Planning Regulatory Committee

Date: Friday 12 October 2012

Time: 10.00am

Venue: Edwards Room, County Hall,

Persons attending the meeting are requested to turn off mobile phones.

Membership

Mr B Bremner Mr P Rice Mr P Duigan Mr J Rogers (Chairman) Mr A Gunson Mr J Shrimplin (Vice-Chairman) Mr R Hanton Mr B Stone Mr D Harrison Ms H Thompson Mr M Hemsley Mr T Tomkinson Mr B Iles Mrs J Virgo Mr J Joyce Mr M Wilby Mrs J Leggett

For further details and general enquiries about this Agenda please contact the Committee Officer: Julie Mortimer on 01603 223055 or email committees@.gov.uk

Where the County Council have received letters of objection in respect of any application, these are summarised in the report. If you wish to read them in full, Members can do so either at the meeting itself or beforehand in the Department of Environment, Transport and Development on the 3rd Floor, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich. Planning Regulatory Committee 12 October 2012

A g e n d a 1 To receive apologies and details of any substitute members attending.

2 Minutes:

To receive and agree the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 September (Page 1) 2012.

3 Members to Declare any Interests

If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting and that interest is on your Register of Interests you must not speak or vote on the matter. It is recommended that you declare that interest but it is not a legal requirement.

If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting and that interest is not on your Register of Interests you must declare that interest at the meeting and not speak or vote on the matter

In either case you may remain in the room where the meeting is taking place. If you consider that it would be inappropriate in the circumstances to remain in the room, you may leave the room while the matter is dealt with.

If you do not have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest you may nevertheless have an Other Interest in a matter to be discussed if it affects

- your well being or financial position - that of your family or close friends - that of a club or society in which you have a management role - that of another public body of which you are a member to a greater extent than others in your ward.

If that is the case then you must declare such an interest but can speak and vote on the matter.

4 To receive any items of business which the Chairman decides should be considered as a matter of urgency

5 Applications referred to the Committee for Determination

Reports by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

5a C/7/2011/7020: Manor Farm, Land off B1136, Loddon Road, (Page 7) , Norwich, NR14 6PN: Extraction, Processing, Bagging and Sale of Sand and Gravel with Concrete Batching. Gravels Ltd. Planning Regulatory Committee 12 October 2012

5b C/7/2011/7016: : Wastewater Treatment (Page 45) Works, Kirby Road: Variation of conditions 4 and 5 of planning permission C/7/1998/7021 to allow 24 hour operation of the extended conveyor (subject of planning application C/7/2011/7017) and storage of biosolids up to 4 metres in height within the drop zone immediately below on small concrete pad. Anglian Water Services Ltd.

5c C/7/2011/7017: Kirby Bedon: Whitlingham Wastewater Treatment (Page 95) Works, Kirby Road: 7.75 metres extension to existing conveyor on small concrete pad (8.3 metres in total including mounted geared motor unit). Anglian Water Services Limited.

Chris Walton Head of Democratic Services County Hall Martineau Lane Norwich NR1 2DH

Date Agenda Published: Thursday 4 October 2012

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact 0344 800 8020 or Textphone 0344 8008011 and we will do our best to help. Planning Regulatory Committee 12 October 2012

STANDING DUTIES

In assessing the merits of the proposals and reaching the recommendation made for each application, due regard has been given to the following duties and in determining the applications the members of the committee will also have due regard to these duties.

Equality Act 2010

It is unlawful to discriminate against, harass or victimise a person when providing a service or when exercising a public function. Prohibited conduct includes direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation and discrimination arising from a disability (treating a person unfavourably as a result of their disability, not because of the disability itself).

Direct discrimination occurs where the reason for a person being treated less favourably than another is because of a protected characteristic.

The act notes the protected characteristics of: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

The introduction of the general equality duties under this Act in April 2011 requires that the Council must in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to:

 Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by this Act.

 Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not.

 Foster good relations between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not.

The relevant protected characteristics are: age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation.

Crime and Disorder Act, 1998 (S17)

Without prejudice to any other obligation imposed on it, it shall be the duty of the County Council to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area.

Human Rights Act 1998

The requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 must be considered.

The human rights of the adjoining residents under Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life, and Article 1 of the First Protocol, the right of enjoyment of property are engaged. A grant of planning permission may infringe those rights but they are qualified rights, that is that they can be balanced against the economic interests of the community as a whole and the human rights of other individuals. In making that balance it may also be taken into account that the amenity of local residents could be adequately safeguarded by conditions albeit with the exception of visual amenity.

The human rights of the owners of the application site may be engaged under the First Protocol Article 1, that is the right to make use of their land. A refusal of planning permission may infringe that right but the right is a qualified right and may be balanced against the need to protect the environment and the amenity of adjoining residents. Planning Regulatory Committee Minutes of the Meeting Held on 7 September 2012

Present: Mr J Rogers (Chairman)

Mr B Bremner Mr J Joyce Mr N Dixon Mrs J Leggett Mr P Duigan Mr J Shrimplin (Vice-Chairman) Mr A Gunson Mr B Stone Mr R Hanton Mr H Thompson Mr D Harrison Mr T Tomkinson Mr B Iles Mr M Wilby Mr M Hemsley

Officers in Attendance:

Mr C Colling - Environment, Transport and Development Mr R Cox - Environment, Transport and Development Ms F Croxen - NP Law Mr N Johnson - Environment, Transport and Development Mr J Shaw - Environment, Transport and Development Mr R Webb - Environment, Transport and Development

1 Apologies and Substitution

1.1 Apologies for absence were received from Mr B Iles and Mr P Rice.

2 Minutes from the meeting held on 13 July 2012

The minutes from the meeting held on 13 July 2012 were agreed by the Committee and signed by the Chairman.

3 Minutes from the meeting held on 27 July 2012

The minutes from the meeting held on 27 July 2012 were agreed by the Committee and signed by the chairman, subject to the following amendment.

Page 12, paragraph 5, third bullet point to read:

Some local objections had been received largely on the grounds of noise and traffic levels. It was generally agreed that the location was not perfect and that the class ‘c’ road was not comfortable for pedestrians to walk along.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 7 September 2012 1

4 Declarations of Interest

There were no declarations of interest.

5 Urgent Business

There were no items of urgent business.

Applications Referred to Committee for Determination

6 C/3/3012/3005: Breckland District: Land north of Rocklands Road, north of Shropham Village, Norfolk: Extraction of sand and gravel as an extension of Shropham Quarry with restoration to agriculture by infilling with inert materials. Breedon Aggregates.

6.1 During the presentation of the report, the following additional points were noted:

 Planning permission had already been granted for extraction of sand and gravel at the site, therefore access and egress at the quarry had already been established. The existing route from the quarry to the A11 would be maintained and a Section 106 Legal Agreement would be signed if planning permission was granted by the Committee.

 Once sufficient materials had been extracted, inert substances would be used to restore the appearance of the site to the same as existing. This would include some additional woodland planting.

 The Local Member for The Brecks, Ian Monson, had confirmed he had no objections to the proposed extension to Shropham Quarry.

 Conditions iv) and v) as outlined under item 12 of the report, had been removed from the recommendations because detailed schemes of working and restoration had now been submitted.

 Condition xii) had been amended to show that the proposed working hours at the site would be 0700-1800 Monday to Friday and 0700-1300 on Saturday.

 The Highways Authority had confirmed they had no objection to the proposed extension, as no increase in vehicle movements was proposed.

 Two objections had been received from members of the public relating to the proposed working hours. The proposed working hours had been considered acceptable by the Planning Officers as they reflected the current working hours at the quarry and had been established in the planning approval already in force.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 7 September 2012 2

6.2 The following responses to questions from the Committee were noted:

 The current sand and gravel landbank figure for Norfolk is 5.58 years. If approved, the proposed extension to Shropham Quarry would increase the landbank towards the 7 year target required by Government. The proposed extension is for the extraction of between 350,000 and 400,000 tonnes, which would increase the landbank by approximately 2-3 months.

 Breedon Aggregates would commence the extraction work in the sectors which already had planning permission, after which work would continue in the new sectors should planning permission be granted. It was expected that work would commence on the phased start in 2014.

6.3 The recommendation was moved by Mr Joyce and seconded by Mr Duigan. It was unanimously RESOLVED that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to:

1. Grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement in respect of vehicle routing, and conditions outlined in Section 12 of the report; 2. Discharge conditions where those detailed in the report required the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commences, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted or at any other period. 3. Deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

7 C/7/2012/7015: District: : Costessey Transfer Station, Longwater Business Park, Costessey, Norwich: Variations of Conditions 2, 5, 8, 15 and 16 of Planning Permission C/7/2010/7004 to install plant and machinery, and make associated amendments to site layout and working procedures: FCC Environment.

7.1 During the presentation of the report, the following additional points were noted:

 Following a query from the Local Member for Costessey, Mr Tim East, about the accuracy of the plans included within the report, the Committee were shown aerial photographs illustrating the Queens Hill development and the Lodge Farm development which gave a more up to date picture of the site and the proposal.

 No increase in traffic movements or the types of waste to be treated at the plant had been identified.

7.2 The following points were noted in response to questions from the Committee:

Planning Regulatory Committee – 7 September 2012 3

 The type of waste which would be treated at the plant would be commercial and industrial waste which would normally go to landfill. This waste was similar to household waste after recyclable materials had been removed. The aim of FCC Environment was to try to achieve less waste going to landfill facilities.

 The destination and recipients of the end product would depend on market trends and would vary from year to year.

7.3 Mr Mat Nicholson, Regional Estates Manager, FCC Environment addressed the Committee on behalf of the Applicant/Agent. The following points were noted during his submission:

 The proposed extension included storage space for Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) bales on a hard-standing base; new doors in the building and vehicle parking.

 Currently, manual and mechanical separation of waste took place at the plant, with the residual waste being sent to landfill. The new equipment would enable further recycling of the types of waste that would normally be sent to landfill. The outcome was an increase in recycling and a decrease in landfill.

 Objections had been received about the principles of an energy from waste plant (EfW) and Mr Nicholson wished to emphasise to the Committee that the application was not for an EfW plant.

 There would be no increase in waste or noise or amenity and all the activities at the site would remain the same.

 To reduce the risks of odour emanating from the RDF bales, they would be fully encased in plastic.

 There was no increased capacity proposed with these changes.

 Mr Nicholson confirmed that FCC Environment agreed with all the conditions set out within the report.

7.4 Following a question from the Committee, Mr Nicholson confirmed that the majority of the RDF bales would be stored in the covered bays outside the main building, and a fire suppression system had been installed within the main building and covered bays as a precautionary measure.

7.5 The recommendation was moved by Mr Duigan and seconded by Mr Gunson. It was unanimously RESOLVED that the Director of Environment, Transport and

Planning Regulatory Committee – 7 September 2012 4

Development would be authorised to:

1. Grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in Section 12 of the report. 2. Discharge conditions where those detailed required the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, within a specified date of planning permission being granted or at any other period. 3. Deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

The meeting concluded at 10.30am

CHAIRMAN

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact 0344 800 8020 or Textphone 0344 8008011 and we will do our best to help.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 7 September 2012 5 Planning (Regulatory) Committee 12 October 2012 Item No.

Applications Referred to Committee for Determination South Norfolk District: Application C/7/2011/7020: Manor Farm, Land off B1136, Loddon Road, Haddiscoe, Norwich. NR14 6PN: Extraction, Processing, Bagging and Sale of Sand and Gravel with Concrete Batching: Earsham Gravels Ltd

Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

Summary The proposal is the creation of a new sand and gravel quarry on land at Manor Farm, Haddiscoe, Norfolk. It is proposed to extract a total of 1,450,000 tonnes of sand and gravel in a phased manner over a 21 year period, with progressive restoration to a combination of a nature conservation and agricultural after-use. The proposal is before the Planning (Regulatory) Committee due to it being subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment and due to the number of objections received.

The application has resulted in a significant level of local objection, including from South Norfolk District Council. The main planning reasons for objection include concerns about impacts on the countryside, residential amenity, St. Mary’s Church, highway traffic and safety, biodiversity, the river valley and the fact the site was considered unsuitable for inclusion within the emerging Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD.

The proposed quarry and associated landscaping would result in impacts upon the character of the local landscape and some harm to the setting of St. Mary’s Church. There would be a degree of increase in noise, traffic, and activity associated with the mineral operations. However no material harm to the countryside, environment, highways and neighbouring amenity would arise, due to the substantial mitigation measures proposed.

Although it is a balanced case, the need for the development in helping to address the current shortfall in the County’s sand and gravel land bank of permitted reserves and the economic benefits of the scheme in the context of guidance within the NPPF are important material considerations which weigh in favour of the proposal. The proposal accords with the thrust of local and national planning policy and therefore is recommended for approval. Recommendation It is recommended that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to: (i) Grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement in respect of the provision of restoration features and aftercare and the conditions outlined in Section 12: (ii) Discharge conditions where those detailed above require the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commences, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted or at any other period. (iii) Deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

1. The Proposal

1.1 Location: : Manor Farm, Land off B1136, Loddon Road, Haddiscoe, Norwich. NR14 6PN 1.2 Type of Development: : Extraction, processing, bagging and sale of sand and gravel with concrete batching. 1.3 Estimated reserve : 1,450,000 tonnes

1.4 Total Site Area : 28.7 hectares

1.5 Estimated average annual : 75,000 tonnes output 1.6 Expected commencement date : 2013

1.7 Expected duration of operations : 21 years

1.8 Depth of workings : Maximum 13.3 metres, average 7.1 metres. 1.9 Market Served : 15 mile radius of site.

1.10 Buildings/Plant : Processing plant, office and weighbridge on adjacent land. 1.11 Hours of Working : Monday – Friday: 07.00 -17.00 Saturdays: 07.00-13.00 No operations Sundays or Public Holidays 1.12 Predicted vehicle movements : Total 76. generated per day Includes approximately 32 HGV movements, 14 MGV movements, 30 movements of cars and light goods vehicles. 1.13 Routes they will normally follow : East to A143 and (66%) West to A146 and towards Norwich (34%) 1.14 Restoration/After-use : Nature conservation / agriculture with woodland. 2. Constraints

2.1 The site is adjacent to the boundary of the Broads Authority. There are a number of listed buildings within close proximity to the site, including St. Mary’s church and St. Matthias church. There is a public bridleway (Haddiscoe BR5) on the proposed main extraction area and there is a public footpath (Haddiscoe FP7) to the south of the proposed plant site. Part of the site is within a ‘Core River Valley’ as designated by the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy. It is also adjacent to a County Wildlife Site – Devils End Meadow. 3. Planning History

3.1 There is no record held by the County Council of any planning applications affecting the site. 3.2 The site was put forward to the County Council to be considered for allocation for mineral development during the preparation of the Minerals Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) within the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework. This matter is covered in more detail in paragraphs 6.16-6.21. 4. Policy

4.1 Government Planning Policy : National Planning Policy Framework Statements - Chapter 3 Building a strong, competitive economy - Chapter 7 Requiring good design - Chapter 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change - Chapter 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment - Chapter 12 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment - Chapter 13 Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals 4.2 The Regional Spatial Strategy: : Policy M1 – Land won Aggregates and The East of Plan Rock (2008)

4.3 Adopted Norfolk Structure Plan : No relevant policies. (1999) Saved Policies

4.4 Norfolk Minerals and Waste : CS1 – Minerals extraction Development Framework CS2 – General locations for mineral extraction and associated facilities Core Strategy and Minerals and CS13 – Climate change and renewable Waste Development energy generation Management Policies CS14 – Environmental protection Development Plan Document CS15 – Transport 2010-2026 (2011) DM1 – Nature conservation DM2 – Core river valleys DM3 – Groundwater and surface water DM4 – Flood risk DM8 – Design, local landscape and townscape character DM9 – Archaeological sites DM10 – Transport DM11 – Sustainable construction and operations DM12 – Amenity DM13 – Air quality DM14 – Progressive working, restoration and after-use DM15 – Cumulative impacts DM16 – Soils 4.5 Joint Core Strategy for : Policy 1 – Addressing climate change and Broadland, Norwich and South protecting environmental assets Norfolk (2011) Policy 2 – Promoting good design Policy 5 – The economy Policy 18 – The Broads 4.6 South Norfolk Local Plan Saved Policy ENV3 – River valleys Policies 2007 Policy ENV8 – Development in the open countryside Policy ENV13 – Sites of regional and local nature conservation interest and geological/geomorphological value. Policy IMP 2 – Landscaping Policy IMP9 – Residential amenity Policy IMP10 - Noise Policy IMP16 – Setting of listed buildings 5. Consultations 5.1 South Norfolk District Council : Members of the Planning Committee considered this matter on 15 August and resolved to raise the following objections: - The visual intrusion caused by the proposal, including the proposed bunding and scale of the proposal; - The impact on the setting of the Grade I listed church - Concern about the impact on the amenities of adjoining and nearby residential properties, particularly given the proximity of the site to the village of Haddiscoe. Notwithstanding the above, if the County Council were minded to grant consent for the proposal, we would wish to see the conditions recommended by our Environmental Health Services imposed on any permission. 5.2 County Council : No objections

5.3 Waveney District Council : Although the proposal would not have a (adjoining authority) direct effect upon Waveney district, there are likely to be more localised issues that need to be considered such as impact on residential amenity. 5.4 South Norfolk District Council : No objection. Conditions recommended Environmental Health Officer controlling noise, dust and contamination. 5.5 Haddiscoe Parish Council : Object: - Proposal was deemed “not acceptable” in the Norfolk Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD - No need for the site locally or county- wide, the [Local Development Framework process] has identified sites to meet requirements until 2026. - The site should remain as arable farming in a time of rising food prices, helping to provide ‘food security’. - The site is too close to the village, it is inevitable there will be an increase in noise, dust and other particulates. - The church settings will be demeaned by the minerals processing activities. - The proposal will increase traffic on roads with difficult junctions. - The restoration scheme will not be of much benefit to locals as it will probably be a private fishing lake. - The 2m high bund adjacent to Loddon Road could have a serious impact on visibility adjacent to the B1136. - The site will be more visible in the winter months, from the west along Loddon Road and from the east from Hall road. - There is no guarantee the proposed footpaths will be maintained. - Concerns about the effect on the core river valley. It is not clear how biodiversity will be enhanced. - With regard to the response by English Heritage, the ‘wider benefits’ of the proposal do not outweigh the harm caused. - With the number of vehicles moving between the A143 end of the B1136 and Crab Apple Lane it would be wise to move the 30mph signs to the west end of the B1136 beyond the entrance to Crab Apple Lane to ensure traffic slows down before it reaches the area of potential congestion. - Concern that the health effects caused by dust and particulates has not been fully addressed. 5.6 Bradwell Parish Council : The Council would draw attention to the potential impact of heavy traffic movement locally, which may increase each year. Norfolk County Council should impose a maximum limit on the total extraction output, to prevent an undue increase in heavy goods vehicle impact on the local highways. 5.7 Highway Authority : No objection subject to conditions relating (Development Control) to: - provision of suitable vehicle access - provision of visibility splays - provision of suitable wheel cleaning facilities - a scheme of off-site highway improvement works to be submitted, approved and completed 5.8 Highway Authority (Bridge : In principle, the proposed form of Engineer) structure [for the conveyor tunnel] meets with our satisfaction. However, in order to formalise the approval process the applicant would need to apply for highway technical approval in accordance with the Highway Agency standard. 5.9 Natural England : Although the site lies close to designated sites in The Broads, due to the nature and location of the proposal, it is unlikely to have an adverse impact on them, and we do not consider this application meets the criteria of ‘significant environmental effects’ under our remit. From the information provided, the proposal does not appear to significantly affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes. We would expect the LPA to assess and consider the possible impacts resulting from this proposal on protected species, local wildlife sites, and biodiversity enhancements. 5.10 Norwich Airport : The development lies below or beyond the volume of protected airspace that surrounds Norwich International Airport and it does not lay within the bird circle shown on the aerodrome safeguarding map. Therefore from a safeguarding viewpoint this development will not provide a significant collision risk to aircraft operating in the vicinity of Norwich Airport. 5.11 English Heritage : In consi dering the contribution to the historic significance of the church made by its setting, it is clear that some harm will result from the proposed quarry, both during its period of activity and from the permanent change to the landscape. However, the relative importance of the different parts of the building’s setting and the quality of the proposals for short term reinstatement of the construction site and long term landscaping of the extraction site have been considered. It is concluded that on balance the degree of harm is less than substantial, as defined in PPS5 policy HE.9.2 [since superceded by guidance within the NPPF]. Policy HE10.1 [superceded by NPPF paragraph 133] asks local planning authorities to weigh the harm to those aspects of setting that contributes to a building’s historic significance against the ‘wider benefits’ of the proposal. English Heritage is not in a position to assess these benefits or weigh them against the harm to the listed church. However it is considered that the proposed landscaping will, in the long term, mitigate the impact of the quarry pit on the landscape to the north of the church. 5.12 Environment Agency : No objections. Conditions recommended requiring: - submission and subsequent agreement and implementation of a scheme to secure the maintenance of spring-fed flows. - a surface water drainage scheme based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details. - An abstraction license will be required because the proposal states that water will need to be abstracted from the site. 5.13 The Broads Authority : No objection. It is considered that Phase 1 has the most potential for negative visual impacts. Although Phase 1 will not be directly visible from The Broads it does exist on Loddon Road which provides a main access point to The Broads. It is considered that the entrance point should be well laid out and planted to avoid oblique views into the site towards processing plant and stockpiles. Subject to this being taken into consideration it is not considered that there will be any significant visual impacts on the Broads. 5.14 Anglian Water : No response received

5.15 Third party representations : 120 le tters of objection received to initial consultation. A further 56 letters of objection received during the second consultation period. Summary of reasons for objection: - Site is too close to Haddiscoe village - Concerns about noise pollution - Concerns about dust pollution and impact on health - Concerns about odours - Concern of impact on St. Mary’s Church - Contrary to Norfolk County Council’s recommendation within the Site Allocation process of the Local Development Framework - Concerns about increased traffic and highway safety issues - Impact on the countryside and landscape - Cumulative effect of other quarries in the area - No new jobs will be created - There are other sites in the area such as which provide sufficient minerals - Concerns that the site will not be restored properly - Loss of agricultural land - Impact on The Broads - Site will offer no benefits to the village - Concerns regarding possible light pollution - Concerns regarding possible groundwater contamination - Impact on local wildlife, including County Wildlife Site - Concerns regarding possible destabilisation of land - Impact on local school from increased traffic, noise and dust. Non-planning reasons for objection: - Loss of value to nearby properties - Loss of view from property 2 Letters of support. Reasons for support: - The site will be screened from view with low level working and there will be minimal impact on the surrounding area - The site will be worked in phases allowing planting and wildlife to be established from an early stage of the development. - The planned restoration will have a far greater ecological enhancement than that of arable land. - The road network is more than capable of accommodating the additional traffic. - The land is poor grade agricultural land - The additional revenue would assist the viability of the farming activities. 5.16 County Councillor (Tony : To be reported orally. Tomkinson)

6. Assessment 6.1 The application is before the Planning (Regulatory) Committee, in accordance with the County Council’s Scheme of Delegation, because it is subject to EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment). The application was accompanied by a detailed Environmental Statement, in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. In addition the application must also be determined by Committee due to the level of public objection, and because an objection has been received from a statutory consultee, South Norfolk District Council. The Committee’s decision must take into account the environmental information contained within the Environmental Statement, and any representations made about the environmental effects of the development. The environmental information is described in the following paragraphs, and the representations made are summarised above. Site

6.2 The site is 28.7 hectares in size and comprises two parcels of land either side of the B1136 Loddon Road at Manor Farm, on the edge of the village of Haddiscoe, in South Norfolk District. The site is 13km to the west of Great Yarmouth and 24km to the south east of Norwich. The towns of and are approximately 7km to the south and 13km to the south west respectively. The town of Loddon is approximately 8km to the west. The site is currently in agricultural use with arable farming taking place on the majority of the land, primarily the growth of wheat and barley. 6.3 To the north of the site is Thorpe Road, beyond which is open countyside within the Broads. The site itself is not within the Broads, however it is adjacent to the boundary of the Broads. To the east is the former “Parish Pit”, the farmhouse and other buildings of Manor Farm, and beyond that a number of residential properties within the village on The Loke, Thorpe Road and The Street. To the south east is St. Mary’s Church and further residential properties in Church Lane, Church Hill and Rectory Road. To the south is a public footpath, open countryside within the valley of Landspring Beck, and beyond that the A143 road. To the south east is Haddiscoe Hall, and to the east there is open farmland, the Loddon Road, and Crab Apple Lane. Proposal

6.4 The proposal is for the creation of a new sand and gravel quarry on land at Manor Farm, Haddiscoe, Norfolk. The proposal comprises mineral extraction from two parcels of land to the north and south of the B1136 Loddon Road. The plant site would be located on the area to the south of the B1136 and the processing, stockpiling and sale of mineral would take place from this point. The main extraction area would be to the north, between the B1136 and Thorpe Road. 6.5 Extraction would take place gradually in ten phases over a twenty one year period, beginning with the excavation of the proposed plant site. Mineral extracted from the northern area would be transported to the plant site via a ground conveyer which would be routed through a tunnel beneath Loddon Road. A new access would be formed from Loddon Road into the proposed plant site. The existing access from Crab Apple Lane would be used for machinery and service vehicles involved in the mineral operations. A mobile dry screen would be used within the extraction areas, and a mobile processing plant would be used for a temporary period during the phased development of the plant site. 6.6 Development proposed within the plant site includes the formation of a new site access from Loddon Road with gates and an internal access track. Also proposed is a quarry office, car parking area, weighbridge, concrete batching plant (with associated administration/mess/WC facility), aggregates bagging plant (with storage area for bagged aggregates), temporary mobile aggregates processing plant, aggregates and sand processing plants, silt filter press, aggregates storage area, a water abstraction borehole, water tank, ground conveyor with hopper and motor, generator and substation, containers and signage. 6.7 Restoration of the main extraction area to the north of Loddon Road would take place progressively in a phased manner. It is intended to restore this area to nature conservation after use, which includes the creation of a number of new footpaths, a public parking and picnic area, and a small lake. The plant site would be restored last once all the minerals have been processed and sold off site. It is the intention to return this area to a mixed after use of woodland and farmland. Principle of Development

6.8 A basic principle when assessing planning applications is outlined in Section 38(6) of the Town and Country Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which states:

“if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

6.9 In terms of the development plan, the County Planning Authority considers the relevant documents in relation to this application are the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Core Strategy and Minerals and Waste Development Management Policies Development Plan Document 2010-2026 (the “Minerals and Waste Core Strategy”) the policies contained within the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (2011) the saved policies of the South Norfolk Local Plan (2003), and the Regional Spatial Strategy (‘the RSS’): The Plan (2008). In addition, the guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is material to the consideration of the application. Mineral Supply/Need

6.10 Guidance within paragraph 144 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to “give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction”. Paragraph 145 of the NPPF requires Mineral Planning Authorities to make provision for the maintenance of at least a 7 year supply of Sand and Gravel. Policy CS1 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy sets out the requirement for the sand and gravel landbank to be maintained at between a 7 and 10 year supply.

6.11 As of September 2012, the estimated landbank for sand and gravel stands at approximately 5.6 years of permitted reserves and is therefore below the minimum target of seven years supply referred to in both the NPPF and Policy CS1. If approved, the proposed development would add approximately 0.56 years worth of mineral resource to the landbank, taking the landbank figure to approximately 6.14 years, closer to the minimum requirement. This is a significant material consideration that weighs in favour of the proposal.

6.12 There is a further quarry, approximately 4km away, at Norton Subcourse. The current planning permission is due to expire on 1 August 2014 but further extensions to this quarry have been allocated within the emerging Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD, which could deliver almost 1.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel. Although this site currently serves a similar local area that would be served by the application site, it does not change the fact that the County landbank of permitted reserves is below the required level and the proposed site at Manor Farm, Haddiscoe would assist in addressing this.

Principle of Location

6.13 Policy CS2 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy sets out the main principles for the location of mineral extraction in the County. The Policy states “there will be a clear preference for sites which are close and/or particularly well related via appropriate transport infrastructure” to the main urban areas and market towns. “Close” is defined in paragraph 6.8 of the Core Strategy as being within 10 miles (16km) or less, but it is recognised that sand and gravel can only be extracted where the reserves exists, and that sites further away than 10 miles (16km) may be acceptable if they are well connected. The policy contains a preference for extensions to existing sites rather than new sites. 6.14 The site is well connected to the strategic road network, with a site access onto the B1136, a road classified by the Norfolk County Council Route Hierarchy as a main distributor (others) road and being within 0.5km of the A143, a principal road which has the highest category on the hierarchy. In addition the site is within 14km (8 miles) of Great Yarmouth, so complies with the requirements of Policy CS2 in this respect. The policy states a preference for extensions to existing sites, but does not rule out new sites. 6.15 In principle, therefore, the location of the proposed site is considered acceptable in relation to the requirements of Policy CS2.

Principle of development in the context of the Local Development Framework Minerals Site Allocations Process 6.16 The site has been promoted by the Applicant in recent years as being suitable for allocation within the Minerals Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD). When adopted, the document will set out the County Council’s preferred sites for mineral extraction within Norfolk over the 15 year period to the end of 2026. 6.17 Within the “Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD: Further Revised Issues and Options” consultation document dated May 2011, the Council concluded that the site was unsuitable for allocation on the grounds of landscape, highway, amenity and potential groundwater impacts. 6.18 Within the “Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD: Pre-Submission Document”, dated April 2011, the proposed site was not allocated. The Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD - Sustainability Appraisal Report (Dec 2011) summarises the reasons for each proposed site being allocated, or not allocated in section 8.3 of the report. Section 8.3.6 states: "MIN 25 - Haddiscoe. This site is concluded to be inappropriate for allocation due to potential landscape, amenity and highways impacts”. 6.19 The fact that the site was not considered suitable for allocation has been raised by many of the objectors to the planning application. However, the assessment of whether the site was suitable for allocation was carried out without the benefit of the detailed mitigation proposals that are now proposed within the current planning application. 6.20 The Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD has not gone through the formal Examination process or been adopted by the Council and therefore does not form part of the current development plan. However, no representations were received, in response to the Pre-Submission version of the Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD, objecting to site MIN 25 at Haddiscoe not being allocated. 6.21 It is therefore considered that weight can be attached to the fact that the site at Haddiscoe has not been identified as being suitable for allocation, although the planning application must be assessed on its own merits. As this report will demonstrate, the concerns relating to landscape, highways, water resources and amenity that were raised when the site was considered during the allocations process have been overcome within the planning application. Landscape and Visual Impact

6.22 Policy CS14 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy requires the protection of Norfolk’s natural and built environments. Unacceptable adverse impacts to the character and quality of the landscape and also heritage assets and their setting should be avoided. The highest standards of design, operation, restoration and aftercare must be practiced. 6.23 Policy DM8 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy states: “Development will be permitted if will not harm the conservation of, or prevent the enhancement of, key characteristics of its surroundings with regard to the character of the landscape and townscape”. The policy requires a high standard of design which is compatible with the surrounding landscape. In addition Policy 2 of the Joint Core Strategy expects development proposals to respect local distinctiveness, including the landscape setting of settlements, the treatment of gateways, the landscape character and historic environment, taking account of the wider countryside. 6.24 Saved policy IMP2 of the South Norfolk Local Plan requires all development to be of a high standard of design, and in keeping with its surroundings. Policy IMP2 expects all new development to incorporate high standards of landscaping. 6.25 During the application process additional details relating to the landscape and visual impact were requested. This resulted in further detailed plans, photomontages and timelines to supplement the Environmental Statement being provided by the Applicant. These provide a comprehensive level of information to be able to allow the County Planning Authority to properly assess the impacts that would arise during the various phases of development and upon restoration. 6.26 The following section sets out the characteristics of the site and its surrounds and then examines the various potential landscape impacts that may arise from the proposal. Many of the local objections raise concerns about the landscape impact that would result from the proposed quarry. Landscape and Visual Impact - Landscape Character Areas

6.27 In terms of National Character Areas (NCA), the site lies within the South Norfolk and Suffolk Claylands National Character Area (NCA) 83 and adjacent to the Broads NCA 80. In the South Norfolk Landscape Assessment (2001), the site is identified as being within C2: Tributary Farmland with Parkland landscape character. 6.28 The Landscape Assessment within the Environmental Statement recognises that the site and its surrounds display many of the characteristics identified as typical of the aforementioned landscape character areas. Of particular value to the character of the area are the isolated medieval round tower churches at Haddiscoe and Thorpe, the distinctive, intimate, part wooded/part pasture landscape of Landspring Beck and its relationship with dwellings within Haddiscoe village, the parkland setting of Haddiscoe Hall, a sense of tranquillity away from the A143, and the areas role as part of the setting to The Broads. 6.29 Features which are said to detract from the landscape character are identified as being the disturbance of traffic on the A143 and B1136, the lack of hedgerows to define field pattern either side of the B1136, the part restored/part derelict sand and gravel workings to the east of Haddiscoe, and a paucity of woodland cover. 6.30 The Landscape Assessment concludes that the landscape impacts of the proposal on the Thurlton Tributary Farmland with Parkland would be ‘moderately adverse’ during the lifetime of the quarry and ‘slightly beneficial’ following restoration. 6.31 The land immediately to the north of the site is identified being within the Yare/Waveney Valley – Norton Marshes to Haddiscoe Dismantled Railway Landscape Character Area within the Broads Authority Landscape Character Assessment. This is part of The Broads and the report recognises that the sensitivity of this landscape is high. However, the Environmental Statement concludes that the landscape impact of the proposal on this area would be negligible, due the existing perimeter planting and progressive restoration measures. Landscape and Visual Impact – Proposed mitigation

6.32 The application proposes substantial measures which seek to mitigate the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed quarry. 6.33 To screen the mineral operations within the proposed plant site, it is proposed to land-raise the areas to the south, east and west. This would be done to gentle gradients, enabling the continued agricultural use of the land. A 2 metre high bund would be formed to the north alongside Loddon Road which would be grass seeded and maintained. New hedgerows would be planted along the frontage with Loddon Road and along the western boundary. The site entrance would be formed in such a way to prevent views of the operational area. The base of the plant site would be reduced to a level of 7.0m AOD, this would typically be 6-7 metres below original ground levels. 6.34 Measures to reduce the impact of the main extraction area would include the retention and maintenance of the existing boundary planting, combined with supplementary planting. There would be unworked margins to reduce impacts on residential properties and extraction would be phased, with working confined to a single phase at any point in time. Temporary screen bunding would be used where necessary on the boundaries of individual phases to give additional protection to sensitive receptors. The use of a conveyor to transport materials would reduce vehicle movements between the extraction and processing areas. The conveyor would be positioned several metres below ground level and maintained to ensure its quiet operation. 6.35 It is considered that the proposed land-raising, screen bunds and planting would be successful in screening the mineral operations from public view. Photomontages have been submitted with the application demonstrating that the quarrying activities within the proposed plant site would not be seen from the main public vantage points. The existing and proposed screening around the proposed main extraction area is considered sufficient to effectively screen the quarrying activities that would take place. 6.36 Although the measures proposed would be effective in screening the mineral activities, it is recognised that they would in themselves create landscape impacts. In consultation with the County Council Landscape Officer, it is considered that the screen bunds proposed would not cause material harm to the surrounding landscape setting. It is recognised that the bunds would to some degree affect views of the surrounding landscape, but the proposals would still allow for wider landscape views looking towards Haddiscoe village and St. Mary’s Church. In addition the appearance of the proposed bunds would be softened and the bunds would be less intrusive as the proposed hedges and hedgerow trees mature. The proposed land-raised areas would have shallower gradients than the bunds, would be cultivated and would blend in sympathetically with the surrounding landscape. 6.37 On balance, it is considered that the mitigation measures proposed would change the appearance of the site and result in a degree of harm, arising particularly from the introduction of the proposed bunds before the planting has matured. However, the adverse impact would improve over the lifetime of the quarry and taking everything into account, it is concluded that the proposed landscaping would not cause significant material harm to the landscape and visual character of the area. Therefore the proposal complies with the requirements of Policy DM8 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and relevant policies in the Joint Core Strategy. Landscape and Visual Impact: Restoration

6.38 Following completion of operations at the plant site, the land-raised areas would be graded back into the void, new woodland would be planted along the southern boundary to merge with existing woodland, and all remaining land would be returned to agricultural use. The boundary hedgerows would remain, which is considered a further enhancement. 6.39 For the proposed main extraction area, restoration measures would make a positive contribution to the landscape, including the planting of hedgerows, woodland, the creation of acid grassland and wetland areas, increasing the biodiversity value of the site. Furthermore a number of new public footpaths would increase access and provide a greater opportunity for the public to enjoy the landscape. 6.40 The mineral operations and restoration proposals would result in the main extraction area transforming from a plateau landform to a valley landform. There is a public bridleway, Haddiscoe BR5, which crosses the site and from which views of the Broads and St. Mary’s Church can currently be enjoyed. It is proposed that this Bridleway would be re-routed for the duration of mineral operations, and upon restoration that the Bridleway would be returned to a lower level within a valley landform with wooded upper slopes. This would result in the loss of the some of the views that currently exist from the bridleway along much of the route. The Council’s Public Rights of Way Officer raises no objection to this and it is considered that the biodiversity and landscape enhancements that would be enjoyed from the new footpath mitigate this change. Impact on The Broads

6.41 A significant level of local objection relates to the perceived impacts that would arise from the proposal on The Broads, an area which benefits from the highest level of protection within the planning system. The application site is not within this area; however The Broads is situated immediately to the north and east of the site. 6.42 Policy CS14 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy requires there to be “no unacceptable adverse impacts on, and ideally improvements to the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads. Policy 18 of the Joint Core Strategy states, “In areas in close proximity to the Broads Authority Area particular regard will be applied to maintaining and enhancing the economy, environment, tranquillity, setting, visual amenity, recreational value and navigational use of the Broads.” 6.43 The Landscape and Visual Impact Statement submitted with the application concludes that the proposal will only slightly affect the setting of The Broads during its operational life and this effect will diminish as the restoration operations are completed. 6.44 The Broads Authority is satisfied that the extensive boundary screening and existing topography limits the likelihood of the wider Broads area to be impacted upon due to its situation on a plateau. The Broads Authority concludes that there will be no significant visual impacts on The Broads and therefore no objection is raised. 6.45 It is considered that the proposal complies with the provisions of Policy CS14. It does not comply with all the criterion within Policy 18 of the Joint Core Strategy, for example it cannot be said it will maintain the tranquillity of the area. However it is considered that no material harm will be caused to The Broads or its setting and the proposal therefore broadly complies with the requirements of the policy. Impact on the Historic Environment

6.46 Policy DM8 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy states: “Development will only be permitted where it would be within, or could affect the setting of, nationally or locally registered Historic Parks or Gardens, registered battlefields, conservation areas, listed buildings, or the North Norfolk Heritage Coast, where the applicant can demonstrate that the development would not adversely impact on the historic form, character and/or setting of these locations, taking into account any mitigation measures.” 6.47 In addition policy 2 of the Joint Core Strategy requires development proposals to respect the historic environment, while saved policy IMP2 of the South Norfolk Local Plan requires special attention to be paid to the design, scale and impact of proposals affecting the setting of a listed building. Paragraph 132 of the NPPF states, “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 significance”. 6.48 There are no designated heritage assets within the boundary of the proposed site. However there are a number of listed buildings and structures in the surrounding area. Grade I listed buildings in close proximity to the site include St Mary’s Church at Haddiscoe and St. Matthias Church at Thorpe. Grade II listed buildings include Thorpe Hall, Walnut Tree Cottage and White House Farmhouse, and there is a Grade II listed monument to William Salter located at Haddiscoe Church. 6.49 The Inspector of Historic Buildings at English Heritage has considered the impact on the various listed buildings and considers that “it is probably only in the case of St. Mary’s that real harm to significance could result because of its proximity”. 6.50 In his response to the initial consultation process, in a letter dated 7 February 2012, the Inspector expressed concern that some harm will result from the proposed quarry, particularly as a result of the change to the topography of the landscape to the north, from a plateau to more of a valley landform. Concern was raised about a “permanent and harmful change” to the land to the north (the proposed main extraction area) which forms part of the setting of the church. However, the Inspector recognised that the landscaping scheme “will soften the profile of the pit left by quarrying” and that the immediate setting of the church would “be defined more strongly by the proposed tree screen”. 6.51 The Inspector has considered the contribution to the historic significance of the church made by its setting, and has concluded that although some harm will occur from the proposal, that, “on balance, the degree of harm to the church’s significance is less than substantial”. The Inspector advises that the application should be considered in terms of guidance within national policy. In response to the second stage of consultation, dated 17 July 2012, the Inspector reaffirmed his view in the context of guidance within the NPPF. 6.52 Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states: “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.” 6.53 Substantial local objection has been received to the proposal, and many objectors have made the point that there is no little or no public benefit for local people. 6.54 However, there are wider public benefits, as recognised by paragraph 142 of the NPPF, which states: “Minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth and our quality of life. It is therefore essential that there is a sufficient supply of material to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs”. Mineral extraction benefits local people as well as the wider population, through providing materials for local housing, business and community facilities. Helping to meet the current shortfall in terms of the minerals landbank is therefore considered a public benefit which is a strong material consideration. 6.55 Further public benefits arising from the proposal include the notable biodiversity and landscape enhancements proposed, together with the creation of new public footpaths, enhancing the local Rights of Way network in the long term. A small amount of new local employment would be directly generated (four full time jobs and 4 part time positions) while the proposal would also maintain employment for existing staff. 6.56 While it has been established that some harm will occur to the setting of St. Mary’s church, significant weight is attached to the Inspector’s conclusion that the harm is less than substantial and in his view “the proposed landscaping will, in the long term, mitigate the impact of the quarry pit on the landscape to the north of the church.” 6.57 On balance therefore, it is considered that the public benefits of the proposal, combined with the significant mitigation and restoration enhancements proposed, outweigh the “less than substantial” harm to the setting of St. Mary’s Church. 6.58 While there is considered to be a degree of conflict with Policy DM8, in that there will be an adverse impact on the setting of a listed building, the guidance within the NPPF and need for the development are material considerations which outweigh this. No material harm would be caused to any other heritage asset, and in all other respects, the proposal is considered compliant with policy DM8 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, policy 2 of the Joint Core Strategy, and saved policy IMP15 of the South Norfolk Local Plan

Impact on the River Valley

6.59 The majority of the proposed plant site falls within an area designated within the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy as a ‘Core River Valley’. These are locally designated areas considered important to Norfolk’s landscape character, including the floodplains of rivers and their tributaries, and in some cases they also include the lower valley slopes, as in this instance, where the designated area includes Landspring Beck and the valley slopes to the north. 6.60 Policy DM2 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy requires any development within the Core River Valleys to not impede floodplain functionality and to enhance the local landscape/and or biodiversity (either immediately or on restoration). The policy also requires applicants to demonstrate that proposals will enhance the form, local character and distinctiveness of the landscape and natural environment of the river valley. The impacts during and after working should be considered, together with the duration of any adverse impacts, proposals for mitigation and compensatory measures and the provision of any long term asset enhancement through restoration proposals. 6.61 In addition saved Policy ENV3 of the South Norfolk Local Plan also requires the protection of identified river valleys. However, in this instance, the designated area only affects a small area to the south of Landspring Beck and not the development site. 6.62 The application maintains that the character of the river valley would be protected and slightly enhanced during the operational period of the quarry by maintaining the visual horizon from footpath Haddiscoe FP7, defined by a new agricultural hedge, and by limited infill planting of trees within the existing wood. Both landscape character and biodiversity would be enhanced in the very long term by the restoration scheme. The exact profile of the existing upper valley side slopes would be recreated and planted with native deciduous woodland as an extension to the existing wood. 6.63 It is clear that in one sense, the proposal would have a direct adverse impact on the Core River Valley, as a result of the excavation of the void and siting of the plant site, as well as the creation of man-made bunds and land-raised areas. However, the mitigation proposed would reduce the visual impact when viewed from the surrounding area to an acceptable level. Therefore, taking into account the landscape and biodiversity enhancements proposed, together with the temporary duration of operations, it is considered that the proposal broadly complies with the provisions of Policy DM2 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and saved policy ENV3 of the South Norfolk Local Plan. Impact on Amenity

6.64 Policy DM12 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy states: “The protection of amenity for people in close proximity to potential minerals extraction and associated developments and waste management facilities will be a key consideration. Where appropriate, buffer zones, advanced planting and/or screening and other mitigation measures, such as restriction on hours of working and dust suppression measures, will be required. Development will be permitted only where it can be demonstrated that the scale, siting and design of a proposal is appropriate and that unacceptable impact to local amenity will not arise from the construction and or/operation of a facility.” 6.65 Guidance within paragraph 144 of the NPPF states local planning authorities should: “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”. 6.66 Saved policy IMP9 of the South Norfolk Local Plan requires the avoidance of significantly adverse impacts on nearby residents, while IMP10 restricts development that would create significant noise disturbance. 6.67 One of the main issues raised by objectors is the impact on residential amenity that would arise from the proposal. There are several residential properties within close proximity to the site. 6.68 The closest are “Windmill Cottage” and “The Boundaries”, on Thorpe Road, just over 100m from main extraction area and Low Farm and Whitehouse Farm, also on Thorpe Road which are approximately 150m from the site. There are further properties on The Loke which are between 100m and 150m from the site, with Manor Farm being just under 100m away. House numbers 1 and 2 Loddon Road are located approximately 100m from the site, while there are also properties on Church Lane between 150m and 200m away. 6.69 There are properties on Church Hill, Rectory Road, Rectory Lane and Church Lane, the closest of which are around 100m away. Other properties in the vicinity include Three Corners on Beccles Road (220m), Haddiscoe Hall (400m), and Thorpe Hall (380m) away. St. Mary’s Church is approximately 130 metres from the proposed main extraction area and 270m from the plant site. Amenity - Visual

6.70 As well as assisting in mitigating the impact on the landscape, the measures described in paragraphs 6.32-6.40 assist in mitigating the visual impact of the proposed quarry on local amenity to an acceptable standard, in accordance with policy DM12. Therefore the following sections focus on the noise and air quality impacts. Amenity – Noise

6.71 A Noise Assessment was included as part of the Environmental Statement and a draft Noise Management Plan has been submitted detailing measures to be taken to ensure nuisance from noise would be minimised during the course of operations. 6.72 The Noise Assessment within the Environmental Statement lists the principle noise generating activities arising from the proposal as being noise associated with normal ongoing site operations; temporary operations such as soil stripping, overburden removal and restoration; traffic noise and the screening of aggregates. 6.73 Mitigation measures that would be employed during the operation of the site include soil mounds between excavation areas and sensitive residential receptors and the use of screen bunds and land raised areas surrounding the plant site. In addition the use of a conveyor to transport mineral from the extraction site to the plant site would minimise the need for vehicle movements within the site. 6.74 As part of the Noise Assessment, baseline noise surveys were carried out in the area around the proposed site. The background noise levels (for example from nearby roads) have been taken into account and predicted noise levels have been calculated. Scenarios were chosen to reflect potential worst case situations with plant operating at its closest to sensitive receptors 6.75 It has been shown that noise levels from long term site operations conform to Government Guidelines set out in the ‘Technical Guidance to the NPPF’. The Noise Assessment also concludes that the criterion for short duration activities such as soil stripping and permanent landform creation will be achieved. 6.76 The increase in vehicle movements described in paragraph 6.87 and the associated noise is not considered to be of a level that would cause material harm. 6.77 The Environmental Protection Team at South Norfolk District Council has examined the plans with regard to noise impact and no objection is raised, providing the development is carried out in accordance with the Noise Management Plan submitted. 6.78 It is therefore considered that no material harm will be caused to neighbouring occupiers or sensitive receptors, in accordance with the relevant planning policies and guidance within paragraph 144 of the NPPF. Amenity – Air Quality

6.79 The Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (Policy DM13) requires applicants to “submit information to demonstrate that proposals effectively minimise harmful emissions to air and would not impact negatively on existing Air Quality Management Areas”. Potentially harmful air quality impacts to human health should be mitigated. 6.80 A detailed assessment of the potential impact on air quality caused by potential dust and fumes was submitted as part of the Environmental Statement. In addition a Dust Management Plan was submitted. 6.81 This notes that the soils on site are generally affected by moisture, which would reduce dust raised during stripping, stockpiling and restoration activities. However water spraying would be used to assist in the suppression of dust where necessary. Within the processing area, the plant would be positioned at a depth of 7 metres below existing ground level. The on-site screening process would remove any small particles. A number of other dust mitigation measures would be required as part of the Environmental Permitting procedures. 6.82 Erosion from bare ground would be restricted by the phased development proposed, and dust arising from on-site haulage would be reduced by the use of the conveyor. The haul road to the processing plan would be graded regularly to remove loose material from the surface. Site roads would be sprayed with water during dry and windy conditions by a mobile bowser. HGV’s transporting mineral off the site would be fitted with sheeting systems that greatly reduce the potential for dust blow-off. 6.83 The Environmental Statement explains that the majority of dust emissions from the site are expected to be large particles which do not propagate more than 100m, within which there are no sensitive receptors. However all properties within 200m were considered potentially dust sensitive, to account for smaller particle emission. 6.84 The assessment concludes with the implementation of the mitigation measures, there would be insignificant impacts of dust on properties in close proximity to the site. It also concludes that there would be no adverse impacts on health from any increases in PM10 levels. 6.85 The Environmental Protection Team from South Norfolk District Council has examined the information submitted and raise no objection on the grounds of impact on air quality, providing the site is operated in accordance with the Dust Management Plan submitted. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy DM13 and Government guidance in paragraph 144 of the NPPF. Highways/Traffic

6.86 Policy CS15 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy states that development proposals will be satisfactory in terms of access, providing unacceptable impacts are not caused to the safety of road users and pedestrians, the capacity of the highway network, air quality, and damage to the roadside. Policy DM10 requires applications to demonstrate that there is suitable highway access and suitable routes to the nearest major road. Concern regarding impacts on highway access, increase in traffic and highway safety has been raised by many of the objectors to the proposal.

6.87 The application proposes an increase of approximately 76 vehicle movements per day, comprising 32 HGV movements and 14 MGV movements associated with transporting the mineral away from the site, and 30 movements of cars and light goods vehicles associated with staff, site operatives, deliveries and visitors to the site. These figures account for all activities relating to the proposal, including the concrete batching.

6.88 A detailed Transport Assessment was submitted with the application, the parameters of which were agreed with Norfolk County Council as Highway Authority. This draws a number of conclusions material to the consideration of the application.

6.89 In terms of accident risk, an assessment was made of the safety record of the surrounding highway network. This has been combined with an assessment of the projected increase in vehicle movements. It is concluded that “the projected limited increase in the number of heavy goods vehicles on the highway network would not be of sufficient magnitude to significantly or materially worsen the existing safety record. Therefore, it is concluded on this basis that the development proposals are acceptable from a highway safety perspective.”

6.90 With regard to highway impact, the Transport Assessment applies the forecast of proposed traffic generation to the base traffic situation, in order to quantify the impact of the development proposal on the flows and operation of the local highway network. In terms of the key routes that quarry traffic would use, it is concluded that during the AM and PM peak periods, the increase in traffic flow is predicted to be less than 4% on the B1136 and less than 1% on the A143 north of the junction with the A143. The higher percentage increase that would arise on the B1136 is as a result of the capacity of this road being well above its current usage. It is concluded that the impact of development traffic on the operation of the highway network in this location is acceptable.

6.91 The County Highway Authority has assessed the proposal and no objections are raised, subject to a number of conditions. The highway impact of the proposed quarry is therefore considered acceptable and compliant with policies CS15 and DM10.

Ecology/Nature Conservation

6.92 Policy DM1 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy requires the protection of locally designated nature conservation and geodiversity sites, habitats and species identified in biodiversity action plans. Policy 1 of the Joint Core Strategy requires planning authorities to protect, maintain, restore and enhance the environmental assets of an area. 6.93 There are no statutorily protected ecological features within the proposed development site. 6.94 In terms of internationally protected sites, the Broads Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is about 5km to the north of the site, although parts of it are associated with the Stanley and Alder Carrs Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), approximately 3.8km to the south. The nearest Special Protection Area (SPA) is Broadland SPA, which covers the same area as the aforementioned Broads SAC. The nearest Ramsar site also covers the same area as the Broads SAC, while a small part of it is associated with the Stanley and Alder Carrs SSSI. 6.95 With regard to nationally designated sites, the nearest is the Stanley Alder Carrs SSSI, which is approximately 3.8km to the south. 6.96 There are six County Wildlife Sites within the vicinity of the site, four of which are within 2km of the site boundary. The closest is County Wildlife Site 2221, ‘Devil’s End Meadow’, which covers land around Landspring Beck, immediately to the south of the proposed plant site. This was designated after the planning application was originally submitted, so details were sought during the application process to assess the impact on this feature. 6.97 The Ecological Assessment carried out as part of the Environmental Statement found that the site is generally of low ecological interest, due to being largely arable land surrounded by recent tree plantations. Areas of greater interest were found to occur at the edge of the site, including within the former pits to the north west of the proposed extraction area and to the south of the proposed plant site. 6.98 The Ecological Assessment identifies that the main negative ecological effects which could occur as a result of the proposal are the possible loss of part of the colony of common cudweed plant and the loss of a sandy bank used by aculeates (stinging bees/wasps/ants). 6.99 The restoration proposals include significant enhancements to biodiversity within the site. This includes areas of woodland, wetland and species rich grassland and sandy banks benefitting birds, bats, amphibians and invertebrates. Measures would be put in place to enhance bird breeding and bat roosting, and provision for expanding the population of common cudweed. The Ecological Assessment concludes that the proposed mineral development would have limited short term negative effects on the local ecology but moderate beneficial effects in the medium to long term by virtue of the progressive restoration and biodiversity enhancements. 6.100 Natural England raises no objection to the proposal, stating that “Although the site is close to designated sites in The Broads, due to the nature and location of the proposal, it is unlikely to have an adverse impact on them, and we do not consider this application meets the criteria of “significant environmental effects” under our remit”. Natural England recommends that the County Planning Authority assess the impacts of the proposal on protected species, local wildlife sites, and the potential for biodiversity enhancements. 6.101 The County Council’s Ecologist has assessed the proposal and raises no objection. The Ecologist is satisfied with the surveys that have been carried out and the mitigation proposed. He concludes that the short to medium term negative impacts will be outweighed by the long term habitat creation and benefits to flora and fauna, including protected species. 6.102 On the basis of information submitted with the application, and the consultation responses from Natural England and the Council’s Ecologist, the proposal is considered to accord with the relevant development plan policies. Public Rights of Way

6.103 The main Rights of Way affected are the bridleway (Haddiscoe BR5) that runs across the proposed main extraction area and the footpath (Haddiscoe FP7) to the south of the proposed plant site. The bridleway would be diverted around the northern boundary of the main extraction area between Crab Apple Lane and Thorpe Road. Information has been submitted demonstrating that the visual impact on FP7 is negligible, due to the land-raising and existing woodland. 6.104 As part of the progressive restoration proposals, a number of new footpaths would be provided, and these would be formed at the earliest opportunity as part of the phased development. It is the intention that the new footpaths will become permanent public rights of way, to be adopted by the County Council. 6.105 Two new footpaths would be created enabling walks around the proposed nature conservation area, and these would link with Church Lane enabling connection with footpath FP7. The Public Rights of Way Officer welcomes the new footpaths as they would enable the opportunity for circular walks from the village. No objection is raised to the diversion of the bridleway. The impact on Public Rights of Way is considered acceptable and in the long term beneficial. Flood Risk

6.106 Policy DM4 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy expects development to minimise flood risk through site layout and design. Policy 1 of the Joint Core Strategy expects development to be located to minimise flood risk. Guidance within the NPPF states (paragraph 100) that “Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where it is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere”. Paragraph 103 of the NPPF requires Flood Risk Assessments to be prepared for sites in excess of 1 hectare in size. 6.107 The site is entirely located within the Environment Agency designated Flood Zone 1, which represents areas considered to be at the lowest probability of flooding. Because the size of the site exceeds 1 hectare a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is required and was included as part of the application. 6.108 The FRA identifies that there are two sources of fluvial fooding in the vicinity of the site, the Haddiscoe Marshes to the north east and the Landspring Beck to the south. It is noted that the fluvial features of these watercourses may increase as a result of climate change. However the natural topography between the site and these fluvial features would prevent them from impacting the site. 6.109 The geology and soil types of the site are such that the drainage is good and therefore there is unlikely to be any material increase in flood risk from surface water run-off and the risk from groundwater flooding is assessed as being very low. The restoration proposals for the main extraction area would result in a wetland area within a shallow ‘bowl’ and as a result surface water would generally drain towards the lake. The plant site would be restored to similar contours as existing which mean surface water would drain towards Landscpring Beck as is currently the case. The FRA concludes that the proposal will not increase flood risk to neighbouring occupiers, and that the proposal is acceptable in terms of flood risk. 6.110 The Environment Agency has assessed the application in relation to flood risk and raises no objection, subject to the imposition of a condition requiring a Surface Water Drainage Scheme to be submitted. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy DM4 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, Policy 1 of the Joint Core Strategy and guidance within the NPPF. Groundwater and Surface Water

6.111 Policy DM3 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy requires applicants to demonstrate that development would not cause adverse impact upon groundwater quality or resources and surface water quality or resources. The site does not lie within a designated Groundwater Protection Zone. 6.112 The application is accompanied by a Hydrological Risk Assessment providing a detailed consideration of the proposal on groundwater and surface water quality. This concludes that the proposal is unlikely to result in adverse impacts provided that basic precautionary measures are put in place. No dewatering measures are proposed. 6.113 The Environment Agency has examined the application with regard to impact on groundwater. Because it is proposed to extract some aggregate from below the groundwater level, a condition is requested seeking the submission of a scheme to ensure the maintenance of spring-fed flows, to maintain the natural groundwater supply to nearby springs. Subject to the imposition of this condition the Environment Agency raises no objection, therefore the proposal is considered compliant with Policy DM3. Sustainable Construction and Operations

6.114 Minerals and Waste Policy CS13 addresses issues relating to climate change and renewable energy generation. Where possible, applicants should aim for the incorporation of renewable or low carbon energy to generate a minimum of 10 per cent of their energy needs. Where this is not considered practicable, appropriate evidence should be provided.

6.115 Limited information on how the Applicant intended to address this policy was submitted within the original submission; therefore further information was sought during the application process. Following consideration of different options the Applicant proposed the installation of a solar photovoltaic array on the embankment on the north side of the plant side void, comprising a total of 210 panels. This would enable the generation of 10% of the sites energy needs. 6.116 The Planning Authority welcomes this proposal and considers, in principle, it would be acceptable, but considers that it would not be appropriate to include it within this late stage of the application process as the panels are development in their own right, the impacts of which requires proper consideration. Notwithstanding this, the Applicant has indicated an intention to submit a planning application for the panels, if permission for the quarry is granted. 6.117 The Applicant has further stated that LED floodlights would be used rather than the standard 50W Halogen floodlights. In addition low energy lighting would be used in all internal areas such as the site office and the use of the conveyer would also reduce carbon emissions compared to the average quarry, where minerals are usually transported from quarry face to plant site by vehicle. 6.118 It is considered that the Applicant has demonstrated a willingness to comply with the requirements of CS13. Soils

6.119 Where development is proposed on agricultural land, Policy DM16 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy states a preference for it to be on sites of lower agricultural value, such as grades 3b, 4 and 5. Policy DM16 states that when development is proposed on agricultural land of grades 1, 2 or 3a, it will only be permitted where provision is made for high standards of soil management during restoration, or where the benefit of restoring the land to another after-use can be shown to outweigh the loss of the agricultural use of the land. 6.120 The application was accompanied by a Soils and Agricultural Land Assessment. In discussion with Natural England, an Agricultural Land Classification and soil survey was undertaken. This demonstrated that the majority of the agricultural land within the proposed development site is either sub grade 3b or grade 4, with a very small percentage being grade 3a. 6.121 The proposal would result in the loss of the agricultural land where the main extraction area is proposed, as it is intended to restore this to nature conservation after use. However because the vast majority of this land is of lower agricultural grade, and significant biodiversity enhancements are proposed, the proposal is considered compliant with Policy DM16. Cumulative Impacts

6.122 Policy DM15 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy requires consideration of the cumulative impacts that could arise from proposals in conjunction with other existing, permitted or allocated minerals extraction sites and/or waste management facilities. 6.123 The nearest permitted mineral development is also within Haddiscoe, off Wiggs Road, approximately 250m to the south-east of the application site. This site has planning permission for mineral extraction that does not expire until 2020. Around 50 per cent of the site has been restored. The site has not been worked since 2003 and was recently sold at auction. The intentions of the new owners are unclear. The site is subject to the Review of Mineral Permissions (ROMP) legislation which requires a review of the conditions by 31 December 2012. If a review is not undertaken the permission for extraction on the site would cease. 6.124 If the Wiggs Road site continues not to be worked or the permission expires, there would be a negligible cumulative impact in terms of quarrying activities. Should mineral extraction resume, although there would be an increased impact on the locality, it is considered that there are adequate conditions to control impacts on amenity and that there would be no materially harmful impact from both sites being operational. 6.125 There is a further minerals site at Norton Subcourse. This is some 4km away to the north-west, which is considered sufficient distance to ensure no material cumulative impacts would arise. There is also a waste site at Crossways Farm, 2km to the West. It is also considered there would be no materially harmful cumulative impacts arising from the proximity of the waste facility due to its distance. The Transport Assessment took account of the traffic generated by both of these sites in the assessment of highway impact documented in paragraph 6.90. Restoration

6.126 The NPPF requires planning authorities to ensure the highest standards of restoration and aftercare are carried out at the earliest opportunity. Policy DM14 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy requires a scheme of restoration to be provided and there is a preference for sites to be enhanced through restoration. Restoration must be achievable in the proposed timescales and schemes that promote access to rights of way and improvements to green infrastructure are supported. 6.127 The restoration proposals are summarised in paragraph 6.8. Detailed proposals were included within the application and following negotiation with the Applicant have been further enhanced. The restoration is considered appropriate and the landscape, biodiversity, recreational and rights of way enhancements proposed are welcomed by the Council’s Landscape Officer, Ecologist and Rights of Way Officer. The proposal accords with Policy DM14 and the requirements of the NPPF in this respect. 6.128 A Section 106 Legal Agreement would secure the ten year aftercare of the site and the implementation of the restoration proposals. Other Matters

6.129 A letter was received from Glebelands Community Primary School, which is situated just under a kilometre to the south of the application site. The Headteacher has asked that the proximity of the School be taken into account, due to concerns about additional traffic using the A143, from which the School is accessed, the potential increase in noise levels and the generation of dust. 6.130 For the reasons outlined in the report, it is considered there will be no material harm caused to the School, as the increase in traffic on the A143 is negligible and there will be adequate mitigation and controls in place to limit noise to an acceptable level and also to control dust. 6.131 A number of objectors raised concerns about the loss of value to property and the impact on the view from a property. These are not planning matters and cannot be considered as part of the assessment of the application. 7. Resource Implications

7.1 Finance : The development has no financial implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective 7.2 Staff : The development has no staffing implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective 7.3 Property : The development has no property implication from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 7.4 IT : The development has no IT implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 8. Other Implications

8.1 Legal Implications : There are no legal implications arising from the proposal.

8.2 Appropriate Assessment: In accordance with Article 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 an Appropriate Assessment is not considered necessary because the proposal is considered very unlikely to have a significant effect on a European designated site or species. 8.3 Communications : There are no communication issues from a planning perspective. 8.4 Health and Safety Implications : There are no health and safety implications from a planning perspective. 8.5 Any other implications: Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account. 9. Section 17 – Crime and Disorder Act 9.1 It is not considered that the implementation of the proposal would generate any issues of crime and disorder, and there have been no such matters raised during the consideration of the application. 10. Risk Implications/Assessment

10.1 There are no risk issues from a planning perspective.

11. Conclusion and Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission

11.1 The proposal is for the creation of a new sand and gravel quarry on land at Manor Farm, Haddiscoe, Norfolk. The proposal comprises mineral extraction from two parcels of land to the north and south of the B1136 Loddon Road. The plant site would be located on the area to the south and the main extraction area would be to the north, between the B1136 and Thorpe Road.

11.2 It is proposed to extract a total of 1,450,000 tonnes of sand and gravel in a phased manner over a 21 year period. There would be progressive restoration to a combination of a nature conservation and agricultural after-use.

11.3 The application has resulted in a significant level of local objection, including from South Norfolk District Council. The main planning issues raised in opposition include concerns about the proximity of the proposal to Haddiscoe village, amenity impacts on residential properties through increased noise, dust and traffic, impact on the landscape character of the countryside, impact on St. Mary’s Church, impact on highway safety, impact on biodiversity, concern there would be no benefit to the local community, and the fact the site was not considered suitable for allocation as part of the Local Development Framework process. 11.4 It is recognised that the proposed quarry and its associated landscaping would result in impacts upon the character of the local landscape and some harm to the setting of St. Mary’s Church. It is also accepted that there would be a degree of increase in noise, traffic, and activity associated with the mineral operations. However, in liaison with statutory consultees, it is concluded that no significant material harm to the environment, church, highways or residential amenity would arise from the proposal. 11.5 Although the site has not been considered suitable for allocation within the emerging Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD, an assessment was made for the purpose of that process without the benefit of the substantial mitigation and restoration proposals that have been submitted with the planning application, as well as the detailed plans, photomontages and images that have enabled a more thorough assessment of the likely impacts.

11.6 The DPD has not been subject to an Examination by the Planning Inspectorate and is not yet formally adopted. Despite this because the DPD is at an advanced stage in the process, weight can be attached to the decision not to allocate the site.

11.7 However, the application must also be assessed on its own merits, having regard to the Development Plan and any other material considerations. The concerns relating to landscape, highways, water resources and amenity that were raised when the site was considered during the allocations process have been addressed and overcome within the planning application.

11.8 The need for the development, in terms of the current shortfall in the landbank, is an important material consideration which weighs in favour of the proposal, as is the guidance within the NPPF, which requires local planning authorities to give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy. The site would have notable socio-economic benefits, such as providing materials for the local construction industry, which supports a large number of jobs and helps deliver local housing and community facilities in Norfolk. Upon restoration the proposal would result in significant enhancements to biodiversity, the landscape character and public access to countryside.

11.9 For these reasons, although it is a balanced case, the proposal complies with the thrust of local and national planning policy and it is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation below.

12. Conditions

12.1 It is recommended that planning permission shall be granted subject to the following conditions: i) The development hereby permitted shall commence not later than three years from the date of this permission. Within seven days of the commencement of operations, the operator shall notify the County Planning Authority in writing of the exact starting date.

Reason: Imposed in accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

ii) The development must be carried out in strict accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning

iii) The development to which this permission relates shall cease and the site shall be restored on or before 31 December 2034.

Reason: To ensure the proper and expeditious restoration of the site, in accordance with Policy DM14 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. iv) Prior to the commencement of mineral extraction a detailed scheme to secure the maintenance of spring-fed flows shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority, in consultation with the Environment Agency. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To maintain the natural groundwater supply to the nearby springs, in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. v) Prior to the commencement of mineral extraction a Surface Water Drainage Scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority, in consultation with the Environment Agency. The scheme must cover both the extraction area and the plant site, and address the surface water management during the extraction phase, and for the restoration of the site. Management of the volumes of water produced by the development site in a range of critical duration rainfall events up to and including the 1 in 100 year return period event must be included. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is complete.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, in accordance with Policy DM4 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. vi) No development shall take place until a scheme of landscaping has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme as may be so agreed shall be implemented within three months of the date of the planning permission or such other period agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of size, species and spacing of trees, hedges and shrubs, arrangements for their protection and maintenance, and details of the construction and maintenance of the soil bunds. The scheme shall make provision for: (a) the screening of the operations by trees, hedges and soil bunds; (b) the protection and maintenance of existing trees and hedges which are to be retained on the site; (c) re-seeding and re-planting where failures or damage occur within a period of five years from the date of planting; and, (d) the replacement of any damaged or dead trees with trees of similar size and species at the next appropriate season.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the surrounding area, in accordance with Policy DM12 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010- 2026. vii) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, as amended, no further buildings, plant or machinery, nor structures of the nature of plant or machinery other than that permitted under this planning permission, shall be erected on the site, except with permission granted on an application under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Reason: To control possible future development which would otherwise be permitted but which may have a detrimental effect on amenity or safety. viii) Measures shall be taken to prevent dust nuisance and sand blow caused by the operations, including spraying of road surfaces, plant area and stockpiles.

Reason: To protect the amenities of residential properties and the surrounding area, in accordance with Policy DM12 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026.

ix) No operation authorised or required under this permission or under Part 23 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, including the movement of vehicles and operation of any plant, shall take place on Sundays or public holidays, or other than during the following periods:

07.00 - 17.00 Mondays to Fridays 07.00 - 13.00 Saturdays.

Reason: To protect the amenities of residential properties and the surrounding area, in accordance with Policy DM12 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026.

x) No dewatering of excavations shall be carried out.

Reason: To safeguard hydrological interests, in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xi) Any drums and small containers used for oil and other chemicals on the site shall be stored in bunded areas which do not drain to any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaways, and all oil or chemical storage tanks, ancillary handling facilities and equipment, including pumps and valves, shall be contained within an impervious bunded area of a least 110% of the total stored capacity.

Reason: To safeguard hydrological interests, in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xii) There shall be no discharge of contaminated surface water from the site.

Reason: To safeguard hydrological interests, in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xiii) Vehicles leaving the site shall not be in a condition whereby they would deposit mud or other loose material on the public highway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy DM10 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xiv) Handling, movement and re-spreading of topsoil and subsoil shall not take place except when the soils are in a suitably dry and friable condition, and in such a way and with such equipment as to ensure minimum compaction. (No handling of topsoil and subsoil shall take place except between 1st April and 31st October unless otherwise agreed in writing beforehand by the County Planning Authority).

Reason: To ensure the proper and expeditious restoration of the site, in accordance with Policy DM14 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xv) Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted the vehicular accesses shall be laid out in the position shown on the approved plan (Drawing No: Fig 13.0 (1) - Proposed Access). Additionally from the site boundary to the near channel edge of the carriageway the construction specification shall be in accordance with details to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Arrangement shall be made for surface water drainage to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge from or onto the highway carriageway.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory access into the site and avoid carriage of extraneous material or surface water from or onto the highway, in accordance with Policies DM10 and CS15 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xvi) Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted the vehicular access (indicated for improvement on Drawing No: Fig 13.0 (1) - Proposed Access) shall be upgraded/widened in accordance with the Norfolk County Council industrial access construction specification for the first 15 metres as measured back from the near channel edge of the adjacent carriageway. Arrangement shall be made for surface water drainage from the site to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge into the highway. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and traffic movement, in accordance with Policies DM10 and CS15 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xvii) The gradient of the vehicular access(es) shall not exceed 1:12 for the first 15 metres into the site as measured from the near channel edge of the adjacent carriageway. Reason: In the interests of the safety of persons using the access and users of the highway, in accordance with Policies DM10 and CS15 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xviii) Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted visibility splays shall be provided in full accordance with the details indicated on the approved plan (Drawing No: 20 proposed Access) for the vehicular accesses onto Loddon Road and Crab Apple Lane. The splays shall thereafter be maintained at all times free from any obstruction exceeding 0.6 metres above the level of the adjacent highway carriageway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policies DM10 and CS15 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xix) No works shall commence on site until the details of Wheel Cleaning facilities associated with the proposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.

Reason: To prevent extraneous material being deposited on the highway, in accordance with Policies DM10 and CS15 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xx) Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted the Approved Wheel Cleaning facilities shall be provided to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority and thereafter maintained and used as appropriate. Reason: To prevent extraneous material being deposited on the highway

xxi) Notwithstanding the details indicated on the submitted drawings no works shall commence on site until a detailed scheme for the off-site highway improvement works which should include a passing bay located on Crab Apple Lane at the junction of Loddon Road, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Reason: To ensure that the highway improvement works are designed to an appropriate standard in the interest of highway safety and to protect the environment of the local highway corridor. In accordance with Policies DM10 and CS15 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026.

xxii) Noise emitted from the site due to mineral extraction shall not exceed the levels . indicated below at the locations identified in accordance with the Environmental Statement received on 6 October 2011 these being:-

1. St Mary’s Forge 47 dB LAeq, 1 hour free field 2. Loddon Road 1 50 dB LAeq, 1 hour free field 3. Church Road 1 48 dB LAeq, 1 hour free field 4. Windmill Cottage 50 dB LAeq, 1 hour free field 5. Windy Ridge 52 dB LAeq, 1 hour free field 6. Haddiscoe Manor 55 dB LAeq, 1 hour free field

The above sites are identified on the enclosed plan entitled Noise Monitoring Points produced by the County Planning Authority enclosed with this decision notice.

Reason: To protect the amenities of residential properties, in accordance with Policy DM12 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xxiii) Noise emitted from the site due to topsoil and subsoil stripping and other works in connection with landscaping shall not exceed 70 dB LAeq 1h freefield as measured at any inhabited property and shall not exceed any period of 8 weeks in duration.

Reason: To protect the amenities of residential properties, in accordance with Policy DM12 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xxiv) Upon restoration of the plant site an even layer of subsoil shall be re-spread to a depth of 200mm.

Reason: To ensure the proper and expeditious restoration of the site, in accordance with Policy DM14 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xxv) Upon restoration of the plant site an even layer of topsoil shall be re-spread on the subsoil layer to an even depth of at least 300mm.

Reason: To ensure the proper and expeditious restoration of the site, in accordance with Policy DM14 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xxvi) Upon restoration of the plant site the subsoil shall be crossripped and any pans and compaction shall be broken up to the satisfaction of the County Planning Authority before replacement of the topsoil.

Reason: To ensure the proper and expeditious restoration of the site, in accordance with Policy DM14 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. xxvii) No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the County Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure adequate time is available to investigate any features of archaeological interest, in accordance with Policy DM9 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. Recommendation It is recommended that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to: (i) Grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement in respect of restoration and aftercare and conditions outlined in Section 12 above: (ii) Discharge conditions where those detailed above require the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commences, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted or at any other period. (iii) Deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

Background Papers  Application file reference: C/7/2012/7020  National Planning Policy Framework  Regional Spatial Strategy: East of England Plan  Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework: Core Strategy and Minerals and Waste Development Management Policies Development Plan Document 2010- 2026.  Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk  South Norfolk Local Plan Saved Policies Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework. Officer Contact

If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with: Name Telephone Number Email address

Robert Webb 228959 [email protected]

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact 0344 800 8020 and ask for Robert Webb or textphone 0344 800 8011 and we will do our best to help.

±

The Application Site

© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100019340, 10 August 2012

10 August 2012

C/7/2011/7020 0 500 1,000 2,000 Planning & Transportation GIS Haddiscoe Meters Scale 1: 25000 Centred on 643823 297275 ± Thorpe

The Application Site

The Application Site

El

Haddiscoe

Water

)

n i

a r

D ( Water

© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100019340, 10 August 2012

10 August 2012

C/7/2011/7020 0 50 100 200 300 400 Planning & Transportation GIS Meters Haddiscoe Scale 1: 6000 Centred on 643823 297275 Planning (Regulatory) Committee 12 October 2012 Item No. 5b

Applications referred to Committee for Determination South Norfolk District C/7/2011/7016: Kirby Bedon: Whitlingham Wastewater Treatment Works, Kirby Road: Variation of conditions 4 and 5 of planning permission C/7/1998/7021 to allow 24 hour operation of the extended conveyor (subject of planning application C/7/2011/7017) and storage of biosolids up to 4 metres in height within the drop zone immediately below on small concrete pad: Anglian Water Services Limited

Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

Summary This is one of two planning applications in respect of storage of biosolids on an existing small concrete pad within Whitlingham Wastewater Treatment Works. The proposal under consideration is to vary conditions attached to the current planning permission for the pad. This has been submitted to accompany an application for an extension to the existing conveyor on the pad. Condition 4 imposes the restriction on operating hours and condition 5 imposes the limit to which sewage sludge cake may be stacked on the pad. The application seeks to allow 24 hour operation of a proposed extended conveyor and to increase the height at which biosolids may be stored within the conveyor drop zone immediately below on the small concrete pad. The two applications are intrinsic as the proposed conveyor extension is dependant upon the proposed variation to the operating conditions - the present planning conditions on the pad mean that it would not be possible to operate the conveyor extension unless these are varied. No objections have been raised by statutory consultees. However, 13 letters of objection, 1 letter of representation and a petition signed by 16 employees of a local business have been received. Objections and concerns are raised on a number of grounds, primarily odour and bio-aerosols, but also including noise and lack of long-term vision for the WwTW. The application has been considered in accordance with all relevant planning policy provision and, on balance, it is recommended that permission is granted. Recommendation It is recommended that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to:

(i.) Grant planning permission subject to conditions outlined in Section 11;

(ii.) Discharge conditions where those detailed above require the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commences, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted or at any other period; and

(iii.) Deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

1. The Proposal

1.1 Location : Existing concrete hardstanding in western part of Whitlingham WwTW. 1.2 Type of Development : Wastewater treatment and storage

1.3 Waste type : Sewage Sludge Biosolids

1.4 Total Site Area : 40 x 110 metre area of hardstanding.

1.5 Duration : permanent

1.6 Hours of Working : Operation of extended conveyor and stacking of material within drop zone directly underneath it: 24 hour operation All other operations: 07.45 - 21.45 Mondays to Saturdays No operations on Sundays or Bank Holidays. 1.7 Storage height : Within drop zone on pad directly underneath extended conveyor: Up to 4 metres in height Remainder of concrete pad: Up to 1 metre in height. 1.8 Access : Via existing private road to Kirby Bedon Road (C202 / C577) to the A146 / A47. 2. Constraints

2.1 The site lies within an area designated in the South Norfolk Local Plan as the Norwich Southern Bypass Landscape Protection Zone. 2.2 The A47 Trunk road is located approximately 245 metres north of the pad.

2.3 A County Wildlife Site (CWS 279: Whitlingham Fen) is located approximately 460 metres to the east of the pad.

2.4 A County Wildlife Site (CWS 2212: Whitlingham Marsh) is located approximately 320 metres north of the pad.

2.5 Whitlingham Marsh LNR is situated approximately 280m north of the pad.

2.6 The Broads Authority’s Executive Area is some 110m to the north of the pad.

2.7 The pad is situated within the consultation area for Norwich International Airport – but no impact. 2.8 The pad is situated within the Norwich Fringe Project Area.

2.9 The pad is located within 5km of the Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Broadland Ramsar – it has been assessed that the development will not have adverse effects on wildlife or features of these sites.

2.10 Mid Yare National Nature Reserve is situated some 2.7km east of the pad

2.11 The Yare Broads & Marshes SSSI is situated some 2.7km east of the pad.

2.12 A public bridleway (Kirby Bedon Bridleway 8) which also forms part of the Wherrymans Way Walk and Sustrans national cycle network runs along the access road to the WwTW, to join with Kirby Road to the south.

2.13 The northern end of a public footpath (Kirby Bedon Footpath 3) joins up with that section of Kirby Bedon Bridleway 8 to the south east of the pad.

2.14 The western end of a public bridleway (Kirby Bedon Bridleway 4) joins up with that section of Kirby Bedon Bridleway 8 to the south of the pad.

2.15 The pad is situated within Groundwater Protection Zone 2.

2.16 Controlled Water - the is situated some 475m north of the pad.

2.17 Agricultural Land Grade – the development is located on operational land within the Wastewater Treatment Works.

2.18 The ruined Church of St.Andrew, Whitlingham Lane, Kirby Bedon, a Grade II listed building is located some 320 metres north of the pad.

3. Planning History

3.1 There has been a sewage treatment facility at Whitlingham since 1830 with the first settling tanks constructed in 1908. A modern Sewage Treatment Works has developed on the site since the mid 1950s. 3.2 The planning history of the WwTW, from the County Council, is detailed below:

3.3 C/7/1993/7010: Waste Treatment Centre: Permitted 1994 Permission subject to a Section 106 Agreement in respect of number of vehicles delivering waste to the waste treatment centre, volume of waste input and routeing of vehicles to and from the waste treatment centre. 3.4 C/7/1998/7021: Change of use of hardstanding area from car storage area to use of land for storage of sewage sludge cake. Permitted 1999 3.5 C/7/2003/7010: Biological phosphorous removal plant. Permitted 2003

3.6 C/7/2007/7008: Bio-solids treatment centre (CAMBI facility). Permitted 2007

3.7 In 2008, application reference C/7/2008/7003 for variation of Conditions 4 & 5 of PP C/7/1998/7021 to allow for 24 hr working, increase in height of stacked sludge cake from 1m to 4m and erection of a conveyor was submitted; following confusion by local residents and landowners over its intentions this was subsequently withdrawn in 2011. 3.8 C/7/2008/7020: GRP kiosk to house ferric dosing equipment and steel container to house blower. Permitted 2008 3.9 C/7/2008/7043: Retrospective permission for extension to existing waste treatment centre and increase liquid waste input. Permitted 2010 Permission subject to a S106 Agreement in respect of number of waste deliveries by Heavy Commercial Vehicles to waste treatment centre and routeing of Heavy Commercial Vehicles to and from waste treatment centre. 3.10 C/7/2010/7021: MCC kiosk in association with SHARON plant. Permitted 2011

3.11 C/7/2011/7013: Retrospective permission for retention of concrete pad and use of pad for co-composting and phyto-conditioning. Permitted 2012 This permission is subject to a Section 106 Agreement in respect of vehicle routeing and maintenance of surface water scheme. Permitted development

3.12 Certain types of development can take place at sewage treatment works without the need for a planning application under permitted development rights afforded to Statutory Sewerage Undertakers such as Anglian Water, set down within the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, as amended. In addition to extensions in accordance with the various planning permissions, the works has also been extended in accordance with developments undertaken under permitted development rights. 4. Planning Policy 4.1 The Regional Spatial Strategy: : WM1: Waste Management Objectives East of England Plan (2008) WM2: Waste Management Targets 4.2 Adopted Norfolk Structure Plan : No relevant saved planning policies (1999) Saved Policies 4.3 Norfolk Minerals and Waste : CS5: General location of waste Core Strategy (2011) management facilities CS6: General waste management considerations CS11: Waste water/sewage infrastructure and treatment facilities CS12: Whitlingham Waste Water Treatment Works CS13: Climate change and renewable energy generation CS14: Environmental protection CS15: Transport DM1: Nature conservation DM3: Groundwater and surface water DM7: Safeguarding aerodromes DM8: Design, local landscape and townscape character DM9: Archaeological sites DM10: Transport DM11: Sustainable construction and operations DM12: Amenity DM13: Air Quality DM15: Cumulative impacts 4.4 Joint Core Strategy for : Policy 3: Energy and water Broadland, Norwich and South Policy 10: Locations for major new or Norfolk (Adopted March 2011) expanded communities in the Norwich Policy Area. 4.5 South Norfolk Local Plan (March : ENV 6: Areas which contribute to 2003) Saved Policies maintain the landscape setting of the Southern Bypass of the city 4.6 Government Planning Policy : National Planning Policy Framework Statements (2012) 1. Building a strong, competitive economy 3. Supporting a prosperous rural economy 4. Promoting sustainable transport 7. Requiring good design 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework

Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management

5. Consultations 5.1 South Norfolk District Council : No objection. 5.2 Broadland District Council: : To be reported orally.

5.3 South Norfolk District Council : No objections; comment that: Environmental Health/Protection  The application area covers a part of the small pad that is well away from the nearest residences, thus minimising adverse noise impacts;  The 24 hours use is intended for the conveyor and ‘drop zone’ arc beneath it;  The potentially more noisy biosolids transportation is still limited to 07:45-21:45 hours Monday to Saturday 5.4 Kirby Bedon Parish Council : No objection, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conditions on hours of Opening It is proposed that there will be biosolid transportation until 21:45 Monday to Saturday. This is unreasonably late for young children in nearby houses trying to sleep. As well as noise of vehicles, there may be reversing warning sirens on loaders, tractors and trailers. It would be unreasonable for these to operate after 18.00 at night. 2. Limits on further increase of the plant If the maximum annual operational throughput should increase in future, further planning permission will have to be sought. This could be a limiting factor for any further increase of the plant. 3. Controls on odours Digested cake may be less odorous, but it will still be odorous. Storage of biosolids up to 4m in height (i.e. above the 1.2m storage wall) could cause problems as it falls off the end of the conveyor, with odour being transported by the wind. 4. Controls on movement of cake after 18.00 at night Movement of cake from drop zone to remainder of pad may involve use of large shovel with reversing bleepers. This would be unreasonable after 18.00 at night. Comment that, not true to say that site cannot be seen from public road, public footpath, bridleway or other public land. Site is clearly visible from a public bridleway which forms part of Wherryman’s Way and Sustrans Cycle Route. 5.5 Broads Authority : No formal comments to make; the Broads Authority is satisfied that this application would have no significant impact on the setting of the Broads area. 5.6 Environment Agency : No objection. Ask that measures are in place to prevent spillage of sludge from the conveyor before it reaches the designated pad. 5.7 Highway Authority (NCC) : No objection.

5.8 Principal Landscape and Trees : No objection. Officer (NCC) 5.9 Ecologist (NCC) : Nature Conservation No objection.

Habitat Regulations Concludes that the development will not have adverse effects on wildlife or features of the Broads SAC, Broadland SPA or Broadland Ramsar. 5.10 Public Rights of Way Officer : No objection (NCC) 5.11 Norfolk Historic Environment : No impact on setting of remains of Service (NCC) Whitlingham Church. 5.12 Norfolk Wildlife Trust : To be reported orally

5.13 Norwich International Airport :N o safeguarding objections, subject to development being constructed as shown on drawings and plans attached to application, at OSGB grid coordinates indicated. 5.14 NHS Norfolk and Waveney : No objection. Public Health Directorate Main concerns would be in relation to noise from 24 hour operation and potential for increased windblown particulates and/or bioaerosols resulting from the increased conveyor height. Understand the material to be lifted is treated sludge cake which is relatively inert both physically and biologically and this part of the operation will be controlled by the revised management plan to be agreed with the EA. In relation to noise,…feeling is that any risk to human health resulting from these operations would be low with the controls currently in place. 5.15 Third party representations : 14 letters of representation have been received, comprising the following:- One letter of objection has been received from a local resident; One letter of objection has been received from a local business; 11 letters of objection and one letter of representation have been received from three local landowners (one landowner has written eight times and two landowners have written twice). A petition signed by 16 employees of a local business (Able Community Care Ltd) has been received. Objections and comments are made on the following grounds (which are summarised). Removal of conditions In 1998 operations at the STW were more modest but even then due to this pad being so close to adjacent private property it was decided planning conditions were a necessary protection and it (is) those protective conditions which the applicant now seeks to remove. Small pad is in very sensitive position already causing serious harm to adjacent occupiers, please ensure original safeguards imposed in 1999 to protect local health and amenity remain in place and if anything strengthened. Increase in stacking height of sludge Concern with increase in height of storage of sludge cake and change to 24 hour working. When wet, the sludge cake becomes very foul and can flow from its storage place, as has happened on this storage area before. On that occasion, the material flowed into the garden of Whitlingham Hall. There is a containment wall but it would not necessarily be sufficient to hold back a four metre heap of sludge cake if it became fluid. Odour / noise / light pollution / flies / traffic disturbance To carry out movement of waste and stockpiling it to 4m high under an extended elevator working day and night, near the boundary of the site in the most sensitive area is a violation of one’s reasonable rights to peaceful living. Application is misleading; it only includes the stocking area when 24 hrs of continuous input affects the whole pad, will involve more tractor movements to spread it and more pollution and odour. I regularly work at the adjacent Whitlingham Barns. The proposal appears to intensify and move closer the operations of A.W. Fail to see how extended use for 24 hrs will not mean an increase in output, and therefore further odours and smells which are already intolerable at certain times. The smell seems to be worst when material is moved and building a tower of manure 24 hrs a day every day, 4m high on top of a hill open on all sides does not seem conducive to solving the problem. This pile will have to be moved outwards to the rest of the pad and will no doubt require a tractor and loader, (with endless reversing bleeps) causing further intrusion from smell and noise. This material could easily be carted to the disused tanker loading pad and stored before loading onto lorries. This would be further away from sensitive receptors. Application fails to consider odour or air pollution from small pad operation, only 50m from sensitive receptors. The close proximity to our family home makes this most unacceptable. We currently have major problems with Anglian Water and odours.

How can planning permission be granted to someone that is already a nuisance?

We have problems of flies, odours etc, 24 hour operations so obviously more noise.

24hr operation would threaten nearby residential amenity by noise, light pollution and traffic disturbance in the evenings and at night. The situation here is a STW already producing odour at an unacceptable level within 250m of dwellings and workplaces and Bio-aerosol assessments which exceed guidance limits and have already caused health problems and closure of the Nursery. Bio-aerosols / Pollutants Recent changes at the STW have drastically added to odour and air pollution; Whitlingham Nursery is now a dangerous workplace with its use seriously affected and now temporarily closed as a result Application does not provide required buffer zone of 250m from Whitlingham Hall or from adjacent Nursery which has become an unacceptable place for anyone with breathing problems to work. Legislation is clear that 250m is minimum distance for such a waste operation to be located from a residence or workplace.

Understand there are requirements regarding safety of others when considering this type of application. Able Community Care employs 18 persons within the “radius of precautionary safety” required by existing statutes.

Understand there is possibility of microscopic airborne pollutants being produced as a consequence of processing of this waste material. Our location (The Old Parish Rooms) will put us inside the plume area of this outfall.

A 4m high stockpile on this high exposed site will attract more windage spreading odour and bio-aerosols even further.

Dropping of waste by elevator on to small pad is another disturbance of waste only yards from Nursery employment area.

Has there been a bioaerosols assessment to see what potential air pollution is likely by increasing height of stockpile?

Environment Agency response The E.A. response fails to disclose existing odour and air pollution thereby ignoring and concealing cumulative affects on health and Core Waste Policy to minimise at planning stage impact on nearby dwellings, (also the Nursery and likewise affected business). The E.A. is only considering individual applications and ignore(s) overall assessment of the whole site. The E.A. consultation response ignored core policies.

Hours of working If application was for efficiency there would be no need to extend operational times, as it could be done in shorter time. Visual amenity We would be able to see the bio solids from our windows…this is our Family home but feels more like a prison. Landscape STW is located in sensitive landscape setting in Yare valley. Application site is on brow of valley side and is visible from north, west and east. Alternatives Applicant has an exceptionally large site and should be following the core planning policy for waste which is that non- compatible uses should be kept apart and protected from each other. This operation should be done further away in an alternative location. CO2 Emissions / Waste Type Surely a guiding principle of all waste processing is that it be carried out as close to source as possible. In this case tanker lorries bring in waste from , Southend or sometimes from further afield. Where does this leave supposed concern in limiting CO2 emissions, and what is nature of material such that it cannot be safely disposed of closer to home.

Sustainability Grant of permission would not result in sustainable development as it is likely to be harmful to sensitive landscape setting and impact negatively on health and quality of life of existing and future residents. Intensification Evidence should be provided on impact on residential and visual amenity of local dwellings, on local biodiversity and natural environment, on Whitlingham Country Park and landscape generally.

Cumulative Impact Have several concerns regarding continued expansion in volume and scope of industrial scale waste processing activities on this site. These applications breach all guidelines intended for purpose of protecting health and safety of people obliged to live and work adjacent to this sort of activity.

Extent of operational land was shown on application C/7/1998/7021. Since that time greatly increased areas are being claimed as operational land and there has been massive expansion in role of Whitlingham STW without any overall planning assessment as to suitability of the site. Expansion is resulting in greatly increased air pollution and odour from which adjacent properties now suffer and need more protection. There is an outstanding Abatement Notice which indicates the size of the problem. Longer-term vision for Whitlingham WwTW An overall problem of this developing activity on this site is piecemeal way in which you are being asked to consider the final overall completed project. There is clear case for you to seek judicial review – to relieve you of your obligation to respond to otherwise legal planning applications within usual legal time frame. NMWLDF: Core Strategy

CS Policy CS7 Policy CS7 states composting will be considered favourably but only with clear evidence of no environmental or amenity impacts at dwellings and workplaces within 250 metres. 24 hour working will further damage amenity

CS Policy CS11 Policy CS11 requires reduction of environmental impact of operation. The conditions imposed on PP C/7/1998/7021 are intended to protect against impact of operation and in such close proximity to dwellings it is essential this remains. CS Policy CS12 Concerned about way in which A.W. continues to promote piecemeal approach to development and expansion of this site. This approach is contrary to aims of Policy CS12.

Policy CS12 encourages A.W. to develop and agree longer-term vision for Whitlingham WwTW. As far as I am aware this has not been done.

As stated in CS para 6.58, it is difficult to assess strategic significance of individual proposals, and cumulative impact of a number of separate (but linked) applications in absence of a longer-term masterplan or vision for future development of the site.

CS para 6.62 states, a more detailed policy setting out considerations for future development of the site will be included in the Waste Site Specific Allocations DPD, with the aim of minimising impact on nearby dwellings and Broads area. The development approach demonstrated through these and other recent applications shows no regard to these aims. CS para 6.62 specifically refers to Whitlingham WwTW and states aim is to minimise impact on nearby dwellings. Removal of protective planning conditions on small pad and 24hr working will add to existing damage to amenity, which is already occurring. CS Para 6.81 CS para 6.81 states it is necessary to ensure that issues of compatibility across differing forms of development are taken into account in the planning process (not the Environmental Permit stage). Additional information The following information is considered to be key in determining further applications for development on this site:  Advice from relevant health authority confirming likely impact on health of neighbouring residents and staff of neighbouring businesses as recommended by PPS10.  Details clarifying intensification of operations would not lead to statutory or other nuisance.  Longer-term strategic plan outlining details and impact of anticipated development and growth of Whitlingham WwTW. The petition signed by employees of Able Community Care has raised objection on the following grounds:- We work at The Old Parish Rooms, Whitlingham Lane, Trowse and are already seriously affected by smell and air pollution from this nearby pad area.

We ask for protection from the existing situation and for the sake of our health that there be no relaxation of control or variation of waste operations allowed on a site so close to our place of work. 5.16 County Councillor R Smith : No comments to make, other than the (Henstead) need to suppress noise. 6. Assessment

Site : 6.1 Whitlingham Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) lies within the Yare Valley south east of Norwich and primarily serves Norwich and the surrounding area. 6.2 The small biosolids storage area (subject of the application under consideration) is located on a concrete pad positioned to the west of the main treatment works. The pad, which was constructed in the 1970s, consists of two distinct sections divided by a 1.2m high concrete wall. 6.3 The southern section (measuring some 40m x 48m) consists of the cake liming area including the existing conveyor. This section enjoys permitted development rights afforded to sewerage undertakers. 6.4 The northern section, (measuring some 40m x 110m) is used for biosolids storage. This section is bounded by a 1.2m high concrete wall and wire security fencing to approximately 2.5m high. Wooden acoustic fencing has also been erected around the perimeter of the pad nearest Whitlingham Hall. The northern section of the pad has been subject to various planning applications subsequent to its construction and has had permitted development rights removed. 6.5 In 1983 South Norfolk Council granted temporary planning permission for change of use of the (northern section of the) concrete pad from sewerage undertakers operational land to use of Iand for storage of new cars (7/83/3118/CU).This was in response to problems being experienced by a local car dealer in finding sufficient storage capacity for new vehicles on its existing site. Permission was renewed for a further five years in 1986 and granted on a permanent basis in October 1991 (7/91/1229/CU). 6.6 There was no storage of cars on the site after late 1995 and in 1999 Norfolk County Council granted planning permission (ref. C/7/1998/7021) to A.W. for change of use of the site from car storage area to storage of sewage sludge cake. The minutes of the meeting of 22nd January 1999 of the Planning Sub- Committee, at which application reference C/7/1998/7021 was determined, detail that it was resolved, “That planning permission be granted subject to conditions including details of bund wall and drainage and removal of permitted development rights.” 6.7 Permission reference C/7/1998/7021 was subject to the following conditions relevant to the current proposal:  Condition 3: removal of permitted development rights  Condition 4: restriction of hours of operation to 07.45 – 21.45 Mondays to Saturdays  Condition 5: restriction of height of stacked or deposited biosolids to 1m 6.8 As regards condition 3, this was imposed to protect the amenities of the surrounding area. Permitted development rights are withdrawn to control possible future development which would otherwise be permitted but which may have a detrimental effect on amenity or safety. 6.9 As regards the requirements of condition 4, this reflects the applicant’s proposed days and hours of working, and was imposed to ensure orderly working in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area. 6.10 As regards condition 5, this was imposed to safeguard hydrological interests. (The pad is bounded by a 1.2m high concrete wall). 6.11 The nearest residential properties are Whitlingham Hall, approximately 60 metres to the north west of the pad, below an embankment, and a row of residential properties located some 350 metres west of the pad. 6.12 The nearest workplace is Able Community Care whose premises are some 100m north west of the pad. Whitlingham Tree Nursery is situated some 150m to the west of the pad. 6.13 Access to the site is obtained from the existing private concrete road into the WwTW from Kirby Road. Kirby Road provides a connection to the A146 and A47 Southern Bypass some 2.4km from the works entrance. Proposal : 6.14 Permission is sought to vary condition numbers 4 and 5 of planning permission reference C/7/1998/7021 to enable the material deposited by the conveyor (subject of accompanying application C/7/2011/7017) to rise to a maximum of 4m immediately below it, on a continuous basis. 6.15 Condition 4 of permission reference C/7/1998/7021 states:

No operation authorised or required under this permission or under Part 23 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 shall take place on Sundays or public holidays, or other than during the following periods:-

07.45 - 21.45 Mondays to Saturdays

6.16 It is proposed to vary condition number 4 to permit 24 hour operation of the extended conveyor and stacking of material within the drop zone directly underneath it. It is intended that the remainder of the concrete pad will remain subject to the current restriction on operating hours. 6.17 Condition 5 of permission reference C/7/1998/7021 relates to the height at which material may be stored and states:

Sewage sludge cake shall not be stacked or deposited to a height exceeding 1 metre.

6.18 It is proposed to vary condition number 5 to allow storage of materials up to 4m in height within the drop zone on the pad directly underneath the extended conveyor. The conveyor extension would slew in an arc to deposit a crescent- shaped stockpile of material. Based upon the worst case maximum daily throughput, the applicant advises there is sufficient capacity beneath the conveyor to accommodate up to five days of continuous maximum throughput. This provides more than sufficient contingency to cover continued operations over an evening / weekend / public holiday period when the operation of mobile plant is not permitted. It is intended that the remainder of the concrete pad will remain subject to the current storage height restriction of 1m. 6.19 This application is in conjunction with a separate planning application, submitted concurrently, for a 7.75m extension to the existing conveyor on the southern section of the pad (8.3m in total including mounted geared motor unit), to overhang the northern section of the pad. 6.20 The two applications are intrinsic as the extension to the conveyor can only operate successfully and efficiently with the proposed variation to the operating conditions - the present planning conditions on the northern section of the pad mean that it would not be possible to operate the proposed conveyor extension unless these are varied. 6.21 The slewing extension to the conveyor has already been installed on the southern section of the pad. As erection of plant and machinery, this work has been undertaken under the permitted development rights afforded to sewerage undertakers. The conveyor extension currently discharges into trailers on the southern section of the pad. 6.22 In order to deposit material directly onto the drop zone on the northern section of the pad, the slewing conveyor would have to overhang this section. However, the removal of the permitted development rights from the northern section of the pad means that an application must be made for that section of the slewing conveyor which would overhang the northern section of the pad. 6.23 It is against the background of the removal of permitted development rights on the northern section of the pad that these two applications have been made. Need

6.24 A.W. indicates that the developments proposed under the two applications under consideration are an integral part of an on-going £23.5 million investment at Whitlingham to improve the standard and efficiency of treatment at the WwTW, which has included the construction of the CAMBI plant (to provide an enhanced, anaerobic sludge digestion process) and SHARON plant (for treatment of the liquid effluent resulting from the CAMBI process). 6.25 Sludge cake processed at Whitlingham WwTW has until very recently undergone a process whereby lime is added to the cake to destroy pathogens in order that it can safely be taken off site for agricultural use. This process was undertaken on the southern section of the small concrete pad. Cake arrived at the pad by conveyor where lime was added to it. The resultant limed cake was then moved by tractor to the northern section of the pad and left until despatched off site to an appropriate agricultural destination. 6.26 This caused difficulties at certain times of the year due to a number of factors including weather and cropping cycles. Limed cake is not universally suitable as a soil conditioner because of its elevated alkalinity value. There was sometimes a need to store limed cake on site for extensive periods until suitable outlets were available. 6.27 The recent opening of the CAMBI plant means the biosolids do not require lime treatment. No limed cake is intended to be produced in the future, although the liming plant will be retained to cover plant breakdown or maintenance. 6.28 Biosolids treatment at Whitlingham is a continuous process. At present sludge cake is discharged from the existing conveyor, which operates on a 24 hour basis, into trailers on the southern section of the pad which have to be continually towed away and emptied on the northern section. 6.29 Extension of the conveyor so as to overhang the northern section of the pad would improve the efficiency of the existing biosolids handling operation at Whitlingham and remove the need for double handling of biosolids and additional vehicle movements as at present. Principle of Development 6.30 A basic principle when assessing planning applications is outlined in Section 38(6) of the Town and Country Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which states: “if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

6.31 In terms of the development plan, the County Planning Authority considers the relevant documents in relation to this application are the policies in the Regional Spatial Strategy: The East of England Plan (2008), the adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy (2011), the adopted Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (2011), and the saved Development Control policies contained within the South Norfolk Local Plan (2003). 6.32 The principle of development was assessed in 1999 and was considered acceptable, subject to conditions including operating hours and storage height. The principle of the use of the site for the purpose of carrying on a sewerage undertaking has been established. 6.33 When assessing this application to vary two conditions of planning permission C/7/1998/7021, the proposal must be assessed against any new planning policy or guidance that has been published since that time, and account must be taken of any material changes in circumstances at the site. 6.34 New national planning policy guidance relevant to the proposal has been introduced since the planning approval in 1999. These include PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (2005, amended 2011) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012). 6.35 In addition, Norfolk County Council is currently in the process of producing a Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework. The NMWLDF Core Strategy was adopted in September 2011. This document replaces the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plans. 6.36 The application site is designated in the NMWLDF: Core Strategy Proposals Map as a key wastewater treatment site, for safeguarding purposes. 6.37 The proposed site is shown in the South Norfolk Local Plan (2003) proposals map as lying within an area identified as contributing to and maintaining the setting of the Norwich southern bypass landscape protection zone. 6.38 The essence of this planning application is to provide changes to what was originally proposed and it therefore also needs to be determined whether the variations sought are acceptable in terms of the potential impacts they may have, primarily upon residential amenity and the visual amenity of the area. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 6.39 DCLG published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 27 March 2012. With the exception of PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management, every other Planning Policy Statement (PPS) and Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) has been replaced by the NPPF. The NPPF does not contain specific waste policies, as national waste planning policy will be published as part of the National Waste Management Plan for England. The NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions. PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management

6.40 PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management, underlines that the planning system is pivotal to the adequate and timely provision of new waste facilities and sets out the Government’s strategy for sustainable waste management. 6.41 PPS10 includes key planning objectives, which include the principle of “driving waste management up the waste hierarchy” which means that WPAs should always try to ensure that waste is managed by the best possible environmental means, represented by the highest levels of the hierarchy, i.e. prevention, re- use and recycling. The biosolids handling operation at Whitlingham provides treatment of sewage sludge to create an enhanced treated soil conditioning product, suitable for agriculture. The proposal would remove the need for double handling of biosolids and additional vehicle movements as at present, and enable the biosolids handling operation to be undertaken in a more efficient and sustainable manner. 6.42 A further key planning objective of PPS10 is to enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations. This requirement is often referred to as ‘the proximity principle’. The proximity principle requires waste to be disposed of as close to the place of production as possible. This avoids passing the environmental costs of waste management to communities which are not responsible for its generation, and reduces the environmental costs of transporting waste. 6.43 In addition to handling sewage from Norwich and the surrounding rural area, Whitlingham WwTW also takes in sewage waste for treatment from a wider area including from outside Norfolk. Paragraph 11.4 of the RSS: East of England Plan acknowledges that some waste movements will be necessary to allow for processing and disposal at appropriate facilities, and the strategic significance of the works for Norfolk and Greater Norwich as well as its wider sub-regional role is recognised by Policy CS12 of the Adopted NMWLDF Core Strategy. 6.44 PPS10 states that, “when proposals are consistent with an up-to-date development plan, WPAs should not require applicants for new or enhanced waste management facilities to demonstrate a quantitative or market need for their proposal”. The principal consideration should relate to the location and the impact of the development. As detailed elsewhere in section 6 of this report, which assesses the development in relation to the relevant policies of the NMWLDF: Core Strategy, it is considered that the proposed development is fully compliant with these requirements. 6.45 Taking into account the above, the scheme is consistent with the overarching thrust of PPS10 in dealing with waste in a more sustainable manner. The application is therefore considered to comply with the aims and objectives of PPS10. The Regional Spatial Strategy: The East of England Plan (2008)

6.46 East of England Plan (2008) Policies WM1 and WM2 reinforce the objectives in PPS10 which promote movement of waste management up the waste hierarchy, and to recover maximum resource value from waste produced. The RSS seeks to ensure the timely and adequate provision of facilities required for recovery and disposal of the region’s waste. The scheme would improve the efficiency of the existing biosolids handling operation at Whitlingham and is therefore considered to be compliant with policies WM1 and WM2. General location of waste management facilities

6.47 The NPPF sets out how planning should operate to encourage sustainable economic growth. The NMWLDF Core Strategy seeks to meet the needs of the economy for waste management facilities. 6.48 The proximity principle forms part of the NMWLDF Core Strategy, which, in policy CS5 seeks to locate “strategic” or “major” sites in the areas and settlements named. The application is in respect of storage of biosolids on an existing small concrete pad within Whitlingham WwTW, a long-established waste management facility. As detailed elsewhere in section 6 of this report, the NMWLDF: CS acknowledges that Whitlingham WwTW serves not only the City of Norwich and the surrounding rural area but also takes in sewage wastes for treatment from a wider area (including from outside Norfolk). 6.49 Policy CS5 further states: “…waste water treatment sites can normally only be located on or adjacent to watercourses, so they will normally only be acceptable in such locations…. Whilst every…planning application will be considered on its own merits, significant international ecological and national landscape constraints affecting the four main Norfolk settlements are detailed below… . Norwich Policy Area: The valley of the River Yare falls within the Broads, which has a status equivalent to that of a National Park. On the eastern edge of the NPA, the river valley is also classed as the Broadland SPA and Broads SAC…There is therefore a preference for new waste management facilities away from the…Yare valley areas and the Broads area.” 6.50 Whilst this proposal is situated within the Yare valley, in close proximity to the Broads area, Whitlingham WwTW is a long-established waste management facility and the additional development is considered relatively minor in the context of the whole. NMWLDF CS policy CS5 accepts that waste water treatment sites can normally only be located on or adjacent to watercourses. 6.51 Sewerage undertakers are granted considerable permitted development rights under the General Permitted Development Order and it is only as a result of exceptional circumstances that an application for planning consent is necessary. 6.52 Whilst the site lies outside the defined development limit in the South Norfolk Local Plan, the application site is on operational land within Whitlingham WwTW, an existing waste management facility. It should be noted that the South Norfolk Local Plan has not been formulated to specifically address waste development and as such the NMWLDF: Core Strategy is considered to be the most eminent policy document for assessment of the proposal. The application site is designated in the NMWLDF: CS Proposals Map as a key wastewater treatment site. 6.53 The site is situated within the Norwich Policy Area as designated on the NMWLDF: Core Strategy Key Diagram. Whitlingham WwTW handles the sewage from Norwich and the surrounding rural area. As such the site is considered to be well-related to the Norwich Policy Area and would manage waste arising from this policy area. 6.54 The site is positioned on the Whitlingham WwTW, lying south of the A47 Southern bypass. There is no highways objection to the proposal. As such, the site is considered to be well related to the major road network. 6.55 The boundary of the Broads Authority’s Executive Area is approximately 110m to the north of the pad. The Broads Authority has raised no objection. 6.56 The site is located approximately 2.7km west of The Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Broadland Ramsar. The County Council’s Ecologist confirms that the development will not have adverse effects on these sites. 6.57 It is therefore considered, taking into account the above, that this proposal is compliant with Policy CS5, and the government objectives of the NPPF. General waste management considerations 6.58 Policy CS6 of the adopted NMWLDF Core Strategy (2011) states: “Waste sites…will be acceptable, provided they would not cause unacceptable environmental impacts, on the following types of land: a) land already in waste management use…” 6.59 The application site comprises a small concrete pad located on land to the west of the main WwTW, but within the operational area of the works. As detailed in this report the pad is already in waste management use. 6.60 As detailed elsewhere in section 6 of this report, which assesses the development in relation to the other relevant policies of the NMWLDF Core Strategy, it is considered that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable environmental impacts. It is therefore considered taking into account the above that the proposal is compliant with policy CS6. Waste water/sewage infrastructure and treatment facilities

6.61 The NPPF sets out how planning should operate to encourage sustainable economic growth. The NMWLDF: Core Strategy seeks to meet the needs of the economy for waste management facilities. The CS supports provision of new or improved waste water/sewerage infrastructure, particularly in connection to new housing growth. 6.62 Policy 10 of the adopted JCS for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (2011) states: “Major growth…will be masterplanned…Development will…aim to address current service and infrastructure deficiencies to benefit existing communities. In addition each major development location will… ensure … adequate … sewerage infrastructure…” 6.63 Whitlingham WwTW is recognised by Policy 10 as a critical piece of infrastructure for proposed housing growth in the Greater Norwich area. The supporting text confirms that improvements at Whitlingham are required to deliver the Joint Core Strategy. 6.64 Paragraph 6.23 of the JCS states that, key requirements include environmental improvements at Whitlingham and other sewage treatment works. There are different delivery mechanisms for these and the JCS will influence the utility providers’ strategies and investment plans. 6.65 Policy CS11 of the adopted NMWLDF Core Strategy (2011) states: “New or extended waste water/sewage infrastructure and treatment facilities will be acceptable where such proposals aim to: 1) treat a greater quantity of wastewater; and/or 2) improve the quality of discharged water; and/or 3) reduce the environmental impact of operation. The developer will be required to demonstrate that the proposal can be located and operated without giving rise to unacceptable environmental, amenity and highways impacts...”. 6.66 Policy CS11 supports new or extended waste water infrastructure, in principle.

6.67 Concern has been raised that the proposal does not accord with the aims of policy CS11, and the conditions imposed by PP C/7/1998/7021 should remain. 6.68 The demands placed upon Whitlingham WwTW are planned to increase in the future following adoption of the JCS for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk which sets down plans for additional development up to 2026. The proposals are part of ongoing improvement works at Whitlingham WwTW to meet growth proposed within the Greater Norwich area and to improve the standard of treatment at the works. It is therefore considered that criteria 1 and 2 have been met. 6.69 With regards to the third criterion, the proposal would remove the need for double-handling of biosolids and additional vehicle movements as at present, and enable the biosolids handling operation to be undertaken in a more sustainable manner; it is therefore considered that criteria 3 has been met. 6.70 As detailed elsewhere in section 6 of this report, it is considered that the proposal would not cause unacceptable environmental, amenity and highways impacts. 6.71 It is therefore considered, taking into account the above, that this development is compliant with Policy CS11, and government objectives of the NPPF. Whitlingham Waste Water Treatment Works

6.72 The NPPF provides detailed guidance on the process of determining planning applications. Paragraph 187 states that, LPAs should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Adopted NMWLDF Policy CS12 encourages community engagement through a liaison group. 6.73 Policy CS12 of the adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy sets a positive policy context for development at Whitlingham, and confirms that improvements to increase physical capacity or treatment standards will be supported in principle as vital to the success of the Joint Core Strategy. Having set out that principle, policy CS12 nevertheless includes three caveats, the first being the need to have regard to environmental and amenity impacts, particularly on the Broads area and nearby residents; the second encourages development of a strategic plan for the works, and the third, as indicated, refers to the need for continued liaison with local stakeholders including residents and councils. 6.74 Para 6.58 of the CS acknowledges that, operation of the site raises frequent concerns from some local residents, particularly on grounds of HGV movements and odour. 6.75 The CS also acknowledges that in the absence of a longer-term masterplan, it is not easy to assess the strategic significance of individual proposals, and the cumulative impact of a number of separate (but linked) proposals. Waste Site-Specific Allocations DPD: Pre-Submission April 2012

6.76 There is also a site-specific policy for Whitlingham WwTW, Policy WWTW1, in the Waste Site-Specific Allocations DPD: Pre-Submission published December 2011. On 5 March 2012 Cabinet recommended that the County Council approve the Pre-Submission versions of the Minerals and Waste Site Specific Allocations DPDs for publication. The representations period on the Pre- Submissions versions of the Minerals and Waste Site Specific Allocations DPDs ended on 29 June 2012. Submission of the document to the Planning Inspectorate is planned before the end of 2012. An Examination in Public is therefore likely to take place in Spring 2013, with adoption later in 2013.

6.77 Policy WWTW1 of the Waste Site-Specific Allocations DPD: Pre- Submission states: The County Council will work closely with the Environment Agency, South Norfolk Council and the Broads Authority to ensure that development proposals at Whitlingham will: a) Minimise the effect on the amenity of local residents, with particular emphasis on noise and odour; b) Route all HGV movements to and from the site via the C202 Kirby Road and the A146 Loddon Road, with the routeing of the HGV movements to be secured through a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the timing of the HGV movements to be controlled by planning conditions; c) Not affect adversely the landscape setting of the Broads by insensitively locating and/or designing equipment or buildings on the site; and d) In line with the requirements of PPS25, choose preferentially locations within Flood Zone 1, and where locations in Flood Zone 2 or 3 are proposed, adequate measures to control pollution and manage sewage during flooding events are put in place, to be controlled by either a Section 106 Legal Agreement or planning condition(s).

6.78 Unlike the policies in the NMWLDF: Core Strategy, Policy WWTW1 is not adopted. Nevertheless, the NPPF advises that decision–takers may also give weight to relevant polices in emerging plans. Policy WWTW1 reiterates the need to minimise impacts on local amenity of development at Whitlingham WwTW. As detailed elsewhere in section 6 of this report, it is considered that the proposal would not cause unacceptable amenity, highways or landscape impacts, and the site lies within Flood Zone 1. 6.79 Policy 3 of the adopted JCS for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (2011) states that:

“…The release of land for development will be dependent on there being sufficient water infrastructure to meet the additional requirements arising from the new development and to ensure that water quality is protected or improved, with no significant detriment to areas of environmental importance. This will be achieved by greater efficiency and by providing infrastructure, including strategic interceptor sewers, to address environmental and capacity constraints at the strategic wastewater treatment works at Whitlingham and at local works. This water infrastructure will be upgraded as required and be operational in time to meet the demands of any development..”. 6.80 Policy 3 of the JCS confirms the strategic nature of Whitlingham WwTW for Greater Norwich. 6.81 Environmental and amenity impacts Concern has been raised that the development approach demonstrated through this application shows no regard to the aims of minimising impact on nearby dwellings and Broads area. 6.82 Concern has also been raised that since submission of application reference C/7/1998/7021, increased areas are being claimed as operational land and there has been massive expansion in the role of Whitlingham WwTW without any overall planning assessment as to the suitability of the site; there is concern that expansion is resulting in greatly increased air pollution and odour. 6.83 “Operational land”, in relation to Statutory Sewerage Undertakers such as Anglian Water, is defined by S.263 of the Planning Act 1990 to mean:-  land which is used for the purpose of carrying on their undertaking; and  land in which an interest is held for that purpose.

6.84 As regards an increase in operational land, one such area is the large concrete pad, subject of planning application reference C/7/2011/7013 for, inter alia, retention of concrete pad. In the light of photographic evidence and testimonies provided by Anglian Water, in October 2007 the County Council confirmed that it is satisfied that the land on which the large concrete pad is situated, is “operational land”. 6.85 As regards expansion in the role of Whitlingham WwTW, Para 6.57 of the CS acknowledges that Whitlingham WwTW handles the sewage from Norwich and the surrounding rural area and also takes in sewage wastes for treatment from a wider area (including from outside Norfolk). 6.86 The three ‘over-arching’ planning permissions regarding the scope of activity at the site are permission reference FH/0726/F for “construction of new sewage disposal works”, granted 1952; permission reference FH/8261/O for “extension of existing effluent and sludge treatment facilities…”, granted 1967; and permission reference FH/11011/F for “erection of buildings associated with sewage purification works”, granted 1970. Legal advice has been sought on this matter; this has concluded that there is not any restriction in the three permissions over the import of sewage sludge to the works by HGV. 6.87 As detailed elsewhere in section 6 of this report, it is considered that the application under consideration would not cause unacceptable environmental and amenity impacts. 6.88 Longer-term vision Concern is expressed that the applicant continues to promote a piecemeal approach to development and expansion of this site, contrary to the aims of Policy CS12. 6.89 As regards the perception that submission of this application implies that there is a piecemeal approach to development at the WwTW, this proposal is of a relatively minor nature designed to improve the operational efficiency of the existing biosolids handling process. These variations to the operating conditions will only affect a small area under the conveyor extension where the material will be dropped. 6.90 Concern is also raised that a long term masterplan or vision for future development of the site has not been developed and agreed. Whilst, to date, a long-term vision for Whitlingham WwTW has not been developed and agreed, as can be seen, Policy CS12 strongly encourages rather than requires Anglian Water to develop and agree a vision for the WwTW. 6.91 Supporting text for policy CS12 acknowledges that A.W.’s strategic budget is set by OFWAT through the Assessment Management Planning (AMP) process in five-year tranches, with the current period (AMP 5) running from 2010-2015. 6.92 Under the current regulatory regime investment is considered by Ofwat in four key areas:  Capital Maintenance – this is what A.W. needs to spend to maintain its assets;  Customer Enhancements - in this area A.W. invest money based on customer feedback, for example odour control;  Supply Demand – this investment caters for growth in the region including housing , population and business;  Quality – this investment is driven by European standards and the requirements of the E.A. At present investment is this area is being considered as part of River Basin Management Plans.

6.93 A.W. has advised that it is in the process of planning its next five year Business Plan, which will include detailed investment plans for the period 2015 to 2020. A.W. will know how much money it will have to spend on further investment at Whitlingham by September 2013. 6.94 The demands placed upon Whitlingham WwTW are planned to increase in the future following the adoption of the Greater Norwich Development Partnership’s JCS, which sets down plans for the development of 37,000 additional houses and 27,000 new jobs in the Greater Norwich area over the period 2008 -2026. 6.95 Whilst a long-term vision for the WwTW has not yet been developed and agreed, supporting text for policy CS12 acknowledges that Whitlingham WwTW is a vital piece of infrastructure for implementation of the growth envisaged in the Joint Core Strategy. 6.96 A.W. indicates that the proposal is an integral part of a £23.5m investment at the works, to improve the standard and efficiency of treatment at the works and ensure there is capacity to deal with the proposed growth in a sustainable manner. This investment has seen the construction of the CAMBI plant (which provides an enhanced, anaerobic sludge digestion process) and SHARON plant (for treatment of the liquid effluent resulting from the CAMBI process). 6.97 Local liaison As regards continued liaison, the most recent meeting of the Whitlingham WwTW Liaison Group took place on 21 June 2012. 6.98 Alternative location Representation has been made on the grounds that this operation should be done further away in an alternative location. 6.99 The site is already in use for the type of development proposed. The principle of development on this site was assessed in 1999 and was considered acceptable, subject to conditions. 6.100 PPS10 makes it clear that the planning system should focus on whether the development is an acceptable use of the land, and the impacts of the development. 6.101 As detailed elsewhere in section 6 of this report, which assesses the development in relation to the other relevant policies of the NMWLDF: Core Strategy, it is considered that the proposed development is fully compliant with these requirements. 6.102 To conclude, it is considered that the proposal would not cause unacceptable environmental and amenity impacts. The proposals are part of the investment programme to ensure that Whitlingham WwTW meets the infrastructure needs of the Greater Norwich JCS up to 2026. On balance, it is considered taking into account the above that a case for refusal on grounds of conflict with policy CS12 and the NPPF would be difficult to substantiate. Climate change & renewable energy generation

6.103 The NPPF sets out how planning should contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and provide resiliance to the impacts of climate change. 6.104 Policy CS13 of the adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy requires all opportunities for new waste developments to generate a minimum of 10% renewable energy on-site to be explored. 6.105 The applicant advises that the application under consideration forms part of an on-going £23.5 investment at the works, which has also seen construction of the CAMBI plant. The material which is stored on the small pad is the treated material from the CAMBI process. The CAMBI process followed by the anaerobic digestion produces biogas which is used to fuel a Combined Heat & Power Plant (CHP) engine, designed to produce between 25-35 MWh of electricity per day. This level of renewable energy generation primarily provides the power to the works, including the conveyor motors, thus making the WwTW largely self-sufficient in terms of its energy demand. This is in excess of the requirements set out in Policy CS13. Where surplus energy is generated, this is exported to the grid. 6.106 It is therefore considered, taking into account the above, that the development is compliant with Policy CS13 and government objectives of the NPPF. Environmental Protection / Nature Conservation

6.107 The NPPF sets out the Government’s objectives for conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, including landscapes. The NPPF also recognises the weight of protection afforded to international, national and local conservation sites, individual species and the importance of conserving and enhancing biodiversity. 6.108 Policy CS14 of the adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy (2011) states: “…developments must ensure that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on, and ideally improvements to: . Natural resources, including water, air and soil; . The character and quality of the landscape and townscape, including nationally designated landscapes (…the…Broads); . Biodiversity…, including nationally and internationally designated sites and species, habitats and sites identified in Biodiversity…Action Plans;… . Residential amenity…”. 6.109 Adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy policy DM1 states: “Development that would harm: . Locally designated nature conservation…sites; and/or . Habitats, species or features identified in UK and Norfolk biodiversity…action plans; will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that sufficient measures to mitigate harm to the site, habitat(s) and/or species can be put in place….”. 6.110 Landscape Concern has been raised that the works is located in a sensitive landscape setting in the Yare valley, and that the application site itself is visible from the north, west and east, including from the public bridleway through the works which forms part of Wherryman’s Way and the Sustrans Cycle Route. 6.111 The site is already in use for the type of development proposed hence the only visual changes from the existing situation will be a 7.75m extension to an existing conveyor and the increased height of the cake mound under the end of the conveyor, which at times will achieve a maximum height of 4m, all at the southern end of the storage pad. 6.112 A Planning Statement has been prepared and submitted in support of this application. The statement concludes that, since the site is already screened by planting and is set behind the existing large scale plant and buildings of the WwTW, neither the conveyor extension or increase in height of the cake mound will be visually intrusive. 6.113 The statement indicates that users of the public right of way will see a slightly different view than at present but given that their view is already that of a functioning sewage treatment works, it is not considered that this visual difference will be of significance. 6.114 The County Council’s Landscape Officer, South Norfolk Council and The Broads Authority have raised no objection on landscape grounds. It is considered therefore that the development due to its scale and location will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the landscape, including the Broads. 6.115 Biodiversity Concern has been raised about the impact on local biodiversity and the natural environment. The nearest internationally protected sites are The Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Broadland Ramsar, and the nearest nationally designated site is The Yare Broads & Marshes SSSI, all of which are located approximately 2.7 km east of the site. The County Council’s Ecologist has been consulted on the application and confirms that the development will not have adverse effects on these sites. 6.116 Locally designated nature conservation sites Whitlingham Marsh LNR is sited approximately 280m north of the site, and two County Wildlife Sites are sited approximately 460m to the east and 320m north of the site, respectively. 6.117 The Council’s Ecologist has raised no objection on ecological grounds.

6.118 Residential amenity Concern has been raised about the impact on visual amenity of local dwellings. 6.119 The Planning Statement submitted in support of this application concludes that, since the site is already screened by planting from nearby occupied properties, including Whitlingham Hall, neither the conveyor extension or increase in height of the cake mound will be visually intrusive. Bunding has also recently been formed to the west of the pad, under the permitted development rights afforded to sewerage undertakers, which provides screening from nearby residential properties. 6.120 As regards impact on visual amenity of Whitlingham Hall, this dwelling is set to the north west of the pad, below a treed embankment. The pad is contained by a 1.2m high bund wall, and close boarded wooden fencing has also been affixed to the outside of the bund wall nearest Whitlingham Hall to a height of 2m. 6.121 Given the existing screening and the fact that the development would be viewed against the backdrop of the existing works it is considered that any additional visual impact would not be materially significant. 6.122 The Council’s Landscape Officer and South Norfolk Council have been consulted on the application and raised no objection. 6.123 As detailed elsewhere in section 6 of this report, it is considered that the proposal would not cause unacceptable impacts on other aspects of residential amenity. South Norfolk Local Plan (2003): Saved policy ENV 6

6.124 Saved policy ENV 6 of the South Norfolk Local Plan states: “Inappropriate development and any other development within the Norwich Southern Bypass Landscape Protection Zone,…which would undermine the landscape quality and openness of zone, or which would lead to the bypass (or any section of it) becoming the outer development boundary of the City, will not be permitted”. 6.125 The site lies within an area designated on the South Norfolk Local Plan Proposals Map as the Norwich Southern Bypass Landscape Protection Zone. Inappropriate development is defined as “the construction of new buildings, for any purposes other than”, inter alia, “uses of land which do not compromise the objectives of the policy.” 6.126 Annex 1 of the NPPF states that, due weight should be given to relevant saved policies in plans adopted prior to 2004 according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. At their meeting of 30 April 2012, South Norfolk Council’s Cabinet confirmed a schedule of saved Local Plan policies which states that policy ENV6 is partially consistent with the NPPF. Therefore it is considered that the weight carried by this policy should be reduced accordingly. 6.127 The proposal does not provide for construction of a new building. Furthermore, the application is in respect of an existing small concrete pad within the operational area of the works, already in waste management use. The Council’s Landscape Officer, and South Norfolk Council have been consulted on the application and raised no objection. 6.128 It is therefore considered, taking into account the above, that this development will not have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the character and quality of the landscape, biodiversity, locally designated nature conservation sites or residential amenity; As such, the proposal is considered compliant with the aims of NMWLDF: Core Strategy policies CS14 and DM1, South Norfolk Local Plan Saved Policy ENV6, and the government objectives of the NPPF. Transport

6.129 The NPPF sets out the Government’s national planning policies in relation to transport. 6.130 Policy CS15 of the Adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy states: “…The County Council will consider…waste development proposals to be satisfactory in terms of access where anticipated HGV movements…do not generate: a) Unacceptable risks to the safety of road users and pedestrians; b) Unacceptable impacts on the capacity and/or efficiency of the highway network (including the trunk road network); c) Unacceptable impacts on air quality…and residential and rural amenity, including from odour and noise; d) Unacceptable impacts on the natural and historic environment; and e) Unacceptable physical impacts on the highway network…”. 6.131 Policy DM10 of the Adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy requires that, applications for new waste development must examine the access and egress arrangements, routeing proposals and consideration of other road users, including cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians. 6.132 The site is accessed via the existing private road from the C202, Kirby Road. The private road is a public highway, as a bridleway, over which the public have a right to ride a horse, to walk and cycle - the route forms part of the Wherryman’s Way Walk and Sustrans National Cycle Route. 6.133 The planning statement indicates that continuous operation of the conveyor extension and discharge onto the drop zone on the northern section of the pad would remove the need for movement of biosolids by tractor between the two sections of the pad, which also involves movement along the private road. 6.134 Whilst not directly attributable to this proposal, the planning statement submitted in support of this application indicates that there will be a slight reduction in overall numbers of vehicles needed to take cake from the small pad because of the cessation in the use of lime to treat biosolids, which results in a less bulky cake being produced. In addition, there will no longer be the requirement for lime deliveries to the WwTW. 6.135 The Highway Authority has been consulted on this application and has raised no objection. 6.136 Taking into account the above, the proposal is considered compliant with the aims of NMWLDF: Core Strategy policies CS15 and DM10, and the government objectives of the NPPF. Groundwater and surface water

6.137 Policy DM3 of the adopted NMWLDF CS requires applicants to demonstrate that proposed developments would not adversely impact upon groundwater quality or resources and surface water quality or resources. Sites for waste management facilities will not be permitted in Groundwater Protection Zone 1. 6.138 The protection of surface and groundwater resources is paramount in the consideration of any waste development. The site is located within Groundwater Source Protection Zone 2. 6.139 The planning statement indicates that improved drainage arrangements have been installed at the pad to control liquors. 6.140 The Environment Agency has raised no objections, therefore the scheme is considered compliant with policy DM3. Safeguarding aerodromes

6.141 Policy DM7 of the Adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy requires waste planning applications that are within safeguarded areas to be subject of consultation with the operator of the aerodrome. 6.142 The site is situated within the consultation area for Norwich International Airport. 6.143 The airport has raised no objection to the scheme on safeguarding grounds; as such, it is considered that the development is compliant with policy DM7. Design, local landscape and townscape character

6.144 The NPPF sets out the Government’s national planning policies in relation to design, and objectives for conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, including landscapes. 6.145 Policy DM8 of the Adopted NMWLDF Core Strategy states: “Development will be permitted if it will not harm the conservation of, or prevent the enhancement of, key characteristics of its surroundings with regard to the character of the landscape… …new development…must promote good design…”. 6.146 The site is located within the operational boundary of the existing WwTW. The area to the east is dominated by the main works which has an industrial appearance on account of the tanks, pipework and buildings. 6.147 The proposed conveyor extension is of a functional design in keeping with its purpose. The material for the existing and proposed conveyors comprises galvanised and stainless steels. The design of the scheme is considered acceptable in the context of the site. 6.148 South Norfolk Council, The Broads Authority and the County Council’s Landscape Officer raise no objection to the scheme on landscape grounds. 6.149 As such, it is considered that the development accords with the design and landscape principles set out in policy DM8 of the NMWLDF Core Strategy, and also accords with the requirements of the NPPF. Archaeological sites

6.150 There are strong commitments within the NPPF for conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. 6.151 Policy DM9 of the Adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy states that development will only be permitted where it would not adversely affect the significance of heritage assets. 6.152 The application site is not located within or adjacent to any identified conservation area. The ruined Church of St.Andrew, Whitlingham Lane, Kirby Bedon, a Grade II listed building is located some 320 metres to the north of the pad, and separated by the A47 Southern Bypass. The Council’s Historic Environment Service considers that the development will have no impact on the setting of the building. 6.153 Given the above, it is considered by the CPA that the development is consistent with policy DM9 and also accords with the requirements of the NPPF. Sustainable construction and operations

6.154 The NPPF sets out the overarching policies on the delivery of sustainable development. 6.155 Policy DM11 of the Adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy states: “Sustainable development will be promoted by requiring proposals for…waste management facilities to demonstrate consideration of: …good design and layout…in the design of new…plant… …sustainable drainage measures.. Evidence as to how the sustainable…operation of a proposal will be implemented… - steps to be taken to ensure the maximum diversion of waste from landfill…once the development is operational” 6.156 Concern is raised that the proposal would not result in sustainable development. 6.157 The biosolids handling operation at Whitlingham provides treatment of sewage sludge to create an enhanced treated soil conditioning product. At present sludge cake is discharged from the existing conveyor into trailers on the southern section of the pad which have to be towed by tractor and emptied on the northern section. 6.158 The application under consideration would remove the need for double handling of biosolids and reduce tractor movements, in and around the pad. 6.159 Concern is raised that waste is imported by tanker lorries from Peterborough and Southend. In response, Anglian Water advises that liquid sludge imports is the largest product type entering Whitlingham WwTW, and during the period April 2011 to January 2012, the vast majority originated in Norfolk with a very small amount from Suffolk and Essex. A.W. further advises that nothing originated from Peterborough or Southend during this period, nor would this be the normal situation due to costs and operational inefficiencies involved. As detailed elsewhere in section 6 of this report, the NMWLDF CS acknowledges that Whitlingham WwTW takes in sewage wastes for treatment from a wide area (including from outside Norfolk). 6.160 The proposal would enable the existing biosolids handling operation at Whitlingham to be undertaken in a more efficient and sustainable manner, and is therefore considered to be consistent with policy DM11. 6.161 On balance, the proposal is considered to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development and is therefore considered to be compliant with the aims and objectives of the NPPF. Amenity (odour, noise, dust, light pollution, bioaerosols)

6.162 Adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy policy DM12 states: “The protection of amenity for people in close proximity to waste management facilities will be a key consideration. Where appropriate, buffer zones, advanced planting and/or screening and other mitigation measures, such as restriction on hours of working and dust suppression measures, will be required. Development will be permitted only where it can be demonstrated that the scale, siting and design of a proposal is appropriate and that unacceptable impact to local amenity will not arise from the construction and/or operation of a facility”. 6.163 The NPPF provides guidance on the relationship between the permitting regimes operated by pollution control authorities and the planning system, and also outlines the considerations to be taken into account in determining planning applications both for noise-sensitive developments and for those activities which generate noise. 6.164 Paragraph 122 of the NPPF 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…”

6.165 Therefore the CPA needs to be satisfied planning permission can be granted on land use grounds taking full account of environmental impacts, and that potential releases can be adequately regulated under the pollution control framework. 6.166 The nearest residential properties are Whitlingham Hall, some 60m north west of the pad, below an embankment, and a row of residential properties (Holmemead and Hill Cottages) some 350m to the west. The premises of Able Community Care are some 100m to the north west, and Whitlingham Tree Nursery and Whitlingham Country Park lie some 150m to the west and 500 metres to the north west, respectively. 6.167 The owner of Whitlingham Tree Nursery advises that he purchased the nursery from Norwich City Council in 1995 and immediately began work to improve the land but that recent changes at the WwTW have added to odour and air pollution being generated, resulting in the Nursery now being a dangerous workplace and now temporarily closed. No evidence has been presented to support this claim. 6.168 Based on historic aerial photographs there is little evidence that the former municipal tree nursery has been actively operated for at least 10 years and possibly longer. Inspection of the former nursery site from the Whitlingham Lane entrance and from within the WwTW boundary, in September 2012, would suggest that the site is not currently in use as a tree nursery. However, the owner advises that, it has at all times been his intention and now remains his intention that when he can secure an abatement of the smell and bio- aerosol nuisances, the nursery use will recommence as soon as he can possibly arrange. 6.169 The owner of the tree nursery has also advised that it is his intention to bring an agricultural barn on a parcel of land adjoining the eastern boundary of the Tree Nursery (some 80m west of the small pad) into use in the course of tree nursery business after repair work to the barn is completed. 6.170 Strong concern has been expressed regarding impacts on amenity arising from odour, bioaerosols and noise. Odour

6.171 As regards odour, it is clear there is a perceived high level of existing detriment and impact on amenity of local residents, businesses and landowners. Concern has been raised that the proposal will increase nuisance caused by odours and that the application fails to consider odour from operations on the small pad. Reference is also made to an outstanding Odour Abatement Notice. 6.172 The responsibility for odour complaints for this site is complex - the Sludge Treatment Centre at the site, which includes the biosolids handling operation under consideration, is the subject of an Environmental Permit (EP), therefore if the odour is identified as emanating from one of the Permitted activities it will be the Environment Agency’s responsibility. However, odour emissions from the WwTW are subject to Statutory Nuisance legislation administered and monitored by the Local Authority. 6.173 An Odour Abatement Notice was served on Anglian Water by South Norfolk Council in 2009; the notice applied to the whole works. South Norfolk Council can potentially regulate odour from the parts of the works that are not regulated by the E.A., including the inlet works. 6.174 The site is already in use for the type of development proposed - biosolids are currently discharged from the existing conveyor into a trailer on the southern section of the pad, hence the only change from the existing situation is that biosolids will be dropped onto the floor of the northern section of the pad. 6.175 Whilst not directly attributable to this proposal, the planning statement indicates that the digested sludge cake from the CAMBI process is significantly less odorous than the existing limed cake. The statement indicates there will be considerably less possibility of malodours, notwithstanding the fact that material would be dropped from the conveyor onto the pad. 6.176 As indicated, the biosolids handling operation is already covered by an Environmental Permit, which considers emissions that will arise during operation of the site. The Environment Agency has confirmed that an updated management plan would be required to reflect the operational changes. 6.177 Accordingly any pollution issue arising from the operation of the development would be subject to the control of the E.A. through the permitting regime. 6.178 The E.A., as the relevant pollution control authority, has been consulted on this application and has made no objection on odour grounds to the development. Based on the information provided with the application, South Norfolk Council EHO, and NHS Norfolk and Waveney Public Health Directorate have raised no objection to the development in terms of any potential emissions. 6.179 Accordingly, the CPA considers the development will not result in the generation of any unacceptable levels of odour and the development is considered compliant with the NPPF. Bio-aerosols

6.180 Bio-aerosol is the term used to describe biologically active matter that can be dispersed via minute particles of liquid and/or solid in a gas (e.g. air). The natural environment is filled with bio-aerosols including bacteria, fungi/moulds, spores, seeds, pollens and viruses. 6.181 Potential sources of existing bio-aerosols in the vicinity of the proposal include Whitlingham WwTW, surrounding agricultural activities, and natural composting processes in surrounding woodland, waterways and marshes. 6.182 Concern has been raised regarding the impacts on amenity arising from bio- aerosols, and that the proposal is less than 250m from Whitlingham Hall, Whitlingham Tree Nursery and Able Community Care. 6.183 The reference to 250m is drawn from the Environment Agency’s current Position Statement on composting and potential health effects from bio- aerosols, which defines sensitive receptors as people likely to be within 250 metres of composting operations, for prolonged or frequent periods, typically dwellings or workplaces where workers would frequently be present. 6.184 The CPA needs to be satisfied planning permission can be granted on land use grounds taking full account of environmental impacts, and that potential releases can be adequately regulated under the pollution control framework. 6.185 Biosolids are currently discharged from the conveyor extension into a trailer sited on the southern section of the pad and hauled to the northern section. 6.186 The biosolids handling operation is already covered by an Environmental Permit, which considers the emissions that will arise during operation of the site. The E.A. has confirmed that no variation to this permit is required, but an updated management plan is required and this will cover management of any bio-aerosols. Notwithstanding this, the E.A. does not anticipate the application under consideration and accompanying application reference C/7/2011/7017 to result in any increase in bio-aerosol levels. 6.187 The Environment Agency, as the relevant pollution control authority, has no objection to the development in terms of any potential emissions. 6.188 Based on the information provided with the application, South Norfolk Council EHO, and NHS Norfolk and Waveney Public Health Directorate have raised no objection. 6.189 Representation has also been made in the context of NMWLDF: CS policy CS7, which requires proposals for composting plants to be accompanied by a risk assessment which shows that bio-aerosol levels can be maintained at appropriate levels at dwellings or workplaces within 250m of a facility. It is also questioned whether a bio-aerosols assessment has been carried out. 6.190 Given that the proposal under consideration is not for composting, a bio- aerosols assessment has not been submitted and it is considered that policy CS7 is not relevant to consideration of this proposal. Dust

6.191 The planning statement indicates that dust is unlikely to be a problem with this process. The applicant advises cake produced by the CAMBI process is broadly similar in dry solids content to limed treated cake, therefore, the potential for additional dust impacts arising from the proposal is considered to be negligible when compared to limed cake which was previously produced and stored on the pad. 6.192 Dust is controlled through the emissions and monitoring condition placed on the Environmental Permit. Based on the information provided with the application, the Environment Agency, as the relevant pollution control authority, has no objection to the development in terms of any potential emissions. 6.193 South Norfolk Council EHO, and NHS Norfolk and Waveney Public Health Directorate have raised no objection on dust grounds. Noise

6.194 Concern has been expressed regarding the perceived impacts on amenity arising from noise. 6.195 A Planning Statement has been submitted with this application. The statement indicates that only the extended conveyor is proposed to be operated on a 24 hour basis and being electrically driven means it will be not be audible beyond the works boundary. The proposed 4m high stockpile under the extended conveyor would become the focus of sludge cake collection by vehicles, which will mean that the main activity on the concrete pad will be at the southern end of the storage area. 6.196 The reduction in use of tractors to move cake within the concrete pad will reduce noise during the permitted hours when these vehicles are allowed to operate at present. Whilst not directly attributable to this proposal, the reduction in the overall numbers of vehicles needed to take cake from the site will also reduce the frequency of vehicle noise at the nearest residential properties. The statement further notes that acoustic fencing has been installed on the boundary of the pad nearest Whitlingham Hall to control potential noise. 6.197 The statement concludes that the overall impact on noise will be a reduction on current levels, which are already considerably masked by the continuous sound of vehicles from the nearby southern bypass. 6.198 As indicated, the biosolids handling process is already covered by an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency. The E.A. advises that a noise management plan is required under the terms of this permit and should address the noise from the operation of this area. The E.A., as the relevant pollution control authority has raised no issues with regard to noise. 6.199 Based on the information provided, South Norfolk Council EHO, and NHS Norfolk and Waveney Public Health Directorate have raised no objection on noise grounds. Operating hours – traffic disturbance

6.200 Concern is raised that 24 hour operation would threaten residential amenity by traffic disturbance in the evenings and at night. It is proposed to permit 24 hour operation of the extended conveyor and stacking of material within the drop zone directly underneath it. It is intended that the remainder of the concrete pad will remain subject to the current restriction on operating hours. 6.201 Concern has also been raised by Kirby Bedon P.C. that there will be biosolid transportation until 21:45 Monday to Saturday and it would be unreasonable for vehicles and plant to operate after 18.00 at night. 6.202 It is proposed that all biosolids handling on the small pad, including loading and removal by vehicle would still be limited to the current permitted operating hours, i.e. 07:45 – 21:45 Monday to Saturday. As regards the three ‘over- arching’ permissions regarding the scope of activity on the remainder of the WwTW, (planning permissions reference FH/0726/F, FH/8261/O and FH/11011/F), there are no conditions which restrict working hours. 6.203 South Norfolk Council EHO has raised no objection, regarding operating hours, and comments that the potentially more noisy biosolids transportation is still limited to 07:45-21:45 hours Monday to Saturday. Reversing bleepers

6.204 Concern has been raised about reversing bleepers on tractors and loaders to be operated on the concrete pad. The applicant states that all site mobile plant associated with operation of the small pad and/or conveyor, will be equipped with broadband reversing alarms which do not attract attention to the same extent as conventional tonal alarms. The Environment Agency advises that the Environmental Permit for sludge treatment includes a condition that requires emissions from activities to be free from noise at levels likely to cause pollution outside the site. The E.A. is not aware of any recent noise complaints or current problems associated with the machinery used to load and unload biosolids on the small pad. 6.205 The Environment Agency, as the relevant pollution control authority, has no objection to the development in terms of any potential emissions. Based on the information provided with the application South Norfolk Council EHO has raised no objection, on noise grounds. Light pollution

6.206 Concern is raised that 24 hour operation would threaten residential amenity by light pollution. No lighting is proposed under application reference C/7/2011/7017 for an extension to the existing conveyor, submitted in conjunction with the application under consideration. Slippage of sludge

6.207 Concern has been expressed about the potential for wet sludge to slip from the pad, down an embankment towards Whitlingham Hall. Such an incident occurred prior to application C/7/1998/7021 and caused contamination in the garden of Whitlingham Hall. 6.208 The small pad is now contained by a 1.2m high bund wall, and close boarded wooden fencing has also been affixed to the outside of the bund wall nearest Whitlingham Hall to a height of 2m. It is proposed to allow storage of biosolids up to 4m in height only within the drop zone on the pad directly underneath the extended conveyor, some 95m from the northern perimeter wall of the pad; the remainder of the concrete pad will remain subject to the current storage height restriction of 1m. Based on the information provided with the application the Environment Agency has raised no objection and comment that the risk of spillage should not increase. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not increase the risks of spillage referred to by the objector. Flies

6.209 Concern is raised about existing problems with flies. Whilst the Environment Agency advises that there is no condition in the existing Environmental Permit for Sludge Treatment relating to control of flies, the E.A. does not expect the Permitted activity and waste type to attract large numbers of nuisance flies, e.g. houseflies. 6.210 Accordingly, it is considered by the CPA that the development is compliant with policy DM12, and accords with the requirements of the NPPF. Air Quality

6.211 The NPPF sets out how planning should ensure that new development in Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) is consistent with the local air quality action plan. 6.212 NMWLDF: CS policy DM13 directs that new development should not impact negatively on existing AQMA’s or lead to declaration of a new AQMA. 6.213 Concern has been raised about air pollution from operations at the WwTW including the small pad. The planning statement submitted in support of the application indicates that there will be no air pollution from this proposal. 6.214 South Norfolk Council EHO has raised no objection, on air quality grounds. 6.215 As detailed in this report, the biosolids handling operation is already covered by an Environmental Permit, which considers emissions that will arise during operation of the site. The Environment Agency has confirmed that an updated management plan would be required to reflect the operational changes. The E.A. has no objection to the development in terms of any potential emissions. 6.216 As such, it is considered that the development is compliant with policy DM13, and accords with the requirements of the NPPF. Cumulative Impacts

6.217 The NPPF sets out how planning should take into account cumulative impacts of development. 6.218 Adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy policy DM15 states: “Where a proposed waste management facility is considered acceptable (in its own right) but the cumulative impact of a proposal in conjunction with other… minerals extraction sites and/or waste management facilities, in the proximity is considered unacceptable, the proposal may be considered acceptable if phased so that one site follows the completion of the other or it can be demonstrated that the adverse cumulative impacts can be adequately mitigated…”. 6.219 Concern has been raised regarding the cumulative impact of a number of separate applications in respect of Whitlingham WwTW, in the absence of a longer-term masterplan for future development of the site. 6.220 The application under consideration would enable the existing biosolids handling operation to be undertaken in a more efficient and sustainable manner. It is considered that the additional development is relatively minor in the context of the whole site. 6.221 Applications reference C/7/2011/7016 and C/7/2011/7017 have both been considered in the context of the Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations in order to determine whether or not EIA is required. This included an assessment of the cumulative effect of the proposal, and not just the proposed changes or extension. It was concluded by officers that these ‘Schedule 2 Developments’ are not EIA development. 6.222 Concern is raised that the consultation response from the Environment Agency fails to disclose existing odour and air pollution thereby ignoring and concealing cumulative effects on health. 6.223 The Environment Agency has two major roles as an organisation. One is as a regulator and the other is as an advisor. The E.A.’s remit in the planning process is more limited than in their regulatory role, and as such, their planning comments relating to pollution prevention generally relate to risks to the water environment during the construction phase. Specifically the E.A. might comment upon the pollution control systems that need to be designed into the physical layout of the proposed development. In its response to this application, the E.A. has asked that measures are in place to prevent spillage of sludge from the conveyor belt before it reaches the pad. 6.224 As detailed elsewhere in section 6 of this report, the E.A., as the relevant pollution control authority, has been consulted on this application and has made no objection to the development. Based on the information provided with the application, South Norfolk Council EHO, and NHS Norfolk and Waveney Public Health Directorate have raised no objection to the development in terms of any potential pollution. It is therefore considered that there would be no significant cumulative amenity impacts. 6.225 The Council’s Landscape Officer has raised no objection to the scheme on landscape grounds. It is therefore considered that there would be no significant cumulative landscape impacts. 6.226 The Council’s Ecologist has raised no objection to the scheme on ecological grounds. It is therefore considered that there would be no significant cumulative ecology impacts. 6.227 There is no highway objection, and it is therefore considered that there would be no significant adverse impact in terms of cumulative harm from HGV movements. 6.228 It is therefore considered, taking into account the above, that this proposal is compliant with Policy DM15, and the government objectives of the NPPF. Other matters

6.229 Representation has been made such that there should be limits on further increase of the plant.

6.230 Sewerage undertakers are granted considerable permitted development rights under the General Permitted Development Order. Circular No. 11/95: The use of conditions in planning permissions states that, save in exceptional circumstances, conditions should not be imposed which restrict permitted development rights granted by development orders.

6.231 In order to protect the amenities of the surrounding area, planning permission reference C/7/1998/7021 was granted subject to a condition removing permitted development rights. This, of course, does not affect the remainder of the WwTW operational land which currently benefits from Permitted Development rights. The application under consideration does not seek the removal of this condition. A condition is recommended which requires removal of permitted development rights; as such, further proposals for plant on the application site would require permission.

7. Resource Implications

7.1 Finance : The development has no financial implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 7.2 Staff : The development has no staffing implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 7.3 Property : The development has no property implication from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 7.4 IT : The development has no IT implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective 8. Other Implications

8.1 Legal Implications : There are no legal implications

8.2 Appropriate Assessment : The nearest internationally protected sites are The Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Broadland Ramsar. The Council’s Ecologist confirms that the development will not have adverse effects on wildlife or features of these sites. In accordance with Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, the CPA considers that an Appropriate Assessment is not required. 8.3 Communications : There are no communication issues from a planning perspective. 8.4 Health and Safety Implications : There are no health and safety implications from a planning perspective. 8.5 Any other implications: Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account. 9. Risk Implications/Assessment

9.1 There are no issues from a planning perspective.

10. Conclusion and Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission

10.1 This is one of two planning applications in respect of storage of biosolids on an existing small concrete pad within Whitlingham Wastewater Treatment Works. The proposal under consideration is to vary conditions attached to the current planning permission for the pad. This has been submitted to accompany an application for an extension to the existing conveyor on the pad. 10.2 The application seeks to allow 24 hour operation of a proposed extended conveyor and to increase the height at which biosolids may be stored within the conveyor drop zone immediately below on the small concrete pad. 10.3 The County Council is currently in the process of producing a Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework. The NMWLDF Core Strategy was adopted in 2011. The application site is identified on the NMWLDF: CS Proposals Map as a key wastewater treatment site, for safeguarding purposes. 10.4 The scheme is consistent with the overarching thrust of PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management, in dealing with waste in a more sustainable manner. The biosolids handling operation provides treatment of sewage sludge to create an enhanced treated soil conditioning product. The proposal would enable the biosolids handling operation to be undertaken in a more efficient and sustainable manner. The application is therefore considered to comply with the aims and objectives of PPS10. 10.5 East of England Plan (2008) Policies WM1 and WM2 reinforce the objectives in PPS10 which promote the movement of waste management up the waste hierarchy, and to recover maximum resource value from waste produced. The RSS seeks to ensure the timely and adequate provision of facilities required for recovery and disposal of the region’s waste. The scheme would improve the efficiency of the existing biosolids handling operation at Whitlingham and is therefore considered to be compliant with policies WM1 and WM2. 10.6 The application site is situated within a long-established waste management facility. The site is considered to be well-related to the Norwich Policy Area and would manage waste arising from this area. The site is considered to be well related to the major road network and it is considered that the development will not have adverse effects on The Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Broadland Ramsar. It is therefore considered, taking into account the above, that this proposal is compliant with NMWLDF: CS Policy CS5, and the NPPF. 10.7 The application site comprises a small concrete pad located on land within the operational area of the works and already in waste management use. It is considered that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable environmental impacts. It is therefore considered taking into account the above that the proposal is compliant with NMWLDF: Core Strategy policy CS6. 10.8 Concern has been raised that the proposal does not accord with the aims of NMWLDF: Core Strategy policy CS11. The proposals are part of ongoing improvement works at Whitlingham WwTW to meet growth proposed within the Greater Norwich area and to improve the standard of treatment at the works. It is considered that the proposal would not cause unacceptable environmental, amenity and highways impacts. It is therefore considered, taking into account the above, that this development is compliant with NMWLDF: CS Policy CS11, and government objectives of the NPPF. 10.9 Concern has been expressed that the proposal is not compliant with NMWLDF: Core Strategy Policy CS12 which emphasises that future improvements to the WwTW will need to be planned carefully to minimise adverse environmental and amenity impacts, particularly on the Broads and nearby residents. It is considered that the proposal would not cause unacceptable environmental and amenity impacts. Concern is also raised that a longer-term vision for future development of the site has not been developed and agreed. The proposal is part of investment at Whitlingham WwTW, to improve the standard and efficiency of treatment, and ensure there is capacity to deal with proposed growth in the Greater Norwich area in a sustainable manner. On balance, it is considered taking into account the above that a case for refusal on grounds of conflict with policy CS12 and the NPPF would be difficult to substantiate. 10.10 Whitlingham WwTW is largely self-sufficient in terms of its energy demand. It is therefore considered, that the development is compliant with NMWLDF: Core Strategy Policy CS13 and government objectives of the NPPF. 10.11 Concern has been raised that the site is located in a sensitive landscape setting, that the application site is visible, and about the impact on local biodiversity and the natural environment. It is considered that this development will not have an adverse impact upon the character and quality of the landscape, biodiversity, locally designated nature conservation sites or residential amenity. As such, the proposal is considered compliant with the aims of NMWLDF: CS policies CS14 and DM1, South Norfolk Local Plan Saved Policy ENV6, and the government objectives of the NPPF. 10.12 It is considered that the development will not have adverse effects on wildlife or features of The Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Broadland Ramsar. In accordance with Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, it is considered that an Appropriate Assessment is not required. 10.13 Continuous operation of the conveyor extension and discharge onto the northern section of the pad would remove the need for movement of biosolids by tractor between the two sections of the pad, which also involves movement along the private access road. Whilst not directly attributable to this proposal, there will be a slight reduction in overall numbers of vehicles needed to take cake from the small pad because of the cessation in the use of lime to treat biosolids. Taking into account the above, the proposal is considered compliant with the aims of NMWLDF: CS policies CS15 and DM10, and the NPPF. 10.14 The site is located within Groundwater Source Protection Zone 2. The Environment Agency has raised no objections, therefore the scheme is considered compliant with NMWLDF: CS policy DM3. 10.15 The site is situated within the consultation area for Norwich International Airport. The airport has raised no safeguarding objection. It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable under NMWLDF: CS policy DM7. 10.16 The proposed conveyor extension is of a functional design in keeping with its purpose. The design of the scheme is considered acceptable in the context of the site. It is considered that the development accords with the design and landscape principles set out in policy DM8 of the NMWLDF CS, and the NPPF. 10.17 The application site is not located within or adjacent to any identified conservation area. A ruined, Grade II listed church building is located some 320 metres north of the pad. The Council’s Historic Environment Service considers that the development will have no impact on the setting of the building. As such, it is considered by the CPA that the development is consistent with NMWLDF: CS policy DM9 and also accords with the requirements of the NPPF. 10.18 Concern is raised that the proposal would not result in sustainable development. The proposal would enable an existing biosolids handling operation to be undertaken in a more efficient and sustainable manner, and is therefore considered to be consistent with NMWLDF: CS policy DM11, and the aims and objectives of the NPPF. 10.19 With regard to impact on amenity, strong concern has been expressed regarding impacts arising from odour, bioaerosols and noise. The biosolids handling operation is already covered by an Environmental Permit, which considers emissions that will arise during operation of the site. The E.A., as the relevant pollution control authority, South Norfolk Council EHO, and NHS Norfolk and Waveney Public Health Directorate have raised no objection to the development. Accordingly, it is considered by the CPA that unacceptable impact to local amenity will not arise from the development, and the proposal is in accordance with policy DM12 of the NMWLDF: CS, and the NPPF. 10.20 As regards air quality, concern has been raised about air pollution from operations at the WwTW including the small pad. South Norfolk Council EHO has raised no objection, on air quality grounds. It is considered that the development is compliant with NMWLDF: CS policy DM13 and the NPPF. 10.21 Concern has been raised regarding the cumulative impact of a number of separate applications in respect of Whitlingham WwTW, in the absence of a long-term plan for future development of the site. The proposal would enable the existing biosolids handling operation to be undertaken in a more efficient and sustainable manner. It is considered that the additional development is relatively minor in the context of the whole site and there would be no significant cumulative amenity, landscape or ecology impacts. It is therefore considered, taking into account the above, that this proposal is compliant with NMWLDF: CS Policy DM15, and the NPPF. 10.22 The local objections set out in this report are strongly held, however, given the above it is considered that on balance the proposal is in accordance with national and regional planning policies, and the development plan, and conditional planning permission should be granted for the proposed development. 11. Conditions 11.1 It is recommended that planning permission shall be granted subject to conditions including: a) The development hereby permitted shall commence not later than three years from the date of this permission. Within seven days of the commencement of operations, the operator shall notify the County Planning Authority in writing of the exact starting date.

Reason:

Imposed in accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. b) Except as modified by the contents of the letter from Bidwells to Environment, Transport, Development dated 15 June 2012,

the development hereby permitted shall not take place except in accordance with the application form, plans, drawings and other documents and details submitted, as detailed below:

- Drawing No. SEW - 05839 - WHITST – 2G – PLG – 120 – Revision B – Planning Application, Cake Bay, Sludge Stack Height Plan – dated 10/09/09;

- Planning Supporting Statement – Anglian Water Services Limited, Small Concrete Pad, Whitlingham Wastewater Treatment Works, Kirby Bedon – dated August 2011;

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. c) No material other than processed sewage sludge cake shall be brought onto the site. Reason: To protect the amenity of residential properties, in accordance with Policy DM12 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. d) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, as amended, no further buildings, plant or machinery, nor structures of the nature of plant or machinery other than that permitted under planning permission reference C/7/2011/7017, shall be erected on the site, except with permission granted on an application under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Reason: To control possible future development which would otherwise be permitted but which may have a detrimental effect on amenity or safety. e) With the exception of the 24 hour operation of the extended conveyor and stacking of material within the drop zone directly underneath it as determined by applications C/7/2011/7016 and C/7/2011/7017, no operation authorised or required under this planning permission shall take place on Sundays or public holidays, or other than during the following periods:- 07.45 -21.45 Mondays to Saturdays Reason: To protect the amenity of residential properties, in accordance with Policy DM12 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. f) No sewage sludge cake shall be stacked or deposited within the drop zone of the conveyor as defined by applications C/7/2011/7016 and C/7/2011/7017 such that its height exceeds 4 metres above its base level, or such that its height exceeds 1 metre above its base level on the remainder of the small pad, as shown on submitted Drawing No. SEW-05839-WHITST-2G-PLG-120 Revision B. Reason: To protect the amenity of residential properties, in accordance with Policy DM12 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. g) The site area shall be drained and discharged to a positive system. Reason: To safeguard hydrological interests, in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. h) Vehicles leaving the site shall not be in a condition whereby they would deposit mud or other loose material on the public highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy DM10 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. i) No external lighting shall be installed on the site except with the prior approval of the County Planning Authority and shall thereafter be maintained such that it will not cause glare beyond the site boundaries. Reason: To protect the amenity of residential properties, in accordance with Policy DM12 of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2010-2026. Recommendation

It is recommended that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to : (i) Grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in Section 11 above. (ii) Discharge conditions where those detailed above require the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commences, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted or at any other period; and (iii) Deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

Background Papers Application file reference: C/7/2011/7016 Norfolk Minerals and Waste LDF Core Strategy (2011) Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (2011) South Norfolk Local Plan (2003) Saved Policies The Regional Spatial Strategy East of England Plan (2008) National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework

Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management

Officer Contact

If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with: Name Telephone Number Email address

Andrew Harriss 01603 224147 [email protected]

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact 0344 800 8020 and ask for Andrew Harriss or textphone 0344 800 8011 and we will do our best to help.

±

The Application Site

© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100019340, 24 September 2012 0 500 1,000 2,000 Metres 24 September 2012

C/7/2011/7016 - Whitlingham Waste Water Treatment Works

Kirby Bedon Scale 1: 50000 Centred on 627889 306842 Planning (Regulatory) Committee

Item No.

Applications referred to Committee for Determination South Norfolk District C/7/2011/7017: Kirby Bedon: Whitlingham Wastewater Treatment Works, Kirby Road: 7.75 metres extension to existing conveyor on small concrete pad (8.3 metres in total including mounted geared motor unit): Anglian Water Services Limited

Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

Summary This is one of two planning applications in respect of storage of biosolids on an existing small concrete pad within Whitlingham Wastewater Treatment Works. The proposal under consideration is for an extension to the existing conveyor on the pad. This has been submitted to accompany an application to vary two conditions attached to the current planning permission for storage of biosolids on the pad. The proposed extension of the conveyor would improve the efficiency of the existing biosolids handling operation at Whitlingham WwTW and remove the need for double handling of biosolids and additional vehicle movements as at present. The two applications are intrinsic as the proposed conveyor extension is dependant upon the proposed variation to the operating conditions - the present planning conditions on the pad mean that it would not be possible to operate the conveyor extension unless these are varied. No objections have been raised by statutory consultees. However, 11 letters of objection, one letter of representation and a petition signed by 16 employees of a local business have been received. Objections and concerns are raised on a number of grounds, primarily odour and bio-aerosols, but also including noise and lack of long-term vision for the WwTW. The application has been considered in accordance with all relevant planning policy provision and, on balance, it is recommended that permission is granted. Recommendation It is recommended that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to:

(i.) Grant planning permission subject to conditions outlined in Section 11;

(ii.) Discharge conditions where those detailed above require the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commences, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted or at any other period; and

(iii.) Deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

1. The Proposal

1.1 Location : Existing concrete hardstanding in western part of Whitlingham WwTW, Kirby Bedon. 1.2 Type of Development : 7.75 metres extension to existing conveyor (8.3 metres in total including mounted geared motor unit) 1.3 Total Site Area : 0.045 ha

1.4 Annual Operational throughput : 21,000 tonnes

1.5 Duration : permanent

1.6 Plant : Conveyor

1.7 Hours of Working : Operation of extended conveyor and stacking of material within drop zone directly underneath it (as per accompanying application reference C/7/2011/7016): 24 hour operation 1.8 Access : Via existing private road to Kirby Bedon Road (C202 / C577) to the A146 / A47. 2. Constraints

2.1 The development lies within an area designated in the South Norfolk Local Plan as the Norwich Southern Bypass Landscape Protection Zone. 2.2 The A47 Trunk road is located approximately 330 metres north of the development. 2.3 A County Wildlife Site (CWS 279: Whitlingham Fen) is located approximately 465 metres to the east of the development.

2.4 A County Wildlife Site (CWS 2212: Whitlingham Marsh) is located approximately 400 metres north of the development.

2.5 Whitlingham Marsh LNR is situated approximately 370m north of the development.

2.6 The Broads Authority’s Executive Area is some 200m north of the development.

2.7 The development is situated within the consultation area for Norwich International Airport – but no impact.

2.8 The development is situated within the Norwich Fringe Project Area.

2.9 The development is located within 5km of the Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Broadland Ramsar – it has been assessed that the development will not cause disturbance to these sites.

2.10 Mid Yare National Nature Reserve is situated some 2.7km east of the development.

2.11 The Yare Broads & Marshes SSSI is situated some 2.7km east of the development.

2.12 A public bridleway (Kirby Bedon Bridleway 8) which also forms part of the Wherrymans Way Walk and Sustrans national cycle network runs along the access road to the WwTW, to join with Kirby Road to the south.

2.13 The western end of a public bridleway (Kirby Bedon Bridleway 4) joins up with that section of Kirby Bedon Bridleway 8 to the south of the development.

2.14 The northern end of a public footpath (Kirby Bedon Footpath 3) joins up with that section of Kirby Bedon Bridleway 8 to the south east of the development.

2.15 The development is situated within Groundwater Protection Zone 2.

2.16 Controlled Water - the River Yare is situated some 560m north of the development.

2.17 Agricultural Land Grade – the development is located on operational land within the Wastewater Treatment Works.

2.18 The ruined Church of St.Andrew, Whitlingham Lane, Kirby Bedon, a Grade II listed building is located some 410 metres north of the development.

3. Planning History

3.1 There has been a sewage treatment facility at Whitlingham since 1830 with the first settling tanks constructed in 1908. A modern Sewage Treatment Works has developed on the site since the mid 1950s. 3.2 The planning history of the WwTW, from the County Council, is detailed below:

3.3 C/7/1993/7010: Waste Treatment Centre: Permitted 1994 Permission subject to a Section 106 Agreement in respect of number of vehicles delivering waste to the waste treatment centre, volume of waste input and routeing of vehicles to and from the waste treatment centre. 3.4 C/7/1998/7021: Change of use of hardstanding area from car storage area to use of land for storage of sewage sludge cake. Permitted 1999 3.5 C/7/2003/7010: Biological phosphorous removal plant. Permitted 2003

3.6 C/7/2007/7008: Bio-solids treatment centre (CAMBI facility). Permitted 2007

3.7 In 2008, application reference C/7/2008/7003 for variation of Conditions 4 & 5 of PP C/7/1998/7021 to allow for 24 hr working, increase in height of stacked sludge cake from 1m to 4m and erection of a conveyor was submitted; following confusion by local residents and landowners over its intentions this was subsequently withdrawn in 2011. 3.8 C/7/2008/7020: GRP kiosk to house ferric dosing equipment and steel container to house blower. Permitted 2008 3.9 C/7/2008/7043: Retrospective permission for extension to existing waste treatment centre and increase liquid waste input. Permitted 2010 Permission subject to S106 Agreement in respect of number of waste deliveries by Heavy Commercial Vehicles to waste treatment centre and routeing of Heavy Commercial Vehicles to and from waste treatment centre. 3.10 C/7/2010/7021: MCC kiosk in association with SHARON plant. Permitted 2011

3.11 C/7/2011/7013: Retrospective permission for retention of concrete pad and use of pad for co-composting and phyto-conditioning. Permitted 2012 This permission is subject to a Section 106 Agreement in respect of vehicle routeing, and maintenance of the proposed surface water scheme. Permitted development

3.12 Certain types of development can take place at sewage treatment works without the need for a planning application under permitted development rights afforded to Statutory Sewerage Undertakers such as Anglian Water, set down within the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order. In addition to extensions in accordance with the various planning permissions, the works has also been extended in accordance with developments undertaken under permitted development rights. 4. Planning Policy

4.1 The Regional Spatial Strategy: : WM1: Waste Management Objectives East of England Plan (2008) WM2: Waste Management Targets 4.2 Adopted Norfolk Structure Plan : No relevant saved planning policies (1999) Saved Policies 4.3 Norfolk Minerals and Waste : CS5: General location of waste Core Strategy (2011) management facilities CS6: General waste management considerations CS11: Waste water/sewage infrastructure and treatment facilities CS12: Whitlingham Waste Water Treatment Works CS13: Climate change and renewable energy generation CS14: Environmental protection CS15: Transport DM1: Nature conservation DM3: Groundwater and surface water DM7: Safeguarding aerodromes DM8: Design, local landscape and townscape character DM9: Archaeological sites DM10: Transport DM11: Sustainable construction and operations DM12: Amenity DM13: Air Quality DM15: Cumulative impacts 4.4 Joint Core Strategy for : Policy 3: Energy and water Broadland, Norwich and South Policy 10: Locations for major new or Norfolk (Adopted March 2011) expanded communities in the Norwich Policy Area. 4.5 South Norfolk Local Plan (March : ENV 6: Areas which contribute to 2003) Saved Policies maintain the landscape setting of the Southern Bypass of the city 4.6 Government Planning Policy : National Planning Policy Framework Statements (2012) 1. Building a strong, competitive economy 3. Supporting a prosperous rural economy 4. Promoting sustainable transport 7. Requiring good design 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework

Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management

5. Consultations

5.1 South Norfolk District Council : No objection. Comment that the extension to the conveyor belt is of a relatively small scale well away from any residential properties and in a position that will have little impact on any public views. 5.2 Broadland District Council: : To be reported orally.

5.3 South Norfolk District Council : No objections; comment that: Environmental Health/Protection  The application area covers a part of the small pad that is well away from the nearest residences, thus minimising adverse noise impacts;  The 24 hours use is intended for the conveyor and ‘drop zone’ arc beneath it;  The potentially more noisy biosolids transportation is still limited to 07:45-21:45 hours Monday to Saturday 5.4 Kirby Bedon Parish Council : No objection, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conditions on hours of Opening It is proposed that there will be biosolid transportation until 21:45 Monday to Saturday. This is unreasonably late for young children in nearby houses trying to sleep. As well as noise of vehicles, there may be reversing warning sirens on loaders, tractors and trailers. It would be unreasonable for these to operate after 18.00 at night. 2. Limits on further increase of the plant If the maximum annual operational throughput should increase in future, further planning permission will have to be sought. This could be a limiting factor for any further increase of the plant. 3. Controls on odours Digested cake may be less odorous, but it will still be odorous. Storage of biosolids up to 4m in height (i.e. above the 1.2m storage wall) could cause problems as it falls off the end of the conveyor, with odour being transported by the wind. 4. Controls on movement of cake after 18.00 at night Movement of cake from drop zone to remainder of pad may involve use of large shovel with reversing bleepers. This would be unreasonable after 18.00 at night. Comment that, not true to say that site cannot be seen from public road, public footpath, bridleway or other public land. Site is clearly visible from a public bridleway which forms part of Wherryman’s Way and Sustrans Cycle Route. 5.5 Broads Authority : No formal comments to make; the Broads Authority is satisfied that this application would have no significant impact on the setting of the Broads area. 5.6 Environment Agency : No objection. Ask that measures are in place to prevent spillage of sludge from the conveyor before it reaches the designated pad. 5.7 Highway Authority (NCC) : No objection.

5.8 Principal Landscape and Trees : No objection. Officer (NCC) 5.9 Ecologist (NCC) : Nature Conservation No objection.

Habitat Regulations Concludes that the development will not cause disturbance to the Broads SAC, Broadland SPA or Broadland Ramsar. 5.10 Public Rights of Way Officer : No objections (NCC) 5.11 Norfolk Historic Environment : Archaeological interest: Service (NCC) No implications for historic environment Heritage Assets: No impact on setting of remains of Whitlingham Church. 5.12 Norfolk Wildlife Trust : To be reported orally

5.13 Norwich International Airport : No safeguarding objections, subject to development being constructed as shown on drawings and plans attached to application, at OSGB grid coordinates indicated. 5.14 NHS Norfolk and Waveney : No objection. Public Health Directorate Main concerns would be in relation to noise from 24 hour operation and potential for increased windblown particulates and/or bioaerosols resulting from the increased conveyor height. Understand the material to be lifted is treated sludge cake which is relatively inert both physically and biologically and this part of the operation will be controlled by the revised management plan to be agreed with the EA. In relation to noise,…feeling is that any risk to human health resulting from these operations would be low with the controls currently in place. 5.15 Third party representations : 12 letters of representation have been received, comprising the following:- One letter of objection has been received from a local resident; One letter of objection has been received from a local business; 9 letters of objection and one letter of representation have been received from three local landowners (one landowner has written eight times). A petition signed by 16 employees of a local business (Able Community Care Ltd) has been received. Objections and comments are made on the following grounds (which are summarised). Removal of conditions In 1998 operations at the STW were more modest but even then due to this pad being so close to adjacent private property it was decided planning conditions were a necessary protection and it (is) those protective conditions which the applicant now seeks to remove. Small pad is in very sensitive position already causing serious harm to adjacent occupiers, please ensure original safeguards imposed in 1999 to protect local health and amenity remain in place and if anything strengthened. Increase in stacking height of sludge Concern with increase in height of storage of sludge cake and change to 24 hour working. When wet, the sludge cake becomes very foul and can flow from its storage place, as has happened on this storage area before. On that occasion, the material flowed into the garden of Whitlingham Hall. There is a containment wall but it would not necessarily be sufficient to hold back a four metre heap of sludge cake if it became fluid. Odour / noise / light pollution / traffic disturbance To carry out movement of waste and stockpiling it to 4m high under an extended elevator working day and night, near the boundary of the site in the most sensitive area is a violation of one’s reasonable rights to peaceful living. Application is misleading; it only includes the stocking area when 24 hrs of continuous input affects the whole pad, will involve more tractor movements to spread it and more pollution and odour. I regularly work at the adjacent Whitlingham Barns. The proposal appears to intensify and move closer the operations of A.W. Fail to see how extended use for 24 hrs will not mean an increase in output, and therefore increased odours which are already intolerable at times. The smell seems to be worst when material is moved and building a tower of manure 24 hrs a day, every day, 4m high on top of a hill open on all sides does not seem conducive to solving the problem. This deposit will have to be moved outwards to the rest of the pad and will no doubt require a tractor and loader, (with endless reversing bleeps) causing further intrusion from smell and noise. This material could easily be dropped into trailers and carted further away from sensitive receptors. Application fails to consider odour or air pollution from small pad operation, only 50m from sensitive receptors. How can this be allowed when A.W. is already a nuisance to us?

There will obviously have to be lighting and then there is the noise to consider.

This is our Family home and I am sure no one would like to put up with what we have had to.

24hr operation would threaten nearby residential amenity by noise, light pollution and traffic disturbance in the evenings and at night. Extending elevator (probably illuminated) in such close proximity to residential property and in a prominent skyline position would be a further damaging intrusion into the landscape and further loss of amenity affecting lives of adjacent occupiers. The situation here is a STW already producing odour at an unacceptable level within 250m of dwellings and workplaces and Bio-aerosol assessments which exceed guidance limits and have already caused health problems and closure of the Nursery. Bio-aerosols / Pollutants Recent changes at the STW have drastically added to odour and air pollution; Whitlingham Nursery is now a dangerous workplace with its use seriously affected and now temporarily closed as a result Application does not provide required buffer zone of 250m from Whitlingham Hall or from adjacent Nursery which has become an unacceptable place for anyone with breathing problems to work. Legislation is clear that 250m is minimum distance for such a waste operation to be located from a residence or workplace.

Understand there are requirements regarding safety of others when considering this type of application. Able Community Care employs 18 persons within the “radius of precautionary safety” required by existing statutes.

Understand there is possibility of microscopic airborne pollutants being produced as a consequence of processing of this waste material. Our location (The Old Parish Rooms) will put us inside the plume area of this outfall.

A 4m high stockpile on this high exposed site will attract more windage spreading odour and bio-aerosols even further.

Dropping of waste by elevator on to small pad is another disturbance of waste only yards from Nursery employment area.

Has there been a bio-aerosols assessment to see what potential air pollution is likely by increasing height of stockpile?

Environment Agency response The E.A. response fails to disclose existing odour and air pollution thereby ignoring and concealing cumulative affects on health and Core Waste Policy to minimise at planning stage impact on nearby dwellings, (also the Nursery and likewise affected business). The E.A. are only considering individual applications and ignore overall assessment of the whole site. The E.A. consultation response ignored core policies.

Hours of working If application was for efficiency there would be no need to extend operational times, as it could be done in shorter time. Visual amenity We will be able to see this from our windows. Landscape STW is located in sensitive landscape setting in Yare valley. Application site is on brow of valley side and is visible from north, west and east. Alternatives Applicant has an exceptionally large site and should be following the core planning policy for waste which is that non- compatible uses should be kept apart and protected from each other. This operation should be done further away in an alternative location. CO2 Emissions / Waste Type Surely a guiding principle of all waste processing is that it be carried out as close to source as possible. In this case tanker lorries bring in waste from Peterborough, Southend or sometimes from further afield. Where does this leave supposed concern in limiting CO2 emissions, and what is nature of material such that it cannot be safely disposed of closer to home.

Sustainability Grant of permission would not result in sustainable development as it is likely to be harmful to sensitive landscape setting and impact negatively on health and quality of life of existing and future residents. Intensification Evidence should be provided on impact on residential and visual amenity of local dwellings, on local biodiversity and natural environment, on Whitlingham Country Park and landscape generally.

Cumulative Impact Have several concerns regarding continued expansion in volume and scope of industrial scale waste processing activities on this site. These applications breach all guidelines intended for purpose of protecting health and safety of people obliged to live and work adjacent to this sort of activity.

Extent of operational land was shown on application C/7/1998/7021. Since that time greatly increased areas are being claimed as operational land and there has been massive expansion in role of Whitlingham STW without any overall planning assessment as to suitability of the site. Expansion is resulting in greatly increased air pollution and odour from which adjacent properties now suffer and need more protection. There is an outstanding Abatement Notice which indicates the size of the problem. Longer-term vision for Whitlingham WwTW An overall problem of this developing activity on this site is piecemeal way in which you are being asked to consider the final overall completed project. There is clear case for you to seek judicial review – to relieve you of your obligation to respond to otherwise legal planning applications within usual legal time frame. NMWLDF: Core Strategy

CS Policy CS7 Policy CS7 states composting will be considered favourably but only with clear evidence of no environmental or amenity impacts at dwellings and workplaces within 250 metres. 24 hour working will further damage amenity

CS Policy CS11 Policy CS11 requires reduction of environmental impact of operation. The conditions imposed on PP C/7/1998/7021 are intended to protect against impact of operation and in such close proximity to dwellings it is essential this remains. CS Policy CS12 Concerned about way in which A.W. continues to promote piecemeal approach to development and expansion of this site. This approach is contrary to aims of Policy CS12.

Policy CS12 encourages A.W. to develop and agree longer-term vision for Whitlingham WwTW. As far as I am aware this has not been done.

As stated in CS para 6.58, it is difficult to assess strategic significance of individual proposals, and cumulative impact of a number of separate (but linked) applications in absence of a longer-term masterplan or vision for future development of the site.

CS para 6.62 states, a more detailed policy setting out considerations for future development of the site will be included in the Waste Site Specific Allocations DPD, with the aim of minimising impact on nearby dwellings and Broads area. The development approach demonstrated through these and other recent applications shows no regard to these aims. CS para 6.62 specifically refers to Whitlingham WwTW and states aim is to minimise impact on nearby dwellings. Removal of protective planning conditions on small pad and 24hr working will add to existing damage to amenity, which is already occurring. CS Para 6.81 CS para 6.81 states it is necessary to ensure that issues of compatibility across differing forms of development are taken into account in the planning process (not the Environmental Permit stage). Additional information The following information is considered to be key in determining further applications for development on this site:  Advice from relevant health authority confirming likely impact on health of neighbouring residents and staff of neighbouring businesses as recommended by PPS10.  Details clarifying intensification of operations would not lead to statutory or other nuisance.  Longer-term strategic plan outlining details and impact of anticipated development and growth of Whitlingham WwTW. The petition signed by employees of Able Community Care has raised objection on the following grounds:- We work at The Old Parish Rooms, Whitlingham Lane, Trowse and are already seriously affected by smell and air pollution from this nearby pad area.

We ask for protection from the existing situation and for the sake of our health that there be no relaxation of control or variation of waste operations allowed on a site so close to our place of work. 5.16 County Councillor R Smith : No comments to make. (Henstead) 6. Assessment

Site : 6.1 Whitlingham Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) lies within the Yare Valley south east of Norwich and primarily serves Norwich and the surrounding area. 6.2 The development is located on a small biosolids handling area situated on a concrete pad positioned to the west of the main treatment works. The pad, which was constructed in the 1970s, consists of two distinct sections divided by a 1.2m high concrete wall. 6.3 The southern section (measuring some 40m x 48m) consists of the cake liming area including the existing conveyor. This section enjoys permitted development rights afforded to sewerage undertakers. 6.4 The northern section, (measuring some 40m x 110m) over which the proposed conveyor extension would overhang is used for biosolids storage. This section is bounded by a 1.2m high concrete wall and wire security fencing to approximately 2.5m high. Wooden acoustic fencing has also been erected around the perimeter of the pad nearest Whitlingham Hall. The northern section of the pad has been subject to various planning applications subsequent to its construction and has had permitted development rights removed. 6.5 In 1983 South Norfolk Council granted temporary planning permission for change of use of the (northern section of the) concrete pad from sewerage undertakers operational land to use of Iand for storage of new cars (7/83/3118/CU).This was in response to problems being experienced by a local car dealer in finding sufficient storage capacity for new vehicles on its existing site. Permission was renewed for a further five years in 1986 and granted on a permanent basis in October 1991 (7/91/1229/CU). 6.6 There was no storage of cars on the site after late 1995 and in 1999 Norfolk County Council granted planning permission (ref. C/7/1998/7021) to A.W. for change of use of the site from car storage area to storage of sewage sludge cake. The minutes of the meeting of 22nd January 1999 of the Planning Sub- Committee, at which application reference C/7/1998/7021 was determined, detail that it was resolved, “That planning permission be granted subject to conditions including details of bund wall and drainage and removal of permitted development rights.” 6.7 Permission reference C/7/1998/7021 was subject to the following conditions relevant to the current proposal:  Condition 3: removal of permitted development rights  Condition 4: restriction of hours of operation to 07.45 – 21.45 Mondays to Saturdays  Condition 5: restriction of height of stacked or deposited biosolids to 1m 6.8 As regards condition 3, this was imposed to protect the amenities of the surrounding area. Permitted development rights are withdrawn to control possible future development which would otherwise be permitted but which may have a detrimental effect on amenity or safety. 6.9 As regards the requirements of condition 4, this reflects the applicant’s proposed days and hours of working, and was imposed to ensure orderly working in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area. 6.10 As regards condition 5, this was imposed to safeguard hydrological interests. (The pad is bounded by a 1.2m high concrete wall). 6.11 The nearest residential properties are Whitlingham Hall, approximately 140 metres to the north west of the development, below an embankment, and a row of residential properties located some 400 metres west of the development. 6.12 The nearest workplace is Able Community Care whose premises are some 190m north west of the development. Whitlingham Tree Nursery is situated some 175m to the west of the development. 6.13 Access to the development is obtained from the existing private concrete road into the WwTW from Kirby Road. Kirby Road provides a connection to the A146 and A47 Southern Bypass some 2.4km from the works entrance. Proposal : 6.14 This application is for a 7.75m extension to the existing conveyor on the southern section of the pad (8.3m in total including mounted geared motor unit), to overhang the northern section of the pad. The conveyor would slew in an arc to deposit a crescent-shaped stockpile of material. 6.15 The extension to the conveyor has already been installed on the southern section of the pad. As erection of plant and machinery, this work has been undertaken under the permitted development rights afforded to sewerage undertakers. The conveyor extension currently discharges into trailers on the southern section of the pad. 6.16 In order to deposit material directly onto the drop zone on the northern section of the pad, the slewing conveyor would have to overhang this section. However, the removal of the permitted development rights from the northern section of the pad means that an application must be made for that section of the slewing conveyor which would overhang the northern section of the pad. 6.17 This application is in conjunction with a separate planning application, submitted concurrently, to vary condition numbers 4 and 5 of planning permission reference C/7/1998/7021 to enable the material deposited by the extended conveyor to rise to a maximum of 4m within the drop zone on the pad directly underneath the conveyor, on a continuous basis. 6.18 The two applications are intrinsic as the extension to the conveyor can only operate successfully and efficiently with the proposed variation to the operating conditions - the present planning conditions on the northern section of the pad mean that it would not be possible to operate the proposed conveyor extension unless these are varied. 6.19 It is against the background of the removal of permitted development rights on the northern section of the pad that these two applications have been made. Need

6.20 A.W. indicates that the developments proposed under the two applications under consideration are an integral part of an on-going £23.5 million investment at Whitlingham to improve the standard and efficiency of treatment at the WwTW, which has included the construction of the CAMBI plant (to provide an enhanced, anaerobic sludge digestion process) and SHARON plant (for treatment of the liquid effluent resulting from the CAMBI process). 6.21 Sludge cake processed at Whitlingham WwTW has until very recently undergone a process whereby lime is added to the cake to destroy pathogens in order that it can safely be taken off site for agricultural use. This process was undertaken on the southern section of the small concrete pad. Cake arrived at the pad by conveyor where lime was added to it. The resultant limed cake was then moved by tractor to the northern section of the pad and left until despatched off site to an appropriate agricultural destination. 6.22 This caused difficulties at certain times of the year due to a number of factors including weather and cropping cycles. Limed cake is not universally suitable as a soil conditioner because of its elevated alkalinity value. There was sometimes a need to store limed cake on site for extensive periods until suitable outlets were available. 6.23 The recent opening of the CAMBI plant means the biosolids do not require lime treatment. No limed cake is intended to be produced in the future, although the liming plant will be retained to cover plant breakdown or maintenance. 6.24 Biosolids treatment at Whitlingham is a continuous process. At present sludge cake is discharged from the existing conveyor, which operates on a 24 hour basis, into trailers on the southern section of the pad which have to be continually towed away and emptied on the northern section. 6.25 Extension of the conveyor so as to overhang the northern section of the pad would improve the efficiency of the existing biosolids handling operation at Whitlingham and remove the need for double handling of biosolids and additional vehicle movements as at present. Principle of Development 6.26 A basic principle when assessing planning applications is outlined in Section 38(6) of the Town and Country Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which states: “if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

6.27 In terms of the development plan, the County Planning Authority considers the relevant documents in relation to this application are the policies in the Regional Spatial Strategy: The East of England Plan (2008), the adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy (2011), the adopted Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (2011), and the saved Development Control policies contained within the South Norfolk Local Plan (2003). 6.28 Whilst the development is shown in the South Norfolk Local Plan (2003) proposals map as lying within an area identified as contributing to and maintaining the setting of the Norwich southern bypass landscape protection zone, Whitlingham WwTW is a long-established waste management facility. The principle of the use of the site for the purpose of carrying on a sewerage undertaking was assessed in 1999 and was considered acceptable. 6.29 The application site is designated in the NMWLDF: Core Strategy Proposals Map as a key wastewater treatment site, for safeguarding purposes. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 6.30 DCLG published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 27 March 2012. With the exception of PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management, every other Planning Policy Statement (PPS) and Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) has been replaced by the NPPF. The NPPF does not contain specific waste policies, as national waste planning policy will be published as part of the National Waste Management Plan for England. The NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions. PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management

6.31 PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management, underlines that the planning system is pivotal to the adequate and timely provision of new waste facilities and sets out the Government’s strategy for sustainable waste management. 6.32 PPS10 includes key planning objectives, which include the principle of “driving waste management up the waste hierarchy” which means that WPAs should always try to ensure that waste is managed by the best possible environmental means, represented by the highest levels of the hierarchy, i.e. prevention, re- use and recycling. The biosolids handling operation at Whitlingham provides treatment of sewage sludge to create an enhanced treated soil conditioning product, suitable for agriculture. The proposal would remove the need for double handling of biosolids and additional vehicle movements as at present, and enable the biosolids handling operation to be undertaken in a more efficient and sustainable manner. 6.33 A further key planning objective of PPS10 is to enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations. This requirement is often referred to as ‘the proximity principle’. The proximity principle requires waste to be disposed of as close to the place of production as possible. This avoids passing the environmental costs of waste management to communities which are not responsible for its generation, and reduces the environmental costs of transporting waste. 6.34 In addition to handling sewage from Norwich and the surrounding rural area, Whitlingham WwTW also takes in sewage waste for treatment from a wider area including from outside Norfolk. Paragraph 11.4 of the RSS: East of England Plan acknowledges that some waste movements will be necessary to allow for processing and disposal at appropriate facilities, and the strategic significance of the works for Norfolk and Greater Norwich as well as its wider sub-regional role is recognised by Policy CS12 of the Adopted NMWLDF Core Strategy. 6.35 PPS10 states that, “when proposals are consistent with an up-to-date development plan, WPAs should not require applicants for new or enhanced waste management facilities to demonstrate a quantitative or market need for their proposal”. The principal consideration should relate to the location and the impact of the development. As detailed elsewhere in section 6 of this report, which assesses the development in relation to the relevant policies of the NMWLDF: Core Strategy, it is considered that the proposed development is fully compliant with these requirements. 6.36 Taking into account the above, the scheme is consistent with the overarching thrust of PPS10 in dealing with waste in a more sustainable manner. The application is therefore considered to comply with the aims and objectives of PPS10. The Regional Spatial Strategy: The East of England Plan (2008)

6.37 East of England Plan (2008) Policies WM1 and WM2 reinforce the objectives in PPS10 which promote movement of waste management up the waste hierarchy, and to recover maximum resource value from waste produced. The RSS seeks to ensure the timely and adequate provision of facilities required for recovery and disposal of the region’s waste. The scheme would improve the efficiency of the existing biosolids handling operation at Whitlingham and is therefore considered to be compliant with policies WM1 and WM2. General location of waste management facilities

6.38 The NPPF sets out how planning should operate to encourage sustainable economic growth. The NMWLDF Core Strategy seeks to meet the needs of the economy for waste management facilities. 6.39 The proximity principle forms part of the NMWLDF Core Strategy, which, in policy CS5 seeks to locate “strategic” or “major” sites in the areas and settlements named. The application is in respect of storage of biosolids on an existing small concrete pad within Whitlingham WwTW, a long-established waste management facility. As detailed elsewhere in section 6 of this report, the NMWLDF: CS acknowledges that Whitlingham WwTW serves not only the City of Norwich and the surrounding rural area but also takes in sewage wastes for treatment from a wider area (including from outside Norfolk). 6.40 Policy CS5 further states: “…waste water treatment sites can normally only be located on or adjacent to watercourses, so they will normally only be acceptable in such locations…. Whilst every…planning application will be considered on its own merits, significant international ecological and national landscape constraints affecting the four main Norfolk settlements are detailed below… . Norwich Policy Area: The valley of the River Yare falls within the Broads, which has a status equivalent to that of a National Park. On the eastern edge of the NPA, the river valley is also classed as the Broadland SPA and Broads SAC…There is therefore a preference for new waste management facilities away from the…Yare valley areas and the Broads area.” 6.41 Whilst this proposal is situated within the Yare valley, in close proximity to the Broads area, Whitlingham WwTW is a long-established waste management facility and the additional development is considered relatively minor in the context of the whole. NMWLDF CS policy CS5 accepts that waste water treatment sites can normally only be located on or adjacent to watercourses. 6.42 Sewerage undertakers are granted considerable permitted development rights under the General Permitted Development Order and it is only as a result of exceptional circumstances that an application for planning consent is necessary. 6.43 Whilst the site lies outside the defined development limit in the South Norfolk Local Plan, the application site is on operational land within Whitlingham WwTW, an existing waste management facility. It should be noted that the South Norfolk Local Plan has not been formulated to specifically address waste development and as such the NMWLDF: Core Strategy is considered to be the most eminent policy document for assessment of the proposal. The application site is designated in the NMWLDF: CS Proposals Map as a key wastewater treatment site. 6.44 The site is situated within the Norwich Policy Area as designated on the NMWLDF: Core Strategy Key Diagram. Whitlingham WwTW handles the sewage from Norwich and the surrounding rural area. As such the site is considered to be well-related to the Norwich Policy Area and would manage waste arising from this policy area. 6.45 The site is positioned on the Whitlingham WwTW, lying south of the A47 Southern bypass. There is no highways objection to the proposal. As such, the site is considered to be well related to the major road network. 6.46 The boundary of the Broads Authority’s Executive Area is approximately 200m to the north of the development. The Broads Authority has raised no objection. 6.47 The site is located approximately 2.7km west of The Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Broadland Ramsar. The County Council’s Ecologist confirms that the development will not cause disturbance to these sites. 6.48 It is therefore considered, taking into account the above, that this proposal is compliant with Policy CS5, and the government objectives of the NPPF. General waste management considerations

6.49 Policy CS6 of the adopted NMWLDF Core Strategy (2011) states: “Waste sites…will be acceptable, provided they would not cause unacceptable environmental impacts, on the following types of land: a) land already in waste management use…” 6.50 The proposed conveyor extension would overhang a small concrete pad located on land to the west of the main WwTW, but within the operational area of the works. As detailed in this report the pad is already in waste management use. 6.51 As detailed elsewhere in section 6 of this report, which assesses the development in relation to the other relevant policies of the NMWLDF Core Strategy, it is considered that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable environmental impacts. It is therefore considered taking into account the above that the proposal is compliant with policy CS6. Waste water/sewage infrastructure and treatment facilities

6.52 The NPPF sets out how planning should operate to encourage sustainable economic growth. The NMWLDF: Core Strategy seeks to meet the needs of the economy for waste management facilities. The CS supports provision of new or improved waste water/sewerage infrastructure, particularly in connection to new housing growth. 6.53 Policy 10 of the adopted JCS for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (2011) states: “Major growth…will be masterplanned…Development will…aim to address current service and infrastructure deficiencies to benefit existing communities. In addition each major development location will… ensure … adequate … sewerage infrastructure…” 6.54 Whitlingham WwTW is recognised by Policy 10 as a critical piece of infrastructure for proposed housing growth in the Greater Norwich area. The supporting text confirms that improvements at Whitlingham are required to deliver the Joint Core Strategy. 6.55 Paragraph 6.23 of the JCS states that, key requirements include environmental improvements at Whitlingham and other sewage treatment works. There are different delivery mechanisms for these and the JCS will influence the utility providers’ strategies and investment plans. 6.56 Policy CS11 of the adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy (2011) states: “New or extended waste water/sewage infrastructure and treatment facilities will be acceptable where such proposals aim to: 1) treat a greater quantity of wastewater; and/or 2) improve the quality of discharged water; and/or 3) reduce the environmental impact of operation. The developer will be required to demonstrate that the proposal can be located and operated without giving rise to unacceptable environmental, amenity and highways impacts...”. 6.57 Policy CS11 supports new or extended waste water infrastructure, in principle.

6.58 Concern has been raised that policy CS11 requires reduction of environmental impact of operation, and given that conditions imposed by PP C/7/1998/7021 are intended to protect against impact of operation it is essential this remains. 6.59 The demands placed upon Whitlingham WwTW are planned to increase in the future following adoption of the JCS for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk which sets down plans for additional development up to 2026. The proposals are part of ongoing improvement works at Whitlingham WwTW to meet growth proposed within the Greater Norwich area and to improve the standard of treatment at the works. It is therefore considered that criteria 1 and 2 have been met. 6.60 With regards to the third criterion, the proposal would remove the need for double-handling of biosolids and additional vehicle movements as at present, and enable the biosolids handling operation to be undertaken in a more sustainable manner; it is therefore considered that criteria 3 has been met. 6.61 As detailed elsewhere in section 6 of this report, it is considered that the proposal would not cause unacceptable environmental, amenity and highways impacts. 6.62 It is therefore considered, taking into account the above, that this development is compliant with Policy CS11, and government objectives of the NPPF. Whitlingham Waste Water Treatment Works

6.63 The NPPF provides detailed guidance on the process of determining planning applications. Paragraph 187 states that, LPAs should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Adopted NMWLDF Policy CS12 encourages community engagement through a liaison group. 6.64 Policy CS12 of the adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy sets a positive policy context for development at Whitlingham, and confirms that improvements to increase physical capacity or treatment standards will be supported in principle as vital to the success of the Joint Core Strategy. Having set out that principle, policy CS12 nevertheless includes three caveats, the first being the need to have regard to environmental and amenity impacts, particularly on the Broads area and nearby residents; the second encourages development of a strategic plan for the works, and the third, as indicated, refers to the need for continued liaison with local stakeholders including residents and councils. 6.65 Para 6.58 of the CS acknowledges that, operation of the site raises frequent concerns from some local residents, particularly on grounds of HGV movements and odour. 6.66 The CS also acknowledges that in the absence of a longer-term masterplan, it is not easy to assess the strategic significance of individual proposals, and the cumulative impact of a number of separate (but linked) proposals. Waste Site-Specific Allocations DPD: Pre-Submission April 2012

6.67 There is also a site-specific policy for Whitlingham WwTW, Policy WWTW1, in the Waste Site-Specific Allocations DPD: Pre-Submission published December 2011. On 5 March 2012 Cabinet recommended that the County Council approve the Pre-Submission versions of the Minerals and Waste Site Specific Allocations DPDs for publication. The representations period on the Pre- Submissions versions of the Minerals and Waste Site Specific Allocations DPDs ended on 29 June 2012. Submission of the document to the Planning Inspectorate is planned before the end of 2012. An Examination in Public is therefore likely to take place in Spring 2013, with adoption later in 2013.

6.68 Policy WWTW1 of the Waste Site-S pecific Allocations DPD: Pre- Submission states: The County Council will work closely with the Environment Agency, South Norfolk Council and the Broads Authority to ensure that development proposals at Whitlingham will: a) Minimise the effect on the amenity of local residents, with particular emphasis on noise and odour; b) Route all HGV movements to and from the site via the C202 Kirby Road and the A146 Loddon Road, with the routeing of the HGV movements to be secured through a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the timing of the HGV movements to be controlled by planning conditions; c) Not affect adversely the landscape setting of the Broads by insensitively locating and/or designing equipment or buildings on the site; and d) In line with the requirements of PPS25, choose preferentially locations within Flood Zone 1, and where locations in Flood Zone 2 or 3 are proposed, adequate measures to control pollution and manage sewage during flooding events are put in place, to be controlled by either a Section 106 Legal Agreement or planning condition(s).

6.69 Unlike the policies in the NMWLDF: Core Strategy, Policy WWTW1 is not adopted. Nevertheless, the NPPF advises that decision–takers may also give weight to relevant polices in emerging plans. Policy WWTW1 reiterates the need to minimise impacts on local amenity of development at Whitlingham WwTW. As detailed elsewhere in section 6 of this report, it is considered that the proposal would not cause unacceptable amenity, highways or landscape impacts, and the site lies within Flood Zone 1. 6.70 Policy 3 of the adopted JCS for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (2011) states that:

“…The release of land for development will be dependent on there being sufficient water infrastructure to meet the additional requirements arising from the new development and to ensure that water quality is protected or improved, with no significant detriment to areas of environmental importance. This will be achieved by greater efficiency and by providing infrastructure, including strategic interceptor sewers, to address environmental and capacity constraints at the strategic wastewater treatment works at Whitlingham and at local works. This water infrastructure will be upgraded as required and be operational in time to meet the demands of any development..”. 6.71 Policy 3 of the JCS confirms the strategic nature of Whitlingham WwTW for Greater Norwich. 6.72 Environmental and amenity impacts Concern has been raised that the development approach demonstrated through this application shows no regard to the aims of minimising impact on nearby dwellings and Broads area. 6.73 Concern has also been raised that since submission of application reference C/7/1998/7021, increased areas are being claimed as operational land and there has been massive expansion in the role of Whitlingham WwTW without any overall planning assessment as to the suitability of the site; there is concern that expansion is resulting in greatly increased air pollution and odour. 6.74 “Operational land”, in relation to Statutory Sewerage Undertakers such as Anglian Water, is defined by S.263 of the Planning Act 1990 to mean:-  land which is used for the purpose of carrying on their undertaking; and  land in which an interest is held for that purpose.

6.75 As regards an increase in operational land, one such area is the large concrete pad, subject of planning application reference C/7/2011/7013 for, inter alia, retention of concrete pad. In the light of photographic evidence and testimonies provided by Anglian Water, in October 2007 the County Council confirmed that it is satisfied that the land on which the large concrete pad is situated, is “operational land”. 6.76 As regards expansion in the role of Whitlingham WwTW, Para 6.57 of the CS acknowledges that Whitlingham WwTW handles the sewage from Norwich and the surrounding rural area and also takes in sewage wastes for treatment from a wider area (including from outside Norfolk). 6.77 The three ‘over-arching’ planning permissions regarding the scope of activity at the site are permission reference FH/0726/F for “construction of new sewage disposal works”, granted 1952; permission reference FH/8261/O for “extension of existing effluent and sludge treatment facilities…”, granted 1967; and permission reference FH/11011/F for “erection of buildings associated with sewage purification works”, granted 1970. Legal advice has been sought on this matter; this has concluded that there is not any restriction in the three permissions over the import of sewage sludge to the works by HGV. 6.78 As detailed elsewhere in section 6 of this report, it is considered that the application under consideration would not cause unacceptable environmental and amenity impacts. 6.79 Longer-term vision Concern is expressed that the applicant continues to promote a piecemeal approach to development and expansion of this site, contrary to the aims of Policy CS12. 6.80 As regards the perception that submission of this application implies that there is a piecemeal approach to development at the WwTW, this proposal is of a relatively minor nature designed to improve the operational efficiency of the existing biosolids handling process. 6.81 Concern is also raised that a long term masterplan or vision for future development of the site has not been developed and agreed. Whilst, to date, a long-term vision for Whitlingham WwTW has not been developed and agreed, as can be seen, Policy CS12 strongly encourages rather than requires Anglian Water to develop and agree a vision for the WwTW. 6.82 Supporting text for policy CS12 acknowledges that A.W.’s strategic budget is set by OFWAT through the Assessment Management Planning (AMP) process in five-year tranches, with the current period (AMP 5) running from 2010-2015. 6.83 Under the current regulatory regime investment is considered by Ofwat in four key areas:  Capital Maintenance – this is what A.W. needs to spend to maintain its assets;  Customer Enhancements - in this area A.W. invest money based on customer feedback, for example odour control;  Supply Demand – this investment caters for growth in the region including housing , population and business;  Quality – this investment is driven by European standards and the requirements of the E.A. At present investment is this area is being considered as part of River Basin Management Plans.

6.84 A.W. has advised that it is in the process of planning its next five year Business Plan, which will include detailed investment plans for the period 2015 to 2020. A.W. will know how much money it will have to spend on further investment at Whitlingham by September 2013. 6.85 The demands placed upon Whitlingham WwTW are planned to increase in the future following the adoption of the Greater Norwich Development Partnership’s JCS, which sets down plans for the development of 37,000 additional houses and 27,000 new jobs in the Greater Norwich area over the period 2008 -2026. 6.86 Whilst a long-term vision for the WwTW has not yet been developed and agreed, supporting text for policy CS12 acknowledges that Whitlingham WwTW is a vital piece of infrastructure for implementation of the growth envisaged in the Joint Core Strategy. 6.87 A.W. indicates that the proposal is an integral part of a £23.5m investment at the works, to improve the standard and efficiency of treatment at the works and ensure there is capacity to deal with the proposed growth in a sustainable manner. This investment has seen the construction of the CAMBI plant (which provides an enhanced, anaerobic sludge digestion process) and SHARON plant (for treatment of the liquid effluent resulting from the CAMBI process). 6.88 Local liaison As regards continued liaison, the most recent meeting of the Whitlingham Wastewater Treatment Works Liaison Group took place on 21 June 2012. 6.89 Alternative location Representation has been made on the grounds that this operation should be done further away in an alternative location. 6.90 The principle of the use of the site for the purpose of carrying on a sewerage undertaking was assessed in 1999 and was considered acceptable. 6.91 PPS10 makes it clear that the planning system should focus on whether the development is an acceptable use of the land, and the impacts of the development. 6.92 As detailed elsewhere in section 6 of this report, which assesses the development in relation to the other relevant policies of the NMWLDF: Core Strategy, it is considered that the proposed development is fully compliant with these requirements. 6.93 To conclude, it is considered that the proposal would not cause unacceptable environmental and amenity impacts. The proposals are part of the investment programme to ensure that Whitlingham WwTW meets the infrastructure needs of the Greater Norwich JCS up to 2026. On balance, it is considered taking into account the above that a case for refusal on grounds of conflict with policy CS12 and the NPPF would be difficult to substantiate. Climate change & renewable energy generation

6.94 The NPPF sets out how planning should contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and provide resiliance to the impacts of climate change. 6.95 Policy CS13 of the adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy requires all opportunities for new waste developments to generate a minimum of 10% renewable energy on-site to be explored. 6.96 The applicant advises that the application under consideration forms part of an on-going £23.5 investment at the works, which has also seen construction of the CAMBI plant. The material which is stored on the small pad is the treated material from the CAMBI process. The CAMBI process followed by the anaerobic digestion produces biogas which is used to fuel a Combined Heat & Power Plant (CHP) engine, designed to produce between 25-35 MWh of electricity per day. This level of renewable energy generation primarily provides the power to the works, including the conveyor motors, thus making the WwTW largely self-sufficient in terms of its energy demand. This is in excess of the requirements set out in Policy CS13. Where surplus energy is generated, this is exported to the grid. 6.97 It is therefore considered, taking into account the above, that the development is compliant with Policy CS13 and government objectives of the NPPF. Environmental Protection / Nature Conservation

6.98 The NPPF sets out the Government’s objectives for conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, including landscapes. The NPPF also recognises the weight of protection afforded to international, national and local conservation sites, individual species and the importance of conserving and enhancing biodiversity. 6.99 Policy CS14 of the adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy (2011) states: “…developments must ensure that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on, and ideally improvements to: . Natural resources, including water, air and soil; . The character and quality of the landscape and townscape, including nationally designated landscapes (…the…Broads); . Biodiversity…, including nationally and internationally designated sites and species, habitats and sites identified in Biodiversity…Action Plans;… . Residential amenity…”. 6.100 Adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy policy DM1 states: “Development that would harm: . Locally designated nature conservation…sites; and/or . Habitats, species or features identified in UK and Norfolk biodiversity…action plans; will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that sufficient measures to mitigate harm to the site, habitat(s) and/or species can be put in place….”. 6.101 Landscape Concern has been raised that the works is located in a sensitive landscape setting in the Yare valley, and that the application site itself is visible from the north, west and east, including from the public bridleway through the works which forms part of Wherryman’s Way and the Sustrans Cycle Route. 6.102 The proposed conveyor extension currently discharges into a trailer on the southern section of the pad, hence the only visual change from the existing situation is that the existing conveyor would overhang the northern section of the storage pad, at its southern end. 6.103 A Planning Statement has been prepared and submitted in support of this application. The statement concludes that, since the site is already screened by planting and is set behind the existing large scale plant and buildings of the WwTW, neither the conveyor extension or increase in height of the cake mound will be visually intrusive. 6.104 The statement indicates that users of the public right of way will see a slightly different view than at present but given that their view is already that of a functioning sewage treatment works, it is not considered that this visual difference will be of significance. 6.105 The County Council’s Landscape Officer, South Norfolk Council and The Broads Authority have raised no objection on landscape grounds. It is considered therefore that the development due to its scale and location will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the landscape, including the Broads. 6.106 Biodiversity Concern has been raised about the impact on local biodiversity and the natural environment. The nearest internationally protected sites are The Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Broadland Ramsar, and the nearest nationally designated site is The Yare Broads & Marshes SSSI, all of which are located approximately 2.7km east of the development. The County Council’s Ecologist has been consulted on the application and confirms that the development will not cause disturbance to these sites. 6.107 Locally designated nature conservation sites Whitlingham Marsh LNR is sited approximately 370m north of the development, and two County Wildlife Sites are sited approximately 465m to the east and 400m north of the development, respectively 6.108 The Council’s Ecologist has raised no objection on ecological grounds.

6.109 Residential amenity Concern has been raised about the impact on visual amenity of local dwellings. 6.110 The Planning Statement submitted in support of this application concludes that, since the site is already screened by planting from nearby occupied properties, including Whitlingham Hall, neither the conveyor extension or increase in height of the cake mound will be visually intrusive. Bunding has also recently been formed to the west of the pad, under the permitted development rights afforded to sewerage undertakers, which provides screening from nearby residential properties. 6.111 As regards impact on visual amenity of Whitlingham Hall, this dwelling is set to the north west of the pad, below a treed embankment. The pad is contained by a 1.2m high bund wall, and close boarded wooden fencing has also been affixed to the outside of the bund wall nearest Whitlingham Hall to a height of 2m. 6.112 Given the existing screening and the fact that the development would be viewed against the backdrop of the existing works it is considered that any additional visual impact would not be materially significant. 6.113 The Council’s Landscape Officer and South Norfolk Council have been consulted on the application and raised no objection. 6.114 As detailed elsewhere in section 6 of this report, it is considered that the development would not cause unacceptable impacts on other aspects of residential amenity. South Norfolk Local Plan (2003): Saved policy ENV 6 6.115 Saved policy ENV 6 of the South Norfolk Local Plan states: “Inappropriate development and any other development within the Norwich Southern Bypass Landscape Protection Zone,…which would undermine the landscape quality and openness of zone, or which would lead to the bypass (or any section of it) becoming the outer development boundary of the City, will not be permitted”. 6.116 The site lies within an area designated on the South Norfolk Local Plan Proposals Map as the Norwich Southern Bypass Landscape Protection Zone. Inappropriate development is defined as “the construction of new buildings, for any purposes other than”, inter alia, “uses of land which do not compromise the objectives of the policy.” 6.117 Annex 1 of the NPPF states that, due weight should be given to relevant saved policies in plans adopted prior to 2004 according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. At their meeting of 30 April 2012, South Norfolk Council’s Cabinet confirmed a schedule of saved Local Plan policies which states that policy ENV6 is partially consistent with the NPPF. Therefore it is considered that the weight carried by this policy should be reduced accordingly. 6.118 The proposal does not provide for construction of a new building. The Council’s Landscape Officer, and South Norfolk Council have been consulted on the application and raised no objection. 6.119 It is therefore considered, taking into account the above, that this development will not have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the character and quality of the landscape, biodiversity, locally designated nature conservation sites or residential amenity; As such, the proposal is considered compliant with the aims of NMWLDF: Core Strategy policies CS14 and DM1, South Norfolk Local Plan Saved Policy ENV6, and the government objectives of the NPPF. Transport

6.120 The NPPF sets out the Government’s national planning policies in relation to transport. 6.121 Policy CS15 of the Adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy states: “…The County Council will consider…waste development proposals to be satisfactory in terms of access where anticipated HGV movements…do not generate: a) Unacceptable risks to the safety of road users and pedestrians; b) Unacceptable impacts on the capacity and/or efficiency of the highway network (including the trunk road network); c) Unacceptable impacts on air quality…and residential and rural amenity, including from odour and noise; d) Unacceptable impacts on the natural and historic environment; and e) Unacceptable physical impacts on the highway network…”. 6.122 Policy DM10 of the Adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy requires that, applications for new waste development must examine the access and egress arrangements, routeing proposals and consideration of other road users, including cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians. 6.123 The site is accessed via the existing private road from the C202, Kirby Road. The private road is a public highway, as a bridleway, over which the public have a right to ride a horse, to walk and cycle - the route forms part of the Wherryman’s Way Walk and Sustrans National Cycle Route. 6.124 The planning statement indicates that continuous operation of the proposed conveyor extension and discharge onto the drop zone on the northern section of the pad would remove the need for movement of biosolids by tractor between the two sections of the pad, which also involves movement along the bridleway. 6.125 Whilst not directly attributable to this proposal, the planning statement submitted in support of this application indicates that there will be a slight reduction in overall numbers of vehicles needed to take cake from the small pad because of the cessation in the use of lime to treat biosolids, which results in a less bulky cake being produced. In addition, there will no longer be the requirement for lime deliveries to the WwTW. 6.126 The Highway Authority has been consulted on this application and has raised no objection. 6.127 Taking into account the above, the proposal is considered compliant with the aims of NMWLDF: Core Strategy policies CS15 and DM10, and the government objectives of the NPPF. Groundwater and surface water

6.128 Policy DM3 of the adopted NMWLDF CS requires applicants to demonstrate that proposed developments would not adversely impact upon groundwater quality or resources and surface water quality or resources. Sites for waste management facilities will not be permitted in Groundwater Protection Zone 1. 6.129 The protection of surface and groundwater resources is paramount in the consideration of any waste development. The site is located within Groundwater Source Protection Zone 2. 6.130 The planning statement indicates that improved drainage arrangements have been installed at the pad, (over which the proposed conveyor extension will overhang), to control liquors. 6.131 The Environment Agency has raised no objections, therefore the scheme is considered compliant with policy DM3. Safeguarding aerodromes

6.132 Policy DM7 of the Adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy requires waste planning applications that are within safeguarded areas to be subject of consultation with the operator of the aerodrome. 6.133 The site is situated within the consultation area for Norwich International Airport. 6.134 The airport has raised no objection to the scheme on safeguarding grounds; as such, it is considered that the development is compliant with policy DM7. Design, local landscape and townscape character

6.135 The NPPF sets out the Government’s national planning policies in relation to design, and objectives for conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, including landscapes. 6.136 Policy DM8 of the Adopted NMWLDF Core Strategy states: “Development will be permitted if it will not harm the conservation of, or prevent the enhancement of, key characteristics of its surroundings with regard to the character of the landscape… …new development…must promote good design…”. 6.137 The site is located within the operational boundary of the existing WwTW. The area to the east is dominated by the main works which has an industrial appearance on account of the tanks, pipework and buildings. 6.138 The proposed conveyor extension is of a functional design in keeping with its purpose. The material for the existing and proposed conveyors comprises galvanised and stainless steels. The design of the scheme is considered acceptable in the context of the site. 6.139 South Norfolk Council, The Broads Authority and the County Council’s Landscape Officer raise no objection to the scheme on landscape grounds. 6.140 As such, it is considered that the development accords with the design and landscape principles set out in policy DM8 of the NMWLDF Core Strategy, and also accords with the requirements of the NPPF. Archaeological sites

6.141 There are strong commitments within the NPPF for conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. 6.142 Policy DM9 of the Adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy states that development will only be permitted where it would not adversely affect the significance of heritage assets. 6.143 The application site is not located within or adjacent to any identified conservation area. The ruined Church of St.Andrew, Whitlingham Lane, Kirby Bedon, a Grade II listed building is located some 410 metres to the north of the development, and separated by the A47 Southern Bypass. The Council’s Historic Environment Service considers that the development will have no impact on the setting of the building. 6.144 Given the above, it is considered by the CPA that the development is consistent with policy DM9 and also accords with the requirements of the NPPF. Sustainable construction and operations

6.145 The NPPF sets out the overarching policies on the delivery of sustainable development. 6.146 Policy DM11 of the Adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy states: “Sustainable development will be promoted by requiring proposals for…waste management facilities to demonstrate consideration of: …good design and layout…in the design of new…plant… …sustainable drainage measures.. Evidence as to how the sustainable…operation of a proposal will be implemented… - steps to be taken to ensure the maximum diversion of waste from landfill…once the development is operational” 6.147 Concern is raised that the proposal would not result in sustainable development. 6.148 The biosolids handling operation at Whitlingham provides treatment of sewage sludge to create an enhanced treated soil conditioning product. At present sludge cake is discharged from the conveyor into trailers on the southern section of the pad which have to be towed by tractor and emptied onto the northern section. 6.149 The application under consideration would remove the need for double handling of biosolids and reduce tractor movements, in and around the pad. 6.150 Concern is raised that waste is imported by tanker lorries from Peterborough and Southend. In response, Anglian Water advises that liquid sludge imports is the largest product type entering Whitlingham WwTW, and during the period April 2011 to January 2012, the vast majority originated in Norfolk with a very small amount from Suffolk and Essex. A.W. further advises that nothing originated from Peterborough or Southend during this period, nor would this be the normal situation due to costs and operational inefficiencies involved. As detailed elsewhere in section 6 of this report, the NMWLDF CS acknowledges that Whitlingham WwTW takes in sewage wastes for treatment from a wide area (including from outside Norfolk). 6.151 The proposal would enable the existing biosolids handling operation at Whitlingham to be undertaken in a more efficient and sustainable manner, and is therefore considered to be consistent with policy DM11. 6.152 The proposal is considered to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development and is therefore considered to be compliant with the aims and objectives of the NPPF. Amenity (odour, noise, dust, light pollution, bio-aerosols)

6.153 Adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy policy DM12 states: “The protection of amenity for people in close proximity to waste management facilities will be a key consideration. Where appropriate, buffer zones, advanced planting and/or screening and other mitigation measures, such as restriction on hours of working and dust suppression measures, will be required. Development will be permitted only where it can be demonstrated that the scale, siting and design of a proposal is appropriate and that unacceptable impact to local amenity will not arise from the construction and/or operation of a facility”. 6.154 The NPPF provides guidance on the relationship between the permitting regimes operated by pollution control authorities and the planning system, and also outlines the considerations to be taken into account in determining planning applications both for noise-sensitive developments and for those activities which generate noise. 6.155 Paragraph 122 of the NPPF 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…”

6.156 Therefore the CPA needs to be satisfied planning permission can be granted on land use grounds taking full account of environmental impacts, and that potential releases can be adequately regulated under the pollution control framework. 6.157 The nearest residential properties are Whitlingham Hall, some 140m north west of the development, below an embankment, and a row of residential properties (Holmemead and Hill Cottages) some 400m to the west. The premises of Able Community Care are some 190m to the north west, and Whitlingham Tree Nursery and Whitlingham Country Park lie some 175m to the west and 600 metres to the north west, respectively. 6.158 The owner of Whitlingham Tree Nursery advises that he purchased the nursery from Norwich City Council in 1995 and immediately began work to improve the land but that recent changes at the WwTW have added to odour and air pollution being generated, resulting in the nursery now being a dangerous workplace and now temporarily closed. No evidence has been presented to support this claim. 6.159 Based on historic aerial photographs there is little evidence that the former municipal tree nursery has been actively operated for at least 10 years and possibly longer. Inspection of the former nursery site from the Whitlingham Lane entrance and from within the WwTW boundary, in September 2012, would suggest that the site is not currently in use as a tree nursery. However, the owner advises that, it has at all times been his intention and now remains his intention that when he can secure an abatement of the smell and bio- aerosol nuisances, the nursery use will recommence as soon as he can possibly arrange. 6.160 The owner of the tree nursery has also advised that it is his intention to bring an agricultural barn on a parcel of land adjoining the eastern boundary of the Tree Nursery (some 100m west of the development) into use in the course of tree nursery business after repair work to the barn is completed. 6.161 Strong concern has been expressed regarding impacts on amenity arising from odour, bioaerosols and noise. Odour 6.162 As regards odour, it is clear there is a perceived high level of existing detriment and impact on amenity of local residents, businesses and landowners. Concern has been raised that the proposal will increase nuisance caused by odours and that the application fails to consider odour from operations on the small pad. Reference is also made to an outstanding Odour Abatement Notice. 6.163 The responsibility for odour complaints for this site is complex - the biosolids handling operation, of which the proposed conveyor extension would form a part, is the subject of an Environmental Permit (EP). Therefore, if the odour is identified as emanating from one of the Permitted activities it will be the Environment Agency’s responsibility. However, odour emissions from the WwTW are subject to Statutory Nuisance legislation administered and monitored by the Local Authority. 6.164 An Odour Abatement Notice was served on Anglian Water by South Norfolk Council in 2009; the notice applied to the whole works. South Norfolk Council can potentially regulate odour from the parts of the works that are not regulated by the E.A., including the inlet works. 6.165 Biosolids are currently discharged from the existing conveyor into a trailer on the southern section of the pad, hence the only change from the existing situation is that the existing conveyor would discharge biosolids onto the floor of the northern section of the pad. 6.166 Whilst not directly attributable to this proposal, the planning statement indicates that the digested sludge cake from the CAMBI process is significantly less odorous than the existing limed cake. The statement indicates there will be considerably less possibility of malodours, notwithstanding the fact that material would be dropped from the proposed conveyor extension onto the pad. 6.167 As indicated, the biosolids handling operation is already covered by an Environmental Permit, which considers emissions that will arise during operation of the site. The Environment Agency has confirmed that an updated management plan would be required to reflect the operational changes. 6.168 Accordingly any pollution issue arising from the operation of the development would be subject to the control of the E.A. through the permitting regime. 6.169 The E.A., as the relevant pollution control authority, has been consulted on this application and has made no objection on odour grounds to the development. Based on the information provided with the application, South Norfolk Council EHO, and NHS Norfolk and Waveney Public Health Directorate have raised no objection to the development in terms of any potential emissions. 6.170 Accordingly, the CPA considers the development will not result in the generation of any unacceptable levels of odour and the development is considered compliant with the NPPF. Bio-aerosols

6.171 Bio-aerosol is the term used to describe biologically active matter that can be dispersed via minute particles of liquid and/or solid in a gas (e.g. air). The natural environment is filled with bio-aerosols including bacteria, fungi/moulds, spores, seeds, pollens and viruses. 6.172 Potential sources of existing bio-aerosols in the vicinity of the development include Whitlingham WwTW, surrounding agricultural activities, and natural composting processes in surrounding woodland, waterways and marshes. 6.173 Concern has been raised regarding the impacts on amenity arising from bio- aerosols, and that the development is less than 250m from Whitlingham Hall, Whitlingham Tree Nursery and Able Community Care. 6.174 The reference to 250m is drawn from the Environment Agency’s current Position Statement on composting and potential health effects from bio- aerosols, which defines sensitive receptors as people likely to be within 250 metres of composting operations, for prolonged or frequent periods, typically dwellings or workplaces where workers would frequently be present. 6.175 The CPA needs to be satisfied planning permission can be granted on land use grounds taking full account of environmental impacts, and that potential releases can be adequately regulated under the pollution control framework. 6.176 Biosolids are currently discharged from the conveyor extension into a trailer sited on the southern section of the pad and hauled to the northern section. 6.177 The biosolids handling operation is already covered by an Environmental Permit, which considers the emissions that will arise during operation of the site. The E.A. has confirmed that no variation to this permit is required, but an updated management plan is required and this will cover management of any bio-aerosols. Notwithstanding this, the E.A. does not anticipate the application under consideration and accompanying application reference C/7/2011/7016 to result in any increase in bio-aerosol levels. 6.178 The Environment Agency, as the relevant pollution control authority, has no objection to the development in terms of any potential emissions. 6.179 Based on the information provided with the application, South Norfolk Council EHO, and NHS Norfolk and Waveney Public Health Directorate have raised no objection. 6.180 Representation has also been made in the context of NMWLDF: CS policy CS7, which requires proposals for composting plants to be accompanied by a risk assessment which shows that bio-aerosol levels can be maintained at appropriate levels at dwellings or workplaces within 250m of a facility. It is also questioned whether a bio-aerosols assessment has been carried out. 6.181 Given that the proposal under consideration is not for composting, a bio- aerosols assessment has not been submitted and it is considered that policy CS7 is not relevant to consideration of this proposal. Dust

6.182 The planning statement indicates that dust is unlikely to be a problem with this process. The applicant advises that cake produced by the CAMBI process is broadly similar in dry solids content to limed treated cake, therefore, the potential for additional dust impacts arising from the proposal is considered to be negligible when compared to limed cake which was previously produced and stored on the pad. 6.183 Dust is controlled through the emissions and monitoring condition placed on the Environmental Permit. Based on the information provided with the application, the Environment Agency, as the relevant pollution control authority, has no objection to the development in terms of any potential emissions. 6.184 South Norfolk Council EHO, and NHS Norfolk and Waveney Public Health Directorate have raised no objection on dust grounds. Noise

6.185 Concern has been expressed regarding the perceived impacts on amenity arising from noise. 6.186 Accompanying application reference C/7/2011/7016 proposes that the extended conveyor is to be operated on a 24 hour basis. The planning statement indicates that the extended conveyor will be no noisier than the existing equipment and being electrically driven means it will be not be audible beyond the works boundary. The statement adds that the proposed 4m high stockpile under the extended conveyor would become the focus of sludge cake collection by vehicles, which will mean that the main activity on the concrete pad will be at the southern end of the storage area. 6.187 The reduction in use of tractors to move cake within the concrete pad will reduce noise during the permitted hours when these vehicles are allowed to operate at present. Whilst not directly attributable to this proposal, the reduction in the overall numbers of vehicles needed to take cake from the site will also reduce the frequency of vehicle noise at the nearest residential properties. The statement further notes that acoustic fencing has been installed on the boundary of the pad nearest Whitlingham Hall to control potential noise. 6.188 The statement concludes that the overall impact on noise will be a reduction on current levels, which are already considerably masked by the continuous sound of vehicles from the nearby southern bypass. 6.189 As indicated, the biosolids handling process is already covered by an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency. The E.A. advises that a noise management plan is required under the terms of this permit and should address the noise from the operation of this area. The E.A., as the relevant pollution control authority has raised no issues with regard to noise. 6.190 Based on the information provided, South Norfolk Council EHO, and NHS Norfolk and Waveney Public Health Directorate have raised no objection on noise grounds. Operating hours – traffic disturbance

6.191 Concern is raised that 24 hour operation would threaten residential amenity by traffic disturbance in the evenings and at night. Accompanying application reference C/7/2011/7016 proposes 24 hour operation of the extended conveyor and stacking of material within the drop zone directly underneath it. It is intended that the remainder of the concrete pad will remain subject to the current restriction on operating hours. 6.192 Concern has also been raised by Kirby Bedon P.C. that there will be biosolid transportation until 21:45 Monday to Saturday and it would be unreasonable for vehicles and plant to operate after 18.00 at night. 6.193 Accompanying application reference C/7/2011/7016 proposes that all biosolids handling on the small pad, including loading and removal by vehicle would still be limited to the current permitted operating hours, i.e. 07:45 – 21:45 Monday to Saturday. As regards the three ‘over-arching’ permissions regarding the scope of activity on the remainder of the WwTW, (planning permissions reference FH/0726/F, FH/8261/O and FH/11011/F), there are no conditions which restrict working hours. 6.194 South Norfolk Council EHO has raised no objection, regarding operating hours, and comments that the potentially more noisy biosolids transportation is still limited to 07:45-21:45 hours Monday to Saturday. Reversing bleepers

6.195 Concern has been raised about reversing bleepers on tractors and loaders to be operated on the concrete pad over which the proposed conveyor extension would overhang. The applicant states that all site mobile plant associated with operation of the small pad and/or conveyor, will be equipped with broadband reversing alarms which do not attract attention to the same extent as conventional tonal alarms. The Environment Agency advises that the Environmental Permit for sludge treatment includes a condition that requires emissions from activities to be free from noise at levels likely to cause pollution outside the site. The E.A. is not aware of any recent noise complaints or current problems associated with the machinery used to load and unload biosolids on the small pad. 6.196 The Environment Agency, as the relevant pollution control authority, has no objection to the development in terms of any potential emissions. Based on the information provided with the application, South Norfolk Council EHO has raised no objection, on noise grounds. Light pollution

6.197 Concern is raised that 24 hour operation would threaten residential amenity by light pollution. No lighting is proposed under the application under consideration. Slippage of sludge

6.198 Concern has been expressed about the potential for wet sludge to slip from the pad, down an embankment towards Whitlingham Hall. Such an incident occurred prior to application C/7/1998/7021 and caused contamination in the garden of Whitlingham Hall. 6.199 The small pad over which the proposed conveyor extension would overhang is now contained by a 1.2m high bund wall, and close boarded wooden fencing has also been affixed to the outside of the bund wall nearest Whitlingham Hall to a height of 2m. Accompanying application reference C/7/2011/7016 proposes storage of biosolids up to 4m in height only within the drop zone on the pad directly underneath the extended conveyor, some 95m from the northern perimeter wall of the pad; the remainder of the concrete pad will remain subject to the current storage height restriction of 1m. Based on the information provided with the application the Environment Agency has raised no objection and comment that the risk of spillage should not increase. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not increase the risks of spillage referred to by the objector. 6.200 Accordingly, it is considered by the CPA that unacceptable impact to local amenity will not arise from the development, and the proposal is in accordance with policy DM12, and accords with the requirements of the NPPF. Air Quality

6.201 The NPPF sets out how planning should ensure that new development in Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) is consistent with the local air quality action plan. 6.202 NMWLDF: CS policy DM13 directs that new development should not impact negatively on existing AQMA’s or lead to declaration of a new AQMA. 6.203 Concern has been raised about air pollution from operations at the WwTW including the small pad. The planning statement submitted in support of the application indicates that there will be no air pollution from this proposal. 6.204 South Norfolk Council EHO has raised no objection, on air quality grounds. 6.205 As detailed in this report, the biosolids handling operation is already covered by an Environmental Permit, which considers emissions that will arise during operation of the site. The Environment Agency has confirmed that an updated management plan would be required to reflect the operational changes. The E.A. has no objection to the development in terms of any potential emissions. 6.206 As such, it is considered that the development is compliant with policy DM13, and accords with the requirements of the NPPF. Cumulative Impacts

6.207 The NPPF sets out how planning should take into account cumulative impacts of development. 6.208 Adopted NMWLDF: Core Strategy policy DM15 states: “Where a proposed waste management facility is considered acceptable (in its own right) but the cumulative impact of a proposal in conjunction with other… minerals extraction sites and/or waste management facilities, in the proximity is considered unacceptable, the proposal may be considered acceptable if phased so that one site follows the completion of the other or it can be demonstrated that the adverse cumulative impacts can be adequately mitigated…”. 6.209 Concern has been raised regarding the cumulative impact of a number of separate applications in respect of Whitlingham WwTW, in the absence of a longer-term masterplan for future development of the site. 6.210 The application under consideration would enable the existing biosolids handling operation to be undertaken in a more efficient and sustainable manner. It is considered that the additional development is relatively minor in the context of the whole site. 6.211 Applications reference C/7/2011/7016 and C/7/2011/7017 have both been considered in the context of the Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations in order to determine whether or not EIA is required. This included an assessment of the cumulative effect of the proposal, and not just the proposed changes or extension. It was concluded by officers that these ‘Schedule 2 Developments’ are not EIA development. 6.212 Concern is raised that the consultation response from the Environment Agency fails to disclose existing odour and air pollution thereby ignoring and concealing cumulative effects on health. 6.213 The Environment Agency has two major roles as an organisation. One is as a regulator and the other is as an advisor. The E.A.’s remit in the planning process is more limited than in their regulatory role, and as such, their planning comments relating to pollution prevention generally relate to risks to the water environment during the construction phase. Specifically the E.A. might comment upon the pollution control systems that need to be designed into the physical layout of the proposed development. In its response to this application, the E.A. has asked that measures are in place to prevent spillage of sludge from the conveyor belt before it reaches the pad. 6.214 As detailed elsewhere in section 6 of this report, the E.A., as the relevant pollution control authority, has been consulted on this application and has made no objection to the development. Based on the information provided with the application, South Norfolk Council EHO, and NHS Norfolk and Waveney Public Health Directorate have raised no objection to the development in terms of any potential pollution. It is therefore considered that there would be no significant cumulative amenity impacts. 6.215 The Council’s Landscape Officer has raised no objection to the scheme on landscape grounds. It is therefore considered that there would be no significant cumulative landscape impacts. 6.216 The Council’s Ecologist has raised no objection to the scheme on ecological grounds. It is therefore considered that there would be no significant cumulative ecology impacts. 6.217 There is no highway objection, and it is therefore considered that there would be no significant adverse impact in terms of cumulative harm from HGV movements. 6.218 It is therefore considered, taking into account the above, that this proposal is compliant with Policy DM15, and the government objectives of the NPPF. 7. Resource Implications

7.1 Finance : The development has no financial implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 7.2 Staff : The development has no staffing implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 7.3 Property : The development has no property implication from the Planning Regulatory perspective. 7.4 IT : The development has no IT implications from the Planning Regulatory perspective 8. Other Implications

8.1 Legal Implications : There are no legal implications

8.2 Appropriate Assessment : The nearest internationally protected sites are The Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Broadland Ramsar. The Council’s Ecologist confirms that the development will not cause disturbance to these sites. In accordance with Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, the CPA considers that an Appropriate Assessment is not required. 8.3 Communications : There are no communication issues from a planning perspective. 8.4 Health and Safety Implications : There are no health and safety implications from a planning perspective. 8.5 Any other implications: Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account. 9. Risk Implications/Assessment

9.1 There are no issues from a planning perspective.

10. Conclusion and Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission

10.1 This is one of two planning applications in respect of storage of biosolids on an existing small concrete pad within Whitlingham Wastewater Treatment Works. The proposal under consideration is for a 7.75m extension to the existing conveyor on the southern section of the pad (8.3m in total including mounted geared motor unit), to overhang the northern section of the pad. 10.2 This application is in conjunction with a separate planning application, submitted concurrently, to vary conditions attached to the current planning permission for the pad to enable the material deposited by the extended conveyor to rise to a maximum of 4m within the drop zone on the pad directly underneath the conveyor, on a continuous basis. 10.3 The Norfolk Minerals and Waste LDF Core Strategy was adopted in 2011; the application site is identified on the NMWLDF: CS Proposals Map as a key wastewater treatment site, for safeguarding purposes. 10.4 The scheme is consistent with the overarching thrust of PPS10, in dealing with waste in a more sustainable manner. The biosolids handling operation provides treatment of sewage sludge to create an enhanced treated soil conditioning product. The proposal would enable the biosolids handling operation to be undertaken in a more efficient and sustainable manner. The application is therefore considered to comply with the aims and objectives of PPS10. 10.5 East of England Plan (2008) Policies WM1 and WM2 reinforce the objectives in PPS10 which promote the movement of waste management up the waste hierarchy, and to recover maximum resource value from waste produced. The RSS seeks to ensure the timely and adequate provision of facilities required for recovery and disposal of the region’s waste. The scheme would improve the efficiency of the existing biosolids handling operation at Whitlingham and is therefore considered to be compliant with policies WM1 and WM2. 10.6 Whilst this proposal is situated within the Yare valley, in close proximity to the Broads area, Whitlingham WwTW is a long-established waste management facility. The site is considered to be well-related to the Norwich Policy Area and would manage waste arising from this area. The site is considered to be well related to the major road network and it is considered that the development will not cause disturbance to The Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Broadland Ramsar. It is therefore considered, taking into account the above, that this proposal is compliant with NMWLDF: CS Policy CS5, and the NPPF. 10.7 The proposed conveyor extension would overhang a small concrete pad located on land within the operational area of the works and already in waste management use. It is considered that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable environmental impacts. It is therefore considered taking into account the above that the proposal is compliant with NMWLDF: Core Strategy policy CS6. 10.8 The proposals are part of ongoing improvement works at Whitlingham WwTW to meet growth proposed within the Greater Norwich area and to improve the standard of treatment at the works. It is considered that the proposal would not cause unacceptable environmental, amenity and highways impacts. It is therefore considered, taking into account the above, that this development is compliant with NMWLDF: CS Policy CS11, and government objectives of the NPPF. 10.9 Concern has been expressed that the proposal is not compliant with NMWLDF: Core Strategy Policy CS12 which emphasises that future improvements to the WwTW will need to be planned carefully to minimise adverse environmental and amenity impacts, particularly on the Broads and nearby residents. It is considered that the proposal would not cause unacceptable environmental and amenity impacts. Concern is also raised that a longer-term vision for future development of the site has not been developed and agreed. The proposal is part of investment at Whitlingham WwTW, to improve the standard and efficiency of treatment, and ensure there is capacity to deal with proposed growth in the Greater Norwich area in a sustainable manner. On balance, it is considered taking into account the above that a case for refusal on grounds of conflict with policy CS12 and the NPPF would be difficult to substantiate. 10.10 Whitlingham WwTW is largely self-sufficient in terms of its energy demand. It is therefore considered, that the development is compliant with NMWLDF: Core Strategy Policy CS13 and government objectives of the NPPF. 10.11 Concern has been raised that the works is located in a sensitive landscape setting, that the application site is visible, and about the impact on local biodiversity and the natural environment. It is considered that this development will not have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the character and quality of the landscape, biodiversity, locally designated nature conservation sites or residential amenity. As such, the proposal is considered compliant with the aims of NMWLDF: CS policies CS14 and DM1, South Norfolk Local Plan Saved Policy ENV6, and the government objectives of the NPPF. 10.12 It is considered that the development will not cause disturbance to The Broads SAC, Broadland SPA and Broadland Ramsar. In accordance with Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, it is considered that an Appropriate Assessment is not required. 10.13 Continuous operation of the conveyor extension and discharge onto the northern section of the pad would remove the need for movement of biosolids by tractor between the two sections of the pad, which also involves movement along the bridleway. Whilst not directly attributable to this proposal, there will be a slight reduction in overall numbers of vehicles needed to take cake from the small pad because of the cessation in the use of lime to treat biosolids. Taking into account the above, the proposal is considered compliant with the aims of NMWLDF: CS policies CS15 and DM10, and the NPPF. 10.14 The site is located within Groundwater Source Protection Zone 2. The Environment Agency has raised no objections, therefore the scheme is considered compliant with NMWLDF: CS policy DM3. 10.15 The site is situated within the consultation area for Norwich International Airport. The airport has raised no safeguarding objection. It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable under NMWLDF: CS policy DM7. 10.16 The proposed conveyor extension is of a functional design in keeping with its purpose. The design of the scheme is considered acceptable in the context of the site. It is considered that the development accords with the design and landscape principles set out in policy DM8 of the NMWLDF CS, and the NPPF. 10.17 The application site is not located within or adjacent to any identified conservation area. A ruined, Grade II listed church building is located some 410 metres north of the development. The Council’s Historic Environment Service considers that the development will have no impact on the setting of the building. As such, it is considered by the CPA that the development is consistent with NMWLDF: CS policy DM9 and also accords with the requirements of the NPPF. 10.18 Concern is raised that the proposal would not result in sustainable development. The proposal would enable an existing biosolids handling operation to be undertaken in a more efficient and sustainable manner, and is therefore considered to be consistent with NMWLDF: CS policy DM11, and the aims and objectives of the NPPF. 10.19 With regard to impact on amenity, strong concern has been expressed regarding impacts arising from odour, bioaerosols and noise. The biosolids handling operation, of which the proposed conveyor extension would form a part, is already covered by an Environmental Permit, which considers emissions that will arise during operation of the site. The E.A., as the relevant pollution control authority, South Norfolk Council EHO, and NHS Norfolk and Waveney Public Health Directorate have raised no objection to the development. Accordingly, it is considered by the CPA that unacceptable impact to local amenity will not arise from the development, and the proposal is in accordance with policy DM12 of the NMWLDF: CS, and the NPPF. 10.20 As regards air quality, concern has been raised about air pollution from operations at the WwTW including the small pad. South Norfolk Council EHO has raised no objection, on air quality grounds. It is considered that the development is compliant with NMWLDF: CS policy DM13 and the NPPF. 10.21 Concern has been raised regarding the cumulative impact of a number of separate applications in respect of Whitlingham WwTW, in the absence of a long-term plan for future development of the site. The proposal would enable the existing biosolids handling operation to be undertaken in a more efficient and sustainable manner. It is considered that the additional development is relatively minor in the context of the whole site and there would be no significant cumulative amenity, landscape or ecology impacts. It is therefore considered, taking into account the above, that this proposal is compliant with NMWLDF: CS Policy DM15, and the NPPF. 10.22 The local objections set out in this report are strongly held, however, given the above it is considered that on balance the proposal is in accordance with national and regional planning policies, and the development plan, and conditional planning permission should be granted for the proposed development. 11. Conditions

11.1 It is recommended that planning permission shall be granted subject to conditions including: a) The development hereby permitted shall commence not later than three years from the date of this permission. Within seven days of the commencement of operations, the operator shall notify the County Planning Authority in writing of the exact starting date.

Reason:

Imposed in accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. b) Except as modified by the contents of the letter from Bidwells to Environment, Transport, Development dated 15 June 2012, the development hereby permitted shall not take place except in accordance with the application form, plans, drawings and other documents and details submitted, as detailed below:

- Drawing no. S375300017-01 Revision A – Whitlingham Site Location – dated August 2011;

- Drawing No. SEW - 05839 - WHITST – 2G – PLG – 120 – Rev B – Planning Application, Cake Bay, Sludge Stack Height Plan – dated 10/09/09;

- Drawing No. SEW – 05839 – WHITST – 2G – DET – 1300 Rev D – Whitlingham WwTW, Sludge Cake, Screw Conveying System Layout – dated 3 June 09;

- Planning Supporting Statement – Anglian Water Services Limited, Small Concrete Pad, Whitlingham Wastewater Treatment Works, Kirby Bedon – dated August 2011;

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. Recommendation

It is recommended that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be authorised to : (i) Grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in Section 11 above. (ii) Discharge conditions where those detailed above require the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commences, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted or at any other period; and (iii) Deal with any non-material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

Background Papers Application file reference: C/7/2011/7017 Norfolk Minerals and Waste LDF Core Strategy (2011) Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (2011) South Norfolk Local Plan (2003) Saved Policies The Regional Spatial Strategy East of England Plan (2008) National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework

Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management

Officer Contact

If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with: Name Telephone Number Email address

Andrew Harriss 01603 224147 [email protected]

Click here for the location plan Click here for the site plan

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact 0344 800 8020 and ask for Andrew Harriss or textphone 0344 800 8011 and we will do our best to help.

±

The Application Site

© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100019340, 24 September 2012 0 500 1,000 2,000 Metres 24 September 2012

C/7/2011/7017 - Whitlingham Waste Water Treatment Works

Kirby Bedon Scale 1: 50000 Centred on 627889 306842 ±

The Application Site

Land within the Applicant's Ownership

Land within the Applicant's Ownership

© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 100019340, 24 September 2012 0 75 150 300 450 600 Metres 24 September 2012

C/7/2011/7017 - Whitlingham Waste Water Treatment Works

Kirby Bedon Scale 1: 12000 Centred on 627889 306842