Planning Application for a Materials Processing Facility ... · August 2012 Matt Mehegan Sarah Owen Matt Mehegan Associate Director Principal Consultant Associate Director Comments

Planning Application for a Materials Processing Facility, Westfield

August 2012

Waterman Energy, Environment and Design Limited

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

Planning Application for a Materials Processing Facility, Westfield

Client Name: Mr Robin Bristow

Document Reference: EED12597-100/R/5.1.2/MCM

Project Number: EED12597-100

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 and BS EN ISO 14001: 2004)

Issue Date Prepared by Checked by Approved by

August 2012 Matt Mehegan Sarah Owen Matt Mehegan

Associate Director Principal Consultant Associate Director

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

Contents

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Brief .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Report Structure ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Limitations ................................................................................................................................. 1

2. Background to the Planning Application .......................................................................................... 2 2.1 The Enforcement Notice ........................................................................................................... 2

2.1.1 The Ground (a) Appeal...................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Pre-Application Liaison ............................................................................................................. 2 2.3 Planning Application ................................................................................................................. 2

2.3.1 Material Used in the Ground (a) Appeal and its Re-Use to Support this Planning Application ......................................................................................................................... 2

2.3.2 Purpose of the Planning Application ................................................................................. 2 2.3.3 Key Issues for Consideration ............................................................................................ 3

3. Site Description and Surrounding Area ............................................................................................ 4 3.1 Site Visit .................................................................................................................................... 5

4. The Proposed Development ............................................................................................................... 6 4.1 Activities to be Conducted at the Site ....................................................................................... 6

4.1.1 Site Layout ........................................................................................................................ 6 4.1.2 Description of the Materials to be accepted at the Site ..................................................... 7

4.2 Access and Transportation ....................................................................................................... 7 4.3 Hours of Operation .................................................................................................................... 8 4.4 Security ..................................................................................................................................... 8 4.5 Drainage .................................................................................................................................... 8 4.6 Storage Arrangements .............................................................................................................. 8 4.7 Lighting ...................................................................................................................................... 9 4.8 Landscaping .............................................................................................................................. 9

5. Identification of Potential Impacts ................................................................................................... 10 5.1 Contaminated Land (included at Appendix 6) ......................................................................... 10 5.2 Cultural Heritage (included at Appendix 7) ............................................................................. 11 5.3 Landscape and Visual (included at Appendix 8) ..................................................................... 11 5.4 Noise (included at Appendix 9) ............................................................................................... 12 5.5 Traffic and Transport (included at Appendix 10) ..................................................................... 12 5.6 Control of Mud and Debris ...................................................................................................... 12 5.7 Dust Control ............................................................................................................................ 13

5.7.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 13 5.7.2 Source ............................................................................................................................. 13 5.7.3 Pathway ........................................................................................................................... 13 5.7.4 Receptor .......................................................................................................................... 14 5.7.5 Generic Risk Assessment ............................................................................................... 14 5.7.6 Environmental Permitting and its Relationship with Dust Management ......................... 17

5.8 Air Pollution ............................................................................................................................. 18 6. Proposed Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 19 7. Consideration of the Established Use Certificate (EUC) and the ‘Fall Back Position’ ............... 20 8. Waste Management Issues ............................................................................................................... 21

8.1 Policies, Plans and Reports .................................................................................................... 21 8.2 The Terms C&D and CDEW ................................................................................................... 21 8.3 Targets, Provision and Capacity Gap ..................................................................................... 22

8.3.1 Existing Capacity ............................................................................................................. 23 8.3.2 Capacity Gap CDEW....................................................................................................... 23 8.3.3 Recycled and Secondary Aggregate ............................................................................... 23

Contents

8.4 Location of Facilities ............................................................................................................... 24 9. Alternative Sites ................................................................................................................................ 25

9.1 Site Selection Criteria ............................................................................................................. 25 9.2 R French & Sons Ltd ............................................................................................................... 26 9.3 Sussex Waste Management ................................................................................................... 27 9.4 Links Waste Management ...................................................................................................... 27 9.5 Land at Marley Lane ............................................................................................................... 28 9.6 Conclusion of Alternative Sites Assessment .......................................................................... 28

10. Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) ............................................................................ 29

10.1 Type ........................................................................................................................................ 29 10.2 Location ................................................................................................................................... 29 10.3 Timing ..................................................................................................................................... 29

11. Compliance with Planning Policy .................................................................................................... 30 11.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 30 11.2 Policy Context ......................................................................................................................... 30 11.3 Policy and Strategy ................................................................................................................. 31 11.4 Development in the Countryside and AONB .......................................................................... 32 11.5 Environmental Impacts ........................................................................................................... 35

11.5.1 Contaminated land .......................................................................................................... 36 11.5.2 Cultural heritage .............................................................................................................. 36 11.5.3 Noise ............................................................................................................................... 37 11.5.4 Dust ................................................................................................................................. 37 11.5.5 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 38 11.5.6 Transport ......................................................................................................................... 38

11.6 Liaison with ESCC .................................................................................................................. 39 12. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 40

Figures

Figure 1: Herstmonceux Windrose 2007 - 2011 .................................................................................... 14

Tables

Table 1: Materials To Be Accepted Described By EWC Code And Type of Waste ............................... 7 Table 2: A Selection of EWC Codes and Associated Commonly Used Waste Descriptions ................. 7 Table 3: Dust Risk Assessment - Generic ............................................................................................ 15 Table 4: SEP Policy W5 and W6 C&D Waste Diversion and Recycling Targets (mt/yr) ...................... 22 Table 5: SEP Policy W7 - Illustrative Additional Capacity .................................................................... 22 Table 6: SEP Policy M2 - Recycled and Secondary Aggregate Provision ........................................... 22 Table 7: Site Selection Criteria ............................................................................................................. 25

Contents

Appendices

Appendix 1 Common Plans and Documents Appendix 2 Environment Agency exemption registration Appendix 3 Ashdown Site Investigation Material Test Results Appendix 4 European Waste Catalogue (Extracts) Appendix 5 EA Guidance Document “Using The List of Wastes to Code Waste” (Extracts) Appendix 6 Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment Appendix 7 Heritage Assessment Appendix 8 Landscape And Visual Reports Appendix 9 Noise Reports Appendix 10 Transport Assessment Report Appendix 11 Air Pollution Issues - Waterman Letter Report Appendix 12 Existing Waste Facilities in East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Appendix 13 Testimonials Appendix 14 Locations of Considered Alternative Sites

Page 1 of 41

1. Introduction

1.1 The Brief

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

(the client and applicant) to make a planning application for the development of a Materials Processing

Facility at Westfield, near Hastings

This report was prepared in accordance with a scope of works agreed between Waterman and the client.

1.2 Report Structure

The planning application is presented in two parts:

part 1 includes certificates, forms and a supporting statement, which explains the proposed

development, and a Design and Access Statement;

part 2 contains the appendices which contain maps and technical information which deal with specific

issues. The separately bound appendices are labelled numerically.

In order to avoid duplication, this supporting statement and the technical reports included in the

appendices, all rely upon Appendix 1 as the place where documents common to all reports may be found.

Accordingly, Appendix 1 includes a copy of the Site Location Plan, Site Layout Plan, Established Use

Certificate (EUC) and Enforcement Notice (EN).

1.3 Limitations

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 work does not include an assessment for the presence of asbestos containing materials

within or below buildings or in the ground at the site. Should there be a requirement under Regulation 4

of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 for any part of the site to be deemed ‘non-domestic

premises’ (including, inter alia, outbuildings, external pipe work, under-floor service ducts, bridges, fixed

and mobile plant), the duty holder(s) should prepare an asbestos risk management plan and this may

require technical survey works as described in the relevant HSE Guidance Note MDHS 100.

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

practices at or adjacent to the site.

Page 2 of 41

2. Background to the Planning Application

2.1 The Enforcement Notice

East Sussex County Council (ESCC) issued an Enforcement Notice (EN) regarding activities being

undertaken at the site on 10 November 2011. The EN alleged the breach of planning control to be:

“Without planning permission, the unauthorised change of use of land from use as a general woodyard for

[the] manufacture of fencing products, storage of timber, hardcore and tool store to the use of land for the

importation, deposit, storage and processing of construction and demolition waste (including but not

limited to concrete, rubble, soils, sub-soils, metals and plastics)”

2.1.1 The Ground (a) Appeal

An appeal was made against the EN under several ‘grounds’. Under ground (a) the appellant contended

that planning permission should be granted for the change of use alleged in the EN and various reports

were prepared which demonstrated this.

2.2 Pre-Application Liaison

After launching the appeal the appellant met with ESCC to discuss the issues the ground (a) material

raised. Further to this meeting ESCC then consulted its own technical advisors. It became apparent

during this liaison that a development proposal based on the ground (a) material, but modified in certain

key regards, might offer an acceptable alternative and that this could be presented as a planning

application in order that ESCC could test it’s suitability through determining a planning application. If

planning permission is refused the appeal would proceed.

2.3 Planning Application

This report and its appendices therefore present a revised proposal which takes account of the

information received through liaison with ESCC. Specifically, this application includes additional noise

mitigation measures (an acoustic barrier), and to take account of this variation from the ground (a)

material, two additional ‘addendum’ reports have been prepared.

2.3.1 Material Used in the Ground (a) Appeal and its Re-Use to Support this Planning

Application

It is intended that the common heritage between the ground (a) material and the material now forming this

planning application is obvious to the reader. The reader will therefore need to take this into account

when reviewing this application. It will be seen for example that information populating the appendices in

this planning application has been reproduced from the documentation used to support the ground (a)

appeal. The addendum reports we refer to above should therefore be read as updating the initial

technical reports.

The supporting statement in this planning application is strongly reflective of the material originally

presented underground (a) of the written statement presented in the appeal. However, to assist in its

readability, it has been structured to account of the circumstances now required.

2.3.2 Purpose of the Planning Application

Waterman will demonstrate that the proposed development amounts to sustainable development and that

planning permission should be granted. This will include demonstrating that waste development at the

site is consistent with development plan policies and other material considerations.

Page 3 of 41

The technical reports supporting the application will demonstrate the compatibility of the development

with the conservation of the natural beauty of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

(AONB). It will be demonstrated that with careful design, layout and landscaping the effects of the

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

conditions to be devised.

2.3.3 Key Issues for Consideration

In Waterman’s opinion the key issues for consideration are:

waste management matters (location and whether the proposal contributes towards delivery of

sustainable waste management),

development in the countryside and the impact on the AONB; and

the impact on local residential amenity and the local environment.

Page 4 of 41

3. Site Description and Surrounding Area

The application site comprises of a parcel of land at Hole Farm, Westfield Lane, Westfield, East Sussex,

TN35 4SA at National Grid Reference (NGR) TQ 810 138 (hereafter termed “the site”).

The site’s location is shown on the drawing entitled “Site Location Plan” in Appendix 1. 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 1.

The red line on the application plan extends to the A28, connecting the site to the access point with the

highway. The operation part of application 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 which, at this point, is known as Westfield Lane. Access to the site is

off the A28 via a short section of metalled private road. This private road provides access to the

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

Hole Farm House, comprising of land and buildings, including a farmhouse owned and occupied by

the applicant and his family,

Sandhole Farm, in separate ownership and comprising of land and buildings, including a property in

residential use. The land is used for the grazing of animals and an equestrian use. The residential

property was subject of a temporary planning permission (RR/2007/2512/P) which, at the time of

commencing this written statement, had expired. An application for the retention of the timber building

for the farm owner / manager was made in October 2011 and granted on 7 February 2012 (reference

RR/2011/2267/P). The permission allows for the temporary stationing of the building until 7 February

2015; and

A scrap metal yard and end-of-life vehicle depollution facility, owned and operated by H Ripley & Co.

The site itself may be accessed by making a right hand turn off the private road, passing over an access

apron. The site is gated and consists of hardstanding (a compacted permeable surface). 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 road referred to above, with agricultural land lying 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 (known at this point as Westfield Lane), with the residential properties

of Westfield Lane lying 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 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 gently downhill in a south south east direction, eventually penetrating

Maplehurst Wood. As the footpath winds down and through the wood it passes over an unnamed water

course, draining south west to north east, following the ground contour. The unnamed water course is

the nearest surface water course to the site and, at its closest, is approximately 120m to the south east.

The site is part of a former minerals excavation site and was subsequently landfilled.

An Established Use Certificate (EUC) (reference RR/90/0685/E, dated 14 February 1991) 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 operational

area. A copy of the EUC is included at Appendix 1.

The site benefits from the registration of two exempt activities under the Environmental Permitting

(England and Wales) Regulations 2010.

Page 5 of 41

The registration is confirmed in the Environment Agency’s (EA’s) notice (reference HE5396YR) dated 23

May 2012 included at Appendix 2.

3.1 Site Visit

Waterman undertook a site visit in January 2012. During the visit it was noted that the junction of the A28

with the lane affording access to the site is inclined upwards (as shown in Photo 1 in Appendix 1), having

high, deep and densely vegetated banking on both sides. The access into the site itself is set back from

the A28 by some 20m or so, and accordingly direct views into the site are not possible from the junction

of the A28.

Once onto the access lane, the site is accessed by means of a right hand turn, again at an upward

gradient (as shown in Photos 2 and 3 in Appendix 1). The site was therefore noted to stand at a

somewhat elevated position relative to the A28, albeit that the A28 climbs north to south (as shown in

Photos 4 and 5 in Appendix 1) at this point.

Once at the site relatively un-obscured views are possible to the north (as shown in Photo 6 in Appendix

1), however views to the east, south and west are interrupted by the tree and vegetation cover referred to

above.

The site’s compacted surface was generally of even terrain, with some ponding noted. Stockpiles of

wood, hardcore, bags of hardcore (approximately 1 tonne bags), several piles of loose large stone, piles

of bricks (for sorting) and palletised bricks (having been sorted for resale) were noted (as shown in

Photos 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 in Appendix 1).

The wood was noted to be stacked up to about 3m in height and consisted of large logs, perhaps some

2 – 3m in length. In this area there were also logs that were much shorter (perhaps 0.5m long) which and

appeared to have been recently been sawn; light coloured sawdust littering the ground (as shown in

Photos 12, 13, 14 and 15 in Appendix 1). Bark, stripped from logs that had been processed in some way,

also lay on the ground in this area.

In the south eastern corner of the site material was noted deposited partway up the trunk of a large tree.

This area was noted to be overgrown with other vegetation, including saplings. Rocks and other debris

deposited about the base of the tree were covered in moss. Mr Bristow explained this material had been

deposited here more than 10 years previously.

The layout of the site and use made of it, at the time of Waterman’s visit, is typical of its operating

condition. It is the case that the quantities of the different types of material, layout and location of

stockpiles, and the relative balance between the woodyard and hardcore use (including the disputed

waste use), vary through the course of an average year, across the seasons and with business need.

In terms of plant and equipment there were two excavators, one fitted with a crusher bucket, a frame

used for the bagging of material, a tool store (green in colour) and a skip. A small petrol powered

generator (supplying electric power for the bagging frame) and a caterpillar forklift (telehandler) used for

loading bagged materials onto vehicles are also used at the site

The excavators are a multipurpose machine and different attachments may be used on their extending

arms. The excavators are used in the conduct of activities for the woodyard, moving hardcore within the

site and the crushing of materials.

Page 6 of 41

4. The Proposed Development

4.1 Activities to be Conducted at the Site

The site will receive up to 10,000 tonnes of construction and demolition waste per year. The materials

targeted for reception will include mixtures of brick, ceramic, concrete, stone and tile. Occasionally some

of the targeted material will arrive within loads also containing soil. The site will not target soils, or similar

excavation waste, but from time to time soils may enter the site as described above.

The purpose in targeting mixtures of brick, ceramic, concrete, stone and tile includes that the applicant

will be able to:

sort it:

- manually by hand and excavator picking, in order to :

retrieve whole bricks and stone for reuse, for example stock bricks, York stone, and other stone

used for architectural and construction purposes, these materials then being palletised or bagged

as appropriate; and

recycle it:

- by stockpiling it and selling it as hardcore; and also by

- size reducing it (when necessary) using crushing machinery to produce an aggregate replacement

material.

Mixtures of brick, ceramic, concrete, stone and tile are regarded as “hard” materials which, if

appropriately managed, can be diverted from landfill. Typically some loads will be entirely of one kind of

material, for example brick, other loads might be a combination of different hard materials.

Residual materials left over from the sorting and recycling activity will include metals (such as that arising

from the crushing of reinforced concrete), plastics (such as polythene sheet used in damp-proof course

and hard plastics from construction and demolition activities) and soils.

The machinery used to size reduce the hard materials is known as a crusher. The applicant will crush

materials using a crusher bucket. The crusher bucket attaches to the arm of the excavator at the site and

is used to move, crush and load material. The use of the excavator extends as equally to the movement

of hardcore as it does to crushing.

Crushed materials produced at the site have been tested by an independent laboratory and confirmed as

meeting materials specification “Class 6F2 Coarse Granular Capping Material” (please refer to “Ashdown

Site Investigation Ltd” document dated 31 August 2011 included at Appendix 3).

4.1.1 Site Layout

The site will be laid out to make a logical use of the available space incorporating appropriate

environmental control measures, whilst also allowing for the established use (as a general woodyard for

the manufacture of fencing products, storage of timber, hardcore and tool store) to continue.

A drawing entitled “Site Layout Plan (Indicative)” shows the proposed arrangements. It includes the items

mentioned in the section entitled “Site Visit” above, and additional items including a wheel wash, short

section of impermeable surface between the wheel wash and access apron and an acoustic barrier. The

Site Layout plan is included at Appendix 1. This layout underpins this planning application.

Page 7 of 41

4.1.2 Description of the Materials to be accepted at the Site

The materials targeted for reception can be described in technical terms using the “European Waste

Catalogue” (EWC)1 which presents a “harmonised list of wastes”. The different types of waste in the list

are fully defined by means of a six-digit code. Relevant pages of the EWC are attached at Appendix 4.

Each of the wastes accepted at the site is regarded as a “construction and demolition waste” and coded

under chapter 17 of the EWC. The materials to be accepted at the site are presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1: 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

The EA has produced a document2 to promote the consistent use of the EWC codes to help protect

health and safety, the environment and to improve reporting. This guidance document includes a waste

thesaurus - a list of commonly used waste descriptions - and their related EWC codes (relevant extracts

are included at Appendix 5). Using the thesaurus the commonly used waste descriptions in Table 2 can

be applied.

Table 2: A Selection of EWC Codes and Associated Commonly Used Waste Descriptions

EWC Code Commonly Used Waste Description

17 01 01 Building rubble, Concrete, Concrete - wet, Concrete blocks, Concrete floor tiles, Concrete

railway sleepers, Concrete slurry, Cement products, Railway sleepers (concrete)

17 01 02 Bricks, Building rubble

17 01 03 Building rubble, Ceramics, China, Tiles (floor) - ceramic, Tiles (floor) - slate, Tiles (roof) -

clay, Tiles (roof) - slate, Clay and terracotta land drain pipes

17 01 07 Bricks, Building rubble, Aggregates, Ceramics, Gravel, Hardcore, Road metal, Rubble

17 05 04 Building rubble, Clay, Contaminated soil (all types of soil), Stone, Sub soil, Rock -

crushed, Rock - excavated, Sand, Top soil, Vermiculite, Soil, Soil - contaminated, Soil

and stones (mixed)

Accordingly, using this system, it can be seen that “hardcore” is most aptly classified as falling within

EWC code 17 01 07.

4.2 Access and Transportation

Vehicles attending at the site in relation to the waste use will include light goods vehicles (transit, or

similar, vans, and small tipper vehicles) and heavy goods vehicles (tipper lorries of 6 and 8 wheel

construction). The number of movements will be up to 10 arrivals and 10 departures per working day,

making a total of up to 20 two-way movements.

1 Commission Decision 2001/118/EC, of 16 January 2001, amending Decision 2000/532/EC as regards the list of wastes

2 Environment Agency (April 2006), Living Guidance, “Using the List of Wastes to code waste”, Version 1

Page 8 of 41

These movements will be in addition to movements already incurred under the EUC.

The EUC places no limit on the number of vehicle movements. For the purposes of performing an

analysis however it is estimated that, in a typical day, there are up to 10 arrivals and 10 departures,

making a total of 20 two-way movements attributable to the activities permitted by the EUC.

The additional impact of introducing the waste use is therefore assessed as a doubling of the number of

vehicle movements.

4.3 Hours of Operation

The hours of operation sought for the waste use (to include receipt, loading and dispatch) are:

Monday to Friday 08:00 – 18:00 hours

Saturday 08:00 – 13:00 hours

Sunday No working

Public and bank holidays No working

The hours during which crushing will be undertaken will be:

Monday to Friday 09:00 – 17:00 hours

Saturday No crushing

Sunday No working

Public and bank holidays No working

The hours of operation for activities under the EUC are to remain as existing.

4.4 Security

The existing arrangements at the site will be maintained. This includes ensuring the security of the site

by maintenance of existing fencing, gates and vegetation cover (as further amplified in the “Landscaping”

section below).

4.5 Drainage

The operational area will continue as permeable hardstanding. The compacted surface will be

maintained during the life of the site by the infilling of potholes and by levelling to an even / level surface

as required.

There are no toilet or welfare facilities on site and therefore there is no foul water to be disposed of.

There is no surface water drainage system at the site.

4.6 Storage Arrangements

The following storage arrangements are proposed:

construction and demolition waste imported to the site will be stored in stockpiles not exceeding 3m in

height;

bricks, picked and palletised, will be stored not more than 3m high;

bagged materials will be stored not more than 3m high;

Page 9 of 41

picked bricks, and picked stone, will be stored in stockpiles not more than 3m high; and

crushed materials manufactured from the imported waste will be stored in stockpiles not exceeding 3m

in height.

The EUC does not contain storage height or volumetric limits. Materials on the site pursuant to that use

may therefore be stored at any height.

4.7 Lighting

There is no external lighting provided at the site and none is proposed. Plant and equipment working at

the site is equipped with task lighting and this will be used when ambient light levels are considered

inadequate for operations to be safely conducted on site.

4.8 Landscaping

In accepting the recommendations contained in the “Landscape and Visual Report, EED12597-100-4-2-1-

BC, 14 February 20012” and the further report “Landscape and Visual Addendum, EED12597-

100_R_4_3_3_FM, August 2012” the applicant will:

enhance the planting of the each of the boundaries of the application site with native species (as

shown in Figure 8 of the addendum report), and manage the boundaries in order to improve the visual

screening characteristics, including maintaining the width of the existing belts (which is 10 – 15 m

along the eastern, southern and western boundaries);

manage the hedgerow along the private road (to the north of the site) to a height exceeding 3 metres

to enhance the screening properties of this vegetation to views taken from the north;

remove soils currently within the crown spread of trees on the western boundary of the site to avoid

soil compaction and risk of damage occurring to trees; and

install an acoustic barrier in accordance with the advice contained in the addendum report.

Operationally, the applicant will:

park all plant and equipment (whether related to the activities under the EUC or the waste use)

overnight in the north of the site adjacent to the private road, the arms of any plant and equipment will

be lowered to the ground;

continue to site the tool store in its current position adjacent to the private road; and

adhere to the stockpile heights specified in the section entitled “Storage Arrangements” above.

Page 10 of 41

5. Identification of Potential Impacts

The applicant is in receipt of a series 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.

In accepting each of the mitigation measures proposed in the technical reports, synthesizing them and

making relevant adjustments to the proposed development, including amending the layout and the

manner of operations to be conducted at the site, the applicant seeks to propose development which,

demonstrably, will not cause material harm to the environmental qualities of the area.

In deciding which technical reports should be prepared various issues were taken account of including:

the site’s setting;

the site’s existing, and active, lawful use under the EUC;

the development plan policies referred to in the EN;

other development plan policies relating to the consideration of planning applications and location of

development;

the National Planning Policy Framework and other material considerations;

ESCC’s Appeal Questionnaire;

ESCC’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Screening Opinion and Assessment dated 20

September 2011; and

Pre-application liaison undertaken with ESCC.

The conclusion reached was that reports should address the following interests:

contaminated land;

cultural heritage;

landscape and visual;

noise; and

transport.

The reports are attached in 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.

It should be noted the technical reports, necessarily, contain their own specific appendices. Such

appendices are labelled by means of alphabetic notation, thereby differentiating them from any

appendices this supporting statement refers to.

In addition to detailed technical studies into key issues, the issues of mud and debris on the highway,

dust and air pollution have been considered as discussed below.

5.1 Contaminated Land (included at Appendix 6)

The report entitled “Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment” presents Waterman’s work under this

heading. The report assessed the potential for contamination to be present from the historic and current

uses at the site and the risks that may be posed by any such contamination to identified relevant

receptors such as site users and controlled waters.

Page 11 of 41

The site was previously used as a landfill for inert material between the 1950s and 1980s. Given the

nature and age of the former landfill, current land uses and the lack of buildings on the site, the report

identified no risk to the proposed waste use from landfill gas or contamination from deposited wastes. Fly

tipped wastes, presumed to be asbestos containing materials, were present on the site and Japanese

knotweed was found to be present on part of the site. In reviewing the risk the site presents to human

health and the environment the removal of the presumed asbestos containing materials and the treatment

of Japanese knotweed are recommended. No further works regarding ground conditions are considered

necessary. Provided the recommended measures are implemented the assessment concludes the

overall risk rating for the site is low and there are no unacceptable risks present at the site which may

pose a risk to human health and / or the environment. The applicant confirms he will implement the

recommendations of the report.

5.2 Cultural Heritage (included at Appendix 7)

The report entitled “Heritage Assessment” presents Waterman’s work under this heading. The report

assessed the significance of any heritage assets (listed buildings, conservation areas or scheduled

monuments) within the site or in such close proximity that their setting or character and appearance may

be affected. The impact on the patchwork of medieval fields and medieval woodland and hedgerow

vegetation (landscape heritage interests) that are part of the character of the High Weald AONB was also

considered.

The assessment found that there were no known designated or undesignated heritage assets within the

site. In the surrounding area none of the designated heritage assets lay close enough to be affected by

the development; such assets are currently screened from the site such that there would be no impact on

their setting.

The mature hedgerow including mature trees surrounding the site is likely to be a remnant of medieval

field boundaries and of importance as a heritage asset of historic interest. The report concluded that

retention and enhancement of the boundary vegetation would sustain the existing character of the site’s

boundary as well as maintain and enhance the screening of the site and would not impact on the hedge

heritage asset. The report concludes the proposed development requires no mitigation of impact in

relation to heritage.

5.3 Landscape and Visual (included at Appendix 8)

The report entitled “Landscape and Visual Report” presents Waterman’s work under this heading. The

report noted the boundaries of the site to comprise scrubby hedgerows of holly and hawthorn punctuated

by several mature trees, including oak and ash. The perimeter vegetation was considered to provide a

distinct boundary, reflective of the strong vegetative networks found throughout the area and screening

the site from potential views into it. The visibility of the site was found to be limited to a radius of

approximately 500m to 1km to the east and north respectively, and approximately 200m to the south. In

landscape terms, the change of use within the site was considered not to be fundamentally different from

that permitted under the EUC. It was concluded the proposed site use would not detract from the

character of the locality nor would it be incompatible with the conservation and enhancement of the

natural beauty of the High Weald AONB. The recommendations arising from the report included:

supplementing existing boundary and hedgerow vegetation to strengthen and enhance landscape

screening; adhering to stockpile height controls and parking up plant and equipment in the north of the

site (the arms of excavators or similar to be lowered).

A “Landscape and Visual Addendum Report” assessing the impact of incorporating an acoustic barrier

into the proposals has additionally been prepared. The report confirms the additional controls to be

adopted, including techniques to avoid impact on trees and vegetation, and recommends a native screen

planting mix.

Page 12 of 41

The applicant confirms he will implement the recommendations of the reports.

5.4 Noise (included at Appendix 9)

The report entitled “Noise Report” presents Waterman’s work under this heading. The noise assessment

involved surveying background noise levels and then assessing the impact of the waste development at

the site, including the noise impact from traffic on receptors at existing residential development and users

of the public right of way in the vicinity of the site.

The prevalent noise sources during the survey period were noted to be road traffic noise and existing

operations from the neighbouring scrapyard. The report concluded that noise levels generated by the site

(at the nearest noise sensitive receptors) would be of less than marginal significance on a typical week

day, and of marginal significance at weekends. External noise levels were predicted at the nearest point

on Footpath 52 (Public Right of Way) and the likely impact was considered to be minimal. The noise

impact from traffic generated by the development at the site was also considered to be negligible.

Following pre-application liaison undertaken with ESCC an additional noise report (the “Addendum Noise

Report reference EED12597-100-R-6-1-4”)) has been prepared. The addendum report includes for the

siting of an acoustic barrier (2.2 metres in height) and takes account of ESCC’s consultation feedback.

The report demonstrates noise impact from the proposed development will be reduced when compared

with previous predictions (as contained in the original report reference EED12597-100-R-1-1-1) and fall

below the minimum monitored background noise level at each identified sensitive receptor.

5.5 Traffic and Transport (included at Appendix 10)

A report entitled “Transport Assessment Report” presents Waterman’s work under this heading. The

report assessed the transport impact of the proposed waste development. The report considered the

existing access arrangements to the site off the A28 and at the site entrance; the local highway network

that would be used to access the site, including accident data; and access to public transport. The impact

of the type and number of vehicles that would access the site, together with the traffic generated by the

existing EUC uses, were assessed.

The assessment concluded that the existing access arrangements were of sufficient design to

accommodate the traffic that would be generated by the waste use (a maximum of 20 movements per

day (10 in, 10 out) for waste transport (8 wheel tipper, 6 wheel tipper and light goods vans such as transit

tippers), plus two employees making four 2-way trips per day (2 in, 2 out)) to the site. The proposal is

likely to generate very low traffic movements (waste transport and employees), which together with the

traffic generated by the existing EUC use would be in the order of 4 two way movements an hour over the

proposed ten hour working day, which equates to a low hourly trip generation. The increase in vehicle

movements attributable to the proposed waste use would be unlikely to present an adverse impact on the

local highway in terms of highway capacity and highway safety. For employees the site would be

accessible by alternative modes of travel, other than the car, such as walking, cycling and public

transport. No works at the site access to the private access road, or the junction with the A28 are

necessary.

5.6 Control of Mud and Debris

Currently vehicles exit the site, drive along a short section of the private road and then turn on to the A28.

The planning application proposes the installation of a wheel wash and short section of impermeable

surface between the wheel wash and the access apron. The access apron (the trapezoidal parcel of

land) lying between the operational site and the private road will be refurbished by the laying of

impermeable pavement, therefore providing a continuous impermeable surface between the exit of the

wheel wash and the A28.

Page 13 of 41

The wheel wash will be made available for use to all vehicles exiting the site, whether related to activities

being undertaken under the scope of the EUC, or under the proposed waste use.

Vehicles will be required to use the wheel wash when ground conditions require it. Vehicles using it shall

be required to pass through the wheel wash and then over the impermeable pavement to exit the site.

The wheel wash will stand not more than 1 m above ground level, have entrance and exit ramps and be

equipped with a wheel spinner. A water supply is available opposite the application site entrance within

land owned or controlled by the applicant.

To further safeguard highways interests, the condition of the private road extending from the site’s access

apron to the junction with the A28 will be managed by the applicant. This land, which is under the

applicant’s ownership or control, will be swept free of mud and debris as required.

5.7 Dust Control

5.7.1 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.

5.7.2 Source

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

5.7.3 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.

Page 14 of 41

Figure 1: Herstmonceux Windrose 2007 - 2011

5.7.4 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.

5.7.5 Generic Risk Assessment

Table 3 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”.

Page 15 of 41

Table 3: 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.

Page 16 of 41

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

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 1.

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.

Equipment

used to

crush waste.

The physical

disturbance of

material during size

reduction through

crushing has the

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.

Low.

Page 17 of 41

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

potential to lead to

the release of dust. The machinery to be used will comply with

the requirements of the Environmental

Permit (EP) applicable to the mobile

crushing plant (see below).

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.

5.7.6 Environmental Permitting and its Relationship with Dust Management

We confirm that the site will not be able to operate unless it obtains an Environmental Permit (EP) from

the EA. The EP will be enforced by the EA and will serve to control and constrain the operational aspects

of the site. The applicant will apply for a bespoke EP based on Standard Rules permit “SR2010No12”,

limited to 10,000 tonnes of input material per year, the material types will be limited to those described in

Table 1.

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. The information provided in this section of the application is

therefore an outline of the FEMP for dust.

Additionally, with respect to Environmental Permitting, an EP specific to operation of the mobile crushing

plant, will also be required. This controlling document will also include conditions relating specifically to

dust management from the crushing plant, and the associated stockpiles, and will be held by the operator

of the crusher.

It is to be expected the local authority will monitor and enforce compliance with the crushing plant EP.

Page 18 of 41

5.8 Air Pollution

With respect to the issue of air pollution (excluding dust as an issue which is dealt with above), ESCC’s

Screening Opinion and Assessment (adopted for the purposes of the enforcement action) states:

under the heading “Pollution and Nuisances”:

- “The development relates to the management of waste and so is an on-going use. Air pollution

would likely result from the use of vehicles and machinery, together with dust from the processing

activities”; and

under the heading “Probability of the Impacts”:

- “Regarding air pollution, this would very likely occur due to the use of vehicles and machinery.

Nuisance would be very likely to occur through noise and possibly due to the proximity of

residential properties and the road.”

Waterman has therefore undertaken an independent assessment of this issue.

The results of the review are included in Appendix 11. In summary the review found the change in traffic

flow on the A28, associated with the proposed development, would not result in significant changes in

local air quality. It was also concluded that the impact of exhaust emissions from plant operating on the

site would not be significant in the context of existing adjacent road traffic exhaust emissions.

Consistent with good practice all plant operating on the site will be kept in good working order through a

regular maintenance and inspection programme, and the applicant would be content to accept such a

stipulation by means of a planning condition.

Page 19 of 41

6. Proposed Conditions

In the event that ESCC are minded to grant planning permission for the proposed development the

applicant considers the following matters suitable for control by planning condition:

the details of the proposed wheel wash shall be submitted to the planning authority for approval and,

upon approval, shall be implemented before first use of the site;

the acoustic barrier shall be constructed at the location shown on the “Site Layout Plan” to a height not

less than 2.2 m from ground level;

the condition of the private road, extending from the application site to the junction with the A28, shall

be swept free of mud and debris as required;

all loaded vehicles visiting and leaving the site in relation to the waste use shall be sheeted or

otherwise contain the loads;

the proposed landscaping scheme shall be implemented within the first available planting season;

management of the hedgerow vegetation along the northern boundary of the private road;

mitigate and manage the presence of Japanese Knot weed within the site;

hours of operation of the waste use including all activity relating to the storage of hardcore (but not

placing restrictions to the hours of operation of use as a general woodyard for manufacture of fencing

products, storage of timber and tool store);

stockpile heights; and

the removal of the presumed asbestos containing materials from the site.

Page 20 of 41

7. Consideration of the Established Use Certificate (EUC) and the

‘Fall Back Position’

In considering the proposed development it is appropriate to consider the scope of the lawful use enjoyed

under the EUC. There are no restrictions in the EUC as to:

hours of use;

storage heights; and

vehicle movements.

There is no requirement to visually screen the site, or abate emissions of mud and debris. There is no

requirement to limit noise emanating from the site. Plant and equipment used to perform activities under

the EUC is not restricted to be of any particular kind, it has previously and continues to include the use of

excavators (to load and unload hardcore and wood), forklift (telehandler), a frame used for the bagging of

hardcore, a tool store and a generator.

Granting planning permission will bring benefits including through:

controlling the hours of operation (including all activity relating to the storage of hardcore) in the

interests of local amenity;

controlling the location for the parking of plant and equipment outside of operational hours to minimise

visual impact;

limiting stockpile heights to minimise visual impact;

provision of an acoustic barrier limiting the impact of noise released from the site on nearby sensitive

receptors; including from activities undertaken under the EUC;

provision of a landscaping scheme to conserve and enhance the visual screening of the site, through

adopting measures around the perimeter of the site and along the private road; and

provision of wheel cleaning facility and hard surfacing between it and the access road, introducing

control over the release of mud and debris from vehicles exiting the site associated with the EUC and

the waste use.

Page 21 of 41

8. Waste Management Issues

8.1 Policies, Plans and Reports

In this section we assess the construction and demolition waste processing facility against relevant policy

relating to sustainable waste management including need, location and provision of facilities. The

documents we shall rely on include:

The South East Plan (SEP) 2009, and particularly policies:

- W5 (targets for diversion from landfill);

- W6 (recycling);

- W7 (waste management capacity); and

- M2 (recycled and secondary aggregates)

East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan (WLP) 2006, and particularly policy:

- WLP1 (Plan strategy);

The East Sussex Waste & Minerals Authority Monitoring Report 2010/11 (AMR), and particularly

indicators:

- W1 (capacity of new facilities); and

- M2 (production of secondary and recycled aggregates)

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

Document, Submission Waste and Minerals Plan, June 2012 (Submission WMP), and particularly

policies:

- WMP2b (turning waste into a resource);

- WMP3 (sustainable provision and use of minerals); and

- WMP6a (sustainable locations for waste development)

8.2 The Terms C&D and CDEW

In older plans and reports construction and demolition waste is referred to as C&D waste. It is now more

common, including in national policy and guidance, to use the term CDEW (construction, demolition and

excavation waste). Older documents, including the WLP and SEP, use the term C&D. Newer

documents, including the AMR, use the term CDEW. For this reason both these terms will be used below

when quoting from reports and plans.

Section 3.3 of the AEA 2011 Report3 prepared to support the development of the Waste and Minerals

Development Framework for East Sussex and Brighton & Hove (the Plan Area) reports that:

“Materials arising in each of the three streams (i.e. Construction; Demolition; Excavation) are

substantially different:

- construction waste being composed of mixed non inert materials e.g. timber off cuts, plasterboard,

metal banding, plastic packaging;

- demolition waste being primarily hard materials with some non inert content e.g. bricks, mortar,

reinforced concrete; and

- excavation waste being almost solely soft inert material e.g. soil and stones.”

3 Review of Future Waste Management Capacity Requirements (AEA, 2011), East Sussex and Brighton & Hove

Page 22 of 41

8.3 Targets, Provision and Capacity Gap

SEP Policies W5 and W6 set targets for the diversion of C&D waste from landfill and for recycling in the

region as shown in Table 4 below.

Table 4: SEP Policy W5 and W6 C&D Waste Diversion and Recycling Targets (mt/yr)

Year Diversion from landfill (W5) Recycling (W6)

2015 10.4 6.1

2020 10.7 7.3

2025 10.9 7.3

Paragraph 10.27 of the written statement to the SEP comments that:

“There is an immediate and acute shortfall in the capacity required to achieve ambitious targets for

recycling...”

The SEP quantifies the additional (illustrative) capacity for the WLP area as shown in Table 5 below.

Table 5: SEP Policy W7 - Illustrative Additional Capacity

Waste Authority Area Illustrative Additional Capacity Required by 2015 (mt) for

C&D waste recycling

East Sussex, Brighton and Hove 0.185

Therefore, at least at the time of publishing the SEP, a deficit of 185,000 tonnes of capacity had been

identified for C&D waste recycling.

National policy is to increase the use of recycled and secondary materials as substitutes for

primary/natural materials. The SEP Policy M2 target is for the use of secondary and recycled materials to

have increased to at least 7.7 mtpa by 2016.

SEP Policy M2 requires mineral planning authorities to enable the provision to be made for recycled and

secondary aggregates in the WLP area, as shown in Table 6 below, as an apportionment of the 7.7 mtpa

quantity needed across the whole SEP area.

Table 6: SEP Policy M2 - Recycled and Secondary Aggregate Provision

Mineral Planning Authority Area Apportionment of recycled and secondary aggregate

provision (mt/yr) by 2016

East Sussex, Brighton and Hove 0.5

Policy M2 further requires that “where possible” this target should be “exceeded” and paragraph 10.78 of

the written statement to the SEP states that:

“The target set out in Policy M2 should be regarded as a minimum and the upper figure of 7.7 mtpa

should have been exceeded by the end of the plan period.”

The Waste Local Plan is currently being reviewed and in time will be replaced by the development plan

documents in the East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Development

Framework. If approved, the Submission WMP will form part of the framework.

The SEP sets out regional planning policy for the South East but is to be revoked under the Localism Act

2011. For the time being it remains part of the adopted development plan for East Sussex and needs to

be considered. In view of the proposed revocation of the SEP, the emerging Submission WMP has

reassessed the basis for future waste targets, informed by the AEA 2011 Report.

Page 23 of 41

The AEA 2011 Report shows proposed recycling and recovery targets for CDEW, total demand for

different waste management methods (e.g. CDEW recycling) and the different waste streams handled by

different methods and demand for capacity.

8.3.1 Existing Capacity

The AMR confirms:

630,000 tonnes of existing CDEW capacity; and

16,000 tonnes of new CDEW recycling / recovery capacity was added during the monitoring period

April 2010 to March 2011.

8.3.2 Capacity Gap CDEW

Section 6.1.3 of the AEA 2011 report discusses whether there is a capacity gap. Table 58 of that report

shows there is likely to be spare capacity available until the end of the WMP plan period (2026/27).

The distribution of this capacity is shown in Map 1 of that report. We include a copy of that map entitled

“Existing Waste Facilities in East Sussex and Brighton & Hove”, annotated with the location of the

application site and the adjacent scrap yard at Appendix 12.

It can be seen from the annotated map that all of the current CDEW recycling capacity lies to the west of

the application site.

8.3.3 Recycled and Secondary Aggregate

The AMR estimates the production of recycled/secondary aggregate in the monitoring period April 2010

to March 2011 to be:

around 310,000 tonnes;

of this figure around 240,000 tonnes was recycled aggregate and around 68,000 tonnes was

secondary aggregate.

The AMR and the Submission WMP both suggest the 630,000 tonnes of existing CDEW recycling

capacity would be available for production of recycled and secondary aggregates such that the

apportionment figure in SEP Policy M2 of 500,000 tonnes (minimum provision by 2016) has been

provided for. Whilst this may be the case if all the 630,000 tonnes capacity were to be used for

production of recycled and secondary aggregates, not all the materials received at CDEW facilities, such

as soils; clays and other materials (such as timber, plastics and metals) will be suitable for producing

aggregate materials. Therefore, to increase production of, and enable the recycled and secondary

aggregates targets to be met, a greater amount of CDEW permitted capacity is required.

The recycling to be undertaken at the application site, which would receive and recycle construction and

demolition wastes out of the CDEW stream, will assist by making a small but valuable contribution to the

sustainable management of waste in East Sussex, driving waste management up the waste hierarchy

and reducing demand for primary raw materials such as aggregate minerals and building stone.

In quantitative terms the above could indicate there is no further need for CDEW recycling capacity or

further provision required to be made for production of recycled and secondary aggregates. The

applicant however contends such a conclusion would place insufficient weight upon the distribution of the

capacity and provision over the Plan area. The applicant considers his facility well located to serve the

rural villages and settlements in the east of the Plan area and the urban area of Hastings and accordingly

he will fulfil a local need.

Page 24 of 41

8.4 Location of Facilities

The WLP’s preferred approach to small scale facilities is confirmed at paragraph 5.60 of the written

statement:

“The Plan’s preferred approach is to identify a number of locations across the Plan area where a

range of facilities might be sited in order to meet strategic requirements, supported by smaller-scale

facilities at other locations.”

The approach is amplified in the written statement at paragraph 5.71 where it confirms the WLP

encourages:

“the provision of smaller-scale waste management facilities where they can serve local communities

and businesses in accordance with the proximity principle.”

Paragraph 6.7 of the written statement enables a distinction to be drawn between “major waste

development” and “minor waste proposals” in AONBs. The WLP states major waste development

includes:

“energy from waste facilities, land disposal sites (excluding small scale farm tracks and other minor

disposal operations of a similar scale), composting facilities which involve significant built development

and any other waste development which has the potential to materially harm the environmental

qualities of the area by virtue of the scale of its built development or the amount of activity generated

by the use.”

By contrast it is envisaged minor waste proposals include:

“small scale inert waste disposal operations or open air composting facilities for the local area”

Emerging policy WMP6a (Submission WMP) reveals no intention to abandon this policy direction:

“Proposals for development will only be considered outside of the Areas of Focus if it can be

demonstrated that:

- a. There are no suitable sites available within the Areas of Focus to meet identified needs, or they

are small-scale facilities predominantly to meet smaller, more localised needs only(47)

; and

- b. The development will contribute to moving waste management up the waste hierarchy and

minimising greenhouse gas emissions; and

- c. They are well related to the relevant main treatment facilities within the Plan Area.”

The footnote (47

) to the policy explains:

“Smaller, localised facilities can be essential in helping to provide local solutions for collecting, sorting,

bulking, and transferring and treating wastes in complementing the waste treatment provided at more

strategic larger-scale facilities.”

Collectively, paragraphs 5.60 and 6.7 of the written statement, and the policy direction in WMP6a

(Submission WMP), demonstrate there is a qualitative need for smaller facilities to be provided, serving

local communities.

The applicant’s facility would rightly be classified as a minor waste proposal of small scale. The applicant

has received several letters capable of being described as testimonials that show that the facility has

delivered a local solution for waste producers and users of recycled aggregate. The testimonials are

presented in Appendix 13. The facility acts as a collection point, it sorts and treats waste, moving waste

up the waste hierarchy, delivering against this need.

Page 25 of 41

9. Alternative Sites

National planning policy includes a number of principles which assist in identifying suitable locations for

waste management development, including:

PPS10 - waste planning authorities should consider “a broad range of locations including industrial

sites”, and “give priority to the re-use of previously developed land” (source: extracts from paragraphs

20 and 21 of PPS10).

East Sussex County Council, and Brighton & Hove City Council, both have responsibilities as Waste

Planning Authorities to produce waste site allocations Development Plan Documents (DPDs). We

understand that a DPD has not yet been produced. This supporting statement has undertaken a review

of potentially suitable alternative sites in order to inform the planning application.

The scope of this alternative sites assessment includes:

the formulation of reasonable and realistic criteria, to eliminate unsuitable sites or impractical options

(at this stage disregarding cost), in order to enable the selection of sites potentially suitable in principle

for C&D waste recycling;

short-listing the identified sites; and

a discussion on the merits or demerits of the identified sites.

9.1 Site Selection Criteria

The criteria take into account the nature and scale of operations undertaken at the existing site and SEP

Policy W17. Table 7 below, sets out the selection criteria and the search characteristics required.

Table 7: Site Selection Criteria

Site Selection Criteria Characteristic Required

Current Land Use

Policy W17 (SEP) provides that suitable locations for

waste management facilities may include sites:

in existing waste management use (prioritising

sites with good transport connections),

with good accessibility from existing urban areas

/ new / planned development,

with good transport connections (including rail

and water),

with compatible land uses: active minerals sites,

previous or existing industrial land use,

contaminated or derelict land, land adjoining

sewage works, redundant farm buildings and

their curtilages,

capable of meeting locally based environmental

and amenity criteria.

The policy includes that small scale waste

management facilities should not be precluded from

the AONBs where development would not

compromise the objectives of the designation.

Existing or former waste, minerals or industrial sites.

Vicinity to Market and Source

Haulage distance from:

Vicinity from waste source / user: 3 – 6 Miles

Page 26 of 41

the likely waste source locations (the rural villages

and settlements in the east of the Plan area and the

urban area of Hastings); and

sites where re-use / use of recycled product will take

place.

Available Land Area

Sites will be considered against the scale of the

current site.

It is considered that sites much smaller than the

existing would be too constrained operationally.

A site much larger might allow a greater throughput,

but such a scale of operation is not sought.

Target Land Area: 0.4 – 0.7 ha

Transportation Links

Ready access to appropriate roads is required.

Sites with ready access to A roads and roads

forming part of the strategic route network will be

selected.

A search of alternative sites has been conducted within the Hastings / Bexhill and Rother areas. The

scope of search has taken into account land currently on the market such as industrial lets and offered for

sale, existing waste sites and information on existing and / or proposed employment sites. The search

included performing an internet search of available sources including, but not limited to the facility

available at the “Estates Gazette” website; found online at http://www.estatesgazette.com.

Using this website various searches were performed including using the terms “Industrial”, “Land”, “Other

Commercial” up to 1 hectare in size. Small and medium sized industrial units were found, none of

adequate size. Large industrial units (fully enclosed buildings potentially suitable for B2 / B8 use) were

also found, though these units tended to be on modern industrial estates and appeared unsuitable for

waste development.

As an alternative to these sources recourse was made to local contacts with knowledge of the area. As a

result the following sites were identified:

R French & Sons Ltd., Woodland House, Drury Lane, Hastings, East Sussex, TN38 9BA;

Sussex Waste Management, Whitworth Road, St Leonards-on-Sea, TN37 7PZ;

Links Waste Management, Down Barn Farm, Ninfield Road, Bexhill-on-Sea, TN39 5JP; and

Land at Marley Lane, Near Battle, TN33 0RB.

The identified sites are presented on the plan entitled “Locations of Considered Alternative Sites” included

at Appendix 14.

9.2 R French & Sons Ltd

This site has been identified for the following reasons:

it is an existing waste management site; and

it is located approximately 1 mile from Hastings

The site is operated by R French & Sons, who specialise in Skip Hire, waste transfer and sorting of

commercial and industrial waste. In terms of the site selection criteria the site is located well within the

settlement boundary of Hastings and appears well placed to serve the waste management needs of the

local area. The site is located on the edge of the Ponswood Industrial Estate, approximately 60m from

the nearest residential properties.

Page 27 of 41

The site includes a Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) for waste processing and designated bays for

segregation. The site is in busy and active use and accommodating additional C&D waste recycling is

understood not to be possible. Such proposals incorporating the crushing of C&D waste in addition to the

existing operations at the site, including the siting of stockpiles, and stationing of machinery, would

appear to lead to the potential for conflict with the existing layout and arrangement of uses.

Notwithstanding these findings the applicant has made enquiries of the owner and has been informed the

site is not available.

Waterman concludes this site is not a viable alternative.

9.3 Sussex Waste Management

This site has been identified for the following reasons:

it is an existing waste management site;

it is located approximately 1.5 miles from Hastings;

has a developable area of 0.4ha; and

is located close to the A21.

The site is operated by Sussex Waste Management, a skip hire company with their own waste processing

and sorting capabilities. The site is located on the West Ridge Industrial Estate within the settlement

boundary of Hastings. The site is accessed via Whitworth Road which has access to the A21 and the

primary road network.

The site is located on an existing industrial estate, substantially screened by vegetation cover. The site

has been in use for waste transfer activities since around October 2009, it is understood C&D waste

processing (by means of crushing) is not currently permitted at the site.

A planning permission (reference HS/2504/CC) was granted by ESCC for the development of a “48 bed

residential unit with day therapy suite, outreach and consulting rooms” facility adjacent to the site on 16

December 2006, and a number of reserved matters applications have been made since that time.

Accordingly it appears there is a good prospect the development will be constructed.

The proximity of the residential unit to Sussex Waste Management’s site begs the question as to whether

the introduction of a C&D waste recycling use (including crushing) would be regarded as a compatible

land use. On first consideration it would appear not to be consistent with policy W17 of the SEP.

Notwithstanding these findings the applicant has made enquiries of the owner and has been informed the

site is not available.

Waterman concludes this site is not a viable alternative.

9.4 Links Waste Management

This site has been identified the following reasons:

it is an existing waste management site;

it is located approximately 2.0 miles from Bexhill; and

located close to the A269.

The site is operated by Links Waste Management Limited who specialise in skip hire, waste transfer and

processing. The site is located just outside of Bexhill in the village of Lunsford’s Cross, 2 miles from the

centre of Bexhill. The site is accessed via Ninfield Road otherwise known as the A269 and is well

connected to the primary road network.

Page 28 of 41

The site lies in a countryside location (outside the development boundary), residential properties

neighbouring it to the west. To the north and east land is in agricultural use. To the south is Ninfield

Road and agricultural land beyond. The facility has planning permission (reference WD/631/CM, granted

by ESCC July 2010) for the storage of hardcore and soils, sorting and transfer of materials, and storage

space for empty skips. The permission allows the site to receive up to 25,000 tonnes of waste per

annum. Condition (3) of the planning permission disallows the processing of waste, without further

approval being sought.

This site appears to be an alternative. Its scale is beyond that sought by the applicant, and the planning

permission does not (currently) allow for processing. Its suitability to support processing is not known.

The site is not well placed to serve the rural villages and settlements in the east of the Plan area.

Waterman concludes this site is not a viable alternative.

9.5 Land at Marley Lane

This site has been identified for the following reasons:

it has a developable area of approximately 0.6 ha;

it is located close to the A21;

it is allocated for employment use; and

it is located approximately 4.7 miles from Hastings.

The site is allocated for proposed business uses (industrial/storage purposes). Interests to be protected

include ancient woodland. The site is in a groundwater source protection zone. The site lies within the

High Weald AONB. It is understood the planning history for the site is complex, an enforcement notice

(we believe for unauthorised development) having been upheld on appeal.

This site appears to be an alternative. Its potential scale appears to be beyond that sought by the

applicant. Whether a waste use would be a satisfactory alternative to the proposed industrial / storage is

unknown. The potential price of the site either in lease or freehold is unknown.

The site is not well placed to serve the rural villages and settlements in the east of the Plan area.

Waterman concludes this site is not a viable alternative.

9.6 Conclusion of Alternative Sites Assessment

The assessment identified four potentially suitable sites. Despite making further enquires no other sites

worthy of assessment were identified. The site at Links Waste Management, and the land at Marley Lane

are alternatives, in principle. In practice however the sites would appear unsuitable to serve the rural

villages and settlements in the east of the Plan area. The sites are also not reasonably available to the

applicant.

Page 29 of 41

10. Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO)

Paragraph 5.12 of the WLP states that “new development will need to represent the Best Practicable

Environment Option (BPEO)”. It is understood such an assessment includes considering whether

proposals for development are “of the right type, in the right place and at the right time”. It is further

understood planning applications will therefore be considered against policies in the development plan

and other material considerations. For small scale facilities of the kind proposed, policy WLP1 states the

waste local plans strategy. Policies WLP2, WLP14 and WLP35 identify locational and operational criteria

against which individual proposals are likely to be considered.

10.1 Type

With reference to policy WLP35 the proposal is small in scale and built development is limited to the

installation of a wheel wash, laying of impermeable pavement and erection of an acoustic barrier.

The processes to be performed at the site will recover value from waste, preparing material for re-use,

enabling recycling and diverting as much waste as feasible from landfill disposal. The facility therefore

assists in the delivery of sustainable development by driving waste management in East Sussex up the

waste hierarchy. Recycling waste is a preferable alternative to landfill disposal. The design of the facility

takes account of the principles of sustainable development, placing relevant weight on environmental,

economic and social factors.

The facility will be operated to standards regulated under the Environmental Permitting regime. This

means the site will be subject to monitoring and enforcement by the EA, the crusher activities will be

subject to monitoring and enforcement by the Local Authority.

10.2 Location

The impact on amenity, the local environment, landscape and character of the AONB have been

considered and assessed. It has been demonstrated that the proposal is capable of being sited at this

location.

The site is located on previously developed land and is proximal to the area it will serve, including the

rural villages and settlements in the east of the Plan area and the urban area of Hastings.

The predominant source of C&D waste arisings in East Sussex, and the markets for the recycled

products will include the urban areas as well as rural villages and settlements. Ready access can be

gained to the site from the route network using an existing access.

10.3 Timing

The aim of national and development plan policy is to move waste management up the waste hierarchy.

This facility would provide additional re-use, recycling and recovery capacity helping divert as much waste

as feasible from landfill disposal. Analysis has shown there is currently a need for a facility of the

proposed type in this locality.

The proposed development will play its part in delivering self-sufficiency over the plan period in the

region, but more specifically within East Sussex. It will enable the community it serves to make a timely

and responsible use of waste.

The facility will operate within a network of other facilities, each with its own offer to the marketplace.

Collectively these facilities will serve to meet the needs of their communities in the plan period. This

serves to meet strategic aims within proximity of the site and therefore contribute toward the achievement

of self-sufficiency.

It is considered the proposed development is the BPEO.

Page 30 of 41

11. Compliance with Planning Policy

11.1 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 South East

Plan 2009 (SEP), East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan (WLP) 2006 and Rother District

Local Plan (RDLP) 2006. 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);

development plan documents being prepared by ESCC and Rother District Council which in time will

replace the WLP and RDLP;

the abolition of the SEP under the Localism Act 2011.

11.2 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 the priority order: prevention,

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

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.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): 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).

South East Plan 2009 (SEP): Policies CC1 (Sustainable Development), M2 (Recycled and Secondary

Aggregates), NRM9 (Air Quality), NRM10 (Noise), W3 (Regional Self-Sufficiency), W4 (Sub-regional Self-

Sufficiency), W5 (Targets for Diversion from Landfill), W6 (Recycling and Composting), W17 (Location of

Waste Management Facilities) and C3 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty).

East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan (WLP) 2006: Policies WLP1 (Plan Strategy),

WLP2 (Transport Strategy), WLP14 (Recycling and Recovery Facilities for Construction and Demolition

Waste), WLP 35 (General Amenity Considerations), WLP 36 (Transport Considerations) and WLP 39

(Design Considerations).

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

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

TR2 (Transport).

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

Document, Submission Waste and Minerals Plan, June 2012 (Submission WMP): Policies WMP2b

(turning waste into a resource); WMP3 (sustainable provision and use of minerals); WMP6a (sustainable

locations for waste development); WMP24 (General Amenity), WMP25 (Traffic Impacts) and WMP26

(Environment and Environmental Enhancement).

Page 31 of 41

Rother District Council Core Strategy Proposed Submission Core Strategy (incorporating the

focused amendments) July 2012 (RDC Proposed Submission Core Strategy): Policies OSS1

(Overall Spatial Strategy); OSS3 (Use of Development Boundaries); OSS4 (Location of Development);

OSS5 (General Considerations); EN1 (Landscape Stewardship) and TR3 (Access and New

Development).

11.3 Policy and Strategy

Key issues for consideration are waste management matters (location and whether the proposal

contributes towards the delivery of sustainable waste management), the impact on the AONB and the

impact on local residential amenity and the local environment.

European and National policy and policy in the SEP look to minimise waste production, increase the

amount of waste recovered and reused and decrease the amount of waste landfilled. To achieve this the

SEP identifies there is a need for a wide range of new waste management facilities in the region. SEP

policies 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. The development of processing facilities for the reuse and recycling of waste is therefore

supported in principle.

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

and diverting waste from landfill. 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 C&D waste by seeking to halve this type of waste going

to landfill by 2012 as a result of waste reduction, re-use 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”.

Identifying suitable locations for waste facilities is challenging. The constraints to development include:

devising schemes which are environmentally acceptable, offering a hierarchical approach to waste

management; being close enough to areas of population in order to secure steady supplies of waste for

reprocessing and to those likely to use the re-useable and recycled materials produced; and respecting

the special qualities of designated areas, including AONBs. Approximately two thirds of the WLP area is

AONB, the application site itself lies adjacent to (but within) the western boundary of the High Weald

AONB and close to the Westfield Lane settlement boundary.

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. Where development plan policies are not up to date silent or absent, permission

should be granted unless:

“any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when

assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or–

specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”

Included in the latter are policies relating to AONBs.

Page 32 of 41

The NPPF (at paragraph 17) states that “a set of core land-use planning principles should underpin both

plan-making and decision-taking.” These include:

(at bullet point 3) that plans “should take account of market signals, such as land prices … and set

out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in their area, taking

account of the needs of the residential and business communities”;

(at bullet point 5) that planning should “take account of the different roles and character of different

areas … recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving

rural communities within it”;

(at bullet point 7) that planning should “contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural

environment and reducing pollution. Allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser

environmental value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework”; and

(at bullet point 8) that planning should “encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has

been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value”.

The NPPF then sets out national policy for achieving sustainable development under a series of thirteen

headings. 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”. It

lists several measures including: “protecting and enhancing valued landscapes…”; “minimising impacts

on biodiversity…” and “preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at

unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise

pollution or land instability”. Planning decisions should therefore consider the potential impacts of

development proposals on the environment, and avoid significant impact.

11.4 Development in the Countryside and AONB

The location of the site outside the development boundary of Westfield Lane and location within the High

Weald AONB are included in the reasons why the EN was served. Inset Map No.37 from the RDLP

shows the location of the site in relation to the Westfield Lane development boundary. The site lies

approximately 75m to the east of the development boundary and on the boundary of, but within, the

AONB.

Although located in the countryside outside a defined development boundary the larger part of the land

covered by the EN is not currently land in agricultural or woodland use, but land with an EUC which

includes for use as a woodyard and storage of hardcore. To the east of the site lies land in waste use

(metal scrap yard and end of life vehicle depollution facility), with residential and other buildings

associated with Hole Farm and Sandhole Farm lying beyond. Land use in the vicinity of the site is

described in the section entitled “Site Description and Surrounding Area” above.

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 polices 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).

The NPPF advises (at paragraph 116) that “Planning permission should be refused for major

developments in these designated areas [assumed to include AONBs] except in exceptional

circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. Consideration of such

applications should include an assessment of:

the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of

permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy;

Page 33 of 41

the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for

it in some other way; and

any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the

extent to which that could be moderated.”

Even though this planning application is not in relation to a “major” development assessments have been

undertaken, to a relevant degree, in order to evaluate whether this development is appropriate in a rural

location and the impact of it on the AONB designation. The assessments relate to issues identified in

development plan policy, and other material considerations, such as the NPPF, as well as responding to

the particular matters and areas of concern raised in the EN.

SEP Policy C3 states “High priority will be given to conservation and enhancement of natural beauty” in

areas of AONB “and planning decisions should have regard to their setting”, with “proposals for

development” considered “in that context”. “In considering proposals for development, the emphasis

should be on small-scale proposals that are sustainably located and designed”. It also states “Proposals

which support the economies and social wellbeing of the AONBs and their communities …. will be

encouraged provided they do not conflict with the aim of conserving and enhancing natural beauty”.

Approximately two thirds of the WLP area is covered by areas designated as AONBs; the High Weald

AONB, in which the site is located, and the South Downs AONB. Within the Rother District Council area

some 82% is designated as AONB. Both the WLP and RDLP contain policies to protect the landscape

and natural beauty of the AONB. Policy WLP3 sets out issues that will be taken into account when

determining planning applications for major waste development in the AONB with proposals for minor

waste proposals to be assessed against relevant Structure Plan (now SEP) policies and other relevant

policies in the waste local plan and other Local Plans. Policy WLP1 requires proposals to “accord with

the objectives of and not cause damage to” AONBs and WLP35 requires proposals to satisfy criteria

including “(a) ......be of a scale, form and character appropriate to its location”; and that there is no

unacceptable adverse effect “(d) on the recreational or tourist use of an area, or the use of existing public

access or rights of way”; and “(e) on areas or features of demonstrable landscape......importance.”

The emerging waste and minerals plan (Submission WMP) also 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. Areas where it is considered the best opportunities for waste recycling and recovery

facilities are likely to be found are identified as ‘Areas of Focus’ under Policy WMP6a. The policy

recognises that outside the Areas of Focus other sites may be acceptable. Supporting paragraph 3.26

states that there may be sites “just outside” where “there may be overriding sustainability reasons for

permitting development, such as supporting movement up the waste hierarchy or being well located to

the strategic road network.” Paragraph 3.35 identifies that in accordance with national and regional

policy waste management facilities should not be precluded from the AONB. Accordingly Policy WMP6a

states 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.”

Amongst other considerations RDLP Policy DS1 requires proposals avoid prejudicing the character and

qualities of the environment, particularly the AONB, and to respect the importance of the countryside in

terms of its distinct landscape character, natural resources, woodland and agriculture. The RDLP

envisages that the predominant land uses in rural areas will continue to be woodland and agriculture and

that protecting the character of the countryside, most of which is in the AONB, is very important. RDLP

Policy DS2 deals with development in rural areas generally restricting to development which needs to be

located in the countryside. RDLP Policy DS3 defines development boundaries for existing towns and

villages with the majority of new development expected to take place within development boundaries.

On land shown as countryside outside the development area boundaries RDLP Policy DS4 expects

existing uses, for the most part, to remain unchanged.

Page 34 of 41

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

Structure Plan (now SEP) and Local 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 emerging RDC Proposed Submission Core Strategy contains similar policies dealing with protection

of designated areas and to guide the pattern of activity and development; namely OSS1; OSS3; OSS4;

and OSS5.

This application concerns waste recycling and recovery development in the AONB but at a scale which

the WLP considers to be small scale. Consistent with policies C3 (SEP), WLP1 and WLP35 (WLP); and

DS1 (RDLP) assessments of the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the landscape

is required.

Landscape and visual assessments have been undertaken. The work included addressing the reasons

for the issuing of the EN. The existing use of the land under the EUC, which would continue, was taken

into consideration. The landscape and visual assessments identified that the AONB, in this area, is

characterised by the undulating topography of the High Weald, which rolls away in a series of deeply

incised, northerly orientated valleys from the main west to east ridge at Baldslow (Baldslow lies to the

south west of the site). Also characteristic of the locality is the abundance of woodland and mature

vegetation networks and hedgerows.

The topography and vegetation cover in the locality, together with the dense perimeter vegetation forming

the boundary of the site, screen the site from many of the potential views. The assessment identified that

visibility of the site was limited to a radius of approximately 500m to 1 km to the east and north and

approximately 200m to the south. Within the zone of visibility, activity on the site would largely be

screened by the existing boundary vegetation and the adjoining scrap metal yard development. Views of

and into the site from Public Right of Way (Footpath 52) are largely screened by existing vegetation,

though glimpsed views are possible when the trees and hedgerows are not in leaf. For these reasons

much of the planning proposal does not register in the landscape, nor is it visible from public vantage

points.

In terms of impact on the landscape Waterman considers the waste development is not fundamentally

different from the uses covered under the EUC which have been in existence since the designation of the

AONB. The site is previously developed land and although the proposed waste use involves additional

activity at the site, the nature and characteristics involving transport of materials to and from the site, and

the storage and processing of materials are similar to the EUC use and involves shared use of some

plant. The waste use would generate up to 20 vehicle movements per day and the traffic generated by

EUC use has been assessed as also being 20 vehicle movements per day. That is a worst case

scenario.

The other assessments identified a range of measures to mitigate identified potential impacts. These

include adopting a landscape strategy to strengthen and enhance the screening properties of the

boundary vegetation, implementing operational features (such as control over stockpile heights, dust

control measures, control over hours and days of operation) to minimise the impact on recreational use of

the AONB, and the amenity of local residents, and assist in absorbing the proposed waste development

into the local landscape, enhancing features of value, and improving the site’s contribution to the

landscape character and visual amenity of this part of the AONB.

A “Landscape and Visual Addendum Report” assessing the impact of incorporating an acoustic barrier

into the proposals has additionally been prepared. The report confirms the additional controls to be

adopted, including techniques to avoid impact on trees and vegetation, and recommends a native screen

planting mix.

Page 35 of 41

Having assessed the nature of the waste development Waterman is of the opinion that, with the

screening afforded by boundary vegetation and the vegetation and topography in the locality of the site,

the proposal does not detract from the character of and quality of the landscape and countryside, nor is it

incompatible with the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the High Weald AONB.

As referred to above, the existing WLP, emerging waste and minerals plan and RDLP and emerging RDC

Core Strategy refer to difficulties in accommodating new development in the plan areas due to the nature

of the built and natural environments, and extensive areas covered by designations, the AONB in

particular.

Waste development is not precluded from the AONB under national and regional (SEP) policy, and WLP

policy relating to minor/small scale waste development in the AONB requires proposals to accord with the

objectives of, and not cause damage to, AONBs, and be of a scale, form and character appropriate to the

location, and not result in an adverse impact on the recreational use of an area or use of existing public

rights of way.

The site lies just outside the Hastings area of focus identified in the Submission WMP. Under the waste

management section above it has been demonstrated there is a qualitative need for additional waste

management capacity for C&D waste in the WLP area, to serve rural villages and settlements in the east

of the Plan area and the urban area of Hastings which the application site is proximal to and ideally

placed to serve, as well as supporting movement up the waste hierarchy. No suitable alternative site

outside the AONB and within a development boundary or the urban area of Hastings has been identified.

The application site with access direct to the A28 which links to the A21 is well located to the strategic

road network. Accordingly Waterman considers in terms of RDLP policy DS4 and emerging RDC

Proposed Submission Core Strategy Policies OSS3 and OSS4 it has been demonstrated that a

countryside location is necessary for a facility, of this small scale, of this type in this location at this time.

The potential impact of the waste development on the landscape and character of the AONB from

contamination issues, cultural heritage, noise, dust, air quality (emissions from vehicles and plant and

machinery), and transport are considered in the sections below.

11.5 Environmental Impacts

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

development and determination of planning applications / appeals. SEP Policy W17 states that facilities

at existing sites and potential new sites should be assessed against characteristics including being

capable of meeting a range of locally based environmental and amenity criteria. The SEP recognises that

noise can have a serious effect on the quiet enjoyment of property and places, reducing quality of life and

Policy NRM 10 (Noise) states that measures to address and reduce noise pollution will be developed at

regional and local levels through design and construction measures, the location of new development and

managing traffic noise.

SEP Policy NRM 9 (Air Quality) aims to secure continued improvements in air quality in the region and

identifies that local development documents, and development control, can help achieve improvements in

local air quality in a number of ways, including encouraging use of best practice during construction

activities to reduce levels of dust and other pollutants and reducing the environmental impacts of

transport.

Paragraph 6.7 of the WLP states that proposals for minor waste proposals in the AONB will be assessed

against relevant policies in the plan and any other local plans. WLP Policy 35 (General Amenity) requires

proposals to satisfy a range of criteria including: impact on the amenity of land uses likely to be affected;

whether adequate means of controlling matters such as noise and dust are secured; impact on the

recreational or tourist use of an area or use of public rights of way; and no unacceptable adverse effect

on areas or features of demonstrable landscape, archaeological or historic importance.

Page 36 of 41

WLP Policy 36 deals with specific transport issues associated with waste management proposals

including consideration of access arrangements, impact on safety of other road users, cyclists and

pedestrians and impact of the amount of traffic generated. These requirements are carried forward in

Policies WMP24 and WMP25 in the Submission WMP.

General development considerations in policies Policy GD1 of the RDLP Policy and emerging RDC

Proposed Submission Core Strategy Policy OSS5 contain criteria against which the acceptability of

proposals are considered including the impact on amenity of adjoining properties, traffic and transport

impacts, impact on the character and appearance of the locality, compatibility with the conservation of the

natural beauty of the High Weald AONB, ensuring development does not prejudice the character,

appearance or setting of heritage features, addresses any known or suspected contamination of the site,

or threat from landfill gas.

As referred to above in the section entitled “Identification of Potential Impacts” a number of assessments

have been undertaken.

11.5.1 Contaminated land

Development plan policy requires the potential for contamination and risk from landfill gas to be

investigated and where necessary provision made for suitable remediation. Given the site was a former

mineral working and landfill completed in the 1980s, an assessment of the potential for contamination and

landfill gas and impacts has been undertaken. This identified no risk to the current use or future

development from contamination from the landfilled materials or risk from landfill gas. No remedial works

are required. Fly tipped, presumed asbestos containing materials, and Japanese knotweed, an invasive

species listed in Schedule 9 Part II of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, were found on site. The

Japanese knotweed was found on the boundary in the south eastern part of the site outside the

operational area, but where landscape works are proposed. To address these matters the applicant is

removing the fly tipped materials from the site for proper disposal and will undertake an eradication

scheme to control and remove Japanese knotweed from the site as part of the proposed landscaping

scheme.

Accordingly it is considered the proposal complies with Policy GD1 (xiii) (RDLP) and emerging Policy

OSS5 (iv) (RDC Proposed Submission Core Strategy).

11.5.2 Cultural heritage

The site is previously developed land, including use for mineral extraction and waste disposal. Current

uses include a woodyard and waste development. No ground works (save for the limited excavation of

post holes to support the acoustic barrier), erection of buildings or removal of existing vegetation on the

site boundary is proposed. The boundary vegetation and hedgerow along the access road to the north

will be retained, managed and enhanced.

The “Heritage Report” concluded the development would not impact on designated heritage assets in the

surrounding area or their setting nor, provided it was retained and enhanced, the existing hedgerow and

mature trees surrounding the site which were of importance as a heritage asset of historic interest to the

AONB. Accordingly the proposal complies with the objectives of the High Weald AONB Management

Plan and the following development plan policies: C3 (SEP), WLP35 (WLP), GD1(iv, v and vi) (RDLP). It

also accords with the following emerging policies: WMP26 (Submission WMP) and OSS4, OSS5 and

EN1 (RDC Proposed Submission Core Strategy).

Page 37 of 41

11.5.3 Noise

The noise assessment considered the impact of the waste development on the noise environment at

existing noise sensitive receptors and the countryside in the vicinity of the site, including the noise impact

from traffic. The noise assessment demonstrates that the waste development can operate without

harming amenity at nearby residential properties or the recreational amenity and enjoyment of the AONB

by users of the nearest public right of way, and no additional noise control measures were necessary. If

the planning permission is granted control over operational hours would provide control over noise

through restricting the days and times the waste use operates, to the benefit of local amenity.

Following pre-application liaison undertaken with ESCC an additional noise report (the “Addendum Noise

Report”) has been prepared. The addendum report includes for the siting of an acoustic barrier (2.2

metres in height) and takes account of ESCC’s consultation feedback. The report demonstrates noise

impact from the proposed development will be reduced when compared with previous predictions (in the

original report) and fall below the minimum monitored background noise level at each identified sensitive

receptor.

In relation to noise the proposal complies with paragraph 109 of the NPPF and is consistent with the

Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) dated March 2010. The proposal also complies with the

following development plan policies: NRM10 and C3 (SEP), WLP35 (WLP), and GD1(ii, iv, v) (RDLP). It

also accords with the following emerging policies: WMP24 and WMP26 (Submission WMP) and OSS5

and EN1 (RDC Proposed Submission Core Strategy).

11.5.4 Dust

The waste development proposed at the site has the potential to generate particulate dust and impact on

local amenity and the local environment. A generic dust risk assessment has been undertaken - see the

section entitled “Dust Control” above assessing the potential for dust generation from the development,

the types of waste to be managed at the site and activities to be undertaken (vehicle movement, loading

and unloading of materials and processing), the potential to impact on receptors in the vicinity of the site;

and to identify appropriate dust control, mitigation and management measures required to ensure the

development does not result in an unacceptable dust impact on receptors. 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.

The generic dust risk assessment identified that the potential for dust escape from the site could be

controlled by a number of means including: sheeting (or other load containment measures) of vehicles

transporting waste materials; limiting vehicle speeds within the site; preventing build-up of dust or other

debris on the site surface and access areas; location of stockpiles within the site, minimising dust

emission by minimising drop heights, dust suppression on stockpiles and temporarily ceasing operations,

for example during dry windy conditions. The generic dust risk assessment concluded that with

appropriate mitigation the residual risk of dust escape from the site is low. The waste development and

plant and equipment used for waste processing would also be subject to dust management controls

through the Environmental Permitting Regime.

It can therefore be concluded that the waste development at the site is capable of being operated in a

way that the creation of dust is minimised and dust emissions controlled. These can be secured by

planning condition and through the Environmental Permitting Regime such that the waste development

will not give rise to adverse effects on neighbouring amenity or the environment and enjoyment of the

AONB and the proposal complies with the following development plan policies: NRM9 (SEP), WLP35

(WLP), and GD1(ii, iv, v) (RDLP). It also accords with the following emerging policies: WMP24

(Submission WMP) and OSS5 (RDC Proposed Submission Core Strategy).

Page 38 of 41

11.5.5 Air Quality

An assessment of the impact of vehicle and plant emissions has been undertaken see the section entitled

“Air Pollution” above. This found that the amount of traffic generated by the waste development and

emissions from the operation of plant and machinery on the site would not result in significant changes in

local air quality. The applicant would maintain plant and equipment in good working order which could be

secured by planning condition.

In relation to air quality it has been demonstrated that emissions from traffic generated by the proposal

and operation of plant and machinery at the site would not result in significant adverse impact on air

quality such as the proposal complies with the following development plan policies: NRM9 (SEP), WLP35

(WLP), and GD1(ii, iv, v) (RDLP). It also accords with the following emerging policies: WMP24

(Submission WMP) and OSS5 (RDC Proposed Submission Core Strategy).

11.5.6 Transport

An assessment of the transport impact of the proposed waste development has been undertaken see the

section entitled “Access and Transportation” above. This assessed the suitability of the existing access

arrangements to the site; the local highway network that would be used to access the site, including

accident data; for the traffic that would be generated (vehicle numbers and type) as well as the traffic

generated by the existing EUC uses. Accessibility by non-car modes of travel, including public transport

for employees based at the site was also assessed.

Within the site there is sufficient space for onsite vehicle manoeuvring, loading and unloading of waste

and the existing EUC uses and parking. A wheel cleaning facility is to be provided. The proposal is likely

to generate very low traffic movements (waste transport and employees), which together with the traffic

generated by the existing EUC use would be in the order of 4 two way movements an hour over the

proposed ten hour working day. This rate of trip generation is considered to be very low. The increase in

vehicle movements attributable to the proposed waste use would not result in an adverse impact on the

local highway in terms of highway capacity and highway safety and impact on other road users, including

cyclists and pedestrians. The existing access arrangements are of sufficient design to accommodate the

volume and nature of the traffic that would be generated by the waste use, and no improvements are

required. For employees the site would be accessible by alternative modes of travel, other than the car,

such as walking, cycling and public transport.

As demonstrated in the section entitled “Waste Management Issues” the site would provide a small scale

facility for C&D waste recycling. Existing capacity of this type in the WLP area is located to the west of

Hastings. The site, with direct access onto the A28, has good road access and is well located to serve

the urban area of Hastings and settlements in the east of the Plan area. It would provide a local facility to

meet the needs of this part of East Sussex, is located as closely as practicable to the sources of waste

that would be managed by it and would reduce the distance waste would need to travel.

The impact of traffic in terms of noise, dust and air quality has also been assessed and the assessments

concluded that the traffic generated by the waste facility at the site would not result in adverse impact on

residential amenity, the recreational use of the AONB or users of Footpath 52 (Public Right of Way), and

the environment in the AONB.

In relation to transport considerations the proposal complies with the following development plan policies:

C3 (SEP), WLP35 and WLP36 (WLP), GD1(ii, iii, iv, v) and TR2 (RDLP). It also accords with the

following emerging policies: WMP24 and WMP25 and WMP26 (Submission WMP) and OSS5 (RDC

Proposed Submission Core Strategy).

Page 39 of 41

11.6 Liaison with ESCC

As noted in the section entitled “Pre-application Liaison” the applicant has, in formulating this planning

application, sought an opportunity to engage with ESCC. It is greatly appreciated that ESCC agreed to

undertake this liaison, particularly given circumstances relating to this site.

The applicant considers the liaison is consistent with the NPPF, most notably “approach[ing] decision-

taking in a positive way” (paragraph 186), “look[ing] for solutions rather than problems” (paragraph 187).

It is considered the liaison enabled the revision and evolution of the proposed development (to

incorporate additional noise mitigation) and this resulted in an improvement to the quality of the proposal.

Page 40 of 41

12. Conclusions

The application concerns the use of land at Hole Farm as a small scale facility for the recycling and

recovery of construction and demolition waste, handling predominantly demolition waste. The site is

previously developed land with an EUC which includes for use as a general woodyard and storage of

hardcore; this use will continue. The site is situated outside a designated development boundary and lies

within the countryside and the High Weald AONB. In issuing the EN, ESCC considered the use of the

land for waste processing:

conflicted with Policies DS4 (‘Outside Development Boundary’) and GD1(iv) (‘Development Criteria –

Character and Appearance’) of the RDLP; and

did not accord with the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty in the area, thereby

conflicting with SEP Policy C3 (‘Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty’), WLP Policy 35 (e) (‘General

Amenity – Landscape’) and RDLP Policy GD1(v) (‘High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’).

In assessing the planning merits of the change of use alleged in the EN, and seeking to demonstrate that

planning permission should be granted, Waterman has assessed the proposal against a range of relevant

development plan policies and issues. Taking account of the scale and nature of the proposed waste

development the proposal has been assessed in the light of policies in the adopted and emerging

development plan and national policy for waste management; development in the countryside and the

AONB; and various environmental and amenity criteria relevant to the locality.

Although small scale the proposed development will make a valuable contribution to sustainable waste

management in East Sussex through driving waste management up the waste hierarchy and reducing

demand for primary raw minerals. Work undertaken in connection with the review of the WLP, assessing

current and future provision for waste facilities does not identify a need for the emerging waste and

minerals plan to make provision for additional CDEW recycling capacity. However, not all existing CDEW

recycling capacity is available for production of recycled and secondary aggregates and the current

distribution of capacity is not well distributed to serve the east of the plan area.

A qualitative need for a facility of this type to serve the east of the plan area has been demonstrated. The

application site, with direct access to the A28 which links to the A21 is well located to the strategic road

network and is ideally located to serve this area. No suitable alternative site outside the AONB, within a

development boundary or the urban area of Hastings has been identified.

East Sussex County Council and Rother District Council acknowledge in their plans that due to the nature

of the natural and built environments, and extensive areas covered by environmental designations, there

is difficulty in identifying suitable sites and land for development.

Although the site lies outside the Westfield Lane development boundary, within the countryside and

AONB the land is not in agricultural or woodland use, but previously developed land. Waste development

is not precluded from the AONB. No suitable alternative site outside the AONB has been identified and it

has been demonstrated that a countryside location is necessary for this small scale waste development to

serve the urban area of Hastings and the rural area to the east.

The landscape and visual assessment has demonstrated that the proposal is of a scale, form and

character appropriate to this part of the High Weald AONB and will not detract from the character of, and

quality of, the landscape and countryside, nor is it incompatible with the conservation and enhancement

of the natural beauty of the AONB.

Assessments undertaken have demonstrated that the operation of a small scale waste recycling facility at

the site will not cause harm to the landscape and character of the AONB. The assessments on other

matters including noise, dust, air pollution and access and traffic, clearly demonstrate that the proposal,

as described above, complete with the mitigation measures proposed and where necessary secured by

planning condition, is capable of being operated without resulting in an adverse impact on residential

Page 41 of 41

amenity, the recreational use of the AONB, users of Footpath 52 (Public Right of Way) and the

environment in the AONB and therefore complies with the relevant development plan policies and

national policies in the NPPF.

August 2012

57 N:\Projects\E12597\100\Reports\Working Drafts\EED12597-100-R-5.1.2-MCM.CH.docx