Agenda item

(Director of Planning and Economic Development) To consider the attached report.

The Panel received a report regarding ECC Minerals Development Document – Further Site Allocations Issues and Options.

 

ECC was responsible for preparing the County level Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF). As part of this framework, ECC was working towards a new Minerals Development Document (MDD) replacing the existing Minerals Local Plan (1996). The MDD was required by the Government to plan for a steady and adequate supply of minerals in Essex to meet the County’s current and future needs to 2028 identifying suitable sites for mineral extraction, aggregate recycling, and mineral transportation. Several stages of consultation had taken place since 2005 the next opportunity to comment on site A41, Patch Park Farm, Abridge, would be the submission consultation to be held in 2012.

 

As part of the Preferred Options, ECC invited consultees to suggest any other potential sites which had been overlooked. It was currently consulting on the five new site suggestions received. The consultation closed on 20 October 2011.

 

Effect on Epping Forest District

 

The only new site suggestion within Epping Forest District was at Weald Hall Commercial Centre, on Weald Hall Lane, between Thornwood and North Weald. The proposal was that this site became a “Strategic Aggregate Recycling Site” (SARS). “Aggregate” was defined as “crushed rock, or sand and gravel, used in civil engineering work in a bound (as concrete) or unbound condition.” It was proposed that the facility would recycle construction, demolition and excavation waste from construction sites. The amount of material to be recycled at the site is 100,000 tonnes.

 

The County Council recommended considering criteria in formulating a response. Each criterion was addressed in turn below:

 

(a)        Mineral Resource and Timetable

 

It was proposed that the site was used for recycling existing construction, demolition and excavation waste. No materials would be extracted from the ground on the site. The site would be a permanent facility, lasting beyond the current plan period.

 

(b)       Planning History/Background

 

This site was currently in employment use, although not designated as an employment site within the Local Plan. It appeared that no consideration had been made of whether the existing businesses could partly remain on site, or could be relocated locally.

 

(c)        Landscape

 

The site was entirely within the Green Belt. The proposal was to use the existing buildings for recycling, and that outside storage would be minimal. The use of this site for aggregate recycling could have a materially greater impact.

 

(d)       Ecology and Designations

 

Officers were not aware of any ecological issues, or designations other than those answered in other points.

 

(e)       Historic Environment

 

Weald Hall Farmhouse, which was on the proposed site, was a Grade II listed building. Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment stated that when considering applications which would not make a positive contribution to the setting of a listed building, the Council should “weigh any such harm against the wider benefits of the application.”

 

(f)        Agriculture

 

It was not thought that the proposal would cause significant impacts on local agriculture, as the land was not currently in agricultural use.

 

(g)       Proximity to Sensitive Uses

 

The entrance to the site was directly opposite two residential houses, and within 130 metres of Weald Hall Nursing Home. The use of the site for aggregate recycling could potentially be disruptive to residents in these buildings.

 

(h)       Water/Hydrology/Flood Risk

 

Views had been sought from the Land Drainage team on potential issues. However the lead in time for this report was too short to allow a reply to be made.

 

(i)         Traffic and Transportation

 

The proposal could result in a significant increase in vehicle movements to and from the site, mostly by HGVs. The proposal was to use the existing access road to the north east of the site, which leads up to Canes Lane. This small road was unlikely to be suitable for the amount of traffic likely to ensue.

 

(j)         Recreation

 

North Weald Airfield directly adjacent to the site, was currently used for recreational rather than commercial flights, and was also home to a flight school, as detailed in the recent Halcrow “North Weald Airfield Intensification Study.” The amenity of these various uses could potentially be affected by the proposal.

 

(k)        Amenity and Pollution

 

The proposal would involve screening, crushing and washing of aggregate materials, which could give rise to pollution in the air, which may affect the use of the adjacent airfield. Similarly, the HGVs transporting material to and from the site could cause air pollution. There was also a form of clubhouse on the airfield, on the southern boundary of the proposed site, whose amenity could be adversely affected by the increase in noise. The Contaminated Land Officer reported that the site had been identified as a potentially contaminated site due its former use as a farmyard and its use by various industrial units, the presence of made grounds and bunds, and the presence of backfilled ponds and a moat.

 

(l)         After – Use and Restoration

 

It was not thought that this criterion applied in this case, as the proposal was that the site would be permanent.

 

(m)       Other potential benefits of this site

 

None were apparent

 

Suggested response to consultation questions.

 

Only question 4 related to the Weald Hall Commercial Centre site. It was agreed that answers were not given to the other five questions as none of the sites were in this District.

 

Question 4 had three parts.

 

(i)         Do you support this potential Strategic Aggregate Recycling Site?

 

No

 

(ii)        Do you object to this potential Strategic Aggregate Recycling Site?

 

Yes

 

(iii)       If (you answer yes to) (b), are there any charges that could be made to this proposal that would make it acceptable to you?

 

No

 

This was an unsuitable location for a Strategic Aggregate Recycling Site. This site was currently in commercial employment use, and the proposed use was likely to create/sustain fewer jobs by comparison. The Council would seek to safeguard this site as an existing employment location. The Director of Planning and Economic Development reported the views of Land Drainage and Noise and Environment Teams. The noise and environment comments were based on experience of a site elsewhere which was predominantly an open site. Plainly piles of crushed material would only economically be stored in such a manner. Therefore that emphasised the proposal was inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and led to objections about dust and consequent impacts upon local amenities, and upon the airfield and aircraft.

 

This Council was very concerned that this proposed site was not included in the Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment Statement. It was far too late to consider the sustainability and environmental affect of a proposal only once the submission stage of consultation was reached. The impact of such a proposal should be assessed from the start of the process, as with all the other proposed sites.

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

(1)        That the potential impacts of the new proposal for a Strategic Aggregate Recycling Site (SARS) at Weald Hall Commercial Centre within Essex County Council’s Minerals Development Document Further Site Allocations Issues and Options Paper be noted;

 

(2)        That the proposed response to the only relevant consultation question, number 4, be as set out below:

 

“(i)        Do you support this potential Strategic Aggregate recycling Site?

 

No

 

(ii)        Do you object to this potential Strategic Aggregate Recycling Site?

 

Yes

 

(iii)       If (you answer yes to) (b), are there any changes that could be made to this proposal that would make it acceptable to you?

 

No”

 

(3)        That any amendments to the final response necessary following receipt of comments from Land Drainage officers be agreed with the Planning and Technology Portfolio Holder and the Chair of Planning Scrutiny Standing Panel; and

 

(4)        That the Director of Planning and Economic Development share the Panel’s comments with Councillors for Epping Lindsey and Thornwood and North Weald wards; and

 

(5)        That the procedure agreed at Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 24 January 2011 (Minute 70) be used to ensure that the Panel’s recommendations meet the consultation deadline.