Contact Officer: Mary Thompson (mary.thompson@oxfordshire.gov.uk ) Tel: 01865 815901
ITEM PN7
PLANNING AND REGULATION COMMITTEE – 21 JULY 2008
DEPOSIT OF NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE INCLUDING SURCHARGING THE EXISTING LANDFILL, EXTENDING THE DURATION OF LANDFILL AND CLAY EXTRACTION OPERATIONS, TEMPORARY STORAGE OF PFA AND ANCILLARY ACTIVITIES RELATING TO RESTORATION
Report by the Head of Sustainable Development
Location Sutton Courtenay landfill site
Applicant Waste Recycling Group Ltd.
Application No SUT/616/59-CM
District Council Area Vale of White Horse
Introduction
1. This is an application for development at Sutton Courtenay landfill site, an active non-hazardous landfill site which accepts predominantly household waste and also commercial and industrial wastes.
2. This application proposes to increase the topographic levels to which waste may be tipped over phases 3 and 4 of the landfill site. It also seeks to increase the time for landfilling from 2021 until 2030 as the proposed changes to the final landform would increase the amount of waste that the site can take.
3. Permission is also sought for the temporary stockpiling of pulverised fuel ash (pfa) from Didcot Power Station within a landfill cell. The pfa would then be taken from the stockpile for use during landfilling and capping operations over the remaining life of the landfill.
4. The application also proposes changes to the
currently approved restoration scheme and landfill gas pipelines, retention of
the internal haul road into phase 4 and an extension in the time permitted for
clay extraction until 2021. Location (see Plan 1) (download as .doc file)
5. Sutton Courtenay landfill site is located approximately 13 km (8 miles) south of Oxford, between the villages of Sutton Courtenay to the west and Appleford to the east. These villages each lie about 300 metres from the closest approach to the site. Didcot lies approximately 3.5 km (2 miles) to the south and Abingdon is approximately 4.5 km (2.8 miles) to the north.
The Site and its Setting (see Plan 1)
6. Sutton Courtenay is a 264 hectare site. The proposals in this planning application to amend the topographical levels would affect only phases 3 and 4, which cover approximately 45 hectares. The proposals to change the restoration would also affect the wider application site.
7. The site is bordered by the B4016 to the north and by the Oxford to London railway line to the east. Didcot power station lies immediately south and to the west lies open agricultural land.
8. The site is crossed by two private roads, Portway which runs east-west and Corridor Road which runs north-south. These roads are both rights of way for all or part of their lengths.
9. There are two vehicular accesses to the site, one to the north and one to the south. The northern access is onto the Sutton Courtenay to Appleford Road (B4016) and over the Thames at Culham Bridge. The southern access is more heavily used and exits onto a roundabout on the Didcot perimeter road (A4130.) The site has a rail siding entering the site from the east off the main Oxford to London line.
10. The closest properties to the site are Hill Farm and Bridge House, which lie adjacent to the planning permission boundary. Bridge Farm House, Crossing Cottage and properties on Chambrai Close and Main Road, Appleford fall within 100 metres of the application boundary.
Planning History
11. Landfilling has occurred on the Sutton Courtenay site since the late 1970s, following its working for sand and gravel since the 1930s. A planning application was submitted in 1992 to consolidate all earlier permissions and extend mineral extraction and landfilling. This was issued in 1996 (SUT/APF/616/33-CM.) Conditions on this permission limited import of waste to 600,000 tpa with a limit of 200,000 tpa to be imported by road. The majority of waste was to be imported by rail via the existing sidings. End dates for landfilling was limited by condition to the end of 2012 and for clay extraction to the end of 2009.
12. An application was made (SUT/APF/616/45 CM) to continue the development but to increase the limit on road imports to 350,000 tpa. Permission was granted in 2001 to allow the increase in road imports for a period of six years after which time it would revert to 200,000 tpa. In 2006 an application (APF/616/56-CM) was submitted to extend the date for the end of landfilling from 2012 to 2021 and maintain the increased levels of import by road until the site closes. In May 2007 the Planning & Regulation granted permission and that permission will be issued once a legal agreement is signed that will consolidate the earlier agreements. The agreement has not yet been signed due to the complexity of the provisions and because there is a third party to the agreement who must also agree the terms. However, progress is being made and it is expected that the agreement will be signed shortly. Sand and gravel working has now finished on the site and so this application refers only to clay extraction and landfilling operations.
Details of Application SUT/616/59-CM
13. This application does not propose any change to traffic levels. It proposes to continue the existing levels of an average of 126 waste transport lorry journeys per day. As the application proposes an increase in the length of the life of the landfill, these levels, although the same as currently permitted, would continue for nine years longer if this development was permitted.
14. There are eight key elements to the proposals:
15. Modification of post settlement contours for phases 3 and 4. It is proposed to raise the height of the final landform that will be left after the landfilling operations are complete and the waste has settled. This increase is proposed in order to attain a steeper and more free draining landform so that surface water does not stand on the cap. This steeper landform would prevent rainfall infiltrating into the landfill and producing leachate. The applicant has noted that the gradients in the approved restoration landform are shallower than those suggested in Environment Agency guidance. Therefore, it is proposed to alter these gradients to comply with this guidance.
16. Increase in pre-settlement contours over phases 3 and 4. Non hazardous waste in a landfill will settle over time due to chemical and physical changes. A newly completed landfill’s levels are termed pre-settlement levels. The final levels in a landfill after all the changes have taken place are termed the post-settlement levels. The changes take place over several years. The ‘surcharge’ is the difference between the pre and post settlement levels. It is proposed to increase the surcharge as the applicant expects from experience that over time the waste will settle more than originally anticipated and so higher pre-settlement contours will be required to achieve the required post settlement contours.
17. The currently approved pre-settlement landform has a valley feature between two high points. The highest points on the approved landform are 71 metres AOD. The pre-settlement restoration proposed by this application is a domed feature with no valley where water might sit. The highest point on this landform is 84 metres AOD. The greatest difference in height between the proposed and approved pre-settlement landforms is 14 metres. The post settlement landform would ensure post-settlement gradients of over 1:25. The overall height of the post settlement landform in phase 4 would be raised by 7.5 metres over the currently permitted levels.
18. Extension of the duration of landfilling operations to 2030. This is proposed because the above changes would lead to an increase in the total amount of waste that the site can take before closing. Therefore in order to fill the entire remaining void, a longer time period would be necessary. There is not proposed to be any increase in the amounts of waste brought in per year. The amount of time it will take to complete the landfilling of the site depends on a number of factors such as how much waste can be diverted from landfill to other forms of waste management, such as recycling. The application states that the void could be filled by 2025. However, the application has been made until 2030 to allow the void to be filled if there is more waste diverted than expected.
19. Extension of the duration of use of the internal haul road into the phase 4 area. This extension is proposed due to the proposed changes to the length of time during which phase 4 will be operational.
20. Extension of the duration of the clay operations to 2021. Clay is engineered at the base of the landfill cell to provide a lining and a cap to isolate the deposited waste from the environment. An extension of the life of the clay operations is proposed as a result of the proposals to lengthen the life of the landfill site.
21. Stockpiling of up to 400,000 tonnes of pfa for subsequent use in landfill engineering operations. Up to 100,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of pfa is currently imported from Didcot Power station for engineering works at the landfill. It is proposed to continue to take this amount each year until the power station is decommissioned in 2015. The pfa is proposed to be stockpiled for use in the landfilling operations over the life of the site.
22. Changes to the restoration scheme. Changes are proposed in terms of vegetation cover and establishment of water areas and aftercare of the restored site. These changes are proposed as a consequence of the proposed changes to the post-restoration landform. The revised proposals also include low land meadows forming a north-south ecological corridor in an area previously identified for restoration to agriculture and changes to the hedgerow pattern and rights of way provisions. It is proposed to amend the area of land restored to agriculture from 182 hectares to 145 hectares. There would be an increase in the area of land restored to woodland and 35 hectares would be restored to lowland meadow, which does not feature on the currently approved restoration plan.
23. Changes to the approved scheme for the installation of landfill gas pipes. The current requirement is that wells and other gas and leachate management installations should not be above the restored ground level. This is considered impractical as differential settlement of the landfill often leads to the need for remedial work on the pipes. It is proposed to have an interim restoration period whereby the landfill gas pipelines would remain on the surface of the landfill for a temporary period of five years, to allow for easy inspection and maintenance.
Legal Agreements
24. The applicant has confirmed that should planning permission be granted for this development the provisions of the legal agreement being prepared for the previous (APF/616/56-CM) application would apply to this development.
25. That legal agreement specified a defined ‘hinterland’ area, which covered Oxfordshire and western parts of Berkshire, from which waste could be imported, and contributions towards Didcot Integrated Traffic Strategy (DIDITS), payment of a levy towards the provision of sustainable waste management facilities in Oxfordshire and provisions for the long term management of the restored site including rights of way.
Traffic Routeing
26. The development would also be subject to the traffic routeing agreement being prepared for the previous application on this site (APF/616/56-CM). This requires that HGVs travelling to and from the site use only the approved routes specified in the agreement and requires that most traffic uses the southern access to the site. No more than 100 heavy commercial vehicles per day may use the northern access. This access may only be used for delivery or collection of goods relating to the developers’ business from an address in the northern controlled area, or for the transport of ready mix concrete or coated stone. The southern access has an approved route which takes vehicles west along the A4130 and onto the A34. There is an eastern restricted route east along the A4130 towards Wallingford and onto the A4074. Where vehicles use the northern access they must travel over Culham bridge and then along the A415 either west to the A4074 or east to the A34. Vehicles using the north eastern restricted area must do so only for onward journeys to the north of Berinsfield and not to the south.
Environmental Statement
27. This application is supported by an Environmental Statement (ES.) This ES contains sections on the need for the development, alternatives, sustainability and planning policy. There are technical chapters on landscape and visual impact, hydrology and hydrogeology and traffic and transport. Other environmental topics such as air quality, dust, odour, landfill gas, bioaerosols and noise are also covered. The existing landuse, alternatives to the development and cumulative impacts are considered.
28. The landscape and visual impact assessment states that overall there would be a negligible and neutral impact during operations. A number of viewpoints would experience a slight to moderate and adverse impact during workings, but this impact would only apply to three viewpoints following restoration. The conclusions describe the impact following restoration as negligible to slight and beneficial, which reflects the addition of areas of lowland meadow and tree planting in the restoration. It states that the increase in height would be no higher than distant valleyside ridges.
29. The hydrology and hydrogeology section states that the proposed development has the potential to have marginal effects on the surface water flow patterns from the landfill as the result of the proposed changes to the restoration gradients. It states that these changes would be taken into account when designing drains and that there would be no flooding downstream. It is concluded that following consideration of mitigation measures there would be no significant residual impacts of the development. It is proposed to create an appropriate storage facility, in the form of a lake, to attenuate surface runoff from the restored landfill.
30. The traffic and transport section states that the proposed development would result in a continuation of the existing situation with regards to impacts on the road and transportation network. It is concluded that there would be a minimal impact in terms of transportation, highways and public rights of way.
Consultations
Didcot Town Council
31. No objection
Sutton Courtenay Parish Council
32. Objects. Extension of operations until 2030 would cause an unacceptable impact on the local area. The set time limit should be adhered to as an extension would extend the problems experienced by local residents. The increase in traffic would cause an environmental impact. The stockpiling of pfa and increased activity on site will cause additional operational noise such as reversing bleepers. This area has suffered considerably over many years and there does not seem to be a detailed cumulative impact assessment. The appearance and character of the area would be altered by the increase in height of the landform. The village has suffered from surface water drainage and runoff. This development might cause additional problems of ponding of water.
Appleford Parish Council
33. Responded with no comments or objection.
Vale of White Horse District Council Planning Officer
34. Planning - No objection or comments.
35. Environmental Health Officer – Issues relating to dust, odour, landfill gas, leachate and pest control will be governed by the PPC permit. There will be noise impacts which should be adequately controlled by planning conditions. Suggests noise limits in accordance with MPS2.
Environment Agency
36. Interim Response – No objection in principle. The site will be regulated through the PPC permitting process. Further response concerning flood risk expected and will be reported in an addendum.
Thames Water
37. No response at time of writing report.
National Grid
38. No objection. States a number of concerns. Proposed works must not impact on the towers or their foundations and statutory safely clearance levels at finished ground level must be maintained. Non combustible material only should be stored within 50 metres either side of the tower and overhead transmission lines. Concerned to note that an area directly below the overhead lines is to be used for a summer tip. Seeking assurance with regard to the content of tip and that any stored material is non-combustible. In terms of gas transmission, National Grid has no objection in principle providing a 12 metre easement that is already in place is not compromised.
SEERA
39. No objection. The County Council should grant planning permission only if it is satisfied that the cumulative impact of the proposals in terms of the extension of time will not have an adverse impact on the site and its immediate environs to accord with Policy E7 of RPG9 and policies NRM1, NRM7, NRM8, W16 and W17 of the draft South East plan. If the County Council is minded to grant permission it should ensure appropriate mitigation measures concerning restoration to the satisfaction of the Environment Agency through conditions and/or legal agreements.
County Ecologist
40. No objection subject to the provisions for the long-term management of the site being agreed as part of a Section 106 agreement. Should follow Natural England’s guidance on the need for updated protected species surveys.
Rights of Way
41. No comments at time of drafting report.
Transport Development Control
42. No objection subject to the completion of a section 106 agreement. It appears that there would be an additional 22 vehicle movements per hour over the extended period beyond 2021. Requests contribution for Didcot Integrated Transport Strategy to cover this increase. Requires the developer to enter into a routeing agreement to ensure that the HGV routeing applies to the extended period of operations.
Representations
43. There were three letters of representation.
44. Radley Parish Council – Strongly supports this application as it could obviate any need to use Thrupp Lake at Radley for the disposal of surplus pulverised fuel ash (pfa) from Didcot Power Station. Would also eliminate 400 000 tonnes of lorry traffic from the roads. Wonder why the proposal should be limited to 400,000 tonnes. Hope that improved mitigation measures can be brought in to minimise any adverse effects the operations may have on the neighbouring community. Suggests that there could be a section 106 legal agreement and some of the money from it should be directed to the benefit of neighbouring communities.
45. Save Radley Lakes - Supports this application because of the proposal it contains to make provision to store up to 400,000 tonnes of pfa from Didcot Power Station. This would prevent the need to import material for engineering works by road after the close of the power station. Although not stated explicitly in the application it appears that disposal of pfa at the landfill site would mean there would be no need to use Thrupp Lake at Radley for ash disposal.
46. Letter 1 – Strongly support the application on the basis that the proposed new pfa cell would prevent the environmental damage which would be caused by the destruction of Thrupp Lake and also reduce the need to import 400,000 tonnes of inert material by road for use in landfill engineering operations after the power station has stopped producing pfa.
Relevant Planning Policies (Annex 2) (download as .doc file)
47. The key policies are those related to waste management, impacts on the local environment and traffic policy.
Waste Management Policy
48. Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2016 (OSP) policy WM1 states that provision will be made to treat and/or dispose of the waste produced in Oxfordshire. Provision will also be made for the reception, treatment and disposal of waste from London provided the waste is transported by rail for the principal component of its journey.
49. OSP WM2 supports the principle of best practicable environmental option, including the waste hierarchy and the proximity principle. It encourages proposals which move waste up the hierarchy. Permission will only be granted for landfill after reduction, re-use, recycling and recovery policies have been applied. PPS10 states that disposal should be the last option, but one that should be adequately catered for.
50. OSP WM3 states that permission for landfill will be granted only where it is required for the restoration of active or unrestored mineral workings or where there would be an overall environmental benefit.
51. Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) policy W3 refers to regional self-sufficiency and states that waste authorities and waste management companies should ensure management capacity equivalent to the amount of waste arising and requiring management within the region’s boundaries.
52. RPG9 policy W4 states that waste planning authorities should plan for net self sufficiency. A degree of flexibility should be used when applying the sub-regional self sufficiency concept and where appropriate and consistent with RPG policy W3 capacity should also be provided for waste from adjoining sub regions.
53. RPG9 policy W5 sets out targets for the diversion of waste from landfill and goes onto state that waste planning authorities should continue to provide sufficient landfill capacity for residues and waste that cannot practicably be recovered.
54. RPG9 policy W13 states that provision should be made for continuing but declining landfill capacity. Non-inert landfill capacity should be husbanded to provide for disposal of residual non-inert waste.
55. Draft South East Plan (DSEP) policy W16 states that policies should aim to reduce the transport and associated impacts of waste movement.
56. DSEP policy W17 states that in identifying suitable sites for waste management facilities, priority should be given to safeguarding and expanding suitable existing waste management sites. The suitability of sites should be assessed on the basis of characteristics including good accessibility from existing urban areas, good transport connections, compatible landuses and ability to meet environmental and amenity criteria.
Impacts on the local Environment
57. Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (OMWLP) policy W7 states that proposals for landfill sites will be assessed against the following criteria:-
(a) need for the facilities; (b) no material damage or disturbance to the environment or to the amenities of residential and other sensitive uses; (c) no impedance of floodplains or risk of pollution; (d) no material damage within a Site of Special Scientific Interest or other site of nature conservation importance; (e) no material damage to an ancient monument or archaeologically important area; (f) no adverse effects on an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; (g) no injury to the visual amenities of the Green Belt or conflict with its purposes; (h) suitable access and transport routes; (i) progressive restoration and completion within an acceptable period; (j) meet with hydrological and geological requirements for safe disposal; (k) screening to reduce damage to visual amenities
58. DSEP policy NRM7 states that local authorities should seek an improvement in air quality in their areas.
59. DSEP policy NRM1 relates to the protection of the water environment. It states that development should not be permitted that presents a risk of pollution.
60. DSEP policy NRM8 states that measures will be developed to address and reduce noise pollution at regional and local level.
61. DSEP policy W14 states that high quality restoration and, where appropriate, aftercare should be secured on waste management sites.
Traffic Policy
62. OSP 2016 policy T8 states that proposals for development should be permitted only if they provide adequate access and mitigation of adverse transport impacts.
63. OMWLP policy W7(h) states that access and transport routes for carrying waste to landfill sites should be suitable for the volume and nature of traffic which may be expected.
Clay Extraction
64. OMWLP policy SD5 states that the extraction of clay will normally only be permitted from three areas in the County where sand and gravel extraction is identified in the plan or already in progress. One of these permitted areas is Sutton Courtenay.
Comments of the Head of Sustainable Development
65. The key policy issues are waste management, impact on the local environment and traffic.
Waste Management
66. This proposal accords with OSP policy WM1 in that it would contribute towards Oxfordshire providing for the disposal of waste to an equivalent quantity to what it produces. It also provides for the treatment and disposal of waste produced in Oxfordshire and for the disposal of waste from London where the waste is transported by rail for the principle component of its journey as the existing rail sidings are proposed to continue to be used for rail import of waste from London.
67. Landfill is at the bottom of the waste hierarchy. Therefore, in order to accord with OSP policy WM2 and RPG9 policy W13, the waste for landfill must be residual. Commercial and industrial waste is expected to be residual as there is a financial incentive for businesses to recycle their waste. In addition, the Sutton Courtenay site has composting facilities and permission for a Materials Recovery Facility, subject to agreement, which will make it easier for the site to maximise recycling and the landfill to take residual waste only. The Oxfordshire Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy sets out policies to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill and encourage reduction, reuse and recycling in Oxfordshire. From 2009 the central government’s Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) targets will provide a strong financial incentive for local authorities to reduce waste sent to landfill. The amount of residual waste from local authorities will decline as new recycling and other waste management facilities are provided. Therefore, the residual waste from municipal sources disposed of at the site will not be waste which would otherwise be destined for recycling or recovery facilities. Therefore, this proposal accords with OSP policy WM2. It also accords with PPS10 in that it would contribute towards ensuring that waste disposal is adequately catered for, for residual waste.
68. The landfill site is located in an old mineral workings and the landfilling operations form part of their restoration. Therefore it accords with OSP WM3.
69. This proposal does not seek to change the areas from which waste is imported nor the amounts that can be imported each year. Waste is permitted to be imported to the site from Oxfordshire and Berkshire and waste from London can be brought in by rail. This contributes towards regional self sufficiency and so accords with RPG9 policy W3 and W4.
70. This proposal would provide for continuing non-inert landfill capacity but at declining rates. The increase in the length of time permitted for the landfilling operations is sought in response to the anticipated decline in the amount of waste going to landfill. Therefore, this development accords with RPG policy W13.
71. It is proposed to stockpile pfa in a landfill cell so that it can continue to be used in landfill engineering works after the close of Didcot Power Station in 2015. This stockpiling would prevent importing engineering material from elsewhere by road. Therefore, this aspect of the proposal is supported by DSEP policy W16 as it would reduce transport impacts.
72. As this proposal is to extend the life and capacity of a current landfill site, it is supported by DSEP policy W17. The site is well connected to the transportation network, it is located alongside compatible landuses such as Didcot Power Station and the site has been operating for a number of years. Environmental and amenity criteria are considered below.
Impact on Local Environment
73. Although there has been an objection from Sutton Courtenay Parish Council, there have been no individual representations relating to any adverse impacts that the proposal may have on the local environment. The site has been operational for many years and there is a local liaison committee which meets regularly and where any amenity issues can be discussed and resolved as they arise.
74. The proposed development is required in order to ensure that an appropriate landform is left following the completion of landfilling activities. Therefore, there is a need for the development and it complies with OMWLP policy W7(a).
75. The amendment to the contours may have an impact on local amenity. The landform will be higher than the currently approved levels, especially before it has settled. However, the Landscape and Visual Impact assessment submitted by the applicant concludes that following restoration, overall there would be a slight and beneficial impact due to the addition of new areas of lowland meadow and tree planting. Therefore the proposals accord with OMWLP policy W7(b) in terms of long term damage to visual amenities.
76. Filling to a higher level may make it harder to reduce noise impacts as the operations will not be contained in the bottom of a cell. However, noise conditions have been suggested by the Environmental Health Officer and if these limits are adhered to there should not be an adverse impact in amenity as a result of noise from the development. Therefore, the development accords with OMWLP policy W7(b) and DSEP policy NRM7 with regard to noise.
77. The development is not likely to cause any additional problems with regards to dust, vermin, odour, gas or pollution. Mitigation measures are proposed with the application and are already in place for the existing landfilling operations. Therefore, this application accords with OMWLP policy W7(b) with regard to these issues. The proposed changes to the landfill gas pipework may improve the handling of landfill gas and therefore be supported by this policy.
78. This development is not likely to impede a floodplain or pollute a water course and there has been no objection from the Environment Agency. The purpose of altering the restoration levels is to ensure there is sufficient gradient for rainwater to flow from the landform without soaking into the landfill. Therefore, the development would help protect the water environment and accords with OMWLP policy W7 (c) and DSEP policy NRM1.
79. Air quality is considered in the ES and it concludes that the mitigation measures already in place would continue to be appropriate for the new proposals and that subject to this mitigation impacts on air quality in the vicinity of the application site would be within acceptable limits. Therefore, subject to these mitigation proposals, the development is acceptable in terms of DESP policy NRM8.
80. The proposals are accompanied by restoration proposals, which are designed to include environmental and community benefits. The applicant has agreed to enter into a section 106 legal agreement to secure the long term management of the site. Therefore, the application accords with DESP policy W14.
81. The proposed extended life of landfilling would inevitably prolong the impact of the operations on local residents and the environment. In addition, landfills will take lesser amounts of putrescible waste in future in order to meet Government targets so the potential for odour problems will reduce. However it is not considered that these impacts are unacceptable and the application includes detailed mitigation measures to minimise the risk of adverse impacts. The continued minor inconvenience for local residents must be weighed against the need for the development to take place in order to produce an acceptable landform.
Traffic
82. No change to the tonnage brought in by road is proposed. However, a consequence of the extended time for landfilling operations would be that the lorry movements would apply over a longer period. This will lead to 22 vehicle movements per hour over the extended period of operations which would not occur if this development did not go ahead.
83. There has been no objection from Transport Development Control, subject to appropriate contributions, which the applicants have agreed to provide, therefore the extension in time is considered to be acceptable in highways terms.
84. Transport Development Control have requested contributions towards the Didcot Integrated Transport Strategy (DIDITS), to cover the extended time period for landfilling operations. The applicant has confirmed that they are prepared to make this contribution.
85. The proposal to stockpile pfa for use after the closure of the power station has the potential to reduce lorry movements on the local road network, as it should reduce the need for the import of other landfill engineering material from off-site.
86. Subject to a routeing agreement and highways contributions, these proposals are acceptable in terms of OSP policy T8 and OMWLP policy W7 (h).
Extraction of clay
87. The proposal to continue the extraction of clay from the site has not caused any objections and accords with OMWLP policy SD5.
Other Issues
Parish Responses
88. Sutton Courtenay Parish Council has expressed the view that the area has suffered over a number of years with various applications and no overall assessment of the cumulative impact. This planning application and those submitted in 1992 and 1996 were accompanied by Environmental Statements. This development is proposed in order to provide a better standard of restoration on the current site and therefore cannot take place elsewhere.
89. Sutton Courtenay Parish Council was also concerned about potential increased ponding of water as a result of the change in contours. However the proposals have been put forward in order to improve surface water drainage on the restored landfill and the application proposes a surface water attenuation scheme.
90. The objection from Sutton Courtenay Parish also states that the stockpiling of pfa and increased activity on site would lead to an increase in noise such as reversing bleepers. Noise on the site could be controlled through planning conditions including one requiring that reversing bleepers use white noise. They also express concern about the increase in traffic volumes. However, no increase has been proposed only a longer period for existing rates of traffic generation. There has been no objection from transport development control and the road network around the site is suitable for the continuing volumes.
91. Radley Parish Council has commented that some of the money from a section 106 agreement should be directed for the benefit of neighbouring communities such as Sutton Courtenay and Didcot. Gains secured by section 106 agreements must meet tests set out in Government Circular 05/05 which are similar to the tests for planning conditions. The applicant has agreed to fund the long term management of the site for a period of 25 years after the end of operations. The use of the Millennium Common area was secured for an 80 year period from 1996 as a result of a previous permission. The restored site will incorporate public rights of way. Therefore, the local communities will have the benefit of the use of this site following the end of landfilling operations. These benefits meet the tests set out in circular 05/05.
Ecology
92. Natural England and the County Ecologist requested protected species surveys to be submitted prior to the determination of the permission. Ecological surveys were done in 2006. Natural England has been asked to confirm that these surveys meet their requirements. Their response will be recorded in an addendum.
Conclusions
93. The changes to the contours of phases 3 and 4 are proposed in order to create a final landform that is more acceptable environmentally. It accords with policies relating to both waste and protection of the environment.
94. The extension to the end date of the deposit of waste accords with OSP policy WM1 and WM2 because it provides for the continued disposal of residual waste.
95. The stockpiling of pfa from Didcot Power Station reduces the potential for road imports of other landfill engineering materials and also reduces the need to use the currently permitted site for pfa disposal at Radley.
96. The extension to the end date of the extraction of clay accords with OMWLP SD5 because Sutton Courtenay is identified as an area where it is suitable to extract clay for export.
97. There have been no objections to this application from statutory consultees. Although the landfill operations have the potential to cause impacts on the local environment and nuisance to residents, this is a strictly controlled site with planning conditions and an active local liaison group and can continue to be strictly controlled by suitable agreements and conditions.
98. Therefore, this proposal generally accords with policy and is acceptable, providing that there are suitable conditions and a legal agreement covering the terms covered in the agreement drafted for the previous planning permission on this site (APF/616/56-CM.)
RECOMMENDATIONS
99. It is RECOMMENDED that:
(a) subject to a formal legal agreement, or other suitable legal mechanism, to be agreed by the County Solicitor to;
1. route most vehicles via the southern access to the site, to the A4130 and onto the A34; 2. make contributions to the Didcot Integrated Transport Strategy; 3. road borne waste not to be received from outside the hinterland; 4. pay for administration of the agreement; 5. to pay a levy towards the provision of sustainable waste management facilities in Oxfordshire; 6. make provision for long term management of the restored site; and 7. make provision for rights of way;
that planning permission for the development proposed in Application SUT/616/59-CM be granted subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Sustainable Development but to include those in accordance with the heads of conditions set out in Annex 1 (download as .doc file) to this report;
(b) in the event that the legal agreement and routeing agreements referred to in (a) above are not completed within 10 weeks of the date of this meeting the Head of Sustainable Development be authorised to refuse the application on the grounds that it would not comply with:-
1. OSP policy WM2 (in that the development would not accord with the proximity principle if the source of waste was not restricted); 2. OMWLP policy PE12 (in that the applicants have not sought public access or secured long term management of restored site); and 3. OSP policy T8 (in that the applicants have not mitigated against adverse transport impacts.)
CHRIS COUSINS Head of Sustainable Development Environment & Economy
Background Papers: Application for the deposit of non-hazardous waste including surcharging the existing landfill, extending the duration of landfill and clay extraction operations, temporary storage of pfa and ancillary activities relating to restoration
File 8.4/5192/6 located in Minerals and Waste Development Control Team area at Speedwell House, Speedwell Street, Oxford. Contact Mary Thompson 01865 815901.
July 2008
|