Item No
Planning (Regulatory) Committee
24 September 2004
Applications Referred to Committee for Determination
North Norfolk District
C/1/2004/1011: Corpusty: Shrubbs Farm, Edgefield:
Composting:
ORM Waste Management plc
Report by the Director of Planning and Transportation
Summary
Proposed change of use of former farm building for reception and
pre-processing of materials for composting, increase in annual
tonnage and additional area for standing of eco-pods;
recommendation to grant permission.
1.
The Proposal
Location
:
Land at Shrubbs Farm, Edgefield.
Type of development
:
Waste development.
Waste type
:
Catering waste and feathers.
Area
:
0.8 hectares.
Annual tonnage
:
25,000 tonnes (from 10,000 tonnes)
Market served
:
North Norfolk and surrounding area.
Duration
:
To March 2015.
Plant
:
Mobile shredder and screener.
Hours of working
:
Deliveries and processing:
08.30 – 17.30 Monday – Friday
08.00 – 13.00 Saturday
Deliveries only:
13.00 – 16.00 Saturday
11.00 – 16.00 Sunday
Vehicle movements and
numbers
:
1.5 bulker x 28 tonnes and 3 HGVs x 13 tonnes
additional vehicles in per day
Access
:
Farm access road to B1149.
Landscaping
:
As existing.
Restoration and after-use
:
Agricultural use.
If you need this document in large print, audio, Braille,
alternative format or in a different language please
contact Cally Smith on 01603 223318 and we will do
our best to help. minicom 01603 223833.
File name: d:\533567419.doc
Page 1 of 9
Date created: 17/09/2004 11:22:00
Date and time last amended: 16/02/2016 20:00:00
2.
History
2.1.
In March 2003 planning permission was granted for a green waste composting
operation on land to the south-west of the application site (C/2002/1004). The
material, which comprises mainly green waste with wood and wood products,
paper, cardboard, vegetable matter and vegetable processing waste, sewage
sludge cake and animal manures also taken as available, is shredded as
necessary and loaded into long polythene tubes called ‘eco-pods’ which are
aerated and hydrated. After 6 – 10 weeks the compost is removed and matured
externally prior to use or sale. The site has been operational for approximately
one year.
2.2.
The farm has recently moved out of livestock and is now arable, with a small part
of the land used for vermiculture.
3.
Consultations
4.
4.1.
North Norfolk District
Council
:
No objection
Environmental Health
Officer
Corpusty and Saxthorpe
Parish Council
:
No objection subject to conditions
:
No objection in principle, but expresses concerns
over additional traffic through villages
Edgefield Parish Council
:
To be reported orally
Environment Agency
:
No objection
Highways
:
No objection
Access Development
officer
:
No objection, subject to environmental protection
conditions and erection of a sign advising
vehicular traffic of the Public Right of Way.
Open Spaces Society
:
Objection on grounds of impact of bio-aerosols,
noise and additional traffic on users of Public
Right of Way.
County Councillor
(Mr J Perry-Warnes)
:
Supports the application
County Councillor
(Mr R Wright)
:
To be reported orally
Local Residents
:
Nothing received
Assessment
Proposal
The proposal is for the change of use of an existing farm building to an area for
the reception, shredding and mixing of catering waste and feathers prior to their
being composted on the adjacent site using the eco-pod process. The
importation of an additional waste stream, plus an expansion of the existing green
waste facility, would see the annual throughput rise from 10,000 to 25,000
tonnes. An additional area to the south of the existing concrete road would be
used for the standing of further eco-pods.
File name: d:\533567419.doc
Page 2 of 9
Date created: 17/09/2004 11:22:00
Date and time last amended: 16/02/2016 20:00:00
4.2.
The application building is an open-sided barn formerly used for livestock
housing. It is proposed to fully enclose the building on the north, east and west
elevations using concrete blocks to the lower sections and steel profile sheeting
above this, with doors incorporated in the southern elevation to allow access.
The entire building would operate under negative pressure, plastic curtain
sheeting would be provided at the entrance to the building and a bio-filter would
be used to treat exhaust air. Material would be delivered to the south-west corner
of the building where it would be shredded and mixed with green waste (or other
waste) as appropriate before being loaded into one of the eco-pods using a
continuous, enclosed conveyor system. The composting process itself would
operate as permitted under the existing planning permission (C/2002/1004).
4.3.
It is proposed that processing would take place Mondays – Fridays and Saturday
mornings only, though some deliveries on Saturday afternoon and Sunday are
anticipated. All waste reception and shredding would take place within the
building in a concreted area with drainage to a separate tank; this water would be
re-circulated as necessary for process hydration. The proposal would generate
on average an additional 1.5 bulker vehicles with up to 28 tonne payload and
3 HGV with a 13 tonne payload per day. The existing operation generates
13 x 20 tonnes vehicles in per week.
4.4.
4.5.
4.6.
4.7.
Site
The application site covers approximately 0.8 hectare and is located on the
eastern side of the existing farm buildings at Shrubbs Farm. Comprising an
open-sided cattle shed, it is currently redundant following the cessation of the
livestock operation. The existing composting operation takes place on a former
silage and storage area to the south-west, there are three former sewage lagoons
(most recently used for irrigation) to the south and other farm buildings to the
north. The access road to the farm runs to the west boundary and there is
agricultural land, currently in arable use, beyond to the south, east and west.
The site is set on land rising from the B1149 (Norwich – Holt) road in an area of
undulating countryside. It is not covered by any statutory or non-statutory
landscape designations. The farm access road to the west has protected
bridleway rights and is a Public Right of Way.
The nearest residential properties are located beyond the farm buildings 40m to
the north of the proposed site. This property is occupied by the farm and site
manager.
Landscape
Policy WAS 3 of the Adopted Waste Local Plan (2000) states:
“Waste development for re-use, materials and energy recovery, transfer and
storage of waste will be permitted on industrial land. Small-scale recycling
operations, based on agricultural or other vegetable and animal wastes, will
be permitted on brownfield sites in the countryside, provided that they do not
have an unacceptable visual or other environmental effect on the area”
Brownfield land is defined in Annex C of Planning Policy Guidance Note 3
(PPG3) as ‘previously developed land’; that is land which is or was occupied by a
permanent structure and associated fixed surface infrastructure. The definition
specifically excludes buildings and land that were formerly in agricultural or
forestry use. The application site is not, therefore, either industrial or brownfield
land.
File name: d:\533567419.doc
Page 3 of 9
Date created: 17/09/2004 11:22:00
Date and time last amended: 16/02/2016 20:00:00
4.8.
Policy WAS 4 of the Adopted Waste Local Plan (2000) states
“Waste development for re-use, materials and energy recovery, transfer and
storage of waste, will not be permitted in the open countryside. However,
permission will be granted for re-use, materials and energy recovery, transfer
and storage of waste at minerals extraction and waste disposal sites,
provided that conditions are imposed which limit the life of the waste
management facility to an absolute number of years or to the period during
which the minerals or landfill operations continue, whichever is the shorter. A
condition will also be imposed requiring all buildings to be removed when
minerals or waste activities on the site cease”.
The site is classified as agricultural land for planning purposes and the proposal
is therefore contrary to the above policy.
4.9.
The above notwithstanding, the immediate environs of the site, comprising the
existing composting use, sewage/irrigation lagoons, farm buildings and hardstandings, give the area a semi-industrial appearance which would not be
significantly increased by the conversion of the building and the operations which
would be associated with the proposal. The location of the site adjacent to an
existing waste operation, and its relationship to that operation, is also relevant
and provides some justification for the location.
4.10.
Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires planning
authorities to determine applications in accordance with policies in the
development plan, however an authority may grant permission on a “departure
application” where the departure from the development plan would not cause
“significant prejudice” to the implementation of the plan’s policies and proposals.
In this case, whilst the proposal is not on industrial or brownfield land, or at an
existing minerals or waste site, it is not of such a scale or impact nor is it in a
location where it would cause “significant prejudice” to the implementation of the
plan’s policies and proposals. Were the Council minded to grant permission,
however, it would be necessary to advertise the proposal as a Departure.
4.11.
Policy WAS 10 of the Adopted Waste Local Plan (2000) seeks to ensure that
where waste development is permitted in the countryside, either on sites
allowable by WAS 3 and WAS 4 or as a departure, it is acceptable in visual
terms. It states:
“Waste development in the countryside will only be permitted where there
would be no unacceptable harm to the landscape and visual appearance of
the countryside, either during operations or in terms of the final landform”.
The application building is set on the eastern edge of the existing farm buildings
and it is viewed against these from the B1149. The conversion of the building
would not significantly affect its appearance when viewed in the context of the
existing operations and buildings. The additional land to be used for the siting of
further eco-pods is to the south of the existing site, set behind a low bund which
has been planted with a native hedge and which provides screening to this area.
There is no objection to the proposal on the grounds of visual impact.
Amenity
4.12.
Policy WAS 13 of the Adopted Waste Local Plan (2000) seeks to protect local
amenity and states:
File name: d:\533567419.doc
Page 4 of 9
Date created: 17/09/2004 11:22:00
Date and time last amended: 16/02/2016 20:00:00
“Waste development will be permitted only where there would be:
 No unacceptable harm to the amenities enjoyed by all; and
 No endangerment to human health”.
4.13.
The application is for the receipt and pre-processing of materials to be
composted, but the potential impacts on local amenity are similar to those from
composting itself in terms of effects from noise, dust, odour and bio-aerosols.
4.14.
Noise from the operations would derive from the screening and mixing of
materials, however the extent of these impacts would be limited by both the
containment of all operations within a fully enclosed building and by the relative
isolation of the site from residential and other properties. Whilst any additional
noise associated with the proposal would be experienced in the context of noise
from the existing site, there is concern that the cumulative impact of the two
operations could introduce an industrial element which could unduly affect the
predominantly rural character of the area. This could be prevented by the
retention of the noise condition on the original composting permission which
would ensure that the additional operation did not increase the noise burden
locally. The containment of all shredding and mixing operations within the
building and the use of an enclosed conveyor to transfer material from the
building to the eco-pods would also address the issue of dust and a damping
down system could be used within the building itself if necessary.
4.15.
Catering wastes and feathers can be intrinsically odorous, additionally they can
start to decompose quickly, meaning that there is a high potential for odour
associated with the receipt and pre-processing of this material. Odour from the
composting process, which is the subject of a separate permission, is controlled
through the immediate incorporation of material into the eco-pods and by
maintaining aerobic conditions and correct temperature and hydration levels and
these measures have worked satisfactorily. Control of odour from the preprocessing would be achieved by immediate processing of material to prevent
uncontrolled anaerobic decomposition, containment of all processing operations
within the building and transfer of material from the building to the eco-pods via
covered conveyor. The building would also be maintained under negative
pressure during processing and air from the building would be vented externally
via a bio-filter. These measures seek to address the operational avoidance of
odour, and the Environmental Health Officer is satisfied that, subject to conditions
to ensure adherence to the measures proposed, odour can be reasonably
controlled. Further amelioration of odour would also be provided by the distance
between the site and the nearest sensitive properties and operational measures
to control odour by adoption of good working practices would be covered in the
Waste Management Licence issued by the Environment Agency.
4.16.
Bio-aerosols are air-borne micro-organisms generated as a by-product of the
composting process. Although they are naturally present in the environment,
generated by standard agricultural operations for example, at elevated
concentrations they can have implications for health. The Environment Agency,
which is the statutory body with responsibility for pollution control and the County
Council’s expert advisor on such matters, has devised guidance on separation
distances based on the nature of the process, the type of waste and the proximity
of property. In this case, the nearest property lies 40m from the boundary of the
application site and there is a Public Right of Way adjacent to the boundary of the
File name: d:\533567419.doc
Page 5 of 9
Date created: 17/09/2004 11:22:00
Date and time last amended: 16/02/2016 20:00:00
application site. The release of bio-aerosols into the environment, however,
would be limited by processing being contained within the building and then
transferred to the eco-pods using an enclosed conveyor, whilst the treatment of
exhaust air through the bio-filter would further reduce emissions. The
Environment Agency are satisfied that these measures are sufficient to address
the issue of bio-aerosols and raise no objection.
4.17.
An objection to the application has been received from the Open Spaces Society
on the grounds that the proposed development would compromise the public’s
ability to use and the Public Right of Way which runs along the farm access due
to the proximity of bio-aerosols, noise and the additional vehicle movements. As
concluded above, it is not considered that the proposal would generate either bioaerosols or noise at a level which would adversely affect local amenity as both
could be controlled by operational measures which would be covered by planning
condition were permission to be granted. With regard to the shared use of the
access track by vehicles accessing the site and members of the public, such an
arrangement is not intrinsically unacceptable on what is historically a farm access
provided that any intensification of any development which is served by that
access is accompanied by measures to minimise conflict between the different
users. In this case, when the existing composting use was permitted a condition
was imposed requiring the erection of a sign setting a speed limit of 10 mph and
warning vehicle drivers of the shared use; this sign would be retained for the
duration of the development and, in addition, a passing place would be provided
to enable vehicles to wait to allow pedestrians and other users to pass. The
County Council’s Access Development Officer raises no objection to the proposal
and it is considered that these measures are sufficient to address the concerns of
the Open Spaces Society.
4.18.
In conclusion, there is no objection to the proposal on grounds of impact on
amenity.
4.19.
Highways
Policy WAS 16 of the Adopted Waste Local Plan (2000) states:
“Waste development will only be permitted where the access and highway
network serving the site is suitable, and is able to accommodate increased
traffic or where the traffic or highway improvements would not cause
unacceptable harm to the local environment”
The site is accessed via the farm haul road to the B1149, which is identified as a
Main Distributor Route under the Route Hierarchy Network. The junction was
improved in connection with the original composting application to provide a
visibility splay to the north of the access point to give adequate visibility to
vehicles emerging onto the highway. Subject to retention of these improvements,
which could be covered by planning condition were permission to be granted,
there is no objection to the proposal on highways grounds.
Need
4.20.
One of the central tenets of the Adopted Waste Local Plan (2000) is to
encourage recycling in order to move waste up the hierarchy and reduce reliance
on landfill, in accordance with national and European policy. Currently Norfolk
has a recycling and composting rate of around 25.8%, which meets the target of
25% by 2005 (Waste Strategy 2000).
File name: d:\533567419.doc
Page 6 of 9
Date created: 17/09/2004 11:22:00
Date and time last amended: 16/02/2016 20:00:00
4.21.
Adopted Waste Local Plan (2000) policy WAS.1 states that:
"In deciding applications for waste development, the Council will be guided
by the principles of the waste hierarchy. An assessment will be made as to
whether the proposal represents BPEO. This assessment will include
consideration of the location and nature of the development in relation to the
proximity principle and regional self-sufficiency".
This application proposes the extension of the range of wastes that could be
composted on the adjacent site and would increase the annual throughput from
10,000 to 25,000 tonnes. This would reduce the total quantity going to landfill
and is therefore consistent with policy WAS.1
5.
Human Rights
5.1.
The requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 must be considered. Should
permission not be granted, human rights are not likely to apply on behalf of the
applicant. Should permission be granted, human rights may apply on behalf of
the residents claiming interference with the right to respect for private and family
life and home under Article 8. It is considered that the granting of permission
would be in pursuance of a legitimate aim, and conditions could be imposed
which would control and minimise amenity impacts so that any burden arising for
residents would not be excessive. On this basis there would be no violation of
the rights protected by Article 8. Similarly, it is considered that there would be no
violation of the rights protected by Article 1 of the First Protocol, which is
protection of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
6.
Conclusion
6.1.
This is a proposal to extend the range of waste handled by an existing
composting facility. The additional wastes would be pre-processed in an existing
building and the enclosure of both this and the conveyor to transport the material
to the composting eco-pods would prevent the emission of noise, dust and
odours. These measures also address bio-aerosol risk. Whilst the building is
visible from public viewpoints, the modifications would not be intrusive in the
context of existing operations. The isolation of the site would limit adverse impact
on amenity and there are no objections on highways grounds.
6.2.
This notwithstanding, the proposed site is not on industrial or brownfield land, as
required by policy WAS 3, or an existing minerals or waste site as stipulated by
WAS 4, so there must be clear justification if the application were to be permitted
as a departure application.
6.3.
This site, although in conflict with these policies, is well-related to the adjacent
composting operation in terms of both appearance and function and the proposal
is consistent with policy WAS.1, which is central to the purpose of the Plan by
encouraging the movement of waste up the hierarchy through increasing
recycling, and this must be accorded weight. On balance, and taking account of
the acceptability of the proposal when assessed against all other policies in the
Adopted Waste Local Plan (2000), it is considered that the proposal does not
prejudice the aims of the plan and could be permitted.
File name: d:\533567419.doc
Page 7 of 9
Date created: 17/09/2004 11:22:00
Date and time last amended: 16/02/2016 20:00:00
7.
Reasons for the Grant of Permission
7.1.
The proposal is for the use of a farm building for the reception and processing of
feathers and catering waste prior to their being composted in eco-pods on an
adjacent site permitted in 2003 (C/1/2002/1004). The facility would enable the
handling and recycling of additional waste streams, which is in accordance with
Adopted Waste Local Plan (2000) policy WAS1 and the Waste Strategy. The
operations would take place within an existing building and there would be no
adverse impact on the appearance of the area, as required by Adopted Waste
Local Plan (2000) policy WAS10. The site is remote from residential and other
properties and all operations would take place within the building, both of which
would serve to minimise impact on local amenity, as required by Adopted Waste
Local Plan (2000) policy WAS13. Access to the site is adequate to cater for the
additional traffic, however the access road forms part of a Public Right of Way
and concerns have been raised regarding the potential conflict between
pedestrians and horse riders and heavy traffic accessing the site. The applicant
proposes the retention of a sign warning vehicle drivers of the presence of the
Public Right of Way and the provision of a passing bay to address this and it is
concluded that this is satisfactory, given that it is not unreasonable for a farm
access to have dual uses, and the proposal is therefore in accordance with
Adopted Waste Local Plan (2000) policy WAS16.
7.2.
The land is classified as countryside for planning purposes, therefore the
proposal is contrary to Adopted Waste Local Plan (2000) policy WAS4, however
the appearance of the site environs, comprising silage clamps, sewage/irrigation
lagoons, farm building and hard standings, is semi-industrial and this was a
material consideration when the application for eco-pod composting was being
determined, it being concluded, on balance, that the proposal was not of such a
scale or impact or in a location where it would cause “significant prejudice” to the
implementation or policies in the development plan. The current proposal raises
similar issues, however it is considered that the additional operations would not
increase the impact on the local area, due to their being contained within an
existing building, and the site is well-located in relation to the current operation. It
is considered that the revised proposal would not cause “significant prejudice” to
the implementation or policies in the development plan and could, therefore, be
permitted despite the conflict with WAS4, although the proposal would have to be
re-advertised as a Departure.
Recommendation
That the Director be authorised to issue a permission subject to conditions
including types of waste, hours of operation, scheme of working, including
measures to control noise and odour, and maintenance of visibility splay; and that
the application be re-advertised as a Departure application.
Officer Contact:
Background Document:
Cally Smith
on: 01603 223318
Adopted Waste Local Plan (2000)
File name: d:\533567419.doc
Page 8 of 9
Date created: 17/09/2004 11:22:00
Date and time last amended: 16/02/2016 20:00:00