Alternative Site Assessment

7/26/2019 Alternative Site Assessment

1/190

Appendix 5.1Alternative Site

Assessment


2/190

[Blank Page]


3/190

New Barnfield RERF

Alternative Sites Assessment

Hertfordshire Waste Procurement ProgrammeVeolia Environmental Services (UK) PLC

November 2011


4/190

New Barnfield RERFAlternative Sites Assessment

Hertfordshire Waste Procurement ProgrammeVeolia Environmental Services (UK) PLC

Barton WillmoreElizabeth House1 High StreetChestertonCambridgeCB4 1WB

Tel: 01223 345 555 Ref: 19207/A5/P3/SK/KFFax: 01223 345 550 File Ref: 19207.P4.ASA.SK.doc

Date: November 2011

COPYRIGHT

The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in partwithout the written consent of Barton Willmore Planning LLP.

All Barton Willmore stationery is produced using recycled or FS C paper andvegetable oil based inks.


5/190

Introduction

19207/A5/P3/SK/KF Page 1 November 2011

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Alternative Sites Assessment (ASA) has been prepared by Barton Willmore on

behalf of Veolia Environmental Services (UK) in connection with a planning application

submitted to Hertfordshire County Council for a Recycling and Energy Recovery Facility

(RERF) at New Barnfield, Hatfield, pursuant to a PFI contract recently awarded by the

Waste Disposal Authority to Veolia Environmental Services in April 2011.

1.2 The findings of this ASA are a material consideration in the determination of the

planning application which is discussed in context within the Planning Statement which

accompanies the submitted application. The application submitted by Veolia for an RERF

at New Barnfield is predicated upon the premise that the identified waste management

needs of Hertfordshire cannot be sustainably met in the future by existing methods of

waste disposal and the current high reliance on landfill in Hertfordshire and elsewhere.

1.3

The application advocates that the proposed use of New Barnfield for Energy Recovery

purposes would be a more suitable and deliverable solution to provide a sustainable

long term future waste treatment strategy for Hertfordshire. However, given the context

of the impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Assessment and the location of

the application site within the Metropolitan Green Belt, the assessment of other

potential alternative sites and their relative merit in comparison with the applicationsite, is material to the determination of the New Barnfield application.

1.4 Accordingly, pursuant to the submitted case for the suitabil ity of the New Barnfield si te

for an RERF an extended range of other alternative site locations for the proposed RERF

have been assessed for comparative analysis with the application site at New Barnfield.

1.5 These assessments have primarily been informed by an objective fact-based scoring

methodology as part of a three stage process. Stage 1 comprises an initial sieving

exercise, using a broad brush assessment approach to provide a more concise list ofStage 2 sites for prescriptive assessment. Stage 2 sites are assessed using a scoring

methodology which scores and ranks the sites according to their development attributes

and the extent of likely impact across a range of assessment criteria.

1.6 The range of primary assessment criteria used to compare the respective attributes of

the alternative sites is broadly based upon the site selection criteria provided in PPS 10.

The first two stages of the ASA are also informed by the locational and other criteria

listed in Annex E of PPS 10 which form the basis of the scoring element of the Stage 2

methodology, which is explained further in Section 3.0 of this Alternatives Assessment.


6/190

Introduction


1.7 The Stage 2 output scores are additionally informed by a final Stage 3 quantitative and

qualitative analysis, derived mainly from on site observations and other commercial

considerations to gauge the real world potential of the best performing sites. This real

world analysis considers matters such as land assembly and relevant planning history

etc, which is not covered by the Stage 2 scoring analysis.

1.8

This ASA also builds upon and amalgamates earlier pre-contract work on the relative

suitability of the site, undertaken prior to the award of the waste contract to Veolia.

This is discussed further in the Background section of this assessment.

1.9

The sites which have been assessed in this ASA therefore have the following broad

defining criteria:

Preferred HCC waste sites over 2 hectares in area as identified in the Waste Site

Allocations DPD (Preferred Options 2 November 2009).

Other, nominated, sites of sufficient scale which were promoted as part of the

above preferred waste site consultation in 2009.

All suitably sized Hert fordshire re -restoration sites, collated from the Appendix E

lists for each District / Borough Council.

Additional Hert fordshire sites identi fied from a desk top analysis of suitable

industrial or other previously developed land lying adjacent to the above sites.

Additional non-Hertfordshire sites identi fied from desk top analysis of non-Green

Belt land in or adjoining settlements lying directly adjacent to the Hertfordshire

borders but only in major transport corridors (e.g. Luton/M1).

1.10

The conclusions of this ASA are informed by a total of 47 site assessments, comprising

15 sites originally assessed in March 2010, combined with a second tranche of 30

additional sites which were assessed in September and October of 2010. A further 2 non

Green Belt sites have been assessed in 2011 following the award of the waste contract.

1.11

The outcomes of this ASA are that the site at Maylands, Hemel Hempstead, remains in

first place overall, with a score of 66, followed by two (non Hertfordshire) sites in

joint second place namely: the Vauxhall Works in Luton and Henlow Airf ield near

Hitchin. All three top placed sites are however neither available nor deliverable for the

foreseeable future and do not offer a viable alternative site.


7/190

Introduction


1.12 The Maylands site has been redeveloped, the Vauxhall Works site remains in viable

vehicle production use and the Henlow Airfield site remains in active technical and

administrative use by the RAF.

1.13

This ASA finds that New Barnfield is the best scoring available site, for an RERF of the

stated reference capacity, which is deliverable in the near future. This conclusion is

made in the light of recent planning permission for smaller scale thermal treatment

facilities in Hoddesdon (discussed in context later in this report) and the assessment of

a total of 46 alternative site locations, both in Hertfordshire and adjacent to its northern

borders in Bedfordshire.

1.14 This alternative site assessment is set out in the following form:

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Background

3.0 Assessment Methodology

4.0 Stage 1 Assessment Results

5.0 Stage 2 Assessment Results

6.0 Stage 3 Quantitative and Qualitative Analyses

7.0 Conclusions


8/190

Background to the Assessment


2.0 BACKGROUND TO THE ASSESSMENT

2.1 The Hertfordshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework, Waste Site Allocations,

preferred Options 2 document (November 2009) identified a total of 25 preferred waste

site allocations in Hertfordshire. Of these 25 preferred waste sites 16 sites were deemed

suitable for the thermal treatment of waste and were ranked into a number of large

scale (2-5ha) and small scale (< 2ha) sites.

2.2 For the purposes of assessing alternative sites, a comparative analysis was undertaken

in March 2010 of those larger sites judged capable of accommodating an RERF of circa

350 ktpa capacity. This initial alternatives study accordingly assessed only those ten

preferred sites which were physically capable of accommodating an RERF of 350 ktpa.

2.3 In combination with the above original assessment, a further five sites were assessed

which had been promoted by third parties for waste management, including thermal

treatment use, but had not been included in the WDF preferred site allocations.

Similarly, of the range of third party sites promoted, only those of sufficient scale were

assessed (> 2 ha). This (pre contract) Alternative Sites Assessment (ASA) comprised a

total comparative analysis of only 15 sites, ten of which were preferred HCC allocations

with the remainder comprising the larger third party promoted sites. The preferred and

promoted HCC site locations are shown below in Tables 2.1 and 2.2:

Table 2.1

HCC Preferred Sites Assessed in the March 2010 Alternative Sites Assessment

Non Green Belt Green Belt

Maylands Industrial Estate

Hemel Hempstead

New Barnfield

Welwyn / Hatfield Borough

Swallowdale Industrial EstateHemel Hempstead

RoehydeHatfield A1 Site

Gunnelswood Road Industrial Estate

Stevenage

Westmill Quarry

Ware/East Herts

Burrowfields Industrial Estate

Welwyn Garden City

Tyttenhanger Quarry

Hertsmere Borough

Hatfield Aerodrome

Hatfield

Travellers Lane Employment Area

Hatfield / Welham Green


9/190



Table 2.2 Promoted Sites in the March 2010 Alternative Sites Assessment


Cadwell Lane

Hitchin

Birchall Lane

Cole Green, Welwyn G.C.

Bury Mead Road

Hitchin

Rainbow Land

Tyttenhanger, Hatfield.

Land adjoining

Hoddesdon Power Station.

2.4 As part of the initial ASA exercise undertaken in March 2010, the five promoted sites

were each objectively assessed in parallel with the preferred sites, without prejudice to

either their non plan status or whether their promoters specifically sought an allocation

for thermal treatment on any of the given sites. The objective was to undertake a

robust comparative analysis of at least 15 large sites which had either been allocated

for thermal treatment use in the emerging Waste Plan, or could in principle be used for

such purposes, in terms of physical accommodation.

2.5 The outcomes of the March 2010 ASA was that land at Mayfields, Hemel Hempstead was

the best performing site, although the site was also acknowledged at the time to be

unavailable as it was undergoing redevelopment. Land at New Barnfield was assessed tobe the second best performing site, which although located in the Green Belt, as a

Major Developed Site had attributes similar to other non Green Belt employment sites,

yet was available and more deliverable. The smaller Swallowdale employment site at

Hemel Hempstead was judged to be the third best performing site in the initial ASA.

2.6 Following, the completion of this initial ASA exercise in March 2010, the Contractor was

successful in progressing through to the following round of the PFI bidding process.

Accordingly, as part of the required final submissions, it was decided to signif icantly

enhance the scope of the ASA exercise to encompass a much greater range of sites,

based on an objective reassessment of all HCC preferred waste sites as well as other

new potentially suitable sites lying just outside the borders of Hertfordshire.

2.7 Pursuant to the intention to substantially broaden the scope of the ASA exercise, a two

stage revised methodology was agreed with Hertfordshire Waste Procurements planning

advisors (see Section 3.0). This comprised an initial sieving stage (Stage 1) followed

by a detailed assessment stage (Stage 2) the latter of which was an updated agreed

version of the scoring methodology previously used on the 15 originally assessed sites.


10/190



2.8 The requirement for a new preliminary sieving stage arose because as the new ASA

exercise would not be limited solely to the preferred thermal treatment sites in the

emerging Waste Plan, the preliminary site list was likely to be substantially greater and

approximately treble the number of sites to be assessed (45).

2.9 This second ASA, which is incorporated here, had a rationale to objectively assess,

without prejudice, all sites within the emerging Waste Plan capable of accommodating a

378 ktpa RERF. This included the ten originally assessed preferred thermal treatment

sites together with 27 other identified sites for reconsideration which had the physical

scale and capacity to meet the needs of the specified RERF. In addition, the 5 third

party promotion sites were reassessed in context plus two non Hertfordshire sites at

Henlow Airfield, in Bedfordshire and Vauxhall Way, in Luton were additionally assessed.

2.10 A further non- identi fied site in Hert fordshire site adjacent to Hoddesdon Power Stat ion

was also added at the pre-contract stage as it was similar in characteristic to the Trent

Site (discussed later in this ASA) and was noted to be of sufficient size and potentially

available for RERF use. Two further market sites were also assessed in Welwyn Garden

City and Buntingford following the award of the waste contract to Veolia in 2011 .

2.11

The make-up of the consolidated 47 site list which informs this alternatives assessment

therefore comprises:

10 WDF Preferred Hertfordshire Thermal Treatment Sites over 2ha.

27 Other Identified Hertfordshire Sites (other waste uses, restoration sites

and employment land etc identified in the emerging WDF).

5 Non identified sites promoted by third parties through the WDF.

2 Non Hertfordshire (Bedfordshire) sites lying close to the Herts border.

3 Other non-identified Hertfordshire Sites at Hoddesdon, the Sainsburys

depot Buntingford and the Nabisco Site, Welwyn Garden City.

2.12 The latest ASA exercise, detailed in this report, commenced in September 2010 at the

pre-contract stage with the agreed Stage 1 sieving exercise. The outcomes of this stage

were that 18 sites were sieved, largely by reason of either non compliance with the

locational criteria of PPS 10, exceptionally poor site characteristics for the use required

and/or likely severe adverse impacts upon interests of acknowledged importance.

2.13 The methodology for the Stage 1 sieving of such sites had been agreed in advance with

Hertfordshire Waste Procurements planning advisors prior to commencement.


11/190



2.14 Where the characteristics of some of these Stage 1 sites could not be accurately

assessed by desk top methods alone, they were additionally Stage 1 assessed by

physical site inspection. The details of the sieved sites and the reasons for sieving are

provided later in this report at Section 4.0.

2.15 The 12 new Stage 2 site assessments were undertaken in conjunction with the Stage 2

reassessment of the original 15 ASA sites (making a combined total of 27 new and

reassessed Stage 2 sites). These assessments commenced in October 2010 and were

undertaken until the end of November 2010. Two further (post contract) Stage 2 sites

were later added in August 2011 and the site visits were undertaken in September

2011. All additional Stage 2 sites, which had not been assessed and visited in March

2010, have therefore been visually inspected by a site visit.

2.16 The outcomes of the consolidated ASA exercise contained here is therefore based on a

much greater resultant number of Stage 2 assessed sites, which has had a material

bearing on the overall league table of the 15 site scores originally determined in March

2010. The consolidated outcomes of the latest ASA exercise are explained in Sections

4.0 and 5.0 of this assessment.

2.17 Following the appointment of Veolia and the intention to submit a planning application

pursuant to the waste contract, pre -application advice has been sought from the Spatial

and Land Use Planning Department of the County Council in relation to alternative sites.

The advice sought was in relation to the methodology of the ASA and the anticipated

level of detail required by the County Council to ensure that the submitted assessment

was objective, transparent and robust.

2.18 Following these discussions, two additional assessment criteria have been added in

relation to Air Quality Management Areas and proximity to likely CHP receptors. Athird

(quantitative and qualitative) assessment stage has also been added in this ASA to

evaluate all of the total Stage 2 site outcomes for broader overall analysis. The detail ofthis additional stage of assessment is provided in Section 3.0.

2.19 In summary, this Alternative Site Assessment consolidates and takes forward all of the

assessment work previously undertaken on behalf of Veolia throughout the pre-contract

stages and two new sites in Buntingford and Welwyn Garden City have been added post

contract for detailed Stage 2 assessment. The assessment criteria have been increased

to 25, from the original 23 and an additional, quantitative and qualitative stage has

been added to the overall assessment for the top ten performing Stage 2 sites.


12/190

Assessment Methodology


3.0 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

3.1 The methodology used in this Alternative Site Assessment, is essentially based on three

key stages. These comprise; an initial sieving stage, followed by a prescriptive criterion

based scoring stage of the surviving sites. The best scoring sites in this second stage

are then qualified by a Stage 3 qualitative analysis to determine overall comparative

suitability of the best potential sites.

3.2 These three key stages of the assessment methodology can be summarised as follows:

Stage 1: The Stage 1 assessment is a broad desk top site by site appraisal of the

initial site list. It is essentially a preliminary sieving analysis intended to

reduce the initial starting site list down to a manageable number of sites

for the more detailed Stage 2 appraisal. Sites which are most likely to be

sieved at Stage 1 are those sites which are undergoing redevelopment or

are considered to have fundamental difficulties in terms of the potential

for delivery such as viable site capacity. For example, sites of irregular

shape or topography and which have obvious physical constraints which

would not make the delivery of an RERF possible or economically viable.

Similarly, sites with adverse impact upon sensitive ecological receptors.

Stage 2: The Stage 2 assessment comprises a more detailed desk top appraisal

further informed by individual site visit to create a detailed site scoring

assessment work sheet for each site and derive a cumulative score to

ultimately help rank each site. These assessment work sheets contain a

balanced mix of sensitivity criteria in relation to town and country

receptors, so as to not prejudice a more rural site in relation to an urban

site and vice versa. The best performing ten worksheet scores inform the

Stage 3 qualitative assessment and form Appendix 2 of this ASA report.

Stage 3: Stage 3 comprises a broad qualitative analysis of the top ten performing

sites from a development control perspective, i.e. looking at the sites in

the context of real world development scenario including likely viability

and actual availability etc. The qualitative analysis stage is also designed

to address those issues which may be unique to an individual site which

would not reasonably be covered by a generic ASA scoring methodology

such unimplemented neighbouring planning permissions or a specific

issue in the planning history of the site or its immediate environs.


13/190



Stage 1 Assessment Methodology: Initial Site Sieving

3.3 The preliminary Stage 1 sieving exercise undertaken in this ASA reflects the general

search principles for new waste sites as set out in paragraph 21 of PPS 10. The Stage 1

assessment methodology comprises the following broad factual assessments, based on

the search criteria of paragraph 21 and is based primarily on desk top analysis:

The scale and accessibility of the site for energy recovery . In particular,

whether there is a practical scale of land available above a minimum threshold

of 2ha to enable adequate vehicular circulation and to allow the incorporation of

a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) or other recycling facilities if necessary to

enhance overall sustainability. Also whether the site is accessible to the primary

rather than the secondary / tertiary road network.

The broad physical and environmental constraints of the assessed site.

In particular, whether the shape and topography of the site makes it physically

possible to accommodate the unique development footprint requirements of a

large RERF building of the throughput tonnage proposed by the application,

without the need for major land remodelling or other land assembly.

Likely general compatibility with neighbouring land uses . In this respect,

the assessment of compatibility with other land uses is an assessed element of

the Stage 2 scoring process. Accordingly where a site is sieved at Stage 1 it

could be for example, that the uses on the site are already impacting upon a

sensitive environmental receptor of national importance such as an SSSI, and so

mitigation may not be possible with the cumulative impacts of a larger RERF .

Likely significant adverse impacts upon existing environmental quality .

In particular, whether the current impact upon nearby residential amenity arising

from existing industrial uses is, on the balance of probability, likely to be

exacerbated by reason of cumulative visual, noise and air quality impacts.

Whether the site represents the reuse of previously developed land . In

this respect, all previously developed sites above 3 ha which met the above

preceding criteria were likely to be subject to further Stage 2 assessment.

3.4 The above factors have been applied collectively to the initial assessment site list, using

a combination of factual assessment and professional planning development judgementprior to the more prescriptive (Stage 2) scoring assessment.


14/190



3.5 Those sites which were screened from further (Stage 2) analysis are identified in this

assessment in Section 4.0 and the reasons for the exclusion of a given site are provided

with regard to the above criteria. Those sites sieved from Stage 2 analysis typically had

readily identifiable and significant constraints which generally rendered them unsuitable

for more detailed analysis, such as for example a physically undevelopable site in terms

of either unsuitable shape or excessive gradient. Other factors included for example

immediate proximity to very sensitive environmental receptors, such as SSSIs, SPAs or

similar, particularly if combined with poor accessibility to the primary road network.

3.6 Where assessed Stage 1 sites were found to be borderline in terms of suitabilit y for

further Stage 2 assessment, such as their compatibility with adjoining land uses, they

were inspected by site visit for verification and generally included and assessed at

Stage 2, unless they were screened by the subsequent site inspection which verified the

extent of any of the above identified primary constraints.

3.7

In summary, all sites which were clearly over 3 ha in area, had no obvious physical

characteristics which would render the delivery of a modern EfW impossible, had good

access to the primary road network and which did not directly affect either large scale

residential areas or an environmental receptor of national importance, were Stage 2

assessed, particularly where the land showed evidence of having been previously used.

The site locations of the Stage 2 assessed sites are identified in the county catchment

area plan provided at Appendix 1.

Stage 2 Assessment Methodology: Prescriptive Scoring

3.8

The assessment methodology for the Stage 2 assessed alternative sites is based on a

simple scoring system of between 1-3 points for each of 25 separately assessed criteria.

None of the criteria are artificially weighted and the scope of the criteria is designed to

enable both rural and urban sites to be compared equally without prejudice. Accordingly

the range of sites exhibiting higher scores reflects a reasonable balance between bothurban and rural alternative sites. These criterion-based assessments are undertaken on

prescriptive worksheets for each Stage 2 site and are compiled at Appendix 2.

3.9 The maximum score of 3 is achieved by the most sustainable outcome for that particular

criterion. For example under the transport criterion Highway Accessibility direct access

to the Main Road Network would achieve the highest score of 3, whilst indirect access

requiring major highway infrastructure improvement would attract the lowest score. It

follows that a score of 2 would be awarded if the likely development outcome was

between these two scenarios.


15/190



3.10 Equally, where the site or any immediately neighbouring land is subject to biodiversity

designations, the highest score is awarded where the site has no impact on the most

important of these classifications. A similar score has been awarded where the site lies

within an area of lowest flood risk (Zone 1) with a correspondingly lower score where

there is a higher identified flood risk.

3.11

Most of the maximum and minimum scores awarded for a given criteria are derived

largely from desk based research which has produced factual outcomes which have then

been translated into scores. Where a medium score has been awarded, this has largely

been derived using a combination of pre-visit desk top research and planning judgement

informed by a visit to the site concerned.

3.12

In this respect, all assessed Stage 2 sites were independently visited to make theassessment exercise as objective and intuitive as possible. A typical criterion which was

informed by a combination of both a site visit and developmental planning judgement,

was the criterion; compatibility with existing land uses.

3.13

A prescr iptive points based scor ing system has been used rather than a traff ic light or

other generic system as the latter is potentially too vague a method when seeking to

compare sites which lie in the Green Belt (which will require very special circumstances,

to warrant consideration for development) with non Green Belt sites. One of these very

special circumstances may be the current non-availability or suitability of an alternative

brownfield site in a sustainable location.

3.14 Accordingly, a prescriptive and relatively deta iled site appraisal methodology is

considered prerequisite as a suitable evidence base to advance this nature of argument,

as a Green Belt site could prove to be the most deliverable and sustainable option,

when all other material considerations are taken into account.

3.15

A scor ing system based on a maximum of three points for each criter ion is howevercomparable with the traffic light system favoured by some alternative site assessment

methodologies. In the case of this assessment, three points would equates to a green

and 1 point equates to red for a given criterion, with a score of two being amber.

However, a points based system is easier to evaluate in an overall comparative analysis

as found in Stage 3 of this assessment. It is also less ambiguous in that an element of

statistical analysis can be applied to the scores to observe trends in site performance.

3.16 The methodology has therefore been conceived to balance the relative strengths and

weaknesses of all sites, whether they are located in rural or urban areas, to achieve an

objective outcome.


16/190



3.17 For example, the rural (Green Belt) sites were shown to be more sensitive to landscape

designation and nearby biodiversity matters, but less so in relation to direct impacts

upon residential areas, schools and hospitals. For brownfield, employment sites the

inverse was the case. The assessment of each site against a balanced range of

sustainability criteria overleaf has produced an overall score for each site, which will be

a factor in determining its overall suitability and potential for ERF development.

3.18 However no alternative site methodology can be an exact science and so can only

indicate in broad terms, the general suitability of a site or lack thereof, for further

consideration, weighed against other matters of such as commercial availability and

unimplemented planning permissions for incompatible neighbouring uses.

3.19

The criteria for assessment used on the Stage 2 worksheets at Appendix 2 covers arange of topics, but notably focus on proximity to sensitive receptors covering a diverse

range of issues. Accordingly, Stage 2 is largely factually based and scores correlate with

actual distance measurement. Other relevant site-specific criteria has been used as part

of the assessment such as compatibility with neighbouring buildings and other land

uses, deliverability and whether further land acquisitions may be necessary, so as to

build a holistic picture of the merits of each site assessed.

3.20 The individual criterion for assessment is highlighted in bold in the left hand column of

the Stage 2 worksheet and may have up to three potential options for assessment.

However only onescore per criterion is awarded within the points range 1-3.

3.21

Therefore for example where a given site achieves the highest score of 3 in a particular

criterion, the other lower scoring options in that criterion simply have the character

displayed to indicate that a higher score has been achieved elsewhere within that

criterion. Conversely, where a site scores poorly in relation to a given issue, and where

higher scores could be achieved within the multiple choices, these higher scoring sub

areas will similarly be indicated by - to show that a lower score has been awarded

elsewhere in the range of possible scores for that criterion.

3.22 The assessment matrices are thereafter summed to provide a scoreand augmented by

a short commentary from a development control perspective, based on the physical site

inspection, together with summary indications regarding the site's availability. In this

respect, the ASA has avoided 'scoring' any site on its commercial availability, as unlike

the other criteria assessed this condition can often change at short notice.


17/190



3.23 Accordingly, al l sites have been assessed on their re lative meri ts without prejudice to

availability, but where sites were known to be unavailable at the time of assessment

this is highlighted in the commentary attached to each assessment and taken forward

for Stage 3 qualitative analysis.

Stage 3 Assessment Methodology: Qualitative Analysis

3.24 The essence of the overall methodology is to correctly interpret these scoring results by

combining the factual points based appraisal with an overall professional judgement of

suitability and compatibility with other land uses. Where visual or other mitigations are

required, a broad judgement is applied as to whether these mitigations are going to be

practicable (or desirable) to achieve in the given context.

3.25 Accordingly Stage 3 is based on a practical and commercial development perspective

and is applied to the top ten sites, but specifically focuses on the comparative real

world merits of the top five sites. The overall interpretation of these assessment results

is provided in context in Section 6.0 of this alternatives assessment.

Choice of Sites

3.26 The broad criteria for the compilation of additional sites for comparative assessment

comprised the following sites categories, taken from Appendix E of Hertfo rdshire County

Councils Waste Site Allocations Issues and Preferred Options 2, November 2009:

o Preferred Sites

Additional sites were collated for the revised ASA site list from the existing list of

preferred sites irrespective of whether they were identified for thermal

treatment in the Preferred Options 2 consultation. The baseline for Stage 1

evaluation in the revised ASA was a minimum site area of at least 2 hectares.

o Employment Sites

Additional sites were collated, without prejudice, from the Appendix E lists for

each District / Borough Council, notwithstanding whether or not these were

preferred sites. The baseline characteristic for Stage 1 evaluation in the ASA was

again a minimum site area of at least 2 hectares.


18/190



o Re-Restoration Sites

Additional sites were collated from the Appendix E lists for each District /

Borough Council. Similarly, for the purposes of this ASA they were also re-

evaluated without prejudice. The baseline characteristic for Stage 1 evaluation in

the ASA was a minimum site area of at least 2 hectares.

o Further Hertfordshire Sites

Additional sites were identi fied from a desk top analysis of suitable industrial or

otherwise previously developed land lying adjacent to the above sites. Two

additional sites were assessed in September 2011, as they were both previously

developed and had become potentially available for redevelopment.

o Non Hertfordshire Sites

Additional sites were identi fied from desk top analysis of non-Green Belt land in

or adjoining settlements lying directly adjacent to the Hertfordshire borders but

only in major transport corridors (e.g. Luton/M1).

3.27 Those sites which were identified for Stage 1 ASA evaluation had two primary qualifying

characteristics, namely; they were at least 2 hectares in area and comprised previously

developed land (PDL). PDL located on Green Belt sites lying outside of the boundaries

of Hertfordshire was not considered.


19/190



Table 3.1

HCC Preferred Sites Assessed in the March 2010 Alternative Sites Assessment

Taken forward for Assessment at Stage 2 in this ASA


Maylands Industrial Estate

Hemel Hempstead

New Barnfield

Welwyn / Hatfield Borough

Swallowdale Industrial Estate

Hemel Hempstead

Roehyde

Hatfield A1 Site

Gunnelswood Road Industrial Estate

Stevenage

Westmill Quarry

Ware/East Herts

Burrowfields Industrial Estate

Welwyn Garden City

Tyttenhanger Quarry

Hertsmere Borough

Hatfield Aerodrome

Hatfield

Travellers Lane Employment Area

Hatfield / Welham Green

Table 3.2 Promoted Sites in the March 2010 Alternative Sites AssessmentTaken forward for Assessment at Stage 2 in this ASA


Cadwell Lane

Hitchin

Birchall Lane

Cole Green, Welwyn G.C.

Bury Mead Road

Hitchin

Rainbow Land

Tyttenhanger, Hatfield.

Land adjoining

Hoddesdon Power Station.

Additional Stage 1 Assessment Site Codes (See Table 3.3 below).

PBS PFI Bidder Site HEL HCC Employment Land

HPS HCC Preferred Waste Site HRS HCC Restoration Site

OHL Other Hertfordshire Land NHS Non Hertfordshire Site


20/190



Table 3.3 Additional Sites for Stage 1 Assessment

Further Hertfordshire Site Locations Status

Eon PFI Bid Site, Harper Lane (Rail Loop) Radlett. PBS

Hoddesdon Quarry, Broxbourne HPS

High Leigh East and West, Hoddesdon HRS

Land North of Cock Lane, Hoddesdon HRS

Land North East of Hoddesdon Power Station OHL

Dobbs Weir Quarry, Spatial Brook HRS

Essex Road/Pindar Road, Hoddesdon HEL

Icknield Way, Tring HEL

Two Waters West, Hemel Hempstead HEL

Former Gas Works, Mead Lane, Hertford HPS

Foxholes West Hertford HPS

Presdales Pit, Ware HPS

Raynham Road Industrial, Bishops Stortford HEL

Woodside Industrial Estate, Bishops Stortford HEL

Waterford Pit, Waterford HRS

Cranborne Road, Potters Bar HPS

Elstree Way, Borehamwood HEL

Otterspool Industrial Estate, North Bushey HEL

Former Bell Lane Quarry, St Albans (NM25) HRS

Orchard Way Industrial, Royston HPS

Land South of A505, Royston HEL

Royston Road, Baldock HPS

Water Hall Quarry, Hertford HPS

Waterdale Waste Transfer Station, Garston HPS

Great Westwood Quarry, Abbotts Langley HPS

Welwyn Garden City Industrial Area (South of Nabisco) HEL

Leavesden Park Industrial Estate, Watford HEL

North Stevenage A1 (Junction 8) North and South HPS

Former Sainsburys Depot, Buntingford OHL

Nabisco Factory, Welwyn Garden City Centre. OHL

Non Hertfordshire Site Locations Status

Vauxhall Works, Luton, Beds NHS

Henlow Airfield, Henlow, Beds. NHS


21/190

Stage 1 Assessment Results

19207/A5/P3/SK/KF Page22 November 2011

4.0 STAGE 1 ASSESSMENT RESULTS: SIEVED SITES

4.1 The following sites from table 3.3 were sieved at Stage 1. A summary of the reasons for

the removal of the site from further detailed assessment is given under each site

description. All sites in tables 3.1 and 3.2 were taken forward for Stage 2 assessment.

4.2 Icknield Way, Tring

Insufficient practical scale of site located in the AONB;

Very open to the north, high qual ity countryside;

Wholly developed with viable trading businesses;

Would require complete demolition/relocation;

Incompatible with predominantly residential context; and Not PPS10 compliant adjoins working farms.

4.3 High Leigh, East and West, Hoddesdon

Metropolitan Green Belt Site

Likely significant adverse visual impact

Not readily accessible, vehicles using A10 would need to pass through

Hoddesdon town centre and residential areas for access

Likely detrimental impact upon Hoddesdon park Wood.

Not PPS10 complaint

4.4 Waterford Pit, Waterford, Herts

Largely restored and contributes to the openness of the Green Belt.

High quality surrounding countryside.

Poor access up Tattle Hill

Not PPS10 complaint

Adjoins formal woodland plantation would be visually dominant.

4.5 Land South of A505 Royston

Reasonably accessible, but previously unused land. Site of impractical shape.

Visual ly prominent given flat local topography north of Therfie ld Heath.

Likely adverse impact upon visual and environmental quality of adjacent

Therfield Heath SSSI to the south.


22/190



Therfield Heath flora potentially sensitive to emission.

Adverse cumulative visual impacts on the character of the sett lement by reason

of neighbouring industrial uses with numerous existing stacks.

4.6 Land North of Cock Lane, Hoddesdon


Likely significant adverse visual impact on openness of Green Belt in A10 corridor

Not readily accessible, vehicles using A10 would need to pass through

Hoddesdon town centre for access and then re -cross A10 westwards past schools

and through well populated residential areas.

Likely detrimental impact upon Hoddesdon park Wood.

Not PPS10 location complaintIncompatible with neighbouring uses.

4.7 Two Waters, Hemel Hempstead

Likely significant adverse visual impact upon Hemel Hempstead town centre.

Significant visual impact upon open green space to the north.

Incompatible with adjacent London Road Retail Park.

Western boundary adjoins a residential estate.

Comprehensive redevelopment and relocation of numerous businesses required.

4.8 Dobbs Weir Quarry, Spatial Brook


Lies within indicative flood plain, surrounded by watercourses.

Area of Archaeological Interest on eastern part of si te.

Lies directly east of heavily populated residential area.

Adjoins Lea Valley Regional Park Boundary.

4.9 Essex Road / Pindar Road Hoddesdon

Existing densely developed employment site

Available land to south at high ri sk of flooding

Adjoins Lea Valley Regional Park Boundary.

Low lying topography creates potential for long distance visual impacts.


23/190



4.10 Raynham Road Industrial Estate, Bishops Stortford

Existing densely developed viable employment site

Employment site lies wholly within Hockerill residential area.

Likely high visibility which will not be possible to mitigate.

200m adjacent to Bishops Stortford Golf Club

Likelihood of some traffic impacts along A120

Requirement for large scale relocation and redevelopment of existing businesses.

4.11 Woodside Industrial Estate, Bishops Stortford

Existing developed employment site

Lies adjacent to residential area to the south. 100m adjacent to Bishops Stortford Football Club

Impractical scale and shape to accommodate ERF

Adjacent to Birchanger Woodland

Requirement for relocation and redevelopment of existing businesses.

4.12 Elstree Way, Borehamwood

Existing significantly developed employment site

Lies adjacent to residential areas to the north and south.

Four schools and colleges within 1 kilometre of site.

Hotel and residential uses within site boundary.

Requirement for relocation and redevelopment of a number of ex isting

businesses.

4.13 Otterspool industrial Estate, North Bushey

Existing developed employment and retail site

Lies adjacent to residential area to the south west

Access via residential areas

400m adjacent to Sports Club

Impractical scale to accommodate proposed ERF

Located within 1 Kilometre of Golf Course


24/190



4.14 Caxton Hill /Foxholes West, Hertford

Insufficient practical scale without comprehensive redevelopment and relocation

of existing businesses.

Elevated prominent site, with difficult site accessibility from Hertford.

ERF scale of development would dominate the town visually.

Adjacent universi ty campus to the south.

Not PPS10 location complaint.

Incompatible with predominantly residential context.

4.15 Royston Road, Baldock

Very linear employment site of insuff icient practi cal scale for large ERFLies directly adjacent to main residential area to the south.

School and two farms within 400m

Elevated position over A505 corridor

Elevated position over nearby town centre

Flat terrain with little or no landscape cover

Requirement for relocation and redevelopment of existing businesses.

4.16 Welwyn Garden City Industrial Area (South of Nabisco)

Existing town centre major developed employment site

No significant undeveloped land evident.

Large area to the south of the industrial estate redeveloped for housing.

Primary employment area and part of original Garden City Masterplan

Likely major adverse impact of HGVs routing through town centre

Comprehensive purchase, demolition and redevelopment required.

Likely adverse visual impacts on historic Garden City Conservation Area.

4.17 Waterdale Waste Transfer Station, Garston

Existing waste transfer site of just over 2 ha, but land characteristics and

narrow apex to the north of the site would make an RERF of the scale proposed

almost impossible to accommodate without removal of all existing vegetation.

Impractical scale and shape without significant additional land assembly,

precluded by golf course located immediately to the south.


25/190



4.18 North Stevenage A1(M) J8 North and South

Undeveloped Green Belt site constrained by a watercourse

High voltage pylon running through the site

No suitable access currently available

4.19

Former Bell lane Quarry, St Albans

Restored Green Belt quarry site

Site directly adjoins a major food superstore to the east.

Adjacent to football club and sports pitches to the south.

Adjacent to Pastoral Centre to west

Large watercourse and residential areas adjoin to the north.

Table 4.1 Summary of Stage 1 Sieved sites from Table 3.3

High Leigh East and West, Hoddesdon HRS Sieved

Land North of Cock Lane, Hoddesdon HRS Sieved

Dobbs Weir Quarry, Spatial Brook HRS Sieved

Essex Road/Pindar Road, Hoddesdon HEL Sieved

Icknield Way, Tring HEL Sieved

Two Waters West, Hemel Hempstead HEL Sieved

Foxholes West Hertford HPS Sieved

Raynham Road Industrial, Bishops Stortford HEL Sieved

Woodside Industrial Estate, Bishops Stortford HEL Sieved

Waterford Pit, Waterford HRS Sieved

Elstree Way, Borehamwood HEL Sieved

Otterspool Industrial Estate, North Bushey HEL Sieved

Former Bell Lane Quarry, St Albans (NM25) HRS Sieved

Land South of A505, Royston HEL Sieved

Royston Road, Baldock HPS Sieved

Waterdale Waste Transfer Station, Garston HPS Sieved

Welwyn Garden City Industrial Area HEL Sieved

North Stevenage A1 (Junction 8) North and South HPS Sieved


26/190



Table 4.2 Remaining Sites for Stage 2 Assessment

4.20 The above sites were combined with the sites contained in tables 3.1 and 3.1, namely

the ten sites considered suitable for thermal treatment in principle by the emerging

Waste Development Framework and the five promoted omission sites.

4.21

A total of 29 potential RERF sites, including the applicat ion site at New Barnfield, were

assessed at Stage 2, the results of which can be found in the supporting documentationat Appendix 2. The results of the Stage 2 assessment are summarised in the next

section and evaluated in Section 6.0.

Further Site Locations taken forward for Stage 2 Assessment(to combine with sites from Table 3.1 and Table 3.2).

Status

Vauxhall Works, Luton NHS

Henlow Airfield, Henlow, Beds. NHS

Land North East of Hoddesdon Power Station OHL

Eon PFI Bid Site, Harper Lane (Rail Loop) Radlett. PBS

Leavesden Park Industrial Estate, Watford HEL

Presdales Pit, Ware HPS

Orchard Way Industrial, Royston HPS

Water Hall Quarry, Hertford HPS

Great Westwood Quarry, Abbotts Langley HPS

Former Gas Works, Mead Lane, Hertford HPS

Cranborne Road, Potters Bar HPS

Hoddesdon Quarry, Broxbourne HPS

Former Sainsburys Depot, Buntingford OHL

Former Nabisco Factory, Welwyn Garden City OHL


27/190



5.0 STAGE 2 ASSESSMENT RESULTS

5.1 Reference to the Stage 2 worksheets attached at Appendix 2, indicates the following

league table of assessment result scores, in order of plac ing .

Stage 2 Site Assessments in order of Placing(Highest Score First)

SiteStatus

SiteScore

SitePlacing

Maylands Industrial Estate, Hemel Hempstead HPS 66 1

Vauxhall works, Luton NHS 64 2

Henlow Airfield, Henlow, Beds NHS 64 2

Land at the New Barnfield Centre, Hatfield HPS 62 3

Cranborne Road, Potters Bar HPS 61 4

Cadwell Lane, Hitchin Omission 61 4

Land North East of Hoddesdon Power Station OHL 60 5

Former Nabisco Factory, Welwyn Garden City OHL 60 5

Swallowdale industrial Site, Hemel Hempstead HPS 60 5

Eon Site, Harper Lane (Rail Loop) Radlett. PBS 60 5

Travellers Lane Employment Area, Hatfield HPS 59 6

Burrowfields industrial Area, Welwyn Garden City HPS 59 6

Birchall Lane, Cole Green Hertford Omission 59 6

Leavesden Park Industrial Estate, Watford HEL 58 7

Gunnelswood Industrial Estate, Stevenage HPS 58 7

Orchard Way Industrial, Royston HPS 58 7

Roehyde Quarry HPS 57 8

Bury Mead Road, Hitchin Omission 56 9

Water Hall Quarry, Hertford HPS 56 9

Land adjacent to Hoddesdon Power Station Omission 55 10

Hatfield Aerodrome, Hatfield HPS 55 10

Great Westwood Quarry, Abbotts Langley HPS 55 10

Tyttenhanger Quarry HPS 54 11

Westmill Quarry, Hertford HPS 54 11

Former Sainsburys Depot, Buntingford OHL 54 11

Former Gas Works, Mead Lane, Hertford HPS 53 12

Hoddesdon Quarry, Broxbourne HPS 52 13

Presdales Pit, Ware HPS 51 14

Rainbow Land, Tyttenhanger Omission 50 15


28/190

Stage 3 Quantitative and Qualitative Analyses


6.0 STAGE 3: QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE ANALYSES

Quantitative Analysis of Stage 2 Results

6.1 A total of 28 alternative sites for the RERF proposed at New Barnfield were assessed at

Stage 2 of this assessment, 18 other sites having previously been sieved at Stage 1 of

the assessment (see Section 4.0).

6.2 Of the total of 29 sites, including the application site at New Barnfield, the lowest score

achieved was 50, which was recorded by the promoted site at the Rainbow Land at

Tyttenhanger. The highest score achieved was the Maylands Industrial Site at Hemel

Hempstead, which achieved a score of 66. The application site at New Barnfield scored

a total of 62 in comparison.

6.3 The Stage 2 Assessment comprised 25 individual criteria to which a minimum score of 1

and a maximum score of 3 could be achieved. Accordingly the highest score which could

theoretically be achieved was 75, and the lowest achievable score would have been 25.

For the purposes of broad statistical evaluation, we have divided the range of achieved

scores into the following approximate quartiles; 50 -53, 54 -57, 58-61 and 62-66.

6.4 With regard to the first quartile, four assessed sites fell into this group, with an averagescore of 51.5. These sites comprised three quarry sites and a former gas works in

Hertford. None of these assessed sites displayed suitable characteristics for the RERF

use proposed at New Barnfield, as reflected by their low scores and can effectively be

discounted for serious consideration as an alternative site to New Barnfield.

6.5 The second quartile contained nine sites, with an average score of 55.1. Of these nine

sites, most were identified in the emerging Waste Development Framework, although

two sites; one at Bury Mead Road Hitchin and land at Hoddesdon Power Station were

promoted omission sites. The latter omission site has been granted planning permission

for small scale thermal treatment and an anaerobic digestion facility (December 2010).

Four of the sites in this quartile are also currently considered suitable for large scale

thermal treatment use in the emerging Waste Development Framework.

6.6 The third quartile was the most populous quartile containing 12 sites, with an average

score of 59.4. This quartile similarly contained four sites judged to be suitable for large

scale thermal treatment by the Waste Development Framework and also contained two

promoted omission sites at Cadwell Lane, Hitchin and Birchall Lane, Cole Green.


29/190



6.7 The fourth and uppermost quartile, contained four sites, two of which are identified for

large scale thermal treatment in the Waste Development Framework (Maylands and New

Barnfield) with the other two sites being located outside Hertfordshire (Henlow Airfield

and the Vauxhall Works at Luton). The average score in this upper quartile was 64 .

6.8 In terms of quantitative comparative performance, New Barnfield achieved 83% of the

total maximum score available (75) with Maylands in Hemel Hempstead, achieving 88%

of the maximum score available. Accordingly, the New Barnfield site achieved 95% of

the maximum score achieved by any assessed alternative site, irrespective of the

availability of the highest performing alternative sites (see below).

6.9 The median score achieved by all the sites was 58 and the mean (average) score across

all the sites was slightly lower at 57.6. The modal (most occurring) score was 60, whichwas achieved at four sites. Accordingly New Barnfield outscored the mean and median

scores by 4 points and the modal score by 2 points.

6.10 The four sites in the upper quartile (which includes New Barnfield) and the six sites

which achieved the modal score or higher (the top ten) are the sites which demonstrate

the most suitability at Stage 2 for the location of an RERF in principle . However in terms

of qualitative analysis there are significant real world disparities between these sites

and none of the 3 sites which achieved scores higher than New Barnfield are actually

deliverable. Two of the best performing sites, as well as being currently unavailable, are

also located outside of Hertfordshire, as outlined in the following section.

Qualitative Analysis The Top Ten Placed Sites

6.11 The following qualitative analysis provides a qualitative summary of every site assessed

in Stage 2 but focuses mainly on the four sites in the upper quartile, plus the six sites

which achieved a score of 60 or higher (i.e. the top ten). The qualitative summaries for

the top ten sites are given in rank order with the highest performing site listed first.

Maylands Industrial Estate Hemel Hempstead Score 66 Rank 1

6.12 Maylands is an expansive industrial area to the east of Hemel Hempstead with good

access to the M1. The industrial estate comprises a modern business park with a range

of large to medium scale industrial uses in operation. At the time of the first Alternative

Sites Assessment in March 2010 there were areas of cleared Brownfield land evident to

the north east of the site adjacent to the Buncefield Oil Depot, which could have

accommodated an RERF in principle, however much of this land has been redeveloped.


30/190



6.13 A notable si te for consideration also lay adjacent to Maylands East at the Southern edge

of the Buncefield Oil Depot. The site comprised a large area of hardstanding with the

remains of a very large steel framed building some 200 metres by 180 metre square

(formerly known as the Mammoth building). The total site was some 10 hectares in area

and at the time of the 2010 visit the site was advertised as being on the open market.

Investigations with the commercial selling agent at the time indicated however that the

site had been purchased by J. Murphy and Sons in 2009 for plant storage use. This site

remains unavailable for the above reasons.

6.14 The adjacent Buncefield Oil Depot site does not form part of Maylands and so has not

been assessed. The Depot may be able to accommodate an ERF in principle as the scale

of building would be consistent with the general character of the adjacent employment

area, although this site is not within the site area allocated for waste use by the WDFand is not currently available. Significant land contamination may also be an issue.

6.15 In summary, the proximity of the M11 corridor, the lack of any obvious visual impact

and the compatibility with other adjoining land uses makes Maylands Industrial Estate a

good in principle location for an RERF, but due to lack of land to accommodate a 378

ktpa RERF, the development proposed at the New Barnfield site could not be achieved

at Maylands without substantial acquisition and redevelopment of a number of other

existing businesses on the estate, which is undesirable and unlikely to be viable .

The Vauxhall Motor Works, Luton Score 62 Rank-Joint 2

6.16

This site is a well established major B2 industrial area located close to Luton Airport,

the M1 Motorway and the Hertfordshire borders. The existing buildings on site which

comprise the Vauxhall works are generally commensurate with the scale of buildings

usually associated with thermal treatment facilities. The potential to accommodate an

RERF on this site is therefore viable in principle and has been considered in the light of

questions surrounding the future viability and the potential relocation of the Vauxhall

Motor Works in recent years.

6.17 However, at the present time, the Vauxhall Works continues to operate viably and there

are no indications that the current factory use will cease or that the current activities

will be redeployed to other locations for the foreseeable future. The question of the

purchase of the site under these conditions to facilitate the RERF proposed at New

Barnfield is therefore not economically viable. In addition, there would be a large

negative socio-economic impact upon the town if large numbers of existing personnelhad to be redeployed away from the Luton site to facilitate an RERF.


31/190



Henlow Airfield, Henlow, Bedfordshire Score 64 Rank-Joint 2

6.18 Henlow Airfield has long been used by the RAF for technical and engineering purposes,

but is not currently an operationally active air base. Most aircraft movements are light

civilian or military aircraft associated with flight training activities. The site has someadvantages for RERF use and has been included in the ASA due to its proximity to the

A1M and the Hert fordshire boundary at Hitchin and Baldock.

6.19 A major RERF faci li ty would however have to be very sensit ively designed and sited as

the local terrain is very flat in accordance with the originally intended use. Should the

site be released by the RAF at some point in the future it would also lend itself better to

residential use, such as a new settlement quarter of Henlow. At the present time there

is however no indication that the site will be available for the foreseeable future.

New Barnfield, Hatfield Score 62 Rank 3

6.20

New Barnfield is a unique in the Alternative Sites Assessment in that it is the only site

which has been substantially developed, previously used and adjoins major industrial

uses, but does not lie within an urban area. New Barnfield is a Major Developed Site in

the Green Belt which is separate but not remote form other complimentary land uses

and is well located strategically in terms of access to the primary highway network and

proximity to both municipal and commercial waste arisings. As such it is a suitable

central location in principle for a single RERF to serve Hertfordshire as a whole.

6.21 The site shares similar attributes to the Hertfordshire employment areas in that it is

brownfield in character and the context is characterised by a cluster of adjoining major

industrial uses. However, the existing uses on the site itself are publically owned and

the site is therefore wholly deliverable under the terms of the Hertfordshire Waste

Procurement, without displacing other third party businesses. This is not the case with

most of the preferred employment areas, as large sections of some industrial estates

would have to be comprehensively redeveloped to make way for a new RERF use.

6.22

Some visual impact upon residential amenity is likely at New Barnfield, but it is capable

of some mitigation and less significant than if the RERF were to be sited in an urban

location directly adjacent to residential areas. The site has no overriding constraints

although mitigation for the school at the shared entrance to the school will be required.

Appropriate mitigation is likely to be possib le during the operat ional phase provided

appropriate access remodelling and design is undertaken. Construction phase mitigation

will require a specific tailored approach in conjunction with the owners of the site.


32/190



Cranborne Road, Potters Bar (North and South Sites) Score 61 Rank 4

6.23 Cranborne Road is an established employment site, divided into two principal areas, the

northernmost site supporting an existing Waste Transfer Station. A major RERF on the

north site is potentially possible, given the gross site area (4.96 ha) but nearly allexisting businesses would have to be redeveloped to facilitate it. Rail access would

require additional land to the north, as the southern site is heavily developed and lies

directly adjacent to residential areas. Accessibility to the M25 is additionally a weakness

as the site lies proximate to the motorway but has a convoluted means of access from

Cranborne Road. In conclusion, the waste transfer station makes the southern site a

potentially good location in principle for a thermal treatment facility. However the

logistics of developing this site are considered too onerous and unviable to make it an

appropriate alternative site for the major RERF proposed at New Barnfield.

Cadwell Lane, Hitchin Score 61 Rank Joint-4

6.24

This site was promoted by Anglian Water as a non-specific waste facility and has been

assessed against other preferred and promoted thermal treatment sites. The main

strength of this site is that it is available as it was promoted as such. However, whilst

this site is promoted as having some potential for future rail access it difficult to see at

face value how this could be achieved in practice without substantial additional land

assembly, which is reflected in the scores for rail accessibility and deliverability.

6.25 Notwithstanding a good score at Stage 2, an RERF in this location would be particularly

conspicuous in the landscape as the surrounding countryside has a very open character

and there is little or no natural screening available. A large thermal treatment facility in

this location is therefore likely to create significant adverse impacts upon the residential

amenity of Ickleford Village, which lies close to the west, by reason of visual intrusion,

irrespective of whether it can be supplied by rail.

Land North East of Hoddesdon Power Station Score 60 Rank 5

6.26

This windfall site, whilst unidentified in the W aste Development Framework, is compact

and has some advantages as it adjoins the existing Hoddesdon power station, where

permission has recently been given for a thermal treatment facility on an unallocated

waste site. The site is located within an area subject to flood risk land and is proximate

to a RAMSAR designation but is previously developed and is set in an industrialised

context. The site is also proximate to rail, which could offer sustainability advantages

sufficient to outweigh the above issues subject to appropriate design and mitigation.


33/190



6.27 The cumulative highway impacts of the proposed 380 ktpa RERF on this site, supplied

mainly by road, combined with existing major industrial uses could have an impact upon

local biodiversity interests and cumulative visual impacts upon Lea Valley Regional Park.

An appropriate solution would be to serve the si te wholly by rail , al though this is not

conducive to the road based Municipal Waste Contract RERF proposed at New Barnfield.

Former Nabisco Site, Welwyn Garden City Score 60 Rank Joint-5

6.28 The Nabisco site large brownfield town centre site, which scores well in the assessment

but is currently occupied by an original factory building opened in 1926 as part of the

newly built Garden City. The building is Grade II listed (notably the cooling towers) and

so the likelihood of even partial demolition to permit other land uses such as RERF is

considered to be very low. Some potential may however exist for creative conversion to

other uses including smaller scale energy recovery or similar energy generation uses,

but the RERF application proposals submitted at New Barnfield could not be delivered

on this site, due to the presumption in favour of retaining the historic factory structure.

Swallowdale Industrial Estate Hemel Hempstead Score 60 Rank Joint-5

6.29 This site lies adjacent to the main Maylands site and is densely developed with large B1

buildings and displays no obvious land opportunities to accommodate any medium to

large scale thermal treatment use, without multiple acquisitions and redevelopment.

Parts of Swallowdale already lie within 200m of the residential urban fringe of Hemel

Hempstead and Swallowdale is additionally included in the Maylands Masterplan which

could bring any proposed RERF within the site into closer proximity with proposed new

residential development.

Harper Lane (Rail Loop) Radlett Score 60 Rank Joint-5

6.30

Harper Lane is a Waste Development Framework preferred waste site, albeit preferred

for in the WDF waste uses other than for thermal treatment. The site is located in the

Green Belt north of Radlett and has some accessibility issues although also potential for

rail access. The area however has a recent planning history of strong local opposition to

a local rail freight terminal nearby which indicates that such new infrastructure may be

very difficult to acquire in conjunction with a new large scale RERF use.

6.31 The site is also quite conspicuous for the scale of buildings required and potential

groundwater contamination and adverse highway impacts are issues that would requiresignificant proposals for mitigation to make this site viable in a real world scenario.


34/190



Sites Outside the Top Ten (in Descending Order)

Travellers Lane Employment Area Welham Green Score 59

6.32

This site comprises a linear industrial area located between the north-eastern edge of

Welham Green and the East Coast railway and is the closest site geographically to New

Barnfield. The existing industrial stock comprises small to medium scale enterprises and

appears to date from the 1970s or early 1980s. Access to the site both externally from

the south and internal movement is however poor by modern standards on this densely

occupied industrial site.

6.33 The location of the major Tesco depot to the north closes the site to northbound traffic

requiring access via the Welham Green residential area to the west or via the narrowrail bridge to the east. At face value there is little or no viable scope for even a medium

RERF at this site without comprehensive redevelopment of most of the existing site and

an improved access. Notwithstanding this scenario, given the low lying nature of the

site, relative to the New Barnfield site, there may also be issues regarding winter plume

grounding and the deposition of particulates on the adjacent large expanse of woodland

directly north east of the site (Millards Park).

Burrowfields Industrial Area Welwyn Garden City Score 59

6.34 Burrowfields is an older style 1950s industrial area which mostly comprises builders

merchants and small low quality incubator units. The site lies to the east of the Gosling

Sports Park adjacent to the railway, and is accessed via a road through a residential

terrace. Whilst an adjacent undeveloped area of land of approximately 3 hectares exists

to the south, this land is directly adjacent to an established residential area and is also

located within 100 metres of a school to the east. A provisional analysis of this site

suggests that an RERF of only very limited capacity could be accommodated without a

programme of comprehensive redevelopment of most of the Burrowfields site. H owever,

a major RERF would at face value both dominate the outlook from the sports park and

be visually intrusive to the nearby residential areas of the Garden City.

Birchall Lane, Cole Green, Welwyn Garden City Score 59

6.35 This site is an operative mineral extraction site promoted by Eco Aggregates Ltd (EAL).

The site enjoys good access to the main road network and has limited environmental

impact in some of the assessed criteria. The site is located close to surrounding ancient

woodland and is visually exposed on its western side to Welwyn Garden City.


35/190



6.36 Accordingly a large element of any future RERF building and its associated stack will be

visible from the eastern environs of the town. The surrounding area is also of high

landscape quality and therefore a large scale thermal treatment use is likely to diminish

the perceived quality and openness of the Green Belt in this location .

Leavesden Industrial Estate (Aerodrome) Watford Score 58

6.37 Leavesden Park Industrial Estate is a prominent settlement centre former airfield site,

now used for film making and other commercial activities. Owners MEPC have expressed

a desire to develop the site for housing which is endorsed by Three Rivers Council. It is

also understood that MEPC also desire to locate a hotel on the site. The main strength

of the site for RERF use is its accessibility, the main weakness is the dominant town

centre nature of the site if it were to be developed for major RERF use.

Gunnelswood Road Industrial Estate Stevenage Score 58

6.38 This expansive linear industrial area is located between the A1 and the main line railway

and forms part of the original Stevenage new town Masterplan to locate the primary

industrial area separately to the west of the new town. Whilst some of the original post

war industrial building stock remains, this has largely been redeveloped and replaced by

modern B8 warehousing and high-end B1 and other sui-generis uses.

6.39

In principle, the site could accommodate an RERF as the estate is very large, although

it is not apparent where any large scale facility could be accommodated, as any obvious

redevelopment opportunities are scarce. Further considerations relate to transport

matters and the likely path of the plume and emissions from the waste stack. With

regard to transport, access to the A1 would most likely need to be taken via the

controlled Junction 3 of the A1M, which is operating close to capacity in peak hours.

Access via Junction 4 to the north would require an HGV route which passed through

residential areas, a supermarket and a secondary school which could be problematic inpeak hours. Finally, emissions from the stack would predominantly disperse to the north

east of the site, passing over the extensive residential areas north of Fairlands Valley.

Orchard Way Industrial Area, Royston Score 58

6.40 Orchard Way is a well established general employment site on the northern boundary of

Hertfordshire, which currently incorporates a small household recycling facility. Whilst

the site is significantly developed and proximate to nearby rail, substantial demolition of

existing businesses would be required to accommodate an ERF footprint, with additional

works needed to create new sidings from the existing rail line.


36/190



6.41 Orchard Way is however already characterised by a plethora of various emissions stacks

and so the likelihood of cumulative negative visual and other impacts upon the local

community is high given the existing stacks and plumes from other manufacturing uses.

Roehyde Quarry Hatfield Score 57

6.42 This small former quarry site (4.27 ha) is located at the apex between the A414 and the

A1 at the Hatf ie ld University junction. Whilst the site is of poor quality and is set some

5 metres lower than the A1 junction with the A414, it is visually very prominent and so

a major building of RERF proportions would visually dominate the nearby Galleria retail

outlet centre as well as adjacent University of Hertfordshire campus. The location of a

major RERF very close to the Hatfield Tunnel and one of the busiest controlled junctions

in South Hertfordshire may also have highways implications.

6.43 The location of an RERF further south on the previously considered RRS 234 site (Land

at Colney Heath) currently identified as a restoration site by the County Council, would

potentially provide greater opportunities for landscape and visual mitigation, without

harming the openness of the green belt to the same extent, although better Green Belt

sites are clearly available.

Bury Mead Road, Hitchin Score 56

6.44 This peripheral urban site is promoted by Anglian Water primarily as a Household Waste

Recycling Centre, although it has been objectively scored in this assessment against

other preferred and promoted thermal treatment sites. However, this site is particularly

constrained by existing adjacent residential uses to the south and west and has poor

infrastructure provision. Whilst the site lies directly adjacent to the East Coast rail line,

there is no practical scope to provide the necessary sidings with the limited area of land

shown to be available. A large thermal treatment facility in this location is therefore

likely to create adverse impacts upon neighbouring residential amenity, by reason of

noise, HGV movements and dust.

Water Hall Quarry Hertford Score 56

6.45 Water Hall is a preferred (non-thermal treatment) waste site, located in the Green Belt.

Whilst land assembly and land quality are not an issue, access along the B158 is very

poor for the scale of ERF activity required. In addition, visual impacts are likely to be

significant given the prominence of this river valley site in relation to the nearbyelevated village of Essendon to the west and other nearby smaller villages.


37/190



6.46 The site lies within a general area of extensive woodland cover, so potential ecological

impacts upon woodland natural habitats is considered likely.

Land adjacent to Hoddesdon Power Station Score 55

6.47 This semi-despoiled local wildlife site adjoins an established industrial area and resides

next to an existing power station complex. However the site is located in an ecologically

sensitive area in a waterside location subject to high flood risk. The wetland nature of

the local environment makes it rich in biodiversity which is reflected by the nearby

RAMSAR site and SSSIs within the adjacent Lea Valley Regional Park to the east.

6.48 Accordingly the impact of a major RERF combined with the existing industrial uses is

likely to have a cumulative adverse impact upon these biodiversity interests as well as

the visual amenity of the nearby Regional Park. Permission was however granted in

December 2010 for a medium scale thermal treatment facility which had a much smaller

scale and impact than the scope of the RERF which has been tested in this ASA.

Hatfield Aerodrome Score 55

6.49 This prestigious business park comprises circa 3.5 million sq ft of business space with

land available or in development for a further 600,000 sq ft. The business park is home

to the Boroughs largest employer, the University of Hertfordshire. The business park

has a campus and student accommodation on site. Other major employers include T-

mobile, DHL, Ocado and utility providers such as Veolia Water, some located in high

quality bespoke buildings. The site also includes uses such as a Porsche dealership and

a David Lloyd Leisure Club, located in a (listed) aircraft hanger.

6.50 The site is characterised by a large residential element of over 2000 houses with a

central neighbourhood centre. Hatfield Garden Village additionally directly adjoins to the

north of the business park. The assessment of this site suggests that whilst enough

undeveloped land may be available to accommodate an RERF of some scale in principle,

it would need to be located centrally, adjoining residential areas and a childrens centre.

However, such a facility would visually totally dominate the business park and change

its character from mixed use new settlement to an industrial centre, which suggests

that consent may not be forthcoming from the landowners for such an incongruous use,

whatever the planning position. Transport and movement would not appear to be on

inhibiting factor however, given the high quality of the road infrastructure, but visual

intrusion and commercial incompatibility with other prestigious employers may precludethe use of the site for any major waste related uses.


38/190



Great Westwood Quarry, Abbotts Langley Score 55

6.51 Great Westwood Quarry is a major existing Green Belt quarry located close to an SSSI

and local wildlife sites. The site is visually exposed from some viewpoints, but has good

landscape cover to the south for industrial buildings of conventional scale. Buildings ofERF scale are however likely to be prominent to the residents of nearby Chandlers

Cross. The existing local rural access to M25 is also likely to become more congested as

a consequence of any major new ERF activity.

Tyttenhanger Quarry Hatfield/St Albans Score 54

6.52 This site is an established sand and gravel quarry set within an identified Landscape

Development Area. The presence of large clusters of woodland at nearby Walsingham

and Redwell suggests that there may be some visual impact issues when viewed from

the west, although equally this existing landscape may offer visual mitigation from the

south and east depending on the exact siting and orientation of the RERF. The site also

has direct access to the M25 and no obvious immediate residential impacts.

6.53 The extensive size of the site identified by HCC in the WDF offers a degree of flexibility

in terms of building location and orientation. However, at the present time the site is

predominantly greenfield in character and the worked areas are likely to be subject to

appropriate restoration conditions. Furthermore, should an RERF be proposed in the

location of the areas currently or previously worked for minerals, land stability could be

a material factor. In summary, Tyttenhanger is an open Green Belt site, but with some

structural landscape cover available which presents both problems and opportunities.

Westmill Quarry, Nr Ware Score 54

6.54 Westmill is an existing quarry and landfill site located to the north west of Ware in an

area historically characterised by waste related uses and landfill (parts of the northern

area of Ware are built on restored 1970s sites). The extensive nature of the quarrying

activities has however left the site devoid of any substantive landscape cover and so

visual intrusion will be a significant factor as the site lies directly west of the A10 .

6.55 A further issue relates to the nearby proximity of the urban edge of Ware and the well -

used Hanbury Manor Country Club to the north. The location of the site relative to the

source of waste arisings is also not as strategically well placed as those sites which are

located within the A1M and M1 motorway corridors, particularly if a single thermaltreatment solution for the whole county is envisaged.


39/190



Former Sainsburys Depot, Buntingford Score 54

6.56 The site currently comprises a large scale storage and distribution complex which is

well screened by existing mature planting although the flat roof height of the buildings

is low by modern industrial standards for the scale of footprint. Although reasonably

well connected to the A10 dual carriageway to the south, the site is poorly connected

to the north where the A10 connects to Royston through a series of small villages. The

site is also not strategically well located for a single site location for an RERF to serve

the whole county as it is closer to Cambridgeshire than parts of Hertfordshire.

6.57 The site is not considered suitable for an RERF of the scale proposed at New Barnfield

as Buntingford is a small, relatively isolated North Hertfordshire settlement, comprising

a small rural high street and significant areas of new and existing 1960s housing.There is potential therefore for high visual impacts given the relative exposure of the

site to the east and the elevating topography as viewed from the south.

Mead Lane Business Centre (Former Gas Works) Hertford Score 53

6.58 Mead Lane is a small disused gas works within a larger established industrial estate.

Some buildings are reasonably new but without 100% occupancy. An RERF on the site

would require substantive town centre access which is effectively unviable within the

historic Conservation Area for the scale of RERF required. Extensive visual impacts over

these and other sensitive receptors in the county town of Hertford are also likely.

Hoddesdon Quarry, Broxbourne Score 52

6.59 Hoddesdon Quarry is a preferred (non-thermal treatment) waste site, located in the

Metropolitan Green Belt. Whilst land assembly and land quality are not an issue, access

is particularly poor for the scale of RERF activity required. In addition, visual impacts

are likely to be very significant given the prominence of the site in relation to the A10corridor with nearby SSSI designations.

Presdales Pit, Ware Score 51

6.60 Presdales is a preferred site in the Metropolitan Green Belt identified in the WDF for

small scale thermal treatment and anaerobic digestion. A larger scale RERF on this site

would however create adverse visual and amenity impacts, given the narrow access

from Hoe Lane and the considerable elevation of the site over the wider Lea Valley to

the north overlooking the town of Ware.


40/190



Rainbow Land, Tyttenhanger, Hatfield Score 50

6.61 This site is the lowest performing site in this ASA and is a greenfield land parcel

adjoining the A414 North Orbital Road, promoted by Lafarge, proximate to one of HCCs

preferred waste sites at Tyttenhanger Quarry, approximately 1 km to the south.

6.62 The promoted site is adjoined by a large linear lagoon on its southern boundary and is

identified in the St Albans Local Plan as part of the Uppe r Colne Valley. The Rainbow

site is identified as part of a wider area of land that the Council wishes to encourage

for use as a Country Park

Alternative Site Assessment

Documents

Transcript of Alternative Site Assessment