Agenda item

The following two reports 5(a) and 5(b) set out two separate planning applications for energy from waste incinerators: by Viridor at Ardley and by Waste Recycling Group at Sutton Courtenay.  The covering report sets out some common background between the two proposals, in terms of the reasons why the applications have been submitted now, the drivers behind the need to divert residual waste from landfill, the planning policy context  and in terms of the regulatory process involved.

 

Application For:

 

(a)       The Construction and Operation of an Energy from Waste (EfW) Facility together with Associated Office, Visitor Centre and Bottom Ash Recycling Facilities, New Access Road and Weighbridge Facilities and the Continuation of Non Hazardous Landfill Operations and Landfill Gas Utilisation with Consequent Amendments to the Phasing and Final Restoration Landform of the Landfill, Surface water Attenuation Features and Improvements to the Exisiting Household Recycling Facility at Ardley Landfill Site, Ardley Fields farm, Ardley – Application 08/02472/CM

 

Report by the Head of Sustainable Development (PN5(a))

 

This is an application for an Energy from Waste (EfW) facility and associated development together with changes to the landfill operation and improvements to the existing household recycling facility (HWRC) at Ardley landfill site.  The proposed facility would process 300,000 tonnes of municipal and commercial and industrial waste per year. The waste is proposed to come primarily from within Oxfordshire together with some from adjoining counties. The EfW building would be 229 metres long with a maximum width of 70 metres and a maximum height of 36 metres.  The chimney stack would be 82 metres high. 

 

The key planning issues are site specific waste policy and management issues, strategic location of the EfW plant against planning/transport criteria for waste management facilities, landscape and countryside impacts and amenity/impacts on local people.  There are some policy and other matters that are common to this application and to the Sutton Courtenay EfW application. The covering report to both of these proposals addresses these issues. It explains the context within which the need for waste management facilities to divert waste from landfill arises.

 

The application has attracted many responses from local people that raise a range of concerns. The report takes all of these views into account together with those received from consultees and other interested parties.

 

The development broadly accords with waste management policy as it proposes a facility to deal with Oxfordshire’s residual waste within the county.

 

However, there is conflict with policies which seek to prevent permanent built development in the countryside. The proposal would have impacts on local amenity but it is possible to limit these.

The report concludes that the need for a waste treatment facility to serve Oxfordshire, and the appropriateness of the location in relation to the strategic road network, outweighs the conflict with policies relating to landscape and countryside.

 

It is RECOMMENDED that:

 

(a)       subject to legal agreements to cover the following matters:

 

(i)                 limitation on waste import to the site from outside the County to allow:-

all residual MSW and a minimum of 50,000 tonnes of C&I waste a year to come from Oxfordshire to the EfW Plant and  two thirds of waste to come to the landfill from Oxfordshire;

(ii)               route of all large HGVs to/from the M40 via the B430 through Ardley;

(iii)             provision of a construction travel plan – all vehicles to be routed to/from M40 via B430 through Ardley;

(iv)             provision of an operational travel plan, with £1k monitoring fee;

(v)               provision of a pedestrian crossing on the B430 in Ardley (£15k cost);

(vi)             commitment to submitting an application to divert bridleway 27;

(vii)           funding for improvements to the Rights of Way network (£200,000);

(viii)         long term maintenance of the restored landfill;

(ix)             public access to the old quarry face.

 

the planning application for the development described in planning application 08/02472/CM be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Sustainable Development but to cover matters to include the following:

 

1.                  Construction works not to start until access works completed;

2.                  No waste to be treated until link to Electricity grid is completed;

3.                  No traffic movements except during between:-

            7am – 7pm Mondays to Fridays;

            7am – 1pm Saturdays and;

            on 12 nominated Saturdays 1pm – 4pm;

4.                  construction hours to be agreed;

5.                  no import of non-recyclable waste;

6.                  plan to be agreed for incinerator bottom ash operations;

7.                  details of changes  for bridleway 27 provision on definitive line and implementation if line not diverted;

8.                  implement approved flood risk assessment and site drainage plan;

9.                  agree details of groundwater and surface water drainage plan;

10.             agree plan for external lighting;

11.             no external lighting outside hours permitted for traffic movements except for security;

12.             control of recording and lifting dinosaur footprints;

13.             maximum of 500,000tpa of waste to site until landfill completed;

14.             maximum of 2,000tpa of waste to site each day until landfill ends;

15.             conditions from existing landfill permission updated with an end date of 2019

 

(b)       the application being referred to the Secretary of State as a significant departure from the development plan and the Secretary of State not calling in the application for his own determination;

 

(c)       the Head of Sustainable Development be authorised to refuse the application if the legal agreements recommended in (a) above are not completed within 10 weeks of the date of approval of the application.

 

 

(b)       Energy From Waste Incinerator (EfW) Infrastructure plus that for Combined Heat and Power (CHP), Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) Processing Plant with Outside Storage Area and Air Pollution Control Residue (APCR) Treatment and Disposal facilites, Visitor and Office Accommodation and Landscaping within Sutton Courtenay Recovery Park

 

Report by the Head of Sustainable Development (PN5(b))

 

This is an application for an Energy from Waste (EfW) incinerator and associated development at Sutton Courtenay landfill site. The proposed facility would process 220,000 tonnes of waste per year. The application states that the facility would process municipal and commercial and industrial waste from within Oxfordshire only. The facility would export approximately 17 mw of electricity to the grid per year. The EfW building would be 197.9 metres long with a maximum width of 51.4 metres with a maximum height of 49 metres. The chimney stack would be 96 metres high and 4 metres in diameter. 

 

The key planning issues are site specific waste policy and management issues, strategic location of the EfW plant against planning/transport criteria for waste management facilities, landscape and countryside impacts and amenity/impacts on local people. There are some policy and other matters that are common to this application and to the Sutton Courtenay EfW application. The covering report to both of these proposals addresses these issues. It explains the context within which the need for waste management facilities to divert waste from landfill arises.

The application has attracted many responses from local people that raise a range of concerns. The report takes all of these views into account together with those received from consultees and other interested parties.

The development broadly accords with waste management policy as it proposes a facility to deal with Oxfordshire’s residual waste within the county. However, there is conflict with policies which seek to prevent permanent built development in the countryside. The proposal would have impacts on local amenity but it is possible to limit these.

The report concludes that the need for a waste treatment facility to serve Oxfordshire, and the appropriateness of the location in relation to the strategic road network, outweighs the conflict with policies relating to landscape and countryside.

 

It is RECOMMENDED that

 

(a)       subject to legal agreements to cover the following matters:

 

(i)                 the routeing of HGVs along such routes as to avoid travelling through local villages and urban areas;

(ii)               a contribution of £43,824 (index linked) towards the Didcot Integrated Transport Strategy (DIDITS);

(iii)             a limitation on the amount of tonnage to the EfW; a limitation on the amount of total waste being carried to the site by road; a limitation on the total number of vehicles using the secondary northern access and the number of vehicles travelling eastbound to the A4130;

(iv)             a contribution of £1,000 towards the monitoring of a travel plan;

(v)               the funding of a 25 year long term management plan for any approved restoration scheme;

(vi)             a contribution towards mitigation measures for both on site and off site public rights of ways;

(vii)           a restriction on the area from which waste can be imported (a hinterland).

 

that the planning application for the development described in planning application SUT/APF/616/60-CM be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Sustainable Development but to cover maters to include the following

 

1.                  Compliance with details of application submitted (as revised). This includes a restriction to incinerating waste arising from within Oxfordshire only.

2.                  Detailed duration – 3 years.

3.                  Schedule of external materials to be agreed.

4.                  Noise levels.

5.                  Contaminated land risk assessment to be carried out.

6.                  Details of groundwater drainage scheme.

7.                  Development shall halt if previously unidentified contamination is discovered.

8.                  Details of piling or other foundation designs using penetrative methods to be submitted.

9.                  Details of final surfacing and containment arrangements for all areas used for storage of liquid fuels etc.

10.             Details of underground land drainage scheme.

11.             Details of all surface water drainage arrangements.

12.             Total amount of waste to be imported to the site by road to be restricted to a maximum of 320,000 tpa.

13.             A travel plan to be drawn up.

14.             A construction travel plan to be drawn up.

15.             Details of proposed cycle storage provision.

16.             Final details of proposed car parking layout.

17.             The northern site access onto the B4016 to be limited to 100 vehicle movement per day.

18.             Macrophyte surveys of water bodies to be carried out.

19.             Works in the vicinity of badger setts.

20.             Great crested newt (GCN) surveys to be carried out.  Should GCN be found to be present, a mitigation strategy should be prepared and licence obtained from Natural England.

21.             An updated water vole survey to be carried out.

22.             Water bodies should only be drained down in winter months (November to February inclusive).

23.             Exclusion fencing to be erection around little plover nests.

24.             No disturbance to grassland areas during the bird breeding season (March to August inclusive) as skylark are likely to be nesting there.

25.             The quarry face which is a sand martin colony should not be removed during the bird breeding season (March to August inclusive).

26.             No vegetation clearance to take place during the bird breeding season (March to August inclusive).

27.             Details of any external lighting should be submitted for approval before development commences.

28.             Bat surveys to be carried out prior to removal of trees to determine whether the trees are being used as bat roosts.

29.             A water vole strategy should be submitted.

30.             A detailed restoration and landscaping scheme to be submitted.

31.             A 25 year management and monitoring plan to be submitted.

32.             Local liaison group to be established.

33.             Details and scheduling of any night time construction activities to be agreed.

34.             Hours of working to be agreed.

35.             Dust suppression measure to be agreed.

36.             Details of scheme to prevent pollution of watercourses.

37.             No increase in infiltration through contaminated ground

38.             Hydrogeological risk assessment to be agreed.

39.             Final routeing of waste heat recovering infrastructure.

40.             Phasing of waste disposal.

41.             Area of waste disposal to be solely for APCR from Sutton Courtenay EfW plant.

42.             No reversing bleepers except those whose noise levels adjust automatically to surrounding noise levels.

43.             All internal site haul roads to be maintained.

 

Informatives to cover:

·        Waste heat recovery infrastructure

·        Oil and chemical storage areas

·        Environmental Permit

·        Water extraction and dewatering

·        Discharge consents

·        Works within 8 m of designated main rivers

·        Culverting of watercourses

 

(b)              the application being referred to the Secretary of State as a significant departure from the development plan and the Secretary of State not calling in the application for his own determination.

 

(c)       the Head of Sustainable Development be authorised to refuse the application if the legal agreements recommended in (a) above are not completed within 10 weeks of the date of approval of the application.