Local Members' Interest

B. Edwards

Kinver

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 3 SEPTEMBER 2009 WASTE COUNTY MATTER – South Staffordshire: SS.09/18/628 MW Date Received: 10 October 2008

Seisdon UK Limited for the restoration of the former Seisdon Landfill Site at Ebstree

Road, Seisdon. Background This site has been subject to past sand and gravel quarrying activities which ended

several decades ago. The site was operated from 1948, for approximately a decade and operated as an active quarry site.

Wolverhampton Council were the previous owners and operators of the site and in 1973 they obtained planning permission granted on appeal by the Secretary of State (ref: SSR 10641) to tip incinerated refuse and earth. A Waste Management Licence was issued in 1977 which allowed the deposit of controlled waste i.e. incinerated refuse, earth and similar inert materials at a rate not exceeding 200 tons per day. The current access to the site was granted in 1980 (ref: SS.726/80).

Full site operations for the deposition of incinerator residues commenced in 1984 and the site closed in 1996 when the Wolverhampton Incinerator was decommissioned following which in 1997 the Environment Agency amended the waste management licence. The amended licence changed the types of waste that could be deposited at the site to allow only inert wastes. Wolverhampton Council thereafter capped the landfill site in accordance with the licence using a polythene membrane which was covered with 300mm of sand in agreement with the Environment Agency. The site was then closed and later sold by Wolverhampton City Council in 2006 to the applicant (Seisdon UK Ltd). A Closure Plan to restore the site was prepared and the site has lain dormant since that time albeit for monthly monitoring in accordance with the site waste management licence.

1. Summary of Proposals 1.1 This is an application for the restoration of the former Seisdon landfill site by the

importation of inert fill materials including construction and demolition rubble from demolition projects within the West Midlands conurbation (Wolverhampton and surrounds), and soils for restoration purposes.

1.2 The applicant proposes to import approximately 528,000 tonnes of inert waste materials

and soils over a period of 2.5 years to restore the former landfill site which has a void capacity of 33,000 cubic metres. It is proposed to restore the site and marry the land

Agenda Item 4b

Page 27

profile to surrounding ground levels with a 1 in 15 slope rising from the south west to north east. The final restoration would include a capping with soils to a depth of 1.5 metres with a restoration mix of conservation grassland within the main part of the site, the provision of a trench measuring 3 metres wide by 1 metre deep within the north eastern boundary to provide habitat for burrowing bees and wasps, an area of wet grassland to the south and western area of the site, a section of new woodland planting within the south eastern boundary, with individual tree and hedgerow planting along the north, east and south eastern boundaries. A stock proof fence would be erected around the site area. It is proposed to restore the site to either an agricultural after-use or for open space provision.

1.3 Inert waste materials would be imported to the site by eight wheeled tipper vehicles

carrying 18 tonne loads. Vehicle movements associated with the import of wastes would be 150 vehicle movements per day (75 movements in and 75 movements out). The applicant has proposed a routing plan for vehicles and would be willing to enter into a legal agreement to secure routing arrangements.

1.4 Vehicles would arrive at the site from one direction and would enter the site on a right

turn in basis from the north off Ebstree Road; vehicles would use the existing access to the site. Vehicles would travel into the void using an existing internal haul road and would reverse to the working area where the waste material would be tipped. A tracked dozer with towed roller capable of handling 7 to 10 loads per hour would then spread and compact the waste which would be progressively deposited in a phased manner as the site is worked from the south west to the north in horizontal layers. The level of the ground will be graded during infilling to allow drainage to a french drain soakaway at the southern part of the site. It is not proposed to import and store soils until such time that they would be required for restoration purposes.

1.5 The applicant proposes to operate the site between the hours:

• 0700 to 1900 hours Monday to Friday • 0700 to 1300 hours Saturdays • No operations would be carried out on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. Incoming vehicles associated with the import of waste would be restricted to the following hours:

• 0730 to 1630 hours Monday to Friday • 0730 to 1230 hours Saturdays.

1.6 The operation would employ three full time operatives with potential for one part-time

post. An existing on-site facility would provide amenity facilities to include a site office, kitchen/welfare and toilet and existing car parking arrangements within the site would cater for employee parking.

1.7 The application was submitted in October 2008 and was accompanied by a series of

documents including a Closure Plan, Access Statement, Hydrogeological Risk Assessment and ecological reports including a Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Invertebrate Survey, Breeding Bird Survey, Badger Survey and a Highways Condition Survey. Further supporting information has since been received including changes to the Closure Plan which reduced the vehicle movements from 200 to 150 per day, an

Page 28

amended restoration plan which amended the proposed invertebrate habitat creation, a Flood Risk Assessment, a Slope Stability Assessment which assesses stability of the northern boundary cliff face and a Noise Assessment.

1.8 In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact

Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, the County Council has conducted a “Screening Opinion” on the proposals which concluded that the proposed development is not EIA development and therefore need not be supported by an Environmental Statement.

2. Site and Surroundings 2.1 The Seisdon landfill site occupies an area of approximately 5 hectares and is located to

the west of Ebstree Road, 300 metres north east of Seisdon village and approximately 6.5 kilometres from Wolverhampton which lies to the east. The site lies in a generally elevated position in a landform that rises up from the south east. The nearest residential property lies approximately 15 metres from the site’s operational boundary and is one of a number of residential properties which lie on the opposite side of Ebstree Road at a slightly lower level. The interior of the site is generally not currently visible however from these nearby properties due to the partial landfilling and contours of the site which has created a void.

2.2 The site is situated on an elevated sandstone ridge which runs north-west to south-east

in an area classified within the Staffordshire County Council’s supplementary planning guidance ‘Planning for Landscape Change’ as ‘Sandstone Estatelands’. Within the site, the former quarry walls on the northern margins are exposed creating sand cliffs as a result of past quarrying and quarry walls along the north eastern boundary have become naturally vegetated. The interior of the site is generally regenerated scrub.

2.3 The surrounding character of the land is predominantly agricultural. To the west and

south the site adjoins other previously quarried areas that have been landfilled with a variety of wastes and which are now restored and support a mixture of rough grassland and scrub. On the opposite side of Ebstree Road and directly to the east of the proposals lies an active sand and gravel quarry operated by Tarmac.

2.4 Access to the site is granted via an existing access that allows a ‘right turn in’ and ‘left

turn out’ arrangement with a crash barrier that restricts vehicles entering the site from a southerly direction. The site is fenced with lockable access gates which are set back from the access.

2.5 The site lies within the South Staffordshire Green Belt and is designated as a

Landscape Improvement Area. 3. Relevant Planning History 3.1 The site was included within an area permitted as a sand quarry in 1948 (ref: SSR 104).

In 1973 permission was granted (ref: SSR.10641) to Wolverhampton Borough Council (the former owner of the site) on appeal for the tipping of incinerated refuse. Landfilling with incinerator residues commenced in 1984 and this former use ended in 1996 when the former Wolverhampton Borough Council Incinerator was decommissioned. A

Page 29

‘temporary’ polythene membrane cap was then installed in agreement with the Environment Agency from which point to date, the site has been left dormant albeit for ongoing monthly monitoring (See Background section of this report).

3.2 The relevant planning permission for landfilling (ref: SSR 10641) is at odds with the

current Waste Management Licence which would allow only inert waste to be deposited at the site. Planning permission is therefore required to import and landfill inert waste materials to restore the site. A restoration scheme approved under the landfilling permission allowed for the site to be restored to levels which would marry into the surrounding landscape.

3.3 Prior to the application being received, pre-application discussions were held with the

applicant (ref PAD 291) 4. Relevant Development Plan Policy and other Planning Policy Guidance

4.1 The development plan consists of the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy and the ‘saved

policies’ in the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan, the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Waste Local Plan and the South Staffordshire District Local Plan.

4.2 The West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (WMRSS) West Midlands Regional

Spatial Strategy (WMRSS) was approved in June 2004 and became the WMRSS in September 2005. The relevant policies are as follows:

• Policy WD1 - Targets for Waste Management in the Region • Policy WD2 – The need for Waste Management Facilities – by Sub Region • Policy WD3 - Criteria for the Location of Waste Management Facilities • Policy QE1 - Conserving and Enhancing the Environment • Policy QE6 - The Conservation, Enhancement and Restoration of the Region’s

Landscape • Policy QE7 -Protecting, Managing and Enhancing the Region’s Biodiversity and

Nature Conservation Resources

4.3 Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan (1996-2011) was adopted in May 2001 and amended in February 2002 following a High Court ruling. The relevant saved policies are as follows:

• Policy D1 - Sustainable Development • Policy D2 - The Design and Environmental Quality of Development • Policy D5B - Development in the Green Belt • Policy NC1 – Protection of the Countryside: General Considerations • Policy NC2 - Landscape Protection and Restoration • Policy NC6 – Important Semi-Natural Habitats • Policy NC7C – Sites of Local Nature Conservation Importance • Policy MW5 - Sustainable Waste Management • Policy MW6 - Evaluation of Proposals • Policy MW8 _ Transportation of Minerals and Waste • Policy MW9 - Reclamation • Policy NC9 – Water Resources • Policy T13 – Local Roads

Page 30

• Policy T18A – Transport and Development 4.4 Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Waste Local Plan (1998-2011) was adopted in

February 2003. The relevant saved policies are as follows:

• Policy 3 - General Protection • Policy 4 – Restoration, Aftercare and After-use • Policy 5 – Legal Agreements • Policy 10 – Waste Disposal on Agricultural, Forestry and Other Land

4.5 South Staffordshire Local Plan (1996-2011) was adopted in July 2006. The relevant policies are as follows:

• Policy GB1 (Green Belt - General) • Policy LS7 (Special Landscape Area) • Policy LS10 (Landscape Improvement Areas)

4.6 Waste policy at national level is defined in the National Waste Strategy 2007 with the main planning policy guidance being PPS10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (with its companion guide).

4.7 The National Waste Strategy 2007 is a key document. Apart from the targets that the

Strategy sets (such as 50% household waste recycling by 2020, and by the same year a 45% reduction in household residual waste compared to year 2000 levels), by 2010 the National Waste Strategy 2007 states that it is expected that a 20% reduction in commercial and industrial waste is landfilled from 2004 levels.

4.8 The following National Planning Guidance is also relevant:

• Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) Delivering Sustainable Development • Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2) Green Belts • Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation • Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS23) Planning and Pollution Control (with its two

Annexes) • Minerals Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 (MPG 7) Reclamation of Mineral

Workings. 5. Findings of Consultations Internal 5.1 Development Control (on behalf of the Highways Authority) has no objections to the

proposals on highway grounds subject to a condition requiring the installation of wheel cleaning facilities within the site and the applicant entering into a Section 106 legal agreement to secure a routing agreement in accordance with the Access and Transportation section of the Closure Plan submitted with the planning application.

5.2 Staffordshire County Council’s Environmental Engineer (Noise) has concerns that

the noise assessment submitted by the applicant does not reflect the LA90 background noise levels and are extremely high for a rural location and do not reflect the existing ambient level of noise, and that the predictions are not accurate; the Noise Engineer

Page 31

does not agree that they are representative of the area. Predicted levels cited in the noise assessment range from 49 to 53 dB, so assessed against the background levels that have been carried out by the Noise Engineer personally measured at 37 dB, they would be 12 to 16 dB above this and unacceptable.

5.3 The Noise Engineer states that in order for the proposals for infilling of Seisdon landfill

to be considered acceptable, mitigation measures would be necessary. It is stated that a 3m screen along the highway/access road boundary would provide 5-10dB of attenuation. It may also be beneficial for the applicant to provide greater detail on phasing, particularly the final restoration where an indication how long activity at “higher” levels would occur for.

5.4 The Head of the Environment & Countryside Unit (ECU) states that the restoration

plan is contrary to PPS9, RSS Policy QE7, Structure Plan Policy NC1, Waste Local Plan Policy 3 and Natural England’s consultation response and is not in line with the geotechnical reports submitted by the applicant. The following comments have been provided in regard to landscape and ecology:

5.4.1 Landscape: the proposals are broadly sympathetic to landscape character, though

conditions would be required if permission is granted to detail backfilling, staking and protection for tree planting and a detailed maintenance programme. It is recommended that slopes that would be created either side of the proposed wet grassland should be married in more gently into the general slopes.

5.4.2 Ecology: The significant issue of retention or replacement of the sand cliff Biodiversity Action Plan invertebrate habitat has not been addressed; therefore the proposal remains contrary to PPS9, RSS policy QE7, Structure Plan policy NC1, Waste Plan policy 3 and Natural England’s consultation response. Discussions on the Invertebrate Report with invertebrate ecologists indicates that the survey may underestimate the importance of the site as the survey was curtailed, at the requirement of the applicant in early June 2007, whereas guidance regarding invertebrate survey indicates that survey visits should extend until September.

5.4.3 Mitigation proposals found in the Invertebrate Survey and the Breeding Bird Survey

Report October 2007 by Landcare Associates, submitted as part of the application, reports state that if the sand cliff cannot be retained it should be reinstated/replaced. From the Slope Stability Assessment (by Discovery GE), on Increase Slope Support, it appears that the suggestion is to form a slope between 30 - 35 degrees using site derived sandstone; the report states ‘and if carried out appropriately would provide suitable habitat for the sites valuable invertebrate species. The details of the slope geometry would need to be determined through consideration of both the slope stability issues and the need to provide a sufficient area of south facing slope to allow the invertebrate species to establish.' (last bullet point in 7.3). It is interpreted that the consultants have not ruled out the possibility of having some area of south facing slope combined with some infilling for stabilisation.

5.4.4 None of this is reflected on the Restoration proposals (Drawing 1330.01 Rev B), and

these are therefore still not acceptable. It is noted that the sand bank, previously considered inappropriate has been deleted from the revised restoration plan. This appears to have been replaced by a narrow sand trench which is even less ecologically

Page 32

appropriate and does not provide the south-facing cliff or step features specified as providing invertebrate habitat. This is not considered to be an acceptable solution to providing habitat replacement as the narrow strip of sand proposed does not provide replacement habitat for the species present. It will soon be colonised and covered by vegetation. The revised proposal shown on Drawing 1339.01 Rev B does not represent an improvement on Rev A, and as originally indicated retention of some upper parts of the sand cliff would be the preferred option with replacement by a similar feature required otherwise. With willing parties and appropriate expertise, there should be scope for further design to develop an acceptable solution.

5.4.5 Due to the importance of the site for Biodiversity Action Plan species, alternative

options, including siting of interception drainage, such as a french drain, above the northern cliff face, on neighbouring land if necessary and/or partial infill retaining the upper northern cliff section, should be further explored.

5.5 The Planning Regulation Team comments that this application is similar to the

permission granted at Brereton Tip, near Rugeley in Staffordshire in 1998 to restore the old colliery tip by the importation of inert waste. The Brereton Tip remains unrestored to date. Brereton Tip is operated by Brereton UK Ltd, the directors of which are Josephine Smyth and Mike Killett, the latter being the applicant for this proposed development at Seisdon Landfill Site. It is stated that the County Council served a Breach of Condition Notice on the operators for failing to restore the Brereton site and successfully prosecuted them on two occasions for not submitting a restoration plan. The Breach of Condition Notice remains extant.

5.6 The Regulation Team further comment that Oxfordshire County Council also have a

history with the relevant company directors and have pursued a company called Selectface Ltd for which Tom and Josephine Smyth were directors. It is understood that a successful prosecution for breaches under the terms of the permit granted by the Environment Agency resulted in Tom Smyth being barred from acting as a company director, but despite the verdict, the Oxfordshire site remained unrestored and has since been transferred to the Duchy of Cornwall. The Regulation Team ask that the historic performance of these directors be taken into consideration in determining whether compliance with the terms of any permission could be relied on.

5.7 The Waste Policy Officer comments that the application involves the landfill of

construction and demolition waste and it should be noted that in terms of the Joint Waste Core Strategy and the Regional Spatial Strategy Phase 2 Revisions, there is no requirement for Staffordshire to identify additional landfill capacity. Recognition should also be made of the number of existing major sites (quarries and landfill sites) in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, some of which are in Green Belt locations, which require construction, demolition and excavation wastes for restoration. It should also be noted that a key objective of Government guidance is to reduce the consumption of primary aggregates and National and Regional policies encourage the use of alternative aggregate sources and the development of facilities for the recycling of mineral wastes, secondary aggregates and construction, demolition and excavation wastes. Consideration therefore needs to be made over whether Seisdon Landfill, a former sand and gravel site within the Green Belt, requires the landfill of construction and demolition waste to restore the site to a high standard, and is the minimum amount of waste

Page 33

necessary, or could the inert material be recycled and reused reducing the need for primary aggregate production.

. 5.8 Background work for the Joint Waste Core Strategy (the Evidence Base Report -

Technical Paper for the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD, prepared by SLR Consulting Limited and published in July 2008) estimates that Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent combined produce around 4.2 million tonnes of waste annually and construction and demolition wastes account for almost half of the total waste produced (47%). Waste from commerce and industry is in excess of a third of the total (38%). Construction and Demolition wastes are predominantly treated on site through the use of mobile plant in close proximity to their point of origin. Data at the regional level however indicates that approximately 50% of construction and demolition waste is recycled, 30% is spread to land, and 20% enters licensed landfills (including non disposal uses such as engineering and capping). The Regional Spatial Strategy Phase 2 Revision waste projections for Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Sub-Region state that future quantities of Municipal Solid Waste and Commercial and Industrial waste are forecast to exceed 3 million tonnes per annum by 2025/26, with 2.25 million tonnes needing treatment and the remaining 0.8 million tonnes to landfill. The RSS however comments that a survey of existing landfill facilities shows that depending on the success in diverting waste from landfill, no additional landfill capacity in the Region is required until between 2016 and 2022, unless it is a means of achieving other essential planning objectives. On the basis of this information the RSS does not require individual Waste Planning Authorities to identify any new landfill sites in the Waste Development Documents. It should also be noted that based on the RSS landfill requirement for MSW and C&I waste only for Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, without input from outside the County there would be no additional void required up to 2025/26; in fact there would be void remaining. Staffordshire however imports a considerable amount of waste for disposal at its landfill sites across the County, and therefore the landfill deposits are greater than the sum of Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent alone and current information suggest that there will be no landfill void by 2018/19. Additional landfill requirements however could be met by a number of obligated sites, predominantly mineral sites with restoration requirements via landfill, and new quarries being granted permission.

External

5.9 The Environment Agency has no objections subject to a condition relating to flood risk

being imposed on any permission. It is stated that the proposed development would only be acceptable if the measures proposed in the Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the application are implemented in order to reduce flood risk.

5.10 Natural England has no objections to the proposals in respect of legally protected

species as they are not aware that they are likely to be adversely affected, provided that the recommendations made for breeding birds and badgers detailed within the Protected Species Survey Report which accompanied the planning application are followed in full.

5.11 Natural England note from the Invertebrate Survey that there are locally and nationally

important colonies of bees, wasps and ants present on the site, and as such advise the

Page 34

County Planning Authority that the continued presence of these species is taken into account in the final mitigation scheme.

5.12 Staffordshire Wildlife Trust (SWT) objects to the development proposals due to the

potential negative impacts to priority species and important habitats without sufficient mitigation. It is stated that the site has been assessed against the Staffordshire Sites of Biological Importance criteria, and has easily met the levels required to be considered a Site of Biological Importance (site of county importance for wildlife). It is further stated that although this designation has still to pass through the grading committee to receive official notification, the authority should treat the site in terms of its recognised value and apply policies relevant to county wildlife sites. SWT view the mitigation for loss of important invertebrate habitat to be unsuitable and would cause overall damage to the site. A revised restoration plan would be required to sufficiently mitigate impacts to invertebrates, as well as other key species on the site. Since this response was received, the grading committee has designated parts of the site as a Site of Biological Importance.

5.13 South Staffordshire District Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) has

commented that no credence can be taken of the background noise levels reported in the noise assessment provided and that the relatively quiet rural area of Seisdon is not recognised from these measurements. The EHO can see no evidence in the report of the fact that noise levels would increase as restoration levels are built up and therefore concern is raised on noise grounds. It is considered that further noise mitigation measures would be required to ensure noise does not have an adverse impact and further assessment should be carried out to show that any mitigation is appropriate.

5.14 Severn Trent Water has no objections subject to a condition being imposed to require

drainage details, incorporating sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development in order to ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to reduce the risk of creating or exacerbating a flooding problem and to minimise the risk of pollution.

5.15 Fisher German (linesearch) confirms that their clients (Esso Petroleum Company

Limited/Mainline Pipelines Limited) do not have any apparatus situated within the vicinity of the proposed development and have no comments to make.

5.16 National Grid (gas and electricity) has assessed their operational electricity

transmission network and operational gas transmission network and have concluded the risk to be negligible.

5.17 Wolverhampton City Council has not responded formally though comments have

been received via email. Officer comment raises concern to the size of vehicles proposed and their route through Wolverhampton. The intention to source waste materials from local works including those in Wolverhampton is understood, but this may not be possible and the issue would be the responsibility of the developer to dispose of excavated materials in an appropriate manner and Wolverhampton City Council would support a disposal plan which sought to reduce traffic impacts. The City Council advise the applicant to contact developers/contractors for any further discussions.

Page 35

6. Views of District/Parish Council 6.1 South Staffordshire Council (SSDC) objects to the proposals. The recommendation is

that permission should be refused on the grounds that the development would result in the loss of habitat of ecological importance, would rely on the availability of large quantities of inert waste at present in short supply and would significantly increase heavy traffic flows on a narrow local road.

6.2 The officer report which accompanied the SSDC response in its conclusion considers

that the present restoration scheme is unacceptable. In the report’s conclusion, it states that any restoration should aim to retain a substantial proportion of the naturally generating habitat on the quarry faces, and that this would be best achieved by a much reduced scheme to mound over the central part of the site only.

6.3 Seisdon and Trysull Parish Council objects to the proposed development. The

concerns raised and reasons for these objections are summarised as follows:

(i) Concern is raised that if permission is granted, safeguards would need to be put into place to protect the environment if the applicant does not reinstate the site.

(ii) Permission if granted would lead to disturbance and inconvenience for residents of the Parish including a significant increase in the number of heavy lorries using narrow lanes and would result in noise and dust pollution.

(iii) A full search of records at Companies House is advised on the financial status of the applicant, as Seisdon UK Ltd appears to disclose a company with a precarious financial position and the Parish Council seek to ensure the applicant’s ability to comply with all terms of any planning permission.

(iv) Assurance is sought that the cost of all future reclamation works; including works to reinstate the whole site are fully recovered by way of a restoration bond in order to ensure reinstatement by an agreed date.

(v) The Parish wishes to ensure the Parish is not left with an eyesore that has to be reclaimed and reinstated at the expense of the public purse.

6.4 In a further response received from the Parish Council, the validity of the deposition of

inert materials is questioned when most of it is recyclable. It is also stated that there are no problems with the former landfill site and that the site is being reclaimed naturally. The Parish Council is concerned that disturbance to this site could have a detrimental effect to this natural reclamation which is taking place.

6.5 Parish Council of Lower Penn objects to the proposed development. The concerns

raised and reasons for these objections are summarised as follows:

(i) The scope of the works proposed appears to be far more extensive than is actually necessary.

(ii) Whilst the proposal appears to be suggesting that it is restoring the former

landfill site due to shortcomings in the current temporary capping solution which is causing stability issues to the northern and eastern faces of the site, in reality this is just reopening the former landfill site to receive inert excavated material from within the construction industry.

Page 36

(iii) The impact upon the infrastructure of Lower Penn will be significant as access

and egress to the site will be from the north via Ebstree Road. (iv) The predicted volume and type of traffic on narrow country lanes surrounding the

site. (v) Uncertainty over timescale of works which appear to be a function of the

economic climate and the buoyancy of the construction sector (safety issue of reconciling stabilisation against uncertain timescales).

(vi) Impacts on invertebrate habitat (appropriate assessment is requested).

7. Publicity and Representations Received 7.1 The application was advertised with site notices posted at the site, in the local press and

the surrounding properties were notified by letter. 7.2 A total of 51 letters of representation have been received objecting to the proposals.

The representations are split mainly between the Parishes of Seisdon and Lower Penn and are categorised as follows:

(i) 3 individual representations have been received from residential property owners on

Ebstree Road, Seisdon who reside opposite and in close proximity to the proposed development. The objections relate to:

• The length of time to complete restoration (2.5 years) and pursuant noise and pollution created

• Working hours (nuisance) • Lack of major construction projects to support proposals • Tipping of inappropriate materials • Number of vehicles and safety hazard to narrow highway and potential for

vehicles to ignore routing arrangements

(ii) One individual letter has been received from Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust that objects to the proposed development due to the negative impacts on invertebrate populations and the BAP Priority habitat ‘Open Mosaic Habitat on Previously Developed Land’. Buglife which is a national organisation is particularly concerned that the proposal is not in compliance with PPS9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, and the proposals do not take account of the important assemblage of invertebrate species using the cliff faces. Buglife has provided Best Practice Guidance for managing development sites for invertebrates.

(iii) 47 individual representations have been received from residents in the Parish of

Lower Penn. The objections in general relate to the number of vehicles that would travel along narrow lanes through Lower Penn and potential risk to highway safety including congestion, damage to hedgerows and verges, horse riders, walkers and cyclists. Other concerns raised relate to impacts from dust, noise, odour and pollution (Co2 emissions), the support for recycling of the wastes as opposed to

Page 37

landfill, uncertainty of timescale to carry out restoration and the impacts upon fauna and flora and in particular to invertebrates found within the site.

8. Observations 8.1 The application is for the restoration of the former Seisdon landfill site by the

importation of inert waste fill materials including construction and demolition rubble from demolition projects within the West Midlands conurbation (Wolverhampton and surrounds), and soils for restoration purposes in order to turn the land back to an agricultural use or for open space.

8.2 Although mineral extraction has long since ceased at this site, there is a general

requirement for mineral sites to be restored to high environmental standards particularly in the Green Belt to protect and enhance the overall quality of the environment once mineral extraction has ceased and to safeguard the long-term potential of land for a wide range of after-uses. Minerals Local Plan Policy 9 requires provision for mineral site restoration and aftercare and Policy MW9 of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan requires the appropriate rehabilitation of mineral and waste sites and their return, at the earliest, practical opportunity, to an acceptable after-use/s compatible with the development plan. Although this site has a former history for mineral extraction and previous consent for landfilling operations, this should not preclude that any previous permissions for landfilling and restoration should dictate the level or degree of restoration which may now be considered to be appropriate.

8.3 The key issues in determining this application are the planning policy considerations,

the appropriateness of the development in terms of the need to landfill to the extent proposed to achieve satisfactory restoration of the site within the Green Belt and the assessment of any adverse environmental impacts which include noise and dust, traffic, hours of operation, and the impacts upon the SBI and protected species.

The Development Plan and other Material Considerations

8.4 The key test for planning applications is set out in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which replaces Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 with section 38(6) which states that:

“If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose 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.”

8.5 National waste policy is defined within the National Waste Strategy 2007 with the main planning policy guidance being contained in Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS 10) “Planning for Sustainable Waste Management”. National Planning Policy Context – Sustainable Waste Management

8.6 National, regional and local waste planning policies all promote the principle of

sustainable waste management which includes the principle of ‘regional self sufficiency’ for locating waste management facilities and supports development which

Page 38

would move waste management up the waste hierarchy, towards recovery and re-use and away from disposal via landfill.

8.7 The National Waste Strategy 2007 includes targets for the reduction of commercial and

industrial waste to landfill by at least 20% by 2010 compared to 2004 and the reduction of construction, demolition and excavation wastes to landfill by 2012. The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) which is currently under review (Phase 2 revision), also contains targets for the reduction of waste sent to landfill; the current policies are however relevant and any draft policies should be given weight as they have been considered at an EIP.

8.8 Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS 10) provides the key objectives for sustainable

waste management which include in summary:

• the delivery of sustainable development through driving waste management up the waste hierarchy, addressing waste as a resource and looking to disposal as a last option;

• enable communities to take more responsibility for their own waste and enable sufficient and timely provision of waste management facilities to meet needs of communities;

• help in implementing the national waste strategy, and supporting targets are consistent with obligations under legislation and guidance;

• secure the recovery or disposal of waste without endangering human health and without harming the environment, and enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations;

• reflect the concerns and interests of communities, the needs of waste collection authorities, waste disposal authorities and business, and encourage competitiveness;

• protect Green Belts but recognise the particular locational needs; and

• ensure the design and layout of new development supports sustainable waste management.

8.9 Paragraph 21 of PPS10 states that a planning application for a waste management

facility on a site that has not been allocated for such a purpose in a development plan document should still be considered favourably when the proposal is consistent with the other PPS10 policies including these criteria:

• 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.

Page 39

8.10 The Seisdon site is not allocated for waste disposal activities within the development

plan nor has it been put forward as a strategic option for inclusion within the draft Waste Core Strategy currently being prepared. This should not however preclude this site being considered on its merits if it is consistent with PPS10.

West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (approved June 2004, became Regional Spatial Strategy in September 2005)

8.11 Significant weight should be accorded to the policies in the West Midlands Regional

Spatial Strategy (WMRSS), and less weight to those in emerging policies in the latest Phase 2 revision to the WMRSS. The following waste policies are appropriate:

8.12 Policy WD1 (RSS) sets targets for waste management in the region for which Policy

WD1(iii) seeks to reduce the proportion of industrial and commercial waste which is disposed to landfill. Wastes deriving from construction and demolition projects would come within this target sector and this policy is therefore relevant.

8.13 Policy WD2 (RSS) sets targets for waste management against the need for waste

management facilities within the sub-region. RSS acknowledges that landfill capacity with planning permission exists in the West Midlands region to satisfy the identified need to dispose of 29 million tonnes of construction and demolition waste, between 1998/1999 and 2020/2021. This is verified by comments received from the Waste Policy Officer.

8.14 Policy WD3 deals with the criteria for the location of waste management facilities to be

used by Waste Planning Authorities when preparing policies and proposals to guide the location of waste management facilities. RSS acknowledges from regional surveys that no additional capacity is necessary; however there will be a significant need for additional waste management, recovery and treatment facilities throughout the Region. Currently the adopted Waste Local Plan provides criteria to guide the location of facilities in Staffordshire (and Stoke-on-Trent).

Staffordshire & Stoke-on-Trent Waste Local Plan (1998–2011)

8.15 Waste Local Plan Policy 3 seeks to protect wildlife, the countryside, landscape, the

highway network, public rights of way and agricultural land. Objections have been raised by consultees relative to the impacts the development would have upon protected wildlife and local residents in respect of traffic and in relation to impacts from noise and loss of amenity.

8.16 Waste Local Plan policy 4 seeks where restoration and aftercare is an issue that

planning permission should not be granted except where the proposed development includes comprehensive, detailed, practical and achievable restoration and aftercare proposals, that would achieve at the earliest opportunity, an acceptable after-use/s. It is the case with this site that a basic restoration in the form of a polythene cap and deposit of a sand layer which was carried out prior to its sale to the applicant, it was not therefore intended as a permanent solution. Given the policy drivers to support restoration of quarry and landfill sites, there may be merit in a permanent solution to rehabilitate this site.

Page 40

8.17 Waste Local Plan Policy 5 requires where planning conditions cannot satisfactorily

secure specific matters relevant to the development of waste management facilities, legal agreements will seek to secure them. The applicant has offered to enter into such an agreement to secure vehicle routing which would be appropriate in this case to protect the amenities of residents in Seisdon from the direct impacts from waste vehicle traffic. Although separate from a legal agreement, Seisdon and Trysull Parish Council seek assurance of restoration of the site by the means of a restoration guarantee bond. If so required, the applicant would be required to deposit a restoration bond prior to the grant of planning permission as a guarantee that the approved restoration scheme is carried out. Such a bond may be required where operations are expected to continue for a long period and in this case, could relate specifically to the period proposed for restoration.

8.18 Waste Local Plan Policy 10 relates to waste disposal where planning permission is

required to deposit waste to improve agricultural, forestry and other land. Policy 10 states that proposed development will not be permitted except where:

i) the proposals represent the Best Practicable Environmental Option; ii) only inert waste would be deposited; iii) the amount of waste proposed to be deposited is the minimum necessary for the

intended purpose; iv) the material planning benefits of the proposed development outweigh any material

planning objections; and v) the proposals are comprehensive, detailed, practical and achievable.

8.19 The principles of Best Practicable Environmental Option are now outdated and is

replaced in reference to sustainable waste management contained in PPS10.

Staffordshire & Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan (1996-2011) 8.20 Structure Plan Policy MW5 seeks to encourage waste development which supports

sustainable waste management consistent with the waste hierarchy, and which would not cause unacceptable direct or indirect adverse impacts upon people, transportation systems or the environment.

8.21 Structure Plan Policy MW6 serves to ensure that waste developments do not lead to

detrimental impacts on the environment, transportation systems or the amenities of the surrounding area.

8.22 Structure Plan Policy MW9 serves to ensure mineral and waste sites are appropriately

rehabilitated.

Page 41

Conclusion - Policy

8.23 The main thrust of national, regional and local waste policy is the principles of sustainable waste management. Given the nature of the proposals which would landfill construction and demolition wastes directly from construction projects, it is not considered that the development would constitute development that would move waste management up the waste hierarchy toward recovery or re-use nor would it help to achieve the reduction targets sought by the current National Waste Strategy or those within its draft Phase 2 revision. In addition, RSS and the Waste Policy Officer confirm that additional capacity for landfill is not currently required. In this respect, the proposed development does not represent sustainable waste management and would not accord with Structure Plan Policies D1, MW5 and MW6, and RSS Policies WD1 and WD2.

8.24 There would be merit in an appropriate rehabilitation of the site given the basic capping

measures that have been carried out. However, there is a need to restore this site in a Green Belt location to a high standard without creating any adverse impacts on the environment and to ensure that any restoration is completed at the earliest opportunity to provide an appropriate after-use/s. A large part of this site is now designated as a Site of Biological Importance (SBI), and therefore, the proposed development would have detrimental adverse impact on fauna and flora within the site. It cannot therefore be concluded that the benefits of the proposed restoration would outweigh the harm to the environment.

8.25 Waste Local Plan Policy 10 requires that restoration should be carried out using the

minimum amount of waste necessary for the intended purpose. It is considered that restoration of this site could be achieved with less material in order to limit the impacts upon the important habitat used by invertebrates. The fact that a large part of the site is now designated as SBI there is now a greater need to consider a reduced restoration scheme to protect important habitat and species. It is therefore considered that the proposals do not represent the minimum amount of waste necessary to restore this site to the high environmental standards required.

8.26 A timeframe of 2.5 years is proposed for restoration, which does give some scope in

allowing flexibility of supply of inert waste materials. Doubt however remains over the quantities of waste that could be acquired and therefore the timeframe for completion of restoration.

8.27 As the development would not represent sustainable waste management, it is

considered that the development would not accord with the aims of PPS10, the National Waste Strategy 2007, Policies WD1, WD2 and WD3 of the Regional Spatial Strategy, Waste Local Plan Policies 3 and Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan Policies and MW5. As the proposals would not represent the minimum amount of waste necessary to restore this site to high environmental standards, it would not accord with Waste Local Plan Policy 10.

Green Belt

8.28 Structure Plan Policy D5B, Waste Local Plan Policy 3 and South Staffordshire Local Plan Policy GB1 all reflect the advice contained within PPG2 which states that development that does not maintain openness or contribute to the purposes of including

Page 42

land in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate development and should not be permitted except where there are ‘very special circumstances’.

8.29 The definition of development in PPG2 paragraph 3.12, includes engineering and other

operations, and the making of any material change in the use of land. The carrying out of such operations and the making of material changes in the use of land are inappropriate development unless they maintain openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. PPG2 requires that mineral sites should be well restored and operated to high environmental standards within the Green Belt. Both of these tests cannot be met. The level of on site activity envisaged over a two and half year period from traffic, plant operations would not maintain openness in the Green Belt.

8.30 It is suggested in consultation responses that this site is naturally re-vegetating and

should be left to continue to do so. This is a viable option given that there is not an identified need for landfill capacity. Although the capping of the site gives a basic level of restoration, it is not a permanent solution and therefore, a reduced restoration scheme which would protect environmental aspects, may well provide a more permanent solution depending upon there not being unacceptable adverse effects.

Conclusion – Green Belt

8.31 Given the nature and scale of the operations to restore a former quarry and landfill site,

it is considered that the proposals would not contribute to the purposes of including land in the Green Belt; the site would not be well restored, operated to high environmental standards and would not maintain openness. The development would therefore be contrary to guidance contained in PPG2, and contrary to Structure Plan Policy D5B and South Staffordshire Local Plan Policy GB1. Environmental Considerations

8.32 Structure Plan Policy MW6 serves to ensure that waste developments do not lead to

detrimental impacts on the environment, transportation systems or the amenities of the surrounding area whilst Waste Local Plan Policy 3 sets out the areas of general protection and this includes the countryside and the landscape. It is important therefore to assess whether the proposed development would give rise to any materially harmful impacts, and whether there are any material planning benefits that outweigh the material planning objections. The main issues that arise are adverse impacts upon habitat and important species (invertebrates), noise and dust, traffic, and time to complete the restoration. These particular issues have been highlighted by consultation responses in Section 6 of this report.

8.33 Habitat/Protected Species: In pre-application discussions, there had been broad

agreement with the applicant about requirements to protect habitat and wildlife. The subsequent planning application did not however fully reflect the discussions and recommendation to retain (or part retain) south facing sand cliffs along the northern boundary of the site that provides habitat for burrowing bees and wasps. Plans have subsequently been amended to provide an alternative to a proposed sand bank in the form of a trench. This latest proposal is not considered to provide appropriate replacement habitat by the Environment and Countryside Unit, Staffordshire Wildlife

Page 43

Trust and South Staffordshire District Council and has not therefore resulted in objections being removed.

8.34 The applicant maintains that a greater need to prevent further erosion of the cliff face

and structural stability of the northern boundary which is shared by the adjoining landowner outweighs the need to protect invertebrates and the only solution to prevent loss of stability of the boundary would be to fully fill against the face. The applicant has not therefore reconciled the requirement to protect or provide adequate replacement habitat. A Geotechnical Report was submitted by the applicant in order to verify the unstable nature of the cliff face. The report concludes a slow rate of erosion is taking place and that stabilisation is possible by other means, though expensive; however, stabilisation does not pose immediate threat to the boundary. It is not therefore considered that landfilling is the only option to stabilise the boundary and should planning permission not be permitted, the applicant would need to consider other options in the future if a duty of care is required to stabilise the boundary.

8.35 Staffordshire Wildlife Trust (SWT) in their response indicates the importance of the site

and in its meeting the criteria to be considered as a Site of Biological Importance (SBI). At the time of receiving SWT’s response, the designation as an SBI was still to go to the Grading Committee to receive official notification. This process is now completed and the site is now designated as an SBI. Although this does not mean that the site should be afforded statutory protection, it does require through development plan policy (NC7C) that clear demonstration should be given for the development which would outweigh the need to safeguard the intrinsic nature conservation value of the site.

Conclusion – Habitat/Protected species

8.36 Reconciliation has not been reached in order to protect important species and habitat

within the site which is designated as a Site of Biological Importance. It is not therefore considered that the reasons for the proposals outweigh the need to safeguard the intrinsic nature conservation value of the site and would not therefore accord with Structure Plan Policies D2(a), NC1, NC2, NC6, NC7C and MW6. If Members of the Planning Committee should be minded to permit, then stringent conditions would be required to protect the habitat for invertebrates.

8.37 Noise and Dust: The County’s Environmental Noise Engineer and the Environmental

Health Officer (EHO) raise concerns on the grounds that the noise generated from the latter stages of restoration when levels approach those of surrounding land would be unacceptable in this rural location. The Noise Engineer recommends that in order for the proposed development to be acceptable, mitigation measures would need to be imposed.

8.38 Proposals are included within the application to suppress dust which includes

dampening of site in dry conditions and restriction of on-site speed limits for vehicles to 10mph. The operations have potential to create dust and given the close proximity of residential properties, there would be potential for events of dust generation. It would be appropriate to impose a condition requiring the submission of a detailed dust suppression scheme in order that any impacts are mitigated if permission is granted.

Page 44

Conclusion – Noise and Dust 8.39 Appropriate measures are required to minimize the impacts from noise and dust that

could not be mitigated. Conditions would be required to ensure appropriate noise and dust mitigation if permission is granted. The applicant has expressed willingness to submit further details required by conditions to mitigate noise impacts. However, in the light of the comments of the Noise Engineer in paragraph 5.2, it will be necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that the site can be operated to maximum levels of 10dB above agreed background levels. As such levels cannot be met the application does not accord with Policy 3 in the Waste Local Plan.

8.40 Traffic: The proposed development would generate 150 heavy commercial vehicle

movements per day. Objections have been received from consultees and in representations received in relation to the impacts vehicles would have on surrounding narrow roads, the safety of other users and the pollution they may cause. The Transport Development Control Officer (on behalf of the Highways Authority) is aware of the objections that have been received and has confirmed that there are no objections to the proposals on highway grounds.

8.41 The applicant has responded to the concerns raised by residents of Lower Penn. The

applicant confirms that vehicles would not be travelling along country lanes in Lower Penn, but would travel north along Ebstree Road, Langley Road and Coalway Road leading onto the A449 and into Wolverhampton. There would be no control over the roads used however by vehicles unless a more detailed routing plan defining these roads is incorporated into a relevant legal agreement and the applicant is able to demonstrate that he can control the vehicles/vehicle drivers using any agreed route.

Conclusion - Traffic

8.42 There are no objections from the Highway Authority to the proposals on highway

capacity grounds. The applicant would be willing to enter into a legal agreement to control and route vehicles and conditions can be imposed to limit traffic movements and times for deliveries of waste to the site which should limit the environmental impact of the traffic passing through residential areas in Wolverhampton. Conditions would also be required for the provision of wheel cleaning facilities within the site. The proposals are not considered contrary to Structure Plan Policy T13, T18A and MW8.

Other Material Considerations

8.43 Doubt has been raised by the Regulation Team and from Seisdon Parish Council, as to

the applicants past record and ability to restore the site. Mineral extraction and landfill developments can have a substantial impact on people and the environment of an area and advice contained in MPG7 - The Reclamation of Mineral Workings reinforces the importance of restoration of mineral sites. It states that "if there is a serious doubt whether satisfactory reclamation can be achieved at a particular site, then there must also be a doubt whether permission for mineral working should be given". This can equally be applied to landfill operations.

8.44 The Regulation Team and Seisdon Parish Council have asked that the applicants past

record is considered. Within Staffordshire, the Brereton Tip site has resulted in

Page 45

enforcement action being taken and this is also true of other sites nationally that the group of companies which share directors have been involved. Therefore, doubt does exist whether satisfactory reclamation can be achieved at the site without some form of surety. It is suggested by Seisdon Parish Council that a Restoration Guarantee Bond is given by the applicant in order to ensure restoration is completed. It is considered that a restoration guarantee bond could be used in this case which could require an approved restoration scheme to be completed by a defined date. By definition, a restoration guarantee bond is a bond which puts forward a sum of money for security at the outset, which if required can be drawn upon to restore the site if the applicant should fail to do so. The monies are returned to the applicant upon restoration of the site or can be drawn down on a phased basis if restoration is completed in any part of the site.

8.45 South Staffordshire Council and letters of representation place doubt to the timescale of

restoration in relation to the amount of inert material that would be sourced. The applicant confirms that some of the contracts cited in the submission may not come to fruition, but affirms that quantities of suitable material can be obtained through the contracts for which the wider group of companies has. This however cannot be guaranteed.

Conclusion – Other Considerations

8.46 If Members of the Planning Committee should be minded to recommend approval of the

application, then serious consideration should be given to the requirement for a Restoration Guarantee Bond to be secured through the S.106 Agreement. Overall Conclusions

8.47 Overall, as an exercise of judgement, taking the development plan policies as a whole,

the National Waste Strategy 2007, the Development Plan Policies and the other material considerations referred to above, it is concluded that given the nature, scale and impacts of the development for the restoration of the former Seisdon Landfill Site, that the benefits of the proposals to restore the site would not outweigh the adverse environmental impacts that the development would have. The adverse impacts have been identified as being upon the Site of Biological Importance along with habitat and important species within the site, inappropriate development within the Green Belt and impacts from noise. As the identified impacts would not outweigh the benefits of the proposals, the development would not be in accordance with Structure Plan Policies D2, MW6, NC1, NC6 and NC7C, Waste Local Plan Policy 3 and Regional Spatial Strategy Policy QE7. As the development does not represent sustainable waste management, it would not accord with Structure Plan Policies D1 and MW5, Waste Local Plan Policy 10 and Regional Spatial Strategy Policies WD1, WD2 and WD3.

8.48 It should be noted that should Members of the Planning Committee be minded to

permit, then a further noise survey and assessment will be required before a final decision can be made and stringent conditions would need to be imposed in order to mitigate impacts on the areas of the site designated as SBI in order to protect species and habitat, impacts from dust and any permission would be subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 legal agreement for routing of vehicles and a Restoration Guarantee Bond.

Page 46

9. Summary of Reasons for the Recommended Decision 9.1 The application is for the restoration of the former Seisdon Landfill Site by the

importation of inert fill materials including construction and demolition rubble from demolition projects within the West Midlands conurbation (Wolverhampton and surrounds), and soils for restoration purposes.

9.2 The principle issues identified in determining this application have been the planning

policy considerations, the appropriateness of the development in this Green Belt location and the assessment of any adverse environmental impacts.

9.3 The recommendation is to REFUSE the development for the restoration of the former

Seisdon landfill site as the development is not supported by national waste planning guidance (PPS10 and National Waste Strategy 2007), regional waste planning policies (RSS for West Midlands) and local waste and other relevant planning policies.

9.4 Overall as an exercise of judgment, the development would not be in accordance with

(Structure Plan Policies D2(a) & D2(c)) as the development would not be informed by or sympathetic to the qualities of its surroundings, in its location, scale and design, and minimize nuisance from noise, (Structure Plan Policy MW5) as it would not promote the principles of sustainable waste management that support developments which would move waste management up the waste hierarchy towards recovery and re-use and away from the disposal of waste via landfill, (Structure Plan Policy MW6 and Waste Local Plan Policy 3) as the development would not safeguard, enhance and sustain environmental resources and amenity, (Structure Plan Policies NC6 & NC7C) as the development would not Protect a Site of Biological Importance and Important semi natural habitats, ( Structure Plan Policy D5B) as the development would not contribute to the purposes of including land in the Green Belt as it would not provide for the site to be well restored or operated to a high environmental standard and would not maintain openness and (Waste Local Plan Policy 10) as the development does not provide for the minimum amount of waste necessary for an appropriate restoration of the site.

CORPORATE DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE

Case Officer: Graham Allen - Tel: (01785) 277299 email: graham.allen@staffordshire.gov.uk

A list of background papers for this report is available on request and for public inspection at the offices of Development Services Directorate, Riverway, Stafford

during normal office hours Monday to Thursday (8.30 am – 5.00 pm); Friday (8.30 am – 4.30 pm).

Page 47

Page 48