Development and Regulation Committee

Committee Room 1, Friday, 25 October 10:30 County Hall, 2013 Chelmsford, Essex

Quorum: 3

Membership:

Councillor R Boyce Chairman Councillor J Abbott Councillor K Bobbin Councillor A Brown Councillor P Channer Councillor M Ellis Councillor C Guglielmi Councillor J Lodge Councillor M Mackrory Councillor Lady P Newton Councillor J Reeves Councillor S Walsh

For information about the meeting please ask for: Matthew Waldie, Committee Officer Telephone: 01245 430565 Email: [email protected]

Page 1 of 124 Essex County Council and Committees Information

All Council and Committee Meetings are held in public unless the business is exempt in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1972.

Most meetings are held at County Hall, Chelmsford, CM1 1LX. A map and directions to County Hall can be found at the following address on the Council’s website: http://www.essex.gov.uk/Your-Council/Local-Government-Essex/Pages/Visit-County- Hall.aspx

There is ramped access to the building for wheelchair users and people with mobility disabilities.

The Council Chamber and Committee Rooms are accessible by lift and are located on the first and second floors of County Hall.

If you have a need for documents in the following formats, large print, Braille, on disk or in alternative languages and easy read please contact the Committee Officer before the meeting takes place. If you have specific access requirements such as access to induction loops, a signer, level access or information in Braille please inform the Committee Officer before the meeting takes place. For any further information contact the Committee Officer.

Induction loop facilities are available in most Meeting Rooms. Specialist head sets are available from Duke Street and E Block Receptions.

The agenda is also available on the Essex County Council website, www.essex.gov.uk From the Home Page, click on ‘Your Council’, then on ‘Meetings and Agendas’. Finally, select the relevant committee from the calendar of meetings.

Please note that an audio recording may be made of the meeting – at the start of the meeting the Chairman will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being recorded.

Page 2 of 124 Part 1 (During consideration of these items the meeting is likely to be open to the press and public)

Pages

1 Apologies and Substitution Notices The Committee Officer to report receipt (if any)

2 Declarations of Interest To note any declarations of interest to be made by Members

3 Minutes 9 - 16 To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2013.

4 Identification of Items Involving Public Speaking To note where members of the public are speaking on an agenda item. These items may be brought forward on the agenda.

5 Minerals and Waste

5a Former Goods Yard, land off Brook Street, Chelmsford 17 - 70

Erection and use of a concrete batching plant and ancillary water and aggregate recovery and recycling facilities

Location: Former Goods Yard, land off Brook Street, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 1SU

Ref: ESS/32/13/CHL DR/41/13

5b Sandon Quarry - erection of fence 71 - 78

Retrospective planning application for the erection of a 43.2m x 2m high acoustic mitigation fence along the northern boundary of the access road to Sandon Quarry.

Location: Sandon Quarry, Molrams Lane, Sandon, Chelmsford CM2 7TE

Ref: ESS/43/13/CHL DR/42/13

Page 3 of 124 6 County Council Development

6a Woodlands Comprehensive School, Basildon 79 - 90

Construction of a new full size ‘3G’ Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) with fencing, replacing an area of hard play and grass playing fields.

Location: Woodlands Comprehensive School, Takely End, Basildon, SS16 5BA

Ref: CC/BAS/48/13 DR/43/13

7 Enforcement Update

7a Land adjacent to The Cock Inn, Boreham 91 - 94

Unauthorised importation, deposition crushing and processing of construction and demolition waste (including concrete, brick other rubble and road scalpings).

Location: Land adjacent to The Cock Inn, Boreham

Ref: ENF/SA DR/44/13

7b Land at A120/B1256 intersection, Braintree 95 - 98

The importation, deposition and spreading of waste materials on the land, substantially raising the land levels (unauthorised development).

Location: Land at intersection of A120 and B1256 (Stortford Road), Braintree, Essex

Ref: ENF/0673 DR/45/13

Page 4 of 124 7c Land at Dairy House Farm, Great Holland 99 - 102

The unauthorised extraction and exportation of sand and gravel from the land and the importation and deposition of waste materials and consequential raising of the land levels (the unauthorised development).

Location: Land at Dairy House Farm, Little Clacton Road, Great Holland. CO13 0EX DR/46/13

7d Land at Springvale Farm, Navestock 103 - 104

A material change of use from agricultural land to the use of the land for the importation, depositing, storing and processing of waste materials.

Location: Land at Springvale Farm, Goatswood Lane, Navestock, Essex. RM14 1HE DR/47/13

7e Land at Armigers Farm, Thaxted 105 - 108

A material change of use from agricultural land to land used for agriculture and for the importation, deposit, stockpiling and processing of inert waste materials.

Location: Land at Armigers Farm, Thaxted, Great Dunmow, Essex DR/48/13

8 Appeal Update

Page 5 of 124 8a Land adjacent to Manning Grove, Great Bromley - 109 - 120 Appeal decision

Construction of an agricultural reservoir, by the extraction and removal from the site of sand, gravel and surplus soils, together with the construction of an internal haul road, ancillary buildings and the widening of the existing access on Hall Road (B1029)

Location: Land adjacent to Manning Grove, Carringtons Road, Great Bromley, Essex

ECC Reference: ESS/56/11/TEN Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/Z1585/A/12/2182774 DR/49/13

9 Information Items

9a Applications, Enforcement and Appeals Statistics 121 - 124 To update Members with relevant information on planning applications, appeals and enforcements, as at the end of the previous month, plus other background information as may be requested by Committee. DR/50/13

10 Date of Next Meeting To note that the next meeting will be held on Friday 22 November 2013.

11 Urgent Business To consider any matter which in the opinion of the Chairman should be considered in public by reason of special circumstances (to be specified) as a matter of urgency.

Exempt Items (During consideration of these items the meeting is not likely to be open to the press and public)

To consider whether the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during consideration of an agenda item on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as specified in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 or it being confidential for the purposes of Section 100A(2) of that Act.

In each case, Members are asked to decide whether, in all the circumstances, the public interest in maintaining the exemption (and discussing the matter in private) outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. Page 6 of 124

12 Urgent Exempt Business To consider in private any other matter which in the opinion of the Chairman should be considered by reason of special circumstances (to be specified) as a matter of urgency.

______

All letters of representation referred to in the reports attached to this agenda are available for inspection. Anyone wishing to see these documents should contact the Officer identified on the front page of the report prior to the date of the meeting.

______

Page 7 of 124

Page 8 of 124 27 September 2013 Unapproved 1 Minutes

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION COMMITTEE HELD AT COUNTY HALL, CHELMSFORD ON 27 SEPTEMBER 2013

Present

Cllr R Boyce (Chairman) Cllr T Higgins Cllr K Bobbin Cllr J Lodge Cllr P Channer Cllr Lady P Newton Cllr M Ellis Cllr C Seagers Cllr I Grundy Cllr S Walsh

1. Apologies and Substitution Notices

Apologies were received from Cllrs J Abbott, A Brown, C Guglielmi (substituted by Cllr I Grundy), M Mackrory (substituted by Cllr T Higgins) and J Reeves (substituted by Cllr C Seagers).

2. Declarations of Interest

Cllr Grundy declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 5a, as a member of Chelmsford City Council, but added that he had not taken part in any discussions of this issue.

3. Minutes

The Minutes and Addendum of the Committee held on 23 August 2013 were agreed and signed by the Chairman.

The meeting noted that under Item 9, Enforcement Update, that legal advice was still being sought in the matter of Dannatts Farm, so a report would be submitted to the Committee at either its October or November meeting.

4. Identification of Items Involving Public Speaking

The persons identified to speak in accordance with the procedure were identified for the following item:

Erection and use of a concrete batching plant and ancillary water and aggregate recovery and recycling facilities Location: Former Goods Yard, land off Brook Street, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 1SU Ref: ESS/32/13/CHL The Chairman informed the meeting that he was exercising his discretion and allowing a second speaker for Chelmsford City Council. Public Speakers: Cllr Jean Murray speaking against Derek Stebbing speaking against Michael Higgins speaking against Mike Courts speaking for Local Member Cllr Mike Mackrory.

Page 9 of 124

Minutes 2 Unapproved 27 September 2013

5. Former Goods Yard, off Brook Street, Chelmsford

The Committee considered report DR/39/13 by the Head of Planning, Environmental and Economic Growth. The Members of the Committee noted the contents of the Addendum attached to these minutes.

Policies relevant to the application were detailed in the report.

Details of Consultation and Representations received were set out in the report.

The Committee noted the key issues that were:  Need & Principle  Policy considerations  Impact on Residential Amenity  Traffic & Highways  Visual Impact & Design  Ecology  Fall-back Position

In accordance with the protocol on public speaking the Committee was addressed by Jean Murray, a Chelmsford City Councillor. Councillor Murray said:  There would be a significant impact on residences in the vicinity. Concrete dust has an unpleasant smell. There would be heavy machinery in use and work would start early, at 7.00 am, and operate until 6.30 in the evening  The Bunny Walk is nearby – we need to ensure that this important ecological asset to the town is not damaged by the corrosive effect of cement dust  38 cement lorry movements per day means one every 18 minutes, travelling through an already very congested area  This is too close to a residential area – the most appropriate location for such a facility is on the edge of town.

Mr Derek Stebbing, a Planning Officer with Chelmsford City Council, then addressed the meeting. Mr Stebbing said:  The City Council has two policy objections to this proposed scheme. The first is that it fails to safeguard a transhipment site, as the batching plant does not rely on rail links  The second is that this is a material change of use to an industrial one – and an industrial use that will give rise to dust and noise emissions. There have been several significant business and residential developments here, for example the University and the Atlantic Hotel. This project will not only undermine the City Council’s regeneration objectives for this part of the City, but will set them back. Page 10 of 124 27 September 2013 Unapproved 3 Minutes

Mr Michael Higgins, a local resident, then addressed the meeting. Mr Higgins said:  The proposal fails to safeguard the transhipment site and its position reduces the ability of other companies using the rail head for storage and transportation in the future  It would reduce the opportunity for development of the rest of the site for business purposes  It is unlikely that the railway would be able to accommodate extra capacity on that line  There is no need for this business: there are two similar plants with spare capacity on the edge of Chelmsford, which could cover the envisaged amount to be produced here  Noise level issues have not been properly resolved or addressed.

Mr Mike Courts, on behalf of the applicant, then addressed the meeting. Mr Courts said:  All elements of this application can already take place lawfully on the site with the exception of the batching plant  The scale of the operation would not be on a scale to merit a reasonable refusal  This represents a beneficial economic use located on an underused brownfield site; and the batching plant itself would be outside Opportunity Site 34  As the report notes, it is acceptable on all environmental grounds and would be unlikely to have an impact on local amenity or the local environment by way of its use and operation  A fundamental aspect would be to include the importation of aggregates via rail, which would encourage the retention and upgrading of this existing rail facility; and so it would be in line with local development plans. And his own view is that any development making the best use of railways should be encouraged.

Councillor Mike Mackrory, local Member, then addressed the meeting. Cllr Mackrory said:  He is speaking on behalf of Councillor Deakin, those resident in the Hillview Road area and those who would be living on the redeveloped Marconi site  The original Lawful Development Certificate was issued for the storage and distribution of minerals – not mixing, processing or manufacturing, as is intended here; this is a change of use  It contradicts the Town Centre Area Action Plan, as it does not enhance the environment – quite the reverse. It would sterilise any development  Such activities should be carried out away from urban areas and there are plants already doing this out of town  Local residents already suffer from dust coming from Lafarge  The Council’s noise consultant has no objection – but details are not yet available, so how can any conclusion be reached?  There is no spare capacity on the railway. There must be a significant

Page 11 of 124

Minutes 4 Unapproved 27 September 2013

impact on the locality of having an additional 38 lorry journeys, and there is every likelihood that this number will increase  What is so different about this application, compared to the one that was refused in 2012? There were three broad grounds for refusal: no enhancement and adversely affecting local development, not being in keeping with local developments, and insufficient information on noise impact assessment. Nothing has changed, so Members should reject the application.

In response to questions raised, Members were informed that:  The application in 2000 had been for a business dealing with a different sort of product – tarmacadam; and the adjoining flour mill had raised no objections to the application currently being considered  The application that Chelmsford refused, in October 2012, had been sited differently  Further information has been gleaned on noise levels on this occasion, with the start time being altered from 6.00 to 7.00 as a result  Network Rail have been consulted and have made no comment; and the landowner, a statutory rail undertaker, is aware and has raised no objections  The 38 lorry journeys is a “worst case” scenario; the intention is to use both road and rail.

Some other concerns were expressed by Members:  There is a lack of clarity at present over the rail transportation; the use of rail seems merely aspirational at present and it is not possible to decide without more knowledge  If rail transportation is used, it will mean bringing materials from Suffolk and Kent; local materials should be preferred  There is high pedestrian and bicycle use in this area, with the university located nearby  There will be a substantial visual impact near the town centre, with a structure over 14m high.

The resolution was moved, seconded and following a vote of four in favour and six against, a 2nd resolution to refuse planning permission was moved, seconded and following a vote of five in favour, three against, it was:

Resolved: That planning permission be refused for similar reasons for refusal that were issued in October 2012 for the previous application (ref. ESS/52/12/CHL) , and that the manufacturing process introduces an additional use that will cause detrimental impacts contrary to the existing lawful use for storage and distribution.

In accordance with the Committee Protocol, it was agreed Officers present a report to the next meeting setting out appropriate advice as to the clarity and reasonableness of the reasons put forward for refusal of the application.

Page 12 of 124 27 September 2013 Unapproved 5 Minutes

6. Statistics

The Committee considered report DR/40/13, Applications, Enforcement and Appeals Statistics, as at end of the previous month, by the Head of Planning, Environment and Economic Growth. The Committee NOTED the report.

7. Date and Time of Next Meeting

The Committee noted that the next meeting will be held on Friday 25 October 2013 at 10.30am in Committee Room 1.

There being no further business the meeting closed at 11.35am.

Chairman

Page 13 of 124

Page 14 of 124 ADDENDUM FOR THE MEETING OF DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION COMMITTEE 27 September 2013

Item 5a (DR/39/13) Former Goods Yard, Land off Brook Street, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 1SU

Page 51

RECOMMENDED

Proposed condition 17:

Replace “All elements of scheme to be implemented prior to use and operation of plant” with “All proposed noise and dust mitigation measures to be implemented prior to beneficial use and operation of plant”.

Page 15 of 124

Addendum Development & Regulation Committee 27 September 2013

Page 16 of 124

AGENDA ITEM 5a

DR/41/13

committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 25 October 2013

MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT Proposal: Erection and use of a concrete batching plant and ancillary water and aggregate recovery and recycling facilities Location: Former Goods Yard, land off Brook Street, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 1SU Ref: ESS/32/13/CHL Applicant: Brett Concrete Limited

Report by Director for Operations, Environment and Economy Enquiries to: Paul Calder Tel: 01245 437585

Page 17 of 124 Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright reserved Essex County Council, Chelmsford Licence L000 19602

Page 18 of 124

1. BACKGROUND

The planning application for the above development was considered at the Development and Regulation Committee on Friday 27 September 2013. The officer report is attached at Appendix 1.

Members resolved to refuse the planning application for the erection and use of a concrete batching plant and ancillary water and aggregate recovery and recycling facilities.

In accordance with the Committee Protocol, a formal decision on the application was deferred until the October 2013 meeting of the Development and Regulation Committee. The deferral was to allow officers to provide appropriate reasons for refusal based on planning policy.

2. SITE

The former goods yard site is situated within Chelmsford Town Centre. A full description of the sites location can be found within the officer’s report at Appendix 1.

3. POLICIES

The following policies of the Minerals Local Plan (MLP) Adopted 1997, Replacement Minerals Local Plan (RMLP) submitted to the Secretary of State (SoS) for Examination in Public (EiP) and the Chelmsford Borough Local Development Framework (CBLDF) including the Core Strategy and Development Policies Document Adopted 2008 provide the development framework for this application. The following policies are of relevance to this application:

MLP RMLP CBLDF Development Management Criteria MLP13 DM1 Area Action Plans CP7 Minimising Environmental Impact CP13 Securing Economic Growth CP22 Protecting Existing Amenity DC4 Amenity and Pollution DP29 Achieving High Quality Development DC45

It is noted that, as of 03 January 2013, the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England (RSS) has been revoked and therefore no longer forms part of the development plan.

It is important to note with regard to the above and the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) that the MLP was adopted in 1997. The Framework (Paragraph 215) details that for Local Plans adopted before 2004 (not in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) due weight should be given to relevant policies according to their degree of consistency with The Framework.

Page 19 of 124

Chelmsford City Council’s Local Development Framework including the Core Strategy and Development Policies Document was Adopted in 2008 in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Chelmsford City Council (CCC) has undertaken a Focused Review of its adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies in light of The Framework. Although not yet formally adopted by the City Council, this review has been submitted to the Secretary of State (SoS) for independent examination and reflects the City Council’s position with regard to its adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies in relation to the requirements of The Framework. CCC consider that its development plan as a whole is sound and consistent with the requirements of The Framework and that this review has been limited to policy amendments to a small number of its Core Strategy and Development Control Policies that need to be more appropriately aligned with the requirements of The Framework. Therefore, based on this information, the MPA consider that the principle of those Core Strategy and Development Control Policies contained within this Focused Review are consistent with The Framework and therefore continue to hold significant weight in decision making.

With regard to the above Essex County Council (ECC) submitted its Replacement Minerals Local Plan – Pre-Submission Draft (January 2013) (RMLP) to the Secretary of State on 12th July 2013 for examination. Given that the RMLP has formally been submitted, it is considered to have some weight in the determining of relevant planning applications. Paragraph 216 of The Framework specifically states, in relation to this, that from the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:

 The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);  The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that mat be given); and  The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).

4. APPRAISAL

Policy Considerations

The Framework highlights that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. It goes on to state that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental and that, to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system.

The Framework states that at its heart is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For decision-making this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay.

Page 20 of 124

CBLDF Policy CP22 (Securing Economic Growth) states, in summary, that the City Council will actively seek to maintain high and stable levels of economic and employment growth in the City with support being given to proposals that secure job growth within ‘high value’ businesses and premium retailing within the City’s economy.

CBLDF Policy CP7 (Area Action Plans) states, in summary, that the Area Action Plan for Chelmsford Town Centre will set out an integrated land use and urban design framework to direct development proposals and public realm investment. The CTCAAP will allocate land for future development and change and provide a framework for the delivery of infrastructure and other improvements that will reinforce the town’s role as the ‘Capital of Essex’.

It is considered that whilst the proposal would contribute to the economy and be on an existing underutilised brownfield site within the city centre, it would conflict with the principles of the CTCAAP in not providing any form of environmental enhancement or contribute in regenerating the city centre in line with the CTCAAP which is considered to outweigh the economic gains of the proposal in this instance. Further, it is considered that a facility of this nature would undermine and could adversely affect the ability of Chelmsford to strengthen its position as a thriving, vibrant and attractive city centre. Therefore, taking the above into account, it is further considered that the economic considerations related to this proposal do not override the social and environmental considerations.

In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed development would be contrary to the Framework and CTCAAP and in particular CBLDF Policies CP7 and CP22.

Visual Impact and Design The Framework states that planning decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the built environment. The Framework also goes to say that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.

CBLDF Policy DC45 (Achieving High Quality Development) states, in summary, that planning permission will only be granted for new buildings provided, the siting, scale, form, massing, materials and detail of the proposed buildings would have an appropriate visual relationship with the layout, scale, form, massing, materials, details and character and appearance of development in the surrounding area.

The application site is surrounded by land uses of an industrial nature although these are predominately buildings and not plant such as the proposal. Therefore although the site would be suitable for development as highlighted by the CTCAAP, it is considered that the proposed development itself, being predominately plant measuring up to 14.5 metres in height, would be contrary to CBLDF Policy DC45.

Therefore it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to CBLDF Policy DC45 and the Framework given its height, nature, design and location within the

Page 21 of 124

city centre.

Impact on Residential Amenity

One of the core planning principles of the Framework is to always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. The Framework also states that to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution, decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location with the effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment and general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or development to adverse effects from pollution being taken into account.

MLP Policy MLP13 (Development Control) and RMLP Policy S10 (Development Management Criteria) are concerned with the protection of amenity and ensuring that no unacceptable impacts would occur through the granting of planning permissions. Policies MLP13 and S10 state, in summary, that planning applications for mineral extraction and related development will be refused where there would be an unacceptable effect on local residents’ (or others’) amenity. This policy is supported by the Framework which states that planning applications will be assessed so as to ensure that permitted operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the local environment, and therefore it is considered that MLP Policy MLP13 and RMLP Policy S10 are consistent with the Framework.

CBLDF Policy CP13 (Minimising Environmental Impact) states, in summary, that The Borough (now City) Council will seek to ensure that development proposals minimise their impact on the environment and that they do not give rise to significant and adverse impacts on health, amenity including air quality, and the wider environment.

CBLDF Policy DC4 (Protecting Existing Amenity) states, in summary, that all development proposals should safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of any nearby properties by ensuring that development would not result in excessive noise, activity or vehicle movements, overlooking or visual intrusion and the built form would not adversely prejudice outlook, privacy, or light enjoyed by the occupiers of nearby properties.

CBLDF Policy DC29 (Amenity and Pollution) states, in summary, that planning permission will be refused for development, including changes of use, which will or could potentially give rise to polluting emissions to land, air, and water by reason of noise, light, smell, fumes, vibration or other (including smoke, soot, ash, dust and grit) unless appropriate mitigation measures can be put in place and permanently maintained.

It is considered that until the type of plant to be used onsite is identified the impact upon amenity from noise emissions cannot be adequately assessed therefore, in order to be able to fully establish and determine the extent of the noise impact from the proposed development on the local environment including nearby residential and business properties additional information is required. Therefore, it is considered that insufficient information has been provided in order to establish

Page 22 of 124

the full extent of noise impacts resulting from the proposed development contrary to the Framework, MLP Policy MLP13, RMLP Policy S10 and CBLDF Policies CP13, DC4 and DC29.

5. RECOMMENDED

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons;

1. The development would fail to provide any environmental enhancement as required by the Chelmsford Borough Local Development Framework – Chelmsford Town Centre Area Action Plan (2008) and would therefore adversely affect and undermine the ability for the creation of a new built frontage to face Brook Street. The development would therefore undermine the overall objectives of the Chelmsford Borough Local Development Framework – Chelmsford Town Centre Area Action Plan (2008) and would not deliver sustainable development as required by the Framework. The development would also be contrary to policies CP7 (Area Action Plans) and CP22 (Securing Economic Growth) of the Chelmsford Borough Local Development Framework – Core Strategy and Development Framework (2008);

2. The development would introduce uses such as mixing, processing and manufacturing outside the lawful use of the current permitted use of storage and distribution causing a detrimental impact to the local environment and amenity contrary to policy MLP13 (Development Control) of the Minerals Local Plan (1997), Policy S10 (Development Management Criteria) of the Replacement Minerals Local Plan (SoS Submission 2013) and policies CP7 (Area Action Plans), CP13 (Minimising Environmental Impact), DC4 (Protecting Existing Amenity) and DC29 (Amenity and Pollution) of the Chelmsford Borough Local Development Framework – Core Strategy and Development Framework (2008);

3. The development’s plant/building design would not be in keeping with the surrounding town centre location, contrary to policy DC45 (Achieving High Quality Development) of the Chelmsford Borough Local Development Framework – Core Strategy and Development Framework (2008);

4. The submitted Noise Impact Assessment provides insufficient information to be able to fully establish and determine whether there would be an acceptable noise impact from the proposed development on the local environment and amenity, including the impact upon nearby residential and business properties. It is therefore considered that the development could have an unacceptable impact from noise emissions on local amenity, contrary to the Framework, policy MLP13 (Development Control) of the Minerals Local Plan (1997) and policies CP13 (Minimising Environmental Impact), DC4 (Protecting Existing Amenity) and DC29 (Amenity and Pollution) of the Chelmsford Borough Local Development Framework – Core Strategy and Development Framework (2008).

Page 23 of 124

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Consultation replies Representations Apps Ref: ESS/32/13/CHL, ESS/04/12/CHL and ESS/52/12/CHL

THE CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010

The proposed development would not be located adjacent to/within screening distance to a European site.

Following consultation with the County Council’s Ecological Consultant no issues have been raised to indicate that this development would adversely affect the integrity of this site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects.

Therefore, it is considered that an Appropriate Assessment under Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 is not required.

EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT: The report only concerns the determination of an application for planning permission and takes into account any equalities implications. The recommendation has been made after consideration of the application and supporting documents, the development plan, government policy and guidance, representations and all other material planning considerations as detailed in the body of the report.

STATEMENT OF HOW THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT IN A POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE MANNER

The Mineral Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and clearly setting these out in the reasons for refusal. Members of the Development and Regulation committee took the decision to refuse planning permission having found that there are issues so fundamental to the proposal arising from its impact that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reasons for the refusal. Therefore approval has not been possible in this case.

LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION

CHELMSFORD – Central

CHELMSFORD – West

CHELMSFORD – Springfield

Page 24 of 124

APPENDIX 1

AGENDA ITEM ......

committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 27 September 2013

MINERALS DEVELOPMENT

Proposal: Erection and use of a concrete batching plant and ancillary water and aggregate recovery and recycling facilities Location: Former Goods Yard, land off Brook Street, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 1SU Ref: ESS/32/13/CHL Applicant: Brett Concrete Limited

Report by Head of Planning, Environment and Economic Growth Enquiries to: Matthew Wood Tel: 01245 435755

Page 25 of 124

Page 26 of 124

1. BACKGROUND

The site, a former goods yard and rail sidings has an extensive history as an aggregates transhipment site with previous uses of this site including a coal yard with material imported by rail. The site is also a safeguarded mineral transhipment site both within the existing Minerals Local Plan (1997) and Replacement Minerals Local Plan (RMLP).

In December 2011 the applicant submitted an application for a Lawful Development Certificate for a Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD) (ref: ESS/04/12/CHL) in order to confirm the lawful use of the site in question. The application was sufficient in demonstrating on the balance of probability that the lawful use of the site was for the storage and distribution of minerals given the history of the site and that this use had long been established in this location. A certificate to this affect was issued on 07 March 2012.

In August 2012 the applicant submitted a planning application (ref: ESS/52/12/CHL) seeking approval for the erection and use of a concrete batching plant and ancillary facilities on land which encompasses that to which the CLOPUD relates. As part of this proposal the use covered by the CLOPUD would have facilitated the concrete batching plant. However, this application was refused in October 2012 on Local Plan Policy issues relating to Chelmsford City Council’s Adopted Town Centre Area Action Plan (CTCAAP) and on noise grounds due to insufficient information being provided to satisfy noise concerns as part of this planning application.

This planning application is a resubmission of planning application ref: ESS/52/12/CHL which seeks to address those reasons for refusal of the previous planning application refused in October 2012.

In terms of the site itself, this is situated within Chelmsford Town Centre as identified by Chelmsford’s Local Development Framework (LDF) and in particular the Chelmsford Town Centre Area Action Plan (CTCAAP) adopted in 2008. The application site is covered by the CTCAAP which designates part of the former goods yard site as Site Opportunity Area 34. The northern half of the site falls within this designation. The southern half of the site is a safeguarded mineral transhipment site as identified by the Minerals Local Plan (MLP) adopted in 1997 and which is proposed to continue to be safeguarded by the Replacement Minerals Local Plan (RMLP) which has been submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination in Public (EIP).

2. SITE

The former goods yard site is situated within Chelmsford Town Centre and is covered by the Chelmsford Town Centre Area Action Plan (CTCAAP) which forms part of Chelmsford City’s Adopted Local Development Framework (LDF). The site itself is accessed via Brook Street to the north west of the site which itself is accessed from New Street further to the north west of the site. Both vehicular and pedestrian access to the site is from Brook Street.

Page 27 of 124 11

The application site covers only part of the former goods yard site located to the south of the site adjacent to existing rail sidings. Other adjacent active uses on the site include a builders merchants to the north east, metals storage to the north and an existing mineral storage and distribution depot to the west of the site. Other areas of the goods yard, notably to the east of the site are redundant and are currently underused. The proposed development would be located approximately 150 metres from the nearest residential properties situated in Hill View Road to the east of the site.

Along the eastern boundary of the site there is some partial screening from vegetation beyond which is the River Chelmer and residential properties (Hill View Road). The site is adequately screened from beyond the south boundary of the site by an existing railway embankment approximately 15 metres in height. Along the north and west boundaries of the site there is some partial screening from vegetation beyond which are commercial/industrial properties. Within the goods yard site itself adjacent uses would only be screened by a proposed 3m high sleeper walls to the east of the application site.

The application site is approximately 130 metres from the Chelmer Valley Riverside Local Wildlife Site (LWS) and 140 metres from the River Chelmer. However, the proposal site is situated within Flood Zone 1, classed as low probability risk in table 1 of the Technical Guidance to The Framework. From the information submitted the application site is less than 1 hectare in size. A pedestrian and cycle path forming part of the Chelmer Valley pedestrian network runs along the northern boundary of the former goods yard site. The Marconi building approximately 300m to the west of the site in New Street is a Grade II Listed Building.

3. PROPOSAL

This application seeks approval for the erection and use of a concrete batching plant, ancillary water, aggregate and recycling facilities on land at the former goods yard, off Brook Street in Central Chelmsford.

The main difference with this proposal from that previously submitted under planning application ref: ESS/52/12/CHL is the location of the plant on the site which has been moved from a position to the north of the site as previously submitted to a proposed position to the south of the site adjacent to existing rail sidings which serve the site.

The proposed erection and use of the concrete batching plant and ancillary facilities would produce and distribute ready-mixed concrete and floor screed on land which lies adjacent to an existing aggregate importation, storage and distribution facility operated by an adjacent landowner.

For clarity purposes the applicant has confirmed that water recycling and the recovery for reuse of aggregates referred to in the description of development refers to concrete remaining in truck mixer drums at the end of the working day.

For the avoidance of all doubt the applicant has confirmed that aggregate recycling from imported waste by crushing and screening in no way forms part of the proposed development. The recycling element refers to the recycling of the

Page 28 of 124 12

(washout) water and the recycling of any returned undelivered concrete loads, of which the applicant has confirmed there would be few of. There would be no recycling of any other materials.

The proposed annual output of concrete and floor screed would be in the region of 22,400 cubic metres which is an average of 81 cubic metres per working day (275 working days per year).

The proposed development includes a number of components which are considered to be Permitted Development under Schedule 2, Part 17 (Railway or light railway undertakings) Class A of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 and which are considered to be lawful under the CLOPUD application (ref: ESS/04/12/CHL) in relation to the storage and distribution of minerals on the site.. These include the following:

 4m high sleeper walls along part of the southern and eastern boundaries of the application site and the formation of bays for the storage of various grades of imported aggregates;  A mess room and toilet facilities with foul drainage to a sealed cess pit;  A store for consumables within which any cycles used by site personnel for transport to work would be parked during the day;  Concrete surfacing where lorries manoeuvre and are loaded; and  A dedicated car and motorcycle parking area.

The proposed development of which this planning application relates to includes the following components:

 Aggregate storage bins;  Cement and cement substitute silos, admixture tanks and a fresh water tank;  Aggregate and cement weigh hoppers;  A control cabin;  Concrete surfacing which would drain to a water recycling system, comprising a washout pit and recycled water tank;  An aggregate recycling system comprising the washout pit and a drying bay; and  Boundary treatment, the details of which would likely be confirmed via a condition attached to planning permission should it be granted.

Therefore, it is important to note that this planning application relates only to proposed batching plant and its associated mixing operation with all other aspects including the importation, storage and distribution of aggregates already deemed to be lawful.

The proposed hours of operation of the plant would be:

07:00 to 18:30 hours Mondays to Fridays (excluding Public Holidays); and 07:00 to 13:00 hours Saturdays.

It is noted that these proposed hours of operation have been amended slightly from those sought previously under planning application ref: ESS/52/12/CHL with this Page 29 of 124 13

previous application having proposed operations to start from 06:00 hours as opposed to 07:00 hours now being sought.

Only essential maintenance would normally be carried out outside of these hours. However, in the event that deliveries to public works are required outside of these hours the Mineral Planning Authority’s (MPA) agreement would be required. The last loads of concrete would normally leave the site no later than 16:30 hours with the proposed aggregate storage bins being topped up by 18:00 hours.

Operation

The basic operation of a concrete batching plant is the controlled discharge of measured quantities of sand, stone, cement (and cement substitute) and water into a mixing plant with the mixed material being loaded in batches into a truck mixer waiting beneath.

Aggregate stored within the authorised sleeper wall bays near the rail sidings would be fed directly into aggregate storage bins by loading shovel. Individual bins would be provided for each grade of aggregate.

The required proportions of each grade of aggregate for a batch of concrete would be controlled from a control cabin and would be discharged into a weigh hopper and conveyed by bucket elevator to a mixer. Cement and cement substitute, imported by road tanker and loaded pneumatically into silos would be fed from silos to a mixer by sealed screw conveyor via a weigh hopper. Water and necessary admixtures would be added and the batch would then be discharged to a truck mixer waiting below.

Whilst the principal source of supply of water for use in the production of concrete would be taken from the mains supply, the use of recycled water is encouraged by Government and is permissible on plants which are accredited under the Quality Scheme for ready mix concrete.

The proposed development includes a water recycling system with recycled water derived from rainwater drainage collected from paved areas around the batching plant, water used in dust suppression at the plant’s loading point, and from water used in cleaning out truck mixers; drums at the end of each working day.

Rainwater and water used in dust suppression would drain to a sump. Truck mixers would also be washed out into a sump and water together with cement removed from aggregate in residual concrete in the cleaning process would be pumped into a recycled water tank where solids would be constantly agitated and remain in suspension. Along with water from the adjacent freshwater tank it would be pumped to the batching plant and used in concrete production.

The aggregate from which the cement would be removed in the washing out process would be transferred from the sump to a drying bay and, once dry, would be reloaded into the aggregate bins together with stored aggregate. This system minimises any wastage of aggregate, cement or water.

All site generated waste materials would be placed in standard wheeled and

Page 30 of 124 14

covered containers which would be emptied as and when necessary by waste collection contractors. Separate containers for waste for disposal and waste for recycling would be provided.

4. POLICIES

MLP RMLP CBLDF Transportation MLP3 Rail Depots MLP6 Development Control MLP13 Safeguarding Mineral Transhipment S9 Sites and Secondary Processing Facilities Development Management Criteria DM1 Area Action Plans CP7 Minimising Environmental Impact CP13 Securing Economic Growth CP22 Freight Transport CP26 Protecting Existing Amenity DC4 Criteria for Transport Assessments DC6 Vehicle Parking Standards at DC7 Developments Sites of Biodiversity and Geological DC13 Value Water Efficiency and Sustainable DC25 Drainage Systems Amenity and Pollution DP29 Achieving High Quality Development DC45 Industrial and Warehouse DC52 Development

It is noted that, as of 03 January 2013, the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England (RSS) has been revoked and therefore no longer forms part of the development plan.

Chelmsford City Council’s Local Development Framework including the Core Page 31 of 124 15

Strategy and Development Policies Document was Adopted in 2008 in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Chelmsford City Council (CCC) has undertaken a Focused Review of its adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies in light of The Framework. Although not yet formally adopted by the City Council, this review has been submitted to the Secretary of State (SoS) for independent examination and reflects the City Council’s position with regard to its adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies in relation to the requirements of The Framework. CCC state that they consider that their development plan as a whole is sound and consistent with the requirements of The Framework and that this review has been limited to policy amendments to a small number of its Core Strategy and Development Control Policies that need to be more appropriately aligned with the requirements of The Framework. Therefore, based on this information, the MPA consider that the principle of those Core Strategy and Development Control Policies contained within this Focused Review are consistent with The Framework and therefore continue to hold significant weight in decision making.

With regard to the above Essex County Council (ECC) submitted their Replacement Minerals Local Plan – Pre-Submission Draft (January 2013) (RMLP) to the Secretary of State on 12th July 2013 for EiP. Given that the RMLP has formally been submitted, it is considered to have some weight in the determining of relevant planning applications. Paragraph 216 of The Framework specifically states, in relation to this, that from the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:

5. CONSULTATIONS

CHELMSFORD CITY COUNCIL – Objects on the following grounds:

 The proposal would fail, in principle, to safeguard a Transhipment Site for minerals as identified in the Essex Minerals Local Plan. The concrete batching plant would represent a material change in the use of the site from storage/distribution through the production of concrete on-site. Furthermore, the allocation of the site (Opportunity Site 34) in the Chelmsford Town Centre Area Action Plan for business and industrial use, does not provide the necessary policy justification for a concrete batching plant at the site;

 The proposal would fail, in part, to provide any environmental improvement as identified by the objectives in the Town Centre Area Action Plan. It would also undermine the ability for the creation of a new built frontage to face

Page 32 of 124 16

Brook Street. On balance the proposal would undermine the overall objectives of the Town Centre Area Action Plan.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – No objection subject to the imposition of a condition requiring a scheme to dispose of surface water on the site.

NETWORK RAIL – No comments received.

HIGHWAY AUTHORITY – No objection subject to the imposition of a condition requiring a Lorry Routeing Plan, detailing the routeing of HGVs to and from the site.

HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (RIGHTS OF WAY) – No comments received.

PLACE SERVICES (Landscape) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – No objection subject to the imposition of a condition requiring a landscape plan to show how the proposal would be mitigated through tree planting and other proposed planting. This should, in particular, include boundary treatment to the east end of the site beside the 4m high proposed sleeper wall.

PLACE SERVICES (Historic Environment) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – No objection.

PLACE SERVICES (Historic Buildings) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – No objection.

PLACE SERVICES (Urban Design) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – No objection.

PLACE SERVICES (Arboriculture) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – No objection.

PLACE SERVICES (Ecology) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – No objection.

ESSEX WILDLIFE TRUST – No comments received.

COUNTY COUNCIL’S NOISE CONSULTANT – No objection subject to the imposition of conditions requiring the Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) submitted in support of this planning application to be updated once specific plant information is available, and for operational noise levels from the site to not exceed the background noise level at any residential property which would be required to be demonstrated through on-site measurements within one month of operation, with methodology to be agreed with the MPA.

COUNTY COUNCIL’S AIR QUALITY CONSULTANT – No objection.

LOCAL MEMBER – CHELMSFORD – Chelmsford Central – Any comments received will be reported.

LOCAL MEMBER – CHELMSFORD – Chelmsford West – Objects on the following grounds:

Page 33 of 124 17

 No significant change from previous application which was turned down;  Continue to have concerns over levels of light, sound and air pollution that this site would cause;  No guarantee that railway will be utilised as part of proposal;  Additional vehicle (HGV) movements proposed would put further strain on New Street and road networks through the city centre to get to A12 and other major routes; and  There is currently a site with approximately 450 dwellings being built across the road on the old Marconi site and such vehicle movements will only exacerbate an existing problem for residents getting onto New Street, particularly during rush hours.

LOCAL MEMBER – CHELMSFORD – Springfield – Objects on the following grounds:

 The proposed location although closer to the railway tracks to that of the previous refused application, is still immediately adjacent to the Opportunity Site as designated by Chelmsford City Council’s adopted Town Centre Plan and therefore compromises that development opportunity. The height of the structures for that development exceed that as recommended in that same plan;  The MLP identifies the Rail Yard as a Minerals Storage and Distribution Area as distinct from a Minerals Processing Area as is proposed;  The proposed number of HGV lorries entering and leaving the site would increase heavy traffic on the already congested city centre roads. The nearest trunk roads are not easily accessible. In addition other traffic would be generated by builders and contractors collecting materials;  The inevitable noise and dust created would drift on the prevailing westerly wind to the adjacent residential area of Hill View Road, Chichester Drive, Perry Hill and Arbour Lane in particular but also the surrounding residential areas;  Light pollution created in the hours of darkness would also have a detrimental effect on those same residential areas; and  The case for need is not made out as alternative suppliers are available in the area with good access to trunk roads and away from residential areas.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

626 properties were directly notified of the application. The application was also advertised in the local press. 58 letters of representation have been received (all against). A table is provided at Appendix Two of this report detailing the comments received. The main planning issues raised are summarised in brief below:

 The site is too close to residential properties, and impacts such as;

- increased noise levels; - dust nuisance; - air quality; - light pollution and - hours of operation; Page 34 of 124 18

are of increasing concern;

 Proposed mitigation of these impacts would be insufficient;

 Proposed vehicle movements would add to existing congestion and road maintenance problems in and around New Street and various safety concerns over other road users, pedestrians and cyclists including University and School students;

 The impact on local wildlife and local designated wildlife sites including the River Chelmer;

 Proposal would go against aspirations for the City centre and would conflict with City centre objectives contained within adopted Town Centre Action Plan which covers the site;

 Proposal not appropriate in this heavily urbanised and residential location and approval of application could create a precedent.

7. APPRAISAL

The key issues for consideration are:

A – Need & Principle B – Policy considerations C – Impact on Residential Amenity D – Traffic & Highways E – Visual Impact & Design F – Ecology G – Fall-back Position

A NEED & PRINCIPLE

The applicant manufactures ready-mixed concrete and also produces washed sands and gravels which are two of the three main raw materials.

The grant of a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD) in March 2012 confirmed the planning status of land at Brook Street rail sidings for the storage and distribution of aggregates. These aggregates would be available for general use by the construction industry or for the manufacture of concrete whether it is on site or elsewhere. The applicant proposes to develop the proposed concrete batching plant alongside the sidings to serve local development projects. However, it is noted that the rail sidings would not immediately be fully utilised as part of the proposal with the majority of movements being via road.

However, the RMLP as submitted to the SoS does not identify any new preferred mineral extraction sites under the control of the applicant during the plan period up to 2029. Consequently, when currently permitted reserves of aggregate within the applicant’s quarries in Essex are exhausted, it is very likely that the applicant would need to transport sand and gravel from further afield to meet customer

Page 35 of 124 19

requirements. The applicant has stated that, in the short term not all aggregate would be imported by rail to the proposed facility. However, in the medium and long term the applicant envisages that all aggregate would be imported to the site by rail.

The applicant has also stated that locating the proposed plant within the designated ‘town centre area’ would ensure that haulage distances from plant to projects in the local area are kept to an absolute minimum. Those projects would otherwise need to be supplied with concrete produced at one of two batching plants at Boreham some 5-6km away, one within an active quarry in the city, the other on industrial land elsewhere.

Until the late 1990’s the applicant had a concrete batching plant at Sandon Quarry approximately 4km from Chelmsford City Centre and although the applicant sought planning permission to retain the plant using imported aggregates, this was refused as the proposal was considered to be contrary to the development plan. This remains so with the plant’s removal from the site secured by planning condition.

Two of the applicant’s existing sand and gravel processing plants, one at Ipswich and one on the Isle of Grain, Kent, are both rail connected and are able to distribute aggregates via the rail network. Both of these plants have permanent planning permission and long term reserves of sand and gravel. Consequently, the applicant is actively seeking to set up a series of rail connected facilities within economic rail haulage distance from existing sustainable sources of supply. Chelmsford, in which major redevelopment in its town centre is already permitted or is planned, is one such location.

Figure 16 of the Chelmsford Town Centre Area Action Plan (CTCAAP) identifies a total of 38 ‘Opportunity Sites’ within the ‘City Centre area’. Each site represents land where there is a significant regeneration objective to remove dereliction, reuse brownfield land and deliver necessary major infrastructure improvement.’ (ref paragraph 13.5 of the CTCAAP). Part of the application site is located within Opportunity Site 34 although it is important to note that all proposed built development forming part of this planning application including the batching plant itself would be located outside of this Opportunity Area. The CTCAAP states that the overall land area in this location (former goods yard) is underused and offers the opportunity for more intensive business and industrial use as long as the rail sidings can still accommodate lorry movements for aggregates interchange. The proposed development is considered to fall within this land use category as an industrial use. Further, the applicant has stated that no other rail connected site is similarly identified, and hence potentially available in substitution for the application site, in the Chelmsford area including the 21 sites identified in policy DC52 (Industrial and Warehouse Development) of Chelmsford City’s Core Strategy and Development policies document which highlights acceptable areas for industrial related development within the Cities boundaries.

In addition, it is considered that the proposal would provide some economic benefit as the proposal would generate 5 full time jobs, and could be considered to be a beneficial economic use of the currently underutilised former goods yard site.

Page 36 of 124 20

A large number of representations have been received with some of these, in part, questioning the need for a facility such as that proposed given that alternative suppliers are available in the area with good access to trunk roads which are located away from residential areas.

The Framework (Paragraph 145) states that MPAs should ensure that large landbanks of minerals bound up in a few number of sites should not stifle competition. Although the proposal is not for mineral extraction it is considered to be a secondary minerals process and therefore relevant to this National Policy objective. It is acknowledged that this proposal would add to local competition regarding concrete supply which it is considered would have a positive impact on the local economy.

Given this and the case of need put forward by the applicant for the proposed development on the rail connected former goods yard site it is considered that there is a justifiable need for the proposal.

Therefore it is considered that the applicant has demonstrated a need for the proposed development in relation to the rail sidings and the importation of aggregate by rail in order to serve the local market from sources outside of Essex via more sustainable modes of transport. It is also considered that a principle for the proposed development exists given the proposal’s revised location on the former goods yard site, the former goods yard site’s history and lawful use and the context of the surrounding area being predominately industrial, even though it is acknowledged that residential and commercial land uses are also in close proximity of the site given its City Centre location.

B POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

The Framework was published on 27 March 2012 in an attempt to reform the planning system and make it less complex and more accessible, to protect the environment and to promote sustainable growth. The Framework highlights that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. It goes on to state that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental and that, to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system.

The Framework states that at its heart is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan- making and decision-taking. For decision-making this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay.

The Framework also states that, in preparing local plans, local planning authorities should safeguard existing, planned and potential sites for concrete batching. It is worth noting here that the proposed location is not an existing, planned or has been previously considered a potential site for a concrete batching use in relation to the RMLP, MLP and CBLDF, specifically the CTCAAP.

CBLDF Policy CP22 (Securing Economic Growth) states, in summary, that the City Council will actively seek to maintain high and stable levels of economic and

Page 37 of 124 21

employment growth in the City with support being given to proposals that secure job growth within ‘high value’ businesses and premium retailing within the City’s economy.

CBLDF Policy DC52 (Industrial and Warehouse Development) states, in summary, that the expansion, conversion or redevelopment of premises for uses falling within Classes B2 and B8 of the Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended) will be permitted in the Employment Areas as shown on the Proposals Map and other appropriate areas identified in the Site Allocations Development Plan Document. Any proposals should have regard to the amenity and character of both the existing Employment Area within which it is located and the sites that adjoin it.

Although the application site is not within a designated Employment Area, it is considered that the proposed location would fall under ‘other appropriate areas identified in the ‘Site Allocations Development Plan Document’ through the CTCAAP as the proposal is industrial and, as highlighted previously within this report, would provide a beneficial economic use of part of the underused former goods yard site subject to the proposal having regard to the amenity and character of both the area within which it is located and the sites that adjoin it, issues which are considered later within this report.

The main objectives of the CTCAAP include generating environmental improvement in parallel with economic growth with these objectives embedded within the CTCAAP.

The former goods yard site being safeguarded for mineral transhipment and the Certificate of Lawfulness issued on the site (ref: ESS/04/12/CHL) for the storage and distribution of minerals are material considerations in relation to this application. However, these both refer specifically to the storage and distribution of minerals and not processing which would be a material change to the use of the site.

As previously highlighted within this report, this planning application relates to the erection and use of the batching plant and associated mixing operation only with all other ancillary development considered to be lawful. Part of the application site is situated within ‘Opportunity Site 34’ as identified by the CTCAAP as being a site within the City Centre which has opportunities for development and improvement. However, it is important to note that none of the proposed batching plant or any associated mixing operation would be located within Opportunity Site Area 34. The stated objective of Opportunity Site 34 is to establish a ‘beneficial economic use of existing railway land and environmental improvement’ with business and/or industrial uses described by the CTCAAP as ‘leading land uses’ in achieving this objective. The MLP and RMLP both safeguard the railway sidings and goods yard land for future use for mineral transhipment. However the overall land area is

Page 38 of 124 22

underused and offers the opportunity for more intensive business and industrial use as long as the rail sidings can still accommodate lorry movements for aggregates interchange as identified by the CTCAAP.

The CTCAAP also states that the site represents the opportunity to create a frontage to the footpath/cycle route which runs along the northern boundary of the site which is an important link between the Town Centre and the area known locally as the ‘Bunny Walks’ which is a ‘green lung’ situated in close proximity of the urban City centre area and includes the Chelmer Valley Riverside LWS.

The context of the area surrounding the application site is provided by Section 21 Rivermead within the CTCAAP which states that the area is a dynamic university campus and industrial base with Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) rolling out development in accordance with a master plan with strengthened transport links to New Street and the High Street surrounded by industrial and commercial uses important to the City Centre economy.

CCC has objected to the application on two grounds, one that the proposal would fail in principle to safeguard a transhipment site for minerals as identified in the Essex Minerals Local Plan with the concrete batching plant representing a material change in the use of the site from storage/distribution through production of concrete on-site. The City Council has gone on to state that the allocation of the site (Opportunity Site 34) in the Chelmsford Town Centre Area Action Plan for business and industrial use, does not provide the necessary policy justification for a concrete batching plant at the site on policy grounds in relation to the adopted CTCAAP. CCC’s second reason for objection is that the proposal would fail, in part, in providing any environmental improvement as identified by the objectives of the CTCAAP and the proposal would also undermine the ability for the creation of a new built frontage to face Brook Street.

MLP Policy MLP6 (Rail Depots) states, in summary, that the MPA will seek to protect existing rail depot sites for mineral importation and distribution as shown within the MLP, including the site at Brook Street, Chelmsford. This policy is considered to be consistent with The Framework as The Framework also seeks to safeguard existing, planned and potential rail heads (ref paragraph 143).

This policy principle remains under policy S9 (Safeguarding mineral transhipment sites and secondary processing facilities) of the RMLP.

Taking CCC’s response into account the MPA are satisfied that the proposed development would not compromise the continued operation of the Chelmsford Rail Depot Safeguarded Mineral Transhipment site and would not compromise the ability of the existing rail sidings to accommodate lorry movements for aggregates interchange. This is given that a fundamental element of the proposed development would be the importation of aggregate to the site both via road and rail and that it is not considered that the proposed batching plant in itself would compromise such mineral transhipment uses elsewhere on the site given the proposed developments footprint, proposed positioning of the batching plant on the site and the size and extent of other underutilised areas of the former goods yard site, therefore complying with MLP policy MLP6 and RMLP policy S9.

Page 39 of 124 23

It is further considered that the proposed development would ensure the retention and upgrade of the existing rail head facility on the site which is also considered to be in accordance with the MLP and RMLP.

The MPA disagree with CCC’s comments that Opportunity Site 34 within the CTCAAP does not provide the necessary policy justification for a concrete batching plant at the site on policy grounds. As previously highlighted within this report the proposed batching plant itself is located outside of Site Opportunity 34 and it is only ancillary works which are already considered to be lawful which would be located within Site Opportunity 34 which are, considered to fall outside of the scope of this application for this reason. Notwithstanding this, the proposed development is considered to be industrial in nature and a beneficial economic use located on an existing underutilised brownfield site within the City Centre as identified by the CTCAAP. Therefore it is considered that there is a policy principle for this proposal.

It is also considered that the proposed development would not undermine the ability for the creation of a new built frontage to face Brook Street, an important pedestrian and cycle link as identified by the CTCAAP. This is, given that the proposed batching plant would be outside of Site Opportunity Area 34 being located beyond the eastern end of Brook Street and to the south of the site and a reasonable distance from Brook Street and nearby pedestrian and cycle links to the north of the former goods yard site ensuring that the proposal would not undermine the ability for the creation of a new built frontage to face Brook Street should the prospect arise. It is worth noting here that the MPA are not aware of, and CCC have not highlighted to them, any likelihood of any scheme coming forward which is likely to be delivered on the site in the near future or within the plan period, which would meet these aspirations.

CCC’s comments in relation to the proposal failing, in part, in providing any environmental improvement as identified by the objectives of the CTCAAP is considered later within this report.

It is considered that the utilisation of rail freight as part of the proposed development would be supported through CBLDF Policy CP26 (Freight Transport) which seeks sites with significant freight or goods movements to have good access to transport networks of which it is considered, the rail sidings and Brook Street does have.

Therefore, it is considered that the proposed industrial development would represent a beneficial economic use located on an existing underutilised brownfield site within the City Centre as identified by the CTCAAP and would not compromise the future safeguarded mineral transhipment use of the site as identified by the MLP and RMLP. Therefore, taking the above into account, initially it is considered that the proposed development would conform to the CTCAAP and would not have a significant impact on the stated aims and objectives of the CTCAAP and its deliverability. However, environmental and social aspects in relation to the proposal are considered later within this report. As such, in principle it is considered that the proposed development conforms with The Framework, CBLDF Policies CP7, CP22, CP26 and DC52, MLP Policy MLP6, and RMLP Policy S9.

Page 40 of 124 24

C IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

One of the core planning principles of The Framework is to always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. The Framework also states that to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution, decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location with the effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment and general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or development to adverse effects from pollution being taken into account.

MLP Policy MLP13 (Development Control) states, in summary, that planning applications for mineral extraction and related development will be refused where there would be an unacceptable effect on local residents’ (or others’) amenity. This policy is supported by the Framework which states that planning applications will be assessed so as to ensure that permitted operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the local environment, and therefore it is considered that MLP Policy MLP13 is consistent with The Framework.

RMLP Policy DM1 (Development Management Criteria) states, in summary, that proposals for minerals development will be permitted subject to it being demonstrated that the development would not have an unacceptable impact, including cumulative impact with other developments, upon local amenity (including demonstrating that the impacts of noise levels, air quality and dust emissions, light pollution and vibration are acceptable) and the health of local residents adjoining the site.

The location proposed for the development is a mix of commercial/industrial with residential and commercial properties also located within close proximity of the site. The proposed development would be located approximately 150 metres from the nearest residential property situated in Hill View Road to the east of the site.

Page 41 of 124 25

Beyond this there are also residential properties in Arbour Lane approximately 300m from the application site which could potentially be affected by the proposed development given the topography of the land and that these properties would be situated higher than the application site itself. There are also residential properties in Perry Hill approximately 200m to the south east of the application site which could also potentially be affected by the proposed development. All of these properties would be partially screened from view by existing vegetation and distanced by the eastern end of the former goods yard site which is predominantly open, and the River Chelmer. There are also residential properties in Chichester Drive to the north east of the site, approximately 200 metres away from the application site which would be screened by vegetation and existing commercial buildings in the locality. To the west of the site the Marconi site on New Street is approximately 250m from the application site. The Marconi site is currently under redevelopment for residential use and is also a material consideration in relation to this planning application.

The proposed development would be partially screened from view from beyond the north boundary of the site by mature vegetation beyond which are industrial properties including Marriage’s Flour Mill with industrial properties also adjacent to the west boundary of the former goods yard including Kay-Metzeler’s polystyrene factory. The application site is adequately screened from beyond the south boundary of the site by an existing railway embankment approximately 8 metres in height on top of which runs the London to Ipswich main rail line, and beyond which are commercial properties in Riverside Retail Park and industrial properties in Kingsdale Industrial Estate. There are a number of residential properties approximately 250m beyond the south west corner of the site that would be partially screened from view by vegetation and existing industrial buildings. The Atlantic hotel in New Street is also located approximately 250m beyond the north west boundary of the site. Given its urban location there are a vast number of other residential, commercial and industrial properties located within the local area. Given this ground level views of the application site itself can only be obtained from the Chelmer Valley Footpath to the north of the site and railway operational land.

Within the goods yard site itself adjacent uses to the east would be partially screened by 4m high sleeper walls, however, the plant would be highly visible when viewed from within the site given its flat topography and open nature including from an existing builders’ merchants to the north east of the site. Other land uses on the site including an aggregate transhipment facility to the west and metal storage area to the north west. However, the majority of the site is derelict and underused.

Adjacent to the proposed access of the site from Brook Street onto New Street is the former Marconi works building which represents opportunity site 19 within the CTCAAP with recommended land uses on site including a mix of residential and commercial uses with planning permission for such redevelopment having been granted by Chelmsford City Council with these works currently under construction.

A large number of representations have been received relating largely to noise, dust, air quality, hazardous substances pollution, vehicle movements, light pollution and hours of operation associated with the proposed development. These

Page 42 of 124 26

issues are discussed below.

Noise/Vibration

The applicant has submitted a NIA in support of the planning application. The Assessment has been guided by The Framework and the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE). The NIA itself includes environmental background levels at the nearest noise sensitive locations to the proposed site as well as comparing these levels against the noise levels that would be produced by the proposed development taking account of distance factors and any screening that may exist. This NIA also includes background noise levels for the site between 06:00 and 07:00 hours which seeks to address one of the reasons for refusal relating to previous planning application ref: ESS/52/12/CHL in relation to insufficient noise information having been submitted. However, as previously highlighted within this report, the current proposal seeks the proposed hours of operation to begin from 07:00 hours as opposed to 06:00 hours under the previous refused proposal (application ref: ESS/52/12/CHL). Therefore this information is not considered to be relevant to this proposal as hours of operation are proposed to start from 07:00 hours each day.

A significant number of representations partly relating to noise concerns in relation to the proposed development have been received.

The NIA concludes that noise from the proposed operations would not be expected to create unacceptable working conditions in the adjoining double glazed offices to the north of the site and living conditions to those residential properties to the east of the site. However, the NIA also states that it would be necessary to incorporate noise mitigation measures into the layout of the site in order to ensure that acceptable noise levels are achieved. These mitigation measures include full enclosure of the proposed mixing operations and 4 metre high sleeper walls being erected along the east boundary of the application site.

A letter of representation has also been received from the occupiers of the builders’ merchants within the former goods yard site to the north east of the application site. These comments include concerns over the lack of noise assessment relating to the builders’ merchants as a result of the proposal including the fact that the builders’ merchant building does not have double glazing or air conditioning. In response to this the applicant has updated the submitted NIA in relation to the builder’s merchants. This NIA concludes that the working conditions within the offices of the builders’ merchants would be acceptable as a result of the noise impact of the proposed development.

The County Council’s Noise Consultants have been consulted on both the original NIA and updated version taking into account the NIA in relation to the builders’ merchants on the site. The County Council’s Noise Consultants have stated that they are satisfied that the proposed site would be operated so as to not cause unreasonable impacts on nearby receptors with the noise impact of the proposed development not being considered to be significant under worst case circumstances when referring to the builders’ merchants. As a result the County Council’s Noise Consultants have raised no objection to the proposed development on noise grounds subject to the NIA submitted in support of this

Page 43 of 124 27

planning application being updated once specific plant information is available, and for operational noise levels from the site to not exceed the background noise level at any residential property which would be required to be demonstrated through on-site measurements within one month of operation, with methodology to be agreed with the MPA.

Chelmsford City Council (CCC) has raised objection to the proposal on noise grounds. However, it is noted within CCC’s officer report regarding their consultation response on this planning application that it states that should the MPA be minded to grant approval for this proposal then conditions would be recommended covering hours of operation, the noise mitigation measures contained within the submitted NIA being imposed, enclosure of mixing operations and acoustic cladding of the plant and mixing/loading bay, fencing to the eastern side of the site, and a restriction on loading shovel operations prior to 07:00am.

Therefore, should planning permission be granted it is considered that conditions could be attached covering hours of operation as proposed, enclosure of mixing operations and acoustic cladding of the plant and mixing/loading bay, and the noise mitigation measures contained within the submitted NIA being imposed. However, the other recommended conditions relating to fencing to the eastern side of the site and a restriction on loading shovel operations before 07:00am are not considered appropriate as, fencing to the east of the site by way of 4m high sleeper walls is considered to be lawful and therefore outside the scope of this planning application and hours of operation would not be permitted before 07:00am as proposed including in relation to shovel operations which would be secured by condition in itself.

Although concerns have been raised regarding the potential impact from vibrations relating to the operation of the proposed plant this issue has not been raised by any statutory consultee. Given this and the nature of the proposal and site within which it is located it is considered that the proposed development would be unlikely to have a significant adverse impact as a result of vibration from the proposed operation.

Dust / Air Quality

A large number of representations have been received partly relating to the proposed developments impact on dust pollution and air quality and associated health impacts from such substances.

Chelmsford City contains one Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) approximately 1km to the south east of the application site at the Army and Navy Roundabout which is the opposite side of the City Centre to the application site.

Dust emissions from the proposed development could potentially occur from the movement of vehicles and plant over unsurfaced areas and the handling of bulk mineral/aggregate feeding the proposed concrete batching plant. The applicant has proposed dust mitigation measures including the following:

 All combustion powered plant would be fitted with exhausts directed vertically upwards to prevent raising of dust at ground level;

Page 44 of 124 28

 All unsurfaced areas over which plant and vehicles are required to travel would be damped down with water using a towed water bowser equipped with a spray bar, when necessary, to reduce dust emissions;  A speed limit of 5 mph would be applied to all plant and vehicles operating on the site;  All paved areas would be swept and cleaned routinely and additionally whenever necessary; and  A site management plan being prepared and implemented to establish a protocol for managing dust episodes which could become a nuisance to sensitive receptors if unaddressed.

A significant number of representations have been received regarding the potential dust impact of the proposed development, particularly in relation to those residential properties in Hill View Road to the east of the site.

The applicant has stated that dust control measures, similar to those set out in this planning application, are implemented at each of their 20 concrete batching plants in the South-East which form part of the company’s integrated management system which ensures that dust migration is controlled. Additionally, proposed 4m high sleeper walls to the eastern end of the site would also act as a barrier to low level migration.

A representation has been received including whether or not material could be stored inside a building. However, the applicant states that this does not take account of more than half of the proposed material being washed gravel with no dust whatsoever associated with it. Therefore, the MPA consider that putting a roof over the proposed sharp washed sand storage bay would be unnecessary in this instance.

Dust would most likely be generated by the handling of cement, sand, windblown sand and through the movement of plant and lorries over unsurfaced areas. Therefore it is considered that, when the site would not be operational cement and sand would not be handled. In terms of windblown sand, the applicant has stated that tarpaulins would be in place to mitigation the potential for windblown sand when the site is close non-operational. The applicant has also stated that plant and lorries associated with the proposed operation would not travel over unsurfaced areas. Therefore it is considered unlikely that dust would have an adverse impact on the local environment when the site would be closed.

The County Council’s Air Quality Consultant has raised no objection to the proposal on air quality grounds including in relation to the builder’s merchants on the former goods yard site. The County Council’s Air Quality Consultant has stated that they do not believe there to be any grounds for refusal based on air quality or dust nuisance and that, the dust control measures contained within the application are appropriate and should ensure that any dust emissions from the site are minimal. The County Council’s Air Quality Consultant has also raised no objection to the proposal in relation to proposed HGV movements, as discussed in more detail later in this report, and the proposed developments impact on the nearby AQMA with the County Council’s Air Quality Consultant stating that the proposal would be unlikely to lead to a significant local air quality impact either in close proximity of the application site or the nearby AQMA.

Page 45 of 124 29

Further, CCC and CCC’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) have raised no objection to the proposed development in relation to air quality or dust nuisance including its potential impact on the public’s health.

Therefore, it is considered that the full extent of the impact of dust from the proposed development and its likely impact on local air quality in the local area has been fully taken into account and is considered acceptable subject to the above outlined mitigation measures which could be controlled by condition attached to planning permission should it be granted. It is further considered that, as a result of this, the proposal would not have a significant detrimental impact on air quality in the locality.

Hazardous Substances Pollution

The core products involved with the process and production of a concrete batching plant such as that proposed are sand, cement, stone, some cement substitute and some additives which are not considered to be hazardous substances. Further, it is considered that the amount of mobile plant which would operate on the site would be insufficient to cause concerns regarding emissions of noxious gases from exhausts with the main factor affecting air quality lying in the potential for operations to generate dust, as previously appraised earlier within this report.

Further, CCC and CCC’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) have raised no objection to the proposed development in relation to hazardous substances pollution.

Vehicle Movements

The planning application proposes up to 38 two-way vehicle movements (19 in and 19 out) per day in total. The proposal would generate 25 vehicle movements (13 in and 13 out) per day if all importation of sand and gravel was to be by rail. These vehicle movements would account for the materials imported to the site as part of the mixing operation such as cement and required additives which would not be imported by rail.

In terms of access to the application site, this is gained via Brook Street which itself is accessed from New Street. In terms of the closest residential properties to the site in Hill View Road and Chichester Drive, these are located to the east of the site with the proposed access to the site being only be from the west of the site with no other form of vehicular access available, thereby minimising any impact on the amenity of nearby residential occupiers.

Therefore it is considered that the increase in vehicle movements from rail to road would have a negligible impact on the closest residential properties. There are other residential properties located in New Street further away from the application site where vehicles entering/exiting the application site would be accessing. It is also important to note the proposed residential development currently under development on the Marconi which significantly adds to the number of residential properties located on New Street. Given the City Centre location of the proposal and that New Street forms a key access into the City Centre, it is not considered

Page 46 of 124 30

that the additional maximum 38 extra HGV movements per day on this network would have a significant adverse impact of the amenity of residential occupiers in New Street, given existing capacities and volumes of traffic currently using this route including HGV’s generated from existing established uses, including industrial, in the locality. Further, the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of a condition requiring a Lorry Routeing Plan, detailing the routeing of HGVs to and from the site to be submitted to the MPA for approval in writing. A more detailed appraisal of the highway implications of the proposal are considered later within this report.

Hours of Operation

A large number of representations have been received partly relating to concerns over the hours of operation of the proposed facility.

The application proposes the following hours of operation:

Monday to Friday (excluding public holidays): 07:00 to 18:30 hours Saturday: 07:00 to 13:00 hours.

The applicant has stated that each day there is a need for the proposed development to commence work at 07:00 hours so that floor screed (a sand, cement and additive mix) can be mixed when the mixer is clean and the product would not be contaminated by residual stone. Production would only be carried out using sand stored in the aggregate storage bins overnight. The applicant has also stated that the last loads of concrete would normally be delivered to the site no later than 16:30 hours with aggregate storage bins topped up by 18:00 hours.

The proposed hours of operation are consistent with those normally permitted for industrial uses (07:00 to 18:30 hours Mon to Fri / 07:00 to 13:00 hours Sat) and the applicant has demonstrated a need for the processing plant to be operational during these times. No deliveries or exports would take place before 07:00 hours. This is considered to be acceptable to the MPA.

Light Pollution

A large number of representations have been received with a number of these raises concerns regarding light pollution in relation to the proposed development.

The proposed development includes no floodlighting. However, the proposal would include local downward directed lighting fixed to the proposed plant and buildings to provide local illumination. The applicant has stated that overnight security lighting would be sensor operated. Given this, and the fact that no floodlighting would be installed on the site it is considered unlikely that the proposal would generate light pollution of any significance. However, to ensure that this is the case and to ensure that the proposal would not significantly impact on residential amenity in relation to light pollution a condition could be attached to planning permission should it be granted requiring specific lighting details to be submitted for approval.

Page 47 of 124 31

Previously Refused Planning Application on the site ref: ESS/1/99/CHL

A planning application seeking approval for a roadstone coating plant and associated development, including rail-fed aggregates storage bays, double weighbridge, office, testing, laboratory, roadways, hardstandings, access ramps, acoustic barriers and associated landscaping on the site was refused by the MPA in June 2000 on highways and amenity grounds. Although this proposed land use is similar in nature to that proposed, its operation, source materials and any associated emissions would be fundamentally different and therefore should be assessed on their own merits. Further, the Highway Authority has not objected to this proposal on highway grounds and no objection has been received from CCC’s EHO or the County Council’s Air Quality Consultant in relation to the proposed Concrete Batching Plant proposal.

In conclusion it is considered that the potential impact from dust, hazardous substances pollution, vehicle movements, light pollution, hours of operation and on air quality in the locality associated with the proposed development would be unlikely to have a significant impact on residential amenity, subject to the mitigation measures as outlined above being implemented. Therefore the proposed development is considered to comply with The Framework, MLP Policy MLP13, RMLP Policy DM1, and CBLDF Policies CP13, DC4 and DC29.

D TRAFFIC & HIGHWAYS

The Framework states, in summary, that all developments that generate significant amounts of vehicle movements should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of whether safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people. ‘The Framework’ also states that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

MLP policy MLP3 (Transportation) states, in summary, that access from a mineral working will preferably be by a short length of existing road to the main highway network via a suitable existing junction. This policy is considered to be consistent with The Framework in promoting sustainable transport by ensuring safe and suitable access to application sites.

MLP Policy MLP11 (Secondary Processing Plant and Buildings) states, in summary, that plant for the secondary treatment of minerals will only be acceptable for location on mineral extraction or processing sites where it can be demonstrated that the use will not cause unacceptable traffic problems. Although the application site is not an existing mineral extraction or processing site it is within an existing safeguarded mineral transhipment site as identified by both the MLP and RMLP and therefore it is considered that this Policy is relevant to this planning application and should be considered accordingly.

Although the proposal is not for a mineral working, it is for a related ancillary development and therefore it is considered appropriate that this policy would apply. Access from the application site to the highway network is via a short length of existing road (Brook Street) via a suitable existing junction on to the main highway network (New Street). Therefore it is considered that the proposed

Page 48 of 124 32

development conforms to MLP Policy MLP3.

MLP policy MLP13 (Development Control) states, in summary, that planning applications for mineral extraction and related development will be refused where there would be an unacceptable effect on the highway network.

RMLP Policy DM1 states, in summary, that proposals for minerals development will be permitted subject to it being demonstrated that the development would not have an unacceptable impact, including cumulative impact with other developments, upon the safety and capacity of the highway network.

CBLDF policy DC6 (Criteria for Transport Assessments) states, in summary, that all developments will be required to assess their impact upon transport Systems and where significant impacts are identified, development will be refused unless measures to reduce these impacts to acceptable levels are provided.

CBLDF policy CP26 (Freight Transport) states, in summary, that sites with significant freight or goods movements should have good access to transport networks. Preferred sites for such development will be locations which have the potential for rail access, and the provision of rail freight will be encouraged wherever possible.

A Transport Statement has been submitted in support of the planning application.

A large number of representations have been received partly relating to highways concerns including the capacity of the existing road network including nearby junctions, maintenance of the existing road network and impact on road users, pedestrians and cyclists safety.

The proposed vehicle movement generation from a concrete batching plant can be split into two categories, imports and exports. Imports being trips associated with the raw materials for use in the production of concrete. These are primarily sands and gravels, which would consist of approximately 44,800 tonnes per annum for a batching plant of the size proposed, plus cement with modest amounts of chemical admixtures.

A modest amount of cement would be delivered, at most, generating 2 HGV movements per day.

The export process would be deliveries of concrete to construction sites, through company owned specialist ready-mixed concrete trucks, however, the applicant has stated that there would be occasional deliveries with tipper trucks.

On average the proposed plant would produce 81m³ of concrete per day for delivery when delivered using 6m³ and 8m³ sized lorries. By using an average of 7m³ for a concrete lorry an average of 12 (full) trucks out and 12 returning would be anticipated.

Based on commercial judgement by the applicant, the proposed development has been assumed to generate a flow of up to 38 two way vehicle movements (19 in and 19 out) per day in total. This is the maximum number envisaged when all

Page 49 of 124 33

importation is by road and the submitted Transport Statement has used these ‘worst case scenario’ figures in its assessment. The proposal would generate 25 vehicle movements (13 in and 13 out) per day when all importation of sand and gravel is by rail. This is due to the fact that the proposed development would still require the importation of cement and additives by road as part of the proposed operation to facilitate the mixing process meaning that the proposal would generate vehicle movements over and above that associated with the transhipment of mineral to the site which is already the established lawful use on the site. However, it is also acknowledged that this level of vehicle generation in relation to the storage and distribution of minerals to and from the site is lawful as confirmed by CLOPUD application ref: ESS/04/12/CHL approved in March 2012.

The source of the material is the main factor in determining whether or not material is imported by road or rail with both methods viable. However, the applicant is unable to provide a clear breakdown of the likely use of the two transportation methods as the determining factor in which source material is imported from is dependent on market conditions.

The existing access to the site from New Street is designed for the current permitted use of aggregate deliveries and this access allows for good visibility splays. As the proposed development would use similar HGVs to existing uses it is considered that the existing access is adequate and would accommodate the proposed vehicle movements safely. The predominant distribution from the site would be through New Street and Rectory Lane to the Chelmer Valley Road signal control junction.

The proposed development would require 5 new employees based at the site and working on a daily basis. The maximum trips generated per day by staff working on site would be 5 and these movements have been included within the peak period assessment which forms part of the submitted Transport Statement. However, the applicant has stated that these movements would most likely be outside of peak hours. The possibility of alternative modes of transport for staff is considered to be acceptable as there are public transport services within 450 metres of the application site.

CBLDF policy DC7 (Vehicle Parking Standards at Developments) states, in summary, that all development will be required to comply with the vehicle parking standards as set out in the City Council’s Adopted LDF. The Policy also states that in the areas covered by the Chelmsford Town Centre Area Action Plan, maximum car parking shall be no higher than 70% of the standards set out in the LDF.

The infrastructure proposed as part of the application includes the following:

 5 vehicle parking spaces;  2 light goods vehicles / public carrier vehicle parking spaces;  2 motorcycle parking spaces;  1 disability space;  2 cycle spaces.

This is considered to conform to Chelmsford City Council’s Adopted Vehicle Parking Standards and therefore CBLDF Policy DC7. Further Chelmsford City

Page 50 of 124 34

Council has raised no objection to the proposed development based on CBLDF policy DC7.

The submitted Transport Statement concludes that, when applied to the highway network, the proposal would generate a negligible increase in existing vehicle movements. During peak periods, the development would increase the vehicle movements to the highway network by less than 5% except for the Brook Street/New Street junction. This junction has been modelled and has identified that the proposed development would have a negligible impact on the highway network. The submitted Transport Statement also states, that the New Street corridor would continue to operate as existing with no impact from the vehicles likely to be generated by the proposed development.

Representations have also been received partly relating to the potential for vehicle conflict with the access to the new Marconi development, and also possible safety issues with the aspiration to improve Brook Street as a pedestrian and cycle link to the riverside paths network. However, the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposed development on highway grounds subject to the imposition of a condition requiring a Lorry Routeing Plan, detailing the routeing of HGVs to and from the site to be submitted to the MPA for approval in writing. However, this requirement is not considered to meet the six tests for conditions set out in Planning Circular 11/95 : Use of conditions in planning permission, and therefore this requirement would be unable to be added as a condition attached to planning permission should it be granted. This is also not considered to be an aspect which the MPA or Highway Authority has any control over if vehicles are using Adopted Public Highway with Case Law supporting this matter.

The proposed development would be accessed using Adopted Public Highway from Brook Street in close proximity of the site. However, the applicant has kindly provided this information to the Highway Authority to confirm the lorry routing plan to facilitate the proposed development. This confirms that movements to the wider highway network would utilise Rectory Lane (B1008) to Chelmer Valley Road (A1016) and Parkway/Waterhouse Lane (A1016). Taking into account that the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposed development it is considered that the proposal would be unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on road safety in the local area.

In terms of highway, pedestrian and cyclist safety, it is considered unlikely, given current transport infrastructure in the vicinity of the application site, that the proposed development would increase the risk of accidents/collisions between motored vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. Further, as previously stated, the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposed development both in terms of the additional number of vehicle movements likely to be generated and in terms of highway safety.

A large number of representations have been received with a number of these questioning whether the proposal includes scope for independent customers/general public to be able to attend the site to collect material. The applicant has confirmed that the proposed development would not include any scope for this with deliveries being by the applicant’s HGV construction vehicles/cement mixers only with no scope for independent customers and/or the

Page 51 of 124 35

general public to collect material from this proposed facility.

Therefore it is considered that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the local highway network and further considered that the residual cumulative impacts of the proposed development would not be severe therefore complying with The Framework, MLP Policy MLP13, RMLP Policy DM1, and CBLDF Policies CP26 and DC6.

E VISUAL IMPACT & DESIGN

The Framework states that planning decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the built environment. The NPPF also goes to say that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.

RMLP Policy DM1 (Development Management Criteria) states, in summary, that proposals for minerals development will be permitted subject to it being demonstrated that the development would not have an unacceptable impact, including cumulative impact with other developments, upon the appearance, quality and character of the landscape, countryside and visual environment and any local features that contribute to its local distinctiveness.

In addition, the City Council will support proposals for buildings above 13m high in parts of Chelmsford Town Centre provided the location is:

 Suitable for higher intensity development; and the base of the building reinforces surrounding scale and urban form;  provides containment of space and has active frontages and the building visibility from adjoining spaces contributes to townscape; and  the building visibility from longer range views causes no visual Intrusion.

Although the vast majority of structures proposed are plant and not buildings, this policy is still considered to be relevant given the proposals maximum height and its location within the city centre.

A Landscape and Visual Assessment has been submitted in support of the application. The assessment concludes that the landscape and visual effects of the proposed development are limited in their nature and extent. This, it is stated, is due in no small part to the location and relationship of the proposal to the wider industrial development. The report goes on to state that, as a result of surrounding development, buildings in the wider landscape, the railway embankment and existing woody vegetation, viewpoints in the local area are restricted. In particular,

Page 52 of 124 36

the proposed development would not detract from important views or landmarks, it would not adversely affect people’s amenities in respect of immediate outlook, loss of daylight/sunlight and loss of privacy and it would not prejudice the character or function of greenways and open spaces.

The report also states that, from the few areas where views or vistas can be obtained, the proposal would not have a huge mass or include untoward feature and that the industrial form of the proposed development is clean in profile and familiar in terms of context.

The County Council’s Landscape Consultant has raised no objection to the proposed development on landscape grounds subject to a condition attached to planning permission, should it be granted, requiring a landscape scheme to be submitted for the approval in writing of the Mineral Planning Authority (MPA) showing how the proposal would be mitigated through tree planting and other proposed planting. Therefore, should planning permission be granted, it is considered that a condition could be attached requiring this.

The applicant has stated that all plant would be designed to be the minimum height practicable with the maximum height of all plant proposed not exceeding 13m above ground level. However, the cement silo drums would exceed 13m in height by 0.3 of a metre as highlighted by Figure 6 submitted in support of this application which shows proposed plant elevations. In addition ancillary apparatus is located on top of the drums which would also exceed 13m in height by approximately 1.5m. The factor determining this height is the need to accommodate a minimum of two imported loads of each material to ensure continuous availability of the vital raw materials in the production process and is also governed by the need to locate a mixer directly above the truck mixer being loaded. Therefore as the site is within the City centre and as the proposed development would be over 13 metres in height (approximately 14.5 metres) the proposal will only be supported in this location if:

 Suitable for higher intensity development; and the base of the building reinforces surrounding scale and urban form;  Provides containment of space and has active frontages and the building visibility from adjoining spaces contributes to townscape; and  The building visibility from longer range views causes no visual Intrusion.

As previously mentioned within this report, the application site is surrounded by land uses of an industrial nature although these are predominately buildings and not plant such as the proposal. The application site would be suitable for development as highlighted by the CTCAAP and it is considered that, given the nature and context of the site and surrounding area and that the proposed development would be industrial in nature that the proposal would conform to CBLDF Policy DC45. Further, although elements of the proposed development would exceed 13m in height, the visual impact of this is considered to be negligible given the small scale of those sections exceeding 13m in height and that they would be no higher than 14.5m in height.

As previously highlighted within this report, the application site is approximately

Page 53 of 124 37

300m from the Grade II Listed Marconi Building situated in New Street to the west of the site. However, given this distance and that the proposed development would be adequately screened from view and distanced by the existing large scale Kay- Metzeler industrial building it is considered that the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on the character or setting of the Marconi Listed Building.

Therefore it is considered that the proposal would be acceptable in relation to its visual impact, design and its impact on the nearby Marconi Grade II Listed Building. As a result it is further considered that the proposed development would conform to RMLP Policy DM1, CBLDF Policy DC45 and The Framework given its height, nature, design and location within the City Centre.

F ECOLOGY

The Framework states, in summary, that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity.

RMLP Policy DM1 (Development Management Criteria) states, in summary, that proposals for minerals development will be permitted subject to it being demonstrated that the development would not have an unacceptable impact, including cumulative impact with other developments, upon the natural environment (including biodiversity and ecological conditions for habitats and species and drainage systems.

CBLDF Policy DC13 (Sites of Biodiversity and Geological Value) states, in summary, that the City Council will seek to restore, maintain and enhance biodiversity conservation interests. In determining planning applications appropriate weight will be attached to designated sites of international, national and local importance, protected species, and to biodiversity interests within the wider environment. This Policy also stipulates that planning permission will not be granted for development that would result in significant harm to biodiversity.

The applicant has submitted a report in relation to existing biodiversity potential on the site as well as potential impacts of the proposed development on the nearby Chelmer Valley Riverside LWS approximately 130 metres to the east of the application site including the River Chelmer. This work has been undertaken by independent ecological consultants on behalf of the applicant. This information concludes that, due to the nature and existing state of the site, the probability of protected species such as reptiles or breeding birds being present on the site is negligible. Further ecological information submitted states that the application site does not adjoin the LWS. The land immediately to the east of the application site buffers the site from the River Chelmer and LWS. This land is also former goods yard land and has previously included the same broad kinds of industrial uses as that proposed. This area is now open and derelict apart from the builders’ merchants located to the north east of the site. The ecological information submitted concludes that the proposed development offers no further scope for negative effects on the LWS, or indeed the water quality of the River Chelmer itself, than the historical or existing position.

Page 54 of 124 38

A representation has been received from the London Essex and Hertfordshire Amphibian and Reptile Trust (LEHART) confirming the presence of at least one species of protected reptile, namely viviparous lizard (Zootoca vivipara) on land adjacent to the site of the proposed development (record dated October 2012). LEHART have stated that Lizards (and other species of reptile) may also be present within the site of the proposed development and have recommended that a full reptile survey is undertaken by specialists as a planning condition as, reptiles including viviparous lizards are protected by law from killing and injury even during the course of an otherwise lawful development.

The applicant’s ecological consultant has stated that, given the scope for significant invertebrate potential, or indeed habitat or protected species potential on the site would be negligible, following their own assessment, they concluded that a formal desk survey/ full reptile survey would not materially influence this conclusion. However, following the representation including recommendation received from LEHART it is considered appropriate that, should planning permission be granted for the proposed development, that a condition is attached requiring a full reptile survey to be undertaken and submitted to the MPA for approval prior to any works starting on site to ensure that reptiles are adequately protected with suitable mitigation in place where necessary, in line with The Framework and CBLDF policy DC13.

CBLDF Policy DC25 (Water Efficiency and Sustainable Drainage Systems) states, in summary, that the City Council requires developments to incorporate measures that reduce the demand for water. The City Council also requires the provision of sustainable drainage systems for the disposal of surface water within and leading from development sites.

In relation to drainage of the site, the site currently drains to ground, although permeability is low over much of it due to artificial surfacing such as hard standing. The proposal includes surfaced areas of the batching plant draining to a sump with the water collected used in the concrete production process. Therefore the scope for run-off to enter nearby watercourses is effectively nullified by this system with no potential for pollution to the nearby LWS or River Chelmer from surface water. Further the application includes a proposed water recycling system in order to reduce demand for water.

The County Council’s Ecological Consultant has raised no objection to the proposed development. However, the Environment Agency has requested a condition requiring a scheme to dispose of surface water to be submitted to the MPA for approval to ensure that surface water captured within the application site is disposed of appropriately. Therefore, should planning permission be granted a condition could be attached requiring this.

It is considered that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on local biodiversity and that existing biodiversity in the local area would be adequately maintained. In this context it is further considered that the proposal would conform to The Framework, RMLP Policy DM1, and CBLDF policy DC13 and further considered that the proposal conforms to RMLP Policy DM1, and CBLDF policy DC25 in relation water efficiency and drainage provision.

Page 55 of 124 39

G FALL-BACK POSITION

The fall-back position is a material consideration in the determination of this planning application.

As previously highlighted within this report the application site includes a CLOPUD which confirms that a storage and distribution use in relation to minerals is lawful on the site given its history which stretches far back, even beyond the inception of today’s Planning System in 1947.

In relation to this application, the fall-back position is that all elements of that proposed by this application can already be undertaken lawfully on the site with the exception of the batching plant itself and associated mixing operations given that these elements, in themselves, would not represent a ’storage and distribution of minerals’ use and would not be required directly in connection with the movement of traffic by rail. Therefore, in terms of rail freight movements, HGV movements and mineral activities on the site, as existing these are all lawful and unrestricted subject to them being directly related to the storage and distribution of minerals.

Further, Class A of Part 17 (Development by Statutory Undertakers) of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (GPDO) also gives scope for a wide variety of works to take place without the need for planning permission as long as such works are required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail.

Although it is noted that the applicant is not a statutory rail undertaker, the applicant would be leasing the application site off of a statutory rail undertaker with Case Law confirming (Barnt Green decision 1967/Purley Goods Depot decision 1971) that Permitted Development Rights under Part 17 of the GPDO are shared by a third party lessee of operational land.

Therefore, the fall-back position in this case means that the vast majority of works in relation to the proposal could be undertaken lawfully without the need for planning permission. As a result, and as previously highlighted within this report, it is considered that the additional associated impact of the proposed batching plant and associated mixing operations, which this application relates to, would not be significant or on a scale where planning permission could reasonably be refused, including on policy grounds.

8. CONCLUSION

Although policy objections have been received on the grounds that the development would not conform to the objectives of Opportunity Site 34 within the CTCAAP which part of the application site relates to, it is considered that the development would be in conformity with the objectives of Opportunity Site 34 and the CTCAAP given that the development is considered to be industrial in nature, would be a beneficial economic use located on an existing underutilised brownfield site within the City Centre as identified by the CTCAAP and would not be considered to undermine the ability for a built frontage to be created facing Brook Street given its proposed location on the site. Further, the batching plant itself

Page 56 of 124 40

would be located outside of Opportunity Site 34 with the only elements of the development within Opportunity Site 34 being those which are already considered to be lawful. Therefore in this respect the development to which this planning application relates to, is considered to be in conformity with the objectives of Opportunity Site 34.

Objections have also been raised that the development would fail, in part, in providing any environmental improvement as identified by the overall objectives of the CTCAAP. It is acknowledged that no information has been put forward by the applicant to demonstrate that the development would provide any environmental improvement as required by the CTCAAP. However, as highlighted, the development is considered to be acceptable on all environmental grounds and it is further considered that the development would be unlikely to have a significant impact on the local environment by way of its use and operation.

The benefits of the development include providing a beneficial economic use on a currently underutilised brownfield site and a fundamental aspect of the development would include the importation of aggregate, some via rail, on an existing safeguarded mineral transhipment site as identified by the MLP and RMLP which would ensure the retention and upgrading of this existing rail head facility. Therefore it is considered that the benefits of the development would outweigh the need for clear environmental improvement to be demonstrated in this instance. As a result it is considered that the development would conform to the stated aims and objectives of the CTCAAP taking into account all material considerations and the development plan including the MLP and RMLP.

In determining the appropriateness of the development itself the overarching consideration must be whether or not it constitutes sustainable development and if net gains within the economic, social and environmental roles, as defined by The Framework, would be achieved.

The design and location of the development are considered to be consistent with the character of the surrounding area and would also be of a scale and size appropriate and considerate to its surroundings as well as being positioned to limit physical impacts on the local landscape and local amenity. The MPA are also satisfied that the development would be acceptable environmentally and would be unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on the local environment. It is further considered that the development is acceptable in all other aspects.

As a result it is considered that the development would bring economic, social and environmental gains and therefore that the development would be sustainable in light of The Framework.

In conclusion, it is considered appropriate to grant planning permission for the erection and use of a concrete batching plant and ancillary water, aggregate recovery and recycling facilities at the former goods yard site, off Brook Street, Chelmsford, as it is considered that the development would directly benefit the economic and social dimensions of sustainable development, as defined by The Framework in the beneficial economic use of an underutilised site and job creation, and environmentally in ensuring the retention and upgrading of an existing rail head facility thereby reducing the resilience on aggregates needing to

Page 57 of 124 41

be transported by road within the County. In respect of this and that the development would not significantly impact on local amenity or the local environment it is considered that the development complies with MLP policies: MLP3, MLP6 and MLP13, RMLP Policies S9 and DM1, and CBLDF Policies CP7, CP13, CP22, CP26, DC4, DC6, DC7, DC13, DC25, DC29, DC45 and DC52.

9. RECOMMENDED

That planning permission be granted subject to conditions covering the following matters.

1. COM1 – Commencement 2. COM3 – Compliance with Submitted Details 3. HOUR1 – Hours of Working/Operation (General)

07:00 to 18:30 hours Mondays to Fridays (excluding Public Holidays); 07:00 to 13:00 hours Saturdays; And at no other times, including on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

4. NSE1 – Noise Limits 5. Non-Standard – Monitoring within one month of start of operation to ensure compliance 6. Non-Standard – NIA to be updated once specific plant information available 7. NSE5 – White Noise Alarms 8. NSE6 – Silencing of Plant and Machinery 9. HIGH5 – Vehicle Movement Limits 10. LAND 1 – Landscape Scheme 11. POLL1 – Surface and Foul Water Drainage 12. WAST6 – No crushing of Stone or Hardcore 13. LGHT1 – Fixed Lighting Restriction 14. Non-Standard – Full Reptile Survey 15. Non-Standard – Compliance with Submitted NIA Mitigation Measures 16. Non-Standard – Enclosure of Mixing Operations and Acoustic Cladding of the Plant and Mixing/Loading Bay 17. Non-Standard – All elements of scheme to be implemented prior to use and operation of plant

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Consultation replies Representations

THE CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010

The proposed development would not be located adjacent to/within screening distance to a European site.

Page 58 of 124 42

Therefore, it is considered that an Appropriate Assessment under Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 is not required.

STATEMENT OF HOW THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT IN A POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE MANNER

In determining this planning application, the Mineral Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application by liaising with consultees, respondents and the applicant/agent, requiring further information and clarification where needed and discussing changes to the proposal where considered appropriate or necessary. This approach has been taken positively and proactively in accordance with the requirement in the Framework, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No.2) Order 2012.

LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION

CHELMSFORD – Central

CHELMSFORD – West

CHELMSFORD – Springfield

Page 59 of 124 43

APPENDIX ONE

Consideration of consistency of Policies

Ref: Policy Consistency with NPPF and PPS10

MLP3 1. Access from a mineral working will Paragraph 32 of the (Transportation) preferably be by a short length of Framework requires LPAs existing road to the main highway decisions to take account inter network, defined in structure plan policy alia that “…safe and suitable T2, via a suitable existing junction, access to the site can be improved if required, in accordance achieved for all people…” and with structure plan policies T4 and T14. in Paragraph 35 developments 2. Proposals for new access direct to the should be located and main highway network may designed where practical to…” exceptionally be accepted where no inter alia “…create safe and opportunity exists for using a suitable secure layouts” existing access or junction, and where it can be constructed in accordance It is therefore considered that with the County Council’s highway MLP3 is in conformity with standards. There is a presumption Framework has it seeks to against new access onto motorways or provide safe and suitable strategic trunk roads. accesses. 3. Where access to the main highway network is not feasible, access onto a secondary road before gaining access onto the highway network may exceptionally be accepted if in the opinion of MPA the capacity of the road is adequate and there will be no undue impact on road safety or the environment.

MLP6 The Mineral Planning Authority will Paragraph 143 of the (Rail Depots) encourage the provision of rail depots for Framework states that in mineral importation and distribution and preparing Local Plans, local seek to protect existing sites shown in planning authorities should schedule 2. The site must be suitable in safeguard existing, planned terms of environmental impact and in and potential rail heads, rail compliance with policy MLP3 of this plan. links to quarries, wharfs and associated storage, handling and processing facilities for the bulk transport by rail, sea or inland waterways of minerals, including recycled, secondary and marine-dredged materials.

MLP13 Planning applications for mineral The Framework at Paragraph (Development extraction and related development will be 144 requires when LPAs are Page 60 of 124 44

Control) refused where there would be an determining applications to unacceptable effect on any of the ensure applications does following: cause inter alia“…unacceptable adverse The visual and aural environment; impacts on the natural and Local residents’ (or others’) amenity; historic environment, human Landscape and the countryside; health…” and The highway network; Water resources; In addition in paragraph 144 Nature conservation. “…that any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and blasting vibrations are controlled…and establish appropriate noise limits…”

The Framework supports sustainable transport including requiring development to have safe and suitable access (Paragraph 32) and locating development to “…accommodate the efficient delivery of good and supplies…” (Paragraph 35)

Page 61 of 124 45

APPENDIX TWO

Summary of Representations Received

Observation Comment

Adverse impact on local area including See appraisal residential amenity from, noise, dust, vehicle movements and hours of operation Future vision set out by CTCAAP does See appraisal not include scope for a concrete batching plant A full EIA should be carried out prior to Formal EIA Screening Opinion adopted approve by MPA during application validation where it was considered that EIA would not be required Present permitted parking in Brook Street HGVs currently use access given will need to be changed if HGVs are industrial nature of area. Highway going to use proposed site access Authority has raised no objection on highway related grounds Increased congestion and hazards in See above Brook Street, New Street from existing permit parking Increased demand/strain on local See above junctions – Brook St, New Street Highway Authority should conduct Highway Authority has assessed independent survey and include other submitted information and their own and pertinent highway requirements raised no objection to the proposal Application site designated for mineral Former goods yard is a safeguarded use in 19th century but area now mineral transhipment site within MLP and predominately residential not industrial RMLP and it is considered that the and should strive to further residential storage and distribution of mineral on the and small clean business site is lawful given its history. Former goods yard site and majority of adjacent uses industrial by nature This type of development is alien to Core See appraisal Strategy and should be rejected A mineral operator already uses the site Existing use considered to be lawful and for mineral transhipment, storage and outside planning control. Pollution issues distribution and there is little control over are a matter for CCC’s EHO these activities which are causing high levels of pollution Proposal alongside existing use needs to Existing use considered to be lawful. This be assessed and considered as noise planning application relates to the levels would be dramatically increased proposed concrete batching plant only and should be assessed on its own merits Aggregate receipt, moving and storage Storage and distribution of minerals on should be included in assessed figures the site is lawful and therefore not included in scope of this planning application Page 62 of 124 46

Specific plant noise levels not included in County Council’s Noise Consultants have noise assessment not raised objection to the proposal on noise grounds subject to submitted NIA being updated when specific plant details become available or within one month of operation on site beginning. It is worth noting that predicted and specific levels are not considered likely to vary significantly Little mention with regard to possible See appraisal future or existing dust pollution Lack of enforcement in relation to existing Existing mineral use on former goods pollution from dust/toxic smells from Kay- yard site considered lawful in planning Metzella plant in Brook St terms. Other issues are matter for CCC and CCC EHO No mention of builders merchants in NIA See appraisal or relating to dust pollution Residential properties in local area See appraisal overlook the site and are vulnerable to noise and dust Some of nearby homes located on sharp See appraisal incline meaning that they are above the application site. Therefore wind variances should be taken into account as far as dust pollution and noise levels are concerned Light Pollution potential needs to be See appraisal considered in more detail Would vehicles use white noise alarms? Applicants have stated that this would be the case and should planning permission be granted a condition could be attached ensuring this is the case Surface water from site currently floods See appraisal adjacent footpath, this should be remedied particularly with the possibly of this plant adding to local water pollutants Discrepancies in vehicle movement See appraisal figures Comparing to similar plants nearby Application details would be tied to any application figures do not stack up planning permission should it be granted to ensure compliance. Such details can be conditioned. It is worth noting that proposal is part of a more strategic project compared to existing batching plants nearby which are not considered to be linked like the proposal. Existing concrete providers in local area See appraisal are more than adequate to supply local area/demand Proposal will do nothing to enhance local See appraisal area and would be contrary to CTCCAAP Page 63 of 124 47

including undermining ability for built frontage facing Brook Street Proposal should be deemed production See appraisal plant and totally different from aggregate storage facility and totally against strategic plans Proposal not needed or wanted and is See appraisal totally in breach of Essex and City Council plans HGVs causing congestion in New Street See appraisal and city centre New heavy industrial use on a site so See appraisal close to residential area and city centre totally unsuitable Noise and general pollution created all See appraisal week and part of weekend Industrial use of this kind is not See appraisal compatible with the ongoing development of the nearby Chelmer Valley Conservation Area Dust will have detrimental impact on See appraisal health of local residents It will compound existing major traffic See appraisal problems that Chelmsford suffers HGVs causing great deal of noise and See appraisal added pollution Proposal damaging to health and well- See appraisal being of local residents and designated wildlife area nearby ‘Bunny Walk’ Potential increase in noise, dust etc will See appraisal severely impact on quality of life and health in local area Negative impact on the value of my Not a material planning consideration property Proposed hours of operation See appraisal unacceptable Wrong location so close to established See appraisal residential area Traffic impact not adequately explained See appraisal as imported materials by road must then require exporting by road Local road network already stretched to See appraisal capacity and many nearby roads too small for the types of vehicle that could be expected Proposal offers little noise attenuation See appraisal and relies on distance to mitigate noise intrusion Hours of working will impact on local See appraisal residents Inevitable levels of pollution from See appraisal Page 64 of 124 48

materials and vehicles but no method to reduce impact on residents or adjacent food manufacturing plant No justification made for extended hours See appraisal of working/use Proposal creates very few jobs See appraisal Little justification in creating such a large See appraisal intrusive facility within city centre Proposal makes little use of the rail head See appraisal It could easily be first step to further See appraisal attempt to bring forward previous application for road tar facility Site far better suited to lightweight See appraisal warehousing and distribution Proposal would be very close to nature See appraisal reserve and could have very harmful effect on wildlife Although applicant states dust pollution See appraisal would be controlled, this may not be possible on a windy day Must be other suitable locations out of See appraisal town where proposal could be accommodated Approval of application would create See appraisal precedent allowing other businesses of such heavy industrial nature to follow into the area Unacceptable noise and vibration levels See appraisal from additional trains, HGVs and the plant itself Dust pollution depositing fine dusts and See appraisal impacting on health and in particular those with asthma Amount of water used in production and See appraisal to wash equipment Dust and chemicals would wash over See appraisal land, into ground affecting the water table and poisoning wildlife and plants in the adjacent river Concerned by types of emissions created See appraisal by proposed production Increased risk of surface water being See appraisal discharged into River Chelmer and of adjacent footpath being flooded Potential for traffic accidents in area will See appraisal increase Marriages lorries are not permitted to use See appraisal Brook Street but are required to use Hoffman’s Way entrance and if applicant is allowed to use Brook Street then Marriages may begin to too increasing Page 65 of 124 49

traffic problems Major problem with width of Rectory Lane See appraisal with road at points too narrow to allow two lorries or a lorry and a ‘Park and Ride’ bus to pass safely increasing risk to pedestrians and cyclists Unclear where 38 lorries daily is just See appraisal HGVs delivering to site includes entire process Submitted noise survey appears to See appraisal exaggerate existing noise levels as to ‘dumb down’ future noise levels Noise from machinery and associated See appraisal warning systems Using both rail and road increases See appraisal likelihood for noise and dust creation Existing sidings used by adjacent See appraisal operator already wake up residents early in the morning. Why? Rail sidings unfit for use See appraisal Noise from rail movements not included See appraisal in noise level readings Importing mineral by rail to the site would See appraisal occur every day which is totally unacceptable given close proximity of residential properties, nature reserve and businesses Local residents already getting toxic See appraisal smells from air born discharge from adjacent business Perhaps ECC should carry out their own See appraisal environmental surveys Light pollution would cause problems for See appraisal wildlife habitat as well as local residents Already problems with dust and noise See appraisal from existing mineral site adjacent to proposal If permitted, lorries should be routed via See appraisal the Chelmer Valley route and not via Victoria Road as this would add to congestion Proposal not compatible use within See appraisal evolving town centre Proposal would adversely affect success See appraisal of Chelmsford Town Centre Action Plan and objectives I would like to see what the strategy is for See appraisal the local area as there appears to be no logical development of the town centre The proposal does not support the vision See appraisal for the centre of Chelmsford Page 66 of 124 50

Proposal would be very close to See appraisal residential housing, nature reserve, an active food producing flour mill, University as well as town centre shops and business which is at odds with a thriving and growing city Access onto New Street would be further See appraisal congested Increased danger tom See appraisal pedestrians/cyclists along New Street Proposal should be located in an See appraisal industrial area away from residential properties Proposal would be visually intrusive See appraisal Previous application for road coating See appraisal plant refused on site in 1999 What worked two centuries ago in terms See appraisal of the land use of the site is completely outmoded and dangerous in 2012 The area is adjacent to a nature reserve See appraisal and the river clean of pollutants with Otters upstream having returned after many years, such an important area not to be ruined by the proposal Proposal is outside the scope of ‘storage See appraisal and distribution of minerals’ Vehicle movements would also include See appraisal employee movements and any waste disposal meaning that vehicle movements would be above the maximum of 38 per day stated in the application Town centre location totally inappropriate See appraisal and would affect potential redevelopments of land in New Street (Marconi site), Salmon Parade, New Street and Post Office site in Victoria Road Longer term dust problems could cause See appraisal structure damage to homeowners properties Dust pollution would have implications for See appraisal asthma and eczema sufferers Access roads are already in need of See appraisal repair Proposal would not provide See appraisal environmental enhancement and will limit possibilities for comprehensive development of site to provide non- intrusive or non-disruptive employment Any vehicles carrying materials should be Associated HGVs would predominately sheeted include cement mixers which are already Page 67 of 124 51

covered. Exports would also be damp in nature given cement process therefore need for sheeting is unlikely to be required Proposed use will create few jobs See appraisal Where will the washout pit be? See appraisal Are nearby developers aware of proposal Application was advertised in line with statutory requirements and ECC’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). See appraisal. Arbour Lane has been re-surfaced which See appraisal has reduced local traffic noise levels, is this going to be replaced by noise generated by proposed operations Local supply well catered for with supplier See appraisal at Mid Essex Gravel site and extraction site at Boreham If permission is granted Council would be Each application is assessed on its own unable to refuse expansion of plant in merits future Construction activity is currently low See appraisal which means when it picks up vehicle movements associated with the plant would increase Application should be removed and re- See appraisal considered for siting at Boreham Interchange Existing industrial operations nearby are See appraisal located within buildings Hours of operation considered to be See appraisal excessive Proposal would damage the City image See appraisal Proposal would lead to increase in rail See appraisal movements which would have adverse impact on residential amenity Similar application for road stone coating See appraisal plant on site refused previously Noise/dust mitigation not adequate See appraisal Proposal and development plan have not See appraisal changed since previous application was refused Proposal contrary to development plan See appraisal Proposal would detract from nearby See appraisal redevelopments Proposed layout of site not considered to See appraisal be in keeping with City Centre location. Structural damage from increase in HGV See appraisal movements Health impacts from associated increased See appraisal pollution Proposal will make for an unpleasant See appraisal Page 68 of 124 52

environment Proposed site is sensitive See appraisal Main rail line serving Chelmsford is one of See appraisal busiest and extra use of railway line for mineral transhipment would be difficult to implement Residents, hotel guests and gym users See appraisal will be affected by increased traffic in what is currently a nice part of Chelmsford Peoples wellbeing totally disregarded See appraisal Application fails to address City Centre See appraisal issues as previously raised by CCC A boon is already in the River Chelmer to See appraisal catch polystyrene which can come from adjacent uses and the proposal may lead to pollution which cannot be captured Rail travel costs extortionate amounts Not a material planning consideration without being guaranteed a seat and I hate to think this situation could get worse Inadequate noise/dust/traffic See appraisal assessments submitted in support of application 4m high boundary walls do not protect See appraisal footpath Vegetation should be provided adjacent See appraisal to footpath rather than walls to screen it Plant still above 13m in height See appraisal Application states 2 spaces for lorries on See appraisal site but plans show 4 Traffic information submitted in support of See appraisal application refers to Cannon Report which was commissioned before nearby redevelopment was approved in the area Any proposal for a wall adjacent to No wall is proposed adjacent to footpath footpath to screen proposal would increase crime concerns Will customers be able to pick up product See appraisal directly? Proposal would increase pollution on/in See appraisal River Chelmer above existing issues Brook Street and New Street are used by See appraisal primary school children and the proposal would increase the danger to these young people/families There is enough heavy industry in the See appraisal local area for us/local infrastructure to deal with Unacceptable vibration levels See appraisal Proposal could have impact on adjacent See appraisal business/industry which could have Page 69 of 124 53

negative adverse impact on local economy Perfectly suitable existing sites elsewhere See appraisal within County

Page 70 of 124 54

AGENDA ITEM 5b

DR/42/13

committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 25 October 2013

MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT Proposal: Retrospective planning application for the erection of a 43.2m x 2m high acoustic mitigation fence along the northern boundary of the access road to Sandon Quarry. Location: Sandon Quarry, Molrams Lane, Sandon, Chelmsford CM2 7TE Ref: ESS/43/13/CHL Applicant: Brett Aggregates Ltd.

Report by Director for Operations, Environment and Economy Enquiries to: Shelley Bailey Tel: 01245 437577

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright reserved Essex County Council, Chelmsford LicencePage L000 71 19602of 124

1. BACKGROUND & SITE

Sandon Quarry is situated to the east of the A12 trunk road to the south east of Sandon village, to the west of Mayes Lane and to the north of Sandon Hall Farm.

The eastern area of the overall site benefits from an Interim Development Order (IDO) permission reference IDO/CHL/2/92/A which allows the extraction of sand and gravel until February 2042 with subsequent backfilling with inert materials with restoration to grazing and amenity uses.

It has previously been used for the processing and stockpiling of materials, but currently lies dormant with soil mounds and processing plant located broadly across the southern half of the site. The remainder of the IDO site has been restored to grassland, a lake and a willow plantation.

The remaining sand and gravel resource lies underneath the processing plant. Both the mineral and the processing plant are permitted to remain until 2042.

The western area benefits from planning permission reference ESS/55/09/CHL for an in-vessel composting facility.

The land between the plant area and Mayes Lane to the east is in industrial use and there are several residential properties to the north and south of this area.

The main Sandon Quarry site has two voids separated by a haul route. The voids have been previously extracted for mineral and the southern void is currently being restored through the importation of inert waste under planning permission ref ESS/30/11/CHL.

Access to the site is gained via a purpose built haul route located off the A1114 Southend Road. The haul route itself is permitted under planning permission ref CHL/480/82, which allows the retention of the haul route for agricultural use only on cessation of the restoration of the mineral site.

The application site is located in the rural area according to the Chelmsford City Council Proposals Map.

2. PROPOSAL

The applicant has erected a fence along the northern edge of the haul route from the A1114 Southend Road. The fence is 2m high and was a requirement of a legal agreement between the applicant and the adjoining landowner to mitigate against potential noise impact.

As the fence is already in place the current application is retrospective.

3. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

The following policies of the the Chelmsford City Council Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document (CCS), Adopted

Page 72 of 124

February 2008, and Focussed Review Submission Document (FR), (November 2012), provide the development plan framework for this application. The following policies are of relevance to this application:

Controlling development in the DC2 countryside beyond the metropolitan green belt.

Containing urban growth. CP5

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published in March 2012, sets out requirements for the determination of planning applications and is also a material consideration.

Paragraph 214 of the NPPF states that, for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 20041 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the Framework.

The Chelmsford City Council Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document was adopted in February 2008. However, the 12 month period has now expired. Therefore, paragraph 215 applies:

Paragraph 215 of the NPPF states, in summary, that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework.

Accordingly, Chelmsford City Council has undertaken a Focused Review of the CCS which involves making amendments to a selected number of policies in order to be compliant with the NPPF.

This FR has been submitted to the Secretary of State and has been through examination; however the decision is still awaited.

It is therefore considered that due weight should be applied to the policies contained within the Chelmsford City Council Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document and FR, pending the decision of the Secretary of State.

4. CONSULTATIONS

CHELMSFORD CITY COUNCIL – Objects to the application due to the visual impact of the fence which is out of character with the rural setting and detrimental to the countryside. Does not consider that staining the fence a different colour would alter this position. Suggests that the section of fence outside of the mineral site should be determined by the City Council.

1 In development plan documents adopted in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 or published in the London Plan. Page 73 of 124

Comment: The entire length of fence is considered to be appropriately determined as a County Matter in connection with minerals and waste-related development.

HIGHWAY AUTHORITY – No objection. Comments that the fence does not encroach the highway or obstruct sight lines.

HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (Public Rights of Way) – Comments that Public Rights of Way are not affected by the proposal.

PLACE SERVICES (Landscape) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – Comments that the fence could be painted a darker colour. Alternatively, planting could be incorporated but this would require the fence to be relocated by at least 1m.

SANDON PARISH COUNCIL – No objection.

GREAT BADDOW PARISH COUNCIL – No comments received.

LOCAL MEMBER – CHELMSFORD – Stock – Any comments received will be reported.

LOCAL MEMBER – CHELMSFORD – Great Baddow – Any comments received will be reported.

5. REPRESENTATIONS

11 properties were directly notified of the application. No letters of representation have been received.

6. APPRAISAL

The key issues for consideration are: A. Need B. Impact on Amenity

A NEED

The NPPF places a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The economic, social and environmental dimensions of such development will be considered further in the report.

The fence has been erected as a requirement of a legal agreement between the adjoining landowner and the applicant to mitigate against any potential noise impact from the operation of the site. It is considered that this reflects the community’s needs and meets the social strand of sustainable development as required by the NPPF.

The determination of application ref ESS/30/11/CHL took into account the effect of noise from the use of the haul route on the properties either side of it. It did not

Page 74 of 124

consider that noise would have an unacceptable impact and imposed noise limits and a noise monitoring requirement via conditions. It was therefore not considered that the fence would be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

However, it is accepted that a legal agreement outside of the planning realm requires the fence to be in place, and therefore in that sense there is a need for it.

B IMPACT ON LANDSCAPE AND AMENITY

The NPPF contains the principle of recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

Similarly, FR Policies CP5 (Containing urban growth) and DC2 (Managing development in the countryside beyond the metropolitan green belt) require, in summary, the protection of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside within rural areas.

The fence itself is already in place. Its purpose is to reduce noise levels emitted from the use of the haul route by waste-carrying vehicles. Given that this would assist in the restoration of the permitted landfill it is considered that it would provide an economic role as required by the NPPF.

The design of the fence is close-boarded with horizontal boards. Its appearance is an untreated natural wood colour.

It is noted that Chelmsford City Council objects to the application due to the visual impact of the fence which is considered to be out of character with the rural setting and detrimental to the countryside.

In order to address these concerns, the applicant has agreed to stain the fence a dark colour, as recommended by the County Council’s Landscape Consultant.

It is considered that this course of action would assist in mitigating the visual impact of the fence and assist in incorporating it into the rural setting. It is noted that this rural setting is already impacted on by the presence and use of the haul route itself. It is further considered that the exact details of the colour could be required by an appropriately worded condition, should permission be granted.

It is additionally noted that neither Sandon Parish Council nor the Highway Authority has objected to the application.

Therefore, although there is not considered to be an identified planning need for the fence, it is also considered that its presence would not in itself harm local amenity or the environment, subject to it being stained a darker colour (to be agreed) and being temporary in nature – linked to the life of the quarry.

In order to ensure the area is restored to its former state it is considered appropriate that, in the event that permission is granted, a condition could be imposed to require the removal of the fence at the end of the operations permitted

Page 75 of 124

by permission ref ESS/30/11/CHL.

Taking all of the above into account, it is considered that the development complies with FR Policies CP5 and DC2 and also meets the environmental strand of sustainable development, as required by the NPPF.

7. CONCLUSION

It is acknowledged that there is no identified planning need for the development. However; there is a legal agreement in place between the developer and the adjacent land owner and there is no requirement to prove need to allow planning permission to be granted. Consideration must therefore be given to whether there is harm arising from the development.

In this respect, it is considered that the fence would assist in mitigating noise arising from the use of the haul route for the adjacent property. The visual impact of the fence could be mitigated through painting it a dark colour, exact details of which could be required by condition should permission be granted.

Taking account of the proposed condition to require the removal of the fence at cessation of the landfill operations, it is considered that the development would not cause unacceptable harm to the rural area and would comply with FR Policies CP5 and DC2.

It is further considered that the fence constitutes sustainable development for the purposes of the NPPF.

8. RECOMMENDED

That planning permission be granted subject to conditions covering the following matters:

1. COM3 – Compliance with submitted details. 2. GEN1 - Submission of details of fence colour within 1 month and subsequent implementation. 3. TEMP1 – Temporary life of fence (end date of 31 December 2017).

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Consultation replies

THE CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010

The proposed development would not be located adjacent to/within the screening distance to a European site.

Therefore, it is considered that an Appropriate Assessment under Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 is not required.

Page 76 of 124

EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The report only concerns the determination of an application for planning permission and takes into account any equalities implications. The recommendation has been made after consideration of the application and supporting documents, the development plan, government policy and guidance, representations and all other material planning considerations as detailed in the body of the report.

STATEMENT OF HOW THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT IN A POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE MANNER

The proposed development has been put in place without planning permission. A retrospective planning application was therefore invited in order to regularise the development. The local authority has worked with the applicant to obtain a decision

LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION

CHELMSFORD – Stock. CHELMSFORD – Great Baddow.

Page 77 of 124

Page 78 of 124 AGENDA ITEM 6a

DR/43/13

committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 25 October 2013

COUNTY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT Proposal: Construction of a new full size ‘3G’ Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) with fencing, replacing an area of hard play and grass playing fields. Location: Woodlands Comprehensive School, Takely End, Basildon, SS16 5BA Ref: CC/BAS/48/13 Applicant: Essex County Council

Report by Director for Operations, Environment and Economy Enquiries to: Shelley Bailey Tel: 01245 437577

1. BACKGROUND

In December 2011 planning permission ref CC/BAS/62/11 was granted for:

‘construction of a new replacement secondary school building, up to 3 storeys in height, together with hard and soft landscaping and sports facilities, 135 parking spaces and 60 cycle spaces and new vehicular and pedestrian access onto Nethermayne’.

On 05 September 2012 planning permission ref CC/BAS/28/12 was granted for:

‘The provision of cycle parking facilities without compliance with Condition 13 (the provision of safe, secure, covered cycle stores) attached to planning permission CC/BAS/62/11’.

This permission allowed the provision of uncovered cycle parking instead of the previously required covered cycle parking.

Planning permission ref CC/BAS/45/13 was granted in October 2013 for minor material amendments to the approved scheme, including re-positioning of some of the windows and doors and a change to ground surface finishes from asphalt to block paving.

In March 2013 an application (ref CC/BAS/12/13) was submitted for the construction of a new full size ‘3G’ Artificial Grass Pitch with floodlighting. Following consultation with the local community it was clear that the proposed hours of evening use with floodlighting past 8:30pm was a local concern. The application was therefore withdrawn.

2. SITE

The school is located within a residential area on the southern side of Basildon town centre and the railway line.

It is situated adjacent to the A176 Nethermayne Road. Vehicular access is now available from this road as part of the on-going construction of the new school buildings under permission ref CC/BAS/45/13.

Other vehicular access to the site is via 2 narrow residential streets on the northern boundaries of the school, one being ‘Gobions’ and the other being ‘Takely End’.

There are pedestrian access points on the north-eastern and western boundaries.

The school site is surrounded by residential development on the northern, eastern and southern boundaries, with a pedestrian walkway and the A176 Nethermayne Road forming the western boundary.

In general the land falls from west to east. The western section is situated on an elevated plateau also sloping eastwards.

Page 80 of 124

The school buildings originally formed separate boys and girls schools. A further building was added to accommodate sixth-form teaching, however the school has since reverted to 11-16 teaching space only. The 3 main buildings were therefore dispersed across the northern section of the site with the playing fields in the south. Development of the new school building permitted under ref CC/BAS/45/13 has commenced and is underway on site.

The school site does not have any particular planning designations aside from the playing fields which are protected as such by the Basildon District Local Plan.

3. PROPOSAL

The application proposes to replace the approved macadam surfaced Multi Use Games Area with a full size Artificial Grass Pitch to Football Association dimensions and specification.

The ‘3G’ or ‘third generation’ pitch would be located to the north east of the site and would utilise a rubber crumb surface which would enable the school to use it all year even during wet weather. The pitch would be green in colour.

Perimeter open steel mesh fencing of 3m – 4.5m in height and dark green in colour would provide a ball-stop for the facility.

No floodlighting is proposed.

The application proposes opening hours for use by the school and community during daylight hours only.

4. POLICIES

The following policy of the Basildon District Local Plan Saved Policies, Adopted September 2007, (BDLP), provides the development plan framework for this application. The following policy is of relevance to this application:

BDLP Open Space R1

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published in March 2012, sets out requirements for the determination of planning applications and is also a material consideration.

Paragraph 215 of the NPPF states, in summary, that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework.

Since the Basildon District Local Plan Saved Polices was adopted post-2004 but not under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, paragraph 215 is considered to apply to it.

Page 81 of 124

The level of consistency of the policies contained within the Basildon District Local Plan Saved Policies is considered further in the report. 5. CONSULTATIONS

BASILDON BOROUGH COUNCIL – No objection.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – No comments to make.

SPORT ENGLAND – No objection as a statutory consultee, subject to the imposition of conditions requiring a community use agreement and a management and maintenance programme. Recommends as a non-statutory consultee that any restriction on hours of use is not overly restrictive and provides advice on the design of the pitch.

NATIONAL GRID – Any comments received will be reported.

ANGLIAN WATER – Any comments received will be reported.

COUNTY COUNCIL’S NOISE CONSULTANT – No objection. Comments that the future usage of the pitch is considered to be similar to the existing, both during and after school hours.

PLACE SERVICES (Urban Design) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – No objection.

PLACE SERVICES (Landscape) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – No objection.

LOCAL MEMBER – BASILDON – Westley Heights – Any comments received will be reported.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

215 properties were directly notified of the application. 20 letters of representation have been received. These relate to planning issues covering the following matters:

Observation Comment

Use of the pitch, particularly by the local See appraisal. community, would create noise pollution during daylight hours.

Overshadowing of the surrounding See appraisal. gardens from the pitch and fencing.

Impact on privacy of occupants of See appraisal. surrounding properties due to proposed pitch level.

Page 82 of 124

Adverse effect on property value. Not a planning issue.

Pitches in Welwyn Garden City were Every application is considered on its closed down after 1 year due to own merits. unacceptable noise. The area is currently quiet after school See appraisal. and at weekends, which is why there are no complaints about noise during school hours.

The lack of floodlighting would see the Floodlighting is not proposed as part of pitch underused in winter. Directional this application and is therefore not floodlighting should be sought. under consideration.

Details of the application are not The County Council is currently working available on Essex County Council’s towards a system whereby planning website. applications will be viewable online.

Floodlights will be installed at a later This would be subject to further date. planning permission.

Landscape drawings still show Noted. This has been rectified by the floodlight poles. applicant.

The application does not address the See appraisal. full range of objections previously raised.

The photos included with the Design The photos are for the purpose of and Access Statement are misleading showing the existing neighbouring with regard to the level of the pitch in properties. comparison to the surrounding properties.

The applicant has handled the repeated Leaflets were distributed by the applications poorly. applicant to local residents in January 2013 prior to the submission of application ref CC/BAS/12/13. Few responses were received. The applicant has responded to the comments made during the formal consultation on application ref CC/BAS/12/13 by removing the floodlights and incorporating additional landscaping.

Homes on Waldegrave may be See appraisal. impacted by flooding due to run off from the pitch into the existing ditch, which is poorly maintained.

Page 83 of 124

Will there be compensation if homes on See appraisal. Waldegrave are flooded due to this proposal?

The already approved MUGA is of See appraisal. much lower impact than the proposed pitch.

The proposed ground level could be See appraisal. lowered by 2-3m.

Support the application as it would Noted. allow year-round participation in sport, which has health and social benefits.

Previously objected to the floodlight Noted. application but supports the current application.

7. APPRAISAL

The key issues for consideration are:

A. Need B. Policy Considerations C. Impact on Amenity D. Landscape and Visual Impact E. Traffic Impact F. Water Impact

A NEED

The application states that the use of the school playing fields is currently limited due to bad weather, and that the proposed pitch would allow all year round use for sport and PE.

The application states that community use would be encouraged, and that there would be a monetary saving due to less maintenance associated with 3G pitches in comparison to grass pitches.

Sport England has indicated that the proposed pitch has potential to significantly improve the delivery of curricular and extra-curricular physical education and sport at Woodlands School.

Sport England has also commented that the proposals would offer significant potential benefits to the wider community, and that the Football Association (FA) has confirmed support of general 3G provision in Basildon. However, Sport England has also commented that the FA has advised that in comparison to other towns in Essex this project would be lower priority in terms of strategic need as a National Governing Body because of the close proximity of similar AGP facilities

Page 84 of 124

at James Hornsby and Basildon Sporting Village. There is, however, likely to be local demand for the pitch because of its good location within Basildon.

Therefore, on balance, it is considered that the proposed pitch would be of benefit to the school and the local community. B POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) contains a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision-taking this means:

 approving development proposal that accord with the development plan without delay; and

 where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless:

- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole; or

- specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted.

Although there is one policy of relevance to this application contained within the Basildon District Local Plan Saved Policies, the NPPF is considered to be the main material consideration.

The 3 dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social and environmental) will be considered further in the report.

It is noted that Sport England has no objection, subject to the imposition of conditions relating to a community use agreement and management maintenance of the pitch. In the event that planning permission is granted, it is considered that a condition relating to the management and maintenance of the pitch could be imposed.

However, the imposition of a condition requiring a community use agreement would be considered to give rise to impacts which have not been fully considered through the determination of this application. Therefore, the condition is not proposed to be imposed and this would lead to a statutory objection from Sport England, resulting in the need to refer the application to the Secretary of State in the event that permission is granted. It is noted that planning permission ref CC/BAS/62/11 included a commitment from the school to enter into a Community Use Agreement. It is anticipated that the intention would be for the new pitch to be incorporated into this agreement, in the event that permission is granted.

C IMPACT ON AMENITY

One of the core planning principles of the NPPF is that ‘planning should always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing

Page 85 of 124

and future occupants of land and buildings’.

Noise

The NPPF, in summary, requires planning decisions to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development, and to mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development.

There are no specific conditions relating to operational noise or opening hours attached to the existing planning permission for Woodlands School (ref CC/BAS/45/13). This means that the sports facilities may be used by the local community outside of school hours during daylight hours.

It is important to note that the approved development already includes a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) in the location of the proposed pitch which would be used for netball, tennis and basketball. The proposed pitch would be no further east than the MUGA but it would extend approximately 60m further south. Overall it would be 5,596 square metres larger than the MUGA.

The positioning of the pitch would necessitate the relocation of two training grids marked out to the east of the playing field. The proposed pitch would be located further from the eastern boundary than the existing training grids.

The application includes a technical note which states that noise levels from activities on the new pitch would be no higher than those arising from the existing pitches and MUGA.

The County Council’s noise consultant has concluded that the risk of adverse noise impacts is reduced due to the omission of floodlighting and has raised no objection.

Lighting: The application does not propose any lighting. Fixed lighting would require the benefit of further planning permission should it be desired in future.

Visual: The existing playing fields slope from approximately 44m in the vicinity of the school building to approximately 40.5m at the boundary of properties along Waldegrave.

The proposed pitch would provide level access to the existing school buildings and existing internal sporting and changing facilities by levelling the pitch to approximately 44m – an approximate 3m increase in height at the south eastern end of the pitch, which would be located approximately 50m from the boundary with the residential properties to the east. The level change would be accommodated through ‘cut and fill’.

The proposed levels have been justified by the applicant on the basis that they are required to avoid exporting material off site; to achieve gravity drainage to the storm water drains without pumping; to allow level access from the school changing rooms; and to meet fall requirements set by the Football Association.

Page 86 of 124

Representations have been received regarding intrusion of privacy and overshadowing due to the proposed level change.

It is acknowledged that the screening provided by existing planting is intermittent. Taking the concerns raised previously by residents into account, the applicant has proposed further planting along the eastern and northern boundaries. It is proposed that this planting would take place in advance of the construction of the pitch.

The County Council’s landscape consultant has raised no objection to the proposals.

It is noted that there would be an increase in the base level of the south eastern corner of the pitch. However, taking the above into account, it is considered that the proposed planting would adequately screen the area and privacy would not be significantly impacted.

In relation to overshadowing, the proposed pitch would be approximately 50m from the end of the nearest residential garden and approximately 70m from the façade of the nearest residential building. It is not considered that the proposed pitch or 4.5m fencing would create overshadowing at this distance.

It is therefore considered that the proposed development would not have significant impact on the amenity of the occupiers of surrounding properties, as required by the NPPF.

D LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT

BDLP Policy BAS R1 (Open Space) states, in summary, that planning permission will not be granted for development of open space which would cause significant harm to the recreational or amenity value of the open space, or to the contribution which the open space makes to the character of the area within which it is located.

BDLP Policy BAS R1 is considered to be consistent with the NPPF, which seeks to protect open space and sports and recreational land. It also states that access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities.

Taking into account the development already approved for the site and the proposed landscaping as detailed in the report, it is considered that the proposed pitch would not significantly harm the recreational or amenity value of the open space within which it is situated. According to the statement made on behalf of the school and Sport England the recreational (sporting) value would actually be enhanced. It is further considered that there would be no significant harm to the character of the area.

The proposed development is therefore considered to comply with BDLP Policy BAS R1 and the NPPF.

Page 87 of 124

E TRAFFIC IMPACT

The main school development will benefit from the provision of 135 parking spaces. No additional staff are proposed to be employed in association with the proposed pitch. Taking into account the already approved MUGA, it is considered that the existing parking provision would be adequate to cater for the use of the proposed development outside of school hours.

It is also noted that the main school development, originally permitted under ref CC/BAS/62/11, provides for a new vehicular access off Nethermayne. This significantly improves the previous access to the school which was via narrow residential streets.

F WATER IMPACT

Anglian Water has been consulted on the application but has not provided any comments at the time of writing. It is noted that Anglian Water has previously commented that the AGP should be included in the overall strategy for surface water discharge across the site. Should the proposals result in an increase to the previously agreed surface water discharge rate, Anglian Water should be re- consulted.

The application proposes drainage to the full perimeter of the proposed footprint with lateral drainage below the pitch. A silt chamber at each corner would allow inspection. The system would drain into the approved site drainage via a solid wall pipe.

The proposed development has been designed so that it does not place additional strain on the existing drainage of the site. Maintenance of the existing site drainage system is the responsibility of the school.

8. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is considered that the development of the proposed pitch would be useful for pupils of Woodlands School to allow curricular sports to take place throughout the year without the restriction of bad weather conditions.

It is also understood that it would be desirable for pupils to use the pitch for extracurricular sports and for the pitch to be open to the community outside of normal school hours, during hours of daylight only. This would bring economic and social gains by furthering educational achievement and success in the workplace, as well as promoting a healthy lifestyle.

Taking into account the approved layout of the school playing fields, the proposed landscaping and the omission of floodlighting, it is considered that the proposed artificial grass pitch would not have any significant impact on amenity, landscape or flooding. It would also comply with BDLP Policy BAS R1 (Open Space) and this, in turn, would enhance the environment.

Page 88 of 124

Therefore, the proposal would bring economic, environmental and social benefits and, as such, is considered to constitute sustainable development for the purposes of the NPPF.

9. RECOMMENDED

That pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, planning permission be granted subject to the Secretary of State not calling in the application for his own determination and subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiry of 5 years from the date of this permission. Written notification of the date of commencement shall be sent to the County Planning Authority within 7 days of such commencement.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details of the application dated 30 August 2013 and covering letter dated 04 September 2013, together with:

- the ‘Woodlands School: All Weather Pitch Landscape Management Plan’ ref WWA/1232/DOC/602 PLANNING ISSUE dated August 2013, - the ‘Woodlands School: All Weather Pitch Landscape Specification’ ref WWA/1232/DOC/601 PLANNING ISSUE dated August 2013, - Planning Statement v2 dated August 2013, - Letter from SRL Technical Services Ltd dated 27 August 2013,

drawing numbers:

- 1323/LP/301 Rev A dated 08/10/13, - WS NHA DWG L AWP1 I Rev 03 dated 28/01/13, - WS NHA DWG L AWP2 I Rev 03 dated 28/01/13, - WS NHA DWG L AWP3 I Rev 04 dated 27/08/13, - WS NHA DWG L AWP4 I Rev 04 dated 27/08/13, - WS NHA DWG L AWP5 I Rev 04 dated 27/08/13, - WS NHA DWG L AWP6 I Rev 03 dated 27/08/13, - WS NHA DWG L AWP7 I Rev 01 dated 28/08/13,

and the contents of the Design and Access Statement ref WS-NHA-RPT-A- 115-I-01 dated August 2013

and in accordance with any non-material amendment(s) as may be subsequently approved in writing by the County Planning Authority, except as varied by the following conditions: -

3. Any tree or shrub forming part of a landscaping scheme approved in connection with the development hereby approved that dies, is damaged, diseased or removed within the duration of 5 years during and after the completion of the development shall be replaced during the next available planting season (October to March inclusive) with a tree or shrub to be agreed

Page 89 of 124

in advance in writing by the County Planning Authority.

4. Prior to the first use of the development hereby permitted, a Management and Maintenance Scheme for the facility including management responsibilities, a maintenance schedule and a mechanism for review shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved Management and Maintenance Scheme for the life of the development hereby permitted.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Consultation replies Representations

THE CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010

The proposed development would not be located adjacent to or within the screening distance to a European site.

Therefore, it is considered that an Appropriate Assessment under Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 is not required.

EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT

STATEMENT OF HOW THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT IN A POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE MANNER

The application has been submitted following several pre-application meetings with the applicant and agent. The previous application proposing floodlights was withdrawn due, in part, to concerns raised by the local community. Negotiation with the applicant has led to the submission of the current application omitting the floodlighting and including additional landscaping.

LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION

BASILDON – Westley Heights.

Page 90 of 124

AGENDA ITEM 7a

DR/44/13

committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 25th October 2013

MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT ENFORCEMENT OF PLANNING CONTROL Unauthorised importation, deposition crushing and processing of construction and demolition waste (including concrete, brick other rubble and road scalpings). Location: Land adjacent to The Cock Inn, Boreham Ref: ENF/SA

Report by Director for Operations, Environment and Economy Enquiries to: Suzanne Armstrong 01245437556

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright reserved Essex County Council, Chelmsford Licence L000 19602

Page 91 of 124

1. BACKGROUND AND SITE

A report was presented to the Committee on 19 April 2013 providing an update on enforcement matters relating to the above site. At that meeting the Committee resolved:

That:

1) Subject to the continued removal of excess materials to restrict the operation to that permitted by the CLUED, it is not considered expedient to take further enforcement action. Officers shall continue to monitor the site to ensure that the materials are removed in accordance with a timetable to be agreed with the operator.

2) a further update shall be provided at the October 2013 meeting.

To remind the Committee, on the 23 May 2012 the County Council as Waste Planning Authority issued a temporary stop notice alleging that there had been a breach of planning control relating to the following matters;

“The unauthorised importation, deposition, crushing and processing of construction and demolition waste (Including concrete, brick, other rubble and road scalpings)”

The landowner was required to:

“Cease the importation, deposition, crushing and processing of construction waste (including concrete brick other rubble and road scalpings)”

The notice took effect on 23 May 2012 and was in force for 28 days during which the importation of waste ceased at the site.

This site has a complex history with numerous unauthorised activities dating back many years.

Two Certificates of Lawful Use (CLUED) were issued on the 10th December 1990 in respect of the land adjoining the Cock Inn, Boreham by the then Chelmsford Borough Council, now Chelmsford City Council.

The first Certificate (Certificate A) allows:

“The siting of two sheds each 2.3m by 3.5m for the storage of grease, oil, tyres and engine parts to serve on site machinery.”

The second Certificate (Certificate B) allows:

“Storage of topsoil in heap with a maximum height of about 3 metres (10 feet), screening of top soil and selling onto landscape gardeners and the general public and to a lesser extent storage of paving slabs and bricks.” Page 92 of 124

A number of previous operators started to operate outside of the area of the agreed CLUED which impounded an on-going problem by adding large amounts of materials to the already stockpiled materials of crushed concrete, topsoil and general builders hardcore and waste, which was outside the area of the CLUED. The use of the additional land amounted to a material change of use.

The certificates are largely descriptive and do not restrict activity such as limiting the number of vehicle movements, control of noise, dust or mud on the road etc. Chelmsford City Council’s Environmental Health Officers are responsible for monitoring the impact of noise and dust on the local environment.

The current operator had discussions with the WPA and since serving the TSN the operator ceased importing and depositing materials outside of the scope of the CLUED.

The current operator moved on to the site in November 2012. A meeting was held with the new operator in December 2012 to discuss the best way forward to resolve the issues of local concern. The operator accepted that the CLUED did not authorise operations at the scale and nature that were historically taking place. As such the current operator has been actively removing large amounts of materials (hardcore etc.) working towards compliance with the existing CLUED.

The site is situated next to The Cock Inn Public House in Main Road Boreham, adjacent to the A12, Boreham to Hatfield Peverel.

2. CURRENT POSITION

Monthly visits continue. A large amount of the waste that covered the land outside the CLUED area has now been processed and is stockpiled on site ready to be removed. A large amount of waste has already been removed from this site and regular monitoring visits ensure that material continue to be removed.

Although complaints are continuing to be received, the operator is making efforts to remove the materials from the land outside the CLUED and is considered to be taking appropriate action to remedy this breach of planning control.

In accordance with Planning Policy guidance negotiation should always be the first step in resolving any breach of planning control. Where a landowner or operator is willingly attempting to remedy the breach of planning control, this will usually result in formal action not being required.

As works are continuing to progress, it is estimate that a further period is still required to remove the raining material from outside the CLUED area.

In accordance with the Council’s Local Enforcement and Monitoring Plan, when considering any enforcement action, the WPA is required to act proportionality, which involves assessing whether a breach of control would unacceptably affect public amenity or the existing use of land meriting protection in the public interest.

Page 93 of 124 Although there continues to be a breach of planning control, the operator is actively working towards clearing this area of land, outside of the CLEUD. It is estimated that this piece of land will be cleared by the end of November 2013.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1) Subject to the continued removal of excess materials to restrict the operation to that permitted by the CLUED, it is not considered expedient to take further enforcement action at this time.

2) a further update shall be provided at the January 2014 meeting.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Ref: P/DM/SA/ENF/70.421.33

LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION CHELMSFORD – Chelmer

Page 94 of 124 AGENDA ITEM 7b

DR/45/13

committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 25 October 2013

MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT ENFORCEMENT OF PLANNING CONTROL The importation, deposition and spreading of waste materials on the land, substantially raising the land levels (the unauthorised development Location: Land at intersection of A120 and B1256 (Stortford Road), Braintree, Essex Ref: ENF/0673

Report by Director for Operations, Environment and Economy Enquiries to: Suzanne Armstrong 01245437556

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright reserved Essex County Council, Chelmsford Licence L000 19602

Page 95 of 124

1. BACKGROUND AND SITE

Prior to construction of the A120 dual carriageway the land in question formed part of an agricultural holding. This particular parcel of land is now separated from the main holding by the A120. The site located at Little Canfield near the A120/B1256 intersection. Access to the site is directly off the Stortford Road. An unauthorised hand car washing facility operates on an adjacent parcel of land, which is currently being dealt with by Uttlesford District Council. There are no other commercial or residential developments around the site.

In July 2008 the Waste Planning Authority (WPA) became aware of unauthorised demolition waste recycling activities taking place on the land. The operator agreed to cease recycling and consequently waste importations ceased. Through negotiation time was given for the removal of all of the processed and unprocessed waste materials previously brought on to the site and deposited on the land.

When it became apparent that the situation was not going to be resolved amicably, on the 5 June 2009, under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, an Enforcement Notice was issued requiring;

a) cessation of waste importation, deposition and spreading of such b) Removal of all imported waste materials and plant; and c) the return of the land to its former condition

An appeal was subsequently lodged against the Enforcement Notice. The appeal was later withdrawn by the landowner. The landowner was advised of the requirement to comply with the Enforcement Notice, as the notice continues to remain effective of the land.

Members of the Development and Regulation Committee resolved on the 26th February 2010 that subject to no further waste material being imported and deposited on the land, no further action should be taken by the Waste Planning Authority in respect of this breach of planning control.

2. CURRENT POSITION

An officer of the Council witnessed importation, deposition and spreading of waste materials on the land taking place on the 14th August 2013

The development does not benefit from planning permission. There remains an extant Enforcement Notice on the land (issued on the 5 June 2009) which restricts the importation, deposition and spreading of waste materials on the land and subsequently raising the land levels. The Waste Planning Authority issued a Temporary Stop Notice (TSN) on the 16th August 2013 preventing the further importation, deposition and spreading of waste materials on the land.

The Temporary Stop Notice expired on the 13 September 2013. The unauthorised waste materials remain on the land, which is in contravention of the Enforcement Notice issued in 2009. A formal letter has been sent to the land owner requesting Page 96 of 124 removal within 28 days. This formal letter is due to expire on the 16th October 2013.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1) Subject to the removal of the unauthorised material from the site no further action is taken, however if all imported waste materials deposited on the land have not been removed and the land restored (as required by the Enforcement Notice issued June 2009) legal proceedings are commenced for non-compliance with the notice, and:

2) a further update shall be provided at the January 2014 meeting. . LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION

UTTLESFORD – Dunmow.

Page 97 of 124

Page 98 of 124 AGENDA ITEM 7c

DR/46/13

committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 25 October 2013

MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT ENFORCEMENT OF PLANNING CONTROL The unauthorised extraction and exportation of sand and gravel from the land and the importation and deposition of waste materials and consequential raising of the land levels (the unauthorised development). Location: Land at Dairy House Farm, Little Clacton Road, Great Holland. CO13 0EX

Report by Director for Operations, Environment and Economy Enquiries to: Suzanne Armstrong 01245437556

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright reserved Essex County Council, Chelmsford Licence L000 19602

Page 99 of 124

1. BACKGROUND AND SITE

On the 31 July 2013 the Waste Planning Authority (WPA) became aware of alleged unauthorised mineral extraction taking place on the land.

On the 7 August 2013 the WPA issued a Temporary Stop Notice alleging that there had been a breach of planning control relating to the unauthorised extraction and exportation of sand and gravel from the land and the importation and deposition of waste materials, and consequential raising the land levels (the unauthorised development)

The landowner was required to cease all activities.

The notice took effect on the 07th August 2013 and remained in force for 28 days.

The land owner immediately ceased all activities on the land

Dairy House farm is located near the village of Great Holland, approximately 3 miles North East of Clacton-On-Sea. The site is located within the Countryside. Dairy House Farm consists of an agricultural property with a group of farm buildings.

The landowners’ primary business is that of agriculture.

The extraction of sand and gravel with associated infilling with waste materials is considered an additional operation outside permitted agricultural use.

On witnessing the extraction of sand and gravel with associated infilling it was considered that unauthorised mineral working can involve particular problems such as damage to the amenity, and harm to the landscape character of an area which, can be caused very quickly.

2. CURRENT POSITION

Since serving the Temporary Stop Notice the landowner has ceased the unauthorised activities on the land. The Temporary Stop Notice expired on the 5th September 2013.

A Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) was issued by the Waste Planning Authority on the 8th August requiring the land owner to provide further information relating to the unlawful activities on the land.

The landowner has provided information relating to the activities at Dairy House Farm. The excavation works were considered necessary, by the owner, for land drainage within the farm holding. The Waste Planning Authority has since established that the extracted materials are currently stockpiled within the farm yard.

Relevant Government Guidance is found in the National Planning Policy Page 100 of 124 Framework (NPPF)which states that effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary and the local planning authorities should act proportionately.

The land owner has made contact with the Waste Planning Authority the WPA and negotiations are on-going in order to restore the land to its former agricultural use, and the field returned to an acceptable condition. The land owner is willing to carry out remedial works, or make any rectifying application in an agreed timescale. Should these not be forthcoming the WPA may consider a more formal approach, if considered proportionate and in the public interest.

RECOMMENDED

That:

1) Subject to no further extraction and exportation of mineral taking place and that the land is restored, no further action is taken.

LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION

TENDRING – Frinton and Walton

Page 101 of 124

Page 102 of 124 AGENDA ITEM 7d

DR/47/13

committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 25 October 2013

MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION ITEM - ENFORCEMENT OF PLANNING CONTROL

A material change of use from agricultural land to the use of the land for the importation, depositing, storing and processing of waste materials. Location: Land at Springvale Farm, Goatswood Lane, Navestock, Essex. RM14 1HE

Report by Director for Operations, Environment and Economy Enquiries to: Suzanne Armstrong 01245 437556

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright reserved Essex County Council, Chelmsford Licence L000 19602

Page 103 of 124

1. BACKGROUND

A material change of use had taken place, without planning permission to land used for the importation, deposition, storing and processing of waste materials.

On the 14th May 2013 the Waste Planning issued an Enforcement Notice. The landowner was required to:

1. Cease, and do not resume, the importation of waste materials on the land 2. Cease using the land for the unauthorised use and processing activities associated with the unauthorised use. 3. Remove all waste materials associated with the use from the land. 4. Remove the mobile office building from the land 5. Remove all containers, and equipment associated with the unlawful use from the land. 6. Cease all vehicle movements associated with the unauthorised use.

The notice took effect on the 17th June 2013 and the compliance period was 3 months.

2. THE SITE

Springvale Farm is situated within the Borough of Brentwood. The site has a complex history; there are a number of commercial businesses at this site that would appear Lawful. The land is situated within the Metropolitan Green Belt of the Brentwood District.

It was established by the Waste Planning Authority that there had been a breach of planning control insofar as that there was a material change of use to importation, deposition, storing and sorting of waste materials.

The unauthorised use has a harmful impact on the local rural landscape and adversely affects the character and amenities of this Green Belt locality.

3. CURRENT POSITION

Compliance with the Enforcement Notice was required by the 17th September 2013.

An officer of the Waste Planning Authority visited the site on the 10th June 2013. The operator had ceased the importation, deposition, storing and processing of, waste materials on the land and cleared the site accordingly.

It is considered that the Enforcement Notice has been complied with.

LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION

BRENTWOOD – Brentwood Rural

Page 104 of 124 AGENDA ITEM 7e

DR/48/13

committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 25 October 2013

MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION ITEM - ENFORCEMENT OF PLANNING CONTROL A material change of use from agricultural land to land used for agriculture and for the importation, deposit, stockpiling and processing of inert waste materials. Location: Land at Armigers Farm, Thaxted, Great Dunmow, Essex

Report by Director for Operations, Environment and Economy Enquiries to: Suzanne Armstrong 01245 437556

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright reserved Essex County Council, Chelmsford Licence L000 19602

Page 105 of 124

1. BACKGROUND

The Committee received an update in August 2012.

A Certificate of Lawful use, of the land, was issued by Essex County Council on the 23rd April 2002. The CLUED confirms that the land is used for the recycling of inert construction and demolition waste, involving the importation, storage, crushing, screening and grading of this material, to be sold from site as secondary aggregate.

It was established by the Waste Planning Authority that there had been a breach of planning control insofar as the land used for such activities was much greater than that certified as lawful by way of the CLUED dated 23rd April 2002.

A material change of use had taken place, without planning permission from agricultural land (including storage of agricultural plant, machinery, tyres, plastic piping, metal fuel tanks, corrugated sheeting, metal and wood items, lorry trailer and browser tank) to land used for agriculture and for the importation, deposition, stockpiling and processing of inert waste materials (including soil, brick, rubble and concrete).

Negotiations took place over a number of years, seeking removal of the unauthorised materials to resolve the situation, however clearance was not achieved and therefore on the 25 July 2012 the Waste Planning issued an Enforcement Notice.

The landowner was required to:

Cease, and do not resume, the importation, deposit, stockpiling and processing of inert waste materials on the land

Remove all inert waste materials (including processed waste) from the land.

The notice took effect on the 25th August 2012 and the compliance period was 12 months.

2. SITE

Armigers Farm is located off the B1051 Thaxted to Elsenham Road and is contained wholly within the farm holding, north the farm buildings. The site is well elevated and exposed to users of the B1051. A Grade 1 listed property stands about 700 metres to the north west of the land in question.

3. CURRENT POSITION

No appeal was lodged against the notice and therefore compliance with the Enforcement Notice was required by the 25th August 2013.

Page 106 of 124 An officer of the Waste Planning Authority visited the site on the 6th September 2013. The operator has ceased the importation, deposit, stockpiling and processing of inert waste materials on the land and has removed all inert waste materials from the land outside of that authorised by the CLUED.

It is considered that the Enforcement Notice has been complied with and no further action is required.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Ref: P/DM/ 70.421/33/124

LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION

UTTLESFORD – Thaxted

Page 107 of 124

Page 108 of 124 AGENDA ITEM 8a

DR/49/13

Committee: DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION

Date: 25 October 2013

INFORMATION ITEM - APPEAL DECISION Proposal: Construction of an agricultural reservoir, by the extraction and removal from the site of sand, gravel and surplus soils, together with the construction of an internal haul road, ancillary buildings and the widening of the existing access on Hall Road (B1029) Location: Land adjacent to Manning Grove, Carringtons Road, Great Bromley, Essex ECC Reference: ESS/56/11/TEN Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/Z1585/A/12/2182774 Applicant/Appellant: Mr T. W. Salmon (Messrs Salmon, Fairley, Tabor)

Report by Head of Planning, Environment and Economic Growth Enquiries to: Tom McCarthy Tel: 01245 437507

1. BACKGROUND AND SITE

An application to construct an agricultural reservoir at land off Carringtons Road, adjacent to Manning Grove ancient woodland, in Great Bromley was refused planning permission by Essex County Council, as the Minerals Planning Authority, on 01 March 2012.

The area to which the application related extended to 6.5ha with the reservoir proposed to have capacity to hold approximately 32 million gallons of water. The application proposed that the 300,000 tonnes of material that would be excavated to create the void, predominately sand and gravel, would permanently be removed the site. It was proposed that material would be removed from the site via an internal haul road that would traverse south from the site across Carringtons Road and through Long Cover wood to connect with Hall Road (B1029) at Primrose Farm. All material extracted was proposed to be processed for onward sale and use at Martells Quarry, Ardleigh.

The project was scheduled to take four years to complete resulting in up to 60 vehicle movements (30 in and 30 out) per day (Monday to Friday). Once extraction was complete the reservoir was proposed to be filled from existing consented abstraction points/licenses within the three farmer’s control. The reservoir was proposed to be landscaped/engineered to fit in with the surrounding area with an area of nature conservation created to the north of the site to promote ecological diversity.

The application, to which 173 letters of public representation were received, was refused planning permission under delegated powers for five reasons, summarised below:  The sand and gravel landbank within Essex is greater than seven years and there is no identified national, regional or local need for added reserves;  The applicant had not presented an over-riding justification or benefit for the release of the site for sand and gravel working to outweigh the harm to landscape character and quality and amenity;  The proposed development would involve the transportation of material on a secondary distributor road and, as there is no over-riding need for the mineral, the proposal would unnecessarily interfere with the flow of traffic on the highway;  The proposed development would result in a potential impact upon groundwater levels which could in turn harm a number of water features and private water abstractions; and  The proposed development would potentially result in damage to European protected species.

2. CURRENT POSITION

An appeal was lodged, by the applicant, against the refusal and the case was determined by way of a hearing held on 20 August 2013 at County Hall, Chelmsford. The Inspector who was appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to determine the case issued her decision on 09 September 2013 and this is attached at Appendix 1. Page 110 of 124

The Inspector in the determination of the appeal, and her subsequent report, considered that the main issues in this case were:

 The environmental qualities of the site;  The character and appearance of the surrounding area;  The living conditions of local residents; and  Highway safety.

In respect of the above it was concluded that whilst the National Planning Policy Framework and other planning policies accord great weight to the sustainable use of minerals and there is positive encouragement for reservoirs it is not considered that, in this case, there was a demonstrable need for the winning of minerals from the site.

The Inspector furthermore considered that should planning permission be granted unacceptable impacts to residential amenity and the highway network would be caused. Detailing, at Paragraph 44, that whilst the reservoir would undoubtedly be useful and profitable for the famers concerned, the fact that it would not be available for use for up to four years indicates that the need for it is not so immediate or pressing that the objections to the proposal should be set aside without a more robust consideration of alternative solutions to improving water storage and irrigation.

In context of the above the Inspector inter-alia summarised that while conditions could lessen the impact of the development to a certain extent, they could not alleviate the problems or policy conflicts to an acceptable extent. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION

TENDRING – Tendring Rural West

Page 111 of 124

APPENDIX 1

Page 112 of 124

Page 113 of 124

Page 114 of 124

Page 115 of 124

Page 116 of 124

Page 117 of 124

Page 118 of 124

Page 119 of 124

Page 120 of 124 AGENDA ITEM 9a

DR/50/13

Committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 25 October 2013

INFORMATION ITEM Applications, Enforcement and Appeals Statistics

Report by Director for Operations, Environment and Economy Enquiries to Tim Simpson – tel: 01245 437031 or email: [email protected]

1. PURPOSE OF THE ITEM

To update Members with relevant information on planning applications, appeals and enforcements, as at the end of the previous month, plus other background information as may be requested by Committee.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

None.

Ref: P/DM/Tim Simpson/

MEMBER NOTIFICATION

Countywide.

SCHEDULE Minerals and Waste Planning Applications

No. Pending at the end of previous month 22

No. Decisions issued in the month 2

No. Decisions issued this financial year 23

Overall % in 13 weeks this financial year 74%

Page 121 of 124 % on target this financial year (CPS returns count) 70%

Nº Delegated Decisions issued in the month 2

Nº Section 106 Agreements Pending 1

County Council Applications

Nº. Pending at the end of previous month 11

Nº. Decisions issued in the month 4

Nº. Decisions issued this financial year 27

Nº of Major Applications determined (13 weeks allowed) 0

Nº of Major Applications determined within the 13 weeks allowed 0

Nº Delegated Decisions issued in the month 4

% age in 8 weeks this financial year (Target 70%) 89%

All Applications

Nº. Delegated Decisions issued last month 6

Nº. Committee determined applications issued last month 0

Nº. of Submission of Details dealt with this financial year 98

Nº. of Submission of Details Pending 101

Nº. of referrals to Secretary of State under delegated powers 0

Appeals

Nº. of appeals outstanding at end of last month 3

Enforcement

Nº. of active cases at end of last quarter 20

Nº. of cases cleared last quarter 7

Page 122 of 124 Nº. of enforcement notices issued last month 0

Nº. of breach of condition notices issued last month 0

Nº. of planning contravention notices issued last month 1

Nº. of Temporary Stop Notices Issued last month 0

Nº. of Stop Notices Issued last month 0

Page 123 of 124

Page 124 of 124