DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARDpolitics.leics.gov.uk/documents/s96962/Cott Beverages...

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD

13TH NOVEMBER 2014

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

COUNTY MATTER

PART A – SUMMARY REPORT

APP. NO. & DATE: 2014/0946/07 (2014/CM/0174/LCC) – 20th August 2014

PROPOSAL: Installation of waste water treatment plant LOCATION: Cott Beverages site, off Citrus Grove, Kegworth (North

West Leicestershire District). APPLICANT: Cott Beverages. MAIN ISSUES: Visual impact, impacts on local highway network and

reduction in HGV movements. RECOMMENDATION: PERMIT subject to the 11 conditions as set out in the

appendix to the main report.

Circulation Under the Local Issues Alert Procedure

Mr. T. Pendleton CC

Officer to Contact

Mr. P. Bond (Tel. 0116 305 7325) Email: [email protected]

Agenda Item 79

DC&REG BOARD 13/11/2014

2014/0946/07 (2014/CM/0174/LCC) – continued

PART B – MAIN REPORT Description of application site and proposed development 1. Cott Beverages currently operates a still and carbonated soft drinks factory at

the Citrus Grove site, on the north western fringe of Kegworth. The industrial unit covers an area of about 8.5 hectares and occupies a relatively open position, isolated from other industrial units. The site is bounded to the west and north by agricultural land with residential dwellings recently being erected immediately to the east of the site. The A6 Derby Road and Sideley form the southern boundary to the site, with J24 of the M1 being less than 500 metres to the north west of the site. The A453 is about 325 metres to the north of the existing site.

2. The proposed development would be located to the north of the existing industrial unit, with the application site falling within Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted with the application.

3. The Kegworth site produces around 600 cubic metres (600,000 litres) of waste

water each day. The majority of the waste water occurs as a result of the cleaning of the production line equipment at change of flavours and the waste water contains a small percentage of syrups, including sugars and sanitisation chemicals. Currently, the waste water is collected and piped to two bulk storage tanks on the east side of the site, where neutralising nitrates are added to the water. Once neutralised sufficiently, the waste water is tankered off site and spread on agricultural land. Each tanker load holds approximately 27 cubic metres, equating to around 300 HGV movements per week (150 in and 150 out), with tankers operating in daylight hours seven days/week.

4. This proposal is for the erection of a waste water treatment plant (WWTP) to treat all the waste water produced in the manufacture of soft drinks at the site, including a contingency of 25% uplift to allow for a possible future expansion of the manufacturing plant. The plant comprises a number of storage tanks and a small plant building, within a security fenced compound. The area will be surrounded by a low wall in case of a tank leak. Drainage from the area will be recycled through the treatment system.

5. The drinks production areas are located on the west side of the building. Their

waste water is currently collected via underground pipes along the western road. These effluent drains then run under the building to two above-ground storage tanks to the east of the Cott site, behind the new Bellway Homes development. The proposed plant is located at the north-east corner of the production building, away from the housing, where there can be a more direct connection to the existing drainage system. An application is being made to the Environment Agency for discharge permission.

6. The main component parts of the plant comprise of:

• Balancing tank, approx. 11m diameter x 7m high;

• Bioreactor tank, approx. 17m diameter x 10.5m high;

• Divert tank, approx. 3.5m diameter x 6.5m high;

10


2014/0946/07 (2014/CM/0174/LCC) – continued

11

2014/0946/07 (2014/CM/0174/LCC) – continued

12

2014/0946/07 (2014/CM/0174/LCC) – continued

• Permeate tank, approx. 2.4m diameter x 4m high;

• Plant Building, approx. 12m x 11m x 5.8m high to ridge;

• Screening (filter) tower, approx. 8m high;

• Sludge dewatering equipment platform, approx. 4m high; and

• Various pumps, interconnecting pipework & the like, mainly located at low level to facilitate ease of maintenance

7. Waste water from the factory would first be held in the Balancing Tank and then pass through a mesh filter en route to the Bioreactor Tank, where aerobic digestion would take place. The Bioreactor tank is open topped and the process is odourless. The solids would be separated out from the liquids in the plant building and discharged in “sludge cake” form into a skip. The sludge cake has agricultural benefits and would be spread on land off site. The grey water output would be piped underground and discharged into the local river. The discharge will be continuously monitored to ensure compliance with the water quality specification (under the control of the Environment Agency).

8. The pipework would extend to the south east corner of the site near the Gatehouse, and it is then proposed to put in underground pipework south along Citrus Grove and then eastwards under Sideley and Station Road and the treated water would be discharged (under an EA permit) in to the River Soar. The pipework would require a S50 agreement (under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991) with the Highway Authority.

9. The plant also includes a separate Divert Tank, to which the waste water from

the factory can be diverted instead of passing it through the treatment process. This may be necessary if, for example, it contains an excessive amount of syrups following a fault in production. The contents of the divert tank would be either trickle fed into the balancing tank or removed by road tanker.

10. The waste water treatment plant would significantly reduce the number of

vehicle movements, from the current 300 per week down to just 2 per week (1 inbound, 1 outbound) needed to remove the estimated 1 skip of sludge.

11. Included in the proposals is the decommissioning of existing storage tanks to

the east of the site. The track adjacent to the new housing along Citrus Grove will still be maintained for emergency access/egress.

12. The applicant states that it is necessary for Cott’s long term viability to ensure it remains cost competitive and that it is vital for the long term viability of the Kegworth site that Cott is able to maintain a low operating cost for the Kegworth operation. The treating of the waste water on site would significantly reduce annual operating costs due to (a) the cost of fuel and transport hire and (b) the cost of tankering to treatment works, which on average is three times as expensive as landspreading. The plant would run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There will be 1 operator working 5 days per week with remote monitoring equipment also being used.

13. The proposal would interrupt the line of an unmanaged overgrown hedgerow.

This hedgerow provides useful visual screening of ground-level equipment from the A453 and will be replanted around the outside of the development. The

13


2014/0946/07 (2014/CM/0174/LCC) – continued

water treatment plant would be surrounded by a 2.4m high palisade fence with lockable gates. Access will be controlled, with no access for the public. Existing fire exit routes from the production building will not be affected.

14. A similar proposal was submitted in 2013 but was later withdrawn due to an

objection from Natural England that the treated waste would flow into a ditch that fed into the Lockington Marshes SSSI. This application would see the treated effluent avoid that issue by a proposed discharge into the River Soar instead.

Planning Policy National Policies

15. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 and sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. At its heart is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, a key aspect of which is good design. The NPPF confirms the statutory status of the development plan, however, it is a material consideration in decisions on planning applications.

16. Waste Management Plan for England (December 2013) - The Waste Management Plan for England replaces the Waste Strategy for England 2007. The new document is required to ensure compliance with the new Waste Framework Directive is attained; this includes measures for Member States to prepare for re-use or recycle at least 50% by weight of waste from households. The publication states that the Government supports efficient energy recovery from residual waste – of waste that cannot be reused or recycled – to deliver environmental benefits, reduce carbon impact and provide economic benefits. The Government’s aim is to get the most energy out of waste – not to get the most waste into energy recovery.

17. National Planning Policy for Waste (October 2014) replaces PPS 10 and sets out the Government’s ambition for a more sustainable and efficient approach to resource use and management. It states that waste planning authorities should consider the likely impact of waste development proposals on the local environment and on amenity but should not concern themselves with the control of processes that are a matter for the pollution control authorities. It also states that applicants should not be expected to demonstrate the quantitative or market need for new or enhanced waste management facilities where proposals are consistent with an up to date Local Plan.

Development Plan

18. The development plan in this instance consists of the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan (saved policies) (September 2002), the adopted Waste Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Document (October 2009) and the saved policies of the North West Leicestershire District Local Plan (August 2002). The relevant policies and proposals are set out below.

14


2014/0946/07 (2014/CM/0174/LCC) – continued Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan

19. Saved Policy WLP 7 of the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Waste Local Plan states that the assessment of all proposals for waste management development will take account (inter alia) of the following factors where appropriate:

(i) the nature of the material to be managed; (ii) the effect on, and relationship to, sensitive nearby land uses by reason

of noise, dust, odour, litter, fumes, or any other potential nuisance, including reference to national and local air quality standards;

(iii) the visual impact on the landscape and the surrounding area; (v) the effect on woodlands and on topographical features; (vi) transportation implications including the nature and volume of traffic

likely to be generated by the proposed operation; (vii) the effect on statutory nature conservation sites and other sites of more

local scientific interest; (viii) the effect on known archaeological features, ancient monuments or

other sites and buildings of archaeological, historical or architectural interest and their setting;

(xiv) the contribution that the proposed development makes to the implementation of the waste hierarchy; and

(xv) the land use planning implications of monitoring and managing any leachate generated;

(xviii) the provisions of the development plan and other guidance, being policies and proposals of local planning authorities and any relevant strategies.

(xix) The benefits of the proposal in terms of employment generation, economic benefit and regeneration of disturbed land;

(xxiii) implications for any proven mineral reserves adversely affected by the proposal;

(xxiv) the siting and visual appearance of the buildings, plant, machinery or operations;

(xxvi) the potential energy recovery to which the development will contribute.

Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Document

20. Policy WCS1 states that the strategy for waste management capacity is to provide sufficient waste management capacity to manage the equivalent of the waste arising in the framework area and as a minimum achieve the targets for recycling, composting, reuse and landfill diversion set in the RSS and the Leicestershire Municipal Waste Strategy.

21. Policy WCS2 states that the strategy for strategic sites is to locate them within the Broad Locations indicated in the Key Diagram, in or around the urban areas of Leicester, Coalville, Shepshed and Loughborough, taking into account the principles set out in Policy WCS4: Waste Location Principles.

22. Policy WCS3 states that the strategy for non-strategic waste sites is to locate

them within the Broad Locations indicated in the Key Diagram, in or around the

15


2014/0946/07 (2014/CM/0174/LCC) – continued

urban areas of Hinckley or Melton Mowbray, within SUEs or within or adjacent to an existing waste facility where it can be demonstrated that that transport, operational and environmental benefits arise from co-location.

23. Policy WCS4 sets out the site-specific strategy for locating waste sites, which should be to locate sites in accordance with the objectives of Policies WCS2 and the following sequential approach:-

(i) priority one will be given to land with an existing waste management use,

where transport, operational and environmental benefits can be demonstrated as a consequence of the co-location of waste management facilities;

(ii) thereafter, priority, in no order of preference, will be given to: a) land forming part of new major development proposals; b) existing industrial/employment land; c) other previously-developed land; d) contaminated or derelict land; e) existing mineral workings; f) unused and under-used agricultural and forestry buildings and their

curtilages;

• finally, consideration will be given to greenfield sites,

providing that there is no unacceptable harm to the environment or communities.

24. Policy WCS9 states that the strategy is to allow other forms of waste management not covered by specific policies, provided that the proposal does not cause unacceptable harm to the environment or communities.

25. Policy WCS10 states that the strategy for environmental protection is to protect and enhance the natural and built environment of the framework area by ensuring that: (inter alia) (i) there are no unacceptable adverse impacts from waste developments on:

a) natural resources including water, air and soil; b) the character and quality of the landscape; c) biodiversity, including nationally and internationally important sites and

the key habitats and species identified in relevant Biodiversity Action Plans;

d) historic and cultural features of acknowledged importance; e) sites of geological interest; f) the distinctive character and setting of settlements within the

framework area; and

g) residential amenity;

(ii) the highest standards of operational practice for the management, working, and where appropriate restoration and aftercare of sites are adopted; and

(iii) development is designed to a high standard, incorporates sustainable construction principles and includes appropriate landscaping.

16


2014/0946/07 (2014/CM/0174/LCC) – continued

26. Policy WCS14 states that the strategy for the transportation of waste is to locate new waste management developments (inter alia): (i) in close proximity to arisings in order to minimise the need to transport

waste; or (ii) in close proximity to the County’s lorry route network and where road

traffic generated by the development can avoid residential areas and minor roads in order to minimise the impact of transporting waste by road.

27. Policy WDC1: states that proposals for waste management development will be required to demonstrate that they have been designed to ensure impact on the environment is minimised by appropriate measures to: (i) reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other forms of pollution;

(ii) minimise levels of energy and water consumption; (iv) minimise production of waste during construction and operation; (v) maximise the re-use or recycling of materials; and (vi) protect and contribute positively to the character and quality of an area.

28. Policy WDC3 states that planning permission will not be granted for waste

management development which would have a significant adverse effect on the character, appearance, ecological, geological or amenity value of Sites of Regional and Local Importance, including: (i) Local Wildlife Sites (LWS); (ii) Local Nature Reserves; (iii) priority habitats or species identified in relevant Biodiversity Action

Plans; (iv) special landscape areas and landscape features of importance; (i) Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS); (vi) protected woodland areas; (vii) country parks, common land, village greens and other important areas

of open space or green areas within built-up areas; (viii) conservation areas and locally listed buildings (including their setting); (ix) land or buildings in sport, recreational or tourism use; and (x) land that is of regional or local importance for wildlife corridors or for the

conservation of biodiversity, unless it can be demonstrated that there is an overriding need for the

development and any impacts can be mitigated or compensated for, such that there is a net gain or improvement to their condition.


management development which is likely to generate unacceptable adverse effects from noise, dust, vibration, odour, emissions, illumination, visual intrusion or traffic to adjoining land uses and users and those in close proximity to the waste management development.


management facilities involving the transport of waste by road where:

17


2014/0946/07 (2014/CM/0174/LCC) – continued (i) there is a practicable alternative to road transport which would be

environmentally preferable; (ii) the proposed access arrangements would be unsafe and inappropriate

to the proposed development and the impact of the traffic generated would be detrimental to road safety to an unacceptable degree; and

(iii) the highway network is unable to accommodate the traffic that would be generated and have an unacceptable impact on the environment of local residents.

31. Policy WDC12: The Water Environment states that planning permission will not

be granted for waste management development which would: (i) have unacceptable impacts on the quality or flow of groundwater or

surface water drainage; or (ii) exacerbate flood risk in areas prone to flooding elsewhere. North West Leicestershire District Local Plan

32. Policy E3 states that ‘development will not be permitted which, by reason of its scale, height mass, design, oppressiveness, proximity, noise, vibration, smell, fumes, soot, ash, dust, grit or excessive traffic generation, would be significantly detrimental to the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of existing nearby dwellings.’

33. Policy E4 seeks to ensure that new developments respect the character of their

surroundings in terms of scale, design, density, height, massing and materials of construction.

34. Policy E7: Landscaping requires new development to make appropriate

provision for hard & soft landscaping and where relevant to incorporate the site's existing features (for example, trees or hedgerows).

Consultations

Leicestershire County Council – Highways Authority Advice 35. The Highway Authority has no concerns on the impact on the local road network

as traffic flows will be significantly reduced due to the construction of the plant. It notes that pipe works are proposed to be constructed within the highway and states that a Section 50 licence is required before work can commence within the highway.

North West Leicestershire District Council – Planning

36. No response received at the time this report was published.

North West Leicestershire District Council – Environmental Health

37. No response received at the time this report was published.

18


2014/0946/07 (2014/CM/0174/LCC) – continued Environment Agency

38. No objection subject to a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment. The EA also notes that the proposed discharge of treated effluent will require an application for a permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations. The EA will assess fully the impacts of the potential discharge during the permitting process.

Leicestershire County Council – Landscape Advice

39. No objection but notes that the development would mean the loss of a hedgerow and hedgerow trees and there are no details submitted as to their replacement. Also questions how the levels will be achieved across the application site as they are proposed to be raised by up to 1.2 metres.

Leicestershire County Council – Ecological Advice

40. No objection.

Kegworth Parish Council

41. While acknowledging the benefits of reducing the HGV movements from the site, the Council is extremely concerned about the disturbance likely to be caused by the laying of pipe works along Sideley and Station Road and the inconvenience the road works would have to both residents and businesses.

Severn Trent Water

42. No objection subject to the imposition of a condition regarding surface and foul drainage.

Publicity 42. The proposal has been advertised by site notices posted on 21st August 2014

and by an advert in the Loughborough Echo on 29th August 2014. No formal representations have been received at the time this report was published.

Assessment of Proposal 43. The starting point for the assessment of this application is the development plan

and other relevant planning policies. In this case the constituent parts of the development plan are detailed in paragraphs 18 - 34 above.

44. The throughput of the site equates to around 200,000 tonnes per annum. However, the proposed development would not make a significant contribution to municipal or C&I waste recovery by reducing the amount of residual waste going to landfill and would not provide potential for the co-location of complimentary waste facilities. The application site is also less than 2 hectares and it is therefore considered that the proposal is not a strategic site.

19


2014/0946/07 (2014/CM/0174/LCC) – continued

45. The site is considered to be ‘non-strategic’ and needs to be considered against the locational requirements of Policy WSC3. It is considered that the site does not fall within any of the four primary categories stated in this policy and therefore it is necessary to assess whether a more dispersed location in a smaller settlement is justified. The purpose of the waste water treatment facility proposed is purely to treat the significant quantities of waste water generated by the Cott Beverages facility; there would be no importation of waste to the site. The treated grey water would be discharged via a new underground pipeline to the River Soar and would therefore remove the need for around 300 HGV tanker movements each week. It is considered that there are no alternative sites that would meet the four primary categories in WCS3 and therefore a more dispersed location is acceptable. Therefore it is considered that the proposal does not conflict with Policy WSC3 and indeed there are benefits in having such a dedicated facility adjacent to the waste source.

46. There would be significant transport and operational benefits arising from the

proposed development and the site would be on existing industrial land. The site is considered to meet the second test of WCS 4 and, in the light of the previous paragraphs, the site is considered acceptable in principle.

47. Upon operation of the proposed development, the number of HGV tanker

movements associated with the site would reduce by around 300 each week. This is considered a significant benefit. While there would be some disruption as the new pipes are laid under local highways, this would be temporary and in the long term, the benefits of the reduction in HGVs are considered to outweigh the short term impacts. A S50 agreement will be required ahead of the pipeline development taking place and the applicant is in discussions already with the Highway Authority in this regard. The applicant has discussed with Severn Trent Water the possibility of tying in the pipeline to their sewage works about 300 metres to the east of the site, thus avoiding the need to dig up local roads. Unfortunately the costs of doing this have been considered by the applicant to be prohibitive and they have discounted this option.

48. In terms of landscape impact, the application site is fairly open to views from the west and the north, although these are fleeting views from main roads and views from the north would be seen against the backdrop of the existing very large industrial building. The development would result in the loss of about 60 metres of hedgerow and at least one hedgerow tree. The applicant intends to replant the hedge around the perimeter of the new site, although no details of such planting have been submitted. It is considered that, subject to a condition requiring a detailed planting scheme to include hedgerow trees, the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the character of the local landscape.

49. The application site is located partially within Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3 and a Flood Risk Assessment has been undertaken. This concludes that the proposed development would be acceptable and the Environment Agency has raised no objection on flooding or water quality grounds. Therefore it is considered that there is no conflict with Policy WDC12.

20


2014/0946/07 (2014/CM/0174/LCC) – continued 50. The applicant would need to import a quantity of recycled aggregate in order to

extend the existing building level northwards to create a flat surface for the new facility. It is considered that around 200 loads of such material would be required and this is likely to have a short term impact in terms of HGV numbers. However, the longer term reduction in HGV numbers is considered to outweigh this impact.

51. It is not considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on local sensitive receptors by way of dust, odour or noise. In the light of the above it is considered that the proposed development would be in conformity with Policy WCS9 of the Waste Core Strategy. Conclusions

52. The proposed development is considered to be non-strategic and is considered to be located in an acceptable location in principle. The proposed development would treat up to 600 cubic metres of liquid waste each day from the Cott Beverages site rather than that material being tankered off site for disposal. This would see HGV numbers reduce by up to 300 per week upon completion.

53. The treated waste, which would be a ‘grey water’ liquid, would, subject to an EA Environmental Permit, be discharged in to the River Soar, thus avoiding the Lockington Marshes SSSI. The EA will need to assess the impacts of the proposed discharge as part of their permitting regime and it is considered that, in line with Government advice, duplicating that assessment in the planning process is not appropriate.

54. The development would necessitate new pipe works under local roads in

Kegworth, which would have a short term negative impact on local residents and potentially businesses. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that such short term impacts in themselves are not unacceptable and, in any event, the long term reduction in HGV numbers outweighs this impact

55. There would be a loss of about 60 metres of hedgerow and hedgerow trees to

the north of the existing building, although this would be replaced upon completion of the proposed development. The proposed development would be seen against the backdrop of the existing and very large building and it is considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable visual impact.

56. The proposal would lead to the sustainable treatment of significant quantities of

liquid waste at source and, subject to the imposition of conditions contained in appendix A, the development does not conflict with the Development Plan and is considered to be acceptable.

21


2014/0946/07 (2014/CM/0174/LCC) – continued Recommendation

A. Permit subject to the conditions, as set out in appendix A.

B. To endorse, as requested by The Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 (as amended):

(i) How the County Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner:

In dealing with the applications and reaching a decision account has

been taken of paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

22


2014/0946/07 (2014/CM/0174/LCC) – continued Conditions 1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced within three years of

the date of this permission.

2. The County Solicitor shall be notified in writing of the date of the commencement no later than seven days after such commencement takes place.

3. Unless expressly required by a condition below, the development hereby

permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details submitted under application number 2014/0946/07 including:

• Drawing number 1602-A04-02 revision 1 dated 12th August 2014;

• Drawing number 5470-P-01 revision B dated March 2013;

• Drawing number 5470-P-02 revision B dated March 2013;

• Drawing number 5470-P-03 revision A dated March 2013;

• Drawing number 5470-P-04 revision B dated July 2014;

• Drawing number 5470-P-06 revision D dated March 2013;

• Drawing number 5470-P-07 revision A dated March 2013;

• Further information dated 8th October 2014 from Tony Pearson of FPCR;

• Email from Tony Pearson dated 9th October 2014 responding to the comments of the Environment Agency;

• Design and Access Statement revision D dated 12th August 2014; and

• Flood Risk Assessment, revision A dated 14th August 2014 4. All the materials to be used externally in the construction of the waste water

treatment facility shall be in accordance with the details described in the Design and access Statement Revision D dated 12th August 2014. The waste water treatment facility shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the details approved under this condition.

5. No artificial lighting shall be erected on the site unless and until details of the location, height, design, sensors, hours of operation and luminance of all proposed lighting and a programme for its installation have been agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in full in accordance with the approved details.

6. No cranes or tall constructional plant shall be brought into use without the prior permission of the local planning authority through consultation with the airport.

7. The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) entitled: Installation of a waste water treatment plant, compiled by FPCR Environment and Design Ltd in August 2014 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA: Finished floor levels are to be raised no lower than 1.2m above existing ground level. This will ensure that the development is situated 0.9m above the 1 in 100 year flood event plus appropriate allowances for climate change.

Appendix A

23


2014/0946/07 (2014/CM/0174/LCC) – continued The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the County Planning Authority.

8. The development shall not be brought into use unless and until a permit under

the Environmental Permitting Regulations (England & Wales) 2010 for the discharge of the trade effluent has been obtained in writing from the Environment Agency.

9. Within three months from the commencement of the development, a landscaping scheme shall be submitted for the approval of the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of replacement hedgerow and trees around the perimeter of the waste water treatment plant as indicated on plan no. 5470-P-04 revision B dated July 2014. The scheme shall indicate the species, numbers, spacings, rows and the origin of the planting stock and shall include a period of no less than five years for maintenance at levels no less than 95% of the original planted stock. The scheme should also include details of compensatory flood plain provision in line with the recommendations of the Environment Agency in their letter dated 27th October 2014 which is attached to and forms part of this permission.

10. There shall be no importation of liquid waste to the application site for processing.

11. Prior to the commencement of the development, plans showing the details and design for the proposed waste pipe through Kegworth to the River Soar and any resulting off-site highway works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Highway Authority and County Planning Authority.

Reasons

1. To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country

Planning Act, 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. To enable the development to be monitored to ensure compliance with this permission.

3. For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in

accordance with the details submitted with the planning application.

4. In the interests of local amenity and to ensure the proposed facility has an acceptable external appearance.

5. In the interests of local amenity.

6. To prevent any infringements of the obstacle limitation surfaces as defined by Civil Aviation Publication CAP168 that are crucial for the safety of departing and arriving aircraft. Please refer to attached ASRIP 01 SGC.

7. To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development.

24


2014/0946/07 (2014/CM/0174/LCC) – continued

8. To ensure that the impacts of discharging treated waste water into the River

Soar has been assessed as acceptable by the Environment Agency.

9. To ensure a satisfactory form of development in the interests of local amenity and to provide compensatory flood plain provision.

10. To ensure that the development is carried out in line with the submitted

documents and in the interests of local amenity.

11. In the interests of highway safety and local amenity.

Notes to Applicant

1. Appendix B contains a copy of Form ASRIP 01 that needs to be completed in line with Condition 6 above.

2. Under the Environmental Permitting Regulations (England & Wales) 2010, the proposed discharge of treated effluent from the waste water treatment plant to the River Soar will require an application for a permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations (England & Wales) 2010. The applicant/operator is advised to contact the Environment Agency at their earliest convenience to ascertain their duties under the Environmental Permitting Regulations.

3. You will be required to enter into a suitable legal Agreement with the Highway

Authority for the off-site highway works before development commences and detailed plans shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Highway Authority. The Agreement must be signed and all fees paid and surety set in place before the highway works are commenced. Any street furniture or lining that requires relocation or alteration shall be carried out entirely at the expense of the applicant, who shall first obtain the separate consent of the Highway Authority.

25


2014/0946/07 (2014/CM/0174/LCC) – continued Appendix B

ASRIP 01 Cranes/Tall Constructional Plant –

Non Safeguarded Operations

Location of crane/plant (6fig E, 6 fig N)

Date and time of installation and decommission or operation times

Type of crane/plant (e.g. Tower Crane, HIAB, masts etc…)

Height of plant (m AGL and ground height) *

Radius of jib/boom (fixed) or area of operation (mobile)

Operating company

Lift supervisors name

Lift supervisor on-site contact number (mobile)

* PLEASE ENSURE m AGL and GROUND HEIGHT IS SUPPLIED, FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN ASSESSMENT BEING REFUSED.

THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED 21 WORKING DAYS BEFORE OPERATION, FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN ASSESSMENT BEING REFUSED.

WHERE LIGHTING HAS BEEN REQUESTED UPON APPROVAL IT MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS BELOW DEPENDANT ON LIGHTING TYPE REQUESTED.

26


2014/0946/07 (2014/CM/0174/LCC) – continued Appendix C

Letter from Environment Agency dated 27th October 2014 Mr Peter Bond Leicestershire County Council Sustainable Development County Hall Leicester Road Glenfield Leicester LE3 8RJ

Our ref: LT/2014/118347/03-L01 Your ref: 2014/CM/0174/LCC Date: 27 October 2014

Dear Mr Bond INSTALLATION OF WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT COTT BEVERAGES LTD, CITRUS GROVE, SIDELEY, KEGWORTH, LEICS. Thank you for forwarding on comments made by the agent in an email dated 9th October 2014 in response to the Agency’s letter dated 18th September 2014, reference LT/2014/118347/02-L01. Below is an updated response to the proposal, taking into account the points made in the email of 9th October 2014. Environment Agency position The proposed development will only meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework if the following measures as detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment submitted with this application are implemented and secured by way of a planning condition on any planning permission. Condition The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) entitled: Installation of a waste water treatment plant, compiled by FPCR Environment and Design Ltd in August 2014 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA: Finished floor levels are to be raised no lower than 1.2m above existing ground level. This will ensure that the development is situated 0.9m above the 1 in 100 year flood event plus appropriate allowances for climate change. The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. Reason To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development.

27


2014/0946/07 (2014/CM/0174/LCC) – continued Informative for Applicant / LPA It is noted that the development will cause a minimal loss in the functional flood plain and we therefore strongly advocate that provision for attainable floodplain compensation are incorporated into the design of the development. This may be implemented through a landscaping scheme which incorporates depressed areas of land surrounding the development to provide an element of compensation. Environmental Permitting Regulations (England & Wales) 2010 The proposed discharge of treated effluent from the waste water treatment plant to the River Soar will require an application for a permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations (England & Wales) 2010. We would advise the applicant/operator to contact the Environment Agency at their earliest convenience to ascertain their duties under the Environmental Permitting Regulations. Important note for Applicant Section 1.4 of the Design and Access Statement indicates that treated effluent will be discharged into the River Soar via a new pipeline through Kegworth. However, drawing reference 5470-P-01 indicates that there will be "connection to sewer in highway". Surface water sewers in the vicinity discharge to the Kegworth Brook, which discharges to Lockington Marshes SSSI. The permit application should therefore clarify the exact drainage route and point of discharge. There must be no discharge until the permit has been granted. We concur with the agent’s suggestion of amending the drawing to read “Connection to new pipeline to river” Biodiversity/ habitat compensation The applicant now proposes to continue the ditch around the new embankments forming the plateau for the WWT, thus ensuring the ditch continues to function. We would advise that the new channel is designed to be of benefit to wildlife. If appropriate, we would suggest the creation of a two stage channel to encourage the establishment of wetland plant species. With regard to the discharge we would advise that the ecological and hydrological surveys are updated to assess impacts, if any, to the water quality of the River Soar and its Water Framework Directive status. We would also advise Natural England are consulted so they can assess the new application in relation to the Lockington Marshes SSSI.

I have sent a copy of this letter to the agent. The Agency requests a copy of the decision notice following determination of the application.

28


2014/0946/07 (2014/CM/0174/LCC) – continued Yours sincerely

Mr Nick Wakefield Planning Advisor Direct dial 0115 846 3635 Direct fax 0115 846 2681 Direct e-mail [email protected] cc FPCR Environment and Design Ltd

29


DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD The considerations set out below apply to all the preceding applications. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS Unless otherwise stated in the report there are no discernible equal opportunities implications. IMPLICATIONS FOR DISABLED PERSONS On all educational proposals the Director of Children and Young People's Service and the Director of Corporate Resources will be informed as follows: Note to Applicant Department Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Person’s Act 1970 and the Design Note 18 “Access for the Disabled People to Educational Buildings” 1984 and to the Equality Act 2010. You are advised to contact the County Council’s Human Resources Department if you require further advice on this aspect of the proposal. COMMUNITY SAFETY IMPLICATIONS Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a very broad duty on all local authorities 'to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area'. Unless otherwise stated in the report, there are no discernible implications for crime reduction or community safety. BACKGROUND PAPERS Unless otherwise stated in the report the background papers used in the preparation of this report are available on the relevant planning application files. SECTION 38(6) OF PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004 Members are reminded that Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act requires 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.” Any relevant provisions of the development plan (i.e. any approved Local Plans) are identified in the individual reports. The circumstances in which the Board is required to “have regard” to the development plan are given in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990: Section 70(2) : determination of applications; Section 77(4) : called-in applications (applying s. 70); Section 79(4) : planning appeals (applying s. 70); Section 81(3) : provisions relating to compensation directions by Secretary of State (this

section is repealed by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991); Section 91(2) : power to vary period in statutory condition requiring development to be

begun; Section 92(6) : power to vary applicable period for outline planning permission; Section 97(2) : revocation or modification of planning permission; Section 102(1) : discontinuance orders; Section 172(1) : enforcement notices; Section 177(2) : Secretary of State’s power to grant planning permission on enforcement

appeal; Section 226(2) : compulsory acquisition of land for planning purposes; Section 294(3) : special enforcement notices in relation to Crown land; Sched. 9 para (1) : minerals discontinuance orders.

30

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARDpolitics.leics.gov.uk/documents/s96962/Cott Beverages...

Documents

Transcript of DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARDpolitics.leics.gov.uk/documents/s96962/Cott Beverages...