Development and Regulation Committee
Committee Room 1, Friday, 18 10:30 County Hall, December 2015 Chelmsford, Essex
Quorum: 3
Membership:
Councillor R Boyce Chairman Councillor J Abbott Councillor J Aldridge Councillor K Bobbin Councillor M Ellis Councillor C Guglielmi Councillor J Jowers Councillor J Lodge Councillor M Mackrory Councillor Lady P Newton Councillor J Reeves Councillor S Walsh
For information about the meeting please ask for: Matthew Waldie, Committee Officer Telephone: 033301 34583 Email: [email protected]
Page 1 of 176 Essex County Council and Committees Information
All Council and Committee Meetings are held in public unless the business is exempt in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1972.
Most meetings are held at County Hall, Chelmsford, CM1 1LX. A map and directions to County Hall can be found at the following address on the Council’s website: http://www.essex.gov.uk/Your-Council/Local-Government-Essex/Pages/Visit-County- Hall.aspx
There is ramped access to the building for wheelchair users and people with mobility disabilities.
The Council Chamber and Committee Rooms are accessible by lift and are located on the first and second floors of County Hall.
If you have a need for documents in the following formats, large print, Braille, on disk or in alternative languages and easy read please contact the Committee Officer before the meeting takes place. If you have specific access requirements such as access to induction loops, a signer, level access or information in Braille please inform the Committee Officer before the meeting takes place. For any further information contact the Committee Officer.
Induction loop facilities are available in most Meeting Rooms. Specialist head sets are available from Duke Street and E Block Receptions.
The agenda is also available on the Essex County Council website, www.essex.gov.uk From the Home Page, click on ‘Your Council’, then on ‘Meetings and Agendas’. Finally, select the relevant committee from the calendar of meetings.
Please note that an audio recording may be made of the meeting – at the start of the meeting the Chairman will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being recorded.
Page 2 of 176 Part 1 (During consideration of these items the meeting is likely to be open to the press and public)
Pages
1 Apologies and Substitution Notices Clerk to report receipt (if any)
2 Declarations of Interest To note any declarations of interest to be made by Members in accordance with the Members' Code of Conduct
3 Minutes 7 - 12 To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 27 November 2015.
4 Identification of Items Involving Public Speaking To note where members of the public are speaking on an agenda item. These items may be brought forward on the agenda.
5 Minerals and Waste
5.1 Land to the south of Terminus Drive 13 - 82 To consider report DR/38/15, relating to the change of use and erection of buildings, hardstandings, roadways, parking and storage areas to enable the use of the site as a waste recycling and materials recovery facility (part retrospective) Location: Land to the south of Terminus Drive, Pitsea Hall Lane, Pitsea, SS16 4UH. Reference: ESS/13/15/BAS
5.2 Lufkins Farm, Great Bentley - New access road 83 - 94 To consider report DR/39/15, relating to the construction of a temporary access onto Great Bentley Road (Lufkins Lane), internal road and ancillary works to enable the removal of surplus material arising from the construction of an agricultural reservoir. Location: Lufkins Farm, Frating and Brook Farm, Great Bentley, Colchester Reference: ESS/40/15/TEN
Page 3 of 176 5.3 Lufkins Farm, Great Bentley - S.73 application 95 - 156 To consider report DR/40/15, relating to an S.73 application for alteration of conditions 2,13,16,19,20,21,23 and 48 of ESS/10/13/TEN for extension of the time limit for implementation (by 5 years) of permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN for the construction of an agricultural reservoir involving the extraction of minerals and the removal of surplus soils. Location: Lufkins Farm, Frating and Brook Farm, Great Bentley, Colchester. Reference: ESS/41/15/TEN
5.4 Blixes Farm, Chelmsford 157 - 170 To consider report DR/41/15, relating to the installation of a sealed rectangular plastic coated polyester fabric bladder tank complete with vent pipes and drum type activated filters to facilitate the storage of abattoir wash water. Location: Blixes Farm, Ranks Green Road, Chelmsford Essex CM3 2BH. Reference: ESS/33/15/BTE
6 Enforcement Update
6.1 Land at intersection of A120 and B1256, Braintree 171 - 174 To note report DR/42/15, relating to the enforcement of planning control with regard to the importation, deposition, processing and spreading of waste materials on the land, substantially raising the land levels (the unauthorised development), on the land at the intersection of A120 and B1256 (Stortford Road), Braintree. Reference: ENF/0673
7 Information Item
7.1 Applications, Enforcement and Appeals statistics 175 - 176 To update Members with relevant information on planning applications,appeals and enforcements, as at the end of the previous month, plus other background information as may be requested by Committee. DR/43/15
8 Date of Next Meeting To note that the next meeting will be held on Friday 22 January 2016 at 10.30am.
Page 4 of 176 9 Urgent Business To consider any matter which in the opinion of the Chairman should be considered in public by reason of special circumstances (to be specified) as a matter of urgency.
Exempt Items (During consideration of these items the meeting is not likely to be open to the press and public)
To consider whether the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during consideration of an agenda item on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as specified in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 or it being confidential for the purposes of Section 100A(2) of that Act.
In each case, Members are asked to decide whether, in all the circumstances, the public interest in maintaining the exemption (and discussing the matter in private) outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
10 Urgent Exempt Business To consider in private any other matter which in the opinion of the Chairman should be considered by reason of special circumstances (to be specified) as a matter of urgency.
______
All letters of representation referred to in the reports attached to this agenda are available for inspection. Anyone wishing to see these documents should contact the Officer identified on the front page of the report prior to the date of the meeting.
Page 5 of 176
Page 6 of 176 27 November 2015 Unapproved 1 Minutes
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION COMMITTEE HELD AT COUNTY HALL, CHELMSFORD ON 27 NOVEMBER 2015
Present
Cllr R Boyce (Chairman) Cllr J Lodge Cllr J Abbott Cllr M Mackrory Cllr J Aldridge Cllr Lady Newton Cllr M Ellis Cllr J Reeves Cllr J Jowers Cllr C Seagers
1. Apologies and Substitution Notices
Apologies were received from Cllr K Bobbin, Cllr C Guglielmi (Cllr Seagers substituted) and Cllr S Walsh.
2. Declarations of Interest
Cllr Seagers declared a personal interest in agenda item 6.1, Michelins Farm, as a member of Rochford District Council
3. Minutes
The Minutes and Addendum of the Committee held on 23 October 2015 were agreed and signed by the Chairman.
4. Identification of Items Involving Public Speaking
There were none.
Minerals and Waste
5. Land to the north of Hovefields Court, Basildon
The Committee considered report DR/34/15 by the Director for Operations, Environment and Economy.
The Members of the Committee noted the contents of the Addendum attached to these minutes.
Policies relevant to the application were detailed in the report.
Details of the consultation and representations were set out in the report.
The Committee noted the key issues that were: Need, Principle and Location Landscape and Visual Amenity Traffic & Highways Public Rights of Way Hazardous Waste Page 7 of 176
Minutes 2 Unapproved 27 November 2015
Ecology Impacts on Hydrology Human Rights
In response to questions raised by Members, it was noted: The asbestos coming on site will be double bagged and will not be sorted but will be placed in sealed containers in a sealed and fenced off area, prior to being removed for processing out of county. This will be regulated by the Environment Agency through an Environmental Permit. No objections have been raised by the Highways Authority with regard to the amount of vehicle movements. The applicant has stated this represents a consolidation of the existing sites in Basildon. The distance to the nearest residential property is 75 metres. Essex Fire & Rescue Service has been consulted with regard to fire issues and has raised no objection. The particular fire risk is covered by separate legislation and lies outside the remit of planning. The use of the recommended lighting condition allows the applicant to proceed, but still requires approval for any lighting to be installed on site.
With regard to this last point, one Member suggested that it would be better to require the applicant to submit lighting plans before work began on the site.
Consequently, an amendment to the substantive motion was proposed and seconded. Following a vote of seven in favour and three against, it was
Resolved
That Condition 21, relating to lighting, be amended, to require the applicant to submit any details of proposed lighting “prior to commencement” and that an additional condition is imposed to restrict the hours of use of lighting.
The motion, including the amended and new lighting conditions, was proposed and seconded. Following a vote of eight in favour and one against, with Cllr Abbott abstaining, it was
Resolved
That planning permission be granted subject to conditions covering the following matters:-
1. COM1 – Commencement within 5 years 2. COM3 - Compliance with submitted details 3. COM2 – Notification of commencement within 7 days of implementation 4. WAST1 – Definition of waste materials to be imported 5. WAST2 – Skips to be incidental to main use 6. WAST3 – Litter control 7. WAST4 – Waste handled in designated areas 8. WAST5 – Restricting waste to areas as approved 9. WAST6 – (Bespoke) PageNo crushing 8 of 176 of stone or hardcore (screening permitted) 27 November 2015 Unapproved 3 Minutes
10. HIGH2 – Vehicular access 11. HIGH5 – restriction to 200HGV movements [100 in and 100 out] per day (Monday to Friday) 200HGV movements [100 in and 100 out] per day (Saturdays) 12. HIGH8 – Parking areas 13. HIGH13 – Vehicle turning areas 14. HIGH14 – Access gates 15. HIGH15 – Gates opening inwards 16. HIGH17 – Loading/Unloading 17. HIGHWAYS – Bespoke: Each vehicular parking space shall have dimensions in accordance with the current parking standards 18. No operations authorised by this permission, including vehicles entering or leaving the site and the unloading of vehicles, shall take place outside the following times:
07:00 hours to 18:00 hours Monday to Friday 07:00 hours to 13:00 hours Saturday
No waste shredding and/or screening shall take place on Saturdays.
For the avoidance of doubt, no operations authorised by this permission, including vehicles entering or leaving the site and the unloading of vehicles shall take place on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays
19. NOISE – Bespoke: Limits to noise emanating from site 20. NOISE – Bespoke: Noise Monitoring 21. LGHT1 - Requires submission details regarding any proposed lighting on site 22. ECO1- Implementation in accordance with approved Ecological Appraisal and Reptile Survey 23. Bespoke – Applicant to make good an area of paving between the eastern boundary of the development area and Hovefields Avenue 24. Bespoke – Applicant to remove fence posts located between the eastern boundary of the development area and Hovefields Avenue 25. Bespoke – Boundary treatment on eastern boundary be powder coated paladin fencing. 26. POLL1 – Surface and Foul Water Drainage Scheme 27. Bespoke – Scheme to minimise the risk of offsite flooding caused by surface water run-off and groundwater during construction works 28. Bespoke – Surface water drainage system maintenance plan 29. Bespoke – retention of yearly logs of maintenance carried out in accordance with the approved maintenance plan. 30. LGHT2– Use of Lighting Restriction
Councillor Lady Newton left the meeting at this point.
Page 9 of 176
Minutes 4 Unapproved 27 November 2015
Enforcement Update
6. Michelins Farm, Rayleigh
The Committee considered report DR/35/15 by the Director of Operations: Environment and Economy.
The Committee noted the reasons why it was not expedient to take any further action at this time.
The resolution was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed and it was:
Resolved
1. That, at this current time, no further action is taken by the County Council as Waste Planning Authority in respect of the breach of the enforcement notice issued in June 2011, subject to the land being sold for development and permission for a new use/development being granted; and
2. This position is again reviewed by the committee no later than December 2016.
Information Items
7. Outstanding Cases The Committee considered report DR/36/14, updating members of enforcement matters for the period 1 July to 31 October 2015. It was noted: Land at intersection A120/B1256, Stortford Road, Braintree – Colchester Magistrates found against the Landowner, who was fined £1000 plus costs; Little Warley Farm, Ranks Green – the Secretary of State’s decision has been quashed by the appeal judge, with no indication given of a new timetable for the fresh determination of the enforcement notice appeal. A fuller report will follow next month.
8. Statistics
The Committee considered report DR/37/15, Applications, Enforcement and Appeals Statistics, as at end of the previous month, by the Director of Operations, Environment & Economy. The Committee NOTED the report.
Page 10 of 176
27 November 2015 Unapproved 5 Minutes
9. Date and time of Next Meeting
The Committee noted that the next meeting would be held on Friday 18 December 2015 at 10.30am in Committee Room 1.
There being no further business the meeting closed at 11.40am.
Chairman
Page 11 of 176
Page 12 of 176
AGENDA ITEM 5.1
DR/38/15
Committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION
Date 18 December 2015
MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT Proposal: Change of use and erection of buildings, hardstandings, roadways, parking and storage areas to enable the use of the site as a waste recycling and materials recovery facility (part retrospective) Location: Land to the south of Terminus Drive, Pitsea Hall Lane, Pitsea, SS16 4UH Ref: ESS/13/15/BAS Applicant: Heard Environmental
Report by Director of Operations: Environment and Economy Enquiries to: Claire Tomalin Tel: 03330 136821 The full application can be viewed at www.essex.gov.uk/viewplanning
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright reserved Essex County Council, Chelmsford Licence L000 19602 Page 13 of 176
1. BACKGROUND TO APPLICATION
A previous application (ref ESS/69/12/BAS) was originally submitted in November 2012. At that time the applicant had already started to carry out storage operations on the site and subsequently located portable offices and a weighbridge on the site. Following the grant of planning permission in June 2013, in August 2013 the applicant commenced construction of a waste processing building which formed part of the proposals.
The June 2013 permission was subjected to legal challenge which resulted in the planning permission being quashed by the court. The effect of quashing the decision was that the application became ‘live’ for determination. After submission and consultation on additional information the Committee reconsidered the application in June 2014 and resolved to grant permission subject to conditions. Prior to issuing the decision notice the council was notified of a further legal challenge. As the permission had not been issued, and as a result of emerging case-law at that time in respect of the setting of Listed Buildings, the application was re-considered and presented to the Committee for determination in September 2014. At that meeting the Committee resolved to refuse planning permission, the sole reason being the harm caused by the waste processing building on the setting of Cromwell Manor a Grade II Listed Building to the south of the site.
The refusal notice was issued on 1 October 2014 and an enforcement notice was served on 27 October 2014 requiring removal of the waste processing building within 6 months. Both the refusal of planning permission and the enforcement notice were appealed and were considered together by the Planning Inspectorate (Ref. APP/Z1585/W/14/3000681 & APP/Z1585/C/14/3000689). The appeal for refusal of planning permission was dismissed on 24 September 2015 and the enforcement notice amended, giving 12 months for removal of the waste processing building.
Waste storage, sorting of wood and inert waste has continued to take place at the western end of the site and the buildings remain on site, including the waste processing building (which is currently not being used for waste sorting only some minimal storage). The applicant has removed the supports that were intended to provide the framework for the lobby previously proposed to the front of the building. Page 14 of 176
The applicant continues to also operate an existing waste transfer/recycling facility on the Burnt Mills Industrial estate.
The applicant has submitted a revised application the subject of this report. This new application amongst other matters, seeks to relocate the waste processing building still within the site, but further west.
The recent appeal decision of 24 September 2015 is a material consideration which should carry weight to the extent that it deals with the same issues. The principle of consistency in decision making (which is also a material consideration) means that cogent reasons would need to exist (and be identified) if Committee was to depart from the Inspector’s analysis of those issues.
However, the proposal the Inspector was considering was different in relation to the siting of the waste processing building but other elements of the proposal are similar. The report therefore considers the inspector’s comments so far as they relate to the application now under consideration.
2. SITE
The site is a linear piece of land alongside the London Fenchurch Street to Shoeburyness railway line on southern edge of Pitsea. The application site itself covers an area of approximately 1.24 hectare. It is located on the southern edge of a triangle of urban waste land between the two branches of the railway line and the A13 Pitsea Flyover, with the eastern corner truncated by Pitsea Hall Lane. The site is accessed solely from Pitsea Hall Lane, which passes over the northern railway line by means of a bridge. Pitsea Hall Lane crosses the railway to the south via a level crossing. The access from Pitsea Hall Lane is via Terminus Drive an unsurfaced no- through road (public highway, but not maintained by the Highway Authority), which also gives access to an existing industrial unit and the remainder of the triangle of waste land. The railway bridge on Pitsea Hall Lane is subject to a bridge protection scheme, such that two HGV’s cannot pass on the bridge. The two railway lines converge to the east of Pitsea Hall Lane at Pitsea station.
On the north side of the site, at the eastern end, Terminus Drive abuts a car park, the remaining land to the north between the site and the main line railway line is vacant. Beyond the mainline railway to the north is a Tesco Superstore, retail units and associated parking.
Directly east of the site is a fencing manufacturing business, located within an industrial building and a house (permitted for use as offices) fronting Pitsea Hall Lane.
The southern edge of the site for its entire length is required to be kept clear of any permanent structures to allow Network Rail full access to the railway network boundary if required. There is an additional access point onto Pitsea Hall Lane on the eastern end adjacent to the railway line, but this access is not proposed to be used as it is too close to the level crossing.
Page 15 of 176
Pitsea Hall Lane is a no through road but gives access to Wat Tyler Country Park, Vange Marsh RSPB reserve, Tuskit Works Industrial Area, an ECC Household Waste Recycling Centre, Pitsea sewage treatment works and Pitsea Landfill among others.
To the south of the railway line (approximately 10m) is Cromwell Manor (formerly Pitsea Hall), which is a Grade II Listed building used as a wedding and function venue. Within Cromwell Manor on the 2nd floor there is residential flat.
To the north of the site is the A13 flyover, which is closer to the site at its western end. Residential flats (4 storeys high) lie to the north west of the site beyond the A13 flyover, the nearest of which are 60m from the north west corner of the site on Chestnut Road and the Glen (residential areas on the southern edge of Vange). St Michael’s Church (the tower of which only remains) is a grade II Listed Building located approximately 220m to the north east on Pitsea Mount. Also to the north east on Pitsea Mount are residential properties accessed from Brackendale Avenue, the closest property being approximately 200m from the site.
Footpath Basildon 136 is adjacent to the northern and western boundary of the site, utilising Terminus Drive to link Pitsea Hall Lane to the Marshes via a pedestrian crossing across the railway line. Footpath Basildon 213 links with the path at the north western end of the site to provide a route to The Meads and residential areas on the south edge of Vange. The path between Pitsea Hall Lane and The Meads is used by commuters to access Pitsea railway station.
The site is part of an area allocated for Employment purposes (Class B1 and B2 use) under policy BAS E2 within the Basildon District Local Plan saved policies 2007 (BDLP). The total allocated area being the triangle of land bound by the railway lines and A13 and totalling 3.5hectares. The site has previously been granted planning permission for car parking associated with a market, but this permission was not implemented. A planning application (14/00890/FULL) for land north of the application site was made in July 2014 to Basildon BC for “Change of use of land to haulage yard” and remains undetermined. The land immediately to the south is designated as Green Belt (including the railway line) and also as “Marshes Area” (Policy BAS C7) within the BDLP.
The Marshes Area is subject of several separate ecological designations. The closest (10m) is Vange Creek Marshes County Wildlife Site that lies south west of the site on the south side of the railway line. Vange Creek Marsh SSSI lies 200m south east and Pitsea Marsh SSSI southwest 300m to the site
The site was vacant prior to the applicant commencing waste storage and sorting on the site1 in autumn 2012. The site was historically utilised as a minerals yard, such that it is likely mineral was imported by road and potentially rail, stored and then distributed from the site by road. The site was also safeguarded as a possible
1 NB This use is unlawful; consideration of this should be disregarded when assessing the merits of the application
Page 16 of 176
transhipment site in association with the Cross Rail project, but this was not taken up.
3. PROPOSAL
The application is for the change of use of land to enable the use of the site as a waste recycling and materials recovery facility. The applicant has identified this site at Terminus Drive as being suitable for its needs and if planning permission was granted, would close its facility at the Harvey Road site at Burnt Mills Industrial Estate. The reason for seeking relocation stems from limitations on the existing site in terms of capacity and size, where there is no opportunity to expand within the Burnt Mills Industrial Estate.
It is proposed that the annual throughput of waste handled at the site would be 49,000 tonnes. Of this total approximately 5% would be household waste, 60% commercial and industrial (C&I) waste and the remaining 35% would consist of construction & demolition (C&D) waste. The onsite operations would involve the sorting and recovery of materials, which would include waste arising from ground works, demolition and site clearance. All residual waste (up to 15% of the total brought on to site) would need to be disposed of and would be sent to landfill.
The proposal involves the erection of a waste processing building on the northern boundary at the western end of the site; the current building (subject of the enforcement notice) at the east end of the site is proposed to be taken down and relocated should permission be granted. In addition the application includes modular style offices and mess facilities, a weighbridge and parking areas to be located at the east of the site.
The waste processing building would be constructed from corrugated steel and would measure 19m x 30m and 9m in height to eaves and 11.4m to ridge, the ridge aligned east/west. The building would be fully enclosed on three sides, but be open at the front (no lobby to the front of the building is proposed which formed part of the previous application). The applicant is willing to colour the building as required but would prefer the existing grey. The building would be fitted with 10 sky lights 5 on each roof side to allow natural light into the building. The building would face south, such that the unenclosed side of the building would face south towards the railway line.
The waste processing building would be used for the sorting of waste which would be transferred by grab onto a belt feeding a trommel and a waste picking station. Waste would either be sorted mechanically or by hand and separated into its components, these chiefly being metals, brick, concrete and stone, plastics, paper, cardboard, green waste, wood and wood products. Once separated the materials would be stored on site, wood and inert rubble would be stored outside, the rest remaining in the building, awaiting distribution to materials reprocessing facilities. The residue, unrecyclable material, would be taken to landfill (e.g. Pitsea landfill).
An area for skip storage would be located south of the access into the site, at the east end of the site and would be screened on its south edge by a 3m high wall.
Page 17 of 176
The area west of the waste processing building and immediately to the east would be used for open storage, sorting of wood waste by hand, mechanical shredding of wood waste and crushing of inert waste. The outside storage and sorting areas would be in bays. The bay walls on the northern boundary and at the western end adjacent to the public footpath would be 3m high, with an additional 1.5m of netting above. Three bays would be created with the side bays walls at 4m high. These bays would be used mainly for storage of wood, inert waste and hardcore. A 360 degree tracked excavator would be used to load inerts into the crusher and to load wood waste into the shredder.
The application has proposed not to carry out all noise generating operational activities at once, namely only one of the crusher, shredder and trommel would be used at one time. The wood shredder would be operated outside within the storage bay west of the waste processing building. The crusher would also operate outside, but would only be brought to the site approximately 4-5 days a month and would be located at the west end of the site.
The WC/mess cabin, administration and weighbridge offices would consist of three modular style offices, the office facilities would be 2 storeys high and would be located centrally within the site. Included in the proposals is a weighbridge, parking for 15 lorries, 20 car parking spaces, 5 visitor parking spaces, 2 motorcycle spaces and 5 bicycle spaces, located west of the access.
The applicant has confirmed there would be no use of 360 degree tracked excavator in the eastern end of the site, except for initial construction and subsequent maintenance of the haul road, parking areas and skip storage area, to minimise potential vibration and noise disturbance to Cromwell Manor. In addition there would no activities or uses south of the skip storage area, this is required to remain clear for access by Network Rail.
A hedge with trees (where not conflicting with the operation of site) is proposed along the western and northern boundary of the site (on average 2m wide belt), for most of its length the hedge would be located between the existing palisade fence and the storage bay retaining walls. The southern edge of the site is required to be kept clear by Network Rail and would be utilised for access through the site by vehicles.
The access would consist of the existing access on to Pitsea Hall Lane, utilising Terminus Drive. The access from Pitsea Hall Lane is currently unconsolidated hardcore, but it is proposed to be surfaced with concrete/tarmac, subject to an agreed specification with the Highway Authority. The access route within the site would be surfaced. It is proposed that there would be 100 HGV movements (50 in and 50 out) Monday to Friday and 50 HGV movements (25 in and 25 out) on Saturday. These movements would consist of skip lorries, tipper and roll on/off HGVs and some articulated HGVs. There would be additional car and van movements associated with employee, visitor and maintenance vehicles. There’s an additional access point in the south east corner of the site, but this would not be used by the development, except in the case of emergencies.
Page 18 of 176
Hours of operation proposed within the application are 07:00 to 17:30 (Monday to Friday), 07:00 to 13:00 (Saturdays) with no work taking place on Sundays and/or Bank Holidays.
A lighting scheme has been proposed for the site, including 6 x 5m high lighting columns, 5 on the north boundary of the site to light the parking areas and one on the western end of the weighbridge. 3 lights mounted at 5m one on the side of the office/weighbridge and 2 further lights are proposed mounted on the outside of the waste processing building at 5 m high and 2 at 3m high mounted on the office/mess buildings. The waste processing building includes 10 sky lights.
A dust suppression scheme has been proposed, including a misting system within the waste processing building and the use of bowsers and hoses to suppress dust in vehicle circulation areas and in outside storage areas.
The application was supported by a Heritage Statement with respect to Cromwell Manor, a Transport Statement, a noise assessment, vibration assessment, visual and landscape assessment, a lighting assessment and extended phase 1 habitat survey and a reptile survey.
Environmental Impact Assessment: An EIA screening opinion was adopted on 21 April 2015 and updated 10 December 2015. The WPA opinion was that an EIA was not required and a copy of the most recent opinion is attached at Appendix B for information.
4. POLICY
The following policies of the Essex & Southend Waste Local Plan (2001)2 (WLP) and Basildon District Local Plan 1998 Saved Policies 20073 (BDLP) provides the development plan framework for this application. The following policies are of relevance to this application
Policy BDLP WLP Proposed Employment Area BAS E2 Untidy Industry BAS E6 General Employment Policy BAS E10 Protected Areas BAS C1 The Marshes Area BAS C7 Waste Strategy W3A Need for Waste Development W3C Flooding W4A Surface & Groundwater W4B Access W4C Inert waste recycling facilities W7D
2 Waste Local Plan http://www.essex.gov.uk/Environment%20Planning/Planning/Minerals-Waste- Planning-Team/Planning-Policy/Documents/Essex__Southend_Waste_Local_Plan_2001.pdf 3 Basildon Local Plan - http://www.basildon.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=598&p=0
Page 19 of 176
Materials Recovery Facilities W7E Preferred Locations W8A Non Preferred Locations W8B Development Management W10E Hours of Operation W10F Public Rights of Way W10G
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 27 March 2012 and sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. The NPPF highlights that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. It goes on to state that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. The NPPF places a presumption in favour of sustainable development. However, paragraph 11 states that planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
For decision-taking the NPPF states that this means; approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this NPPF taken as a whole; or specific policies in this NPPF indicate development should be restricted.
In respect of the above, paragraph 215 of the NPPF, which it is considered is applicable to the WLP and BDLP, states that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this NPPF (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given). Basildon Borough Council has produced its own conformity/compliance checklist with the NPPF and this is provided at Appendix C.
With regard to updates/replacements or additions to the above, the NPPF (Annex 1, paragraph 216) states: From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:
The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given), and; The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this NPPF (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given).
The Replacement Waste Local Plan: Revised Preferred Approach was subject of consultation in June/July 2015 and responses are currently being considered. However, it is considered in context of paragraph 216 of the NPPF the RWLP is too early in its development to hold any significant weight in decision making.
Page 20 of 176
In June 2006 Basildon Borough Council resolved to withdraw the draft Replacement Local Plan and proceed with a Local Development Framework. In relation to this a Core Strategy Preferred Options Report was published in February 2012. A new Preferred Options Report was issued for consultation in 2014 (consultation ended 1 April 2014) and a Consultation Statement produced in September 2014. As the replacement Local Plan (now titled Basildon 2031 Local Plan) is still in its formation it is considered in context of paragraph 216 of the NPPF, that little weight can be applied to applicable policies, especially as objections may be outstanding from consultation.
The NPPF combined and streamlined all planning policy except for waste. Planning policy with respect to waste is set out in the National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW published on 16 October 2014). Additionally the National Waste Management Plan for England (NWMPE) is the overarching National Plan for Waste Management is a material consideration in planning decisions.
5. CONSULTATIONS
BASILDON BOROUGH COUNCIL - Object as the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy BAS E2 and BAS E6 and WLP policy W8B for the following reasons:
Contrary to Policy BAS E6 which seeks to located untidy uses in the Harvey Road and Archers Field area of Burnt Mills Industrial Estate. Locations outside of these areas will be assessed on their impact on nearby uses. Outside of industrial areas untidy uses will not be allowed. The proposed use is considered an untidy use and the adverse impact of the use on the character and amenities of the locality could not be satisfactorily mitigated. The proposals do not provide for extensive landscape to mitigate against the visual impact on the locality and therefore should not be permitted outside any area specifically designated for untidy uses; Contrary to Policy BAS E2, not within use class B1 and B2 and is considered inappropriate development as it would lead to congestion of Pitsea Hall Lane, in that the existing railway bridge is inadequate to accommodate additional heavy goods vehicle traffic and would conflict with existing vehicles using Pitsea Hall Lane and therefore also considered to be contrary to WLP policy W8B
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – No objection. Site has an Environmental Permit and if the site is operated in accordance with the requirements of the licences this would help to mitigate against amenity issues.
NATURAL ENGLAND: No objection, while close to 4 sites designated as SSSIs it is considered if operated as proposed there be would no adverse effects from the proposals. It is noted that the site includes a priority habitat for reptiles along the railway line and the WPA should seek to conserve and enhance biodiversity.
HIGHWAYS ENGLAND (Previously HIGHWAYS AGENCY) – No objection
NETWORK RAIL - No objection. The developer/applicant’s attention should be drawn to a number of covenants with respect to works near Network Rail Land.
Page 21 of 176
Comment: The covenants have been drawn to the attention of the applicant and an informative could be added to any decision.
HISTORIC ENGLAND (formerly ENGLISH HERITAGE): The application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.
HOMES & COMMUNITIES AGENCY (adjacent landowner): No comments received.
ESSEX WLDLIFE TRUST: No comments received
RSPB: No comments received
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY – No objection, subject to conditions to cover the following matters:
Details of vehicle turning facility Details of loading/unloading/reception areas Development is operated operating in accordance with the submitted details No discharge of surface water onto the highway No unbound material would be used surface treatment of the vehicular access from the bellmouth junction of Terminus Drive on to Pitsea Hall Lane for a distance of 12 metres; Gated access to the site would be inward opening only and set back 6 metres from the adopted carriageway (Terminus Drive); Public footpath no. 136 shall be maintained free and unobstructed at all times Parking spaces size to be 2.9m x 5.5m; No occupation until parking areas surfaced and marked out No occupation until cycle and motor cycle parking provided; Vehicle movement restrictions 100 HGV per day; No occupation until surfacing, line marking and provision of a 2m wide footway along the northern edge has been provided on Terminus Drive.
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY - Public Rights of Way - No comments received
COUNTY COUNCIL’S NOISE CONSULTANT – No objection, it has been demonstrated that acceptable noise levels could be achieved based on the proposed methods of working. Conditions would be necessary with respect to maximum noise levels, compliance monitoring and the requirement for additional noise mitigation if monitoring demonstrated that acceptable levels were being exceeded.
COUNTY COUNCIL’S AIR QUALITY CONSULTANT – No objection. The proposed traffic movements are unlikely to have an impact on local air quality during operation of the site. The application proposes various methods of dust suppression, it is considered these measures would adequately address operational phases of the development and would suitability mitigate any impact on sensitive receptors.
COUNTY COUNCIL’S VIBRATION CONSULTANT – No objection. A vibration survey was undertaken, considering two factors, damage to property and
Page 22 of 176
disturbance to occupiers. Vibration likely to result in damage to buildings is caused at 15mm/s, but a lower level is probably appropriate for historical buildings. The applicant’s vibration survey concluded that traffic movements to the site would not result in structural damage to the historical building and this is not disputed. In addition tracked excavator activity on the site resulted is less vibration than vehicle movements. In order to confirm the predicted vibration levels are not exceeded, it is recommended that vibration monitoring is undertaken upon commencement to verify the predictions.
COUNTY COUNCIL’S LIGHTING CONSULTANT – No objection. The proposed lighting scheme has been designed showing a good understanding of how to avoid light pollution. It is noted that the lighting scheme does suggest that the lighting near the weighbridge may not be sufficient, due to shadowing from vehicles on the weighbridge, to allow safe access on the steps to and from the weighbridge and this may need to be reviewed once the lighting and site are operational. A condition should be imposed requiring any additional fixed lighting to be subject of approval.
PLACE SERVICES (Ecology) – No objection, subject to planting mix including plants favourable to bees and implementation of the mitigation for reptiles.
PLACE SERVICES (Landscape) – No objection, subject to approval of planting details.
PLACE SERVICES (Historic Buildings) – No objection, subject to conditions. The development is located adjacent to Cromwell Manor a grade II Listed Building. The significance of the asset’s setting is only positive from the south where the landscape is largely open marsh land with minor interruptions from industrial sites and contributes to our understanding of why the manor was located here. This is in contrast to the north which has a negative contribution to the significance, which has overtime been impacted upon by the railway line, Pitsea flyover, modern housing and commercial developments.
The railway line with its modern structures support 20th century electrification requirements creates a physical barrier between the asset and the waste facility. The revised siting of the waste processing building would have less of a visual impact on the setting of the designated heritage asset and therefore it will not further vitiate the setting of the north side of the asset.
A condition should be imposed requiring the waste processing building and its associated structures to be painted light grey.
PLACE SERVICES (Urban Design) – No comments with regard urban design.
PLACE SERVICES (Archaeology): No objection
BOWERS GIFFORD & NORTH BENFLEET PARISH COUNCIL: Concerned at the height of wood stockpiles.
PITSEA MOUNT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION: Object on the following grounds:
Page 23 of 176
Noise – particularly outside noise arising from plant eg crusher, screener and shredder and seem to have been underestimated Dust- within the waste processing building has been addressed, but dust from outside activities particularly crushing, seems inadequate and prevailing winds would carry dust to residential areas. Odour – potential for odour depending on nature of waste. Traffic – is already a problem in the area, with restricted access across the weak railway bridge and narrow pedestrian path on this bridge. Traffic waiting for the level crossing can back up and block the access to Brackendale Avenue and Station Approach. The proposals with additional HGV movements would worsen this situation. Since commencement of operation there has been a greater incidence of mud on the road. Location – Pitsea Hall Lane provides access to Wat Tyler Country Park. The area would improve upon closure of Pitsea Landfill, siting a waste facility here will not improve the appearance of the area. Visual – the use is not appropriate on the approach road to a country park, the building is not aesthetically pleasing and the waste stockpiles are visible from Pitsea Hall Lane. Highways – the additional HGV traffic in the last 2 years has resulted in deterioration of the road surface, need for emergency repairs to potholes and deterioration in road signage.
LOCAL MEMBERS – BASILDON – Pitsea - Any comments received will be reported
6. REPRESENTATIONS
362 properties were directly notified of the original application. 12 representations were received including representations from the planning agent for Cromwell Manor, including an independent Heritage Asset Statement, noise assessment, statements from the occupiers/operators of Cromwell Manor, including video footage showing previous dust incidents and seeking to show the existing activities causing vibration in the listed building. The representations raise planning issues relating to the following matters are set out in Appendix A and relate to the following matters:
Traffic and access Impact on PRoW Mud on the road Degradation of surrounding area Noise Dust Light pollution Hours Odour Vermin Impact on wildlife Impact on Setting of Listed Building Impact on viability of business at Cromwell Manor Non-compliance with Policy Landscaping
Page 24 of 176
7. APPRAISAL
The key issues for consideration are:
A. Need, Principle and Location and Emerging Policy Considerations B. Highway Impacts C. Impacts On Public Rights Of Way D. Design, Landscape And Visual Impacts E. Green Belt F. Impacts On Ecology G. Impacts On Local And Residential Amenity H. Impacts On The Historic Environment And Viability Of Cromwell Manor I. Impacts On Hydrology J. Economic Benefits
The issues above will be considered making reference to the considerations and conclusions of the Inspector decision with respect to the appeal against the previous application. The current application is different namely the location of the waste processing building, but there are many similarities to the previous proposals and hence the Inspectors comments and conclusions are relevant.
A NEED, PRINCIPLE, LOCATION AND EMERGING POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
Need, Principle and Location
The National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) encourages waste to be managed as per the principles set out in the waste hierarchy. The waste hierarchy promotes, in this order; prevention of waste; re-use of waste; recycling of waste and then any other recovery. It states that the disposal of waste is the least desirable solution and only suitable when none of the above is appropriate. The NPPW suggests that waste planning authorities should identify appropriate sites for waste development in their waste local plans and in doing so should consider a broad range of locations, including industrial sites. Further discussion with regard to the suitability of the site in context of the locational criteria of Appendix B and relevant policies within the WLP are explored later in this report.
WLP policy W3A (Waste Strategy) identifies the need for proposals to be consistent with the goals and principles of sustainable development and the proximity principle and in these respects is consistent with the NPPW. It also requires proposals to consider whether it represents the best practicable environmental option (BPEO) for the particular waste stream and at that location or whether the proposal would conflict with other options further up the waste hierarchy. However, the need to consider BPEO has been superseded by the NPPW, which no longer requires the consideration of BPEO.
The nature of the waste to be processed and sorted at the site is a mix of Commercial & Industrial waste and of construction and demolition waste, it is therefore appropriate to consider the locational criteria of WLP policies W7E
Page 25 of 176
(Materials Recovery Facilities) and W7D (Inert recycling facilities). WLP policy W7E aims to facilitate the efficient collection and recovery of materials from the waste stream by providing materials recovery facilities and these are supported in appropriate locations, namely those identified in policies W8A and W8B subject to compliance with other relevant development plan policies. WLP policy W7D supports inert waste recycling reducing landfill and the demand for primary aggregates, but similar to WLP policy W7E in appropriate locations, namely those identified in W8A and W8B and subject to no adverse environmental impacts.
Given that the proposal is a recycling operation moving away from the disposal of waste, it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with the principles of the waste hierarchy and in this respect therefore in accordance with NPPW and WLP policies W3A, W7E and W7D.
Principle & Location
With respect to locational policies of the WLP, policy W8A accepts waste management facilities will be permitted in the locations shown in Schedule 1 of the WLP, of which the application site is not one. With respect to the WLP policy W8B (Non Preferred Locations) states inter alia that waste management facilities will be permitted at locations other than those identified in the Waste Local Plan, where they fall in to the following criteria (among others):
Existing general industrial areas; Employment areas (existing or allocated); Areas of degraded, contaminated or derelict land.
However such locations are only acceptable where the proposals meet the requirements of all other relevant policies and in particular do not give rise to adverse environmental effects (these will be explored later in the report). In addition, Policy W8B notes that proposals in the order of 50,000 tonnes per annum will not be permitted unless it is shown that the preferred locations within the WLP are unavailable or unsuitable for the type of development proposed. The current proposals are 49,000tpa, but are considered to be in the order of 50,000tpa and therefore this final requirement is relevant
As to the availability/suitability of the Schedule 1 sites (as set out within the Waste Local Plan) of the 6 sites identified the following comments were made by the applicant:
Rivenhall (WM1), Warren Lane (WM2), Courtauld Road (WM5), and Sandon (WM6) are unavailable as these have existing permissions and/or are already operational; The operator is locally based, so relocating to either Whitehall Road, Colchester (WM3) or North Weald Airfield (WM4) would involve moving an established company, which has links to the area, could prejudice job retention and move away from the waste streams established by the company;
It is considered that the Schedule 1 sites are either not available or are inappropriately located for the proposed development. Cromwell Manor in their Page 26 of 176
representation have challenged this point, but no evidence has been provided to support this argument and this point was not accepted by the Inspector in considering the appeal.
“With regard to the WLP, ECC has accepted that in Essex there is a need for further recycling capacity and also that the Appellant has satisfactorily demonstrated Schedule 1 sites are unavailable or are inappropriately located. I have noted the owners of Cromwell Manor have challenged this point, but to my mind there is insufficient evidence to lead me to a different view. Consequently, I consider the scheme does not conflict with the final clause of WLP Policy W8B.”
Similar to W8B WLP policies W7D (inert waste recycling facilities) and W7E (Materials Recycling Facilities) seek to locate facilities of the scale proposed on industrial land, with the caveat that they do not gives rise to unacceptable adverse environmental impact.
WLP policy W3C seeks to ensure proposals of a capacity of greater than 25,000tpa demonstrate they are meeting a need for waste arising from Essex and Southend. The NPPW requires sufficient provision be made for waste management facilities to cater for local communities, however the NPPW does not require waste management facilities to demonstrate a quantitative or market need for their proposal unless the proposals are not consistent with an up to date Waste Local Plan. Notwithstanding that the Waste Local Plan was adopted in 2001 it is considered to be largely in conformity with the NPPF and NPPW, particularly with respect to the principles of the waste hierarchy and proximity principles. The application is not however, identified as a preferred site within the Waste Local Plan 2001 and as such it is considered appropriate to consider the need for the facility. Representations have been made that there is no need for the development and the fact that Pitsea and Basildon seems to have a disproportionate number of waste facilities (namely Pitsea landfill and the Pitsea Recycling Centre for Household waste and the Mechanical Biological Treatment at Tovi Eco Park (Courtauld Road - treating Local Authority Collected Waste for Essex & Southend). The waste to be treated at the site is mainly a combination of non-organic Commercial and Industrial waste (C & I 60%) and Construction and Demolition waste (C & D 35%). The Waste Capacity Gap Report 20144 notes that the assessment of the quantity of non-organic C & I waste requiring treatment recycling is difficult to assess and the amount of capacity available includes existing landfill capacity and treatment capacity within waste planning permissions that are currently unimplemented. The permission for a facility at Stanway expired on 10 May 2015. The facility at Tovi Eco Park is now operational but most of its capacity is utilised to treat Local Authority Collected Waste. The facility at Rivenhall remains to be implemented; however with its implementation it is estimated there is likely to be a surplus of treatment capacity for non-organic Commercial & Industrial waste, but only if implemented5. It is the case,
4 As the Waste Capacity Gap Report 2014, as part of the evidence base to the emerging Waste Local Plan, has yet to be tested at Examination in Public and therefore it is considered, at the current time, only limited weight can be given to the conclusions within the report. 5 As the Waste Capacity Gap Report 2014, as part of the evidence base to the emerging Waste Local Plan, has yet to be tested at Examination in Public and therefore it is considered, at the current time, only limited weight can be given to the conclusions within the report F
Page 27 of 176
that there are several waste developments, salvage, recycling and transfer stations located in the Untidy Industry areas of Archers Field and Harvey Road, Burnt Mills Industrial Estate. However, despite the number of waste permissions within the Basildon Borough, it is the case that NPPW requires waste facilities to be located in accordance with the proximity principle and facilities are needed to serve the requirements of Basildon.
With respect to Construction, Demolition & Excavation waste the Waste Capacity Report 20146 acknowledges that even looking at the worst and best case scenario the County is likely to have a shortfall in recycling capacity for this type of waste and therefore the proposed facility would contribute to addressing this shortfall.
These assessments of likely future requirements for capacity have been taken into account in the preparation of the Replacement Waste Local Plan: Revised Preferred Approach (RWLP). The RWLP is still in its earlier stages of preparation and as such has little planning weight and therefore the site is required to be considered against the waste policies of the adopted WLP 2001 and NPPW.
The applicant’s existing business is long established at Harvey Road in the Burnt Mills Industrial Estate, and focuses on its centre of operations in the Basildon area, but has the ability to serve the south of Essex due to the transport links. The applicant has identified a need to find new premises as the existing site is now constrained, creating difficulties with day-to-day operations. The existing site is approximately 0.11ha and is constrained on all boundaries and there are currently no vacant larger units within the Burnt Mills Industrial estate. The applicant considers there is no means of expanding the premises and has identified the Terminus Drive site as suitable for the business’s needs as it provides a more functional site, with a greater site area (1.24 hectares) and improved accessibility to the route hierarchy.
In particular, the applicant has stated that the larger site area and capacity would enable new demolition contracts to be established within Essex. With the proposed site being more than 10 times the site of the existing facility at Burnt Mills, the proposed site and building would provide greater inside and outside processing and storage capacity for recovery of recyclable materials.
Industrial locations for waste development are supported by the NPPW “…waste planning authorities should: …consider a broad range of locations including industrial estates…”.
In addition the NPPF supports the effective use of land by reusing land that has previously been developed, provided that it is not of high environmental value. The site was previously a minerals yard.
With respect to BDLP the site is subject to the BDLP policy BAS E2, which states
6 As the Waste Capacity Gap Report 2014, as part of the evidence base to the emerging Waste Local Plan, has yet to be tested at Examination in Public and therefore it is considered, at the current time, only limited weight can be given to the conclusions within the report
Page 28 of 176
3.5 hectares (8.6 acres) of land is allocated for employment purposes in Terminus Drive, Pitsea, subject to the following criteria:- i. The proposal must be subject to a Traffic Impact Assessment. Any improvement to the local highway network required to enable the development to take place, will be expected to be provided by the developer; and ii. The site shall provide for B1 [Business] and B2 [General Industrial] uses.
The highway matters referred to in this policy will be addressed later.
In addition BDLP Policy BAS E6 (Untidy Industry) states:
The development or expansion of untidy industry sites will be permitted in the Harvey Road and Archers Field area of the Burnt Mills Industrial estate, as identified on the Proposals Map. Untidy industry proposals in other locations within the existing industrial areas will be assessed on the basis of their likely effects on nearby uses. Outside of industrial areas untidy industry will not be allowed.
The Inspector in considering the principle of the development with respect to the appealed development stated
“The use is sui generis and therefore it does not fall in Classes B1 or B2. As such, although it may be of a similar character to a Class B2 use it nonetheless conflicts with BDLP Policy BAS E2. However, under the BDLP it is fair to define the Appellant’s scheme as an untidy use, and so while BDLP Policy BAS E6 focuses such industry elsewhere in the district it does not prevent it here, subject to its likely effects.”
Whilst the proposal is in conflict with policy BAS E2, the weight to be given to that conflict needs to be assessed. It should be borne in mind that it was not the role of the BDLP to make provision for waste development (and at the time it was produced in 1998 it was prevented from doing so by the terms of the legislation then in place) and so, even if it had wanted to, it could not have allocated land specifically for waste development. The fact that sui generis waste development is not mentioned in policy BAS E2 is more a reflection of the fact that the BLDP does not deal with waste development than a specific decision to exclude waste development from the site. Also, Policy WB8 of the later WLP recognises that, at least in principle, areas allocated for general industrial use (i.e. B2) can be considered for waste development where the other requirements of the WLP are met. BAS E2 does include B2 uses in its list of permitted uses. Some types of waste processing activities could be B2 even if the present uses are properly seen as sui generis. There is, therefore something of a tension between the BDLP limiting uses on the allocated site to B1 and B2 only and the WLP in this regard. The WLP is the more recently adopted part of the development plan, which should prevail in the event of a conflict. It is therefore considered that only limited weight should be given to the conflict with Policy BAS E2.
The BDLP policy E6 defines “untidy industry” as industrial activities that are not only untidy in appearance but have the potential to cause significant environmental effect.
Page 29 of 176
“Examples of industry which fall into this category include salvage (particularly of metals), recycling, outside storage, and the parking of heavy vehicles. Sites for such industries are typically characterised by their poor visual appearance, noisy work carried out in the open, poor quality buildings, large areas of hardstanding, and nuisance creating atmospheric discharges (such as smoke and oil).” It is acknowledged that the application includes recycling, outside storage and the parking of heavy vehicles, which are “untidy” activities and the applicant’s existing business is located within the Archers Field and Burnt Mills Industrial Estate. However, for reasons set out earlier, there is no the opportunity to expand or relocate to larger premises within the Archers Field and Burnt Mills Industrial Estate. The applicant has therefore, identified this employment area identified for industrial use (as designated by policy BAS E2) as their preferred option.
Basildon Borough Council has objected on the grounds that such an “untidy” activity should remain within the Burnt Mills Estate, but as explained above no suitable site is available within the preferred industrial estate. Policy BAS E6 permits “untidy” industry in “other locations within the existing industrial areas”. The appeal Inspector took the view that under Policy BAS E6 “other industrial areas (which presumably include land allocated for employment use)” could be considered, subject to their effects on nearby uses. The objection from Basildon Borough Council, considers the proposal is contrary to policy BAS E6, and states that “Locations outside of these areas will be assessed on their impact on nearby uses. Outsides of industrial areas untidy uses will not be allowed. The proposed use is considered an untidy use and the adverse impact on the character and amenities of the locality could not be satisfactorily mitigated… and therefore should not be permitted outside any area specifically designated for untidy uses. While it is appreciated that BBC does not consider the impacts can be mitigated its objection does not rely upon the fact that the site not allocated as an “an industrial area”, only that it does not consider the impacts can be mitigated and therefore should be located in an area designated for untidy uses. BBC therefore seems to be taking a similar view to the appeal Inspector that under Policy BAS E6 the site can be regarded as a location within an industrial area (because it is allocated for employment) rather than as an area which is wholly outside of an industrial area. This also reflects the position on the ground (leaving aside the currently unauthorised use) because of the presence of the fencing manufacturing activity in the building to the east of the application site. Although Policy BAS E6 is not as clear as it might be on the point, this would appear to be a sensible interpretation of the policy having regard to its purpose to restrict untidy industry to industrial areas.
The adverse impacts and their mitigation is discussed further later in the report, but with respect to the principle of development it is not considered that waste development is precluded from the Terminus Drive site by virtue of policy BAS E6, subject to the impacts of the development being adequately mitigated. The Inspector in determining the appeal also concluded similarly.
“Accordingly I conclude that the principle of the use does not conflict with the policies in the WLP. Furthermore, BDLP Policy BAS E6 does not raise objections to the principle of the use here though the works are in conflict with BDLP Policy BAS E2.”
Page 30 of 176
While it is recognised that the Inspector considered there was conflict with policy BAS E2, the weight to be given to this conflict is discussed above and limited weight should be given to the breach of BAS E2 in the context of a proposal for sui generis waste development..
It is therefore considered in principle that the proposed location meets the locational criteria of, W8B, W7D and W7E, BAS E6 and the NPPW and the conflict with BAS E2 is outweighed. It is considered that there is a need for the facility in accordance with W3C. Overall, it is concluded that the principle of development is in accordance with the development plan as a whole.
Emerging Policy Considerations
The NPPF (paragraph 216) states that decision takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans. As such, the Basildon emerging core strategy carried out its revised preferred options consultation in April 2014 and produced a Statement of Consultation in September 2014 and the Replacement Waste Local plan is at Revised Preferred Approach stage and consultation carried out in July 2015 currently considering the consultation responses. These documents are at too earlier stage in the preparation to be given any weight.
However, it is acknowledged that within Basildon’s core strategy there are key areas noted for Primary Areas for Development and Change (PADC). In all three the Spatial Growth Options scenarios, the Terminus Drive area is located within the urban PADC, while the Policy PADC13 relates to the South Essex Marshes seeks to improve and transform the Marshes into a publicly accessible Thameside wilderness, connected to nature reserves in neighbouring districts and boroughs. The policies in combination aim to regenerate and improve the amenity and enjoyment of Pitsea and its surrounding areas, with this area providing a ‘Gateway’ to Pitsea and the rural environment to the south. Representations have raised concerns that efforts to improve the appearance of Pitsea and Wat Tyler Country Park would be undermined by placing a waste recycling facility on the gateway to the Marshes area, discouraging visitors to Wat Tyler County Park and the RSPB Vange Marsh Reserve. It must be remembered that the site has been designated for B1 and B2 such that business/industrial development was likely in this area in any event and there are other existing industrial activities along Pitsea Hall Lane and within the Marshes area itself which would remain.
The Inspector with respect to the appeal, although the building was at that time proposed further east, concluded with respect to the effect on the wider landscape as follows:
“The site layout plan shows no landscaping along the southern side of the site. However, mindful of the proposed height restrictions, the effect of the railway, the generally urban nature of the landscape and the planting on the southern side of the railway, the absence of this planting would not cause harm to the character or appearance of the landscape beyond. Moreover, as the site is tucked away I consider it would not adversely affect the junction of Pitsea with the rural environment and the country park to the south.”
Page 31 of 176
It is therefore considered, with the building located further west, the impact on the route to the Marshes would be less and therefore acceptable.
With regard to the Waste Development Document: Preferred Approach it should be noted that the Terminus Drive site was not submitted as part of the call for sites. The representation from Cromwell Manor has raised the matter of prematurity. It is anticipated that the Pre-Submission Draft will be published in Feb 2016, but no date is set for an Examination in Public and therefore it is considered that in view of its early stage in preparation very little weight can be given to the emerging policies and determination of the application could not be delayed until the outcome of the plan and should be considered against the current Development Plan. The Planning Practice Guidance advises at paragraph 014 of ID21b that prematurity is unlikely to be a justified basis for refusal unless a draft plan is at an advanced stage and the prejudice relates to something that is central to the plan. Neither condition is satisfied here.”
In conclusion, it is considered that the proposals in terms of moving waste up the hierarchy and its location meet the principles and objectives of the NPPF, NPPW and WLP W3A, W7D and W7E. It is considered that it has been suitably demonstrated that there is a need to relocate from the existing premises on Burnt Mills Industrial Estate and that further capacity for the treatment of non-organic C & I waste and C, D & E waste would see waste managed further up the waste hierarchy.
The proposal is located on a proposed employment area including industrial uses and an area of previously used land. It therefore complies with the locational criteria as set out in W8B, W7D and W7E. In addition it has been suitably demonstrated that the WLP schedule 1 sites are not available or feasible. Although, policy BAS E6 directs untidy industry to the Burnt Mills Industrial Estate, it has been satisfactorily evidenced that there is no opportunity to expand or relocate to larger premises within the untidy industrial areas and therefore it is necessary to consider the context of “other locations within existing industrial areas…assessed on the basis of their likely effects on nearby uses.”, which are considered later within the report. It is acknowledged that the Inspector considered there to be conflict with BDLP policy BAS E2, but this conflict is outweighed for the reasons already indicated above.
The NPPF states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. There are 3 dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. Having concluded that there is in principle a need for the facility and the location in principle is acceptable, it is now appropriate to consider the various environmental and social impacts of the proposal.
B HIGHWAY IMPACTS
The NPPF states, at paragraph 29, that transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives. Continuing at paragraph 32 it is suggested all decisions should take account of whether: the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been explored; safe and suitable access can be achieved for all; and if improvements can be undertaken within the transport network to limit any significant
Page 32 of 176
impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe. The NPPF also requires the suitability of site for waste development to be assessed for the suitability including taking account of the capacity of the existing and potential transport infrastructure to support the sustainable movement of waste, and products arising from resource recovery. This is reiterated in the NPPW requiring the WPA to consider “the suitability of the road network and the extent to which access would require reliance on local roads, the rail network and transport links to ports.”
WLP policy W4C (Access) details that access for waste management sites will normally be by short length of existing road to the main highway network, consisting of regional routes, and county/urban distributor, via a suitable existing junction, improved if required to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority.
In addition, BDLP policy BAS E2 (Proposed Employment Area), requires any proposal for Terminus Drive to be subject to a Traffic Impact Assessment. Any improvement to the local highway network required to enable the development to take place, will be expected to be provided by the developer. Policy BAS E10 (General Employment Policy) specifically considers proposals against the following highway criteria:
The surrounding roads must be adequate to accommodate the increase in vehicle traffic generated; Developments should relate to the primary road network without using residential estate roads; Adequate car parking should be provided in accordance with the Council's Car Parking Standards; Adequate servicing and turning areas should be provided on the site in accordance with the Council's Highway Standards; Provision for the landscaping and screening of buildings and storage areas with a landscaping strip abutting all highways will normally have a minimum width of 5 metres to be retained at all times.
The access would consist of the existing access onto Pitsea Hall Lane, via Terminus Drive, which is currently used by the occupier of the industrial premises to the east of the proposed site and would be shared with the proposed development. Pitsea Hall Lane links to a grade separate roundabout junction with the A13 and therefore the access is considered to conform with WLP policy W4C.
There have been a number of objections made with regard to the traffic and highways implications of this proposal. The objections specifically relate to the following:
Does not comply with Policy BAS E2 due to infrastructure requirements and that the site is inappropriate due to the large number of HGVs; Local Infrastructure is insufficient (particularly the railway bridge) for any increase in HGVs given Pitsea Hall Lane is the sole access to (and the close proximity of) the landfill and Recycling Centre for Household waste;
Page 33 of 176
Increased damage to the highway network, including greater occurrence of potholes and collapsed and blocked drains Increased congestion through increased HGV movements in proximity to the restricted width railway bridge, level crossing, and railway station access and car park and access points to Pitsea Mount residential area, all contributing to more congestion, including from vehicles queuing for the level crossing; Access is unsuitable as it is narrow, of temporary configuration and used as a Public Right of Way (see below for further consideration in to the PRoW); Increased mud and debris on the Highway due to the nature of the site and that the access is not metaled;
Basildon Borough Council has objected partly on the grounds that Pitsea Hall Lane is inadequate to accommodate the additional HGV traffic.
A transport statement was submitted and has been subject of consultation with the Highway Authority and Highway Agency and no objection with respect to highway safety and capacity has been raised. The Highway Authority did not require a Highways Impact Assessment and notes that the access to the site serving a storage and distribution use, which is akin to the proposed development, does not conflict with the Highway Authority’s Policies DM1 or DM4 and that there is good accident record in the immediate vicinity. It also notes that there would be a comparatively low increase in HGV movements (100 HGV movements a day) over the railway bridge and no overall increase of HGVs using the level crossing; as there would be no greater residual waste being transported to Pitsea Landfill (Total HGV movements to Pitsea Landfill are limited by condition). Despite the requirements of policy BDLP BAS E2, the Highway Authority has sought no contribution to improvements to the railway bridge.
The transport statement notes that the installation of a pedestrian bridge over the railway is provided for as part of a legal obligation associated with last planning permission for Pitsea Landfill, to improve pedestrian access as the current footpath is very narrow. However the WPA is aware that provision of this bridge has been delayed, due to the technical approvals required from Network Rail.
The site has in part been operational during the consideration of this application, however certain elements of the proposals have not been implemented, including surfacing of Terminus Drive to Pitsea Hall Lane and surfacing internal haul road, surfacing is required by the Highway Authority and would be required by condition and would largely address those concerns raised with respect to mud on the road and blocking of drains. The Highway Authority also required conditions with respect to parking and circulation to minimise any potential impacts and this would be inconformity with BDLP policy BAS E10.
The proposed vehicular and cycle parking provision meets the requirements of the parking standards.
In view of the considerable local concern and to further ensure that the scale of operations is controlled, a condition could be imposed restricting the number of HGV movements, if planning permission was granted, in the interests of protecting the
Page 34 of 176
highway networks efficiency and ensuring compliance with WLP policy W4C and BDLP policy BE10 and such a condition is supported by the Highways Authority.
Concern has been raised as to the impact of additional traffic on air quality; the County’s air quality consultant has advised that the additional HGV would not result in a significant detrimental impact on air quality. It is also noted in the transport statement that due to the proposed location staff will be encouraged to use sustainable forms of transport, such as cycling or by public transport. With regards to waste vehicles, it is noted that the relocation of this operation from Burnt Mills Industrial Estate would result in a shorter distance (and therefore a reduction in emissions) for any residual waste being sent to Pitsea landfill.
Within the transport statement it is noted that currently, there is a vehicular and pedestrian gate and concrete blocks impeding vehicular access to the vacant land to the north of Terminus Drive and indeed for maintenance of the A13. These obstructions appear to have been erected to restrict unauthorised access on to the vacant land at the end of Terminus Drive. The applicant proposes surfacing Terminus Drive from the site to Pitsea Hall Lane and marking with lines the route of the Public Right of Way. Previously a gate across Terminus Drive was suggested, but this would conflict with accessibility to the PRoW and is on land outside the applicant’s control.
Network Rail has not objection to the proposals, but highlighted a number of matters that any users of land adjacent to railway line, this information has been passed to the applicant and an informative could be added to any decision.
While concerns has been raised with respect to the impact of additional HGV traffic on congestion in the area, without an objection from the Highway Authority, refusal on highway grounds would not be warranted. This was also the conclusion of the Planning Inspector as set out below and the proposals have not changed in terms of vehicles numbers or access arrangements.
“Consequently I am not satisfied that the effect on the highway network is a reason to resist the development.”
It is considered that subject to the conditions and informatives discussed above the proposals would in accordance with the NPPF, NPPW, WLP policy W4C. It is considered the proposals with respect to highways matters are not contrary to Basildon policies BAS E2 and BAS E10 because there would be a comparatively low increase in HGV movements over the railway bridge and no net increase movements over the level crossing and the Highway Authority has raised no objections.
C IMPACTS ON PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY
The NPPF requires decision takers to protect and enhance Public Rights of Way (PRoWs) and access, by seeking opportunities to provide better facilities.
WLP Policy W10G (Public Rights of Way) states that applications should include measures to safeguard and where practicable improve the Public Rights of Way
Page 35 of 176
(PRoW) network. Any works to improve/safeguard the PRoW shall be implemented prior to any development commencing.
Adjacent to the northern and western boundary of the proposed site is PRoW Basildon 136. This public footpath follows the line of Terminus Drive, linking Pitsea Hall Lane to Vange and the Marshes Area and is used by commuters walking to Pitsea Railway Station. The application details that the PRoW would be retained, but the access to the site would share Terminus Drive with the footpath at its eastern end, where it joins Pitsea Hall Lane.
It is understood there is no definitive line within Terminus Drive for the alignment of the footpath, so the applicant proposes that the footpath would remain in its current position and a 2 metre wide area would be delineated by lining on the ground.
Representations have been made which raise concern that footpath might be lost or obstructed and safety concerns of using the current access from this PRoW on to Pitsea Hall Lane, as this area would be used for large vehicles accessing the site. It is acknowledged that the proposals would increase the intensity of vehicular use on this part of Terminus Drive, thus potentially affecting the PRoW, but this would be likely with any use of this employment area. However, the proposals would not obstruct the PRoW, in fact the improved surfacing of the access and delineation of the PRoW are likely to be an improvement on the current arrangement. The adjacent existing industrial development to the east of the application site (and incorporating Primrose Villa - 93/00004/FUL) currently uses part of Terminus Drive for parking and storage of materials and the provision of linage would hopefully discourage parking/storage along the PRoW route.
Concern has been raised that use of the path to the Marshes and Wat Tyler Country Park would be less appealing due to the waste recycling facility, particularly due to the height of stockpiles adjacent to the footpath; control of stockpile heights would be limited to 4m this is discussed more fully later in the report. It must be remembered that the land is designated for B1 and B8 use, such the commercial activity was always likely in the vicinity of the path.
Objection has been raised as to the impact of dust and potentially windblown waste, particularly wood on the users of the footpath. Suppression of dust is proposed as part of the application and is discussed more fully later. As to windblown litter and wood, stockpiles would be required to be limited to 4m and the application proposes retaining walls to height of 3m adjacent to the footpath with netting to a height of 1.5m high to minimise escape of litter and wood from the site. It should be noted that the operator to date has undertaken litter picking, not all of the litter has been generated by the applicants’ operations and also had voluntarily installed a litter bin at the end of Terminus Drive to assist users of the path, however it was stolen.
The landscaping proposed on the northern boundary of the site and the waste transfer building itself would screen views into the site.
Essex Highways (Public Rights of Way) does not object to the proposal as the PRoW Basildon 136 would be retained, while a 2 metre wide area is to be delineated as the PRoW, the public access rights for footpath status would still subsist across
Page 36 of 176
the full width of Terminus Drive. It is considered that to ensure the proposed delineation is undertaken a condition is attached (if permission is granted) to ensure appropriate signage and linage is carried out and maintained throughout the life of the development.
The Inspector in considering the PRoW concluded
“As that footpath passes through an area allocated for employment purposes its character is bound to change if and when the area is developed. In any event, except for when behind the WP building a 5m planting strip is proposed in the appeal site adjacent to these boundaries, and this would be a suitable response to this right of way.”
It is therefore considered that subject to the surfacing, linage and signage of PRoW, there would not be significant harm to the existing right of way and that proposal is consistent with WLP Policy W10G, as it safeguards the existing PRoW. In addition that mitigation measures to control dust and litter would minimise impact upon users of the footpath and the retaining walls and stockpile height limits would ensure that operations would not endanger users of the footpath. It would also comply with the NPPF as there would be no net loss of PRoWs.
D DESIGN, LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS
The NPPF emphasises the importance of good design within proposals, at paragraph 56, that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development; it is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people while considering the functionality of the proposals. Whilst planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes, stifle innovation, originality or initiative it is proper to reinforce local distinctiveness. Paragraph 61 of the NPPF goes on to detail that although visual appearance and architecture of buildings are very important factors, securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. The NPPF also requires the planning system to “…contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: protecting and enhancing valued landscapes…”. The NPPW also requires waste management facilities to be “...well-designed, so that they contribute positively to the character and quality of the area in which they are located;…”
The supporting text to BDLP policy BAS E2 states that “Extensive landscaping should be provided and retained to soften the visual impact of any developments on the surrounding areas particularly Pitsea Marshes.”
BDLP policy BAS E10 (General Employment Policy) specifically considers proposals against the following criteria:
Provision for the landscaping and screening of buildings and storage areas with a landscaping strip abutting all highways will normally have a minimum width of 5 metres to be retained at all times; The design, form, scale, and materials of the development will be expected to be appropriate and sympathetic to neighbouring developments, particularly adjacent to residential areas.
Page 37 of 176
WLP policy W8A which sets out the criteria for consideration of waste management facilities by way of Policy W8B requires inter alia buildings and structures are of a high standard of design, with landscaping and screening provided as necessary.
WLP policy W10E (Development Management) states that waste management development will be permitted where satisfactory provision is made in respect of the effect of the development on the landscape and the countryside. The supporting text to WLP policy W10E (paragraph 10.12) of the policy specifically notes that landscaping and design (including siting, design and colour treatment of the elevations) can ameliorate impact, and requires a high standard of design and landscaping to minimise visual impact. It also notes that consideration will need to be taken to the metropolitan Green Belt.
With respect to design the waste processing building is industrial and functional in appearance. The waste processing building is currently goosewing grey. East of the waste processing building would be the three modular buildings, a two storey modular building in dark blue as offices/mess facilities and a white mess building, equally functional in nature. However, it has to be remembered that this area is designated for B1 and B2 use and industrial buildings of this nature are not unusual for such sites. There is already an industrial building east of the site (grey with red trim), but it is acknowledged that the proposed building would be larger than this existing building.
The application is supported by a landscape and visual assessment originally prepared for the previous application and now updated to reflect the revised layout of the proposals.
In landscape terms the waste processing building is the element of the proposal that would be visible within the landscape. The applicant’s landscape assessment notes that the proposals would lead to a slight intensification of urban/industrial development on the northern fringe of the marshland. The Marshland is not subject of any statutory designation with respect to landscape, but is identified as the Marshes Area within the Basildon Local Plan. The Marshes Area policy seeks to prevent development within the Marshes that would “…cause harm to the landscape, the open and rural character...” It is noted by the applicant’s landscape consultant the sensitivity of receptors on the Marsh i.e. that is users of the footpath within the marsh is high due to its importance for nature conservation and potential as a publically accessible natural space, but the visual and landscape impact is considered moderate to minor as the landscape is considered tolerant of change. Once again it must be remembered that the area has been allocated for employment uses and industrial buildings of the proposed type were always a possibility in this location.
In terms of visual effects the applicant’s visual assessment identifies various potential receptors:
Local residents in Chestnut Road flats Visitors to Cromwell Manor Walkers on the footpath along the northern edge of the site Page 38 of 176
Walkers exploring the marshes to the south-west People moving about in the urban area along Pitsea Hall Lane and around Pitsea Station People travelling on the A13 Pitsea flyover Train travellers on the southern railway line
The applicant’s visual assessment notes there would be significant change in view for those users of the footpath running along the north of the site. However, this route within an employment area cannot be considered to be rural walk and thus the impact is only considered moderate. Views from residential flats from the north east would view of the site through the pillars of the A13 flyover and there is existing vegetation round the flats and car parks. Concern has been raised by local residents of the visual impact of the development on both views from the flats to the north west, users of the footpath and users of the A13. Along the northern boundary, where there are to be stockpiles, a 3m high retaining wall is proposed. In order to minimise the visual impact of the stockpiles, the stockpile heights would be limited to 4m high. Along the northern boundary of the site a hedge with hedgerow trees is proposed, this vegetation would in time screen the retaining wall and the tops of the stockpiles, softening views of the site from the flats and footpath.
Both roads users of the A13 and the train users were considered by the applicants’ visual assessment to have low sensitivity as the views are transient and expected in an urban environment. People moving about along Pitsea Hall Lane and around station were also considered to have a low sensitivity, the area not being attractive and the proposals being behind other industrial development.
It was acknowledged the walker exploring the Marshes would have a higher sensitivity to a change in the visual setting, but the waste processing building would be viewed through the intervening trees and shrubs and was concluded to only have a moderate impact.
With respect to views from the grounds of Cromwell Manor, these are not public views, as such only those attending events at the Cromwell Manor would experience these views. There is a brick wall (approx. 2m high) on the northern boundary of the Cromwell Manor west of the manor building itself. The tops of large vehicles arriving at the site would be visible over this wall. The relocation of the waste processing building to the west means that the building and stockpiles of wood and inert materials would not be visible from the grounds in front of Cromwell Manor.
The top of the waste processing building would be visible within the Cromwell Manor car park as are the existing railway gantries. However, the car park is screened when arriving at the grounds to Cromwell Manor by existing planting, which would also screen views of the waste processing building and outside stockpiles.
Concern has been raised by the owners and operators of Cromwell Manor on the visual impact of the waste facility in general, due to the dirty and untidy nature, which it is considered by the objector, would have a visual impact on visitors as they arrive at the Manor. It is acknowledged by the Agent for Cromwell Manor that the revised location of the waste processing building reduces the visual impact of the building. However, Cromwell Manor remains concerned as to the visual impact of the outside Page 39 of 176
storage and storing of waste to be located to the east and west of the waste processing building. The storage areas would not be visible from the frontage of the Cromwell Manor and only in winter from within the car park when there was no foliage on vegetation on the north boundary of the car park. Users of the car park would only be in the car park for limited periods and therefore not considered a sensitive receptor location. The stockpiles are visible from the bedroom windows of the residential flat located on the second floor of Cromwell Manor. But the views include the railway line and all its associated cables, gantry etc. the A13 flyover and the existing industrial buildings associated with the fencing business. It is considered the views from the Cromwell Manor second floor flat are already of an urbanised and industrial in nature and would not be significantly adversely affected by the proposals and it must be remembered the land is allocated for B1 and B2 and therefore some further urbanisation was likely if the site is to be developed.
A marquee is located adjacent to and on the west side of Cromwell Manor. However, planning permission for the marquee was refused by Basildon Borough Council in March 2014 and an appeal dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate such that the marquee is required to be removed.
Basildon Borough Council object to the proposals on the basis that the proposals are an untidy use in area not designated for untidy uses and the adverse impact of the use on the character and amenities of the locality could not be mitigated, particularly that the proposals do not provide landscaping to mitigate against the visual impact and therefore contrary to BAS E10. As discussed above landscaping is proposed on the northern and western boundary in terms of hedge and trees. Place Services (Landscape) note that if the Waste Planning Authority is mindful to grant planning permission, then a condition should require a detailed landscaping scheme for the proposed hedge and hedgerow trees, including locations and species mix to be submitted. The soil conditions in the area proposed for planting are currently poor and if planning permission were granted a condition to ensure appropriate planting conditions are provided for the planting and protection of planting and requirement for a landscape management plan to ensure its successful establishment could be imposed. Ideally additional landscaping would be provided on the southern boundary of the site adjacent to the railway line, but a strip of land adjacent to the railway line is required to be kept clear of permanent features to allow access by Network Rail to the railway line and thus planting cannot be provided and this will always be the case regardless of the nature of any proposed development on the site. Planting could be provided on the northern boundary of Cromwell Manor, but this land is not in the applicants’ control.
As mentioned previously mentioned the Inspector in considering the effect on the wider landscape concluded “as the site is tucked away I consider it would not adversely affect the junction of Pitsea with the rural environment and the country park to the south”.
On balance, it is considered that although the proposal does result in some landscape and visual impact, which cannot be fully mitigated due to the constraints on the southern boundary of the site, the site is within a designated proposed employment area (policy BAS E2). It is considered that the proposal (subject to appropriate conditions regarding hedge/tree planting and colour of the building)
Page 40 of 176
would have minimal impact on the landscape character of the area and would not result in significant adverse visual impact to warrant the refusal of planning permission and therefore not contrary to WLP W10E and BAS E10.
E GREEN BELT
The NPPF seeks to protect the Green Belt and enhance its use including for recreation and amenity. There has been a specific objection noting the proposal could adversely affect the visual amenities of the Green Belt (containing the Pitsea Marshes). However, this site is not located within the Green Belt the railway line defines the boundary of the Green Belt (the railway line being within the Green Belt) between the rural marshes to the south and the urban built environment to the north. It is acknowledged that the upper sections of the waste processing building would be visible from the Marshes, but in the context of the existing urban development including the A13 flyover and railway infrastructure it is not considered there would be a significant loss of amenity to users of the footpath within the Green Belt and it must be remembered the area north of the railway line is designated for B1 and B2 use. It is also considered for the same reasons the proposals would not have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt and therefore the proposals are in accordance with the NPPF and WLP policy W10E.
F IMPACTS ON ECOLOGY
One of the three main strands of sustainability (according to the NPPF) is environmental sustainability, which considers that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment. As part of this, decision takers must protect and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services; minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity. The NPPF also supports the effective use of land by reusing land that has previously been developed, provided that it is not of high environmental value.
The Basildon Local Plan through policy BAS C1 seeks to protect nationally and internationally designated sites, but is silent on general biodiversity, , and therefore relies on national policy. Similarly, WLP policy W10E only considers ecologically designated sites and similar protection for designated sites is set out within Appendix B of the NPPW, thus the NPPF is the most up to date guidance.
The development would not result in any direct impacts upon designated sites as the railway line provides a physical barrier to the Marshes land to the south which is subject of national and local designations.
The application included an extended phase 1 habitat survey and a Reptile Survey for the site itself. In summary, both noted the site consisted of an expanse of bare/disturbed ground bordered by banks of tall grass and ruderal vegetation. The survey was undertaken after the site had been cleared but the clearance work was not undertaken by the applicant, but unfortunately some biodiversity interest may have been lost. The survey identified two SSSIs, Wat Tyler Country Park and five Local Wildlife Sites (LoWS) within 500m of the site boundary of the site. It did not identify any areas of importance for protected/notable species or habitats. There
Page 41 of 176
was found to be a low population of slowworm and common lizard on the railway embankment due to the proximity of Vange Creek Marshes LoWS 20m to the south of the site. A translocation program was not considered necessary as this area is not proposed for development but did suggest that a temporary (Heras fencing) barrier is installed along the length of the bank on the south of the site to prevent vehicle movements in areas of favourable reptile habitat and prior to operation installing reflective bollards. This protection would be secured by condition if planning permission was granted.
Place Services (Ecology) has no objection. As some ecological value may have been lost through clearance of the site prior to submission of the original application in 2012, it is therefore required that any landscaping should seek to encourage biodiversity and as such a condition requiring details of the hedgerow mix would be imposed, if planning permission were granted, requiring the planting to include species identified in the ECC Tree Planting Palette and 40% flowering shrubs to support bumble bees, which are common in the surrounding area.
The Inspector in considering ecology concluded:
“Having regard to the submitted surveys and the responses of the various statutory consultees, I have no reason to consider that any effect on these aspects could not be adequately addressed by condition.”
It is therefore, considered that subject to the imposition of the suggested conditions, that the development would not have an adverse impact on biodiversity and therefore is not contrary to the NPPF, NPPW and in accordance with WLP policy W10E and BDLP Bas C1.
G IMPACTS ON LOCAL AND RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
The NPPF aims to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location, in so doing consider whether the development would be an acceptable use of land. It does qualify this by stating that local authorities should consider that pollution regime control regimes will operate effectively. The NPPW requires consideration of sensitive receptors in considering the location of waste management facilities, with respect to dust, odours, noise light and vibration.
Whilst the proposal may in principle comply with WLP policies W8B, W7D and W7E, in terms of location and land use, all these policies are caveated by “provided the development complies with all other relevant policies of this plan; and does not cause unacceptable harm to the environment or residential amenity by virtue of noise, dust or heavy traffic”. A position supported in policy terms by WLP policy W10E which, inter-alia, states developments will only be permitted where satisfactory provision is made in respect of the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, particularly from noise, smell and dust.
Additionally within the NPPW the locational criteria for consideration when determining waste applications refers to the need to consider dust, odours, vermin
Page 42 of 176
and birds, noise, light and vibration in particular “the proximity of sensitive receptors” and the extent to which these matters can be appropriately controlled.
Policy W10F (Hours of Operation) within the WLP states that where appropriate the Waste Planning Authority will impose a condition restricting the hours of operation, as appropriate with regard to local amenity and the nature of the operation.
The proposed hours of operation are 07:00 to 17:30 (Monday to Friday), 07:00 to 13:00 (Saturdays) with no work taking place on Sundays and/or Bank Holidays. While within industrial areas hours of operation restrictions would not normally be imposed, conditions could be applied if the proposal is granted to restrict working hours. In considering the previous application, Members suggested to restrict the use of especially noisy plant and equipment to only operate after 8:00am Monday to Friday and not at all on Saturdays, to minimise the impact on local amenity and the wedding venue use at Cromwell Manor. While there is a residential flat in the Manor the regular passing of trains and HGV traffic on Pitsea Hall Lane to Pitsea Landfill means there is some existing noise at 7am and a later start of 8am would not benefit the use of the Manor as an event venue as events are unlikely to start this early, thus such a restriction is not considered justified. Saturday is a popular day for weddings and events and thus restriction on use of the crusher and shredder which would be operated outside would be justified. Should permission be granted such conditions could be imposed.
During the consideration of this application, as said, the applicants have occupied the site, and carried out outside storage and sorting of wood waste and have utilised the modular offices and weighbridge, although the unlawful use of the site should not have any bearing on consideration of the application.
There have been complaints with respect dust, height of stockpiles and vibrations from plant since the unlawful commencement of operations at the site. Representations made in response to this application have included concerns with respect to, dust, noise, light pollution, odour, vibration and unsightliness of the site, including photographic evidence of such.
Noise: The application was supported by a noise assessment. The proposals include the creation of storage bays such that, the along the northern boundary the bays would be 3m high with internal dividing walls 4m high. In addition a 3m high wall south of the skip storage area, near the site entrance is proposed. In addition as previously mentioned the applicant has proposed that nosier plant, namely the screener, crusher and trommel would not be operated at the same time. Concern has been raised by both ECC’s noise consultant and agents on behalf of Cromwell Manor as to the methodology of the noise assessment. Further clarification was required and further consultation undertaken with County’s noise consultant and Cromwell Manor. ECC’s noise consultant having received this further information from the applicant and taking into account the comments from Cromwell Manor has raised no objection. The County’s noise consultant considers that, subject to implementation of the proposed noise attenuation measures, it has been demonstrated that development should not give rise to an adverse impact from noise, with respect to the use of Cromwell Manor as an event venue, and upon the residential amenity of occupiers of the 2nd floor residential flat within Cromwell Manor
Page 43 of 176
and other residential properties including those north west of the site. However, ECC’s noise consultant has suggested that noise monitoring would be required upon commencement of operation; with provision for additional mitigation measures should the predicted noise levels be exceeded.
It is acknowledge that Cromwell Manor is a sensitive receptor with respect to noise, but it also must be acknowledged that the Manor is located 10m south of the mainline railway from London to Southend/Shoeburyness a double track with regular train services and just west of Pitsea Hall Lane used by HGV traffic. However, despite these activities the Inspector did comment from his visit that “I am aware though that the boundary to Pitsea Hall Lane is well-screened, and although I was at Cromwell Manor for a while during my visit, I did not find the passing traffic to be intrusive either visually or in any other sense. Similarly the uses to the east of the lane were not apparent. Whilst I accept this situation may change in the winter months when the trees offer less of a visual barrier…” It is considered, subject to the conditions suggested above and the requirement for regular noise monitoring to show compliance with the maximum noise levels, that planning permission could not be refused on grounds of noise and therefore the proposals accord with the NPPF, NPPW, WLP policies and BAS E6.
Dust/Air Quality: The applicant has submitted a dust assessment. The assessment details that: all wastes would arrive at the site in sheeted containers; dust on the access road could be managed by regular mechanical sweeping of the access road or spraying the access road with water, thus preventing dust leaving the site. This water would be collected by way of an onsite drainage system to prevent risk of pollution. Basildon Borough Council and other representations have objected due to harm to residential amenity by reason of dust. Dust complaints have been received in relation to activities at the site since its commencement from Cromwell Manor, the car park business to the north and local residents. Dust has been an issue at the site during WPA site monitoring visits; however the proposed dust suppressions measures have not been fully implemented.
The operator has currently implemented temporary dust suppression measures (as the development is not authorised), namely wetting of stockpiles and haul roads to minimise dust. The proposal includes, surfacing of circulation areas, such that they could be mechanically swept, a permanent spray system both in and outside the waste processing building to suppress dust, including wetting circulation areas and stockpiles, the exact details of which could be secured by condition.
With respect to potential pollution from the additional traffic, the County’s Air Quality Consultant has advised that local levels of Nitrogen Oxide are within acceptable limits and the limited additional traffic is unlikely to result in a significant detriment to these levels.
It is considered subject to the measures proposed that dust could be controlled such that there would not be significant adverse impact upon the residents in flats to the north west or users of the footpath. It is acknowledged that Cromwell Manor is a sensitive receptor with respect to dust due the nature of its business and is in close proximity to the site. However, the dustier waste activities would be located to the west end of the site away from the Cromwell Manor building. It is considered subject
Page 44 of 176
to conditions requiring installation and maintenance of the proposed dust suppression in and outside the waste processing building; there are no grounds to withhold planning permission due to the adverse impacts of dust.
Vibration: Objection has been raised by Cromwell Manor with respect to the impacts of vibration on both the structural condition of the Listed Building and the impact on residential amenity and the wedding venue business. The application was accompanied by a vibration survey which has assessed the vibration impact of the HGV traffic associated with the business. The County’s vibration consultant has confirmed that the HGV traffic associated with the development and the sample operation of the tracked vehicle indicate that the development would not give rise to vibration that is likely to cause structural damage to the building or adversely affect the residents and or users of the wedding venue. The assessment did not include an assessment of use of plant, namely the tracked 360º machine, in the area opposite Cromwell Manor. The reason for this omission is the applicant has confirmed that, while the tracked plant had previously been used in this area, apart from construction and maintenance the area adjacent to Cromwell Manor would no longer be regularly used by the tracked vehicle. The area opposite Cromwell Manor is proposed for a combination of parking, storage of skips and circulation area for vehicles arriving and leaving the site. The vibration assessment has shown that the levels are well below those that would give rise to structural damage to the listed building and would be unlikely to be detected within the residential/wedding venue. A condition, if approved, could be imposed to ensure the tracked vehicle is not used in the area opposite Cromwell Manor (except for construction and maintenance) and the applicant has indicated a willingness for such a condition. In addition vibration monitoring would be required, if planning permission were approved, to confirm that vibration levels are within acceptable limits.
In considering vibration as part of the appeal the Inspector concluded “…controlling the operations on the site and the equipment used with a condition means vibration need not be unacceptable for those using and living in Cromwell Manor.”
Lighting: The proposals includes a lighting scheme for outside areas namely in areas to be used for circulation of vehicles and staff parking. The application has been submitted with a lighting assessment and has demonstrated there would no adverse impact from the proposed lighting on surrounding uses including the railway line and Cromwell Manor. Concern has been raised that the lighting scheme proposes inadequate lighting and does not meet BS guidance for lighting and thus additional lighting is likely to be required. The County’s lighting consultant has reviewed the lighting scheme and considers the assessment has been carried out appropriately and as proposed would not result in adverse light pollution. The County’s lighting consulted considered that there is already existing lighting from the A13 flyover and street lights. It is noted that the proposed light levels are low, but the BS levels are only guidance and it is the responsibility of the operator to ensure the safety of his staff. The lighting assessment does note that there may need to be some additional lighting in the area of the weighbridge as vehicles may cause shadows.
Page 45 of 176
Conditions could be imposed to require approval of any further additional lighting (which could be refused if found to give rise to adverse impacts) and require monitoring of light levels to show compliance with the submitted scheme.
The current proposals do see changes in the proposed lighting to that considered as part of the appeal, but move the main sources of light further west such that their impact on Cromwell Manor is likely to be reduced. The Inspector commented as follows:
“With regard to the matter of light, I am aware of the requirements of WLP Policy W10B concerning the submission of lighting details. However, when I visited at dusk and looked back towards Pitsea from the footpath to the south-west of the appeal site, I noted that Cromwell Manor was already seen within the context of a significant amount of lighting especially on and around the flyover. I am also mindful that a condition has been suggested to restrict the location and use of fixed lighting. Therefore additional lighting associated with this site, if properly controlled by condition, need not be unsatisfactory.”
It is therefore considered subject to the conditions mentioned above it is concluded the lighting proposals are acceptable and are in accordance with the NPPF, NPPW and W10E.
Vermin and Odour: There have been representations noting that there would be an adverse impact on health and quality of life and an increase in vermin. The nature of the waste, namely C & I and C& D is unlikely to be attractive to vermin or give rise to odour and the operation is subject to an Environmental Permit.
The Inspector in considering wider environmental concerns concluded
“Local residents raised concerns about dust, pollution, fumes, vermin and odour. However, mindful of the allocation and the fact that the use of the site would not involve putrescible material, again I consider conditions can adequately address each of these matters.”
It is considered subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure noise, dust, vibration and lighting can be effectively mitigated and controlled that the proposals are in accordance with the NPPF, NPPW policies W10E and BAS E10 and there are no grounds for refusal on adverse impact on amenity. In addition, conditions restricting the hours of operation will further protect amenity and in so doing comply with policy W10F and the NPPF and NPPW, which supports sustainable development where the adverse impacts do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of proposals.
H IMPACT ON THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT & VIABILITY OF CROMWELL MANOR
Impact on the Historic Environment
Protecting and enhancing the historic environment is an important element of the NPPF aim to achieve sustainable development. As required by the NPPG any
Page 46 of 176
decision relating to listed buildings and their settings must address the statutory considerations Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990 (LBA) as well as satisfying the relevant policies within the NPPF and the Local Plan.
With respect to Local Plan policy, the Basildon Local Plan is silent, as it contains no saved policies in respect of Heritage Assets. Similarly, WLP policy W10E states that development would be permitted where satisfactory provision is made in respect of the resultant effects on the historic environment but does not explain what this will entail. The NPPW requires consideration of “…the potential effects on the significance of heritage assets, whether designated or not, including any contribution made by their setting.”
Section 66 (1) of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990 (LBA) states, inter-alia that; in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
The NPPF states in paragraphs 128 to 134 that heritage assets are an irreplaceable (and therefore finite) resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance and notes that any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. It requires applicants to describe the significance of heritage assets including any contribution made by their setting.
The NPPF defines the “Setting of a heritage asset” as “The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.”
The NPPF defines “Significance (for heritage policy)” as “The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.”
The NPPF states at:
Para 129. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset)…
Para 132 When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional…
Page 47 of 176
133. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss…
134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.
Since publication of the NPPF case law7 has clarified how development affecting the setting of a listed building should be considered. The Courts have confirmed that, even where the harm to significance is found to be less than substantial, a decision maker who follows the balancing approach recommended in para 134 of the NPPF must , when performing that balance, give “considerable importance and weight” to any harm to the setting of a listed building and to the desirability of preserving that setting without harm and start with a “strong presumption” that harm to the setting of a listed building should lead to a refusal of planning permission.
The Inspector’s assessment of the significance of Cromwell Manor and St Michael’s Church tower is set out below and is considered to be up to date and therefore appropriate to rely upon.
“To the south of the railway, opposite the eastern end of the appeal site [same as application site], is the Grade II listed Cromwell Manor, which dates from about 1600. It was originally a large dwelling of appreciable status but is now used as a venue for functions and events. Although it has been much altered over time, its significance as a heritage asset is still apparent in aspects such as its arrangement, proportions and detailing. Indeed, to my mind the older alterations, which included changing the principal elevation from being on the north side to being on the south about 200 years ago, illustrate the historic evolution of the building and so contribute to an understanding of its use and to an appreciation of its special architectural and historic interest.
Originally Cromwell Manor would have stood in a relatively isolated location on a flat marshland landscape. To the north this setting has now been lost due to the railway that runs immediately past the property and the urban environment that lies beyond. Similarly Pitsea Hall Lane greatly restricts the appreciation of this setting to the east and south-east.
However, from the south and south-west the property is seen over its grounds and the marshland, and so a strong sense remains of what its context would have been like before the arrival of the railway and the development to the north. As such, when looking out from Cromwell Manor and when looking from these directions back towards that building its original open setting can be appreciated. Moreover, from the south-west and the south the status of the property is still apparent as its
7 Most notably East Northamptonshire DC v SSCLG [2014] EWCA Civ 137 (Barnwell Manor wind turbine case) as further explained by the High Court in R (Forge Field Society) v Sevenoaks DC [2014] EWHC 1895 (Admin) (Penshurst Place affordable housing case)
Page 48 of 176
arrangement, form and detailing can be readily perceived. Therefore, to my mind this setting contributes to its significance and understanding.
It was said by the Appellant that the significance of this setting has been diminished in 3 ways. Firstly he pointed to the various extensions and alterations that had taken place in and around Cromwell Manor. While the property has been recently extended at its western end, I consider this addition is of a suitably sensitive scale and design to mean the older part of the building remains apparent and dominant. As such it does not diminish its significance to any appreciable degree. There is also a sizeable marquee immediately to the west of the building, but that is unauthorised and so the weight I have afforded it in my assessment of the setting is limited. I understand that the name has been changed too from Pitsea Hall, but I see no reason why that should undermine its value as a heritage asset.
Secondly, he referred to the presence of Pitsea Hall Lane, which runs to the east of Cromwell Manor and carries a significant flow of up to 1,100 heavy lorry movements per day to and from a large landfill site, as well as also serving a civic amenities site, an industrial estate and a country park. This, he contended not only leads to a visual impact from the passing vehicles, but also issues of dust, noise and vibration that affect the tranquillity of Cromwell Manor. I am aware though that the boundary to Pitsea Hall Lane is well-screened, and although I was at Cromwell Manor for a while during my visit, I did not find the passing traffic to be intrusive either visually or in any other sense. Similarly the uses to the east of the lane were not apparent. Whilst I accept this situation may change in the winter months when the trees offer less of a visual barrier, I consider this would not be sufficient to lead me to different views about the effect of the lane on Cromwell Manor’s setting.
Finally he drew attention to the strong urban environment that is immediately to the north. While there is an industrial building associated with the fencing business directly behind Cromwell Manor that is substantially concealed by the Manor when looking from the south and south-west. As a result it does not encroach into the appreciation of the setting from those directions. The rail infrastructure can be seen in those views, but the gantries are slender and intermittent and the trains are visible for relatively short periods. Furthermore, the A13 flyover with the traffic it carries is apparent, but that is some way back and again is not unduly intrusive either visually or in relation to noise generation. Therefore, while the area to the north has a distinctly urban character, to my mind this does not impact on the setting of Cromwell Manor to a harmful extent when seen from the south or south-west, and does not appreciably erode its significance.
St Michael’s Church stands some 220m to the north-east of the appeal site on top of a tree-covered hill, and it is a prominent feature that is seen from a wide-ranging area. To my mind this is part of its special architectural and historic interest and reflects its significance as an important building that has had a dominant presence over the surroundings for very many years.’
The effect of the waste processing building on the setting of Cromwell Manor
The waste processing building’s south elevation, which is the elevation that faces the railway line would be open. As commented by the Inspector with respect to the
Page 49 of 176
previous location the waste processing building that “The WP building cannot be seen when in Cromwell Manor facing southwards, and when viewed from the upper floors on the western elevation it is seen very much in the context of the urban land on the northern side of the railway. Moreover, when looking towards Cromwell Manor from the south-west the angles and the planting mean it does not encroach unduly into the setting of the listed building.”
The Inspector concluded with respect to the appealed location of the building, when it was visible when facing Cromwell Manor from its entrance or across its lawns, that the waste processing building and its proposed lobby would be “…discordant elements within the context of Cromwell Manor that would erode its sense of isolation, thereby diminishing its setting and so harming the significance of this designated heritage.”
The revised more western location for the waste processing building removes this view, such that the building does not appear in views from the entrance or across the lawns, but is screened by existing vegetation on the northern boundary of the Cromwell Manor grounds. In addition the Inspector in considering the effect of the existing industrial building to the north of Cromwell Manor commented that “While there is an industrial building associated with the fencing business directly behind Cromwell Manor that is substantially concealed by the Manor when looking form the south and south-west vegetation. As a result it does not encroach into the appreciation of the setting from those directions.” Similarly therefore it can be concluded that, as the waste processing building is be concealed by existing vegetation, equally now does not encroach on the setting of Cromwell Manor.
The Inspector in considering the harm of the original location of the WP building stated that it “…erode[d] its sense of isolation, thereby diminishing its setting and so harming the significance of this designated heritage asset. “, but he did not conclude that it was such harm as to reach the threshold of being considered substantial harm, but only less than substantial harm. The waste processing building in its revised location (out of the views from the south of Cromwell Manor) avoids altogether the only harm identified by the Inspector..
Both the County’s Historic Buildings’ advisor and Historic England (formerly English Heritage) were consulted on the application. Historic England have made no comment. The County’s Historic Buildings advisor has commented that the significance of the asset’s setting is only positive from the south where the landscape is largely open marshland and contributes to the understanding of why the manor is located here. This is in contrast to the north which has a negative contribution to the significance, which has over time been impacted upon by the railway line, Pitsea flyover, modern housing and commercial developments. The railway line with its modern structures support 20th century electrification requirements creates a physical barrier between the asset and the proposed waste facility. This assessment is not dissimilar to that described by the Inspector.
English Heritage guidance advises that where the significance of a heritage asset has been compromised in the past by unsympathetic development affecting its setting, to accord with NPPF policies, consideration still needs to be given to whether
Page 50 of 176
additional change will further detract from, or can enhance the significance of the asset.
Cromwell Manor’s agent originally commissioned a Heritage Statement in response to the previous application. This has not been updated, but it is still considered by agents for Cromwell Manor that harm to Heritage Asset would be significant by way of the noise, dust, lighting and the visual impact of the waste stockpiles to the west of the Cromwell Manor.
With the relocation of the waste processing building to the west of the site, in its revised location the building would not be visible to the north of Cromwell Manor when viewed from the grounds to the south. It has been commented by the County’s historic advisor that the proposals “will not further vitiate the setting of the north side of the asset”. In terms of other effects the proposals would introduce a change in the land use including the movement of HGV’s north of Cromwell Manor and waste sorting and processing activities to its north west, but these would be screened from the front grounds of Cromwell Manor by existing vegetation, as was the case with respect to the appealed proposals.
With respect to the movement of vehicles within the site, there is an existing brick wall on the northern boundary of the Manor grounds and existing vegetation such that only glimpse views of the tops of HGV vehicles would be visible and this visual impact would be transient. Currently these views are additionally obscured by the marquee, but this is to be removed as an appeal for its retention has been dismissed. However, the allocated B1 and B2 use of the site would likely generate some HGV traffic and there are already train movements, the tops of which are visible above the existing wall and vegetation and therefore it is considered the transient views of the tops of HGV’s would not substantially change the existing situation or one that which might be experienced if the site was used for B1 and B2 use, such that there would be no additional harm to the setting of Cromwell Manor. This is consistent with the Inspector’s observations on the impact of traffic present on Pitsea Hall Lane which the inspector said he did not find ‘intrusive either visually or in any other sense’.
The proposal would also introduce potential environmental effects such as additional noise, vibration and dust and light spill. These environmental effects have been previously discussed and concluded that subject to conditions these effects could be adequately controlled, such that there would be no harm on the setting of this Listed Building and thereby its significance.
In terms of s66 LBA 1990, it is acknowledge that while the proposals would preserve the Listed Building and its setting the proposals would not enhance the setting of the LB to the north. Ideally additional planting and screening would be provided on the southern boundary of the site, to help reduce the visual impact of the existing development north of the site i.e. screening the railway gantries, A13 flyover and other industrial development. However, the southern edge of the site is required to be kept clear to enable access by Network Rail. It would be possible for planting to be undertaken on the northern edge of the Cromwell Manor site, upon removal of the marquee, but this is not in the applicant’s control. It is therefore not possible for the
Page 51 of 176
proposal to make a positive contribution to the setting, but it is considered that the setting to the north would not be further deteriorated.
Impact on viability of existing use of Cromwell Manor
The NPPF states that heritage assets are an irreplaceable (and therefore finite) resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance and notes that any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. The NPPF further sets out that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. (Paragraph 132)
At paragraph 134 the NPPF states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.
The NPPF requires as part of the 3 dimensions of sustainable development to consider the potential economic impacts of development.
Objection has been raised by Cromwell Manor and representees that the waste facility would have a negative effect on the wedding venue due to the perception by potential customers of the venues desirability for their wedding or event due to the proximity of the waste use and this could be as damaging as harm to the setting and significance of the LB. The proposed buildings and stockpiles would not be visible from the entrance to the Manor or from the grounds in front of the Manor. The top of the waste processing building would be visible within the car park to the manor and partial views of the stockpiles and the front of the waste processing building would be visible from within the car park during periods of no leaf. The car park is not considered to be in the setting of Cromwell Manor or a sensitive receptor area, visitors only remaining in this area on arrival and departure. Should the proposals be considered to have a negative impact upon the popularity and therefore viability of the wedding/event use, this could have implications for the on-going conservation of the LB, contrary to the NPPF.
It has been concluded within previous sections of this report that the environmental impacts of the proposals are largely either adequately addressed by measures forming part of the proposal or could be mitigated through conditions and the same conclusion was reached by the Inspector with respect to the appeal.
It is acknowledged that the presence of a waste facility may give rise to the perception that the venue is not desirable as a venue for functions and weddings, although assessing the effect of such perceptions is difficult. The Inspector concluded with respect to the appeal that “I am aware that Cromwell Manor would be chosen as a function venue by its customers for a combination of reasons, and when they are making a choice I anticipate that other factors are probably afforded greater weight than the appearance of the building’s wider setting. Given this, although the WP building and lobby could be seen, I cannot conclude that, in itself, would have a material effect on the attractiveness of the venue for functions and so would not
Page 52 of 176
adversely affect the viability of the business.” This conclusion was with the building visible from the Manor grounds. As the waste processing building is now not in view, it can be concluded that the impact upon Cromwell Manor has been further reduced, and as such it can be concluded that the revised proposals would also not result in adverse impact upon the viability of the business at Cromwell Manor. .
Whilst there are difficulties in assessing how activities on the application site might potentially affect the viability of the business, the waste site has been in partial operation (albeit unauthorised for over 2 years) and Cromwell Manor has remained a wedding/event venue throughout, no documentary evidence has been provided by Cromwell Manor to demonstrate that the unauthorised activities have resulted in reduced business activity at the Manor. The Inspector in considering the previous appeal commented “…I appreciate that the use of the site has now been on-going for some time, yet I have no firm evidence from the owners of Cromwell Manor to show any effects on booking trends over that period.”
It is therefore considered there is no evidence that the proposals would impact upon the viability of the business use and thus the heritage assets on-going conservation and thus the proposals would not be contrary to the NPPF in this respect.
The effect of the waste processing building on the setting of St Michael’s Church
The Inspector in considering the effect of the original location of the waste transfer building commented
“When looking towards St Michael’s Church from the south-west over the Appellant’s site the WP building is visible in the foreground. However, apart from when very close to the WP building it does not obstruct these views and appears merely as part of the urban context within which the church is already seen. Therefore I conclude the development does not harm the setting of St Michael’s Church, or its significance as a heritage asset.”
It is considered the revised location of the waste processing building when looking towards St Michael’s Church from the south-west over the application site the waste processing building would be more visible in the foreground, but still would not obstruct views. It is therefore concluded the development does not harm the setting of St Michael’s Church, or its significance as a heritage asset.
Conclusion on Impact on the Historic Environment & Viability of Cromwell Manor
In conclusion with respect to assessment of heritage issues, it is considered the proposals would not cause harm to the setting of Cromwell Manor or St Michael’s church arising from either visual impact of the proposed buildings or the environmental impacts associated with the waste proposals. It is considered, noise, dust, lighting and vibration are either adequately mitigated as part of the proposals or could be controlled by condition. It is acknowledged that this proposal would not make a positive contribution to the Heritage Assets by improving screening reducing the existing harm to the setting caused by urban developments to the north, but landscaping (that could assist) is precluded by the need for access by Network Rail. It is not considered the proposals would deter customers from choosing Cromwell
Page 53 of 176
Manor as a venue, other factors having greater influence and no evidence has been provided that bookings have been lost since the commencement of operations in 2012 (also as recorded in the Inspector’s report). As such it is considered the proposals would not affect the viability of the business use of Cromwell Manor and therefore also its on-going conservation. It is therefore considered the proposals are satisfactory in terms of the tests in paragraphs 129-134 of the NPPF.
I IMPACTS ON HYDROLOGY
WLP policy W4A (Flooding) states inter alia that development would only be permitted where there would not be an unacceptable risk of flooding or has an adverse effect on the water environment. This is supported by policy W4B (Surface & Groundwater) which states that development would only be permitted where there would not be an unacceptable risk to the quality of surface and ground water, or of impediment to ground water flow.
In support of the application a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been prepared as the development would be on an area of greater than 1 hectare. This FRA states that the development is in flood zone 1 (the low risk zone), and states that the proposed development would be operated with minimal risk from flooding and not increase flood risk elsewhere. . The Environment Agency has no objection to the proposals and the site is already subject of an Environmental Permit. Discharge of surface water arising from the buildings and site has been agreed with the local sewage authority. To ensure that surface water is managed appropriately to limit mud debris being carried out onto the public highway, it is considered appropriate to impose a condition with respect to surfacing and drainage of the site.
The Inspector when considering flooding as part of the appeal concluded
“Having regard to the submitted surveys and the responses of the various statutory consultees, I have no reason to consider that any effect on these aspects could not be adequately addressed by condition.”
It is therefore considered that subject to the imposition of an appropriate pre- commencement condition to approve in writing the final drainage scheme and hydrological/hydrogeological context that the development would comply with policies W4A, W4B and the NPPF.
J ECONOMIC BENEFITS
The NPPF promotes a positive approach to consideration of economic development proposals, with significant weight being placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system. It is noted by the applicant that the existing site on the Burnt Mills Industrial Estate employs 15 people, who would be retained, safeguarded and transferred to the Terminus Drive site, should permission be granted, with potential for increased employment. Furthermore, the applicant has explained that there is an existing client base within Essex and Southend, and the provision of a larger site with increased capacity, would help the applicant more efficiently process waste and thus potentially allow greater opportunities for the applicant to bid for new demolition contracts.
Page 54 of 176
CONCLUSION
The NPPF states “the planning system is to contribute to sustainable development” and requires significant weight to be placed on the economic benefits of proposals, while protecting the environmental and social strands of sustainability. The applicant site would provide a larger site for the applicant facilitating a greater through put and opportunity to recover materials more efficiently from the waste stream, thus preserving and potentially expanding the current employment levels.
The need and general suitability of the site (on allocated employment land Policy BAS E2 and BAS E6) complies with the NPPF, NPPW and WLP policies W3A, W7D and W7E, which require waste to be moved up the hierarchy and located on employment land. The proposal is in conformity with policy W8B, through demonstration of a need to both relocate the business and, as stated by the applicant, it being the most suitable and feasible option as there is no other site available within Burnt Mills Industrial Estate (the preferred location for untidy sites as required Basildon local policy BAS E6). Additionally this site was an area of degraded and derelict land and designated as a proposed for employment purposes under policy BAS E2, although it is acknowledged that the waste use is a Sui Generis use and is not strictly a B1 or B2 (as referred to by the Inspector in his decision on the appeal), but limited weight should be given to this conflict, having regard to the development plan as a whole..
Therefore, while the principle of the site in terms of need and location are largely acceptable, consideration must be given to the impacts of the development on the surrounding environment.
The first of these considerations is the highway impact, which primarily focuses on local infrastructure impacts and increased HGVs worsening congestion. However, following assessment by the Highway Authority and Highways Agency, it is considered that suitable conditions could be attached if planning permission were to be granted. These could ensure the proposal would not result in a significant and demonstrably negative impact, so it is considered to be in accordance with WLP policy W4C, W8B and Basildon policies BAS E2 and BAS E10, with respect to highways. Similarly, impacts on ecology and hydrology could also be suitably mitigated by imposing appropriate conditions to ensure the proposal would comply with WLP policies W4A, W4B, W10E, the NPPW and the NPPF, thus would be commensurate with the scale of the proposal.
Further concerns raised relate to design and landscape impacts. The issues primarily focus on the scale and design of the waste processing building itself. It is considered that views from the PRoW and properties to the north west would be adequately screened by the proposed fencing and planting. There would be some views of the building from PRoW south of the railway line on the Marshes and from Pitsea Hall Lane, but the impact would be limited.
Concern has been raised by local residents, users of the footpath and Cromwell Manor of the impact of noise and dust. Assessments of these were included as part of the application and subject to appropriate conditions it was concluded these
Page 55 of 176
environmental impacts could be adequately controlled. Impact of vibration on the structural integrity of the Listed Building was shown through assessment would not occur and likely not to be detected by users of the wedding venue.
The proposed lighting scheme would not give rise to adverse impact on the either the railway network or adjacent properties. It is acknowledged that the lighting levels are low, but the applicant considered them to be workable and any additional lighting could be controlled by condition and refused if giving rise to adverse impact.
Concern has been raised as to the impact of the proposal on both the setting of the Listed Building and the potential detriment this would cause to the desirability of the venue for weddings, thus jeopardising the on-going conservation of the Listed Building.
The revised location of the waste processing building removes the building from the visual the setting of Cromwell Manor a Grade II Listed Building. While there are some views of the waste facility from Cromwell Manor car park these are not considered to be in the setting of the Listed Building. It has not been demonstrated by the owners of Cromwell Manor or considered that the waste facility would have a negative impact upon the viability of the current use and thus no impact the on-going conservation of the Heritage Asset.
It is also considered the view of the waste processing building in the context of surrounding uses would not have an adverse impact upon the setting of St Michael’s church tower.
Accordingly, the proposed development is not considered to be in conflict with S66(1) of the LBA or the NPPF.
On balance, the proposal, taking into account more up to date position of the NPPF and NPPW conforms with the relevant policies of the Development Plan8 taken as a whole, S66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and therefore represents sustainable development in the context of the NPPF and NPPW and therefore planning permission should be granted.
8. RECOMMENDATION
That planning permission be granted subject to conditions covering the following matters:-
1. COM3 - Compliance with submitted details 2. COM2 – Notification of commencement within 7 days of implementation 3. WAST1 – Definition of waste materials to be imported 4. WAST5 – Restricting waste to areas as approved 5. Bespoke - no use of tracked vehicles east of storage area 3 except for construction and maintenance
8 The Basildon Local Plan is silent on consideration of the impact of the development upon the setting of Listed Buildings and the Waste Local Plan requires, inter-alia, under Policy W10E that “satisfactory provision is made in respect of the effect of the development on historic sites”.
Page 56 of 176
6. HIGH13 – surface materials of internal access road, parking and turning areas 7. HIGH14 – Access gates 8. HIGHWAYS - Bespoke Linage on surface to define route, linage to be maintained. The Public’s rights of access over the public footpath shall be maintained free and unobstructed at all times. 9. HIGH7 – erection of warning signage for PRoW Basildon 136 10. HIGHWAYS - Bespoke Each vehicular parking space shall have minimum dimensions of 2.9 metres x 5.5 metres. 11. HIGHWAYS - Bespoke The powered two wheeler/cycle parking facilities as shown on the approved plan are to be provided prior to the first occupation of the building and retained at all times. 12. HIGH5 – restriction to 100 HGV movements [50 in and 50 out] per day (Monday to Friday) 50 HGV movements [25 in and 25 out] per day (Saturdays) 13. HIGH2 – All Access to be via Terminus Drive 14. LAND1 – Requires submission of details with respect planting to include 40% flowering shrubs 15. Bespoke – submission of details of soils/planting medium and preparation of appropriate ground conditions for proposed planting 16. LAND2 – Requires replacement of trees/and shrubs (if necessary) within 5 years of commencement 17. Bespoke – planting management plan 18. VIS 2- Define storage areas and restrict stockpile heights to no more than 4m 19. All plant to operate from ground level, plant not to be operated on top of stockpiles 20. HOUR1 – Restricts construction times to 07:00 to 17:30 hours Monday to Friday and 07:00 to 13:00 hours Saturdays 21. HOUR5 - Restricts hours of operation times to 07:00 to 18:30 hours Monday to Friday and 07:00 to 13:00 hours Saturdays. No operation of wood shredder and crusher on Saturdays between 07:00 to 13:00 22. Bespoke – Requires noise monitoring scheme to be submitted and noise monitoring to be undertaken and submitted within one month of commencing operations to validate predictions and show compliance with maximum noise levels. If measured noise levels exceed those detailed proposed mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority within 1 month of the monitoring being carried out. 23. Bespoke - maintenance of sound proofing of the waste processing building through the life of development 24. Bespoke - no operation of crusher, trommel or shredder at one time, and submission and approval of management scheme to achieve this. 25. DUST1 – Implementation in accordance with approved dust suppression measures 26. Bespoke – Details of dust suppression measures to be submitted for outside storage areas, shredding operations, crusher operations and inside dust suppression measures for main building 27. Bespoke – maintenance of litter fencing 28. Upon completion of installation of the lighting scheme as set in the application, a survey of light levels shall be undertaken to demonstrate compliance with the
Page 57 of 176
light levels predicted in the application. Should there be non-compliance additional mitigation details shall be submitted for approval and shall be implemented as approved. 29. LGHT1 - Requires submission details regarding any additional proposed lighting on site 30. ECO1- Implementation in accordance with approved Reptile Mitigation Measures, including protection bollards to stop vehicle encroachment. 31. Light monitoring to demonstrate compliance 32. Vibration monitoring 33. POLL1 - Requires submission details regarding surfacing and surface water drainage. 34. External colour of main building and supporting structure light grey 35. Within 6 months of beneficial occupation of the waste processing building a vibration survey of the site during full operation shall be undertaken to verify vibration levels arising from the development. If vibration levels are shown to be likely to cause unacceptable adverse impact upon residential amenity of structural damage to Cromwell Manor, additional mitigation measures shall be submitted and implemented as approved
BACKGROUND PAPERS Consultation replies Representations Ref: ESS/69/12/BAS Ref: ESS/13/15/BAS Planning Inspectorate Report dated 24 September 2015 - Ref. No. APP/Z1585/W/14/3000681
LOCAL MEMBERS’ NOTIFICATION - BASILDON – Pitsea
THE CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010: The proposed development is not located within the vicinity of a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) or Special Protection Area (SPA) and is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of those sites. Therefore, it is considered that an Appropriate Assessment under Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 is not required.
EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT: The report only concerns the determination of an application for planning permission and takes into account equalities implications. The recommendation has been made after consideration of the application and supporting documents, the development plan, government policy and guidance, representations and all other material planning considerations as detailed in the body of the report. The application has been considered in line with the Equalities Act 2010 and suitably appraised with regard to relevant equality issues, implications and/or needs.
STATEMENT OF HOW THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT IN A POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE MANNER:
Page 58 of 176
In determining this planning application, the County Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner, seeking solutions to problems arising in dealing with the application and offering advice on ways forward, as appropriate. This approach is considered in accordance with the requirement in the NPPF, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.
Page 59 of 176
APPENDIX A
Representations – Summary of observations made
Observation Comment
Location
Have been on site for 2 years operating The current application seeks to without planning permission flouting regularise the breach of planning control planning control
Pitsea already has its share of waste See appraisal facilities
Highways issues
Highway infrastructure insufficient – See appraisal. With respect to pot particularly, Pitsea Hall Lane and holes and collapsed drainage manholes restricted railway bridge, the road these have been brought to the surface already potholed, drainage attention of the highway authority. manholes collapsed
Increase in HGVs See appraisal
Access/egress will further complicate See appraisal junctions, particularly access to railway station Debris will be dropped on Highway, as See appraisal. Terminus Drive is well as vehicle oils proposed to be surfaced as part of the proposals and vehicles would be required to be clean before leaving the site. Additional congestion will lead to See appraisal accidents
The mud on the roads has filled and Blocked drains have been reported to blocked the drains causing water to run the Highway Authority. Terminus Drive on the road likely to give rise to more is proposed to be surfaced as part of the accidents proposals and vehicles would be required to be clean before leaving the site. Access to Pitsea Mount is restricted due See appraisal to congestion and causes queuing traffic
Terminus Drive is a PRoW and See appraisal inappropriate to be shared with HGV traffic
Page 60 of 176
Lorries race out of the site not taking See appraisal. Terminus Drive is also pedestrians into consideration. used as access to a separate business unit. The route of the PRoW is proposed to be delineated as part of the proposals The stockpiles are a danger to users of See appraisal – the height of stockpiles the footpath the stockpiles are too high would be limited and contained by and are not contained. The stockpiles retaining walls and netting above. The have pushed the fencing over. damage has been repaired.
There is no permanent fence at the end A permanent fence is proposed as part of western end of the site of the application and is now in place.
There aren’t retaining walls next to all The application details have been the stockpiles revised to include retaining walls adjacent to all stockpiles The stockpiles exceed 4m See appraisal
The footpath is now dusty in summer The PRoW where it is consequent with and muddy in winter, restricting use by Terminus Drive is proposed to be hard commuters going to Pitsea Railway surfaced. station.
Queuing HGV traffic will prevent See appraisal emergency vehicles needing to access Pitsea Hall Lane to get to the Station or Wat Tyler Country Park
Local amenity
The facility will dissuade people to visit See appraisal Wat Tyler Country Park, the RSPB reserve and Cromwell Manor
Inappropriate location too close too See appraisal residential areas & PRoW
The site is too small for the quantity of See appraisal. Stockpile areas and waste that is wanting to be stored stockpile height would be controlled by condition. Potential fire hazard due to large The site is subject to an Environmental stockpiles of wood, cause havoc on A13 permit which controls quantities of wood waste and the Fire Authority has inspected the site.
Stockpiles are visible from Pitsea See appraisal Mount, A13 and the surrounding area
Page 61 of 176
The site is visual eyesore with See appraisal stockpiles of waste viable from Pitsea Mount
The site detracts and undermines the See appraisal efforts to tidy up Pitsea on the north side of A13
Noise and dust impact on users of See appraisal PRoW
Small wood or materials could be blown See appraisal onto users of the footpath which is unsafe.
Crushing operations give rise to too See appraisal much dust
Vehicles parked in the car park to the See appraisal north are covered in dust, requiring extra washing
Don’t consider the background noise It has been confirmed no activity was levels are representative as the site was taking place at the site when already operational background levels were taken Don’t consider that the submitted noise See appraisal assessment adequately predicts the likely noise impacts.
Concern there will be noise impact upon See appraisal properties in Chestnut Road and Avondale Road,
Dust is particularly caused by the See appraisal concrete crusher and the wood shredder
Dust from operations impacts upon local See appraisal residents and covers the gardens in dust
Inadequate dust mitigation is proposed. See appraisal
Recent improvements to Wat Tyler See appraisal Country Park will be in vain, as people will not visit due to a hazardous journey
Odour sometimes prevents use of the The nature of the waste is unlikely to garden give rise to odour
Page 62 of 176
Light pollution especially in winter and in See appraisal the evenings
Noise, pollution, light and disruption will See appraisal arise
24 hour 7 day a week operation would Proposed hours Monday to Friday 7am be unbearable to 5:30 pm Saturday 7am to 1pm
The site is visual intrusive for both local See appraisal residents and users of the A13
Do not consider there has been See appraisal adequate assessment of the dust impacts.
Do not consider the proposed dust See appraisal measures are likely to be adequate.
Adverse impact on health particularly See appraisal. Respirable crystalline from site dust, causing lung diseases silica is a lung disease caused by close such as respirable crystalline silica and and prolonged exposure to silica dust, dust from vehicles on pedestrians such as might be experienced by works including children attending local involved with stone/concrete crushing school. and cutting, while the operator would need to take precautions with respect to his staff, if is not considered the exposure likely to be experienced by the public outside the site warrants concern and no objection has been raised by the County’s air quality consultant, Brentwood Borough Council, EA on this issue. Adverse impact on quality of life See appraisal
How will the nature of the waste be Site subject to an Environmental permit controlled to prevent ground which controls potential pollution contamination Increase in vermin See appraisal
Impact on local wildlife See appraisal
Local property values will be adversely Not a planning issue affected
Do not consider that the proposed See appraisal lighting is adequate and there is likely to be need for additional lighting, potentially impacting upon Cromwell Manor, thus contrary to WLP policy
Page 63 of 176
W10B which requires full details
Dispute that the existing lighting The County’s Lighting consultant arrangements means the area is considers the area is appropriately category Zone 3 for assessing the designated a category Zone 3, due to lighting impacts. the existing lighting associated with the A13 flyover, street lighting, car park lighting and lighting associated with the railway line. Will result in substantial harm to the See appraisal Heritage asset contrary to NPPF
There is no overriding public benefit that See appraisal warrants the harm to the heritage asset
Consider the development will destroy See appraisal the business at Cromwell Manor
Adverse effects of, noise, dust, vibration See appraisal and visual impact will affect the viability of the wedding/private function venue at Cromwell Manor and thereby it’s on going conservation
The negative perception of the facility See appraisal would affect viability of the wedding/private function venue at Cromwell Manor and thereby it’s on going conservation. A precautionary approach is required by the LB Act
Location & Policy
Site not identified in the adopted or See appraisal emerging Waste Local Plan
Application does not demonstrate need See appraisal in accordance with WLP policy W3C
Does not accord with the existing or See appraisal emerging Basildon and Waste Local plans.
Not in accordance with BDLP policy See appraisal BAS E2 as not a B1 or B2 use
Not in accordance with W8B as do not See appraisal consider the buildings are of a high standard of design and outside stockpiles are unsightly
Page 64 of 176
Views from Cromwell Manor cannot be See appraisal mitigated by landscaping as network rail requires access along southern boundary of site, contrary to para 6.7 BDLP which requires extension landscaping for the site
The site is unsuitable adjacent to a See appraisal Listed Building and should be located at the “untidy industry” area in Burnt Miles identified in the BDLP
Inappropriate development next to a See appraisal wedding/private function venue which funds the upkeep and maintenance of the heritage asset.
Would cause substantial harm to the See appraisal heritage asset, by affecting the setting of the Grade II Listed Cromwell Manor and public benefits do not outweigh the harm
Do not consider the harm to the See appraisal significance ad setting of Listed Building has been assessed properly by the applicant heritage statement, particularly the impact of outside storage stockpiles.
Effects on the Green Belt, national and See appraisal internationally designated ecology sites in the vicinity
Impact on local ecology See appraisal
Page 65 of 176
Appendix B
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (As amended) TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) REGULATIONS 2011 PROPOSAL: Screening Opinion: Change of use and erection of buildings, hardstandings, roadways, parking and storage areas to enable the use of the site as a waste recycling and materials recovery facility (part retrospective) LOCATION: Land to the south of Terminus Drive, Pitsea Hall Lane, Pitsea, SS16 4UH APPLICATION NO: ESS/13/15/BAS/SO
JUSTIFICATION FOR SCREENING OPINION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT IS NOT REQUIRED
Is the proposal in Schedule 1? The proposal does not fall within Schedule 1 of the Regulations that would require a mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
Is the proposal in Schedule 2? It does fall within column 1 of Schedule 2 under paragraph 11 (b) Installations for the disposal of waste.
Is the proposal in a sensitive area? The site lies within 200m of the Pitsea Marsh SSSI which is located to the south east of the site. 300m to the south west lies Vange and Fobbing Marsh SSSI
The site is therefore does not lie within a statutory ‘sensitive area’ as defined in paragraph 2 of the Regulations, but is within close proximity to sensitive areas.
National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) states that in certain cases other statutory and non-statutory designations, which are not included in the formal definition of ‘sensitive areas’ in the regulations, but which are nevertheless environmentally sensitive may be relevant in determining whether significant environmental effects area likely and therefore whether and EIA is required and this includes County Wildlife Sites. On the south side of the railway line to the west is the Vange Creek Marsh County Wildlife Site approximately 20m from the site.
Does it meet criteria in Column 2 of Schedule 2?
The applicable threshold/criteria that triggers the need to consider whether an EIA is required are:
I. The disposal is by incineration II. The area of the development exceeds 0.5 hectare III. The installation is sited to be within 100 metres of any controlled waters.
With respect to the above, the proposal is not for incineration, is not within 100 metres of any controlled waters, but the site is 1.24ha and thus exceeds the 0.5
Page 66 of 176
hectare threshold, it is defined as a ‘Schedule 2 project’ in a close proximity to a sensitive areas and therefore the need for EIA must be further considered.
Are there likely to be significant environmental effects The National Planning Practice Guidance states that in relation to Schedule 2 Section 11 (b) Installations for the disposal of waste, the likelihood of significant effects will generally depend on the scale of the development and the nature of the potential impact in terms of discharges, emissions or odour. For installations (including landfill sites) for the deposit, recovery and/or disposal of household, industrial and/or commercial wastes (as defined by the Controlled Waste Regulations 1992) EIA is more likely to be required where new capacity is created to hold more than 50,000 tonnes per year, or to hold waste on a site of 10 hectares or more. Sites taking smaller quantities of these wastes, sites seeking only to accept inert wastes (demolition rubble etc.) or Civic Amenity sites, are unlikely to require EIA.
Discussion
Schedule 3 of the Regulations sets out criteria that should be used to help identify whether a Schedule 2 development is likely to have significant environmental effects and therefore require EIA, as follows:
Location of development
The site is located south of Pitsea, south of the A13 on Pitsea Hall Lane. The site is accessed via Terminus Drive a no through road. The site itself covers an area of approximately 1.24 hectares. The site is located immediately north of the London to Shoeburyness railway line (the Loop which goes via Rainham) and south east of the London to Shoeburyness main line, with the two lines converging at Pitsea station to the east. Pitsea Hall Lane crosses the main line railway line by means of a bridge north east of the site and the Loop by a level crossing south east of the site.
To the southwest, beyond the Loop railway line (approximately 10m), is the Vange Creek Marshes (County Wildlife Site). To the south (approximately 10m) of the railway line is Cromwell Manor (formerly Pitsea Hall), which is a Grade II Listed building used as a wedding and event venue.
To the north of the site is the A13 flyover, which is closer to the site at its western end. Residential flats lie to the north east of the site beyond the A13 flyover, the nearest of which are 60m from the north west corner of the site on Chestnut Road and the Glen. Pitsea Mount residential area is located approximately 200m to the northeast.
On the north side of the site, at the eastern end of the site, Terminus Drive abuts a car park, the remaining land to the north between the site and the main railway line is vacant. Beyond the mainline railway to the north is a Tesco Superstore and associated parking.
Directly east of the site is a fencing business with associated warehouse type building and yard and a residential property permitted for use as offices.
Page 67 of 176
Pitsea Hall Lane is a no through road but gives access to Wat Tyler Country Park, Vange Creek RSPB reserve, Tuskit Works Industrial Area, an ECC Household Waste Recycling Centre and Pitsea sewage treatment works, Pitsea Landfill among others.
Footpath Vange 136 is adjacent to the northern boundary of the site and runs parallel with the site access and then along the northern boundary of the site, where it meets a path that can be used to go north to the residential area of Pitsea or south across the railway line to the marshes.
The site is allocated as Employment Area within the Basildon District Local Plan (adopted 1998 Saved Policies 2007)(BDLP). The land immediately to the south is designated as Green Belt (including the railway line) and also as “Marshes Area” within the BDLP.
The Marshes Area is subject of several separate designations. The closest is Vange Creek Marshes County Wildlife Site that lies south west of the site on the southside of the railway line and Vange Creek Marsh SSSI and Pitsea Marsh SSSI which respectively lie to the south east 200m and southwest 300m
The site was vacant prior to the applicant commencing waste storage and sorting on the site in mid 2012. The site was historically used as a minerals yard, such that it is likely mineral was imported by road and potentially rail, stored and then distributed from the site by road.
Characteristics of development
Size - The proposed throughput would be 49,000 tonnes per annum which is just less than the capacity which is more likely to require EIA according to the indicative thresholds and criteria in the NPPG.
The waste would consist of construction and demolition, commercial and industrial waste and household waste. 5% would household, 60% would be commercial and industrial and 35 % construction and demolition, and would include soils, clays, hardcore, concrete and rubble, timber, wood and plastics.
The majority of the waste would be inert and the NPPG suggests EIA is more likely to be required for non-inert waste.
The proposal is for a change of use to a waste recycling and materials recovery facility, the erection of an industrial type building with associated offices, weighbridge, hard-standing and vehicle movements consisting of staff vehicles, HGVs and skip lorries.
The application site covers an area of approximately 1.24 hectares and the NPPG suggests EIA is more likely to be required for new sites greater than 10ha.
The proposal involves the erection of a single waste processing building on the northern boundary of the site. This building would be constructed from corrugated steel and measure 19 metres deep, 30 metres long and 9 metres to eaves, with a
Page 68 of 176
shallow pitched roof over. The ridge, running from east to west would be 11.4 metres in height. The building would face south into the centre of the site.
Within the building waste would be loaded onto a feed belt to a trommel and picking station. Waste would either be sorted mechanically or by hand, recovering the following materials metals; brick, concrete and stone; plastics; paper; cardboard; green waste; wood and associated materials.
Sorted materials would be stored in the waste processing building. Wood, hardcore and soil would be removed from the building and placed in the walled storage bays to be created at the western end of the site. The waste residue would be taken to the landfill potentially Pitsea Landfill located south of the south.
In addition there would be administration offices within portacabins, a weighbridge, lorry, car, motorcycle and bicycle parking and a storage area for skips south of the access.
Cumulation with other development - To the east of the site is a fencing supply business, supplying wood, concrete panels and posts and security fencing. The construction of panels is undertaken within the buildings, but some surplus materials are stored within a yard adjacent to building and in the open on north side of Terminus Drive. This existing business does generate some noise and dust.
The railway line south of the site gives rise to some noise and vibration from trains.
Cromwell Manor to the south of the site could be considered a sensitive use as it is used as a wedding and event facility as well as a residential property. The venue also utilises a marquee. Planning permission for permanent retention of the marquee was refused by Basildon District Council in March 2014 and an appeal for its retention was dismissed in September 2015 and the marquee is required to be removed. It is acknowledged that the use as a wedding and event facility use could be affected by noise, dust and vibration, but in the context of existing uses, including the railway line, level crossing and proximity of Pitsea Hall Lane (10m east of Cromwell Manor) already subject to HGV traffic (generating noise and vibration) it is not considered these impacts would be of such significance alone or cumulatively that the proposal would warrant an EIA, however such issues would be required to be considered as part of any planning proposal.
The development proposes 100 movements a day (50 in and 50 out). Pitsea Hall Lane gives access to an industrial area, sewage treatment works, Wat Tyler Country Pak and Pitsea Landfill (HGV movements to the landfill are limited to 1100 movements a day 550 in 550 out). It is therefore considered that, in the context of the overall traffic on Pitsea Hall Lane, the traffic movements associated with the waste development would not be significant.
Use of natural resources- The proposed development would not use significant quantities of natural resources other than those required in the construction of the building and a small quantity of water for use in dust suppression.
Page 69 of 176
It is not considered there would be a significant impact arising as a result of the use of natural resources.
Production of waste - As a waste recycling business, its main purpose is to recover recyclable/reusable materials from the waste stream, therefore reducing the amount of waste. There would be an element of the waste material important that could not be recycled/reused and this would be required to be exported for landfill, but it is considered this would not give rise to significant environmental effects.
Pollution and nuisances – Discharges, emissions and odour are noted as important considerations in NPPG.
Discharges – Surface water runoff would be generated from hard surfaces, the railway line and associated ballast provides an obstruction to surface water. There is no visible or known drainage pathway from the site to the south towards the CWS and SSSI and the controlled water.
The majority of the waste imported to the site would be largely inert, although wood, cardboard, paper and plastics are not totally inert they are not biodegradable in the same manner as putrescible such as household/food waste and are unlikely to give rise to significant leachate.
Drainage to sewer is proposed.
Emissions - The importation of waste would be by road such that there would be emissions to air from vehicles. Proposed vehicle movements are 100 HGV movements (50 in 50 out per day), however, it is likely any use of this land allocated for employment use would involve some vehicular usage and as stated above the proposed traffic movements are not considered to be significant in the context of traffic using the Pitsea Hall Lane and the A13, Pitsea Landfill for example is permitted to receive 1100 HGV movements per day.
Odour - The majority of the waste imported to the site would be largely inert, although wood, cardboard, paper and plastics are not totally inert they are not biodegradable in the same manner as putrescible such as household/food waste and are unlikely to give rise to significant odour.
The sorting of waste is likely to give rise to dust and noise. The nearest residential property is a 2nd floor flat within Cromwell Manor to the south of the railway, which is also a wedding and event venue. In addition there are residential properties to the north west on Chestnut Road and the Glen and to the north east on Pitsea Mount. While there is potential for impacts from noise and dust it is not considered that these would be of more than local importance that would warrant an EIA.
There is potential for generation of vibration from the operation of plant and machinery, but in view of existing vibration from existing adjacent road traffic, which crosses the level crossing in close proximity to the site and trains on the adjacent line, it is not considered this would give rise to significant environmental effects that warrant an EIA.
Page 70 of 176
There would be a requirement for an Environmental Permit. Whilst this is not relied upon as a reason not to require EIA, it does provide assurance that the environment would be properly protected through the pollution control regime.
The site is separated from the County Wildlife Site and SSSIs by the railway, which creates a physical barrier. The SSSIs to the south west is 200m from the proposed site, while the SSSI to the south east is 300m from the site and is also separated from the site by Pitsea Hall Lane. It is considered due to the position of the railway and the disturbance that already exists due to the railway line, level crossing and traffic on Pitsea Hall Lane and the largely inert nature of the waste proposed to be sorted and stored on site it is considered that there would not be significant environmental effects resulting from the development on the CWS or SSSI that warrant an EIA.
Risk of accidents – The proposed development would require an Environmental Permit and environmental controls would be monitored by the Environment Agency.
The proposed waste recycling plant and machinery is in common usage and therefore the potential for accidents is low.
Characteristics of the potential impact
The potential significant effects of the development must be considered in relation to criteria set out above, and having regard in particular to the extent of the impact, the magnitude and complexity of the impact; the probability of the impact; the duration, frequency and reversibility of the impact. It is not considered that the potential impacts, namely, visual, noise, dust and vibration are likely to have the potential to affect more than the immediate area surrounding the site. In addition these impacts are not considered of a magnitude or complexity that warrants an EIA and there are known techniques to minimise noise and dust.
In addition, there are a total of 3 SSSI, 6LNR / LoWs and 1 country park within 2km of the proposed site. However due to the nature of the proposal and the fact that it is adjacent to an existing industrial development and railway line it is considered that there will not be significant environmental effects, particularly because there are no direct links to these designated sites due to the location of the railway line.
The proposals are 10m north of a Grade II Listed Building (c 16th century) Cromwell Manor (formerly Pitsea Hall) and approximately 220m southeast of St Michael’s Church (early C16th) a Grade II listed building. The proposals do have the potential to affect the setting of the two Listed Buildings. St Michael’s Church (grade II Listed Building) is located on Pitsea Mount, surrounded by residential development, only the tower remains and views including the proposed site only form a small part of the views to the tower. The proposals have the potential to impact upon the setting of the principle elevation from the south of Cromwell Manor. The proposed buildings are not directly within the views of Cromwell Manor when viewed from the south, although HGV visiting the site might be visible above the boundary wall to the north of Cromwell Manor.
Page 71 of 176
The waste activities have potential through noise, dust and the changed land use to impact upon the setting of the listed building. However, the proposals do not involve changes to the Listed Building itself and are not within the curtilage of the Listed Building and thus it is not considered that the effects on this heritage asset from the proposal are of such significance that it would warrant an EIA.
In addition vibration could potentially impact upon the structure of the Listed Building. However, in view of the proximity of Pitsea Hall Lane and the uneven surface of the level crossing north-east of the LB and the railway line, it is considered that the LB is already subject to vibrations and the proposals would not result in a significant change in additional vibration levels that would warrant an EIA.
Conclusion The proposed development would not exceed the thresholds set out in NPPG because it would be located on a site of approximately 1.24ha in size, would handle mainly inert waste, but is in the order of 50,000 tonnes.
The site is located in close proximity to ecologically “sensitive areas”, but in view of the railway line and road between the designated sites it is not considered there would be significant environmental effects on these designated sites. It is acknowledged that the proposals are in close proximity to Cromwell Manor a Grade II Listed building and within views of St Michael’s Church, but do not involve changes to the building or its immediate curtilage and therefore it is not considered that an EIA is warranted. However, such effects would require consideration as part of the normal planning process.
NPPG states that, in general, EIA will be needed for Schedule 2 developments for major development of more than local importance, for developments which are proposed for particularly environmentally sensitive or vulnerable locations, and for developments with unusually complex and potentially hazardous environmental effects.
Advice in the NPPG has not been relied upon solely. Schedule 3 of the Regulations has been taken into account with the result that the development is not considered to be of more than local importance (in the context of EIA legislation), would not have significant environmental effects on nearby CWS and SSSIs or Listed Building and would not have unusually complex/hazardous environmental effects either alone or in combination with other existing or approved developments.
Based on the consideration of criteria for Schedule 2 11) – Installations for the disposal of waste guidance within the NPPG it is considered that EIA WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED.
Documents submitted with the Planning Application and taken into account in this Screening Opinion:
Application form dated 6 March 2015 Planning, Design and Access Statement Ref SPL12.1831 Noise Assessments - Integrated Acoustics Ltd 22 Jan 2014, BL Acoustics 19 August 2015, MAS Environmental 4 Nov 2015
Page 72 of 176
Heritage Statement Landscape & Visual Appraisal dated 18/12/2013 Addendum to earlier Landscape Appraisal dated January 2015 Transport Statement dated 12/2/15
Drawings as follows: M001 Location Map M002D Location Plan E101A Existing Site Plan P201Z Proposed Site Plan P202E Proposed Floor Plan P203E Proposed Roof Plan P204F Proposed Elevations P206G Historical Access Route Plan – proposed amendments P207B Proposed Portakabin P208B Proposed Portakabin Elevations DFl-0282-SL-1300 B Proposed Street Lighting
Noise Assessments - Integrated Acoustics Ltd 22 Jan 2014, BL Acoustics 19 August 2015 & MAS Environmental 4 Nov 2015 Heritage Statement Landscape & Visual Appraisal dated 18/12/2013 Addendum to earlier Landscape Appraisal dated January 2015 Transport Statement dated 12/2/15 Heritage Statement Dust Assessment Outdoor Lighting Report – Rev B Lighting Report dated Jan 2015 Vibration monitoring dated 6 March 2014 Flood Risk Assessment dated March 2015 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey dated August 2012 Reptile Survey dated October 2012
Page 73 of 176
Page 74 of 176
APPENDIX C Basildon Borough Council Appraisal/Compliance of saved policies with NPPF
Page 75 of 176
Page 76 of 176
Page 77 of 176
Page 78 of 176
Page 79 of 176
Page 80 of 176
Page 81 of 176
Page 82 of 176
AGENDA ITEM 5.2
DR/39/15
committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 18 December 2015
MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT Proposal: Construction of a temporary access onto Great Bentley Road (Lufkins Lane), internal road and ancillary works to enable the removal of surplus material arising from the construction of an agricultural reservoir. Location: Lufkins Farm, Frating and Brook Farm, Great Bentley, Colchester Ref: ESS/40/15/TEN Applicant: A.O. Poole & Sons and George Wright
Report by Director of Operations, Environment and Economy Enquiries to: Gráinne O’Keeffe Tel: 033301 33055 The full application can be viewed at www.essex.gov.uk/viewplanning
Page 83 of 176
1. BACKGROUND
Planning permission was previously approved for the construction of an agricultural reservoir at Lufkins Farm in 2010 (with the implementation date extended in January 2014) involving the extraction of minerals and the removal of surplus soils. This permission has not yet been implemented.
The approved development included an access to the south onto Thorrington Road. This planning application proposes an alternative access to the west onto Great Bentley Road (Lufkins Lane).
A concurrent planning application is under consideration to amend planning conditions attached to the primary reservoir permission to reflect the location of the alternative access the subject of this application.
Relevant planning history:
ESS/41/15/TEN - s.73 application of alteration of conditions 2,13,16,19,20,21,23 and 48 of ESS/10/13/TEN – Under consideration
ESS/10/13/TEN - Extension of the time limit for implementation (by 5 years) of permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN for the construction of an agricultural reservoir involving the extraction of minerals and the removal of surplus soils.- Approved 24/01/2014
ESS/21/08/TEN - Construction of an agricultural reservoir involving the extraction of minerals and the removal of surplus soils - Approved 15/07/2010
2. SITE
The reservoir site is proposed to be located to the south east of Colchester on the western edge of the village of Great Bentley. The site area would be 7.7 hectares with an extraction area of approximately 4 hectares. The reservoir would be located with Brook Farm to the east and the B1029 Great Bentley Road to the west.
The application site is consists of a narrow strip of land, of stated area 0.4ha, extending from Great Bentley Road eastwards towards the site of the previously approved agricultural reservoir (Ref. ESS/21/08/TEN and ESS/10/13/TEN). The site is a relatively flat green field in agricultural use.
3. PROPOSAL
The proposal is to construct a temporary access onto Great Bentley Road (Lufkins Lane), an internal road and ancillary works to enable the removal of surplus material arising from the construction of an agricultural reservoir, previously permitted (Ref. ESS/21/08/TEN and ESS/10/13/TEN).
It is intended that the proposed access would be constructed instead of the access already approved to serve the reservoir site. A separate (S.73) planning
Page 84 of 176
application is currently under consideration to vary conditions to take account of the alternative access location and is dependent on permission being granted for this application for the new access. The proposed development consists of the construction of a ‘bell mouth’ entrance, (shown on drawing D381/108 Rev. Transport Statement). The asymmetrical bell mouth is designed to prevent lorries from turning left on exit and it is proposed to install signage “no left turn” instructing drivers when exiting the site. The initial section of access road is a proposed at 7.3m wide and 30 m long concrete section of road. The internal road is then proposed to be 4m wide, with passing bay, and built of compacted sand and gravel on a geofabric membrane. A static wheel wash is also proposed. Improvement works to the junction of Great Bentley Road and B1029 are proposed on land in the applicant’s control. The construction period of the reservoir is expected to be 3 years and it is proposed that the road and entrance would be removed on completion and the land thereafter returned to farmland.
The permission for the reservoir permitted a maximum of 60 HGV movements (30 in and 30 out) per day.
4. POLICIES
The following policies of the Essex Minerals Local Plan 2014 provide the development plan framework for this application. The following policies are of relevance to this application:
MLP Protecting and enhancing the S10 environment and local amenity
Access and Transportation S11
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 27 March 2012 and sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. The NPPF highlights that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. It goes on to state that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. The NPPF places a presumption in favour of sustainable development. However, paragraph 11 states that planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
For decision-taking the NPPF states that this means; approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and Page 85 of 176
demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this NPPF taken as a whole; or specific policies in this NPPF indicate development should be restricted.
In respect of the above, paragraph 215 of the NPPF, states that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this NPPF (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given).
The MLP was adopted in 2014 and is in conformity with the NPPF.
The Tendring Local Plan (adopted 2007) pre-dates the NPPF and therefore paragraph 215 applies. Tendring District Council advises the following that:
“Until we formally adopt a new Local Plan, the planning policy situation is complex. Elements of the 2007 adopted Local Plan will remain in force and will be used in determining planning applications, where relevant. However, as the new Local Plan progresses it will begin to have more "weight" in the planning process in deciding planning applications and guiding new development across our district, alongside other 'material considerations', including national planning policy. The level of "weight" we can attach to the adopted 2007 plan and new plan will vary so if you are thinking of submitting a planning application, you are strongly advised to discuss proposals with us beforehand.”
A new Local Plan is currently being prepared by the District and the Draft Local Plan Issues and Options consultation ended 13 October 2015. The 2007 Local Plan was not reviewed following the publication of the NPPF and therefore some policies are not consistent with National Policy. For that reason the planning assessment and recommendation in this report is based on the NPPF 2012 and Essex Minerals Plan 2014, as this proposal is for an access to facilitate minerals extraction and it is considered that the MLP is the most up to date and relevant development plan available.
5. CONSULTATIONS
TENDRING DISTRICT COUNCIL – No comments received.
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY – No objection subject to conditions. In summary, the impact of the proposal is acceptable subject to wheel washing, forward visibility at road junctions and reinstatement of the highway.
PLACE SERVICES (Historic Environment) – In summary, heritage assets in the form of below ground remains are likely, trial trenching evaluation is required to determine extent or absence. (Response: Refer to Archaeological Appraisal- conditions are recommended for trial trenching)
PLACE SERVICES (Ecology) – No objection subject to the recommendations in the mitigation and ecological enhancement measures of the Ecology (Deakins) report being followed. Two short sections of hedgerow, assessed as being important under Hedgerow Regulations, would be lost and should be replaced at the end of the 3 years permission. Suggestions on grass type and soil for grass
Page 86 of 176
verge and recommends new badger survey if development delayed.
PLACE SERVICES (Landscape) – No objection.
FRATING PARISH COUNCIL - Raise concern regarding the location of the proposed access and danger of HGV’s using narrow lane. Preference for previously approved access onto Thorrington Road, as better and safer alternative.
LOCAL MEMBER - TENDRING – Tendring Rural West – any comments received will be reported.
6. REPRESENTATIONS
Two neighbours were consulted by letter, a public notice was erected at the site and a newspaper notice was placed in the local newspaper. No representations have been received.
7. APPRAISAL
The key issues for consideration are:
A. Highway Impact; B. Archaeological Impact; C. Ecological Impact; D. Impact on Neighbour Amenity
A. HIGHWAYS IMPACT
Policy S11 of the Minerals Local Plan requires, inter-alia, that minerals development shall be permitted where it is demonstrated that the development would not have unacceptable impacts on the efficiency and effective operation of the road network.
Permission was previously approved for the construction of an agricultural reservoir on adjoining land (under Planning Ref: ESS/10/13/TEN). That permission included an access road crossing land to the south of the extraction area to exit onto Thorrington Road.
The site access under consideration in this planning application is proposed to replace the previously approved access.
The applicant has stated that the reasons for the alternative access, the subject of this application, are:
that the approved access onto Thorrington Road includes crossing third party land and that landowner has reconsidered his position and that option is no longer feasible; Since the previous access was approved, the local highway network as been improved, in particular the priority of the Great Bentley Road/ B1029 Frating Road/B1029 junction. This improvement removes the historic alignment and the applicant has stated that that B1029 is more suited to
Page 87 of 176
HGV traffic.
A Transport Statement has been submitted in support of the planning application. The proposed access strategy from the site is to the north and then westbound onto School Lane. It is not proposed to allow HGV traffic turn left out of the site and access onto Great Bentley Road. It is also proposed to upgrade the existing section of carriageway from the site access to the B1029 School Lane to a uniform width of 6 metres. This requires the removal of the informal layby opposite the proposed site access location. Improvement works to the junction of Great Bentley Road and B1029 are proposed on land within the applicant’s control.
Frating Parish Council raises concern regarding the location of the proposed access and danger from HGV’s using narrow lanes.
The impact of a maximum of 60 HGV movements per day was considered acceptable at the time the original application was considered. This figure is not proposed to change. The Highway Authority has not objected subject to conditions being imposed requiring a wheel washing facility, a sufficient visibility splay at the road junction and reinstatement of highway following completion of reservoir development. Accordingly the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policy S11 of the Essex Minerals Local Plan 2011.
B. ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT
Archaeological works carried out for the adjacent reservoir application identified features of significance in a field 150 metres from the western boundary of the site approximately where the access road is now proposed.
Policy S10 of the Mineral Local Plan (MLP) states, inter-alia, that that appropriate consideration has been given to the historic environment and that mitigation is included.
To mitigate the impact on archaeology, the applicant proposed to construct the internal road with a geofabric membrane to limit the need for deep excavation.
The construction of the 30m concrete stretch of internal road would require some shallow excavation and the applicant had proposed to carry out a watching brief.
ECC’s Archaeologist has assessed the proposal and considers that trial trenching evaluation is required to determine the present or absence, nature condition and extent of any such below ground archaeological remains. This would determine an appropriate approach to mitigate the impact of the proposed development either through preservation by record or re-design of the haul road.
Subject to suitable conditions being imposed the proposal is considered to accord with Policy S10 of the MLP.
C. ECOLOGICAL IMPACT
Policy S10 of the MLP also requires consideration of the development on the natural environment and mitigation if necessary.
Page 88 of 176
An Ecological Statement including a completed Essex Biodiversity Validation Checklist has been submitted by the applicant in support of the planning application.
The site not within 10km of an SAC, SPA or Ramsar site or within 2km of a SSSI. The checklist submitted considers Bats, Great Crested Newts, Dormice, Otters, Badgers, Barn Owls, Reptiles and concludes that the development would not affect European or Nationally protected species or priority species.
The Ecological Statement states the access route proposed is over land under intensive arable production of little ecological value. The proposal includes forming a gap in two existing hedgerows to facilitate the opening of a new access onto the public road and construction of the internal access road through a field boundary hedgerow.
ECC’s Ecologist has recommended that the recommendations in the mitigation and ecological enhancement measures of the ecology (Deakins) report should be followed. Two short stretches of hedgerow would be lost and these are assessed as being important under the Hedgerow Regulations and the ECC Ecologist recommends they should be replaced at the end of the three year life of the temporary road.
Subject to appropriate ecological mitigation and reinstatement, it is considered that the proposed development would be in accordance with the aims of conserving and enhancing the natural environment set out in the NPPF and Policy S10 of the MLP.
D. IMPACT ON NEIGHBOUR AMENITY
The original reservoir proposal was considered appropriate, subject to conditions, in respect of the impact on amenity. The nearest residential property to the proposed access and internal road is Slough House Farm approximately 100m to the north, and front the B1029. The access road would accommodate HGV traffic from the approved reservoir site on adjacent land, where up to 60 two-way vehicle movements per day (30 arriving and 30 departing) were approved under that planning application. Having regard to the distance between the internal access road and the nearest residential property, the temporary duration of the use, it is considered that the development would not result in significant adverse impact on amenity from noise or dust and would be in accordance with Policy S10 of the Minerals Local Plan 2014.
8. CONCLUSION
The proposed construction of an alternative site access, internal road and ancillary works - to enable the removal of surplus material (mineral) arising from the construction of an agricultural reservoir, previously permitted (Ref. ESS/21/08/TEN and ESS/10/13/TEN), is considered acceptable in principal. The proposals are considered acceptable in respect of the highways impact and would not result in significant adverse impact on ecology and would not be detrimental to the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers for the duration of the construction
Page 89 of 176
of the reservoir.
The development is considered to be in accordance the Essex Minerals Local Plan 2014 and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012). It is therefore recommended to approve planning permission subject to the conditions outlined below.
9. RECOMMENDED
That, if necessary, subject S106 agreement, attached to ESS/10/13/TEN being updated (requiring the provision of a maintenance bond and for works to the highway) that planning permission be granted subject to conditions covering the following matters:-
1. That the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details of the application 21 August 2015 and validated on the 02 September 2015, namely:
Plan No. 0318/A/A/1 Site Location Plan, dated 06-08-2015 Plan No. 0318/A/S/1 Site Plan, dated 06-08-2015 Dwg. No.D381/108/D Proposed Great Bentley Road Access & Works, dated 19/06/2015
Planning Statement, prepared by Minerals Services Ltd, dated August 2015
Appendix 2 - Transport Statement, prepared by Cannon Consulting Engineers, dated July 2015 (Ref. CCE/D381/TS-02)
Appendix 3 - Ecological Statement, prepared by S.E. Deakin, Landscape Manager & Ecologist, dated June 2015.
and in accordance with any non-material amendment(s) as may be subsequently approved in writing by the Minerals Planning Authority except as varied by the following conditions:
2. Once constructed, the site access subject of this permission shall be the only access used by construction vehicles associated with the construction of the reservoir approved under Planning Reference ESS/10/13/TEN.
3. The access the subject of this permission shall be used solely for the purpose of enabling the removal of surplus material arising from the construction of the agricultural reservoir, approved under Planning Reference ESS/10/13/TEN, and within 3 months of completion of construction of the reservoir, the internal haul road and access gate hereby permitted shall be removed and reinstated to agricultural use and gaps in the hedgerow shall be reinstated.
4. Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of a wheel cleaning facility within the site and adjacent to the egress onto the highway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. The wheel cleaning facility shall be installed prior to
Page 90 of 176
commencement of the development and thereafter used and maintained in position for the duration of the permission. No commercial vehicle shall leave the site unless its wheels and underside chassis have been cleaned to prevent materials, including mud and debris, being deposited on the public highway.
5. Construction on the proposed temporary access shall not commence unless and until the improvements to Great Bentley Road between the proposed site access and the B1029 School Lane and the Great Bentley Road/B1029 School Lane junction (as shown on Drawings D381/107/D, D381/108/D and D381/110/A) have been implemented in full. The forward visibility splay for vehicles turning right into Great Bentley Road from the B1029 School Lane shall be a minimum 215 metres or a distance based on the 85th percentile speed of vehicles using the B1029 School Lane. Details shall be approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development and thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
6. Prior to commencement of development hereby permitted, detailed drawings of the proposed bellmouth entrance shall be submitted for the prior written approval of the Mineral Planning Authority. The detailed drawings shall demonstrate the visibility splay at the entrance shall have a minimum setback distance of 2.4 metres . The forward visibility distance to the south of the access shall be a minimum 215 metres or a distance based on the 85th percentile speed of vehicles using Great Bentley Road. In addition the kerb on the south side of the access shall be designed to ensure heavy goods vehicles are not able to turn left out of the access. The details shall be approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development and the development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with approved details.
7. No development or preliminary ground-works shall commence unless and until a programme of archaeological trial trenching has been secured and undertaken in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation, which has been submitted and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. Following the completion of this initial phase of archaeological work, a summary report shall be prepared and a mitigation strategy detailing the approach to further archaeological excavation and/or preservation in situ through design of the development shall be submitted for the prior written approval of the Mineral Planning Authority.
8. No development or preliminary groundwork shall commence on those areas of the development site containing archaeological deposits, until the archaeological fieldwork, as detailed in the mitigation strategy approved under Condition 7 of this planning permission, has been completed and agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority.
9. Within six months of the completion of the archaeological fieldwork, the applicant shall submit to the Mineral Planning Authority a post-excavation assessment, which shall include completion of post-excavation analysis, preparation of a full site archive and report ready for deposition at the local
Page 91 of 176
museum, and submission of a publication report.
Informatives
• Prior to any works taking place in the highway the developer should enter into an agreement with the Highway Authority under the Highways Act 1980 to regulate the construction of the highway works
• Under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991, prior written consent from the Lead Local Flood Authority (Essex County Council) is required to construct any culvert (pipe) or structure (such as a dam or weir) to control or alter the flow of water within an ordinary watercourse. Ordinary watercourses include ditches, drains and any other networks of water which are not classed as Main River. If the applicant believes they need to apply for consent, further information and the required application forms can be found at www.essex.gov.uk/flooding. Alternatively they can email any queries to Essex County Council via [email protected]
Planning permission does not negate the requirement for consent and full details of the proposed works will be required at least two months before the intended start date
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Consultation replies Representations
THE CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010 (as amended)
The proposed development would not be located adjacent to/within distance to a European site.
Therefore, it is considered that an Appropriate Assessment under Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 is not required.
EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT
This report only concerns the determination of an application for planning permission. It does however take into account any equality implications. The recommendation has been made after consideration of the application and supporting documents, the development plan, government policy and guidance, representations and all other material planning considerations as detailed in the body of the report.
STATEMENT OF HOW THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT IN A POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE MANNER
In determining this planning application, the Mineral Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner, seeking solutions to problems arising in dealing with the application and offering advice on ways
Page 92 of 176
forward, as appropriate. This approach is considered in accordance with the requirement in the NPPF, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.
LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION
TENDRING – Tendring Rural West
Page 93 of 176
Page 94 of 176 AGENDA ITEM 5.3
DR/40/15
committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 18 December 2015
MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT Proposal: S.73 application for alteration of conditions 2,13,16,19,20,21,23 and 48 of ESS/10/13/TEN for extension of the time limit for implementation (by 5 years) of permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN for the construction of an agricultural reservoir involving the extraction of minerals and the removal of surplus soils. Ref: ESS/41/15/TEN Location: Lufkins Farm, Frating and Brook Farm, Great Bentley, Colchester Applicant: A.O. Poole & Sons and George Wright
Report by Director of Operations, Environment and Economy Enquiries to: Gráinne O’Keeffe Tel: 033301 33055 The full application can be viewed at www.essex.gov.uk/viewplanning
Page 95 of 176
1. BACKGROUND
Planning permission was previously approved for the construction of an agricultural reservoir at Lufkins Farm in 2010 (with the implementation date extended in January 2014) involving the extraction of minerals and the removal of surplus soils. This permission has not yet been implemented.
This application seeks to amend/omit some of the conditions attached to that permission – subject to planning application ESS/40/15/TEN being granted permission.
Planning application ESS/40/15/TEN is currently being considered for an alternative access to serve the approved reservoir. In the event that the alternative access is approved, the conditions on the existing permission (the subject of this S73 application) would need to be amended/omitted to reflect the location of the alternative access.
Relevant planning history:
ESS/10/13/TEN - Extension of the time limit for implementation (by 5 years) of permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN for the construction of an agricultural reservoir involving the extraction of minerals and the removal of surplus soils.- Approved 24/01/2014
ESS/21/08/TEN - Construction of an agricultural reservoir involving the extraction of minerals and the removal of surplus soils - Approved 15/07/2010
ESS/40/15/TEN – Construction of a temporary access onto Great Bentley road (Lufkins Lane), internal road and ancillary works to enable the removal of surplus material arising from the construction of an agricultural reservoir – Currently under consideration
2. SITE
The site is located to the south east of Colchester on the western edge of the village of Great Bentley. The site area is 7.7 hectares with an extraction area of approximately 4 hectares. The reservoir would be located with Brook Farm to the east and the B1029 Great Bentley Road to the west.
The northern boundary is open but there are some hedges within the open fields. The southern and eastern boundaries are open with a small woodland copse in the south-east corner. The western boundary is the Parish boundary and supports a hedge.
A new access road is proposed under application reference ESS/40/15/TEN (referred to above) however the existing approved access is onto Thorrington Road to the south about half way between Hill House Farm and Lufkins Farm.
3. PROPOSAL
Page 96 of 176
This is an application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to carry out development permitted under planning reference ESS/10/13/TEN for the construction of an agricultural reservoir involving the extraction of minerals and the removal of surplus soils without compliance with condition No.’s 2,13,16,19,20,21,23 and 48.
The original permission (ESS/10/13/TEN) was approved with an access to the south onto Thorrington Road which required access over third party land. That 3rd party landowner has subsequently removed consent and therefore this access is no longer feasible. Accordingly a separate concurrent planning application (ESS/40/15/TEN) for an alternative access via Great Bentley Road to the west of the site has been applied for.
The purpose of this application is to vary the conditions of the original reservoir consent is to ensure that that permission amends the previous details approved relating to the south onto Thorrington Road. The changes to the conditions would facilitate the use of the proposed an alternative access onto Great Bentley Road.
Condition No’s. 2, 13, 16, 19, 20, 23, and 48: The conditions listed above relate to the Thorrington Road access, as the applicant now seeks to use the Great Bentley Road entrance (ESS/40/15/TEN). Subject to approval of the Great Bentley Road access, it is appropriate to amend the conditions on the reservoir application to reflect the changes. Access details would be amended including planting schemes and other changes.
Condition No 21: This condition relates to wheel washing facilities, this condition is no longer required as the wheel -washing has been included in the planning permission for the temporary access at Great Bentley Road under ESS/40/15/TEN.
Condition 48: (requiring the developer to enter into a S.278 agreement for works to the highway) would be no longer relevant as the access is dealt with under a separate permission and could be omitted from the decision notice, should permission be granted.
Amended operations plan Drawing NO. 0318/O/1b: An amended operational plan is proposed in order to effectively use the alternative access onto Great Bentley. It is proposed to relocate the weighbridge, office and car park from the east to the west end of the site; this involves a small reconfiguration of the soil bunds at this location.
4. POLICIES
In considering applications under S.73, the National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) advices applications are considered against - “Development plan and material considerations, under section 38(6) of the 2004 Act, and conditions attached to the existing permission. Local planning authorities should, in making their decisions, focus their attention on national and development plan policies, and other material considerations which may have changed significantly since the original grant of permission.” Since the original permission Ref. ESS/10/13/TEN was granted the Essex Minerals Local Plan 2014, was adopted, this is the most significant change and is a material Page 97 of 176
consideration in considering the planning application. The following policies of the Essex Minerals Local Plan 2014 provide the development plan framework for this application. The following policies are of relevance to this application:
MLP Provision for Sand and Gravel S6 Extraction Access and Transportation S11
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 27 March 2012 and sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. The NPPF highlights that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. It goes on to state that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. The NPPF places a presumption in favour of sustainable development. However, paragraph 11 states that planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
For decision-taking the NPPF states that this means; approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this NPPF taken as a whole; or specific policies in this NPPF indicate development should be restricted.
In respect of the above, paragraph 215 of the NPPF, states that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this NPPF (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given).
The MLP was adopted in 2014 and is in conformity with the NPPF.
The Tendring Local Plan (adopted 2007) pre-dates the NPPF and therefore paragraph 215 applies. Tendring District Council advises the following that:
“Until we formally adopt a new Local Plan, the planning policy situation is complex. Elements of the 2007 adopted Local Plan will remain in force and will be used in determining planning applications, where relevant. However, as the new Local Plan progresses it will begin to have more "weight" in the planning process in deciding planning applications and guiding new development across our district, alongside other 'material considerations', including national planning policy. The level of "weight" we can attach to the adopted 2007 plan and new plan will vary so if you are thinking of submitting a planning application, you are strongly advised to discuss proposals with us beforehand.”
A new Local Plan is currently being prepared by the District and the Draft Local Plan Issues and Options consultation ended 13 October 2015. The 2007 Local Page 98 of 176
Plan was not reviewed following the publication of the NPPF and therefore some policies are not consistent with National Policy. For that reason the planning assessment and recommendation in this report is based on the NPPF 2012 and Essex Minerals Plan 2014, as this proposal is for an access to facilitate minerals extraction and it is considered that the MLP is the most up to date and relevant development plan available.
5. CONSULTATIONS
TENDRING DISTRICT COUNCIL – No objection but reiterates comments on the previous application regarding landscaping and lorry movements.
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY – No objection. The proposal is in accordance with the Highway Authority’s Development Management Policies as adopted February 2011.
PLACE SERVICES (Landscape) – No comments to make regarding landscape.
FRATING PARISH COUNCIL - In summary, raise concern regarding the location of the proposed access and danger of HGV’s using narrow lane. Preference for previously approved access onto Thorrington Road, as better and safer alternative.
LOCAL MEMBER - TENDRING – Tendring Rural West – any comments received will be reported.
6. REPRESENTATIONS
Two neighbours were consulted by letter, a public notice was erected at the site and a newspaper notice was placed in the local newspaper. No representations have been received.
7. APPRAISAL
Since the development was approved the only updated in policy was the adoption of the Essex Minerals Local Plan in July 2014. The reservoir application was considered against the pre-submission draft MLP and therefore it is considered there has been no significant change in policy since the implementation date for the permission was extended in 2014.
The NPPF sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The proposal was considered against the NPPF in 2014 and the conclusions being considered relevant to this application, namely:
With respect to the proposed development, the economic role had been justified by referencing the following:
- Improved crop yields and quality assurance through controlled irrigation, - Improvement of farm viability with benefits to the rural economy.
Page 99 of 176
The social role was justified by referencing the following:
- Improvement of farm viability with benefits to the rural economy and stewardship of the countryside.
The environmental role was justified by referencing the following:
- Best use of soils (a finite resource) and land as a result of irrigation, - Capture and storage of surplus water for use when the resource is under stress, - No waste materials due to processing of minerals and use of soils in restoration.
MLP Policy S6 (July 2014) updated Policy MLP4 (of the previous 1996 Mineral Local Plan). MLP4 was used to previously consider the proposed reservoir against, in May 2013 as well as draft MLP Policy S6.
Policy S6 is similar to the previous MLP policy in that an overriding benefit and/or justification should be demonstrated for the proposed extraction.
Policy S6 (Provision for sand and gravel extraction), in summary, aims to resist extraction on non-preferred sites unless there is an overriding justification/benefit; the scale is no more than the essential minimum; the development is environmentally suitable, sustainable and consistent with the Development Plan.
The applicant previously stated that the need for the agricultural reservoir remains identical to that put forward within the original application. The issue was thoroughly considered through the determination of application ref ESS/21/08/TEN. Taking into account previous arguments, and the requirement of the NPPF that the MPA should give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy, it is considered that the issue of need remains adequately proven and the previous considerations remain applicable to this application.
Therefore, the principal and need for extraction is considered to comply with MLP Policy S6 and the previous considerations for applications ESS/21/08/TEN (Officer report at APPENDIX 1) and ESS/10/13/TEN (Officer report at APPENDIX 2) remain applicable and relevant.
The highway impacts of the alternative access are assessed under Planning application ESS/40/15/TEN, duplicated as follows:
Policy S11 of the Minerals Local Plan requires, inter-alia, that minerals development shall be permitted where it is demonstrated that the development would not have unacceptable impacts on the efficiency and effective operation of the road network.
Permission was previously approved for the construction of an agricultural reservoir on adjoining land (under Planning Ref: ESS/10/13/TEN). That permission included an access road crossing land to the south of the extraction area to exit onto Thorrington Road.
The site access under consideration in this planning application is proposed to replace
Page 100 of 176
the previously approved access.
The applicant has stated that the reasons for the alternative access, the subject of this application, are:
• that the approved access onto Thorrington Road includes crossing third party land and that landowner has reconsidered his position and that option is no longer feasible; • Since the previous access was approved, the local highway network has been improved, in particular the priority of the Great Bentley Road/ B1029 Frating Road/B1029 junction. This improvement removes the historic alignment and the applicant has stated that that B1029 is more suited to HGV traffic.
A Transport Statement has been submitted in support of the planning application. The proposed access strategy from the site is to the north and then westbound onto School Lane. It is not proposed to allow HGV traffic turn left out of the site and access onto Great Bentley Road. It is also proposed to upgrade the existing section of carriageway from the site access to the B1029 School Lane to a uniform width of 6 metres. This requires the removal of the informal layby opposite the proposed site access location. Improvement works to the junction of Great Bentley Road and B1029 are proposed on land within the applicant’s control.
Frating Parish Council raises concern regarding the location of the proposed access and danger from HGV’s using narrow lanes.
The impact of a maximum of 60 HGV movements per day was considered acceptable at the time the original application was considered. This figure is not proposed to change. The Highway Authority has not objected subject to conditions being imposed requiring a wheel washing facility, a sufficient visibility splay at the road junction and reinstatement of highway following completion of reservoir development. Accordingly the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policy S11 of the Essex Minerals Local Plan 2011.
The proposed variation of conditions is considered to be a material minor amendment to the approved plans and would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts and is considered acceptable.
8. CONCLUSION
The economic, social and environmental strands of ‘sustainable development’ are considered to have been previously demonstrated and remain applicable as do the policies of the development plan taken as a whole. The highway impact, and other impacts, has been considered separately under application ESS/40/15/TEN, and a new access is considered to be acceptable subject to conditions.
The proposal to develop the site without compliance with conditions 2,13,16,19,20,21,23 and 48 is therefore considered to be in accordance with the policies set out in the Minerals Local Plan 2014 and National Planning Policy Framework (2012). It is therefore recommended to approve planning permission subject to the recommendation outlined below.
9. RECOMMENDED
That, subject S106 agreement, attached to ESS/10/13/TEN, being updated
Page 101 of 176
(requiring the provision of a maintenance bond and for works to the highway and to the provision of proof that the farm owners agree to share the water for irrigation) within 6 months of the date of this resolution, that planning permission be granted subject to conditions covering the following matters:-
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiry of 5 years from the date of planning permission ref. ESS/10/13/TEN (dated 24 January 2014). Written notification of the date of commencement shall be sent to the Mineral Planning Authority within 7 days of such commencement.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with:
the details submitted by way of the application ref ESS/21/08/TEN dated 23 May 2008 and covering letter dated 22 May 2008, together with drawings numbered 0318/A (26/02/2007), 0318/O/1b (17/08/2015), Supporting Statement dated 20 May 2008, Irrigation Requirements Report dated December 2004, Traffic Statement dated March 2007, Hydrogeological Assessment dated August 2007, Preliminary Appraisal of Ecological Interests and Constraints dated March 2007 as amended by Ecological Appraisal update August 2009, Search of Essex Heritage Conservation Record dated 19/10/04, Archaeological Evaluation dated December 2007, Correspondence between Hafren Water and the Environment Agency dated 26 March 2008, 04 April 2008 and 25 April 2008, email dated 28 July 2008 with drawing number 0318/I/1 dated 08/08/2007, email dated 12 August 2008, email dated 07 August 2008 and Licence for access over land at Hill House Farm dated 2007,
AS AMENDED BY
the details submitted by way of the application ref ESS/10/13/TEN dated 13 March 2013, covering letter dated 13 March 2013 and supporting statement entitled ‘Lufkins Farm, Great Bentley, Essex, Application for a new planning permission to replace the existing planning consent ESS/21/08/TEN in order to extend the time limit for implementation’ by Mineral Services Ltd, together with drawing numbered 0318/A v2 dated 08/03/13 and Ecological Appraisal update March 2013,
And in accordance with any details as are subsequently approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority, except as varied by the following conditions:
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order evoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no building, structure, fixed plant or machinery (other than hydraulic excavator, plant for the movement of materials, the office weighbridge and portacabin and mobile WC), shall be erected, extended, installed or replaced on the site without the prior agreement in writing of the Mineral Planning Authority.
4. All aggregate materials available for sale shall only originate from the workings hereby permitted. No aggregate shall be imported for processing or resale. No aggregate extracted from the site shall be stored on site.
Page 102 of 176
5. From the date production commences the operators shall maintain records of their monthly output/production and shall make them available to the Mineral Planning Authority upon request. All records shall be kept for the duration of the extraction.
6. This permission shall be limited to a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of development by which time operations shall have ceased and the site have been restored in accordance with the scheme approved under Condition 13. Written notification of the date of commencement shall be sent to the Mineral Planning Authority within 7 days of such commencement.
7. In the event that operations are terminated, or suspended for a period in excess of 12 months, the excavated area and other operational land shall be restored in accordance with the scheme or schemes approved under Condition 13 and within a period of 6 months from the date of notification by the Mineral Planning Authority, except as varied by details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority.
8. Unless the Mineral Planning Authority otherwise agrees in writing any building, plant, machinery, foundation, hardstanding, roadway, structure or erection in the nature of plant or machinery used in connection with the development hereby permitted shall be removed from the site when they are respectively no longer required for the purpose for which they were installed, in any case not later than 3 years from the date of this permission or commencement of development whichever is the earlier and upon their removal the land shall be restored in accordance with the agreed restoration scheme.
9. Operations authorised or required by this permission shall only be carried out between the following times:
0700 – 1800 hours Monday to Friday 0700 – 1300 hours Saturdays,
And at no other time or on Sundays and Public Holidays, except for emergency maintenance and monitoring of the site and the following provisions, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, all vehicles in excess of 7.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight (t gvw) and vehicles in excess of 3.5t gvw associated with the operations shall not be allowed to enter or leave the site outside of these times.
For clarity, the operation of plant and machinery for the stripping of soil, construction of screen bunds or the extraction of sand and gravel shall not commence before 0800 hours prior to the completion of the screen bunds related to the phase being worked and intended to afford visual and aural protection to nearby residents.
10. All storage bunds intended to remain in situ for more than 6 months or over the winter period shall be grassed over and weed control and other necessary maintenance carried out to the satisfaction of the Mineral Planning Authority. Details of the seed mixture and the application rates shall be submitted to and
Page 103 of 176
approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority no less than one month before completion of the formation of the storage bunds is expected. The seeding shall thereafter take place in accordance with the approved details.
11. Lighting on site shall not be installed except in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. The development shall be subsequently implemented in accordance with the approved details.
12. All plant and machinery shall operate only during the permitted hours, as specified in Condition 9, except in an emergency (which shall be notified to the Mineral Planning Authority as soon as practicable), and shall be silenced at all times in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations.
13. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the details for the protection of existing plants and detailed planting scheme relating to condition 13 attached to permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN, as set out in the statement entitled ‘Lufkins Farm Schedule of Conditions’ received on the 20 February 2009 and drawing numbers 0318/R/1a dated 06/10/10, as approved by the Mineral Planning on 13 October 2010 and 0318/O/1b dated 17/08/2015.
14. Any tree or shrub forming plant of a planting scheme approved in connection with this development that dies, is damaged, diseased or removed five years after completion of the operations shall be replaced by the applicants during the next planting season with a tree or shrub or species and size to be agreed with the Mineral Planning Authority.
15. Any temporary fuel or chemical storage vessel shall be within an impermeable container with a sealed sump and capable of holding at least 110% of the vessel’s capacity. All fill, draw and overflow pipes shall be properly housed to avoid spillage.
16. The access / haul road used in connection with the operations hereby permitted shall be sprayed with water during dry weather conditions to prevent dust nuisance.
17. No loaded lorry shall leave the site unsheeted.
18. All ingress to and egress from the site by vehicles shall be by the access and internal access road from Great Bentley Road as per planning ref. ESS/40/15/TEN. A metal gate shall be placed across the access point from the public highway and securely locked outside of the permitted hours referred to in Condition 9 to this approval.
19. Unless with the prior written agreement of the Mineral Planning Authority there shall be no more than 60 vehicle movements in excess of 3.5t gvw (30 in/30 out) from the site on any single working day. Except on Saturday mornings when there shall be no more than 30 vehicle movements in excess of 3.5t gvw (15 in/15 out) from the site.
Page 104 of 176
20. The development hereby permitted shall not take place until a programme of archaeological work, including processing, assessment, archiving and publication of results, relating to condition 24 attached to permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN, has been carried out in accordance with the statement received 20 February 2009 and ‘NAU Archaeology Written Scheme of Investigation for Archaeological Excavation (revised)’ ref BAU1998 dated December 2010, as approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority on 22 December 2010.
21. The development hereby permitted shall not take place unless in accordance with the scheme of soil movements relating to condition 25 attached to permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN, as set out in the statement entitled ‘Lufkins Farm Schedule of Conditions’ received on the 20 February 2009 and drawing number 0318/MB1 dated 28/11/08, as approved by the Mineral Planning Authority on 14 September 2010.
22. The development hereby permitted shall not take place unless in accordance with the scheme of machine movements relating to condition 26 attached to permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN, as set out in the statement entitled ‘Lufkins Farm Schedule of Conditions’ received on the 20 February 2009 and drawing number 0318/MB1 dated 28/11/08, as approved by the Mineral Planning Authority on 14 September 2010.
23. Before any part of the site is excavated or traversed by heavy vehicles or machinery (except for the purpose of stripping that part or staking topsoil on that part), or is surfaced or built upon, or used for the stacking of subsoil, soil making material or overburden, or as a plant yard, or for the construction of a haul road, all available topsoil (and subsoil) shall be stripped from that part.
24 All topsoil shall be stripped to the full depth (generally 30cm) and shall, wherever possible, be immediately re-spread over an area of reinstated subsoil. If this immediate re-spreading is not practicable, the topsoil shall be stored separately for subsequent replacement.
When subsoil is to be retained for use in the restoration process it shall be stripped to a depth of not less than 70cm and shall, wherever possible, be immediately re-spread over the replaced overburden/low permeability cap. If this immediate re-spreading is not practicable the subsoil shall be stored separately for subsequent replacement. Subsoil not being retained for use in the restoration process shall be regarded as overburden.
25. Bunds for the storage of agricultural soils shall conform to the following criteria:
a. Topsoil, subsoil and subsoil substitutes shall be stored separately. b. Materials shall be stored like upon like, so that topsoil shall be stripped from beneath subsoil bunds and subsoil from beneath overburden bunds. c. Where continuous bunds are used dissimilar soils shall be separated by a third material, previously agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority. d. Topsoil bunds shall not exceed 3m in height and subsoil (or subsoil substitute) bunds shall not exceed 3m in height.
Page 105 of 176
26. All topsoil, subsoil and soil making material shall be retained on site unless with the prior approval of the Mineral Planning Authority. No bunds shall remain on site as part of the restoration scheme agreed under Condition 13 to this approval.
27. When replacing all soils, subsoil shall be tipped in windrows and spread to the required level, in 5m wide strips in such a manner as to avoid compacting placed soils. Topsoil shall be tipped, lifted and evenly spread onto the levelled subsoil in a manner as to avoid compacting the placed soils.
28. The minimum settled depth of subsoil and topsoil shall be not less than 1m.
29. All stones and other materials in excess of 150mm in any dimension shall be picked and removed from the restored surface of the site.
30. The applicant shall notify the Mineral Planning Authority at least 5 working days in advance of the final subsoil placement on each phase, or part phase to allow a site inspection to take place.
31. The finished surface of the subsoil shall be broken and opened to a depth of 450mm at a tine spacing of 450mm.
32. The topsoil shall be spread so as to produce a minimum even settled depth of 300mm over the reinstated subsoil.
33. The respread topsoil and areas upon which topsoil has been stored shall be ripped or loosened at a tine spacing of not greater than 600mm and to a depth of at least 50mm. Any non-soil making material or larger stone lying on the loosened topsoil surface and, on any surface, larger than would pass through a wire screen mesh with a spacing of 150mm shall be removed from the site or buried at a depth not less than 2m below the final settled contours.
34. Noise levels shall be monitored by the operating company at three monthly intervals at up to five locations to be agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. The results of the monitoring shall include the LA90 and LAeq noise levels, the prevailing weather conditions, details of the measurement equipment used and its calibration and comments on the sources of noise which control the noise climate. The survey shall be for two separate 15 minute periods during the working day and the results shall be kept by the operating company during the life of the permitted operations and a copy shall be supplied to the Mineral Planning Authority. After the first year of operation, the frequency of the monitoring may be modified by agreement with the Mineral Planning Authority.
35. A width of 5m shall be left between the toe of the northern bund and footpath 4 Great Bentley including the 2m width of the footpath itself.
36. Prior to site clearance the ground vegetation adjacent to the ditch along Thorrington Road shall be strimmed and maintained in a cropped condition and a buffer zone along the peripheral edges of the application site shall be
Page 106 of 176
maintained for the duration of the development hereby permitted in accordance with the statement entitled ‘Lufkins Farm Schedule of Conditions’ received on 20 February 2009 and email dated 29 September 2010, as approved by the Mineral Planning Authority on 13 October 2010, and as amended by paragraphs 15-22 of the Ecological Appraisal Update March 2013. For the avoidance of doubt, the preliminary badger survey carried out in 2013 shall be updated and appropriate mitigation measures put in place in the event that development does not commence within 1 year of the date of this permission.
37. Prior to discharge of water to Bentley Brook a river level gauge shall be installed upstream of the discharge point to monitor levels within the river to ensure that no water is discharged to Bentley Brook during high flow periods.
38. Prior to first discharge of water to Bentley Brook the river gauge shall be fully operational and maintained for the duration of the development.
39. All tree/shrub/hedgerow removal shall be undertaken outside of the bird breeding season.
40. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted signs shall be erected at locations to be approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority, to inform drivers to turn right out of the site and left into the site. The approved signs shall be erected and maintained for the life of the development hereby permitted.
41. An aftercare scheme detailing the steps that are necessary to bring the land to the required standard for trees, grassland and hedgerows shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority prior to commencement of restoration works on site. The scheme shall provide an outline strategy for the 5 year aftercare period and provide a detailed annual programme of care. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
42. Except for temporary occasions, the free-field Equivalent Continuous Noise Levels (LAeq, 1hour) at noise sensitive properties near the site, due to the permitted operations on the site, shall not exceed the limits set out below:
- 55db – where the background noise level (LA90) without the permitted operations is or exceeds 45 dB. - LA90 + 10dB – where the background noise level (LA90) without the permitted operations is below 45dB.
43. For temporary by exceptionally noisy operations, the free-field Equivalent Noise Level at noise sensitive properties shall not exceed 70dB LAeq, 1 hour. Temporary operations shall not exceed a total of eight weeks in any continuous 12 month period for work affecting any noise sensitive property. These operations shall include bund formation and removal, soils stripping, removal of spoil heaps and construction of new permanent landforms.
Informatives
Page 107 of 176
- Any works in, over, under or within 9m of Bentley Brook will require formal written consent from the Environment Agency prior to the commencement of works. Consent will be required prior to the instalment of the level gauge into the river.
- It is the responsibility of the applicant to seek planning permission for the works required under the terms of the Legal Agreement.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Consultation replies Representations
THE CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010 (as amended)
The proposed development would not be located adjacent to/within distance to a European site.
Therefore, it is considered that an Appropriate Assessment under Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 is not required.
EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT
This report only concerns the determination of an application for planning permission. It does however take into account any equality implications. The recommendation has been made after consideration of the application and supporting documents, the development plan, government policy and guidance, representations and all other material planning considerations as detailed in the body of the report.
STATEMENT OF HOW THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT IN A POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE MANNER
In determining this planning application, the Mineral Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner, seeking solutions to problems arising in dealing with the application and offering advice on ways forward, as appropriate. This approach is considered in accordance with the requirement in the NPPF, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.
LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION
TENDRING DISTRICT – Tendring Rural West
Page 108 of 176
APPENDIX 1
AGENDA ITEM ......
committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 26 February 2010
MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT Construction of an agricultural reservoir involving the extraction of minerals and the removal of surplus soils: Legal Agreement update Land at Lufkins Farm, Thorrington Road, Great Bentley, Essex Ref: ESS/21/08/TEN
Report by Head of Environmental Planning Enquiries to: Shelley Bailey Tel: 01245 437577
Page 109 of 176
10. BACKGROUND
In August 2008 Members of the Development and Regulation Committee resolved to approve the above application subject to the applicant, landowner and Highway Authority entering into a Section 106 Agreement for:
- the provision of a maintenance bond; - works to Thorrington Road, and; - the provision of proof that the farm owners agree to share the resulting water for irrigation.
In October 2009 Members were asked to re-endorse the previous decision to grant planning permission subject to a planning agreement and relevant conditions, including an amendment to condition 1 to allow commencement of development within 3 years (rather than the previously imposed 1 year).
It was also noted that an ecological survey had been carried out in August 2009 in order to update the previous survey within 12 months of the original recommendation. The updated survey was proposed to be incorporated into condition 2 to ensure the recommendations would be followed.
At the October 2009 Committee the requirement for the landowner to maintain new visibility splays in perpetuity was considered. Members followed the recommendation that it would be sufficient to require the landowner to maintain the visibility splays for 12 months beyond the completion of the development only, and this was being incorporated into the S106.
The final figures for the financial bond for the maintenance of Thorrington Road and Great Bentley Road were being agreed.
11. SITE
The proposal site is located to the south east of Colchester on the western edge of the village of Great Bentley. The site area would be 7.7 hectares with an extraction area of approximately 4 hectares. The reservoir would be located with Brook Farm to the east and the B1029 Great Bentley Road to the west.
The northern boundary is open but there are some hedges within the open fields. The southern and eastern boundaries are open with a small woodland copse in the south-east corner. The western boundary is the Parish boundary and supports a hedge.
A new access is proposed to be constructed onto Thorrington Road to the south about half way between Hill House Farm and Lufkins Farm.
Footpath 4 Great Bentley/2 Frating would run parallel with part of the northern boundary of the proposal area.
The Bentley Brook runs to the east of Brook Farm, which is the site of a pig unit
Page 110 of 176 DRFEB05 16
and maintains a breeding sow herd producing 6,300 pigs per annum.
12. DISCUSSION
The legal agreement was quite complex and has necessitated a number of drafts to reach an agreement that addresses all the heads of terms and ensure a workable and enforceable agreement.
It is understood from the applicant that negotiations are still taking place with one of the other landowners involved in the process. The applicant has informed the Mineral Planning Authority that the negotiations are going well and every effort is being made to bring the matter to a successful conclusion as swiftly as possible.
It is noted that no further material considerations affecting the original resolution to grant permission have arisen since the Committee last considered the proposal.
13. RECOMMENDED
1. The Committee re-endorse the previous decision to grant planning permission subject to a planning agreement and relevant conditions, as amended by the decision taken on 23 October 2009.
2. A further report is submitted to the Committee should negotiations not proceed towards signing the necessary legal agreement by the end of May 2010 to allow Members to reconsider the recommendation for the application as a whole.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Ref: P/DC/Shelley Bailey/ESS/21/08/TEN
LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION
TENDRING – Tendring Rural West TENDRING – Brightlingsea
Page 111 of 176 DRFEB05 17
Appendix 1
DR/044/08
committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 29 August 2008
MINERALS AND WASTE Construction of an agricultural reservoir involving the extraction of minerals and the removal of surplus soils. Lufkins Farm, near Great Bentley, Essex. A O Poole & Sons and George Wright Farms. Ref: ESS/21/08/TEN
Report by Head of Environmental Planning Enquiries to: Shelley Bailey Tel: 01245 437577
x
Page 112 of 176 18
1. BACKGROUND & SITE
The proposal site is located to the south east of Colchester on the western edge of the village of Great Bentley. The site area would be 7.7 hectares with an extraction area of approximately 4 hectares. The reservoir would be located with Brook Farm to the east and the B1029 Great Bentley Road to the west.
The northern boundary is open but there are some hedges within the open fields. The southern and eastern boundaries are open with a small woodland copse in the south- east corner. The western boundary is the Parish boundary and supports a hedge.
A new access is proposed to be constructed onto Thorrington Road to the south about half way between Hill House Farm and Lufkins Farm.
Footpath 4 Great Bentley/2 Frating would run parallel with part of the northern boundary of the proposal area.
The Bentley Brook runs to the east of Brook Farm. Brook Farm is the site of a pig unit which maintains a breeding sow herd producing 6,300 pigs per annum.
2. PROPOSAL The application is for the construction of an agricultural reservoir for use for crop irrigation by the adjacent farmers at Lufkins Farm and Brook Farm. The construction would involve the removal of 275,000 tonnes of sand and gravel over a period of 3 years until autumn 2011.
A temporary new access is proposed onto Thorrington road. The haul route would be approximately 650 metres long and constructed from compacted hardcore or sand and gravel to a width of 4 metres and incorporating passing bays.
Vehicle movements are proposed to be an average of 60 per day (30 in and 30 out) with 30 movements (15 in and 15 out) on Saturday mornings. A traffic routeing scheme is proposed so that all associated traffic is diverted west to the B1029 and not into Great Bentley village.
Hours of operation are proposed to be 0700 – 1800 hours Monday to Friday and 0700 – 1300 hours Saturday with no operations outside of those hours. In winter operations would cease earlier than 1800 hours due to there being no fixed lighting on site.
The final landform would incorporate shallows in the northern and south eastern corners of the reservoir for the incorporation of varied habitats. It is proposed that new hedges are planted along the southern, western and northern boundaries with the eastern boundary being left partially open.
Dewatering would need to take place as part of the development. In order to protect the spring to the south east of the site, the discharge from dewatering would be into the small reservoir west of Brook Farm and then into the Bentley Brook via an existing pipe which would allow the volume to be managed. Dewatering operations would be suspended in the event that both the Bentley Brook and the reservoir are found to be full.
Page 113 of 176
The total storage volume of the reservoir would be 120,000 cubic metres, which would ensure an annual useable volume of 95,000 cubic metres with a buffer to allow for evaporation.
A dirty water lagoon of 9,000 cubic metres is required on the adjacent Brook Farm as part of the management of the pig unit. This should be taken into consideration as the existing reservoir at Brook Farm would be converted to the dirty water lagoon and the volume of water which would have been used for irrigation would be incorporated into the proposed reservoir.
3. POLICIES
The following policies of the Essex Minerals Local Plan Adopted November 1996 (MLP) and the Tendring District Local Plan Adopted December 2007 (TDLP) provide the development plan framework for this application. The following policies are of relevance to this application:
TDLP MLP
Access MLP3 Non-preferred sites MLP4 Restoration MLP8 Working and reclamation MLP9 Development control MLP13 Environmental impacts and compatibility Q11 of uses Noise pollution COM22 General pollution COM23 Landscape character EN1 Biodiversity EN6 Protected species EN6a Habitat creation EN6b Archaeology EN29 Development affecting highways TR1A Safeguarding and improving public TR4 rights of way Agricultural reservoirs RA8
4. CONSULTATIONS
TENDRING DISTRICT COUNCIL – No objection subject to the implementation of an appropriate landscaping scheme to screen the development and restrictions on lorry movements and operating times.
TENDRING RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION – No objection subject to Footpath 4 Great Bentley being available for public use at all times. In the event of unavoidable disturbance a temporary diversion order should be sought.
CPRE – Any comments received shall be reported verbally.
Page 114 of 176
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – No objection subject to the imposition of conditions relating to the instalment and use of a river level gauge in the Bentley Brook. Informs the applicant that works within 9m of the Bentley Brook require prior consent, including the installation of the river level gauge. Existing abstraction licences will have to be varied and dewatering will require a licence from October 2008. Existing hedgerows and trees must be protected, shrub removal must take place outside of the bird breeding season and chemicals must not be applied to the development site.
NATURAL ENGLAND – No objection due to the small area of best and most versatile land. Comment that there may be a discrepancy in the agricultural land grading, also that the soil handling methods appear to contradict good practice advice and that surplus topsoils to be spread on nearby farmland must be justified and properly spread to avoid compaction.
ESSEX WILDLIFE TRUST – Any comments received shall be reported verbally
THE HIGHWAY AUTHORITY – No objection subject to conditions relating to construction of visibility splays, a survey of the before and after condition of Thorrington Road and Great Bentley Road and provision of a maintenance bond. Also require restricted vehicle movements, all vehicles to turn left in and right out of the site, a hardened haul route surface for the first 30 metres and no debris on the public highway. Details have been submitted with regard to the temporary closure of Thorrington Level Crossing.
THE HIGHWAY AUTHORITY – RIGHTS OF WAY – No objection subject to a 5 metre margin between the bund and the footpath including the width of the footpath itself. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT (ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS) – No objection but suggest the applicants comply with the ‘General Preliminary Appraisal of Ecological Interests and Constraints’, request the submission of a planting and aftercare scheme and draw attention to the bunds which should be 3m high as shown on the drawings and not 5m high.
HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT (ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS) – No objection subject to the imposition of a full archaeological condition.
COUNTY COUNCIL’S NOISE CONSULTANT – No objection due to the mitigation of noise by perimeter bunds. Suggest conditions to be imposed if the MPA feels it is necessary.
FRATING PARISH COUNCIL – Comment that the railway crossing at Thorrington is due to undergo major alteration.
THORRINGTON PARISH COUNCIL – Comment that the level crossing gates and road layout are due to begin by the end of 2008 and increased lorry movements are therefore not ideal.
GREAT BENTLEY PARISH COUNCIL – No objection subject to no vehicles associated with the reservoir transiting through Great Bentley village.
LOCAL MEMBER – TENDRING – Tendring Rural West - Any comments received shall be reported verbally.
Page 115 of 176
LOCAL MEMBER – TENDRING – Brightlingsea - Any comments received shall be reported verbally.
5. REPRESENTATIONS
3 properties were directly notified of the application. No letters of representation have been received.
6. APPRAISAL The key issues for consideration are:
A. JUSTIFICATION AND NEED B. HIGHWAY IMPACT C. PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY D. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT E. NOISE AND DUST F. ECOLOGICAL IMPACT G. FLOOD RISK H. ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT
A. JUSTIFICATION AND NEED
The application is for a sand and gravel working in an area which is not identified as a preferred site for mineral extraction. Minerals Local Plan Policy MLP4 (Non-Preferred Sites) is the main policy relating to this type of proposal. The policy states that sand and gravel workings on sites other than the preferred sites will only be permitted where the reserves comprising the landbank are insufficient or there is other overriding justification or benefit for the release of the site, and the proposal would be environmentally acceptable. The landbank is adequate, currently being around 11 years, and it is therefore necessary to consider whether or not there is an overriding justification or benefit for the proposal and whether it would be environmentally acceptable.
The applicants (two farmers who farm the adjoining Lufkins Farm and Brook Farm) state that they grow a range of vegetables and salad crops and one of them is a specialist potato grower. They share their land in order to facilitate the correct rotation of crops.
It is stated that the crops cannot be grown without irrigation and therefore they currently hold abstraction licenses between them for 91,000 cubic metres of water from the Bentley Brook via four well points. However, during the summer period groundwater levels regularly fall and can affect the crop yield. Therefore the applicants propose to extract the full licence allowance during November to March/April and store the water for use during drier periods. The storage area would be the reservoir, the construction of which would involve the removal of sand, gravel and soils from the site. These operations require planning permission. It is also stated that a reservoir would reduce the wear and tear on the irrigation equipment which results from situation in the boreholes.
It is further proposed that the existing small reservoir at Brook Farm could be used as a dirty water lagoon for the pig unit at the farm. Planning permission is not required from the Mineral Planning Authority for these operations to take place, however they
Page 116 of 176
must be taken into consideration in the respect that the volume of water lost would be incorporated into the proposed reservoir.
A report on the irrigation requirements at the two farms has been included with the application. It concludes that there would be significant extra return in terms of crop yield and profit for the farms if the reservoir were to be developed. It also concludes that a dirty water lagoon is required for the pig farm area. This would replace the existing reservoir at Brook Farm.
An independent assessment of the agricultural need for a reservoir has been undertaken on behalf of Essex County Council. The agricultural consultant found a discrepancy in the application in that the agricultural land was being cropped with a combination of potatoes, wheat and aside, contrary to the application which states water is needed for the irrigation of spinach, brassicas, leeks, rhubarb and salad onions. Additional information was requested which indicated that the more irrigation reliant cropping described in the application was replaced by a greater acreage of wheat, potatoes and set aside in 2006/07 mainly because of the poor performance of the existing irrigation system. The proposed reservoir would enable re-establishment of the previous agricultural regime.
The agricultural assessment notes that detailed soil maps of the farmland involved were not included in the application. However, it also establishes that the soils are predominantly Grades 2 and 3 and manages to assess the soils as predominantly Tendring Series and Wix Series from large scale maps.
The independent consultant notes that he is not convinced by the information presented that the reservoir scheme itself would result in the substantial net extra income projected, due to the fluctuation in crop yield and market prices that are likely to occur. Nevertheless it is concurred that the source of water and consistency of supply would be improved under the scheme and that the soil types involved would benefit from irrigation if they were to support the range and intensity of crops proposed. It is also recognised that the reservoir would have the ‘not unimportant advantage’ of drawing less sand into the irrigated water, thereby reducing the cost of maintenance of the irrigation equipment. There is the issue that the land on which the reservoir would be situated is owned by Brook Farm and therefore an appropriate management plan would be required to ensure the water would be available to the owners of Lufkins Farm in order for the financial projections on which the application is based to be achieved.
In order to address these concerns, it is considered appropriate to require the provision of an agreement between the farm owners which ensures the water would be made available to both.
The applicant has clearly demonstrated that alternative cropping such as potatoes and wheat, can already be achieved without the reservoir. However, the independent agricultural assessment concludes that the reservoir is reasonably necessary for the cropping regime proposed.
It is therefore considered that, providing the farming activities proposed are implemented, the applicant has proven a reasonable need for the sand and gravel extraction to construct a reservoir in order to provide flexibility of cropping for the combined agricultural businesses. In light of the information supplied and the conclusions of the agricultural consultants, the justification or benefit section of MLP
Page 117 of 176
Policy MLP4 (Non-Preferred Sites) is considered to have been satisfied. The environmental acceptability will be considered later.
TDLP Policy RA8 (Agricultural Reservoirs) is positively worded in that it states that support will be given for agricultural reservoirs and winter storage facilities subject to them having no material adverse impact on various environmental factors and where the developer has proven the agricultural need for the water. The need is considered to have been reasonably proven as discussed above. The impacts of the proposed reservoir on the various environmental factors will be appraised in the following sections of this report.
The proposals are considered to amount to a beneficial afteruse which would be feasible and achievable within a reasonable time period of 3 years. Although the grades 2 and 3 agricultural land would be replaced by a reservoir and therefore not restored to its former quality, it is considered that the benefits to the agricultural production of the surrounding land would compensate for the loss. The reservoir would be progressively worked and restored and is considered to comply with MLP Policies MLP8 (Restoration) and MLP9 (Working and Reclamation).
B. HIGHWAY IMPACT
Access to the site would be via a new haul route off of Thorrington Road which would run across open farmland to the south of the proposal site. A wheel cleaning facility would be situated on the haul road to prevent mud and debris being tracked onto the public highway.
All vehicles would be instructed to turn right out of the site to avoid the village of Great Bentley. Vehicle numbers are proposed at an average of 60 movements per day and 30 movements on Saturday mornings. Sand and gravel would be taken to Alresford Quarry to be processed, which is located approximately 6km to the west of the proposal site. The route would be across Thorrington rail crossing using Thorrington Road, the B1929 and the B1027.
A traffic statement has been submitted with the application. It shows that previous locations for the haul route have been considered and discounted. It is calculated that there would be 7 trips (3.5 in and 3.5 out) per hour. In order to improve visibility at the Lufkins Lane/ Thorrington Road junction it is proposed that the hedgerow to the west of Lufkins Farm is cut back and that some of the land at that junction is dedicated as Highway in perpetuity. Immediately to the west of the proposed access the carriageway is proposed to be widened to 5.5m and a passing bay would be constructed. These proposals, together with the provision of a bond for the maintenance of Thorrington Road and Great Bentley Road, would be required as part of a legal agreement in order to satisfy the requirements of the Highway Authority. However, as the carriageway improvements and passing bay were not included within the boundary of the current application they would require separate planning permission from the Local Planning Authority
MLP Policy MLP3 (Access) states that in exceptional circumstances access onto a secondary road before gaining access onto the network may be accepted if the capacity of the road is considered adequate and there would be no undue impact on road safety or the environment.
Thorrington Road is not a classified road, however the Highway Authority has no
Page 118 of 176
objection to the proposals subject to adequate visibility spays and improvements to Thorrington Road. Several other options have been looked at for the location of the proposed access and the routeing of vehicles, all of which have been less suitable than the current proposal. Adequate improvements could be made to Thorrington Road to ensure there would be no undue impact on road safety or the environment and it is therefore considered that the proposals comply with MLP Policies MLP3 (Access) and MLP13 (Development Control).
The proposals include improvements to Thorrington Road and to the visibility of the junction at Thorrignton Road/Lufkins Lane. This is considered to comply with TDLP Policy TR1a (Development Affecting Highways) which requires consideration of the prevention of hazards and inconvenience to traffic.
Major works are proposed to Thorrington Level Crossing commencing on 11 August 2008 and continuing for 13 weeks. As part of the works Great Bentley Road would be closed for approximately 5 weeks, meaning traffic from the proposed development would have to be diverted along Lufkins Lane to reach the processing site at Alresford Quarry. It is considered that this temporary diversion would not cause a significant highway impact and the Highway Authority raises no would not cause a significant highway impact and the Highway Authority raises no objection.
C. PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY
Public Footpath 4 Great Bentley would run along part of the northern boundary of the site. It becomes Footpath 2 Frating as it turns away from the site.
The application proposes a bund 3m high which would screen the operations from the footpaths. The applicant has confirmed that it would be acceptable for a planning condition to be imposed requiring a footpath width of 2m plus a 3m width between the footpath and the toe of the bund, giving a total of 5m in width for the safety of footpath users. On completion of the reservoir the bund would be removed and the footpath appropriately fenced in order to protect footpath users from the adjacent reservoir.
The development could therefore safely accommodate the definitive alignment of the footpath. The requirements of TDLP Policies TR4 (Safeguarding and Improving Public Rights of Way) and RA8 (Agricultural Reservoirs) are therefore considered to have been met.
D. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT
The site would be located approximately 300m to the north of Thorrington Road excluding the proposed internal haul route. A 3m high soil bund is proposed to the south of the site and there is an area of existing trees which would serve to screen the operations from Thorrington Road.
A hedge line exists along the western boundary which, together with the proposed soil bund would serve to screen the development from Lufkins Lane. Brook Farm lies to the east but the occupier is the applicant and it would be screened by the proposed soil bund.
It is considered that the access point would be the most visually intrusive element of the proposals as it and the internal haul road would be in full view of drivers passing by on Thorrington Road and in partial view of the occupiers of Hill House Farm to the
Page 119 of 176
east. However, it is considered that the presence an access is not unusual in a rural area and that a period of 3 years would be acceptable considering the benefits to the agricultural production of the area.
Page 120 of 176
The extraction site and access way are therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of their impact on the surrounding countryside, landscape quality and visual amenity of local residents, in compliance with Minerals Local Plan Policy MLP13 (Development Control) and TDLP Policies RA8 (Agricultural Reservoirs) and EN1 (Landscape Character).
E. NOISE AND DUST
In terms of noise, it is considered that the levels generated by the development would be low. Only one hydraulic excavator would be in use at any one time and it would not be in constant use.
The site is in a rural location with the nearest property (Brook Farm) being 200m away. Slough House Farm is also in close proximity but both of these properties house the applicants and both properties would be protected by farm buildings in between them and the site.
Environmental bunds 3m in height are proposed around the perimeter of the whole site and it is considered that these bunds would provide adequate noise mitigation. The proposal therefore accords with MLP Policy MLP13 (Development Control) and TDLP Policies COM22 (Noise Pollution) and QL11 (Environmental Impacts and Compatibility of Uses).
In terms of dust, the excavation of sand and gravel and handling of London Clay would not be a contributor as the materials are naturally damp
The applicant has proposed to handle soils only when dry and friable which can cause more dust and vehicles travelling on the haul route can also create dust. In order to control this, vehicles would travel at low speeds and a water bowser would be kept on site and regularly used to dampen the haul route. The route would be regularly graded to avoid build-up of surface dust. Minimal dampening of soils would take place to prevent dust but avoid soil damage. In the event that conditions are so dry that dust becomes a major problem soil moving operations would be temporarily stopped.
Therefore it is considered that the operations generally would not create dust but in the event that dry conditions occur they could be adequately controlled, thereby ensuring the development is acceptable within the parameters of TDLP Policies QL11 (Environmental Impacts and Compatibility of Uses) and COM23 (General Pollution).
F. ECOLOGICAL IMPACT
The site does not lie within an ecologically sensitive area, there are no protected wildlife sites nearby and the fields are currently used for arable farming and regularly cropped. An ecological appraisal undertaken in March 2007 has been submitted with the application which noted the site provides habitat for birds and badger foraging was evident although no inhabitation was found.
The main ecological impact of the proposals would be the removal of approximately 25m of seasonally wet ditch along Thorrington Road as the surrounding habitats of hedges and a small copse would be untouched by the development. In order to render the site unsuitable for reptiles the ecological appraisal recommends that the ground
Page 121 of 176
vegetation is trimmed just above ground level and maintained in a cropped condition prior to site clearance.
A badger survey was undertaken in 2004 and updated in 2007. It indicated that there were no badger setts within 30m; however it recommended that an update is undertaken if there is further delay in the commencement of development. It is considered that as more than a year has passed a further survey should be undertaken as TDLP Policy EN6a (Protected Species) states that planning permission would not normally be granted for development which would have an adverse impact on badgers. The provision of an up to date survey could be enforced through a planning condition.
Opportunities for the enhancement of the overall value of the area for wildlife are proposed to be taken with additional hedgerow planting, retention of existing hedgerows and mature trees and incorporation of wetland areas.
It is considered that subject to the requirements above and the submission of a long term management plan for the achievement of nature conservation objectives, the proposals would not have a significant detrimental effect on ecology or wildlife and include measure to enhance existing biodiversity in compliance with TDLP Policies RA8 (Agricultural Reservoirs), EN6b (Habitat Creation) and EN6 (Biodiversity) and MLP Policy MLP13 (Development Control).
G. FLOOD RISK
The applicant has addressed concerns that additional volumes of water discharging into the Bentley Brook could increase the flood risk to the local area.
A stream level gauge is proposed within the Bentley Brook upstream of the discharge point. The stream level would be monitored twice daily during periods of dewatering. Should the level exceed an agreed trigger level dewatering pumps would not be switched on or would be switched off if already operational. The trigger level would be agreed with the Environment Agency when the applicant applies for the discharge consent.
It is therefore considered that the proposals would have no material adverse impact on flood risk in the local area and are therefore in compliance with TDLP Policy RA8 (Agricultural Reservoirs).
H. ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT
The proposal site lies within an area of important archaeological remains including Neolithic features and a Roman field system and structures. Therefore a planning condition would be required to ensure a programme of archaeological work is undertaken prior to the commencement of development.
With the incorporation of the above condition it is considered that the historic environment would not be adversely affected by the proposals and therefore the development would comply with TDLP Policies RA8 (Agricultural Reservoirs) and EN29 (Archaeology).
7. CONCLUSION
Page 122 of 176
The proposals have been considered with regard to the agricultural need for the application and the impacts the development would have.
It is considered that the need for the development has been proven and that appropriate mitigation measures have been proposed or can be imposed to ensure the scheme has no significant detrimental impact on highways, amenity, landscape, ecology, archaeology, flooding or public rights of way. Therefore the environmental acceptability is considered to have been proven and the remaining aspects of MLP Policy MLP4 (Non-Preferred Sites) and TDLP Policy RA8 (Agricultural Reservoirs) are considered to have been complied with. Approval is therefore recommended.
RECOMMENDED
That subject to the applicant, landowner and Highway Authority entering into a Section 106 agreement for the provision of a maintenance bond and for works to Thorrington Road and to the provision of proof that the farm owners agree to share the water for irrigation, planning permission be granted subject to conditions covering the following matters:
1. C1 - Commencement within 1 year. 2. G1 - Development shall take place in accordance with the approved plans. 3. G2 - Removal of permitted development rights. 4. G3 – Indigenous materials 5. G5 – Maintenance of production records 6. T1 – Termination within 3 years 7. T4 – Restoration in the event of suspension of operations 8. T7 – Removal of plant and machinery 9. A2 – Hours of operation 0700 – 1800 hours Monday to Friday and 0700 – 1300 hours Saturdays 10. S11 – Bunds to be grassed over 11. A6 – Lighting 12. N1 – Plant and machinery operating hours 13. L1 – Landscape scheme 14. L2 – Replacement of dead or damaged planting 15. P4 – Fuel storage 16. Visibility splays 160m x 4.5m 17. Dust mitigation 18. D4 – Lorries to be sheeted 19. H1 – ingress and egress by proposed haul route on Thorrington Road 20. H3 – Access road to be kept clean 21. Details of wheel cleaning facilities to be submitted 22. H7 – vehicle movements 60 on any working day and 30 on Saturday mornings 23. Vehicles to enter and leave in forward gear 24. Ar1 – Programme of archaeological work 25. S1 – Soil movements scheme 26. S2 – Machine movements scheme 27. S6 – Soils to be stripped prior to traverse by vehicles or machinery 28. S7 – Topsoil and subsoil stripping 29. S10 – Storage of soils 30. S12 – Bunds to be removed from site 31. S13 – Avoidance of soil compaction 32. S14 – Minimum depth of soils 33. S15 – Stones to be picked from surface
Page 123 of 176
34. S16 – Notification of final subsoil placement 35. S18 – Surfacing of subsoil 36. S19 – Minimum settled depth of topsoil 37. S21 – Ripping and loosening of respread topsoil 38. N4 – Noise monitoring 39. Width of 5m to be left between the toe of the bund and Footpath 4 40. Protection of ditch and buffer zone of 20m along periphery. Badger survey 41. River level gauge to be installed in Bentley Brook. 42. River level gauge to be operational prior to discharge of water 43. Tree/shrub/hedgerow removal to take place outside of bird breeding season 44. H4 – signs to be erected advising of vehicle routes 45. Af3 – Aftercare scheme 46. N2 – Noise levels 47. N3 – Noise levels of temporary operations 48. Highway works to be carried out prior to commencement of development. 49. Bund height to be no more than 3m. 50. Badger survey to be carried out prior to commencement and mitigation to be put in place.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Consultation replies
Ref: P/DC/Shelley Birch/ESS/21/08/TEN
LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION
TENDRING – Tendring Rural West TENDRING - Brightlingsea
Page 124 of 176
APPENDIX 2
Application Number: ESS/10/13/TEN Case Officer: Shelley Bailey Ext: 51577 Site: Lufkins Farm, Thorrington Road, Great Bentley, Colchester, Essex.
Description: Extension of the time limit for implementation (by 5 years) of permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN for the construction of an agricultural reservoir involving the extraction of minerals and the removal of surplus soils.
Secretary of State Referral? Yes/No Date: 29 May 2013
14. BACKGROUND
The application site benefits from planning permission (ref ESS/21/08/TEN), which was granted on 15 July 2010 for:
Construction of an agricultural reservoir involving the extraction of minerals and the removal of surplus soils.
The permission was granted subject to 48 conditions and a legal agreement requiring highway works and a commitment between the various landowners that water from the proposed reservoir would be shared.
One of the conditions – condition 1 – requires the development to commence before the expiration of 3 years from the date of permission. The planning permission would therefore fall away unless an application for its renewal is made before 15 July 2013.
15. SITE
The proposal site is located to the south east of Colchester on the western edge of the village of Great Bentley. The site area would be 7.7 hectares with an extraction area of approximately 4 hectares. The reservoir would be located with Brook Farm to the east and the B1029 Great Bentley Road to the west.
The northern boundary is open but there are some hedges within the open fields. The southern and eastern boundaries are open with a small woodland copse in the south-east corner. The western boundary is the Parish boundary and supports a hedge.
A new access is proposed to be constructed onto Thorrington Road to the south about half way between Hill House Farm and Lufkins Farm.
Footpath 4 Great Bentley/2 Frating would run parallel with part of the northern boundary of the proposal area.
The Bentley Brook runs to the east of Brook Farm.
Brook Farm is the site of a pig unit which maintains a breeding sow herd
Page 125 of 176
producing 6,300 pigs per annum.
16. PROPOSAL
The application is for a new planning permission to replace extant planning permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN, in order to extend the time limit for implementation by 5 years.
Application ref ESS/21/08/TEN was not considered to have such an impact that Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) would be required. Accordingly, application ref ESS/10/13/TEN has been screened for EIA and a formal opinion was been issued on 01 May 2013 to state that EIA is not required.
17. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
The following policies of the Essex Minerals Local Plan (MLP) adopted January 1997 and Tendring District Local Plan (TDLP) adopted December 2007 provide the development plan framework for this application. The Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan (RMLP) is now at Pre-Submission Draft stage and is a material consideration. The Tendring District Local Plan Proposed Submission Draft November 2012 (TDLPS) is also at Pre-Submission Draft stage and is a material consideration. The following policies are of relevance to this application:
TDLP MLP RMLP TDLPS
Access MLP3 Non-preferred sites MLP4 Restoration MLP8 Working and reclamation MLP9 Development MLP13 DM1 control/Development Management Criteria Environmental impacts and Q11 compatibility of uses Noise pollution COM22 General pollution COM23 Landscape character EN1 Biodiversity EN6 Protected species EN6a Habitat creation EN6b Archaeology EN29 Development affecting TR1a highways Safeguarding and improving TR4 public rights of way Agricultural reservoirs RA8 Protecting and enhancing S10 the environment and local amenity Presumption in favour of S1 SD1 sustainable development
Page 126 of 176
Provision for sand and S6 gravel extraction Access and Transportation S11
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published in March 2012, sets out requirements for the determination of planning applications and is also a material consideration.
Paragraph 214 of the NPPF states that, for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 20041 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the Framework.
Paragraph 215 of the NPPF states, in summary, that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. The Tendring District Local Plan and the Essex Minerals Local Plan are considered to fall into paragraph 215. Therefore the level of consistency of the policies contained within these Plans is considered at Appendix 1.
18. CONSULTATIONS
TENDRING DISTRICT COUNCIL – No objection. Reiterates comments made during the determination of the application for the existing permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN, namely that a landscaping scheme should suitably screen the development; and lorry movements and operating times should be restricted.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – No objection.
NATURAL ENGLAND – No specific comment to make due to the nature of the proposals falling outside that which would routinely require a response.
ESSEX WILDLIFE TRUST – No comments received.
CPRE – Comments that the application should be considered in light of overall mineral policy. Asks that consideration is given to the suitability of the proposals in view of other extraction sites which have been permitted since the grant of permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN. Asks that consideration is given to the appropriateness of the proposed time extension in relation to effects on local residents.
TENDRING DISTRICT RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION – No comments received.
NATIONAL GRID – Comments that it has identified apparatus in the vicinity which may be affected by the proposed activities. Asks to be notified of the planning decision and requests that the contractor contacts them prior to commencement of works.
1 In development plan documents adopted in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 or published in the London Plan.
Page 127 of 176
Comment: The full consultation response has been forwarded to the applicant.
BRITISH TELECOM – No comments received.
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY – No objection.
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (Public Rights of Way) – No comments received.
PLACE SERVICES (Ecology) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – No objection subject to the development being carried out in accordance with the Mitigation and Enhancement Measures described in the Ecological Appraisal.
PLACE SERVICES (Landscape) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – No comments to make.
PLACE SERVICES (Historic Environment) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – No objection.
FRATING PARISH COUNCIL – No comments received.
THORRINGTON PARISH COUNCIL – No comments received.
GREAT BENTLEY PARISH COUNCIL – No comments received.
LOCAL MEMBER – TENDRING – Tendring Rural West – No comments received.
LOCAL MEMBER – TENDRING – Brightlingsea – No comments received.
19. REPRESENTATIONS
10 properties were directly notified of the application. Two letters of representation have been received from the same representee. These relate to planning issues covering the following matters:
Observation Comment No objection is raised to the application. Noted.
There is no agreement between the applicants The relevant notice of the and the landowner for access from Thorrington application has been Road to the application site. appropriately served on the owner.
20. APPRAISAL The main considerations for the application are as follows:
Page 128 of 176
A POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
The CLG Guidance ‘Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions was issued on 23 November 2009.
It sets out the procedure for applicants to use to apply to their local planning authority for a new planning permission to replace an existing permission which is in danger of lapsing, in order to obtain a longer period in which to begin the development.
The procedure is formally referred to as an extension of time for the implementation of a planning permission by grant of a new permission for the development authorised by the original permission.
The procedure was introduced in order to make it easier for developers and local planning authorities to keep planning permissions alive for longer during the economic downturn so that they can more quickly be implemented when economic conditions improve.
Originally the provisions applied only to permissions which were granted on or before 1 October 2009. However, an additional 12 months was added via a statement made by the Secretary of State in September 2012. Since application ref ESS/21/08/TEN was granted on 15 July 2010 the applicant is entitled to apply for an extension of the implementation date.
The main policy change since the grant of permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN is considered to be the introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework.
The NPPF sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system.
With respect to the proposed development, the economic role has been justified by referencing the following:
- Improved crop yields and quality assurance through controlled irrigation, - Improvement of farm viability with benefits to the rural economy.
The social role has been justified by referencing the following:
- Improvement of farm viability with benefits to the rural economy and stewardship of the countryside.
The environmental role has been justified by referencing the following:
- Best use of soils (a finite resource) and land as a result of irrigation, - Capture and storage of surplus water for use when the resource is under stress,
Page 129 of 176
- No waste materials due to processing of minerals and use of soils in restoration.
The environmental role will also be considered further in the report.
Whilst the policies within the MLP and TDLP are still relevant, the NPPF is more up-to-date. It is therefore not intended to repeat the appraisal set out in the committee report for permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN, but to update them utilising the relevant sections of the NPPF and the emerging policies of the RMLP and TDLPS. This approach will be taken throughout the following report.
B JUSTIFICATION AND NEED
During determination of permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN, the initial stance was that the proposed site was not ‘preferred’, and therefore MLP Policy MLP4 (Non- Preferred Sites) was the prime consideration.
The policy states that sand and gravel workings on sites other than the preferred sites will only be permitted where the reserves comprising the landbank are insufficient or there is other overriding justification for the release of the site, and the proposal must be environmentally acceptable. The landbank is still adequate and it is therefore necessary to consider whether or not there is an overriding justification or benefit for the proposal and whether or not it would be environmentally acceptable.
RMLP Policy S6 (Provision for sand and gravel extraction), in summary, aims to resist extraction on non-preferred sites unless there is an overriding justification/benefit; the scale is no more than the essential minimum; the development is environmentally suitable, sustainable and consistent with the Development Plan.
TDLP Policy RA8 (Agricultural Reservoirs) is positively worded in that it states that support will be given for agricultural reservoirs and winter storage facilities subject to them having no material adverse impact on various environmental factors and where the developer has proven the agricultural need for the water.
The applicant has stated that the need for the agricultural reservoir remains identical to that put forward within the original application. The issue was thoroughly considered through the determination of application ref ESS/21/08/TEN. Taking into account previous arguments, and the requirement of the NPPF that the MPA should give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy which has been discussed previously in the report, it is considered that the issue of need has been adequately proven. This is with the provision that the requirement for the various landowners to agree to share the water for irrigation is carried forward via legal agreement should planning permission be granted. With regard to RMLP Policy S6, specifically for this proposal, little weight can be given to the policy and it has to be weighed against the existing permission and the policy drivers to remove barriers to development.
Page 130 of 176
Therefore, subject to consideration of the impact of the proposal on the environment, which will be addressed further in the report, the development is considered to comply with TDLP Policy RA8, MLP Policy MLP4 and RMLP Policy S6.
C ENVIRONMENTAL AND AMENITY IMPACT
The CLG Guidance states that extensions should not be seen as a mechanism to avoid proper and thorough consideration of environmental issues, where this is necessary. Where changes in the development plan or material considerations indicate that the effects on the environment need to be reconsidered, this should be done.
As noted previously in the report, the NPPF has been published since the determination of application ref ESS/21/08/TEN. In addition, Tendring District Council has published the draft version of their Local Plan in preparation for submission to the Secretary of State, as has Essex County Council in relation to the Replacement Minerals Local Plan. All of these documents are new material considerations in the determination of this application.
The NPPF states that MPAs should:
- Ensure, in granting planning permission for mineral development, that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety, and take into account the cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality; 2. - Ensure that any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions (and any blasting vibrations) are controlled, mitigated or removed at source, and establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties; 3. - Provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions, where necessary.
In response, the impacts associated with the proposed development remain the same as previously.
It is noted that several of the conditions attached to permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN have been discharged, namely; 13a) (Protection of existing planting), 13b) (Detailed planting scheme), 24 (Written scheme of archaeological investigation), 25 (Scheme for soil movement), 26 (Scheme for machine movements) and 40 (Maintenance of ground vegetation and buffer zone).
It is suggested that, should planning permission be granted, it would be subject to adherence to the details approved under the above conditions. It is considered that this, together with the re-imposition of the remaining conditions attached to permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN, would ensure no unacceptable
Page 131 of 176
adverse impacts on the environment or human health. Those remaining conditions include restrictions on hours of working, lighting and dust control, noise level monitoring and a requirement for restoration within 3 years.
In addition, an updated Ecological Appraisal has been included with the application. It confirms that ground vegetation has been kept in a cropped condition as required by condition 40 and that updated badger surveys have confirmed no inhabitation by badgers across the site.
The County Ecologist has requested that the development adheres to the updated Ecological Appraisal. It is considered that this could be incorporated into an amended condition in the event that permission is granted.
It is also noted that there have been no other mineral sites permitted in the immediate locality since the grant of permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN.
No objections have been received from consultees.
It is therefore considered that the proposed development would continue to comply with MLP Policies MLP8 (Restoration), MLP9 (Working and reclamation) and MLP13 (Development Control) and TDLP Policies EN1 (Landscape character), COM22 (Noise pollution), Q11 (Environmental impacts and compatibility of uses), COM23 (General pollution), EN6a (Protected species), EN6b (Habitat creation), EN6 (Biodiversity), EN29 (Archaeology) and TR4 (Safeguarding and improving public rights of way) and RMLP Policies DM1 (Development Management Criteria) and S10 (Protecting and enhancing the environment and local amenity).
More pertinently, it is considered that the development would comply with the relevant provisions of the NPPF.
C HIGHWAY IMPACT
The development would involve the construction of a new haul route off Thorrington Road which would run across open farmland to the south of the proposal site.
It is noted that a representation has been received stating that there is no agreement between the applicants and the landowner for access from Thorrington Road to the application site. Appropriate notice has been given to the landowner via Certificate B accompanying the application, and the lack of agreement is not in itself a reason to withhold the grant of planning permission.
Vehicle numbers associated with the development are not proposed to alter from the previously approved 60 movements in excess of 3.5t gvw on any single working day, except on Saturdays when they would be restricted to no more than 30 movements. It is considered that this could be restricted by condition, as in permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN.
The Highway Authority raises no objection to the proposals. It is considered that improvements to Thorrington Road could continue to be required via an updated
Page 132 of 176
S106 Agreement in the event that permission is granted.
Therefore it is considered that the development would continue to comply with TDLP Policy TR1a (Development affecting highways) and MLP Policies MLP3 (Access) and MLP13 (Development Control).
The above measures would also ensure that the development would have no unacceptable impacts on the efficiency and effective operation of the highway network, including safety and capacity, local amenity and the environment, in compliance with RMLP Policy S11 (Access and Transportation).
21. CONCLUSION
The relevant policies of the TDLP have been considered but little weight has been applied to them as Tendring District Council has confirmed that the 2007 Plan ‘is now considered to be out of date and not in accordance with national planning policy’ (see Appendix 1).
Due to the early stage of the Tendring District Local Plan Proposed Submission Draft (i.e. it has not yet been submitted to the Secretary of State) only limited weight can be applied to that Plan.
The same reasoning applies to the Replacement Minerals Local Plan, which is also yet to be formally submitted to the Secretary of State and therefore has limited weight.
Therefore the overriding consideration in this decision is the NPPF. The consistency of policies within the adopted MLP are considered at Appendix 1.
It is acknowledged that the Government has introduced a specific process to make it easier for developers and local planning authorities to keep planning permissions alive for longer during the economic downturn so that they can more quickly be implemented when economic conditions improve.
This application has been made as a direct result of the economic downturn, and it is therefore considered that the planning process should not create unnecessary barriers to the continuation of the development permitted under ref ESS/21/08/TEN.
That is not to say that any environmental or amenity impacts should be ignored. It is considered that, in reality, very little has changed since the grant of permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN. The requirements of the planning permission which would be important to adhere to in the interim period since the grant of permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN relate mainly to ecology to ensure minimal harm. The application confirms that measures have been taken to ensure the site is unattractive to wildlife.
The development overall is considered to comply with TDLP Policies RA8, EN1, COM22, COM23, EN6, EN6a, EN6b, Q11, EN29, TR1a and TR4 and MLP Policies MLP3, MLP4, MLP8, MLP9 and MLP13 .
Page 133 of 176
It would also be considered to comply with RMLP Policies S6, S10, S11 and DM1.
The economic, social and environmental strands of ‘sustainable development’ are considered to have been demonstrated. Therefore the proposed development is considered to constitute ‘sustainable development’ for the purposes of the NPPF, RMLP Policy S1 and TDLPS Policy SD1, for which there is a presumption in favour. Planning permission is recommended subject to the re-imposition of conditions attached to permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN and an updated S106 Agreement.
22. RECOMMENDATION That, subject to the applicant, landowner/s and Highway Authority entering into a Section 106 Agreement within 6 months from the date of this recommendation for the provision of a maintenance bond and for works to Thorrington Road and to the provision of proof that the farm owners agree to share the water for irrigation, planning permission be granted subject to conditions covering the following matters:
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiry of 5 years from the date of this permission. Written notification of the date of commencement shall be sent to the Mineral Planning Authority within 7 days of such commencement.
Reason: To comply with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). To limit the impact of the site on local amenity and ensure restoration within a reasonable timescale.
2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with:
the details submitted by way of the application ref ESS/21/08/TEN dated 23 May 2008 and covering letter dated 22 May 2008, together with drawings numbered 0318/A (26/02/2007), 0318/O/1a (19/03/2008) and 0318/R/1a, Supporting Statement dated 20 May 2008, Irrigation Requirements Report dated December 2004, Traffic Statement dated March 2007, Hydrogeological Assessment dated August 2007, Preliminary Appraisal of Ecological Interests and Constraints dated March 2007 as amended by Ecological Appraisal update August 2009, Search of Essex Heritage Conservation Record dated 19/10/04, Archaeological Evaluation dated December 2007, Correspondence between Hafren Water and the Environment Agency dated 26 March 2008, 04 April 2008 and 25 April 2008, email dated 28 July 2008 with drawing number 0318/I/1 dated 08/08/2007, email dated 12 August 2008, email dated 07 August 2008 and Licence for access over land at Hill House Farm dated 2007,
AS AMENDED BY
the details submitted by way of the application ref ESS/10/13/TEN dated 13 March 2013, covering letter dated 13 March 2013 and supporting
Page 134 of 176
statement entitled ‘Lufkins Farm, Great Bentley, Essex, Application for a new planning permission to replace the existing planning consent ESS/21/08/TEN in order to extend the time limit for implementation’ by Mineral Services Ltd, together with drawing numbered 0318/A v2 dated 08/03/13 and Ecological Appraisal update March 2013,
And in accordance with any details as are subsequently approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority,
Except as varied by the following conditions:
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to the nature of the development hereby permitted and to ensure the development is carried out with the minimum harm to the local environment and compliance with Tendring District Local Plan Policies Q11, COM22, COM23, EN1, EN6, EN6a, EN6b, EN29, , TR4 and RA8, Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP3, MLP4, MLP8, MLP9 and MLP13, Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policies DM1, S10, S1, S6 and S11 and Tendring District Local Plan Proposed Submission Draft Policy SD1.
3 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order evoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no building, structure, fixed plant or machinery (other than hydraulic excavator, plant for the movement of materials, the office weighbridge and portacabin and mobile WC), shall be erected, extended, installed or replaced on the site without the prior agreement in writing of the Mineral Planning Authority.
Reason: To enable the Mineral Planning Authority to adequately control, monitor and minimise the impacts on the amenities of the local area and to comply with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policy MLP9.
4 All aggregate materials available for sale shall only originate from the workings hereby permitted. No aggregate shall be imported for processing or resale. No aggregate extracted from the site shall be stored on site.
Reason: To ensure uses on site are wholly ancillary to the mineral operations hereby permitted and in the interest of local amenity and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policy MLP13, Tendring District Local Plan Policy Q11 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policy DM1.
5 From the date production commences the operators shall maintain records of their monthly output/production and shall make them available to the Mineral Planning Authority upon request. All records shall be kept for the duration of the extraction.
Reason: To enable the Mineral Planning Authority to monitor progression and activity at the site and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP8 and MLP9.
6 This permission shall be limited to a period of 3 years from the date of
Page 135 of 176
commencement of development by which time operations shall have ceased and the site have been restored in accordance with the scheme approved under Condition 13. Written notification of the date of commencement shall be sent to the Mineral Planning Authority within 7 days of such commencement.
Reason: To enable the Mineral Planning Authority to adequately control the development and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP8, MLP9 and MLP13 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policy DM1.
7 In the event that operations are terminated, or suspended for a period in excess of 12 months, the excavated area and other operational land shall be restored in accordance with the scheme or schemes approved under Condition 13 and within a period of 6 months from the date of notification by the Mineral Planning Authority, except as varied by details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the site is restored to a condition capable of beneficial use and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP8, MLP9 and MLP13 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policy DM1.
8 Unless the Mineral Planning Authority otherwise agrees in writing any building, plant, machinery, foundation, hardstanding, roadway, structure or erection in the nature of plant or machinery used in connection with the development hereby permitted shall be removed from the site when they are respectively no longer required for the purpose for which they were installed, in any case not later than 3 years from the date of this permission or commencement of development whichever is the earlier and upon their removal the land shall be restored in accordance with the agreed restoration scheme.
Reason: To enable the Mineral Planning Authority to adequately control the development and to ensure that the land is restored to a beneficial use and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP8 and MLP9 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policy DM1.
9 Operations authorised or required by this permission shall only be carried out between the following times:
0700 – 1800 hours Monday to Friday 0700 – 1300 hours Saturdays,
And at no other time or on Sundays and Public Holidays, except for emergency maintenance and monitoring of the site and the following provisions, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, all vehicles in excess of 7.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight (t gvw) and vehicles in excess of 3.5t gvw associated with the operations shall not be allowed to enter or leave the site outside of these times.
For clarity, the operation of plant and machinery for the stripping of soil, construction of screen bunds or the extraction of sand and gravel shall not
Page 136 of 176
commence before 0800 hours prior to the completion of the screen bunds related to the phase being worked and intended to afford visual and aural protection to nearby residents.
Reason: In the interests of limiting the effects on local amenity, to control the impacts of the development and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policy MLP13, Tendring District Local Plan Policy Q11 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policy DM1.
10 All storage bunds intended to remain in situ for more than 6 months or over the winter period shall be grassed over and weed control and other necessary maintenance carried out to the satisfaction of the Mineral Planning Authority. Details of the seed mixture and the application rates shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority no less than one month before completion of the formation of the storage bunds is expected. The seeding shall thereafter take place in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the retention of the existing soils on the site for restoration purposes and minimise the impact of the development on the locality and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP8, MLP9 and MLP13, Tendring District Local Plan Policy Q11 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policy DM1.
11 Lighting on site shall not be installed except in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. The development shall be subsequently implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of local amenity and compliance with Essex Mineral Local Plan Policy MLP13, Tendring District Local Plan Policy Q11 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policy DM1.
12 All plant and machinery shall operate only during the permitted hours, as specified in Condition 9, except in an emergency (which shall be notified to the Mineral Planning Authority as soon as practicable), and shall be silenced at all times in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations.
Reason: To ensure minimum disturbance from operations and avoidance of nuisance to the local community and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policy MLP13, Tendring District Local Plan Policy Q11 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policy DM1.
13 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the details for the protection of existing plants and detailed planting scheme relating to condition 13 attached to permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN, as set out in the statement entitled ‘Lufkins Farm Schedule of Conditions’ received on the 20 February 2009 and drawing numbers 0318/O/1a dated 25/11/08 and 0318/R/1a dated 06/10/10, as approved by the Mineral Planning on 13 October 2010.
Reason: To comply with Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to improve the appearance of the site in the interests of visual amenity, to screen the workings and to assist in absorbing the site back into the local
Page 137 of 176
landscape and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policy MLP13, Tendring District Local Plan Policies Q11, EN1, EN6b and RA8 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policies DM1 and S10.
14 Any tree or shrub forming plant of a planting scheme approved in connection with this development that dies, is damaged, diseased or removed five years after completion of the operations shall be replaced by the applicants during the next planting season with a tree or shrub or species and size to be agreed with the Mineral Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the local area and to ensure the development is adequately screened and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policy MLP13, Tendring District Local Plan Policies Q11, EN1 and RA8 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policies DM1 and S10.
15 Any temporary fuel or chemical storage vessel shall be within an impermeable container with a sealed sump and capable of holding at least 110% of the vessel’s capacity. All fill, draw and overflow pipes shall be properly housed to avoid spillage.
Reason: To minimise the risk of pollution of watercourses and aquifers and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policy MLP13, Tendring District Local Plan Policy Q11 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre- Submission Draft Policy DM1.
16 The proposed means of access from Thorrington Road to the site (as shown on drawing number 0318/O/1a dated 19/03/2008) shall provide 160 metre by 4.5 metre visibility splays, clear to the ground, in either direction.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP3 and MLP13 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policy S11.
17 The access / haul road used in connection with the operations hereby permitted shall be sprayed with water during dry weather conditions to prevent dust nuisance.
Reason: To reduce the impacts of dust disturbance from the site on the local environment and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policy MLP13, Tendring District Local Plan Policy COM23 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policy DM1.
18 No loaded lorry shall leave the site unsheeted.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety and safeguarding the local environment and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policy MLP13, Tendring District Local Plan Policy Q11 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policies DM1 and S11.
19 All ingress to and egress from the site by vehicles shall be by the proposed haul
Page 138 of 176
road and from the access from Thorrington Road only as indicated on Plan No.0318/O/1a dated 19/03/2008. The access shall have a hardened surface i.e. concrete or tarmacadam, for not less than 30m from the edge of the metalled surface of the public highway. A metal gate shall be placed across the access point from the public highway and securely locked outside of the permitted hours referred to in Condition 9 to this approval.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety and safeguarding the local environment and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP3 and MLP13 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policies DM1 and S11.
20 The surfaced section of the access road, from the junction with Thorrington Road shall be kept free of mud and detritus by cleaning as often as necessary to ensure that such material is not carried onto the public highway.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP3 and MLP13, Tendring District Local Plan Policies Q11 and COM23 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policies DM1 and S11.
21 No development shall take place until details of the proposed wheel cleaning facilities have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. The facilities shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety and the amenities of the area and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP3 and MLP13, Tendring District Local Plan Policy Q11 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre- Submission Draft Policies DM1 and S11.
22 Unless with the prior written agreement of the Mineral Planning Authority there shall be no more than 60 vehicle movements in excess of 3.5t gvw (30 in/30 out) from the site on any single working day. Except on Saturday mornings when there shall be no more than 30 vehicle movements in excess of 3.5t gvw (15 in/15 out) from the site.
Reason: To limit the volume of traffic in the interest of the amenity of residents on and near the approaches to the site and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP3 and MLP13 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policies DM1 and S11.
23 No vehicles entering/leaving the site off Thorrington Road shall be permitted to do so other than in forward gear.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety and the amenities of the area and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP3 and MLP13 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policies DM1 and S11.
24 The development hereby permitted shall not take place until a programme of
Page 139 of 176
archaeological work, including processing, assessment, archiving and publication of results, relating to condition 24 attached to permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN, has been carried out in accordance with the statement received 20 February 2009 and ‘NAU Archaeology Written Scheme of Investigation for Archaeological Excavation (revised)’ ref BAU1998 dated December 2010, as approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority on 22 December 2010.
Reason: To ensure that adequate archaeological investigation and recording is undertaken prior to the development taking place and compliance with Tendring District Local Plan Policies Q11, RA8 and EN29.
25 The development hereby permitted shall not take place unless in accordance with the scheme of soil movements relating to condition 25 attached to permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN, as set out in the statement entitled ‘Lufkins Farm Schedule of Conditions’ received on the 20 February 2009 and drawing number 0318/MB1 dated 28/11/08, as approved by the Mineral Planning Authority on 14 September 2010.
Reason: To ensure the retention of existing soils on the site for restoration purposes and minimise the impact of the development on the locality and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP8, MLP9 and MLP13, Tendring District Local Plan Policy Q11 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policy DM1.
26 The development hereby permitted shall not take place unless in accordance with the scheme of machine movements relating to condition 26 attached to permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN, as set out in the statement entitled ‘Lufkins Farm Schedule of Conditions’ received on the 20 February 2009 and drawing number 0318/MB1 dated 28/11/08, as approved by the Mineral Planning Authority on 14 September 2010.
Reason: To minimise structural damage and compaction of the soil and to aid the final restoration and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP8, MLP9 and MLP13, Tendring District Local Plan Policy Q11 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policy DM1.
27 Before any part of the site is excavated or traversed by heavy vehicles or machinery (except for the purpose of stripping that part or staking topsoil on that part), or is surfaced or built upon, or used for the stacking of subsoil, soil making material or overburden, or as a plant yard, or for the construction of a haul road, all available topsoil (and subsoil) shall be stripped from that part.
Reason: To conserve agricultural soils and to avoid structural damage and compaction of soils and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policy MLP8.
28 a. All topsoil shall be stripped to the full depth (generally 30cm) and shall, wherever possible, be immediately re-spread over an area of reinstated subsoil. If this immediate re-spreading is not practicable, the topsoil shall be stored separately for subsequent replacement.
Page 140 of 176
b. When subsoil is to be retained for use in the restoration process it shall be stripped to a depth of not less than 70cm and shall, wherever possible, be immediately re-spread over the replaced overburden/low permeability cap. If this immediate re-spreading is not practicable the subsoil shall be stored separately for subsequent replacement. Subsoil not being retained for use in the restoration process shall be regarded as overburden.
Reason: To ensure the retention of the existing soils on the site for restoration purposes and minimise the impact of the development on the locality and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP8, MLP9 and MLP13, Tendring District Local Plan Policy Q11 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policy DM1.
29 Bunds for the storage of agricultural soils shall conform to the following criteria:
a. Topsoil, subsoil and subsoil substitutes shall be stored separately. b. Materials shall be stored like upon like, so that topsoil shall be stripped from beneath subsoil bunds and subsoil from beneath overburden bunds. c. Where continuous bunds are used dissimilar soils shall be separated by a third material, previously agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority. d. Topsoil bunds shall not exceed 3m in height and subsoil (or subsoil substitute) bunds shall not exceed 3m in height.
Reason: To ensure the retention of the existing soils on the site for restoration purposes and minimise the impact of the development on the locality and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP8, MLP9 and MLP13, Tendring District Local Plan Policy Q11 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policy DM1.
30 All topsoil, subsoil and soil making material shall be retained on site unless with the prior approval of the Mineral Planning Authority. No bunds shall remain on site as part of the restoration scheme agreed under Condition 13 to this approval.
Reason: All soils are required on site to ensure a satisfactory restoration of the land and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP8, MLP9 and MLP13 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policy DM1.
31 When replacing all soils, subsoil shall be tipped in windrows and spread to the required level, in 5m wide strips in such a manner as to avoid compacting placed soils. Topsoil shall be tipped, lifted and evenly spread onto the levelled subsoil in a manner as to avoid compacting the placed soils.
Reason: To minimise structural damage and compaction of the soil and to aid the final restoration and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP8, MLP9 and MLP13 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-
Page 141 of 176
Submission Draft Policy DM1.
32 The minimum settled depth of subsoil and topsoil shall be not less than 1m.
Reason: To ensure the restored land is agriculturally versatile and operations are not impeded and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP8, MLP9 and MLP13 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policy DM1.
33 All stones and other materials in excess of 150mm in any dimension shall be picked and removed from the restored surface of the site.
Reason: To ensure the restored land is agriculturally versatile and operations are not impeded and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP8, MLP9 and MLP13 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policy DM1.
34 The applicant shall notify the Mineral Planning Authority at least 5 working days in advance of the final subsoil placement on each phase, or part phase to allow a site inspection to take place.
Reason: To ensure the site is ready for topsoil spreading and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP8, MLP9 and MLP13 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policy DM1.
35 The finished surface of the subsoil shall be broken and opened to a depth of 450mm at a tine spacing of 450mm.
Reason: To ensure the site is satisfactorily restored and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP8, MLP9 and MLP13 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policy DM1.
36 The topsoil shall be spread so as to produce a minimum even settled depth of 300mm over the reinstated subsoil.
Reason: To ensure the site is satisfactorily restored and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP8, MLP9 and MLP13 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policy DM1.
37 The respread topsoil and areas upon which topsoil has been stored shall be ripped or loosened at a tine spacing of not greater than 600mm and to a depth of at least 50mm. Any non-soil making material or larger stone lying on the loosened topsoil surface and, on any surface, larger than would pass through a wire screen mesh with a spacing of 150mm shall be removed from the site or buried at a depth not less than 2m below the final settled contours.
Reason: To ensure the site is satisfactorily restored and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP8, MLP9 and MLP13 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policy DM1.
38 Noise levels shall be monitored by the operating company at three monthly
Page 142 of 176
intervals at up to five locations to be agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. The results of the monitoring shall include the LA90 and LAeq noise levels, the prevailing weather conditions, details of the measurement equipment used and its calibration and comments on the sources of noise which control the noise climate. The survey shall be for two separate 15 minute periods during the working day and the results shall be kept by the operating company during the life of the permitted operations and a copy shall be supplied to the Mineral Planning Authority. After the first year of operation, the frequency of the monitoring may be modified by agreement with the Mineral Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policy MLP13, Tendring District Local Plan Policies Q11 and COM22 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policies S10 and DM1.
39 A width of 5m shall be left between the toe of the northern bund and footpath 4 Great Bentley including the 2m width of the footpath itself.
Reason: In order to protect the users of Footpath 4 Great Bentley and compliance with Tendring District Local Plan Policies TR4 and RA8.
40 Prior to site clearance the ground vegetation adjacent to the ditch along Thorrington Road shall be strimmed and maintained in a cropped condition and a buffer zone along the peripheral edges of the application site shall be maintained for the duration of the development hereby permitted in accordance with the statement entitled ‘Lufkins Farm Schedule of Conditions’ received on 20 February 2009 and email dated 29 September 2010, as approved by the Mineral Planning Authority on 13 October 2010, and as amended by paragraphs 15-22 of the Ecological Appraisal Update March 2013. For the avoidance of doubt, the preliminary badger survey carried out in 2013 shall be updated and appropriate mitigation measures put in place in the event that development does not commence within 1 year of the date of this permission.
Reason: For the protection of ecology, wildlife and protected species within the site and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policy MLP13, Tendring District Local Plan Policies RA8, EN6b and EN6 and Q11 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policies DM1 and S10.
41 Prior to discharge of water to Bentley Brook a river level gauge shall be installed upstream of the discharge point to monitor levels within the river to ensure that no water is discharged to Bentley Brook during high flow periods.
Reason: To ensure the flood risk to the site and surrounding area is not increased as a result of the development and compliance with Tendring District Local Plan Policies RA8 and Q11.
42 Prior to first discharge of water to Bentley Brook the river gauge shall be fully operational and maintained for the duration of the development.
Reason: To ensure river levels can be monitored prior to water discharge into the Bentley Brook and to ensure the flood risk to the site and surrounding area is
Page 143 of 176
not increased as a result and compliance with Tendring District Local Plan Policies RA8 and Q11.
43 All tree/shrub/hedgerow removal shall be undertaken outside of the bird breeding season.
Reason: For the protection of nesting birds and compliance with Tendring District Local Plan Policy Q11.
44 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted signs shall be erected at locations to be approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority, to inform drivers to turn right out of the site and left into the site. The approved signs shall be erected and maintained for the life of the development hereby permitted.
Reason: In the interest of Highway safety and local amenity and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP3 and MLP13, Tendring District Local Plan Policy TR1a and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policies DM1 and S11.
45 An aftercare scheme detailing the steps that are necessary to bring the land to the required standard for trees, grassland and hedgerows shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority prior to commencement of restoration works on site. The scheme shall provide an outline strategy for the 5 year aftercare period and provide a detailed annual programme of care. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that the land is rehabilitated to a suitable condition to support trees, hedgerows and grassland and to comply with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policies MLP8 and MLP9 and Tendring District Local Plan Policy RA8.
46 Except for temporary occasions, the free-field Equivalent Continuous Noise Levels (LAeq, 1hour) at noise sensitive properties near the site, due to the permitted operations on the site, shall not exceed the limits set out below:
- 55db – where the background noise level (LA90) without the permitted operations is or exceeds 45 dB. - LA90 + 10dB – where the background noise level (LA90) without the permitted operations is below 45dB.
Reason: To protect the amenities of the local residents from the effects of noise pollution and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policy MLP13, Tendring District Local Plan Policies COM22 and Q11 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policies S10 and DM1.
47 For temporary by exceptionally noisy operations, the free-field Equivalent Noise Level at noise sensitive properties shall not exceed 70dB LAeq, 1 hour. Temporary operations shall not exceed a total of eight weeks in any continuous 12 month period for work affecting any noise sensitive property. These operations shall include bund formation and removal, soils stripping, removal of spoil heaps and
Page 144 of 176
construction of new permanent landforms.
Reason: To protect the amenities of the local residents from the effects of noise pollution and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policy MLP13, Tendring District Local Plan Policies COM22 and Q11 and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policies S10 and DM1.
48 No development shall take place until a S278 Agreement under the Highways Act 1980 has been entered into with the Highway Authority in respect of the access improvement works as shown in principle on drawing number 33398/105 (04 July 08) contained within the Traffic Statement dated March 2007. The Agreement shall include the achievement of a minimum visibility splay of 160 x 4.5 x 160 metres at the proposed site access maintained clear to the ground at all times.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and compliance with Essex Minerals Local Plan Policy MLP13, Tendring District Local Plan Policies Q11 and TR1a and Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft Policies S11 and DM1.
Informatives
- Any works in, over, under or within 9m of Bentley Brook will require formal written consent from the Environment Agency prior to the commencement of works. Consent will be required prior to the instalment of the level gauge into the river. 4. - It is the responsibility of the applicant to seek planning permission for the works required under the terms of the Legal Agreement.
REASON FOR APPROVAL
Subject to the imposition of the attached conditions, the proposal is considered acceptable having been assessed in the light of all material considerations, including weighting against the following policies of the development plan:
The Essex Minerals Local Plan Adopted 1997 (MLP)
Policy MLP3 - Access Policy MLP4 - Non-Preferred Sites Policy MLP8 - Restoration Policy MLP9 - Working and Reclamation Policy MLP13 - Development Control
Tendring District Local Plan Adopted December 2007 (TDLP)
Policy Q11 - Environmental impacts and compatibility of uses Policy COM22 - Noise Pollution Policy COM23 - General Pollution
Page 145 of 176
Policy EN1 - Landscape Character Policy EN6 - Biodiversity Policy EN6a - Protected Species Policy EN6b - Habitat Creation Policy EN29 - Archaeology Policy TR1a - Development Affecting Highways Policy TR4 - Safeguarding and Improving Public Rights of Way Policy RA8 - Agricultural Reservoirs
Essex Replacement Minerals Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft (RMLP)
Policy DM1 - Development Management Criteria Policy S1 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy S6 - Provision for Sand and Gravel Extraction Policy S10 - Protecting and Enhancing the Environment and Local Amenity Policy S11 - Access and Transportation
Tendring District Local Plan Proposed Submission Draft November 2012 (TDLPS)
Policy SD1 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development
Statement of Reasons
The relevant policies of the TDLP have been considered but little weight has been applied to them as Tendring District Council has confirmed that the 2007 Plan ‘is now considered to be out of date and not in accordance with national planning policy’ (see Appendix 1).
Due to the early stage of the Tendring District Local Plan Proposed Submission Draft (i.e. it has not yet been submitted to the Secretary of State) only limited weight can be applied to that Plan.
The same reasoning applies to the Replacement Minerals Local Plan, which is also yet to be formally submitted to the Secretary of State and therefore has limited weight.
Therefore the overriding consideration in this decision is the NPPF. The consistency of policies within the adopted MLP are considered at Appendix 1.
It is acknowledged that the Government has introduced a specific process to make it easier for developers and local planning authorities to keep planning permissions alive for longer during the economic downturn so that they can more quickly be implemented when economic conditions improve.
This application has been made as a direct result of the economic downturn, and it is therefore considered that the planning process should not create unnecessary barriers to the continuation of the development permitted under ref ESS/21/08/TEN.
Page 146 of 176
That is not to say that any environmental or amenity impacts should be ignored. It is considered that, in reality, very little has changed since the grant of permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN. The requirements of the planning permission which would be important to adhere to, to ensure minimal harm relate mainly to ecology. The application confirms that measures have been taken to ensure the site is unattractive to wildlife.
The development overall is considered to comply with TDLP Policies RA8, EN1, COM22, COM23, EN6, EN6a, EN6b, Q11, EN29, TR1a and TR4 and MLP Policies MLP3, MLP4, MLP8, MLP9 and MLP13 .
It would also be considered to comply with RMLP Policies S6, S10, S11 and DM1.
The economic, social and environmental strands of ‘sustainable development’ are considered to have been demonstrated. Therefore the proposed development is considered to constitute ‘sustainable development’ for the purposes of the NPPF, RMLP Policy S1 and TDLPS Policy SD1, for which there is a presumption in favour. Planning permission is recommended subject to the re-imposition of conditions attached to permission ref ESS/21/08/TEN and an updated S106 Agreement.
THE CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010
The proposed development would not be located adjacent to or within the screening distance to a European site.
Therefore, it is considered that an Appropriate Assessment under Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 is not required.
EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The report only concerns the determination of an application for planning permission and takes into account any equalities implications. The recommendation has been made after consideration of the application and supporting documents, the development plan, government policy and guidance, representations and all other material planning considerations as detailed in the body of the report.
STATEMENT OF HOW THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT IN A POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE MANNER
The application has been made due to the current economic recession in the construction and house building sectors. This has caused a reduction in the need for minerals. The Mineral Planning Authority recognises this and has therefore sought to work positively and proactively with the applicant to remove unnecessary barriers to development. This has been achieved through pre- application consultation with the applicant and active liaison with consultees during the determination process. This is in accordance with the general approach of the Government and in accordance with the requirement in the NPPF, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management
Page 147 of 176
Procedure) (England) (Amendment No.2) Order 2012.
And there are no other policies or other material considerations which are overriding or warrant the withholding of permission.
DECISION
By virtue of the powers delegated to me I hereby accept and approve the above recommendations
Signed by Date
(If signed by Senior Planner obtain authorising signature of Planning Manager or Head of Planning, Environment and Economic Growth)
for Head of Planning, Environment and Economic Growth
Date
Page 148 of 176
APPENDIX 1
Consideration of consistency of Policies
Essex Minerals Local Plan Ref Policy Consistency with NPPF MLP3 Access from a mineral working will Paragraph 32 of the NPPF preferably be by a short length of existing requires LPAs decisions to take road to the main highway network, defined account inter alia that “…safe and in structure plan policy T2, via a suitable suitable access to the site can be existing junction, improved if required, in achieved for all people…” and in accordance with structure plan policies T4 Paragraph 35 developments and T14. should be located and designed where practical to…” inter alia Proposals for new access direct to the “…create safe and secure layouts” main highway network may exceptionally be accepted where no opportunity exists It is therefore considered that for using a suitable existing access or MLP3 is in conformity with NPPF junction, and where it can be constructed has it seeks to provide safe and in accordance with the County Council’s suitable accesses. highway standards. There is a presumption against new access onto motorways or strategic trunk roads.
Where access to the main highway network is not feasible, access onto a secondary road before gaining access onto the highway network may exceptionally be accepted if in the opinion of MPA the capacity of the road is adequate and there will be no undue impact on road safety or the environment.
MLP4 Proposals for sand and gravel working on On the 12 July 2012 the Planning sites other than those listed in Schedule 1 Inspectorate issued a Decision will be permitted only where:- (ref: APP/Z1585/A/12/2169596 and (i) The reserves comprising the Costs Decision) for an appeal. The landbank are insufficient and/or Inspector of that appeal there is some other over-riding highlighted that at paragraph 9 that justification or benefit for the ‘The Framework requires provision release of the site; and to be made on specific sites and preferred areas and/or areas of The proposal would be environmentally search and locational criteria. This acceptable. site is not a preferred site and therefore it is covered by policy MLP4 of the MLP for non-preferred sites. The Framework does not contain policies for non-preferred
Page 149 of 176
sites, such as the appeal proposal. However, the lack of any such policy does not mean that it is contrary to the Framework, since it is still open to Councils to provide locally- developed policies in their development plans’. In the Costs Decision (ref: Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/Z1585/A/12/2169596) to that appeal the Inspector highlighted that The Framework does not specifically deal with non-preferred sites and this is a matter left to local policies. The criteria selected by the Council are not in conflict with the Framework but MLP4 also takes into account environmental factors, which are covered by the Framework as part of sustainable development. Prior extraction of minerals continues to be part of the Framework, within the context of Minerals Safeguarding Areas, in paragraph 143. Therefore the advice in the Framework is not ignored nor is it in conflict with the development plan policies for the area.
MLP8 Planning permission will not normally be Paragraph 144 of the Framework given for the working of minerals unless requires LPAs when determining the land concerned is capable of being planning application inter alia restored within a reasonable time to a “provide for restoration and condition such as to make possible an aftercare at the earliest opportunity appropriate and beneficial after-use. to be carried out to high Where planning permission for mineral environmental standards. working is given on Grade 1, 2 or 3a of the Ministry of agriculture’s land Paragraph 109 of the Framework classification, the land will be required to requires protection of soils. be restored within a reasonable time and as nearly as possible to its former The Framework does not place agricultural quality. Where filling material such weight as the MLP on the is necessary, permission will not be given need for restoration to agriculture until it is shown that suitable material will for land that is best and most be available and that the compatibility of versatile, however it is recognised the landfill gas and leachate monitoring in paragraph 112 that the and control structures and processes with economic and other benefits of the the afteruse is demonstrated. Wherever best and most versatile land possible land permitted for mineral should be taken account of. In
Page 150 of 176
working will be restored to agricultural addition at Paragraph 109 it does use, but due regard will also be had to the require protection of soils. MLP8 need for areas for nature conservation, recognises and does not preclude water-based recreation, afforestation and restoration to alternative afteruses. Leisure activities. Where permission is given, conditions will be imposed to It is therefore considered that secure: MLP8 is largely in conformity with the Framework. (i) progressive working and restoration; and (ii) aftercare and maintenance of the restored land for not less than 5 years, and
a beneficial after use of the restored land including the use of areas that remain waterfilled.
MLP9 In considering planning applications for The Framework at Paragraph 144 mineral working or related development, requires when LPAs are the mineral planning authority will permit determining planning applications only those proposals where the provisions to “…provide for restoration and for working and reclamation contained in aftercare at the earliest opportunity the application are satisfactory and the to be carried out to high implementation of the proposals is environmental standards…”. To feasible. ensure such restoration can be achieved applications need to demonstrate any restoration scheme is feasible.
It is therefore considered that MLP9 is conformity with the Framework
MLP13 Planning applications for mineral The NPPF at Paragraph 144 extraction and related development will be requires when LPAs are refused where there would be an determining applications to ensure unacceptable effect on any of the applications does cause inter following: alia“…unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic The visual and aural environment; environment, human health…” Local residents’ (or others’) amenity; and Landscape and the countryside; The highway network; In addition in paragraph 144 Water resources; “…that any unavoidable noise, Nature conservation dust and particle emissions and blasting vibrations are controlled…and establish appropriate noise limits…”
The NPPF supports sustainable
Page 151 of 176
transport including requiring development to have safe and suitable access (Paragraph 32) and locating development to “…accommodate the efficient delivery of good and supplies…” (Paragraph 35).
Tendring District Local Plan Ref Policy Consistency with NPPF Q11 All new development should be The Tendring District Council compatible with surrounding land uses website states that the above plan and minimise any adverse environmental ‘is now considered to be out of impacts. Development will only be date and not in accordance with permitted if the following criteria are met: national planning policy.’
i. the scale and nature of the development is appropriate to the locality; ii. the development will not have a materially damaging impact on the privacy, daylight or other amenities of occupiers of nearby properties; iii. the development will not lead to material loss or damage to important environmental assets such as buildings of architectural interest, the historic environment, water courses, important archaeological sites and monuments and areas of conservation, recreation, ecological or landscape value; iv. the development, including any additional road traffic arising, will not have a materially damaging impact on air, land, water (including ground water), amenity, health or safety through noise, smell, dust, light, heat, vibration, fumes or other forms of pollution or nuisance; and v. the health, safety or amenity of any occupants or users of the proposed development will not be materially harmed by any pollution from an existing or committed use. Where appropriate, compensatory and/or mitigation measures will be required to resolve or limit environmental impacts.
COM22 Planning permission will not be granted As above. for noise sensitive developments such as hospitals, schools and housing unless one of the following conditions is met: i. the development is located away from
Page 152 of 176
existing sources of noise; or ii. mitigation measures are proposed which will adequately mitigate the adverse effects of noise at all times and in all circumstances. Noisy developments should be located away from sensitive developments unless adequate provision has been made to mitigate the adverse effects of noise likely to be generated or experienced by others.
COM23 Planning permission will not be granted As above. for development which would have a significant adverse effect on health, the natural, built or historic environment or amenity by reason of releases of pollutants to surface or ground water, land or air including smell and odours, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, grit or dust.
EN1 The quality of the district’s landscape and As above. its distinctive local character will be protected and, where possible, enhanced. Any development which would significantly harm landscape character or quality will not be permitted. Development control will seek in particular to conserve the following natural and manmade features which contribute to local distinctiveness: a. estuaries and rivers, and the undeveloped coast; b. skylines and prominent views, including those of ridge tops and plateau edges; c. the settings and character of settlements and of attractive and/or vernacular buildings within the landscape; d. historic landscapes and listed parks and gardens, ancient woodlands, and other important woodland, hedgerows and trees; e. native species of landscape planting and local building materials; and f. the traditional character of protected lanes, other rural lanes, bridleways and footpaths. Where a local landscape is capable of accommodating development, any proposals shall include suitable measures for landscape conservation and enhancement.
Page 153 of 176
EN6 Development proposals will not be As above. granted planning permission unless the existing local biodiversity and geodiversity is protected and enhanced. In exceptional circumstances, where the planning benefits are considered to outweigh the protection or enhancement of local biodiversity and geodiversity, appropriate compensating measures to outweigh the harm caused by the development must be provided. Where appropriate, conditions or planning obligations will be sought to protect the biodiversity interest of the site and to provide appropriate compensatory or mitigation measures and long term site management, as necessary.
EN6a Planning permission will not normally be As above. granted for development which would have an adverse impact on badgers, seals or species protected by Schedules 1, 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended.
EN6b Consideration will be given to the As above. potential for new wildlife habitats in new development. Where these are created, measures may be taken to ensure suitable permanent management, and public access. In these matters, the Council may be guided by the Essex Biodiversity Action Plan.
EN29 Development will not be permitted where As above. the Council considers that it will adversely affect nationally important archaeological sites and their setting. Permission will be refused where development proposals do not satisfactorily protect archaeological remains of local importance. Where applications are submitted on sites where information indicates that there are likely to be archaeological remains, the Council will expect to be provided with the results of an archaeological evaluation prior to the determination of an application. The evaluation should seek to define:
Page 154 of 176
a. the nature and condition of any archaeological remains within the application site; b. the likely impact of the proposed development on such features; and c. the means of mitigating the impact of the proposed development in order to achieve preservation “in situ” or, where this is not merited, the method of recording such remains prior to development. Where development is permitted on sites containing archaeological remains, any planning permission will be subject to conditions and/or formal agreements requiring appropriate excavation and recording in advance of development and the publication of the results.
TR1a Proposals for development affecting As above. highways will be considered in relation to the road hierarchy to reducing and preventing hazards and inconvenience to traffic and to the effects on the transport system including the physical and environmental capacity to accommodate the traffic generated.
TR4 Where development affects an existing As above. public right of way, planning permission will be refused unless the development can accommodate the definitive alignment of the path. A formal diversion providing a safe, attractive and convenient alternative may be considered where appropriate. Where opportunities exist the improvement of existing routes and the creation of additional links in the network of public rights of way and cycle tracks will be sought.
RA8 Support will be given for agricultural As above. reservoirs and/ or winter water storage facilities subject to such proposals having no material adverse impact on: i. landscape characteristics; ii. biodiversity; iii. historic environment; iv. public rights of way; v. important nature conservation sites;
Page 155 of 176
vi. floodplain and associated flood storage; and vii. public safety. Where there would be an impact on the supply of aggregate, the developer must prove the agricultural need for the water. Applications will be expected to include high quality landscaping both on and off site. Furthermore, the development must be designed to maximise opportunities to create wildlife habitat and measures need to be put in place to ensure suitable management.
Page 156 of 176
AGENDA ITEM 5.4
DR/41/15
committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 18 December 2015
MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT
Proposal: Installation of a sealed rectangular plastic coated polyester fabric bladder tank complete with vent pipes and drum type activated filters measuring 29.20m long x 25.66m wide x 2.80m deep of which 1.1m would be above ground level to facilitate the storage of abattoir wash water. Location: Blixes Farm, Ranks Green Road, Chelmsford Essex CM3 2BH Ref: ESS/33/15/BTE Applicant: C Humphreys and Sons
Report by Director of Operations, Environment and Economy Enquiries to: Glenn Shaw Tel: 03330 136873 The full application can be viewed at www.essex.gov.uk/viewplanning
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright reserved Essex County Council, Chelmsford Licence L000Page 19602 157 of 176
Site Plan
1. BACKGROUND
A circular, above ground storage tank to hold abattoir wash water from the Blixes Farm abattoir prior to its spreading on land has been erected on the applicant’s holding at the nearby Little Warley Hall Farm. A retrospective planning application (ESS/60/13/BTE) to retain this tank at Little Warley Farm was refused by the Development and Regulation Committee in March 2014 principally because of concerns about odour nuisance emanating from the un-roofed structure as well as being inappropriate and unsustainable because it was not located at the source of production of the waste water.
A preference was suggested by the Development and Regulation Committee and a number of members of the public that the tank should be sited at the abattoir (Blixes Farm). An Enforcement Notice was served requiring its removal and this together with the refusal of the planning permission has been appealed. The Inspector dismissed the appeal. The applicant sought legal advice on the outcome of the appeal and the applicant’s Barrister considered that the Inspector’s decision contained significant errors, not least the manner in which the matter of the possible retention of the tank and its use for agricultural purposes was dealt with. This matter was the subject of a High Court Review which quashed the Inspector’s decision and this matter has been returned to the Planning Inspectorate for a fresh decision by a new Inspector. The requirements of the Enforcement Notice are currently suspended pending the outcome of the redetermination of the appeal. The applicant has stated that the tank remains in use.
In the light of the current uncertainty over the retention of the tank at Little Warley
Page 158 of 176
Hall Farm the applicant proposes to install an Alligator Bagtank. This Bagtank (also known as a Bladder Tank) is flexible bladder/bag type storage container for wash water at the abattoir and this application seeks planning permission for its construction.
2. SITE
The hamlet of Ranks Green comprises a scattered group of farm buildings, dwellings and some commercial uses set in a linear arrangement along Ranks Green Road and situated in a rural area about 1mile to the north east of the village of Great Leighs and approximately 5 miles from the northern edge of the city of Chelmsford.
The closest main road is the A130/A131, which bypasses Great Leighs to the west and runs between Chelmsford and the town of Braintree, the latter is about 1.5 miles to the north of Ranks Green.
Blixes Farm is located at the eastern end of Ranks Green and on the southern side of Ranks Green Road. It comprises a group of former farm buildings used as an abattoir and lairage with associated cattle barns, pens, storage buildings, workshops and a farm shop. A car park is found between the main abattoir buildings and the farm shop (the latter being the eastern most building).
Vehicular access to the site exists off Ranks Green Road onto a concrete driveway.
To the south and west of the building complex is a field/meadow used for the grazing of animals destined for slaughter. It is proposed to locate the bladder/bag tank complete with vent pipes and drum type activated filters approximately in the south east corner of this field 100 m south of the farm/abattoir complex. A solar panel array is situated towards the western end of this field and supplies electricity to the abattoir.
To the north of the site and within the abattoir complex is a Grade II listed Barn and farm house and 500m to the east is a Grade II Listed Building called Dines Hall.
The nearest residential properties are approximately 150m north of the proposal and are located within the farm/abattoir complex.
A public bridleway runs in a broadly north – south direction about 200 metres to the east of the site, and a second runs east-west some 350 metres to the south. Both are screened from view by mature hedges and trees on the application site boundary.
3. PROPOSAL
This application proposes the installation of a sealed rectangular plastic coated polyester fabric bladder tank complete with vent pipes and drum type activated filters, measuring 29.20m long x 25.66m wide (749.3sqm) x 2.80m deep of which 1.1m would be above ground level to facilitate the storage of abattoir wash water when full.
Page 159 of 176
The tank is intended to be situated in an excavation such that when full it is principally supported by battered earth sides. The spoil form the excavation would be used to provide a 400mm grass embankment rising above ground level. The tank would be secured with flexible straps anchored to metal posts driven into the ground and filled via a suction pipe and valve arrangement.
It is intended to fit drum type activated charcoal filters to each vent pipe with fans on each to draw air through the filters when filling and emptying occurs. The filters selected are specifically designed to remove odours at blood storage tanks and animal rendering plants.
Filling would be undertaken using the company’s vacuum tanker vehicle carrying wash water from the existing subterranean tanks at the site to the Bagtank via the car park and eastern access track. The tanker would not need to enter the public highway to transfer wash water. It is intended that a below ground fill pipe would eventually be installed together with a pump to negate the need for tanker movements through the site. The applicant has stated that this would be the subject of a later planning application.
The applicant has stated that if necessary a native hedgerow can be planted on land outside the application site (but owned by the applicant) and this matter can be controlled via a planning condition should planning permission be granted.
The storage capacity of the bladder/bagtank would be 7000m3.
The application site is surrounded by mature hedgerows and trees.
4. POLICIES
The following policies of the Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan 2001 (WLP) and Braintree District Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 (BCS) and Braintree District Local Plan Review 2005 (BLP) provide the development framework for this application. The following policies are of relevance to this application:
Policy WLP BCS BLP Sustainable Development, National Waste W3A Hierarchy & Proximity Principle Highways W4C Alternative Sites W8B Alternative Sites W8C Material Considerations: Policy Compliance and Development Control W10E Countryside CS5 Natural Environment and Bio diversity CS8 Development Likely to Give Rise to Pollution, or RLP62 the Risk of Pollution Waste Reprocessing Facilities RLP75 Landscape Features and Habitats RLP80 Layout and Design of Development RLP90
Page 160 of 176
Alterations and extensions and changes of use to RLP100 Listed Building, and their settings.
The National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) set out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. The Framework highlights that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. It goes on to state that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. The Framework places a presumption in favour of sustainable development. However, Paragraph 11 states that planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
For decision-taking the Framework states that this means; approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.
In respect of the above, Paragraph 215 of the Framework, which it is considered is applicable to the WLP, BCS and BLP, states that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). Consideration of this, as such, will therefore be made throughout the appraisal section of this report.
With regard to updates/replacements or additions to the above, the Waste Development Document: Preferred Approach 2011 (now known as the Replacement Waste Local Plan (RWLP)) should be given little weight having not been ‘published’ for the purposes of the Framework. The Framework states (Annex 1 Paragraph 216):
From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:
• The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); • The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given), and; • The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).
The RWLP has yet to reach ‘submission stage’ and as such it is too early in the development of the RWLP for it to hold any significant weight in decision making.
Braintree District Council has produced a Site Allocations and Development Management Plan which together with the BCS will allocate development sites and
Page 161 of 176
protect other areas in the District from development over the next fifteen years. The Site Allocations and Development Management Plan were adopted for use within development management decision making as a material consideration site at the Full Council meeting held on 15th September 2014.
5. CONSULTATIONS
BRAINTREE DISTRICT COUNCIL – No comments.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – No objection. Recommends an incident response plan that covers the following matters: • Identify any risks posed by the activity, including any routes that spilled waste water could take to reach any water bodies e.g. land drains, surface water drains, and how those risks will be reduced. • Explain measures that will be taken to prevent pollution incidents occurring. • Detail actions that will be taken in the event of a spillage or pollution incident. • Identify the people who will be responsible for incident management. • A plan showing the location of any non mains drainage facilities onsite, and information to address whether these facilities would be impacted in the event of a rupture.
A scheme for an incident response plan would be the subject of a planning condition should planning permission be granted.
NATURAL ENGLAND – No objection.
HEALTH & SAFETY EXECUTIVE – No comments to make.
ANGLIAN WATER SERVICES – No comments received.
LOCAL LEAD FLOOD AUTHORITY – No objection
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY – No objection
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (Public Rights of Way) – No objection
PLACE SERVICES (Landscape) – No objection.
PLACE SERVICES (Historic Buildings) – No objection. The proposed Bagtank will form part of the already established abattoir complex and as such the bag tank will not impinge further on either of the two Listed Buildings in the near vicinity, providing that the requisite landscaping is agreed and carried out which would be subject to a condition requiring the submission of a landscape plan.
PLACE SERVICES (Historic Environment) – No objection.
RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION – No comments received.
BRITISH HORSE SOCIETY – No comments received.
Page 162 of 176
THE COUNCIL’S AIR QUALITY CONSULTANT – No objection but recommends Odour Management Plan to control any potential odour issues and periodic odour monitoring to check the performance of the de-odourise filters.
TERLING AND FAIRSTEAD PARISH COUNCIL – No comments received.
LOCAL MEMBER – BRAINTREE – Witham Northern – Any comments received will be reported.
6. REPRESENTATIONS
4 properties were directly notified of the application and the application was subject of site notices and press advert and no representations have been received.
7. APPRAISAL The key issues for consideration are:
A – Principle, Need & Site Suitability B - Impact on Landscape & Amenity & Odours C – Historic Environment
A PRINCIPLE, NEED & SITE SUITABILITY
WLP policy W3A identifies the need for proposals to have regard to the following principles:
• consistency with the goals and principles of sustainable development; • whether the proposal represents the best practicable environmental option for the particular waste stream and at that location; • whether the proposal would conflict with other options further up the waste hierarchy; • conformity with the proximity principle.
The NPPW states in its waste hierarchy to the most effective environmental solution is often to reduce the generation of waste, including the re-use of products;
• products that have become waste can be checked, cleaned or repaired so that they can be re-used – preparing for re-use • waste materials can be reprocessed into products, materials, or substances – recycling • waste can serve a useful purpose by replacing other materials that would otherwise have been used – other recovery • the least desirable solution where none of the above options is appropriate – disposal
The applicant has submitted that the abattoir generates waste water from the washing down of the killing and butchering areas at the end of each day. Wash water is mains (i.e. tap) water containing blood, amounts of animal flesh and small amounts of animal faeces. This water is sieved to remove solids larger than 4- 6mm and is then drained to an underground holding tank.
Page 163 of 176
Abattoir wash water provides a good fertiliser beneficial to farmland and crops. It has no harmful properties and is not harmful to human health.
The applicant states that the company has a Deployment certificate from the Environment Agency which allows for the spreading of the wash water on their own land holding. However, an, important motivation for the development is that without the ability to store the water its deployment on the applicants land holding is governed by the weather and the condition of soils. The spreading of the wash water may take place at any time of the year but as mentioned above only when ground and weather conditions allow as there is a potential soil compaction or waterlogging. This could result in cross-compliance issues and may cause the applicant to be fined through a reduction or the complete loss of the holding’s Single Farm Payment. This would have a significant, detrimental impact on the viability of the agricultural enterprise.
The applicant has stated that the ability to store the wash water would provide maximum flexibility for spreading to be undertaken when weather and ground conditions are most favourable. This it is considered would reduce the potential for odour nuisance to nearby residents and locating the tank at the source of the wash water would be considered the most practical and sustainable option.
The proposal, in pure land use terms, is the provision of a bagtank to store abattoir wash water. It is therefore considered the main consideration of the application is, if this site is actually suitable for such a development and/or if the provision/facility would cause undue impact on the locality rendering it unsustainable. In relation to this, and WLP policy W3A, as the proposal is in essence facilitating the re-use of a waste product it is considered that the proposal in principle does comply with the objectives of NPPW and WLP policy W3A.
WLP policies W8B and W8C both identify types of location other than those in Schedule 1 of the WLP at which waste management facilities would be permitted. WLP policy W8B is generally targeted towards facilities with a capacity over 25,000 tonnes per annum and suggests that areas suitable for such development include employment areas (existing or allocated) or existing waste management sites where the proposed facility would not be detrimental to the amenity of any nearby residential area. WLP policy W8C which is directed towards sites with a capacity below 25,000 tonnes per annum suggests that such development would also be acceptable in more urban locations where they serve the local community, subject to the protection of residential amenity, and in rural locations where they would be located within existing buildings not requiring significant adaption, not prejudice the openness or character of the locality and not, in the case of farm buildings or hardstandings, result in the re-placement of buildings purely for operational reasons/requirements.
In respect of the above policy stance, specifically looking at land use, the site (and surrounding area) is un-allocated white land in the Proposals Map (2011) accompanying the BCS. Ranks Green is considered stereotypical of a small rural village with sporadic housing lining the country lane through the village. The proposed storage of the bladder estimated to contain 7,000 cubic metres (7 tonnes) of wash water. With regard to facilities within a capacity below 25,000 tonnes per annum, WLP policy W8C details that rural locations may be
Page 164 of 176
appropriate providing they are located within existing buildings and do not prejudice the openness or character of the locality. Whilst this facility does not make use of an existing building or structure, it is considered that the tank in appearance is general akin to that expected and accepted on an agricultural holding. A further discussion with regard to the impact the development would have on landscape, amenity and odour is nevertheless considered later in this report.
B IMPACT ON LANDSCAPE & AMENITY & ODOURS
The NNPF at Paragraph 122 states that local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land and the impact of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under pollution control regimes. Local planning authorities should assume that these regimes will operate effectively.
National Planning Policy for Waste (‘NPPW’ - October 2014) in paragraph 7 of advises, when determining waste planning applications, waste planning authorities should:
• Consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity. • Ensure that waste management facilities in themselves are well-designed, so that they contribute positively to the character and quality of the area in which they are located; • Not concern themselves with the control of processes which are a matter for the pollution control authorities. Waste planning authorities should work on the assumption that the that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced;
The NPPW in relation to landscape and visual impacts, considerations to include the potential for design-led solutions to produce acceptable development which respects landscape character
WLP policy W10E details a list of criterion to which satisfactory provision must be made, within the proposal, to demonstrate that no significant impacts are likely to result from implementation. Included in this list of criterion is the effect of the development on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, particularly from noise, smell, dust and other potential pollutants; the effect of the development on the landscape and the countryside; and the impact of road traffic generated by the development.
Looking initially at the design of the Bagtank and the potential impact on the landscape, BCS policy CS5 details that development outside town development boundaries, village envelopes and industrial development limits will be strictly controlled to uses appropriate to the countryside, in order to protect and enhance the landscape character and biodiversity, geodiversity and amenity of the countryside. Furthermore, in relation to landscape and agricultural, BCS policy CS8 states that development should protect the best and most versatile agricultural land. Development must have regard to the character of the landscape and its sensitivity to change and where development is permitted it will need to enhance the locally distinctive character of the landscape.
Page 165 of 176
BLP policy RLP90 states that a high standard of layout and design in all developments will be expected. Planning permission will only be granted where the following criteria are met (only criteria related to this proposal have been detailed): the scale, density, height and massing of buildings reflect or enhance local distinctiveness; there shall be no undue or unacceptable impact on the amenity of any nearby residential properties; designs shall recognise and reflect local distinctiveness, and be sensitive to the need to conserve local features of architectural, historic and landscape importance; the layout, height, mass and overall elevational design of buildings and development shall be in harmony with the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including their form, scale and impact on the skyline in the locality; and landscape design shall promote and enhance local biodiversity.
BLP policy RLP75 with regard to waste reprocessing facilities, states that development proposals involving waste recovery (such as recycling, waste transfer stations and composting) will be permitted in employment policy areas, subject to: i) there being no unacceptable adverse impact on adjoining uses by reasons of noise, smell, dust or other airborne pollutants and ii) there being no adverse impact on the surrounding road network in terms of road safety or capacity.
With respect to the location, the Bagtank would be located as stated earlier approximately 100 m south of the farm/abattoir complex and within an existing field and would be a rectangular plastic coated polyester fabric bag tank and would be 1.1m would be above ground level. The proposed bagtank would not be overlooked by any residential properties. Furthermore site has established vegetation on the boundaries of the site. It is considered, the application site is discretely located, screened by the existing buildings at the abattoir and mature vegetation. On the basis that appropriate odour filtration equipment is installed, retained and properly maintained it is averred that the development complies with the waste hierarchy and the locational guidance set out in the NPPW.
Place Services Landscaping, Historic buildings, Historic Environment, Braintree District Council and Natural England have not objected to this proposal.
With respect to odour the applicant has stated that the Bagtank is a sealed unit. Incorporated within the design of the Bagtank would be drum type activated charcoal filters fitted to each vent pipe with fans on each to draw air through the filters when filling and emptying occurs. The applicant has further stated that these types of filters have been selected as they are specifically designed to remove odours at blood storage tanks and animal rendering plants.
Council’s Air Quality Consultant has not objected but recommends an Odour Management Plan to control any potential odour issues and periodic odour monitoring to check the performance of the de-odourise filters and should planning permission be granted then a condition requiring the submission of an Odour Management Plan.
The Environment Agency, Braintree District Council and Fairstead Parish Council have not objected to the application.
Page 166 of 176
The Environment Agency has stated that the risk to groundwater is considered to be low due to the unproductive water resource status of the underlying geology strata and pollution prevention and control issues in relation to surface water would be addressed by partial burial of the tank storage along with secondary containment in the form of a bund. The Environment Agency has not objected to the proposal subject to a condition requiring the submission of an incident response plan.
In addition the Local Lead Flood Authority, Braintree District Council and the Council’s Air Quality Consultant have not objected to the application.
It is considered the provision of the Bagtank for abattoir wash water does offer the applicant additional flexibility in context of storage capacity and for the use of the land spreading/deployment which is undertaken for agricultural purposes. The tank would occupy an area of 749.3m2 and would be 1.1m above ground and would have drum filters fitted to mitigate any odours that could be produced by the wash water. Further the Bagtank would be located to the rear of the existing buildings and is considered would not be visible from residential properties It is considered that the development would demonstrate general compliance with WLP policy W10E, BLP policies RLP62, RLP80 and RLP90 and BCS policy CS5 and CS8.
C IMPACT ON THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT
Section 66 (1) of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990 (LBA) states, inter-alia that; in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
The NPPF states in paragraphs 128 to 134 that heritage assets are an irreplaceable (and therefore finite) resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance and notes that any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. It requires applicants to describe the significance of heritage assets including any contribution made by their setting.
The NPPF defines the “Setting of a heritage asset” as “The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.”
The Framework defines “Significance (for heritage policy)” as “The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.”
The applicant has submitted a heritage statement. Located within farm buildings
Page 167 of 176
of Blixes farm is a Grade II Listed barn and house dated late 17th Century. However, the location of the partly sunken sealed storage tank in the adjoining field is some distance to the south-east and is screened from the Listed Buildings by the existing farm buildings. With respect to Dines Hall intervening hedges screen views of the tank from Dines Hall.
BLP policy RLP100 seeks to protect the settings of Listed Buildings. The applicant’s heritage statement considers that the proposal would not change the character or setting of the listed barn or the relationship to any part of this working farm complex and further considers that this proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the listed barn which is situated within the existing site Place Services Historic Buildings have not objected to the proposal subject to a condition requiring the submission of a landscape plan should planning permission be granted. In addition Braintree District Council have not objected to this proposal.
It is considered that due to existing screening provided the existing farm/abattoir buildings and vegetation there would be no impact on the settings of the barn and house at Blixes Farm or Dines Hall and therefore the proposals are in conformity with BLP policy RLP100 and WLP policy W10E.
8. CONCLUSION
At the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. At paragraph 6 of the Framework it is detailed that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. In an economic role planning should be contributing to building a strong, responsive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and the right time to support growth and innovation. In a social role planning should be supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support is health, social and cultural well-being. In an environmental role planning should be contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.
In relation to the three dimensions of planning it is considered that there are clear benefits, to this development, within the economic and environmental roles. The development would support the abattoir at Blixes Farm and farming activities within the applicants land holding and in an environment role minimise waste in that the wash water (a waste/by-product of the abattoir) is being utilised for agricultural benefit. No concerns or objections have been raised with regard to the siting, position or design of the Bagtank or the impact of any potential odours from the tank.
It is therefore considered, subject to the imposition of planning conditions, that this proposal does represent sustainable development and as such complies with
Page 168 of 176
WLP policies W3A, W4C W8B, W8C and W10E; BCS policies CS5 and CS8; and BLP policies RLP62, RLP75, RLP80, RLP90 and RLP100 and the Development Plan as a whole.
9. RECOMMENDED
That planning permission be granted subject to conditions covering the following matters.
1. COM1 – Commencement within 5 years 2. COM3 - Compliance with submitted details 3. LAND1 – Landscape Scheme 4. LAND2 - Replacement Landscaping 5. POLLUTION - Bespoke: Incident Response Plan 6. ODR2 – Odour Management Plan
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Consultation replies Representations
THE CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010 (as amended)
The proposed development would not be located adjacent to or within the appropriate screening distance of a European site. Therefore, it is considered that an Appropriate Assessment under Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 is not required.
EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT
This report only concerns the determination of an application for planning permission. It does however take into account any equality implications. The recommendation has been made after consideration of the application and supporting documents, the development plan, government policy and guidance, representations and all other material planning considerations as detailed in the body of the report.
STATEMENT OF HOW THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT IN A POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE MANNER In determining this planning application, the Local Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application by liaising with consultees, respondents and the applicant/agent and discussing changes to the proposal where considered appropriate or necessary. This approach has been taken positively and proactively in accordance with the requirement in the NPPF, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.
Page 169 of 176
LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION BRAINTREE – Witham Northern
Page 170 of 176
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
DR/42/15
committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 18 December 2015
MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT - ENFORCEMENT OF PLANNING CONTROL INFORMATION ITEM Unauthorised Development - The importation, deposition, processing and spreading of waste materials on the land, substantially raising the land levels (the unauthorised development.) Location: Land at intersection of A120 and B1256 (Stortford Road), Braintree, Essex Ref: ENF/0673
Report by Director of Operation, Environment and Economy Enquiries to: Suzanne Armstrong 03330136823
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright reserved Essex County Council, Chelmsford Licence L000 19602
Page 171 of 176
1. BACKGROUND AND SITE
The unauthorised importation, deposition, processing and spreading of waste materials has taken place on land at the intersection of the A120 and B1256.
On the14th August 2013 the Waste Planning Authority (WPA) witnessed importation, deposition, processing and spreading of waste materials on the land A Temporary Stop Notice was served on the land owner and the operators in August 2013 which resulted in the operators leaving the land and the usage stopped. The waste remained on the land.
An enforcement notice was served on the 10th February 2015 relating to the importation, deposition and spreading of waste materials on the land.
The requirements of the enforcement notice were;
Cease and do not resume the importation, deposition and spreading of waste on the land; Remove from the land all waste materials, including imported soils, rubble and other similar waste materials.
Compliance with the enforcement notice was due by the 13 June 2015.
2. CURRENT POSITION
The Temporary Stop Notice expired and since serving of the Temporary Stop Notice the importation of waste and associated activities ceased. The operator vacated the site and waste material remained. A letter was sent to the land owner requiring compliance with the enforcement notice.
A site visit was subsequently undertaken on the 22 June 2015 to whether the enforcement notice had been complied with. The waste materials had not been cleared from the land and therefore enforcement notice had not been complied with.
It was therefore considered it expedient to remedy the environmental harm. The breach of planning control is visually intrusive and seriously affected public amenity meriting protection in the public interest. The land had not been cleared of waste materials and Waste Planning Authority proceeded with a prosecution in the Magistrates Court.
On the 13 October 2015, Essex County Council as Waste Planning Authority attended Colchester Magistrates Court to prosecute the land owner for failure to comply with the enforcement notice served on the 10 February 2015. At the hearing the defendant (land owner) pleaded guilty but with proposed mitigation.
Following this, the case was adjourned until the 10th November 2015 allowing the defendant (land owner) an additional period of time to clear the land of all waste
Page 172 of 176 materials and comply with the enforcement notice.
A site visit undertaken on the 6th November 2015 confirmed that the waste remained on the land and the defendant (land owner) had failed to comply with the enforcement notice within the timescale set by the Judge
The case was heard at Colchester Magistrates Court on the 10th November 2015. The defendant was sentenced to a fine of £1000, costs of £600 and a victim surcharge of £100 and court costs of £180, totalling £1880.
Officers are continuing to monitor the removal of material from the site and it is expected that the landowner will comply with the enforcement and all waste materials will be removed from the land in due course.
LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION
UTTLESFORD – Dunmow.
Page 173 of 176
Page 174 of 176 AGENDA ITEM 7.1
DR/43/15
Committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION
Date 18 December 2015
INFORMATION ITEM Applications, Enforcement and Appeals Statistics
Report by Director of Operations, Environment & Economy
Enquiries to Robyn Chad – tel: 03330 136 811 or email: [email protected]
1. PURPOSE OF THE ITEM
To update Members with relevant information on planning applications, appeals and enforcements, as at the end of the previous month, plus other background information as may be requested by Committee.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
None.
Ref: P/DM/Robyn Chad/
MEMBER NOTIFICATION
Countywide.
Major Planning Applications SCHEDULE Nº. Pending at the end of October 27
Nº. Decisions issued in November 5
Nº. Decisions issued this financial year 21
Overall % in 13 weeks or in 16 weeks for EIA applications or applications 90% agreed within the extensions of time this financial year (Target 60%)
Nº. Delegated Decisions issued in November 3
Nº. Section 106 Agreements pending at the end of November 0
Page 175 of 176
Minor Applications % of minor applications in 8 weeks this financial year (Target 70%) 88%
Nº. Pending at the end of October 7
Nº. Decisions issued in November 2
Nº. Decisions issued this financial year 26
Nº. Delegated Decisions issued in November 2
All Applications Nº. Delegated Decisions issued in November 5
Nº. Committee determined applications issued in November 2
Nº. of Submission of Details dealt with this financial year 131
Nº. of Submission of Details pending at the end of November 101
Nº. of referrals to Secretary of State under delegated powers in November 0
Appeals Nº. of outstanding planning and enforcement appeals at end of November 1
Nº. of appeals allowed in the financial year 0
Nº. of appeals dismissed in the financial year 1
Enforcement Nº. of active cases at end of last quarter 33
Nº. of cases cleared last quarter 5
Nº. of enforcement notices issued in November 1
Nº. of breach of condition notices issued in November 0
Nº. of planning contravention notices issued in November 0
Nº. of Temporary Stop Notices issued in November 0
Nº. of Stop Notices issued in November 0
Page 176 of 176