- 1 -

Item No. 4 on Agenda

A.1 (L)

Local Members' Interest

S. G. Norman

Burntwood South

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 16 MARCH 2006 MINERAL COUNTY MATTER; WASTE COUNTY MATTER - Lichfield District : L.05/01/815W Date Received: 20-7-2005

Mr. A Taff, for scheme for restoration of former sand quarry, removal of adjacent embankment and change of use to materials reclamation from delivered wastes and storage of reclaimed products and operation of plant for processing (crushing, screening etc.); on land to the rear of Wharf Lane, Burntwood

Background

The applicant formerly owned land adjoining the west corner of the application site. That land was compulsorily purchased for the construction of the M6Toll slip-roads. To re-gain an equivalent area (in fact slightly larger), the applicant has bought land that adjoins his retained land on its south-east side. The acquired land contains a mounded area and a remnant of a steep-sided former sand quarry that ceased production around 1998. This quarry is now inaccessible to vehicles, its south-western end having been blocked off by the motorway junction construction. Its floor slopes evenly down towards the north-east. This slope is stated to be the result of engineered infill working to stabilise the new highway formation.

1. Summary of Proposals 1.1 This application has an ‘operational development’ element consisting of reclamation

works to partially infill the sand quarry, and a ‘change-of-use’ element. The after-use would consist of receiving waste and processing it e.g. by crusher or screen, together with storage of waste awaiting such processing, storage of useable reclamation products prior to their transport to users elsewhere, and removal off-site of un-useable waste. The applicant estimates that the quarry reclamation would take 12 to 18 months. The after-use would be permanent.

1.2 The material for the quarry infill would come from the higher ground immediately north

of it, which separates it from the applicant’s waste transfer station and scrap-yard, which front Wharf Lane. The sand quarry void, the transfer station and scrap-yard, and the intervening neck of higher ground (approximately 35 metres wide) are all now in the applicant’s ownership.

1.3 The final design would achieve a single usable surface, by eliminating the embankment

of higher ground to marry with the lower ground level of the existing scrap-yard and

- 2 -

transfer-station, and by partial filling of the quarry up to that level. This would leave the upper 8 or 9 metres of the southern and eastern faces of the quarry still exposed, although the north-eastern end of the quarry (which is approximately 20 metres deep) would still have been filled to more than half its depth.

1.4 On 8 September 2005 the County Council issued a Screening Opinion that the proposal

is not for ‘EIA Development’ and so does not require an Environmental Statement under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and Wales) Regulations 1999. The application is, however, accompanied by a supporting statement.

1.5 The supporting statement explains that the proposal is “to work through the

embankment with earth moving machines and to screen the recovered materials with a view either to their re-use on-site or sale off-site. Any material unsuitable for re-use or sale, and any surplus material would be taken to the adjacent quarry and used to bring its levels up (provided that it was inert). Although the composition of the embankment is not known in detail, screening and selection would take place so that any material used for infilling of the quarry would be subject to the requirements of Condition 2 in planning permission L.EA/3, that is, would not be biodegradable or putrescible. If there is then a shortfall in the amount of recovered materials for infill, it is proposed to use suitable selected inert wastes from the applicant’s own transfer station to finish off.” Elsewhere, under the heading ‘traffic’ the supporting statement says that the volume required to bring the quarry up to the proposed level is approximately 16,170 m3. The volume of the embankment is approximately 15,590 m3. Assuming that half of the embankment (7,795 m3) would be used for infill, the land-shaping works would require an intake of approximately 8,375 m3 of material.

1.6 The in-coming waste-stream is stated on the application form to consist only of “inert

construction and demolition waste, soils and sub-soils.” This refers not only to any materials required to be imported to finish off the quarry levelling, but also to the great majority of the waste received in the proposed subsequent use of the site. The supporting statement says that the refilled quarry part of the site would be used “for ‘general storage and associated materials reclamation operations’: these will comprise such things as crushing, shredding, screening, baling, etc., operations being applied to selected waste streams in order to reclaim materials from them which are suitable for re-use or recycling.” Because of that, and because at paragraph 3.61 it mentions paper and cardboard, clarification was sought about the expected proportion of such non-inert wastes. The agent has replied that the principal input would remain 'inert' waste - soils, bricks, stone, concrete, etc., but skips returned from demolition sites can also sometimes be used for the disposal of other wastes such as paper, cardboard, furniture, etc., and proper systems would be in place (which may involve baling to prevent litter and improve the payload) to remove such materials. He adds that the applicant does not particularly want them because his principal interest is in scrap metal, vehicles and recycled aggregates - not general rubbish.

1.7 The current access to and from the scrap-yard / transfer station is located close to the

north-east end of the frontage. An existing, but presently little-used access at the south-west end would be opened up to serve the land-levelling phase of the development, and would be retained for the after-use, providing the site with an arrangement of separate ‘in’ and ‘out.’

- 3 -

1.8 The forms state that there would be an increase from 7 to 10 employees; that there would be no change in the number of >3 tonne vehicles based at the site (20), but the number of such vehicles visiting the site would increase from 6 to 10. The number of journeys per day by >3 tonne vehicles based at the site would remain at 20. At present there is minimal parking at the transfer station / scrap-yard but 4 staff and 2 visitor spaces would be created just behind the building.

1.9 The submitted statement notes that with a projected 12 – 18 month programme of infill,

the 840 lorry-loads that correspond to the intake of approximately 8,375 m3 of material (referred to above, paragraph 1.5) would be delivered at a rate of three or four per day. The land-shaping phase is thus expected to generate a small increase in visits to the site by other operators’ vehicles, up to 10/day and thereafter fall back to the 6/day currently typical. For the after-use, no additional traffic is envisaged. The applicant would simply take the opportunity to sort through the intake and reclaim suitable materials, in less cramped surroundings than at present. Currently 5 of the applicant’s vehicles are based at the transfer station / scrap-yard and each one makes about four movements per day.

1.10 No fixed plant or buildings are proposed. All plant and equipment would be mobile.

Surface water would be disposed of to natural soakaway. 1.11 The application’s supporting statement also makes the following points:

- There is no prospect of access from the east, south or west, so the quarry void is landlocked and incapable of restoration without removal of the embankment.

- The approximate halving of the applicant’s original site has severely restricted his

ability to operate as efficiently and effectively as he might. - This application could also be regarded as an action under Condition 34 of Approved

Scheme of Conditions L/EA/3, whereby “in the event of cessation of mineral working (or waste disposal) for a period in excess of 18 months, an alternative scheme may be proposed.”

- It would be necessary to store incoming wastes temporarily prior to processing and

to store recovered materials and rejects temporarily prior to their removal from the site.

- The applicant previously had sufficient space to select and sort through (for

materials reclamation) any suitable wastes that his business collects and brings to the transfer station. The proposals would re-create that ability, and obviate the present practice of having to schedule most loads for off-site landfill disposal.

1.12 The statement goes on to identify the policy context for the after-use, noting the

European Waste ‘Framework’ Directive, the UK ‘Waste Strategy 2000’, the May 2002 DTLR ‘Guidance on Policies for Waste Management Planning’ and the sustainability theme running through regional, county and district-level policy documents, from which it quotes. Regarding Green Belt policy, the statement notes that inappropriate development requires the justification of Very Special Circumstances, and contends that these exist because the applicant has “had half of his legitimate operations taken away compulsorily.” It also contends that the proposals would not have any effect on the openness of the Green Belt.

- 4 -

1.13 The supporting statement then reviews the need for the development by reference to

various published figures, and to review the factors that PPG10 lists as relevant in development control for waste management facilities: dust, odours, vermin and birds, noise, litter, protection of surface and underground waters, land instability, visual intrusion, hours of operation and site location. For each of the potential nuisance factors, the statement describes the measures that would be put in place to minimise and mitigate them. Regarding hours of operation, it states that the restriction on the hours of working for the former quarry “and by implication, for the scheme of restoration” are 07:00 – 19:00 (weekdays) and 07:00 – 13:00 (Saturdays), so those same hours are proposed for the working of the embankment and filling of the quarry. The working hours restrictions for scrap-yard differ from those for the transfer station: both have 09:00 – 18:00 weekdays, but the transfer station can only operate between 09:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays, with no Sunday or Bank / Public Holiday working; while the scrap-yard operations can take place between 09:00 and 17:00 on Saturdays, Sundays, bank and public holidays. The proposal is for those more generous scrap-yard hours to apply to the after-use.

1.14 The brief comments that the supporting statement makes under the ‘site location’

subheading refer back to policy matters such as regional and local self-sufficiency and Best Practicable Environmental Option.

1.15 The final section of the supporting statement, “description of the proposed general

storage and associated materials reclamation operations,” sets out what should be standard practice concerning waste transfer documentation, inspection of loads on receipt, turning away of unsuitable loads, etc. It states that if the site is opened to third party users, all new and prospective customers would be made aware of restrictions on waste type and operating hours. There would be skips for isolation of ‘contraries’ found in accepted loads, and for storing of the residues of sorting/processing. There would be a variety of waste handling equipment, principally a rubber-tyred or tracked excavator with alternative fittings; and there “may well be a variety of mobile screens of different sizes.” An authorised crusher may be either installed at the site or brought in periodically. Equipment for cutting/grinding of wood waste “may also be provided.” Subject to the successful development of markets for reclaimed materials, there may well be the need to install equipment for baling, sorting, shredding, crushing, pulverising and/or compacting.

2. Site and Surroundings 2.1 The application area is 8480 square metres (0.85 ha). The high faces of the quarry face

north-west and south-west, so the site is largely screened by natural ground level in views from the south-east and north-east.

2.2 The Highfields Road area of Chasetown lies to the north of the site and has views of it

across the shallow valley of the Crane Brook, which is farmland but part of which has been used in the recent past for scrambling / karting. The applicant has supplied sight-line drawings illustrating these views. There are also views of the higher parts of the site, and of the roof of the transfer station, from the M6Toll slip-road and the M6Toll itself (eastbound). On nearing the site, views from those roads become a little further restricted by the toll motorway’s close-boarded fencing. Trees and bushes have been planted in the narrow belt between that fencing and application site’s south-western boundary.

- 5 -

2.3 The north-eastern boundary of the site is to agricultural land, although before a workable

field is reached there is a strip of land, understood to have been acquired in connection with the motorway project, which has been bounded by a stockproof fence running parallel with the application boundary. The lower end of this strip, next to Wharf Lane, is occupied by a caravan.

2.4 Wharf Lane, now closed off at the end of the application frontage, runs north-eastward

to its junction with Highfields Road / Hanney Hay Road. This junction is a crossroads, with Hospital Road being the road that continues north-eastwards. There are some 10 houses, effectively ‘on’ Wharf Lane although fronted by a service roadway that closely parallels it, before the junction is reached.

3. Relevant Planning History The Quarry Site 3.1 The present application site is the north-eastern end of the former Wharf Lane Quarry

owned in the 1990s by Stubbers Green Ash Co. Ltd. From its nucleus of an Interim Development Order (including land where the waste transfer station now stands), the quarry had expanded westwards and southwards under subsequent planning permissions. It was classed as an ‘active quarry’ in the mid 1990s. Most of it was then removed by the M6 Toll scheme. The old permissions covering the present site were ELR/5121 (granted 1962 for mineral working) and ELR/1402 (granted 1953 for tipping of refuse into the workings), but the Environment Act 1995 required those permissions to be reviewed.

3.2 Under the Environment Act 1995, a Scheme of Conditions for Wharf Lane Quarry was

issued in May 1998 (L.EA/3). Condition 2 states that there shall be no deposition on site of biodegradable or putrescible waste material, nor any potentially polluting material. Condition 32 required the submission of a scheme for the restoration. No restoration scheme under L.EA/3 was ever submitted, but two planning applications submitted around the same time (see next two paragraphs) did propose restoration, which in this north-eastern extremity of the quarry, would have come up to original ground level.

3.3 The operator’s application (L.97/00501) for reclamation of quarry to woodland through

the disposal of strictly inert waste was refused in March 1998 (the same committee meeting that had first considered L.EA/3). The withdrawal, shortly beforehand, of a recycling element of the proposals that would have been located just within the frontage and had attracted objection from Lichfield District Council, did not affect the outcome. An appeal was lodged, but withdrawn in June 1999.

3.4 Restoration of the quarry to agriculture through the disposal of strictly inert waste was

refused because of a Highway Agency direction in March 1999 (L.98/00610). 3.5 In connection with the Birmingham Northern Relief Road (Churchbridge – Burntwood)

Compulsory Purchase Order of February 1998, Stubbers Green Ash Co. Ltd. applied in April 2001 for a Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development (CAAD) for the quarry. The decision included part of the present application site as well the red-outlined land affected by the CPO. The Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development issued in November 2001 “relates to continued sand and gravel extraction with reclamation through infilling with domestic, industrial and commercial wastes within

- 6 -

the land edged red and blue [i.e. the remnant land] on drawing No.M/H/S10/01/09.” It was subject to conditions including end-dates for winning and working of sand and gravel no later than 31 December 2001 and for the deposit of waste no later than 31 December 2011; submission of details of the waste disposal operations and compliance with the terms of approval of those details, and no special waste being deposited at the site. This Certificate of course relates to a hypothetical “no M6 Toll” situation.

The Transfer Station / Scrapyard Site 3.6 The extent of “areas being used for depositing scrap metal” within the old quarry site is

shown on a plan dated 1980 on file L.EA/3. In that year an appeal against Lichfield District Council’s enforcement action resulted in the use of that area for breaking and storing of scrap vehicles and the sale of motor parts being immune from enforcement.

3.7 Application to upgrade the scrapyard and waste transfer station (partly retrospective)

was refused in 1996, the year in which the unauthorised construction of the portal frame shed on site was completed (L.950687).

3.8 A Certificate of Lawful Use was granted for a scrapyard and vehicle parking but refused

for a waste transfer station in March 1996 on the area adjacent to Wharf Lane (L.950693).

3.9 An application to amend the Certificate of Lawful Use to cover “the storage and

dismantling of motor vehicles including the storage and salvage of recovered parts” over an additional area to the rear of the previous CLU was approved, in part, in June 1998 (L.97/00947). It still restricted vehicle storage and dismantling operations to the part of the site east of the then access (i.e. to the vicinity of the building).

3.10 In May 1999 Planning Committee was minded to permit an application for the recycling

and waste transfer station, with retention of the existing building (L.98/00682). Following its referral as a departure from Green Belt policy, the Secretary of State decided not to intervene, and permission was issued in June 2000. It was known in May 1999 that Toll motorway CPO would affect the south-western half of the land covered by this permission, so the permitted layout confined storage and dismantling activities to the north-eastern half, with only commercial vehicle parking to take place south-west of what was then the access. Details under five conditions of permission L.98/00682 were approved in October 2002 leaving a sixth (ground contamination testing) to be resolved. Those details show the new, post-M6 Toll, site access near the north-east end of the frontage.

The Adjacent Lambs Lodge Site

(This information is given for completeness, but is less relevant, being off-site and relating to a hypothetical “no M6 Toll” situation.)

3.11 In late 2004 an Inquiry took place into an appeal against the Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development (CAAD) issued by the County Council for land at Lambs Lodge, adjacent to the present application site. The CAAD had stated that, in the circumstances prevailing at the relevant date (1 March 1994, when the first draft compulsory purchase order of land for the Birmingham Northern Relief Road was published), “planning permission would not have been granted for the extraction of sand and gravel for a maximum depth of the seam and restoration with landfill.” The appeal

- 7 -

was dismissed in March 2005 and the CAAD, with its wording varied to state that planning permission “would not have been granted for any other development [than the BNRR scheme]” was upheld.

3.12 The CAAD application was originally for an extensive, mostly continuous area of land

but with two small detached parts. By the time of the Inquiry only the area just south of the present application site and corner-to-corner with it was under consideration, together with an area to the west. The withdrawn parts included “Area A,” the narrow strip abutting the present application site on its north-east side and reaching down to Wharf Lane.

Land between Wharf Lane and Paviors Road 3.13 In line with local plan allocations, planning permissions have been granted for creation

of a recreational area north of the M6 Toll junction and the end of Wharf Lane, and, abutting that, for a burial ground north of the Burntwood bypass roundabout, with a frontage to Paviors Road. An access towards the recreational area has been formed off Wharf Road, a few metres east of Mr. Taff’s land.

4. Relevant Development Plan Policy and Planning Guidance 4.1 Regional Spatial Strategy Policies PA1 (prosperity for all), QE1 (conserving and

enhancing the environment), QE2 (restoring degraded areas and managing and creating high quality new environments), QE6 (the conservation, enhancement and restoration of the region’s landscape), QE9 (the water environment), WD1 (targets for waste management in the region) WD2 and Table 4 (need for waste management facilities by sub-region) and WD3 (criteria for the location of waste management facilities) are relevant.

4.2 Structure Plan Policies D1 (sustainable forms of development), D2 (design and

environmental quality of development), D4 (managing change in rural areas), D5B (development in the green belt), E7 (existing industries), T13 (local roads), T18B (operational requirements for employment developments), NC1 (protection of the countryside: general considerations), NC2 (landscape protection and restoration), NC9 (water resources), NC12 (community forests (in this case the Forest of Mercia)), MW3 (the efficient use and recycling of minerals), MW5 (sustainable waste management), MW6 (evaluation of proposals), MW7 (relationship to conservation and/or development initiatives), and MW9 (reclamation) are relevant.

4.3 In the Supplementary Planning Guidance to the Structure Plan, “Planning for Landscape

Change,” the Land Description Unit containing the site is shown within the character type of ‘sandstone estatelands - farming’ and as having the policy objective of ‘landscape regeneration.’ It is also shown as belonging to the highest of the four categories of ‘potential for landscape character mitigation.’

4.4 Other relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance to the Structure Plan is the Code of

Practice for the Assessment of the Impact and Determination of Mitigation Measures arising from Heavy Commercial Vehicles generated from Mineral and Waste Developments.

4.5 Waste Local Plan policies 1 (general considerations), 2 (general principles), 3 (general

protection), 8 (landfill), 10 (waste deposit for engineering purposes), 11 (re-working of

- 8 -

deposited waste) 12 (criteria for the location of waste treatment facilities), 13 (time limits for waste treatment facilities on landfill and mineral sites) and 14 (waste treatment facilities within buildings and in the open air) are relevant.

4.6 Lichfield District Plan inset map 3 Burntwood shows the site within the Green Belt, and

the land between the M6Toll slip-road, Crane Brook and Highfields Road rear gardens as ‘recreation zone.’ Policies E4 and E5 apply to Green Belt and policy B22 to recreation zones. The same inset shows the triangle of land between Hospital Road, Hanney Hay Road and Ogley Hay Road as part of ‘Chasewater Area and Country Park’ to which policy B24 applies.

4.7 PPS7 (sustainable development in rural areas), PPS10 (planning for sustainable waste

management) and PPS23 (planning and pollution control) are relevant. PPG 2 (Green Belts), 4 (Industrial, Commercial development and small firms), PPG13 (transport), and to a lesser extent PPG14 (development on unstable land) are relevant. The supporting statement quotes extensively from PPG10 (planning and waste management), although PPS10 has now superseded PPG10.

4.8 The proposal does not involve mineral extraction, unless there is useable mineral

present in the embankment of higher ground and that mineral is not retained on site (in which case, the quantities are unlikely to be very significant). Nevertheless, in view of the history of the site as a sand quarry – and the history of neighbouring land – the following have some relevance: Minerals Local Plan policy 4 (avoiding sterilisation / undue restriction of important mineral resources) - which is worded the same as Structure Plan Policy MW4, Policy 5 (Mineral Consultation Areas) and Policy 8 (securing the recovery and use of all economically viable minerals as part of a mining operation); MPS2 (controlling and mitigating the environmental effects of mineral extraction) and MPGs 5 (stability in surface mineral workings and tips) and 7 (reclamation of mineral workings).

5. Findings of Consultations Internal 5.1 Planning Regulation comment that no complaints have been received about the quarry

recently acquired by the applicant. There are two recorded complaints about the adjoining scrap-yard, both concerning vehicles and skips being stored outside the authorised area of the site, on the quarry embankment and along Wharf Lane. The operator’s record of compliance with planning conditions is not good; however, the proposal does provide a means of restoring the quarry and bringing the land back into beneficial use. The embankment proposed for removal is wider than the 30 metres mentioned in the supporting statement – up to 40 metres in fact, and appears to comprise mainly sand and sandstone, not inert waste as stated. It is claimed that the land would be used for activities exempt from waste management licensing, but greater clarity is need on whether the new area would be left entirely un-surfaced and whether storage of scrapped vehicles might extend into this area. After partial backfill, near-vertical faces up to 10 metres high will remain along the southern and eastern boundaries. Although there is stated to be no instability in the faces, there is no mention of fencing to safeguard persons or livestock from outside the site.

5.2 Development Control, on behalf of the Highway Authority, state that there are no

objections on highway grounds, subject to a condition requiring submission of parking,

- 9 -

turning and servicing area plans for all associated vehicles for the existing business, before the proposed development is brought into use.

5.3 The Environment and Countryside Unit (ECU) comments that the proposals to extend

existing operations into the quarry area, with the removal of the intervening mound, would have little visual implication for surrounding potential viewpoints. From Highfields Road, views would be over the existing yard area and little additional visual impact would be experienced. Any views from the south would be screened by the southern quarry face and little of the development would be seen. From the motorway, sightlines E and F indicate that the solid screen fence alongside the boundary would screen out most views of operations in the lower part of the quarry.

5.4 The ECU continue: Proposals for the restoration of the quarry to a higher level to meet

surrounding natural levels have previously been submitted and agreed. This scheme leaves large quarry faces largely untreated and it would be beneficial if some restoration and re-vegetation of surrounding quarry faces was incorporated into the proposals to commence landscape improvements to the site. With the use of a larger site becoming possible, some additional landscape improvements, e.g. to the Wharf Lane frontage and new access road, should be incorporated into the scheme. Landscape details would need to be provided to ensure that the character of the proposals accord with the recommendations for Sandstone Estatelands as detailed in the Supplementary Planning Guidance, and meet the objectives of landscape restoration or innovative landscape regeneration, and comply with Structure Plan Policy NC2 and Waste Local Plan Policy 3.

5.5 Staffordshire Highways Project Engineer (Noise) comments that as the site is near the

M6 Toll it is not particularly quiet. The nearest properties are Lamb’s Lodge Farm (140 metres away) and 17 Wharf Lane (300 metres). Background noise level in a reading taken at 17 Wharf Lane was 48.1 dB. The dominant noise source was traffic using the main road about 100 metres away, though noise from the motorway was audible. For the removal of the embankment, noise level at Lamb’s Lodge is calculated to be 50.7dB, and for the crushing operations the level would be 50.1dB. As the background level is not low, the permitted level would be 55dB, therefore no objections are raised on noise grounds. A suitable condition to control noise should, however, be imposed.

External 5.6 The Environmental Health Officer, Lichfield District Council, has no objection to the

proposals, but notes that the applicant should be made aware that crushing and screening are Part B processes under the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations 2000, so the applicant requires an Authorisation to operate.

5.7 The Highways Agency has no objection to the proposals. 5.8 The Environment Agency has no objections, but comments that a Waste Management

Licence, or exemption from the requirement of a licence, would be required. The embankment is believed to be partially made up of previously deposited household waste. The removal of this would deem it to be industrial waste and therefore it would need to be removed to a licensed facility. Any materials imported for infilling, restoration, landfill, regarding, landscaping, bunding, screening or roadway infrastructure must be restricted to uncontaminated soils, subsoils and inerts. During the restoration phase all run-off water containing contaminants, such as suspended

- 10 -

solid particles, oil and other polluting material, must not be allowed to enter any surface water drains. Where possible they must be contained and removed from site or directed to the foul sewer. Old landfills within 250 metres of the site include one adjacent to the north, ‘Wharf Lane sandpits,’ infilled prior to 1976, and Wharf Lane Sand Quarry itself, coinciding with the application site. This was licensed to accept neutralised filter cake and building rubble, but reports indicate that in contravention of this, some domestic waste was also deposited.

6. Views of District/Parish Council 6.1 Lichfield District Council objects to the proposal, as the change of use of the site to a

materials reclamation operation is an inappropriate form of development within the Green Belt. The District Council contends that the proposed development would thereby cause harm by definition and would also cause physical harm to the character of the Green Belt in this location, contrary to the guidance in PPG2 and to Structure Plan Policy D5B and Local Plan Policies E4 and E5. The District Council considers that the applicant has not demonstrated the existence of very special circumstances which would outweigh the harm by definition and other harm that would arise from this development. Concerns are raised over the increased use of Wharf Lane, and the adverse impact on the amenities of occupiers of properties fronting Wharf Lane and Hanney Hay Road that would result from this proposal.

6.2 Hammerwich Parish Council makes these observations:

• During the embankment removal / quarry infill phase, the number of vehicle movements is to increase from 26 to 32, which equates to nearly 4 per hour. Concern is raised about the detrimental impact of this on the residents of Wharf Lane and adjacent roads.

• The current transfer station working hours are accepted, but objection is raised to

07:00 – 19:00 (weekdays) and 07:00 – 13:00 (Saturdays) for the embankment removal / quarry infill work. It is requested that all activities including scrap operations are limited to 09:00 – 18:00 (weekdays) and 09:00 – 13:00 (Saturdays). Any Sunday / Bank Holiday dealings in scrap should be restricted to the hours to which the wider retail trade is limited on such days.

• Concern that there are no plans for a wheel-wash for vehicles leaving the site • Access should be maintained at all times to land on the right-hand side (north) of

Wharf Lane, which has outline planning permission for a burial ground and country walk

• The Parish Council would like to see a substantial tree screen where the site

borders Wharf Lane, particularly in view of the proposed use of the land opposite the site

• Concern that all facets of the proper operation of the site are totally dependent

on a high degree of good management and intervention by the operator and his staff, with particular reference to: dust suppression using water bowsers, sheeting of external stockpiles in windy weather, daily visual assessment of dust, odour suppression, inspection of incoming waste, recording of adverse odours,

- 11 -

daily inspection for pests, noise suppression, daily assessment of noise pollution, litter collection and daily litter checks.

The Parish Council adds that its concerns are based on past experience, noting the suspension of the operator’s Waste Management Licence for exceeding its terms / area.

7. Publicity and Representations Received 7.1 The application was advertised by site and newspaper notices, which noted that the

proposed development would be a departure from the development plan in force for the area, if permitted.

7.2 21 representations have been received of which 7 are from addresses on Wharf Lane, 3

Hanney Hay Road, 5 from Highfields Road, 3 from Hospital Road. All are objections, and the main reasons given are:

- the likely increase in HGV movements passing houses and negotiating road

junctions, with associated noise, hazard and intimidatory aspect.

- the local roads to the north-east of the site will inevitably get the whole effect of the traffic increase now that Wharf Lane is a cul-de-sac.

- the area is only just recovering from the disruption of motorway construction, so

further noise and disruption is not welcome. - noise would also come from vehicles manoeuvring and machinery on the site,

e.g. bleepers. - earlier starts and longer working days are proposed than for the current activities - increased dust and air pollution is feared. A few letters also mention odour. - dirt and a further decline in the already poor condition of Wharf Lane can be

expected. - local people were told that on completion of the motorway, Wharf Lane would

become a quiet cul-de-sac connecting with a countryside path. Instead it has several vehicles long-term parked on it (the legality of this is questioned), which is an eyesore and obliges people to walk in the middle of the road.

- ‘The Triangle’ had/has a certain quiet character. There would be a general

diminution of ‘quality of life’ in this area as a result of the proposals. - the location is inappropriate; industrial uses should be on industrial estates, and

local industrial estates appear to have land available. - the location is inappropriate by virtue of its Green Belt designation. - working through the embankment could re-expose contaminated materials

deposited a long time ago

- 12 -

- account should be taken of proposals for a burial ground / garden of remembrance in the vicinity (north of Wharf Lane)

8. Observations

8.1 The main issues in this case are identified as:

• Whether any harm is likely to be caused by the after-use to the openness, purposes and objectives of the Green Belt, over and above the basic harm by reason of a scrap-yard / transfer station being ‘inappropriate development,’ and the magnitude of that harm.

• whether there are considerations that outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and

hence constitute very special circumstances that justify the development. • The latest sub-regional planning context for waste, and whether the proposal

represents sustainable waste management • Any opportunities that the proposals represent, to remove harm to the visual

qualities of the area (and also improve site circulation, safety etc.,), thus meeting objectives of landscape improvement; and the likelihood of those improvements being secured, implemented and maintained.

• Setting aside the Green Belt factor, the weight to be given to local people’s

concerns over traffic issues, noise, dust, litter etc. Green Belt: assessment of harm

8.2 Between Chasetown and Brownhills is one of the areas where the South Staffordshire

Green Belt is at its narrowest, and this application is located in the middle of the gap. Of the purposes of green belt designation listed in PPG2, those particularly relevant to this case are: to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another, and to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Enduring boundaries are desirable, using clearly defined physical features. The M6Toll, though a substantial feature, has not redefined the green belt boundaries, but has been inserted through this gap with a great deal of mitigation such as landscape planting. Because of that mitigation, not only is there some protection of the surroundings from the impact of the motorway, but the experience of users of the motorway remains one of driving through a predominantly countryside area. In considering the impact of the proposals, both groups should be taken into account: people occupying the surroundings such as Chasetown and having potential views of the site, and eastbound motorway users.

8.3 ‘Openness’ is the most important attribute of green belt land. There is no definition of

‘openness’ for planning purposes, but it broadly equates with minimisation of the built mass, upstanding structures, disturbed ground, or clusters of movable man-made items present. PPG2 emphasises openness and also lists six objectives in which green-belt land has a role to play. Green Belt objectives relevant here are: ‘to retain attractive landscapes, and enhance landscapes, near to where people live,’ and ‘to improve damaged and derelict land around towns.’ A further objective, ‘to provide opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population’ is also relevant, though to a lesser degree. It is mentioned because of representation received from local residents,

- 13 -

that Wharf Lane has lost any attractiveness as part of a local walk because of the HCVs etc. not only using it but stored / parked on it.

8.4 The land-levelling element of the proposals would diminish in visual impact as it

proceeds. The embankment separating the scrap-yard from the quarry is screened by natural landform from the south and east, but is visible from a wide arc from the north-east round to the motorway. Its unsightliness is compounded by two or three old lorry bodies stored upon it. The visual intrusion of earthmoving plant operating at that high level for nearly a year must be weighed with the eventual long-term improvements to the views from, for example, properties on Highfields Road.

8.5 In views from Highfields Road, the earthworks proposals would be of diminishing impact,

as they are located behind the scrap-yard. New trees within the permitted recreational area are unlikely to have grown sufficiently to affect these views, but those on a mound next to the motorway slip road would eventually be effective as far as the houses further west along Highfields Road are concerned.

8.6 In eastbound motorway travellers’ view, the reduction in height of the mound would be

accompanied by spreading of operations to the right. As the quarry floor is raised, plant tracking over it would become more visible from the motorway, and the after-use element of the proposals is that waste storage / processing activities would spread to the right to take place on the levelled surface. The quarry face is a prominent feature in this view, and the removal of the embankment would expose more of it, to the left. The temporary screening plant dealing with the contents of the embankment would be located in the quarry mouth next to the embankment, and hence readily visible from the motorway.

8.7 The motorway main carriageway is approximately 5 to 10 metres higher than the

proposed ground level in the application site. Therefore, the existing 3 metre high close-boarded fencing (motorway mitigation works) is effective only in cutting out views of the base of the quarry and the lower half of the quarry faces, though it is rather more effective in screening the quarry from the slip road. The submitted section drawings along sight lines suggest that, for a passenger’s viewpoint 1.5 metres above the main carriageway, the existing close-boarded fencing would obscure not only the whole of the new surface but also anything placed thereon, to a height of 2.5 metres or so. Experience suggests that the type of facility being applied for often has several features (stockpiles, plant) exceeding that height.

8.8 The metal bar fence marking the southwest boundary of the applicant’s land is

ineffective for visual screening. A tree belt has been planted in the 12 metre wide strip of land between it and the motorway’s close-boarded fence, including oak, ash, scots pine, goat willow and hawthorn, but this tree belt is still several years short of even ‘semi-mature’ status. The application proposes an additional 3 metre wide corridor of mixed deciduous and conifer planting on the applicant’s side of the metal bar fence, over a 60 metre length that would filter views from the west of the main building, the proposed lorry parking and loading areas, but that too would take some years to mature.

8.9 The conclusion on Green Belt ‘openness’ is that the land-levelling element of the

application would harm it for a few months as the highest ground is dealt with. During land-levelling, the screening plant would be the most static feature, and would be plainly visible, albeit at a lower level. The land-levelling element could eventually bring a benefit, in the removal of the lorry bodies from the top of the embankment, and of the

- 14 -

upper part of the embankment itself, but this needs to be seen more as a step towards compliance with Minerals Local Plan condition 27(2) (mineral developments within the Green Belt should be well restored) than as a step to facilitate the spread of an inappropriate use. The after-use element of the proposals would detract from openness, in that long-term activities of an industrial nature would spread some 80 metres southward. This harm to openness is only slightly moderated by the fact that the ground over which the materials-sorting uses would spread has already been disturbed by quarrying and cannot be seen from the south and east. Despite what the submitted M6Toll sightline sections suggest, there is a real possibility that the upper part of material stores / piles, and of plant and equipment could be seen over the top of the fence.

8.10 The conclusion on Green Belt purposes is that the proposal would not hasten any

further merging of Chasetown into Brownhills, but it would be, in itself, an encroachment. The possibility of further expansion is very slight, as the site is constrained on all sides except possibly the highway frontage. Any north-eastward expansion would require the applicant to acquire land (e.g. the narrow, fenced-off strip that was “Area A” in the Lambs Lodge CAAD application), would breach a mature hedgerow, and would require planning permission, not only for scrap-yard usage but also for the mineral extraction that would be necessary to keep the yard level.

8.11 The conclusion on Green Belt objectives is that the proposal would be harmful. On

‘retention of attractive landscapes / enhancement of landscapes, near to where people live,’ the removal of the unsightly embankment would be beneficial, and so, if it took place as a result of the proposals, would the removal of parked lorries from the highway in front of the site to a position behind the building. However, the uncluttered appearance of the quarry as viewed from the motorway would change, with the introduction of stockpiles and vehicles. “Improvement of damaged and derelict land” would not necessarily take place by the bringing the quarry site into such an intensive use. The mound does need visual improvement, but the only steps necessary to improve the appearance of the quarry are placement of material against the steep faces – not necessarily for their full length – and establishment of vegetation thereon. The proposal would not provide opportunities for “access to the open countryside for the urban population.” The public would not have access to the site. The most the proposal could do towards that objective is to restore the situation that ought to exist at present, whereby walkers could use the full length of Wharf Lane without feeling oppressed by the number of lorries parked on it.

8.12 There would be harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and also some

harm through visual impact and the effect on openness. It is not yet certain that the western tree screen will grow well, and it cannot be safely assumed that the visual appearance of the front of the site will be significantly improved if additional space is made available at the rear. Even if the western tree screen does grow well, ‘openness’ is a slightly different concept than ‘little visual impact.’

Green Belt: Very Special Circumstances?

8.13 Are there considerations that outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and hence constitute

very special circumstances? Lichfield District Council’s objection states that such circumstances have not been proven. The applicant has suggested a number of considerations.

- 15 -

8.14 It is argued that an inaccessible site would be given a beneficial use. Relatively little weight can be attached to this. In Green Belt it is more important to maintain openness. The applicant’s difficulties in operating his business in the much-reduced area left to him after the compulsory purchase are appreciated, and a compromise solution that better reconciles ‘maintaining openness’ with some easing of his difficulties may well be possible, but is not represented by the present proposals. It is not necessary to bring all the site into use. Left un-used, in whole or in part, the remnant quarry site would no doubt re-vegetate naturally, which would not harm the landscape and could benefit biodiversity.

8.15 It is argued that a Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development refers to infilling

the quarry with domestic, industrial and commercial wastes, and the present application is more environmentally acceptable in that it is for only a half-height infill that will not use such wastes. Such certificates relate to a purely hypothetical situation, and whilst the applicant’s intention to refrain from depositing a large amount of such wastes is welcome, the CAAD situation and the present application must be kept distinct in thinking about the proposals, with the present application dealt with on its own merits. In any event, the contrast between the two schemes hardly creates a very special circumstance.

8.16 It is argued that Scheme of Conditions L/EA/3, condition 34, requires an alternative

restoration scheme for the quarry if progress towards its original restoration were interrupted; and that this application amounts to that scheme. However, the reasonable expectation when imposing this condition was that any alternative restoration scheme would still have many of the characteristics of the original scheme from Condition 32, and would be to a use and appearance compatible with the Green Belt. Condition 32 did require information on the type of restoration and after-use proposed, but clearly envisaged a non-industrial one, as it refers to “cultivation and management of the site” (32 e), “trees, shrubs and other vegetation” (32 f), and “arrangements for the removal of plant, buildings, hard-surfaced areas” (32 i). To introduce those plant, hard surfaces and walled storage bays to the site is the opposite of the intention at the time.

8.17 It is argued that planning policy promotes the viability of local enterprises and, as this

one is established at Wharf Lane it should not be forced elsewhere, e.g. an industrial estate, in order to expand and diversify. The application states that the number of employees would increase from 7 to 10. The supporting statement and subsequent correspondence from the agent suggest that, other than three additional employees, this application is not much about expansion, and is not about diversification at all, merely the reinstatement of his pre-motorway site capacity. Described only as a scrap-yard and transfer station, the pre-motorway premises are nevertheless said to have given the applicant the space and opportunity for sorting through the delivered wastes and for materials reclamation, and there was also a skip-hire element to the business; so no new activity is involved. However, in the current proposals there does appear to be a greater emphasis on sorting and reclamation than was the case on the pre-motorway site, with ‘reclamation,’ ‘storage’ and ‘processing’ key words in the description of the application. The development resulting from the current proposals would be different in scale and nature from what previous planning approvals have allowed at Wharf Lane, and is one that would normally more appropriately be sited elsewhere. It is recognised that certain waste activities have been established as lawful on the applicant’s blue-lined land, so it is unrealistic to envisage the complete relocation of the business and the returning of the site to agriculture or forestry. The development plan policies promoting

- 16 -

the viability of local firms are normally subordinate to Green Belt policy, and there are no grounds for considering this case exceptional. Waste Planning Policy

8.18 It is argued by the applicant that the Wharf Lane after-use proposals conform with the principles of sustainable waste management, specifically because

1) there would be reclamation of materials from waste that would otherwise be

disposed of, probably to landfill (supporting statement paragraph 2.27) 2) it would, therefore, assist in the ‘greater use of recycled materials’ referred to in

Structure Plan Policies D7 and MW3. 3) it would also reclaim derelict land and release it for productive use, as referred to in

Structure Plan sustainability policy D1. 4) “The reclamation of materials from waste is towards the top of the waste hierarchy

and conforms with the BPEO principle. The site is close to the natural catchment area of Burntwood, Cannock, Brownhills and Lichfield and therefore accords with the proximity principle for Staffordshire. It also borders on Walsall and would therefore contribute to regional self-sufficiency” (supporting statement paragraph 2.38, alluding to Structure Plan Policy MW5).

5) in summary, the development conforms with the general principles set out in Policy 2

(i) – (viii) of the Waste Local Plan (supporting statement, paragraph 2.43). 8.19 Points (1) and (2), above, are accepted. Point (3) has no relevance because Structure

Plan policy D1 poses a choice between greenfield and brownfield development, with brownfield to be preferred. No such choice has arises in this case; the alternative sites that the applicant investigated, and which may have become available since then, were/are on existing industrial estates. Most of point (4) can be accepted, but it should be pointed out that other locations would serve a very similar catchment area equally well. Some, but not all, of point (5) can be accepted. To gain planning permission it is not necessary for a proposal to satisfy all the considerations (i) – (viii) in Waste Local Plan Policy 2, but the more that are satisfied, the more merits the proposal would have, to contribute to a ‘very special circumstances’ argument. In this case, it has not been demonstrated that the proposals would perform especially well on (i) protection of human health and the environment, (ii) Best Practicable Environmental Option, (v) regional self sufficiency or (vii) the development of integrated waste management facilities. In particular, under the ‘health and environment’ heading, the difficulties associated with re-exposing waste currently buried within the higher ground are noted.

Improved Appearance of the Site and Surroundings

8.20 It is argued by the applicant that the proposals include or enable a number of

improvements to the operation and appearance of the site. The present scrapyard and waste transfer site are certainly cramped. Various improvements would become possible under the proposals, but a similar effect, commensurate with the volume of business in recent years and even allowing a modest increase, could be achieved by a smaller land-take.

- 17 -

8.21 The scrap-yard is shown extended 20 metres beyond the rear line of the transfer station building, and squared off, with a conifer screen indicated to separate it from the materials reclamation yard. That yard is provisionally shown with six 5-metre-wide bays for storage of reclaimed materials along one side, the crushing and screening area in the east corner, and four 6-metre-wide bays for storage of rejects next to the southern quarry face. Manoeuvring space well over 20 metres wide is indicated in front of all those features, before the ‘empty skip storage area’ is reached, and a line of three skips: one each for ‘ferrous,’ ‘non-ferrous’ and ‘cardboard.’ Although there are some advantages to a spacious site, it also brings the risk of extensive untidy areas, unless rigorous management is imposed, particularly if intake rates are high. The conifer screen shown between the extended scrap-yard and the proposed materials storage / reclamation yard would be a particularly vulnerable feature. Although cardboard, paper and polythene sheeting are expected to be only incidental items in the waste stream, these potential windblown litter items would be present on site.

8.22 An additional useable area to the rear of the present site would enable the Wharf Lane

frontage area to receive attention. The M6Toll plans show a turning-head at the end of Wharf Lane, taking land from the front of the applicant’s premises. This has not yet been formed, although the frontage hedge was removed in preparation for it. The applicant has used the highway outside his site for storage or long-term parking of mobile plant and lorries, occasionally reaching 80 metres or more north-eastward along Wharf Lane. Modest rearward expansion of the site could provide alternative parking to relieve that problem. There has also been some recent discussion of the feasibility of an alternative location for the turning-head, such that the applicant would be enabled to take into his site that part of the highway that presently runs across the front of it. One merit of that idea is that, by assisting a more rational layout of the forward part of the applicant’s land, it would further reduce pressure to intrude into the openness of the Green Belt at the rear. It would, of course, require careful design and very effective screening.

8.23 The application’s supporting statement contends that the proposals conform to Waste

Local Plan Policy 14 (which requires certain waste facilities to be contained within buildings) because the location and situation of the site and the nature of the proposed operations would not produce unacceptable impacts, and because “it is most common for these types of operations to be carried out in the open air.” Waste Local Plan Policy 14 has obvious difficulties for a Green Belt location. According to the related text (WLP paragraph 5.23), experience shows that if the facility handles over 100 tonnes of waste per day, processing operations should normally be within buildings. This application’s supporting statement does not state whether the intake rate would be greater or less than 100 tonnes / day, but the agent has subsequently written that that figure is not likely to be exceeded. Reliance is therefore placed on fencing and vegetation screens, to assure the appearance of the site and no detriment to the surroundings.

Local concerns

8.24 These observations have covered most of the concerns listed in paragraph 7.2 above.

Dust, litter and vermin would be controllable and are unlikely to cause nuisance. The noise of mineral being dropped/crushed would be reintroduced to the area on an occasional basis and is of different character than the background, which is dominated by traffic; but it is unlikely to be intrusive. Odour is unlikely to be detectable, except possibly briefly when waste within the embankment is re-exposed.

- 18 -

8.25 The local community evidently fears an increase in traffic levels. The agent states that during 12 to 18 months of land-shaping work, 840 deliveries of infill material are estimated. This would add three or four deliveries - six or eight traffic movements - per day if evenly spread throughout that period. If fill material were only brought in after the high ground within the site had been fully dealt with, a slightly higher rate over the would be involved to complete the work to the same over-all timescale. It is also stated that traffic amounts, after land-levelling, will not differ significantly from current levels (i.e. post-motorway levels when only one exit has been possible from Wharf Lane). The supporting statement suggests (at paragraph 3.17 - 18) that approximately 10 deliveries are made each day by the applicant’s own vehicles, and that the number of deliveries by ‘third parties’ is expected to fall back to three after a slight increase during the land-shaping works. After the land-shaping phase, ‘third party’ vehicles coming to the site are likely to be only for fuel delivery, interceptor de-sludging, and collection of vehicles for export. Experience would suggest, however, that with such a large additional space created at the rear, and the three additional employees, business levels and hence traffic levels would rise higher than the pre-development situation before stabilising.

9. Summary of Reasons for the Recommended Decision 9.1 The proposed change of use of the extensive area of land, following levelling, to

materials reclamation, storage and operation of processing plant would constitute an intrusion of inappropriate development into the Green Belt to a greater extent than could be justified by the circumstances of the business following the compulsory purchase of part of its previous site. The openness and visual qualities of the Green Belt would similarly be harmed to a greater extent than could be justified by those circumstances. There is at present inadequate visual screening, especially in the view from the motorway. The short-term impacts of work to remove the embankment could be acceptable if it was part of an alternative scheme to both rationalise the business premises and simultaneously restore a substantial part of the quarry void area to an appropriate, more open, Green Belt use.

CORPORATE DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reasons: The proposed development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and therefore harmful to the objectives, openness and amenities of the Green Belt, contrary to Structure Plan Policy D5B, WLP Policy 3, Lichfield District Plan Policies E4 and E5 and paragraph 3.15 of PPG2, and very special circumstances have not been demonstrated, sufficient to outweigh that inappropriateness and harm. The introduction of a land-use of an industrial nature to a partially-restored quarry site, in the absence of visual screening would also be detrimental to the countryside, contrary to Policies NC1 and NC2 of the Structure Plan.

Case Officer: R. J. Vearncombe - Tel: (01785) 277274; email: roger.vearncombe@staffordshire.gov.uk

A list of background papers for this report is available on request and for public

inspection at the offices of Development Services Directorate, Riverway, Stafford during normal office hours Monday to Thursday (8.30 am – 5.00 pm);

Friday (8.30 am – 4.30 pm).

Development Control,Development Services,Riverway, Stafford, ST16 3TJTelephone (01785) 223121 Fax (01785) 211279

StaffordshireCounty Council

" This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (c)Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Staffordshire County Council. LA.100019422"

O. S.Date : 16/12/05 Grid Ref : Scale at A4 : 1/10000 File :

�

Scrap Yard

Crane Brook

WHARF LA

NE

Sand Pit

BM 134.22m

Mr A. Taff, for scheme of restoration of former sand quarry, removalof adjacent embankment and change of use to general storageand associated materials reclamation operations, to the rear of Wharf Lane, Burntwood.

L.05/01/815 WSK.048 072

Inset Scale:- 1/2500

Scheme of Restoration of Former Sand Quarry, Removalof Adjacent embankment & Change of Use to General Storage & Associated Materials Reclamation Operations

Birmingham Northern Relief Road

Wharf Lane

County Boundary

Scheme of Restoration of Former Sand Quarry, Removalof Adjacent embankment & Change of Use to General Storage & Associated Materials Reclamation Operations BNRR

Chasetown