report to hertfordshire county council - home ... · report to hertfordshire county council . ......

Report to Hertfordshire County Council

by Andrew S Freeman BSc(Hons) DipTP DipEM FRTPI FCIHT MIEnvSc

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Date: 24th March 2014

PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004 (AS AMENDED) SECTION 20

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION INTO THE

HERTFORDSHIRE WASTE SITE ALLOCATIONS LOCAL PLAN

Document submitted for examination on 24 June 2013

Examination hearings held between 3 September 2013 and 6 November 2013

File Ref: PINS/M1900/429/5

Hertfordshire County Council Waste Site Allocations Local Plan, Inspector’s Report, Spring 2014

- 2 -

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN REPORT

Core documents (referenced in parentheses in the text) are prefixed by the letters

WSA

AA Appropriate Assessment

LDS Local Development Scheme

ELAS Employment Land Area of Search

ha Hectare

MM Main modification

Para Paragraph

SA Sustainability Appraisal

SCI Statement of Community Involvement

SCS Sustainable Community Strategy

STW Sewage Treatment Works

tpa Tonnes per annum

Non-Technical Summary

This report concludes that the Hertfordshire Waste Site Allocations Local Plan provides an appropriate basis for the planning of the County over the next 12 years providing a number of modifications are made to the Plan. Hertfordshire County Council has specifically requested me to recommend any modifications necessary to enable the Plan to be adopted. All of the modifications to address this were proposed by the County Council and I have recommended their inclusion after considering the representations from other parties on these issues. The main modifications can be summarised as follows:

• deletion of the sequential approach to site selection; • deletion of Green Belt sites proposed for allocation at Presdales Pit, Ware;

Tyttenhanger Quarry (north); Tyttenhanger Quarry (South of Coursers Road); Harper Lane; Smug Oak Lane; and Cadwell Lane STW;1

• insertion of text on the approach to allocations in the Green Belt;2 • deletion of other sites proposed for allocation at Sunnyside Employment

Area, Buntingford and New Ford Road / Britannia Road, Waltham Cross; • deletion of areas proposed for designation as Employment Land Areas of

Search at Three Cherry Trees Lane (East) and northwest of Studio Way, Borehamwood;

• insertion of text addressing provision for the landfilling of non-hazardous waste; and

• amendment of the boundary of the proposed allocation at the New Barn.

1 These changes have been brought forward by the County Council. They are necessary to ensure compliance with national Green Belt policy in circumstances where the releases originally proposed are not justified. 2 Again, these changes have been brought forward by the County Council in order that the Plan will reflect national policy and guidance on related Green Belt matters.


- 4 -

Introduction 1. This report contains my assessment of the Hertfordshire Waste Site Allocations

Local Plan in terms of Section 20(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended). It considers first whether the Plan’s preparation has complied with the duty to co-operate, in recognition that there is no scope to remedy any failure in this regard. It then considers whether the Plan is sound and whether it is compliant with the legal requirements. The National Planning Policy Framework (Paragraph 182) makes clear that, to be sound, a Local Plan should be positively prepared; justified; effective; and consistent with national policy.

2. The starting point for the examination is the assumption that the local authority has submitted what it considers to be a sound plan. The basis for my examination is the Proposed Submission version of the Plan (November 2012, WSA/SD/001). This is the document upon which consultation took place in November and December 2012.

3. My report deals with the main modifications that are needed to make the Plan sound and legally compliant and they are identified in bold in the report (MM). In accordance with Section 20(7C) of the 2004 Act the County Council requested that I should make any modifications needed to rectify matters that make the Plan unsound/not legally compliant and thus incapable of being adopted. These main modifications are set out in the Appendix.

4. The main modifications that are necessary for soundness and legal compliance all relate to matters that were discussed at the examination hearings. Following these discussions, the County Council prepared a schedule of proposed main modifications and up-dated the Sustainability Appraisal (SA).3 The modifications schedule has been the subject of public consultation for six weeks. I have taken account of the consultation responses in coming to my conclusions in this report.

Assessment of Duty to Co-operate 5. Section 20(5)(c) of the 2004 Act requires that I consider whether the Council

complied with any duty imposed on them by Section 33A of the 2004 Act in relation to the Plan’s preparation. Section 33A requires constructive, active and on-going engagement with local authorities and a variety of prescribed bodies in order to maximise the effectiveness of plan preparation.

6. The County Council has consulted all relevant statutory and non-statutory bodies / organisations throughout the plan making process. This has resulted in on-going, active involvement with many stakeholders over a number of years. Specific details are set out in the Duty to Co-operate Evidence document (WSA/BD/024).

7. The County Council has also continuously consulted the county’s ten district / borough councils and all parish and town councils throughout the plan making process along with all adjoining county, district, parish and town councils.

3 See Hertfordshire Waste Site Allocations Document – Proposed Changes, Sustainability Appraisal Addendum, December 2013; also Habitats Appraisal Addendum, December 2013


- 5 -

Meetings have also been held with the county’s ten district / borough councils along with neighbouring authorities and other organisations where appropriate. Other relevant bodies / organisations have also been consulted. A full list of consultees is contained in the Regulation 17(d) Consultation Statement (WSA/SD/007).

8. In addition to fulfilling the statutory plan making requirements, the County Council as Waste Planning Authority has been an active participant in a number of other relevant groups and organisation for many years. These are:

• the Waste Technical Advisory Body for the East of England;

• the Minerals and Waste Learning Group;

• the Herts Planning Group; and

• the Plans Management Group.

9. Active participation in these groups has led to effective on-going dialogue with neighbouring constituent and wider local planning authorities and other statutory organisations over a number of topic areas that are applicable to the development plan making process. Further details of the specific roles for which each group and organisation are responsible in relation to the duty to co-operate are set out in the Duty to Co-operate Evidence document.

10. I conclude that the County Council has worked collaboratively with other authorities and bodies and has co-operated effectively through a continuous period of engagement. The Local Planning Authority has fulfilled the duty to co-operate with regard to the Hertfordshire Waste Site Allocations Local Plan.

Assessment of Legal Compliance 11. My examination of the compliance of the Plan with the legal requirements is

summarised in the table below. I conclude that the Plan meets them all. However, in the light of discussion at the examination hearings and other evidence before me, I include particular comments on the Sustainability Appraisal.

12. The Sustainability Appraisal has been through a number of iterations. The February 2012 Pre-Submission version of the Plan (WSA/PS/011) was accompanied by a Sustainability Appraisal Report January 2012 (WSA/PS/012) and Appendices October 2011 (WSA/PS/013). A Sustainability Appraisal Addendum November 2012 (WSA/SD/002) accompanied the Proposed Submission version of the Plan. A further update (WSA/MOD/195/SA) has been prepared in response to proposed main and additional modifications.

13. Many of the criticisms of the Sustainability Appraisal are directed at the way in which the potential effects of waste management development at one of the allocated sites (New Barnfield Centre, Hatfield) have been assessed. It is suggested that an adequate assessment would have led to the rejection of the site. Key concerns include a failure to:

• correctly identify and appraise negative impacts on biodiversity;

• deal adequately with cumulative effects;


- 6 -

• consider the potential for synergistic effects or greenhouse gases from congestion;

• properly address Green Belt policy; and

• assess the sequential approach.

14. On the matter of impacts on biodiversity, I find that requisite matters have been adequately assessed. For example, at the New Barnfield Centre site, the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum February 2012 recognises that Great Crested Newts are located on the site; also the site brief requires measures to ensure that any habitat features are not adversely affected.4 The potential for significant negative effects is recognised in the December 2013 Addendum (WSA/MOD/195/SA).

15. With regard to cumulative effects, these are adequately summarised in Paragraphs 7.74 to 7.78 of the Sustainability Appraisal Report. In addition, through the deletion of certain allocated sites (see below), the likelihood of significant effects is considerably diminished. This is recognised in the December 2013 Addendum. I also note that, by way of additional modifications, several references to the assessment of cumulative effects would be added to the Plan.

16. Turning to synergistic effects, no significant omissions on this matter were identified at the examination. In addition, there is no evidence to suggest that the greenhouse gas effects of congestion would be significant. Where appropriate, effects would be considered in relation to individual proposals when information on detailed traffic flows is available. Again, the development of fewer sites would be likely to result in reduced impacts.

17. Green Belt matters proved to be controversial throughout the examination. Related policy is an important consideration in site selection. Whilst objectives similar to those stemming from Green Belt policy have been assessed in the Sustainability Appraisal,5 I see no requirement to assess, in the SA itself, the particular topic of Green Belt policy.

18. Finally, on the sequential approach, this is appraised through the assessment of Policies WSA2, WSA3 and WSA4.6 However, the point has been overtaken by events given the recommendation that the sequential approach should be deleted. The replacement Policy WSA2 is adequately appraised in the December 2013 Addendum.

19. As indicated in the table below, I conclude that the Sustainability Appraisal is adequate. The requisite legal requirements have been met.

4 Sustainability Appraisal Addendum February 2012 (WSA/SD/002), p89 5 For example, Objective 1c: Protect and maintain Hertfordshire’s most valuable assets such as landscapes of natural beauty, historic built heritage and greenspaces 6 For example, in the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum February 2012 (WSA/SD/002), see Paras 1.13 to 1.20


- 7 -

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

Local Development Scheme (LDS)

The Site Allocations Document is identified within the approved Minerals and Waste Development Scheme January 2013 which sets out an expected adoption date of May 2014. The content and timing of the Site Allocations Document are compliant with the Scheme.

Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and relevant regulations

The SCI was adopted in 2006 and revised in January 2013. Consultation has been compliant with the requirements therein, including the consultation on the post-submission proposed “main modification” changes (MM).

Sustainability Appraisal (SA)

SA has been carried out and is adequate.

Appropriate Assessment (AA)

A Habitats Regulations Assessment (October 2011 with Addenda February 2012 and December 2013) sets out why AA is not necessary.

National Policy The Site Allocations Document complies with national policy except where indicated and modifications are recommended.

Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS)

Satisfactory regard has been paid to the SCS.

2004 Act (as amended) and 2012 Regulations

The Site Allocations Document complies with the Act and the Regulations.

Assessment of Soundness Preamble

20. The Hertfordshire Waste Site Allocations document (WAS/SD/001) has been prepared pursuant to the Hertfordshire Waste Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document 2011-2026 (WSA/LP/049). This Core Strategy was adopted in November 2012.

21. The Core Strategy includes important considerations with regard to the location of waste site allocations. Five Areas of Search are identified (numbered A to E) where facilities for the management of Local Authority Collected Waste are to be provided. Two of these areas are also Areas of Search for Organic Waste Recovery (Areas A and B).

22. Over half the land in Hertfordshire is designated as Green Belt. The Areas of Search fall predominantly within the Green Belt. There is an expectation in the Core Strategy that waste management development within the Green Belt will need to be considered.

23. In addition, the Core Strategy identifies the main types of waste for which provision would need to be made in the Site Allocations Document. They are waste for composting; the residual of other Local Authority Collected waste available for treatment and/or landfill; commercial and industrial waste for recycling or composting; the residual of commercial and industrial waste


- 8 -

available for treatment; and non-hazardous landfill. The required capacity at various future dates (2016, 2021 and 2026) is also quantified.

24. To provide sufficient flexibility, the Core Strategy seeks to ensure that sufficient sites can come forward to meet the county’s needs for a range of different types of waste management facility. There is to be provision for a mixture of small, medium and large waste management sites capable of accommodating a range of technologies.

25. In response to the requirements of the Core Strategy, the Site Allocations Document proposes a sequential approach. The most favoured sites are represented by 16 allocated sites, 11 of which are within the Green Belt. If it can be demonstrated that the proposed waste management use is not suitable and cannot be delivered on any of the allocated sites, the County Council would be prepared to grant planning permission on any of 61 employment land areas of search (ELAS). If neither the allocated sites nor the employment land areas of search prove to be suitable, planning permission outside those locations could be granted.

26. One of the sites proposed to be allocated (known as AS048 New Barnfield Centre, Hatfield) was the subject of a considerable number of representations. In this regard, the examination hearings overlapped with a public local inquiry into a proposal, at the same location, for a recycling and energy recovery facility. The related application has been called-in for a decision by the Secretary of State. At the time of writing, no decision on the application has been issued.

27. In considering the soundness of the Site Allocations Document, I have had regard to Government policy and guidance including the National Planning Policy Framework; the Waste Management Plan for England; Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management; and Planning for Sustainable Waste Management: Companion Guide to Planning Policy Statement 10.

28. The latter two documents are due to be replaced. However, a consultation version of the “Updated national waste planning policy: Planning for sustainable waste management” was before the examination. Views on the document have been taken into account in the preparation of this report.

29. Specific waste policies are not included in the National Planning Policy Framework. However, other policies in the Framework are relevant to the content of the Waste Site Allocations Local Plan. In particular, when testing soundness, it is necessary to consider whether the Plan has been “positively prepared”. In this regard, I find that the Plan is sound. The focus of the Plan is the allocation of deliverable sites that will meet the waste management capacity requirements of the Core Strategy. In addition, the Plan contains a policy (Policy 1A) on the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Main Issues

30. Taking account of all the representations, written evidence and the discussions that took place at the examination hearings, I have identified three main issues upon which the soundness of the Plan depends.


- 9 -

Issue 1 - Whether the site selection process has led to the identification of sites that would meet appropriately the need for new waste management capacity in Hertfordshire Introduction

31. In considering this issue, I address three broad topics: the sequential approach that is put forward in the Plan; the omission, in the site selection process, of flood risk sites; and the justification for selecting, for allocation, waste management sites in the Green Belt. Overall conclusions, and the need for main modifications, are discussed in the conclusions at the end of the section.

Sequential approach

32. The site selection process is the subject of a number of key concerns. First and foremost is a concern regarding the sequential approach. In this regard, 61 Employment Land Areas of Search (ELAS) have been identified across the county. These tend to be industrial areas or trading estates the majority of which are allocated or designated for employment or similar purposes in the development plans of the constituent district-level authorities within the county.

33. Notwithstanding some detailed criticisms about the inclusion or extent of some of the Employment Land Areas of Search, I find that in principle they are suitable locations for the development of waste management facilities. Their selection reflects the Government view that waste planning authorities should consider industrial estates when identifying sites and areas suitable for new or enhanced waste management facilities.7

34. Given the suitability in principle of the Employment Land Areas of Search for the development of waste management facilities, it does not make sense that waste development at these locations should only be permitted if it cannot be located on one of the 16 allocated sites. Further, it is difficult to argue that there are exceptional or very special circumstances that support the allocation or development of Green Belt sites when there are perfectly acceptable sites in non-Green Belt locations.

Omission of sites in flood zones

35. A second key concern is the fact that sites falling within Flood Zones 2 and 3a have been omitted from the site selection process. It would, of course, be necessary to apply the Exception Test when considering site selection.8 However, there is a strong argument for saying that Green Belt sites within the same flood zone would fall into the category of sites that would be “not reasonably available”.

36. In response to this concern, potential “flood zone sites” were considered at the examination. The main candidates are sites at Rye House and Ratty’s Lane (Fieldes Lock), Hoddesdon. They are outside, but relatively close to, Area of Search B. The sites are considered in greater detail below, under the heading

7 Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (WSA/BD/047), Para 20 8 See section on Flood Risk and Coastal Change in National Planning Practice Guidance


- 10 -

of Issue 2. In the event, I have decided that neither site should be allocated. However, I conclude that, in the site selection process, flood risk sites should have been considered alongside Green Belt sites.

Justification for sites in the Green Belt

37. A third key concern is whether the Green Belt sites that have been selected for allocation are fully justified. In this regard, national policy states that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances.9 This means that, in principle, the Plan is unlikely to be justified if it allocates more Green Belt land than is necessary to meet the identified need. In the present case, this is mainly a function of the capacity of the sites relative to the requirements of the Core Strategy; also the location of the proposed allocations in terms of the identified Areas of Search.

Sites for Organic Waste Recovery

38. In terms of Organic Waste Recovery, there is a requirement to increase capacity by 90,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) by 2014. The Areas of Search are areas A and B in the western and central / eastern parts of the county. The typical site area of a facility with a capacity of 25,000 tpa would be 2-3 ha.10 In-vessel composting sites are likely to be smaller.11 Therefore, it is likely that the area of land required to meet the county’s Organic Waste Recovery requirement would be less than 12 ha.

39. By way of comparison, the following Green Belt sites that would be suitable for Organic Waste Recovery are proposed for allocation by the County Council:

• AS008 Land off Birchall Lane / Area of Search: B / Site area 10.57 ha

• AS014 Presdales Pit / Areas of Search: B and E / Site area 11.39 ha

• AS019 Westmill Quarry and Landfill / Areas of Search: B and E / Site area 75.04 ha

• AS023 Tyttenhanger Quarry South of Coursers Road / Area of Search: C / Site area 169.38 ha

• AS240 Cadwell Lane STW / Area of Search: None / Site area 6.22 ha

• AS023 Tyttenhanger Quarry North / Area of Search: C / Site area 7.88 ha

• AS041 Waterdale (in-vessel composting only) / Area of Search: A / Site area 4.01 ha

40. My preliminary observations are:

• Waterdale is the only site that would serve Area of Search A.

9 National Planning Policy Framework (WSA/BD/048), Para 83. In addition, “inappropriate development” should not be approved except in very special circumstances (Para 87). 10 Planning for Waste Management Facilities (WSA/BD/045), p65 11 Planning for Waste Management Facilities (WSA/BD/045), p75


- 11 -

• Area of Search B would be served by three sites (Land off Birchall Lane, Presdales Pit and Westmill Quarry).

• The other sites are not in Areas of Search A or B.

• Although other uses could be accommodated on the sites, there is a gross mismatch between the land requirement and the site areas. There is no obvious justification for three sites within Area of Search B or for any of the Green Belt sites outside the Areas of Search.

Sites for Local Authority Collected Waste

41. The other waste type where location is particularly important is Local Authority Collected Waste. Here the Areas of Search are areas A to E. The initial requirement is for 276,000 tpa of treatment capacity by 2016. A facility with a capacity of 50,000 tpa would typically require 1.5 ha of land; those of 100,000 tpa capacity might occupy 4 ha of land. The largest facilities would require proportionately larger sites.

42. Taking thermal treatment as an example,12 the County Council is proposing allocation of the following Green Belt sites where the principle of thermal treatment is considered to be acceptable by the County Council:

• AS019 Westmill Quarry and Landfill / Areas of Search: B and E / Site area 75.04 ha

• AS240 Cadwell Lane STW / Area of Search: None / Site area 6.22 ha

• AS023 Tyttenhanger Quarry North / Area of Search: C / Site area 7.88 ha

• AS036 Roehyde / Area of Search: C / Site area 4.27 ha

• AS041 Waterdale (in-vessel composting only) / Area of Search: A / Site area 4.01 ha

• AS048 New Barnfield Centre / Area of Search: C / Site area 5.27 ha

43. Again, a number of preliminary observation can be made:

• Waterdale is the only site in Area of Search A.

• Westmill Quarry is the only site within Areas of Search B and E.

• There are three sites potentially suitable for thermal treatment within Area of Search C: Tyttenhanger Quarry North, Roehyde and the New Barnfield Centre.

• The Cadwell Lane site is not within an Area of Search.

• There is no obvious justification for the three sites within Area of Search C or for any Green Belt site outside the Areas of Search.

• There is no site within Area of Search D.

12 The preferred recovery method of the Waste Disposal Authority


- 12 -

Assessment of sites

44. In the light of my preliminary observations, I now examine the justification for Green Belt sites not suitable for thermal treatment / outside the Areas of Search (Tyttenhanger Quarry South of Coursers Road and Cadwell Lane); also the “competing” Organic Waste Recovery sites in Area of Search B (Land off Birchall Lane, Presdales Pit and Westmill Quarry) / Local Authority Collected waste sites with potential for thermal treatment in Area of Search C (Tyttenhanger Quarry North, Roehyde and the New Barnfield Centre).

Assessment of sites not suitable for thermal treatment / outside Areas of Search

45. Tyttenhanger Quarry (south of Coursers Road) is a large area of land (169.38 ha) south of Coursers Road and Coursers Farm. Despite its large area, it is deemed suitable in the Proposed Submission version of the Plan only for the following types of waste management treatment: anaerobic digestion, in-vessel composting, open windrow composting and inert waste recycling. Essentially, it is a vast open area surrounded by agricultural land. The openness of the Green Belt would be compromised by any significant operational development. The land owner / operator’s aspiration is for a predominantly inert waste recycling use on the site.

46. The Cadwell Lane site is a former sewage treatment works in an important Green Belt gap north of Hitchin. The site had been regarded as previously developed land although this is questionable given the degree of reversion to nature. Access would be via a private access and delivery is very uncertain. Although the site is close to Area of Search D, there are other non-Green Belt sites in the general area (AS116 Bury Mead Road and AS238 The New Barn) that are proposed for allocation.

47. In my view there is inadequate justification for the proposed allocations of the sites at Tyttenhanger Quarry (south of Coursers Road) and at Cadwell Lane, both Green Belt sites. Quantitative provision can be made on better sites within the identified Areas of Search. I can see that restoration at Tyttenhanger Quarry (south of Coursers Road) would be aided by inert waste disposal. However, this is a matter to be addressed in the Minerals Site Allocations Local Plan. There is no need to allocate the site within the waste site allocations document.

Assessment of Organic Waste Recovery sites in Area of Search B

48. Turning to land off Birchall Lane, Presdales Pit and Westmill Quarry, both the Birchall Lane site and the Westmill Quarry site are in areas of existing waste management activity. On the other hand, Presdales Pit (as well as Westmill Quarry) would serve both Areas of Search B and E.

49. The site at Birchall Lane is ideally located to gain access from the A414. There is an existing temporary inert waste recycling and soil washing facility on the site. The site has a relatively open Green Belt context. However, both Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council and East Hertfordshire District Council are considering the possibility of residential allocations on land respectively to the south and north of the site. In such circumstances, the openness of the Green Belt could be compromised.


- 13 -

50. If nearby land were to be allocated for residential development, there would be a potential tension with certain waste management proposals. However, matters are uncertain. In addition, depending on the nature of the proposed waste development, the brief would require a detailed assessment of the potential impact of waste proposals on any future housing development. I would expect any unsatisfactory waste scheme to be rejected.

51. Westmill Quarry (18.32 ha) is part of an existing strategic site, adjacent to the A10, which includes the Westmill landfill site (56.73 ha) where activity is expected to continue for many years. Additional waste development would be alongside existing operations thereby minimising impact. Potential environmental effects would be addressed in planning conditions, obligations and other controls.

52. Presdales Pit lies to the south of the built-up area of Ware. To the north and northwest are existing schools and a highways depot. The A10 runs in a cutting to the south of the site. It is a former sand and gravel pit where some tipping of domestic refuse has also taken place. Factors including “the poor condition of the site” were material to the grant of outline planning permission, in 1989, for a cattle and livestock market. Although there was a commencement of development there is no intention to proceed with the development.

53. The poor standard of restoration and the unkempt condition of the site are factors that have been advanced in support of the development of the site. In addition, the generally flat and open nature of the interior of the site is conducive to development. However, certainly in most views from surrounding vantage points, the site can now be perceived as an undeveloped green space where planting and regeneration have combined to give the site an attractive treed appearance. It is a greenfield site in harmony with surrounding open land. Major development here would compromise the openness of the Green Belt and the countryside within which the site falls.

54. Of the three sites within Areas of Search B that are suitable for the recovery of organic waste, I consider that Presdales Pit should be deleted. In my opinion, the land off Birchall Lane and Westmill Quarry and Landfill are less sensitive in Green Belt terms. They would meet the needs of the county and would provide flexibility, albeit limited, in the location and timing of related waste management development.

Assessment of Local Authority Collected waste sites with potential for thermal treatment in Area of Search C

55. Turning to the selection of sites within Area of Search C, suitable for the recovery of energy from waste, there are three candidate sites. These are at Tyttenhanger Quarry North, Roehyde and the New Barnfield Centre.

56. The Tyttenhanger Quarry (North) site is a site of 7.88 ha lying to the southeast of the A414 North Orbital Road, west of Colney Heath village. The environs are open and undeveloped although there is a petrol filling station immediately adjacent to the site. The site is a sand and gravel quarry with associated mineral processing facilities. It adjoins other open land that has been the subject of sand and gravel extraction and restoration (known as Rainbow Land).


- 14 -

57. Roehyde is a site of 4.27 ha, roughly triangular in shape. It is bordered to the northwest by the A414 North Orbital Road and to the west by the A1(M), beyond which lies the main built-up area of Hatfield. The interchange at Junction 3 of the A1(M) is situated to the north. The site is used as a depot for various uses including bus storage. It has the appearance of a brownfield site although the lawful use is uncertain.

58. The third site in Area of Search C is known as the New Barnfield Centre. This is a site of 5.27 ha. It occupies an elevated location, south of the main built-up area of Hatfield to the north of Welham Green. To the east, the Travellers Lane Employment Land Area of Search is contiguous with the site as is Southfield School to the north. The site has the status of a Major Developed Site in the Green Belt.13 It is occupied by the vacant premises of the County Council’s former central resources library and training centre.

59. In terms of Green Belt policy, I consider that the Tyttenhanger Quarry (North) site is the most sensitive of the Green Belt sites. The Roehyde and New Barnfield Centre sites have a more developed context. As allocated sites, they would provide a limited choice of sites, within Area of Search C, that would be suitable for the management of Local Authority Collected Waste.

60. In common with the site at Tyttenhanger Quarry (south of Coursers Lane), the main potential of the land at Tyttenhanger Quarry (North) is for inert waste disposal in connection with the restoration of the site. This can be dealt with under the Minerals Site Allocations document. There is inadequate justification for the allocation of this Green Belt site under the provisions of the Waste Site Allocations Local Plan.

Other Green Belt sites

61. Before leaving the subject of the justification for the allocation of sites in the Green Belt, two other sites need consideration. These are the Green Belt sites known as AS032 Harper Lane (rail loop, Radlett); and AS035 Land at Smug Oak Lane, Bricket Wood. Neither site is located within an Area of Search and neither site is deemed suitable for Organic Waste Recovery or the management of Local Authority Collected waste.

62. The Harper Lane site (5.06 ha) is used for the production of secondary aggregates. It lies within a railway loop next to the East Midland main line railway. The immediate environs of the site are rural in nature with the exception of the processing plant and the Colney Street industrial estate beyond the railway to the northwest.

63. The site could accommodate some development within or replacing the existing plant and buildings without affecting openness. In addition, the site has the benefit of potential rail access. However, there is limited potential for waste management purposes,14 potential that could be met in other locations. In addition, the site is well suited to the production of secondary aggregates, a role that the County Council envisages would be recognised in the Minerals

13 Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 2005, Policies RA5 and RA6 14 Realistically referred to in the Proposed Submission Plan (WSA/SD/01) as waste transfer station (dry recyclables), materials recovery facility (dry recyclables) and inert waste recycling.


- 15 -

Site Allocations Local Plan. In the circumstances, there is inadequate justification for allocation as a waste site.

64. The land at Smug Oak Lane (0.78 ha), although previously developed land (former sewage treatment works), is rural in character and is largely surrounded by agricultural land. Only three potential uses are listed for the site. There are “competing” proposals for the site in the form of an application for industrial units. The Sustainability Appraisal report notes the distance from primary road and rail links. As such, there is potential for negative impacts on greenhouse gas emissions.15

65. The uses to which the site could be put could be met at other sites. Bearing in mind also the nature of the site’s surroundings, uncertainty over deliverability and recorded negative impacts, the allocation of this Green Belt site cannot be justified.

Conclusions

66. In the light of the above discussion, a number of key conclusions and modifications necessary to make the Plan sound can be identified:

• The proposed sequential approach is flawed. It is not the most appropriate strategy and is not justified. In addition, it is not consistent with national policy. The related Plan policies and text should be deleted. There should be a single replacement policy dealing with waste management development on allocated sites and Employment Land Areas of Search. Main modifications MM1 to MM3 refer.

• Six (of 11) Green Belt sites should be deleted.16 These are the sites known as AS014 Presdales Pit; AS023 Tyttenhanger Quarry (South of Coursers Road); AS240 Cadwell Lane STW, Hitchin; AS023 Tyttenhanger Quarry (north); AS032 Harper Lane (rail loop); and AS035 Land at Smug Oak Lane, Bricket Wood. Their inclusion does not represent the most appropriate strategy, is not justified and would not be consistent with national policy. Text explaining the appropriate approach to the allocation of Green Belt sites in Hertfordshire needs to be inserted. Main modifications MM8 and MM917 refer.

Issue 2 - Whether sufficient new waste management capacity of the right type would be provided in the right place and at the right time Introduction

67. This is an issue which overlaps with Issue 1 above. There is one particular matter that remains to be considered. This concerns provision for the future non-hazardous landfill needs of the county. In addition, I discuss the potential contribution of various “omission” sites.

15 Sustainability Appraisal report (WSA/PS/012) Para 7.83 16 Their release from the Green Belt has not been justified. As such, the main modifications will ensure that the releases are not made. 17 The provisions relating to land to be taken out of the Green Belt, and the future use of such land, reflect national policy and guidance on Green Belts notably in Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (WSA/BD/048) and Paras 7.34 and 7.35 of Planning for Sustainable Waste Management: Companion Guide to Planning Policy Statement 10.


- 16 -

Non-hazardous landfill

68. With regard to non-hazardous landfill, the Core Strategy records18 a likely shortfall in capacity (169,000 tonnes at 2016) between 2016 and 2020. However, the Waste Site Allocations Plan does not set out a solution to this requirement.

69. Planning permission for landfilling at the one and only non-hazardous landfill within the county (Westmill Quarry) expires in 2017. However, the landfill is likely to have capacity beyond that date. Given the acceptability of Westmill Quarry as a location for on-going landfill, it would be appropriate for the Plan to support the principle of continued landfilling at Westmill.

70. Environmental and other constraints mean that, in all probability, any remaining capacity gap in regard to non-hazardous landfill would have to be met out of county. The County Council will need to ensure that, through monitoring and review as well as the duty to co-operate, satisfactory arrangements are in place.

71. To be justified and effective, the Plan should make provision for the landfilling of non-hazardous waste. This would be achieved through main modification MM10. As set out in the modification, the capacity requirement will need to be closely monitored. Detailed arrangements for any provision out of county would need to be addressed under a review of the Plan.

Omission sites

72. From the discussion on Issue 1, it can be seen that adequate quantitative provision has been made for the future waste management needs of the county. However, there remains the question of whether other sites should have been selected in preference to allocated sites; also whether the proposed allocations are appropriately distributed.

Flood risk sites

73. In the foregoing discussion, I have concluded that flood risk sites should have been considered alongside Green Belt sites. In this regard, there are two main sites that fall to be considered. These are the sites at Ratty’s Lane (Fieldes Lock) and Rye House, Hoddesdon. They are outside, but relatively close to, Area of Search B. However, both are non-Green Belt sites.

74. Both sites are located within groundwater source protection zone 2. Whilst this does not preclude waste development, groundwater at these sites is very near the surface. Potential uses would have to be tightly restricted.

75. The site at Ratty’s Lane has the benefit of planning permission for a Sustainable Energy Facility. Concerns regarding flooding and groundwater were addressed through detailed negotiations and an approved remediation strategy at the planning application stage. There are onerous conditions to mitigate the water issues. There is little potential for further development or expansion.

18 Core Strategy (WSA/LP/049), Table 11 and Para 3.19


- 17 -

76. In addition to flooding and groundwater issues, there is a safeguarded rail aggregate depot within the Rye House site. Waste developments not served by rail could have a significant impact on the local highway network. The viability of a smaller (road served) facility could be questionable given the cost of likely necessary mitigation measures.

77. Both the Rye House and the Ratty’s Lane sites may have potential for some form of waste management development. However, both the sites are located outside any of the Areas of Search. In addition, there are some very specific considerations such that the principle of the acceptability of a range of waste management facilities is difficult to confirm. Allocation of the sites would not be appropriate.

Sites for inert waste disposal

78. The discussion on Issue 1 referred to two sites where inert waste disposal could be appropriate. These are the sites at Tyttenhanger Quarry (North) and Tyttenhanger Quarry south of Coursers Road. I concluded that there is no justification for the allocation of these two Green Belt site for waste management development. However, I would expect the matter of inert waste disposal to be considered as part of the forthcoming Minerals Site Allocations Local Plan.

79. The Tyttenhanger Quarry (North) site is adjoined by a site known as the Rainbow land. The owners of the land are keen to secure the recycling of Incinerator Bottom Ash at this location. To my mind, the justification of an allocation of this Green Belt site for such a purpose has not been demonstrated. However, insofar as re-restoration of the site would be appropriate, this is a matter that is to be considered as part of the Minerals Site Allocations Local Plan alongside consideration of the future of the Tyttenhanger Quarry (North) site.

Sites in Area of Search D

80. As noted above, none of the allocated sites fall within Area of Search D. However, there are three Employment Land Areas of Search within the zone: ELAS026 Icknield Way East (southwest); ELAS026 Works Road / Blackhorse Road, Letchworth; and ELAS201 Royston Road. There is also an allocated site to the west (AS116 Bury Mead Road STW).19 Be that as it may, candidate omission sites within (or very close to) Area of Search D would be worthy of consideration.

81. One representation site is at Junction 8 of the A1(M). It is a Green Belt site but is very close to Area of Search D. It is suggested by the adjacent Local Planning Authority (North Hertfordshire District Council) but is opposed by the local authority for the area within which the site lies (Stevenage Borough Council20).

82. There are arguments both in favour of and against the Junction 8 site. However, a decisive matter is deliverability. In this regard, there is no indication that the landowners are willing to release the site for waste

19 AS240 Cadwell Lane STW also lies to the west of Area of Search D. However, this is recommended for deletion. 20 See Document WSA/EX/108


- 18 -

management purposes. In all the circumstances, I conclude that allocation of the site at Junction 8 of the A1(M) for waste management purposes would not be appropriate.

Issue 3- Whether the allocated sites are acceptable in environmental terms and in other respects; and whether the sites are deliverable Deliverability matters

83. There are two sites proposed for allocation where the intended delivery of waste management development could not be secured. One is AS016 Sunnyside Employment Area, Buntingford where the owner is no longer supportive of waste management development on the site. The other is AS002 New Ford Road / Britannia Road, Waltham Cross where the site has recently been developed for other purposes (fuel depot) and a future waste management use is uncertain at the very least.

84. The site at New Ford Road / Britannia Road forms part of a larger employment area (ELAS160 Eleanor Cross Road) and can more appropriately be regarded as part of the Employment Land Area of Search rather than a specific allocation. The Waste Site Allocations Plan would not be effective if either site were allocated as originally proposed. The necessary deletion of the allocations would be effected under main modifications MM5 and MM6.

85. In a similar vein, the designation of all or part of two Employment Land Areas of Search is no longer appropriate. The area described as ELAS165 Three Cherry Trees Lane (East) now forms part of the proposed Spencer’s Park housing development (Phase 2); and at ELAS191 Elstree Way employment area, the area to the northwest of Studio Way, Borehamwood now has planning permission for housing development. Again, the Plan would not be effective if the designations remained unchanged. Appropriate changes would be made through main modifications MM4 and MM7.21

Environmental acceptability

86. In terms of acceptability in environmental terms, four sites/areas were the focus of particular discussion at the examination hearings. These are a site proposed for allocation in the southeast quadrant of Junction 10 of the A1(M) – AS328 The New Barn A1(M) J10; AS116 Bury Mead Road, Hitchin; the Gunnelswood Road Employment Area in Stevenage (ELAS037); and the New Barnfield Centre site, Hatfield (AS048).

The New Barn site

87. The New Barn site is, in part, an existing developed site containing as it does a recyclables bulking facility. However, this development is relatively unobtrusive. In marked contrast, the remainder of the site is open and exposed. It has a rural, countryside context. Waste management development beyond the confines of the existing facility is likely to be conspicuous and incongruous. It would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding open countryside.

21 Further modification of the boundary of ELAS191 Elstree Way employment area (land west of Manor Way) would follow if proposals in the Elstree Way Corridor Area Action Plan are adopted.


- 19 -

88. The brief for the New Barn site has already been amended to state that, where possible, the loss of greenfield land within the site should be avoided. However, as recognised in the Sustainability Appraisal,22 there is remaining potential for this site to have negative effects on the efficient use of land. For the combination of reasons stated, the extent of the site allocation is not justified. The allocated area should be reduced in accordance with main modification MM11.

Bury Mead Road, Hitchin

89. The principal concern with regard to the site at Bury Mead Road, Hitchin is that waste management development here would exacerbate existing unacceptable traffic conditions in the area. Under the brief, however, proposals would need to demonstrate how transport impact would be minimised. I would not expect there to be any significant change in the volume or composition of the traffic serving the area. The deletion of the allocation at the nearby Cadwell Lane former sewage treatment works will also be of assistance.

Gunnelswood Road Employment Area

90. The Gunnelswood Road Employment Area is Stevenage’s premier employment estate. It is an area where the borough council is striving to safeguard and improve employment opportunities. For example, in the pre-submission version of its Gunnels Wood Area Action Plan 2010, various sites (“Area 4” sites) were designated specifically for small and medium-sized enterprises. More recently, the council sought and gained the designation of parts of the estate as “Article 1(6A)” land.23

91. The council’s principal concern is that waste management development within the Gunnelswood Road Employment Area could have a blighting effect. Business confidence and investment could be undermined. For my part, I recognise that these are real concerns. I also recognise the steps that the council is taking to secure the future of the estate. However, I see no reason why prejudicial development should take place. If a particular proposal was demonstrably unacceptable, I would expect planning permission to be refused.

92. Government policy already recognises the potential suitability, for new or enhanced waste management facilities, of locations that include industrial sites.24 In addition, the proposed Waste Brief for all Employment Land Areas of Search contained in Hertfordshire’s Waste Site Allocations Plan recognises that waste management development should be compatible with adjacent uses on the employment land. I am satisfied that sufficient safeguards are in place.

New Barnfield Centre

93. The proposed allocation of site AS048 New Barnfield Centre, Hatfield was the most controversial matter to be discussed at the examination hearings. As indicated above, the hearings overlapped with a public local inquiry into a proposed recycling and energy recovery facility on much the same site. It was

22 Sustainability Appraisal Report (WSA/PS/012), Para 7.82 23 Land that would be exempt from permitted development rights allowing the change of use of Class B1(a) offices to Class C3 residential 24 Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (WSA/BD/047), Para 20


- 20 -

clear that nearly all representors had this specific proposal in mind when resisting the proposed allocation. However, the majority were also opposed to the principle of any form of waste management development at the New Barnfield Centre.

94. I discuss the allocation of the site under a number of headings that reflect the principal concerns of representors. In addition, I discuss whether any waste management development should be confined to certain categories of facility. On the broader point concerning the selection of the site in the first place, much energy has been devoted to questioning the selection process and the related scoring. However, to my mind, the identification of the site reflects the fact that the site is already earmarked as a major developed site within the Green Belt.25

The appropriateness of waste management development on this Green Belt site

95. The site of the New Barnfield Centre is owned by Hertfordshire County Council. The empty premises of the former central resources library and training centre stand on the site. These are mainly buildings of one and two storeys in height. There are also areas of surface car parking. The whole represents a previously developed site (brownfield land) within the Green Belt.

96. Government policy dictates that “inappropriate development” is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The construction of new buildings is to be regarded as inappropriate. However, there are certain exceptions. These include limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it than the existing development.26

97. Thus, redevelopment of the New Barnfield Centre site would be “not inappropriate” if it satisfied the above terms. Anything outside the provisions would need to demonstrate “very special circumstances”. These same qualifications are reiterated in the detailed assessment requirements for the New Barnfield Centre site. As such, I find that the proposed allocation would comply with this aspect of Government policy. With these restrictions in mind, I find that development for waste management purposes would be acceptable in principle.

Effect on heritage assets

98. There are a range of heritage assets relatively near to the New Barnfield Centre site. As recognised in the “Key Planning Issues” part of the development brief for the allocation of the New Barnfield Centre, these include the Grade 1 registered historic park and garden of Hatfield House; Hatfield House itself (Grade 1); the Old Palace; and the Old Hatfield Conservation Area. The greatest weight must be attributed to the conservation of the key assets.

25 Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 2005, Policies RA5 and RA6 26 National Planning Policy Framework (WSA/BD/048), Paras 87 to 89


- 21 -

99. Depending on the precise nature of the proposed development, the Plan calls for a detailed assessment of the potential for impacts on the nearby heritage assets. Proposals should be sensitively designed and avoid harming the significance and setting of historic assets. Additional protection is afforded under policies in the Core Strategy (WSA/LP/049).27 In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the heritage assets would be appropriately safeguarded.

Nature conservation effects

100. The Key Planning Issues section of the brief states that the site is adjacent to local wildlife sites at “Travellers Lane Pond” and “Grasslands north of Parsonage Road”. Great Crested Newts are also recorded as being located on the site. However, I find that these features would be safeguarded. The brief requires that appropriate measures should be incorporated to ensure that the local wildlife sites are not adversely affected; also any habitat features including the population of Great Crested Newts.

Impact on openness and on the landscape

101. The terms of the allocation mean that, unless there is a demonstration of very special circumstances, new buildings on the site should not have a greater impact on openness than the existing buildings. In addition, and again depending on the precise nature of the development, a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment may be required under the requirements of the brief. In addition, the design and appearance of the development, including its scale, must be respectful of the context of the site. I find that appropriate consideration would be given to openness and landscape matters. I would expect any unsatisfactory proposal to be rejected.

Impact on Southfield School

102. Southfield School lies immediately to the north of the site. The presence of the school is recognised as a key planning issue. In terms of Detailed Assessments Required, the Plan brief states that consideration will need to be given to the possible effect of any facility regarding the neighbouring sensitive receptors including Southfield School. As such, the impact on the school would be taken into account and weighed in the planning balance.

Range of potential uses

103. The County Council envisages that the New Barnfield Centre site would be suitable for development by a wide range of waste management uses. These include thermal treatment facilities, mechanical and biological treatment facilities and end-of-life vehicle facilities. Some representors argue that, by their very nature, facilities such as these are an inevitable source of noise, dust and visual impacts.

104. With regard to noise and dust, I would expect these and similar matters to be the subject of normal development management considerations as well as scrutiny by the Environment Agency, where appropriate. On visual impacts, I accept that there is a potential conflict between the types of developments to

27 See Policy 11: General Criteria for Assessing Waste Planning Applications; Policy 17: Protection of Site of International and National Importance; and Policy 18: Protection of Regional and Local designated sites and areas


- 22 -

be sanctioned and the limitation of the allocation provisions. For example, in my experience, thermal treatment facilities are normally much larger than the buildings presently on site.

105. Be that as it may, the limitations of the Plan brief are quite clear and could only be exceeded in very special circumstances. In addition, it may be that some innovative thermal treatment facility would satisfy the requirements of the brief. I would not wish to pre-judge the situation. Provided that the requirements of the brief are met, I see no objection to the range of waste management facilities put forward by the County Council.

Cumulative effects

106. Many representors are concerned about the potential for cumulative effects particularly in circumstances where a number of waste developments could proceed within the locality. As noted above, the Plan would contain several references to cumulative effects. In addition, under the terms of the Core Strategy, an unacceptable adverse cumulative impact on the local area would need to be avoided.28 I am satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in this regard.

Conclusion

107. Given the range of safeguards that are in place, I find the New Barnfield Centre site to be suitable for the development of a range of waste management facilities. The site is acceptable in environmental terms. I support the County Council’s proposed allocation.

Other allocated sites and Employment Land Areas of Search

108. Criticisms have been levelled at other allocated sites and Employment Land Areas of Search. The criticisms tend to be similar to those discussed above. However, in all cases, I find that appropriate safeguards are in place. These include the provisions of the development plan, notably the Core Strategy; the requirements set out in the general and specific briefs laid out in the Waste Site Allocations Plan; and national policy mainly in the form of the National Planning Policy Framework.

109. As part of the examination, the County Council indicated that it was amenable to reconsidering the list of Employment Land Areas of Search and the boundaries of those areas. However, as indicated elsewhere, industrial sites can be considered to be suitable locations, in principle, for new or enhanced waste management facilities. I see no need for adjustments in this regard.

Overall Conclusion and Recommendation 110. The Plan has a number of deficiencies in relation to soundness and/or legal

compliance for the reasons set out above which mean that I recommend non-adoption of it as submitted, in accordance with Section 20(7A) of the Act. These deficiencies have been explored in the main issues set out above.

28 Waste Core Strategy (WSA/LP/049), Policy 11 ix); see also new Policy WAS2 ii) (MM3)


- 23 -

111. The County Council has requested that I recommend main modifications to make the Plan sound and/or legally compliant and capable of adoption. I conclude that with the recommended main modifications set out in the Appendix the Hertfordshire Waste Site Allocations Local Plan satisfies the requirements of Section 20(5) of the 2004 Act and meets the criteria for soundness in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Andrew S Freeman

INSPECTOR

This report is accompanied by the Appendix containing the Main Modifications

report to hertfordshire county council - home ... · report to hertfordshire county council . ......

Documents