Development and Regulation Committee

Committee Room Friday, 26 October 10:30 1, 2012 County Hall

Quorum: 3

Membership:

Councillor Nigel Edey Chairman Councillor Bill Dick Vice-Chairman Councillor R Boyce Councillor M Garnett Councillor T Higgins Councillor S Hillier Councillor G McEwen Councillor M Miller Councillor D Morris Councillor R Pearson Councillor I Pummell Councillor J Reeves

For information about the meeting please ask for: Ian Myers, Committee Officer Telephone: 01245 430481 Email: ian.myers@essex.gov.uk

Page 1 of 74 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 ‘Committees and Decisions’ and select ‘View Committees’. Finally, scroll down the list to the relevant Committee, click the ‘Meetings’ tab and select the date of the Committee.

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 74 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 Minutes 7 - 14 To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Development and Regulation Committee held on Friday 24 August 2012.

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

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 County Council Development

5a Castle View School 15 - 26 The erection and use of a hammer cage and associated landscaping (part retrospective) DR3612

5b Queen Boudica School 27 - 38

New build single storey block comprising 2 classrooms, group room and ancillary accommodation with external covered teaching space and associated landscaping to facilitate expansion of school roll to 420 pupil places. Extension of car parking area to provide 4 additional car park spaces and surfacing of playing field area with artificial surface to provide all-weather MUGA sports area.

Location: Queen Boudica Primary School, Cowper Crescent, off Turner Road, Colchester, Essex

Ref: CC/COL/37/12 DR3712

6 Minerals and Waste Site Monitoring Protocol 39 - 66 To consider the Minerals and Waste Site Monitoring Protocol that covers both ‘chargeable’ and ‘non-chargeable’ minerals and waste sites taking into account best practice Page 3 of 74 and changes to legislation. DR3812

7 Information Items

7a Enforcement Update 2012 (Jul-Sep) 67 - 70 To update members of enforcement matters for the period 01 July to 30 September 2012 (Quarterly Period 2). DR3912

7b Statistics October 2012 71 - 74 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. DR4012

8 Date of Next Meeting To note that the next meeting will be held on Friday 23 November 2012

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

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

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

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

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

______Page 4 of 74

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

______

Page 5 of 74

Page 6 of 74 24 August 2012 Unapproved 1 Minutes

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION COMMITTEE HELD AT COUNTY HALL, CHELMSFORD ON 24 AUGUST 2012

Present

Cllr N Edey (Chairman) Cllr T Higgins Cllr M Mackrory (*) Cllr J Reeves Cllr S Hillier Cllr C Riley (*) Cllr W Dick Cllr M Garnett Cllr I Grundy (*)

1. Apologies and Substitution Notices

Apologies were received from Cllr D Morris, Cllr R Pearson, Cllr M Miller, Cllr I Pummell, Cllr G McEwen, Cllr R Boyce

Substitutes were as shown above (*)

2. Minutes

The Minutes and Addendum of the Committee held on 27 July 2012 were agreed and signed by the Chairman.

3. Matters Arising

There were no matters arising.

4. Declarations of Interest

Councillor Sandra Hillier declared a non-pecuniary interest as a Member of Basildon Borough Council.

5. Identification of Items Involving Public Speaking

The persons identified to speak in accordance with the procedure were identified for the following item(s):-

Retrospective application for the use of the site as a material storage, recycling and distribution facility Location: Codham Hall Farm, Codham Hall Lane, Great Warley, Brentwood, Essex Reference: ESS/40/12/BRW

Public speakers: Michael Aves speaking for

Page 7 of 74

Minutes 2 Unapproved 24 August 2012

Minerals and Waste

6. Codham Hall Farm The Committee considered report DR/29/12 by the Head of Environmental Planning. The Members of the Committee noted the contents of the Addendum attached to these minutes and a change to the conditions. The Committee was advised that the proposal was to regularise the use of the site as a material storage, recycling and distribution centre. 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: A Need and Economy B Green Belt and Impact on Landscape C Highway and Bridleway Impact D Impact on Amenity

In accordance with the protocol on public speaking the Committee was addressed by Mr Michael Aves. Mr Aves said:  The position of the site is ideal for the nature of the applicants’ operation.  The applicant are seeking the security of knowing they will not be required to seek a new site part way through a ten year contract and would prefer an 8 year permission rather than the 5 years proposed by condition.  Although in green belt, the site is dominated by the M25 and A127. Formerly arable land the agricultural use ceased many years ago.  The processing of excavated material for re-use in the project is the most efficient and sustainable way of dealing with it.  The applicants acknowledge the concerns raised about their operations but they take every practical precaution to limit dust and noise.

In response to questions raised, Members were informed that:  The importation of materials by its type is dealt with by condition.

The resolution was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed and

Resolved:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Page 8 of 74 24 August 2012 Unapproved 3 Minutes

1. COM3 – Compliance with Submitted Details.

2. The use of the site hereby permitted shall cease within 5 years of the date of this consent. All structures, plant, machinery on site, used in connection with the permission hereby permitted, shall be removed. 3. POLL1 – Surface and Foul Water Drainage.

4. DUST1 – Dust Suppression Scheme.

5. Notwithstanding the use of the site, the operation of the concrete crusher on site shall be confirmed to between the hours of:

09:00 – 17:00 Monday to Friday

And at no other times or on Saturday, Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays

6. HIGH7 – Pedestrian/PROW Signage.

7. Within 6 months of the date of this consent details of the proposed improvement works to the bridge parapet shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. Such details are to include scale drawings of the proposed works together with details of construction and material finishes. Within a further 6 months, all works permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plans.

8. WAST1 – Waste Type Restriction

7. CSH Appeal and Enforcement Update Members were informed there has been a successful appeal against the County Councils decision to refuse permission. It was noted the Planning Inspector had taken into account a number of factors including lorry movements and routes, the waste local plan and the new National Policy Framework. Following discussion, the resolution was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed that:

1) That the appeal decision (ref: APP/Z1585/A/11/2165340) is noted, and:

2) It is not considered expedient to commence a prosecution or take further enforcement action requiring the removal of the hardstanding and track, subject to planning permission ref: APP/Z1585/A/11/2165340 being implemented. Should the permission (ref: APP/Z1585/A/11/2165340) not be implemented, then further action may be taken to remove the unauthorised rubble, plant and track etc. should it be considered expedient to do so.

Members noted the possibility of organising a local liaison group and also suggested the Local Highways Panel consider this item as a future project.

Page 9 of 74

Minutes 4 Unapproved 24 August 2012

Village Green 8. Brighton Road Open Space The Committee considered report DR/31/12 by the County Solicitor. Members considered an application made by Mrs Sharon Bennett to register land described as “the Brighton Road Open Space”, Holland-on-Sea as a town or village green pursuant to Section 15(2) of the Commons Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”).

The Committee noted:  A non-statutory public local inquiry has been held and the Inspector’s report was attached as Appendix 1in the agenda for information.  The area applied for excludes the car park area marked on the map.  Having heard the evidence both Tendring District Council and the Holland Residents Association withdrew its opposition.  Further representations received following the inquiry are not considered to have an impact on the assessment of the evidence by the Inspector.

Following the presentation which included photographs and detailed maps of the site the recommendation to accept the application was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed and

Resolved:

1. The alternative boundary of the identified locality of Haven Ward is accepted in substitution for the original locality boundary set out in the application and accept that Tendring District and the former Clacton Urban District would also be relevant localities;

2. The neighbourhood identified in section 11 is accepted as the neighbourhood within the locality for the application;

3. The inspector’s analysis of the evidence in support of the application is accepted and his recommendation that the application made by Mrs Bennett dated 5th March 2009 is accepted for the reasons set out in the inspector’s report and in summary in this report and the land applied for is added to the Register of Town and Village Greens.

9. Falstones Basildon The Committee considered report DR/32/12 by the County Solicitor. Members considered an application made by Ms Emma Rowe to register land at Falstones Play Area, Falstones, Basildon as a Village Green as a town or village green pursuant to Section 15(4) of the Commons Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”).

Members received a presentation which included photographs and detailed maps of the site.

Page 10 of 74 24 August 2012 Unapproved 5 Minutes

Members were informed that:  the applicant had not fulfilled their obligation to provide full details of 20 year usage.  no one has pursued the application since 2008  the local Members have been consulted

The resolution was moved, seconded and following a vote of eight in favour and one abstention it was Resolved: 1. The application is rejected.

2. No change is made to the Register of Town or Village Greens consequent upon this application.

Appeal Update 10. Cobbs Farm Appeal Update The Committee considered report DR/33/12 by the Head of Environmental Planning. The Committee NOTED the report

Enforcement Update 11. Armigers Farm The Committee considered report DR/34/12 by the Head of Environmental Planning. The Committee NOTED the report

Information Items

12. The Committee considered report DR/35/12 by the Head of Environmental Planning. The Committee NOTED the report

13. Date and Time of Next Meeting

The Committee noted that the next meeting will be held on Friday 28 September 2012 at 10.30am in Committee Room 1.

There being no further business the meeting closed at 11.20am.

Page 11 of 74

Page 12 of 74 ADDENDUM FOR THE MEETING OF DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION COMMITTEE 24th August 2012

Item 5(a) Codham Hall Farm, Codham Hall Lane, Great Warley, Brentwood, Essex – ESS/40/12/BRW

PAGE 26 – APPRAISAL – D: IMPACT ON AMENITY

3rd paragraph, 8th line replace ‘as’ with ‘an’

PAGE 27 – APPRAISAL – D: IMPACT ON AMENITY

2nd paragraph, 14th line replace sentence starting ‘In an attempt to control and manage…’ with ‘In an attempt to control and manage noise and dust nuisance it is suggested that conditions be imposed, should the application be approved, requiring the submission of a dust management/operational scheme and restricting the use of the concrete crusher to certain times.’

PAGE 27 – CONCLUSION

2nd paragraph, delete first word ‘Whilst’ and replace with ‘The proposal is, by definition, inappropriate development within the Green Belt. In consideration of this, whilst…’

2nd paragraph, sixth line replace ‘very much be viewed as temporary’ with ‘be construed as amounting to ‘very special circumstances’’ so sentence reads ‘In view of the strategic nature of the operations that would occur on site it is considered that in the is instance the use (or that from this particular applicant) could be construed as amounting to ‘very special circumstances’’.

PAGE 28

Insert above RECOMMENDATION:

8. THE CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010

The proposed development is not located within the vicinity of a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) or Special Protection Area (SPA) and is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of those sites. Therefore, it is considered that an Appropriate Assessment under Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 is not required.

9. 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,

Page 13 of 74

Addendum Development & Regulation Committee 24 August 2012 government policy and guidance, representations and all other material planning considerations as detailed in the body of the report.

PAGE 28 – RECOMMENDATION

Re-number RECOMMENDATION from ‘8.’ to ’10.’

Replace suggested ‘Condition 5. ODR1 – Odour Suppression Scheme’ with ‘Notwithstanding the use of the site, the operation of the concrete crusher on site shall be confined to between the hours of:

09:00 – 17:00 Monday to Friday and at no other times or on Saturdays, Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.’

…………………………………………………………………

Item 5(b) ‘Greenacres’, Old Packards Lane, Wormingford, Colchester, Essex, CO6 3AH – ESS/13/11/CHL (appeal ref: APP/Z1585/A/11/2165340)

PAGE 35 – OUTCOME OF APPEAL

2nd paragraph, 2nd line delete currnet web link and replace with: http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/fscdav/READONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.1 2.4406437&NAME=/Decision%20letter.pdf

3rd paragraph, 2nd line delete ‘lack of need presented by the applicant for the water arising from the proposed reservoir’ and replace with ‘and the fact that the development was located on a non-preferred site as specified by the Waste Local Plan’.

PAGE 37

Delete whole of 3rd paragraph and replace with:

‘The Inspector found that, although the development would be contrary to those development plan policies which restrict development in the countryside, and contrary to the locational criteria in WLP Policy W8B, in light of the NPPF and the importance the Framework places on the economy, the inspector placed greater weight to the benefits the development would have on the rural economy through job creation. Furthermore, the inspector concluded that there was also a need for the proposal in light of the guidance contained within PPS10’.

Page 14 of 74

Addendum Development & Regulation Committee 24 August 2012

AGENDA ITEM...5a......

DR/36/12

committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 26 October 2012

COUNTY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT Proposal: The erection and use of a hammer cage and associated landscaping (part retrospective) Location: Castle View School, Foksville Road, Canvey Island, Essex, SS8 7AZ Ref: CC/CPT/36/12

Report by Head of Environmental Planning Enquiries to: Matthew Wood Tel: 01245 435755

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 15 19602 of 74

1. BACKGROUND

The redevelopment of the former Furtherwick School to form the new Castle View School was completed in early 2012. As part of the planning process a scheme for the phasing of sports facilities on the site was agreed with Sport England and approved by the County Planning Authority on 19 July 2010. This approval referred to drawing number SRM-PL-CVS-L-007 which highlighted the layout of sports pitches for the summer and winter.

During Summer 2012 the County Planning Authority (CPA) received a complaint from a local resident that a ‘hammer cage structure’ had been erected by the school adjacent to residential properties with no prior consultation having been undertaken. After investigating the matter further it appeared that the school had erected the hammer cage on the understanding that it had planning permission via the scheme for the phasing of sports facilities at the school as shown on drawing number ref: SRM-PL-CVS-L-007. However, the CPA consider that insufficient detail was given on this drawing to warrant planning permission for the hammer cage. The applicant has submitted this planning application seeking to regularise the erection and use of the hammer cage on the site.

2. SITE

Castle View School is situated within a predominately urban area on Canvey Island. The site itself is accessed via Foksville Road to the north of the site which itself is accessed from Canvey Island High Street. Both vehicular and pedestrian access to the site is from Foksville Road.

The main school buildings on site are situated to the west of the site, with the school’s grass playing field located to the east of the site. The hammer cage is located in the south east corner of the site adjacent to residential properties in Ash Road to the south and Bramble Road to the east of the site. The development is approximately 5 metres from the façade of the nearest residential property.

Along the southern and eastern boundaries of the site there is some partial screening from a hedgerow beyond which are residential properties. There are a number of residential properties adjacent to the south west corner of the site which are also be partially screened from view by vegetation. Other residential properties to the west of the site are adequately screened by the school’s permanent buildings. There are no residential properties adjacent to the north boundary of the site.

The application site is within a Flood Zone 3 area and therefore there is a high risk of a flood event occurring. The site is also within the Essex Coast, Vange- Benfleet Coastal Protection Belt and Southend Outer Airport Safeguarding Zone.

3. PROPOSAL

The application seeks approval for the erection and use of a hammer cage and associated landscaping.

Page 16 of 74

The hammer cage measures a maximum of 9m in height above existing ground level and comprises of a main cage of painted metal poles and green coloured fibre mesh netting. The hammer cage is located in the south east corner of the site approximately 3m from the site’s boundary.

It is proposed to screen the hammer cage from neighbouring properties by the introduction of landscaping comprising a number of Betula (Birch) trees which would be envisaged to grow to soften views of the cage.

4. POLICIES

The following policies of the Castle Point Borough Local Plan adopted 1998 (CPLP) provide the development plan framework for this application. The following policies are of relevance to this application:

CPLP CF2 Education Facilities EC3 Residential Amenity EC16 Protection of Landscape

There are no policies within the RSS of relevance to this application.

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. The level of consistency of the policies contained within the Castle Point Local Plan is considered further in the report.

5. CONSULTATIONS

CASTLE POINT BOROUGH COUNCIL – No objection.

SPORT ENGLAND – No objection.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – No comments to make.

PLACE SERVICES (Urban Design & Landscape) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – No comments to make.

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

CANVEY ISLAND TOWN COUNCIL – No objection.

LOCAL MEMBER – CASTLE POINT – Canvey Island East – Objects, on the following grounds: Page 17 of 74

 The dominance and ugliness of the cage affects the views from windows, gardens, and balconies of all the properties near to the cage. It can also be seen from surrounding streets;  There is no room for additional tree landscaping to hide the cage. There are only a couple of metres between the cage and the bungalow fence and walls. This boundary is already full of trees planted by Essex CC for the school 20 years ago that are no longer maintained. One local resident at present has to use the light in the bathroom at all times because of the closeness and overhanging of the existing trees, let alone any additional ones;  It is considered that the Health and Safety argument for situating the cage and leaving it in its present position (elsewhere the thrown hammer would make dents in the playing field surfaces causing a trip hazard) to be unjustified with the real reason likely to be the financial expense of relocating the hammer cage elsewhere on the playing field.

LOCAL MEMBER – CASTLE POINT – Canvey Island West – Any comments received will be reported.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

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

Observation Comment Concerns over proposed landscaping See appraisal and maintenance of it Development is an eyesore/visual See appraisal impact when viewed from adjacent residential properties Hammer cage has already been The applicant initially understood that erected by a company which has a they had planning permission for the background of redevelopment with ECC cage under permission ref: and who should be aware of planning CC/CPT/19/10, however later law understood that insufficient detail provided in relation to hammer cage meaning that planning permission was still required for the hammer cage on the site No thought has been given to the As part of this application process all impact on local residents issues including the impact of the development on local residents are taken into consideration and appraised within this report Existing boundary hedge overgrown This issue is outside the scope of this and not maintained application, however concerns have been forwarded onto the applicant

Page 18 of 74

The old School had the cage located at See appraisal the other end of playing field where it did not cause a problem There are several other locations where See appraisal the cage could be located The proposed planting/landscaping See appraisal would have to grow a considerable height to screen the cage blocking sunlight with root damage to property also possible

7. APPRAISAL

The key issues for consideration are:

 Need;  Impact on Residential Amenity;  Landscape and Visual Impact;  Flood Risk.

A NEED

There is a clear mandate at all levels of Government for sport to be supported for young people and the school itself has stated that the retention of the hammer cage is an important aspect to school sports provision at Castle View School.

The NPPF also recognises the importance of sports provision. It 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.

This is also recognised by CPLP policy CF2 (Education Facilities), which states, in summary, that the enhancement and improvement of existing educational facilities will be supported subject to proposals not detracting from the amenities of the local area by reason of noise or general disturbance. This policy is considered to be consistent with the NPPF in supporting educational facilities including those for sports provision. The potential impact of the development on local amenity is discussed later in this report, however in principle developments such as this are supported.

The school has also stated that Castle View students are currently national ranked in all throwing disciplines and at all age groups, a number of which are in the top ten of the UK. The cage itself is enabling the school to achieve excellence and inspire students to achieve and succeed in athletics events in and out of school which the school believe has been evident since the purchase of the hammer cage. Therefore without the hammer cage, these students would be severely disadvantaged.

The school has highlighted that an ex-commonwealth Hammer throw champion has expressed an interest in becoming a school community partner which would involve them attending the school and giving gifted and talented students some Page 19 of 74

coaching sessions which could also involve the wider community and gifted and talented students from around the Castle Point area. In addition the school now holds teacher/coach training courses that enable teachers and coaches to throw in a competitive environment and learn the technique of all throwing events.

Further, the school state that the hammer cage gives everybody a chance to throw in a competitive environment which some students (particularly those attending other schools without hammer cages) may never get to experience.

Therefore it is considered that there is a justified need for the development in order to enable the school to achieve excellence and inspire students to achieve and succeed in athletics events both in and out of school as well as to retain an important part of the school’s sports provision complying with CPLP policy CF2. It is further considered that the development would improve local sports provision and contribute, in some way, to the health and well-being of the local community, particularly for younger generations, therefore complying with the NPPF.

B IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

One of the core planning principles of the NPPF 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 NPPF 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.

CPLP policy EC3 (Residential Amenity) states, in summary, that development proposals which would have a significant adverse effect upon the residential amenity of the surrounding area by way of noise or other forms of disturbance will be refused. This policy is considered to be consistent with the NPPF in seeking to protect and safeguard residential amenity.

The closest residential properties to the site are situated in Ash Road to the south and Bramble Road to the east of the site. These properties are adjacent to the school sites boundary and are located approximately 5 metres from the development which is located in the south east corner of the site.

The development is partially screened from view from beyond the south and east boundaries of the site by a hedgerow running along the eastern and southern boundary of the site. Approximately the bottom 4 metres of the development is screened by this with the highest 5 metres still clearly visible.

The Local Member for Canvey Island East and a number of representations have raised objection to the development partly due to the dominance and ugliness of the cage making it an eyesore and its impact on the views from windows, gardens, and balconies primarily from all the adjacent residential properties situated in Ash Road and Bramble Road with the cage also being seen from surrounding streets.

Page 20 of 74

A number of representations have been received which state that the cage could located elsewhere on the school extensive playing fields and that the old school included a hammer cage at the opposite end of the site away from residential properties where there was no problem.

In terms of the location for the hammer cage on the school site the applicant has stated that this is most suitable and really the only viable option for health and safety reasons given the layout of the various sports pitches on the playing field and in particular the safety of students whilst participating in sporting activities on the field when the hammer cage is in use. The applicant has also stated that changing the position or location of the hammer cage would have an impact on the quality and safety of the playing field with divots potentially more likely to be created by the hammers themselves potentially giving rise to injuries.

It would also not be possible to lower the cage height or associated netting as this would pose another health and safety risk which would make the insurance for the use of the cage invalid. The height of the cage, measuring 9 metres in height is justified by the applicant in order to minimise and prevent any flying apparatus from potentially escaping the site and potentially damaging adjacent properties.

In relation to the previous layout of the school, the school did have a hammer cage of a similar height to this development, located at the northern end of the site. However, this cage was lost when the school was redeveloped in accordance with the planning permission ref: CC/CPT/19/10 granted by the County Planning Authority in April 2010. The current layout of the new school and in particular the summer and winter layouts for sports facilities on the playing fields were agreed with Sport England. The northern end of the site where the previous hammer cage was located now includes discus and shot put facilities in the summer and a football pitch in the winter. The applicant has stated that the present location of the hammer cage is the only area on the site where the hammer cage can be safely accommodated given the layout of other sports facilities on the playing field.

It is worth noting that the development is located on a sports playing field within a school which has been established on the site for many years. It is considered that sufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that there is no alternative location off site where the hammer cage could be located.

Although it is considered that the cage does have a visual impact on views from the adjacent residential properties this is not considered to be wholly unacceptable or adverse given that the cage is not a solid structure. Further, the closest property to the development is located in Bramble Road right on the south east corner of the site. This residential property is orientated east west with the lounge area facing east with the cage to the north. Taking this into account along with the need for the school to have such a structure and the existing layout of the sports pitches affecting the school’s ability to re-locate the cage on the site it is further considered that any visual impact from the development is outweighed by the benefits of such a facility to the school.

Page 21 of 74

The Local Member has also stated that it is considered that the Health and Safety argument for situating the cage and leaving it in its present position (elsewhere the thrown hammer would make dents in the playing field surfaces causing a trip hazard) to be unjustified with the real reason likely to be the financial expense of relocating the hammer cage elsewhere on the playing field.

The location of the hammer cage and the possibility of re-locating it elsewhere on the site was discussed with the applicant prior to the submission of this planning application. The applicant confirmed that there is no viable alternative location for the hammer cage to be re-located given the current layout of sports pitches on the playing field and health and safety considerations. A possibility could be to re- model the entire playing field to incorporate a new location for the hammer cage although this is considered to be an option which would involve considerable financial expense and re-consultation with Sport England who have already approved the existing layout of the sports facilities on the site. There would also be an element of uncertainty in this in that any re-modelling would again require the approval of Sport England.

The Local Member has also questioned the viability of the proposed landscaping to screen the development. The Local Member states that there are only a couple of metres between the cage and the adjacent properties fence and walls with this boundary already full of trees planted by ECC for the school approximately 20 years ago which are no longer adequately maintained. The Local Member also states that, at present one local resident has to use the light in the bathroom at all times because of the closeness and overhanging of the existing trees, let alone any additional ones.

Two letters of representation have also been received regarding the proposed landscaping and maintenance of this and that the proposed landscaping would be allowed to grow up too high potentially blocking sunlight and causing root damage to nearby properties. Concern has also been raised that the proposed planting could affect the cage itself as the planting matures.

It is considered that the proposed landscaping would be beneficial in terms of reducing the visual impact of the development from beyond the site, by breaking up its dominance and softening views onto the school site. The layout of the proposed landscaping includes spacing with planting placed to ensure sunlight to adjacent residential properties would not be adversely affected. Further it is considered that there would be no impact arising from lack of sunlight to those properties in Ash Road to the south of the site as the sun tracks to the south.

In terms of potential root damage to adjacent residential properties as the proposed planting would be growing up and maturing, this is considered to be unlikely given the nature of the planting proposed, Betula (Birch) trees which are regarded as a low water demanding species with the applicant’s landscape consultant also recommending this species of tree in this location in the knowledge of the proximity of adjoining properties. This species are also lightly branched and have small leaves and therefore would not cast a dense shade. Further, the species proposed is multi-stem and is therefore unlikely to grow to a great height in maturity. Therefore it is not considered that the addition of the

Page 22 of 74

planting itself would not have an adverse impact on local residential amenity. It is also considered that there would be enough room between the cage and boundary of the site to implement the planting successfully without any adverse impact.

The County Councils Landscape and Tree Consultant have raised no objection to the development or proposed landscaping. However, the County Councils Tree Consultant has stated that it may be more beneficial to plant a maximum of four trees, rather than the six that are proposed, as this would allow for the siting of the trees further away from the hammer cage structure and adjacent residential properties. The proposed planting of six trees is also more likely to create an increase in shading to those properties immediately adjacent to the site than the addition of just four trees. The applicant is happy to reduce the number of trees to four and re-position them and this has been reflected in an amended landscape scheme for the development.

In terms of the maintenance of the proposed planting, the applicant has stated that the school does have a maintenance contract which would include the proposed landscaping. However, should planning permission be granted a condition could be attached requesting a management plan for the proposed landscaping to be submitted for the approval in writing of the County Planning Authority to ensure that the proposed planting would be adequately maintained.

In relation to the existing established trees in the south east corner of the site, this is a maintenance issue outside the scope of this planning application. However, these concerns have been forwarded on to the applicant for them to action.

The development is unlikely to create additional noise as the hammer cage and activities associated with it are not considered to be particularly noise intrusive. Noise levels emitted from the site are very unlikely to increase as a result of the development given the current use of the site as a school including the associated sports playing field.

Further, Castle Point Borough Council has raised no objection to the development.

Therefore it is considered that the development does not have an adverse impact on local residential amenity provided further landscaping is introduced and it is further considered that the development conforms to the principles of the NPPF in terms of residential amenity and CPLP policy EC3.

C LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT

The development is located within the Essex Coast, Vange-Benfleet Coastal Protection Belt and Southend Outer Airport Safeguarding Zone.

The NPPF 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

Page 23 of 74

enhancing valued landscapes.

CPLP policy EC16 (Protection of Landscape) states, in summary, that development which would have a significant adverse visual impact on the surrounding landscape will not be permitted. When assessing the impact of development regard will be had to the prominence of the development in terms of its scale, siting and external materials. This policy is considered to be consistent with the NPPF in minimising visual intrusion and protecting landscapes from inappropriate development.

Although the development measures up to 9 metres in height it is adequately screened from view from the surrounding landscape by existing residential properties (a mix of one and two storey structures) situated along the southern and eastern boundaries of the site. Given that the nearby area surrounding the site is urbanised it is considered that, due to the nature, scale, size and siting and external materials of the development that it does not have an adverse impact on the local landscape including the Essex Coast, Vange-Benfleet Coastal Protection Belt and Southend Outer Airport Safeguarding Zone and therefore it is further considered that the development conforms to the NPPF in terms of landscape impact and CPLP policy EC16.

D FLOOD RISK

The application site is situated within a Flood Zone 3 area as it is located on Canvey Island and therefore there is a high risk of a flood event occurring.

The NPPF states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk.

Given the nature, size and scale of the development it is not considered that the development does have an impact on flood risk in the local area or increase the likelihood of flooding elsewhere. It is therefore considered that the development is not be inappropriate development within this flood zone. Further, the Environment Agency has raised no objection to the development.

Therefore it is considered that the development does not have an impact on flood risk in the area and it is further considered that the development conforms to the flood risk principles of the NPPF.

8. CONCLUSION

It is considered appropriate to grant planning permission for the development in order to enable the school to achieve excellence and inspire students to achieve and succeed in athletics events both in and out of school.

It is further considered that the development is sustainable in light of the NPPF and that the Castle Point Borough Local Plan Policies (CPLP) referred to in this report are consistent with the NPPF.

It is also considered that with mitigation there would be no adverse impact upon

Page 24 of 74

the residential amenity of the surrounding occupiers’ properties, the local landscape or the flood risk zone considering the development. Therefore the development is considered to comply with CPLP policies CF2, EC3 and EC16.

9. RECOMMENDED

That pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details submitted by way of the application CC/CPT/36/12 dated 11 September 2012 and validated on 17 September 2012 together with Covering Letter including supporting statement dated 11 September 2012, drawing numbers plan CC/002, plan CC/003 titled ‘Location of Hammer Cage’, 0207 Rev PO1 titled ‘Tree Planting to South East Boundary’ dated 10 May 2010, photographs of structure and proposed landscaping received on 12 September 2012, e- mails from Tony Collins of Collins & Coward Ltd dated 08 October 2012 at 13:42 and 16:02 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:

2. Within 31 days of the date of this permission a Landscape Management Scheme shall be submitted for the approval in writing of the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall include how often the planting will be pruned and how this will be undertaken as well as how the planting will be maintained. The approved scheme shall be implemented and maintained during the life of the development hereby permitted.

3. Any tree or shrub forming part of the approved landscaping scheme as shown on drawing number 0207 Rev PO1 titled ‘Tree Planting to South East Boundary’ dated 10 May 2010 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 in advance in writing by the County Planning Authority.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Consultation replies Representations Ref: P/DC/Matthew Wood/CC/CPT/36/12

THE CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010

The development is located approximately 1km from a European site (Benfleet and Southend Marshes SPA) and is not directly connected with or necessary for the management of that site for nature conservation.

No issues have been raised to indicate that this development adversely affects

Page 25 of 74

the integrity of the European 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.

LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION

CASTLE POINT – Canvey Island East

CASTLE POINT – Canvey Island West

Page 26 of 74

AGENDA ITEM .5b......

DR/37/12

committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 26 October 2012

COUNTY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT Proposal: New build single storey block comprising 2 classrooms, group room and ancillary accommodation with external covered teaching space and associated landscaping to facilitate expansion of school roll to 420 pupil places. Extension of car parking area to provide 4 additional car park spaces and surfacing of playing field area with artificial surface to provide all-weather MUGA sports area. Location: Queen Boudica Primary School, Cowper Crescent, off Turner Road, Colchester, Essex Ref: CC/COL/37/12

Report by Head of Environmental Planning Enquiries to: Gemma Skillern Tel: 01245 437502

1. BACKGROUND & SITE

The site is approximately 2km north of Colchester town centre and measures 1.6 hectares. The principle of the use of the site as a primary school was decided through Colchester Borough Council (CBC) outline planning permission reference O/COL/02/0563. The residential development (which the school serves) was granted full planning permission by CBC (reference 072247), which has in the majority been built, but has at present only limited occupation. The nearest dwellings to the school boundary are approximately 5m away to the south. The site forms the southern half of what was Turner Village Hospital’s cricket ground, around which 8 hospital villas are laid out in a crescent shape. Immediately to the north of the site is an almost fully developed car park to serve the Hospital. To the east are further hospital buildings and infrastructure, beyond which is Turner Road and approximately 200m from the site is High Woods Country Park. Immediately to the south east is the NHS walk in centre. To the west of the site are several Primary Care Trust buildings across a steep grass embankment, beyond which lies the A134 road.

Following the granting of permission for the new 210 place primary school building, (CC/COL/04/08) which opened in 2009, further applications were granted in 2009 (CC/COL/45/09 and CC/COL/44/09). These allowed the expansion of the school to cater for 330 pupils, through an increase of 5 additional classrooms, community rooms and a reception. This expansion was completed in July 2011. The school buildings are located on the eastern half of the site, while occupying the western portion are the sports pitch and car parking. This is due to the significant change of level of about 1.6m along a grass bank running the length of the site from north to south.

All vehicular and pedestrian access is from the Cowper Crescent that runs parallel with the southern boundary. Once the residential development is completed, this is proposed to be a one way road system (as granted by CBC).

2. PROPOSAL The proposal is to increase pupil accommodation by 90 places to 420 pupils, which is the anticipated number of pupils in the outline planning permission granted by Colchester Borough Council (ref: O/COL/02/0563).

This would be achieved through the development of a new single storey standalone building containing 2 classrooms, a group room and ancillary accommodation. This building would be immediately to the east of the existing school and is currently ‘unmade’ being fenced off by developers during the original school construction. The new building would be 22.7m wide and 44.3m in length and although a single storey development would have a double height space, with a split pitch arrangement, incorporating a panel of photovoltaic cells on the roof. The external materials would be white render with infill panels of smooth red facing brick, with a colour coated standing seam metal roof with pitches to match the existing building.

Ancillary to this development, the proposal applies for the re-surfacing of the existing playing field area with an artificial surface to provide an all-weather sports

Page 28 of 74

area for all year round sports use, formal and informal games areas.

Finally there would be an additional 4 car parking spaces developed adjacent to the existing car park.

All development would be within the existing boundary and would not alter the access arrangements for vehicles or pedestrians from Cowper Crescent. The development would not alter the hours of use by the school.

3. POLICIES The following policies of the Colchester Borough Council’s Adopted Local Development Framework Development Policies, (CBC DP DPD) adopted in 2010, provides the development framework for this application. The following policies are of relevance to this application:

CBC DP DPD

Design and Amenity DP1 Retention of Open Space and Indoor Sports Facilities DP15 Parking Standards DP19 Renewable Energy DP25

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 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the Framework. The Colchester Borough Council Local Development Policies, Adopted in 2010, is considered to fall into paragraph 214.

4. CONSULTATIONS

COLCHESTER BOROUGH COUNCIL - No objection, however made the following comments:  The slack mono-pitch roofs proposed would be ideal for green roofs and should be considered on an educational facility;  The red brick appears overly domestic and suggests a blue or grey engineering brick, potentially matching the small grey areas located on the existing building between the roof sections;  There are two trees situated off site almost immediately adjacent the proposed building. These would need to be considered as part of the process as they are not under the control of the applicant. SPORT ENGLAND - Object, on the following grounds:  All-weather pitches are not the preferred surface for many sports and are unsure if it would meet quality standards and so may not be fit for purpose;  The option of appropriate groundworks to remedy the drainage issues has

Page 29 of 74

not been considered;  There are no proposals for fencing/boarding of the pitch and therefore no goal storage recesses;  No floodlighting proposed for the pitches;  No Community use proposals on site;  That the proposal has irregular dimensions. HIGHWAY AUTHORITY – No objection

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT (Trees) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS - No objection

PLACE SERVICES (Urban Design) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – No objection subject to the following conditions:  Inclusion of a pre- commencement condition requiring submission of details regarding the finishing materials on the external faces of the proposal and fencing;  Inclusion of a pre- commencement condition requiring submission of details regarding the landscaping scheme for the informal play area, amphitheatre area and the retaining wall on the north of the proposed building. PLACE SERVICES (Historic Environment) (ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS) - No comments received

MYLAND COMMUNITY COUNCIL - No comments received

LOCAL MEMBER – COLCHESTER – Mile End and Highwoods - Any comments received will be reported

5. REPRESENTATIONS 7 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. Design & Renewable Energy C. Impact on Playing Field Provision D. Highway Impacts

A NEED

The NPPF requires the presumption in favour of sustainable development. In this case the school provides a social role (one of the dimensions of sustainability) supporting the surrounding Turner Rise development (and its communities needs) as permitted by Colchester Borough Council reference 072247.

It has been identified by Essex County Council that there is a growing need to provide additional pupils places within Colchester and as part of a larger strategy to accommodate this, Queen Boudica Primary School has been identified as being Page 30 of 74

suitable to provide some additional pupil placements. There is evidence of an increasing deficiency of pupil places between 2011/12 and 2014/15 within the North and Centre of Colchester.

The proposals would increase the School capacity to a Pupil Admission Number of 60 from 45. This would be accommodated through 2 additional classbases, associated storage and WC facilities. The proposed development therefore meets the need to provide additional teaching spaces and ancillary support facilities.

The increase in classroom provision would permit 2 classes per year group to be accommodated allowing single year group teaching and curriculum application. Currently the year groups are mixed within the class allocations.

Policy DP19 (Parking Standards) of the Colchester Borough Council’s Adopted Local Development Framework Development Policies, (CBC DPDPD) refers to the Essex Planning Officers Association (EPOA) Vehicle Parking Standards. As a result of the increase in pupil numbers, the proposal incorporates the addition of 4 extra car parking spaces, bringing the total car park provision up to 30 spaces (2 of which are designated for disabled use). This is in accordance with Colchester Borough Council Policy DP19.

In addition, the proposal is for the provision of an ‘all weather’ synthetic grass surface to be applied on the existing playing field area. The existing site is approximately 1.6ha, but a 420 place primary school requires a minimum of approximately 1.7ha, based on BB99 recommended external site areas. The all weather pitch is proposed to meet this shortfall as it would provide all year round sports use, formal and informal games areas. This approach responds to the need to accommodate more pupils within a constrained site where additional external play area is not available. Therefore the synthetic surface permits increased intensity of use of existing facilities. Specific issues surrounding the application of this all weather pitch are further considered further in the report.

In conclusion, it is considered that there is a need for the development to address the shortfall of pupil places within the North and Central Colchester area. The development would provide additional teaching spaces and allow single year teaching, rather than the current mixed year groups. Consequently, it is considered there is a need for the additional 4 car parking spaces in accordance with CBC Policy DP19. Additionally, it is considered that there is a need for the development of an all weather surface to meet the needs of the extra pupils 90 resulting from the proposal. This is in accordance with the NPPF Paragraph 14 requiring decision takers to approve development without delay where it accords with the development plan, as it positively seeks to meet development needs.

B DESIGN & LANDSCAPING The presumption in favour of sustainable development as required by the NPPF requires development to be environmentally sustainable in terms of the environment (as well as socially and economically).

CBC Policy DP25 (Renewable Energy) supports proposals for renewable energy including micro-generation schemes. Applicants are encouraged to incorporate

Page 31 of 74

renewable energy technologies into all development where viable, particularly where it can be demonstrated that any impacts are outweighed by the social and economic benefits provided by the energy proposal. Any impacts should be mitigated through siting, design, layout and landscaping measures.

The design of the new building has been approached with a view to the long term sustainability of the building in terms of material durability and energy performance. In particular, renewable energy is to be incorporated in the form of a panel of photovoltaic cells which are proposed to be installed to the roof of the new block to directly generate electrical supply. Therefore the development would accord with CBC Policy DP25.

Additionally, Colchester Borough Council suggests the gradient of the southern mono-pitch roof proposed would be ideal for green roofs and should be considered on an educational facility. The applicant has considered these comments, but has considered that this is unviable in this instance, due to initial construction as well as the long term maintenance of the structure.

CBC Policy DP1 (Design and Amenity) states inter alia that “All development must be designed to a high standard, avoid unacceptable impacts on amenity and demonstrate social, economic and environmental sustainability. Development proposals must demonstrate they and any ancillary activities will respect and enhance the character of the site”

Suitable locations for the extension works were identified in a preliminary Options Appraisal study carried out by Essex County Council. A range of design proposals were tested to consider ‘need’ whilst responding to the constraints posed by the limited site area and significant ground level changes. The proposed site was identified as the most suitable.

The existing school building was constructed in 2009 with an extension completed in 2011. This is principally a single storey building with double height spaces to the main hall.

The proposed extension would also be single storey construction with double height space providing the assembly hall function. The proposed extension would measure (at the widest points) 22.7 metres wide, 44.3 metres in length and 6 metres in height to match the existing school.

The proposed extension has been designed to mimic the existing school building arrangement, form and scale. The roof height of the new block is comparable to the existing form as the floor level of the new build area would be sunk into the ground levels rising to the south, which would result in the playground to the north needing to be fenced for safety purposes and a retaining wall. This southern side of the proposal would have a canopy infill roof overhang of a translucent fabric to match the existing school. This approach means the new building would be not appear dominant over the existing building. Beyond this the soft landscaping would provide an amphitheatre area for outdoor teaching, beyond which there would be soft landscaping for informal play and further teaching space. Tree planting would take place towards the southern boundary to provide screening to the neighbouring publically accessible NHS drop in centre.

Page 32 of 74

The proposed extension would be finished with white render with infill panels of smooth red facing brick. The roof design would compliment the existing as it would be a split pitch arrangement, (with roof pitches to match the original) with high level clerestory windows and using colour coated standing seam metal roof and house a panel of photovoltaic cells on the southern portion.

Colchester Borough Council has no objection to the proposal but suggest that the red brick is replaced with blue/grey engineering bricks.

Place Services (Urban Design) has no objection to the proposal but has reported concern in the following areas:  Use of small red bricks, with large areas of render, which is different to the rest of the school;  The size and design of the clerestory windows located between the split pitch roof, which is unlike the arrangement within the existing buildings;  The type of fencing proposed at the change in heights between the hard play area and the lower level of the new build;  Details regarding landscaping to the south and east of the proposed development particularly the appearance of the retaining wall.

The applicant has considered the issue surrounding the clerestory windows, however it was considered that using the larger windows that were used within the existing school would alter the roof pitch and therefore would not be in keeping with the existing buildings, to which Urban Design agreed. It is considered that the remaining matters can be dealt with through conditions, requiring submission of details regarding the materials to be used and landscaping if permission were to be granted. Despite the need for appropriate conditions with regard to materials and landscaping, it is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with Policy DP1 as the proposed single storey extension has been designed to mimic and complement the existing school building in terms of materials scale and design. The design incorporates photovoltaic cells, sympathetic design, durable materials and energy performance to address environmental and social sustainability and as such accords with the CBC Policy DP25 and the NPPF, with regard to design, sustainability and landscaping.

C IMPACT ON PLAYING FIELD PROVISION The school sought pre-application advice (as prescribed by the NPPF) with the County Planning Authority and Sport England (a statutory Consultee) regarding replacing the existing turf pitch in its entirety with an all weather pitch. Sport England (SE) identified significant concerns, which have not been resolved following further discussion and has resulted in an objection from SE, in relation to the playing field provision.

CBC Policy DP15 (Retention of Open Space and Indoor Sports Facilities) states inter alia that “Development, including change of use, of any school playing field forming part of an educational establishment will not be supported unless it can be demonstrated that alternative and improved provision will be created in a location

Page 33 of 74

well related to the functional requirements of the relocated use and would not result in the loss of an area important for its amenity or contribution to the green infrastructure network or to the character of the area.”

The proposal is to re-surface the existing playing field area with an artificial surface to provide all-weather MUGA sports area. This is due to the fact that a 420 place primary school requires a minimum area of approximately 1.7ha based on the standards of BB99 recommended external site areas. The constrained nature of the school site means there would be a shortfall of 0.1ha. The all weather pitch is proposed to meet this shortfall as it would provide all year round sports use, formal and informal games areas. This proposal is not for the reduction of space available for formal pitches, sports provision or informal play area.

Sport England has objected to the proposal as it does not consider that it accords with any of the exceptions to their playing fields policy on the following grounds:  All weather pitches are not the preferred surface for many sports, and are unsure if the pitch would meet quality standards and so may not be fit for purpose;  The option of appropriate groundworks to remedy the drainage issues has not been considered;  There are a) no proposals for fencing/boarding of the pitch and b) No goal storage recesses;  No floodlighting proposed for the pitches;  No Community use proposals on site;  That the proposal has irregular dimensions. The proposal is to use the 18mm sand dressed synthetic surface (considered a multi-use product) laid upon a 15mm rubber in situ shock pad and anchored to the kerbs using a gripper system. Within Sport England guidance, it is noted this surface is ideal for incorporating many different types of sports to suit the level of play (low level recreational) at the primary school. The current natural pitch restricts the usage of the pitches during the winter/times of inclement weather for formal sports lessons and informal play, which the all weather pitch would remedy.

The school considered ground works to remedy drainage issues but took the decision to replace the entire natural turfed area to ensure the school complied with the BB99 external area guidelines for a 420 place school, as (due to the constrained nature of the site) there is not the option to expand the existing grass pitch. The drainage issues on site (partly due to the soil type/condition) means the surface deteriorates quickly, reducing the types of sports played and in the worst cases becomes unusable for structured lessons or playtimes for a number of days. The all weather pitch would allow for all year round sport activities, by improving the surface of the field, reducing lesson cancellation, widen the range of sports to be played and allow informal play to continue during break times.

It is noted the proposed area is of irregular dimensions being 63m x 38m, as the all weather surface would replace the entire playing field, not just individual sports pitch(es). This is to provide informal use and allow flexibility of sports to be played, which would be reduced if individual pitches for different sports were laid down to an all weather pitch, surrounded by natural turf.

Page 34 of 74

Sport England has suggested several mitigation measures which may address its concerns, including:  Formally securing the community use of the school’s playing field through a community use agreement  Floodlighting should be erected to allow evening usage as part of the suggested community use  Fencing/boarding should be erected around the pitch to incorporate goal storage recesses To provide a community use agreement or floodlighting would be outside the scope of this current application and in any case would require consideration afresh given the material planning issues arising from extended opening times and floodlighting. The school considers it to be inappropriate in this case, to provide community use, due to the layout of the school, site security and child safety may be compromised. Additionally, community use would increase need for school maintenance when school budgets are being reduced. Without the need for extending the hours for community use, there is no need to provide floodlighting as the pitch would not be used later than approximately 3.30pm, even in the shorter days of the winter months.

The requirement for fencing/boarding and goal storage recesses is to control balls, protect spectators, provide security, prevent damage from animals and to store equipment when not in use. The pitch is already bounded on the north and west by the boundary fence, to the south by the fencing separating the car park and to the east by the significant change of level of about 1.6m along the grass bank and associated planting. The school do not consider it appropriate to have a further ‘layer’ of fencing surrounding the pitch as this would restrict pupil movement and there would be no spectators for supervised PE lessons. With regard to goal storage recesses, without installation of a fence there is no opportunity to provide these. At present, all apparatus is stored within the main school building, which would continue to be the case if the development is approved.

Should planning permission be granted contrary to the objection from Sport England the application would have to be referred to the Secretary of State, who has a period of 21 days to inform the Council whether he wishes to call-in the application for his own determination.

Colchester Borough Council has no observations to make on the proposal in this respect.

Notwithstanding the objection from SE, it is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with Policy DP15 (Retention of Open Space and Indoor Sports Facilities) and on the standards of BB99 recommended external site areas. The all weather surface would provide a suitable surface for different types of sports to suit the level of play (low level recreational), and improve the surface, which would reduce structured lesson cancellation and allow informal play to continue during break times and provide the school with greater flexibility in the use.

7. CONCLUSION

Page 35 of 74

Provided appropriate conditions are imposed with regard to materials and landscaping, it is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with Policy DP1 as the proposed single storey extension has been designed to mimic and complement the existing school building in terms of materials scale and design. The design incorporates photovoltaic cells, sympathetic design, durable materials and energy performance to address environmental and social sustainability and as such accords with the CBC Policy DP25 and the NPPF, with regard to design, sustainability and landscaping.

With regards to the NPPF, the development accords with the three strands of sustainability (social, environmental and economic) as it positively seeks to meet the social needs of the new Turner Rise residential development and provides much needed pupil places for the north and central Colchester area. It also achieves environmental sustainability through using sustainable and durable materials, while utilising energy harnessed through the photovoltaic panels located on the southern roof. These dimensions are sought through the most economically viable methods.

It is important to note that paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that “development must not be held up unless against collective interest”. It is considered that this proposal is of the collective interest of the Turner Rise development and the local area, as it provides much needed school facilities and improve the teaching by allowing the teaching of single year groups.

8. RECOMMENDED

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

Page 36 of 74

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiry of 5 years from the date of this permission.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details of the application dated 05 September 2012, together with drawing numbers: 01 (location plan); 02 (existing site plan); 102 (proposed site plan (overall)); 103 (proposed site plan); 104 (site and contractor access) REV.A;200 (GA plan); 400 (Elevation proposed); 402 (sections); 500 (3D views and sections); 501 (3D cutaway) all dated July 2012; BCE/3995/PH01 (REV.B) phasing plan; BCE/3995/PH02 (REV.B) phasing plan. Also the Design and Access statement dated 05 September 2012, the construction timetable dated 01 May 2012, the site methodology statement from Donovan Steward at 20:53 on 10 October 2012, the Ecological Survey Report dated July 2007, the Entomological Survey of Turner Village, Colchester dated March 2008 and the letter from MLM Consulting regarding an updated Ecological Assessment dated 03 September 2012. Also the Archaeological Field Evaluation ref 66960 dated August 2007, the Site and proposed trench location dated 10 August 2008, the Phase II geo-environmental assessment report dated 22 August 2012 the flood risk statement dated 13 August 2012, the contents of the Primary School places in Colchester developed in 2011 and The Queen Boudica Primary School Travel Plan dated summer 2012, the pre-consultation feedback responses dated 11 July 2012 and the letter from Sport England dated 07 August 2012. 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. The development hereby permitted shall only be constructed during the following times: 07:00 to 18:30 hours Monday to Friday 07:00 to 13:00 hours Saturdays and at no other times, including no other times on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

4. No works or development shall take place beyond the installation of a damp proof membrane until details, colours and materials samples to be used for the external appearance of the building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The details shall include the materials, colours and finishes to be used on all buildings and fences. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

5. No works or development shall take place until a landscape scheme has been submitted to and approved by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of areas to be planted with species, sizes, spacing, protection and programme of implementation. The scheme shall also include details of any existing trees and hedgerows with details of any trees and/or hedgerows to be retained and measures for their protection

Page 37 of 74

during the period of construction of the development. The scheme shall be implemented within the first available planting season (October to March inclusive) following commencement of the development hereby permitted in accordance with the approved details.

6. Any tree or shrub forming part of a landscaping scheme approved in connection with the development 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 in advance in writing by the County Planning Authority.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Consultation replies Ref: P/DC/Gemma.Skillern/ CC/COL/37/12

THE CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010

The proposed development would be located over 5km from a European site (the closest being Abberton Reservoir and Colne Estuary) and would not be directly connected with or necessary for the management of that site for nature conservation.

No issues have been raised to indicate that this development would adversely affect the integrity of the European 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

LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION

COLCHESTER – Mile End and Highwoods

Page 38 of 74

AGENDA ITEM ...6......

DR/38/12

committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 26 October 2012

MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT

Minerals and Waste Site Monitoring Protocol

Report by Head of Environmental Planning Enquiries to: Richard Greaves Tel: 01245 437508

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of this report is to set out a Minerals and Waste Site Monitoring Protocol that covers both ‘chargeable’ and ‘non-chargeable’ minerals and waste sites taking into account best practice and changes to legislation.

The report seeks the Committee’s approval of the protocol setting out what local communities, businesses and individuals can expect of the mineral and waste site monitoring regime in Essex.

2. CHARGEABLE MINERAL AND LANDFILL SITE MONITORING VISITS

Mineral and landfill operations involve a continuous process of development, sometimes over many years. Planning permissions are subject to complex and technical planning conditions to mitigate the physical environmental impact of mineral and waste working.

On 6th April, 2006 regulations1 came into force in England to allow mineral and waste planning authorities to charge a fee to mineral and waste operators to visit a site and carry out a site visit to monitor compliance with the planning permissions. The objective of introducing these fees is to ensure that the planning permissions are monitored in accordance with good practice.

For active mineral and waste sites a maximum number of 8 chargeable visits per year are allowed. For inactive mineral and waste sites a maximum number of 1 visit per year is allowed. A charging year is the financial year. Additional visits may also be undertaken but they cannot be charged for.

A fee of £288 shall be paid to the local planning authority in respect of a site visit to an active site or £96 in respect of a visit to an inactive site.

1 The Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2006. Page 39 of 74

A fee is only payable when an officer enters a mining or landfill site for the purpose of monitoring compliance with planning permissions and obligations. A cursory assessment by an officer of conditions at a site which is not followed by entry to that site would not be a site visit for which a fee should be charged.

Ownership and the operation of mineral sites can sometimes be complicated. The operator should pay the charge for the monitoring, even though it is possible that, in some cases, the permission will have been granted to a different person, for example the owner and that it is the owner against whom the planning authority has ultimate sanction in enforcement proceedings.

The definition of the site visit referred to above provides the legal basis for officers entering a mineral or landfill site. However, this is meant as a legal factor.

Section 196A of the Town and Country Planning Act gives planning authorities the power to enter mineral and landfill sites to carry out monitoring to a good practice level.

The purpose of a monitoring site visit is to check compliance with operating conditions attached to mineral and landfill planning permissions, any related planning obligations relevant for a site and the need to ensure that no unauthorised development is taking place.

It is for planning authorities and operators to work together constructively to review compliance with permissions in the light of the stage of development reached and possible changing operational circumstances and needs. In this way problems can be avoided and formal enforcement action is less likely to be necessary. So the overriding objective of good practice monitoring is to secure, through constructive dialogue between authorities and operators, compliance with planning conditions and agreements.

3. NON-CHARGEABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT SITE MONITORING VISITS

In 2011 The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 came into force transposing the key provisions of the EU’s 2008 Waste Framework Directive. Part 6 of the Regulations set out the duties of planning authorities and Regulation 19 specifically requires that the (waste) planning authority must ensure that appropriate periodic inspections of those establishments or undertakings (carrying out the disposal or recovery of waste) are made.

Currently, in respect of the existing waste management sites (Non Landfill Sites) in Essex, the Waste Planning Authority (WPAs), does not have the capacity to carry out any regular systematic monitoring of waste sites, especially given that there are around 300 such sites in Essex that would require specific resource to monitor on a regular basis. However the team does react to specific complaints where they are made against such sites.

The statutory need to periodically monitor waste sites is a new requirement for

Page 40 of 74

waste planning authorities. The Waste Regulations carry forward a longstanding requirement, set out in the Environmental Permitting Regulations 20102. Under the Permitting Regulations it is the Environment Agency that assumes such a responsibility for waste management site monitoring.

However, for Waste Planning Authorities (WPAs), the Regulations do not prescribe the exact frequency and requirements of such inspections. It is at the discretion of a waste planning authority to determine this arrangement, whilst discharging its planning function.

In practice, it is understood that the government expect such inspections to occur either as part of a regular inspection regime of monitoring compliance with a planning permission, or whilst investigating any allegation of a breach of planning control. Nonetheless, the main responsibility for inspection activity at waste sites falls to the Environment Agency, especially in respect of process control, pollution prevention and waste acceptance practice. The Waste Regulations introduce a parallel provision for monitoring the ‘planning aspects’ (e.g. conditions and controlling the use of the site).

4. EXISTING CHARGEABLE SITE MONITORING ARRANGEMENTS FOR MINERAL AND LANDFILL SITES

Objective of site monitoring: To charge a fee for a formal monitoring visit to mining and landfill sites to check compliance with the planning permissions and any related planning obligations or legal agreements.

Explanation of site monitoring: The Government considers that charging a fee for site monitoring is a positive process that will have several positive outcomes. The main benefits are improving communications and relations between operators and the planning authorities and local communities close to mining or landfill operations. The monitoring will encourage good practice in site operation and management and therefore reduce the need for enforcement or other action. This is very much a proactive exercise rather than a reactive way of working. By working in this way the number of potential complaints received from local residents to the planning authorities should be reduced.

Establishing the number of visits in a year: It is for the planning authority to agree with the operator at the start of the charging year the number of scheduled (announced and unannounced) site visits to each site and who will be invoiced for the monitoring fees. Ultimately, it is up to the planning authority to determine the number of scheduled monitoring visits required and various considerations will be taken into account in determining this number.

The Government considers it is likely that most sites will be compliant and so most should have no more than 4 visits per year. For sites at a particularly sensitive stage of development or where the planning authority has concerns about compliance then 8 chargeable visits is the maximum that is allowed. The actual number will depend on various factors including:

2 Schedule 25 Page 41 of 74

i. The size of the site,

ii. The number and the complexity of conditions,

iii. The number of issues requiring monitoring,

iv. The stage of development at the site. For example, more frequent visits are likely to be required to mining sites during initial site preparation and during the final removal of plant equipment on completion of restoration,

v. Whether the operator has ISO 14001 or EMAS accreditation,

vi. The progressive nature of working/restoration (i.e. sand and gravel sites may require more frequent visits than hard rock sites),

vii. The number of breaches of planning control observed. For example, a site in a poor state of compliance would require more frequent visits to monitor the situation.

viii. The number of complaints received for the sites which have proved to be justified.

The Essex Approach:

If an active site has a very poor history of compliance and has received several justified complaints and the operator shows no sign of improving and working according to the planning permissions then it is very likely that the maximum number of 8 visits per year would be required for this site. Further visits may also be warranted but these cannot be charged for.

If the operator starts to comply with conditions and fewer complaints are received about the site the following year the number of visits could be reduced to 4 and then if the trend continues the following year 2 visits would be all that is required.

Inactive sites receive the maximum allowance of one chargeable monitoring visit per year.

If after taking all of this into account an operator considers that it has been subjected to an excessive number of visits then they are entitled to approach the planning authority to request that the number of annual visits is reduced.

• All waste disposal sites (namely landfill sites) and mineral sites under the remit of ECC (52 sites at present) will be visited by an officer with suitable experience.

• The frequency of these visits will vary depending on whether the site is dormant, inactive or active.

Page 42 of 74

• All (current) 52 sites will be visited in the financial year.

The current ‘chargeable’ site monitoring schedule, including the frequency of visits, is attached at Appendix 1.

Fees and Invoicing: As described, the Regulations have set the fees for monitoring visits. A fee of £288.003 shall be paid to the local planning authority in respect of a site visit to an active site or £96.004 in respect of a visit to an inactive site. The operator of the site is responsible for the payment of the fee. If there are multiple operators within a site the operator in overall control is expected to pay the fee. If multiple operators cannot be identified or where an operator is not currently present at a site then the site owner(s) are required to pay the fee.

The planning authority agrees the invoicing arrangements with the individual operators. The fee is only to be charged after the monitoring site visit has taken place and the monitoring report sent to the operator. A period of payment in accordance with the County Council’s invoicing procedures is agreed and any failure to pay is referred through the Council’s debt recovery procedure.

Prior to site monitoring visits:

1. A letter (See Appendix 2) is sent to the operator to explain the site monitoring fee process and procedure;

2. The planning authority compile a file which contains a complete planning history of the site and a list all the current and previous planning permissions, any related planning obligations or legal agreements and the site monitoring reports.

3. A date and time for site visit is scheduled with the operator. This usually is between 7 to 10 working days prior to the visit. This does not apply for unannounced or enforcement visits.

At the Chargeable Site Monitoring Visit:

1. A systematic review of all the conditions attached to current planning permissions and any related planning obligations or legal agreements that are associated with the operation is carried out;

2. Recognition of any good practice is noted;

3. Boundary Limits are checked:

3 Monitoring Fees are scheduled to increase to £331 following the introduction of revised fee regulations expected later in 2012 4 This is expected to rise to £110 following the introduction of revised fee regulations expected later in 2012 Page 43 of 74

4. Discussion is held with the operator to reach agreement on any course of action and timescales to redress any non-compliance with conditions attached to the current planning permission;

5. Notes of the visit are made on the Chargeable Site Monitoring Visit form (see Appendix 3).

6. Photographs are taken of the site.

After the site monitoring visit:

1. A report is written of the site monitoring visit (see Appendix 3) and sent to the operator within 21 days of the visit;

2. An invoice for the monitoring fee is raised and is sent out on quarterly;

3. On receipt of the site operator’s reply, if appropriate, the planning authority makes any amendments to the monitoring report.

4. The operator is then be expected to carry out any actions agreed at the site meeting and identified in the report in order to comply with the relevant planning permissions/conditions/obligations/legal agreements and to do so within the agreed timescales to avoid potential enforcement action against a breach of planning control.

5. The report is published on-line and filed.

5. PROPOSED NON-CHARGEABLE SITE MONITORING FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT SITES

As stated, Regulation 19 of The Waste Regulations 2011 requires that the Waste Planning Authority (WPA) carry out appropriate periodic inspections of waste disposal or recovery sites. At this current time, waste management sites in Essex are only monitored sporadically and often only visited when complaints are received or new planning applications submitted.

To address the requirements of the Waste Regulations a structured and ‘risk- based’ approach for site monitoring is required. The existing waste management sites in Essex (extracted from the Council’s Annual Monitoring Report 10/11) are attached at Appendix 4.

Currently the County Council has limited resources available to monitor all the waste sites on a frequent basis; however the Waste Regulations only require ‘periodic inspection’. Given this, it is considered that the most appropriate method of monitoring waste sites in Essex is through a ‘risk-based’ approach that would set the frequency of visits based on The Environments Agency’s categorisation of sites based on potential environmental risk (OPRA – operational risk appraisal) and previous record of complaints/planning enforcement. If the site is a high risk, for example (code ‘D’) and has been

Page 44 of 74

subject to planning enforcement action and/or had planning complaints, then the frequency of visits is recommended to be at least every 6 months. If a site is low risk and the WPA has not received complaints or taken previous action then a monitoring visit every 2 years is suggested.

The following table provides examples of how the visit schedule would work in practice, with the full site list and proposed site visit schedule at Appendix 4.

Activity OPRA Complaints? Visit code Frequency A09 - Hazardous waste transfer D Yes 6 months station No 12 months A10 - In-house storage facility B Yes 12 months

No 24 months A11 - Household, commercial and C Yes 6 months industrial waste transfer station No 12 months A12 - Clinical waste transfer station D Yes 6 months

No 12 months A13 - Household waste amenity site B Yes 12 months not taking hazardous waste No 24 months A13a - Household waste amenity site C Yes 12 months taking hazardous waste No 24 months A14 - Transfer station taking non- B yes 12 Months biodegradable wastes no 24 months A15 - Material recycling facility A Yes 12 months

No 24 Months A16 - Physical treatment of non- A Yes 12 months hazardous waste facility No 24 months A16a – Physical treatment of D Yes 6 months hazardous waste No 12 months A17 - Physico-chemical treatment E Yes 6 months facility No 12 months A18 - Incinerator (other than pet D Yes 12 months crematorium) No 24 months A19 - Metal recycling site (vehicle C Yes 6 months dismantler) No 12 months A19a - End of life vehicles <2500 B Yes 6 months Page 45 of 74

tonne per year No 12 Months A20 - Metal recycling site (MRS) C Yes 6 months (mixed) No 12 Months A21 - Chemical treatment facility E Yes 6 months

No 12 months A22 - Composting facility C Yes 6 months

No 12 months A23 - Biological treatment facility C Yes 6 months

No 12 months A24 - Mobile plant B Yes 12 months

No 24 months A25 - Deposit of waste to land as a B Yes 12 months recovery operation No 24 months A27 - Incinerator (pet crematorium) A Yes 12 months

No 24 months A29 - Gas engine for burning of landfill B Yes 12 months or other bio-gas No 24 months

Non chargeable waste site monitoring is proposed to take place in much the same way as the minerals and waste (Landfill) monitoring procedure: namely:

1. The WPA compiles a planning history of the site and list all the planning permissions and any related planning obligations or legal agreements relevant for a site. All current conditions and agreements are identified;

2. A site monitoring file is complied, including a copy of all planning permissions, planning obligations, legal agreements and approved plans and any current site survey plans. The site monitoring file includes any recent planning activity or enforcement activity;

3. A date and time for site visit is scheduled and the operator is contacted at least 10 days prior to the visit to confirm the date and time (this does not apply for unannounced or enforcement visits).

At the Site Monitoring Visit:

4. A systematic review of all the current planning permissions and any related planning obligations or legal agreements that are associated with the operation is carried out;

5. Recognition of any good practice is noted;

Page 46 of 74

6. Discussion is held with the operator to reach agreement on any course of action and timescales to redress any non-compliance;

7. Prior notification is given (as appropriate) to the operator of the date for the next site monitoring visit.

8. Notes of the visit are made on the Non-Chargeable Waste Site Monitoring Visit form (see Appendix 5).

9. Photographs are taken of the site.

After the site monitoring visit:

10. A report is written of the site monitoring visit (see Appendix 3) and sent to the operator within 21 days of the visit, if necessary;

11. The report is filed.

The operator is then be expected to carry out any actions agreed at the site meeting and identified in the report in order to comply with the relevant planning permissions/conditions/obligations/legal agreements and to do so within the agreed timescales to avoid potential enforcement action against a breach of planning control.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee endorse the methodology for chargeable and non- chargeable site monitoring for mineral and waste sites in Essex.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

POS M&W Implementation Planning Advisory Group - Guidance on Best Practice for Chargeable Site Monitoring, April 2012 Environment Agency - Environmental Permitting Regulations Operational Risk Appraisal Scheme (Opra for EPR) Version 3.7, April 2012

LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION

Countywide

Page 47 of 74

Page 48 of 74 Site Name District Company Name & address an invoice to be sent to Site Reviewed PROPOSED Name Monitoring number of NUMBER OF Officer visits: VISITS 12/13 11/12

Pitsea Basildon Veolia Shaun Taylor, Veolia E S, Pitsea Treatment and CT 4 4.00 Landfill Site, Pitsea Hall Lane, Pitsea, Basildon, Essex. SS16 4UH Beazley End BRAINTREE G & B Finch G & B Finch Limited, Bateman's Farm, Lynderwood GS 1 1.00 Lane, Great Leighs, Chelmsford, Essex, CM3 1PU Bradwell BRAINTREE BlackWater Patrick Wigg, Blackwater Aggregates, Bradwell CT 4 4.00 Quarry Aggregates Quarry, Church Road, Braintree, Essex CM77 8EP Bulmer Bricks BRAINTREE Bulmer Bulmer Brickwork & Tile Co Ltd, The Brickfields, TM 1 1.00 Birckworks Ltd Hedingham Road, Bulmers, Sudbury, C010 7EF Faulkbourne BRAINTREE SRC Louise Yates, SRC Ltd, Sewells Farm, Little Braxted, TM 3 2 Farm Witham, Essex, CM8 3ET Scripps/ BRAINTREE Cemex Blackwater Aggregates, Bradwell Quarry, Church GS 2 2 Coggeshall Road, Braintree, Essex CM77 8EP Quarry Tile Kiln BRAINTREE Tile Kiln Estate Tile Kiln Barn Estate.Gosfield Road, sible RE 1 0.00 Quarry Ltd Hedingham,C09 3RL. Woolmers BRAINTREE G & B Finch G & B Finch Limited, Bateman's Farm, Lynderwood GS 1 1.00 Farm Lane, Great Leighs, Chelmsford, Essex, CM3 1PU Blackleys Chelmsford Frank Lyons Frank Lyons Plant Services, Gatehouse Farm, CT 4 4.00 Quarry Plant Services Gransmore Green, Felsted, Essex, CM6 3LE Ltd Bulls Lodge Chelmsford Hanson Sharon Goodchild, Hanson Aggregates, Bulls Lodge CT 4 4.00 Aggregates Quarry, Generals Lane, Boreham, CM3 3HR Manor Farm Chelmsford LaFarge La Farge Aggregates, Mineral Resources, Panshanger TM 1 0.00 Aggregates Ltd Park, Hertford, SG14 2NA Mid Essex Chelmsford Essex Mid Essex Gravel Limited, Broomfield Pit, Essex MW 2 2.00 Gravels Regiment Way, Regiment Way, Broomfield, Chelmsford, Essex, CM3 Broomfield 3PZ Old Hall and Chelmsford Sewells Louise Yates, SRC Ltd, Sewells Farm, Little Braxted, TM 4 2.00 Generals Reservoir Witham, Essex, CM8 3ET

Farm Construction APPENDIX1

Page 49 of 74

Roxwell Chelmsford LaFarge Lafarge Aggregates Ltd, Purchase ledger, Granite GLS 2 2.00 Quarry Aggregates Ltd House, Syston, Leicester, LE7 1LZ (+ to fax/email a copy to Dave Benfield on 01245 440294) Sandon Chelmsford Adjacent to Robert Brett & Sons Ltd Brett House Bysing Wood SB 1 1.00 Sandon Hall, Road Sandon, Faversham Chelmsford, Kent ME13 7UD CM2 7TN

St Cleres Hall Chelmsford Bardon Bardon Aggregates Ltd, St Cleres Pit, Main Road, GS 3 3.00 Pit Quarry Aggregates Ltd Danbury, Chelmsford, CM3 4AS Wallace and Chelmsford Cemex Mr S R Redwood, Regional Estates Manager, CEMEX GS 1 0.00 Holts UK Materials Limited, Eastern Region, CEMEX House, Evreux Way, Rugby, CV21 2DT. Writtle Chelmsford Sewells Louise Yates, SRC Ltd, Sewells Farm, Little Braxted, GS 1 2 College Reservoir Witham, Essex, CM8 3ET Construction Birch Quarry Colchester Hanson Sharon Goodchild, Hanson Aggregates, Bulls Lodge PC 3 3.00 Aggregates Quarry, Generals Lane, Boreham, CM3 3HR Colchester Colchester Tarmac Alan Everard, Tarmac Limited, Colchester Quarry, SB 4 4.00 Quarry Ltd,Corys Warren Lane, Stanway, Colchester, Essex CO3 0NN Environmental Fingringhoe Colchester Thames & Andrew Hack Thames and Colne Water Aggregates GS 2 2.00 Quarry Colne Water Co Ltd, Fingringhoe Quarry, Ballast Quay, Fingringhoe, Colchester, CO5 7DB Marks Tey Colchester W H Collier M Page, Marks Tey Brickworks, Church Lane, Marks TM 1 1.00 Brick Works Tey, Colchester, Essex, CO6 1LN Tiptree Colchester Bardon Bardon Aggregates Ltd, St Cleres Pit, Main Road, PC 3 6.00 Quarry Aggregates ltd Danbury, Chelmsford, CM3 4AS Langridge Epping LaFarge Mr Richard Millican, Restoration Manager, Lafarge GS 1 1.00 Farm Forest Aggregates Ltd Aggregates Ltd, Mineral Resources, Panshanger Park, Hertford SG14 2NA Netherhall Pit Epping LaFarge Mr Richard Millican, Restoration Manager, Lafarge GS 1 1.00 Forest Aggregates Ltd Aggregates Ltd, Mineral Resources, Panshanger Park, Hertford SG14 2NA Ongar Landfill Epping Waste Waste Recycling Group, 900 Pavilion Drive, GS 1 1.00 Forest Recycling Northampton Business Park, Northampton, NN4 7RG. Group Ltd

Page 50 of 74 Asheldham Maldon LaFarge Stuart J Anderson, Senior Planning & Estates MW 1 1.00 Aggregates Ltd Manager, Panshanger Park, Herts, SG14 2NA Chapel Farm Maldon SRC SRC LTD, Great Braxted Hall, Witham, Essex, CM8 RE 1 3EN Curry Farm Maldon R Dewick Mr Richard Dewick, New House, Curry Farm, MW 2 2.00 Bradwell-on-Sea, Essex. CM0 7HL Royal Oak Maldon Aggregate Bardon Aggregates Ltd, St Cleres Pit, Main Road, GS 4 4.00 Industries Danbury, Chelmsford, CM3 4AS Southminster Maldon G & B Finch G & B Finch Limited, Bateman's Farm, Lynderwood TM 4 3.00 Quarry Lane, Great Leighs, Chelmsford, Essex, CM3 1PU Barling Rochford Cory for visits 1,2 and 3: Cory Environmental Limited, TM 3 3.00 Quarry Enviromental Crown House, Mucking Wharf Road, Mucking, Nr Ltd Stanford-le-Hope, Essex SS17 ORN; for site visit 4: Cory Envrionmental (Central) Limited, 3-6 Greyfriars Business Park, Frank Foley Way, Greyfirars, Stafford, ST16 2ST The common, Rochford Hanson Brick Hanson Building products, Green Lane, Stewartby, GS 1 1.00 Star Lane Bedford, MK43 9Lz Wallasea Rochford RSPB 1 Old Hall,Tolleshunt D'Arcy,Maldon,CM9 8TP SB 1 4.00 Island. Brightlingsea Tendring Brett Brett Aggregates, Ford Lane, Alresford, Colchester, GS 2 2 Quarry Aggregates Essex, CO7 8BB Church Farm/ Tendring Brett Brett Aggregates, Brett House, Bysingwood Road, MW 1 1.00 Alresford Aggregates Faversham, Kent, ME13 7UD Creek Crown Quarry Tendring SRC SRC LTD, Great Braxted Hall, Witham, Essex, CM8 CT 6 4 (Wick Farm) 3EN Ardleigh Fen Farm Tendring SRC SRC LTD, Great Braxted Hall, Witham, Essex, CM8 RE 2 1.00 3EN Hill Farm Tendring Brett Jim Gibb, Alresford Site, Brett Aggregates, Ford Lane, RE 1 1.00 Aggregates Alresford, Colchester, Essex, CO7 8BB Lodge Farm. Tendring SRC SRC LTD, Great Braxted Hall, Witham, Essex, CM8 TM 1 1.00 St Osyth 3EN Martell's Tendring Garside Sands Garside Sands, Martells Quarry, Slough Lane, PC 4 4.00 Quarry Ardleigh, Colchester, Essex CO7 7RU

Page 51 of 74 Plumptons Tendring Cemex Mr S R Redwood, Regional Estates Manager, CEMEX MW 1 1.00 Farm UK Materials Limited, Eastern Region, CEMEX House, Alresford Evreux Way, Rugby, CV21 2DT. St Oysth Tendring Tim Sargeant Tim Sargent, St Oysth Priory, St Oysth. PC 1 2.00 (Martins & Colchester.CM24 8HL Wellwick Farms) Villa Farm Tendring Brett Jim Gibb, Alresford Site, Brett Aggregates, Ford Lane, RE 1 1.00 Aggregates Alresford, Colchester, Essex, CO7 8BB Wivenhoe Tendring LaFarge La Farge Aggregates, Mineral Resources, Panshanger MW 4 4.00 Quarry Aggregates Ltd Park, Hertford, SG14 2NA Crumps Farm Uttlesford Baker Tilly Hillay Norris,1st Floor CT 6 4.00 46 Clarendon Road Watford, Hertfordshire, WD17 1JJ Elsenham Uttlesford Viridor Waste Brett Aggregates, Brett House, Bysingwood Road, PC 4 4.00 Quarry Management/ Faversham, Kent, ME13 7UD Brett Frogs Hall Uttlesford Cemex Mr S R Redwood, Regional Estates Manager, CEMEX MW 2 1.00 UK Materials Limited, Eastern Region, CEMEX House, Evreux Way, Rugby, CV21 2DT. Newport Uttlesford Needham Needham Chalks Ltd, Ipswich Road, Needham GS 1 1.00 Chalk Pit Chalks Market, Suffolk, IP6 8EL (Chalk Farm) Stumps X Uttlesford Seearo Ivone Slowdon, Seearo Group Ltd, Grange Farm PC 6 6.00 Great Road, Flint Cross, Royston, Herts, SG8 7PR Chesterford Ugleys Park Uttlesford Biffa Waste Cambridge Road, Ugley, Bishops Stortford, Herts GS 2 2.00 Services Widdington Uttlesford Carr & Bircher Carr and Bircher Ltd, Widdington Pit, Hollow Road, SB 4 4.00 Pit Ltd Widdington, Saffron Walden, CB11 3SL Little Easton Uttlesford SRC LTD, Great Braxted Hall, Witham, Essex, CM8 CT 4 4.00 3EN

108.00

Page 52 of 74 Essex County Council APPENDIX 2 Minerals and Waste Planning Environmental Planning County Hall Chelmsford Essex CM1 1QH

Our ref DC/ Date

Dear xxx

SITE MONITORING VISITS OF MINING AND LANDFILL SITES IN ESSEX

SITE

I am writing to inform you that the monitoring visits for the financial year xxx have now been completed and invoices have been sent under separate cover. During this first full year of monitoring each active site has been visited 4 times (in most cases). Based on the knowledge gained through these visits, consideration has been given as to whether this number was appropriate. A number of criteria were chosen to assess whether the number of visits should be increased or decreased. The criteria is as follows:

 The size of site  Annual throughput  Non-compliance with Planning Control

Those sites that are inactive or are in aftercare only will, in general, only be visited once a year unless there are issues to be resolved.

Taking these criteria into consideration, the above site which at the start of the site monitoring year was inactive has now become active and as a result will have xxx extra site monitoring visit for the financial year

It is our intention that where there is more than one visit a year, at least one of the visits will be unannounced.

As in the previous yeaxxxxx, the site monitoring invoices will be sent out on a quarterly basis. All site monitoring reports are available on the County Council’s website.

If you should have any suggestions for improvements for the information provided within the monitoring report please do not hesitate to contact the Authority.

If there have been any changes to your address both for invoicing or for receiving the site monitoring report, please send an email to [email protected], with the subject matter as “Site Monitoring” giving details of the email address(es) you would wish us to use. This email address may also be used to advise of any changes to contact details for invoices or reports.

Yours sincerely

Page 53 of 74

Site Monitoring Visits

Page 54 of 74

Site Monitoring Visits APPENDIX 3

SITE MONITORING REPORT

Please find detailed below the report for the site monitoring undertaken on DATE. If you should have any queries or require any photographs taken on site please do not hesitate to contact me.

File Ref: Visit no: Monitoring Officer Time on site: Time off site: Tel No: Site Co-ordinator: Tel No: Site Name:

Operator: Site Representative: Permission no’s:

Permission Number & Romp Date Due Outstanding Submission of details: Permission Condition Scope of Condition and Action to be taken No. No.

Constraints:

Weather: Dry/ Windy / Rain / Snow Noise: Acceptable/ Not acceptable N/A Approach Roads: Dry / Dusty / Wet / Muddy / Flooded Ground: Dry / Dusty / Wet / Damp / Muddy / Flooded Access: Obstructed / Not Obstructed / Mud on Road / Ice / Slippery Wheel Cleaning: Washer / Spinner / Sweeper / none Hose: In use / Not in Use / N/A Machinery: Working / Not working In correct position: Yes / No / N/A Stockpiles: Height = N/A Bunds: Profiled / Grassed / Weeds/ NA

Actions from last site visit:

Page 55 of 74

Inspection Results Summary:

Compliance with Conditions Permission Condition Scope of Condition and Action to Action to be No. No. be taken taken by Operator or MPA/WPA Officer

Actions to be taken before next site visit:

Note: The actions noted in this report are required in order to ensure adequate progress is made and to avoid potential enforcement action against a breach of planning control.

Page 56 of 74 2 OPERATIONAL NON OPERATIONAL WITH PLANNING PERMISSION

BROAD FACILITY TYPE SITE NAME SPECIFIC FACILITY TYPE PERMITTED CAPACITY (Tonnes) Complaints received RISK Visit Freqency (in months) BROAD FACILITY TYPE SITE NAME SPECIFIC FACILITY TYPE PERMITTED CAPACITY (Tonnes) Planning Permission EA Licence Planning Permission EA Licence Transfer Clinovia Clinical Transfer 0 24,999 NO D 12 Transfer Pectel Court, Hazadous Transfer Station 3,650 N/A

Transfer Personnel Hygiene Services Ltd, Clinical Transfer 24,999 NO D 12 Transfer Railway Land, Transfer Station 0 N/A Transfer Albany Rental Supply Ltd Clinical Transfer 0 24,999 NO D 12 Transfer Chase Farm, Waste Storage 500 N/A Transfer Bradwell Power Station Hazardous Storage 1 storage building containing 600 3m3 'packages' 0 NO B 24 Transfer Unit H, Ashtree Farm, Waste Storage 10,000 N/A Transfer Cordons Farm, Hazardous Transfer Station 0 2,500 NO D 12 Transfer Chaston Business Centre Transfer Station 30,000 N/A Transfer Mead Park Depot Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO D 12 BROAD FACILITY TYPE SITE NAME SPECIFIC FACILITY TYPE PERMITTED CAPACITY (Tonnes) Transfer Belsteads Farm, Hazardous Transfer Station 150,000 75,000 YES-2 D 6 Planning Permission EA Licence Transfer Fairview, Hazardous Transfer Station 0 74,999 NO D 12 Recycling Martells Quarry ELV 0 N/A Transfer Herons Court TS Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO D 12 Recycling Rivenhall Airfield (II) MRF 100,000 N/A Transfer Cohart, Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO D 12 Recycling Rivenhall Airfield (II) MRF 331,000 N/A Transfer Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO D 12 Recycling Courtauld Road MRF 80,000 N/A Transfer Bulk Storage Hazardous Transfer Station 0 75,000 NO D 12 Recycling Part of Pafkin Site MRS 300 N/A Transfer Manor Trading Est, Asbestos Surveys & Solutions Hazardous Transfer Station 0 0 NO D 12 Composting NONE Transfer Safety-Kleen Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO D 12 BROAD FACILITY TYPE SITE NAME SPECIFIC FACILITY TYPE PERMITTED CAPACITY (Tonnes) Transfer ICEX Limited, Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO D 12 Planning Permission EA Licence Transfer Chelmsford Borough Council Depot, Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO D 12 C&D Recycling Loppingdales C&D Inert & Non Inert 90,000 N/A Transfer Promenade Park Depot Hazardous Transfer Station NEW 24,999 NO D 12 C&D Recycling Land Adjacent to Taylors Farm C&D Inert & Non Inert 0 N/A Transfer Telent Inert Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO B 24 C&D Recycling Plot 3, C&D Inert & Non Inert 0 N/A Transfer Silverton Aggregates, Inert Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO B 24 C&D Recycling Harlow Mill C&D Inert & Non Inert 12,500 N/A Transfer Lampcare (UK) Recycling Ltd, Inert Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO B 24 BROAD FACILITY TYPE SITE NAME SPECIFIC FACILITY TYPE PERMITTED CAPACITY (Tonnes) Transfer Widdington Pit, Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 74,999 NO C 12 Planning Permission EA Licence Transfer Dunmow Skips Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 YES-2 C 6 Treatment Rivenhall Airfield (II) MBT 250,000 N/A Transfer All Clear Skips Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 Treatment Stanway MBT 250,000 N/A Transfer Colne Skips Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 Treatment Pitsea MBT 100,000 N/A Transfer Honeylands Farm, Non Hazardous Transfer Station 5,000 ? NO C 12 Treatment Courtauld Road MBT 378,000 N/A Transfer Tin Bins, Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 BROAD FACILITY TYPE SITE NAME SPECIFIC FACILITY TYPE PERMITTED CAPACITY (Tonnes) Transfer Colchester Skip Hire Non Hazardous Transfer Station 48,000 74,999 YES-1 C 6 Planning Permission EA Licence Transfer Cartaway Skips Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 5,000 NON OPERATIONAL C 12 Treatment - Energy from Waste Courtauld Road Anaerobic Digestion 107,000 N/A Transfer Old Basket Works Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 74,999 NON OPERATIONAL C 12 Treatment - Energy from Waste Rivenhall Airfield (II) Anaerobic Digestion 85,000 N/A Transfer Collin's Skip Hire, Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 Treatment - Energy from Waste Stanway Anaerobic Digestion 50,000 N/A Transfer EWD Carters Haulage Yard Non Hazardous Transfer Station 4,500 24,999 NO C 12 Treatment - Energy from Waste Pitsea Anaerobic Digestion 15,000 N/A Transfer Sandman Skip Hire, Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 Treatment - Energy from Waste Stanway Biogas Fired Power Generator 0 N/A Transfer Onyx, TDC Depot Non Hazardous Transfer Station Max 24 vehicle movements over 3.5t gvl in any working week 24,999 NO C 12 Treatment - Energy from Waste Rivenhall Airfield (II) CHP 297,000 N/A Transfer Waste Recycling Centre, Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 Transfer Total Waste Management Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 BROAD FACILITY TYPE SITE NAME SPECIFIC FACILITY TYPE Voidspace in Planning Permission Permitted / Estimated Annual Deposits Transfer Threshers Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 Non Hazardous Landfill Crumps Farm Non Haazardous Landfill 1,300,000 50,000 Transfer Barnfield Transfer Station Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C Transfer SB Skip Hire, Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 Transfer Morely & Sons Non Hazardous Transfer Station 25,000 24,999 NO C 12 Transfer Hallsford Bridge, Heatherland Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 75,000 NO C 12 Transfer Hallsford Bridge, PW Keen Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 Transfer Archers Fields, GBN Non Hazardous Transfer Station 75,000 75,000 NO C 12 Transfer Heard Transfer Station, Non Hazardous Transfer Station 25,000 24,999 NO C 12 Transfer Bob's Skips Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 Transfer Ecologic Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 74,999 NO C 12 Transfer Watts Lane Transfer Station, Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 Transfer Cottis Transfer Station, Non Hazardous Transfer Station 25,000 24,999 NO C 12 Transfer Kings Road TS Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 Canvey Skip Hire (Benfleet Skip Hire?) Transfer Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 APPENDIX4 Transfer Monor Trading Est, Benfleet Scrap Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 Page24,999 57 of 74NO C 12 Transfer AA Kwik skips Non Hazardous Transfer Station 5,000 24,999 NO C 12 Transfer Manor Trading, Sherwood Waste Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 Transfer AA Quick Skips, Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 Transfer E & B Waste, Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 Transfer Barleylands Depot Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12

Page 58 of 74 Transfer SITA Boreham, Non Hazardous Transfer Station NEW 75,000 NO C 12 Transfer Chelmsford Transfer & Recycling Facility Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 Transfer Templewood, Ash Plant Hire Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 75,000 NO C 12 Transfer Shrub End Road Depot Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 Transfer Cooks Skip Hire Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 Transfer Railway Siding Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 Transfer Smallwaste Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 Transfer Contact Waste, Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24999 74999 NO C 12 Transfer Hadleigh Salvage (Recycling) Ltd Non Hazardous Transfer Station 75,000 74,999 NO C 12 Transfer Bob's Skips Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 Transfer Collect - A - Way Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 Transfer Epping Forest Council Depot, Non Hazardous Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 Transfer Saffron Walden HWRC RCHW 0 24,999 NO B 24 Transfer Shalford HWRC RCHW 0 24,999 NO B 24 Transfer Witham HWRC RCHW 0 24,999 NO B 24 Transfer Shrub End HWRC RCHW 0 24,999 NO B 24 Transfer West Mersea RCHW RCHW 0 24,999 NO B 24 Transfer Martins & Wellwick Farms HWRC RCHW 0 24,999 YES-2 B 12 Transfer Clacton HWRC RCHW 0 24,999 NO B 24 Transfer Maltings Lane HWRC RCHW 0 24,999 NO B 24 Transfer Dovercourt HWRC RCHW 0 24,999 NO B 24 Transfer Lawford HWRC RCHW 0 24,999 NO B 24 Transfer Templebank HWRC RCHW 12,500 24,999 NO B 24 Transfer Town Mead HWRC RCHW 25,000 24,999 NO B 24 Transfer Mill Lane HWRC RCHW 0 24,999 NO B 24 Transfer Luxborough Lane HWRC RCHW 0 24,999 NO B 24 Transfer Drovers Way HWRC RCHW 0 24,999 NO B 24 Transfer South Woodham Ferrers HWRC RCHW 0 24,999 NO B 24 Transfer Maldon HWRC RCHW 0 24,999 NO B 24 Transfer Springfield Road HWRC RCHW 2912 ? 24,999 NO B 24 Transfer Coxtie Green HRWC RCHW 0 24,999 NO B 24 Transfer Mountnessing HWRC RCHW 0 24,999 NO B 24 Transfer Pitsea HWRC RCHW 0 24,999 NO B 24 Transfer Rayleigh HWRC RCHW 0 24,999 NO B 24 Transfer Canvey Road HWRC RCHW 0 24,999 NO B 24 Transfer Leigh Marsh HWRC RCHW 0 24,999 NO B 24 Transfer Stock Road HWRC RCHW 0 24,999 NO B 24 Transfer Lower Farm WTS Transfer Station 0 0 NO C 12 Transfer Magnum House, Transfer Station 24,000 0 NO C 12 Transfer Archers Field Close, T Connolly Transfer Station 16,500 24,999 NO C 12 Transfer Purdey's Industrial Estate, GBN Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 Transfer Purdey's Estate WTS, Transfer Station 50,000 24,999 ??? C 6 Transfer Carters Yard WTS Transfer Station 0 75,000 ??? C 6 Transfer Rawreth Ind Est. WTS Transfer Station 15,000 0 NO C 12 Transfer Rawreth Ind Est, Biffa Waste Services Transfer Station 75,000 24,999 NO C 12 Transfer Wood Farm Transfer Station 0 5,000 NO C 12 Transfer Oliver's Wharf Transfer Station 0 0 NO C 12 Transfer Temple Wood Ind Estate WTS Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 Transfer Thorn Security Ltd Transfer Station 0 24,999 NO C 12 BROAD FACILITY TYPE SITE NAME SPECIFIC FACILITY TYPE PERMITTED CAPACITY (Tonnes) Planning Permission EA Licence Recycling Nationwide Metal Recycling ELV 0 74,999 NO B 12 Recycling St. Osyth Autospares, ELV 25,000 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling HBC Vehicle Services ELV No Stacking of Vehicles, repair, Dismantling, Repair or Scrapping of Motor Vehicles or Sales of Vehicles 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Buck Rogers Car Breakers, ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Convoy Commercials, ELV 22,173 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling RA Motors Ltd ELV 0 0 NO B 12 Recycling BMW Bitz Ltd ELV 120m3 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Vauxhall & Transits ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Late Spares Unlimited ELV 0 Page24,999 59 of 74NO B 12

Page 60 of 74 Recycling Basildon Car Breakers ELV NEW 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling DA Motors, Wickford ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Buckwyns, ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Laindon Car Spares ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Wickford Spares ELV NEW 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling White's Yard ELV ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Harrowcross Bodyworks ELV NEW 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Brentwood Autos ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling P&T Haulage ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Bellropes, ELV NEW 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Cut Maple Salvage ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Kelvedon Auto Spares ELV 1,850 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Nevenden South East Cars ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Arrow Salvage & Spares Ltd, ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Chase Autos, ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling S. B. Wheeler & Sons Ltd, ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Stock Auto Breakers, ELV 3,818 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling 3M's Autos Ltd, ELV NEW 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Autobreak vehicle Dismantlers ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling G&L Autospares, ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Autospares ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling AGT Cars Ltd, ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling BM Spares, ELV 55,875 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling English Autos, ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling CWJ Kirby (Metal Merchants) ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Hockley Vehicle Dismantlers, ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Nevendon Cars South East, ELV NEW 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Userve Ltd ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Imperial Metal Recyclers ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Thorrington Car Breakers ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Walton Salvage, ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Bottles Hall ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Clacton Car Breakers, ELV 8,000 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Endeavor Vehicle Services, ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Vauxhal Performance & Spares Centre ELV 150 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Ace Auto Salvage, ELV 0 24,999 NO B 12 Recycling Allviews ELV 0 0 NO B 12 Recycling Material Recycling Facility MRF 0 24,999 NO A 24 Recycling Belsteads Farm, MRF 150,000 0 YES-2 A 12 Recycling Flowline, Rayleigh MRF 0 24,999 NO A 24 Recycling Benfleet Vehicle Dismantlers MRF vehicle movements per day: 40 moon-sat less than 3.5 tonnes, 6 moon-sat over 3.5 tonnes 24,999 NO A 24 Recycling Onyx MRF, MRF 0 24,999 NO A 24 Recycling AWA MRF 0 24,999 NO A 24 Recycling O-I Glass UK MRF 0 24,999 NO A 24 Recycling Waste Management Site (SBC) MRF 0 0 NO A 24 Recycling King Edward Quay, SITA MRS 17 movements in and 17 out of >7.5tonnes vehicles. <7.5 is unrestricted 24,999 NO C 12 Recycling Green Acres, MRS 48,000 0 YES-1 C 6 Recycling Boreham, SITA MRS 0 24,999 (75,000) NO C 12 Recycling Burfords Yard MRS 0 24,999 NO C 12 Recycling 16 Commerce Way, SITA MRS 0 0 NO C 12 Recycling Enfield Metals MRS NEW 24,999 NO C 12 Recycling Pooles Lane Ltd, MRS 0 74,999 NO C 12 Recycling Hanningfields Metals MRS 0 24,999 NO C 12 Recycling Mitchells Car Breakers MRS 0 24,999 YES-2 C 6 Recycling Dash's Yard MRS NEW 24,999 NO C 12 Recycling Energyready, MRS 0 24,999 NO C 12 Recycling Brightlingsea Export Terminal MRS 0 24,999 NO C 12 Recycling Clarkes MRS 0 24,999 NO C 12 Recycling Templewood, F Murphy Alloys MRS 0 24,999 NO C 12 Recycling Benfleet Scrap MRS 0 Page74,999 61 of 74NO C 12

Page 62 of 74 Recycling Mark's Commercials MRS 0 24,999 NO C 12 Recycling Total Waste Management Ltd , MRS 0 24,999 NO C 12 Recycling King Edward Quay MRS/ELV 35,000 24,999 NO C 12 Recycling The Recycling Centre, MRS/ELV 0 24,999 NO C 12 Recycling Haven Road TS MRS/ELV 0 25,000 NO C 12 Recycling G T Commercials, MRS/ELV 0 24,999 NO C 12 Recycling Shalford ELV MRS/ELV 50 0 NO C 12 Recycling EHS Metals Brentwood, MRS/ELV 0 74,999 NO C 12 Recycling B D Moss, Stondon Massey, MRS/ELV 0 x NO C 12 Recycling The Scrap Yard MRS/ELV 0 x YES-2 C 6 Recycling Recycled Motor Parts, MRS/ELV 0 74,999 NO C 12 Recycling Temple Farm, Slessor MRS/ELV 0 24,999 NO C 12 Recycling Centre Point Salvage, MRS/ELV 0 24,999 NO C 12 Recycling Auto Body Works, MRS/ELV 500 24,999 NO C 12 Recycling Environ Automotive, MRS/ELV 0 24,999 NO C 12 Recycling Gunhill Garage MRS/ELV 0 24,999 NO C 12 Recycling Recycle Telecom, MRS/ELV 0 24,999 NO C 12 Recycling Euro Breakers MRS/ELV 0 24,999 NO C 12 Recycling Lindsell Stores MRS/ELV 10,000 0 NO C 12 Recycling Caxton House MRS/ELV 0 24,999 NO C 12 Recycling Central Cleansing Depot Unspecified 0 74,999 NO C 12 BROAD FACILITY TYPE SITE NAME SPECIFIC FACILITY TYPE PERMITTED CAPACITY (Tonnes) Planning Permission EA Licence Composting Stewards Yard In Vessel Composting 0 24,999 NO C 12 Composting Crumps Farm Open Windrow Composting 8,000 0 YES-2 C 6 Composting Widdington Pit, Open Windrow Composting 25,000 0 NO C 12 Composting Birch Airfield Composting Facility Open Windrow Composting 0 24,999 NO C 12 Composting Glebe Farm, Open Windrow Composting 6,000 24,999 NO C 12 Composting Loamylands Open Windrow Composting 4,000 24,999 NO C 12 Composting Stondon Hall Farm Open Windrow Composting 50,000 74,999 NA C Site Closed Composting Pitsea Open Windrow Composting 46,800 74,999 NO C 12 Composting Colchester Quarry Unspecified 0 75,000 NO C 12 Composting Ashlyns Organic Farm Unspecified 0 24,999 YES-2 C 6 BROAD FACILITY TYPE SITE NAME SPECIFIC FACILITY TYPE PERMITTED CAPACITY (Tonnes) Planning Permission EA Licence C&D Recycling Armigers Farm C&D Inert & Non Inert 100,000 0 YES B 6 C&D Recycling Elsenham Quarry C&D Inert & Non Inert 30,000 0 NO B 12 C&D Recycling Widdington Pit, C&D Inert & Non Inert 65,000 75,000 NO B 12 C&D Recycling Dusty Lane C&D Inert & Non Inert 0 0 YES-2 B 6 C&D Recycling Colchester Quarry C&D Inert & Non Inert 190,000 75,000 NO B 12 C&D Recycling Haven Road Inert Waste TS C&D Inert & Non Inert 75,000 24,999 NO B 12 C&D Recycling Martell's Quarry C&D Inert & Non Inert 10,000 74,999 NO B 12 C&D Recycling Wivenhoe Quarry, C&D Inert & Non Inert 50,000 0 NO B 12 C&D Recycling EWD Carters Haulage Yard C&D Inert & Non Inert 0 25,000 NO B 12 C&D Recycling Essex Recycling Wix C&D Inert & Non Inert 50,000 24,999 NO B 12 C&D Recycling Bulls Lodge C&D Inert & Non Inert 100,000 0 NO B 12 C&D Recycling Green Recycling C&D Inert & Non Inert 0 24,999 YES-1 B 6 C&D Recycling Archers Fields, GBN C&D Inert & Non Inert 0 25,000 NO B 12 C&D Recycling Severnside Recycling C&D Inert & Non Inert 0 24,999 NO B 12 C&D recycling Franklin Hire C&D Inert & Non Inert 0 24,999 NO B 12 C&D Recycling CLC Construction C&D Inert & Non Inert 75,000 75,000 YES-2 B 6 C&D Recycling Hill Demolition & Skip Hire C&D Inert & Non Inert 0 74,999 NO B 12 C&D Recycling Devereaux Farm, C&D Inert & Non Inert 0 0 NO B 12 C&D Recycling Carlson Vehicle Transfer Ltd C&D Inert & Non Inert 56,000 75,999 NO B 12 C&D Recycling JKS C&D Inert & Non Inert 160,000 74,999 YES-1 B 6 C&D Recycling Evans Thornwood C&D Inert & Non Inert 5,000 74,999 NO B 12 C&D Recycling Silverton Aggregates C&D Inert & Non Inert 0 24,999 NO B 12 C&D Recycling Bateman's Farm, Soil Screening 25,000 24,999 NO B 12 C&D Recycling Harvey Automobile Engineering Soil Screening 0 24,999 YES-2 B 6 C&D Recycling Curry Farm Soil Screening 15,000 Page24,999 63 of 74NO B 12

C&D Recycling Woolmongers Lane BRW Soil Screening 0 24,999 YES-2 B 6 C&D Recycling Scripps Farm Unspecified 14,500 0 NO B 12 C&D Recycling C A Blackwell ( Contracts ) Ltd, Unspecified 0 74,999 NO B 12 C&D Recycling The Yard Unspecified 0 0 YES-2 B 6 BROAD FACILITY TYPE SITE NAME SPECIFIC FACILITY TYPE PERMITTED CAPACITY (Tonnes) Planning Permission EA Licence Treatment Hole Haven Wharf Hazardous Treatment 0 75,000 NO D 12 Treatment Kent Wood Remembrance Park, Other Incineration 0 24,999 NO B 24 Treatment Resting Pets, Other Incineration 0 24,999 NO B 24 Treatment Ticks Haulage, Unspecified 0 24,999 NO C 24 Treatment Archers Fields, Veolia Unspecified NEW 75,000 NO C 24 Treatment Flowline, Unspecified 0 24,999 NO C 24 Treatment B W Rice Treatment Unspecified 0 24,999 NO C 24 Treatment Tallow Storage Unspecified 0 74,999 NO C 24 Treatment Bobbingworth Leachate Treatment Plant Unspecified Not stated - Serves Ex landfill site 24,999 NO C 24 Treatment EOL IT Services Ltd, Unspecified 50 24,999 NO C 24 Treatment Compounds P & Q, Unspecified 0 74,999 NO C 24 Treatment Energyready Unspecified 0 24,999 NO C 24 Treatment Metcom International Ltd, Unspecified 0 24,999 NO C 24 Treatment Templewood Collection Service. Unspecified 0 24,999 NO C 24 Treatment Greenacre Small Holdings, Canewdon Unspecified 0 0 NO C 24 Treatment Eastways WEEE 0 24,999 B 24

BROAD FACILITY TYPE SITE NAME SPECIFIC FACILITY TYPE Estimated Voidspace at 31/03/2010 Average deposits (2009 to 2010)

Inert Landfill Wivenhoe Landfill Inert Landfill 188,443 NO C 12 Inert Landfill St Cleres Inert Landfill 0 NO C 12 Inert Landfill Blackleys Inert Landfill 82,500 NO C 12 Inert Landfill Royal Oak Inert landfill 490,000 YES-1 C 6 Inert Landfill Widdington Pit Inert landfill 280,170 NO C 12 Non Hazardous Landfill Elsenham Quarry Landfill Gas Generation Plant 3,915,300 147,631 NO A 24 Non Hazardous Landfill Ugley Quarry, (Ugley Landfill Site) Landfill Gas Generation Plant 149,606 116,943 NO A 24 Non Hazardous Landfill Bellhouse Landfill Landfill Gas Generation Plant 1,794,702 157,649 NO A 24 Non Hazardous Landfill Roxwell Landfill Gas Generation Plant 106,479 112,891 NO A 24 Non Hazardous landfill Pitsea Landflil Landfill Gas Generation Plant 6,592,476 703,762 NO A 24 Non Hazardous Landfill Barling Magna Landfill, Landfill Gas Generation Plant 737,978 121,843 NO A 24 Non Hazardous Landfill Martell's Quarry Non Haazardous Landfill 928,387 26,312 NO D 24 Hazardous Landfill Roxwell Hazardous Landfill 21,986 2,895 NO D 24

Page 64 of 74 APPENDIX 5

WASTE SITE MONITORING REPORT

Report for the site monitoring undertaken on DATE.

File Ref: Visit no: Monitoring Officer Time on site: Time off site: Tel No: Planning Case Officer: Tel No: Site Name:

Operator: Site Representative: Permission no’s:

Permission Condition Scope of Condition and Action to be taken No. No.

Constraints:

Weather: Dry/ Windy / Rain / Snow Noise: Acceptable/ Not acceptable N/A Approach Roads: Dry/Dusty/ Wet/Muddy/Flooded Ground: Dry/Dusty/Wet/ Damp/Muddy/Flooded Access: Obstructed/Not Obstructed/Mud on Road/Ice/Slippery Wheel Cleaning: Washer / Spinner / Sweeper / none Hose: In use / Not in Use / N/A Machinery: Working / Not working In correct position: Yes / No / N/A Stockpiles: Height = N/A Odour: Acceptable/ Not acceptable N/A

Actions from last site visit:

Inspection Results Summary:

Page 65 of 74

Compliance with Conditions Permission Condition Scope of Condition and Action to Action to be No. No. be taken taken by Operator or WPA Officer

Actions to be taken before next site visit:

Note: The actions noted in this report are required in order to ensure adequate progress is made and to avoid potential enforcement action against a breach of planning control.

Page 66 of 74 2 AGENDA ITEM ...7a......

DR/39/12

committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 26 October 2012

ENFORCEMENT OF PLANNING CONTROL – INFORMATION ITEM

Enforcement update.

Report by Head of Environmental Planning Enquiries to Richard Greaves – Tel: 01245 437508

1. PURPOSE OF THE ITEM

To update members of enforcement matters for the period 01 July to 30 September 2012 (Quarterly Period 2).

2. DISCUSSION

A. Outstanding Cases

As at 30 September 2012 there are 16 outstanding cases. Appendix 1 shows the details of sites (11) where, after investigation, a breach of planning control is considered to have occurred.

B. Closed Cases

21 cases were resolved during Period 1 (01 July to 30 September 2012).

LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION

Countywide

Page 67 of 74

Page 68 of 74 District Site Address Breach of Required Action Remarks Planning Control Basildon No formal cases BC Braintree Dannatts Quarry, Non completion Cease waste No current site activity, waste importation has ceased. Ground DC Hatfield Peverel of restoration & importation and contamination investigations continue. deposit of waste restore land Brentwood No formal cases BC Castle Point No formal cases BC Chelmsford Birkett Hall Farm, Deposit of waste Cease waste No current site activity, waste importation has ceased. Discussions CC Woodham Ferrers / landraising importation and continue with landowner on actions necessary to resolve this restore land unauthorised development. Land adjacent to Use of land for Cease importation TSN complied with. The land benefits from a District CLUED (1999) Cock Inn, Boreham concrete of concrete (per se). for soil screening. District have issued a PCN to determine any crushing TSN served breach of existing CLUED and are considering issuing an requiring cessation. enforcement notice. Meeting to be arranged between the WPA & LPA to agree best course of action. Colchester Colchester Skip Deposit and 2 enforcement Enforcement notices upheld by Planning Inspector on appeal, to clear BC Hire, Wormingford storage of waste notices served waste & restore the land. At this time it is not considered expedient & formation of to take further enforcement action (requiring removal of the hard rubble track standing and track), subject to planning permission ref: APP/Z1585/A/11/2165340 being implemented. Should this permission not be implemented within the set time limit, further action will be considered. Epping Land adjacent to Deposit of waste Cease waste The deposited waste materials have been removed from the land. Forest DC Breach Barnes / land raising importation Currently only building materials are stored on the land. Caravan Park, Waltham Abbey Land adjacent to Deposit of waste There are no current works. PCN issued. Further action to be Sines Caravan / land raising determined. Park, Waltham Abbey Harlow DC No formal cases Maldon DC No formal cases

Page 69 of 74 Rochford Michelins Farm, Deposit of waste Enforcement notice Enforcement notice upheld by Planning Inspector. Removal of waste DC Rayleigh / land raising served compliance date is 22 May 2013, and restoration of land by 22 July 2013. Lovedown Farm, Deposit of waste Cease waste No current site activity, waste importation has ceased. WPA, EA, Hockley / landraising importation and Natural England are consulting on action required to be taken by the landowner. Tendring Lane Farm, Wix Breach of Undertake required Operator relocating to Parkstone Quay, Harwich. DC planning highway works condition APPENDIX1 (highway works) Tip Top Recycling, Use of part of Apply for 13/8/12 - DC advise they received a retrospective application Gorse Lane site for storage retrospective (Ref: 12/00840/FUL). Above application withdrawn and resubmitted Industrial Estate, of metal for planning permission to WPA. Clacton recycling Uttlesford Armigers Farm, Deposit and Enforcement notice No appeal was lodged. Compliance required by 25 August 2013. DC Thaxted storage of waste served, clear waste from land

Page 70 of 74 AGENDA ITEM ...7b......

DR/40/12

Committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 26th October 2012

INFORMATION ITEM Applications, Enforcement and Appeals Statistics

Report by Head of Environmental Planning 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 4

No. Decisions issued this financial year 31

Overall % age in 13 weeks this financial year 81%

% age in 13 weeks this financial year (NI 157a criteria, Target 60%) 81%

Page 71 of 74

Nº Delegated Decisions issued in the month 4

Nº Section 106 Agreements Pending 1

County Council Applications

Nº. Pending at the end of previous month 13

Nº. Decisions issued in the month 2

Nº. Decisions issued this financial year 19

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 2

% 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 69

Nº. of Submission of Details Pending ***

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 16

Nº. of cases cleared last quarter 21

Nº. of enforcement notices issued last month 0

Page 72 of 74

Nº. of breach of condition notices issued last month 0

Nº. of planning contravention notices issued last month 0

Nº. of Temporary Stop Notices Issued last month 0

Nº. of Stop Notices Issued last month 0

Page 73 of 74

Page 74 of 74