ITEM 6

TO: PLANNING & REGULATORY COMMITTEE DATE: 30 June 2011

BY: PLANNING DEVELOPMENT CONTROL TEAM MANAGER

DISTRICT(S) SPELTHORNE BOROUGH COUNCIL ELECTORAL DIVISION(S): Lower Sunbury & Halliford Caroline Nichols

PURPOSE: FOR DECISION GRID REF: 508585 168573

TITLE:

MINERALS AND WASTE APPLICATION SP10/0947

SUMMARY REPORT Charlton Lane Waste Management Facility, Charlton Lane, Shepperton, Surrey Development of a Waste Management ‘Eco Park’, comprising: a Gasification Facility; Anaerobic Digestion Facility; Community Recycling Facility; Recyclables Bulking Facility; Education / Visitor Centre and Offices; Other Associated Infrastructure including Infiltration Basin and Landscaping; and the diversion of Public Footpath 70. The proposed development is for the use of approximately 12.29 ha of land centred on the existing Charlton Lane Waste Management Facility (4.5ha) but includes land to the east, with some to the north, which are former mineral workings (currently grassland and scrub). The site lies between Charlton Village to the northwest and Upper Halliford to the southeast, and is bounded by the M3 motorway to the northwest, Charlton Lane to the south and the Shepperton to London railway line to the east. Sunbury Golf Course (former mineral workings) is located south of Charlton Lane, and the nearest residential property is Ivydene Cottage, which is located adjacent to the southern boundary, some 45m east of the site access off Charlton Lane. The site lies in the Metropolitan Green Belt where there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. The proposed waste development is inappropriate development and therefore the application falls to be considered as a Departure from the provisions of the Development Plan. Issues to be considered in determining this application are whether there are factors which amount to very special circumstances, which clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt that would be caused by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm. The proposal must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan Policy unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise, and the development should be capable of being operated without unacceptable harm to local environmental and amenity interests. Objection has been raised by Spelthorne Borough Council, residents groups and neighbours on various grounds, including: Green Belt, visual impact, air quality and health effects, technology and health & safety, noise, waste need, traffic and access, alternative sites, and does not accord with the Development Plan. Some letters of support for the proposed development have also been received. There is a need for increased recycling, recovery and landfill diversion capacity in the northern part of Surrey, Surrey as a whole and the South East Region, to contribute to national and development plan targets. Officers consider that the proposed Eco Park would conform with and contribute towards the aims and objectives of national and development plan policy in relation to sustainable waste management by facilitating increased recycling and energy recovery and reducing the amount of waste being landfilled.

1

ITEM 6

The application site is close to urban areas in North West Surrey and Officers consider it is easily accessible by the strategic road network. The majority of the built development (4.5 ha) is an allocated site in the Surrey Waste Plan (SWP 2008), under Policies WD1, WD2 and WD5; however a larger area of 7.7 ha for significant landscaping (Environmental Enhancement Area - EEA) remains outside the allocated area in the SWP. Officers consider this to be a suitable location for the application proposal when considered against the site key development criteria (KDC) contained in the SWP 2008, and the locational criteria in the South East Plan 2009 (SEP 2009), subject to very special circumstances being demonstrated in accordance with the provisions of Policy CW6 (Development in the Green Belt) of the SWP 2008. The proposed development will nonetheless cause significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt and conflicts with one of the purposes of including land in the Green Belt in terms of encroachment on the open countryside. The suitability of the application site for waste development and potential impact of the proposal in terms of a range of matters including highways (traffic and access); air quality (including dust and odour), landscape and visual impact; noise and vibration; drainage (surface water and groundwater); ecology; archaeology & cultural heritage have been considered in the report. These are matters that have the potential to justify the refusal of planning permission outright or amount or contribute to ‘any other harm’ in relation to assessment of the application against Green Belt policy. However, Officers consider that the above impacts have been suitably mitigated by design or can be controlled by the imposition of planning conditions. Officers consider there are a number of factors, which together constitute very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and other harm, and which justify the grant of planning permission. These factors are: (1) the lack of alternative suitable sites in or outside of the Green Belt; (2) the need for the County to increase waste recycling / recovery and landfill diversion to contribute to agreed targets; (3) the close proximity of the site to the arisings of waste; (4) the characteristics and suitability of the site for the scale of waste operation proposed given the existing waste management use; (5) the unique benefits of co-location at Charlton Lane; (6) the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management, including the need for a range of sites; (7) the provision of renewable energy generation capacity and (8) environmental enhancement measures for adjoining land. These factors combined are such that very special circumstances have been demonstrated as required by SWP 2008 Policy CW6, that clearly outweigh the harm resulting from the proposal. Therefore, an exception to Green Belt policy in PPG2, the South East Plan May 2009 Policy SP5, and Spelthorne Borough Local Plan Policy GB1 can and should be made and planning permission be granted subject to conditions. The recommendation is to PERMIT subject to conditions and that AUTHORITY BE GRANTED to make, publicise and, if applicable, confirm the footpath diversion order sought by the Applicant, and the application being referred to the Secretary of State as a departure. APPLICATION DETAILS Applicant SITA Surrey Ltd Date application valid 4 November 2010 Period for Determination 24 February 2011 (16 weeks) Amending Documents

2

ITEM 6

Letter dated 9 December 2010: revised ‘Site Plan Proposed‘ (Dwg No. 1244 PL–B003 Rev.A), revised ‘General Arrangement Plan’ (Dwg No. 1224 PL-B004 Rev.B), revised ‘Entrance Gates and Signs’ (Dwg No. 1224 PL-B022 Rev.A) and revised noise assessment for acoustic fencing. Email dated 4 January 2011 – clarification over issues raised by Swan Sanctuary. Letter dated 6 January 2011 with ‘Further Environmental Information’ submitted under Regulation 19 of the EIA Regulations, comprising: ‘Additional information on Air Quality modelling’, ‘South East Plan Policy Appraisal’ and ‘Additional evidence regarding noise mitigation.’ Letter dated 19 January 2011 - clarification over questions in respect of Noise and Rights of Way. Letter dated 9 May 2011 with ‘Further Environmental Information’ submitted under Regulation 19 of the EIA Regulations on ‘Status of Charlton Lane Eco Park in respect of waste recovery operation’. Updated Carbon Balance Report dated 9 May 2011. SUMMARY OF PLANNING ISSUES This section identifies and summarises the main planning issues in the report. The full text should be considered before the meeting. Is this aspect of the

proposal in accordance with the development

plan?

Paragraphs in the report where this has been

discussed

Procedural N/A 68-90 Waste Management Issues:

• Need • Alternative Site

Assessment • Location

(Overall conclusions)

Yes Yes

Yes

91-141 142-163

164-174 175-178

(179-187) Renewable Energy Yes 188-254 Highways, Traffic and Access Yes 255-326 EIA and Appropriate Assessment

Yes 333-336

Air Quality, Dust & Odour, Health Effects

Yes 337-376

Landscape and visual amenity, incl. rights of way

Yes 377-449

Noise and Vibration Yes 450-484 Surface Water and Flooding Yes 485-493 Geology, Soils, Groundwater Yes 494-501 Ecology and Nature Conservation

Yes 502-519

Lighting Yes 520-522 Archaeology & Cultural Heritage

Yes 523-529

Cumulative Impacts Yes 530-531 Other Issues:

• Perception of health

Yes

532-534

3

ITEM 6

risks

• Technology concerns • Health & Safety • Other environmental

issues • Socio-Economic

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

535-537 538-545

546-548

549 Green Belt No 551-611 ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL Site Plan Plan 1 – Site and location plan Plan 2 – Boundary Map Plan 3 – Dwg No.1224 PL-B004 General Arrangement Plan Rev.B Aerial Photographs Aerial 1 - Charlton Lane facility (wide view) Aerial 2 - Charlton Lane facility (close view) Site Photographs Figure 1 – View from Ivydene Cottage’s access lane looking north west Figure 2 – View of CRC and WTS looking north within the site Figure 3 – View of field to east of site looking north Figure 4 – View of Scout Hut access and Site Entrance looking northwest Figure 5 – Rear garden of Ivydene Cottage looking south Figure 6 – View of proposed Eco Park from footpath to the east of the site Figure 7 – View of proposed Eco Park from properties to the north west Appendices App A – Abbreviations & Glossary App B – Pre-application Publicity by Applicant App C – Waste Flow Charts App D – Air Quality Tables and Sensitive Receptor Map App E – Final Design App F – Landscape Masterplan BACKGROUND Site Description 1 The proposed built site is centred on the existing Charlton Lane Waste Management

Facility (4.5 hectares (ha)) but includes a greater amount of land to the east, with some to the north, which are former mineral workings (currently grassland and scrub), increasing the site area up to approximately 12.29 ha. The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt.

2 The site lies between Charlton Village to the northwest and Upper Halliford to the

southeast, and is bounded by the M3 motorway to the northwest, Charlton Lane to the south and the Shepperton to London railway line to the east. Sunbury Golf Course (former mineral workings) is located south of Charlton Lane. The local Scout Hut is

4

ITEM 6

located on the north side of Charlton Lane between the site and the M3. Public Footpath 70 runs along the western boundary of the waste management site following the line of the M3, and then follows an easterly direction around the northern end of the existing site, crossing the railway line at Bugle Nurseries.

3 The nearest residential property is Ivydene Cottage, which is located adjacent to the

southern boundary, some 45m east of the site access off Charlton Lane. The next nearest properties are those on Hawthorn Way, Upper Halliford, whose rear gardens back on to the eastern side of the railway line and are approximately 20 metres (m) from the site boundary (landscaped area) and 255m from the proposed gasification building.

Planning History 4 Waste activities have been taking place at the site since the late 1940s, and on 30 April

1949, the three local Councils at the time (Sunbury-on-Thames, Staines and Twickenham) signed a 99-year lease agreement for the erection and maintenance of a Refuse Disposal works at Charlton Lane (site of current waste transfer station). Planning permission was granted in 1949 for an Incinerator, with further details approved in 1951, which remained operational until the 1960’s. In 1952 planning permission was granted for the excavation of sand and gravel (north of Charlton Lane and west of South Region Railway Line), which included infilling with waste. Waste transfer and Civic Amenity facilities commenced in the 1960’s. In 1992 planning permission was granted (SP92/0118) for the demolition of the former incinerator buildings and the construction of a new 3,575m2 covered waste transfer hall. The demolition was subsequently carried out and highway improvements completed at the site entrance but the waste transfer hall was never erected.

5 In 1996 planning permission (ref: SP96/0242) was granted for the erection of a building

(2,895m2) to house the waste transfer and some of the civic amenity operations that were previously carried out in the open over the whole site for a limited period expiring on 25 July 2016. This new facility opened in September 1997. In 1997, details of bunds on the northern and western boundaries of the site were approved (ref: SP97/0260). Planning permission for a materials recovery facility to be located adjacent to the existing waste transfer hall was granted in July 1998 (ref: SP98/0056), also for a limited period, expiring on 25 July 2016.

6 Further details pursuant to planning permission ref: SP98/0056 (amended details of the

layout and elevation to the MRF building pursuant to Condition 2 (ref SP03/0432); details of parking, loading, unloading, turning and lighting pursuant to Conditions 6 and 11 (ref: SP03/0434); and details of storage, loading and unloading and parking pursuant to Condition 7 (ref: SP03/0582) were approved in July 2003 and August 2003 respectively. In February 2004 planning permission was granted (ref: SP03/1089) for the construction of four bays for the storage of recyclable materials and associated hardstanding and turning area at the northern end of the site.

7 In September 2006 planning permission was granted (ref: SP06/0667) to re-design the

civic amenity aspect of the community recycling centre into a modern split-level facility providing up to 16 new storage containers in the northern part of the civic amenity area and for replacement of existing storage containers located to the west of the waste transfer station until 25 July 2016.

8 In January 2007 planning permission (ref: SP06/1035) was granted for the installation of

two storage containers located on existing hardstanding to the east of the weighbridge area to enable the storage of weighbridge ticket receipts on site. Planning Permission (ref. SP07/0090) was approved for the details of the design and appearance of the built edge of the drop off parking area pursuant to Condition 11 of planning permission SP06/0667 dated 29 September 2006. In November 2007 planning permission (ref:

5

ITEM 6

SP07/1043) was granted for the erection of a 2.2m high palisade fence along the boundary.

9 In June 2008 planning permission (ref: SP08/0040) was granted for an amended layout

to the Community Recycling Centre (CRC) pursuant to Condition 2 of permission ref: SP06/0667. In July 2008 planning permission (ref: SP08/0457) was granted for the installation of 2 portacabin units for use as a mess room facilities.

10 In 2009 details for the hydrogeological risk and contamination assessment (ref:

SP09/0161) pursuant to condition 3 and details of the flood risk assessment and drainage (ref: SP09/0247) pursuant to condition 9 of planning permission ref: SP06/0067 were approved. In May 2009 planning permission (ref: SP09/0246) was granted for the construction of an underground soakage and drainage scheme.

11 In February 2010 planning permission (ref: SP09/0894) was granted for the installation

and use of a weighbridge comprising of a new haul road, foundation of the weighbridge and a 2.3 m high pole for traffic light system. In March 2010 planning permission (ref: SP10/0089) was granted for the erection of 3 x 4m metal poles for the installation of CCTV camera system and LED signs. Planning applications submitted in April 2010 for the use of access route for the CRC plus extended hours (ref: SP10/0375) and for the CRC use without compliance with Condition 7 of permission SP06/0667 (ref: SP10/0378) were both subsequently withdrawn.

12 On 1 November 2010 a planning application (ref. SP10/0883) was submitted to the

County Planning Authority for the permanent retention of the existing waste management facility at Charlton Lane, which includes an improved access and acoustic fencing, as the 1996 planning permission (ref. SP96/0242) requires that by 25 July 2016 the use of the land be discontinued, with buildings removed and the land reinstated to its former condition. On 2 February 2011, the Planning & Regulatory Committee voted to grant planning permission for the retention application subject to conditions and prior completion of a Section 106 obligation/agreement (s106), and the application being referred to the Secretary of State as a departure.

13 On 25 February 2011, a separate report addressed the legal position on the s106 agreement and lease for the retention application (SP10/0883) considered by the Committee on 2 February. The report recommended that the matters in the s106 heads of terms should be dealt with by conditions, and not by way of a s106 agreement. The report also provided an update on the status of the Regional Strategy (RS), the South East Plan 2009 (SEP 2009), following the judgment on the second Cala Homes challenge referred to in para 76 of the report to Committee on 2 February. Following consideration of this updated report by the Planning & Regulatory Committee on 25

February, who again voted to grant planning permission, the application was referred to the Secretary of State who confirmed they did not wish to call in the application. The retention application (SP10/0883) was granted planning permission with conditions on 4 March 2011.

14 This current Eco Park planning application was due to be considered at the Planning &

Regulatory Committee on 8 March 2011. However, due to an objection by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in respect of the Environmental Permit application, which made reference to this planning application, Officers deferred determination until further clarity had been obtained regarding whether the HSE objection had any implications for the design of the Eco Park. Officers sought further clarification from the HSE and the applicant also met with the HSE on 16 March 2011. On 18 March 2011 the HSE confirmed that they raise no objection to the planning application, and would continue to liaise with the Environment Agency in respect of the application for the Environmental Permit.

6

ITEM 6

15 Following the above deferral, the revised Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC (WFD)

was transposed into UK legislation -The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011, on 28 March 2011. In addition, on 31 March 2011 Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS10) was updated to ensure it incorporated the new waste hierarchy set out in the revised WFD and new Waste Regulations. In April 2011, the EU Commissioners also published an updated draft version of guidance on how to apply the ‘Recovery - R1’ formula, which enables certain municipal waste incineration facilities to be classed as ‘Recovery’ operations. Officers considered that the Charlton Lane Eco Park facilities needed to be assessed with regard to the above changes, and requested ‘Further Environmental Information’ under Regulation 19 of the EIA Regulations on 6 May 2011 regarding the status of Charlton Lane Eco Park in respect of this guidance on ‘Recovery’ and the waste hierarchy. The applicant also took this opportunity to amend some errors in the calculations within the Carbon Balance Report originally submitted in support of the application.

16 The report that was prepared for the Planning & Regulatory Committee on 8 March

2011, which was forwarded to Members in February 2011, should be disregarded as it was withdrawn and should not form part of this decision making process.

THE PROPOSAL 17 The applicant wishes to re-develop the existing waste management facility at Charlton

Lane (4.5 ha), through the creation of a multi-use waste management facility referred to as an ‘Eco Park’ and amalgamated through a single design. The built development would be on approx. 4.5 ha of land, with a further 7.7 ha of land primarily to the east for landscaping, increasing the overall site area for the Eco Park to approximately 12.29 ha (see attached Plan 2 ‘Boundary Map’). The Eco Park would handle approximately 143,750 tonnes of waste per year and will consist of the following:

Gasification Facility

18 Comprising a large building (max. 134m x 89m x 18.5m roof height) including a 49 metre polished stainless steel stack. Three flue outlets rise above the roof height, up to a height of 20.8m. The building would contain: the waste reception hall and storage, gasification equipment, turbine hall and ancillary offices, staff welfare facilities and education / visitor centre. The building would be clad in aluminium apart from red cedar timber cladding on the western elevation. The gasification plant (batch oxidation system) would process approx. 60,000 tonnes of residual household waste, with a small proportion of commercial waste from the northern Boroughs of the County. Gasification involves two main stages, a) conversion into gas (Syngas) by heating of organic waste (without complete combustion), and b) the Syngas is combusted to produce heat, and then steam is produced by way of a boiler system, which then generates electricity (3.6MW) via a steam turbine (to be fed into the grid). The residues from the process are to be exported; fly ash (1,800 tonnes) for disposal to landfill and bottom ash (12,000 tonnes) for re-use and or disposal to landfill.

Anaerobic Digestion Facility

19 Comprising a building (52m x 30m x 13.5m in height) for reception, processing and maturation, which will be clad in aluminium and steel (metallic grey). There would be 14 associated tanks (up to 15m in height) and equipment (as detailed on Dwg. No. 1224 PL-B016). A staff amenity block would also be included. The facility would treat (anaerobic digestion) up to 40,000 tonnes of food waste from the northern and central Boroughs of the County, converting it into methane and carbon dioxide, which is used to produce electricity (1.4MW) via the combined heat and power (CHP) gas turbine engines. The material left over from the process is known as digestate (approx. 20,000 tonnes), which would be exported and spread to agricultural land as a soil enhancer.

7

ITEM 6

Recyclables Bulking Facility (RBF)

20 The facility would fulfil the same function as the existing MRF and bulking bays, and would comprise: 16 bulking bays, bulk storage building (approx. 22m x 57m x 13m height) and a baler. The facility is anticipated to handle approx. 42,750 tpa of recyclables, 27,000 tpa would be externally delivered and 15,750 tpa internally transferred from the CRC.

Community Recycling Centre (CRC)

21 The existing civic amenity facility would be retained with new canopies provided although minor modifications would be made to the layout and site access road. The civic amenity facility is to the west of the gasification facility and is anticipated to handle approx. 25,000 tonnes of waste. Photovoltaic cells would be positioned on the roof of the RBF and form the canopy of the CRC, which would generate approx. 0.16MW of electricity.

Education and Visitor Centre

22 An education / visitor centre is provided on the third floor at the southern end of the Gasification building. This floor area below is required at ground, first and second floor level for a large switchgear room, process staff changing facilities, office space and a control room which must have clear upper level views over the process areas within the building. The remaining space below the 13.5 to 18.5m roof line, which would otherwise be empty, has been utilised in order to provide space for the education / visitor centre.

Hours of operation

23 The Gasification and Anaerobic Digestion processes are 24-hour operations, however only the Gasification Plant requires 24 hour staffing. The applicant proposed the following operational hours for the Eco Park:

Community Recycling Centre Monday – Saturday 07.30 – 18.00 Sundays and Bank Holidays 08.00 – 17.00 Recyclables Bulking Facility Monday – Saturday & Bank Holiday 07.30 – 18.00 Sunday 07.30 – 17.00 Gasification Facility (receipt of waste hours) Monday – Saturday and Bank Holidays 07.30 – 18.00 Sunday 07.30 – 17.00 Anaerobic Digestion Facility (receipt of waste hours) Monday – Friday and Bank Holidays 07.00 – 17.30 Saturday 07.00 – 12.00 Sundays Closed

Traffic and Access

24 The access to the Eco Park site would be modified providing a dedicated route for CRC traffic and a separate routing for HGV traffic. The total annual tonnage input of waste and recyclables into the Eco Park is proposed to be a maximum 143,750 tonnes, which is a reduction on the current waste levels (163,000 tonnes) going through the existing site, and this together with the processing of waste on site would result in reduced numbers of vehicles during weekdays with a small increase at the weekend compared to the current waste operations at the site. An HGV routing strategy for all contracted bulk HGV vehicles travelling to and from the site is already in operation at the existing Charlton Lane waste management site. This routing agreement seeks to direct large HGV traffic to the more suitable routes of the A244 and A308 and therefore limit traffic levels through Charlton village and the western residential sections of Shepperton. It is proposed that existing vehicle routing strategy and enforcement procedures be retained to support the development of the Eco Park scheme.

8

ITEM 6

Landscape and nature conservation 25 Landscape proposals would fall into two areas:

a) amenity landscape improvements to the site entrance and public

areas within the site. Existing vegetation along the eastern and northern boundary would be removed to allow the development and necessary vehicular circulation.

b) the development of an Environmental Enhancement Area (EEA) - a wider zone around the site to the east and north of the Eco Park built area that would be developed and managed in the interests of improving the local landscape, biodiversity and public amenity. This managed landscaped area would incorporate grassland, shrubs, trees and a drainage infiltration basin. A 3.5 metre high earth mound would be provided along the southeastern boundary of the built development providing some immediate screening for the internal HGV route.

26 In addition to the prescribed on-site EEA, the applicant has proposed to make a one off financial contribution to a fund for local environmental enhancement projects, which they offer as a planning obligation. However, as explained later in this report (at paragraph 440) Officers have refused the offer of this contribution as they do not consider that it meets the requirements of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. Odour control

27 The proposed development includes odour control facilities for both the gasification and AD buildings, which operate under negative pressure, with air being extracted and passed through a biofilter. The biofilter would remove odours and particulate elements ensuring dust and odour are not released into the surrounding atmosphere. The biofilters are essentially wood chip upon which micro-organisms such as bacteria and fungi can grow. These micro-organisms degrade any malodorous particles within the air that is passed through the filter. Having passed through the biofilter the air would be discharged to the atmosphere via a fan and 15m stack in the north east of the odour control building.

Surface water management

28 The proposed Eco Park would benefit from a completely new surface water drainage system, which would combine the Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) principles of attenuation and infiltration, discharging collected flows to an infiltration basin located in the southeast of the site. Infrastructure

29 Associated new infrastructure and ancillary buildings across the site would include:

• staff welfare facilities; • staff and visitor car parking (including motorcycle and cycle provision); • a weighbridge office; • an electricity sub-station; • a fire break water tank and pumping facilities; • a workshop and associated compound; • surface and foul water drainage systems; and • a lighting scheme. • acoustic barrier between the Gasification facility and Ivydene Cottage • 2.6 metre high welded mesh fence around perimeter of the proposed Eco Park

facility. 30 An existing public right of way (FP70) across the north of the site would be permanently

diverted, and replaced with a new section of surfaced footpath approx. 40m north of the existing line, which would then link back on to the definitive course of FP70 running east.

9

ITEM 6

In addition a new footpath would be provided running south from FP70, crossing the landscaped enhancement area south to Charlton Lane.

31 The Eco Park would provide employment for approximately 60 people, although due to a

shift system no more then 41 would be on site at any one time. 32 The planning application is supported by an Environmental Statement, which contains an

evaluation of the current environment, the predicted environmental impacts and details of the proposed mitigation measures. In January 2011 further information was submitted under Regulation 19 of the EIA Regulations (1999), in respect of Air Quality modelling, SEP 2009 Policy Appraisal and additional evidence regarding noise mitigation. In addition amending information was submitted comprising: revised ‘Site Plan Proposed‘ (Dwg No. 1244 PL–B003 Rev.A), revised ‘General Arrangement Plan’ (Dwg No. 1224 PL-B004 Rev.B) and revised ‘Entrance Gates and Signs’ (Dwg No. 1224 PL-B022 Rev.A). In May 2011, further information was submitted under Regulation 19 of the EIA Regulations (1999), on the status of the Charlton Lane Eco Park in respect of the EU guidance on ‘Recovery’ and the changes in the waste hierarchy.

CONSULTATIONS AND PUBLICITY District Council 33 Spelthorne Borough Council (SBC) has resolved that it ‘very strongly objects’ to the

proposal for the following reasons:

a) The proposal does not satisfactorily demonstrate there are genuinely ‘very special circumstances’ to justify development of this Green Belt site contrary to saved Local Plan Policy GB1.

b) The scale of the proposal goes beyond the existing site boundary and results in an

adverse impact on the wider area through loss of existing landscaping and development in close proximity to Ivydene Cottage contrary to Policy EN1 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD.

c) The height and design of the structures are conspicuous and inappropriate in this Green Belt location and, in conjunction with the position of the internal roadway and buildings, has an unacceptable impact on Ivydene Cottage.

d) The landscaping should utilise all the land in the County Council’s ownership to provide maximum screening and be designed to more appropriately reflect the wider landscape character of the area.

34 In addition SBC added the following comments.

Notwithstanding the above objections to the proposal, it is considered that Surrey County Council would need to clarify / address the following matters through planning conditions:

a) Requirement for appropriate traffic management measures to be submitted and

agreed:

i. To prevent problems of noise and obstruction caused by the arrival of lorries before the site opens and lorry-parking generally outside the site gates

ii. To apply greater control on lorry rates to reduce such movements through Charlton Village.

10

ITEM 6

b) Noise impact and the necessity of information and controls as follows:

(1) Matters where further information is needed and could result in a requirement for material alterations to the proposal beyond the scope to be addressed by planning conditions:

i. Details of when the flare will need to operate, its duration in worst

case scenarios, and its predicted impact on Ivydene Cottage and other nearby properties.

ii. Details of the attenuation of the steam vent silencers; when and how often steam vent safety checks will take place, including duration and the impact on Ivydene Cottage and other nearby properties.

(2) Matters requiring clarification and controlled through conditions:

i. The applicant’s assessment of noise has been made against

Surrey County Council’s guidelines for noise. However, these are not as stringent as the Borough Council’s night time (23.00-07.00) rating level requiring noise at this time to be at least 5dB(A) below background noise levels. This will require higher standards of attenuation and operational control of on-site processes.

ii. The construction details acknowledge that deliveries involving abnormal loads may be made outside of permitted construction times but no details or controls are proposed to ensure unacceptable disturbance is avoided.

(3) Matters requiring control via conditions:

i. The approval of the Construction and Environmental Management

Plan must be subject to prior consultation with the Borough Council and include the following:

• Vehicles associated with demolition and construction to only arrive and depart from the site between 07.00-1830 Monday to Friday, 07.00-13.30 on Saturdays and no deliveries on Sundays, Public Holidays or Bank Holidays.

• Demolition and construction operating hours to only be on the days identified above and to only take place between 07.30-18.00 Monday to Friday and 07.30-13.00 on Saturdays.

• Spelthorne Borough Council’s Environmental Health Department to be notified of any emergency works outside of the above hours, including details of the type of work, duration, mitigation measures and likely residents affected.

• The applicant be required to submit details of the following for approval:

(a) The programme of works for the site demolition /

construction. (b) An assessment of the impacts of construction noise

affecting nearby sensitive development. (c) The mitigation measures, which will be employed to

reduce such effects.

11

ITEM 6

(d) A programme of monitoring to ensure mitigation

measures are working. (e) Details of remedial action where required. (f) Mitigation for other possibilities, including the likelihood

of emergency works and other works outside the Spelthorne Council construction hours; and the likelihood of other potentially noisy works including pumps being required onsite to remove groundwater.

• Provision of sufficient detail to inform the Section 61 prior consent agreement between the approved contractor and Spelthorne Borough Council to ensure noisy works can be controlled to an acceptable level, and for the contractor to provide residents with the contact details of the site manager in the event of complaint.

ii. Details of the plant type, construction and materials used for the

Eco Park buildings to be submitted for approval before construction to ensure that the necessary noise attenuation can be achieved.

iii. The doors to the gasification and anaerobic digester building to be kept closed except when allowing access and egress.

iv. The proposed acoustic fence to protect Ivydene Cottage to be constructed prior to demolition/construction activities at the site in accordance with drawing number 1224 PL-B004 to meet noise criteria.

v. Prior to the operation of the gasification building, the 5m high acoustic fence to be constructed around the HGV tipping area in accordance with drawing number 1224 PL-B004 to meet noise criteria.

vi. The applicant to undertake noise measurements of the site operations following completion of all construction works to confirm that the various mitigation measures are achieving the necessary attenuation, particularly with regard to Ivydene Cottage.

c. Requirement that no odour is noticeable at the boundary of the site.

d. Requirement for a comprehensive desk top study of potential contamination,

detailed site investigation and method statement for appropriate remediation/protection and implementation of remediation and protection.

e. Requirement for details of all materials for buildings and structures to be submitted for approval to ensure they make the buildings and plant as discrete as possible.

f. Requirement for details of all landscaping to be submitted to ensure the complex is well screened and the form of landscaping reflects the character of the wider area.

The County Council is asked to review whether the proposed Section 106 contribution

complies with the requirements of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and, if there is any doubt on this matter, the £75,000 proposed to be given is otherwise used to improve the landscaping proposals.

12

ITEM 6

Officer’s note: SBC will consider the recent ‘Reg 19’ submission on the ‘Status of Charlton Lane Eco Park in respect of waste recovery operation’ at a meeting on 29 June 2011 and their formal views will be provided by way of an Update Sheet. However, SBC’s Officers have initially advised that their stance detailed above would remain unchanged.

Consultees (Statutory and Non-Statutory) 35 The Environment Agency

Do not have any in principle objections to the proposal and are satisfied that conditions will be able to control mitigation and any further assessment, in respect of the groundwater regime. The Environment Agency also responded to the recent ‘Reg 19’ submission on the ‘Status of Charlton Lane Eco Park in respect of waste recovery operation’ and concur with the applicant’s assessment that the AD, MRF and aspects of the CRC would be Recovery Operations whilst the Gasification plant would be a Disposal Operation.

36 Natural England

No objection and concurs with conclusions of air quality assessment that the proposals are not likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the Southwest London Waterbodies Special Protection Area (SPA).

37 Highways Agency

No objection subject to the submission of a Construction Management Plan to ensure the development does not result in avoidable traffic delay at Junction 1 of the M3.

38 Thames Water

Surface Water Drainage: Recommends that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage and that a Trade Effluent Consent would be required for any effluent discharge. Thames Water also recommends that petrol / oil filters should be fitted in all car parking/washing/repair facilities. Water Supply: No objection though suggests an informative be attached to any permission regarding the provision of minimum water pressure.

39 BAA Aerodrome Safeguarding No objection subject to the submission of a Bird Hazard Management Plan. 40 Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT)

No obejction but would advise the CPA to seek a significant amount of biodiversity mitigation provided in a Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme in addition to an Ecological Construction Method Statement to detail with the actions taken to control the effects of the development process on local ecology. Lastly, SWT recommend that a Landscaping Design Plan should also be provided giving details of how new habitats are to be created and a financed Management Plan for the maintenance of any new habitat should also be provided for approval.

41 NHS Surrey Confirmed that the comments made at the draft application stage remain their formal opinion - ‘The planned activities at Charlton Lane Waste Management Facility should not present a risk to public health provided they are well managed and regulated’.

42 Health & Safety Executive

Do not advise, on safety grounds, against the granting of planning permission in this case. As noted earlier (para.14), the HSE raised an initial objection to the Environmental Permit application, which made reference to this planning application. However, the HSE

13

ITEM 6

have since confirmed that they neither object to the planning application nor require conditions to be attached to any planning permission.

43 Scottish and Southern Energy No comments received. 44 Network Rail No comments received. 45 Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE)

Supports the design / project ethos and considers the design to be a successful piece of architecture.

46 County Highway Authority (CHA)

• The Transportation Assessment is considered to provide sufficient information for the County Council to undertake a robust assessment of the traffic impact of the proposal.

• The overall traffic generation of the Eco Park will be similar to the existing waste

facility at the site. The overall number of HGVs visiting the site will reduce, although there will be a marginal reduction on Saturdays and a slight increase on Sundays over and above current levels. This is not considered to be significant and is therefore acceptable.

• The proposal can be accommodated with the existing highway infrastructure and

raises no additional highway safety implications. • The existing access arrangements to the site have a number of shortcomings

which result in vehicles queuing on the public highway to access the CRC, blocking access to the weighbridge for waste delivery vehicles and causing congestion. The proposed access improvements have separate access lanes for CRC traffic and for waste delivery vehicles. The amount of queuing space within the site for CRC traffic will almost double through the provision of an additional queuing lane. It is considered that these improvements will overcome the current access difficulties.

• Measures to prevent vehicles parking up to wait for the site to open will be

encouraged through a requirement for a parking management plan. • The existing vehicle routing strategy aims to prevent vehicles accessing the site via

Charlton Village. This should be maintained and extended as far as possible. • The development of the Eco Park will lead to a reduction in waste kms and CO2

emissions. A Travel Plan will be implemented to encourage staff and visitors to access the site by modes other than the car. It is therefore considered to be more sustainable in transportation terms than the existing situation.The construction of the Eco Park will be managed through a Construction Management Plan.

• This will include a Construction Traffic Management Plan. This will need to be

submitted to the CHA and approved by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of construction.

47 County Geotechnical Consultants (CGC)

• Geoenvironmental: The Controlled Water Risk Assessment report refers to the fact that there will be a “Phase II Site Investigation Report” at some point in the future for the wider site. The CGC considers that the CPA will need assurance that the additional ground investigation work outlined in the Report will be completed and this can be secured by condition.

14

ITEM 6

• The CPA need to ensure that a suitably thorough Construction Environmental

Management Plan (CEMP) is prepared before commencement of construction works and the CGC recommend a condition.

• Flood Risk / Surface Water: The overall drainage strategy is satisfactory however the CGC recommend a condition.

• The CGC confirmed that there was sufficient information before the CPA to enable

the planning application to be determined and that there are highly unlikely to be signiifcant risks present that have not been identified.

48 County Waste Management and Energy Recovery Consultant (CWMERC)

The CWMERC was asked to comment on the status of the Gasification facility in respect of the revised Waste Framework Directive (plus updated EU Guidance) and the submitted ‘R1’ formula calculation. The CWMERC concurs with the applicant that the Gasification facility should now be considered a ‘Disposal’ facility (noting the draft, not final, status of the recent EC guidelines referred to). However, the CWMERC notes that the proposal would recover significant amounts of useful energy from the waste stream that it processes. In addition, the CWMERC has carried out a sensitivity analysis of the submitted ‘R1’ calculation, concluding that in the ‘worst case’ scenario energy efficiency would remain around 80% of the applicant’s calculated R1 efficiency (though the probability of this occurring is not high).

49 County Air Quality Consultants (CAQC)

Recommended that further justification be sought for the air quality modelling study area and grid resolution selected. Following further information on ‘sensitivity analyses’, the CAQC confirmed that the applicants have demonstrated the conclusion of the air quality assessment would not be affected by the use of a different (finer) grid resolution. Concurs with the findings of the Environmental Statement that the proposed development would not give rise to significant air quality effects.

50 County Lighting Consultant (CLC)

As a full scheme of lighting design details was submitted in support of the Eco Park proposals, the CLC has no objection to the development subject to a condition to ensure that the lighting is installed and used in accordance with the details submitted and that the completed scheme complies with the National guidance on obtrusive light limits in respect of: upward light; vertical light spill onto the windows of Ivydene Cottage; glare at Ivydene Cottage; and glare for adjacent highway and motorway users. The CLC also recommends that such a condition should ensure that the CPA should be entitled, at any time during the first 12 months of operation, to require the applicant to adjust or shield any light source deemed by it to be a nuisance.

51 County Noise Consultant (CNC)

Confirms that the proposed plant can be built and operated within reasonable noise limits and the impact will not be significant compared to the existing situation. With regards to Ivydene Cottage, noise from the existing access road is 39 LAeq, which would rise to 42 LAeq with the revised access. However, with the proposed acoustic fence in place at Ivydene Cottage this would fall to 33 LAeq. Recommends that no HGV movements should be allowed on the internal access roads before 08.00 to avoid additional noise in the quieter morning period on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Raising the height of the acoustic fence from 3 metres to 4 metres along the northern boundary of Ivydene Cottage will cause a very slight noise reduction.

52 County Ecologist

No objection subject to submission and agreement of a 25 year Landscape and Ecology Management Plan.

15

ITEM 6

53 County Landscape Officer

No objection subject to submission and agreement of a 25 year Landscape and Ecology Management Plan.

54 County Rights of Way

No objection subject to the following conditions:- Safe public access to the public footpath must be maintained at all times;- No obstruction are allowed on the public right of way at any times;- The footpath width should be not less than 2 metres;- Confirmation from the applicant as to whether the new footpath proposed in land to the east is to be dedicated as a Public Right of Way; and- Consideration that the parts of Footpath no. 70 that sit outside the application area be included in any improvement scheme (land shown as blue).

55 County Archaeologist

No objection subject to the applicant securing the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation.

56 County Environmental Assessment

The review procedure has identified that the Environment Statement in its current form contains sufficient information to be deemed compliant with the Part I and II of Schedule 4 EIA Regulations 1999. There was further information requested under Regulation 19 in respect of air quality, which was duly submitted by the applicant. In respect of Appropriate Asseesment, Natural England concurs with SCC’s conclusions that the proposals are unlikely to have a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the closest SPA and a full Habitats Regulations Assessment is therefore not required.

57 CPRE No comments received. 58 Ramblers Association

Support the diversion of Footpath No. 70 subject to a good walking surface and an adequate number of new waymarks.

59 Runnymede Borough Council Strongly support the proposed development. 60 Elmbridge Borough Council No objection subject to the submission of a Dust and Odour Management Plan. 61 London Borough of Hounslow No objection. Parish/Town Council and Amenity Groups 62 Charlton Village Residents' Association Objects on the following grounds:

• The site should be returned to Green Belt • The Alternative Site Assessment was not robust • The unproven technology selected poses a risk to nearby residents • The visual impact of the facility and stack is inappropriate for such a Green Belt

location • Site extends into the Green Belt and no amount of landscaping can either screen

the facility or make it visually attractive • Any additional pollution is unacceptable on Air Quality grounds • The AQ assessment did not consider particulates

16

ITEM 6

• Financial implications of committing to Charlton Lane for 25 years when

technology changes and capacity elsewhere may arise. 63 Shepperton Residents' Association No comments received. 64 Laleham Residents' Association No comments received. 65 Lower Sunbury Residents' Association

Objection, as the proposal is based on the SWP 2008, which an Inspector found to be a flawed document. Furthermore, a Committee Member commenting on the previous application to permanently retain the existing waste management facilities indicated pre-judgement on the acceptability of an Eco Park at Charlton Lane. A further response was received on 7 March 2011 raising two main points. Firstly, it was argued that the gasification plant is not in accordance with the Development Plan (i.e. Policy WD5 of the 2008 Surrey Waste Plan) because the Eco Park does not ‘make provision for energy recovery’. Secondly, it is argued that fire, explosion and toxic risk from the gasification plant has not be sufficiently considered by Officers and an objection to the Environmental Permit application made by the Health and Safety Executive is noted.

Summary of publicity undertaken and key issues raised by public 66 The application was publicised by the posting of 4 site notices and an advert was placed

in the local newspaper. A total of 1612 of owner / occupiers of neighbouring properties were directly notified by letter. On 10 February a petition was received attached to an objection letter, which had 16no. signatures. As of 20 June 2011, 241no. residents had responded via email / letter. A number of letters of objection were also received from children that attend a local school.

67 The main issues raised by residents are grouped and summarised below. Where a

substantial number of points have been raised, Officers have indicated the relevant section and page number within this report dealing with the issue.

Green Belt

• Extension of green belt land boundaries and encroachment onto unspoilt land • There are no exceptional circumstances to allow permanent loss of Green Belt • The site should return to Green Belt use in 2016 as previously intended • Moving the site’s status from temporary to permanent means it will never regain

Green Belt status • SITA have inaccurately referred to the site as ‘brownfield’ land when its status as

Green Belt land has never changed; it does not constitute a ‘Major Developed Site in the Green Belt’ for the purposes of PPG2

• How can an equestrian centre be opposed at this Green Belt site yet a waste use can be considered acceptable? This would have been unobtrusive and welcome;

• Illegal ‘grabbing’ of Green Belt land to the northern and eastern boundaries of the site • Such an industrial complex is inappropriate in the Green Belt and there no

‘exceptional circumstances’ Air Quality

• Increased exhaust emissions from HGVs causing air pollution – contradicts Government and EU guidelines

17

ITEM 6

• Toxic emissions from chimney compromise air quality as incineration releases toxins

into the atmosphere; Height of the chimney will project fumes over a greater distance and inflict pollutants on more people; No guarantee that building a high flue will carry emissions away from the local population

• Close proximity to schools – children inhaling polluted air; Emissions jeopardise the health of future generations

• Dust and particulates in the atmosphere detrimental to health – asthma sufferers in close proximity to site

• Local levels of pollution have already reached and exceeded their limits due to the M3 and Heathrow – Eco Park will exacerbate the problem

• Contradicts the aims of the Air Quality Management Area to reduce levels of traffic emissions; nitrogen dioxide levels area exceeded in this area and no further levels can be tolerated

• SITA’s emissions predictions as ‘negligible’ are inadequate as they are not based on any existing evidence; Uncertainty over the meaning of impacts of emissions at ‘ground level’ – this is subject to weather conditions

• Polluted air will impact on Halliford Nursing Home residents & Sunbury Golf Club • Proposals go against UK objectives of reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions • Examples of similar plants operating elsewhere plagued with problems – high level of

emissions breaches; A similar gasification works in the Isle of Wight was shut down due to excessive carcinogenic Dioxin emissions

• Poor quality of emissions monitoring from the incinerator, this cannot be relied upon to prevent damage to health; Public lack of faith in the EA’s claims to monitor air quality/emissions; The proposal to check emissions of heavy metals and dioxins every three months is inadequate.

• Site is upwind for prevailing South West winds • Dust in atmosphere will cause damage to vehicle windscreens • Surrey County Council has failed to consider alternative options to minimise the

occurrence of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) • Odours associated with waste transportation and incineration; odours associated with

the AD plant • Increased pollution levels causing damage to vegetation; Reduced air quality will be

detrimental to local wildlife • The proposed BOS Gasifier would produce 180,000 tonnes of Greenhouse gases

per year – this does not meet the UK objective of reducing Greenhouse gas emissions.

• By-pass vents are at a height that would facilitate maximum distribution into the atmosphere – also overlooking visitor centre entrance/car park

• Surrey CC has a duty of care to protect residents from excess health problems generated by burning materials; Dust and pollutants in the atmosphere will potentially create long-term health problems

• EU-set limits for dioxin emissions are uncertain and adopted as a precaution only. No guarantee that these limits are at a safe level – SITA should not regulate their emissions according to these limits.

• Research indicates an increase in birth defects and infant mortality rates, as well as a reduced life expectancy downwind of similar incinerators

• Similar plant at Dumfries has frequently employed its emergency venting procedure – process releases dangerous emissions

• Similar plants in France are being shut down due to levels of dioxins • The stack should be much taller, similar to Grundon’s facility at Colnbrook to ensure

adequate dispersal into the atmosphere • Before any permission is given for an Eco Park a further meeting is required with

Spelthorne Residents to provide accurate information on how different levels of pollutants have been assessed (given that the M3 Motorway and proximity to Heathrow already creates high emissions)

18

ITEM 6

• The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has raised concerns about ‘plume

grounding’ at a similar gasifier plant – what are the implications for Charlton Lane? • Recent research on PM10 particulates state that such emissions adversely effect

health of the young and old

Officer’s note on Air Quality issues: the points raised are dealt with in this report from paragraphs 337-376. Visual Impact

• High chimney will cause a visual impact on an otherwise rural landscape and be

visible from afar • Detrimental impact on the character of the area • The height of the chimney stack will be a distraction to aircraft and drivers on the M3 • Trees planted around the site will take years to reach sufficient height to act as a

natural screen • Previous ERM report stated that ‘the site could not absorb acceptably the visual

impact of a thermal treatment’ • Footprint and height of buildings would cause unacceptable intrusion • Unacceptable development for landscaping of the ‘buffer’ between the site and

housing

Noise and Vibration

• Extension of opening hours means increased noise levels at inappropriate times • Noise and possible vibration generated by the cooler fans and gasifier will run

constantly for 24 hours, 7 days a week • The steam venting would make an excessively loud noise

Other Environmental Impacts - including technology • Lack of confidence in the proposed technology – no other comparable sites working

effectively. Gasification is an unproven technology; Proposal has been claimed as ‘proven technology’ yet it is an untried prototype

• The speed of the Anaerobic Digestion process will limit the plant to sub-optimal conversion efficiencies – an alternative approach with a longer ‘fermentation’ period is required.

• Gasification followed by the Syngas burning is not an energy efficient method • Control room should have positive pressure ventilation with air drawn from a safe

location – proposal indicates building to be kept under negative pressure to reduce the escape of odorous air

• Grate-ash generated by incineration contains dioxins and it being proposed as construction fill/aggregate substitute – toxins can leach into groundwater

• Charlton Lane has existing litter problems • Emissions and dust will pollute reservoir and other water resources – implications for

drinking water • In the future this site will require a large volume of water; who will pay for this and

where will the water be sourced during times of drought/hosepipe bans? Concern that residents’ supplies will be compromised to accommodate this demand

• 24 hour lighting should not be allowed • No Hazardous Substance Consents has been obtained for the storage of biogas at

the Eco Park • The design of the roof is unsuitable as it would not allow ventilation • SCC does not have the expertise to determine the application – the advice of the

Energy Institute and the Institute of Mechanical Engineers should be sought

19

ITEM 6

Waste Issues

• Predictions for future waste quantities have been exaggerated to justify the building

of an incinerator: in reality, levels are falling due to an increase in recycling; Estimated figures for waste volume increases are incorrect

• Large amounts of waste required to maintain the facility – more HGVs potentially transporting waste to the site from far afield

• The site would handle almost a third of Surrey’s waste: this is disproportionate to the total size of Spelthorne as its population consists of only 8% of Surrey’s total.

• Proposal to burn unsorted, black bags of rubbish – unsafe if unaware of the contents • The application seeks to increase capacity from 150,000 to 175,000 tonnes and this

will have an adverse environmental impact through traffic and air pollution. • Objection to distribution of waste onto farmland • Site will become overrun with waste should the rest of the county use this facility as

its main waste site • Input to the facilities proposed at a maximum of 143,750 tonnes is an assumption

based on commercial HGV movements – fails to take into account levels of household/consumer waste

• The maximum of 143,750 tonnes of waste is a proposed figure – there is nothing in the proposed planning permission to limit the level of waste to an absolute maximum without further permission approved.

• Council should be encouraging recycling and other waste management procedures instead of encouraging incineration; Incineration reduces our ability to reuse or recycle potentially valuable discarded material

• Cannot be termed an EFW plant as an insignificant amount of electricity will be produced from such a small site

• Plant contravenes planning regulations; Contradicts EC guidance • It is too risky to approve this development before Defra announces its Waste

Strategy in 2011 • Changing EU legislation may impact on UK recycling targets which Surrey will be

unable to meet if it continues to gasify/incinerate waste • Current depot operates well enough • Not a cost efficient method of managing waste when annual figures indicate

improvements in recycling rates • Surrey Waste Plan contains no information regarding plans to build the Eco Park. • Local solutions, such as Anaerobic Digestion plants in sewerage works, would deliver

longer-term sustainability than a medium sized gasification plant. • The Colnbrook facility has offered to take 150,000 tpa • There is spare capacity at 3no. incinerators in Hampshire • How long does the contract run with the current waste disposal supplier and will the

new contractor still wish to run the Eco Park? • The existing site deals with Hounslow’s waste and this is unacceptable, it should just

transfer waste not receive it • The Anaerobic Digesters are the wrong size and as recycling increases in local

boroughs more waste will have to be taken from further away meaning the site would not be well related to waste arisings

• The current plans would reduce the number of recycling bays available for local people

• The proposal is just a ‘disposal’ facility and would not move waste up the hierarchy • The application is not part of the 2008 Surrey Waste Plan • The revised ‘R1’ calculation demonstrate that the proposal would only produce a

small amount of energy and therefore SCC would be committing itself to inefficient and costly scheme for 25 years

• The hazardous fly ash would have to be sent a long way to Derbyshire

20

ITEM 6

• The applicant falsely compares the potential electricity produced with methane from

landfill when increasing food waste reduction schemes would reduce the amount waste going to landfill

• The applicant has changed the amount of gas oil to be used from 3600 m3 to 52m3 and this is misleading

Officer’s note on Waste issues: the points raised are dealt with in this report from paragraphs 91 – 187. Traffic

• Increase in traffic volume – congestion; The area is already congested with traffic

due to intra-Gatwick/Heathrow commuters and M25 cut through traffic across Walton Bridge

• Greater likelihood of a road accident with more large vehicles on small roads and residents in close proximity

• Fast movement of HGVs along small roads causes reverberations in nearby houses; Roads unsuitable for HGVs – damage to road surface (potholes)

• Extended opening hours will result in greater traffic congestion during peak periods • Increased volumes of traffic will pose a hazard to school children • Present traffic situation is unbearable and is contrary to Article 8 of the Human Rights

Act as residents cannot enjoy their homes • Safety concerns regards lorries blocking the Scout hut access road; increased

operating hours will overlap with usage of the hut • Drivers of HGVs park on main roads overnight, causing a potential hazard to other

road users • Site is not well related to waste arisings – the ‘proximity principle’ • Construction vehicles would cause disturbance to the road network in the vicinity • Lorry movements may decrease but car traffic will increase • Proposed mineral extractions in Spelthorne Borough will off-set any HGV movement

reductions (in terms of emissions) • The Transport Assessment submitted in support of the application did not present

correct figures for vehicle movements • Increase in traffic from food waste collection Access

• Concern over public access to the site – health and safety concerns • Access to site involves crossing Walton Bridge - it is too narrow for two passing

HGVs – a two way road must be at least 7.3m in width (significantly more than currently exists)

• Inadequate access to the site for emergency service vehicles – proposed single access point only

• Access to the site must be improved and parking areas for HGVs • Opposition to diversion of public footpath 70. Alternative Site Assessment

• Inappropriate site in terms of size – public believe Surrey has no alternative and this

is their last resort • Alternative site available at Colnbrook, away from residential areas; Surrey should

share existing facilities with other authorities and utilise the current plant in Colnbrook • Eco-Park should be sited closer to the centre of the county if it intends to serve the

rest of the area • Spelthorne has a large enough landfill capacity, providing it learns to landfill in an

environmentally friendly way;

21

ITEM 6

• Why have other sites not in an AQMA, such as Trumps Farm, not been developed • More remote site should be found

Publicity and pre application communication

• Inadequate public consultation with local residents; some residents have not received

newsletters/leaflets regarding drop-in meeting • Lack of full consultation prior to site selection; The application had already been

concluded prior to the voicing of local residents’ concerns • Poor communication – public not kept up to date; Lack of information regarding the

end-date of the project or future restoration • Concerns of local residents ignored; concerns/questions not adequately

addressed/answered at public hearings • Falsely labelled as an ‘Eco-Park’ – the terms are misleading, it is merely an

incinerator; The language used in the application is vague and ambiguous • No record of Environmental Statements/ Environment Agency Review attached to the

park; • Lack of consultation with residents in adjoining counties; • Lack of consultation with schools, despite 1.5km radius for newsletter distribution

including several schools; • Lack of information regarding negative impacts of the park in terms of: emissions,

health implications, the environment • SITA misled the public to believe that the Eco Park would reduce the volume of HGV

traffic • Contrasting artistic impressions of the proposed developments shown in the August

and October SITA newsletters • Residents were not informed that the Eco Park would encroach on the Green Belt • ASA upheld a complaint regarding image of the Eco Park on Sita’s newsletter • Public consultation took place over Christmas and New Year, which deterred

residents from objecting

Health and Safety

• Design of the Park fails to take into account health and safety – created by an agricultural architect

• No safety area surrounding the site to act as a buffer between the plant and dwellings; Proposal fails to identify hazardous areas

• Unsafe track record at similar plants – implications for nearby M3; housing; railway line; flight paths

• Sunlight reflecting off the plant may provoke fires • The construction of the plant with existing public recycling facilities still in operation

would raise issues including health and safety – members of the public unaware of emergency procedures

• Control and staff rooms should be separated from the remainder of the plant due to fire, explosion and toxic gas release hazard

• Public must be made aware of the plant’s EU monitoring to be ensured that the site if operating safely and within legal constraints.

• Unsafe to locate a high heat burning incinerator in such a small, residential area – nearest houses less than 100m away; residents should not be ‘guinea pigs’ for unproven technology

• Juxtaposing a Syngas-producing gasifier and a methane-generating anaerobic digester is extremely dangerous - both highly flammable;

• There is only one access way in and out, which is dangerous in emergencies – particularly fires;

• A recent explosion at a plant in South Yorkshire demonstrates how dangerous such a proposal is

22

ITEM 6

• The Health and Safety Executive object to the proposals, any evidence provided to

overcome their concerns must be made available • A further consultant should be employed to check the safety processes proposed Officer’s note on Health and Safety issues: the points raised are dealt with in this report from paragraphs 538-545.

Location • Plant should be located in a more remote area away from housing • No reason given for the statement that the site must be in the north of the county. • Sunbury is currently the most air polluted and socially deprived corner of Surrey –

positioning the plant here would exacerbate these problems • Charlton Lane only decided as a site because planning permissions for 2 thermal

waste treatment plants in Surrey were overturned; it was deemed an ‘easy’ site to bring forward for development

• SCC should delay a decision on Charlton Lane until the potential of the ‘Gatwick Diamond’ key employment area has been considered

Other • Lack of trust in Surrey CC and SITA; Lack of faith in the site being responsibly

managed; Surrey CC mistrusted SITA in 1996 and should not be caught out again • Corporate greed: Surrey CC and SITA profit oriented only; lack of concern for local

residents who will have to live with the plant in close proximity • 25 year life span of project is too long for people who have to live with it on a daily

basis • Surrey CC will pay millions for the new park – is this justifiable bearing in mind

current government spending cuts; concern over funding • Surrey CC should be held to development conditions • Impact on property values; If this proves to lower property values, will the Local

Authority discount rateable values? • User Survey & Risk Analysis for the proposed processes has not be carried out • Proposals deviate from the original PFI signed by Surrey CC • The committee decision on the retention application was contrary to SBC planning

committee recommendation and this should not be allowed to happen with the Eco Park application

• The development is only proposed to make money through the sale of generating electricity, at the cost of safety to local residents

• SCC is pushing through the plans due to PFI commitments Response from owner of Ivydene Cottage • Noise and contamination from the proposed chimneys would create health problems

for animals at the dog breeding business; • Land to the east has been purchased by Surrey CC, which means property will

surround the development. • Land to the east is prone to regular flooding. Plans to create a drainage lake to deal

with surface water could mean Ivydene Cottage is also subject to flooding • Proposal to remove all natural screening around the property and replace it with a

screen fence will create an oppressive visual impact. • Concerns raised that the 9 metre (sic) fence will not be sufficient to prevent noise of

heavy goods vehicles passing the rear of the property • Surrey CC had committed to providing an earth mound along the western and

eastern boundary but this has been ignored

23

ITEM 6

• Despite the nine metre fence (sic), the property will still suffer from visual pollution

from the plant • Noise and air pollutants from chimneys would have an adverse effect on the property

owner’s business • Proposal states traffic will decrease but as this site will be the largest in the southeast

it will attract waste from large area Officer’s note on Ivydene Cottage’s response: the acoustic fence will be 3 metres high along the western boundary and 4 metres high along the northern boundary and not 9 metres as stated.

Support • General support of application • No objection but raised issues regarding:

o Suitability of roads for HGVs o Ability of Walton Bridge to withstand heavy loads o Brick parapets lack crash barrier protection

• No objection subject to: o Intensive screening using vegetation o A reduction of heavy vehicle traffic in the local area

• Proposals have been thoroughly planned • Local community has been carefully considered • Support for the anaerobic digestion facility only • Support having seen encouraging results from a similar anaerobic digestion system

producing electricity from sewerage sludge PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Introduction 68 The County Council as Waste Planning Authority (for clarity, Officers refer to the County

Council as the County Planning Authority – ‘CPA’ elsewhere in this report) has a duty under Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to determine this application in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. At present in relation to this application the Development Plan consists of the South East Plan 2009 (SEP 2009(), which is the adopted Regional Strategy (RS) for the South East region; the Surrey Minerals Local Plan (SMLP 1993); the Surrey Waste Local Plan 2008 (SWP 2008), as amended; Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001 (‘Saved’ Policies And Proposals as at 28 September 2007, March 2008 document) (SBLP 2001) and the Spelthorne Borough Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) adopted February 2009 (SCS 2009).

69 In determining the application the County Council should also have regard to relevant EU

Directives and Policy, National Policy (Waste Strategy 2007, PPGs, PPSs) and any other material considerations. One such material consideration is the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS, 2010 Review), produced by Surrey County Council in conjunction with the 11 boroughs and districts, which sets out a 20 year plan for the future of waste management in the County covering the period until the year 2026.

The South East Plan (SEP 2009) 70 In May 2010 the Government announced its intention, through the Localism Bill, to

abolish Regional Strategies (RSs) (i.e. the SEP 2009), which would mean that the South East Plan would no longer form part of the Development Plan. By letter dated 6 July 2010 the Secretary of State revoked RSs. That decision was subsequently challenged by

24

ITEM 6

Cala Homes and quashed by the High Court on 10 November 2010, whereupon Government advised local authorities to continue to attach considerable weight to its intention to abolish RSs. That advice was, in turn, challenged by Cala Homes on the ground that the Government’s intended revocation of RSs is legally immaterial to the determination of planning applications. On 7 February 2011 the High Court rejected Cala Homes’ challenge to the ministerial advice, and dismissed the argument that the intention to abolish regional strategies was not capable of being a material consideration. The High Court concluded that the Government’s letter dated 27th May 2010 and subsequent November 2010 statement were lawful and that the weight to be attached to the SEP 2009 is, in light of the intention to abolish RSs, a matter for planning authorities to decide. On 27 May 2011, the Court of Appeal rejected an appeal by Cala Homes.

71 The Localism Bill was introduced to Parliament on 13 December 2010 (including provision for the abolition of RSs) and is programmed to receive Royal Assent in November 2011 and come into force in April 2012. Addressing themselves to these matters in light of the Cala Homes second challenge, Officers do not consider that the issue of weight attributable to the RSS is of significance in respect of this particular application because there do not appear to be any conflicts between the South East Plan and relevant national planning policy and the SWP 2008 in particular; and they have therefore proceeded to report simply on the basis of the development plan as it stands, i.e. including the 2009 South East Plan.

Soundness of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008

72 With regard to the SWP 2008, the Capel judgement (2009) held that the Clockhouse site

(nr. Capel) should be deleted from Policies WD2 and WD5. Following this judgment the legal advice given to Surrey County Council was that the rest of the plan was unaffected and was part of the development plan, and accordingly full weight should be given to it. Therefore, Officers consider that the SWP 2008 is not flawed, as claimed by some letters of representation.

73 More recently in January 2010, there has been an assessment of the validity of the SWP

2008 by the Secretary of State in the Wisley appeal decision relating to an in-vessel composting facility (APP/B3600/A/09/2098568). In his decision letter it states, that: "the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, for the reasons given at IR13, the SWP remains part of the development plan with the exception of the allocation of the Clockhouse Brickworks site for waste management use in policy WD2". Paragraph 13 of the Inspector's report states: "The judgment of the High Court in Capel Parish Council v Surrey County Council [2009] EWHC (Admin)...quashed the allocation of the Clockhouse Brickworks site for waste management use in policy WD2 of the SWP. No other part of the SWP was quashed, so it remains, apart from that allocation, part of the development plan. He goes on to say in paragraph 182 that "full weight should be given to policy WD2".

74 A letter of representation has asked for any decision to be postponed until the SWP is

revised taking out any reference to incineration. However, Officers consider that the SWP is clear and lawful, and does not favour one technology, the relevant policy (WD5) refers to thermal treatment and not specifically incineration, as such there is a valid policy framework that enables a decision to be taken now.

Role of the Surrey Waste Contract 75 Objectors are concerned that the Surrey CC has an interest in the development

proposal; and that because of the waste contract there is pressure on the CPA to grant planning permission. They refer to the prospect that there will be bias, or the appearance of bias, in the mind of the decision maker and pre-determination of the planning application. This planning application is to be determined by the Planning and Regulatory

25

ITEM 6

Committee; and its decision must be based upon the planning merits of the proposal, i.e. compliance or otherwise with the development plan, and the existence and weight to be attached to any other material planning considerations. These matters are set out in the Officer’s report. The Committee will have to consider and balance those factors that are relevant to its decision in reaching their decision. In line with the County Council’s Code of Practice on Planning Procedures and Members’ Code of Conduct, Members should keep an open and independent mind on planning applications which have not yet been determined.

76 The Code of Practice on Planning Procedures also applies to Officers in their handling of

planning applications. The Codes set out how Members should handle contact with applicants, members of the public and organisations including the need not to declare a view or declaration of intent to vote a particular way. Where this has occurred the Member is required to declare an interest at the meeting when the Planning and Regulatory Committee consider the application.

77 Objectors have referred to the influence of the Surrey Waste Contract on the planning

application and any decision. Whilst the existence of the Surrey Waste Contract is background information, the significance that this proposal in terms of the performance of that contract – whether, for example, it results in gains pursuant to the contract (in the event that planning permission is granted), or penalties (if it is not), or other contractual issues arise (whatever the decision on this planning application may be) - is not a material consideration in the determination of this planning application; and Members should disregard those matters.

Publicity Issues 78 In terms of publicity, there was extensive pre-application publicity by the applicant, which

is summarised in an attached document, as Appendix B. In addition, the applicant has submitted a Community Involvement Statement as part of the Planning Application Document (Part 4), which outlines the public engagement programme that was carried out. Officers note that whilst the applicant conducted an extensive consultation process with newsletters distributed within a 1.5km radius of the site, this did not include schools or businesses.

79 The CPA publicised the planning application in accordance with the Town and Country

Planning Act (General Permitted Development Order) and Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (EIA Regs), which consisted of: an advertisement in the Sunbury Herald, 4no. site notices put up around the site and along the public footpath, and letters sent to (approx) 1612 local residents. Paper and CD copies of the application were also made available for viewing at Shepperton Library and Sunbury Library, as well as Spelthorne Borough Council’s offices and at Surrey County Council (County Hall). Lastly, the application was made available on Spelthorne Borough Council’s website, with links to that internet source from Surrey County Council’s own website.

80 Some 1612 residents living within 600m of the application site received consultation

letters (referred to above). In addition, letters were sent to those residents that had commented following the public exhibition events or sent emails/letters to the applicant as part of the pre-application public engagement process. In addition once the CPA received the formal planning application and commenced the consultation process, further residents responded to the CPA via email / letter and these additional addresses were duly noted by the CPA. When 2no. further consultations were carried out by the CPA in response to information requested under Regulation 19 of the EIA Regulations, letters were sent to some 1800 homes, in addition to re-consulting all the statutory and non-statutory consultees. Copies were sent to two local libraries for public viewing.

26

ITEM 6

Committee Issues 81 The site contains an existing waste management facility, with planning permission for the

permanent retention of these facilities (with amendments) granted on 4 March 2011. This report has been written on the basis that the site has a permanent planning permission for a community recycling centre, materials recycling facility with bulking bays, a waste transfer station with associated infrastructure, an improved access onto Charlton Lane and an acoustic fence adjacent to Ivydene Cottage.

82 The proposed built development is almost completely located within the existing waste

facility area (5.22ha), but is much larger in scale in terms of built form. However, a significantly larger site area of approx. 12ha is proposed to provide for extensive landscaping to the east and north, including a drainage infiltration basin.

83 Key issues in determining this application will include compliance with the Development

Plan, the protection of the Metropolitan Green Belt, the suitability of the site for waste development, traffic, and the potential impact on local residential, environmental and amenity interests. All issues are to be assessed in the context of any material planning considerations, which will include the fact that planning permission for a permanent facility referred to above has been granted.

Environmental Impact Assessment 84 The applicant submitted a formal request for a Scoping Opinion under Regulation 10 of

the EIA Regs on 23 June 2010. The subsequent Scoping Opinion adopted by Surrey County Council on 28 July 2010 confirmed that the majority of the key environmental considerations had been identified by the Environmental Scoping Report and made a number of recommendations for additional information to be considered within the EIA. The CPA recommended that a draft application (and Environmental Statement) be submitted prior to the formal application, in order to gain views from key consultees, which would assist in identifying the environmental considerations more fully. A draft planning application was received on 23 August 2010, which underwent an informal consultation process, before the formal planning application was submitted on 4 November 2010. The planning application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement in accordance with the EIA Regs and the planning application has been assessed against the following factors:

• the need for the scheme and alternatives considered; • traffic and transportation; • landscape and visual amenity; • ecology and nature conservation; • geology, soils and groundwater; • surface water and flooding; • noise and vibration; • air quality, dust and odour; • human health; • archaeology and cultural heritage; and • cumulative effects.

85 Following submission of the planning application and Environmental Statement, the CPA

has made two requests for further information under Regulation 19 of the EIA Regs. These concerned air quality and energy recovery and are referred to elsewhere in this report. The adequacy of the ES is addressed later under the section on Environment and Amenity.

27

ITEM 6

Waste Process Description Gasification 86 The Waste Strategy for England 2007 (WS2007) lists technologies that may have an

increasing role in diverting municipal solid waste (MSW) from landfill; and those that are designed to recover energy, are referred to as Energy from Waste (EfW) technologies. The technologies that are listed as EfW technologies are as follows: anaerobic digestion, direct combustion – incineration, secondary recovered fuel (an output from mechanical and biological treatment – MBT processes), pyrolysis, gasification and plasma arc heating (Box 5.1). The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) view pyrolysis and gasification as advanced thermal treatment (ATT), which expression excludes incineration. However, both incineration and ATT have to comply with the European Waste Incineration Directive 2000/76/EC (WID), which regulates any thermal treatment process in the EU.

87 Members of the public have raised the question, whether gasification is incineration by

another name. Before responding to that question, it is important to emphasise that planning policy itself does not favour one technology over another (the choice of technology to be justified on a case-by-case basis), and that the key issue for the planning authority, whatever the chosen technology may be, is whether this treatment facility is considered appropriate in accordance with the Development Plan. The technologies (incineration and gasification) are different in how the waste is processed and the energy liberated for recovery: incineration (combustion) releases the energy in the waste directly, whereas pyrolysis and gasification thermally treat the waste to generate secondary products (Syngas, liquid and/or solid) from which energy is generated. Incineration involves the combustion of waste with a sufficient quantity of oxygen to fully oxidise the fuel, at temperatures in excess of 8500C. Gasification is the thermal degradation of waste (without combustion) that involves only partial oxidation at lower temperatures than incineration with the main product being a Syngas (Synthesis gas - a gas mixture that comprises of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and hydrogen). Therefore, whilst gasification and incineration are both EfW technologies, they are different thermal treatment processes. The proposed development involves gasification (an ATT) of residual MSW, with the combustion of a secondary product (Syngas) in order to recover energy.

88 DEFRA have produced more recent guidance on the WID, with the ‘Environmental Permitting Guidance The Waste Incineration Directive - For the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010’ (March 2010). This guidance provides definitions of incineration and thermal treatment plants as follows:

‘Incineration plant’

‘Incineration plant means any stationary or mobile technical unit and equipment dedicated to the thermal treatment of waste with or without recovery of the combustion heat generated. This includes the incineration by oxidation of waste as well as other thermal treatment processes such as pyrolysis, gasification or plasma processes insofar as the substances resulting from the treatment are subsequently incinerated.’ ‘Thermal treatment’ ‘Includes both incineration / combustion and other treatments, such as gasification and pyrolysis. However, if the activity involves only thermal treatment in this broader sense (as distinct from incineration/combustion), then it will be subject to the WID only ‘insofar as the substances resulting from the treatment are subsequently incinerated’ [emphasis added]. This ensures that the WID covers processes such as pyrolysis and gasification, unless their purpose is the manufacture of products with no resulting release of

28

ITEM 6

combustion gases. Therefore, if a gasification / pyrolysis plant produces a number of products, one or more of which are subsequently burnt, then the WID applies to the whole plant. In cases where the products are burnt away from the gasification / pyrolysis plant (remote units), the WID will apply both to the plants initially producing, as well as subsequently using, these products’.

Anaerobic Digestion 89 Anaerobic Digestion (AD) is the process whereby plant and animal material (biomass) is

converted into useful products by micro-organisms in the absence of air. Biomass is put inside sealed tanks and naturally occurring micro-organisms digest it, releasing gases that can be used to provide clean renewable energy. This means that AD can help reduce fossil fuel use and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The products of AD are referred to as biogas and digestate. Biogas is a mixture of 60% methane, 40% carbon dioxide and traces of other contaminant gases. Biogas can be combusted (to provide heat, electricity or both) or cleaned up (and the pure methane injected into the mains gas grid or used as a road fuel). Digestate is made up of left-over indigestible material and dead micro-organisms. It contains valuable plant nutrients like nitrogen and potassium and can be used as a fertiliser and soil conditioner.

90 AD is not a new technology - it has actually been used in the UK since the 1800s - and there are a growing number of AD plants in the UK processing waste and producing energy. Almost any biomass can be processed in AD, including food waste, energy crops, crop residues, slurry and manure. AD can accept waste from homes, supermarkets, industry and farms, and reduces waste going to landfill. The Government is encouraging the uptake of AD as it has significant potential to contribute to the UK’s climate change and wider environmental objectives. The diversion of biodegradable wastes to anaerobic digestion can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from landfill. For example, if digested, rather than sent to landfill, capturing the biogas from one tonne of food waste will save between 0.5 and 1 tonne of CO2

equivalent. PLANNING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUES South East Plan 2009 Policy W3 Regional Self-Sufficiency Policy W4 Sub-regional Self-Sufficiency Policy W5 Targets for Diversion from Landfill Policy W6 Recycling and Composting Targets Policy W7 Waste Management Capacity Requirements Policy W12 Other Recovery and Diversion Technologies Policy W17 Location of Waste Management Facilities Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy CW4 Waste Management Capacity Policy CW5 Location of Waste Facilities Policy CW6 Development in the Green Belt Policy WD1 Civic Amenity Sites Policy WD2 Recycling, Storage, Transfer, Materials Recovery and Processing Facilities (Excluding Thermal Treatment) Policy WD5 Thermal Treatment Facilities Policy DC3 General Considerations

European, National, Regional and Development Plan Context 91 The European Union’s objectives for dealing with waste are reflected in the Revised

Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC (WFD), which provides the overarching legislative framework for the collection, transport, recovery and disposal of waste, and includes a common definition of waste. The WFD requires all Member States to take the

29

ITEM 6

necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health or causing harm to the environment and includes permitting, registration and inspection requirements. The WFD also requires Member States to take appropriate measures to encourage firstly, the prevention or reduction of waste production and its harmfulness and secondly the recovery of waste by means of recycling, re-use or reclamation or any other process with a view to extracting secondary raw materials, or the use of waste as a source of energy. There are other Directives for specific waste streams that supplement the WFD.

92 The WFD has been revised in order to modernise and streamline its provisions aimed at

encouraging re-use and recycling of waste as well as simplifying current legislation. By promoting the use of waste as a secondary resource, the new directive is intended to reduce the landfill of waste as well as potent greenhouse gases arising from such landfill sites. The WFD sets the basic concepts and definitions related to waste management and lays down waste management principles such as the "polluter pays principle" and the "waste hierarchy". Article 16, sets out the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity, stating that Member States shall take appropriate measures to establish an integrated and adequate network of waste disposal installations and of installations for the recovery of mixed municipal waste collected from private households. The network shall enable waste to be disposed of or waste to be recovered in one of the nearest appropriate installations, by means of the most appropriate methods and technologies, in order to ensure a high level of protection for the environment and public health.

93 Article 3 of the WFD sets out the full definitions of terms, which includes:

‘recovery’ means any operation the principal result of which is waste serving a useful purpose by replacing other materials which would otherwise have been used to fulfil a particular function, or waste being prepared to fulfil that function, in the plant or in the wider economy. Annex II sets out a non-exhaustive list of recovery operations;

‘disposal’ means any operation which is not recovery even where the operation has as a secondary consequence the reclamation of substances or energy. Annex I sets out a non-exhaustive list of disposal operations; and

‘treatment’ means recovery or disposal operations, including preparation prior to recovery or disposal

94 Annex 1 of the WFD lists recognised disposal operations (D1 to D15) and Annex II lists recognised recovery processes (R1 to R13). Of relevance to the gasification facility, is D10 ‘incineration on land’ and R1 ‘use principally as a fuel or other means to generate energy’ (this includes incineration facilities dedicated to the processing of municipal solid waste where they attain a specific level of energy efficiency – i.e. those facilities where the R1 formula coefficient is equal to or above 0.65). Government views gasification as an Advanced Thermal Treatment Process (ATT) and not incineration, however all waste incineration and ATT plants treating waste must comply with the European Waste Incineration Directive 2000/76/EC (WID).

95 The Directive sets the most stringent emissions controls for any thermal processes

regulated in the European Union. The objectives of WID are to minimise the impact from emissions to air, soil, surface and groundwater on the environment and human health resulting from the incineration and co-incineration of waste. WID also covers the combustion of Syngas produced from ATT processes treating Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). The WFD has recently been transposed into UK Law (28th March 2011 – excepting Regulation 12, in force 6 months from that date) by means of The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011(Statutory Instrument 2011 No. 988) and has adopted the above definitions of recovery, disposal and treatment.

30

ITEM 6

96 The Waste Regulations 2011 (Regulation 12) state that when applying the waste

hierarchy:

(a) prevention; (b) preparing for re-use; (c) recycling; (d) other recovery (for example energy recovery); (e) disposal.

the appropriate authority must ensure that it:

(a) encourages the options that deliver the best overall environmental outcome, which may require specific waste streams to depart from the hierarchy where this is justified by lifecycle thinking on the overall impacts of the generation and management of such waste; (b) takes into account:

(i) the general environmental protection principles of precaution and sustainability, (ii) technical feasibility and economic viability, (iii) protection of resources, and (iv) the overall environmental, human health, economic and social impacts.

97 Regulation 18 of the Waste Regulations refers specifically to the exercise of planning

functions, in the course of which the CPA must have regard to the following provisions of the WFD:

• protection of human health and the environment (Article 13), • principles of self-sufficiency and proximity (Article 16)

98 The Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC, which was adopted by the European Union in 1999, is

beginning to drastically change the way the United Kingdom (UK) handles waste. The Directive was brought into force in the UK on 15 June 2002 as the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002. The Directive requires an increasing amount of biodegradable municipal waste to be either pre-treated or managed by methods other than landfill. Targets have been set for the diversion of biodegradable municipal waste from landfill, which are 75% of that landfilled in 1995 by 2010 (i.e. maximum of 11.2 million tonnes – UK Government confirmed that these targets were met), 50% of that landfilled in 1995 by 2013 (7.4 million tonnes) and 35% of that landfilled in 1995 by 2020 (5.2 million tonnes).

99 To achieve the EU objectives the Government; brought in to force the waste and landfill

Regulations (mentioned above), adopted the Waste Strategy for England 2007 (WS 2007) and in March 2011 updated Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS10) to reflect the above changes in the waste hierarchy. These are therefore the national level documents of a tiered system of waste planning in England, which together satisfies the requirements of the various EU Directives. The objectives in the Directives as implemented in WS 2007, PPS10 (2011) and the Waste Regulations 2011 have been treated by Officers as important material considerations of substantial weight in the course of preparing this report.

100 The Government’s overall objective for waste policy is “is to protect human health and

the environment by producing less waste and by using it as a resource wherever possible. By more sustainable waste management, moving the management of waste up the ‘waste hierarchy’ of prevention, preparing for reuse, recycling, other recovery, and disposing only as a last resort, the Government aims to break the link between economic growth and the environmental impact of waste” (PPS10, para 1 – revised March 2011).

31

ITEM 6

101 One of the Government’s five key objectives in the WS 2007 is to meet and exceed the

Landfill Directive diversion targets for biodegradable municipal waste in 2010, 2013 and 2020. As a consequence national targets for household waste recycling and composting have been set for at least 40% in 2010, 45% in 2015 and 50% in 2020. WS 2007 states “Recovering energy from waste which cannot sensibly be reused or recycled is an essential component of a well-balanced energy policy” (page 76). National targets for the recovery of municipal waste (i.e. recycling, composting and energy recovery, representing diversion from landfill) are 53% by 2010, 67% by 2015 and 75% by 2020.

102 In order to achieve these targets, the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) was set

up, which specifies (to 2020) an annual quantity of biodegradable Municipal Solid waste (MSW) that each Waste Disposal Authority (WDA), or group of WDAs where they have pooled their allowances, may dispose of at landfill. The allowances decrease each year and, in combination, set an allowance across England which ensures the country meets the target year allowances as set out above. For every tonne that exceeds the annual allowance, the WDA will be required to pay a financial penalty of £150. Additionally, the landfill tax regime introduced (in 1996) an escalating tax payable on every tonne of waste disposed of within a licensed landfill. The Government has, however, indicated through its Review of Waste Policy in England 2011 (see paragraphs 109-113 below) that it intends to end the LATS scheme at the end of the 2012/13 scheme year, viewing the rising level of Landfill Tax as by far the more significant driver.

103 The overriding concern of the policies in PPS10 is the delivery of the key planning

objectives; which are that planning authorities should prepare and deliver strategies that:

• “help deliver sustainable development through driving waste management up the waste hierarchy, addressing waste as a resource and looking to disposal as the last option, but one which must be adequately catered for;

• provide a framework in which communities take more responsibility for their own

waste, and enable sufficient and timely provision of waste management facilities to meet the needs of their communities;

• help implement the national waste strategy, and supporting target, are consistent

with obligations required under European legislation and support and complement other guidance and legal controls such as those set out in the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994;

• help secure the recovery or disposal of waste without endangering human health

and without harming the environment, and enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations;

• reflect the concerns and interests of communities, the needs of waste collection

authorities, waste disposal authorities and business, and encourage competitiveness;

• protect green belts but recognise the particular locational needs of some types of

waste management facilities when defining detailed green belt boundaries and, in determining planning applications, that these locational needs, together with the wider environmental and economic benefit of sustainable waste management, are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be given planning permission;

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

management.”

32

ITEM 6

104 PPS10 does not refer in explicit terms to a ‘proximity principle’ or ‘self-sufficiency’. It

refers instead, in proximity terms, to policies that ‘enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations’ (reflecting WFD Article 16(3)); and Officers have considered whether the proposal would achieve this below. They have also considered below the achievement of sub-regional or county net self-sufficiency in accordance with the SEP 2009, SWP 2008 and the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy Review (September 2010)(the JMWMS).

105 PPS10 provides advice to local authorities on the decision-making principles, identifying

suitable sites and areas and the approach to determining planning applications for waste development. In relation to identifying sites and areas paragraphs 20 and 21 of PPS10 state that:

“In searching for sites and areas suitable for new or enhanced waste management facilities, waste planning authorities should consider:

• opportunities for on-site management of waste where it arises; • a broad range of locations including industrial sites, looking for opportunities to

co-locate facilities together and with complementary activities.

In deciding which sites and areas to identify for waste management facilities, waste planning 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; • 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”. 106 Annex E (PPS10) provides the factors to consider in terms of location when testing the

suitability of sites and areas set out above. 107 PPS10 and WS2007 both recognise that Green Belts should be protected but that the

particular locational needs of some types of waste management facilities, together with the wider economic and environmental benefits of sustainable waste management, are material considerations that should be given considerable weight in determining planning applications for waste development proposed in the Green Belt.

108 The WS2007 identifies better management of waste as a means to contribute to

reducing greenhouse gases, improve resource efficiency, protect public health and safeguard amenity. “Methane emissions for (biodegradable waste in) landfill account for 40% of all UK methane emissions and 3% of all UK greenhouse gas emissions”. (Box 1.2 p.20) One of the main elements of the Waste Strategy is to “encourage much

33

ITEM 6

greater consideration of waste as a resource through increased emphasis on re-use, recycling and recovery of energy from waste” (page 27), which is reflected in the revised PPS10 (2011). Energy from waste (EfW) plants (including gasification) are also exempt from the Climate Change Levy, recognising it as renewable fraction of waste. The levy forms a part of the Government’s overall climate change programme and is a tax on the use of energy in industry and commerce and the public sector to promote energy efficiency and stimulate investment in new technology.

109 As part of the Government’s commitment towards a ‘zero waste’ agenda, the

Government has reviewed all aspects of waste policy and delivery in England (the ‘Waste Review’). The Waste Review’s findings were published on 14 June 2011, alongside a series of documents including an Action Plan for the future and an Anaerobic Digestion Strategy. The Waste Review includes various commitments to ensure that the UK meets or exceeds its EU obligations and targets on waste management. Of relevance are: prioritise efforts to manage waste in line with the waste hierarchy and reduce the carbon impact of waste; develop a range of measures to encourage waste prevention and reuse, support greater resource efficiency; increase recycling, and improve the overall quality of recyclate material; support energy from waste where appropriate, and for waste which cannot be recycled; work to overcome the barriers to increasing the energy from waste which Anaerobic Digestion provides.

110 The Waste Review has been guided by the ‘waste hierarchy’, places heavy emphasis on

the prevention of waste and recycling and the inter-relationship between policy on waste and climate change, and confirms that Government will continue to measure success against EU targets for the avoidance of landfill, recycling and recovery (confirmed as minima if a zero waste society is to be achieved in the medium term). The Government proposes to end the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) and consult local authorities on options for the future of the statutory duty to produce Joint Waste Management Strategies (JMWMS).

111 It is part of the Government’s vision that food waste should be recognised as a valuable

resource, with its evidence base showing that of the main options for its treatment anaerobic digestion (AD) offers the greatest environmental benefit. It confirms that AD offers a positive solution to food waste. The Government aims to get the most energy out of waste (not the most waste into energy recovery), and undertakes – whilst remaining neutral as to technology at the national policy level – to identify and communicate the full range of recovery technologies available (including gasification) and their relative merits and publish a guide to the full range of energy from waste technologies in order to inform local decision-making. The Waste Review records that it is clearly wrong that so much material is still sent to landfill.

112 The Government’s ambition is to have appropriate waste reprocessing and treatment

infrastructure constructed and operated effectively at all levels of the waste hierarchy. The Localism Bill (yet to be enacted) will introduce a duty to co-operate for local authorities, which will help to ensure that opportunities to explore trans-boundary options are not missed (there being no requirement for individual authorities to be self-sufficient and transporting waste to existing infrastructure to deliver the best environmental solution not being considered a barrier). The principle that those most impacted should benefit most should operate across all scales from street to neighbourhood to local authority and how to achieve this is to be part of an ongoing dialogue. The Waste Review emphasises that with more informed debate there will also be a greater expectation that responsibility for difficult decision will be borne locally.

113 The Action Plan includes two items of particular relevance. It states that DEFRA will

publish a guide on energy from waste to help all involved make decisions best suited to their specific requirements (Action 39; delivery timetable Autumn 2011). It also confirms that DEFRA will take forward work to produce a National Waste Management Plan for

34

ITEM 6

England to replace WS2007 as the ‘national waste management plan’ within the revised Waste Framework Directive Article 28 (Action 47; delivery timetable Spring 2012). Officers note in this context that WS2007 and PPS10 remain the documents that together satisfy the requirements of the EU Directives so far as waste management planning is concerned.

114 In line with national policy on waste the South East Plan 2009 (SEP 2009) adopts a resource management approach to waste reflecting the waste hierarchy of reduction, re-use, recycling and recovery of value before disposal is considered and working towards the concept of zero waste. The long term aspiration of which is the elimination of waste through product design, behaviour management and changes in the economy. The SEP 2009 sets targets for recycling / recovery and diversion from landfill and contains policies, the aim of which is to reduce waste growth and minimise the production of waste. The relevant polices from the SEP 2009 are Policy W3 - Regional Self Sufficiency; Policy W4 - Sub-Regional Self Sufficiency; Policy W5 - Targets for Diversion from Landfill; Policy W6 - Recycling and Composting; Policy W7 - Waste Management Capacity Requirements; Policy W12 – Other Recovery and Diversion Technologies; and Policy W17 – Location of Waste Management Facilities.

115 Policy W4 (Sub-Regional Self Sufficiency) provides that, subject to a degree of flexibility,

waste planning authorities shall plan for net self-sufficiency through provision for management capacity equivalent to the amount of waste arising and requiring management within their boundaries; and this provides the context for SWP 2008 Policy CW4 referred to below. In recognition that there needs to be a substantial increase in recovery of waste and relative reduction in landfill in the region, Policy W5 (Targets for Diversion from Landfill), sets regional targets for diversion from all types of waste and requires waste planning authorities to put policies and proposal in place to achieve delivery of the targets; and Policy W6 Recycling and Composting provides targets for those activities that are a component of the landfill diversion targets. Waste planning authorities are required to ensure that policies and proposals are in place to deliver these targets.

116 Policy W7 (Waste Management Capacity Requirements) identifies an urgent need for a wide range of new waste management facilities in permanent locations and states that waste planning authorities will provide for an appropriate mix of development opportunities to support the waste management facilities required to achieve the targets in the strategy and gives annual rates of municipal and commercial and industrial waste to be managed in each waste planning authority area. Policy W7 goes on to state that in bringing forward and safeguarding sites for waste management facilities, consideration should be given to the type, size and mix of facilities that will be required taking into account those activities requiring open sites, those of an industrial nature requiring enclosed premises and a hybrid of the two. The supporting text states that there needs to be a rapid increase in management capacity and mixture of facilities.

117 The table within Policy W7 gives the average tonnages of municipal solid waste (MSW)

and Commercial and Industrial Waste (C & I) to be managed each year. Surrey’s MSW figure is 638,000 tonnes for 2008 to 2010, 694,000 tonnes for 2011 to 2015, 755,000 tonnes for 2016 to 2020 and 813,000 tonnes for 2021 to 2025. Trends in levels of household waste arising have been almost continuously upwards over the last 20 years. However, over the last 5 years the upward trend has reduced and the last 2 years have seen substantial reductions in household waste volumes. As such, the annual growth rates of MSW reflected in the SEP 2009 are no longer expected; and this is reflected in the figures in the JMWMS discussed below.

118 Policy W12 (Other Recovery and Diversion Technologies) provides that the regional

planning body, SEEDA, the Environment Agency and regional partners will promote and encourage the development of anaerobic digestion and advanced recovery technologies

35

ITEM 6

that will be expected to make a growing contribution to the delivery of waste and renewable energy targets. Waste development documents and municipal waste management strategies should only include energy from waste as part of an integrated approach to management. All proposed facilities should: (i) operate to the required pollution control standard; and (ii) include measures to ensure that appropriate materials are recycled, composted and recovered where this has not been carried out elsewhere. Proposed thermal facilities should, wherever possible, aim to incorporate combined generation and distribution of heat and power.

119 In respect of the location of waste management facilities Policy W17 (Location of Waste

Management Facilities) states that in identifying locations for waste management facilities waste development plan documents should ensure that priority is given to safeguarding and expanding suitable sites with existing waste management use and good transport links. The policy sets a series of criteria by which the suitability of new and existing sites should be assessed including good accessibility from existing urban areas, good transport connections; and compatible land uses such as previous or existing industrial land, redundant farm buildings or contaminated or derelict land. The policy also states that waste management facilities should not be precluded from the Green Belt.

120 Surrey Waste Plan 2008 (SWP 2008) Policy CW4 (Waste Management Capacity) states

that planning permissions will be granted to enable sufficient waste management capacity to be provided to manage the equivalent of waste arising in Surrey with a contribution to meeting the declining landfill needs of residual wastes arising in and exported from London; and to achieve the regional targets for recycling, recovery and diversion from landfill by ensuring a range of facilities is permitted.

121 SWP 2008 Core Strategy policies establish sequential principles for the location of waste

management facilities and an approach for development in the Green Belt. Policy CW5 (Location of Waste Facilities) sets out as follows principles for considering the location of waste facilities when allocating sites in development plan documents or considering proposals on unallocated sites:

“(i) priority will be given to industrial / employment sites, particularly those in urban areas, and to any other suitable urban sites and then to sites close to urban areas and to sites easily accessible by the strategic road network; (ii) priority will be given over greenfield land to previously developed land, contaminated, derelict or disturbed land, redundant agricultural buildings and their curtilages, mineral workings and land in waste management use; (iii) Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Areas of Great Landscape Value, and sites with or close to international and national nature conservation designations should be avoided; and (iv) the larger the scale of development and traffic generation, the more important is a location well served by the strategic road network or accessible by alternative means of transport”

122 SWP 2008 Policy CW6 (Development in the Green Belt) “seeks to ensure that the Green

Belt serves its proper purpose whilst making provision exceptionally for necessary waste management development” (Para. B44). The policy sets out four considerations, which may contribute to very special circumstances. These are: the lack of suitable non-Green Belt sites, the need to find locations well related to the source of waste arisings, the characteristics of the site and the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management. The Inspector’s conclusion in his report on the examination of the SWP commented that ‘reliance would have to be placed on the

36

ITEM 6

general factors of Policy CW6 to demonstrate very special circumstances in the Green Belt’.

123 The criteria under which planning permission for development involving thermal

treatment of waste will be granted is set out in Policy WD5 (Thermal Treatment Facilities). The policy provides that planning permission for development involving thermal treatment of waste will be granted provided that:

(i) the waste to be treated cannot practically and reasonably be reused, recycled or

processed to recover materials; (ii) provision is made for energy recovery; (iii) the proposed development is one shown on the site boundary maps (which

includes land at Charlton Lane).

124 It is then subject to the further proviso that the development proposed meets the key development criteria (set out in SWP 2008) and ‘very special circumstances‘ can be demonstrated in accordance with the provisions of Policy CW6 (Development in the Green Belt).

125 Policy WD1 (Civic Amenity Sites) establishes that planning permission for the

improvement of existing civic amenity sites will be granted on allocated sites within Surrey, one of which is Charlton Lane. However, permission will only be granted provided the development proposed meets key development criteria for each site and where very special circumstances can be demonstrated in accordance with the provisions of Policy CW6.

126 Policy WD2 (Recycling, Storage, Transfer, Materials Recovery and Processing Facilities

(Excluding thermal Treatment)) identifies the locations where planning permission for development involving bulking up of waste and facilities for recycling, recovery and processing of waste will be granted. Charlton Lane is listed as a site where planning permission will be acceptable for this use provided the development proposed meets key development criteria and where very special circumstances can be demonstrated in accordance with the provisions of Policy CW6.

127 Charlton Lane is allocated (on a site area of 5.35 hectares) in the SWP for use as a civic

amenity site, a recycling, storage, transfer, materials recovery and processing facilities and for thermal treatment facilities (Policies WD1, WD2 and WD5). The Key Development Criteria (KDC), which any development needs to address (but which are not exhaustive), are as follows:

• Green Belt: the site is located in an open area that performs an important role of

separating the built up areas of Charlton and Upper Halliford. The scale and extent of development to be dependent on the degree to which buildings and plant focus on the existing site. The site layout and any landscaping requirement should seek to minimise impact on the openness of the remaining restored landfill;

• Access to the site: any proposal should indicate how queues would be prevented from forming on the public highway and restrictions are likely to be required preventing access through Charlton Village;

• Air Quality: the site is within the Spelthorne Air Quality Management Area. Any proposal should demonstrate how it will fit with the objectives of that designation;

• Footpath: any development proposal will need to ensure appropriate management of the adjacent footpath;

37

ITEM 6

• Appropriate Assessment: Appropriate Assessment required at project level.

Particular attention likely to be necessary for the development of thermal treatment plant and for potential impacts from noise;

• Visual Impact: A high standard of design is expected for both built development and site layout, including landscaping. A visual impact assessment should be undertaken and submitted with any application;

• Flood risk assessment required: A flood risk assessment should be undertaken and submitted with any application. This should be used to inform site layout and attenuation measures.

128 Allocated sites also have to be assessed against SWP 2008 development control Policy

DC3 (General Considerations). Policy DC3 requires that the County Council be satisfied that the impact of a proposed so that it does not significantly affect people, land, infrastructure and resources. It also requires planning applicants to show that they have assessed particular environment and amenity issues.

129 The Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS) and the County Council’s

Waste Disposal Action Plan are also material considerations. Further explanation of the JMWMS is provided in the next sub-section of this report. The County Council’s waste Disposal Action Plan (Action Plan) is the Waste Disposal Authority’s (WDA) contribution to the JMWMS process in Surrey, to sit alongside the Action Plans from each Waste Collection Authority (WCA). It sets out the strategic view of the WDA, its policy position, and the investments it feels would be necessary to meet the targets within the JMWMS. The Action Plan will remain an evolving document that the Authority adds to, revises and shapes over time; partly informed by the external evidence it commissions, discussions it has with its partners, and the results of public consultation. It will be reviewed regularly and the WDA will monitor its implementation and evaluate its progress in meeting the targets. The Action Plan produced through this process formed part of the evidence base for the SWP 2008. The relevance of these various documents in relation to need is discussed through this section of the report.

Municipal Waste in Surrey and Management Requirements of JMWMS 130 Municipal solid waste (MSW) arisings, which include household waste and waste

collected by the Waste Collection Authorities (WCAs) and can also include trade / commercial waste collected by them, for Surrey in 2009/10 amounted to 557,557 tonnes (Annual Monitoring Report 2009/10 – Minerals and Waste Planning in Surrey). This waste was broadly managed as follows: Reused, recycled or composted 261,022 tonnes (47%) Landfilled 211,472 tonnes (38%) Energy recovery (outside the County) 85,063 tonnes (15%)

131 Therefore in 2009/10, Surrey produced approx. 297,000 tonnes of residual MSW (i.e. waste not reused, recycled or composted). SWP 2008 Policy CW4 (Waste Management Capacity), states that planning permissions will be granted to enable sufficient waste management capacity to be provided to: (i) manage the equivalent of the waste arising in Surrey, together with a contribution

to meeting the declining landfill needs of residual wastes arising in and exported from London; and

(ii) achieve the regional targets for recycling, composting, recovery and diversion

from landfill by ensuring a range of facilities is permitted

38

ITEM 6

132 Household waste collected and recycled by the Districts and Boroughs (WCAs) for

2009/10 (taken from the JMWMS, Table 3.4.1) was as follows:

(*66% (18,500 tonnes) is sent to Charlton Lane, the remainder goes to Epsom & Ewell WTS.)

Authority

Refuse Collection 2009/10

(residual waste) Tonnes

Recycling Collection 2009/10 Tonnes

Recycling Rate 2009/10

%

Elmbridge* 28,034 22,032 44 Epsom & Ewell 14,434 12,304 46 Guildford 24,613 20,306 45 Mole Valley 15,647 15,885 50 Reigate & Banstead 30,099 17,954 37 Runnymede 20,736 6,907 25 Spelthorne 21,341 10,731 33 Surrey Heath 13,385 13,393 50 Tandridge 19,686 9,239 32 Waverley 23,402 13,981 37 Woking 17,849 14,515 45 229,226 157,247

133 The figures show that in 2009/10 the total collected residual waste tonnage for

Elmbridge, Runnymede and Spelthorne sent to Charlton Lane was approx. 60,500 tonnes, which is approx. 26% of Surrey’s collected residual waste. It should be noted that future food waste collections destined for the proposed AD facility are included in this total (the JMWMS 70% recycling target assumes approx. 8,000 tonnes of food waste from Elmbridge, Runnymede and Spelthorne).

134 The Government expects every local authority to have a Municipal Waste Management

Strategy, though the Waste Review confirms the Government’s intention to consult on options for the future of the JMWMS. Guidance on preparing or updating a municipal waste strategy was provided by DEFRA in July 2005 ‘Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies’. Para.4.4 states that:

‘The development of the Municipal Waste Management Strategy should be a dynamic process and should result in a clear framework for the management of municipal waste, and waste from other sectors as appropriate. This should set out how authorities intend to optimise current service provision as well as providing a basis for any new systems or infrastructure that may be needed. The Strategy should act as an up to date, regularly reviewed, route-map for further investment required’

135 Preparation of Surrey’s JMWMS was co-ordinated by the Surrey Local Government

Association and following a public consultation (22 May to 3 July 2006) around the key issues raised in the strategy, it was adopted by all twelve local authorities in Surrey, including the County Council, on 17 October 2006. The JMWMS constitutes a 20 year plan for the future of waste management in the County, covering the period 2006 to 2026. The strategy presents a forward looking vision towards a more sustainable future for Surrey. The primary focus of this Strategy is the management of municipal waste comprising the following:

• household waste collected directly from residents’ households (residual waste, dry recyclables, organic waste, bulky waste and clinical waste);

• household waste delivered to bring sites and Community Recycling Centres by residents (excluding soil and rubble);

39

ITEM 6

• other household waste collected by a waste collection authority for

example, schools waste or waste from a charity; street sweepings and litter collected by local authorities;

• Commercial and industrial waste collected by the District and Borough councils; and

• Soil and rubble delivered to the Community Recycling Centres.

136 Local authorities have been set clear objectives and targets by central Government in relation to the management of municipal waste. As mentioned above, the WDA and WCAs have also adopted Action Plans, which are intended to set out the more detailed operational plans for improving performance towards the targets set by the JMWMS. The County Council is committed to reviewing and updating the WDA Action Plan and JMWMS, and following a public consultation (17 May to 12 August 2010), and a workshop involving key strategic stakeholders (21 July 2010), the Executive approved a review in September 2010. Changes were made to the original Strategy because of new legislation (both EU Directives and UK law), new national targets (WS2007), and new local targets (Surrey Partnership Plan), and because of areas in the original JMWMS, which have been achieved or are now out of date. The revised joint strategy, ‘A Plan for Waste Management’, sets new targets for recycling, reducing and managing Surrey’s waste in the most sustainable and cost-effective way. The Surrey Waste Partnership (formerly the SLGA Waste Members’ Group) published the revised JMWMS in September 2010. The County Council (as WDA) resolved on 12 October 2010 to adopt this Plan for Waste Management, replacing the 2006 Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy.

137 The Surrey CC Cabinet on 28 September 2010 endorsed the revised JMWMS, and the

World Class Waste Solutions, which formally replaces the Waste Disposal Authority’s Action Plan. The Cabinet had previously adopted the World Class Waste Solutions on 2 February 2010. The key changes to the strategy are:

• The comprehensive waste reduction programme, • The recycling target of 70% of MSW by 2013/14, • The move from in vessel composting to anaerobic digestion for food waste, • The move away from mass burn incineration for residual waste disposal, and the

preference for advanced thermal treatment (gasification).

138 The National targets (WS2007) for reuse, recycling and composting are 40% by 2010, 45% by 2015 and 50% by 2020. The revised joint strategy has stated that the improved performance in the amount of waste being recycled has enabled Surrey authorities to increase their overall recycling, composting and reuse target for household waste to 70% by 2013/14, which they view as being ‘world class’. This ambitious recycling target serves to reduce the residual waste available and is calculated from actions that the WDA intends to carry out, in conjunction with WCAs through the revised JMWMS, as set out in the World Class Waste Solutions.

139 The World Class Waste Solutions (WCWS - Action Plan for the JMWMS Officer Report

to Cabinet dated 2 February 2010) outlines a detailed programme of how to reduce waste and increase recycling up to 70%. The WCWS exercise identified gasification as the preferred technology for treating residual MSW, and specifically a front end batch-feed process (Planet Advantage Technology) developed by Ascot Environmental. A key element of the WCWS is the proposed ‘Eco Park’ at Charlton Lane, which includes a gasification plant to treat a proportion of Surrey’s residual waste and an AD plant to treat household food waste. On the basis of the targeted 70% recycling rate by 2013, the following outcomes are proposed as a solution to the problems of managing Surrey’s MSW (from paragraph 17 of WCWS):

40

ITEM 6

Tonnes 2009/10 volume of municipal waste 557,500 Operational solutions (15,000) Reduce and reuse Solutions (15,000) 527,500 Recycling Solutions Community Recycling Centres (70%) District and Borough Recycling (60%) New Technologies (7%) Total recycling (70%)

(369,250)

Residual waste treatment requirement 158,250 Gasification (60,000) Interim Energy from Waste (EfW) (98,250) Household waste to landfill (assumes all ash is recycled) Nil

140 Action Plan A1 of the revised JMWMS states that Surrey will plan for ‘net self-sufficiency’

by providing waste management capacity equivalent to MSW arisings, i.e. the aim is to be self-sufficient in terms of managing the waste that arises within Surrey, within its boundaries, where appropriate. The table above quantifies the WCWS plan, though it will require all WCAs to be collecting food waste in order to achieve the 70% recycling objective. If the solutions referred to and 70% recycling are achieved, there will be a need for approx. 158,250 tonnes of residual waste treatment capacity within Surrey. Policy 5 of the revised JMWMS states that the WDA ‘will adhere to the waste hierarchy, with residual waste treatment preferred to landfill. Recovery and disposal facilities will be delivered to ensure compliance with the Landfill Directive’. Therefore, if the 70% target is not achieved, there will be more residual to manage, with a need for more facilities or greater capacity of residual waste treatment facilities.

141 In 2009/10, Surrey produced 296,000 tonnes of residual MSW, of which the majority was

landfilled, with the remainder sent to Energy from Waste outside the County. The applicant has provided an explanation of the resultant waste tonnages and flows at 50% and 60% levels of recycling, in order to confirm the availability and sources of waste to be treated by means of the proposed gasification and AD plants should the 70% target not be achieved (Appendix C). At 50% (close to current recycling levels), all the waste being treated by the gasification plant would come from Elmbridge, Runnymede and Spelthorne. At 60%, the food waste collections would result in a diversion of some of the 50% residual fraction to the AD facility, and the gasification plant would take some trade waste (2,350 tonnes) and external CRC waste (1,500 tonnes) in its place.

Need for the Development

142 The applicant has stated that the proposed Eco Park facilities would contribute to

meeting the EU, National, Regional and local policy objectives, and would serve the needs of the northern most Boroughs within the County (specifically Spelthorne, Elmbridge and Runnymede). The applicant has stated that the Eco Park would play a key role in providing sustainable waste management in Surrey, and would contribute to meeting the objectives of the revised JMWMS. The applicant has also considered the national needs in respect of renewable energy targets (assessed in next section). The need for each facility is assessed in isolation apart from the co-location of these facilities to comprise the proposed Eco Park.

143 Spelthorne Borough Council (SBC) have accepted that there is a need to find more

sustainable ways of dealing with Surrey’s waste, in the nearest location to arisings, and that the principle of appropriate new technologies and the co-location of facilities is also accepted. SBC, however have questioned the need for the particular size of waste plants proposed, stating that the applicant has not provided an explanation as to why

41

ITEM 6

plants of 60,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) for gasification and 40,000tpa for AD have been chosen. SBC go on to suggest the use of smaller plants such as in the case of the Dumfries or Cumbernauld reference sites. Residents have also raised the issue of the need for the scale of operation proposed. DEFRA’s ‘Designing Waste Facilities – a guide to modern design in waste’ (2008), states that the scale of a waste development will be a function of many variables, including the requirements of the waste strategy, the size of waste catchment and local needs. The footprints and heights of buildings will vary according to the nature of the technology being used and the configuration of operational processes.

Gasification

144 The process of gasification has been defined (see above) by DEFRA as an advanced thermal treatment (ATT) or degradation process, which in this case is the proposed technology chosen for the in-County treatment of a proportion of Surrey’s residual MSW and some local trade waste. SEP 2009 Policy W12 (Other Recovery and Diversion Technologies) promotes and encourages the development of ATT’s, and expects them to make a growing contribution to waste management over that plan period. The SEP 2009 goes on to say that ATT, such as gasification, are often regarded as a more acceptable and efficient means of recovering energy, and whilst these are not currently proven on a large scale in the UK, the development of new ATT’s in the region will be supported if these prove to have demonstrated benefits over other technologies.

145 The applicant has acknowledged that the gasification facility would not be classified as a

‘Recovery’ operation under the WFD (R1 calculation), and hence ‘Disposal’, however the facility would still be viewed as a ‘treatment’ facility in accordance with the WFD and would recover energy from an accepted (SEP) efficient thermal treatment process. The WFD defines waste treatment as recovery or disposal operations, including preparation prior to recovery or disposal.

146 The applicant has stated that the revised JMWMS recognises the need for the provision of a series of new in-County waste management facilities, and more specifically (as outlined in the table above) a need to provide a 60,000 tpa treatment capacity for residual waste, with a future need to provide for a further 100,000 tpa (which tonnage currently goes out of County to the EfW Incinerator at Allington, Kent). The applicant has stated, and Officers agree, that gasification (ATT – as chosen by Surrey CC WCWS) is a sustainable waste management process for treating residual MSW. It will both: divert waste presently being sent either to landfill or to out of County treatment facilities; and it will provide energy generation capacity (3.6MW), which will export surplus electricity (not used in the operation of the plant itself) to the National grid and be available to displace fossil fuel energy generation capacity elsewhere. This is in accordance with Policy 5 of the JMWMS, in providing a waste treatment facility and diverting waste from landfill. The applicant has provided an explanation of the waste tonnages and flows (Pt.6 ‘Other Supporting Documents’ of the Planning Application Document), which sets out a comparison between the quantities and sources of waste managed at Charlton Lane in 2009/10 and those predicted in 2013. Whilst the proposed development is based on the revised JMWMS target of 70% recycling, the alternative scenarios of 60% and 50% have also been considered (see Appendix C).

147 A 60,000tpa facility at Charlton Lane still leaves 100,000tpa of residual MSW to be

managed in-County; and this points to a need for not one but up to two more residual waste treatment facilities of similar capacity within Surrey. If the 70% revised JMWMS recycling target and other solutions are achieved, there will remain 157,500 tonnes of residual MSW to be treated (see table above), of which Charlton Lane would be dealing with 60,000 tpa (approx. 38%). This would be waste, which cannot practically and reasonably be reused, recycled or processed to recover materials (SWP Policy WD5 (i) refers). The applicant has shown in the flow charts (Figure 2.2 of Appendix C), that at

42

ITEM 6

70% recycling, the 60,000 tpa capacity of the gasification plant would be taken up as follows:

Source of Waste of Residual MSW Tonnes Elmbridge, Runnymede and Spelthorne (direct collections) 38,500 Local trade waste 8,000 Internal transfer from Charlton Lane CRC 6,250 Internal Transfer from AD 2,000 External CRC 5,250 Total 60,000

148 As such, the majority of the above waste supply for the gasification facility will be

sourced from the local area, with some 6,250 from other CRCs (Woking, Surrey Heath). Therefore, in response to SBC comments in respect of scale or capacity of plant, the choice for a 60,000tpa gasification facility is justified on the basis of the MSW arisings in the northern Boroughs and some further local waste arisings (there is, in fact, no hard and fast distinction between MSW and trade waste, since collection authorities routinely collect a local trade waste component). If the 70% recycling target is not achieved, the flow charts demonstrate that a higher proportion of the waste received will be drawn direct from the collection authorities. It will, of course, remain the case that Surrey would need additional capacity to deal with the residual MSW from the other Boroughs and Districts.

149 The applicant has submitted a detailed Design and Access Statement (DAS - Part 2 of

Planning Application Document), which provides the justification for the scale and design of the gasification plant needed in order to treat and process 60,000 tonnes of residual MSW, in this location. The applicant has stated that all the buildings within the Eco Park have been carefully designed, ‘particularly in terms of volumetric efficiency i.e. they are no larger (or taller) than is absolutely necessary to accommodate the technical process equipment’. The CPA and SBC queried the scale of the gasification building at the draft application stage, as it appeared large particularly when compared with the smaller Dumfries reference plant (Members visited site). However, the applicant has justified the need for the scale of the plant, which is dictated by the dimension and arrangement of the gasification technology needed within the building. DEFRA’s 2008 guidance on design of waste facilities states that the scale of the development would be dependent on a number of variables, which includes the technology. The CPA’s technical consultants (CGC) are satisfied with the technical justification provided within the DAS.

Anaerobic Digestion (AD)

150 AD will provide an in-County treatment capacity for 40,000 tonnes of organic food waste, which would be initially from the municipal waste stream only, but would have additional commercial capacity. The processing of food waste would divert waste from landfill or from out of County treatment facilities. The AD would generate energy in the form of electricity (1.4MW) and heat, with the former available for export to grid (subject to the demands of the plant itself) and classed as renewable energy (discussed in next section). The AD process would also produce digestate (approx.20,000 tonnes), which would be spread to agricultural land as a soil enhancer. The AD facility would be classed as a ‘Recovery’ operation under the WFD and the revised waste hierarchy.

151 The applicant has stated that AD technology is the preferred technology within the

revised JMWMS and promoted by Government in the WS2007 and the recent (June 2011) AD Strategy and Action Plan. The WCWS states that the proposed capacity of 40,000tpa was calculated on the short term needs, i.e. based on the planned food collections for the northern and central boroughs and districts within Surrey. These would comprise: Runnymede (direct delivery), Surrey Heath and Woking (some direct delivery and some delivered in bulk from waste transfer stations), Guildford, Epsom & Ewell and Mole Valley (delivered in bulk from waste transfer stations) and additional local

43

ITEM 6

trade food waste. The AD plant would then revert in the longer term to a facility serving north Surrey, treating waste from Spelthorne, Elmbridge, Runnymede, Surrey Heath and Woking as segregated food waste collection expands. Any spare capacity would allow for the treating of a small amount of Commercial and Industrial (C&I) waste, from within Surrey or adjoining areas. This is based on evidence from trials, which confirmed that there is approx.100,000 tonnes of food waste in the Surrey household waste stream. As more of the household food waste is separated and collected at source, more AD facilities would be required to treat this household food waste stream - in addition to waste from the commercial market (C&I). The waste flows for the AD have been reproduced and are shown diagrammatically at Appendix C.

Community Recycling Centre (CRC) & Recyclables Bulking Facility (RBF)

152 This planning application assumes that the application for the permanent retention of the existing Charlton Lane waste management facility has been approved; and that as such, the need for the CRC and RBF has already been established. However, the applicant has provided evidence on need, so that this application can be read as a stand-alone proposal. Whilst they are looked at in terms of individual needs, the co-location of all the Eco Park waste operations would also be considered.

153 Charlton Lane CRC serves all Spelthorne Borough and a significant part of Elmbridge Borough, providing a storage and transfer facility to which householders can bring a wide range of recyclable waste. Surveys carried out over a seven day period in December 2008 indicated that the site received over 5,500 visits (in a week) and determined that: 64.1% of users came from Spelthorne; 27.2% of users came from Elmbridge; 2.7% of users came from Runnymede; and 5.4% of users came from other districts. The annual tonnage of material deposited at the site is circa 30,000 tonnes, of which currently around 75% is recycled (incl. composting). This is by far the busiest CRC in Surrey receiving more than twice as much material as any of the other 14 CRCs and approx. 19% of Surrey’s CRC waste. The data demonstrates that the existing Charlton Lane site is the most important, by volume, municipal waste recycling facility in Surrey.

154 The revised JMWMS recognises that CRC sites provide a significant front line service in providing a range of facilities required to meet the ambitious recycling targets (70% by 2013). Members resolved to approve the permanent retention of this CRC, which included improvements to the access onto Charlton Lane and so provides a dedicated route for CRC traffic. This access improvement is duplicated within this current development proposal, which would ease the congestion currently experienced during peak times. The improved access accords with the KDC of the SWP 2008.

155 The RBF would effectively fulfil the same function as the existing materials recycling facility (MRF) and bulking bays, which allows collected recyclables to be bulked and packaged prior to transport to dedicated treatment facilities around the Country. This is a fundamental part of the recycling process and is beneficial to be associated with the CRC, thus reducing vehicle movements associated with delivery of recyclables. This internal transfer has operational and economic benefits, and is sustainable. The applicant identifies this facility as a key component in the waste management operation and fundamental to achieving high recycling rates achieved at the site. The applicant states that the RBF would handle some 42,750 tonnes, with 15,750 tonnes coming direct from the CRC.

156 The revised JMWMS, targets the provision of a series of facilities for the bulking and baling of dry recyclables at strategic locations (based around the existing waste transfer station network) across the County, to be developed alongside revised collection and source segregation schemes undertaken by WCAs. Both the RBF and CRC would be classed as ‘Recovery’ operations within the WFD and revised waste hierarchy.

44

ITEM 6

The education & visitor centre 157 The applicant has stated that the provision of an education and visitor centre would raise

awareness of both sustainable waste management and renewable energy production. The facility would be used by schools and other community groups and organisations in order to raise awareness. The facility would provide a focus for promotion of waste reduction, reuse, recycling and (energy) recovery (4R`s) through the ability to experience a state of the art sustainable waste management facility. This would provide information for the Key Stage education curriculum for schools. The applicant has provided examples of successful education and visitor centres attached to waste management facilities around the country (Bodmin, Teeside and Middlesborough), which receive between 1000 and 2100 children every year.

158 At the draft application stage both the County Planning Authority (CPA) and Spelthorne

Borough Council (SBC) queried the additional space this facility would take up and whether that had an impact on the size of the main gasification building. The applicant has stated that in terms of space, the education / visitor centre is located on the third floor level at the southern end of the Gasification building. This floor area is required at ground, first and second floor level for a large switchgear room, process staff changing facilities, office space and a control room, which must have clear upper level views over the process areas within the building. Below the 18.5m roof line there would be under utilised void space, and has been used to provide space for the education / visitor centre (see drawing 1224 PL-B021: Gasification Facility Building Sections & Site sections). Officers are satisfied that the provision of the education / visitor centre therefore does not increase the overall volume of the building, but utilises available space within the building that would otherwise be a void under the roof space. Office space and mess facilities

159 The office and mess facilities are needed for the 60 personnel working at this waste management facility, and are viewed as ancillary to the main proposed waste development.

Co-location of waste management facilities

160 PPS10 places the emphasis on the plan led system, which would facilitate the development of new waste facilities through the identification of sites and policies in the local development plan. PPS10 and its Companion Guide contain guidance on the selection of sites suitable for waste facilities, advising LPAs to look for opportunities to co-locate facilities together and with complementary activities (e.g. ‘resource recovery parks’ or similar). Charlton Lane has been allocated in the SWP 2008 for the use as for civic amenity site, a recycling, storage, transfer, materials recovery and processing facilities and for thermal treatment facilities, under Policies WD1, WD2 and WD5 respectively. The revised JMWMS has identified Charlton Lane as the most suitable waste site, of those allocated in the SWP 2008, for a proposed Eco Park.

161 The applicant has stated that the need for the co-location of the various waste

management components (that comprise the Eco Park) is derived from the environmental and economic benefits of co-location, with natural benefits in respect of reduced movement of waste and recyclables between the separate facilities, shared infrastructure and economies of scale. Co-location would provide the opportunity to take measures to ensure that appropriate materials are recycled, composted and recovered where this has not been carried out elsewhere, in accordance with SEP 2009 Policy W12 (ii) (see above). In addition, the applicant does stress that the identification of the site at Charlton Lane has been through a thorough alternative site assessment (ASA) (discussed below), which supported the co-location of all the waste management components.

45

ITEM 6

162 The applicant states that the proposed co-location would make a significant contribution

toward sustainable waste management in Surrey, and the achievement of the objectives of the revised JMWMS. The synergies and associated benefits that the applicant has put forward (some of which are reflected in the waste flows discussed above) are as follows:

• ‘Elmbridge and Surrey Heath District Council’s both collect food and residual waste

on the same collection round using split bodied refuse collection vehicles. As a consequence, there would be material vehicle mile savings arising from food and residual waste being delivered to the same site, and consequential emissions savings (reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions) and traffic congestion benefits;

• rejects from the RBF and AD facilities would be directly delivered to the

Gasification plant avoiding further waste vehicle miles; • residual waste from the CRC would be direct delivered to the Gasification facility

again avoiding further waste vehicle miles; • CRC recyclables would be baled / packed in the RBF and greater payloads

achieved, again reducing overall waste vehicle miles; • the AD and Gasification facilities would share a stack; • the AD and Gasification facilities would provide an on-site renewable energy supply

for the RBF and the office, welfare and education / visitor facilities. In addition, all the elements would run off a single sub-station;

• all the elements are able to use shared infrastructure (including weighbridges,

offices, site personnel, car parking, security etc). As a consequence there are economies of scale and more importantly land take / cost of land. Thus the arrangements result in an efficient use of land in an area with extensive competing land uses and very few available / vacant employment sites.’

163 SBC have commented that they accept the principle of co-locating the facilities, which

would ensure operational efficiency. Officers consider that the co-location of waste management facilities at Charlton Lane is very clearly beneficial (in economic and efficiency terms) and that it accords with Government guidance and the principles of sustainability.

Alternative Site Assessment (ASA) 164 An extensive ASA has been submitted in support of the application, which is an

important factor in the CPA satisfying itself that there is a genuine ‘lack of suitable non-Green Belt sites’, in accordance with Policy CW6 SWP 2008. Notwithstanding the co-locational benefits set out above, for robustness the ASA examined the availability of sites capable of accommodating the individual elements in a disaggregated form. The study area comprised Surrey Heath, Woking, Runnymede, Spelthorne and Elmbridge for the Anaerobic Digestion and Gasification Plants, but only the latter three for the RBF.

165 The ASA had three key variables, which needed to be fixed in advance of the study

being carried out: • The geographical extent of the study area; • The site size threshold that is necessary to deliver the development; • The methodology, noting there is no standard prescribed methodology, but the ASA

should be based on sound planning principles and adopt a sequential approach.

46

ITEM 6

166 The absolute minimum area each facility require has been calculated based on the

information provide by the applicant’s technical team, and are as follows:

• Anaerobic Digestion Plant 1.2 hectares • Gasification Plant 1.7 hectares • Recyclable Bulking Facility 0.6 hectares

167 The applicant has provided a comprehensive ASA that has been undertaken in two

distinct stages and has considered 203 locations (some locations containing one or more potential sites) within an identified search area based upon the catchment area as outlined above. The ASA established that no other suitable sites exist outside of the Green Belt and that the Charlton Lane site is the most ‘suitable’ and available site within the Green Belt.

168 Regarding any critique of the robustness of the ASA undertaken, it is relevant to note the

Inspector’s findings concerning the Wisley Airfield Inquiry (APP/B3600/A/09/2098568). The Inspector concluded that the purpose of the ASA in that case was not to provide an exhaustive list of sites that might be suitable for waste management in the county (i.e. as an alternative to the Surrey Waste Plan exercise, which was found to be ‘sound’) but rather to reinforce the appropriateness of Surrey CC’s allocation of the site by reference to a series of reasonable objective criteria.

169 SBC has questioned the ASA and in particular noted limitations of the criteria used in the

Enviros report used in the site assessment for the WCWS (revised JMWMS Action Plan). Enviros is one of the country’s leading waste planning consultancies, and under the WCWS document their report comments that a minimum site area of 3 hectares was needed, comparable to that for a large scale incinerator. SBC refer to shortcomings in the thoroughness of the Enviros report, as follows:

• very low site size threshold of 3ha minimum in related to what is now proposed, • no consideration of air quality issues or potential visual impact of a likely scheme

on the assessed sites, • nothing seeking to identify the location of other waste sites that would be necessary

to provide the suite of waste facilities needed in Surrey. 170 Whilst, SBC criticises the Enviros report (Nov 2009) (which supports the revised

JMWMS), the applicant has independently provided what they consider to be a robust ASA (Oct 2010) in support of the planning application. Officers must consider all the information submitted with the application, rather than selected information in isolation. While the 3ha minimum site size does seem low compared to the 4.5 ha (for built development) area required for the waste facilities in the application, it is stated as a minimum and effectively widens the scope for alternative sites to be considered. If a 5ha minimum had been assumed, then the Horley Road site at Earlswood (for example) would have been precluded from consideration.

171 The Enviros assessment was at a fairly general level and was not undertaken to address

a specific proposal. However, the assessment did include a grading in respect of the environmental effects such as landscape and visual, noise and vibration, odour, vermin, litter, etc. The Enviros report also considers six other sites of which three (Slyfield, Trumps Farm, and Martyrs Lane) were assessed as having many positive attributes, which would make a Waste Resource Eco Park feasible. However, as already mentioned, this was not a detailed assessment on a submitted development proposal, and the emphasis should be placed on the ASA, which was specifically prepared in support of the planning application.

47

ITEM 6

172 SBC questioned the exclusion of the Wisley Airfield site in the ASA as the site abuts the

Elmbridge boundary. However, the Wisley site lies within Guildford Borough and does not have the same locational benefits as the application site. Charlton Lane lies in the middle of the main catchment area, serving the northern western Boroughs. Officers consider that Wisley Airfield would be a more appropriate location to serve the central Boroughs of Surrey.

173 Residents have raised the issue of the use of the existing EfW facility at Colnbrook, however the applicant has stated that the operators (Grundon) of the Colnbrook EfW have confirmed that whilst there may be a short term contract with Spelthorne borough Council for 20,000 tpa of residual MSW, there is neither the potential for this facility to accommodate more of Surrey’s residual waste, nor can this short-term contract be extended. The recent Government Review comments on the need for councils to work together and look at waste management needs across different waste streams and across administrative boundaries. The Localism Bill will introduce a duty to cooperate for local authorities, and there will be no requirement for authorities to be self sufficient in terms of waste infrastructure and ‘transporting waste to existing infrastructure to deliver the best environmental solution should not be considered a barrier’. Nothwithstanding these comments on cross-boundary flows, the site at Colnbrook is a merchant facility run by Grundon and as noted above does not have the available capacity needed to provide a long term solution for Surrey’s needs for the treatment of its residual waste. As such, Officers consider that the existing EfW facility at Colnbrook is not a reliable alternative in terms of its guaranteed availability. Officers are not aware of – and residents have not referred to - any other planned or existing facility beyond the county boundaries that might reasonably be considered as an alternative to the proposed Eco Park.

174 Officers consider that the applicant has produced a robust ASA, particularly insofar as

the applicant has examined the availability of sites capable of accommodating all the waste components and their processes individually (i.e. in a disaggregated form). As such, the ASA supports the need for the proposed development at the Charlton Lane site and has confirmed ‘the lack of suitable non-Green Belt sites’ for the purposes of SWP 2008 Policy CW6.

Need/justification for site area outside SWP 2008 allocation 175 The built development of the site of approximately 4.5 ha falls within the permanent

retention area (assumed to be approved, subject to referral to Secretary of State). However, a further 7.7ha of land outside this area, some of which falls under SWP 2008 allocated area to the north of the site, (see attached Plan 2 ‘Boundary Map’) is proposed for landscaping (EEA) to assist in mitigating the landscape impacts of the proposed development. It is, however, important to bear in mind – insofar as the proposal involves development extending outside the allocated site as shown on SWP 2008 – that ‘the site boundary shown on the map is indicative’ (SWP 2008). The SWP 2008 goes on to state that future planning permissions for waste development at these sites may not occupy the whole site shown, or may extend beyond the core are within the boundary.

176 The SEP 2009 gives guidance to plan documents on the location of waste management

facilities, in that ‘the co-location of waste management facilities on one site can provide significant environmental benefits by reducing the overall volume of traffic and allowing flexible integrated facilities to be developed’, as already assessed above. Policy W17 of the SEP 2009, gives priority to safeguarding and expanding suitable sites with an existing waste management use and good transport connections and sets out characteristics that the suitability of existing and potential sites should be assessed on. In general, the most appropriate locations will be those with the least adverse impacts on the local population and the environment. These issues will be covered in more detail in the highway and environment and amenity sections of the report.

48

ITEM 6

177 Policy CW5 of the SWP 2008 is relevant to those parts of the application site outside the

site area allocated in accordance with Policies WD1, WD2 and WD5. This area is the EEA (7.7ha) to the east of the site and includes a narrow strip for the HGV access and weighbridge (0.29ha). At Planning and Regulatory Committee on 25th February 2011, Members resolved to grant planning permission for the permanent retention of the existing waste management facility. The latter area (0.29ha) would, whilst outside the allocated site area, fall within the permitted area for the permanent retention of the existing waste facility (albeit this area is occupied by the tree boundary in the retention proposal, in contrast with the development of that land as here proposed). This, coupled with the indicative nature of the site boundary, indicates to officers that the incorporation of this additional land does not bring the proposal or any part of it in breach of Policy CW5. The EEA of approx. 7.7 ha does include an area to the north of the site (0.69ha), which does fall within the site allocation in the SWP 2008. This area would remain undeveloped, landscaped and managed (25 year Landscape and Ecological Management Plan – see section on Landscape and Visual Amenity) in the interests of improving the local landscape, biodiversity and public amenity.

178 Policy CW5 states that proposals for waste facilities on unallocated sites will be considered in accordance with certain principles (outlined in the policy section above), with priority to sites easily accessible by the strategic road network and land in waste management use. Residents have raised particular concerns about the loss of Green Belt land, and the Enhancement Area, which is landfilled former mineral working and Green Belt land (as is the whole site). Subject to the 0.29ha considered above, the additional land needed for the proposed development is the open land to the east (partially landfilled former mineral working) used to create an Environmental Enhancement Area (EEA) to mitigate the effects of the development (primarily visual) and enhance the local environment (in terms of biodiversity); and its provision is an essential element of the proposed Eco Park as a whole (the impacts / benefits of the EEA proposals are considered below). The EEA is not considered to be in breach of SWP 2008 Policy CW5.

Conclusions on planning and waste management issues 179 European, National and Regional Policy set the context for the need for the County to

increase recycling and recovery capacity and divert waste from landfill, to contribute to agreed targets. The proposed Eco Park would play a key role in providing sustainable waste management in Surrey, and would contribute to meeting the objectives of the WFD and revised JMWMS at European and County level respectively. Government guidance states that Municipal Waste Management Strategies should set out how authorities ‘intend to optimise current service provision as well as providing a basis for any new systems or infrastructure that may be needed’; and the proposed Eco Park is about providing new infrastructure and systems meeting the objectives and associated targets as detailed in Surrey’s revised JMWMS. The Waste Review confirms that the Government will continue to assess progress against EU targets for landfill, recycling and recovery and the revised JMWMS target for recycling in particular is consistent with the Government’s view that we must at least meet these targets if a zero waste economy is to become a reality in the medium-term.

180 The proposed Eco Park at Charlton Lane is a key element in implementing the WCWS

(action plan for revised JMWMS), which includes a gasification plant, an AD plant and recycling facilities (CRC and RBF). The AD and recycling components of the proposed Eco Park will assist in achieving the ambitious revised JMWMS 70% recycling rate target set for 2013/14. The SEP2009 targets detailed in the table below refer to overall diversion from landfill, which includes recovery but also treatments that may be excluded from this definition (SEP 2009 paragraph 10.20 and JMWMS p.12). The SEP2009 targets take into account landfill directive targets and WS2007 recycling / recovery

49

ITEM 6

targets

Table (i): Targets for the recycling of MSW (JMWMS) and diversion of MSW from landfill (WS 2007 & SEP 2009) (shown in %)

2010 2015 2020 WS2007 53 67 75 SEP 2009 52 74 83 JMWMS 70

(2013/14)

181 The JMWMS does not have specific recovery targets, however does refer to the regional

targets (SEP2009), and as mentioned above has a recycling target of 70% by 2013/14. In 2008/09 Surrey produced 568,745 tonnes of MSW, with approximately 50% recovered and 50% landfilled. The table below shows that Charlton Lane currently recovers some 35% of it waste throughput with 65% going to landfill. The proposed Eco Park development would increase the recovery to some 58%, which significantly increases the diversion from landfill, helping to meet the above diversion from landfill targets. The remaining 42% would be treated by way of the gasification facility, with energy recovery. The table below also notes that within the remaining 42% there would be a residue from the Gasification process, which would include both bottom ash and fly ash (fly ash also known as Flue Gas Treatment residue – FGT). The applicant states that 12,000tpa of bottom ash would be transferred to either: a) bottom ash recycling facilities within London, Kent and Essex; or b) disposed of at landfill, at Redhill (Surrey), Packington (Warwickshire) or Lydsey (West Sussex). However, were the bottom ash recycled the overall % recovered would increase by approx 8%. Lastly, FGT residue would go to an appropriate hazardous landfill disposal facility. Table (ii): Charlton Lane – management of waste throughput (shown in tonnes per annum) Waste

handled Recovered Landfilled

Existing Charlton Lane site (2009/10)

149,900 52,750 (35%) 97,150 (65%)

Waste handled

Recovered Disposal with energy recovery

Proposed Eco Park

143,750 83,750 (58%) (AD, RBF & CRC)

60,000 (42%) (Gasification)

Residues: 12,000 of bottom ash

and 1,800 of FGT 182 From the above, it is clear that the proposed Eco Park would assist in increasing waste

recovery rates in Surrey, and divert waste from landfill. In the worse case scenario of the residues from the gasification going to landfill, i.e. 13,800 tonnes, this would mean only 10% of the 143,750 Eco Park waste stream would be diverted to landfill. Notwithstanding that the gasification element of the Eco Park is viewed as ‘Disposal’ under the WFD, the facility should still be viewed as a ‘Treatment’ facility for residual waste with the provision for energy recovery, which would assist Surrey in diverting more waste from landfill and contribute to meeting the National and Regional targets (outlined above). The Eco Park (AD, RBF and CRC) should assist Surrey in meeting the JMWMS 70% target, resulting in 160,000 tonnes of residual waste for Surrey to deal with, of which 100,000 tonnes will be subject to energy recovery outside the County, with the remaining 60,000 tonnes treated at the Eco Park’s gasification facility. Whilst, the gasification of 60,000 tonnes is not recovery (WFD), this waste is treated, used as a

50

ITEM 6

resource, deriving energy from residual waste, and diverts residual waste from landfill, which is in keeping with local and national policy objectives.

183 As confirmed above, there is a definite need for the proposed facilities to serve the northern Boroughs, and for further infrastructure and sites in the county to enable Surrey to achieve ‘net self-sufficiency’, i.e. dealing with our own waste in County. The proposed Eco Park would make a significant contribution to net self-sufficiency and enable waste to be managed in one of the nearest appropriate installations and by means of the most appropriate methods and technologies to ensure high level of protection for the environment and public health as explained in the revised JMWMS. In particular, the revised JMWMS explains that Surrey County Council regards Anaerobic Digestion (AD) as the most appropriate technology for food waste. With regard to treatment of residual waste, the revised JMWMS explored a number of solutions, and identified gasification technology, as the most beneficial overall solution, taking into account technology assessment, legal risks and financial cost. The JMWMS supports the proposed gasification plant as a means of treating residual waste that avoids landfill, as opposed to a means of recovery – as distinct from disposal - as such. So the re-classification of the gasification plant from recovery to disposal does not, in Officers’ view, undermine either the status of the JMWMS or the compliance of the proposed gasification plant with it. Whilst that element of the Eco Park would not move the treatment of waste up the new waste hierarchy, it would aid the Eco Park in diverting more waste from landfill and the whole Eco Park facility does move waste up the new hierarchy. In addition, the co-location of these facilities with the existing CRC and bulking facility at Charlton Lane will further assist Surrey in achieving its ambitious targets for waste management set out in the revised JMWMS.

184 The revised JMWMS states that the new approach for management of Surrey’s waste is to provide recycling, composting and residual waste treatment facilities within the county for the county to be net self-sufficient. Taking all these considerations into account, Officers consider that there is, in particular, a need for the proposed Eco Park to deal with the residual element of the household waste stream in Surrey, and to divert waste from landfill by increased recycling and recovery. The requirements of SWP 2008 Policy CW4 are met, in that the proposed Eco Park facility would provide waste management capacity for handling Surrey’s waste of a type that assists in moving waste up the hierarchy away from landfill. In terms of the first criterion of Policy WD5 of the SWP 2008, the applicant has demonstrated that even with sufficient recycling and composting to meet regional waste strategy targets, there is still a need to manage the remaining residual waste that cannot practically and reasonably be reused, recycled or processed to recover materials.

185 Work undertaken in association with the production of SWP 2008 demonstrates that suitable sites for waste facilities in Surrey are limited; and the applicant has demonstrated ‘the lack of suitable non-Green Belt sites’ within SWP 2008 Policy CW6. The proposed facility would divert waste from landfill, thereby contributing towards European and Government policy. The application is consistent with the objectives of the WS2007 and Government Review of Waste Policy 2011 (‘Waste Review’) and would enable the treatment of household wastes at a higher point in the waste hierarchy in one of the nearest appropriate installations. Officers have considered what they regard as the principal issues arising from the Waste Review as they arise through the course of this report. Publication of the Waste Review does not, in Officers’ view, justify consideration of refusal of the current application on grounds of prematurity. Planning Principles: General Principles (ODPM – January 2005) explains that refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity is justifiable, if at all, by reference to the effect of a planning decision on the process of review of development plan documents; but there is no waste development plan review process at present.

51

ITEM 6

186 It nonetheless remains that the Waste Review was published only recently (June 14

2011) and was not, therefore, referred to in any part of the documentation that has been subject to consultation. It is also the case that the Action Plan specifies the Government’s intention to publish a guide on energy from waste and replace WS2007. Officers do not, however, consider that deferral for further public consultation in light of the Waste Review as it stands, or to facilitate consideration of the application in light of the guide and replacement WS2007 referred to, would be justified. The Eco Park is promoted as part of a strategy intended to exceed targets referred to in the Waste Review. It incorporates AD, which is clearly supported by Government for the treatment of food waste. It includes a proposal for a gasification plant, i.e. the ‘default’ option of a more conventional technology has not been selected (whether for want of information or otherwise) – and the selection of that technology has been the subject of public consultation and comment through the JMWMS and planning application processes (the Environment Agency will also be considering technology issues through the environmental permitting process). The application documents and consultation undertaken to date are considered sufficient to have enabled members of the public and consultees to address the merits of the proposed Eco Park fully, including in the context of the Waste Review, and to enable Members to determine the current application in the context of WS2007 as it stands having regard also to the content of the Waste Review.

187 Officers do not consider that it is reasonable or necessary to restrict the area from which

waste might be imported for treatment because: of the volumes of waste arisings in north and central Surrey requiring treatment to which the Eco Park would be well-related in terms of both its capacity and location and because it is reasonable to anticipate that any additional wastes would be imported because the Eco Park is the nearest appropriate installation for their treatment. Officers are satisfied that there is no policy justification or valid point raised in representations, to justify refusing planning permission on waste management policy grounds.

RENEWABLE ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE South East Plan 2009 Policy CC2 Climate Change Policy CC3 Resource Use Policy CC4 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy NRM11 Development Design for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Policy NRM12 Combined Heat and Power Policy NRM13 Regional Renewable Energy Targets Policy NRM14 Sub-Regional Targets Policy NRM15 Location of Renewable Energy Development Policy NRM16 Renewable Energy Development Criteria Policy W11 Biomass Policy W12 Other Recovery and Diversion Technologies Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy CW6 Development in the Green Belt Policy WD5 Thermal Treatment Facilities Policy DC3 General Considerations Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document 2009 (SCS 2009) Policy CC1 Renewable Energy, Energy Conservation and Sustainable Construction Policy EN1 Design of New Development SP7 Climate Change and Transport

European, National, Regional and Development Plan Context 188 Ensuring that the UK has secure and affordable energy supplies is vital to its future

prosperity and security. However, the challenge of energy and climate change is an

52

ITEM 6

international issue and as a consequence, UK energy and climate change policy is influenced by decisions taken in Europe.

189 The promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources has been seen as a priority

for the European Union (EU) to assist in achieving environmental protection and security and diversification of energy supply. In 2001 EU Directive 2001/77/EC required Member States to publish a report every five years showing the measures undertaken, or to be undertaken, to meet indicative targets for the proportion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources. This Directive was repealed by the later Directive 2009/28/EC referred to below.

190 Aiming to address the energy challenges of sustainability and greenhouse gas emissions

as well as security of supply, import dependence and the competitiveness and effectiveness of the internal energy market, a new European Energy Policy was proposed in January 2007. The Commission proposed the 'Renewable Energy Roadmap' a binding target of increasing the level of renewable energy in the overall energy mix to 20% by 2020.

191 The EU 2020 Climate and Energy Package June 2009 commits members of the EU to

reducing greenhouse gas by 20% (compared to 1990 emissions) by 2020. The Package has four parts and covers the:

• EU Emission Trading System Directive 2009/29/EC • Green house gas effort sharing decision No 406/2009/EC • Renewables Directive 2009/28/EC (see below) • Carbon Capture and Storage Directive 2009/30/EC.

192 The EU has a 20% renewables target by 2020. However, the EU Renewable Energy

Directive 2009/28/EC sets legally binding individual targets for each Member State. The UK’s target is to source 15 % of energy (electricity, heat and transport) from renewable sources by 2020. The Directive also sets every Member State a target of supplying 10% of transport fuel from renewable sources by 2020 and requires national renewable energy action plans that encourage the development of renewable energy sources.

193 Issues being raised in Europe were taken forward in the United Kingdom's (UK’s) Energy White Paper ‘Meeting the Energy Challenge’ published on 23 May 2007. ‘Meeting the Energy Challenge’ built on the 2003 Energy White Paper and the Energy Review 2006, all of which were issued by the Government as statements of policy providing background to the development of UK energy policy.

194 It is recognised in ‘Meeting the Energy Challenge’ that ‘energy is essential in almost

every aspect of our lives, as well as for the success of our economy’. The White Paper set out the Government’s response to the long term energy challenges posed by the need to tackle climate change by reducing CO2 emissions and ensuring that the country has secure, clean and affordable energy. The four energy policy goals in the White Paper are to:

• cut emissions by some 60% by about 2050, with real progress by 2020; • maintain the reliability of energy supplies; • promote competitive markets in the UK and beyond; • ensure that every home is adequately and affordably heated.

195 The White Paper recognises that renewables are key in tackling climate change and

providing cleaner sources of energy. They also contribute '…to security of supply, by diversifying the electricity mix and reducing the need for energy imports', paragraph 5.3.3. The measures introduced by the White Paper to strengthen the delivery of

53

ITEM 6

renewables were: • Strengthening and modifying the Renewables Obligation (RO); • Improving the planning consenting process for on and offshore renewables; and • Improving Renewables Grid Connections onshore and offshore.

196 The Waste Strategy for England 2007 (WS2007) identifies better management of waste

as a means to contribute to reducing greenhouse gases, improve resource efficiency, protect public health and safeguard amenity. One of the main elements of the Waste Strategy is to 'encourage much greater consideration of waste as a resource through increased emphasis on re-use, recycling and recovery of energy from waste '. (page 27) Energy from waste plants (including gasification) are also exempt from the Climate Change Levy, recognising the renewable fraction of waste. The levy forms a part of the Government's overall climate change programme and is a tax on the use of energy in industry and commerce and the public sector to promote energy efficiency and stimulate investment in new technology.

197 The Energy Act 2008 implements the legislative aspects of the 2007 Energy White

Paper. The Energy Act reflects the changing availability of new technologies and the changing requirements for security of supply infrastructure and adequate protection for the environment and the UK's population as the energy market changes. As a result of changes introduced by the Act, Anaerobic Digestion is among the technologies to receive additional support in the form of two Renewable Obligation Certificates per Megawatt hour (ROCs/MWh). The Government’s intention was that along with the Planning Act 2008 and Climate Change Act 2008, the Energy Act would ensure that legislation underpinned the long-term delivery of the UK's energy and climate change strategy.

198 Legally binding emission reduction targets were set in the Climate Change Act 2008.

The Act established a long-term framework to tackle climate change setting a reduction of 34% in greenhouse gas emissions for 2020 and for 2050 a reduction of at least 80%. The Act also introduced five yearly carbon budgets to help ensure the targets are met. These set a cap on the total quantity of greenhouse gas emissions emitted in the UK over a specified time whereby if emissions in one sector rise reductions in another sector will have to be achieved.

199 The transition to a low carbon economy is being underpinned by several strategies. The

UK Low Carbon Transition Plan the National Strategy for Climate and Energy (The Transition Plan) presented to Parliament on 15 July 2009 outlined the policies and proposals that will be put in place to reduce carbon emission by 2020 and increase energy from renewable sources. The Transition Plan is supported by the Renewable Energy Strategy, the Low Carbon Industrial Strategy and Low Carbon Transport: A Greener Future. Some of the key measures of the Transition Plan are implemented by the Energy Act 2010 which has provisions on delivering financial incentives for carbon capture and storage, mandatory social price support and measures aimed at ensuring that energy markets are working fairly for consumers and delivering secure and sustainable energy supplies. The Act requires Government to prepare three yearly (triennial) reports on decarbonisation progress.

200 As referred to above, the UK has signed up to the EU Renewable Energy Directive

2009/28/EC, which sets individual legally binding targets for each member state. The UK’s target is to source 15 % of energy (electricity, heat and transport) from renewable sources by 2020. This target is included in the UK Renewable Energy Strategy published in 2009, which sets out how renewable energy can be increased to help tackle climate change and help secure the UK’s future energy supplies. The Strategy considers that around 30% of the UK's renewable energy target (15%) could come from

54

ITEM 6

biomass heat and electricity in 2020 and builds on the action plan set out in the UK Biomass Strategy published in May 2007.

201 The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) published

'Accelerating the Uptake of Anaerobic Digestion in England: an Implementation Plan' in March 2010. The Plan states that 'anaerobic digestion is a well-proven renewable energy and waste management technology' and goes on to state that 'The Government is committed to encouraging a significant growth in the use of anaerobic digestion, a technology with great potential to contribute to our climate change and wider environmental objectives'. Page 1. This was followed by the publication of 'Developing an Anaerobic (AD) Framework Document' in December 2010. The document set out the steps the Government believe are needed to increase energy from waste through AD and again reiterated the Government's commitment to increasing energy from waste such as the production of heat, electricity and transport fuels through AD. The approach to promoting the potential for energy from waste through AD is part of the wider work on energy from waste, which will consider AD and other energy from waste technologies as part of the overall approach to moving to a zero-waste economy. A review of waste policies is underway and it is anticipated this will be reported in spring 2011.

202 The Government's commitment to produce Annual Energy Statements of energy policy

to Parliament led to the production of the first on 27 July 2010. The Statement acknowledges 'that in 2007 the UK had the lowest contribution from renewables of any major EU country, ahead of just Malta' (approximately 2.6%). The Government states that it 'will take positive action to drive renewables deployment through the implementation of a robust Delivery Plan for renewables which will set clear priorities and milestones and monitor deployment progress'. The Statement sets out action points. The most relevant of these are: • Action Point 22:'we have asked the Committee on Climate Change for advice on the

scope for a more ambitious target for renewables.' • Action Point 23: 'we will publish a renewables delivery plan to drive faster deployment

through the decade'. • Action Point 25: 'We are taking immediate action to exploit the potential of bio-

electricity and energy from waste, by grandfathering support under the Renewables Obligation for electricity from dedicated biomass, energy from waste, anaerobic digestion and advanced conversion technologies, such as pyrolysis and gasification. We will publish in the autumn a joint industry/Government action plan to deliver a huge increase in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion.'

203 In addition to the Annual Energy Statement the Department of Energy and Climate

Change (DECC) produce quarterly energy statistics. The latest energy trends published in December 2010 are for the third quarter of 2010. These show that energy consumption was 0.3% higher than in the same quarter of 2009. Electricity supplied from renewables rose by 23.1% with a large proportion of this being due to increased wind capacity. In the third quarter of 2009 renewables made up 6.9% of the electricity supplied but in the same quarter of 2010 this had risen to 8.6%.

204 The Energy Bill 2010 was introduced into the House of Lords in December 2010. The

Bill has three principal objectives: to tackle barriers to investment in energy efficiency, enhance energy security and enable investment in low carbon energy supplies. The Bill seeks to provide for some key elements of the Government's Programme for Government and the Annual Energy Statement referred to above.

205 The national targets set for renewable energy are supported by a range of fiscal

measures and regulations. The Renewables Obligation (RO) is currently the main financial support scheme for renewable electricity in the UK. The RO works by placing an obligation on licensed UK suppliers of electricity to source a specified and annually

55

ITEM 6

increasing proportion of their electricity sales from renewable sources, or pay a penalty(‘buyout’ price) for any shortfall). Eligible renewable energy generators (see below) receive Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) for each MWh of electricity generated. Different renewable generating technologies receive different numbers of ROCs/MWh. ROCs are green certificates issued for eligible renewable electricity generated from renewable sources within the UK and supplied to customers within the UK by a licensed electricity supplier. ROCs can be sold to licensed electricity suppliers, in order to fulfil their obligation. Suppliers can either present enough certificates to cover the required percentage of their output, or they can pay a ‘buyout’ price for any shortfall.

206 Changes to the Renewables Obligation (RO), which included extending it to 2037, were

introduced from 1 April 2010 by The Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2010. Subject to State Aid approval from the European Commission and parliamentary approval further changes are proposed to take effect from 1 April 2011 by means of the Renewables Obligation Order 2011. These changes would involve the introduction of mandatory reporting against greenhouse gas and land sustainability criteria for solid and gaseous biomass and mandatory sustainability criteria for bioliquids introduced by the Renewable Energy Directive. The RO is banded which provides the opportunity for targeted support to the different renewables. In December 2010 the Government announced the intention to accelerate the RO banding level review with a consultation in summer 2011, confirm the banding in Autumn 2011 and, subject to parliamentary approval, for the new bands to come into effect on 1 April 2013.

207 The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) website provides tables

showing the eligibility of renewable energy sources for RO. The second table specifically covers energy derived from waste: (http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/renewable_ener/renew_obs/eligibility/eligibility.aspx)

Type of Generating Station

Mixed Waste Waste that is Purely Biomass

Energy Crops, Agricultural Waste & Forestry material

Incineration Ineligible Eligible (Subject to max’ of fossil derived energy content of 10%)

Eligible (Subject to max’ of fossil derived energy content of 10%)

Pyrolysis, gasification and anaerobic digestion

Eligible for the biomass fraction of waste

Eligible (Subject to a max’ of fossil derived energy content of 10%)

Eligible (Subject to a max’ of fossil derived energy content of 10%)

Combined heat and power (CHP)

Eligible for the biomass fraction of waste produced as good quality CHP*

Eligible (Subject to a max’ of fossil derived energy content of 10%)

Eligible (Subject to a max’ of fossil derived energy content of 10%)

Co-firing Ineligible Eligible (Subject to a max’ of fossil derived energy content of 10%) (There are no restriction on the amount of co-fining a generator can undertake. However, suppliers can only meet 12.5 %of their obligation from co-fired ROCs).

Eligible (Subject to a max’ of fossil derived energy content of 10%)

*CHP stations must be accredited under the CHP Quality Assurance scheme to be eligible.

56

ITEM 6

208 Planning Policy Statement 1 Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) January 2005

sets out the Government's overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. The four aims for sustainable development are: • Social progress, which recognises the needs of everyone; • Effective protection of the environment; • The prudent use of natural resources; and • The maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.

209 According to PPS1 the prudent use of natural resources means enabling more

sustainable consumption and production and using non-renewable resources in ways that do not endanger the resource or cause serious damage or pollution. Furthermore, the broad aim should be to ensure that outputs are maximised whilst resource use is minimised. 'Regional planning authorities and local authorities should promote resource and energy efficient buildings; community heating schemes, the use of combined heat and power, small scale renewable and low carbon energy schemes in developments; the sustainable use of water resources; and the use of sustainable drainage systems in the management of run-off', paragraph 22. Good design is seen as a key element in achieving sustainable development and PPS1 encourages the use of Design and Access Statements (DAS) to demonstrate how development would contribute to key planning objectives. The applicant has supplied a DAS in support of the application, which covers such issues as site layout, design and accessibility and describes the sustainable design components incorporated into the design and briefly outlines the climate change benefits of the proposal.

210 ‘Planning and Climate Change’ was issued as a supplement to PPS1 in December 2007

(PPS1 Climate Change Supplement), and sets out how the planning system should contribute to reducing emissions and stabilising climate change. The Government views the planning system as having a key role to play in contributing towards a reduction in emissions and stabilising climate change. To deliver sustainable development the PPS1 Climate Change Supplement sets out in paragraph 9 a number of key planning objectives and states that planning authorities should prepare, and manage the delivery of spatial strategies that amongst other things should make a full contribution to delivering the Government’s Climate Change Programme and energy policies, and in doing so contribute to global sustainability.

211 The Climate Change Supplement goes on to say that planning authority’s Core

Strategies and development plan documents should provide a framework that promotes and encourages renewable and low carbon energy generation. In particular:

• applicants for energy development should not be required to demonstrate either the

overall need for renewable energy and its distribution, nor should the energy justification for why a proposal for such development must be sited in a particular location;

• the local approach to protecting landscape and townscape is consistent with PPS22

and does not preclude the supply of any type of renewable energy other than in the most exceptional circumstances;

• alongside criteria-based policy developed in line with PPS22, consider identifying

suitable areas for renewable and low-carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would secure the development of such sources, but in doing so take care to avoid stifling innovation including by rejecting proposals solely because they are outside areas identified for energy generation; and

57

ITEM 6

• expect a proportion of the energy supply of new development to be secured from

decentralized and renewable or low-carbon energy sources. Paragraph 20 212 Government Policy on Renewable energy is set out in Planning Policy Statement 22:

Renewable Energy (PPS22) issued in August 2004 and states that 'increased development of renewable energy resources is vital to facilitating the delivery of the Government's commitments on both climate change and renewable energy'.

213 PPS22 has eight key principles which planning authorities should adhere to in their

approach to planning for renewable energy. The first of these is that 'renewable energy development should be capable of being accommodated throughout England in locations where the technology is viable and environmental, economic, and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily'. Key principle (ii) is concerned with '…policies being designed to promote and encourage, rather than restrict, the development of renewable energy resources' and goes on to encourage the recognition of the differing types and locational requirements of the full range of renewable energy sources. Key principle (iv) is that 'the wider environmental and economic benefit of all proposals for renewable energy projects, whatever their scale, are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be granted planning permission.'

214 Locational considerations are considered within PPS22. In terms of Green Belts, the

PPS advises that 'elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development which may impact on the openness of the green belt' and as such very special circumstances will need to be demonstrated. PPS22 goes on to state that 'such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources'.

215 It is accepted in PPS22 that the visual impacts of developments will vary but that some

of these may be minimized through appropriate siting, design and landscaping schemes. In relation to applications for anaerobic digestion, planning authorities are advised to carefully consider the potential impacts and the proposals for control of odour.

216 Government Guidance on waste is set out in Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for

Sustainable Waste Management revised March 2011 (PPS10). The overall objective for waste policy is 'to protect human health and the environment by producing less waste and by using it as a resource where ever possible' paragraph 1. Annex C to the PPS sets out the waste hierarchy. Whilst the most effective solution is reduction followed by the re-use of products and materials, the third option is that resources can often be recovered from waste - recycling and composting, the fourth option is that value can be recovered by generating energy from waste leaving the final option as disposal.

217 Sustainable resource management is a key theme of the South East Plan 2009 (SEP

2009). Policies in the Natural Resource Management chapter of the Plan promote renewable energy and energy efficiency through new development. Amongst other matters (i.e. the supporting text states that Policy NRM11 should be read alongside cross cutting policies CC2, CC3 and CC4), Policy NRM11 (Development Design for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy) states that local authorities should:

(iii) work towards incorporation of renewable energy sources including, in particular, passive solar design, solar water heating, photovoltaics, ground source heat pumps and in larger scale development, wind and biomass generated energy.

218 Policy CC2 (Climate Change) sets out measures to mitigate against and adapt to climate

change and reduce the region’s carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions. Policy CC3 (Resource Use) aims to stabilise and reduce the South East’s ecological footprint

58

ITEM 6

by increased resource efficiency, adaption of existing development to reduce resource use. Policy CC4 (Sustainable Design and Construction) expects new development to adopt and incorporate sustainable construction standards and techniques.

219 Policy NRM 12 (Combined Heat and Power) encourages the use of CHP and district

heating in new buildings. It also states that the use of biomass fuel should be investigated and promoted where possible.

220 Renewable Energy Targets are set out in Policy NRM13. The targets are the minimum

for electricity generation from renewable sources. It is stated within the Policy that 'the renewable energy resources with the greatest potential for electricity generation are onshore and offshore wind, biomass and solar. The renewable energy resources with the greatest potential for heat generation are solar and biomass.' The target for 2016 is 895 installed capacity (MW) and 8% electricity generation capacity. By 2020 the installed capacity (MW) increases to 1,130 and 105 electricity generation capacity and the final date, 2026 sets a figure of 1,750 installed capacity and 16% of electricity generation capacity. Paragraph 9.78 goes on to state that 'the use of renewably generated heat would result in even greater savings. Almost 12% of electricity output would be generated from renewable sources by 2026'. The targets include energy derived from biomass waste and from thermal treatment and anaerobic digestion.

221 Policy NRM14 (Sub-regional Targets for Land-based Renewable Energy) sets a target of

209 MW for Thames Valley and Surrey by 2016. It is recognised in paragraph 9.86 that the Thames Valley and Surrey appears to have the greatest potential for biomass fuelled electricity generation.

222 The Location of Renewable Energy Development is covered in Policy NRM15.

'Renewable energy development should be located and designed to minimise adverse impacts on landscape, wildlife, heritage assets and amenity. Outside of urban areas, priority should be given to development in less sensitive parts of the countryside and coast, including on previously developed land and in major transport areas.'

223 Whilst all proposals should be considered on their merits, Policy NRM16 (Renewable

Energy Development Criteria) encourages local authorities to support in principle the development of renewable energy and include criteria-based policies in their development documents, which consider:

i. The contribution the development will make towards achieving national, regional and

sub-regional renewable energy targets and carbon dioxide savings; ii. The potential to integrate the proposal with existing or new development; iii. The potential benefits to host communities and opportunities for environmental

enhancement; iv. The proximity of biomass combustion plants to fuel source and the adequacy of local

transport networks; and v. Availability of a suitable connection to the electricity distribution network.

224 The SEP 2009 Policy W11 (Biomass) states that waste collection, planning and disposal

authorities should encourage the separation of biomass waste, as defined in the Renewables Obligation, and consider its use as a fuel in biomass energy plants where this does not discourage recycling and composting.

225 Policy W12 (Other Recovery and Diversion Technologies) encourages anaerobic

digestion and advanced recovery technologies that are expected to make a growing contribution towards regional targets for renewable energy generation. The policy specifically covers energy from waste which should only be included as part of an integrated approach to waste management and states that waste facilities should:

59

ITEM 6

‘i. operate to the require pollution control standard ii. include measures to ensure that appropriate materials are recycled, composted and

recovered where this has not been carried out elsewhere. iii. proposed thermal facilities should, where possible, aim to incorporate combined

generation and distribution of heat and power'. 226 The Surrey Waste Plan 2008 (SWP 2008) provides the up-to-date local policy context for

the application. Paragraph C21 states that 'thermal treatment is a general term used for waste management technologies, designed to generate power, and often to recover heat, through the combustion of waste.' Policy WD5 (Thermal Treatment Facilities) sets out the criterion under which planning permission for development involving thermal treatment of waste will be granted. The policy provides that planning permission for development involving the thermal treatment of waste will be granted provided:

i) ‘the waste to be treated cannot practically and reasonably be reused, recycled or

processed to recover materials; ii) provision is made for energy recovery; iii) the proposed development is one shown on the site boundary maps’ (Charlton Lane,

Shepperton is included). 227 This is subject to the following further proviso: ‘provided that the development proposed

meets the key development criteria and where very special circumstances can be demonstrated in accordance with the provisions of Policy CW6…’.Policy CW6 deals with waste development in the Green Belt.

228 Key Development Criteria (KDC) Notes have been prepared for each of the sites named

in Policy WD5. These identify relevant issues to development on each of the sites. Allocated sites also have to be assessed against SWP 2008 Policy DC3 (General Considerations). Policy DC3 requires that the County Council be satisfied that the impact of a proposed so that it does not significantly affect people, land, infrastructure and resources. It also requires planning applicants to show that they have assessed particular environment and amenity issues these include at (ii) the amount of greenhouse gases produced.

229 Spelthorne Borough Council adopted its Core Strategy and Policies on 26 February 2009

(SCS 2009). Included in the vision of the core strategy is that by 2026 Spelthorne will have become a more sustainable place to live and work. In addition 'recycling and renewable energy generation will have significantly increased and contributed to a reduction in the generation of Co2 and account taken of the implications of climate change.'

230 According to the supporting text to Policy CC1, renewable energy is a 'fast developing

area of national policy' and the requirements in Policy CC1 should therefore be regarded as a minimum. Policy CC1 (Renewable Energy, Energy Conservation and Sustainable Construction) gives general support to the provision of renewable energy, energy efficiency and promotes sustainable development generally. The policy has five criteria. Criterion (a) covers new residential development and other new built development exceeding 100 m2. In such cases the design, layout and orientation should minimise energy use and the development should 'include measures to provide at least 10% of the energy demand from on-site renewable energy sources unless it can be shown that it would seriously threaten the viability of the development.' Criterion (b) encourages the installation of renewable energy equipment to supply existing buildings and criterion (c) encourages appropriate freestanding renewable energy schemes.

231 Policy EN1 states that the design of new development should incorporate measures to

minimise energy consumption. Policy SP7 (Climate Change and Transport) of the Spelthorne Core Strategy seeks to minimise the impact of climate change by 'promoting

60

ITEM 6

the inclusion of provision for renewable energy, energy conservation and waste management facilities into both new and existing developments …'. Renewable Energy and Low Carbon Elements of the Scheme

232 The proposed Eco Park would co-locate several waste facilities. The existing

Community Recycling Facility (CRC) would be retained and the development would include a dry recyclables bulking facility (RBF) facilities for gasification of residual municipal solid waste and anaerobic digestion (AD) of food waste. Criterion (ii) of Policy WD5 of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008 requires that provision is made for energy recovery from waste materials. Three elements of the proposed development would generate electricity and heat; the gasification and the AD processes and photovoltaic cells on the RBF building roof and CRC canopy, which would provide solar energy.

233 The proposed gasification and AD facilities would treat residual municipal waste and

food waste materials that would otherwise be sent to landfill. Whilst the gasification is viewed as disposal under the WFD, it nonetheless constitutes the provision for energy recovery in accordance with criterion (ii) of Policy WD5 of the SWP2008. Recyclable waste material received at the Charlton Lane CRC and RBF would be bulked up for temporary storage prior to export from the site. A proportion of the residual municipal waste that would be treated in the proposed gasification facility and all of the food waste to be treated in the proposed AD facility would be classified as biomass.

234 The gasification facility would have the capacity to process approximately 60,000 tonnes

of residual municipal waste and a small quantity of commercial and industrial waste per annum. The applicant states that the plant would use a gasification process to generate renewable and low carbon energy from the residual waste. Gasification involves the heating of carbon-based products into carbon monoxide and hydrogen in a reduced oxygen environment. The result of this process is Syngas, which is combusted in a boiler to produce steam, which consequently powers a turbine to generate electricity. The steam turbine would have an electricity generating capacity of 3.6MW, and the provision of this significant energy recovery capacity contributes to compliance with the requirement of Policy WD5 (ii) for provision of energy recovery.

235 The gasification plant would have the capability to operate as a Combined Heat and

Power (CHP) facility by exporting waste heat generated in the process, either as steam or hot water, to be used to heat buildings in the vicinity, though this is not part of the current proposals. The application states that although there is limited potential at present to supply heat to off site users this may change in the future. The applicant has stated that the proposed gasification facility would incorporate measures including provision of pass out valves at the appropriate heat take off points, linked to underground pipework installed under the route of the main site access to a point where it could in be connected to future off-site infrastructure running under Charlton Lane. The applicant is also committed to ongoing investigation into potential heat take off and stated they would be willing to accept a planning condition to demonstrate this and enable heat to be utilised at a later stage if an appropriate user/market is identified.

236 Officers acknowledge that making use of the waste heat is not always possible, either

due to the nature of existing development in the vicinity of an application site at the time of the planning application, or where there are constraints to future development in the vicinity. Officers consider the applicant’s commitment to retain the capability of the proposed gasification facility to operate as a CHP facility in the future accords with current Government policy in PPS1 and SEP 2009 Policy W12 such that if a user is found this element of the proposed development would contribute towards achieving energy efficiency targets. Having a guaranteed use of the waste heat is not a pre-requisite to obtaining planning permission under SEP 2009 Policy W12, and its current absence and the lack of opportunity for a suitable market for waste heat at this moment

61

ITEM 6

in time is not considered a ground for refusal of the application. Officers consider a planning condition to require the infrastructure to be provided at this stage, as proposed in the application, and ongoing investigation of the feasibility and commercial viability of exporting heat from the proposed gasification facility to an off site user would be appropriate if planning permission is granted.

237 Anaerobic Digestion (AD) facilities are considered a low impact modern method of

recycling food waste to produce biogas and an organic fertiliser. As set out in the publication ‘Accelerating the Uptake of Anaerobic Digestion in England: an Implementation Plan’ March 2010, the Government is committed to encouraging growth in the use of AD. Policy W12 of the SE Plan 2009 also encourages AD facilities within the region. The proposed AD facility would process approximately 40,000 wet tonnes per annum (tpa) of food waste. The AD process would convert the food waste into methane and carbon dioxide (biogas), which would then be used to power combined heat and power (CHP) gas turbine engines to produce electricity. Waste heat produced by the CHP units is captured and re-used to pasteurise the waste in the AD process maximising efficiency. The CHP gas turbine engines in the AD facility would have an electrical generating capacity of 1.4 MW.

238 The applicant proposes to install photovoltaic (PV) panels covering an area of 885.5m2

on the RBF building and 895m2 on the Bale Store and CRC canopy. In total this would provide a total area of 1,780.5m2 of photovoltaic panels, which would have an electrical generating capacity of 0.16MW. Solar power is a renewable energy resource and incorporating this renewable energy source in the proposed Eco Park development accords with criterion (iii) of Policy NRM11 of the SE Plan 2009.

239 The proposed Eco Park development would have a combined generation capacity of

some 5.16MW of electricity. The table at paragraph 207 above sets out eligibility of renewable sources for the Renewables Obligation. Both the proposed gasification and AD facilities would be eligible for the biomass fraction of waste. The proposed gasification facility would be capable of generating some 3.6MW electricity per annum (MW/yr), the AD facility some 1.4MW/yr and the photovoltaic cells some 0.16MW/yr. The applicant has stated that more than half of the energy generated by the gasification facility and all of the electricity generated by the AD facility and the photovoltaic cells would be classified as renewable energy. Officers consider a planning condition is necessary to ensure that (following the commissioning phase) no waste should be treated in either the Gasification Plant or Anaerobic Digestion facility unless the electrical power generated is used to power the Eco Park itself, with all the excess electrical power transmitted to the National Electricity Grid. The applicant has provided a drawing showing a suitable Grid connection route, which does not, in Officers’ opinion, raise issues requiring its incorporation within and consideration as part of this application and would be the subject of a separate application.

240 Officers consider the proposed development would make a contribution to national and SEP 2009 renewable targets by aiming to recover as much energy as possible providing a combined renewable energy generating capacity of some 5.16MW for the whole proposed Eco Park development. Not all of the electricity generated would be exported to the National Grid. A proportion of the electricity generated each year, 7,326 MWh/yr, would be used to supply the power needs of the Eco Park with the remainder, 33,000MWh/yr, exported to the local electricity distribution network. Put in context this would roughly equate to the electricity requirement of around 8000 houses1. In line with one of the key principles in PPS22 (vi), the proposal would be classified as a small scale renewable energy project, and would make a “limited but valuable contribution to overall outputs of renewable energy and to meeting energy needs both locally and nationally”.

1 Taking average annual electrical consumption as 4,000 kWhe/year, University of Strathclyde, Energy Systems Research Unit.

62

ITEM 6

Carbon emissions

241 The applicant submitted an updated Carbon Balance Report on 9 May 2011 to provide

an comparative assessment of the carbon emissions associated with processing the residual municipal waste in the gasification facility and source segregated waste in the AD facility, compared to the emissions associated with the ‘Do nothing Scenario’ (sending the waste to landfill). The report estimates the energy consumption and production and their associated carbon emissions to assist in providing an understanding of the proposed developments energy efficiency and potential carbon savings. The Carbon Balance Report has been produced in line with the relevant guidance ‘Protocol for the quantification of greenhouse gases emissions from waste management activities’, Entreprises pour l’Environment, Version 4 June 2010.

242 The Carbon Balance Report principally looks at the direct and indirect emissions

associated with electricity generation and use. Each of the main energy consuming elements of the scheme has been identified and their electrical consumption and production estimated, from which carbon emissions have been calculated. Energy consumption figures for the proposed development have been based on the site operating for 24 hours a day 365 days of the year and energy generation figures have been based on the plant operating for 89% of the time. Carbon emissions have also been calculated from indirect emissions from transportation and water use.

243 The annual electricity consumption of the proposed development would equate to 7,263

MWhe/yr (associated with the AD facility, gasification facility and the site buildings) plus 566.8 MWhe/yr electricity equivalent 2 from 52m3 of gas oil used in the Gasification facility. Total estimated energy consumption would therefore be 7,829.8 MWh/yr. Total electricity that would generated from the proposed facility is estimated to be 40,326 MWhe/yr of renewable and low carbon energy from the combustion of Syngas in the gasification facility (28,800 MWhe/yr); the combustion of Biogas in the AD facility (11,405MWhe/yr); and the solar (photovoltaic) panels (121 MWhe/yr). The originally submitted Carbon Balance Report (October 2010) stated that the gasification facility would require the use of 3,600m3 of gas oil. However, this was an overestimation and has now been revised to 52m3 following review by the applicant and their specialist consultants.

244 Officers consider this energy balance compares very favourably with SEP 2009 Policy

NRM11 and SCS 2009 Policy CC1. Policy NRM11 looks for local authorities to promote and secure greater use of decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy in new development and in advance of local targets being set in DPDs, unless not feasible or viable, to new development of more than 1000sqm of non-residential floor space to secure 10% of their energy from decentralised and renewable or low carbon sources. Policy CC1 looks to development to include measures to provide at least 10% of the development’s energy demand from on-site renewable energy sources. The proposed Eco Park development would provide far in excess of the 10% requirement of the policy as over 100% of the energy required would be generated on site (not taking into account in fuel oil). If the energy content in the fuel oil is considered the proposed development would still provide for almost 87% (86.7%) of the total energy requirement to be generated on site from renewable or low carbon sources.

245 The Carbon Balance Report calculates the carbon emissions from the proposed

development including the direct emissions from the use of electricity by the facility and the indirect emissions from associated activities such as water use, and the avoided emissions from the generation of on site low carbon and renewable electricity. This is then compared with the carbon emissions from the alternative scenario (landfill). Officers

2 Based on 1 litre of fuel oil equating to 10.9kWh, Blueberry Energy Initiative Facts and Figures 2010

63

ITEM 6

previously identified some significant errors included in the calculations for carbon emissions associated with transport and water use in the original Carbon Balance Report (November 2010). The applicant took the opportunity of the recent request for further information under Regulation 19 to provide an amended Carbon Balance Report (May 2011). The applicant also recalculated the amount of oil consumed in the proposed Gasification facility following the availability of further commissioning data from their Dumfries plant. The recalculated figures demonstrate that the proposed development would save 40,793 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) per year in comparison with sending the residual municipal and food waste to landfill. This saving would be comparable to the annual CO2 emissions of 3735 households (based on10.92 tCO2 / household / year - Carbon Trust 2006).

246 In addition to the Carbon Balance Report, a report on the options for the reduction of

carbon dioxide at Charlton Lane Eco Park was undertaken by the applicant. This submitted Report investigated the different renewable energy and energy efficiency options available at the Charlton Lane Eco Park site. The energy efficiency options investigated were energy efficient building design, passive solar heat gain, lighting, water use, sub metering and providing energy efficient information.

247 Options for different types of renewable technologies that could be implemented on site

were also investigated. The report looked at solar hot water, ground source heat pumps, photovoltaics, wind turbines, and biomass heating. It concluded that due to the constraints upon the site, the only option appropriate for further investigation was the installation of photovoltaics.

Energy efficiency 248 Apart from the proposed office/visitor centre and staff amenity block the proposed Eco

Park development would involve erection of simple steel framed and steel clad buildings with little demand for heat. Due to the type of these buildings and their proposed use there would be limited opportunities to maximise energy efficiency in the building design. The proposed office/visitor centre and staff amenity block would be a different type of building construction and use and therefore a number of efficiency measures have been incorporated into the design.

249 The office/visitor centre and staff amenity block would occupy the southern part of the

main gasification building, over three floors with the occupied rooms facing out of the southern façade. These occupied rooms have been designed to take advantage of the additional day lighting and solar gain that could be achieved from a south facing façade. This would decrease the requirement for lighting, reducing energy costs and also maximise solar gain, which would reduce the heating requirement during the winter, although this could result in higher cooling costs during the summer months.

250 The applicant has also stated that the office/visitor centre and staff amenity block would

use energy efficient glazing, to reduce solar gain in summer months, and insulation in the building envelope would be maximised to comply and exceed Part L of the 2010 of the Building Regulations which is the equivalent to Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. In addition to this the building would incorporate intelligent lighting systems to further reduce energy demand and the buildings heating and hot water demand would also be supplied from the development. The application proposes rainwater harvesting for use within the staff toilets in the main building.

251 Due to the type of buildings for the proposed gasification and AD facilities and RBF (akin

to warehouse buildings) the application identifies there are limited energy efficiency improvements that could be made, however the applicant has stated that the proposed development would use cladding materials in reference to BRE Green Guide to

64

ITEM 6

Specification (BRE 2002) and the western façade of the gasification building would be clad in sustainable timber.

252 The proposed Eco Park development would divert approaching 100,000 tonnes of waste

from landfill in the gasification and AD processes, utilise a number of energy saving and energy recovery techniques as well as installing renewable energy technology on site to generate electricity for use in the development and export to the national grid. The office/visitor centre/staff amenity building would incorporate measures by maximising daylighting, solar gain, glazing, energy efficient lighting systems, high levels of insulation and sustainable water management harvesting and using rainwater. In addition the heating and hot water would be supplied from excess heat from the proposed gasification facility. Overall Officers are satisfied that the information provided on these matters and measures incorporated into the design of the buildings are sufficient to comply with relevant development plan policies such as SEP 2009 Policy NRM11; SWP 2008 Policy DC3; and Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 Policies CC1 and EN1.

Conclusion 253 Officers consider the applicant has provided information to demonstrate how the

proposed Eco Park development seeks to reduce and mitigate against the effects of climate change. The renewable energy and low carbon energy which would be produced as a result of the gasification and AD facilities and the photovoltaic panels would contribute towards national and development plan targets for electricity generation from renewables and accord with the general aims of PPS1, PPS22 and the Draft PPS: Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate (March 2010). The power produced would be used to generate electricity and heat produced used in the AD process and in the proposed buildings, replacing power that would be generated by burning of fossil fuels and avoiding the landfilling of waste, which even with landfill gas utilisation schemes, generate more greenhouse gases.

254 Although at present the development does not incorporate specific proposals for the off

site use of heat generated by the gasification process, measures are incorporated to enable this in the future. Officers consider the Eco Park proposal would result in climate change benefits over the ‘Do Nothing’ option of landfilling of waste. As well as complying with national policy Officers consider that the application proposal, with mitigation measures incorporated into the development and the imposition of planning conditions (supported by controls available through the building control regime) is in conformity with the following development policies; the SE Plan 2009 Policies CC2, CC4, NRM11, NRM12, NRM13, NRM14, and W12; SWP 2008 Policy WD5 and KDC for Charlton Lane; and Spelthorne Core Strategy 2009 Policies CC1and SP7.

HIGHWAYS, TRAFFIC & ACCESS South East Plan 2009 Policy CC7 Infrastructure and Implementation Policy T1 Manage and Invest Policy T4 Parking Policy W17 Location of Waste Management Facilities Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy CW5 Location of Waste Facilities Policy CW6 Development in the Green Belt Policy WD1 Civic Amenity Sites Policy WD2 Recycling, Storage, Transfer, Materials Recovery and Processing Facilities (Excluding Thermal Treatment) Policy WD5 Thermal Treatment Facilities Policy DC3 General Considerations

65

ITEM 6

Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document 2009 Policy CC2 Sustainable Travel Policy CC3 Parking Provision 255 This section considers the traffic generation and access arrangements, the impact on the

highway network and the relative accessibility of the site. The application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment (TA) which contains detailed highways and transport operational analysis work (including the identification of development trip generation and assignment), review of highway network safety, link and junction operational capacity and general site accessibility. The environmental impact of the proposals in terms of highways and transport matters is assessed in the Environmental Statement. The impact of the traffic in noise terms and air quality is considered in the Air Quality – emissions, dust, odour and health effects and Noise and Vibration sections of the report.

256 Of significance in this case and a matter dealt with in the submitted Transport

Assessment, is the starting point or baseline, which is the planning permission for the permanent retention of the existing waste management facilities (planning application ref SP10/0833) approved 4 March 2011.

National, Regional and Development Plan Context 257 Government advice with regards to transport matters is set out in Planning Policy

Guidance Note 13: Transport (PPG13), which recognises that land use planning plays a key role in delivering an integrated transport strategy through shaping the pattern of development. The core objectives are outlined within Paragraph 4, which are to “promote more sustainable transport choices for both people and for moving freight” and to “reduce the need to travel…”. Traffic related impacts associated with waste developments are also covered within Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS10). Paragraph 3 of PPS10 sets out the Government’s Key Planning Objectives states that “Regional planning bodies and all planning authorities should, to the extent appropriate to their responsibilities, prepare and deliver strategies” that, amongst other matters:

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

258 In relation to determining planning applications for waste management facilities

paragraph 29 of PPS 10 states waste planning authorities should consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity and refers to Annex E which sets out a range of factors which should be assessed when assessing the suitability of sites and areas against the criteria in paragraph 20, including:

“traffic and access – considerations will include the suitability of the local road network and the extent to which access would require reliance on local roads.”

259 SEP 2009 Policy CC7 (Infrastructure and Implementation) states that the scale and pace

of development will depend on sufficient capacity being available in existing infrastructure to meet the needs of new development and that additional capacity should be released either through demand management or better management of existing infrastructure. Policy T1 (Manage and Invest) states that proposals should include measures to minimise negative environmental impacts of transport and, where possible, enhance the environment and communities through such interventions. Lastly, Policy W17 (Location of Waste Management Facilities) provides that the suitability of existing sites and potential new sites should be assessed on the basis of good accessibility from existing urban areas, good transport connections, compatibility with land uses and ability to meet a range of locally based environmental and amenity criteria. This is reflected in

66

ITEM 6

the approach to the location of waste facilities in the Surrey Waste Plan 2008 (SWP 2008) Core Strategy development plan document (DPD) and Policy CW5.

260 The application site at Charlton Lane is named as a suitable location in SWP 2008

Policies WD1, WD2 and WD5 as a site where planning permission will be granted provided the development proposed meets the key development criteria for the site and satisfies Policy CW6. Included in the ‘Key Development Criteria’ (KDC) for the Charlton Lane site is:

“Access to the site: any proposal should indicate how queues would be prevented from forming on the public highway and restrictions are likely to be required preventing access through Charlton Village.”

261 In addition proposals will be considered against SWP 2008 Policy DC3, which sets out

matters that the County Council considers when assessing proposals for waste related development and the information that is expected to accompany planning applications. In relation to traffic that would be generated by a proposal this information includes an assessment of the level and type of traffic that would be generated and an assessment of the impact of that traffic, the suitability of the access to the site and the highway network in the vicinity of the site including access to and from the motorway and the primary route network. Policy DC3 also requires adverse effects on neighbouring amenity including transport impacts to be assessed.

262 Spelthorne Borough Council’s (SBC) adopted Core Strategy (SCS 2009) Policy CC2

(Sustainable Travel) provides that the Borough Council will seek to secure more sustainable travel patterns through such measures as:

• requiring all major development to be accompanied by a site specific travel plan to

promote and achieve sustainable travel choices, and • only permitting traffic generating development where it is or can be made compatible

with the transport infrastructure in the area taking into account:

i) number and nature of additional traffic movements, including servicing needs; ii) capacity of the local transport network; iii) cumulative impact including other proposed development; iv) access and egress to the public highway; and v) highway safety.

263 Parking provision Policy CC3 requires appropriate provision to be made for off street

parking in development proposals in accordance with the Borough Council’s maximum parking standards. To assist in promoting cycle use developments are required to provide sufficient, safe, weatherproof, convenient and secure cycle parking.

Proposed development 264 The proposal is for the development of a waste management Eco Park to treat a

maximum of 143,750 tonnes of waste per annum, consisting of a 60,000 tonnes per annum Gasification facility, a 40,000 tonnes per annum Anaerobic Digestion facility (AD), a modified Community Recycling facility (CRC) and a Recyclables Bulking facility (RBF) to handle around 42,750 tonnes per annum, together with an Education/Visitor Centre and other associated infrastructure.

265 The application proposes use of the existing access off Charlton Lane. Access to the

Charlton Lane Waste Management Facility is direct from the local distributor road route of Charlton Lane. This access from Charlton Lane is currently shared with the Scout Hut (to the west) and Ivydene Cottage (to the east), with separate gated access roads leading to both properties. Charlton Lane is a single carriageway road; and the junction

67

ITEM 6

with the existing waste site, scout hut and residential property is via a simple priority junction with a ghosted right turn lane. The junction has taper lanes for both incoming and outgoing vehicles and a dedicated right turn filter lane for vehicles approaching from the east on the A244. Visibility from the site access junction with Charlton Lane accords with appropriate standards for access to a 30mph route.

266 The existing access arrangements to the Charlton Lane Waste Management Facility

involve traffic accessing the CRC site and the waste transfer station sharing one route into the site, following which CRC traffic goes to the left and waste transfer station traffic to the right. These arrangements result in the operational problems and congestion, including:

• Traffic can ‘block back’ out of the CRC facility during busy periods due to a lack of

current on-site vehicle stacking capacity and resulting in vehicles queuing along Charlton Lane to access the site (for example, on weekends) causing congestion and disruption to other traffic using Charlton Lane;

• HGV queuing on the approach to the site weighbridge can block access to the CRC lane if HGVs are poorly positioned (again causing congestion around the site entrance and blocking access); and

• HGVs / Vans have been noted to ‘lay-up’ at the site frontage (eg waiting for the site to open in the morning or waiting before departing elsewhere) causing reduced operating space / congestion and blocking entrance to the Scout Hut and Ivydene Cottage.

267 The application for permanent retention of the existing Charlton Lane Waste

Management Facility (SP10/0883) proposed improvements to the existing access arrangements to address these matters in line with the Key Development Criteria for the site in the SWP 2008.

268 As part of the Eco Park development access improvements are proposed to the existing

access and access to the existing CRC facility, which would be retained. The access improvements include provision of a separate entry lane for HGV traffic and other commercial vehicles, relocation of the weighbridge and widening of the internal access roads to provide two lanes for traffic queuing to access the CRC. Double yellow lines are proposed to address the problem of vehicles parking up outside the existing site entrance waiting for the site to open. 45 car parking spaces, including two at disabled standard and one coach-parking bay would be provided for use by staff and visitors. Sheltered parking for cycles and motorcycles would be provided.

269 The proposed development would generate traffic from vehicles involved in bringing

waste to the different parts of the proposal (CRC, AD Facility, Gasification facility) and removal of materials (from the RBF, digestate from the AD Facility and bottom ash and fly ash from the Gasification facility), staff and visitors, and construction traffic.

270 In their grounds of objection SBC refer to the position of the internal roadway and

building having an unacceptable impact on Ivydene Cottage. Although they have not objected on traffic or access grounds (see Consultees (Statutory and Non-Statutory) section above) they have identified a number of matters they consider should be addressed through planning conditions if planning permission is granted. In relation to traffic and access these include:

• Requirement for appropriate traffic management measures to address problems

of noise and obstruction caused by the arrival of lorries before the site opens and lorry-parking generally outside the site gates and to apply greater control on lorry rates to reduce such movements through Charlton Village.

68

ITEM 6

• For the construction phase clarification of details and control through planning

condition of deliveries involving abnormal loads outside of permitted construction times to ensure unacceptable disturbance is avoided.

• Planning condition to require submission and approval in consultation with the Borough Council of the Construction and Environmental Management Plan and include the control over hours of arrival and departure of vehicles associated with demolition and construction and a programme of works for the site demolition/construction.

271 As set out in the Consultees (Statutory and Non-Statutory) section above the County

Highway Authority (CHA) consider the Transportation Assessment has provided sufficient information to enable a robust assessment of the traffic impact of the proposal to be undertaken. It has raised no objection subject to the imposition of planning conditions.

272 The Highways Agency have raised no objection as they do not expect the proposal to

have a detrimental impact on Junction 1 of the M3, part of the strategic road network under its jurisdiction. The Highway Agency expect to be consulted on the construction management plans which should include consideration of the impact at M3 Junction 1, and to secure this a planning condition will be imposed should planning permission be granted.

273 As set out above objectors to the application have raised a number of issues relating to

traffic and access. The grounds of objection include the amount of traffic that would be generated (increase over existing), present traffic unacceptable and contrary to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, increased accident risk and safety concerns including potential conflict with users of the Scout Hut, damage to road infrastructure, existing levels of congestion in the area, parking of HGVs on roads overnight, access for emergency vehicles, need for access to improvements to site access and provision for HGV parking, Walton Bridge unsuitable for two way HGV traffic, noise from traffic, increased pollution from traffic emissions, site in the Spelthorne Air Quality Management Area.

274 Supporters of the application have referred to the following matters in their responses:

need to assess the suitability of the roads and Walton Bridge for use by HGV traffic, concern lack of crash barrier protection in brick railway bridge parapets and raise no objection subject to reduction of HGV traffic in the local area.

Waste sources/flows

275 The application proposes that the AD facility would initially treat municipal waste from the

northern and central boroughs and districts within Surrey; Runnymede (direct delivery), Surrey Heath and Woking (some direct delivery and some delivered in bulk from waste transfer stations), Guildford, Epsom & Ewell and Mole Valley (delivered in bulk from waste transfer stations). It would then revert in the longer term to a facility serving north Surrey treating waste from Spelthorne, Elmbridge, Runnymede, Surrey Heath and Woking as segregated food waste collection expands. Any spare capacity would allow for the treating of a small amount of Commercial and Industrial (C&I) waste (which could come from within Surrey or adjoining areas.

276 The Gasification facility would treat residual municipal waste from the north of the County, specifically Spelthorne, Elmbridge and Runnymede. Again, any spare capacity would allow for the treating of a small amount of C&I waste.

277 The CRC would continue to serve residents in Spelthorne and Elmbridge for whom the

existing Charlton Lane CRC is the closest site. A small number of residents from other boroughs/districts and out of the County may also use the site, although permit

69

ITEM 6

measures are proposed by the applicant to prevent residents from outside Surrey using the site.

278 The RBF would provide for imported recyclable materials (recyclate) and green wastes

from the CRC and imported from other existing Surrey CRCs to be bulked and baled on site, and then exported in large sized loads.

279 The CHA has assessed the proposed location of the facility at Charlton Lane and

considers it would appear to be sensible in transportation terms, given the sources of the waste arisings proposed to be handled at the Eco Park. Officers consider the Charlton Lane site to be a suitable location for the proposed waste facility in relation to the waste proposed to be handled.

Existing and proposed traffic situation

280 The Transportation Assessment (TA) submitted in support of this application was the

subject of pre-planning and scoping discussions and was modified at the request of the County Highway Authority (CHA) to address potential variations in waste inputs and recycling rates (50%, 60%, and 70%). The CHA consider that the resulting assessment contains sufficient data to enable the likely impact of traffic to be assessed. Waste traffic is defined in the TA as heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) and light goods vehicles (LGVs), including transit vans and other small commercial vehicles. Traffic generated by the proposed development would also include cars accessing the CRC and staff and visitors vehicles.

281 The TA initially used the assessment in the TA for the application for the retention of the

existing facilities (SP10/0883) as a base and assumed a 70% recycling rate to compare the likely waste traffic generation of the Eco Park. The SP10/0883 application TA used a worst case scenario of 190,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) total waste input to the site (based on the waste input in April 2009 multiplied by 12) and a 70% recycling rate. The CHA was concerned about this waste input figure and recycling rate being used in connection with the Eco Park TA on two counts: firstly, the traffic generation assumed in the SP10/0883 application for the retention of the existing facilities was considered to be an absolute worst case scenario based on a very high waste input level; and, secondly, the 70% recycling rate was highly aspirational - particularly in respect of the districts of Spelthorne and Runnymede where recycling rates are currently running at less than 50%.

282 Actual waste inputs to the existing Charlton Lane Waste Management Facility are lower

than the 190,000 tpa figure used, i.e. 174,000 tpa in 2007/2008 and 150,000 tpa in 2009/2010. A sensitivity test was therefore applied based on May 2010 waste input levels and adjusted to remove Hounslow Borough Council waste (which has been going to the site but would cease by 30th June 2011 and would not therefore be received at the proposed Eco Park) and include Spelthorne Borough Council waste currently going elsewhere but which it is intended would be received at the proposed Eco Park. This resulted in an annual Surrey municipal waste input figure of around 146,200 tpa, which the CHA considered a more realistic figure for use in the TA, based on actual waste input rates. This was the figure used in the Eco Park TA to assess waste traffic generated by the proposal.

283 Objectors have referred to an increased capacity from 150, 000 tpa to 170, 000 tpa and

resulting adverse environmental impact from increased traffic and air pollution from vehicle emissions, impact on highway safety and road infrastructure. As referred to above whilst these higher waste input levels (associated with the existing Charlton Lane Waste Management Facility) are referred to in the TA and have been used to provide waste input levels on which to base the traffic generation assessment, the application is proposing to handle up to a maximum of 143,750 tonnes of waste per annum. This

70

ITEM 6

would be a reduction in waste capacity from the existing Charlton Lane waste facility. The lower Surrey municipal waste figure is considered to be a more realistic and appropriate figure to use than the worst case scenario figure of 190,000 tpa used in the SP10/0883 application TA. Officers consider that the Eco Park TA using the lower waste tpa figure is appropriate and that the TA based on this robust.

284 The waste traffic generation of the proposed Eco Park would be largely dependent upon the source of the waste and the household recycling rates that are achieved. As a result of the information supplied in the TA, the likely waste carrying (HGVs+ LGVs) traffic that would be generated can be calculated and summarised by Officers in the table below:

Weekday Saturday Sunday 70% recycling 208 movements 106 movements 101 movements 60% recycling 200 movements 84 movements 80 movements 50% recycling 196 movements 74 movements 71 movements

285 It should be noted that if higher household recycling rates were achieved, the number of

movements would increase. This is because the facility would be more dependent upon trade waste, which tends to be delivered in smaller payload vehicles and would generate more movements than the same volume of household waste delivered in larger payload vehicles (RCVs direct from collection rounds and larger capacity HGVs from waste transfer stations). So lower recycling rates are associated with fewer waste movements in total, but with a higher proportion of HGVs than LGVs. This is illustrated by Officers in the table below:

Weekday Saturday Sunday HGV LGV HGV LGV HGV LGV 70% 179 29 75 31 71 31 60% 191 8 75 9 71 9 50% 196 0 74 0 71 0

286 The vast majority of current movements to and from the existing Charlton Lane Waste

Management Facility are private cars accessing the CRC; and this would continue with the proposed Eco Park development. The Charlton Lane Waste Management Facility site as a whole would continue to generate, as currently, in the region of a total of 3,000 movements on a weekday and 3,600 on a weekend day. Based on an input of 146,200 tpa the current weekday waste traffic generation of the site is in the region of 423 movements (320 HGVs and 103 LGVs). The total traffic demand (cars plus LGVs plus HGVs) for the proposed Eco Park is therefore calculated as 2,928 vehicles on weekdays, 3,625 vehicles on Saturdays and 3,680 vehicles on Sundays, which is broadly comparable with the current site traffic generation.

287 The TA identifies that the overall traffic generation of the Eco Park will be similar to the

existing waste facility at the site. The overall number of HGVs visiting the site will reduce, although there will be only a marginal reduction on Saturdays and a slight increase on Sundays over current levels. The CHA does not consider this increase to be significant and it is therefore acceptable.

Traffic Impact

288 The CHA has assessed the proposal in terms of road and junction capacity. As set out

under the traffic generation section above the overall traffic generated by the Eco Park proposal would be broadly similar to the current traffic levels generated by the existing waste facility at Charlton Lane. Overall HGV numbers are predicted to fall from around 320 per weekday to within the range of 179 – 196, depending upon the recycling rate achieved. This equates to a reduction in HGVs of between 39% and 44%. The results of

71

ITEM 6

the traffic count conducted in May 2010 show that there were 78 HGVs on a Saturday and 57 on a Sunday. On this basis, the proposed Eco Park would result in a marginal reduction in HGVs on a Saturday of around 5%, but an increase of 14 movements (almost 20%) on Sundays.

289 The direction of HGV traffic is predicted to vary slightly as a result of the Eco Park

development on a Saturday and Sunday. There would be a reduction in HGVs on Charlton Lane west of the site, Charlton Road and New Road when compared to the current waste facility at Charlton Lane. There would, however, be an increase in HGVs on Charlton Lane east of the site, the A244 immediately north and south of the junction with Charlton Lane and the A244 Gaston Bridge Road.

290 The CHA has considered these changes and advised that in actual terms this would

equate to around 20 vehicles in twelve hours on the links (routes) where an increase is predicted. Traffic volumes can vary by as much as 10% on a daily basis so any changes of less than 10% are not considered to be significant when assessing traffic impact. In broad terms, a change of 30% is considered necessary to yield any quantifiable environmental effects. The TA identifies that this would only apply to Charlton Lane west of the site where HGVs are predicted to decrease, not increase so the environmental effects would be positive. Any impact on other links is likely to be slight, if noticeable. In highway capacity terms, total HGV traffic on the highway network is lower on Saturdays and Sundays than on a weekday. The CHA consider there is therefore more than adequate capacity to accommodate the slight increase in HGVs that would be generated by the Eco Park proposal on links to the east of the site on Sundays.

291 In relation to junction capacity assessment the TA draws on the TA submitted in support

of the SP10/0883, which included a number of junction assessments in the vicinity of the site. This demonstrated that with the existing Charlton Lane waste facility apart from the Charlton Lane/New Road/Charlton Road junction (which could potentially be operating over capacity during the weekday am peak), virtually all of the junctions would operate within capacity forecast to be available for 2016. The Charlton Lane site traffic would only account for 3% of the overall traffic at this junction during this time and the CHA consider the traffic generated by the site would not materially contribute to the capacity issues, which are related to commuter traffic.

292 The CHA considers that as the proposed Eco Park development would result in a reduction in overall weekday traffic generation at the Charlton Lane site it would lead to a reduced impact (benefit) on this particular junction. However, given that the traffic associated with the existing Charlton Lane Waste Management Facility is such a small proportion of the total traffic during the weekday am peak, the effects of this reduction may not be readily apparent. The CHA considers that at all other times, the highway infrastructure in the vicinity of the site has sufficient capacity to easily accommodate the traffic generation of the development. The Highway Agency does not consider the proposal would result in capacity problems at M3 Junction 1.

293 Third party representations have referred to Walton Bridge questioning the suitability of

the bridge for two way HGV traffic and the bridge’s ability to withstand heavy loads. The existing Walton Bridge carries the A244, which runs between Feltham and the M25 at Leatherhead, via Sunbury, Shepperton, Walton, Hersham, Esher and Oxshott. The current Walton Bridge is designed to accommodate HGV traffic and there are no weight restrictions. The bridge is to be replaced and the new bridge design would also accommodate HGV traffic. The CHA has not raised any concerns about the use of Walton Bridge by HGV traffic that would be generated by the proposal.

294 Concern has been raised about the safety of the railway bridge over Charlton Lane to the east of the site, particularly in the light of the recent incident at Oxshott, Surrey where an HGV crashed through the bridge parapet and onto a train travelling along the railway line

72

ITEM 6

below. The CHA has commented that structures over the railway are owned by, and therefore the responsibility of, Network Rail. Network Rail have assessed that the Charlton Lane bridge structure has a load carrying capacity of 40 tonnes. The bridge is therefore capable of carrying current design loads and traffic that would be generated by the proposed Eco Park. Vehicle incursion on the railway from the bridge has been assessed as a low risk.

295 It has been suggested that the applicant should contribute to the replacement, and/or

strengthening of the brick parapets on the bridge. However as the cause of the incident in Warren Lane, Oxshott on 5 November 2010, is presently unknown, the CHA consider it would be premature to speculate on the replacement/strengthening of brick parapets until the investigations have been completed. In addition, interrogation of the County Council’s accident database (containing all personal injury accidents reported to the Police from 1987 until the present day) has determined that there are no recorded accidents on the Charlton Lane railway bridge. There are no records of damage-only accidents, as these do not legally have to be reported to the Police. The CHA consider therefore there is no evidence that there is any safety problem associated with the bridge or that the proposed Eco Park development would create one - particularly as the number of HGVs associated with the site will be reduced. Officers therefore consider the proposal acceptable in highway safety and capacity terms.

Access and parking

296 As outlined above the current access arrangements within existing Charlton Lane Waste

Management Facility result in congestion and operational problems from HGV traffic and CRC traffic sharing the access and capacity for queuing CRC traffic within the site. Modifications and improvements to the access and vehicle routing within the site were approved under application SP10/0883.

297 The application proposes retention of the revised access arrangements proposed under

application SP10/0883. The proposed access would comprise widened site entry arrangements off Charlton Lane to provide two lane access in. Access for CRC traffic (cars and LGVs), staff and visitor car parking and cycle and motorcycle parking area to the west of the proposed Gasification Facility building and Administration/Visitor Centre building and access to the Scout Hut and Ivydene Cottage (left hand lane). A second parallel access in for waste traffic (HGVs and LGVs) and access to the coach parking bay and staff and visitor car parking area to the east of the proposed AD Facility (right hand lane).

298 Access in to the CRC would then be via a two lane CRC access road which would

provide increased capacity within the site for queuing CRC traffic. Traffic accessing the proposed AD Facility, Gasification Facility, RBF and car parking area would use the three lane right hand access passing to the rear of Ivydene Cottage and up the eastern side of the site. The two right hand lanes would be for use by HGV traffic leading to the weighbridge and weighbridge office situated on the eastern boundary. The weighbridge would be located further into the site than currently where it is close to the access point off Charlton Lane, which can result in HGV traffic queuing to access the weighbridge and congestion within the site and at the site entrance.

299 Access out of the site entrance onto Charlton Lane would be arranged in two lanes for

left and right turning vehicles, with the lanes marked in order to provide for efficient use of road space and maximise junction exit capacity. Access, lane and routing arrangements to the different parts of the proposed Eco Park development would be defined by road signage and road marking. Details of site access and layout can be seen on Plan 3 – Dwg No.1224 PL-B004 General Arrangement Plan Rev B (Plan 3 attached to this report).

73

ITEM 6

300 To address problems with HGV vehicles parking up outside the site entrance gates

waiting for the site to open and causing access problems to the Scout Hut and reducing the available carriageway for access into and out of the site, the applicant proposes implementation and enforcement yellow line waiting restrictions at the site access junction.

301 The application states that the site access off Charlton Lane and access and vehicle

routing arrangements within the application site have been designed to improve the operation of the site access junction with Charlton Lane and specifically help to address existing peak queuing demand associated the operation of the CRC facility. The revised CRC access arrangements would provide capacity for up to 73 cars/LGVs to queue within the site before queuing traffic would back up onto the carriageway of Charlton Lane.

302 Objectors have raised issues relating to problems with traffic accessing the existing

Charlton Lane Waste Management Facility, HGV traffic parking up outside the site entrance, safety concerns over access to the Scout Hut, need to ensure access for emergency vehicles and problems with the existing site layout and access arrangements which results in congestion and disruption to other traffic using Charlton Lane. Spelthorne Borough Council have referred to the impact of the internal roadway to the rear of Ivydene Cottage in their objection. The Spelthorne Committee report refers to the impact of the proposed route and position of buildings within the site on the property and suggested modification to the alignment of the roadway and location of the building further from the property. The matters raised by the Borough Council and impact on Ivydene Cottage are dealt with in the Landscape and visual amenity and Noise and Vibration Sections of the report.

303 The CHA considers that the proposed access arrangements including a separate entry

lane for HGVs and other commercial vehicles and the widening of the internal access roads to provide two lanes for traffic queuing for the CRC will go a long way to overcoming the problems caused by queuing traffic. The separate entry lane for HGVs will also facilitate easier access for emergency vehicles (should they need to access the site). Moving the weighbridge further into the site from the access and provision of two dedicated lanes for HGV traffic will ensure that, in the event of HGVs queuing to access the weighbridge, they do not block the access to the site. Having regard to these matters, Officers are satisfied that that part of the SWP 2008 KDC requiring how queues would be prevented from forming on the public highway has been satisfied.

304 The CHA considers that the proposed access arrangements for the Eco Park are a

significant improvement on the existing arrangements and would (in conjunction with the overall reduction in the number of HGVs) ensure that the site access operates in a more efficient manner. The CHA consider the proposals to prevent HGV traffic parking-up outside the site entrance adequate. The CHA recommends the imposition of a planning condition to secure these measures, together with production of a Parking Management Plan to secure these and other measures, should planning permission be granted.

305 The CHA considers that the existing visibility at the access is adequate for the speed of

traffic on Charlton Lane. If planning permission is granted the CHA recommends imposition of planning conditions to secure the proposed access improvements and require the maintenance of pedestrian visibility splays at the access to ensure that pedestrians crossing the access road and waiting to cross the access road are clearly visible.

306 The proposal includes provision for 45 car parking spaces for staff and visitors. This

includes two disabled parking bays. In addition, there are 2 covered motorcycle bays and 12 covered cycle stands. The parking provision has been calculated on the basis that 95% of staff will arrive by private car and makes no allowance for the successful

74

ITEM 6

implementation of the Travel Plan. The parking provision is therefore considered to represent a worst case scenario and is therefore considered by the CHA and Officers to be adequate.

307 Officers consider the proposed revisions to the site access and vehicle routing,

management and parking provision within the site are appropriate for the traffic that would be generated and would, together with other measures to control parking at the access, assist in overcoming problems with the existing Charlton Lane Waste Management Facility from congestion at the CRC and at the site entrance resulting in traffic queuing onto Charlton Lane and impacting on access to the Scout Hut and Ivydene Cottage.

Vehicle Routing

308 As referred to above one of the SWP 2008 KDC for the Charlton Lane site is:

“Access to the site: any proposal should indicate how queues would be prevented from forming on the public highway and restrictions are likely to be required preventing access through Charlton Village.”

309 There is an existing bulk HGV routing strategy that prevents vehicles contracted to the

applicant (SITA Surrey Ltd) from travelling through Charlton Village. This does not apply to HGV vehicles collecting waste arising in Charlton Village or refuse collection vehicles (RCVs) collecting within Charlton Village. The applicant proposes to put in place and strictly manage the operation of a routing strategy to ensure all SITA contracted bulk HGV traffic is limited to the preferred local haulage route of Charlton Lane and A244/A308. The application states that no bulk operational traffic would be permitted to access the site via routes to the west of the site (via Charlton Village/Shepperton).

310 Spelthorne Borough Council consider that there is a requirement for appropriate traffic

management measures to apply greater control on lorry rates to reduce such movements through Charlton Village. The existing vehicle routing strategy aims to prevent waste HGV vehicles accessing the site via Charlton Village. The CHA considers this should be maintained and extended as far as possible in connection with the proposed Eco Park development. The CHA recommends this is secured by imposition of a planning condition if planning permission is granted to require the applicant to maintain the existing HGV routing strategy and also to devise measures to encourage other HGVs not to use this route, for the benefit of the residents of Charlton Village.

311 Officers consider that the proposed routing strategy (which can be secured by planning

condition) is appropriate, accords with the SWP 2008 KDC for the site and would continue existing arrangements for minimising the impact of HGV traffic associated with waste development at the Charlton Lane site on Charlton Village.

Construction Traffic

312 Subject to the date upon which any grant of planning permission for the Eco Park is

granted, the applicant proposes construction that would commence in July 2011. It is programmed to take around 30 months to complete, with the main site works anticipated to be completed within 20 months. The 30 month period would include the internal fit out and commissioning of the AD and gasification plant and the Eco Park is programmed to open in December 2013.

313 Hours of operation for construction would be 07.00 to 19.00 weekdays and 07.00 to

12.00 on Saturdays. No working is proposed on Saturday afternoons, Sundays or Bank/Public Holidays. The application identifies that outside the proposed hours of

75

ITEM 6

operation it may be necessary on certain occasions, for example for delivery of abnormal loads, for works to be undertaken.

314 The existing waste transfer station (WTS) and materials recycling facility (MRF) would

close prior to the construction of the new developments proposed at the Eco Park. The CRC would remain open for the duration. The closure of the WTS and MRF would remove a significant number of waste traffic HGV movements from the site. However, the application does not specify in detail how this would be achieved, nor the traffic generation associated with the different stages of the construction. The CHA has not, therefore, been able to determine in detail the impact of construction traffic at this stage; but the construction phase would be transient and short-term in nature and the CHA considers it would be possible to manage any adverse traffic impacts.

315 The TA states that the precise nature of construction operations can only be fully

determined following detailed design of a project and appointment of an approved contractor, and Officers agree that this not unusual for large construction projects. To address this the application proposes preparation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan, which would form part of the proposed Construction Environmental Management Plan.

316 Officers consider this approach is in line with the normal procedures for construction

projects. SBC consider clarification is required about out-of-hours activity and in particular abnormal load deliveries. They consider that this should be controlled by planning condition providing for control over hours of arrival and departure of vehicles associated with demolition and construction. They consider that a programme of works for the site demolition/construction should be included in the Construction Environmental Management Plan to be submitted for approval. Officers do not consider it necessary for detail about abnormal load deliveries to be provided at this stage, and consider that these matters should be addressed in the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

317 The CHA considers the access improvements, including the improved access road to the

CRC, should be implemented prior to any other works at the site as the construction of the separate access lanes for the CRC traffic and other traffic should make it easier to manage and keep the different traffic streams segregated during the construction phase and prevent the risk of queuing CRC traffic impeding access for construction vehicles and emergency vehicles. The CHA considers a detailed Construction Management Plan is necessary covering the matters referred to above and that these and other matters should be required to be submitted and agreed prior to commencement of any works on site pursuant to a planning condition. The Highway Agency have identified the need for the construction management plan to include the consideration of the impact of construction traffic at M3 Junction 1 and for this to be secured by planning condition if planning permission is granted. Officers consider this appropriate. The Highways Agency would be a consultee on any such submission.

Transport Sustainability

318 The CHA has assessed the proposed location of the facility at Charlton Lane and

considers that it would be sustainable in transportation terms, given the sources of the waste arisings proposed to be handled at the Eco Park.

319 The CHA has referred to work conducted in support of the SP/10/0883 application for the

retention of the existing facilities at Charlton Lane Waste Management Facility which considered the location of an Eco Park facility at the Charlton Lane site and the other sites identified in Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy WD5 in north Surrey (Trumps Farm, Wisley Airfield and Martyrs Lane). This assessment demonstrated that an Eco Park each of the other sites would result in greater total waste vehicle distances than if the waste

76

ITEM 6

was taken to an Eco Park at Charlton Lane. Although the work was undertaken in connection with the SP10/0883 application the CHA considers that the broad conclusions hold true for this application. The difference in each case was in the region of 50,000 km/yr.

320 The Carbon Balance Report submitted as part of the Eco Park planning application

compares the number of waste vehicle movements, distances travelled and amount of carbon dioxide produced annually in the current situation (assumed to involve waste going to the landfill site at Patteson Court, Redhill from the WTS at Charlton Lane), with the waste being treated in the proposed Eco Park.

321 The Carbon Balance Report assumes that the delivery arrangements for waste to

Charlton Lane and onward transport of recyclables will not change; and these are therefore excluded from the assessment. The CHA considers this to be a robust approach. How the waste is treated/managed once it arrives at Charlton Lane (assuming that the sources of waste and delivery methods remain the same) markedly affects transportation by road. The results of the assessment are shown in Table 10 of the Carbon Balance Report and detailed below:

Scenario Annual HGV movements Annual distance (km) Current Scenario 9,092 418,232 Eco Park 3,348 237,432 Net Saving 5,744 180,800

322 The CHA considers that this assessment demonstrates that the location of the Eco Park

at Charlton Lane would result in significant savings in terms of the number of HGV movements and the waste kms travelled, compared to the current situation. This would reduce the level of transport-related CO2 emissions. The CHA acknowledges that currently Spelthorne’s municipal waste is being disposed of direct at the EfW at Colnbrook (closer to Charlton Lane than Patteson Court, Redhill); but, conversely, other municipal waste is currently exported to the Allington EfW near Maidstone in Kent - a significantly further distance away than Patteson Court, Redhill. The CHA considers therefore that the Carbon Balance Report assumption that all of the waste is disposed of at the Patteson Court landfill is a conservative approximation for the current situation; and that it has been clearly demonstrated that, in transportation terms, the location of the proposed Eco Park at Charlton Lane is more sustainable than the current situation.

323 The application states that the applicant is committed to encouraging staff and visitor

journeys to the site by alternative travel modes to the private car where practical. A Travel Plan is already in operation at the existing Charlton Lane waste management facility.

324 The TA identifies that the applicant is committed to encouraging staff and visitor journeys

to the site by alternative travel modes to the private car where practical. As part of this commitment, the proposed Eco Park development scheme design incorporates the following: a) covered and secure cycle parking for eight cycles; b) Staff shower, changing and locker facilities within the main administrative building; and c) Staff food preparation area as part of staff welfare facilities to encourage staff to remain on-site during working hours.

325 A Travel Plan is being introduced at the existing Charlton Lane Waste Management

Facility site to encourage and support the use of alternative travel modes to the private car for staff and visitor access. This includes a number of initiatives such as: provision on site of up-to-date public transport travel information; encouragement of car sharing; an interest free loan scheme for cycle purchase and purchase of public transport season tickets; and a guaranteed ride home scheme. The applicant proposes to review the existing site Travel Plan and update it where relevant to support the delivery of the Eco

77

ITEM 6

Park proposals. The applicant has identified clear budget commitments to support the future operation and monitoring of the Travel Plan at the Charlton Lane site. The CHA and Officers consider the submission and implementation of a Travel Plan should be secured by condition.

Conclusion of highways, traffic and access issues

326 The proposal has been assessed on a range of highways, traffic and access matters as

required by Development Plan policy and the SWP 2008 KDC. Officers consider the proposed access and local highway network in the vicinity of the Charlton Lane site to be suitable in terms of highway capacity and safety for the amount and type of traffic that would be generated. Officers consider that given the proposed revisions to the existing site access with Charlton Lane, proposed access and parking arrangements within the site and other measures (including the vehicle routing strategy, Travel Plan and Construction Management Plan secured by condition) are such that the proposed development complies with the relevant Development Plan policies and accords with the SWP2008 KDC for the Charlton Lane site.

ENVIRONMENTAL & AMENITY ISSUES South East Plan 2009 (SEP 2009) Policy CC1 Sustainable Development Policy CC4 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy NRM1 Sustainable Water Resources and Groundwater Quality Policy NRM2 Water Quality Policy NRM4 Sustainable Flood Risk Management Policy NRM5 Conservation and Improvement of Biodiversity Policy NRM9 Air Quality Policy NRM10 Noise Policy W17 Location of Waste Management Facilities Surrey Waste Plan 2008 (SWP 2008) Policy CW6 Development in the Green Belt Policy WD1 Civic Amenity Sites Policy WD2 Recycling, Storage, Transfer, Materials Recovery and Processing Facilities (Excluding Thermal Treatment) Policy WD 5 Thermal Treatment Facilities Policy DC2 Planning Designations Policy DC3 General Considerations Surrey Minerals Local Plan (SMLP 1993) Policy 29 Environmental improvement of former mineral workings Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document 2009 (SCS 2009) Policy SP6 Maintaining and Improving the Environment Policy LO1 Flooding Policy EN1 Design of New Development Policy EN3 Air Quality Policy EN5 Buildings of Architectural and Historic Interest Policy EN6 Conservation Areas, Historic Landscapes, Parks and Gardens Policy EN8 Protecting and Improving the Landscape and Biodiversity Policy EN11 Development and Noise Policy EN13 Light Pollution Policy EN15 Development on Land Affected by Contamination Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001 (saved policy) Policy BE26 Archaeology and Ancient Monuments Draft Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy DPD (emerging SMPCSDPD) (November 2009) Policy MC18 Restoration and Enhancement

78

ITEM 6

Introduction

327 Government guidance in relation to planning and pollution control is set out in PPS23:

Planning and Pollution Control, whereas guidance on waste planning, is dealt with in PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management. PPS10 states that the overall objective of Government policy on waste, as set out in the strategy for sustainable development, is to protect human health and the environment by producing less waste and by using it as a resource wherever possible. In considering planning applications for waste management facilities, waste planning authorities should concern themselves with implementing the planning strategy in the development plan and not with the control of processes, which are a matter for the pollution control authorities. The planning and pollution control regimes are separate but complementary. Pollution control is concerned with preventing pollution through the use of measures to prohibit or limit the release of substances to the environment to the lowest practicable level. It also ensures that ambient air and water quality meet standards that guard against impacts to the environment and human health.

328 The planning system controls the development and use of land in the public interest and

should focus on whether development is an acceptable use of the land, and the impacts of those uses on the development and use of land. PPS10 states that decisions on development proposals should be based on sustainable development principles, which includes the effective protection and enhancement of the environment. Waste planning authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced. In considering planning applications for waste management facilities waste planning authorities should consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity. These can also be concerns of the pollution control authorities and there should be consistency between consents issued under the planning and pollution control regimes. As such, there has been liaison and consultation with the Environment Agency, who are the pollution control authority.

329 Policy CC4 of the SEP 2009 requires consideration of sustainable building design and

construction, so that they reduce or avoid adverse impacts on the built and natural environment, in terms of the buildings themselves, their immediate surroundings and the broader regional and global setting. Issues relating to renewable energy and climate change are detailed above. The issue of the building design and impact is addressed by the applicant in the design and access statement and is also discussed below.

330 The site at Charlton Lane is allocated in the SWP 2008 under policies WD1 (Civic

Amenity Sites), WD2 (Recycling, Storage, Transfer, Materials Recovery and Processing Facilities (Excluding Thermal Treatment) and WD5 (Thermal Treatment Facilities), where planning permissions for these developments will be granted provided that the development proposed meets the key development criteria, which includes access, air quality, rights of way, appropriate assessment, visual impact and flood risk.

331 Development Plan policies seek to protect the local environment and the amenities of local residents from the adverse effects of development. SWP 2008 Policy DC3 requires that applications for waste related development be accompanied by sufficient information to show that the proposals will not significantly affect people, land, infrastructure and resources. In respect of the proposed development relevant matters are visual impact, biodiversity, noise, air quality (bioaerosols and odour) and proximity of residential properties. However, it is important to stress that Government guidance advises that waste planning authorities should not concern themselves with the control of processes, as they are a matter for the Environment Agency.

332 Waste collection, treatment and disposal of waste cause environmental pressures such

as greenhouse gases (GHG) and other air pollutant emissions and emissions to water and soil, and threatens biodiversity through littering. Environmental impacts of waste

79

ITEM 6

depend largely on the amount and characteristics of the waste as well as its management. Life cycle analyses for many waste types have shown that recycling has overall environmental benefits, with a decrease in environmental impacts, when compared with landfilling (WRAP, 2010 ‘Environmental benefits of recycling - 2010 update’). Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)

333 The planning application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) in

accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (EIA Regs). The adequacy of the ES is judged on its compliance with the requirements identified in Part I and Part II of Schedule 4 of the EIA Regs 1999. The EIA Regs state that an ES must at the very least include the information referred to in Part II of Schedule 4 and include such information in Part I of Schedule 4 as is reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development and which the applicant can, having regard in particular to current knowledge and methods of assessment, reasonably be required to compile. The ES has been reviewed by Officers and the review procedure has confirmed that the ES contains sufficient information to be deemed compliant with the Part I and II of Schedule 4 EIA Regulations 1999. The information identified below on air quality – and that referred to elsewhere in respect of energy recovery - was requested under Regulation 19 and was required prior to determination of the planning application to ensure that an adequate ES has been submitted, which assesses the impacts of the development appropriately.

334 Surrey County Council’s Air Quality Consultants (CAQC) reviewed the submitted

technical chapter on air quality and were generally satisfied with the approach and level of assessment undertaken. However the grid size and spacing for the stack modelling undertaken is not directly in line with prescribed Environment Agency H1 guidance and although this is not prescriptive in terms of grid resolution it does require justification. CAQC recommended that, on the basis of the information provided, the study area and grid resolution selected for the purposes of the modelling need to be justified. As this justification will lead to the validation of the modelling undertaken this information was requested under Regulation 19. The information was subsequently provided and assessed by CAQC, who on the basis of the information provided concluded that the study area and grid resolution for the purposes of the modelling were adequately justified.

335 The environmental factors considered through the EIA process, and Officer’s assessment of the issues raised, are considered under the following headings:

• air quality, dust and odour; • landscape and visual amenity; • noise and vibration; • geology, soils and groundwater; surface water and flooding; • ecology and nature conservation; • lighting; • archaeology and cultural heritage; and • cumulative effects. Appropriate Assessment (AA)

336 On 25 January 2011, the CPA concluded that a full Appropriate Assessment under the

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitats Regulations) is not required in this case. This followed consideration of the available evidence about the proposed scheme and the features of European and international interest of the constituent part of the Southwest London Waterbodies Special Protection Area (SPA) Knights and Bessborough Reservoirs SSSI and the three waterbodies considered

80

ITEM 6

relevant to the SPA that lie in closer proximity at Ashford Plant Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) and Littleton Lake – Shepperton Green Reservoir (SNCI). Officers considered that the proposed construction and operation of the proposed ‘Eco Park’ do not present risks of significant adverse effect to the Southwest London Waterbodies SPA or the surrounding relevant waterbodies and therefore did not require and AA. Natural England concurs with the CPA’s conclusion that the proposals are unlikely to have a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the South West London Waterbodies Special Protection Area (SPA) / Ramsar site. In addition, the CPA has considered whether there would be any impact from the National Grid connection and concludes that the works are unlikely to have a significant effect on the South West London Waterboards SPA, which Natural England concurs with.

AIR QUALITY (emissions, dust, odour and health effects) European, National, Regional and Development Plan Context 337 The primary driver for air quality management is the protection of human health, in

addition to impacts on wildlife habitats and vegetation. The main potential source of releases to the atmosphere from the gasification facility would be the residual emissions from the stack, with limits being set by the Waste Incineration Directive (WID) 2000/76/EU and the more recent European Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU. Although the UK Government categorise gasification as Advanced Thermal Treatment (ATT) and not incineration, both must comply with the WID. The WID is implemented through the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010, which are administered by the Environment Agency.

338 EU legislation on air quality forms the basis for national UK policy on air quality. A new

Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC (Ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe) was adopted in June 2008 and had to be implemented by Member States, including the UK, by June 2010. The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 implement the limit values prescribed by the Directive 2008/50/EC.

339 The Environment Act 1995 requires the UK Government to produce a national air quality

strategy containing standards, objectives and measures for improving ambient air quality and to keep these policies under review. The Air Quality Strategy (AQS) 2007 for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland sets out the Government’s policies aimed at delivering cleaner air in the UK. Air quality in the UK has generally improved over recent years although the South East region still contains some of the worst air pollution locations. Where it is considered that one or more of the objectives within the AQS are unlikely to be met, local authorities must declare Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) and develop action plans setting out how they intend to improve air quality. AQMAs may be drawn around individual areas of exceedence, or as a wider area encompassing one or more areas of exceedence together with some areas below the objectives. The whole of the Spelthorne Borough has been designated an AQMA due to high levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) attributable to road traffic emissions.

340 The operator of this waste development would also require an Environmental Permit

from the Environment Agency (EA). The Environment Act 1995 requires that the EA has regard to the AQS and designated AQMAs. The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 transposes the EU Directive 96/61/EC concerning Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (“the IPPC Directive”) and the WID into national legislation. Preventing environmental harm is the main purpose of the permitting process and a permit can only be granted if it is shown that the Best Available Techniques (BAT) to control emissions are to be in use.

341 Government guidance in respect of emissions and air quality, is provided by Planning

Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control (PPS23) and Planning Policy

81

ITEM 6

Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS10). Paragraphs 21 and 24 of PPS10 refer to the material considerations that waste planning authorities must take into account in determining planning applications. Paragraph 21 states that in deciding which sites and areas to identify for waste management facilities, waste planning authorities should assess their suitability for development against certain criteria (Annex E), which includes factors such as air emissions and dust. Paragraphs 27 and 29 of PPS10 state that:

‘The planning system controls the development and use of land in the public interest and should focus on whether development is an acceptable use of the land, and the impacts of those uses on the development and use of land…’ and ‘…In considering planning applications for waste management facilities waste planning authorities should consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity…’

342 PPS23 advises that ‘any consideration of the quality of land, air or water and potential impacts arising from development, possibly leading to impacts on health, is capable of being a material planning consideration, in so far as it arises or may arise from or may affect any land use’ and that the controls under the planning and pollution control (Environmental Permitting) regimes should complement rather than duplicate each other. In addition, a LPA can assume that other regulatory regimes will function satisfactorily. Government guidance goes on to advise that where development proposals could have an impact on air quality in an area, including any Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs), the air quality assessments are important material considerations in assessing the siting of certain types of development.

343 Guidance on development control and planning for air quality is provided in advice

published by Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) (Development Control: Planning for Air Quality – 2010 update). This guidance advises that when determining planning applications, local authorities are required to achieve a balance between economic, social and environmental considerations. This guidance is more specific than PPS23 and is widely used by Local Planning Authorities in determining any planning application where air quality is an issue. It is incorporated into many Local Authority planning documents and is frequently cited at planning inquiries and therefore particular attention should be paid to the potential for the development to give rise to breaches of the national air quality objectives and of EU Limit Values, to whether the development will materially affect any air quality action plan or strategy, and to the overall degradation in local air quality.

344 Spelthorne Borough Council declared an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) for

nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in December 1999. In 2005 the Borough Council prepared an Action Plan about how air quality can be improved in the Borough, which includes actions that would be taken by Surrey County Council and the Borough Council to tackle areas such as road emissions, emissions from the Council's own activities, emissions from new developments, industrial emissions and smoke emissions. Air Quality Action Plans investigate options to reduce emissions, relating to Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Particulate Matter (PM10) primarily from road transport. Spelthorne Borough Council ’s May 2010 ‘Air Quality Progress Report’ stated that:

“The results for 2010 show that PM10 and SO2 concentrations in the Borough meet the

relevant objectives. Nitrogen dioxide concentrations, on the other hand, exceeded the annual mean objective in some, but not all, locations.”

345 South East Plan (SEP 2009) Policy NRM9 states that planning proposals should

contribute to sustaining the current downward trend in air pollution in the region. This will include seeking improvements in air quality so that there is a significant reduction in the number of days of medium and high air pollution by 2026. Policy DC3 of the SWP 2008, states that planning applications should assess the release of polluting substances to the

82

ITEM 6

atmosphere from facilities and transport and identify appropriate mitigation. Policy EN3 of Spelthorne’s Core Strategy (SCS 2009) provides that the Borough Council will seek to improve air quality and minimise harm from poor air quality by:

a) supporting measures to encourage non-car based means of travel;

b) supporting appropriate measures to reduce traffic congestion where it is a

contributor to existing areas of poor air quality;

c) requiring air quality assessments for certain scales of development and uses;

d) refusing development where the adverse effects on air quality are of a significant scale, either individually or in combination with other proposals, and which are not outweighed by other important considerations or effects and cannot be appropriately and effectively mitigated; and

e) refusing development where the adverse effects of existing air quality on future

occupiers are of a significant scale, which cannot be appropriately or effectively mitigated, and which are not outweighed by other material considerations.

346 The weight to be attached to air quality in determining this proposal, will depend

principally on appraisal of existing air quality and the likelihood and severity of impacts. The CPA’s Air Quality Consultants (CAQC) reviewed the original air quality submission within the ES, and required further information in respect of further justification for particular aspects of the air quality modelling approach. The applicant, under Regulation 19 of the EIA Regs 1999 submitted this further information. The CAQC have subsequently advised the CPA that the key sources of potential atmospheric emissions from the operation of the proposed Eco Park facility are as follows:

• Releases from the exhaust stack of residual emissions in the cleaned gases from the

thermal treatment plant;

• Releases from the exhaust stack of emissions from two gas engines that combust biogas produced by the AD plant to generate electricity;

• Fugitive dust and odour from the temporary storage and handling of the waste feed in the thermal treatment plant and AD plant reception hall and bunkers prior to its processing;

• Residual odour emissions released from the bio-filter stack after cleaning of the ventilation air from the AD building;

• Traffic emissions from changes in vehicle movements. 347 The applicant has provided an assessment of potential impacts of the proposal on local

air quality (information from the Environmental Statement’s Table 13.12, 13.13 and 13.14, in addition to a map of the nearest sensitive receptor points considered, is provided in Appendix D), which was undertaken on the assumption that the planning application for the permanent retention of the current Charlton Lane waste management facilities has been approved. The assessment included the following:

• A statement of the current air quality standards, objectives and guidelines, which

apply to the pollutants which will be released from the plant; • An assessment of the current air quality in the vicinity of the site, using results from

national networks and monitoring stations operated by the local council;

83

ITEM 6

• A description of the methodology used in the air dispersion modelling, including

assumptions and data used; • A description of the results of the air dispersion modelling, including dispersion

diagrams; and • An assessment of the human health risks of the atmospheric emissions.

Gasification Facility and AD facility emissions

348 The applicant has stated that the only significant sources of atmospheric emissions from

the plant will be the main chimney stack, containing three flues (one from the gasification plant and two from the gas engines associated with the anaerobic digestion plant). These emissions will be regulated by the Environment Agency under the terms of an Environmental Permit and, in the case of the gasification plant emissions, will need to comply with the requirements of the Waste Incineration Directive (WID).

349 The applicant has concluded that the predicted contribution of pollutants resulting from

Eco Park emissions at sensitive receptors is less than 1% of the air quality objective or Environmental Assessment Level (EAL) for each pollutant. Deposition of pollutants, notably nitrogen and sulphur oxides, at sensitive ecological receptors have also been assessed. The applicant has stated that the assessment indicated that significant effects from air quality are unlikely to arise at any of the designated sites.

350 The CAQC confirm that the main potential source of emissions to atmosphere from the

operational facility would be the release of cleaned exhaust gas from the stack after abatement by the flue gas treatment system. Like any combustion process, thermal waste-treatment plants emit carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and dust (particulate matter, PM). Other emissions depend on the nature of the waste being treated.

351 The public has expressed strong concerns about exposure to ‘toxic’ emissions from the stack. Concern is mainly associated with dioxins and furans, which can be formed in very small quantities when organic chemicals are burnt in the presence of chlorine. Incineration of municipal solid waste was in the past a significant source of these chemicals but, following reductions in emissions from old-style waste incineration plant, this now accounts for only 1% of emissions to the air, shared approximately equally between incineration and emissions from burning landfill gas. Domestic sources such as cooking and burning coal for heating are the UK’s single largest source of dioxins, accounting for about 18% of emissions. Transport accounts for about 3% and electricity generation about 4% of the UK total. A number of other sources contribute to emissions of dioxins to a similar or greater extent: accidental vehicle fires; fireworks and bonfires; small-scale waste burning (for example on building sites); incineration of other wastes; and the iron and steel industry.

352 Advice from the CAQC states that levels of emissions will be minimised primarily by well

managed combustion, achieved by the plant design and by maintaining optimal combustion conditions; with further removal of pollutants by a gas-cleaning system. All thermal waste-treatment plant have to be operated in accordance with a permit from the Environment Agency and this will only be granted if the operator can show that they are using the Best Available Techniques (BAT) to control emissions. The permit would require the cleaned exhaust gases to be monitored continuously for a wide range of compounds (typically CO, NOx, PM, HCl, SO2, total VOCs), and this provides a continuous indication of the combustion conditions (and potential for dioxins formation), which are to be maintained below stringent emissions limits. Further monitoring is carried out periodically (usually several times per year) for pollutants including those such as dioxins that are present at too small a concentration to be able to be monitored

84

ITEM 6

continuously. The cleaned process exhaust is then released to air from a chimney stack of a height designed to ensure appropriate dispersion. The results of the continuous emissions monitoring have to be submitted to the Environment Agency; and, additionally, the Environment Agency sends in its own monitoring teams to make periodic unannounced spot checks on emissions.

353 SBC’s Environmental Health Officers have assessed the air quality information submitted

with the application, commenting that whilst a number of technical issues have been identified with the submitted assessment (which were resolved with the submission of the further information submitted under Regulation 19 of EIA Regs), none are of a nature that challenges the overall conclusion that, other than the impact of dust during construction, the impacts are described as ‘negligible’ and technically categorised as ‘insignificant’. Spelthorne’s Officers have also noted that emissions from the stack will be a matter dealt with in the Environment Agency permit application, but remains a material planning issue. The SBC Committee report goes on to state that ‘The additional pollution from the stack is of a level that is less than 1% of the acceptable legislative threshold level, although such a small change would not normally be regarded as sufficiently significant to justify a refusal of planning permission, neither could such a low level be regarded as a merit of the scheme’.

Dust and Odour

354 The 2004 DEFRA document ‘Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste

Management’ notes that although odour is potentially significant from the waste storage and processing phases of municipal waste treatment facilities such as Gasification and Anaerobic Digestion, it is normally controlled adequately by the design of the plant. DEFRA’s Waste Management Technology Brief (2007) on Advanced Thermal Treatment (ATT) of Municipal Solid waste (MSW) states that: “Any waste management operations can give rise to dust and odours. These can be minimised by good building design, performing operations under controlled conditions indoors, good working practices and effective management undertaken for dust suppression from vehicle movements. Many ATT processes are designed to operate under negative pressure within buildings to minimise dust and odour problems’.

355 SWP 2008 Policy DC3 (General Considerations) states that planning applications should assess any adverse effects on neighbouring amenity including fumes, dust, litter and odour, and identify any appropriate mitigation. Both the gasification and AD reception buildings would operate within a negative pressure environment, with the extraction of air by forced ventilation. This would prevent odour, dust and litter release from the building. In addition the gasification building would contain a dust suppression system (fine spray sprinkler). The AD development includes an odour control facility consisting of a biofilter through which air from the main waste building would pass. The air is then discharged to the atmosphere via a fan and 18 m biofilter stack. The applicant has stated that the only significant sources of odour emissions from the Eco Park would be the AD biofilter stack, which would be regulated by the Environment Agency under the terms of an Environmental Permit. Detailed flue gas dispersion modelling of the cleaned exhaust air from a stack height of 18 m predicts that odour levels at nearby sensitive receptors would be well below the Environment Agency’s most stringent Odour Exposure Standard of 1.5 ouE.m-3 (as the 98th percentile of predicted 1-hour averages), which is designed to ensure “no reasonable cause for annoyance” at sensitive receptors.

356 The applicant has assessed fugitive emissions (i.e. dust or odour not emitted via vents or

stacks) associated with the facility, concluding that no significant effects relating to fugitive dust or odour are predicted from the Eco Park, nonetheless mitigation measures including a dust and odour management plan would be put in place to ensure that fugitive emissions do not present a nuisance to local receptors.

85

ITEM 6

357 The development includes demolition of all existing WTS / MRF structures (with the

exception of the existing CRC and associated access and car parking) and the construction of the structures and associated works comprising the proposed Eco Park. The applicant has stated that this work is considered “high risk” in accordance with the Best Practice Guidance document (The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition – Nov 2006) prepared in partnership by the Greater London Authority and London Councils. As such, measures in accordance with the guidance would be adopted and conditioned accordingly.

358 The CAQC has commented that the design of modern thermal treatment facilities is such that it is very unlikely that nuisance would be caused from dust or odours. Firstly, the waste unloading area is located within an enclosed building. Secondly, the air above the storage bunkers where the waste is tipped is drawn into the thermal treatment plant as combustion air, where any odorous compounds and dust entrained in the air would be destroyed. This also results in a slight negative pressure within the building, which draws air inwards, thus minimising the escape of dusts or odours.

359 Spelthorne Borough Council has noted that in the case of dust this is categorised as a ‘minor adverse’ impact in the ES and as such have advised that it will be particularly important to minimise the dust impact on Ivydene Cottage. With regard to odour, Spelthorne Borough Council has recommended that a planning condition should be imposed requiring that no odour is noticeable at the boundary of the site, and that the County Council would also need to consider what other conditions are required that are not otherwise addressed under the permit process. Traffic emissions

360 The other main potential source of pollution is exhaust-pipe emissions from vehicle

movements on local roads used by traffic accessing the site. The key emissions from road traffic with potential for significant local effects are NO2 and PM10. Any development proposal that involves changes in traffic patterns will cause some change in emissions of NO2 and PM10, even if it is a single dwelling with a parking space. The issue is how large is any increase and how significant is this, taking into account existing baseline levels and whether it will lead to air quality standards being exceeded. The Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) (Development Control: Planning for Air Quality 2010 provides indicative criteria for when traffic changes require an assessment of the air quality impact.

361 In providing a judgement on the significance, the air quality assessment would need to

carefully take into account the Spelthorne AQMA. However, it is important to note that PPS23 states that: ‘It is not the case that all planning applications for developments inside or adjacent to AQMAs should be refused if the developments would result in a deterioration of local air quality’. Local Planning Authorities, transport authorities and pollution control authorities are encouraged to explore the possibility of securing mitigation measures that would allow the proposal to proceed. It is important to note that for many waste development proposals, the total amount of waste transported by HGVs does not increase; rather, a proportion of the existing waste movements is simply re-routed from say a landfill to the proposed facility.

362 The applicant has assessed these issues separately, in addition to the cumulative effect

within the Environmental Statement. The applicant states that the change in emissions from traffic is negative, due to a reduction in HGV movements associated with the site compared to current operations. The applicant describes this as an “imperceptible” beneficial change in NO2 and particulate matter based on the EPUK 2010 guidance, as each improvement is below 1% of the relevant air quality objective. Consequently, the improvement in ground level concentrations of NO2 and particulate matter from the Eco

86

ITEM 6

Park traffic go to offset the impact of NO2 and particulate matter from the stack emissions, and there is no net-negative cumulative impact.

363 SBC has commented with regard to emissions from traffic that as the facility would

generate slightly less traffic than the existing facility, and this would result in correspondingly slightly improved air quality. Officers note that Spelthorne Borough Council’s May 2010 ‘Air Quality Progress Report’ identifies that NO2 concentrations remain a concern for the Borough, though concentrations of PM10 and SO2 meet the relevant objectives during the 2010 period monitored.

364 The CAQC agree that the approach adopted for the assessment of vehicle-related emissions is appropriate. The CAQC agreed with the applicant’s assessment, with the reduction in emissions as a result of the reduction in operational movements of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) at the site, compared with the continued operation of the existing waste management facility. Officers therefore consider that the development would accord with the Key Development Criteria from the 2008 SWP and the need to demonstrate how any proposal at Charlton Lane would fit with the objectives of Spelthorne’s AQMA. Specifically, the AQMA objectives of reducing concentrations of NO2 would be met by the proposed development and reductions in HGV movements associated with the site. Health Effects

365 In relation to health impacts PPS10 at paragraph 30 states that ‘Modern, appropriately

located, well-run and well-regulated, waste management facilities operated in line with current pollution control techniques and standards should pose little risk to human health.’ It goes on to confirm that the detailed consideration of the waste management process and any implications for human health are the responsibility of the pollution control authority (Environment Agency), though health can be a material planning consideration in planning decisions which are concerned with ensuring whether or not the location of a proposed development is acceptable.

366 In circumstances where concerns about health are raised in connection with a planning

application proposal, PPS10 states that waste planning authorities should ensure through consultation with the relevant health authorities and agencies, and reference to Government advice and research (including DEFRA 2004 Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management: municipal solid waste and other wastes), that they have advice on the potential health implications of a proposal and consider the locational implication of such advice - instead of undertaking their own detailed assessment of epidemiological and other health studies. In connection with this, the relevant health authorities and agencies are required to have sufficient understanding of the proposed waste management process to provide considered advice.

367 The 2004 DEFRA Review Report reviewed the main emissions from waste management

operations dealing with MSW and the health effects linked to MSW and was peer reviewed by the Royal Society. The Report found from a review of epidemiological research (reviewing the available evidence on the effects on local populations of waste management facilities) no consistent or convincing evidence of a link between cancer and incineration and reported that there was little evidence that emissions from incinerators make respiratory problems worse. In most cases the review found the incinerator contributes only a small proportion to local levels of pollutants.

368 As already mentioned, Gasification and AD plants are regulated by the Environment

Agency (EA) through the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (EP 2010), which were introduced on 6 April 2010. The EP authorisation sets emission limits and monitoring requirements, and can only be issued once the EA is satisfied that the waste management facility is capable of complying with standards set.

87

ITEM 6

In considering planning applications for development subject to pollution controls regulated by other bodies, in this case the EA, a planning authority must have regard to the advice of the EA; and whilst not bound by the advice from the EA, the planning authority must have substantial and robust reasons for acting contrary to the advice of the EA. Officers are unaware of any substantial reason to depart from the EA’s advice in this instance.

369 The DEFRA 2007 guidance on Advanced Thermal Treatment states that emissions from

gasification (ATT) are likely to be lower than those from conventional incineration, however they still have to comply with the stricter limits set out in the EU WID 2000 and the more recent 2010 European Industrial Emissions Directive.

370 The applicant has carried out a detailed health risk assessment using the Industrial Risk

Assessment Program-Human Health (IRAP-h View – Version 4.0). The applicant has acknowledged that the operation of the Charlton Lane Eco Park facility would give rise to a number of substances that would be emitted to the atmosphere and that these substances have the potential to accumulate in the environment and have an impact on human health. As a result, the risk to human health of these emissions has been assessed; and the results of detailed modelling have indicated that the emissions would have a negligible effect on human health.

371 The CAQC commented that sophisticated atmospheric dispersion models have been

used to assess what the concentrations of pollutants would be and this takes account of existing background levels and other pollution sources. The levels were compared against official health-based limits set for ambient air quality. In addition to assessing people’s potential exposure from inhalation, other exposure pathways were assessed: a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) was carried out to examine the risks from any pollutants deposited on foodstuffs that could be ingested were assessed and compared with UK government risk criteria. The assessment considered the human health risk from inhalation and ingestion of any long-term persistent pollutants such as dioxins, metals, PAHs and PCBs. Acceptable levels for these pollutants are set in terms of risk rather than just concentration alone. The risks from exposure to emissions from the proposed facility were well below the acceptable UK risk levels at all identified sensitive receptors and are very much lower than the risks faced during everyday activities, like driving or having an accident at home.

372 Lastly, Officers note that at the draft application stage NHS Surrey commented that in respect of the proposal: ‘The planned activities at Charlton Lane Waste Management Facility should not present a risk to public health provided they are well managed and regulated’. The Health & Safety Executive commented that they do not advise, on safety grounds, against the granting of planning permission in this case. Conclusion

373 The EPUK guidance advocates that the ‘conclusion as to the overall significance of the

air quality impacts should be based on the professional judgement of the person preparing the report.’ The full data on the effects of all chemicals in the environment are not known – either natural or man-made – but the substances emitted by industrial process have, by-and-large, been studied in considerable detail. This enables health and environmental regulators to set maximum limits on how much residual pollutant can be emitted so that no significant ill effects are experienced by people, flora or fauna. These limits are deliberately set at a cautious level to provide a wide margin of safety. For thermal waste treatment facilities, European Directives and UK Legislation require adherence to a wide range of extremely stringent emission limit values.

374 The applicant has applied to secure an Environmental Permit from the EA and

preventing environmental harm from emissions (including emissions to air) is one of the

88

ITEM 6

main purposes of the permitting process. A permit will only be granted if the operator can show that they are using the Best Available Techniques (BAT) to control emissions; and the EA will police the facility to ensure effective control continues. Emissions from thermal waste treatment facilities will be checked, by a multilayered regime of monitoring, to ensure releases are in compliance with the limit values. This permitting process is separate from the determination of this planning application, though would involve a similar consultation with statutory consultees (such as the Health and Safety Executive). Officers have considered the issues in respect of air quality specifically under the headings of: Emissions from Gasification and AD plants; Dust and Odour, Traffic Emissions; and Health Effects. In terms of emissions, whilst these are matters for monitoring and control through the EA’s Environmental Permitting (EP) regime, they are still a material consideration – assuming effective operation of the permitting regime. In respect of emissions from the plant, based on comments from the CAQC and SBC EHO, Officers consider that there are unlikely to be significant effects on the air quality, with emission levels well within the legislative levels.

375 In terms of dust and odour, it is concluded that impact of the proposed development,

including its construction phase and operation, can be controlled through the implementation of a dust and odour management plan, which would be secured by condition. This dust and odour management plan would ensure that both the thermal treatment buildings and associated facilities are designed to mitigate any potential nuisance from dust and odours. In addition, a CEMP also secured by condition, would ensure measures for the control of air quality and dust during the construction phase of the proposed development. Traffic emissions were considered separately and Officers have concluded that with the reduction in HGV movements, there would be a similar reduction in emissions and therefore no adverse impacts, when compared with the existing waste management operations.

376 With regard to health effects, Officers have concluded that levels of emissions would be

well below the UK risk levels, and accept the view of the NHS on the draft application in that the proposed waste activities should not present a risk to public health provided they are well managed and regulated. Site management would be secured through planning conditions, with the regulation of emissions through the EP regime. Officers therefore consider that the proposed development complies with relevant UK legislation and development plan policies in relation to air quality, including dust and odour, subject to additional control measures to be agreed and available through the Environmental Permitting Regime. Officers therefore consider, subject to the above requirements, that the application will not have an unacceptable impact on air quality (including emissions, dust, odour and health effects) and as such accords with the SAQMA objectives, Policy NRM9 SEP 2009, Policy DC3 SWP 2008, and Policy EN3 SCS 2009.

LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL AMENITY National, Regional and Development Plan Context 377 Since the Eco Park planning application boundary overlaps areas of former mineral

workings, it is relevant to consider the appropriate policies relating to such sites contained within the 1993 Surrey Minerals Local Plan (SMLP 1993) (yet to be superseded by the emerging Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy Development Plan Document (SMPCSDPD 2009). SMLP 1993 Policy 29 states that the County Council will seek to secure environmental improvement of areas adversely affected by mineral working and identifies ‘land adjacent to the M3 motorway between Sunbury and Chertsey Bridge’; and this includes the land to the east of the existing waste management facility, which is within the Eco Park application boundary. The more recent emerging SMPCSDPD 2009 (proposed submission to the Secretary of State) includes Policy MC18 on ‘Restoration and enhancement’, which states that the mineral planning authority will encourage and work with mineral operators and landowners to deliver

89

ITEM 6

benefits such as enhancement of biodiversity interests, improved public access and provision of climate change mitigation such as greater flood storage capacity. Where opportunities exist to enhance the quality of previously worked land, Policy MC18 identifies that a wider area enhancement approach should be developed, linking restoration proposals for mineral sites or linking site restoration to other green infrastructure initiatives.

378 SEP 2009 Policy CC1 states that sustainable development priorities include ensuring the

physical and natural environment is conserved and enhanced. SWP 2008 Policy DC3 states that assessment of the visual and landscape impact of development on a site and the surrounding land must be submitted with any proposal and this should also identify appropriate mitigation so as to minimise or avoid any material adverse impact. In addition, Policy DC3 states that planning applications must demonstrate a high quality of design for new buildings. The SWP 2008 Key Development Criteria for Charlton Lane indicate that a high standard of design is expected for both built development and site layout (including landscaping) and that a visual impact assessment should be undertaken in support of any application at the site.

379 Relevant provisions are also contained in Policy EN1 of SCS 2009, which establishes

that the Borough Council requires a high standard in design and layout and the demonstration that new development will:

• create buildings and places that are attractive with their own distinct identity; they

should respect and make a positive contribution to the street scene and the character of the area in which they are situated, paying due regard to the scale, height, proportions, building lines, layout, materials and other characteristics of adjoining buildings and land;

• achieve a satisfactory relationship to adjoining properties avoiding significant harmful impact in terms of loss of privacy, daylight or sunlight, or overbearing effect due to bulk and proximity or outlook;

• be designed in an inclusive way to be accessible to all members of the community regardless of any disability and to encourage sustainable means of travel;

• incorporate landscaping to enhance the setting of the development, including the retention of any trees of amenity value and other significant landscape features that are of merit, and provide for suitable boundary treatment;

• create a safe and secure environment in which the opportunities for crime are minimized;

• incorporate measures to minimise energy consumption, conserve water resources and provide for renewable energy generation in accordance with Policy CC1; and

• incorporate provision for the storage of waste and recyclable materials and make provision for sustainable drainage systems (SUDS).

380 Policy EN8 of SCS 2009 states that the Borough Council will seek to protect and improve

landscape and biodiversity by: a) safeguarding sites of international and national importance; b) working with partners in the public, private and voluntary sectors to develop and secure the implementation of projects to enhance the landscape and create or improve habitats of nature conservation value, and to secure the more effective management of land in the Borough; c) ensuring that new development, wherever possible, contributes to an improvement in the landscape and biodiversity and also avoids harm to features of significance in the landscape or of nature conservation interest; d) refusing permission where development would have a significant harmful

90

ITEM 6

impact on the landscape or features of nature conservation value; and e) safeguarding the Borough’s Common Land and working with other interested parties to protect and where appropriate enhance its nature conservation and recreational value.

Baseline Landscape / Visual Amenity situation 381 On the assumption that the application for the permanent retention of the existing facility

(SP10/0883) is permitted, the proposed development would take place on the site of an established waste management facility, which comprises: a Waste Transfer Station (WTS); a Community Recycling Centre (CRC); a Materials Recycling Facility (MRF); and associated ancillary infrastructure including access roads and landscaping. For the purposes of the submitted assessment, in terms of building scale and height, the principal elements considered were the two large, linked buildings that house the existing WTS and MRF. Both are located in a reinforced concrete portal frame structure with pitched roof, clad in a pale grey trapezoidal metal skin. The building is approximately 13m metres in height and occupies 4,686m2. The site is surrounded by a band of dense semi-mature woodland, varying in width, which is largely effective in screening ground level operations and smaller ancillary buildings and structures (particularly during the summer months).

382 Officers note that by virtue of being included as new features considered through the

previous application to permanently retain the existing waste management facility, the acoustic fence on the western and northern boundary of Ivydene Cottage (3 metres and 4 metres in height respectively) and the revised / widened access onto Charlton Lane with revised landscaping/planting at the access point, have been considered and deemed to be acceptable in terms of their landscape and visual amenity impact. As such, Officers have not sought to re-assess their impacts and instead focus in this report on other elements of the proposed development.

Landscape and Visual Assessment methodology 383 The Landscape and Visual Assessment in the ES states that the visual context for the

site is influenced by multiple factors but is primarily a matter of topography and the open nature of the landscape and otherwise the extent of built development and vegetation cover. The Charlton Lane site is set within the relatively flat landscape of the Thames Valley and topographic influences are primarily man-made interventions, notably localised high points at bridge crossings and past developments that have produced both artificially lowered landscapes (mostly water bodies following on from gravel extraction) and artificially raised features (including reservoirs). The position of the site within the urban fringe means that land use is diverse and that there are frequent interruptions to openness with the result that the visual envelope of the site is relatively complex. The assessment identifies, in general terms that the surrounding landscape is generally flat and screening would be readily achieved by any physical structure such as line of trees. Given this landscape context (i.e. generally flat), gaining elevation would provide extensive visibility and any site is more likely to be visible from within or alongside open areas and also from elevated viewpoints, such as bridges. Following a joint site visit (Officers and the applicant) in March 2010, eighteen representative viewpoints were identified and agreed on-site with Officers, with an additional ten viewpoints suggested by Spelthorne Borough Council. The viewpoints were chosen to represent a range of different receptor types and are situated at a variety of distances and directions from the site of the proposed development.

384 Ivydene Cottage is the closest residential property. With regard to other residential

properties, the closest settlements are Upper Halliford to the east and Charlton village beyond the M3 to the northwest. In both these cases, the close juxtaposition of buildings, and in some cases existing tree cover, is such that the majority of properties would only have very restricted views towards the site or are completely screened by intervening

91

ITEM 6

features. Effects are therefore only likely to be experienced at the edges of the settlements closest to the proposal. Approximately 24 houses at the western edge of Upper Halliford (on Bramble Close and Hawthorn Way) and 40 houses at the south eastern edge of Charlton experience views towards the site; and, as such, receptors were selected in these locations. The residential views experienced were noted to vary in terms of screening, and in the part of the property, which experiences the view. Similar effects were evident at the edges of other settlements in the vicinity of the development, including Shepperton, Shepperton Green and Sunbury. Effects clearly diminish with distance and the assessment noted that, further mitigation was provided by specific existing features (e.g. there is vegetation alongside the River Ash north of Shepperton which effectively screens the majority of views). A receptor at the western edge of Sunbury was also included to be representative of remote effects on residential properties.

385 The assessment also noted that there are relatively few public rights of way running

through the wider study area, although the Thames Trail footpath (some distance to the south of the site) is a National Strategic Route and links many of the significant open spaces in the area and carries elevated sensitivity. Whilst there is limited intervisibility to the site, the importance of this route was recognised through selection of three receptors in proximity to the river. Lastly, the assessment notes that the site is largely screened from view from the road network including the M3 Motorway due to highway and other tree planting and the presence of buildings and topography. Some occasional views are available where gaps in the vegetation occur, with the best opportunities for views tending to arise at bridge crossings due to the artificial elevation of the viewer and the inherent openness of the adjoining spaces. Five such crossing points were therefore selected as viewpoints and whilst these locations are unrepresentative of general visibility from the wider area (they present a worst case scenario), they are nonetheless worthy of inclusion both because they are representative of the views from elevated vantage points and because they provide an appreciation of context. Receptors were also chosen to represent views that would be experienced by a range of recreational users such as golfers, sailors, walkers and cyclists. Officers accept the assessment methodology.

Submitted design

Main buildings 386 The submitted design proposal presents two key east and west faces to the site, which

respond directly to their context, while the southern elevation attempts to balance these to form a civic facade to the site entrance. A simple thin cylindrical stack aims to reduce visual impact and compliment the building’s architectural aesthetic. The low, subdued east face to the main Gasification/AD building has been designed in response to any potential views from residential properties beyond the site to minimise its presence and mitigate its visual impact as best as possible. This has been attempted by adopting a single pitch roof plate which avoids any shadow play potentially resulting from a stepped eaves approach, a low and continuous roof line along the eastern elevation, and a softening of the junction between roof and walls by curving the eaves.

387 With regards to materials, a simple and continuous light coloured standing seam

aluminium cladding to the walls and roof is proposed which would naturally weather, adding texture to the building and reducing light reflection whilst curving around areas. The eastern facade has also been designed to visually and acoustically shield the majority of vehicle movements and external auxiliary equipment (including condensers, bulking bays and AD tanks) from view. A 5 metre high close-boarded acoustic fence would act as a noise and visual barrier to the Gasification facility waste tipping area. The western elevation of the building looks out on to the CRC and has been designed to contrast to the eastern elevation by opening up views of the main Gasification/AD

92

ITEM 6

building (CABE has previously commented that the design should be ‘celebratory’ in nature). This ‘opening up’ has been attempted by projecting the roof beyond the face of the building to form a ‘hood’ or canopy, which would wrap up from the ground and connect with the roof. This hood feature would therefore create a semi enclosed space at the buildings southern end and demark the glazed building entrance.

388 A further aspect designed to respond to earlier CABE comments and the need to provide

a ‘welcoming’ face to the building, is the use of colouring inside of this hood feature with a ‘warm’ red finish and through the use of timber cladding to the main western elevation. As such, views from the CRC towards the main Gasification facility, incorporating the Turbine Hall, would be primarily characterised by a high timber clad façade; and Officers consider this to be a successful solution to this internal public vista. Views from the CRC into the glazed atrium of the main building and education /visitor centre entrance would also be possible. The southern elevation forms the civic frontage to the building on entering the site and the design aims to strike a balance between the contrasting natures of the east and west facades of the building. The elevation pitches up from east to west as the building height increases and is punctured by windows providing natural lighting for staff and visitor areas. The curved eaves detail of the east face would wrap around the ‘spherical quadrant corner’ and continue along the south eaves, while pitching up to follow the increasing roof height.

389 This ‘spherical quadrant corner’ would be closest part of the building to Ivydene Cottage.

The architectural response to reducing the visual impact on this corner of the application site has been to wrap/curve around the southeast corner of the building to form a ‘moulded’ elevation. The submitted design justification identifies that this southern elevation’s façade would run to the western edge of the Gasification building, with a sharp termination combined with a bright red entrance canopy reflecting the industrial process and demarking the building’s entrance point. Strips of glazing/windows would also puncture this moulded form along the southern elevation and follow the angle of the eastern wall. At ground level these windows provide views into the switchgear room. In the dark, during the hours when administration and education/visitor block is open, the glow of internal lighting would illuminate outwards and thus provide interest to this frontage of the building.

390 To the north of the main building, the RBF facility would be clad in painted steel and

comprise a simple ‘industrial shed’ design, similar to the existing WTS/MRF on site - although the proposed RBF would incorporate a substantial area (885.5m2) of photovoltaic cells on its roof. It is proposed that the existing CRC would be provided with a canopy, with its roof largely covered in photovoltaic cells. The AD Tank area would appear somewhat more industrial in this setting, as juxtaposed to the contemporary main buildings on site. However, the AD tank area is located at the far northern section of the development site, screened by retained planting from views from the east and would (in the longer term) be screened by new native woodland planting to the north between the re-aligned FP70 and the site’s boundary.

391 Elsewhere to the south of the main building, routes from the coach parking area and

weighbridge to the main building entrance would run through a landscaped area in front of the building to the main entrance. This landscaped area is proposed to act as a buffer between the site entrance point and the building, providing the opportunity for further information on the waste process to be displayed before visitors enter the building. Officers consider the design of the proposed RBF, CRC and landscaped area in front of the main building to be wholly acceptable in design terms. As such, Officers disagree with SBC’s comments that the landscaping at the entrance to the site and in front of the Gasification would create an unduly formal style and would highlight that such features have been conceived as a contemporary approach to a waste management facility rather than an attempt to replicate the surrounding landscape in this locality.

93

ITEM 6

Stack design

392 The 49 metres stack is proposed to have a polished stainless steel finish with the

intention that it would reflect its surroundings and therefore mitigate visual impact. Other options were considered in the pre-application process, namely a painted grey steel stack (to offer a simple unobtrusive approach) and a two tone paint finish (to change colour depending on the light angle). A square stack provided an alternative to the cylinder option but was the least popular with local residents through the pre-application consultation events. The overriding preference from the public was for the polished stainless steel/chrome finish stack and the County Council’s Lighting Consultant (Capita Symonds) confirm there would be no issues with glare or reflections from the stack: very little light would be incident on the stack above walkway canopy height; and as the finish is specular (mirror-like), what little light would reach it would be reflected up and away from sensitive receptors.

393 On the issue of the stack finish chosen, Officers reject the argument put forward by SBC

that a more muted colour should be used. The ‘stainless steel’ finish would dull over time and lead naturally to a more muted finish. This ‘stainless steel’ finish is also considered by Officers to be an appropriate response to the contemporary design of the main Eco Park buildings (particularly the AD and Gasification building) and the ‘celebratory’ emphasis that CABE have promoted. Officers also consider that the views of local residents should be given weight as they were expressed directly in the context of the alternatives considered at the pre-application stage.

394 Officers consider that the local residents’ concerns that the stack design would pose a

distraction to aircrafts and motorists on the M3 Motorway are unfounded. As noted through the ES and shown on the submitted photomontages, the stack feature (as a permanent form compared to the likely infrequent water vapour plume) would be clearly visible in the wider landscape. This has been fully considered as part of the landscape and visual amenity assessment undertaken and detailed below.

Assessment of Landscape and Visual effects Landscape setting 395 The submitted assessment identifies that the site is situated in an urban fringe location

within the Metropolitan Green Belt at the south-western edge of London. The Green Belt is not free from development but includes transport infrastructure, notably the M3, a number of elevated water bodies, including the Queen Mary Reservoir, recreational uses including golf courses, small pockets of housing and the existing waste management facilities at Charlton Lane. The significance of effects upon the landscape fabric and landscape character were therefore assessed in the ES and the visual impact of the proposal upon twenty eight representative receptors undertaken. The viewpoint receptors were selected so as to be representative of the types of view available within the study area from a range of visual receptor types. The landscape scheme submitted within the proposals provides for both mitigation of the landscape and visual effects of the scheme and a wider enhancement of the local landscape (including habitat value). The applicant highlights that mitigation of landscape and visual effects would be achieved in a number of ways - primarily an extensive landscape scheme would be implemented, with particular emphasis on providing screening on bunds along the east and north elevations to replace existing screening features that would need to be removed to build the Eco Park. In addition, extensive areas of tree planting to the north and east of the main developed area would also be provided to break up views of the proposed development and to help assimilate the development with the surrounding landscape.

94

ITEM 6

396 The applicant also identifies that there would be short-term visual effects during the

construction phase with the erection of the building frames, associated infrastructure and the use of cranes and other large mobile plant. Effects on visual receptors would in the main be very localised, with the majority of the construction site only visible from the closest receptors. The visual effects would therefore spread geographically as the new taller structures of the proposed facilities take shape. The assessment also indicated that while effects during the construction phase would be significant, they would be temporary and of lesser significance than the permanent structures.

397 With regards to ‘operational’ impacts (i.e. the replacement of existing buildings with new

taller buildings and associated infrastructure on a larger footprint, and the resulting loss of planting along the eastern and northern boundary), the submitted assessment notes that the proposed development would bring about a large magnitude of change to landscape character on the basis that there would be both very obvious changes over a wider area (attributable to the increased height of the facility and introduction of the stack) and a particularly intensive change over a limited area. Officers concur with the findings of the submitted assessment and consider that beyond the initial construction phase, the impact of the proposed development, including the 49 m stack itself, would create a permanent moderate adverse significance of effect on the wider landscape setting. Officers’ determination on this point has been in made in light of the facts that: large built development has been present on the site for a considerable length of time; an important visual context is provided by the adjacent M3 Motorway; substantial mature screening would be retained to the south and west of the site; and a large EEA would be provided to the east of the application site.

398 The proposal does not include any built development to the north of the existing footpath,

which the Inspector’s Report into the examination of the SWP 2008 (para.4.55 – ref. to the site at Charlton Lane) highlighted as sensitive from a Green Belt perspective. The proposed Eco Park buildings are far smaller in scale (up to 18.5m to roof of Gasification plant) than a mass burn EfW (incineration) plant (e.g. proposed EfW for Trumps Farm would be 39m to roof). The Inspector indicated that the southern part of the site could possibly accommodate an EfW plant (‘small scale thermal facility’). The applicant has stated that the buildings within the Eco Park have been carefully designed, particularly in terms of volumetric efficiency i.e. they are no larger (or taller) than is absolutely necessary to accommodate the technical process equipment. The Inspector referred to an ‘enclosed operational envelope’ for development and the important site screening to the south and west of the allocated site, which would be retained as part of this proposal. There are no proposed buildings or above ground structures falling outside the allocation area with the exception of the new weighbridge office and weighbridges, with associated internal access road. These extend some 20 metres beyond the eastern boundary. This eastern area of the proposed development land falling outside of the allocation to the east is far smaller than the undeveloped area of the allocation to the north. The Inspector also commented on the open views to the east, and in response the proposal provides comprehensive landscaping of the north and eastern area, as part of the EEA. As such, Officers consider that the proposed layout of buildings and plant largely focuses on (i.e. occupies) the existing waste management facility site and that the application accords with that criterion of Charlton Lane’s allocation within the 2008 SWP.

399 Against the baseline noted above, the proposal would: replace the largest building

(WTS/MRF) on site with a much larger Gasification building, a large AD plant and RBF; and remove substantial areas of mature planting to the north and east. This would constitute a very large magnitude of change to the landscape fabric and the submitted assessment identifies that this would result in an effect of moderate adverse significance in the wider landscape. Officers consider that this assessment suggests a conflict with those Development Plan provisions that seek to avoid harmful impact to landscape character. The key test here should be whether the proposed development including the EEA to the north and east of the site, would – assessed as a whole - result in

95

ITEM 6

unacceptable, i.e. overriding, significant harm in terms of landscape and visual impact. Relevant to such a determination is the understanding that the receptors assessed already have experience of the impacts considered here and would continue to experience visual harm in varying degrees.

400 With regard to visual effects of the twenty eight viewpoints considered, three were

assessed as experiencing significant adverse visual effects and these were representative of residential properties in Charlton Village and Upper Halliford and Ivydene Cottage. The assessment highlights that Ivydene Cottage, located immediately adjacent to the site, would experience permanent significant adverse visual effects. However, the assessment highlights that as a result of the landscaping implemented at the site, the visual impact of the development would reduce significantly as vegetation matures, particularly in views from 24 properties in Upper Halliford, although it is also recognised that the facility would still be visible from these views. Views from residential properties in Charlton Village would be affected differently to those from Upper Halliford. These three sensitive visual receptors are therefore considered below.

Ivydene Cottage 401 At the south east corner of the site is a property called Ivydene Cottage, which is a

private residential property from which a kennels business is also operated. The current waste site abuts the west and north boundaries of this property. The rear garden is approximately 38 metres in length (when measured from a ground floor rear extension to the northern boundary). However, the presence of outbuildings along the western boundary and kennels towards the northern boundary reduces the grassed area available. A substantial part of Ivydene Cottage’s rear garden to the north is taken up with buildings associated with the commercial kennels (as can be seen on the aerial photograph is provided as Figure 5 attached to this report).

402 A substantial change is proposed closest to the boundary with Ivydene Cottage. A new

weighbridge office and weighbridges, with associated internal access road, would be constructed to serve the eastern and northern parts of the main waste management site (Gasification facility and AD plant / MRF respectively) and this internal access road would be positioned some 5 metres from the closest point of the rear garden boundary. Currently, the closest part of the rear garden boundary is approximately 25 metres from the main access roadway (nearest the site entrance to the west) and the area containing the existing weighbridge and weighbridge office. However, Officers note that the weighbridge facilities proposed as part of the Eco Park development are further away from Ivydene Cottage (i.e. towards the site’s eastern boundary to the north), and therefore removed from directly in front of the site entrance to the west of Ivydene Cottage. This means the weighbridge facilities (and associated activity) would be some 28 metres further away from Ivydene Cottage’s rear garden boundary than at present. In addition, the new weighbridge facilities would be positioned beyond the rear garden to the north as opposed to directly west of Ivydene Cottage (as at present), and therefore some 35 metres further away from the dwelling itself.

403 However, the proposed Gasification building is both taller and closer to Ivydene

Cottage’s boundary than the existing WTS / MRF building. The closest part of the rear garden boundary is approximately 74 metres from the existing WTS / MRF building, which has a height of 8.5 metres at its southeast corner. The proposed Gasification building would be some 34 metres from the closest part of the rear garden boundary and 10.5 (eaves) metres high at its southeast corner, which then curves up to 13.5 (eaves) metres in height, set-back by 4 metres through a curved corner feature noted above.

404 Officers note that the rear garden of Ivydene Cottage is bordered on its western side

(closest to the Charlton Lane access) by mature planting over 3.5 metres in height and outbuildings extending out from the property reaching a height of approximately 3.5

96

ITEM 6

metres. Along the northern boundary of the rear garden there is some natural screening, though activities (including unauthorised storage of vehicles) has meant some of the mature planting has been removed over recent years. The overall effect of these features is that views into the existing waste management site at ground floor level and from within the rear garden are substantially prevented. Two habitable windows are present in the first floor of the rear elevation of Ivydene Cottage, however, and these are approximately 46 metres from the northern boundary of the rear garden and 10 metres from the western boundary respectively (these windows can be seen on Figure 5 attached to this report).

405 In response to the previous application to permanently retain the current waste

management facility, Spelthorne Borough Council and the owner of the Ivydene Cottage raised concerns regarding the position of a proposed 3 metre high acoustic fence and potential loss of the existing vegetation along the northern and western boundary noted above. Officers therefore requested a repositioned acoustic fence (moving it westwards and northwards by 4 metres) to enclose this existing vegetation. The County Council’s Landscape Officer also suggested a condition to protect this planting through the construction phase of the acoustic fence and beyond. The revised acoustic fence submitted by the applicant also raised the height of the section along the northern boundary from 3 metres to 4 metres, in order to further attenuate noise sources from the waste management facility. The revised acoustic fence has already been considered and deemed to be acceptable in terms of its landscape and visual amenity impacts by virtue of the previous application being found acceptable.

406 As noted above, the northern boundary of the rear garden is approximately 46 metres

from the rear first floor habitable room windows and the 4 metre high section of acoustic fence would therefore be approximately 50 metres from these windows. The closest part of the main Gasification building would therefore be viewed by the residents of Ivydene Cottage in the context of both existing outbuildings within the rear garden and existing planting that is to be protected through the construction phase of the acoustic fence. In addition, Officers consider that a scheme should be agreed via condition to improve this peripheral planting around the rear garden of Ivydene Cottage. Officers therefore consider that views of the Gasification building would be ‘broken-up’ and filtered by these features.

407 Significantly, the closest part of the Gasification building has been designed to

incorporate a curved feature into the southeast corner of its roof. This design approach attempts to reduce the impact on Ivydene Cottage of a high sided building close to the boundary, as the roof would be at 10.5 metres (eaves) at its closest point. The roof would then curve up to 13.5 metres in height (eaves), though set into the building by 4 metres at this corner to help reduce the visual impact. In addition, the use of aluminium cladding for the Gasification facility’s facade and roof has the effect of softening the junction between roof and walls by curving the eaves. This curved eaves approach seeks to avoid the appearance of a hard edge where the roof meets the wall in an attempt to reduce visual impact and create a building that appears as a single sculptural form, rather than an over-dominant industrial construction.

408 The submitted assessment of Landscape and Visual effects concludes that the proposed

development would give rise to a ‘permanent significant adverse’ visual effects on Ivydene Cottage, particularly given the presence of two habitable windows in the first floor of the rear elevation. Officers accept that if it were appropriate to view the visual impact on Ivydene Cottage in isolation, the proposal would conflict with the Development Plan provisions to avoid adverse visual impact (albeit mitigation measures such as the Gasification building design at the southeast corner and position of the acoustic fence have been designed to minimise the adverse impact on Ivydene Cottage). However, Officers consider that the long period of time during which the property and waste

97

ITEM 6

activities have co-existed provides an important context in the overall assessment of this application.

409 With reference to the owner of Ivydene Cottage’s request that an earth mound be

provided along both the western and eastern boundary of their property, this is not proposed to form part of the 25 year Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP), detailed below. Such an earth mound would likely require the removal of a considerable amount of existing vegetation along these boundaries and Officers do not therefore consider such a measure appropriate in the circumstances. Lastly, in response to Spelthorne Borough Council’s suggestion that the gap between the internal roadway and the northern boundary of Ivydene Cottage should be increased, Officers do not consider this appropriate: there would be limited likely noise attenuation benefits owing to the 4 metre high acoustic fence now proposed; and there would be limited visual benefits given the peripheral boundary planting along the northern boundary (protected and strengthened via suitable conditions).

Properties at the western edge of Upper Halliford 410 Twenty four properties are situated to the east of the application site boundary on

Hawthorn Way (approximately 240m from the site) and Bramble Close (approximately 350m away). The assessment established that views from these properties would be limited to views from first floor windows and in most cases would be from the rear elevation. Such views are often graded as medium rather than high sensitivity as they are usually rooms that are not occupied during the daytime (therefore clearer views in daylight). However, for the purpose of the assessment, the applicant applied a high sensitivity rating to these properties and consequently the significance of effect could represent an over-estimate of the actual visual impact (i.e. if receptors had been graded as medium sensitivity then the significance of effect would be minor to moderate). Figure 3 attached to this report shows a view of field to east of site looking north and the properties in question can be seen to the right.

411 With regards to Bramble Close, existing views of the site are such that vegetation around

the existing waste facility screens the vast majority of the existing development from view, with only a small proportion of the roof visible. The photomontage provided at Figure 6 illustrates that the proposed development would be more visible as a consequence of its greater height and particularly due to the presence of the tall stack, albeit that only the tallest parts of the development would be visible. The assessment of visual impact was made in relation to the much clearer views that would be available from first floor windows noted above. In contrast with the views from Charlton Village (see below), the existing view from Bramble Close is relatively free of urban elements, certainly in the foreground of the view. As such, the applicant submits that whilst a ‘major to substantial’ classification would perhaps overstate the degree of significance, the visual impact from this small group of four properties would nonetheless be significant. Officers agree that a ‘moderate to major’ adverse impact would be a more realistic classification. However, tree planting that would be implemented as part of the development on land immediately west of the railway line (the ‘strips of trees’ referred to below) and on the substantial bund adjacent to the development would improve the middle ground of the view over time and thus reduce the significance of effect.

412 With regards to the residential properties on Hawthorn Way, which back onto the rail

corridor in Upper Halliford, views from the rear elevations of these properties would be direct open views to a much taller development than currently exists; but they would, due to screening provided by garden vegetation and fencing, be experienced in most cases only from the first floor. For these properties the current view is of a partially screened development seen in the context of a large expanse of unmanaged semi-natural landscape. Other urban elements are visible and both the railway and motorway, despite being screened to varying degrees, can certainly be heard and as such contribute to the

98

ITEM 6

degree to which tranquillity is experienced. This is a view over an urban fringe landscape as distinct from a pristine rural scene. Whilst the proposed development would be much more prominent than the existing facility, the applicant considered that the ‘major to substantial’ classification shown through the assessment overstated the degree of significance. Taking into account the aspect of views (rear elevation, upper storey) and the wider urban context within which the view sits, Officers agree with the applicant’s assessment that a ‘moderate to major’ adverse impact would be a more realistic classification. The visual impact would therefore be deemed as ‘significant’

413 However, Officers concur with the assessment that over a relatively short timescale (five

to ten years) the planting proposed within the EEA, particularly the planting belt parallel and close to the railway corridor, would both provide a greater degree of screening and filtering of views and at the same time alter the characteristics of the view by introducing visual interest in the fore and middle-ground. This would be particularly the case when the vegetation is in leaf. At such times it is likely that from many properties the development would actually not be visible (although the stack would present a permanent feature). In winter, the built development is always likely to be visible although views would be heavily filtered. As such, Officers agree with the submitted assessment that the visual impact of the facility would be mitigated over time and would reduce in significance. This reduction could seasonally result in impacts being virtually ‘negligible’.

414 As set out above, the architectural design of the east face to the main Gasification/AD

building is a response to any potential views from residential properties beyond the site through minimising its presence and mitigating its visual impact as best possible. This has been attempted by adopting a single pitch roof plane which avoids any shadow play potentially resulting from a stepped eaves approach, a low and continuous roof line along the eastern elevation, and a softening of the junction between roof and walls by curving the eaves. In addition, the steam vents projecting from the roof of the Gasification building would be hooded/cowled using a matching material. Officers consider this to be a successful approach to minimising visual impact on views from the east and the County Council’s Landscape Officer agrees that the approach taken to roof design would work well in topographical terms once the landscape infrastructure is in place. As noted above, when compared to the baseline of the current scale of buildings on site, there will clearly be an impact on properties to the east of the application site in Upper Halliford. However, Officers consider it reasonable to view the site in the context of the adjacent M3 Motorway and also the unavoidable fact that historic waste operations have taken place for a considerable period although at different scales. Landscaping surrounding the application site would provide reasonable screening after the early period of construction (i.e. after the first five years) and would be maintained through a 25 year LEMP.

Properties at the south eastern edge of Charlton Village and Environs 415 This area contains approximately forty residential properties and is located to the

northwest of the site, beyond the M3 Motorway and on the eastern edge of the Hetherington Road estate. The submitted assessment notes that these properties would experience a mixture of direct and oblique views of the proposed development resulting in significant visual effects for those with direct views (approximately 12no. properties). There are other properties in Charlton Village that may experience similar views, notably a small number of properties further south of the Hetherington Road area on the east side of Charlton Road. Spelthorne Borough Council requested that a viewpoint be included in the assessment at the southern extent of the village. This additional viewpoint was considered and it was found unlikely that any of these properties would experience views that are as direct as those from the Hetherington Road area due to the presence of intervening screening elements including large outbuildings and mature vegetation. It is also relevant that the closest properties face away from the site. On this basis, the

99

ITEM 6

assessment concludes that visual effects are unlikely to be significant. From other parts of Charlton (further north and west), the applicants argue that residents would experience no more than glimpse views through gaps between buildings or no views at all; and Officers accept that this is so.

416 As noted above, when compared to the baseline of the current scale of buildings on site,

there would clearly be an impact on properties to the northwest in Charlton Village (specifically from the proposed stack and any associated plume). However, Officers consider it reasonable to view the site in the context of the intervening M3 Motorway, which has mature screening along its northern edge (opposite side of the Motorway from Charlton Lane). In addition, existing mature planting along the northwest of the application site (adjacent to the M3 Motorway) would be retained and managed as part of the 25 year LEMP to provide an effective screen to the lower parts of the proposed development. Officers recognise that both the stack (including any associated plume) and the main Gasification building would be visible above the existing trees on both sides of the M3 Motorway, however, such views would be effectively filtered by the intervening screening.

Water Vapour Plume 417 The applicant indicates that for the whole of the time that the proposed development is

operational a plume containing water vapour would be emitted from the stack of the plant. He confirms that this is likely to be more or less continuous i.e. 24 hours a day, 365 days a year with only occasional interruptions for maintenance. The degree to which any plume of this type is visible, however, is determined by atmospheric conditions - specifically the relative temperature and humidity of the ambient air as compared to the air emerging from the chimney. However, in order that the landscape and visual impact of this plume can be considered, the applicant states that it is necessary to understand what its physical characteristics would be and how often it would be visible. Modelling undertaken as part of their air quality assessment in the ES (see Appendix D) used weather data for the five year period from 2004 to 2008 to determine what the extent and nature of plume visibility would have been had the proposed facility been present during this time.

418 The submitted assessment highlights that this exercise was not straightforward, as there

would be two contrasting sets of exhaust gases (from two gas engines and one gasifier) utilising the same stack. One set of exhaust gases would be dryer and hotter and the other moister and cooler. In practice the gases would likely mix as they were emitted from the stack; and the result of this mixing would influence their state as they reach the atmosphere. The modelling software utilised was not designed to model this mixing and as such the best and worst case scenarios were modelled. The applicant states that the reality is likely to somewhere between the two extremes noted below.

419 The best case modelling indicated that the plume would almost never be visible (i.e.

visible for only 14 hours over five years), with a maximum plume length of 50 metres. Worst case modelling indicates that a plume would be visible for between 20% and 30% of the time, with an average length of only 2 to 4 metres and a maximum length of 59 metres. As such, the best case scenario would result in negligible impact. However, even the worst case scenario would result in a situation where no plume would be visible for the vast majority of the time and where the average plume length is sufficiently short as to only be visible from relatively short distances.

420 In light of this modelling and the likely plume visible (average of 2-4 metres 20-30% of

the time), Officers consider that stack plume effects are fairly limited. Although the plume would be obvious at certain times, the stack itself is a permanent structure and, as noted above, Officers concur with the submitted assessment’s conclusion that the 49m stack would not cause significant harm. Officers consider any plume to be a less serious issue

100

ITEM 6

than the stack itself, although the County Council’s Landscape Officer has raised some concerns over the impact of the plume potentially emitted from the stack as this would clearly increase the visual impact of the Eco Park in a wider area. However, the submitted assessment came to the conclusion that there would not be a significant adverse impact on the visual receptors identified in the ES from any stack plume; and Officers concur with this finding.

Proposed Landscape Arrangements / mitigation 421 The landscape proposals would fall into two broad categories: amenity landscape

improvements to the site entrance and public areas within the site; and the development of an EEA to the east and north, which would consist of a wider zone around the site developed and managed in the interests of improving the local landscape, biodiversity and public amenity. A scheme of soft landscaping would be primarily undertaken within the defined ‘Main Developed Area’ with areas of amenity grass, groundcover and specimen tree planting extending from the frontage of Charlton Lane through the re-engineered site entrance and across the frontage of the proposed administration and visitor centre block.

Environment Enhancement Area 422 The EEA covers a wider zone (7.7ha) of land and contains a range of measures to

mitigate some of the effects of the development and enhance the local environment. The EEA would be managed in accordance with the LEMP. The applicant states that this enhancement goes beyond what is required to mitigate the effects of the development from an EIA perspective, but would be a key part of the scheme from a planning policy, specifically Green Belt, perspective. The County Council’s Ecology Officer takes issue with this conclusion, however, and it is his view that the package of measurements proposed is the minimum necessary to integrate the development into the local setting. However, the County Council’s Ecology Officer does accept that the extent of enhancement proposed is of an appropriate range and composition to satisfy requirements for mitigation of landscape (and biodiversity) interests in light of SWP 2008 Policy DC3.

423 Paragraph 3.13 of Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts (PPG2) states that where

large scale development or redevelopment occurs in the Green Belt, it should so far as is possible contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land in Green Belts. These include: providing opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population; enhance landscapes near where people live; improve damaged land around towns; and secure nature conservation interest. The applicant argues that the landscape proposals demonstrably contribute to fulfilling these Green Belt objectives.

424 For example, the EEA includes an area of existing mature woodland on the western and

southern boundary as well as an area of younger linear woodland planting along the north eastern boundary of the existing waste management facility. Both areas of woodland would be retained and protected during construction operations and would subsequently be enhanced through the introduction of structured and proactive management measures to promote biodiversity and amenity value. Measures would include thinning, coppicing, supplementary planting and where appropriate the introduction of bird and bat boxes and habitat piles. The EEA also includes substantial new areas of land, which are currently outside of the existing waste management site to the north and east. These areas are currently dominated by rank grassland and thus of limited amenity or biodiversity benefit. Officers note that ROW No. 70 to the north is not well used at present.

425 A new bund, approximately 150m long and gently graded (sloping) on its outer visible

face, would be formed along the eastern edge of the main development area using

101

ITEM 6

material excavated to form a new surface water infiltration area. The bund, which would rise to a height of approximately 3.5m, would screen ground level waste management activities, some of the low rise structures (e.g. the weighbridge office) and, perhaps most notably, most HGV movements, in views from the east. The bund would be planted in the first available planting season following its construction with a native woodland planting mix, which over time would further screen the development - particularly from the new area of public amenity space to the east of the development. Using a combination of nurse and climax species the new vegetation is anticipated to provide a fairly effective screen, particularly when in leaf, within 5 years.

426 Further areas of native tree planting (parallel to the Shepperton branch railway corridor,

to the north of the site adjacent to the M3 and in linear north south belts within the new public open space) would, as they establish, break up views of the proposed development from Upper Halliford and thus mitigate the long term visual impact of the development on residents. Planting mixes have been designed such that they achieve relatively early height through inclusion of faster growing ‘nurse’ species, some of which would be gradually removed over time in accordance with a long term management plan to make way for slower growing species such as Oak. The aim has not been to create a wall of vegetation to block views, but to break up and filter views and create an attractive outlook. These planting areas were added after consultation with the County Council’s Landscape Officer and can be seen on Dwg 1007-02-01 (Landscape Masterplan) as two ‘strips’ within the application site boundary (i.e. the ‘red line’) running alongside the railway line and M3 Motorway. Following discussions with Officers, a 2.5 metre stoned access track is to be provided alongside the railway boundary to ensure new planting is protected from vehicles accessing the horse grazing land to the north. The applicant also highlights that the planting proposals have been developed in accordance with Network Rail guidelines in respect of planting proximate to railway lines. Elsewhere, the area around the Scout Hut to the southwest of the application site is included in the landscape scheme and a programme of selective thinning will take place within the existing woodland to improve canopy structure.

427 In addition to tree and woodland planting elsewhere, the EEA would provide a range of

improved habitats including scrub, extensive areas of ecologically managed grassland and localised wetland and wet grassland areas. A new footpath link would improve the accessibility of this part of the Green Belt and enhance the area as a resource that could be enjoyed by local people. In addition, the surface water drainage infiltration basin (described more fully in the section below on Surface Water and Flood Risk) would be sown with a wet grassland species mix. This would integrate the infiltration basin into the surrounding landscape and would also improve biodiversity at the site. The infiltration basin also includes a small area of reed bed. The remaining open grassland within the planning application boundary would be landscaped with biodiversity and amenity value in mind.

428 Due to the use of parts of the site as a former landfill the applicant highlights that it may

be necessary to increase soil depths in areas of tree planting; and this would be achieved through reuse of materials sourced on site or through import of soils. The LEMP to be agreed would describe the planting specifications, ground preparation methods, ongoing management requirements and monitoring procedures to ensure that the landscape of the site develops. Specific biodiversity targets would also be included in the LEMP to address the creation of enhanced conditions for breeding birds, bats, toads and invertebrates. In response to a draft LEMP submitted with the application, the County Council’s Landscape Officer recommends that an appropriate soil survey should be requested via condition to ensure there is sufficient soil cover to establish and sustain planting.

429 With regards to SBC’s objection to the proposal on the basis that further land in Surrey

CC’s ownership has not been included in the EEA, the submitted drawings (1007-02-01

102

ITEM 6

Landscape Masterplan) identify that a further area to the north east in the ownership of Surrey CC would be Managed Grassland. The County Council’s Landscape Officer confirms that the applicant has provided the minimum landscaped area to mitigate the proposed development. Whilst the integration of additional land could certainly further mitigate the development proposal in terms of its wider landscape setting, Officers consider that a successfully implemented LEMP would provide substantial benefits and the inclusion of this extra land (given that it is to be managed as grassland by Surrey CC in any event – albeit it is recognised that this is not secured permanently by Section 106 Obligation) is not, on balance, necessary to be required as part of this proposal.

430 The issue that Officers must satisfy themselves upon is whether the proposal complies

with the Development Plan and whether the landscape and visual impact of the proposal is adequately mitigated. Given the wide range of measures proposed through this application, Officers consider that the EEA is acceptable in its scale. Much more detail would be identified through the submission and agreement of a LEMP, which would also include the wooded area owned by Surrey CC around the Scout Hut to the southwest of the application site. SWP 2008 Policy DC3 states that ‘appropriate’ mitigation should be identified so as to minimise or avoid any material adverse impact and compensate for any loss of landscape or visual amenity; and Officers consider that the scale of landscaping proposed achieves this.

431 Officers consider that although the M3 Motorway and Waterloo to Shepperton railway

line provides an important context in the wider setting, it is also likely that – in the same way as residents have become accustomed to those features - the Eco Park would be a substantial change in terms of a new feature in the landscape (given the size of buildings proposed and tall stack feature) though not so incongruous as to adversely affect the landscape character of the vicinity. As noted previously, the length of time that large buildings associated with waste operations have been present at the site (although at different scales) since the 1950’s means residents have become accustomed to large buildings at the site. The applicant refers to the site as sitting within a ‘dynamic urban fringe environment’ and although this may be the case for views from the wider setting, it is not likely to be the case for closest receptors. For those properties closest to the existing waste management facility, residents are accustomed to a site that is largely screened throughout the year, though uppermost parts of the buildings are more visible in winter. Notwithstanding that traffic will likely reduce and that operational noise will match or be less than the present situation (as set out elsewhere in this report).

432 However, Officers note that the proposed landscaping is not designed to wholly screen

the development but to ‘break up’ views. With regards to the comments of SBC and local residents that the landscape proposals would not entirely screen the proposed development, it is clearly not designed to. This does not even occur at present during the summer months. Indeed, to attempt to wholly screen the proposed development (including as it does very tall structures) would be to introduce into this broadly flat landscape setting arguably incongruous features, which would in turn have a negative impact in terms of the visual amenities the landscape proposals attempt to protect. Officers note that the introduction of very tall trees could mean the introduction of non-native species, which would not be considered appropriate from an ecology/biodiversity stance.

433 In their response to this application, SBC also state that the speed of planting growth

assumed in the submitted landscape and visual assessment is ‘optimistic.’ However, the County Council’s Landscape Officer confirms that, with suitable native and quick-growing species selected and detailed management procedures (through the LEMP), reasonable screening would be in place within the short-medium term (i.e. after 5 years).

434 Officers need to satisfy themselves that care has been taken to reflect the wider

landscape setting, respect ecological concerns and improve the integrity of natural

103

ITEM 6

screening to the lower parts of the development. A 3.5 metres high earth bund along the eastern boundary with planting above is considered sufficient by Officers to provide a robust level of screening from the east. To attempt to screen the development entirely from this perspective, particularly in the early construction phase when existing trees are removed, would require a higher and therefore potentially more incongruous feature in the mainly flat landscape setting of the adjacent former mineral working (a matter the KDC for the site expressly identifies as a concern for any proposal). A four metre high section of the acoustic fence running along the northern boundary of Ivydene Cottage would adjoin the earth bund in the southeast corner of the development site; and the difference of 0.5 metres between earth bund and fence is considered by Officers to be a satisfactory relationship in visual terms.

435 In terms of the short-term impacts identified above during the Construction Phase, the

County Council’s Landscape Officer raised concern regarding the view of the facility from the east (Upper Halliford), which would be made more evident because the existing tree screen on the east boundary of the site would be removed (as noted above). In addition, the new planting on the bund area would not have any obvious impact in providing screening for the new facility for at least five years. One option to overcome these issues would be to carry out the tree planting within the EEA (including along the railway corridor) in advance, and include for the use of ‘Nurse’ planting (i.e. willows) and semi-mature stock, planted in groups, to provide immediate effect. One option suggested by the County Council’s Landscape Officer is that the bund and planting on the bund could also be introduced as advance planting. These aspects would reduce the level of Construction Impacts and come into play quickly in relation to Operational Impacts. As such, emphasis on ‘advance’ planting to mitigate earlier impacts will be agreed as part of the LEMP.

436 The County Council’s Landscape Officer concurs with some of the comments made by

SBC to the effect that the loss of areas of trees and earth mounding on the north and east boundaries could be an aspect of concern to the local community because it will take several years (potentially 10-15 years) to replace the tree component. However, there are clear benefits to the local landscape fabric and biodiversity resulting from replacement elements, which would in turn strengthen local landscape character and quality. The use of ‘Nurse’ species in the planting mixes and use of a few larger trees initially (as suggested) would provide more immediate benefit, and in time the enhancement provided overall by new planting/habitat creation would be a significant improvement of the existing landscape structure and ecological interest. The County Council’s Landscape Officer therefore fully concurs with the submitted assessment’s conclusion that changes proposed in terms of landscape infrastructure will have ‘negligible’ impact; and they judge in fact that the improvements proposed would be ‘beneficial’ given the provision of a 25 year LEMP, which would underpin ‘sustainability’ and deliver tangible improvements to landscape infrastructure and recreational use - particularly since a new footpath is proposed through the former mineral working land to the east of the site and this area would be actively managed and maintained.

437 SBC raised concerns about the proposed EEA arguing that it is akin to a ‘parkland’ in

terms of its appearance. SBC suggest instead a subdivision of the area to create a series of fields with planting along the boundaries. However, Officers would highlight that the submitted design/layout has the potential to promote far more public access and recreation of the land to the east than would exist by the creation of a series of fields. It is noteworthy that the public footpath running though the north of the application site is not well used and Officers would argue that the design of the EEA is a positive response to the challenge of promoting public access and recreational uses of the land, in accordance with relevant Development Plan policies.

438 Officers have duly considered comments raised by SBC throughout the application

process and the detailed points raised in its objections have been noted above. For

104

ITEM 6

example, SBC object to the scale of the proposal on the basis that it goes beyond the existing site boundary and argue that it would result in an adverse impact on the wider area through loss of existing landscaping and development in close proximity to Ivydene Cottage. Officers concur that the construction phase of the proposed development would not accord with SBC’s Core Strategy Policy EN1 and its promotion of improving the quality of the environment. However, Officers consider that these effects would be mitigated over time through the measures set out in this report (such as the LEMP).

439 With regards to Spelthorne’s objection that the position of the proposed internal roadway

and buildings would have an unacceptable impact on Ivydene Cottage, this is dealt with in the section dealing with that individual property above. Regarding SBC’s objection that landscaping should utilise all the land in Surrey CC’s ownership to provide maximum screening, Officers have previously noted that what is proposed, is deemed to be the ‘minimum’ level to mitigate the visual impact of the proposed development. However, given there are opportunities to introduce planting in advance of the construction phase (particularly along the railway corridor) as part of a 25 year LEMP to be agreed before development commences, Officers consider this would accord with the requirement to identify ‘appropriate’ mitigation, as set out in Policy DC3 of the SWP 2008. Lastly, SBC’s objection that the landscaping should be designed more appropriately to reflect the wider character of the area, is considered above.

440 In addition to the EEA, SITA proposed to make a one off financial contribution to a fund

of £75,000 for local environmental enhancement projects. This was to be provided by way of a planning obligation whereby the contribution would be lodged with a suitably constituted environmental organisation and any organisation or member of the public would be able to apply for monies from this fund, in respect of implementing an environmental improvement project within the geographic wards of Halliford and Sunbury West or Laleham and Shepperton Green. However, Officers have refused this fund as they do not consider it accords with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, which demands that such contributions are:

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

(b) directly related to the development; and

(c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. 441 Members are therefore clearly advised that they should not have regard to this

contribution in the course of determining whether to grant planning permission.

Conclusion 442 The SWP 2008 Key Development Criterion of the Charlton Lane allocation relating to

visual impact indicates that: “a high standard of design is expected for both built development and site layout, including landscaping. A visual impact assessment should be undertaken and submitted with any application”. The applicant has complied with the requirement to undertake a visual impact assessment and the findings of this work have been considered above. The other Development Plan policies set out above also require that the impacts on visual amenities and the wider landscape setting should form an important part of considering the acceptability in planning terms of such a large development proposal.

443 Although the proposed development comprises a much larger scale of buildings than at

present, the design of the proposal (particularly the Gasification facility) incorporates a high design quality, as required by the Key Development Criterion and commended by CABE. The quality of finishes reflects the applicant’s response to CABE’s challenge to provide a ‘celebratory’ aspect to the design scheme, given it will be the focus of

105

ITEM 6

innovative / modern waste management technology and learning through the visitor/education centre. Nevertheless, a condition should be attached to any permission to ensure details of finishes, colours and materials are submitted to and approved in writing by the CPA. DEFRA’s ‘Designing Waste facilities’ (2008) suggests that an imaginative design can assist in integrating the proposed development into the existing environment, and offer advice and guidance on the design process and principles. Officers consider that the applicant has gone through a thorough design process in accordance with these principles, which involved CABE in the pre-application consultation process.

444 Officers must consider whether the visual impact of the enlarged buildings overall is in

breach of Development Plan policy. Officers consider that the proposal would not accord with the SWP 2008 Key Development Criterion and relevant Development Plan policies in terms of its construction phase impacts on landscape and visual amenity given that large areas of existing peripheral planting (largely screening the existing waste management facility from the east and north) would be removed. The 49 metre stack and main Gasification building would also result in a permanent moderate adverse significance of effect in the wider landscape including from Charlton Village to the northwest as they would be visible above the existing trees on the northern side of the M3 Motorway and the retained existing screening along the northwest boundary of the site (i.e. both sides of the M3 Motorway). Officers also recognise that the proposal has particular adverse visual impacts on Ivydene Cottage and properties to the east in Upper Halliford.

445 However, Officers consider that the proposed EEA is an acceptable response to the

challenge of SWP 2008 Policy DC3 to ensure appropriate mitigation to both compensate for loss of landscape features and minimise visual impacts in the wider landscape setting. As confirmed by the County Council’s Landscape Officer, the improvements proposed could actually be ‘beneficial’ given the provision of a LEMP would deliver tangible improvements to landscape infrastructure and recreational use. Officers also note that some planting could be carried out in advance of the construction phase, such as the planting along the railway corridor to help ‘break up’ and filter views from the east. As such, emphasis on ‘advance’ planting to mitigate earlier impacts would be agreed as part of the 25 Year Landscape and Ecology Management Plan.

446 The catchment areas of the various component parts of the proposed Eco Park have

been discussed elsewhere in this report, as have the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management, which will be realised within those catchment areas and County-wide. Officers consider that the landscape and recreational benefits of the EEA which have been secured as part of the proposed Eco Park are such that the communities of Upper Halliford and Charlton, which are most impacted, do also fall to benefit most from it despite the acknowledged impacts on the local environment. It should be borne in mind that only those benefits that are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development proposed and fairly related to it in terms of scale and kind can be lawfully required as a pre-requisite to a decision to grant planning permission.

447 In conclusion, Officers consider that the proposed built development incorporates the

high standard of design in respect of built development and site layout (inc landscaping) required by both Policy DC3 and the KDC from the SWP 2008. With regards to site layout and landscaping, Officers conclude that with the successful implementation of the EEA and the LEMP, the proposed development would accord with the Development Plan provisions by appropriately mitigating visual and landscape impacts and helping to promote recreational use of the former mineral working to the east. Whilst Officers accept that there will be an impact on visual amenity from the new buildings proposed, particularly in the early stages on the development, the applicants have sought appropriate mitigation in accordance with Policy DC3 of the SWP. Officers do not

106

ITEM 6

consider, on balance, that the landscape and visual impact impacts of the proposed development viewed as a whole place it in breach of relevant development plan policy, and they are not so adverse as to warrant refusal of planning permission on this ground alone. The successful implementation of a LEMP is critical to the balanced view taken by Officers in this report. Although they do not warrant refusal, Officers wish to emphasise that they have taken adverse impacts (including those arising from the removal of existing landscaping and the need for new planting to mature) into account in the overall planning balance struck in accordance with Green Belt policy below.

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY 448 Rights of Way Officers have raised concerns about public access to the site and

potential conflicts with the landscape proposals. With these concerns in mind, Officers would ensure that the LEMP includes provisions to ensure the diverted footpath will be appropriately surfaced, given that it is to run in close proximity to the proposed seasonally damp grassland habitat. Objections have been received in respect of the ROW diversion and that the new footpath to the south should be adopted. This route runs north to south from its junction with Public Footpath No 70 (Sunbury) to a point on the access road, 47 metres south east of Ivydene Cottage. In response, the applicant has agreed with SCC that the new FP to the south would be dedicated as a ROW following determination of this application. The appropriate Head of Service would dedicate the route shown on Drawing No1007-02-01 as a Public Footpath, with it detailed on the ROW 'Definitive Map' and maintained by SCC's Countryside Access team. However, this route would only be dedicated as a Public Footpath if a Diversion Order for Public Footpath No 70 (Sunbury) is made and confirmed by the County Planning Authority. The new Public Footpath route would be legally required to have a width of 2.0 metres and would be surfaced to a width of 1.8 metres.

449 With regards to Right Of Way No. 70 and the Key Development Criteria from the SWP

2008, Officers consider that the condition recommended by the County’s Rights of Way Officer is adequate to ensure the appropriate management of the realigned footpath and note that the Rights of Way Officer has no objection to the proposed footpath diversion. In addition, measures would be agreed to ensure low-level fencing would be provided around the infiltration lagoon to separate users of the new footpath to the south from this feature. This infiltration lagoon would be mostly dry but the reed beds would need measures to protect them from damage in the early stages of the LEMP. Officers therefore consider that appropriate mitigation has been provided to minimise the impacts of the diversion of FP70 and on the open space, in accordance with Policy DC3 of the SWP 2008.

NOISE AND VIBRATION National, Regional and Development Plan Policy Context 450 Planning Policy Guidance Note 4 Planning and Noise (PPG24) provides Government

advice with regards to industrial and commercial development, which can be used to assess waste development. PPG24 states that in such cases BS4142 (Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas) would be the most appropriate guidance and that where a differences in noise levels are recorded of around 10 decibels (dB) or higher, complaints are likely (whereas a difference of around 5 dB is of marginal significance). Paragraph 11 of PPG24 recognises that the characteristics of noise, such as irregular noise or noise, which has a distinguishable tone, may cause concern and that these factors should be considered in the determination of planning applications.

451 SEP 2009 Policy NRM10 states that measures to address and reduce noise pollution will

be developed through means such as locating new residential and other sensitive

107

ITEM 6

development away from existing sources of significant noise or away from planned new sources of noise. SWP 2008 Policy DC3 (General Considerations) states that waste related development shall only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that any impacts of the development with regard to noise, can be controlled to achieve levels that will not significantly affect people, land, infrastructure and resources.

452 Surrey CC (Surrey Noise Guidelines) has produced its own ‘Guidelines for Noise Control

Minerals and Waste Disposal 1994’, based on the approach in Mineral Planning Guidance Note 11: Noise (MPG11). Mineral Planning Statement 2: Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Mineral Extraction in England (MPS2) has now superseded MPG11, but the advice in terms of noise remains consistent with MPG11 and the Surrey Noise Guidelines. This Guidance states that new noise produced from development must be no more than 5 decibels expressed as a LAeq value above existing working day background noise levels (LA90). Surrey County Council’s own noise guidance is more stringent than National guidance for night time noise. Critically for considering the Eco Park proposals (including a gasification and AD facility operating on a 24 hour basis), Surrey CC’s Noise Guidance states that in terms of fixed plant that may operate during the night-time period:

“The normal requirement is that any plant that is in operation at night should not be heard at the nearest sensitive location. Inaudibility is difficult to define but the requirements of this authority would be satisfied if the following three criteria were met. 1) The new noise on its own would produce an LAeq value 5dB(A) below the existing night-time LA90. 2) The acoustic spectrum (normally 1/3 octave) is 3dB below the existing night time spectrum at any frequency. 3) The new noise does not exhibit any tonal or impact characteristics.”

453 SWP 2008 Policy DC3 (General Considerations) states that planning applications should

assess any adverse effects on neighbouring amenity including noise, vibration and transport impacts and identify any appropriate mitigation. Lastly, Spelthorne Borough Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document February 2009 (SCS 2009) Policy EN11 (Development and Noise) seeks to minimise the impacts of noise and sets out a series of criteria by which to achieve this including measures to reduce noise to acceptable levels and ensuring provision of appropriate noise attenuation measures. In their response to the Eco Park proposal, Spelthorne Borough Council claim that their own guidance is more stringent than Surrey CC’s, though Officers note that SBC’s Guidance is identical for night-time noise (i.e. that new noise on its own must be under 5dB below existing night-time levels).

454 Spelthorne’s Environmental Health team confirm that two complaints were made against

the site in 2005 and that these concerned the noise from lorries reversing. The Environment Agency, on the other hand, has confirmed that they have no records of any complaints relating to noise.

Background noise and vibration assessment 455 Following consultation with the County Noise Consultant (CNC), the areas surrounding

the site were examined and the following suitable locations for static noise monitoring were established:

• Position 1: This monitoring location is east of the site at the rear of properties off

Hawthorn Way. The nearest sensitive receptor relative to the site boundary is at a distance of approximately 230 to 250 metres.

108

ITEM 6

• Position 2: This monitoring location is immediately south of the site adjacent to

Ivydene Cottage off Charlton Lane. The property adjoins the facility boundary with the garden boundary at a distance of approximately 75 metres from the MRF building and approximately 25 metres from the access road.

• Position 3: The nearest receptors to the west of the application site boundary are located off Charlton Road with the M3 Motorway on intervening ground between the site and the receptors (southeastern edge of Charlton village). The nearest sensitive receptor relative to the site’s boundary is at a distance of approximately 200 metres.

456 To indicate ground-borne vibration levels, measurements of ground-borne vibration were

taken from HGV’s travelling along an entrance access road at a similar waste management site and measurements from mobile plant on a construction site. These measurements provided the basis for the prediction of noise impacts within the noise and vibration assessment informing the previous application to permanently retain the existing waste management facility. The results of the background noise survey and observations at the nearest residential receptors clarify that the existing noise climate is dominated by local and distant road traffic noise (i.e. along Charlton Road and the M3 Motorway), intermittent train movements and regular aircraft movements from Heathrow.

Predicted noise and vibration assessment 457 The key issues considered in predicting noise and vibration effects of the Eco Park

proposal are road traffic noise, noise from vehicles on the site, fixed plant noise and vibration from construction activities. With regards to the future operation of the Eco Park, the facility would incorporate various plant areas, with the Anaerobic Digestion (AD) and Gasification Plant intended to operate 24 hours per day and 7 days a week. The submitted assessment assumes that the doors to the Gasification and AD building would be kept closed except to allow entry and exit for delivery vehicles during daytime operations (the CEMP measures detailed below included a provision that the doors into the Gasification or AD buildings would normally be in the closed position, where practicable) except for periods during the daytime for HGV access. The submitted noise and vibration survey and assessment provided information and advice on the following points:

• plant equipment and its location; • nearest noise and vibration sensitive receptors or sites; • likely source and vibration noise levels; • information on existing background and specific site noise levels at the nearest

sensitive receptors; • predictions of resultant noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors; and • examples of amelioration measures to reduce noise for the proposed development

by applying Best Available Techniques (“BAT”). 458 As determined by the Transport Assessment (TA) (see Traffic and access section of this

report), there is likely to be a reduction in HGV road traffic movements onto site during weekday operations as a result of the development in 2016. During the Saturday and Sunday period, the HGV traffic flows would be very similar, but with a slight increase on Sundays. Traffic accessing the CRC would remain primarily cars and at similar levels. Importantly, the predicted noise and vibration assessment was based on the calculation that mitigation measures would be are in place to help attenuate impact from both the construction and operational phase.

109

ITEM 6

Proposed mitigation

Construction Noise 459 The best practical means would be employed to control the noise generation, such as:

using equipment that is regularly maintained and (where necessary and practicable) fitted with silencers or acoustic hoods; and exercising control over hours of work, plant selection and plant location. For mitigation at Ivydene Cottage, a permanent acoustic screen along the northern and western boundary of the property would be introduced prior to the commencement of construction works. It was proposed that the screen be built to a height of 3 metres and would assist in reducing noise levels by between 5-10dB(A). However, the acoustic fence was raised to a height of 4 metres during the course of the application, as noted below.

460 In light of concerns raised by SBC and the owner of Ivydene Cottage about possible loss

of existing vegetation, however, it was then proposed during the course of the application process that the acoustic fence be repositioned northwards and westwards by 4 metres to enclose/protect existing planting. As confirmed by the CNC, this would marginally decrease the attenuation of noise from the waste management site, as the acoustic fence would be further from Ivydene Cottage. In response to this, the applicant raised the acoustic fence along the northern boundary of Ivydene Cottage from 3 to 4 metres and the CNC confirms that this has the potential to marginally increase the attenuation of noise from that receptor point and therefore slightly reduce the noise impact compared to the original proposed fence height and location. For clarity, the acoustic fence along the northern boundary was originally closer to Ivydene Cottage but was repositioned 4 metres to the north to enclose the existing vegetation along the northern boundary of Ivydene Cottage.

461 In order to assess any noise attenuation benefit from increasing the height of the

acoustic fence along the western boundary, the CNC was asked to carry out some initial modelling. The results of this estimated modelling were provided to Officers and are shown in the table below. Officers note the limited likely benefit of further revisions to the acoustic fence’s height in terms of noise attenuation and decibel levels (ie. a range of under 2 dB) would be.

Location 3m height 3.1m height 3.3m height 3.5m height Original position

31.7 dB - - -

3.5m westwards

31.8dB 31.5 dB 30.9 dB 30.3 dB

5m westwards 32.0 dB 31.6 dB 31.3 dB 30.4 dB 462 A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) would also be agreed to

ensure noise was kept to a minimum during the construction phase. Officers duly note the suggestions of Spelthorne Borough Council in their suggested measures and note those identified by the applicant, namely measures to ensure:

• restriction of construction hours to non-sensitive times of day; • routing of the construction plant to avoid the nearest residential properties; • local acoustic screening of piling rig operating area where practicable or acoustic

treatment at source or use piling rig with a lower sound power level; and • machines in intermittent use would be shut down whilst not being used.

Industrial Noise - Operational

110

ITEM 6

463 The HGV manoeuvring area on the eastern façade of the Gasification building would be

fitted with an acoustic screen formed into an `L’ shape having a height of 5 metres extending from the southeast corner of the building as far as the exit junction onto the access road. The screen would be solid and have a minimum mass of 10kg/m2 (or as required to meet wind loadings etc). In addition to this, the applicant highlights that there are a number of different ways in which the noise effects of the plant can be mitigated and identify measures, which are considered typical design features for such facilities. As these measures may vary depending upon the detailed design, technology provider and plant selection during the commissioning process; the applicant proposes they would therefore be agreed as part of a CEMP to be enforced at the site in the future. The following measures (though not an exhaustive list) are identified by the applicant:

• AD Processing, Reception, Maturation, Odour Control and Gasification plant would

be contained within buildings or enclosures except the Air Cooled Condenser. In addition, noise level inside the plant buildings would be limited to 80dB(A) @ 1 metre or lower (except noise from mobile plant, which may exceed this level);

• Plant buildings would be clad with double skin insulated cladding to give a minimum

Sound Reduction Index (Rw) of 45dB except in the following parts of the site:

a) Dry Recycling Bulking Facility building, which would have single skin cladding with a minimum Rw of 24dB; and

b) Gasification building east façade and roof which would be fitted with double skin insulated cladding to give a minimum Rw of 48dB.

• Air-cooled condenser would be fitted with peripheral screen above fans at high level

to a minimum height of 3 metres (this is normally formed by building cladding or similar).

• Odour Control and fan stacks would be fitted with an in-duct attenuator prior to air

entering stack (or if fans/ducting are within the building, the silencer would be positioned just before the stack exits the roof of the building) to control noise at the end of the stack to a level not exceeding 60dB(A) @ 1metre and should not contain any tonal characteristics.

• Gasification ventilation louvres or vents would be fitted with attenuators to control

noise to a level not exceeding 60dB(A) @ 1 metre. Where practicable, roof ventilation should be avoided and side wall mounted louvres (at high level) with attenuators facing away from residents would be used.

• Doors into plant buildings having a minimum Rw of 24dB, and doors into the AD and

Gasification building fast acting. • Air cooled condenser not to exceed a noise level of 78dB(A) @ 1m (excluding any

attenuation from proposed screen at high level); AD external plant to be limited to a noise level not exceeding 72dB(A) @ 1m (except intermittent use of flare at 75dB(A) @ 1m); and steam vents fitted with silencers to reduce noise level to 75dB(A) @ 1m.

• Any ventilation openings in walls or roof areas would contain noise `break-out’ from

the plant to a level not exceeding 60dB(A) @ 1 metre and would not contain any tonal characteristics. Where practicable any ventilation louvres should face towards the north (i.e. away from direction of the closest residential areas).

• Road Traffic Noise/Site Management

111

ITEM 6

464 The results of calculations of the impact of road traffic noise show a slight improvement

or no significant increase at the receptor positions selected for assessment; and therefore no mitigation is proposed by the applicant. This is considered acceptable by Officers given the other measures identified in this report. Effective site management would also help ensure that peak noise emanating from the plant is minimized and the following measures would also be included in the detailed design secured via the CEMP:

• Where practicable, doors would be kept closed during night-time periods except in

emergencies or for maintenance. Even at such times the doors should be kept closed as much as is practicable. When plant is operating, the doors into the Gasification or AD buildings would normally be in the closed position (where practicable) except for periods during the daytime for HGV access;

• Daytime use of HGV reverse alarms would be minimised by the use of turning circles

and design, with no use of mobile plant external to AD or Gasification buildings during night-time periods;

• Mobile plant used on site (e.g. forklifts and front loaders) to be fitted with broadband

noise type reverse alarms; and • Any steam vent safety valve checks, where practicable, would be carried out during

non-sensitive times of the day. Predicted noise situation Construction noise 465 Initial site preparation work is likely to involve demolition, the movement of soils and the

construction of new buildings and infrastructure. In addition, ancillary equipment such as small generators and compressors may also be operating on occasions during the construction period. Such noise sources and their associated activities would vary from day to day; and they may be in use at different stages of the proposed development for relatively short durations. The noisiest activities are expected to be generated during soil movement, demolition and piling work during the initial stages of the development when excavators, piling rigs, dozers or similar may be in use. The submitted Noise and Vibration assessment sets out that the only receptor likely to be affected would be Ivydene Cottage. The actual noise level produced by construction work would vary at Ivydene Cottage’s boundary at any time depending upon a number of factors including the plant location, duration of operation, hours of operation and type of plant being used.

466 The predicted noise levels assume that the acoustic screen proposed for Ivydene

Cottage’s northern and western boundary is built prior to the commencement of construction work. It is difficult to estimate how long the different types of activity would last; but in areas close to the site boundary the noisiest construction operations assessed would typically be completed in weeks rather than months. For the main elements of the development, the highest noise levels are likely to be created during site preparation, piling activities and building construction (when working at higher levels). The movement of soil may be part of the initial site preparation works and the assessment identifies that it is unlikely that any other significant sources of noise would be present on the site while these activities were being carried out. Officers therefore conclude that the increase in noise resulting from construction would result in an impact magnitude classification of negligible to slight during general and peak noise periods respectively. The highest noise levels would be experienced at Ivydene Cottage; however, as described previously, these impacts would only be temporary in nature. Officers note that further mitigation measures to deal with such temporary effects are proposed through the Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).

112

ITEM 6

Fixed plant noise

467 The assessment also considered the highest likely noise prediction relating to fixed and

mobile plant noise sources operating during daytime, evening and night-time periods at the Eco Park. This also assumes that the development includes noise attenuation measures, such as the acoustic fences. The submitted assessment demonstrates that, when compared to existing levels of noise from the current waste management facility, the Eco Park would actually create less noise during the day than those levels currently experienced at Hawthorn Way and Charlton Road (noise Positions 1 and 3 noted above).

468 With regards to Ivydene Cottage (Position 2), the assessment concludes that during the

daytime there would be an increase of 1dB on weekdays and 4dB on weekends. As such, the magnitude of the impact during daytime relates to negligible impact (i.e. no complaint likely at all positions) and the operational noise impacts from the facility are therefore not considered to represent a significant impact in EIA terms. With the mitigation measures (which include acoustic screening at receptor 2 and around the HGV area outside the Gasification Building) the noise level, being under 5 decibels, does not exceed (i) the limit in accordance with National guidance (British Standard 4142:1997), or (ii) the requirements set out in the Surrey County Council ‘Guidelines for Noise Control’ during the weekday or weekend period, or (iii) Spelthorne Borough Council’s own guidance.

Evening/Night-time Operations

469 The assessment also predicted noise levels during evening and night-time activities (i.e.

site operational without the CRC, dry RBF, receipt of waste, HGV and external mobile plant movement but with the Gasification facility and AD in operation, which would operate 24 hours a day / 7days a week). The results of the noise modelling show that the noise generated by the Eco Park at night would actually be lower than existing night-time noise levels at all three position receptors. Predicted site noise would be well below typical background noise levels and therefore a strong indication that complaints would not occur in accordance with National guidance.

470 However, Surrey CC’s guidelines are more stringent than those set at National level as

they require the baseline for any night-time noise assessment to be lower than the average level experienced - what could be described as the ‘quieter’ part of a night time. So for the purposes of this particular assessment, the applicant considered a baseline of the lower 25th percentile of the existing background levels minus 5 dBA. This would mean a criterion level of 34 LAeq at Hawthorn Way, 32 LAeq at Ivydene Cottage and 33 LAeq at Charlton Road. The assessment demonstrated that the Eco Park would contribute night-time noise at Hawthorn Way of 34 LAeq , at Charlton Road 33 LAeq and at Ivydene Cottage 31 LAeq – all of which would comply with the Surrey CC Noise Guideleines. On the basis that noise mitigation measures would be in place, the resultant noise levels during daytime, evening and night-time operations show no significant impact from Eco Park plant operations. The results also show that the Eco Park would meet the stringent noise guidelines set out in the Surrey Noise Guidelines.

Flare Noise and Emergency shut down

471 The submitted assessment sets out that noise would also be produced from a gas and

steam vent on the roof of the Gasification facility. Venting is required to release excess gas and steam pressure from the facility. Officers note the concerns of SBC and their request that details of when the vent will need to operate, its duration in worst-case scenarios, and its predicted impact on Ivydene Cottage and other nearby properties be provided. In addition, Spelthorne Borough Council requested that details of the attenuation of the steam vent silencers, when and how often steam vent safety checks

113

ITEM 6

would take place (including duration), and the impact on Ivydene Cottage and other nearby properties should also be submitted.

472 The gas and steam vent would only operate occasionally during periods when the

combined heat and power (AD and Gasification processes) system was out of operation. The applicant sets out that silencers would be fitted to these steam vents keeping noise levels to 75dB, which would mean the predicted noise contribution at the receptors identified above would be between 38-49dB - which is lower than or similar to existing daytime and night-time noise. Based on occasional use this noise source is not considered by Officers to be significant; and the CNC concurs with this conclusion.

473 However, during an emergency shut-down event the steam from the associated

Gasification plant would have to discharge to atmosphere, and the CNC confirms this would cause high noise levels compared to the vent noise noted above. It is difficult to assess the level of noise generated as it depends upon a number of factors, including steam pressure and velocity. The proposed examples of mitigation measures, to be secured though associated CEMP, include the installation of steam vent silencers to reduce the impact of this rare event. Officers have discussed this matter with the CNC and conclude that further measures are needed to mitigate any disturbance from these rare occasions and any testing of the emergency shut-down procedures during the commissioning phase of the plant and as part of any health and safety procedure in the future (similar to the regular testing of the fire alarm) and this would be included in the CEMP.

474 The CNC predicts a possible source noise level of approximately 120 LWA from

emergency venting (i.e. dumping) of steam during emergency shut-down. On this basis, the noise at Ivydene Cottage may be around 65 LAeq during the event and 58 LAeq at Hawthorne Way. Typical daytime noise levels at Ivydene Cottage and at Hawthorne Way are 62 LAeq; so a test of the emergency discharge would be quite noticeable at Ivydene Cottage and certainly audible at Hawthorne Way. Given the concerns raised by residents regarding safety of the new plant and operations, Officers consider it prudent to ensure procedures/timing of initial testing of the steam discharge valve would be agreed as part of the CEMP to ensure that local residents are informed when this will happen. Once these tests have been observed it is considered much less likely that residents would be concerned by a short daytime test at regular intervals, and it is therefore unlikely that pre-notification would be needed for the regular tests. Officers also consider that in the rare event of emergency steam venting being necessary, residents would be more appreciative of what the noise signified and therefore less alarmed.

475 With regards to the level of noise produced at night by emergency steam venting, the

CNC confirms that the internal bedroom noise level if this discharge was at night would be about approximately 45 LAeq for Ivydene Cottage and 38 LAeq for the houses on Hawthorne Way. World Health Organisation guidelines suggest that 30 LAeq is a good internal noise level for a bedroom at night; and the CNC considers that 38 LAeq very occasionally would not normally significantly disturb the residents on Hawthorn Way. At Ivydene Cottage, the internal noise level would be approximately 45 LAeq and this could cause some disturbance on these rare occasions. Officers consider that this must be weighed against the overall neutral impact on Ivydene Cottage at all other times compared to existing levels of noise. The CEMP would include procedures for the occupants of Ivydene Cottage being forewarned of testing procedures so they are more accustomed to the noise that steam venting produces. However, in light of the concerns raised, the CNC recommends the following condition:

‘For the day to day discharge of surplus steam any vent should be fitted with a suitable silencer to reduce noise levels to the equivalent of 75 dBA @ 1 m. In the case of an emergency shutdown requiring the emergency discharge of steam any vent should be fitted with a suitable silencer to reduce noise levels to the equivalent of 112 dBA @ 1 m.’

114

ITEM 6

Road traffic noise 476 The impact of predicted road traffic noise follows the TA’s conclusion that traffic will likely

decrease. The dwelling positions off Charlton Lane are the most sensitive receptors to any direct traffic flow increase and were therefore considered as part of the submitted assessment. The results show a reduction in noise levels during the weekday and Saturday periods, and a negligible increase along Charlton Lane to the east and the site’s access road of +0.1 to +0.2dB on Sundays. This would be below the Department of Transport’s guidance of 3dB and impacts are, therefore, not considered to be significant. With regards to complaints made to Spelthorne Borough Council’s Environmental Health team, Officers note: that no new road ‘humps’ are proposed that could produce the ‘body slap’ effect of empty vehicles exiting the site (as noted previously); and that the main area where HGV’s would need to reverse is behind the 5 metre acoustic screen to the east of the Gasification building. However, the CNC further recommends that no HGV movements should be allowed on the internal access roads before 08.00 on Sundays and bank Holidays to avoid additional noise in the quieter morning period, which can be secured by way of condition. As such, Officers consider that further complaints relating to noise disturbance from vehicles would be unlikely.

Predicted vibration 477 In terms of ground vibration relating to site construction, the assessment identified that

the highest likely vibration would be during piling and any vibratory rolling and the likely range of vibration is typically between 0.6 to 3.0mm/sec at around 30 metres distance (depending on ground conditions and size of pile). The nearest residential property is approximately 65 metres from the nearest Eco Park building and, based on experience, the assessment indicates that the vibration level at Ivydene Cottage is likely to be below 1mm/sec. The CNC concurs that this would be just perceptible at Ivydene Cottage and a minor adverse effect, given that it would only occur for the short construction period. The resultant level of vibration would be well below any limit relating to cosmetic or structural damage to the property. However, as set out below, the proposed CEMP would cover measures to ensure any vibration is kept to a minimum.

478 With regards to the operational period and any vibration nuisance, survey results at a

site having similar plant indicated that vibration levels from site operations would be negligible and would therefore be imperceptible at nearest receptors here. Lastly, regarding road traffic, the submitted assessment highlights that the general movement of HGV’s on relatively smooth access roads (even at close distance) would not normally give rise to excessive ground borne vibration. Even in situations where an HGV passes over a speed ’hump’, the level of vibration would be relatively low and therefore nuisance is unlikely. As noted earlier, no speed bumps are proposed and Officers therefore consider that there should be no concerns regarding vibration nuisance other than during the short term construction period.

Conclusion 479 Officers recognise that testing of the emergency shut-down procedures during the

commissioning phase and steam venting/emergency shut-down whilst the plant is operational will cause relatively high noise levels and mitigation measures are to be secured in respect of these. Mitigation measures are to be secured via conditions to ensure the installation of steam vent silencers and through the CEMP to ensure the occupants of Ivydene Cottage are forewarned of emergency shut-down testing procedures and are informed in advance of when such testing will occur whilst the plant is operational, which would reduce the impact of this rare event. Although steam venting or emergency shut-down would be rare events in the operation of the proposed

115

ITEM 6

development, Officers consider that the agreement of appropriate mitigation measures through the CEMP is required in accordance with Policy DC3 of the 2008 SWP.

480 Overall, however, no significant effects have been identified by the submitted

assessment in relation to operational plant noise or plant vibration and Table 12.19 from the submitted Noise Assessment (see below) provides a summary of the main predicted effects of both the construction and operational phases of the development in terms of the residual impact at the closest receptor (Ivydene Cottage) with both acoustic fences in place.

Noise Source Time Period Impact Significance

Construction Daytime Neutral to Minor Adverse Effect Road traffic Daytime Minor Beneficial Effect to Neutral Effect Industrial Daytime

Night-time

Neutral Effect Neutral Effect

Vibration (construction) Daytime Neutral to Minor Adverse Effect Vibration (facility operation) Daytime

Night-time

Neutral Effect Neutral Effect

481 With regards to noise from construction, the applicant proposes that best practical

means would be employed to control noise generated (e.g. using equipment that is regularly maintained, where practicable use equipment fitted with silencers or acoustic hoods where practicable, hours of work, plant selection and location etc). Officers therefore consider that a Construction Environmental Management Plan should be submitted and agreed to identify what measures would be implemented. Additionally, the acoustic fence proposed for Ivydene Cottage should be constructed prior to the commencement of the construction phase and the CNC advises that a condition should be attached to ensure the acoustic fence is constructed before any other operations take place.

482 The results of noise calculations of the impact of road traffic noise relative to the local

road network show no significant increase at the receptor positions and therefore no mitigation is proposed. However, with regards to industrial / operational noise the predicted levels from the site have been calculated on the basis of an acoustic fence being provided around the northern and western boundary of Ivydene Cottage. The acoustic fence modelled in the assessment was to be constructed to a height of 3 metres using close-boarded fencing or similar solid screen having a minimum mass of 10kg/m2. However, as noted above, the acoustic fence along the northern boundary would be constructed to a height of 4 metres in height though remain at 3 metres in height along the western boundary. The acoustic fence was also repositioned westwards and northwards by 4 metres during the course of the application, in order to protect existing vegetation along the northern and western boundary. In addition, a 5 metre high acoustic barrier would be provided around the vehicle manoeuvring area for the Gasification facility using close-boarded fencing or similar solid screen having a minimum mass of 15kg/m2.

483 Officers consider that increasing the height of the acoustic fence along the western

boundary of Ivydene Cottage above 3 metres (similar to the northern boundary) would be inappropriate on visual amenity grounds and any limited noise attenuation benefit must be weighed against this. However, the increased height of the acoustic fence along the northern boundary to 4 metres would provide some limited further noise attenuation and given this section of the fence would be some 50 metres from rear first floor habitable windows of Ivydene Cottage, Officers consider this to be an acceptable arrangement. The revised acoustic fence (with protected natural screening along the northern and

116

ITEM 6

western boundary of Ivydene Cottage) is deemed to be a successful compromise, attenuating noise impacts to acceptable levels whilst protecting visual amenities.

484 The CNC agrees with the findings of the assessment undertaken and confirms that both

acoustic fences would ensure that no significant noise impacts from either the construction or operation of the development or any associated traffic would be experienced at Ivydene Cottage. Additionally, no significant effects would be experienced with regards to ground borne vibration from operations at the site, although a short-term temporary effect may be experienced during the new access construction phase. Officers therefore consider that the proposed development complies with the Development Plan with regards to noise and vibration effects on neighbouring amenity and any impacts have been appropriately mitigated in accordance with Policy DC3 of the SWP 2008. Although it does not warrant refusal, Officers emphasise again that they have taken the residual noise impact on Ivydene Cottage into account in the context of Green Belt policy below.

SURFACE WATER AND FLOOD RISK National, Regional and Development Plan Context 485 Government guidance and policy on flooding is contained in the March 2010 revised

Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS25) and Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide (PPS25 Practice Guide). The aims of the planning policy on flood risk, as set out in PPS 25 and the related practice guide, are: to ensure that flood risk is taken into account in planning decisions and plan preparation; to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding and direct development away from high flood risk; and (where development is, exceptionally, necessary in high flood risk areas) make it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere and, where possible, reducing flood risk overall.

486 South East Plan 2009 (SEP 2009) Policy NRM1 (Sustainable Water Resources and

Groundwater Quality) states that water supply and ground water will be maintained and enhanced through avoiding adverse effects of development on the water environment. SEP 2009 Policy NRM2 (Water Quality) provides that water quality will be maintained and enhanced through avoiding adverse effects of development on the water environment. SEP 2009 Policy NRM4 (Sustainable Flood Risk Management) states that the sequential approach to development in flood risk areas as set out in PPS25 will be followed and that inappropriate development should not be allocated or permitted in Flood Zones 2 and 3, areas at risk of surface water flooding (critical drainage areas), or areas with a history of groundwater flooding, or where the proposal would increase flood risk elsewhere - unless there is an overriding need and absence of suitable alternatives.

487 SWP 2008 Policy DC3 (General Considerations) states that planning permissions for

waste related development will be granted provided it can be demonstrated by the provision of appropriate information to support a planning application that any impacts of the development can be controlled to achieve levels that will not significantly adversely affect people, land, infrastructure and resources. The information supporting the planning application must include, where relevant to a development proposal, assessment of: the contamination of ground and surface water; the drainage of the site and adjoining land and the risk of flooding; and the groundwater conditions and the hydrogeology of the locality. Where necessary, appropriate mitigation should be identified so as to minimise or avoid any material adverse impact and compensate for any loss. SCS 2009 Policy LO1 (Flooding) seeks to reduce flood risk and its adverse effects on people and property in Spelthorne through a range of measures including: maintaining flood storage capacity within Flood Zone 3; and maintaining the effectiveness of the more frequently flooded area (Zone 3b) of the floodplain to both store water and allow the movement of fast flowing water.

117

ITEM 6

488 The site lies within the hydrological catchment of the River Ash, which runs to the south

of the site in a NW to SE direction (nearest point approx. 350m south west of the site boundary). However, there are no watercourses present on the site or, indeed, providing any connectivity to the River Ash across the intervening land. In turn, the River Ash lies in the wider hydrological catchment of the River Thames, which lies approximately 2km south and east of the site’s boundary. The site does not lie within an area at risk from tidal or fluvial flooding according to the Environment Agency’s floodplain mapping system (updated in 2009), which post dates SBC’s 2006 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. The site is categorised as a Flood Zone 1 (PPS25) and is appropriate for all types of development/uses - subject to the finding of a flood risk assessment appropriate to the scale and nature of the proposals. The EA’s Guidance confirms that, whilst a flood risk assessment should still be undertaken in support of development proposals for sites over 1 ha, the emphasis of this assessment should be on the management of surface water runoff as opposed to the sensitivity of the development itself to flooding.

489 The proposed redevelopment of the Charlton Lane site would result in the removal of the

existing surface water drainage system. The Eco Park would introduce large new areas of impermeable surfacing (roofs, roads and hardstandings) that, without mitigation, could adversely affect the level of flood risk at the site and beyond. The Eco Park proposal therefore includes a completely new surface water drainage system, which would combine the SUDS principles of attenuation and infiltration, discharging collected flows to an infiltration basin located in the southeast of the site. The proposed Eco Park would benefit from a completely new surface water drainage system. This would combine the SUDS principles of attenuation and infiltration, discharging collected flows to an infiltration basin located in the southeast of the site. In addition, a cut-off wall (sub-surface) has been incorporated into the design of the infiltration basin.

490 Site investigation work has shown that the groundwater levels at the site are approx.

1.5m - 2.0m below the surface, and as such it is proposed to introduce a pumped system in order to direct the surface water runoff to the infiltration basin (soakaway). The applicant has submitted that whilst this is not the most sustainable solution, it is the only option available in the circumstances and is a proven engineering technique widely employed on sites elsewhere. In addition, extra storage capacity (700m3) would be provided in the form of over-sized pipe work (reducing the rate at which flows would need to be pumped into the infiltration basin). The subsequent run off rate is considered to represent a very low ‘greenfield’ runoff rate in accordance with the objectives of PPS 25. A condition would deal with the detailed design of the foul and surface water drainage infrastructure.

491 The applicant notes that Spelthorne Borough Council and the Environment Agency

identified some anecdotal evidence that part of the development site has historically been affected by flooding from groundwater sources. The submitted assessment clarifies that the EA’s anecdotal evidence appeared to refer to an area of low-lying land to the north of the existing operational area at Charlton Lane. After examination of the historical site investigation data, the applicant considers that the standing water is more likely to be surface ponding (or potentially a perched water table) and highlights that there is no anecdotal or recorded evidence to suggest that this localised area of ‘flooding’ has ever encroached onto the operational development footprint. Furthermore, the applicant emphasises that examination of the topographical survey data for this area showed a ‘freeboard’ of approximately 600mm between the recorded water levels and the lowest development/hardstanding areas and, specifically, the existing bulking bays. Accordingly, for the operational development to be inundated with floodwaters in this location a significant area of the surrounding land, extending beyond the Charlton Lane site itself, would have to flood first (irrespective of the origin of those floodwaters). The assessment therefore concludes that the prospect of such flooding occurring from groundwater

118

ITEM 6

sources can be discounted entirely and the potential risks would therefore be negligible/insignificant.

492 The owner of Ivydene Cottage has raised concerns with regard to the land to the east of

the site, which is claimed to be prone to flooding, and that the ‘creation of a lake’ would cause flooding to the said property. There is no lake being created by the proposal. The feature referred to is an infiltration basin for surface water drainage, and the submitted assessment confirms that this application poses insignificant / negligible risks regarding flooding; and Officers consider that no measures beyond those proposed are necessary.

493 In light of the fact that Charlton Lane is within Zone 1 Flood Risk Area (i.e. ‘Low

Probability’) and the further assessment carried out in response to the anecdotal evidence referred to above, Officers consider that a robust assessment has been undertaken. There are considered to be no adverse impacts in terms of surface water or flooding in connection with the proposed Eco Park development, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions as confirmed by the CGC and the EA. As such, Officers consider this development would accord with the relevant Development Plan policies with regards surface water and flooding including the requirement to undertake a flood risk assessment in response to SWP 2008 KDC.

SOILS, GEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER

National, Regional and Development Plan Context 494 Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control (PPS23) is also relevant in

respect of preventing the contamination of soils and groundwater. South East Plan 2009 (SEP 2009) Policy NRM1 (Sustainable Water Resources and Groundwater Quality) states that water supply and ground water will be maintained and enhanced through avoiding adverse effects of development on the water environment. SEP 2009 Policy NRM2 (Water Quality) provides that water quality will be maintained and enhanced through avoiding adverse effects of development on the water environment.

495 SWP 2008 Policy DC3 (General Considerations) states that planning permissions for waste related development will be granted provided it can be demonstrated by the provision of appropriate information to support a planning application that any impacts of the development can be controlled to achieve levels that will not significantly adversely affect people, land, infrastructure and resources. The information supporting the planning application must include, where relevant to a development proposal, assessment of: the contamination of ground and surface water; the drainage of the site and adjoining land and the risk of flooding; and the groundwater conditions and the hydrogeology of the locality. Where necessary, appropriate mitigation should be identified so as to minimise or avoid any material adverse impact and compensate for any loss. Lastly, SCS 2009 Policy EN15 (Development on Land Affected by Contamination) sets out that the Borough Council will ensure that where development is proposed on land that may be affected by contamination, action will be taken to ensure the site is safe or will be made safe for its intended use.

496 The assessment on these matters in the ES was based on the findings of a Phase 1

Desk Study Report, which was a desk based assessment with a site walkover and contamination hazard assessment and geotechnical assessment of the site. The desktop study comprised a study of published historic mapping, geological mapping and publicly available environmental data. Previous site investigation reports and contamination test data for the site have also been used to inform the risk assessment. The site walkover was undertaken on 17th June 2010, with trial pitting undertaken to investigate potential drainage options and some limited sampling and analysis (Phase 1 works). An intrusive site investigation was undertaken in August 2010 to investigate the potential effects of the proposed surface water drainage system on groundwater. This

119

ITEM 6

investigation included detailed exploratory ground investigation and testing in and around the area of a proposed infiltration basin in order to confirm the findings from the desk study. In total data from 92 exploratory holes has been used in the various risk assessments carried out and 61 soil samples and 45 groundwaters were tested for potential contaminants.

497 The assessment identified potential sources of contamination associated with the site’s

potentially contaminative past uses (namely an incinerator, waste transfer site and two infilled ponds to the west of the former incinerator). However, the assessment methodology indicates that these are of low to moderate significance - with the exception of potential impacts associated with ground gas. Gas monitoring would be undertaken in advance of construction and the applicant considers that appropriate mitigation measures could put in place. A supplementary Phase II intrusive ground investigation to confirm the outcome of the various risk assessments is recommended prior to commencement of development, which would be secured by way of condition.

498 The Environment Agency do not have any in-principle objections to the proposal and are satisfied that conditions would be able to control mitigation and any further assessment. In view of the relatively low risk nature of the main site and that the infiltration basin had been subject to intrusive investigation and more detailed risk assessment, both the EA and CGC advised that supplementary ground investigations could be dealt with post consent by a suitably worded condition. However, the County Environmental Assessment Officer (CEA) raised concerns that the final EA response was somewhat equivocal though nonetheless still considered it was appropriate to condition the Phase II ground investigations work in light of the EIA Regulations. The CPA therefore sought further advice from the CGC in light of these concerns. The response from the CGC concluded that there was sufficient information before the CPA to enable the application to be determined, and that there are “highly unlikely to be significant risks present that have not been identified” by means of the Phase II work. As such, the CGC advised that the Phase II investigations may be dealt with by condition.

499 The applicant’s assessment of the risk to controlled waters from the proposed infiltration basin indicates a low potential risk to ground waters. However, a cut-off wall has been incorporated into the design of the infiltration basin as a further precaution to prevent any possible connectivity between the water from the infiltration basin and the groundwater in the more permeable area of historically deposited waste at the former mineral workings to the east.

500 The Environment Agency, Spelthorne Borough Council’s EHO and the CGC agree with

the applicant’s conclusion that there are not considered to be any significant residual impacts on Soils and Geology, Hydrogeology and Controlled Waters associated with ground contamination, and they have recommended that sufficient information has been provided to enable the Planning Application to be determined. However, conditions should be attached to any permission on this site to require the carrying out of a supplementary Phase II ground investigation to confirm the assessments relating to potential contamination that may exist from previous uses at the site. Officers have recommended a condition to deal with any contaminated made ground, which would involve the submission of a remediation strategy.

501 Officers consider that a robust assessment has been undertaken. There are considered

to be no adverse impacts in terms of geology, soils or hydrology in connection with the proposed Eco Park development, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions as confirmed by the CGC and the EA. As such, Officers consider this development would accord with the relevant Development Plan policies with regards to geology, soils and hydrology and the proposal accords with Policy DC3 of the 2008 SWP and its requirement to identify appropriate mitigation to deal with contamination of ground, in addition to groundwater conditions and the hydrology of the locality.

120

ITEM 6

ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION National, Regional and Development Plan Context

502 Planning Policy Statement 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (PPS9) sets out policies that apply to the integration of the protection of biodiversity and geological conservation and planning. Further advice is contained in Government Circular 06/2005 ‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation’. The Government’s objectives for planning are to promote sustainable development, conserve, enhance and restore the diversity of England’s wildlife and geology and contribute to rural renewal and urban renaissance.

503 SEP 2009 Policy NRM5 aims to protect and enhance the biodiversity of the region,

seeking to avoid a net loss of biodiversity, actively pursue opportunities to achieve a net gain across the region through providing the highest level of protection for internationally designated sites, to ensure that damage to county and locally important wildlife sites is avoided and that unavoidable damage to wildlife interest is minimised through mitigation and any damage is compensated for. The policy also seeks opportunities for biodiversity improvement including connection of sites, large-scale habitat restoration and the enhancement and re-creation in areas of strategy opportunity for biodiversity improvement. SWP 2008 Policy DC3 ‘General Considerations’ states that planning applications should assess the loss or damage to flora and fauna and their respective habitats at the site or on adjoining land and identify any appropriate mitigation.

504 SCS 2009 Policies SP6 (Maintaining and Improving the Environment) and EN8

(Protecting and Improving the Landscape and Biodiversity) seek to protect and improve the landscape and biodiversity of the Borough through: safeguarding sites of international and national importance; working with others to develop and secure the implementation of projects to enhance the landscape and create or improve habitats of nature conservation value; wherever possible ensuring that new development contributes to an improvement in landscape and biodiversity and also avoids harm to features of conservation interests; and states planning permission will be refused where development would have a significant harmful impact on the landscape or features of nature conservation value.

Potential effects on priority species and potential ecological interest features recorded at the site

505 The submitted assessment involved extensive surveys of the site and its surroundings

and recorded several priority species and features of ecological interest. Owing to the development proposals, particularly the construction phase, these would be affected to varying degrees. Whether appropriate mitigation could be provided to deal with these impacts is critical to the Development Plan policies that seek to protect ecological and conservation interests. Table 9.9 from the submitted assessment (provided below) identifies the features of interest, potential impacts, the risk that such impacts would occur and whether mitigation could adequately deal with such impacts (i.e. the ‘reversibility’ of such an impact):

121

ITEM 6

Interest feature Potential impact and magnitude / extent

Risk of occurrence and reversibility

Pipistrelle bat Loss of habitat connectivity around current site northwestern, northern and eastern boundaries; low magnitude of effect due to limited use of site.

High risk; reversible within 5 years with replacement planting, potential to provide enhanced habitat.

Cinnabar moth Loss of grassland habitat, likely leading to loss of local population around site.

Certain to occur, recolonisation likely in early stages of new plantations.

Common toad Potential loss of scrub habitat, impact on small number of individuals, unlikely to affect any breeding populations in wider vicinity of site.

Low risk as records were all to north of likely development footprint; potential to provide enhanced habitat in short term through mitigation.

Reed bunting Possible loss of scattered scrub / marshy grassland habitat, may affect part of one territory.

Low risk as most scattered scrub and marshy grassland retained; potential to provide enhanced habitat in short / medium term through mitigation.

Dunnock Loss of up to 2 breeding territories from peripheral scrub habitats.

High risk, reversible in medium term through mitigation.

Mature broadleaf woodland & associated breeding birds

Minor increase in noise during certain construction operations.

Low risk given duration and magnitude

Plantation immature woodland & scrub

High magnitude of effect, over 50% overall loss depending on construction details.

Certain to occur as within development footprint; reversible in the medium term (5 years +).

Mature isolated willow trees

Potential impacts of construction compound to north of trees, compaction and/or pollution of rooting zone.

Low risk as compound located outside rooting zone, but not reversible in short or medium term.

Impact significance

506 The EIA considered the magnitude of impact and the following summary identifies both

the features of interest and potential impact on site integrity or conservation status. All of these features would be of local importance, apart from the Dunnock (ranked as of ‘negligible’ importance).

• Pipistrelle bat: Very unlikely to affect conservation status due to low utilization -

minor significance; • Cinnabar moth: May affect conservation status in local (sub 1km2) area but still

common and widespread - moderate significance; • Common toad: Very unlikely to affect conservation status in wider vicinity of site -

minor significance at worst; • Reed bunting: Would not affect carrying capacity of site to support this species and

would not therefore affect local conservation status- negligible significance; • Dunnock: Would not affect conservation status in wider vicinity of site, loss of habitat

for 1-2 pairs of common species is of negligible significance; • Mature broadleaved woodland and associated fauna: Would not affect site integrity

and no direct, or other indirect impacts likely - negligible significance; • Immature plantation woodland and scrub: Major impact on extent of feature and its

connectivity, relatively limited value gives it no more than minor significance; and

122

ITEM 6

• Mature isolated willow trees: May impact on 1-2 trees, impact of minor significance at

worst.

Appropriate Assessment 507 After considering potential impacts of nutrient enrichment and acidification through

atmospheric emission and deposition, and possible disturbance the submitted assessment concluded that there can be a high degree of confidence that there would be no likely significant effect on the SW London Waterbodies SPA (the nearest such receptor); and an Appropriate Assessment under Regulation 61 of the 2010 Habitats and Species Regulations was not therefore deemed to be necessary by the applicant. The County Council’s Environmental Assessment team has examined this proposal and Natural England concur with their conclusion, i.e. an Appropriate Assessment was not required. On 25 January 2011, the CPA concluded (adoption of screening opinion) that a full Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitats Regulations) was not required.

Mitigation

508 The proposed mitigation focuses on the following interest features where some impacts,

albeit of low significance, were identified by the above assessment:

• pipistrelle / bat foraging habitat; • cinnabar moth; • common toad; • reed bunting; • dunnock; • plantation woodland and scrub; and • mature trees.

509 The submitted assessment explains that the EEA to the north and east of the proposed development is an important component of the mitigation measures, providing compensatory habitat creation as well as enhancement measures. Mitigation for bats would involve offsetting losses of linear plantations with new planting around the periphery of the new site boundary, with planting to the north and east of the development. Connectivity across the wider landscape around the site would be improved by planting two linear arcs of trees and scrub near the eastern boundary of the enhancement area alongside the railway line, with further hedgerow planting connecting the new landscape planting with areas likely to be attractive to foraging bats (such as the fishing lake and surrounding trees to the north-east of the site). Habitat quality for foraging bats within the landscape enhancement area would be improved by providing wetland habitats, and managing grassland to promote species diversity. Both of these measures would increase the density of nocturnal flying insects over the site, which together with the extra shelter provided by plantation corridors would serve to increase its utilisation by foraging bats.

510 The submitted assessment also indicates that it is not possible to directly mitigate

against the loss of cinnabar moth breeding habitat, since their food plant is itself a notifiable weed under the 1956 Weeds Act, and therefore cannot be deliberately introduced. However, the conservation grassland habitat would have the potential to support cinnabar moth, depending on management. Mitigation for toads was considered as part of the design process by avoiding direct impacts on habitats where they have been recorded (marshy grassland and scattered scrub). Common toad would benefit from the provision of the wetland habitat created as a result of the surface water infiltration basin, as well as additional planting of scrub and hedgerows.

123

ITEM 6

511 Reed bunting on this site favour areas of scattered scrub in tall grassland and were not

recorded in any of the dense scrub or plantation habitats which would be lost as a consequence of the development. The creation of wetland areas in the form of the infiltration basin and additional areas of scrub planting would increase the carrying capacity of the site for this species above the present two territories recorded, potentially extending utilisation of habitats southwards into the landscape enhancement area of the Eco Park. Dunnock would be impacted, along with other common woodland and hedgerow species, by the reduction in area of plantation woodland and scrub habitats. This impact would be mitigated by new planting, which would start to provide suitable replacement habitat within a few years of growth. Additional planting in the eastern part of the Eco Park would increase the carrying capacity of the site for this species, complementing adjacent habitats such as gardens and allotments on the east side of the rail tracks.

512 Loss of plantation woodland and scrub would be directly compensated by new planting

to the east and north of the development, with the northern planting located to preserve the area of marshy grassland and scattered scrub. The new planting would have a species mix which includes a high diversity of locally native species. Impacts on the two large white willows near the construction compound would be avoided by fencing the compound at an appropriate proposed stand-off from the trees in accordance with BS5837.

513 Officers consider that what is intended in terms of habitat creation and management is

entirely feasible and support fully the aims of managing-out non-native species and ensuring that nature conservation/biodiversity objectives are fulfilled by introducing the right range of species and habitats. Management will be the essential component here, so the importance of the LEMP cannot be over-emphasised. The loss of the existing tree structure on the east boundary does provide a useful means of removing non-native species en-mass, which is something the County Ecologist strongly endorses - even if it does mean completely re-starting with new planting. In general terms, Officers are not overly-concerned about ecological impacts during the construction phase, although loss of bird nesting sites might feature as a consideration. There are also unlikely to be effects on aspects of recognised interest during either the construction or operational phases, and in broad terms biodiversity interests locally would be significantly strengthened as a result of environmental enhancement here.

514 In response to this application Surrey Wildlife Trust advise that the CPA should seek a

significant amount of biodiversity mitigation provided in a ‘Biodiversity Enhancement Scheme’, to deal with the likely considerable effects on local biodiversity (both on site and off-site). The Surrey Wildlife Trust has suggested that, this scheme should also be supported by both an ‘Ecological Construction Method Statement’ and a ‘Landscaping Design Plan’. The County Council’s Ecology Officer has considered the comments made by Surrey Wildlife Trust and concurs that the LEMP should incorporate SWT suggestions, which could include features such as avoiding vegetation clearance during the bird nesting season and the provision of bat boxes.

Conclusion

515 The submitted ecological assessment demonstrates that there are no protected species

issues arising from the proposed development, with a low level of foraging activity by Pipistrelle bat the only bat species recorded on site. A number of priority species for the maintenance of biological diversity, listed under Section 41 of the 2006 Natural Resources and Rural Communities Act, were recorded in the site and on the wider EEA to the east. All of these are common and widespread species, and the site does not have a particular importance for the maintenance of their conservation status in the wider area. Habitats within and around the site are mostly of relatively recent origin and of relatively limited value for nature conservation. The exception is an area of broadleaved

124

ITEM 6

woodland to the west of the site, which is older established with mature trees and deadwood habitats; but this is nevertheless of plantation origin, with a high proportion of non-native species in the canopy. Some of the more recently established habitats, including small areas of marshy grassland, open grassland, plantation and scrub, have developed a local value for nature conservation.

516 The local open space around the development supports few features of significant

ecological interest, and is relatively isolated by transport corridors from interest features (such as river corridors and open waterbodies) in the wider ecological context. The development would not therefore contravene protected species legislation, and addresses any impacts on ecological interest features during construction and operation with appropriately-targeted mitigation measures. Sensitive ecological receptors remote from the site, which could be vulnerable to impacts from atmospheric deposition, noise or water pollution, were also considered through the submitted assessment. No significant impacts are predicted on any European or UK statutory designated sites, including the SW London Waterbodies SPA.

517 Officers note that the no objection was raised to this application by Natural England,

though Surrey Wildlife Trust suggest further measures to be included in the LEMP to be submitted to and agreed by the CPA. Having regard to the SWP 2008 Key Development Criterion relating to Appropriate Assessment (which indicates that particular attention likely to be necessary for thermal treatment and potential noise impacts), Natural England concur that no Appropriate Assessment is required in this case under the Habitats Regulations.

518 One of the key components of this application is the proposed EEA and the 25 year

LEMP. These would result in new habitats and therefore enhance conservation and biodiversity interests and value. The approach adopted extends well beyond the immediate allocated site boundary to provide a ‘holistic’ package of improvements, which are strongly supported and welcomed by the County Ecologist. Officers consider that from a landscape and ecology perspective, the applicant has gone as far as it is reasonably possible to go, and has responded positively to the guidance/advice of Surrey CC Officers throughout the pre-application process. Overall, Officers consider that the results evolving from this package of improvements would be of considerable benefit in terms of local environmental well-being. The environmental mitigation and enhancement proposals would result in a significant improvement in biodiversity on land to the north and east of the development site; and this would result in positive residual impacts for most of the ecological interest features potentially affected by the development.

519 Officers consider that this application complies with the relevant Development Policies

and particularly SWP 2008 Policy DC3 (which states that appropriate mitigation should be identified so as to minimise or avoid any loss or damage to flora and fauna and their respective habitats at the site or on adjoining land including linear or other features which facilitate the dispersal or features).

LIGHTING Development Plan Context 520 SWP 2008 Policy DC3 (General Considerations) states that planning applications should

assess any adverse effects on neighbouring amenity including glare and identify any appropriate mitigation. Spelthorne Core strategy Policy EN13 (Light Pollution) sets out that the Borough Council will seek to reduce light pollution by: (a) encouraging the installation of appropriate lighting including that provided by other statutory bodies; (b) only permitting lighting proposals which would not adversely affect amenity or public safety; and (c) requiring the lights to be either - appropriately shielded, directed to the

125

ITEM 6

ground and sited to minimise any impact on adjoining areas or of a height and illumination level of the minimum required to serve their purpose.

521 The Environmental Statement assessed the impact of lighting and contained a full

scheme of lighting design details for the Eco Park proposals. The County Lighting Consultant (CLC) has no objection to the development subject to a condition to ensure that the proposed lighting be installed and used in accordance with the details provided and that the completed scheme complies with the national guidance on obtrusive light limits in respect of: upward light; vertical light spill onto the windows of Ivydene Cottage; glare at Ivydene Cottage; and glare for adjacent highway and motorway users. The CLC also recommends that such a condition should ensure that the CPA should be entitled, at any time during the first 12 months of operation, to require the applicant to adjust or shield any light source deemed by it to be a nuisance.

522 As noted elsewhere in this report, the CLC confirms there would be no issues with glare

or reflections from the 49m stack because very little light would be incident on the stack above walkway canopy height, the finish is specular (mirror-like), and what little light does reach it would be reflected up and away from sensitive receptors. Officers consider the above condition to be sufficient to deal with any light impact and the protection of residential amenities in the vicinity and that the application therefore accords with SWP 2008 Policy DC3 and other relevant Development Plan policies.

ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE Development Plan Context 523 SWP 2008 Policy DC3 ‘General Considerations’ states that planning applications should

assess the loss or damage to archaeological resources and identify any appropriate mitigation. As such, the applicant has submitted an assessment to consider the effects upon the archaeology and cultural heritage resources that could result from the proposed Eco Park at Charlton Lane (including the EEA). SCS 2009 Policy EN5 (Buildings of Architectural and Historic Interest) seeks to preserve the Borough’s architectural and historic heritage. SCS 2009 Policies Policy EN6 (Conservation Areas, Historic Landscapes, Parks and Gardens) seeks to preserve and enhance the character of the borough’s conservations areas, in addition to maintaining and enhancing areas of historic landscape value and gardens of special historic interest. Policy BE26 Archaeology and Ancient Monuments is a saved policy under the Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001. The policy requires archaeological evaluation to be carried out on sites larger than 0.4 ha that fall outside the defined areas of High Archaeological Potential.

Existing situation

524 Given that the majority of the proposed development area has been subject to ground

disturbance as a result of previous development the submitted assessment focused on the potential for indirect effects on cultural heritage assets in terms of the setting. However, following discussions with County Archaeologist, it was agreed that the assessment should be supported by a Desk-Based Assessment (DBA), in order to consider the potential for risk to disturbance of below-ground remains.

525 The Surrey Historic Environment Record includes a number of heritage assets in the

vicinity of the proposed development site – ranging from prehistoric features and find spots to 18th and 19th/20th century listed buildings. The presence of a diverse variety of features, which represent all archaeological periods, indicates that the proposed development site lies in an area of significant heritage interest with evidence of human effect on the landscape from prehistory. Notwithstanding this, the DBA acknowledges that since the 1950s the site has been subject to a number of developments, including

126

ITEM 6

gravel/sand extraction to the east of the existing waste management facility (these extraction pits have subsequently been infilled). These activities are likely to have affected any surviving archaeological deposits at those locations.

Potential Impacts

526 With regard to Listed Buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Conservation Areas,

the applicant acknowledges that the topography of the 2km search area surrounding the site is predominantly flat in nature which would normally facilitate direct inter-visibility between the site and any potentially sensitive heritage receptors. The presence of intervening domestic and commercial buildings, built infrastructure and mature vegetation (trees and hedges) in the area surrounding the site assist in ensuring that direct views between the site and potential sensitive heritage receptors are limited. The submitted assessment identified a number of listed buildings that would experience a minor effect on their setting. Such effects were not, however, considered significant in EIA terms and the project would not result in significant residual impacts on surface heritage assets.

527 With reference to the identified sites and features of archaeological interest, the DBA

recognised that the proposed development would involve ground disturbance works with foundations, services, drainage and infrastructure and landscaping. Although significant parts of the site would have been affected by previous ground disturbance works, there is a possibility that isolated pockets of archaeological deposits survive across the site. As such, a limited watching brief is proposed by the applicant to mitigate the potential impact of disturbance to buried features.

528 However, the County Archaeologist disagrees that simply a ‘watching brief’ is adequate

and recommends that no development should take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work. Such a programme of work should accord with a Written Scheme of Investigation, to be submitted to and approved in writing by the CPA. Officers note the response of the County Archaeologist and consider that a condition to secure further details on a programme of works (by means of a Written Scheme of Investigation) would be appropriate in this case before any development takes place.

Conclusions

529 SWP 2008 Policy DC3 (General Considerations) states that planning applications should

assess the loss or damage to archaeological resources and identify any appropriate mitigation. As such, the applicant has submitted an assessment to consider the effects upon the archaeology and cultural heritage resources that could result from the proposed Eco Park at Charlton Lane (including the EEA). In light of that assessment, Officers consider that the possibility of archaeological deposits across the site would be limited. The County Archaeologist’s suggested condition would be a reasonable safeguard in this case and subject to it the proposed development would accord with the provisions of SWP 2008 Policy DC3 and other relevant Development Policies on archaeological and cultural heritage matters. With regards to impacts on cultural heritage, Officers concur with the submitted assessment that although a number of assets would experience a minor effect on their setting, particularly given the larger Gasification building and 49 metres stack proposed and potential views from the wider townscape / landscape, such effects would not result in significant residual impacts

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 530 An assessment of potential cumulative effects during the construction and operational

phase of the proposed development was undertaken as part of the EIA supporting this application. A number of projects within 5km were identified, in consultation with local

127

ITEM 6

planning authorities that could have the potential to result in significant environmental effects in combination with the proposal. The projects considered are set out below:

• Shepperton Studio redevelopment, Spelthorne Borough Council (1.3km to west). • 3no. mineral extractions, Spelthorne Borough Council (2.2km - 3km to west, including

‘Home Farm’); • Walton Bridge, Spelthorne Borough Council (2.5km to south); • Redevelopment of industrial units, London Borough of Hounslow (3.75km to north);

and • Thorpe Park redevelopment, Runnymede Borough Council (5km to west);

531 The assessment concluded that significant cumulative environmental effects are unlikely

to arise from the construction and operation of the Eco Park. Officers have considered the projects identified above and have determined that due to the nature of their likely effects and the spatial separation of those sites from Charlton Lane, significant cumulative environmental effects are unlikely to result from the proposed development of the Eco Park.

OTHER ISSUES

Perception of Health Risks 532 Public concern about the potential health impacts of a development, as opposed to

actual risk to health, can in principle be a material consideration; but it is for the CPA to determine what, if any, weight should attach to it in the context of any particular application. People’s perception of the level of risk for an activity can differ markedly from the real risk. There are certain qualities associated with activities that tend to boost the perception of risk and the Government’s Risk & Regulation Advisory Council (Response with Responsibility - Policy-making for public risk in the 21st century, May 2009) has looked at how distorted perceptions of risk can encourage poor decision-making. For example, whilst environmental professionals can calculate the risks of adverse effects from a waste development, giving a rational view of the likelihood of risk to health, this will not necessarily ease people’s gut fears - particularly if they associate the proposal concerned with “contamination”. Decision-makers need to be aware of the prospect that perceptions of risk may be mis-informed, and they should – in Officers’ view - not be lightly dissuaded from making a sound evidence-based judgement informed by evidence of the actual risks.

533 Public concern about health risks associated with the incineration of waste is widely

acknowledged and has been one of the issues raised during consultation on this application. Whilst the UK Government does not regard gasification as incineration, the EU does categorise gasification as an energy from waste process which is covered by the WID, and it therefore falls to the EA to regulate under the EP 2010 Regulations. The public have raised specific concern in respect of: particulates, toxins, dioxins and nitrogen dioxide. In the past the main health concerns expressed about incinerators related to dioxins. These are widely present in the environment and are a family of about 200 chlorinated organic compounds, a few of which are known to be toxic; and they are formed in all combustion processes where chlorine is present (such as power plants, diesel vehicles, bonfires and barbecues). Care needs to be taken when accounting for this concern that a considerable element of the public concern appears to be associated with the previous generation of incinerators, which emitted large quantities of pollutants. The implementation of new EC Directives resulted in the closure of many old incinerators across Europe, including the UK, which could not comply with new standards. The UK Health Protection Agency’s Position Paper on Municipal Waste Incineration (2009) found that in most cases an incinerator contributes only a small proportion to the local level of pollutants and concluded that the effects on health from emissions to air from incineration are likely to be small in relation to other known risks to health. This is in

128

ITEM 6

respect of modern incinerators as opposed to the previous generation of incinerators. The HPA states:

‘The Health Protection Agency has reviewed research undertaken to examine the suggested links between emissions from municipal waste incinerators and effects on health. While it is not possible to rule out adverse health effects from modern, well regulated municipal waste incinerators with complete certainty, any potential damage to the health of those living close-by is likely to be very small, if detectable. This view is based on detailed assessments of the effects of air pollutants on health and on the fact that modern and well managed municipal waste incinerators make only a very small contribution to local concentrations of air pollutants. The Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment has reviewed recent data and has concluded that there is no need to change its previous advice, namely that any potential risk of cancer due to residency near to municipal waste incinerators is exceedingly low and probably not measurable by the most modern techniques. Since any possible health effects are likely to be very small, if detectable, studies of public health around modern, well managed municipal waste incinerators are not recommended.’

534 The HPA concluded that there is little evidence that emissions from incinerators make

respiratory problems worse; similarly, there is no consistent evidence of a link between exposure to emissions from incinerators and an increased rate of cancer. It is appreciated that the position with gasification in particular is different in that concern may arise from the absence of past experience rather than poor past experience, and concerns that reflect this are considered under ‘technology concerns’ below. Officers have, nonetheless, duly noted the concerns raised by residents throughout the consultation process regarding perceived risk to human health but do not consider that substantial weight should be attach to them.

Technology concerns 535 Many residents have raised concerns about: the reliability of the proposed technology to

be used at the Eco Park (referring to the processes as ‘unproven’ and being ‘tested out’ on the local population); perceived risk to human health; safety risks (including reference to members of the public continuing to visit the adjacent CRC throughout the construction and operational phase of the Eco Park and the proximity of housing to the application site); and how emissions / safety controls would be enforced in the future operation of the Eco Park. They have supported these concerns by reference to complaints/problems at operations in Dumfries (e.g. the Scottish Environment Protection Agency concerns about ‘plume grounding’ at a similar gasifier plant) and the Isle of Wight, a recent explosion at a plant in South Yorkshire, and plants in France being closed due to levels of dioxins. It appears to Officers that these risks are focussed on the choice of technology and emissions control, and that they are not confined to perception of risk to health.

536 SWP 2008 (paragraph C3) states that policies are not technology specific, and it’s

expected that established and new technologies will continue to be developed, bringing innovative and effective methods of managing the county’s waste. The absence of preference for one technology, in light of the fact that circumstances vary, is consistent with WS2007 (Ch 5 para. 27) and PPS10 Companion Guide (para. 2.10). The Government Review of Waste Policy 2011 (para. 22 & Energy Recovery summary) confirms that national policy remains technology neutral. Policy W12 of the SEP 2009 promotes and encourages the development of AD and advanced recovery techniques that will be expected to make a growing contribution to meeting targets/diverting from landfill, and the SWP 2008 (para. C21-25) states that gasification is amongst the range of ATT technologies that may come forward on sites allocated in accordance with Policy WD5. The applicant has explained the reason for the capacity and technology choice,

129

ITEM 6

by reference to the JMWMS. With regards to the operation of the Eco Park and the concerns raised by residents, Officers note that although technology may change in the future, the need for the facility would still exist and Officers highlight the comprehensive discussion of ‘need’ contained in this Report. With regards to the acceptance of Hounslow Borough Council’s waste, the site operator has confirmed that this arrangement will finish on 30 June 2011. For clarity, planning permission was granted on appeal on 11 January 2011 for Hounslow Borough Council’s own lorry parking facility with five external material storage bays, weighbridge, associated office and other infrastructure (Appeal Ref: APP/F5540/A/10/2137282) at Hanworth Trading Estate, Feltham.

537 Some residents have suggested that the stack height should be taller to further disperse

emissions, however, whilst stack emissions have been discussed in the section on air quality, this issue would be considered under the Environment Agency permitting process. Officers do not consider that there is any substantial basis for lack of trust or confidence in the Environment Agency permitting regime or that substantial weight should attach to objections arising from technology choice.

Health and Safety 538 The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) provides land use planning (LUP) advice based

on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Major Hazards (ACMH), which is incorporated within the Government principles outlined Planning Circular 04/2000 – ‘Planning controls for hazardous substances’. The HSE's role in the land use planning system is to provide local authorities with advice on the nature and severity of the risks presented by major hazards to people in the surrounding area so that those risks can be given due weight, when balanced against other relevant planning considerations, in making planning decisions. This role is recognised by the requirement at Article 10 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 as amended (the "GDPO") for HSE to be consulted on:

• proposed development involving the siting of new establishments where hazardous substances may be present; or

• modifications to existing establishments which could have significant repercussions on major accident hazards; or

• proposed development that is in the vicinity of existing hazardous installations and pipelines where the siting is such as to increase the risk or consequences of a major accident; or

• development within an area that has been notified to the local planning authority by the Health and Safety Executive because of the presence of hazardous substances and which involves residential accommodation, or more than 250 square metres of retail floor space, or more than 500 metres of office floor space, or more than 750 metres of floor space to be used for an industrial purpose or which otherwise is likely to result in a material increase in the number of people working within or visiting the notified area.

539 There is also a requirement for HSE to be consulted on every application for a

hazardous substances consent. 540 The principles and objectives HSE uses in giving its advice is currently delivered through

the PADHI (Planning Advice for Developments near Hazardous Installations) scheme. This scheme was designed to ensure that the UK complies with Article 12 of the Seveso II Directive which has the specific objective of controlling certain new development to maintain adequate separation; including residential areas, buildings and areas of public use; around major hazard establishments when the development is such as to increase the risk or consequences of a major accident. The HSE developed a comprehensive

130

ITEM 6

online system, termed PADHI+, which allows all consultations to be dealt with quickly, however this does not have any interaction with HSE staff.

541 Due to the nature of the proposed development the CPA contacted the HSE direct at the

draft application stage, but was informed that the HSE have no specialists to deal with a comment on such an application. In addition, a HSE Officer confirmed that as the proposal contained 'no real hazardous process', then the HSE would not get involved. The CPA have had similar responses from the HSE on other waste planning applications, with the HSE stating that energy from waste facilities are not included in the PADHI system - but that if the facilities require a licence under waste management / environmental legislation it is likely that HSE will still be statutory consultees in that process. In addition, gas recovery plants / engines wouldn't themselves be hazardous installations unless they stored a notifiable quantity of a substance as listed in The Planning (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 1992 (as amended). The Regulations require a specific consent for storage of over 15 tonnes of biogas. However, the applicant has confirmed that a maximum of 1.8 tonnes would be stored in the AD plant (even with biogas likely to be within the pipework and digester system, the total amount of biogas on site would still be below the threshold of 15 tonnes) and therefore no hazardous substance consent is required. The CPA, therefore followed the online PADHI+ consultation system with a result that produced a letter stating that 'HSE does not advise, on safety grounds, against the granting of planning permission in this case.'

542 As already referred to, the applicant will need to secure a permit from the Environment Agency (EA) in addition to planning permission to operate the Eco Park facility, and preventing harm to health and the environmental from emissions, including those to air, is the main purpose of the permitting process. A permit will only be granted if the facility can show it is using the Best Available Techniques (BAT) to control emissions; and it is to be assumed, in accordance with PPS10 para. 27, that “the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced”, i.e. that the EA will police the facility to ensure effective control continues. Emissions from thermal waste treatment facilities will be checked, by a multilayered regime of monitoring, to ensure releases are in compliance with the limit values.

543 As part of the EA Permitting Regime, the HSE would be consulted to secure that the

both design of the Eco Park and its future operations would comply with Health and Safety Legislation. The HSE were consulted on the permit application by the Environment Agency (EA), and stated that they were ‘unable to support the current proposals, with respect to the health and safety of staff and the general public visiting the site, until the submission includes a demonstration, based upon an adequate risk assessment, that the plant building construction is in accordance with good design practices that will ensure that the fire, explosion and toxic risks arising from the gasification plant are as low as is reasonably practicable’. The HSE pointed toward the relatively new and complex technology and that some of the safety measures would depend on the final design and operation of the gasification unit but some would depend on the plant and building construction and need to be considered at an early stage as part of the building and site proposals. The HSE referred to its response to the EA as commenting on the planning application, which was confusing as the HSE were responding to the permit application. As a result of these comments (which were forwarded by the applicant), the Officers withdrew the planning application from the intended Planning Committee (8 March 2011), so that this issue could be considered further and, if possible, resolved.

544 The Lower Sunbury Resident’s Association (LOSRA) and other local residents had also

obtained copies of the HSE response to the EA and questioned the adequacy of Officer’s Report, urging Members to refuse the planning application because of the inadequate assessment. Officers had already withdrawn the application before this representation was received. A further response has subsequently been received from the HSE stating

131

ITEM 6

that the HSE had met with the applicant to discuss the above response to the permit application, and concluded that the HSE have no objection to the planning application. The HSE advised that the CPA may wish to include a condition ‘to provide assurances’ to local residents and interest groups that any risks to staff or visitors that had not been fully evaluated at this stage would be properly considered and appropriate control measures introduced before the site or parts of the site were commissioned. The condition referred to was as follows: ‘there shall be no use or occupation of the visitors centre until a detailed assessment of the risks presented by the gasification facility to the occupants and users of the visitors centre has been undertaken by the Company and the safe guarding measures identified in that assessment have been installed and implemented’. However the HSE explained that it did not request that any condition be imposed at the planning stage, as there is already sufficient legislation in place to regulate such a facility. This condition, therefore, would not be an HSE requirement and HSE would be content to continue to liaise with the Environment Agency and CPA on safety matters as and when necessary.

545 Circular 11/95 (the use of conditions in planning permission) advises that planning conditions should not be imposed where they are not necessary and that they will normally be considered to be unnecessary where other statutory regimes provide relevant controls. Officers do not consider that the imposition of a condition as referred to would be in accordance with that advice or that an exception should be made to it. Ensuring that the internal arrangements and plant result in safe conditions for staff and visitors to the visitors centre in particular should properly be undertaken by the HSE and Environment Agency in accordance with their statutory powers, which are complementary to the planning regime.

Other environmental issues 546 With regards to Charlton Lane suffering from litter nuisance, retained vegetation and

areas of new planting would be kept free of litter as part of the measures in the LEMP. As this would be secured by condition, the CPA could readily enforce those measures. Officers do not agree with residents that a 25 year life span for the LEMP is an excessively long period, noting that the County Council’s Landscape Officer recommended this period explicitly. In respect of concerns raised that toxins could leach into groundwater, or emissions and dust could pollute reservoir and other water resources, such considerations would also form part of the EA Permitting Regime. However, as noted earlier, the applicant’s assessment of the risk to controlled waters from the proposed infiltration basin indicates a low potential risk to ground waters and a cut-off wall has been incorporated into the design of the infiltration basin as a precaution to prevent any possible connectivity between the water from the infiltration basin and the groundwater in the historically deposited waste. With reference to one resident’s concerns that the site would use a large amount of water, Officers note that Thames Water (the relevant agency for water infrastructure and sewerage) have raised no objection. With regards to the reuse / disposal of bottom and fly ash from the Gasification and AD facilities, these would be reused or disposed of off-site; and the precise arrangements for either of these processes is beyond the scope of this proposal.

547 Regarding residents’ concerns about access for emergency vehicles, a widened access

with parking restrictions in force should facilitate clear, uncongested access for such vehicles entering the site. One resident questioned why no direct access was proposed off the M3 Motorway; and Officers understand that the scale of development proposed at Charlton Lane would not be sufficient for the Highways Agency to consider such a measure necessary (such access would be contrary to Highways Agency Policy and unlikely to gain approval in any case). Residents also refer to a previous application for an equestrian centre being opposed in this locality, though Officers highlight that each application must be judged on its individual merits. Residents argue that a 2008 ERM Report for Surrey County Council stated that ‘‘the site could not absorb acceptably the

132

ITEM 6

visual impact of a thermal treatment’; but Officers note that the site assessments supporting the Surrey Waste Plan (adopted in 2008) assumed a much larger facility than that proposed (Bell Fischer Architect’s initial 1995 Study considered 30 metre high buildings and a 68m stack; and a 70-80 metre high stack considered by Bell Fischer in 2005). The adoption of SWP 2008, however, has superseded these visual impact assessments, with Charlton Lane allocated for thermal treatment under Policy WD5 (with ‘Key Development Criteria’ addressing visual impact).

548 Residents also suggest that Grundon’s facility in Colnbrook has capacity to accept

150,000 tpa, though Officers note that Spelthorne Borough Council’s short-term contract with this facility expires in 2012 - after which the applicant has indicated that no further capacity is available at Colnbrook. Regarding any capacity at incineration facilities in Hampshire, Officers note that this would not accord with the self-sufficiency or ‘proximity’ principles given the source of waste arisings that the Charlton Lane Eco Park would handle (i.e. Surrey, and the Boroughs of Spelthorne, Elmbridge and Runnymede in particular).

Socio-Economic Issues 549 The applicant has submitted that a number of socio-economic factors support the

development proposals, including 60no. jobs generated (i.e. an additional 42no. jobs compared to the existing waste management facility). However, Officers note that the submitted assessment demonstrates there are relatively high levels of economically active people in Spelthorne Borough and no pronounced deprivation (taken from the ‘Index of Multiple Deprivation’ used across England) in local wards. Officers do not, in this context, consider that substantial weight should attach to the socio-economic factors associated with the application, including increased employment. Lastly, with reference to concerns that the proposed development would devalue property and that the proposed development would be an expensive project to build, these points are not considered to be material planning considerations.

Postscript

550 Officers have read and considered each of the objection and supporting representations

received in respect of this application, the main issues arising being summarised above; and they do not consider that they raise matters beyond those discussed in the main body of this report that suggest or warrant a different conclusion in respect of this application.

GREEN BELT South East Plan 2009 Policy SP5 Green Belts Policy W17 Location of Waste Management Facilities Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy CW5 Location of Waste Facilities Policy CW6 Development in the Green Belt Policy WD1 Civic Amenity Sites Policy WD2 Recycling, Storage, Transfer, Materials Recovery and Processing Facilities (Excluding Thermal Treatment) Policy WD5 Thermal Treatment Facilities The Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001 (saved policy) Policy GB1 - Development Proposals in the Green Belt National, Regional and Development Plan Policy Context

133

ITEM 6

551 The proposed site for the Eco Park, which comprises the existing Charlton Lane Waste

Management Facility area and land to the north and east proposed to be managed as an Environment Enhancement Area (EEA), is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt. Government advice on Green Belts is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 Green Belts (PPG2) January 1995. Paragraph 1.4 within the guidance outlines that the most important attribute of the Green Belt is its openness and states that “the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl through keeping land permanently open”; and it explains that Green Belts help to ensure that development occurs in locations allocated in development plans. The majority of the proposed built area for the Eco Park is allocated in the SWP 2008, with the remainder of the application site proposed for landscaping.

552 Paragraph 3.2 of PPG2 states that “Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful

to the Green Belt. It is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted”. There is a presumption against development other than for a small range of uses deemed to be compatible with the objectives of the Green Belt. Where a proposal does not fall within any of the categories of development considered appropriate in the Green Belt, “it is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations”. The construction of new buildings within the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it is for one of the purposes listed under Para.3.4 of PPG2.

553 Paragraph 3.12 of PPG2 states that the making of material changes in the use of land are inappropriate development unless they maintain openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. Paragraph 3.13 of PPG2 states that “When any large-scale development or redevelopment of land occurs in the Green Belt (including … other infrastructure developments or improvements), it should, so far as possible contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land in Green Belts (see paragraph 1.6)”. The objectives set out in PPG2 include: to provide opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population, the enhancement of landscapes near to where people live, and to secure nature conservation interest.

554 Policy SP5 (Green Belts) of the South East Plan 2009 (SEP 2009) states that the broad

extent of Green Belts in the region will be retained and supported and that opportunities should be taken to improve their land use-management and access as part of initiatives to improve the rural urban fringe. The policy supporting text states that Green Belts should continue to be important in preventing urban sprawl and in protecting the countryside. Policy W17 (Location of Waste Management Facilities) states that waste management facilities should not be precluded from the Green Belt. The policy-supporting text states that: “it is essential that waste facilities proposed in Green Belts are assessed in light of local circumstances and national and regional policy; and that lack of suitable alternative sites and proximity to urban areas and the source of waste are important factors which may justify waste management facilities”.

555 The Surrey Waste Plan 2008 (SWP 2008) includes: Core Strategy; Waste Development;

and Waste Development Control policies. The Core Strategy explains the County Council’s approach to the location of waste management facilities following the requirements of PPS10. Paragraph B13 of the Core Strategy indicates that due to limited opportunities for waste management facilities in urban areas and on industrial land, land beyond urban areas needs to be considered. In considering land beyond urban areas, priority will be given to mineral workings and land in waste management use, the re-use of previously developed, contaminated, derelict or disturbed land, redundant farm buildings and their curtilages, before greenfield and Green Belt sites.

134

ITEM 6

556 SWP 2008 paragraph B14 states that “Protection of the Green Belt will continue, but the

locational needs of some waste management facilities, together with the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management, will be factors taken into account in assessing very special circumstances in determining proposals for waste development in the Green Belt.”

557 SWP 2008 Policy CW6 seeks to ensure that, whilst making provision exceptionally for

necessary waste management development, the Green Belt serves its proper purpose (paragraph B44). The policy states there will be a presumption against inappropriate waste related development in the Green Belt except in very special circumstances and that:

“Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development of waste management facilities in the Green Belt will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.”

558 Policy CW6 goes on to state:

“The following considerations may contribute to very special circumstances:

(i) the lack of suitable non-Green Belt sites (ii) the need to find locations well related to the source of waste arisings; (iii) the characteristics of the site; and (iv) the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste

management, including the need for a range of sites.” 559 Land at Charlton Lane (5.35 ha) is allocated in the SWP 2008 under Policies WD1 (Civic

Amenity Sites), WD2 (Recycling, Storage, Transfer, Materials Recovery and Processing Facilities (Excluding Thermal Treatment) and WD5 (Thermal Treatment Facilities), where planning permissions for development involving these waste uses will be granted provided that the development proposed meets the key development criteria (KDC), and where very special circumstances can be demonstrated in accordance with the provisions of Policy CW6 for development in the Green Belt. The KDC includes a Green Belt criterion, and states that ‘the site is located in an open area that performs an important role of separating built up areas of Charlton and Upper Halliford. The scale and extent of development to be dependent on the degree to which buildings and plant focus on the existing site. The layout and any landscaping requirement should seek to minimise impact on openness of the remaining restored landfill.’

560 Saved Policy GB1 (Development Proposals in the Green Belt) of Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001 states that development within the Green Belt will not be permitted, which would conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt and maintaining openness.

Harm to the Green Belt and other harm 561 Waste development is not within the categories of development recognised in PPG2 to

be appropriate in the Green Belt; and therefore the application proposal involving the re-development and continued use of the land for waste development clearly constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and will cause harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness. The proposal would involve some encroachment beyond the allocated area in the SWP 2008, which will impact on openness of the Green Belt; however, the proposal would provide regeneration of the existing waste facility in addition to providing some enhancement to the open unmanaged grass /scrub land to the north and east.

135

ITEM 6

562 Over 70% of land in Surrey is in the Green Belt and the use of land in the Green Belt for

waste related development is recognised in national and development plan policy, as mentioned above. This assessment of Green Belt issues takes account of the fact that planning permission for the permanent use of this Green Belt site for the existing Charlton Lane waste management facility has been granted. That does not mean, however, that every proposal that comes forward on this land or any Green Belt land should be permitted. Planning applications are determined on the basis of development plan policies, and consideration of issues such as: the location of the site, its capability of supporting the infrastructure proposed, and whether it would operate without causing harm to the Green Belt, local amenity and local environmental interests. Where there is harm to the Green Belt and other harm, it has been demonstrated that very special circumstances exist to clearly outweigh them.

563 In accordance with the above guidance and policy, harm to the Green Belt is an

important factor in determining the acceptability of this application. In order to assess this application in terms of Green Belt planning policy, it is necessary to first establish the nature and extent of the harm caused. The proposal comprises of built development involving substantial buildings and structures with other infrastructure and landscaping would extend over the Charlton Lane site as identified in the SWP 2008 and also lie beyond the boundaries of the site identified in the Plan. Different elements of the scheme would have different impacts on Green Belt depending on their respective nature and character. Broadly-speaking the proposed development (12.29 ha) can be divided into two parts consisting of the Eco Park facility (4.5 ha) and the EEA (7.7 ha). The planning application seeks permanent planning permission for all elements of the proposed Eco Park and the EIA process has considered the resulting environmental impacts on that basis. This has been done in light of the decision to grant planning permission for the permanent retention of the current facilities on site (Ref: SP10/0883), which has provided the baseline for environmental assessment. Officers have considered the proposal on that basis and do not consider that it necessary for any reason or that it would be reasonable to require the removal of any element of the proposed Eco Park at any future date (whether on Green Belt, or other grounds). The scale of the constituent elements and their impacts on the Green Belt is considered below.

564 The constituent elements of the Eco Park are described at paras 18 to 22 above, with

buildings up to 18.5m (20.8m flue outlets) and a stack of 49m, comprising a total built development of approx. 4.5 ha. The great majority (93.5%) of the proposed built development lies within the allocated site identified in the SWP 2008, but a small area (0.29 ha or 6.5%) involving the HGV access, weighbridge and office lie outside the SWP area. The buildings and structures occupy approx. 3.5 ha of the 4.5ha built area, with the remaining 1 ha (approx) for roadways and hardstandings required to service those facilities. There is a small amount of soft landscaping within the built area. The EEA and boundary planting extends to some 7.7 ha, which includes an infiltration basin covering an area of approx. 0.5 ha (6.5% of the EEA) and a landscaping bund covering an area of approx. 0.35 ha (4.5% of the EEA).

565 The built waste management development proposed and its subsequent use and operation of the land constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt that is by definition harmful. Operational development in terms of the formation of the infiltration basin, landscaping bund and the realignment of FP No.70 (all associated with the proposed waste management development) would also be inappropriate development. In contrast, however, the planting and use of the finished land form in the EEA (including that of the completed infiltration basin and landscaping bund) will not constitute inappropriate development, since the proposed use of the EEA would maintain openness and not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt (see PPG2 para. 3.12). It would also provide benefits in terms of the setting and character of the Green Belt, which are discussed below.

136

ITEM 6

566 The scale and extent of the development proposed are also to be judged in terms of their

physical impact of openness, and the fundamental aim of keeping Green Belt permanently open. The purposes of including land in the Green Belt should also be considered. Specifically, it would not assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment (PPG2 paragraph 1.5), as it would encroach into the open countryside. The SWP 2008 KDC states that the site is located in an open area that performs an important role of separating the built up areas of Charlton and Upper Halliford. Therefore, the elements of the proposal are to be judged in terms of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

567 Clearly the nature and scale of the proposals will conflict with one of the purposes of

including land within the Green Belt in terms of encroachment on the countryside. The extent of the existing permitted operational waste development (4.5 ha) is a material consideration, and (subject to planning permission for the retention of the permanent facility) this would increase to 5.22 ha. However, the built development area of the existing waste management facility is approx. 3.5 ha, as such the proposal would increase the built footprint by approx. 1 ha.

568 In considering the impact on openness the starting point in this process will be the

impact of the proposal on the fundamental characteristic of the Green Belt, namely its openness. Any harm caused to the fundamental aim of maintaining openness by reason of inappropriate development will be given substantial weight by the Secretary of State. Substantial weight should also be applied to other aspects of harm to the Green Belt where these harms relate to either the purposes of the Green Belt, the objectives of the Green Belt or the visual amenity of the Green Belt. Weight should also be attributed to other (non-green belt) harm caused by the development, for example the impact of the proposal on visual amenity, with the weight attributed depending on the scale and significance of the harm identified. Against this assessment of harm, one must then assess both the mitigation of that harm and the need for, and/or benefits of the proposal. Once all the requisite elements have been assessed, there must be a judgment made as to whether the factors demonstrate the existence of very special circumstances clearly outweighing all harm caused.

569 The application site of some 12.29ha lies within the Green Belt, with part of the site area

(5.22ha) benefiting from planning permission for waste management (primarily on the SWP allocation area of 5.35 ha), whilst the remainder of the site area (landscaping – to the north and east) is currently restored former mineral workings. It is accepted that the proposed waste management development does not fall within any of the categories of appropriate development in PPG2, so is therefore deemed to be ‘inappropriate’ development in the Green Belt; and Officers have therefore taken account of the fact that the proposal is harmful to the Green Belt by definition. The proposed development would cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt not only by reason of its inappropriateness but also through the construction of a facility that is substantially larger than that existing on the site and by means, in addition, of its expansion beyond the site area shown indicatively in the SWP 2008.

570 In the SWP 2008, 5.35ha of land is allocated under Policies WD1 (for a CRC), WD2

(Recycling, storage, transfer, materials recovery and processing facilities (excluding thermal treatment)) and WD5 (Thermal Treatment Facilities). The Key Development Criteria (KDC) for the Charlton Lane allocated site include one for Green Belt, which states that the scale and extent of development acceptable should be dependent on the degree to which buildings and plant focus on the existing site. Additionally, the KDC state that any new site layout and landscaping should seek to minimise impact on the openness of the remaining restored landfill (i.e. the field to the east of the application site). As set out above, the application proposes to re-develop the existing waste management facility and utilise the area to the north and east for landscaping (EEA). The

137

ITEM 6

built element of the proposal accords with the KDC (SWP 2008) requirement that its scale and extent should be dependent upon the degree to which buildings and plant focus on the existing site. The landscaping to the east would seek, in accordance with the KDC, to minimise the impact on the openness of the remaining restored landfill. Officers do not consider that the development would achieve compliance with this criterion in the early stages of the development due to the time required for the landscaping and associated planting to become established; but it will do so when that has occurred (i.e. it will comply with this element of the KDC subject to some delay).

571 The proposal does not include any buildings to the north of the existing footpath, and this area would be landscaped and used for the diversion of FP70. DEFRA’s ‘Designing Waste Facilities – a guide to modern design in waste’ (2008), has already been referred to under the Waste Management & Planning Section above, and states that the scale of new waste facilities in terms of the footprints and heights of buildings will vary according to the nature of the technology being used and the configuration of operational processes. The applicant has stated that the buildings within the Eco Park have been carefully designed particularly in terms of volumetric efficiency i.e. they are no larger (or taller) than is absolutely necessary to accommodate the technology. CABE has added their support to the overall design of the Eco Park.

572 There are no proposed buildings or above ground structures falling outside the allocation area with the exception of the new weighbridge office and weighbridges with associated internal access road extending some 20 metres beyond the eastern boundary, covering area of approx. 0.29 ha. This eastern area of the proposed development land falling outside of the SWP allocation area to the east is far smaller than the area to the north (approx. 0.69 ha) within the SWP allocation area, which would be used for landscaping and the footpath diversion.

573 In respect of open views to the north and east, the proposal provides comprehensive

landscaping of the north and eastern area, as part of the Environmental Enhancement Area (EEA). The gasification building (incl. attached turbine hall) would be the largest of the facilities and occupies a footprint of approx. 8,500 m2 and a volume of some 140,000 m3, which would be approx 2.75 times the scale (in terms of bulk) of the existing MRF and WTS facility (which has a footprint of approx. 5,000m2 and volume of some 50,000m3). The AD plant and associated tanks would be lower structures (although some tanks would be up to 15m in height) and occupy an area of approx. 5,000 m2 and a volume of approx. 25,000 m3. The RBF building adds a further 1,200 m2 in area, with a height of approx 12m. The CRC is as the existing facility, with the addition of an approx. 1,000m2 canopy, whilst it does not increase the footprint of development - it would have an additional, although limited, impact on openness.

574 The above elements of the Eco Park have been arranged to provide a best fit to the site,

and their scale and mass are dictated by the need to accommodate the necessary technology, and the need to treat local waste arisings (as discussed under waste need). As outlined above, there would be a significant increase in scale (2.75 times the bulk of the existing facility) of the built development on completion of construction, which would have a significant impact on openness. However, whilst that impact is acknowledged in the current landscape setting, mitigation would be provided in the form of the significant area (7.7ha) of landscaping (i.e. the EEA). The layout of these various waste elements to the Eco Park have been arranged and designed appropriately, which Officers consider accord with the KDC in terms of green belt and site layout. In addition the KDC requires appropriate landscaping, which would be provided by way of the EEA and a 25 year Landscape and Ecology Management Plan, secured by means of condition. Officers consider that the EEA would, in time, ensure sufficient mitigation in respect of views from the north and east, which are considered acceptable and minimise the impact on openness of the Green Belt. Although Officers consider that compliance with the Green Belt KDC SWP 2008 - subject to caveat in the short-term, whilst landscaping matures -

138

ITEM 6

should be accorded significant weight in this assessment of harm to the openness of the Green Belt, it is to be recognised nonetheless that the proposed Eco Park would have a significant impact on the openness of this part of the Green Belt (which performs an important role of separating Charlton and Upper Halliford).

575 PPG2 (paragraph 3.13) states that any re-development of land in the Green Belt should

so far as possible contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land in the Green Belts (para.1.6 PPG2), and planning obligations may be used to offset the loss of or impact any amenity present. Officers consider that the EEA managed as part of a 25 year Landscape and Ecology Management Plan, which would include improved and new rights of way accords with these Green Belt objectives (in particular: to provide opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population; the enhancement of landscapes near to where people live; and to secure nature conservation interest).

576 The visual amenities of the Green Belt should also not be injured by proposals for

development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt which, although they would not prejudice the purposes of including land in Green Belts, might be visually detrimental by reason of their siting, materials or design (para. 3.15 PPG2). The applicant has stated that the effects of a proposal upon the visual amenities of the Green Belt have been considered in detail (Landscape and Visual Assessment Ch.8 of the ES). The proposed development would replace an established set of buildings with new, taller buildings and ancillary facilities spread over a larger footprint, with new perimeter landscaping along the north and east edges. In terms of visual amenity, the Green Belt locally, with the exception of the site itself, consists of a part of a large area of open flat unmanaged grassland with a backdrop of tree belts along the M3 motorway and along Charlton Lane and with a number of scattered mature trees within the grassland. The redevelopment of the waste management facilities on the site would result in high quality buildings (including a 49m stack) that would be a more prominent feature of the landscape rising well above the tree canopy, deemed a permanent moderate adverse significance effect in the wider landscape (EIA terminology).

577 Officers have also taken account in this context of their view that, as noted in the conclusions on landscape, the proposal would not accord with the SWP 2008 KDC whilst in the construction phase due to the need to clear existing peripheral tree screening to the east of the existing site, and also to a degree during the early phase of landscaping. The 49 metre stack and main Gasification building and AD structures would create an adverse effect in the wider landscape, however, Officers consider that the proposed EEA is an acceptable response to the challenge of SWP policies and the KDC to ensure appropriate mitigation to both compensate for loss of landscape features and minimise visual impacts in the wider landscape setting, and help to promote recreational use of the former mineral working to the east. Therefore, whilst Officers accept that there would be an adverse impact on visual amenity from the proposed new buildings, particularly in the early stages on the development, the applicant has provided appropriate mitigation in accordance with the KDC of the SWP (albeit these will not be effective in the short-term). Although Officers do not consider that the visual amenities of the Green Belt would be harmed to such degree that planning permission should be refused, they have weighed that harm which would result (and has been considered in detail above) as ‘any other harm’ in the context of Green Belt planning policy.

578 SBC objected on grounds that the height and design of the structures are conspicuous

and inappropriate in this Green Belt location and, in conjunction with the position of the internal roadway and buildings, would have an unacceptable impact on Ivydene Cottage. Officers focus here on Ivydene Cottage, and have already acknowledged the visual impact on it within the landscape section. Of key importance with regard to visual impact on Ivydene Cottage is the KDC in respect of Green Belt relating to the allocated site at Charlton Lane, which states that: “The scale and extent of development to be dependent

139

ITEM 6

on the degree to which buildings and plant focus on the existing site. The site layout and any landscaping requirement should seek to minimise impact on the openness of the remaining restored landfill.” Officers consider that the applicant has undertaken a thorough approach to the site design and the layout of the buildings, and in addition provided comprehensive landscaping in the form of the EEA, which minimises the impact on openness.

579 In terms of any other harm, the ES has established that there would also be some

adverse impact on the amenities of Ivydene Cottage and properties in Upper Halliford and Charlton Village in terms of visual impact; and Members are referred to Officers’ detailed appraisal of these issues in the relevant landscape sections above. In addition, the noise impact on Ivydene Cottage has been acknowledged and addressed by means of mitigation measures. Officers therefore consider that the harm that would result to Ivydene Cottage, and properties in Upper Halliford and Charlton Village must also be weighed when deciding whether ‘very special circumstances’ exist to justify the proposal in accordance with PPG2 and the relevant Development Plan policy CW6 of the SWP 2008.

580 In respect of Green Belt and openness, the SWP Inspector stated (para. 4.54) that;

“There is a history of waste management uses at the site. The public right of way encloses part of the allocated land and, although there is now an absence of built development on the northern sector of this enclosure, it nevertheless has the appearance of being within the operational envelope. Were built development to occur here, we do not consider that the openness of the Green Belt would be compromised substantially further. However, the same is not the case on that part of the allocated site to the north of the public right of way where, in our view, the introduction of any buildings would affect the openness of the Green Belt. The site does, however, offer substantial potential for the co-location of waste management facilities and the environmental benefits associated with a consequent reduction in overall waste vehicle movements. At project level, these factors could contribute to a justification for development on grounds of very special circumstances.” The Inspector indicated that the southern part of the site could possibly accommodate an EfW plant (‘small scale thermal facility’). Officers consider that the current proposal accords closely with these expectations, subject to the incorporation within the scheme as a whole of a substantial area of land to the east providing visual mitigation (with the potential for improvement) and biodiversity enhancement.

581 To summarise, there are different elements of the scheme that would have different

impacts on Green Belt depending on their respective nature and character. The re-development and continued use of the land for waste development clearly constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and will cause harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness. The substantial new buildings and structures for the gasification, AD and RBF facilities in particular would have a significant impact on openness; but Officers consider, with regard to the significance of that impact and weight to be attached to it, that it is highly significant that the proposal accords with the Green Belt KDC of the SWP 2008 (subject to the short-term matter referred to above). The waste development would also involve some encroachment into the countryside beyond the allocated area in the SWP 2008 (the purposes of including land in the Green Belt include safeguarding against this), which will impact on openness of the Green Belt. The proposals for the EEA, on the other hand, are not considered to constitute inappropriate development and will play a positive role in fulfilling three objectives of the use of land in the Green Belt, i.e. providing opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population, enhancing landscapes near to where people live, and securing nature conservation interest. Officers consider that the mitigation and benefits offered by the EEA are significant. In addition, there is other harm to consider, particularly in respect of the visual amenities of the Green Belt, Ivydene Cottage, and properties in Upper Halliford and Charlton Village and the noise impact on Ivydene Cottage.

140

ITEM 6

VERY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES 582 The demonstration of very special circumstances is considered to be a fundamental

factor in determining the acceptability of the application given the acceptance that the major part of the proposed development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and in view of the harm to openness and other harm acknowledged above. Many residents have objected to this application on Green Belt grounds, arguing that the site should return to its former condition of an agricultural field in 2016 and that there are no exceptional circumstances to allow permanent loss of Green Belt in this location. However, planning permission has been granted (4 March 2011) for the permanent retention of the existing waste management facilities, thus establishing a permanent waste use on the built part of the proposed site. Spelthorne Borough Council and residents also comment that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that very special circumstances exist. The applicant has accepted that the development ‘would be classified as inappropriate development’ and has put forward a number of factors, which it considers are very special circumstances that outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm.

583 For the purposes of this report, the factors potentially capable in Officers’ view of

contributing to ‘very special circumstances’ have been grouped together and considered under the four considerations identified in SWP 2008 Policy CW6 that may contribute to very special circumstances.

Lack of suitable non Green Belt sites

584 The applicant carried out a comprehensive Alternative Site Assessment (ASA), which

was undertaken in two distinct stages and considered 203 locations within an identified search area based upon the Boroughs within Surrey that the proposed Eco Park development would serve. The ASA’s fundamental objective was to identify sites, which could potentially accommodate either one or more of the proposed waste management facilities at Charlton Lane. These comprise: an Anaerobic Digestion Plant (AD); A Gasification Plant; and a Recyclable Bulking Facility (RBF). In undertaking the ASA, it was considered important that a structured, logical and rational planning-based approach was developed, which was agreed with the CPA. Following initial work the sites identified were categorised, ranked and evaluated for their commercial availability. The remaining sites are shown below in order of suitability:

1. Land at Charlton Lane, Shepperton 2. Land adjacent to Trumps Farm, Kitsmead Lane, Longcross 3. Oakleaf Farm, Horton Road, Stanwell Moor 4. Martyrs Lane Community Recycling Centre and Landfill Site 5. Lyne Lane Former Composting Facility, Thorpe Green, Chertsey 6. Parklands, Bittams Lane, Chertsey

585 The assessment identified 6 potentially suitable sites, all of which are within in the Green

Belt. All these sites, with the exception of Parklands, are allocated in the SWP 2008 for a range of waste management development. However, Oakleaf Farm and Lyne Lane Former Composting Facility are not allocated for the Thermal Treatment of Waste. The ASA has confirmed that no other suitable sites currently exist outside the Green Belt and that the Charlton Lane site is the most suitable and available site within the Green Belt.

586 The ASA has confirmed that Charlton Lane is demonstrably the most suitable site due to

the combination of the following factors:

141

ITEM 6

• The site has been in continuous waste management for circa 60 years and

benefits from a permanent planning permission for built waste facilities able to handle 175,000tpa of waste material;

• The site currently contains two of the waste management facilities proposed at

the Eco Park (albeit the existing MRF would be re-located/developed into a Recyclable Bulking Facility on the site);

• It is geographically well related to the pattern of waste arisings within the

catchment it would continue to serve; • It is allocated for all of the components of the Eco Park within the Surrey Waste

Plan (NB. the applicant has stated that there is a strong case for not disaggregating the waste components and the ASA was carried out as such; however, for robustness the ASA also separately assessed the suitability of sites for each component part of the Eco Park);

• It is sufficiently large to accommodate all of the proposed facilities, with resulting co-locational, environmental and economic benefits;

• It is capable of development without any unacceptable environmental or technical

effects. 587 SBC question the weight attributed to the work on the ASA on the basis of pre-

determination of the site-selection and the criteria used in the Enviros report from which Charlton Lane was selected (addressed above under Waste Management Issues). The soundness of the plan and site allocations has been addressed under ‘Soundness of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008’, referring to the Wisley appeal decision. The applicant also refers to the Wisley appeal decision (ref. APP/B36000/A/09/2098568), which was for a composting facility on a similarly allocated site (WD2 & WD5). The Inspector’s report stated that; “The purpose of the appellant’s ASA was not to provide an exhaustive list of sites that might be suitable for waste management but to reinforce the appropriateness of the allocation in Policy WD2”.

588 Officers consider that the applicant has undertaken a robust and extensive ASA,

particularly in so far as it examined the availability of sites capable of accommodating all elements individually (i.e. in a disaggregated form). The present situation in Surrey is such that the availability of non-Green Belt sites is extremely limited, as the County is substantially washed over by Metropolitan Green Belt designation. In this context, it is unsurprising that the submitted ASA identified no suitable non-Green Belt sites despite examining a total of 203 sites. On the basis of the submitted ASA, Officers are satisfied that there are no alternative sites available in or outside of the Green Belt that would be more suitable for the proposed waste operations than that existing at Charlton Lane and they consider that “the lack of suitable non-Green Belt sites” has been demonstrated for the purposes of SWP 2008 Policy CW6.

The need to find locations well related to the source of waste arisings

589 The Eco Park has four main waste management components, two of which (CRC and

bulking facility) are already permitted permanently; and these form part of the existing waste management facility. The CRC and bulking facility serve Spelthorne, Elmbridge and Runnymede and are very well used (the CRC being twice as busy as any other CRC in Surrey) and broadly centrally located in terms of the three Boroughs. They also lie within a densely populated urban part of Surrey. As such, it can be concluded that the site is well-located in respect of the source of waste arisings as far as the CRC and proposed RBF are concerned.

142

ITEM 6

590 The Gasification facility, which would take residual household waste would similarly

serve the same three Boroughs and should, likewise, be considered well-related to the pattern of waste arisings.

591 The AD facility is, in the long term proposed to serve the five northern Boroughs of the

County (the three listed above, together with Surrey Heath and Woking). The site’s proximity to the M3 ensures that it remains attractively located in respect of food waste arisings from these Boroughs.

592 Following consideration of the evidence provided by the applicant, Officers consider the

proposed Eco Park site to be well related to the source of waste arisings that it would receive, and in particular Spelthorne, Elmbridge and Runnymede and that the application responds closely to “the need to find locations well related to the source of waste arisings” referred to in SWP 2008 Policy CW6.

The characteristics of the site

593 The developed part of the site has been the subject of major built waste management

development (a waste incinerator operational in the early 1950s) in advance of the Green Belt designation coming into force in Spelthorne in 1956. The site has remained within a built waste management use ever since and has consistently been used for waste management development. Additionally, this roughly triangular site is enclosed by the M3 motorway, railway line and Charlton Lane, which provide a degree of isolation or segregation. The site also has a good access, with links to the strategic road network. The applicant has attributed significant weight to the baseline planning position, i.e. the Eco Park application has been entirely predicated upon permanent planning permission having been granted for the retention of the existing waste management facilities (CRC, WTS and MRF) at Charlton Lane. Officers agree that an important characteristic of the site is the fact that this proposal falls to be determined in the context that planning permission has been granted for the permanent retention of the existing waste management facility, which includes a revised access and additional areas to the east outside the allocated area in the SWP 2008. The planning permission granted on 4 March 2011 is an important factor carrying significant weight in the Green Belt argument.

594 Moreover, part of the application site is identified in the SWP 2008 as comprising 5.35ha

of land and allocated under Policies: WD1: for a CRC;

WD2: for recycling, storage, transfer, materials recovery and processing facilities (excluding thermal treatment); and

WD5: for Thermal Treatment Facilities. 595 This is a further reflection that the characteristics of that part of the site are such that,

subject to compliance with criteria set out in these policies, it is one that is capable of accommodating substantial waste development.

596 Thirdly, a significant characteristic of the current application site, is that it extends

beyond a built area of some 4.5 ha and includes a larger remaining area of some 7.7 ha for landscaping, the majority of which is the EEA to the east and north of the site. The application site is therefore such that it provides scope for mitigating the impact of the proposed development on openness as discussed above.

597 Following consideration of these factors, Officers consider that the site as here proposed

has certain characteristics that mark it out as potentially capable of making a significant contribution to meeting the need within the county for development to provide for sustainable waste management.

143

ITEM 6

The wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management, including the need for a range of sites

598 The need for the CRC and RBF is satisfied, by the grant of planning permission for the

retention of the existing waste management facility, which provides for both of these waste elements (CRC & WTS/MRF). Both facilities provide a valuable centre for the receipt and bulking of household recyclables, Charlton Lane being the busiest CRC in the county, and in receipt of the most recyclables.

599 Surrey County Council is currently heavily reliant upon the use of out-of-county waste

management capacity for the treatment and disposal of the municipal waste arising in the county. The proposed Eco Park would reduce this reliance, and play an important role in achieving the WCWS objectives of providing a sustainable solution for the management of Surrey’s waste. The provision of an AD facility, the first in the County for the treatment household food waste, would assist the County in meeting its aspirational recycling targets of 70% by 2013/14. The gasification facility, which would provide treatment for residual municipal waste and help the County achieve the targets, set by the SEP 2009, for diverting waste from landfill.

600 The proposed development would offer clear climate change benefits in terms of:

• avoided greenhouse gas emissions by diversion of waste by landfill and reducing

the transport of waste over long distance by road to out-of-county facilities; and

• the generation of renewable energy and low carbon energy and the consequential displacement of fossil fuels in energy generation, and export to the national grid.

601 The applicant has identified that there are benefits resulting from the facilities at Charlton

Lane being co-located and PPS10 advises that Waste Planning Authorities should seek opportunities to co-locate facilities together and with complementary activities. The Inspector for the examination of the SWP 2008 specifically identified that the environmental benefits associated with co-locating waste management facilities could, at a project level, contribute to very special circumstances. There are a number of co-locational benefits / synergies between the facilities that are proposed as part of the Eco Park development, reducing the amount of waste that would have to be transported if the facilities were on separate sites rather than co-located. In addition, the co-location of the education / visitor centre would enable hands-on demonstration of sustainable waste management consistent with national and local policies on waste awareness and the national school’s curriculum.

602 The economic benefits of the proposed Eco Park development include:

• creation of 42 more jobs than the existing facilities on the site;

• all of the proposed facilities would contribute towards reducing the quantity of Surrey’s waste that is sent to landfill and thereby reducing the potential or actual financial burden of LATS penalties and landfill tax (subject to the proposed abolition of the former);

• the economies of scale and more importantly land take / cost of land associated with the use of shared infrastructure; and

• the reduction in vehicle miles through the co-location / synergies identified above, would result in substantial vehicle cost savings and reduced impacts on the local road network.

144

ITEM 6

603 Officers do not, however, consider that substantial weight should attach to the socio-

economic factors associated with the application, including increased employment.

604 Both Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy (PPS22) and the Draft Planning Policy Statement on Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate indicate that “the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources” can constitute very special circumstances for inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The applicant has stated that the proposal is considered an important renewable energy development for which there is an overriding need at the national and local level. The benefits of renewable energy generation have been considered above; and Officers consider that the Eco Park’s contribution (as a result of the gasification and AD facilities and the photovoltaic panels) towards national targets for electricity generation from renewables in accordance with Government and development plan policy contributes to very special circumstances.

605 SBC states that the ‘proposal does not satisfactorily demonstrate there are genuinely ‘very special circumstances’, and in their Officer report to committee consider that the very special circumstances put forward by the applicant are not special, or are of limited weight, or are not specific to the site as they could apply to any Eco Park. Officers, would disagree with this view, as very special circumstances do not need to be site specific, therefore some may relate direct to Charlton Lane as a site, whilst others for example the co-location benefits, environmental benefits and benefits of renewable energy are not necessarily site specific, but are factors that in combination go toward demonstrating very special circumstances. The comments made by SBC on the ASA have already been covered, and Officers consider that the ASA is a robust assessment and is satisfactory.

Conclusion on Very Special Circumstances and Green Belt 606 The proposal is for inappropriate development in the Green Belt and is therefore harmful

to it by definition; and Government places substantial importance on the protection of the Green Belt from the effects of inappropriate development. It would have a significant impact on the openness of this part of the Green Belt. The built parts of the proposal would run counter to one of the purposes of including land in the Green Belt, safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. However, in terms of uses of the land, the proposed EEA would fulfil Green Belt objectives in respect of providing opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population, the enhancement of landscapes near to where people live and securing some nature conservation interest.

607 Officers acknowledge that the proposed Eco Park would have a significant impact on

openness. However, in the examination of the SWP 2008, the Inspector did not consider that openness of the Green Belt would be compromised substantially further. The Inspector considered that the site at Charlton Lane was acceptable for use for various waste management uses, including a small scale EfW, providing always that the development was in accordance with the KDC for the site, and that very special circumstances had been demonstrated in accordance with Policy CW6. Officers consider that significant weight should be attached to compliance with the KDC so far as the impact on openness is concerned because it confirms that the development is one, which might, subject to satisfaction of other criteria, be permitted within the framework of SWP 2008.

608 The adverse impact of the built part of the proposal on the visual amenities of the Green

Belt also weighs against the proposal although it is less than it would otherwise be bearing in mind the history of waste development on the site, the grant of permanent planning permission for the existing facilities and the proposed EEA to the east of the site (which would assist with the wider landscape setting and minimise the impact on

145

ITEM 6

visual amenity and openness).

609 Officers consider that the remaining visual and noise impacts on Ivydene Cottage and visual impacts on properties in Upper Halliford and Charlton Village must also be weighed against the benefits of the proposal notwithstanding that the design of mitigation measures will reduce them.

610 On the other hand, Officers consider there are a number of factors which together

constitute very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, harm to openness and other harm, and that these justify the grant of planning permission. None of the factors identified in the application and listed under the four considerations above can, on its own, be considered to constitute very special circumstances and clearly outweigh the harm referred to above; but in combination they do so. These factors, which have been considered in detail, are: (1) the lack of alternative suitable sites in or outside of the Green Belt; (2) the need for the County to increase recycling and recovery capacity and diversion from landfill to contribute to agreed targets; (3) the close proximity of the site to the arisings of waste; (4) the characteristics and suitability of the site for the scale of waste operation proposed given the length of time that the site has been in waste management; (5) the unique benefits of co-location at Charlton Lane; (6) the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management, including the need for a range of sites; (7) the provision of renewable energy generation capacity and (8) environmental enhancement measures for the adjoining land.

611 Officers consider that these factors combined are such that very special circumstances

have been demonstrated as required by SWP 2008 Policy CW6. They consider that these clearly outweigh the harm resulting from the proposal. Therefore, an exception to Green Belt policy in PPG2, the SEP 2009 Policy SP5 and SBLP Policy GB1 can and should be made and planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS 612 The Human Rights Act Guidance for Interpretation, contained in the Preamble to the

Agenda is expressly incorporated into this report and must be read in conjunction with the following paragraph.

613 It is acknowledged that there would be an impact on the Green Belt caused by

inappropriateness of the development and harm to openness, in addition impacts in respect of air quality (including health impacts), noise, traffic, landscape are acknowledged and have been assessed in the body of the report and mitigation provided; however the scale of such impacts is not considered sufficient to engage Article 8 or Article 1 of Protocol 1 and, if planning permission were to be granted, any impact is capable of being mitigated by the measures incorporated into the application proposal and by planning condition and the mitigation measures and controls available through the Environmental Permitting regime. As such, this proposal is not considered to interfere with any Convention right.

614 In considering the current planning application and framing the recommendation Officers

have considered both individual interests of objectors and those in the wider community. Having taken into account all the facts Officers consider that, on balance, the wider community need and benefits that would result from the combined waste facilities within this Eco Park which would provide for a more sustainable form of waste management in diverting waste from landfill outweighs any harm to individuals.

CONCLUSION

146

ITEM 6

615 The proposal needs to be assessed and considered as a new waste proposal within the

Metropolitan Green Belt where there is a presumption against inappropriate development. Key issues in determining this application include compliance with the Development Plan, the protection of the Metropolitan Green Belt, the suitability of the site for waste development, transport and transportation, and the potential impact on local residential, environmental and amenity interests. Those issues are, in light of the recent planning history, to be assessed in the context that, as this application assumes, planning permission for permanent retention of the existing waste management facility has been issued, which was confirmed on 4 March 2011.

616 This proposal seeks the redevelopment of the existing waste management facility at Charlton Lane, which lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt, thereby creating an integrated waste resource facility for treating MSW and trade waste, which has been called an Eco Park by the applicant. The facility comprises: a Gasification Facility; Anaerobic Digestion Facility; Recyclables Bulking Facility; Community Recycling Facility; Education / Visitor Centre and Offices; Other Associated Infrastructure including Infiltration Basin and EEA; and the diversion of Public Footpath 70.

617 The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would cause

harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness. It would also have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt (bearing in mind also its role in separating Charlton and Upper Halliford). The proposal would involve some encroachment beyond the allocated area in the SWP 2008, which will impact on openness of the Green Belt. However, the proposal is providing regeneration of the existing waste facility and significant enhancement in the form of the EEA. The site has been assessed on the basis of national and development plan policies that require, in particular, the site is: in the right location; capable of supporting the right infrastructure; and being operated without causing significant adverse harm to local amenity and local environmental interests. Additionally, where there is harm to the Green Belt, it has been demonstrated very special circumstances exist to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm.

618 Although the proposal extends over a much greater area than the existing currently

permitted site, it has to be recognised that whilst some 4.5 ha would be utilised for the built development of the Eco Park, the remaining larger area is to be used for landscaping and an Environmental Enhancement Area (EEA). Whilst the proposed built footprint occupies primarily (93%) of the permitted waste management area (and SWP 2008 allocation), there is a small amount of land outside these boundaries to the east necessary for HGV access and a weighbridge office. It will be necessary to be satisfied that the additional land release, beyond the SWP site allocation is necessary and that the facility as proposed is needed and cannot be located elsewhere.

619 SBC have objected very strongly to this application, principally on Green Belt grounds

and on the basis of the impact on Ivydene Cottage and the wider landscape. These issues have been thoroughly addressed in the above sections of the report; and Officers consider that whilst there are acknowledged impacts, the characteristics of the site and proposed mitigation measures are sufficient to overcome SBC’s objection. Many issues have been raised by local residents, which were categorised into topics and listed for Members in the section on ‘Consultations & Publicity’; and these have been addressed by Officers (mostly in writing in the relevant sections of this report).

620 The suitability of the application site for waste development and potential impact of the

proposal in terms of renewable energy, highways, traffic and access; landscape and visual amenity; noise, vibration, dust and odour; biodiversity and ecology; and drainage, flooding and water quality; lighting and glare; archaeology and cultural heritage; and cumulative impacts, have been considered in the report. Consideration has also been

147

ITEM 6

given to the existence and significance of other issues (perception of health risks, technology concerns, health and safety, other environmental and socio-economic factors). Officers have considered whether these matters justify or require the refusal of planning permission outright or give rise to ‘any other harm’ to be taken into account in the assessment of the application against Green Belt policy.

621 The existing site handles waste from the Boroughs of Spelthorne, Runnymede,

Elmbridge and a small amount from Woking District; and approx 150,000 tonnes were handled in 2009/10. The Eco Park would continue to deal with this MSW and trade waste flow and other MSW and recyclables from the northern Boroughs, but will provide a more integrated and sustainable multi-treatment facility for MSW, comprising a gasification and AD plant recovering energy and electricity to be fed into the grid (in addition to digestate that could be used as a fertiliser for spreading on the land). The CRC and bulking facility would continue to operate from an improved facility. This application does not propose to increase the tonnage of waste currently handled at the site - in fact it would reduce the tonnage to 143,500 tonnes per annum. The proposal has been assessed on a range of highways, traffic and access matters, and Officers consider the site to be suitable in terms of highway capacity and safety for the amount and type of traffic that would be generated, subject to a CEMP, existing Routing Strategy, a Travel Plan agreed and tonnage limit on the total amount of waste handled at the site.

622 There is an accepted need for the County to increase recycling and recovery capacity

and divert waste from landfill to contribute to agreed targets, both for Surrey and the wider South East region. This includes improving and upgrading existing waste management sites to ensure that there is increased recovery of materials to reduce the amount of MSW going to landfill. The development of this integrated waste resource facility would provide a key component of Surrey’s plan to achieve its recycling targets. The CRC would continue to provide a vital facility for local residents, in dealing with over 25,000 tonnes of their household recyclable waste. The bulking facility would also be a key component of Surrey’s present operation and is fundamental to the high recycling rates achieved at the site. The bulking carried out also reduces overall waste HGV miles. In terms of its location in relation to the principal areas of waste arisings, the Charlton Lane site sits broadly central to the three Boroughs of Spelthorne, Runnymede and Elmbridge and benefits from a good standard of access from the primary road network. The proposed development provides part of a sustainable solution to the problem of dealing with Surrey’s waste.

623 Officers have considered the issues in respect of air quality, specifically the issues of

emissions from the plant, traffic emissions, dust and odour and health effects; and following comments from the CAQC and SBC EHO, Officers consider that there are unlikely to be significant effects on the air quality. Emission levels would be well within the regulatory limits. In terms of dust and odour, it was concluded that mitigation would be provided in the form of a dust and odour management plan. Traffic emissions would reduce with the net reduction in HGV traffic levels, as compared against the existing waste facility. Health effects were covered and were not found to present a risk to public health, in view of the regulation over such facilities, through the EP regime. Officers therefore concluded that the application would not have an unacceptable impact on air quality (including emissions, dust, odour and health effects) and as such accords with the development plan policies, as outlined in the relevant report section. Officers have also considered the perception of risk to human health.

624 Impacts (specifically noise and visual) on Ivydene Cottage have required separate

assessment due to the proximate location of the property to the development; and the harmful impacts on Ivydene Cottage have been identified and considered above. However, Ivydene Cottage has been in close proximity to the existing waste facility for many years, and consideration of the long period of time during which the property and

148

ITEM 6

waste activities have co-existed provides an important context; and this is a material consideration of significant weight in this case. Officers have concluded that whilst there would be an increased visual impact from the Eco Park, this would be mitigated by two acoustic fences and further planting. The acoustic fences would also mitigate the noise impacts identified. In addition, the design of the Gasification building’s southeast corner attempts to reduce visual impact.

625 In respect of the visual impact on the wider landscape, Officers consider that the existing

peripheral planting and the provision of a significant area of enhancement (EEA) to the east and north will help to provide an improved landscape setting, breaking up the views of the proposed development, resulting in some partial screening and filtering of the views of the facility from the east and north. The landscaped areas will be managed and improved, providing nature conservation benefits, through a 25 year Landscape and Ecology Management Plan. They recognise, however, that the measures will not serve to avoid harm to the visual amenities of the Green Belt whilst the landscaped areas mature.

626 In relation to all others issues, Officers consider that through the imposition of suitable planning conditions relating to site management and other control measures undertaken at the site, the proposed development of an Eco Park on land at Charlton Lane would not result in a materially adverse impact on these matters; and the proposal complies with relevant national and development plan policy, excepting in respect of Green Belt.

627 Officers consider Charlton Lane to be a suitable location for the application proposal

when considered against locational guidance contained in the SEP 2009 and the sequential approach of SWP 2008 Policy CW5; and they have concluded that this proposal accords with SWP 2008 Policies WD1, WD2 and WD5, which themselves require the demonstration of very special circumstances in accordance with SWP 2008 Policy CW6.

628 Officers do not consider that their view that the proposed Eco Park is in accordance national waste policy – including WS2007 and PPS10, to which most weight continues to attach because of their status in law - is undermined by the recently-published Waste Review. In particular, the Eco Park is promoted as part of a strategy intended to exceed targets referred to in the Waste Review. The proposal incorporates AD, which is clearly supported by Government for the treatment of food waste. It includes a proposal for a gasification following widespread public engagement through the JMWMS and planning application processes.

629 Waste development of this type is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and

therefore planning permission may only be granted where factors that amount to very special circumstances are proven to justify inappropriate development and clearly outweigh the harm in terms of inappropriateness and any other harm. The proposed waste management facility (Eco Park) is dominated visually by the main gasification building (approx. 8500m2) with a roof height of 18.5m, with a bulk of some 140,000 m3, which is approx 2.75 times the scale (in terms of bulk) of the existing MRF / WTS building. The AD plant and associated tanks and RBF building are lower structures, although some tanks are up to 15m in height. These new site activities and buildings / structures would have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt and conflict with one of the purposes of including land in the Green Belt in terms of encroachment. As discussed in this report, the different elements of the built development would have different impacts on the Green Belt depending on their respective nature and character. Officers consider that the mitigation offered by the EEA is significant, so as to minimise the impact of these new buildings and structures and contribute to three of the objectives for the use of land in the Green Belt. Officers, therefore consider that there is effective mitigation in respect of the impact on openness, which accords with the Green Belt SWP

149

ITEM 6

2008 KDC. ‘Other harm’ has also been identified and discussed in the Green Belt section above.

630 Having considered the matters the applicant has put forward as very special

circumstances why planning permission should be granted, Officers consider there are a number of factors, which together constitute very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and other harm arising, and justify the grant of planning permission. These factors are: (1) the lack of alternative suitable sites in or outside of the Green Belt; (2) the need for the County to increase recycling / recovery capacity and diversion from landfill to contribute to agreed targets; (3) the close proximity of the site to the arisings of waste; (4) the characteristics and suitability of the site for the scale of waste operation proposed given the length of time that the site has been in waste management; (5) the unique benefits of co-location at Charlton Lane; (6) the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management, including the need for a range of sites; (7) the provision of renewable energy generation capacity and (8) environmental enhancement measures for the adjoining land. These factors combined are such that Officers consider that very special circumstances exist and that, on the basis of the clear balance referred to in PPG2, an exception to Green Belt policy can and should be made.

RECOMMENDATION The recommendation is to PERMIT subject to conditions and that AUTHORITY BE GRANTED to make, publicise and, if applicable, confirm the footpath diversion order sought by the Applicant, and the application being referred to the Secretary of State as a departure. CONDITIONS Approved Plans 1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following

approved plans and drawings:

Drawing No Title Dated 1224 PL-B001 Site Plan and Location Plan October 2010 1224 PL-B003 Rev A Site Plan Proposed October 2010 1224 PL-B004 Rev B General Arrangement Plan October 2010 1224 PL-B005 Gasification Facility Ground Floor Plan October 2010 1224 PL-B006 Gasification Facility Roof Plan October 2010 1224 PL-B007 Admin & Visitor Centre Floor Plans October 2010 1224 PL-B008 Gasification Facility Elevations North & South October 2010 1224 PL-B009 Gasification Facility Elevations East & West October 2010 1224 PL-B010 AD Ground Floor Plan October 2010 1224 PL-B011 AD Roof Plan October 2010 1224 PL-B012 AD Elevations October 2010 1224 PL-B013 RBF Ground Floor Plan October 2010 1224 PL-B014 RBF Roof Plan October 2010 1224 PL-B015 RBF Elevations October 2010 1224 PL-B016 AD Tank Area Plan & Elevations October 2010 1224 PL-B017 CRC/RBF Office & Amenity Building Plans &

Elevations October 2010

1224 PL-B018 Weighbridge Office Plans & Elevations October 2010 1224 PL-B019 CRC Centre Refuse Canopy Plans &

Elevations October 2010

1224 Pl-B020 CRC Canopy Elevations October 2010

150

ITEM 6

1224 PL-B021 Gasification Facility Building Sections & Site

Sections October 2010

1224 PL-B022 Rev A Entrance Gates & Signs December 20101007-02-01 Landscape Masterplan October 2010 1007-02-02 Site Entrance Landscape Proposals October 2010 1007-02-03 Proposed Surface Water Drainage Layout October 2010 1007-02-04 Sections Through Proposed Bund October 2010 1007-02- 05 Site Entrance Improvement Proposals October 2010

Commencement 2 The development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of three years

beginning with the date of this permission. The applicant shall notify the County Planning Authority in writing within seven working days of the commencement of development.

Restriction of Permitted Development Rights 3 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted

Development Order) 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification),

(a) no buildings, fixed plant or machinery shall be located on the site of the

development hereby permitted without the prior submission to and approval in writing by the County Planning Authority of details of their siting, detailed design, specifications and appearance. Such details shall include details of noise emission levels (including tonal characteristics) of any plant or machinery; and

(b) no fencing or external lighting other than that hereby permitted shall be erected or

installed at the site of the development hereby permitted unless details of them have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.

Hours of Operation 4 No operations or activities authorised or required by this permission in respect of the

Community Recycling Centre and Recyclables Bulking Facility shall be carried out except between the following times:

(a) Community Recycling Centre Monday to Saturday 0730 to 1800 hours Sundays and Bank Holidays 0800 to 1700 hours (b) Recyclables Bulking Facility Monday to Saturday 0730 to 1800 hours

Sundays and Bank Holidays 0800 to 1700 hours (when only waste delivered to the Community Recycling Centre will be handled).

There shall be no operations or activities at any time on Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year's Day.

This condition shall not prevent Heavy Goods Vehicles for the Recyclables Bulking Facility

entering the application site gates from 0700 hours Monday to Saturday. 5 No vehicles either delivering waste or other materials or removing waste from the

Gasification plant and Anaerobic Digestion plant hereby permitted, shall enter or leave the site except between the hours of:

151

ITEM 6

(a) Gasification Plant Monday to Saturday 0730 to 1800 hours Sundays and Bank Holidays 0800 to 1700 hours

There shall be no deliveries or removals at any time on Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year’s Day.

(b) Anaerobic Digestion Plant Monday to Friday 0730 to 1800 hours Saturdays 0730 to 1200 hours Bank Holidays 0800 to 1200 hours

There shall be no deliveries or removals at any time from the Anaerobic Digestion Facility on a Sunday.

There shall be no operations or activities at any time on Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year's Day.

This condition shall not prevent Heavy Goods Vehicles for the Gasification Facility and Anaerobic Digestion Plant entering the application site gates from 0700 hours Monday to Saturday.

6 Construction work on site shall be carried out only between 0730 to 1730 hours Monday to

Friday and 0730 to 1330 hours Saturday; with piling (if approved under Condition 20) and soil moving limited to 0800 to 1700 hours Monday to Friday. There shall be no construction work or restoration activity carried out at any time on a Sunday, Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Year’s Day or Bank Holidays.

7 The Education/Visitors Centre shall not open to members of the public outside the hours

0900 hours to 1730 hours Monday to Saturday and there shall be no opening on Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year's Day. These permitted hours of opening shall not apply to meetings of the Charlton Lane Eco-Park Community Liaison Group.

Lighting 8 The development hereby permitted shall not commence unless a Detailed Lighting

Scheme for each element of the Eco Park has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. It shall include:

• Details of proposed lighting levels and confirmation that they comply with industry

recommendations applicable to the particular use of each part of the site; • Details of all lighting including hours of illumination and low-level lighting; • Provision for review of the performance of the lighting scheme and adaptation of

lighting installed pursuant to it within twelve months of the opening of the gasification plant and anaerobic digestion plant (whichever be the later);

• Details of compliance with the obtrusive light limitations for exterior lighting

installations for Environmental Zone E2 given in the Institute of Lighting Engineers (ILE) Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light 2005 in respect of the vertical spillage of light onto the windows of Ivydene Cottage, glare at Ivydene Cottage and users of the adjacent highway (Charlton Lane) and M3 motorway which shall not exceed:

152

ITEM 6

•

Sky Glow

ULR [Max %]

Light Trespass Ev [Lux]

Source Intensity 1 [kcd]

Building Luminance

Pre 2300 hours

Pre 23.00 hours

Post 23.00 hours

Pre 23.00 hours

Post 23.00 hours

Average, L (cd/m2)

2.5 5 1 7.5 0.5 5

The Detailed Lighting Scheme shall be implemented strictly in accordance with the approved details.

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) 9 Construction of the development hereby permitted, including the demolition of the existing

buildings, shall not commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include details of:

a) the programme of works; b) arrangements for liaison between contractors, the highway authority, local

residents and other interested persons including the constitution of the liaison committee, its terms of reference and frequency of meetings of any liaison panel;

c) measures for the control of noise and vibration, air quality and dust during

construction; d) measures to minimise risks to the hydrogeology of the site by virtue of ground and

earthworks (to include details of piling [subject to the requirements of Condition 20], service installation, foundation construction and dewatering);

e) measures for minimising risks of pollution during construction;

f) siting of any construction compounds or lay down areas;

g) the number, type and size of vehicles associated with each stage of construction

including any abnormal loads;

h) daily HGV arrivals and departures for each stage of construction with routing details;

i) construction and demolition operating and delivery hours; j) vehicle access and on-site parking and manoeuvring; k) loading and unloading of plant and materials; l) construction traffic routing including measures to prevent HGVs accessing the site

through Charlton Village; m) storage of plant and materials; n) measures to prevent materials from being deposited on the public highway;

153

ITEM 6

o) management of traffic entering and leaving the Community Recycling Centre

including measures to avoid conflict with construction traffic or activities; and p) measures to prevent vehicles parking up outside the site before the entrance gates

to it are open;

q) arrangements for the prior notification in writing to the residents of Ivydene Cottage of : • emergency shut down testing procedures during commissioning; and • steam vent testing during commissioning and regular testing during the

operational period.

The CEMP shall be implemented strictly in accordance with the approved details. Highways, Traffic and Access 10 The development hereby permitted shall handle no more than 143,750 tonnes of waste per

annum, of which no more than 42,750 tonnes per annum shall be handled by the Recyclables Bulking Facility. The operator shall maintain records of the tonnage of waste delivered to the site and the Recyclables Bulking Facility and shall make these records available to the County Planning Authority at any time upon request.

11 Prior to the commencement of any other operations, the modified access to Charlton Lane

shall be constructed in accordance with Axis Drawing No 1007-02-05 dated 15 October 2010. The modified access shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with a detailed specification (to include keeping visibility splays permanently clear of any obstruction above 600mm) to be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority prior to commencement of its construction.

12 The development hereby permitted, including the demolition of the existing buildings, shall

not commence unless the internal access roads, parking, loading and unloading areas for the Community Recycling Centre have been constructed as shown on Drawing No 1224 PL-B004 Rev B dated October 2010; and those roads and other areas shall be permanently maintained for the purposes shown on that drawing.

13 Prior to commencement of the internal fit out of the gasification and anaerobic digestion

plants hereby permitted, the remaining internal access roads, parking, loading and unloading areas, shall be constructed as shown on Drawing No 1224 PL-B004 Rev B dated October 2010; and those roads and other areas shall be permanently maintained for the purposes shown on that drawing.

14 Prior to commissioning of the gasification and anaerobic digestion plants hereby permitted,

a Parking Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The Parking Management Plan shall include measures to prevent the parking of vehicles:

a) at the entrance and exit to the site; b) on the access roads; and c) at the access to the scout hut.

The Parking Management Plan shall be implemented strictly in accordance with the approved details.

15 Prior to the development hereby permitted commencing, including the demolition of the

existing buildings, a Bulk HGV Routeing Strategy (to include measures to prevent HGVs contracted to the site operator from travelling through Charlton Village) shall be submitted

154

ITEM 6

to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The HGV Routeing Strategy shall be implemented and maintained strictly in accordance with the approved details.

16 Prior to the commissioning of the gasification and anaerobic digestion plants and use of

the education and visitors centre, the operator shall implement the Travel Plan dated 4 October 2010 (Appendix F to the Transportation Assessment forming part of the application hereby approved) strictly in accordance with the details hereby approved; and the approved details shall be permanently maintained and enforced thereafter.

Contamination 17 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a remediation scheme

to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. That scheme shall include details of:

(1) A preliminary risk assessment which identifies:

• All previous uses; • Potential contaminants associated with those uses; • Potentially unacceptable risks arising from contaminations at the site; and provides a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors.

(2) A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed

assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. (3) A detailed risk assessment.

(4) An options appraisal and remediation strategy based on the site investigation results

(2) and the detailed risk assessment (3), which shall provide full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

(5) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to

demonstrate that the works set out in (4) are complete and to identify any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to the approved details shall require the consent in writing of the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

18 The construction of the surface water drainage basin shown on Drawing No 1007-02-03

dated October 2010 shall not commence unless the County Planning Authority has confirmed in writing that the verification plan referred to under Condition 17 has demonstrated that remediation has been undertaken to appropriate standards.

19 If, during the course of the development hereby permitted, contamination not previously

identified is found to be present on the application site then no further development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority, shall be carried out until an amendment to the remediation strategy (required by Condition 17 above) detailing how the unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with, is submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority and thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.

Groundwater Protection 20 No piling using penetrative methods shall be carried out at the site, other than following the

submission and written approval of a piling risk assessment. Such an assessment should demonstrate that the construction of the development would not mobilise existing contamination or create new pathways with risk to groundwater. The development shall be

155

ITEM 6

carried out strictly in accordance with any details subsequently approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.

Surface Water 21 Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for the implementation,

maintenance and management of a sustainable water drainage system (based on an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development and the requirements of PPS25 and associated Practice Guide) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall take into account the remediation strategy options proposed in compliance with Condition 17 and include details of:

• the final drainage layout, the infiltration basin as detailed on the section shown on

Drawing No. 1007-02-03 dated October 2010 and any pumping locations and surface water storage locations in the event of pump failure;

• all proposed infiltration devices;

• full calculations to demonstrate that the proposed drainage system will not increase flood risk and surface water runoff rates and volumes off site up to and including the 1 in 100 year flood event including an allowance for climate change;

• pollution prevention methods which shall be incorporated into the drainage system (to include petrol/oil interceptors fitted in all car parking/washing/repair facilities); and

• the management and maintenance regime of the drainage system.

The system shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

22 The development hereby permitted shall be constructed to ensure that infiltration of

surface water at the application site takes place only in those locations approved in accordance with schemes approved in writing pursuant to Conditions 17 and 21 above.

Noise 23 The development hereby permitted (including modified access works in accordance with

Condition 11) shall not commence until a scheme for the construction of the acoustic fence along the western and northern boundary of Ivydene Cottage in accordance with Drawing no. 1224 PL-B022 Rev A dated December 2010 and protection of the existing vegetation along the western and northern boundary of Ivydene Cottage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority and that fence has been constructed in accordance with the approved details. The scheme shall provide details of the construction of the acoustic fence using close-boarded fencing or similar solid screening materials having a minimum mass of 10kg/m2. The acoustic fence shall be maintained in accordance with the approved scheme. That part of the scheme relating to the protection of existing vegetation shall include measures to secure:

• Prevention of storage of machinery, plant, equipment or materials associated with the

fencing within the area of planting to be retained, alteration of ground levels around root zones, and excavation where it would interfere with root zones adversely affecting the prospects of survival of any tree;

• That no retained planting shall be cut down, uprooted, damaged, topped or lopped

unless in accordance with the written approval of the County Planning Authority. Any topping and lopping shall be carried out by a specialist operative approved in writing

156

ITEM 6

by the County Planning Authority and strictly in accordance with British Standards BS 3998 Tree Works; and

• That any retained planting is removed, uprooted, damaged beyond reasonable

recovery, or dies as a result of works carried out in proximity to it shall be replaced with another plant of a species agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority planted in accordance with details (which shall include timing) approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.

The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved measures.

24 The level of noise emitted from the site during construction shall not exceed 70 LAeq

during any 30 minute period between 0800 to 1700 hours Monday to Friday and 0830 to 1300 hours on a Saturday measured at, or recalculated as at, a height of 1.2 m above ground level and 3.5 m from the façade of any residential property or other noise sensitive building that faces the site. Construction noise at any other permitted time shall not, so measured, exceed 60 LAeq during any 30 minute period.

25 Use of the gasification plant HGV turning and reversing space shall not commence unless

the 5 metre high acoustic fence has been constructed as shown in accordance with Drawing No. 1224 PL-B022 Rev A dated December 2010 using close-boarded fencing or a similar solid screen having a minimum mass of 15kg/m2; and that fence shall be retained permanently and maintained thereafter.

26 Site attributable noise levels shall not, when measured at, or recalculated as at, a height of

1.2 m and at least 3.5 m from the façade (or the nearest equivalent location) of any noise sensitive property at the locations referred to in Table 1 below exceed the values shown in columns 1 and 2 for the weekday and weekend working hours shown; and they shall not when measured at, or recalculated as at, a height of 4 m and at least 3.5 m from the façade (or the nearest equivalent location) of any noise sensitive property at the locations referred to in Table 1 below exceed the values shown in column 3 during the evening and night time).

Table 1 – Daytime, Evening and Night time Noise Limits

1 2 3Location Weekday 0700 –

1830 LAeq, 30 min LAeq, 30 min

Weekend 0730 – 1830 LAeq, 30 min LAeq, 30 min

Evening and night noise limits all days LAeq, 30 min

Hawthorn Way 55 52 34 Ivydene Cottage

55 53 32

Charlton Road 55 53 33 27 The evening and night (as in Table 1 above) site attributable noise levels when measured

at, or recalculated as at, a height of 4 m and at least 3.5 m from the façade of any of the noise sensitive property at the locations referred to in Table 2 below shall not exceed the values shown in Table 2. For the one-third octave limits up to 8 frequencies may be exceeded by up to 4 dB logarithmically averaged over any 30 minute period without breaching this condition. For site generated noise only, if the level of a one-third octave band exceeds the level of the adjacent bands by 4 dB or more, the level of that one-third octave band must comply with the limit value in Table 2 for the corresponding one-third octave band.

157

ITEM 6

Table 2 – Evening and Night time Noise Limit

1/3 octave centre frequency 25 32 40 50 63 80 100 125 160 Hawthorn Way 59.3 58.2 56.8 54.6 53.7 51.5 50.2 49.2 45.9Ivydene Cottage 53.5 50.3 51.2 52 51.5 47.7 43.3 43.2 43.6Charlton Road 60.2 58.2 56.9 53.7 50.4 49.3 48.1 47.2 46.6 1/3 octave centre frequency 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1k 1k25Hawthorn Way 44.4 40.5 39.3 38.1 38.2 41.9 41.6 41.1 37.3Ivydene Cottage 43.5 42.2 42 42.3 43.2 43.4 42.3 40.2 40 Charlton Road 44.2 43.5 41.3 41.6 40.2 38.7 39.3 40.7 39.6 1/3 octave centre frequency 1k6 2k 2k5 3k15 4k 5k 6k3 8k Hawthorn Way 38.1 37.5 34.6 32.7 32.1 27.2 24.6 22.4 Ivydene Cottage 39.5 36.5 36 34.9 34.2 29.3 26 22.8 Charlton Road 39.1 34.8 33.7 32.4 30.4 28.1 24.8 21.2

28 Any vent used to discharge surplus steam shall be fitted with a silencer, which will reduce

noise levels to the equivalent of 75 dBA at 1 metre from the closest part of the steam vent. In the case of an emergency shutdown requiring the emergency discharge of steam, any vent should be fitted with a silencer which will reduce noise levels to the equivalent of 112 dBA at 1 metre from the closest part of the steam vent. Details of these silencers shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority prior to their installation.

Ecology 29 No removal or cutting of vegetation including trees and shrubs shall be carried out

between 1 March and 31 August inclusive in any year, with the exception of previously netted trees, details of which to be provided to the County Planning Authority prior to the any work being carried out.

30 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of the provision

of bird nest boxes (including the timing of their installation) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority; and bird nest boxes shall be provided and maintained strictly in accordance with the approved details.

Airport Safeguarding 31 The development hereby permitted shall not commence unless a Bird Hazard

Management Plan (to include details of the management of any flat or shallow pitched roofs of buildings on site that may be attractive to nesting, roosting and loafing birds and to comply with Advice Note 8 'Potential Bird Hazards from Building Design') has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The Bird Hazard Management Plan shall (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority) be implemented strictly in accordance with the approved details.

32 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until full details of soft and water

landscaping works have been submitted to the County Planning Authority and approved in writing. The details shall comply with Advice Note 3, 'Potential Bird Hazards from Amenity Landscaping & Building Design' and include:

158

ITEM 6

• details of any water features; and • drainage details including SUDS.

These details shall comply with Advice Note 6 'Potential Bird Hazards from Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes (SUDS)'. The scheme shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details.

Restriction of Activities 33 No waste shall be deposited or stored at the site except within the designated areas of the

gasification plant, anaerobic digestion plant, bale storage building and within the covered bay areas for the bale storage building and community recycling centre as shown on Drawing No. 1224 PL-B004 dated October 2010.

34 No mobile plant shall be used outside the gasification and anaerobic digestion buildings

between 1800 hours and 0700 hours. Building Details (materials) 35 Development shall not commence unless details of the external materials (including their

colours) of each of the buildings and the stack hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority; and the development shall (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority) be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details.

Dust and Odour Management Plan 36 Development shall not commence unless a Dust and Odour Management Plan has been

submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented strictly in accordance with the approved details, which shall be maintained and enforced permanently thereafter.

Rights of Way 37 Works on the definitive route of Public Footpath 70 Sunbury shall not commence unless a

Diversion Order has come into effect and the footpath diverted in accordance with the alignment shown on Drawing No 1007-02-01 dated October 2010. The footpath shall be laid out and retained with a width of 2 metres, with an unbound surface with a minimum width of 1.8 metres (Type 1 aggregate) incorporating a camber to shed water. Details of the material to be used and specification are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority before works to divert the footpath commence; and the works shall be carried out and retained in accordance with the approved details.

38 Safe public access to Public Footpath 70 Sunbury across the site shall be maintained at all

times; and there shall be no obstructions to it (including obstructions from vehicles, plant and machinery or storage of materials and/or chemicals) at any time.

39 Prior to the construction of the new footpath link shown on Drawing No 1007-02-01 dated

October 2010, details of works (to include low level fencing and reed bed protection) to provide for the separation of the infiltration basin shown also therein shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority; and those works shall be carried out, maintained and retained in accordance with the approved details.

159

ITEM 6

Soils 40 Development shall not commence unless a report has been submitted to and approved in

writing by the County Planning Authority detailing the results of a survey of the soils on the area shown as the EEA on Drawing No 1007-02-01 dated October 2010. That report shall consider whether there are sufficient soils on that area to establish and sustain planting and, if not, details of:

• the provision of further soils (to include volumes, sources and the testing of soils

to ensure suitability to sustain planting); • the placement and depth of soils; and • ground preparation.

Works shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details.

Landscaping 41 No trees, bushes and hedgerows retained on the site shall be cut down, uprooted or

destroyed, and no trees retained shall be topped or lopped other than in accordance with plans and particulars submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. If any retained tree is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies within 5 years from the date of this permission, another tree shall be planted at the same place; and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as shall be agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority.

Landscape & Ecology Management Plan 42 The development hereby permitted shall not commence unless a Landscape and Ecology

Management Plan in accordance with the provisions set out on the Landscape Masterplan Drawing No 1007-02-01 dated October 2010 covering a period of 25 years (and providing for 5 yearly reviews) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The Landscape and Ecology Management Plan shall (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority) be implemented in accordance with the details approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The Landscape and Ecology Management Plan shall include the following details:

• Aims and objectives of the Management Plan;

• Description and evaluation of features;

• Any constraints on site that may influence management;

• Management options for achieving the aims and objectives;

• Any specific management measures aimed at enhancing habitat quality or specific species;

• Detailed prescriptions for management actions including mitigation, enhancement, vegetation removal and vegetation replacement;

• Outline financial resources to be used in and personnel responsible for implementation of the Management Plan;

• Detailed work schedule for years 1 – 5 of the Management Plan, with subsequent detailed work schedules to be submitted every five years up to 25 years (i.e. for Years 6-10, Years 11-15, Years 16-20 and Years 21-15). Each work schedule shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for written approval by the end of September in the year preceding the year in which the work schedule is to

160

ITEM 6

be implemented and shall provide for the submission and approval in writing of annual work plans;

• Monitoring and review procedures, including contingency measures triggered by the monitoring process;

• Any supplementary planting with detailed specifications thereof; and shall provide for:

a) the retention and management of existing features on the site; b) advance planting within the EEA (including along the railway corridor); c) the provision of details of the stone access track annotated as access to 3rd

party grazing land and shown on Drawing No 1007-02-01 dated October 2010 incorporating how advance planting on the eastern boundary will be protected during construction of the track;

d) supplementary planting to existing vegetation along the northern and western boundaries of Ivydene Cottage;

e) seed mixes for the grassland area; f) the management of newly created features; g) the management of recreational aspects; h) litter management; and i) sustainability issues.

Archaeology 43 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until the applicant has secured the

implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented strictly in accordance with the approved details.

Energy Recovery 44 The electricity generating plant to be installed in association with the Gasification plant and

Anaerobic Digestion plant hereby permitted and the photovoltaic cells whose installation is also hereby permitted shall have a combined generating design capacity of not less than 5.16 MW.

45 Prior to the gasification plant becoming operational a study detailing the feasibility and

commercial viability of exporting heat from the gasification plant for use by local domestic, commercial and/or industrial users (together with the demand for such heat) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. If at the time the Gasification Plant becomes operational the study concludes that exporting heat from the plant is not feasible or commercially viable, then a timetable for the review of the study shall be agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority. Pass out valves should be provided and maintained at appropriate heat off-take points as described at paragraph 5.8.9 of the Environmental Statement Volume 1: Main Report.

46 Following the completion of commissioning, no waste shall be treated by either the

Gasification plant or Anaerobic Digestion plant unless:

(i) the electrical power is used to power the development hereby permitted itself; and

(ii) the electricity cable link from the Gasification plant and Anaerobic Digestion plant to the National Electricity Grid has been constructed and is capable of transmitting all the electrical power produced by the Gasification plant and

161

ITEM 6

Anaerobic Digestion plant facility which is not used to power the development hereby permitted itself.

Thereafter, no waste shall be treated by either the Gasification plant or Anaerobic Digestion plant unless electrical power is being generated except during periods:

‐  of maintenance or repair of the electricity generating plant; or

‐  where there the operator of the National Electricity Grid is unwilling or unable to receive energy from the development hereby permitted.

REASONS 1 To ensure the permission is implemented in accordance with the terms of the application

and to enable the County Planning Authority to exercise planning control over the development so as to minimse its impact on the amenities of the local area and local environment in accordance with the terms of The South East Plan 2009 Policy SP5; Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policies DC3 and Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001 Policy GB1 (saved policy).

2 To accord with the provisions of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act

1990 as amended by Section 51 (1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to enable the County Planning Authority to control the development and monitor the site to ensure compliance with the planning permission.

3 To enable the County Planning Authority to exercise control over the development

hereby permitted and comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and in accordance with The South East Plan 2009 Policy SP5; and Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001 Policy GB1 (saved policy) and the Key Development Criteria for Charlton Lane relating to Green Belt.

4,5,6 To enable the County Planning Authority to exercise control over the & 7 development hereby permitted and protect the amenities of local residents in accordance

with Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3. 8 To protect the visual amenities of the locality to comply with Surrey Waste Plan 2008

Policy DC3 and Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 Policy EN13. 9 In the interest of the local environment and amenity and in order that the development

should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and to prevent the pollution of groundwater to comply with The South East Plan 2009 Policy NRM2; Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 and Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 Policies CC1 and EN11and the Key Development Criteria for Charlton Lane relating to access to site.

10 To ensure that the amount of waste treated at the site does not exceed the level upon

which the transportation impact was assessed to comply with Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3.

11 In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause

inconvenience to other highway users to comply with The South East Plan 2009 Policy T1; Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 and the Key Development Criteria for Charlton Lane relating to access to site.

12&13 In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause 14 inconvenience to other highway users to comply with The South East Plan 2009 Policy

T1; Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 and Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD

162

ITEM 6

2009 Policy CC3 and the Key Development Criteria for Charlton Lane relating to access to site.

15 To reduce the environmental impact of the passage of heavy goods vehicles accessing

the site on the residents of Charlton Village to comply with The South East Plan 2009 Policy T1; Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 and the Key Development Criteria for Charlton Lane relating to prevention of access through Charlton Village.

16 To reduce the environmental impact of the passage of heavy goods vehicles accessing

the site to comply with PPG13; The South East Plan 2009 Policy T1; Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 and Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 Policies SP7 and CC2 and the Key Development Criteria for Charlton Lane relating to access to site.

17 To ensure that the development poses no risk to groundwater as a result of it being sited

on historically contaminated land to accord with PPS23; Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 and Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 Policy EN15.

18 To ensure that the proposed infiltration basin does not pose a risk to controlled waters, in

accordance with PPS23 and Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3. 19 To prevent pollution of the environment with PPS23: Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy

DC3 and Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 Policy EN15. 20 To ensure that piling would not present an unacceptable risk to groundwater as parts of

the site may be on historically contaminated land and to accord with PPS23; The South East Plan 2009 Policy NRM2; Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 and Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 Policy EN15.

21&22 To ensure that the surface water drainage system complies with the requirements of

PPS25 and the associated PPS25 Practice Guide, such that the rates and volume of run-off from extreme events can be attenuated on site and do not cause flood flows to increase above the natural conditions prior to development and to ensure that the techniques proposed can function appropriately and does not pose a pollution risk to controlled waters in accordance PPS25 and to comply with The South East Plan 2009 Policy NRM4 and Surrey Waste Plan Policy DC3 and the Key Development Criteria for Charlton Lane relating to flood risk.

23 To ensure the minimum disturbance and protect the amenities of the residents of

Ivydene Cottage and to accord with Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 and Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 Policies EN1 and EN11.

24 To ensure the minimum disturbance and to avoid nuisance to the locality to comply

Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 Policy EN11.

25 To protect the amenities of local residents in accordance with Surrey Waste Plan 2008

Policy DC3 and Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 Policy EN11. 26&27 To ensure the minimum disturbance and to avoid nuisance to the locality to comply 28 with Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 and Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies

DPD 2009 Policy EN11. 29 To ensure that breeding birds are not disturbed by the removal of habitat in accordance

with Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 and Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies and DPD 2009 Policy EN8.

163

ITEM 6

30 The proposal will lead to a loss of scrub habitat important for nesting birds. The provision

of nest boxes will compensate for the loss of this habitat until the replacement scrub becomes established to comply with Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 and Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 Policy EN8.

31 To minimise the attractiveness of the site to birds which could endanger the safe

movement of aircraft and the operation of Heathrow Airport to accord with Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 and Circular 01/03.

32 To avoid endangering the safe movement of aircraft and the operation of Heathrow

Airport through the attraction of birds and an increase in the bird hazard risk of the site to accord with Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 and Circular 01/03.

33 To comply with the terms of the application and in the interests of the local environment

and amenity and to comply with Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 and Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001 Policy BG1 (saved policy) and the Key Development Criteria for Charlton Lane relating to Green Belt.

34 To comply with the terms of the application and in the interests of the local amenity and

to comply with Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 and Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 Policy E11.

35 To protect the visual amenities of the locality to comply with Surrey Waste Plan 2008

Policy DC3; Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001 Policy GB1 (saved policy) and Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 Policies EN1 and EN8 and the Key Development Criteria for Charlton Lane relating to visual impact.

36 To enable the County Planning Authority to exercise control over the development and in

the interests of the local environment and amenity in accordance with the South East Plan 2009 Policy NRM9, Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 and the Key Development Criteria for Charlton Lane relating to air quality.

37 To protect the route of the public footpath and the amenities of the users and comply

with Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 and the Key Development Criteria for Charlton Lane relating to the footpath.

38&39 To protect users of the footpath and comply with Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3

and the Key Development Criteria for Charlton Lane relating to the footpath. 40 To comply with the terms of the application and to ensure that environmental

enhancement is successful in accordance with Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 and Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 Policies SP6 and EN8 and the Key Development Criteria for Charlton Lane relating to visual amenity.

41 To comply with Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in the interests

of visual amenity and to assist in absorbing the site into the local landscape to comply with Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3; Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001 Policy GB1 (saved policy) and Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 Policy EN8 and the Key Development Criteria for Charlton Lane relating to visual amenity and Green Belt.

42 To enhance nature conservation interest and assist in absorbing the site into the local

landscape to accord with The South East Plan 2009 Policies C4 and NRM5; Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3; Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001 Policy GB1 (saved policy) and Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 Policies EN1 and EN8 and the Key Development Criteria for Charlton Lane relating to visual amenity and Green Belt

164

ITEM 6

43 To afford the County Planning Authority a reasonable opportunity to examine any

remains of archaeological interest which are unearthed and decide on any action required for the preservation or recording of such remains in accordance with the terms of Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy DC3 and Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001 Policy BE26 (saved policy).

44 To ensure that the development hereby permitted has capacity to contribute to the UK

Government’s target to source up to 15% of energy from renewable sources by 2020 in accordance with the planning application and to comply with South East Plan 2009 Policy W12; Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy WD5 criterion ii and Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 Policy EN1.

45 To enable the re-use of waste heat in accordance with The South East Plan 2009

Policies CC2 and W12; Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy WD5 criterion ii and Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 Policies EN1and SP7.

46 To ensure that no waste is treated by either the Gasification Plant or Anaerobic Digestion

facility unless the electricity generated is used either within the Eco Park or exported to the National Grid in accordance with the South East Plan 2009 Policy W12; Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy WD5 criterion ii and Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 Policy EN1.

INFORMATIVES 1 The applicant's attention is drawn to the information and advice contained in BAA Airports

letter dated 12 January 2011 in relation to Bird Hazard Management Plans and water posing a potential bird attractant.

2 Pollution Prevention Guidelines will be appropriate for this site and the discharge of a

number of planning conditions. Please check www.netregs.gov.uk for further information. 3 An Environmental Permit will be required for this site under the Environmental Permitting

(England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (as amended). 4 Details of the highway requirements necessary for inclusion in any application seeking

approval of reserved matters may be obtained from the Transportation Development Control Division of Surrey County Council.

5 The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out works on

the highway. The applicant is advised that a licence must be obtained from the Highway Authority Local Transportation Service before any works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway.

6 A pedestrian inter-visibility splay of 2 metres (m) by 2 metres (m) shall be provided on

each side of the access, the depth measured from the back of the footway and the widths outwards from the edges of the access. No fence, wall or other obstruction to visibility between 0.6 m and 2 m in height above ground levels shall be erected within the area of such splays.

7 The applicant is advised that as part of the detailed design of the highway works required

by the above condition(s), the County Highway Authority may require necessary accommodation works to street lights, road signs, road markings, highway drainage, surface covers, street trees, highway verges, highway surfaces, surface edge restraints and any other street furniture equipment.

8 Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure of 10 m head

(approx 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres/minute at the point where it leaves Thames Water

165

ITEM 6

pipes. The applicant should take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development.

9 Where it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be

separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of groundwater. Where the applicant proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on 0845 850 2777.

10 A Trade Effluent Consent will be required for an effluent discharge other than a 'domestic

discharge'. Applications should be made to Waste Water Quality, Crossness STW, Belvedere Road, Abbeywood, London SE2 9AQ. Telephone 020 8507 4321.

THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010 Reasons for the grant of planning permission and development plan policies/proposals relevant to the decision. Planning and Waste Management Issues. There is a need for further waste management capacity within the county to handle Surrey's waste in a more sustainable manner by facilitating recycling, compositing and energy recovery – including the treatment of waste further up the waste hierarchy - and thereby both manage waste more locally and divert waste from landfill. Whilst the grant of permanent planning permission for the community recycling facility, materials recycling facility and waste transfer station at the Charlton Lane site has secured the planning status of those facilities, the Eco Park will provide recycling / recovery capacity and landfill diversion that will contribute to meeting EU and national government waste policy objectives and targets - and the objectives and targets of the revised Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy for Surrey. There is a lack of non-Green Belt sites to meet this need. The Eco Park accords with Waste Strategy 2007 and Planning Policy Statement 10, which together provide the waste planning framework in England that satisfies the relevant EU Directives. It also accords with the Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011. The Surrey Waste Local Plan 2008 (‘SWP 2008’) provides the local development plan policy focussed on waste, and it is consistent with the strategic waste policies contained in the South East Local Plan (‘SEP 2009’). Focussing on the Charlton Lane site in the context of SWP 2008, the great majority of the site of the built development comprising the Eco Park is within the area of land shown to be allocated, by SWP 2008 Policies WD1 and WD2, for ‘the improvement or extension of existing civic amenity sites’ and ‘recycling, storage, transfer, materials recovery and processing facilities (excluding thermal treatment)’. This allocation is subject to the provisos in each case that development proposed meets the key development criteria (‘the KDC’) set out in the Plan and demonstration of very special circumstances in accordance with SWP 2008 Policy CW6. The Charlton Lane site is also allocated, by SWP 2008 Policy WD5, for ‘thermal treatment facilities’. This further allocation is subject to the same provisos and the additional requirements that (i) the waste to be treated cannot practically and reasonably be reused, recycled or processed to recover materials and (ii) provision is made for energy recovery. The gasification plant meets those additional requirements and the Eco Park considered as a whole satisfies the provisos to each of these policies. Those parts of the Eco Park that lie outside the indicative boundary of the allocation do not bring the development into conflict with SWP 2008 Policy CW5. The Eco Park will make a significant contribution to net self-sufficiency within Surrey, will enable waste to be managed in one of the nearest appropriate installations (the Eco Park is well-related to the source of waste arisings it is to treat) and - subject also to the grant of an environmental permit by the Environment Agency (‘the EA’) - by means of the most appropriate methods and

166

ITEM 6

technologies. The co-location of facilities will further assist Surrey to achieve its ambitious recycling targets. SWP 2008 Policy CW4 supports the grant of planning permission for the Eco Park. Renewable Energy and Climate Change. The Eco Park will make a significant contribution towards the UK's binding target under the Renewable Energy Directive (reflected in its Renewable Energy Strategy) to source up to 15% of energy from renewable sources by 2020 by providing a potential combined generating capacity of up to 5.16MW of electricity, the greater part of the electricity generated to be exported to the local electricity distribution network. It will result in substantial savings of carbon dioxide per year compared with the continued landfill of residual waste; and options for the reduction of carbon dioxide associated with the Eco Park (renewable energy and energy efficiency options) have been investigated, resulting in the installation of photovoltaics. The Eco Park is in accordance with development plan policy relevant to renewable energy and climate change in the SE Plan, SWP 2008 and Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 (‘Spelthorne Core Strategy’). Highways Traffic and Access. The local highway network in the vicinity of the site is considered suitable in terms of highway capacity and safety for the amount and type of traffic to be generated. The permitted revisions to the site access and access and parking arrangements within the site are assessed to address the issue of queuing on the public highway and to be satisfactory. The requirements for a vehicle routing strategy will minimise the impact of HGV traffic on Charlton Village. A Construction Environmental Management Plan (‘CEMP’) and Travel Plan will mitigate the impact of construction traffic and support sustainable transport to the site thereafter. This is a suitable location for the sources of waste to be treated; and development of the Eco Park will result in substantial savings in HGV kms travelled in association with waste management. The development complies with relevant development plan policy in the SE Plan, SWP 2008 (including the KDC) and Spelthorne Core Strategy. Environmental and Amenity Issues. Air quality,dust and odour. Emissions from the plant will be regulated in accordance with an environmental permit to be issued by the EA; and a permit will not be granted unless the EA is satisfied that emissions from the anaerobic digestion and gasification plants will comply with the Waste Incineration Directive. The Council has no reason to dispute the EA’s advice to the effect that there is no basis upon which it should have refused planning permission for the Eco Park on air quality grounds. The anaerobic digestion and gasification plant reception buildings will operate under negative pressure; the gasification building will contain a dust suppression system; the anaerobic digestion plant includes an odour control facility to be regulated by the EA; and detailed flue gas dispersion modelling predict odour levels at nearby sensitive receptors well below the EA’s most stringent Odour Exposure Standard. Although fugitive emissions, i.e. dust or odour not emitted via vents or stacks, are predicted to produce no significant effects, a Dust and Odour Management Plan will be secured by condition. Traffic emissions will reduce compared with continued operation of the existing facility. The advice from the EA and NHS indicates that there is no basis upon the Council should have refused planning permission on grounds of impact on human health. The Eco Park complies with development plan policy relevant to air quality, dust and odour in the SE Plan, SWP 2008 (including the KDC) and Spelthorne Core Strategy. Landscape and visual amenity The applicant undertook a visual impact assessment as required by SWP 2008 KDC. Whilst of much larger scale, the design of the Eco Park (particularly the gasification building) incorporates a much higher standard of design that that of the existing buildings on site. The requirement for a high standard of design for both built development and site layout, including landscaping, has been met (SWP 2008 KDC refers). The quality of finishes reflects the applicant’s response to CABE’s challenge to provide a ‘celebratory’ aspect to the design scheme, given that it will be the focus of innovative/modern waste management technology and learning through the visitor/education centre. The Council has considered whether the visual impact of the development as a whole is in breach of development plan

167

ITEM 6

policy. There will not be compliance with development plan policy during the construction phase, when large areas of existing peripheral planting will be removed. The 49-metre stack and gasification building will create a permanent significant feature in the wider landscape and have particular visual impacts on Ivydene Cottage and properties to the east in Upper Halliford. With regards to visual impact on properties in Charlton Village to the northwest, Officers consider that intervening screening will effectively filter views of the stack and gasification building. The Environmental Enhancement Area (‘EEA’) will secure appropriate mitigation to both compensate for loss of landscape features and minimise visual impacts in the wider landscape setting and the improvements permitted may be beneficial in light of the Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (‘LEMP’), secured by condition. It is not considered, on balance, that the Eco Park’s landscape and visual impacts viewed as a whole are in breach of relevant development plan policy in the SE Plan, SWP 2008 (including the KDC in respect of the footpath and visual amenity), Surrey Minerals Local Plan 1993 and Spelthorne Core Strategy. Noise and vibration. The applicant proposed that the best practical means should be employed to control noise during construction; and the Council agreed that adequate mitigation will be achieved during this phase by means of the CEMP, secured by condition. The acoustic fence proposed for Ivydene Cottage is to be constructed prior to the commencement of construction, and this has been secured by condition. This fence (3m high along the western boundary and 4m high along the northern boundary) (50 metres from rear first floor habitable windows) is considered to provide a successful compromise, attenuating noise impacts to acceptable levels whilst protecting visual amenities. Predicted levels of industrial noise confirmed no significant effects at Ivydene Cottage or elsewhere. Calculations of the impact of road traffic noise also showed no significant increase at selected receptor positions and no further mitigation is therefore proposed. However, testing of the emergency shut-down procedures during the commissioning phase and steam venting/emergency shut-down whilst the plant is operational will cause high noise levels and mitigation measures are to be secured in respect of these by condition. No significant effects are anticipated arising from ground borne vibration from operations at the site, although a short-term temporary effect may be experienced during construction of the new access construction. The Eco Park is in accordance, in this context, with SWP 2008 and Spelthorne Core Strategy. Surface water and flooding. A flood risk assessment has been undertaken in accordance with SWP 2008 KDC. The Eco Park will be constructed within Flood Zone 1 (a low probability area); and it is not anticipated that it will give rise to adverse impacts in terms of surface water or flooding. The development is therefore in accordance with relevant policy in the SE Plan, SWP 2008 and Spelthorne Core Strategy. Geology, soils and groundwater. Site investigations identified potential sources of contamination of low to moderate significance and confirmed that conditions would secure any further works necessary. No adverse impacts are anticipated in terms of geology, soils and hydrology and the development accords with relevant policy in the SE Plan, SWP 2008 and Spelthorne Core Strategy. Ecology and nature conservation. SWP 2008 KDC indicates that it was likely that Appropriate Assessment should be required; but Natural England agreed that this was not so in relation to the proposed Eco Park. No protected species issues arose in relation to the proposed Eco Park. Habitats within and around the site are mostly of relatively recent origin; and the exception is of plantation origin with a high proportion of non-native species in the canopy. Some of the more recently established habitats have developed a local value for nature conservation. The local open space around the development supports few features of significant ecological interest, and is relatively isolated by transport corridors from interest features in the wider ecological context. The development addresses any impacts on ecological interest features during construction and operation with appropriately-targeted mitigation measures secured by condition. Sensitive ecological receptors remote from the site (potentially vulnerable to impacts from atmospheric deposition, noise or water pollution) were considered, and no significant impacts predicted on any European or UK statutory designated sites. A key component of the Eco Park is the EEA

168

ITEM 6

and approval of the LEMP, which is to last 25 years. Management of the EEA in accordance with the LEMP will result in new habitats and enhance conservation and biodiversity interests and value. The Eco Park complies with relevant policy in the SE Plan, SWP 2008 and Spelthorne Core Strategy. Lighting. A full scheme of lighting design details was submitted; and no objection to the proposal arises subject to the imposition of a condition to secure a detailed lighting scheme (to include provision for the adjustment or shielding of lighting within the first year of operation). Subject to the implementation of an approved lighting scheme, the proposed development will comply with SWP 2008 and Spelthorne Core Strategy. Archaeology and cultural heritage. The possibility of archaeological deposits across the site is assessed to be limited; and the imposition of a condition requiring a programme of archaeological work in accordance with an approved scheme of investigation is considered to be a sufficient safeguard. Although a number of cultural assets will experience a minor effect on their setting from the gasification building and 49 metres stack, such effects will not result in significant residual impacts. The Eco Park is in accordance with relevant policy in SWP 2008 and Spelthorne Borough Local Plan. Cumulative effects. A number of projects within 5km (Shepperton Studio redevelopment, three mineral extractions, Walton Bridge, redevelopment of industrial units in Hounslow and Thorpe Park redevelopment) were identified in consultation with Spelthorne Borough Council. These have been considered and significant cumulative environmental effects are unlikely to result from the construction and operation of the Eco Park due to the nature of the likely effects of these developments and their spatial separation from Charlton Lane Other Issues. The Council has had due regard to but did not consider that substantial weight should attach to concerns arising from perceived risk to human health or the choice of technology. The Council did not consider that the Eco Park would have unacceptable health and safety impacts. Neither did it consider that substantial weight attached to socio-economic factors, including increased employment. Green Belt. The Eco Park involves inappropriate development in the Green Belt and is therefore harmful to it by definition; and Government places substantial importance on the protection of the Green Belt from the effects of inappropriate development. It will also cause significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt (bearing in mind also its important role of separating Charlton and Upper Halliford) by reason of its size and extent. The built parts of the Eco Park run counter to one of the purposes of including land in the Green Belt (safeguarding the countryside from encroachment). The planting and use of the EEA, on the other hand, will not be inappropriate development and will fulfil Green Belt objectives (providing opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population, the enhancement of landscapes near to where people live and securing some nature conservation interest). Although the Eco Park will have a significant impact on openness, the SWP 2008 provides (and the Inspector considered) that the site at Charlton Lane was acceptable for use for various waste management uses, including a small scale energy-from-waste plant, provided both that the development was in accordance with the site-specific KDC, and that very special circumstances had been demonstrated in the context of the specific proposal. Significant weight therefore attaches to the Eco Park’s compliance with the KDC so far as the impact on openness is concerned. The adverse impact of the built part of the Eco Park on the visual amenity of the Green Belt is less than it would otherwise be bearing in mind the history of waste development on the site, the assumed permanent planning permission for the existing facilities on site and the proposed EEA (which will assist with the wider landscape setting and minimise the impact on visual amenity and openness). ‘Other harm’ considered comprised: adverse impact on the visual amenities of the Green Belt from the proposed new buildings, particularly in the early stages of the development, the remaining visual and noise impacts on Ivydene Cottage, and visual impacts on properties in Upper Halliford and Charlton Village (though the design of mitigation measures will reduce them).

169

ITEM 6

There are, on the other hand, a number of factors, which together constitute very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, harm to openness and other harm. None can, on its own, be considered to constitute very special circumstances and clearly outweigh the harm referred to above; but in combination they do so. These factors, which have been considered in detail, are: (1) the lack of alternative suitable sites in or outside of the Green Belt; (2) the need for the County to increase waste recycling / recovery and landfill diversion to contribute to agreed targets; (3) the close proximity of the site to the arisings of waste; (4) the characteristics and suitability of the site for the scale of waste operation proposed given the length of time that the site has been in waste management; (5) the unique benefits of co-location at Charlton Lane; (6) the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management, including the need for a range of sites; (7) the provision of substantial renewable energy generation capacity and (8) environmental enhancement measures for the adjoining land. These factors combined are such that very special circumstances have been demonstrated as required by SWP 2008 Policy CW6; and they clearly outweigh the harm that will result from the Eco Park. The Council concluded, therefore, that it should make an exception to Green Belt policy in PPG2, the SEP 2009 Policy and SBLP and grant conditional planning permission for the Eco Park. The proposal has been considered against the following development plan policies/ provisions: The South East Plan 2009 Policy W3 Regional Self-Sufficiency Policy W4 Sub-regional Self-Sufficiency Policy W5 Targets for Diversion from Landfill Policy W6 Recycling and Composting Targets Policy W7 Waste Management Capacity Requirements Policy W11 Biomass Policy W12 Other Recovery and Diversion Technologies Policy W17 Location of Waste Management Facilities Policy NRM1 Sustainable Water Resources and Groundwater Quality Policy NRM2 Water Quality Policy NRM4 Sustainable Flood Risk Management Policy NRM5 Conservation and Improvement of Biodiversity Policy NRM9 Air Quality Policy NRM10 Noise Policy NRM11 Development Design for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Policy NRM12 Combined Heat and Power Policy CC1 Sustainable Development Policy CC2 Climate Change Policy CC3 Resource Use Policy CC4 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy CC7 Infrastructure and Implementation Policy T1 Manage and Invest Policy T4 Parking (not referred to in text) Policy SP5 Green Belts Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Policy CW4 Waste Management Capacity Policy CW5 Location of Waste Facilities Policy CW6 Development in the Green Belt Policy WD1 Civic Amenity Sites Policy WD2 Recycling, Storage, Transfer, Materials Recovery and Processing Facilities (Excluding Thermal Treatment) Policy WD5 Thermal Treatment Facilities

170

ITEM 6

Policy DC2 Planning Designations Policy DC3 General Considerations Surrey Minerals Local Plan 1993 Policy 29 Environmental Improvement of Former Mineral Workings Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document 2009 Policy CC1 Renewable Energy, Energy Conservation and Sustainable Construction Policy CC2 Sustainable Travel Policy CC3 Parking Provision Policy EN1 Design of New Development Policy EN3 Air Quality Policy EN8 Protecting and Improving the Landscape and Biodiversity Policy EN11 Development and Noise Policy EN13 Light Pollution Policy EN15 Development on Land Affected by Contamination Policy LO1 Flooding Policy SP6 Maintaining and Improving the Environment Policy SP7 Climate Change and Transport The Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001 (saved policies) Policy GB1 Development Proposals in the Green Belt Policy BE26 Archaeology and Ancient Monuments CONTACT Stephen Jenkins TEL. NO. 020 8541 9424 BACKGROUND PAPERS The deposited application documents and plans, including those amending or clarifying the proposal, responses to consultations and representations received as referred to in the report and included in the application file and the following: Government Guidance The Waste Strategy for England 2007 Energy White Paper ‘Meeting the Energy Challenge’ – 23 May 2007 UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009 The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan the National Strategy for Climate and Energy 2009 The Air Quality Strategy 2007 Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011 Government Review of Waste Policy in England Action Plan 2011 Anaerobic Digestion Strategy and Action Plan - 2011 Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2) Green Belts - January 1995 Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (PPG13) Transport - April 2001 updated November 2010 Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 (PPG24) Planning and noise - October 1994 Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) Delivering Sustainable Development - January 2005 Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1 - December 2007 Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - August 2005 Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) Planning for Sustainable Waste Management – March 2011 Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22) Renewable Energy - August 2004 Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS23) Planning and Pollution Control - November 2004

171

ITEM 6

Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) Development and Flood Risk and associated Practice Guide - March 2010 Circular 11/95 (Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions) Circular 02/99 Environmental Impact Assessment Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (EIA Regulations) Draft Planning Policy Statement: Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate (March 2010) The Planning System: General Principles (ODPM) - January 2005 The Development Plan The South East Plan 2009 Surrey Waste Plan 2008 Surrey Minerals Local Plan 1993 Spelthorne Core Strategy and Polices Development Plan Document 2009 Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001 (saved policies) Other Documents Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy DPD Proposed document for submission to the Secretary of State November 2009 (plus proposed changes arising from public examination) Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC Revised Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC Waste Incineration Directive 2000/76/EU Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC EU Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC The Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 The Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2010 http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/renewable_ener/renew_obs/eligibility/eligibility.aspx Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations (2010) Accelerating the Uptake of Anaerobic Digestion in England: an Implementation Plan 2010 (DEFRA) Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management 2004 (DEFRA) Waste Management Technology Brief on Advanced Thermal Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste 2007 (DEFRA) Designing Waste Facilities – a Guide to Modern Design in Waste 2008 (DEFRA) e-Digest Statistics About Air Quality (DEFRA) http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/air-pollution/glossary.php?glossary_id=53 Developing an Anaerobic (AD) Framework Document December 2010 (DEFRA) Accelerating the Uptake of Anaerobic Digestion in England: An Implementation Plan March 2010 (DEFRA) Environmental Permitting Guidance The Directive on the Incineration of Waste (For the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007) updated October 2009 (DEFRA) Annual Energy Statement July 2010 (DECC) Energy Trends December 2010 (DECC) The UK Health Protection Agency’s Position Paper on Municipal Waste Incineration 2009 Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) (Development Control: Planning for Air Quality 2010 Joint Municipal Waste Strategy 2006 - 2025, 26 September 2006 (Surrey Local Government Association) A Plan for Waste Management (Joint Municipal Waste Strategy) September 2010 (Surrey Waste Partnership) The World Class Waste Solutions (WCWS - Action Plan for the JMWMS Officer Report to Cabinet dated 2 February 2010) Environmental Benefits of Recycling 2010 update (WRAP)

172

ITEM 6

Protocol for the Quantification of Greenhouse Gases Emissions from Waste Management Activities Version 4 June 2010 (Entreprises pour l'Environment) Response with Responsibility - Policy Making for Public Risk in the 21st Century May 2009 (The Risk and Regulation Advisory Council) The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition - Best Practice Guidance 2006 (Greater London Authority and London Councils) Spelthorne Borough Council's Air Quality Progress Report May 2010 Guidelines for Noise Control Minerals and Waste Disposal (September 1994) (Surrey County Council) Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light 2005 (The Institution of Lighting Engineers) Judgement of Justice Collins Capel Parish Council v. Surrey County Council [2009] EWHC 350 (Admin) case No. C0/5684/2008 & 0510/2009 (Capel Judical Review) Planning appeal decision dated 8 March 2010 granting planning permission for an ADF at Wisley Airfield (APP/B3600/A/09/2098568) http://www.netregs.gov.uk/netregs/businesses/chemicals/61995.aspx Newport Borough Council v Secretary of State for Wales [1998] Env. L.R. 174 West Midlands Probation Committee v Secretary of State for the Environment [1998] J.P.L 388 Cala Homes (South) Limited V Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government [2010] EWHC 2866 (Admin). Judgment dated 10 November 2010 Cala Homes (South) Limited V Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government [2011] EWHC 97 (Admin). Judgment dated 7 February 2011 R (Cala Homes (South) Limited) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government (No. 2). Judgment dated 27 May 2011 Habitats Regulations Screening Report 25 January 2011 (Surrey County Council) Planning application SP10/0883 the Committee Report and Minutes to the 2 February 2011 Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting and Committee Report to the 25 February 2011 Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting. Surrey County Council Annual Monitoring Report 2009/2010 ‘Minerals and Waste Planning in Surrey’ December 2010; Planning appeal decision dated 11 January 2011 granting planning permission for the construction of a lorry parking facility with associated weighbridges and other infrastructure, Appeal Ref: APP/B3600/A/09/2098568; Carbon Trust, January 2006, "The carbon emissions generated in all that we consume" (CTC603), Carbon Trust, London

173