Agenda item

The Committee considered the proposed development of an Energy and Resource Park at land to the rear (south and east) of Liberty Aluminium Foundry, Stourport Road, Kidderminster, Worcestershire.

 

The report set out the background of the proposal, the proposal itself, the relevant planning policy and details of the site, consultations and representations.

 

The report set out the Head of Planning and Transport Planning’s comments in relation to the Waste Hierarchy, Need, Alternatives and Proximity Principle, Climate Change and Renewable Energy, Location of the Development, Landscape character, visual impacts and historic environment, Residential Amenity (including air quality, human health, odour, noise, vibration, dust, lighting, and contaminated land), Traffic, Highway Safety and Public Rights of Way, Ecology and Biodiversity, Water Environment, and Other matters – Economic Impact, slope stability, Project Vulnerability to Major Accidents / Disasters, Fires, Cumulative Effects, EIA Team and Expertise, and Other Applications.

 

The Head of Planning and Transport Planning concluded that with regard to the waste hierarchy, it was considered that the proposal would contribute overall to the moving of waste up the waste hierarchy, in the case of the Energy Centre (EC) from disposal to ‘other recovery’, and in the case of the Plastics Recovery Plant (PRP) from disposal to ‘recycling’ and therefore would comply with the objectives of the waste hierarchy, and Policies WCS 2, WCS 3, WCS 4 and WCS 15 of the Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy (WCS).

 

With regard to need, alternatives and proximity principle, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposal was consistent with Policy WCS 2 of the WCS. Notwithstanding Section 7 of the National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW), which set out that “waste planning authorities should only expect applicants to demonstrate the quantitative or market need for new or enhanced waste management facilities where proposals are not consistent with an up-to-date Local Plan”, the applicant had referred to discussions between Power Generation Midlands (PGM) and local business who required waste management services. Therefore, it was considered that there was a demonstrable need for the additional 'other recovery' capacity proposed in order to contribute towards the more sustainable management of local residual Commercial and Industrial (C & I) waste. Furthermore, the increase in total energy generation would add to UK energy security through the production of reliable and predictable electricity and heat derived from an indigenous fuel source. It was considered that the applicant’s approach to the consideration of alternatives was acceptable in this instance. It was also considered that the proposal would be consistent with the proximity principle.

 

With regard to climate change and renewable energy, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposed development would help contribute towards reducing the impact on climate change through reducing the amount of waste diverted to landfill and providing at least a partially renewable source of heating and electricity. Furthermore, at least 10% of the buildings’ energy would be provided by renewable technologies in the form of a heat pump and the addition of a 16kW peak photovoltaic south facing array. Therefore, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that, subject to a condition relating to the photovoltaic array, the proposal accorded with Policy CP01 of the Wyre Forest District Core Strategy, Policy SAL.CC6 of the Wyre Forest District Site Allocations and Policies Local Plan, and Policy WCS 11 of the WCS.

 

With regard to the location of the development, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposal accorded with Policies WCS 4 and WCS 6 of the WCS as well as Policy CP08 in the Wyre Forest District Core Strategy and Policies SAL.GPB1 and SAL.SK1 of the Wyre Forest District Council Site Allocations and Policies Local Plan.

 

With regard to landscape character, visual impact and historic environment, the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment concluded that the proposed development would have a neutral effect on landform and a minor adverse effect on the character and views of the site. The proposed development was within an existing industrial area, adjacent to the existing Liberty Aluminium foundry. The Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that as the proposal would move waste up the waste hierarchy as well as creating a number of jobs, the public benefits of the proposal outweighed the less than substantial harm to the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Conservation Area.

 

In view of this, and taking into the views of others including Historic England, Wyre Forest District Council Conservation Officer, the County Ecologist and the County Landscape Officer, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse or detrimental impact upon landscape character, visual impact or the historic environment subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including those relating to a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP), and archaeology. The Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposed development accorded with Policies WCS 9, WCS 12 and WCS 14 of the WCS, and Policies CP11, CP12 and CP13 in the Wyre Forest District Core Strategy, and Policies SAL.UP1 and SAL.UP6 of the Wyre Forest District Council Site Allocations and Policies Local Plan.

 

With regard to residential amenity including air quality, odour, noise, vibration, dust, lighting and contaminated land, the Head of Planning and Transport considered that having had regard to the advice of the Environment Agency (EA), Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) and County Public Health, and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions relating to a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), post-completion sound testing, contaminated land, lighting, outdoor management plan, pest management plan, and a Community Liaison Group, there would be no adverse effect on residential amenity or human health, including air quality, odour, noise, vibration, dust, lighting and contaminated land impacts. The Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposal was in accordance with Policy WCS 14 of the WCS, Policies CP01 and CP03 of the Wyre Forest District Council Core Strategy, and Policy SAL.CC6 of the Wyre Forest District Council Site Allocations and Policies Local Plan.

 

With regard to traffic, highway safety and Public Rights of Way, and taking into account the advice of consultees including Highways England, the County Highways Officer, County Sustainability Officer and County Public Rights of Way Officer, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning was satisfied that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon traffic, highways safety or Public Rights of Way subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including those relating to approved plans; cycle parking and associated active travel facilities, a Travel Plan, Electric vehicle (EV) charging point, and a CEMP. The Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposed development accords with Policy WCS 8 of the WCS, Policy CP03 of the Wyre Forest District Council Core Strategy, and Policy SAL.CC1 of the Wyre Forest District Council Site Allocations and Policies Local Plan.

 

With regard to ecology and biodiversity, and taking into account the advice of Natural England, Worcestershire Wildlife Trust and the County Ecologist, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on ecology and biodiversity at the site or on the surrounding area, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions relating to a CEMP, Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP), Sustainable Drainage (SuDS) and lighting. The Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposed development accorded with Polices WCS 9 and WCS 10 of the WCS, Policy CP14 of the Wyre Forest District Council Core Strategy, and Policy SAL.UP5 of the Wyre Forest District Council Site Allocations and Policies Local Plan.

 

With regard to the water environment and taking into account the advice of North Worcester Water Management, the Environment Agency and Severn Trent Water Limited, the Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the water environment or flooding, subject to the imposition of conditions relating to a foul and surface water drainage scheme and management plan, as well as contamination. The Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposed development accorded with Policy WCS 10 of the WCS, Policy CP02 of the Wyre Forest District Council Core Strategy, and Policy SAL.CC7 of the Wyre Forest District Council Site Allocations and Policies Local Plan.

 

The Head of Planning and Transport Planning acknowledged that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) afforded significant weight to the need to support economic growth and considered that the proposal in creating both temporary (during construction) and permanent job opportunities (during operation), would support communities and thereby provide a social benefit. Furthermore, by providing jobs and a service to other businesses (including the potential for the uptake of electricity and heat), would contribute to the local economy, contributing to sustainable economic growth. In so far as it provided these social and economic benefits, it was considered to accord with the aims of the NPPF, which weighs in its favour.

 

In accordance with paragraph 11 c) of the NPPF, development proposals that accorded with an up-to-date Development Plan should be approved without delay. Taking into account the provisions of the Development Plan and in particular Policies WCS 1, WCS 2, WCS 3, WCS 4, WCS 6, WCS 8, WCS 9, WCS 10, WCS 11, WCS 12, WCS 13, WCS 14 and WCS 15 of the Adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy, Policies DS01, DS04, CP01, CP02, CP03, CP08, CP11, CP12, CP13 and CP14 of the Adopted Wyre Forest Core Strategy and Policies SAL.PFSD1, SAL.GPB1, SAL.CC1, SAL.CC2, SAL.CC4, SAL.CC6, SAL.CC7, SAL.UP1, SAL.UP3, SAL.UP5, SAL.UP6, SAL.UP7, SAL.UP9,SAL.UP14 and SAL.SK1 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Council Site Allocations and Policies Local Plan, it was considered the proposal would not cause demonstrable harm to the interests intended to be protected by these policies or highway safety.

 

The representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning introduced the report and commented that members had visited the site and viewed it from Wilden Top and Wilden Lane. The proposed development was within the boundary of Liberty Aluminium as observed by members on the site visit. Since the publication of the report, five further letters of objection had been received, some of which had been sent to Committee members. Reference was made in these letters to the creation of jobs being a matter of speculation, that no reference had been made to the financial problems of the owners of Liberty Aluminium, the claim that the incineration produced better carbon outcomes than landfill was refuted, the proposal would undermine recycling rates, the proposal was not low carbon, the proposal would compete with Hartlebury Energy from Waste Plant, the proposal did not accord with the proximity principle, concerns about the visual impact on the Green Belt and the location of the buildings, concerns about the impact of micro and nano plastic particles on human health, the need for 24 hour real time monitoring of the facility and that the proposal would encourage single-use plastics usage.

 

He added that in reference to the comment about the financial problems of the owners of Liberty Aluminium, this issue was capable of being a material planning consideration, given that it was a potential customer for the heat and electricity but he advised that the weight given to it should be very limited. The applicant had confirmed that the foundry was currently operational and was not in administration or liquidation but new owners were currently being sought. Over the past two months, the applicant had been working with the bidders for the current business to review who should be taking over the site and the operations from Liberty Aluminium. The applicant as landlords along with JLR were key stakeholders in the final decision. The applicant had mutually agreed that an interested party whose current and future ambitions for the site aligned with the applicant’s would be successful in taking over the lease, along with the current order book for 5-8 years and other automotive supplies. The new purchaser had already highlighted the issue of the availability and cost of power in the turbulent market. They were therefore happy to support the application to suit current and future requirements. 

 

He added further that members had asked at the site visit whether the background of the applicant and the need for the proposal could be taken into consideration. The background and history of the applicant was not a material planning consideration and planning permission usually ran with the land rather than the applicant. Although Government policy did not make reference to the need for a development as a general principle, it was widely recognised that the need for a scheme may be a material planning consideration that weighed in favour of the application. He referred members to the quote in paragraph 252 of the report in relation to this. In conclusion therefore, the development accorded with the Development Plan.

 

Mr Wright, an objector to the application addressed the Committee. He commented that he was concerned about wind-blown materials depositing on local residents. He emphasised the fire risk associated with the facility, with particular reference to other recent fires in the local area. There was a particular environmental impact of burning plastics with the emission of dioxins from the plant given that there was no filtration process.  He made reference to the successful campaign against an incinerator in Kidderminster and the report prepared by Professor Knox about the impact on human health. He was concerned about the impact on the environment, people and wildlife. The chimney of the recycle plant could be viewed from his garden, less than half a mile away, close to wind levels.

 

Mr Morris, an objector to the application addressed the Committee. He commented that OGL was an immediate neighbour to the site. He was concerned about the management of the site should it be built, in particular with potential fire risks. The Enzygo Planning Statement had stated the directors 'have extensive experience in waste collection, processing, handling and waste fuel production'. Neither of these companies involved seemed to have a web site, so there was no evidence available to back up the claimed competency in successfully running waste management companies. The reason this was relevant was because previous waste recycling operation next door had caused constant problems to his business. Putting aside unpleasant consequences such as odours, rats and flies, two major fires caused significant disruption to his operation. There were around 300 significant fires at UK recycling centres per year, many of them caused by poor waste management. If a recycling centre was established next door, there was therefore a strong possibility of a fire breaking out at some point.

 

He added that the precarious financial situation of Liberty Group created a major doubt that Liberty Aluminium, which was up for sale, would ever buy 20% of the heat and 55% of the energy created by the proposed plant and limited weight should be afforded to that perceived benefit. He concluded that his main concern was the lack of information on the expertise of the proposed directors of PGM.

 

Mr Courtney, the applicant addressed the Committee. He commented that a sale had been agreed for Liberty Aluminium which had reached the final stages of agreeing terms. He had purchased the site in 2014 with a planning consent for a waste transfer station that allowed 225k tonnes of mixed waste to be accepted into its previous 205k sq ft building, with 400 vehicle movements per day. The view was taken that the site was too big and therefore, it was decided to change the use of the site to B1, B2 and B8 – (heavy industrial use) with a view to building a bespoke manufacturing facility. £5m had been invested redeveloping the site and latterly the current tenants had invested a further £40m in employment, technology, and other assets.

 

He added that during the redevelopment works, a ring main had been installed to enable the site’s capacity for power distribution to various machines around the site to reach 9MW. To date, 8 machines had been installed using 3MW of power. The original plans had been to install 24 machines to maximise the use of the site. On completion of the refurbishment, the power provider would only allow an off-take of 4.5MW which had drastically reduced the expansion of the site. On top of this, there were now excessive power costs which were not sustainable going forward. The proposed plant would provide 5.5MW of power providing power for the site and the plastics recovery centre. Any excess power would be transferred to the National Grid.

 

He was confident that he would be able to fuel 50% of the plant from the local vicinity. Waste streams had been identified that were going to landfill that would be put to better use by creating electricity. These fuels would be collected by his own business and delivered on a just-in-time basis. The plastics facility would take in 30k tonnes per annum of a mixed low grade soft plastic and produce a rigid plastic product to be further used in the production of new plastic products. A maximum storage of 630 tonnes was requested to take account of the impact of bank holidays. This was less than 10% of the storage of the original transfer station in a building 10% of the original size.

 

He concluded that granting permission would enable the development of a state-of-the art facility that would enable further investment into the site creating 124 jobs, provide power for the National Grid and divert waste from landfill.

 

Mr Searles, the agent addressed the Committee. He commented that the air quality assessment submitted with the planning application had been based on an assessment of baseline conditions and had modelled dispersion over the local area, taking into account the impact on local sensitive receptors and ecology. It found that the impact on all these elements to be negligible. He acknowledged that there had been a history of fires at waste facilities but since then the EA had introduced more stringent fire prevention plans and design features in new facilities which minimised the risk of fire. The Environmental Permit would therefore address those fire risks. The plant was a multi-million pound modern facility and economically, there was no interest in stockpiling material. It would be a well-organised and clean facility.

 

Mr Courtney and Mr Searles were then asked questions about the presentation:

 

·         The public participant had referred to a lack of public information about the owners of the site available. Mr Courtney indicated that the web site was presently being updated

·         The fire plans, the industrial sprinkler system and the process for the entrapment of excess water in the event of a fire was explained to councillors on the site visit. What would happen to the excess water retained in that entrapment area? Mr Courtney explained that as part of the fire prevention plans, a water entrapment system had to be created to contain the water on site and prevent water flow-off from the site potentially into the local area and the canal. Mr Searles added that there was a filtration and cleaning system incorporated and the water would not be allowed to leave the site if it was not clean. The representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning stated further that any water that could not be cleaned would be removed from the site via tankers

·         In response to a query about the source of the waste coming to the site, Mr Courtney explained that some of the material would be from the Wye Forest facility but waste was being sought from across the county. Mr Searles added that in terms of the proximity principle, Worcestershire and its borders were considered local. There was a balance to ensuring an efficient facility with the right environmental outcomes as opposed to creating a facility that was too large for the local area. This plant was of a smaller size befitting a local facility

·         Could any guarantee be given about the amount of energy to be used by Liberty Aluminium or other local businesses? Mr Courtney indicated that the new owners of Liberty Aluminium supported the new plans for energy use and that the facility would only be able to survive with the use of this cheaper power

·         The applicant had indicated at the site visit that waste would be sourced from the West Midlands. It was queried how this approach fitted in with proximity principle and whether any material would be imported from the applicant’s existing sites. Mr Courtney responded that he expected 50% of the waste would come from within the county from four suppliers. Some of the county’s waste was already being transferred to the West Midlands and he would be negotiating with these companies so that waste would be dealt with at this facility within the county. At present the waste was being transported out of the county to his facility in the West Midlands. In the future, that waste would be dealt with at this facility. Mr Searles added that waste flowed across boundaries and currently waste was transferred outside the county to more strategic facilities. It would be beneficial to have a more locally based facility that put energy back into the system

·         Concern was expressed about the lack of environmental information, in particular the lack of detail on the model for dispersion from the stack, the water filtration system, the monitoring arrangements, fuel control, the negative pressure system, and micro plastics and the production of an environmental permit. Lee Searles explained that evaluation of air quality and odour impacts had been scoped in the Environmental Impact Assessment and the Air Quality Assessment. In addition, the dispersion modelling based on the infiltration mechanisms and odour control was fully set out in the application. He confirmed that real time 24 hour monitoring took place at the site. The representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning added that full details of the application had been made available on the Council’s web site. Officers considered that there would be insignificant environmental impact. There was no requirement to have an Environmental Permit before applying for planning permission but it was required before operations commenced at the plant. Members had to assume that the Environmental Permit would work effectively as set out in the NPPF and planning guidance. The Environmental Permit controlled the operations on the site and was not a matter for the Committee. In this respect, members should take advice from the relevant regulatory body, in this instance the Environment Agency and for this application they had no objections

·         How were the dioxins removed from the emissions from the facility? Mr Searles indicated that the full details of the filtration mechanisms had been set out in the Air Quality Assessment which assumed the worst case scenario and found the impact to be negligible, the lowest possible level

·         How many fires had there been at the applicant’s premises in the last 20 years and what scale of financial penalty had been imposed?. Mr Searles explained that those facilities where fires had occurred recently had utilised different waste recycling methods that required far greater levels of storage of material on site. This facility had been designed on the basis of energy production on a just-in-time waste delivery process with a maximum of 630 tonnes of material on site at a time which amounted to 2/3 days of waste. If in the unlikely event that a fire broke out, the fire would not last long and in any event the requirements of the permit would be enacted. Mr Courtney added that at present the site was operating under a fire prevention permit which had been issued 20 years ago. In the past, a fire had been caused by an electrical fault but there had been no prosecution brought by any statutory body. As a result of that fire, a water system was introduced for the whole site. The representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning reaffirmed that the background of the applicant was not a material planning consideration. The Environmental Permit did however assess the competence of the operator

·         In response to a query about the number of waste facilities in the local area, Lee Searles commented that in his view, there was not an excessive number of such facilities in the area. The application used a standard methodology which was recognised by all the statutory regulatory bodies for assessing the projected emissions from the existing facilities in the local area

·         What was the nature and form of the commercial and industrial waste brought to the site? Mr Courtney responded that the amount of waste stored in the bays would be 150-170 tonnes on a daily basis. The material would be in a loose residue when delivered to the site

·         Was the material brought to the site cleaned in advance? Mr Courtney responded that the waste would be clean in that it had already been processed

·         In response to a query about the number of HGV movements per day and the impact on the local road network, Lee Searles commented that there would be 43 HGV movements per day over a 15 hour period so effectively 2 vehicles movements every 3 hour period. The vehicle movements were likely to be spread out over the whole of that period especially as the plant operated on a just-in-time basis. This amount of vehicle movements was low when compared to other facilities operating in an enterprise area of this kind.

 

The Chairman indicated that the local councillor was unable to attend the meeting.

 

In the ensuing debate, the following points were made:

 

·         The relevance of a recent refusal for permission for a similar application in Durham to this application was queried. The representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning commented that the context of that application was completely different as it was near to an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and had been refused on landscape grounds. Each planning application should be dealt with on its own merits

·         It should be noted that the site had an industrial heritage and the application would lead to further jobs being created. The energy created by this application would allow the existing business to expand as well as benefiting other local businesses. The successful performance of the EfW plant at Hartlebury and the strict regulation by the EA should allay local concerns. The recovery of plastics for re-use that would otherwise be landfilled or transported out of county was welcomed. The application would raise the treatment of waste further up the Waste Hierarchy. The applicant would not be able to operate the site without an Environmental Permit. It was also noted that no objections had been received from any of the statutory consultees

·         How did this application conform with this Council’s and Wyre Forest District Council’s carbon emission targets?  The representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning indicated that the applicant had submitted a carbon analysis. A key consultee in assessing the sustainability credentials and the carbon impact of the proposals was the County Sustainability Officer who had initially requested further information. The further information provided by the applicant had concluded that there would be a net reduction in CO2 and consequently the County Sustainability Officer had no objections. The application was in line with Council policy

·         It should be noted that officers were recommending a number of conditions in order to regulate the permission. The compliance with these conditions would be monitored

·         If the Committee decided to refuse planning permission against the advice of the statutory regulatory bodies, it would be difficult to defend such a decision at appeal

·         It was noted that there was a condition requiring the creation of a Community Liaison Group

·         The Committee needed to be guided by expert advice in relation to the recycling of plastics. On the basis of that advice, permission should be granted

·         In response to a query about enforcement of conditions, the representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning explained that a planning condition would not be recommended unless it passed six tests of conditions. In addition, the Enforcement and Monitoring Officer would be monitoring conditions associated with this permission.

 

RESOLVED that, having taken the environmental information into account, planning permission be granted for the proposed development of an Energy and Resource Park at land to the rear (south and east) of Liberty Aluminium Foundry, Stourport Road, Kidderminster, Worcestershire subject to the following conditions:

 

Commencement

1)        The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission;

 

2)        The developer shall notify the County Planning Authority of the start date of commencement of the development in writing within 5 working days following the commencement of the development;

 

Approved Plans

3)        The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the following submitted drawings numbered:

 

                i)       Drawing Number 27 Rev A, dated 05.08.20, Existing Site Sections;

               ii)       Drawing Number 30 Rev C dated 05.08.20, Proposed Site Plan – Additional Buildings;

             iii)       Drawing Number 31 Rev D, dated 01.09.20, Proposed Site Section Elevations – Additional Buildings;

             iv)       Drawing Number 32 Rev C, dated 05.08.20, Proposed Plastics Recovery Plant;

               v)       Drawing Number 33 Rev B, dated 12.06.20, Planning Application Boundary Plan;

             vi)       Drawing Number 34 Rev A, dated 27.07.20, Proposed Fuel Reception and Energy Centre Floor Plans;

            vii)       Drawing Number 35 Rev B, dated 05.08.20, Proposed Fuel Reception and Energy Centre Section and Elevations Sheet 1;

          viii)       Drawing Number 36 Rev A, dated 04.06.20, Proposed Fuel Reception and Energy Centre Section and Elevations Sheet 2;

             ix)       Drawing Number 37 Rev A, dated 24.07.20, Proposed Site Plan – External Lighting;

               x)       Drawing Number 38 Rev A, dated 27.07.20, Proposed Block Plan – Additional Buildings;

             xi)       Drawing Number 39, dated 20.09.19, Site Topographical Survey – Existing Buildings;

and

            xii)       Drawing Number E-600 Rev CM4, dated 28.01.21 Proposed External Lighting Layout;

 

Except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission;

 

Materials, Design and Layout

 

4)       Notwithstanding any submitted details, no development of the Energy Centre, including flue stack, ash bins, dry coolers and bicarbonate silo shall take place until the detailed design and schedule and/or sample of the materials, colours and finishes for the Energy Centre, including flue stack, ash bins, dry coolers and bicarbonate silo have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;

 

5)       Notwithstanding any submitted details, no development of the Plastic Recovery Plant shall take place until the detailed design and schedule and/or sample of the materials, colours and finishes for the Plastic Recovery Plant have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;

 

6)       Notwithstanding any submitted details, no development of the electrical substation shall take place until the detailed design and schedule and/or sample of the materials, colours and finishes for the electrical substation have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;

 

7)       Notwithstanding any submitted details, no development of the sprinkler tank and pump house shall take place until the detailed design and schedule and/or sample of the materials, colours and finishes for the sprinkler tank and pump house have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;

 

Waste Acceptance

8)        No wastes other than those defined in the application, which are solely commercial and industrial waste, shall be brought onto the site;

 

Throughput

9)        No more than 75,000 tonnes shall be received by the Energy Centre in any one calendar year (January to December). Records shall be kept for the duration of the operations on the site, and made available to the County Planning Authority within 10 working days of a written request being made;

 

10)      No more than 30,000 tonnes shall be received by the Plastics Recovery Plant in any one calendar year (January to December). Records shall be kept for the duration of the operations on the site, and made available to the County Planning Authority within 10 working days of a written request being made;

 

Construction Environmental Management Plan

11)      Notwithstanding any submitted details, the development hereby approved shall not commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. This shall include but not be limited to the following:-

 

Hours of Working

                i)       A scheme approving the days and hours of construction operations;

Noise, Vibration and Dust

               ii)       A scheme to minimise the impacts of noise, vibration and dust during construction;

Lighting

             iii)       Details of the proposed construction lighting;

 

Water Environment

             iv)       Measures to be undertaken to ensure that any pollution and silt generated by the construction works shall not adversely affect groundwater and surface waterbodies;

 

Ecology and Biodiversity 

               v)       Identification of ‘biodiversity protection zones’ and the measures required to protect them. This shall include existing vegetation on the site boundary and the nearby Sites of Special Scientific Interest (Wilden Marsh and Meadows; and The River Stour Flood Plain), Local Wildlife Sites, mature trees, hedgerows and other natural habitats;

             vi)       A set of method statements detailing the physical measures and sensitive working practices that will be implemented to prevent pollution from construction activities including, but not limited to, dust, runoff, noise and light;

            vii)       The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features and protected species;

          viii)       The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works;

             ix)       Responsible persons and lines of communication;

               x)       The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person; and

             xi)       Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs;

 

Highways

            xii)       Measures to ensure that vehicles leaving the site do not deposit mud or other detritus on the public highway;

          xiii)       Details of site operative parking areas, material storage areas and the location of site operatives’ facilities, including offices and toilets;

          xiv)       The hours that delivery vehicles will be permitted to arrive and depart, and arrangements for unloading and manoeuvring;

            xv)       Details of any temporary construction accesses and their reinstatement; and

          xvi)       A highway condition survey, timescale for re-inspections, and details of any reinstatement;

 

The measures set out in the approved CEMP shall be carried out and complied with in full during the construction of the development hereby approved.  Site operatives' parking, material storage and the positioning of operatives' facilities shall only take place on the site in locations approved by in writing by the County Planning Authority;

 

Traffic and Highway Safety

12)      The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the access, parking and turning facilities have been provided as shown on Drawing Number 30 Rev C dated 05.08.20, Proposed Site Plan – Additional Buildings. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter; 

 

13)      The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until details and locations for the provision of sheltered, secure and accessible cycle parking, to comply with Worcestershire County Council’s Streetscape Design Guide has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the cycle parking shall be kept available and maintained for the parking of bicycles only;

 

14)      Notwithstanding any submitted details, the development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until showers and lockers have been installed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter; 

 

15)      The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until a Travel Plan, that promotes sustainable forms of travel to the development site, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The submitted details shall use Modeshift STARS Business to carry out this process and include mechanisms for monitoring and review over the life of the development and timescales for implementation. The approved Travel Plan shall be implemented, retained, monitored and reviewed in accordance with the approved details;

 

16)      The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until a minimum of one electric vehicle charging space has been provided in accordance with a specification which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Thereafter such spaces and power points shall be kept available and maintained for the use of electric vehicles only;

 

17)      All loads of waste materials carried on HGV into and out of the development hereby approved shall be enclosed or covered so as to prevent spillage or loss of material at the site or on to the public highway;

 

18)      No waste materials shall be accepted at the site directly from members of the public, and no retail sales of wastes or processed materials to members of the public shall take place at the site;

 

Pollution / Noise

19)      Notwithstanding any submitted details, within three months of the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme setting out how post completion sound testing will be undertaken shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter; 

 

20)      Any commercial vehicles associated with the development hereby approved shall only enter or exit the site between 06:00 and 21:00 hours Mondays to Sundays inclusive;

 

21)      All mobile plant, machinery and vehicles (excluding delivery vehicles which are not owned or under the direct control of the operator) used on the site shall incorporate white noise reversing warning devises;

 

22)      All doors to the building shall be kept closed except to allow entry and exit;

 

23)      No handling, deposit, processing, storage or transfer of waste shall take place outside the confines of the buildings hereby approved, with the exception of the movement of Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) from the ash bins to the IBA disposal lorries. The IBA disposal lorries must only receive IBA when parked adjacent to the ash bin as shown on Drawing Number 30 Rev C dated 05.08.20, Proposed Site Plan – Additional Buildings;

 

24)      Notwithstanding the submitted Dust Management Plan, prior to the development being brought into use, a detailed scheme for the mitigation of dust shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter;

 

25)      Notwithstanding any submitted details including those within the Odour Management Plan, prior to the development being brought into use, a detailed scheme for the monitoring and mitigation of odours shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter;

 

26)      Prior to the development being brought into use, a Pests Management Plan, which shall include measures for the management and control of pests such as flies and vermin, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter;

 

Contaminated Land (Tiered investigation)

27)      The development hereby approved shall not commence until points i) to iv) have been complied with.

 

                   i)    A scheme for detailed site investigation based on The Enzygo Phase I Preliminary Risk Assessment, dated July 2020, Ref: CRM.0129.001.GE.R.001.A, shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing prior to being undertaken to address those unacceptable risks identified. The scheme shall be designed to assess the nature and extent of any contamination and shall be led by the findings of the preliminary risk assessment. The investigation and risk assessment scheme must be compiled by competent persons and must be designed in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's "Model Procedures for the Management of Contaminated Land, CLR11";

 

                  ii)   The detailed site investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme and a written report of the findings produced. This report must be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing prior to the commencement of the development;

 

                iii)    Where the site investigation identifies that remediation is required, a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to identified receptors must be prepared and submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. The remediation scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as Contaminated Land under Part 2A Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation;

 

                iv)    The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development, other than that required to carry out remediation;

 

                  v)   Following the completion of the measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a validation report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out shall be produced and submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing, prior to the use of the development. The verification (validation) report shall include results of any sampling and monitoring. It shall also include any plan (a “long-term monitoring and maintenance plan”) for longer term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action and for the reporting of this to the County Planning Authority;

 

                vi)    In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the County Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment shall be undertaken and where necessary a remediation scheme shall be prepared. These shall be subject to the approval of the County Planning Authority. Following the completion of any measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a validation report shall be prepared, which shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing, prior to the use of the development;

 

Water Environment

28)      Notwithstanding any submitted details, no development shall commence until detailed design drawings for surface water and foul water drainage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with the approved details;

 

29)      There shall be no discharge of trade effluent, sewage effluent or contaminated drainage from the site into any ditch or watercourse;

 

30)      Notwithstanding any submitted details, all surface water drainage from the site shall be through an oil interceptor;

 

Lighting

31)      Notwithstanding the submitted details, details of any new lighting to be installed at the site shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing prior to being erected.  These details shall include:

 

                i)    Position and height of lighting;

               ii)   Intensity of the lights;

             iii)   Spread of light (in metres);

             iv)   Any measure proposed to minimise the impact of the lighting or disturbance through glare;

               v)   Any measures to minimise the impact of lighting upon protected species and habitats, in particular the adjacent woodland; and

             vi)   Times when the lighting would be illuminated;

 

Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;

 

 

Boundary Treatments

32)      Details of any new boundary fences, walls and other means of enclosure to be constructed at the site shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing prior to being erected. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;

 

Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV)

33)      Details and locations of any new Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) to be installed at the site shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing prior to being erected.  Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;

 

Ecology and Biodiversity

34)      No development shall take place until a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) and schedule of landscape maintenance has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Thereafter the LEMP shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. The LEMP shall include the following:

 

                i)       Description and evaluation of features to be managed;

               ii)       Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management including, but not limited to, different stages of maturity of the screening vegetation on the bund;

             iii)       Aims and objectives of management, including conservation and biodiversity enhancement;

             iv)       Appropriate management options for achieving the aims and objectives;

               v)       Prescriptions for management actions, ongoing monitoring and remedial measures, including for any new trees or shrubs, which within a period of five years from the completion of the planting die, are removed, or become damaged or diseased – these shall be replaced on an annual basis, in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species;

             vi)       Preparation of a work schedule, including a work plan capable of being rolled forward over the operational lifespan of the development;

            vii)       Details of the body or organisation responsible for implementation of the plan.

 

On completion of the ecological mitigation and enhancement works, a statement of conformity shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority confirming their successful implementation;

 

Archaeology

35)      No development shall take place until a programme of archaeological work including a Written Scheme of Investigation(s), has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions, and:

 

                i)       The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording;

               ii)       The programme for post investigation assessment;

             iii)       Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording;

             iv)       Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation;

               v)       Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation; and

             vi)       Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation.

 

36)      The development shall not be brought into use, until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme(s) of Investigation approved under condition 35) and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured;

 

Renewable Energy

37)      Notwithstanding the submitted details, prior to the use of the buildings hereby approved, details of renewable generating facilities to be incorporated as part of the approved development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.  The details shall demonstrate that at least 10% of the predicted energy requirements of the development will be met through the use of renewable energy generating facilities. The approved facilities shall be provided prior to the occupation of the buildings hereby approved;

 

Electricity

38)      The development hereby approved shall not operate until the operator has demonstrated, in writing, to the County Planning Authority that the connection to the district network has been made to enable electricity generated by the facility to be supplied to the district network;

 

R1 Status

39)      Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details verifying that the Energy Centre has achieved R1 status from the Environment Agency at Stage 1 (i.e. the design information stage) of the R1 status application process shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Within 24 months of the first operation of the facility hereby approved, details verifying that the operating facility has achieved R1 status through certification from the Environment Agency shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority. The facility shall be configured and operated such that R1 status is maintained throughout its operation;

 

Community Liaison Group

40)      Within 3 months of the date of this permission, a scheme that sets out measures for liaison arrangements with the local members and community shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. The scheme shall include proposed outline Terms of Reference for a Community Liaison Group which is to include details on the formation of the group, recruitment, how the group will operate, an outline remit, a main contact number, and an indication of how complaints will be managed. The approved scheme shall be implemented for the duration of the proposed development;  and

 

Planning Permission

41)   A copy of this decision notice, together with all approved plans and documents required under the conditions of this permission shall be maintained at the site office at all times throughout the period of the development and shall be made known to any person(s) given responsibility for management or control of activities/operations on the site.