Local Members' Interest

Mr B Edwards

South Staffordshire - Kinver

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 5 November 2015 WASTE COUNTY MATTER

South Staffordshire: SS.15/08/629 W

Date Received: 16 July 2015.

Date Revised/Further Details Received: 1 August 2015 (Reptile Survey); 19 August 2015 (Protected Species Survey) 3 September 2015 (Noise Impact Assessment Addendum) and 19 October 2015 (Revised Location Plan).

Severn Trent Water Plc for a proposed construction and operation of an Anaerobic Digestion facility on land at Roundhill Sewage Treatment Works, Roundhill, near Kinver.

Summary of Proposals 1. Planning permission is sought for the construction and operation of an Anaerobic

Digestion facility (AD facility) which would process and manage up to 48,500 tonnes of biodegradable organic waste per annum.

2. Anaerobic Digestion is ‘a natural process in which micro-organisms break down organic matter, in the absence of oxygen, into biogas (a mixture of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane) and digestate (a nitrogen-rich fertiliser)’1.

3. The proposed AD facility would produce 3,285,000 cubic metres of bio methane per year and 500 kilowatts (kW) of electricity (the equivalent power for approximately 1,250 households) and also agricultural fertiliser (digestate).

4. The applicant has indicated that a proportion of the electricity generated would be utilised for onsite works (to power the Sewage Treatment Works (‘STW’)) and in the operation of the proposed AD facility, the remaining biogas would be cleaned for impurities and upgraded to a higher methane content before being injected into the National Grid. Waste types and sources

5. The waste treated in the proposed AD facility would be biodegradable organic waste arising from ‘commercial and industrial waste sources’ from within 40 miles of the AD facility. The majority of the waste material would be bulked at waste transfer stations prior to it being transported to the AD facility.

1 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69400/anaerobic-digestion-strat-action-plan.pdf

6. The biodegradable organic waste used in the proposed AD facility would be produced at schools, supermarkets, hotels, restaurants and food manufacturers. The applicant has stated that ‘liquid wastes including compost leachate, waste cooking oils, drinks manufacturing waste, rainwater collected from on-site surface water attenuation and the harvesting of rainwater that falls on the roof of the reception building can also be used in the AD process’. The AD facility and associated plant and buildings

7. The proposed AD facility consists of the following: • a reception building, measuring approximately 42 metres by 34 metres and

approximately 13 metres in height. The building would have ‘quick close’ roller shutter doors to ensure odour control;

• biofilter and scrubbing system (to clean the air within the reception building) measuring approximately 14 metres by 10 metres and approximately 3 metres in height;

• 5 digestion and storage tanks measuring approximately 28 metres in diameter and 16 metres in height (2 existing storage tanks would be reused);

• gas flare measuring 10 metres in height; • gas engine with an exhaust stack measuring 12 metres in height; • a gas to grid system with a water scrubbing tower measuring 18.5 metres in

height; • silage storage area/energy crop storage area measuring approximately 33

metres by 43 metres, with 3 metre high walls; • associated infrastructure such as crop feeder, pumping containers, heating

containers, propane tanks; • site office, weighbridge and welfare facilities (located in an existing building

adjacent to the haul road); • car parking spaces will be provided adjacent to the site office for staff and

visitors; and, • a 2.4 metre high security fencing. Proposed operations

8. Solid waste would be delivered to the AD facility and unloaded within the reception building which would be operated under negative pressure to control odours. The waste would be loaded into bays which would accommodate different waste streams, then moved into a macerator.

9. The macerator would remove contaminants from the waste such as plastic and food waste packaging and reduce particle size. The ‘treated’ waste would be mixed with liquid waste and or water. The anaerobic conditions would be controlled by blending the material entering the process. Daily sampling and analysis from the digesters would take place.

10. The liquid waste delivered to the AD facility would be discharged from vehicles within the reception building in to one of two underground storage tanks. Energy Crop silage would also be stored on site for use within the process, a silage storage area/ energy crop storage area would be located to the south west of the site area. The energy crop silage would be fed into the main digesters.

11. The solid and liquid waste would be transferred to a heated primary digester, where the methane would be extracted. Propellers, stirrers and paddles would be located in the tanks to move the contents ensuring the optimal methane yield. The released biogas would be stored in the void above the digestate.

12. The sulphide content of the biogas would need to be reduced using a carbon filter before use in the gas engine. The gas engine receives the biogas and uses it as a fuel to power a conventional generator unit producing electricity. Biogas would be flared if there was too much gas for storage or for use in the gas engine. The heat from the gas unit would be used to heat the pasteurisation units, to ensure the digesters are maintained at the required temperature and to dry the biogas.

13. The biogas produced would need to undergo an upgrading process before it can be injected to the National Grid, to ensure that all contaminations are removed and the content of methane is raised to more than 95%. The following processes would take place; chilling and activated carbon removal, upgrading (carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide removal), exhaust gas treatment, carbon polishing; compression; gas quality monitoring and propane addition. The gas would then be transferred to the gas distribution network.

14. The digestate would be pumped into a secondary digester after passing through a macerator to reduce the particle size. Pasteurisation of the digestate would take place to ensure the material complies with the relevant Animal By-Products Regulations. Following the pasteurisation the digestate would be moved to storage tanks before being spread on agricultural land or removed from the AD facility to farm storage lagoons. The storage tanks would have capacity for 6 month storage. The digestate end product would be removed from the site in sealed tanks during the spring, late summer and autumn, when weather conditions allow. Proposed Traffic movements

15. The operations would generate on average about 64 HCV/tractor movements (32 loads) per day to import food waste and silage and export of digestate; and an additional 6 staff car/van movements.

16. The HCV/tractor movements would increase by up to 66 HCV/tractor movements (33 loads) per day in the months of January to October for 30 to 65 days during that period when digestate is being spreading on farmland. Proposed Operating Hours

17. The operations would take place 24 hours a day, however waste would only be delivered to the site between the following hours (no times or days have been provided for the export of digestate):

• 07:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday; • 07:00 to 16:30 Saturdays; and by exception; • 08:00 to 16:30 Sundays and Bank Holidays as required.

Environmental Impact Assessment

18. In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact

Assessment) Regulations 2011, the County Council has conducted a “Screening Opinion” on the proposals which concluded that the proposed development is not EIA development and therefore need not be supported by an Environmental Statement (ref: SCE.179/629 W dated 28 July 2014 and SCE.199/SS.15/08/629 W dated 20 July 2015). Site and Surroundings

19. The site is an existing permitted and operational Sewage Treatment Works (STW) located either side of Gibbet Lane approximately 1.5 km west of Stourbridge and 1 kilometre south-east of Stourton, close to the county border with Dudley. The STW is located approximately 2 kilometres to the east of Kinver.

20. The area lies within the Green Belt and the surrounding area is predominantly agricultural.

21. The AD facility would be located to the north west of the existing STW and would utilise existing infrastructure of the STW (e.g. access, internal roads, drainage, offices and welfare facilities, weighbridge and carpark). 1 and 2 Barrett’s Coppice Cottage are the nearest residential properties to the north of the AD facility (approximately 170 metres). There is an area of woodland to the north and west of the proposed AD facility and the Stewponey Quarry is located to the south west of the AD facility.

Relevant Planning History 22. A number of planning permissions have been granted at Roundhill Sewage

Treatment Works. The most recent planning permissions are as follows: • SS.06/10/629 W - Construction of new private access road linking Roundhill

Sewage Treatment Works with the A449 dated 5 January 2007; • SS.07/11/629 W - Erection of three buildings associated with an infrastructure

upgrade required by the urban waste water framework dated 19 December 2007. A minor amendment was agreed to the layout of the chemical storage tanks and control panel/dosing kiosk on 4 September 2008 (ref. SS.07/11/629 W MA1);

• SS.10/05/629 W – erection of dosing unit / kiosk dated 2 July 2010; • SS.10/08/629 W - application not to comply with (to vary) conditions 13 & 14 of

planning permission SS.06/10/629 W to allow access from the A449 to the Roundhill Sewage Treatment Works for traffic associated with the construction and maintenance of the proposed wind turbine dated 17 September 2010; (the wind turbine application was submitted to South Staffordshire Council and refused on appeal, ref. 10/00256/FUL);

• SS.12/10/629 W - Installation of two motor centre control (MCC) kiosks and a

compressor and manifold kiosk – dated 13 November 2012; and, • SS.13/02/629 W - Installation of a MCC kiosk and a polymer dosing kiosk dated

18 April 2013.

23. To the south west of the site is Stewponey Quarry, which is controlled by Biffa Waste

Services Ltd. This quarry is currently not operational. The development plan policies and proposals relevant to this decision

24. The relevant development plan policies are listed below: a) Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Joint Waste Local Plan (2010 -2026) (adopted

22 March 2013).

• Policy 1: Waste as a resource; Policy 1.1 General principles; Policy 1.5 Energy recovery;

• Policy 2: Targets and broad locations for waste management facilities; Policy 2.1 Landfill diversion targets; Policy 2.3 Broad locations;

• Policy 3: Criteria for the location of new and enhanced waste management facilities; Policy 3.1 General requirements for new and enhanced facilities;

• Policy 4: Sustainable design and protection and improvement of environmental quality; Policy 4.1 Sustainable design; and, Policy 4.2 Protection of environmental quality;

b) South Staffordshire Council Core Strategy (adopted December 2012).

• Core Policy 1: The Spatial Strategy;

Core Strategy Policy GB1: Development in the Green Belt; • Core Policy 2: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic

Environment; Policy EQ1: Protecting, Expanding and Enhancing Natural Assets; Policy EQ4: Protecting and Enhancing the Character and

Appearance of the Landscape; • Core Policy 3: Sustainable Development and Climate Change;

Policy EQ6: Renewable Energy; Policy EQ7: Water Quality; Policy EQ8: Waste; Policy EQ9: Protecting Residential Amenity;

• Core Policy 4: Promoting High Quality Design; Policy EQ11: Wider Design Considerations; and, Policy EQ12: Landscaping.

Other material considerations

25. The other material considerations are listed below: a) The National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) (published on 27 March

2012). The following sections are relevant: • Section 1: Building a strong, competitive economy; • Section 4: Transport;

• Section 7: Requiring good design; • Section 9: Protecting Green Belt land; • Section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal

change; and, • Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment.

b) Planning Practice Guidance including Waste; Renewable and low carbon

energy; Noise; Conserving and enhancing the historic environment and the Natural Environment.

c) National Planning Policy for Waste:

• Section 1: Key Planning Objectives; • Section 6: Identifying Suitable Sites and Areas – Green Belt; • Section 7: Determining Planning Applications.

d) The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 e) National Policy Statements for energy infrastructure:

• Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1); • Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3).

f) The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (July 2009); g) UK Renewable Energy Roadmap (DECC, July 2011, updated December 2012,

updated January 2013 and November 2013); h) UK Bioenergy Strategy (April 2012 published by Defra, Department for

Transport, Department of Energy & Climate Change); and, i) Anaerobic Digestion Strategy and Action Plan (June 2011 published by Defra

and Department of Energy & Climate Change). Findings of Consultations

Internal

26. The Environmental Advice Team (EAT) has commented as follows: Historic Environment –the Historic Environment Record (HER) includes a record of the presence of a possible Romano-British villa site approximately 200m to the north of the proposed scheme. This heritage asset has been recorded from cropmarks only and has never been archaeologically investigated, such sites are often form the core of more extensive farm estate centres with ancillary structures, activity sites, cess pits and working surfaces present in the surrounding area. A condition is required to ensure the submission a written scheme of investigation for a staged archaeological evaluation, the results of the evaluation would inform the need for and scope of any further archaeological mitigation across the site. Landscape – the Landscape and Visual Assessment is correct in concluding that through the combination of existing tree belts, woodland and the adjacent developed

setting that the proposed development would be seen in association with, it is likely that the proposals would not give rise to significant effects and the proposal to ‘cut in’ the development in order to minimise the heights of the structures within the landscape is welcomed. It is noted that all boundary vegetation would be retained, albeit that a number of trees and tree groups would be lost, and it is recommended that these should be replaced. Conditions are required for the submission of landscape proposals including the proposed bund and surface treatment which would need to be informed by local landscape character and deliver appropriate biodiversity benefits and visual mitigation, along with details of maintenance during a 5 year aftercare period and for the submission of a tree protection plan. An approved tree protection plan should be in place prior to commencement of works on site. Ecology – no objections subject to the conditions to ensure that recommendations of the Environmental Preliminary Ecological Assessment and the protected species survey and monitoring report are followed; to require site clearance to take place outside of the reptile hibernation period (November-February) and that prior to site clearance or commencement of works all potential reptile refugia should be hand searched and dismantled under supervision of a suitably experienced ecologist. Rights of Way - no rights of way are recorded in the immediate vicinity of the proposal.

27. Transport Development Control (on behalf of the Highways Authority) has no objections.

28. The Flood Risk Management Team has no objection subject to a condition to ensure that the detailed Flood Risk Assessment including mitigation measures is implemented.

29. The Waste Policy Officer has indicated the proposal fits well with most local, sub-regional, and national waste policies, and would contribute towards a waste treatment capacity gap which was identified in the Joint Waste Local Plan. The location of the proposal within the Green Belt and away from main settlements does present difficulties with other policies. The acceptability of the proposal would depend on the relative weight given to the benefits of locating an AD facility plant at an existing sewage treatment works, and the dis-benefits of development within the Green Belt, and at some distance from the main sources of waste for treatment.

30. The Staffordshire County Council’s Noise Engineer has indicated that the AD facility is unlikely to lead to any adverse noise impact and has no objections on noise grounds. The Noise Engineer has stated that the predicted rating levels in the Noise Impact Assessment Addendum are significantly below the background level at the nearest receptor. This is an indication that the sound source will have a low impact. It is considered that as these are predictions, there will be a requirement to demonstrate that this is accurate reflection of the site’s noise impact once the development becomes operational. The Noise Engineer therefore recommends appropriate conditions to ensure that the noise from vehicles, plant and machinery is minimised; that all plant and vehicles are fitted with a noise attenuated warbler reversing system; and to require the submission of post operational noise monitoring scheme, including a requirement that noise monitoring should be carried out at 3 monthly intervals for the first 12 months after the development becomes operational in order to confirm that operational noise levels do not exceed the predicted rating

level at the nearest receptor by more 5 dB and to provide appropriate mitigation if required.

31. The Planning Regulation Team has stated that the main concern is odour based on their experience of teething problems with another AD facility. However odour usually falls within the remit of the Environment Agency to regulate under the terms of the Environmental Permit. External

32. Environment Agency (EA) has no objection and has requested that the applicant should be made aware that an Environmental Permit would be required and the permit application will need to demonstrate that the proposed installation is using the best available techniques to minimise its environmental impact.

33. South Staffordshire County Environmental Health Officer (EHO) has no comments to make.

34. Severn Trent Water has no objection.

35. South Staffordshire Water did not respond.

36. National Grid and Western Power Distribution have identified their apparatus in the vicinity of the site.

37. Natural England has no comments. Views of District/Parish Council

38. South Staffordshire Council has no objections.

39. Kinver Parish Council has no objection subject to the application complying with the County Council’s assessment requirements. The Parish Council have also stated that vehicles accessing the site should be directed along A / main roads and avoid rural / country roads. Publicity and Representations Received

40. Site notice: YES Press notice: YES

41. 24 neighbour notification letters were sent out and 3 representations have been received. The comments are summarised below: • Impact on Green Belt; • Increased development on the STW; • Increase in noise including the noise assessment is inadequate (noise from

vehicle should be considered and noise mitigation should be included (e.g. noise reducing fencing and road surfacing to reduce tyre noise);

• Visual Impact; • Increase in congestion; • Odours from the site; • Restrictions should be put on the working hours; and,

• There should be no access to the site on Sundays and Bank Holidays. The Applicant’s Case

42. Severn Trent Water (the applicant) has identified the proposal as ‘an opportunity to lessen the carbon footprint of the current operations at Roundhill and reduce the risk around increasing electricity supply; whilst also capitalising on the availability of excess brownfield land on their substantial land holding’.

43. The AD facility would provide ‘the most efficient and sustainable means of recovering

biodegradable organic waste’ and that a key objective of Government policy is to increase the amount of organic material in the waste stream which is diverted from landfill.

44. The overall yearly need at Roundhill is 8.2GW and this is likely increase due to requirements to improve water quality. The AD facility would provide security in terms of energy costs, ensuring that the STW can operate efficiently to the highest standard.

45. The AD facility would also provide a source of renewable energy, which would be fed into the National Grid and would help meet the Government targets for the generation of renewable energy. It would also capture a significant amount of carbon which would be lost to atmosphere and provide a source of renewable heat.

46. Overall, the applicant considers that the AD facility would be an important facility that would contribute significantly to Staffordshire meeting its recycling and diversion from landfill targets set out in the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Local Plan; very special circumstances exist for the development in the Green Belt; the environmental and amenity effects would be negligible, and the proposal accords with the general principles and policies of the Development Plan. Observations

47. This is an application for the construction and operation of an Anaerobic Digestion facility on land at Roundhill Sewage Treatment Works, Roundhill, near Kinver.

48. Having given careful consideration to the application and supporting information, the relevant development plan policies other material considerations, the consultation responses and the representations received referred to above, the key issues are considered to be:

• The energy planning policy considerations; • The waste planning policy considerations:

o The right type; o The right place; o The right time;

• Green Belt considerations; • The potential effects on the environment and local amenity (specifically the

landscape, visual, odour, noise and the traffic impacts); and, • Other matters arising from the consultee responses and representations

(ecology, archaeology and the operating hours). Energy planning policy considerations The UK Renewable Energy Strategy

49. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (published by the Department for Energy and Climate Change in 2009) states that the Government’s goal is to ensure that 15% of energy is generated from renewable sources by 2020. The Government also anticipated that 30% of our electricity (about 117 Terawatt-hour (TWh)) would be provided by renewables. This figure is up from 5.5 % in 2009.

50. Paragraph 3.6 (1) of the Executive Summary indicates that the planning system must enable renewable development in appropriate places, at the right time and in a way that gives business the confidence to invest. There is also the need to ensure that ‘we continue to protect our environment and natural heritage and respond to the legitimate concerns of local communities’. Figure 1.2 of the Strategy states that the ‘better exploitation of the existing supply of organic waste materials, could make a significant contribution to our energy targets, particularly in the electricity and heat sectors’.

51. Paragraph 4.61 indicates that the generation of renewable energy from waste biomass could provide a significant contribution to renewable energy targets and could also significantly reduce the total amount of waste that is landfilled in the UK. The paragraph does confirm some measures can bring impacts on the environment by disturbing local habitats or causing local air pollution and that complying with the existing safeguards to protect the environment must remain a vital element of any development, but seen within the wider and long-term context of reducing carbon emissions and improving the security of energy supply.

52. Chapter 7 of the Strategy identifies the Benefits and Impacts associated with renewable energy. These include climate change benefits and environmental impacts; security of supply, business benefits; impact on jobs; impact on economy; impact on energy prices and bills and impact on energy markets. The UK Renewable Energy Roadmap (update 2013)

53. In November 2013, the Department for Energy and Climate Change published an updated UK Renewable Energy Roadmap (this is the second update to the 2011 Roadmap). The Roadmap sets out the progress made and the changes that have occurred in the renewable energy sector over the past year.

54. The Roadmap indicates there was an increase of 24% in renewable electricity generated from renewable sources compared to the same period in the previous year (the period July 2012 to June 2013), reaching 47.5 TWh of renewable electricity and biomass electricity increased by 1.6 Gigawatt (GW) in the same period with the total installed capacity reaching 4.9 GW.

The National Policy Statements (2011)

55. The National Policy Statements (NPS) published in July 2011 sets out national policy for the energy infrastructure. This includes an Overarching NPS (EN-1) and five technology specific NPS for the energy sector. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) specifically references the NPS for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3).

56. Although NPSs are specifically aimed at ‘Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects’ (NSIPs) which are determined by the Planning Inspectorate’s National Infrastructure Directorate, paragraph 1.2.1 of NPS EN-1 published in July 2011 states that ‘the NPS is likely to be a material consideration in decision making on applications…... Whether, and to what extent, this NPS is a material consideration will be judged on a case by case basis’.

57. Paragraph 1.7.2 (point 3) of NPS EN-1 indicates that ‘the development of new energy infrastructure, at the scale and speed required to meet the current and future need, is likely to have some negative effects on biodiversity, landscape/visual amenity and cultural heritage’. Paragraph 2.1.2 also indicates that ‘energy is vital to economic prosperity and social well-being and so it is important to ensure that the UK has secure and affordable energy. Producing the energy the UK requires and getting it to where it is needed necessitates a significant amount of infrastructure, both large and small scale’.

58. One point included in paragraph 2.2.4 of NPS EN-1 is that not all aspects of Government energy and climate change policy will be relevant to planning decisions by local authorities, and the planning system is only one of a number of vehicles that helps to deliver Government energy and climate change policy. This paragraph also explains that it is important that the planning system ensures that when determining any applications the views of affected communities are taken in to account.

59. Paragraph 2.2.27 also states the Government’s wider objectives for energy infrastructure include contributing to sustainable development and ensuring that our energy infrastructure is safe. Sustainable development is relevant not just in terms of addressing climate change, but because the way energy infrastructure is deployed affects the well-being of society and the economy. Paragraph 3.4.5 however concludes that to hit the UK commitments to sourcing 15% of energy from renewable sources by 2020, and to largely decarbonise the power sector by 2030, it is necessary to bring forward new renewable electricity generation projects is therefore urgent’.

60. NPS EN-3, published in July 2011 relates specially to ‘Renewable Energy Infrastructure’. Paragraph 1.1.1 states that ‘Electricity generation from renewable sources of energy is an important element in the Government’s development of a low-carbon economy’. Paragraph 2.4.2 makes the following statement ‘Proposals for renewable energy infrastructure should demonstrate good design in respect of landscape and visual amenity, and in the design of the project to mitigate impacts such as noise and effects on ecology’. Paragraph 2.5.2 also confirms that ‘the recovery of energy from the combustion of waste, where in accordance with the waste hierarchy, will play an increasingly important role in meeting the UK’s energy needs’.

UK Bioenergy Strategy

61. The UK Bioenergy Strategy for England (UK Bioenergy Strategy) published in 2012 sets out the Government’s approach to achieving sustainable, low-carbon bioenergy deployment by defining a framework of principles that will govern future policies.

62. Paragraph 1.4 of the UK Bioenergy Strategy states that ‘bioenergy is one of the most versatile forms of low carbon and renewable energy as it can contribute towards energy generation across the energy spectrum of electricity, heat and transport…. biomass can also provide a continuous and constant flow of energy with less variability than some renewable energy sources’. Paragraph 1.7 of the UK Bioenergy Strategy also states that ‘if waste is used as a feedstock for bioenergy, quantities of waste being sent to landfill can be reduced…...’

63. Paragraph 3.9 of UK Bioenergy Strategy indicates that ‘the amount of residual waste from municipal and commercial sources is expected to decline gradually to 2030 as policies to encourage better environmental and energy outcomes succeed (i.e. waste prevention, reuse and recycle). Better waste management practices that reduce the amount of waste going to landfill will lead to potentially greater supplies available for energy production’. Anaerobic Digestion Strategy and Action Plan (2011)

64. The Anaerobic Digestion Strategy and Action Plan (AD Strategy and Action Plan) identifies the key barriers to the uptake of the AD technology and an ambitious programme of work to help overcome them as ‘the first and key step to enabling a thriving AD industry to grow in England over the next few years, delivering new green jobs as well as new green energy’. Paragraph 7 of the AD Strategy does not set specific targets or regional strategies for the adoption of AD; the paragraph also confirms that it will ultimately be up to local authorities, communities and industry to decide which technologies are most suitable for their waste and energy needs.

65. Paragraph 77 of the AD Strategy and Action Plan confirmed ‘the Government commitment to an expansion of energy from waste through AD’. Paragraph 85 also explains that it was not possible to give a definitive growth potential for AD up to 2020, however, based on current information available, and assuming barriers are overcome through the actions undertaken in the Action Plan, the forecast potential for AD deployment for electricity could reach between 3–5 TWh by 2020.

South Staffordshire Council Core Strategy

66. Policy EQ6 of the South Staffordshire Council Core Strategy states that provision should be made for renewable energy generation within South Staffordshire to maximise environmental and economic benefits whilst minimising any adverse local impacts and that projects and developments which utilise bio-energy, and particularly those using locally derived resources, are supported by the Council. The policy also sent out criteria that should be considered including: • the impact of the proposal on designated biodiversity sites and species and

ancient woodland and heritage assets and their settings; • brownfield sites or co-located with other wood processing industries; • located and scaled to avoid adverse off-site impacts;

• located close to the point of demand or adjacent to existing transport corridors; • minimise pollution from noise, emissions and odours; • minimise any adverse impacts on amenity and on existing residential

development. Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Waste Local Plan

67. Policy 1.5 of the Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Waste Local Plan states that proposal for energy recovery should: • be consistent and comply with the requirements of Policy 4 (Sustainable design

and protection and improvement of environmental quality); • not undermine the provision of waste management facilities operating further

up the waste hierarchy (the waste to be treated cannot practically be suitable for reuse, recycling or processing to recover materials);

• be in close proximity to the source of waste in order to obtain reliable and

regular supply of feedstock and minimise transport emissions; • maximum energy recovery, either by combined heat and power (CHP) or

electricity generation, or be CHP ready, with a realistic prospect of a market for the energy in the area; and,

• meet the locational approach set out in Policy 2 (Targets and broad locations

for waste management facilities).

68. Conclusion: It is reasonable to conclude that the proposals accord with the relevant Government and Local Plan energy planning policies which support renewable energy or low carbon energy and specifically bio-energy developments. The acceptability of the site and the timing of the development are considered below. The waste planning policy considerations

69. The ‘Waste Management Plan for England’ sets out the Government’s ambition to work towards a more sustainable and efficient approach to resource use and waste management and highlights the importance of putting in place the right waste management infrastructure at the right time and in the right location. The Plan sets out the need to drive waste management up the waste hierarchy, ensuring that waste is considered alongside other spatial planning concerns, to provide a framework in which communities and businesses are engaged to take more responsibility of their own waste, helping to secure the re-use, recovery or disposal of waste without endangering human health and without harming the environment, and in ensuring design and layout complements sustainable waste management.

70. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) does not contain specific policies about waste. Waste planning policy is provided in the National Planning Policy for Waste and in the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Local Plan. These documents promote the principles of sustainable waste management and also offer guidance on the provision of waste management facilities that are the right type, in the right place and at the right time. The proposals are now assessed against this general guidance before the site specific considerations are discussed later.

The right type:

71. Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Waste Local Plan Policy 1.1 recognises waste as a resource in its aim to divert waste away from landfill, and in supporting waste development which would manage waste higher in the ‘waste hierarchy’ and the Waste Policy Officer has confirmed that the proposals are consistent with the General Principles set out in Policy 1.1.

72. Waste Local Plan Policy 2.1 sets out minimum landfill diversion targets. This policy indicates that new waste management facilities are needed to manage an equivalent of 60,000 - 80,000 tonnes per annum by 2026 and capable of treating co-collected municipal green and kitchen waste. This policy also includes the number of ‘equivalent facilities’ needed in Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent, 2 to 3 facilities are required; one of which is specifically required to serve the North Staffordshire Conurbation and Staffordshire Moorlands. Typical average ‘land take’ and throughput have also been included for Anaerobic Digestion facilities, which are approximately 0.9 hectares in size and throughput is 30,000 tonnes per annum. The policy does not preclude facilities elsewhere in Staffordshire. The AD facility is 6.1 hectares in size (including access road) and would have a throughout over the typical average.

73. Conclusion: The proposals are the right type as they would manage 48,500 tonnes of

biodegradable organic waste per annum thereby moving the waste material up the ‘waste hierarchy’ and away from landfill and would allow energy to be recovered from the waste. The right place:

74. The National Planning Policy for Waste provides criteria and guidance for determining whether proposals are in the right place. In this case the relevant national criteria relate to: • The likely impact on the local environment and on amenity set out in Appendix B

to the National Planning Policy for Waste (namely the protection of water quality and resources and flood risk management; land instability; landscape and visual impact; nature conservation; conserving the historic environment; traffic and access; air emissions, including dust; odours; noise, light and vibration; litter and potential land use conflict) and the locational implications of any advice on health from the relevant health bodies [Note: the national guidance warns against Waste Planning Authorities undertaking their own detailed assessment of epidemiological and other health studies]

75. No adverse comments have been received from the Environment Agency who would

control the site through the Environmental Permitting regime and also the South Staffordshire Council Environmental Health. Further consideration is given to the potential site specific landscape and visual impacts; noise; odour/bioaerosols and traffic implications later in the report.

[Note: National guidance reminds Waste Planning Authorities to base their decisions on implementing the planning strategy in the Local Plan and not to concern themselves with the control of processes which are a matter for the pollution control authorities. Waste planning authorities should also work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced.]

• The design of waste management facilities to ensure that they contribute

positively to the character and quality of the area in which they are located;

76. No adverse comments have been received from the County Council’s Environmental Advice Team. The AD facility would be adjacent to an existing STW; the facility would be ‘cut in’ to the site to minimise the heights of the structures; all boundary vegetation would be retained; and conditions are recommended to require the submission of landscape proposals including the proposed bund, along with maintenance during a 5 year aftercare period.

77. The Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Waste Local Plan also contains criteria to help determine whether proposals are in the right place. Policy 2.3 refers to the broad location. Waste Local Plan Policy 2.3 seeks to encourage a network of sustainable waste management facilities which enable the movement of waste to be minimised, ensure that waste is being dealt with as close as possible to where it arises, and aims to reduce the need to transport waste great distances. The policy states that preference will be given to such developments on general industrial land (including urban and rural general industrial estates (alongside B2& B8 uses)), previously developed (provided that it is not of high environmental value) land and existing waste management sites, within or close to the hierarchy of urban areas defined and shown on the Policy Map. The AD facility would be located on previously developed land and an existing waste management site.

78. Policy 2.3 also states that proposals of a local scale only would be supported if they are located in or close to ‘Other Significant Settlements’ (policy 2.3 b). ‘Other Significant Settlements include Kinver (2 kilometres to the west of the STW). The applicant considers the Roundhill STW site to be ‘well positioned for access to the sources of waste it will serve, being strategically located within the county’.

79. The applicant has indicated that the source of the waste would be ‘met primarily from commercial and industrial waste sources within 40 miles of the site such as schools, supermarkets, hotels, restaurants and food manufacturers’ and that it is Severn Trent Water’s intention to tender for Local Authority waste within the immediate area surrounding the facility when those Council’s come up for tender. Due to the location of the facility, a 40 mile radius around the site would include Staffordshire; Dudley, Worcestershire and Shropshire.

80. Paragraph 5.34 of the Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Waste Local Plan explains that the aim of the plan is to ensure that by 2026 there is sufficient provision within the plan area as a whole to manage an amount of waste, at least equivalent to the amount arising/generated within the plan area across all waste streams. This does not mean that all of the waste arising in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent will necessarily be managed in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent as there may be more appropriate waste management facilities elsewhere and other commercial considerations that dictate where the waste is managed.

81. Paragraph 5.35 also explains that the aim of the Joint Waste Local Plan is to ensure

that there is a choice of waste management facilities within the plan area which can manage an amount of waste at least equivalent to the amount arising / generated in Staffordshire during the plan period, and which provide an alternatives to landfill.

82. In term of facilities located in Staffordshire that treat organic waste there are 14 sites in total, of which there are five AD facilities [Poplars Landfill, Cannock; (ref. CH.10/07/721 MW); Cocksparrow Lane, near Cannock (ref. SS.13/03/613 W) ;Mill Farm, near Chebsey (ref. S.13/22/467 W); Brookfield Farm, near Gnosall (ref. S.13/11/4004 W) and John Pointon And Sons, Cheddleton (Staffordshire Moorlands District Council permission, SMD/2010/0411)].

83. Of the organic waste treatment facilities, four are in southern part of the County, these include:- • Poplars Landfill, Cannock. AD facility to treat 120,000 tonnes of waste per year

located on a landfill site (ref. CH.10/07/721 MW dated 15 November 2010);

• Cocksparrow Lane, near Cannock. A renewable energy facility comprising a biomass and anaerobic digestion facility to treat 45,000 tonnes of waste per year on land used as part of a green waste composting facility (ref. SS.13/03/613 W dated 11 July 2014). This permission has not yet been implemented.

• Hollybush Recycling Centre, Warstone Road, Shareshill. An “in-vessel” compost

waste facility to treat approximately 20,000 tonnes of waste per annum, with a maximum design capacity of 40,000 tonnes per annum on land used as part of a green waste composting facility (ref. SS.04/20/619 W dated 23 December 2005); and,

• Manor Farm, Wall, off Birmingham Road, Wall, Lichfield. An in-vessel composting

facility to treat 20,000 tonnes of green waste per annum as an extension to an existing open windrow composting facility(ref. L.07/15/823 W dated 19 November 2008). This facility is not operational.

84. The above list confirms that two of the four planning permissions have been

implemented and are operational, these are the facilities at the Hollybush Recycling Centre which is an in-vessel composting facility (and cannot accept food waste) and Poplars Landfill which is the nearest operational AD facility in Staffordshire.

85. Policy 3.1 of the Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Waste Local Plan refers to the general requirements for new and enhanced facilities; Policy 4.1 refers to the measures to support sustainable design; and, Policy 4.2 identifies the considerations that should be given to protect environmental quality. The AD facility would be contained within a well designed purpose built structure and appropriately modified existing buildings or enclosed structures appropriate to the technology or process. The AD facility would also be expected to operate to high environmental standards in accordance with an Environmental Permit regulated by the Environment Agency. The AD facility would also be compatible with and complement existing nearby uses (Roundhill STW), and would be appropriate in scale and character to the STW.

86. As indicated earlier in the report, no adverse comments have been received from the

Environment Agency; the South Staffordshire Council Environmental Health and Planning. Conclusion: It is reasonable to conclude that the waste facility is in the right place. The development, partly on previously developed land, would be compatible with and complement the existing STW and the digestate produced would be used on nearby agricultural land. No objections have been received from statutory consultees and for the reasons explained below there are also no reasons to consider that the site does not accord with the national and local waste locational policy criteria. The right time:

87. Planning Practice Guidance explains that sustainable waste management facilities must be delivered at the right time to support a strong, responsive and competitive economy; to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities; and to provide an environmental role in minimising waste.

88. The proposals would allow the recycling of biodegradable organic waste. Policy 2.2 of the Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Waste Local Plan identifies a “capacity gap” of 60 – 80,000 tonnes per annum for organic treatment facilities capable of handling food waste.

89. Although there are a number of AD facilities in Staffordshire (referred to above), there is no cap in the Waste Local Plan on the provision of these types of waste management facilities. The Waste Local Plan recognises the need to move waste as up high up the waste hierarchy as feasible.

90. Conclusion: There is a need for the additional capacity and there is also no cap on provision and allowing the use of the site; would support the aims of sustainable waste management.

91. Overall Conclusion waste planning policy considerations: Having regard to the consultation responses, policies and other material considerations referred to above, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposals would provide a facility to deal with biodegradable organic waste which in general terms is of the right type, in the right place and at the right time. However it is also important to have regard to the site specific considerations discussed below.

Green Belt considerations

92. The site lies within the Southern Staffordshire Green Belt. It is therefore necessary to assess the proposals against the National Planning Policy Framework (Section 6) and the relevant Local Plan policies (the Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Waste Local Plan Policy 4.2 (viii) and the South Staffordshire Council Core Strategy policy GB1 ‘Development in the Green Belt’) which all seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development and to preserve its openness.

93. NPPF paragraph 80 sets out the five purposes of the Green Belt: • to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

• to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; • to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; • to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and, • to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and

other urban land.

94. NPPF paragraph 87 states that ‘As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances’. Paragraph 88, states that ‘there will be harm to the Green Belt if inappropriateness and any harm are not clearly outweighed by other considerations’.

95. Paragraph 89 of the NPPF states that ‘new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt unless they fall within one of the listed exceptions’. One of the exceptions is: ‘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 purpose of including land within it than the existing development’. Paragraph 91 also states ‘When located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will compromise inappropriate development. In such cases developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if projects are to proceed. Such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources’.

96. The National Planning Policy for Waste (Section 6), states that ‘Green Belts have special protection in respect to development. In preparing Local Plans, waste planning authorities, including by working collaboratively with other planning authorities, should first look for suitable sites and areas outside the Green Belt for waste management facilities that, if located in the Green Belt, would be inappropriate development. Local planning authorities should recognise the particular locational needs of some types of waste management facilities when preparing their Local Plan’.

97. The applicant contends that the proposed location constitutes the most appropriate location for the proposed development and that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the openness or appreciation of the Green Belt. The applicant contends that: • The presence of the existing sewage treatment works in the Green Belt has

established a comparable development precedent and would provide a more efficient use of previously developed land. Derelict land would be recycled by this development;

• The AD facility would be located within the boundary of the sewage works and would not give rise to further urban sprawl or compromise 'openness' (such as it exists) in the landscape;

• The site is contained within the boundary of the existing sewage treatment works which has already been developed as an industrial landscape;

• Further development of the sewage treatment works would not diminish the

feeling of separation between local communities, nor would it contribute to the merging of settlements;

• The site does not occupy land that could readily be described as ‘countryside’ and includes existing building and infrastructure that form part of the wider sewage treatment works;

• The function of the Green belt has already been severely restricted by a substantial and established development within a small portion of a much larger Green Belt and the AD facility would not give rise to any additional impact;

• The function of the Green Belt to prevent encroachment has already been severely restricted as a result of the substantial and established development within this small portion of a much larger Green Belt and the AD facility would have no additional impact on this function above the baseline condition;

• The AD facility would be located within an industrial landscape which lacks ‘special character’. There would similarly be no discernible impact on the setting of nearby settlements.

98. The applicant also contends that the proposed AD facility may be considered as a

listed exception to Green Belt policy in that it constitutes limited infilling and redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land) as set out in Paragraph 89 of the NPPF.

99. In any event the applicant considers that there are ‘a number of very special circumstances relevant to the proposal and the development site that justify an exception to Green Belt policy being made’ (in accordance with paragraph 91 of the NPPF). These very special circumstances include:

Locational needs: • Co-located with the existing sewage works where it will provide power for its

operations in line with Severn Trent’s aim to meet 50% of their demand from renewable energy by 2020;

• The proximity of the site to the source of waste and to the point of use of the final recycled digestate product;

• The good transport connections of the site; • The lack of alternative non-green belt sites within the area of search and close to

the sources of waste [an Alternative Sites Assessment was submitted by the applicant];

• The appropriate separation of the site from sensitive properties to protect them from potential disturbance;

• The benefits of existing extensive screening from infrastructure and mature hedgerows and woodland;

• The commercial availability and viability of the site; • The environmental benefits of the co-location with an existing STW site; and, • The reduction in the carbon footprint of Severn Trent operational sites. Wider environmental and economic benefits:

• The urgent need for more recovery of organic waste to achieve higher levels of landfill diversion of this waste stream;

• A means of treating locally sourced food waste; • Generates 500kW of renewable energy and 3,285,000m3 bio methane and

offsets the carbon produced by over 70,000 cars each year; • AD provides a completely enclosed waste treatment process, limiting the

potential to generate odour, dust and noise; • The significant savings in greenhouse gases as a result of diverting priority waste

materials from landfill as identified by the Government; • Generation of a valuable agricultural product thereby conserving resources; and, • Generation of local jobs both during the construction and operation of the site. Other factors: • The lack of harm to the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt; • The minimal impact on the amenities of local residents; • Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment indication that the proposed

development would be indistinguishable in the wider context.

100. It is considered that the proposed AD facility would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and should therefore not be approved except in very special circumstances. It is considered that very special circumstances do exist in this case for the reasons explained below: • The proposed development would be located on a previously development

brownfield site which accords with Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Waste Local Plan policy 4.1 and the NPPF section 11;

• The proposed AD facility would maximise the use of waste as a resource, and

would reduce the environmental impact of the management of different waste streams and prevent the landfilling of biodegradable wastes which accords with Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Waste Local Plan policies 1.1, 1.5, 3.1 and 4.1;

• The commercial and industrial waste sources waste would be within 40 miles of

Roundhill STW; • The digestate end product would be utilised on ‘local farms’ and would offset

the use of artificial chemical fertilisers; • Energy generated would be used to operate the AD facility and to power the

existing STW; • The proposed AD facility would utilise and redevelop elements of the existing

site infrastructure including access, storage tanks, welfare facilities and car parking;

• The proposed AD facility would be screened from views by mature trees which

would be supplemented with additional planting to the north and screening bunds. The external materials of the building would also be a recessive colour

(dark green) so as to minimise any visual intrusion which accords with Waste Local Plan policies 4.1 and 4.2;

• The proposals would make a contribution toward meeting recycling targets and

help to achieve self-sufficiency in the management of local waste IN South Staffordshire, in accordance with Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Waste Local Plan policy 3.2 and the location is consistent with Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Waste Local Plan policy 2.3.

101. As the AD facility would be inappropriate development on Green Belt land, it is

necessary to have regard to the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009. The Direction requires the Waste Planning Authority to consult the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on inappropriate developments in the Green Belt, where it intends to approve a building or buildings where the floor space to be created by the development is 1,000 square metres or more; or any other development which, by reason of its scale or nature or location, would have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

102. In this case, the main reception building for the proposed AD facility would have a floor space in excess of the 1,000 square metres (1,428 square metres); and with the other elements of the proposal including the digestion and storage tanks, the biofilter and scrubbing system, gas flare (10 metres in height) and gas engine (exhaust stack measuring 12 metres in height), by reason of scale or nature or location would have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt. Given the recommendation below is to approve the development it would be necessary to refer the decision to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government before planning permission can be issued

103. Conclusion: It is reasonable to conclude, having regard to the policies and guidance referred to above, that the proposed AD facility would be inappropriate development in Green Belt policy terms, however very special circumstances exist which outweigh the harm that would be caused to the Green Belt. However, before planning permission could be issued it would be necessary to refer this case to the Secretary of State. The potential effects on the environment and local amenity (specifically the visual, noise and traffic impacts)

104. The documents submitted in support of the application considered the effects of the proposal on landscape and visual amenity; hydrology, transport, ecology and arboriculture, heritage, air quality bioaerosols and odour, noise, vermin and birds, litter and complaints.

105. As can be seen from the consultation responses described earlier, no adverse comments have been received from statutory consultees. Nevertheless representations from the small number of local residents have raised concerns about the potential effects on the environment and local amenity which are discussed below. Landscape and visual impacts

106. Government policy (the UK Renewable Strategy, National Policy Statements EN-1

and EN-3, and also the NPPF) and local plan policies (South Staffordshire Core Strategy EQ4. EQ11 and EQ12; and Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Waste Local Plan Policy 4.2) all seek to protect and / or enhance the landscape and visual amenity and ensure that development is informed by, or sympathetic to, the character and qualities of its surroundings, its location, scale and design.

107. South Staffordshire Core Strategy EQ11 seeks to ensure that the design of all developments must be of the highest quality. Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Waste Local Plan (policy 3.1) also promotes the general requirements for new and enhanced facilities, and with particular regard to this application aims to ensure that new waste management facilities are: • Fully contained within well designed purpose built or appropriately modified

existing buildings or enclosed structures appropriate to the technology or process. Where this is not practicable or environmentally acceptable, the applicant must clearly demonstrate that any environmental impacts can be effectively mitigated by alternative means;

• Compatible with nearby uses, and appropriate in scale and character to their

surroundings giving careful consideration to any cumulative effects that may arise (Refer to 'Policy 4: Sustainable design and protection and improvement of environmental quality'); and,

• Complement existing or planned activities or form part of an integrated waste

management facility and demonstrate an overall enhancement of the site;

108. A local resident commented that the proposed AD facility would have a visual impact and that landscaping with mature trees would be required.

109. The applicant has stated the buildings are grouped together and appropriately coloured to ensure that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the appreciation of the Green Belt from surrounding viewpoints. The applicant also submitted a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment which concludes that ‘the site benefits from substantial screening provided by the existing STW buildings and infrastructure and more widely from well-established hedgerow and woodland planting adjacent to the Site boundary and within the wider landscape… the Scheme would read as a logical extension of the existing industrial infrastructure, contained within a relatively small development footprint’ and ‘the design of the development similarly seeks to assimilate, as far as practicable, the built form within the landscape setting through the choice of neutral colour finishes for the most prominent features’.

110. The Environmental Advice Team has no objection to the proposal subject to the submission of a landscaping scheme. The scheme would need to be informed by local landscape character and deliver appropriate biodiversity benefits and visual mitigation. The applicant has confirmed the acceptance of the need to submit a detailed landscape scheme [Note –the applicant has agreed to incorporate mature trees into the landscaping scheme however this would be subject to final approval as mature tree planting is not always as successful as planting smaller trees and whips.]

111. Conclusion: Having regard to the policies, guidance, other material considerations consultation responses and representations, referred to above, it is reasonable to conclude that, subject to the recommended condition, the proposals would not give

rise to any unacceptable adverse visual or landscape impact. Noise

112. Paragraph 144 of the NPPF indicates that local authorities should ensure that any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions…..are controlled, mitigated or removed at source and establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties. Guidance concerning noise and dust can also be found in the Planning Practice Guidance (Noise). Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Waste Local Plan policy 4.2 also seeks to ensure that developments should not cause unacceptable adverse impacts.

113. National planning policy for waste indicates that consideration should be given to the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity including air emissions e.g. dust, noise, light and vibrations. Policy 4.2 of the Stoke on Trent Joint Waste Local Plan states that consideration should be given to people and local communities when determining the impact of the proposed development.

114. The local residents have raised concerns about the potential increase in noise; considered that the submitted noise assessment was inadequate as it did not consider vehicles associated with the proposal; and suggested that noise mitigation should be included such as fencing and road surfacing to reduce tyre noise.

115. The applicant has indicated that the AD facility has been designed to incorporate features which aim to reduce their impact on nearby residents and the gas engines being housed within acoustic containers; the waste treatment process would be enclosed which would that ensure any noise generated through the operations within the building would be adequately managed at source.

116. The applicant submitted a Noise Impact Assessment which concluded that the calculated rating levels for both daytime and night-time fall below the average measured background noise level, which is classed as less than ‘low impact’. Following the concerns raised by local residents, a revised Noise Impact Assessment was submitted taking into account the ‘mobile plant in the form of HGV’s and Tractors’ associated with the proposal. The revised assessment confirmed that levels for both daytime and night-time would be classed as less than ‘low impact’.

117. The South Staffordshire Council Environmental Health Officer had no comments to

make.

118. The County Council’s Noise Engineer advised that the AD facility is unlikely to give rise to any adverse noise impacts. The County Council’s Noise Engineer also indicated that the assessment submitted by the applicant, had identified the ambient background level at a location representative of the nearest noise sensitive receptor as being around 37 dB LA90 daytime and 34 dB LA90 night time. The overall predicted day time level is 29.7 dB LAeq (1hour), with a predicted night time level of 28.7 dB LAeq (15min). These figures are some 7 and 6 dB respectively below the ambient LA90 background and are therefore considered to be acceptable.

119. The County Council’s Noise Engineer recommended appropriate conditions, including a requirement for a post operational noise monitoring scheme.

120. Conclusion: Having regard to the above mentioned policies and guidance, consultee comments and representations received, and having regard to the conditions recommended below, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposals can be controlled such that they would not give rise to any unacceptable adverse noise impacts. Odour/ Bioaerosols

121. Paragraph 144 of the NPPF and Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Waste Local Plan policy 4.2 is also relevant in relation to odour/bioaerosols. National planning policy for waste also indicates that when determining planning applications, waste planning authorities should give consideration to the proximity of sensitive receptors and the extent to which adverse odours can be controlled through the use of appropriate and well-maintained and managed equipment.

122. Local residents have concerns that the odour from the proposal would be inevitable.

123. Emissions would be treated in a biofilter and scrubbing system and the building would be designed to provide negative air pressure (‘quick close’ roller shutter doors would be used) in the reception and processing area to contain odours within the building. A biofilter and an alkali scrubbing system would treat the air from within the building to ensure no odours are detectable outside of the site or at residential properties. There are only two residential properties within 170 metres and all further nearest residential properties are at a greater distance.

124. The applicant has also submitted an Odour Assessment; a Bioaerosol Risk Assessment and an Air Quality Assessment. These conclude that the overall impacts of the AD facility are not considered to be significant.

125. Odours would be controlled by the Environmental Permit which is regulated by the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency had no objection to the proposal and pointed out that a requirement of the permit is that the operator must demonstrate that the proposed installation is using the best available techniques to minimise its environmental impact.

126. Conclusion: Having regard to the policies, guidance, other material considerations consultation responses and representations, referred to above, it is reasonable to conclude that, subject to the recommended conditions, the proposals would not give rise to any unacceptable adverse odour impacts.

Traffic

127. Government guidance (NPPF paragraphs 32 and 144, and the National Planning

Policy for Waste) and local plan policies (South Staffordshire Core Strategy Core Policy 11 and the Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Waste Local Plan policy 4.2) aim to protect the local highway network and the safety of residents.

128. Local residents and the Parish Council have expressed concerns regarding the

suitability of rural roads in the area and possible congestion.

129. As described earlier, there would be an average of 64 movements (32 loads) per day with an additional maximum of 66 movements (33 loads) per day when digestate is

being exported.

130. The applicant has also proposed to use the private access road linking Roundhill Sewage Treatment Works with the A449 that was permitted by the County Council in 2007 (ref. SS.06/10/629 W dated 5 January 2007). Conditions of the permission ensured that all HCVs travelling to the site would not use Dunsley Road or Whittington Hall Lane (to the east of the STW) and that all HCV traffic would have to turn left into and right out of the Roundhill STW. The applicant has confirmed that vehicles associated with the AD facility would be using this private access road and would have to conform to the conditions of the access road permission.

131. No objections have been raised by the Transport Development Control Team. Conditions have been recommended below to define the entrance/exit to the site; to ensure that there is sufficient room on site for HGV manoeuvring and that it be retained for the duration of the development; to ensure parking spaces are provided; and, to ensure that no vehicle leaves the site in a condition whereby mud, dirt or deleterious material can be deposited on the public highway.

132. Conclusion: Having regard to the policies, guidance, other material considerations, consultation responses and representations, referred to above, it is reasonable to conclude that, subject to the imposition of the recommended conditions, the proposals would not give rise to any unacceptable adverse impact on the transport network.

133. Overall Conclusion - the potential effects on the environment and local amenity: Having regard to the policies, guidance, other material considerations consultation responses and representations, referred to above, it is reasonable to conclude that, subject to the recommended conditions, the proposals would not give rise to any unacceptable adverse impact on the environment or amenity. Other matters arising from the consultee responses and representations Ecology

134. Section 11 of the NPPF indicates that proposals should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Local planning policies (South Staffordshire Core Strategy, Core policy 2 and policy EQ1, and the Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Waste Local Plan policy 4.2 iv) all support development that restores landscape character provided that environmental interests such as flora and fauna of acknowledged importance and existing landscape character are protected, conserved or enhanced.

135. The Environmental Advice Team commented that conditions are required to ensure that the appropriate recommendations of the Environmental Preliminary Ecological Assessment and the appropriate recommendations of the protected species survey and monitoring report are followed, to require site clearance to take place outside of the reptile hibernation period (November-February) and that prior to site clearance or commencement of works all potential reptile refugia are hand searched and dismantled under supervision of a suitably experienced ecologist.

136. Conclusion: Having regard to the policies, guidance, other material considerations consultation responses referred to above, it is reasonable to conclude that, subject to the imposition of the recommended conditions, the proposals would not give rise to

any unacceptable adverse impact on the ecology of the site. Archaeology

137. Section 12 of the NPPF, the PPG, South Staffordshire Core Strategy (Core Policy

EQ3) and the Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Waste Local Plan (Policy 4.2(iii)) all seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment.

138. The Environmental Advice Team has indicated that the Historic Environment Record includes a record of the presence of a possible Romano-British villa site approximately 200m to the north of the proposed scheme. There has been no archaeological investigation of the heritage asset and therefore a condition is necessary to require the submission a written scheme of investigation for a staged archaeological evaluation.

139. Conclusion: Having regard to the policies, guidance, other material considerations consultation responses referred to above, it is reasonable to conclude that, subject to the imposition of the recommended conditions, the proposals would not give rise to any unacceptable adverse impact on the historic environment. Excessive operating hours

140. Local residents have expressed a concern that the facility would operate overnight. The processing of waste would take place on a 24 hour basis, however deliveries of waste would be restricted. The applicant has indicated that such operations would take place between 07:00 to 18:00 hours on Monday to Friday; 07:00 hrs to 16:30 hrs on Saturdays; 08:00 hours to 16:30 hours on Sundays and Bank Holidays as required. These hours are required in order to accommodate the need to deliver waste collected each working day and to catch up over Bank Holidays. The applicant did not specify times for the export of digestate. It is considered appropriate to restrict the export of digestate to the same operating hours and to require that no export of digestate takes place on Sundays, Public and Bank Holidays.

Overall Conclusion

141. Overall, as an exercise of judgement, taking the relevant development plan policies as a whole and having given consideration to application, the supporting information and additional information later received, the consultation responses, the representations and the other material considerations referred to above, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed development is acceptable and should be permitted, subject to planning conditions recommended below.

142. As the proposal represents inappropriate development in Green Belt policy terms, if the Committee is minded to accept the recommendation and approve the application then it would be necessary to refer this case to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government c/o the National Planning Casework Unit before planning permission can be issued.

ACTING DIRECTOR FOR PLACE AND WITH EFFECT FROM 1 NOVEMBER 2015 ACTING DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMY, INFRASTRUCTURE AND SKILLS RECOMMENDATION

As the proposal is inappropriate development on land allocated as Green Belt in the adopted South Staffordshire Core Strategy….

…..to consult the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (c/o the National Planning Casework Unit) to advise that having regard to the matters referred to in the report, the County Council is MINDED TO PERMIT the proposed development, subject to the planning conditions referred to below: The planning conditions - heads of terms to include the following: To define the permission 1. To define the site and conformity with submitted documents other than where

further conditions indicate otherwise.

2. To ensure commencement development within 3 years; Site Clearance and Construction Phase 3. To limit site clearance and construction hours to:

• 07:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday; • 07:00 to 13:00 Saturdays; No site clearance and construction operations on Sundays, Public and Bank Holidays

4. To ensure the noise from site clearance and construction vehicles, plant and

machinery is minimised

5. To ensure that all site clearance and construction plant and vehicles required to be fitted with reversing warning systems are fitted with noise attenuated warbler reversing systems

6. To require the submission of a Tree Protection Plan prior to the

commencement of the site clearance and construction phase; 7. To prevent burning of material on the Site during the site clearance and

construction phase;

8. To ensure that any lighting including site security lighting during the site clearance and construction phase is directed to minimise light spillage;

9. To ensure that site clearance and construction takes place outside of the reptile hibernation period (November-February) unless preceded by a survey by a suitably experienced ecologist;

10. To ensure that prior to site clearance and construction all potential reptile

refugia have been hand searched and dismantled under supervision of a suitably experienced ecologist;

Waste types and throughput 11. To limit the type of waste to biodegradable organic waste including liquid

waste;

12. To limit the maximum throughput of waste to no more than 48,500 tonnes per annum;

13. To limit the number of vehicle movements associated with to import food waste and silage and export of digestate to no more than:

• a yearly average of 64 movements per day (32 in and 32 out); • an additional 66 movements (33 in and 33 out) per day to export of

digestate between January and October – up to maximum of 65 days during that period;

• 130 movements on any full working day 14. To ensure that non-conforming waste is separated and stored in a sealed

container and removed from the site within 7 days; Operations 15. To limit the delivery of waste to:

• 07:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday; • 07:00 to 16:30 Saturdays; • 08:00 to 16:30 Sundays, Public and Bank Holidays No export of digestate on Sundays, Public and Bank Holidays

Access and Parking

16. To define the entrance and exit to the AD facility;

17. To require the use of the weighbridge facility;

18. To ensure that the HGV manoeuvring areas shown on drawing No A315 1011 P 001 Rev F are provided and retained for the duration of the development;

19. To ensure that the parking is marked out and kept clear for use;

20. To ensure that no vehicle leaves the site in a condition whereby mud, dirt or

deleterious material can be deposited on the public highway; Record Keeping and Knowledge of permission 21. To require the notification of commencement of the development;

22. To require a copy of the permission and all associated documents to be

available to the person person/s responsible for the operations on site;

23. To require record keeping including vehicle movements; type of vehicles, dates, time and total vehicle movements, quantity and type of waste, the source of the waste material, destination of the recycled materials; and to provide them to the Waste Planning Authority on request;

General Environmental Protection

24. To ensure that no additional plant or equipment is used on site without written

approval;

25. To ensure that all waste handling and processing taking place within the building;

26. To ensure that all waste materials imported or exported shall be covered to prevent spillage or loss of such material within the Site or on to the public highway;

27. To ensure that all redundant plant, machinery or vehicles is removed from the site;

28. To require the site to be well maintained in accordance with the approved

general layout;

29. To require a litter pick to be carried out to remove loose litter;

30. To require the site to be securely fenced at all times;

31. To require a pest / vermin control scheme to be in place at all times; 32. To prevent burning of material on the Site; 33. To ensure that no other processes are carried out on site; 34. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood

Risk Assessment (FRA) (BCL Document Reference: B/AG/RNDHL/FRA/001/15 dated June 2015) and the mitigation measures included.

35. To ensure safe storage of oils, fuels and chemicals; Air Quality

36. To ensure that emissions are controlled and monitored;

37. To ensure that the ‘quick close’ roller doors are kept closed at all times during

periods when operations are being carried out;

Noise

38. To ensure the noise from vehicles, plant and machinery is minimised;

39. To ensure that all plant and vehicles required to be fitted with reversing

warning systems are fitted with noise attenuated warbler reversing systems; 40. To require the submission of a post operational noise monitoring scheme,

including a requirement that noise monitoring should be carried out at 3 monthly intervals for the first 12 months after the development becomes operational to confirm that operational noise levels do not exceed the predicted rating level at the nearest receptor by more 5 dB and to provide appropriate mitigation if required;

Lighting 41. To ensure that any lighting including site security lighting required on-site for

safe working outside of daylight hours would be directed to minimise light spillage;

Landscaping 42. To require the submission of detailed landscape proposals including details of

the proposed bund, the security fencing, surface treatment and aftercare; Ecology 43. To ensure that the recommendations R1-R3 and R6-R10 of the Middlemarch

Environmental Preliminary Ecological Assessment are carried;

44. To ensure that the recommendations R1 to R7 found in s.6.0 of the protected species survey and monitoring report are carried out;

Archaeology

45. Prior to commencement to require the submission of written scheme of investigation for a staged archaeological evaluation including any further archaeological mitigation across the site;

Cessation of operations 46. To require a site clearance scheme in the event that the use of the site should

cease; 47. To define cessation. Informatives to include the following:

Site Liaison - The applicant is advised to maintain regular dialogue with neighbours concerning the operation of the Site to ensure that any problems that arise are resolved at the earliest opportunity. The Environment Agency has advised that the facility will require an Environmental Permit in accordance with Section 5.4 Part A(1)(b)(i) of the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010.

The County Council’s Rights of Way Team have indicated that there are no Rights of Way recorded in the immediate vicinity of the proposal. This does not preclude the possibility of the existence of a right of way at common law, or by virtue of a presumed dedication under Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980. It may, therefore, be necessary to make further local enquiries and seek legal advice in respect of any physically evident route affecting the land, or the apparent exercise of a right of way by members of the public. National Grid has advised the applicant to contact the National Grid Plant Protection Team (email plantprotection@nationalgrid.com) concerning their apparatus. Western Power Distribution (WPD) has advised the applicant to contact them on 0121 623 9780 or WPDMapResponse@westernpower.co.uk concerning their apparatus.

Case Officer: David Bray - Tel: (01785) 277273 email: david.bray@staffordshire.gov.uk

A list of background papers for this report is available on request and for public

inspection at the offices of Staffordshire County Council, No. 1 Staffordshire Place, Stafford during normal office hours Monday to Thursday (8.30 am – 5.00 pm);

Friday (8.30 am – 4.30 pm).