low carbon energy options for the temporary retention of the existing waste transfer station and materials recycling facility. This is because it would not be feasible to transfer and re-use such plant within the permanent new development, and the payback period required for it to be economically viable is longer than the transition period envisaged for the construction and occupation of the new development.

53 It is pertinent to note, however, that in his consideration of the energy proposals made in support of the redevelopment application, the Mayor was satisfied that the planning conditions included in the Council’s draft approval notice were sufficiently robust to ensure compliance with his strategic energy policies. Transport for London’s Comments

54 In assessing this proposal, TfL has referred to previous information and correspondence relating to the temporary planning permission, which was approved in August 2007, and the full planning permission to redevelop the site, which was approved in September 2009.

page 16 55 Currently, 20 cycle spaces are utilised. In line with the draft permission for permanent development approved in 2009, TfL requests that the number of spaces be increased to 30. In addition, the cycle parking provided should be safe, covered and secure; and where possible, the staff should have access to shower and changing facilities. This would bring the proposal in line with the London Plan (2008) policy 3C.22 Improving conditions for cycling and the draft revised London Plan policy 6.9 Cycling.

56 TfL requests that the travel plan approved in 2009 be updated, in order to encourage staff and visitors to travel by sustainable modes for the duration of the proposed three-year permission. With the provision of a robust travel plan the proposed development would be in accordance with London Plan policy 3C.2 Matching development to transport capacity and the consultation draft replacement London Plan policy 6.11 Smoothing traffic flow and tackling congestion. The travel plan should be secured, enforced, funded, monitored and reviewed as part of the Section 106 agreement.

57 A delivery and servicing plan should be provided, in line with London Plan policy 3C.25 Freight strategy and the consultation draft replacement London Plan policy 6.14 Freight. The delivery and servicing plan should be secured by planning condition in consultation with TfL.

58 TfL notes that no changes are proposed to the access arrangements or to trip generation from this site. As previously acknowledged, the current proposals for which retrospective permission is sought will not have a significant impact on the nearby TLRN.

59 TfL acknowledges that the 50 car spaces currently utilised are to be maintained in this proposal. In line with London Plan policy 3C.23 Parking strategy, and the draft replacement London Plan policy 6.13 Parking, TfL requires the number of car spaces to be reduced. The draft permission, granted in 2009, approved the use of 23 spaces. Given the temporary nature of this application, however, TfL is satisfied with the current allocation.

Summary

60 TfL agrees in principle with this retrospective application. In order to ensure general conformity with London Plan policies, TfL requires the applicants to provide an updated travel plan and a delivery and servicing plan, which should be secured by Section 106 agreement. In order to encourage sustainable transport, additional cycle parking and changing facilities are also requested.

Local planning authority’s position

61 Sutton Council officers propose to report this application to the October 2010 meeting of the local planning committee with a likely recommendation for approval of a three-year extension to the expired temporary permission. Legal considerations

62 Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Council must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application, or issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the

page 17 purpose of determining the application and any connected application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor’s statement and comments. Financial considerations

63 There are no financial considerations at this stage.

Conclusion

64 London Plan policies on: acceptable land uses in preferred industrial locations, waste management, urban design and architectural quality, biodiversity (SMI/SINC), air quality, ambient noise, energy, and transport are relevant to this application. 65 The application is acceptable in strategic planning terms on a temporary basis only, as it complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:  Urban design & architectural quality: The predominantly open-air operations do not meet the standards of good design and inclusive access required by policies set out in chapters 4 and 7 of the London Plan and draft replacement London Plan respectively.

 Biodiversity: Part of the site is designated as being of metropolitan importance for nature conservation, but the applicant is yet to submit full details of an agreed mitigation scheme for approval of the local planning authority or complete the legal agreement to secure implementation of the associated obligations and full compliance with policies 3D.14 of the London Plan and 7.19 and the draft replacement London Plan.

 Air quality: London Plan policy 4A.19 and policy 7.14 of the consultation draft replacement London Plan aims to ensure a minimum air quality standard equal to that established for the previous temporary permission would be retained on site. Sutton Council should secure this by means of an appropriate planning condition.  Energy: The existing open-air operations are non-compliant with the energy policies in Chapters 4A of the London Plan, Chapter 5 of the replacement draft London Plan, or the Mayor’s energy hierarchy in particular.

 Transport: To retain the present operations, TfL requests submission of an updated and more robust travel plan, a delivery and servicing plan and an increase in the number of cycle parking spaces to fulfil the objectives of the transport policies provided in the London Plan and draft replacement London Plan.

66 A permanent redevelopment of the site, in accordance with the proposals for which Sutton Council has resolved to grant planning permission, would, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies and ensure full compliance with the London Plan.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] David Blankson-Hemans, Senior Strategic Planner, Case Officer 020 7983 4310 email [email protected]

page 18