Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Planning Application for a Materials Processing Facility, Westfield
August 2012
Waterman Energy, Environment and Design Limited
Pickfords Wharf, Clink Street, London, SE1 9DG , United Kingdom www.watermangroup.com
Planning Application for a Materials Processing Facility, Westfield
Client Name: Mr Robin Bristow
Document Reference: EED12597-100/R/5.1.2/MCM
Project Number: EED12597-100
Our Markets
Property & Buildings Transport & Infrastructure Energy & Utilities Environment
Quality Assurance – Approval Status
This document has been prepared and checked in accordance with Waterman Group’s IMS (BS EN ISO 9001: 2008 and BS EN ISO 14001: 2004)
Issue Date Prepared by Checked by Approved by
August 2012 Matt Mehegan Sarah Owen Matt Mehegan
Associate Director Principal Consultant Associate Director
Comments
Comments
Disclaimer
This report has been prepared by Waterman Energy, Environment & Design Limited, with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the client, incorporation of our General Terms and Condition of Business and taking account of the resources devoted to us by agreement with the client.
We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above.
This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report at its own risk.
Contents
Contents
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Brief .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Report Structure ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Limitations ................................................................................................................................. 1
2. Background to the Planning Application .......................................................................................... 2 2.1 The Enforcement Notice ........................................................................................................... 2
2.1.1 The Ground (a) Appeal...................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Pre-Application Liaison ............................................................................................................. 2 2.3 Planning Application ................................................................................................................. 2
2.3.1 Material Used in the Ground (a) Appeal and its Re-Use to Support this Planning Application ......................................................................................................................... 2
2.3.2 Purpose of the Planning Application ................................................................................. 2 2.3.3 Key Issues for Consideration ............................................................................................ 3
3. Site Description and Surrounding Area ............................................................................................ 4 3.1 Site Visit .................................................................................................................................... 5
4. The Proposed Development ............................................................................................................... 6 4.1 Activities to be Conducted at the Site ....................................................................................... 6
4.1.1 Site Layout ........................................................................................................................ 6 4.1.2 Description of the Materials to be accepted at the Site ..................................................... 7
4.2 Access and Transportation ....................................................................................................... 7 4.3 Hours of Operation .................................................................................................................... 8 4.4 Security ..................................................................................................................................... 8 4.5 Drainage .................................................................................................................................... 8 4.6 Storage Arrangements .............................................................................................................. 8 4.7 Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 9 4.8 Landscaping .............................................................................................................................. 9
5. Identification of Potential Impacts ................................................................................................... 10 5.1 Contaminated Land (included at Appendix 6) ......................................................................... 10 5.2 Cultural Heritage (included at Appendix 7) ............................................................................. 11 5.3 Landscape and Visual (included at Appendix 8) ..................................................................... 11 5.4 Noise (included at Appendix 9) ............................................................................................... 12 5.5 Traffic and Transport (included at Appendix 10) ..................................................................... 12 5.6 Control of Mud and Debris ...................................................................................................... 12 5.7 Dust Control ............................................................................................................................ 13
5.7.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 13 5.7.2 Source ............................................................................................................................. 13 5.7.3 Pathway ........................................................................................................................... 13 5.7.4 Receptor .......................................................................................................................... 14 5.7.5 Generic Risk Assessment ............................................................................................... 14 5.7.6 Environmental Permitting and its Relationship with Dust Management ......................... 17
5.8 Air Pollution ............................................................................................................................. 18 6. Proposed Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 19 7. Consideration of the Established Use Certificate (EUC) and the ‘Fall Back Position’ ............... 20 8. Waste Management Issues ............................................................................................................... 21
8.1 Policies, Plans and Reports .................................................................................................... 21 8.2 The Terms C&D and CDEW ................................................................................................... 21 8.3 Targets, Provision and Capacity Gap ..................................................................................... 22
8.3.1 Existing Capacity ............................................................................................................. 23 8.3.2 Capacity Gap CDEW....................................................................................................... 23 8.3.3 Recycled and Secondary Aggregate ............................................................................... 23
Contents
8.4 Location of Facilities ............................................................................................................... 24 9. Alternative Sites ................................................................................................................................ 25
9.1 Site Selection Criteria ............................................................................................................. 25 9.2 R French & Sons Ltd ............................................................................................................... 26 9.3 Sussex Waste Management ................................................................................................... 27 9.4 Links Waste Management ...................................................................................................... 27 9.5 Land at Marley Lane ............................................................................................................... 28 9.6 Conclusion of Alternative Sites Assessment .......................................................................... 28
10. Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) ............................................................................ 29
10.1 Type ........................................................................................................................................ 29 10.2 Location ................................................................................................................................... 29 10.3 Timing ..................................................................................................................................... 29
11. Compliance with Planning Policy .................................................................................................... 30 11.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 30 11.2 Policy Context ......................................................................................................................... 30 11.3 Policy and Strategy ................................................................................................................. 31 11.4 Development in the Countryside and AONB .......................................................................... 32 11.5 Environmental Impacts ........................................................................................................... 35
11.5.1 Contaminated land .......................................................................................................... 36 11.5.2 Cultural heritage .............................................................................................................. 36 11.5.3 Noise ............................................................................................................................... 37 11.5.4 Dust ................................................................................................................................. 37 11.5.5 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 38 11.5.6 Transport ......................................................................................................................... 38
11.6 Liaison with ESCC .................................................................................................................. 39 12. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 40
Figures
Figure 1: Herstmonceux Windrose 2007 - 2011 .................................................................................... 14
Tables
Table 1: Materials To Be Accepted Described By EWC Code And Type of Waste ............................... 7 Table 2: A Selection of EWC Codes and Associated Commonly Used Waste Descriptions ................. 7 Table 3: Dust Risk Assessment - Generic ............................................................................................ 15 Table 4: SEP Policy W5 and W6 C&D Waste Diversion and Recycling Targets (mt/yr) ...................... 22 Table 5: SEP Policy W7 - Illustrative Additional Capacity .................................................................... 22 Table 6: SEP Policy M2 - Recycled and Secondary Aggregate Provision ........................................... 22 Table 7: Site Selection Criteria ............................................................................................................. 25
Contents
Appendices
Appendix 1 Common Plans and Documents Appendix 2 Environment Agency exemption registration Appendix 3 Ashdown Site Investigation Material Test Results Appendix 4 European Waste Catalogue (Extracts) Appendix 5 EA Guidance Document “Using The List of Wastes to Code Waste” (Extracts) Appendix 6 Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment Appendix 7 Heritage Assessment Appendix 8 Landscape And Visual Reports Appendix 9 Noise Reports Appendix 10 Transport Assessment Report Appendix 11 Air Pollution Issues - Waterman Letter Report Appendix 12 Existing Waste Facilities in East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Appendix 13 Testimonials Appendix 14 Locations of Considered Alternative Sites
Page 1 of 41
1. Introduction
1.1 The Brief
Waterman Energy, Environment & Design Limited (Waterman) was commissioned by Mr Robin Bristow
(the client and applicant) to make a planning application for the development of a Materials Processing
Facility at Westfield, near Hastings
This report was prepared in accordance with a scope of works agreed between Waterman and the client.
1.2 Report Structure
The planning application is presented in two parts:
part 1 includes certificates, forms and a supporting statement, which explains the proposed
development, and a Design and Access Statement;
part 2 contains the appendices which contain maps and technical information which deal with specific
issues. The separately bound appendices are labelled numerically.
In order to avoid duplication, this supporting statement and the technical reports included in the
appendices, all rely upon Appendix 1 as the place where documents common to all reports may be found.
Accordingly, Appendix 1 includes a copy of the Site Location Plan, Site Layout Plan, Established Use
Certificate (EUC) and Enforcement Notice (EN).
1.3 Limitations
Waterman has endeavoured to assess all information provided to them during this work, but makes no
guarantees or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of this information.
The scope of this work does not include an assessment for the presence of asbestos containing materials
within or below buildings or in the ground at the site. Should there be a requirement under Regulation 4
of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 for any part of the site to be deemed ‘non-domestic
premises’ (including, inter alia, outbuildings, external pipe work, under-floor service ducts, bridges, fixed
and mobile plant), the duty holder(s) should prepare an asbestos risk management plan and this may
require technical survey works as described in the relevant HSE Guidance Note MDHS 100.
The conclusions resulting from this study are not necessarily indicative of future conditions or operating
practices at or adjacent to the site.
Page 2 of 41
2. Background to the Planning Application
2.1 The Enforcement Notice
East Sussex County Council (ESCC) issued an Enforcement Notice (EN) regarding activities being
undertaken at the site on 10 November 2011. The EN alleged the breach of planning control to be:
“Without planning permission, the unauthorised change of use of land from use as a general woodyard for
[the] manufacture of fencing products, storage of timber, hardcore and tool store to the use of land for the
importation, deposit, storage and processing of construction and demolition waste (including but not
limited to concrete, rubble, soils, sub-soils, metals and plastics)”
2.1.1 The Ground (a) Appeal
An appeal was made against the EN under several ‘grounds’. Under ground (a) the appellant contended
that planning permission should be granted for the change of use alleged in the EN and various reports
were prepared which demonstrated this.
2.2 Pre-Application Liaison
After launching the appeal the appellant met with ESCC to discuss the issues the ground (a) material
raised. Further to this meeting ESCC then consulted its own technical advisors. It became apparent
during this liaison that a development proposal based on the ground (a) material, but modified in certain
key regards, might offer an acceptable alternative and that this could be presented as a planning
application in order that ESCC could test it’s suitability through determining a planning application. If
planning permission is refused the appeal would proceed.
2.3 Planning Application
This report and its appendices therefore present a revised proposal which takes account of the
information received through liaison with ESCC. Specifically, this application includes additional noise
mitigation measures (an acoustic barrier), and to take account of this variation from the ground (a)
material, two additional ‘addendum’ reports have been prepared.
2.3.1 Material Used in the Ground (a) Appeal and its Re-Use to Support this Planning
Application
It is intended that the common heritage between the ground (a) material and the material now forming this
planning application is obvious to the reader. The reader will therefore need to take this into account
when reviewing this application. It will be seen for example that information populating the appendices in
this planning application has been reproduced from the documentation used to support the ground (a)
appeal. The addendum reports we refer to above should therefore be read as updating the initial
technical reports.
The supporting statement in this planning application is strongly reflective of the material originally
presented underground (a) of the written statement presented in the appeal. However, to assist in its
readability, it has been structured to account of the circumstances now required.
2.3.2 Purpose of the Planning Application
Waterman will demonstrate that the proposed development amounts to sustainable development and that
planning permission should be granted. This will include demonstrating that waste development at the
site is consistent with development plan policies and other material considerations.
Page 3 of 41
The technical reports supporting the application will demonstrate the compatibility of the development
with the conservation of the natural beauty of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
(AONB). It will be demonstrated that with careful design, layout and landscaping the effects of the
development on local amenity can be reduced to an acceptable extent, enabling appropriate planning
conditions to be devised.
2.3.3 Key Issues for Consideration
In Waterman’s opinion the key issues for consideration are:
waste management matters (location and whether the proposal contributes towards delivery of
sustainable waste management),
development in the countryside and the impact on the AONB; and
the impact on local residential amenity and the local environment.
Page 4 of 41
3. Site Description and Surrounding Area
The application site comprises of a parcel of land at Hole Farm, Westfield Lane, Westfield, East Sussex,
TN35 4SA at National Grid Reference (NGR) TQ 810 138 (hereafter termed “the site”).
The site’s location is shown on the drawing entitled “Site Location Plan” in Appendix 1. A plan entitled
“Application Site and Other Land in Applicant’s Control” showing the application site (outlined in red ink)
and the extent of other land within the landowner’s ownership or control (outlined in blue ink) is included
at Appendix 1.
The red line on the application plan extends to the A28, connecting the site to the access point with the
highway. The operation part of application site is broadly square in shape, being approximately 70m long
(north to south) and 75m wide (east to west), amounting to approximately 0.6 hectares. The site lies
immediately to the east of the A28 which, at this point, is known as Westfield Lane. Access to the site is
off the A28 via a short section of metalled private road. This private road provides access to the
application site and other land further to the east. The other uses served by the private road include:
Hole Farm House, comprising of land and buildings, including a farmhouse owned and occupied by
the applicant and his family,
Sandhole Farm, in separate ownership and comprising of land and buildings, including a property in
residential use. The land is used for the grazing of animals and an equestrian use. The residential
property was subject of a temporary planning permission (RR/2007/2512/P) which, at the time of
commencing this written statement, had expired. An application for the retention of the timber building
for the farm owner / manager was made in October 2011 and granted on 7 February 2012 (reference
RR/2011/2267/P). The permission allows for the temporary stationing of the building until 7 February
2015; and
A scrap metal yard and end-of-life vehicle depollution facility, owned and operated by H Ripley & Co.
The site itself may be accessed by making a right hand turn off the private road, passing over an access
apron. The site is gated and consists of hardstanding (a compacted permeable surface). The northern,
eastern, southern and western margins of the site are fringed with tree and vegetation cover.
To the north of the site lies the private road referred to above, with agricultural land lying beyond. To the
east lies the scrap metal recycling site. To the south lies agricultural land, with Maplehurst Wood lying
beyond. To the west lies the A28 (known at this point as Westfield Lane), with the residential properties
of Westfield Lane lying beyond.
The site lies approximately 75m to the east of the Westfield Lane development boundary, lying on the
boundary of, and within, the High Weald AONB. Maplehurst Wood, an area of Ancient Woodland and
Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) lies approximately 100m downhill and to the south of the site.
Public Right of Way (Footpath 52) commences at Westfield Lane, at a point near to the south western
corner of the site, and runs gently downhill in a south south east direction, eventually penetrating
Maplehurst Wood. As the footpath winds down and through the wood it passes over an unnamed water
course, draining south west to north east, following the ground contour. The unnamed water course is
the nearest surface water course to the site and, at its closest, is approximately 120m to the south east.
The site is part of a former minerals excavation site and was subsequently landfilled.
An Established Use Certificate (EUC) (reference RR/90/0685/E, dated 14 February 1991) issued by
Rother District Council for “use as a general woodyard for manufacture of fencing products, storage of
timber, hardcore and tool store” extends over almost the whole of the spatial extent of the operational
area. A copy of the EUC is included at Appendix 1.
The site benefits from the registration of two exempt activities under the Environmental Permitting
(England and Wales) Regulations 2010.
Page 5 of 41
The registration is confirmed in the Environment Agency’s (EA’s) notice (reference HE5396YR) dated 23
May 2012 included at Appendix 2.
3.1 Site Visit
Waterman undertook a site visit in January 2012. During the visit it was noted that the junction of the A28
with the lane affording access to the site is inclined upwards (as shown in Photo 1 in Appendix 1), having
high, deep and densely vegetated banking on both sides. The access into the site itself is set back from
the A28 by some 20m or so, and accordingly direct views into the site are not possible from the junction
of the A28.
Once onto the access lane, the site is accessed by means of a right hand turn, again at an upward
gradient (as shown in Photos 2 and 3 in Appendix 1). The site was therefore noted to stand at a
somewhat elevated position relative to the A28, albeit that the A28 climbs north to south (as shown in
Photos 4 and 5 in Appendix 1) at this point.
Once at the site relatively un-obscured views are possible to the north (as shown in Photo 6 in Appendix
1), however views to the east, south and west are interrupted by the tree and vegetation cover referred to
above.
The site’s compacted surface was generally of even terrain, with some ponding noted. Stockpiles of
wood, hardcore, bags of hardcore (approximately 1 tonne bags), several piles of loose large stone, piles
of bricks (for sorting) and palletised bricks (having been sorted for resale) were noted (as shown in
Photos 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 in Appendix 1).
The wood was noted to be stacked up to about 3m in height and consisted of large logs, perhaps some
2 – 3m in length. In this area there were also logs that were much shorter (perhaps 0.5m long) which and
appeared to have been recently been sawn; light coloured sawdust littering the ground (as shown in
Photos 12, 13, 14 and 15 in Appendix 1). Bark, stripped from logs that had been processed in some way,
also lay on the ground in this area.
In the south eastern corner of the site material was noted deposited partway up the trunk of a large tree.
This area was noted to be overgrown with other vegetation, including saplings. Rocks and other debris
deposited about the base of the tree were covered in moss. Mr Bristow explained this material had been
deposited here more than 10 years previously.
The layout of the site and use made of it, at the time of Waterman’s visit, is typical of its operating
condition. It is the case that the quantities of the different types of material, layout and location of
stockpiles, and the relative balance between the woodyard and hardcore use (including the disputed
waste use), vary through the course of an average year, across the seasons and with business need.
In terms of plant and equipment there were two excavators, one fitted with a crusher bucket, a frame
used for the bagging of material, a tool store (green in colour) and a skip. A small petrol powered
generator (supplying electric power for the bagging frame) and a caterpillar forklift (telehandler) used for
loading bagged materials onto vehicles are also used at the site
The excavators are a multipurpose machine and different attachments may be used on their extending
arms. The excavators are used in the conduct of activities for the woodyard, moving hardcore within the
site and the crushing of materials.
Page 6 of 41
4. The Proposed Development
4.1 Activities to be Conducted at the Site
The site will receive up to 10,000 tonnes of construction and demolition waste per year. The materials
targeted for reception will include mixtures of brick, ceramic, concrete, stone and tile. Occasionally some
of the targeted material will arrive within loads also containing soil. The site will not target soils, or similar
excavation waste, but from time to time soils may enter the site as described above.
The purpose in targeting mixtures of brick, ceramic, concrete, stone and tile includes that the applicant
will be able to:
sort it:
- manually by hand and excavator picking, in order to :
retrieve whole bricks and stone for reuse, for example stock bricks, York stone, and other stone
used for architectural and construction purposes, these materials then being palletised or bagged
as appropriate; and
recycle it:
- by stockpiling it and selling it as hardcore; and also by
- size reducing it (when necessary) using crushing machinery to produce an aggregate replacement
material.
Mixtures of brick, ceramic, concrete, stone and tile are regarded as “hard” materials which, if
appropriately managed, can be diverted from landfill. Typically some loads will be entirely of one kind of
material, for example brick, other loads might be a combination of different hard materials.
Residual materials left over from the sorting and recycling activity will include metals (such as that arising
from the crushing of reinforced concrete), plastics (such as polythene sheet used in damp-proof course
and hard plastics from construction and demolition activities) and soils.
The machinery used to size reduce the hard materials is known as a crusher. The applicant will crush
materials using a crusher bucket. The crusher bucket attaches to the arm of the excavator at the site and
is used to move, crush and load material. The use of the excavator extends as equally to the movement
of hardcore as it does to crushing.
Crushed materials produced at the site have been tested by an independent laboratory and confirmed as
meeting materials specification “Class 6F2 Coarse Granular Capping Material” (please refer to “Ashdown
Site Investigation Ltd” document dated 31 August 2011 included at Appendix 3).
4.1.1 Site Layout
The site will be laid out to make a logical use of the available space incorporating appropriate
environmental control measures, whilst also allowing for the established use (as a general woodyard for
the manufacture of fencing products, storage of timber, hardcore and tool store) to continue.
A drawing entitled “Site Layout Plan (Indicative)” shows the proposed arrangements. It includes the items
mentioned in the section entitled “Site Visit” above, and additional items including a wheel wash, short
section of impermeable surface between the wheel wash and access apron and an acoustic barrier. The
Site Layout plan is included at Appendix 1. This layout underpins this planning application.
Page 7 of 41
4.1.2 Description of the Materials to be accepted at the Site
The materials targeted for reception can be described in technical terms using the “European Waste
Catalogue” (EWC)1 which presents a “harmonised list of wastes”. The different types of waste in the list
are fully defined by means of a six-digit code. Relevant pages of the EWC are attached at Appendix 4.
Each of the wastes accepted at the site is regarded as a “construction and demolition waste” and coded
under chapter 17 of the EWC. The materials to be accepted at the site are presented in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Materials To Be Accepted Described By EWC Code And Type of Waste
EWC Code Type of waste
17 01 01 Concrete
17 01 02 Bricks
17 01 03 tiles and ceramics
17 01 07 mixtures of concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics other than those mentioned in 17 01 06
17 05 04 soil and stones other than those mentioned in 17 05 03
The EA has produced a document2 to promote the consistent use of the EWC codes to help protect
health and safety, the environment and to improve reporting. This guidance document includes a waste
thesaurus - a list of commonly used waste descriptions - and their related EWC codes (relevant extracts
are included at Appendix 5). Using the thesaurus the commonly used waste descriptions in Table 2 can
be applied.
Table 2: A Selection of EWC Codes and Associated Commonly Used Waste Descriptions
EWC Code Commonly Used Waste Description
17 01 01 Building rubble, Concrete, Concrete - wet, Concrete blocks, Concrete floor tiles, Concrete
railway sleepers, Concrete slurry, Cement products, Railway sleepers (concrete)
17 01 02 Bricks, Building rubble
17 01 03 Building rubble, Ceramics, China, Tiles (floor) - ceramic, Tiles (floor) - slate, Tiles (roof) -
clay, Tiles (roof) - slate, Clay and terracotta land drain pipes
17 01 07 Bricks, Building rubble, Aggregates, Ceramics, Gravel, Hardcore, Road metal, Rubble
17 05 04 Building rubble, Clay, Contaminated soil (all types of soil), Stone, Sub soil, Rock -
crushed, Rock - excavated, Sand, Top soil, Vermiculite, Soil, Soil - contaminated, Soil
and stones (mixed)
Accordingly, using this system, it can be seen that “hardcore” is most aptly classified as falling within
EWC code 17 01 07.
4.2 Access and Transportation
Vehicles attending at the site in relation to the waste use will include light goods vehicles (transit, or
similar, vans, and small tipper vehicles) and heavy goods vehicles (tipper lorries of 6 and 8 wheel
construction). The number of movements will be up to 10 arrivals and 10 departures per working day,
making a total of up to 20 two-way movements.
1 Commission Decision 2001/118/EC, of 16 January 2001, amending Decision 2000/532/EC as regards the list of wastes
2 Environment Agency (April 2006), Living Guidance, “Using the List of Wastes to code waste”, Version 1
Page 8 of 41
These movements will be in addition to movements already incurred under the EUC.
The EUC places no limit on the number of vehicle movements. For the purposes of performing an
analysis however it is estimated that, in a typical day, there are up to 10 arrivals and 10 departures,
making a total of 20 two-way movements attributable to the activities permitted by the EUC.
The additional impact of introducing the waste use is therefore assessed as a doubling of the number of
vehicle movements.
4.3 Hours of Operation
The hours of operation sought for the waste use (to include receipt, loading and dispatch) are:
Monday to Friday 08:00 – 18:00 hours
Saturday 08:00 – 13:00 hours
Sunday No working
Public and bank holidays No working
The hours during which crushing will be undertaken will be:
Monday to Friday 09:00 – 17:00 hours
Saturday No crushing
Sunday No working
Public and bank holidays No working
The hours of operation for activities under the EUC are to remain as existing.
4.4 Security
The existing arrangements at the site will be maintained. This includes ensuring the security of the site
by maintenance of existing fencing, gates and vegetation cover (as further amplified in the “Landscaping”
section below).
4.5 Drainage
The operational area will continue as permeable hardstanding. The compacted surface will be
maintained during the life of the site by the infilling of potholes and by levelling to an even / level surface
as required.
There are no toilet or welfare facilities on site and therefore there is no foul water to be disposed of.
There is no surface water drainage system at the site.
4.6 Storage Arrangements
The following storage arrangements are proposed:
construction and demolition waste imported to the site will be stored in stockpiles not exceeding 3m in
height;
bricks, picked and palletised, will be stored not more than 3m high;
bagged materials will be stored not more than 3m high;
Page 9 of 41
picked bricks, and picked stone, will be stored in stockpiles not more than 3m high; and
crushed materials manufactured from the imported waste will be stored in stockpiles not exceeding 3m
in height.
The EUC does not contain storage height or volumetric limits. Materials on the site pursuant to that use
may therefore be stored at any height.
4.7 Lighting
There is no external lighting provided at the site and none is proposed. Plant and equipment working at
the site is equipped with task lighting and this will be used when ambient light levels are considered
inadequate for operations to be safely conducted on site.
4.8 Landscaping
In accepting the recommendations contained in the “Landscape and Visual Report, EED12597-100-4-2-1-
BC, 14 February 20012” and the further report “Landscape and Visual Addendum, EED12597-
100_R_4_3_3_FM, August 2012” the applicant will:
enhance the planting of the each of the boundaries of the application site with native species (as
shown in Figure 8 of the addendum report), and manage the boundaries in order to improve the visual
screening characteristics, including maintaining the width of the existing belts (which is 10 – 15 m
along the eastern, southern and western boundaries);
manage the hedgerow along the private road (to the north of the site) to a height exceeding 3 metres
to enhance the screening properties of this vegetation to views taken from the north;
remove soils currently within the crown spread of trees on the western boundary of the site to avoid
soil compaction and risk of damage occurring to trees; and
install an acoustic barrier in accordance with the advice contained in the addendum report.
Operationally, the applicant will:
park all plant and equipment (whether related to the activities under the EUC or the waste use)
overnight in the north of the site adjacent to the private road, the arms of any plant and equipment will
be lowered to the ground;
continue to site the tool store in its current position adjacent to the private road; and
adhere to the stockpile heights specified in the section entitled “Storage Arrangements” above.
Page 10 of 41
5. Identification of Potential Impacts
The applicant is in receipt of a series of technical reports and assessments and these have been used to
inform this planning application. The purposes for doing this include: identifying potential receptors,
identifying potential impacts; assessing the likely degree of impact; and defining the steps to be taken to
eliminate, or where that is not possible, to mitigate against the effect.
In accepting each of the mitigation measures proposed in the technical reports, synthesizing them and
making relevant adjustments to the proposed development, including amending the layout and the
manner of operations to be conducted at the site, the applicant seeks to propose development which,
demonstrably, will not cause material harm to the environmental qualities of the area.
In deciding which technical reports should be prepared various issues were taken account of including:
the site’s setting;
the site’s existing, and active, lawful use under the EUC;
the development plan policies referred to in the EN;
other development plan policies relating to the consideration of planning applications and location of
development;
the National Planning Policy Framework and other material considerations;
ESCC’s Appeal Questionnaire;
ESCC’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Screening Opinion and Assessment dated 20
September 2011; and
Pre-application liaison undertaken with ESCC.
The conclusion reached was that reports should address the following interests:
contaminated land;
cultural heritage;
landscape and visual;
noise; and
transport.
The reports are attached in appendices accompanying this supporting statement.
In order to assist the readability of this planning application, but minimise repetition, a brief synopsis of
each assessment is included below, a reference in brackets “( )” is provided in the section heading
showing where the technical report may be found in the appendices accompanying this supporting
statement.
It should be noted the technical reports, necessarily, contain their own specific appendices. Such
appendices are labelled by means of alphabetic notation, thereby differentiating them from any
appendices this supporting statement refers to.
In addition to detailed technical studies into key issues, the issues of mud and debris on the highway,
dust and air pollution have been considered as discussed below.
5.1 Contaminated Land (included at Appendix 6)
The report entitled “Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment” presents Waterman’s work under this
heading. The report assessed the potential for contamination to be present from the historic and current
uses at the site and the risks that may be posed by any such contamination to identified relevant
receptors such as site users and controlled waters.
Page 11 of 41
The site was previously used as a landfill for inert material between the 1950s and 1980s. Given the
nature and age of the former landfill, current land uses and the lack of buildings on the site, the report
identified no risk to the proposed waste use from landfill gas or contamination from deposited wastes. Fly
tipped wastes, presumed to be asbestos containing materials, were present on the site and Japanese
knotweed was found to be present on part of the site. In reviewing the risk the site presents to human
health and the environment the removal of the presumed asbestos containing materials and the treatment
of Japanese knotweed are recommended. No further works regarding ground conditions are considered
necessary. Provided the recommended measures are implemented the assessment concludes the
overall risk rating for the site is low and there are no unacceptable risks present at the site which may
pose a risk to human health and / or the environment. The applicant confirms he will implement the
recommendations of the report.
5.2 Cultural Heritage (included at Appendix 7)
The report entitled “Heritage Assessment” presents Waterman’s work under this heading. The report
assessed the significance of any heritage assets (listed buildings, conservation areas or scheduled
monuments) within the site or in such close proximity that their setting or character and appearance may
be affected. The impact on the patchwork of medieval fields and medieval woodland and hedgerow
vegetation (landscape heritage interests) that are part of the character of the High Weald AONB was also
considered.
The assessment found that there were no known designated or undesignated heritage assets within the
site. In the surrounding area none of the designated heritage assets lay close enough to be affected by
the development; such assets are currently screened from the site such that there would be no impact on
their setting.
The mature hedgerow including mature trees surrounding the site is likely to be a remnant of medieval
field boundaries and of importance as a heritage asset of historic interest. The report concluded that
retention and enhancement of the boundary vegetation would sustain the existing character of the site’s
boundary as well as maintain and enhance the screening of the site and would not impact on the hedge
heritage asset. The report concludes the proposed development requires no mitigation of impact in
relation to heritage.
5.3 Landscape and Visual (included at Appendix 8)
The report entitled “Landscape and Visual Report” presents Waterman’s work under this heading. The
report noted the boundaries of the site to comprise scrubby hedgerows of holly and hawthorn punctuated
by several mature trees, including oak and ash. The perimeter vegetation was considered to provide a
distinct boundary, reflective of the strong vegetative networks found throughout the area and screening
the site from potential views into it. The visibility of the site was found to be limited to a radius of
approximately 500m to 1km to the east and north respectively, and approximately 200m to the south. In
landscape terms, the change of use within the site was considered not to be fundamentally different from
that permitted under the EUC. It was concluded the proposed site use would not detract from the
character of the locality nor would it be incompatible with the conservation and enhancement of the
natural beauty of the High Weald AONB. The recommendations arising from the report included:
supplementing existing boundary and hedgerow vegetation to strengthen and enhance landscape
screening; adhering to stockpile height controls and parking up plant and equipment in the north of the
site (the arms of excavators or similar to be lowered).
A “Landscape and Visual Addendum Report” assessing the impact of incorporating an acoustic barrier
into the proposals has additionally been prepared. The report confirms the additional controls to be
adopted, including techniques to avoid impact on trees and vegetation, and recommends a native screen
planting mix.
Page 12 of 41
The applicant confirms he will implement the recommendations of the reports.
5.4 Noise (included at Appendix 9)
The report entitled “Noise Report” presents Waterman’s work under this heading. The noise assessment
involved surveying background noise levels and then assessing the impact of the waste development at
the site, including the noise impact from traffic on receptors at existing residential development and users
of the public right of way in the vicinity of the site.
The prevalent noise sources during the survey period were noted to be road traffic noise and existing
operations from the neighbouring scrapyard. The report concluded that noise levels generated by the site
(at the nearest noise sensitive receptors) would be of less than marginal significance on a typical week
day, and of marginal significance at weekends. External noise levels were predicted at the nearest point
on Footpath 52 (Public Right of Way) and the likely impact was considered to be minimal. The noise
impact from traffic generated by the development at the site was also considered to be negligible.
Following pre-application liaison undertaken with ESCC an additional noise report (the “Addendum Noise
Report reference EED12597-100-R-6-1-4”)) has been prepared. The addendum report includes for the
siting of an acoustic barrier (2.2 metres in height) and takes account of ESCC’s consultation feedback.
The report demonstrates noise impact from the proposed development will be reduced when compared
with previous predictions (as contained in the original report reference EED12597-100-R-1-1-1) and fall
below the minimum monitored background noise level at each identified sensitive receptor.
5.5 Traffic and Transport (included at Appendix 10)
A report entitled “Transport Assessment Report” presents Waterman’s work under this heading. The
report assessed the transport impact of the proposed waste development. The report considered the
existing access arrangements to the site off the A28 and at the site entrance; the local highway network
that would be used to access the site, including accident data; and access to public transport. The impact
of the type and number of vehicles that would access the site, together with the traffic generated by the
existing EUC uses, were assessed.
The assessment concluded that the existing access arrangements were of sufficient design to
accommodate the traffic that would be generated by the waste use (a maximum of 20 movements per
day (10 in, 10 out) for waste transport (8 wheel tipper, 6 wheel tipper and light goods vans such as transit
tippers), plus two employees making four 2-way trips per day (2 in, 2 out)) to the site. The proposal is
likely to generate very low traffic movements (waste transport and employees), which together with the
traffic generated by the existing EUC use would be in the order of 4 two way movements an hour over the
proposed ten hour working day, which equates to a low hourly trip generation. The increase in vehicle
movements attributable to the proposed waste use would be unlikely to present an adverse impact on the
local highway in terms of highway capacity and highway safety. For employees the site would be
accessible by alternative modes of travel, other than the car, such as walking, cycling and public
transport. No works at the site access to the private access road, or the junction with the A28 are
necessary.
5.6 Control of Mud and Debris
Currently vehicles exit the site, drive along a short section of the private road and then turn on to the A28.
The planning application proposes the installation of a wheel wash and short section of impermeable
surface between the wheel wash and the access apron. The access apron (the trapezoidal parcel of
land) lying between the operational site and the private road will be refurbished by the laying of
impermeable pavement, therefore providing a continuous impermeable surface between the exit of the
wheel wash and the A28.
Page 13 of 41
The wheel wash will be made available for use to all vehicles exiting the site, whether related to activities
being undertaken under the scope of the EUC, or under the proposed waste use.
Vehicles will be required to use the wheel wash when ground conditions require it. Vehicles using it shall
be required to pass through the wheel wash and then over the impermeable pavement to exit the site.
The wheel wash will stand not more than 1 m above ground level, have entrance and exit ramps and be
equipped with a wheel spinner. A water supply is available opposite the application site entrance within
land owned or controlled by the applicant.
To further safeguard highways interests, the condition of the private road extending from the site’s access
apron to the junction with the A28 will be managed by the applicant. This land, which is under the
applicant’s ownership or control, will be swept free of mud and debris as required.
5.7 Dust Control
5.7.1 Introduction
The proposed development has the potential to cause impact to amenity through the effects of dust
emissions. This potential can be examined through a process known as risk assessment to determine
the likelihood of the risk being realised in practice. The risk assessment process analyses the potential
connection between Source (the material to be received, stored and processed), Pathway (the
environmental medium through which the material could move) and Receptor (the interest that could be
effected by the emission). In this report dust should be taken to mean particulates arising from the
imported material and not emissions from combustion engines.
5.7.2 Source
The waste types to be accepted at the site are to be limited to those described in Table 1 above. For the
avoidance of doubt, and in relation to the potential for dust, it is confirmed the operator will not accept
wastes consisting of:
dusts;
powders; or
loose fibres.
Dust emissions may arise from activities associated with the handling, processing and storage of the
materials on site.
5.7.3 Pathway
The medium through which dust particles could be transported is air, the direction and distance of travel
being strongly influenced by wind direction, wind speed and particle size. Wind direction data, from
Herstmonceux (a location considered likely to be most representative of the site) are provided below.
Any intervening features such as buildings and embankments would limit the movement of dust by acting
as a screen.
Page 14 of 41
Figure 1: Herstmonceux Windrose 2007 - 2011
5.7.4 Receptor
The term receptor is used in this document to refer to an interest that has been identified as being
sensitive to the effects of the emission escaping from the source. Relevant receptors for this assessment
are considered to be those within relevant proximity of the site. Receptors include occupants of
residential properties, neighbouring development, users of Footpath 52 (Public Right of Way) and the
wider recreational use of and environment in the AONB.
5.7.5 Generic Risk Assessment
Table 3 below sets out a generic risk assessment. The table identifies:
potential emission points and activities relating to the proposed development, providing explanatory
text describing an example of the issue requiring control;
the potential risk presented to any generic receptor without abatement;
the typical generic technique that will be adopted to effect control; and
the potential generic residual risk remaining after adopting the dust control measure(s).
The table has been prepared taking account of relevant guidance, including the document entitled
“Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework”.
Page 15 of 41
Table 3: Dust Risk Assessment - Generic
Identified
Emission
Point and /
or Activity
Issue Requiring
Control
Potential
Risk to
Generic
Receptor
Without
Abatement
Generic Technique to be Applied to Effect
Dust Control
Potential
Generic
Residual Risk
After Application
of Dust Control
Measure
Vehicles –
payload.
Dust can be
released (wind
whipped) from
laden vehicles as
they move into and
out of the site.
High. Vehicles hauling materials will be sheeted
or otherwise enclosed to reduce the
escape of particulates during transit.
Low.
Vehicles –
tyres and
body.
Materials falling
from vehicle bodies
or entrained on
tyres can be a
cause of dust
emission.
High. Vehicle bodies and tyres will need to be
assessed to test if they present the
identified hazard.
The hazard can be removed through
cleaning. Accordingly where the site
manager or foreman determines that
significant dust or debris is on tyres or
body areas the vehicle will be directed to
the onsite vehicle wash for cleaning prior
to departure from site.
Low.
Vehicles –
speed.
Dust can be
liberated from
access, egress and
manoeuvring
areas.
High. The propensity for dust release can be
controlled by limiting the speed of vehicles
within the site.
Vehicle speeds within the site will be
limited to 5 mph. The site is small and it
will be difficult to attain speeds much
above this.
Low.
Access,
egress and
manoeuvring
areas.
Dust can be
liberated from
access, egress and
manoeuvring
areas.
Medium. Access, egress and manoeuvring areas
will be maintained (including through
dowsing with water and manual picking) to
prevent the excessive build-up of dust or
debris.
Vehicle routeing within the site will be
organised and maintained to prevent
tracking through deposited materials.
Vacuum wet cleaning will be undertaken if
necessary, including on the access apron
and extending to the junction with the A28.
Low.
Tipping of
materials at
discharge
location.
Dust can be
liberated during
deposition.
Medium. A recognised control technique is to limit
drop heights and limit physical disturbance
of material.
Accordingly discipline will be maintained to
limit drop heights to the workable minimum
and unhurried movements will be adopted
in cases where fine materials are being
handled (note dusty loads and powders will
be excluded from the site).
Low.
Page 16 of 41
Identified
Emission
Point and /
or Activity
Issue Requiring
Control
Potential
Risk to
Generic
Receptor
Without
Abatement
Generic Technique to be Applied to Effect
Dust Control
Potential
Generic
Residual Risk
After Application
of Dust Control
Measure
Stockpiles /
mounds
(in formation
beneath
crusher).
Dust can be
released (wind
whipped) from
mounds in
formation.
Medium. Operations at the site will be devised such
that the formation activity is located within
the centre of the site. This offers the best
technique to effect containment and
interrupt air flow during operation.
Stockpiles or mounds will therefore be
formed away from the site boundary and
away from sensitive receptors.
As a further control measure if dusting is
noted to be occurring, the stockpiles or
mounds will be sprayed with water to effect
suppression.
Profiling mounds under formation is
unlikely to be practically possible.
Where considered necessary operations
will cease temporarily until any dust
release issue is resolved.
Low.
Stockpiles Dust can be
released (wind
whipped) from
storage areas.
Medium. Stockpiles will be located in the most
appropriate location on the site. This
includes being consistent with:
the principles underpinning this dust risk
assessment, including taking into account
the sensitivity of potential receptors and
the distance of that receptor from the
relevant activity on the site;
achieving an appropriate layout for the site,
including enabling a logical circulation
pattern.
Accordingly stockpiling will be undertaken
in the southern half of the site as shown on
the document entitled “Site Layout Plan
(Indicative)” included in Appendix 1.
Profiling of mounds will be undertaken to
minimise wind blow and consolidate the
surface.
As a further control measure if dusting is
noted to be occurring, the stockpiles will be
sprayed with water to effect suppression.
Low.
Equipment
used to
crush waste.
The physical
disturbance of
material during size
reduction through
crushing has the
Medium. The potential for dust release bears a
relationship with the moisture content of
the material to be treated and the nature of
the physical action to be performed on the
material.
Low.
Page 17 of 41
Identified
Emission
Point and /
or Activity
Issue Requiring
Control
Potential
Risk to
Generic
Receptor
Without
Abatement
Generic Technique to be Applied to Effect
Dust Control
Potential
Generic
Residual Risk
After Application
of Dust Control
Measure
potential to lead to
the release of dust. The machinery to be used will comply with
the requirements of the Environmental
Permit (EP) applicable to the mobile
crushing plant (see below).
Dusty loads
and
powders.
Dusty loads and
powders have a
high propensity to
generate dust
emission.
High. These materials will not be accepted at the
site. The emission from these sources will
therefore be eliminated.
Low.
The above generic risk assessment assists in the understanding of the potential for the emission of dust
from the site. The assessment shows the potential for dust escape from the site will be controlled by:
elimination;
prevention,
suppression;
containment; and
adopting appropriate management methods.
The generic risk assessment concludes that with appropriate mitigation the residual risk of dust escape is
low.
The applicant will implement the measures above.
5.7.6 Environmental Permitting and its Relationship with Dust Management
We confirm that the site will not be able to operate unless it obtains an Environmental Permit (EP) from
the EA. The EP will be enforced by the EA and will serve to control and constrain the operational aspects
of the site. The applicant will apply for a bespoke EP based on Standard Rules permit “SR2010No12”,
limited to 10,000 tonnes of input material per year, the material types will be limited to those described in
Table 1.
The Environmental Permitting process recognises the unacceptable risks posed by uncontrolled
emissions and requires the permit holder to implement a Fugitive Emissions Management Plan (FEMP),
including for the management of dust. The information provided in this section of the application is
therefore an outline of the FEMP for dust.
Additionally, with respect to Environmental Permitting, an EP specific to operation of the mobile crushing
plant, will also be required. This controlling document will also include conditions relating specifically to
dust management from the crushing plant, and the associated stockpiles, and will be held by the operator
of the crusher.
It is to be expected the local authority will monitor and enforce compliance with the crushing plant EP.
Page 18 of 41
5.8 Air Pollution
With respect to the issue of air pollution (excluding dust as an issue which is dealt with above), ESCC’s
Screening Opinion and Assessment (adopted for the purposes of the enforcement action) states:
under the heading “Pollution and Nuisances”:
- “The development relates to the management of waste and so is an on-going use. Air pollution
would likely result from the use of vehicles and machinery, together with dust from the processing
activities”; and
under the heading “Probability of the Impacts”:
- “Regarding air pollution, this would very likely occur due to the use of vehicles and machinery.
Nuisance would be very likely to occur through noise and possibly due to the proximity of
residential properties and the road.”
Waterman has therefore undertaken an independent assessment of this issue.
The results of the review are included in Appendix 11. In summary the review found the change in traffic
flow on the A28, associated with the proposed development, would not result in significant changes in
local air quality. It was also concluded that the impact of exhaust emissions from plant operating on the
site would not be significant in the context of existing adjacent road traffic exhaust emissions.
Consistent with good practice all plant operating on the site will be kept in good working order through a
regular maintenance and inspection programme, and the applicant would be content to accept such a
stipulation by means of a planning condition.
Page 19 of 41
6. Proposed Conditions
In the event that ESCC are minded to grant planning permission for the proposed development the
applicant considers the following matters suitable for control by planning condition:
the details of the proposed wheel wash shall be submitted to the planning authority for approval and,
upon approval, shall be implemented before first use of the site;
the acoustic barrier shall be constructed at the location shown on the “Site Layout Plan” to a height not
less than 2.2 m from ground level;
the condition of the private road, extending from the application site to the junction with the A28, shall
be swept free of mud and debris as required;
all loaded vehicles visiting and leaving the site in relation to the waste use shall be sheeted or
otherwise contain the loads;
the proposed landscaping scheme shall be implemented within the first available planting season;
management of the hedgerow vegetation along the northern boundary of the private road;
mitigate and manage the presence of Japanese Knot weed within the site;
hours of operation of the waste use including all activity relating to the storage of hardcore (but not
placing restrictions to the hours of operation of use as a general woodyard for manufacture of fencing
products, storage of timber and tool store);
stockpile heights; and
the removal of the presumed asbestos containing materials from the site.
Page 20 of 41
7. Consideration of the Established Use Certificate (EUC) and the
‘Fall Back Position’
In considering the proposed development it is appropriate to consider the scope of the lawful use enjoyed
under the EUC. There are no restrictions in the EUC as to:
hours of use;
storage heights; and
vehicle movements.
There is no requirement to visually screen the site, or abate emissions of mud and debris. There is no
requirement to limit noise emanating from the site. Plant and equipment used to perform activities under
the EUC is not restricted to be of any particular kind, it has previously and continues to include the use of
excavators (to load and unload hardcore and wood), forklift (telehandler), a frame used for the bagging of
hardcore, a tool store and a generator.
Granting planning permission will bring benefits including through:
controlling the hours of operation (including all activity relating to the storage of hardcore) in the
interests of local amenity;
controlling the location for the parking of plant and equipment outside of operational hours to minimise
visual impact;
limiting stockpile heights to minimise visual impact;
provision of an acoustic barrier limiting the impact of noise released from the site on nearby sensitive
receptors; including from activities undertaken under the EUC;
provision of a landscaping scheme to conserve and enhance the visual screening of the site, through
adopting measures around the perimeter of the site and along the private road; and
provision of wheel cleaning facility and hard surfacing between it and the access road, introducing
control over the release of mud and debris from vehicles exiting the site associated with the EUC and
the waste use.
Page 21 of 41
8. Waste Management Issues
8.1 Policies, Plans and Reports
In this section we assess the construction and demolition waste processing facility against relevant policy
relating to sustainable waste management including need, location and provision of facilities. The
documents we shall rely on include:
The South East Plan (SEP) 2009, and particularly policies:
- W5 (targets for diversion from landfill);
- W6 (recycling);
- W7 (waste management capacity); and
- M2 (recycled and secondary aggregates)
East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan (WLP) 2006, and particularly policy:
- WLP1 (Plan strategy);
The East Sussex Waste & Minerals Authority Monitoring Report 2010/11 (AMR), and particularly
indicators:
- W1 (capacity of new facilities); and
- M2 (production of secondary and recycled aggregates)
The East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Development Plan
Document, Submission Waste and Minerals Plan, June 2012 (Submission WMP), and particularly
policies:
- WMP2b (turning waste into a resource);
- WMP3 (sustainable provision and use of minerals); and
- WMP6a (sustainable locations for waste development)
8.2 The Terms C&D and CDEW
In older plans and reports construction and demolition waste is referred to as C&D waste. It is now more
common, including in national policy and guidance, to use the term CDEW (construction, demolition and
excavation waste). Older documents, including the WLP and SEP, use the term C&D. Newer
documents, including the AMR, use the term CDEW. For this reason both these terms will be used below
when quoting from reports and plans.
Section 3.3 of the AEA 2011 Report3 prepared to support the development of the Waste and Minerals
Development Framework for East Sussex and Brighton & Hove (the Plan Area) reports that:
“Materials arising in each of the three streams (i.e. Construction; Demolition; Excavation) are
substantially different:
- construction waste being composed of mixed non inert materials e.g. timber off cuts, plasterboard,
metal banding, plastic packaging;
- demolition waste being primarily hard materials with some non inert content e.g. bricks, mortar,
reinforced concrete; and
- excavation waste being almost solely soft inert material e.g. soil and stones.”
3 Review of Future Waste Management Capacity Requirements (AEA, 2011), East Sussex and Brighton & Hove
Page 22 of 41
8.3 Targets, Provision and Capacity Gap
SEP Policies W5 and W6 set targets for the diversion of C&D waste from landfill and for recycling in the
region as shown in Table 4 below.
Table 4: SEP Policy W5 and W6 C&D Waste Diversion and Recycling Targets (mt/yr)
Year Diversion from landfill (W5) Recycling (W6)
2015 10.4 6.1
2020 10.7 7.3
2025 10.9 7.3
Paragraph 10.27 of the written statement to the SEP comments that:
“There is an immediate and acute shortfall in the capacity required to achieve ambitious targets for
recycling...”
The SEP quantifies the additional (illustrative) capacity for the WLP area as shown in Table 5 below.
Table 5: SEP Policy W7 - Illustrative Additional Capacity
Waste Authority Area Illustrative Additional Capacity Required by 2015 (mt) for
C&D waste recycling
East Sussex, Brighton and Hove 0.185
Therefore, at least at the time of publishing the SEP, a deficit of 185,000 tonnes of capacity had been
identified for C&D waste recycling.
National policy is to increase the use of recycled and secondary materials as substitutes for
primary/natural materials. The SEP Policy M2 target is for the use of secondary and recycled materials to
have increased to at least 7.7 mtpa by 2016.
SEP Policy M2 requires mineral planning authorities to enable the provision to be made for recycled and
secondary aggregates in the WLP area, as shown in Table 6 below, as an apportionment of the 7.7 mtpa
quantity needed across the whole SEP area.
Table 6: SEP Policy M2 - Recycled and Secondary Aggregate Provision
Mineral Planning Authority Area Apportionment of recycled and secondary aggregate
provision (mt/yr) by 2016
East Sussex, Brighton and Hove 0.5
Policy M2 further requires that “where possible” this target should be “exceeded” and paragraph 10.78 of
the written statement to the SEP states that:
“The target set out in Policy M2 should be regarded as a minimum and the upper figure of 7.7 mtpa
should have been exceeded by the end of the plan period.”
The Waste Local Plan is currently being reviewed and in time will be replaced by the development plan
documents in the East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Development
Framework. If approved, the Submission WMP will form part of the framework.
The SEP sets out regional planning policy for the South East but is to be revoked under the Localism Act
2011. For the time being it remains part of the adopted development plan for East Sussex and needs to
be considered. In view of the proposed revocation of the SEP, the emerging Submission WMP has
reassessed the basis for future waste targets, informed by the AEA 2011 Report.
Page 23 of 41
The AEA 2011 Report shows proposed recycling and recovery targets for CDEW, total demand for
different waste management methods (e.g. CDEW recycling) and the different waste streams handled by
different methods and demand for capacity.
8.3.1 Existing Capacity
The AMR confirms:
630,000 tonnes of existing CDEW capacity; and
16,000 tonnes of new CDEW recycling / recovery capacity was added during the monitoring period
April 2010 to March 2011.
8.3.2 Capacity Gap CDEW
Section 6.1.3 of the AEA 2011 report discusses whether there is a capacity gap. Table 58 of that report
shows there is likely to be spare capacity available until the end of the WMP plan period (2026/27).
The distribution of this capacity is shown in Map 1 of that report. We include a copy of that map entitled
“Existing Waste Facilities in East Sussex and Brighton & Hove”, annotated with the location of the
application site and the adjacent scrap yard at Appendix 12.
It can be seen from the annotated map that all of the current CDEW recycling capacity lies to the west of
the application site.
8.3.3 Recycled and Secondary Aggregate
The AMR estimates the production of recycled/secondary aggregate in the monitoring period April 2010
to March 2011 to be:
around 310,000 tonnes;
of this figure around 240,000 tonnes was recycled aggregate and around 68,000 tonnes was
secondary aggregate.
The AMR and the Submission WMP both suggest the 630,000 tonnes of existing CDEW recycling
capacity would be available for production of recycled and secondary aggregates such that the
apportionment figure in SEP Policy M2 of 500,000 tonnes (minimum provision by 2016) has been
provided for. Whilst this may be the case if all the 630,000 tonnes capacity were to be used for
production of recycled and secondary aggregates, not all the materials received at CDEW facilities, such
as soils; clays and other materials (such as timber, plastics and metals) will be suitable for producing
aggregate materials. Therefore, to increase production of, and enable the recycled and secondary
aggregates targets to be met, a greater amount of CDEW permitted capacity is required.
The recycling to be undertaken at the application site, which would receive and recycle construction and
demolition wastes out of the CDEW stream, will assist by making a small but valuable contribution to the
sustainable management of waste in East Sussex, driving waste management up the waste hierarchy
and reducing demand for primary raw materials such as aggregate minerals and building stone.
In quantitative terms the above could indicate there is no further need for CDEW recycling capacity or
further provision required to be made for production of recycled and secondary aggregates. The
applicant however contends such a conclusion would place insufficient weight upon the distribution of the
capacity and provision over the Plan area. The applicant considers his facility well located to serve the
rural villages and settlements in the east of the Plan area and the urban area of Hastings and accordingly
he will fulfil a local need.
Page 24 of 41
8.4 Location of Facilities
The WLP’s preferred approach to small scale facilities is confirmed at paragraph 5.60 of the written
statement:
“The Plan’s preferred approach is to identify a number of locations across the Plan area where a
range of facilities might be sited in order to meet strategic requirements, supported by smaller-scale
facilities at other locations.”
The approach is amplified in the written statement at paragraph 5.71 where it confirms the WLP
encourages:
“the provision of smaller-scale waste management facilities where they can serve local communities
and businesses in accordance with the proximity principle.”
Paragraph 6.7 of the written statement enables a distinction to be drawn between “major waste
development” and “minor waste proposals” in AONBs. The WLP states major waste development
includes:
“energy from waste facilities, land disposal sites (excluding small scale farm tracks and other minor
disposal operations of a similar scale), composting facilities which involve significant built development
and any other waste development which has the potential to materially harm the environmental
qualities of the area by virtue of the scale of its built development or the amount of activity generated
by the use.”
By contrast it is envisaged minor waste proposals include:
“small scale inert waste disposal operations or open air composting facilities for the local area”
Emerging policy WMP6a (Submission WMP) reveals no intention to abandon this policy direction:
“Proposals for development will only be considered outside of the Areas of Focus if it can be
demonstrated that:
- a. There are no suitable sites available within the Areas of Focus to meet identified needs, or they
are small-scale facilities predominantly to meet smaller, more localised needs only(47)
; and
- b. The development will contribute to moving waste management up the waste hierarchy and
minimising greenhouse gas emissions; and
- c. They are well related to the relevant main treatment facilities within the Plan Area.”
The footnote (47
) to the policy explains:
“Smaller, localised facilities can be essential in helping to provide local solutions for collecting, sorting,
bulking, and transferring and treating wastes in complementing the waste treatment provided at more
strategic larger-scale facilities.”
Collectively, paragraphs 5.60 and 6.7 of the written statement, and the policy direction in WMP6a
(Submission WMP), demonstrate there is a qualitative need for smaller facilities to be provided, serving
local communities.
The applicant’s facility would rightly be classified as a minor waste proposal of small scale. The applicant
has received several letters capable of being described as testimonials that show that the facility has
delivered a local solution for waste producers and users of recycled aggregate. The testimonials are
presented in Appendix 13. The facility acts as a collection point, it sorts and treats waste, moving waste
up the waste hierarchy, delivering against this need.
Page 25 of 41
9. Alternative Sites
National planning policy includes a number of principles which assist in identifying suitable locations for
waste management development, including:
PPS10 - waste planning authorities should consider “a broad range of locations including industrial
sites”, and “give priority to the re-use of previously developed land” (source: extracts from paragraphs
20 and 21 of PPS10).
East Sussex County Council, and Brighton & Hove City Council, both have responsibilities as Waste
Planning Authorities to produce waste site allocations Development Plan Documents (DPDs). We
understand that a DPD has not yet been produced. This supporting statement has undertaken a review
of potentially suitable alternative sites in order to inform the planning application.
The scope of this alternative sites assessment includes:
the formulation of reasonable and realistic criteria, to eliminate unsuitable sites or impractical options
(at this stage disregarding cost), in order to enable the selection of sites potentially suitable in principle
for C&D waste recycling;
short-listing the identified sites; and
a discussion on the merits or demerits of the identified sites.
9.1 Site Selection Criteria
The criteria take into account the nature and scale of operations undertaken at the existing site and SEP
Policy W17. Table 7 below, sets out the selection criteria and the search characteristics required.
Table 7: Site Selection Criteria
Site Selection Criteria Characteristic Required
Current Land Use
Policy W17 (SEP) provides that suitable locations for
waste management facilities may include sites:
in existing waste management use (prioritising
sites with good transport connections),
with good accessibility from existing urban areas
/ new / planned development,
with good transport connections (including rail
and water),
with compatible land uses: active minerals sites,
previous or existing industrial land use,
contaminated or derelict land, land adjoining
sewage works, redundant farm buildings and
their curtilages,
capable of meeting locally based environmental
and amenity criteria.
The policy includes that small scale waste
management facilities should not be precluded from
the AONBs where development would not
compromise the objectives of the designation.
Existing or former waste, minerals or industrial sites.
Vicinity to Market and Source
Haulage distance from:
Vicinity from waste source / user: 3 – 6 Miles
Page 26 of 41
the likely waste source locations (the rural villages
and settlements in the east of the Plan area and the
urban area of Hastings); and
sites where re-use / use of recycled product will take
place.
Available Land Area
Sites will be considered against the scale of the
current site.
It is considered that sites much smaller than the
existing would be too constrained operationally.
A site much larger might allow a greater throughput,
but such a scale of operation is not sought.
Target Land Area: 0.4 – 0.7 ha
Transportation Links
Ready access to appropriate roads is required.
Sites with ready access to A roads and roads
forming part of the strategic route network will be
selected.
A search of alternative sites has been conducted within the Hastings / Bexhill and Rother areas. The
scope of search has taken into account land currently on the market such as industrial lets and offered for
sale, existing waste sites and information on existing and / or proposed employment sites. The search
included performing an internet search of available sources including, but not limited to the facility
available at the “Estates Gazette” website; found online at http://www.estatesgazette.com.
Using this website various searches were performed including using the terms “Industrial”, “Land”, “Other
Commercial” up to 1 hectare in size. Small and medium sized industrial units were found, none of
adequate size. Large industrial units (fully enclosed buildings potentially suitable for B2 / B8 use) were
also found, though these units tended to be on modern industrial estates and appeared unsuitable for
waste development.
As an alternative to these sources recourse was made to local contacts with knowledge of the area. As a
result the following sites were identified:
R French & Sons Ltd., Woodland House, Drury Lane, Hastings, East Sussex, TN38 9BA;
Sussex Waste Management, Whitworth Road, St Leonards-on-Sea, TN37 7PZ;
Links Waste Management, Down Barn Farm, Ninfield Road, Bexhill-on-Sea, TN39 5JP; and
Land at Marley Lane, Near Battle, TN33 0RB.
The identified sites are presented on the plan entitled “Locations of Considered Alternative Sites” included
at Appendix 14.
9.2 R French & Sons Ltd
This site has been identified for the following reasons:
it is an existing waste management site; and
it is located approximately 1 mile from Hastings
The site is operated by R French & Sons, who specialise in Skip Hire, waste transfer and sorting of
commercial and industrial waste. In terms of the site selection criteria the site is located well within the
settlement boundary of Hastings and appears well placed to serve the waste management needs of the
local area. The site is located on the edge of the Ponswood Industrial Estate, approximately 60m from
the nearest residential properties.
Page 27 of 41
The site includes a Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) for waste processing and designated bays for
segregation. The site is in busy and active use and accommodating additional C&D waste recycling is
understood not to be possible. Such proposals incorporating the crushing of C&D waste in addition to the
existing operations at the site, including the siting of stockpiles, and stationing of machinery, would
appear to lead to the potential for conflict with the existing layout and arrangement of uses.
Notwithstanding these findings the applicant has made enquiries of the owner and has been informed the
site is not available.
Waterman concludes this site is not a viable alternative.
9.3 Sussex Waste Management
This site has been identified for the following reasons:
it is an existing waste management site;
it is located approximately 1.5 miles from Hastings;
has a developable area of 0.4ha; and
is located close to the A21.
The site is operated by Sussex Waste Management, a skip hire company with their own waste processing
and sorting capabilities. The site is located on the West Ridge Industrial Estate within the settlement
boundary of Hastings. The site is accessed via Whitworth Road which has access to the A21 and the
primary road network.
The site is located on an existing industrial estate, substantially screened by vegetation cover. The site
has been in use for waste transfer activities since around October 2009, it is understood C&D waste
processing (by means of crushing) is not currently permitted at the site.
A planning permission (reference HS/2504/CC) was granted by ESCC for the development of a “48 bed
residential unit with day therapy suite, outreach and consulting rooms” facility adjacent to the site on 16
December 2006, and a number of reserved matters applications have been made since that time.
Accordingly it appears there is a good prospect the development will be constructed.
The proximity of the residential unit to Sussex Waste Management’s site begs the question as to whether
the introduction of a C&D waste recycling use (including crushing) would be regarded as a compatible
land use. On first consideration it would appear not to be consistent with policy W17 of the SEP.
Notwithstanding these findings the applicant has made enquiries of the owner and has been informed the
site is not available.
Waterman concludes this site is not a viable alternative.
9.4 Links Waste Management
This site has been identified the following reasons:
it is an existing waste management site;
it is located approximately 2.0 miles from Bexhill; and
located close to the A269.
The site is operated by Links Waste Management Limited who specialise in skip hire, waste transfer and
processing. The site is located just outside of Bexhill in the village of Lunsford’s Cross, 2 miles from the
centre of Bexhill. The site is accessed via Ninfield Road otherwise known as the A269 and is well
connected to the primary road network.
Page 28 of 41
The site lies in a countryside location (outside the development boundary), residential properties
neighbouring it to the west. To the north and east land is in agricultural use. To the south is Ninfield
Road and agricultural land beyond. The facility has planning permission (reference WD/631/CM, granted
by ESCC July 2010) for the storage of hardcore and soils, sorting and transfer of materials, and storage
space for empty skips. The permission allows the site to receive up to 25,000 tonnes of waste per
annum. Condition (3) of the planning permission disallows the processing of waste, without further
approval being sought.
This site appears to be an alternative. Its scale is beyond that sought by the applicant, and the planning
permission does not (currently) allow for processing. Its suitability to support processing is not known.
The site is not well placed to serve the rural villages and settlements in the east of the Plan area.
Waterman concludes this site is not a viable alternative.
9.5 Land at Marley Lane
This site has been identified for the following reasons:
it has a developable area of approximately 0.6 ha;
it is located close to the A21;
it is allocated for employment use; and
it is located approximately 4.7 miles from Hastings.
The site is allocated for proposed business uses (industrial/storage purposes). Interests to be protected
include ancient woodland. The site is in a groundwater source protection zone. The site lies within the
High Weald AONB. It is understood the planning history for the site is complex, an enforcement notice
(we believe for unauthorised development) having been upheld on appeal.
This site appears to be an alternative. Its potential scale appears to be beyond that sought by the
applicant. Whether a waste use would be a satisfactory alternative to the proposed industrial / storage is
unknown. The potential price of the site either in lease or freehold is unknown.
The site is not well placed to serve the rural villages and settlements in the east of the Plan area.
Waterman concludes this site is not a viable alternative.
9.6 Conclusion of Alternative Sites Assessment
The assessment identified four potentially suitable sites. Despite making further enquires no other sites
worthy of assessment were identified. The site at Links Waste Management, and the land at Marley Lane
are alternatives, in principle. In practice however the sites would appear unsuitable to serve the rural
villages and settlements in the east of the Plan area. The sites are also not reasonably available to the
applicant.
Page 29 of 41
10. Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO)
Paragraph 5.12 of the WLP states that “new development will need to represent the Best Practicable
Environment Option (BPEO)”. It is understood such an assessment includes considering whether
proposals for development are “of the right type, in the right place and at the right time”. It is further
understood planning applications will therefore be considered against policies in the development plan
and other material considerations. For small scale facilities of the kind proposed, policy WLP1 states the
waste local plans strategy. Policies WLP2, WLP14 and WLP35 identify locational and operational criteria
against which individual proposals are likely to be considered.
10.1 Type
With reference to policy WLP35 the proposal is small in scale and built development is limited to the
installation of a wheel wash, laying of impermeable pavement and erection of an acoustic barrier.
The processes to be performed at the site will recover value from waste, preparing material for re-use,
enabling recycling and diverting as much waste as feasible from landfill disposal. The facility therefore
assists in the delivery of sustainable development by driving waste management in East Sussex up the
waste hierarchy. Recycling waste is a preferable alternative to landfill disposal. The design of the facility
takes account of the principles of sustainable development, placing relevant weight on environmental,
economic and social factors.
The facility will be operated to standards regulated under the Environmental Permitting regime. This
means the site will be subject to monitoring and enforcement by the EA, the crusher activities will be
subject to monitoring and enforcement by the Local Authority.
10.2 Location
The impact on amenity, the local environment, landscape and character of the AONB have been
considered and assessed. It has been demonstrated that the proposal is capable of being sited at this
location.
The site is located on previously developed land and is proximal to the area it will serve, including the
rural villages and settlements in the east of the Plan area and the urban area of Hastings.
The predominant source of C&D waste arisings in East Sussex, and the markets for the recycled
products will include the urban areas as well as rural villages and settlements. Ready access can be
gained to the site from the route network using an existing access.
10.3 Timing
The aim of national and development plan policy is to move waste management up the waste hierarchy.
This facility would provide additional re-use, recycling and recovery capacity helping divert as much waste
as feasible from landfill disposal. Analysis has shown there is currently a need for a facility of the
proposed type in this locality.
The proposed development will play its part in delivering self-sufficiency over the plan period in the
region, but more specifically within East Sussex. It will enable the community it serves to make a timely
and responsible use of waste.
The facility will operate within a network of other facilities, each with its own offer to the marketplace.
Collectively these facilities will serve to meet the needs of their communities in the plan period. This
serves to meet strategic aims within proximity of the site and therefore contribute toward the achievement
of self-sufficiency.
It is considered the proposed development is the BPEO.
Page 30 of 41
11. Compliance with Planning Policy
11.1 Introduction
Under Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 the County Council has a duty
to determine planning applications in accordance with the Development Plan unless material
considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the statutory development plan consists of the South East
Plan 2009 (SEP), East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan (WLP) 2006 and Rother District
Local Plan (RDLP) 2006. Matters capable of being material considerations include:
relevant policies and guidance set out at the European and National levels (including the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and retained Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and other
documents);
development plan documents being prepared by ESCC and Rother District Council which in time will
replace the WLP and RDLP;
the abolition of the SEP under the Localism Act 2011.
11.2 Policy Context
Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC): includes: the objective of using waste as a resource;
increases the target for recycling of non-hazardous construction and demolition waste to a minimum of
70% (by weight) by 2020; and confirms the waste hierarchy shall apply in the priority order: prevention,
preparing for re-use, recycling, other recovery (e.g. energy recovery) and lastly disposal.
Waste Strategy for England 2007: Places emphasis on waste prevention, re-use and increased
diversion from landfill. The strategy identified the construction sector as the largest single source of
waste arisings in England and commented that the largest single component of this was found to be 90
million tonnes of inert wastes suitable for reprocessing into aggregates.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): sets out the Government’s planning policies for England
and how these are expected to be applied. The framework does not contain specific waste policies, since
national waste policy will be published as part of the National Waste Management Plan for England.
National Planning Policy Documents: PPS10 (Planning and Waste Management).
South East Plan 2009 (SEP): Policies CC1 (Sustainable Development), M2 (Recycled and Secondary
Aggregates), NRM9 (Air Quality), NRM10 (Noise), W3 (Regional Self-Sufficiency), W4 (Sub-regional Self-
Sufficiency), W5 (Targets for Diversion from Landfill), W6 (Recycling and Composting), W17 (Location of
Waste Management Facilities) and C3 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty).
East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan (WLP) 2006: Policies WLP1 (Plan Strategy),
WLP2 (Transport Strategy), WLP14 (Recycling and Recovery Facilities for Construction and Demolition
Waste), WLP 35 (General Amenity Considerations), WLP 36 (Transport Considerations) and WLP 39
(Design Considerations).
Rother District Local Plan (RDLP) 2006: Policies DS1 (Development Principles), DS2 (Development in
Rural Areas), DS3 & DS4 (Development Boundaries), GD1 (General Development Considerations) and
TR2 (Transport).
The East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Development Plan
Document, Submission Waste and Minerals Plan, June 2012 (Submission WMP): Policies WMP2b
(turning waste into a resource); WMP3 (sustainable provision and use of minerals); WMP6a (sustainable
locations for waste development); WMP24 (General Amenity), WMP25 (Traffic Impacts) and WMP26
(Environment and Environmental Enhancement).
Page 31 of 41
Rother District Council Core Strategy Proposed Submission Core Strategy (incorporating the
focused amendments) July 2012 (RDC Proposed Submission Core Strategy): Policies OSS1
(Overall Spatial Strategy); OSS3 (Use of Development Boundaries); OSS4 (Location of Development);
OSS5 (General Considerations); EN1 (Landscape Stewardship) and TR3 (Access and New
Development).
11.3 Policy and Strategy
Key issues for consideration are waste management matters (location and whether the proposal
contributes towards the delivery of sustainable waste management), the impact on the AONB and the
impact on local residential amenity and the local environment.
European and National policy and policy in the SEP look to minimise waste production, increase the
amount of waste recovered and reused and decrease the amount of waste landfilled. To achieve this the
SEP identifies there is a need for a wide range of new waste management facilities in the region. SEP
policies set targets for provision of waste management capacity, targets for diversion from landfill for
waste arisings in the region and an allowance for disposal of a declining amount of waste from London for
landfill. The development of processing facilities for the reuse and recycling of waste is therefore
supported in principle.
Such facilities operate to recover value from waste, regarding waste as a resource, rather than a burden,
and diverting waste from landfill. Waste Strategy 2007 identified the construction sector as the largest
single source of waste arisings, confirmed it as a priority sector, commented that rates of landfilling for
construction waste appeared high and identified scope for improved performance. The strategy sets out
national targets for better waste management for C&D waste by seeking to halve this type of waste going
to landfill by 2012 as a result of waste reduction, re-use and recycling.
The strategy also confirmed the Government’s key objectives included: securing “investment in
infrastructure needed to divert waste from landfill”; and obtaining “the most environmental benefit from
that investment”.
Identifying suitable locations for waste facilities is challenging. The constraints to development include:
devising schemes which are environmentally acceptable, offering a hierarchical approach to waste
management; being close enough to areas of population in order to secure steady supplies of waste for
reprocessing and to those likely to use the re-useable and recycled materials produced; and respecting
the special qualities of designated areas, including AONBs. Approximately two thirds of the WLP area is
AONB, the application site itself lies adjacent to (but within) the western boundary of the High Weald
AONB and close to the Westfield Lane settlement boundary.
The NPPF published in March 2012 replaced much of previous Government policy set out in a series of
planning policy statements, minerals planning policy statements, guidance notes and Government
circulars.
At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which at paragraph 14
states should be seen as a golden thread running through both decision taking and plan making. For
decision taking the NPPF says this means permitting, without delay, proposals that accord with the
development plan. Where development plan policies are not up to date silent or absent, permission
should be granted unless:
“any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when
assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or–
specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”
Included in the latter are policies relating to AONBs.
Page 32 of 41
The NPPF (at paragraph 17) states that “a set of core land-use planning principles should underpin both
plan-making and decision-taking.” These include:
(at bullet point 3) that plans “should take account of market signals, such as land prices … and set
out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in their area, taking
account of the needs of the residential and business communities”;
(at bullet point 5) that planning should “take account of the different roles and character of different
areas … recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving
rural communities within it”;
(at bullet point 7) that planning should “contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural
environment and reducing pollution. Allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser
environmental value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework”; and
(at bullet point 8) that planning should “encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has
been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value”.
The NPPF then sets out national policy for achieving sustainable development under a series of thirteen
headings. In relation to conserving and enhancing the natural environment the NPPF (at paragraph 109)
states that “the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment”. It
lists several measures including: “protecting and enhancing valued landscapes…”; “minimising impacts
on biodiversity…” and “preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at
unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise
pollution or land instability”. Planning decisions should therefore consider the potential impacts of
development proposals on the environment, and avoid significant impact.
11.4 Development in the Countryside and AONB
The location of the site outside the development boundary of Westfield Lane and location within the High
Weald AONB are included in the reasons why the EN was served. Inset Map No.37 from the RDLP
shows the location of the site in relation to the Westfield Lane development boundary. The site lies
approximately 75m to the east of the development boundary and on the boundary of, but within, the
AONB.
Although located in the countryside outside a defined development boundary the larger part of the land
covered by the EN is not currently land in agricultural or woodland use, but land with an EUC which
includes for use as a woodyard and storage of hardcore. To the east of the site lies land in waste use
(metal scrap yard and end of life vehicle depollution facility), with residential and other buildings
associated with Hole Farm and Sandhole Farm lying beyond. Land use in the vicinity of the site is
described in the section entitled “Site Description and Surrounding Area” above.
Government policy for the countryside is based on ensuring both rural prosperity and the protection and
enhancement of the character of the countryside. Paragraph 113 of the NPPF states that “authorities
should set criteria based polices for assessing development proposals on or affecting landscape areas.”
Nationally designated areas, such as AONBs, are confirmed as having the “highest status of protection in
relation to landscape and scenic beauty” and that “great weight should be given to conserving landscape
and scenic beauty” (paragraph 115 NPPF).
The NPPF advises (at paragraph 116) that “Planning permission should be refused for major
developments in these designated areas [assumed to include AONBs] except in exceptional
circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. Consideration of such
applications should include an assessment of:
the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of
permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy;
Page 33 of 41
the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for
it in some other way; and
any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the
extent to which that could be moderated.”
Even though this planning application is not in relation to a “major” development assessments have been
undertaken, to a relevant degree, in order to evaluate whether this development is appropriate in a rural
location and the impact of it on the AONB designation. The assessments relate to issues identified in
development plan policy, and other material considerations, such as the NPPF, as well as responding to
the particular matters and areas of concern raised in the EN.
SEP Policy C3 states “High priority will be given to conservation and enhancement of natural beauty” in
areas of AONB “and planning decisions should have regard to their setting”, with “proposals for
development” considered “in that context”. “In considering proposals for development, the emphasis
should be on small-scale proposals that are sustainably located and designed”. It also states “Proposals
which support the economies and social wellbeing of the AONBs and their communities …. will be
encouraged provided they do not conflict with the aim of conserving and enhancing natural beauty”.
Approximately two thirds of the WLP area is covered by areas designated as AONBs; the High Weald
AONB, in which the site is located, and the South Downs AONB. Within the Rother District Council area
some 82% is designated as AONB. Both the WLP and RDLP contain policies to protect the landscape
and natural beauty of the AONB. Policy WLP3 sets out issues that will be taken into account when
determining planning applications for major waste development in the AONB with proposals for minor
waste proposals to be assessed against relevant Structure Plan (now SEP) policies and other relevant
policies in the waste local plan and other Local Plans. Policy WLP1 requires proposals to “accord with
the objectives of and not cause damage to” AONBs and WLP35 requires proposals to satisfy criteria
including “(a) ......be of a scale, form and character appropriate to its location”; and that there is no
unacceptable adverse effect “(d) on the recreational or tourist use of an area, or the use of existing public
access or rights of way”; and “(e) on areas or features of demonstrable landscape......importance.”
The emerging waste and minerals plan (Submission WMP) also refers to the difficulty in identifying sites
for waste development in the plan area due to the nature of the built and natural environments and extent
of designated areas. Areas where it is considered the best opportunities for waste recycling and recovery
facilities are likely to be found are identified as ‘Areas of Focus’ under Policy WMP6a. The policy
recognises that outside the Areas of Focus other sites may be acceptable. Supporting paragraph 3.26
states that there may be sites “just outside” where “there may be overriding sustainability reasons for
permitting development, such as supporting movement up the waste hierarchy or being well located to
the strategic road network.” Paragraph 3.35 identifies that in accordance with national and regional
policy waste management facilities should not be precluded from the AONB. Accordingly Policy WMP6a
states small scale facilities should not be precluded from the AONB “where development is for local
needs and where it would not compromise the objectives of the designation.”
Amongst other considerations RDLP Policy DS1 requires proposals avoid prejudicing the character and
qualities of the environment, particularly the AONB, and to respect the importance of the countryside in
terms of its distinct landscape character, natural resources, woodland and agriculture. The RDLP
envisages that the predominant land uses in rural areas will continue to be woodland and agriculture and
that protecting the character of the countryside, most of which is in the AONB, is very important. RDLP
Policy DS2 deals with development in rural areas generally restricting to development which needs to be
located in the countryside. RDLP Policy DS3 defines development boundaries for existing towns and
villages with the majority of new development expected to take place within development boundaries.
On land shown as countryside outside the development area boundaries RDLP Policy DS4 expects
existing uses, for the most part, to remain unchanged.
Page 34 of 41
Proposals for new development outside the development boundaries are required to accord with
Structure Plan (now SEP) and Local Plan policies and, unless specifically provided for in these policies
for the proposed form of development to be located in the countryside, proposals outside the
development boundary are required to “demonstrate that a countryside location is necessary”.
The emerging RDC Proposed Submission Core Strategy contains similar policies dealing with protection
of designated areas and to guide the pattern of activity and development; namely OSS1; OSS3; OSS4;
and OSS5.
This application concerns waste recycling and recovery development in the AONB but at a scale which
the WLP considers to be small scale. Consistent with policies C3 (SEP), WLP1 and WLP35 (WLP); and
DS1 (RDLP) assessments of the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the landscape
is required.
Landscape and visual assessments have been undertaken. The work included addressing the reasons
for the issuing of the EN. The existing use of the land under the EUC, which would continue, was taken
into consideration. The landscape and visual assessments identified that the AONB, in this area, is
characterised by the undulating topography of the High Weald, which rolls away in a series of deeply
incised, northerly orientated valleys from the main west to east ridge at Baldslow (Baldslow lies to the
south west of the site). Also characteristic of the locality is the abundance of woodland and mature
vegetation networks and hedgerows.
The topography and vegetation cover in the locality, together with the dense perimeter vegetation forming
the boundary of the site, screen the site from many of the potential views. The assessment identified that
visibility of the site was limited to a radius of approximately 500m to 1 km to the east and north and
approximately 200m to the south. Within the zone of visibility, activity on the site would largely be
screened by the existing boundary vegetation and the adjoining scrap metal yard development. Views of
and into the site from Public Right of Way (Footpath 52) are largely screened by existing vegetation,
though glimpsed views are possible when the trees and hedgerows are not in leaf. For these reasons
much of the planning proposal does not register in the landscape, nor is it visible from public vantage
points.
In terms of impact on the landscape Waterman considers the waste development is not fundamentally
different from the uses covered under the EUC which have been in existence since the designation of the
AONB. The site is previously developed land and although the proposed waste use involves additional
activity at the site, the nature and characteristics involving transport of materials to and from the site, and
the storage and processing of materials are similar to the EUC use and involves shared use of some
plant. The waste use would generate up to 20 vehicle movements per day and the traffic generated by
EUC use has been assessed as also being 20 vehicle movements per day. That is a worst case
scenario.
The other assessments identified a range of measures to mitigate identified potential impacts. These
include adopting a landscape strategy to strengthen and enhance the screening properties of the
boundary vegetation, implementing operational features (such as control over stockpile heights, dust
control measures, control over hours and days of operation) to minimise the impact on recreational use of
the AONB, and the amenity of local residents, and assist in absorbing the proposed waste development
into the local landscape, enhancing features of value, and improving the site’s contribution to the
landscape character and visual amenity of this part of the AONB.
A “Landscape and Visual Addendum Report” assessing the impact of incorporating an acoustic barrier
into the proposals has additionally been prepared. The report confirms the additional controls to be
adopted, including techniques to avoid impact on trees and vegetation, and recommends a native screen
planting mix.
Page 35 of 41
Having assessed the nature of the waste development Waterman is of the opinion that, with the
screening afforded by boundary vegetation and the vegetation and topography in the locality of the site,
the proposal does not detract from the character of and quality of the landscape and countryside, nor is it
incompatible with the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the High Weald AONB.
As referred to above, the existing WLP, emerging waste and minerals plan and RDLP and emerging RDC
Core Strategy refer to difficulties in accommodating new development in the plan areas due to the nature
of the built and natural environments, and extensive areas covered by designations, the AONB in
particular.
Waste development is not precluded from the AONB under national and regional (SEP) policy, and WLP
policy relating to minor/small scale waste development in the AONB requires proposals to accord with the
objectives of, and not cause damage to, AONBs, and be of a scale, form and character appropriate to the
location, and not result in an adverse impact on the recreational use of an area or use of existing public
rights of way.
The site lies just outside the Hastings area of focus identified in the Submission WMP. Under the waste
management section above it has been demonstrated there is a qualitative need for additional waste
management capacity for C&D waste in the WLP area, to serve rural villages and settlements in the east
of the Plan area and the urban area of Hastings which the application site is proximal to and ideally
placed to serve, as well as supporting movement up the waste hierarchy. No suitable alternative site
outside the AONB and within a development boundary or the urban area of Hastings has been identified.
The application site with access direct to the A28 which links to the A21 is well located to the strategic
road network. Accordingly Waterman considers in terms of RDLP policy DS4 and emerging RDC
Proposed Submission Core Strategy Policies OSS3 and OSS4 it has been demonstrated that a
countryside location is necessary for a facility, of this small scale, of this type in this location at this time.
The potential impact of the waste development on the landscape and character of the AONB from
contamination issues, cultural heritage, noise, dust, air quality (emissions from vehicles and plant and
machinery), and transport are considered in the sections below.
11.5 Environmental Impacts
Development plan policy sets out general development principles for identifying sites and locations for
development and determination of planning applications / appeals. SEP Policy W17 states that facilities
at existing sites and potential new sites should be assessed against characteristics including being
capable of meeting a range of locally based environmental and amenity criteria. The SEP recognises that
noise can have a serious effect on the quiet enjoyment of property and places, reducing quality of life and
Policy NRM 10 (Noise) states that measures to address and reduce noise pollution will be developed at
regional and local levels through design and construction measures, the location of new development and
managing traffic noise.
SEP Policy NRM 9 (Air Quality) aims to secure continued improvements in air quality in the region and
identifies that local development documents, and development control, can help achieve improvements in
local air quality in a number of ways, including encouraging use of best practice during construction
activities to reduce levels of dust and other pollutants and reducing the environmental impacts of
transport.
Paragraph 6.7 of the WLP states that proposals for minor waste proposals in the AONB will be assessed
against relevant policies in the plan and any other local plans. WLP Policy 35 (General Amenity) requires
proposals to satisfy a range of criteria including: impact on the amenity of land uses likely to be affected;
whether adequate means of controlling matters such as noise and dust are secured; impact on the
recreational or tourist use of an area or use of public rights of way; and no unacceptable adverse effect
on areas or features of demonstrable landscape, archaeological or historic importance.
Page 36 of 41
WLP Policy 36 deals with specific transport issues associated with waste management proposals
including consideration of access arrangements, impact on safety of other road users, cyclists and
pedestrians and impact of the amount of traffic generated. These requirements are carried forward in
Policies WMP24 and WMP25 in the Submission WMP.
General development considerations in policies Policy GD1 of the RDLP Policy and emerging RDC
Proposed Submission Core Strategy Policy OSS5 contain criteria against which the acceptability of
proposals are considered including the impact on amenity of adjoining properties, traffic and transport
impacts, impact on the character and appearance of the locality, compatibility with the conservation of the
natural beauty of the High Weald AONB, ensuring development does not prejudice the character,
appearance or setting of heritage features, addresses any known or suspected contamination of the site,
or threat from landfill gas.
As referred to above in the section entitled “Identification of Potential Impacts” a number of assessments
have been undertaken.
11.5.1 Contaminated land
Development plan policy requires the potential for contamination and risk from landfill gas to be
investigated and where necessary provision made for suitable remediation. Given the site was a former
mineral working and landfill completed in the 1980s, an assessment of the potential for contamination and
landfill gas and impacts has been undertaken. This identified no risk to the current use or future
development from contamination from the landfilled materials or risk from landfill gas. No remedial works
are required. Fly tipped, presumed asbestos containing materials, and Japanese knotweed, an invasive
species listed in Schedule 9 Part II of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, were found on site. The
Japanese knotweed was found on the boundary in the south eastern part of the site outside the
operational area, but where landscape works are proposed. To address these matters the applicant is
removing the fly tipped materials from the site for proper disposal and will undertake an eradication
scheme to control and remove Japanese knotweed from the site as part of the proposed landscaping
scheme.
Accordingly it is considered the proposal complies with Policy GD1 (xiii) (RDLP) and emerging Policy
OSS5 (iv) (RDC Proposed Submission Core Strategy).
11.5.2 Cultural heritage
The site is previously developed land, including use for mineral extraction and waste disposal. Current
uses include a woodyard and waste development. No ground works (save for the limited excavation of
post holes to support the acoustic barrier), erection of buildings or removal of existing vegetation on the
site boundary is proposed. The boundary vegetation and hedgerow along the access road to the north
will be retained, managed and enhanced.
The “Heritage Report” concluded the development would not impact on designated heritage assets in the
surrounding area or their setting nor, provided it was retained and enhanced, the existing hedgerow and
mature trees surrounding the site which were of importance as a heritage asset of historic interest to the
AONB. Accordingly the proposal complies with the objectives of the High Weald AONB Management
Plan and the following development plan policies: C3 (SEP), WLP35 (WLP), GD1(iv, v and vi) (RDLP). It
also accords with the following emerging policies: WMP26 (Submission WMP) and OSS4, OSS5 and
EN1 (RDC Proposed Submission Core Strategy).
Page 37 of 41
11.5.3 Noise
The noise assessment considered the impact of the waste development on the noise environment at
existing noise sensitive receptors and the countryside in the vicinity of the site, including the noise impact
from traffic. The noise assessment demonstrates that the waste development can operate without
harming amenity at nearby residential properties or the recreational amenity and enjoyment of the AONB
by users of the nearest public right of way, and no additional noise control measures were necessary. If
the planning permission is granted control over operational hours would provide control over noise
through restricting the days and times the waste use operates, to the benefit of local amenity.
Following pre-application liaison undertaken with ESCC an additional noise report (the “Addendum Noise
Report”) has been prepared. The addendum report includes for the siting of an acoustic barrier (2.2
metres in height) and takes account of ESCC’s consultation feedback. The report demonstrates noise
impact from the proposed development will be reduced when compared with previous predictions (in the
original report) and fall below the minimum monitored background noise level at each identified sensitive
receptor.
In relation to noise the proposal complies with paragraph 109 of the NPPF and is consistent with the
Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) dated March 2010. The proposal also complies with the
following development plan policies: NRM10 and C3 (SEP), WLP35 (WLP), and GD1(ii, iv, v) (RDLP). It
also accords with the following emerging policies: WMP24 and WMP26 (Submission WMP) and OSS5
and EN1 (RDC Proposed Submission Core Strategy).
11.5.4 Dust
The waste development proposed at the site has the potential to generate particulate dust and impact on
local amenity and the local environment. A generic dust risk assessment has been undertaken - see the
section entitled “Dust Control” above assessing the potential for dust generation from the development,
the types of waste to be managed at the site and activities to be undertaken (vehicle movement, loading
and unloading of materials and processing), the potential to impact on receptors in the vicinity of the site;
and to identify appropriate dust control, mitigation and management measures required to ensure the
development does not result in an unacceptable dust impact on receptors. Receptors include occupants
of residential properties, neighbouring development, users of Footpath 52 (Public Right of Way) and the
wider recreational use of and environment in the AONB.
The generic dust risk assessment identified that the potential for dust escape from the site could be
controlled by a number of means including: sheeting (or other load containment measures) of vehicles
transporting waste materials; limiting vehicle speeds within the site; preventing build-up of dust or other
debris on the site surface and access areas; location of stockpiles within the site, minimising dust
emission by minimising drop heights, dust suppression on stockpiles and temporarily ceasing operations,
for example during dry windy conditions. The generic dust risk assessment concluded that with
appropriate mitigation the residual risk of dust escape from the site is low. The waste development and
plant and equipment used for waste processing would also be subject to dust management controls
through the Environmental Permitting Regime.
It can therefore be concluded that the waste development at the site is capable of being operated in a
way that the creation of dust is minimised and dust emissions controlled. These can be secured by
planning condition and through the Environmental Permitting Regime such that the waste development
will not give rise to adverse effects on neighbouring amenity or the environment and enjoyment of the
AONB and the proposal complies with the following development plan policies: NRM9 (SEP), WLP35
(WLP), and GD1(ii, iv, v) (RDLP). It also accords with the following emerging policies: WMP24
(Submission WMP) and OSS5 (RDC Proposed Submission Core Strategy).
Page 38 of 41
11.5.5 Air Quality
An assessment of the impact of vehicle and plant emissions has been undertaken see the section entitled
“Air Pollution” above. This found that the amount of traffic generated by the waste development and
emissions from the operation of plant and machinery on the site would not result in significant changes in
local air quality. The applicant would maintain plant and equipment in good working order which could be
secured by planning condition.
In relation to air quality it has been demonstrated that emissions from traffic generated by the proposal
and operation of plant and machinery at the site would not result in significant adverse impact on air
quality such as the proposal complies with the following development plan policies: NRM9 (SEP), WLP35
(WLP), and GD1(ii, iv, v) (RDLP). It also accords with the following emerging policies: WMP24
(Submission WMP) and OSS5 (RDC Proposed Submission Core Strategy).
11.5.6 Transport
An assessment of the transport impact of the proposed waste development has been undertaken see the
section entitled “Access and Transportation” above. This assessed the suitability of the existing access
arrangements to the site; the local highway network that would be used to access the site, including
accident data; for the traffic that would be generated (vehicle numbers and type) as well as the traffic
generated by the existing EUC uses. Accessibility by non-car modes of travel, including public transport
for employees based at the site was also assessed.
Within the site there is sufficient space for onsite vehicle manoeuvring, loading and unloading of waste
and the existing EUC uses and parking. A wheel cleaning facility is to be provided. The proposal is likely
to generate very low traffic movements (waste transport and employees), which together with the traffic
generated by the existing EUC use would be in the order of 4 two way movements an hour over the
proposed ten hour working day. This rate of trip generation is considered to be very low. The increase in
vehicle movements attributable to the proposed waste use would not result in an adverse impact on the
local highway in terms of highway capacity and highway safety and impact on other road users, including
cyclists and pedestrians. The existing access arrangements are of sufficient design to accommodate the
volume and nature of the traffic that would be generated by the waste use, and no improvements are
required. For employees the site would be accessible by alternative modes of travel, other than the car,
such as walking, cycling and public transport.
As demonstrated in the section entitled “Waste Management Issues” the site would provide a small scale
facility for C&D waste recycling. Existing capacity of this type in the WLP area is located to the west of
Hastings. The site, with direct access onto the A28, has good road access and is well located to serve
the urban area of Hastings and settlements in the east of the Plan area. It would provide a local facility to
meet the needs of this part of East Sussex, is located as closely as practicable to the sources of waste
that would be managed by it and would reduce the distance waste would need to travel.
The impact of traffic in terms of noise, dust and air quality has also been assessed and the assessments
concluded that the traffic generated by the waste facility at the site would not result in adverse impact on
residential amenity, the recreational use of the AONB or users of Footpath 52 (Public Right of Way), and
the environment in the AONB.
In relation to transport considerations the proposal complies with the following development plan policies:
C3 (SEP), WLP35 and WLP36 (WLP), GD1(ii, iii, iv, v) and TR2 (RDLP). It also accords with the
following emerging policies: WMP24 and WMP25 and WMP26 (Submission WMP) and OSS5 (RDC
Proposed Submission Core Strategy).
Page 39 of 41
11.6 Liaison with ESCC
As noted in the section entitled “Pre-application Liaison” the applicant has, in formulating this planning
application, sought an opportunity to engage with ESCC. It is greatly appreciated that ESCC agreed to
undertake this liaison, particularly given circumstances relating to this site.
The applicant considers the liaison is consistent with the NPPF, most notably “approach[ing] decision-
taking in a positive way” (paragraph 186), “look[ing] for solutions rather than problems” (paragraph 187).
It is considered the liaison enabled the revision and evolution of the proposed development (to
incorporate additional noise mitigation) and this resulted in an improvement to the quality of the proposal.
Page 40 of 41
12. Conclusions
The application concerns the use of land at Hole Farm as a small scale facility for the recycling and
recovery of construction and demolition waste, handling predominantly demolition waste. The site is
previously developed land with an EUC which includes for use as a general woodyard and storage of
hardcore; this use will continue. The site is situated outside a designated development boundary and lies
within the countryside and the High Weald AONB. In issuing the EN, ESCC considered the use of the
land for waste processing:
conflicted with Policies DS4 (‘Outside Development Boundary’) and GD1(iv) (‘Development Criteria –
Character and Appearance’) of the RDLP; and
did not accord with the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty in the area, thereby
conflicting with SEP Policy C3 (‘Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty’), WLP Policy 35 (e) (‘General
Amenity – Landscape’) and RDLP Policy GD1(v) (‘High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’).
In assessing the planning merits of the change of use alleged in the EN, and seeking to demonstrate that
planning permission should be granted, Waterman has assessed the proposal against a range of relevant
development plan policies and issues. Taking account of the scale and nature of the proposed waste
development the proposal has been assessed in the light of policies in the adopted and emerging
development plan and national policy for waste management; development in the countryside and the
AONB; and various environmental and amenity criteria relevant to the locality.
Although small scale the proposed development will make a valuable contribution to sustainable waste
management in East Sussex through driving waste management up the waste hierarchy and reducing
demand for primary raw minerals. Work undertaken in connection with the review of the WLP, assessing
current and future provision for waste facilities does not identify a need for the emerging waste and
minerals plan to make provision for additional CDEW recycling capacity. However, not all existing CDEW
recycling capacity is available for production of recycled and secondary aggregates and the current
distribution of capacity is not well distributed to serve the east of the plan area.
A qualitative need for a facility of this type to serve the east of the plan area has been demonstrated. The
application site, with direct access to the A28 which links to the A21 is well located to the strategic road
network and is ideally located to serve this area. No suitable alternative site outside the AONB, within a
development boundary or the urban area of Hastings has been identified.
East Sussex County Council and Rother District Council acknowledge in their plans that due to the nature
of the natural and built environments, and extensive areas covered by environmental designations, there
is difficulty in identifying suitable sites and land for development.
Although the site lies outside the Westfield Lane development boundary, within the countryside and
AONB the land is not in agricultural or woodland use, but previously developed land. Waste development
is not precluded from the AONB. No suitable alternative site outside the AONB has been identified and it
has been demonstrated that a countryside location is necessary for this small scale waste development to
serve the urban area of Hastings and the rural area to the east.
The landscape and visual assessment has demonstrated that the proposal is of a scale, form and
character appropriate to this part of the High Weald AONB and will not detract from the character of, and
quality of, the landscape and countryside, nor is it incompatible with the conservation and enhancement
of the natural beauty of the AONB.
Assessments undertaken have demonstrated that the operation of a small scale waste recycling facility at
the site will not cause harm to the landscape and character of the AONB. The assessments on other
matters including noise, dust, air pollution and access and traffic, clearly demonstrate that the proposal,
as described above, complete with the mitigation measures proposed and where necessary secured by
planning condition, is capable of being operated without resulting in an adverse impact on residential
Page 41 of 41
amenity, the recreational use of the AONB, users of Footpath 52 (Public Right of Way) and the
environment in the AONB and therefore complies with the relevant development plan policies and
national policies in the NPPF.
August 2012
57 N:\Projects\E12597\100\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-100-R-5.1.2-MCM.CH.docx