Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Materials Processing Facility, Westfield Lane, Westfield, East Sussex
November 2013
Waterman Energy, Environment & Design Limited
Pickfords Wharf, Clink Street, London SE1 9DG, www.watermangroup.com
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Materials Processing Facility, Westfield Lane, Westfield, East Sussex
Client Name: Mr Robin Bristow
Document Reference: EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM
Project Number: EED12597-103
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, BS EN ISO 14001: 2004 and BS OHSAS 18001:2007))
Issue Date Prepared by Checked by Approved by
Final 13 Nov 13 Matt Mehegan Sarah Owen Matt Mehegan
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.
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Contents N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
Contents
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 The Brief .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Report Structure ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Limitations ................................................................................................................................. 1
2. Application Site and Planning History .............................................................................................. 2
2.1 Application Site ......................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Planning History ........................................................................................................................ 2
3. Proposed Development ...................................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Application Details .................................................................................................................... 3
3.3 Proposed variation of conditions ............................................................................................... 4
3.4 Comparison with Existing Development ................................................................................... 4
4. Identification of Potential Impacts ..................................................................................................... 6
4.1 Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................................. 6
4.1.1 Noise (included at appendix B) ................................................................................................. 6
4.1.2 Landscape and visual impact (included at appendix C) ........................................................... 7
4.1.3 Dust risk assessment (included at appendix D) ........................................................................ 7
4.2 Temporal Differences ................................................................................................................ 7
5. Pre-Application Liaison ...................................................................................................................... 8
6. Planning Policy .................................................................................................................................... 9
6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 9
6.2 Policy Context ........................................................................................................................... 9
6.3 Policy and Strategy ................................................................................................................. 11
6.4 Development in the Countryside and AONB .......................................................................... 12
6.5 Environmental Impacts ........................................................................................................... 13
6.5.1 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................ 13
6.5.2 Noise ....................................................................................................................................... 13
7. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 14
Appendices
Appendix A Drawings and Plans
Appendix B Noise
Appendix C Landscape and Visual Impact
Appendix D Dust Risk Assessment
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Page 1 of 14 N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
1. Introduction
1.1 The Brief
Waterman Energy, Environment & Design Limited (Waterman) was commissioned by Mr Robin Charles
Bristow (the applicant) to prepare a planning application pursuant to Section 73 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission
RR/700/CM granted by East Sussex County Council (ESCC) on 22 October 2012.
1.2 Report Structure
This Supporting Statement provides an assessment of the application site with regard to its environmental
setting and planning status. It provides details of the proposed development and identifies the scope of
potential environmental impact.
The application includes forms; certificates; a supporting statement and appendices which contain plans
and other technical information necessary to inform or support the planning application.
1.3 Limitations
This report was undertaken in accordance with the scope agreed between Waterman and the client, as
documented in Waterman’s fee letter (E12597-103/F/001/MM dated 14 June 2013), and with Waterman’s
standard Terms of Appointment.
The benefit of this report is made to Mr Robin Charles Bristow.
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 investigation does not include an assessment for the presence of asbestos containing
materials within or below buildings or in the ground at the site.
The conclusions resulting from this study are not necessarily indicative of future conditions or operating
practices at or adjacent to the site.
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Page 2 of 14 N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
2. Application Site and Planning History
2.1 Application Site
The application site comprises an existing waste management facility located at Hole Farm, Westfield
Lane, Westfield, East Sussex, TN35 4SA at National Grid Reference (NGR) TQ 810 138 (hereafter
termed “the site”).
The 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 from
which the site is accessed via a short section of metalled private road. This road provides access to the
application site and other land further to the east. The other uses served by the private road include two
residential properties at Hole Farm House and Sandhole Farm, and a scrap metal yard and end-of-life
vehicle depollution facility.
The site itself is accessed by making a right-turn off the private road and passing over an access apron.
The site is gated and consists of hardstanding (a compacted permeable surface) featuring areas of
stockpiled waste and storage areas for bagged recycled aggregates, timber, palletised bricks and skips
for the reception of metals and plastics removed for re-use. 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 access referred to above, with agricultural land 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, with residential properties of Westfield Lane located 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 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (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 in a south, south east direction to Maplehurst
Wood.
The site’s location is shown on the drawing entitled “Site Location Plan” in appendix A. 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 A.
2.2 Planning History
In 1991: Established Use Certificate RR/90/0685/E
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
application site.
In 2012: Planning permission RR/700/CM
Granted by ESCC on 22 October 2012 for the importation, deposit, storage and processing of
construction and demolition waste and the construction of a noise attenuation barrier.
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Page 3 of 14 N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
3. Proposed Development
3.1 Background
The planning application for RR/700/CM included technical reports and other supporting information. The
application demonstrated that the proposed development amounted to sustainable development, which
was compatible with the conservation of the natural beauty of the High Weald Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty (AONB). It was shown that with careful design, layout and landscaping the effects of the
development on local amenity could be reduced to an acceptable extent, enabling appropriate planning
conditions to be devised. It was also shown that, as a matter of principle, waste development could be
conducted at this site in such a way as to be consistent with development plan policies and other material
planning considerations.
Mitigation measures included: providing an acoustic barrier between the site and nearby sensitive
receptors; restricting operational hours (and further restricting times when the crushing of materials could
take place); providing additional landscaping; restricting the heights of stored materials and implementing
a dust management plan.
The planning permission subsequently granted:
restricted the use to a crushing bucket attached to an excavator;
required that the noise rating level emitted from the site be no greater than 43 dB LAeq 1 hour
(freefield);
required the erection of a 3m high acoustic barrier along the western margin of the site;
required that no material be stored at a height above 3m;
required the provision of height marker posts; and,
limited the site to the handling of no more than 10,000 tonnes of construction and demolition waste per
annum.
3.2 Application Details
The applicant seeks to vary conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM to enable:
operations to be conducted with any crusher meeting certain (noise performance) characteristics; and
materials to be stacked, stored or deposited up to 6 metres in height.
The reasons for seeking the variations include improving the operational flexibility of the site (including
responding to fluctuations in demand) and enabling operations to be conducted on site more efficiently:
modern mobile crushers process materials more quickly, and can be configured to produce a wider
range of size fractionated products (appealing to different markets at different times - improving reuse,
recycling, and recovery rates);
stockpiling material to a greater height will allow more material to dwell on site, enabling peaks and
troughs in demand to be managed more efficiently.
The proposed development includes:
maintaining the visual screening element of the previously proposed boundary treatment along the
western margin (a 3m high woven willow fence), but not constructing it with an acoustic deadening
core and instead:
- constructing a 5m tall ‘U’ shaped noise attenuation bund to be positioned within the site (not on its
boundary). The open ends of this ‘U’ will face east, the closed end west, the proposed crusher will
operate within the confines of the ‘U’, thus offering mitigation to acoustic interests to the north,
south and west;
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Page 4 of 14 N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
the relocation of the tool store to the north west of the site, so that it is positioned at the site’s exit;
the reconfiguration of storage areas; and
the provision of height marker posts on the top of the proposed noise attenuation bund. The posts will
indicate a 6m height above ground level (to provide a reference point for the proposed storage height).
The positions of the above elements are indicated on plan “Figure A3 Site Layout Plan (indicative)” at
appendix A.
The proposals amount to development requiring planning permission. Procedurally, planning permission
may be sought by seeking to vary conditions (2) and (5) of RR/700/CM. We also understand1 the
proposed variations lead to a requirement for the consequential amendment of condition (1).
3.3 Proposed variation of conditions
Condition (1)
To be varied including for: the alteration of the site layout; construction of a noise attenuation bund; the
re-location of: tool store; storage areas and marker posts; and the reconfiguration of willow fencing along
the western margin.
In order to clarify the proposal, and assist the reader, candidate wording for the revision of conditions (2)
and (5) are provided below.
Condition (2) - as existing
“No machinery or equipment for crushing or screening waste materials shall be used at the site except for
one crushing bucket attached to an excavator.”
Condition (2) - proposed variation
No machinery or equipment for crushing or screening waste materials shall be used at the site except for
a crusher with a sound power level no greater than 118 dB(A) Lw when measured in accordance with BS
EN ISO 3746:2010.
Condition (5) - as existing
“No material shall be stacked, stored or deposited at the site to a height exceeding 3 metres.”
Condition (5) - proposed variation
No material shall be stacked, stored or deposited at the site to a height exceeding 6 metres.
3.4 Comparison with Existing Development
The basis of this application includes that:
there will be no change in the existing hours of operation (neither the standard operational hours or
hours permitted for crushing activities);
the annual throughput of 10,000 tonnes per annum of construction and demolition waste will remain
the same,
the type of waste imported will remain the same;
there will be no change to the quantum of vehicle movements associated with the import and export of
material;
the site will continue to operate within the same process controls; and
1 Correspondence between ESCC and Waterman dated 1 November 2013.
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Page 5 of 14 N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
the previously approved landscaping measures, including enhanced boundary screening will be
implemented.
Accordingly differences between the current planning permission and the proposed development include:
the introduction of an alternative crusher:
- the issues this raises include whether emissions of:
noise; and
dust, can be controlled within acceptable limits.
a change in the height of stored material to 6m, the placement of a noise attenuation bund, the re-
location of the: tool store; storage areas and marker posts, and the reconfiguration of willow fencing
along the western margin:
- the issues this raises include whether these changes:
materially impact on local landscape character;
materially impact on the visual amenities of the area; and
whether any such change renders the development incompatible with the conservation and
enhancement of the High Weald AONB.
temporal differences – what, if anything, has changed since the time planning permission RR/700/CM
was granted?
- For example whether:
there have been any material changes in the environmental setting of the site or surrounding
land uses;
any new planning permissions have been granted in the area (insofar as material to the
planning application); and
there have been any material changes to the Development Plan.
The potential for the development to impact upon the issues identified above are discussed in the
sections that follow.
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Page 6 of 14 N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
4. Identification of Potential Impacts
4.1 Environmental Impacts
The applicant is in receipt 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.
Waste management facilities receive, store, process and transfer materials that others discard. The
result of this is that these facilities possess an inherent potential to impact upon surrounding areas and
land uses. The development control process manages the allocation of land, in the public interest, to
ensure that facilities are appropriately sited and also that the potential for impact to receptors is assessed.
We consider the relevant environmental considerations for this application include the potential for impact
by way of:
noise;
landscape and visual impact; and
dust.
Accordingly these matters are considered in reports2 and 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.
4.1.1 Noise (included at appendix B)
The introduction of alternative crushing equipment has the potential to impact upon the local noise
environment; raising the question as to whether the site can be operated within existing limits. In order to
examine this potential a noise assessment has been undertaken. The report entitled “Materials
Processing Facility Noise Assessment” is attached at appendix B.
The assessment included the live monitoring of the proposed crushing equipment in operation. It was
found that due to there being no obvious source specific noise, and due to interference from local noise
sources, it was not possible to directly measure the specific noise level at the assessment location of 115
Westfield Lane. Simultaneous source and receiver noise measurements were undertaken during the
operation of the crusher in order that the nature of residual noise could be assessed at the closest noise
sensitive receptors (NSRs). The concurrent noise level time histories presented no strong correlation.
This demonstrated that noise levels associated with activities at the site were at the threshold of audibility
and measurability at the closest noise sensitive receptor.
Predicted noise levels were calculated taking into account distance attenuation and screening afforded by
the proposed 5m high ‘U’ shaped bund. The assessment concluded that the noise rating level at 115
Westfield Lane would fall within the 43 dB LAeq 1 hour (freefield) limit.
2 For the reasons given at footnote 1 of this report reference made to the variation of conditions (2) and (5) of RR/700/CM in reports
and appendices accompanying this submission (including reports addressing Noise and Landscape and Visual appraisal) are to be taken as implying reference to the consequential variation of condition (1) mentioned at section 3.2 of this supporting statement.
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Page 7 of 14 N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
4.1.2 Landscape and visual impact (included at appendix C)
The proposed increase in storage height to 6m, and the introduction of a 5m high noise attenuation bund,
has the potential to impact upon landscape character and visual amenity. In order to examine this
potential a landscape and visual impact assessment has been undertaken. The report entitled
“Landscape and Visual Appraisal” is attached at appendix C.
The report concludes that the proposed changes would not be discernible in landscape and visual terms
given the screening effect of boundary vegetation and the limited visibility of the site from surrounding
environs. There would be no significant impact on the visual amenities of the area and the proposals
would not detract from the character and appearance of the locality and no features or areas of
demonstrable landscape value would be adversely affected. The landscape strategy is to be revised to
include grass seeding to the external flank of the noise attenuation bund, and will conserve and enhance
features of value within the site; contributing positively to the local landscape context of the AONB.
Marker posts will be installed on top of the attenuation bund to assist in the assessment that the 6m
storage height is not exceeded. The position of the posts is shown on “Figure A3 Site Layout Plan
(indicative)” at appendix A of this planning application.
4.1.3 Dust risk assessment (included at appendix D)
A dust risk assessment (a revision of the assessment previously submitted in support of planning
application RR/700/CM) has been undertaken and is attached at appendix D.
The assessment examines the relationship 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 affected by the emission).
The assessment concludes that with appropriate mitigation and operational practise the residual risk of
dust escape would be low.
4.2 Temporal Differences
The previous planning permission (RR/700/CM) was granted in October 2012. Since that time:
no changes of relevance are noted to the site’s environmental setting or in surrounding land uses; and
no relevant permissions are noted to have been granted in the area (insofar as material to the
planning application)
Material changes to the Development Plan will be reported in the planning policy section below.
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Page 8 of 14 N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
5. Pre-Application Liaison
Pre-application liaison was entered into with ESCC, culminating in a demonstration exercise at the site on
12 July 2013. The trial involved the operation the proposed equipment, positioned behind the proposed
acoustic bund. Qualitative assessment (by those attending) and quantitative measurement were
undertaken. The applicant is grateful to ESCC for its involvement.
The collected data was subsequently used in numerical calculations and is presented in the acoustic
report accompanying this submission.
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Page 9 of 14 N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
6. Planning Policy
6.1 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 East
Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Local Plan 2013 (WMLP), East Sussex
and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan 2006 (saved policies only) (WLP), and the Rother District Local
Plan 2006 (RDLP). 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; and
Development Plan documents being prepared by Rother District Council which in time will replace the
RDLP.
6.2 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 priority order: prevention,
preparing for re-use, recycling, other recovery (e.g. energy recovery) and lastly disposal.
Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC): The objective is to prevent or reduce as far as possible negative effects
on the environment by landfilling of waste, by introducing stringent technical requirements for waste and
landfills. The Directive is intended to prevent or reduce the adverse effects of the landfilling of waste on
the environment, in particular on surface water, groundwater, soil, air and human health. The Directive
aims to drive waste up the hierarchy through waste minimisation and increased levels of re-use, recycling
and energy recovery.
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.
Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011: Promotes the sustainable use of materials and
places emphasis on waste prevention, re-use and recycling. The review re-affirms the government’s
commitment to achieving the Waste Framework Directive’s 70% target for the recycling of non-hazardous
construction and demolition waste.
Waste Management Plan for England – Consultation Draft July 2013: The plan is a compilation of
existing waste management information and policies. It reflects the conclusions of the government
Review of Waste Policy in 2011, provides an analysis of the waste management situation in England and
evaluates how the Plan will support the implementation of the revised Waste Framework Directive.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012: 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).
The East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Local Plan 2013
(WMLP): Policies: WMP1 (Sustainable Development); WMP3a (Promoting Waste Prevention, Re-Use
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Page 10 of 14 N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
and Waste Awareness; WMP3b (Turning Waste into a Resource); WMP5 (Provision of Built Waste
Facilities); WMP7a (Sustainable Locations for Waste Development); WMP7b (Detailed Criteria for Waste
Development); WMP22 (Expansion and Alterations Within Existing Waste Facilities); WMP23a (Design
Principles for Built Waste Facilities); WMP23b (Operation of Sites); WMP24b (Resource and Energy Use)
WMP25 (General Amenity) and WMP27 (Environment and Environmental Enhancement).
East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan 2006 (WLP): There are no saved waste related
policies that are relevant to the proposed development.
Rother District Local Plan 2006 (RDLP): Policies DS1 (Development Principles); DS2 (Development in
Rural Areas); DS3 & DS4 (Development Boundaries) and GD1 (General Development Considerations).
Rother District Council Submission Core Strategy July 2012 (RDC): Policies OSS1 (Overall Spatial
Strategy); OSS3 (Use of Development Boundaries); OSS4 (Location of Development); OSS5 (General
Considerations) and EN1 (Landscape Stewardship).
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Page 11 of 14 N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
6.3 Policy and Strategy
European and National policy look to minimise waste production, increase the amount of waste recovered
and reused and decrease the amount of waste landfilled. Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS) stipulates
that the strategy for waste management at a regional level should provide a strategic framework for the
preparation of local development documents by identifying the waste management facilities required to
satisfy any identified need and their distribution across the region.
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. 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” identifying that new development should avoid producing adverse environmental impacts,
including unacceptable levels of air and noise pollution.
Recycling facilities operate to recover value from waste, regarding waste as a resource, rather than a
burden, and divert waste from landfill. The Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011
identifies the construction sector as being the largest contributing sector to overall waste arisings in
England; generating 81.4 Mt of waste in 2008. The review re-affirms the government’s commitment to
achieving the Waste Framework Directive’s 70% target for the recycling of non-hazardous construction
and demolition waste.
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 construction and demolition waste (C&D) waste by seeking to halve this type of waste
going to landfill as a result of waste reduction, reuse 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”.
The South East Plan (SEP) (albeit abolished for the purposes of development control and therefore no
longer part of the Development Plan) 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. SEP policies sought to establish regional and sub-regional self-
sufficiency by providing enough capacity to manage the amount of waste arising in the region and sub-
regional areas. SEP policies W5 and W6 set targets for diversion from landfill and recycling (and
composting), and Policy W7 set waste management capacity requirements to achieve the targets.
The WMLP encapsulates the waste management strategy for East Sussex; supporting minimization,
recycling and re-use, reflective of the government’s aim to minimise the environmental impact of dealing
with waste. The site is an existing waste management facility that contributes positively to achieving the
Plan objective of net self-sufficiency in the management of waste within the County and supports the
movement of waste up the waste hierarchy.
The WMLP identifies that development linked to existing facilities is generally supported by national
policy. Policy WMP22 recognises that waste facilities may over time require alteration and modification to
improve their efficiency or meet changes in environmental standards, and encourages alterations within
facilities where it would support more sustainable waste management. The policy states that alterations
within the site boundary of existing waste facilities will be supported in principle where:
the development is required to improve the operational efficiency of the facility including the efficiency
with which the facility uses or generates energy; and
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Page 12 of 14 N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
the development would contribute towards meeting the Objectives of the Plan.
The benefits of the development proposals were detailed earlier (Section 3.2) and it has been
demonstrated that the introduction of alternative crushing equipment, and an increase in the permitted
stockpile height, is consistent with Policy WMP22. The development would contribute toward meeting the
Objectives of the Plan by enabling more sustainable waste management practices; ensuring operational
efficiency and safeguarding waste management capacity.
6.4 Development in the Countryside and AONB
The site is located in the countryside, approximately 75m to the east of the Westfield Lane development
boundary and on the boundary of, but within, the AONB.
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 policies 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).
Approximately two thirds of the WMLP area is covered by the South Downs National Park and the High
Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Within the Rother District Council area some 82% is
designated as AONB. The WMLP 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.
Paragraph 3.35 identifies that in accordance with national and regional policy, waste management
facilities should not be precluded from the AONB. Accordingly Policy WMP7a states that 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”. Policies WMP23a, WMP23b and WMP27 seek
to conserve and enhance the local character and environment of the Plan Area and require that design
principles for waste facilities in rural areas account for local landscape character and distinctiveness.
Policy DS1 of the RDLP states that development should avoid “prejudicing the character and qualities of
the environment, particularly the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty” and should respect the
importance of the countryside in terms of its distinct landscape character, natural resources, woodland
and agriculture. However the RDLP also recognises, at Paragraph 4.49, that a “living and working”
countryside should be maintained. RDLP Policy DS2 deals with development in rural areas generally
restricting development to that which needs to be located in the countryside.
The emerging RDC Submission Core Strategy contains similar policies dealing with the protection of
designated areas and to guide the pattern or development; namely: OSS1; OSS3; OSS4, OSS5 and
EN1.
Proposals for new development outside the development boundaries are required to accord with
Development 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 principle of undertaking waste management
in this place is established.
The increase in stockpile height, and the introduction of a noise attenuation bund, has the potential to
impact upon the character and appearance of the landscape. Consistent with policies: WMP7a;
WMP23a; WMP23b and WMP27 (WMLP), and policy DS1 (RDLP) an assessment of the effect of the
proposal on the character and appearance on the landscape has been undertaken. It has been
demonstrated that there would be no significant impact on the visual amenities of the area or the
character and appearance of the locality. No features or areas of demonstrable landscape value would
be adversely affected.
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Page 13 of 14 N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
6.5 Environmental Impacts
The NPPF (at paragraph 7, 109 and 120) refers to the environmental role that the planning system plays
in contributing to the achievement of sustainable development; protecting the natural environment
through promoting the prudent use of natural resources, minimising waste and pollution. The NPPF
states that to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution, planning decisions should ensure that new
development is appropriate for its location.
Development Plan policy sets out general development principles for identifying sites and locations for
development and determination of planning applications. PPS 103 (at paragraphs 29 and 30) states that
in considering planning applications for waste management facilities, waste planning authorities should
consider the likely impact on the environment and on amenity.
Policies of the WMLP are also germane, including: WMP23b (operational criteria for sites including
mitigation for environmental impacts and screening of working areas) and WMP25 (maintaining levels of
general amenity appropriate to the surrounding land uses to ensure there is no significant adverse impact
by way of noise, dust or other emissions).
The potential for environmental impact to air quality by way of dust and to the local acoustic environment
by way of noise has been assessed. In each case, subject to appropriate mitigation, it is regarded that
any potential impact can be controlled within acceptable levels and that the amenity of land owners and
users in the locality would not be compromised.
6.5.1 Air Quality
The information above shows that dust can be adequately controlled. The proposal complies with the
following development plan policies: WMP23b and WMP25 of the WMLP; policies GD1 of the RDLP. It
also accords with policy OSS5 of the emerging RDC Submission Core Strategy.
6.5.2 Noise
In relation to noise the proposal complies with paragraph 109 and 123 of the NPPF and the following
development plan policies: WMP23b and WMP25 of the WMLP; policies GD1 of the RDLP. It also
accords with policy OSS5 and EN1 of the emerging RDC Submission Core Strategy.
3 Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management, Department for Communities and Local Government,
Revised March 2011.
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Page 14 of 14 N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
7. Conclusions
The proposals amount to development requiring planning permission.
The flexibility sought by the proposals will enable the facility to operate with improved efficiency, bettering
the provision of sustainable waste management within the County.
The development would serve to enhance existing waste management infrastructure, contributing
positively to the aim of promoting sustainable waste management, driving waste management up the
waste hierarchy.
Assessment has been undertaken of the potential impact the development may have on landscape
character and quality of the AONB, it has been demonstrated that there would be no greater impact either
on the amenity of visual receptors or landscape character or distinctiveness.
Assessments undertaken to determine the noise impact on the local acoustic environment, and a review
of the previous assessment relating to dust, demonstrate that subject to appropriate mitigation, the
proposals would not result in any unacceptable levels of impact upon the environment or on local
residents or land users.
The proposals represent sustainable development; promoting economic growth, including by promoting
operational efficiency, and providing for the long-term economic viability of the existing waste
management facility, safeguarding waste management capacity.
The proposal complies with relevant Development Plan policies, and accords with the principles and
provisions of the emerging policy framework and other material planning considerations.
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Appendices N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
APPENDICES
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Appendices N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
Appendix A Drawings and Plans
E12597-103_GR_DS_A1A Figure A1: Site Location Plan
E12597-103_GR_PA_A2A Figure A2: Application Site and Other Land in
Applicant’s Control
E12597-103_GR_PA_A3A Figure A3: Site Layout Plan (Indicative)
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Appendices N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
Appendix B Noise
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Appendices N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
Appendix C Landscape and Visual Impact
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Appendices N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
Appendix D Dust Risk Assessment
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Appendices N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
D1 Dust Risk Assessment
D1.1 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.
D1.2 Source
The waste types to be accepted at the site are to be limited to those described in Table 1 below.
Table D1: 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
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.
D1.3 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.
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Appendices N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
Figure D1: Herstmonceux Windrose 2007 - 2011
D1.4 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.
D1.5 Generic Risk Assessment
Table 2 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”.
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Appendices N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
Table D2: 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.
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Appendices N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
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 A.
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.
Noise
attenuation
bund
Dust can be
released (wind
whipped) from soil
bund.
Medium The external flanks of the bund will be
grass seeded to consolidate the surface
and minimise wind blow. If dusting is noted
on the internal surfaces, water suppression
will be employed
Low.
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Appendices N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx
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
Equipment
used to
crush waste.
The physical
disturbance of
material during size
reduction through
crushing has the
potential to lead to
the release of dust.
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.
The machinery to be used will comply with
the requirements of the Environmental
Permit (EP) applicable to the mobile
crushing equipment (see below).
Low.
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.
D1.6 Environmental Permitting and its Relationship with Dust Management
The site operates under a bespoke Environmental Permit (EP) (EPR/JB3937WR) enforceable by the
Environment Agency. The EP limits the throughput to 10,000 tonnes of input material per year. 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. An FEMP is currently implemented at the site.
Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM
Appendices N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx