PTE/12/51 Development Management Committee 18 July 2012

County Matter: Waste Disposal East Devon District: Green Waste Composting Facility at Middle Knapp Farm, Sidbury, Devon Application No: 12/1167/CM Date Application received by County Council: 25 April 2012 Report of the Head of Planning, Transportation and Environment Recommendation: It is recommended that this application be refused on the following grounds: 1. The development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the special

landscape character of the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty contrary to Policies CO1, CO3 & CO6 of the Devon Structure Plan, Policies WPC2, WPP5, WPP15 & WPP24 of the Devon County Waste Local Plan and Policies D1, D4, D5 & EN1 of East Devon Local Plan.

2. The proposed development is outside the built up area boundary which would result in harm to the distinctive landscape and environmental qualities of the location, contrary to East Devon Local Plan Policy S5.

3. There is a reasonable likelihood that the development could result in a detrimental impact on European and nationally protected species (e.g. tree bat roosts) and BAP species and habitats. Insufficient information has been provided by the applicant to evidence otherwise, so it is not possible to know for certain whether the application is in line with wildlife policies WPP15 of the Devon County Waste Local Plan, Policy CO9 of the Devon Structure Plan and Policy EN6 of the East Devon Local Plan.

4. Adequate consideration has not been given to the design of the site and its facilities to make satisfactory provision for the accessibility needs of staff contrary to Policy D3 of the East Devon Local Plan.

5. The site access from the highway is not safe, and the proposed re-design is not appropriate in this sensitive location contrary to East Devon Local Plan Policies EN1 & TA7.

6. It has not been demonstrated that the site location is sustainable and would minimise transportation of waste and the final compost product in accordance with Devon County Waste Local Plan Policy WPP20.

7. It has not been demonstrated that the site forms part of a co-ordinated network of composting facilities serving major settlements in accordance with Devon County Waste Local Plan Policy WPP34.

8. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there is a need for the development in this particular location which would override the reasons for refusal set out in reasons 1 to 7 above.

Please note that the following recommendations a re subject to consideration and determination by the Committee before taking effect .

1. Summary 1.1 This Report relates to a planning application for a community green waste processing

and composting facility at Middle Knapp Farm, Sidbury, Devon. 1.2 It is considered that the main material issues in the consideration of the planning

application are the impact on the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; the potential impact on European protected species and other wildlife interests; the remote location of this waste processing facility in the open countryside; highway safety; sustainability; equality issues; and whether the need for the development overrides such planning constraints.

2. The Proposal/Background 2.1 The site is located immediately adjacent to the A375 approximately half way between

Honiton and Sidford. It lies within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty on agricultural land. The site is bordered to the west by a mature hedgebank and trees which provide screening between the site and the A375. Currently the eastern part of the development site is open field used for cattle grazing and the western area surrounded by vegetation, is used to store silage bales and manure.

2.2 The Applicant, Otter Rotters, is a not for profit community enterprise which recycles

household green waste alongside other recycling activities (which do not form part of this planning application). The Applicant has been running its existing site at Fenny Bridges for several years and has a partnership agreement with East Devon District Council for the collection of domestic green waste. Fenny Bridges is within 250m of dwellings and workplaces and as such does not meet the criteria set out in the Devon County Waste Local Plan and Environment Agency standards relating to bio-aerosols. The Applicant also states that it needs the new site to provide room for expansion.

2.3 The application states that the company handled approximately 1,500 tonnes of

green waste in 2009 and 500 tonnes in 2011. Despite that recent downturn, the Applicant anticipates a steady growth over the next 5 years with tonnages possibly reaching 2,500 tonnes per year over that period.

2.4 Otter Rotters also runs kitchen and waste timber recycling operations which do not

form part of this planning application and operate from other sites. However, the main element of its business is the kerbside collection of green waste in the following areas: Dunkeswell, Feniton, Honiton, Newton Poppleford, Ottery St Mary, Payhembury, Sidbury, Sidford, Sidmouth, Talaton, Tipton St John, West Hill, Whimple (See map at Appendix III).

2.5 The Applicant proposes to collect domestic green waste with its own adapted Ford

Transit vehicles and deliver to the proposed new site at Middle Knapp Farm. The material will be stored in an open holding area constructed with 1.8m high sleeper walls. A small timber shed (4.5m x 2m) is proposed to be used as an office and staff rest room, a steel container (8.5m x 3m) is proposed for use as a store, and a ‘portaloo’ for WC facilities.

2.6 The current proposal follows a previous submission made in May 2010 for what was,

essentially, the same development. The May 2010 planning application (Ref: 10/1070/CM) was withdrawn by the Applicant on 8 October 2010, following the advice of this Authority that it was likely that the proposal would be refused due to lack of information.

3. Consultations 3.1 East Devon District Council - raises the following objection to the proposal - while it

recognises that a new site is required by the company, the principle of the development, in terms of its location away from designated settlements, is considered to conflict with the emphasis on sustainable development in light of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

• It noted the increase in traffic movements in what is currently a remote location in

the open countryside and considered that, essentially, the proposal lacks sufficient justification as to why this position chosen is sustainable and suggests it would be better located adjacent to an identified settlement.

• It also noted in particular the location of the site within the AONB and the impact on the landscape and scenic beauty of that high status landscape classification. It commented that there was a lack of information on proposed buildings and suggested these should be secured before any consent is given to ensure that no visual harm results from their location in this site.

• It does not consider that the proposal would foster the social and economic well being to the extent necessary to overcome that visual harm created by the proposal.

3.2 Natural England (NE) - in its initial comments it advised that Devon County Council

“require the applicant to supply further information about the biodiversity and geological conservation issues” and then re-consult Natural England. A records search by the Devon Biodiversity Records Centre in 2010 had been provided by the Applicant in place of a Phase 1 Habitat Survey, and this was supplied to NE. In summary, NE expressed the view that “It is not clear from the survey information in support of this application what the impact on protected species or biodiversity action plan (BAP) priority will be.”

3.3 Environment Agency - raised no objections to the proposal but highlighted that the

activity may require a permit or exemption from the Agency. 3.4 Sidmouth Town Council - supports subject to suitable screening and careful

monitoring of smells and flies. 3.5 East Devon AONB – although no written comments have been received, the East

Devon AONB Manager has expressed concern about the position of the proposed development within the AONB which is a highly valued and sensitive landscape.

4. Advertisement/Representations 4.1 In addition to the statutory consultees and relevant organisations listed above, the

proposal was advertised in the Western Morning News on 17 May 2012, notices were placed on site and the application was added to the County Council’s website. A number of nearby resident were written to and as a result of these consultations 2 objections were received.

4.2 In summary, the objections said that while in principle, they have little objection to

such a proposal they had the following concerns relating to:

• visual impact of the development within the AONB and Sid Valley; • increased surface water run–off to the ditches adjacent to the highway;

• the lack of data and likely increase in traffic movements into and out of the site; • the nature of the access road which is a long straight section of A375 along which

drivers regularly overtake and travel at speed; • where the compost will be used as Middle Knapp Farm lies within a Nitrate

Vulnerable Zone. 5. Comments/Issues 5.1 The nature of the proposed development, a domestic green waste processing and

composting activity, is well placed in the waste hierarchy, and as such accords with Devon County Waste Local Plan Policy WPC1 which also supports community self sufficiency. However, there are a number of other issues relating to the development which must also be taken into account.

5.2 The site is not one identified in the Waste Local Plan in policies WPP1, WPP2 or

WPP3 and therefore policy WPP4 applies. That policy states that sites not allocated in the Plan will be permitted where they accord with all the relevant policies in the Plan and would contribute to achieving an integrated and sustainable waste management strategy for the County. The relevant polices are discussed below.

Landscape

5.3 The landscape setting of the application site is described in Devon’s landscape

character assessments (LCAs) as Open Inland Planned Plateau (Landscape Character Type) of the East Devon Central Ridge (Devon Character Area). The site is also located within the East Devon AONB which means that the conservation and enhancement of its natural beauty should be given priority over other considerations (East Devon Local Plan Policy EN1). This is endorsed by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF - Paragraphs 115 & 116) which state that “great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in . . . Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.”

5.4 Policy CO3 (AONBs) of the Devon Structure Plan and Policy S5 of the East Devon

Local Plan reflect this position, stating that:

• development in the countryside will only be permitted where it would not harm the distinctive landscape and environmental qualities within which it is located

• the designation as an AONB should be given priority over other considerations • development will only be permitted within the AONB “where the proposal

conserves or enhances the landscape character of the area and respects traditional local built forms.” (Structure Plan Policy CO3).

5.5 It is considered that the overgrown beech hedge-bank that borders the site along the

characteristically straight A375 contributes to the character and quality of the road. This vegetation, along with other vegetation wrapping around the application site, helps to minimise the visibility of the site interior in external views, including from the A375 to the west. The Devon Landscape Character Area (LCA) notes that there is little modern development within the East Devon Central Ridge, and that which occurs tends to be clustered around road crossroads. The proposed development would be outside of this pattern. The Devon LCA also notes a strong sense of isolation and remoteness in many areas of the plateau. Although the site is adjacent to the A375 (which could be considered to make it seem less tranquil), the effect of the proposed development would be to intensify the traffic at this location.

5.6 It is considered that the widening of the entrance and the removal of 150m of well-

established beech hedgebank to enable the site entrance visibility splays would open up views of the site interior for a number of years whilst the proposed reinstated hedgebank vegetation establishes. It is also considered that the loss of trees would also harm the visual quality of the road. The applicant has provided no information to describe the vegetation to be removed, provide clarity about what will be retained or evaluate its importance. The application does propose to ‘reinstate’ the hedgebank to mitigate its loss in the longer term, although no information is submitted about how this would be achieved.

5.7 In summary, in terms of landscape impact, it is considered that the proposals could

therefore result in localised but significant harm to the character and quality of a nationally protected landscape and would therefore be contrary to the NPPF guidance, Devon Structure Plan Policies CO1, CO3 and S5, Policy EN1 of the East Devon County Local Plan, Devon Waste Local Plan Policies WPC2 and in particular WPP5 (which states that “proposals for waste management facilities within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty will not be permitted if they would conflict with the objective to enhance its natural beauty”).

5.8 Waste Local Plan Policy WPP15 states that regardless of whether an area has been

designated by specific environmental policies, proposals for waste management facilities which would cause demonstrable harm to the landscape or a feature of local nature conservation importance will not be permitted unless all of the impacts have been adequately assessed and there is an overriding need for the facilities that would outweigh that harm and there are no reasonable less damaging options. It is considered that no overriding need has been demonstrated by the Applicant in this case.

Wildlife

5.9 In its response, Natural England stressed the duty placed on public authorities by

section 40(1) of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006 to have regard to biodiversity in exercising their functions. Its standing advice on protected species highlights that local authorities must decide when there is a reasonable likelihood that protected species are present because of the associated habitats and features in the vicinity of the application site, and therefore whether survey reports are required. It is known that the proposal will result in the loss of approximately 150m of hedge (exact length unknown). There may also be impacts to trees and other vegetation on site. This being the case, there is a reasonable likelihood that the proposal will impact on European Protected Species1 such as bats and dormice

1 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 provide that competent authorities,

including planning authorities, must, in the exercise of their functions, have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive so far as they may be affected by the exercise of those functions. This means that the authority must assess whether an offence to a European Protected Species is committed, and, if so, whether the offence will be licensed by Natural England. In taking a view on the likelihood of NE granting a licence the LPA must determine the application in the light of the three Habitats Regulations tests: (1) that there is an Imperative Reason of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI) (2) that there is no satisfactory alternative and (3) that the species will remain in Favourable Conservation Status. Importantly the tests should be applied on a proportionate basis; the justification required increases with the severity of the impact on the species or population concerned.

(widespread in Devon) as well as nationally protected species such as reptiles and badgers (again widespread in Devon).

5.10 The Applicant has been asked to provide a wildlife survey in order to identify the

impact of the proposal on wildlife and, if needed, put forward avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures. Such a report has not been produced. The impacts on protected species are therefore unknown. Para. 99 of Government Circular 06/2005 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system) states that: “It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision.”

5.11 Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act sets out a list of

Species and Habitats of Principal Importance (also known as BAP species and habitats). This S41 list should be used by local authorities in implementing their duty under Section 40 of the NERC Act ‘to have regard’ to the conservation of biodiversity in England when carrying out their normal functions. The Applicant has not clearly identified and addressed impacts on Section 41 species and habitats.

5.12 No wildlife enhancement measures have been put forward by the applicant. NPPF

guidance states that “the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: protecting and enhancing valued landscapes . . . minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible . . . “ (Paragraph 109).

5.13 Given the lack of information on protected species and habitats, as well as Section

41 species and habitats, it is not possible (in accordance with Natural England standing advice and the Habitats Directive) to grant planning permission for this proposal.

Employment and Community Benefits

5.14 Policy ST1 of the Devon Structure Plan refers to meeting the needs of the local

community in terms of employment and social and cultural needs. Otter Rotters’ business is based on laudible environmental principles and does provide a local service to meet the recycling needs of customers in the local area (Devon Structure Plan Policy ST3 and Waste Local Plan Policy WPC1). However, this is not considered to be outweighed by the adverse impact on the landscape and the likely impact on wildlife interest.

Historic Environment

5.15 Following adjustment of the site boundary to restrict it within an area shown by

geo-physical surveys to be unlikely to contain historic interest, no further comments were made.

Traffic

5.16 No estimate of traffic movements was set out in the application, although is season

when material is collected and delivered to site, there are likely to be a few movements to and from the site each day. Current levels of use are not known but due the site use at present are likely to be very low, meaning that any increase is significant for this site.

5.17 The site is currently accessed via a farm gate immediately bordering the A375 which

is major rural road linking Honiton with Sidmouth and other coastal towns in East Devon. The road is long and straight and drivers often take the opportunity to overtake at speed along it. The site access as it is currently laid out is not sufficiently safe to accommodate the proposed development. While the Applicant has proposed a re-design of the access, the geometry of which meets current design standards, it is not considered that introducing a more significant junction and increased vehicle movements in this location is desirable or safe (East Devon Local Plan Policy TA7). The implementation of a revised site access and associated vegetation removal to accommodate the necessary visibility splays is considered to be disproportionate to the nature of the development. A rural green waste recycling operation should be more easily accommodated in the local landscape, or located elsewhere.

5.18 In addition, the proposed redesign would result in the removal of approximately 150m

of mature hedge bank, the landscape setting and wildlife implications of which have been discussed in the paragraphs above.

5.19 Structure Plan Policy TR2 states that the location of development should reduce the

need to travel and be well related to other land uses with which it needs to interact. The map at Appendix III shows the site in relation to the settlements that the applicant has identified as the waste collection area. However, the application provides no evidence of any consideration of any alternative sites that might have been closer to customers. While much of the local area lies within the AONB, the application does not provide evidence of consideration of any alternative sites which might require less site re-design and/or be less sensitive to environmental impact.

Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs)

5.20 In addition, the application does not fully consider the end use of the compost

product. The planning statement says that “most of the compost material will be used on nearby farms”. These farms are not identified by the Applicant and the Defra map at Appendix V shows that much of the surrounding area, as well as Middle Knapp Farm itself lies within a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone, which means that the compost may need to be transported some distance to reach customers.

5.21 Too much nitrate in fresh water can cause a wide range of harmful effect to rivers,

stream and lakes. The EU Nitrates Directive recognises that most of the nitrate in fresh water (between 50% and 60%) comes from agricultural sources. Where there is too much nitrate, farmers need to reduce the risk that nitrates will pollute watercourses. Such measures apply in designated NVZs where farmers:

• must carefully plan when, where and how much nitrate to apply to crops in fertilizers,

and must record what is actually applied; • must not apply more nitrate than each crop needs, taking into account what is

already available in the soil; • must avoid spreading fertilizers at certain times of the year - broadly during Autumn

and early Winter, when the risk of causing nitrate pollution is high, and at any time when the ground is saturated, frozen or covered in snow.

5.22 Without further information from the Applicant the potential impact on the NVZ in the

area surrounding the application site can not be properly determined and it may be that the compost end product needs to be transported some way to be used, which would not be in accordance with the provisions of Devon Waste Local Plan Policy WPP34.

Design and Accessibility

5.23 The Applicant employs staff and volunteers some of whom have learning and mental

health difficulties. However, no design and accessibility consideration of the store, shed or ‘portaloo’ has been provided in the application.

5.24 Without elevations, illustrative photographs or other design details, it is also difficult

to assess whether the character and features of the site and surrounding area would be conserved and enhanced as a result of this development (Devon Structure Plan Policy CO6) and whether proper regard has been had to site design and appearance in accordance with Waste Local Plan Policy WPP24.

Drainage

5.25 While the objectors raised concerns relating to drainage from the site to the highway

ditches, these concerns are not considered to be justified. The site does not lie in a flood zone and the development does not propose to introduce hard standing that might interfere with surface water drainage. Furthermore, the Environment Agency have not raised any concerns relating to drainage and flooding. In this regard the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the development plan.

6. Conclusion 6.1 The NPPF states that development should only be permitted within AONBs in

exceptional circumstances. The planning application documents do not make the case for exceptional circumstances. The NPPF states that an assessment of the need for the development, the impact of refusing it upon the local economy, or the scope for locating elsewhere should be made. Having regard to these factors, it is considered that the development does not need to be in this specific location, and that it is possible a less sensitive local landscape and with a safer access could be found within the waste collection area. If this application is refused, the impact upon the local economy would not be significant given the relatively small scale of the Applicant’s operations.

7. Reasons for Recommendation/Alternative Options Considered 7.1 Waste Local Plan Policy WPP34 requires that composting applications accord with

the Waste Hierarchy and accord with the aims of sustainable waste management. While this proposal is well positioned in the hierarchy as a composting activity, its sustainability in terms of other important local considerations is not so clear.

7.2 Paragraph 11 of NPPF states that “planning law requires that applications for

planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.” Whilst Devon County Council as Waste Planning Authority is supportive of composting and recycling schemes in principle, for the reasons set out above, it is considered that the proposed operation at this particular site is not acceptable, and that a need for the development has not been demonstrated which would override the reasons for refusal.

7.3 It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons set

out in the recommendation in this Report.

Dave Black Head of Planning, Transportation and Environment

Electoral Division: Ottery St Mary Rural Local Government Act 1972: List of Background Papers Contact for enquiries: Kate Cantwell Tel No: 01392 383894 Room No: ABG Lucombe House Background Paper Date File Ref. Casework file April 2012 12/1167/CM kc030712dma sc/cr/green composting middle knapp fm Sidbury 05 hq 100712

Appendix I To PTE/12/51

Planning Policy and Guidance Considerations National Planning Policy Framework: Paragraphs 6, 7, 10, 11, 17, 109, 115, 118, 123, 128, 129, 132, 190, 203. Devon County Waste Local Plan (June 2006): Policies WPC1 (Sustainable Waste Management); WPC2 (Development Control Considerations); WPP4 (Consideration of Proposals at Sites Not Allocated in the Plan); WPP5 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Effects on National Parks); WPP14 (Maintenance and Enhancement of the County’s Nature Conservation Resource); WPP15 (Areas not Covered by Specific Policy Designations); WPP20 (Transportation of Waste); WPP23 (Rights of Way); WPP24 (Site Design and Appearance); and WPP34 (Composting Facilities). Devon Structure Plan 2001 – 2016: Policies ST1 (Sustainable Development); ST3 (Self Sufficiency of Devon’s Communities); CO1 (Landscape Character and Local Distinctiveness); CO3 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty); CO6 (Quality of New Development); CO8 (Archaeology); CO9 (Biodiversity and Earth Science Diversity); and TR2 (Co-ordination of Land Use/travel Planning). East Devon Local Plan: Policies S5 (Countryside Protection); D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness); D3 (Access for Disable); D4 (Landscape Requirements); D5 (Trees on Development Sites); EN1 (Developments Affecting Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty); EN6 (Wildlife Habitats and Features); TA4 (Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways); and TA7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access).

Appendix II To PTE/12/51

Appendix III To PTE/12/51

Appendix IV To PTE/12/51

Appendix V To PTE/12/51