Planning Services

COMMITTEE REPORTAPPLICATION DETAILS

APPLICATION NO: DM/15/01767/WAS

FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION:

Construction and temporary use of a new building and temporary change of use of existing agricultural building for the recycling of plasterboard for 5 years (both building to be returned to agricultural use at the end of the 5 years)

NAME OF APPLICANT: AgricoreADDRESS: Hill Top Farm, WinstonELECTORAL DIVISION: Barnard Castle East

CASE OFFICER:Chris ShieldsSenior Planning OfficerTel. 03000 261 394chris.shields@durham.gov.uk

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS

The site

1. Hill Top Farm is situated approximately 1km south east of Winston Village off the B6274. The site is bordered by agricultural fields on all sides with the small hamlet of Winstongate 260m to the north-west. The landscape around the farm is gently undulating made up of primarily arable fields and is designated as an Area of High Landscape Value. The application area measures 1.10Ha, part of which is currently being used for the plasterboard recycling business with the remaining undeveloped area used to store farm machinery.

2. The agricultural business at the farm includes 3,000 pigs, cereal production in conjunction with on-site feed milling and contract farming. The total land holding associated with the farm covers approximately 324 hectares (800 acres). The farm steading itself includes a number of large agricultural buildings in order to accommodate these existing agricultural activities.

Background

3. Gypsum is a soft sulphate mineral with the chemical formula CaSO4. Gypsum is a mineral that has a wide range of uses including for the creation of plasterboard and concrete blocks in the construction industry, as a soil conditioner and fertiliser in agriculture, and is used medically for the creation of Plaster of Paris.

4. In 2005 changes to the Landfill Directive resulted in the prevention of landfilling gypsum and other high sulphate waste with biodegradable waste. This is because the gypsum would react with biodegradable waste to create hydrogen sulphide gas which can be odorous. Advice was then issued by the Environment Agency to state that

waste products containing gypsum, such as plasterboard, should be recycled in order to remove and reuse the gypsum rather than disposing of it to landfill.

5. Plasterboard is used extensively in the construction industry. Consequently, through demolition or refurbishment of buildings plasterboard is produced as a waste product within the construction and demolition waste stream. Under the Landfill Directive, as detailed above, the plasterboard must be separated out and dealt with in another manner and this has lead to the development of facilities specifically designed to recycle the plasterboard such as the one that has been developed and proposed to expand at Hilltop Farm. These recycling facilities need an outlet for the gypsum and paper produced through the recycling process. Gypsum is widely used as a soil conditioner and fertiliser and the paper can be used for animal bedding. The location of Hilltop farm, in an arable area, means that there is a ready local market for the gypsum and the paper produced.

The Proposal

6. The proposed development is for the construction of a building and temporary use of this building, and an existing agricultural building for a five year period for the recycling of plasterboard. At the end of this five year period both buildings would be returned to agriculture use with the existing permitted use continuing thereafter. The application area measures 1.10Ha, part of which is currently being used for the plasterboard recycling business with the remaining undeveloped area used to store farm machinery.

7. The proposed building would be located along the north eastern side of the farm steading and the finished floor level would be the same as the adjacent buildings. This would require the land to be excavated away to allow the building to be ‘sunk’ into the ground. The building itself would be 81m long x 42m wide reaching an eaves height of approximately 7.6m and maximum height to ridgeline of 15m. The roof would be clad in anthracite coloured fibre cement sheeting with roof lights. The elevations would also be clad with anthracite coloured fibre cement sheeting and concrete panels. There would be four openings in the western elevation, with roller shutter doors, to provide vehicular access into the building.

8. In addition, this proposal includes the temporary change of use of an existing agricultural building to a building that is being used in connection with the recycling of the plasterboard. This building was erected under the prior notification procedure (reference DM/14/00388/PNA) and it is located to the northern western corner of the proposed building. This building was briefly used as an agricultural store before being occupied by the recycling operation. This planning application would regularise the existing use of this building.

9. Under the current planning permission vehicles access the recycling facility from the B6274. The application originally proposed to use the existing access but this was subsequently altered during consideration of the application. This application also proposes that vehicles delivering plasterboard would access the facility from the B6274 but via a revised access location some 25m to the south of the existing access. It would then join the existing concrete track that runs to the south east of the farm steading. This track would be widened in order to include employee car parking along its edge. The revised access would improve visibility splays and would have capacity to allow HGV’s to pass.

10. It is proposed that an existing low bund would be graded and seeded to provide screening along the length of the track to the south of the existing farm buildings. A yard would be created in between the existing and proposed agricultural building,

being of sufficient length and width to allow wagons to reverse and turn to access the buildings to its north and east.

11. The waste plasterboard would be deposited and stored within the existing building at the northern end of the yard. All the existing recycling machinery and equipment would be moved into the northern end of the proposed new building where the waste plasterboard would be recycled through this machinery and picking line. In addition to the existing plant on site a point-source dust extraction system would be installed to remove dust from the process where it is created and a misting system installed to dampen any residual dust. The recycled gypsum would be stored in the middle section of the proposed building from where it would be exported from the site by articulated lorry or tractor and trailer. The southern end of the proposed building would be used for the storage and maintenance of machinery used in connection with the farm and the recycling business. This proposal would ensure that all the waste plasterboard and recycled gypsum, as well as the recycling process itself, are under cover.

12. The waste plasterboard is, and would continue to be, delivered to the site within a mix of vehicles but mainly 30 tonne articulated lorries and 20 tonne 8 wheelers. The facility would be able to accept and process up to 50,000 tonnes per annum with the operation currently importing 20-30,000 tonnes per annum. Currently plasterboard is delivered by 5 to 6 vehicles per day. It is estimated that an average of 200 tonnes of waste plasterboard would be imported to the site daily and experience has demonstrated that the average payload of the vehicle is 20 tonnes. This equates to a total of 20 vehicles per day (10 in and 10 out) to deliver the waste plasterboard to the farm. The resulting product, the agricultural fertiliser gypsum, is and would continue to be exported from the site via tractor and trailer or articulated lorry depending on the distance the product would travel. A total of 20 vehicles a day (10 in and 10 out) would export the recycled gypsum from the farm. The catchment area for the facility is from Scotland in the north down to Humberside in the south.

13. The recycling operation currently employs a total of 7 people (full time equivalent) with 2 additional staff operating between the farm and the recycling activity. The employees are all local with 4 employees living within a 3 mile radius and a further 4 within an 8 mile radius from the facility. It is anticipated that a further 4 to 5 full time equivalent jobs would be created if this application is permitted.

14. The proposed operating hours are 07.00 to 19.00 Monday to Saturday for recycling operations and 07.00 to 17.00 Monday to Saturday for deliveries. There would be no working associated with the recycling facility on Sundays, Public or Bank holidays.

15. The existing and proposed plasterboard recycling operations are, and would continue to be, regulated by the Environment Agency under and Environmental Permit.

16. The application is being reported to the County Planning Committee because it is a major development.

PLANNING HISTORY

17. The site has an extensive planning history, mainly for agricultural developments. The most recent approval was for an agricultural building to be used as a grain store under reference DM/14/00388/PNA.

18. Planning permission was granted in 2011 for the change of use of an existing grain store building for the recycling of plasterboard and continued use for agricultural

purposes. The annual throughput of the facility is limited by planning condition to 10,000 tonnes to protect local amenity.

19. Plasterboard recycling at Hilltop Farm commenced in 2013 and by mid-2014 it had expanded beyond the scope of the existing permission. The facility is currently operating outside of the building permitted by the 2011 permission and is using a larger grain store built in 2014 under reference DM/14/00388/PNA as well as other buildings to store the processed material and is currently processing material at a rate of approximately 30,000 tonnes per annum.

PLANNING POLICY

NATIONAL POLICY

20. The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), although the majority of supporting Annexes to the planning policy statements are retained. The overriding message is that new development that is sustainable should go ahead without delay. It defines the role of planning in achieving sustainable development under three topic headings – economic, social and environmental, each mutually dependant.

21. The NPPF does not contain specific waste policies as these are contained within the National Planning Policy for Waste document. However, the NPPF requires local authorities preparing waste plans and taking decisions on waste applications should have regard to policies in the NPPF so far as relevant.

22. The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF requires local planning authorities to approach development management decisions positively, utilising twelve ‘core planning principles’. The following elements of the NPPF are considered relevant to this proposal.

23. NPPF Part 1 – Building a Strong, Competitive Economy. The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity and to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system. Decisions should support existing business sectors, taking account of whether they are expanding or contracting.

24. NPPF Part 3 – Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy. Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development.

25. NPPF Part 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport. States that the transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel. It is recognised that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximize sustainable transport solutions which will vary from urban to rural areas. Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion.

26. NPPF Part 7 – Requiring Good Design. The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment, with good design a key aspect of sustainable development, indivisible from good planning. Planning policies and decisions must aim to ensure developments; function well and add to the overall quality of an area over the lifetime of the development, establish a strong sense of place, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses, respond to local character and history, create safe and accessible environments and be visually attractive.

27. NPPF Part 8 – Promoting Healthy Communities. Recognises the part the planning system can play in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy and inclusive communities. Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities.

28. NPPF Part 10 - Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change. Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy.

29. NPPF Part 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment. The planning system should contribute to, and enhance the natural environment by; protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, recognizing the benefits of ecosystem services, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, preventing new and existing development being put at risk from unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability, and remediating contaminated and unstable land.

30. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the weight to be attached to relevant saved local plan policy will depend upon the degree of consistency with the NPPF. The greater the consistency, the greater the weight. The relevance of this issue is discussed, where appropriate, in the assessment section of the report below.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf (NPPF)

31. Accompanying the NPPF the Government has consolidated a number of planning practice guidance notes, circulars and other guidance documents into a single Planning Practice Guidance Suite. This provides planning guidance on a wide range of matters. Of particular relevance to this development proposal is the practice guidance with regards to air quality, transport, flood risk, waste and use of planning conditions.

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/ (National Planning Practice Guidance)

32. National Planning Policy for Waste sets out the Government's ambition to work towards a more sustainable and efficient approach to resource use and management. Waste Planning Authorities should only expect a demonstration of need where proposals are not consistent with an up to date Local Plan and should not consider matters that are within the control of pollution control authorities. Waste proposals should not undermine the objectives of the Local Plan and should be environmentally sensitive and well designed. Of further relevance is the Waste Management Plan for England, which also advocates the movement of waste up the waste hierarchy

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-for-waste

LOCAL PLAN POLICY:

County Durham Waste Local Plan (2005) (WLP)

33. Policy W2 – Need – requires the demonstration of need for a particular development which cannot be met by an alternative solution higher up the waste hierarchy.

34. Policy W3 – Environmental Protection – states that proposals for new development will be required to demonstrate that the natural and built environment and the living conditions of local communities will be protected and where possible enhanced.

35. Policy W4 – Location of Waste Management Facilities – states that proposals for new waste management facilities will be determined having regard to protection of the environment and local amenity, traffic impacts, opportunities to integrate with other facilities or developments which will benefit from the recovery of materials and to extend or develop existing waste management facilities.

36. Policy W6 – Design – states that new buildings for waste management uses should be carefully sited and designed to complement the location and existing topography.

37. Policy W7 – Landscape – states that proposals for waste development which would result in the loss of important landscape features or which would have a significant adverse effect on the character of the landscape will not be permitted.

38. Policy W9 – Areas of High Landscape Value and Heritage Coast – requires waste proposals to demonstrate that the operational requirements cannot be met from a less sensitive site, will not have an unacceptable detrimental effect on the special character of the area and that high environmental standards will be maintained.

39. Policy W17 – Nature Conservation (Minimisation Of Adverse Impact) – states that proposals should incorporate measures to ensure that any adverse impact on the nature conservation interest of the site is minimised.

40. Policy W26 –Water resources – Proposals for waste development which does not involve landfill or landraise will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that there will be no significant adverse impact or significant deterioration to: the quality of surface or groundwater resources; and the flow of surface or groundwater at or in the vicinity of the site.

41. Policy W29 – Modes of Transport – requires that waste development incorporate measures to minimise transportation of waste.

42. Policy W31 – Environmental Impact of Road Traffic – states that waste development will only be permitted if traffic estimated to be generated by the development can be accommodated safely on the highway network, the amenity of roadside communities is protected, the strategic highway network can be safely and conveniently accessed and the impact of traffic generated by the development on local and recreational amenity is otherwise acceptable.

43. Policy W32 – Planning Obligations for Controlling Environmental Impact – states that in granting planning permission for waste development, planning conditions be imposed to cover, in addition to other issues, the prevention of the transfer of mud, dust, or litter onto the public highway by measures including the provision of wheel cleaning facilities, suitably metalled access roads and the sheeting of laden vehicles.

44. Policy W33 – Protecting Local Amenity – requires that suitable mitigation measures are incorporated into proposals to ensure that any harmful impacts from noise, odour, litter, vermin, birds, dust, mud, visual intrusion and traffic and transport are kept to an acceptable level.

45. Policy W36 – Locations for Waste Recovery Facilities - states that unless it can be clearly demonstrated that any environmental impacts can be effectively mitigated proposals for new or the expansion of existing waste management facilities should be fully contained within well designed buildings or enclosed structures appropriate to the technology or process and appropriate in scale and character to their surroundings.

Teesdale Local Plan (2002) (TLP)

46. Policy ENV3 – Development Within Or Adjacent To An Area Of High Landscape Value – Development will be permitted where it does not detract from the areas special character and pays particular attention to the landscape qualities of the area.

RELEVANT EMERGING POLICY:

The County Durham Plan

47. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF says that decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and, the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF. The County Durham Plan was submitted for Examination in Public and a stage 1 Examination concluded. An Interim Report was issued by an Inspector dated 15 February 2015, however that report was Quashed by the High Court following a successful Judicial Review challenge by the Council. As part of the High Court Order, the Council has withdrawn the CDP from examination. In the light of this, the CDP is no longer material.

The above represents a summary of those policies considered most relevant in the Development Plan the full text, criteria, and justifications of each may be accessed at:

http://www.durham.gov.uk/article/3273/Waste-Local-Plan (County Durham Waste Local Plan)http://www.durham.gov.uk/article/3271/Teesdale-Local-Plan (Teesdale Local Plan)

http://durhamcc-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/ (County Durham Plan)

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

STATUTORY RESPONSES:

48. Environment Agency – has raised no objections to the proposal but has stated that a variation to the existing Environmental Permit may be required.

49. Natural England – has raised no objections to the proposal.

50. The Highway Authority – raise no objections to the proposal. Officers have assessed the submitted Transport Statement and consider that the B6274 road has adequate capacity to handle the additional traffic loading from the proposed development, which would equate to a 3% increase in vehicle movements on this road.

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES:

51. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection – has raised no objections to the submission. Officers have commented that activities on the site that may create noise or dust would be covered by Environmental Permits from the Environment Agency and Local Authority.

52. Ecology – has raised no objections to the proposals but state that the applicant should be made aware through an informative on any planning permission that groundworks should avoid impacts on nesting birds.

53. Landscape – has raised no objections to the proposal. Officers note that the site is within an Area of High Landscape Value but advise that the new building would be screened from views by the topography and existing buildings and would not have a significantly negative effect on the landscape.

PUBLIC RESPONSES:

54. The application has been advertised by site notice, in the local press and by direct neighbour notification. The proposal has generated 37 letters of objection and 10 letters of support. A further consultation has been undertaken as a result of the proposed revision to the site access along the B6274.

Objection

55. The grounds of objection are summarised below:

Dust – The facility creates dust that can be seen leaving the farm and buildings and blowing across fields, causing air pollution and being deposited on residential properties. Furthermore, the stockpiles of gypsum deposited in fields for spreading also led to wind-blown dust. Concerns have been raised that the dust may be a health risk, particularly for asthma sufferers. A video has been submitted showing dust being blown from the farmyard during a storm.

Highways – Objectors have stated that vehicle movements associated with the existing and proposed development are of a level that harms amenity. Concerns of vehicles speeding and overrunning white lines on the road to Hilltop Farm from Winston and at the Caldwell junction in Winston have been raised. The capacity of the bridge in terms of its ability to cater for HGV’s due its age (built in 1772 and is a Listed Grade II*) and carriageway width.

Location – Objectors have stated that the current and proposed development is industrial and should be moved to an industrial estate where the infrastructure is more appropriate for HGV’s.

Conditions – Objectors have commented that conditions of the existing planning permission have been breached and that there has been inadequate monitoring by the Council. It is also questioned what guarantee there is that conditions attached to any subsequent consent would be complied with.

Asbestos – Concerns have been raised over the content of the waste plasterboard being delivered to Hilltop Farm for processing, particularly in relation to asbestos and the potential for airborne particles blown from the processing area on the farm and the associated health issues for people inhaling this.

Consultation – It has been suggested that as well as consultations being sent to Winston, letters should also have been sent to Gainford due to the potential impact from wind-blown dust on the prevailing south easterly wind.

Land spreading – Objectors have stated that spreading of gypsum to land was removed as an appropriate use from Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 109 in March 2014. This would therefore mean that the product made at Hilltop could not be used in agriculture, which would diminish the need for the process to be located on a farm.

56. Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) – has objected on the basis that the proposed development would impact upon the tranquillity of the area, residential amenity and whilst being supportive of farm diversification it is considered that this development should be located on an industrial estate.

Support

57. 10 letters of support have been received from businesses supplying plasterboard, buying gypsum, employees, local farmers and residents. The reasons for support are summarised below:

Gypsum – The product from Hilltop Farm is a good soil conditioner that is of particular benefit to soils with a high magnesium content. The product makes soils more friable, which reduces waterlogging, nitrogen loss and lowers cultivation costs. Gypsum is a cheap source of sulphur which assists with growing oil seed rape and prevents disease in winter wheat, reducing dependence upon chemical spraying.

Location – There are no other suppliers of gypsum in the region and haulage costs from other suppliers would not be justifiable.

Economic – The proposal is a good example of diversification providing employment for local people.

Other – Local residents have refuted the claims that vehicle movements are harmful to the amenity in Winston and that dust has not spread from the site on a regular, nor that it has caused additional suffering for those with asthma.

58. Local Member – Councillor James Rowlandson has written in support of the proposal. He has stated that although there have been problems in the past with compliance with planning and environmental regulations the applicant has sought to address these issues and considers that the product is an important local resource.

APPLICANTS STATEMENT:

59. Hill Top Farm is an established family farm, however, like many farms it has sought to diversify its activities and this resulted in a new business based on recycling plasterboard being established in August 2011. The concept of recycling the plasterboard was to recover gypsum for use as an agricultural fertiliser and soil improver and the paper for animal bedding. The need for such a specialised recycling facility in the North of England and an outlet for the resulting products both on the farm and the surrounding farms has led to the considerable growth of this recycling business in a short period of time. In particular, in 2009 a landfill ban was introduced that prevented gypsum based wastes going to landfill and therefore the construction industry needed a recycling facility for plasterboard. Also, the heavy nature of the soils in the area make the gypsum an ideal fertiliser/soil conditioner, and uptake by local

farmers has been high. These factors have led to the customer base of the business growing to 130 and the number of staff growing from 1 to 8 Full Time. The workforce is locally based with the majority of staff living with a ten mile radius of the site and half coming from villages within 3 miles of the farm.

60. This development is now necessary because of the increase in the quantity of waste being generated in the North East and coming into the site and the need to regularise the use of an existing agricultural building on the farm as well as the construction of a new building. The use of both the existing and proposed building is proposed for a temporary period of 5 years in order to allow the business the space and time to grow whilst the necessary investigations and work is undertaken to move this successful recycling facility to another location. They would both then return to agricultural use. The new building is required because plasterboard is by nature dusty and needs to be handled and stored, as well as processed, indoors to minimise the impact of the operations on the environment and amenity of the area. The new building has been designed to ensure that all operations associated with the loading and unloading of wagons are undercover and it will benefit from an internal dust extraction system to clean the working environment as well as preventing dust emissions from the site. It is acknowledged that on occasions the quantity of waste imported and stored at the site has led to concerns from Officers however the operator has always sort to address any issues as quickly as possible. It is also intended that the measures outlined above, as well as others such as concreting the access track, will seek to address the concerns that have been raised by some local residents. Finally it has always been acknowledged that there is a concern at the level of traffic entering and leaving the site and the impact this will have on the residents in Winston. To investigate this matter a Transport Consultant was retained and his assessment is that the quantity of vehicle movements will not have an impact on highway safety.

The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The full written text is available for inspection on the application file which can be viewed at the offices of the Strategic Planning

Team at County Hall Durham and at https://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=NPM68WGDL2P00&documentOrdering.ord

erBy=documentType&documentOrdering.orderDirection=ascending

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

61. Having regard to the requirements of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 the relevant Development Plan policies, relevant guidance and all other material planning considerations, including representations received, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to the principal of the development, residential amenity, highway safety, landscape and visual impact, conditions and other matters.

Principle of the development

62. Planning permission was granted in August 2011 for the change of use of an existing farm building as a space for carrying our plasterboard recycling. The permission was granted subject to a limit of 10,000 tonnes per annum (TPA). This proposal is therefore an extension of the existing recycling operation with a 5 fold increase of the permitted limit to 50,000 tonnes.

63. National and local planning policies are generally supportive towards sustainable waste management initiatives and seek to promote the movement of materials up the waste hierarchy. The Government’s ‘Waste Strategy for England 2007’ set out the Government’s objectives to reduce waste and increase recycling of waste and energy recovery. The Waste Review of 2011 sets out the Government’s aims for a ‘zero

waste’ economy. The direction of travel set by the Review is a new focus in national policy on the use of materials throughout the economy; the integration of business and household waste; a smaller and different role for central government; and more focus upon the householder or business and the importance of this agenda – from waste prevention to waste management – for the “green economy”. Waste is considered a valuable resource.

64. The NPPW sets out in the waste hierarchy that prevention of waste and re-use of materials should be considered before recycling. However, plasterboard is typically used in the construction of buildings in a manner that limits its potential for re-use as it generally cannot be removed without causing damage. Therefore recycling is the next best option to avoid recovery and disposal.

65. Although the NPPF does not contain specific waste policy, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is reflected in the drive towards effective waste management as recycling material that cannot otherwise be reused, such as plasterboard, is clearly a sustainable practice. The expansion of an existing recycling business accords with the climate change and economic growth aspirations set out in Parts 1 and 10 of the NPPF.

66. There are no specific policies within the WLP in respect of plasterboard recycling. W38 is clearly designed to cater for facilities that bulk up and process general waste for further processing, recycling or disposal elsewhere. The proposed development would accept only plasterboard which would be recycled, manufactured into a product (although basic) and sold from the same facility. It is therefore considered that in terms of principle the proposal can only be assessed against the overarching policies of the WLP, i.e. W2, W3 and W4 in relation to need, environmental protection and location, respectively.

67. WLP Policy W2 requires proposals to demonstrate that there is an established need for the facility that would make a contribution to the County’s waste strategy and move waste material up the waste hierarchy without unnecessary importation into the County. This proposal is partly retrospective and is currently operating at approximately 3/5 of the proposed capacity of 50,000 tonnes per annum. There are no alternative sites within County Durham, or indeed the region, that recycles plasterboard and Hilltop Farm can therefore be viewed as being strategically important. As there are no other facilities operating locally it is considered that the proposed expansion of the site would not lead to an overprovision and provided there is an end user for the product the development would not constitute unnecessary importation of waste into the County.

68. The catchment area for the facility is from Scotland in the north down to Humberside in the south. A total of 5 to 6 vehicles a day has been delivering waste into the facility size of vehicle includes 30 tonnes articulated lorries and 20 tonne 8 wheeled vehicles as well as smaller vehicles delivering from sites in the locality.

69. WLP environmental protection policies relevant to this proposal are Policies W6, W7 W9, W17, W29, W31, W32 and W33 but also summarily covered in Policy W3 which requires evidence to demonstrate that new waste development will protect or enhance the natural and built environment. The applicant has provided details of the necessary environmental protection measures that are assessed later in this report.

70. The locational criteria for new waste development proposals are set out in WLP Policy W4 and generally require protection of the environment and local amenity, minimisation of waste transportation and protection of highway safety, integration of waste management with complimentary development and development of existing

waste facilities to secure environmental benefits. The proposal at Hilltop Farm would see the existing recycling operation, as permitted, expand by approximately 400% in terms of annual throughput but would manage this effectively by locating the process and storage entirely within an enclosed building.

71. WLP Policy W36 requires the expansion of existing waste management facilities to be fully contained within well designed buildings appropriate to the process and in scale and character with their surroundings. The proposed new building and existing building that would house the plasterboard recycling operation are fundamentally agricultural in their design. As explained earlier, the recycling process for gypsum products is a combination of shredding, crushing and screening and therefore the plant can be integrated into any building large enough to accommodate it. The key benefit of locating the facility in a building is the control of potential pollution from the process as any dust, litter or noise can be contained.

72. In summary it is considered that there is a need for the development that is not being met by alternative sites locally, being a specialist facility and not a general waste transfer or recycling facility. The product is primarily used on farms as a soil conditioner and given the low value and relatively high transport costs it is appropriate to locate it in a rural environment close to the customer base, which is primarily farmers. Objectors have suggested that the facility should be located on an industrial estate, however, the proposed temporary location has been assessed and it is considered that the development would accord with the aims of the NPPF and NPPW and principal Policies of the WLP. WLP Policies W2, W3, W4, W6, W7, W17, W29, W31 and W33 are considered to be consistent with the NPPF and WLP Policies W9 and W32 are considered to be partially consistent with the NPPF and can therefore be afforded weight in the decision making process.

Residential Amenity

73. The proposed development would be sited within the existing farm complex and would be screened by the existing buildings to the west, partially screened by a hedgerow to the north and earth bunds would be created on the eastern and southern sides. The nearest residential property is located approximately 100 metres to the south west of the proposed building but is owned by the applicant. Beyond this the nearest residential property is located approximately 260m to the west of the development at Winston Gate. Hedgeholme Farm is located approximately 360 metres to the north. All of the proposed operations are to take place inside the existing and proposed buildings. Given the distance of the proposal from the nearest residential properties, and existing screening it is not considered that the proposed development would have any unacceptable impact upon residential amenity in terms of visual intrusion or nuisance from noise. A significant level of objection (37 letters) have been received in relation to dust and traffic and these issues are considered below.

Dust

74. The process is, by nature, very dusty and can therefore be difficult to contain. The operator has experienced difficulties in containing dust in the past but has sought to address these issues in the design of the proposal.

75. At present the unprocessed plasterboard is deposited in a lean-to building that reduces dust emissions but is open on one side and therefore the material is exposed. The material is then transported by loading shovel from the store the current processing building, agitating the material and causing further dust emissions. The proposed scheme would restrict dust emissions by containing all operations inside the buildings, including deposit, processing and storage and therefore no processed or

unprocessed material would be stored externally. Furthermore a dust extraction system would be fitted to collect dust emissions at the source of production and an overhead ‘misting’ system installed to dampen any airborne dust within the building. There should therefore be no risk of dust escaping from the proposed processing and storage areas.

76. Environmental health and Pollution Control officers and the Environment Agency have raised no objections to the proposed development. Although there would be a degree of harm from traffic this would be temporary and balanced against the improvements to the operation of the site it is considered to be acceptable in accordance with WLP Polices W3, W6 W33 and W36 and NPPF Part 11.

Highway Safety

77. Access to the site is currently from the existing farm road to the B6274 Road. In order to overcome visibility issues raised during the consideration of this application the applicant has proposed to realign the access approximately 25m to the south. The applicant has also submitted a Transport Statement (TS) to support the application which has been assessed by County Highways Officers. The TS explains that subsequent to the 2011 permission, the processed tonnage volumes have been significantly breached (above the 10,000 tonnes limit), and there is no sharing of haulage, i.e. inbound vehicles carrying plasterboard leave empty.

78. The TS asserts the current proposal could be expected to give rise to 40 directly related HGV movements daily. Based upon the current working hours this corresponds to one HGV movement every 15 minutes on average. Each movement may conceivably arrive at or leave from the site via either the north or south on the B6274, depending on the market. Exact proportions are naturally unknown however, assuming a 2/3 share via Winston this would reduce the frequency to just under every 23 minutes via Winston.

79. The B6274 has a relatively low daily traffic volume for a B road classification and, based on the above, would continue to do so should planning permission be granted.. The local highway network already serves farming uses such as transit of livestock, foodstuffs and produce, and general servicing of settlements and dwellings. The B6274 between the A66 and A67 is a signed through route for all traffic without weight limit. It is one of the traffic routes depicted within the County Durham Freight Map.

80. Concerns have been raised by those objecting to the scheme regarding the use of the Grade II* Listed Winston Bridge, spanning the Tees. The Bridge has been subject to a recent detailed inspection. There are no issues arising which would prevent its continuation as a structure capable of carrying nationally lawful traffic. The Council’s Structures Manager is aware of the current proposal and raises no objection. Furthermore this is only one route that vehicles importing and exporting plasterboard and gypsum to the site can take.

81. It is calculated that the increase in HGV movements would constitute in the order of just over 3% of total B6274 traffic flow, this being further reduced, proportionally, where traffic splits north/south at the B6274 farm entrance. An average frequency of one additional HGV movement per 19 minutes, and lower still given traffic would utilise the B6274 either to north or south of the site, cannot be considered a level of frequency giving rise to a refusal. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not conflict with WLP Policy W29 in terms of highway access and capacity.

82. Whilst it is concluded that the highway and site access have sufficient capacity to support the development without objection, consideration must also be given to the

amenity of roadside communities. Although the impact has been assessed as being less than 3% above current levels it is understood that any increase would not be seen as being acceptable to local residents. There has been some local support for the proposal that refutes the vehicle movements as being harmful to amenity but it is accepted that people perceive the impact to different degrees and in this case there is clearly a degree of harm. However, it is considered that the harm is not unduly detrimental and is mitigated by daytime operating hours. The improvements to the facility as a whole in terms of environmental protection and also the economic benefits to the rural economy help to offset the degree of harm caused and, importantly, the impact would be time limited to 5 years.

83. Highways Officers have raised no objections to the proposal but support conditions to improve access into the farm, limit vehicle movements and time limit the use of the facility so that the operation may be transferred to an industrial location in accordance with WLP Policy W32.

Visual and Landscape Impact

84. Hilltop Farm is located in the Tees Lowlands landscape character area and is within an Area of High Landscape Value as identified in the Teesdale Local Plan. The lowlands of the Tees form a broad plain that merges with the gentle dip slope of the Magnesian Limestone escarpment and the low hills of the Pennine fringe in the north. The topography is gently rolling or undulating with low lying ‘flats’ and 'carrs' and areas of more undulating terrain relating to pockets of fluvio-glacial sands and gravels. Soils are heavy drift-derived surface water gleys, with pockets of brown earths on gravels, and earthy peats in poorly drained carrs.

85. Agricultural land use is mixed but predominantly arable. Field systems are ‘sub-regular’ in pattern and largely date from the enclosure of open town fields in the 16th and 17th centuries. They have been heavily fragmented by the amalgamation of arable fields in the 20th century. Hedgerows tend to be cut low and regularly trimmed. Tree cover is generally low with scattered hedgerow trees, principally Ash and Oak, though some areas are rich in trees. In the carrs field boundaries are water-filled ditches, often supplemented by fences.

86. The application site forms part of a historic farm steading consisting of the original farmhouse and approximately 11 agricultural buildings of varying size. The application area includes existing buildings, farm yard and an area used to store equipment and machinery. The proposed new building would be the largest in the steading but would not significantly increase the overall built development area. The building would be of a modern agricultural style to match the existing sheds and to meet with the needs of its permanent end use after the plasterboard recycling of agricultural store. Landscape Officers have viewed the proposal and consider that the new building would not have a significant negative effect upon the landscape. It is therefore considered that the special quality of the Area of High Landscape Value would not be harmed in accordance with WLP Policies W7 and W9 TLP Policy ENV3. TLP Policy ENV3 is considered to be partially consistent with the NPPF and can therefore be afforded weight in the decision making process.

Conditions

87. The proposal is considered as being partly retrospective due the applicant operating significantly outside of the current planning permission area. On this basis it is considered that the development has already commenced and should planning permission be granted it is recommended that the 5 year permission period runs from the date the permission is issued.

88. In order to ensure that the development is carried in accordance with the submitted documentation it is a requirement that the all of the building work is completed within 8 months. If the building work is not complete within this time the operator should cease all waste operations pursuant to this proposal until the building work is completed. This would be secured through condition.

89. Objectors to the scheme have commented that conditions attached to the current planning permission have not been adhered to by the operator and have not been monitored by the Council. It is true that the operation has been expanded in scale and beyond the originally permitted area without seeking consent in advance but this is not in itself a reason for enforcement action to be taken. The Local Authority has taken a pragmatic approach to the development and in the absence of significant environmental harm or complaint has opted to work with the operator to find a way forward that does not detrimentally impact upon the business or the amenity of the local population.

Other Issues

90. Objectors have raised concerns that the content of the waste plasterboard being delivered to Hilltop Farm for processing may contain asbestos or other contaminants and this then has the potential for airborne particles to be blown from the processing area off site. As previously explained the site is regulated by the Environment Agency through the Environmental Permitting regime. Waste streams are therefore monitored for compliance. Plasterboard suppliers are also regulated and screened by the operator so there should be no risk of any contaminated material arriving at Hilltop Farm. To provide further reassurance the proposed building would be fitted with dust extraction systems to ensure no dust from the processing activity is blown off site.

91. It has been suggested that as well as consultations being sent to Winston, letters should also have been sent to Gainford due to the potential impact from wind-blown dust on the prevailing wind. Although the prevailing wind does blow in the direction of Gainford this is not sufficient reason for directly consulting a settlement more than 2km from the application site. Although there have been occasions where dust has escaped the processing area due to the particulate size it drops very quickly.

92. Objectors have stated that spreading of gypsum to land was removed as an appropriate use from Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 109 in March 2014. This would therefore mean that the product made at Hilltop could not be used in agriculture, which would diminish the need for the process to be located on a farm. This was the case, however, the decision was revoked in the Spring of 2015 and land spreading of gypsum under PAS109 is considered to be acceptable.

93. The site is not located within any ecological designations and is surrounded by improved agricultural land. The application area is currently used for storing farm machinery and none of the existing buildings would be altered as part of this proposal. Although some hedgerow would be lost due to the construction of the new site access there would be additional trees and hedgerow planted and this would be secured through condition. The County Ecologist has raised no objections to the proposal and it is therefore considered that the development would accord with WLP Policy W17.

94. The application site is located within Flood Zone 1 and as the development covers an area of more than 1ha a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted in support of the application. The FRA concludes that the proposal would not have a significant impact upon flooding in the area in accordance with WLP Policy W26 and Part 10 of the NPPF. The Environment Agency has raised no objections to the proposal.

CONCLUSION

95. Planning policy is generally supportive towards sustainable waste management initiatives and seeks to locate waste transfer and material recycling facilities on land identified for general industrial use or on previously developed land in sustainable locations. The proposal would be located on a site with an existing waste processing facility and would make a small contribution to diverting waste materials up the waste hierarchy, away from landfill.

96. The site has an established use as a farm and plasterboard recycling facility. It is considered that the proposed development would be appropriate in this location for the temporary period of 5 years and would not give rise to any unacceptable environmental impacts in terms of noise, dust or visual impact and would be a net improvement upon the existing operation.

97. The main issue, and main reason for objection, is the impact upon amenity from traffic. The impact has been assessed as being less than 3% above current levels but it is understood that any increase would not be seen as being acceptable to local residents. However, it is considered that the harm in this respect is offset by the improvements to the facility as a whole in terms of environmental protection and also the economic benefits to the rural economy. Furthermore, the impact would be time limited to 5 years.

98. Officers raise no objections with regards to other key material planning considerations including residential amenity, design and layout, highways issues, ecology and flood risk. The proposed development is considered NPPF compliant.

99. The proposal has generated public interest with representations reflecting the issues and concerns of local residents affected by the proposed development. Whilst mindful of the nature and weight of public concerns it is not considered that these are sufficient to outweigh the planning judgement in favour of the proposed scheme.

100. The proposed development is considered to broadly accord with the relevant policies of the County Durham Waste Local Plan and meet the aims of national planning guidance contained within the NPPW and relevant sections of the NPPF.

RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby approved is for a period of 5 years beginning on the date of this permission. At the end of the 5 year period all waste operations pursuant to this planning permission shall cease.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to accord with Durham County Waste Local Plan Policy W33 and NPPF Part 11.

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Drawing No. EN0608-EXSP (EXISTING SITE LAYOUT)

Drawing No. EN0609 - PRSP (PROPOSED SITE PLAN)Drawing No. EN0608-OLSP (OPERATIONAL SITE LAYOUT)Drawing No. EN0609 - SEL (CROSS SECTIONS)Drawing No. EN0608-EL REV A (BUILDING ELEVATIONS)Drawing No. EN0608-LE2 REV A (PROPOSED LANE END)

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved documents

3. All building work as shown on drawing No. EN0609 - PRSP shall be completed with dust extraction installed as detailed in e-mail from R&K Wood dated 05/08/2015 and mist sprays installed as detailed in e-mail from Ian Bainbridge dated 10/08/2015 within 8 months of the date of this permission. If these works are not completed within 8 months all waste operations pursuant to this permission shall cease until the works are completed. The applicant is to inform the Local Planning Authority if works cease and when they are restarted.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to accord with Durham County Waste Local Plan Policy W33 and NPPF Part 11.

4. No waste shall be imported, stored or processed within the new building hereby permitted (shown on Drawing No. EN0609 – PRSP) until the improvements and widening works to the bellmouth and access track to the farm steading and recycling facility have been completed inaccordance with Drawing No. EN0608-LE2 REV A

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to accord with Durham County Waste Local Plan Policy W32.

5. Plasterboard shall only be delivered to the site between the hours of 0700-1700 Monday to Saturday. Recycling operations shall only take place between the hours of 0700-1900 Monday to Saturday. No operations shall take place at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to accord with Durham County Waste Local Plan Policy W33 and NPPF Parts 4 and 11.

6. No burning of waste shall be undertaken anywhere on the site.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area (County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W33 and NPPF Part 11)

7. The total number of vehicles delivering plasterboard and exporting gypsum to/from the site shall not exceed a daily total of 80 (40 in and 40 out). A record of all vehicles entering and leaving the site shall be maintained by the operator and a copy of this record shall be afforded to the Waste Planning Authority within 2 working days of such a request

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to accord with County Durham Waste Local Plan Policy W31 and NPPF Parts 4 and 11.

8. Measures shall be taken to ensure that mud, dirt, and waste is not transferred onto the public highway, including sheeting of vehicles as may be appropriate to the material. At such time these measures are not sufficient to prevent the transfer of any material onto the public highway, vehicle movements shall cease until adequate cleaning measures are employed which prove effective or weather and/or ground conditions improve with the effect of stopping the transfer.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to accord with Durham County Waste Local Plan Policy W31 and NPPF Parts 4 and 11.

9. Within 3 months of the date of this planning permission a landscaping scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing. This scheme shall provide details of earthworks, tree and hedgerow planting and grass seeding. The approved scheme shall implemented by 31 March 2017 and shall be maintained for the life of the development

Reason: In the interests of local landscape and to comply with Durham County Waste Local Plan Policies W7 and W9 and NPPF Part 11.

STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT

The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its decision to approve the application has, without prejudice to a fair and objective assessment of the proposals, issues raised and representations received, sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner with the objective of delivering high quality sustainable development to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area in accordance with the NPPF. (Statement in accordance with Article 35(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.)

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Submitted application form and plans provided by the applicant. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) National Planning Policy Guidance County Durham Waste Local Plan (2005). Teesdale Local Plan (2002) Statutory, internal and public consultation responses.

Planning Services

Construction and temporary use of a new building and temporary change of use of existing agricultural

building for the recycling of plasterboard for 5 years (both building to be returned to agricultural use at the

end of the 5 years) at Hilltop Farm, Winston(DM/15/01767/WAS)

CommentsThis map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission o Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding.Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005 Date September 2015 Scale Not to

scale

Committee Report - Version 6 – Effective 1.02.13