to: planning & regulatory committee date: … and regulatory... · to: planning &...
TRANSCRIPT
Item 9
1
TO: PLANNING & REGULATORY COMMITTEE DATE: 19 October 2011
BY: PLANNING DEVELOPMENT CONTROL TEAM MANAGER
DISTRICT(S) RUNNYMEDE BOROUGH COUNCIL ELECTORAL DIVISION(S): Foxhills & Virginia Water Mr Few
PURPOSE: FOR DECISION GRID REF: 499839 166185
TITLE:
MINERALS AND WASTE APPLICATION RU10/0872
SUMMARY REPORT Trumps Farm, Kitsmead Lane, Longcross, Chertsey, Surrey The construction and operation of a) an anaerobic digestion facility and b) a wood drying and pelleting facility. The proposed development is for the use of approximately 2.6 ha of arable land on Trumps Farm, which is part of a larger agricultural holding comprising Trumps Farm and the adjoining Hersham Farm, covering an area of approximately 120 ha. Additionally approx. 600 m of existing trackway would be required for access from Kitsmead Lane to the west. The proposed site is south of the M3 motorway and Trumps Farm Landfill (restored), approximately 3.8km west of Chertsey. The proposed development consists of an anaerobic digestion (AD) facility, which will process up to a maximum of 48,500 tonnes of biodegradable organic waste (e.g. food waste) per annum, serving primarily the north of Surrey. AD is a natural biological process, which converts organic matter such as household food and garden waste, farm slurry, waste from food processing plants and supermarkets, into energy. The site would provide for mainly the commercial waste stream and waste would be delivered to the site in both refuse collection vehicles (RCVs) and bulkers, from various sectors, e.g. restaurants, schools, hospitals, supermarkets and food production companies. In addition, a wood drying and pelleting facility is proposed, which would process approximately 5,000 – 10,000 tonnes of wood waste, sourced from local landscapers and highway maintenance. The new built development will comprise two main buildings (up to 13m in height), various tanks (up to 13.5m in height) and associated infrastructure, covering an area of approx. 140m x 140m (19,600 m2). The AD plant would produce biogas, which is fed into 3 gas engines (16m in height), which power a generator unit to produce electricity (2 MW). This electricity would be transmitted directly into the National Grid via a high voltage connection. Heat is also generated, some which will be used in the AD process, but the remainder would provide a heat source for drying out the waste wood, for the pelleting facility. The AD also produces digestate (nutrient-rich substance), which would be used in place of conventional agricultural fertiliser, some of which may be used on the Trumps Farm holdings, with the remainder transported by tanker to other farmland. The site lies in the Metropolitan Green Belt where there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. The proposal is inappropriate development and therefore the application falls to be considered as a departure from the provisions of the Development Plan. Issues to be considered in determining this application are whether there are factors which amount to very special circumstances, which clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt that
Item 9
2
would be caused by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm. The proposal must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan Policy unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise, and the development should be capable of being operated without unacceptable harm to local environmental and amenity interests. The applicant has stated that whilst the location of the proposed AD facility is contrary to some of the principles within the Development Plan, AD facilities have special locational requirements and as such require different considerations to be taken into account compared to other waste developments. The applicant has put forward reasons why the site at Trumps Farm is ideally located to support an AD facility, which includes: existing transport connections, provision of some feedstock, make use of some of the digestate, relatively remote from sensitive receptors, well screened, energy recovery and local grid connection, and next to a green waste compost site (co-location for shared imports). The applicant carried out an assessment of alternative sites (ASA) in accordance with the requirements of Green Belt policy, and concluded that although several sites were considered equally acceptable for such development, none provided a better site in terms of all the locational requirements. The applicant has put forward a number of considerations that they believe constitute very special circumstances, which include the need for the development and the above locational characteristics. Runnymede Borough Council (RuBC) Officers have recommended an objection on Green Belt grounds, as they consider that the proposed development is inappropriate on an undeveloped site and would be contrary to the Surrey Waste Plan 2008 and the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001. In addition RuBC Officers consider that the applicant has not demonstrated very special circumstances to allow inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Officers consider that there is an acknowledged need for facilities capable of processing food waste (both commercial and household) within Surrey. The applicant has focussed on providing a facility in the north of the county, based on the amount of commercial waste arisings, and are not looking at providing a facility for all of Surrey‟s commercial food waste. Officers have assessed the applicant‟s arguments in respect of need, together with the submitted ASA, and are satisfied that there is adequate justification for the use of this particular location for the processing of food waste through anaerobic digestion, and wood waste through drying and pelleting. The suitability of the application site for waste development and potential impact of the proposal in terms of: highways (traffic and access); air quality (including dust and odour), landscape and visual impact; noise; drainage; ecology; rights of way and archaeology have been considered in the report. These are matters that could justify the refusal of planning permission outright or amount or contribute to „any other harm‟ in relation to assessment of the application against Green Belt policy. However, Officers consider that the above impacts have been suitably mitigated by design or can be controlled by the imposition of planning conditions. Officers consider this to be a suitable location for the application proposal when considered against the locational criteria in the South East Plan 2009 (SEP 2009), subject to very special circumstances being demonstrated in accordance with the provisions of Policy CW6 (Development in the Green Belt) of the SWP 2008. The proposed development will nonetheless cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt and conflicts with one of the purposes of including land in the Green Belt in terms of encroachment on the open countryside. Anaerobic digestion has a number of advantages, including energy generation - displacing the use of fossil fuels and environmental benefits - greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. However, Officers consider that the applicant has demonstrated that that very special circumstances exist that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness and other harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore, an exception to Green Belt policy in PPG2, the South East Plan May 2009, and Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 can and should be made and planning permission be granted subject to conditions. The recommendation is to PERMIT subject to conditions and the application being referred to the Secretary of State as a departure.
Item 9
3
APPLICATION DETAILS Applicant Agrivert Ltd Date application valid 9 September 2010 Period for Determination 9 December 2010 (extension agreed) Amending Documents Email dated 3 December 2010 with attached Drawing No. 0922.4 Rev A - Indicative Planting Email dated 7 December 2010 with attached Drawing No. 0922.8 – Zone of Visual Influence Email dated 1 February 2011 with attached Drawing Nos. TRU001-AD10.001-P600 (Development Below Ground Level) and TRU001-AD10.001-P700 (Development Below Ground Level –Sections) Letter dated 13 January 2011 and attached Archaeological Desk Based Assessment (TFC10/127) Email dated 17 January 2011 with attached revised Alternative Site Assessment (December 2010) Email dated 7 February 2011 with attached Food Waste Availability Report (dated 4 Feb 2011) Email dated 22 February with details requested by the Environment Agency Email dated 1 March 2011 with attached highways information (ATC Survey) Email dated 31 March 2011 with attached Noise Assessment (REC Report: 90005 dated 31 March 2011) Email dated 1 April 2011 with attached Dust Impact Assessment (REC Report 71312p2r0 dated 25 March 2011) Email dated 7 April 2011 with attached revised Need Assessment (April 2011) and Assessment of Alternative Sites (April 2011) Email dated 11 April 2011 with additional information on noise assessment Email dated 12 April 2011 with attached Air Quality Assessment (REC Report 71312p3r0 dated 11 April 2011) Email dated 18 April 2011 with attached Noise Impact Assessment (REC Report 90005 dated 13 April 2011) Email dated 19 April 2011 with attached Transport Statement Addendum (April 2011) Email dated 16 June 2011 with attached revised Need Assessment (June 2011) and Alternative Site Assessment (SLR ref. 409-02367-00007 June 2011) Email dated 4 August 2011 with the following additional information attached:
Alternative Sites Assessment, SLR Consulting, dated August 2011 (replacing those dated August 2010, December 2010, April 2011 and June 2011)
Air Quality Impact Assessment Addendum, REC, dated 4 August 2011 (to be read in conjunction with that dated 11 April 2011)
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Amanda Hopwood Landscape Consultancy, dated 2 August 2011 (to be read in conjunction with that dated 10 August 2010 and the Landscape response, 3 Dec 2010, Indicative Planting and Zone of Visual Influence, Dec 2010.
Wood Chip and Pelleting Operation: Case of Need, August 2011
Planning Application Addendum, dated August 2011 (to be read in conjunction with the original application dated 27 August 2010)
Site Layout Plan - TRU001-AD10.001-P300 rev 2 (to replace rev 1 dated July 2010)
Item 9
4
Elevation Plan – TRU001-AD10.001-P500 rev 1 (to replace rev 0 dated August 2010) SUMMARY OF PLANNING ISSUES This section identifies and summarises the main planning issues in the report. The full text should be considered before the meeting.
Is this aspect of the proposal in accordance with the development
plan?
Paragraphs in the report where this has been
discussed
Waste Management Issues:
Need
Alternative Site Assessment
Yes
36 – 73
Renewable Energy and Climate Change
Yes 74 – 108
Highways, Traffic and Access Yes 109 – 117
Air Quality - Dust & Odour Yes 123 – 140
Landscape and Visual Amenity Yes 141 – 149
Rights of Way Yes 150 – 151
Noise Yes 152 – 156
Surface Water, Flood Risk and Groundwater
Yes 157 – 165
Ecology Yes 166 – 170
Archaeology Yes 171 – 174
Green Belt No 175 – 207
ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL Site Plan Plan 1 Aerial Photographs Aerial 1 & 2 Site Photographs Figure 1: View looking NW of site access off Kitsmead Lane Figure 2: View looking NE of access route past entrance to adjacent composting facility Figure 3: View looking SE of proposed site entrance, composting facility on raised area to right Figure 4: View looking NE of proposed site area from composting facility Figure 5: View looking E of proposed site area from composting facility Figure 6: AD facility – site layout Figure 7: AD facility - elevations Figure 8: AD 3D Model
Item 9
5
BACKGROUND Site Description 1 Trumps Farm is situated on the south side of the M3 motorway and the former Trumps
Farm landfill site and to the north of Longcross Road, in an area known as Longcross. It is bounded on the west by Kitsmead Lane and by other farmland to the east. The site lies approximately 1.5km south of Virginia Water station and 3.8km west of Chertsey. The agricultural holding, which comprises Trumps Farm and the adjoining Hersham Farm, has a total area of approximately 120 ha. The main access to the overall site is from Kitsmead Lane with a secondary, but width restricted, access from Longcross Road via Hersham Farm. The application site is approximately 3ha, which includes the access road from Kitsmead Lane. The nearest receptors to the operational area are approx 210m and 280m to the northeast, which are the properties of Trumps Farm. Other receptors include: Hersham Farm (and business units) to the southeast at 360m, Fairview Farm to the northeast at 520m and Chevythorn on Kitsmead Lane approximately 550m to the southwest (although Chevythorn is approx. 125m from the internal access road). Crest Nicholson own the former DERA site, which lies on the west side of Kitsmead Lane, opposite the entrance to Trumps Farm. The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt.
Planning History 2 In 2001 Runnymede Borough Council granted planning permission (Ref: RU01/0573) for
the use of some 3ha of Trumps Farm for the auction of agricultural equipment. In 2002 and 2003 the redundant farm buildings associated with Hersham Farm were granted planning permission for their change of use to offices (Refs: RU02/0758, RU02/0121 and RU03/0546). In 2003 planning permission was granted for the formation of a new access to Kitsmead Lane (Refs: RU02/1354 and RU03/0070). In October 2004, planning permission (Ref: RU 04/0726) was granted by the County Council for the agricultural improvement of three fields, which allowed for the importation of inert soils to improve drainage and the ploughing in of a thin layer of imported green waste compost. An extension of time was granted for this land improvement in October 2006 until 1 November 2008 (Ref: RU06/0852), and again in September 2007 until 1 November 2009 (Ref: RU07/0717).
3 In August 2008 planning permission (Ref: RU08/0556) was granted for the importation of
green waste for shredding and composting in eco-pods and soils for screening, both for use on the farms in association with an organic farming project. Two new planning applications (Refs: RU09/0543 and RU09/0555), which involved changes to the original eco-pods proposal and provided for a small increase in the site area were permitted on 14 September 2009, replacing the earlier 2008 permission. Details pursuant to the above 2009 permissions in respect of a weighbridge, store, control room, boundary walls, stockpiles; lorry turning and parking spaces; facility to keep the highway clean; surface water drainage; foul sewage disposal; and, a local biodiversity improvement scheme were approved (Ref: RU09/1077) on 8 June 2010. An odour management plan (Ref: RU10/0486) pursuant to the above eco-pod permissions was later approved on 8 November 2010.
THE PROPOSAL 4 The proposed development consists of:
a) An anaerobic digestion (AD) facility, which will process approximately 48,500 tonnes of biodegradable organic waste per annum, and
Item 9
6
b) A wood drying and pelleting facility, which will process approximately 5,000 – 10,000 tonnes of wood waste.
5 The built development will comprise three digestion and two storage tanks, a waste
reception building, site office and welfare facilities, biofilter, weighbridge, gas engine units – with 16m flues /stacks, transformer, accelerator tank, energy crop storage area and feeder, access roads, a car parking area, a wood chip dryer and ancillary plant. The five digestion and storage tanks will be cylindrical in shape up to a height of 8m, from which point they will rise in a conical fashion up to a height of 13.5m. The tanks are approximately 28m in diameter. The reception building will measure approximately 36m by 32.5m with a ridge height of approximately 13m. The wood chip building will be approximately 40m by 25m, with a ridge height of approximately 7m.
The AD process
6 Biodegradable solid waste will be delivered to the site in both refuse collection vehicles (RCVs) and bulkers from mainly the Commercial and Industrial waste stream, i.e. restaurants, schools, hospitals, supermarkets and food production companies. Liquid waste would arrive in tankers. All waste is pre-treated within the reception building, which involves reducing the particle size and mixing with liquids, before being pasteurised (as required by ABPR, Animal By-Product Regulations) and pumped into the digesters. The treated waste remains within the digesters for between 50 and 70 days, where it is gently heated and stirred to encourage the digestion process and biogas production. An energy crop (silage) used as a balancing feedstock would need to be imported (up to 14,550 tonnes per annum) and stored on site, some of which would be sourced from land within the agricultural holding of Trumps Farm. The biogas is stored in the void above the digestion mass, and sealed by a twin membrane roof. The biogas is fed into gas engines, which power a generator unit to produce electricity. This electricity is transmitted directly into the National Grid via a high voltage connection. It will produce approx. 2 megawatts (MW) of renewable energy, which is the equivalent power for 4,200 households. The digestate is pumped into sealed tankers and transported to the point of use, as a nutrient contributor for growing the energy crops feeding the digester and as a conventional agricultural fertiliser. Whilst some of the digestate may be used on the farm, the remainder will need to be transported to other farms, which the applicant has contacted within the locality.
Wood Drying and Pelleting Facility
7 Waste wood products will be imported to site mainly in vans and small HGVs from sources such as highway maintenance and landscape gardeners. The material will be deposited inside the wood chip building, where it will be chipped if necessary and then transported to the dryer using a loading shovel. It will be deposited into a hopper, which feeds onto a drying surface. Heat produced in the AD process is blown through the product to promote drying. It will then be passed into a pelleting machine, which grinds and compacts the material to produce homogenous pellets. The pellets will then be exported for use as a sustainable fuel in biomass boilers.
Hours of Operation
8 The AD process, once initiated, will process continuously i.e. 24 hours a day, however waste will only be delivered between the hours of 0700 and 1800 Monday to Friday, 0700 to 1600 on Saturday and 0800 to 1400 on Sundays and Bank Holidays. The applicant has stated that these hours of delivery are required to enable Waste Collection Authorities and private contractors to deliver waste collected each working day and to catch up over Bank Holidays.
Traffic and Access
9 The development will be accessed from Kitsmead Lane, which runs between the B386 Longcross Road to the south and Chobham Lane to the north. The proposed AD development could result in up to 24 RCV movements, 10 bulker movements, 8 tractor/trailer movements, 18 tanker movements and 4 staff movements per day,
Item 9
7
resulting in 60 HGV/tractor movements and 4 car/van movements per day. The wood chip operation is anticipated to generate approximately 10 vans or small HGVs (up to 3.5 tonnes) per day resulting in 20 movements. The pellets would be collected from site in a HGV twice per week, resulting in 2 movements on any given day. Therefore, the proposed development would generate a maximum of 82 HGV movements per day.
External Lighting
10 In order to ensure a safe working environment, external lighting will be required on the reception building, wood chip building, office and tanks for use during low light levels in the winter months. The lighting shall only be used during permitted operational hours or if necessary during maintenance or emergency work. All external lights will be fitted with hoods and directed towards operational areas to minimise light spill and subsequent disturbance outside of the site boundaries.
Surface Water Management
11 The facility provides a completely sealed liquid management system. All incoming wastes are immediately captured in the reception tanks and bunkers. Following reception the whole process is totally enclosed and no liquids leave the plant other than the treated digestate destined as liquid fertiliser, which is collected and transported in sealed tankers. A surface water drainage scheme will be provided at the detailed design stage.
CONSULTATIONS AND PUBLICITY District Council 12 Runnymede Borough Council recommended an objection to the proposed development
for the following reasons:
1) The proposed inappropriate development is on an undeveloped site within the Green Belt and its use for waste related development would be contrary to Policy CW5 of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008 and would have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt contrary to Policy GB1 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.
2) The applicants have failed to demonstrate very special circumstances to allow
inappropriate development within the Green Belt either that there is sufficient local need for the facility, nor that there are not more appropriately located sites for the proposed facility. As such, the development would be contrary to Policies CW6 of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008 and GB1 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.
Consultees (Statutory and Non-Statutory) 13 The Environment Agency No objection subject to a condition in respect of surface water drainage. An
Environmental Permit would be needed for the AD facility and no waste is to be received on site until this permit is in place, which would require an odour management plan.
14 Natural England
No objection. Subject to adequate monitoring, the proposal would not likely to have a significant effect on the Thames Basin Heath SPA and permission may be granted under the terms of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations.
15 Thames Water No objection
Item 9
8
16 Veolia Water No objection
17 Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT)
No objection. The SWT made the following comments: satisfactory control mechanisms to prevent any adverse impact on the Thames Basin Heath SPA, exterior lighting kept to a minimum to prevent light splay for the protection of bats and support the recommended bat survey and ecological enhancements.
18 County Highway Authority (CHA)
No objection. The CHA has stated that the highway network is adequate to accommodate the likely traffic generation of the proposal. The CHA initially objected to the development in respect of the adequacy of the alternative site assessment, however, the CHA accepts the Planning Officer‟s view that the proposal is acceptable in policy terms when considered in the broader context (see para. 70).
19 County Air Quality Consultants (CAQC) No objection. The CAQC were satisfied with the Air Quality Assesment and the Dust Impact Assessment, with a recommendation for a suitable Dust Action Plan (DAP) to be submitted. The DAP should set out the mitigation meaures that will be deployed on the site, and be the subject of a condition prior to any works commencing on site.
20 County Noise Consultant (CNC)
No objection, subject to appropriate noise conditions. 21 County Ecologist
No objection. Agree with SWT in respect of the ecological recommendations (bat survey, vegetation removal and nesting birds), which can be covered by way of condition.
22 County Landscape Officer
No objection. 23 Countryside (Rights of Way)
No objection. 24 County Archaeologist
No objection subject to a standard condition securing the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation.
25 County Environmental Assessment
On 30 September 2010 a Screening Opinion under Regulation 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England & Wales) Regulations 1999 was issued by the County Planning Authority, recommending that the proposed development does not constitute EIA development.
26 County Waste Management Division
No objection. Parish/Town Council and Amenity Groups 27 The Chobham Society
Objection. The following points were made:
1. As the digester site is not primarily for local use, it could be located anywhere in the region on less sensitive urban or industrial land.
Item 9
9
2. The vehicle traffic from the digester plant will add to the already overcrowded local roads, and as the traffic will come from further afield this will be to the detriment of the local residents, villages and Chobham Common (SPA).
3. The site is in Green Belt land and it is not worth compromising Green Belt principles for an industrial development that should demonstrate its „Green Credentials‟ by being located with consideration for travel links and proximity to customers and to minimise its impact on the Green Belt and our precious Common.
4. Concern over use of non-local waste to generate electricity and claim Government‟s „feed-in tariff‟, and future increase in size of plant to increase operator profits, increasing traffic and impact on openness of Green Belt.
5. Concerned over additional traffic impact from the redevelopment of the former DERA site, which has not been taken into account.
28 The Ottershaw Society
Objection. The following points were made:
1. No restriction on waste from anywhere in the country. 2. As the site is not just for local use, it could be located anywhere in the region on
more sustainable urban/industrial land. 3. The use of sensitive Green Belt land in this area is therefore not acceptable. 4. Odour impacts on the local residents from a high level of unpleasant rotting silage. 5. Concerns on plans to increase the size of the facility, thereby increasing traffic and
impact on openness of the Green Belt. 6. The proposed site is on part of the former Trumps Farm landfill, which was to be
restored for agricultural use. Proposed development does not comply with the restoration.
7. The buildings do affect the openness of the whole area of this Green Belt, and it is not about visibility as claimed by the applicant.
8. Concern over the number of lorry movements, when added to the traffic impacts for the potential DERA site redevelopment.
9. No limit on the future capacity of the site.
(Officer‟s Note in respect of point 6, the site is adjacent to the former Trumps Farm Landfill and is not part of the landfill site).
Summary of publicity undertaken and key issues raised by public 29 The application was publicised by the posting of 2 site notices and an advert was placed
in the local newspaper. A total of 34 owner/occupiers of neighbouring properties were directly notified by letter. A total of 6 letters of representation have been received objecting to the proposed development. 1 letter of representation from a commercial operator that would utilise such a facility was in support of the application. The issues raised by the letters of objection were as follows:
a) Development on Green Belt sites should only be permitted where „very special
circumstances‟ exist b) Inappropriate development, which is clearly harmful to the openness of the Green
Belt and contrary to National and Surrey Policy c) Too close to Chobham Common SPA d) Already proposed AD facility for Charlton Lane, Shepperton e) Fails the test of being close to strategic highway network f) Account must be taken of the cumulative impacts of the existing HGV movements
and proposed development in local area g) Highway network inadequate to absorb the extra HGV movements and would be
dangerous and lead to more accidents h) Hours of operation, which includes weekend and bank holidays is totally
unacceptable i) No impact study on the total greenhouse gas emissions
Item 9
10
j) No guarantees that air and ground pollution will occur k) Kitsmead Lane is part of the Surrey cycle route and is regularly used by cycling clubs
at the weekends l) Industrial process sourcing food waste which is not local m) Better placed on an industrial location n) Silage odours from site o) No limit on the future capacity of the site p) Industrial processing facility, using waste to generate electricity but it is not serving
the interest of the local community in that it will use waste from anywhere q) Storage of digestate
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Introduction 30 The County Council as Waste Planning Authority (for clarity, Officers refer to the County
Council as the County Planning Authority – „CPA‟ elsewhere in this report) has a duty under Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to determine this application in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. At present in relation to this application the Development Plan consists of the South East Plan 2009 (SEP 2009), which is the adopted Regional Strategy (RS) for the South East region; the Surrey Waste Local Plan 2008 (SWP 2008), as amended; Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 („Saved‟ Policies and Proposals as at 28 September 2007, September 2007 document) (RBLP 2001).
31 In May 2010 the Government announced its intention, through the Localism Bill, to abolish Regional Strategies (RSs) (i.e. the SEP 2009), which would mean that the South East Plan would no longer form part of the Development Plan. By letter dated 6 July 2010 the Secretary of State revoked RSs. That decision was subsequently challenged by Cala Homes and quashed by the High Court on 10 November 2010, whereupon Government advised local authorities to continue to attach considerable weight to its intention to abolish RSs. That advice was, in turn, challenged by Cala Homes on the ground that the Government‟s intended revocation of RSs is legally immaterial to the determination of planning applications. On 7 February 2011 the High Court rejected Cala Homes‟ challenge to the ministerial advice, and dismissed the argument that the intention to abolish regional strategies was not capable of being a material consideration. The High Court concluded that the Government‟s letter dated 27th May 2010 and subsequent November 2010 statement were lawful and that the weight to be attached to the SEP 2009 is, in light of the intention to abolish RSs, a matter for planning authorities to decide. On 27 May 2011, the Court of Appeal rejected an appeal by Cala Homes.
32 The Localism Bill was introduced to Parliament on 13 December 2010 (including
provision for the abolition of RSs) and is programmed to receive Royal Assent in November 2011 and come into force in April 2012. Addressing themselves to these matters in light of the Cala Homes second challenge, Officers do not consider that the issue of weight attributable to the RS is of significance in respect of this particular application because there do not appear to be any conflicts between the SEP and relevant national planning policy and the SWP 2008 in particular; and they have therefore proceeded to report simply on the basis of the development plan as it stands, i.e. including the 2009 SEP.
33 In determining the application the CPA should also have regard to any relevant
European (EU) Directives and National Policy, relevant Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGS), Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and any other material considerations. A consultation draft of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 25 July 2011 which sets out the Government's key economic, social and environmental objectives and which is intended to bring together PPSs and PPGs. Whilst it is a consultation document
Item 9
11
and is therefore subject to potential amendment, it does give a clear indication of the Government's direction in planning policy and therefore is capable of being a material consideration, although the weight to be given to it will be a matter for the decision maker's judgment. The current policy statements and guidance remain in place until cancelled. One such material consideration is the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS, 2010 Review), produced by Surrey County Council in conjunction with the 11 boroughs and districts, which sets out a 20 year plan for the future of waste management in the County covering the period until the year 2026.
Anaerobic Digestion (AD)
34 Anaerobic Digestion (AD) is a biological process whereby plant and animal material
(biomass) is converted into useful products by micro-organisms in the absence of air. Biomass is put inside sealed tanks and naturally occurring micro-organisms digest it, releasing gases (biogas) that can be used to provide clean renewable energy. This means that AD can help reduce fossil fuel use and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The products of AD are referred to as biogas and digestate. Biogas is a mixture of 60% methane, 40% carbon dioxide and traces of other contaminant gases. Biogas can be combusted (to provide heat, electricity or both) or cleaned up (and the pure methane injected into the mains gas grid or used as a road fuel). Digestate is made up of left-over indigestible material and dead micro-organisms. It contains valuable plant nutrients like nitrogen and potassium and can be used as a fertiliser and soil conditioner.
35 AD is not a new technology - it has actually been used in the UK since the 1800s - and
there are a growing number of AD plants in the UK processing waste and producing energy. Almost any biomass can be processed in AD, including food waste, energy crops, crop residues, slurry and manure. AD can accept waste from homes, supermarkets, industry and farms, and reduces waste going to landfill. The Government is encouraging the uptake of AD development as it has significant potential to contribute to the UK‟s climate change and wider environmental objectives. The diversion of biodegradable wastes to anaerobic digestion can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from landfill. For example, if digested, rather than sent to landfill, capturing the biogas from one tonne of food waste will save between 0.5 and 1 tonne of CO2 equivalent.
PLANNING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUES
South East Plan 2009 Policy W3 Regional Self-Sufficiency Policy W4 Sub-regional Self-Sufficiency Policy W5 Targets for Diversion from Landfill Policy W6 Recycling and Composting Targets Policy W7 Waste Management Capacity Requirements Policy W12 Other Recovery and Diversion Technologies Policy W17 Location of Waste Management Facilities Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy CW4 Waste Management Capacity Policy CW5 Location of Waste Facilities Policy CW6 Development in the Green Belt Policy WD2 Recycling, Storage, Transfer, Materials Recovery and Processing Facilities (Excluding Thermal Treatment) Policy DC3 General Considerations
European, National, Regional and Development Plan Context 36 The European Union‟s objectives for dealing with waste are reflected in the Revised
Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC (WFD), which provides the overarching legislative framework for the collection, transport, recovery and disposal of waste. The WFD requires all Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is
Item 9
12
recovered or disposed of without endangering human health or causing harm to the environment and includes permitting, registration and inspection requirements. The WFD also requires Member States to take appropriate measures to encourage firstly, the prevention or reduction of waste production and its harmfulness and secondly the recovery of waste by means of recycling, re-use or reclamation or any other process with a view to extracting secondary raw materials, or the use of waste as a source of energy.
37 The WFD has been revised in order to modernise and streamline its provisions aimed at
encouraging re-use and recycling of waste as well as simplifying current legislation. By promoting the use of waste as a secondary resource, the new directive is intended to reduce the landfill of waste as well as potent greenhouse gases arising from such landfill sites. The WFD sets out the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity, stating that Member States shall take appropriate measures to establish an integrated and adequate network of waste disposal and recovery installations. The network shall enable waste to be disposed of or waste to be recovered in one of the nearest appropriate installations, by means of the most appropriate methods and technologies, in order to ensure a high level of protection for the environment and public health.
38 The Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC, which was adopted by the European Union in 1999, is
beginning to drastically change the way the United Kingdom (UK) handles waste. The Directive was brought into force in the UK on 15 June 2002 as the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002. The Directive requires an increasing amount of biodegradable municipal waste to be either pre-treated or managed by methods other than landfill. Targets have been set for the diversion of biodegradable municipal waste from landfill, which are 75% of that landfilled in 1995 by 2010 (i.e. maximum of 11.2 million tonnes – UK Government confirmed that these targets were met), 50% of that landfilled in 19 5 by 2013 (7.4 million tonnes) and 35% of that landfilled in 1995 by 2020 (5.2 million tonnes). Targets have also been set for commercial waste with landfill being the last resort for biodegradable waste. The landfill tax will remain the key driver to divert waste from landfill and remains necessary to ensure we meet key EU targets in 2020, however to achieve the EU objectives the Government has adopted the Waste Strategy for England 2007 (WS 2007) and Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management – July 2005 (PPS10).
39 The Government‟s overall objective for waste policy is “to protect human health and the
environment by producing less waste and by using it as a resource wherever possible. Through more sustainable waste management, moving waste up the waste hierarchy of reduction, re-use, recycling and composting, using waste as a source of energy, and only disposing as a last resort the Government aims to break the link between economic growth and the environmental impact of waste”. (PPS10, para 1, taken from Securing the Future – UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy, 2005, and reiterated in similar form in Box 1.5 of WS 2007). The regulatory framework plays a crucial role in ensuring sound environmental and public health protection. It can also provide the right context for encouraging resource efficiency by business within a competitive environment.
40 PPS10 does not refer in explicit terms to a „proximity principle‟ or „self-sufficiency‟. It
refers instead, in proximity terms, to policies that „enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations‟ (reflecting WFD Article 16(3)); and Officers have considered whether the proposal would achieve this below. They have also considered below the achievement of sub-regional or county net self-sufficiency in accordance with the SEP 2009, SWP 2008 and the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy Review (September 2010)(the JMWMS).
41 PPS10 provides advice to local authorities on the decision-making principles, identifying
suitable sites and areas and the approach to determining planning applications for waste development. In relation to identifying sites and areas paragraphs 20 and 21 of PPS10 state that:
Item 9
13
“In searching for sites and areas suitable for new or enhanced waste management facilities, waste planning authorities should consider:
opportunities for on-site management of waste where it arises;
a broad range of locations including industrial sites, looking for opportunities to co-locate facilities together and with complementary activities.
In deciding which sites and areas to identify for waste management facilities, waste planning authorities should:
(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, including existing and proposed neighbouring land uses;
the cumulative effect of previous waste disposal facilities on the well-being of the local community, including any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality, social cohesion and inclusion or economic potential;
the capacity of existing and potential transport infrastructure to support the sustainable movement of waste, and products arising from resource recovery, seeking when practicable and beneficial to use modes other than road transport.
(ii) give priority to the re-use of previously-developed land, and redundant agricultural
and forestry buildings and their curtilages”.
Annex E (PPS10) provides the factors to consider in terms of location when testing the suitability of sites and areas set out above.
42 PPS10 and WS2007 both recognise that Green Belts should be protected but that the
particular locational needs of some types of waste management facilities, together with the wider economic and environmental benefits of sustainable waste management, are material considerations that should be given considerable weight in determining planning applications for waste development proposed in the Green Belt.
43 As part of the Government‟s commitment towards a „zero waste‟ agenda, the
Government has reviewed all aspects of waste policy and delivery in England (the „Waste Review‟). The Waste Review‟s findings were published on 14 June 2011, alongside a series of documents including an Action Plan for the future and an Anaerobic Digestion Strategy. The Waste Review includes various commitments to ensure that the UK meets or exceeds its EU obligations and targets on waste management. Of relevance are: prioritise efforts to manage waste in line with the waste hierarchy and reduce the carbon impact of waste; develop a range of measures to encourage waste prevention and reuse, support greater resource efficiency; increase recycling, and improve the overall quality of recyclate material; support energy from waste where appropriate, and for waste which cannot be recycled; work to overcome the barriers to increasing the energy from waste which Anaerobic Digestion provides.
44 The Waste Review has been guided by the „waste hierarchy‟, places heavy emphasis on
the prevention of waste and recycling and the inter-relationship between policy on waste and climate change, and confirms that Government will continue to measure success against EU targets for the avoidance of landfill, recycling and recovery (confirmed as minima if a zero waste society is to be achieved in the medium term). The Government
Item 9
14
proposes to end the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) and consult local authorities on options for the future of the statutory duty to produce Joint Waste Management Strategies (JMWMS).
45 It is part of the Government‟s vision that food waste should be recognised as a valuable
resource, with its evidence base showing that of the main options for its treatment anaerobic digestion (AD) offers the greatest environmental benefit. It confirms that AD offers a positive solution to food waste. The Government aims to get the most energy out of waste (not the most waste into energy recovery), and undertakes – whilst remaining neutral as to technology at the national policy level – to identify and communicate the full range of recovery technologies available, and their relative merits and publish a guide to the full range of energy from waste technologies in order to inform local decision-making. The Waste Review records that it is clearly wrong that so much material is still sent to landfill. In 2010 DEFRA published a survey of commercial and industrial waste arisings in 8 English Regions for 2009, which identified that England generates some 3.7 million tonnes of animal and vegetable waste, with 313,000 tonnes within the South East.
46 The Government‟s ambition is to have appropriate waste reprocessing and treatment
infrastructure constructed and operated effectively at all levels of the waste hierarchy. The Localism Bill (yet to be enacted) will introduce a duty to co-operate for local authorities, which will help to ensure that opportunities to explore trans-boundary options are not missed (there being no requirement for individual authorities to be self-sufficient and transporting waste to existing infrastructure to deliver the best environmental solution not being considered a barrier).
47 In line with national policy on waste the South East Plan 2009 (SEP 2009) adopts a
resource management approach to waste reflecting the waste hierarchy of reduction, re-use, recycling and recovery of value before disposal is considered and working towards the concept of zero waste. The SEP 2009 sets targets for recycling and recovery and contains policies, the aim of which is to reduce waste growth and minimise the production of waste. The relevant polices from the SEP 2009 are Policy W3 - Regional Self Sufficiency; Policy W4 - Sub-Regional Self Sufficiency; Policy W5 - Targets for Diversion from Landfill; Policy W6 - Recycling and Composting; Policy W7 - Waste Management Capacity Requirements; Policy W12 – Other Recovery and Diversion Technologies; and Policy W17 – Location of Waste Management Facilities.
48 Policy W4 (Sub-Regional Self Sufficiency) provides that, subject to a degree of flexibility,
waste planning authorities shall plan for net self-sufficiency through provision for management capacity equivalent to the amount of waste arising and requiring management within their boundaries; and this provides the context for SWP 2008 Policy CW4 referred to below. In recognition that there needs to be a substantial increase in recovery of waste and relative reduction in landfill in the region, Policy W5 (Targets for Diversion from Landfill), sets regional targets for diversion from all types of waste and requires waste planning authorities to put policies and proposal in place to achieve delivery of the targets; and Policy W6 Recycling and Composting provides targets for those activities that are a component of the landfill diversion targets. Waste planning authorities are required to ensure that policies and proposals are in place to deliver these targets.
49 Policy W7 (Waste Management Capacity Requirements) identifies an urgent need for a
wide range of new waste management facilities in permanent locations and states that waste planning authorities will provide for an appropriate mix of development opportunities to support the waste management facilities required to achieve the targets in the strategy and gives annual rates of municipal and commercial and industrial waste to be managed in each waste planning authority area. Policy W7 goes on to state that in bringing forward and safeguarding sites for waste management facilities, consideration should be given to the type, size and mix of facilities that will be required taking into account those activities requiring open sites, those of an industrial nature requiring
Item 9
15
enclosed premises and a hybrid of the two. The supporting text states that there needs to be a rapid increase in management capacity and mixture of facilities.
50 The table within Policy W7 gives the average tonnages of municipal solid waste (MSW)
and Commercial and Industrial Waste (C & I) to be managed each year. Surrey‟s C&I figure is 830,000 tonnes for 2008 to 2010, 903,000 tonnes for 2011 to 2015, 982,000 tonnes for 2016 to 2020 and 1,042,000 tonnes for 2021 to 2025.
51 Policy W12 (Other Recovery and Diversion Technologies) provides that the regional
planning body, SEEDA, the Environment Agency and regional partners will promote and encourage the development of anaerobic digestion and advanced recovery technologies that will be expected to make a growing contribution to the delivery of waste and renewable energy targets. In respect of the location of waste management facilities Policy W17 (Location of Waste Management Facilities) states that in identifying locations for waste management facilities waste development plan documents should ensure that priority is given to safeguarding and expanding suitable sites with existing waste management use and good transport links. The policy sets a series of criteria by which the suitability of new and existing sites should be assessed including good accessibility from existing urban areas, good transport connections; and compatible land uses such as previous or existing industrial land, redundant farm buildings or contaminated or derelict land. The policy also states that waste management facilities should not be precluded from the Green Belt.
52 Surrey Waste Plan 2008 (SWP 2008) Policy CW4 (Waste Management Capacity) states
that planning permissions will be granted to enable sufficient waste management capacity to be provided to manage the equivalent of waste arising in Surrey with a contribution to meeting the declining landfill needs of residual wastes arising in and exported from London; and to achieve the regional targets for recycling, recovery and diversion from landfill by ensuring a range of facilities is permitted.
53 SWP 2008 Core Strategy policies establish sequential principles for the location of waste
management facilities and an approach for development in the Green Belt. Policy CW5 (Location of Waste Facilities) sets out as follows principles for considering the location of waste facilities when allocating sites in development plan documents or considering proposals on unallocated sites:
“(i) priority will be given to industrial / employment sites, particularly those in urban areas, and to any other suitable urban sites and then to sites close to urban areas and to sites easily accessible by the strategic road network; (ii) priority will be given over greenfield land to previously developed land, contaminated, derelict or disturbed land, redundant agricultural buildings and their curtilages, mineral workings and land in waste management use; (iii) Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Areas of Great Landscape Value, and sites with or close to international and national nature conservation designations should be avoided; and (iv) the larger the scale of development and traffic generation, the more important is a location well served by the strategic road network or accessible by alternative means of transport”
54 SWP 2008 Policy CW6 (Development in the Green Belt) “seeks to ensure that the Green
Belt serves its proper purpose whilst making provision exceptionally for necessary waste management development” (Para. B44). This policy is covered in more detail under the Green Belt section at the end of this report.
Item 9
16
55 Policy WD2 of the SWP 2008, states that planning permissions for development involving the recycling, storage, transfer, materials recovery and processing (including in-vessel composting but excluding thermal treatment) of waste will be granted on:
(i) on land that is, or has been used, or is allocated in a Local Plan or Development
Plan Document, or has planning permission for industrial or storage purposes; (ii) the proposed development is at one of the following sites as shown on the Site
Boundary Maps:
Slyfield Industrial Estate: Land to the North East Charlton Lane, Shepperton Copyhold Works, Redhill Land at Earlswood Depot and Sewage Treatment Works, Redhill Heather Farm, Horsell Martyrs Lane, Woking Land at Randalls Road, Leatherhead Land adjacent to Trumps Farm, Longcross Weylands Treatment Works, Hersham Land at former airfield, Wisley Lyne Lane, Chertsey: former compost site Oak Leaf Farm, Horton Road, Stanwell Moor Reigate Road Quarry, Betchworth
provided that the development proposed meets the key development criteria and where very special circumstances can be demonstrated in accordance with the provisions of Policy CW6 for Development in the Green Belt; and
(iii) at existing or proposed waste management sites, subject in the case of landfill and
landraising sites or other temporary facilities, to the waste use being limited to the life of the landfill, landraising or other temporary facility.
56 The approach to the location of waste management facilities within Surrey is set out in
Section 2.1.1 of the SWP 2008, and Section 2.5 states that waste management facilities should be suited to development on industrial sites and in urban areas. However, opportunities for waste management facilities in urban areas are limited, so land beyond needs to be considered. Policy CW5 identifies previously developed, contaminated, derelict or disturbed land as potentially appropriate locations for waste management activities. Redundant agricultural and forestry buildings, and their curtilages, can also be appropriate locations for waste management facilities, contributing to a more dispersed pattern of development. The SWP also states (para. B40, p.B9) that in order to minimise the negative effects of transporting waste, priority is also given to those sites that are located closer to urban areas (the main sources of waste) and with good access to the strategic road network. The applicant has commented that due to the locational requirements of AD, urban sites are not preferable as they are often located close to sensitive receptors and not proximal to arable land. However, the applicant has demonstrated that the site has a good access to the strategic road network and close to the main sources of waste, in accordance with Policy CW5.
57 Development Plan policies seek to protect the local environment and the amenities of local residents from the adverse effects of development. SWP 2008 Policy DC3 requires that applications for waste related development be accompanied by sufficient information to show that the proposals will not significantly affect people, land, infrastructure and resources. In respect of the proposed development relevant matters are visual impact, biodiversity, noise, air quality (bioaerosols and odour) and proximity of residential properties. However, it is important to stress that Government guidance advises that
Item 9
17
waste planning authorities should not concern themselves with the control of processes, as they are a matter for the Environment Agency.
Need for the Development
58 The applicant has stated that whilst the proposal is contrary to some of the principles
within the Development Plan, AD facilities have special locational requirements and as such require different considerations to be taken into account compared to other waste developments. The applicant has acknowledged that the proposed AD facility at Charlton Lane would provide for the municipal food waste stream in the north of the County however the proposal would serve the commercial food waste stream primarily from the north of the County. The applicant has outlined the National, Regional and Local Need for appropriate treatment facilities for this commercial waste stream.
59 The recent „Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011‟ estimates that the UK
throws away some 16 million tonnes of food every year, 50% is household and almost 25% of UK food waste comes from manufacture, distribution and retail. The UK currently has approximately 43 AD facilities, which deal with organic waste feedstock and 24 facilities that deal with farm feedstock only. The JMWMS has identified that there are currently no facilities within Surrey that recycle food waste, stating that AD is the most appropriate technology for food waste. The nearest organic waste feedstock AD sites are in West Sussex (Bognor), Oxfordshire, Hertfordshire and Dorset. The proposed 40,000 tonne AD facility on the Charlton Lane Eco Park site (awaiting call-in decision from Secretary of State) is required to cater for only part of Surrey‟s 100,000 tonne household food waste stream.
60 The AD will provide for a maximum capacity of 48,500 tonnes of organic food waste, and
with the addition of silage (14,500 tonnes) and water, approximately 60,456 tonnes of digestate would be generated. However, the applicant has stated that from experience of other plants a maximum power output of 2.1 megawatts (MW) can be attained from 26,000 tones of solid food waste and 10,000 tones of liquid waste, totalling 36,000 tonnes (74% of capacity). The applicant commissioned a report, which provided an assessment of food waste availability within Surrey, and particularly within the north of the County (table of results copied below), which demonstrated that the total capacity of 36,000 tonnes (26,000 tonnes of solid waste and 10,000 tonnes of liquids) to achieve 2MW electricity generation for the plant can be achieved within Surrey, over 77% of which can be achieved within north Surrey in close proximity to the site at Trumps Farm. At these lower inputs, the volume of digestate would be reduced to approx 45,000 tonnes, which would be exported to local farms.
Expected Commercial Food Waste Arisings (tonnes/yr) in North Surrey
Sector North Surrey
Food manufacturers 11,820
Hospitality 2,615
Supermarkets 858
Schools 455-660
Hospitals 400
Subtotal 16,148 – 16,353
Liquid 9,516 – 13,416
Total 25,664 – 29,769
61 The processing of this food waste stream would divert it from landfill or from out of
County treatment facilities, and reduce unnecessary vehicle movements out of County. The AD would generate energy in the form of electricity (2MW) and heat, with the former exported to grid and classed as renewable energy (discussed in next section). The AD process would also produce digestate (as mentioned above), which is a nutrient-rich (nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium) substance, and would be spread to agricultural
Item 9
18
land at local farms as a soil enhancer. The applicant has identified markets for approximately 40% of the digestate within 9 miles of the site, while the remaining digestate market is within 13 miles.
62 In support of the need argument, the applicant commission a report by RUR3
Environmental Ltd, which reviewed the availability of food waste arisings in Surrey. The report indicated a high demand from industries and outlines the amounts of food waste available from sectors including food manufacturers, hospitality, supermarkets, schools, hospitals, local authorities and liquid waste producers. In respect of food manufacturing waste, 84% was found within the County of Surrey itself and the majority of this waste was found within the main towns in close proximity to the proposed development site. The report concentrated on a 30 mile catchment radius to the proposed AD plant at Trumps Farm and determined that by concentrating on the north of Surrey and focusing on each sector known to produce food wastes suitable for AD treatment there is potentially as much as 30,000 tonnes per annum of suitable food waste arisings from the commercial and industrial sector within a close proximity to the proposed facility. Additionally the report demonstrated there is between 56,000 and 61,000 tonnes per annum of suitable commercial and industrial food waste arisings within the whole of Surrey.
63 Both the Chobham and Ottershaw Societies have objected to the proposed development
stating that the main source of waste is not local, residents have also raised this point. However, the applicant has demonstrated that there is sufficient waste arisings in the north of Surrey, and therefore considered local.
64 The applicant has stated that they currently operate a 2.1MW AD facility near Cassington
in Oxfordshire, which is very similar to that proposed at Trumps Farm. Prior to the construction of this AD facility, the applicant states that it was almost impossible to sign contracts with commercial food waste providers. However, since the site opened in September 2010, the applicant has received contracts from commercial waste producers, and examples of the sources of commercial waste supplied to the Cassington facility include: abattoir wastes, supermarkets such as Waitrose and Marks & Spencer, restaurants such as Pizza Hut, waste transporters such as Biocollectors, Cawleys, Grundons, Viridor, and liquid wastes (brewery wastes, leachate from composting sites, food manufacturing wastes, pet food manufacturing wastes, wastes from biodiesel manufacturing, egg yolks, drinks manufacturing wastes. This experience gives the applicant a high degree of confidence in the viability of the proposed site.
65 The applicant has also provided a need argument for the wood pelleting facility, noting that the Government aims to increase the use of biomass fuels in order to make better use of a currently underused resource. Surrey County Council has made a commitment in line with DfES Capital Programme for Schools, to install biomass boilers wherever appropriate in buildings under their control, for example schools, libraries and council offices (SCC Carbon & Energy Policy 2010-14). The applicant has stated that Surrey is the most wooded county within the UK and at present only one wood pelleting operation exists in Surrey, and is based near Farnham. From evidence in Oxfordshire, which has generated some 4,600 tonnes of wood chip and roundwood from the County maintenance contractors, it is reasonable to expect Surrey would be able to provide much more wood chip and roundwood. There are an estimated 75 sawmills in the South East of England, as the most wooded region of the UK, but it is not known how many of these utilise waste wood.
Alternative Site Assessment (ASA) 66 The proposed site at Trumps Farm is not allocated in the Surrey Waste Plan 2008 and is
located in the Green Belt, as such an ASA has been submitted in support of the application, which is an important factor in the CPA satisfying itself that there is a genuine „lack of suitable non-Green Belt sites‟, in accordance with Policy CW6 SWP
Item 9
19
2008. The proposed area of search concentrated on sites in close proximity to the heavily populated northern part of Surrey, and those with relatively close proximity to the Strategic Transport Network. The applicant states that a key consideration is the M25, M3 and A3 corridor with the A320 as an important link road between the districts. Population density maps show that the key towns of Staines, Camberley, Addlestone, Esher, Woking, Guildford and Cobham have a relatively easy access to this transport network. The area of search therefore included sites located in the following Boroughs:
Woking Borough Council;
Surrey Heath Borough Council;
Spelthorne Borough Council;
Runnymede Borough Council;
Guildford Borough Council; and
Elmbridge Borough Council. 67 The ASA had an initial phase of site consideration and identification, which reviewed the
potential of locating an AD facility within the north of Surrey, focussing on the strong transport links of the M25, M3 and A3 corridors with the A320 being a key link road between some of the Districts. An initial list of 38 sites that were known to be potentially available for B2 (General Industrial) / B8 (Storage and Distribution) was compiled, through examination of a number of relevant information sources, including: adopted and emerging development plans; the SWP 2008, land availability surveys, marketing details from various land agents and local knowledge of the consultants.
68 The initial site search did not rule out sites in the Green Belt, as 70% of Surrey is designated Green Belt, and the SWP2008 acknowledges the principles of PPS10 in that waste management facilities should not be precluded from the Green Belt. The applicants‟ review of the initial list of sites in accordance with basic threshold criteria including: being excess of 2ha in size; relatively well-located to major transport routes and available for waste and/or B2 type development, reduced the number of sites to 20.
69 A three stage sieving exercise shortlisted the following 7 sites:
1. Mill Lane Works (0) 2. Martyrs Lane (+2) 3. Church Farm/Great Grove Farm (+3) 4. Lyne Lane (+3) 5. Slyfield Industrial Estate (+5) 6. Lands adjacent to Trumps Farm (+8) 7. Trumps Farm (Development Site) (+8)
The applicant then scored the above sites (score in brackets) using a matrix from a set of
12 planning and environmental criteria (i.e. area above 2ha, landform profile and access, NE Surrey location, availability, policy compliance, greenbelt, proximity to waste and digestate users, access to road network, landscape designations, nature conservation designations, risk of flooding, groundwater vulnerability), which are based on the locational criteria set out in PPS10. The proposed development site scored the joint highest (score of 8) along with the other Trumps Farm site (land adjacent). The development site was preferable, on the basis that it is in close proximity to potential source of arisings and digestate users, and is located on land adjoining other waste processing (i.e. composting), which offers certain synergies (i.e. sharing waste flows). In addition, the land adjacent to Trumps Farm did not have the required stand-off of 250m from the site boundary to dwellings.
70 The County Highways Authority (CHA) Officer initially objected to the development as it was considered that it had not yet been demonstrated that the location of the proposal was appropriate, having regard to the sustainable movement of waste and therefore contrary to SWP Policy CW5 Location of Waste Facilities. Runnymede Borough Council
Item 9
20
also have similar concerns in respect of the ASA. The CHA is concerned that the ASA in considering sites only in the north west of the County may not be adequate, as the need assessment is based on the whole of the County. The County Planning Authority (CPA) however, based on the submitted research of waste arisings, considers that it is reasonable to assume that some 75% of the commercial waste will be generated in the north of the County. As such, Officers consider it appropriate for the ASA to focus on the north of Surrey, which is the potential source of the majority of the waste arisings. Planning Officers do not consider that the applicant should be required to demonstrate the origin of waste arisings beyond all reasonable doubt. The CHA considers matters from a particular perspective, broadly access, traffic generation, highway safety and locational suitability. Following discussions with the CPA, the CHA accepts the Planning Officer‟s view that the proposal is acceptable in policy terms when considered in the broader context. It is the role of the CPA to weigh up all the relevant matters and to reach an overall judgement in respect of whether a proposal complies with policy or not. In this case, Planning Officers consider that there are very special circumstances to justify this inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
71 Officers consider that the applicant has produced a robust ASA, particularly insofar as the applicant has examined the availability of sites capable of accommodating a waste site as proposed. As such, the ASA supports the need for the proposed development at the Trumps Farm site and has confirmed „the lack of suitable non-Green Belt sites‟ for the purposes of SWP 2008 Policy CW6.
Conclusions on planning and waste management issues 72 European, National and Regional Policy set the context for the need for the County to
increase recycling and recovery capacity and divert waste from landfill, to contribute to agreed targets. The proposed AD facility would play a key role in providing sustainable waste management in Surrey, and would contribute to meeting the objectives of the WFD. From the above data (taken from the report by RUR3 Environmental Ltd) there is a clear demonstration of the need for sustainable food waste treatment facilities across the country and specifically in the county of Surrey, which has no treatment facilities for food waste. The applicant has demonstrated the need for a site to deal with commercial food waste arisings in the north of the county, and carried out a robust alternative site assessment In addition, the Government in the recent Waste Review 2011 has actively promoted the use of AD facilities for the treatment of food waste.
73 The site is adjacent to a compost facility and former landfill site and approximately 330m
southeast from an allocated site within the SWP 2008 previously proposed for development of an Energy from Waste (EfW) facility. The site has supporting infrastructure in terms of the existing access and landscape, is close to the main sources of waste and good access to the strategic road network. Officers, therefore consider that the proposal at Trumps Farm is in accordance with waste management policy.
RENEWABLE ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE South East Plan 2009 Policy CC2 Climate Change Policy CC3 Resource Use Policy CC4 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy NRM11 Development Design for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Policy NRM12 Combined Heat and Power Policy NRM13 Regional Renewable Energy Targets Policy NRM14 Sub-Regional Targets Policy NRM15 Location of Renewable Energy Development Policy NRM16 Renewable Energy Development Criteria Policy W11 Biomass Policy W12 Other Recovery and Diversion Technologies
Item 9
21
Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy CW6 Development in the Green Belt Policy DC3 General Considerations 74 Ensuring that the UK has secure and affordable energy supplies is vital to its future
prosperity and security. However, the challenge of energy and climate change is an international issue and as a consequence, UK energy and climate change policy is influenced by decisions taken in Europe.
75 The promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources has been seen as a priority
for the European Union (EU) to assist in achieving environmental protection and security and diversification of energy supply. In 2001 EU Directive 2001/77/EC required Member States to publish a report every five years showing the measures undertaken, or to be undertaken, to meet indicative targets for the proportion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources. This Directive was repealed by the later Directive 2009/28/EC referred to below.
76 Aiming to address the energy challenges of sustainability and greenhouse gas
emissions, a new European Energy Policy was proposed in January 2007, with a binding target of increasing the level of renewable energy in the overall energy mix to 20% by 2020. However, the EU Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC sets legally binding individual targets for the UK of 15 % of energy (electricity, heat and transport) from renewable sources by 2020. Issues being raised in Europe were taken forward in the United Kingdom's (UK‟s) Energy White Paper „Meeting the Energy Challenge‟ published on 23 May 2007, which set out the Government‟s response to the long term energy challenges posed by the need to tackle climate change by reducing CO
2 emissions and
ensuring that the country has secure, clean and affordable energy. The four energy policy goals in the White Paper are to:
cut emissions by some 60% by about 2050, with real progress by 2020;
maintain the reliability of energy supplies;
promote competitive markets in the UK and beyond;
ensure that every home is adequately and affordably heated. 77 The White Paper recognises that renewables are key in tackling climate change and
providing cleaner sources of energy. They also contribute '…to security of supply, by diversifying the electricity mix and reducing the need for energy imports', paragraph 5.3.3. The measures introduced by the White Paper to strengthen the delivery of renewables were:
Strengthening and modifying the Renewables Obligation (RO);
Improving the planning consenting process for on and offshore renewables; and
Improving Renewables Grid Connections onshore and offshore. 78 The Energy Act 2008 implements the legislative aspects of the 2007 Energy White
Paper. The Energy Act reflects the changing availability of new technologies and the changing requirements for security of supply infrastructure and adequate protection for the environment and the UK's population as the energy market changes. As a result of changes introduced by the Act, Anaerobic Digestion is among the technologies to receive additional support in the form of two Renewable Obligation Certificates per Megawatt hour (ROCs/MWh). The Government‟s intention was that along with the Planning Act 2008 and Climate Change Act 2008, the Energy Act would ensure that legislation underpinned the long-term delivery of the UK's energy and climate change strategy.
79 Legally binding emission reduction targets were set in the Climate Change Act 2008. The Act established a long-term framework to tackle climate change setting a reduction of
Item 9
22
34% in greenhouse gas emissions for 2020 and for 2050 a reduction of at least 80%. The Act also introduced five yearly carbon budgets to help ensure the targets are met. These set a cap on the total quantity of greenhouse gas emissions emitted in the UK over a specified time whereby if emissions in one sector rise, reductions in another sector will have to be achieved.
80 The transition to a low carbon economy is being underpinned by several strategies. The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan the National Strategy for Climate and Energy (The Transition Plan) presented to Parliament on 15 July 2009 outlined the policies and proposals that will be put in place to reduce carbon emission by 2020 and increase energy from renewable sources. The Transition Plan is supported by the Renewable Energy Strategy, the Low Carbon Industrial Strategy and Low Carbon Transport: A Greener Future.
81 As referred to above, the UK has signed up to the EU Renewable Energy Directive
2009/28/EC, which sets individual legally binding targets for each member state. The UK‟s target is to source 15 % of energy (electricity, heat and transport) from renewable sources by 2020. This target is included in the UK Renewable Energy Strategy published in 2009, which sets out how renewable energy can be increased to help tackle climate change and help secure the UK‟s future energy supplies. The Strategy considers that around 30% of the UK's renewable energy target (15%) could come from biomass heat and electricity in 2020 and builds on the action plan set out in the UK Biomass Strategy published in May 2007.
82 The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) published 'Accelerating the Uptake of Anaerobic Digestion in England: an Implementation Plan' in March 2010. The Plan states that 'anaerobic digestion is a well-proven renewable energy and waste management technology' and goes on to state that 'The Government is committed to encouraging a significant growth in the use of anaerobic digestion, a technology with great potential to contribute to our climate change and wider environmental objectives'. This was followed by the publication of 'Developing an Anaerobic (AD) Framework Document' in December 2010. The document set out the steps the Government believe are needed to increase energy from waste through AD and again reiterated the Government's commitment to increasing energy from waste such as the production of heat, electricity and transport fuels through AD. The approach to promoting the potential for energy from waste through AD is part of the wider work on energy from waste, which will consider AD and other energy from waste technologies as part of the overall approach to moving to a zero-waste economy. A review of waste policies is underway and it is anticipated this will be reported in spring 2011.
83 The Government's first Annual Energy Statement on 27 July 2010 acknowledges 'that in
2007 the UK had the lowest contribution from renewables of any major EU country, ahead of just Malta' (approximately 2.6%). The Government states that it 'will take positive action to drive renewables deployment through the implementation of a robust Delivery Plan for renewables which will set clear priorities and milestones and monitor deployment progress'. The Statement sets out action points. The most relevant of these are:
Action Point 22:'we have asked the Committee on Climate Change for advice on the scope for a more ambitious target for renewables.'
Action Point 23: 'we will publish a renewables delivery plan to drive faster deployment through the decade'.
Action Point 25: 'We are taking immediate action to exploit the potential of bio-electricity and energy from waste, by grandfathering support under the Renewables Obligation for electricity from dedicated biomass, energy from waste, anaerobic digestion and advanced conversion technologies, such as pyrolysis and gasification. We will publish in the autumn a joint industry/Government action
Item 9
23
plan to deliver a huge increase in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion.'
84 The Renewables Obligation (RO) and Feed-in Tariffs (FITs) are part of the Government‟s
strategy for increasing renewable electricity generation. This is necessary because the UK has a EU target for renewable energy of 15% by 2020, a significant proportion of which is expected to come from electricity. The RO, as originally introduced in 2002, was criticised for being too complicated, particularly for small generators, and not distinguishing between different technologies in need of varying levels of support. These issues have now been addressed. The first by the introduction of FITs for generators of less than 5 MW; the second by introducing banding for the different technologies, which will be reviewed regularly.
85 The main criticism that has been made of FITs, which is not limited to the UK, is that they are an expensive way of stimulating renewable generation. The first review of FITs was due in 2013 but was bought forward. The Government was concerned about the increasing number of large photovoltaic projects under FITs and the low level of anaerobic digestion schemes so far.
86 The review of banding for RO Certificates is also underway. The Government intends to
announce the changes to the RO, to be implemented in 2013, by the end of 2011 to ensure greater investor certainty. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) website provides tables showing the eligibility of renewable energy sources for RO, which specifically covers energy derived from waste, with anaerobic digestion eligible for the biomass fraction of waste, subject to a maximum of fossil derived energy content of 10%.
87 The Waste Strategy for England 2007 (WS2007) identifies better management of waste
as a means to contribute to reducing greenhouse gases, improve resource efficiency, protect public health and safeguard amenity. One of the main elements of the Waste Strategy is to 'encourage much greater consideration of waste as a resource through increased emphasis on re-use, recycling and recovery of energy from waste '.
88 Planning Policy Statement 1 Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) January 2005
sets out the Government's overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. The four aims for sustainable development are:
Social progress, which recognises the needs of everyone;
Effective protection of the environment;
The prudent use of natural resources; and
The maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment. 89 According to PPS1 the prudent use of natural resources means enabling more
sustainable consumption and production and using non-renewable resources in ways that do not endanger the resource or cause serious damage or pollution. Furthermore, the broad aim should be to ensure that outputs are maximised whilst resource use is minimised. 'Regional planning authorities and local authorities should promote resource and energy efficient buildings; community heating schemes, the use of combined heat and power, small scale renewable and low carbon energy schemes in developments; the sustainable use of water resources; and the use of sustainable drainage systems in the management of run-off'‟. Good design is seen as a key element in achieving sustainable development and PPS1 encourages the use of Design and Access Statements (DAS) to demonstrate how development would contribute to key planning objectives. The applicant has supplied a DAS in support of the application, which covers such issues as site layout, design and accessibility and describes the sustainable design components incorporated into the design.
Item 9
24
90 „Planning and Climate Change‟ was issued as a supplement to PPS1 in December 2007 (PPS1 Climate Change Supplement), and sets out how the planning system should contribute to reducing emissions and stabilising climate change. The Government views the planning system as having a key role to play in contributing towards a reduction in emissions and stabilising climate change. To deliver sustainable development the PPS1 Climate Change Supplement sets out in paragraph 9 a number of key planning objectives and states that planning authorities should prepare, and manage the delivery of spatial strategies that amongst other things should make a full contribution to delivering the Government‟s Climate Change Programme and energy policies, and in doing so contribute to global sustainability.
91 The Climate Change Supplement goes on to say that planning authority‟s Core
Strategies and development plan documents should provide a framework that promotes and encourages renewable and low carbon energy generation. In particular:
applicants for energy development should not be required to demonstrate either the overall need for renewable energy and its distribution, nor should the energy justification for why a proposal for such development must be sited in a particular location;
the local approach to protecting landscape and townscape is consistent with PPS22 and does not preclude the supply of any type of renewable energy other than in the most exceptional circumstances;
alongside criteria-based policy developed in line with PPS22, consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low-carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would secure the development of such sources, but in doing so take care to avoid stifling innovation including by rejecting proposals solely because they are outside areas identified for energy generation; and
expect a proportion of the energy supply of new development to be secured from decentralized and renewable or low-carbon energy sources.
92 Government Policy on Renewable energy is set out in Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy (PPS22) issued in August 2004 and states that 'increased development of renewable energy resources is vital to facilitating the delivery of the Government's commitments on both climate change and renewable energy'. PPS22 has eight key principles which planning authorities should adhere to in their approach to planning for renewable energy. The first of these is that 'renewable energy development should be capable of being accommodated throughout England in locations where the technology is viable and environmental, economic, and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily'. Key principle (ii) is concerned with '…policies being designed to promote and encourage, rather than restrict, the development of renewable energy resources' and goes on to encourage the recognition of the differing types and locational requirements of the full range of renewable energy sources. Key principle (iv) is that 'the wider environmental and economic benefit of all proposals for renewable energy projects, whatever their scale, are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be granted planning permission.'
93 Locational considerations are considered within PPS22. In terms of Green Belts, the PPS advises that 'elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development which may impact on the openness of the green belt' and as such very special circumstances will need to be demonstrated. PPS22 goes on to state that 'such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources'. It is accepted in PPS22 that the visual impacts of developments will vary but that some of these may be minimized through appropriate siting, design and landscaping schemes. In relation to applications for anaerobic digestion, planning authorities are advised to carefully consider the potential impacts and the proposals for control of odour.
Item 9
25
94 Government Guidance on waste is set out in Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management revised March 2011 (PPS10). The overall objective for waste policy is 'to protect human health and the environment by producing less waste and by using it as a resource where ever possible' paragraph 1. Annex C to the PPS sets out the waste hierarchy. Whilst the most effective solution is reduction followed by the re-use of products and materials, the third option is that resources can often be recovered from waste - recycling and composting, the fourth option is that value can be recovered by generating energy from waste leaving the final option as disposal.
95 Sustainable resource management is a key theme of the South East Plan 2009 (SEP 2009). Policies in the Natural Resource Management chapter of the Plan promote renewable energy and energy efficiency through new development. Amongst other matters (i.e. the supporting text states that Policy NRM11 should be read alongside cross cutting policies CC2, CC3 and CC4), Policy NRM11 (Development Design for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy) states that local authorities should:
work towards incorporation of renewable energy sources including, in particular, passive solar design, solar water heating, photovoltaics, ground source heat pumps and in larger scale development, wind and biomass generated energy.
96 Policy CC2 (Climate Change) sets out measures to mitigate against and adapt to climate change and reduce the region‟s carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions. Policy CC3 (Resource Use) aims to stabilise and reduce the South East‟s ecological footprint
by increased resource efficiency, adaption of existing development to reduce resource use. Policy CC4 (Sustainable Design and Construction) expects new development to adopt and incorporate sustainable construction standards and techniques.
97 Policy NRM 12 (Combined Heat and Power) encourages the use of CHP and district
heating in new buildings. It also states that the use of biomass fuel should be investigated and promoted where possible.
98 Renewable Energy Targets are set out in Policy NRM13. The targets are the minimum for electricity generation from renewable sources. It is stated within the Policy that 'the renewable energy resources with the greatest potential for electricity generation are onshore and offshore wind, biomass and solar. The renewable energy resources with the greatest potential for heat generation are solar and biomass.' The target for 2016 is 895 installed capacity (MW) and 8% electricity generation capacity. By 2020 the installed capacity (MW) increases to 1,130 and 105 electricity generation capacity and the final date, 2026 sets a figure of 1,750 installed capacity and 16% of electricity generation capacity. Paragraph 9.78 goes on to state that 'the use of renewably generated heat would result in even greater savings. Almost 12% of electricity output would be generated from renewable sources by 2026'. The targets include energy derived from biomass waste and from thermal treatment and anaerobic digestion.
99 Policy NRM14 (Sub-regional Targets for Land-based Renewable Energy) sets a target of 209 MW for Thames Valley and Surrey by 2016. It is recognised in paragraph 9.86 that the Thames Valley and Surrey appears to have the greatest potential for biomass fuelled electricity generation.
100 The Location of Renewable Energy Development is covered in Policy NRM15. 'Renewable energy development should be located and designed to minimise adverse impacts on landscape, wildlife, heritage assets and amenity. Outside of urban areas, priority should be given to development in less sensitive parts of the countryside and coast, including on previously developed land and in major transport areas.'
101 Whilst all proposals should be considered on their merits, Policy NRM16 (Renewable Energy Development Criteria) encourages local authorities to support in principle the development of renewable energy and include criteria-based policies in their
Item 9
26
development documents, which consider:
The contribution the development will make towards achieving national, regional and sub-regional renewable energy targets and carbon dioxide savings;
The potential to integrate the proposal with existing or new development;
The potential benefits to host communities and opportunities for environmental enhancement;
The proximity of biomass combustion plants to fuel source and the adequacy of local transport networks; and
Availability of a suitable connection to the electricity distribution network.
102 The SEP 2009 Policy W11 (Biomass) states that waste collection, planning and disposal authorities should encourage the separation of biomass waste, as defined in the Renewables Obligation, and consider its use as a fuel in biomass energy plants where this does not discourage recycling and composting.
103 Policy W12 (Other Recovery and Diversion Technologies) encourages anaerobic digestion and advanced recovery technologies that are expected to make a growing contribution towards regional targets for renewable energy generation. The policy specifically covers energy from waste, which should only be included, as part of an integrated approach to waste management and states that waste facilities should:
operate to the require pollution control standard
include measures to ensure that appropriate materials are recycled, composted and recovered where this has not been carried out elsewhere.
proposed thermal facilities should, where possible, aim to incorporate combined generation and distribution of heat and power
104 The Surrey Waste Plan 2008 (SWP 2008) provides the up-to-date local policy context for the application. Paragraph C8 states that recycling, recovery and processing facilities cover a wide range of technology types that might include materials recovery facility, mechanical biological treatment plant, autoclave or in-vessel composting plant. This list is not exhaustive of the current technologies available and the Policy WD2 is not technology specific so that the waste development plan document is able to react to new technologies that are developed. In essence, these facilities are expected to enable and to encourage waste to be used as a resource, and to recover materials that will be put to beneficial use. Anaerobic digestion is a biological process of breaking down the food waste to produce biogas, comprising mostly of methane and carbon dioxide, which can be burned in engines to produce electricity and heat.
105 The proposed AD facility would treat residual food waste materials that would otherwise be sent to landfill, and would assist the Authority in meeting its diversion and recycling targets. All of the food waste to be treated in the proposed AD facility would be classified as biomass; Anaerobic Digestion (AD) facilities are considered a low impact modern method of recycling food waste to produce biogas and an organic fertiliser. As set out in the publication „Accelerating the Uptake of Anaerobic Digestion in England: an Implementation Plan‟ March 2010, the Government is committed to encouraging growth in the use of AD. Policy W12 of the SEP 2009 also encourages AD facilities within the region. The proposed AD facility would process up to 48,500 tonnes per annum (tpa) of food waste. The process would convert the food waste into methane and carbon dioxide (biogas), which would then be used to power combined heat and power (CHP) gas turbine engines to produce electricity. Waste heat produced by the CHP units is captured and re-used in heating the digesters and pasteurising the waste in the AD process maximising efficiency, in addition there are plans to use some of the heat in the wood pelleting facility. The CHP gas turbine engines in the AD facility would have an electrical generating capacity of 2.1 MW, which based on the Oxfordshire facility can be achieved from 36,000 tpa of food waste.
Item 9
27
106 The applicant has stated that there would be a huge benefit associated with AD in
respect of the reduction in carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, as a result of the following:
reduction in nitrogen fertiliser production required as a result of the
digestate produced by AD;
diversion of food waste from landfill and therefore the associated reduction
of methane generated;
reduced waste miles by delivering local treatment solutions; and
renewable energy produced by the plant and therefore the reduction of
carbon dioxide (CO2) released from fossil fuels.
A 2MW AD plant, such as the proposed development, saves the release to the atmosphere of approximately 21,000 tonnes of CO2, which contains 5700 tonnes of carbon, each year.
107 Officers consider the proposed development would make a contribution to national and
SEP 2009 renewable targets by aiming to recover as much energy as possible. The facility would generate up to 17,454 megawatt hours per year (MWh/yr) of renewable electricity (based on 95% efficiency), which would be exported to the local electricity distribution network. Put in context this would roughly equate to the electricity requirement of around 4200 houses. In line with one of the key principles in PPS22 (vi), the proposal would be classified as a small scale renewable energy project, and would make a “limited but valuable contribution to overall outputs of renewable energy and to meeting energy needs both locally and nationally”. In addition, the proposed development would contribute towards reductions in carbon emissions, helping toward the government‟s aim to cut carbon emissions.
108 Officers consider the applicant has provided information to demonstrate how the
proposed AD facility seeks to reduce and mitigate against the effects of climate change. The renewable energy and low carbon energy which would be produced as a result of the AD facilities would contribute towards national and development plan targets for electricity generation from renewables and accord with the general aims of PPS1, PPS22 and the Draft PPS: Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate (March 2010). The power produced would be used to generate electricity and heat produced used in the AD process and in the proposed buildings, replacing power that would be generated by burning of fossil fuels and avoiding the landfilling of waste. As well as complying with national policy Officers consider that the application proposal, with mitigation measures incorporated into the development and the imposition of planning conditions is in conformity with the following development policies; the SEP 2009 Policies CC2, CC4, NRM11, NRM12, NRM13, NRM14, and W12;
HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC & ACCESS South East Plan 2009 Policy CC7 Infrastructure and Implementation Policy T1 Manage and Invest Policy T4 Parking Policy W17 Location of Waste Management Facilities Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy CW5 Location of Waste Facilities Policy CW6 Development in the Green Belt Policy WD2 Recycling, Storage, Transfer, Materials Recovery and Processing Facilities (Excluding Thermal Treatment) Policy DC3 General Considerations Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 Policy MV3 Transport Infrastructure Contributions
Item 9
28
Policy MV4 Access and Circulation Arrangements 109 Government advice with regards to transport matters is set out in Planning Policy
Guidance Note 13: Transport (PPG13), which recognises that land use planning plays a key role in delivering an integrated transport strategy through shaping the pattern of development. The core objectives are outlined within Paragraph 4, which are to “promote more sustainable transport choices for both people and for moving freight” and to “reduce the need to travel…” Traffic related impacts associated with waste developments are also covered within Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management July 2005 (PPS10). Paragraph 3 of PPS10 sets out the Government‟s Key Planning Objectives states that “Regional planning bodies and all planning authorities should, to the extent appropriate to their responsibilities, prepare and deliver strategies” that, amongst other matters:
“help secure the recovery or disposal of waste without endangering human health and without harming the environment, and enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations;”
110 In relation to determining planning applications for waste management facilities
paragraph 29 of PPS 10 states waste planning authorities should consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity and refers to Annex E which sets out a range of factors which should be assessed when assessing the suitability of sites and areas against the criteria in paragraph 20, including:
“traffic and access – considerations will include the suitability of the local road network and the extent to which access would require reliance on local roads.”
111 SEP 2009 Policy CC7 (Infrastructure and Implementation) states that the scale and pace
of development will depend on sufficient capacity being available in existing infrastructure to meet the needs of new development and that additional capacity should be released either through demand management or better management of existing infrastructure. Policy T1 (Manage and Invest) states that proposals should include measures to minimise negative environmental impacts of transport and, where possible, enhance the environment and communities through such interventions. Lastly, Policy W17 (Location of Waste Management Facilities) provides that the suitability of existing sites and potential new sites should be assessed on the basis of good accessibility from existing urban areas, good transport connections, compatibility with land uses and ability to meet a range of locally based environmental and amenity criteria. This is reflected in the approach to the location of waste facilities in the Surrey Waste Plan 2008 (SWP 2008) Core Strategy development plan document (DPD) and Policy CW5.
112 In addition proposals will be considered against SWP 2008 Policy DC3, which sets out
matters that the County Council considers when assessing proposals for waste related development and the information that is expected to accompany planning applications. In relation to traffic that would be generated by a proposal this information includes an assessment of the level and type of traffic that would be generated and an assessment of the impact of that traffic, the suitability of the access to the site and the highway network in the vicinity of the site including access to and from the motorway and the primary route network. Policy DC3 also requires adverse effects on neighbouring amenity including transport impacts to be assessed.
113 Runnymede Borough Council (RBC) Local Plan 2001 (saved policies) Policy M3 refers to
development schemes that would exacerbate existing transport problems or make conditions more hazardous for highway users and confirms that where works on the transport system are deemed by the highway authority to be necessary to accommodate safely the development-related traffic, then works will be funded by the developer. Policy MV4 requires development proposals to comply with current highway design standards. Arrangements for access and circulation are to be appropriate to the type of
Item 9
29
development proposed; the area in which it is located; and do not aggravate traffic congestion, accident potential or environmental and amenity considerations in the vicinity.
114 The proposed AD facility is predicted to take in approximately 48,500 tonnes of waste per annum, split between 6 tonne RCVs (24 movements) and 20 tonne bulkers (10 movements) (75%/25% split). Silage would be imported, typically transported in tractors and trailers (8 movements) from neighbouring farmland. Wood chip would be imported to the site from highway maintenance contracts, in trailers and smaller tonnage vehicles (20 movements), and exported in bulkers (2 movements). Digestate would be exported in 22 tonne tankers (18 movements). The proposed development would therefore result in a maximum traffic generation of 82 HGV movements, which is outlined in the table below. All development traffic would pass through the existing site access onto Kitsmead Lane, which serves a number of uses that attract HGV traffic.
Waste Type Vehicle Tonnage per
vehicle
Loads per day
Movements per day
Food Waste RCV 6 12 24
Food Waste Bulkers 20 5 10
Silage Tractor trailer 14 4 8
Wood Chip Trailers/ transits 3.5 10 20
Wood Pellets Bulkers 1 2
Digestate Tankers 22 9 18
Total 82
115 The applicant has submitted a transport assessment, which stated that the additional 82
HGV movements per day associated with the proposed development represents approximately between 7 and 8 HGV movements per hour on the local road network on average. With the staff movements (4 car movements per day) included the total increases to 86 movements per day, which remains within the range of 7 – 8 per hour on average. This represents an increase of approximately 4.4% when compared with the traffic flows observed in 2007 between 07:00 – 19:00 on Kitsmead Lane. In respect of the B386 Longcross Road, the additional traffic represents a 1.5% increase, with a 0.6% increase at Holloway Hill.
116 An improved access to the Trumps farm site off Kitsmead Lane was provided in
accordance with a planning application submitted in 2003, which required improved sightlines of 4.5m x 160m. The applicant‟s consultant has confirmed that the existing access visibility is sufficient for the proposed development at Trumps Farm. There are a number of other uses at Trumps Farm including farming, composting and an auction centre. The Transport Statement assessment also takes into account existing vehicle movements and proposed additional movements, for example from the proposed mixed use development at the former DERA site. Whilst the County Highways Authority objected in respect of the location of the proposal having regard to the sustainable movement of waste (covered in paragraph 70), the CHA has stated that the highway network is adequate to accommodate the likely traffic generation of the proposal. In addition, the traffic generation of this proposal does not trigger the need for any junction improvements, which was to be a requirement if the former Energy from Waste proposal went ahead. Residents and residents groups have raised concern over the highways impacts in respect of additional HGVs on the local road network, with no control over where the lorries are coming from.
117 RUBC Officers have stated that whilst there is concern about the cumulative impact of
various developments in this area, the overall increase in traffic movements from this development is not, in itself felt to either, overload the road network, nor adversely impact on highway safety. The proposed development has been assessed on a range of highways, traffic and access matters as required by Development Plan policy. Officers
Item 9
30
consider the proposed access and local highway network in the vicinity of Kitsmead Lane and Longcross to be suitable in terms of highway capacity and safety for the amount and type of traffic that would be generated. Officers therefore consider that the proposed development complies with the relevant Development Plan policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL & AMENITY ISSUES South East Plan 2009 (SEP 2009) Policy CC1 Sustainable Development Policy CC4 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy NRM1 Sustainable Water Resources and Groundwater Quality Policy NRM2 Water Quality Policy NRM4 Sustainable Flood Risk Management Policy NRM5 Conservation and Improvement of Biodiversity Policy NRM9 Air Quality Policy NRM10 Noise Policy W17 Location of Waste Management Facilities Policy LF9 Green Belt Management Policy C4 Landscape and Countryside Management Policy C5 Managing the Rural-Urban Fringe Policy C6 Countryside Access and Rights of Way Management Surrey Waste Plan 2008 (SWP 2008) Policy CW6 Development in the Green Belt Policy WD2 Recycling, Storage, Transfer, Materials Recovery and Processing Facilities (Excluding Thermal Treatment) Policy DC2 Planning Designations Policy DC3 General Considerations Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 (RBLP 2001) Policy NE10 Landscape Problem Area Policy NE12 Tree Protection Policy NE13 Tree Protection Orders Policy NE14 Trees and Development Policy NE15 Landscaping Schemes Policy SV2A Water Quality Protection Policy MV14 Pedestrians Policy BE16 Preservation and Record of Archaeological Remains Policy BE17 Chance Archaeological Finds
Introduction 118 Government guidance in relation to planning and pollution control is set out in PPS23:
Planning and Pollution Control, whereas guidance on waste planning, is dealt with in PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management. PPS10 states that the overall objective of Government policy on waste, as set out in the strategy for sustainable development, is to protect human health and the environment by producing less waste and by using it as a resource wherever possible. In considering planning applications for waste management facilities, waste planning authorities should concern themselves with implementing the planning strategy in the development plan and not with the control of processes, which are a matter for the pollution control authorities. The planning and pollution control regimes are separate but complementary. Pollution control is concerned with preventing pollution through the use of measures to prohibit or limit the release of substances to the environment to the lowest practicable level. It also ensures that ambient air and water quality meet standards that guard against impacts to the environment and human health.
119 The planning system controls the development and use of land in the public interest and
should focus on whether development is an acceptable use of the land, and the impacts of those uses on the development and use of land. PPS10 states that decisions on
Item 9
31
development proposals should be based on sustainable development principles, which includes the effective protection and enhancement of the environment. Waste planning authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced. In considering planning applications for waste management facilities waste planning authorities should consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity. These can also be concerns of the pollution control authorities and there should be consistency between consents issued under the planning and pollution control regimes. As such, there has been liaison and consultation with the Environment Agency, who are the pollution control authority.
120 Policy CC4 of the SEP 2009 requires consideration of sustainable building design and construction, so that they reduce or avoid adverse impacts on the built and natural environment, in terms of the buildings themselves, their immediate surroundings and the broader regional and global setting.
EIA – screening
121 On 30 September 2010 the proposed development was screened in accordance with
Regulation 7 of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. The County Council has considered that the proposed development in the context of Schedule 2, and based on the information submitted, is of the opinion that there are not likely to be any significant impacts on the environment in terms of the meaning significant in the above regulations. The proposed development is therefore not considered EIA development. On 24 August 2011 the above EIA Regulations were replaced by The Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. These changes do not affect the screening opinion.
Appropriate Assessment
122 On 6 September 2011 the CPA adopted a Habitat Regulations Screening Report under
Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The purpose of the screening report is to provide a record of the County Council‟s determination of the need for an Appropriate Assessment. In consultation with Natural England the CPA concluded that a full Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitats Regulations) is not required in this case. This followed consideration of the available evidence about the proposed scheme and the features of European and international interest of the Chobham Common SSSI component of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA and the Thursley, Ash, Pirbright & Chobham SAC that the proposed construction and operation of the AD facility and wood drying and pelleting facility on land at Trumps Farm do not present risks of significant adverse effect to the SPA or the SAC.
AIR QUALITY (emissions, dust, odour and health effects) 123 The primary driver for air quality management is the protection of human health, in
addition to impacts on wildlife habitats and vegetation. EU legislation on air quality forms the basis for national UK policy on air quality. A new Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC (Ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe) was adopted in June 2008 and had to be implemented by Member States, including the UK, by June 2010. The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 implement the limit values prescribed by the Directive 2008/50/EC.
124 The Environment Act 1995 requires the UK Government to produce a national air quality
strategy containing standards, objectives and measures for improving ambient air quality and to keep these policies under review. The Air Quality Strategy (AQS) 2007 for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland sets out the Government‟s policies aimed at delivering cleaner air in the UK. Air quality in the UK has generally improved
Item 9
32
over recent years although the South East region still contains some of the worst air pollution locations.
125 The operator of this waste development would also require an Environmental Permit
from the Environment Agency (EA). The Environment Act 1995 requires that the EA has regard to the AQS. The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 transposes the EU Directive 96/61/EC concerning Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (“the IPPC Directive”) into national legislation. Preventing environmental harm is the main purpose of the permitting process and a permit can only be granted if it is shown that the Best Available Techniques (BAT) to control emissions are to be in use.
126 Government guidance in respect of emissions and air quality, is provided by Planning
Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control (PPS23) and Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS10). Paragraphs 21 and 24 of PPS10 refer to the material considerations that waste planning authorities must take into account in determining planning applications. Paragraph 21 states that in deciding which sites and areas to identify for waste management facilities, waste planning authorities should assess their suitability for development against certain criteria (Annex E), which includes factors such as air emissions and dust. Paragraphs 27 and 29 of PPS10 state that:
„The planning system controls the development and use of land in the public interest and should focus on whether development is an acceptable use of the land, and the impacts of those uses on the development and use of land…‟ and „…In considering planning applications for waste management facilities waste planning authorities should consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity…‟
127 PPS23 advises that „any consideration of the quality of land, air or water and potential impacts arising from development, possibly leading to impacts on health, is capable of being a material planning consideration, in so far as it arises or may arise from or may affect any land use‟ and that the controls under the planning and pollution control (Environmental Permitting) regimes should complement rather than duplicate each other. In addition, a LPA can assume that other regulatory regimes will function satisfactorily. Government guidance goes on to advise that where development proposals could have an impact on air quality in an area, the air quality assessments are important material considerations in assessing the siting of certain types of development.
128 Guidance on development control and planning for air quality is provided in advice
published by Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) (Development Control: Planning for Air Quality – 2010 update). This guidance advises that when determining planning applications, local authorities are required to achieve a balance between economic, social and environmental considerations. This guidance is more specific than PPS23 and is widely used by Local Planning Authorities in determining any planning application where air quality is an issue.
129 South East Plan (SEP 2009) Policy NRM9 states that planning proposals should
contribute to sustaining the current downward trend in air pollution in the region. This will include seeking improvements in air quality so that there is a significant reduction in the number of days of medium and high air pollution by 2026. Policy DC3 of the SWP 2008, states that planning applications should assess the release of polluting substances to the atmosphere from facilities and transport and identify appropriate mitigation.
130 The applicant has provided assessments in respect of air quality and dust impact. The
applicant states that the AD system is specifically designed to incorporate measures that avoid or minimise potential disturbance to local receptors through the diminishing of local air quality. Waste is imported in enclosed vehicles, deposited and treated within an enclosed building prior to being fed into digestion tanks via sealed pipework. The reception building has an air extraction system, which maintains the reception building at
Item 9
33
a slight negative pressure, and treats the air through a wet scrubber and a bark and woodchip biofilter prior to exhausting to atmosphere. The building would also be equipped with electric speed doors, which close automatically once vehicles and machinery have passed through, maintaining the negative air pressure.
131 A stack height (for gas engines) assessment indicated that a stack height of 16 metres
would be suitable for the effective dispersion of pollutants emitted from the proposed facility and modelling of impacts was based on this height. The applicant has stated that the potential impacts on human health were considered and predicted concentrations of all assessed pollutants were forecast to comply with the relevant long and short-term air quality objectives. Comparing the predicted increase in levels of annual mean nitrogen dioxide against EPUK criteria, the change in concentrations as a result of the proposed AD facility is categorised as “medium”, with the overall impact on air quality described as being “slight adverse”.
132 The potential impacts at potentially sensitive habitat sites were also considered. The air quality objective for vegetation, relating to levels of oxides of nitrogen, was exceeded at a number of the assessed sensitive habitat sites due to existing levels of oxides of nitrogen already exceeding the objective value. However, as the habitat sites are located within 5km of motorways, the air quality objectives do not apply. The maximum annual mean contributions from the proposed AD facility at any of the European designated habitat sites were less than 1% of the objective for the protection of vegetation for oxides of nitrogen and sulphur dioxide and therefore considered to be insignificant.
133 The modelling results indicate that the proposed AD facility is expected to contribute
small percentages to the existing levels of acid and nutrient nitrogen deposition at the habitat sites. The applicant concluded that the proposed AD facility at Trumps Farm is unlikely to have any significant effects on human health or on ecological habitat sites, from an air quality perspective.
134 The County Air Quality Consultants (CAQC) has assessed the submitted air quality
information and carried out further analysis of the data, concluding that the information within the assessment allows the significance of effects to be evaluated. The CAQC concluded that the air quality, dust and odour effects associated with the facility would as follows: fugitive emissions of dust and odour during operations; emissions from the gas engine exhaust; emissions from the construction plant; and emissions from vehicles during operation of the AD and pelleting facility. The CAQC concluded that the effects during the operation of the AD facility are generally not significant for stack heights of 16m.
135 It was noted by the CAQC that the contribution to acid deposition at Knowle Grove
(nearby ancient woodland) is potentially significant, and recommend that the CPA seek further advice from Natural England. Natural England was satisfied with the air quality addendum submitted by the applicant, providing that there was sufficient monitoring of stack emissions during operation of the proposed AD facility. The monitoring of emission levels would be carried out by the Environment Agency under the requirements of an Environmental Permit, which would be required before operations could commence, if permitted.
136 In terms odour, the „Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management‟
2004 DEFRA, notes that although odour is potentially significant from the waste storage and processing phases of waste treatment facilities such as Anaerobic Digestion, it is normally controlled adequately by the design of the plant. SWP 2008 Policy DC3 (General Considerations) states that planning applications should assess any adverse effects on neighbouring amenity including fumes, dust, litter and odour, and identify any appropriate mitigation. As already mentioned the AD reception building would operate within a negative pressure environment, with the extraction of air by forced ventilation. This would prevent odour, dust and litter release from the building. The air is then
Item 9
34
discharged to the atmosphere via a biofilter.
137 The CAQC is satisfied that adequate controls would be in place in respect of odour mitigation. The applicant has mentioned that the energy crop has potential to release some level of odour, particularly when disturbed i.e. when loaded into the feed bunker, although the silage crop will be covered. Residents have also raised concern over the potential problems with odour, and particularly the silage. Runnymede Borough Council Officers commented that the controls to prevent odour emissions from the proposed AD facility are sufficient, however raised concern over the cumulative effects of the adjacent composting facility. There is an approved Odour Management Scheme in respect of the adjacent composting facility, and in view of the Environment Agency requiring an odour management plan in respect of the AD facility, Officers consider it not necessary to duplicate these controls.
138 The applicant has stated that during the construction phase, the potential for dust to be
emitted will be directly influenced by the nature of activities taking place on-site. Operations likely to be carried out during the construction phase are anticipated to include: limited site clearance; earthworks; site re-grading; material import and export; temporary stockpiling of materials; construction of new onsite facilities; and, associated vehicle movements. The applicant‟s dust consultant has recommended that a Dust Action Plan (in accordance with MPS2: Annex 1) should control the potential impacts to local receptors. The CAQC is satisfied with the submitted Dust Impact Assessment and recommend that no construction and/or demolition works should be progressed until a suitable Dust Action Plan (DAP) is submitted and agreed in writing by the CPA.
139 In relation to health impacts PPS10 at paragraph 30 states that „Modern, appropriately
located, well-run and well-regulated, waste management facilities operated in line with current pollution control techniques and standards should pose little risk to human health.‟ It goes on to confirm that the detailed consideration of the waste management process and any implications for human health are the responsibility of the pollution control authority (Environment Agency), though health can be a material planning consideration in planning decisions which are concerned with ensuring whether or not the location of a proposed development is acceptable. The Borough Council nor residents have raised specific health concerns in respect of the AD facility operations, and the CAQC has confirmed that the air quality effects on human-health associated with the operation of the plant are not significant.
140 In terms of emissions including odour, whilst these are matters for monitoring and control through the EA‟s Environmental Permitting (EP) regime, they are still a material consideration – assuming effective operation of the permitting regime. In respect of emissions from the plant, based on comments from the CAQC, Officers consider that there are unlikely to be significant effects on the air quality, with emission levels well within the legislative levels. In terms of dust, it is concluded that impact of the proposed development, including its construction phase and operation, can be controlled through the implementation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and Dust Management Plan, which would be secured by condition. Officers therefore consider that the proposed development complies with relevant UK legislation and development plan policies in relation to air quality, including dust and odour, subject to additional control measures to be agreed and available through the Environmental Permitting Regime. Officers therefore consider, subject to the above requirements, that the application will not have an unacceptable impact on air quality (including emissions, dust, odour and health effects) and as such accords with the SAQMA objectives, Policy NRM9 SEP 2009 and Policy DC3 SWP 2008.
LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL AMENITY 141 SEP 2009 Policy CC1 states that sustainable development priorities include ensuring the
physical and natural environment is conserved and enhanced. The Borough of
Item 9
35
Runnymede lies within the London Fringe sub-regional strategy area of the SEP 2009, and Policy LF9: Green Belt Management aims to improve management „to increase opportunities for access to the open countryside, the retention of attractive landscapes and enhancement of damaged ones‟. SEP 2009 Policy C4 Landscape and Countryside Management seeks to protect and enhance, the diversity and local distinctiveness of the region‟s landscape. SWP 2008 Policy DC3 states that assessment of the visual and landscape impact of development on a site and the surrounding land must be submitted with any proposal and this should also identify appropriate mitigation so as to minimise or avoid any material adverse impact. In addition, Policy DC3 states that planning applications must demonstrate a high quality of design for new buildings. The site also lies within a large area noted as a Landscape Problem Area, under Policy NE10 in the RBLP 2001, which states that in these areas „the Council will seek to improve the appearance of the landscape through development control and other powers and negotiations‟.
142 The RBLP 2001 has several landscape related policies that are relevant (NE 12 Tree
Protection, NE14 Trees and Development, NE15 Landscaping Schemes), which protect significant trees, hedgerows and woodlands and make provision for new planting, through the use of development control powers, tree preservation orders and through countryside management. In respect of new developments, they are to supported by a comprehensive landscaping scheme giving details of new tree, hedge and shrub planting.
143 The applicant has submitted a design and access statement, which states that layout of
the site has been designed to meet operational, amenity and landscaping requirements. In addition the applicant has provided a full visual and landscape assessment, which has been carried out by professional landscape consultants. The reception building, wood chip building and tanks are agricultural in their appearance and will be coloured dark green in order to minimise their visual impact. The tanks and reception building are positioned close to each other and to the adjacent compost facility to the west, to cluster the built development, thereby reducing the footprint of the site and the potential visual impact. The engine stacks are to be the highest structures at 16m, necessary to minimise the effects on air quality. A Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) (drawing and cross sections) has been submitted by the applicant, showing the likely views of any of the structures on the proposed development site, within 1 km.
144 New landscape planting is proposed around the northeast corner and the eastern and southern perimeters of the site in order to reduce any potential visual impact, which will improve the landscape structure of the area, using native species, providing a hedgerow structure, which would link the woodland to the south with the maturing woodland around the restored landfill site to the north. A single mature oak tree (under Tree Preservation Order) currently sited on the northwestern boundary of the site needs to be removed as part of the development in order to allow for sufficient manoeuvring of HGVs entering the site. The applicant carried out a detailed assessment of options, in respect of the access. The complex arrangement of buildings and plant required for the proposed AD Facility and the site constraints led to a design solution, which met operational, environmental and amenity requirements. The design was modified many times in an attempt to relocate the vehicular access and remove the conflict with the location of the oak tree. Unfortunately, the space available within the site; required configuration of buildings, plant and equipment; and the land requirement for adequate tracking of the vehicle routing, did not allow for this. Two new oak trees will be planted adjacent to the access, with additional new planting around the whole site, which will include 24 new oaks planted as feathered trees, 10 field maple planted as feathered trees, and additional tree species in the proposed mixes will help to enhance the landscape character of the locality. There will also be a loss of a small arable field, which the applicant considers would have a negligible impact on the landscape character of the area.
Item 9
36
145 The submitted visual and landscape assessment identifies that the site is situated in the Virginia Water sub-area of the Western Surrey countryside character area, of the SCC landscape assessment, The Future of Surrey‟s Landscape and Woodlands (1997). The SCC assessment identifies the erosion of landscape features and character from small- scale land uses (i.e. tipping of waste) and the positive role of woodland cover in preventing a widespread perception of landscape degradation as key influences. The reference to tree cover as being a „containing element‟ for development locally is a factor that should be considered in respect of this application. The applicant‟s assessment identified the more local key characteristics as:
Underlying historic character of heathland, overlain by more recent land uses.
Low lying, gently undulating landscape, but with natural landform disturbed by restored landfill site north of site, and M3 corridor.
Area of previous mineral extraction and restoration.
Numerous elements combine to reduce the unspoilt quality of the landscape: restored landfill site; warehouse and hard standing west of site; stockpiles of material; horse paddocks; poor quality sheds within the tongue of woodland.
Strongly wooded character, especially to south.
The wooded nature of the landscape means that it appears fairly small scale and enclosed, though with slightly longer views along the small valleys.
Housing generally well screened by woodland, with only a few outlying farms surrounded by more open landscape.
Relatively tranquil despite proximity of M3 motorway. 146 The applicant‟s assessment commented that whilst, the site lies within the Green Belt, it
is not within any area designated for its landscape quality, and an area noted by Runnymede Borough Council as a Landscape Problem Area. Although the proposals would introduce new built form into the landscape, the proposed structures are similar in scale to those that might currently be found in the countryside in association with agriculture. The applicant considers that the proposed development would be viewed as a continuation of the neighbouring composting site.
147 In terms of visual impact, the applicant considers the main impacts would be:
On the public footpath running past the site, assessed as substantial in the short term, reducing to slight (summer)-moderate (winter) in the longer term when the proposed planting has matured.
On some views from Trumps Farm and Fairview Farm farmhouses, assessed as slight-moderate in the short term, reducing to negligible slight in the longer term when the proposed planting has matured.
On the residential property on the north western side of Hersham Farm, assessed as moderate in the short term, reducing to not more than slight in the longer term when the proposed planting has matured.
Overall, the applicant considers that the site is well contained visually from the wider landscape, with few views from publicly accessible areas or residential property. The proposed planting would help to reduce visual impacts over time, and link the site visually with the surrounding well-wooded landscape.
148 The County Landscape Officer (CLO) concurs with the submitted assessment, and
strongly supports the use of „native‟ species and the nature of landscape elements proposed, as this is sound in landscape and biodiversity terms. The woodland belts might work better in a screening context than hedgerows where viewed from the northeast and east. Visual impacts on the footpath along the south boundary would be of some concern, and again this depends on the level of screening that can be achieved between the receptor and the site. It is a fact that screening closer to a receptor is far more effective than screening further away or closer to a development. In this case a
Item 9
37
dense hedgerow along the boundary would be effective, providing lower density can be maintained, which the applicant has provided.
149 The County Landscape Officer concludes that the landscape and visual impacts will be
limited in extent and that those impacts specifically identified could potentially be mitigated (with time) with appropriate landscape treatment and recommend that a more detailed landscape plan to include changes in the density and species of planting, be submitted together with a 25 year Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP), both of which can be secured by means of a condition. Officers conclude that with the successful implementation of a more detailed landscape plan and LEMP, the proposed development would accord with the Development Plan provisions by appropriately mitigating visual and landscape impacts.
PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY 150 The County Rights of Way (ROW) Officers have raised concerns about the effects the
proposed development may have on Public Footpath 62 Egham, which runs to the south of the proposed site. The footpath current benefits from an open nature and proposals for hedgerow planting would create a corridor effect and may encroach on the footpath. ROW Officers recommended that as the silage clamp was some 7m from the footpath, hedgerow planting could be set further back from the footpath. The applicant has provided a detailed landscape plan, which avoids encroachment of the public footpath along the southern boundary of the proposed site. ROW Officers were also concerned about the drainage requirements for the proposed development, as the footpath was at a lower level and any increased run-off would have a detrimental effect on the footpath.
151 The ROW Officers have commented that the importance of the local rights of way
network is recognised in the RBLP 2001, which states that the Council has a positive approach to the use of the countryside for informal recreation, seeking to improve rights of way provision in the Borough, and Policy MV14 (Pedestrians) seeks to do this. This is also reflected in the SEP 2009 policies C5 (Managing the Rural-Urban Fringe) and C6 (Countryside Access and Rights of Way Management). Officers therefore consider that appropriate mitigation has been provided to minimise the impacts on FP69 in accordance with the above Development Plan policies.
NOISE AND VIBRATION 152 Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 Planning and Noise (PPG24) provides Government
advice with regards to industrial and commercial development, which can be used to assess waste development. PPG24 states that in such cases BS4142 (Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas) would be the most appropriate guidance and that where a differences in noise levels are recorded of around 10 decibels (dB) or higher, complaints are likely (whereas a difference of around 5 dB is of marginal significance). Paragraph 11 of PPG24 recognises that the characteristics of noise, such as irregular noise or noise, which has a distinguishable tone, may cause concern and that these factors should be considered in the determination of planning applications.
153 SEP 2009 Policy NRM10 states that measures to address and reduce noise pollution will
be developed through means such as locating new residential and other sensitive development away from existing sources of significant noise or away from planned new sources of noise. SWP 2008 Policy DC3 (General Considerations) states that waste related development shall only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that any impacts of the development with regard to noise, can be controlled to achieve levels that will not significantly affect people, land, infrastructure and resources.
154 Surrey CC (Surrey Noise Guidelines) has produced its own „Guidelines for Noise Control
Minerals and Waste Disposal 1994‟, based on the approach in Mineral Planning
Item 9
38
Guidance Note 11: Noise (MPG11). Mineral Planning Statement 2: Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Mineral Extraction in England (MPS2) has now superseded MPG11, but the advice in terms of noise remains consistent with MPG11 and the Surrey Noise Guidelines. This Guidance states that new noise produced from development must be no more than 5 decibels expressed as a LAeq value above existing working day background noise levels (LA90). Surrey County Council own noise guidance is more stringent than National guidance for nighttime noise.
155 The applicant submitted a noise impact assessment, which was based upon the results
of a background noise survey undertaken at the closest residential receptor to the site. The assessment demonstrated that the calculated noise levels of the proposed development fall within the acceptable limits at the nearest residential receptor in accordance with the criteria set within SCC‟s noise guidelines. It has also been demonstrated that the change in noise levels, for an additional 82 HGVs per day, for the noise sensitive receptor known as Chevythorn on Kitsmead Lane will at worst, have a minor impact.
156 The County Noise Consultant agrees with the findings of the assessment undertaken
and confirms that there would be no significant noise impacts from either the construction or operation of the development or any associated traffic. The County Noise consultant recommends that a noise limit of 43 LAeq for daytime and 32 LAeq at night would be appropriate. Officers therefore consider that the proposed development complies with the Development Plan with regards to noise and vibration effects on neighbouring amenity and any impacts have been appropriately mitigated in accordance with Policy DC3 of the SWP 2008.
SURFACE WATER AND FLOOD RISK and GROUNDWATER PROTECTION 157 Government guidance and policy on flooding is contained in the March 2010 revised
Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS25) and Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide (PPS25 Practice Guide). The aims of the planning policy on flood risk, as set out in PPS 25 and the related practice guide, are: to ensure that flood risk is taken into account in planning decisions and plan preparation; to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding and direct development away from high flood risk; and (where development is, exceptionally, necessary in high flood risk areas) make it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere and, where possible, reducing flood risk overall.
158 South East Plan 2009 (SEP 2009) Policy NRM1 (Sustainable Water Resources and
Groundwater Quality) states that water supply and ground water will be maintained and enhanced through avoiding adverse effects of development on the water environment. SEP 2009 Policy NRM2 (Water Quality) provides that water quality will be maintained and enhanced through avoiding adverse effects of development on the water environment. SEP 2009 Policy NRM4 (Sustainable Flood Risk Management) states that the sequential approach to development in flood risk areas as set out in PPS25 will be followed and that inappropriate development should not be allocated or permitted in Flood Zones 2 and 3, areas at risk of surface water flooding (critical drainage areas), or areas with a history of groundwater flooding, or where the proposal would increase flood risk elsewhere - unless there is an overriding need and absence of suitable alternatives.
159 SWP 2008 Policy DC3 (General Considerations) states that planning permissions for
waste related development will be granted provided it can be demonstrated by the provision of appropriate information to support a planning application that any impacts of the development can be controlled to achieve levels that will not significantly adversely affect people, land, infrastructure and resources. The information supporting the planning application must include, where relevant to a development proposal, assessment of: the contamination of ground and surface water; the drainage of the site and adjoining land and the risk of flooding; and the groundwater conditions and the hydrogeology of the
Item 9
39
locality. Where necessary, appropriate mitigation should be identified so as to minimise or avoid any material adverse impact and compensate for any loss. RBLP Policy SV2A states that the Council will resist development, which in its opinion, after consultation with the Environment Agency, could adversely affect the quality of surface water or groundwater.
160 The AD facility provides a completely sealed liquid management system, with all
incoming wastes immediately stored in the reception tanks and bunkers. Following reception the whole process is totally enclosed and no liquids leave the plant other than the treated digestate, which is collected and transported in sealed tankers. The site lies within the Environment Agency designated Flood Zone 1, which has the lowest probability of flooding, assessed as having a less than 1 in 1000 annual probability of flooding in any one year (<0.1%). As such and due to the site being greater than 1ha the applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) in accordance with the requirements of PPS25.
161 The proposed development is designed to contain all waste within the reception building
or sealed tanks and therefore it is not anticipated to be a site of potential contamination issues. Rainwater, which falls upon the roof of the reception building, will be collected and reused in the AD process; runoff from the silage storage area requires separate collection and will also be reused in the AD process. As infiltration rates are anticipated to be low due to the nature of the underlying geology and deposition of soils for land improvements, runoff from other roofs and the digestion and storage tanks will be collected and fed into an open attenuation area, then discharged to existing drainage. The FRA concludes that the proposed development has insignificant potential to adversely affect flooding risk in the locality.
162 In terms of groundwater protection, the proposed drainage system would ensure that all dirty water or leachate is collected and reused within the AD process, or removed from site and disposed of in a suitably licensed facility. Discharge to adjacent watercourses will be controlled to prevent downstream flooding. All foul water from the welfare facility will be treated within a packaged treatment plant. All potential contaminants i.e. leachate and diesel, will be stored in suitably designed tanks with adequate storage capacity.
163 The applicant provided a Phase 1 Land Contamination Report, to establish any potential
contamination risk, particularly considering the proximity of the site to the former Trumps Farm Landfill site. The report concluded that there is a low risk of contamination from imported ground materials on site and that further investigation, by way of trial pits, boreholes and gas monitoring, would be required to assess the potential risks to the site from the adjacent former landfill. This further ground investigation work can be secured by way of condition.
164 Environment Agency do not have any in-principle objections to the proposal and are
satisfied that conditions would be able to control mitigation and any further assessment. As such the proposed drainage scheme would address the concerns raised by the County ROW Officer regarding increased surface water run-off.
165 Officers consider that a robust flood risk and groundwater protection assessment has
been undertaken. There are considered to be no adverse impacts in terms of surface water or flooding or contamination in connection with the proposed AD and pelleting facility, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions as confirmed by the applicant‟s own consultant and the Environment Agency. Officers consider the proposed development would accord with the relevant Development Plan policies with regards surface water, flooding and groundwater protection.
ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION
Item 9
40
166 Planning Policy Statement 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (PPS9) sets out policies that apply to the integration of the protection of biodiversity and geological conservation and planning. Further advice is contained in Government Circular 06/2005 „Biodiversity and Geological Conservation‟. The Government‟s objectives for planning are to promote sustainable development, conserve, enhance and restore the diversity of England‟s wildlife and geology and contribute to rural renewal and urban renaissance.
167 SEP 2009 Policy NRM5 aims to protect and enhance the biodiversity of the region,
seeking to avoid a net loss of biodiversity, actively pursue opportunities to achieve a net gain across the region through providing the highest level of protection for internationally designated sites, to ensure that damage to county and locally important wildlife sites is avoided and that unavoidable damage to wildlife interest is minimised through mitigation and any damage is compensated for. The policy also seeks opportunities for biodiversity improvement including connection of sites, large-scale habitat restoration and the enhancement and re-creation in areas of strategy opportunity for biodiversity improvement. SWP 2008 Policy DC3 „General Considerations‟ states that planning applications should assess the loss or damage to flora and fauna and their respective habitats at the site or on adjoining land and identify any appropriate mitigation.
168 The applicant has provided an ecological investigation comprising a desk study,
walkover survey and bat assessment of the oak tree proposed for removal. The investigation considered that the proposals would not have any significant effect on the designated interest features of either the South West London Waterbodies Wetland Ramsar site or the Chobham Common part of the Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham Special Area of Conservation (SAC), which also forms part of the wider Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA). As already noted, the CPA has confirmed that the proposals are unlikely to require an Appropriate Assessment, following consultation with Natural England. With respect to habitats, the footprint of the proposals will not result in the loss of any significant area of habitat
169 The loss of a single oak and its habitat is unavoidable according to the applicant, and
this is compensated through the provision of two new oak trees (east of this oak), within the landscape planting scheme for the site. Given that the oak is considered to be suitable for roosting bats, the applicant‟s ecologist recommends that the oak be inspected by a licensed bat worker prior (within 24 hours) to felling in order to confirm the absence of roosting bats. In addition, any vegetation removal is undertaken outside the main bird breeding season (February to August, inclusive) unless a survey by a suitably experienced ecologist confirms no breeding birds are present immediately prior to the works commencing. The applicant‟s ecologist also recommended that: the attenuation ponds are designed and constructed in an ecologically sensitive manner; any new planting (including the provision of two new oak trees) uses a diverse range and high proportion of native species; and the erection of bat and bird boxes, subject to the availability of suitable structures.
170 Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT) supports the above recommendations by the applicant‟s ecologists, which can be secured by condition. In addition, SWT recommends that any exterior lighting should be kept to a minimum, shielded to prevent light splay and not directed towards the woodland boundaries of the site, which may be used by bats for feeding and commuting. The County Ecologist supports the views of SWT and the recommendation for two suitably worded conditions in respect of the oak tree/ bat check and vegetation removal in the bird nesting season. Officers consider that with appropriate mitigation this application complies with the relevant Development Policies and particularly SWP 2008 Policy DC3 (which states that appropriate mitigation should be identified so as to minimise or avoid any loss or damage to flora and fauna and their respective habitats at the site or on adjoining land including linear or other features which facilitate the dispersal or features).
Item 9
41
ARCHAEOLOGY 171 SWP 2008 Policy DC3 „General Considerations‟ states that planning applications should
assess the loss or damage to archaeological resources and identify any appropriate mitigation. The RBLP 2001 Policies BE16 (Preservation and Recording of Archaeological Remains) and BE17 Chance Archaeological Finds, seek to preserve and record remains of archaeological interest.
172 The applicant has submitted an archaeological desk-top assessment, which identified the site area as lying in an area of relatively low archaeological potential, as evidenced by the lack of archaeological entries in the Surrey Historic Environment Record. Nevertheless, the site has not been significantly developed in the past and, as a result, it is likely that any subsurface archaeological remains present on the site may have survived. It will therefore be necessary to provide further information about the potential of the site from field observations, in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on any below-ground archaeological remains.
173 The County Archaeologist agrees with the submitted archaeological assessment and recommends that further investigation should take the form of a field evaluation. This will test the extent of the survival of archaeological evidence through trial trenching of the site, in accordance with a scheme of investigation. This investigation work with the use of an appropriate condition.
174 SWP 2008 Policy DC3 (General Considerations) states that planning applications should assess the loss or damage to archaeological resources and identify any appropriate mitigation. As such, the applicant has submitted an assessment to consider the effects upon the archaeology that could result from the proposed development at Trumps Farm. In light of that assessment, Officers consider that the possibility of archaeological deposits across the site would be limited. The County Archaeologist‟s suggested condition would be a reasonable safeguard in this case and subject to it the proposed development would accord with the provisions of SWP 2008 Policy DC3 and other relevant Development Policies on archaeological matters.
GREEN BELT South East Plan 2009 Policy SP5 Green Belts Policy LF9 Green Belt Management Policy W17 Location of Waste Management Facilities Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy CW5 Location of Waste Facilities Policy CW6 Development in the Green Belt Policy WD2 Recycling, Storage, Transfer, Materials Recovery and Processing Facilities (Excluding Thermal Treatment) Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 Policy GB1 Development within the Green Belt 175 Regional waste policy for the South East (SEP 2009) with regards to Green Belt is set
out within Policy SP5 which, states that the existing broad extent of Green Belts in the region is appropriate and will be retained and supported and the opportunity should be taken to improve their land-use management and access as part of initiatives to improve the rural urban fringe. Policy W17 in respect of the location of waste sites states that:
„Waste management facilities should not be precluded from the Green Belt where this is the nearest appropriate location, where there are no alternative sites, and provided that the development would not cause harm to the objectives of the designation‟
Item 9
42
176 The SEP 2009 emphasises the need to identify new waste facilities, „If new facilities are to be developed in time for meeting the challenging national and regional waste diversion targets, it will be essential for plans to be site-specific wherever possible‟. The position within regional planning policy is clearly that the development of waste management facilities should not be precluded from the Green Belt. However, provided they are in accordance with Green Belt policy.
177 The Borough of Runnymede lies within the London Fringe sub-regional strategy area of
the SEP 2009, and Policy LF9: Green Belt Management aims to improve management „to increase opportunities for access to the open countryside, the retention of attractive landscapes and enhancement of damaged ones‟.
178 Over 70% of Surrey lies within the Green Belt. The County Council has promoted
policies for the protection of the Green Belt since its creation and has implemented policies so as to ensure that Green Belt objectives are maintained. The SWP 2008 through Policy CW6 seeks to ensure that the Green Belt serves its proper purpose whilst making provision exceptionally for necessary waste management development. Policy CW6 states that there will be a presumption against inappropriate related development in the Green Belt except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development of waste management facilities in the Green Belt will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The Policy states that the following considerations may contribute to very special circumstances:
i. the lack of suitable non-Green Belt sites ii. the need to find locations well related to the source of waste arisings iii. the characteristics of the site; and iv. the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management, including the need for a range of sites
179 The RBLP 2001 through Policy GB1 seeks to protect the Green Belt and planning
permission will not be permitted for inappropriate development, which is by definition, harmful to the Green Belt.
Harm to the Green Belt and other harm 180 Waste development is not within the categories of development recognised in PPG2 to
be appropriate in the Green Belt; and therefore the application proposal involving the use of the land for waste development clearly constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and will cause harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness. The proposal would involve encroachment, which will impact on openness of the Green Belt.
181 The use of land in the Green Belt for waste related development is recognised in national and development plan policy, as mentioned above. Planning applications are determined on the basis of development plan policies, and consideration of issues such as: the location of the site, its capability of supporting the infrastructure proposed, and whether it would operate without causing harm to the Green Belt, local amenity and local environmental interests. Where there is harm to the Green Belt and other harm, it has to be demonstrated that very special circumstances exist to clearly outweigh them.
182 In accordance with the above guidance and policy, harm to the Green Belt is an
important factor in determining the acceptability of this application. In order to assess this application in terms of Green Belt planning policy, it is necessary to first establish the nature and extent of the harm caused. The proposal comprises of built development involving buildings and structures with other infrastructure, with perimeter landscaping. The built waste management development proposed and its subsequent use and operation of the land constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt that is by
Item 9
43
definition harmful. The planting would provide benefits in terms of the setting and character of the Green Belt.
183 The scale and extent of the development proposed are also to be judged in terms of their
physical impact of openness, and the fundamental aim of keeping Green Belt permanently open. The purposes of including land in the Green Belt should also be considered. Specifically, it would not assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment (PPG2 paragraph 1.5), as it would encroach into the open countryside. Clearly the nature and scale of the proposals will conflict with one of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt in terms of encroachment on the countryside.
184 In considering the impact on openness the starting point in this process will be the impact of the proposal on the fundamental characteristic of the Green Belt, namely its openness. Any harm caused to the fundamental aim of maintaining openness by reason of inappropriate development will be given substantial weight by the Secretary of State. Substantial weight should also be applied to other aspects of harm to the Green Belt where these harms relate to either the purposes of the Green Belt, the objectives of the Green Belt or the visual amenity of the Green Belt. Weight should also be attributed to other (non-green belt) harm caused by the development, for example the impact of the proposal on visual amenity, with the weight attributed depending on the scale and significance of the harm identified. Against this assessment of harm, one must then assess both the mitigation of that harm and the need for, and/or benefits of the proposal. Once all the requisite elements have been assessed, there must be a judgment made as to whether the factors demonstrate the existence of very special circumstances clearly outweighing all harm caused.
185 The application site comprises some 2.6ha within the Green Belt, with is currently in
agricultural use. The access to the site is also the access to the adjacent composting site and Trumps Farm buildings. It is accepted that the proposed waste management development for the field area does not fall within any of the categories of appropriate development in PPG2, so is therefore deemed to be „inappropriate‟ development in the Green Belt; and Officers have therefore taken account of the fact that the proposal is harmful to the Green Belt by definition. The proposed development would cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt not only by reason of its inappropriateness but also through the construction of a facility.
186 The applicant has stated that although the site is located within a rural setting in the Green Belt, it is not an undeveloped and particularly open area. Adjacent to the development site to the west is a green waste composting site and to the north lies a former landfill site. Further to the north (330m) is a site identified as being suitable for waste management development in the SWP 2008 and the M3 motorway. The site is well screened to the north, south and west, although more open to the east. Due to its scale and designed-in mitigation measures, the applicant considers that the development would have minimal impact in terms of encroachment into the countryside or upon the Green Belt‟s openness. The use of land is agricultural (grazing) and in terms of Green Belt policy the adjacent land uses are not relevant to the argument, but the change of use of the site from agricultural to waste management and the impact on openness are the relevant points.
187 RBC have objected on grounds that the proposed development is inappropriate and
contrary to Policy CW5 of the SWP 2008 and would have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt, contrary to Policy GB1 of the RBLP 2001. In respect of Policy CW5, paragraph B39 of the supporting text in the SWP 2008 states that land in waste management use may provide appropriate locations for new or enhanced waste management facilities. Whilst the proposed operational area is not in waste use, the 600m of internal access road is used for the composting facility, and more efficient use of trips could be made delivering waste to both the composting facility and the proposed development. The supporting text to this Policy CW5 goes on to state that to minimise
Item 9
44
the negative effects of transporting waste priority is given to those sites that are close to the main sources of waste and with good access to the strategic road network [CW5 (i)]. The proposed site is close to the main sources of waste and has a good access to the road network. The AD plant and associated tanks along with the wood pelleting facility will have an impact on openness of the Green Belt, however the elements of the facility have been arranged to provide a best fit to the site, and their scale and mass are dictated by the need to accommodate the necessary technology, and the need to treat local commercial waste arisings (as discussed under waste need). Whilst that the impact is acknowledged in the current landscape setting, with more open views to the east, the proposal provides mitigation in the form of the natural setting, existing topography and proposed landscaping.
188 PPG2 (paragraph 3.13) states that any re-development of land in the Green Belt should so far as possible contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land in the Green Belts (para.1.6 PPG2), in this instance the proposed development provides for some enhancement of the landscape and countryside attributes, and nature conservation interest. The visual amenities of the Green Belt should also not be injured by proposals for development, by reason of their siting, materials or design. The applicant has provided an assessment of the visual impacts, concluding that impacts would be limited, and the County Landscape Officer agrees with this conclusion.
189 Officers do not consider that the visual amenities of the Green Belt would be harmed to such degree that planning permission should be refused, weighing up the harm, which would result as „any other harm‟ in the context of Green Belt planning policy. The site does, however, offer substantial potential for the co-location of waste management facilities and the environmental benefits associated with a consequent reduction in overall waste vehicle movements. At project level, these factors could contribute to a justification for development on grounds of very special circumstances.
Very Special Circumstances 190 The demonstration of very special circumstances is considered to be a fundamental
factor in determining the acceptability of the application given the acceptance that the major part of the proposed development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and in view of the harm to openness and other harm acknowledged above. Runnymede Borough Council and local residents have objected to this application on Green Belt grounds, arguing that the applicant has failed to demonstrate very special circumstances to allow inappropriate development within the Green Belt and that there is not sufficient local need and disagree that there are not more appropriately located sites. The SWP 2008 acknowledges the fact and repeats the principles of PPS10 that waste management facilities should not be precluded from the Green Belt, and that there is an immediate and acute shortfall of waste management facility capacity within Surrey. The applicant has accepted that the development would be classified as inappropriate development and has put forward a number of factors, which it considers are very special circumstances that outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm.
191 The applicant has put forward the following list of factors that constitute very special circumstances: The locational needs:
The close proximity of the site to the source of waste and to the point of use of the final recycled product;
The good transport connections of the site;
The lack of alternative non-green belt sites within the area of search and close to the sources of waste;
The appropriate separation of the site from sensitive properties to protect then from potential disturbance;
Item 9
45
The existing natural screening benefits the site already provides;
The environmental benefits of the co-location with an existing waste management facility and former landfill site;
The immediate and acute shortfall of waste management facility capacity in the region as a whole and in particular within Surrey.
The wider environmental and economic benefits:
The urgent need for more recovery of organic waste to achieve higher levels of landfill diversion of this waste stream;
The significant savings in greenhouse gases as a result of diverting priority waste materials from landfill as identified by government;
Generation of renewable energy and a valuable agricultural product thereby conserving resources.
Other factors:
The similarity in character of the development to an agricultural use;
The lack of harm to the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt;
The low impact to amenities of local receptors. 192 For the purposes of this report, the factors potentially capable in Officers‟ view of
contributing to „very special circumstances‟ have been grouped together and considered under the four considerations identified in SWP 2008 Policy CW6 that may contribute to very special circumstances.
Lack of suitable non Green Belt sites
193 The applicant carried out a comprehensive Alternative Site Assessment (ASA), which
identified 38 initial sites. A review using basic threshold criteria (as described above in the waste section) and a more specific environmental, location and efficiency sieving, resulted in a short list of 6 sites; Trumps Farm (development site), Land adjacent to Trumps Farm, Slyfield Ind. Estate, Martyrs Lane, Mill Lane Works, Church Farm and Lyne Lane. The ASA has confirmed that no other suitable sites currently exist outside the Green Belt and that the Trumps Farm is the most suitable and available site within the Green Belt.
194 The ASA has confirmed that Trumps Farm is the most suitable site due to the fact that it
is in close proximity to source of arisings and digestate users and is located on land adjoining to that which has an operational waste development in place (existing composting operations), therefore sharing the internal access route from Kitsmead Lane. In addition it has an adequate stand-off from residential dwellings.
195 Officers consider that the applicant has undertaken a robust and extensive ASA, particularly in so far as it examined the availability of sites meeting the particular location requirements of anaerobic digestion facilities. The present situation in Surrey is such that the availability of non-Green Belt sites is extremely limited, as the County is substantially washed over by Metropolitan Green Belt designation. In this context, it is unsurprising that the submitted ASA identified no suitable non-Green Belt. On the basis of the submitted ASA, Officers are satisfied that there are no alternative sites available in or outside of the Green Belt that would be more suitable for the proposed waste operations and they consider that „the lack of suitable non-Green Belt sites‟ has been demonstrated for the purposes of SWP 2008 Policy CW6.
The need to find locations well related to the source of waste arisings
196 The AD facility is to primarily serve the north of Surrey, and the site‟s proximity to the
primary road network ensures that it remains attractively located in respect of commercial food waste arisings from north Surrey. Following consideration of the
Item 9
46
evidence (as described in waste management section) provided by the applicant, Officers consider the proposed site at Trumps Farm is well related to the source of waste arisings that it would receive. As such, the application is in accordance with „the need to find locations well related to the source of waste arisings‟ as referred to in SWP 2008 Policy CW6.
The characteristics of the site
197 SWP 2008 Policy CW5 outlines the criteria for the location of waste facilities, stating that
priority should be given to industrial/employment sites, urban sites, and sites easily accessible by the strategic road network. As identified within the SWP 2008 there are limited urban and industrial sites available for waste management development and they have strongly competing demands. The applicant has noted that due to the locational requirements of AD, such sites are not preferable in urban areas as they are often located close to sensitive receptors and not proximal to arable land.
198 Although the site is located within a rural setting in the Green Belt, it is not an
undeveloped, as it lies adjacent to an existing waste management site (composting) and former landfill site. Further to the north (330m on other site of former landfill) is a site (known as Trumps Farm) identified as being suitable for waste management development in the SWP 2008 and the M3 motorway. The site is well screened to the north, south and west, due to its natural topography and vegetation. The site has an available grid connection on Kitsmead Lane. In addition, the site is well placed to provide heat for a district heating scheme, for example the planned development of the former DERA site some 350 to the west.
199 Following consideration of these factors, Officers consider that the site proposed is
capable of making a significant contribution to meeting the need within the county for development to provide for sustainable waste management.
The wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management, including the need for a range of sites
200 Surrey County Council is currently reliant upon the use of out-of-county waste
management capacity for the treatment and disposal of waste arising in the County. Whilst some provision is being promoted (Eco Park at Charlton Lane) for part of the municipal waste stream, there is no provision for the commercial food waste stream in Surrey. The proposed AD and wood pelleting facility could reduce the reliance on out-of- county facilities and play an important role in achieving the objectives of providing a sustainable solution for the management of Surrey‟s waste and help the County achieve the targets, set by the SEP 2009, for diverting waste from landfill.
201 The proposed development would offer clear climate change benefits in terms of:
avoided greenhouse gas emissions by diversion of waste by landfill and reducing the transport of waste over long distance by road to out-of-county facilities; and
the generation of renewable energy and low carbon energy and the consequential displacement of fossil fuels in energy generation, and export to the national grid.
202 The applicant has identified that there are benefits resulting from the facilities at Trumps
Farm, being co-located with the adjacent composting facility, and PPS10 advises that Waste Planning Authorities should seek opportunities to co-locate facilities together and with complementary activities. The Inspector for the examination of the SWP 2008 specifically identified that the environmental benefits associated with co-locating waste management facilities could, at a project level, contribute to very special circumstances.
203 The economic benefits of the proposed AD facility and wood pelleting facility include: the production and sale of biogas as both electricity and heat; production and sale of
Item 9
47
fertilisers thereby improving the efficiency of farming practices by offsetting fertiliser and energy bills; production and sale of wood pellets as fuel; create local employment and provide diversification for rural businesses such as farms.
204 Both Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy (PPS22) and the Draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate indicate that “the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources” can constitute very special circumstances for inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The applicant has stated that the proposal is considered an important renewable energy development for which there is an overriding need at the national and local level. The benefits of renewable energy generation have been considered above; and Officers consider that the AD facility‟s contribution towards national targets for electricity generation from renewables in accordance with Government and development plan policy contributes to very special circumstances.
205 Runnymede Borough Council states that „the applicants have failed to demonstrate very special circumstances‟, and in their Officer report to committee consider that the very special circumstances put forward by the applicant are not special. Officers, would disagree with this view, as very special circumstances do not need to be site specific, therefore some may relate direct to Trumps Farm as a site, whilst others for example the co-location benefits, environmental benefits and benefits of renewable energy are not necessarily site specific, but are factors that in combination go toward demonstrating very special circumstances.
Conclusion on Very Special Circumstances and Green Belt 206 The proposal is for inappropriate development in the Green Belt and is therefore harmful
to it by definition; and Government places substantial importance on the protection of the Green Belt from the effects of inappropriate development. The proposed development would have an impact on the openness of this part of the Green Belt, with the buildings and structures being not in accordance with one of the purposes of including land in the Green Belt, i.e. safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. In terms of uses of the land, the proposed development, whilst inappropriate does secure some enhancement of the landscape and nature conservation.
207 Officers, however consider there are a number of factors which together constitute very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, harm to openness and other harm, and that these justify the grant of planning permission. None of the factors identified in the application and listed under the four considerations above can, on its own, be considered to constitute very special circumstances and clearly outweigh the harm referred to above; but in combination they do so. These factors, which have been considered in detail, are: (1) the lack of alternative suitable sites in or outside of the Green Belt; (2) the need for the County to increase recycling / recovery capacity and diversion from landfill to contribute to agreed targets; (3) the close proximity of the site to the arisings of waste; (4) the characteristics and suitability of the site for the scale of waste operation proposed; (5) the unique benefits of being adjacent to an existing waste management facility, former landfill site and grid connection; (6) the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management, including the need for a range of sites; (7) the provision of renewable energy generation capacity and saving of greenhouse gases. Officers consider that these factors combined, are such that very special circumstances have been demonstrated as required by SWP 2008 Policy CW6. They consider that these clearly outweigh the harm resulting from the proposal. Therefore, an exception to Green Belt policy in PPG2, the SEP 2009 Policy SP5 and RBLP Policy GB1 can and should be made and planning permission be granted subject to conditions.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
Item 9
48
208 The Human Rights Act Guidance for Interpretation, contained in the Preamble to the
Agenda is expressly incorporated into this report and must be read in conjunction with the following paragraph.
209 It is acknowledged that there would be an impact on the Green Belt caused by
inappropriateness of the development and harm to openness, in addition impacts in respect of air quality, noise, traffic, landscape are acknowledged and have been assessed in the body of the report and mitigation provided; however the scale of such impacts is not considered sufficient to engage Article 8 or Article 1 of Protocol 1 and, if planning permission were to be granted, such impacts are capable of being mitigated by the measures incorporated into the application proposal and by planning condition and the mitigation measures and controls available through the Environmental Permitting regime. As such, this proposal is not considered to interfere with any Convention right.
CONCLUSION 210 The proposal needs to be assessed and considered as a new waste proposal within the
Metropolitan Green Belt where there is a presumption against inappropriate development. Key issues in determining this application include compliance with the Development Plan, the protection of the Metropolitan Green Belt, the suitability of the site for waste development, transport and transportation, and the potential impact on local residential, environmental and amenity interests.
211 Waste development of this type is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and
therefore planning permission may only be granted where factors that amount to very special circumstances are demonstrated to justify inappropriate development and clearly outweigh the harm in terms of inappropriateness and any other harm. The AD plant and associated tanks and wood pelleting building would have an impact on the openness of the Green Belt and conflict with one of the purposes of including land in the Green Belt in terms of encroachment.
212 Runnymede Borough Council (RBC) has objected to the proposed development, principally on Green Belt grounds. These issues have been addressed in the above sections of the report, and Officers consider that whilst there are acknowledged impacts, the characteristics of the site and proposed mitigation measures are sufficient to overcome RBC‟s objection. Runnymede‟s Environmental Protection team raises no fundamental objections in terms of noise, air and dust pollution, subject to the imposition of suitable conditions to control and monitor these issues. Other issues raised by local residents have been addressed within the report.
213 The suitability of the application site for waste development and potential impact of the proposal in terms of waste management need; renewable energy; highways, traffic and access; landscape and visual amenity; noise; dust and odour; ecology; rights of way; drainage; archaeology, have been considered in the report. Officers consider that through the imposition of suitable planning conditions relating to site management and other control measures undertaken at the site, the proposed development of an AD facility and wood-pelleting facility on land at Trumps Farm would not result in a materially adverse impact on the environment. The proposal complies with relevant national and development plan policy, excepting in respect of Green Belt. Officers consider that the Trumps Farm site to be a suitable location for the application proposal when considered against locational guidance contained in the SEP 2009 and the sequential approach of SWP 2008 Policy CW5, and concluded that this proposal accords with SWP 2008 Policy WD2, which requires the demonstration of very special circumstances in accordance with SWP 2008 Policy CW6.
Item 9
49
214 There is an accepted need for the County to increase recycling and recovery capacity and divert waste from landfill to contribute to agreed targets, both for Surrey and the wider South East region. Whilst the CHA disagree with the CPA Officers in terms of the necessary extent of the alternative site assessment (ASA), the ASA was considered robust in identifying the sites with the least harm to the Green Belt. There is nevertheless agreement that the Trumps Farm site is centrally located in northern Surrey, in relation to the principal source of commercial waste arisings, and benefits from a good standard of access from the primary road network. The proposed development provides part of a sustainable solution to the problem of dealing with Surrey‟s waste.
215 Having considered the matters the applicant has put forward as very special
circumstances why planning permission should be granted, Officers consider there are a number of factors, which together constitute very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and other harm arising, and justify the grant of planning permission. These factors are: (1) the lack of alternative suitable sites in or outside of the Green Belt; (2) the need for the County to increase recycling / recovery capacity and diversion from landfill to contribute to agreed targets; (3) the close proximity of the site to the arisings of waste; (4) the characteristics and suitability of the site for the scale of waste operation proposed; (5) the unique benefits of being adjacent to an existing waste management facility, former landfill site and grid connection; (6) the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management, including the need for a range of sites; (7) the provision of renewable energy generation capacity and saving of greenhouse gases. These factors combined are such that Officers consider that very special circumstances exist and that, on the basis of the clear balance referred to in PPG2, an exception to Green Belt policy can and should be made.
RECOMMENDATION The recommendation is to PERMIT subject to conditions and the application being referred to the Secretary of State as a departure. CONDITIONS Approved Plans 1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following
approved plans and drawings:
Drawing No Title Dated
TRU001-AD10.001-P200 Rev 1 Site location and Context September 2010
TRU001-AD10.001-P300 Rev 2 Site Layout July 2011
TRU001-AD10.001-P500 Rev 1 Elevations July 2011
TRU001-AD10.001-P600 Development Below Ground Level
November 2010
TRU001-AD10.001-P700 Development Below Ground Level - Sections
November 2010
Commencement 2 The development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of three years
beginning with the date of this permission. The applicant shall notify the County Planning Authority in writing within seven working days of the commencement of development.
Restriction of Permitted Development Rights
50
3 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification),
(a) no buildings, plant or machinery whether fixed or moveable other than those permitted by this application, shall be located / erected on the site of the development hereby permitted, and
(b) no fencing or external lighting other than that hereby permitted by this application shall be erected or installed at the site of the development hereby permitted.
Hours of Operation 4 Vehicles either delivering or removing waste or other materials to and from the Anaerobic
Digestion Facility or Wood Pelleting Facility shall only access or egress the site between the following times: Monday to Friday 0730 to 1800 hours Saturday 0730 to 1600 hours
There shall be no wood waste deliveries or export of wood pellets on Sundays, Bank
Holidays or National Holidays. 5 Notwithstanding Condition 4 above, vehicles either delivering or removing waste or other
materials in association with the Anaerobic Digestion plant hereby permitted, may access and egress the site on up to 12 Sundays in a year, between the hours of 0800 to 1400 hours. Records shall be kept of such movements, and made available at the request of the County Planning Authority.
6 Construction work on site shall be carried out only between 0730 to 1800 hours Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1330 hours Saturday; with piling, soil moving limited to 0800 to 1700 hours Monday to Friday. There shall be no construction work carried out at any time on a Sunday, Bank Holidays or National Holidays.
Lighting 7 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of all external
lighting shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority and be approved in writing. These details shall include:
(a) the height and location of all lights; (b) the intensity of the lights specified in LUX levels; (c) the spread and direction of light and methods of shielding; (d) the times when such lights will be illuminated; (e) any other measures proposed for the illumination of the site, or the exterior
of the structures hereby permitted; and (f) a scheme to minimise the impacts on foraging bats taking account of the
information produced by the Bat Conservation Trust and the Institution of Lighting Engineers „Bats and Lighting in the UK‟.
The development shall be carried out and retained strictly in accordance with the approved details.
51
Construction Environmental Management Plan 8 Construction of the development hereby permitted, shall not commence until a
Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include details of: a) the programme of works;
b) measures for the control of noise and vibration, air quality and dust during construction (to include Dust action Plan); c) measures to minimise risks to the hydrogeology of the site by virtue of ground and earthworks, to include details of service installation, foundation construction;
d) measures for minimising risks of pollution during construction; e) siting of any construction compounds or lay down areas; f) the number, type and size of vehicles associated with each stage of construction including any abnormal loads;
g) daily HGV arrivals and departures for each stage of construction with routing details; h) construction operating and delivery hours;
i) vehicle access and on-site parking and manoeuvring; j) loading, unloading and storage of plant and materials;
k) measures to prevent materials from being deposited on the public highway;
The CEMP shall be implemented strictly in accordance with the approved details.
Access and Highways 9 No waste material for anaerobic digestion or wood pelleting shall enter the site until
space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plans, for vehicles to be parked and for the loading and unloading of vehicles. The parking, loading, unloading and turning area shall be used and retained exclusively for its designated purpose.
10 No operations involving the movement of materials in bulk to or from the site
shall commence until details of a scheme to protect the public highway from detritus, or any other adverse effect on its surface, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Contamination 11 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a contamination and
geotechnical intrusive investigation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. That scheme shall include details as outlined in the recommendations of the Phase 1 Land Contamination Report (Roundhay Environmental Consulting Limited) Ref. TR1/1.1/MIC dated August 2010. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Surface Water
52
12 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.
The scheme shall demonstrate:
No increase in surface water runoff rates and volumes up to a 1 in 100 event with an appropriate allowance for climate change.
No flooding on site during the 1 in 30 storm event and any flooding in the 1 in 100 plus climate change event will be safely held on site.
Details of landscaping or other measures proposed to deal with the residual risk of the attenuation ponds overflowing.
Noise 13 All plant and machinery shall be silenced at all times in accordance with the
manufacturer‟s recommendations. 14 During day-time (0730-1800 hrs) the level of noise arising from any operation, plant,
machinery or vehicles on the application site, when measured at, or recalculated as at, a height of 1.2m above ground level and 3.5m from the façade of any residential property, or other occupied building which faces the site, shall not exceed 43 LAeq during any 30 minute period.
15 During night-time (1800-0730 hrs) the level of noise arising from any operation or activity
on the application site, when measured at, or recalculated as at, a height of 4m above ground level and 3.5m from the façade of any noise sensitive property shall not exceed 32 LAeq during any 30-minute period.
16 For site construction the level of noise arising when measured at, or recalculated as at, a
height of 1.2 metres above ground level and 3.5 metres from the facade of a residential property or other noise sensitive building that faces the site shall not exceed 65 LAeq during any 1 hour period.
Ecology 17 No removal or cutting of vegetation including trees and shrubs shall be carried out
between 1 March and 31 August inclusive in any year. 18 Immediately prior (within 24 hours) to the felling and removal of the oak tree at the
proposed site entrance, the features of the oak are to be inspected by a licensed bat worker with an endoscope in order to confirm the absence of roosting bats.
Landscape & Ecology Management Plan 19 The development hereby permitted shall not commence unless a 25 year Landscape
and Ecology Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The Landscape and Ecology Management Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved. The Landscape and Ecology Management Plan shall include the following details:
A description of scope of works and general objectives;
Aims and objectives of the Management Plan;
Description and evaluation of features to be managed;
Identification of any constraints on site that may influence management;
53
Management options for achieving the aims and objectives;
Any specific management measures aimed at enhancing habitat quality or specific species;
Detailed prescriptions for management actions including mitigation, enhancement, vegetation removal and vegetation replacement;
Outline financial resources to be used in and personnel responsible for implementation of the Management Plan;
Detailed work schedules for years 1 – 5 of the Management Plan, with subsequent detailed work schedules to be submitted every five years up to 25 years (i.e. for Years 6-10, Years 11-15, Years 16-20 and Years 21-25). Each work schedule shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for written approval by the end of September in the year preceding the year in which the work schedule is to be implemented and shall provide for the submission and approval in writing of annual work plans;
Monitoring and review procedures, including contingency measures triggered by the monitoring process;
Revised planting scheme with detailed specifications thereof; and shall provide for the enhancement and management of the landscape and ecology of the site
Building Details (materials) 20 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted details of the external
materials (including their colours) of each of the buildings and structures, including fencing, hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority; and the development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details.
Archaeology 21 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until the applicant has secured
the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented strictly in accordance with the approved details.
Limitations 22 All silage stockpiled externally at the site, shall be stored within the area delineated
„Silage Storage Area‟ on Drawing No.TRU001-AD10.001-P300 Rev2 dated July 2011. Stockpile heights shall not exceed a height of 3.5 metres above ground level.
Reasons 1 To ensure the permission is implemented in accordance with the terms of the application
and to enable the County Planning Authority to exercise planning control over the development so as to minimise its impact on the amenities of the local area and local environment in accordance with the terms of The South East Plan 2009 Policy SP5; Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policies DC3 and Runnymede Borough Local Plan 2001 Policy GB1 (saved policy).
2 To accord with the provisions of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 (1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to enable the County Planning Authority to control the development and monitor the site to ensure compliance with the planning permission.
3 To enable the County Planning Authority to exercise control over the development hereby permitted and comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act
54
1990 (as amended) and in accordance with The South East Plan 2009 Policy SP5; and Runnymede Borough Local Plan 2001 Policy GB1 (saved policy).
4,5,6 To enable the County Planning Authority to exercise control over the development hereby permitted and protect the amenities of local residents in accordance with Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3.
7 To protect the visual amenities of the locality to comply with Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3.
8 In the interest of the local environment and amenity and in order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and to prevent the pollution of groundwater to comply with The South East Plan 2009 Policy NRM2 and Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3.
9 & 10 In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause
inconvenience to other highway users to comply with The South East Plan 2009 Policy T1; Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3.
11 To ensure that the development poses no risk to groundwater as a result of it being sited
on historically contaminated land to accord with PPS23; Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3.
12 To ensure that the surface water drainage system complies with the requirements of
PPS25 and the associated PPS25 Practice Guide, such that the rates and volume of run-off from extreme events can be attenuated on site and do not cause flood flows to increase above the natural conditions prior to development and to ensure that the techniques proposed can function appropriately and does not pose a pollution risk to controlled waters in accordance PPS25 and to comply with The South East Plan 2009 Policy NRM4 and Surrey Waste Plan Policy DC3.
13-16 To ensure the minimum disturbance and to avoid nuisance to the locality to comply with
Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3. 17,18 To ensure that breeding birds are not disturbed by the removal of habitat in accordance
with Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3. 19 To enhance nature conservation interest and assist in absorbing the site into the local
landscape to accord with The South East Plan 2009 Policies C4, NRM5 and LF9; Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3; Runnymede Borough Local Plan 2001 Policy NE15.
20 To protect the visual amenities of the locality to comply with Surrey Waste Plan 2008
Policy DC3. 21 To afford the County Planning Authority a reasonable opportunity to examine any
remains of archaeological interest which are unearthed and decide on any action required for the preservation or recording of such remains in accordance with the terms of Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 and Runnymede Borough Local Plan 2001 Policies BE16 and BE17.
22 To ensure the minimum disturbance and to avoid nuisance to the locality to comply with
Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3. INFORMATIVES 1 An Environmental Permit will be required for this site under the Environmental Permitting
(England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (as amended).
55
THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010 Reasons for the grant of planning permission and development plan policies/proposals relevant to the decision. Planning and Waste Management Issues There is a need for further waste management capacity within the county to handle Surrey's waste in a more sustainable manner by facilitating recycling, composting and energy recovery – including the treatment of waste further up the waste hierarchy - and thereby both manage waste more locally and divert waste from landfill. The anaerobic digestion (AD) and wood pelleting facilities will provide recycling / recovery capacity and landfill diversion that will contribute to meeting EU and national government waste policy objectives and targets. There is a lack of non-Green Belt sites to meet this need. The proposed development accords with Waste Strategy 2007 and Planning Policy Statement 10, which together provide the waste planning framework in England that satisfies the relevant EU Directives. It also accords with the Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011. The Surrey Waste Local Plan 2008 („SWP 2008‟) provides the local development plan policy focussed on waste, and it is consistent with the strategic waste policies contained in the South East Local Plan („SEP 2009‟). The proposed development will make a significant contribution to net self-sufficiency within Surrey, will enable waste to be managed in one of the nearest appropriate installations and - subject also to the grant of an environmental permit by the Environment Agency („the EA‟) - by means of the most appropriate methods and technologies. The co-location alongside the composting facility will further assist Surrey to achieve its ambitious recycling targets. The proposed development is in accordance with SWP 2008 Policy CW4 (Waste Management Capacity). Renewable Energy and Climate Change The AD facility will make a contribution towards the UK's binding target under the Renewable Energy Directive (reflected in its Renewable Energy Strategy) to source up to 15% of energy from renewable sources by 2020 by providing a potential combined generating capacity of up to 2MW of electricity, the greater part of the electricity generated to be exported to the local electricity distribution network. It will result in substantial savings of carbon dioxide per year compared with the continued landfill of residual organic waste. The proposed development is in accordance with development plan policy relevant to renewable energy and climate change in the SEP 2009, SWP 2008. Highways Traffic and Access The local highway network in the vicinity of the site is considered suitable in terms of highway capacity and safety for the amount and type of traffic to be generated. A Construction Environmental Management Plan will mitigate the impact of construction traffic. This is a suitable location for the sources of waste to be treated; and the development will result in savings in HGV kms travelled in association with waste management. The development complies with relevant development plan policy in the SEP 2009, SWP 2008 and Runnymede Borough Local Plan 2001 („RBLP 2001‟) Environmental and Amenity Issues Air quality, dust and odour - Emissions from the plant will be regulated in accordance with an environmental permit to be issued by the EA; and a permit will not be granted unless the EA is satisfied that emissions from the anaerobic digestion and wood pelleting facilities will comply with the EU and UK regulations. The anaerobic digestion plant reception buildings will operate under negative pressure and includes an odour control facility to be regulated by the EA. Although fugitive emissions, i.e. dust and odour are predicted to produce no significant effects, a Dust Action Plan will be secured by condition, and an Odour Management Plan will be required
56
under the Environmental Permit. The proposed development complies with development plan policy relevant to air quality, dust and odour in the SEP 2009 and the SWP 2008. Landscape and visual amenity- The applicant undertook a visual impact assessment, which concluded that the proposed development would have limited landscape and visual impacts, which the County Landscape Officer agreed with as such, Officers consider that the proposed development complies with the relevant development plan policy in the SEP 2009, SWP 2008 and RBLP 2001. Noise - The best practical means would be employed to control noise during construction and that adequate mitigation will be achieved by means of a Construction Environmental Management Plan, secured by condition. No significant noise effects are anticipated from the proposed development once operational. The proposed development is in accordance, in this context, with the SWP 2008 and RBLP 2001. Surface water and flooding, and groundwater protection - A flood risk assessment has been undertaken in accordance with EA guidance, and it is not anticipated that the proposed development will give rise to adverse impacts in terms of surface water or flooding. Site investigations identified low risk of contamination and confirmed that conditions would secure any further works necessary. No adverse impacts are anticipated in terms of groundwater. The development is therefore in accordance with relevant policy in the SEP 2009, SWP 2008 and RBLP 2001. Ecology – An Appropriate Assessment was not required following consultation with Natural England. The development addresses any impacts on ecological interest features during construction and operation with appropriately-targeted mitigation measures secured by condition. Sensitive ecological receptors remote from the site (potentially vulnerable to impacts from atmospheric deposition, noise or water pollution) were considered, and no significant impacts predicted on any European or UK statutory designated sites. The proposed development and mitigation complies with relevant policy in the SEP 2009, SWP 2008 and RBLP 2001. Archaeology - The possibility of archaeological deposits across the site is assessed to be limited; and the imposition of a condition requiring a programme of archaeological work in accordance with an approved scheme of investigation is considered to be a sufficient safeguard. The proposed development is in accordance with relevant policy in SWP 2008 and RBLP 2001. Green Belt The proposed AD and wood pelleting facilities involves inappropriate development in the Green Belt and is therefore harmful to it by definition; and Government places substantial importance on the protection of the Green Belt from the effects of inappropriate development. It will also cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt, with the built elements not in accordance with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt (safeguarding the countryside from encroachment). There is some periphery planting and landscaping which will not be inappropriate development, and will secure enhancement and conservation of the local landscape character. There are, on the other hand, a number of factors, which together constitute very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, harm to openness and other harm. None can, on its own, be considered to constitute very special circumstances and clearly outweigh the harm referred to above; but in combination they do so. These factors, which have been considered in detail, are: (1) the lack of alternative suitable sites in or outside of the Green Belt; (2) the need for the County to increase recycling / recovery capacity and diversion from landfill to contribute to agreed targets; (3) the close proximity of the site to the arisings of waste; (4) the characteristics and suitability of the site for the scale of waste operation proposed; (5) the unique benefits of being adjacent to an existing waste management facility and former landfill site; (6) the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management, including the need for a range of sites; (7) the provision of renewable energy generation capacity and saving of greenhouse gases. These factors combined are such that very special circumstances have been demonstrated as required
57
by SWP 2008 Policy CW6; and they clearly outweigh the harm that will result from the proposed development. Therefore, Officers consider that there should be an exception to Green Belt policy in PPG2, the SEP 2009 Policy and RBLP 2001 and grant conditional planning permission for the proposed AD and wood pelleting facilities at Trumps Farm. The proposal has been considered against the following development plan policies/ provisions: The South East Plan 2009 Policy W3 Regional Self-Sufficiency Policy W4 Sub-regional Self-Sufficiency Policy W5 Targets for Diversion from Landfill Policy W6 Recycling and Composting Targets Policy W7 Waste Management Capacity Requirements Policy W11 Biomass Policy W12 Other Recovery and Diversion Technologies Policy W17 Location of Waste Management Facilities Policy NRM1 Sustainable Water Resources and Groundwater Quality Policy NRM2 Water Quality Policy NRM4 Sustainable Flood Risk Management Policy NRM5 Conservation and Improvement of Biodiversity Policy NRM9 Air Quality Policy NRM10 Noise Policy NRM11 Development Design for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Policy NRM12 Combined Heat and Power Policy NRM13 Regional Renewable Energy Targets Policy NRM14 Sub-Regional Targets Policy NRM15 Location of Renewable Energy Development Policy NRM16 Renewable Energy Development Criteria Policy CC1 Sustainable Development Policy CC2 Climate Change Policy CC3 Resource Use Policy CC4 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy CC7 Infrastructure and Implementation Policy T1 Manage and Invest Policy T4 Parking (not referred to in text) Policy SP5 Green Belts Policy LF9 Green Belt Management Policy C4 Landscape and Countryside Management Policy C5 Managing the Rural-Urban Fringe Policy C6 Countryside Access and Rights of Way Management Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy CW4 Waste Management Capacity Policy CW5 Location of Waste Facilities Policy CW6 Development in the Green Belt Policy WD2 Recycling, Storage, Transfer, Materials Recovery and Processing Facilities (Excluding Thermal Treatment) Policy DC2 Planning Designations Policy DC3 General Considerations Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 (RBLP 2001) Policy MV3 Transport Infrastructure Contributions Policy MV4 Access and Circulation Arrangements Policy NE10 Landscape Problem Area Policy NE12 Tree Protection
Policy NE13 Tree Protection Orders Policy NE14 Trees and Development Policy NE15 Landscaping Schemes
58
Policy SV2A Water Quality Protection Policy MV14 Pedestrians Policy BE16 Preservation and Record of Archaeological Remains Policy BE17 Chance Archaeological Finds CONTACT Stephen Jenkins TEL. NO. 020 8541 9424 BACKGROUND PAPERS The deposited application documents and plans, including those amending or clarifying the proposal, responses to consultations and representations received as referred to in the report and included in the application file and the following: Government Guidance The Waste Strategy for England 2007 Energy White Paper „Meeting the Energy Challenge‟ – 23 May 2007 UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009 The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan the National Strategy for Climate and Energy 2009 The Air Quality Strategy 2007 Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011 Government Review of Waste Policy in England Action Plan 2011 Anaerobic Digestion Strategy and Action Plan - 2011 Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2) Green Belts - January 1995 Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (PPG13) Transport - April 2001 updated November 2010 Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 (PPG24) Planning and Noise - October 1994 Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) Delivering Sustainable Development - January 2005 Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1 - December 2007 Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - August 2005 Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) Planning for Sustainable Waste Management – March 2011 Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22) Renewable Energy - August 2004 Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS23) Planning and Pollution Control - November 2004 Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) Development and Flood Risk and associated Practice Guide - March 2010 Circular 11/95 (Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions) Circular 02/99 Environmental Impact Assessment Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (EIA Regulations) Draft Planning Policy Statement: Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate (March 2010) The Planning System: General Principles (ODPM) - January 2005 The Development Plan The South East Plan 2009
Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Runnymede Borough Local Plan 2001 (saved policies) Other Documents Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC Revised Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC EU Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC The Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 The Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2010 Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010
59
Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations (2010) Developing an Anaerobic (AD) Framework Document December 2010 (DEFRA) Accelerating the Uptake of Anaerobic Digestion in England: An Implementation Plan March 2010 (DEFRA) Annual Energy Statement July 2010 (DECC) Energy Trends December 2010 (DECC) Joint Municipal Waste Strategy 2006 - 2025, 26 September 2006 (Surrey Local Government Association) A Plan for Waste Management (Joint Municipal Waste Strategy) September 2010 (Surrey Waste Partnership) Guidelines for Noise Control Minerals and Waste Disposal (September 1994) (Surrey County Council) Cala Homes (South) Limited V Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government [2010] EWHC 2866 (Admin). Judgment dated 10 November 2010 Cala Homes (South) Limited V Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government [2011] EWHC 97 (Admin). Judgment dated 7 February 2011 R (Cala Homes (South) Limited) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government (No. 2). Judgment dated 27 May 2011 Habitats Regulations Screening Report 6 September 2011 (Surrey County Council)