development and neighbourhood services planning … consultation/port... · municipal buildings,...

DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES

PLANNING SERVICES

MJCA - Leslie Heasman Baddesley Colliery Offices Main Road Baxterley Atherstone Warwickshire CV9 2LE

www.stockton.gov.uk

Municipal Buildings, Church Road, Stockton on Tees. TS18 1LD Tel (01642) 526022 Fax (01642) 526048 DX 60611

App No. 13/2775/SOR Please ask for: Mrs Elaine Atkinson Direct line: 01642 526062 Email [email protected] Date: 16 December 2013 Dear Sir/Madam, TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) REGULATIONS

2011 PART 4 PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS - REGULATIONS 13 AND 15

Proposal: Scoping opinion request to extend the operational life of landfill at Port

Clarence Location: Port Clarence Landfill Site, Huntsman Drive, Seal Sands

I refer to your recently submitted Scoping Report regarding the above matter and apologise for the delay in this response. In accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, I have consulted the appropriate consultation bodies. Further to this, I have consulted third parties who may have interest or information which may help to determine the scope any Environmental Statement accompanying a planning application. Taking into account the contents of your Scoping Report and giving due consideration of the proposal and the responses received, I consider the following matters should be included in the Environmental Statement:

Planning Context The approach and policies identified in the Scoping Report to be assessed are generally acceptable.

Air Quality With regards to air quality, Natural England commented and recommends due to the proximity of designated sites that potential air quality impacts are considered in the EIA. I have forwarded the comments for your attention.

Archeology and Cultural Heritage Your attention is drawn to the comments of Tees Archaeology who have agreed that Archaeology can be scoped out of the Environment Statement. I

http://www.stockton.gov.uk/

mailto:[email protected]

Ecology and Nature Conservation Attention is drawn to the detailed comments of Natural England and the Environment Agency, which should be taken into account when preparing the Environmental Statement and have attached the comments for your attention.

Geology and Ground Conditions With regards to the scope and method of assessment set out in the Report, attention is drawn to the comments from the Environment Agency.

Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Flood Risk The site is within in flood zone 1 and 2. With regards to the scope and method of assessment set out in the Report, attention is drawn to the comments from the Environment Agency which states that a flood risk assessment should be included with the application. This should detail all relevant factors of flood risk such as risk to the development, risk to other areas, flow routes, depths, finished levels etc. The FRA will also need to consider the impact of the development on surface

water run off.

Landscape and Visual Impact As detailed, in Section 4.8, of the Scoping Report, the Landscape and Visual assessment carried out as part of the original planning application will be updated to assess the extension of the operational life of the landfill site. This should be done in line with the latest Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Third edition. Viewpoints can be agreed with the local authority and should include as a minimum views from Saltholme Bird Reserve to the north east, Port Clarence and the A1046 to the east and Middlesbrough across the River Tees to the south and west.

Noise and Vibration The scope and method of assessment set out in the Scoping Report is generally acceptable and an assessment should be carried out and submitted with the application.

Traffic and Transportation Comments have been received from the Highways Agency and the Head of Technical Services. Who considered the proposal to review the transport impact is considered to be acceptable. The Transport Statement will outline the number of vehicle trips generated by the site and consider the impact that these trips have on the highway network based on current network conditions. Focus of the updated assessment should be on minimising traffic movements during peak traffic hours and the Transport Statement should explore opportunities to promote sustainable travel modes to employees.

Conclusion In the circumstances, the scoping opinion adopted is that the Environmental Assessment should cover the issues raised by the statutory consultation bodies and any additional matters outlined above. The comments from consultation bodies have been forwarded in a separate email. Yours faithfully

Head of Planning

Environment Agency Tyneside House Skinner burn Road, Newcastle Business Park, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 7AR. Customer services line: 03708 506 www.environment-agency.gov.uk Cont/d..

Mrs Elaine Atkinson Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council PO Box 11 Stockton-on-Tees Cleveland TS18 1LD

Our ref: NA/2013/110029/01-L01 Your ref: 13/2775/SOR Date: 05 December 2013

Dear Mrs Atkinson SCOPING OPINION REQUEST TO EXTEND THE OPERATIONAL LIFE OF THE LANDFILL AT PORT CLARENCE PORT CLARENCE LANDFILL SITE, HUNTSMAN DRIVE, SEAL SANDS Thank you for referring the above Scoping Opinion which we received on 5 November 2013. Having reviewed the supporting documentation, we would expect the following matters to be dealt with as part of any planning application of these works: Environmental Permitting Regulations The applicant will need to vary the existing Environmental Permit for the site. For further information, please contact our Environmental Management Team in our Darlington office on 01325 276145. Flood Risk The proposed development is located within flood zones 1 and 2. The Environmental Impact Assessment will need to include a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). This should detail all relevant factors of flood risk such as risk to the development, risk to other areas, flow routes, depths, finished levels etc. The FRA will also need to consider the impact of the development on surface water run off. Fisheries and Biodiversity The Environmental Impact Assessment should include an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) as defined by CIEEM. Land Contamination In relation to the proposed development, in so far as it relates to land contamination, we only consider issues relating to controlled waters and relevance of regulatory regimes where we are the enforcing authority, such as environmental permitting.

End \AU_PC\2013 end date extension\5 DATA (Work in progress)\Port Clarence Final 28

Nov 2014\2 Environmental Statement\Appendix B - Scoping Response\2 - 13_2775_SOR-COMMENTS_FROM_ENVIRONMENT_AGENCY-1734675.docx

2

The developer should address risks to controlled waters from contamination at the site, following the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Environment Agency 'Guiding Principles for Land Contamination'. We recommend that developers should: 1) Follow the risk management framework provided in CLR11, Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, when dealing with land affected by contamination. 2) Refer to the Environment Agency Guiding Principles for Land Contamination for the type of information that we require in order to assess risks to controlled waters from the site. The Local Authority can advise on risk to other receptors, such as human health. 3) Refer to our website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk for more information. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely Lucy Mo Senior Planning Advisor - Sustainable Places Direct dial 0191 203 4203 Direct fax 0191 203 4004 Direct e-mail [email protected]

From: Leslie Heasman Sent: 24 March 2014 16:30

To: 'Mo, Lucy'Cc: [email protected]; Gene WilsonSubject: Port Clarence Landfill site. Planning application 13/2775/SOR

Dear LucyThank you very much for confirming that.RegardsLeslie

Leslie HeasmanMJCABaddesley Colliery OfficesMain RoadBaxterleyAtherstoneWarwickshireCV9 2LE

Tel: 01827 717891Fax: 01827 718507www.mjca.co.uk

Established in 1983Over 30 years of reliability in a changing environment

Our Ref: AU/PC

From: Mo, Lucy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 24 March 2014 16:04To: Leslie Heasman

Subject: Port Clarence Landfill site

Hi Leslie,

With regards to planning application 13/2775/SOR, given that the development seeks to only extend the operational lifetime of the development, the comments in relation to the

FRA and biodiversity are not applicable. A FRA does not need to be undertaken.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Regards

Lucy

Lucy Mo Senior Planning Advisor - Sustainable Places Team

Tel: 0191 203 4203Fax: 0191 203 4004

Environment AgencyEnvironment Planning and EngagementTyneside HouseSkinnerburn RoadNewcastle Business ParkNewcastle Tyne & WearNE4 7AR

Part of the Environment Agency's Yorkshire and North East Region.

Building a better environment

For advice on working with the Environment Agency, our remit and requirements please consult ‘A Guide for Developers’ at:

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/1_GETH1106BLNE-e-e(1).pdf

Hard copies available on request.

Information in this message may be confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender immediately, delete it and do not copy it to anyone else.

We have checked this email and its attachments for viruses. But you should still check any attachment before opening it.

We may have to make this message and any reply to it public if asked to under the Freedom of Information Act, Data Protection Act or for

Page 1 of 1

28/11/2014file:///F:/Project%20Folders/AU_PC/2013%20end%20date%20extension/5%20DAT...

From:Atkinson, ElaineSent:Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:57:56 +0000To:Planning AdministrationSubject:FW: 13/2775/SOR

From: Stocks, Jonathan Sent: 13 December 2013 14:42To: Atkinson, Elaine; Cowell, BobSubject: RE: 13/2775/SOR

As discussed in the proposal under subsection 4.4, due to the application only relating to the extension of permission, these factors have been previously addressed in the Environmental statement Ref TDC/94/065. As such I would have no comments to make on this scoping application.

However I would like to add, this is a PPC installation and the associated permit issued by the EA should cover all Environmental issues including air quality

Regards Jonathan

Jonathan Stocks

Environmental Health Officer

Environmental Health

P.O Box 232

16 Church Road

Stockton-on-Tees

TS18 1XD

(01642) 527791

(01642) 524743

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

From:Atkinson, ElaineSent:Fri, 13 Dec 2013 11:09:47 +0000To:Planning AdministrationSubject:FW: 13/2775/SCO

From: Wren, Rebecca Sent: 03 December 2013 13:06To: Atkinson, ElaineSubject: 13/2775/SCO

As the application is a request for an opinion on the scope of an EIA and the Scoping Report has included details of the relevant policy documents to be considered for the submission of a planning application, Spatial Planning have no comments to make at this stage.

Rebecca Wren

Spatial Planning Officer

Planning Services

Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

Municipal Buildings Church Road Stockton-on-Tees TS18 1LD

Tel: 01642 526056

(Postcode for Sat Nav: TS19 1UE)

Consultee Comments for Planning Application 13/2775/SOR

Application Summary

Application Number: 13/2775/SOR

Address: Port Clarence Landfill Site Huntsman Drive Seal Sands Middlesbrough TS2 1UE

Proposal: Scoping opinion request to extend the operational life of the landfill at Port Clarence

Case Officer: Mrs Elaine Atkinson

Consultee Details

Name: Mr Peter Rowe

Address: Sir William Gray House, Clarence Road, Hartlepool TS24 8BT

Email: [email protected]

On Behalf Of: Tees Archaeology

Comments

Dear Elaine

Thank you for the consultation on this scoping opinion.

The land is largely reclaimed from the Tees Estuary consisting of foundry waste infill of up to 4m in

depth. In this case I do not think there are any cultural heritage issues and these could be scoped

out of and Environmental Statement if one is needed.

Yours sincerely

Peter Rowe

Archaeologist (Planning), Tees Archaeology.

Approval Date Approval Date Approval Date

UD Officer: RB NH

26/11/13 02/12/13 Authorised: Authorised:

INTERNAL MEMORANDUM From: Head of Technical Services TECHNICAL SERVICES To: Head of Planning FAO: Elaine Atkinson

CC: Planning Administration

I refer to your memo dated: 5/11/13 Highways Comments The site is currently operating as a waste disposal site and no changes are proposed; the application is for an extension of the time limit to operate the site beyond 2016 (when the current planning approval will expire). The scope to review the transport impact of the proposed time limit extension as outlined in the Scoping Report is considered to be acceptable. The Transport Statement will outline the number of vehicle trips generated by the site and consider the impact that these trips have on the highway network based on current network conditions. Focus of the updated assessment should be on minimising traffic movements during peak traffic hours and the Transport Statement should explore opportunities to promote sustainable travel modes to employees. Landscape & Visual Comments It is understood in Section 4.8, Landscape and Visibility, of the Scoping Report that the Landscape and Visual assessment carried out as part of the original planning application ref TDC/94/065 will be updated to assess the extension of the operational life of the landfill site. This should be done in line with the latest Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Third edition. Viewpoints can be agreed with the local authority and should include as a minimum views from Saltholme Bird Reserve to the north east, Port Clarence and the A1046 to the east and Middlesbrough across the River Tees to the south and west.

Proposal: Scoping opinion request to extend the operational life of the landfill at Port Clarence

Date: 02/12/2013

Location: Port Clarence Landfill Site, Huntsman Drive, Seal Sands

Ref: 13/2775/SOR Rev

BANE Consultation Consultation Other

Network Safety Countryside & Green Space Highways Network Management Consultancy Practice Environmental Policy Flood Risk Management Community Transport Connect Tees Valley

From: Atkinson, Elaine

Sent: 16 December 2013 14:57

To: Planning Administration

Subject: FW: 13/2775/SOR

From: Cowell, Bob Sent: 13 December 2013 13:45

To: Atkinson, ElaineSubject: RE: 13/2775/SOR

Elaine,

As I understand it, this is merely an application to extend the working life of the site and there will be no

physical site development beyond that which has already been granted permission. From a land

contamination perspective, therefore, I see no new potential pollutant linkages and so have no objections to

the proposed manner of environmental assessment. As with all proposals, however, I would request that

the unexpected contamination phrase be included.

Bob Cowell.

Page 1 of 1

28/11/2014file:///F:/Project%20Folders/AU_PC/2013%20end%20date%20extension/5%20DAT...

AUGEAN PLC PORT CLARENCE

Table B1

A summary of the aspects raised in the responses to the Scoping Request together with a reference to the section in the Environmental Statement in which the aspects are addressed

AU/PC/ABW/1636/01/ES Page 1 of 5 November 2014 Summary table of scoping responses

Consultee Date of response

Summary of comments made Comments and/or the location in the Environmental Statement or Planning

Statement in which the aspects are addressed

Peter Rowe of Tees Archaeology

Confirmed that archaeology can be scoped out of the EIA.

N/A

Jonathan Stocks, EHO at SOTBC

13 December 2013

Confirmed that environmental health can be scoped out of the EIA.

N/A

Rebecca Wren, Spatial Planning Officer at SOTBC

3 December 2013

Satisfied with the scope of policy assessment set out in the Scoping Request prepared by MJCA

Planning Statement

Kate Berry, Natural England

26 November 2013

Due to the proximity of designated sites NE recommend that potential air quality impacts are considered.

The potential impact on designated sites is considered in detail in section 7 of the ecology report included at Appendix D of the ES and summarised in section 7 of the ES.


26 November 2013

Habitat and species surveys should be undertaken and suitable mitigation measures proposed as a result of the survey findings.

The field surveys carried out and the mitigation measures considered are listed in section 7 of the ES and in greater detail in sections 4 and 5 of the ecology report provided at Appendix D of the ES.


26 November 2013

As part of the noise assessment consider locations adjacent to designated sites to assess the potential disturbance on SPA birds. However this should only be necessary if noise levels are predicted to increase as a result of the time extension

The proposed development would not result in an increase in noise. However section 10 of the ES considers the potential noise impacts at the RSPB Saltholme nature reserve. This matter is considered in greater detail in the report by Vibrock provided at Appendix G of the ES.


Table B1







26 November 2013

Should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment then Natural England should be consulted

The development proposals have not changed since the request for the scoping opinion of SOTBC was sought in October 2013.

Michael Hoult, Highways Agency

18 November 2013

Confirmed that the proposed scope of the assessment set out in the scoping request was acceptable.

The traffic impact is assessed in the report provided at Appendix F to the ES and summarised in section 9 of the ES.

Bob Cowell at SOTBC 13 December 2013

Confirmed that from a land contamination perspective there would be no new potential pollution linkages.

N/A

Lucy Mo, Senior Planning Adviser at the EA

5 December 2014

Consultation response stated that as the proposed development is located within flood zones 1 and 2, the environmental impact assessment will need to include a flood risk assessment

Following further discussions and clarification email correspondence from Lucy Mo received on 24 March 2014 confirmed that as the development seeks only to extend the operational lifetime of the development and not to change the footprint or restoration profile a flood risk assessment is not necessary.

Lucy Mo, Senior Planning Adviser at the

5 December 2014

Re Fisheries and Biodiversity: stated that the EIA should include an ecological impact assessment

Email correspondence from Lucy Mo received on 24 March 2014 confirmed that as the


Table B1






EA (EcIA) as defined by CIEEM development seeks only to extend the operational lifetime of the development, and not to change the footprint or restoration profile the EA comments in relation to biodiversity are not applicable.

Lucy Mo, Senior Planning Adviser at the EA

5 December 2014

Requested that the developer should address risks to controlled waters from contamination at the site following the requirements of the NPPF and the Environment Agency ‘Guiding Principles for Land Contamination’

Land contamination is considered in section 6 of the ES. These are generic comments and as the development seeks only to extend the operational lifetime of the development, and not to change the footprint or restoration profile no contaminated land assessment is necessary.

SOTBC Economic regeneration and transport team

2 December 2013

The transport statement should outline the number of vehicle trips generated by the site and consider the impact of these trips have on the highway network based on current network conditions

The number of vehicle movements associated with the site and the impact of these movements in the context of the highway network are considered in the transport statement provided at Appendix F of the ES and summarised in section 9 of the ES.

SOTBC Economic 2 December The transport statement should explore Travel to the site by employees during peak


Table B1






regeneration and transport team

2013 opportunities to promote sustainable travel modes to employees

times and opportunities to make use of sustainable travel modes are considered in the transport statement provided at Appendix F of the ES and summarised in section 9 of the ES.


2 December 2013

The landscape and visual assessment carried out as part of the original planning application TDC/94/065 should be updated to assess the extension of the operational life of the landfill site. the assessment should be carried out in line with the latest Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Third Edition.

The landscape and visual impact of the proposals are assessed in the report provided at Appendix E to the ES and summarised in section 8 of the ES.


2 December 2013

Requested that viewpoints are agreed with the local authority and should include as a minimum views from Saltholme Bird reserve to the north west, Port Clarence and the A1046 to the east of Middlesbrough across the River Tees to the south and west.

The landscape and visual impact assessment is provided at Appendix E to the ES and summarised in section 8 of the ES. Table 2 of the assessment at Appendix E lists the viewpoints agreed with the local authority and includes the Saltholme Bird reserve, properties in Port Clarence, the surrounding highway network and land to the south of the River Tees.


Table B1



SOTBC – Stockton on Tees Borough Council

EA – Environment Agency

EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment

ES – Environmental Statement

EHO – Environmental Health Officer

NE – Natural England

development and neighbourhood services planning … consultation/port... · municipal buildings,...

Documents