variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission … · planning act 1990 (as...

Variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM

Materials Processing Facility, Westfield Lane, Westfield, East Sussex

November 2013

Waterman Energy, Environment & Design Limited

Pickfords Wharf, Clink Street, London SE1 9DG, www.watermangroup.com


Materials Processing Facility, Westfield Lane, Westfield, East Sussex

Client Name: Mr Robin Bristow

Document Reference: EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM

Project Number: EED12597-103

Our Markets

Property & Buildings Transport & Infrastructure Energy & Utilities Environment

Quality Assurance – Approval Status

This document has been prepared and checked in accordance with Waterman Group’s IMS (BS EN ISO 9001: 2008, BS EN ISO 14001: 2004 and BS OHSAS 18001:2007))

Issue Date Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Final 13 Nov 13 Matt Mehegan Sarah Owen Matt Mehegan

Comments

Comments

Disclaimer

This report has been prepared by Waterman Energy, Environment & Design Limited, with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the client, incorporation of our General Terms and Condition of Business and taking account of the resources devoted to us by agreement with the client.

We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above.

This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report at its own risk.


Contents N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx

Contents

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 The Brief .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Report Structure ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.3 Limitations ................................................................................................................................. 1

2. Application Site and Planning History .............................................................................................. 2

2.1 Application Site ......................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Planning History ........................................................................................................................ 2

3. Proposed Development ...................................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 3

3.2 Application Details .................................................................................................................... 3

3.3 Proposed variation of conditions ............................................................................................... 4

3.4 Comparison with Existing Development ................................................................................... 4

4. Identification of Potential Impacts ..................................................................................................... 6

4.1 Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................................. 6

4.1.1 Noise (included at appendix B) ................................................................................................. 6

4.1.2 Landscape and visual impact (included at appendix C) ........................................................... 7

4.1.3 Dust risk assessment (included at appendix D) ........................................................................ 7

4.2 Temporal Differences ................................................................................................................ 7

5. Pre-Application Liaison ...................................................................................................................... 8

6. Planning Policy .................................................................................................................................... 9

6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 9

6.2 Policy Context ........................................................................................................................... 9

6.3 Policy and Strategy ................................................................................................................. 11

6.4 Development in the Countryside and AONB .......................................................................... 12

6.5 Environmental Impacts ........................................................................................................... 13

6.5.1 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................ 13

6.5.2 Noise ....................................................................................................................................... 13

7. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 14

Appendices

Appendix A Drawings and Plans

Appendix B Noise

Appendix C Landscape and Visual Impact

Appendix D Dust Risk Assessment


Page 1 of 14 N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx

1. Introduction

1.1 The Brief

Waterman Energy, Environment & Design Limited (Waterman) was commissioned by Mr Robin Charles

Bristow (the applicant) to prepare a planning application pursuant to Section 73 of the Town and Country

Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the variation of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission

RR/700/CM granted by East Sussex County Council (ESCC) on 22 October 2012.

1.2 Report Structure

This Supporting Statement provides an assessment of the application site with regard to its environmental

setting and planning status. It provides details of the proposed development and identifies the scope of

potential environmental impact.

The application includes forms; certificates; a supporting statement and appendices which contain plans

and other technical information necessary to inform or support the planning application.

1.3 Limitations

This report was undertaken in accordance with the scope agreed between Waterman and the client, as

documented in Waterman’s fee letter (E12597-103/F/001/MM dated 14 June 2013), and with Waterman’s

standard Terms of Appointment.

The benefit of this report is made to Mr Robin Charles Bristow.

Waterman has endeavoured to assess all information provided to them during this work, but makes no

guarantees or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of this information.

The scope of this investigation does not include an assessment for the presence of asbestos containing

materials within or below buildings or in the ground at the site.

The conclusions resulting from this study are not necessarily indicative of future conditions or operating

practices at or adjacent to the site.



2. Application Site and Planning History

2.1 Application Site

The application site comprises an existing waste management facility located at Hole Farm, Westfield

Lane, Westfield, East Sussex, TN35 4SA at National Grid Reference (NGR) TQ 810 138 (hereafter

termed “the site”).

The site is broadly square in shape, being approximately 70m long (north to south) and 75m wide (east to

west) amounting to approximately 0.6 hectares. The site lies immediately to the east of the A28 from

which the site is accessed via a short section of metalled private road. This road provides access to the

application site and other land further to the east. The other uses served by the private road include two

residential properties at Hole Farm House and Sandhole Farm, and a scrap metal yard and end-of-life

vehicle depollution facility.

The site itself is accessed by making a right-turn off the private road and passing over an access apron.

The site is gated and consists of hardstanding (a compacted permeable surface) featuring areas of

stockpiled waste and storage areas for bagged recycled aggregates, timber, palletised bricks and skips

for the reception of metals and plastics removed for re-use. The northern, eastern, southern and western

margins of the site are fringed with tree and vegetation cover.

To the north of the site lies the private access referred to above, with agricultural land beyond. To the

east lies the scrap metal recycling site. To the south lies agricultural land, with Maplehurst Wood lying

beyond. To the west lies the A28, with residential properties of Westfield Lane located beyond.

The site lies approximately 75m to the east of the Westfield Lane development boundary, lying on the

boundary of, and within, the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Maplehurst Wood,

an area of Ancient Woodland and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) lies approximately 100m

downhill and to the south of the site. Public Right of Way (Footpath 52) commences at Westfield Lane, at

a point near to the south western corner of the site and runs in a south, south east direction to Maplehurst

Wood.

The site’s location is shown on the drawing entitled “Site Location Plan” in appendix A. A plan entitled

“Application Site and Other Land in Applicant’s Control” showing the application site (outlined in red ink)

and the extent of other land within the landowner’s ownership or control (outlined in blue ink) is included

at appendix A.

2.2 Planning History

In 1991: Established Use Certificate RR/90/0685/E

Issued by Rother District Council for “use as a general woodyard for manufacture of fencing products,

storage of timber, hardcore and tool store” extends over almost the whole of the spatial extent of the

application site.

In 2012: Planning permission RR/700/CM

Granted by ESCC on 22 October 2012 for the importation, deposit, storage and processing of

construction and demolition waste and the construction of a noise attenuation barrier.



3. Proposed Development

3.1 Background

The planning application for RR/700/CM included technical reports and other supporting information. The

application demonstrated that the proposed development amounted to sustainable development, which

was compatible with the conservation of the natural beauty of the High Weald Area of Outstanding

Natural Beauty (AONB). It was shown that with careful design, layout and landscaping the effects of the

development on local amenity could be reduced to an acceptable extent, enabling appropriate planning

conditions to be devised. It was also shown that, as a matter of principle, waste development could be

conducted at this site in such a way as to be consistent with development plan policies and other material

planning considerations.

Mitigation measures included: providing an acoustic barrier between the site and nearby sensitive

receptors; restricting operational hours (and further restricting times when the crushing of materials could

take place); providing additional landscaping; restricting the heights of stored materials and implementing

a dust management plan.

The planning permission subsequently granted:

restricted the use to a crushing bucket attached to an excavator;

required that the noise rating level emitted from the site be no greater than 43 dB LAeq 1 hour

(freefield);

required the erection of a 3m high acoustic barrier along the western margin of the site;

required that no material be stored at a height above 3m;

required the provision of height marker posts; and,

limited the site to the handling of no more than 10,000 tonnes of construction and demolition waste per

annum.

3.2 Application Details

The applicant seeks to vary conditions (1), (2) and (5) of planning permission RR/700/CM to enable:

operations to be conducted with any crusher meeting certain (noise performance) characteristics; and

materials to be stacked, stored or deposited up to 6 metres in height.

The reasons for seeking the variations include improving the operational flexibility of the site (including

responding to fluctuations in demand) and enabling operations to be conducted on site more efficiently:

modern mobile crushers process materials more quickly, and can be configured to produce a wider

range of size fractionated products (appealing to different markets at different times - improving reuse,

recycling, and recovery rates);

stockpiling material to a greater height will allow more material to dwell on site, enabling peaks and

troughs in demand to be managed more efficiently.

The proposed development includes:

maintaining the visual screening element of the previously proposed boundary treatment along the

western margin (a 3m high woven willow fence), but not constructing it with an acoustic deadening

core and instead:

- constructing a 5m tall ‘U’ shaped noise attenuation bund to be positioned within the site (not on its

boundary). The open ends of this ‘U’ will face east, the closed end west, the proposed crusher will

operate within the confines of the ‘U’, thus offering mitigation to acoustic interests to the north,

south and west;



the relocation of the tool store to the north west of the site, so that it is positioned at the site’s exit;

the reconfiguration of storage areas; and

the provision of height marker posts on the top of the proposed noise attenuation bund. The posts will

indicate a 6m height above ground level (to provide a reference point for the proposed storage height).

The positions of the above elements are indicated on plan “Figure A3 Site Layout Plan (indicative)” at

appendix A.

The proposals amount to development requiring planning permission. Procedurally, planning permission

may be sought by seeking to vary conditions (2) and (5) of RR/700/CM. We also understand1 the

proposed variations lead to a requirement for the consequential amendment of condition (1).

3.3 Proposed variation of conditions

Condition (1)

To be varied including for: the alteration of the site layout; construction of a noise attenuation bund; the

re-location of: tool store; storage areas and marker posts; and the reconfiguration of willow fencing along

the western margin.

In order to clarify the proposal, and assist the reader, candidate wording for the revision of conditions (2)

and (5) are provided below.

Condition (2) - as existing

“No machinery or equipment for crushing or screening waste materials shall be used at the site except for

one crushing bucket attached to an excavator.”

Condition (2) - proposed variation

No machinery or equipment for crushing or screening waste materials shall be used at the site except for

a crusher with a sound power level no greater than 118 dB(A) Lw when measured in accordance with BS

EN ISO 3746:2010.

Condition (5) - as existing

“No material shall be stacked, stored or deposited at the site to a height exceeding 3 metres.”

Condition (5) - proposed variation

No material shall be stacked, stored or deposited at the site to a height exceeding 6 metres.

3.4 Comparison with Existing Development

The basis of this application includes that:

there will be no change in the existing hours of operation (neither the standard operational hours or

hours permitted for crushing activities);

the annual throughput of 10,000 tonnes per annum of construction and demolition waste will remain

the same,

the type of waste imported will remain the same;

there will be no change to the quantum of vehicle movements associated with the import and export of

material;

the site will continue to operate within the same process controls; and

1 Correspondence between ESCC and Waterman dated 1 November 2013.



the previously approved landscaping measures, including enhanced boundary screening will be

implemented.

Accordingly differences between the current planning permission and the proposed development include:

the introduction of an alternative crusher:

- the issues this raises include whether emissions of:

noise; and

dust, can be controlled within acceptable limits.

a change in the height of stored material to 6m, the placement of a noise attenuation bund, the re-

location of the: tool store; storage areas and marker posts, and the reconfiguration of willow fencing

along the western margin:

- the issues this raises include whether these changes:

materially impact on local landscape character;

materially impact on the visual amenities of the area; and

whether any such change renders the development incompatible with the conservation and

enhancement of the High Weald AONB.

temporal differences – what, if anything, has changed since the time planning permission RR/700/CM

was granted?

- For example whether:

there have been any material changes in the environmental setting of the site or surrounding

land uses;

any new planning permissions have been granted in the area (insofar as material to the

planning application); and

there have been any material changes to the Development Plan.

The potential for the development to impact upon the issues identified above are discussed in the

sections that follow.



4. Identification of Potential Impacts

4.1 Environmental Impacts

The applicant is in receipt of technical reports and assessments and these have been used to inform this

planning application. The purposes for doing this include: identifying potential receptors, identifying

potential impacts; assessing the likely degree of impact; and defining the steps to be taken to eliminate,

or where that is not possible, to mitigate against the effect.

Waste management facilities receive, store, process and transfer materials that others discard. The

result of this is that these facilities possess an inherent potential to impact upon surrounding areas and

land uses. The development control process manages the allocation of land, in the public interest, to

ensure that facilities are appropriately sited and also that the potential for impact to receptors is assessed.

We consider the relevant environmental considerations for this application include the potential for impact

by way of:

noise;

landscape and visual impact; and

dust.

Accordingly these matters are considered in reports2 and appendices accompanying this supporting

statement.

In order to assist the readability of this planning application, but minimise repetition, a brief synopsis of

each assessment is included below, a reference in brackets “( )” is provided in the section heading

showing where the technical report may be found in the appendices accompanying this supporting

statement.

4.1.1 Noise (included at appendix B)

The introduction of alternative crushing equipment has the potential to impact upon the local noise

environment; raising the question as to whether the site can be operated within existing limits. In order to

examine this potential a noise assessment has been undertaken. The report entitled “Materials

Processing Facility Noise Assessment” is attached at appendix B.

The assessment included the live monitoring of the proposed crushing equipment in operation. It was

found that due to there being no obvious source specific noise, and due to interference from local noise

sources, it was not possible to directly measure the specific noise level at the assessment location of 115

Westfield Lane. Simultaneous source and receiver noise measurements were undertaken during the

operation of the crusher in order that the nature of residual noise could be assessed at the closest noise

sensitive receptors (NSRs). The concurrent noise level time histories presented no strong correlation.

This demonstrated that noise levels associated with activities at the site were at the threshold of audibility

and measurability at the closest noise sensitive receptor.

Predicted noise levels were calculated taking into account distance attenuation and screening afforded by

the proposed 5m high ‘U’ shaped bund. The assessment concluded that the noise rating level at 115

Westfield Lane would fall within the 43 dB LAeq 1 hour (freefield) limit.

2 For the reasons given at footnote 1 of this report reference made to the variation of conditions (2) and (5) of RR/700/CM in reports

and appendices accompanying this submission (including reports addressing Noise and Landscape and Visual appraisal) are to be taken as implying reference to the consequential variation of condition (1) mentioned at section 3.2 of this supporting statement.



4.1.2 Landscape and visual impact (included at appendix C)

The proposed increase in storage height to 6m, and the introduction of a 5m high noise attenuation bund,

has the potential to impact upon landscape character and visual amenity. In order to examine this

potential a landscape and visual impact assessment has been undertaken. The report entitled

“Landscape and Visual Appraisal” is attached at appendix C.

The report concludes that the proposed changes would not be discernible in landscape and visual terms

given the screening effect of boundary vegetation and the limited visibility of the site from surrounding

environs. There would be no significant impact on the visual amenities of the area and the proposals

would not detract from the character and appearance of the locality and no features or areas of

demonstrable landscape value would be adversely affected. The landscape strategy is to be revised to

include grass seeding to the external flank of the noise attenuation bund, and will conserve and enhance

features of value within the site; contributing positively to the local landscape context of the AONB.

Marker posts will be installed on top of the attenuation bund to assist in the assessment that the 6m

storage height is not exceeded. The position of the posts is shown on “Figure A3 Site Layout Plan

(indicative)” at appendix A of this planning application.

4.1.3 Dust risk assessment (included at appendix D)

A dust risk assessment (a revision of the assessment previously submitted in support of planning

application RR/700/CM) has been undertaken and is attached at appendix D.

The assessment examines the relationship between Source (the material to be received, stored and

processed), Pathway (the environmental medium through which the material could move) and Receptor

(the interest that could be affected by the emission).

The assessment concludes that with appropriate mitigation and operational practise the residual risk of

dust escape would be low.

4.2 Temporal Differences

The previous planning permission (RR/700/CM) was granted in October 2012. Since that time:

no changes of relevance are noted to the site’s environmental setting or in surrounding land uses; and

no relevant permissions are noted to have been granted in the area (insofar as material to the

planning application)

Material changes to the Development Plan will be reported in the planning policy section below.



5. Pre-Application Liaison

Pre-application liaison was entered into with ESCC, culminating in a demonstration exercise at the site on

12 July 2013. The trial involved the operation the proposed equipment, positioned behind the proposed

acoustic bund. Qualitative assessment (by those attending) and quantitative measurement were

undertaken. The applicant is grateful to ESCC for its involvement.

The collected data was subsequently used in numerical calculations and is presented in the acoustic

report accompanying this submission.



6. Planning Policy

6.1 Introduction

Under Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 the County Council has a duty

to determine planning applications in accordance with the Development Plan unless material

considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the statutory development plan consists of the East

Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Local Plan 2013 (WMLP), East Sussex

and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan 2006 (saved policies only) (WLP), and the Rother District Local

Plan 2006 (RDLP). Matters capable of being material considerations include:

relevant policies and guidance set out at the European and National levels (including the National

Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and retained Planning Policy Statements (PPS)) and other

documents; and

Development Plan documents being prepared by Rother District Council which in time will replace the

RDLP.

6.2 Policy Context

Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC): Includes: the objective of using waste as a resource;

increases the target for recycling of non-hazardous construction and demolition waste to a minimum of

70% (by weight) by 2020; and confirms the waste hierarchy shall apply in priority order: prevention,

preparing for re-use, recycling, other recovery (e.g. energy recovery) and lastly disposal.

Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC): The objective is to prevent or reduce as far as possible negative effects

on the environment by landfilling of waste, by introducing stringent technical requirements for waste and

landfills. The Directive is intended to prevent or reduce the adverse effects of the landfilling of waste on

the environment, in particular on surface water, groundwater, soil, air and human health. The Directive

aims to drive waste up the hierarchy through waste minimisation and increased levels of re-use, recycling

and energy recovery.

Waste Strategy for England 2007: Places emphasis on waste prevention, re-use and increased

diversion from landfill. The strategy identified the construction sector as the largest single source of waste

arisings in England and commented that the largest single component of this was found to be 90 million

tonnes of inert wastes suitable for reprocessing into aggregates.

Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011: Promotes the sustainable use of materials and

places emphasis on waste prevention, re-use and recycling. The review re-affirms the government’s

commitment to achieving the Waste Framework Directive’s 70% target for the recycling of non-hazardous

construction and demolition waste.

Waste Management Plan for England – Consultation Draft July 2013: The plan is a compilation of

existing waste management information and policies. It reflects the conclusions of the government

Review of Waste Policy in 2011, provides an analysis of the waste management situation in England and

evaluates how the Plan will support the implementation of the revised Waste Framework Directive.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012: Sets out the Government’s planning policies

for England and how these are expected to be applied. The framework does not contain specific waste

policies, since national waste policy will be published as part of the National Waste Management Plan for

England.

National Planning Policy Documents: PPS10 (Planning and Waste Management).

The East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Local Plan 2013

(WMLP): Policies: WMP1 (Sustainable Development); WMP3a (Promoting Waste Prevention, Re-Use



and Waste Awareness; WMP3b (Turning Waste into a Resource); WMP5 (Provision of Built Waste

Facilities); WMP7a (Sustainable Locations for Waste Development); WMP7b (Detailed Criteria for Waste

Development); WMP22 (Expansion and Alterations Within Existing Waste Facilities); WMP23a (Design

Principles for Built Waste Facilities); WMP23b (Operation of Sites); WMP24b (Resource and Energy Use)

WMP25 (General Amenity) and WMP27 (Environment and Environmental Enhancement).

East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan 2006 (WLP): There are no saved waste related

policies that are relevant to the proposed development.

Rother District Local Plan 2006 (RDLP): Policies DS1 (Development Principles); DS2 (Development in

Rural Areas); DS3 & DS4 (Development Boundaries) and GD1 (General Development Considerations).

Rother District Council Submission Core Strategy July 2012 (RDC): Policies OSS1 (Overall Spatial

Strategy); OSS3 (Use of Development Boundaries); OSS4 (Location of Development); OSS5 (General

Considerations) and EN1 (Landscape Stewardship).



6.3 Policy and Strategy

European and National policy look to minimise waste production, increase the amount of waste recovered

and reused and decrease the amount of waste landfilled. Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS) stipulates

that the strategy for waste management at a regional level should provide a strategic framework for the

preparation of local development documents by identifying the waste management facilities required to

satisfy any identified need and their distribution across the region.

The NPPF published in March 2012 replaced much of previous Government policy set out in a series of

planning policy statements, minerals planning policy statements, guidance notes and Government

circulars. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which at

paragraph 14 states should be seen as a golden thread running through both decision taking and plan

making. For decision taking the NPPF says this means permitting, without delay, proposals that accord

with the development plan. In relation to conserving and enhancing the natural environment the NPPF (at

paragraph 109) states that “the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local

environment” identifying that new development should avoid producing adverse environmental impacts,

including unacceptable levels of air and noise pollution.

Recycling facilities operate to recover value from waste, regarding waste as a resource, rather than a

burden, and divert waste from landfill. The Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011

identifies the construction sector as being the largest contributing sector to overall waste arisings in

England; generating 81.4 Mt of waste in 2008. The review re-affirms the government’s commitment to

achieving the Waste Framework Directive’s 70% target for the recycling of non-hazardous construction

and demolition waste.

Waste Strategy 2007 identified the construction sector as the largest single source of waste arisings,

confirmed it as a priority sector, commented that rates of landfilling for construction waste appeared high

and identified scope for improved performance. The strategy sets out national targets for better waste

management for construction and demolition waste (C&D) waste by seeking to halve this type of waste

going to landfill as a result of waste reduction, reuse and recycling. The strategy also confirmed the

Government’s key objectives included: securing “investment in infrastructure needed to divert waste from

landfill”; and obtaining “the most environmental benefit from that investment”.

The South East Plan (SEP) (albeit abolished for the purposes of development control and therefore no

longer part of the Development Plan) set targets for provision of waste management capacity, targets for

diversion from landfill for waste arisings in the region and an allowance for disposal of a declining amount

of waste from London for landfill. SEP policies sought to establish regional and sub-regional self-

sufficiency by providing enough capacity to manage the amount of waste arising in the region and sub-

regional areas. SEP policies W5 and W6 set targets for diversion from landfill and recycling (and

composting), and Policy W7 set waste management capacity requirements to achieve the targets.

The WMLP encapsulates the waste management strategy for East Sussex; supporting minimization,

recycling and re-use, reflective of the government’s aim to minimise the environmental impact of dealing

with waste. The site is an existing waste management facility that contributes positively to achieving the

Plan objective of net self-sufficiency in the management of waste within the County and supports the

movement of waste up the waste hierarchy.

The WMLP identifies that development linked to existing facilities is generally supported by national

policy. Policy WMP22 recognises that waste facilities may over time require alteration and modification to

improve their efficiency or meet changes in environmental standards, and encourages alterations within

facilities where it would support more sustainable waste management. The policy states that alterations

within the site boundary of existing waste facilities will be supported in principle where:

the development is required to improve the operational efficiency of the facility including the efficiency

with which the facility uses or generates energy; and



the development would contribute towards meeting the Objectives of the Plan.

The benefits of the development proposals were detailed earlier (Section 3.2) and it has been

demonstrated that the introduction of alternative crushing equipment, and an increase in the permitted

stockpile height, is consistent with Policy WMP22. The development would contribute toward meeting the

Objectives of the Plan by enabling more sustainable waste management practices; ensuring operational

efficiency and safeguarding waste management capacity.

6.4 Development in the Countryside and AONB

The site is located in the countryside, approximately 75m to the east of the Westfield Lane development

boundary and on the boundary of, but within, the AONB.

Government policy for the countryside is based on ensuring both rural prosperity and the protection and

enhancement of the character of the countryside. Paragraph 113 of the NPPF states that “authorities

should set criteria based policies for assessing development proposals on or affecting landscape areas”.

Nationally designated areas, such as AONBs, are confirmed as having the “highest status of protection in

relation to landscape and scenic beauty” and that “great weight should be given to conserving landscape

and scenic beauty” (paragraph 115 NPPF).

Approximately two thirds of the WMLP area is covered by the South Downs National Park and the High

Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Within the Rother District Council area some 82% is

designated as AONB. The WMLP refers to the difficulty in identifying sites for waste development in the

plan area due to the nature of the built and natural environments and extent of designated areas.

Paragraph 3.35 identifies that in accordance with national and regional policy, waste management

facilities should not be precluded from the AONB. Accordingly Policy WMP7a states that small scale

facilities should not be precluded from the AONB “where development is for local needs and where it

would not compromise the objectives of the designation”. Policies WMP23a, WMP23b and WMP27 seek

to conserve and enhance the local character and environment of the Plan Area and require that design

principles for waste facilities in rural areas account for local landscape character and distinctiveness.

Policy DS1 of the RDLP states that development should avoid “prejudicing the character and qualities of

the environment, particularly the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty” and should respect the

importance of the countryside in terms of its distinct landscape character, natural resources, woodland

and agriculture. However the RDLP also recognises, at Paragraph 4.49, that a “living and working”

countryside should be maintained. RDLP Policy DS2 deals with development in rural areas generally

restricting development to that which needs to be located in the countryside.

The emerging RDC Submission Core Strategy contains similar policies dealing with the protection of

designated areas and to guide the pattern or development; namely: OSS1; OSS3; OSS4, OSS5 and

EN1.

Proposals for new development outside the development boundaries are required to accord with

Development Plan policies and, unless specifically provided for in these policies for the proposed form of

development to be located in the countryside, proposals outside the development boundary are required

to demonstrate that a countryside location is necessary. The principle of undertaking waste management

in this place is established.

The increase in stockpile height, and the introduction of a noise attenuation bund, has the potential to

impact upon the character and appearance of the landscape. Consistent with policies: WMP7a;

WMP23a; WMP23b and WMP27 (WMLP), and policy DS1 (RDLP) an assessment of the effect of the

proposal on the character and appearance on the landscape has been undertaken. It has been

demonstrated that there would be no significant impact on the visual amenities of the area or the

character and appearance of the locality. No features or areas of demonstrable landscape value would

be adversely affected.



6.5 Environmental Impacts

The NPPF (at paragraph 7, 109 and 120) refers to the environmental role that the planning system plays

in contributing to the achievement of sustainable development; protecting the natural environment

through promoting the prudent use of natural resources, minimising waste and pollution. The NPPF

states that to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution, planning decisions should ensure that new

development is appropriate for its location.

Development Plan policy sets out general development principles for identifying sites and locations for

development and determination of planning applications. PPS 103 (at paragraphs 29 and 30) states that

in considering planning applications for waste management facilities, waste planning authorities should

consider the likely impact on the environment and on amenity.

Policies of the WMLP are also germane, including: WMP23b (operational criteria for sites including

mitigation for environmental impacts and screening of working areas) and WMP25 (maintaining levels of

general amenity appropriate to the surrounding land uses to ensure there is no significant adverse impact

by way of noise, dust or other emissions).

The potential for environmental impact to air quality by way of dust and to the local acoustic environment

by way of noise has been assessed. In each case, subject to appropriate mitigation, it is regarded that

any potential impact can be controlled within acceptable levels and that the amenity of land owners and

users in the locality would not be compromised.

6.5.1 Air Quality

The information above shows that dust can be adequately controlled. The proposal complies with the

following development plan policies: WMP23b and WMP25 of the WMLP; policies GD1 of the RDLP. It

also accords with policy OSS5 of the emerging RDC Submission Core Strategy.

6.5.2 Noise

In relation to noise the proposal complies with paragraph 109 and 123 of the NPPF and the following

development plan policies: WMP23b and WMP25 of the WMLP; policies GD1 of the RDLP. It also

accords with policy OSS5 and EN1 of the emerging RDC Submission Core Strategy.

3 Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management, Department for Communities and Local Government,

Revised March 2011.



7. Conclusions

The proposals amount to development requiring planning permission.

The flexibility sought by the proposals will enable the facility to operate with improved efficiency, bettering

the provision of sustainable waste management within the County.

The development would serve to enhance existing waste management infrastructure, contributing

positively to the aim of promoting sustainable waste management, driving waste management up the

waste hierarchy.

Assessment has been undertaken of the potential impact the development may have on landscape

character and quality of the AONB, it has been demonstrated that there would be no greater impact either

on the amenity of visual receptors or landscape character or distinctiveness.

Assessments undertaken to determine the noise impact on the local acoustic environment, and a review

of the previous assessment relating to dust, demonstrate that subject to appropriate mitigation, the

proposals would not result in any unacceptable levels of impact upon the environment or on local

residents or land users.

The proposals represent sustainable development; promoting economic growth, including by promoting

operational efficiency, and providing for the long-term economic viability of the existing waste

management facility, safeguarding waste management capacity.

The proposal complies with relevant Development Plan policies, and accords with the principles and

provisions of the emerging policy framework and other material planning considerations.


Appendices N:\Projects\E12597\103\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-103_R_2_1_7_MCM.docx

APPENDICES



Appendix A Drawings and Plans

E12597-103_GR_DS_A1A Figure A1: Site Location Plan

E12597-103_GR_PA_A2A Figure A2: Application Site and Other Land in

Applicant’s Control

E12597-103_GR_PA_A3A Figure A3: Site Layout Plan (Indicative)



Appendix B Noise



Appendix C Landscape and Visual Impact



Appendix D Dust Risk Assessment



D1 Dust Risk Assessment

D1.1 Introduction

The proposed development has the potential to cause impact to amenity through the effects of dust

emissions. This potential can be examined through a process known as risk assessment to determine

the likelihood of the risk being realised in practice. The risk assessment process analyses the potential

connection between Source (the material to be received, stored and processed), Pathway (the

environmental medium through which the material could move) and Receptor (the interest that could be

effected by the emission). In this report dust should be taken to mean particulates arising from the

imported material and not emissions from combustion engines.

D1.2 Source

The waste types to be accepted at the site are to be limited to those described in Table 1 below.

Table D1: Materials To Be Accepted Described By EWC Code And Type of Waste

EWC Code Type of waste

17 01 01 Concrete

17 01 02 Bricks

17 01 03 tiles and ceramics

17 01 07 mixtures of concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics other than those mentioned in 17 01 06

17 05 04 soil and stones other than those mentioned in 17 05 03

For the avoidance of doubt, and in relation to the potential for dust, it is confirmed the operator will not

accept wastes consisting of:

dusts;

powders; or

loose fibres.

Dust emissions may arise from activities associated with the handling, processing and storage of the

materials on site.

D1.3 Pathway

The medium through which dust particles could be transported is air, the direction and distance of travel

being strongly influenced by wind direction, wind speed and particle size. Wind direction data, from

Herstmonceux (a location considered likely to be most representative of the site) are provided below.

Any intervening features such as buildings and embankments would limit the movement of dust by acting

as a screen.



Figure D1: Herstmonceux Windrose 2007 - 2011

D1.4 Receptor

The term receptor is used in this document to refer to an interest that has been identified as being

sensitive to the effects of the emission escaping from the source. Relevant receptors for this assessment

are considered to be those within relevant proximity of the site. Receptors include occupants of

residential properties, neighbouring development, users of Footpath 52 (Public Right of Way) and the

wider recreational use of and environment in the AONB.

D1.5 Generic Risk Assessment

Table 2 below sets out a generic risk assessment. The table identifies:

potential emission points and activities relating to the proposed development, providing explanatory

text describing an example of the issue requiring control;

the potential risk presented to any generic receptor without abatement;

the typical generic technique that will be adopted to effect control; and

the potential generic residual risk remaining after adopting the dust control measure(s).

The table has been prepared taking account of relevant guidance, including the document entitled

“Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework”.



Table D2: Dust Risk Assessment - Generic

Identified

Emission

Point and /

or Activity

Issue Requiring

Control

Potential

Risk to

Generic

Receptor

Without

Abatement

Generic Technique to be Applied to Effect

Dust Control

Potential

Generic

Residual Risk

After Application

of Dust Control

Measure

Vehicles –

payload.

Dust can be

released (wind

whipped) from

laden vehicles as

they move into and

out of the site.

High. Vehicles hauling materials will be sheeted

or otherwise enclosed to reduce the

escape of particulates during transit.

Low.

Vehicles –

tyres and

body.

Materials falling

from vehicle bodies

or entrained on

tyres can be a

cause of dust

emission.

High. Vehicle bodies and tyres will need to be

assessed to test if they present the

identified hazard.

The hazard can be removed through

cleaning. Accordingly where the site

manager or foreman determines that

significant dust or debris is on tyres or

body areas the vehicle will be directed to

the onsite vehicle wash for cleaning prior

to departure from site.

Low.

Vehicles –

speed.

Dust can be

liberated from

access, egress and

manoeuvring

areas.

High. The propensity for dust release can be

controlled by limiting the speed of vehicles

within the site.

Vehicle speeds within the site will be

limited to 5 mph. The site is small and it

will be difficult to attain speeds much

above this.

Low.

Access,

egress and

manoeuvring

areas.

Dust can be

liberated from

access, egress and

manoeuvring

areas.

Medium. Access, egress and manoeuvring areas

will be maintained (including through

dowsing with water and manual picking) to

prevent the excessive build-up of dust or

debris.

Vehicle routeing within the site will be

organised and maintained to prevent

tracking through deposited materials.

Vacuum wet cleaning will be undertaken if

necessary, including on the access apron

and extending to the junction with the A28.

Low.

Tipping of

materials at

discharge

location.

Dust can be

liberated during

deposition.

Medium. A recognised control technique is to limit

drop heights and limit physical disturbance

of material.

Accordingly discipline will be maintained to

limit drop heights to the workable minimum

and unhurried movements will be adopted

in cases where fine materials are being

handled (note dusty loads and powders will

be excluded from the site).

Low.



Identified

Emission

Point and /

or Activity

Issue Requiring

Control

Potential

Risk to

Generic

Receptor

Without

Abatement


Dust Control

Potential

Generic

Residual Risk

After Application

of Dust Control

Measure

Stockpiles /

mounds

(in formation

beneath

crusher).

Dust can be

released (wind

whipped) from

mounds in

formation.

Medium. Operations at the site will be devised such

that the formation activity is located within

the centre of the site. This offers the best

technique to effect containment and

interrupt air flow during operation.

Stockpiles or mounds will therefore be

formed away from the site boundary and

away from sensitive receptors.

As a further control measure if dusting is

noted to be occurring, the stockpiles or

mounds will be sprayed with water to effect

suppression.

Profiling mounds under formation is

unlikely to be practically possible.

Where considered necessary operations

will cease temporarily until any dust

release issue is resolved.

Low.

Stockpiles Dust can be

released (wind

whipped) from

storage areas.

Medium. Stockpiles will be located in the most

appropriate location on the site. This

includes being consistent with:

The principles underpinning this dust risk

assessment, including taking into account

the sensitivity of potential receptors and

the distance of that receptor from the

relevant activity on the site;

Achieving an appropriate layout for the

site, including enabling a logical circulation

pattern.

Accordingly stockpiling will be undertaken

in the southern half of the site as shown on

the document entitled “Site Layout Plan

(Indicative)” included in appendix A.

Profiling of mounds will be undertaken to

minimise wind blow and consolidate the

surface.

As a further control measure if dusting is

noted to be occurring, the stockpiles will be

sprayed with water to effect suppression.

Low.

Noise

attenuation

bund

Dust can be

released (wind

whipped) from soil

bund.

Medium The external flanks of the bund will be

grass seeded to consolidate the surface

and minimise wind blow. If dusting is noted

on the internal surfaces, water suppression

will be employed

Low.



Identified

Emission

Point and /

or Activity

Issue Requiring

Control

Potential

Risk to

Generic

Receptor

Without

Abatement


Dust Control

Potential

Generic

Residual Risk

After Application

of Dust Control

Measure

Equipment

used to

crush waste.

The physical

disturbance of

material during size

reduction through

crushing has the

potential to lead to

the release of dust.

Medium. The potential for dust release bears a

relationship with the moisture content of

the material to be treated and the nature of

the physical action to be performed on the

material.

The machinery to be used will comply with

the requirements of the Environmental

Permit (EP) applicable to the mobile

crushing equipment (see below).

Low.

Dusty loads

and

powders.

Dusty loads and

powders have a

high propensity to

generate dust

emission.

High. These materials will not be accepted at the

site. The emission from these sources will

therefore be eliminated.

Low.

The above generic risk assessment assists in the understanding of the potential for the emission of dust

from the site. The assessment shows the potential for dust escape from the site will be controlled by:

elimination;

prevention,

suppression;

containment; and

adopting appropriate management methods.

The generic risk assessment concludes that with appropriate mitigation the residual risk of dust escape is

low.

The applicant will implement the measures above.

D1.6 Environmental Permitting and its Relationship with Dust Management

The site operates under a bespoke Environmental Permit (EP) (EPR/JB3937WR) enforceable by the

Environment Agency. The EP limits the throughput to 10,000 tonnes of input material per year. The

Environmental Permitting process recognises the unacceptable risks posed by uncontrolled emissions

and requires the permit holder to implement a Fugitive Emissions Management Plan (FEMP), including

for the management of dust. An FEMP is currently implemented at the site.