County Durham Waste Local Plan.

6 Environmental Protection.

6.1 Environmental protection covers a wide range of different issues.  Although the various effects that will need to be considered in relation to proposals for waste management facilities will often be complementary in their requirements, there may be occasions when conflicts arise.  Where they do arise, each case will be treated on its merits, depending upon the relative significance of opposing considerations. In assessing the likely impact of proposals, including those arising from an intensification of an existing waste development, the County Council will have regard to the relationship of the site with neighbouring development.  PPG 23 advises that public perception of the impacts of waste development can be a material consideration in planning decisions.  The County Council will have regard to concerns expressed in response to planning proposals, and in considering the weight to be attached to such concerns, will seek advice from the relevant regulatory bodies on issues such as the significance of any perceived risk to human health or the environment from a proposal.  Waste management facilities are also subject to a system of waste management licensing administered and enforced by the Environment Agency, which is designed to protect both human health and the environment.

6.2 PPG 12 requires local authorities to take account of the need to revitalise and broaden the local economy and stimulate employment opportunities.  Waste management, particularly recovery operations, can make a significant contribution to local employment and the local economy.  However, waste development on industrial estates must not detract from the ability of the remainder of the site to attract other forms of new development.  Provided that the waste management use is compatible with other existing or proposed forms of industrial development, there is no reason why this should be the case.  The County Council will have regard to the economic effects of waste management development. PPG 12 also requires consideration to be given to the relationship of planning policies and proposals to social needs and problems, including the likely impact on different groups in the population.  These issues are addressed in the Sustainability Appraisal.

6.3 The policies covering environmental protection are derived from the objectives and principles set out in 4 ‘Strategy.’.

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control.

6.4 Complementary planning and waste management licensing systems operate to protect the environment from the harmful effects of development. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), most waste treatment and disposal sites needed to be either licensed or registered as exempt by the Environment Agency. A new regime, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), implements the EU IPPC Directive (1996).  Current landfill operations will require a IPPC permit in order to continue to operate. Planning permission or a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development is required before a permit can be issued.

6.5 The potential for pollution affecting the use of land can be a material planning consideration. The relationship between planning and pollution control is not always clear. Both seek to protect the environment but in general, planning focuses on whether the use of the land is acceptable in principle, rather than controlling the process itself.  There may be material considerations which are common to both processes.

Design.

6.6 Buildings for waste management development should be well designed and attractive and should complement their landscape setting. Where appropriate, they should be an example in themselves, in terms of maximising recycling and the re-use of waste materials and incorporating sustainable urban drainage.  Guidance on sustainable building is available in “Building-in Sustainability - A guide to sustainable building and construction in the North East” which was published in 2002. The document provides guidance on how development can become more energy-efficient, better-planned and designed, and more integrated with the local community.

Landscape.

6.7 Waste developments can have a considerable impact on the character of the landscape.  Physical impacts may arise from damage to the natural topography, or from the removal of hedges, trees and other mature or historic landscape features.  Visual impacts may arise from the appearance of operational and tipping areas, litter-trap fencing, stockpiles and screening mounds, buildings, processing plant and security lighting.  Traffic, signage and highway improvement works around waste facilities can affect the character of rural roads. Potential impacts can often be avoided through sensitive site selection, design and restoration. In some cases waste disposal can facilitate the reclamation of former mineral workings.

6.8 It is necessary to ensure that the character of the landscape of the County is not adversely affected by development.  The County exhibits a very wide range of landscapes and each of these has a distinctive local character based on differences in geology, soils and vegetation and on patterns of human settlement, farming practices and industrial development. In 1998 the Countryside Agency published the ‘Character Map of England’ which maps and describes the character of 159 separate Countryside Character Areas. Figure 6.1 shows those character areas that occur in County Durham. The County Council is currently working on a detailed landscape character assessment which will work within this framework to identify local landscape types and character areas. It is anticipated that this will be published in 2003, along with landscape strategies and guidelines, as supplementary guidance.

6.9 The County Council will pay close attention to both the short and long term effects of waste developments on the character of the County’s landscapes. Permission will not be granted for development which would result in the loss of important landscape features or which would have a significant adverse effect on the character of the landscape. The potential for waste developments to contribute to wider goals of restoring or enhancing landscape character will be taken into account.

North Pennine Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

6.10 The North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) has been designated for its national importance and contains extensive areas of near wilderness landscapes and smaller scale traditional agricultural landscapes, both of which are extremely sensitive to change. On 13 June 2000, the Government issued an amendment to PPG 7 on the countryside, stating that the landscape qualities of National Parks and AONB’s are equivalent, and therefore the protection given to both types of area by the land use planning system should also be equivalent. In relation to major^iv projects, the assessment required in paragraph 4.5 of PPG 7 for National Parks will also apply to proposals in AONB’s.When considering planning applications for development within AONB’s, the applicant should now include an assessment of:

1. the need for the development, in terms of national considerations, and the impact of permitting it or refusing it on the local economy;
2. the cost of and scope for developing elsewhere outside the area or meeting the need for it in some other way; and
3. iii) any detrimental effect on the environment and the landscape, and the extent to which that should be moderated.

6.11 Environmental impacts should therefore be a primary consideration in assessing any proposal for waste development within or adjacent to the AONB. Even relatively small scale development can have a damaging effect on the AONB’s special character, and it will generally be inappropriate to allow waste development within the area.Any development that may be permitted will need to pay particular attention to the environmental sensitivity of the AONB.

Areas of High Landscape Value and Heritage Coast.

6.12 In addition to the AONB, there are a number of areas within the County which are considered to be sufficiently important to the appearance of the County to be worthy of special recognition.  These include Areas of High Landscape Value (AHLV’s) and The Heritage Coast. AHLV’s are identified in the County Structure Plan, and defined in detail in District Local Plans.  The Heritage Coast, a later designation, is defined in Easington District Local Plan although both designations are shown on this Plan’s Proposals map.

6.13 AHLV’s include regionally and locally important landscapes principally within the major river valleys of the County. These areas are important for nature conservation, for their archaeological heritage, historical and cultural associations and are highly valued for both formal and informal recreation.

6.14 Heritage Coasts are designated nationally in recognition of their national scenic importance.  Heritage Coast status was afforded to three substantial sections of the County Durham Coast in 2001, covering almost 13km from Crimdon in the south to Salterfen Rocks in the north in the Borough of Sunderland.  The area features fine magnesian limestone grasslands, wooded denes, cliffs and stacks.  A Management Plan for the Heritage Coast is currently being prepared and will be published in 2005.

6.15 Certain types of waste developments will be located in urban areas and their impact on the landscape is likely to be minimal. However others, such as landfill operations, will take place in the open countryside and have the potential to impact on the landscape of the County either through direct impacts on landscape features or through the visual intrusion of industrial operations in a landscape valued for its scenic qualities. Given that landfill sites are inevitably located in open countryside, it is also necessary for regard to be had to the proximity principle. Whilst alternative, less sensitive sites may be available, these may involve the transport of waste over large distances and may therefore, on balance, prove to be unsustainable. For this reason, the development of waste facilities within the landscape areas outlined above will be subject to the most careful consideration. In particular, the County Council will consider the availability of alternative sites or methods of waste treatment/disposal which are less harmful to the landscape whilst having regard to the desirability of reducing the transportation of waste materials. However it is recognised that the location of certain facilities, particularly sewage treatment works, is constrained by topography and the pattern of existing infrastructure. Whilst alternative, less sensitive sites may be available, these may not always represent the BPEO. 

Green Belt.

6.16 The North Durham Green Belt was established in March 1999 by the adoption of the County Durham Structure Plan.  The Green Belt is currently being defined in detail within district Local Plans. Until all detailed boundaries have been defined in Local Plans, regard should be had to the general extent of the Green Belt as defined in the adopted County Structure Plan.

6.17 Government policy on Green Belts is contained within PPG 2 "Green Belts". The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The purposes of including land within the North Durham Green Belt are to check the sprawl of the Tyne and Wear conurbation, prevent towns and villages in the north of the County from merging into one another, assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and preserve the setting and special character of the historic City of Durham. The Green Belt also assists urban regeneration in the towns in the north west and east of County Durham and in the former mining villages around Durham City.

6.18 The general policies controlling development in the countryside apply with equal force in Green Belts but there is in addition a general presumption against inappropriate development. Such development will not be approved except where very special circumstances can be demonstrated. PPG 2 lists a number of developments which are considered appropriate in a Green Belt, such as agriculture, forestry and mineral extraction and other uses which retain the open nature of the Green Belt. Within the Green Belt the erection of new buildings for waste management facilities are viewed as being inappropriate development and will only be allowed where very special circumstances can be demonstrated.

6.19 In certain circumstances the erection of new buildings, plant and machinery at existing sewage treatment works in the Green Belt may be considered as appropriate development.  Many such facilities require additional development to improve the quality of treatment, in line with current legislative requirements.  Such development may be considered appropriate within an existing sewage treatment works designated as a major developed site within the Green Belt in a district local plan or provided it can be achieved by infilling, would maintain openness and would not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.  Similarly, small scale development needed to ensure the management and/or energy recovery of landfill gas may also be considered as appropriate development provided that adequate arrangements have been made to ensure the removal of redundant equipment.  If the proposed development does not meet these criteria, very special circumstances will be required to justify it.

6.20 The North Durham Green Belt contains many agricultural and other rural buildings which with normal maintenance and repair can be expected to last many years. Changes to the rural economy may lead to buildings becoming underused and redundant. With suitable safeguards the re-use of such buildings could help farmers in diversifying their enterprises and should not prejudice the openness of the Green Belt.

6.21 The disposal of waste in voids created by mineral extraction has been the traditional method of restoring such sites.  It is recognised that new applications for waste disposal may come forward as part of proposals for further mineral extraction.  Provided that such applications satisfy Green Belt policy and all other relevant development plan policies such proposals may be permitted within the North Durham Green Belt.

6.22 In considering all applications for waste development within the North Durham Green Belt the waste planning authority will also have regard to both the proximity principle and the availability of alternative sites outside the Green Belt.  However, with the exception of proposals for additional development at existing sewage treatment works, landfill gas recovery plant or small scale proposals involving the re-use of rural buildings it is considered that for most other types of waste development suitable alternative sites should be available outside the Green Belt.

6.23 There may be cases where overriding need and/or substantial environmental benefits will justify inappropriate development within the Green Belt.  In accordance with PPG 2, it is for the applicant to demonstrate the “very special circumstances” in which permission could be granted for inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  Should the Council be minded to grant planning permission for development which would be inappropriate, but where very special circumstances have been demonstrated, the proposal will be treated as a departure from the Waste Local Plan.

Nature Conservation.

6.24 The sound stewardship of wildlife and key features, for the benefit of this and future generations, depends on the wise use and management of the County’s resources as a whole. The decisions of local planning authorities in relation to the development and use of land can contribute to this objective. Waste management facilities can potentially have serious damaging effects, both directly and indirectly.  National planning policy in relation to nature conservation is set out in PPG 9.

6.25 In recent decades there has been an increased recognition of the importance of nature conservation, with national, European and international legislation and directives placing an obligation on member states to ensure the protection and management of key sites and areas. These key international obligations are set out below:

1. The Berne Convention – carries an obligation to conserve the habitats of wild plants and animals especially those listed in the convention as endangered or vulnerable.
2. The Ramsar Convention – requires the conservation of wetlands, especially sites listed under the Convention.
3. EU Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds – requires member states to take measures to preserve a sufficient diversity of habitats for all species of wild birds naturally occurring within their territories and to take special measures to preserve the habitats of particularly sensitive species and migratory species (Special Protection Areas (SPA’s)).
4. EU Council Directive on the conservation of habitats of wild fauna and flora –the Habitats Directive - provides for the designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC’s) and requires member states to maintain or restore natural habitats and wild species at a favourable conservation status.  (Collectively SPA's and SAC's are known across Europe as the Natura 2000 network).  The Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 (as amended 2000) requires Local Planning Authorities to review extant planning permissions which are likely to have direct, indirect or cumulative significant effects on existing and future SPAs, and on candidate and designated SACs).

International Designations

6.26 A number of areas and sites have been identified under these international designations including parts of the North Pennine Moorlands which has been designated as both a SPA and SAC.  In addition a number of other sites are currently designated or proposed as SPA's and SAC's. ^v The protection of these sites is of the highest priority.  The Habitats Directive requires that any proposed development on a SPA or SAC will need to be subject to the most rigorous examination.

Protected Species and their Habitats

6.27 Certain Species are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation (Natural Habitats and C.) Regulations 1994 and may be found in many places which are not designated for their nature conservation interest.  It is an offence to ill treat, to kill, injure, sell or take any protected species or intentionally damage their resting place or breeding sites or to pick, collect, cut, uproot or otherwise destroy listed plant species.  Other species are protected by their own legislation.  Some information on the occurrence and distribution of protected species within the County may be obtained from either the County Council or English Nature.  Only by protecting the habitats of these species can their survival be ensured.

6.28 The Council will also seek from the applicant adequate information concerning the presence or absence of protected species in order to consider what precautions should be undertaken to prevent a breach of the relevant wildlife legislation from occurring.  Where a site is thought to contain or support a protected species the Council will consult English Nature prior to the determination of any planning application.

National Designations

6.29 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) have been identified by English Nature as being sites of nationally important nature conservation and ecological interest.  The most significant SSSI’s of biological importance are known as Nature Conservation Review Sites (NCRs).  The most significant SSSI’s of geological and geomorphological interest are known as Geological Conservation Review Sites (GCR's.)  These nationally important sites may also be designated as National Nature Reserves to be managed primarily for nature conservation.  Where the site concerned is a NNR or identified in the Nature Conservation Review or Geological Conservation Review particular regard should be paid to the site's national importance.  Some SSSI's or groups of SSSI's may additionally be identified as of international importance under the international conventions and directives described in 6.25 i)-iv).  These international measures place additional protection upon these SSSI's. SSSI's are particularly vulnerable to being damaged and should be afforded maximum protection.  Waste development even beyond the boundary of an SSSI can have serious impacts on the site, for example through any resultant alteration to the local hydrological system or through pollution.

Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SCNI's) and other Sites of Local Importance

6.30 Nature conservation in the County is dependent not only on the conservation of nationally designated sites but also on a whole range of natural and semi-natural vegetation types which provide the habitats for many rare and valued species.  These include traditionally managed hay meadows, limestone grasslands, wetlands, heathlands and moorlands and the coastal area.  The County Council has adopted both Nature Conservation and Geological Conservation Strategies to assist in the identification, conservation and enhancement of this natural heritage and in collaboration with Durham Wildlife Trust and English Nature has identified a range of nature conservation sites, including County Wildlife Sites and County Geological Sites. Locally important Sites of Nature Conservation Importance are identified and designated by District Councils in their Local Plans.  The County Council will assess both the short and long term impacts of any proposed waste development on a Site of Nature Conservation Importance and planning permission will not be granted for proposals which would detract from the overall value of such a site.

Biodiversity

6.31 Maintaining and enhancing biodiversity is an important issue. The County's wildlife cannot be sustained solely by site protection but depends on the wise management of the land resource and its nature conservation value as a whole. Detailed information relating to biodiversity is outlined in the County Durham Biodiversity Action Plan. This sets out a strategy and contains local targets for various habitats and species. Where appropriate, when submitting applications for waste development developers should demonstrate how they have had regard to the Biodiversity Action Plan.

6.32 Development can often be designed to retain local wildlife habitats such as hedgerows, woodlands, roadside verges, old pastures and ponds or restore them as part of a reclamation scheme.  In 1999 English Nature published a guide to "natural areas in the North East Region" which depicts the natural dimension of particular landscapes and identifies a range of issues relating to their management and enhancement.  Where appropriate, applicants will be encouraged to have regard to English Nature's natural area profiles in preparing reclamation schemes which include the creation of new areas of wildlife or geological interest.

Wildlife Corridors

6.33 Wildlife corridors, and other linear habitats, as defined in district local plans, assist in providing an inter-connecting network of habitats allowing for the movement of species.  Many species cannot survive within the limits of designated sites and conservation of these continuous features is vital to the maintenance of the current range and diversity of flora and fauna within the County.  If their integrity or continuity is allowed to be adversely affected by waste development then, in the longer term, the value of such habitats and the diversity of species within them may decline.

Ancient Woodlands

6.34 Particular protection should also be afforded to ancient woodlands.  Mature deciduous woodlands are probably the richest and most diverse habitat type in the County having taken many hundreds of years to develop their complex interdependent communities of plants and animals.  Once lost an ancient woodland cannot be recreated and no amount of replanting will compensate for its disappearance.  A Nature Conservancy Council survey in 1987 revealed that such areas, continuously wooded since 1600, were relatively scarce in County Durham.  The County Council will assess both the short and long term impacts of the proposed waste development on ancient woodland.

Cultural Heritage.

6.35 County Durham’s landscape has been shaped by centuries of human activity, exploitation and processes. To provide a framework for broadening our understanding of the landscape as a whole the County Council has begun the process of characterising our historic landscape.  The programme moves beyond individual buildings, ornamental landscapes or archaeological sites, establishing an over-arching view of the whole historic landscape.

6.36 Historic Landscape Characterisation focuses on aspects of the landscape that have not always been regarded as archaeological, considering components that are ‘natural’ but nevertheless the product of centuries of human action, such as hedgerows, woodland, ponds and modified watercourses.  It also takes account of more intangible matters reflected in its physical structure: time-depth and patterns such as settlement, land-use and the mixture of enclosed and non-enclosed land, arable and grazing, woodland and parkland.

6.37 When complete, a map base covering the whole county will allow better appreciation of the history and development of local landscapes, whilst offering an understanding of the landscape of County Durham as a whole, and will contribute to decision making in the future. It is anticipated that this work will be completed by 2005 and will then become supplementary planning guidance.

Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas.

6.38 Most waste developments involving disposal take place in the open countryside. Nevertheless, there may be proposals which affect the built heritage of the County, particularly isolated listed buildings in the countryside and rural areas included in conservation areas. In order to protect this heritage, proposals which adversely affect listed buildings, conservation areas or their settings will be resisted.  Conservation Area designations are set out in detail in District Local Plans.

6.39 Through careful design and provision of suitable stand-off distances it should, in many cases, be possible to accommodate waste developments in the vicinity of listed buildings and conservation areas without adversely affecting the site or setting.  Where, exceptionally, operations which detract from the setting of such areas are necessary, the Waste Planning Authority will take into account the significance and quality of the historic feature against the need for the proposed development.  Consideration will be given to the availability of alternative sites and the degree to which the development can be designed to minimise damage to the historic environment.

Durham Cathedral and Castle World Heritage Site, Historic Battlefields and Historic Parks and Gardens.

6.40 Durham Cathedral and Castle form one of a select number of sites in Britain to be designated as a World Heritage Site in recognition of its outstanding international historic importance.  The Government, as a signatory to the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, is committed to protecting and preserving these sites so that they can be enjoyed by future generations.

6.41 English Heritage’s Register of Historical Battlefields includes Neville’s Cross on the edge of Durham City where the battle took place in 1346.  Much of the area of the battlefield has been developed over the centuries but a significant amount is open and protected from most types of development by the Green Belt and by a specific policy in the City of Durham Local Plan.

6.42 Historic Parks and Gardens are of similar significance and make an important contribution to the quality of the County’s landscape and reflect the cultural and horticultural traditions of their time.  They are also likely to be of importance in other respects, and in particular offer a resource for recreation, tourism and education and often provide outstanding settings for listed buildings.  English Heritage’s Register currently includes 15 parks or gardens within the County which are considered to be of national importance.  Detailed designations and boundaries of Historic Parks and Gardens are set out in detail in District Local Plans. Many other Parks and Gardens are identified in District Local Plans as being of historical significance.  These too are a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

Archaeology.

6.43 The importance of archaeological sites and the need for their conservation is underlined in PPG 16, "Archaeology and Planning".  It recognises that archaeological remains are a finite, irreplaceable and non-renewable resource, in many cases highly fragile and vulnerable to damage and destruction.  It states that where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation.

6.44 County Durham possesses a rich archaeological heritage including many sites of industrial archaeological interest.  They represent an irreplaceable asset of educational, cultural, recreational and tourism value.  The County Council’s Archaeological Unit maintains a ‘Sites and Monuments Record’ - a complete list of all scheduled ancient monuments in the County together with an extensive listing of other known or suspected sites of regional and local importance.

6.45 Where waste management operations, including disposal, coincide with undisturbed land, this will usually involve the prior removal of topsoil and subsoil. This may damage any archaeological features upon or just below the surface of the ground.  Waste operators should therefore give early consideration, before planning applications are made, to whether archaeological remains exist on the site. The undertaking of an archaeological assessment and field evaluation will be required where there is a strong indication that important remains exist and the results of these evaluations should be made available to the Waste Planning Authority as part of any subsequent planning application. The provision of this information will ensure that the archaeological importance of the remains can be judged against the need for the proposed development, and that each application is judged on its merits.

6.46 In considering applications for waste developments which would affect areas of archaeological interest, the Waste Planning Authority will, in conjunction with the applicants and the County Archaeological Unit, seek means of accommodating the development in ways which would not cause unacceptable damage to the remains. It may, for example, be possible to amend site boundaries to avoid the most sensitive areas though this may not always be a suitable solution. In some cases an archaeological excavation to allow for preservation of the remains by record may be an acceptable alternative, particularly where remains are of local rather than national importance. In such cases, the Waste Planning Authority will need to be satisfied before granting planning permission, that the appropriate provision for the excavation and recording of the remains has been made, at the developer’s expense. Such activities should be carried out before development commences, working to a brief prepared by the Waste Planning Authority.

6.47 The preservation of important archaeological remains by record is, however, for a variety of reasons, the second best option and particular efforts should therefore be made to ensure that nationally or regionally important remains are preserved in situ.

Public Rights of Way and Countryside Recreation.

6.48 The County Structure Plan places considerable emphasis on providing opportunities for both residents and visitors/tourists to enjoy and have access to the countryside. The County’s existing public rights of way and cycleways provide important means of getting into and enjoying the countryside. Equally the County’s country parks and picnic areas are of strategic importance due to their accessibility to its towns and villages and main transport routes. The County Council will have particular regard to the effect of proposals on the local path network. Even where provision is made for the retention or diversion of such rights of way, their amenity value could be significantly undermined by the development.

Agricultural Land.

6.49 Agriculture is the predominant land use in the County and occupies approximately 90% of its land surface.  Government guidance requires that the development of agricultural land should only be permitted where no suitable alternative sites are available. Where development of agricultural land is unavoidable, the loss of high quality (best and most versatile) Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) (grades 1, 2 and 3a) will be strongly resisted and development directed towards poorer quality land unless other sustainability considerations suggest otherwise.

6.50 County Durham predominantly comprises land with an ALC of grades 3, 4 and 5.  However, there are a number of areas of higher quality (best and most versatile) agricultural land in the County. These can be locally extensive, for example in the lighter soils in the river valleys. Given the relative shortage of higher quality land in the County, it is therefore unlikely that a loss of this land would be either desirable or necessary.  Where waste development is proposed on agricultural land, the County Council will expect applicants to provide evidence of the agricultural land classification grading of the subject site.  However, any decisions to permit development on any agricultural land will be taken only after advice has been sought from DEFRA.

6.51 It is likely in both the short and medium term that much of County Durham’s waste will continue to be disposed of by landfilling in voids created by former mineral workings.  The same level of flexibility or choice of location of landfill sites does not apply as for the other types of development.  Landraise, or other waste facilities involving built development are not limited in location to the same extent.

6.52 The safeguarding of natural resources including soil quality and high quality agricultural land remains a relevant factor to be balanced with other sustainability considerations. Where the irreversible development of a greenfield site is being proposed soils may be removed from a site, and used to improve the restoration of another site, being mindful of soil variations and avoiding the mis-matching of materials. (Otherwise soils should be retained on site for the eventual reclamation of the subject site). It is acknowledged in such instances that it may prove difficult to maintain the quality of best and most versatile agricultural land.  Such a procedure may be more acceptable on poorer quality agricultural land provided that proposals can demonstrate that restoration to the equivalent standard is achievable.  Where conditions permit, soils should be stockpiled for the shortest duration possible, preferably less than six months, be used in progressive restoration, and when stockpiled receive careful management to maximise their potential and re-use.

6.53 It is recognised that there may be exceptional circumstances where high quality (best and most versatile) agricultural land may be required for development (whether permanent or temporary), associated with waste disposal.  In these circumstances it is recognised that there would be little prospect of reclaiming such land to its original quality.  Planning permission will require that following the cessation of development that this land should be restored in order to achieve the best practicable, or optimum, quality of restoration for the agreed afteruse.  Where alternative after-uses, for ample forestry and recreation are proposed on poorer quality agricultural land, then the methods used in restoration and aftercare should enable the land to attain its original land quality grade, and have the capability of being farmed to an appropriate standard for its agricultural land classification.

6.54 Where waste developments are proposed, consideration will also be given to the impact of the loss of agricultural land on the farm unit. Developers should recognise that in addition to land quality issues, there may well be a range of other agricultural and land use considerations arising from development in the countryside, (for example, noise, dust, odours and vermin). Where proposals relate to agricultural holdings, decisions will also be taken having regard to PPG 7, Annex B paras B7-12. In considering waste development proposals in rural areas, the County Council will expect applicants to demonstrate that the land would be managed and reclaimed to minimise the impact on established rural interests, (for example having regard to guidance set out by the DEFRA codes of Good Agricultural Practice for the protection of Air, Water and Soil.)

Water Resources.

6.55 Water is an essential resource for domestic, agricultural and industrial use and is also vital to the ecological well-being of the County’s natural environment. The quality of water resources is of great importance, and surface water and groundwaters in aquifers need protection from pollution.

6.56 Waste development has the potential to pollute surface and groundwater resources if operations are not effectively controlled and monitored. For example, problems can arise from surface run-off, leachate from waste disposal and composting sites, and the discharge of waste water.

6.57 East Durham lies on a major aquifer, a vital source of groundwater. The main groundwater abstraction points are numerous and subject to change. Groundwater can be at risk of contamination by leachate from landfill sites, which can accumulate over many years. Due to the slow movement of groundwater through aquifers, effects of pollution will be persistent and may take a long time to manifest themselves. Groundwater pollution, if it is possible at all, may take decades to clean up, even after the source of the problem has been removed. Prevention of pollution and protection of groundwater quality and yield is of paramount importance. Waste sites can be lined and surfaces capped with impermeable material to reduce the risk of pollution. However, even with the best available engineering measures, it is impossible to eliminate risk of contamination and there may be certain areas of the County where the risk is so great as to make waste disposal unacceptable.

6.58 In December 2002 the Environment Agency published a modification to its Policy and Practice for the Protection of Groundwater.  Regulatory Guidance Note 3 (RGN3) provides the Environment Agency's position statement on the location of landfills with respect to groundwater protection. The guidance note makes it clear that the Environment Agency seeks to discourage the location of landfill developments with a long term pollution potential in areas where water resources are particularly sensitive.  The Environment Agency identified these as groundwater Source Protection Zones.  The Environment Agency will object to any proposed landfill site in groundwater Source Protection Zone I.  For all other proposed landfill site locations, the Environment Agency requires that the applicant conducts a risk assessment, based on the nature and quantity of the wastes, and the natural setting and properties of the location. Where the risk assessment demonstrates that active long term site management is essential to prevent long-term groundwater pollution, the Environment Agency would object to sites:

• on or in a Major Aquifer;
• within Source Protection Zones II and III, and
• below the water table (in any strata where the groundwater provides an important contribution to river flow and other sensitive surface waters).

These areas are known as areas of groundwater vulnerability and are shown on the Proposals Map.

6.59 Regulatory Guidance Note 3 has significant and far reaching implications for County Durham.  In the west of the County a number of private dwellings and agricultural abstractors are supplied by springs and private boreholes which abstract water from the underlying strata, whereas the geology of the central and eastern part of the County has been significantly disturbed by extensive coal mining, resulting in a particularly complex hydrogeology.  The Magnesian Limestone Major Aquifer underlies the eastern part of the County and is exploited for drinking water by both Northumbrian Water Ltd and Hartlepool Water Company.  Clay deposits are, however, present throughout the County which may provide a suitable low permeability base for landfill or landraise.  These areas are largely uncharted and many will have suffered disturbance over a sustained period of time.  Furthermore, the British Geological Survey is currently undertaking monitoring of ground movement on the Magnesian Limestone Escarpment.  The Water Framework Directive, which became effective in 2003, will be an additional consideration in the assessment of risk to groundwater by the Environment Agency.

6.60 The Environment Agency has a duty to protect the quality of groundwater and to conserve the use of water resources, and assesses the risk of pollution from proposed development.  The Environment Agency will be consulted when applications are received which may affect water resources, and should provide advice on practicable improvements that might be incorporated to minimise the perceived impact of the development on their interests.  The Government has recently indicated that the Environment Agency should support local authorities at planning appeals where decisions, taken on the basis of advice it has given, are appealed against.

Flood Risk.

6.61 Flood risk is an increasingly important issue to the land-use planning system.  The planning system is required to act on a precautionary basis to ensure that new development is safe and not exposed unnecessarily to flooding by considering flood risk on a catchment-wide basis.

6.62 Planning Policy Guidance Note 25 (PPG 25) “Development and Flood Risk” acknowledges that the experience of recent years suggests that the incidence of problems due to river flooding may be getting worse, both in frequency and scale.  This arises from changes in river hydrology due to human activity, changes in land management, variations in the intensity of rainfall and the increase in development in areas at risk.

6.63 PPG 25 advocates that local planning authorities should adopt a risk-based approach to proposals for development in or affecting flood risk areas or where the development may increase flood risk elsewhere.  Applicants for planning permission should, therefore, assess the risk posed by development and submit a flood risk assessment (FRA).  This should consider the specific risk of flooding to the development being proposed over its expected lifetime and its possible effects on flood risks elsewhere in terms of flood flows and flood storage capacity and the run off implications.  In line with the precautionary principle, the County Council may be minded to refuse planning permission in circumstances where a FRA is required but has either not been carried out or does not adequately address the issues that need to be considered.  The assessment of risk should follow guidance as set out in Annex F of PPG 25.  This assessment of risk should include consideration of:

• the area liable to flooding;
• the probability of flooding occurring, both now and over time;
• the extent and standard of existing flood defences and their effectiveness over time;
• the likely depth of flooding;
• the rates of flow likely to be involved;
• the likelihood of impacts to other areas, properties and habitats;
• the effects of climate change; and,
• the nature and currently expected lifetime of the development proposed and the extent to which it is designed to deal with flood risk.

6.64 In addition to the risk based approach, PPG 25 expects local planning authorities in the preparation of plans and their development control decisions to implement a sequential test.  Accordingly, in drawing up policies, local planning authorities should give priority in allocating or permitting sites for development to those areas at least risk from flooding. When allocating land, there is a need to demonstrate that there are no reasonable options available in a lower risk category, consistent with other sustainable development objectives.  PPG 25 does not specifically refer to waste management operations but like all new development, they should be subject to the sequential test.

6.65 In applying the sequential test, PPG 25 states that local planning authorities should consult the Environment Agency on the distribution of flood risk and the availability of flood defences in the County.  The sequential test should also take into account the effects of flood risk on both local public transport availability and the surrounding road network serving any proposed development.

6.66 Waste management facilities within floodplains can cause problems in respect of drainage and floodplain protection.  Proposed waste management facilities will be assessed in terms of the impact of flooding on them and their impact on flood risk, either directly or through the increase in run-off that is likely to result from waste operations.  Landfill and landraise can interfere with the natural behaviour of surface and ground water whilst other waste management facilities can worsen the potential risk of flooding through the development of impermeable structures and surfaces.  Where waste management facilities are proposed in areas which may be subject to flooding, the development should be suitably designed to cope with the risk of flooding or include effective proposals to protect the land, including provision for long term maintenance, as part of the development.

Transport, traffic and access.

6.67 Like many other industries which involve bulk transportation, the transport of waste materials usually involves the use of heavy lorries which can cause noise and disturbance, threaten road safety, and cause damage to roads and verges.  Its impact on the road network and the amenity of communities, often some distance from the site itself, can therefore be considerable.

6.68 Currently the vast majority of movement of waste products is by road, with sites, where waste is processed, receiving a high number of vehicle movements per day.  This is especially the case with sites, such as energy from waste facilities which are dependent on a high throughput to ensure economic viability. In considering transport options, the effect on National Air Quality Standards should be taken into account.  Where a waste development is likely to have significant transport implications, a Transport Assessment will be required. The coverage and detail of the Transport Assessment should reflect the scale and transport implications of the proposal and should address the operation and where applicable the restoration of the site.

Modes of Transport.

6.69 The selection of more sustainable modes of transport, or those which are less intrusive on the amenity of areas adjacent to routes and sites, can have a positive impact on the quality of life of nearby residents.  In particular, opportunities to make use of rail links and pipelines can reduce impacts as well as being more sustainable in a wider sense, subject to an assessment of their direct environmental effects.  Locations which are closest to the source of the waste and which can be served by more environmentally acceptable means of transport should be included in the criteria used in selecting sites.

6.70 Policy W 24 encourages the use of rail to transport waste.  Existing rail routes therefore need to be protected from inappropriate development.  Any proposal which would breach such a route will not be acceptable.  Where a link is currently disused, temporary uses which maintain the integrity of the alignment, such as recreational routes, may be permissible.

Environmental Impact of road traffic.

6.71 If alternative off-road modes of transport cannot be used to transport waste materials to and from sites, it is essential that the impacts of road traffic are minimised.  This relates not only to the routes used being capable of accommodating the tonnage transported along them but also ensuring that roadside communities are not adversely affected by the transport impacts of the proposed development.  The Structure Plan defines a strategic road network of routes suitable for carrying heavy lorries.  These are shown in Figure 6.2.

6.72 The Highways Agency has a strict policy of not allowing direct access from private development to motorways or motorway slip roads other than in particular circumstances.  The Secretary of State has advised that he will direct Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s) to refuse planning applications for development whose access arrangements breach this policy.  Similarly, it is necessary in general to restrict the formation of new accesses to trunk roads if they are to continue to perform their function as routes for the safe and expeditious movement of long distance through traffic.  A particularly strict policy is appropriate to fast stretches of rural trunk road and to trunk roads of near motorway standard, inside and outside urban areas.  Where a development is likely to generate a material increase in traffic (as defined in PPG 13), either via an existing direct access or via an otherwise acceptable new access to a trunk road, which would result in the access becoming overloaded, planning permission would be refused.  More likely, if improvements to the existing or proposed new access could be designed consistent with the a 15 year design horizon, to provide the additional capacity, any planning permission would be conditional on the development not occurring unless and until those improvements have been carried out.

Planning Obligations for controlling environmental impacts of road traffic.

6.73 As well as ensuring that development takes place in the most suitable location, it is also essential that operators are using the most appropriate routes along which to transport waste and that the amenity of areas is protected.  This will usually be controlled by conditions on any planning consent or by legal agreements.

Protecting Local Amenity.

6.74 Waste management operations can give rise to various sources of disturbance to local communities. Planning conditions will be used to secure measures to address these issues where necessary and where control is not already exercised through site licensing.

Visual Intrusion.

6.75 Major sources of visual impact from waste management operations are the creation of new landforms through landfill and landraise operations; stockpiles of soils and processed material; removal of vegetation; chimney stacks; and plant and buildings. The degree of impact will depend on the topography of the area, the site’s proximity to residential areas and the scale and nature of the development.  Care in the detailed siting and design of the development can help to reduce visual intrusion.  New facilities will be developed with appropriate screening and planting works to reduce visual impact.  New plant and buildings should be constructed using appropriate colours and materials.

Odour.

6.76 Waste management facilities have the potential to produce odours which can present a nuisance.  This is normally the result of the decomposition of non-inert waste.  Landfill gas can also give rise to offensive smells.  The employment of appropriate site practices at landfill sites such as appropriate use of cover material and technological solutions in buildings can minimise these impacts.  Planning conditions will be used, as appropriate, as a means of securing an effective odour control regime.

Noise.

6.77 Noise from waste management operations can be a major source of disturbance if not properly controlled, particularly where it is in close proximity to residential and other noise sensitive areas. Noise can arise from a variety of sources, especially during site engineering operations, waste processing, compaction and the general operation of site machinery and the movement of heavy lorry traffic.  PPG 24 and MPG 11 provide guidance on the use of planning conditions and for controlling noise through measures including the hours of operation, setting of noise limits at places where people live and work, and the siting of plant in relation to dwellings.

6.78 Noise as well as other impacts can pose additional nuisance when activities take place outside normal working hours.  Ensuring that the intrusion of working on local amenity is reduced to an acceptable level will generally require limits on working hours.

Dust and Mud.

6.79 Problems of dust and mud arise from site preparation works, the handling of soils and the processing, treatment and transport of materials.  This can be a pollution control issue as well as a material planning consideration. Site operators will be expected to use well maintained and managed equipment and vehicles.  They should also employ recognised methods to suppress and control dust and mud, including the spraying of material with water during handling and transport; the watering of areas of the site used by vehicles; the surfacing of site haulage roads with tarmac or concrete; the use of dust extractors; and ensuring that vehicles which use public roads undergo wheel washing and sheeting before leaving the site.  Planning conditions will be used, as appropriate, as a means of securing an effective dust and mud control regime.

6.80 The effects of dust and noise are also covered and controlled by the Integrated Pollution, Prevention and Control (IPPC) process.  IPPC is governed and enforced by the Environment Agency.  Local authorities can also enforce dust and noise effects through the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and local authority integrated pollution prevention and control measures.  It is however important to emphasise that the planning considerations of noise and dust relate to the wider context of local amenity.  It does not therefore follow that if a proposal is acceptable in environmental health terms, it is also acceptable in planning terms.

Litter.

6.81 Litter arises where loose, uncompacted waste becomes windblown during transport, transfer, storage or disposal.  Adherence to licence conditions and good management practices result in litter waste being kept to a minimum.  Measures to combat litter can include use of cover material at landfill sites, use of perimeter catch fencing, and sheeting of vehicles during transport and containers during storage, and in extreme circumstances temporarily closing down facilities. 

Vermin and Birds.

6.82 Waste management sites, particularly landfill sites are potential attractors of vermin and birds which can both present a health risk and can also pose a threat to local wildlife, which may be a particular issue in the vicinity of sites of recognised nature conservation value.  Planning conditions will be used to secure such measures as necessary where control is not already exercised through site licensing.

6.83 Putrescible waste can attract large numbers of birds.  This can be a nuisance to people living nearby.  It can also present a risk to aircraft in areas adjacent to airports and airfields or low flying areas.  The relevant aerodrome will be consulted on all applications for landfill or other waste related development within 13 kilometres of major civil aerodromes.  Within this area, there may be restrictions on development which might create a bird strike hazard, or on the detailed design of facilities.  In County Durham, such arrangements apply to Teesside Airport.

Land Instability.

6.84 Unstable land has the potential to affect the integrity of landfill sites including controls over landfill gas and leachate as well as built development.  New proposals should therefore include a thorough site investigation and the incorporation of appropriate measures in the design of the site to deal with this issue.

6.85 The means of reducing the impact of waste management on local amenity and preventing the problems outlined above will vary from site to site.  Adherence to the high standards outlined in Policy Policy W 29 (site management) will help to achieve these ends and operators will be expected to ensure that pollution control is considered in the earliest stages in designing the development.

Site Management - Development involving Landfilling and Landraising.

6.86 In order to minimise the environmental impact of landfill and landraise developments, operators must adhere to the high standards of site management required by planning conditions and associated codes of practice.  If this were not the case an operator could gain an unfair advantage over other, more responsible operators; unnecessary environmental damage would be caused; and future consideration of waste developments could be prejudiced as a result of increased public opposition.

6.87 The usual method of remedying breaches of planning controls is through enforcement action. The Waste Planning Authority will continue to pursue this where appropriate. Compliance with planning requirements will be monitored on a regular and consistent basis to enable the identification of shortcomings in the operation of sites, and any remedial measures required (including, where appropriate, publicly available records). The nature of waste development is such, however, that enforcement action may not always be effective for a number of reasons:

• Landfill and landraise are, by their nature, environmentally intrusive. Relatively minor breaches of planning conditions can cause extensive problems. If an operator is unwilling to remedy these then the degree of public nuisance caused by the time enforcement action takes effect will often be disproportionally large;
• Landfill and landraise are, essentially a temporary developments. Although some sites may take many years to reclaim, others may only operate for a relatively short time and this may make the taking of effective enforcement action impractical;
• the progressive nature of waste disposal and reclamation means that by the time breaches are discovered it may not be practical to remedy them without creating unreasonable additional disturbance
• an operator may go out of business before reclamation is complete, leading to an increase in derelict land; and
• once waste disposal has ceased, ensuring that reclamation schemes are carried out properly can be difficult through the use of enforcement action.

6.88 The increasing use of soils and soil making materials for a variety of uses has resulted in a decline in the availability of suitable materials to carry out the restoration of landfill and landraise sites following the completion of tipping operations, in a phase or on a site as a whole.  Where a site operator is unwilling, or unable to fund the restoration works, including the acquisition of suitable soils, this can result in the suspension of restoration operations until suitable materials are attracted to the site, in turn potentially delaying the overall time scale for restoration and aftercare works.  Incomplete restoration schemes can cause a range of problems such as adverse visual impact, flooding caused by run off from inappropriate landforms and even erosion of the landfill or landraise cap which could compromise leachate control.

6.89 For the above reasons the Waste Planning Authority must consider the intending operator’s financial and technical capabilities to undertake the proposed restoration and aftercare.  The need for this arises in part because, except where there will be progressive reclamation, the work required is likely to take place after the revenue generating waste disposal operations have been completed.  Applicants should therefore demonstrate the likely financial and material budgets for restoration and aftercare, and how they propose to make provision for such work during the operational life of the site.  Adequate safeguards should be in place.  This may include the use of appropriate mutual funds operated through the industry, or other means including an escrow account or financial bond to ensure that any breach of planning conditions, particularly with regard to the restoration and aftercare of the site, can be remedied without additional public cost.  Such safeguards will not be sought to discharge the financial obligations arising from the waste management licence as these will be a matter for the Environment Agency. 

6.90 In determining planning applications the Waste Planning Authority will have regard to the operator track record in reclamation.  The specialist nature of waste management means that most operators will have a clear track record against which past performance can be assessed objectively in relation to compliance with planning conditions on other sites worked by the intending operator or associated companies.  Any in-house environmental management systems or environmental auditing may also be taken into account.

6.91 The nature of the waste industry is such that it is unlikely that many wholly new operator’s will emerge. The main consideration in relation to any entirely new operators that may wish to commence landfill or landraise operations in the County will be that they should be able to demonstrate their financial and technical capabilities are sufficient to undertake the restoration and aftercare of the relevant site in a satisfactory manner.

Cumulative Impact.

6.92 Where a number of separate waste management facilities are situated in close proximity it is necessary to assess the overall impact of these on communities and the natural environment. Some impacts, such as biodiversity effects, may require the assessment of cumulative impact over a wide area. Even where the impact of single effects or individual sites is acceptable it may be that, in combination with others, the overall environmental effects are not. Such cumulative impacts can occur in a number of ways:

1. the cumulative impact of a number of separate effects from a single site;
2. the cumulative effects from two or more active sites;
3. the combined effect on the landscape and ecology; or
4. the cumulative impact on the quality of life for local communities from a relatively unbroken sequence of disposal and reclamation.

All the above components will need to be assessed carefully to determine if they should be applied to any new proposal.

6.93 In assessing the effect of proposals on an area it is necessary to take into account the overall level of environmental impact, including the effects of successive operations, irrespective of the number of sites involved.  This will include, where appropriate, consideration of the potential impact from sites with planning permission but where disposal has not started, together with current planning applications for waste development.

6.94 In assessing the cumulative impact of a proposal on the landscape, the Waste Planning Authority will need to take into account the character of the landscape; the site’s setting, the effects of other operations upon it, including the degree of maturity of any reclaimed sites; and the extent to which the landscape can accommodate the changes proposed.  The definition of a site’s setting will vary according to the character of the landscape but will generally reflect the scale of the local topography.

6.95 In assessing the cumulative impact of proposals on local communities, the extent of the locality will reflect the scale, duration and particular impacts of both the proposal and other operations on the communities affected jointly by them. This will be determined by such factors as the scale of the landscape, settlement and communications patterns in the locality, and the scale and setting of the site.  It may also be necessary on occasion to consider the cumulative impact of other non-waste development (for example mineral extraction), where waste disposal would add to their existing adverse impacts.

6.96 The time period over which cumulative impacts are considered will depend upon the particular circumstances of individual proposals.  The key test will be whether the disturbance caused by previous working remains a material consideration in terms of an area’s amenity, landscape and ecological value, and its overall attractiveness.

Preventing the spread of Soil and Animal borne diseases.

6.97 During the early stages of the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001 many infected and suspect livestock were disposed of on agricultural land by burial or burning. In order to prevent disturbance to these sites and prevent the spread of soil and animal borne diseases the County Council will adopt a precautionary approach.  DEFRA will be consulted upon all applications for waste development where there may be a risk of disturbance to any animal carcass disposal sites, or where there may otherwise be a possibility of plant or animal diseases being spread through the excavation and movement of soils.

• Back to Top

• Previous
• Next