PN6

For: PLANNING & REGULATION COMMITTEE – 9 SEPTEMBER 2013

By: Deputy Director for Environment and Economy (Strategy and

Infrastructure Planning)

Division Affected

Division Affected: Sutton Courtenay and Marcham

Contact Officer: Mary Thompson Tel: Oxford 815901

Location: Sutton Courtenay Landfill Site, Abingdon, OX14 4PW.

Application Nos: Application 1 - MW.0090/13 (Awaiting District Reference)

Application 2 - MW.0088/13 P13/V1523/CM

District Council Area: Vale of White Horse

Applicant: FCC

Date Received: 14 June 2013 Consultation Period: 4 – 25 July 2013 Contents:

• Part 1 – Facts and Background

• Part 2 – Other Viewpoints

• Part 3 – Relevant Planning Documents

• Part 4 – Analysis and Conclusions

Recommendation

The report recommends that the applications be approved.

Development Proposed:

Application 1 - Application to continue the development of the establishment of

recycling facilities on land west of Corridor Road without complying with

conditions 1, 5, 12 and 21 of planning permission no. P12/V2207/CM.

Application 2 - Waste transfer facility to handle 60 000 tonnes per annum of non-

hazardous waste and 200 tpa of clinical waste; and associated operational

development including a northern egress to Corridor Road, concrete pad, soil

storage bunds, perimeter fencing, transformer pad and transformer, traffic

(Armco) barriers and traffic lights at the consented Materials Recycling Facility

(MRF) on land to the west of Corridor Road within the boundary of the existing

Sutton Courtenay Waste Management Centre

PN6

• Part 1 – Facts and Background

Location (see location plan)

1. The site lies in the centre of the Sutton Courtenay landfill complex; 1km (0.6 mile) east of Sutton Courtenay, 1km west of Appleford, 3km (1.8 miles) south of Abingdon and 1.5km (0.9 mile) north of Didcot.

Site and Setting (see site plan)

2. A green waste composting site occupies the western half of the site. The Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) has recently been constructed on the eastern part of the site.

3. Access to the site is to the south onto a byway open to all traffic (BOAT). 4. To the west and south is restored agricultural land. To the north is a gravel

processing plant and block crushing area. To the east is the Corridor Road and beyond that is a black top plant next to the Appleford sidings railhead. Sutton Courtenay landfill is 300 metres to the southeast.

5. The closest areas of population are Sutton Courtenay and Appleford villages, 1

km distant. Appleford Crossing and properties on Main Road, Appleford are closest to the site at approximately 950 metres from the site boundary.

Background and History Application 1 – MW.0090/13

6. Permission for the MRF and also an In Vessel Composting Facility (IVC) on the site was granted in 2008 (APF/616/57-CM) and then amended in 2012 (P12/V1497/CM) to allow the MRF to be constructed and operated without the IVC. A further permission (P12/V2207/CM) was issued in January 2013. This varied conditions to extend the end date of operations to 2030, increase the annual throughout to 200 000 tonnes per annum (tpa) and alter the approved elevations. This application is a further Section 73 application to vary the conditions on the existing consent.

Application 2 – MW.0088/13

7. FCC originally proposed to use part of the MRF building for bulking of municipal waste from South Oxfordshire and the Vale of White Horse in the Section 73 application made in 2012 and issued in January 2013 (P12/V2207/CM). This also included an extension of the end date of the MRF facility. The application was approved by Planning & Regulation Committee on 3 December 2012. However, in the course of considering the application it became clear that it would not be possible to approve the proposed bulking of waste and transfer to the Ardley Energy from Waste plant. This is because a Section 73 application

PN6

can only be used to vary the way that an approved development is carried out and not to add new aspects to that development. As the description of development was for recycling operations and this proposal involved waste transfer with no recycling element, FCC was advised to submit a separate full application for that development. This is the application which is now being considered.

Details of the Development

Application 1 - MW.0090/13 – variation to conditions

8. Operations within the MRF building will remove dry materials such as paper, cardboard, plastic and metals for recycling. Recyclable material will be transported off site and residue from this process will be sent to the adjacent landfill site.

9. The applicant has submitted this section 73 application to continue this

development with amendments to the existing conditions. The conditions which it is proposed to vary are as follows:

a) Condition 1 – To vary the approved plans to show the MRF to be

constructed in two phases and to show operational development applied for under a separate application (MW.0088/13)

b) Condition 5 – To increase the hours of operation within the plant to allow

plant within the building to operate until 22.00 Mondays to Fridays and 20.00 on Saturdays. The hours for vehicle movements would not change. The currently permitted hours are until 18.00 Mondays to Fridays and 13.00 on Saturdays. It is also proposed to change the condition to allow operations associated with the waste transfer operations (the subject of application MW.0088/13) to take place on bank or public holidays with the exception of Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year’s Day and until 17.00 on Saturdays following bank or public holidays.

c) Condition 12 – This condition currently prevents the storage of materials

outside the building. It is proposed to vary this to allow treated, wrapped and baled materials to be stored outside. At present the condition requires treated waste to be stored within the MRF building.

d) Condition 21 – This condition on the current consent limits the total waste

imported through this facility to be within the 600,000 tpa that is permitted to be imported to the associated landfill site. The applicant proposes changing this condition to exclude the 60,000 tpa waste proposed for onward transfer (subject to approval of application MW0088/13), 40,000 tpa composting throughput and 200 tpa clinical waste from the overall site import limit. This would increase the potential maximum import of waste to the site to 700,200 tpa.

PN6

Changes to Plans (a)

10. Only two thirds of the approved MRF building has actually been constructed on the site. FCC seek to regularise this by submitting plans showing the final third as Phase 2 of the development. They suggest that this would be likely to take place after 2015, depending on financial viability. FCC have not proposed any reduction in throughput until Phase 2 is built, or an increase in throughput after it is built.

11. The applicant also seeks changes to approved drawings so that they are

consistent with the plans submitted for a planning application to use part of the MRF building for waste transfer operations. These changes are as follows: a new landscape scheme has been submitted based on the revised site layout and a new internal layout plan to reflect the waste transfer use which is the subject of a separate application. Details of the access road were amended in December 2012 through a non-material amendment application so it is proposed that the most recent approved plan be listed in condition 1.

Changes to Operating Hours (b)

12. The application states that the proposed extended operating hours would be for

operations inside the building and doors would remain closed at all times. The only vehicle movements within those extended hours would be associated with staff leaving at the end of the shift.

13. The reason that has been given for this change is that it has been identified that

the MRF plant would need to run at a slower speed than originally anticipated in order to maximise the proportion of recyclable materials which can be removed from the waste stream. Longer hours are needed if the plant is to achieve the same throughput while running more slowly. FCC state that the proposed double shift pattern is in line with other FCC recycling plants elsewhere in the country.

14. The applicant also proposes to amend the condition to allow operations associated with the waste transfer to take place until 17.00 on Saturdays following bank or public holidays and on bank or public holidays themselves, with the exception of Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year’s Day. This change would involve vehicle movements outside the currently permitted hours to meet the contractual requirements with the County Council for catch-up working during and after holiday periods.

Outside storage (c)

15. One of the outputs from the MRF would be refuse derived fuel (RDF). FCC

would like to be able to store these materials outside the MRF building as a contingency. This is because the destination for this product would include overseas facilities and there is the potential for occasional disruption to shipping routes, meaning that a temporary storage area on site would be required. The RDF would be baled, wrapped in plastic and stored on an identified area of hardstanding measuring 30 metres by 5 metres. It is proposed

PN6

to store them up to 4 metres high. This area is adjacent to the northern façade of the MRF building to ensure that the storage would not be visible from the BOAT on the southern boundary.

16. FCC state that the plastic wrapping would ensure that the material contained

was not visible and would prevent odour. 17. The reason for the original condition was ‘to ensure that storage is kept in an

orderly manner to protect the visual amenities of the area’ (OMWLP policy PE18).

Changes to total annual throughput (d)

18. It is proposed that the 40,000 tonnes of green waste permitted by the existing MRF consent, the 60,000 tonnes of non-hazardous waste and 200 tpa of clinical waste imported for bulking and onward transport to the Ardley Energy from Waste plant (subject of application MW.0088/13) should be additional to the overall 600,000 tpa limit on the wider landfill site permitted under the landfill permission (SUT/616/59-CM). At present the conditions require waste brought into the MRF to be included in the total waste to the landfill site. This is because it was originally proposed to be a facility to treat waste that would be coming in to the landfill anyway, to ensure that recovery of recyclable materials was maximised.

19. The proposed change would increase the potential maximum import of waste to

the site to 700,200 tpa. The maximum permitted under the existing consent is 600,000tpa.

Application 2 – MW.0090/13 – Waste Transfer

20. Sutton Courtenay landfill site has permission to accept non-hazardous waste

for landfilling until 2030. However, in future Oxfordshire’s municipal waste will be treated at Ardley Energy from Waste plant. It is proposed to use part of the permitted MRF building at Sutton Courtenay as a waste transfer station (WTS). 50,000 tpa of waste would be brought there after being collected from households and would be transferred onto HGVs for more efficient transport to Ardley, which is approximately 30 miles (48 km) to the north. Transferring waste onto large vehicles would reduce the overall number of waste related movements.

21. It is also proposed to take up to 200 tpa of clinical waste from South

Oxfordshire, West Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Council areas. This would be delivered in sealed containers for onward transfer to Ardley and would not be opened or treated on site.

22. It is also proposed to offer contingency capacity for the bulking of 10,000 tpa non-hazardous commercial and industrial waste (C&I) which is not suitable to be treated through the MRF but which could be incinerated at Ardley rather than disposed of at the landfill. Therefore, the application has been made for a total throughput of 60,000 tpa plus 200 tpa clinical waste.

PN6

23. FCC have proposed standard working hours for the WTS operations (07.00-18.00 Mondays to Fridays and 07.00 to 13.00 Saturdays). However, they have also proposed operating 07.00 to 17.00 on Saturdays following Bank or Public holidays and 07.00 to 17.00 on Bank and Public holidays themselves with the exception of Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year’s Day to meet the contractual requirements of the County Council for catch-up working during and after holiday periods.

Traffic

24. The clinical waste transfer is expected to generate an average of 2 vehicle movements per fortnight (7.5 tonne vehicle). It is anticipated that there would be an average of 66 daily vehicle movements of vehicles importing waste (6 tonne vehicles for municipal waste and 10 tonne vehicles for C&I waste) to the site and 22 daily movements of HGVs exporting waste (22 tonne vehicles for residual waste and 11 tonne vehicles for food waste). Therefore, the average daily movements associated with the development would be 88.

Associated Operational Development

25. New haul road – It is proposed to use a haul road to allow vehicles to leave the site directly onto Corridor Road without using the same road that they used to enter. This road is already constructed but the applicant states it is not in use. It is proposed that this would be brought into use at the same time as the final third of the MRF/WTS building to facilitate traffic management.

26. Concrete pad - It is proposed to construct a concrete pad on the footprint of

where the second phase of the MRF/WTS building will go. It will then form the floor when the final third of the building is erected. This pad will measure 65 metres by 30 metres.

27. Bunds – The bunds on the north boundary of the MRF and the west boundary

of the composting site are different on the ground to the approved plans. The northern bund is further south and does not connect with the western bund as shown. It is proposed to regularise this through the approval of plans showing accurate bund locations. There is a central bund between the composting and MRF sites and a bund to the south of the composting plant, which are not shown on the approved plans. They are three metres high and serve to store soils which will be required in restoration, screen the composting and create a boundary between the two sites. Permission is sought for these bunds along with one on the eastern MRF boundary which is also not shown on any approved plan but screens the development from the rights of way within the wider site.

28. Fencing- It is proposed to relocate approved fencing so that it is placed on the

perimeter of the hardstanding, to the north of the northern bund. This would improve security. It would be a 2.4 metre green palisade fence.

PN6

29. Transformer pad and transformer – Details of the connection between the facility and the grid have been finalised and a transformer is required. It is proposed to construct this on a 1m by 1.5m concrete pad located between the MRF building and the previously approved substation building.

30. Traffic barriers – It is proposed to construct 550 mm high corrugated steel

‘Armco’ traffic barriers to reduce potential vehicle damage to perimeter fencing, bunds and the water storage tank from vehicle impact. They would also separate traffic from pedestrians.

31. Traffic lights – It is proposed to construct a traffic light system to control vehicle

movements within the external part of the site.

• Part 2 – Other Viewpoints

Representations

32. 54 letters of objection had been received at the time of drafting the report. 16 of these were objecting to MW.0088/13, 20 to MW.0090.13 and 18 to both applications in the same letter. Copies of these letters are available in the Members’ Resource Centre with key points recorded along with an officer response at Annex 1.

Consultations

33. A summary of consultation responses received in relation to this application can be found at Annex 2 which are also available to read in full on the eplanning website.

Part 3 – Relevant Planning Documents

Relevant planning documents and legislation (see Policy Annex to the committee papers)

34. Planning applications should be decided in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

35. The relevant development plan documents are:

The Vale of White Horse Local Plan (VLP) 2011

The Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (OMWLP)1996 36. The Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material

consideration in taking planning decisions. It does not contain specific policies in relation to waste, as these will be contained in a forthcoming national waste plan.

PN6

37. Planning Policy Statement 10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management remains extant and contains relevant guidance.

38. The Vale of White Horse District Council is in the process of preparing a new

Local Plan (VLP 2029). A draft Local Plan Part One 2029 was out to consultation until 9 May 2013 and the feedback received is now being assessed.

Relevant Policies

39. The relevant policies are:

• Vale of White Horse Local Plan (VWHLP) 2011 NE9 - Landscape

NE10 – Open/Rural character on urban fringes and gaps between settlements NE11 – Development within areas of damaged or compromised landscapes DC9 – Neighbouring amenity

• Oxfordshire Minerals & Waste Local Plan (OMWLP) 1996 W3 – Location of waste facilities W5 – Screening of waste treatment plant, buildings and stockpiles PE11 – Rights of Way PE13 – Restoration of landfill PE18 – Imposition of conditions to protect amenity SC3 – Routeing agreements in Sutton Courtenay area

• VLP 2029

Policy1- Presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy 34 - Landscape

Part 4 – Analysis and Conclusions

Comments of the Deputy Director for Environment and Economy (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) Application 1 - MW.0090/13 – Variation of conditions

40. The key planning issue is whether the proposed changes to the conditions are consistent with planning policy and whether these changes would cause adverse amenity and environmental effects.

Waste Policy

41. PPS10 (paragraph 1) supports the diversion of waste from landfill. The MRF

development was considered against relevant policies when permission was originally granted in 2008, when changes were proposed to the size of the building in 2012 and when the end date was extended in 2013. It was considered that the proposals accorded with development plan policies aimed at the diversion of waste from landfill. There has been no significant change to

PN6

the direction of policy since that time. The opportunity for waste destined to the landfill to be diverted through the MRF would enable materials which could be recycled to be removed and therefore reduce the amount of waste to landfill.

42. The changes proposed to the phasing, storage of materials and hours would

not change how the activities on the site fit with wider waste management planning policy, although potential amenity impacts must be assessed.

43. OMWLP policy PE13 requires that waste sites be restored within a reasonable

timescale. The current timescale for the restoration of the landfill site including the MRF and WTS is 2030. The increase in overall waste imports that would result from the separation of the imports to the WTS and green waste composting from the overall landfill site limit, would ensure that there would be no decrease in the amount of waste permitted to be imported to the landfill as a result of the WTS operations. This would help facilitate that the permitted landfill tonnages could be maintained so that restoration of the site by the end date of the permission remained achievable.

Impacts on Amenity

44. OMWLP policy PE18 states that in determining applications the County Council

will have regard for the appropriate provisions in the Code of Practice. This sets out details of measures to protect amenity including buffer zones, landscaping, standard hours, noise, dust and odour. VLP policy DC9 states that development would not be permitted if it would unacceptably harm the amenities of neighbouring properties.

45. The site is nearly 1km away from the nearest residential properties, sufficient

distance to attenuate any noise or dust created. No additional built development is proposed under this variation and therefore there would be no additional landscape impact. Topography, vegetation and bunding would more than adequately visually screen the site from residences.

46. The hours proposed for operations inside the building are longer than the standard working hours set out in the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Code of Conduct. However, these hours are a guide only and appropriate hours depend on the circumstances of the individual site. In this case the activity outside normal hours would be inside the building only and the building is located some distance from residential properties. The noise assessment submitted with the application assesses MRF operations during extended hours, WTS operations and cumulative MRF and WTS operations at Appleford Crossing, Hartwright House and Hill Farm and concludes that noise levels from the development are unlikely to cause a complaint. There has been no objection from the Environment Health Officer.

47. Due to the location of the building away from residential properties it is considered that the extended hours of working inside the building would be unlikely to cause any significant adverse impact on residential amenity.

PN6

48. The application also proposes additional hours such that there would be vehicle movements on some bank and public holidays (07.00-17.00, excluding Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year’s Day) and until 17.00 on Saturdays following bank and public holidays. The code of practice referred to in policy PE18 of the OMWLP requires that except in special circumstances mineral and waste disposal operations, including the movement of lorries entering and leaving the site, will take place only between 7:00 am and 6:00 pm on weekdays and between 7:00 am and 1:00 pm on Saturdays. No operation of any kind will take place on Sundays and Bank Holidays or a Saturday immediately following a Bank Holiday Friday (e.g. Easter Saturday or a Christmas Saturday). These restrictions on hours of working may be relaxed for civic amenity sites or similar or where plant has to be operated continuously. In these cases special care must be taken to reduce noise.

49. The OMWLP dates from 1996. There is now a growing need for waste

management facilities to accept waste on bank holidays as District Councils increasingly collect waste from households on bank holidays and the County Council as waste management authority is obliged to make provision for the management of the waste collected. Therefore, the proposal to accept waste on bank holidays must be considered in the context of the site and the likely impact on amenity.

50. In this case the development is located some distance from residential

properties and has good access direct onto the A4130. A noise assessment has been submitted with the application and concludes that subject to the implementation of proposed mitigation measures residential amenity would be adequately protected.

51. It is considered that although the proposal to open the facility on bank holidays and after 1.00 pm on Saturdays does not accord with the aim of policy PE18, there would not be a significant adverse impact on amenity and the proposal generally accords with planning policy relating to the protection of amenity.

52. OMWLP policy W5 requires that waste stockpiles should be adequately screened from the surrounding landscape. Although in general the containment of waste inside the building would be preferable to reduce the potential impact of odour, visual impact and risk of pollution, in this case waste would only be stored externally once it had been treated and wrapped and sealed in plastic. This would prevent waste or odour from escaping. The storage location has been selected to ensure that bales would not be visible from the nearby BOAT. It is not proposed to store any untreated waste externally. There has been no objection from the Environment Agency to the storage of material outside the building. Therefore, the proposal to externally store treated waste is considered to be in accordance with OMWLP policy W5 and PE18 and VLP policy DC9.

53. It is considered that the proposal therefore accords with planning policy relating to the protection of amenity.

PN6

Traffic

54. OMWLP Policy W3 states that proposals for recycling will normally be permitted provided a number of criteria are met, including the site being well located to the transport network and not creating an unacceptable nuisance in terms of traffic. The principle of this recycling operation in this location has been accepted and it is considered that it is well located to the transport network as there is A road access onto the A34. Nuisance from traffic travelling through villages can be avoided through the use of a routeing agreement.

55. OMWLP policy SC3 states that planning permission will not be granted in this

area unless a routeing agreement has been secured to encourage HGVs to use Didcot Northern perimeter road and avoid roads through the villages. The current permission is subject to a routeing agreement (dated 15 October 2008) directing traffic to the A34 via the southern access to the Sutton Courtenay complex. That agreement covers any further permission, such as this one, for the same development with different conditions. Therefore, it would continue to apply to the new permission should this application be granted. This site has good access onto the A4130 and then onto the A34. There has been no objection from transport development control.

56. This site is served by a rail siding and conditions have been used in the past to encourage the import of waste by rail rather than road. The current landfill permission allows only 350,000 tpa of the total 600,000 tpa annual limit to be imported by road. The effect of separating the WTS and green waste tonnage from the overall landfill limit would effectively be to increase the total tonnage of waste which could be imported by road from 350,000tpa to 450,200 tpa. There has been no objection to the proposed increase in vehicle movements from the highways authority, subject to offsetting against permitted clay export movements until 2020 and highways contributions to cover the period 2020-2030, as set out in the consultation response. Therefore, this increase in the overall tonnage permitted to the site is considered acceptable. The status of the WTS waste in comparison with the overall landfill tonnage would in fact be controlled by conditions and informatives on any consent granted further to application MW.0088/13 rather than through changing the condition on the existing consent for the MRF.

Rights of Way

57. OMWLP policy PE11 requires that the rights of way network be maintained and

encourages improvements. 58. The previous consents for the MRF secured rights of way improvements

through the requirement to surface and maintain the road between the site access and Corridor Road and to provide and maintain signage warning lorry drivers of cyclists. The requirement to maintain the road surface and signage should be carried forward to this consent.

PN6

59. Therefore, this proposal offers an opportunity to improve the maintenance of a

public right of way, in accordance with policy.

Landscape

60. Local concern has been raised regarding compliance with VOWH policies NE9, NE10 and NE11. These are landscape policies. This application does not propose any additional built development, although it is proposed to construct the permitted building in two phases. There is the potential for some landscape impact as a result of the proposal to store treated, baled material externally. However, this would only take place in a designated area against the northern façade of the MRF building where it would not be visible from the BOAT. The maximum height of stacked bales would be 4 metres. It is considered that the storage of baled material in this location would not have a significant landscape impact and would not be contrary to VLP policies NE9, NE10 or NE11. The identified area for treated waste storage is within the footprint of Phase 2 of the MRF building. Therefore, following the construction of Phase 2 waste should not be stored externally and this should be secured through a condition, as should the maximum height of stacked bales.

Application 2 (WTS) MW.0088/13 Comments of the Deputy Director for Environment and Economy (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning)

61. The key planning issue is whether the proposed use of part of the permitted building as a Waste Transfer Station is consistent with planning policy and whether this change would cause adverse amenity and environmental effects.

Waste Policy

62. The principle of a waste management facility in this location has been found to

be acceptable as permission exists until 2030 for recycling operations on this site. The proposal to use part of the permitted building for waste transfer requires a separate consent as this does not involve waste recycling and so does not fall under the original description of development.

63. PPS10 paragraph 1 sets out the overall objective of Government policy on waste and refers to the importance of moving waste up the ‘waste hierarchy’ so that it is reused, recycled or recovered where possible and disposal is a last resort. This development would provide infrastructure to facilitate the diversion of waste from disposal at landfill to treatment at a permitted Energy from Waste plant.

64. The NPPF states that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development. VLP 2029 policy 1 reiterates a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This development can be considered sustainable as it would contribute towards the diversion of waste from landfill. It would also

PN6

allow waste to be taken to Ardley on fewer, larger vehicles compared to a situation where waste was delivered using refuse collection vehicles.

Impacts on Amenity

65. PPS10 paragraph 29 states that in considering planning applications for waste

management facilities waste planning authorities should consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity. OMWLP policy PE18 states that in determining applications the County Council will have regard for the appropriate provisions in the Code of Practice. This sets out details of measures to protect amenity including buffer zones, landscaping, standard hours, noise, dust and odour. VLP policy DC9 states that development would not be permitted if it would unacceptably harm the amenities of neighbouring properties.

66. The use of part of the building for waste transfer rather than materials recycling

is not considered to have any additional impacts on amenity. The only changes would be the processes undertaken inside the building. The ancillary development proposed in this application is not considered likely to have any impact on amenity.

67. The hours proposed for operations are in line with the standard working hours

set out in the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Code of Conduct and shorter than those proposed for the MRF operations, with the exception of the proposal to continue WTS operations, including vehicle movements on some bank and public holidays (07.00-17.00, excluding Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year’s Day) and until 17.00 on Saturdays following bank and public holidays. This would generate vehicle movements at those times. I consider that consideration of the impact that this would have on local amenity is the same as that rehearsed above with regard to application no. MW.0090/13.

68. It is considered that although the proposal to open the facility on bank holidays

and after 1.00 pm on Saturdays does not accord with the aim of policy PE18, there would not be a significant adverse impact on amenity and the proposal generally accords with planning policy relating to the protection of amenity.

Traffic

69. PPS10 paragraph 21 states that the capacity of existing transport infrastructure to support the sustainable movement of waste should be considered.

70. The proposal to use part of the building for waste transfer would result in a

different pattern of vehicle movements when compared to the existing situation because the entirety of the waste brought onto the site in collection vehicles for transfer would also be taken off site in HGVs. As none of this waste stream would be disposed of at the adjacent landfill this has the potential to increase the overall number of vehicles. In addition, the vehicles importing waste to the WTS would be additional to current movements as the applicant has applied through application MW.0090/13 for the tonnages to the WTS to be separate from the overall tonnage limit to the wider landfill. The applicant has submitted

PN6

a Transport Assessment which concludes that the development would generate an average of 88 daily vehicle movements. However, this could be offset against vehicle movements associated with other consented developments on the site which will not now take place. That specifically relates to clay extraction and exportation, which has now ceased on the site and In-Vessel Composting (IVC) which will no longer be implemented following the amendment to the permission to allow the MRF to be constructed without the IVC.

71. The IVC can no longer take place because the permission for the MRF to be

constructed without the IVC has been implemented. However, there is still permission for clay extraction and export until 31 December 2020 under the landfilling consent (SUT/616/59-CM). The non-implementation of this element of the landfill permission would need to be secured through legal agreement in order to ensure that those permitted vehicle movements did not take place and that the additional 88 movements associated with this development would not create additional movements compared to what is currently permitted under existing consents. Clay export is only permitted until 2020. However, the WTS is proposed to operate until 2030. Therefore, the highways authority has requested highways contributions in relation to the additional vehicle movements that would be generated during the period 2020-2030. This should also be secured through a legal agreement. The separation of the annual tonnage for the WTS from that of the wider landfill site should be dealt with through an informative on any permission granted for that development, rather than through changing the condition on the MRF consent as applied for.

72. OMWLP policy SC3 states that planning permission will not be granted in this

area unless a routeing agreement has been secured to encourage HGVs to use Didcot Northern perimeter road and to avoid the roads through the villages. The MRF permission is subject to a routeing agreement (dated 15 October 2008) directing traffic to the A34 via the southern access to the Sutton Courtenay complex. However, the existing agreement would not apply to any permission granted further to this application as it is a different development. Therefore, it is recommended that should permission be granted for this development it should be subject to a routeing agreement to ensure that HGVs use the A4130 and the A34 and not local roads.

Landscape

73. VLP policies NE9, NE10 and NE11 are landscape policies stating that development will not be permitted if it has an adverse impact on landscape (NE9), affects the open character of gaps between settlements (NE10) or if a landscaping plan that enhances the appearance of the area has not been provided (NE11). In this case a landscaping plan has been provided with the application and following amendments at the request of the Ecologist Planner it is considered acceptable. The waste transfer operation itself would take place inside an existing building and so there would be no additional landscape impact. The application also includes ancillary development including transformer, concrete pad, bunding and fencing, traffic barriers and lights. These elements are not considered to have any significant landscape impact in

PN6

the context of their location within this site containing the MRF building. The proposals are not considered to be contrary to VLP policies NE9, NE10 or NE11.

Application 1 – Section 73 - Conclusions

74. The proposed changes to the conditions accord with relevant development plan policy. There would be no significant impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed changes.

Application 2 – Waste Transfer - Conclusions

75. The development accords with relevant planning policy relating to waste management and protection of amenity.

Recommendations

76. It is RECOMMENDED that: Application 1 (a) subject to:

(1) a routeing agreement to ensure that vehicles associated with the development are routed via the A4130 and A34 as for other developments on the site; and

(2) a Section 106 agreement to ensure no further

implementation of clay exportation by road and a contribution of £19,039.54 towards the Science Vale UK Transport Package;

that Application MW.0090/13 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) but in accordance with those set out at Annex 3 to this report;

Application 2

(b) that Application MW.0088/13 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) but in accordance with those set out at Annex 5 to this report.

MARTIN TUGWELL Deputy Director (Strategy and Infrastructure Planning) August 2013

PN6

PN6

PN6

Annex 1 - Representations

Application 1 – MW.0090/13 There were 54 letters of representation from members of the public. All of these were objecting to the application. The points raised are summarised below, with an officer response in italics. Condition 1 • Concerns over extension of Materials Recovery Facility (Phase 2)

- Seen as an unnecessary extension - Seen as an attempt to build something for yet another application that will increase

throughput size.

It is not proposed to extend the MRF beyond its permitted footprint. It is proposed to initially operate the facility within a smaller building than approved under the existing consent and then to complete the building to its approved size at a later date. The applicant has not proposed to change the throughput as part of this application. Any future application to alter this would be considered on its merits.

Condition 5 • Object to extended hours – more noise, dust and odour, disruption, difficult to enforce

The impact of extended hours is considered in detail in the main report.

Condition 12

Concerns over the storage of treated waste outside of the building after assurances were given that operations would take place only inside

The impact of storing treated waste outside the building is considered in detail in the main report.

Condition 21 • There should be no increase to longstanding 600,000 tpa limit. Would cause increased

traffic impacts.

The impact of increasing the overall waste import limit is considered in detail in the report.

General

The development would be contrary to policies NE 9, NE 10 and NE 11 of the District Local Plan and overriding need has not been proven to justify this.

These policies are addressed in the report.

PN6

Industrialisation of area/ applicant is trying to secure permanent industrial use on what is currently a green field site. It is not proposed to make this development permanent. The site has permission for waste facilities until 2030 and so is not green field. It will return to green field status following restoration in 2030.

Application 2 – MW.0088/13 – WTS

Additional traffic • Extended hours – not necessary, would have amenity impacts

The traffic implications and conformity with relevant policy is addressed in the report, along with the amenity impacts of the proposed hours.

Odour and flies – already a problem and this will make it worse

The building has permission for waste recycling operations. The use of part of the building for waste transfer is not considered to give rise to additional risk of odour or flies.

Clinical waste should not be introduced to this established non-hazardous site, due to proximity to residential areas. Clinical waste should go to Maidenhead as at present.

Clinical waste would be transferred only and not treated or processed in anyway and would not be removed from the sealed containers it was imported in. `

Need for the facility in this location has not been demonstrated, no assessment of alternatives provided

OMWLP policy W4 requires that proposals for re-use/recycling will not normally be permitted in the open countryside unless a) there is an established overriding need and no other suitable site available or b) the development is to form part of a landfill site and will be removed on completion of the landfill. Waste transfer operations are not classed as recycling operations and so the policy does not apply. If it did, part a) would not apply because the site is within a landfill and temporary. Therefore there is no policy requirement for the applicant to demonstrate need or assess alternatives.

Visual and landscape impact

The building has planning permission. The visual and landscape impact of the proposed ancillary built development (changes to bunds and fence arrangements, transformer pad and transformer, traffic barriers and light) is not considered significant. This is covered in the report.

Increase in throughput to the site

This is addressed in the main report.

Increase in plant footprint

It is not proposed to increase the plant footprint.

Concerns over capacity of existing infrastructure. Cannot cope with an increased number of HGV vehicles.

PN6

HGVs would be routed onto the A4130 to avoid local villages. The traffic implications of this development are assessed in the report.

Discrepancies between the text and the internal layout plans. Plans show vehicles half in the building whereas text states that operations would only take place with roller doors shut.

The application states that operations would take place with doors closed and this could be secured by condition.

Planning creep – usual planning requirements not being adhered to

Conditions were added for a reason and should not be ignored The applicant is entitled to make Section 73 application to amend the way in which a

permitted development is carried out.

The inclusion of pulverised fuel ash (pfa) figures is misleading and a condition should be imposed that no further pfa should be imported as the adjacent power station is now closed.

The import of pfa is not relevant to this permission and is controlled by the separate permission covering the landfill site. There is a condition on that consent prohibiting the import of any pfa other than that arising at Didcot Power Station.

Other points raised in letters not differentiating between the two applications: • Drainage has not yet been fully addressed and concreting over another area would

add to the risk.

There is now an approved drainage plan covering the wider site which FCC must implement. The drainage of this site can be controlled by condition. The additional area of concreting forms the floor of phase 2 of the MRF building, which is already permitted.

• Information about closest houses is incorrect – properties on main road are as close

as Hill Farm • Prevailing winds would increase the noise impact on Appleford OCC officers have measured the closest properties on Main Road as over

approximately 950 metres from the site boundary (although some property boundaries are closer), whereas Hill Farm is approximately 1.1km from the boundary. The property at Appleford Crossing appears to be the closest property and was assessed as part of the noise assessment and is located in the same direction from the site as properties on Main Road.

PN6

Annex 2 – Consultation Responses Application 1 - MW.0090/13

1. Vale of White Horse District Council – Re-iterates landscape comments

made in relation to application MW.0088/13 (see below)

2. Sutton Courtenay Parish Council – Object. Parish Council had been advised that all operations would take place inside the building, however, now it appears that some would be outside. The applicant should not make repeated applications to amend the development. Weekend working, especially on a Saturday evening, should not be permitted. Why is the external storage required when there is sufficient capacity within the building?

3. Appleford Parish Council – Object. Working hours should not be extended. Object to additional concrete pad. Understanding had been that all operations should take place within the building. Therefore, it should not now be permitted to store waste outside. Concerned about the exclusion of green waste and waste transfer from the 600,000 tpa site limit.

4. Environment Agency – No objection.

5. Natural England – No specific comment. The opportunity for biodiversity

enhancement should be considered.

6. CPRE – Oppose this application. Further incremental changes have adverse impacts on the local community and countryside. Facility is already larger, with a longer life and higher throughput than originally approved due to successive Section 73 applications. The changes proposed would each add to the impact of the site. Consider that the applicant has attempted to dodge the need for EIA by submitting successive applications increasing the impacts. The development must cease in 2030 at the end of landfilling.

7. Biodiversity – Initial response - the development would increase night time noise and lighting. Would like to know why changes to the landscaping plan are proposed. Final response – No objection following the provision of amended landscaping plans and confirmation that the development would be temporary and that the previously agreed restoration plan would continue to apply.

8. Highway Authority – No objection, there does not appear to be any traffic and transportation impacts to this proposal.

9. Drainage – No objections.

PN6

Application 2 - MW.0088/13 10. Vale of White Horse District Council – The site in question falls in the historic

and attractive parish of Sutton Courtenay. Although the village has experienced some enlargement in recent months, this has principally been to the west of the village; the Vale have resisted development in the areas near your proposals.

11. The adopted local plan (2011) classifies the land in question under policies NE9

and NE11 of the local plan. Such policies seek to protect the long and open views of the intrinsically beautiful lowland vale, in particular where development is high or bulky.

12. The Vale have some concerns that the scheme proposed may have a negative impact when viewed from certain angles. Therefore, if the County are minded to approve, a suitable scheme of landscaping is recommended designed by a qualified landscape architect that reflects the character of the surrounding area throughout the seasons. Such a scheme should have particular regard to public footpaths, rivers and other areas of high landscaping sensitivity.

13. Sutton Courtenay Parish Council - The need for a waste transfer station in

this location has not been proven and a sequential approach considering alternative sites has not been adopted. The development proposed needs to be considered against Local Plan policies NE10 and NE11. NPPF paragraph 109 requires a proposal to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment. However, this development would have a detrimental impact. The 600,000 tonne limit was not geared towards a 2030 end date. The import of clinical waste has not been justified. This appears to be proposed only in response to the County Council’s contract for waste transfer, as the site was not nominated for this purpose under the sites nomination list for the Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework. Size of the building has not been adequately explained. The applicant should be well aware of the requirements for the site and yet have submitted a large number of applications within a short space of time to vary conditions.

14. There is likely to be run off from the site and the noise assessment is not clear.

It appears to have been carried out before the MRF application. States that all operations will take place inside the building, but drawings show vehicles part out of the building. Conditions should ensure that existing working hours are maintained and to ensure that commercial and industrial waste imports are from the local area only.

15. Didcot Town Council - Application should be refused as it appears that there

would be a 25% increase in daily vehicle movements. This would put undue pressure on the roads and increase noise and dust.

16. Environment Agency - No objection. The development will require an

Environmental Permit, or a variation to the existing permit.

PN6

17. Natural England - No objection.

18. CPRE - Support arguments for minimising HGV traffic movements between the southern districts and Ardley EfW plant. However, think that an Environmental Impact Assessment should be required for this development. Impacts have been progressively increased through successive applications. Concerned that the contract for waste transfer runs for 9 years beyond the scheduled completion of the landfill in 2030. The plant should not be allowed to continue beyond 2030, this should be a condition on the consent.

19. Drainage - No objection or comments 20. Biodiversity - Initial response – request clarification on the reasons for the

changes to the planting scheme as the proposals appear to substantially reduce planting. Final response - No objection following the provision of amended landscaping plans and confirmation that the development would be temporary and that the previously agreed restoration plan would continue to apply.

21. Highways - No objection, subject to the applicant signing a routeing agreement

and a Section 106 agreement to secure contributions towards the Science Vale UK area. The Transport Assessment states that there would be an average of 88 daily HGV movements associated with the WTS. However, these are to be offset by the IVC permission and permitted exports of clay not proceeding. Therefore, there would be a net reduction of -7 HGV movements per day. However, clay extraction is only permitted until the end of 2020 and therefore after that date the overall number of daily HGV movements would be 43. Therefore, in accordance with the Science Vale UK contributions strategy the Highways Authority seeks a contribution of £19 039.54. This is required to mitigate the cumulative impact of planned growth across the Vale of White Horse and South Oxfordshire especially in the area around Didcot and Wantage & Grove known as Science Vale UK.

PN6

Annex 3 – Proposed Changes to Conditions MW.0090/13

It is recommended that conditions are carried forward from the original consent (P12/V2207/CM) see Annex 4) with the following changes: 1. Amendments to conditions 1, 5, 12 and 21 as applied for and set out

below

Condition 1

Currently states: The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the particulars of the development, plans and specifications contained in the application except as modified by conditions of this permission. The application comprises: Supporting Statement reference PEL/SC73/19471/002 dated July 2012, Site Location Plan CH6737-P01/C, Building Elevations B3793 C004 A and B3793 C005 A, site layout drawings CH6737/002 E and CH6737/003 E, 427R262A ‘Landscaping Scheme for MRF facilities,’ CH6737_004_C Drainage Details, CH6737-003_C Utilities, MRF-TM-001 Rev B Traffic Management Plan, 44135111 Draft Concept GA Layout, CH6737_010_E Access Road Sections and Details, CH6737_009_E Access Road GA Layout. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out as proposed Applicant Proposed replacement condition: The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the particulars of the development, plans and specifications contained in the application except as modified by conditions of this permission. The application comprises: Supporting Statement reference PEL/SC73/19471/002 dated July 2012, Supporting Statement (FCC Environment April 2013), 427A299 Site Location Plan, 427A304 Site Layout Plan (Phase 1), 427A297 Site Layout Plan (Phase 2), 427A306 Elevations (Phase 1), 427A307 Elevations (Phase 2), 427R305 Landscaping Scheme (Phase 1), 427R298 Landscaping Scheme (Phase 2), 427A308 Internal Layout (Phase 1), 427A300 Internal Layout (Phase 2), CH6737_004_C Drainage Sutton Courtenay Waste Management Site s.73 Application (Conditions 1, 5, 12 & 21) FCC Environment 15 June 2013 Details, CH6737_003_C Utilities, MRF-TM-001 Rev B Traffic Management Plan, CH6737_009_G Access Road GA Layout and CH6737_010_G Access Road Sections and Details.

PN6

Comments: The landscaping plans were revised as a result of comments from the Ecologist Planner and therefore the drawing numbers referred to should be updated accordingly. Officer Proposed replacement condition: The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the particulars of the development, plans and specifications contained in the application except as modified by conditions of this permission. The application comprises: Supporting Statement reference PEL/SC73/19471/002 dated July 2012, Supporting Statement (FCC Environment June 2013), 427A299 Site Location Plan, 427A304 Site Layout Plan (Phase 1), 427A297 Site Layout Plan (Phase 2), 427A306 Elevations (Phase 1), 427A307 Elevations (Phase 2), 427R305A Landscaping Scheme (Phase 1), 427R298A Landscaping Scheme (Phase 2), 427A308 Internal Layout (Phase 1), 427A300 Internal Layout (Phase 2), CH6737_004_C Drainage Sutton Courtenay Waste Management Site, CH6737_003_C Utilities, MRF-TM-001 Rev B Traffic Management Plan, CH6737_009_G Access Road GA Layout and CH6737_010_G Access Road Sections and Details. Condition 5

Currently states: No operations related to the MRF or Green Waste Composting facility including HGV’s entering and leaving the site, other than air pumping and monitoring, shall be carried out at the site except between the following times:-

7.00 am to 18.00 pm Mondays to Fridays and

7.00 am to 13.00 pm Saturdays.

No operations shall take place on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holiday

Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents. (OMWLP PE18) Proposed replacement condition: No waste and materials shall be delivered to or despatched from the MRF or green waste composting facility for the purposes of recycling/treatment or composting except between the following times: 07:00 to 18:00 Mondays to Fridays 07:00 to 13:00 Saturdays; No operations related to the green waste composting facility other than air pumping and monitoring shall be carried out at the site except between the following times: 07:00 to 18:00 Mondays to Fridays 07:00 to 13:00 Saturdays; No recycling operations related to the MRF including the operation of recycling plant, equipment and machinery for the sorting, screening, baling and processing of materials shall be carried out inside the MRF building except between the following times:- 07:00 to 22:00 Mondays to Friday

PN6

07:00 to 20:00 Saturdays. No recycling operations shall take place on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holiday; and No operations related to the waste transfer facility, including delivery and dispatch of waste, shall be carried out except between the following times: 07:00 to 18:00 Mondays to Fridays 07:00 to 13:00 Saturdays (with the exception of Saturdays following bank holidays) 07:00 to 17:00 Saturdays following Bank or Public Holidays 07:00 to 17:00 on Bank or Public Holidays (with the exception of Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year’s Day) Comments: This is acceptable as set out in the report. Condition 12 Currently States: No untreated waste shall be stored on the site, except within the MRF building prior to treatment and green waste within the area immediately to the east of green waste windrows and south of the reception area. No treated waste shall be stored on site other than within the MRF building prior to export from the site. Reason: To ensure that storage is kept in an orderly manner to protect the visual Proposed replacement condition: No untreated waste shall be stored on the site, except within the MRF building prior to treatment and green waste within the area immediately to the east of the green waste windrows and south of the reception area. No treated waste shall be stored on site other than within the MRF building, or wrapped refuse derived fuel (RDF) bales within the designated external storage area, prior to export from the site.

Comment: This change is acceptable as set out in the report. The wording needs to be more precise to identify the designated external storage area on a plan and should also be amended to confirm that external waste storage should no longer take place following the completion of Phase 2, as Phase 2 of the building is on the same area as the external storage location.

Officer Proposed Replacement Condition: No untreated waste shall be stored on the site, except within the MRF building prior to treatment and green waste within the area immediately to the east of the green waste windrows and south of the reception area. No treated waste shall be stored on site other than within the MRF building, with the exception of wrapped refuse derived fuel (RDF) bales which may also be stored within the designated external storage area as shown on approved plan 427A304, prior to export from the site. No waste shall be stored outside the building following the completion of Phase 2 of the building as shown on approved plan 427A297.

PN6

Condition 21

Currently states: No more than 40,000 tonnes per annum of green wastes and 200,000 tonnes per annum of other wastes shall be imported to the site. These tonnages shall form part of the limit of 600,000 tonnes per annum of waste that may be imported to the associated landfill development surrounding the site. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out as proposed (OMWLP PE18) Proposed Replacement Condition: No more than 40,000 tonnes per annum of green wastes and 200,000 tonnes per annum of other waste shall be imported to the site. The 200,000 tonnes per annum of other wastes to be imported into the Materials Recycling Facility building, excluding 60,000tpa for non-hazardous waste transfer and 200tpa for clinical waste transfer, shall form part of the limit of 600,000 tonnes per annum of waste that may be imported to the associated landfill development surrounding the site. Comments: The application text states that the applicant in fact wishes to also exclude the 40 000 tpa green waste to the composting plant from the overall site import limits, which is not reflected in the wording of their proposed condition. It is not appropriate to refer to the 60 000 tpa import to the WTS in this condition as the consent does not cover the WTS. The principle of separating the WTS import from the overall landfill import is accepted, as set out in the report. Therefore, it is not proposed to add a condition to that consent which links the tonnages.

Officer Proposed Replacement Condition: No more than 40,000 tonnes per annum of green wastes and 140,000 tonnes per annum of other waste shall be imported to the site. The 140,000 tonnes per annum of other wastes to be imported into the Materials Recycling Facility building shall form part of the limit of 600,000 tonnes per annum of waste that may be imported to the associated landfill development surrounding the site, however the 40 000 tonnes per annum of green waste shall be separate to and not form part of that 600 000 tonnes per annum limit.

2. Other Changes to Conditions

Plan references in existing conditions 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20 should be updated to refer to the relevant approved plans.

Existing condition 6 is no longer required as all details of hours of working are now contained within new condition 5.

3. Additional Condition

An additional condition is recommended to ensure that stacked bales of

treated waste are not stored to a height of greater than 4 metres.

4. Additional informative

Compliance with National Planning Policy Framework In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF Oxfordshire County Council take a positive

PN6

and proactive approach to decision making focused on solutions and fostering the delivery of sustainable development. We work with applicants in a positive and proactive manner by: • offering a pre-application advice service, as was the case with this application, and • updating applicants and agents of issues that have arisen in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions as has occurred as part of this application process.

PN6

Annex 4 –List of current conditions from permission P12/V2207/CM

1. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the particulars of the development, plans and specifications contained in the application except as modified by conditions of this permission. The application comprises: Supporting Statement reference PEL/SC73/19471/002 dated July 2012, Site Location Plan CH6737-P01/C, Building Elevations B3793 C004 A and B3793 C005 A, site layout drawings CH6737/002 E and CH6737/003 E, 427R262A ‘Landscaping Scheme for MRF facilities,’ CH6737_004_C Drainage Details, CH6737-003_C Utilities, MRF-TM 001 Rev B Traffic Management Plan, 44135111 Draft Concept GA Layout, CH6737_010_E Access Road Sections and Details, CH6737_009_E Access Road GA Layout.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out as proposed.

2. The development to which this permission relates shall be begun not later than

the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 to 95 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 as amended by section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

3. The operations shall cease and buildings, plant and machinery to which this

permission relates shall be removed and restoration complete by 31st December 2030.

Reason: To ensure that the development is temporary in accordance with the surrounding landfill and that restoration takes place when working has ended. (OMWLP PE13)

4. A restoration plan to cover the application area and all other areas adjacent to

the site where the contours will vary from those previously approved shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority within a year of this permission. Any plan that is approved shall be implemented. The afteruse shown shall accord with that approved for the area under planning permission SUT/APF/616/59-CM.

Reason: To ensure that suitable restoration takes place when working has ended. (OMWLP PE13)

5. No operations related to the MRF or Green Waste Composting facility including

HGV’s entering and leaving the site, other than air pumping and monitoring, shall be carried out at the site except between the following times:- 7.00 am to 18.00 pm Mondays to Fridays and 7.00 am to 13.00 pm Saturdays.

PN6

No operations shall take place on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holiday. Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents. (OMWLP PE18) 6. Notwithstanding the Condition 6 above no operations shall take place on

Saturdays, after 13.00 or on Sundays and Bank Holidays except that between 13.00 pm and 16.00 pm on Saturdays and 08.00 am and 13.00 pm on Sundays, delivery of green waste arising from Household Waste Recycling Centres may take place.

Reason: To allow the facilities to receive waste during peak reception periods. (OMWLP PE18)

7. No surface water shall be discharged onto Network Rail land or into Network

Rail’s culvert or drains.

Reason: To ensure that there is no damage to the railway. (OMWLP PE18) 8. No traffic shall enter or leave the site in relation to this development, except

from the southern access onto the A4130.

Reason: To ensure that there are no adverse highway impacts. (OMWCS T8) 9. The public right of way shall not be obstructed during the construction of the

new access point on the internal haul road.

Reason: To ensure that there is no inconvenience to the users of the public right of way. (OMWCS C9)

9a. Reversing vehicles shall not emit warning noise other than white noise. Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents. (OMWLP PE18) 10. All vehicles, plant and machinery operated within the site shall be maintained in

accordance with the manufacturer’s specification at all times, and shall be fitted with and use effective silencers.

Reason: To minimise the adverse impact of noise generated by the operations on the local community. (MWLP PE18)

11. The buildings permitted by this permission shall be dark green in colour.

Reason: To protect the visual amenity of the area. (OMWLP PE18) 12. No untreated waste shall be stored on the site, except within the MRF building

prior to treatment and green waste within the area immediately to the east of green waste windrows and south of the reception area. No treated waste shall be stored on site other than within the MRF building prior to export from the site.

PN6

Reason: To ensure that storage is kept in an orderly manner to protect the visual amenities of the area. (OMWLP PE18)

13. Bunds shall be grassed and maintained in a weed free condition.

Reason: To protect the visual amenity of the area (OMWLP PE18) 14. The approved plan 427R262 ‘Landscaping Scheme for MRF Facilities’ shall be

implemented in the first planting season following the date of this permission. Landscaping and screening vegetation shall be maintained in accordance with approved plan 427R262 ‘Landscaping Scheme for MRF Facilities’ for the duration of the development.

Reason: To ensure that the development is adequately screened. (OMWLP W5)

15. The drainage details shown on approved plans CH6737_004_C Drainage

Details and CH6737-003_C Utilities shall be implemented before any waste is brought to the MRF.

The approved drainage scheme be maintained in accordance with approved plans CH6737_004_C Drainage Details and CH6737-003_C Utilities for the duration of the development.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and improve water quality. (OMWCS C2)

16. Windrows in the green waste composting area shall not exceed 4 metres in

height. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. (OMWLP PE18) 17. The road from the two accesses to the site to Corridor Road shall be

maintained in accordance with the approved plans CH6737_010_G ‘Access Road Sections and Details’, CH6737_009_G ‘Access Road GA Layout’ for the duration of the development.

Reason: In the interests of the safety and convenience of users of the public

right of Way. (OMWCS C9) 18. The approved plan MRF-TM-001 Rev B ‘Traffic Management Plan’ shall be

implemented for the duration of the development. Signs warning lorry drivers of pedestrians and cyclists on the road outside the two accesses shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plan.

Reason: In the interests of the safety and convenience of users of the public

right of Way. (OMWCS C9) 19. The development shall be carried out in accordance with approved scheme

Draft Concept GA Layout, CH6737_010_E.

PN6

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out as proposed. (OMWLP

PE18) 20. The bunds shown on approved plan CH6737-PO1/C shall be maintained at 3

metres in height and grassed for the duration of the development. The landscape planting shown on approved plan CH6737-PO1/C shall be implemented in the first planting season following the date of this permission. The bunds and landscaping shall be maintained for the duration of the development.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity for local residents and users of the

public right of way. (OMWLP PE18) 21. No more than 40,000 tonnes per annum of green wastes and 200,000 tonnes

per annum of other wastes shall be imported to the site. These tonnages shall form part of the limit of 600,000 tonnes per annum of waste that may be imported to the associated landfill development surrounding the site.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out as proposed. (OMWLP

PE18) 22. The MRF building hereby permitted shall not exceed 12 metres in height.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity for local residents and users of the public right of way. (OMWLP PE18)

23. From the date of this permission the operators shall maintain records of their

quarterly waste imports to the MRF and green waste composting site and shall make them available to the Waste Planning Authority within 28 days of request.

Reason: In order that the Waste Planning Authority can monitor the waste imports to the site and ensure that the development is carried out as proposed (OMWLP PE18)

PN6

Annex 5 – Proposed Heads of Conditions for application

MW.0088/13

1. Complete accordance with plans and particulars; 2. Implementation within 3 years; 3. Development to cease and building removed and site restored in accordance

with approved plan by 31st December 2030; 4. Operating hours – as set out in report; 5. Vehicles, plant and machinery to be fitted with effective silencers; 6. Reversing vehicles to use white noise only; 7. No more than 200 tpa clinical waste shall be imported to the waste transfer

operation herby permitted; 8. No more than 50 000 tpa household waste shall be imported to the waste

transfer operation herby permitted; 9. No more than 10 000 tpa commercial and industrial waste shall be imported to

the waste transfer operation herby permitted; 10. Records of waste imports and exports shall be kept and made available to the

waste planning authority for inspection; 11. No waste transfer operations shall take place other than when all doors and

roller shutters to the building are closed; 12. Implementation of noise mitigation measures as set out in noise assessment. Informative: The 60 200 tonnes per annum of waste permitted to be imported to the waste transfer facility shall not form part of the 600 000 tonnes per annum limit on waste imports to the wider landfill site specified by condition 52 on permission SUT/616/59-CM.

Informative: Compliance with National Planning Policy Framework In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF Oxfordshire County Council take a positive and proactive approach to decision making focused on solutions and fostering the delivery of sustainable development. We work with applicants in a positive and proactive manner by: • offering a pre-application advice service, as was the case with this application, and • updating applicants and agents of issues that have arisen in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions as has occurred as part of this application process.