Archived decisions

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Decision Report

1. Executive Summary

1.1. Condition 16 of the planning permission for the Marchwood Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) restricts the waste to that collected by or on behalf of the Waste Collection Authorities in Hampshire and waste from other sources in Hampshire. The proposal is to vary this condition to give greater flexibility in the operation of the plant by extending the sources of waste to include commercial waste and from other waste authorities when there is spare capacity.

1.2. The application was considered by the Committee at its meeting on 7 October 2009 when it was resolved to defer the application, requesting further information concerning the source of the waste.

1.3. There would be no change in the capacity of the plant, no change in the numbers of lorries travelling to and from the plant nor the type of waste, the change would be the source of the waste.

1.4. In response to the request for further information, the non Hampshire waste would be primarily from Dorset currently delivered to Blue Haze Landfill site for disposal. This would be transfer loaded to Marchwood ERF rather than landfilled at Blue Haze when there was spare capacity at the ERF. However, waste may arrive at the ERF from other locations when its used as `back up' for other facilities in Hampshire when they are closed for maintenance or other reasons. Under the current condition No 16 this would be unauthorised.

1.5. It is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan (Policies S3, S5 and DC13) and would not materially harm the character of the area or the amenity of local residents (Policy DC8) and would be acceptable in terms of highway safety and convenience (Policy DC6).

2. Site and proposal

2.1. As shown on the attached plan the Marchwood ERF is located at Oceanic Way, within the Marchwood Industrial Estate. Access is gained via an approved haul route which is from the junction of Jacobs Gutter Lane with the A326, and then via Jacobs Gutter lane, Bury Road, Normandy Way and Cracknore Hard. Other than for vehicles involved in the collection of waste within Marchwood, Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) delivering waste to the ERF are prohibited from using all other roads within the parish of Marchwood. Planning permission (69546) was granted for the Marchwood ERF in July 2001.

2.2. Condition 16 of planning permission 69546 states: `Waste incinerated at the plant or passing through the waste transfer station shall be restricted to waste collected on or on behalf of the Waste Collection Authorities in Hampshire and waste from other sources in Hampshire, including Household waste Recycling Centres, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. `

2.3. The application was considered at the Regulatory Committee meeting on 7 October 2009 when it was resolved to defer consideration requesting further information on the source of waste.

2.4. The applicant, Veolia, states that the proposal is to give greater flexibility in the operation of the plant by extending the waste to include commercial and local authority waste from sources outside Hampshire when there is spare capacity at the ERF. The objective of the application is to achieve greater efficiency in the operation of the ERFs whilst still ensuring that capacity is available for the residual waste collected by Hampshire Waste Collection Authorities but would enable any spare capacity that may become available to be utilised for other waste in a more efficient way than the current condition allows.

2.5. Whilst there has been no change in the technology there has been an increase in the incineration capacity of the plant over that envisaged at the time of the original planning application through increased efficiency and change in the calorific value of the waste, particularly through the removal of paper and plastics for recycling. The original planning application was assessed on the basis of 194,860 tonnes per year being delivered, comprising 165,000 tonnes to the ERF and 29,860 tonnes for waste transfer. In 2008 the total waste incinerated at the site totalled 192,000 tonnes, there is no waste transfer facility, and planning permission has been granted for a Waste Transfer Station at the old Marchwood Incinerator site.

2.6. In relation to the lorry traffic the original application envisaged average movements of 1412 per week, however lorry movements during 2008 averaged 659 per week. The reason for the reduction is that there has been less direct deliveries by waste collection vehicles and an increased use of higher payload bulkers to transfer waste to the ERF. This pattern would continue in the future and would not be altered by this application.

2.7. In response to the Committees request for further information on the sources of waste envisaged by this application, waste is currently delivered to the Blue Haze Landfill, Ringwood from sources within Dorset for disposal. If there is spare capacity at the Marchwood ERF this waste could be transfer loaded to the ERF for disposal rather than being landfilled at Blue Haze. This would have the benefit of reserving the void capacity for waste from Hampshire that cannot be dealt with by any other means Moreover, the incineration of waste is clearly preferable to landfill and would be in accordance with the aim of the Core Strategy of `.. driving waste management up the waste hierarchy.. ' by minimising where possible the amount of waste which is disposed of by landfill in Hampshire. Finally, the ERF would also would act as `back up' for other plant in Hampshire when they are closed for maintenance or other reasons. For instance, the Portsmouth ERF might take some waste from West Sussex but if the plant is closed, Marchwood may have to take the waste instead. Currently it is not authorised to do so.

2.8. Regarding the other ERFs, the one at Portsmouth - as permitted by the Secretary of State - was not restricted in accepting waste by geographic area, only the type of waste. The Chineham ERF was both restricted to accepting waste from Hampshire Waste Collection Authorities. Both ERFs now have had their relevant conditions modified to that proposed by the current application for Marchwood.

2.9. No other waste facilities in Hampshire have had their waste acceptance criteria as restricted hitherto at the ERFs. For instance the Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) that was granted permission recently and is now operational has 200,000 tpa capacity and receives waste from as far away as Wales and London.

3. Development plan

3.1. Hampshire Portsmouth Southampton and New Forest National Park Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2007) Policy S3 (Net self-sufficiency), S5 (Capacity Requirements for Recycling, Composting and Recovery and Treatment), Policy DC6 (Highways) Policy DC8 (Pollution, health, quality of life and amenity) and Policy DC13 (Waste Management and Recycling) are relevant.

4. Consultations

4.1. The Local Member, Councillor Harrison comments his primary responsibility is to represent the interests of the people in Marchwood and Totton South who will be directly impacted by future, ongoing usage of the site, way beyond what Hampshire County Council previously considered reasonable. On the basis that permission would likely extend the life of this activity he wants to object to this part of the application.

4.2. New Forest District Council raises no objection.

4.3. Environmental Health New Forest state as there will be no further loss of amenity and so have no comments.

4.4. Environment Agency comment application has a low environmental risk.

4.5. Highway Authority raises no objection.

4.6. Marchwood Parish Council fully support as increases the efficiency of a public amenity/service.

5. Representations

5.1. An objection has been received from Councillor Alison Hoare (New Forest District Councillor and Marchwood Parish Councillor) raising concern that Veolia wish to bring waste from outside Hampshire to the site. This will increase lorries using Jacobs Gutter Lane and Normandy Way, this should be viewed in the context of a cumulative impact with the large number of lorries using these roads. The original proposals included a waste transfer station at the same site, but permission now granted for a larger waste transfer station at the site of the old incinerator. Despite promises the old incinerator still has not been demolished.

5.2. Objections have been raised in two letters from local residents concerned at an increase in lorry traffic.

6. Commentary

6.1. The applicant states that the variation is to enable waste from commercial or other waste collection authorities from outside Hampshire to be accepted when there is spare capacity at the Marchwood ERF. Together with similar applications for the other two ERFs the purpose is to enable more efficient use of these facilities. The variation would not increase the capacity of the ERF, increase traffic movements above existing levels, nor change the types of waste and consequently would not change the environmental controls under which the ERF operates.

6.2. In response to the concerns raised by Councillor Harrison, the planning permission is a permanent consent. Whilst the proposal would change the source of a proportion of the waste from that originally granted, this would have no impact for local residents at Marchwood. In particular it would not lead to an increase in lorry traffic numbers, as the proposals are to change the source of the waste, not the amount of waste.

6.3. Key strategic objectives of the Core Strategy are to support the driving waste resource infrastructure and management up the waste hierarchy and providing enough facilities to ensure that Hampshire is net self-sufficient in waste handling capacity. Policy S5 of the Core Strategy identifies the need for additional capacity for waste recovery and treatment, Table 18.2 in the Core Strategy indicating a minimum additional capacity of between 0.4 and 0.5 million tonnes will be required by 2020. Changes in waste collection, in particular increased recycling, since the facility was originally permitted along with better management of the facility means that some of the additional capacity need identified in the Core Strategy is being addressed by the existing ERFs. It would clearly be less efficient and less sustainable to run them at a lower capacity when there was similar waste from other sources which need disposal and would otherwise go to landfill. The ERFs also provide a secure sustainable source of energy, which would clearly be reduced if there was a lower capacity.

6.4. Policy S3 concerns net self-sufficiency, which recognises that cross boundary movements of waste will be inevitable, and that waste should be disposed of at the nearest appropriate site. The reason for this application is to have uniformity in terms of the sources of waste accepted at the ERFs in order to enable any spare capacity that may exist to be balanced with any waste that may be available to ensure that it is treated at the most proximate facility. This is in accordance with Policy S3. The fact that some of this waste may be from outside Hampshire does not make this contrary to policy. In this particular case waste is currently brought from within Dorset to the Blue Haze Landfill site for disposal by landfill, as this is the closest waste disposal facility. The existing condition precludes that waste being taken to the Marchwood ERF, even though there is a transfer facility at the Blue Haze Landfill site which brings Hampshire derived waste to the Marchwood ERF. By preventing this waste from being taken to Marchwood ERF it will be landfilled, which is contrary to the strategic objective of moving waste management up the hierarchy (where landfill is a last resort at the bottom) or transferred longer distances past Marchwood to one of the other ERFs.

6.5. In conclusion this proposal is only to change the source of the waste, it would not increase the capacity of the Marchwood ERF, not increase lorry traffic to and from the site nor change the type of waste. Consequently there would be little impact for the residents of Marchwood from this proposal. It is concluded that the proposal is also in accordance with Core Strategy policies S3 and S5 and therefore is recommended to grant permission.

7. Recommendation

7.1. That planning permission for the Proposed Variation of Condition 16 of PP:69546 to extend the range of waste to include other municipal or commercial waste in addition to waste collected by or on behalf of waste collection authorities in Hampshire at Marchwood Energy Recovery Facility, Oceanic Way, Marchwood Application No: 09/94435), be granted subject to the conditions in Appendix B.

Links to the Corporate Strategy

CONDITIONS

Commencement

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91(as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Protection of Water Environment

2. No soakaways shall be constructed such that they penetrate the water-table, and they shall not in any event exceed three metres in depth below existing ground level or be constructed in contaminated land. No solid matter shall be deposited so that it passes or is likely to pass into any watercourse.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.

3. The detailed surface water drainage scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To prevent pollution to the water environment.

4. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The bund capacity shall give 110% of the total volume for single and hydraulically linked tanks. If there is multiple tankage, the bund capacity shall be 110% of the largest tank or 25% of the total capacity of all tanks, whichever is the greatest. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses and overflow pipes shall be located within the bund. There shall be no outlet connecting the bund to any drain, sewer or watercourse or discharging onto the ground. Associated pipework shall be located above ground where possible and protected from accidental damage.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.

5. All external storage bays and fuel and wheel wash areas, and all internal drains must drain to foul sewer.

Reason: To prevent pollution of ground water.

Noise

6. Noise from the operation of the plant shall not exceed 53dBLAeq, one hour when measured at the site boundary.

Reason: To prevent noise disturbance to the residents of the nearest houses.

Lighting

7. The lighting scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to limit light pollution.

Waste type

8. Waste incinerated at the plant or passing through the waste transfer station shall be restricted to waste collected by or on behalf of the waste collection authorities in Hampshire and to other municipal and commercial waste in the event that the plant and/or the waste transfer station have capacity in excess of that required to meet the needs of the waste collection authorities in Hampshire.

Reason: To ensure the facility serves the waste disposal needs of Hampshire.

Environmental monitoring

9. The Environmental Monitoring Scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To monitor the environmental impacts of the development.

Operational impacts

10. The Scheme for managing the operation of the plant shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To control the off-site environmental impacts arising from operation.

Restriction of Permitted Development Rights

11. Notwithstanding the provisions of Parts 4, 8 and 25 Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order):

(i) fixed plant or machinery, buildings, structures and erections or private ways shall not be erected, extended, installed or replaced at the site without the prior agreement of the Waste Planning Authority in writing;

(ii) no telecommunications antenna shall be installed or erected without the prior agreement of the Waste Planning Authority in writing;

Reason: To protect the amenities of the area.

Storage

12. There shall be no outside storage of waste, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the area.

Decommissioning

13. Following the decommissioning of the plant, a scheme and timetable for the demolition of the building and plant, and decontamination of the land, shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for approval in writing. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To ensure that the land is capable of beneficial use as advised by Environment Circular 02/98

Annexe to Reasons for Conditions

(as required by Article 22 of the Town and Country Planning

(General Procedure) Order 1995 - as amended)

Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2007

S3 - Net Self-Sufficiency

By 2016, Hampshire will achieve `net self sufficiency' in waste management capacity and waste will be disposed of at the nearest appropriate site. No provision will be made for London's waste in the period to 2016, provision post-2016 will be considered by a review of the Strategy.

S5 - Capacity Requirements for Recycling, Composting and Recovery and Treatment

Waste management capacity (including specialist facilities as detailed in Policy S7) will be provided in the period to 2020, as follows:

· Recycling and Composting - facilities for the reception, storage, segregation and processing of 1.86 million tonnes a year of municipal, commercial and industrial waste (and associated bulking-up, transfer and contingency storage facilities);

· Recovery and Treatment - facilities for the reception, storage and treatment of 0.93 million tonnes a year of municipal, commercial and industrial waste (and associated bulking-up and transfer facilities).

DC6 - Highways

Major mineral extractions, landfills and `strategic' recycling, aggregate processing and recovery and treatment facilities, will be permitted provided they have a suitable access to and/or route to the minerals and waste lorry route as illustrated on the Key Diagram. In all cases, minerals and waste development will only be permitted if it pays due regard to the likely volume and nature of traffic that would be generated by the proposal and the suitability of the proposed access to the site and of the road network that would be affected. Consideration should be given to highway capacity, road and pedestrian safety, congestion and environmental impact, and whether any highway improvements are required and whether these could be carried out satisfactorily without causing unacceptable environmental impact.

DC8 - Pollution, health, quality of life and amenity

Minerals and waste development will only be permitted if due regard is given to the pollution and amenity impacts on the residents and users of the locality and there is unlikely to be an unacceptable impact on health and/or the quality of life of occupants of nearby dwellings and other sensitive properties. Where necessary minerals and waste developments should include mitigation measures, such as buffer zones between the site and such properties.

DC13 - Waste Management and Recycling (including Aggregate Recycling Facilities)

Waste management developments (excluding landfill) will be permitted provided that the site:

a. Is identified as a site, or within an area suitable for waste management uses, in the Hampshire Waste Management Plan or Minerals Plans, or

b. Re-uses/redevelops previously developed land and/or redundant agricultural and forestry buildings (including their curtilages), or

c. Is within a planned area of large-scale development, or

d. Is on employment land, preferably co-located with complementary activities, and

e. Has good access to, the minerals and waste lorry route as shown on the Key Diagram, and where possible, the site enables the use of water-borne and rail freight, and

f. In the case of recovery and treatment sites, incoming waste shall be subject to pre-treatment, either on or off site to maximise the potential for recycling, and where technically possible, energy will be generated and used and the by-products, including heat, will be reused or recycled, and

g. In the case of sites providing public access, the site shall be accessible for use by disabled people.