Item C3 Plant to process incinerator bottom ash into secondary aggregates for recycling, Ridham Dock – ref. SW/05/1203 A report by Head of Planning Applications Group to Planning Applications Committee on 21 March 2006. Proposal: A plant to process incinerator bottom ash into secondary aggregates for recycling at Ridham Dock industrial complex, nr Iwade, Sittingbourne. Recommendation: Permission be granted subject to conditions. Local Member: Ms B. Simpson & Mr R. Truelove Unrestricted Site 1. The application site is approximately 0.9 hectares in size and is located within the Ridham Dock industrial complex. Ridham Dock is allocated in the Swale Local Plan 2000 as an employment area, whilst the Ridham / Kemsley location is defined in the Kent Waste Local Plan 1998 as being suitable in principle for the preparation of category A waste for re-use. Ridham Dock is also near to a number of nature conservation designations including The Swale Special Protection Area (SPA), Ramsar site and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and the North Kent Marshes Special Landscape Area (SLA). The Saxon Shore Way passes along the southern boundary of the industrial complex, which is also within an area of flood risk. The site is accessed via a private, unadopted road from the A249 near to Kingsferry Bridge / Sheppey Crossing (under construction). There are no residential properties within the vicinity of the site and the nearest population centre is the village of Iwade some 1.8 km to the south west. A site location plan is attached. Proposal 2. The proposal from Ballast Phoenix Limited (BPL) is for a plant to process Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) from the Allington Waste to Energy facility in Maidstone. The Allington facility is due to become operational in June 2006 and will produce an estimated 60,000 tons of IBA (approximately 11% of the original waste bulk being incinerated). Around 40,000 tons of boiler ash and around 6000 tons of flue gas fines would also be produced, and would be disposed of by landfill. Rather than landfill the IBA material, the applicant proposes to recycle it. 3. The IBA material produced at Allington would comprise coarse material, with a maximum particle size of 300mm, that has the appearance of shot blasted glass and ceramics, mixed with pieces of ferrous and non-ferrous metals, which would constitute up to 3.6% by weight. The applicant, Ballast Phoenix Ltd, has operated since 1996 and together with Dutch firm Feniks Recycling has developed a process to convert the IBA into secondary aggregate. This recycled product would be of suitable quality for use in a variety of construction situations, including sub-base for new roads and the manufacture of asphalt and concrete. The company already operates three recycling facilities: Edmonton (London), Castle Bromwich (Birmingham) and Billingham (North Teeside). C3.1 Item C3 Plant to process incinerator bottom ash into secondary aggregates for recycling, Ridham Dock – ref. SW/05/1203. C3.2 Item C3 Plant to process incinerator bottom ash into secondary aggregates for recycling, Ridham Dock – ref. SW/05/1203. C3.3 Item C3 Plant to process incinerator bottom ash into secondary aggregates for recycling, Ridham Dock – ref. SW/05/1203. C3.4 Item C3 Plant to process incinerator bottom ash into secondary aggregates for recycling, Ridham Dock – ref. SW/05/1203. C3.5 Item C3 Plant to process incinerator bottom ash into secondary aggregates for recycling, Ridham Dock – ref. SW/05/1203. 4. The application site currently includes one third of an existing building, the remainder of which would continue to be used by an established tenant. Ballast Phoenix proposes to demolish the end of the building and replace it with a building on new piles and a concrete base. The new building would be 47 metres long, 27 metres wide and 10.5 metres high, and would be of single ridged, steel frame construction with pale grey steel cladding. The external areas of the site would accommodate storage bays with concrete walls (to hold both incoming IBA material and recycled product), a site office, a weighbridge, water sprays, wheel wash, parking for employees and visitors. The site perimeter would be securely fenced. 5. The plant would process an estimated 50 tonnes of IBA per hour. The quality of incoming IBA material would be a contractual matter between WRG Kent Enviropower and Ballast Phoenix. Material that fell short of the contracted quality would be not be accepted. All re- processing activities would take place inside the proposed new building. A ‘trommel’ screen would be used to segregate the material according to size, and non-ferrous metals would be removed for re-use. Any wastes produced at the site (domestic wastes, sludges, oily residues, wastes from the production process) would be stored inside the building in containers or separate bays and removed from site by licenced contractors. The final aggregate product would be differentiated by size grading according to its intended uses. The facility would operate 0800-1800 hours Monday to Friday, with maintenance as required on Saturdays. Operations would only take place at other times in the event of an emergency. The facility would require 4-5 staff. 6. Access to the site would be via an unadopted road owned by the landlord and over which right of access has been granted in perpetuity to tenants. A public road is under construction that would in 2007 connect the Dock area, at a point just south of the site, to the public highway (A249 at its junction with the B2006). The applicant estimates that there would be an average of 40 HGV movements per day and a maximum of 60 movements per day associated with the operation. The vehicles used would typically have a 25 ton capacity and would be sheeted. 7. The application is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment, a Phase 1 Ecological Survey and a Contaminated Land Phase 1 Desk Study. Background 8. Ridham Dock accommodates a number of commercial and industrial enterprises. The land the subject of this application was used by Ridham Sea Terminals and then Lionhope for timber storage until 1998, when it was acquired by Brett Group for general storage and parking. The site immediately to the north of the application site, which uses the northern part of the building that covers both sites, has the benefit of a recent planning permission from the County Council for gypsum recycling (ref. SW/04/1442). 9. For information, the Allington Waste to Energy plant, which would constitute the source of the IBA waste requiring treatment, was permitted by the County Council in July 2000 (ref. MA/98/1212) and is due to become operational in June 2006. C3.6 Item C3 Plant to process incinerator bottom ash into secondary aggregates for recycling, Ridham Dock – ref. SW/05/1203. Planning Policy & other Material Planning Considerations 10. The following policy and guidance is particularly relevant for this application: National Planning Policy 11. The most relevant National Planning Policies are set out in PPS10 (Planning for Sustainable Waste Management), PPS23 (Planning and Pollution Control), PPG25 (Development and Flood Risk) and Waste Strategy 2000 (as amended). 12. PPS 10 suggests the following criteria for assessing development proposals/sites: (i) assess their suitability for development against each of the following criteria: - the extent to which they support the policies in this PPS; - the physical and environmental constraints on development; - the cumulative effect of previous waste disposal facilities on the well-being of the local community; - the capacity of existing and potential transport infrastructure to support the sustainable movement of waste, and products arising from resource recovery. (ii) give priority to the re-use of previously-developed land, and redundant agricultural and forestry buildings and their curtilages. 13. PPS23 states that “in considering individual planning applications, the potential for contamination to be present must be considered in relation to the existing use and circumstances of the land, the proposed new use and the possibility of encountering contamination during development. The local planning authority should satisfy itself that the potential for contamination and any risks arising are properly assessed and that the development incorporates any necessary remediation and subsequent management measures to deal with unacceptable risks, including those covered by Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990”. 14. PPG25 states that planning authorities should “ensure that flood risk is properly taken into account in the planning of developments to reduce the risk of flooding and the damage which floods cause”. There should be no reasonable options available in a lower-[flood]risk category, consistent with other sustainable development objectives. Planning authorities should address the problems which flooding can cause by [amongst other matters]: § recognising that susceptibility of land to flooding is a material planning consideration; § giving appropriate weight to information on flood-risk; § consulting the Environment Agency and other relevant organisations; and § applying the precautionary principle to decision-making so that risk is avoided where possible and managed elsewhere. Regional Planning Policy 15. The most relevant Regional Planning Policies are set out in RPG9 (South East England), the ‘Proposed Changes to the RPG for the South East – Waste and Minerals’, and the Draft South East Plan Part 1 – Core Regional Policies (July 2005). 16. Relevant policies in the ‘Proposed Changes to the RPG for the South East – Waste and Minerals’ including: W1, W3, W4, W5, W6, W7, W16 and W17. In particular, Policy W17 C3.7 Item C3 Plant to process incinerator bottom ash into secondary aggregates for recycling, Ridham Dock – ref. SW/05/1203. relates to the location of waste management facilities including the suitability potential new sites, which should be assessed on the basis of the following characteristics: § good accessibility from existing urban areas; § good transport connections including, where possible, rail or water; § compatible land uses; § capability of meeting a range of locally based environmental and amenity criteria.