Our ref: APP/E0535/W/19/3225123 David Adams Your ref: Axis Ped Ltd Unit 11 Well House Barns, Bretton, Chester CH4 0DH [email protected] 15 June 2020 Dear Sir TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL MADE BY AMEYCESPA (EAST) LIMITED LAND AT LEVITT’S FIELD, WATERBEACH WASTE MANAGEMENT PARK, ELY ROAD, CAMBRIDGESHIRE APPLICATION REF: S/3372/17/CW 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of John Woolcock BNatRes(Hons) MURP DipLaw MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry on 5-8, 12-15 and 19-20 November 2019 into your client’s appeal against the decision of Cambridgeshire County Council to refuse your client’s application for planning permission for a waste recovery facility (Waterbeach Waste Recovery Facility – WWRF) comprising the erection and operation of an energy from waste facility to treat up to 250,000 tonnes of residual waste per annum, air cooled condensers and associated infrastructure, including the development of an internal access road; office/welfare accommodation; workshop; car, cycle and coach parking; perimeter fencing; electricity sub-stations; weighbridges; weighbridge office; water tank; silos; lighting; heat offtake pipe; surface water management system; hard standings; earthworks; landscaping and bridge crossings, in accordance with application ref: S/3372/17/CW, dated 21 September 2018. 2. On 3 June 2019, this appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State's determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be dismissed. 4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions, except where stated, and agrees with his recommendation. He has decided to dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Tel: 0303 444 43945 Andrew Lynch, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework Unit 3rd Floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Environmental Statement 5. In reaching this position, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and the further environmental information submitted in April 2018 and July 2018 before the inquiry opened. Having taken account of the Inspector’s comments at IR4 and IR437 the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Environmental Statement and other additional information provided complies with the above Regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the proposal. Procedural matters 6. At the inquiry the appellant requested the description of the proposed development be amended (IR11). For the reasons given in IR440-446, and given that he has decided to dismiss the appeal, the Secretary of State does not consider that omitting reference to “up to 250,000 tonnes …per annum” (IR440) raises any matters that would require him to refer back to the parties for further representations prior to reaching his decision on this appeal, and he is satisfied that no interests have thereby been prejudiced. Matters arising since the close of the inquiry 7. Following the close of the inquiry, the Secretary of State received a number of post- inquiry representations, drawing his attention to newly published research around health effects of air pollution on health and pollution arising from waste incineration. 8. Given he has decided to refuse this application based on the evidence heard at Inquiry, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the issues raised do not affect his decision, and no other new issues were raised in this correspondence to warrant further investigation or necessitate additional referrals back to parties. A list of representations which have been received since the inquiry is at Annex A. Copies of these letters may be obtained on written request to the address at the foot of the first page of this letter. Policy and statutory considerations 9. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 10. In this case the development plan consists of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (MWCS) 2011 and the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (SCLP) 2018, along with the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document February 2012 (MWSSP). The Secretary of State considers that relevant development plan policies include those set out at IR16 and Annex B of the Inspector’s Report. 11. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) and associated planning guidance (‘the Guidance’), the National Planning Policy for Waste 2014, the National Policy Statements set out in IR23, and the Supplementary Planning Documents listed at IR19. 2 12. In accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the desirability of preserving those listed buildings potentially affected by the proposals, or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may possess. 13. In accordance with section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Emerging plan 14. The emerging plan comprises the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Draft Minerals and Waste Local Plan, which was submitted for examination in March 2020 (with hearings expected to commence in Autumn). The emerging plan proposes no allocations for waste management development over the plan period as it is considered the plan area has, on the whole, sufficient capacity to manage the forecast waste arising. 15. Paragraph 48 of the Framework states that decision makers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: (1) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan; (2) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies in the emerging plan; and (3) the degree of consistency of relevant policies to the policies in the Framework. Given the relatively early stage of preparation of the plan, and in advance of Examination, the Secretary of State considers that emerging plan policies should carry only limited weight. Main issues 16. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main issues with regard to the determination of this case are those set out at IR451. Most important policies 17. For the reasons given in IR571-576 and IR579, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the most important policies for determining this appeal are those listed at IR580. The Secretary of State further agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given at IR581-586, that taken as a whole, these 16 policies are not to be regarded as out-of-date for the purposes of deciding this appeal. The Secretary of State therefore concludes that paragraph 11 (d) of the Framework is not engaged. Character and appearance 18. The Secretary of State notes at IR12-13 that landscape experts for the appellant and County Council used slightly different parameters and methodologies in their landscape assessments and that small differences in the models result in considerable variation between the predicted Zones of Theoretical Visibility. 19. For the reasons given in IR455-488, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR489 that the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area, and that this brings the proposal into conflict with SCLP Policies NH/2, HQ/1, and objective b. of SCLP Policy S/2. He further agrees that the proposal 3 would also conflict with the Waste SPD and be at odds with the objective of SCDC’s Landscape in New Developments SPD March 2010. 20. The Secretary of State finds that the adverse effect in the short and long term on National Character Area 46, Regional Character Type 22, County Area 8 and Local Character Area E, The Fen Edge, is of substantial significance and should carry substantial weight in the planning balance. He finds the adverse effects on some northern parts of National Character Area 88, Regional Character Type 13 and the north-eastern corner of County Area 3 to be of moderate significance, and to carry moderate weight in the planning balance (IR470). 21. In terms of visual impact and considering the Inspector’s detailed assessment at IR474- 488, the Secretary of State considers the proposals would have a harmful effect on the visual amenity of the area, with impacts ranging between moderate and substantial significance (IR488). Heritage assets 22. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s assessment of the effect of the proposal on heritage assets at IR490-IR505. He agrees at IR491 that the landscape setting continues to make an important contribution to the significance of the Denny Abbey Complex (DAC) Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM). He further agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given in IR504, that the heritage mitigation measures, whilst potentially public benefits, would not lessen the harm to the setting of designated heritage assets and the contribution that this setting makes to the significance of the assets. He further agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given at IR592, that the heritage mitigation measures should attract only slight weight as benefits.