Report Reference: 6 and... · 2012. 2. 13. · W46/120417/07. Phase 2 of this previous application...

Report Reference: 4.1

Regulatory and Other Committee

Open Report on behalf of Richard Wills Executive Director for Communities

Report to: Planning and Regulation Committee

Date: 13 February 2012

Subject: County Matter Application - W46/127834/11

Summary:

Planning Permission is sought by Land Network (Gainsborough) Ltd (Agent: GM Planning) to continue to deposit and process waste to form compost with a limit of 74,999 tonnes per annum and to develop Phase 2 of the same use as per the 2007 Consent (ref: W46/120477/07) at Sturgate Airfield, Cow Lane, Upton, Gainsborough.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that conditional planning permission be granted.

Background 1. On 1 March 2004 temporary planning permission was granted (application

reference W46/1361/03) until 31 March 2009, for the use of an area of land on a redundant part of the Sturgate Airfield for the composting of waste materials. The permission given was temporary, in order that the environmental impacts of the composting process could be assessed.

2. Planning permission W46/1361/03 allowed for the processing of up to 3000

tonnes of material per annum. Based on this figure, in traffic terms this equated to an average of approximately 1-2 lorry movements importing 5-10 tonnes of waste to the site per working day of a week. The finished product was spread on the applicant's land.

3. In July 2007, full planning permission was granted (application reference

W46/120477/07) to continue to deposit and process waste to form compost. The maximum quantity was increased to a maximum of 74,999 tonnes per annum. This consent also increased the site area from approximately 0.12ha to 0.9ha.

4. Subsequent to the grant of planning permission W46/120477/07 details of

two pre-commencement conditions were not received and the application lapsed on 25 July 2010. Condition number 11 required the submission and

approval of a scheme to control dust and odours arising from the operations at the site. Condition 15 required the submission and approval of measures to advise the drivers of lorries travelling to and from the site not to travel through Heapham, Springthorpe and Glentworth villages. The site continued to operate and has been operating without a valid planning permission, since July 2010. This non-compliance was picked up by Enforcement Officers in October 2010, at which point the applicant was invited to make an application. Subsequent to meetings and negotiations between the applicant and the Waste Planning Authority an application was submitted in June 2011 and following receipt of the necessary documentation validated in August 2011.

The Application 5. Planning permission is sought to continue to use land at Sturgate Airfield,

Cow Lane, Upton, Gainsborough for the deposit and processing of waste to form compost with a limit of 74,999 tonnes per annum, and to develop Phase 2 of the same use as consented under planning permission W46/120417/07. Phase 2 of this previous application involved the creation of a second clamp bay on the eastern half of the site, measuring approximately 45m x 95m.

6. The waste is currently processed on site and the finished product, which is a

field conditioner, is spread on the applicant's land, which totals approximately 700 acres. This land includes the fields around the site and land surrounding the villages of Stow, Heapham, Upton and Willingham.

7. The application is seeking permission to process up to 74,999 tonnes per

annum of green waste with a small amount of inert materials, for mixing. The capacity sought is the same as that consented under the previous consent (W46/120477/07). During 2009/10 the site processed approximately 27,000 tonnes and during 2010/11 it was approximately 31,000 tonnes. The waste comprises a mix of approximately two thirds solid and up to one third liquid waste which includes latex, paint and pva glue washings.

8. The applicant has a contract with West Lindsey District Council to process

material from their household green waste collections (West Lindsey District Council specifies green waste in their Recycling Guide (Winter 2011) as: grass cuttings; hedge and shrub clippings; leaves, twigs and bark; plants, flowers and weeds; windfall fruit; small branches and sawdust).

Site Operations 9. Loads are weighed on the site’s weighbridge and then the waste is

stockpiled along the western boundary of the site entrance. Any unsuitable loads are turned away and any non-biodegradable waste that was accepted is removed and placed in a skip adjacent to the site entrance. When full, this skip is taken off site for sorting and recycling. Currently the skip is removed on a monthly basis.

10. The received waste is shredded to reduce its particle size before being put

into a deep clamp system by a JCB wheeled loader. The deep clamp is located on an impermeable concrete surface and enclosed by retaining concrete walls that, under a condition of the original planning permission, allow the waste to be heaped to 3m high.

11. The composting material has a small surface area relative to its volume

within the clamp so most of the compost reaches and maintains pasteurisation temperatures of between 55 to 60 degrees Celsius. The clamp is aerated by the frequent turning process to ensure to ensure appropriate moisture and heat levels are maintained. Weed seeds are killed by the heat. The moisture content of the clamps is regularly monitored, to ensure the composting can proceed in all weather conditions. During periods of warm and or dry weather it may be necessary to ‘top up’ moisture levels by mixing in higher proportions of liquid waste or water. The waste is turned by loading shovel vehicles in a cyclical process every 7-10 days. The length of time the composting takes varies with weather conditions and on average takes between 2-3 months in the summer and 3-4 months in the winter.

12. When the process is complete the material is put through a trommel rotary

screen to segregate the compost into sized particles. The composted material is then stored prior to being transported off site for final use on the agricultural land within the applicant’s ownership. During the colder winter months the composted material would be stored off site but on land within the applicant's holding.

13. The following equipment would be used to carry out the composting

activities: weighbridge, two loading shovels/handling machines, trommel screen for sorting compost, water bowser/spray and a mobile shredder which would be brought in when necessary on a campaign basis, approximately once a month for 2-3 days.

14. There are two temporary portakabin office buildings close to the site

entrance, adjacent to the weighbridge. The units are linked together and painted blue and the approximate dimensions are: 10.25m long, 7m wide and 2.5m high. There is a storage container unit to the north of the office building, which is painted white. The approximate dimensions of this unit are 6m long, 2.4m wide and 2.6m high.

15. A screening bund, which is approximately 3m high, has been completed on

the western and southern boundaries. Mixed native tree species and hedgerow have been planted beyond the western bund.

16. Although it was not implemented under the previous planning permission a

second clamp area, in the eastern portion of the site, was consented measuring approximately 45m by 95m, and this is part of the current application. The applicant has confirmed that the development and use of a

second clamp area would increase the amount of material that could be processed by a third, to a total of approximately 40,000 tonnes per annum.

17. The applicant has confirmed that the applicant could not afford to construct

the whole of the concrete pad at the time of the 2007 application and so split the site in two. The operation of the site would benefit from the increased area of Phase 2 in a number of ways, as follows: it would be easier to segregate the waste; there would be more space for the machinery to operate in; the clamps would be able to spread out more thus reducing their height; the site would be able to operate two different clamps in order to segregate PAS 100 compost from other waste, which the applicant intends to do.

18. The applicant has confirmed that although it is not possible to predict what

may be won at tender, at the current time they are trying to seek tenders from other local authorities and commercial organisations for the receipt of appropriate wastes.

19. The applicant has indicated that at this time there is no intention to process

the maximum throughput sought of 74,999 tonnes. However, the applicant maintains that the implementation of Phase 2 would be of benefit to the operation of the site as it would be easier to segregate the most recently received waste from the main clamp; there would be more space for the machinery to operate within; the clamps could be spread out more, thereby reducing their height; the site would be able to operate two different clamps in order to segregate PAS 100 from other waste.

20. The site has a waste permit issued and monitored by the Environment

Agency which stipulates the waste types accepted at the site. Waste types stipulated on the licence include a mixture of agricultural, municipal, commercial and industrial wastes, which are brought in predominantly from around the Gainsborough/Lincoln area.

21. At the present time there are two Directors involved in the day to day

running of the site plus one full time member of staff and three part time workers. If consent were to be granted for Phase 2, it is anticipated there would be three full time employees and six part time staff.

Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage 22. The site is within Flood Zone 1 which is an area of low risk of flooding, as

defined by the Environment Agency. However, as the site area exceeds 1ha the applicant submitted a Flood Risk Assessment. The Flood Risk Assessment concluded that the site is at low risk of flooding and low risk of increasing flood risk to adjoining land.

23. The existing impermeable concrete base has been designed with a slight fall

towards a sump which measures 20m by 20m and combined with the overflow catchment area beneath the clamp, provides water retention. The Phase 2 clamp area would be provided with a second sump, which would

also measure 20m by 20m and would collect water in periods of high rainfall. The application states that the total volume of surface water containment is 590,500 litres for Phase 1 and would be 550,000 for Phase 2, giving a combined total of 1,140,500 litres for the whole site.

Hours of Operation 24. The proposed hours of operation are:

Monday – Friday Saturday Sunday & Bank Holidays

Deposit and handling of waste materials

08:00 – 20:00 08:00 – 14:00 08:00 – 14:00

Shredding of waste

08:00 – 18:00 08:00 – 12:00 Not at all

Access and Traffic 25. It is proposed that access to the site would be as existing. This is through

Upton village from the B1241 to the south west, and the A631 to the north. No access is proposed via Springthorpe, Heapham or Glentworth. Access is off Cow Lane which lies to the east of Upton Village. There is a dedicated surfaced access track leading from Cow Lane to the site, which is approximately 850m long.

26. The applicant has submitted a Transport Statement, which gives a

breakdown of the existing vehicle movements to and from the site. This information is based on weighbridge data between November 2010 and October 2011. The statement also gives estimates of vehicular movements following the completion of the proposed Phase 2 clamp area.

(i) Existing Vehicular Movements

For the period November 2010 to October 2011 there were 2184 vehicle deliveries to the site, this included dustbin, skip and articulated lorries, tankers and vans. Based on a six day working week at the site, the average number of loads per day during this period was seven deliveries, which equates to fourteen vehicle movements through Upton village. The busiest months were June and August, when 222 and 223 deliveries were received respectively, which equates to approximately eight loads per day over 27 days. The least number of visits were during December 2010, when there were 77 deliveries, which averages at approximately three deliveries per day over 24 days.

These loads delivered between 905 tonnes in December 2010 and 1811

tonnes of material in April.

Non compostable waste was taken off site as and when was necessary, however, this did not necessitate any additional vehicular movements as the company contracted to collect the full skip did so when they supplied compostable waste to the site. Figures supplied by the applicant show that the skip was collected and emptied on a total of six occasions between January 2011 and October 2011.

At present there is an average of two staff vehicles to the site on the days the site is operating. As local people are employed at the site, walking/cycling occurs regularly. A shredder is hired approximately once a month, resulting in two additional lorry visits, or four movements, per month.

(ii) Removal of Material from Site A tractor and trailer are used to remove the finished field conditioner from the site. Tractors are unable to fit on the weighbridge, so the quantities are calculated from the cubic capacity of the trailer. For the period between November 2010 and October 2011 6369 tonnes, in 633 loads, left the site. The field conditioner was used on the applicant's holding, which is divided into four field system areas at Sturgate, Upton, Willingham and Stow. To use the compost on the fields at Sturgate the public road network was not required as the tractors were able to access the neighbouring fields without using Cow Lane; 305 loads left the site without needing to use the road system. Therefore, 328 tractor loads used the local road network for the fields around Upton, Willingham and Stow.

(iii) Projected Vehicular Movements: If Phase 2 were to be implemented the site would be able to process approximately one third more material. Therefore, excluding employee visits, there would be a proportionate increase in the number of vehicle visits. The applicant wishes to use the figure of 31,000 tonnes per annum, which would be an increase of 13,675 tonnes for the period November 2010 - October 2011 as a ‘worse case’ scenario on which to base any future vehicular movements. This represents an increase of approximately 78% on the current figures and would equate to an additional 1703 vehicular visits per annum for the noise assessment (see below) the applicant has predicted the delivery of two vehicles per hour (i.e. four movements).

Noise 27. The applicant has submitted a noise assessment in support of the

development. The noise report focuses on the operational element of the development. Associated with the development the construction of Phase 2 pad would have the potential to generate a limited amount of noise during the construction period. However, the assessment maintains that this would only be for a very short period of time and involve minimal works.

28. The noise assessment breaks the operational development into the various noise sources associated with the development, which are vehicles delivering the waste, shredding, vehicles used for loading and turning the clamp and a trommel. The noise report incorporates an assessment of the impact of vehicles visiting the site delivering the waste material. The noise assessment included a measurement of background levels in the surrounding area. Finally, an assessment of the potential noise impact was made using the methodology recommended in Planning Policy Guidance 24 Planning and Noise BS 4142 and also guidance is used from BS 8233 on the interior sound levels inside dwellings.

29. The assessment confirms that the background sound levels measured at

residential receptors is 31dB LA90. The sound measurement undertaken envisaged a worst case scenario in that all the machinery, shredder, JCB loader and trommel were all working together and the impact of two HGVs visiting and leaving the site were incorporated into this assessment. It was observed that none of the activities could be heard at the dwellings. The assessment concluded that noise levels at the closest residential receptors is 28dB LAeq. A 5dB correction factor for the impulsive and intermittent nature of the sound from the machinery was added to this level to give a rating level of 33 dB. The assessment concludes that due to the low background levels and rating levels a BS4142 assessment is not appropriate for all the locations where measurements were taken, but in the location where a BS4142 assessment could be used with all plant operating the level predicted was 2dB above background. Applying the methodology here confirmed that there is a positive indication that complaints are unlikely.

30. The report concludes that there is no reason due to noise issues for

planning permission to be refused.

Odour/Sprayer 31. Odour may arise from the clamps when they are allowed to remain in an

anaerobic condition, or if an excess of a particular type of waste is being processed. When the site is in operation the Site Manager is responsible for ensuring that odour levels are kept as low as practicable by: regular turning; monitoring the different waste types to ensure the mix minimises the risk of odour; off-site disposal of any waste already in an aerobic condition; monitoring exhaust emissions from plant and vehicles and responding to any complaints from the public. The applicant has submitted a manufacturer's specification of a trailer mounted bowser that is filled with an odour neutralisation liquid that can be sprayed around the site to address any odour emanating from the site. However, no details have been received as to when and under what circumstances any such system would be used.

Dust 32. Dust sources may arise from some of the waste types, the passage of

vehicles along the access road and unloading activities. The Site Manager is responsible for ensuring dust levels are kept as low as possible by

ensuring that the access road is clean, monitoring weather conditions to ensure that any need for sweeping or water sprinkling is identified and taking the necessary action, and that waste types previously found to create a problem are not accepted.

Vermin 33. The application states that as no putrescible waste is processed at the site

the types of waste to be accepted are unlikely to attract vermin. Furthermore, the high temperatures within the clamps, the frequent movement of the composting materials and the physical treatment of it deter vermin from settling. However, the area’s proximity to open farmland requires that this issue is addressed as part of site management operations. The applicant operates a vermin control regime at the site as part of the Environmental Permitting process. This regime provides regular inspections of the application site, with additional visits if a potential problem with vermin is detected. Insect infestation would be dealt with by appropriate insecticide, rodents would be controlled in consultation with West Lindsey District Councils Health Officer and bird scaring techniques would be used if necessary.

Litter 34. It is not expected that the types of waste to be handled at the site would

normally give rise to any problems with litter. However, the Site Manager would be responsible for checking any windblown waste was collected on a daily basis and returned to the clamp or confined within the residue skip adjacent to the entrance.

Site and Surroundings 35. The site lies in an area of open countryside, as defined by the West Lindsey

Local Plan. The site is within a rural setting, surrounded by agricultural fields, the field pattern of which is defined in places by belts of mature trees. The site is approximately 5km east of Gainsborough, 1.5km north east of the village of Upton and 0.75km to the south east of the hamlet of Heapham. The two nearest residential properties are approximately 325m to the north of the site. To the north west of the site the nearest residential property is approximately 520m distant and to the south east of the site the nearest residential property is approximately 550m away. The site is located on part of a field forming part of Grove Farm. It is positioned on concrete hardstanding that was previously part of a runway for the former Sturgate airfield. Sturgate Airport, immediately to the west, is a private airfield that has retained part of the runway and associated buildings.

36. The site is accessed from a dedicated tarmac track off Cow Lane which links

the villages of Heapham and Upton. The track is surrounded by trees and hedging to the east and open agricultural fields to the west. It is an irregular quadrilateral shape with a total area of approximately 1.38ha. It is bounded by a 1.5m post and wire fence, topped with barbed wire. There is some

hedging and some trees have been planted on the western boundary in the belt between the fencing and the earth bund. The earth bund is approximately 3m high and piles of material, including cardboard and wooden crates, are visible over the bund. On the northern boundary of the site there is a wooden post fence with concrete panels placed intermittently which is supporting some of the composted material and which exceeds the height of the fencing. The eastern boundary of the site is defined by a wooden post and wire fence. The southern boundary of the site, which is the entrance, is defined by a 3m high bund with landscaping and planting and a 1.5m high post and wire fence.

37. There is a single entrance and exit point in the south western corner of the

site. The weighbridge is positioned approximately 32m within the site, in line with the entrance gate. There are two portakabin office buildings adjacent to the weighbridge and a container unit and residue skip, to the north and south of the portakabins, respectively. The remainder of the existing operational site area is constrained with compost heaps and sorting areas. There is a catchment sump to the south of the main compost heap which measures approximately 20m x 20m.

38. The proposed Phase 2 area is situated in the eastern half of the site. It

measures approximately 45m x 90m. There are areas of hardcore and compacted soil. The eastern edge of the area forms the boundary of the site and the northern and western edges are bounded by the existing compost heaps. This area is accessed by a rough hardcore track to the south.

Main Planning Considerations National Guidance 39. The Waste Strategy for England 2007 encourages the reuse, recycling and

treatment of waste over disposal. It sets targets such as 50% household waste recycling by 2020 and by the same year a 45% reduction in household residual waste compared to 2000 levels.

Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7) (2004) – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas states that local planning authorities should have regard to the following in determining planning applications:

support development that delivers diverse and sustainable farming

enterprises; support other countryside based enterprises and activities which

contribute to rural economies, and/or promote recreation in and the enjoyment of the countryside;

take account of the need to protect natural resources;

conserve specific features and sites of landscape, wildlife and historic or architectural value, in accordance with statutory designations.

Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) – Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (Revised March 2011)

The overall objective of Government policy on waste is to produce less waste and to use it as a resource wherever possible. The PPS advocates that the treatment of waste should be moved up the ‘waste hierarchy’ which in order of priority is: prevention, preparing for reuse, recycling, other recovery and waste disposal as a last resort. This approach aims to break the link between economic growth and the environmental impact of waste. The guidance supports the proximity principle when dealing with waste and sustainable waste management techniques and strategies. The guidance states that this will mean a change in the way waste is handled and significant new investment in waste management facilities. The planning system is pivotal to the adequate and timely provision of the new facilities that will be needed. Paragraph 2 states that positive planning has an important role in delivering sustainable waste management by providing sufficient opportunities for new waste management facilities of the right type, in the right place and at the right time.

Paragraph 21 of PPS10 states that the following must be considered in the determination of a planning application for proposals for green waste processing and recycling:

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;

give priority to the reuse of previously developed land, and redundant

agricultural and forestry buildings and their curtilage. Paragraph 24 gives the following advice on proposals involving unallocated sites:

Planning applications for sites which have not been identified, or are not in an area identified on a development plan document as suitable for new or enhanced waste management facilities should be considered favourably when consistent with:

the policies in this PPS, including the criteria set out in paragraph 21; the waste management authority’s core strategy.

Paragraphs 30 - 31 state the following in relation to health:

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. The detailed consideration of a waste management process and the implications, if any, for human health is the responsibility of the pollution control authorities. Planning operates in the public interest to ensure that the location of development is acceptable and health can be material to such decisions.

Where there are health concerns, the waste planning authorities should avoid carrying out their own detailed assessments, rather they should draw from Government advice and research and consultation with the relevant health authorities and agencies.

Annexe E to PPS10 gives the following relevant criteria, which must be considered in the determination of this planning application:

Protection of watercourses – proximity of the proposal to vulnerable

surface and ground water; Visual Intrusion – the setting of the proposal and the need to protect

adjoining landscapes which are of national importance; Traffic and Access – consideration of the suitability of the road network

and access to the site; Air Emissions, including Dust – proximity of sensitive receptors to air

emissions and dust and whether the effects can be mitigated;

Odour – proximity of sensitive receptors to odour and whether the effects can be mitigated;

Vermin and Birds – proximity of sensitive receptors and impact on

aeroplanes flying from nearby airports/aerodromes; Noise and Vibration – proximity of sensitive receptors and whether the

effects can be mitigated;

Litter; Potential Land Use Conflict – Likely proposed development in the vicinity

of the location should be taken into account.

Environmental Protection, England and Wales: The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (No. 988) Regulation 18 Local authorities are obliged under this regulation to ensure that any waste is handled in a manner which guards against harm to human health and the environment. This duty applies when authorities exercise their planning functions relating to waste management.

Regional Guidance 40. East Midlands Regional Plan (March 2009)

Consistent with PPS10 this Guidance advocates the waste hierarchy when dealing with waste management. Policy 38 – Regional Priorities for Waste Management states there should be a reduction in the amount of waste going into landfill and increase in the amount of recycling and composting. The Regional Plan also recognises that it will be necessary to take a flexible approach to all forms of waste recovery, on the basis that technology in this area is developing very quickly and is difficult to predict over a 20 year period. The Regional Plan identifies Lincolnshire as being within the Eastern Sub Area. It identifies that much of the waste facilities are scattered throughout the County, but that future provision should concentrate larger facilities in and around Lincoln and the sub regional centres, with smaller facilities dispersed elsewhere. It is considered that this approach would reduce the impacts associated with transport. East Midlands Regional Waste Strategy (January 2006)

The Strategy sets out the principles and priorities for waste management which are to work towards zero growth in waste at the Regional level by 2016, to reduce the amount of waste landfilled in accordance with the EU Landfill Directive and to exceed Government Targets for recycling and composting and to take a flexible approach to other forms to waste recovery.

Local Plan Context 41. Policy WLP1 (Objective of the Plan) of the Lincolnshire Waste Local Plan

(2006) Saved Policies (2009) states that waste management proposals will be considered in relation to their contribution to the waste management hierarchy. When applying the hierarchy and assessing the need for waste facilities regard will be paid to the proximity principle; regional self-sufficiency; waste planning policies and proposals of neighbouring areas and best available techniques and the environmental setting of the facility.

Policy WLP9 (Outdoor Composting (Windrow and Compost Heaps)) states that planning permission will be granted for these facilities provided that the proposal is located at a distance from an occupied building (hotels, educational establishments, residential properties and institutions) that will allow any odour impacts upon the use of the occupied building(s) to be sufficiently mitigated against. The distance will be no less than 250m. The application should be accompanied by a satisfactory odour impact assessment and meet the criteria set out in Policy WLP21.

Policy WLP21 (Environmental Considerations) states that planning permission will be granted for waste management facilities in accordance with the following criterion:

(ii) airfield safeguarding – where there would be a significant risk to aircraft

movement from bird strike hazard; (vii) nature conservation – where the development would not adversely

affect a non-statutory site of importance for nature conservation (e.g. County Wildlife Site, Local Nature reserves or Regionally important geological and/or geomorphological sites or biodiversity action plan priority habitat) and/or where the development would not harm badgers or species protected by Schedules 1, 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981(As amended), and/or harm the Habitats of those species;

(x) public right of way – where the development would not adversely affect

public rights of way unless adequate arrangements can be made to safeguard the existing routes or to provide acceptable alternatives;

(xi) dust, odour etc – where the development including its associated traffic

movements, visual impact, noise, dust, odour, litter and emissions, and its potential to attract scavenging birds, other vermin and insects would not have an adverse effect on local residential amenity including air quality; and/or other local land uses;

(xii) transport system – where sufficient capacity is available on the local or

wider road system for the traffic that is expected to be generated. Improvements or alterative modes of transport can be implemented and/or where there would not be adverse effect on road safety;

(xv) dangerous substances establishments and pipelines – do not impact

upon the integrity or result in the creation of an unacceptable hazard with respect to dangerous substance establishments and pipelines;

(xvii) recovery of materials – where possible and appropriate the

development proposal contributes to the potential recovery of materials and energy via recycling, energy recovery and composting in reducing the amount of waste for final disposal.

42. The following policies in the West Lindsey Local Plan (2006) (Saved Policies 2009) are relevant:

STRAT 1 (Development Requiring Planning Permission) states that all development must take full account of the need to protect the environment so that present demands do not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and enjoy a high quality environment. Development should conserve energy resources and protect the Plan area’s character with regard to:

(vi) the impact on the character, appearance and amenities of

neighbouring, and where relevant, other land, including visual encroachment into the countryside;

(viii) the impact of the proposal on neighbouring and, where relevant, other

uses; (x) the retention and safeguarding of existing trees, woodlands and

hedgerows where feasible and the incorporation of landscape measures and/or the utilisation of natural screening in order to maintain the ecological value of the site and the wider environment;

(xii) any other material considerations properly related to regulating the use

and development of land including maximising the use of previously developed land.

STRAT 12 (Development in the Open Countryside) states that planning permission will not be granted for development in the open countryside unless it requires a countryside location, or otherwise meets an objective supported by other Plan policies.

Policy ECON 4 (Farm Diversification) states that proposals to diversify the range of economic activities on a farm will be permitted if certain criteria are met which includes that the character, scale and location of the proposal is compatible with its setting, would not use the best and most versatile agricultural land, would not harm the amenity of the local residents and would contribute to the local economy.

Policy NBE17 (Control of Potentially Polluting Uses) states that development that may be liable to cause pollution will only be permitted if the surrounding land is not put at risk, the quality and enjoyment of the environment would not be damaged or put at risk and adequate protection and mitigation measures are implemented to ensure that any potential environmental receptors are not put at risk.

Results of Consultation and Publicity 43. (a) Upton Parish Council - main concern is traffic through the village with

cars parked on both sides of the road. A feasibility study on the road network should be carried out and speed restrictions introduced. Plans

have been refused because of the use of cars, now the increase in traffic will be much greater for the roads. Strong smells when the wind is in the direction of Upton and when lorries of compost are going through the village.

(b) Heapham Village Meeting – at the Parish Meeting on 18 October 2011

the following observations were made:

concerns about the increased traffic, especially if traffic were to come through Heapham and the opening up to Lincoln Lane;

the increase in flies and vermin thought to be associated with the compost heap were judged to have reached unacceptable levels;

the noise pollution created by the site was a great cause for concern as was dust;

the proximity to homes was viewed to be too close and bio aerosol worries were mentioned;

the visual impact of the site and the lack of screening was thought unacceptable;

plastic from the site is present in the fields; the lapsing of the planning application was deemed to be

unacceptable and various terms of the previous application were deemed not to have been met with the compost heap deemed too high and worries were mentioned regarding some products accepted on site;

by far the main observation were site odours and many complaints have been made as they too have reached unacceptable levels.

A vote was taken at the meeting: 26 voted to reject the application,

nine people supported it and one person abstained. (c) Stow Parish Council - concerned that there is a possibility of improperly

composted waste being spread on farmland in the village. It has happened before and environmental health had to ask the applicant to remove it from dykes and roadside ditches. The Council is concerned that the waste could involve smelly material not just green waste and that in summer this would increase flies and create a health hazard. They are also concerned that vehicles delivering waste in such volumes will create mess on the roads, it already does and is a danger to two-wheel transport. The increase in traffic on Stow bends will also be detrimental as these bends are very sharp. What control over the site will prevent illegal dumping of non-green waste and poisonous substances that are already damaging fields in this area and unknown run off, passing into the water courses?

(d) Local County Councillor Member, Councillor C L Strange - the

applicant should be encouraged to continue its work but at a reduced volume until such time as the composting can be dealt with in an enclosed building, or indeed until such time as another provider can supply such a facility. We all value such a facility when we look to

green energy, however only if the operation is carried out with little annoyance to the local population.

If there was a dairy farm or chicken farm in the village the residents would have to accept countryside smells. If the composting odour levels are judged to be above that accepted level then, I could not accept the plant.

(e) Environmental Health Officer (West Lindsey District Council) –

Odour - the EHO is satisfied that the regulatory controls that the Environment Agency has in place regarding the Waste Permit aspect of the site are satisfactory for the purpose of enforcing odour annoyance. As ‘annoyance’ is a lesser measure and higher standard than can be enforced under Statutory Nuisance legislation it is apparent that the Environment Agency, as the lead regulator, has the greater remit for control and therefore nothing further from this authority is likely to be necessary. Noise - the EHO is not satisfied that there is a Statutory Nuisance arising out of noise from various sources on site but is satisfied that there are elements of noise impacting upon parts of the village of Heapham that need further consideration and possible control. A condition for a noise report which should include; measuring the noise of equipment used on site, projected radial noise charts in 50m increments from the boundary of the Land Networks site and proposed mitigation measures. A Noise Assessment Report was subsequently submitted and the following comments have been made:- Comments on the Noise Assessment Report – there is perhaps an issue of clarity in the report as regards differentiation between measured noise, extrapolated and interpreted noise in as much as measured noise at distance clearly can not be below background noise which is what elements of the report (item 1.1 and variously at item 4) appear to suggest. However, and in reality, levels of noise are all relatively low and as such of little consequence. There is likely to be some rebuttal in respect of assertions which appear to state that the site noise can not be heard at nearest dwellings, rebuttal which is supported by the EHO. ‘Chatter’ of the shredder can occasionally be heard when it encounters larger or more solid material but is signally the lesser when compared to ‘chatter’ of aircraft engines; it occurs only occasionally and this in turn is limited to visits of two or three days every few weeks. West Lindsey District Council’s Environmental Health Officer has no known grounds for objecting to this application.

(f) Countryside Officer (Lincolnshire County Council) - an application has been received by the Public Rights of Way and Countryside Access Section, of the County Council, to modify the definitive map and Public Right of Way across Sturgate Airfield, between Common Lane and Cow Lane. If the public bridleway were to be reinstated it would pass through the centre of the site. However, it should be noted that at present any public rights of way along this route are only alleged to exist and not proven to subsist. The application is currently undergoing a prioritising exercise and it is possible it could take up to two years to determine.

(g) Upper Witham Internal Drainage Board - the watercourse system into

which this application proposes to discharge into is considered to be at capacity and there are flooding problems downstream of the site. Surface water runoff rates must therefore be restricted to no more than that which currently discharges from the site. The Board advises that consideration be given to restricting the discharge rate down to the greenfield agricultural rate.

(h) Ministry of Defence - has no safeguarding objections.

(i) Environment Agency - has no objection to the proposals, but makes the

following comments: The site is regulated by the Environment Agency under an

Environmental Permit, issued in November 2008. It also holds a Paragraph 12 exemption for composting of biodegradable waste, due to expire on 30 April 2012. The site has a number of sensitive receptors (mainly residential properties) to the north, north east and north west, with the closest being 350m away. Since the permit was issued there have been a large number of complaints about the permitted operations, largely relating to odour associated with the composting activities. The complaints were as follows:

2008 - 0 complaints 2009 -10 relating to odour 2010 - 4 2011 - 131 in total of which 117 related to odour, 7 to noise, 2 to dust, 1 to flies and 4 were for other matters including breach of permit and waste type. Several of these complaints have been due to the site breaching the relevant permit conditions but an appropriate enforcement response was delivered.

The Agency has recently raised concerns with the operator over the operation of the site as they believe this may have had an impact on the volume of complaints received. These concerns relate to the volume of wastes stored on site, the nature of the waste accepted and the process by which the waste is composted. The operator has

already reduced the intake of liquid wastes to the site and is working towards reducing the volume of compost currently on site by taking mature compost off site to spread on the land. The operator has been asked to review their existing odour control measures and have suggested using an odour misting spray around the site boundary as one such measure. The Agency will continue to work with the operator to minimise the odour impact of the activities and to investigate any complaints that arise and will be writing to the operator to outline expectations for the site management in the future.

(j) Anglian Water Services - the applicant has stated that foul water will

discharge to a septic tank, therefore this application is outside Anglian Water’s jurisdiction.

(k) Highways Officer (Lincolnshire County Council) – the Highways Officer

originally made no comment on the application. However, subsequent to the receipt of the original application the Transport Statement was submitted, and the following comments have been made:-

Comments on the Transport Statement - the figures in the Statement

for the period November 2010 to October 2011 have been validated by Officers of the Highway Authority and, on the basis of the written records made available to the Authority, found to be correct. This validation has enabled a baseline to be set for estimating what the likely vehicle numbers would be for the limit of 74,999 tonnes.

The Highway Authority has based its advice on the maximum 74,999

tonnes and has concluded that in relation to the technical requirements, for highway safety and traffic capacity, a recommendation of refusal could not be defended. It is considered by the Highway Authority that the proposed development would not be detrimental to highway safety or traffic capacity.

Matters such as environmental impact and residential amenity are not

material considerations the Highway Authority is able to consider as part of its response to the Planning Authority.

(l) Natural England - this proposal does not seem to affect any statutory

protected sites or landscapes, or have significant impacts on the conservation of soils, nor is the proposal EIA development. The lack of further comment should not be interpreted as a statement that there are no impacts on the natural environment. Other bodies and individuals may be able to make comments that will help the Local Planning Authority to fully take account of the environmental value of this site in the decision making process.

(m) Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust – note that no ecological surveys have been

carried out. It is difficult to tell from the information submitted whether there are habitats on the site that could be home to protected species, such as badgers and reptiles. If there are semi-natural habitats on the

site that would be impacted on by Phase 2 of the development it is recommended that the applicants are required to commission an ecological consultant to carry out a walkover survey of the site prior to determination of the application. If protected species are present appropriate mitigation measures will be required.

An additional response was received which stated that following receipt

of photographs of the site it would not appear that the Phase 2 site area would be likely to support any protected species. The only concern relates to the vegetated bund and if the bund would be impacted by the works, if it would be a walk over survey of the site would still be recommended as it could provide a habitat for badgers and reptiles.

As an additional point, to the ones made earlier, the Lincolnshire

Wildlife Trust would wish to ensure that the route to the site via Cow Lane from the west is adhered to, if planning permission is granted. Upton Grange Roadside Nature Reserve, which is also designated as a Local Wildlife Site, is located along Cow Lane to the east of the entrance to the site access track. Vehicles encroaching onto the Roadside Nature Reserve could damage the nature conservation interest of the site and access to and from the site along this stretch of Cow Lane should therefore be prohibited.

(n) Health Protection Authority - were consulted on 30 November 2011, but

had not responded when this report was prepared, although it is anticipated their response will be available at the Committee.

(o) MOD - have no safeguarding objections. (p) Waste Officer (Lincolnshire County Council) – the prediction for the

period 2010/11, is for the site to received 4,578 tonnes of green waste from West Lindsey District Council (this figure is based on the actual returns for quarters 1&2).

44. The application was publicised by site notice and an advertisement in the

Gainsborough Standard (6 October 2011). Individual properties were also notified.

Two letters have been received from Edward Leigh, MP for the area. The

first was received on 23 December 2011 and stated that a letter had been received by a local resident, signed by other residents. It is clear from the letter that there are a number of concerns about alleged nuisance, health issues and odour. A second letter was received on 28 December 2011, in which Mr Leigh objects to the application. Eastern Air Executive Ltd - objects to the application on the grounds that any additional expansion will lead to an increase in the number of birds which present a very great risk to aircraft both when taking off and landing at the neighbouring airfield. The County Council’s safeguard zone is 13km

radius from any civil aerodrome where development should be discussed. The proposed development is only a matter of 500m from the runway and would therefore cause a major hazard if allowed to go ahead.

Lincoln Aero Club - the processing plant is situated 300m on the extended centre line of the main runway at Sturgate. This is within the area that should be considered for airfield safeguarding. The present plant represents a number of hazards to air navigation including flocks of low flying birds, plant and vehicles constitute an obstacle hazard, dust from the plant obstructing visibility for landing aircraft. The airfield supports a number of high quality local jobs with pilots and engineers based at the airfield. The airfield attracts commerce and tourism to the Gainsborough area. The plant currently operates at about 30% of the proposed capacity and is already a hazard to air navigation at the airfield. To expand the plant to its maximum capacity will seriously impact operations at the airfields. Lincoln Aero Club objects to the application.

As a result of this publicity three petitions were received. There were 14

signatories from the village of Harpswell, 60 from Heapham and 197 from Upton. The petition from the residents of Upton stated the following:

“We the undersigned are opposed to the re-application for planning permission by Land Network (Gainsborough) Ltd on their current site between Heapham and Upton. Heavy lorries through Upton will increase to well in excess of 15,000 journeys a year, possibly thousands more with off-site sales. Upton is the designated route to and from the site. The site has caused serious levels of foul odour, unacceptable noise (both in duration and intensity), dirt, vermin and health issues.

The location has proved to be wholly unsuitable and does not comply with New European Standards.

The operators, along with the Environment Agency, Environmental Health, and Planning Enforcement have failed for 6+ years to manage the site as promised. It is time the powers that be faced up to the reality. The waste site is situated in the wrong place.

The operators should be encouraged to re-establish in one of Lincolnshire’s plentiful open spaces, where nuisance and hazards may be of negligible consequence.

We are not against composting in principle. New research findings must be taken into account and implemented prior to establishing such commercial operations and due regard given to the local populace by the authorities.

We the undersigned call that planning permission should be refused.”

The petition from the residents of Harpswell was the same as the one submitted by the residents of Upton, except the first two paragraphs read as follows:

“We the undersigned are opposed to the re-application for Planning Permission by Land Network (Gainsborough) Limited on their current site between Heapham and Upton. Heavy lorries through Upton will increase to well in excess of 15,000 journeys a year, possibly thousands more with off- site sales. Upton is the designated route.

However Upton has objected to this route and Land Networks have recently leased Lincoln Lane that runs to the South of the site onto Common Lane just by Heapham Pond. This is not done without a reason and would strongly suggest an alternate route is being sort so it will affect the villages of Harpswell and Heapham should this be granted.”

The petition from the residents of Heapham stated the following:

“We the undersigned are opposed to the re-application for Planning Permission by Land Network (Gainsborough) Limited on their current site between Heapham and Upton. They are applying for a permission that will allow them to increase its capacity by a massive 150% based on the previous two years.

It is and has proved beyond doubt to be an unsuitable location and does not comply with European Standards. The operators have about 800 acres and should invest in a location that can not cause nuisance to residents. This current site has always caused serious levels of foul odour, unacceptable noise, dust, dirt, flies, vermin and health issues." A total of 132 duplicate letters of objection, from the residents of Upton and Heapham were received. The letter said the following:

“As a resident/frequent visitor to Upton, I am objecting to the above application for the following reasons.

1. The potential increase in HGV traffic through the village, the

infrastructure is not sufficient to cope with this amount of HGV traffic. Figures submitted by the applicant are based on estimated average payload, they have a weighbridge so this figure should be factual, which means the volume of traffic could far exceed their estimate of 42-54 lorries per day.

2. Highway safety. There are three blind junctions in the village which

already cause safety concerns. There are school buses picking up and dropping off children in the village, increase in traffic would be an additional hazard to them. The lane leading to the site is too narrow, it is used a lot by local walkers and is not suitable for HGV use.

3. The odour from the site has not been adequately controlled.

4. Previous planning conditions at the site have not been adhered to,

hence their conditional planning has expired.

A further 71 representations of objection were received, which raised the following issues summarised below: Position of the site in relation to residential properties The site does not conform to EU regulations for a site of this nature as it

is too near to dwellings. The distance of the site from the nearest residential properties is

considered too close by some, but is in excess of the Environment Agency’s safeguarding distance of 250m from sensitive receptors, the application can only be viewed in terms of current legislation as it applies to the UK. The frequent prevailing wind is from the south west and effectively the ‘drift’ reduces the Environment Agency safeguarding limit. Much longer distances are now being adopted for new sites.

Not objecting to the concept of green composting, but are objecting to

the position of the site being too near to residential properties. It needs to be moved to a different location where it does not impact on people’s everyday lives and health.

The site is fully visible from the public roads and nearby properties. Not the case that activities are only carried out when the wind is blowing

away from residents, this is disputed as the wind can change direction quickly and can not be controlled.

Many applications for new houses have been refused in Upton because

of its remoteness and because it would be “unsustainable”, why would the village be suitable for a “huge semi-industrial processing plant”.

Traffic

Concerns that Upton is a small village with a number of “blind spots”

making the existing roads dangerous e.g. Padmore Lane and the junction with the High Street, especially when the fish and chip shop is open, but equally at any time as cars are parked on the road making it impossible to see vehicles coming from the left.

Exiting from Church Road on to High Street there is also a blind corner

and a problem with vehicles that are parked on the High Street at a narrow point of the road (there has to be on street parking in the village as many of the properties are not able to have access to a driveway up to their homes).

A double decker bus comes through the village and a lorry and bus

meeting each other would have great difficulty in passing.

All the roads around the village are small narrow roads, with some subsidence on all these roads caused by heavy goods vehicles. This is not conducive to a great number of heavy goods vehicles and tankers loaded with chemicals that also visit the site, concern as to what would happen if one of the tankers were to crash in the village.

A traffic survey should be carried out in the village of Upton before any

decisions are made. The road surface structure is in a very delicate state and a continuing

additional volume of traffic on surfaces not laid to accept such volumes would cause a continuation of that deterioration, at a much more rapid rate.

The transportation of compost to the fields has put additional stress on

the road networks, due to an increased number of tractor movements beyond the normal and acceptable farm traffic you would expect in a village.

The figures on vehicular movements put forward by the applicant are

questioned and claims that the figures in the Transport Statement, which was received later, are flawed.

The Transport Assessment should be based on the amount of

tonnage(74,999 tonnes) the applicant is applying for. On the basis of 74,999 tonnes per annum, actual trips to and from the site would be 35,800 per annum or over 10 per hour- one lorry every five minutes.

Claims that lorries are not using the correct route. The Transport

Assessment states that vehicles will only access through Upton village- this does not happen now with lorries accessing via Glentworth and Heapham- how can the applicant control this- should the Council put traffic restrictions on these other routes? Questioning whether lorries have been turned away from using the correct route and if penalties have been applied.

The site has a weighbridge therefore the exact weight of each payload is

known, so why are estimates being used? The lane leading to the site is not suitable for continued HGV use.

Foot and Bridleway

The track leading to the site and onwards to Heapham has been used by locals as a foot and bridle path for decades and there is a claim submitted to officially designate it as a public right of way. It goes through the site and if the claim is successful what happens and how will the public be protected from the health risks.

Terrible smells and the site does not conform to EU regulations for a site of this nature.

Opinion that the smell from the site is not a “country odour”, and the

smell is unacceptable. Comments that the odours prevent residents from sitting out in their

gardens and enjoying their amenity. Concerns that a proposed increase in size and volume of the site would

increase the odours further. Residents have to have their windows closed during the summer due to

the odour coming from the compostable material spread on the fields. Questioning why the smell is so unpleasant, as properly rotted garden

waste should not smell.

No odour assessment/management plan has been produced, just an advert showing a mobile de-odouriser unit.

Investigations into odour complaints by the Environment Agency grade it

on its’ strength rather than whether it is noxious.

Flies and Vermin

Since the establishment of the site there has been an increase in the number of blow flies and cluster flies. Confidence is high in attributing the increase of blow flies to the tip and the increase of cluster flies also coincides with the workings of the site. Both are a considerable health hazard, not just because of their habits but also because their dead bodies are deposited in residents properties. The flies are considered to be a nuisance and may act as carriers of disease and can cause food poisoning, diarrhoea, dysentery or typhoid fever.

Similarly, there are claims that there has been an increase in vermin

which have come from the site. Noise

The site can operate from 08:00 to 20:00 hours most days of the week. Noise complaints have not been investigated and properly assessed.

The noise assessment report has been done at the quietest time of the

year, in terms of activity. It is usual to test this at least 2 or 3 separate days and the test has not been done independently by a quality assured

provider. It states that noisy shredding would take place when the wind is from the north or west, which would impact on the properties south east of the site.

Pollution There are large amounts of plastic present on the adjacent fields where

the finished product is spread. Plastics and other non-biodegradable items are being ploughed into the

land due to insufficient control in sorting. Concerns that although the plastics are ‘picked’ there may be plastics under the ground. Questioning what legacy is being left for future generations.

Bare patches of earth have been spotted in the crops all over the fields

where the spreading took place, which indicates that the soil balance could be wrong, if not poisoned.

Concerns that the River Till tributary east of the site receives polluted

water and there is confirmation of water quality and the source of any polluted water has not been checked.

Issues in relation to liquid run-off onto the public highway and issues

associated with pesticide and fertiliser residuals being leached into the drainage system.

Health

Bio aerosols can seriously damage human and animal health. Current

UK legislation states compost sites should be 250m from a dwelling or boundary, the Geissen study, alongside more recent German studies brings into question this 250m rule. Following this study Germany, Austria, Denmark, Canada and parts of America have implemented new 500m safe limits.

Dispute that there is insufficient evidence to link ill-health with residents

living outside the 250m limit.

The prevailing wind is from the south west and the ‘drift’ reduces the present safeguarding limit of 250m. Longer distances are being adopted for new sites, have the frequency and strength of these winds been measured and accounted for?

Anecdotal evidence in the village about the number of individuals

suffering with cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, the County Council should be mindful of the potential long term health implications for residents directly affected by the site.

Representations from residents that the site is contributing to health conditions including skin rashes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other respiratory conditions.

Two letters have been received from GPs, outlining the symptoms of

their respective patients. One of these letters states that the symptoms point to an allergic cause but there is no other precipitating factor apart from the proximity of a local composting site.

If the composting continues then the affected residents would have to

look to the County Council as being responsible for their demise. Proximity to the airfield The Convention on Civil Aviation Annex 14 states that action should be

taken to eliminate or to prevent the establishment of waste facilities which may attract bird activity unless an appropriate aeronautical study indicates they are unlikely to create conditions conducive to a bird hazard problem. Vicinity relates to 13km distant, the Sturgate aerodrome is a matter of metres away. The airfield provides more local employment than the applicants propose to do.

Bunding

Concerns raised that the 3 metres earth bund around the north and east

boundaries has not been put in place, as was a requirement of the 2007 planning permission.

Presently no visual screen of the site. One letter states they do not

believe it is possible to screen aesthetically from the north of the site as the boundary of the site is at the edge of the concrete pad. No details of the bunding were enclosed or any proof that they provide noise mitigation.

Height of Materials

Comments that the height of the stored materials is higher than 3 metres,

which was a requirement of the 2007 permission. Materials Being Composted

The applicant's own weighbridge records, 30-40% of the waste is

recorded as unspecified in summer (up to 70%) in winter. As all the allowable wastes have specific codes that can be recorded the only conclusion is that 30-40% are non allowed materials. On 75,000 tonnes that is 25-30,000 tonnes of non allowable waste.

Questions as to what is being composted at the site, which goes beyond

the definition of green waste and includes animal manures and sludges and industrial waste from Kent and Northampton.

Questions raised as to why the smell coming from the site is so

unpleasant, as properly rotted compost should not smell, so what is being disposed of?

One resident states that the site is a tip for industrial, commercial and

household waste.

There have been reports that plastic has been burnt and questioning if the quantity of plastic removed has ever been confirmed.

Surface Water Runoff/Flooding Issues

The increase in the concrete pad area and more waste capacity will

increase the rate of surface water run-off and potentially flood risk.

Nature Conservation

Claims that there is a local nature reserve approximately 600m from the site.

There are protected species on land adjacent to the development site of

a number of red and amber listed birds, a roadside nature reserve and possibly a nearby site that qualifies for SSSI status.

English Nature not aware that the site is approximately 600m away from

a local nature reserve, which under English Nature’s definition is a BAP, containing several protected species. The track across fields from the storage facility runs the length of the hedgerow bordering the nature reserve and their storage facility is about 20m from the wood.

Natural England’s website states that surveys should be undertaken if

records of any protected species exist (for example from local residents), within 2km of the application site.

Planning consent can not be agreed subject to conditions for surveys

and mitigating action in relation to the protection of great crested newts should be in place prior to a decision being made.

There is a ditch which runs parallel to the access road and the site is well

within the 500m for which a great crested newt or water vole survey may be required.

Sightings of great crested newts at nearby properties. The newts

migrate between ponds for up to 3km and are highly protected. They leave the ponds after breeding and live in undergrowth, heaps of rubble, heaps of branches or wood and perhaps compost? outside of the breeding season.

There are large amounts of plastic on the adjacent fields and it is well documented that birds and other wildlife ingest plastic thinking it is food and consequently die. The bird population will gradually increase as it becomes recognised as a good feeding site as increasing amounts of compost are spread on the fields.

Waste Management Licence

Non-compliance with requirements of the Waste Management Licence, including litter and mud causing pollution and many complaints regarding odour.

The waste permit authorises the acceptance of many different types of

industrial wastes and sludges onto the site, most of which contravene the 2007 planning consent, when only green waste from household gardens, local authority parks and commercial landscape gardens, plus waste wood, paper and cardboard was authorised to be accepted.

General

The applicant has had four years to comply with the planning conditions

and prove that the site would not cause undue nuisance, several responses refer to the applicants not complying with the existing permission such as site screening and materials being above 3 metres high.

No Environmental Impact Assessment has been undertaken. Natural

England's standing advice to Local Authorities is that where there are protected species within 2km an Assessment must be undertaken or the application is invalid.

Regulations state that sites should not be placed near underground gas

transition pipelines and one passes very close to the site. More concrete bases would reduce the amount of agricultural land. The outside of the site on Cow Lane is unsightly with rotting bales placed

along the roadside. Sites are being closed across the country due to statutory nuisance

claims. Claims that the applicant has not complied with aspects of the Waste

Management Licence, issued by the Environment Agency. Devaluation of house prices due to the presence of the site. Increase in dust.

There is a covenant on the land which states that it shall not be used for any noisy noxious or offensive trade or business or any purpose which may become a nuisance, damage or annoyance. The covenant has been deliberately breached on every point.

Concern about the site growing even larger than at present, when they

do not seem to be able to comply with previous planning rules.

Comments that one of the meetings held was not a true representation of the village, as only a small minority of the village knew of the meeting.

One resident questions where the waste is coming from, questioning

whether the whole of West Lindsey produces 40,000 tonnes of household green waste, which would be an average of one tonne per household. In 2006/7 the whole of Lincolnshire produced under 60,000 tonnes of green waste. Other sites such as MEC at Swinderby take West Lindsey green waste.

Objectors have questioned the description of the application which

includes the word ‘continue’. The objectors contend that this is a misleading description as it suggests that the operations already have a lawful use when in fact the current operations are unauthorised.

There are a number of issues that need to be addressed and the

information is flawed, these issues should be properly investigated.

The activity should be stopped as there is no valid planning in place.

The operation is not complying with the terms of the 2010 waste contract with the County Council e.g. duty to act with commercial prudence, the product should meet the standards of PAS 100, where this is not the case the successful tender should aim to achieve this standard during the term of the contract.

When planning permission was originally granted there was very little

consultation and local residents feel that they have had the ‘wool pulled over their eyes’ and this is planning ‘by stealth’.

The composting site will be a very serious impediment to the

continuance and further development of Lincolnshire’s only Lavender Farm and visitor centre agricultural business, and the odours from the site would discourage visitors. It will jeopardise employment in the future and ruin an increasingly valued facility for people from many miles around. Based on previous performance, the composting site will knock the Lavender Farm and visitor centre out. The farm has been involved with lavender since 2002 and has had an open week-end. For several years the farm has been growing lavender for wholesale outlet to local businesses including Lincoln Cathedral shop, Doddington Farm Hall shop, Uncle Henry’s Farm Shop, Friendly Farmer and Pink Pig etc and

as such widely supports the provision of local employment. It is claimed that the applicant has other options for the location of the compost site. The flowering lavender plants, would be tainted by the noxious odours and filthy dust and any attempts to mask the odours would be counter-productive. Honey is another product from the lavender. The proposed misting systems can contain chemical copies of essential oils which would harm the plants. One company that supply misting systems asserted that the odour inhibitors would disappear within 10m, but if noxious odours carry for hundreds of metres so would their applied artificial inhibitors. Not all the mist would go to ground before it evaporates and would be carried to where the odours have made a nuisance previously.

Many local authorities insist that their green waste is sent to PAS100

accredited sites, questioning why West Lindsey District Council and the County Council have not insisted on this.

Comments in one letter that the operation of the site does not comply

with the development plan policies set out in the application.

The variation of the waste management licence allows many mechanically recovered wastes and sludges to be accepted which is at variance with Condition 4 of the 2007 planning consent which stipulates that only green waste from household gardens, local authority parks and commercial landscape gardens, waste wood, paper and cardboard shall be accepted. There has been non-compliance with other planning also.

There have been fires at the site and there are concerns about the risk of

further fires, particularly if the site is twice the size; Letters of Support Surestaff Recruitment - Land Network is a business that supports its community. We have been providing jobs for local people to Land Network for a number of years. We fully support this application to ensure the protection of local jobs and to help sustain the local economy.

A further seven letters have been received stating support, or stating that they have no objection to the proposal. The letters include the following points: The plans are very detailed and comprehensive and should allay the

fears of residents if read thoroughly. They clearly demonstrate the responsibility of the site management to comply with legislation and local problems.

An estimated extra two return journeys per hour through Upton during

working hours is a concern, but an increase in lorries is an emotive issue and appears to cause greater concern than extra 4-wheel drive cars. The former, used for commerce are deemed bad, whilst the latter for

social and personal use are ok. There has been an increase on the roads of the latter which people appear to have found acceptable.

It may have been feasible for Heapham to take its share of the traffic, if

there were pavements and street lights. However, there is a safety issue as after dusk the residents have no option but to walk in the dark, at least in Upton there are well lit pavements.

There is more vermin about nationally, hence the reason why more birds

of prey are about as well as some that have been introduced and have successfully reared young over the last few years, therefore vermin has been a food source for the birds of prey.

No concerns regarding the position of the site and the odour emitted. Heapham is and always has been a working/farming village with all of

the usual countryside smells, tractors, traffic, dust, bonfires and night time working to which there is no objection.

The countryside has always been full of muck, pongs, flies and minor

inconveniences, but it is only recently that country dwellers have started to demand an impossible standard of sterility in which to enjoy their “Homes and Gardens” lifestyle.

There would be job losses if the plant were to shut down and the Council

is requested to consider the whole issue and the effect that failure to grant permission for this application would have on the entire district.

The odours do not constitute a nuisance, being fairly infrequent, short

lived and only borne on southerly winds. Flies are to be expected in a farming community - where animals and

birds live there will always be plenty of flies, therefore the increase in numbers may not be to do with the green waste.

There is no evidence that the composting business is harmful to the

residents or to the surrounding area, but evidence could be produced to prove that using compost is beneficial to the soil.

The benefits of allowing this operation to continue outweigh any

perceived disadvantages.

District Council’s Recommendations 45. West Lindsey District Council have no objections to the application.

Conclusions 46. The key test for determining planning applications is set out in Section 38(6)

of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which states:-

“If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”

47. The development plan comprises of the East Midlands Regional Plan

(2009), the Waste Local Plan Saved Policies (2009) and West Lindsey Local Plan (2006) Saved Policies (2009).

48. In respect of what is classed as material, in principle, any consideration

which relates to the use and development of land is capable of being a planning consideration. Whether a particular consideration falling within the broad class is material in any given case will depend on the circumstances. A material consideration must be a genuine planning consideration i.e. they must be related to the development and the use of land in the public interest. The considerations must also fairly and reasonably relate to the application concerned.

49. In respect of national planning guidance this is set out in Planning Policy

Statement 10 (Revised March 2011) which requires planning authorities to drive waste management up the waste hierarchy, address waste as a resource and look to disposal as a last option. In 2011 PPS 10 was updated which removed composting from the waste hierarchy. A new paragraph was inserted in PPS 10 which seeks to achieve more sustainable waste management by moving the management of waste up the ‘Waste hierarchy’ of prevention, preparing for re-use, recycling, other recovery and disposing only as a last resort, the Government aims to break the link between economic growth and the environmental impact of waste.

50. The Regional Plan reflects the pre 2011 waste hierarchy set out in PPS 10.

The Regional Plan also notes at Policy 38 that waste planning authorities should make provision for waste management capacity equal to the amount of waste generated and requiring management in their areas. It also notes that in the Eastern Sub–area the future pattern of provision should combine larger facilities in and around Lincoln. This suggests that the cities of the East Midlands, in this case Lincoln, should provide the future for waste management infrastructure to draw on the advantages of the close proximity of waste arising. The document does not define what constitutes a larger facility and there is also an acknowledgement in the policy that there is a need for a dispersed pattern of smaller facilities in the more rural areas. On that basis, although the site is situated outside the sub regional area of Lincoln, there is provision for smaller facilities in rural areas to serve local needs. Consequently it is not considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy 38.

51. The Waste Local Plan at Policy WLP1 notes that waste management proposals will be considered in relation to their contribution towards the waste management hierarchy. The objective of this proposal is to seek to move the treatment of waste up the hierarchy, by ensuring that waste material that would otherwise be disposed by landfill. In terms of the hierarchy the proposal seeks to treat the waste at the second tier of the hierarchy as other recovery but this is dependent on the material at the end of the composting process to be of a standard that no longer constitutes waste. In respect of the other policies of the Waste Local Plan that are relevant these are WLP9 Outdoor Composting and WLP21 Environmental Considerations which are considered in detail below. The policies of the West Lindsey Local Plan that are relevant are Policy STRAT 12 which addresses development in the open countryside, Policy ECON 4 Farm Diversification and Policy NBE 17 which relates to the control of potentially polluting uses.

52. The key issues that need to be assessed in relation to this application are as

follows:-

The contribution the application makes in respect of the waste hierarchy Odour Visual Impact Perceptions of the local community on health impacts of the proposal Transportation Noise Impact on the adjoining airfield Nature Conservation Public Footpath Other Issues

Waste Hierarchy 53. In March 2011 Central Government revised the waste hierarchy replacing

composting with other recovery. The Government’s review of Waste Policy released in June 2011 indicates that composting is likely to be classed as recycling with respect to the waste hierarchy but only if the finished product is compliant with the Quality Protocol (i.e. PAS 100:2011 compliant). Whilst only limited weight can be attached to the Review at this time, it is a first step in progressing future intended direction of policy. To date the material produced at the end of the composting process has not been assessed, by the Waste Planning Authority, to determine its quality. The material has been spread on land in the ownership of the applicant under an exemption issued by the Environment Agency, as an exempt activity. The important factor here is that the material currently spread is still classed as a waste, but seen as ancillary to the agricultural operations for beneficial improvement.

54. In order to demonstrate that development is moving waste up the hierarchy

and therefore to provide justification for locating the facility in the open

countryside and to be compliant with Policy WLP1 and STRAT 12 of the West Lindsey Local Plan the Waste Planning Authority needs to be satisfied that the material produced is no longer classed as waste. To achieve that conditions could be imposed on any permission granted prescribing the types of waste material that could be imported to the site and requiring the finished compost to meet an approved standard. The national standard of quality for a compost product is set out in the BSI PAS 100:2011, the specification requires that input materials are source segregated and/or source segregated biodegradable materials. The input of a wide range of materials increases the potential for contamination. In order for a waste stream to provide quality compost as well as the green waste, only small proportions of sufficiently clean paper and cardboard are acceptable. This site to date has been accepting a wide range of different waste streams that compromise the quality of the finished product and this is also is likely to have contributed to the odour issues experienced in the locality (see below in odour section). Therefore in order to ensure that the development meets the objectives of the waste hierarchy and therefore provides a justification for locating a development with industrial characteristics in the countryside, then should permission be granted a condition could be imposed that requires the finished material to be of a quality that meets the requirements of the PAS 100 specification. Subject to the inclusion of such a condition it is concluded that the development would be in accordance with the waste hierarchy as set out in PPS10 and also the requirements of Waste Local Plan Policy WLP1 and Local Plan Policy STRAT12.

Odour 55. A significant number of objection letters and representations have cited

odour as a major nuisance and cause of concern. Residents state that the smells are so unpleasant that they prevent them from sitting outside and enjoying the amenity of their house and garden. Some letters raise the question as to what is being composted. The Environmental Health Officer is satisfied that the regulatory controls that the Environment Agency have in place, as regard the Waste Management aspect of the site are satisfactory. The Environment Agency acknowledge that there have been a number of complaints, predominantly relating to odour and believe that these concerns relate primarily to the volumes of waste stored on the site, as well as the nature of the waste and the process by which the waste is composted.

56. The 2007 permission restricted the waste types permitted to green garden

waste, local authority parks and commercial landscape garden waste, waste wood, paper and cardboard. However, the proportion of these materials were not specified and the Environment Agency Licence permitted a wide range of waste types, including sludges containing latex and adhesives, sludges containing ink, wastes from mineral excavations, sludge wastes from the preparation and processing of meat and fish, wastes from the textile industry and landfill leachate. As recognised by the Environment Agency, it is considered that it is possible that the waste types at the site have contributed to the odour issues. Furthermore, the methodology and management of the site operations have a significant impact on the

composting process and odour produced. This includes the frequency of turning and the ability of plant and machinery to turn all material within the clamp, including the material at the bottom of the clamp.

57. It is clear that there is a requirement to have some control on the types and

proportion of different waste streams received at the site because of the open air nature of the composting process, and because of the nature of the waste types referred to in the Environmental Permit including many categories that would not be accepted on the site in planning terms.

58. Government advice through PPS10 and PPS23 Planning and Pollution

Control advises planning authorities to avoid duplication in terms of imposing restrictions that are addressed by other legislation. However, the dividing line between planning and pollution control regimes is not always clear cut and there is often a degree of overlap. PPS23 at Annex 1 advises that it is important for Local Planning authorities to consider properly loss of amenity from emissions in the planning process and not just from the narrow perspective of statutory nuisance. In addition odour is mentioned at Annex E of PPS10 as one of the locational criteria that needs to be taken into account in determining planning applications. Therefore, it is considered that if planning permission were to be granted a condition requiring an odour management plan, which could include the mobile odour dispersal system proposed by the applicant, in conjunction with conditions restricting the types and quantities of materials that can be imported to the site, would be sufficient to ensure that any odour emanating from the site would not be at a level that would cause nuisance to the closest residential receptor or anyone enjoying the countryside. Planning for Waste Management Facilities – A Research Study, August 2004, states that site specific risk assessment needs to be a condition if composting operations are to be located within 250m of any working or dwelling place. The research continues that where possible facilities should be located at least 250m from sensitive properties, which may include business premises. In this case, the distance of the site from the nearest receptor is over 250m which should provide further justification that odour would not be an issue in relation to this proposal.

59. Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) produced a

'Good Practice and Regulatory Guidance on Composting and Odour Control for Local Authorities' (March 2009). In pilled composting the optimum height is 3m, with composting normally taking 12-16 weeks with a period of maturation of 3-4 weeks, periodic turning is required. It is during the turning that there is considerable risk of odours being released. The need for turning can be reduced through mechanical aeration of the pile and covering it with an air permeable membrane. The Good Practice Guide quotes greater distances applied by the Dutch, but reiterates the Environment Agency Standard Rule set at 250m.

60. Consequently the application is in accordance with criterion (i) of WLP9

which requires a distance of 250m from the heap compost facility to the closest occupied building. The application is also accompanied by a statement on odour identifying under what circumstances odour can become

an issue for the proposed activity and listing a number of mitigation points to ensure that such a situation does not arise. In this particular case it is considered that such a statement is adequate to meet the requirements of criterion (iv) of Policy WLP9 as the written justification for this policy notes that the Environment Agency requires that an odour impact assessment is carried out for all planning applications for composting. In this particular case the Environment Agency have not raised any objection to the application or advised that an odour impact assessment is necessary. Consequently the application is in accordance with the relevant criteria of West Lindsey Local Plan Policy STRAT 1 and NBE 17, and the requirements of Policy WLP21 (xi) in relation to odour.

Visual Impact 61. A further issue to consider is the impact of the development on the character

of the landscape. The physical structures associated with the development are the existing 3m high bund along the northern and western boundaries of the site, the portakabin buildings which incorporate the office and adjoining weighbridge and the storage container buildings. Also the physical appearance of the clamp itself needs to be assessed together with the temporary impacts of the HGVs visiting and leaving the site, the loading shovel used to deposit material on the clamp and the shredder and trommel used during the process. There is no doubt all of these elements, particularly the shredder, operating together would appear uncharacteristically industrial on the landscape. The fact that the shredder plant only operates periodically reduces the impact on the countryside and the bund helps to reduce this impact further. However bunds can be seen as alien features in the landscape.

In this particular case the landscape has no formal protection designation.

The application site is situated within an area of a former military airfield with some of the characteristics of that use still evident and is still used as a civilian airfield. Taking all those factors into account the clamp is not assessed to be out of keeping with the agricultural character of the area. In respect of the other infrastructure particularly the bund, and given the working nature of the landscape, it is concluded that the impact of the development on the landscape is not so significant that the application should be refused on visual amenity grounds. Landscaping has been partially implemented to soften the impact of these structures. The impacts should be mitigated by the imposition of a condition restricting the permitted height of the materials to be restricted to 3m and a condition requiring details of the existing landscaping to be submitted and approved and incorporation of a scheme of maintenance. Therefore the application is not contrary with criterion (xi) of Policy WLP21 in relation to visual impact.

Health Implications 62. As can be seen from the sections on comments received via the publicity

process, a number of local residents have raised concerns about the impact from the proposed operations on their health. These local residents claim

that the operations have already had a negative impact on their health. PPS10 provides clear advice on the control of potential pollution and health impacts and how such concerns should be addressed through the planning system. At paragraph 30 it notes 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. The detailed consideration of a waste management process and implications, if any, for human health is the responsibility of the pollution control authorities. However, planning operates in the public interest to ensure that the location of proposed development is acceptable and health can be material to such decisions. The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011, Regulation 18 reiterates the duty of Waste Planning Authorities to consider health matters when exercising their planning functions relating to waste management, thus complying with Article 13 of the EU Waste Framework Directive 2008.

63. At paragraph 31 PPS 10 notes that where concerns about health are raised,

waste planning authorities should avoid carrying out their own detailed assessment of health studies. Rather they should ensure through drawing from Government advice and research and consultation with the relevant health authorities and agencies that they have advice on the implications for health, if any, and when determining planning applications consider the locational implications of such advice. The Environment Agency has produced technical guidance on composting facilities which include pathogenic bacteria and fungal spores that are released throughout the composting process, especially during operations such as screening shredding and turning. It is a well established position that based on this there would be a presumption against permitting {and objecting to any planning application} of any new composting process where the boundary of a facility is within 250m of workplace or the boundary of a dwelling unless the application is accompanied by a site specific risk assessment.

64. In this particular case there is no occupied building within 250m of the

application site. There would be some screening and shredding of the material but this occurs intermittently. The Environment Agency have raised no objection to the application and indeed issued a permit for the site which gives a strong indication that the Agency is satisfied that the operations can take place without causing an unacceptable health risk to those out in the countryside or occupants in residential properties in the locality.

65. There have been various studies undertaken, particularly by Sheffield

University and in Germany the Giessen Study, on the area of potential impact due to bio aerosol dispersion. These studies look at areas of variable terrain, whereas the study which resulted in the 250m criteria was carried out on a site in Norfolk. In response to this, in Europe, "exclusion" distances of 300m and more have been adopted. However, in England the Environment Agency has been consistent in using the 250m criteria and this advice also appears in a Research Study: Planning for Waste Management Facilities (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: August 2004). In question time on 24 June 2008 in response to a question (from Mr Michael Chapman

MP) of the application of the findings of the Giessen Study, the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jan Ruddock) stated:

"My Hon. friend asked why the Giessen Study was not included in the

review. The reason is that the review was carried out before the publication of the Giessen Study, so its conclusion was not possible.

"The Review, which was published in 2003, found that fungal particles

generated at any site would drop to background levels within about 150m. That is why the Health and Safety Executive has proposed a precautionary approach not 150m but 250m. By taking a bigger margin than is perhaps considered necessary, the HSE is confident it has taken account of unexpected or extreme conditions." (Hansard 24 June 2008: Column 265)

66. Attached to a set of notes of a meeting held at a local resident's house is a

letter from the Rt. Hon. Caroline Spelman MP dated 17 May 2011. The letter was in response to an email from a local resident regarding odour emanating from the site. In this letter to the Secretary of State confirms the current position regarding the 250m distance to receptors as follows:

"More generally the EA considers the risk to health from bio aerosols

released from the site to be low. The consensus from various studies is that bio aerosols from compost activities decline rapidly from the first 100m from a site and reduce to background levels within 250m. (I have been advised that the closest resident to the site in question lives 350m from the site.) You may be interested to know that the regulation of bio aerosols from permitted composting sites is being considered as part of the Government's review of waste policy in England this Spring. In the meantime, the EA is reviewing existing permitted sites that are less than 250m from the dwellings to ensure the permits have adequate requirements for bio aerosol monitoring (although this site falls outside of that category)."

67. The Health Protection Agency has been consulted on the application but

had not responded when this report was prepared. However, it is understood that the Health Protection Agency has undertaken a detailed assessment of the sites operations and it is anticipated that the conclusion will be that these operations do not cause any harmful impacts to local resident’s health. Consequently, there is no reason to withhold permission on health grounds. The formal comments of the Health Protection Agency are expected to be available at the Committee Meeting. The Pollution control regime 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. The regime also ensures that ambient air and water quality meet standards that guard against impacts to the environment and human health. Therefore, it is concluded that despite the perceptions of the local community that this development is causing some local residents health problems, the advice from Central Government is that such issues should be addressed by the pollution control regime. However, no objections have been raised by any of the statutory bodies that consider

health issues and therefore there is no reason to refuse this application on health grounds. Consequently the application is not contrary to Waste Local Plan Policy WLP21 criterion (xi) in relation to emissions and air quality and Local Plan Policy NBE17.

Traffic/Vehicular Movements 68. The Transport Statement submitted with the application stated that there

were 2,184 vehicle deliveries to the site for the twelve month period November 2010 – October 2011. This is equivalent to 4,368 vehicle movements and is a significant reduction on the figure of 15,000 vehicular movements which was permitted by the 2007 permission. When application W46/120477/07 was approved it was recognised that there would be a greater potential for disturbance due to lorry movements if the lorries were to use the minor roads through the villages to the north of the site. Therefore, a planning condition was imposed requiring measures to be put in place to ensure HGVs visiting and departing from the site use the most appropriate routes to and from the site to ensure that the application would accord with Policy WLP21 (xii) of the Waste Local Plan. Since that application was determined there has been nothing to materially alter the situation and furthermore, the Highways Officer has responded that there is no reason to refuse the application on highway grounds. Therefore, it is considered that the application would be acceptable on highway grounds.

69. The previous permission permitted the site to operate up to a capacity of

74,999 tonnes per annum without any restrictions on vehicle movements and consequently throughput. This application seeks permission to operate up to the same throughput levels. However, the applicant has indicated that the site has only capacity to process up to 40,000 tonnes per annum, and therefore the site would not need a permission that exceeds this level. However, they have applied for a facility that would be permitted to process 74,999 tonnes, from a highway standpoint a development with a throughput of 74,999 has already been considered acceptable and consequently there is no justification to restrict the level of throughput at the site on highway grounds, therefore the proposal would accord with Policy WLP21(xii) of the Waste Local Plan.

70. If Phase 2 were to be implemented, there would be an increase of 3,406

vehicular movements which combined with the existing number of 4,368 would give a total of 7,774. This is a still significantly below the projected 15,000 vehicular movements that has previously been deemed acceptable if the site is operated up to the 74,999 limit as per the 2007 consent.

Noise 71. The response from local residents has suggested that noise from the

existing operations has been an issue and that noise complaints have not been investigated.

72. The District Council EHO is satisfied that noise emanating from the development is not at a level that constitutes a statutory nuisance and considers that levels of noise are all relatively low, and as such of little consequence. The usual controls for outside development in the countryside such as restricting hours and days of operation would ensure the development would not be unacceptable from a noise standpoint and this could be imposed by an appropriately worded planning condition. It is therefore concluded that the proposal is not contrary to the requirements of criterion (xi) of Policy WLP 21.

Proximity to the Airfield 73. It is considered that appropriate control of the type of material allowed to the

site restricting it to green waste, through an appropriately worded condition, would ensure that the types of material that would be on site would not attract scavenging birds, which are a danger to aircraft. Consequently the development would not be contrary to Policy WLP 21 criterion (ii) of the Lincolnshire Waste Local Plan and Policy STRAT1 (viii) of the West Lindsey Local Plan.

Nature Conservation 74. Natural England has confirmed that the development would not appear to

affect any statutory protected sites or landscapes. Comments have been received through consultation that there is a nature reserve close to the site and that great crested newts have been sighted at nearby properties. Comments have also been received that in view of the ditch, which runs parallel to the access road, a great crested newt and/or water vole survey may be required. In relation to the comments made by the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust, there is no proposal to do any works to the vegetated bunds to the south and west of the site which the Trust says may provide a habitat for badgers and reptiles. The Trust has advised that access to and from the site along the section of Cow Lane, to the east of the entrance, should be prohibited in order to protect the Upton Grange Roadside Nature Reserve. It is considered that this could be controlled by a condition requiring drivers of lorries to turn right only when exiting the site, and not to travel through Heapham and Springthorpe villages. As the site and the operations are existing it is considered that the continued operation and the proposed development of an additional clamp area, which is within the existing site area, would not impact further on the existing ecology. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that Natural England have not requested any further studies or advised of the presence of any protected species and the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust also commented that the Phase 2 area of the site would not appear to support any protected species, it is considered that the proposals would not be contrary to Policy STRAT 1 of the West Lindsey Local Plan (2006) Saved Policies (2009) and Policy WLP21 criterion (vii) of the Waste Local Plan.

Footpath 75. Local residents have submitted an application to claim a definitive right of

way along the access track and through the composting site. This application is with the County Council's Public Rights of Way team and it is likely to be two years before it is processed. The current position is therefore that the public footpath is only alleged to exist and it has not been proven to subsist. From a planning standpoint it is correct that the application is determined in relation to the current factual position. That position is that no footpath exists and therefore it is concluded that the application would not have an adverse effect on any public footpath and consequently it is not contrary to the requirements of criterion(x) of Waste Local Plan Policy WLP21.

Other Matters 76. Objectors have questioned the description of the application which includes

the word ‘continue’. The objectors contend that this is a misleading description as it suggests that the operations already have a lawful use when in fact the current operations are unauthorised. The applicant's position is that the description duplicates that included as the description on the 2007 application. The applicant was requested by the case officer to amend the description to more accurately reflect the status of the development. The applicant chose not to amend the description. The Waste Planning Authority cannot impose a description of development on the applicant, but could ultimately refuse an application if it considered the description of the development, which appears on the decision notice, does not accurately reflect what is proposed by the development. In this case it is clear to Councillors and consultees that the planning position of the current operations is that they are taking place without planning permission, so technically the application should be described as retrospective. However, if permission is granted it is not considered material to how the site would be monitored if the description of the development is described on the notice as ‘to continue’ rather than ‘retrospective’, either way it still relates to a composting operation.

77. The point is also raised by objectors that as the applicant failed to comply

with conditions attached to the lapsed permission then there is no confidence that should a further permission be granted then conditions attached to that permission would be breached. However, this is an enforcement matter and if permission is granted than Councillors and the local community should be able to rely on the appropriate enforcement authorities to take action if it is expedient to do so. It is not a substantive reason to refuse permission because there is no confidence that the applicant would comply with the conditions attached to any permission granted. This has been demonstrated through the enforcement investigation that led to this application being submitted through a failure of the applicant to comply with conditions attached to the 2007 permission. It has resulted in a costly and uncertain position for the applicant which could have been avoided if the necessary conditions had been complied with.

78. Objectors have drawn attention to a covenant that is in place on the

application site which was imposed by the MOD when the land was sold, restricting activities that could take place on the land. Objectors submit that what is taking place is contrary to this covenant. However, this is a matter that falls outside the planning system to consider, there is an established legal process to address covenant issues and it is for objectors to pursue this matter outside the planning process should they wish to do so.

79. Concern has been raised regarding the negative impact of the development

on property prices. It is a long established position in planning procedures that the impact of development on property prices is not a material planning consideration.

80. Representations have cited the amount of plastic that is visible on the fields

where the finished field conditioner is being used. As previously discussed, the waste licence permits a wide range of materials being accepted at the site and it is considered that the imposition of a condition restricting the types of waste to be composted as well as a condition requiring the finished product to be PAS100 standard would address this issue. Furthermore, it is considered that the acceptance of green waste only would address any issue associated with an increase in flies and vermin at the site.

81. One representation questions whether an Environmental Impact

Assessment should have been submitted. A screening opinion was issued which concluded that the view of the Waste Planning Authority is that the proposed development is not Environmental Impact Assessment development.

82. Finally, it should be noted that letters of support have been received in

favour of the application highlighting amongst other matters the creation of employment generated by this development.

Final Conclusions 83. The application seeks retrospective permission to process up to 74,999

tonnes of waste per annum to form compost. In general policy terms, the application would be in accordance with National, Regional and Local Policy provided it can be demonstrated or controlled that the finished product is no longer classed as waste. In addition, the development represents a form of farm diversification. Local Plan Policy ECON 4 allows a range of economic activities on farms but does not give any prescription of what constitutes economic activities. It is not considered that the application is contrary to the criteria of this policy, for the reasons outlined in the detailed discussion above and as such the proposal is supported by Policy ECON 4.

84. Fundamentally, the control of the waste types and proportions received and

treated at the site would, in turn, reduce and control a significant proportion of the odour problems. The Environment Agency has been in discussion with the applicant to address the odour issues which it believes to be a

result of the types and quantities of waste stored at the site. It is considered that a condition which restricts the types of materials accepted at the site would be instrumental in controlling odour problems.

85. In conclusion and on balance, subject to the necessary controls that could

be imposed by planning condition, it is considered that the application is not contrary to Government guidance as set out in PPS 10, Policies of the Regional Plan, Policies WLP1, WLP9 and WLP21 of the Waste Local Plan and policies STRAT 1, STRAT 12, ECON 4, NBE 17 of the West Lindsey District Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance

with the details set out in the application received on 13 August 2011, supporting documents received on 8 July 2011 and 16 August 2011 and the e-mail from the agent to the Waste Planning Authority dated 30 October 2011, and the accompanying plan:

TMA/1026/03 – received 13 August 2011 2. The maximum quantity of material to be composted shall not exceed 40,000

tonnes per annum. All materials to be brought to the site for composting shall be weighed at a weighbridge within the site. Weighbridge records shall be retained for at least two years and available for inspection by the Waste Planning Authority on request.

3. Within three months of the date of this permission all compost leaving the

application site shall be of a quality meeting the requirements of BSI PAS 100. To ensure the finished compost achieves the required standards the compost shall be produced in accordance with the methodology set out in the Quality Protocol ‘Compost’ produced by the Environment Agency July 2010 (or such national measure of compost quality that replaces this British Standard and Protocol).

4. No further waste shall be imported to the site unless the following

requirements are met:

(i) within six months of the date of this permission, unless a longer period is agreed in writing with the Waste Planning Authority, a Certificate shall be obtained from the Association for Organics Recycling (or other appropriate body who has the technical competence to issue such a Certificate) to confirm the finished compost meets the requirements defined in Condition 3. A copy of the Certificate shall be forwarded to the Waste Planning Authority for written confirmation within six months of the date of this permission unless a longer period is agreed in writing with the Waste Planning Authority; and

(ii) thereafter annually and no later than the date of the anniversary on

which the Certificate required under (i) was received by the Waste Planning Authority, unless a longer period is agreed in writing with the Waste Planning Authority, a further Certificate shall be obtained from the Association for Organics Recycling (or other appropriate body who has the technical competence to issue such a Certificate) to confirm the finished compost meets the requirements defined in Condition 3. A copy of the annual Certificate shall be forwarded to the Waste Planning Authority for written confirmation within 14 days of the anniversary date on which the Certificate required under (i) was received by the Waste Planning Authority, unless a longer period is agreed in writing with the Waste Planning Authority.

5. No waste other than green waste as defined by this permission shall be

imported to, deposited, processed or stored at the site. For the purposes of this condition and for the avoidance of doubt green waste means garden, park or highway verge waste such as grass and flower cuttings, hedge, tree and shrub trimmings and branches. No more than a maximum of 5% of the amount of green waste collected and/or deposited on site shall consist of paper, cardboard or wood.

6. Any material contained within deliveries to the site which falls outside of the

definition of green waste and the defined limit of paper, cardboard or wood set out in condition 5 above, shall, within 24 hours of such delivery, be moved to the approved quarantine area and stored in a designated covered skip prior to removal from the site. Removal of such waste from the site shall be no later than one month of delivery of the non-permitted waste.

7. The second clamp area (phase 2) shall be surfaced with an impermeable

layer of concrete which shall be maintained in a good state of repair and impermeable integrity.

8. Prior to the surfacing of any part of the site with concrete, all soil shall be

stripped from that part of the site and stored in accordance with the details approved under Condition 11(i) set out below.

9. There shall be no retail sales of compost from the site. 10. No material stockpiled or stored within the site shall exceed 3m in height. 11. The use hereby permitted shall cease and all compost, waste, buildings,

structures, plant and machinery and any other equipment brought onto the land for the purposes of such use shall be removed from the site within two months of the date of failure to meet any one of the requirements set out below:

(i) Within one month of the date of the decision a scheme shall be

submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for details of a sign to be erected at the site entrance, and details of sanctions and penalties for

non-compliance for failure to comply with routing restrictions. The notice shall include the following information:

(a) vehicles shall only turn right from the site access and not travel

through Heapham and Springthorpe; (b) the use of the site is permitted for the reception of green waste

only; (c) permitted hours of operation of the site are 08:00 – 20:00 Monday

to Friday, 08:00 -14:00 Saturday, Sunday and Bank Holidays; and (d) no commercial vehicle movements are permitted to take place

outside these hours.

(ii) Within one month of the date of the decision a scheme shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for the following:

(a) all fencing including position and height, (b) soil storage and screening bunds including height and depth and

seeding; (c) species, numbers, positions and sizes of trees and shrubs to be

planted; (d) weed control; (e) a programme for the maintenance and replacement of dead and

dying plant material during the first five years following completion of the planting; and

(f) phasing of the scheme. (iii) Within one month of the date of the decision a scheme shall have been

submitted to the Waste Planning Authority detailing odour monitoring for the site. Such a scheme shall include the following:

(a) how, where and when odour would be monitored; (b) who would be responsible and how the monitoring data would be

assessed and used; (c) procedures for recording and dealing with any complaints; (d) the logging of weather conditions, approximate wind speed and

direction; and (e) procedures and actions to be undertaken if malodorous odours

are found to be present.

Monitoring results shall be forwarded to the Waste Planning Authority within seven days of any such written request by the Waste Planning Authority. Any subsequent amendment to the monitoring programme shall be approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The monitoring programme outlined above shall be carried out in accordance with the approved programme

(iv) Within four months of the date of this decision the schemes as set out

at (i), (ii) and (iii) above shall have been approved by the Waste Planning Authority or, if the Waste Planning Authority refuse to approve the scheme or fail to give a decision within the prescribed period, an

appeal shall have been made to and accepted as valid by the Planning Inspectorate.

(v) The approved schemes shall have been carried out and completed in

accordance with the approved timetables. 12. The following operations shall only be carried in accordance with the

following hours, unless otherwise approved in writing beforehand by the Waste Planning Authority:

Monday – Friday Saturday Sunday & Bank &

Public Holidays

Operations other than shredding

08:00 – 20:00 08:00 – 14:00 08:00 – 14:00

Shredding of waste

08:00 – 18:00 08:00 – 12:00 Not at all

13. Should the site cease to accept waste materials for composting, and/or

composting operations are suspended for a period in excess of six months, then all areas of hardstanding, plant, machinery, equipment, buildings, weighbridge, fencing, compost and waste materials shall be removed within a further three month period. All materials that have not been processed to form compost shall be removed from the site to licensed waste disposal facility. Bunds shall be levelled and all stored topsoil shall be reinstated and the land returned to a condition fit for agriculture within three months of the removal of areas of hardstanding.

14. Within four weeks of the site ceasing to accept waste materials for

composting or the suspension of composting operations, the Waste Planning Authority shall be notified of such cessation or suspension.

Reasons 1. To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the details submitted 2. To ensure that the scale of the operation and the number of associated

traffic movements are kept within the range put forward by the applicant. 3 & 4 To ensure the finished product no longer constitutes waste to meet the

requirements of the Waste Hierarchy as set out in Planning Policy Statement 10 and in the interest of the general amenity of the area.

5 To control pollution at the site and to ensure that only waste capable of

being processed into compostable material, capable of meeting the PAS 100 standard is accepted at the site.

6. To prevent pollution of soil and groundwater resources.

7 & 9 In the interests of the visual amenity of the area. 8. For the avoidance of doubt and to minimise the impact of the proposed

development on highway safety in the area. 10. In the interests of highway safety and the visual amenity of the area. 11, 12 &14

In the interests of amenity of the area.

13. To ensure the restoration of the site should it cease to operate as a composting facility.

Reasons for Granting Planning Permission The application is to continue to receive waste to form compost, with the finished compost to be spread on land within the applicant's ownership. The development would meet the Government's aim of moving waste further up the waste hierarchy and accord with Regional Policy and Policy WLP1 of the Lincolnshire Waste Local Plan only if it could be no longer be classed as waste. To ensure this is achieved conditions are imposed restricting the type of material that can be imported to the site and the requirement that the finished compost meets a recognised compost standard. Vehicular traffic movements associated with the development are considered acceptable and therefore the aims of Policy WLP21(xii) would not be compromised. The issues associated with odour can be addressed by restricting the types and quantities of materials received. It is considered that the development would not be out of keeping with the landscape and therefore it would not be contrary to Policy STRAT1 of the West Lindsey District Local Plan. In conclusion it is considered that the proposed development would not be contrary to the aims and objectives of Policies WLP1, WLP9 and WLP21 of the Lincolnshire Waste Local Plan (2006) Saved Policies (2009). Policies Referred To National Guidance The Waste Strategy for England and Wales 2007 Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7)- Sustainable Development in Rural Areas(2004) Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (Revised March 2011) Regional Guidance East Midlands Regional Plan (March 2009) East Midlands Regional Waste Strategy (2006)

Lincolnshire Waste Local Plan (2006) Saved Policies (2009) Policy WLP1 - Objective of the Plan Policy WLP9 – Outdoor Composting (Windrow and Compost Heaps) Policy WLP21 - Environmental Considerations West Lindsey Local Plan (2006) (Saved Policies 2009) Policy STRAT 1 - Development requiring Planning Permission Policy STRAT 12 - Development in the Open Countryside Policy ECON 4 - Farm Diversification Policy NBE 17 - Control of Potentially Polluting Uses Appendix

These are listed below and attached at the back of the report

Appendix A Committee Plan

Appendix B Proposed Site Plan

Background Papers The following background papers as defined in the Local Government Act 1972 were relied upon in the writing of this report.

Document title Where the document can be viewed

Planning Application File W46/127834/11 W46/120477/07 W46/1361/03

Lincolnshire County Council, Planning, Witham Park House, Waterside South, Lincoln

National Guidance

Waste Strategy for England 2007

Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7)- Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (2004)

Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10)- Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (Revised March 2011)

Waste (England and ales) Regulations 2011

Planning for Waste Management Facilities: A Research Study (2004)

Good Practice and Regulatory Guidance on Composting and Odour Control for Local Authorities: Defra 2009

Compost: The Quality Protocol for the Production and Use of Quality Compost from Source – Segregated Biodegradable Waste: WRAP and Environment Agency (2010)

Column 265 – Hansard 24 June 2008

Communities and Local Government website www.communities.gov.uk

Document title Where the document can be viewed

East Midlands Regional Plan (March 2009)

East Midlands Regional Waste Strategy (2006)

Lincolnshire County Council, Planning, Witham Park House, Waterside South, Lincoln

Local Plan

Lincolnshire Waste Local Plan (2006) Saved Policies (2007)

Lincolnshire County Council website www.lincolnshire.gov.uk

West Lindsey Local Plan (2006) (Saved Policies 2009)

West Lindsey District Council website www.west-lindsey.gov.uk

This report was written by Sandra Barron, who can be contacted on 01522 782070 or dev_pcg@lincolnshire.gov.uk

Access Track

Site of Application

LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCILPLANNING

Location: Description:

LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCILReproduced from the 1996 Os Mapping with the permission

of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) CrownCopyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown

Copyright and may lead to civil proceedings.

OS LICENCE 1000025370

Prevailing Wind Direction from the south-west

Application No:Scale: 1:10000 Planning and Regulation Committee 13 February 2012

To continue to deposit and process waste to formcompost with a limit of 74,999 tonnes per annum

Sturgate AirfieldCow LaneUpton

W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11W46/127834/11

Report Reference: 6 and... · 2012. 2. 13. · W46/120417/07. Phase 2 of this previous application...

Documents

Parts ManualParts Manual Caisson Clamp Caisson ... · PDF fileCaisson Clamp Caisson ClampCaisson Clamp ... 1 CLAMP ASSEMBLY 81TC - DRAWINGS . ... 14 9403007 Parallel key DIN 6885A

Digital Marketing Webinar Series The Mobile Marketing ...eoplugin.commpartners.com/HSMAI/120417/120417_Slides.pdf · • Vast majority of users (90.15%) prefer mobile browsing vs

TRI-CLAMP FITTINGS Tri-Clamp butterfly valves - adelphi.uk.com

Forward with Active Clamp for space applications: clamp …oa.upm.es/47816/1/INVE_MEM_2017_260789.pdf · · 2017-09-19Forward with Active Clamp for space applications: clamp capacitor,

Clamp Locks

SPECS & INFORMATION · TRI-CLAMP CONNECTIONS SH Type (Double Bolted) Closure Clamp Product group: Tri-Clamp Connections Description: SH Type (Double Bolted) Closure Clamp Valid standards:

W46 nov2014

BALE CLAMP - FORK CLAMP - HAND ROTATING FORK CLAMP - …€¦ · USE AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL UM-E-G-H-D-N-W-2010-R1 1. BALE CLAMP - FORK CLAMP - HAND ROTATING FORK CLAMP - FOR FOAM

Magic Clamp

JCM Universal Clamp Couplings PDFs/Precios101_102_131... · 2005-07-28 · JCM Universal Clamp Couplings JCM 101 Standard Range Universal Clamp Coupling-popular economical clamp provides

Redram Clamp

RDKS Zuordnungsliste - anziowheels.com · Clamp In Clamp In Clamp In Snap In Clamp In Snap In Clamp In Clamp In Rim system Clamp In Snap In Clamp In Clamp In Snap In Clamp In Material

Tension Clamp

120417 Olympic Newspaper 2012

w46 Bdsx40 Bpd en Xx

Clamp Tester

Pipe Clamp Pipe Clamp - Wookwang CLAMP SHOE CAT… · · 2017-04-21Pipe Clamp Pipe Clamp 58 59 A B E G M S B E M S G DBCC SBCC Pipe Size (A) Clamp No. Max. Recom. Load (kg) Weight

Wear Limits W46

Clamp Fitting Series - SPLEAD...CLAMP FITTINGS rlight.com.tw 2 Application for Clamp Fitting Components Ball Valve Tee Butterfly Valve Clamp Elbow Ferrule Fitting Hygienic Stainless

Clamp Catalogue