lawful development certificate supporting statement · local planning authority specifying the land...

Application for Lawful Development Certificate to confirm

that a proposed Refuse Derived Fuel processing facility

creating fuel with an average moisture content of less than

25% and a Materials Recycling Facility fall within Use Class B2

February 2011

Unit A, Edgemead Close, Round Spinney

Industrial Estate

Northampton

Lawful Development

Certificate

Supporting Statement

A104198 - UNIT A, EDGEMEAD CLOSE, NORTHAMPTON LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE APPLICATION

PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF H.W. MARTIN WASTE LTD 2

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3

2.0 Central Government Advice ......................................................................................... 5

3.0 Planning History .......................................................................................................... 9

4.0 The Proposed Use .................................................................................................... 11

5.0 Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 16

6.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 21

Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 23

Appendix 1 – 10/0184/FULLWNN – Decision Notice ........................................................ 24

Appendix 2 – Refuse Derived Fuel Processing Facility – Process Flow Chart .................. 25

Appendix 3 – Materials Recycling Facility – Process flow Chart ....................................... 26

Appendix 4 – Vehicle Movements and Tonnage Estimates .............................................. 27

Appendix 5 – Land Use Gazetteer Extracts ...................................................................... 28



1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The following statement has been prepared in support of this application which is

made under section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to obtain a

Lawful Development Certificate from Northamptonshire County Council for the use of

Unit A, Edgemead Close, Round Spinney Industrial Estate, Northampton, NN3 8RF

for the accommodation of a Refuse Derived Fuel processing facility (RDF) and a

Materials Recycling Facility (MRF).

1.2 The site obtained planning permission in 1989 for (B2) Industrial and (B8)

Warehousing Use, however under Part 3, Class E of Schedule 2 of the Town and

Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (As Amended) the

flexibility of this permission lasted for a period of 10 years from the date of decision.

Accordingly we have applied for and obtained planning permission for a B2 and/or B8

use of the site to effectively renew the flexibility of the permission obtained in 1989

(10/0184/FULWNN).

1.3 The applicant‟s proposed use involves the processing of waste to form Refuse

Derived Fuel (RDF) and the processing, sorting and repackaging of recyclable

materials (MRF). It is considered that these uses fall within the B2 Industrial Use

Class and the purpose of this LDC application is to obtain legal confirmation that this

is the case.

1.4 The applicant operates an existing RDF production facility on a unit at Lilliput Road in

Northampton although this is combined with a waste transfer station which handles

MSW from Northampton Borough Council. The proposed use will be based only on

the Lilliput Road RDF operation, but improved and extended to be more efficient –

there will however be no waste transfer station.

1.5 This statement sets out the legal framework to pursue a Lawful Development

Certificate in relation to the development in question. The statement will present the

evidence which demonstrates that the development to which it relates is lawful and in

accordance with this framework.

1.6 The statement is set out as follows:

2.0 Central Government Advice

3.0 Planning History



4.0 The Proposed Use

5.0 Analysis

6.0 Conclusions



2.0 CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ADVICE

THE 1990 TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT

2.1. Section 55 (1) of the 1990 Act states that:

“Subject to the following provisions of this sections, in this Act, except

where the context otherwise requires, “development”, means the

carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on,

over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of

any buildings or other land”

2.2. Section 192(1) of the 1990 Act also states that:

(1) If any person wishes to ascertain whether

(a) any proposed use of buildings or other land; or

(b) any operations proposed to be carried out in, on, over or under

land

Would be lawful, he may make an application for the purpose to the

local planning authority specifying the land and describing the use or

operation in question

2.3. By virtue of section 192 (2), the local planning authority are required to issue such a

certificate if the uses or operations described in the application would be lawful if

instituted at the time of the application. Subsection (3) of section 192 explains the

detail to be provided within the application.

USE CLASSES ORDER

2.4. Article 3(1) or the UCO provides that:

“Subject to the provisions of this Order, where a building or land is used

for a purpose of any class specified in the Schedule, the use of that

building or that land for any purpose of the same class shall not be taken

to involve development of the land”



2.5. Part B of the Schedule to the UCO contains Class B2, which is headed “General

Industrial” and is described (in so far as material) as “Use for the carrying on of an

industrial process”.

2.6. “Industrial process” is defined by Article 2 of the UCO as:

“a process for or incidental to any of the following purposes:

(a) the making of any article or part of any article ….

(b) the altering, repairing, maintaining, ornamenting, finishing, cleaning,

washing, packing, canning, adapting for sale, breaking up or demolition

of any article; or

(c) the getting, dressing or treatment of minerals; in the course of any

trade or business other than agriculture”

2.7. Article 3 of the UCO clarifies that none of the classes set out in the Schedule to the

Order includes use as “a waste disposal installation for the incineration, chemical

treatment … or landfill of waste”.

DOE CIRCULAR 10/97 – ENFORCING PLANNING CONTROL: LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS.

2.8. This Circular contains general advice as to how planning control should be enforced.

Annex 8 is titled “Lawfulness and the Lawful Development Certificate” and contains a

number of elements directly relevant to this application.

2.9. Paragraph 8.3 clarifies the meaning of Section 191(2) of the 1990 Act and

explains that operations and uses are lawful if no enforcement action may be

taken against them and they are not in contravention of any enforcement notice

which is in place. The paragraph goes on to explain that development on land is

lawful if it falls within a number of different categories. In the context of this

application section 4 is applicable, as follows:

(4) It benefits from an extant grant of planning permission under

Part II of the 1990 Act (or equivalent parts of preceding acts)

2.10. Enforcement action is defined in Section 171A of the 1990 Act as being the

service of an enforcement notice or a breach of condition notice.



2.11. Paragraph 8.4 repeats this advice.

2.12. Paragraph 8.5 refers to the enforcement time limits imposed on different types of

development by Section 171B.

2.13. Paragraph 8.11 clarifies that the purpose of Lawful Development Certificate

applications is to ascertain whether specific uses are lawful. Applicants must

therefore describe precisely what is being applied for. Local planning authorities

must assess whether, on the facts of the case and relevant planning law, the

specified matter is or would be lawful.

2.14. Paragraph 8.12 advises that the onus of proof is firmly on the applicant to show that

the development is lawful. A Lawful Development Certificate can be refused if this

onus of proof has not been discharged.

2.15. Paragraph 8.15 states that when considering the evidence associated with a

Lawful Development Certificate application the relevant test is “the balance of

probability”. Local authorities should not refuse certificates because the applicant

has not discharged the stricter, criminal burden of proof (“beyond reasonable

doubt”). It is not necessary for the applicant‟s own evidence to be corroborated by

independent evidence and the case of FW Gabbita V. SSE and Newham LBC

1985 JPL 630 is referred to where this principle was established. The paragraph

goes on to say that if the local planning authority has no evidence of its own or

third party evidence, the Lawful Development Certificate should be granted as

long as the applicant‟s evidence is sufficiently precise and unambiguous. The

identity of the applicant or the planning merits of the operation or use are irrelevant

to the purely legal issues involved.

2.16. Paragraph 8.16 identifies the need for Lawful Development Certificates to be drafted

precisely to avoid problems in the future over what is or is not lawful on the site.

2.17. Paragraphs 8.25 – 8.27 provide advice on applying for proposed uses or operations

under Section 192 of the Act. It reiterates Section 192(2) which states that if the

proposed use or operation was lawful at the time of the application, the local planning

authority shall approve the application. If not, it should be refused. Further advice is

given on the detail to be provided in such an application so that the issues are clear.

Paragraph 8.27 highlights that the key question is – “if this proposed change of use



or if this proposed operation had commenced on the application date, would it have

been lawful for planning purposes?“

2.18. Paragraph 8.28 states that the terms of a Lawful Development Certificate should be

precise so that it is clear what has been approved.



3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1. The planning history for Unit A, Edgemead Close, Round Spinney Industrial Estate,

NN3 8RF is as follows:

1985/0001 – Outline permission for the erection of 4 no. factory/warehouse units with office

accommodation and 3 no. office warehouse buildings on land at Stone Circle

Road, Edgemead Close, Round Spinney, Northampton. Approved 13/02/1985

1987/0863 – Permission for the erection of industrial office warehouse units at land adjacent

JMH Bostrom Europe Limited. Approved 18/011/1987

1989/1423 – Permission for the erection of 3 industrial/warehouse units. Approved

24/01/1990

N/1993/393 – Permission for new Water Storage tank and pump house, new fire escape

staircases and gatehouse. Approved 16/06/1993

10/0184/FULWNN – Permission for change of use of Unit A from B8 to flexible use: B2

(General Industrial) and/or B8 (Storage & Distribution). Approved 25/01/2011

PLANNING HISTORY SUMMARY

3.2. It is apparent that the 1989 planning permission (1989/1423) allowed for the

construction of Unit A and gave permission for industrial/warehouse use. This range

of uses is noted within both the description and upon the approved plans.

Accordingly this site was considered to have planning permission for both B2 and B8

usage.

3.3. However as set out within the Introduction, under Part 3, Class E of Schedule 2 of

the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (As

Amended) the flexibility of this permission only lasted for a period of 10 years from

the date of decision. Accordingly we applied for and obtained planning permission

for a change of use from B8 to B2 and/or B8 use effectively renewing the flexible

permission obtained in 1989 (10/0184/FULWNN).

3.4. Copies of the decision notice and relevant plan extracts are contained at Appendix 1

and features three conditions which require discharge prior to the occupation and/or


PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD ON BEHALF OF H.W. MARTIN WASTE LTD

10

operation of the building. These include details of noise, odour and the requirement

for a travel plan and will govern the uses hereby applied for within this LDC.



11

4.0 THE PROPOSED USE

4.1. Primarily the proposal seeks to use Unit A for two different industrial processes

The processing of dry commercial and industrial waste to make Refuse

Derived Fuel (RDF), and;

A materials recycling facility (MRF) which involves the sorting and

repackaging of recyclable materials.

4.2. The site would also accommodate ancillary office uses within the existing office

facilities along with ancillary elements of storage and distribution to support the

above industrial processes.

4.3. Flowcharts setting out each process in more detail are contained at Appendix 2 and

Appendix 3 respectively.

4.4. Appendix 4 contains the expected vehicle movements for such an operation and also

sets out the expected split in site usage in terms of input and output annual

tonnages. This is as follows :

RDF waste input 97,000 tonnes

MRF waste input 53,000 tonnes

TOTAL 150,000 tonnes

RDF output

RDF to cement kilns 67,900 tonnes

Residual waste : disposal

or treatment 29,100 tonnes

MRF output

Final products : mills and

Other processors 50,350 tonnes

Residual waste : disposal

Or treatment 2,650 tonnes

The exact split between RDF and MRF production may vary but will not exceed the

total input of 150,000 tonnes per annum.



12

4.5. From these figures a number of key points emerge:

The RDF process which creates a fuel used to fire cement kilns constitutes

the bulk of the annual tonnage processed – 97,000 of the total 150,000

tonnes processed. This amounts to 65% of the total operation.

Of the total tonnage processed, the vast bulk of it is processed to create

products – 118,250 tonnes which is 79% of the total. Only 31,750 tonnes

(21%) is residual waste which is either deposited to land fill or sent for further

processing.

4.6 As can be seen the RDF process will account for approximately two thirds of the

operation with the MRF operation the remaining on third. The latter is thus

considered to be a relatively ancillary part of the workings of this site. Indeed as can

be seen from Appendix 3 some residual waste will be sent to the RDF processor as

additional feedstock and thus eventually the balance may shift further towards the

RDF element.

4.6. The submitted flow charts and tonnage estimates for the site are based upon data

and site set ups for existing operations within the UK and therefore are considered

relatively accurate in terms of the proposed usage of this site.

THE RDF PROCESS

4.7. As can be seen from the process flowchart at Appendix 2 there are seven main

stages to this process including shredding, screening and sorting along with a final

stockpiling of the final product prior to transport to the end user.

4.8 The feedstock for the process is Industrial, Commercial, Civic Amenity and Bulky

Household waste which is brought to the site generally on roll on/off, draw bar and

drag, walking floor and various trade vehicles. Vehicles originate from

Northamptonshire, Milton Keynes, Peterborough, Warwickshire, Leicestershire,

Northamptonshire and various bulk trade waste processors. This totals circa 97,000

tonnes per annum. Approximately 50% of the input waste will come from

Northamptonshire.

4.9 All elements of the process are linked by conveyor belt with dust suppressions

systems positioned both over the feedstock stockpile and at all points of the system



13

where dust would be created i.e drops and shredders. The dust suppression system

consists of a water misting system which can be augmented by various additives if

required.

4.10 The feedstock is deposited into a general stockpile of material which is then manually

sorted by a mechanical grabber. Unsuitable material is removed from the process,

with acceptable material entering the first stage of the process, pre shredding.

4.11 The pre shredder takes the original feedstock and shreds it down to under 200mm

prior to entering the first magnet which removes the majority of the metal from the

material stream. The removed metal is sent for reprocessing.

4.12 The fine screens helps to remove any wet material and glass from the system with

lighter material continuing. The removed material is sent to landfill or energy from

waste facilities. The material stream then passes through another process which

aims to remove any remaining metal. The additional removed metal is sent for

reprocessing with all other metal removed from the process.

4.13 The Air Knife Screen aims to remove the remaining heavy material from the process

with lighter material continuing and heavier material sent to landfill or energy from

waste facilities. The material then passes through a final shredder and screen which

reduces the size of the material to 30mm which is the finished size of the RDF

created by this process..

4.14 The finished material is then stockpiled ready for distribution to clients.

4.15 The sorting, screening and shredding processes are designed to reduce the original

waste feedstock into gradually smaller and lighter fractions such that the end product

is suitable for its end usage as a fuel. At each stage there will be fractions which

don‟t meet requirements and will be separated off from the process and either sent to

landfill or exported as a separate product for further reprocessing. 70% of feedstock

results in RDF production, the remaining 30% is either sent to landfill or sent for

further reprocessing, and as such is a relatively minor fraction.

4.16 The resulting RDF product is kept loose as this is the form which is most usable and

will be exported in 20 tonne loads. It is important that the moisture content of the

RDF product is around 18% and the maximum moisture content of the fuel on

average can therefore be no more than 25%.



14

THE MRF PROCESS

4.17 The Materials Recycling Facility also utilises waste as its feedstock, but a slightly

different type which has been pre sorted into co-mingled recycled waste prior to

shipment to the site as a product.

4.18 The MRF process is fed from co-mingled recyclable waste mainly from

Northamptonshire and neighbouring Counties along with various bulk waste

handlers. The input tonnage to the process will be approximately 53,000 tonnes with

the majority sourced from Northamptonshire and neighbouring Authorities.

4.19 The input feedstock is often bagged and the first stage of the process is the removal

of the bags such that all input waste can be comingled prior to undergoing the first

stage of sorting. The pre-sorting stage will initially remove card and textiles from the

process stream that will be then re-packaged and baled prior to dispatch to clients.

4.20 The second stage of the process is the trommel which is used to separate materials

by size/weight and is used to create two separate lines, the container line and the

paper line.

CONTAINER LINE

4.21 The container line includes metal, mixed paper, plastic bottles and film with the first

post trommel stage being a magnet to remove the metal cans from the stream.

These are then sent for reprocessing with the metal removed from the RDF process.

The residual waste then passes through a sorting station in which non recyclable

waste is removed and is then integrated with the RDF process.

4.22 The remaining paper, plastic bottles and film is then separated using a Titech Auto

Sorter into constituent parts with each fraction repackaged and baled prior to

dispatch to the client.

PAPER LINE

4.23 The paper line generally consists of newspapers, magazines, plastic bottles and film

of a different weight to that handled by the container line. The first process following

the trammel is the ballistic separator which is designed to remove residual non-

recyclable waste from the system which can then be redirected into the RDF system.



15

4.24 The final stage on this line of the process is the sorting station which separates

newspapers and magazines from the plastic bottles and film with any remaining

material being redirected into the RDF process. The sorted material is then

repackaged and baled prior to dispatch to clients.

4.25 As can be seen from the flow chart at Appendix 3 the feedstock will go through up to

seven processes which all involve the sorting of the feedstock into its constituent

parts such that each fraction can be repackaged and baled up prior to onward

transport as individual products.

4.26 Some parts will be suitable for use within the RDF process (see above) and therefore

there will be some aggregation between the two lines, although this is likely to be A

relatively minor part of the system.

4.27 The final separated fractions will be densified, packaged and exported accordingly

with some limited on site storage required.



16

5.0 ANALYSIS

5.1. Our submission is that the proposed use does not require planning permission for the

following reasons :

a) The site already has planning permission for B2 use

b) The proposed use falls within the B2 use class as defined in the Town

and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (UCO) when viewed

against the relevant definitions, case law and technical advice.

c) The Land Use Gazetteer 2nd Edition 1997 confirms that the proposed

use falls within the B2 use class

A. EXISTING PLANNING PERMISSION

5.2. It is our contention that the existing planning permission (Appendix 1) authorises the

site for B2 and/or B8 use and so any use falling within either use class would fall

within the permitted uses at this site and therefore requires no further grant of

permission.

5.3. The planning permission is unambiguous in its wording and features no further

conditions restricting the usage of the site such that B2 uses on this site would not

be permissible.

B. THE PROPOSED USE FALLS WITHIN THE B2 USE CLASS

5.4. We contend that the proposed uses fall within the Use Class B2. Class B2 in part B

of the Schedule to the UCO defines a General Industrial Use as:

“use for the carrying on of an industrial process other than one falling

within class B1….”

5.5. Article 2 of the UCO defines “industrial process” as :

“…a process for or incidental to any of the following purposes :-

…….



17

b) the altering, repairing, maintaining, ornamenting, finishing,

cleaning, washing, packing, canning, adapting for sale, breaking up or

demolition of any article: or ( our emphasis )

……..

in the course of any trade or business other than agriculture, and

other than a use carried out in or adjacent to a mine or quarry.”

5.6. The proposed processes are set out in more detail within the previous section of this

document, however the essence of the uses proposed to be accommodated within

this Unit are:

RDF – The processing of waste to form refuse derived fuel and onward transportation of the

final product to a customer.

MRF – The sorting and repackaging of recyclable materials into their separate constituents.

5.7. Both processes utilise forms of waste as feedstock and the issue of whether waste

handling, sorting and processing uses can fall within the B2 use class is addressed

in the Development Control Practice Manual at page 043-311 to 312. It states that

uses of this type may be held to fall within use class B2 if it is considered that the

primary function of that use falls within any of the activities listed at b) in the UCO

definition of an industrial process (see above), and if the waste which is processed

can reasonably be called an “article”.

5.8. The Development Control Manual advises (Page 043-311) that waste which is

processed may reasonably be called an „article‟. The Bennett Fergusson (see

below) decision is extremely useful in clarifying that waste does fall within the

definition of “article” as that word is used in the UCO definition of industrial process.

The case is also helpful as Blackburne J indicated that sorting, crushing, screening,

chipping and baling waste could fall within B2. Although “sorting” does not appear in

paragraph (b) of the definition of “industrial process”, the courts have in the past held

this activity as falling with the general definition (the sorting and grading of plant

bulbs was held to constitute an industrial process in Horwitz v Rowson [1960] 1

WLR 803).



18

5.9. Therefore it is clear that waste can be considered to be an article in respect of the

definition. In further consideration of whether the above operation falls within the B2

Use Class we have had regard to a decision by Planning Inspector Mr A D Robinson

dated 29 September 2005 in which he allowed an appeal by Holystone Limited

against a decision by North Tyneside MBC to refuse an application to vary a

condition attached to a planning permission for a Waste Transfer Station. The

details of this appeal are remarkably similar to that as set out above and within the

previous section and thus is of relevance to this application. As part of his reasoning,

one of the conclusions reached by the Inspector was as follows:

“I accept that many waste related activities, such as the tipping or

incineration of waste, are sui generis. However, it seems to me

that the sort of operation carried out on the site is more akin to an

industrial process. The waste is sorted so that recyclable

materials are separated from the remainder of the waste and the

recyclable materials are then processed by shredding and the

like. This degree of sorting and processing represents, in my

assessment, an industrial process coming within Class B2 of the

Use Classes Order”.

5.10. In reaching this conclusion, the inspector cited and relied upon the decision of

Blackburne J. in Bennett Fergusson Coal Limited v FSS [2004] 1 P&CR 30,

describing the case as one “where it was held that waste recycling comes within the

B2 use class”. Additional cases of note are found within the Development Control

Practice manual.

5.11. In the Sheffield City Council case (8.12.94 – DC Practice Manual), waste paper was

held to be an article if it was adapted for sale by being sorted, shredded and baled

and only a small proportion went to a “final resting place” (ie landfill). In the

Hertfordshire 16.5.06 case, woodchip waste was imported on to a site, stored, then

processed in a shredder and sold on to be made into boards or used as animal

bedding. The inspector concluded this fell within the B2 use class as although

importation of waste was involved, the use was an industrial processing use.



19

SUMMARY

5.12. Whether a site which has a lawful B2 user can be used for sorting, processing and

baling waste without the need for planning permission depends very much on what it

is precisely that the applicant wants to do. As can be seen from the express proviso

to the Order itself, if waste is being disposed of on the site (via incineration, chemical

treatment or landfill), the activity will not fall within Class B2.

5.13. It is clear that waste can be considered to be an „article‟ in respect of the UCO

definition of industrial process and we have shown through numerous appeal and

court decisions that the activities as set out within the description of the site usage

fall under the definition of what would reasonably be considered to be an industrial

process. Moreover, as a matter of fact and degree it is considered that the proposed

use clearly is an industrial process. Both the process description at paragraphs 4.7

to 4.27 and the flow diagrams in Appendices 2 and 3 illustrate quite a sophisticated

type of activity of itself. This is easily confirmed by an inspection of the applicant‟s

existing operation at Lilliput Road upon which the new use will be based although it

must be emphasised that the municipal waste transfer station at Lilliput Road will

remain there and does not form part of this proposal.

5.14. It is therefore quite clear that the proposed site usage would fall within the Use Class

B2.

C. THE LAND USE GAZETTEER

5.15. While the paragraphs above are quite clear on what constitutes an industrial process

falling within the B2 Use Class it is perhaps useful to consider the Land Use

Gazetteer. The Land Use Gazetteer (2nd Edition 1997 published by Leaf Coppins) is

a helpful guide to assist in determining which use class different types of activities

may fall into. We refer to the following pages of the Gazetteer as they include uses

which go to make up or are part of the processes being applied for within this LDC.

A384

o Waste Baling Place – B2

A385

o Waste Compaction Place – B2

A386



20

o Waste drink cartons, baling, sorting, shredding, densifying or washing

place – B2

o Waste handing place including storage and distribution – B2

A388

o Waste paper baling, sorting or shredding place – B2

A389

o Waste plastic baling, sorting, shredding, densifying or washing place –

B2

A390

o Waste sorting place – B2

o Waste steel case baling, sorting, shredding, densifying or washing

place – B2

A391 – Waste treatment place – B2

5.16. In each and every case, these activities are considered to fall within the B2 general

industrial use class. This is consistent with the documented appeal and court cases

and therefore conclusively confirms that the proposals fall within the B2 use class.

Extracts of these pages can be found at Appendix 5 with the relevant lines

highlighted.



21

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

6.1. The planning history of the site is set out at Section 3 and clearly shows that in 1989

planning permission was gained and implemented for three industrial/warehouse

units. No restrictive conditions were attached to this permission. West Northants

Development Corporation recently granted a further planning permission for a mixed

B2 and/or B8 use. Accordingly a B2 use is considered to be in line with this

permission.

6.2. With this application we seek the issuing of a Lawful Development Certificate

confirming that the proposed use of the building falls within the Use Class B2 (with

ancillary office use) and that this use would be in line with the planning permission

gained on this site in January 2011 such that a further planning permission for

change of use would not be required.

6.3. Within the relevant sections of this statement, we have sought to set out clearly the

relevant parts of Use Classes Order in our efforts to demonstrate that the proposed

processes fall within the Use Class B2. An “Industrial process” is defined by Article 2

of the UCO as:

“a process for or incidental to any of the following purposes:

(a) the making of any article or part of any article ….

(b) the altering, repairing, maintaining, ornamenting, finishing, cleaning,

washing, packing,

canning, adapting for sale, breaking up or demolition of any article; or

(c) the getting, dressing or treatment of minerals;

in the course of any trade or business other than agriculture”

6.4. Waste which is the subject of a process can reasonably be considered an „article‟ in

respect of the above definition and accordingly if one can demonstrate that the

process to which the article is subjected also falls within the definition of B2, then it

must follow that the process as a whole can be considered to fall within this Use

Class.



22

6.5. The appeal and court cases illustrate quite clearly that where an article was adapted

for sale by being sorted, shredded and baled with only a small proportion going to

landfill this falls within the B2 Use Class. These are the activities which are part of

the RDF and MRF processes. 79% of all waste feedstock is processed in some way

to form other products with only 21% residual waste. The processes proposed

clearly come within the above definition. The material going to landfill is clearly a

small proportion and thus cannot be considered to be any more than ancillary

wastage from the industrial process. The product yield is set to increase as

technology develops and as pre sorting of the feedstock by waste collectors

improves.

6.6. The moisture content of the fuel produced cannot exceed 25% and will typically be

around 18%.

6.7. As a matter of fact and degree the process is industrial in nature. This is clear both

from an understanding of the processes themselves outlined in this statement and

from an observation of the applicant‟s existing RDF operation at Lilliput Road which

can be arranged if required.

6.8. In confirmation of our findings the Land Use Gazetteer shows quite clearly that the

usages proposed all fall within the definition of B2. As such planning permission is

not required for the proposed uses to operate at this site and a Lawful Development

Certificate should be issued.



23

APPENDICES



24

APPENDIX 1 – 10/0184/FULLWNN – DECISION NOTICE



25

APPENDIX 2 – REFUSE DERIVED FUEL PROCESSING FACILITY – PROCESS FLOW CHART

Confidential information only to be used in relation to the NRF planning application.

Northampton Recycling Centre Refuse derived Fuel (RDF) processing facility – process flow chart

Pre Shredder

Magnet Fines Screen

Magnet & Eddy current

Air Knife Screen

Post Shredder & Screen

Stockpiling of final product

Waste feedstock – Industrial Commercial Civic Amenity Bulky Household

Metal sent to reprocessor

Residual waste to landfill or energy from waste

Metal sent to reprocessor

RDF fuel sent to end user

Grab sorting of unsuitable feedstock



26

APPENDIX 3 – MATERIALS RECYCLING FACILITY – PROCESS FLOW CHART

Confidential information only to be used in relation to the NRF planning application.

Northampton Recycling Centre Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) – process flow chart

Trommel

Paper line

Container line

Magnet & Eddy current

Sorting station

Ballistic separator

Titech auto sort

Recyclate feedstock – Commingled recyclables

Residual waste RDF manufacture

Metal cans sent to reprocessor

Plastic bottles and film

Pre sort

Sorting station

Newspaper & magazines – sold loose

Plastic bottles and film

Bag splitter

Card & Textiles

Mixed paper

Residual waste - RDF manufacture

Baler Producing mill sized bales for end processors / paper mills



27

APPENDIX 4 – VEHICLE MOVEMENTS AND TONNAGE ESTIMATES

Vheicle Movements at Northampton Recycling Centre

Inputs to RDF process Origin of waste

Annual

tonnes

Average

Payload

Annual vehcile

movements

Vehciles

per day Type of vehcile

RDF from Civic Amenity Waste Northamptonshire 10,000 8.5 1176.47 4.11 Roll on off

RDF from CA waste Milton Keynes 18,000 18 1000.00 3.50 Draw bar and drag

RDF from CA waste Peterborough 6,000 18 333.33 1.17 Draw bar and drag

RDF from CA waste Warwickshire 5,000 18 277.78 0.97 Draw bar and drag

RDF from CA waste Leicestershire 2,000 22 90.91 0.32 Walking Floor

RDF from trade waste Northamptonshire 48,000 6 8000.00 27.97 Various trade vehicles

RDF from bulk trade waste Various 8,000 22 363.64 1.27 Walking Floor

Sub total inputs 97,000

Inputs to MRF Origin of waste

Annual

tonnes

Average

Payload

Annual vehcile

movements

Vehciles


Comingled recylables

Northants and neighbouring

countys 40,000 8 5000.00 17.48

Bulk loaded comingled Various 13,000 24 541.67 1.89

Sub total inputs 53,000

Total inputs 150,000

Outputs from the RDF process Destination

Annual

tonnes

Average

Payload

Annual vehcile

movements

Vehciles


Refuse derived fuel to cement kilns various 67,900 22 3086.36 10.79 Walking floor

Residual waste for disposal or further

treatment off site various 29,100 18 1616.67 0.00

Goes out on draw bars

that bring in CA waste -

no additiona

movements

Sub total outputs 97,000

Outputs from the MRF process Destination

Annual

tonnes

Average

Payload

Annual vehcile

movements

Vehciles


Final products (paper, card, metal,

plastic etc)

Mills and final processors UK

and abroad 50,350 24 2097.92 7.34 Walking floor

Residual waste from the process Landfill or off site treatment 2,650 24 110.42 0.39 Walking floor

Sub total outputs 53,000

Total outputs 150,000

Total vehicle movements (one way) 77.20

Total movements in and out 154.40

The above is calculated on a 5.5 day working week whereas a small number of the included vehicle movements will occur on a Saturday afternoon and Sunday



28

APPENDIX 5 – LAND USE GAZETTEER EXTRACTS



29

Unit A Edgemead Close, Round Spinney Industrial

Estate

Northampton

lawful development certificate supporting statement · local planning authority specifying the land...

Documents