Return to Agenda

ITEM PN7

PLANNING & REGULATION COMMITTEE –
4 APRIL 2005

MINERALS AND WASTE PLANNING APPLICATION

Report by Head of Sustainable Development

Development proposed:

5000m² bunded hard standing for open windrow composting site.

Location: Glebe Farm, Hinton Waldrist, Oxon

Applicant: Agrivert Limited, The Stables, Radford, Chipping Norton

Application No: HIN/18975-CM District Council area: Vale of the White Horse

Annex 1

1. This application seeks permission for composting for a period of 5 years and would involve processing 5000 tonnes of green waste at the site each year. The green waste produced would be used primarily in agriculture but also in the local retail industry in an attempt to involve the local community in recycling.

Location (see plan attached) (download as .doc file)

2. The site is located just off the B4508 approximately 500 metres from its junction with the A420 Oxford to Swindon road.

Site and its Setting

3. The site is currently a field in open countryside which is classed as an Area of High Landscape Value in the Vale of the White Horse Local Plan. Access to the site would be through an existing access which would be left unaltered. The closest property to the site is Welmore Farm which is over 700 metres away on the other side of the A420. The surrounding land is mainly in arable use with no grazing animals in the vicinity of the site. There is a belt of trees to the south. Pusey village lies south west of the site beyond Pusey House.
4. Other features in the vicinity of the site are Pusey historic park and garden 250 metres, at its closest point, to the west of the site, ancient woodland 220 metres, again at its closest point, to the north west and a conservation area 600 metres to the south of the site at Pusey. There is also a County Wildlife Site called Turf Pits Covert 800 metres to the south.

Details of the Development

5. The development would provide for the treatment of green waste, which, through the composting process, would form peat free compost. All of the site operations would take place on a temporary pad (semi impermeable base which would minimise the potential for pollution) which would be removed at the end of the development period. The bunds around the edge of the site would be 2 metres high. The composting pad would be constructed from stone and cement binder. In order for the pad to be constructed the topsoil would be removed and used to create a bund around the site. When the development ceased the pad would be removed and the topsoil used to restore the site to its original condition.
6. Green waste brought onto the site would need to be shredded in order to make it suitable for composting. The resulting compost would be used on Glebe Farm. The applicant states that on average 3 daily journeys would be created by the development with a maximum of 5 journeys per day.
7. The facility would accept green waste which includes garden and landscape wastes and untreated timber. It is intended that these materials would come primarily from the waste recycling centres at Stanford-in-the-Vale and Dix Pit. The applicant states that some waste would also come from other contracts in the local area. The applicant states that the incoming rate of green waste is seasonal with the greatest throughput being in the summer months. The composting process reduces the volume of material by about 50 per cent. The volume of waste proposed to be handled at the site would mean that it would require a waste licence from the Environment Agency.

Consultations

Vale of the White Horse District Council

8. The District Planning Authority, whilst fully supportive of the principle of such facilities, strongly objects to this proposal. Their view is that the development would be visually harmful, being on a site that is located within a remote and rural area that is very open in its character and which has been designated for its high landscape value. The development proposed amounts to sporadic development in the open countryside that would, in their view, not be sustainable and could be better located near existing recycling facilities within the County.
9. As such the proposed development is contrary to policies D1, D3, C1 and C3 of the adopted Vale of the White Horse Local Plan 1999, policies DC1, GS2, and NE7 of the Vale of the White Horse Local Plan 2011 Second Deposit Draft, and to policies G1, G2, EN1 and EN4 of the adopted Oxfordshire Structure Plan. The proposal is also contrary to advice contained in Planning Policy Statement 7 "Sustainable Development in Rural Areas" and to advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 10 "Planning and Waste Management", particularly in terms of the ‘proximity principle’.
10. The District Council Environmental Health Officer has asked for noise readings when the shredder is in operation to be submitted before final comments are made.

Hinton Waldrist Parish Council

11. A composting facility at Glebe Farm should be acceptable if the process is managed properly. The following conditions should be attached to any grant of permission:
    
    

1. A ditch must be provided all round the hard standing for the collection and storage of rainwater run off.
2. The tank must be big enough to cope with the runoff from the process.
3. A two metre high fence must be erected around the facility.

Site screening is necessary due to the location of the site.

Pusey Parish Meeting

12. The Planning Consultancy, Terence O’Rouke, compiled an objection on behalf of Pusey Parish Meeting in relation to the OMWLP. (A copy of the representation has been sent to Members of the Planning & Regulation Committee)
    
    
    
13. They said that the application fails to demonstrate that there is an overriding need for this facility to be in the open countryside and at this particular site. There is no consideration of alternative sites or the origin of the green waste and the market for the compost. Greenfield sites should only be considered after all other alternative locations have been discounted.
    
    
    14. In relation to OMWLP policy W3 the application does not give enough information about the relationship of the proposed site to the origin of the green waste and therefore it is not possible to assess whether the site also accords with the proximity principle and the Best Practicable Environmental Option.

15. The application is deficient in amenity information such as noise, dust, fumes, smell, visual intrusion or traffic. Concerned about the impact of bioaerosols on human health and no risk assessment for this has been carried out by the applicant. The application has not addressed risk to the water environment. The application should be refused on the grounds of insufficient information. The application also fails a number of important local and national waste planning policy tests. Urge the County Council to refuse the application on the grounds set out above.

16. MacFarlanes have also compiled an objection on behalf of Pusey Parish Meeting (A copy of the representation has been sent to Members of the Planning & Regulation Committee)

Design. The applicant has not provided detailed drawings showing proposed elevations of the proposed kiosk to be erected. The proposal does not make the best of the existing landform. The windrows at a proposed height of 3 metres would not be screened by the bunds which are proposed to be 2 metres high. The development is separated from Pusey House and its grounds by only a few metres.

Amenity. Policies in the Development Plan guard against amenity harm of proposals to nearby properties. The throughput of the site is just an estimate, other composting sites which have been granted permission have massively increased their throughput. In Germany and the Netherlands open windrow composting presented problems in relation to odour and leachate, now in vessel or indoor composting is favoured. More noise readings should be taken which consider Pusey House, not just Welmore Farm. Not operating the shredder when wind is blowing in the direction of nearby properties is not adequate to prevent noise problems. There is no absolute assurance that all bad odours can be eliminated. The application should not be carried out until a full dust risk assessment has been carried out. No permission should be granted until a full risk assessment for bioaerosols has been carried out.

Employees. The employee generation opportunity in this development is negligible as the applicant states that only one new vacancy would arise.

Agricultural land. Policy states that development should not take place on grades 1, 2 and 3a agricultural land. The applicant does not state what grade land this is. If the site does fall within this classification the Council should seek the views of DEFRA regarding the suitability of the proposed site. The applicant has not given any details of alternative sites.

Greenfield sites. PPS 10 details a sequential approach when identifying suitable sites for new waste management facilities. The Council should not determine permission for this facility without first establishing whether there are any other suitable sites available.

Water contamination. The application should not be determined until a full risk assessment is undertaken into the possibility of water contamination.

Environmental Impact Assessment. Applications pursuant to Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning Environmental Impact Assessment (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 indicate that an EIA should be obtained for developments in "environmentally sensitive locations". The proposed site is in an environmentally sensitive location, it is located in the Area of High Landscape Value, in close proximity to Ancient Woodland and adjacent to the Historic Park and Gardens of Pusey House.

Nature Conservation. The application should not be determined until an ecological survey has been carried out.

Area of High Landscape Value. Bunding around the development would not render the site visually unobtrusive, these bunds are foreign in this landscape and are not suitable.

Historic Parks and Gardens. Policy protects historic parks and gardens from development which would have an adverse impact on their setting.

Traffic. The proposed traffic movements would have a significant impact on the B4508. There are no proposals for the improvement of the access to the site from the B4508.

Waste Local Plan. In relation to the Best Practicable Environmental Option the applicant has not considered any other alternative sites.

17. Request that the application is refused as it is contrary to policy. However, if the County is minded to grant permission no determination should be made until (a) an EIA is submitted (b) dust, odour and airborne emission risk assessments are carried out (c) ground water contamination assessment is carried out and (d) a fire risk assessment is carried out.

18. Further response from MacFarlanes about the OMWLP

19. No objection but suggested two conditions be placed on any grant of planning permission:.

21. No objections.

22. No objections.

Development Control (Transport)

23. No objections.

County Ecologist

24. No objections.

Representations (Copies of the responses received have been sent to Members of the Planning & Regulation Committee)

Local resident

25. Concerned about seepage into the groundwater which could affect the water abstraction licence at his farm. There would be smells, dust, artificial lighting and the bleeping of reversing machinery. This would be worse when the wind is blowing from the north which does happen for long periods of time.
26. The proposal is in an Area of High Landscape Value and development in undeveloped rural green field land would constitute a departure from the Development Plan. Planning Policy Statement 10 identifies suitable sites and locations for such activities – firstly onsite management of the waste, secondly industrial sites where complementary facilities can be co-located and finally priority to be given to previously developed land, in rural areas redundant farm buildings and their curtilages before greenfield sites. If this site is granted permission it could set a precedent for other developments which undermine policy.

Local resident

27. Concerned about vehicles entering the site west from the A420 because they would hold traffic up waiting to turn into the B4508, this would cause a hazard. The proposal is some distance from Glebe Farm where the end product would be taken to. The site is not suitable in terms of PPS10 guidelines. Agrivert have acknowledged the potential adverse effects of the development such as noise, dust, odour and bioaerosol contamination. Even though odour can be reduced when windrows are kept in an aerobic condition, this does not guard against the fact that green waste could be waiting on containers before being transported to the site for a few days by which time it had started to degenerate anaerobically. This is a great concern for the summer months when the weather is hot and this is when most of the waste would be processed.

Local resident

28. Proposal is completely contrary to planning policy. The County has not followed established practice and researched other more suitable sites. The proposal is contrary to PPG10 which gives advice about the location of such sites. Traffic is a concern and vehicles are not already on the roads (in Pusey or the A420) as the applicant suggests. Traffic turning right off the A420 would be a hazard. This development would be an open invitation for further traffic in the vicinity. Noise, odour and dust are the natural effects of a composting process. Wheel washing will be a dirty business. The composting facility would not be a temporary development but is likely to increase in size and take in other waste functions. The development will create effluent/waste/pollution which will enter the stream on the field boundary. It is a concern that the County Council has "given itself permission" to advance this proposal even though it is in contravention of planning policy and PPG10, this is a failure in governance and best practice. The status of Agrivert Ltd as a suitable company for this venture is questionable.

Local resident

29. The site is on recently farmed agricultural land and is inappropriate in terms of planning principles. Traffic turning across the A420 to get to the B4508 would be hazardous. The site will be visible in an area of natural beauty. A stream runs alongside the site and the impact on water management is likely to be significant.

Local resident

30. The prevailing wind comes form the west therefore noise, dust, odours, bioaerosols would be carried towards Tuckwells Place on Lovells Court Farm. The nearby stream would be vulnerable to unforeseen spillage such as oils and fuel. The site could be attractive to large numbers of birds. The development could establish a brownfield site for further unknown development.

Policy Background

31. The relevant planning policies are set out in Schedule 2 to this report. Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2011 (OSP) and Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2016 Deposit Draft (OSPDD) and Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (OMWLP).
32. The proposal should be considered against the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) criteria as set out in the Government’s document Waste Strategy 2000. These criteria are consistent with the waste policies of the emerging Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2016 and require proposals to meet waste hierarchy, proximity and self sufficiency principles. The draft consultation on Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS 10) (December 2004) suggests a sequential approach to site identification in Local Development Frameworks.
33. OSP and OSPDD both contain policy G5 which relates to development in the open countryside. OMWLP policy W4 also gives guidance about waste development in the open countryside. OMWLP policy W3 contains criteria which govern the effects of recycling developments which could impact on the amenity of local residents.

Comments of the Head of Sustainable Development

34. In my view there are three issues to address. Does the proposal meet and support the principles behind waste policy? Is the development acceptable in the open countryside? Can other potential local environmental impacts be addressed?

Waste Policy

35. The proposed facility would be small scale and enable green waste to be composted which would help to move waste up the hierarchy and which reduce landfill. High quality compost would be provided suitable for use on nearby agricultural land. Green waste would be resourced from Stanford-in-the-Vale (approximately 7 km from the site) and Dix Pit (approximately 4 km from the site) recycling centres and would provide a local facility for the west of the County. In my view this proposal is consistent with both adopted Structure Plan waste policies (WD1 and WD2) and Oxfordshire Structure Plan Deposit Draft 2016 (WM2) and BPEO principles because it helps to move management of waste up the hierarchy, deals with waste arising on Oxfordshire ad provides a local ‘proximate’ facility.

Development in the open countryside

36. OSPDD policy G5 extends OSP policy G5 by saying that "The countryside will be protected from harmful development. Development away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan will not be permitted. Special consideration will be given to development proposals for agricultural, forestry or outdoor recreational needs or for other uses appropriate to a rural area which cannot reasonably be accommodated in a nearby settlement."
37. Although composting is not strictly an agricultural use, it is a use which would be unlikely to be able to be located within a settlement and is more appropriate to a rural area. Whilst this site is within an Area of High Landscape Value (Vale of the White Horse Local Plan), the proposal is akin to an agricultural operation in so much as there would be no buildings other than a small kiosk. Plant would not be located at the site permanently and would consist of a shredder to process the green waste coming into the site and a screen to process the compost at the end of the process. The activity would be largely screened by soil bunds which can be grassed over. The impact of this proposal on the general quality of the landscape of this area would therefore be limited and I believe acceptable.
38. OMWLP policy W4 states that proposals for recycling will not normally be permitted in the open countryside unless there is an established overriding need and there is no other suitable site available or the development would form part of a mineral extraction or landfill site. The site does not form part of a mineral site. Glebe Farm is well placed to take green waste from the waste recycling centres at Stanford-in-the-Vale and Dix Pit so there is an identified need for this facility. Government guidance calls for an increase of recycling and other waste management facilities to move waste up the hierarchy and reduce landfilling. Whilst the applicant has not carried out an assessment of alternative sites I consider that in practice it would always be possible to point to other sites which might be suitable for a composting facility. However, such sites are also likely to be located in the open countryside.
39. The OMWLP will in due course be replaced by a Local Development Framework for minerals and waste (LDF). One role of the LDF is to identify sites for waste management facilities including for composting. Permission for the present composting facility is sought for five years. At that point the LDF should be adopted and should provide up to date guidance about sites for composting which help to determine whether or not the Glebe Farm site is appropriate as a longer term facility.
40. The Parish Meeting and others argue that this development is not in accordance with the guidance set out in PPS 10. The locational guidance in PPS 10 is aimed at LDF preparation rather than planning applications and it recommends waste planning authorities should first look at on-site management, then industrial sites and then re-use of previously developed land and redundant farm buildings. The LDF will be able to assess the suitability of this site in the long term against whatever criteria are finally settled upon on PPS 10. I do not believe that a precedent would be set by allowing a temporary permission in this location. If it did prove to be unacceptable further permission would not be granted.

Potential local environmental impacts

Odour and bioaerosols

41. Concerns have been raised about odour from the composting process. The primary cause of offensive odours from composting is poor site management. The windrows would need to be turned regularly to their full depth to maximise the aeration of the composting material. During turning water can also be sprayed on the windrow to remove any particles from the atmosphere. These particles would become heavy with the weight of the water and would not be able to travel far from the site. The distance of this site from residences would attenuate odour and give adequate protection from bioaerosols. Therefore I do not believe that a risk assessment is necessary.

Noise

42. The main cause of noise from the operations would be from shredding the green waste. In order to load the waste into the shredder and remove it again, a loading shovel or 360 excavator would be used. Concerns have been expressed that noise from the operations including vehicle reversing warning bleeper noise could travel if wind is blowing from the site towards dwellings.
43. The main factor for noise attenuation at this site is distance from properties. Bunding around the edge of the site would also contribute to noise reduction from the operations. The applicant states that the bunds around the development would be 2 metres high and shredding would be carried out behind windrows where possible. Vehicles would also reverse parallel to the windrows to avoid reversing signals carrying beyond the site. In addition the site operating hours of 0800 - 1700 weekdays and 0800 - 1230 on Saturdays with no working permitted on Sundays or Public Holidays would ensure that activity on the site is regulated.
44. These measures can be secured through conditions attached to any grant of planning permission. Further to this, if qualified noise complaints are received, a condition could require the applicant to submit a programme of further measures for noise reduction which would require approval from the Waste Planning Authority. This would ensure that the proposal is in accordance with OMWLP policy W3 (c) as noise would not be an unacceptable nuisance.

Dust

45. It is possible that some dust would be created from the composting process but there are measures which can be taken to ensure that it does not affect the amenity of local residents. The applicant states that on the site a speed limit of 10mph would be enforced. During dry and windy weather water spraying to dampen areas would help to stop dust. Regular sweeping of the site should take place which would also have a beneficial effect. In addition to this the height of the windrows could be limited to 3 metres to ensure that the operations are contained within the bunded area. All the above could be attached as planning conditions on any grant of planning permission which would ensure the development is in accordance with OMWLP policy W3 (c) as dust would not cause an unacceptable nuisance.

Traffic

46. The traffic movements stated in the planning application are based on total movements associated with the development, both for the delivery of the green waste to the site and the removal of the compost to surrounding farm land. The applicant states that the average daily journeys would be 3 per working day with a maximum of 5. The capacity of the loads would vary between a minimum of 1 tonne with a maximum of 12 tonnes. All vehicles would access the site from the A420. The site is well related to the transport network as OMWLP policy W3 (b) recommends. This level of traffic generation is small and would not cause problems on local roads.
47. In order to prevent any mud or debris being deposited on the public highway there will be a wheel washing facility and vehicles will be inspected before they leave the site. If any mud is deposited onto the public highway road sweeping will also be utilised. Prevention of mud on the road can be required by condition on any grant of planning permission.

Groundwater

48. Concerns have been raised that the proposal would present a risk of pollution to groundwater. To prevent this the composting process would be carried out on a pad to ensure that no seepage can take place from the compost through to the ground below. In addition, the site would require a waste license to be issued from the Environment Agency (EA). One of the purposes of a waste license is to ensure that there would be no adverse effects to groundwater. There is no objection to the development from the EA who have recommended a condition to control pollution to water. Therefore, I am confident that this development would not pose a risk to groundwater in the area.

Other Concerns

Area of High Landscape Value

49. The site is located in an Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV) and it would be necessary to ensure that bunding is well designed. The site can be seen from the A420 but a combination of bunding and the backdrop of trees would reduce the visual impact significantly. I do not consider that the character and appearance of the AHLV would be adversely affected by the development. Therefore, it is not contrary to policy C3 of the Vale of the White Horse Local Plan 1999 (VOWHLP) and policy NE7 of the second deposit draft of the same plan.

Nature Conservation

50. The site is on an arable field. English Nature have not objected to the proposal. There are no objections from the County Ecologist. In the absence of concerns from consultees I am confident that there will be no adverse effect on nature conservation as a result of the proposal.

Agricultural Land

51. Although the applicant has not stated the grade of agricultural land for the proposed site the development should not have any lasting impact on the quality of the land. The soils would not be removed from the site but used to create bunds surrounding the operation. There would be no significant alteration to the land which would be restored to its present state at the end of the permission. DEFRA do not wish to be consulted on schemes which are this small in scale and would not result in the loss of high grade agricultural land. The land classification map of England and Wales shows the site as grade 4 land with grade 2 land to the north and east.

Birds and Vermin

52. One resident was concerned about the potential impact of the proposal in attracting birds and vermin to the site. As the site would only accept green waste it is very unlikely that birds and vermin would be attracted. Experience at existing composting sites show birds and vermin are not a problem.

Historic Parks and Gardens

53. The site is 700 metres from Pusey House and 250 metres from the closest edge of the gardens. I am confident that at this distance there would be no adverse effect on the house or gardens and therefore the proposal is not contrary to VOWHLP policy HE16.

Environmental Impact Assessment

54. The proposed development would not be considered of a scale or intensity great enough to merit the submission of an EIA in accordance with the provisions of the 1999 Regulations.

Artificial lighting

55. A resident expressed concern about artificial lighting at the site. The application does not state that there would be any lighting and in any event a condition can be attached to any planning permission that no lighting be erected at the site without the prior approval of the Waste Planning Authority.

Employment

56. The applicant states that the development would result in the creation of one full time job at the site. I do not think that employment generation is material to the considerations of this proposal.

Throughput

57. There is concern that the site would massively increase its throughput. The site is small in scale and cannot significantly increase throughput without additional land. That increase in land would require further planning permission and the implications of the increased throughput would be assessed at that time. The development proposes 5,000 tonnes throughput per annum. An informative could be added to make clear that any permission allows a maximum throughput of 5,000 tonnes per annum.

Conclusions

58. Proposals for green waste recycling are supported by national, structure and local plan waste policy. The site is well related to the intended source of compostable materials – primarily County waste recycling centres and to local markets to receive the composted material. Commercial composting is unlikely to be acceptable within settlements and there is a need for such facilities which I consider in this case is sufficient to override the normal policy against development in the countryside. I believe that the concerns of Pusey Parish Meeting and other local residents have been or can be satisfactorily overcome and I am satisfied that any potential environmental impacts on local people can be controlled by condition.

Reasons for Approval

60. The Committee is RECOMMENDED to approve application HIN/18975-CM subject to the conditions set out in Schedule 1 to this report.
    
    

CHRIS COUSINS
Head of Sustainable Development

Background papers:
Application for 5000m2 bunded hard standing fop open windrow composting site at Glebe Farm, Hinton Waldrist. File 8.4/3697/1
Sustainable Development Service, Environment & Economy, Speedwell House, Speedwell Street, Oxford, OX1 1NE
Representations made on the application are on this file.

Contact Officer: Emma Shaw Tel: 01865 815272

March 2005

Return to TOP