Regulation Committee 3 September 2015 Report by...

(Regulation Committee – 3 September 2015)

A - 1

Somerset County Council

Regulation Committee – 3 September 2015 Report by Service Manager - Planning Control, Enforcement & Compliance : Philip Higginbottom

A

Application Number: 15/00562/CPO

Date Registered: 05/02/15

Parish: Pen Selwood

District: South Somerset

Member Division: Wincanton & Bruton

Local Member: Cllr Anna Groskop

Case Officer: Karen Turvey

Contact Details: [email protected] (01823) 355196

Description of Application:

AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT OPERATION TO STABILISE EXISTING AREAS OF LANDSLIP USING IMPORTED SUB-SOIL AND CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION WASTES ON LAND AT PENHOUSE FARM, PENSELWOOD, WINCANTON, BA9 8LL

Grid Reference: 375402 - 130213

Applicant: Mr W Hopkins

Location: The application site comprises agricultural fields located in a west-facing combe south of the Penhouse Farm buildings. The farm is south of the village of Penselwood and approximately 4.5km east-northeast of Wincanton. The 12.72ha site is in close proximity to the County boundary with Dorset and is approximately 250m north of the A303.

1. Summary of Key Issues and Recommendation(s)

1.1 The key issues for Members to consider are:-

Whether the proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan;

Agricultural Improvement;

Sustainable Waste Management;

Landscape;

Geodiversity;

Biodiversity;

Highways Impact;

Historic Environment;

Noise and Dust.


A - 2

It is recommended that planning permission be REFUSED for the reasons set out in section 8 of this report.

2. Description of the Site

2.1 Penhouse Farm is located at the southern edge of the village of Penselwood, close to the county boundary with the northernmost part of Dorset, approximately 1.8km from the boundary with Wiltshire and within the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs AONB (CC AONB). The application site itself is south of the farm buildings and the majority of it (over 10ha of the 12.72ha site) is also located within the AONB. It lies within the “Escarpment Ridges and Vales East of Yeovil” Visual Character Region (The Landscape of South Somerset, SSDC, 1993) in an area noted for its wooded ridges and clay vales. The application site includes the 6.43ha “Penselwood Landslip” Local Geological Site, designated because it is “an area of both ancient and active landslipping on a large scale where Upper Greensand overlies impermeable Gault and Oxford Clay, active landslip is almost against the Mere Fault”. In addition to the complex geology the area is affected by a number of underground springs.

2.2 The application site lies within a rural area north of the A303. It is bounded on the east by Underhill, the road to Penselwood village, and to the south by Long Lane. Both roads are unclassified, hedge-lined country roads. To the north and west of the site are further grassland fields with hedgerow boundaries and occasional trees. There is a small copse close to the north west corner of the application site and Pen Forest, a mixed plantation, is a further 360m to the north west. The nearest residential property, Crossways, is 100m south of the boundary of the application site. Encie Farm house is approximately 280m west of the boundary of the site and Penhouse Farm house is approximately 140m to the north.

2.3 The application site comprises a number of sloping grassland fields, or parts thereof, lying within a west-facing combe. The difference in land height between the highest level in the eastern corner and the lowest in the north-west corner is 40m. The site is accessed via a gated entrance off Long Lane. An area of land adjacent to the site access and the southern boundary with Long Lane has been levelled with imported material and a hardstanding has recently been created.

2.4 A small stream issues from the north eastern corner of the application site and flows west via a pond. This stream joins with one flowing north-south approximately 190m west of the application site boundary. These flow west and join the River Cale which flows through Wincanton and into the River Stour approximately 10km south of the town. The Environment Agency records show that the River Cale is currently of good ecological quality.

2.5 The whole of the application site was formerly semi-improved grassland with hedgerows and scattered mature trees. Part of the site has been affected by


A - 3

the most recent landslip, which was first noted in January 2014. This resulted in large fissures opening up in the land and sections of hedgerow being uprooted and moved downslope by the landslip. The top of the field adjacent to Long Lane (where the hardstanding is located) appears unaffected for a distance of 40m to 50m from the road. There are signs of inert waste within the landslip area.

2.6 The application states that urgent emergency remediation works have been undertaken within this area under permitted development rights. These were described by the landowner during a site visit. These works included the stripping of some topsoil which is now stored in bunds to the sides of the affected area and removal of hedgerows and trees. Access routes were created to enable geotechnical consultants to move equipment around the site to carry out assessments on how the land could be stabilised. It was noted during the site visit that all the hedgerow and trees in the area that would be affected by the proposed deposition of waste material have been cut down.

2.7 There are two public footpaths within the application site. Path WN21/9 runs south-west/north-east across the north-western part of the site, passing close to the pond. Path WN21/10 starts at the site entrance gateway off Long Lane and runs north-westwards to join WN21/9, following the south-western boundary of the application site.

3. Site History

3.1 SCC records show that the application area has been the subject of tipping of builders’ rubble and other waste material on a number of occasions with the earliest record being from 27 years ago.

3.2 883068 (October 1988) – A temporary permission was granted for use of land for tipping (partly retrospective). This permission was for an area within the southern part of the site, located central to the first field inside the field gate off Long Lane. 900658 - Application for continued use of land for the tipping of builder’s rubble and subsoil. This was refused because it was considered that it would be likely to lead to further slippage to the detriment of land to the north, north-west. It was noted at the time of the application that recent site inspections had shown that the waste previously tipped on site had slipped at the base. Permission was refused in April 1991. 931359 (June 1993) - An application for ‘Engineering works to stabilise land by way of imported fill and land drainage scheme’, partly retrospective. This involved land towards the base of the slope which had been impacted upon by a landslide which occurred in February 1990 and also affected the waste tip higher up the slope and adjacent land. Permission refused in December 1993 due to landscape impacts and highway safety.


A - 4

3.3 It was following the landslip in 1990 and the subsequent investigations and research that part of the area was designated as a Regionally Important Geological Site (now more frequently referred to as a Local Geological Site).

4. The Proposal

4.1 The proposal is for an “agricultural improvement operation to stabilise existing areas of landslip”. As recognised in the designation of part of the application site as a Regionally Important Geological Site, this area has historically been the subject of landslips. The recent slippage was first noted in January 2014 and it is considered to have been reactivated during the extremely wet winter. The application reports that urgent remediation works have been undertaken under permitted development rights to stabilise the ground to some extent.

4.2 The application site has an area of 12.72 ha which, in addition to the existing area of landslip, includes part or all of a further 3 adjacent grassland fields. The geotechnical report submitted with the application gives measurements of the landslip area as 220m long (NNW-SSE) by 100-150m wide (WSW-ENE) and states that the area affected is over 20,000 sq m (2ha). Using the measurements given in the report and assuming a regular/oblong shape, the maximum area affected by the landslip would be 33,000 sq m (3.3 ha).

4.3 The application site currently has a gated field access off Long Lane to the south. The proposal gives two alternative access points for the proposed development with the suggestion that the Waste Planning Authority (WPA) indicate which would be the preferred access. The applicant proposed either the existing field access (option B) or one approximately 330 m to the south-west onto the B3081 at its junction with Long Lane and close to the access roads onto the A303 (options A). This latter access option would entail construction of a haul road running parallel to Long Lane through the adjacent fields. The alternative access points are shown on drawing 248.02 (Access Option Plan) submitted with the application and access B is considered by the applicant to be the preferred access point. In April 2015 the applicant was asked to clarify which of these two access points they would be using and to provide detailed design drawings of that access point. This information has not been received by the WPA.

4.4 Submitted with the application is a Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation report. This gives details of geotechnical fieldwork undertaken to investigate the likely cause and extent of land movements of the slope and an assessment of the feasibility of stabilising the landslip by use of imported materials. The report states that ground conditions encountered in the investigation are highly complex and the relationship between water and ground movements is not simple. Based on the works so far a preliminary design for the stabilisation works has been produced but considerable further investigations and analysis would be required to progress to a final stabilisation design.


A - 5

4.5 The application is supported by an ecological assessment report. This is based on a Phase 1 habitat survey of the remediation area undertaken in October 2014, desk study of local and national environmental records, and a species specific survey for great crested newts undertaken in April 2014. The Phase 1 survey recorded areas of semi-improved grassland, disturbed and bare ground (areas of semi-improved grassland that had been disturbed and destroyed by the land slippage and initial remediation works), wet flushes, the stream and pond, and remnant hedgerows with occasional trees. At the time of the survey the semi-improved grassland was considered to be of some ecological value whilst the disturbed ground was considered to be of negligible ecological value. The trees and hedgerows were considered to be of some value for the opportunities they presented faunal species (bats and hazel dormice) and the pond and stream also offered some ecological value.

4.6 The report notes that all these features would be lost to the development but compensated for through new and replacement hedgerow planting along with new planting by the stream and pond. Precautionary mitigation for the potential use of hedgerows by hazel dormice are presented in the report including cutting down of the hedgerows before the end of March (those works had already been undertaken at the time of a site visit on 4 March 2015), and grubbing out of stumps and roots no earlier than late May.

4.7 The proposal is to stabilise the landslip using approximately 115,000cu m of imported subsoil and construction/demolition material which would be deposited over an area of approximately 5 ha. The filled area would comprise part of the southern, north-west facing slope of the combe and a smaller area against the northern, south facing slope of the combe, infilling the current base of the combe within the fill area (see the Site Plan appended to this report). The application site is much larger than the fill area and the eastern end of the combe which falls within the application site would appear to remain unchanged under the current proposal.

4.8 The imported subsoil and construction and demolition wastes (where suitable) would be used to create an inert fill bund acting as a buttress to stabilise the land. The fill would be deep at the base of the combe, becoming progressively shallower as the fill progresses up the slope. This is described in the application as “toe-loading”. The area of fill would be up to 9m deep near the centre of the base of the combe tapering to 1m deep towards the edges of the fill near the base of the slope. Approximately half way up the slope the fill would be a maximum of 5m deep tapering to 1m deep towards the edges. At the top of the slope the depth of fill would reduce to less than 1m with an element of re-profiling (reducing) the existing ground levels to tie them in with the level of the fill material. Trench drainage would need to be installed below the fill throughout the affected area to collect groundwater (fed primarily by springs) and direct it into the local drainage system.

4.9 The stream originating in the north-east of the application site has been impacted upon by the landslip which has partially filled its original course. In the long-term, the course of the stream would be diverted. The proposal


A - 6

includes that the existing route of the stream would be lined with a geotextile, then a flexible perforated pipe would be installed and the space around that infilled with free-draining granular material (to effectively form a toe drain). The stream itself would be diverted along a new route around the northern end of the proposed infill comprising a newly constructed, lined channel. A replacement pond would also be created at the end of the newly constructed stream channel.

4.10 The area of fill would impact upon public footpath WN21/9 by covering a part of the route where it passes the existing pond. If access B were to be used then footpath WN21/10 would leave Long Lane at the same location as the access used by the lorries delivering the waste to the site. If access A were to be used then footpath WN21/10 would cross the haul road to be used by the lorries making deliveries.

4.11 It is anticipated that it would take up to 36 months to complete the construction of the buttress. The proposal is for lorries to deposit fill material at the top of the slope near the existing field access. A ‘dozer’ would then spread and level the material in accordance with engineering plans. Details of measures to keep the highway clean would be supplied in a construction management plan which the application suggests should be secured by planning condition.

4.12 The lorries to be used for delivery of the material to site would have a capacity of 8.5 cu m. The transportation of 115,000 cu m would require 13,529 loads, that being 27,058 vehicle movements. Over the three years it is anticipated the works to take, the applicant estimates that there would be 765 working days (255 per year) resulting in 17.7 lorry deliveries per day (35 vehicle movements). With a working day of 07:00 hours to 18:00 hours this would average out at approximately 1.6 lorries per hour (3 vehicle movements).

4.13 On completion of the earthworks new hedgerows would be planted to “recuperate any loss of habitat occurring during the development of the site” as shown on drawing 248.03 (Proposed Landscape Plan) submitted with the application. The hedgerows would be planted with native species. The new stream, pond and banks would also be planted with native emergent and marginal species with some areas left to naturally re-colonise.

4.14 The application is accompanied by a flood risk assessment. This concludes that following the proposed works the rate of surface water run-off would increase but that this could be managed by increasing the size and depth of the replacement pond over that of the existing. The realignment of the ditch and pond would need to be subject to more detailed design at a later stage.

4.15 Environmental Impact Assessment The proposal is of a type listed in Schedule 2 to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 2011 (11: Other projects - (b) Installations for the disposal of waste) and therefore a screening opinion has been adopted. That opinion concludes that the development does not constitute EIA


A - 7

development within the meaning set out in the 2011 Regulations as it would not be likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of its nature or size and only very localised significant impacts due to its location which are not of a scale to warrant the proposal being EIA development. A copy of the screening opinion has been forwarded to South Somerset District Council to be placed on the planning register.

5. Consultation Responses Received

5.1 South Somerset District Council - object for the following reasons: a) The proposal does not respect the form, character and setting of the

locality contrary to policies EC2, EC3 and ST5 of the South Somerset Local Plan, EQ2 of the emerging local plan and the NPPF.

b) The proposal unacceptably harms geological and ecological interests contrary to Policy EC6 of the South Somerset Local Plan, EQ4 and EQ2 of the emerging local plan, and the NPPF.

The District Council would want to support neighbour objections that may be received by the County Council. (Officer’s note: the emerging local plan referred to here was adopted in March 2015 and now forms the South Somerset Local Plan (2006 – 2028). The policies of the South Somerset Local Plan as referred to here have since been replaced either by policies in the March 2015 Plan or by the NPPF).

5.2 Pen Selwood Parish Council - object a) An initial response dated 6 March 2015 from the Parish Council

recommended approval on the understanding that the entrance to the site would be entrance A at the bottom of Salters Hill (more generally referred to in this report as Long Lane).

a. The reasoning behind the strict specification of the site entrance is to ensure:-

i. That large vehicles do not need to use the narrow lane know as Salters Hill causing inconvenience to local traffic entering and leaving the village;

ii. Damage to verges, ditches and the road surface on Salters Hill is kept to a minimum;

iii. Much of the mud picked up from the site by the lorries would be deposited on the private road within the site before the lorries reach the public highway;

iv. Visibility for vehicles reaching the public highway from the site is very good in both directions at this point.

b. There was some concern expressed about the quantity of spoil

being deposited upon the site but it was agreed that we know little about “tipping” and have to rely upon advice given by the experts involved.

c. Those members of the Parish Council who attended a site meeting


A - 8

(23/2/15) were in agreement that the site in question could not be used in it present state and that something had to be done to improve the land and prevent further movement.

b) In a subsequent response dated 21 June 2015 the Parish Council

reported:- a. That after much discussion with the residents of Pen Selwood, a

study of the documents submitted on the planning website and further deliberation at a planning meeting held on Wednesday 10th June, the newly elected Parish Council have voted to object to this application.

b. The Parish Council considers that it brings no benefit to the

community, is contrary to its own Planning Policy Document (Spring 2014), policies within the South Somerset Local Plan which we support and policies of the AONB. Most of the village including the majority of the application site is within the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs AONB.

5.3 Environment Agency - no objection providing a) the Lead Local Flood Authority are satisfied with the proposals and

surface water storage calculation; b) permission should be subject to inclusion of conditions requiring works to

be carried out in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment dated 7 January 2015 and a scheme for surface water drainage being submitted and approved before the development commences.

The applicant should be informed that the development will require an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency unless a waste exemption applies.

5.4 Natural England – no objection

Statutory nature conservation sites – no objection;

Protected landscapes – does not wish to comment on this proposal but advises seeking advice from the AONB office;

Protected Species – see NE standing advice;

Local sites – the authority should fully understand the impact of the proposal on any local site before it determines the application.

5.5 Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs AONB – object The adopted AONB Management Plan and planning policies indicate that significant proposals, such as this one, should be very carefully considered in connection with the reasons for designating Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In terms of those reasons for designation, conserving and enhancing natural beauty, the tipping of waste material cannot be seen as complying with any of the polices.

The existing site is likely to be considerably more positive in its contribution to biodiversity than the tipped site. The applicant has not considered the


A - 9

landscape impacts of the proposal and therefore the application is seriously deficient in that respect. That is particularly worrying as the AONB designation relates primarily to the character and quality of landscapes.

As a matter of principle the AONB Partnership has consistently taken the view that an AONB is not a place to import waste for disposal. The proposal does, therefore, come up against that fundamental position. Furthermore, the application has a number of deficiencies and shortcomings as well as inconsistencies. The recommendation of the AONB Partnership is that not only is the application inadequate to be fully considered but also that the proposal, a significant waste disposal operation involving a regular flow of HGV vehicles in and out of the AONB on a daily basis for at least three years, is both inappropriate and unacceptable.

5.6 Somerset Geology Group – objection Somerset Geology Group (SGG) endeavours to conserve the geodiversity of Somerset and promote this to a wide audience. SGG objects on the grounds that the proposal will completely obscure Penselwood Landslip Local Geological Site (= Regionally Important Geological /Geomorphological Site), and this resource will be permanently damaged and lost for any further study, research or educational purposes.

5.7 Penselwood Landslip Local Geological Site (LGS) is designated for its active landslip features (see below). This designation is not recognised or mentioned in the application documents (including the geological/ geotechnical report and desk study reviews prepared by Red Rock Geoscience Ltd). Consequently SGG does not regard that the impacts of this proposed development upon Penselwood Landslip LGS are properly considered within the application. Policy DM3 of SCC’s adopted Waste Core Strategy refers specifically to the need to consider regionally important geological sites in the context of planning permission for waste management developments. Without consideration of Penselwood Landslip LGS within their proposal, it is not clear how the applicant has addressed Policy DM3 and demonstrated that the benefits of the development outweigh the adverse impacts.

5.8 Of approximately 215 LGS in Somerset, only three LGS are identified for their landslip features: Gortnell Common, Penselwood and Wayford Woods. Penselwood LGS is unique within the County site coverage in its large size, being fault-bounded, the wide range of landslip features it displays and its ‘active’ status. Gortnell Common and Wayford Woods are ‘static’ landslip sites. Penselwood Landslip LGS is one of the largest and the most dramatic hillside failures in inland Somerset (and Dorset); it provides a classic example of a landslip displaying a wide range of features including back scarp face and slope crest, landslip scars, overlapping lobes, boundary


A - 10

shear zones, heaved and hummocky ground, displaced hedgerows and toppled trees.

5.9 Penselwood Landslip LGS is an Active Process Geomorphological Site (an ‘Integrity-type’ site, Category ‘IA’). Integrity-type sites, such as Penselwood Landslip LGS, have limited geological and geographical occurrence and are dependent upon the continuation of natural processes to maintain the features of interest for which the site is identified. Any development that interferes with or inhibits these natural processes will damage the features of interest. This proposed development covers the full extent of Penselwood LGS; the site will be completely obscured by fill to a depth of up to several metres, and this resource will be permanently damaged and lost for any further study, research or educational purposes.

5.10 SGG does not possess ‘in-house expertise’ to comment in detail on all the geotechnical data provided within the application. However, we do have experience and understanding regarding the conservation of landslip sites and how difficult it can be to stabilise large-scale, active sites. In this regard, we raise the following queries about this application: a) From the amount of additional geotechnical assessment and ongoing monitoring of the development (if permitted) that is referenced in the application, it is unclear how confident the applicants are that the proposed scheme design will achieve the desired slope stability – and what happens if further slippage occurs in the future, potentially compounded by additional materials brought onto the site? b) It is unclear whether certain measures (such as toe-loading, buttresses and appropriate drainage) could in themselves/combination be adequate to achieve sufficient slope stability without the need to introduce imported soil or waste materials. c) The Geotechnical Feasibility Report recognises that the relationship between the water and ground movements at the Penselwood site is not simple, and that ground water movements are in part controlled by the arrangement of geological faults. If water drained from the Penselwood site were introduced to adjoining land where similar underlying geological conditions are present, would this not increase the risk of land instability (‘knock-on’ effects) in adjoining areas?

5.11 Somerset Wildlife Trust – opposed to the proposal We fully support the comments from the County Ecologist as well as the objection from South Somerset District Council. The proposed development would have a very negative impact on the local biodiversity as well as resulting in the loss of a pond and hedgerows. The Somerset Wildlife Trust is totally opposed to this proposal.


A - 11

5.12 Local Highway Authority – object The proposed access at point A would not be acceptable, given its proximity to both of the road junctions. There may also be concern at the access should it be taken from point B, given that it will be close to two other junctions on the road and that no details for this have been provided. I therefore recommend that unless or until safe and suitable access is demonstrated, the application is refused for the following reason:

The proposal is contrary to Policy TA5 of the South Somerset District Local Plan (adopted 2015) and the provisions of the NPPF section 4, as inadequate information has been submitted to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that a safe and satisfactory means of access to the site can be achieved.

5.13 Rights of Way – no objection Public footpaths WN21/9 and WN21/10 run across the development site. - The proposed development may well obstruct the rights of way and

diversions or temporary closure might be necessary. - The health and safety of walkers should be taken into consideration

during the proposed works. - SCC would not be responsible for putting right any damage occurring to

the surface of the footpath resulting from vehicular use. - If the proposed works would make the PROW less convenient for public

use or create a hazard to users, then a temporary closure order will be necessary and a suitable alternative route must be provided.

5.14 Lead Local Flood Authority – no objection The measures outlined in the Flood Risk Assessment under option 3 are adequate to ensure no increase in flood risk due to the works and as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) we have no objection to the works. If approval is given it should be subject to the conditions provided by the Environment Agency. The applicant should also be advised that diversion of the watercourse will require Land Drainage Consent from the LLFA.

5.15 Geotechnical Advisors (Peter Brett Associates) – further information and justification required We understand that to comply with planning policy inert landfill projects have to be restoration-led, enabling land to be used more efficiently, or for enhancement of the natural environment. Inherent in that is a requirement to utilise the minimum amount of waste to achieve its stated purpose. Our comments hereafter reflect this requirement. If the minimum amount of inert waste is not being utilised then the site could be seen as a commercially driven waste disposal operation, or “sham recovery” masquerading as a beneficial land stabilisation scheme.

5.16 Stabilisation Scheme The Red Rock report on the Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation dated September 2014 has been reviewed, and also its findings were discussed with Mr Alan White on site. It is clear from the report that the investigations


A - 12

and stability assessment undertaken were intended for the purposes of a feasibility study and in order to develop a preliminary design for the proposed stabilisation works.

5.17 Our assessment of the Red Rock report is that it recognises that there is still considerable uncertainty in the ground and groundwater model of the landslide, and that the recommendations in the report state that further investigation and analysis will be needed in order to develop the ground model sufficiently to allow detailed design of the stabilisation measures, such that there can be confidence that the minimum amount of imported inert waste will be used.

5.18 There is recognition in the report that (a) “ground conditions are complex” ( Section 7.1), and (b) “the relationship between the water and the ground movements is not simple” (Page 14, Section 7.4). The areas of uncertainty are objectively and appropriately discussed in the report text. The bullet points on Pages 15 and 16 of the report describe the further investigations and analysis that will be required to progress to a final stabilisation design. Until a final stabilisation design is reached it is reasonable to deduce that the Applicant cannot provide adequate justification that the minimum amount of imported waste is being used.

5.19 Equally, based on the report provided it is arguable whether the Applicant has provided adequate justification that any inert waste needs to be imported, and this is a fundamental policy principle underlying whether the Application can be given consent or not.

5.20 The normal approach that would be looked at first when preparing a landslide stabilisation scheme would be to employ drainage measures and re-distribute the materials already present in the landslip to remove a weight of soil from its higher part (the displacing force) and place it lower down to provide a buttress or a toe loading and generate a stabilising or resisting force. The importation of additional material is required only if there is insufficient material already there.

5.21 In Section 7.4 of the Red Rock report it is stated that simple shallow trench drains alone are unlikely to provide a solution, and this may well be the case, but the feasibility of provision of deep drainage in association with re-distribution of the present materials has not been discussed as an option.

5.22 We recommend that the Applicant is requested to provide written justification and supporting analysis that it is not possible to stabilise the landslip and create a suitable landform by using a combination of the materials already present, drainage measures and shear keys, before the application is determined. Such justification should include volumetric analysis and materials balance.

5.23 Once it has been established that the importation of some inert waste is essential for delivery of the scheme, then we would recommend that outstanding investigation, detailed design and construction matters can be


A - 13

dealt with by Condition, including justification that the minimum volume of waste is being used.

5.24 In this respect we have concerns about the preliminary stabilisation design submitted with the Application. Section 1 on Drawing No. GRP/015/02 shows fill being placed on the upper part of the landslide between chainages about 150m and 220m that is likely to generate an additional displacement force, and that will require further infill placed on the toe to provide an opposing restoring force. Similarly the stability sections given in Appendix H of the Red Rock report also show imported fill being placed on this part of the landslide. We also note that in respect of the upper part of the landslide the Red Rock report recognises the uncertainty in the geometry of the slip surface in this area because the boreholes could not penetrate deep enough.

5.25 Therefore whether placing fill in this area causes a stabilising or a de-stabilising movement cannot be reliably established at present. At present the placement of fill on this part of the landslide does not appear to be consistent with the premise that the minimum amount of waste should be imported.

5.26 Former Tipping and Contamination It was apparent during the site visit that the surface materials on the upper part of the landslide below the backscar contained anthropogenic materials. Mr Hopkins stated that the site had been used for tipping before it came into his ownership but was unaware of precise details, and whether it was for stabilisation purposes (NB tipping off the backscar would destabilise the landslip further).

5.27 The Applicant should have considered this when completing Section 14 of the Application Form. The data on the site we obtained from SERC dating from around 1994 also notes there has been historical tipping on the site. It is likely such tipping took place before modern regulation and environmental controls were put in place, and we would advise that a contamination assessment is carried out before stabilisation commences. As further ground investigation is needed in any event then the addition of some samples for contamination testing is not an onerous or unreasonable requirement.

5.28 Waste Regulation and Supply It appears that the Applicant intends to manage the process of waste importation and placement by obtaining an Environmental Permit (EP) from the Environment Agency. The conditions attached to the EP should ensure that only inert and suitably uncontaminated waste is imported. However, the Applicant has not applied for the EP yet and it is unclear at this time whether the EP will cover all aspects of the site management in adequate detail in respect of human health risk, an area that falls within the County remit. There are public footpaths on the site. Therefore we suggest provision is made via planning condition for the submission and approval by the CPA of a Materials Management Plan, and a Construction Environmental Management Pan (they can be combined).


A - 14

5.29 The Planning Statement indicates that the work will be completed within 36 months. It is unclear whether this programme includes time for the further ground investigation and detailed design needed. Also, whether the Applicant has access to a guaranteed waste stream that can supply the volume required within the stipulated timescale. We recommend you obtain further details of his proposed waste stream from the Applicant before determination so that a time period can be set in the Planning Consent.

5.30 Stream Diversion The stream is to be diverted to flow over sidelong ground on the opposite valley side (to the landslide), above the top of the buttress formed by the toe loading. This slope also shows signs of instability and is mapped as landslide by the British Geological Survey. The indicative design for the new diversion ditch shows that the ditch will be cut into this slope with a steepening of the slope angle on the up-slope side. See Sections A-A1 and B-B1 on WSP drawing PDL-01. Stability analysis of this slope will also be required during the detailed design stage to ensure that construction of the stream diversion does not instigate further instability.

5.31 South West Heritage Trust: Archaeology – object The planning statement states that the site is not designated as having heritage interest but the Somerset Historic Environment Record identifies three boundary stones in the eastern end of the application site. It appears from the plans that these will be impacted by the landscaping of the site. At present the applicant has not stated how these assets will be impacted nor proposed any form of mitigation. It is advised that the application is not determined until the applicant has recognised the assets and provided enough information pertaining to the impacts on the assets and a mitigation strategy that conserves the significance of the assets.

5.32 SCC: Acoustic Advisor – no objection but conditions proposed to minimise the impacts on local residents - The closest property to the tipping area is Crossways, located 140m to

the southeast of the preferred site entrance. This dwelling will not have views to the tipping areas due to topographical screening. Ambient noise by this location and over a 17-minute period ambient Leq and background L90 noise levels were found to be 62dB(A) and 58dB(A) respectively. Noise assessed at the preferred site entrance over a 7 minute period indicated the ambient Leq and background L90 noise levels to be 59dB(A) and 55dB(A) respectively. At the time of measurements the moderate westerly wind may have increased the continuous noise from the A303 traffic and levels may fall during calm or light northerly winds however this situation would be unlikely to reduce L90 to below 50dB(A) near the dwelling due to the close proximity to the A303 (110m). Occasional traffic on the B3081 was also noted to create brief distinctive drive-by noise.

- The application provides no information on noise impacts. Using predictions of noise expected from two items of plant that might typically


A - 15

be used to manage tipped material would suggest that a dozer might create noise up to 38dB(A) at Crossways while it operated in the main fill area, and this might increase to 48dB(A) if it was to operate on the flat area at the southern boundary, however this would not be expected. The use of a slew would be expected to create less noise that would be unlikely to exceed 33dB(A). Crossways might also be affected by lorries using the site entrance and the maximum drive-by noise from a 4 axle waggon of 80dB(A) would infer that noise from lorry movements (at a separation of 140m) would be unlikely to exceed a maximum level of 55dB(A). Therefore noise created by any typical landfill site plant or lorry deliveries would be at lower noise levels than measured background noise. As such the noise impact of this proposal is not sufficient to be of planning significance at the closest residential property of Crossways.

- The collection of properties closest to the northern boundary of the site are in the ownership of the applicant therefore the closest residential location of significance to planning would be Ballands House at 280m from the northern site boundary and 410m from the central site area. Predictions would indicate greatest noise from a slew would be 42dB(A) and from a dozer would be 47dB(A) however the bulk of activity would be expected at greater separation distance with noise levels reduced by approximately 5dB. These levels of noise would not be sufficient to justify a planning objection.

- The property to the west of the site is Encie Farm and worst noise could reach 47dB(A) however lower levels would be expected due to the increased separation to the main tipping area. This property is exposed to greater noise from the A303 and predicted noise impact would not be sufficient to justify a planning objection.

- In summary it would appear the noise to be expected from material distribution and compaction would not be sufficient to justify a planning objection however the commencement of plant activity from 07:00 and the presence of tonal reverse warning alarms could give rise to unnecessary noise disturbance.

- Planning conditions are recommended to mitigate expected noise impacts as follows:

a) Prior to operation of the development the operator shall supply details for the agreement of the planning authority that identify the phased development of the site, the location of material stored for restoration and the location of any material delivery tipping areas. The operator shall additionally devise a procedure for the delivery of materials to site that minimises the requirement for road vehicles to reverse. (Reason – To identify and design a temporary tipping area to minimise noise impacts.)

b) The delivery of materials to site shall be restricted to the hours of 07:00-18:00 with no deliveries on Sundays or Bank Holidays. The transfer and distribution of waste materials shall be restricted to the hours of 07:30-18:00 with no activities during weekend or Bank Holiday periods. (Reason – To clarify operating hours and minimise noise during more sensitive


A - 16

weekend periods.)

c) All plant used to manage deposited material on site shall be effectively silenced to manufacturer's specifications and be operated in a manner so as to minimise noise emissions. All noise control measures shall be maintained to their design specification for the duration of the development hereby permitted. (Reason – To minimise unnecessary noise from the use of machinery.)

d) Any site based plant that is required to use an audible reverse alarm shall be fitted with and use a broadband warning devise. (Reason – To ensure adoption of a reasonable noise control measure to reduce distinctive tonal noise.)

e) There will be no waste processing or exportation of inert fill materials intended for this development. (Reason – To restrict any ancillary processing operations of a mobile crusher that might arise under PD rights or subsidiary operations that might delay completion of the development.)

5.33 SCC: County Ecologist – recommend refusal Refusal is recommended on the grounds that the application has not shown satisfactorily that the development complies with policy EQ4 (Biodiversity) of the South Somerset Local Plan 2015. The Ecological Assessment accompanying this application seems to be made mainly on the basis of the botanical communities on the site, which I would agree are unremarkable although they do contain some plant species that will be uncommon in the surrounding agricultural land. Given the unusual topography of the landslip area and the occurrence of patches of bare ground and apparent seepages it is possible that there could be scarce invertebrate communities associated with the land, but the Assessment does not address this point. The Ecological Assessment has considered the possible occurrence of Great Crested Newts within the application site and environs. A pond that occurs within the application site was checked and, although no Great Crested Newts were encountered a substantial population of Smooth Newts was found. The pond is of value to local amphibian populations but its worth in this regard is not evaluated in the Assessment. The occurrence of Smooth Newts suggests to me that there is terrestrial habitat capable of supporting populations of widespread species of both reptiles and amphibians. The idea that the site could be important for some of the more widespread reptile or amphibian species (including some protected in law) is dismissed in the assessment on the grounds that the site is too intensively grazed. However, having seen photographs of the site taken in March 2014, soon after the landslip, I would question whether there is insufficient habitat of the right sort on site to support reptile and/or


A - 17

amphibians in reasonable numbers. The Assessment indicates that at the time of the extended phase 1 habitat survey in October 2014 there were only occasional semi-natural Ash in the application site and none of these nor any of the trees in the hedgerows on site were of any ecological significance either in their own right or as potential roost sites for bats. Photographs taken in February 2015 show trees that had recently been felled which appear to be fairly substantial, one at least showing signs of rot holes of the type that could make the tree usable by roosting bats. The Assessment indicates that no effort was put into checking for Hazel Dormouse using any of the hedges that would be removed due to the development. This is despite the fact that the Ecological Assessment identifies suitable potential habitat on site and mentions records of the species in the area. Somerset EcoNet, SCC’s own GIS-based system (which relies on SERC records) indicates known presence of Dormouse populations in hedgerows on land near Charlton Musgrove about 2 km to the north west of the application site. The area between Pen House Farm and Charlton Musgrove is well-wooded and the application site is connected by hedgerows to local woods. I consider this proposal does not meet Policy EQ4 as the applicants have not demonstrated that the development they propose will not adversely affect priority or protected species, priority habitats or features or biodiversity value. In addition there are no detailed proposals for restoration which should include compensatory provision for the needs of protected and priority species (in accordance with adopted off-setting requirements).

5.34 SCC: Waste Policy Team – object On the information provided to date we object to the scheme proposal as the applicant has not undertaken adequate assessment of the impacts on the environment (policy DM3) in relation to the site designation as both AONB and RIGS. Careful consideration is needed on whether the proposal constitutes a recovery or a disposal operation. In a letter to Chief Planning Officers dated 20 January 2009 the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) discusses the use of waste in large-scale landscaping development. This letter explains that both CLG and Defra consider that landscaping developments involving importing over 100,000 tonnes of waste would not have been undertaken if the material used to construct the landscaping were not waste. Therefore, given the quantity of waste being used such developments are unlikely to constitute recovery operations, but are more likely to be waste disposal operations. Furthermore it is important that the minimum amount of waste is used to achieve the desired outcome in order that the project meets the criteria for recovery. The applicant is therefore unable to demonstrate that the


A - 18

proposal is in accordance with policy WCS2 – recycling and reuse.

5.35 Public Consultation There have been 40 responses to the public consultation on the proposal. 37 raised objections and 3 gave support. Objections to proposal Landscape - The majority of farming in the parish of Pen Selwood is permanent pasture and Common Agricultural Policy supports the retention of such pasture and protection of landscape features such as hedgerows, trees, watercourses and ponds all of which are threatened by this proposal. - A substantial part to the application site is within the AONB which was designated to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area. One of the greatest features of Penselwood is the ‘unimproved’ traditional pasture land which gives it an unspoilt character. There does not seem to have been any sort of Landscape Impact Assessment and it’s entirely inappropriate to be considering landfill in an AONB and on the entrance to the historic village of Penselwood. - The proposal means the natural contours that exist on the land will be changed and reformed to a more homogenous look completely in contrast to the surrounding area. Highways - Neither proposed entrance to the site would be suitable for the volume and scale of traffic proposed due to their locations either adjacent to a junction or along a narrow road. - Conflicts between site traffic (heavy lorries) and school/commuter traffic. - Queues of heavy lorries delivering a significant volume of building waste to the site last year blocked the road to other traffic, and made the surface of the road unsafe due to mud, grit and stones which were extremely slippery when wet. - Concern over the amount of maintenance the road [Long Lane] would need in order to keep it in a roadworthy condition if used as an access to the development site. - The site traffic would compound problems with poor drainage at the bottom of Salters Hill [Long Lane] which can sometimes result in ice on the road. Local amenity - The noise and dust created would be extremely detrimental to the local environment. - It will impact on the public footpaths for both villagers and visitors. They should be protected and restored. - There is risk of pollution and soil run-off to the stream which leads to the River Cale. - The proposal could have a detrimental effect on land further down in an area that at times is nearly flooded.


A - 19

Ecology - Landslips of this nature provide a new habitat for ecology and will quickly heal (which would not occur if the development were to take place). - Removal of significant amounts of hedging has left a huge gap and interrupted bat commuting corridors. - Concern that the new lined channel for the watercourse will have little or no ecological value. - The pond is one of a chain of seven linking the field to Moldrums Ground where there are Great Crested Newts so they may also be present on the application site. - Loss of natural habitat supporting wildlife including rare and protected butterflies and snails. Principles of the development - We do not see how adding soil and rubble on top of a spring line will ‘stabilise’ this area, if anything it will provide additional ground to be saturated and potentially bigger area of landslip. - Instability to part of the area has been caused by materials that have already been imported to the site. - The application as an agricultural improvement is unjustified and inappropriate. - The primary purpose of the application is the disposal of building waste and not remediation. - The scheme seems disproportionate to the problem. - The proposal may take more than 3 years as the applicant has said it would depend on the availability of spoil from building projects with which they are involved. - The report commissioned in favour of the development is at best unclear and at worst misleading. Other - Risk of archaeological damage. - Construction and demolition waste might include asbestos and other toxic materials. - Soil samples should be taken and tested now to provide a base line reading. A petition against the proposal with 76 signatures was also submitted but could not be made public as authority had not been sought from all signatories for it to be made public. Support for the proposal - There have been instability problems with this area of land since the 1980’s and various attempts have been made to stabilise it but landslips have continued sometimes taking boundary fences and hedges with them which have led to boundary disputes. The whole of the area is now in one ownership and held by someone who has the ability to do something about it. Something has to be done to improve the condition of this area of land and this is possibly the only chance to ensure that this is done.


A - 20

- This land has seriously degraded over the last 20 years and it would be good to see it fit for purpose again. - Sustainable farming should be encouraged in our village and ‘short termism’ should not be allowed to detract from what is best for our village in the long term. - The applicant has transformed the land he has purchased over the last few years and I have every confidence in his stated aim to tidy up this land. - The proposal to stabilise the area by using imported sub-soil, demolition waste and top soil to fill the valley is the best solution to the landslip problem. Although the restored site will take a little time to establish, on a medium time scale the improvement operation can only be an enhancement to the village. - The most suitable access would be option A at the bottom of Salters Hill [Long Lane].

6. Comments of the Service Manager - Planning Control, Enforcement and Compliance

6.1 The key issues for Members to consider when determining this application are:

Whether the proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan;

Agricultural Improvement;

Sustainable Waste Management;

Landscape;

Geodiversity;

Biodiversity;

Highways Impact;

Historic Environment;

Noise and Dust.

6.2 The Development Plan Planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the development plan consists of the following:

The saved Policy 6 of the Somerset and Exmoor National Park Joint Structure Plan (adopted April 2000) (SP);

South Somerset Local Plan (adopted March 2015) (SSLP);

Somerset Waste Core Strategy to 2028 (adopted February 2013) (SWCS).

Other material policy considerations are:

The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) (NPPF);

National Planning Policy for Waste (October 2014) (NPPW). The relevant policies from the Development Plan are referred to under the headings listed below.


A - 21

6.3 Agricultural Improvement The land within the application site has an existing Agricultural Land Classification of Grade 4 (poor quality) as does most of the land in this area to the south-west of Penselwood. The local area is characterised by small irregularly shaped grassland fields on sloping land with intervening hedgerows and mature trees. The application makes reference to the proposed development enabling the land to be used for both arable and pastoral use, thereby allowing crop rotation combined with grazing. There is no evidence in the application that the land profile created as a result of this proposal would enable such farming activities to take place. The application does not provide any details on how the surface of the land would be restored and treated to create a viable soil substrate for productive agriculture or demonstrate that the proposed tipping would enhance the agricultural performance of this land. The area in question has suffered previous landslips and yet the application states that prior to this recent landslip the area was intensively grazed. The land has recovered sufficiently from those previous landslips, in particular that in 1990, to enable intensive farming use without the need to import such significant quantities of waste material. In addition there is no evidence that any agricultural improvement would justify the cost of the proposed waste importation so the purpose of the development as an agricultural improvement scheme is brought into question.

6.4 Sustainable Waste Management SWCS policy SD1 outlines the presumption in favour of sustainable development and that the Council will seek to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area. It goes on to state that applications that accord with policies within the SWCS will be approved without delay. I do not consider that the application adequately demonstrates that it will secure environmental and social benefits or that economic benefit would be felt by the wider population.

6.5 Policy WCS2: recycling and reuse states that planning permission will be granted for waste management development that will maximise reuse and/or recycling of waste subject to the applicant demonstrating that the proposed development will, in particular, be in accordance with the Development Management Policies 1-9. It goes on to state that before considering inert landfill disposal, inert waste that cannot be reused or recycled on-site should be diverted off-site for recycling and/or beneficial uses. Of the beneficial uses listed in the policy, those which may be relevant to this proposal are b) other uses with clear benefits to the local community and environment; and c) other facilities that will facilitate such positive use.

6.6 Given the quantity of waste to be imported (115,000 cu m) and in light of the CLG guidance given in the Letter to Chief Planning Officers January 2009 (see 5.34) it is questionable whether this proposal can be considered a recovery operation. In addition it is important that the minimum amount of waste is used to achieve the desired outcome in order that the project meets the criteria for recovery.


A - 22

6.7 It would appear that the information (or lack thereof) in the application means this development does not meet the requirements of a waste recovery operation so it needs to be considered in respect of policy for waste disposal. Policy WCS4 (disposal) indicates that permission for any form of landfill will not be granted unless the applicant demonstrates that the waste cannot be managed in a more sustainable way through diversion up the hierarchy and that the proposal will need to meet SWCS Development Management policies 1-9. The application does not include consideration of other means of disposal of the sub-soil and construction and demolition waste and it will be seen later that it does not comply with all of SWCS policies DM1 to DM9.

6.8 Policy WCS4 makes specific reference to inert landfill development and indicates that permission may be granted where the proposal is restoration led, enabling an area of land to be used more effectively for agriculture, and uses the minimum amount of waste to achieve the stated purpose. The proposal would reduce the steepness of the slope of the affected land but the surrounding areas would retain their current profile. The benefits of reducing the steepness of approximately 5ha within a site of over 12ha would appear to be limited and there is no information in the application to support the contention that the proposal will lead to land which would be more agriculturally productive. In the geotechnical report it is not clear that consideration has been given to minimising the amount of waste used in the land stabilisation. Nor does it contain any real consideration of whether the stabilisation can be achieved without the importation of any waste. I therefore consider that the application does not accord with SWCS policies SD1, WCS2 and WCS4.

6.9 Landscape The proposal would impact upon the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs AONB and SWCS policy DM3 requires sites of national importance to be taken into consideration in proposals for waste development. That policy requires that where a proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the integrity, character and/or setting of an AONB then the permission would only be granted if the applicant demonstrates that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts.

6.10 SSLP policy EQ2: General development applies here and requires that development will be designed to achieve a high quality which promotes South Somerset’s local distinctiveness and preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the district. It goes on to state that development proposals will be considered against conserving and enhancing the landscape character of the area and reinforcing local distinctiveness and respecting local context.

6.11 The application area lies within the AONB Landscape Character area 7B, Penselwood - Longleat Hills. One of the key characteristics of this area is that the fields are predominantly small and of an irregular form, indicative of early enclosure, and that the area supports a peaceful landscape with great variety at the small scale, but with an overall unified character. The fields around the remediation site all have undulations characteristic of minor land


A - 23

slippage. The importation of 115,000cu m of waste materials would transform this area of the AONB by creating a smooth landform in the midst of the surrounding natural fields. The hedgerow replanting proposals do not replicate the characteristic small fields with irregular form that are found in this area. The application is not supported by a landscape character assessment or visual amenity impact assessment and there is no reference to the site falling within the AONB. There are two public footpaths running through the site and the visual impact for users of those paths is not assessed. I consider that the proposal is not in accordance with SWCS policy DM3 or SSLP policy EQ2 in respect of landscape integrity and character or the design of the finished landform.

6.12 Geodiversity SWCS policy DM3 considers impacts on the environment and local communities. It states that planning permission for waste development that would have a significant adverse impact on the integrity, character and/or setting of RIGS (LGS) will only be granted if the applicant demonstrates that the benefits of the development outweigh the adverse impacts to that geological site.

6.13 The SSLP para 13.47 states that “Development proposals should be accompanied by sufficient information to assess the effects of development on protected sites, species, biodiversity or geology, together with any proposed prevention, mitigation or compensation measures.”

6.14 The original application does not include recognition of the status of a key part of the proposed development site as a LGS/RIGS despite this information being readily available on the South Somerset Local Plan proposals maps and through a data search at the Somerset Environmental Records Centre. On being informed of the designation the applicant has commented on the lack of geological research and technical papers in respect of the site. This is not a pre-requisite of designation of a LGS and does not diminish its status. There is no assessment of the impact of the proposal on that designated site and therefore it is not proven that the benefits of the development outweigh the adverse impacts. The proposal would cover the Penselwood Landslip LGS/RIGS in several metres of waste obscuring this active geological/ geomorphological feature. The proposal is therefore not in accordance with SWCS policy DM3 in respect of the geological interest of the site and the protection of geological sites afforded by the SSLP.

6.15 Biodiversity SSLP policy EQ4: Biodiversity states that where there is a reasonable likelihood of the presence of protected and priority species development design should be informed, and applications should be accompanied, by a survey and impact assessment assessing their presence. If present, a sequential approach to the design of the proposal should be taken that aims first to avoid harm, then to lessen the impact, and lastly makes compensatory provision for their needs.


A - 24

6.16 The Ecological Assessment submitted with the application focuses on the habitats and flora present on site and, in respect of fauna, only the possible occurrence of Great Crested Newts was investigated as part of the site survey. References are made to bats and hazel dormice but no actual survey work is reported. The County Ecologist considers that the site, as described in the Ecological Assessment and illustrated in photographs of the application file, has the potential to support both bats and hazel dormice. Therefore to be in accordance with policy EQ4 the application should have included more comprehensive surveys and impact assessments for these species.

6.17 Given the species range contained and the presence on 1940’s aerial photographs, the hedgerows on site could conform to ancient and species-rich hedgerows that are a UK Priority Habitat but there is no evaluation in the application of their significance in a county, local or other context. Given that the application does not demonstrate that the proposed development will not adversely affect priority or protected species, priority habitats or features of biodiversity value I consider that the proposal is not in accordance with SSLP policy EQ4.

6.18 SWCS policy DM3 states that permission for waste development that would have a significant adverse impact on the integrity, character and/or setting of habitats and species (including those listed in UK and local Biodiversity Action Plans and Somerset Priority Species List) and wildlife corridors will only be granted if the applicant demonstrates that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts and the proposal includes adequate measures to mitigate adverse impacts or, as a last resort, proportionately compensates for, or offsets, any loss of biodiversity.

6.19 The Ecological Assessment does not adequately assess the biodiversity potential of the application site and the applicant has not proved that the benefits of the development outweigh any adverse impacts. In addition, and as the proposal would destroy all habitats in the fill area, there is a need to proportionately compensate or offset loss of biodiversity. Whilst replanting of some hedgerow is proposed it does not fulfil the requirements of biodiversity offsetting, for example Natural England recommends that the loss of species-rich hedgerow is off-set at the rate of 3:1 but the proposal is for less hedgerow to be planted than would be lost to the development. I therefore consider that the proposal does not accord with SWCS policy DM3.

6.20 Highways SWCS policy DM6 refers to waste transport and requires applicants to demonstrate that the proposal would not have detrimental impact upon the local and strategic road network; deliver suitable access to the development and for alternatives to road transport to be explored. Given the location of the proposed development there would be no alternative to road transport. The application indicates two possible points of access between the site and the public highway but does not provide any details of layout and visibility for either of those points of access. The proposal does not therefore deliver suitable access to the development and is in conflict with policy DM6.


A - 25

6.21 Historic Environment SSLP policy EQ3: Historic Environment states that heritage assets will be conserved and where appropriate enhanced for their historic significance and important contribution to local distinctiveness, character and sense of place. The presence of historic assets (boundary stones) within the eastern part of the site is not identified in the application. Policy EQ3 requires all new development proposals to safeguard or where appropriate enhance the significance, character, setting and local distinctiveness of heritage assets. At present the applicant has not stated how these assets or their setting will be impacted nor proposed any form of mitigation. I therefore consider that the proposal is not in accordance with SSLP policy EQ3.

6.22 Noise and Dust SWCS policy DM3 requires the consideration of adverse impacts from noise and dust generated by the proposed development. Whilst the applicant has made reference to the existence of this policy no noise assessment or dust mitigation scheme has been submitted. In this respect the application is contrary to the requirements of DM3.

6.23 An assessment of noise impacts has been undertaken by the Acoustic Advisor based on the plant likely to be employed in the operations and the noise levels expected from the use of that plant. The application states that lorries would bring material on to site and deposit it close to the southern boundary, at the top of the slope. From there a dozer would spread and level this material. The closest property to the tipping area is Crossways, located 140m to the south-east but on a south facing slope below the brow of the hill so is topographically screened from the site. Due to the proximity of the A303 to the south, the background noise levels at Crossways are such that noise from the plant operating on site would be at a lower level and the noise impact at this property is not considered to be of planning significance.

6.24 Other third party properties in the vicinity (i.e. not Penhouse Farm which is owned by the applicant) are Encie Farm approximately 360m to the west and Ballards House approximately 410m to the north of the central site area. Encie Farm, like Crossways, is exposed to noise from the A303 and noise impact at that property is predicted not to be sufficient to justify a planning objection. Ballards House is on the far side of the combe to the tipping area and further from the A303. However, noise levels here are again predicted not to be sufficient to justify a planning objection. What may give rise to unnecessary noise disturbance should the development go ahead would be the commencement of plant activity at 07:00 and the use of tonal reversing alarms. However, both these aspects could be controlled by conditions.

6.25 Landfill of inert waste can be a dust generating operation particularly in dry and windy conditions. I accept however that given a robust dust monitoring and control scheme, which could be required by condition, that dust levels should not be such as to lead to a significant adverse impact on adjoining land users. I therefore consider that in respect of noise and dust impact the proposal is not in conflict with that aspect of policy DM3.


A - 26

6.26 Other Issues Paragraph 6.4 of the supporting statement to the application indicates that the proposal does not conflict with SWCS policies DM2, DM4, and DM7. Policy DM2 relates to sustainable construction of built waste management facilities so is not applicable to this proposal.

6.27 Policy DM4 concerns the restoration and aftercare of waste sites. It requires acceptable restoration and aftercare measures to be implemented at the earliest practicable opportunity, either in a phased manner during operation or immediately on completion of the operational life of the development. There is a proposed landscape plan that has been submitted with the application but it has been found lacking in mitigating for the landscape and biodiversity impacts of the proposal. The timescale for completion of restoration and aftercare is not specified but it is considered that a suitable condition on timing and details of restoration and aftercare could be imposed. The proposal is however still in conflict with policy DM4.

6.28 Policy DM7 requires consideration of impacts upon water resources. Neither the Lead Local Flood Authority nor the District Drainage Engineer has concerns over the impacts of the development upon surface water flows. Impacts upon surface water quality should not be of concern with the landfill of inert waste and this would be regulated through the waste permitting system. A flood risk assessment has been submitted with the application and this has been assessed and found to demonstrate that there is no increase in flood risk. The proposal is therefore compliant with policy DM7.

7. Conclusion

7.1 I consider that the application is deficient in a number of areas such that it does not demonstrate that the proposal fulfils the requirements of the development plan.

The proposal fails to demonstrate that it will secure environmental and social benefits or that there would be economic benefit for the wider population and is therefore considered contrary to SWCS policy SD1.

The proposal is for an agricultural improvement operation but there is insufficient supporting evidence to demonstrate that any agricultural improvements that could be achieved would warrant the proposed amount of waste importation therefore the proposal is considered contrary to SWCS policy WCS4.

Given the large volume of waste that is it proposed to import and that the application does not demonstrate clear benefits to the local community and environment, or other facilities that will facilitate such positive use, the proposal does not meet the requirements of a waste recovery operation and is therefore considered contrary to SWCS policy WCS2.

The proposal fails to give regard to the existence of the Penselwood Landslip LGS and the impact of the development upon that and is therefore considered contrary to policy SWCS policy DM3.

The proposal fails to give regard to the CC AONB and the landscape


A - 27

impacts within that nationally designated area. The applicant has not demonstrated that the development would not adversely detract from the character of the local area, in particular when viewed from public footpaths WN21/9 and WN21/10 and those properties in the village of Penselwood with views of the land. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to SWCS policy DM3 and SSLP policy EQ2 in respect of landscape integrity and character or design of the finished landform.

The proposal fails to give full consideration of the biodiversity impacts of the proposal and the mitigation in the restoration proposals is insufficient to meet recognised standards therefore the proposal is considered contrary to SWCS policy DM3 and SSLP policy EQ4.

The geotechnical report acknowledges that the site has a complex geological and hydrological structure and that significant further investigation is needed to establish the detailed requirements of any scheme to stabilise this area of land. In addition the report does not include evidence to show that it is not possible to stabilise the land using site won materials and further drainage schemes. Therefore the principle of using the minimum amount of waste has not been satisfied and the proposal is considered contrary to SWCS policy WCS4.

The proposal fails to demonstrate that a suitable and safe access onto the public highway can be achieved and is therefore considered contrary to SWCS policy DM6.

The application fails to give regard to the presence of historic assets within the application site and how they will be safeguarded. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to SSLP policy EQ3.

There are no other material considerations and my recommendation is that the decision should be made in accordance with the development plan, and I recommend refusal.

8. Recommendation

8.1 It is recommended that planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:- 1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would

result in a beneficial use that has clear benefits to the local community and environment, or serves a function to facilitate such positive use. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to SWCS policy WCS2.

2. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would enable the land to be used more effectively and that the minimum amount of waste required to achieve the desired outcome would be imported to the site. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to SWCS policy WCS4.

3. The proposed development would not improve the economic, social

and environmental conditions within the area and is therefore


A - 28

considered contrary to SWCS policy SD1. 4. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the benefits of the

proposed landfill outweigh the detrimental effects on the geological interest of the site and on biodiversity. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to SWCS policy DM3 and SSLP policy EQ4.

5. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed

development will not adversely affect the integrity of the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs AONB or detract from the landscape character of the area and is therefore considered contrary to SWCS policy DM3 and SSLP policy EQ2.

6. The applicant has not demonstrated that a suitable access to the

development is deliverable. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to SWCS policy DM6.

7. The applicant has not identified the presence of local heritage assets within the development site, considered their significance nor demonstrated that they (or their setting) will as a minimum be conserved. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to SSLP policy EQ3.

9 Relevant Development Plan Policies

9.1 1. The following is a summary of the policies taken into account in the recommendation to refuse planning permission. 2. In accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 the decision on this application should be taken in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The decision has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the :-

Somerset Waste Core Strategy to 2028 (adopted February 2013);

South Somerset Local Plan 2006 to 2028 (adopted in March 2015). The policies in those plans particularly relevant to the proposed development are: Somerset Waste Core Strategy SD1: Presumption in favour of sustainable development – Contrary to policy, the proposed development is not considered to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area. WCS2: Recycling and reuse – Contrary to policy, the proposed development does not involve the restoration of an excavated site, is not considered to provide clear benefits to the local community and environment, or provide facilities that will facilitate positive use. The development has not been shown


A - 29

to use the minimum amount of waste to achieve the desired outcome such that it can convincingly be classified as a waste recovery operation. WCS4: Disposal – Contrary to policy, the proposed development has not conclusively demonstrated that it would enable the site to be used more effectively or that it uses the minimum amount of waste to achieve the stated purpose. DM3: Impacts on the environment and local communities – Contrary to policy, whilst the proposed development is not expected to generate significant adverse impacts from noise or dust, it has not been demonstrated that the benefits of the development outweigh the adverse impacts on geodiversity, biodiversity, the character and appearance of the local landscape, and the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs AONB. DM4: Site restoration and aftercare – Outline restoration proposals are included in the application but a condition would be needed to require detailed proposals including aftercare and timetable. DM6: Waste transport – Contrary to policy, the applicant has not supplied details to demonstrate that a suitable access from the public highway is deliverable. DM7: Water resources – The proposed development is considered to adequately protect water quality and not have an unacceptable impact upon the flow of ground and surface water or flood risk. South Somerset Local Plan EQ2: General development – Contrary to policy, the proposal is not considered to respect landscape integrity and character, and the design of the finished landform is not considered to be high quality. EQ3: Historic environment – Contrary to policy, there are heritage assets within the application site and the impact of the proposal on the setting of these assets has not been given consideration in the application. EQ4: Biodiversity – Contrary to policy, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the proposed development will not adversely affect priority or protected species, priority habitats or features of biodiversity value. 3. The County Council has also had regard to all other material considerations, including the National Planning Policy Framework.

10 Background Papers

10.1

The application file;

CLG letter to Chief Planning Officers, date 20 January 2009 “Large-scale Landscaping Development Using Waste”;

National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012);

National Planning Policy for Waste (October 2014).

Regulation Committee 3 September 2015 Report by...

Documents

Transcript of Regulation Committee 3 September 2015 Report by...