Planning Committee Agenda Item No. 7 5 February 2013 Waste Planning Application (County Matter) Erection of a construction and demolition waste recycling plant and storage bays. Crawley Goods Yard, Gatwick Road, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 9RE Application No: WSCC/016/12/CR Report by Strategic Planning Manager Local Member: Bob Burgess Borough: Crawley Executive Summary This report concerns an application proposing the erection of a construction and demolition waste recycling plant and storage bays on land at Crawley Goods Yard, Gatwick Road, Crawley, West Sussex. The proposed operations involve the importation by road of 75,000m3 (approximately 112,500 tonnes) per annum of construction and demolition waste (comprising only inert and uncontaminated material). The material would be stored in purpose built bays. These wastes would subsequently be processed through crushing and screening to produce secondary aggregates for export off-site by road. The proposal would result in an additional 12 HGVs (240 tonnes or 160m3) operated by the Day Group and an additional 3 HGVs (60 tonnes or 40m3) from passing trade each day. These HGV movements equate to an overall increase of 15 HGVs or 30 two-way HGV movements each day in excess of the applicant’s existing HGV movements to and from the Goods Yard (which are 53 HGVs or 106 two-way movements per day). These additional movements represent a 22% in terms of HGVs and two-way movements to and from the Goods Yard per day. Recycling operations, including HGVs entering and exiting the site, are proposed to take place between the hours of 07.00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday, and between the hours of 07:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays. There would be no operations on Sundays or Bank/Public Holidays. The report provides a generalised description of the site and a detailed account of the proposed development, and appraises it against the relevant policy framework from national to local level along with other material considerations. Crawley Borough Council objects to the proposal on the grounds that dust will impact unacceptably on nearby future residents occupying the development of the North-East Sector. London Gatwick Airport and NERL Safeguarding do not object in terms of aerodrome safeguarding. Network Rail has no observations to make with regard to rail safety. The Environment Agency raises no objection but provides general advice on pollution prevention measures and also advises that the proposal will require control through the Environmental permitting regime to be able to operate should planning permission be granted. Internal consultees raise no

Agenda Item No. 7 objection to the proposal. 14 third party representations were received, including the Tinsley Lane Residents’ Association and Eezehaul, a nearby business, all of whom have objected to the proposal. The key concerns relate to need and location of a waste development outweighing impacts on the public, development not according with the NPPF (2012), impacts on highway capacity and road safety, importation and impacts of hazardous materials, impacts upon local amenity and health, including nearby businesses, and the local environment (despite mitigation), particularly resulting from noise, dust and odour and cumulative impacts with existing Goods Yard operations. Consideration of Key Issues The main material planning considerations are whether the proposal:

• meets an identified need;

• is in an appropriate location;

• is acceptable in terms of design, layout and scale;

• is acceptable with regard to impacts on highway capacity and road safety;

• has an acceptable impact on aerodrome safeguarding;

• has an acceptable impact on rail safety;

• has an acceptable impact on the water environment; and

• has an acceptable impact upon local amenity and the local environment. Need for the Development It is considered that the development through increased inert waste recycling accords with PPS10’s aim to move the management of waste up the waste hierarchy. There is a demonstrated need for the recycling of inert waste within the county and its reuse over the period 2010 - 2031 so it is considered to accord with the relevant waste guidance and development plan policies. Location of the Development The proposed development accords with Policy W4 of the draft WLP because the Goods Yard lies within the Area of Search in the north of the County as identified on the Key Diagram, it is within the ‘built-up area boundary’ as designated by Crawley Borough Council, and the site can be accessed to and from the Gatwick Road, which provides direct access north and south to the A23, A2011 and the M23 which are part of the Lorry Route Network. Acceptable Design, Layout and Scale The overall appearance and nature of the proposed development within the context of the Goods Yard site would not be out of keeping within the locality and would improve the site’s current appearance and organisation of on-site operations. Therefore, it is considered that the development is acceptable in terms of design, layout and scale appropriate to its location within an active industrial and commercial setting.

Agenda Item No. 7 Impact upon Highway Capacity and Road Safety The proposed development would result in an increase of 15 HGVs or 30 two-way movements, in excess of the applicant’s existing HGV and two-way movements, to and from the site each day. This overall maximum amounting to 68 HGVs or 136 two-way movements per day does not represent a significant increase in vehicles on the affected highway network. Therefore, subject to the imposition of the conditions proposed in Appendix 1, the proposal would be acceptable with regards to highway capacity and road safety. Impact on Aerodrome Safeguarding The proposed development’s proximity to Gatwick Airport means that aerodrome safeguarding must be considered. Neither London Gatwick Airport nor NERL Safeguarding raise an objection to the proposal. Advice on the use of cranes was given should the applicant require them during construction works. Therefore, the proposed development is acceptable at the site in terms of impacts to aerodrome safeguarding. Impact on Rail Safety The proposed development’s proximity to the London to Brighton mainline railway means that rail safety must be considered. Network Rail raises no concerns in terms of the development’s impacts, which ensure that current operations involving delievries by rail and the use of the adjacent mainline for passenger services remain unaffected. Therefore, the proposed development is acceptable at the site in terms of rail safety Impact upon the Water Environment The proposal involves the importation and recycling of construction and demolition wastes (inert, uncontaminated materials), which would be subject to Environmental Permitting requirements administered by the Environment Agency. Although the proposals have the theoretical potential for polluting groundwater and surface water the Environment Agency does not object. The Environment Agency is satisfied that the development’s impacts could be satisfactorily controlled through both the proposed mitigation and the Permitting regime. It is concluded that the proposals are not likely to give rise to unacceptable impacts upon the water environment. Impact upon Local Amenity and the Local Environment Noise, and Dust: Taking into account the nature of the operations, the applicant’s existing operations and the lapsed planning permissions for the same sort of operation and mitigation proposed, having considered the development against the relevant quantitative standards, it is considered, on balance, that there would not be any unacceptable impact upon local amenity, existing and future, and the local environment resulting from noise and dust subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. Conclusion The proposed development through increasing inert waste recycling within the county and its reuse is in accordance with the policies of the development plan, and

Agenda Item No. 7 would move waste up the waste hierarchy in accordance with national and local policy. Overall, whilst the project would neither improve nor enhance the local landscape, it is of a design, layout and scale that is both in keeping with the wider Goods Yard land uses and would improve the current appearance of the site and organisation of on-site operations. The proposal is considered acceptable in highway capacity and road safety, aerodrome safeguarding and rail safety terms, and poses no significant risk to the water environment. Although there is the potential for some adverse impacts to be caused to local amenity associated with these activities, they would not be significant and would be controlled through the Planning and Permitting regimes Recommendation That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of this report.

1. Introduction 1.1 This report concerns an application proposing the erection of a construction and

demolition waste recycling plant and storage bays on land at Crawley Goods Yard, Gatwick Road, Crawley, West Sussex. The proposed plant and storage bays would be capable of handling a maximum annual throughput of 75,000m3 (approximately 112,500 tonnes) of inert waste materials arising from construction, demolition and excavation projects.

2. Site and Description 2.1 The Goods Yard site is situated approximately 2.5km to the north-east of

Crawley town centre and covers an area of approximately 0.74 hectares (see Appendix 2 - Location Plan).

2.2 The application site is situated within the southern end of the Goods Yard site

and occupies approximately 400m2 of land (see Appendix 3 - Site Plan). 2.3 The site is bordered to the north by other operational land under the applicant’s

control (as well as that of other mineral operators). Along its fenced western boundary it is bordered by Burdens builders’ yard and planting in varying degrees of health. Alongside the southern boundary, the site is bordered by Burdens builders’ yard and established planting/woodland (Summerserve Wood), some of which is Ancient Woodland. The eastern boundary is bordered by other operational land under the applicant’s control, including sidings, and the Brighton to London mainline railway (see Appendix 4 - Existing Facilities Plan).

2.4 Beyond the mainline railway and to the east/north-east of the application site is

land known as the ‘North-East Sector’. This area of land covering approximately 16km2 has outline planning permission from Crawley Borough Council for mixed use development. This includes up to 1,900 dwellings, a primary school community facilities, shops, and 5,000m2 of area for employment floorspace. Crawley Borough Council is presently working with the applicant on the resolution of ‘reserved matters’ details relating to the permission’s conditions.

Agenda Item No. 7 2.5. The nearest existing residential properties to the site are situated in the Tinsley

Lane South area, approximately 250m to the south-west and west. Two sports fields also lie in close proximity to the site, approximately 120m to the west and 170m to the south-west respectively (see Appendix 2 - Location Plan).

2.5 Access by road to the wider Day Group site and the application site is via an

existing, shared access road from Gatwick Road at the site’s northern boundary. Other adjoining commercial properties and the Goods Yard share this existing vehicular access.

2.6 Rail access to the site is via the sidings that connect to the Brighton to London

mainline railway. 3. Relevant Planning History 3.1 The site is an established goods yard and is safeguarded as an existing rail

depot. 3.2 Planning permission was granted by the County Council for an aggregate

recycling facility at the Goods Yard on 4 August 1998 under planning permission CR/97/0397 albeit in an area of the wider Days site (see Appendix 5 - CR/97/0397 Approved Site Location). This development also sought to import construction and demolition wastes to produce secondary aggregates. This planning permission was not commenced within the approved five year period.

3.3 Planning permission CR/03/0470, was granted by the County Council on 24

October 2003, for the variation of condition 1 of planning permission CR/97/0397 to extend the time to commence until 2008. The Day Group did not implement this planning permission, choosing instead to open a facility in Surrey.

3.4 Within the wider Goods Yard site, planning permission was granted by the

County Council for new infrastructure and the importation of road borne recycled asphalt planings for use at the existing Aggregate Industries asphalt plant in October 2009 under planning permission WSCC/010/09/CR. An application (WSCC/062/11/CR) for the removal of condition 3 from WSCC/010/09/CR (to allow Sunday and Bank Holiday working) was submitted to the County Council in 2011 but was subsequently withdrawn.

3.5 In 2012, planning permission was granted to the Day Group by the County

Council for the erection of a workshop building, lorry wash facility and relocated fuel storage tank within Day Group’s operational land. This area of land lies within the footprint of the aggregate recycling facility at the Goods Yard that was approved on 4 August 1998 under planning permission CR/97/0397 (refer to paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3) but never implemented.

4. The Proposal Background 4.1 The proposal is for the erection of a construction and demolition waste recycling

plant and storage bays capable of handling a maximum annual throughput of

Agenda Item No. 7

75,000m3 (approximately 112,500 tonnes) of inert waste materials arising from construction, demolition and excavation projects.

4.2 Presently, the wider Day Group site handles approximately 300,000 tonnes per

annum of aggregate comprising marine aggregates, limestone, clean stone products and hard stone, which is imported by rail. Up to 3 deliveries are received each day with additional minimal volumes of aggregate imported by road. Aggregates are discharged from the railway siding by hydraulic excavator and stockpiled in allocated areas within the wider site depending on proposed use.

4.3 A small volume of aggregate, to supplement sand and gravel sales, is imported

by road. This equates to 2 HGVs or 4 two-way movements per day. 4.4 Approximately 25,000 tonnes (approximately 16,666m3) per annum of concrete

and hardcore is imported by road to the Goods Yard site for crushing and screening over a period not exceeding 28 days in a calendar year.

4.5 Except for the aggregates that are used within the Aggregate Industries asphalt

plant that is located within the wider Goods Yard site, all materials are exported by road.

Site Infrastructure

4.6 Whilst access and egress to and from the application site by road and rail would

remain unchanged, existing workshops, stores, fuel storage and water tanks, concrete retaining wall and limestone storage area would be removed and/or relocated from within the application site.

4.7 The existing site offices, staff washroom, car parking area, weighbridge and

wheel washing area (to clean HGVs wheels before exiting the site) would be retained as would the area of landscaping along the western site boundary.

4.8 Two new high post and sleeper storage bays would be constructed and installed

as part of this proposal. The first at 4m in height along the application site’s western boundary to store limestone (see Appendix 6 - Site Layout Plan) and the second at 4.6m in height to the north of the application site to provide for storage of construction and demolition waste with one area use for concrete and hardcore break up and the other area for asphalt and road planings storage and break up.

4.9 The construction and demolition waste recycling plant would be located towards

the northern end of the application site and would principally comprise a crusher and a screener.

4.10 The crusher would be housed in a steel frame building with plastisol light steel

profile cladding, finished in goosewing grey. The structure would measure 15m by 10m, with a pitched roof measuring 7.5m in height at its ridge. Wide roller doors would allow skips to be transported in and out of the building. The screener, a 4-way split screener, would adjoin the crusher to its south and would measure up to 5.5m in height. Depending on the type of material being processed, the structure can be moved within the site and stored if not needed.

Agenda Item No. 7 4.11 The crushing and screening process comprises feeding raw material into the

primary impact crushing unit. Problem materials would be removed and then material >50mm crushed. Loose steel would then be removed and the finished product either stockpiled or fed directly onto a 4 way screen deck for further size production.

4.12 Final material would then be stockpiled within the confines of the new high post

and sleeper storage bays along the western boundary that is also to house rail borne aggregates. Material stockpiled in the open storage bays would be exported from the site by road, approximately 20% by the applicant’s vehicles and 80% by local contractors. Recycled asphalt would be stored within the adjoining Aggregate Industries bays for use in their asphalt plant within the Goods Yard.

Hours of Operations

4.13 Recycling operations, including HGVs entering and exiting the site, are proposed to take place, between the hours of 07.00 and 18:00 Monday and Friday, and between the hours of 07:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays. No operations would take place on Sundays or Bank/Public Holidays.

HGV and Other Vehicle Movements

4.14 The importation of 75,000m3 (approximately 112,500 tonnes) of construction and demolition waste would be undertaken by tipper vehicles (HGVs), typically 20 tonne load goods vehicles. 80% (60,000m3 or 90,000 tonnes per annum) is expected to brought by Day Group lorries and 20% (15,000m3 or 22,500 tonnes per annum) by passing trade. This equates to 240 tonnes or 160m3 per day or 12 loads by the Day Group and 60 tonnes or 40m3 per day or 3 loads by passing trade.

4.15 Once unloaded, Day Group vehicles would be loaded with rail imported

aggregates, processed product and mixtures of materials for transport to other clients. The application states that these vehicles, once emptied, would collect construction and demolition waste from nearby construction sites, usually within a 10 mile radius of the Goods Yard. These collected wastes would be transported to the Goods Yard for recycling and mixing with aggregates prior to exportation.

4.16 Existing exportation of aggregates result in 240,000 tonnes or 160,000m3

(80%) being exported from the site by road per annum, equating to 44 loads or 88 total vehicle movements per day. 60,000 tonnes or 40,000m3 (20%) per annum is used at the adjoining asphalt plant within the wider Goods Yard site.

4.17 A small volume of aggregate, to supplement sand and gravel sales, is imported

by road. This equates to 2 HGVs or 4 two-way movements per day. 4.18 Of the 25,000 tonnes or 16,666m3 per annum of concrete and hardcore

imported by road to the site for crushing, 20,000 tonnes or 13,333m3 is imported by the Day Group, and 5,000 tonnes or 3,333m3 by passing trade, equating to 5 loads per day.

4.19 Overall, HGVs associated with the applicant’s existing operations (both

imported and exported) are 53 HGVs or 106 two-way movements per day.

Agenda Item No. 7 4.20 Vehicular access to and from the application site from Gatwick Road is shared

by a number of businesses. The other prime users being Yeoman Asphalt and Cemex. Other smaller users who contribute vehicle movements mainly involve vans and cars.

Landscaping and Boundary Treatment

4.21 Along the site’s western fenced boundary, all existing trees and planting some

of which are in poor health would be retained as part of the proposed development.

5.0 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5.1 The proposal falls within Part 11(b) “installations for the disposal of waste” of

Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011. The proposed development is a Schedule 2 development and is capable of having a significant environmental effect on the environment.

5.2 On 30 April 2012, the County Council issued a Screening Opinion which

confirmed that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) would not be required for the proposed development.

6. Policy Statutory Development Plan

6.1 Planning applications must be determined in accordance with the statutory

‘development plan’ unless material considerations indicate otherwise. For the purposes of the application, the following approved or adopted planning policy documents form the statutory development plan: the South East Plan (2009), the Crawley Borough Local Plan (2000), and the West Sussex Minerals Local Plan (2003).

6.2 The key policies in the development plan, which are material to the

determination of the application, are summarised below, and their conformity or otherwise with the National Planning Policy Framework considered. In addition, reference is made to relevant national planning policy guidance and other policies that guide the decision-making process and which are material to the determination of the application.

South East Plan (SEP) (2009) 6.3 The South East Plan (SEP) identifies: a need for the provision of capacity for

increased recycling, composting and recovery within the region (Policy W3); a need to achieve targets for diversion from landfill (Policy W5); a need to achieve targets for recycling and composting (Policy W6); a need to provide waste management facilities to meet overall regional targets (Policy W7), location of waste management facilities (Policy W17), reduce the use of primary aggregates in construction (Policy M1), increased provisions and use of recycled and secondary aggregates (Policy M2) and Safeguarding of Rail Depots from Inappropriate Developments (Policy M4). Other relevant policies are Water Quality (Policy NRM2), Woodlands (Policy NRM7) and Air Quality (NRM9).

Agenda Item No. 7 6.4 All of these policies are considered to be in conformity with the NPPF (2012). Crawley Borough Local Plan (2000) 6.5 The relevant policies are Requirements of All New Development (Policy GD1),

Safe and Proper Use of a Site (Policy GD3), Landscaping (Policy GD5), Sustainability Measures (Policy GD13), Pollution Prevention & Hazards (Policy GD22), Surface Water Run-Off (Policy GD25), Illumination (Policy GD31), and Construction Work (Policy GD34). None of these policies are considered to conflict with the NPPF (2012).

West Sussex Minerals Local Plan (2003) 6.8 The relevant policies are Appropriate Locations for Recycling Operations (Policy

4), Securing by Conditions Least Environmental Harm from Recycling Operations (Policy 7), Safeguarding Existing Rail-Heads from Other Development (Policy 37), Highway Access to Minerals Sites (Policy 48), Details of Buildings, Machinery and Plant (Policy 52), Importation of Material to Mineral Sites (Policy 57), Hours of Work (Policy 63) and Reclamation Proposals for Mineral Sites (Policy 21). None of these policies are considered to conflict with the NPPF (2012).

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

6.9 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out Government’s planning

polices for England and how these are expected to be applied. It helps guide the decision-making process in terms of matters which are material to the determination of the application. The relevant paragraphs in the NPPF are:

14 (approving development that accords with the development plan); 17 (core planning principles; 32 (transport statement), 60 (local distinctiveness), 61 (integration of new development), 109 (contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment), 111 (encourage re-use of brownfield land), 120 (prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability), 123 (planning decisions should avoid impacts on health and quality of life), 125 (limit impacts of light pollution), 144 (existing safeguarded minerals sites), 186 (delivering sustainable development), 196 (determining applications in accordance with the development plan), 197 (presumption in favour of sustainable development), 203 (use of planning conditions to make development acceptable) and 206 (planning conditions).

Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) - Planning for Sustainable Waste

Management (March 2005, as amended 2011) 6.10 This national policy guidance document was not revoked by the NPPF in 2012.

It promotes, wherever possible, the use of waste as a resource and the movement of waste management up the ‘waste hierarchy’, thereby only supporting the disposal of waste as a last resort. It also sets out the approach waste authorities should take to determining applications. It notes that in determining waste applications waste authorities should:

“(i) assess their suitability for development against each of the following criteria:

the extent to which they support the policies in this PPS;

Agenda Item No. 7

the physical and environmental constraints on development, including existing and proposed neighbouring land uses;

the cumulative effect of previous waste disposal facilities on the well-being of the local community, including any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality, social cohesion and inclusion or economic potential; the capacity of existing and potential transport infrastructure to support the sustainable movement of waste, and products arising from resource recovery, seeking when practicable and beneficial to use modes other than road transport. (ii) give priority to the re-use of previously-developed land, and redundant agricultural and forestry buildings and their curtilages.”

West Sussex Waste Local Plan: Proposed Submission Draft (November 2012)

6.11 The draft Waste Local Plan (WLP), although not part of the development plan,

was approved by County Council in October 2012 for development management purposes. Accordingly, it is a material consideration which can be afforded significant weight as it is up-to-date, it has gone through a public consultation process, and it has been shown to accord with the NPPF. The following policies are of relevance:

Self-Sufficiency in Waste Management (Policy W1), Location of Built Waste Management Facilities (Policy W3), Inert Waste Recycling (Policy W4), Character (Policy W11), High Quality Development (Policy W12), Air Soil and Water (Policy W16), Transport (Policy W18), Public Health and Amenity (Policy W19), Cumulative Impact (Policy W21), and Aviation (Policy W22).

7. Consultations 7.1 Crawley Borough Council Planning: Objects on the grounds that dust will

impact unacceptably on nearby future residents occupying the development of the North-East Sector.

7.2 Crawley Borough Council Environmental Health (Noise): No objection on

the grounds of noise (and vibration) issues, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions controlling noise generated.

7.3 Crawley Borough Council Environmental Health (Dust): No objection on

the grounds of dust issues, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions controlling dust generated and the completion of a section 106 agreement. The agreement would require the applicant to provide funding for air quality monitoring at the nearest residential receptor location in the North-East Sector site.

7.4 Environment Agency (EA): No objection. Advice on pollution prevention and

Environmental Permitting provided. 7.5 London Gatwick Airport: No objection. Advice offered on the use of cranes

during construction works. 7.6 NERL Safeguarding: No objection.

Agenda Item No. 7 7.7 WSCC Highways: No objection. 7.8 WSCC Landscape: No objection. 8. Representations 8.1 The application was publicised in accordance with The Town and Country

Planning (General Development Procedure) Order (England) 2010). In response to the erection of four site notices located around the application site, an advert in the locally read newspaper, and forty-two neighbour notification letters, 14 representations from members of the public/interested third parties were received, all of which opposed the application.

8.2 Those objecting, including the Tinsley Lane Residents’ Association and Eezehaul

(a nearby business), cite the following reasons:

• despite mitigation proposed the impacts of the proposed development’s noise and dust (including through HGV movements) on the local environment and on local amenity/businesses will be unacceptable and harmful to human health;

• cumulative impact of existing operations and proposed development through noise and dust impacts (including through HGV movements) on the local environment and on local amenity/businesses will be unacceptable and harmful to human health;

• mitigation proposed in respect of noise and dust impacts does not consider nearby businesses only nearby residences;

• production of unacceptable odours on the local environment and on local amenity/businesses will be unacceptable and harmful to human health;

• increased levels of HGV traffic and impacts on the local roads;

• risk that contaminated wastes will be imported to the site and that processing it will cause health hazards locally;

• the need and promotion of waste recycling should not outweigh protecting the public;

• wrong location for waste activities; and

• the proposed development’s impacts through noise and dust conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

8.3 A request for further information (covering noise and air quality) was made by

the County Council in July 2012. This information, submitted by the applicant was sent in October 2012 to the consultees as a reconsultation. Additionally, neighbours who were originally notified of the application and third parties who had made representations were also notified.

8.4 No new issues beyond those described in 8.2 were received following

reconsultation. The initial objection raised by Crawley Borough Council, regarding the environmental impacts (noise and dust) of the proposal, remains in terms of dust only (refer to 7.3 above and 9.43 - 9.56 below).

9. Consideration of Key Issues

The main material planning considerations are whether the proposal:

Agenda Item No. 7

• meets an identified need;

• is in an appropriate location;

• is acceptable in terms of design, layout and scale;

• is acceptable with regard to impacts on highway capacity and road safety;

• has an acceptable impact on aerodrome safeguarding;

• has an acceptable impact on rail safety;

• has an acceptable impact on the water environment; and

• has an acceptable impact upon local amenity and the local environment. Need for the Development 9.1 National planning policy in PPS10 promotes the use of waste as a resource,

wherever possible. It also promotes the movement of waste management up the 'waste hierarchy' and opportunities for inert waste to be recovered as part of a scheme that is genuinely needed and will bring real benefits.

9.2 Policy W1 of the draft Waste Local Plan (WLP) provides guidance on self-

sufficiency in waste management, including managing the transfer, recycling and treatment of waste generated in West Sussex. This includes ensuring that shortfalls in capacity are met through existing or future suitable waste management sites and facilities.

9.3 It is important to consider whether there is a need within the County for this

development to provide additional capacity to recycling and recover inert waste arising within the County. Following recycling and treatment, the latest waste forecasts prepared for the County Council (review undertaken October 2012) suggest that there could be the need to manage between 7 and 8 million tonnes (mt) of inert waste in the period 2010-2031.

9.4 A number of permitted inert waste recycling sites within the county that would

contribute to managing the inert waste are time limited and would cease within the period 2010-2031. Therefore, without new sites coming forward, there is unlikely to be capacity to deal with inert waste arising within West Sussex in the period 2010-2031.

9.5 In terms of need, the applicant cites a lack of inert waste recycling facilities

within the Crawley area and the north of the County to recycle inert waste arisings and advises that the proposed facility would meet this local need. Therefore, the proposed development accords with the draft WLP’s Strategic Objectives 2 (enable the progressive movement of non-municipal waste up the waste hierarchy away from landfill) and 5 (make provision for new transfer, recycling and treatment facilities as close as possible to where the waste arises).

9.6 In conclusion, it is considered that the development by increasing inert waste recycling within the county and its reuse, accords with PPS10’s aim to move the management of waste up the waste hierarchy. There is a demonstrated need for the recycling of inert waste in the county and its reuse over the period 2010–2031. Accordingly, it is considered to accord with the relevant waste guidance and development plan policies.

Agenda Item No. 7

Location of the Development 9.7 Policy W4 of the draft WLP provides guidance on the location of facilities for the

recycling of inert waste. Larger capacity facilities need to be well-related to the principal areas of waste arising, that is, within or close to the main urban areas along the coast and in the north and east of the County.

9.8 In conclusion, the proposed development accords with Policy W4 of the draft

WLP because the Goods Yard lies within the Area of Search in the north of the County as identified on the Key Diagram, it is within the ‘built-up area boundary’ as designated by Crawley Borough Council, and the site can be accessed to and from the Gatwick Road, which provides direct access north and south to the A23, A2011 and the M23 which are part of the Lorry Route Network.

Acceptability of Design, Layout and Scale

9.9 The location of the proposed development is on the applicant’s current

operational land. Whilst the present condition of this land is not unacceptable in appearance it is not as well organised and operationally efficient as it should be in terms of modern day working standards.

9.10 The proposed development within this same area of operational land comprises the construction of 4.6m high sleeper bays (to store materials) and a steel frame structured building measuring 15m by 10m, with a pitched roof measuring 7.5m in height at its ridge (to house the crusher). The steel frame structure would be finished with plastisol light steel profile cladding in goosewing grey. The screener, to be externally located would measure up to 5.5m in height.

9.11 The application site is situated within the Crawley Goods Yard adjoining the Forge Wood Industrial Estate, both long established and active industrial and commercial estates. Both the adjoining mineral operations and commercial and industrial developments house buildings and/or plant exceeding both the areas and heights proposed by this development. The proposed development creates no visual impacts in terms of residents living in the Tinsley Lane South area to the west and south-west

9.12 The physical changes proposed by the development, including its finishing,

would ensure it has a negligible impact on the appearance of the industrial area and its immediate surroundings, including the North-East Sector development to the east of the mainline railway.

9.13 In conclusion, the overall appearance and nature of the proposed development

within the context of the Goods Yard site would not be out of keeping within the locality and would improve the site’s current appearance and organisation of on-site operations. Therefore, it is considered that the development is acceptable in terms of design, layout and scale appropriate to its location within an active industrial and commercial setting.

Agenda Item No. 7

Impact on Highway Capacity and Road Safety 9.14 The importation of 75000m3 (approximately 112500 tonnes) of construction and

demolition waste would be undertaken by tipper vehicles (HGVs), typically 20 tonne load goods vehicles. 80% (60000m3 or 90000 tonnes per annum) is expected to brought by Day Group lorries and 20% (15000m3 or 22500 tonnes per annum) by passing trade. This equates to 240 tonnes or 160m3 per day or 12 loads by the Day Group and 60 tonnes or 40m3 per day or 3 loads by passing trade.

9.15 The applicant seeks to utilise HGVs under their control to both import wastes

and export aggregates and recycled products once they have emptied their loads in a cyclical process. Gatwick Road, from which vehicular access and egress is achieved, would continue to provide direct access to both the A23 and M23 from the Goods Yard. These are roads capable of safely conveying HGV traffic forming part of the Local Lorry and Strategic Lorry Networks.

9.16 Existing exportation of aggregates result in 240,000 tonnes or 160,000m3

(80%) being exported from the site by road per annum, equating to 44 loads or 88 two-way vehicle movements per day. 60,000 tonnes or 40,000m3 (20%) per annum is used at the adjoining asphalt plant within the wider Goods Yard site. Of the 25,000 tonnes or 16,666m3 per annum of concrete and hardcore imported by road to the site for crushing, 20,000 tonnes or 13,333m3 is imported by the Day Group, and 5,000 tonnes or 3,333m3 by passing trade, equating to 5 loads per day.

9.17 Overall, the contribution through the proposed development’s traffic volumes

would result in 68 HGVs or 136 two-way movements per day accessing the Goods Yard.

9.18 Some third parties objected to the proposal on the grounds that additional

HGVs will create unacceptable impacts on the local road network. 9.19 The Highway Authority accepts the findings within the submitted transport

documentation concerning developmental traffic impacts. It is also accepted that vehicle movements associated with the development would represent an increase of 15 HGVs or 30 two-way movements beyond existing operations, to and from the Goods Yard each day, a 22% increase. Accordingly, as the proposal would not affect either capacity or safety of the affected road network, no overall objection in relation to highway capacity or road safety by the Highway Authority is raised.

9.20 The Highway Authority requires neither the imposition of conditions nor legal

agreements for this proposal; however, it should be ensured that all goods vehicles delivering and departing the site do not deposit mud or debris on the public highway. Additionally, requiring records of waste imported and associated goods vehicle movements would allow the County Planning Authority to accurately monitor the development. Therefore, conditions requiring wheel cleaning, covered loads and record keeping should be imposed.

9.21 In conclusion, the proposed development would result in an increase of 15

HGVs or 30 two-way movements, in excess of the applicant’s existing HGV and two-way movements, to and from the site each day. This overall maximum

Agenda Item No. 7

amounting to 68 HGVs or 136 two-way movements per day does not represent a significant increase in vehicles on the affected highway network. Therefore, subject to the imposition of the conditions proposed in Appendix 1, the proposal would be acceptable with regards to highway capacity and road safety.

Impact upon Aerodrome Safeguarding

9.23 The construction and operation of the proposed development would involve the

installation of a 7.5m high framed structure as its highest feature. The site is situated approximately 1.5km south/south-west of London Gatwick Airport. The airport’s operations, particularly where large structures are proposed, have to be considered in terms of developmental impact. Neither London Gatwick Airport nor NERL Safeguarding raise an objection to the proposal in this regard although advice is offfered.

9.24 In conclusion, the proposed development’s proximity to Gatwick Airport means

that aerodrome safeguarding must be considered. Advice on the use of cranes was given should the applicant require them during construction works. Therefore, the proposed development is acceptable at the site in terms of impacts to aerodrome safeguarding.

Impact upon Rail Safety

9.25 The location of the proposed development is designed to co-exist within the wider Day Group site handling approximately 300,000 tonnes (or 200,000m3) per annum of aggregates, all imported by rail. Aggregates are discharged from the railway siding by hydraulic excavator and stockpiled in allocated areas within the wider Goods Yard site depending on proposed use.

9.26 The proposed development would create no changes to existing rail related

operations and the importation and storage of aggregates within the wider Goods Yard site. As a result of this, no impacts to rail movements and the adjacent mainline railway from which rail access is obtained are created. Network Rail has no concerns in terms of rail safety from the proposal.

9.27 In conclusion, the proposed development’s proximity to the London to Brighton

mainline railway means that rail safety must be considered. Network Rail raises no concerns in terms of the development’s impacts, which ensure that current operations involving deliveries by rail and the use of the adjacent mainline for passenger services remain unaffected. Therefore, the proposed development is acceptable at the site in terms of rail safety.

Impact upon the Water Environment 9.28 Groundwater: The application site is not situated within a highly sensitive

groundwater setting, as designated by the Environment Agency, and no concerns are raised in this regard.

9.29 Surface Water, Flood Risk and Drainage: The application site is not situated

within a flood risk area, as designated by the Environment Agency. No adverse comments relating to surface water or drainage issues have been raised.

9.30 With regard to the potential pollution of water resources, the proposals involve

the importation and processing of only uncontaminated, inert wastes. The

Agenda Item No. 7

importation of this material and recycling would require an Environmental Permit which would require drainage control and waste acceptance criteria such as the assessment and classification of waste at source, and visual/odour inspection upon arrival at site (for the imported materials). Materials unfit for use would not be permitted and would be quarantined and removed from the site at the earliest opportunity. This would ensure there would be no potential for contamination.

9.31 All operations within this proposal would be carried out on the site’s existing

compacted sub-base surface, which would be retained. Rainwater would be collected from around the perimeter of the crusher building and stored for re-use as recycled water for dust suppression within the crushing process, discharge conveyors and the screening plant. Mains water supply would be available to provide back up water supply during drier conditions to ensure dust suppression is maintained.

9.32 The Environment Agency accepts the applicant’s submitted Drainage

Assessment and raises no objection to the proposal in terms of surface water, flood risk and drainage implications.

9.33 In conclusion, the proposal involves the importation and recycling of

construction and demolition wastes (inert, uncontaminated materials), which would be subject to Environmental Permitting requirements administered by the Environment Agency. Although the proposals have the theoretical potential for polluting groundwater and surface water the Environment Agency does not object. The Environment Agency is satisfied that the development’s impacts could be satisfactorily controlled through both the proposed mitigation and the Permitting regime. It is concluded that the proposals are not likely to give rise to unacceptable impacts upon the water environment.

Impact upon Local Amenity and the Local Environment 9.34 By its nature, the importation of inert waste in HGVs and on-site processes

involving plant and machinery will result in noise and dust impacts which have the potential to adversely affect local amenity and the local environment. Odours are not usually associated with inert waste materials, their movement or their processing.

9.35 The potential for this development to affect residential amenity through noise is

increased by the proximity of both existing dwellings within the Tinsley Lane South area and future dwellings within the North-East Sector site. The same potential impacts on the amenity of nearby commercial and industrial properties adjoining and close to this development also exist and must be considered.

9.36 Of the 14 objections received from local residents, third parties and nearby

business (Eezehaul), all cite noise and dust impacts, including cumulative impacts from existing Goods Yard operations, from the proposed development as being liable to cause harm to local amenity and the health of residents/occupants/workers. Impact through odour was also cited.

9.37 In considering impacts on all these properties, their location and use the lapsed

planning permissions (CR/97/0397 and CR/03/0470) granted for aggregate recycling facility at the Goods Yard in 1998 and 2003, respectively, albeit in another area of the wider Days site (see Appendix 5 - CR/97/0397

Agenda Item No. 7

Approved Site Location) must be taken into account. These permitted developments also sought to import construction and demolition wastes to produce secondary aggregates and established the principle for this inert waste recycling use within the wider Day Group site.

9.38 Within the above consents, conditions requiring hours of operation, construction

materials and finishes, site layout, recycling processes, stockpile storage heights, debris netting, external lighting details, road signage, lighting and waste materials were imposed. Bespoke noise level and dust control (beyond stockpile heights and debris netting) conditions from operations and to mitigate any impacts on local amenity (including at residential/commercial/industrial properties) were not deemed necessary and were not imposed. The North-East Sector allocation, now an outline planning permission, was also considered in terms of noise and dust impacts.

9.39 Noise: The development will undoubtedly produce noise, primarily during the

movement and crushing of waste materials within the site, including vehicles travelling to/from the site.

9.40 Although Annex 2 to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) addresses

the impacts of noise in respect of mineral operations on noise sensitive locations such as residential properties, it provides some useful guidance for this development. British Standard BS5228:2009 is the most recent code of practice issued in respect of Noise and Vibration control on construction and open sites.

9.41 To achieve an acceptable level of noise production, the applicant has proposed

a range of mitigation measures within the submitted Noise Assessment Report (dated 25 September 2012), which built on the information submitted within the applicant’s Noise Management Scheme (dated March 2012).

9.42 Crushing operations would all take place within the confines of the steel framed,

clad building. Doors would remain closed at all times when crushing is being carried out. Conveyor belts exiting the crushing operations would also include rubber curtaining to alleviate operational noise during product movement. Screening operations would take place within the open area although these operations are significantly quieter than crushing. Where reversing devices are fitted, mobile plant would be fitted with ‘white noise’, non-obtrusive reversing devices rather than traditional ‘bleeping’ devices. Other noise would include HGV noise and the unloading, loading, movement and storage of materials within the site.

9.43 Dust: The development would undoubtedly produce dust, primarily during the

movement, crushing and screening of waste materials within the site, including vehicles travelling to/from the site.

9.44 A qualitative dust assessment was submitted (25 September 2012) with the

application, in accordance with guidance set out by Crawley Borough Council’s Environmental Health Department. It supersedes the information submitted within the applicant’s original Dust Management Scheme (dated March 2012). This assessment concluded that the risk of adverse dust impacts from operations on nearby residential properties, existing dwellings (Tinsley Lane South area) and future dwellings (within the North East Sector site), are near zero.

Agenda Item No. 7 9.45 In order to minimise impacts from dust, crushing operations would all take

place within the confines of the steel framed, clad building. Doors would remain closed at all times when crushing is being carried out. Rainwater collected from around the perimeter of the crusher building would be stored for re-use as recycled water for dust suppression within the crushing process, the screening plant and materials storage, including aggregates delivered by rail. Mains water supply would be available to provide back up water supply during drier conditions to ensure dust suppression is maintained, including for material stockpiles. Dust suppression measures for the existing access road would also be maintained following development.

9.46 The 4m and 4.6m high walls around the aggregate and recycled product

storage bays and the construction and demolition waste storage areas would also serve to prevent dust moving off-site towards receptors situated to the west and north/north-east of the application site. Dust suppression sprays (i.e. sprinklers) would also be retained and employed within these walled areas and used to prevent dust moving off-site.

9.47 Conclusions: Concerns raised in terms of impact through noise and dust at

existing residential properties in the Tinsley Lane area, have been considered within the applicant’s mitigation measures and not regarded as a significant impact due primarily to distance and screening provided by other industrial and commercial development and natural screening provided by Summerserve Wood all situated to the west and south-west of the proposed development (see Appendix 7 - Noise and Dust Receptor Locations) and are not generally downwind of the application site or the wider Goods Yard.

9.48 Concerns raised in terms of impact through noise to future residential

properties within the North-East Sector development (outline planning permission dated 26/11/09) have been considered within the applicant’s mitigation measures. Condition 64 of that permission, looks at the existing source of noise within the locality, and mitigating impacts on the proposed residential development by ensuring that no dwellings are situated closer than 100m to the mainline railway that separates the Goods Yard from the North-East Sector site.

9.49 The Planning Inspector at the re-opened appeal into the North-East Sector

development (Ref No: APP/Q3820/A/08/2092933) noted that a Statement of Common Ground on air quality was produced at the earlier 2006 inquiry. The Inspector concluded that this remained an “up-to-date assessment, for there was no significant discussion on this topic at the re-opened inquiry”. In granting permission for the North-East Sector, the Inspector did not attach any conditions relating to dust or air quality. This aspect seems not to have been of significant concern to the Inspector, despite the presence of the existing minerals processes at the Goods Yard.

9.50 At the same appeal, the existing industrial uses along the railway corridor were

also taken into account by the developer in bringing the North-East Sector forward with a 100m buffer between the Crawley Goods Yard boundary and the nearest residential properties. There would be trees along the railway boundary which would help to screen any dust impacts, and the Day Group would use a sprinkler system as part of their proposed Dust Management Scheme.

Agenda Item No. 7 9.51 The objection raised by Eezehaul (a transport, storage and distribution

company) situated about 70m to the west of the proposed development (see Appendix 7 - Noise and Dust Receptor Locations) is that the impact through noise and dust only concerns that on residential amenity. Whilst the applicant’s assessments do focus on residential amenity, the mitigation proposed, and the imposition of conditions would address any substantiated complaints received from affected parties and allows remediatory measures to be implemented in accordance with the applicant’s mitigation measures.

9.52 It is proposed that recycling operations are restricted by condition to between

the hours of 07.00 and 18.00 on Mondays to Fridays, and between 08.00 and 13.00 on Saturdays, as requested. No operations would be undertaken on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. Except for the arrival and departure of trains bearing aggregates, these hours are the same that are already used by the applicant within the Goods Yard site under their control. Despite the claims and concerns made by third parties objecting to the proposal, the County Council has not received any substantiated complaints related to noise or dust.

9.53 Crawley Borough Council’s Environmental Health Department advise that in the

last five years no substantiated complaints from residents or businesses due to either noise or dust from the applicant’s section of the Goods Yard have been received. The Environmental Health Department raise no objection to the proposal, subject to the applicant’s mitigation being implemented, conditions being imposed and a Section 106 legal agreement being secured

9.54 Further to 9.53 above, in terms of dust impacts on the North-East Sector site,

the Environmental Health Department also sought a Section 106 legal agreement being secured to obtain a financial contribution for air quality monitoring in the North-East Sector site. However, it is considered that the combination of the Inspector’s decision (Ref No: APP/Q3820/A/08/2092933), the applicant’s mitigation and the imposition of conditions would provide sufficient control to protect the health and quality of life of residents and the interests of existing businesses.

9.55 Overall, it is considered that the applicant has demonstrated, using appropriate,

standard guidance, that the development would not result in an adverse impact on local amenity due to noise or dust. With the range of mitigation measures proposed and required to be controlled via conditions in Appendix 1, as well as any measures required through the Permitting regime, it is considered that noise and dust levels would not be unacceptable.

9.56 In conclusion, taking into account the nature of the operations, the applicant’s

existing operations and previous planning permission, having considered the development against the relevant quantitative standards, it is considered, on balance, that there would not be any unacceptable impact upon local amenity and the local environment resulting from noise or dust subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

10. Overall Conclusion and Recommendation 10.1 The proposed development is in accordance with the policies of the

development plan, and would move waste up the waste hierarchy through increasing inert waste recycling and its reuse, in accordance with national and local policy. Overall, whilst the project would neither improve nor enhance the

Agenda Item No. 7

local landscape, it is of a design, layout and scale that is both in keeping with the wider Goods Yard land uses and would improve the current appearance of the site and organisation of on-site operations. The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of highway capacity and road safety, aerodrome safeguarding and rail safety and poses no significant risk to the water environment. Although there is the potential for some adverse impacts to be caused to local amenity associated with these activities, they would not be significant and would be controlled through the Planning and Permitting regimes.

10.2 It is recommended, therefore, that planning permission be granted subject to

the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of this report.

11. Crime and Disorder Act Implications 11.1 There are no implications. 12. Equality Act Implications 12.1 As part of the decision-making process, under the Equality Act, public bodies

must have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Act; advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it; and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it.

12.2 A Customer Focus Appraisal (CFA) is required in relation to this development to show how consideration of equality issues has influenced the decision-making process (see Appendix 8 - Customer Focus Appraisal). This concluded that the development would not adversely affect those with ‘protected characteristics’.

13. Human Rights Act Implications 13.1 The Human Rights Act requires the County Council to take into account the

rights of the public under the European Convention on Human Rights and prevents the Council from acting in a manner which is incompatible with those rights. Article 8 of the Convention provides that there shall be respect for an individual’s private life and home save for that interference which is in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of (inter alia) public safety and the economic well being of the country. Article 1 of protocol 1 provides that an individual’s peaceful enjoyment of their property shall not be interfered with save as is necessary in the public interest.

13.2 For an interference with these rights to be justifiable the interference (and the

means employed) needs to be proportionate to the aims sought to be realised. The main body of this report identifies the extent to which there is any identifiable interference with these rights. The Planning Considerations identified are also relevant in deciding whether any interference is proportionate. Case law has been decided which indicates that certain development does interfere with an individual’s rights under Human Rights legislation. This application has been considered in the light of statute and case law and the interference is not considered to be disproportionate.

Agenda Item No. 7 13.3 The Committee should also be aware of Article 6, the focus of which (for the

purpose of this committee) is the determination of an individual’s civil rights and obligations. Article 6 provides that in the determination of these rights, an individual is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal. Article 6 has been subject to a great deal of case law. It has been decided that for planning matters the decision making process as a whole, which includes the right of review by the High Court, complied with Article 6.

Michael Elkington Strategic Planning Manager

Background Papers As set out in Section 6. List of Appendices Appendix 1 - Conditions and Informatives Appendix 2 - Location Plan Appendix 3 - Site Plan Appendix 4 - Existing Facilities Plan Appendix 5 - CR/97/0397 Approved Site Location Appendix 6 - Site Layout Plan Appendix 7 - Noise and Dust Receptor Locations Appendix 8 - Customer Focus Appraisal

Contact: Sam Dumbrell, Senior Planner, 01243 777674

Agenda Item No. 7 Appendix 1: Conditions and Informatives CONDITIONS

GENERAL

Commencement

1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Written notification of the dates of commencement, including the commencement of recycling operations, shall be sent to the County Planning Authority not less than 7 days before the commencement.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Approved Plans and Documents

2. The development hereby permitted shall not take place other than in accordance with the approved plans and documents:

• Drawing No. 2571/12 Rev C - ‘Site Location Plan’ (dated March 2012);

• Drawing No. 2571/13 Rev D - ‘Site Layout Plan’ (dated June 2012);

• Drawing No. 2571/14 Rev B - ‘Sections and Elevations’ (dated February 2012);

• Drawing No. 2571/16 Rev A - ‘Vehicle Movements’ (dated March 2012);

and supporting information, including the Planning, Design and Access Statement (validated 26 March 2012), Firstplan letter (dated 26 September 2012), Dust Management Scheme by AirQ (Report No: AG066-R01-v2 dated June 2012) and Noise Assessment by WBM (dated 25 September 2012) save as varied by the conditions hereafter. Reason: To secure a satisfactory development.

Availability of Approved Documents 3. A copy of the decision notice with the approved plans and any subsequently

approved documents shall be kept at the site office at all times and the terms and contents of them shall be made known to the supervising staff on site. These documents shall be made available to the County Planning Authority upon request. Reason: To accord with paragraph 206 of the NPPF (2012) to ensure that the site operatives are conversant with the terms of the planning permission and the requirements of the development hereby permitted.

PRE-DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS

Wheel Cleaning 4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a scheme

detailing the means for cleaning the wheels of all vehicles leaving the site shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for written approval. Thereafter the approved scheme shall be implemented in full and retained throughout the development.

Agenda Item No. 7

Reason: To accord with paragraph 32 of the NPPF (2012) in the interests of road safety.

Boundary Screening Scheme 5. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a scheme

detailing boundary screening shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall include:

• methods to protect existing boundary planting inluding construction methodology, incorporating retained tree protection measures (in accordance with ‘BS 5837:2012’: Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition); and

• the provision and maintenance of additional natural screening along the

application site’s boundaries that provides effective screening to nearby sensitive receptors;

Once approved, the scheme shall be implemented in full throughout both construction works and the life of the development hereby permitted. Thereafter, any trees or plants which fail to establish, are damaged, become diseased or die within 5 years of planting shall be replaced in the next avaialble planting season by the applicant in accordance with the original scheme or as agreed in advance and in writing with the County Planning Authority.

Reason: To accord with paragraph 109 of the NPPF (2012) to protect existing trees and the landscape and to accord with paragraphs 120 and 123 of the NPPF (2012) to avoid dust from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on the health and quality of life of local residents and visitors to the locality.

TIME DEPENDANT CONDITIONS

Noise Level Verification and Remediation Scheme

6. Within 6 months of the development hereby permitted becoming operational, noise measurements shall be taken in a manner to be agreed in advance and in writing by the County Planning Authority to verify that the sound levels due to the recycling plant are no louder than that predicted. If required, remedial action shall be taken, in a manner to be agreed in advance and in writing by the County Planning Authority to reduce sound emissions such that they do not exceed the levels predicted or generate substantiated complaints. Any required remediation, monitoring and maintenance shall be implemented as approved within agreed timescales. Reason: To accord with paragraphs 109, 122 and 123 of the NPPF (2012) to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on the health and quality of life of local residents and visitors to the locality.

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

Dust Management Scheme

7. The site shall at all times be operated within the terms of the AirQ Dust Management Scheme (Report No: AG066-R01-v2 dated June 2012).

Agenda Item No. 7

Reason: To accord with paragraphs 109, 120 and 123 of the NPPF (2012) to avoid dust from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on the health and quality of life of local residents and visitors to the locality. Noise Management Scheme

8. The site shall at all times be operated within the terms of the Noise Management Scheme as contained on pages 20-29 of the WBM Noise Assessment Report (dated 25 September 2012).

Reason: To accord with paragraphs 109, 122 and 123 of the NPPF (2012) to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on the health and quality of life of local residents and visitors to the locality.

External Lighting

9. No external lighting other than that depicted on Drawing No. 2571/13 Rev D - ‘Site Layout Plan’ (dated June 2012) shall be installed and used at the site during the permitted hours of operation. This lighting shall be switched off at all times when the site is not in use.

Reason: To accord with paragraphs 123 and 125 of the NPPF (2012) to prevent light pollution in the interest of local amenity.

Hours of Operation

10. There shall be no vehicular movements to/from the site and no waste recycling operations shall take place, which shall include the use of plant and machinery, outside the hours of:

07.00 and 18.00 Monday to Friday;

07.00 to 13.00 Saturdays; and

No vehicular movements to/from the site and no waste recycling operations shall take place at all on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. Reason: To accord with paragraphs 109, 122 and 123 of the NPPF (2012) in the interests of the amenity of the locality and of local residents.

Permitted Imported Materials

11. Materials required for use within the development hereby permitted shall constitute only inert, uncontaminated materials.

Reason: To accord with paragraphs 109, 120, 122 and 123 of the NPPF (2012) to avoid pollution through contamination of the soil, water and/or air.

Operational Noise

12. No plant, equipment or vehicle shall be used on the site unless fitted and operated at all times with silencing measures to a standard not less than the up to date manufacturer's UK standard specification.

Reason: To accord with paragraphs 109, 122 and 123 of the NPPF (2012) in the interests of the amenities of the locality.

13. All plant, equipment, machinery and vehicles that are used on site and that are

under the applicant’s control within the development hereby permitted that are

Agenda Item No. 7

required to emit reversing warning noise, shall use white noise alarms as apposed to single tone ‘bleeping’ alarms.

Reason: To accord with paragraphs 109, 122 and 123 of the NPPF (2012) to protect the amenities of local residents.

Vehicular Operations and Controls 14. All vehicles delivering material to the site or removing materials from the site

shall have their loads enclosed so as to prevent spillage or loss of materials on the public highway.

Reason: To accord with paragraphs 32, 109, 122 and 123 of the NPPF (2012) in the interests of road safety and of the amenities of the locality.

15. The site shall not be used as the operating base or storage area for vehicles, plant or equipment not required for the operations approved under this permission.

Reason: To accord with paragraphs 32, 109, 122 and 123 of the NPPF (2012) in

the interests of road safety and of the amenities of the locality. 16. Quantities of Waste and Record Keeping

The total quantity of waste received in any calendar year at the site shall not exceed 112500 tonnes. A record of the quantities (in tonnes) of permitted wastes delivered to the site and the consequent numbers of goods vehicle movements generated shall be maintained by the applicant at all times and made available to the County Planning Authority upon request. Reason: To accord with paragraphs 32, 34, 109 and 123 of the NPPF (2012) to enable the County Planning Authority to monitor the level of traffic generated by the permitted use and ensure adequate control of the development so as to protect both local amenity and the local environment.

INFORMATIVES A. The attention of the applicant is drawn to the detailed comments of the email

from the Environment Agency (dated 05 April 2012) relating to Permitting requirements.

B. The attention of the applicant is drawn to the detailed comments of the letter

from London Gatwick Airport (dated 12 April 2012) and the use of cranes during development.

C. In determining this planning application, the County Planning Authority has

worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application by liaising with consultees, respondents and the applicant/agent and discussing changes to the proposal where considered appropriate or necessary. This approach has been taken positively and proactively in accordance with the requirement in the NPPF, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No.2) Order 2012.