Local Members' Interest

Mrs. K Perry Mr. M Lawrence

Cheslyn Hay, Essington and Great Wyrley

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 3 NOVEMBER 2011 Waste County Matter - South Staffordshire: SS.08/21/619 W

Date Received: 26 November 2008

Date Revised/Further Details Received: supplementary noise assessment -

August 2009; revised flood risk assessment – August 2009 and updated tables September 2009; bund planting and bund cross-section details – August 2009 and revisions November 2009; further revisions to screen banks and planting details - December 2010

Jack Moody Ltd. retrospective application for planning permission to carry out materials recycling at Hollybush Recycling Centre, Warstone Road, Shareshill

Background/Introduction

This site has had a long history of mineral working for clay and sand which have subsequently been landfilled and capped off in the 1970’s and 1980’s. South Staffordshire Council granted planning permissions for ‘composting recycling and peat alternative production’ in 1996. However it has been the County Council’s view for sometime that the operations have exceeded the terms of that planning permission. A new permission for open-windrow and in-vessel composting was granted by the County Council in 2005 to regularise those operations. In 2007 a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) was served on the applicant related to the unauthorised inert waste and wood recycling operations. It was agreed with the applicant that a planning application to the County Council was necessary to seek to regularise the inert waste and wood recycling operations.

1. Summary of Proposals and Environmental Information 1.1 This is a retrospective application for materials recycling operations which it is

claimed by the applicant began on site in 1998. The development involves the following:

• the importation and recycling of construction demolition and excavation waste

materials to produce secondary aggregates and reclaimed soils, and,

• the importation of waste wood and processing of waste wood and oversize composting residue from the adjacent green waste composting operations to create combustible fuel substitute and mulch.

1.2 The application was accompanied by a supporting statement which addressed the following:

• The nature of the applicant’s business • Site description • Site history • Description of the development • Public footpath • Planning Policy • Benefits of the development

1.3 The application was also accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) which

addressed the following:

• Planning Policy • Rights of way • Alternatives • Air quality and dust • Noise • Highways and Transport • Hydrology • Landscape and Visual Impact

The findings of the ES (and the environmental information subsequently received) are summarised in Appendix 1. Environmental Impact Assessment screening and scoping opinions were issued prior to making the application– see Relevant Planning History below.

1.4 The site details are as follows:

• site area 4.9 hectares • access off Wolverhampton Road. This access is also used by visitors to the

garden centre and HCV traffic to and from the composting facility. It is stated that virtually all of the traffic associated with these operations arrives and leaves the site via Wolverhampton Road and Warstone Road (A462).

• site layout - four areas (see Site Layout Plan 2):

o Area A - soil recycling o Area B aggregate recycling o Area C stockpiles o Area D wood recycling

• the operations include sorting, picking, crushing, screening, secondary

screening, chipping and stockpiling. Some of the reclaimed / manufactured soils are blended with compost from the adjoining facility to produce a multi-purpose soil conditioner and top dressing. The inert waste is crushed and screened to produce a secondary aggregate. Waste wood and oversize compost residue are processed to make a combustible fuel substitute and mulch. It is estimated that about 99% of the imported waste is recycled rather than being sent to landfill.

• stockpiles are controlled such that they do not protrude above the 6 metre high grassed and landscaped screen bunds.

• the plant list includes 4 wheel loaders, 2 crushers, 1 dump truck, 4 excavators, 4

screeners and 2 wood chippers.

• the operating hours are 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday and 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturday (application form)(the same as for the permitted composting site).

• at the time of making the application the site employed 15 full-time staff.

• a throughput limit of 244,000 tonnes per annum is proposed for construction,

demolition and excavation waste as this is the same as the limit set by the Waste Management Licence and ‘in order to avoid ambiguity’. In the 3 years prior to making the application the throughput was about 200,000 tonnes per annum.

• traffic movements associated with these operations, calculated using the

244,000 tonnes per annum maximum throughput – imports would be 16 HCV movements per hour / 136 movements per day; exports would generate a similar number of movements; representing a total of 272 HCV movements per day.

2. Site and Surroundings 2.1 The site lies adjacent to the Hollybush Garden Centre, plant nursery and composting

facility, about 1 km west of Cheslyn Hay. It is bounded to the south by the garden centre and nurseries, to the west by a track known as Hospital Lane and to the north and east by hedgerows and agricultural land.

2.2 Notable features surrounding the site are as follows:

• Cheslyn Hay High School 300 metres to the north east of the site • Campions Wood Quarry is 190 metres to the south east (see Relevant

Planning History below) • No5 Wolverhampton Road is 310 metres to the south (see Relevant Planning

History below) • About 20 dwellings along Wolverhampton Road (B4156) – the access to the

site. • Standek Farm is 225 metres to the east • Hollies Farm 400 metres to the west • M6 Junction 11 is 520 metres to the west • M6 Toll Road is 520 metres to the north • There is a 7.5 tonne weight restriction on traffic travelling towards Cheslyn

Hay along Wolverhampton Road (all HCV traffic must therefore turn right from the site entrance)

2.3 The site itself is partly contained by 6 metre high landscaped bunds. It has

previously been worked for sand and clay, backfilled and capped with clay. Former underground coal workings are recorded to have passed below the site at depth.

2.4 According to the applicant, a public right of way was diverted around the northern

perimeter of the site when the composting permission was granted in 1996. No

diversion order currently exists and the applicant proposes to apply to formal divert the footpath.

3. Relevant Planning History The Site 3.1 South Staffordshire Council’s outline permission (ref. 0598/94 dated 22 March 1996)

for composting recycling and peat alternative production. This permission was the subject of a S106 Legal Agreement to secure £20,000 towards the cost of highway works; a requirement to seek a discharge consent from Severn Trent water and to control the discharge of effluent to foul sewer; to limit access to the site to the access off Wolverhampton Road; and to apply to divert the footpath crossing the site.

3.2 South Staffordshire Council’s approval of reserved matters 0023/97 dated 18

September 1997 – now only partly extant as a result of the legal agreement signed in connection with the in-vessel and open windrow composting permitted in 2005 – see below.

3.3 Staffordshire County Council’s permission SS.04/20/619 W dated 23 December

2005 for in-vessel and open windrow composting (the subject of a S106 Legal Agreement in which the interested parties agreed not to implement or further implement that part of the 1996 permission insofar as it related to composting, but not insofar as it related to recycling and peat production.

3.4 An ES ‘screening opinion’ confirmed that this application was ‘EIA Development’ on

25 July 2007 (ref SCE.28/619 W). An ES ‘scoping opinion’ was issued on 26 September 2007 (ref. SCO.8/619 W).

Other sites nearby

3.5 South Staffordshire Council permitted the demolition and replacement of part of the garden centre buildings (ref. 10/00425/FUL dated 30 September 2010) and refused an application to erect a vertical wind energy turbine for micro electricity generation (ref. 10/00475/FUL) but this was allowed on appeal.

3.6 Campions Wood Quarry. There has been a longstanding legal case which it is now anticipated will be resolved when the Secretary of State issues a decision following the uncontested appeal into the Scheme of Conditions – relating to the Review Old Mineral Permission (ROMP) (ref. SS.09/08/611 M). This matter was considered by the Planning Committee on 7 April 2011 when it was resolved to agree the Scheme of Conditions and for the Scheme to be considered thought an appeal process by an independent Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. A decision is currently awaited.

3.7 Land adjacent to No5 Wolverhampton Road. An application for a materials

recycling facility was originally refused planning permission in 2005 (ref. SS.03/13/639 W). A second application, again for materials recycling was submitted in 2006 (ref. SS.06/20/639 W) and a report was brought before Planning Committee in August 2007. The report recommended refusal on Green Belt grounds but the Committee resolved to defer a decision pending the outcome of a great crested newt survey and the submission of mitigation measures. Adequate further information from the applicant is still required to address the protected

species issues and the Green Belt concerns so the application has not yet been determined.

4. Relevant Development Plan Policies and other material considerations 4.1 The development plan consists of the West Midlands Regional Strategy together

with the ‘saved policies’ in the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan, the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Waste Local Plan and the South Staffordshire District Local Plan.

4.2 The other material considerations include the emerging Staffordshire and Stoke-on-

Trent Waste Core Strategy; the emerging South Staffordshire District Core Strategy; Government Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance notes (in particular PPG2, PPS10 and PPS23); the Phase 2 Review of the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy evidence-base documents and EIP panel findings (noting that the Government has announced its intention to abolish regional strategies); ministerial statements, the national waste strategy including the recent review and the Draft National Planning Policy Framework.

4.3 The relevant development plan policies and other material considerations are listed

in Appendix 2. 5. Findings of Consultations Internal 5.1 The Environment and Countryside Unit (ECU) - no objections having received

revised screen bund landscaping details and cross-sections, subject to further details being submitted for approval.

5.2 Transport Development Control (on behalf of the Highways Authority) - no

objections subject to a requirement to provide improved kerbing at the access. 5.3 The County Council’s Noise Engineer, having reviewed the noise assessment and

supplementary noise information, advised that the predicted levels of noise from the site are in the range of 42 to 45 dB and background levels are between 38 and 43 dB. The Noise Engineer also commented that the 55 dB noise limit imposed on the composting facility is no longer appropriate and the limits should be based on BS4142 which would set a limit of the background + 10 dB. However imposing such standards could make the site unworkable and in the circumstances the Noise Engineer recommended that a maximum rating level of 50 dB LAeq (1 hour) be imposed on this permission. This would allow the site to operate without causing an unacceptable adverse noise impact but there would also be a more robust control on noise. The Noise Engineer also commented that it would be beneficial and practicable to reach agreement with the applicant that the same rating level be applied to all of the composting and recycling activities (see Legal Agreement below).

5.4 The Planning Regulation Team advised that a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN)

was served in 2007. Complaints received relate mainly to the operating hours, mud on roads and blocked drains, unsheeted vehicles leaving the site and the frequency of vehicles entering and leaving the site. The Team also note that they have regularly observed that the stockpiles have exceeded the height of the screen bunds

around the site and composted material is stored on adjoining land, outside of the permitted composting area and the application area.

External 5.5 South Staffordshire Council Environmental Health Officer raised concerns about the

noise, dust and the effectiveness of the proposed wheel wash facility. 5.6 The following consultees have no objections:

• Highways Agency • English Heritage • Severn Trent Water – subject to the imposition of a condition relating to

sustainable drainage; • Environment Agency – subject to the imposition of conditions relating to

sustainable drainage; the removal of permitted development rights; the erection of signs within the site to indicate the risk of flooding; and drainage management.

• The Coal Authority – subject to standing advice 5.7 Natural England, The Forest of Mercia and The Staffordshire Wildlife Trust did not

respond to the consultation. 6. Views of District/Parish Council 6.1 South Staffordshire Council – no objection provided that there are no detrimental

impacts on neighbouring properties and the Environmental Health Officer’s points have been addressed.

6.2 Saredon Parish Council – object on the basis that the access to the site is

inadequate. 6.3 Cheslyn Hay Parish Council - no objection and were impressed by the whole

recycling process. 7. Publicity and Representations Received 7.1 Site notice: YES Press notice: YES 7.2 The application was advertised as an ES application and as a departure application

on Green Belt policy grounds. 7.3 75 neighbour notification letters were sent out (and delivered by hand to the

travellers caravan site). 2 representations have been received which raised the following concerns:

• Wolverhampton Road is not suitable for the level of traffic now passing along it • Overloaded and unsheeted lorry movements in and out of the site and debris

dropped on the road • Excessive traffic noise and vibration • Traffic movement during the night from the site • Water running off the access road leads to flooding on Wolverhampton Road

• A new access should be formed from the garden centre to take the traffic away from Wolverhampton Road

• Excessive plant noise • Dust pollution

8. Observations 8.1 This is a retrospective application to carry out inert waste and wood recycling

operations at Hollybush Recycling Centre, Warstone Road, Shareshill. 8.2 Having given careful consideration to the application, the relevant development plan

policies and other material considerations, the environmental information including the environmental information subsequently received, the consultation responses and the representations referred to above, the key issues are considered to be:

• The planning policy and other material considerations;

• The effects on the environment and amenity; and,

• The need for a legal agreement.

The planning policy and other material considerations

8.3 The determination of planning applications must be made in accordance with the

development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (as more fully explained in Appendix 2). The key development plan policies and material considerations are considered below. For completeness, all the relevant development plan policies and material considerations are listed in Appendix 2.

The West Midlands Regional Strategy (incorporating the Regional Spatial Strategy) 8.4 The Government has announced its intention to abolish the regional tier of planning

as part of the Localism Bill and that this should be regarded as a material consideration. However until such time as the Regional Strategy is abolished it remains part of the development plan (see Appendix 2 for more details).

8.5 The Regional Strategy strategic objectives and policies aim to retain the Green Belt

and protect and enhance the quality of the environment and landscape (QE1, QE2 and QE6). Policy WD1 sets targets to reduce the proportion of industrial and commercial waste disposed of by landfill. WD2 sets targets for recycling. WD3 provides criteria for the location of facilities.

8.6 The Phase 2 review of the regional waste policies reached panel report stage.

Policy W1 supports the waste hierarchy. W2 sets targets for the provision of waste management facilities (note: the capacity gap figures for Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent have been updated as part of the preparation of the Joint Waste Core strategy). W3 identifies the ‘locations’ (note: these have been taken forward as part of the emerging Waste Core Strategy). W4 aims to protect existing facilities so that they are not constrained by new development nearby. W5 provides criteria to assess the location of new facilities. W6 addresses situations such as is the case here when the proposals lie outside the major urban areas and other large settlements. The policy requires effective protection of amenity and the environment

and that the activity is appropriate to the area. W7 is also relevant as it deals with the development of waste facilities on open land or in the Green Belt. In such cases they should be close to the community producing the waste; there should be no preferable alternatives; there should be no harm to the openness of the Green Belt; they are necessary to support another essential activity or other key development; they would assist in agricultural diversification; and, they would not adversely affect biodiversity. W9 supports the provision of sites to treat and recycle soils and construction and demolition waste; supports on-site recycling and ‘urban quarries’.

The Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 8.7 Policy MW5 seeks to encourage waste development which supports sustainable

waste management consistent with the waste hierarchy, and which would not cause unacceptable direct or indirect adverse impacts upon people, transportation systems or the environment.

8.8 Policy MW6 seeks to ensure that the proposals do not have an unacceptable impact

upon people, transport or the environment. 8.9 In this case the proposals are consistent with the waste hierarchy but for the

reasons explained later there are concerns about the scale of the development in combination with the adjacent composting operations and therefore the impacts on the environment and the amenity of local residents.

The Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Waste Local Plan 8.10 Policy 3 seeks to protect people and communities, natural and cultural assets,

wildlife, the countryside, landscape, the highway network and public rights of way, agricultural land and the Green Belt. Policy 3 also directs that development of waste management facilities will not be granted where the proposed development would cause materially harmful impacts, except where the material planning benefits outweigh the material planning objections.

8.11 In this case, for the reasons explained elsewhere in this section of the report, there

are a number of material planning objections in terms of the impact on the Green Belt and the cumulative impacts on the amenity of local residents. However, again for the reasons explained elsewhere in this section of the report, there are also a number of material planning benefits that support the recommendation to grant a temporary 10 year permission.

8.12 Policy 12 seeks to locate waste management facilities with compatible existing and

adjoining land uses. 8.13 In this case there are synergies between the recycling and composting operations

and to a degree with the plant nursery, albeit that the scale of the recycling and composting operations now greatly exceeds the demand for the soil conditioner and compost produced on the two sites. Nevertheless the over size wood delivered to the compost site is shredded on the recycling site and the soils separated out from the recycling operations are blended with compost to produce a soil conditioner. The applicant also runs a large scale landscaping business that benefits from both operations. On the other hand, for the reasons explained later, the large scale recycling operations, particularly when combined with the adjoining composting nursery and garden centre uses, do have a negative impact on the amenity of residents living along Wolverhampton Road and overlooking the site in Cheslyn Hay.

8.14 Policy 14 indicates that developments would be permitted if the proposed development is carried out within a purpose built or appropriately modified existing building and would not give rise to any unacceptable adverse impacts and developments carried out in the open air would only be considered where the proposal would not give rise to any unacceptable adverse impacts.

8.15 In this case the nature of the operations means that they are generally carried out in

the open and to insist on the enclosure within a large building would in itself result in potential Green Belt objections and would not wholly remove the adverse impacts. For the reasons explained below there are environmental and amenity impacts, however there are also material planning benefits in granting planning permission in this case.

8.16 Policy 15 indicates that if doubts remain concerning the character or effect of the

proposal then a precautionary approach should be taken and temporary planning permission should be issued. The emerging Waste Core Strategy policy 3.4 repeats this policy.

8.17 This is an important policy consideration in this case. For the reasons explained

elsewhere in this section of the report, there are a number of reasons why concerns remain about the effects of the development. There is the impact on the Green Belt and the cumulative impact on the well being of local residents from the traffic, noise and visual intrusion. On the other hand there are also good reasons why planning permission should be granted. There are the benefits in terms of the management of waste and the fact that this is an important opportunity to place effective controls on the operations and to secure additional benefits through a legal agreement. On balance it is considered that a 10 year temporary permission would recognise the investment already made in the site and also provide the applicant with sufficient time to consider a number of options:

a) to re-locate the operations to a more suitable site, for example general

industrial, previously developed land or possibly within a quarry remote from housing and where there is a suitable access to the strategic highway network and there is an opportunity to screen the operations to reduce the visual impact and the effects of noise and dust.

b) to provide suitable alternative access direct to the A462 Warstone Road.

c) to demonstrate over a significant period of time that the operations can take

place without detrimental impact on the amenity of the area – for example by effective landscaping; by reducing the overall scale and extent of the site; and, by effective environmental management of the traffic and recycling operations.

d) to make representations to South Staffordshire Council to review the Green

Belt designation The South Staffordshire District Local Plan 8.18 The relevant policies in the Local Plan (and the emerging Core Strategy) relate to

the protection of the Green Belt, the impact of traffic and the importance of landscaping and design which are considered below.

Green Belt 8.19 Green Belt policy in the Structure Plan (D5B), South Staffordshire Local Plan (GB1)

and the emerging South Staffordshire Core Strategy (GB1) reflect the guidance in PPG2 which states that development that does not maintain openness or contribute to the purpose of including land in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate development. The Draft National Planning Policy Framework continues to support this important principle. Structure Plan Policy D5B adds that all development within the Green Belt should maintain visual amenities of the Green Belt. The Waste Local Plan acknowledges that unlike minerals which can only be worked where they are found, the same limitation does not apply to waste management facilities (Policy 3 and para. 4.45 and 4.46). PPS10 recognises that one of the key planning objectives is to:

protect green belts but recognise the particular locational needs of some types of waste management facilities when ….. in determining planning applications, that these locational needs, together with the wider environmental and economic benefits of sustainable waste management, are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be given planning permission.

8.20 In this case it is considered that the proposals are detrimental to the openness of

the Green Belt due to:

a) the nature of the operations - the open-air screening, crushing, handling and storage of inert waste and the open-air handling, chipping and storage of wood waste;

b) the scale of the operations – the 6 metre high screen bunds and storage

mounds, the operation of heavy vehicles, plant and equipment . The proposed throughput of 244,000 tpa would mean that this site would be the largest inert waste recycling facility in Staffordshire and be of sub-regional significance. The next largest facility has a throughput capacity of 100,000 tpa. Overall aggregate recycling capacity in Staffordshire at April 2011 was 518,000 tonnes so this facility would increase capacity by more than 50%;

c) the location of the site - close to residential areas in an area already affected

by the composting operations, the large and busy garden centre, plant nursery, quarrying and the M6 Toll Road.

8.21 It is therefore necessary to consider whether or not very special circumstances exist

and having done so it is reasonable to conclude, having regard to the guidance in PPS10, that a number of circumstances do exist for the reasons explained below, which when taken together amount to very special circumstances:

a) The inert waste and wood recycling has been taking place without the benefit

of planning permission and this application is intended to regularise this breach of planning control;

b) Granting planning permission is the only opportunity to impose planning

controls to address the impacts on the environment and the amenity of local residents.

c) The operations sit alongside and integrate to some degree with a large scale open windrow and in-vessel composting facility (soils are blended and oversize compost is shredded, the resulting products can be back hauled); the screen bunds surrounding the site are already permitted; and, the landscaping on the bunds has matured so the applicant contends that the operations would be no more intrusive than what is already permitted;

d) The operations also sit alongside a large garden centre and plant nursery

complex permitted in the Green Belt. e) Regularising the operations would recognise the significant contribution the

site is making to recycling inert waste in Staffordshire, particularly waste arising in the West Midlands conurbation and significantly reduce the remaining capacity gap in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent and thereby reduce our reliance on mineral extraction;

Other material considerations The National Waste Strategy - 2007 8.22 The strategy promotes the waste hierarchy (which was recently been updated to

take account of the latest EU Directive). The strategy therefore supports recycling, the diversion of waste from landfill and the development of markets for wood waste.

The review of Waste Policy in England – June 2011 8.23 The review continues to support recycling as part of driving waste up the waste

hierarchy. Planning for Growth’ - Ministerial Statement by Greg Clark - 23 March 2011 8.24 The statement by the Minister of State for Decentralisation describes how the

Government expects the answer to development and growth wherever possible to be ‘yes’, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in national planning policy. PPS10 currently sets out the key objectives for sustainable waste management and these objectives are considered below.

• The delivery of sustainable development through driving waste management up

the waste hierarchy, addressing waste as a resource and looking to disposal as a last option;

• Enabling communities to take more responsibility for their own waste and enable

sufficient and timely provision of waste management facilities to meet the needs of communities;

• Help in implementing the national waste strategy, and supporting targets that are

consistent with obligations under legislation and guidance; • Secure the recovery or disposal of waste without endangering human health and

without harming the environment, and enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations;

• Reflect the concerns and interests of communities, the needs of waste collection authorities, waste disposal authorities and business, and encourage competitiveness;

• Ensure the design and layout of new development supports sustainable waste

management.

Draft National Planning Policy Framework (published 25 July 2011) 8.25 The Draft National Planning Policy Framework does not contain specific waste

planning policies. However the draft document does contain general planning policy guidance which is relevant to development management decisions.

8.26 Paragraph 53 states that the primary objective of development management is to

foster the delivery of sustainable development, not to hinder or prevent development.

8.27 Paragraph 54 states that local authorities should proactively fulfil their planning role,

and ... actively promote sustainable development. In doing so the Government wishes to see local planning authorities approaching development management decisions positively – looking for solutions rather than problems so that applications can be approved wherever it is practical to do so; attaching significant weight to the benefits of economic and housing growth; influencing development proposals to achieve quality outcomes; and enabling the delivery of sustainable development proposals.

8.28 Paragraph 171 states in terms of preventing unacceptable risks from pollution, it

should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location, having regard to the effects of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, taking account of the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution. Paragraph 172 goes on to state that there should be a focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under pollution control regimes.

The emerging Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Waste Core Strategy (2010 – 2026)

8.29 The emerging Waste Core Strategy (WCS) is at an advanced stage. The formal public consultation prior to submission to the Secretary of State will close on 4 November 2011. In December it is intended that the Planning Committee and then the Full Council will endorse the final version of the document before it is formally submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination. As the WCS is not adopted full weight cannot be given to it, nevertheless it has reached an advanced stage, and bearing in mind the nature of the objections that have so far been made to it, it is reasonable to treat it as a material consideration and give some weight to the strategy, the policies the evidence base information (see extracts from the latest draft WCS in Appendix 2).

8.30 In brief the objectives for the WCS are:

• to support facilities that make more use of waste as a resource and reduce our reliance on landfill;

• to enable Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent to become net self-sufficient;

• to encourage high quality design; and, • to support economic growth having regard to any physical and environmental

constraints on development, the cumulative effects and the capacity of transport infrastructure.

8.31 Policy 2 sets targets for waste facilities for the various waste streams and indicates

favoured broad locations for new facilities. This policy indicates that at least an additional capacity of 116,000 tonnes per annum would be required by 2025/26 capable of recycling/ recovering municipal, commercial and industrial wastes. The site does not fall within one of the broad locations identified for waste development under Policy 2.

8.32 Policy 3 sets out the general requirements and exceptions criteria for new and the

expansion of existing waste management facilities. This includes the requirement that facilities should be fully contained within well designed purpose built or appropriately modified existing buildings or enclosed structures. Policy 4 seeks to ensure that all proposals for waste management facilities should be designed and operated to high environmental standards and should avoid unacceptable adverse impacts or minimise adverse impacts taking particular account of climate change implications.

Annual Monitoring Report 2010

8.33 Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs) record the recent waste permissions, provide an analysis of waste management capacity and help to inform the emerging Waste Core Strategy. AMR 2010 concludes that Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent are currently net self-sufficient – albeit that recyclable wastes are exported to specialist facilities elsewhere. The AMR anticipates that ‘a minimum of 243,000tpa of additional recycling capacity will be required by 2020/21 or 252,000tpa by 2025/26.’ [Note: the recycling throughput would provide additional capacity as it is not counted in the current capacity figures.]

The emerging South Staffordshire Core Strategy 8.34 The vision, strategic objectives and policies of the emerging Core Strategy aim to

further the adopted Local Plan by continuing to protect the Green Belt, minimise the impact of traffic and the protect and enhance landscaping and ensuring high quality design (see Appendix 2).

Planning policy and other material considerations – overall conclusion 8.35 It is clear that there are a set of unsatisfactory circumstances that have led to the

current situation but fundamentally in terms of determining whether or not this is sustainable development it is important to examine whether or not this is the right type of development, on the right site and this is the right time (PPS10 paragraph 2).

8.36 The right type of development? Yes – waste planning policy supports the

recycling of inert waste and wood and the applicant contends that 99% of what is brought on to the site is recycled. Recycling inert waste also produces secondary aggregate thereby helping to reduce the demand for primary aggregate from quarries in Staffordshire (consistent with the County Council’s recent ‘Minerals madness’ campaign which is aiming to reduce the amount of aggregate that Staffordshire has to plan for and replace some of that supply with secondary / recycled aggregate). The emerging Waste Core Strategy has a target of 200,000

tonnes per annum for this type of facility and having regard to the recommendation below to limit to scale of the site, this facility would meet that target.

8.37 The right site? No – the site is in the Green Belt and it is inappropriate

development. Whilst there are a set of circumstances which when taken together amount to very special circumstances, there is also the potential unacceptable cumulative impacts to consider. The cumulative impacts arise from the combination of traffic from the recycling composting, garden centre and nursery businesses; the odours from the composting facility; the noise from the composting and recycling facilities; the dust from the traffic and the recycling facility, and the visual impact of the combined activities. It is also relevant to note that there is a permission to extract clay from the nearby Campions Wood quarry site and when the quarry becomes operational, notwithstanding the controls on the operations, it will add to the traffic, noise and dust experienced by residents along Wolverhampton Road. For these reasons the location of the site does not accord with Structure Plan Policy MW6 and Waste Local Plan Policies 12 and 14, nor does it accord with the emerging Waste Core Strategy as it does not fall within one of the ‘broad locations’ or ‘large settlements’ and it is considered that it is not sufficiently ‘close to’ Cannock to comply.

8.38 The right time? Yes – simply it is important to take this opportunity to regularise

what is now a large scale recycling operation in the Green Belt.

Impacts on environment and amenity 8.39 In assessing the impacts on environment and amenity it is necessary to take into

consideration the environmental information provided. The Environmental Statement provides the information together with the additional information and revisions to the proposals subsequently made and the comments from consultees and the representations received. The following section considers the key environmental effects, having regard to the relevant ‘saved’ development plan policies and other material considerations, including PPS10 (paragraph 29 and Annex E).

Landscape and Visual Impact

8.40 Regional Strategy policies QE1, QE2, QE6, QE7 and QE8; Structure Plan policies D1, D2, NC1 and NC2; Waste Local Plan policy 3; South Staffordshire Local Plan policies LS9, LS10 and BE26; the emerging South Staffordshire Core Strategy strategic objective 4 and policy EQ4 and EQ12; all seek to protect, maintain and enhance the local environment and amenity of the area enjoyed by local communities and encourage developers to make a positive contribution towards landscape regeneration.

8.41 As described in Appendix 1, the ES considered the landscape and visual impact of

the proposals and concluded that the overall landscape and visual effects would generally be neutral or insignificant due mainly to the fact that the development proposals are similar to the current permitted uses and the site is already well screened by large bunds and maturing planting, which would be supplemented.

8.42 Notwithstanding the conclusions in the ES, it is considered that the scale of the

operations, when combined with the composting operations do amount to a significant visual impact, particularly as the site is in the Green Belt. The large bunds in themselves are incongruous although landscaping on the bunds does to some extent help to soften their appearance. Even so the mounds of material and

the heavy vehicles, plant and equipment are visible from Cheslyn Hay and the diverted footpath. Further work is proposed and needed to close the gaps in the mounds and to improve the planting mix to help screen the site.

Effects of traffic

8.43 Regional Strategy policies T1, T2 and T10(i); Structure Plan policies T10, T18A, MW6 and MW8; Waste Local Plan policy 3, South Staffordshire Local Plan policies TR3 and TR4; and PPG13 all seek to minimise the impact of traffic generated by development upon the function of the transport network and consider opportunities to try to reduce the impact of freight movements.

8.44 Transport Development Control and the Highways Agency have no objection to the

proposals, subject to some improvements to the kerbs at the access. Concerns have however been raised by local residents living on Wolverhampton Road and during discussions with the Planning Regulation Team and the South Staffordshire EHO about the impact of the traffic in terms of the noise, dust, mud on the road, vibration and damage to parked cars. There is also the cumulative traffic impact along Wolverhampton Road to consider resulting from:

a) The maximum proposed 272 movements per full working day from the

recycling operations (ES para. 2.24). Although the applicant contends that this is a worst case based on the proposed 244,000 tonnes maximum annual throughput. It does not take account of the larger vehicles used in some cases and the 50% back-haul which is common to many contracts.

b) The maximum permitted 70 movements per full working day from the

composting operations. [The Transport Assessment assumed a composting throughput of 50,000 tonnes per annum and having regard to payloads, calculated that on average there would be 16 loads per day. EA data for a week in April 2009 confirmed that there was a weekly average of 32 movements per day (16 loads). Whereas in June 2009 a sample week showed an average of 56 movements per day.]

c) The customers and deliveries to the garden centre and plant nursery. The

Garden Centre also has the benefit of an access off Warstone Road.

d) It is reasonable to assume that the nearby Campions Wood Quarry will resume operations again sometime between the date when the appeal decision is made and 2042. According the appellant, the estimated 1.8 million tonnes of recoverable resource would be extracted at a rate of about 2,000 tonnes per day (equivalent to 100 lorry movements per day) on a campaign basis over a 20 day period each year for up to 13 years.

e) The general traffic using Wolverhampton Road to gain access to Cheslyn

Hay. 8.45 When considered in these terms, the impact of the traffic from the site and the

adjoining uses on the amenity of residents of Wolverhampton Road is significant. It is therefore reasonable on amenity grounds to recommend a lower limit on traffic associated with the recycling and composting operations based on the following reasoning.

a) the permitted composting operations allows 35 loads (70 movements) per day and according to the transport assessment provides a throughput of 50,000 tpa

b) it is proposed that the recycling operations be permitted a 244,000 tpa

throughput (for no other reason that it would tie in with the waste management licence). According to the transport assessment, based on an average payload of 13 tonnes, this represents 68 loads per day (136 movements). The transport assessment also acknowledges that weighbridge figures show that traffic movements in reality are much less and the figures do not take into account the back haul loads of materials from the site.

c) this would represent a combined recycling and composting total of 103 loads

(206 movements per day) and a combined throughput of 294,000 tpa.

d) it is recommended that a combined limit of 250,000 tpa based on a weekly average limit of 72 loads (144 movements) per day should be secured as part of a legal agreement as this would represent a more acceptable level of traffic and at the same time offer the applicant more overall flexibility. The alternative would be to set a recycling traffic weekly average limit of 58 loads (116 movements) per day. Based on a 5.5 day week, 48 working weeks per year and an average payload of 13 tonnes that would represent 200,000 tpa throughput. This is the target figure in the emerging Waste Core Strategy for additional recycling capacity.

Effects of noise and dust 8.46 Regional Strategy policies QE1, QE3 and WD3; Structure Plan policies D2 and

MW6; Waste Local Plan policy 3, South Staffordshire Local Plan policy BE26; PPS10, PPG23, the emerging Waste Core Strategy policy 4.2 and the emerging South Staffordshire Core Strategy Core policy 3 and policy EQ9; all seek to minimise the impact of noise and dust in order to protect the well being of local residents.

8.47 As described in Appendix 1, the ES considered the effects of noise and dust. In

terms of dust, the ES concluded that effective dust management, including the provision of a wheel wash and road sweeping, would be sufficient to control dust. In terms of noise the ES concluded that noise mitigation measures, including the screen bunds, the use of rubber mats on the trommels and closing the gaps in the screen bunds, would be sufficient to control noise.

8.48 Notwithstanding the conclusions in the ES, and having regard to the comments from

the South Staffordshire EHO, County Council Noise Engineer and Planning regulation Team, it is considered that the overall scale of the operations should be reduced and conditions are recommended to control noise and dust. The conditions include a limit on the operating hours, as proposed, so that they are the same as the composting operational hours i.e. 0800 to 1800 Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1300 on Saturdays. It is also considered important to require effective wheel wash facilities to be installed and road sweeping to be carried out on the site access road and along Wolverhampton Road and for these arrangements to be kept under review. The sweeping of Wolverhampton Road would have to be secured by legal agreement as it would take place off-site. Dust management and noise monitoring is also recommended.

Need for Legal Agreement 8.49 Circular 5/2005 sets out the tests for determining whether a planning obligation

should be sought to enable proposals to go ahead. The tests are that they should be: relevant to planning; necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the proposed development; fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; and, reasonable in all other aspects and as a result of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 that no part of the development to which the planning obligation relates is capable of being charged a Community Infrastructure Levy [no such levy has been adopted]. Three of the Policy tests contained within Circular 5/2005 are also now enshrined in law in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (and recently reaffirmed in the Draft National Planning Policy Framework published on 25 July 2011). Therefore a planning obligation may by law only constitute a reason for granting Planning Permission for a development if the obligation is:

a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; b) directly related to the development; and, c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

8.50 In this case it is considered necessary, directly related, fair and reasonable to

require a legal agreement to be entered into by the applicant and any other interested parties before planning permission is issued that secures agreement to the following:

1. To cease to operate the site on the basis of the original planning permission

issued by South Staffordshire District Council ref. 0598/94 dated 22 March 1996. The same approach was taken before the composting permission was issued and this would effectively replace the original permissions and regularise all the current operations on site.

2. To instruct all drivers before entering or leaving the site to:

a) sheet vehicles when carrying loads to and from the site; b) turn right out of the site entrance and not to arrive at the site from the right;

and,

c) give due consideration to the residents and users of Wolverhampton Road when entering and leaving the site and travelling along Wolverhampton Road. To record and investigate all complaints from resident and users and to warn drivers found not to be following the instructions and to ban drivers who subsequently fail to heed the instructions having received a warning.

3. To deploy a road sweeper along Wolverhampton Road as necessary to ensure

that the public highway remains clean and free from waste, dust, mud, recycled or recyclable or deleterious materials deposited from any vehicle entering or leaving the access point.

4. To limit the noise emanating from the composting and recycling sites to a

maximum noise rating level of 50 dB LAeq (1 hour) (free-field) and that noise

monitoring of both sites be carried out in accordance a scheme to be agreed in compliance with the requirements of the recycling permission.

5. To limit the combined throughput of waste to the composting and recycling sites

to a maximum of 250,000 tonnes per annum and to limit the combined traffic to a weekly average of 72 loads (144 movements) per day.

8.51 It is considered that a legal agreement (planning obligation) providing for the above

would be compliant with all legal and Government policy requirements.

Overall Conclusion 8.52 Overall, as an exercise of judgement, taking the relevant development plan policies

as a whole and having given consideration to the application, the environmental information and additional information subsequently provided, the consultation responses, the representations and the other material considerations referred to above, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed development is acceptable and should be permitted on a temporary basis for 10 years, subject to a supplemental / new Section 106 Legal Agreement (as appropriate), and subject to planning conditions, the terms of which are recommended below.

8.53 As the proposed development does not accord with the development plan or the

exemptions from Green Belt policy in PPG2, the application would have to be treated as a departure and referred to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government c/o the National Planning Casework Unit under the Town and Country Planning (Consultation)(England) Direction 2009, as the scale, nature and location of the development would give rise to a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

CORPORATE DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATION

1. As the development by reason of its scale, nature and location, would have a

significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt then the application be referred to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government c/o the Government Office for the West Midlands under the Town and Country Planning (Consultation)(England) Direction 2009 as a departure from the development plan in Green Belt policy terms.

2. That the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government c/o the

Government Office for the West Midlands be informed that having regard to the matters referred to in the report, that the County Council is MINDED TO PERMIT the proposed development on a temporary basis for 10 years subject to the applicant and any other interested parties first entering into a modified / new Section 106 legal agreement (as appropriate) to secure the matters listed below and subject to planning conditions also listed below:

S106 Legal Agreement - heads of terms to include agreement to: 1. Cease to operate the site on the basis of the original planning permission

issued by South Staffordshire Council ref. 0598/94 dated 22 March 1996.

2. Instruct all drivers before entering or leaving the site to:

a) sheet vehicles when carrying loads to and from the site; b) turn right out of the site entrance and not to arrive at the site from the

right; and, c) give due consideration to the residents and users of Wolverhampton

Road when entering and leaving the site and travelling along Wolverhampton Road. To record and investigate all complaints from resident and users and to warn drivers found not to be following the instructions and to ban drivers who subsequently fail to heed the instructions having received a warning.

3. Deploy a road sweeper along Wolverhampton Road as necessary to ensure

that the public highway remains clean and free from waste, dust, mud, recycled or recyclable or deleterious materials deposited from any vehicle entering or leaving the access point.

4. Limit the noise emanating from the composting and recycling sites to a

maximum noise rating level of 50 dB LAeq (1 hour) (free-field) and that noise monitoring of both sites be carried out in accordance a scheme to be agreed in compliance with the requirements of the recycling permission.

5. Limit the combined throughput of waste to the composting and recycling sites

to a maximum of 250,000 tonnes per annum and to limit the combined traffic to a weekly average of 72 loads (144 movements) per day.

Planning conditions - heads of terms to include: 1. To define the permission and the site with reference to the approved

documents and plans

2. The development shall be lawfully commenced on the date of the planning permission

3. To limit the duration of the operations to 10 years from the date of the

permission

4. To define the early cessation of the operations

5. To require the permission to be held on the site and made known to the site manager.

6. To define the site layout

7. To specify the permitted operations – the sorting, picking, crushing,

screening, secondary screening, chipping and stockpiling

8. To limit the waste types to inert construction, demolition and excavation waste and waste wood

9. To limit the throughput of waste to 200,000 tonnes per annum (unless

otherwise agreed as part of a S106 Legal Agreement)

10. To specify the operating hours: (the same as for the composting operations)

08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday and 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturday

11. To require the site to be kept in an orderly appearance

12. To require a daily litter pick

13. To limit the vehicle movements (unless otherwise agreed as part of a S106

Legal Agreement) to:

a) A weekly average limit of 58 loads (116 movements) per day.

14. To define the access off Wolverhampton Road

15. To require site access kerb improvement details to be submitted and be implemented

16. The sheeting of vehicles

17. To require that no waste, dust, mud, recycled or recyclable materials or

deleterious material is deposited on the public highway

18. To require details of the wheel wash and road sweeping arrangements to be submitted for approval and to require the arrangements to be implemented and kept under review.

19. To require the access road to be well maintained and kept clean

20. To keep records of the quantities of waste and traffic movements

21. To limit noise to 50dB LAeq (1-hour) (free-field) measured at any noise

sensitive property.

22. To require noise monitoring and review in accordance with an agreed scheme.

23. To require best practicable means to be used to minimise the noise including

the use of rubber linings in trommels.

24. To require all plant shall be fitted with a warbler reversing system, or such other system which will minimise, so far as is reasonably practicable and subject to maintaining safety, the level and generation of noise emissions from reversing warning systems.

25. To prevent burning of waste on the site

26. To require the submission of a dust management plan, regular monitoring

and review in accordance with an agreed scheme.

27. To require surface water drainage scheme to be submitted for approval; the scheme to include details of:

a) A sustainable drainage strategy based on the submitted Flood Risk

Assessment b) The signs to be erected to warn of the potential risk of flooding c) The measures to maintain and manage the scheme 28. To require potentially polluting activities to take place on an impermeable

base that is drained to an impermeable sump(s)/tank(s)

29. To control the storage of potentially polluting liquids

30. To limit the height of stockpiles to 5.5 metres

31. To limit the height of the screen bunds to 6 metres

32. To control floodlighting

33. To require the construction of screen bunds in accordance with agreed cross-section profile

34. To require landscaping details to be submitted for approval and for the

landscaping to be maintained for the duration of the permission

35. To protect existing trees alongside the boundary to the site

36. To require a detailed agricultural restoration and 5 year aftercare scheme to be submitted for approval within 8 years of the date of this permission, or within 3 months of the cessation of the operations whichever is the sooner.

37. To require the site to be cleared and restored within 12 months of cessation

followed by a 5 year period of aftercare in accordance with the approved agricultural restoration and aftercare scheme.

38. To define the expiry of the permission following completion of the aftercare

scheme. Informatives to include the following:

Coal Authority standing advice.

Case Officer: Mike Grundy - Tel: (01785) 277297 email: mike.grundy@staffordshire.gov.uk

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

inspection at the offices of Staffordshire County Council, Riverway, Stafford during normal office hours Monday to Thursday (8.30 am – 5.00 pm);

Friday (8.30 am – 4.30 pm)

Appendix 1 Summary of the findings of the Environmental Statement (and environmental information subsequently submitted) The Environmental Statement was structured as follows: • Planning Policy • Rights of Way • Alternatives • Air Quality and Dust • Noise • Highways and Transport • Hydrology • Landscape and Visual Impact Planning Policy The ES considered the relevant planning policies at the time when it was prepared. The report considers the latest planning policies and government guidance. Rights of Way The applicant has acknowledged that a footpath routed around the edge of the site when the composting site was developed was not formally diverted. The applicant intends to submit an application for footpath diversion order to regularise this situation. Alternatives and benefits The applicant contends that without the permission the materials would have to be disposed of to landfill or taken to recycling sites further away from where the waste arises. Also without the benefit of the planning permission the site would continue to operate without the benefit of the planning controls that the County Council would wish to impose. The facility is helping to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill and creating secondary aggregate thereby reducing the demand for primary aggregates. The facility will also help to fill the capacity gap identified in the Regional Strategy. The facility benefits from being alongside the composting facility in terms of the products that can be produced and also benefits from being close to the M6 motorway junction 11 Air Quality Assessment The operations take place in the open air and so the ES considered the effects of dust from the various processing operations and from the dust and air pollution from the associated traffic. The screen bunds serve to reduce wind speeds within the site and capture fugitive dust. The ES considered the nearest sensitive land uses including Cheslyn Hay School which is 300 metres to the east of the site and a group of dwellings on Wolverhampton Road which are 300 metres to the south of the site. The ES failed to consider the effect on a travellers caravan site immediately to the east of the site along Hospital Lane. Dust suppression is carried out by water sprays fitted to concrete crushers, regular sweeping of the yard areas and access road, spray mist and odour masking system around the perimeter of the site. The introduction of a drive through wheel wash is proposed to

reduce the impact of dust and debris arising from HCV traffic on Wolverhampton Road, together with more regular sweeping of the public road outside the site. The assessment considered the air quality monitoring data collected by the District Council and concluded that the site does not lie in a sensitive area in terms of pollution from traffic. The assessment also considered dust generated by the processing of waste set against the recognised standards. Limited baseline information was available concerning dust deposition. The ES noted that the mobile crushers are authorised by the Environmental Health Authority. The assessment supported the introduction of a wheel wash and daily road sweeping in addition to the existing sprinklers on the crushers etc referred to above. Noise assessment The assessment took into account the scoping advice from the South Staffordshire EHO which referred to the complaints about traffic noise from residents along Wolverhampton Road, the noise from crushers and reversing bleepers. Noise monitoring was carried out in May 2008. The effects of background road traffic were noted. The assessment noted that the noise limit on the composting operation was 55 dB(A) and that even when combined with the noise from the recycling operation this limit would not be breached. The assessment did identify particularly distinctive noise from the aggregate recycling process, particularly in downwind locations. The ES recommended measures to reduce noise from the trommel by 5 dB(A), to provide additional screening to fill gaps and that non-tonal reversing alarms be deployed as per the condition on the composting site. Also routine noise monitoring should take place. The original noise assessment was updated by a supplemental noise assessment which included the noise implications for the traveller site on Hospital Lane and the road traffic noise along Wolverhampton Road. The conclusion was that the 55 dB limited imposed for the composting operations should apply here and the increase in traffic noise on Wolverhampton Road would not be significant. [Note: the transport assessment acknowledged that a 1dB change would be significant (p8 para. 3.21) and the supplemental noise assessment suggested that there would be between 1 and 2 dB increase along Wolverhampton Road (page 11 para. 4.4). On that basis the noise impact would be significant.] Highways and Transport The transport assessment considered the standard of the local roads, baseline traffic flows, the development traffic, highway safety and potential future development (at the time). The assessment noted some shortcoming with the access (surface, kerbs and radii). The assessment also considered the composting traffic. According to the assessment. Based on an annual throughput of 244,000 tonnes, the recycling site would attract an average of 887 tonnes transported in 68 loads per day / 8 loads (16 movements) per hour on average. Weighbridge data revealed that total loads varied between 85 and 124 loads per day (170

– 248 movements) and the quantity of material moved was 868.5 and 1569.5 tonnes respectively. This indicates that there is a reasonable amount of back haul taking place. No Personal Injury Accidents were recorded on Wolverhampton Road during the 5 year period 2003 – 2008. To achieve the proposed throughput of 244,000 tpa, it is estimated that the site would generate 68 loads per day (8 loads per hour)(136 movements/day and 16 movements/hour). Without back haul it was assumed that a similar number of export loads would occur each day. resulting in an overall traffic flow of 272 movements per day. The assessment examined the traffic noise along Wolverhampton Road and concluded that it would be insignificant. Overall the assessment concluded that the traffic impact on the local highway network would be insignificant. Hydrology – Flood Risk Assessment The site is not in a floodplain so will not displace floodwater off site. The revised flood risk assessment describes a watercourse running along the northern boundary of the site (area C) and then passing through the site in a culvert below area A. The culvert discharges into an unnamed watercourse which flows in a westerly direction towards Laney Green. To manage surface water it is proposed to continue to discharge to the ditch around the northern part of the site with storm water attenuated by a stone filled tank. A new outfall to the watercourse to the north of the site would receive water at a restricted rate and storm water would also be attenuated by a stone filled tank. To prevent storm water shedding on to the land to the north it is proposed to extend the landscaped bund to close the gap. The additional information supplied to the Environment Agency included a plan to show areas liable to flooding and proposals to erect flood warning signs. Landscape and visual assessment The assessment followed the recognised standards for a landscape and visual assessment and took account of the County Council’s Landscape Character Assessment. The assessment described the site boundaries. The northern boundary consists of recently constructed bund, with open undulating farmland beyond, an intermittent native hedgerow and field boundary on to arable farmland and a long section of screen bund with sporadic planting of native thicket and small trees. A mature native hedgerow at the foot of the bund and a ditch. A 2.4 m high palisade fence defines the boundary. To the east there is a break in the screen bund where there is a former access off Hospital Lane, currently blocked by a concrete barrier and palisade fence. The southern boundary is defined by a long screen bund with varying degrees of planting. The western boundary is partly open to the adjoining composting site, partly defined by a screen bund and partly open to provide access to the site. The assessment described the general area as ‘settled plateau farmland slopes’. Incongruous landscape features typify this urban fringe location. The site is immediately surrounded by the existing open-windrow composting operations, in-vessel composting building, garden centre, car parking area, plant nursery informal ponds and miniature railway, travellers caravan site off Hospital Lane, a row of terraced housing along Wolverhampton Road and the Campions Wood Quarry. A cemetery, a school and housing lie to the east of the site, at the fringe of Cheslyn Hay. To the north and west there is

farmland. There is a small group of farm buildings and dwellings at Laney Green to the north west, adjacent to junction 11 of the M6 motorway. Mitigation planting is proposed to reduce the visual / landscape impacts by strengthening the existing boundary landscaping and diversifying the planting mix. Further details were provided of the profiles of the screen bunds and planting specifications. The assessment concluded that the overall landscape and visual effects would generally be neutral or insignificant due mainly to the fact that the development proposals are similar to the current permitted uses and the site is already well screened by large bunds and maturing planting, which would be supplemented.

Appendix 2 Relevant Development Plan Policies and Other Material Considerations The development plan The key test for planning applications is set out in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which replaces Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 with section 38(6) which states that:

“If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”

Other material considerations The proposal has to be assessed not only in relation to waste planning policy but also to other policies identified at section 4 of this report, and any other material considerations. The Government’s publication ‘The Planning System: General Principles’ explains at paragraph 11 that:

“In principle...any consideration which relates to the use and development of land is capable of being a planning consideration. Whether a particular consideration falling within that broad class is material in any given case will depend on the circumstances” (Stringer v MHLG 1971).

The advice goes on to explain that ‘Material considerations must be genuine planning considerations, i.e. they must be related to the development and use of land in the public interest. The considerations must also fairly and reasonably relate to the application concerned.’ THE RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES The West Midlands Regional Strategy (incorporating the former Regional Spatial Strategy) QE1 Conserving and Enhancing the Environment QE3 Creating a high quality built environment for all QE6 Conservation, Enhancement and Restoration of the Region’s Landscape QE7 Protecting, Managing and Enhancing the Region’s Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Resources QE9 The Water Environment WD1 Targets for Waste Management in the Region WD2 The need for Waste Management Facilities – by Sub Region WD3 Criteria for the location of the Waste Management Facilities The Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan D1 Sustainable Forms of Development D2 The design and Environmental Quality of Development D5B Development in the Green Belts D7 Conserving Energy and Water T10 Freight Transport T11 Management of Traffic T12 The Strategic Highway Network

T13 Local Roads T18A Transport and Development NC1 Protection of the Countryside: General Considerations NC2 Landscape Protection and Restoration NC9 Water Resources MW3 The Efficient Use and Recycling of Minerals MW5 Sustainable Waste Management MW6 Evaluation of Proposals MW7 Relationship to Conservation and/or Development Initiatives MW8 Transportation of Minerals and Waste MW9 Reclamation The Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Waste Local Plan Policy 3 General Protection Policy 4 Restoration, Aftercare and After-use Policy 5 Legal Agreements Policy 12 Criteria for the location of waste treatment facilities Policy 14 Waste treatment facilities within buildings and in the open air Policy 15 Temporary consent for open air waste treatment facilities The South Staffordshire District Local Plan GB1 Green Belts TR3 New development access and highway improvements TR4 New development vehicle parking and manoeuvring LS9 Landscape Improvement Areas LS10 Landscape Improvement Areas – development proposals BE26 New development – design criteria OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1): Delivering Sustainable Development including the Supplement to PPS1 (PPS1 CC): Planning and Climate Change Planning Policy Guidance 2 (PPG2): Green Belts Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4): Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9): Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPS10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management and Companion Guide Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG13): (Transport) Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS23): Planning & Pollution Control PPG 24 Planning and Noise Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25): Development and Flood Risk Minerals Policy Statement 2 (MPS2): Controlling & mitigating the environmental effects of minerals extraction in England & Annexes 1 & 2 ‘Noise’ and ‘Dust’ Minerals Planning Guidance 7 (MPG7): Reclamation of Mineral Workings The National Waste Strategy 2007 ‘Designing Waste Facilities: a guide to modern design in waste’ prepared by CABE and published by DEFRA (October 2008). Ministerial Statement - Planning for Growth - March 2011

Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011 – published 14 June 2011 Publication Version Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy (Approved by Planning Committee on 7 July 2011) Note: The Coalition Government announced in June 2010 its intention to abolish regional strategies as part of the Localism Bill. However, in accordance with subsequent legal rulings, until such time as legislation is changed the RS remains part of the development plan. Also the evidence base material that has informed the preparation of the review of the Regional Strategy may be a material consideration, depending on the facts of the case. Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) ‘Planning for Sustainable Waste Management’ with its companion guide, sets out the Government’s general principles, policies and guidance relating to the delivery of sustainable waste management. In a letter from the Chief Planner (Steve Quartermain - CLG) dated 31 March 2011, the wording of PPS10 was updated to incorporate the new waste hierarchy set out in the revised Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC). The new waste hierarchy seeks to increase the use of waste as a resource (e.g. for fuel) and to place greater emphasis on the prevention and recycling of waste, while protecting human health and the environment. The Government’s national objectives for waste planning authorities are set out in paragraphs 22-32 of PPS10. It is relevant to point out that PPS10 states that when proposals are consistent with an up to date development plan, “there should be no requirement to demonstrate a quantitative or market need”. Paragraph 33 and considered relevant states: ‘Where proposals would prejudice the implementation of the waste strategy in the development plan, consideration should be given to how they could be amended to make them acceptable, or where this is not practicable, to refusing the application’. PPS10 also provides important decision-making principles relevant to this case:

Waste planning authorities must recognise that controls under the planning and pollution control regimes should complement rather than duplicate each other and conflicting conditions should be avoided. The planning system controls the development and use of land in the public interest and should focus on whether development is an acceptable use of the land, and the impacts of those uses on the development and use of land. Waste planning authorities should therefore work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced. (PPS10, paragraph 27)

‘Where proposals would prejudice the implementation of the waste strategy in the development plan, consideration should be given to how they could be amended to make them acceptable, or where this is not practicable, to refusing the application’. (PPS10, paragraph 33).

The companion guide to PPS10 advises waste planning authorities (WPAs) to consider as a test of suitability, the cumulative effect of previous waste disposal facilities on the well-being of the local community, including any significantly adverse impacts on environmental quality, social cohesion and inclusion or economic potential. The status of regional planning policy The review of the Regional Spatial Strategy (which currently forms part of what is now known as the Regional Strategy) (referred to above) has been abandoned.

The Phase 2 review of the regional spatial strategy reached examination stage and a report was published in September 2009. Consultation on the Phase 3 review commenced in June 2009. In the summer of 2010 the new Coalition Government announced its intention to abolish regional strategies and reaffirmed this in the Localism Bill which was published on 13 December 2010. Following a series of legal rulings (Cala Homes) the courts have ruled that the Regional Strategy currently remains part of the ‘development plan’. However, the Government intention to abolish regional strategies is a material consideration when making planning decisions. Therefore, regard has been had to the relevant policies in the Regional Strategy, referred to above. The background evidence gathered as part of the emerging Phase 2 and 3 revisions has been regarded as a material consideration where relevant and where it remains the best available data. For example t he background evidence produced in 2007 to support of the Phase 2 review of the regional waste policies estimated the amount of non-landfill capacity required in the region to manage Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and Commercial and Industrial waste (C&I waste) in the period between 2010/11 and 2025/26. The figures were used to identify the ‘treatment capacity gap’ for each Waste Planning Authority area. Since then background evidence gathering work carried out to support the emerging Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Waste Core Strategy, referred to below, has updated this earlier evidence. The emerging Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Waste Core Strategy The emerging Joint Waste Core Strategy (JWCS) was approved by Planning Committee in July 2010 and public consultation took place during August and September 2010. A report of the findings of the public consultation was presented to Planning Committee on 2 December 2010. An informal consultation took place in April 2011 to allow stakeholders who had previously commented on the strategy to provide feedback on the latest draft. A formal ‘submission draft’ of the ‘Publication Document’ of the JWCS is on the agenda for the Planning Committee, and has also been sent to Stoke-on-Trent City Council for their approval , prior to public consultation on the ‘soundness’ of the document due to take place in September 2011. Regard has been had to the latest version of the emerging JWCS, albeit at this stage, as the Strategy as not received Committee approval, and as it has not been adopted, limited weight can be placed upon the policies therein. Nevertheless it is helpful to recognise the general direction of the emerging strategy, planning policies and be aware of the background evidence as it provides the latest available data. According to the latest draft version of the JWCS –Publication Document - September 2011: The Key Issues Issue 1: We need to take steps to minimise the negative effects of waste management on climate change by: • Working towards a zero waste society with greater resource efficiency and

supporting, insofar as we are able, initiatives that help us to move towards improved recycling rates;

• Encouraging waste operators to treat waste further up the “Waste Hierarchy”; • Continuing to reduce our reliance and use of landfill; and, • Using our influence in the planning process to encourage, insofar as we are able,

resource efficiency during demolition, construction and use of new buildings.

Issue 2: We must continue to take responsibility for managing the waste we generate by ensuring we are net self-sufficient in waste management (managing an amount of waste equivalent to that generated within our areas). • We need to increase the diversion of waste from landfill by: • Maintaining the existing capacity of our non landfill related waste infrastructure; • Reducing our reliance on landfill and void capacity; and • Supporting proposals for new and enhanced waste management facilities to develop

our waste infrastructure where it can be shown to be sustainable and presents an opportunity to contribute to our local economy.

We also need to continue to encourage waste operators to increase their capacity to recycle additional construction, demolition and excavation waste to conserve our mineral resources. Issue 3: Some of our waste infrastructure does not meet modern design standards. We need to encourage waste operators to raise the standard of our waste infrastructure by: • Ensuring new waste management facilities meet modern design standards; and, • Supporting proposals to improve the quality of existing waste management facilities,

as they are developed, to keep pace with the requirements of legislation and meet modern design standards.

Issue 4: In order to provide sufficient opportunities for our waste infrastructure to develop the right type of facilities, in the right place and at the right time, we need to ensure that proposals: • Make a positive contribution to people’s lives, by helping to deliver jobs, economic

growth, and better opportunities for all; • Protect and/or enhance the natural, historic and water environments and conserve

the countryside and open spaces that are vital resources for everyone; and, • Address the legitimate concerns and interests of local communities and businesses,

particularly on human health issues The Vision By 2026 the people and businesses of Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent will be actively minimising waste and regarding waste as a resource. To support this, 'our waste infrastructure' will comprise a network of existing, enhanced and new sustainable waste management facilities that are in the right place to contribute to the local economy, and to minimise and/or mitigate any impacts on climate change, people, transportation systems, and the built, natural, historic and water environment.

More specifically 'our waste infrastructure' will: • Have the capacity to manage an amount of waste at least equivalent to the amount

we generate. This capacity will be higher up the “waste hierarchy” so that we can minimise our reliance on and use of landfill. In order to maintain this capacity, we will have used our planning powers where necessary to try to protect our waste infrastructure from constraints that may be imposed by non-waste related development in the vicinity;

• Be located close to the main urban areas, as far as practicable, to minimise the

impacts of transporting waste and recycled materials; and, • Meet modern design standards and, wherever practicable and environmentally

acceptable, be located within buildings or enclosed structures appropriate to the technology or process, on general industrial or previously developed land.

The Strategic Objectives (in summary) Strategic Objective 1 aims to minimise greenhouse gas emissions and incorporate measures to mitigate and adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change. Strategic Objective 2 seeks to encourage the development of our waste infrastructure so that we can manage an amount of waste, at least equivalent to the amount we generate and to encourage the development of new waste treatment facilities so that we can reduce our reliance on and use of landfill, and conserve our mineral resources Strategic Objective 3 seeks to encourage appropriate siting and modern design standards and provide opportunities to enhance existing waste management facilities. Strategic Objective 4 seeks to support job creation, economic growth and investment in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent by providing sufficient opportunities to develop new waste management infrastructure of the right type, in the right place and at the right time, and by minimising and mitigating any adverse impacts and avoiding any unacceptable impacts paying particular attention to assessing the suitability of sites. The Planning Policies Policy 1 - Waste as a resource In line with the "Waste Hierarchy" this policy encourages maximising waste prevention; use of waste as a resource; proposals for the management of waste at the top end of the hierarchy; and restricts proposals for the disposal of waste and new sites for landfill or landraise. In particular it requires consideration of waste issues when dealing with proposals for all major development proposals and it encourages more recycling of construction, demolition and excavation waste as well as for the use of this type of waste for landscaping, agricultural land improvement or engineering purposes. Policy 1.1 General principles Planning permission for the development of new sustainable waste management facilities will be granted where the applicant can demonstrate that the proposal accords with the principles listed below:

• Waste is minimised; • Waste is used as a resource, including the formation of waste synergies, for

example through the creation of resource recovery parks; • The proposals represent the most sustainable option for management of waste at

the top end of the “waste hierarchy” (Refer to 'Appendix 4: The Waste Hierarchy'); • Protection of human health and the environment. • Unacceptable adverse impacts, including cumulative effects, should be avoided and

adverse impacts minimised and mitigated as part of the proposals; • The overall (economic, social and environmental) benefits outweigh any material

planning objections. Policy 1.3 Construction, demolition and excavation waste Recycling of construction, demolition & excavation waste and the diversion of inert waste to quarries requiring backfill for restoration purposes will be favoured over new inert landfill / landraising proposals. Policy 2 - Targets and broad locations for waste management facilities In order to be able to manage at least an equivalent amount of waste to that which we produce in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, this policy sets targets for waste facilities for the various waste streams and indicates favoured broad locations for new facilities. Preference is for general industrial land, previously developed land and existing wastes sites within or close to the main urban areas. Proposals of a local or sub-regional scale will be supported provided that they are located in or close to the North Staffordshire Conurbation (City of Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle - under-Lyme), or the Large Settlements of: Stafford; Burton upon Trent; Cannock; Lichfield; Rugeley; or Tamworth. Proposals of a local scale will only be supported if they are located in or close to the Other Significant Settlements of : Burntwood; Kidsgrove; Cheslyn Hay & Great Wyrley; Biddulph; Leek; Stone; Uttoxeter Wombourne; Cheadle; Codsall & Bilbrook; Perton; Penkridge; Kinver; or Brewood. Development proposals for the storage, treatment, and recycling of soils; construction, demolition and excavation waste; and, comparable industrial wastes will be supported in or close to areas of large development in the North Staffordshire Conurbation, and the Large Settlements. The policy also safeguards the strategic waste facilities (the Hazardous landfill site at Meece and Energy Recovery Facilities at Hanford, Stoke-on-Trent and Four Ashes) and aims to maintain the capacity of existing waste management facilities. Policy 2.1 Landfill diversion minimum targets Table 1: Minimum diversion from landfill targets. Waste Stream 2010/11 2015/16 2020/21 2025/26 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) 75% 90% 90% 90% Commercial and Industrial Waste 75% 75% 75% 75%

Policy 2.2 Targets for new waste management facilities by 2026 Table 3: New waste capacity requirements for Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste (C,D&E) / Hazardous Waste Treatment Recycling / Material Recovery 200,000 tonnes per annum at 2026/27 Policy 2.3 Broad locations In order to minimise the impact of our waste infrastructure, and provide a network of sustainable waste management facilities which enable the movement of waste to be minimised, ensure that waste is being dealt with as close as possible to where it arises, and reduce the need to transport waste great distances, preference will be given to such developments on general industrial land (including urban and rural general industrial estates (alongside B2& B8 uses)), previously developed land and existing waste management sites, within or close to the hierarchy of urban areas defined below and shown on the 'Key Diagram'. a) Proposals of a local or sub-regional scale will be supported provided that they are located in or close to the North Staffordshire Conurbation (City of Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle - under-Lyme), or the Large Settlements of: Stafford; Burton upon Trent; Cannock; Lichfield; Rugeley; or Tamworth. b) Proposals of a local scale only will be supported if they are located in or close to the Other Significant Settlements of: Burntwood; Kidsgrove; Cheslyn Hay & Great Wyrley; Biddulph; Leek; Stone; Uttoxeter; Wombourne; Cheadle; Codsall & Bilbrook; Perton; Penkridge; Kinver; or Brewood. c) Proposals for the storage, treatment, and recycling of soils; construction, demolition and excavation waste; and, comparable industrial wastes will be supported in or close to areas of large development in the North Staffordshire Conurbation (City of Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle - under-Lyme), and the Large Settlements of: Stafford; Burton upon Trent; Cannock; Lichfield; Rugeley; or Tamworth, where they can demonstrate the availability of a reliable supply of waste material and have good access to the market for the resultant recycled product. d) Proposals of a regional and national scale must demonstrate/meet the following siting/locational criteria: • Be sustainably located within the waste supply area to minimise transport impacts

(seeking where practicable and beneficial to use modes other than road transport) both in and outside the county;

• The site selection process has considered viable sustainable alternatives and sites

inside and outside of the county and demonstrates a sequential approach; • Be of a scale and size which is proportionate and appropriate to the area; • Avoid causing unacceptable adverse impacts; • The overall (economic, social and environmental) benefits outweigh any material

planning objections.

Policy 3 - Criteria for the location of new and enhanced waste management facilities This policy sets out the general requirements and exceptions criteria for new and the expansion of existing waste management facilities. The general requirements for facilities proposed within the broad locations specified by Policy 2, i.e. in urban industrial land locations, are that they should be fully contained within well designed purpose built or appropriately modified existing buildings or enclosed structures appropriate to the technology or process. Where this is not practicable or environmentally acceptable, the applicant must clearly demonstrate that any environmental impacts can be effectively mitigated by alternative means. It is however accepted that certain waste activities may need to take place in the open air and also outside of the main urban areas and therefore exceptions criteria are provided, particularly for organic waste treatment and recycling of construction, demolition, and excavation waste. Temporary planning permissions for open air facilities may be issued where there are doubts about the character or effect of the proposed facility. Policy 3.1 General requirements for new and enhanced facilities Within the broad locations set out in Policy 2.2, proposals for new and the expansion of existing waste management facilities should: • Be fully contained within well designed purpose built or appropriately modified existing

buildings or enclosed structures appropriate to the technology or process. Where this is not practicable or environmentally acceptable, the applicant must clearly demonstrate that any environmental impacts can be effectively mitigated by alternative means;

• Include a programme of phased improvements to bring the whole site up to modern

standards, if the proposal relates to an existing facility which is to be extended or enhanced.

• Be compatible with nearby uses, and appropriate in scale and character to their

surroundings giving careful consideration to any cumulative effects that may arise (Refer to 'Policy 4: Sustainable design and protection and improvement of environmental quality')

• Complement existing or planned activities or form part of an integrated waste

management facility and demonstrate an overall enhancement of the site; and, • All proposals should be submitted together with details on the annual throughput and

waste stream that the site would handle Policy 3.4 Temporary planning permissions for open air facilities Where there are doubts remaining about the character or effect of the proposed open air waste management facility, a temporary planning permission may be issued. The duration of the temporary period will have regard to the location, nature or scale of the proposed development and the level of investment required to put in place systems to control the operations and minimise the impacts.

Policy 4 - Sustainable design and protection and improvement of environmental quality In accordance with the Vision and Strategic Objectives this policy aims to ensure that our waste infrastructure is correctly sited and designed and operated to a high standard. This policy requires high standards of design for new facilities as well as consideration to be given to the effect of the proposal on people, transportation systems and the local natural, historic and built environment and amenity. In line with our current ‘General Protection’ policy, (Waste Local Plan Policy 3), this policy sets out a long list of considerations including: cumulative impact on people including the potential health effects; the Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the setting of the Peak District National Park; the Green Belt; trees, hedgerows and woodland; the landscape; and, protection of air, soil, and water and reduction of flood risk. Policy 4.1 Sustainable design All proposals for waste management facilities should be designed and operated to high environmental standards. They should avoid unacceptable adverse impacts and minimise adverse impacts, taking particular account of climate change implications. Where practicable they should positively contribute to the character and quality of the local natural, historic and built environment and amenity, and provide safe and convenient access for all potential users. In particular the proposal should: • Be compatible with adjoining land uses and the locality, taking into account national and

local policies for building design, landscape character, ecology, historic environment and sport and recreation;

• Provide measures to minimise greenhouse gases associated with the construction, and

operation of the facility, and where relevant, the decommissioning and reinstatement of the site.

• Provide measures to adapt to climate change; • Consider design and environmental performance of the facility from the design stage

and as a minimum standard should aim to achieve a BREEAM 2011 rating for industrial buildings of “very good” or higher;

• Be supported by a site waste management plan; • Provide a sustainable drainage system, unless it would be impractical to do so, to

manage clean uncontaminated roof and surface run-off, with a focus on filtration techniques to improve the quality of the water environment;

• Consider rainwater harvesting from impermeable surfaces and encouragement of

layouts which accommodate wastewater recycling, where practicable; • Make a positive contribution, where appropriate, towards decentralised and renewable

or low-carbon energy supply;

• Assess the capacity of existing and potential transport infrastructure to support the sustainable movement of waste, and products arising from resource recovery, minimising transport emissions and seeking when practicable and beneficial to use modes other than road transport;

• Contribute where appropriate to green infrastructure initiatives as supported by local

policies; • Consider any impact upon mineral resources through potential sterilisation and address

any land instability issues and/or contamination arising from former land uses; and • Where restoration and aftercare is applicable, provide comprehensive, detailed,

practical and achievable restoration and aftercare proposals for the site, that would achieve at the earliest opportunity, an acceptable after-use.

Policy 4.2 Protection of Environmental Quality The development of waste management facilities will be supported provided that the proposals would not give rise to materially harmful impacts, except where the material planning benefits of the proposals outweigh the material planning objections. In determining the impact of the proposed development, consideration will be given to the effect of the proposals on the following: i. People and local communities, including the potential health effects; ii. The highway network and other public rights of way; iii. Historic environment; iv. Natural environment; v. Biodiversity and geodiversity and wider environment; vi. The Landscape; vii. Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the setting of the Peak District National Park; viii. The Green Belt; ix. The Countryside; x. Trees, hedgerows and woodland; xi. Agricultural land; xii. Open space (including recreational and sporting facilities) xiii. Protection of air, soil and water and reduction of flood risk; xiv. Any other interests or acknowledged importance The South Staffordshire Core Strategy – Publication Version – February 2011 Strategic Objective 1 To protect and maintain the Green Belt and Open Countryside in order to sustain the distinctive character of South Staffordshire. Strategic Objective 2 To retain and reinforce the current pattern of villages across South Staffordshire, and in particular protect and retain the important strategic gaps between existing settlements in order to prevent the coalescence of settlements.

Strategic Objective 3 To protect and improve South Staffordshire's environmental assets. Strategic Objective 4 To protect, conserve and enhance the countryside, character and quality of the landscape and the diversity of wildlife and habitats. Strategic Objective 5 To protect, conserve and enhance the historic environment and ensure that the character and appearance of the District’s Conservation Areas is improved through management plans and better-designed developments. Strategic Objective 6 To ensure that all new development is sustainable, enabling people to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, without compromising the quality of life of future generations. Strategic Objective 7 To reduce the effect of society on the environment, and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Core Policy 1: The Spatial Strategy Policy GB1: Development in the Green Belt Core Policy 2: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Policy EQ1: Protecting, Expanding and Enhancing Natural Assets Policy EQ4: Protecting the Character and Appearance of the Landscape Core Policy 3: Sustainable Development Policy EQ5: Sustainable Resources and Energy Efficiency Policy EQ7: Water Quality Policy EQ8: Waste Policy EQ9: Protecting Residential Amenity Policy EQ10: Hazardous and Environmentally Sensitive Development Policy EQ11: Wider Design Considerations Policy EQ12: Landscaping