05 Allerton Waste Recovery Park - North Yorkshire County Council

2.4 The application site is set within a predominantly rural context and, prior toextraction and landfill commencing in the 1980s, it was predominantly a mix ofGrades 3a (‘best and most versatile land’ (77%) and Grade 3c agriculturalland (21%), with an area of Shepherd’s Wood being classed as Grade 4 (2%).The surrounding area is generally agricultural with several dispersedresidential properties or agricultural-related buildings within 1 kilometre (km)of the site. Typically, these properties are located alongside the A168 andwithin the Allerton Park Estate.2.5 The nearest residential properties consist of:• Claro House – within the application site area (now unoccupied andproposed to be converted into a visitor centre and office use as part ofthe application)• South Farm – due north of the application site• Walls Close House – due east of the application site (the subject of aseries of conversions within the existing buildings to form four separateresidences - namely Walls Close Farmhouse, The Granary, Cherry TreeBarn and Fold House, together with two further properties, namelyKeepers Cottage and Walls Close Farm Cottage)• Ninevah – due north of the application site• Thornbar Farm – due north of the application site, and• residential properties associated with Allerton Castle – south-east of thesite.2.6 The closest settlements within 5km, using straight-line distances, include:• north-east: Marton-cum-Grafton (c. 2.5km), Great Ouseburn (4km)and Upper Dunsforth (c. 4.4km);• east: Little Ouseburn (c. 3.4km);• south-east: Allerton Mauleverer (c. 1.7km) and Whixley (c. 3.5km);• south: Flaxby (c. 1.7km) and Goldsborough (c. 3.5km);• south-west Coneythorpe and Clareton (c. 1km); and,• north-west: Arkendale (c. 1.5km), Ferrensby (c. 3.4km),Staveley (c. 4.3km) and Minskip (c. 4.3 km).The larger built settlements of Boroughbridge, Knaresborough, Harrogate andRipon lie approximately 6km (to the north), 5km, 10km (both to the west) and17km (to the north-west) distant, respectively.2.7 The site is located within a lowland area within the Landscape Character Areadesignated by Natural England as the ‘Southern Magnesian Limestone’(Character Area 30). This zone stretches from Bedale, south throughWetherby, to Doncaster and Nottingham. Amongst its characteristics areintensively farmed arable land with large fields, estates parklands andwoodland. The landform of the general area around the application siteundulates between 40-65 metres above ordnance datum (AOD) with somehigher points such as Sand Hill (at 76m AOD) which lies within the applicationsite to the south of Claro House. Typically, isolated woodland blocks(including Broadfield Wood, Shepherd’s Wood and Lylands Wood to the east,Hill Wood to the west and the woods associated with Flaxby Park and golf3NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/3

course, Flaxby Covert, Green Dick Wood and Parsonage Wood to the south)disperse views, but there are also extensive views from higher ground towardthe North York Moors and Howardian Hills. The landform of the applicationsite itself has been affected by both quarrying and landfill operations andthese changes are discussed in more detail later in this Section and inSections 3 and 7 of this report.2.8 The landforms immediately surrounding the application site have also beenaffected by various forms of development such as the works connected withthe highway improvement schemes of the A1(M) and the A168. Such workshave included the creation of significant engineered embankments planted upwith substantial landscaping. Direct views into the application site by users ofthese two public highways are generally impeded by these embankments.The embankments, together with the landscaping atop, serve not only asvisual screens, but also as environmental improvements with associatedaesthetic and bio-diversity benefits. Some planting schemes to the west ofthe application site along these highway corridors are semi-mature and theirfull benefit has yet to be realised.2.9 The boundaries of the Nidderdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty(AONB) and Howardian Hills AONB lie approximately 14km to the west and17km to the north-east respectively. The boundary of the North York MoorsNational Park lies approximately 20km to the north-east. The World HeritageSite of Studley Royal, including the Ruins of Fountains Abbey, liesapproximately 14.1km to the north-west. The site and its immediatesurroundings do not lie within any specified landscape designations. No landis designated as Greenbelt or as a Special Landscape Area in the HarrogateDistrict Local Plan.2.10 Whilst the site is not situated within any national or local landscapedesignations, the proximity of the Grade II Registered Park and Garden ofAllerton Park to the south of the application site is a key contextual feature.Several villages within the area surrounding the site are also designated asConservation Areas. More specifically, of the closest settlements identified inparagraph 2.6 above, four of the villages have designated Conservation Areasincluding Marton-cum-Grafton, Little Ouseburn, Whixley and Coneythorpe.2.11 The nearest Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) lie at Upper DunsforthCarrs, approximately 4.7km to the north-east of the site on the south-westernedge of Upper Dunsforth and at Hay-a-Park approximately 4.7km to thesouth-west on the edge of Knaresborough.2.12 Immediately to the north-east of the access track to the properties at WallsClose House lies an area of ancient woodland (Shepherd’s Wood) and twofurther ancient woodlands lie approximately 1km east of the site (LylandsWood and Broadfield Wood), but some parts of Lylands Wood are classed asbeing ‘replanted’.4NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/4

2.13 The Allerton Park Registered Park and Garden is also situated within an areadesignated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), with partbeing known as the ‘Allerton Park Lakes’ SINC and part being the ‘AllertonPark’ SINC. This second area extends northwards to incorporate the southeasternpart of the landfill site and an area known as Far Park Wood, whichwas planted in the 1990s to off-set part of the impact of the original quarrydevelopment. Bog Plantation (approximately 360 metres to the east of thelandfill site) is also a SINC.2.14 Three aquifers have been identified within the surrounding area of the site.These are situated within the Upper Magnesian Limestone, the SherwoodSandstone and the superficial deposits. The site lies within the outermostcatchment area for the Dunsforth-Bog Bridge and Dunsforth-Howe BridgeGroundwater Source Protection Zones. There are no significant surfacewatercourses on site other than a surface water drain which discharges toOuse Gill Beck. The site lies within Flood Zone 1 on the EnvironmentAgency’s Flood Maps and is therefore at the lowest risk of flooding.2.15 There are two bridleways, orientated east-west, to the north of the site. Thetwo bridleways start just off the A168 near the junction of the Allerton ParkQuarry access road with the former alignment of the old A1, with one followingMoor Lane in a north easterly direction and the other following the accessroad to Walls Close House in an easterly direction. Both routes link to otherbridleways further to the east of the site, and it is possible to use the A168north and southwards to form a link westwards via road bridges over theA1(M) motorway.Site Access2.16 The site is accessed from the A168 via the existing shared access to the sandand gravel quarry (operated by Hanson UK) and the existing landfill site(operated by FCC Environment (formerly known as Waste Recycling Group -WRG)).Planning History2.17 The Allerton Park Quarry site has a long and complex planning history withover 20 consents previously granted for mineral, waste and ancillarydevelopments (see Plan 3).2.18 Planning permission, reference (ref.) C6/500/63/PA, was originally submittedto the County Council (NYCC) in June 1987 on land to the south of the accessto Walls Close House. The application provided for “the extraction of sandand gravel and progressive restoration by controlled landfill”. The applicationalso provided for the processing of land-won minerals, and the erection of aconcrete batching plant. The application was granted permission on the 18July 1988 subject to conditions and the provisions of a Section 52 LegalAgreement covering access improvements, traffic routeing and groundwaterissues. Condition 2 imposed a time-limit upon the period of time in which toundertake mineral extraction until July 2008, and limited the time in whichactivities for the disposal of waste could take place until 17 July 2013 andrestoration by 17 July 2014.5NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/5

2.19 A further planning permission was granted by NYCC on the 12 September1988 (ref. C6/500/63A/PA) in respect of land to the north of Claro Housebetween the access to Walls Close House and the western end of Moor Lane,and which lies within the AWRP development proposal. This permissionprovided for “additional screening, planting and restoration proposals inconnection with adjoining proposed mineral extraction and landfill”. Thedevelopment included the construction of 3-3.5m high bunds to the north andsouth of the Walls Close House access and landscape planting thereof,together with a 7 metre high screen bank extending north from Sand Hilladjacent to what was then the A1 (now the A168) towards Claro House whichwas then planted on its outer (western) face and along the crest to assist inscreening the site.2.20 On 15 June 1993 NYCC granted planning permission, ref. C6/500/63/B/PA,for the extraction of sand and gravel and restoration by the disposal of silt onland between the Walls Close House access and Moor Lane. This land lies tothe east of Planning permission ref C6/500/63A/PA.2.21 On 16 May 1997 NYCC granted planning permission, ref. C6/500/63/D/CMA,for the “revision of the restoration and landscaping scheme by raising sitelevels”. The application included the entire area occupied by the proposedAWRP, in addition to significant areas to the east and south making up theconsented, and currently operational, landfill facility. The development wastime limited by Condition 2 which permitted the disposal of waste only until 31December 2018, and that all plant and machinery associated with thedevelopment will have to be removed from the site prior to that date. Thepermission required the site to be restored in accordance with Conditions 26and 27, which necessitated the submission of landscaping and restorationschemes within six months of the date of the permission and three months ofthe date of tipping in each phase, respectively.2.22 Revised restoration details for the site were approved in 1999 (Drawing ref.A6.L/12D) and subsequently referred to in Condition 20 of planningpermission C6/500/63J/CMA (an extract of the approved drawing is shown onPlan 4). Condition 29 required that the site be restored if the deposit ofmaterial ceases for a period of not less than 12 months.2.23 On the 17 September 1999 planning permission was granted at the site forthe development of a landfill gas utilisation facility for the generation ofelectricity derived from the gas formed through the decomposition of biodegradablematter in the landfill. A number of subsequent permissions havebeen granted which provided for variations to the layout of the gas plant andfor the erection of additional generators.2.24 On the 23 May 2002 NYCC granted planning permission, ref.C6/500/63J/CMA, under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act1990 (as amended) to “carry out development without complying withConditions 3 and 26 of planning permission C6/500/63/D/CMA by revising thefinal contours”. The conditions which the permission varied related to the6NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/6

application details submitted in respect of approved contours andlandscaping. Prior to minerals extraction, the highest point of the site hadbeen at Sand Hill (71 metres) and this permission changed the highest pointof restoration, as permitted under Planning Permission C6/500/63/D/CMA,from 74 metres Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) near to the former Sand Hillby shifting the high point slightly to the east and raising it to 76.3 metres AOD.By virtue of Condition 21, detailed schemes of planting, restoration andaftercare were required to be submitted within three months ofcommencement of each subsequent phase. The other conditions attached toplanning permission, ref. C6/500/63D/CMA, were incorporated into theconditions of permission ref. C6/500/63/J/CMA including the date by whichlandfilling must cease, i.e. 31 December 2018.2.25 On the 15 December 2010 NYCC granted planning permission, ref.C6/500/63/0/CMA, for the “development of a proposed leachate facility andapplication under Section 73 to amend Condition 2 and 20 of planningpermission C6/500/63J/CMA to enable a revised restoration scheme involvingthe use of short rotation coppice”. The proposal was to use bacteria in twolagoons dug on the north-eastern edge of the landfill to process contaminantswithin the leachate. The treated leachate would then be used as a water andnutrient resource through ground-level drip irrigation onto willows planted asshort rotation coppice (SRC) to be located on parts of the landfill site as it isrestored (Plan 5). The total area of SRC proposed (12.8 hectares) would beplanted in phases over a period of 10-15 years dependent on the rate ofwaste deposited at the site, the volume of leachate generated and the areasof restored land available for planting. Harvesting of the SRC (which haspotential for use as a ‘bio-fuel’) was expected to occur on a growth cycle ofapproximately 3-5 years with the rootstock left in the ground for up to 30years. The leachate facility would therefore be required for a number ofdecades.2.26 Under this permission once leachate treatment was no longer required thelagoon infrastructure would be removed, the lagoons filled with soil formingmaterial and the area would be graded to the approved restoration contours.Then the lagoon area would be planted with native broadleaf woodland andthe short rotation coppice would be removed from other parts of the landfillsite and the areas planted with a mix of agricultural grassland and nativebroadleaf woodland (Plan 6).2.27 This permission made no change to the revised contours permitted in 2002.Condition 1 required that the leachate facility be implemented within threeyears of the date of the Decision Notice, and that, once implemented, theplanning permission granted would thereafter supersede in full therequirements of Planning Permission C6/500/63J/CMA dated 23 May 2002.It, therefore, forms the permission to which operations would be required towork once implemented. However, this permission has not yet beenimplemented and the conditions precedent to that permission remain to bedischarged, so the approved restoration planting layout remains currently asshown on Plan 4 (rather than Plans 5 and 6).7NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/7

2.28 The AWRP application site also includes the area currently occupied by ClaroHouse. This is a residential property and farm complex (no longer occupied),located within the north-west corner of the application site. It is a two-storeyproperty with outbuildings and farm yard area immediately to the north. Thebuildings are constructed from red brickwork with clay pantile covered pitchedroofs although at present the buildings are in a poor state of repair. It isproposed that the buildings which comprise Claro House would be convertedto form the AWRP’s Visitor and Education Centre and ancillary offices forstaff. This property has historically been separate, not forming any part ofplanning applications or permissions in connection with the minerals andwaste developments at the Allerton Park site. With its associated grounds, itencompasses about 1.4 hectares.2.29 Since the completion of sand and gravel extraction in the areas covered byplanning permission refs: C6/500/63/PA and C6/500/63/B/PA, extraction hasbeen taking place to the north of Moor Lane under the terms of a number ofplanning permissions (C6/500/63/H/CMA granted in 2000, C6/500/63K/CMAgranted in 2002, C6/500/63/M/CMA granted in 2007). Most recently, inOctober 2008 planning permission ref.C6/500/63/N/CMA was granted for theextension of the sand and gravel quarry at Holly Bank Farm, to the north ofthe site, with the retention of the plant site and a detailed restoration scheme.In part, the extent of the northern part of the quarry’s restoration is controlledunder a previously approved consent ref: C6/500/63/H/CMA. The restorationjointly delivers an agricultural and woodland planting scheme including overthe part of the AWRP site, to a surface water attenuation pond.2.30 The AWRP proposal would, if permitted, occupy part of the land currentlyconsented for tipping and final restoration by virtue of planning permissionC6/500/63J/CMA, (or permission ref. C6/500/63/0/CMA if implemented). Theproposed facility would, if permitted, therefore effectively 'supersede' in partthe currently consented development, including revised contours andlandform within this area of the site. The main AWRP buildings wouldpredominantly be located on the site formerly occupied by the mineral plantarea for the quarry.Committee Site Visit2.31 Members will recall receiving a report on 15 May 2012 that sought Members’agreement to undertake a formal Committee Site Visit to the application siteand its environs prior to the determination of the planning application at asubsequent meeting of the Committee later in the year.2.32 In that report, Members were advised that a formal Committee Site Visit wouldallow Members to• be appraised of “potential visual and amenity impact of the developmentfrom both short and long views within the vicinity of the site such asPublic Rights of Way and public access points of interest such asAllerton Park and Garden”;8NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/8

• “gain an understanding of the proximity of the proposed development inthe context of the setting of significant heritage assets such as AllertonCastle and other Listed Buildings within the vicinity as well as theRegistered Park and Garden”;• gain “an appreciation of the topography of the land both pertaining to theapplication site itself and the surrounding area”; and,• “experience the levels of traffic volumes that are currently experiencedwith a view of envisioning the proposed levels arising from thedevelopment at both the construction and operational stages”.2.33 Members resolved to conduct a formal Site Visit. These visits are not publicmeetings; however, because the Site Visit by necessity has to be conductedon operational sites, Members will need to be accompanied byrepresentatives of the applicant company. In order to ensure the open andtransparent conduct of the visit, representatives of the Parish Councils inwhich the application site is situated have also been invited to attend the SiteVisit (but only for that part conducted on the active site itself).3.0 THE PROPOSAL3.1 This planning application, accompanied by an Environmental Statement,proposes a development to provide a waste management facility for residualhousehold waste from York and North Yorkshire and some municipal 1commercial and industrial waste.3.2 The facility has the capacity to treat up to 320,000 tonnes a year of residualwaste and would generate up to 24 Megawatt (MW) of electrical energy forexport to the local distribution network. Residual waste is the element of thewaste stream that is not sent for re-use, recycling or composting. The facilityis part of an integrated waste management system for dealing with thecounty’s waste management requirements, forming a hub at the centre of anetwork of waste transfer stations and materials recycling and compostingfacilities along its spokes spread across the sub-region.3.3 The AWRP will separate out the remaining recyclable waste that previoussorting and removal of recyclables have not been able to extract. By way ofexample, waste transferred from Household Waste Recycling Centres(HWRCs) will only comprise the waste that has not already been relieved ofmost of its recyclable materials. Where kerb-side collections of recyclable1 In 2010 the UK revised its interpretation of the definition of municipal waste. It now includes allwaste coded under Chapter 20 of the EU European Waste Catalogue and comprises householdwaste and similar commercial, industrial and institutional waste. The Waste and Emissions TradingAct (2003) was amended in 2011 to reflect the new definition and DEFRA has issued clarificationwhich states that future references to “municipal waste” will reflect the new definition. The term “LocalAuthority Collected Waste” (LACW) now refers to all waste collected by the local authority andincludes household waste and business waste where collected by the local authority and which issimilar in nature and composition, together with certain other “non-municipal” fractions. The change indefinition does not affect statutory duties of the Council as Waste Disposal Authority but is significantin that it confirms that the UK’s obligations in diverting waste from landfill relate not just to that wastecollected by local authorities but all such similar waste.9NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/9

materials have not already been sorted and baled for transport to therecycling businesses around the county and beyond, they will be transportedto the AWRP facility.3.4 The development, therefore, would manage the waste which is residualfollowing kerbside sorting or pre-sorted at HWRCs. The applicant explainsthat AWRP would “work in synergy with the transfer stations and HWRCsacross the sub-region”.3.5 There is expected to be an amount of commercial and industrial (C&I) wasteinput into the facility in the early years of the operation using spare capacitynot expected to be needed. The forecasted figures provided by the applicantindicate that the C&I waste element is predicted to reduce over time aspredicted increases in the generation of municipal waste occur. The capacityof the AWRP facility reflects the higher end, rather than the lower end, of theforecasts to ensure that sufficient capacity will transpire in order to meet theneeds of the County.3.6 The ‘waste recovery’ element of the AWRP proposal results from theincineration of residual waste that would otherwise have gone to landfill togenerate renewable and low carbon energy, in a process known as ‘energyrecovery’ which the applicant considers would displace and hence reduce theuse of fossil fuels such as oil, gas or coal.Site selection3.7 The application is accompanied by a Site Search Assessment which explainsthe methodology and approach taken to find what, in the applicant’s view, isthe most suitable site. The ‘sieve’ process undertaken by the applicantconcluded that the Allerton Park site was the only site which met “all thenecessary criteria”. More information about the site search process iscontained within Section 7.0 ‘Main Considerations’.Hours of operation3.8 It is anticipated that construction works will be undertaken in accordance withthe following normal hours of work:• Monday to Friday 07.00 – 19.00 (excluding Public Holidays); and• Saturday 07.00 – 19.00.3.9 The core facility, once operational, is proposed to work on a continuous basis(i.e. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week) with waste deliveries and exportmovements restricted to:• 0800 hours to 2200 hours on Mondays to Fridays;• 0800 hours to 1700 hours on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays.3.10 The vast majority of waste deliveries and export movements will be expectedto take place between the core hours of 0800 to 1800 reflecting the currenthours of operation associated with the adjacent landfill site.10NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/10

Employment3.11 At the height of the construction phase, the on-site workforce has beenestimated by the applicant to be approximately 400 people.3.12 During the operational phase, the proposed development will create directemployment for approximately 70 staff (although this is to be set off againstlandfill employee numbers and so are not all additional jobs). Staff will beemployed to fulfil a variety of roles including facility operation, administration,plant management and compliance. Regular maintenance activities willrequire staff on a contract basis.Vehicle movement and numbers3.13 The maximum vehicle movements per day, during the construction period, areestimated by the applicant to be 258 per day (129 in and 129 out). Of the 258movements, 142 movements are expected to be HGVs (71 in and 71 out).3.14 During the operational phase, the vehicular movements per day have beenestimated by the applicant to be 302 per day (151 in and 151 out).3.15 Residual household waste will be transported from the sub-region of NorthYorkshire and the City of York to the site by covered Heavy Goods Vehicles(HGVs), Refuse Collection Vehicles (RCVs) and Roll on Roll off (RoRo) skipvehicles.3.16 HGVs transporting waste to the site will be routed to avoid local centres ofpopulation.3.17 The operational vehicles associated with both the construction and operationof the proposed development will use the existing quarry and landfill siteentrance. Once operational, visitor traffic to the proposed Visitor andEducation Centre at Claro House would turn prior to the quarry entrance,thereby avoiding conflict between visitor and operational traffic.Waste deliveries and export off-site3.18 Once operational, deliveries to the site are those as described in paragraph3.14 above (i.e. between 08:00 and 22:00 Mondays to Fridays, and 08:00 and17.00 Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays). The removal off-site ofIncinerator Bottom Ash aggregate, air pollution control (APC) residue andrecyclates will take place during these same hours. However, the vastmajority of waste deliveries and export movements will take place betweenthe hours of 08:00 and 18:00 Mondays to Fridays reflecting existing wastedelivery patterns to the adjoining landfill site. The additional identified hours(Mondays to Fridays) are included to allow maximum site operationalflexibility, and are unlikely to be used on a regular basis except inexceptional/emergency circumstances.11NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/11

Vehicle weighing3.19 Each vehicle delivering waste to the site will be weighed on entrance andegress. This allows the mass of the waste being delivered to be accuratelycalculated. Two sets of weighbridges are positioned at the site entrance, andtwo weighbridges are positioned at the site egress point.3.20 Vehicle movements in and out of the waste management facility will becontrolled by staff at the weighbridges.3.21 To avoid any potential queuing issues, it is proposed to use a weighbridgebypass system such that vehicles that do not need to be weighed can passinto and out of the site without queuing.3.22 Arrangements for ten queuing HGVs are proposed prior to the firstweighbridge to provide contingency in the event that vehicles are not able toenter the site itself, and to avoid any vehicles queuing towards the publichighway and the entrance point to the adjacent landfill site. During busyperiods, up to fifteen queuing vehicles can be accommodated before the firstweighbridge without interfering with the entrance arrangements for vehiclesassociated with the adjacent landfill. A quarantine area will be providedadjacent to the weighbridges at the site entrance for the parking of vehicleswhose load needs to be inspected before acceptance on site or rejection.On-site vehicle movements3.23 Once incoming waste vehicles have passed through the weighbridge they willproceed down a one-way road along the eastern boundary of the site, andadjacent to the Mechanical Treatment (MT) facility, before entering theTipping Hall (TH) at the site’s southern-most point. Once vehicles havedischarged their loads, they will leave the TH before passing through the exitweighbridge prior to leaving the site. Loading and unloading of waste will onlytake place inside the TH building.3.24 Vehicles collecting recyclates from the MT facility will proceed from theentrance weighbridge to the east of the MT facility to collect baled recyclates.Once loaded, these vehicles will proceed to the exit weighbridge prior toleaving the site.3.25 Vehicles for the loading and transporting of Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) offthe site will proceed via the entrance weighbridge to the IBA aggregateprocessing facility at the northern end of the EfW building, before passingthrough the exit weighbridge prior to leaving the site.3.26 Vehicles removing air pollution control residues from the flue gas treatmentarea will proceed from the entrance weighbridge through the TH and to thewestern side of the EfW building. Once vehicles have loaded up, they willtravel north and pass through the exit weighbridge prior to leaving the site.12NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/12

The Design3.27 The concept followed in the formation of the design of the buildings is said bythe applicant to be one of under-statement rather than a bold, radicalexpression of architectural experimentation. When considering the ruralcontext within which the development is set, the former approach of simplicityis the preferred option taken forward by the applicant. The design concepthas also used topographical features in the landscape to further reduce the‘statement’ that the proposed development makes in the landscape. As aconsequence, the alignment of the buildings follows a north-south axis whichreduces the expanse of the buildings from those vantage points likely to beexperienced by the majority of people within the vicinity of the site (that is torefer to the passers-by using the public highways of the A168 and A1(M).3.28 Notwithstanding the driver behind the design to be understated, the proposeddesign is explained by the applicant as producing a form which seeks toreflect the rolling topography of the surrounding landscape through thesculptured curvilinear roof lines and a sedum roof (a roof covering with thesucculent plant species of sedum) providing the ‘green’ roof (on top of theTipping Hall) which, when viewed from the south, will ‘soften’ the impact of theproposed development by ‘blending in’ with the backdrop of the undulatingcountryside beyond. Curved rooflines lie atop the Energy from Wastebuilding, the Mechanical Treatment building, the Tipping Hall and theIncinerator Bottom Ash Processing Facility showing their inter-relatedness.While the Mechanical Treatment building will have a concave roof line, ratherthan the convex line of the remaining buildings, they are designed to be seenas one integrated complex of buildings.3.29 The applicant states that the construction materials have been chosen so asto reduce visual impact to the greatest extent possible. As a result, the use ofa gradation of lighter coloured cladding, as the higher parts of the elevationsare reached, assists in the transition between the darker matt greys and‘earthy’ colours reflective of the landscape on the horizon. The lighter greysand silver colours assimilate the transition when the viewer’s eye movesskyward.3.30 The lower sections of the elevations are proposed to be textured profile steelcladding which provides interest to the eye, architecturally. Such interestbecomes less necessary at higher levels and therefore the smooth finishproposed assists in the assimilation of the buildings within the landscape. Iftextured finishes had been proposed at the upper levels, they would introduceshadows during daylight hours and draw the eye to the upper levels of thebuildings, creating emphasis which the design seeks to avoid.3.31 The form of the development proposed is said by the applicant to stronglyfollow the function which the proposed development is intended to perform.The footprint take-up, height, shape and arrangement of the proposedbuildings are, for the most part, driven by the plant, machinery, equipment,processes and operational requirements which they are designed toaccommodate. For instance, the start of the process i.e. the reception area ofthe waste must lie ‘upstream’ and, as a consequence, something akin to a13NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/13

production line. Therefore, the arrangement of the buildings reflects theprocess taking place within. Furthermore, rather than the accommodation ofall of the processes within one substantial building and, thereby, greatestvisual impact, the applicant proposes individual buildings for each of theprocesses taking place, thereby reducing the mass of the buildings. Moredetailed explanation of the individual buildings is provided in the paragraphsthat follow.The Layout3.32 The layout of the proposed development, as illustrated on the attached Plan 7and the elevational drawings accompanying this report, comprises a wastetreatment facility with four main elements. Each element is listed below andthen described in turn in the remainder of this section of the report:• The Tipping Hall (TH);• A Mechanical Treatment (MT) facility;• An Anaerobic Digestion (AD) plant; and• An Energy from Waste (EfW) plant.3.33 In addition to the waste treatment facility, the planning application alsoincludes for the following range of ancillary development and other works:• Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) recycling facility;• Visitor and Education Centre comprising ancillary staff officeaccommodation;• Welfare block and ancillary buildings, including weighbridges andgatehouse;• Staff and visitors’ car parking;• Improved access arrangements onto the public highway (the A168);• Surface water attenuation measures;• Connection to the local electricity distribution network; and• Landscaping, External Lighting, Fencing and Security.The Tipping Hall (TH)3.34 The reception of waste will be within the TH building which is at the southernend of the site. This building is a maximum of 92.9m long, 33m in width and14.7m high. A ‘green’ roof is proposed for the TH. The building is sized toallow for safe reception, manoeuvring and discharge of vehicles deliveringwaste.3.35 Residual waste will be delivered by HGVs and RCVs via the weighbridge tothe TH. Waste is discharged from the vehicles directly into one of twobunkers from where a grab crane is used to transfer the waste either directlyto the MT process or, for waste from Household Waste Recycling Centres(HWRCs) or commercial sources, directly to the feed lines for the EfW plant.There are ten waste discharge points (six feeding the MT facility building andfour feeding the EfW plant) into the 2 bunkers within the TH. The two bunkersare sized to provide approximately six days of storage capacity.14NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/14

3.36 The TH will be maintained under a slight negative pressure to ensure that noodours, dust or litter can escape the building. This will be achieved bydrawing air for the EfW plant from the building. The entrance and exit pointsto the TH will utilise fast operating roller shutter doors to ensure odours do notreadily escape from the building and to maintain negative pressure.3.37 In the event of the facility being unable to process waste due to, for example,an unexpected breakdown, the TH and bunkers will act as a waste transferstation.The Mechanical Treatment (MT) Facility3.38 The MT facility uses a series of physical separation techniques to extractplastics, metals, paper, card and organic wastes. This is intended either, tobe recycled and then sold to re-processors or, in the case of organic waste, toundergo treatment on site. The MT plant has a maximum design capacity of70 tonnes per hour. For 12 hours of daily operation, Monday to Saturday, theMT facility will have sufficient capacity to deal with up to 262,080 tonnes ofresidual waste per annum. The techniques used to extract recyclates arebased on the following properties:a) Size Screens will be used to separate organic materials fromlarger size inorganic (plastic and others);b) Weight Densimetric separators will extract lighter fractions (paper,film and textiles) from other recyclates;c) Shape A ballistic separator will segregate metals and plasticbottles from paper and textiles;d) Magnetism Magnets will extract ferrous metals. Non ferrous metalswill be extracted via Eddy-current separators; and,e) Refraction Near-infrared units will be able to segregate differenttypes of plastics and paper from the residual wastestream.3.39 The MT facility will operate with two parallel separation lines fed from the twowaste storage bunkers in the adjacent TH. The waste deposited in the TH isfed into this processing equipment in the MT facility to allow for the screeningand sorting of recyclates. The recyclates are baled and stored on site in twocovered areas (22.6m and 22.4m long respectively and 6.4 metres wide) thatwould be open-sided to the east elevation, and located on the east side of theMT building prior to dispatch to re-processors off-site.3.40 The MT equipment is housed within a building which is 103.4m long, 51.5m inwidth and 19.8m high. The building height is necessary to accommodate theMT plant and associated equipment within a contained environment.3.41 The MT building will have a flue stack (smaller than that proposed for themain flue stack) specifically for the purposes of ventilation from the MTbuilding space. This stack will be positioned to the centre of the building, witha height of 28m and a diameter of 1.1m. As the stack will be positioned in themiddle of the MT facility, this will extend above the roof line.15NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/15

3.42 The residual material remaining after the recycling, recovery and extractionprocess will be used to feed into the AD and EfW plant.3.43 The electrical power required to operate the MT facility is around 1.3MW andwill be supplied directly by the energy generated in the EfW plant.The Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Plant3.44 Anaerobic digestion is a bio-chemical process that involves the breakdown oforganic materials within solid waste in an oxygen-free environment. Theprocess results in the formation of:• a biogas, which mainly comprises carbon dioxide and methane;• a solid digestate compost; and• a liquid.3.45 The AD plant will treat approximately 40,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) oforganic-rich waste from the MT facility using a single AD vessel. Thecylindrical digestion vessel, or silo, is located at the northern end of the MThall and is 15.7m in diameter and 32m high.3.46 The bio-gas generated by the AD process will be stored prior to passingthrough two bio-gas engines, which in turn generate approximately 1.1MW ofrenewable electricity per annum. The large majority of this energy will beexported directly to the local electrical distribution network. The biogasengines have a single stack associated with them for exhaust emissions.3.47 Gas is stored within a double membrane storage vessel with a useablestorage capacity of 430m 3 . It has a dual function; the first being themaintenance of a minimum biogas amount so that biogas can always flowback to the digester in low pressure situations and, the second, for levellingoff peaks in biogas production.3.48 After the biogas storage, the biogas is first cooled down to remove thecondensate and, subsequently, the pressure is increased to a consistent levelsuitable for use in the biogas engines. In the biogas engines, themselves, thebiogas is combusted to generate electricity. All of the components of theengines are assembled inside a container. Each container is equipped withthe necessary security and safety systems, such as, gas and smokedetection. Ventilation systems are built into the walls of the containers toremove radiant heat and for the supply of combustion air to the engine. Theengine, the generator and the heat exchangers are all mounted on a weldedframe. Both the engine and the generator are connected with a flexiblecoupling, which breaks during overload. They are also mounted onreplaceable vibration dampers. The system is equipped with a built-in oilreception tank.3.49 Both containers for the engines will be installed outside of the MT building,near its north-east corner. The exhaust gases of the engines are used in asteam generator to produce low pressure steam necessary for reuse in theAD process. After the exhaust gases have been used in the steam generatorthe remaining gases are exhausted via the single stack of 26 metres in height16NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/16

and a diameter of 0.4 metres. The stack is located at the north end of the MTbuilding.3.50 It is proposed to install Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) toeach of the gas engine stacks. The CEMS will continuously monitor andrecord the following parameters:• Oxygen;• Carbon monoxide; and• Nitrogen oxides.3.51 The water vapour content, temperature and pressure of the flue gases willalso be monitored. The emission concentrations will then be reportedaccording to the reference conditions required by the EU Waste IncinerationDirective (WID) and the Environment Agency’s ‘Guidance for MonitoringLandfill Gas Engine Emissions’ (2011).3.52 The remaining digestate from the AD process will be mixed with the residualwaste from the MT process, and then used as a fuel for the EfW plant. Thisdigestate cannot be reused in agriculture because it cannot achieve thePublicly Available Specification (PAS) 110 standard required as it is notsourced from food waste but rather from organic elements of the residualwaste stream, therefore it can only be disposed of by combustion or landfill.The Energy from Waste (EfW) Plant3.53 One of the principal elements of the proposed development is the constructionof an EfW plant that will generate electricity energy and heat from thecombustion of residual waste. Residual waste is that which remains followingthe removal of materials that can be recycled by the MT process, and thedigestate that remains following treatment by the AD process.3.54 Accounting for planned maintenance and downtime, the EfW plant’smaximum design capacity is 320,000 tonnes per annum, although it willtypically treat approximately 305,000 tonnes per annum. The plant has beendesigned to meet the needs of existing and projected future waste arisings.However, to make up for any shortfall, commercial and industrial (C&I) wastewill be sourced. All waste will be non-hazardous. The plant is designed withtwo process lines, each with a design capacity of 20 tonnes per hour.3.55 The EfW plant has been designed as an energy recovery plant, fulfilling therequirements for classification as a recovery facility under the EU WasteFramework Directive (WFD) (2008). The plant will produce electricity (whichwill be exported to the local electrical distribution network), an inert incineratorbottom ash (IBA) material (that will be processed on site and sold asaggregate for use in construction products), and an Air Pollution Control(APC) residue which will be sent off-sire to a hazardous waste facility fordisposal.17NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/17

3.56 The EfW plant is contained within a building that is 72.7 metres long, 62.8metres wide and 36.4 metres high. The building height is necessary toaccommodate the boilers and associated electrical generating equipmentwithin a safely contained environment. The associated chimney stack fordispersal of the exhaust gases produced during combustion (once flue gastreatment has taken place), will be 70 metres high with an external diameterof 5.72 metres. The finished floor level (FFL) of the TH is set at 64 metresAOD with the waste bunkers in the TH area set at 52 metres AOD. Therefore,the bunkers for waste storage are 12 metres deep from the TH, allowing forsufficient storage capacity for 14 days of operation. Directly adjacent and tothe north of the main EfW building, there are proposed to be six air cooledcondensers (ACCs).3.57 The EfW process has a number of key elements:• Waste combustiono including the grate, combustion chamber and heat recovery boiler;• Energy recoveryo including the steam turbine equipment;• Flue Gas Treatment / Air Pollution Controlo including the equipment to clean combustion gases prior todischarge via the chimney stack; and• Air Cooled Condenserso to cool and recycle steam from the electricity generating process.Waste Combustion3.58 Primary combustion takes place on a mechanical roller grate to promote themixing of burning and unburnt waste. The combustion gas from the primarycombustion stage is heated in the secondary combustion chamber to reach itsspecified WID compliant temperature (850 o C for a minimum of two seconds).The burnt waste from the primary combustion is removed as IBA. This IBA isthen treated and recycled to produce secondary aggregate, incinerator bottomash aggregate (IBAA), within the on-site plant.Energy Recovery3.59 Heat from the combustion process is recovered initially to form steam and,ultimately, generate electricity in steam turbines. The EfW will generateapproximately 27MW of electricity (gross). A proportion of this generatedelectricity will be used to power other processes on site, with the remainder(approximately 24MW) exported to the Coneythorpe substation viaunderground cables for connection into the electricity grid network.3.60 The EfW plant has been primarily designed as an energy recovery plant,although it is able to be reconfigured to provide combined heat and power(CHP) if a suitable economic market can be established.Flue Gas Treatment / Air Pollution Control3.61 An integrated air pollution control system will treat all flue gases prior toemission so that human health and amenity guidelines on emissions are notexceeded. Fly ash from the heat recovery system can be combined with theflue gas treatment residues and will be transported off site in sealed tankers18NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/18

for disposal at an appropriately licensed facility (anticipated by the applicant tobe at Knostrop landfill near Leeds). Fly ash and flue gas residues areclassified as hazardous wastes.3.62 The basis of the design and operation of the proposed air pollution controlprocess is to achieve compliance with EU WID (2006/76/EC) limits. AirPollution Control processes are monitored using a Continuous EmissionsMonitoring System (CEMS). This system will continuously monitor emissionsfrom the stack for:• Particulate;• Carbon monoxide (CO);• Ammonia (NH 3 );• Sulphur dioxide (SO 2 );• Hydrogen chloride (HCI);• Hydrogen fluoride (HF);• Oxygen (O 2 );• Nitrogen oxides (NO X ); and• Volatile organic compounds (VOC).3.63 In addition, periodic sampling and measurement will be carried out for metals,including:• Cadmium (Cd);• Thallium (TI);• Mercury (Hg);• Antimony (Sb);• Arsenic (As);• Lead (Pb);• Chromium (Cr);• Cobalt (Co);• Copper (Cu);• Manganese (Mn);• Nickel (Ni);• Vanadium (V);• Dioxins;• Furans; and• Polychlorinated Biphenyls.3.64 The CEMS consists of two active CEMS with a third system on standby.3.65 The flue gas treatment systems require the storage and use of a number ofchemicals. These chemicals will be stored inside bunded areas, or stored indouble skin vessels. Fuel oil will be stored in a bunded storage tank.3.66 Chemicals for flue gas treatment will include hydrated lime and activatedcarbon. Hydrated lime is used to remove acid gases from the flue gases, andactivated carbon is added to the flue gases to remove any remainingimpurities. The volume of hydrated lime to be employed in the process is anaverage of 5,600 tonnes per annum, while the consumption of activatedcarbon will be approximately 170 tonnes per annum.19NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/19

3.67 Both the lime and the activated carbon will be delivered using pressurisedroad tankers, and then pumped via hoses from the delivery vehicles to thecorrect storage silo. Storage silos are specially built for the purpose and arebunded. Control of delivery is achieved through high level control and alarm.The top of the silo will be equipped with a vent fitted with a fabric filter. Thefilter will be inspected regularly to ensure its effective operation.3.68 Iron Chloride solution, which is used in the AD process to reduce theproduction of hydrogen sulphide in the biogas, will be stored in a bundedstorage tank within the building. Filling and emptying is controlled by highlevel control and alarm systems.3.69 Other smaller amounts of chemicals, oils and greases will be stored on site inpurpose built or bunded stores. These chemicals will be mostly formaintenance purposes.Air Cooled Condensers (ACCs)3.70 Air Cooled Condensers (ACCs) are used on site to recycle steam from theenergy generation process. They consist of six individual condensers joinedtogether to form a single large unit measuring 25m by 36m (excluding gantriesand walkways). The ACCs are positioned directly to the north of the EfWbuilding and are elevated at approximately 12m above ground level tofacilitate air flow around the condensers. The ACCs have an overall height ofapproximately 24m.Ancillary Development:Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) Processing Facility3.71 The IBA processing facility will be located in a building 56m to the north of theEfW building, linked by a covered conveyor that transports the IBA forprocessing to create secondary aggregates. This processing facility will beapproximately 25m long by 50m wide with a height of 14.8m. Theaccompanying storage facility will be approximately 20m by 30m, with aheight of 12.3m.3.72 The IBA will be removed from the EfW by enclosed conveyor, and will bedischarged under cover within the IBA processing area. Once acceptancechecks and quality analysis have been undertaken, the IBA will be processed(screened and graded) within a dedicated building. The process will allow forcrushing of the IBA, metals separation, final grinding and screening. Onceprocessed, the stock is stored as secondary aggregate prior to onwardtransfer for appropriate reuse applications. The IBA processing facility has acapacity of 50 tonnes per hour. This means that in 3–4 hours of dailyoperation the plant will be capable of processing all of the IBA produced at theEfW. Any oversize or reject materials (typically 10% of volume by weight)from the processing facility will be categorised and then sent for reuse,recycling or disposal.20NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/20

Visitor and Education Centre and Ancillary Staff Offices3.73 The Visitor and Education Centre and ancillary staff offices will be sited atClaro House, as shown on Plan 7, and will involve the refurbishment,extension and improvement of the existing building and associatedoutbuildings. The Centre will have meeting rooms, an audiovisual seminarroom, and exhibition space. Within the Visitor and Education Centre will be anumber of offices for the operational management staff.3.74 The refurbished Claro House complex would have two separate functions.The south-west half which includes the two-storey residential building andformer barn would form the staff offices whereas the north-east halfcomprising the single storey outbuildings (former stables and garage) wouldbe used as the Visitor and Education Centre. The Visitor and EducationCentre entrance would be on the south facing elevation immediately facingvisitors on arrival, with the staff entrance adjacent to the west. This wouldensure segregation between visitors and staff.3.75 It is proposed that the Visitor and Education Centre would be made availablefor community use, by prior arrangement, in the evenings and at weekends. Itwould contain meeting rooms, a classroom, an audio-visual seminar room andexhibition space which would be used for future Community Liaison Groupmeetings at the site.3.76 Visitors will be able to view the Energy from Waste facility as part of escortedvisits. A dedicated walkway around the plant is proposed to show the mainelements of the processes.3.77 With regard to the proposed extension and refurbishment works the inwardfacing elevations of the buildings within the former farm yard area would beextended to provide a covered corridor link which would allow access to theindividual parts of the visitor centre complex. The corridor link would have asingle ply membrane roof and an external finish comprising horizontal timbercladding together with large timber framed double glazed windows. Inaddition an external covered exhibition space would be created within thecourtyard area which externally would comprise a combination of horizontaltimber cladding with a part rendered finish. Four velux-style rooflights wouldbe installed within the pitched roof of the east facing elevation of the officebuilding (former barn). The east facing elevation of the conference room(former garage) would have an external finish comprising horizontal timbercladding together with large timber framed double glazed windows.3.78 There would be a minor two storey extension to the east facing elevation ofthe former farmhouse to create a lobby area and staff toilets. The extensionwould be constructed from a combination of red brickwork to match existing atground floor level and engineering brickwork for the upper sections.3.79 With regard to security arrangements for the centre the refurbishment wouldinclude the provision of an automatically controlled gate at the entrance andCCTV at a number of locations around the centre.21NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/21

3.80 The existing boundary vegetation to Claro House would be retained, includingexisting hedges and trees within the existing garden area. In addition, it isproposed that the existing native planting along the north and east boundarieswould be thickened to provide additional screening from the site access.Weighbridges3.81 A combined weighbridge office and gatehouse, with basic welfare facilities,will be constructed and two weighbridges will be provided on the western sideof the site. Two additional weighbridges (four in total), along with a secondweighbridge kiosk with welfare facilities, will be constructed on the easternperimeter road. The weighbridges will all be steel, fully welded, surfacemounted structures with durbar non-slip deck plates. They will be 15 metres x3 metres with a calibrated capacity of 50 tonnes.Welfare Block and Ancillary Buildings3.82 A welfare / amenity block, storage and control rooms and weighbridges at theentrance and egress points are proposed to facilitate daily operation of theproposed development. The welfare block will provide facilities for operativesworking within the various buildings on site. The welfare block is positioned inthe centre of the site approximately 23 metres to the north of the main EfWbuilding, and is approximately 18 metres by 19 metres in area and 4.8 metresin height.Staff and Visitor Car Parking3.83 There will be 11 parking spaces located at the Visitor and Education Centre,one of which will be a space suitable for disabled persons. A lay-by will beprovided for coach / minibus parking at this location. Separate staff parkingwill also be provided on the site (41 spaces including two disabled spaces)and one minibus bay adjacent to the welfare block.Improved Access to the A1683.84 Improvements are proposed to the existing junction layout with the A168. Thiswill ensure that the junction can safely accommodate the additional vehiclemovements associated with the AWRP development. It is proposed thataccess improvements are made to the junction in the form of:• a left slip diverge lane;• localised widening of the carriageway to accommodate a right turnfacility; and,• amendments to the road markings to reflect the amended layout.3.85 Operational vehicles leaving the public highway to access the AWRPdevelopment will proceed to the weighbridges located adjacent to the northeastern boundary of the site. The immediate access to the site will be sharedand maintained with the company, FCC Environmental, who operates theadjacent landfill site.22NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/22

Drainage Arrangements3.86 Management of surface water, foul drainage and the storage of materials onsite will be in line with the Environment Agency’s ‘Groundwater ProtectionPolicy and Practice’ and will be regulated by the Environment Agency underan Environmental Permit.3.87 Surface water run off, process water and domestic foul drainage will betreated on site using a variety of methods including interceptors and anattenuation pond. Treated surface water will be discharged from the site via agravity drain.3.88 It is proposed to use a single existing attenuation pond to ensure surfacewater drainage discharge is controlled to rates agreed with the EA as part ofthe Environmental Permit. It is proposed that all runoff is intercepted byperimeter drains which convey surface water to the attenuation pond. Thedischarge will be to the existing drainage infrastructure that runs alongside thelandfill site, and then flows through Shepherd’s Wood and Bog Plantation andcontinues eastwards, ultimately discharging into the Ouse Gill Beck. Theattenuation pond will additionally provide opportunities to enhance theecological value of the site.3.89 No foul drainage sewer is present in the vicinity of the site into which on-sitefoul drainage could discharge. Domestic foul discharge from the proposedWelfare / Amenity Block would discharge to a packaged treatment plant or tocesspool holding tanks. Domestic foul drainage from the Visitor andEducation Centre would be collected via underground pipes and dischargedto a packaged treatment plant on site. The treated water from the plant woulddischarge to an adjacent field or discharged into the attenuation pond.Landscaping, External Lighting, Fencing and Security3.90 The proposed development includes landscaping, external lighting, fencingand security arrangements.Landscaping3.91 The landscape proposals on-site include:• Native species woodland planting to the west and north-west of theattenuation pond to add to the existing planting in that area;• At Claro House there would be a mix of native species woodlandplanting to the north of Claro House adjacent to existing woodland;individual specimen trees (of 25-30 centimetre {cm} girth) to the north,south and east; an area to the east of Claro House of predominantlynative trees with specimen size shrubs to form an understorey ofplanting with an amenity pond to the south;• A line of individual specimen trees (of 25-30 centimetre girth) along theline of a new semi-mature native hedgerow to be planted between theproposed access to the AWRP facility and the existing access to thequarry and landfill weighbridge;• Two triangular-shaped groups of specimen trees with understoreyshrubs to the north and west of the IBA plant23NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/23

• A line of specimen trees and underplanting to the east of the maincarpark (fronting a new grassland area adjacent to the in-boundweighbridge facility (which would also have tree and shrub plantingabout it) and a east-westwards line of specimen trees to the north of theAD plant;• An additional 3 blocks of native species woodland would also be plantedto the west of the circulation route to the west of the IBA and EFWfacilities adjacent to the existing western landscaping and one block tothe south of the EfW;• To the south of the TH 3 new blocks of native species woodland areproposed extending up and over to the south of Sand Hill with a group ofsemi-mature parkland trees (of 35-45cm girth) on the upper slopes andtop of Sand Hill.3.92 The application details explain that the landscaping proposals extend to thesouth to include part of the restored areas of the landfill towards the northernboundary of the Grade II Registered Park and Garden. The applicantconsiders that an extension to the landscape boundary to the south providesan opportunity to partially recreate a former landscape feature, Sand Hill. Theapplicant envisages the planting as comprising large woodland areas of mixedtree and understory shrub species sympathetic to the Southern MagnesianRidge, woodland glades with shade tolerant low maintenance grasses andwild flora, and sweeping grassland areas suited to grazing.External lighting3.93 The applicant proposes the facility will: “be operational from, and during, thehours of darkness, lighting to the exterior will be a necessity to enable peopleto perform outdoor visual tasks efficiently and safely in accordance with thearea, task and activities required. The lighting system will require theflexibility to allow the lighting levels to be varied or even switched off fully attimes during the hours of darkness. This flexibility may be provided through aRemote Monitoring Management System (RMMS) system and will facilitatethe change from the higher lighting levels required in the working environmentto those required for safety and security outside normal working hours”.3.94 While there is no requirement to light the full length of the access road to theproposal, the applicant has stated that lighting is proposed to be providedfrom the current access point off the A168 to the AWRP entrance for reasonsof providing safe and secure access and also provided throughout thedevelopment on all access roads in accordance with the appropriate lightingstandards.3.95 It has been identified that a number of areas within the development willrequire a degree of enhanced external lighting, those areas consist of:• Weighbridges;• Staff and Visitor car parks; and,• Loading and off-loading areas.24NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/24

3.96 The luminaires used to light the site and provide the enhanced lighting to theidentified areas consist of lighting columns at a mounting height of 6m and 8m(typical of those for a residential street). The design of the lighting columns issuch that each unit can be dimmed individually, for example, outside normalworking hours where the lighting would be provided more for safety andsecurity than operational reasons. There would also be some wall-mountedlights (6 metres from the ground) on the TH, MT, EfW, IBA buildings andsome on-site bollards will contain a light fitted with louvres (to direct the lightdownward to prevent glare) if placed in areas which are dark at night.Fencing and security3.97 Palisade fencing will be erected on the perimeter of the Core Application Area(CAA) to a height of 2.4m and would be maintained throughout the life of thedevelopment. An access gate/barrier will be positioned along the mainaccess road to the site, with CCTV and remote monitoring/control from theweighbridge.Connection to the electricity distribution network3.98 The energy generated from the proposed development will be transferred viaunderground cabling to a local grid connection at a substation nearConeythorpe. The Coneythorpe substation is located approximately 1.4kmwest of the site. The cabling will connect to the proposed development at thejunction of the A168 with the entrance to Allerton Park Quarry site.3.99 It is thought that the District Network Operator will implement the worksrequired for connection to the Grid, including those works from the facility upto the connection near Coneythorpe. Under Part 17 of the Town and CountryPlanning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, the District NetworkOperator as statutory undertaker benefits from permitted development rightsto enable the installation of the works required.3.100 While the connection point to the local electrical distribution network has beenagreed with the local electrical distribution provider, the underground cablingroute is yet to be confirmed. Therefore, the application provides for twosuitable routes which have been identified and agreed in principle; a northernroute (Route A) requiring 3.2km of cabling or a southern route (Route B)requiring 2.7km of cabling. Only one route will be utilised for the connection.Both routes are shown on Plan 2.3.101 The connection routes to the sub-station will entail underground cabling,including the associated cable trenching and directional drilling of ducts tocarry the cabling under the A1(M) motorway and A168. The cables would belaid in public carriageways, under the stewardship of the Highway Authorityand the Secretary of State for Transport (through the Highways Agency).25NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/25

3.102 It is anticipated that cabling installation will be achieved by laying threeunderground single-core insulated and sheathed 11kV cables. The cableswould be laid in a trench at a depth of about 0.9 metres. Once the cablingductwork has been placed within the excavated trenches, it will be packedwith a layer of sand for protection and backfilled with excavated material.Road surfaces will then be made good.3.103 Route A follows the route of a bridleway for approximately 600m. Should thisconnection route be chosen, then the bridleway will be affected for atemporary period during the cable laying construction process.Decommissioning3.104 When the AWRP facility is no longer required and decommissioning isundertaken, the applicant proposes that the site will be restored to an agreedscheme and the scheme proposed is shown on Plan 11. This proposedscheme makes the assumption that the restoration will ‘dovetail’ in with thelandfill restoration proposals of the ‘post leachate/short rotation coppice’ (Plan7) rather than the non-leachate version (illustrated on Plan 4), although thatrestoration would also ‘dovetail’ into Plan 11. The applicant proposes that thepost-decommissioning restoration would retain all the new woodland plantingblocks and individual standard and parkland trees described in paragraph3.80 above. This woodland planting would be supplemented by additionalnative species woodland along the northern edge of Sand Hill, and the northand western edges of the core application area (CAA). The main part of theCAA would be levelled and seeded to grassland that would merge into therestored area of grassland on the landfill to the east. In addition, theattenuation pond would be retained rather than restored to agriculture and themarginal planting about it retained.Cultural and landscape issues3.105 The applicant has developed a Landscape Management Strategy (LMS) (seea) below) and also proposed a draft Conservation Management Plan (see b)below) for Allerton Park, and has put forward a Landscape and CulturalHeritage Fund (LCHF) (see c) below) to help deliver enhancement to thoseparts of the wider landscape most affected by the proposed development.Additionally, the applicant proposes to undertake a schedule of “Conservation,Repair and Maintenance Works” on land in Allerton Park and Gardens.These are guided by the Landscape Management Strategy, but the applicantproposes to enter into a section 106 agreement to guarantee the delivery ofthose particular works. The applicant also proposes to secure payment of theLCHF through the section 106 agreement. The purpose of this mitigationpackage is proposed by the applicant as further off-setting the potentialimpacts including by conserving and repairing a number of heritage assetswithin Allerton Park and Gardens, as well as by making a payment to allowlandscape enhancement works in the vicinity of the Site to be undertaken.The elements of this are proposed to be included in a Section 106 LegalAgreement. These are in addition to the on-site landscaping works that willbe required as a condition of any planning permission granted.26NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/26

a) Landscape Management Strategy (LMS)3.106 The Strategy document is informed by the Conservation Management Planand the Outline Habitat Management Plan. Together, these address theimpacts identified in the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment, Landscapeand Visual Impact Assessment within the Environmental Statementaccompanying the planning application.3.107 The proposed LMS would deliver and secure on and off-site landscapemitigation (as well as heritage and habitat measures). As one of its keyobjectives, the applicant states that the Strategy intends early establishmentof any on-site landscaping to ensure maturity being achieved at the earliestopportunity. It is further intended that the Strategy would last the lifetime ofthe development to ensure the new on-site landscaping achieves its designintent and throughout that lifetime to be subject to five-yearly reviews.3.108 The LMS is not confined solely to the application site, but also includes anidentified area with a general radius of 3.5km, centring on the site itself. Thelandscaping within the application site is proposed to be delivered through therequirements of a planning condition imposed on any permission, and theseworks would not be eligible for the LCHF, described below. A ‘LandscapeMasterplan’ showing the extent of on-site landscaping has been submitted(LMS Fig 4, and Appendix B17 of the Further and Other EnvironmentalInformation).3.109 Within the Strategy, five Landscape Mitigation and Enhancement Zones(LMEZs), some of which extend more than 3.5km from the application site,have been developed in relation to particular landscape character areas. Theland in these areas is mostly outside the application site and outside theapplicant’s control. Within these zones a holistic approach to landscapemitigation and enhancement can be implemented. While the LMEZ’s defineareas within which the greatest benefit would be achieved from enhancementto the landscape and local views with respect to the AWRP development, theapplicant has confirmed that the Strategy seeks to include land that lies withinthe 3.5km zone regardless of whether it is located within a LMEZ, albeit tocarry out any landscape works outside a LMEZ would not necessarily havethe same degree of benefit.3.110 The Strategy, according to the applicant, would “enhance and strengthen thelocal landscape character, cultural heritage features and contribute tobiodiversity within an indicative 3.5km radius of the AWRP”. Furthermore, it“uses landscape as a unifying theme to highlight measures that strengthen,enhance and restore landscape character, features of cultural heritage andbiodiversity in a single approach. It then looks to provide a frameworkstructure and approach to deliver these benefits through a Landscape andCultural Heritage Fund”. This Fund is discussed below.27NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/27

) Conservation Management Plan3.111 The draft Conservation Management Plan (CMP) has been submitted to theCounty Planning Authority in draft form and has been provided as part of thesuite of documents under cover of the ‘further and other environmentalinformation’ submission made in June 2012.3.112 The CMP has been formulated to set the aims and objectives to conserve andenhance the legibility of the heritage assets and the historic landscape withinAllerton Park and Gardens. The Plan is proposed to be agreed andformulated post the outcome of any favourable decision on the planningapplication, but prior to the construction of AWRP commencing in the eventthat planning permission is granted. It analyses the key issues andvulnerabilities facing the historic designed landscape at Allerton Park andGarden and sets out principles, as well as detailing a number of measuresthat can be readily identified and delivered.3.113 As noted above, there is a separate proposal to guarantee the delivery ofsome of the more urgent works. These measures are the conservation, repairand maintenance works to seven of the identified heritage assets within theRegistered Park and Garden. These structures within the Registered Parkand Garden are:• The Ice House;• Lady’s Cave (to the north of Middle Fish Pond);• Boat House;• Arched Entrance to Jetty/Boathouse on Lower Fish Pond;• Bridge between middle and lower fish ponds;• Tunnel to the Pleasure Grounds; and,• The boundary wall (particularly a one mile section of the northern sectionof walling adjacent to the A168 at risk of collapse and loss.3.114 The works identified in the above paragraph have been subject to a reportproduced on behalf of the applicant by The Morton Partnership (the ‘MortonReport’). This Report dated April 2011 outlines the scope of the worksassessed as being required.3.115 The Heads of Terms (HoTs) within the original application details stated thatthe “works shall be completed within four years of the commencement ofconstruction of AWRP, or before AWRP is opened for receipt of contractwaste (i.e. post the construction and commissioning phase) whichever is thesooner”. Furthermore, the application details conveyed the following:“The conservation, repair and maintenance works will ensure that thespecified heritage assets within Allerton Park suffer no further loss insignificance (Value) and with careful management and conservation can beraised in significance. Given the intention to raise the significance of theheritage asset the results of the implementation of these works representmitigation rather than compensation for the proposed development”.3.116 The draft CMP also sets out a number of other heritage assets as well aslandscaping measures that could benefit from the LCHF, detailed below.28NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/28

c) Landscape and Cultural Heritage Fund (LCHF)3.117 As noted above, the LMEZs are largely outside the applicant’s control, so theapplicant is unable to guarantee the delivery of any particular works items.The Fund is described by the applicant as being a key component for thedelivery of the LMS in the context of off-site mitigation measures. Theapplicant proposes to make a single payment of c. £983,000 to the CountyCouncil to be paid prior to the commencement of construction of the AWRPand to be managed by a dedicated Project Officer tasked with administeringthe Fund and helping to facilitate applications for monies that help support theprinciples of strengthening and enhancing landscape character. It proposesthat the monies are to be spent within the first five years of thecommencement of the Fund to deliver the greatest benefit at the earliestopportunity.3.118 The Fund is designed to provide a resource to allow for enhancement andstrengthening of the local landscape character, biodiversity and/or features ofcultural heritage within 3.5km radius of the application site and/or within whathas been referred to by the applicant as Landscape Mitigation EnhancementZones (LMEZs). These have been developed and defined as part of theabove-mentioned Landscape Management Strategy. Applications made tothe Fund are intended to have a greater chance of securing monies if locatedwithin a LMEZ.3.119 To assist in the understanding of what the Fund could be used for, theapplicant provides examples including hedgerow tree planting, improvementsto existing field boundaries, the restoration of historic field boundaries,woodland or copse planting, enhancement of existing watercourse / wetlandareas or specific works to repair or conserve features of cultural heritage etc.3.120 The applicant proposes that it is “intended that applications to the Fund canbe made by (for example) Voluntary Groups/Schemes, Local CommunityGroups, Individual local residents and/or Landowners and Local Authority ledinitiatives. It is envisaged that applications to the Fund will be assessedagainst the aims and objectives stated within the Landscape ManagementStrategy and associated documentation. Applications will be encouraged fora variety of projects including, for example, hedgerow works, habitatenhancements and works to features of cultural heritage…Conservation andrepair of heritage assets, either within, or beyond, the Registered Park andGarden, that may also be on the English Heritage ‘Heritage at Risk Register’,can be secured by relevant landowners, groups or organisations throughapplications to the Fund”.Legal agreement – highways issues3.121 There is also proposed to be covered by legal agreement, compliance withthe Travel Plan throughout the life of the proposed development, the provisionof a Heavy Goods Vehicle Management Plan, the provision of a ConstructionPhase Traffic Management Plan and the payment of a Highways MaintenanceContribution.29NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/29

Supporting Information3.122 As well as by the Environmental Statement, the application has also beenaccompanied by the following assessments and reports as part of theinformation in support of the planning application:• Planning Statement – including:o An Executive Summary and Introduction;o Details on the Proposed Development Site and Description of theDevelopment;o Relevant Planning History;o Need; ando Planning Policy Contexto A draft site waste management plan.• Sustainability Assessment - comprising:oan assessment of the sustainability of the environmental, economicand social consequences of the development;• Design and Access Statement - including:oooooSite Appraisal• Site location and context;• Site topography and landscape;• Surrounding buildings;• Transport and access;• Landscape character;• Evaluation of constraints and opportunities; and,• Site analysis.Design Development - including design process and approach;Use of the Site - including the building elements;Amount - the footprint of the buildings and ancillary development;Layout – including• Layout evolution; and,• Constraints, Access Conditions and Operationalrequirements.o Scale and Appearance - including building heights & materials;o Landscape – including strategy and landscape and habitat areas;o Sustainability – including sustainable design; and,o Access to the Development – including strategy, staff & visitors etc.• Statement of Community Involvement – including:o pre-application consultation; and,o feedback.• Site Search Assessment – including identifying a:o technology and site solution;o search area; and,o site.• WRATE (Waste & Resources Assessment Tool) Report;• Heat Assessment – including:o The applicant’s consideration of the potential to use heat; and,o An explanation of the AWRP readiness for heat off-take.• BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental AssessmentMethod) Report.30NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/30

Additional supporting information3.123 Since the formal submission of the application, additional supportinginformation has been provided to the County Planning Authority for thepurposes of clarification of information already contained within the applicationdocumentation.3.124 This information, whilst not formally consulted upon by the County PlanningAuthority has, nevertheless, been available for comment by interested partiesthrough its presence on the Online Planning Register. Such informationincludes:• Cross-sectional drawings of the site once cleared of the current activityand prior to the erection of the buildings showing the ‘cut and fill’(provided on 8 December 2011) (these were subsequently incorporatedinto the ‘further and other environmental information’ submission by theapplicant on which the County Planning Authority formally publicisedreceipt and consulted in July 2012);• A ‘Need Overview’ document (received 3 September 2012) (updatereceived on 11 October 2012 accompanied by two reports, namely‘Projection of Commercial & Industrial Waste Arisings in North Yorkshireto 2026’ (dated August 2010) and ‘Feedstock Availability for the AWRP’(dated September 2012) both authored by Urban Mines, a consultancyappointed by the applicant;• An indicative costings spreadsheet for the LCHF (received on 13September 2012) and supplementary costings spreadsheet (received 24September 2012);• A response, dated 25 September 2012, to the comments submitted bythe Parish Councils’ Group on the matter of the NPPF;• A response, dated 25 September 2012, to the comments on behalf of theParish Council’s Group by the Land & Development Practice (LDP) onthe ‘further and other environmental information’;• A response, dated 25 September 2012, to the comment on behalf of theParish Councils’ Group by Eunomia on WRATE;• A response, dated 25 September 2012, to the point by point analysismade on behalf of the Parish Councils’ Group and response to theSupplementary Planning Statement submitted within the ‘further andother environmental information’; and,• A response, dated 25 September 2012 to the comments on behalf of theParish Council’s Group by TPM Landscape Ltd.Environmental Impact Assessment3.125 Due to the nature of the proposal, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)is required under the relevant legislation; the Town and Country Planning(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011.This is the whole process whereby information about the estimatedenvironmental effects of a project is collected, assessed and mitigationmeasures proposed. The Environmental Statement submitted by theapplicant sets out the developer's own assessment of the project’s likelyenvironmental effects. The assessment process by the County PlanningAuthority involves consulting the public and statutory consultees about theperceived environmental effects of the development.31NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/31

3.126 Prior to the formal submission of the application in September 2011 andsubsequent validation by the County Planning Authority the following month,the proposed development of the AWRP proposal had been the subject of aformal Scoping Opinion request made on behalf of the applicant. Thisrequest, received in June 2010, was accompanied by a Scoping Reportcommissioned on behalf of the applicant. The Scoping Report set down theapplicant’s proposals on how the intended Environmental Impact Assessmentwas to be undertaken and gave an opportunity for consultees and otherinterested parties to contribute to the environmental impact assessmentprocess. The County Planning Authority subsequently formally adopted aScoping Opinion on 18 November 2010.3.127 The Environmental Statement, accompanied by a Non-Technical Summary,includes an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on thefollowing:• Archaeology and Cultural Heritage (Chapter 3) - including;o a Baseline Evaluation relating to the historic setting of Allerton Parkand Castle;o A study of the historical background to Allerton Castle and Park;and,o An outline schedule of works and budget costs;• Landscape and Visual Impact (Chapter 4) – includingo A Plume Visibility Assessment; and,o Photomontages (32 no.)• Ecology and Nature Conservation (Chapter 5) – includingo A Phase 1 Habitat and ‘Protected Species’ Surveys;• Geology, Contaminated Land and Ground Stability (Chapter 6) –including:o A Geotechnical Summary Report; and,o A Phase 1 and Phase 2 Ground Investigation Report;• Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Flood Risk (Chapter 7) – includingo A Flood Risk Assessment; and,o A Drainage Strategy;• Noise and Vibration (Chapter 8) – including:o Noise Monitoring Data;• External Lighting (Chapter 9);• Air Quality (including Dust and Odour) (Chapter 10) – including:o A Baseline Air Quality Summary Report• Traffic and Transport (Chapter 11) – including:o A Transport Assessment; and,o A Travel Plan.• Human Health (Chapter 12) including:o A Human Health Risk Assessment.• Socio-economic (Chapter 13); and• Grid connection (Chapter 14).3.128 The consideration of alternative sites and technology (Chapter 16) was alsoexamined in the Environmental Statement.32NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/32

Further environmental information3.129 Further environmental information arising from a request of the CountyPlanning Authority (in a letter dated 28 February 2012) under Regulation 22 ofthe Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England) Regulations 2011, together with an updated Non-TechnicalSummary (dated June 2012) was received and duly advertised and consultedupon in July 2012.3.130 The County Planning Authority, in its letter of 28 February 2012 had made thefollowing requests for information:• A plan to identify all of those buildings which are to be bound by theproposed planning obligations (agreements or undertakings underSection 106) and the land upon which they are situated;• A understanding of what the Management Plan will do;• Address the absence of any interest in the land upon which the historicassets are situated which means the applicant cannot covenant toconserve or repair those assets;• the landowner(s) of, or those with an interest in, the historic assets mustalso make the covenant(s) to conserve, repair etc. and provide access tothe land upon which they are situate;• the monetary sum of the LCHF must be provided;• both lorry routing and off-site landscaping should be subjects of anyS106 Legal Agreement;• the basis upon which the County Planning Authority may be satisfied thatthe energy efficiency of the EfW plant will exceed 0.65 as required by theEC 2008 Waste Framework Directive, Annex II R1;• explanation as to how the inclusion of Commercial & Industrial wastesatisfies the requirements of the aforementioned Directive dedicated toMSW waste;• provision of a bond through a S106 legal agreement (to be indexed) forde-commissioning;• provision of information/drawings relating to the overlap of land betweenthe proposed application site and adjacent active landfill site andprovision of an update with respect to the submission of an application tothe Environment Agency for an Environmental Permit as indicated in theapplication details;• an understanding of how the withdrawal of LATS (Landfill AllowanceTrading Scheme) in 2012/13 impacts upon the proposed development;• an understanding of how the possible commercial restrictions on PFImay affect the sustainability assessment carried out by the applicant;• a different baseline year to 2015 in the WRATE analysis to be provided,together with an energy mix of 2030 and further comparables• additional information to address the shortfalls, previously identified, inrespect of the ecology and landscape mitigation;• information concerning the origin of the 82 metres AOD re-instatementheight of Sand Hill and the materials mix for this re-instatement;• confirmation whether Claro House has been vacated; and,• clarification required with regard to building dimensions.33NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/33

3.131 A letter from the applicant providing interim information (in response to theCounty Planning Authority’s letter) is dated 30 April 2012 and the followingdocuments, submitted on 21 June 2012, comprised the full response (in twoparts, Part A and Part B) to the Planning Authority’s requested information:• Part A – Supplementary Planning Statement:o Appendix A1 - Statement of Community Involvement;o Appendix A2 - Policy documents replaced by the NPPF;o Appendix A3 - Heads of Terms• Part B – Additional Environmental Information:o Appendix B1 – Letter from NYCC dated 28 February 2012;o Appendix B2 – Interim Response to NYCC’s lettero Appendix B3 – Memorandum from Fichtner Consultingo Appendix B4 – WRATE Model Update Report - Fichtnero Appendix B5 – WRATE Model Report - Fichtner Consultingo Appendix B6 – Landscape Management Strategyo Appendix B7 – Updated Chapter 5 Ecology & Nature Conservationo Appendix B8 – Updated Phase 1 Habitat Survey – April 2012o Appendix B9 – Bat Protection and Mitigation Plan – May 2012o Appendix B10 – Cut/Fill Sectionso Appendix B11 – PIA data analysiso Appendix B12 – A168/A59 Proposed arrangementso Appendix B13 – Additional Air Quality Assessmento Appendix B14 – Boundary Sections for EAo Appendix B15 – Travel Plano Appendix B16 – Correspondence from NYCC CS & YWT;o Appendix B17 – Revised Drawingso Appendix B18 – Letter from NYCC Estates (dated 1 June 2012)o Appendix B19 – Letter from Allerton Park EstateTime period for determination of the application3.132 The time period in which to determine the application has been extended byagreement with the applicant beyond the statutory 16-week period (whichexpired on 1 February 2012) to the current agreed period to 31 October 2012.4.0 CONSULTATIONS4.1 As required by regulation including the Town and Country Planning(Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010, formalconsultation has been undertaken with consultation bodies, agencies andorganisations. Whilst the responses to consultation are not reproduced in fullwithin this report, copies of all responses received (but not those received asa result of public notification or advertisement) are available on the CountyCouncil’s Online Planning Register. They can be found using the followingweb link:https://onlineplanningregister.northyorks.gov.uk/register/PlanAppDisp.aspx?recno=812434NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/34

4.2 Other non-statutory consultations have also been undertaken by the CountyPlanning Authority during the processing of this application and the responsesreceived are also reported here in this section of the report. Again, these arealso available using the aforementioned web link.4.3 There have been two periods of formal consultation undertaken by the CountyPlanning Authority. The first, upon the application as submitted in September2011 and, the second, upon the receipt of ‘further and other environmentalinformation’ from the applicant on 21 June 2012.The District, Borough, Unitary and National Park Authorities consulted:Harrogate Borough Council - Planning:4.4 The Planning Department responded to the initial consultation on 24 February2012, conveying that the Borough Council’s Planning Committee had resolvedto strongly object to the application stating:“The proposal is considered to be contrary to Harrogate Borough Council’sCore Strategy Policy (CS), Local Plan Policy (LP) and National PlanningPolicy in respect of the following points:i) adverse impact on Allerton Park both the buildings and the grounds(PPS 5 and LPHD7A) fromii) the mass and scale as proposed (CSSG4 and LPHD20) which inaddition to the heritage impact also contributes to the following pointiii) adverse impact on the countryside (LPC2, CSSG3, CSEQ2)iv) concerns over highway issues (CSTRA1 and CSEQ1)v) information in the planning application is inadequate particularly inrelation to the impacts on the landscape and adjacent heritage asset”.4.5 “Members also expressed concern about the following issues:i) the siting of the incinerator may not be the most appropriate to makebest use of the heat and/or power generated;ii)the need for an incinerator had not been proven or be shown to be likelyto subsist into the future;iii) concern as to whether the private finance initiative was the mostappropriate mechanism to deliver this project or a reduced scheme(although it was recognised this was not strictly a planningconsideration);iv)concern over toxic fumes.”4.6 The views of the Borough Council on the ‘further and other environmentalinformation’ received from the applicant were sought by the County Council on11 July 2012. The Borough Council’s response, dated 12 September 2012,stated:“they have an Objection with Observations…The Council have considered thesupplementary and additional information but conclude that it does notovercome the strong objections outlined in the response to the County Councilof 24 February 2012 and the Borough Council request that these strongobjections are taken fully into account when considering the planningapplication.35NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/35

In addition members considered that:1) the landscape impact would not be mitigated by the monetarycontribution and there was a failure to fully consider the HarrogateLandscape Character Assessment;2) whilst local consultation had been undertaken the information provideddid not show that sufficient consideration has been given to local views,contrary to advice in the NPPF, and there was no recognition of thestrong local opposition to the development;3) insufficient consideration had been given to the impact of trafficmovements generated by the development to the Air QualityManagement Areas particularly that at the Bond End junction inKnaresborough and the potential implications should traffic use theWoodlands junction in Harrogate as an alternative route when thatjunction, too, was an area for Air Quality Management due to the currentvolume of traffic; and,4) the overall proposal is not considered to be a sustainable one due to theamount of traffic generated to serve it, initially for domestic waste butalso for commercial/trade waste disposal in the medium/long term, andthe distance that traffic would have to travel not only within the Countybut potentially from beyond the County boundaries to keep the plantgoing and the case to justify reduction in green-house gases was notconsidered to be made and members took the view that it was likely thatthe proposed development would create as much as the same amount ofwaste to landfill, in addition to the disbenefits of so many trafficmovements over potentially long distances”.Harrogate Borough Council - Conservation and Design Officer:4.7 On 1 February 2012, the Conservation and Design Officer responded toHarrogate Borough Council’s Development Control internal consultation. Thefollowing is a summary of that Officer’s response:4.8 With reference to the Cultural Heritage Chapter of the planning submission,the Assessment of the impact of AWRP on the setting of Allerton Park hasbeen based on a year 1 and year 15 analysis, whilst the impact on all otherheritage assets has been assessed at year 15.4.9 The Officer also highlighted what are, in the Officer’s view, omissions in theapplication:• The EIA Cultural Heritage chapter appears to omit an Options Appraisalto justify the site selection or the reasons why alternative sites, which donot have an impact on the historic environment, have been discounted;• Height or scale data should be included on all of the drawings;• The Council’s Scoping Opinion identified a list of potential visualreceptors, some of which do not appear to have been considered and/ordiscounted;• Detailed proposals for off-site mitigation have been omitted and will needto be fully clarified to demonstrate that adverse impacts on the culturalheritage and individual heritage assets in the vicinity have beendiminished;36NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/36

• Details of the scope and operation of the ‘Landscape and CulturalHeritage Fund’ (LCHF) are not disclosed. It is unclear how the Fundwould be allocated, what the eligibility criteria for funding would be, overwhat time frame etc. These parameters and the financial benefits of theLCHF need to be defined. Omission of this information impedesassessment of the effectiveness of the LCHF in mitigating andcompensating any adverse effects arising from the proposeddevelopment. A legal agreement should set out the terms of referencefor the LCHF;• A comprehensive Heritage Management Plan should be producedcovering designated and undesignated heritage assets in the immediatelocality (condition to be applied).4.10 The Conservation and Design Officer accepts that conservation works toheritage assets to mitigate the adverse effects of the proposal is a means ofoff-setting the harm and better revealing the significance of the heritageassets. The conservation repairs to built heritage assets detailed in theMorton Partnership Report [this accompanied the application] and Schedule ofWorks should be secured through a Legal Agreement and should becompleted prior to the opening of the AWRP.Harrogate Borough Council - Principal Landscape Architect4.11 On 13 December 2011 the Principal Landscape Architect responded toHarrogate Borough Council’s Development Control internal consultation. ThePrincipal Landscape Architect highlighted a number of omissions from theLandscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) which require furthersubmissions for consideration. With regard to the “Landscape and CulturalHeritage Fund” (LCHF) the Principal Landscape Architect states:“it is a welcomed and acceptable form of mitigation in principle and has beenthe subject of on-going pre-application discussions and it is a very positivemove forward in terms of the Council’s aspirations for the protection andenhancement of landscape character as a whole”.Harrogate Borough Council - Emergency Planning Unit4.12 No response had been received at the time of publication of this report.Should any comments be received thereafter, they will be reported orally atthe meeting.Harrogate Borough Council - Environmental Health Officer (EHO)4.13 The EHO responded to the initial consultation on 18 January 2012 and madethe following points in relation to the proposal.With regard to the noise assessment report provided as part of theEnvironmental Statement the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) concludesthat “calculated noise levels from the proposed development are predicted tohave a detrimental effect on the residents of South Farm during the night andweekend periods however for most of the remaining noise sensitive premisesin the vicinity there will be no or very limited detrimental effect. In order tominimise any noise to the residents of South Farm I recommend that should37NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/37

you be minded to approve that, as part of the detailed design stage, furtherwork be carried out as identified within the noise report and such to take intoaccount my comments in relation to background levels and the effect inparticular on the residents of South Farm”.4.14 The EHO recommends the imposition of five conditions in order to controlnoise and vibration during the preparatory, construction and decommissioningphases.4.15 In addition, the EHO recommends the inclusion of two conditions to controlexternal lighting during the preparatory, construction, operational anddecommissioning phases. With regard to the control of dust arising from thedevelopment during the preparatory, construction, operational anddecommissioning phases the EHO requests the inclusion of three conditionsand also one condition requiring the submission of a detailed odourassessment.4.16 With reference to Air Quality, the EHO notes that the proposed developmentwill require an Environmental Permit to be regulated by the EnvironmentAgency and that the emissions from the energy from waste plant will besubject to the requirements of the EU Waste Incineration Directive. The EHOhas considered the Air Quality Report and does not consider that there aresufficient grounds to recommend refusal. This is based upon the assessmentcarried out and comments further that a breach of the air quality objectives isunlikely. The EHO requests a condition is applied for the submission andapproval of a scheme for ambient air quality monitoring.4.17 With regard to contaminated land and landfill gas, the EHO notes that theidentified sources of contamination at the site are two former landfill sites aswell as the existing active landfill site adjacent to the application site and alsotwo fuel storage tanks.4.18 The EHO is aware of the Environment Agency’s observations that there is gasmigration from the existing and operating landfill site (WRG) that is likely toaffect the application site, gas monitoring and leachate monitoring beingrequired by that site’s Environmental Permit. The EHO also notes that WRGas part of their permit have agreed with the Environment Agency that theyreinstate containment engineering and control the landfill gas before thisdevelopment is constructed.4.19 The EHO recommends that gas mitigation measures are incorporated into thedesign of the proposal and buildings to prevent risk from landfill gas and alsothat the fuel storage tank understood to be buried below ground is removedas part of the development and disposed of according to best practice.4.20 The EHO states “As an A1 permitted process under the EnvironmentalPermitting Regulation 2010 a contamination report on the baselineassessment of contamination is required and this report fulfils thisrequirement. It concludes that contamination of the site will not result as aconsequence of this development (under normal operating conditions) and it38NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/38

is not anticipated that remediation of the site will be required at thedecommissioning stage. However evidence will be required to be submittedto demonstrate this”.Harrogate Borough Council – Building Control4.21 The Building Control Officer, on being consulted on the specific issue oflandfill gas migration, responded verbally on 13 September 2012 stating theissue would be a matter to be dealt with under Part C of relevant BuildingControl regulations.City of York Council - City Development Team:4.22 The City Development Team responded to the initial consultation on 16December 2011 to confirm they have no objections to the application.4.23 On 1 August 2012, the City of York Council responded to the consultation onthe ‘further and other environmental information’ submitted under Regulation22 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England) Regulations 2011 and confirmed that they have no furtherobservations to make in respect of the proposal.City of York Council - City Environmental Protection Team:4.24 The Team responded to the initial consultation on 15 November 2011 to statethat they are “currently in the process of developing a Low Emission Strategy(LES) which will aim to promote the uptake of low emission vehicles andtechnologies within the local area. With a view to expanding low emissionvehicle refuelling infrastructure in the region, it may be worthwhile to ask theapplicant to submit a statement on potential opportunities to expand theoperation of the Anaerobic Digestion facility, into the production of biomethanefor fuel. City of York Council would be interested to see any furtherinformation on bio-methane production, should this information be submittedin support the current planning application”.Ryedale District Council (Planning)4.25 The Council responded to the initial consultation on 3 February 2012 toconfirm that the Council has no comments to make on the application.Craven District Council (Planning)4.26 No response had been received at the time of publication of this report.Should any comments be received thereafter, they will be reported orally atthe meeting.Scarborough Borough Council (Planning)4.27 The Council responded to the initial consultation on 21 February 2012 toconfirm that the Council has no comments to make on the application.Richmondshire District Council (Planning)4.28 No response had been received at the time of publication of this report.Should any comments be received thereafter, they will be reported orally atthe meeting.39NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/39

Selby District Council (Planning)4.29 The Council responded to the initial consultation on 7 November 2011 toconfirm that the Council has no comments to make on the application.Hambleton District Council (Planning)4.30 No response had been received at the time of publication of this report.Should any comments be received thereafter, they will be reported orally atthe meeting.Leeds City Council4.31 No response had been received at the time of publication of this report.Should any comments be received thereafter, they will be reported orally atthe meeting.North York Moors National Park Authority4.32 The Park Authority responded to the initial consultation on 29 November 2011to confirm that the Authority has no objections to the application.Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority4.33 The Park Authority responded to the initial consultation on 2 February 2012 toconfirm that the Authority has no comments to make on the application.The Parish Councils consulted on the application by the County Council:4.34 It should be noted that during the processing of this application, a number ofParish Councils have joined together in the submission of their responses toconsultation. They are collectively known as the ‘Parish Councils’ Group’.The comments of the Group have been conveyed to the County Council bythe Chairman of the Marton-cum-Grafton Parish Council on behalf of theGroup. However, where the each Parish Council has made separatecomments to the County Council, these are reported here, in summary, in thissection of the report. To avoid repetition, the Group comments are provided,in summary, within the comments from Marton-cum-Grafton Parish Councilbelow. The Parish Councils’ Group comprises:• Marton-cum-Grafton Parish Council;• Arkendale, Coneythorpe & Clareton Parish Council;• Bilton in Ainsty with Bickerton Parish Council;• Tockwith with Wilstrop Parish Council;• Whixley Parish Council;• Goldsborough & Flaxby Grouped Parish Council;• Green Hammerton Parish Council;• Little Ouseburn Parish Council; and,• Dunsforth Parish Meeting.Marton-cum-Grafton Parish Council4.35 The Parish Council submitted a holding objection on 16 December 2011 inresponse to the initial consultation which includes 17 summarised reasons fortheir objection.40NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/40

4.36 The Parish Council responded in full to the initial consultation on 31 January2012 in a set of documents which contained detailed additions fromconsultants commissioned by the Parish Councils’ Group, namely, the Landand Development Practice (LDP) (planning consultancy) and TPM LandscapeLtd (landscape architecture and environmental consultancy). There are 6parts to this specific response, namely:1. Response to the AWRP Planning Statement;2. Objection to AWRP Planning Application;3. Why AWRP will cause harm;4. Landscape and Visual Impact;5. Why AWRP mitigation fails; and,6. Why the AWRP application fails to demonstrate ‘need’.4.37 The following paragraphs provide extracts from the documents andsummarised points.4.38 In its covering letter, the Parish Council states: “We have not previouslyobjected to a single planning application for waste treatment or disposal atAllerton Park, nor are we in principle opposed to an appropriate treatmentfacility being located on this site. We recognise that there is a need to divertwaste from landfill. Our objections are predicated on ensuring an optimumsolution to the waste problem is found that is sustainable in economic andenvironmental terms for the next 25 years. Notwithstanding the above, weobject strongly to the AWRP proposal and request that planning permission isrefused”.4.39 The Parish Council’s covering letter also states: “This is because: theapplication is contrary to EU, National and District Planning Policies; it willcause harm to the environment, to the economy and to sustainability; thatharm cannot be mitigated; and the applicant fails to prove a need thatoverrides the harm”.4.40 The Parish Council highlighted (again in its covering letter) the following sixbullet-pointed comments:• “The choice of a single site to treat all of North Yorkshire’s waste makesno sense given this is the largest rural county in England”.• “There are alternative sites, dismissed by the applicant that could beused to better meet the strategic needs of NYCC/CYC. The York Cityarea is the largest waste producer yet sites within this area are excludedwithout proper justification. This includes the former British SugarFactory (site 041), which is well located to receive waste from York,Scarborough, Thirsk and Northallerton and has options for CombinedHeat and Power. Other sites not properly assessed include BurnAirfield”.• “AWRP would be a massive industrial development in the opencountryside, resulting in major adverse landscape and visual impactsthat cannot be mitigated”.• “The AWRP site has no CHP potential. It will therefore haveunnecessary adverse climate impacts that could be avoided”.41NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/41

• “AWRP is premature and undermines the developing Core WasteStrategy, which sets the strategic case for the “where”, the “how” and the“when” with regard to waste treatment in NYCC/CYC”.• “AWRP will increase traffic flows across the county, including at thealready dangerous A59/A168 junction”.4.41 Within the Parish Council’s ‘Summary of Grounds for Objection’, contained inits covering letter, the Parish Council highlights four specific grounds, namely,• The AWRP is contrary to planning policies within the StatutoryDevelopment Plan;• The proposal will cause harm;• The harm caused by AWRP cannot be mitigated; and,• The applicant fails to demonstrate a need that outweighs the harm theproposal will cause.Each of these grounds can be found summarised in the paragraphs thatfollow.4.42 The AWRP is contrary to planning policies within the Statutory DevelopmentPlan:The Waste Local Plan (NYWLP) is the statutory policy document for wastemanagement planning in North Yorkshire. Policy 4/1 is the main locationalpolicy, the proposal in seeking to establish a large industrial facility in the opencountryside that is not sympathetic to the landscape character and whichcannot be effectively screened therefore is contrary to the criterion of Policy4/1.4.43 “Policy 4/1…requires it to be demonstrated that the proposal represents theBest Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) and that the location accordswith the proximity principle. The BPEO means communities “taking moreresponsibilities for their own waste and enabling waste to be recovered at thenearest appropriate installation by means of the most appropriate methodsand technologies (PPS10)”.4.44 “AWRP fails NYWLP Policy 5/3 and 5/10 (and ENV14) because the site is not“within an existing, former or proposed industrial area of a characterappropriate to the development” and is not “located on land formerly occupiedby waste management facilities of a character appropriate to thedevelopment”.4.45 “AWRP fails policy E8 of the Harrogate Core Strategy, which states thecircumstances where new industrial and business development will bepermitted. No encouragement is given to large scale developments in thecountryside like AWRP, which are unrelated to the existing settlement patternand would significantly impact on the character, appearance and amenity ofan area”.42NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/42

4.46 “AWRP fails Policies HD7A, HD20 and R11 that deal with landscape andvisual impacts on historic parks and gardens, and impacts on rights of way.The scheme will adversely affect the character and setting of Allerton Parkand Allerton Castle; a Grade 1 listed building, and will make an adversecontribution to the landscape and visual amenity within a radius of at least 5km from the application site. The buildings and chimney will be visible from alarge number of receptors up to 20 km distance including the ConservationAreas of Arkendale and Marton cum Grafton, and from the Hambledon Hills.4.47 “Policy HD20 states that proposals should be respectful of and fit in with locallandscape and built form, and that “Development which is contrary to thesedesign principles will not be permitted”. AWRP fails HD20. The comments ofCABE that the “curved design of the building fits well into the surroundings” ismisleading and carries little weight”.4.48 “Policies SG3 and SG4 relate to settlement growth and conservation of thecountryside. SG3 emphasises protecting the countryside from inappropriatedevelopment and favours small scale development. SG4 states that alldevelopment in the district should be well integrated with, and complementaryto, neighbouring buildings and the spatial qualities of the local area and beappropriate to the form and character of the settlement and/or landscapecharacter. AWRP fails both SG3 and SG4 for the reasons outlined in theparagraph above. AWRP is also contrary to Policy EQ2 that seeks to “protectthe high quality of the landscape which is important to the setting of the townsof Harrogate, Knaresborough and Ripon”.4.49 “The Visitor Centre is an ineffective means to raise awareness of recycling.AWRP will incinerate 85% of the waste it receives and will not help tomeaningfully increase recycling levels. Indeed, a more efficient means topromote ‘reduce, re-use, and recycle’ would be to take that message to thecommunities and centres where the most waste is produced. A Visitor Centrein the open countryside beyond the reach of public transport fails in thisregard”.4.50 “The applicant refers to supplementary guidance in PPS1 (Paragraph 20)which states: “planning authorities should: not require applicants for energydevelopment to demonstrate either the overall need for renewable energy andits distribution, nor question the energy justification for why a proposal forsuch development must be sited in a particular location”. However, this doesnot apply to AWRP. This is because the AWRP proposal is, first andforemost, concerned with the disposal of waste and not the development ofrenewable energy. PPS1 in this regard is concerned mainly with genuinelyrenewable forms of energy, like wind and solar. The applicant must thereforedemonstrate why this particular technology is suitable for this location and inthis regard he fails”.43NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/43

4.51 The Parish Council considers that AWRP will cause long-term harm over awide area in several ways and is contrary to a number of policies:Sustainability:“The applicant fails the Brundtland Commission definition ofsustainability as: “development that meets the needs of the presentwithout compromising the ability of future generations to meet their ownneeds”. The 25 to 30 year contract will fundamentally compromise theability of future generations to meet their needs. They will not be able tochange to respond to future changes in legislation, technology, recyclingor cost. The incinerator dominates the facility in cost and treatmentvolumes and, once built, cannot be reduced in size”.4.52 Landscape and visual harm:“AWRP will not protect the landscape character of the district and fails toincorporate the required high quality, locally distinctive design (it failsPolicy EQ2). The scheme does not enhance the local landscapecharacter and is not compatible with the local landscape in terms of itsscale (it fails the NYWLP Policy 4/3). There would be “significant visualimpacts from public rights of way and an unacceptable impact onrecreational amenity (it fails NYWLP Policy 4/20 and R11)”.“AWRP will adversely affect the character and setting of Allerton Parkthrough landscape and visual effects (it fails HD7A). It fails HD20because of the adverse contribution to the landscape and visual amenityand the disproportionate scale, proportions and height compared toneighbouring properties and the general landscape setting”.“AWRP is contrary to recommendations in the relevant Harrogate DistrictLandscape Assessments. Guidelines for Area 68 seek to “Protect thesetting of Allerton Park” and notes that “The capacity of the landscape toaccept further change without detriment to its character and the settingof Allerton Park is limited”. Area 68 states that “New development alongthis (A1(M)) corridor will further conflict with the character of thesurrounding landscape and add discord”. Area 91 recommends “Resistlarge scale development not sensitive to the openness of the area.Development in prominent locations will be a focal point and bringdiscord to the landscape pattern”. Area 90 states “Large scaledevelopment along the A168 and A1(M) corridor should be resisted”.4.53 Pollution and climate harm:“AWRP would cause adverse climate change impacts throughgreenhouse gas emissions (GHG) that would be reduced by usingalternative technologies. AWRP is located in the open countryside andalthough it could recover 200,000MWh of heat from the Energy fromWaste process, this heat cannot be used”.44NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/44

4.54 Financial harm:“This project will cause harm to the people of NYCC and CYC who willhave to meet the £1.4 billion cost of this PFI contract and underwrite theproject risk. We understand the gate fee charged will be £65 per tonnemore than the current market price for black bag disposal. This amountsto a colossal overpayment over the life of the contract. Over £400 millionof the £1.4 billion contract is for interest repayments. AWRP will harmsmall, Yorkshire owned, firms because its monopoly position would beunchallengeable for 25 years”.“Financial harm could be mitigated by using less expensive systems.We have detailed previously the MBT scheme used by DarlingtonCouncil, which is cheaper and more flexible than that proposed at AWRPand can meet the target to reduce waste to landfill. It could be replicatedat one or more sites and the small amount of residual waste eitherlandfilled or disposed of via an existing facility (such as that atFerrybridge). Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham Councils areembarking on a similar MBT solution to handle 260,000 tonnes of wasteper annum at a total cost of circa £0.7 billion over 25 years, with theirresidual waste going to Ferrybridge”.4.55 The harm caused by AWRP cannot be mitigated:“None of the so-called mitigation measures reduce, mask or change thevisual and landscape harm to the immediate and distant landscapecaused by an alien structure in what is otherwise open countryside. Theproposed Section 106 Agreements are irrelevant and deficient in scopeand impact to offset this harm. The £1 million in compensation will gosolely to the owner of Allerton Park and will not benefit the widercommunity. The proposal to repair six small monuments and a boundarywall provide no effective mitigation to the general public who have little orno access to these. The proposed Community Heritage Fund isinadequately specified and we fail to see why members of the publicshould be required to apply for funds so they can mitigate the impacts ofAWRP when this is the responsibility of the applicant”.4.56 The applicant fails to demonstrate a need that outweighs the harm theproposal will cause:“The applicant fails to provide a business case, despite a significantcomponent of the scheme being funded and underwritten by publicmoney. There is a strong public interest case for contract disclosure,mindful that the contract has now been signed. Without disclosure, it isimpossible for the applicant to financially justify the proposed technology,nor compare it to others that are available. Without details, the financial‘need’ cannot be given any weight.“The applicant seeks to justify the need for the facility because it is a‘green’ facility that will recover energy and resources in a sustainablemanner. This is simply not true. Over 85% of the waste entering AWRPwill be burnt using an inefficient technology that wastes heat. Largevolumes of commercial and industrial waste will go straight into the45NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/45

incinerator without any effort at recycling. The Mechanical Treatment(MT) facility will only guarantee to recover 5% additional recyclates.Government guidance makes it clear that waste is a valuable commodityto be re-used, recycled and recovered and only then, if all else fails,disposed of by the most efficient form of EfW”.“The applicant fails to justify the size of the facility and exaggerates theprojections of future waste volumes. The applicant provides noargument to support their waste forecasts – it is their role to do so sincethey are applying for this facility and not NYCC”.4.57 In conclusion “we object to the AWRP proposal because it is contrary to EU,National and District Planning Policies; it will cause harm to the environmentto the economy and to sustainability; that harm cannot be mitigated; and theapplicant fails to prove a need that overrides the harm”.4.58 On 8 August 2012, the Parish Council submitted a holding response to theconsultation on the ‘further and other environmental information’ submittedunder Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (EnvironmentalImpact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2011. The Parish Council statedthat they intended to submit a final submission on behalf of the ParishCouncils’ Group.4.59 In the holding response, the Parish Council stated that their response would“include comments on the landscape impacts and associated mitigationmeasures (the S106 proposals), the “need” case in light of the revised wastevolume predictions by NYCC, as well as a further assessment of theenvironmental impacts of the scheme in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.The latter will include an independent assessment of the WRATE model usedby AmeyCespa along the lines that we previously recommended”.4.60 The Parish Council, in its response on 8 August 2012 also provided a further6-page document entitled ‘Response to the National Planning PolicyFramework’ in the context of the AWRP planning application.4.61 On the 17 September 2012, the County Council received the Parish Council’sfull response to consultation on the submitted ‘further and other environmentalinformation’ under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2011. The ParishCouncil submitted a further set of papers which contained detailed additionaldocuments from consultants, namely, the Land and Development Practice(LDP), TPM Landscape Ltd and Eunomia Research & Consulting on behalf ofthe Parish Councils’ Group. On this occasion, the submission contained eightparts in addition to the covering letter from the Chair of Marton-cum-GraftonParish Council on behalf of the Parish Councils’ Group. Those parts comprise:• Part 1 Response to the National Planning Policy Framework by Martoncum-GraftonParish Council (September 2012);• Part 2 Comment on additional information provided in support of AWRP(document prepared by LDP);46NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/46

• Part 3 Summary of the technical reports produced by Eunomia;• Part 4 Review of Waste Availability Modelling for the AWRP (producedby Eunomia);• Part 5 WRATE analysis of AWRP (produced by Eunomia);• Part 6 Further report on additional information (produced by TPMLandscape);• Part 7 Detailed rebuttal of the applicant’s Supplementary PlanningStatement; and,• Part 8 Correspondence between Marton-cum-Grafton Parish Counciland the County Council on revised waste forecasts.4.62 The following provides extracts from the documentation and summarisedpoints.4.63 “The further material submitted in the Supplementary Planning Statementdoes not present any substantive new information that would counter theobjections presented in our previous submissions. Indeed, it fails to answerthem”.4.64 “The Supplementary Planning Statement appears to be an attempt to harnesswords from the NPPF and other government publications to give theimpression that the proposed AWRP would satisfy all government policies, themost important of which is the requirement for sustainability”.4.65 “Our objections are predicated on ensuring that an optimum solution to thewaste problem is found that is sustainable in economic and environmentalterms for the next 25 years”.4.66 Objections relating to the claimed need and claimed economic benefits:• “The applicant does not provide a business case, justifying AWRP’sscale by a single waste contract with NYCC/CYC, the full content ofwhich is not disclosed”;• A report commissioned from Eunomia shows that important assumptionsin this contract, and hence the claimed ‘need’ for this facility, are open toserious challenge;• “The applicant claims that the facility is scaled such that it can dispose ofNYCC/CYC residual municipal waste, with a small and decreasingcomponent of trade waste. To the contrary, Eunomia state that thefacility is significantly over-sized from day one of the contract and thatthis will get worse, year-on-year”;• “Because of these shortfalls, AWRP needs very large volumes of nonLAC trade waste to operate at capacity. We challenge that the facilityqualifies as an R1 facility on this basis”;• “The applicant’s claims regarding the accessibility of large volumes oftrade waste in the region lack any evidence base”;• “The reliance on trade waste collected by other agents will not counttowards the Guaranteed Minimum Tonnage. Eunomia identify this as asignificant project risk”;47NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/47

• “Without a business case, we are being denied fair and proper access toinformation that goes to the heart of this application”;• “The applicant relies on a broad argument that NYCC must grantplanning permission because it has to choose between an unrealistic “donothing option” or embracing the applicant’s proposals”.4.67 Objections on environmental grounds:• “Eunomia shows that AWRP will not deliver NYCC recycling targets.Increased reliance on trade waste from non LAC sources will not countto recycling targets. AWRP is not future-proofed against this risk”;• “Eunomia show that the MT and AD raise recycling rates by only a verysmall percentage, making a negligible contribution to the claimedenvironmental benefits of the scheme”;• “By burning so much waste, AWRP does not meet the requirement totreat waste as high up the waste hierarchy as possible”;• “The applicant continues to claim that it is “CHP ready” but this ismisleading on two accounts: Firstly, no conditions can be imposed uponthe grant of planning permission that could guarantee future use for theheat output from the plant. Secondly, the location of the plant in theopen countryside, far removed from other current or possible futureoutlets for heat, dictate that this plant could never satisfy thoserequirements”.4.68 Objections to the adverse climate change impact of AWRP:• “The applicant claims that AWRP will “minimise greenhouse gasemissions and provide a managed response to the effects of climatechange”. We dispute this”;• A review of the WRATE analysis accompanying the application, byEunomia, validates and significantly strengthens previous concerns;• “The applicant claims that AWRP will result in a net saving of c. 114,200tonnes of CO 2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) compared with landfill”;• “Eunomia show that the assumed waste composition used byAmeyCespa – which is based on data from 2006/7 - is not representativeof residual waste today, nor will it represent correctly the wastecomposition to be treated throughout the duration of the contract”;• “Using more appropriate modelling assumptions, Eunomia compareAWRP to four other market-proven waste solutions against landfill. Theyconclude that AWRP performs worse than all other options, includinglandfill. Thus, AWRP will significantly increase the carbon and climateimpacts of waste disposal – not reduce them as claimed”.4.69 Objections to claims made by AWRP regarding societal benefits:• “AWRP claims it will meet the needs of present and future generations.We disagree. We think it will deny generations their right to determineenvironmentally and financially more sustainable approaches to wastemanagement that are higher up the waste hierarchy than incineration;• AWRP claims that through education it will achieve a “step change” inenabling society to become locally responsible. It will not;48NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/48

• There is absolutely no evidence that a visitor centre, located miles fromanywhere and with no public transport, will somehow educate peoplewhen in fact the facility is a massive incinerator that wastes resourcesand creates more carbon pollution than landfill”.4.70 Objections to claims made by AWRP regarding transport:• “AWRP have still not provided an adequate travel plan;• There is not a single map that shows the routes that waste vehicles willtake to reach and leave the site;• The applicant fails to address the increased danger at the A59/A168junction and on the A59”.4.71 Objections to claims made by AWRP regarding the abolition of LATS:• “LATS has been an integral part of the planning for the proposed facilityand the scheme’s abolition is highly significant;• The abolition of LATS removes that double risk and with it the Councilsshould be adopting a much more realistic approach to risk managementand hence facility size requirement;• The greater reliance on trade waste threatens achievement of recyclingtargets, and financial penalties through missed Guaranteed MinimumTonnage targets”.4.72 Objections to claims made by AWRP regarding decommissioning costs:• “AWRP has confirmed that it will not pay the costs of decommissioning.This is unacceptable to us. Nor will the applicant even attempt to quantifythe cost of decommissioning. This is a significant risk to the Council andrate payers. AWRP must be required to provide an appropriate bond”.Goldsborough & Flaxby Grouped Parish Council4.73 The Parish Council responded to the initial consultation on 7 December 2011stating:“The proposals are contrary to NYCC Saved Policy 4/1 of The Waste LocalPlan.a) the siting and the scale of the proposals are not appropriate to thelocation.b) the proposed method and scheme of working will not minimise theimpact of the proposals.c) there would be an unacceptable environmental impact.d) there would be an unacceptable cumulative impact on the local area(adverse visual, environmental and air quality).e) the landscaping and screening will not effectively mitigate the impact ofthe proposals. There will be a major adverse impact on the locallandscape character”.4.74 Furthermore, the Parish Council also raised a number of other points assummarised below:• This facility will be the wrong type of technology in the wrong place;• the facility will be too big and too expensive;49NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/49

• the Council should explore cheaper more environmentally friendlysolutions; and,• Allerton should form a major part of the Waste Core Strategy. The corestrategy must come first, and not be subject to any predetermined wastetreatment solution.4.75 The Parish Council raises objections on planning grounds including theadverse impact on the environment, traffic, pollution and visual aspects. Thefollowing is a summary of those concerns:• The proposals would create an unacceptable industrial scene in an areaof open countryside which is overlooked by the Grade 1 listed building atAllerton Castle, its Registered Gardens and The Temple of Victory;• Congestion, HGV traffic, increase in accidents;• The adverse visual impact of the smoke plume;• The photomontages are misleading and are taken from positions in dipsin the land or from behind trees rather than looking at the site acrossopen countryside;• The buildings will create an industrial landscape which is alien to thislandscape and the local settlement pattern;• The existing Planning Consents for this site are for it to be returned toopen countryside by 2018, so this Application conflicts with the existingPlanning permissions;• Pollution from the smoke stack will contaminate the local environmentand in due course these contaminants may well find their way into thefood chain;• Danger that during periods of heavy rain polluted run off from the site willenter the local watercourses and contaminate the Ouse Gill Beck.Overflows from the settlement lagoons will clearly find their way into thesurface drainage network; and,• The proposals will increase CO 2 emissions in the County. BothHarrogate and North Yorkshire Councils have targets for reducing CO 2emissions, these proposals fly in the face of those reduction targets.4.76 Supplemental comments were provided by the Parish Council on 24 January2012 in which further representations, specifically relating to landscape andtraffic and transport matters, were made. A separate 13-page documentrelating specifically to Traffic and Transportation is accompanied by acovering letter from the Parish Council dated 30 January 2012. This documentincluded representations in respect of:• delivering a sustainable transport system;• the Regional Spatial Strategy;• the North Yorkshire Local Transport Plan (LTP3);• the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan ‘saved’ Policy 4/18;• traffic impacts;• road safety;• congestion/queuing; and,• environment.50NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/50

4.77 On the 17 July 2012, the County Planning Authority received a copy of aConsultant’s Report commissioned by the Goldsborough and Flaxby GroupedParish Council. In an email received on 26 September 2012, the CountyCouncil was informed that the report had, in fact, been commissioned throughthe Goldsborough and Flaxby Grouped Parish Council, but on behalf of theParish Councils’ Group. The report was prepared by URS Infrastructure andEnvironment Limited. The purpose of the report was to review the TransportAssessment the accompanied the AWRP planning application and alsoChapter 11 of the Environmental Statement which also accompanied theplanning application.4.78 Again, in ensuring availability of information to view, the full URS Report isonline. However, in summary, the conclusions drawn are as follows. In theirview:• the traffic counts were conducted at the wrong time of year;• there are calculation inaccuracies;• there is an absence of validation of the PICADY junction modelling; and,• further accident analysis should be undertaken together with animprovement options study before any commencement of development.4.79 There is more detail with regard to the Highway Authority comments providedbelow within Section 4.0, paragraphs 4.151 to 4.157, under the sub-headingof ‘NYCC - Highway Authority’.4.80 The Goldsborough & Flaxby Grouped Parish Council is part signatory to thedocument submitted on behalf of the Parish Councils’ Group dated 31January 2012. For the purposes of this report the comments contained in thatdocument are described, in summary, in paragraphs 4.35 to 4.56 above.4.81 On 28 August 2012, Goldsborough & Flaxby Grouped Parish Councilresponded to consultation on the ‘further and other environmental information’submitted under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2011. The ParishCouncil state that the further information has reinforced the Parish Council’sstrong objection to the proposal. The Parish Council raises concerns that:• the mitigation fund to renovate structures would not benefit the localcommunity but only one individual and is not in the spirit of Section 106agreements; and,• the Road Traffic accident data is still inadequate and there is still noanalysis of the traffic impact on the A59 as a whole between York andKnaresborough. Furthermore, the recent grant of planning permissionsby the City of York Council means that the traffic flow projections usedby the applicant are out of date. The Parish Council has submittedphotographic evidence which they state shows there are problems withqueuing traffic on the A168/A59 junction;• due to the timing of the applicant’s survey their information on queuingtraffic is flawed and unreliable;• the acceptance of large amounts of ‘trade waste’ will generate anincrease in the number of daily HGV movements to the site;51NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/51

• the proposed Incinerator is far too large for the needs of treating thedomestic waste generated within North Yorkshire and this is confirmedby the fact the Council’s own Officers who have now revised the futurewaste projections substantially downwards, and suggesting that theshortfall will in future be made up from unknown sources of trade waste.The Parish Council further state that “in view of the established fact thatDomestic Waste volumes are declining and there is or will be more thansufficient capacity just outside the boundaries of North Yorkshire atplaces such as Ferrybridge, Teesside & West Yorkshire the need forAWRP cannot be substantiated”;• the applicant has not yet provided an appropriate Transport Assessment;and,• the proposed development fails to meet the requirements of the NPPF interms of the definition of sustainability.4.82 An additional response on behalf of the Goldsborough and Flaxby GroupedParish Council was submitted by the Chair of Marton-cum-Grafton ParishCouncil following consultation on the ‘further and other environmentalinformation’ submitted under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2011. Theadditional representation was received on 17 September 2012 and forms partof a suite of eight documents prepared on behalf of the Parish Councils’Group. For the purposes of this report, the comments contained in thosedocuments are described, in summary, in paragraphs 4.60 to 4.73 above.Arkendale, Coneythorpe & Clareton Parish Council4.83 The Parish Council responded to the initial consultation on 22 November 2011to object to the proposal. It considered that the proposal is the wrong solutionand went on to state that “There would be no objections from us if theproposal was Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) and anaerobic digestion(AD). This would fit in the landscape without the visual impact of the proposedincinerator”.4.84 The Parish Council raise concerns about the size of the facility, the impact ofincreased light and noise pollution, that it is not a sustainable option and thatemissions are contrary to national targets. Furthermore, the increase in trafficand size of vehicles proposed would increase the likelihood of accidents. TheParish Council believes there are more suitable alternatives and also that it isnot democratic for NYCC to be the instigator, proposer and decision maker ofthe planning application.4.85 The Arkendale, Coneythorpe & Clareton Parish Council is part signatory to thedocument submitted on behalf of the Parish Councils’ Group dated 31January 2012. For the purposes of this report the comments contained in thatdocument are described, in summary, in paragraphs 4.35 to 4.56 above.52NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/52

4.86 On 19 August 2012 the Parish Council responded to the consultation on the‘further and other environmental information’ submitted under Regulation 22 ofthe Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England) Regulations 2011 and confirmed that the documents fail “to provideany additional information to dispel our original concerns with regard to theactual need for the proposed facility and its impact on the surrounding area.Our objections stand to the proposal which continues to be for a huge alienindustrial plant in a rural landscape”.4.87 An additional response on behalf of the Arkendale, Coneythorpe & ClaretonParish Council was submitted by the Chair of Marton-cum-Grafton ParishCouncil following consultation on the ‘further and other environmentalinformation’ submitted under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2011. Theadditional representation was received on 17 September 2012 and forms partof a suite of eight documents prepared on behalf of the Parish Councils’Group. For the purposes of this report, the comments contained in thosedocuments are described, in summary, in paragraphs 4.60 to 4.73 above.Allerton Mauleverer with Hopperton Parish Meeting4.88 The Parish Council responded to the initial consultation on 24 November 2011to state that the Parish Council does not support the application. Their majorconcerns are as follows:• “NYCC does not have a Waste Core Strategy;• Such a development may in time allow other areas bordering theproposed site to be developed for either industrial or residential use;• The contract is for a substantial amount of money over 25 years soaffecting the next generation;• Increased recycling would be a preferred option;• The as yet unknown health concerns; and,• NYCC are both the end client and those assessing the planningapplication. Due to this conflict of interest the Parish Council believe itwould seem reasonable that the application be “called in” forindependent review.”4.89 On 31 July 2012, the Parish Council responded to the consultation on the‘further and other environmental information’ submitted under Regulation 22of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England) Regulations 2011. As well as reiterating their previously expressed,also expressed the concern that taxpayers’ money would be used to improveassets on private land and there would be a substantial increase in heavyhaulage traffic.Great Ouseburn Parish Council4.90 The Parish Council responded to the initial consultation on 23 November2011. The following is a summary of the concerns raised:53NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/53

4.91 Chimney stack and plume:• Disproportionately high creating a negative impact for miles around;• The average visible plume length is about 53m visible for half the dayand with maximum lengths of 300m; and,• The photomontages do not show any plumes. The plume is the mostvisible evidence of a chimney.4.92 Conservation Areas, Wildlife and Water – Particle Dispersal Harm:• Concern at the potential impact of the run off of toxins and silt from theplant entering into the sensitive local water system – the effect this wouldhave on the local wildlife conservation area;• No consideration has been given to the acidic nature of the gasesemitted and their impact on Listed buildings in the area;• Upper Dunsforth Carr is the nearest Site of Special Scientific Interest notSNCI; and,• There is a risk of pollution of Ouse Gill Beck by run-off from the siteespecially during construction and decommissioning of the facility.4.93 Construction / traffic impacts:• The junction of the A59 and A168 is already a traffic black spot and it isinadvisable to add to this existing problem and,• The extra number of vehicles originating from this application willincrease the likelihood of accidents at the junction of the A168 and A59.Staveley & Copgrove Parish Council4.94 The Parish Council responded to the initial consultation in a letter received on14 November 2011 to confirm the Parish Council strongly objects to theapplication for the following reasons:1. The site is situated in an agricultural area that produces dairy, arable,poultry and meat for human consumption. As such it is entirelyunsuitable for a waste incinerator project: the long term pollution andhealth effects from the chimney, with its toxic nanoparticles and otherpollutants, are unknown and may well be detrimental to futuregenerations. If this application is approved, NYCC will be putting itself atrisk of litigation for years to come, the costs of which will have to beborne by ratepayers.2. The scale of the development is of an industrial size which is totallyincompatible with the surrounding area. The nearest equivalent sizebuilding types are Ferrybridge, Drax and Eggborough power stationswhich are miles away.3. The plant is designed to produce heat and power to supply 22,000domestic houses or industry. However, the heat will only be used for theincinerator complex itself and the rest will be let into the atmosphere.The power has to go to a substation nearly a mile away in Coneythorpe.4. CO 2 emissions will compromise Harrogate Borough Council’s reductionof greenhouse gases by 2020. This also runs counter to National Policyon greenhouse gas emissions.5. Traffic will increase on the already saturated A59, which, with the size ofvehicles proposed, will increase the chance of accidents.54NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/54

6. The long term need for such a plant must be seriously questioned inview of the national trend in waste reduction, due to manufacturersreducing packing and the increased public awareness of recycling.Incineration capacity already exists and is predicted to be surplus by2015.7. An alternative system, such as the one currently being used inDarlington, would save NYCC capital expenditure and running costs of£13 million per annum for the 25 year period of the project. Thiscompares with the 1.4 billion which Allerton Park will cost over its 25years life. We are dismayed that NYCC seem to have made no effort toseriously consider such alternatives.Ferrensby Parish Council4.95 No response to either the initial consultation or the consultation relating to theadditional or further environmental information had been received at the timeof publication of this report. Should any comments be received thereafter,they will be reported orally at the meeting.Whixley Parish Council4.96 The Whixley Parish Council is part signatory to the document submitted onbehalf of the Parish Councils’ Group dated 31 January 2012. For thepurposes of this report the comments contained in that document aredescribed, in summary, in paragraphs 4.35 to 4.56 above.4.97 An additional response on behalf of the Whixley Parish Council was submittedby the Chair of Marton-cum-Grafton Parish Council following consultation onthe ‘further and other environmental information’ submitted under Regulation22 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England) Regulations 2011. The additional representation was received on17 September 2012 and forms part of a suite of eight documents prepared onbehalf of the Parish Councils’ Group. For the purposes of this report, thecomments contained in those documents are described, in summary, inparagraphs 4.60 to 4.73 above.Farnham Parish Meeting4.98 No response to either the initial consultation or the consultation relating to theadditional or further environmental information had been received at the timeof publication of this report. Should any comments be received thereafter,they will be reported orally at the meeting.The Parish of the Dunsforths4.99 They replied to the initial consultation on 26 January 2012. The following isthe conclusion of their 81-page objection to the application:“We contend that this proposed development is the wrong solution in thewrong place. NYCC’s aims to divert waste from landfill can be fulfilled by theright solution in the right places and, incidentally, at hugely reduced cost. Theproposed development FAILS to accord with policy guidance at every levelfrom the EU downwards and we contend that this application should berefused”.55NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/55

4.100 The Parish of the Dunsforths is part signatory to the document submitted onbehalf of the Parish Councils’ Group dated 31 January 2012. For thepurposes of this report, the comments contained in that document aredescribed, in summary, in paragraphs 4.35 to 4.56 above.4.101 An additional response on behalf of the Parish of the Dunsforths wassubmitted by the Chair of Marton-cum-Grafton Parish Council followingconsultation on the ‘further and other environmental information’ submittedunder Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (EnvironmentalImpact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2011. The additionalrepresentation was received on 17 September 2012 and forms part of a suiteof eight documents prepared on behalf of the Parish Councils’ Group. For thepurposes of this report, the comments contained in those documents aredescribed, in summary, in paragraphs 4.60 to 4.73 above.Cattal, Hunsingore & Walshford Parish Council4.102 The Parish Council responded to the initial consultation on 24 November 2011to state that it “strongly objects to this incinerator on the grounds that it ispotentially hazardous and is not, therefore, a viable proposition”. Thiscomprises their response and is therefore reported here in full.4.103 No response to the consultation on the ‘further and other environmentalinformation’ had been received at the time of publication of this report. Shouldany comments be received thereafter, they will be reported orally at themeeting.Boroughbridge Town Council4.104 The Town Council responded to the initial consultation on 16 December 2011to object to the application for the following reasons:1) “The traffic that would be generated on the local roads will make theA168/A1/ and A59 and local towns and villages difficult to use.2) The proposal is too large for the waste arising from Local Authority areasand in this current economic climate, no adequate safeguards areproposed for the escalating bills.3) Information was withheld due to alleged commercial confidentiality.4) Studies also show that emissions from incinerators increase rates ofdisease and deaths.5) This site would damage the environment and landscape”.4.105 No response to the consultation on the ‘further and other environmentalinformation’ had been received at the time of publication of this report. Shouldany comments be received thereafter, they will be reported orally at themeeting.Hutton le Hole Parish Council4.106 The Parish Council responded to the initial consultation on 2 February 2012 tostate that the Parish Council object to the application for the followingreasons:• The development is not the wisest way to spend tax payers money;• The proposed technology is outdated;56NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/56

• The development will not encourage recycling;• The proposed development represents a blot on the landscape;• The emissions represent a harm to the public’s health.4.107 No response to the consultation on the ‘further and other environmentalinformation’ had been received at the time of publication of this report. Shouldany comments be received thereafter, they will be reported orally at themeeting.Scriven Parish Council4.108 The Parish Council responded to the initial consultation on 15 December 2011to state that the Parish Council “welcomes greater recycling of waste”.However, the “present proposals at Allerton Park are a concern as they willgenerate additional traffic by heavy good vehicles through the Harrogate areawith "rat runs" through the adjoining villages on unsuitable rural roads”.4.109 The response also states that: “The site at Allerton Park as a waste sortingand associated recycling centre is not desirable but could be tolerated giventhat the site can be successfully visually screened. The present proposals gosome way to achieving this. However the incineration of waste left afterrecycling is totally unacceptable to the Council for five main reasons:1. The pollution over a wide area from the products of combustion;2. The very harmful visual impact of such a tall chimney and associatedsmoke/condensation plume in a predominately rural area;3. The visual impact of the means of distributing the electricity as theCouncil is not convinced by the promises of underground distributiongiven the size of the generating plant proposed;4. The presence of existing under utilized incineration facilities within areasonable travel distance rendering the proposed incineration facilitiesat Allerton Park superfluous;5. As waste management techniques improve the Council are concernedthat waste from outside North Yorkshire will be brought to the site fromother counties to ensure full utilization of the proposed incineration andgeneration capacity with the resulting very undesirable increase in heavygoods vehicle movements...”.4.110 No response to the consultation on the ‘further and other environmentalinformation’ had been received at the time of publication of this report. Shouldany comments be received thereafter, they will be reported orally at themeeting.Knaresborough Town Council4.111 The Town Council responded to the initial consultation on 8 December 2011to state that the Council objects to the application for the following reasons:1. The proposed scheme will cause serious harm to the visual amenity ofthe landscape.2. The long term pollution and health effects from the emission of toxicnanoparticles and other pollutants in an agricultural area are not knownand may be detrimental to health over an extended period. The57NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/57

emissions will be in an area of farmland producing various foodstuffs forhuman consumption.3. Traffic will be increased on the A59 from Knaresborough, the A168 andA1M. This will increase noise, pollution and the chance of collisions,especially at the motorway junction and the adjacent junction with theA168.4. All of the above problems are exacerbated by the huge size of thecomplex. Dealing with the waste for the whole of North Yorkshire on onesite is not the best option. Even for the vast area the plant is too largeand will probably lead to importing of waste from outside NorthYorkshire.5. An incinerator is not the best method for dealing with waste. Reusingand recycling should be the priority.6. The proposal will not maximise energy recovery from waste as there isno adjacent development to benefit from surplus heat and mayencourage further inappropriate industrial use of adjacent land in thefuture.7. This area of North Yorkshire is not industrial, but is an area of farmlandwith many villages containing housing, and the area benefits fromtourism. This proposal will make the area less attractive and this will bedetrimental to the local economy. This has been confirmed by Welcometo Yorkshire.8. The long term financial impact on the county of North Yorkshire will beexcessive and could be detrimental to other schemes.9. The financial expenditure on this development is unnecessary as thereare existing sites surrounding North Yorkshire that already have thecapacity to take this development on, which would therefore be cheaperfor the taxpayer.4.112 No response to the consultation on the ‘further and other environmentalinformation’ had been received at the time of publication of this report. Shouldany comments be received thereafter, they will be reported orally at themeeting.Walkingham Hill-with-Occaney Parish Council4.113 No response to either the initial consultation or the consultation relating to the‘further and other environmental information’ had been received at the time ofpublication of this report. Should any comments be received thereafter, theywill be reported orally at the meeting.Roecliffe & Westwick Parish Council4.114 On 24 February 2012, in response to the initial consultation, the ParishCouncil stated that they are “neither in favour nor against the proposal”.4.115 On 3 August 2012, in response to the consultation on the ‘further and otherenvironmental information’ submitted under Regulation 22 of the Town andCountry Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations2011, the Parish Council made the following comments:• Is Allerton Park incinerator really needed now that Ferrybridge PowerStation incinerates?; and,58NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/58

• The Council is against the proposed plans for Allerton Park based on theastronomical cost that will be incurred by NYCC (and all of us). Thereare much cheaper options such as those of the Darlington incinerator”.Myton on Swale Parish Meeting4.116 The Parish Council responded to the initial consultation on 4 February 2012 tostate that the Council has no comments to make on the application.Green Hammerton Parish Council4.117 The Parish Council responded to the initial consultation on 23 November 2011to state that the Parish Council objects to the application as follows:4.118 Consultation:NYCC have not carried out proper consultation project. The proposal waspresented as a ‘fait accompli’ without the county being aware of the costs orchoices. Under pressure, a few more meetings were held in usually remoteparishes during working hours so that few local councillors could attend. Amotion to debate the project was voted down mainly as being ‘a waste oftime’.4.119 Strategy:We have recently been consulted on core waste strategy for North Yorkshire.In the document we were asked to accept the incinerator as part of thestrategy. In fact the incinerator is the whole of the strategy and fundamentalto it. The inspector at the Dalton Incinerator enquiry said that NYCC did nothave a proper waste strategy and NYCC do not have one now. The lastproper consultation showed that people were in favour of local waste facilities.4.120 Subsidising commercial waste disposal:The PFI credits were granted for municipal waste disposal. The present plansallow for “topping up” with commercial to utilise the full capacity of theincinerator without which it will be uneconomic/inefficient. Given the increaseof recycling this “topping up” is likely to be substantial. The gate price formunicipal waste at Allerton is budgeted at £130 per ton and for commercialwaste is budgeted at £65 per ton. The lower price for commercial waste isnecessary or the waste will go elsewhere – the Sheffield incinerator willsometimes take waste at £nil cost to keep it going. There is likely to besurplus incinerator capacity both within and beyond the county so prices willbe low. And Allerton will be uncompetitive being located so far from majorcentres. We believe that NYCC is acting ultra vires in using the project forcommercial waste that taxpayers will have to subsidise.4.121 Environment:The incinerator is a large ‘factory’ with a high chimney in an agricultural areatotally out of place. The site was due to be restored to green field in fouryears. Now there will be a very large building with a high chimney and longplume of steam/smoke issuing from it. This will undermine the amenity of thearea. An incinerator will also produce large amounts of CO2 as well asparticles. This technology flies in the face of current trend towards reducing59NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/59

carbon emissions. On top of this there will be pollution from trucks carryingwaste travelling from all over Yorkshire to a single site.4.122 Health:There is doubt over the safety of the emissions. This is before accidents orinefficient running. Why build an incinerator when there are cheaperalternatives that do not have this doubt hanging over them? The ‘precautionprinciple’ should be applied and a safer alternative chosen”.4.123 The Green Hammerton Parish Council is part signatory to the documentsubmitted on behalf of the Parish Councils’ Group dated 31 January 2012.For the purposes of this report, the comments contained in that document aredescribed, in summary, in paragraphs 4.34 to 4.54 above.4.124 On 25 August 2012, the Parish Council responded to the consultation on the‘further and other environmental information’ submitted under Regulation 22of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England) Regulations 2011. They confirmed that they object to the planningapplication and claim that NYCC have not followed the ‘correct procedure’.The Parish Council list a number of concerns which in summary relate toclaims that “the application has not been prepared with due care; the planningapplication carries unsustainable health and financial risks; and the size andlocation of the site are inappropriate in a rural landscape”.4.125 An additional response on behalf of the Green Hammerton Parish Councilwas submitted to the County Council following consultation on the ‘further andother environmental information’ submitted under Regulation 22 of the Townand Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England)Regulations 2011. The additional representation was received on 17September 2012 and forms part of a suite of eight documents prepared onbehalf of the Parish Councils’ Group. For the purposes of this report, thecomments contained in those documents are described, in summary, inparagraphs 4.60 to 4.73 above.Kirk Hammerton Parish Council4.126 No response was received following the initial consultation in respect of thisapplication, but in response to the consultation on ‘further and otherenvironmental information’ received, a response from the Council wasreceived. On 18 September 2012, the Parish Council stated it objects toproposed development, but no reasons for the objection accompanied thisresponse.Thornville Parish Council4.127 The Parish Council responded to the initial consultation on 7 February 2012 tostate that the Council has no objection to the application.4.128 No response to the consultation on the ‘further and other environmentalinformation’ had been received at the time of publication of this report. Shouldany comments be received thereafter, they will be reported orally at themeeting.60NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/60

Follifoot & Plompton Parish Council4.129 No response to either the initial consultation or the consultation relating to the‘further and other environmental information’ had been received at the time ofpublication of this report. Should any comments be received thereafter, theywill be reported orally at the meeting.Little Ribston Parish Council4.130 The Parish Council responded to the initial consultation on 6 December 2011stating “the majority of the councillors of the Little Ribston Parish Councilobject to the above planning application for the following reasons:4.131 Planning process:• As NYCC and Amy Cespa are in a proposed partnership for the next 25years in this major proposal, the planning process must be determinedby an independent body as there is a conflict of interests with NYCCacting as Judge and Jury on this project.4.132 Proposal:• The proposal to lock the whole of North Yorkshire into a contract for asingle site for the next 25 years is unacceptable;• The proposed incineration process is even now not the best practice,and will not allow for incorporating new developments in the future forwaste reduction and treatment;• The single site incineration of waste on this scale is contrary to theGovernment Waste Review 2011;• The proposal for a single site to treat the whole of North Yorkshireswaste for the next 25 years is flawed as no redundancy has beenallowed should there be a catastrophic failure; and,• Multiple sites throughout North Yorkshire should be proposed, sited inindustrial zones, this would reduce the number of vehicle miles in dealingwith waste. In addition avoid the environmental impact in siting a wasteincineration plant in an agricultural setting.Little Ouseburn, Kirby Hall & Thorpe Underwood Parish Council4.133 The Parish Council responded to the initial consultation on 23 November 2011stating “the 25 year contract awarded to Amey Cespa for this project will faroutlive the Waste Strategy Plans for the NYCC region and the detrimentaleconomic as well as environmental impact will be felt by future as well as ourown generation. The Parish main concerns are:4.134 Chimney stack:• Height believed to be disproportionately high creating a negative impactfor miles around on the flat Vale of York landscape – affecting tourism,local enjoyment of landscape by bridle path/Prow/local users andRamblers;• We understand from the open meeting held with Amey Cespa expertsthat the stack is required to be a set height to allow dioxins to disperseand not fall within the immediate vicinity of the plant. This clearlysuggests that dioxins are being emitted and that they are potentially61NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/61

harmful. Our parish lies immediately in the path of the prevailing wind.We would also like to point out that the unique topography of the Vale ofYork creates a blanketing effect and does not allow the dispersal ofgases.4.135 Particle Dispersal Harm:• We would like to express our concern at the potential impact of the runoff of toxins and silt from the plant entering into the sensitive local watersystem – the effect this would have on the local wildlife conservationarea – the otters at Ouse Gill Beck (which holds a host of rare wildlife forexample otters and water voles as well as rare bird species and plantlife). Before it reaches Ouse Gill beck, the run off and silt will passimmediately past the village play area which is used extensively by localfamilies and children from the village playgroup;• Particles dispersed by the wind are also of great concern, the Ouseburnparishes are Conservation Villages and lie immediately due east, in thedirection of the prevailing wind. Extensive farm land, livestock and cropswill be affected including a rare breed farm and deer farm. We also havea very large number of listed buildings, including the grade I listedchurch, its mausoleum and bridge as well as Queen Ethelburgas Schoolwhich accommodates hundreds of children as both day and residentialpupils.4.136 Light pollution:• We are concerned at the amount of light pollution the site will add to thearea which suffers a particular problem in this respect already.4.137 Traffic:• We are concerned that as recycling increases within North Yorkshire,that there will be a shortage in capacity to feed the incinerator and thatadditional waste will then be sourced from outside the intended area thusincreasing traffic and changing the main purpose of the site. Thejunction of the A59 and A168 is a traffic black spot and it is inadvisable toadd to this existing problem.4.138 Conclusion:• We would like to conclude by expressing our disbelief that this proposalhas advanced thus far when similar PFI incinerator proposals have hadPFI credits withheld by the Environment Minister Caroline Spelman asrecently as this month in Norfolk and earlier this year and last yearelsewhere in the country.”4.139 The Little Ouseburn, Kirby Hall & Thorpe Underwood Parish Councils are partsignatory to the document submitted on behalf of the Parish Councils’ Groupdated 31 January 2012. For the purposes of this report, the commentscontained in that document are described, in summary, in paragraphs 4.35 to4.56 above.62NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/62

4.140 An additional response on their behalf was submitted to the County Councilfollowing consultation on the ‘further and other environmental information’submitted under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2011. Theadditional representation was received on 17 September 2012 and forms partof a suite of eight documents prepared on behalf of the Parish Councils’Group. For the purposes of this report, the comments contained in thosedocuments are described, in summary, in paragraphs 4.60 to 4.73 above.Tockwith with Wilstrop Parish Council4.141 The Parish Council responded to the initial consultation on 29 November 2011to state that the Parish Council objects to the application on the followinggrounds:1. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has vowed to reassess the PFI system,on which the above proposals are based, because of failings in thepresent system.2. The project will leave the ratepayers of North Yorkshire with a hugefinancial burden both now and into the future,3. North Yorkshire County Council does not have a Waste Core Strategy inplace and so the proposals are pre-emptive.4. The principles of the Waste Hierarchy have not been followed asIncineration should always be a last resort.5. There are other more environmentally friendly and less expensiveoptions to deal with municipal waste.6. An open rural location, notwithstanding that a quarry exists there atpresent, is not a suitable site for the development of this proposed size.Government agrees that such developments should take place in built upareas or on the urban fringes.7. Traffic generated on local access roads will make the A168 difficult touse, given the large number of agricultural vehicles which have to usethe road since the A1 became the A1M and the large number of HGV’salready using the A168/A59/A1M for access to local towns and villages.8. The proposals are not sustainable in traffic terms as waste from anextremely wide area will have to be transported by road to this remotelocation. Any saving accrued from waste disposal/recovery will be morethan offset by the cost of transport and fuel.9. The size and siting of the proposed development will have a huge anddetrimental impact on the landscape and environment in this rurallocation.10. The remoteness of the location means it could be a target for travellingcriminals from the North East and West Riding of Yorkshire who see thewide open spaces of North Yorkshire as easy pickings and use the localroads and the A1M as get-aways.In conclusion, the Parish Council contends that this is the wrong technology inthe wrong place at the wrong time.The Council earnestly requests that these comments are given dueconsideration during the planning process and that common sense will prevailand the application be refused”.63NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/63

4.142 The Tockwith with Wilstrop Parish Council is part signatory to the documentsubmitted on behalf of the Parish Councils’ Group dated 31 January 2012.For the purposes of this report, the comments contained in that document aredescribed, in summary, in paragraphs 4.35 to 4.56 above.4.143 An additional response on behalf of the Parish Council was submitted to theCounty Council following consultation on the ‘further and other environmentalinformation’ submitted under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2011. Theadditional representation was received on 17 September 2012 and forms partof a suite of eight documents prepared on behalf of the Parish Councils’Group. For the purposes of this report, the comments contained in thosedocuments are described, in summary, in paragraphs 4.60 to 4.73 above.Asenby Parish Council4.144 The Parish Council has responded to consultation on 16 July 2012 to statethat the Parish Council has concerns as follows:1. The enormous capital outlay to be borne by the tax payer whether atnational or local level;2. The council's understanding is that penalties will be incurred ifinsufficient waste is provided to feed the plant; this could result inaddition further costs to the taxpayer or shipping waste in from outside ofNorth Yorkshire - neither of which is considered desirable;3. The proposal that waste will be transported by road from all areas of thecounty. Surely this not an environmentally friendly proposal as largeamounts of fossil fuels will be burned transporting the waste, but couldalso be exorbitantly expensive if petrol prices continue to rise as theyhave in recent years; and,4. We have not yet been convinced that this proposal with its additionalcost both initially and over the life of the plant can be justified rather thanfinding means of using plants that already exist at Kirklees, Immingham,Scarborough, Teesside and Darlington.Wighill Parish Council4.145 The Parish Council responded to consultation on 25 August 2012 to state thatthey oppose the scheme and recommend refusal. The Parish Councilrequests that the application is refused for the following reasons:• incineration should not be the first choice when considering disposal ofdomestic waste, recycling efforts should be increased;• there is already excess capacity;• there are more environmentally friendly alternatives;• the single site solution will add to CO 2 production and is contrary topolicy to process waste near the point of production;• evidence from America suggests incineration can never be carried outsafely due to the failure to prevent injurious particles escaping to theatmosphere;• NYCC does not yet have a Waste Core Strategy; and,• The principles of the NPPF have been ignored and the new facilitycannot be described as sustainable development.64NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/64

Bilton in Ainsty with Bickerton Parish Council4.146 The Parish Council responded to consultation on 23 August 2012 to state thatthey oppose the scheme and recommend refusal. The Parish Councilrequests that the application is refused for the following reasons:• incineration should not be the first choice when considering disposal ofdomestic waste, recycling efforts should be increased;• there is already excess capacity;• there are more environmentally friendly alternatives;• the single site solution will add to CO 2 production and is contrary topolicy to process waste near the point of production;• evidence from America suggests incineration can never be carried outsafely due to the failure to prevent injurious particles escaping to theatmosphere;• NYCC does not yet have a Waste Core Strategy; and,• The principles of the NPPF have been ignored and the new facilitycannot be described as sustainable development.4.147 An additional response on behalf of the Bilton in Ainsty with Bickerton ParishCouncil was submitted to the County Council following consultation on the‘further and other environmental information’ submitted under Regulation 22 ofthe Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England) Regulations 2011. The additional representation was received on17 September 2012 and forms part of a suite of eight documents prepared onbehalf of the Parish Councils’ Group. For the purposes of this report, thecomments contained in those documents are described, in summary, inparagraphs 4.60 to 4.73 above.Consultations undertaken within the County Council:NYCC - Public Rights of Way Team4.148 The Team responded to the initial consultation on 25 November 2011 stating:“if the connection to the National Grid uses the bridleway to Arkendale atemporary closure will be required and the surface will need to be reinstatedto the same standard it is at currently.”4.149 The Team also commented that “it would appear that Non Motorised Users(NMU’s) will need to be considered where they interact with site traffic at thesite entrance. Impact of site traffic on the NMU’s will need to be addressed sothat these users are not adversely affected by this proposal”.NYCC - Highway Authority4.150 The Highway Authority responded to the initial consultation on 14 November2011 requesting clarification on a number of points contained within theTransport Assessment. This included updating the datasets to forecast trafficgrowth, further explanation of predicted traffic levels, consideration of theimpact of recently permitted ‘committed development’ and justification as towhy the applicant does not consider that the vehicle numbers arising fromconstruction staff will not create capacity issues on the local highway network.65NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/65

4.151 On 5 September 2012, the County Planning Authority received threedocuments from the Highway Authority in response to consultation. The firstconcerns further comments in relation to the Transport Assessment (TA)which assessed the impact of the proposals on both the Local and StrategicTrunk Road Network. The second comprises the Highway Authority’scomments in relation to the receipt of a report commissioned by theGoldsborough and Flaxby Parish Council on behalf of the Parish Councils’Group and prepared by URS (the URS Report). This is described inparagraph 4.153 below. The Highway Authority’s response to the URSReport clarifies a number of points raised and refers to the highwayimprovement works to be funded and delivered by the applicant and the trafficmanagement strategies to be secured by Section 106 agreement asappropriate mechanisms to ensure highway safety. This is described in moredetail in paragraph 4.154 and 4.155 below. The third document conveys theHighway Authority’s recommended conditions.4.152 The URS Report drew the following summarised conclusions:• the traffic counts were conducted at the wrong time of year;• there are calculation inaccuracies;• there is an absence of validation of the PICADY junction modelling; and,• further accident analysis should be undertaken together with animprovement options study before any commencement of development.4.153 The URS Report has been the subject of comment by the Highway Authority,the County Planning Authority’s expert adviser on such matters. As a result ofthe review of the URS Report, the Highway Authority in its formal response of5 September 2012 did not raise any specific concerns and addressed thematters raised in the above paragraph as follows:• “Although counts were undertaken in January 2011, these count datesreflected school term time traffic conditions and were undertaken duringgood weather conditions. No accidents or other incidents took placewithin the study area that would have any material impact on countaccuracy”;• “it is considered that the recalculated CRF values would have nodemonstrable impact on the conclusion of the link capacity review set outwithin the formal TA report, in that it is considered that developmenttraffic would not have a significant impact on capacity on the network”;• “It is difficult to reconcile the local resident queuing survey informationquoted within the URS report to those PICADY results presented in theAWRP TA report, as no details of prevailing traffic flows during thequeuing study are provided. The key conclusion to be drawn from thePICADY analyses included in the AWRP TA, however, is that theaddition of development related traffic demand at the A168 / A59 junctionwould not be expected to give rise to a material change in operatingconditions when compared to baseline traffic demand. The TA PICADYmodelling, for example, only shows a strictly marginal change in RFClevels and queuing demand when compared to baseline peak operation”;and,66NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/66

• It should be recognised that AWRP development traffic impact on thesection of A59 to the east of the A168 link road connection represents anincrease of just 0.85% of predicted 2014 / 2015 total baseline trafficdemand. It is not anticipated that such increases in total traffic volumeswould represent a substantive change in overall accident risk• The developer of the AWRP project has agreed to fund and deliver localhighway safety improvements at the A59 / A168 link road junction tosupport the delivery of the proposal scheme. These improvementswould pick up many of the minor improvement issues suggested withinthe URS report, with the key elements of the agreed improvementscheme being as follows:o New highlighted ghost island markings through the junction andsupporting highlighted ‘slow’ road markings;o Maintenance of visibility splays to avoid vegetation compromisingsightlines;o High friction surfacing on key junction approaches to improveovehicle stopping / slowing;Provision of rumble strips on the approach to the A59 eastbound tothe A168 connection point.• The proposed package of local improvement works at the A59 / A168junction will form a condition to any planning consent for the AWRPproposal scheme and be delivered via Section 278 procedures.4.154 The Highway Authority requires the following matters to be secured through aSection 106 agreement:-1. Provision of a Travel Plan;2. Heavy Goods Vehicle Management Plan;3. Construction Phase Traffic Management Plan; and4. Payment of a Highway Maintenance Contribution to provide for themaintenance of the junction safety improvement works at the A59/A168.4.155 The Highway Authority recommends conditions are attached relating to thefollowing:• Details of the required highway improvement works and a programme forthe completion of the works prior to the commencement of constructionwork (requiring an Agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act1980 between the Developer and the Highway Authority);• Provision of Access, Turning and Parking Areas;• Precautions to Prevent Mud on the Highway; and,• On-site Parking, on-site Storage and construction traffic duringDevelopment.4.156 The Highway Authority returned the comment that,“It is the view of the local Highway Authority (LHA) that the development trafficcan be satisfactorily accommodated on the surrounding highway network.The LHA recommended conditions are attached. These include therequirement to implement a local safety scheme on the A59 between theA168 link road and Junction 47. Measures are required to control the routeingof the operational and construction traffic. In order to lessen the impact on67NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/67

key junctions during the traditional AM and PM network peak hours arestriction on access times is also required”.NYCC - Countryside Services (Landscape)4.157 The County Council’s Principal Landscape Architect responded to the initialconsultation on 25 November 2011. He recommended that prior todetermination of the application further information is required as follows:“An extensive and detailed set of mitigation, compensation and enhancementproposals encompassing all of the above disciplines and including all of theissues and recommendations made above developed into a single interrelatedmitigation and management plan package, providing clarity andcommitments”4.158 On 3 August 2012 the Principal Landscape Architect submitted a holdingresponse in relation to the ‘further and other environmental information’submitted under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2011. Thefollowing is a summary of those comments:• welcomes the integrated approach taken in the preparation of the moredetailed mitigation strategy that takes landscape as the key unifying andintegrating basis for the development of the strategy;• thirteen bullet points detailing concerns in relation to the furtherinformation submitted; and,• a meeting requested to discuss the concerns prior to finalising theconsultation response.4.159 On the 12 September 2012, the County Planning Authority received thefollowing as the final and full response on this proposal:4.160 The proposed development is to provide a waste management facility forNYCC and CYC. The proposed development site comprises approximately19.4 hectares of land adjoining the existing Allerton Park landfill site. Theproposed development consists of several large industrial style buildingslocated in the former Allerton Park Quarry, and occupies approximately 4.2hectares of the site. The site is set in a rural location with a small number ofhomes and agricultural properties nearby, mostly located alongside the A168.The villages of Arkendale, Whixley, Coneythorpe, Clareton and Marton cumGrafton are situated within 4km of the site.4.161 Although the landscape context in which the proposal is located has no formaldesignation it is sensitive to development due to the pleasing combination ofcharacteristics that contribute to its distinctive rural character which isenhanced by the comparative absence of modern development. Of particularnote, in terms of the sensitivity of the proposed location, is the proximity of thesite to Allerton Park Grade II Registered Park and Garden which borders thesite to the south. The Park also contains a number of listed buildings.4.162 The submission will result in significant adverse landscape and visual impactswhich leads to a requirement for mitigation which the applicant hasincorporated into the submission as an essential part of the scheme.68NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/68

4.163 The applicant has worked hard to develop a mitigation strategy, includingreduction of the overall height of the development, incorporation andrestoration of Sand Hill and the development of an on-site landscapemanagement strategy, all of which is welcome and necessary to reduceadverse landscape and visual effects.4.164 The applicant has also prepared a draft Conservation Management Plan forAllerton Park, developed a Landscape Management Strategy and has putforward a Landscape and Cultural Heritage Fund to help deliver enhancementto those parts of the wider landscape most affected by the proposeddevelopment. However, the approach proposed by the applicant doesn’tguarantee delivery of effective mitigation.4.165 I also feel that the importance attached to the sensitivity of the existinglandscape and the significance of the residual adverse effects are oftenunderstated in the applicant’s reviewing of the impact assessmentinformation. The consequent need for mitigation is therefore also understatedmeaning that I cannot share the applicant’s conclusions that the developmentis acceptable. Regardless, significant visual impacts remain as a result of thedevelopment and there is uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of theproposed landscape strategy for works on third party land.4.166 The proposed mitigation strategy follows recognised good practice and it isbased on a considerable amount of preparatory work with significant potentialto reduce adverse effects of the proposed development, but it falls short ofproviding an effective, targeted and guaranteed mitigation strategy.4.167 The current submission is therefore unacceptable in landscape terms for thefollowing reasons:• the development will lead to significant adverse landscape and visualimpacts to Allerton Park historic park and garden, to residentialproperties, footpaths, other sensitive receptors and to the widerlandscape context which would be affected by the proposeddevelopment, as acknowledged in the assessment (1)• the submitted landscape mitigation strategy offered does not adequatelyresolve the identified impacts or lead to a reduction in residual impacts toan acceptable level (2)• the proposed Landscape Management Strategy and Landscape andCultural Heritage Fund is not sufficiently developed and targeted todemonstrate that improvement works can be identified, prioritised anddelivered to offset residual adverse effects (3)4.168 (1) Landscape and Visual Impacts:• With the exception of the A1 (M) to the west side of the site, the area isrelatively undeveloped with a distinctive rolling agricultural landscape,traditional buildings, country houses and parkland estates. The corearea of many settlements that are located close to the site aredesignated as conservation areas;69NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/69

• The proposed development cannot be fully screened by the proposedlandform and the associated mitigation. The proposed buildings aresignificant in scale and their form largely reflects the mechanical andtechnological function. They include a Tipping Hall Building (92.9m long,33m in width and 14.7m high), a Mechanical Treatment Facility (103.4mlong, 51.5m in width and 19.8m high and a 28m ventilation stack), anAnaerobic Digestion Plant (with silo 15.7m in diameter and 32m High),and an Energy from Waste Plant (72.7m long, 62.8m in width and 36.4mhigh building with 70m high chimney stack), together with other storagebuildings, weighbridge, car parking and access roads. The proposalsalso include the redevelopment of Claro House as offices and visitorcentre;• The overall scale of the proposed development in combination with itsindustrial form and character will result in a development that is out ofcharacter with its rural landscape context and visible from thesurrounding landscape;• The proposed development also conflicts with Harrogate DistrictCouncil’s local landscape guidelines (HDC Character Assessment 2004),where a number of statements highlight the sensitivity of the landscapeto inappropriate and large scale development including “Resist largescaledevelopment not sensitive to the openness of the area.” and“Development in prominent locations will be a focal point and bringdiscord to the landscape pattern;• The applicant has undertaken a landscape and visual impactassessment for the development. At several locations within the studyarea sensitive receptors such as local residents, users of public rights ofway, outdoor workers and people involved in outdoor pursuits wouldexperience Large Adverse and Moderate to Large Adverse daytimeeffects;• The applicant’s assessment identifies Allerton Park landscape characterarea (LCA) as having Moderate to Large Adverse daytime effects andSlight to Moderate Adverse night-time effects. Two other LandscapeCharacter Areas, experience Moderate Adverse impacts with localisedparts which will experience significant adverse effects. Some of thelocalised parts affected are within more extensive areas which areidentified as moderate adverse, including some stretching up to 5kmfrom the site to the north- west and to the north- east;• Allerton Park is a Registered Park and Garden and is nationallyimportant. The effect on the landscape setting of Allerton Park isidentified as Large Adverse as is the impact on the setting of the Grade 1and 2* listed buildings of the Mansion and the Temple of Victoryrespectively.4.169 (2) Landscape Mitigation Strategy:• The proposed mitigation strategy sets out an approach to restore andenhance landscape character across those areas most affected by theproposed development and where residential properties, rights of wayand other sensitive receptors are significantly affected, including toremediate, by enhancement, compensation and off-setting wheresignificant residual impacts remain;70NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/70

• Enhancement of landscape character is necessary in order to offset andreduce adverse effects, and the overall approach towards mitigationadopted by the applicant follows good practice;• However the scale of the proposed development and absence of controlover necessary land, makes it impossible, in my opinion, to fully mitigatevisual impacts from several sensitive locations and receptors, and toreduce impacts on landscape character to an acceptable level.4.170 (3) Landscape Management Strategy and Landscape and Cultural HeritageFund:• The applicant has put forward a Landscape Management Strategy whichincludes a consultation draft of a Conservation Management Plan forAllerton Park and a landscape restoration strategy to restore andenhance those parts of the wider landscape most affected by thedevelopment;• The proposed management strategy is significantly lacking in relation tothe clarity, delivery and cost, therefore reducing its overall effectiveness.Whilst it has significant potential, there is no targeted delivery packagerelating to identified significant adverse impacts. Also there is no formaland binding agreement with the landowners of the Park or other thirdpartylandowners of the wider landscape with regard to their willingnessor commitment to undertake restoration and enhancement works;• Because of its lack of clarity and commitment, the submitted LandscapeManagement Strategy for off-site works should be disregarded in itscurrent form when considering the acceptability of the development inlandscape terms. Recent discussions with the applicant have indicatedsome willingness to progress the Strategy in relation to the Park, but thisremains incomplete;• The applicant has proposed to establish a Landscape and CulturalHeritage Fund of £980,000 to help deliver a wider LandscapeManagement Strategy. The Strategy includes a proposal for aConservation Management Plan for Allerton Park. The CHF alsoincludes funding for a Project Officer as a mechanism for delivering boththe Landscape Management Strategy and Conservation ManagementPlan;• The proposed Fund is essential for the development and delivery of amitigation strategy where further essential mitigation is required acrosslarge areas of landscape. The application generally presents thedevelopment together with the on-site mitigation as acceptable, and theproposed Landscape and Cultural Heritage Fund is then provided as away of achieving additional improvement of the wider landscape arearather than regarded as necessary to reduce significant residual effectsof the development;• However, the proposed Fund approach lacks commitment and aneffective targeted delivery package as it will predominantly be used totarget landscape improvements on third party land where the applicanthas no control or certainty of delivery;• There is also a significant concern regarding the lifetime of the Funddelivery period and the period of employment of the proposed projectofficer which, in my opinion, needs to be significantly longer than the 571NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/71

years indicated (based on NYCC experience of Project Officers gainedwhilst working with communities in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beautyelsewhere in the County).4.171 Recommendations for Mitigation Requirements• In the event that the Planning Officer reaches a decision to accept thecase of need for the development and to recommend approval of theproposed Scheme, I recommend the following mitigation measures arerequired. I advise that these measures are an important and necessarypart of the scheme, to ensure implementation of the most effective andreasonable mitigation possible and should be incorporated into a Section106 agreement to ensure full and effective delivery;• These recommendations acknowledge the mitigation strategy approachand the work undertaken by the applicant, but also seek to providegreater clarity and commitment and a more effective delivery packagewhere further mitigation is necessary to reduce or offset significanteffects;• If appropriately developed and implemented in full, a mitigation packagecould have the potential to make a significant difference in reducing andoffsetting impacts even if the adverse effects cannot be fully removed.4.172 Funding of Mitigation Strategy:• It is accepted that a fund based approach to deliver mitigation works isappropriate, but there needs to be a necessary and agreed level offunding;• I have concern that adequate funding for mitigating impact on thelandscape of the Park and Garden is effectively prioritised and is notdelivered at the expense of the necessary level of mitigation requiredoutside the Park and that there is sufficient funding to enable anappropriate level of support for Fund delivery, to monitor the works andto manage the Fund;• I recommend that the final Conservation Management Plan should setclear priorities for mitigating landscape impacts of the developmentwithin the Park and Garden (see Mitigation Package below), and that theapplication of the Fund should seek to prioritise funding towardsschemes which have greatest impact in mitigating large adverselandscape effects of the development;• It is noted that the Fund has been developed assuming projectmanagement and delivery of the fund and mitigation works for a periodof 5 years. I consider this to be too short a period and that effectivedelivery of the fund in total will require some project management for upto 25 years.72NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/72

4.173 The suggested conditions put forward by the Principal Landscape Architectare as follows:Landscape Mitigation (Area Specific Requirements):Area 1: The Core Landscape Area including the Application Site, WRG landand the former NW silt lagoon:(For reference see drawings 3223-01 (PL) 02 Rev F Existing Site Plan, 3223-01 (PL) L.01.3 Rev D Landscape Masterplan, 3223-01 (PL) L.01.4 Rev DLandscape Masterplan, 3223-01 (PL) L.02.1 Landscape ManagementStrategy, 3223-01 (PL) L.02.2 Landscape Management Strategy)a) Detailed Landscape Proposals:Detailed Landscape Proposals shall be submitted for the applicationarea including Claro House. Proposals shall include:• details of all external access roads, hardstandings, surfaces andfinishes;• detailed planting proposals showing the layout, species and size ofall new planting together with a 5 yr establishment managementplan;• details and timing of all planting and establishment aftercare;• detailed landscape proposals for Claro House and its immediatesetting [which] shall reflect the scale, character and setting of thebuilding as a distinct zone. Particular attention shall be given to thedesign and layout of the car parking, access paths and pavedsurfaces, pond and drainage scheme, external lighting andplanting;• details of site boundary fencing and gates including fencing typeand finishes;• Sand Hill shall be raised to a final settled landform height thatexisted prior to mineral extraction. [Full details of levels, grading,topsoiling and associated woodland planting shall be submitted];• all existing boundary woodland planting trees and hedgerows shallbe protected and retained;• details for subsoiling and topsoiling of all landscape areas,including details of conservation, storage, placement, cultivationand drainage shall be submittedThe landscape proposals shall be submitted in two stages, namely adesign strategy followed by a detailed scheme.The design strategy shall include a detailed survey and review of theexisting landscape, walls and setting around Claro House andincorporate proposals for protection and retention of those features ofvalue.All planting shall be maintained for 5 years in line with the managementplan [see below].Timescale: Prior to work commencing on siteReason: to reduce adverse impacts and to ensure successfulrestoration of the site following construction.73NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/73

) External Lighting (during construction and the operational phase):External building facades and structures shall not be illuminated.Proposed site and entrance road lighting shall be designed to ensure, asfar as is practical, lighting will not be visible from outside the WRG landand application site boundary. A detailed external lighting scheme shallbe submitted.Reason: To protect local character and the setting of Allerton Park.c) Routing and Laying Electricity Cable to Substation to the North ofConeythorpe:All design and construction work relating to the location and routing ofthe cable to be undertaken in a way that conserves existing landscapefeatures and minimises any possible adverse impacts.Reason: to prevent unnecessary damage to or removal of existing treesand hedgerows.d) Management Plan for Application Site and Waste Recycling Group Land(WRG), Former NW Silt Lagoon:A 25yr landscape management plan (for the active lifetime of thedevelopment) shall be prepared encompassing the application site,WRG land to the north and east of the site.The Plan should include a commitment for management of the formerNW Silt Lagoon.The Plan shall also detail how the landscape management obligationsrelating to this development shall be delivered (for the duration of thescheme) on land both in direct control and not in direct control of theapplicant (e.g. the WRG land).The landscape management plan shall be prepared in two stages,namely a preliminary outline followed by a fully detailed Scheme.Timescale: prior to work commencing on site.Section 106 Obligations:Recommend includes a requirement for preparation and delivery of amanagement strategy and requirement to maintain and manage Area 1 for 25yrs (or active lifetime of the development).74NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/74

Reason:• To successfully integrate the proposed development within the existinglandscape;• To help minimise and offset adverse effects and ensure positivecontribution to the setting of Allerton Park;• To ensure a coordinated approach to restoration and managementduring the lifetime of the processing plant.4.174 Area 2: Allerton Registered Park and Garden:a) The Conservation Management Plan:A specialist historic landscape consultancy, such as The LandscapeAgency, shall be employed to continue and to complete the draftConservation Management Plan which shall include proposals for worksfor effective mitigation of landscape impacts of the development (themitigation package) within the Park and Garden.The Plan shall include the whole of the Allerton Registered Park andGarden as far as practicable.Work to be undertaken by appointed specialist consultant in completingthe CMP shall include the following:• consultation with key consultees to review and finalise priorities• development of a management masterplan• preparation of detailed specialist studies, (including cost estimateswhere appropriate) and establishment of a programme of potentialworks.• The CMP shall include; a woodland management plan to managewoodland and landscape to maintain and restore wildlife andhistoric landscape character of parkland using historic maps; asurvey with restoration proposals for High, Middle and Low FishPonds, dams and spillways; a survey with restoration proposals forthe Estate Gates and Railings• a detailed scheme and programme of proposed landscape worksas mitigation for the adverse impacts of the development (themitigation package)Timescale: prior to work commencing on site.Section 106 Obligations:Recommend the requirement for preparation of the conservation managementplan for Allerton Park and Garden and the identification of the mitigationpackage.Reason:To ensure completion of Conservation Management Plan for whole ofRegistered area as basis for development of essential mitigation package.75NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/75

) Essential Landscape Mitigation Package:The programme of essential landscape mitigation works shall be fullyimplemented within Allerton Park and Garden.Essential landscape works shall comprise:• undertake restoration works for High, Middle, Low Fish Ponds,Associated Spillways and Dams in accordance with the specialistsurvey and reports prepared as part of the CMP.• delivery of the Tree and Woodland Management Plan which shallinclude all works within Allerton Park and Garden as set out ondrawings 729-A-001 (sheets 1 to 6) and described in the DraftAllerton Park Conservation Management Plan Chapter 7Management Proposals.• Undertake management of the parkland trees and woodland in linewith the completed Woodland Management Plan prepared as partof the CMP.• Implement a tree tagging and recording system for all existing andnew planted trees within the Park.• Undertake, maintain and manage new parkland tree and woodlandplanting in accordance with the woodland management planprepared as part of the CMP• Undertake and maintain and manage new boundary tree planting inaccordance with the woodland management plan prepared as partof the CMP• Undertake restoration works for the Estate Gates and Railings inaccordance with the CMP• Establish and undertake monitoring programme of worksthroughout operational life of the proposed Waste PlantTimescale: all works to be completed within 5 yrs from commencementof the developmentSection 106 Obligations:the delivery and subsequent monitoring of essential landscape works forAllerton Park and Garden.Reason:to ensure successful implementation of essential mitigation package, forrestoration and enhancement of Allerton Registered Park and Garden.4.175 Area 3: Off-site Landscape Mitigation(For reference see Fig 2.2, in the Draft Landscape Management StrategyJune 2012)The developer shall provide an Off-Site Mitigation Fund. The Funds shall beused to deliver wider landscape improvement and mitigation works off-site(outside Area 1), including within the Allerton Registered Park and Garden(Area 2). Landscape improvement works shall be prioritised within 3.5km ofthe development and shall seek to mitigate or offset adverse effects of the76NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/76

development. The application of the Fund should seek to prioritise fundingtowards schemes which have greatest impact in mitigating adverse landscapeeffects of the development.a) Off-site Landscape Mitigation FundThe developer shall provide the County Planning Authority with a fund of£980,000 (being the sum offered by the developer) to finance offsitelandscape improvement and mitigation works. I acknowledge that someallowance may have been made within this sum for works described inArea 2 above and further clarification should be sought to consider if thisshould be adjusted.The Fund shall also be used to help develop, deliver and monitor the offsitelandscape improvement and mitigation works for the Council.This will encompass the following activities relevant to works deliveredthrough the Fund:• To undertake consultation with key consultees / steering group,review and finalise priorities• To develop and finalise offsite landscape management strategyand masterplan in line with identified impacts and priorities• To organise any detailed or specialist studies required• Produce cost estimates and establish a programme of work• Negotiate works with landowners, organise tenders, instruct andmonitor worksN.B: The fund shall not be used to fund activities carried out by the developerin delivery of its planning obligations.Section 106 Obligations:Recommend the provision of an Off-site Landscape Mitigation Fund.Reason:to ensure the development and delivery of effective essential off-sitemitigation package.4.176 Area 1: The Application Site after cessation of operations:(For reference see drawing 3223-01 (PL) L.04 Rev B Landscape RestorationPlan)The developer shall restore the site in accordance with the submittedlandscape masterplan, at cessation of operations.Detailed landscape proposals shall be submitted for the application area.Proposals shall include:• Details for removal of all buildings, fencing, external access roads,hardstandings, surfaces and finishes77NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/77

• detailed planting proposals showing the layout, species and size of allnew planting together with a 5 yr establishment management plan• details and timing of all planting and establishment aftercare• details of site boundary fencing and gates including fencing type andfinishes• details for subsoiling and topsoiling all landscape areas, including detailsof conservation, storage, placement, cultivation and drainage shall besubmitted• all existing boundary woodland planting trees and hedgerows shall beprotected and retainedTimescale: the developer shall prepare and submit a detailed restorationscheme 12 months prior to closure of the Waste Plant, and to implement thescheme in full, including the 5 year aftercare schemeSection 106 Obligations:Recommend the inclusion of the commitment to restorationReason:to achieve successful restoration of the site and integrate the land into locallandscape character and context.4.177 The Landscape Officer made further comments, in response to questions fromofficers, on 10 October 2012 to clarify his above comments as follows:“I am writing in reply to your memo of 10 October where you ask 5 questionsin relation to the Allerton Waste Recovery Park planning application. Pleasefind my response to your questions below.Q1. At 2(b), on page 7 of your response, you list elements of an ‘essentiallandscape mitigation package’. Could you clarify whether these are all in theownership of the Earl of Mowbray?A. The set of "Essential Works" which I detail at 2(b) on Page 7 of my earlierresponse are works which I consider essential to help mitigate the impacts ofthe development within the Registered Park and Garden. All of these"essential" landscape works are deliverable on Lord Mowbray's land.However, for the sake of clarity I would like to point out that in my response Isuggest that the draft Conservation Management Plan (CMP) should becompleted "which shall include proposals for works for effective mitigation oflandscape impacts of the development (the mitigation package) within thePark and Garden". In this instance I am suggesting that the CMP boundaryshould be extended from its current constraints to include the entire registeredpark and garden (in so far as it is reasonable for this to be done given theneed to access third party land). It is my understanding then the purpose ofthe CMP will then be to guide future management of the Park and Gardensand to provide a framework to help prioritise the allocation of the Landscapeand Cultural Heritage Fund. The proposed mitigation package shouldtherefore include proposals for mitigation throughout the Park and Garden78NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/78

where it is practicable to make such recommendations (i.e. also on land not inthe ownership of Lord Mowbray). However, the Essential Works detailed insub Para b) relate only to the geographical boundaries of the CMP ascurrently drafted (i.e. land within Lord Mowbray’s ownership). It is not myintention to imply that any works outside the existing boundary of the CMPshould be considered as Essential or requiring commitments through S106agreements. In answer to your question, - all of the works listed related toLord Mowbray's land.Q2. What is your estimate of the cost of those works?A. I am not in a position to provide any estimate of these works but am guidedby AmeyCespa who have previously provided the Council with a breakdownof how they have identified a value for the Landscape and Cultural HeritageFund (the spreadsheets you refer to in Q3). This identifies the potential forworks within the Park and Garden that are similar to those that I havesuggested are ‘essential’, although the scope of works identified byAmeyCespa is more limited in scope. AmeyCespa identified the value ofthese works as £113,875. I have no reason to disagree with the figure forthose works identified but I can not validate it as I have no information as tohow it has been estimated. In broad terms it seems to be in the right order ofmagnitude for those works identified but my judgement, based on discussionswith the applicant, is that it is at risk of underestimating some aspects of thenecessary work that I have identified as essential.My recommendation is therefore that the obligation to carry out these‘essential’ landscape works is made explicit through the S106 agreement,rather than being left to the LCHF to deliver. It is my understanding that LordMowbray has confirmed his willingness to enter into a S106 agreement tofacilitate works on his land and as all the ‘essential’ works are within LordMowbray’s land it is my understanding that this proposal would be acceptableto both the applicant and the land owner. The value of the LCHF should thenbe reduced by the amount allowed for these works - £113,875. This wouldensure delivery of these essential works but remove any risk that theallowance for these works in the LCHF is inadequate.[The Landscape Officer subsequently stated that £143,875 ought to havebeen stated instead of £113,875.]Q3. The applicants have supplied some spreadsheets showing provisionalallocations of the Landscape and Cultural Heritage Fund, which allocates£472,875 for landscape works (excluding management and set-up costs).Could you please comment on the scope for amelioration or enhancementworks this sum could deliver in the vicinity of the application site?A. As you indicate, the applicant has shared some spreadsheets with theCouncil that indicate how the value of the LCHF offered as mitigation andenhancement has been developed. This includes a sum of £472k forlandscape enhancement works within the Landscape Management andEnhancement Zones identified by the applicant (i.e. the broader landscape79NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/79

areas within 3.5km of the site but excluding the Registered Park andGardens). In my view, this is a reasonable figure to allow for mitigation andenhancement which, with the agreement of landowners, will lead, in themedium and longer term [10- 15 years plus] to valuable landscapeenhancement.Q4. Could you also comment on the ‘cost build ups’ part of the spreadsheetand the indicative costings – do you think those cost estimates of hedgerowmanagement, woodland planting and wetland habitat are realistic?The applicant has provided a detailed breakdown of how the proposed £472kidentified for potential landscape and cultural heritage enhancement andmitigation works within the wider landscape might be achieved. Thisbreakdown includes an estimate of the amounts of planting, hedgerowimprovement and reinstatement and other works which might reasonably bedelivered. It also includes an element of factoring of funds based on theapplicant’s assessment of the impact the development will have on each ofthe landscape zones.I am satisfied that the opportunity for enhancement and mitigation identifiedby the applicant, and the unit rates used to develop the fund are appropriate.They are based on a thorough assessment of the potential for mitigation anduse industry standard values to estimate total cost. There is a fair assumptionon the realistic potential to deliver works, and the approach to factoringaccording to impact is reasonable. In summary, I am satisfied that the buildup of funds within the LCHF by the applicant is reasonable.5. Is your landscape assessment of the development proposal, or thelandscape mitigation measures, affected by whether or not the heritageassets in Allerton Park (other than those set out in the ‘Conservation, Repairand Maintenance Works’ schedule that are proposed to be guaranteed) are tobe repaired?A. I can confirm that any repair works to heritage assets within the Park andGarden at this time (regardless of ownership) will not alter my assessment ofthe suitability of the landscape proposals, or my recommendations. In myopinion, the assets are integral to the landscape character of the Park andGarden and I would therefore regard their guaranteed presence in thelandscape to be essential to maintaining that character. However, I have nointerest or expertise to judge the general state of repair of the assets and mylandscape opinion has therefore been predicated on an assumption that theassets will be protected from total loss. The general state of repair of theassets has not been a material consideration in reaching my conclusions onlandscape impacts, mitigation or enhancement”.80NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/80

NYCC - Countryside Services (Ecology)4.178 The County Council’s Principal Ecologist responded to the initial consultationon 25 November 2011 and, in summary, the Principal Ecologist recommendsthat prior to determination of the application further information is required asfollows:• an update to the Ecology Chapter of the Applicant’s report to assess theimpacts of the proposal upon all non-statutory Sites of Importance forNature Conservation (SINC) as listed in Appendix 5a of the Applicant’ssubmitted Environmental Statement and any mitigation measuresrequired;• bat emergence / activity surveys of Claro House and its surroundings asdetailed in the Applicant’s submitted Appendix 5e; and,• an extensive and detailed set of mitigation, compensation andenhancement proposals encompassing all of the above disciplines andincluding all of the issues and recommendations made above developedinto a single inter-related mitigation and management plan package,providing clarity and commitments.4.179 On 31 July 2012, the Principal Ecologist made additional comments in relationto the ‘further and other environmental information’ submitted underRegulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental ImpactAssessment) (England) Regulations 2011. The following is a summary ofthose comments:• the bat emergence and foraging survey undertaken in May 2012 issatisfactory;• a European Protected Species licence will be required and this shouldbe accompanied by a Method Statement;• a condition should be included to ensure the water quality of the nearbySINC is not affected by pollutants;• the SINCs within the Conservation Management Plan are incorrect andshould be updated before the Plan is finalised;• preference for the enhancement and management for landscape,ecology and cultural heritage to be contained within one integratedstrategy;• recommends a mechanism to draw up clear guidelines for administrationof the proposed fund; and,• the Conservation Management Plan recommends a number of protectedspecies surveys prior to the commencement of work and there needs tobe consideration of when these surveys will take place, who willcoordinate and undertake them and how will they be funded.NYCC - Countryside Services (Archaeology)4.180 The County Council’s Development Control Archaeologist responded to theinitial consultation on 25 November 2011 and highlighted that:“the proposed development lies within a landscape of archaeological potential.To the north of Allerton Park, extensions to the quarry have been subject toarchaeological evaluation, comprising trial trenching and geophysical surveyand archaeological recording. Romano-British enclosures, field systems and81NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/81

associated features, and a possible inhumation cemetery have beenrevealed.”4.181 With regard to the level of previous disturbance the County Council’sDevelopment Control Archaeologist acknowledges that the quarry works willhave resulted in the total removal of below ground archaeological remainsfrom within the site, apart from Sand Hill. However, Sand Hill is unlikely tocontain significant archaeological remains.4.182 The conclusion contained within the Archaeological Assessment that the sitehas low archaeological potential is supported.4.183 With regard to the proposed routes for the cable run the routes are alongroads and/or verges and the assessment states that the potential for belowground archaeology has been assessed as low. Due to the previous belowground disturbance there is no disagreement with this statement.4.184 The recommendation within the Archaeological Assessment to undertake anarchaeological Watching Brief during the ground disturbing works as “it isproportionate to the impact of the development and the potential forarchaeological remains to be present” is supported. This could be securedthrough the use of an appropriately worded condition should planningpermission be granted.4.185 On 30 July 2012 confirmation was received that there are no furthercomments to make in relation to the ‘further and other environmentalinformation’ submitted under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2011 provided thefollowing condition is attached to any planning permission granted:“No development shall take place within the areas of archaeological interestdefined in the Environmental Statement as Sand Hill and the cable route, untilthe applicant or their successor in title has secured the implementation of anarchaeological watching brief in accordance with a written scheme ofinvestigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by theWPA”.NYCC - Emergency Planning Unit4.186 The Unit responded to the initial consultation on 3 February 2012 and statedthat the lead for consultation is the Emergency Planning Unit at HarrogateBorough Council.NYCC - Waste Disposal Authority (WDA)4.187 The WDA responded to a consultation request which sought confirmation inrelation to waste arisings and projections submitted by the applicant on the 15June 2012.82NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/82

4.188 The response outlined a number of issues and provided clarification on anumber of issues not originally requested as part of the consultation exercise,namely:• Existing waste disposal arrangements;• Strategic need for the AWRP;• Legislative background;• Changes to the Legislative and procurement environment;• Site selection; and,• Implications of a refusal.4.189 Waste volumes (including higher recycling amounts):The WDA confirmed that the 2010 waste projections:“have now been further updated to reflect more recent figures and recyclingforecasts, and revised assumptions on commercial waste collected by districtcouncils”.4.190 “The implication of these changes is that forecasts of household waste remainconsistent from December 2010 but there is an increase in the amount ofresidual waste to be delivered to AWRP by the Councils. It is now estimatedthat the Councils will present approximately 312,000 tonnes of residual wastefor treatment in 2039/40. This increase is a function of the repeal of thelandfill allowance trading scheme and a consequential removal of the addedcost to the Councils in dealing with commercial waste. It is important to notethat whilst the increased waste is commercial waste from local shops, officesand businesses, it is also Municipal Waste under the new definition, and it iswaste which the Councils have a duty to collect and dispose of”.4.191 Recycling:In terms of a number of concerns raised in relation to potential higherrecycling figures, the WDA confirmed that:“The waste partnership (NYCC and CYC) already recycles or composts over46% of household waste and will do more. The AWRP is in itself an importantpart of the plan to increase recycling and will enable the combined recyclingperformance across York and North Yorkshire to significantly exceed thenational and local target of 50%.4.192 The separate collection of kitchen waste could theoretically enable recyclingperformance to be increased even further but offers little overall benefit interms of landfill diversion, with additional uncertainty of available markets, andsignificant additional cost”.4.193 Therefore, the suggestion that potential increased amount of recycling doesnot negate the need for AWRP.83NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/83

4.194 Implications of Refusal:The WDA also commented on the potential refusal of the proposal, stating:“If planning consent is refused and a Revised Project Plan is either notdeliverable or desirable, the contract with AmeyCespa will be terminated. TheCouncil will then have to procure an alternative outcome. At this time, there isno indication what that outcome might be and in practice it is likely that theCouncils would have to procure short term disposal services while deciding ona (revised) long term strategy. There is currently little available capacitylocally for untreated municipal waste other than landfill. Such short termsolutions are therefore likely to involve continuation of landfill although this isnot a viable, sustainable or affordable option in the longer term.A refusal will therefore compromise the ability of the Councils as WasteDisposal Authorities to deliver their waste strategy objectives and targets forrecycling and diversion of waste from landfill. A refusal may also compromisethe UK’s ability to deliver on its obligations under the Landfill Directive. It willleave the Councils without long term security and open to risk of price andlandfill tax increases until an alternative strategy is defined, and a treatmentsolution procured and delivered. AWRP provides the Councils with themechanism to manage these risks in a sustainable and affordable way”.4.195 The Waste Disposal Authority has also given (on 10 October 2012) its viewson the WRATE analyses, through its appointed consultant, SKM Enviros,submitted by the applicant and by the Parish Councils. The response on thisissue is summarised in section 7 below where this issue is considered.Responses from Statutory Consultees and Consultations undertaken by theCounty Council with other external organisations etc.Natural England4.196 Natural England responded to the initial consultation on 14 December 2011(which was received on 2 February 2012) and highlighted the presence ofnearby designated Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Sites of SpecialScientific Interest (SSSIs) at Kirk Deighton, Hay-a-Park and Upper DunsforthCarrs respectively.4.197 Natural England states that it is their view that the proposal “will not be likelyto have a significant effect upon the SPA / SAC / Ramsar / SSSI”. The airqualityassessment in relation to ancient woodland and Sites of Importance forNature Conservation (SINCs) has been reviewed. Natural Englandrecommends that “the Planning Authority satisfy itself as to any likely airquality impacts upon such sites, in discussion with the local Wildlife Trust.With regard to woodland sites, we recommend that the Forestry Commissionis also consulted”.84NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/84

4.198 Natural England does not object to the proposal on landscape and visualimpact grounds and the proposal is unlikely to have a significant adverseimpact upon the Nidderdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or theHowardian Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.4.199 Standing Advice is provided in respect of ancient woodland and protectedspecies (in this instance Bats). Natural England note that “the daylightwalkover survey indicated some evidence of bat activity but Claro House itselfwhich is to be developed as a visitor and education centre, shows no signs ofthe presence of bats within the loft area; with droppings and moth wingsrestricted to the gable end of the adjacent stables and haylofts”.Nevertheless, due to the presence of droppings which indicate occasional useby individual brown long-eared bats, Natural England agree with theconclusion that an Emergence Survey should be conducted during the activityseason and that relevant mitigation is secured by way of a planning condition.4.200 On 26 July 2012 Natural England made further comments in relation to the‘further and other environmental information’ submitted under Regulation 22 ofthe Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)Regulations 2011. Natural England confirmed that there was no objection tothe proposed development. Natural England is satisfied that the proposedmitigation would maintain the population identified in the survey report(common pipistrelle bats). Natural England requests that conditions areattached to any planning permission which secure the mitigation measuresproposed within the applicant’s submitted Appendix B9 ‘Bat Mitigation andProtection Plan’ including, but not restricted to, the provision of bat friendlyfeatures and restriction on timing of works to protect hibernating bats. NaturalEngland states that “damage or destruction of a breeding site or resting placeis an absolute offence and unless the offences can be avoided throughavoidance (e.g. by timing the works appropriately), it should be licensed”.Environment Agency (EA)4.201 The EA responded to the initial consultation on 23 December 2011 stating noobjections to the proposal provided a number of planning conditions relating toflood risk and drainage (specifically submission of a surface water drainagescheme), groundwater and contaminated land (specifically piling, foul waterdisposal, underground storage tanks, submission of a scheme to deal withrisks of contamination, a verification report, contingency planning and anyremediation proposals) are included on any permission granted.4.202 The EA also advised that the proposed facility and its associatedinfrastructure should be suitably designed to account for Landfill GasMigration arising from the adjacent WRG landfill operation before anyplanning permission is granted.4.203 Furthermore, the EA requested that “the area of land where permit boundariesmay subsequently need to overlap, is kept free from any building or structurewhich may inhibit our ongoing ability to effectively regulate the existing WRGpermit”.85NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/85

4.204 On 30 July 2012 the EA responded to the consultation on the ‘further andother environmental information’ submitted under Regulation 22 of the Townand Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England)Regulations 2011. The EA confirmed that they do not wish to make anyfurther comments regarding the supplementary information and their previouscomments remain unchanged.4.205 On 12 September 2012 the EA wrote to draw attention to some draft workingguidelines that have been produced by the Agency (in May 2012) fordevelopments requiring both planning permission and environmental permitsand attention was drawn to the section on ‘Incineration & Co-Incineration ofWaste’.4.206 The EA referred to the guidelines as setting out that locating wasteincineration facilities remotely from potential users of waste heat “willsignificantly limit opportunities to achieve high levels of energy recoverybeyond those that can be controlled by an Environmental Permit”. Theguidelines suggest that “where facilities are proposed greater than 5km fromdense urban areas or significant heat users, combined heat and power isunlikely to be implemented”. By utilising waste heat, average energy recoverycan be increased from around 23% to around 60% or higher.4.207 The EA confirmed that the location of proposed facilities is a matter forplanning and not something which can be reviewed through theEnvironmental Permit, but it mentioned that “given the importance given tocombined heat and power within the National Policy Statement on Energy, theeffect of location on the potential for CHP is a material consideration forplanning permission”. The EA further advised that the County PlanningAuthority may wish to ask the applicant to provide a justification for selecting asite remote from potential heat users.4.208 The EA confirmed that the guidelines did not affect the stance the Agency hadtaken on the AWRP proposal as the proximity or otherwise of potential heatusers is not a consideration for the EA under an Environmental Permit and,according to the Agency’s measurements; parts of Knaresborough were alsowithin 5km of the proposed site.English Heritage4.209 The following is a summary of their response to the initial consultation on 29November 2011.4.210 The response included a summary of the significant heritage assets adjacentto the application site and an acceptance that the proposed Allerton WasteRecovery Park would be a new and large visual feature within the landscapewhich would have an adverse impact on the setting of the historic assetsassociated with Allerton Park.86NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/86

4.211 More specifically, English Heritage acknowledges that the AWRP wouldconstitute a “new and large visual feature within the landscape”, culminating in“an adverse impact on the setting of the historic assets associated withAllerton Park. We believe this impact should be considered under PPS5 Para.9.4 as a harmful impact on the significance of a designated heritage assetwhich is less than substantial harm and that the mitigation put forward in theEnvironmental Statement would off-set this impact. On this basis, EnglishHeritage does not object to the application.”4.212 Furthermore, English Heritage agree that “the current proposal has no directphysical impact on the registered landscape, associated listed buildings orknown archaeological deposits”4.213 English Heritage goes on to state that “it recognises that the key views andrelationships lie within the registered park and garden and focus principally onthe intervisibility of features in the landscape, such as the Temple, Lady’sCave and Rustic Bridge. The proposed facilities, as illustrated, althoughclearly visible from the registered landscape, the Grade II* listed Temple andGrade I listed Allerton Castle will not intrude directly into key views of them,neither do the proposals interrupt significant designed vistas or eye catchers.However, by virtue of their scale the facilities will be visible and noticeable asa backdrop to the northward views across the registered landscape. This ismost notable with regard to the setting of the Grade II*Temple of Victory andviews from it (Photomontage View 28)”.4.214 With regard to the acknowledged harmful impact on the Temple, EnglishHeritage states that “this harm has been identified in the EnvironmentalStatement [and] recommends undertaking conservation works to heritageassets in the registered park in order to mitigate the adverse affects of thisproposal. We endorse this approach as a means of offsetting the harm andbetter revealing the significance of the heritage assets”. On this basis,English Heritage does not object to the application.4.215 This same response, made in November 2011, also stated the position asfollows:“We believe the proposed landscape and conservation works set out in theEnvironmental Statement will enhance the legibility and significance of thedesigned landscape and will offset the harmful impacts of the proposeddevelopment”.Both the Plan to address the conservation, repair and maintenance works tothe identified heritage assets and the Landscape and Cultural Heritage Fundoutlined in the applicant’s Environmental Statement are also welcomed byEnglish Heritage.87NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/87

4.216 The County Planning Authority posed the following questions to EnglishHeritage on 16 January 2012:• Can English Heritage explain the apparent difference of opinion betweenthe applicant who has formed the conclusion of “large adverse” impactand English Heritage’s view that the impact is “less than substantial” i.e.specifically the magnitude of the impact of the proposal?;• Can English Heritage explain why no mitigation has been sought inrespect of the Temple of Victory?• What consideration has been given to compulsory acquisition of theidentified ‘buildings at risk’?4.217 In response to the above, English Heritage stated, on 27 January 2012, “weconsider the development will change the setting of the heritage assets but assetting is only one component of a heritage asset’s overall significance ouroverall assessment is that the impact is of less than substantial harm.Additionally the development will not intrude directly into key views of theheritage assets, neither do the proposals interrupt significant designed vistasor eyecatchers. Issues which would cause substantial harm”.4.218 In a further response to the County Planning Authority on 1 June 2012,English Heritage stated,“We have been assessing our advice against the recently published NPPFand I can confirm that we do not consider there is anything within theFramework which would cause us to amend our assessment of impact whichthis development might have upon the historic environment or our previousadvice advice”.4.219 English Heritage also provided answers to queries put to them by the CountyPlanning Authority. The first asked, if the buildings identified are 'at risk' i.e.not being properly preserved and are in need of conservation/restoration,what consideration has the Secretary of State given to compulsory acquisitionunder LBCA section 47. The response provided stated “we are not aware theSecretary of State has given this any consideration and in our opinion it isunlikely that he would consider it in this instance”.4.220 The second query posed asked, with regard to the Temple of Victory, doEnglish Heritage think it needs any conservation works, or not? The responseprovided stated that “conservation works are still required to the Temple ofVictory to remove it from the English Heritage at Risk Register”.4.221 Thirdly and lastly, the query asked are these LBs a group listing? If theTemple of Victory is adversely affected, then is it permissible to consider thatthat harm is 'offset' by improvements to a completely different listed asset? Ifthe other assets should be disregarded, then what is EH's view about theimpact on the Temple of Victory? The response provided by English Heritagestated “all the key structures with the exception of the boundary wall are listedas separate entities. All the listed structures and the boundary wall lie withinthe boundary of the Grade II registered Park. Therefore they are all related toeach other and contribute to the significance of the heritage asset and its88NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/88

setting as a whole. Those parts of the wider asset most at risk are the Grade IIstructures. However, our Heritage at Risk Register does not (as yet) includeGrade II structures. It only includes Grade I and II* buildings and structuressuch as the Temple of Victory. The Registered Park is on the Heritage at RiskRegister and works to the GII structures will assist in improving its condition”.4.222 English Heritage goes on to state in its response of the 1 June 2012 that “wehave always set out to AmeyCespa that the wider management plan, to informthe Landscape and Cultural Heritage Fund, should address the additionalheritage assets associated with Allerton Park and, specifically the Temple ofVictory, St Marys Chapel and the remaining boundary wall (where it survives).We would see these as critical elements to be included in the managementplan to ensure the impact of the proposals address all elements of theheritage asset which are at risk”.4.223 On 17 August 2012 English Heritage responded to the consultation on the‘further and other environmental information’ submitted under Regulation 22of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England) Regulations 2011. English Heritage confirmed that they “welcomethe proposed conservation works set out in the Environmental Statement as ameans of enhancing and better revealing the setting and significance of theheritage assets associated with Allerton Park. We do not object to thisapplication on heritage grounds and welcome the undertakings set out in theSection 106 agreement and Landscape Management Strategy relating to theheritage assets associated with Allerton Park”.4.224 On 10 September 2012, upon a request (dated 7 September 2012) on behalfof the County Planning Authority seeking English Heritage’s views of thepotential for any affect upon the World Heritage site of Studley Royal andFountains Abbey, English Heritage responded stating,“Whilst the facility may be visible from parts of Studley Royal and FountainsAbbey World Heritage Site English Heritage do not consider this will have animpact on its significance or Outstanding Universal Value”.4.225 On 11 September 2012, English Heritage responded to specific queries posedon behalf of the County Planning Authority stating,“we do not consider the proposals will harm the significance of the RegisteredBattlefields at Myton or Boroughbridge” and,“we do not consider the proposals will harm the significance of any scheduledmonuments in the area”.4.226 English Heritage has also sent email correspondence, dated 5 October 2012in response to two queries raised on behalf of the County Planning Authority.The queries requested clarification in respect of :• 1. Where the emphasis of the 'critical elements' categorically lies and,furthermore, whether, in the absence of any guarantee of the works tothe 'critical elements' taking place, English Heritage's position remainsunchanged; and,• 2. If [English Heritage’s] position is that the works to St Mary's Chapelmust be guaranteed, further explanation is requested, as the ES89NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/89

concludes that there will be no adverse effect on this particular heritageasset and [English Heritage] have not expressed any disagreement withthat conclusion.The following response was received,• 1. “The emphasis 'critical elements' lies in what heritage works shouldbe included in the management plan to inform the wider Landscape andCultural Heritage Fund, i.e. works in addition to the guaranteed worksfunded as part of the 'Conservation, Repair and Maintenance Works'.We see the works identified as the ‘Conservation, Repair andMaintenance Works' addressing those items which lie in that part of thepark with the closest proximity to the development and are at risk of lossfrom decay or collapse.Other assets more removed from the development are at less risk oftotal loss and therefore we are comfortable that they can be prioritisedthrough the wider Landscape and Cultural Heritage Fund. Such assetsare currently identified under the phrase 'items on the English Heritageat Risk Register'. We consider this could be better clarified so that thosepeople charged with administering the fund have greater clarity on whatis eligible and what are of the highest priority and what type forconservation works the fund would support.We fully accept that there is no guarantee that owners of heritage assetswithin the 3.5km radius of the Landscape and Cultural Heritage Fund willapply to the fund. Therefore we understand and acknowledge that thereis no guarantee of works to these assets taking place”.• 2. “In light of our previous answer we have no further comments on thispoint”The above is also set out in the relevant section of this report below whereheritage issues are considered.Highways Agency4.227 On 2 February 2012, in response to the initial consultation, the HighwaysAgency requested that the planning application not be determined for a periodof 6 months from the date of the consultation response in order to enableoutstanding Highway and Transportation matters affecting the strategic Roadnetwork to be resolved.4.228 On 6 September 2012 the Highways Agency responded to the furtherconsultation, which included additional traffic and highway details, stating thatthe Agency has no objection in principle should the Planning Authority be sominded to grant the development consent and the Direction to not determinewas not extended so is no longer in force.Forestry Commission4.229 No response had been received at the time of publication of this report.Should any comments be received thereafter, they will be reported orally atthe meeting.90NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/90

Health and Safety Executive (Quarries)4.230 No response had been received at the time of publication of this report.Should any comments be received thereafter, they will be reported orally atthe meeting.Yorkshire Water Services (YWS) Limited4.231 YWS responded to the initial consultation on 30 November 2011 and note thatthe developer is intending to dispose of foul water to a private treatmentfacility and surface water to a Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) andtherefore have no comments to make on the application.4.232 On 17 July 2012, YWS confirmed they had no additional comments to makein relation to the ‘further and other environmental information’ submitted underRegulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental ImpactAssessment) (England) Regulations 2011.Yorkshire Wildlife Trust (YWT)4.233 YWT responded to the initial consultation on 15 December 2011 to register aholding objection to the application until the following further information isreceived for consideration:• Clarification in relation to the confusion in relation to Special ScientificInterest (SSSI) and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC);• A plan is required as to how the woodland will be buffered and protectedfrom the development;• The Ecological Habitat Management Plan should also reflect theopportunities for linking existing and created habitat into the widercountryside;• The lighting plans could have considerable impacts on wildlife, such asbats; and,• The application should not be determined until further surveys have beencarried out to ascertain the existence of bats.4.234 The YWT state that “the Authority would need to be confident that theanswers to the above questions show that the Waste Recovery Park is a trulysustainable development.”4.235 On 2 August 2012, the YWT responded to the consultation in relation to the‘further and other environmental information’ submitted under Regulation 22of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England) Regulations 2011. YWT have confirmed that they are satisfied thatthe outstanding ecological issues have now been dealt with correctly. YWTstill has reservations as to the scale and cost of the development, but isprepared to remove the holding objection to the application.4.236 As per the previous response YWT state that:“The Trust is also concerned as to the long term sustainability of the project.Will recycling rates be reduced in North Yorkshire in order that sufficient fuelwill be available for the incinerator? Is the technology sufficiently advanced toprovide value for money over a 25 year period? Will the increased journeys tobring waste to the site lead to greater volumes of traffic and fuel consumption91NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/91

in the region? Would smaller dispersed sites be more appropriate and alsomake use of waste heat from the development? The authority would need toconfident that the answers to the above questions show that the WasteRecovery Park is a truly sustainable development.”Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) (North of England)4.237 The RSPB responded to the initial consultation on 7 November 2011 toconfirm that the RSPB have no comments to make on the application and nofurther comments have been received since that date.Health Protection Agency (HPA)4.238 The HPA responded to the initial consultation on 17 April 2012. The HPA hasreviewed research to examine links between emissions from municipal wasteincinerators and effects on health. The HPA concluded that:“While it is not possible to rule out adverse health effects from modern, wellregulated municipal waste incinerators with complete certainty, any potentialdamage to the health of those living close-by is likely to be very small, ifdetectable. This view is based on detailed assessments of the effects of airpollutants on health and on the fact that modern and well managed municipalwaste incinerators make only a very small contribution to local concentrationsof air pollutants.4.239 The Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Productsand the Environment has reviewed recent data and has concluded that thereis no need to change its previous advice, namely that any potential risk ofcancer due to residency near to municipal waste incinerators is exceedinglylow and probably not measurable by the most modern techniques. Since anypossible health effects are likely to be very small, if detectable, studies ofpublic health around modern, well managed municipal waste incinerators arenot recommended.4.240 The Agency's role is to provide expert advice on public health matters toGovernment, stakeholders and the public. The regulation of municipal wasteincinerators is the responsibility of the Environment Agency.”4.241 The HPA recommended that the planning authority consults with the FoodStandards Agency (FSA) for matters relating to impact on human health ofpollutants deposited on land used for the growing of food crops or animalrearing, including the information contained in the submitted Human HealthRisk Assessment.NHS North Yorkshire and York4.242 The NHS North Yorkshire and York responded to the initial consultation on 5March 2012 referring to their letter dated 24 September 2010 [in response tothe Scoping Opinion process] which advised that consultation is undertakenwith the Health Protection Agency in relation to the assessment of humanhealth implications. NHS North Yorkshire and York have not made anycomments or raised any objections to the application.92NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/92

Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) (Harrogate and District)4.243 The CPRE responded to the initial consultation on 22 November 2011 toobject to the application. The following is a summary of reasons for theobjection:• It is important that the NYCC Waste Strategy document is approvedbefore an application of this magnitude can be considered;• The proposed site at Allerton Park is considered to be totallyunnecessary and making no practical or economic sense in light ofrecent approvals for new waste management facilities at Ferrybridge,Teesside and Darlington which greatly increasing processing capacity inthe Region;• The application for a single site at Allerton Park is contrary to the NYCCVision for Waste Strategy which seeks to reduce HGV travel and reduceCO 2 emissions;• The site has no access to rail facilities which makes the applicationunsustainable;• The chimney and its associated structures will be visually intrusive andan alien feature on this unspoiled natural landscape, it will also have anadverse impact on the historic building Allerton Castle;• The incinerator is capable of heating over 40,000 houses and yet it is notlocated in an area where houses are capable of receiving the benefits ofthe heat provided by the incinerator;• The incineration of waste would significantly reduce land fill which wouldlead to acres of un-restored land which is needed to feed a growingpopulation. This land could also be restored for energy crops andplanted to help mitigate climate change;• Request that this application is called in and is determined by theSecretary of State; and,• The benefits of this application will not outweigh the harm so CPRErequest this application is refused.NEDL (now known as Northern Powergrid (North East)4.244 No response had been received at the time of publication of this report.Should any comments be received thereafter, they will be reported orally atthe meeting.Claro Internal Drainage Board (IDB)4.245 Claro IDB responded to the initial consultation on 8 February 2012 to statethat the IDB does not wish to respond to the consultation as the applicationsite lies outside the Drainage District.Ministry of Defence (Airfield Safeguarding)4.246 The MOD responded to consultation on 26 July 2012 and confirmed that theMoD have no safeguarding objections to the proposal. The MoD request thatin the interests of air safety the flue stack is fitted with an aviation warninglight at the highest practicable point of the structure. The MoD highlights thatdue to the height of the development aeronautical charts and mappingrecords need to be amended. Therefore, as a condition of any planningpermission granted the developer must provided sufficient information to allowthe maps to be updated prior to the commencement of development.93NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/93

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)4.247 The CAA responded to the initial consultation on 8 November 2011 to statethat it does not wish to respond to the consultation as it was not necessary toconsult the CAA in this instance.Leeds Bradford International Airport (LBIA)4.248 LBIA responded to the initial consultation on 10 November 2011 to confirmthat LBIA have no objections subject to assurances that “it will not createincreased level of bird activity within 13km of the airport” and as suchrequested “that all possible is done to minimise such risks”. LBIA requesteddetails of mitigation procedures and impact assessments as evidence that thishas been done.4.249 On 8 August 2012 LBIA responded to the consultation on the furtherinformation submitted under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2011 andconfirmed that the proposals had been reviewed against aerodromesafeguarding parameters and that the details submitted were unlikely toconflict with aviation interests in regard to LBIA.Ramblers Association (Harrogate)4.250 Comments were received on 15 November 2011 from the Association’sfootpath secretary stating objections for the following reasons:1. “There are public footpaths adjacent to the site and walking on thesewould be very much affected. The buildings and chimney are a verylarge industrial size and will be totally out of place and not compatiblewith the surrounding countryside and rural villages.2. The proposed scheme will cause serious harm to the visual amenity ofthe landscape as seen from many footpaths in this area and for manymiles around.3. The long term pollution and health effects from walking next to theemission of toxic pollutants are simply not known and may bedetrimental to health over an extended period.4. Traffic will increase on all roads near the site and throughout all of northYorkshire. Public rights of way are afforded no assistance for walkerscrossing these roads and any extra traffic increases the difficulty anddanger when crossing roads to reach the next footpath.”4.251 The Association’s Countryside Secretary responded to the initial consultationin a submission received on 22 November 2011 to state that the mainobjection of the Harrogate Group of Ramblers is that “the proposed chimney,together with the surrounding high buildings, will adversely dominate thelandscape for many miles around and will constitute a significant visualintrusion in the immediate and wider countryside landscape appearance”. Thefollowing is a summary of their other objections to the application:1. NYCC should not approve it’s own scheme the Secretary of State shouldcall-in the application for appraisal and a decision made by aGovernment Inspector;94NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/94

2. Private Finance Initiative (PFI) schemes do not have a good historicaltrack record for meeting predicted financial savings and qualityoutcomes. Any long term financial losses will clearly diminish NYCC’sability to fund other important areas of work as well as necessitatingraising council tax demands on its residents;3. The proposed landscaping screen will take up to 15 years to maturewhich is approximately two thirds into the 25 year timescale of the PFIagreement. Greater emphasis should be placed upon the applicant toinstall attractive landscaping features that do not require such longtimescales to reach maturity;4. It is not clear how safe access to existing public rights of ways will bemaintained throughout construction of the works and beyond;5. NYCC should take into account the responses of the recent consultationexercise relating to the development of the Minerals and Waste CoreStrategy for North Yorkshire. These include the proposition that NYCCseriously considers the formation of a single authority to be responsiblefor both the collection and disposal of all household waste as a singlewaste stream;6. It is not clear what specific provisions are included within the applicationto ensure the plants resilience to continue operating efficientlythroughout the term of the PFI agreement and what NYCC contingencyplans are in the event that the plant is unable to function. Failure of thismajor recycling plant could cause severe back-up of waste waiting to bedisposed of with potential health and safety implications notwithstandingany detrimental aspects to the countryside”.The Open Spaces Society4.252 No response had been received at the time of publication of this report.Should any comments be received thereafter, they will be reported orally atthe meeting.Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) (now mergedwith the Design Council)4.253 CABE responded to the initial consultation on 6 December 2011 to state that itwelcomes the design of the proposed waste facility and supports the use ofClaro House for the proposed visitor centre. It stated:“this proposal has the potential to become a well-designed facility offering aninteresting experience for visitors and attractive views for traffic on the A1.The building strikes the right balance between a simple, industrial appearanceand a compelling, elegant design, and we welcome the colour scheme withthe dark zone close to the ground.The long-term success of the scheme will depend less on the colour than therobustness and longevity of materials and detailing and low maintenance. Wetherefore suggest that the local authority conditions the materials appropriate”.95NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/95

West Riding Area Ramblers' Association4.254 No response had been received at the time of publication of this report.Should any comments be received thereafter, they will be reported orally atthe meeting.North of England Civic Trust (NECT)4.255 NECT responded to the initial consultation on 7 November 2011 to state thatNECT has no comments to make on the application.British Horse Society4.256 A response on behalf of the Society was received on 25 September 2012raising an objection to the proposed development on the ground that “theincrease in HGV and car movements on the A168 will result in Fear andIntimidation of equestrian and NMV users and severance of the link in thepublic right of way network because riders will no longer feel safe (or indeedbe safe) when using the A168”. However, the Society does make the pointthat “this conflict could be mitigated if the applicant sets aside money for thecreation of a “behind the hedge bridleway” along the side A168 for the safetyof equestrian and NMV users”.The Victorian Society4.257 No response had been received at the time of publication of this report.Should any comments be received thereafter, they will be reported orally atthe meeting.The Garden History Society4.258 No response had been received at the time of publication of this report.Should any comments be received thereafter, they will be reported orally atthe meeting.Friends of the Earth (FoE) (Harrogate)4.259 The FoE responded to the initial consultation in November 2011 to state thatFriends of the Earth object to the planning application on the followinggrounds:1. This application is against the wishes of North Yorkshire residents;2. Use of public funding for this application is not best value for money;3. This application is contrary to a number of local policies;4. The choice of technology is not appropriate;5. The incinerator will import waste rather than process only locallygeneratedwaste;6. Adverse climate change impacts;7. The proposal does not maximise recycling and/or encourage significantmovement of waste up the waste hierarchy;8. This application is unlikely to be able to meet future needs;9. The proposal will not maximise energy recovery from waste;10. Cumulative impacts of this proposal alongside other similar proposals forthe area.96NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/96

North Yorkshire Police Architectural Liaison Officer (PALO)4.260 The PALO responded to the initial consultation on 10 November 2011. ThePALO has provided crime figures for Allerton Mauleverer and also a numberof recommendations for the construction and operational phases of thedevelopment. The PALO highlights that the site is remote and not overlookedand there are immediate escape routes via the adjacent A168 and the A1which provide easy and quick escape routes north and south, or, subtle crosscountry routes via the three immediate roads from the A168 to the left toArkendale, to the right to Grafton, or to the left again through Roecliffe. ThePALO has made a number of recommendations relating to the preconstruction,construction and operational phases of the development whichrelate to the following:- perimeter protection and the use of suitable means ofenclosure; access control; contractor’s vehicle parking arrangements; usageof CCTV; alarm and lighting systems; the secure storage of chemicals; use ofsecurity guards; the secure storage of valuable materials such as cables,copperware fixings; and the arrangement and positioning of office containerunits and use of secure windows and doors.Yorkshire Gardens Trust4.261 The Trust responded to the initial consultation to state that they object to theapplication as proposed due to the absence of an effective mitigation strategyin response to the identified impacts on the nationally important designatedlandscape of Allerton Park.Food Standards Agency4.262 The FSA responded to consultation on 27 July 2012 and state that they haveconsidered the human health risk assessment and “provided the emissionsfrom the incinerator are WID compliant then deposition to the surroundingagricultural land would be insignificant in terms of risk to the food chain.Where there is a legacy of industrial pollution then the additive effects ofdeposition over time may be of concern. However, this appears to not be thecase for this application”.4.263 FCC EnvironmentThe adjacent landfill operating company, FCC Environment, confirmed on 5October 2012 that its raises no objection to the proposed AWRPdevelopment.Notifications by the County Council:4.264 In accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011,the Secretary of State has been provided with a copy of the EnvironmentalStatement accompanying the planning application.4.265 County Councillors Mr John Savage and Mr John Watson have been notifiedof the submission of the application and, as the local Ward Members withinwhose constituency this application is situated, have been informed ofprogress on this application.97NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/97

5.0 ADVERTISEMENT AND REPRESENTATIONS5.1 This application has been advertised by means of a number of Site Noticeserected at the proposed entrance to the site and a number of Notice Boardswithin the Parishes of:• Marton-cum-Grafton;• Upper Dunsforth;• Little Ouseburn;• Great Ouseburn;• Whixley;• Allerton Mauleverer;• Hopperton;• Goldsborough;• Flaxby;• Minskip;• Staveley; and,• Ferrensby.5.2 Site Notices were also erected at locations including the Notice Board atProvidence Green and other locations including Clareton Lane, Coneythorpe,Arkendale, Claro House and a bridleway south of Arkendale adjoining theapplication site on 4 November 2011. A Press Notice appeared in theHarrogate Advertiser on 4 November 2011. On the same day, 428 letters ofneighbour notification of the application were dispatched.5.3 A further round of publicity was undertaken on 10 July 2012 in respect of thereceipt of ‘further and other environmental information’ from the applicantfollowing a request made on the 27 February 2012 by the County PlanningAuthority. The applicant responded to this request (in full) on 21 June 2012.This was undertaken because the Town and Country Planning (EnvironmentalImpact Assessment) Regulations 2011 require the County Council toadvertise the receipt of the ‘further and other environmental information’.Therefore, Site Notices were posted (in identical places as those listed above)on 10 July 2012 and a Press Notice regarding this information was alsoplaced in the Harrogate Advertiser on 20 July 2012. In addition, in July 2012letters of neighbour notification regarding the information were sent to thosepreviously notified and those who had made representation up until the pointof receipt of the information.5.4 At the time of publication of this report the CPA have received letters ofrepresentation from 402 individuals from 348 residences, Parish Councils (notalready referred to in Section 4.0 of this report) and the business communityaround the proposed application site in connection with the first round ofpublicity (November 2011). In response to the ‘further and otherenvironmental information’ the CPA received letters of representation 127individuals from 105 residences. Forty-seven of the 127 had not previouslymade any comments in relation to the proposal. Therefore, this provides atotal figure of letters of representation received from individuals of 449.98NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/98

5.5 It should be noted that a significant proportion of the representations haveused multiple means of communication for example via letter, email and bythe submission of an online ‘Have Your Say’ form available through theCounty Council’s Online Planning Register. Not only have variable means ofcommunication been used, but also multiple representations arising fromsingle address points have also been commonplace. Due to both the scale ofpublic interest and the nature of the objections raised, a detailed summary ofthese representations is provided at Appendix A to this report.5.6 It should be noted that an Action Group, formed prior to the submission of thecurrent application before Members, has submitted a number of documents tothe County Council in representation against the development proposed. ThisGroup is called North Yorkshire Waste Action Group (NYWAG). As the ActionGroup representation comprises those of a number of interested personsrather than an individual, the submissions of NYWAG have been available toview on the Online Planning Register during the course of the processing ofthis particular application. The documents submitted to the County Councilcomprise:• Outline Objections to AWRP (covering letter dated 16 November 2011)o Annex A – The fact sheets sent to Council Members;o Annex B – Memo on PFI by NYWAG (dated April 2011);o Annex C – Submission to the DEFRA Waste Enquiry (September2010).• Some objections to the AWRP (covering letter dated 10 December 2011)accompanied by six chapters, comprising:o 1. Climate Change;o 2. Harmful Emissions and their Properties;o 3. Health Risks: Adverse Effects from Incinerator Emissions;o 4. Risks from Incinerator Ash;o 5. Air Quality and Health: A Critique of Amey Cespa’sAssessment; and,o 6. Sustainability, What Sustainability.• Objections to the AWRP (covering letter dated 31 January 2012)including a ‘Summary of Grounds for Objection’ accompanied by twofurther chapters:o 1. Need and technology choices;o 2. Environmental insults - environmental risks, traffic, visualimpact.5.7 A further 72-page submission in response to the ‘further and otherenvironmental information’ consulted upon in July was made to the CountyCouncil by NYWAG in a document dated 27 August 2012.5.8 On 7 October 2012, the County Planning Authority received a furthersubmission from NYWAG with a covering e-mail. Their e-mail conveys theirobjections raised in connection with the applicant’s ‘Need Overview’ document(received by the County Planning Authority 3 September 2012 and to whichreference is made earlier in this report within Section 3.0). The accompanying29-page submission entitled ‘Response to AmeyCespa’s Need Update’ pointsto their own arguments against the need argument put forward by the99NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/99

applicant , citing the context in relation to the NPPF, residual waste treatment,and capacity. The document is accompanied by three Annexes. The firstrefers to the Secretary of State’s Decision in respect of a planning appeal atNewhurst Quarry, Shepshed, Leicestershire concerning an Energy RecoveryFacility (June 2012). The second Annex concerns another Secretary of State’sDecision in respect of a planning appeal at Rufford Colliery, Nottinghamshireconcerning, again, an Energy Recovery Facility (May 2011). The third, anextract of an Early Day Motion (EDM 393) in the House on 24 May 2012.5.9 NYWAG also made a joint submission with the Parish Councils’ Group on 10October 2012 which was accompanied by a report from their appointedconsultant, Eunomia. The report is produced as a rebuttal to the submissionsmade on the specific issue of WRATE by both the appointed consultant of theWaste Disposal Authority, SKM Enviros, and, Fitchner Consulting, the expertadviser to the applicant.5.10 Two Parish Councils, not consulted due to their distance from the applicationsite, have returned objections to the proposed development, namely NunMonkton Parish Council and Masham Parish Council. Their responses aresummarised below:• Nun Monkton Parish Council:o The incinerator will have an adverse effect on the rural environmentand local communities;o Its out-dated technology and will discourage recycling;o The incinerator is too big and not needed;o The length of the contract means its inflexible to market changeso The case for a single incinerator does not exist; and,o There is no current Core Strategy.• Masham Parish Council:oFeels strongly, for a number of reasons, the way ahead should bereconsidered and that NYCC should undertake a costs / benefitscomparison against alternatives and must visit Darlington’s MBT.5.11 Representations have also been received from ‘The Friends of Allerton Castle& North Yorkshire’ and more recently from Dr Rolph (a Trustee of The GeraldArthur Rolph Foundation for Historic Preservation and Education) on 10October 2012 with specific reference to the draft S106 legal agreement.5.12 The following groups have also made representation:• the Cyclists’ Touring Club (North Yorkshire);• YoreVision (a local community organisation for the Boroughbridge andthe Lower Ure Valley area); and,• ‘Coneythorpe and Clareton Community Against AWRP’ accompanied bya petition of signatures arising from 62 properties.5.13 It should be noted that, within a number of representations, reference hasbeen made to the submission of a petition of some 10,000 signaturesobjecting to the proposal. However, this petition was submitted in Decemberof 2010 and, therefore received prior to the submission of the applicationcurrently before Members. In light of the fact that the petition will have signed100NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/100

in the absence of any knowledge of the application or its details, the petitionwhilst acknowledged cannot be considered as being duly made in respect ofthis application and, consequently the Planning Authority is unable to give itany weight.5.14 All representations made in respect of this application have been available foranyone to view at the offices of Planning Services at County Hall and will beavailable at the meeting. The following is a brief summary of the topics raisedby those objecting to the proposed development, in no specific order, with afurther extensive summary provided in Appendix A attached to this report:(a)(b)(c)(d)Hazards, Risks and Public Safety:• Concerns about public safety with respect to the risks withhazardous substances.Highway issues (including traffic/transport, road safety etc.):• The capacity of the existing roads and junctions to accommodatethe proposal;• The risk of potential accidents on the highway;• The assumptions made with respect to vehicle numbers;• Increased traffic on the surrounding road network;• Potential and existing road damage;• Inaccuracy of figures / data within the planning application.Need for the development:• Consented or operational capacity – either way the AWRP is notneeded;• It is contended that AWRP is waste disposal / incineration ratherthan waste recovery;• The applicant has not considered all the alternative technologiesnor alternative sites;• The scale of the development is not justified on the basis of theforecasted waste arisings and recycling rates in the partnershiparea;• The objectors to this proposal contend that no satisfactory evidencehas been put forward by the applicant to prove the need; and• The proposals will discourage recycling.Location and Single Site Solution (including Site Assessment/Selection):• Lack of justification of one single-site solution vs. several smallersatellite sites across the county;• Lack of reasoning as to why alternative sites have been discountedor not investigated;• Ignores the rural, parkland setting and that the existing quarry andlandfill will be restored to agriculture and so the site should beregarded as ‘greenfield’ and should not be built on;• Lack of evidence for why the site is not proposed where the heatoutput can be used;101NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/101

• Single site would increase transport mileage, unlike a more localmain settlement solution and would not meet the proximityprinciple;• Absence of clarity on how single site solution will function in theevent of a closure, i.e. no there would be no alternative open site;• The plant might encourage further industrial development thatwould use the heat but which would cause further damage to therural environment;• The siting goes against government recommendations that suchplants should be in built up areas or urban fringes;• The location may make the development a target for crime; and• The site is wrong as it is not connected to the national grid anddoes not have access to water.(e)(f)Pollution and Impact on Health:• The development will have a significant impact on human healththrough the long-term effects of the emissions;• Concerns have been expressed in relation to noxious fumes fromthe proposed development;• The potential adverse impact upon the health of those living withinthe vicinity of the proposed development is at the forefront of manyof the objections raised against the proposal;• The impact on the food supply chain has been raised by a numberof objectors;• There are concerns regarding vermin and the spread of disease;• There are concerns that many of the risks are unknown;• The application is selective and deficient in its assessment; and• Proposed monitoring / checks are inadequate; the precautionaryprinciple should be applied.Economic Impact on Local Businesses and Tourism:• The cost of the development to the County and its residents doesnot provide value for money relative to other possible technologicalsolutions;• Representations have been made in relation to the impact on localbusinesses including visual impact on the approaches to York,Harrogate and Knaresborough, disruption and harm ;• Tourism will be affected by the development due to an adverseimpact on visitor numbers, visual impact and the potential loss ofjobs and negative financial impact will not be off-set by the jobscreated by the development and any long-term financial benefits tothe wider economy; and• A number of objectors consider there is the potential for theproposals to discourage people from moving into the area orreturning to the area to live.102NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/102

(g)(h)(i)(j)European, National, Regional and Local Planning Policy:• The proposed development is not only contrary to a range ofpolicies including the proximity principle, but is also inconsistentwith policy on sustainability and the waste hierarchy, as theapplicant should recycle first, not incinerate;• The development will hinder waste reduction and recycling;• There is nothing in the vicinity which can use the heat generated;• The development is contrary to commitments on climate change;• The development will cause significant landscape harm whichcannot be mitigated and is contrary to local policy by introducing anindustrial development into the countryside;• The County Council should refuse the application as it is prejudicialwithout having a Waste Core Strategy in place first;• The saved Waste Local Plan policies are not adequate; and• The Joint Municipal Waste Strategy is outdated as it was notreviewed in 2010-11 as originally proposed and so may not takeaccount of current policies on waste recovery.Sustainable development:• Objectors to this development contend that this is a wasteincinerator and not, as the application suggests, a waste recoverypark;• The ‘Proximity Principle’ advocated within Planning PolicyStatement 10 (Planning for Sustainable Waste Management),Policy ENV5 (Energy) of the Regional Spatial Strategy and Policy4/1 of the adopted North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan is breachedby the proposed development;• This will not be sustainable as the commitment to the developmentfor 25 years would restrict the scope for future generations to alterthe management of the County’s waste to newer technologies thatare more beneficial;• Recycling will reduce the waste supply to the facility such that itsdesign scale will be outdated;• Incineration is old technology that has environmental and healthrisks and so is not compatible with sustainable development; and• Waste should be considered as a resource which can be recycledand create jobs.Lack of rail link• The proposal should not be considered without a rail link to be theprincipal means of access for incoming and outgoing waste; and• The ash stream following combustion would also be best removedby rail.Visual impact:• The visual impact of the development cannot be mitigated and thewider impact has not been proposed to be mitigated in theapplication which only addresses mitigation for Allerton Park andthe landowner;103NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/103

• Concern has been raised over the adverse visual impact of the 70metre high chimney stack and the overall development within apredominantly agricultural and rural landscape; and upon theapproaches from the A59 and A1 and surrounding villagecommunities and further afield to the Yorkshire Dales, YorkshireWolds and North York Moors such as along Public Rights of Way;• The plume from the stack will be visible for 50% of daylight hoursrather than the AmeyCespa claimed 10%;• Objectors have pointed to the potential adverse visual impact uponthe Grade II* and Grade II Listed Building (Allerton Castle) andRegistered Garden;• The development will be contrary to the local development and theHarrogate District Landscape Character Assessment (2004); and• The legacy of the visual impact will last beyond the 25 years suchthat the area will be damaged beyond repair.(k)(l)Impact upon residential amenity:• Due to the operation proposing 24/7 operation, the external lightingwill be intrusive in the rural area; and• A number of objectors have concerns regarding the potential odour.Public consultation:• Objectors have raised concerns that the applicant and the CountyCouncil have only conducted limited or no public consultation suchthat most of the county’s populace is unaware of the proposal andits cost to the taxpayers;• Concerns have been raised about the timing of consultation relativeto the tendering process and the selection of the contractor;• Issues have also been raised about the level of information madepublically available due to commercial confidentiality reasons whichhas limited discussion of what would be alternative or acceptablesolution(s);• Objectors have raised concerns that the public’s views are beingignored and this is contrary to the Localism Act; and• The representations should be available to view online.(m) Adverse Impact on Biodiversity:• The development will adversely affect biodiversity, includingprotected species.• The habitats of wildlife, including a number of protected species,such as great crested newts, will be damaged by the development;and• The development will mean that existing commitments to restorethe landfill site to a natural environment are reneged on and notdelivered.104NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/104

(n)(o)(p)Noise Impact:• The development, and its associated operation, would increasenoise pollution to the surrounding area;• Noise from reverse warning sirens during evening working is likelyto give rise to nuisance as ambient noise levels are very low,particularly at night; and• Particularly concerned about the noise the plant could generate, inparticular ambient process noise.Impact of the Proposal on Climate Change:• The proposed development will increase CO 2 emissions;• Emissions of CO 2 will compromise Harrogate Borough Council’s(HBC) commitments to reduce CO 2 by 2020;• The proposal is contrary to EU and national policy on greenhouseemissions; and• Emissions of CO 2 and other pollutants from traffic due tounnecessary HGV traffic from around the county will increase.Financial Implications:• National reports are that PFIs represent bad value for money;• The estimated cost of the facility is already out of date;• There are financial risks to the tax payer;• Details of the likely cost have been withheld for confidentialityreasons;• The cost of the development contradicts the requirement to cutspending such that it is financial mismanagement;• There are inadequate safeguards to protect rate payers fromincreasing costs arising from the long contract and the lack ofability to change to another solution;• Due to facilities in adjoining regions there could be over-capacitysuch that NYCC will have to pay considerable charges toAmeyCespa if the plant has insufficient waste incoming such that itcannot run at full capacity;• The PFI contract will have higher gate fees than current ones orthose elsewhere; and• There are cheaper options available to deal with waste.(q) Use of Waste and Resources Assessment Tool for the Environment(WRATE) to assess the proposal:• The use of the WRATE model is biased;• The conclusions are subjective.(r)Impact on Historic Assets:• The development will have an unacceptable adverse effect onhistoric assets, including Allerton Castle, Allerton Park and anumber of Grade II Listed Buildings in Allerton Park as well as thesetting of the Grade II* Listed Temple of Victory; and• The stack would be visible from Myton and BoroughbridgeRegistered Battlefields and nearby Conservation Areas.105NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/105

(s)(t)(u)Hydrological Issues:• The proposal is within an existing Source Protection Zone (SPZ) fora public water supply borehole and would not adequately protectthe Sherwood Sandstone Aquifer from potential leachate. Anydevelopment of this nature should be prohibited;• The applicant will have to supplement the public water supply withfurther groundwater abstraction;• An existing licensed abstraction at Moor Farm has not beenincluded in any impact studies. Any heavy metals that havepenetrated the aquifer will find their way into the food chain; and• The facility will have injurious consequences on the localenvironment due to run-off into the water table.Cumulative Impact and Mitigation:• Cumulative impacts of this proposal alongside other similarproposals for the area are not assessed;• Mitigation proposals are inadequate to offset this harm; and• There is no mitigation proposed apart from those made to appeaseAllerton Park Estate.Other issues:• House Values:o The development will have a significant effect on housevalues and house prices and may render a property notpossible to sell;o NYCC has had protracted costly (in time and money)discussions with many waste management solution providersover the past 5 years and wishes to sign off a solution but theprocess should stop and be reviewed based on currentknowledge and alternative more cost effective andenvironmentally sound technologies.• Operator Track Record:o The operator has no previous experience of setting up andmanaging such a development;• Concerns about vibration damage to houses;• Prematurity:o The commitment to incineration is in advance of thepreparation and adoption of a Waste Core Strategy includingthe consideration of alternatives from a planning policyperspective;o The commitment to incineration is not being made clear in theconsultation on the Waste Core Strategy nor are any otheroptions to that facility being discussed during thatconsultation;o The grant of planning permission for the AWRP proposalwould undermine the developing Waste Core Strategy whichshould set the strategic case for what needs to be done, whenand how, to meet the waste treatment needs in NYCC/CYC;106NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/106

• Conflict of interest in determining the application:o NYCC are in a partnership arrangement with the applicantand therefore should not be allowed to determine theoutcome;o NYCC should refer this application to an external,independent body for consideration, rather than use its ownplanning committee.o The application should be called-in for the determination bythe Secretary of State.o By even contemplating the incinerator, it only highlights thatNYCC are not acting on anyone’s best interests other than apolitical one.oNYCC failed to develop a better plan for meeting targets toreduce landfill and will be judge and jury on the planningapplication, avoiding full scrutiny of its ineptitude.• Low job creation in comparison to other options;• Concerned that if Clareton Lane is the route for the cable then thedrain previously damaged by the electrical cable from the presentlandfill site could be damaged again;• Request whether proposed works will give entitlement to claimcompensation under Part 1 Land Compensation Act 1973;• EIA should be benchmarked to a Greenfield site; and• There was no proper debate by County Councillors on the issue ofan Incinerator as they were told by the Executive how to vote.5.15 In addition to the above representations made against the proposal, it shouldbe noted that there has been a single letter of support received. The letter:1. Supports the scheme as it will be a good thing for the area; and,2. Raised concerns in relation to the amount of misleading information thathas been distributed by objectors.5.16 Following a further period of statutory consultation as a result of the receipt of‘further and other environmental information’, the following additionalcomments have been received:a) Highways Issues:• Inadequate or missing Travel Plan / Transport Assessment;• Addition of visitor centre will increase already heavy traffic flows;• Flawed evidence; and• Nothing in new evidence to mitigate concerns regarding traffic.b) Need for the development:• HBC recently introduced kerbside re-cycling measures reducing theamount of black bag waste. Time should be allowed to evaluatethe effect of these new services.107NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/107

c) Pollution and Impacts on health:• Issues and proposed impacts have not been adequatelyaddressed; and• Conclusions are imprecise and unacceptable.d) European, National, Regional and Local Planning Policy:• In light of the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) anumber of objectors have concerns regarding its compliance interms of sustainability, minerals, new technologies, pollution andhealth risks, conserving heritage assets, good architecture, urbansprawl, light pollution and nature conservation, public consultationand decision making; and• The new submission ignores the conflict with the government wastestrategy (as previously set out).e) Visual Impact• One objector welcomed the proposals for tree planting but anumber of objectors considered that this would do little to mitigatethe visual impact.f) Public Consultation:• A large number of criticisms have been received regarding shorttimescales for the re-consultation (42 in total).g) Adverse Impact on Biodiversity• The resubmission fails to acknowledge emission cause damageover a wider area.h) Financial implications:• The cost of decommissioning the plant and reinstating not yet beendetermined; and• This will be borne by the tax payer.i) WRATE• WRATE analysis should be repeated using correct assumptions;and• Nothing in additional information to alter concerns over misleadingconclusions.j) Cumulative Impact and Mitigation:• The Section 106 money should be spent on the community not onone land owner; and• It is considered that the Conservation Management Plan andLandscape and Cultural Heritage Fund are of little relevance andthe latter is wholly inadequate to offer any realistic mitigation.Other issues:• Comments / concerns over the increase in commercial waste.108NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/108

6.0 PLANNING POLICY, LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCENational Planning PolicyThe Planning System: General Principles (published on 31 January 2005)6.1 It states that:“This document provides a general description of key elements of theplanning system, including its structure, the determination of planningapplications and the Secretary of State's role”.6.2 It goes on to say:“In principle any consideration which relates to the use and development ofland is capable of being a planning consideration. Whether a particularconsideration falling within that broad class is material in any given case willdepend on the circumstances” (Stringer v MHLG 1971). Materialconsiderations must be genuine planning considerations, i.e. they must berelated to the development and use of land in the public interest. Theconsiderations must also fairly and reasonably relate to the applicationconcerned (R v Westminster CC ex-parte Monahan 1989). The Courts havealso held that the Government’s statements of planning policy are materialconsiderations which must be taken into account, where relevant, in decisionson planning applications. These statements cannot make irrelevant anymatter which is a material consideration in a particular case. But where suchstatements indicate the weight that should be given to relevantconsiderations, decision-makers must have proper regard to them. If theyelect not to follow relevant statements of the Government’s planning policy,they must give clear and convincing reasons (E C Grandsen and Co Ltd vSSE and Gillingham BC 1985)”.6.3 It continues saying:“Local planning authorities may sometimes decide to grant planningpermission for development which departs from a Development Plan if othermaterial considerations indicate that it should proceed. Significant departuresmust be notified to the Secretary of State so that he can decide whether hewishes to intervene”.6.4 With respect to the issue of prematurity, the document advises “in somecircumstances, it may be justifiable to refuse planning permission on groundsof prematurity where a Development Plan Document (DPD) is being preparedor is under review, but it has not yet been adopted. This may be appropriatewhere a proposed development is so substantial, or where the cumulativeeffect would be so significant, that granting permission could prejudice theDPD by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of newdevelopment which are being addressed in the policy in the DPD. A proposalfor development which has an impact on only a small area would rarely comeinto this category”.109NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/109

6.5 “Otherwise, refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity will notusually be justified. Planning applications should continue to be considered inthe light of current policies. However, account can also be taken of policies inemerging DPDs. The weight to be attached to such policies depends uponthe stage of preparation or review; increasing as successive stages arereached. For example: where a DPD is at the consultation stage, with noearly prospect of submission for examination, then refusal on prematuritygrounds would seldom be justified because of the delay which this wouldimpose in determining the future use of the land in question. … Whereplanning permission is refused on grounds of prematurity, the planningauthority will need to demonstrate clearly how the grant of permission for thedevelopment concerned would prejudice the outcome of the DPD process”.6.6 The document also deals with the interaction between planning and humanrights considerations, stating: “The general purpose of the ECHR is to protecthuman rights and fundamental freedoms and to maintain and promote theideals and values of a democratic society. It sets out the basic rights of everyperson together with the limitations placed on these rights in order to protectthe rights of others and of the wider community. The specific Articles of theECHR relevant to planning include Article 6 (Right to a fair and publichearing), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home andcorrespondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 ofProtocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection ofproperty)”.Written Ministerial Statement: ‘Planning for Growth’ (2011)6.7 The Minister of State for Decentralisation and Cities, the Right Honourable MrGreg Clark’s Statement, on 23 March 2011, instructed planning authoritieswhen deciding whether to grant planning permission, that they should:“…support enterprise and facilitate housing, economic and other forms ofsustainable development. Where relevant - and consistent with their statutoryobligations - they should therefore:(i) consider fully the importance of national planning policies aimed atfostering economic growth and employment, given the need to ensure a(ii)return to robust growth after the recent recession;take into account the need to maintain a flexible and responsive supplyof land for key sectors, including housing;(iii) consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefitsof proposals; including long term or indirect benefits such as increasedconsumer choice, more viable communities and more robust localeconomies (which may, where relevant, include matters such as jobcreation and business productivity);(iv) be sensitive to the fact that local economies are subject to change andso take a positive approach to development where new economic datasuggest that prior assessments of needs are no longer up-to-date;(v)ensure that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on development.110NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/110

In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged tohave regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they giveappropriate weight to the need to support economic recovery, thatapplications that secure sustainable growth are treated favourably (consistentwith policy in PPS4), and that they can give clear reasons for their decisions.”[It should be noted that PPS4 cited above was revoked upon the publicationof the National Planning Policy Framework in March of this year as discussedbelow]National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)6.8 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was both published and tookeffect on 27 March 2012. This replaced virtually the entire suite of Planningand Minerals Policy Guidance Notes and Statements that had been issued bygovernment over a period of some 30 years. It has condensed them into onesimplified document. Whilst not forming part of the development plan, itnevertheless is a significant material consideration in the determination of allapplications for planning permission.6.9 The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan asthe starting point for decision making and states that proposed developmentthat accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposeddevelopment that conflicts should be refused unless other materialconsiderations indicate otherwise (paragraph 2 of the Introduction to theNPPF, 2012).6.10 The NPPF applies a presumption in favour of sustainable development. In theMinisterial Foreword to the NPPF, the Right Honourable, Mr Greg Clarke,writes:“The purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable development ...Sustainable means that ensuring better lives for ourselves, don’t mean worselives for future generations … Development means growth. We mustaccommodate the new ways by which we will earn our living in a competitiveworld. We must house a rising population, which is living longer and wants tomake new choices. We must respond to the changes that new technologiesoffer us. Our lives, and the places in which we live them, can be better, butthey will certainly be worse if things stagnate … Sustainable development isabout change for the better, and not only in our built environment”.6.11 The NPPF introduces a new presumption in favour of sustainabledevelopment which should be seen as a golden thread running through bothplan-making and decision-taking. This presumption in favour of sustainabledevelopment is reiterated at Paragraph 197 of the NPPF. For decision-takingthe NPPF states that this means:• approving development proposals that accord with the development planwithout delay; and• where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are outof date, granting permission unless:111NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/111

ooany adverse impacts of doing so would significantly anddemonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against thepolicies in the NPPF taken as a whole; orspecific policies in the NPPF indicate development should berestricted.6.12 The presumption in favour of sustainable development is accompanied by aset of 12 core planning principles which should underpin both plan-makingand decision-taking. The bullet-point list below includes some of the coreprinciples relevant to decision-taking which state that planning should:• not simply be about scrutiny, but instead be a creative exercise in findingways to enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives;• always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard ofamenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings;• take account of the different roles and character of different areas,promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Beltsaround them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of thecountryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it;• support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, takingfull account of flood risk and coastal change, and encourage the reuse ofexisting resources, including conversion of existing buildings, andencourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by thedevelopment of renewable energy);• contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment andreducing pollution;• encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has beenpreviously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of highenvironmental value;• conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance,so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life ofthis and future generations; and• take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social andcultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and culturalfacilities and services to meet local needs.6.13 Whilst the NPPF inevitably deals with a wide range of topics there are anumber of policy references which are of particular relevance to the AWRPproposal. These include:Building a strong and competitive economy:• The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system doeseverything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planningshould operate to encourage and not act as an impediment tosustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on theneed to support economic growth through the planning system(paragraph 19 under the heading of ‘Building a strong and competitiveeconomy’);112NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/112

Promoting sustainable transport:• Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generatesignificant movement are located where the need to travel will beminimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can bemaximised. However, this needs to take account of policies elsewherein this Framework, particularly in rural areas (paragraph 34);Requiring good design:• The Government attaches great importance to the design of the builtenvironment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development,is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively tomaking places better for people (paragraph 56);• It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality andinclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, publicand private spaces and wider area development schemes (paragraph57);• Although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildingsare very important factors, securing high quality and inclusive designgoes beyond aesthetic considerations. Planning policies and decisionsshould address the connections between people and places and theintegration of new development into the natural, built and historicenvironment (paragraph 61);• Local Authorities should also when appropriate refer major projects for anational design review. In general, early engagement on designproduces the greatest benefits. In assessing applications, local planningauthorities should have regard to the recommendations from the designreview panel (paragraph 62);• Great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs whichhelp raise the standard of design more generally in the area andpermission should be refused for poor design that fails to take theopportunities available for improving the character and quality of an areaand the way it functions (paragraphs 63 and 64);• Applicants should work closely with those directly affected to evolvedesigns that take account of views of the community. Proposals thatdemonstrate this in developing the design should be looked on morefavourably (paragraph 66);Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change:• Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radicalreductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability andproviding resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting thedelivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associatedinfrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and environmentaldimensions of sustainable development (paragraph 93); and,• When determining planning applications, local planning authoritiesshould:o not require applicants to demonstrate the overall need forrenewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that evensmall-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cuttinggreenhouse gas emissions; and,o approve the application if the impacts are (or can be made)acceptable (paragraph 98).113NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/113

6.14 The NPPF states the planning system should contribute to and enhance thenatural and local environment including by “protecting and enhancing valuedlandscapes … and soils”, and minimising impacts on biodiversity andproviding net gains to biodiversity where possible, … “preventing both newand existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptablerisk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, wateror noise pollution or land instability; and remediating and mitigating despoiled,degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate”.6.15 Local planning authorities should take into account “the economic and otherbenefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land”. Planning permissionshould be refused for “development resulting in the loss or deterioration ofirreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged orveteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, andbenefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss”.6.16 Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that: “the site is suitablefor its new use taking account of ground conditions and land instability,including from natural hazards or former activities such as mining, pollutionarising from previous uses and any proposals for mitigation including landremediation or impacts on the natural environment arising from thatremediation”.6.17 Local planning authorities should focus on “whether the development itself isan acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the use, rather than thecontrol of processes or emissions themselves where these are subject toapproval under pollution control regimes” and should assume that theseregimes will operate effectively.6.18 With regard to planning conditions and obligations, the NPPF indicates thatlocal planning authorities should consider whether unacceptable developmentcould be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planningobligations. Planning obligations should only be used where it is not possibleto address unacceptable impacts through a planning condition. It states thatplanning obligations should only be used where they meet all the followingtests:• necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;• directly related to the development; and,• fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.6.19 It also states that planning conditions should only be imposed where they arenecessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted andreasonable in all other respects.6.20 The introduction to the NPPF confirms that local authorities taking decisionson waste applications should have regard to the policies contained within theNPPF insofar as they are relevant.114NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/114

6.21 Annex 1 of the NPPF provides advice on implementation of the NPPF, theapproach to be taken where local development plan policies were adoptedprior to publication of the NPPF and on the approach towards emergingpolicies in new plans. The advice is important because all elements of theadopted local plan policies relevant to this proposal were adopted prior topublication of the NPPF and there are emerging plans of potential relevanceto the AWRP proposal. In interpreting this advice it should, however, be notedthat the NPPF itself is just a material consideration and cannot usurp thestatutory requirement to determine applications in accordance with thedevelopment plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It may,therefore, be appropriate to give full weight to policies on the basis that,notwithstanding that the NPPF is a material consideration, its advice may notindicate otherwise.6.22 Significantly, the NPPF advises that “for the purposes of decision-taking, thepolicies in the Local Plan should not be considered out-of-date simplybecause they were adopted prior to the publication of this Framework”.6.23 For 12 months from the day of publication (i.e. until 26 March 2013), theCounty Council as Planning Authority may continue to give full weight torelevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree ofconflict with the Framework. The year 2004 is a significant threshold beingthe introduction of the system of local development frameworks under thePlanning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.6.24 It continues advising, “in other cases and following this 12-month period, dueweight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to theirdegree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the planto the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given)”.6.25 From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevantpolicies in emerging plans according to:• the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced thepreparation, the greater the weight that may be given);• the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies(the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight thatmay be given); and,• the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan tothe policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emergingplan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may begiven) (a footnote to this paragraph indicates that weight may be givenunless material considerations indicate otherwise).6.26 In light of the above, the following circumstances are considered relevant. TheNorth Yorkshire Waste Local Plan (NYWLP) was adopted in 2006. It was,however, prepared under legislation pre-dating the Planning and CompulsoryPurchase Act 2004. In these circumstances the position is that weight shouldbe applied to the NYWLP ‘saved’ policies according to their degree ofconsistency with the NPPF (the closer the ‘saved’ policies in the NYWLP tothe policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given).115NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/115

6.27 The North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan (NYMLP) was adopted in 1997 andtherefore, the approach to be applied with regard to any relevant ‘saved’policies is the same as for the NYWLP.6.28 Harrogate District Local Plan ‘saved’ policies (not replaced by the HarrogateCore Strategy) were adopted in 2001 (with alterations in 2004). Weightshould therefore be given, where relevant, according to their degree ofconsistency with the NPPF.6.29 The Harrogate Core Strategy was adopted in 2009 and was prepared underthe Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Full weight may thereforebe given to any relevant policies in that plan, even if there is a limited degreeof conflict with the NPPF, in any decisions taken prior to 27 March 2013.6.30 With regard to emerging local plans, the following are potentially relevant:• North Yorkshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategies: These arecurrently at a relatively early stage of preparation and the project plan isunder review. Adoption is not expected until late 2014. No draft policiesfor waste have yet been published and no potential sites identified forconsultation purposes. Very little if any weight should therefore beattached to these draft plans.• Harrogate Borough Council is currently preparing a sites and policiesdevelopment plan document to accompany the Harrogate Core Strategy.The DPD is at a more advanced stage of preparation, with presubmissionpublication currently expected in Autumn 2012, with adoptionprogrammed for November 2013. It may therefore be appropriate toattach some weight to any relevant policy content in this emerging DPD.6.31 Relevant local policies are identified later in this section.6.32 It should be noted that the NPPF, whilst relevant to consideration of theapplication, does not contain specific waste policies and does not replacePPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (2011). The intention ofthe Government is, instead, to publish national waste planning policy withinthe forthcoming ‘National Waste Management Plan’. For the interim periodtherefore, national planning policy for waste will continue to be that as statedwithin PPS10.Planning Policy Statement No. 10 – ‘Planning for Sustainable WasteManagement’6.33 This was first published in July 2005 and was revised in March 2011 to reflectthe 2008 EU Waste Framework Directive. It replaced its predecessor,Planning Policy Guidance Note 10 ‘Planning and Waste Management’ whichwas published in 1999. PPS10 is accompanied by a Companion Guidepublished on 13 June 2006. PPS10 is the current national policy documentdirected at waste-related development controlled by the planning system. Itsets out the Government’s policy for the management of waste through ‘thewaste hierarchy’, i.e. prevention, preparing for reuse, recycling, other recoveryand only disposing of waste as a last resort.116NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/116

6.34 Paragraph 1 of the revised PPS10 states:“The overall objective of Government policy on waste, as set out in thestrategy for sustainable development, is to protect human health and theenvironment by producing less waste and by using it as a resource whereverpossible. By more sustainable waste management, moving the managementof waste up the ‘waste hierarchy’ of prevention, preparing for reuse, recycling,other recovery, and disposing only as a last resort, the Government aims tobreak the link between economic growth and the environmental impact ofwaste. This means a step-change in the way waste is handled and significantnew investment in waste management facilities. The planning system ispivotal to the adequate and timely provision of the new facilities that will beneeded”.6.35 Its key objectives are to:• help deliver sustainable development through driving wastemanagement up the waste hierarchy, addressing waste as a resourceand looking to disposal as the last option, but one which must beadequately catered for;• provide a framework in which communities take more responsibility fortheir own waste, and enable sufficient and timely provision of wastemanagement facilities to meet the needs of their communities;• help implement the national waste strategy, and supporting targets, areconsistent with obligations required under European legislation andsupport and complement other guidance and legal controls such asthose set out in the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994;• help secure the recovery or disposal of waste without endangeringhuman health and without harming the environment, and enable waste tobe disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations;• reflect the concerns and interests of communities, the needs of wastecollection authorities, waste disposal authorities and business, andencourage competitiveness;• protect green belts but recognise the particular locational needs of sometypes of waste management facilities when defining detailed green beltboundaries and, in determining planning applications, that theselocational needs, together with the wider environmental and economicbenefits of sustainable waste management, are material considerationsthat should be given significant weight in determining whether proposalsshould be given planning permission;• ensure the design and layout of new development supports sustainablewaste management.6.36 Paragraph 5 of the revised PPS10 requires planning authorities to adhere tothe principle that “controls under the planning and pollution control regimesshould complement rather than duplicate each other and conflicting conditionsshould be avoided” and that planning authorities should “work effectively withpollution control authorities to ensure the best use is made of expertise andinformation, and that decisions on planning applications and pollution controlpermits are delivered expeditiously”.117NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/117

6.37 It advises in paragraph 28 that applicants may be able to assist an integratedapproach between the Planning Authority and Environment Agencyjurisdictions “by preparing and submitting planning and pollution controlapplications in parallel”.6.38 Paragraph 5 also requires planning authorities to also adhere to the principlethat:“in considering planning applications for waste management facilities beforedevelopment plans can be reviewed to reflect this PPS, have regard to thepolicies in this PPS as material considerations which may supersede thepolicies in their development plan. Any refusal of planning permission ongrounds of prematurity will not be justified unless it accords with the policy in“The Planning System: General Principles”.6.39 Paragraph 20 relates to the identification of suitable sites and areas in localpolicy documents and states that “in searching for sites and areas suitable fornew or enhanced waste management facilities, waste planning authoritiesshould consider:• Opportunities for on-site management of waste where it arises;• A broad range of locations including industrial sites, looking foropportunities to co-locate facilities together and with complimentaryactivities”.6.40 In relation to determining planning applications paragraph 23 states “in theinterim period before the development plan is updated to reflect the policies inthis PPS, planning authorities should ensure proposals are consistent with thepolicies in this PPS and avoid placing requirements on applicants that areinconsistent”.6.41 When dealing with unallocated sites (i.e. sites not allocated in thedevelopment plan), the revised PPS10 instructs local authorities inparagraphs 24 and 25 stating:“Planning applications for sites that have not been identified, or are notlocated in an area identified, in a development plan document as suitable fornew or enhanced waste management facilities should be consideredfavourably when consistent with(i) the policies in this PPS, including the criteria set out in paragraph 21;(ii) the waste planning authority’s Core Strategy.6.42 The criteria referred to in paragraph 21 are:(i) assess their suitability for development against each of the followingcriteria:• the extent to which they support the policies in [PPS10];• the physical and environmental constraints on development,including existing and proposed neighbouring land uses (seeAnnex E [of PPS10]);• the cumulative effect of previous waste disposal facilities on thewell-being of the local community, including any significant adverseimpacts on environmental quality, social cohesion and inclusion oreconomic potential;118NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/118

• the capacity of existing and potential transport infrastructure tosupport the sustainable movement of waste, and products arisingfrom resource recovery, seeking when practicable and beneficial touse modes other than road transport; and,(ii)give priority to the re-use of previously-developed land, and redundantagricultural buildings and their curtilages6.43 It goes on to state in paragraph 25 of the revised PPS10 that “in the case ofwaste disposal facilities, applicants should be able to demonstrate that theenvisaged facility will not undermine the waste planning strategy throughprejudicing movement up the waste hierarchy”.6.44 PPS10 also sets out a number of criteria to be assessed by PlanningAuthorities in determining applications for waste management facilities. Theyare set out in Annex E and should be used to test the suitability of sites forwaste management activities. These are listed below:a. Protection of water resources;b. Land instability;c. Visual intrusion;d. Nature conservation;e. Historic environment and built heritage;f. Traffic and access;g. Air emissions, including dust;h. Odours;i. Vermin and birds;j. Noise and vibration;k. Litter; and,l. Potential land use conflict.6.45 With regard to local environmental impacts, paragraph 29 states “inconsidering planning applications for waste management facilities wasteplanning authorities should consider the likely impact on the local environmentand on amenity (see Annex E). These can also be concerns of the pollutioncontrol authorities and there should be consistency between consents issuedunder the planning and pollution control regimes”.6.46 With regard to the impacts on human health, the revised PPS10 advises that“modern, appropriately located, well-run and well-regulated, wastemanagement facilities operated in line with current pollution control techniquesand standards should pose little risk to human health. The detailedconsideration of a waste management process and the implications, if any, forhuman health is the responsibility of the pollution control authorities.However, planning operates in the public interest to ensure that the location ofproposed development is acceptable and health can be material to suchdecisions”.119NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/119

6.47 It goes on to state that “where concerns about health are raised, wasteplanning authorities should avoid carrying out their own detailed assessmentof epidemiological and other health studies. Rather, they should ensure,through drawing from Government advice and research and consultation withthe relevant health authorities and agencies, that they have advice on theimplications for health, if any, and when determining planning applicationsconsider the locational implications of such advice. In turn, the relevant healthauthorities and agencies will require sufficient understanding of the proposedwaste management process to provide considered advice. A concurrentprocess and a transparent relationship between the planning and pollutioncontrol regimes will help facilitate this”.6.48 In specific regard to design, paragraph 36 indicates that “waste managementfacilities in themselves should be well-designed, so that they contributepositively to the character and quality of the area in which they are located.Poor design is in itself undesirable, undermines community acceptance ofwaste facilities and should be rejected”.6.49 With regard to the issue of prematurity it states: “in considering planningapplications for waste management facilities before development plans can bereviewed to reflect this PPS, […planning authorities must…] have regard tothe policies in this PPS as material considerations which may supersede thepolicies in their development plan. Any refusal of planning permission ongrounds of prematurity will not be justified unless it accords with the policy in‘The Planning System: General Principles’”.6.50 Whilst materially relevant to the determination of the application, it should benoted that the information contained within the Companion Guide to PPS10 isafforded less weight that the content of the actual Policy document, or indeed,legislative requirements to which the County Council must have due regard.Nevertheless, whilst not in itself, policy, it supports the interpretation of therelevant policy and thereby its implementation.Local Planning Policy – the Development Plan6.51 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 providesthat, if regard is to be had to ‘the development plan’ for the purpose of anydetermination to be made under the Planning Acts (as it is here), thedetermination must be made in accordance with ‘the development plan’unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Section 70 (2) of the Townand Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) provides that, in dealing withany application for planning permission, the planning authority shall haveregard to:(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to theapplication(b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application,and(c) any other material considerations.120NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/120

6.52 The ‘local finance consideration’ is defined in section 143 of the Localism Act2011 to include any grant or other financial assistance that has been, or will orcould be, provided to a ‘relevant authority’ (which includes County Councils)by a Minister of the Crown.6.53 In this instance, the Development Plan consists of policies contained withinthe following:• the Yorkshire and the Humber Plan (forming the Regional SpatialStrategy for the area) (adopted May 2008);• any extant planning policies contained within Plan(s) adopted by theCounty Council and Harrogate Borough Council which have been ‘saved’under Direction of the Secretary of State, namely,o the ‘saved’ Policies contained within the Harrogate District LocalPlan (2001) (as altered in 2004);o the ‘saved’ Policies contained within the North Yorkshire WasteoLocal Plan (adopted 2006);the ‘saved’ Policies contained within the North Yorkshire MineralsLocal Plan (adopted 1997); and,• any planning policies contained within Development Plan Documentsadopted under the Local Development Framework regime, namely,o the Harrogate District Core Strategy (adopted February 2009).The Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and the Humber6.54 In May 2008 the Secretary of State published the Regional Strategy forYorkshire and Humber, which contains the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)for the Yorkshire and Humber Region, covering the period to 2026 (hereinafterreferred to as the RSS). The decision by the Secretary of State forCommunities and Local Government on 6 July 2010 to revoke RegionalStrategies was quashed in the courts, and, therefore, the RSS remains part ofthe ‘Development Plan’ for the area. However, the letter issued by the SoS on27 May 2010, in which he says that Local Planning Authorities should treat theintended revocation of RSS as a material consideration, is said to remainmaterial as it is still the Government’s intention to revoke the RSS.6.55 The revocation has been delayed as a result of legal decisions and arequirement to carry out Strategic Environmental Assessment. Nevertheless,the Secretary of State has also indicated that their revocation has become astep closer following the coming into effect of the Localism Act in November2011. For the time being, the RSS remains part of the Development Plan,and recent planning appeal decisions have adopted a position of attachingonly limited weight to the intended revocation. It is significant that it has alsobeen indicated that the weight apportioned to the proposal to abolish is whollya matter for the decision maker based on the merits of each individual case.Planning Authorities are, furthermore, instructed that national planning policystatements and guidance and evidence that informed the preparation of theRSS may also be considered material. The SOS is currently consulting on aStrategic Environmental Assessment of the proposed revocation of RSS forYorkshire and the Humber6.56 The directly relevant planning policies contained in the RSS include:121NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/121

Policy ENV12 - Regional Waste Management Objectives6.57 This Policy aims to reduce, reuse, recycle and recover as much waste aspossible. It sets out the broad policy objectives for waste management withinthe region and advises that local authorities should take a partnershipapproach to ensure the integration of strategies and proposals for sustainablewaste management. Key principles in this approach are the movement ofwaste streams up ‘the waste hierarchy’ and the management of waste at thenearest appropriate location. The Policy states:“A Plans, strategies, investment decisions and programmes should aim toreduce, reuse, recycle and recover as much waste as possible.B Local authorities should work with regional partners, includingcommerce, the Environment Agency, the waste industry, RecyclingAction Yorkshire and community groups to ensure the integration ofstrategies and proposals for sustainable waste management.C Local authorities should support the urgent provision of a combination offacilities and other waste management initiatives which best meetsenvironmental, social and economic needs for their areas based on thefollowing principles:1. moving the management of all waste streams up the wastehierarchy2. achieving all statutory waste management performance targetsduring the Plan period3. managing waste at the nearest appropriate location, wherenecessary by seeking agreement with neighbouring authorities”6.58 Paragraphs 10.65 and 10.67 of the supporting justification to this particularPolicy emphasise the need to move waste up ‘the waste hierarchy’ especiallyin acknowledging that the Yorkshire and Humber region was, at that time, oneof the “worst performing for recycling and recovery”. It also advises, inparagraph 10.67, that “investment in new waste facilities and initiatives needsto take place at an accelerated rate”. The background to Policy ENV12 notesthat commercial, industrial, construction and demolition waste streams needto be addressed in the region in terms of their waste reduction and recycling.Policy ENV13 - Provision of waste management and treatment facilities6.59 This Policy seeks to ensure the provision of adequate sites and facilities tomeet identified needs for the management of waste. It states:“Waste planning authorities should individually or jointly ensure that adequatesites and facilities are available to manage municipal, commercial andindustrial, construction and demolition, agricultural, and hazardous waste,taking account of the benchmark figures set out in Tables 10.4–10.8.Specifically, waste planning authorities should:A Take into account:1. Capacity of treatment and recovery facilities to deal with municipaland commercial and industrial waste will need to double by 2020 inall sub regions to provide the additional capacity identified in Table10.42. The existing range of facilities for dealing with hazardous waste willneed to change to provide for more treatment and less landfill122NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/122

BCD3. In the short term there is generally adequate landfill capacity, butthere may be a need for new capacity to replace existing facilities,particularly in West Yorkshire, before 2020.Take into account:1. The split between the need to provide facilities to manage the finaldisposal and recovery/recycling of waste2. The need to meet nationally set targets for recycling and recovery,including those derived from the Landfill Allowance TradingScheme3. The contribution made by new and existing waste facilities and theanticipated lifespan of such facilities4. The provisions of policy E3 (the economy and employment landreviews)5. Annual waste and waste facility monitoring data provided by theRegional Technical Advisory Body6. Opportunities to provide treatment facilities for multiple wastestreamsConsider the specific requirements arising from:1. Significant transfers of waste across the regional boundary2 The likelihood of significant irregular arisings of hazardous wastefrom site regeneration / remediation projects during the plan periodLiaise with neighbouring districts, the RTAB, Recycling Action Yorkshireand community stakeholders to consider any requirements arising from:1. The need to establish an accessible network of civic amenity orother recyclates collection public “bring” sites2. The need to make provision for sites for new waste relatedbusinesses (either on a grouped “park” or individual basis) toencourage their establishment.6.60 With respect to Table 10.4, the RSS identified the additional capacity requiredin the North Yorkshire sub-region to manage municipal and commercial andindustrial as being 864,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) in 2010, 1,554,000 tpa by2015 and 1,069,000 tpa by 2021. (n.b: there is an acknowledged error in thefigure quoted in RSS for 2015, which should read 974,000tpa).6.61 Table 10.5 identifies forecasts of MSW to be managed, which for NorthYorkshire (including the City of York Council) amounted to 494,000 tonnes perannum (tpa) in 2005, 522,000 tpa in 2010, 551,000 tpa in 2015 and 589,000 in2021. It forecasts the minimum tonnage to be recycled in 2005/06 to be133,000 tpa (or 27%), 209,000 tpa (40%) in 2010, 248,000 tpa (45%) in 2015and 295,000 tpa in 2021.6.62 However, it is important to note that the forecasted arisings figures were“based on work commissioned in Spring 2007 by the Government Office(“Waste Arisings Forecasting” – Enviros Consulting June 2007)” (paragraph10.70, YHRSS, 2008). Paragraph 10.71 explains that the figures in the Tablewere “not intended to be a detailed forecast but to provide a suitablebenchmark for the preparation of local development documents”.123NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/123

Policy ENV14 - Strategic Locational criteria for waste management facilities6.63 This Policy advises on where waste management facilities should be located,when considering the designation of sites. In particular, it gives priority toestablished industrial sites and then to previously developed land. In providinga strategic framework for the production of development plan documents,rather than its use in decision-making on specific applications, this Policy, asexplained in paragraph 10.80 of the supporting text, “sets out broad strategiclocational criteria for waste management facilities, which should beconsidered when WPAs chose site-specific site allocations. The primestrategic role for the Plan can be summarised as helping to provide “sufficientopportunities for new waste management facilities of the right type, in the rightplace and at the right time”.6.64 The document further states:“The following principles should be considered in designating specific sites orareas where criteria based approaches will apply:A Waste should be managed on the site where it arises, or if not possibleat the nearest appropriate location. Major sources of waste arising inrural areas should be treated locally, unless specialised facilities arerequired.C Facilities should be located in accordance with the Core Approach andthe proposed distribution of housing and economic growth.E In all areas, identification of sites for facilities should also take account ofthe following priority order:1. Established and proposed industrial sites which have potential forthe location of waste management facilities and the co-location ofcomplementary activities, such as “resource recovery” or“sustainable growth” parks2. Previously developed land, including mineral extraction and landfillsites during their period of operation for the location of relatedwaste treatment activities in sustainable locations3. Redundant farm buildings and their curtilagesG One-off or non-process related hazardous waste generation from theclear up of contaminated sites should be treated on the basis of thefollowing hierarchy:1. On site treatment (for example bioremediation)2. On site encapsulation3. Off site treatment4. Off site encapsulation[N.B: there was no criteria B, D and F within the published Policy]Other relevant policies of the RSS:Policy ENV1 – Development and Flood Risk6.65 The relevant parts of this Policy are A and B which state:A The Region will manage flood risk pro-actively by reducing the causes offlooding to existing and future development, especially in tidal areas, andavoid development in high flood risk areas where possible.124NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/124

BAllocation of areas for development will follow a sequential approach andwill be in the lowest risk sites appropriate for the development (identifiedby Strategic Flood Risk Assessments).Policy ENV3 – Water quality6.66 This Policy states:“The Region will maintain high standards of water quality. Plans, strategies,investment decisions and programmes should:A Prevent development that could pollute surface and underground waterresources especially in Source Protection Zones and close to aboveground water resources of reservoirs and some rivers.B Provide for adequate sewerage infrastructure and treatment capacityand promote more sustainable waste water treatment methodsC Continue to improve bathing waters at Staithes and Flamborough HeadNorthD Achieve and maintain a high standard of coastal water quality at Whitby,Scarborough, Filey, Bridlington, Hornsea and CleethorpesE Protect and improve water quality at internationally important biodiversitysites at Denby Grange Colliery Ponds, Hornsea Mere, Kirk Deighton andthe Humber Estuary.”Policy ENV4 – Minerals6.67 This Policy states:A. Plans, strategies, investment decisions and programmes shouldsafeguard mineral deposits in the region, including aggregates (sand,gravel, limestone and sandstone), silica sand, coal, clay, brick earth,chalk and potash, from sterilisation by other types of development andprovide for an adequate and steady supply of minerals.B. The Region will maximise the use of secondary and recycled aggregatesto reduce dependency on primary extraction.C. Mineral Planning Authorities should:1. Maximise the contribution by substitute and secondary materialswherever possible, and facilitate sites and operations (includingthose to blend secondary and primary aggregates, reprocessingand the transfer of materials), especially in West Yorkshire2. Make provision for the sub regional apportionments as set out inTable 10.1 and endeavour to maintain a landbank for all nationallyand regionally significant minerals3. Seek a progressive reduction in aggregate production fromNational Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, notingthat there is no strategic justification for the provision of any newcrushed rock sites within these areas within the Plan periodD. The sub-regional aggregate apportionments should be updated in areview of the Plan, in particular to taking account of the 2nd Phase of theYorkshire and Humber Sand and Gravel Study.125NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/125

6.68 Within the supporting paragraph 10.24, it states “the purpose of ENV4 is tomaximise use of secondary aggregates before extracting primary aggregates”.In proposing the development of a facility for the use of Incinerator BottomAsh as part of the AWRP planning application, Policy ENV4 is considered,therefore, to be materially relevant in the assessment of the proposal againstthe policies which comprise the development plan for the area.Policy ENV5 - Energy6.69 This Policy states:“The Region will maximise improvements to energy efficiency and increasesin renewable energy capacity. Plans, strategies, investment decisions andprogrammes should:A Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency andmaximise the efficient use of power sources by:1. Requiring the orientation and layout of development to maximisepassive solar heating2. Ensuring that publicly funded housing, and Yorkshire Forwardsupported development, meet high energy efficiency standards3. Maximising the use of combined heat and power, particularly fordevelopments with energy demands over 2MW, and incorporatingrenewable sources of energy where possible4. Ensuring that development takes advantage of community heatingopportunities wherever they arise in the region, including atImmingham and near Selby5. Providing for new efficient energy generation and transmissioninfrastructure in keeping with local amenity and areas of demand6. Supporting the use of clean coal technologies and abatementmeasuresB Maximise renewable energy capacity by:1. Delivering at least the following Regional and Sub-Regional targetsfor installed grid-connected renewable energy capacity:2010 2021Humber 124MW 350MWNorth Yorkshire 209MW 428MWSouth Yorkshire 47MW 160MWWest Yorkshire 88MW 295MWOffshore 240MW 630MWTotal 708MW 1862MW2. Monitoring annually planning permissions and developmentsagainst the indicative local authority targets for 2010 and 2021 setout in Table 10.2 and taking action accordingly in order to ensurethe regional and subregional targets are exceeded3. Promoting and securing greater use of decentralised andrenewable or low-carbon energy in new development, includingthrough Development Plan Documents setting ambitious but viableproportions of the energy supply for new development to berequired to come from such sources. In advance of local targetsbeing set in DPDs, new developments of more than 10 dwellings or1000m 2 of non-residential floorspace should secure at least 10% of126NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/126

their energy from decentralised and renewable or low-carbonsources, unless, having regard to the type of development involvedand its design, this is not feasible or viable.”6.70 It states “the purpose of policy ENV5 is to increase energy efficiency throughpassive design, better use of existing power sources and other measures, andto increase installed renewable energy capacity in the Region”. Paragraph10.31 instructs local authorities to “consider opportunities for biomass andCHP and community heating schemes, especially in remoter rural areas offthe gas mains network”. In proposing the development of an anaerobicdigestion facility which, in turn, produces gases, which, in turn, via a turbine,produces energy as electricity to the national grid and for use within the facilityitself, Policy ENV5 is considered, therefore, to be materially relevant in theassessment of the proposal against the policies which comprise thedevelopment plan for the area.Policy ENV6 – Forestry, trees and woodland6.71 This Policy states:“A The Region will safeguard, manage and enhance its existing tree andwoodland resource in line with the Regional Forestry Strategy, and inparticular increase the area of woodland under active management andincrease the total woodland area by approximately 500 ha per year.B Plans, strategies, investment decisions and programmes should:1. Identify, safeguard and enhance ancient woodlands, especially inSouth and West Yorkshire2. Provide for increased woodland planting, especially in East, Southand West Yorkshire, and Hull, and in upland catchments and mostparts of functional floodplains3. Conserve, enhance and increase planting in urban areas,especially on previously developed land and on land by motorwaysand railways4. Increase planting for biomass and encourage the management ofexisting woodland for wood fuel5. Improve public accessibility to and within woodlands in or neartowns and cities6. Avoid large scale coniferous forestry projects on the SherwoodSandstone aquifer”.Policy ENV7 – Agricultural Land6.72 This policy states:“A If development of agricultural land is required it should take place onpoorer quality land wherever possible and appropriate.B Development or use of agricultural land in appropriate locations will beencouraged for the following:1. Provision of renewable energy crops, especially biomass for cofiringin power stations in the Selby area2. Tourism, especially in the Yorkshire Dales, North York Moors,Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Wolds, Humberhead levels and thecoast3. Creation of woodland, especially in East, South and West Yorkshire127NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/127

4. Positive land management for flood alleviation, and increasedwater storage capacity on farms, especially in remoter rural areas5. Wildlife habitat creation schemes, especially links between habitats6. Outdoor recreation projects, especially in areas of poor health inSouth and West Yorkshire7. Local produce for sale on site of main farm business8. Local waste management schemes, such as composting”.Policy ENV8 - Biodiversity6.73 This policy states that:“The Region will safeguard and enhance biodiversity and geological heritage,and ensure that the natural environment functions as an integrated network ofhabitats. Plans, strategies, investment decisions and programmes should aimto maintain and enhance, restore or add to distinctive elements of the naturalenvironment in line with international, national, regional, sub regional and localimportance for biodiversity, to:A Maintain and restore natural processes, especially sediment flow on theHolderness coast and in the Humber Estuary taking account of the likelyimpacts of climate changeB Protect geological and geomorphological features and processes,especially cave systems, karst landscapes and dinosaur remains on theEast CoastC Support the recovery of priority species and restore and enhance priorityhabitats and functional networks of biodiversity in the floodplains, peatlands and saline lagoons of the Humber, calcareous grasslands, heathsand bogs, limestone pavements and meadows, especially in parts ofNorth Yorkshire, East Yorkshire, and South and West Yorkshire.D Retain and incorporate biodiversity in development and encouragenetworks of green infrastructure and ecological corridors in line with theRegion’s habitat enhancement areas identified in Figure 10.5 andexplained in Table 10.3”.Policy ENV9 – Historic Environment6.74 This Policy states that “[t]he Region will safeguard and enhance the historicenvironment, and ensure that historical context informs decisions aboutdevelopment and regeneration”. It carries on to state:“A The Region will safeguard and enhance the historic environment, andensure that historical context informs decisions about development andregeneration.BPlans, strategies, investment decisions and programmes shouldconserve the following regionally-distinctive elements of the historicenvironment, enhance their character and reinforce their distinctiveness:1. World Heritage Sites and their settings at Saltaire, and FountainsAbbey and Studley Royal2. Prehistoric landscapes, especially the Wolds, the SouthernMagnesian Limestone Ridge, the Vale of Pickering, and Ilkley andRombalds Moors3. Medieval settlements and landscapes, especially the LincolnshireCoversands, the waterlogged landscapes of the Humber and the128NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/128

elict industrial landscapes of the North York Moors and YorkshireDales4. Former industrial landscapes, housing areas and civic buildings ofnote, especially in West and South Yorkshire5. Roman military and civil settlements and communications,especially in North Yorkshire6. The street patterns, sky lines, views and setting of the historic Cityof York7. Maritime archaeological assets, seaside resorts, and the purposebuilt historic ports, docks and infrastructure of the East Coast andthe Humber8. Historic landscapes including registered battlefields, parks andgardens9. The unique record of historic urban development present asarchaeological deposits in large areas of the region’s cities andtowns”.Policy E7 – Rural Economy6.75 This Policy states:Plans, strategies, investment decisions and programmes should help diversifyand strengthen the rural economy by facilitating the development of ruralindustries, businesses and enterprises in a way that:1. Promotes complementary roles for Principal Towns and Local ServiceCentres2. Allows for essential development for agriculture or forestry purposes inthe countryside3. Encourages the use of information technology and telecommunications4. Supports rural diversification schemes which bring economic, social andenvironmental benefit5. Gives priority to the re-use of existing buildings6. Supports and protects an attractive and high quality rural environment7. Ensures appropriate scales and types of development and levels oftraffic generation.Policy YH2: Climate change and resource use6.76 This Policy states:“Plans, strategies, investment decisions and programmes should:A Help to meet the target set out in the RES to reduce greenhouse gasemissions in the region in 2016 by 20-25% (compared to 1990 levels)with further reductions thereafter by:1. Increasing population, development and activity in cities and towns2. Encouraging better energy, resource, and water efficient buildings3. Minimising resource demands from development4. Reducing traffic growth through appropriate location ofdevelopment, demand management, and improving publictransport and facilities for walking and cycling5. Encouraging redevelopment of previously developed land6. Facilitating effective waste management7. Increasing renewable energy capacity and carbon capture129NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/129

BPlan for the successful adaptation to the predicted impacts of climatechange by:1. Minimising threats from and impact of coastal erosion, increasedflood risk, increased storminess, habitat disturbance, increasedpressure on water resources, supply and drainage systems;2. Maximising opportunities from: increased growing season; greatertourism potential; and warmer urban environments.6.77 Paragraph 2.18 of the supporting text to Policy YH2 states that “the target isintended to provide a strategic framework for these actions, to inform forwardplanning and for monitoring purposes. Monitoring progress towards the targetwill be important and this may lead to revisions to this Plan and otherstrategies, plans and programmes. It will not however be appropriate to usethis as a basis for making decisions on individual development proposals”.6.78 The Local Plans that have particular relevance to the determination of thisapplication, are each, in turn, addressed in further detail in the paragraphsthat follow. They are the:• North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan (adopted 2006);• North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan (adopted 1997);• Harrogate District Local Plan (adopted 2001, alterations published 2004);and,• Harrogate District LDF: Core Strategy DPD (February 2009)North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan (adopted 2006)6.79 While North Yorkshire’s Waste Local Plan, hereinafter referred to as NYWLP,was adopted in 2006, it was prepared substantially before that, under theTown and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) rather than the Planningand Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This is relevant to its status relative toAnnex 1 of the NPPF, as the Plan’s preparation, rather than its adoption, predatesthe publication of PPS10.6.80 Paragraph 2.21 of the NYWLP expresses the over-arching strategy of theCounty Council as being:“To seek a balance between providing essential facilities to treat and disposeof waste with the need to protect, and where possible, enhance theenvironment and the quality of life in North Yorkshire, in accordance with theprinciples of sustainable development”.6.81 The Plan goes on to state that this Strategy will be realised through the overallaims of the NYWLP. These are provided in paragraph 2.22 of the Plan whichstates the five aims as being:• To protect the environment and local amenity from potential harm fromwaste related development• To seek a reduction in the amount of waste that requires treatment anddisposal• To secure an adequate and integrated network of facilities for dealingwith waste generated within, or in proximity, to North Yorkshire• To encourage a move away from traditional waste disposal to alternativemethods of re-use and recovery130NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/130

• To encourage the use of environmentally acceptable standards ofoperational practices in respect of waste treatment and disposal”6.82 The current NYWLP was originally due to expire on 17 May 2009. However,the Secretary of State issued a formal Direction allowing a large number of thepolicies to be 'saved' until the policies being developed under the Mineralsand Waste Development Framework (MWDF) supersede them. The 'saved'policies continue to form part of the statutory ‘development plan’ and providean important part of the current local policy framework for development controldecisions for waste facilities.6.83 The NYWLP was adopted within the national context of the ‘Waste Strategy2000’ providing the country with a vision for the management of waste. TheNYWLP advises that “at the centre of this vision is the need to tackle theamount of waste that is produced, by breaking the link between economicgrowth and waste production and to put waste which is produced to good usethrough substantial increases in re-use, recycling and recovery of energy”.6.84 The NYWLP then goes on to explain what is meant by ‘the waste hierarchy’stating that “the waste hierarchy has been developed to provide a policyframework within which waste management decisions can be taken”. A moredetailed description of the current ‘waste hierarchy’ is provided later in thissection of the report.6.85 It goes on to say that “within the hierarchy, incineration with energy recoveryis not to be considered before the opportunities for recycling and compostinghave been explored”.6.86 The NYWLP includes the following narrative in the context of the national‘Waste Strategy 2000’:“The Government’s overall policy aim is to increase the proportion of wastemanaged by the options towards the top of the waste hierarchy. Whilst this isthe overall policy aim, the hierarchy acts as a guide and is not prescriptive.The Strategy recognises that for individual waste streams, the choice of wastemanagement options will be guided by the principle of Best PracticableEnvironmental Option (BPEO). The BPEO is the outcome of a decisionmaking procedure which emphasises the protection and conservation of theenvironment. It is the option which provides the most benefit or least damageto the environment, at acceptable cost, in the long term as well as the shortterm”.6.87 Having described the concept of sustainable development, citing the 1987Brundtland Report’s definition of sustainable development as “developmentthat meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of futuregenerations to meet their own needs”, it goes on to say, in paragraph 2.18,that “the County Council aims to encourage a more sustainable approach towaste management which acknowledges the waste hierarchy but alsorecognises that local circumstances and selection of Best PracticableEnvironmental Option (BPEO) may have overriding influence on wastemanagement practices”.131NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/131

6.88 The NYWLP also addresses the issue of the principle of proximity. It advisesthat “the proximity principle requires that waste is managed and disposed ofas close as possible to the place at which it was generated, whereverpracticable. This encourages local communities to take greater responsibilityfor the waste generated and is also likely to reduce the environmental impactsof transporting waste. In doing so, this accords with the principle ofsustainable development and the aim of achieving, as far as possible, selfsufficiencyin the provision of waste management facilities”.6.89 Further reference to the former BPEO and proximity principle concepts iscontained later in this report.‘Saved’ Policy 4/1 – Waste Management Proposals6.90 This Policy states:“Proposals for waste management facilities will be permitted provided that:a) the siting and scale of the development is appropriate to the location ofthe proposal;b) the proposed method and scheme of working would minimise the impactof the proposal;c) there would not be an unacceptable environmental impact;d) there would not be an unacceptable cumulative impact on the local area;e) the landscaping and screening has been designed to effectively mitigatethe impact of the proposal in a way that is sympathetic to local landscapecharacter;f) where appropriate, adequate provision is made for the restoration,aftercare and management of the site to an agreed afteruse;g) the proposed transport links are adequate to serve the development;and,h) other environmental and amenity safeguards would effectively mitigatethe impact of the proposal;i) it can be demonstrated that the proposal represents the Best PracticableEnvironmental Option for dealing with the waste;j) the location is geographically well located to the source of the wastethereby according with the proximity principle.”6.91 This ‘saved’ Policy of the NYWLP is directly relevant to the developmentcurrently under consideration in that it proposes a waste management-relateddevelopment.‘Saved’ Policy 4/3 – Landscape protection6.92 This Policy advises that waste management facilities will only be permitted“where there would not be an unacceptable effect on the character anduniqueness of the landscape. Wherever possible, proposals should result inan enhancement of local landscape character”.132NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/132

6.93 In its reasoned justification, ‘saved’ Policy 4/3 advises that in consideringdevelopment proposals, the Authority will expect developers to respect andenhance the special character and distinctiveness of features which makespecific landscapes locally important. Where waste management proposalsare determined to be compatible with the local landscape by virtue of siting,scale and design, possibilities for the enhancement of the character of thelocal landscape should also be explored.6.94 This specific ‘saved’ policy is therefore considered to be relevant in respect ofthis particular proposal due to the ‘package’ of mitigation measuresincorporated into both on-site landscaping and associated works and off-sitelandscaping through the setting-up, by agreement, a proposed Landscapeand Cultural Heritage Fund (paragraph 3.90 above refers).‘Saved’ Policy 4/7 – Protection of agricultural land6.95 Proposals for waste management facilities on the best and most versatileagricultural land will only be permitted where:i) there is an overriding need for the development;ii) there is a lack of development opportunities on non agricultural land;iii)iv)there is insufficient land available in grades below 3aOther sustainability considerations on land below grade 3a outweighissues of agricultural land qualityWhere, in exceptional circumstances, development is permitted on the bestand most versatile agricultural land it will only be permitted where provision ismade for a high standard of restoration such that an agricultural afteruse canbe achieved or the future potential for high quality agricultural use issafeguarded.‘Saved’ Policy 4/9 – National Sites6.96 This ‘saved’ Policy states,“Proposals for waste management facilities in or likely to affect Sites ofSpecial Scientific Interest (SSSI’s) will be subject to special scrutiny. Wheresuch proposals (either individually or in combination) may have an adverseeffect either directly or indirectly on the SSSI they will not be permitted unlessthere are no alternatives and the reasons of the development clearly outweighthe value of the site itself and the intrinsic nature conservation value of thenational network of such sites”.‘Saved’ Policy 4/10 – Locally important sites6.97 “Proposals for waste management facilities will only be permitted where therewould not be an unacceptable effect on the intrinsic interest and, whereappropriate educational value of the following:(a) Local Nature Reserves;(b) Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation;(c) UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority species or key habitats;(d) other wildlife habitats;(e) the habitat of any animal or plant species protected by law(f) Regionally Important Geological / Geo-morphological Sites (RIGS).”133NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/133

‘Saved’ Policy 4/14 – Historic Environment6.98 This ‘saved’ Policy states that “proposals for waste management facilities willonly be permitted where there would not be an unacceptable effect on listedbuildings, registered parks, gardens and historic battlefields, World HeritageSites or conservation areas, including their settings”.6.99 This ‘saved’ Policy’s particular relevance to the determination of the currentapplication lies in the proximity of the proposal to the heritage assetsspecifically identified in the Policy.‘Saved’ Policy 4/15 – Archaeological Evaluation6.100 This Policy states that “where proposals for waste management facilitiesaffect sites of known or potential archaeological importance the applicant willbe required to carry out an archaeological field evaluation prior to thedetermination of the planning application”.‘Saved’ Policy 4/16 – Archaeological Sites6.101 This Policy states that “proposals for waste management facilities whichwould have an unacceptable effect on nationally important archaeologicalremains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings, will not be permitted.Where planning permission is granted for waste management facilities whichwould affect sites of regional, County or local importance, conditions will beimposed to ensure the remains are preserved in-situ or by record, asappropriate to their archaeological interest”.‘Saved’ Policy 4/18 – Traffic impact6.102 This Policy addresses transport issues and advises that waste managementfacilities will only be permitted where the level of vehicle movements likely tobe generated can be satisfactorily accommodated by the local highway andwould not have an unacceptable impact on local communities.‘Saved’ Policy 4/19 – Quality of life6.103 This Policy seeks to ensure that waste management facilities will be permittedonly where there would not be an unacceptable impact on the localenvironment and residential amenity.‘Saved’ Policy 4/20 – Public Rights of Way6.104 This Policy seeks to protect Public Rights of Way and advises that wastemanagement facilities should not have an unacceptable impact on therecreational value or enjoyment of the Rights of Way network. As there are anumber of routes on the Definitive Map within the vicinity of the applicationsite, due regard must be had to this ‘saved’ Policy.‘Saved’ Policy 4/21 – Progressive Restoration6.105 This policy states that “Planning applications for waste disposal shoulddemonstrate that wherever possible and practicable, progressive restorationwill be undertaken to a high standard to achieve a prescribed after-use orcombination of after-uses”. The proposal will affect the restoration of theexisting landfill so appropriate regard must be had to this ‘saved’ policy.134NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/134

‘Saved’ Policy 4/22 – Site Restoration6.106 This policy states that “Proposals for waste disposal should demonstrate thatthe proposal will restore and enhance, where appropriate, the character of thelocal environment”. As commented under the policy above, the proposal willaffect the restoration of the existing landfill site.‘Saved’ Policy 4/23 - Aftercare6.107 This policy states: “Planning permissions which are subject to conditionsrequiring restoration to agriculture, forestry or amenity uses will additionally besubject to an aftercare requirement seeking to bring the restored land up to anapproved standard for the specified after-use”. The AWRP proposal doesinclude provision for the site to be restored upon de-commissioning so regardmust be had to this policy.‘Saved’ Policy 5/1 – Waste Minimisation6.108 This ‘saved’ Policy states that:“Proposals for major development should include a statement identifying thewaste implications of the development and measures taken to minimise andmanage the waste generated. Permission will not be granted where this hasnot been adequately addressed”.‘Saved’ Policy 5/2 – Waste Recovery6.109 This Policy states that:“Proposals for facilities relating to the recovery of waste will be permittedsubject to adequate environmental and amenity safeguards at the followinglocations as shown on Inset Maps No. 1 & 2a) Barnsdale Bar Landfill & Quarryb) Jackdaw CragProposals outside these areas will be considered in light of other policies ofChapter 5”.‘Saved’ Policy 5/3 - Recycling, Sorting and Transfer of Industrial, Commercialand Household Waste6.110 This policy states:"Proposals for facilities for recycling, sorting and transfer of industrial,commercial and household wastes will be permitted provided that:a) the proposed site is suitably located within an existing, former orproposed industrial area of a character appropriate to the development;or,b) the proposed site is suitably located within a redundant site or building;or,c) the proposed site is appropriately located within or adjacent to active orworked out quarries or landfill sites; and,d) the operations are carried out in suitable buildings; ande) the highway network and site access can satisfactorily accommodate thetraffic generated; andf) that in appropriate cases it does not prejudice the restoration andafteruse of the quarry or landfill site; andg) the proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on local amenity orthe environment."135NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/135

‘Saved’ Policy 5/10 – Incineration of Waste6.111 This Policy states that:“Proposals for the incineration of household, commercial and non-hazardousindustrial waste will be permitted only after opportunities for recycling andcomposting have been explored and provided the following criteria are met:a) the proposed site is suitably located within an existing, former orproposed industrial area of a character appropriate to the development;orb) the proposed site is suitably located on land formerly occupied by wastemanagement facilities of a character appropriate to the development; orc) the proposed site is suitably located on areas of contaminated, despoiledor previously derelict land; andd) the highway network and site access can satisfactorily accommodate thetraffic generated; ande) the proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on local amenity orthe environment”North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan (adopted 1997)6.112 The relevance of this Plan in the determination of the proposal currently underconsideration lies in the fact that the application site comprises land to whichextant mineral planning conditions apply. Specifically, the proposal has thepotential to prejudice the compliance with existing restoration and aftercarerequirements of the permission relating to the mineral working at AllertonPark. Even in the event of non-‘county matter’ (i.e. non mineral or wasterelated)proposals, the safeguarding of the restoration and after-care ofmineral workings is statutorily protected by dint of Schedule 1 of the Town andCountry Planning Act 1990 (as amended) which states “the carrying out ofoperations in, on, over or under land, or a use of land, where the land is orforms part of a site used or formerly used for the winning and working ofminerals and where the operations or use would conflict with or prejudicecompliance with a restoration condition or an after-care condition” wherebyapplications with the potential to conflict are to be determined by the relevantMineral Planning Authority. Amongst the aims of the plan are:• To encourage greater use of alternatives to primary resources;• To encourage, through the reclamation of mineral workings, the longerterm enhancement of the environment and local amenity; and,• To prevent the unnecessary sterilisation of mineral resources and tominimise potential conflict with non-minerals development.6.113 The following ‘saved’ Policies of the North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan(NYMLP) are deemed relevant.‘Saved’ Policy 4/18 – Restoration to agriculture6.114 This ‘saved’ Policy of the NYMLP (1997) states:“Where agriculture is the intended primary after-use, the proposed restorationscheme should provide for the best practicable standard of restoration. Suchrestoration schemes should, where possible, include landscape, conservationor amenity proposals provided that these do not result in the irreversible lossof best and most versatile land”.136NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/136

‘Saved’ Policy 4/20 - Aftercare6.115 This ‘saved’ Policy states:“Planning permissions which are subject to conditions requiring restoration toagriculture, forestry or amenity (including nature conservation) will additionallybe subject to an aftercare requirement seeking to bring the restored land up toan approved standard for the specified after-use. Normally this requirementwill run for a period of five years following restoration. Additionally, whereforestry and amenity (including nature conservation) afteruses are proposed,the Mineral Planning Authority may seek to secure longer term managementagreements”.6.116 An overall aim of the NYMLP is to encourage greater use of alternatives toprimary resources. To the extent that the development would lead to theproduction of renewable and low carbon energy leading to a correspondingreduction in primary fossil fuel resources and would involve the production ofa secondary aggregate material from recycled Incinerator Bottom Ash, thisaim of the NYMLP is relevant.Harrogate District-wide Local Plan (2001) and Alteration (2004) ‘saved’Policies:‘Saved’ Policy H2 – Retention of housing6.117 This Policy states:“The net loss of housing accommodation, especially in or around the town andcity centres, will not be permitted. Except where:A) a satisfactory housing environment can no longer be maintained; orB) the conversion of upper floors of established shops and commercialpremises are reasonably required for the expansion of the existingbusiness and there would be no adverse impact on any neighbouringresidential amenity; orC) alternative development would give rise to proven planning benefitswhich would outweigh the net loss of housing accommodation involved.And in all cases the proposal accords with other relevant policies of the plan,and there would be no prejudice to the overall supply of housing in thedistrict.”‘Saved’ Policy C16 - ‘The re-use and adaptation of rural buildings’ (SelectiveAlteration (May 2004))6.118 This Policy states:“Outside development limits (as defined on the proposals map) and the builtupconfines of settlements referred to in Policy H6, all proposals for the re-useand adaptation of rural buildings should have regard to the following criteria:A) the proposal, by virtue of any physical changes, access and servicingarrangements, and the level of activity associated with the proposeduse, should not harm the character or appearance of the countryside orof the building itself.137NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/137

Any proposal for residential use will not be permitted where:B) the building is not of a permanent and substantial construction, and isnot of a type capable of conversion to the new use without requiringextensive alteration, extension, demolition and/or rebuilding works; orC) an associated residential curtilage would harm the character orappearance of the countryside; orD) the premises are suitable for business use and there is an identifiedlocal need for business premises; orE) there is a local need for affordable housing, the building is suitable forsuch purposes and satisfies Policy H5, and the proposal is not anaffordable housing scheme.Proposals for business use, in addition to having regard to criterion A, will bepermitted where:F) the building is of a permanent and substantial construction; andG) any alterations, extensions or rebuilding are minimised and areessential to the operational requirements of an identified user; andH) it would not lead to dispersal of activity on such a scale as to prejudicenearby town and village vitality; andI) there is no adverse effect on residential amenity”.‘Saved’ Policy E8 - New Industrial and Business Development in theCountryside6.119 “New industrial and business development will be permitted in the opencountryside where all the following criteria are met:a) It involves either:i) The re-use or adaptation of an existing building, a proposal for farmdiversification or other small-scale proposals requiring acountryside location for operational reasons; orii)Small Scale new building adjacent to a rural settlement, which iswell related to the settlement, benefits from the local economy, andreduces the need for increased car commuting to urban centresb) It is either well located in relation to the classified road network or wouldnot generate significant volumes of traffic.c) It would not have a significant adverse effect on the character,appearance or general amenity of the area.”‘Saved’ Policy HD3- Control of development in conservation areas6.120 This Policy states “development which has an adverse effect on the characteror appearance of a Conservation Area will not be permitted and this includesthe following forms of development:-a) the demolition of non-listed buildings which make a positive contributionto the character or appearance of conservation areas.b) the erection of buildings out of scale with their surroundings.c) proposals involving the loss of open space, which contributes to thecharacter of the conservation area.d) the combination of adjoining buildings to create large open plan officesor shops.e) proposals which would have an adverse effect on the historic form andlayout of passageways and plots.138NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/138

Applications for development in or visually affecting conservation areas will beexpected to contain sufficient information to allow a proper assessment oftheir impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area to bemade.Where the loss of a non-listed building is acceptable in principle, conditionswill be attached to the grant of consent for demolition to ensure that nodemolition shall take place until a contract for the carrying out of works ofredevelopment has been made and planning permission for those works hasbeen granted.”‘Saved’ Policy HD6 - Historic Battlefield Sites6.121 This ‘saved’ Policy states “development affecting historic battlefield sites, asidentified on the proposals map, will only be permitted where the proposal:a) does not adversely affect the historic, archaeological and landscapeinterest of the site; andb) does not prejudice any potential for interpretation of the site.‘Saved’ Policy HD7A - Parks and gardens of historic interest6.122 This ‘saved’ Policy states “development will not be permitted where it wouldadversely affect the character or setting of parks and gardens included in theEnglish Heritage register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest”.‘Saved’ Policy HD20 - Design of New Development and Redevelopment6.123 This ‘saved’ policy states that proposals for development or redevelopmentshould take into account, where relevant, the following design principles:A) New buildings should make a positive contribution to the spatial qualityof the area and their setting and density should respect the area’scharacter and layout.B) New buildings should respect the local distinctiveness of existingbuildings, settlements and their landscape setting.C) New buildings should respect the scale, proportions and height ofneighbouring properties.D) New building design should respect, but not necessarily mimic, thecharacter of their surroundings and, in important locations, should makea particularly strong contribution to the visual quality of the area.E) Fenestration should be well-proportioned, well-balanced within theelevation and sympathetic to adjoining buildings.F) The use and application of building materials should respect materials ofneighbouring buildings and the local area.G) New development should be designed with suitable landscaping as anintegral part of the scheme.H) Special consideration will be given to the needs of disabled and otherinconvenienced persons, particularly in proposed developments to whichthere will be public access.I) New development should respect the privacy and amenity of nearbyresidents and occupiers of adjacent buildings.J) New development should maximise the opportunities for conservation ofenergy and resources through design, layout, orientation andconstruction.139NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/139

K) New development should, through design, layout and lighting, payparticular attention to the provision of a safe environment.Development which is contrary to these design principles will not be permitted.‘Saved’ Policy C2 - Landscape Character6.124 This ‘saved’ Policy states that “[d]evelopment should protect existinglandscape character. In locations where restoration of the landscape isnecessary or desirable, opportunities should be taken for the design andlandscaping of development proposals to repair or reintroduce landscapefeatures, to the extent that this is justified by the effects of the proposal”.‘Saved’ Policy NC3 – Local Wildlife Sites6.125 This Policy states that “proposals for development likely to have an adverseeffect on a local nature reserve or a site of importance for nature conservationwill not be permitted. Protection of these sites will be afforded in accordancewith their district-wide importance”.‘Saved’ Policy NC4 – Semi-Natural Habitats6.126 This Policy states “outside designated sites development will not be permittedwhich would result in the loss of or damage to semi-natural habitats which areimportant for nature conservation. Protection of these habitats will be affordedin accordance with their importance within the district”.Saved Policy A7 ‘Unstable Land’6.127 This Policy states that “proposals for development on land suspected as beingunstable will not be permitted unless it is demonstrated either that there is noforeseeable instability, or that the effects of such instability can reasonably beovercome”.‘Saved’ Policy R11 ‘Rights of Way’6.128 This Policy states “when considering development proposals which affectexisting public rights of way, these rights of way and the opportunities theyafford for informal recreation should be retained. Developments which wouldresult in harm to the character or recreational and amenity value of existingrights of way and which do not involve the satisfactory diversion of the routewill not be permitted”.Harrogate District LDF: Core Strategy DPD (February 2009)Policy SG3: Settlement Growth: Conservation of the Countryside, includinggreenbelt6.129 “Outside the development and infill limits of the settlements listed in PolicySG2 of this Core Strategy, land will be classified as countryside and there willbe strict control over new development in accordance with national andregional planning policy protecting the countryside and Green Belt. In order topromote a sustainable pattern of rural development in those areas of thecountryside outside Green Belt the following forms of development will beencouraged:1. Affordable homes for local people in accordance with Policies HLP3 andHLP4 of this Core Strategy;140NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/140

2. Rural building conversions where the building makes a positivecontribution to the landscape character of the countryside preferably foreconomic development uses or affordable homes for local people ratherthan for market housing;3. Small scale community facilities and small scale employment adjacent toa development limit where:a. they cannot be located within a development limit nor beaccommodated in a suitable available rural building; andb. they are needed to maintain or enhance the sustainability of thatcommunity; andc. they are appropriate to the service role of the settlement; andd. any adverse impact on the environment and amenity is clearlyoutweighed by the needs of, and benefits to, that community;4. Sustainable rural enterprises, including tourism, renewable energy andfarm diversification.Affordable homes referred to in clause 1 of this policy may be allowed withinthe Green Belt in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: GreenBelts or any subsequent revision of this national policy”.Policy SG4: Settlement Growth: Design & Impact6.130 “All development proposals in the District should comply with the followingcriteria:1. The scale, density, layout and design should make the most efficient useof land; anda. be well integrated with, and complementary to, neighbouringbuildings and the spatial qualities of the local area;bbe appropriate to the form and character of the settlement and/orlandscape character.2. Visual, residential and general amenity should be protected and wherepossible enhanced;3. There should be no loss of greenfield land unless justified by nationalplanning policy, the Regional Spatial Strategy, this Core Strategy or apolicy or proposal within the Local Development Framework;4. The environmental impact and design of development should conformwith Policies EQ1 and EQ2 of this Core Strategy.The travel impact of any scheme should not add significantly to any preexistingproblems of access, road safety or traffic flow and should have beenfully addressed in accordance with Policies TRA1, TRA2 and TRA3 of thisCore Strategy.”Policy TRA1: Accessibility6.131 Reducing the need to travel and improving accessibility to jobs, shops,services and community facilities will be achieved through:a. ensuring that the majority of all future development is well related to theexisting or extended Key Bus & Rail Network as included in Appendix 7;b. applying the accessibility criteria set out in Appendix 8 in consideringnew housing development and applying RSS Policy T3 for nonresidentialdevelopment;141NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/141

c. requiring all developments which are likely to have significant transportimplications to include a Transport AssessmentPolicy EQ1: Reducing Risks to the Environment6.132 This Policy states “In partnership with the community, the developmentindustry and other organisations, the level of energy and water consumption,waste production and car use within the District, and the consequential risksfor climate change and environmental damage will be reduced through thefollowing:a) The planning, design, construction and subsequent operation of all newdevelopment should seek to minimise:• energy and water consumption;• the use of natural non-renewable resources;• travel by car;• flood risk;• waste.b) Until a higher national standard is required, all new developmentrequiring planning permission should:for residential development (excluding extensions):• attain the following levels of the Code for Sustainable Homes(Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG),2006):- up to 2010: Code level 3- 2011 to 2015: Code level 4- 2016 onwards: Code level 6for other types of development:• attain ‘very good’ standards as set out in the Building ResearchEstablishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM);c) Proposals for renewable energy projects will be encouraged, providingany harm caused to the local environment and amenity is minimised andclearly outweighed by the need for and benefits of the development”.The proposed development includes the construction of new buildings andtherefore, this Core Strategy Policy is considered relevant.Policy EQ2: The Natural and Built Environment and Green Belt6.133 “The District’s exceptionally high quality natural and built environment will begiven a level of protection appropriate to its international, national and localimportance. In addition, more detailed protection and where appropriateenhancement measures will be applied through the Development ControlPolicies DPD, relevant management plans and by working in partnership withlandowners and interested parties.Subject to the District’s need to plan for new greenfield development, thelandscape character of the whole District will be protected and whereappropriate enhanced.The extent and detailed boundaries of the West Yorkshire and York GreenBelts in the District will not be changed.142NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/142

Where criteria based planning policies cannot provide the necessaryprotection, local landscape designations will be identified:• to protect the high quality of the landscape which is important to thesetting of the towns of Harrogate, Knaresborough and Ripon;• to protect those ‘green wedges’ in Harrogate town which are animportant part of its character and distinctiveness;• to protect appropriate green space within the main built up areas ofGroup A, B, and C settlements listed in Policy SG2 of this Core Strategy.Priority measures to protect and enhance the District’s natural and builtenvironment are to:• increase wildlife habitats and species in accordance with the District’sBiodiversity Action Plan;• review and update the Council’s local Sites of Importance for NatureConservation;• improve the conditions of the District’s Sites of Special Scientific Interest;• carry out appraisals of the District’s Conservation Areas incorporatingmeasures for the protection and enhancement of their special interest;• reduce the number of ‘Buildings at Risk’; and• ensure that new development incorporates high quality locally distinctivedesign.”6.134 The Core Strategy text accompanying Policy EQ2 states at paragraph 7.38that “the recognised importance of the landscape character of the Districtjustifies its general protection”. The Council already uses the HarrogateDistrict Landscape Character Assessment SPG (2004) for developmentcontrol purposes and will continue to use this assessment to ensure thecontinued protection and enhancement of the Districts landscape character.This SPG will be reviewed in the future in the form of an SPD.Other policy and legislative considerations6.135 The paragraphs that follow within this section of the report address, in the firstinstance, legal requirements, policy and guidance and, secondly, nationalpolicy relating specifically to planning. Legal requirements, policy andguidance, as well as, planning policy can be found in a number of differentspatial contexts and covering a number of different topics. Statutory duties,policy and guidance, to which the County Council is to have regard, isprovided at the European, national, regional and local levels and also relatesto topics, including, climate change, energy generation and sustainabledevelopment. In many cases, policies are implemented through legislativeprovisions, but this is not the situation within all of these subject areas. Wherethere is a statutory requirement to which the County Council must have dueregard, this is stated here in this section of the report. Notwithstanding, it isfair to say that policy which emanates from Europe is a key driving forcebehind national policy on waste issues in this country.143NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/143

European legislation6.136 Relevant policy at the European level, delivered through European Union (EU)Directives, includes topic areas, including, waste management (amongstothers, recycling, recovery, landfill etc.), energy generation (includingrenewable energy, low-carbon energy etc.) and sustainable developmentthrough strategic and detailed environmental impact assessment.Understandably, there are a number of interactions between each of theseelements of policy, thereby rendering each inextricably linked with oneanother. However, for the sake of clarity of explanation within this report,each are addressed herein as separate and distinct policy entities.European Union (EU) legislation on waste:EU Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) (amended by EC Regulations 1882/2003and 1137/2008)6.137 This Directive, ratified by the EU in July 1999, aspires, through increases inrecycling and composting, to achieve substantial decreases in the quantitiesof biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) being disposed of to landfill. Theoverall objective of the Directive is stated in Article 1: by way of stringentoperational and technical requirements on waste and landfills, to provide formeasures, procedures and guidance to prevent or reduce as far as possiblenegative effects on the environment, as well as any resulting risk to humanhealth, from landfilling of waste. Article 5 requires that “Member States shallset up a national strategy for the implementation of the reduction ofbiodegradable wastes going to landfills”.6.138 The driver behind this aspiration of the diversion of biodegradable waste fromlandfill is the Directive’s aim to prevent, or failing that, reduce the adverseimpacts that landfilling of waste is known to effect upon the environment. Itsrelevance to the determination of the application for the Allerton WasteRecovery Park lies in the fact that the development seeks to divert thedisposal of municipal solid waste (MSW) (both that arising from within theadministrative boundary areas of the partnership local authorities and localauthority-collected commercial & industrial waste) away from landfill.6.139 The Directive introduced binding targets on member states which, for the UK,sought the reduction of landfilled bio-degradable municipal waste to 75% of1995 levels by 2010, 50% by 2013 and 35% by 2020.6.140 The UK national targets to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipalwaste (BMW) sent to landfill (based upon that produced in 1995) are:• by 2010 reduce to 75% of 1995 levels i.e. a reduction of 25%;• by 2013 reduce to 50% of 1995 levels i.e. a reduction of 50%; and,• by 2020 reduce to 35% of 1995 levels i.e. a reduction of 65%.6.141 The Directive sought to harmonise the standards of landfill design aroundEurope.144NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/144

6.142 The Directive recites “the prevention, re-cycling and recovery of waste shouldbe encouraged as should the use of recovered materials and energy so as tosafeguard natural resources and obviate wasteful use of land… […] … furtherconsideration should be given to the issues of incineration of municipal andnon-hazardous waste, composting, bio-methanisation and the processing ofdredging sludges”.6.143 The EU 1999 Directive was later supplemented by the Council Decision2003/33/EC in December 2002 which, through the prohibition upon certainwastes from landfills and through the application of ‘waste acceptancecriteria’, further restricted waste inputs to landfill.6.144 The requirements of the Directive have been implemented in England throughthe Waste Strategy 2007 and across the UK through the Waste andEmissions Trading Act 2003 and the Environmental Permitting Regulations2010.EU Waste Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC)6.145 This Directive aims to prevent or to limit, as far as practicable, negativeenvironmental impacts stemming from incineration and co-incineration ofwaste. The Directive revised and extended the scope of incineratorscontained in Directives 89/369/EEC and 89/429/EEC. It set stringentemissions controls for any thermal processes regulated in the EU. Theobjectives of the Directive are to minimise the impact from emissions and tosafeguard pathways in the environment to air, soil, surface and ground wateron the environment and human health resulting from the incineration waste.6.146 Such emissions limits, where they concern air-borne emissions, seek toprovide upper thresholds amongst a variety of substances, including heavymetals, dioxins and furans, carbon monoxide (CO), dust, total organic carbon(TOC), hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen fluoride (HF), sulphur dioxide (SO 2 )and the nitrogen oxides (NO and NO 2 ).6.147 In the UK, all waste incineration facilities must comply with this Directive,which was translated in the UK through The Waste Incineration (England andWales) Regulations 2002 (subsequently updated in 2009). The enforcementof the WID is through the Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) regime,which provides the mechanism by which all major industrial processes arepermitted and regulated, with respect to their environmental performance. By2002, all new incinerators had to demonstrate operations within the emissionslimits would be satisfied and by 2005, all existing and new incinerators had tobe compliant with the Directive.6.148 It also encourages that the heat generated by the incineration process has tobe put to good use as far as possible.6.149 In the New Year, i.e. 2013, the UK Government is required to havetransposed into UK law the requirements of the EU Directive 2010/75/EU onindustrial emissions (through integrated pollution prevention and control).145NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/145

EU Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC)6.150 This Directive 2008/98/EC attempts to clarify what could be interpreted asbeing ‘waste recovery’ and what constituted ‘waste disposal’. Annex II of theDirective also provides a non-exhaustive list of several definitions includingwhen incineration would be energy-efficient and when it counts as ‘recovery’.6.151 It replaces Directive 2006/12/EC whose own precursors were Directives91/156/EEC and 75/442 EEC. Article 16 requires Member States to takeappropriate measures to establish an integrated and adequate network ofwaste disposal installations and of installations for the recovery of mixedmunicipal waste collected from private households, including where suchcollection also covers such waste from other producers, taking into accountbest available techniques. It requires the network to enable waste to bedisposed of, or mixed municipal waste to be recovered, in one of the nearestappropriate installations, by means of the most appropriate methods andtechnologies, in order to ensure a high level of protection for the environmentand public health. It also requires that waste be disposed of, or recovered at,the nearest appropriate installations by the most appropriate methods ortechnologies. As a Framework Directive, it lays down a structure of controlsthat may be applied to specific circumstances; in this particular instance, themanagement of waste.6.152 The Directive provides the legislative framework for the collection, transport,recovery and disposal of waste. The directive requires all EU Member States:• to take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is treated anddisposed of correctly,• set targets for re-use and recycling, and• draw up binding national programmes for waste prevention.6.153 This Directive also introduced the current ‘Waste Hierarchy’ (see figurebelow), which places five categories of waste management in their order ofpriority: Prevention, Preparing for Re-Use, Recycling, Other recovery,Disposal. This concept continues to be a guiding theme for waste policy at alllevels and places greatest emphasis upon preventing the production of wasteat source, as a way of reducing the necessity to deal with it after disposal, asthis offers the greatest environmental gains. The revised waste hierarchy wassubsequently (in March 2011) incorporated in to an update of nationalplanning policy in Planning Policy Statement 10. The ‘waste hierarchy’, whichhas legal significance via the Waste Framework Directive, is also enshrined inlaw through the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011”.146NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/146

Figure 1: The Waste Hierarchy6.154 The Directive requires Member States to take measures to encourage theoptions that deliver the best overall environmental outcome, which mayrequire a departure from the hierarchy for specific waste streams wherejustified by life-cycle thinking.6.155 The term ‘waste recovery’ is defined by Annex II of the Directive as includingwaste used principally as a fuel or other means to generate energy. Thisdefinition includes incineration facilities dedicated to the processing of MSWonly where their energy efficiency is equal to or better than a coefficient of0.65.6.156 Amongst others, key changes introduced by this Directive were:• the setting of recycling targets for non-hazardous construction anddemolition waste (70% by 2020);• recycle 50% of household waste by 2020;• the obligation for Member States to set up waste prevention plans withinfive years from the adoption of the Directive.6.157 The Directive also requires Member States to take the necessary measures toensure that waste management (which includes the collection, transport,recovery and disposal of waste) is carried out without endangering humanhealth, without harming the environment and, in particular:(a) without risk to water, air, soil, plants or animals;(b) without causing a nuisance through noise or odours; and,(c) without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest.6.158 The Waste Framework Directive is also relevant to the definition of waste.The UK interpretation of the definition of municipal waste has changedrecently to bring it in line with the EU definition. This means that more wastefrom sources other than households, such as commercial sources, which aresimilar in nature and composition, will fall within the definition of municipal147NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/147

waste. This is likely to have implications for the overall volume of wastecategorised as municipal waste.EU Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (2008/1/EC)6.159 This Directive introduced the environmental permitting regime regulated bythe Environment Agency. It is also to be replaced by Article 81 of the2010/75/EU Industrial Emissions Directive by the 7 January 2014.6.160 The IPPC Directive is relevant as the development for which permission isbeing sought will be regulated by an IPPC permit issued under the provisionsof the Directive as transposed into UK law by the Environment Agency. The2008 IPPC Directive has been implemented in England and Wales by theEnvironmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (see below).It is understood that a duly made application for such a permit has beenreceived by the Environment Agency. The Agency has sought the views ofstatutory consultees, members of the public and any other interested parties.At the time of the publication of this report, the Agency remains in theprocessing stage of the Permit application.6.161 For the sake of clarity of understanding of the IPPC regime, it is important tonote that the responsibility for regulation is divided between two regulatorybodies. Firstly, the most potentially-polluting activities, i.e. Part A (1) activities,are regulated by the Environment Agency and, secondly, Part A (2) and Part(B) activities are regulated by the Environmental Health Officers of the LocalAuthority in whose area the regulated activity takes place. In the particularinstance of the proposed development of the Allerton Waste Recovery Park, itis understood that the relevant regulator will be the Environment Agency.European Union (EU) policy on waste6.162 Current EU waste policy is found in the Commission of the EuropeanCommunities 2005 ‘Thematic Strategy’ on the prevention and recycling ofwaste (COM (2005) 666 final). It sets out the aims of the evolving EU wastepolicy as follows:EU waste policy has the potential to contribute to reducing the overallnegative environmental impact of resource use. Preventing waste generationand promoting recycling and recovery of waste will increase the resourceefficiency of the European economy and reduce the negative environmentalimpact of use of natural resources. This will contribute to maintaining theresource base, essential for sustained economic growth.The basic objectives of current EU waste policy – to prevent waste andpromote re-use, recycling and recovery so as to reduce the negativeenvironmental impact – are still valid and will be supported by this impactbasedapproach.The long-term goal is for the EU to become a recycling society that seeks toavoid waste and uses waste as a resource. With high environmentalreference standards in place the internal market will facilitate recycling andrecovery activities.148NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/148

European Union (EU) legislation on energy:EU Directive on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from RenewableResources (2009/28/EC)6.163 In order to limit greenhouse gases and encourage greener transport use,Article 1 of this Directive “establishes a common framework for the promotionof energy from renewable sources” and “sets mandatory national targets forthe overall share of energy from renewable sources in gross final consumptionof energy and for the share of energy from renewable sources in transport”.The Directive is part of a package of energy and climate change initiativesembedded within an EU-wide legislative framework which sets targets forgreenhouse gas emission savings and encourages both energy efficiency andenergy consumption from renewable sources. This is the second and mostrecent of the “renewables directives” ratified by the European Union.6.164 In it, the European Union has adopted as one of its targets what has becomeknown as “the 20-20-20 goal” which put in simple terms is a goal to achieve20% of energy generation from renewable energy sources by the year 2020.Renewable energy is taken, in this context, to mean “energy from renewablenon-fossil sources, namely wind, solar, aerothermal, geothermal,hydrothermal and ocean energy, hydropower, biomass […includingbiodegradable municipal waste as well as biodegradable fraction of industrialand municipal waste…], landfill gas, sewage treatment plant gas andbiogases” (Article 2 of the Directive refers). Furthermore, the Directiverequired member states to produce National Renewable Energy Action Plans.2005 Thematic Strategy on sustainable resource use6.165 On 21 December 2005 the European Commission proposed a Strategy on theSustainable Use of Natural Resources used in Europe. The overall objectiveis to reduce the negative environmental impacts generated by the use ofnatural resources in a growing economy.EU Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and privateprojects on the environment (2011/92/EU)6.166 This particular aspect of European policy has, as its origin, the Directive85/377 EEC which came into effect in July 1988. Firstly, it introduced thetechnique of the assessment of the likely effects on the environment ofproposed development, termed environmental impact assessment (EIA) and,secondly, it introduced the requirement to take into account that assessmentbefore any decision is made to authorise to proceed. The Directive has beenamended on 3 occasions and codified in the most recent Directive(2011/92/EU).6.167 The EIA procedure, now embodied with the Town & Country Planning(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (which came into forcein last August 2011) has determined, along with the Town & Country Planning(Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010, the processfollowed in respect of the Allerton Waste Recovery Park planning application.149NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/149

6.168 In transposing the EU Directives in relation to EIA, the range of issues that theplanning process must consider is dealt with more systematically. Forexample, matters of pollution control became relevant considerations and thescope widened to matters not solely restricted to land use considerations.This is not to say that environmental considerations now take precedenceover all others considerations, but simply, that they will have beendemonstrated to have been taken into account in the determination process.EU Directive (92/43/EEC) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of naturalhabitats and of wild fauna and flora6.169 Amongst the Directive’s objectives are for countries to maintain or restoreEuropean protected habitats and species; contribute to a coherent Europeanecological network of protected sites, and ensure strict protection of certainlisted species.National legislation on waste and emissionsEnvironmental Protection Act 1990 (with specific regard to Section 44A & PartII)6.170 This Act required the Secretary of State to, “as soon as possible”, prepare astatement (“the National Waste Strategy”) containing policies in relation to therecovery and disposal of waste in England and Wales. The current WasteStrategy was published in 2007 and is referred to in the paragraphs below.Environmental Permitting Regulations (with specific regard to Schedules 10 &13)6.171 The Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) 2010 wereintroduced on 6 April 2010, replacing the 2007 Regulations, which in turncombined the Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) and WasteManagement Licensing (WML) regulations. They require that no-one mustoperate a regulated facility, (the list includes waste incineration and landfillsites), or cause or knowingly permit a water discharge activity or groundwateractivity except under and to the extent authorised by an Environmental Permit.Waste and Emissions Trading Act 20036.172 The Act was intended to give legal effect to the obligation within the EULandfill Directive (1999/31/EC) to reduce the amount of biodegradable wastesent to landfill and to implement a commitment in “Waste Strategy 2000:England and Wales” to introduce tradable allowances for local authorities torestrict the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill.The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 20116.173 These regulations came into force on 29 March 2011. Regulation 18specifically obliges the County Council as the determining Authority in respectof planning applications concerning waste management proposals to havedue regard to the provisions of the EU Waste Framework Directive.150NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/150

The Climate Change Act 20086.174 This Act seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the setting of targetsreaching as far as 2050. In so doing a system of trading is advocated toachieve these reductions with the end goal being significantly less GHGemissions to atmosphere over time.National and local strategy on wasteWaste Strategy for England 20076.175 Section 44A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires the Secretaryof State to prepare a strategy containing his policies in relation to the recoveryand disposal of waste in England and Wales. The Waste Strategy forEngland 2007 (WSE2007) is that statutory strategy. However this Strategy iscurrently under review. A new ‘National Waste Management Plan forEngland’ is being prepared and Government has indicated that a draft isexpected to be published in 2013.6.176 The key objectives of the WSE2007 are to:• decouple waste growth from economic growth and put more emphasison waste prevention and re-use;• meet and exceed the EU Landfill Directive diversion targets forbiodegradable municipal waste (BMW) in 2010, 2013 and 2020;• increase diversion from landfill of non-municipal waste and secure betterintegration of treatment for municipal and non-municipal waste;• secure the investment in infrastructure needed to divert waste fromlandfill and for the management of hazardous waste; and,• get the most environmental benefit from that investment, throughincreased recycling of resources and recovery of energy from residualwaste using a mix of technologies.6.177 It sets out a number of specific targets including:• annual net reduction in global GHGs […greenhouse gases…] fromwaste management of at least 9.3 million tonnes of CO 2 equivalent peryear compared to 2006;• reduce the amount of household waste not re-used, recycled orcomposted from over 22.2 million tonnes in 2000 by 29% to 15.8 milliontonnes in 2010 with an aspiration to reduce it to 12.2 million tonnes in2020 – a reduction of 45%;• recycling and composting of household waste – at least 40% by 2010,45% by 2015 and 50% by 2020; and,• recovery of municipal waste – 53% by 2010, 67% by 2015 and 75% by2020.6.178 It also identifies potential future targets including:• reduce C&I waste landfilled by 20% by 2010 compared to 2004; and,• halve the amount of CD&E […construction, demolition and excavation…]wastes going to landfill by 2012.151NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/151

6.179 The Strategy recognises the role that a variety of energy recoverytechnologies (including anaerobic digestion) can play so that unavoidableresidual waste is treated in the way which provides the greatest benefits toenergy policy. It indicates that “recovering energy from waste which cannotsensibly be reused or recycled is an essential component of a well-balancedenergy policy” and that the role of energy from waste is expected to grow. Italso recognises that there are significant benefits in recovering heat as well aselectricity (i.e. combined heat and power (CHP)). The potential for facilities todeal with both municipal and non-municipal waste is also supported.6.180 With regard to the potential impact of energy recovery on recycling rates,WSE2007 refers to evidence from neighbouring countries, where very highrates of recycling and energy from waste are able to coexist, as demonstratingthat a vigorous energy from waste policy is compatible with high recyclingrates. WSE states that, in the Government’s view, the key to ensuring thatboth are achieved is, firstly, excellent quality consultation betweenstakeholders, at an early stage when local waste strategies are beingdeveloped; and, secondly, planning and building facilities with an appropriateamount of flexibility built in. This means flexible – e.g. modular – buildings,and also flexible contracts, which do not lock in fixed amounts of waste fortreatment which might become obsolete.6.181 The 2007 Waste Strategy for England seeks to “get the most environmentalbenefit from […] investment, through increased recycling of resources andrecovery of energy from residual waste using a mix of technologies”.6.182 It states that a “greater focus on waste prevention will be recognised througha new target to reduce the amount of household waste not re-used, recycledor composted from over 22.2 million tonnes in 2000 by 29% to 15.8 milliontonnes in 2010 with an aspiration to reduce it to 12.2 million tonnes in 2020 –a reduction of 45%. This is equivalent to a fall of 50% per person (from 450 kgper person in 2000 to 225 kg in 2020)”.6.183 It goes on to say that “recovering energy from waste (EfW) which cannotsensibly be recycled is an essential component of a well-balanced energypolicy…[and]…Energy from waste is expected to account for 25% ofmunicipal waste by 2020 compared to 10% today which is less than the 34%by 2015 anticipated in 2000”.6.184 With respect to commercial and industrial waste, it advises that levels of suchwaste were “expected to fall by 20% by 2010 compared to 2004”.Government Review of Waste Policy in England 20116.185 The 2011 Review constitutes the most up-to-date and comprehensivedocument indicating the current Governments’ “direction of travel” with regardto national waste policy. The publication of the National Waste Review wasaccompanied by an Action Plan and an Anaerobic Digestion Strategy andAction Plan.152NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/152

6.186 The Review, itself, states that England “needs to move beyond our currentthrowaway society to a “zero waste economy” in which material resources arere-used, recycled or recovered wherever possible, and only disposed of as theoption of very last resort. This requires a new public awareness in our attitudeto waste. It means reducing the amount of waste we produce and ensuringthat all material resources are fully valued – financially and environmentally –both during their productive life, and at ‘end-of-life’ as waste. We will see thebenefits not only in a healthier natural environment and reduced impacts onclimate change, but also in the competitiveness of our businesses throughbetter resource efficiency and innovation”.6.187 The Governments’ aim of a ‘zero waste economy’ is one in which “…waste isprevented wherever it occurs…and…material resources are re-used, recycledor recovered wherever possible, and only disposed of as the option of verylast resort. However, a vision of a ‘zero waste economy’ acknowledges thatthere will continue to be a long-term market in “waste” materials, withsignificant opportunities for growth in the collection, recycling, reprocessingand recovery of waste”. DEFRA has stated that the Government does notconsider a zero waste economy to be an economy where no waste isproduced. It envisages that, amongst others, it will have the followingcharacteristics:• resources are fully valued – financially and environmentally• one person’s waste is another’s resource• over time, we get as close as we possibly can to zero landfill• a new public consciousness in our attitude to waste.6.188 The Review sets out a number of principal commitments which haverelevance to planning for waste management infrastructure in England.These include:• prioritise efforts to manage waste in line with ‘the waste hierarchy’ andreduce the carbon impact of waste;• develop a range of measures to encourage waste prevention and reuse,supporting greater resource efficiency;• develop voluntary approaches to cutting waste, increase recycling, andimprove the overall quality of recyclate material, working closely withbusiness sectors and the waste and material resources industry;• support ‘energy from waste’ where appropriate, and for waste whichcannot be recycled;• work to overcome the barriers to increasing the ‘energy from waste’which anaerobic digestion provides, as set out in the new AnaerobicDigestion Strategy and Action Plan;• consult on restricting wood waste from landfill and review the case forrestrictions on sending other materials to landfill.• encourage councils to sign the new ‘Recycling & Waste ServicesCommitment’, setting out the principles they will follow in delivering localwaste services; and,• support councils and the waste industry in improving the collection ofwaste from smaller businesses.153NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/153

6.189 The Review also provides a number of policy directions which may have animpact upon future waste planning, including:• target those waste streams with high carbon impacts, both in terms ofembedded carbon (food, metals, plastics, textiles) and direct emissionsfrom landfill (food, paper and card, textiles, wood);• promote the use of life cycle thinking in all waste policy and wastemanagement decisions;• the Government will develop a comprehensive Waste PreventionProgramme;• on recycling, continue to increase the percentage of waste collected fromboth households and businesses which is recycled, at the very least,meeting the revised EU Waste Framework Directive target to recycle50% of waste from households by 2020;• working closely with businesses to develop new voluntary responsibilitydeals in a range of sectors focussed on reducing and recycling waste;• the Government will work with and support businesses, local authoritiesand third sector organisations to help reduce avoidable food waste,which is currently estimated to be 16 million tonnes a year in Britain;• identify how the burden of waste management compliance on legitimatebusiness can be reduced, with enforcement targeted even more clearlyagainst those who consistently operate outside the law;• the Government will be working with local councils to increase thefrequency and quality of rubbish collections and make it easier torecycle;• remove some of the burdens and barriers which prevent local authoritiesfrom focussing on local priorities, principally the Landfill AllowanceTrading Scheme from 2013;• households and businesses often produce similar types of waste and,where it makes sense to do so, materials should be collected and treatedtogether;• Government supports efficient energy recovery from residual wastewhich can deliver environmental benefits, reduce carbon impacts andprovide economic opportunities;• Government will ensure the correct blend of incentives are in place tosupport the development of recovery infrastructure as a renewableenergy source;• whilst remaining technology neutral, look to identify and communicatethe full range of recovery technologies available and their relative merits;• local communities should benefit from hosting waste infrastructure andbe involved from an early stage in planning for infrastructure;• the Government will publish data on likely waste arisings and treatmentcapacity in future years;• seek to reduce commercial barriers to the effective financing ofinfrastructure;• there is no requirement for individual authorities to be self-sufficient interms of waste infrastructure and transporting waste to deliver the bestenvironmental solution should not be considered a barrier; and,• the Government will publish a National Waste Management Plan.154NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/154

6.190 It is expected that an updated ‘National Waste Management Plan’ will bepublished in 2013 alongside a revised national planning policy statement forwaste (PPS10).Guidance on applying the Waste Hierarchy (DEFRA, 21 June 2011)6.191 The DEFRA Guidance explains ‘the waste hierarchy’, how it works for a rangeof common materials and products, what businesses and public bodies needto do and some key questions and ideas for dealing with waste in line with thehierarchy.Anaerobic Digestion Strategy & Action Plan (DEFRA, 2011)6.192 This set out the Government’s commitment to increasing energy from wastethrough anaerobic digestion. It explains that anaerobic digestion “can play animportant role as a means of dealing with organic waste and avoiding, bymore efficient capture and treatment, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissionsthat are associated with its disposal to landfill”. It explains further that it “alsooffers other benefits, such as recovering energy and producing valuablebiofertilisers. The biogas can be used to generate heat and electricity,converted into biofuels or cleaned and injected into the gas grid”.Local strategy on waste6.193 The County Council is a member of the York and North Yorkshire WastePartnership (YNYWP), which was formed in 1998. This organisation (whichcomprises NYCC together with City of York Council and the sevenDistrict/Borough Councils in North Yorkshire), produces the Municipal WasteManagement Strategy (MWMS) for the North Yorkshire sub-region.6.194 The current Strategy of the Partnership, called ‘Let's Talk Less Rubbish’, wasadopted in 2006 and covers a period of time from 2006 to 2026.6.195 A key role of the JMWMS is to set out the partnership’s targets for wasteminimisation and diversion of municipal waste from landfill as a wastemanagement authority. The Strategy aims to reduce waste arising per capita,recycle or compost 45% of household waste by 2013, recycle or compost 50%of household waste by 2020 and divert 75% of municipal waste away fromlandfill by 2013. In addition, it seeks to maximise the recovery of materialsand/or energy from waste that is not re-used, recycled or composted, so as tofurther reduce the amount sent to landfill.6.196 The Strategy also anticipates that “residual waste treatment in York and NorthYorkshire will be by biological and/or thermal processes. However, theultimate technology solution may vary from the preferred options due tofactors such as the availability of technology, markets for products,government policy and regulations, practicalities and cost. It is envisaged thatbetween one and three residual waste treatment plants will be required”.6.197 The Government has recently indicated that it will consult local authorities onoptions for the future of Municipal Waste Management strategies, includingthe possible removal of the statutory duty to prepare them.155NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/155

National legislation on energyEnergy Act 20116.198 This Act aims to secure low-carbon energy supplies and fair competition in theenergy markets.National policy on energyRenewable Energy Strategy (2009)6.199 Renewable energy in this Strategy is seen as involving a number of economicsectors i.e. the production of a heat source, the use of renewable energy intransport (e.g. biofuels etc.) and the generation of electricity. The Strategyencourages the increase of these means of renewables and outlines the routeto be taken to reach the set target in 2020 of meeting 15% of energy needsfrom renewable sources and a reduction of the country’s fossil fuel demand byaround 10%. The Government sees this as a significant means of tacklingclimate change and increasing the Country’s ability to service our own supplyof energy coupled with the possible boost in the numbers employed in thissector.Low Carbon Transition Plan (2009)6.200 The UK Government published in 2009 a five point plan to tackle climatechange, including ‘building a low carbon UK’ as following:“To play our part in reducing global emissions, Britain needs to become a lowcarbon country. The 2008 Climate Change Act made Britain the first countryin the world to set legally binding ‘carbon budgets’, aiming to cut UKemissions by 34% by 2020 and at least 80% by 2050 through investment inenergy efficiency and clean energy technologies such as renewables, nuclearand carbon capture and storage. This White Paper sets out the UK’stransition plan for building a low carbon UK: cutting emissions, maintainingsecure energy supplies, maximising economic opportunities and protectingthe most vulnerable”.National Policy Statement on Energy (EN-1) and National Policy Statement onRenewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) (both designated July 2011)6.201 National Policy Statement (NPS) EN-1 sets out overarching national policy fornationally significant infrastructure projects in the energy sector. It isaccompanied by a range of other NPSs dealing in more detail with particularaspects of the energy sector. NPS EN-1 has effect, in combination with anyrelevant technology-specific NPS, on decisions by the Major InfrastructurePlanning Unit (MIPU) within the Planning Inspectorate on applications forenergy developments that fall within the scope of the NPSs. The suite ofNational Policy Statements was formally designated on 19 July 2011.6.202 The Planning Act 2008 sets out the thresholds for nationally significantinfrastructure projects in the energy sector. Onshore electricity generatingstations, including generation from fossil fuels, wind, biomass, waste andnuclear, generating more than 50 megawatts (MW), fall to be determined byMIPU and the relevant National Policy Statements are the primary basis forthese decisions. Energy from waste is one of the generic sources of energy156NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/156

identified in EN-1. The AWRP proposal incorporates development of anenergy from waste facility, albeit with a proposed power output substantiallybelow the 50MW threshold. It therefore falls to be determined by the CountyCouncil, as Waste Planning Authority, under the Town and Country PlanningActs.6.203 However, NPS EN-1 also indicates that the Statements are likely to be amaterial consideration in decision making on applications that fall under theTown and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). Furthermore, the NPPFnow confirms that the National Policy Statements dealing with nationallysignificant infrastructure are a material consideration in decisions on planningapplications. As the AWRP proposal would, if implemented, also result in theproduction of an element of renewable energy, NPS EN-3 Renewable energymay also be material.6.204 Key policy messages in NPS EN-1 and EN-3 are that the Government iscommitted to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 80% by2050, compared to 1990 levels and to meet a target of producing 15% of totalenergy requirements from renewable sources by 2020. The Governmentindicates that this leads to an urgent need for new (and particularly lowcarbon) nationally significant energy infrastructure projects to be broughtforward as soon as possible. This needs to be delivered via a diverse mix oftechnologies and fuels and Government does not consider it appropriate forplanning policy to set targets for or limits on different technologies. Recoveryof energy from waste, where in accordance with ‘the waste hierarchy’, isidentified as one of the technologies likely to contribute to future energyrequirements, as well as potentially forming an important element of wastestrategies, and that energy produced from the biomass fraction of waste isrenewable. EN-1 supports the utilisation of combined heat and power (CHP)and requires applicants for nationally significant infrastructure projects toconsider opportunities for CHP at the very earliest point, to use as a locationalcriterion and, if necessary, justify why use of CHP may not be feasible andallow for potential future opportunities for utilisation.6.205 With specific regard to renewable energy, National Policy Statement EN-1provides the following clarification in respect of the production of renewableenergy, “The energy produced from the biomass fraction of the waste isrenewable and is in some circumstances eligible for Renewables ObligationCertificates (ROCs), although the arrangements vary from plant to plant”. Byway of further clarity, the Statement offers a definition of ‘biomass’ as beingthe “material of recent biological origin derived from plant or animal matter”.6.206 The Statement goes on to state that both biomass and energy from waste(EfW) can be used to generate what it refers to as ‘dispatchable’ power (i.e.power “providing peak load and base load electricity on demand” and that “asmore intermittent renewable electricity comes into the UK grid, the ability ofbiomass and EfW to deliver predictable controllable electricity is increasinglyimportant in the security of UK supplies”. This is relevant as a proportion ofthe power that would be produced by the proposal can be regarded asrenewable, ‘biomass’-derived energy (using the definition provided in EU157NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/157

Directive on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources(2009/28/EC) which identifies biomass as including the “biodegradablefraction of industrial and municipal waste”.6.207 Furthermore, building on the foundations laid out in National Policy StatementEN-1 (paragraphs 6.197 to 6.202 above refer), National Policy Statement EN-3 states that:“…biomass used for heat and power usually falls into one or more of thethree categories:• biomass sourced from conventional forestry management.o this includes thinning, felling and coppicing of sustainably managedforests, parklands and trees from other green spaces. It alsoincludes sawmill residues (often processed to produce woodpellets), other wood processing residues and parts of treesunsuitable for the timber industry;• biomass from agricultural crops and residues.othis includes crops grown primarily for use in energy generation(‘energy crops’), ‘woody energy’ crops such as short rotationcoppice (SRC), or miscanthus grass which can be grown on landunsuitable for food crops. Biomass can also be sourced fromagricultural residues such as straw, husks and kernels; and,• biomass from bio-degradable waste and other similar materials includingsewage sludge, animal manure, waste wood from construction, and foodwaste that would otherwise be disposed of in landfill”.Other national legislative and policy considerationsPlanning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (with specificregard to Section 66)6.208 Section 66 requires that in “considering whether to grant planning permissionfor development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planningauthority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have specialregard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or anyfeatures of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses” andalso that “a local authority shall have regard to the desirability of preservingfeatures of special architectural or historic interest, and in particular, listedbuildings”.‘The Setting of Heritage Assets’ - Guidance provided by English Heritage(2011)6.209 This English Heritage published document sets out guidance on managingchange within the settings of heritage assets, including archaeologicalremains and historic buildings, sites, areas and landscapes. English Heritagebelieves that although some of the references in this document may now beout-of-date, since the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework(NPPF) in March 2012, the policy approach is unlikely to change and that thisdocument still contains useful advice and case studies.158NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/158

Sustainable Development6.210 Publication of the NPPF has emphasised that the purpose of planning is tohelp achieve sustainable development and that document sets out apresumption in favour of sustainable development (summarised earlier in thissection of the report).6.211 Government’s ‘Securing the Future’ document (DEFRA, March 2005) set outsthe UK’s strategy for sustainable development. Government also publishes anational strategy for sustainable development: It identifies five guidingprinciples which are identified as:• Living Within Environmental Limits• Ensuring a Strong, Health and Just Society• Achieving a Sustainable Economy• Promoting Good Governance• Using Sound Science Responsibly6.212 It also identifies a number of shared priorities for UK action, including prioritiesrelating to Sustainable consumption and production, Climate change andenergy, Natural resource protection and environmental enhancement andSustainable communities.7.0 MAIN CONSIDERATIONSIntroduction to the key issues7.1 The proposal which is the subject of this report is a major and complexscheme which gives rise to a wide range of considerations. These arediscussed further in this section. This section is structured as follows:• Jurisdiction;• Context of the proposed development;• Weight to be attached to the various elements of the development plan;o Extent of compliance with locational planning policy:a) compliance with locational policy in NYWLP;b) compliance with locational policy in RSS;c) compliance with locational policy in HBC LP & CS;d) compliance with locational policy in PPS10; and,e) compliance with locational policy in NPPF.o conclusion on extent of compliance with development plan policy• Prematurity, and• ‘Nearest Appropriate Installation’ and ‘Proximity Principle’.7.2 Consideration in this section of the report is then given to the specific impactsof the proposed development. Again, these are separated by consideration ofeach of the following issues:• Design of the proposed development• Effects of the proposed development:o Landscape and visual impact:• including impacts upon landscape and landscape character,topography, long-term impacts, capability of the159NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/159

acknowledged adverse visual impacts being mitigated andconclusion;o Heritage• including significance, assessment of significance (especiallyof World Heritage Site, Battlefield Sites; Conservation Areas;and, Listed Buildings, mitigation proposals; and conclusiono Impact on residential amenity:• including impacts on air quality, pollution and impact onhealth; noise and vibration; odour; dust and litter and hazards,risks and safety (especially landfill gas migrationsafeguarding)o Highway issues:• including impacts of road transportation during construction,operation and de-commissioning, alternative mode oftransportation, transport considerations and public rights ofway.o Ecology / bio-diversity issues:• including impacts on Sites of Special Scientific Interest,european Protected Species, nationally Protected Species,and ancient Woodland;o Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Flood Risko Geology, contaminated land and stability;• Other Issues:o Socio-economic impact:• including job creation, tourism, de-valuation of properties, onsitewaste minimisation, and agricultural land.• Cumulative Impact• including the existence of other developments, use of naturalresources, emissions and creation of nuisances, elimination ofwastes, and combination effects.• Climate change issuesoincluding the relationship between the waste management andenergy elements of the proposals (energy recovery andconclusions), WRATE, diversion from landfill, existing andforecasted landfill capacity, and, the impact on recycling and wasteproduction (including IBA).• Need for the development• Consideration of alternative technologies, consideration of ‘single-site vsmulti-site’ solution and site selection.• Financial considerations• Presumption in favour of sustainable development7.3 The overall planning balance is assessed in the following section, Section 8.0,dealing with conclusions.160NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/160

Jurisdiction7.4 The application is to carry out development, the principal result of which willbe the generation of energy. Energy developments are not usually ‘countymatters’, but waste developments are, by reason of the 2003 Prescription ofCounty Matters Regulations (SI 2003/1033). Here, the residual waste will beused principally as a fuel in the generation of electricity.7.5 Although the main result of the development will be the production of energy,the main purpose of it is to deal with waste. It is therefore, in substance, a‘county matter’ falling for determination by the upper tier authority.7.6 A number of representations have been made to say that, because of itsinterest in the outcome of the application (i.e. the County Council havingentered into a ‘PFI contract’ with the applicant with a view to treating theCounty’s local authority-collected waste (LACW) at the proposed facility) theCounty Council ought not to determine it. Members of the Committee will beadvised separately by the Monitoring Officer about Code of Conduct and predeterminationissues. In principle, the County Council must determine theapplication, unless the Secretary of State decides to call it in for his owndecision. It is a ‘county matter’ and the law obliges planning authorities todetermine applications duly made to them. The law also requires planningauthorities to be particularly scrupulous when dealing with applications inwhich the authority has an interest.Context of the proposed development7.7 Within North Yorkshire and the adjacent City of York, landfill has been thetraditional means of dealing with waste which cannot be dealt with by moresustainable methods such as recycling and composting. Notwithstandingprogressive increases in the rate of composting and recycling of householdwaste, around half is currently disposed of to landfill. The proposal currentlybefore Members seeks to divert this remaining half, the ‘residual waste’element, away from landfill to what is said to be a more sustainable method ofmanagement.7.8 In recent years a range of legal and policy measures, at both European andnational level, have been introduced to help ensure that less waste islandfilled and that, correspondingly, more waste is dealt with further up the‘waste hierarchy’. This reflects the recognition that landfill is considered to bemore harmful in environmental terms than other forms of waste management,principally as a result of emissions of methane from the decomposition ofbiodegradable waste.7.9 There are specific targets (established in UK legislation via the Waste andEmissions Trading Act 2003) to reduce the amount of biodegradable wastegoing to landfill and specific targets for the recycling and composting ofhousehold waste and the recovery of municipal waste are set out in thenational Waste Strategy for England 2007.161NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/161

7.10 A Review of Waste Policy in England 2011 has been published by thecoalition Government and which indicates a Government aim to move towardsa ‘zero waste economy’ in which waste is prevented wherever it occurs andmaterial resources are re-used, recycled or recovered wherever possible andonly disposed of as the option of very last resort. The review sets out anumber of principal commitments including a need to:• Prioritise efforts to manage waste in line with the ‘waste hierarchy’ andreduce the carbon impact of waste;• Develop a range of measures to encourage waste prevention and reuse,supporting greater resource efficiency;• Support energy from waste where appropriate, and for waste whichcannot be recycled;• Work to overcome the barriers to increasing the energy from wastewhich Anaerobic Digestion provides, as set out in the new AnaerobicDigestion Strategy;• Consult on restricting wood waste from landfill and review the case forrestrictions on sending other materials to landfill.• Support councils and the waste industry in improving the collection ofwaste from smaller businesses7.11 Alongside national legislation and strategy, a local strategy for management ofmunicipal waste has been prepared by the York and North Yorkshire WastePartnership and adopted in 2006. This sets out a range of objectives andtargets to help move management of municipal waste up the hierarchy,including targets for increased recycling and composting of household waste(with a target of 50% by 2020) and to divert a minimum of 75% of municipalwaste from landfill by 2013.7.12 The Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy indicates that “thePartnership expects that residual waste treatment in York and North Yorkshirewill be by biological and/or thermal processes. However, the ultimatetechnology solution may vary from the preferred options due to factors suchas the availability of technology, markets for products, government policy andregulations, practicalities and cost. It is envisaged that between one andthree residual waste treatment plants will be required”.7.13 The proposal which is the subject of this application has been brought forwardby the applicant, as contractor to the County Council and City of York Council,principally to satisfy the residual waste management needs of North YorkshireCounty Council and City of York Council.7.14 If developed, the proposed AWRP facility is expected to contribute to asubstantial network of infrastructure, such as transfer stations and recyclingand composting facilities, dispersed throughout the partnership area, whichcollectively would provide for the management of LACW arising within thepartnership area. Some of this infrastructure already exists and some of itwould be subject of further development proposals. However, the proposedAWRP facility would represent the principal location for the management ofresidual waste. This support infrastructure is relevant when considering162NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/162

epresentations objecting on the basis that a ‘single site solution’ isinappropriate for the management of waste arising in this area.Weight to be attached to the various elements of the development plan7.15 The starting point for deciding this application is the development plan.Applications should be decided in accordance with the development planunless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this particular instancethere are a range of policies in the development plan to be taken into account,as well as a substantial number of other material considerations. Inconsidering the relationship of the proposals to the development plan,Members should note that proposals should be judged against thedevelopment plan as a whole rather than against individual policies inisolation.7.16 Members will also need to bear in mind the relative weight to be attached tothe applicable policies in the various elements of the development planrelevant to this proposal. The various elements of the development plan(principally the NYWLP, RSS and the Harrogate District Local Plan and CoreStrategy) were adopted over an extended period of time and therefore havediffering temporal relationships with national policy for waste in PPS10 ( whichis an important material consideration) and all elements of the developmentplan pre-date publication of the NPPF.7.17 The NPPF states that the policies it contains are material considerationswhich LPAs must take into account from the day of publication and that plansmay need to be revised as quickly as possible to take account of policies inthe NPPF. However, the NPPF also confirms that, for the purposes ofdecision taking, the policies in the Local Plan should not be considered out-ofdatesimply because they were adopted prior to publication of the NPPF. Itstates that, for 12 months from the date of publication (27 March 2012),decision makers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adoptedsince 2004 (in DPDs adopted in accordance with the Planning andCompulsory Purchase Act 2004). In other cases and following this 12 monthperiod, it states that “due weight should be given to relevant policies inexisting plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework(the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greaterthe weight that may be given)”. Advice is also given on the weight that maybe attached to emerging policies, depending on the stage of preparation, theextent to which there are unresolved objections and the degree of consistencyof the emerging policies to the policies in the NPPF.7.18 The NYWLP was adopted in 2006 but under legislation pre-dating thePlanning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Weight should therefore beattached to the NYWLP policies according to their degree of consistency withthe NPPF. The NYMLP (adopted 1997) and the Harrogate Local Plan(adopted 2001 with alterations in 2004) were also adopted under earlierlegislation and so should also be treated in this way.163NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/163

7.19 The Harrogate Core Strategy was adopted in 2009 under the Planning andCompulsory Purchase Act 2004 and therefore full weight may be given to anyrelevant policies in any decisions prior to 27 March 2013, provided there is nomore than a limited degree of conflict with the NPPF.7.20 Different considerations apply to the RSS, which was adopted in 2008. TheRSS is the most recently adopted part of the development plan dealingspecifically with waste. It post dates publication of national waste planningpolicy in PPS10. However, the Secretary of State has announced an intentionto revoke RSSs, and has also indicated in recent appeal decisions that heconsiders that the revocation of RSSs has come a step closer following theenactment of the Localism Act on 15 November 2011. In September 2012 theGovernment commenced a consultation on a Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment of the proposed revocation of the RSS for Yorkshire and theHumber. However until the RSS is formally revoked limited weight to theproposed revocation should be attached and therefore some weight may begiven to relevant RSS policy.7.21 PPS10 was published in July 2005 (with an amendment to the wastehierarchy in 2011 to bring it in line with revised Waste Framework Directive(2008/98/EC). Although published prior to formal adoption of the NYWLP, thelatter document was prepared and examined prior to publication of PPS10and therefore does not expressly reflect its content. PPS10 (paragraph 23)states that, “... in the interim period before the development plan is updated toreflect the policies in this PPS, planning authorities should ensure proposalsare consistent with the policies in this PPS and avoid placing requirements onapplicants that are inconsistent”. It also states (paragraph 24) that “Planningapplications for sites that have not been identified, in a development plandocument as suitable for new or enhanced waste management facilitiesshould be considered favourably when consistent with:• The policies in this PPS, including the criteria set out in paragraph 21• The waste planning authority’s core strategy”Therefore, whilst the development plan remains the starting point forconsideration of this application it will be necessary, when considering theproposals in relation to the full range of relevant planning policy, to haveregard to relevant elements of more recent national policy, as importantmaterial considerations which may indicate a different approach from thatfollowed in the development plan.Extent of compliance with locational policy:7.22 A number of representations, including that from Marton-cum-Grafton ParishCouncil on behalf of eight other parish councils (the ‘Parish Councils’ Group’),indicate that they consider the proposals conflict with ‘saved’ NYWLP Policies5/3 (concerning facilities for the recycling, sorting and transfer of industrial,commercial and household wastes) and 5/10 (concerning the incineration ofwaste) (as well as RSS Policy ENV14 (Strategic Locational Criteria for WasteManagement Facilities)) because the site is not within an existing, former orproposed industrial area of a character appropriate to the development, nor isit located on land formerly occupied by waste management facilities of a164NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/164

character appropriate to the development. The Parish Councils’ Group alsoconsider the proposal conflicts with Policy E8 (concerning new industrial andbusiness development in the countryside) of the Harrogate Core Strategy asthe development would not meet the circumstances where new industrial andbusiness development would be permitted.7.23 The land subject of the majority of the built development proposals andassociated landscaping works to the south falls within part of the existingAllerton Park quarry and landfill complex and has until recently been occupiedmainly for processing and stockpiling of minerals. This part of the site fallswithin a wider area, the subject of existing permissions for both mineralextraction, disposal of waste via landfill and associated land regarding andcontouring works.7.24 The specific part of the current permitted area authorised for deposit ofimported wastes, however, lies predominantly to the east of the currentapplication area. The site also includes land within part of the existing quarryarea to the north, which would be used for drainage purposes (i.e. theattenuation pond). That part of the site is subject of extant mineralspermissions, but not permission for landfill. Additional land associated with anexisting dwelling (Claro House – now unoccupied) and its curtilage is alsoincluded and is subject to proposals for a change of use (includingredevelopment, refurbishment and extension), along with highway and quarryaccess land.7.25 The current status of the site, in land use planning terms, is of relevance tothe assessment of how the proposal to use this site for development of theAWRP complies with waste site locational planning policy in both thedevelopment plan and in national policy. Both the NYWLP ‘saved’ policiesand the RSS contain extant policies relating to the location of wastemanagement facilities and further relevant policy is contained in PPS10 andthe NPPF.7.26 The majority of the area proposed for development is subject to mineralspermissions containing restoration conditions. The site has been developed,with the benefit of temporary planning permissions, for a range of mineralsand waste activities. Consequently, the existence of extant restorationconditions (which require restoration of the majority of the application site toagriculture and woodland) means that the site does not constitute previouslydeveloped (or brownfield) land. Therefore, it is not the subject of policysupport for the re-use of such land.7.27 In planning terms, the majority of the site therefore (with the exception of theClaro House and access areas) comprises open countryside. This is despiteit comprising an area which has been subject of significant disturbance fromminerals and waste development over a substantial period of time and wherefurther development could continue under current temporary permissions.Current planning permissions authorise disposal of waste within the landfillsite area to continue until 2018, although it is likely that significant void spacewill remain at that date. Mineral extraction within the Allerton Park Quarry165NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/165

area is essentially complete although substantial reclamation works remain tobe undertaken.a) Compliance with locational policy in the NYWLP7.28 The site is not the subject of any specific allocation in the development planfor the use proposed, or for any other use. ‘Saved’ Policy 5/2 of the NYWLPidentifies two specific allocations for facilities for the recovery of waste; thefirst being Barnsdale Bar Quarry and Landfill site and, the second, JackdawCrag Quarry.7.29 Both of the afore-mentioned sites are located within the designated green beltwithin Selby District and the supporting text to the policy indicates that anydevelopment would need to be linked to the life of the associatedquarry/landfill. Both of the sites have been subject to assessment by theapplicant as potential locations for the development as part of their site searchexercise. The applicant concluded that both are less suitable than the site nowproposed. ‘Saved’ Policy 5/2 of the NYWLP does not preclude the granting ofpermission on other sites, but it indicates that proposals outside these areaswill be considered in the light of other policies in Chapter 5 (of the Plan).7.30 Chapter 5 of the NYWLP sets out a number of development plan policiesrelating to generic types of waste management facilities, two of which (policies5/3 and 5/10) are particularly relevant to the consideration of the currentproposal, taking into account that the proposed facility co-locates a number ofspecific elements of waste management infrastructure as described in Section3.0 of this report.7.31 The Mechanical Treatment element forms a substantial element of thescheme in its own right (with a throughput capacity of around 262,000tpa), aswell as being an integral part of the co-located processes that would takeplace at the AWRP facility. It would involve sorting of waste and separatingoutof recyclates as well as other materials which may require onward transferto other types of facility, including other elements of the AWRP facility.7.32 ‘Saved’ NYWLP Policy 5/3 indicates that such facilities will be permitted in arange of types of site/locations identified in the policy, including “the proposedsite is appropriately located within or adjacent to active or worked out quarriesor landfill sites”. No sequential or priority order for the types of site or locationis expressed in the policy. The policy also indicates that, in appropriatecases, the proposals should not prejudice the restoration and afteruse of thequarry or landfill site. There is further reference in the supporting text thatwhere facilities are located at existing landfill sites, proposals should notcompromise effective restoration of the site. Development should be removedon completion of the landfill, unless material considerations support thepermanent retention.7.33 In this particular case, it is considered that the proposal meets the locationalelements of the policy (criteria a) to c)) in that it would be located within aworked out quarry and adjacent to an active landfill site.166NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/166

7.34 However, it is also considered that the delay to restoration of the site thatwould result from implementation of the proposals would lead to some conflictwith criterion f), which seeks to prevent prejudice being caused to therestoration and afteruse of a quarry or landfill site.7.35 In this specific instance, the application site lies largely outside the areaspecifically intended for landfill and the proposals put forward measures toensure that appropriate restoration of the landfill can be carried out. However,it is acknowledged that it would delay the restoration of the quarrydevelopment (plant site area and attenuation pond), although the need toensure provision of facilities to increase rates of recycling to allow targets tobe met is a material consideration which may support the retention of thefacility beyond the life of the current landfill site permission.7.36 Overall, for the reasons set out above, it is not considered that any impact onrestoration and afteruse would be unacceptable and therefore the MechanicalTreatment element of the proposals is broadly consistent with the specificlocational criteria in ‘saved’ NYWLP Policy 5/3.7.37 NYWLP ‘saved’ Policy 5/10 deals with proposals for the incineration of waste,under the NYWLP sub-heading ‘Energy Recovery’. Energy recovery (via theEfW element of the proposal) (together with the co-located AnaerobicDigestion process) is a substantial element of the AWRP proposal as a meansof dealing with residual waste. The policy indicates that proposals for theincineration of household, commercial and non-hazardous industrial waste willbe permitted only after opportunities for recycling and composting have beenexplored) and provided that the proposed site is suitably located:• Within an existing, former or proposed industrial area of a characterappropriate to the development; or• On land formerly occupied by waste management facilities of a characterappropriate to the development; or• On areas of contaminated, despoiled or previously derelict land.7.38 The supporting text to the policy indicates that factors relevant to siting ofincinerators generally means that they are likely to be located within or veryclose to urban areas and that proposed sites should be located to allow goodaccess to the primary road network.7.39 The site is not located within an existing, former or proposed industrial area oron an area of contaminated, despoiled or previously derelict land. Themajority of the site, including that part proposed for the EfW facility, is locatedwithin the boundary of a planning permission for landfill, albeit largely outsidethe area where landfilling itself would take place.7.40 Neither the policy nor its supporting justification clarifies whether a landfillfacility constitutes “waste management facilities of a character appropriate tothe development” now proposed although it is noted that the policy does notexpressly exclude such locations.167NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/167

7.41 The current character of the land itself does reflect disturbance over asignificant period of time as a result of activity of an industrial character,connected with minerals and waste development and, therefore, it is notconsidered that the proposal would clearly conflict with the specific locationalcriteria of ‘saved’ Policy 5/10 of the NYWLP.7.42 It is also material that the site does have the benefit of good access to theprimary road network, although access considerations are dealt with in moredetail elsewhere in this report. Both NYWLP 5/3 and 5/10 also require thatproposals will not have an unacceptable impact on local amenity and theenvironment. Compliance with these more generic elements of policies 5/3and 5/10 is addressed, where relevant, later in this section within discussionrelating to specific topics.7.43 As noted earlier, the AWRP proposal would co-locate a number ofcomplementary waste management activities together and it is appropriate toconsider its relationship with NYWLP saved policies 5/3 and 5/10 (as keyrelevant locational policies for waste facilities in the development plan) inconjunction. Both these policies acknowledge the potential for new wastefacilities to be located at sites subject to other waste development providedthat other criteria are met and the development would be broadly consistentwith this locational steer from the development plan. Whilst it is consideredthat certain elements of the co-located development are compatible withrelevant locational policy in the NYWLP, it is less clear that another principalelement (the EfW component) is directly compatible with the specificlocational criteria in NYWLP 5/10.7.44 For this reason it is not possible to conclude that the proposal as a whole isdirectly supported by the specific locational criteria identified in the NYWLP,although neither is it considered that a high degree of conflict with suchcriteria arises or that the degree of any such conflict would, in itself, besufficient to warrant refusal of permission.7.45 The NYWLP does not set out any specific policies relevant to the AnaerobicDigestion element of the scheme, but indicates that if a proposal for this typeof development comes forward it will be considered on merit taking intoaccount the policies in the NYWLP.7.46 Discussion of the weight which should be attached to NYWLP’s ‘saved’policies has been explained earlier in this section of this report.b) Compliance with locational policy in the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)7.47 Policy ENV14 of the RSS sets out strategic locational criteria for wastemanagement facilities. The preamble to the policy indicates that its principlesshould be considered in designating specific sites or areas where criteriabasedapproaches will apply. It is therefore not strictly intended as adevelopment management/control policy, but does provide an indication ofpreferred approaches to site identification within the Region.168NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/168

7.48 Policy ENV14 indicates that waste should be managed on the site where itarises, or at the nearest appropriate location and that major sources of wastearising in rural areas should be treated locally, unless specialised facilities arerequired. It indicates that facilities should be located in accordance with theRSS Core Approach (i.e. that growth and change will be managed acrossplaces and communities in Yorkshire and the Humber region in order toachieve sustainable development and the Spatial Vision set out in the RSS)and the proposed distribution of housing and economic growth andidentification of sites should take account of the following priority order:• Established and proposed industrial sites which have potential for thelocation of waste management facilities and the co-location ofcomplementary activities such as resource recovery or sustainablegrowth parks• Previously developed land, including mineral extraction and landfill sitesduring their period of operation for the location of related waste treatmentactivities in sustainable locations• redundant farm buildings and their curtilages7.49 It is acknowledged that the proposal is not consistent with the highestlocational preference. However, whilst not previously developed land, thedevelopment would be located largely within the boundary of a permission formineral extraction and landfill. Whilst permitted activities are currentlyrequired to cease by 2018, it is likely that there will be substantial landfillcapacity remaining at that date (although it is not known at this time whetherproposals to continue landfill will be submitted and, furthermore, if so,permitted). The functional relationship (if any) between the proposed AWRPand the existing landfill site is not identified clearly in the proposals, but it isunderstood that rejects (although not residues) from the process which requirelandfill would be likely to be landfilled at the Allerton Park facility. Thispotentially introduces a limited direct link between the AWRP facility and theadjacent landfill, broadly in line with the objective of Policy ENV14.7.50 Overall, it is considered that the proposals receive some support from thelocational priority order set out in Policy ENV14, although the weight thatshould be attached to this is diminished by the fact that the policy is astrategic policy not specifically intended for development management/controlpurposes, and as a result of the intended revocation of RSS.7.51 With regard to the re-use of the existing property of Claro House, it isconsidered that this would be in general compliance with RSS Policy E7 whichgives priority to the re-use of existing buildings.7.52 Discussion of the weight which should be attached to RSS policy in the light ofthe intended revocation of RSSs has been explained earlier in this section ofthis report.169NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/169

c) Compliance with locational policy in the Harrogate Local Plan andHarrogate Core Strategy7.53 Locational policy for new development in the countryside is set out in ‘saved’Policy E8 of the Harrogate Local Plan and Policy SG3 of the Harrogate CoreStrategy (adopted in 2009 and partially replacing policies in the HarrogateLocal Plan). ‘Saved’ Policy E8 indicates that new small-scale industrial andbusiness development will be permitted in the open countryside where arange of criteria are met. These include the re-use or adaptation of anexisting building, a proposal for farm diversification or other small-scaleproposals requiring a countryside location for operational reasons. This isprovided that the development is well located in relation to the classified roadnetwork, or would not generate significant volumes of traffic, nor should ithave a significant adverse effect on the character, appearance or generalamenity of the area.7.54 It is considered that the proposal for a ‘change of use’ of Claro House inassociation with the AWRP development is compatible with this policy,although the larger scale elements of the proposals are not supported by it.7.55 Core Strategy Policy SG3 states that outside identified development and infilllimits, land will be classified as countryside and there will be strict control overnew development in accordance with national and regional planning policyprotecting the countryside and Green Belt.7.56 The proposed AWRP site is not located within development or infill limits andis, therefore, classed as open countryside within the definition in Policy SG3.The Policy identifies a number of forms of development which will beencouraged in the countryside outside Green Belt and, amongst the forms ofdevelopment allowed under the Policy, are “sustainable rural enterprisesincluding tourism, renewable energy and farm diversification”.7.57 As noted elsewhere in this report, an element of the energy that the AWRPwould generate would be renewable, although it is not expressly proposed asa renewable energy development. It is proposed that the AWRP is a facilityfor the recovery of energy from residual waste. The response from the City ofYork Council referred to an interest in opportunities to expand the operation ofthe Anaerobic Digestion facility, into the production of bio-methane for fuel.However, the applicant, in the ‘further and other environmental information’confirmed that, whilst, technically, it would be possible to create theinfrastructure for producing a bio-methane fuel, the concept has not beenprogressed and does not form part of the proposal or the planning application.It is, therefore, not considered that the proposal as a whole would be subjectof direct support through this element of Policy SG3.7.58 The Harrogate Core Strategy is the most recently adopted part of thedevelopment plan of potential relevance to the proposals. However, thisparticular part of the development plan has not been prepared specifically toaddress proposals for development of waste management facilities, which donot fall within the jurisdiction of the Borough Council. The Harrogate BoroughCouncil Officer Report to Members seeking observations on the proposals (in170NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/170

esponse to consultation by the County Council) acknowledges that CoreStrategy Policy SG3 does not provide a framework for assessing proposals forwaste management. It states that these facilities are more appropriatelyconsidered against local policies in the NYWLP. It is considered that, in yourofficers opinion, similar consideration should apply to ‘saved’ Policy E8.7.59 Members should also note that more recent policy on development in ruralareas is provided in the NPPF. This indicates that “planning policies shouldsupport economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperityby taking a positive approach to new development”. It goes on to state that(Local Plans) should “support the sustainable growth and expansion of alltypes of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion ofexisting buildings and well designed new buildings”. This aspect of NPPFpolicy is not expressed as a development management/control policy, but itdoes suggest that the approach in Policy SG3 and saved Policy E8 may notbe compatible with the most up to date national planning policy position, whichappears to adopt a more positive and flexible approach.7.60 It is concluded, therefore, that, whilst the development as a whole may notconform with Policy SG3 or E8, the extent of any conflict is mitigated for thereasons set out above.d) Compliance with locational policy in Planning Policy Statement 10(PPS10)7.61 PPS10 (‘Planning for Sustainable Waste Management’) is the main extantnational planning policy source for waste development. It does not form partof the statutory development plan, but it is nevertheless an important materialconsideration in determining the AWRP application. It was published in 2005(with amendments in 2011). Whilst its original publication date pre-datesadoption of the NYWLP, the preparation of the NYWLP pre-dated thepublication of PPS10. PPS10 states that, “in considering planningapplications for waste management facilities before development plans can bereviewed to reflect this PPS, WPAs should have regard to the policies in thePPS as material considerations which may supersede the policies in theirdevelopment plan.7.62 It is noted that paragraph 20 of PPS10, which deals with identifying sites andareas in local policy documents, indicates that in searching for suitable sitesand areas, WPAs should consider a broad range of locations, includingindustrial sites, looking for opportunities to co-locate facilities together andwith complementary activities. This suggests that a degree of flexibility shouldbe applied in determining locations. In this context it is relevant that theproposal would involve the co-location of a number of complementary facilitieswhich would operate in combination to provide for the further recycling andrecovery of residual waste.7.63 PPS10 further indicates that, in determining planning applications, WPAsshould ensure proposals are consistent with the policies in the PPS and avoidplacing requirements on applicants that are inconsistent. In relation tounallocated sites (as is the case with the AWRP proposal) it states that171NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/171

proposals should be considered favourably when consistent with; the policiesin the PPS (including specific criteria in paragraph 21); the WPAs corestrategy and, in the case of waste disposal facilities, where the applicant candemonstrate that the facility will not undermine movement of waste up thehierarchy.7.64 The applicant indicates that the energy recovery facility would meet theefficiency standard required to qualify as a waste recovery facility rather thana disposal facility (and hence would move up the hierarchy waste that wouldotherwise be landfilled), although it is understood that the actual efficiency ofthe facility could not be confirmed until after commencement of operation.Objectors have questioned whether the facility would qualify as a recoveryfacility; particularly in the event that significant amounts of non-local authoritycollected commercial waste is processed through the facility. This issue isaddressed later in this Section.7.65 The principal site locational criterion identified in paragraph 21 of PPS10 is arequirement to give priority to the “re-use of previously-developed land andredundant agricultural and forestry buildings and their curtilages”. The policyin PPS10 is not expressed as an absolute requirement, but, instead, isexpressed as a priority preference. As noted earlier in this section, the site isnot located on previously developed land and neither would it involve the reuseof redundant agricultural or forestry buildings or their curtilages. Theapplicant indicates that its Site Search Assessment took into accountpreviously development land although a suitable such location, meeting thedefined search criteria, was not identified. The supporting text to NYWLP‘saved’ Policy 5/3 recognises that, in a predominantly rural County, it may bedifficult to find suitable industrial locations and other locations may be needed,although this policy relates specifically to the provision of facilities for therecycling, sorting and transfer of Industrial, Commercial and HouseholdWaste.7.66 Notwithstanding the support in PPS10 for re-use of redundant agricultural andforestry buildings, it is considered that such buildings or their curtilages wouldbe unlikely to be suitable for the type of development proposed in thisinstance.7.67 Taking into account the element of locational flexibility allowed for withinPPS10 and, in the absence of a suitable site which meets the specificlocational preferences contained in PPS10, it is not considered that theabsence of previously developed land status for the site subject of thisproposal would, in itself, be sufficient to warrant refusal of permission.7.68 Annex E to PPS10 sets out a range of more detailed ‘locational’ criteria to betaken into account in assessing proposals for waste management facilities.These are primarily concerned with considering sites and proposals against arange of more specific environmental and amenity impacts rather than morestrategic locational considerations. Assessment of the proposals against thetwelve criteria in Annex E is considered in more detail elsewhere in this report.172NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/172

e) Compliance with locational policy in the National Planning PolicyFramework (NPPF)7.69 The NPPF does not contain specific policies for waste, with PPS10 remainingextant. However, in the introduction it states that planning authorities takingdecisions on waste applications should have regard to policies in the NPPF sofar as relevant. One of the core principles of the NPPF is to encourage theeffective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed,provided that it is not of high environmental value. The NPPF also indicatesthat “... developments that generate significant movement are located wherethe need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transportmodes can be maximised. However this needs to take into account of policiesset out elsewhere in this Framework, particularly in rural areas”.7.70 As noted earlier, the application site does not constitute previously developedland. However, use of such land is expressed in the NPPF as a policypreference rather than an overriding requirement. In the absence of anyidentified suitable location on previously developed land within the applicant’ssearch area, it is not considered that any specific conflict with this aspect ofNPPF policy arises.7.71 With regard to delivery of a location which minimises the need for travel andmaximises the use of sustainable transport modes, the applicant has soughtto demonstrate that their area of search for a suitable site reflects drive-timefactors and geographical variation in volume of waste arisings (although itshould be noted that this is within the context of a proposed single location forthe management of residual waste). The applicant’s Site Search Assessmentdid not prioritise identification of a site with potential for use of sustainabletransport modes. In a large predominantly rural area such as North Yorkshire,where sources of waste arisings are highly dispersed and sustainabletransport infrastructure relatively sparse, the potential for use of alternativetransport modes is limited. This appears to be recognised in the NPPF policy.Conclusion on the extent of compliance with locational policy7.72 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposals do not fully accord with thosepolicies (or elements of policies) in the development plan dealing with thespecific types of site, land or location on which waste facilities may beconsidered acceptable, although for reasons discussed earlier in this section itis not considered that the extent of conflict would be sufficient in itself to justifyrefusal of permission. It is also concluded that the proposed location wouldnot meet the specific locational priorities for waste development identified innational policy. However, the degree of flexibility afforded in current policy,particularly national policy in PPS10 and the NPPF, suggests that the overallextent of any conflict with locational policy is relatively slight.Prematurity7.73 A number of representations have expressed the view that it would bepremature to determine the application, and to develop a facility of the scaleand nature of the AWRP facility, in the absence of an up-to-date Waste CoreStrategy (WCS).173NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/173

7.74 Members will be aware that work towards preparation of a WCS was welladvanced and reached Examination in Public in 2008, before the Strategywas subsequently withdrawn. Work was also progressed on a Waste SiteAllocations document, to follow on from the WCS, but this was not progressedas far as examination.7.75 Following finalisation of a new Minerals and Waste Development FrameworkProject Plan in 2010, work has recommenced on a new Waste Core StrategyDPD. Initial consultation and development of an initial draft vision wasundertaken during 2011, but no draft policies have yet been developed.7.76 Following the assent of the Localism Act 2011 and the publication of theNPPF in March 2012, a further review of the Project Plan is taking place and itis expected that a report will be taken to the Executive in due course. TheNPPF re-affirms the plan-led nature of planning and the desirability of up-todatedevelopment plans being in place.7.77 With respect to the consideration of ‘prematurity’, PPS10 states that, “anyrefusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity will not be justifiedunless the refusal accords with policy in ‘The Planning System: GeneralPrinciples’. National planning policy on prematurity considerations, therefore,is set out in this document that was published in 2005. It states in paragraph17 that;“in some circumstances, it may be justifiable to refuse planning permission ongrounds of prematurity where a Development Plan Document is beingprepared or is under review, but it has not yet been adopted. This may beappropriate where a proposed development is so substantial, or where thecumulative effect would be so significant, that granting permission couldprejudice the DPD by pre-determining decisions about the scale, location orphasing of new development which are being addressed in the policy in theDPD. A proposal for development which has an impact on only a small areawould rarely come into this category”.7.78 It goes on to say, in paragraph 18, that “otherwise, refusal of planningpermission on grounds of prematurity will not usually be justified. Planningapplications should continue to be considered in the light of current policies.However, account should also be taken of policies in emerging DPDs. Theweight to be attached to such policies depends on the stage of preparation orreview, with the value increasing as successive stages are reached. Forexample:• where a DPD is at the consultation stage, with no early prospect ofsubmission, then refusal on grounds of prematurity would seldom bejustified because of the delay which this would impose in determining thefuture use of the land in question.7.79 Paragraph 19 advises “where planning permission is refused on grounds ofprematurity the planning authority will need to demonstrate clearly how thegrant of permission for the development concerned would prejudice theoutcome of the DPD process.”174NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/174

7.80 Clearly the AWRP proposal is, in the context of North Yorkshire, a majorproposal which would form a key part of the overall network of facilities formanaging LACW in the York and North Yorkshire area. It would, therefore, beexpected that any new policies to be developed in the Waste Core Strategywould be of direct relevance to the consideration of such a proposal andwould be likely to inform a prospective developer’s approach to bringingforward a planning application.7.81 PPS10 confirms that Core Strategies should both inform and, in turn, beinformed by any relevant municipal waste management strategy. The NPPFdoes not make any specific reference to the consideration of prematurity, butindicates that, as part of the presumption in favour of sustainabledevelopment, local plans should meet objectively assessed needs, withsufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change. This is unless any adverseimpacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh thebenefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF as a whole orspecific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.7.82 PPS10 states that, in identifying land for waste facilities WPAs should identifythe types of facility that would be appropriately located on the site or in thearea, taking care to avoid stifling innovation in line with the waste hierarchy.Together, the NPPF and PPS10 suggest that any new waste local plan isunlikely to be prescriptive as to specific technologies or processes that shouldbe developed, although clearly it would have an important role in determiningthe overall spatial approach to the provision of new facilities and capacity. Itshould also be noted that any new DPDs forming part of a new waste localplan have a different statutory role and purpose from the municipal wastestrategy and would not be an appropriate mechanism to address someconcerns expressed by objectors about the way waste is proposed to becollected and managed in the area which would be more properly addressedthrough the roles of the Waste Disposal and Waste Collection authorities andas expressed through the municipal waste management strategy.7.83 In the absence of any expectation of a new adopted waste local plan in thenear future (it is unlikely that any new project plan will identify a potentialadoption date before late 2014) and bearing in mind particularly,• that the AWRP proposals have been brought forward to implement anagreed municipal waste management strategy;• the existence of a range of other extant planning policy to help inform adecision on the application; and,• the advice in “The Planning System: General Principles” that where aDPD is at a consultation stage with no early prospect of submission then,notwithstanding the scale and significance of the development proposed,it would be difficult to justify refusal of planning permission for the AWRPfacility on grounds of prematurity.175NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/175

‘Nearest Appropriate Installation’ and the ‘Proximity Principle’7.84 Objectors to the proposed development have argued that the AWRP violatesthe ‘proximity principle’ in that the AWRP will require the transfer of wastefrom all parts of North Yorkshire. They also contend the applicant’s choice oftechnology to be, in their opinion, wrong.7.85 PPS10 confirms that one of the key objectives of waste planning is to enablewaste to be disposed of in one of the ‘nearest appropriate installations’ (NAI).Article 16 of the EU Waste Framework Directive indicates that the requirementalso applies to the recovery of mixed municipal waste collected from privatehouseholds. Member states are required to take appropriate measures, in cooperationwith other member states where necessary, to establish anadequate and integrated network of disposal installations and installations forthe recovery of mixed municipal waste from private households to enabledelivery of the NAI requirement. The Directive requires that waste must bedisposed of, or recovered, by means of the most appropriate methods andtechnologies, in order to ensure a high level of protection for the environmentand public health.7.86 This NAI requirement has, in effect, superseded the former ‘proximityprinciple’ which sought to ensure that waste should generally be managed asnear as possible to its place of production because transporting waste itselfhas an environmental impact. ‘Saved’ NYWLP Policy 4/1 indicates thatproposals for waste management facilities will be permitted where, amongstother criteria, the location is geographically well located to the source of thewaste thereby according with the ‘proximity principle’. The use of the term‘proximity principle’ has not been carried forward into current national policy inPPS10 and therefore this element of NYWLP Policy 4/1 is no longerconsistent with more up-to-date national policy, as expressed in paragraph 3of PPS10.7.87 As a facility for the recovery of LACW (which includes household waste), theAWRP facility would contribute to the delivery of an integrated and adequatenetwork of waste management installations. In the absence of other suitablerecovery capacity, this would represent the NAI within the partnership area forthe recovery of such wastes collected within the partnership area. The issueof the availability of alternative capacity is considered later in this section ofthe report.7.88 Objectors have also raised the issue of whether, if permitted, there islikelihood that substantial volumes of waste would be imported to the site fromoutside the area and that this is particularly of concern if volumes of arisings inthe area fail to meet predicted levels, as some objectors consider likely. Sucha scenario is perhaps less likely in respect of LACW arising elsewhere as aresult of the NAI requirement, but may be more relevant in respect ofcommercial waste collected by other organisations.176NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/176

7.89 It should be noted that the imposition of controls through the planning system(via condition or legal agreement) to restrict in geographical terms thelocations from which waste may be imported is not an approach that hasreceived support in many recent appeal and ‘call-in decisions. Therefore, inthe event Members are minded to grant permission for the development, theuse of planning conditions for such purposes is not considered appropriate inthis instance.7.90 It is possible that the location of waste management facilities and, as aconsequence, the extent of compliance with the NAI requirement can beinfluenced by the choice of waste management technology. However, thechoice of method / technology is essentially a commercial decision for themarket. ‘Energy recovery’ through both the incineration of waste and theanaerobic digestion process are supported, in principle, in the current nationalWaste Strategy for England (and reaffirmed in the 2011 Government Reviewof Waste Policy in England) as potentially suitable technologies for themanagement of residual waste. The County Council, as Planning Authority,has not expressed, in any policy document, any policy preference as to thetechnologies which may be preferred for managing residual waste. Furtherdiscussion of the applicants’ approach to identifying choice of technology anddelivery of a solution is contained later in this report.Design of the proposed development7.91 A number of objectors to the proposed development have raised the objectionspecifically at the design of the buildings and its scale. A number have alsobeen received raising issues with the perceived industrial design of thebuilding, the height of the chimney and the impact this will have on thesurrounding area.7.92 The Design and Access Statement submitted, as part of the application,addresses the design concept of the proposed development. The documentis explicit in explaining that it is the intent of the applicant’s facility “to enhanceits setting and celebrate its function and presence”.7.93 The applicant states that “the design of the facility reflects not only therequirements of the process technologies, but also includes best practice tominimise the visual impact. Careful selection of materials ensures the facilitypresents a positive addition to the area”.7.94 The design and materials chosen reflect a number of design techniques, asillustrated upon the submitted drawings. The design evolution to representthe submitted proposal is a direct result of a number of comments receivedfrom stake-holders (including English Heritage and CABE). During the courseof the proposal’s design, from the early sketch stage to the application stage,its design has been changed to include a reduction of the main chimney stackheight from 80 metres down to 70 metres, a lowering of the roof of the EfWbuilding from 45 metres down to 36.4 metres, a reduction in the overallbuilding heights resulting from the selection of more compact plant within(thereby lowering the buildings into the site by one metre); a re-configuration177NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/177

of a number of the elements of the proposals into different locations and achange in the orientation of buildings themselves.7.95 The applicant sees the visible building form as needing to be ‘sculptural’ withinthe landscape, and therefore proposes that the Tipping Hall will have a sedum(therefore ‘green’) roof with a view to reducing the perceived footprint of thebuilding by appearing to continue the landscape over the building. A lightcolouredcladding band on the EfW building is proposed to give theappearance of a ‘clerestory’ (row of windows in the upper part of a churchnave above the roof of side aisle), set below the roof curve to make the roofappear to ‘float’ above the building and the profile of the landscape. Generallymatt dark greys and earthy colours at the base of the buildings are proposedto blend the lower buildings and storeys with light greys and silvers to reflectthe sky component above the surrounding landscape.7.96 Paragraphs 35 & 36 of PPS10 identify the importance of ensuring that wastemanagement facilities are of a good design to ensure they contributepositively to the character and quality of an area without causing adverseimpacts on the street scene or local landscape. PPS10 also advises that thepoor design of waste management facilities is “in itself undesirable,undermines community acceptance of such facilities and should be rejected”.7.97 The NPPF indicates that great importance should be attached to the design ofthe built environment and is a key aspect of sustainable development. It isalso important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality andinclusive design for all development. It further states that planning decisionsshould not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and theyshould not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiatedrequirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It advisesthat planning authorities should refer major projects for national design reviewand that in assessing applications LPAs should have regard to therecommendations from the design review panel.7.98 With respect to the scale of the development, the applicant has stated that thescale of the development would change little whether the ‘throughput’ of wastethrough the facility was to be significantly more or significantly less. The scaleis very much dependent upon the plant and machinery employed within thebuildings. The applicant explains that “smaller throughput does notnecessarily mean a smaller plant. The building size is determined by boilerdesign and the height of the building will be similar irrespective of boiler size… The dimensions of the building would therefore not vary significantly. Stackheight would continue to be governed by effective dispersion of emissions. Acomparison of other EfW proposals shows that there is not necessarily alinear relationship between throughput (tonnage) and building size, scale andmass…AWRP represents a relatively compact facility”.7.99 In terms of the industrial nature and design of the facility, it is considered thatgiven the surrounding topography and the proposed additional landscaping onand adjacent to the site, the industrial design will be partly mitigated but itcannot be screened entirely.178NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/178

7.100 However, the acceptability of the applicant’s proposed design has also beenassessed through the planning consultation process. Specialist design advicehas been sought from Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment(CABE), who have assessed the proposal and stated that they “commend thevisual impact assessment and think that the proposed curved design of thebuilding fits well into the surroundings”. They also responded saying “Overall,we think this proposal has the potential to become a well-designed facilityoffering an interesting experience for visitors and attractive views for traffic onthe A1. The building strikes the right balance between a simple industrialappearance and a compelling, elegant design”. CABE is similarly supportiveof the design scheme for the refurbishment and conversion of Claro Houseinto the Visitor and Education Centre.7.101 With specific respect to Claro House, it is acknowledged that the proposedredevelopment, refurbishment and extension and, thereby, the change of usefrom residential to visitor and educational centre, would result in the loss of asingle residential unit. However, the AWRP development proposal has beenput forward concurrently with a proposal for the conversion of an existingbuilding elsewhere on the Estate into residential use. It is understood that theformer occupants of Claro House have now recently moved into the newlyconverted property.7.102 Whilst ‘saved’ Policy H2 of the Harrogate District Local Plan seeks to ensurethere is no net loss in housing stock in the District, it is considered that theproposed development does not conflict with the requirements of thisparticular Policy of the development plan by dint of there being no net loss ofhousing stock.7.103 In further consideration of the impact of the AWRP proposal upon ClaroHouse, ‘saved’ Policy C16 of the Harrogate District Local Plan (SelectiveAlteration) (May 2004) sets out the criteria for the re-use and adaptation ofrural buildings. The Policy states that, inter alia, proposals will be permittedwhere “alterations, extensions or rebuilding are minimised and are essential tothe operational requirements of an identified users”. It is evident that theproposed redevelopment, refurbishment and extension works to Claro Houseto create a Visitor and Education Centre and ancillary offices have beendesigned to maximise the use of the existing built structure. The design of theproposed Visitor Centre has received the support of CABE who state that “thevisitor centre offers the opportunity for a welcoming design separate from theconstraints and technical requirements of the main plant”. Furthermore, intheir view, the Visitor Centre “could provide a successful environment forlearning about waste management and sustainable lifestyles”.7.104 The alterations to the Claro House, whilst complex, are relatively minor andwould be in keeping with the character and appearance of the building andwould not adversely affect residential amenity. The majority of the workswould relate to the internal courtyard area and as a result it is considered thatthe proposed refurbishment works and minor extensions would have anegligible impact on the overall external appearance of the existing buildings.In terms of design, the proposed construction materials, colour finishes and179NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/179

scale of the converted buildings would be an appropriate solution to provideflexible office space for staff as well as a visitor centre and learning facility tobe made available for use by local community groups and educationalestablishments. It is considered that the proposed conversion of Claro Houseis appropriate and compliant with ‘saved’ Policy C16 as well as according withthe guidance contained within paragraphs 56 and 57 of the NPPF (2012).7.105 Whilst sub-paragraph 4 of Policy SG3 of Harrogate Borough Council’s CoreStrategy seeks to encourage “sustainable rural enterprises, including tourism,renewable energy and farm diversification”, despite the whole developmentencompassing some renewable energy elements, the redevelopment,refurbishment and extension of Claro House will not, in itself, satisfy otherelements of the Policy such as the third element of the Policy encouragingthe provision of small-scale community facilities and small scale employmentadjacent to a development limit or employment use adjacent to an existingtown or village development limit. Whilst it is not considered that the proposedconversion of Claro House fully accords with Policy SG3 of the HarrogateDistrict Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy, it wouldhowever, be generally consistent with more recent policy in the NPPF whichappears to adopt a more flexible approach, by supporting the sustainablegrowth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas,both through the conversion of existing buildings and well-designed newbuildings.7.106 With specific respect to external lighting which has also been the subject ofobjection through representations received by the County Council, Officershave reviewed the results of the lighting assessment accompanying theplanning application.7.107 The Lighting Assessment has been included within the Landscape VisualImpact Assessment of the ES (Chapter 4). The lighting assessment does notidentify any significant detrimental impact on the identified receptors, nor thesurrounding area including ecological receptors such as bats. The design ofthe lighting has been intended to reduce sky glow and light trespass but theapplicant has, nevertheless, identified that the “levels of predicted effectswould be anticipated as being Minor Adverse during the construction phaseand Minor Adverse during the operational phase”.7.108 The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 is currently the UKlegislation which applies a degree of statutory regulation over theenvironmental impact of light pollution and nuisance glare and addresses theissue of whether artificial light emitted from premises is such as to beprejudicial to health or a nuisance. The Act allows a number of exemptionswhere increased lighting is required for public safety or security. However theimpact of lighting is also a concern of the planning regime.180NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/180

7.109 The Borough Council’s Environmental Health Officer has not objected to theinclusion of the lighting units other than to require the inclusion of a conditionlimiting the hours of illumination of the floodlighting during the preparatory,construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the development.Similarly, the North Yorkshire Police Architectural Liaison Officer has alsomade some recommendations about the nature, positioning and timing of thelighting.7.110 Therefore, the Lighting Assessment submitted by the applicant is consideredto be both satisfactory and acceptable. Nevertheless, to ensure thenecessary safeguards are in place to ensure that the general amenity of thevicinity is not adversely impacted by external lighting, Members are advisedthat conditions to control external lighting may be warranted should Membersresolve to grant permission. Therefore, subject to the imposition of conditionsregarding the details of the floodlighting including the hours of operation, it isconsidered that there would be no conflict with the aims of the NPPF thatgood design, planning policies and decisions should limit the impact of lightpollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes andnature conservation.7.111 Therefore, taking into account the advice in PPS10 and the NPPF aboutdesign, together with the views of CABE, it is not considered that there is anysubstantive reason to object to the AWRP development solely by reason of itsdesign.Effects of the proposed development:Landscape and Visual Impact:7.112 The application is accompanied by a Landscape and Visual ImpactAssessment (LVIA) within the formally submitted Environmental Statement.The twenty-five viewpoints (VPs) used in the assessment were selected torepresent the effects on views experienced by local residents, and visitors tothe area using bridleways, footpaths, open spaces and local roads. It isunderstood by the County Planning Authority that the approach, methodologyand chosen viewpoints had previously been agreed with the PrincipalLandscape Architects of both Harrogate Borough Council and the CountyCouncil.7.113 An additional five viewpoints (VP26-30) were selected following consultationwith English Heritage to demonstrate potential impacts upon the setting ofAllerton Park and its associated Listed Buildings. The applicant’s Assessmentpoints out that these additional five VPs were not included within the visualimpact analysis for the reason of their being incapable of being considered asrepresentative of views experienced by members of the public due to thelimited access.7.114 Two further viewpoints (VP31 and VP32) were used as part of the Culturaland Heritage Impact Assessment and are, therefore, not addressed in thispart of the report, which focusses specifically on the context of landscapeimpact.181NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/181

7.115 The conclusions of the LVIA can be summarised as follows:• Daytime effects would be more adverse than at night-time because thelarge scale structures would be less visible in the hours of darkness;• Only minor adverse effects would arise from the lighting proposals thatform part of the AWRP design;• Moderate to large adverse effects (in Year 1) were found to arise atseven of the twenty-five viewpoints, all within the 5km study area of theLVIA, specifically,o VP2 (‘Knaresborough Round footpath, Ferrensby’);o VP3 (‘Arkendale’);o VP4 (‘Lidget Lane’, Coneythorpe);o VP7 (‘A59 lay-by, west of A1(M)’);o VP9 (‘Walls Close’);o VP14 (‘Marton-cum-Grafton’); and,o VP25 (‘Sleeper Farm’).• Moderate to large adverse effect would be found at VP10 (‘AllertonQuarry entrance’) in Year 1, but the applicant points to the impact at thisVP reducing by Year 15;• Large adverse effect during the daytime was found to arise at one ViewPoint (namely VP11 (‘Ninevah Farm’) to the north of the application siteadjacent to the A168);• Of the Landscape Character Areas (LCAs) within the borough ofHarrogate, LCA69 (‘East Knaresborough Arable Farmland’) and LCA91(‘Marton Rolling Arable Farmland’) would experience moderate adversedaytime impact;• Whilst Allerton Park itself is not defined as a separate LandscapeCharacter Area within Harrogate Borough Council’s adopted LandscapeCharacter Assessment, the applicant, in its own assessment, deemed itworthy of being one, and judged it as likely to experience a moderate tolarge adverse impact during the daytime; and,• Villages experiencing adverse effects would all be within 4.5km of thesite, but no effect greater than ‘slight to moderate’ adverse had beenidentified.7.116 The landscape consultancy firm, acting on behalf of the applicant, TheLandscape Agency, draws the overall conclusion from the above that theimpact of the proposal during the daytime would be considered as ‘significant’in the context of environmental impact. In order to mitigate, to some extent,against the adverse impacts arising from the proposed development and, inother respects, off-set the impacts, the applicant proposes a LandscapeManagement Strategy that would serve to guide mitigation projects comingforward, for example, off-site landscaping works etc. through the mechanismof a proposed Landscape and Cultural Heritage Fund.7.117 Objections have been raised against the proposed development pointing tothe proposal’s potential to introduce a major industrial-scale developmentwhich, in their opinion, will be visually intrusive in the open countryside. Inparticular, the Parish Councils’ Group, commissioned its own consultants,TPM Landscape (Section 4.0 refers) to review the applicant’s LVIA. TPMLandscape Ltd were retained to comment on the ‘further and other182NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/182

environmental submission’ made in the summer and a further TPMLandscape report accompanied the Parish Councils’ Group submission inAugust (again detailed in Section 4.0 of this report).7.118 The first of the two TPM Landscape reports (dated January 2012) drew theconclusion that, in their view, significant and adverse impact upon thelandscape would result in the event that the AWRP proposal were to be builtand they were of the view that this contravened local planning policies. Thesecond of the TPM Landscape reports focussed specifically upon theapplicant’s ‘further and other environmental information’ and reiterated theirpreviously held view of the development.7.119 Further representations point to the proposals only benefitting the owner ofthe land upon which the development is proposed to be situated and that,furthermore, the legacy will last for a generation and beyond. The potentialadverse impact of the flue stack, in particular, in the landscape together withits associated plume would be unacceptable to those objecting to the proposaland they contend it is inappropriate in a setting next to a Registered Park andGarden.7.120 In assessing the proposal in respect of its potential landscape impact, dueregard must be had to the relevant development plan policies as set out inSection 6.0 earlier in this report. The assessment against the policies thatfollow can be found in the remaining paragraphs of this specific section of thisreport dealing with the issues of potential landscape impact. The relevantdevelopment plan policies include:• RSS Policy ENV9 (Historic Environment);• NYWLP ’saved’ Policies specifically:o 4/1(e) (“the landscaping and screening has been designed toeffectively mitigate the impact of the proposal in a way that issympathetic to local landscape character”);ooooo4/3 (Landscape protection);4/14 (Historic sites) (“proposals for waste management facilities willonly be permitted where there would not be an unacceptable effecton … registered parks, gardens…and their setting”);4/21(Progressive Restoration);4/22 (Site restoration); and,5/10(e) (Incineration of waste) (“the proposal will not have anunacceptable impact on local amenity or the environment”);• NYMLP ’saved’ Policies specifically:o 4/20 (Site restoration); and,• Harrogate District Local Plan ‘saved’ Policies specifically:o E8(c) (“It would not have a significant adverse effect on thecharacter, appearance or general amenity of the area”);o C2 (Landscape Character);o HD6 (Historic Battlefields); and,o HD7A (Parks and Gardens of historic interest) (“development willnot be permitted where it would adversely affect the character orsetting of parks and gardens included in the English Heritageregister of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest”).183NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/183

• Harrogate District Council LDF Core Strategy Policies specifically:o EQ2 (Natural and built environment and green belt);o SG3(2) (Settlement Growth: Conservation of the Countryside,including greenbelt); and,o SG4(1b) (Settlement Growth: Design and Impact).7.121 More generally applicable to issues of overall landscape impact are theBorough Council’s ‘saved’ Policies E8(c) and C2 and policies EQ2, SG3 andSG4; albeit having due regard that these policies are contained in plans notbrought forward with the specific purpose of addressing of minerals andwaste-related development. The assessment of the proposals against thesepolicies can be found in the paragraphs that follow.7.122 Objections have been raised pointing to the potential impact of the flueincluding its plume, particularly its visibility during daylight hours and disagreewith the applicant’s assessment of the proportion of time that the plume will bevisible. A number of representations also contend that the flue stack willdominate for miles around; including the approaches to the area on the A59and A1, on the surrounding communities of Goldsborough, Flaxby,Coneythorpe, Arkendale, Marton cum Grafton, and parts of Knaresborough,as well as views from parts of the Yorkshire Dales & North York MoorsNational Parks.7.123 The applicant has acknowledged that the plume from the flue stack will form avisible element of the development and has assessed that this would be forbetween 48 and 57% of the time during daylight hours. However, it is statedthat for most of this time the extent of the plume would be relatively short, withan average predicted plume length of 50 to 56m and that the plume at itsmaximum length would not extend beyond the site boundary for more than 5%of the year.7.124 A comparison has been drawn by objectors to the impact that the Ferrybridgepower station and its associated buildings has on the landscape. Whilst theAWRP proposal includes a flue stack with, at times, an associated plume, itdoes not include cooling towers (and their associated plumes) which areamongst the most visual indications of the presence of a power station. It isnot, therefore, considered that a comparison with Ferrybridge power station isan appropriate one. Nonetheless, there will be an impact on the locality as aresult of the size of the stack and its industrial character, which would appearas an incongruous feature in the landscape for the area.7.125 Representations have been made in respect of the potential adverse impactthat objectors consider that the proposal would have on the settings ofHarrogate, Knaresborough and Ripon. However, given the distances betweenthe proposal and the towns of Harrogate, Knaresborough and Ripon (being10km, 5km and 17km respectively), it is not considered that the developmentwould conflict with the aim of Policy EQ2 of the Harrogate District CouncilLocal Development Framework Core Strategy which seeks to protect the highquality of the landscape which is important to the individual settings of thosesettlements.184NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/184

7.126 Core Strategy Policy EQ2 states that the District’s exceptionally high qualitynatural and built environment will be given a level of protection appropriate toits international, national and local importance. Furthermore, subject to theDistrict’s need to plan for new green-field development, the landscapecharacter of the whole District will be protected and where appropriateenhanced. It is should be noted that the AWRP development is not proposedin a designated area of landscape importance. However, given the CountyCouncil’s Principal Landscape Architect’s opinion of there being a significantimpact on landscape character and, notwithstanding the proposed mitigationmeasures, the development cannot reasonably be described as protecting thecurrent character or providing an enhancement thereto. Hence, it is notconsidered that the development is in accordance with the landscapeelements of Policy EQ2.7.127 With regard to ‘saved’ Policy 4/3 of the NYWLP it is considered that theproposal would not meet the aim of the policy to prevent an unacceptableeffect on the character and uniqueness of the landscape or result in anenhancement of the local landscape character. It would have a detrimentaleffect on the uniqueness of the landscape. This is because it would impact(through scale, size and incongruity) on the setting of the Allerton ParkRegistered Park and Garden and notwithstanding any proposed landscaping itcannot be described as enhancing the area.7.128 Within Harrogate Borough Council’s Core Strategy Policy SG3, sub-paragraph2, the Policy seeks to encourage “rural building conversions where thebuilding makes a positive contribution to the landscape character of thecountryside preferably for economic development uses or affordable homesfor local people rather than for market housing”. Whilst the proposals includethe conversion of Claro House from a residential property to form part of alarger development to provide office and visitor accommodation for thedevelopment, it is not considered that the proposed conversion of ClaroHouse fully accords with Policy SG3 of the Harrogate District Council LocalDevelopment Framework Core Strategy, but would, however, be generallyconsistent with more recent policy in the NPPF which appears to adopt a moreflexible approach, by supporting the sustainable growth and expansion of alltypes of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through the conversion ofexisting buildings and well-designed new buildings.7.129 Also within Harrogate Borough Council’s Core Strategy is Policy SG4 whichrequires (sub-paragraph 1b) that all developments should comply with anumber of criteria including being appropriate to the form and character of thesettlement and/or landscape character. Both Harrogate Borough Council and‘the Parish Councils’ Group’ in objecting to the development refer to this‘saved’ Policy, although it should be noted that the Policy is entitled‘Settlement Growth: Design and Impact’ and is, therefore, of questionablerelevance to the AWRP proposal. However, to the extent that the Policy maybe relevant, it is not considered that the development would be appropriate tothe landscape character. Furthermore, it is not considered that the visual,185NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/185

esidential and general amenity will be enhanced as also required by thePolicy.7.130 The application site lies within an area, defined by Natural England, as theSouthern Magnesian Limestone Character Area. It is an area characterised asbeing intensively farmed arable land with large fields, estates parklands andwoodland. Although this development proposes some tree planting to serveas landscaping, the facility will not, whilst operational, ‘fit’ with thecharacteristics of the Southern Magnesian Limestone Character Area. This isbecause it is not agricultural or ‘estate’ development, either in nature or inform. Once demolished, however, the proposal is that the site will be restoredto a mix of agricultural and woodland which could then be described as ‘fitting’the site back into the agricultural features of the Character Area.7.131 At the local level of landscape character, one of the conclusions of theapplicant’s submitted LVIA was that there would be ‘moderate’ adverse impactupon the Landscape Character Area in which the application site is proposedto be situated (i.e. LCA91 (‘Marton Rolling Arable Farmland’) and the samelevel of impact on an adjacent LCA, namely LCA69 (‘East KnaresboroughArable Farmland’) as defined in the Harrogate District Landscape CharacterAssessment (2004). In respect of environmental impact assessment, thelandscape consultant explains that a ‘moderate’ adverse impact is notconsidered ‘significant’.7.132 The Assessment, adopted by Harrogate Borough Council as SupplementaryPlanning Guidance (SPG) for use for development control purposes, is,therefore, relevant in considering landscape impacts. It is acknowledged thatthe applicant had also defined its own landscape character areas. However,for the sake of clarity, the paragraphs below refer to the LCAs of the BoroughCouncil, rather than the 45 Landscape Character Areas that were identified bythe applicant within its 10km study zone. It should be noted that thosedeclared LCAs within the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA)were substantially based on those identified in the Borough Council’sAssessment.7.133 LCA91 is described as a large-scale, productive arable landscape with agently rolling landform. It abuts (on its northern edge) Marton-cum-Graftonand its Conservation Area. Both the village and it’s Conservation Area arealso partly within LCA90 (‘Marton cum Grafton undulating farmland’). The twoLCAs are distinct from one another due to LCA91 having a more gentlyundulating landform and less organised large-scale field pattern.7.134 The large woodland near Allerton Park and small isolated deciduous andconiferous woodlands are referred to together with the fact that few hedgesremain other than along lanes and that these are neglected and fragmented.The A1 and A168 form the western boundary of LCA91. It should beacknowledged that the assessment reflects similarly that the area is alsocharacterised by large estate properties with associated wooded grounds. Theapplication site lies within close proximity of such an area.186NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/186

7.135 The Assessment guidelines for LCA91 aim to “integrate development and theA1(M) corridor to ensure that the setting of Marton and Grafton is not harmed”and that large-scale development not sensitive to the openness of the areawould be resisted as such development “in prominent locations will be a focalpoint and bring discord to the landscape pattern”.7.136 Notwithstanding the open character of the area in which the AWRP proposalis situated, it is considered that there exist ‘pockets’ within this particular LCAwhich potentially give scope for development opportunities to take place withinless prominent locations. The application site, as previously described in thisreport, is considered to lie within such a ‘pocket’ of land, albeit man-maderather than natural, which has been significantly changed over time.7.137 To the north of the site lie bunds which have been landscaped and provide avisual barrier in that direction. To the east is located the raised landform of theadjacent landfill site; to the south is situated Sand Hill, a prominent feature inthe landscape, and to the immediate west are the embankments which haveformed the perimeter boundary treatment over the years to screen both themineral and landfill activities from readily available views.7.138 The applicant’s landscape consultant describes the site as being locatedwithin a “depression”. Whilst not a naturally-formed ‘depression’, it isnonetheless a flat parcel of land surrounded for the most part, by higher landand, thereby, a ‘depression’ in the landscape. The site upon which thedevelopment is proposed is not, as a consequence, considered to be a‘prominent’ location in respect of landscape elevation.7.139 Further afield, away from the application site itself, can also be found not onlythe parkland of the Registered Park and Garden with its associatedwoodlands, but also Broadfield Wood, Shepherd’s Wood and Lylands Woodto the east, Hill Wood to the west and the woods associated with Flaxby Parkand golf course, Flaxby Covert, Green Dick Wood and Parsonage Wood tothe south and the landscaping associated with of the A1(M). It is consideredthat these wooded areas within the local landscape serve to ‘break up’ andthereby, provide intermittent views of the proposed development with theexception of the higher sections of the proposed buildings, their associatedroofs and flue stack of the proposal.7.140 Nevertheless, the proposed AWRP is acknowledged to be of a scale that canbe judged as being substantial, notwithstanding the application detailspointing to a significant proportion (approximately 70% was identified in theapplicant’s Design and Access Statement) of the built element of theproposals being screened to a greater or lesser degree by the surroundinglandscape features. It is also acknowledged that the site lies immediatelyadjacent to two routes of the principal road network and thereby possesses adegree of prominence due to the significant number of transient viewsexperienced by passers-by.7.141 In light of the above, it is considered that, in terms of the LCA91 guidance,that, on the one hand, the AWRP proposal satisfies the aim of development187NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/187

focussed along the A1(M). However, on the other, it would no doubt create afocal point. Nevertheless, this impact is partially mitigated by the existingtopography of the site and existing surrounding landscaping and, thereby,reduces conflict with the aim of openness of the area.7.142 LCA91 guidance also refers to ensuring the area’s long term positivecontribution to the setting of Allerton Park. Both the mineral and landfillproposals and, more specifically, the restoration proposals are considered tohave been aligned with the aims of the LCA91 in that an area of woodland inFar Park (within the Registered Park and Garden) was extended to off-set theloss of woodland arising from the permission to extract sand and gravel onpart of what was then Shepherd’s Wood.7.143 Furthermore, LCA91 also aims to “conserve and enhance the links betweenwoodland trees and hedgerows”. In proposing the enhancement of plantingwithin the application site, the proposal is not considered to lie in conflict withthis particular aim of LCA91.7.144 The applicant proposes the design of the scheme would partially recreate aformer landscape feature, i.e. Sand Hill. There would also be woodlandglades containing shade tolerant low maintenance grasses and wild flora, andsweeping grassland areas suited to grazing. This would be enhanced withwoodland planting sympathetic to the local landscape character such that thelarge woodland areas of mixed tree and under-storey shrub species would becompatible with the local landscape character.7.145 The County Council’s Principal Landscape Architect concurs with the LCA91aims and considers that, although the site is not in a designated area, there isa combination of characteristics that contribute to its distinctive rural characterwhich is enhanced by the comparative absence of modern development.7.146 As previously described, the proposed development and the associatedchanges to the landform arising from the AWRP do not lie within a nationallyor locally designated area of landscape importance. Notwithstanding, havingfocussed on landscape character in the above paragraphs, the developmentmust be assessed against the relevant Local Plan policies, ‘saved’ Policy C2and ‘saved’ policy E8(c); albeit bearing in mind that the Policies are notexpressly written in respect of ‘county matter’ developments such as thoserelating to minerals and waste. ‘Saved’ Policy C2 seeks to ensure thatdevelopment not only protects existing landscape character, but restores andenhances the landscape when a development merits it.7.147 This states that in locations where restoration of the landscape is necessaryor desirable, opportunities should be taken for the design and landscaping ofdevelopment proposals to repair or reintroduce landscape features, to theextent that this is justified by the effects of the proposal. It is considered thatfor the lifespan of the development at least, which is not insignificant, it will notbe possible to fully achieve this restoration. Hence the development is notconsidered to accord with the aims of Policy C2. With respect to 'saved'Policy E8 (c) which seeks to ensure that development would not have a188NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/188

significant adverse effect on the character, appearance or general amenity ofthe area, it is considered that the proposed development similarly find difficultyin complying with this particular element of the Policy.7.148 As mentioned earlier in this report, objections have been raised on groundsthat the development having a potential adverse impact on the historiclandscape and thereby adversely affecting the Registered Park and Garden,Historic Battlefields and Conservation Areas. The applicable policies in thisrespect are therefore, RSS Policy ENV9, NYWLP ‘saved’ Policy 4/14 andHarrogate Borough Council Local Plan ‘saved’ Policies HD6 and HD7A.7.149 A number of the Parish Councils consider that the development would createan unacceptable industrial scene in an area of open countryside which isoverlooked by the Listed Buildings at Allerton Castle and its vicinity, and bythe Registered Park and Garden. For example, Marton-cum-Grafton ParishCouncil consider that the development would have a serious and unavoidableharm which cannot be mitigated and which is not sustainable.7.150 Whilst not diminishing its importance, the Registered Park and Garden is theonly designated constraint, relevant to the specific consideration of landscape,affecting the application site; lying immediately adjacent to it. The Parkassociated with the country house, now known as Allerton Castle, wasoriginally developed in the 1720s. It was altered in the 1770s and has hadmore planting in the 20 th century. The reasons for the designation are notrecorded as a separate entry in the List Entry Description for the Park andGarden, but the English Heritage ‘Heritage at Risk Register’ refers to itinvolving “Mid C19 [nineteenth century] terraced gardens which provide thesetting for a country house, surrounded by parkland which was enlarged in the1720s and reworked in the 1770s. C20 [Twentieth century] woodland plantinghas significantly changed the character of the historic landscape and anumber of listed structures are in poor condition”.7.151 Significantly, the designation of the Grade II Registered Park and Garden in1989 post-dates the grant of planning permission for mineral extraction andlandfill in 1988. As a consequence, the south-eastern part of the landfill site,in fact, lies within the designated Registered Park and Garden.7.152 The AWRP landscaping proposals include an area to the south of ClaroHouse towards the northern-western boundary of Allerton Registered Parkand Garden. It involves extending the landscaping to the south of the facilitywith woodland planting sympathetic to the local landscape character.7.153 Prior to extraction, Sand Hill was a higher point of land in the area. Mineraland landfill associated operations have impacted its north side by thedevelopment of the mineral plant site and there has also been someremodelling of the topography of the land to the south of Claro House. On itswestern side the impacts included the late 1980s landscape plantingintroduced to screen the mineral plant site itself, and the construction andassociated landscaping of the A1(M) motorway in the late 1990s. The east189NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/189

and south-east sides of Sand Hill have also been affected by mineralextraction and subsequent landfill.7.154 The current approved restoration schemes for the landfill site, and thelandscaping and restoration proposals of the AWRP development, bothinvolve planting of woodland on Sand Hill (as illustrated on Plans 4-6(inclusive) and 8-11(inclusive). As described earlier in this report Sand Hillhas historically been and continues to be a high point in the landscape. Theexisting approved scheme would not create a direct replication of the formereastern/northern side of Sand Hill because the landfill restoration would movethe high point to the east and raise it by approximately 2 metres to 76m. TheAWRP proposal develops this further by creating a feature at Sand Hill, but 6metres higher at 82m.7.155 This re-interpretation of Sand Hill (which is outside the Registered Park andGarden) is proposed to provide some screening for the locality in mitigation ofthe impact of the AWRP. However, some of the upper parts of some of thebuildings will be still be visible, notwithstanding the remodelling of Sand Hill.No changes, consequential to the AWRP development, are proposed to thearea of the landfill site which, as mentioned earlier, actually lies within theRegistered Park and Garden.7.156 In recognising the adverse landscape consequences of the development, theapplicant proposes, in addition to the on-site landscaping works, to enter intoa legal agreement to commit to the payment of a Fund which can provide forfurther landscaping mitigation proposals lying out with the application site.This Fund would be guided, in principle, by a Landscape ManagementStrategy also proposed to be bound by legal agreement.7.157 In response to consultation in November 2011, English Heritage consideredthat “the proposed facilities, as illustrated, although clearly visible from theregistered landscape, the Grade II* listed Temple and Grade I listed AllertonCastle will not intrude directly into key views of them, neither do the proposalsinterrupt significant designed vistas or eye catchers. However, by virtue oftheir scale the facilities will be visible and noticeable as a backdrop to thenorthward views across the registered landscape”. English Heritageacknowledged that the “current proposal has no direct physical impact on theregistered landscape, associated listed buildings”.7.158 In deciding not to object to the proposal English Heritage has taken account ofthe proposed conservation works to the heritage assets in the registered parkproposed to be implemented through the Landscape and Cultural HeritageFund in order to mitigate the adverse effects of this proposal. EnglishHeritage sees that approach as a means of offsetting the harm and betterrevealing the significance of the heritage assets.190NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/190

7.159 As mentioned above, the current landfill site includes part of the areadesignated as Registered Park and Garden, but there is no visible on-siteindication of this boundary due to the landfill site remaining operational. In anyevent, the approved restoration scheme for the landfill does not match thatboundary. The current landfill operation is, for the most part, screened fromthe A1(M) and the A168 by existing embankments and planting associatedwith those two roads, but is partially visible from the access to Walls Closewhich is also a bridleway.7.160 It is considered that the changes to the landfill site during the past 10-20 yearshave included acceptable mitigation of the visual impact of the landfilldevelopment on the Registered Park and Garden such that they accordedwith planning policy material at the time of those decisions. However,notwithstanding, it is not possible to arrive at the same conclusion for theAWRP proposal in respect of compliance with ‘saved’ Policy 4/14 of theNYWLP and ‘saved’ Policy HD7A of the Harrogate District Local Plan and thematters which lead to this conclusion are explained in the followingparagraphs.7.161 Objections have also been raised in connection with the proximity of theapplication site to historic battlefields. Further discussion relating specificallyto the matter of historic battlefields is also made in the paragraphs that comeunder the heading ‘heritage’ in this section of this report.7.162 The applicant has acknowledged in the ES that the stack will be just visible atthe Boroughbridge and Myton Registered Battlefields which are 6 kilometresto the north. The effect of the proposed development on both Battlefield sitesis assessed as being ‘moderate’ adverse. Marston Moor Battlefield is 6km toeast and the ES states the magnitude of impact as being ‘no change’.7.163 The Historic Battlefield ‘saved’ Policy HD6 of the Harrogate Local Planrequires that development will only be permitted where the proposal does notadversely affect the historic, archaeological and landscape interest of thebattlefield site and does not prejudice any potential for interpretation of thesite. As viewed from the Myton and Boroughbridge battlefield sites, the onlypart of the AWRP development which would be visible (depending on weatherand light conditions) is the top of the stack, and it is not possible to view eitherbattlefield site from the AWRP site due to the intervening topography anddistance involved.7.164 The applicant’s ES acknowledges that there would be an adverse impact, andso it is considered that there is potential for the landscape interest of thebattlefield sites and the interpretation of those sites to be adversely affectedby the development, albeit to a limited degree.7.165 However, English Heritage confirmed on 11 September 2012 that it “does notconsider the proposals will harm the significance of the Registered Battlefieldsat Myton or Boroughbridge”. The County Council’s Principal LandscapeArchitect does not refer to the potential impact of the development on thehistoric battlefields.191NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/191

7.166 In light of the above, it is not considered that the development strictly accordswith ‘saved’ Policy HD6, although the extent of any conflict is considered to bevery limited.7.167 Policy ENV9 of the RSS refers to conserving, enhancing and reinforcing thedistinctiveness of regionally distinctive elements of the historic environmentincluding registered battlefields and parks and gardens. It is considered thatthe proposal does not conserve, enhance or reinforce distinctiveness andhence does not accord with the objectives of Policy ENV9 in this respect,although again, the extent of any conflict is considered to be relatively limited.7.168 Objectors are also concerned that the effects of the development will be seenfrom and toward the Conservation Areas of local villages not just arising fromthe initial development of the site but throughout the operational phase andafterwards. Further discussion relating specifically to the matter ofConservation Areas is also made in the paragraphs that come under theheading ‘heritage’ in this section of this report. Notwithstanding with specifcregard to their presence in the wider landscape, the nearest village with aConservation Area is Coneythorpe (as shown on Plan 2 attached to thisreport), and there are a number of other villages with Conservation Areasfurther afield including Marton cum Grafton, Staveley, Whixley, both Little andGreat Ouseburn and Goldsborough. However, they lie some distance from thesite of the proposed development and cannot be said to be directly affected toany unacceptable degree.7.169 Notwithstanding the matters addressed below under the heading of ‘heritage’in this section of this report, it is not considered that any conflict specifically inrelation to ‘saved’ Policy 4/14 of the NYWLP arises. Consequently, it is notconsidered that there are any cogent planning reasons to warrant refusal ofthe proposed development on this ground alone. Furthermore, the potential forany adverse impact upon such areas has not been raised as an objection tothe development by any statutory consultee.7.170 To help mitigate the impact upon the surrounding area, and to provide widerbenefits to the local environment, the applicant proposes to set up a Fund bylegal agreement. This Fund would be guided by the principles set out in theproposed Landscape Management Strategy also forming part of the legalagreement. The applicant proposes the Landscape and Cultural HeritageFund (LCHF) can be used to identify, prioritise work, or management actions,required to enhance, improve, protect and conserve landscape and culturalheritage features within a general 3.5km zone (but more extensive for some ofthe proposed Landscape Mitigation and Enhancement Zones) in and aroundthe application site. The applicant envisages that the LCHF will be managedby a Board comprised of representatives from local authorities, parishes, andlocal landscape and archaeological groups as appropriate. The LCHFproposed would cover this wider area to enable ‘off-site’ mitigation proposalsin the form of off-site planting.192NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/192

7.171 Harrogate Borough Council considers that the applicant’s LandscapeManagement Strategy is inadequate. The Borough Council considers thatmore details are required on how the LCHF will be managed, together with aprogramme of delivery target dates and monitoring and an assessment of thecosts involved in order to establish whether the Fund would be sufficient tocover all the works proposed.7.172 It considers that the Landscape Management Strategy fails to include anyspecific townscape improvements for conservation areas or non-plantingrelated enhancements.7.173 The issue of the delivery mechanism for the LCHF is also raised byconsultants on behalf of the Parish Councils’ Group. The reasoning offered bythe objectors is that it appears that the delivery of the all LCHF would not allbe within the hands of, and therefore binding upon, the parties that would besignatories to the S106 agreement which would provide control of thatelement of the proposed mitigation.7.174 Notwithstanding, the Borough Council acknowledges that the LandscapeManagement Strategy will alleviate some of the harm of the development, butalso that it can never achieve complete mitigation.7.175 The County Council’s Principal Landscape Architect considers that thesubmission will result in significant adverse landscape and visual impactswhich leads to a requirement for mitigation. It is acknowledged in hisresponse that the applicant has worked hard to develop the LandscapeManagement Strategy, including reduction of the overall height of thedevelopment, incorporation and restoration of Sand Hill and the developmentof an on-site Landscape Management Strategy, all of which is both welcomeand necessary to reduce adverse landscape and visual effects.7.176 The County Council’s Principal Landscape Architect considers that ofparticular note, in terms of the sensitivity of the proposed location, is theproximity of the site to the Registered Park and Garden. The development of aConservation Management Plan, Landscape Management Strategy andproposed LCHF are acknowledged by the County Council’s PrincipalLandscape Architect, but are considered to be incomplete, and so are not partof what the applicant considers to be the essential mitigation package. Heconsiders that the ES understates the significance of the residual adverseeffects, but significant visual impacts remain as a result of the development,together with concern and uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of theproposed Landscape Management Strategy for works on third party land.7.177 Amongst the representations received, opinions are expressed that whilst theLCHF will be available to provide grants to assist in mitigating the visualimpact, this mitigation will, in effect, be reliant of the goodwill and cooperationof local landowners in order to achieve this. However, experience of similarschemes does not suggest that this will present particular difficulties todeliverability, and Members may conclude that there are reasonable prospectsof being able to deliver grants for this purpose.193NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/193

7.178 The Landscape Management Strategy and LCHF are proposed as part of themitigation to off-set the development’s impact. However, there are elementsof both which have still to be clarified. Therefore, the current submission isnot considered to be consistent with policies seeking to protect landscape andlandscape character for the following reasons:• the development will lead to significant adverse landscape and visualimpacts to Allerton Park historic park and garden, to residentialproperties, footpaths, other sensitive receptors and to the widerlandscape context which would be affected by the proposeddevelopment, as acknowledged in the assessment;• the submitted landscape mitigation strategy offered does not adequatelyresolve the identified impacts or lead to a reduction in residual impacts toan acceptable level; and,• the proposed Landscape Management Strategy and Landscape andCultural Heritage Fund is not sufficiently developed and targeted todemonstrate that improvement works can be identified, prioritised anddelivered to offset residual adverse effects.7.179 The applicant has supplied details of indicative costings and an illustrativeallocation of the LCHF to conservation works and to the five LandscapeMitigation and Enhancement Zones (LMEZs) that have been identified. TheCounty Council’s Principal Landscape Architect considers that the proposedLCHF is essential for the development and delivery of a mitigation strategywhere essential mitigation is required across large areas of landscape. He hascriticised aspects of that mitigation strategy, as it presently exists, mainly thatit is lacking in clarity, delivery and cost, but considers that a fund-basedapproach to deliver mitigation works is appropriate.7.180 The weight that can properly be attached to the LCHF and the LandscapeManagement Strategy is discussed in the heritage section below. TheStrategy is not presently worked up to any significant level of detail. However,Members may consider that, in general terms, it will provide valuablelandscape enhancement in the vicinity of the site, as the County Council’sPrincipal Landscape Architect has stated is likely.7.181 What Members cannot reasonably do is place any reliance that any particularspecific landscaping mitigation measures will be delivered, with the exceptionof both the on-site landscaping (to be required by a planning condition) andthose works, all lying within the Earl of Mowbray’s part of Allerton Park, thatthe County Council’s Principal Landscape Architect has said are “essential”,namely:• restoration works for the High, Middle, Low Fish Ponds, associatedspillways and dams;• delivery of the tree and woodland management plan including works setout in drawing 729-A-001 (sheets 1 to 6) and described in chapter 7 ofthe draft Conservation Management Plan;• management of the parkland trees and woodland in accordance with thewoodland management plan;• implementation of a tree tagging and recording system for all existingand new planted trees;194NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/194

• new tree and woodland planting in accordance with the woodlandmanagement plan, and the maintenance and management of thatplanting;• boundary tree planting in accordance with the woodland managementplan;• repair or replacement of the gates and railings; and• monitoring programme.7.182 Those works are thought to cost in the order of £143,875 of the total LCHFproposed value of £983,378. The spending of the LCHF will be in the gift ofthe County Planning Authority, and there is no reason why the CountyCouncil’s Principal Landscape Architect’s view, that the Fund should seek toprioritise funding towards schemes which have the greatest impact inmitigating adverse landscape effects of the development, should not berealised, and that valuable landscape enhancements will result. However, hisadvice is that adverse visual impacts from several sensitive locations andreceptors cannot be fully mitigated, and the impacts on landscape charactercannot be reduced to an acceptable level.7.183 The County Council’s Principal Landscape Architect has subsequentlysuggested that the ‘essential’ works set out above are made a directrequirement in the section 106 agreement, and the fund reduced by anamount equivalent to their anticipated cost. That would both guarantee theworks are delivered, and remove any doubts about cost. Accordingly theLCHF would reduce to £839,500. It is considered that this approach issatisfactory.7.184 However, at present, it is considered that the proposals do not fullydemonstrate that they will not have an unacceptable effect on the landscapeas required by ’saved’ Policies 4/3 and 5/10 (criterion e) of the NYWLP orprotect the landscape as required by HBC Core Strategy Policy EQ2.Furthermore, given those doubts it is not possible to conclude whether theproposed restoration will ultimately restore and enhance the character of thelocal environment such that the development would accord with ‘saved’ Policy4/22 of the NYWLP.7.185 By way of concluding this section on the landscape issues to which thisdevelopment gives rise, it is important to note a further point that is alsoconnected to land availability and the site search issues which are consideredelsewhere in this report.7.186 The county of North Yorkshire possesses substantial areas of designatedlandscapes such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), NationalParks and Heritage Coasts etc. together with locally safeguarded Areas ofSpecial Landscape Value (ASLVs). These are generally associated with thoseparts of the County with greater topographical relief. Objectors contend thatthe facility is incapable of being entirely screened and will result in a whollyunacceptable visual impact. It is acknowledged that the siting of thedevelopment within a lower-lying, gently-undulating landscape is likely toincrease its zone of visual influence. However, if the development were to be195NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/195

located within a landscape of greater relief and thereby reducing the buildingszone of visual influence within the landscape, there is a greater likelihood ofdevelopment conflicting with more vigorous policy tests associated with suchlandscapes. This would likely be the case were a site to be found in manylocations which are similarly in non-designated landscapes.7.187 Furthermore, it is also considered that any site that is likely to be readilyaccessible to the principal road network (a stated need for this development),is also likely be in a location with relatively high numbers of passing ‘visualreceptors’. However, notwithstanding that there remains a significant impactresulting from the development, the proposed site is considered to be onewhich has the benefit of substantial existing screening by way of topographyand mature landscaping in both the immediate vicinity of the site and itsenvirons, whilst, with the acknowledged exception of the nearby RegisteredPark and Garden, safeguarding highly-valued designated landscapes. Itshould be noted that Natural England does not object to the proposal onlandscape and visual impact grounds and considers that the proposal isunlikely to have a significant adverse impact upon the Nidderdale orHowardian Hills Area of Outstanding Beauty (AONB).7.188 Notwithstanding the potential for policy conflict, it is also acknowledged thatthe NPPF regards visual appearance and the architecture of individualbuildings as very important factors. But securing high quality and inclusivedesign goes beyond aesthetic considerations. The connectivity betweenpeople and places should be addressed such that there is integration of newdevelopment into the natural, built and historic environment. It isacknowledged that the applicant has strived to do this, but it is not consideredgiven the outcome of the consultations and nature of the representations thatfull integration has been achieved and that the design had some way to gobefore reflecting the views of the community.7.189 The appearance of the access onto the A168 would alter slightly due tohighway requirements for changes including the right turning lane. However,it is not considered that this in itself would be such as to significantly affect thevisual impression for people heading north towards Boroughbridge on theA168 or south towards the A59/A1M junction.7.190 With respect to the development’s capability to mitigate the acknowledgedadverse visual impacts, the applicant has attempted to address the need forthe design of the landscaping and screening to effectively mitigate the impactof the proposal in a way that is sympathetic to local landscape character.However, there are certain parameters of the AWRP design which mean thatit is not possible to achieve a situation of being sympathetic to local landscapecharacter.7.191 This development is by its nature and design industrial in character and theproposed buildings are significant in scale and designed predominantly toreflect the mechanical and technological nature of their function. It isconsidered that although the design of the development has been alteredduring the pre-application stage and some on-site mitigation in the form of196NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/196

evision to the landform of Sand Hill and new woodland planting is proposedthe development would have an adverse impact on the landscape setting andcharacter of the area. The Landscape and Cultural Heritage Fund is proposedfor a wider landscape area to enable ‘off-site’ mitigation proposals in the formof off-site planting to be implemented as part of the development within thedraft S106 Legal Agreement.7.192 The development will lead to significant adverse landscape and visual impactsto Allerton Park historic park and garden, to residential properties, footpaths,other sensitive receptors and to the wider landscape context which would beaffected by the proposed development, as acknowledged in the ES. Thesubmitted landscape mitigation strategy does not resolve all the identifiedimpacts or lead to a reduction in residual impacts to an acceptable level. Theproposed Landscape and Cultural Heritage Fund together with the LandscapeManagement Strategy are required to off-set high adverse residual effects, butdo not appear to be regarded by the applicant as essential mitigation. Theproposed Landscape Management Strategy is not sufficiently developed andtargeted to demonstrate that improvement works can be identified, prioritisedand delivered to offset residual adverse effects. Members may consider thatin general terms it will provide valuable landscape enhancement in the vicinityof the Site, as the County Council’s Principal Landscape Architect has statedis likely, and accord it some weight. However, there is no guarantee that anyparticular specific landscaping mitigation measures will be delivered, savethose for which direct covenants are to be given in the proposed section 106agreement.7.193 It is therefore considered that the development would have an adverse effecton the character and uniqueness of the landscape and would not result in anenhancement of the local landscape character. In the light of the above, it isconsidered that the visual and landscape impact of the development cannotbe mitigated such that it can comply with the visual and landscape elements ofPolicies SG3 and EQ2 of the Harrogate District Council Local DevelopmentFramework Core Strategy or ‘saved’ Policies E8, and C2 of the HarrogateDistrict Local Plan. It is also considered that the development would have anadverse effect on the character and uniqueness of the landscape such that itwould not accord with ‘saved’ Policies 4/3 and 5/10 (criterion e)) of theNYWLP.7.194 Notwithstanding technical and health and safety need (for pollution controlreasons), the flue stack height and number and size of the buildings (in orderto accommodate the technology proposed) are acknowledged as substantial.It is acknowledged that, there are considerable limitations to the extent towhich mitigation can seek to reduce the landscape impact to a level wherebythe development is screened to a degree where impact would not besignificant. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal does not comply withcriterion (e) of ‘saved’ Policy 4/1 of the NYWLP and criterion (e) of ‘saved’Policy 5/10 of the NYWLP due to the absence of sufficiently effectivemitigation of the landscape impact.197NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/197

7.195 With regard to ‘saved’ Policy E8 of the Harrogate District Local Plan,specifically in terms of landscape and visual impact, it is criterion (c) of thepolicy that is relevant i.e. whether the development is likely to have asignificant adverse effect on the character, appearance and general amenityof the area. The Policy requires that all the criteria be met, but given the scaleof the buildings including the flue stack, it is considered that it is likely to havea significant adverse effect on the character and appearance and so cannotbe said to comply with Policy E8(c).7.196 In terms of the requirements of ‘saved’ Policy 4/21 of the NYWLP, the existingplanning permission for the landfill site provides for progressive restoration ofthe site and the approved details include a landscape strategy for the site withconditions. These effectively ensure that the restoration is of a high standardto achieve the prescribed after-uses of agriculture and woodland. Policy 4/23also requires aftercare to bring any restored land “up to an approved standardfor the specified after-use”. Notwithstanding the comments above, it isconsidered that if the development were to be permitted, this standard ofrestoration and aftercare upon decommissioning would be a matter whichcould be secured through the imposition of conditions. These would ensurethat the development, including any restoration upon decommissioning, iscompatible with the adjacent landfill restoration and there is therefore noconflict with those two policies and ‘saved’ Policy 4/20 of the NYMLP.Heritage7.197 Local planning authorities are obliged to have regard to Article 13 of theWaste Framework Directive which requires waste management to be carriedout without harming (among other things) the countryside or places of specialinterest. In considering whether to grant planning permission for developmentwhich affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority isobliged under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building orits setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which itpossesses. A similar requirement applies where Conservation Areas areaffected by development proposals. The otherwise ‘plan-led’ determination ofplanning applications is subject to this duty (TCPA 1990 s. 70(3)).7.198 The statutory requirement suggests that the setting of a listed building is adistinct and separate consideration from direct impacts on the building.However the NPPF paragraph 128 encourages planning authorities to seesetting as an aspect of overall importance. Ultimately the Council must followthe statutory test and have regard to the desirability of preserving orenhancing the setting, but this can be weighed against other considerationssuch as the overall impact on the buildings in question from the proposal.7.199 The applicant’s planning statement at paragraph 1.11.183 asserts that thedevelopment would not result in the loss of any asset, but will be visible fromand may impact upon the setting of some of those assets. English Heritagehas also expressed the view that “the current proposal has no direct physicalimpact on the registered landscape, associated listed buildings, or knownarchaeological deposits”. The County Council’s Development Control198NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/198

Archaeologist also agrees that the archaeological potential of the developmentsite is low. In terms of Scheduled Monuments, the applicant anticipates thatthe effect will be neutral (ES 3.8.3) and English Heritage returned commentstating they do not consider the proposals will harm the significance of anyscheduled monuments in the area. English Heritage considers, however, thatthe proposed facility will have an adverse impact on the setting of the historicassets associated with Allerton Park (consultation response of 29 November2011).7.200 Setting is commonly thought of as a visual concern, relating to views into, outof, and across heritage assets. It can be broader than this. For example, thetranquillity of an asset’s setting can be disturbed by a noisy developmentnearby. English Heritage suggests that “it can be understood that settingembraces all of the surroundings ... from which the heritage asset can beexperienced or that can be experienced from or within the asset. Setting doesnot have a fixed boundary and cannot be definitively and permanentlydescribed as a spatially bounded area or as lying within a set distance of aheritage asset” (Guidance on Setting is at 2.2 in the English HeritageGuidance ‘Setting of Heritage Assets’).Significance7.201 Applicants are required to describe the significance of any heritage assetsaffected by a development including any contribution made by their setting(NPPF paragraph 128). The applicant’s assessment of the significance ofnearby heritage assets, and of the development’s likely impacts, is containedin Chapter 3 of the Environmental Statement and its appendices, together withthe ‘further and other environmental information’ submitted in June 2012.7.202 A large number of heritage assets are potentially affected by the proposal. Aswell as those buildings and features, some of which are exceptional, lying in oradjacent to Allerton Park, which is designated Grade II in the English HeritageRegister of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest. There are, withina 5km radius of the development site, a further two Grade I listed buildings, sixGrade II* and 103 listed at Grade II. Historic Battlefields and a World HeritageSite lie further afield within zones of at least theoretical visibility. There are 3Conservation Areas within 3km of the site.7.203 The Landscape Agency, the applicant’s consultant on this matter, produced a‘baseline report’ relating to Allerton Park that is reproduced in the applicationdocuments (ES Appendix 3B). It assesses Allerton Park as follows:Allerton Park is listed as Grade II on English Heritage’s Register of Parks andGardens. The park is ancient but reached its current extent by the early C18,with a southern extension in the early C19. The layout of the park wasestablished by the late C18, with alterations to the Lower Fish Pond in theearly C19. The gardens were laid out with terraces, enclosed by terracewalls, designed by the architect of the house, George Martin, in 1855. Theterrace walls are Grade II but are within the curtilage of the Grade I listedmansion. The park and gardens contain a number of listed structures, whichmostly date from the C18 and early C19, including the Grade II* listed Templeof Victory.199NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/199

7.204 The northern extent of Allerton Park lies within 0.2km of the proposeddevelopment (ES 3.5.8). It is assessed by the applicant as being of “High”significance (on a scale of ‘negligible’ – ‘low’ – ‘medium’ – ‘high’ – ‘highestsignificance’). As mentioned above, the terraced gardens and parklandprovide the setting for the country house and its significance value derivesfrom the buildings and features within the park; its association with manydesigners and architects (including Lancelot ‘Capability’ Brown) and the keyviews and vistas within it, out of it, and towards it from the wider landscape. Itis presently in two separate ownerships and is on English Heritage’s “Heritageat Risk” Register as being in a ‘generally unsatisfactory’ condition ‘with majorlocalised problems’. The trend is said to be ‘declining’.7.205 There are a number of listed buildings within, or immediately outside, theRegistered Park and Garden at Allerton Park. Those of the ‘highestsignificance’ are Allerton Park Mansion (aka Allerton Castle), listed at Grade I,and Allerton Chapel, the Temple of Victory, and the Church of St. Martin, alllisted at Grade II*. Highly significant (being Grade II listed) are the TerraceWalls and Steps, Stables, Kitchen Garden, Ice House, Dovecote, OpenSummer House or Arbour, Lady’s Cave, Boat House on island in Lower FishPond, Arched entrance to jetty or Boat House on southern edge of Lower FishPond, Stone Bridge between Lower and Middle Fish Ponds, West Lodge,South Lodge and Inner Entrance Gates. There are also a number ofundesignated assets such as walls and roads together with woodland andother planting (ES 3.5.14-15).7.206 Allerton Park clearly forms the setting, or at least part of it, for those assets.As a heritage asset in its own right, it is also important to appreciate thesignificance of the setting of Allerton Park itself. The pre-consultationConservation Management Plan of June 2012, submitted as Annex A toAppendix B6 of the ‘further and other environmental information’, discusses(at 2.3) the setting of Allerton Park as follows:“The parkland setting at Allerton Park is a predominantly undulating, cultivatedlandscape with areas to the north and south laid down to arable crops, whilstthe central park area laid down to pasture. Isolated clusters of trees arescattered within the agricultural landscape to the north and south within theformer deer parks. The central park, close to Allerton Castle contains manyindividual trees and tree groups, many of which are mature or veteran age.These veteran trees significantly contribute to the parkland character and arethe visible remains of the original historic park that was created aroundAllerton Castle. Several less mature woodland compartments have beenplanted within the central park area. These compartments restrict longerdistance views from within the central park area, although they do create amore intimate parkland setting for Allerton Castle.Beyond the Registered Park and Garden of Special Historic Interest, thelandscape is predominantly agricultural in character, with both pasture andarable fields of medium to large scale occupying the rolling landscape. Fieldpatterns have changed little over time, some have been amalgamated withthe loss of hedgerow and field trees, however the character of many remainunchanged. Field boundaries are marked by a combination of mature, well200NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/200

developed hedgerows, which have been well managed and maintained andpoorer quality, gappy hedgerows which are maintained at a low level. To thenorth of Allerton Park there has been a widespread loss of hedgerows andthose that do remain are fragmented”.7.207 The effects of the development on the landscape setting of Allerton Park itselfare considered under ‘Landscape and Visual Impact’ above. Insofar as thissection of the report considers Allerton Park, it is primarily concerned with theimpacts on the Park itself, and as it forms the setting for the built heritageassets within or immediately adjoining it.7.208 Paragraph 3.2.33 of the applicant’s ES notes that for historic buildings,assessment of importance (i.e. significance) is usually based on thedesignations used in the Listed Building process. However, where historicbuildings are not listed, or where the listing grade may be in need of updating,professional judgment will be required.Assessment of Significance7.209 Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particularsignificance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (NPPFparagraph 129) taking account of the available evidence (which may includethe applicant’s assessment) and any necessary expertise, which in this casehas been sought from English Heritage who are the statutory advisor on suchissues.7.210 Before the application was submitted, English Heritage produced a“Statement of Issues” (reproduced at ES Appendix 3A) noting that AllertonPark is particularly significant for its parkland enlarged in the 1720s andreworked in the 1770s, and for its mid nineteenth century terraced gardens,contemporary with the extensive remodelling of the house by George Martin.The Mansion (Castle), Temple and Church were all designed to be prominentfeatures in the landscape. They considered “setting to be the key issuerelating to the proposed large scale waste facility”.7.211 English Heritage has not challenged the applicant’s assessment of thesignificance of any heritage assets likely to be affected by the proposal. Norhas any person making representations. Officers agree that the RegisteredPark and Garden is itself of high significance; several buildings it contains, orwhich immediately adjoin it, are assets of the highest significance (the Castle,the Chapel, the Temple of Victory and St. Martin’s Church) and that it containsa number of additional structures and buildings of high significance.7.212 Other heritage assets likely to be subject to some effect by the development(and upon which the resulting impact has been assessed by the applicant asother than neutral) are the World Heritage Site at Studley Royal andFountains Abbey, Battlefields at Myton and Boroughbridge, ConservationAreas at Coneythorpe, Whixley and Marton, and listed buildings at DaleHouse Barn and the milepost on the south side of the Old York Road.201NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/201

7.213 The evidence presented in Appendix 3E of the ES suggests that thedevelopment of the quarry at Allerton Park has resulted in a site wherevirtually all of the below ground archaeological remains have been removed.Therefore there is likely to be limited archaeological interest remaining on site,other than on Sand Hill and associated with the proposed cable route. TheCounty Council’s Development Control Archaeologist acknowledges this andhas raised no objection subject to a condition regarding the implementation ofan archaeological watching brief for those areas. Therefore, subject to theimposition of the planning condition there is not considered to be any conflictwith the requirements of ‘saved’ Policies 4/15 or 4/16 of the NYWLP.Assessment of Impact7.214 The applicant’s ES assesses the magnitude of the impact on the significanceof heritage assets on a sliding scale of ‘neutral’, ‘slight’, ‘moderate’, ‘large’,and ‘very large’. The impacts may be adverse or beneficial. The followingmatrix was used:MAGNITUDE OF IMPACTSIGNIFICANCEOFRESOURCE(VALUE)Assets ofthe HighestSignificanceNochangeNegligible Minor Moderate MajorNeutral Slight Moderate Large or Very/ Large Very LargeLargeHigh Neutral Slight Moderate/ SlightModerate/LargeLarge/VeryLargeMedium Neutral Neutral/SlightSlight Moderate Moderate/ LargeLow Neutral Neutral/SlightNeutral/SlightSlight Slight/ModerateNegligible Neutral Neutral Neutral/ Neutral/ SlightSlight Slight7.215 English Heritage “support the approach to assessing the level of impact andmitigation proposals set out in the Environmental Statement” (17 August2012) and does not object to the application.World Heritage Site7.216 There is some possible intervisibility between the development and the WorldHeritage Site, which lies some 14km away. The applicant has assessed theimpact as being “slightly adverse” at the most. English Heritage says (e-mailof 10 September 2012) that “whilst the facility may be visible from parts ofStudley Royal and Fountains Abbey World Heritage Site English Heritage donot consider this will have an impact on its significance or OutstandingUniversal Value”. Officers agree with this stance.202NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/202

Battlefield Sites7.217 The Battlefield sites at Myton and Boroughbridge, lying 6.5km (objectorsassert this is 3.5km away) and 6.8km away respectively, are heritage assetsof the highest significance. The applicant considers that the “moderateadverse effect” that is likely to result from the development to be a function ofthat significance rather than the magnitude of the impact. English Heritagehas expressed no concerns.Conservation Areas7.218 English Heritage has expressed no concerns about the impact of thedevelopment on any Conservation Areas. Nor has any specific concern beenexpressed by Harrogate Borough Council. However, objectors have assertedthat the buildings and chimney will be visible from a large number of receptorsup to 20 km distance including the Conservation Areas of Arkendale andMarton-cum-Grafton. The applicant’s assessment concludes there will be a‘slight adverse’ effect on the Conservation Areas (themselves heritage assetswhich it considers to be of medium significance) of Coneythorpe, Whixley andMarton. Conservation Areas further afield than 3km were not assessed andthere is no Conservation Area for Arkendale.Listed Buildings7.219 English Heritage has expressed no concerns about the likely impact on DaleHouse Barn or the milepost on Old York Road. The applicant has assessedthe likely impact as being moderately adverse.7.220 The development (without any further mitigation measures that are describedbelow) is expected to have slightly adverse effects on the significance ofseveral listed buildings within 3km of the site. These, which are all within orimmediately adjoining the grounds of Allerton Park, are:• Gates and Gate Piers to West Lodge• Gate Piers and Gate approximately 25 metres south west of the Mansion(Castle)• Boathouse on island of Lower Fish Pond• Gate Piers and Gate approximately 75 metres south east of the Mansion(Castle)• West Lodge• Churchyard Wall and Piers Church of St Martins• Dovecote attached to the north of The Stables• Walled Garden• Terrace Walls Steps and Urns to north and west of the Mansion (Castle)• Bridge over path to Pleasure Grounds• Bridge between Middle and Lower Fish Pond• Summerhouse and attached Archway approximately 100 metres northeast of the Mansion (Castle)• South Lodge and attached Park Gate• The Stables• Icehouse• Folly to north of Middle Fish Pond203NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/203

7.221 The development is not expected to have any impact on the significance of St.Martin’s Church itself, which lies just outside the Registered Park and Garden,rather than on its wall and piers as noted above.7.222 The applicant also assesses the likely impact on St. Mary’s Chapel to beneutral. The Chapel is on English Heritage’s ‘Heritage At Risk’ Register.English Heritage has described the need for conservation works as ‘critical’,but, as noted, above do not disagree with the applicant’s assessment of themagnitude of impacts.7.223 The applicant assesses the likely impact on the significance of Allerton Castleto be a ‘large adverse’ one. English Heritage advises that the developmentwill be clearly visible from Allerton Castle but ‘will not intrude directly into keyviews of [it]’.7.224 The effect on the Temple of Victory is also assessed by the applicant to be‘large adverse’. English Heritage advised on 17 August 2012 (consistent withtheir previous advice) that the development will impact on the significance ofthe Temple and its relationship with the park and wider landscape, falling forconsideration under NPPF paragraph 134. They say the impact of thedevelopment has been reduced through amending the height and design ofthe development (these amendments were made at pre-application stage)and by undertaking direct landscape mitigation measures to the south of thesite on the boundary of the Registered Park. However, they say, the ESrightly identifies a residual ‘large adverse’ effect on the setting of theRegistered Park and Garden and listed buildings. They say the overall harmto the significance of the assets, resulting from this impact on setting, is “lessthan substantial”, in NPPF parlance, and that this harm can be ‘off-set’ byspecified mitigation measures.7.225 Government policy, in the NPPF, is to consider a planning determinationagainst the significance of the asset, and the level of harm that is likely toaccrue as a result of a development proposal. Great weight should be givento the conservation of heritage assets. For assets of the ‘highestsignificance’, substantial harm or loss should be wholly exceptional. It shouldbe exceptional for assets of high significance such as Grade II ListedBuildings or Parks and Gardens. Where substantial harm to a designatedasset would arise, planning authorities are guided to refuse consent, unlessthere are substantial public benefits that are demonstrably sufficient tooutweigh that harm. Equally, the harm should be “necessary” in order toachieve those benefits (or a number of other criteria are met).7.226 If Members agree with English Heritage that the heritage harm is “less thansubstantial” then national policy indicates that that harm falls to be weighedagainst the public benefits of the proposal. Members must continue to haveregard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the setting of the listedbuildings.204NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/204

7.227 The Harrogate Local Plan policy concerning Battlefield sites (HD6) does notadmit any adverse effect on the historic, landscape or archaeological interestof such sites. Nor does its policy on Conservation Areas (HD3) or that onParks and Gardens of historic interest (HD7A). The Listed Buildings PolicyHD9 was not ‘saved’ in 2007 because of the duplication with national policy inwhat was then PPS5. The NYWLP permits development only where theeffect on the historic environment is “not unacceptable” (4/14). The RSS(ENV9) directs authorities generally to conserve and enhance the WorldHeritage Site and historic landscapes.7.228 So any harm to heritage assets, albeit ‘less than substantial’, will be in conflictwith the relevant District local plan policies, although not necessarily so withthe County and Regional policies on such matters. It would also be unlikely tomeet the Waste Framework Directive requirement not to harm places ofspecial interest.Mitigation Proposals7.229 The applicant has suggested that the harm to the significance of the heritageassets caused by the impact on setting can be at least partially overcome byother means, a suggestion with which English Heritage concurs. Althoughdesign changes were made at pre-application stage, and there arelandscaping proposals, particularly on the southern boundary of thedevelopment site, which will mitigate the harm to the assets’ setting, itremains the case that an adverse visual impact on the setting of the assetswill result from the development. English Heritage agree with the applicantthat measures to conserve the fabric of at least some of those assets, in orderto better reveal their significance, will ‘offset’ the harm caused to the setting,potentially resulting in no overall adverse impact on the assets’ significance.7.230 The applicant has submitted heads of terms for a section 106 agreement it isprepared to enter into in order to deal with (among other matters) the heritageissues. One aspect of that is a ‘Conservation, Repair and MaintenanceWorks’ schedule, under which the applicant proposes that the developer ofthe site will enter parts of the Registered Park and Garden to carry outrestoration works to a number of structures, particularly:• The Ice House• Lady’s Cave• Boat House• Arched entrance to the Jetty/Boat House on the Lower Fish Pond• Bridge between Lower and Middle Fish Ponds• Tunnel/part of bridge over path to pleasure grounds• Park Boundary Walls, particularly approximately 1 mile of the northernsection of walling adjacent to the A168 which is at risk of collapse andloss.7.231 These works have been estimated (at 11 April 2011) to cost up to around£1,200,000 (ES Appendix 3H, appendix B) to carry out, being £378,000 intotal for the structures and between £480,000 and £680,000 for the BoundaryWalls exclusive of VAT, professional fees and investigative works.205NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/205

7.232 Importantly perhaps, this list does not include assets of the highestsignificance, whose settings are said to be largely adversely affected by thedevelopment; namely Allerton Castle or the Temple of Victory. Those assetsare in a different ownership from those set out above and their owner will notbe a party to the s.106 and works to his assets cannot be guaranteed.Allerton Castle itself is not on the ‘Heritage at Risk’ Register. On the Register,but not expected to suffer any impact as a result of the development in its ownright, is St Mary’s Chapel.7.233 English Heritage has set out (in an email of 1 June 2012) views on the needto secure restoration of other assets that are in the Registered Park andGarden but are in separate ownership from the assets covered by theobligations for the ‘Conservation, Repair and Maintenance Works’:“All the key structures with the exception of the boundary wall are listed asseparate entities. All the listed structures and the boundary wall lie within theboundary of the Grade II registered Park. Therefore they are all related toeach other and contribute to the significance of the heritage asset and itssetting as a whole. Those parts of the wider asset most at risk are the GradeII structures. However, our ‘Heritage at Risk’ Register does not (as yet)include Grade II structures. It only includes Grade I and II* buildings andstructures such as the Temple of Victory. The Registered Park is on the‘Heritage at Risk’ Register and works to the GII structures will assist inimproving its condition.We have always set out to AmeyCespa that the wider management plan, toinform the Landscape and Cultural Heritage Fund, should address theadditional heritage assets associated with Allerton Park and, specifically theTemple of Victory, St Marys Chapel and the remaining boundary wall (where itsurvives). We would see these as critical elements to be included in themanagement plan to ensure the impact of the proposals address all elementsof the heritage asset which are at risk”.7.234 As the email explains, Grade II Listed Buildings do not presently make it ontothe ‘Heritage at Risk’ Register. Appearing on the Risk Register are theRegistered Park and Garden itself:“Mid C19 terraced gardens which provide the setting for a country house,surrounded by parkland which was enlarged in the 1720s and reworked in the1770s. C20 woodland planting has significantly changed the character of thehistoric landscape and a number of listed structures are in poor condition;the Temple of Victory:Summerhouse or view point, 1790, situated on a knoll in the park, to NW ofthe house. Re-roofed, cornice repaired and building made secure over 10years ago with grant aid from English Heritage and Harrogate BoroughCouncil. Repairs needed to stonework below cornice level and to steps andrailings, and interior needs re-instating. Extensive views from the Templeover the park and surrounding landscape;206NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/206

and St Mary’s Chapel:Redundant Roman Catholic chapel, circa 1807, attached to the grade I house.The house stands on a promontory in the eastern section of the C18 park,with mid C19 terraces to the north. Much of the interior of the chapel hasbeen stripped out for dry rot treatment. English Heritage has funded an up-todatecondition survey and a repair specification has been prepared.”7.235 As noted above, the applicant also proposes making a ‘Landscape andCultural Heritage Fund’ payment of around £980,000 to the County Council.The aim of the Fund is said to be “to provide funding to promote, enhance,improve, protect and conserve the natural and built environment in andaround the Site” (ES 3.6.14). The fund is scoped to provide a resource toallow for enhancement and strengthening of the local landscape character,biodiversity and/or features of cultural heritage within a 3.5km radius of theSite and/or within the five Landscape Mitigation and Enhancement Zones(LMEZs) developed as part of the Landscape Management Strategy (LMS)(Appendix B6 to the ‘further and other environmental information’ submission).The Fund is intended to allow individual local residents, landowners and/orinterest groups to apply for and receive grants within the first five yearsfollowing the start of construction on the site, for the purpose of undertakingoff-site strengthening or enhancement to the local landscape and/or featuresof cultural heritage (LMS 7.1.4 – 5).7.236 The owner of Allerton Castle, the Chapel and the Temple of Victory hasindicated that he would welcome funds to aid the repairs of the Chapel andthe Temple of Victory as well as other buildings he owns. The land in hisownership does not form part of the Allerton Park Landscape Mitigation andEnhancement Zone (LMS Fig 5.5) identified in the Landscape ManagementStrategy, and is not the subject of any specific proposed measures in theConservation Management Plan (CMP 4.2.7). However, it does lie within3.5km of the site. It is, therefore, eligible for the Fund. Members maytherefore conclude with some confidence that, in principle, the Fund would beused to conserve some or all of those assets. However, if advice fromEnglish Heritage is accepted, it is not necessary to insist on them.7.237 English Heritage have been made aware that, as the proposals, stand there isno guarantee of any particular off-site works (other than those ‘Conservation,Repair and Maintenance Works’ set out above) coming forward under theFund, and, in particular, that there is no guarantee of any repair works to theGrade II* Temple of Victory. However, English Heritage does not believe it isessential to require the ‘Conservation Repair and Maintenance Works’ tothose assets in the northern part of the Park to be carried out in order tomitigate the harm identified. Officers have queried why repair works to theTemple of Victory are not thought by English Heritage to be strictly necessaryto mitigate the adverse effects on the setting of the asset, when repairs toassets of lesser significance to the northern part of the Park are said to benecessary. Although the proposed development will not interrupt anysignificant designed vistas or eye-catchers, or intrude directly into key viewsof the assets, it will be noticeable as a backdrop to the northward views out of207NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/207

the Park, and particularly from the Temple of Victory that is sited on a hilltopand was designed to have a 360° view.7.238 English Heritage have replied (5 October 2012) to say that:“We see the works identified as the ‘Conservation, Repair and MaintenanceWorks' addressing those items which lie in that part of the park with theclosest proximity to the development and are at risk of loss from decay orcollapseOther assets more removed from the development are at less risk of total lossand therefore we are comfortable that they can be prioritised through thewider Landscape and Cultural Heritage Fund. Such assets are currentlyidentified under the phrase 'items on the English Heritage at Risk Register'.We consider this could be better clarified so that those people charged withadministering the fund have greater clarity on what is eligible and what are ofthe highest priority and what type for conservation works the fund wouldsupport.We fully accept that there is no guarantee that owners of heritage assetswithin the 3.5km radius of the Landscape and Cultural Heritage Fund willapply to the fund. Therefore we understand and acknowledge that there is noguarantee of works to these assets taking place”.7.239 Officers concur with this approach.7.240 In order to decide what weight can be given to the LMS and LCHF it isnecessary to have some view on the scope of the works that can be coveredby the Fund. An estimate of the costs breakdown for the LMS has beenprovided by the applicant and includes proposals for works such as the‘gapping up’ of hedgerows and planting of hedgerow trees, woodland plantingand wetland habitat planting within the five Landscape Mitigation andEnhancement Zones. The value factored in for each zone is as following:Arkendale: £242,416.17; Goldsborough: £5,512.25; Marton: £150,170.09;Whixley £20,440.33 and £54,337.01 on the Allerton Estate. Given this costsbreakdown it appears to Officers that £980,000 will be insufficient to deliver allof it. The necessary repairs to the Temple of Victory are estimated by theirowner to be in the order of £450,000. It also includes a provisional allocationof £300,000 to works to repair and conserve heritage assets, some £143, 875of which the County Council’s Principal Landscape Architect has said areessential works to provide gates, railings, trees and dam structures andspillways (and which he suggests are the subject of a direct covenant by thelandowner, with the LCHF pot reduced accordingly to £839,500). Theprovisional allocation for the conservation and repair of Grade 1 and II* listedbuildings is £132,125 and £24,000 is suggested for the park wall. The restcomprises management and set-up costs.208NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/208

7.241 It appears to officers that £980,000 will be insufficient to deliver everythingthat might be specified as desirable in the Landscape Management Strategy(including both Conservation and Habitat Management Plans, as well aslandscaping works). The likely ‘take-up’ of the Fund by off-site landownerswithin the LMEZs or a 3.5km radius of the site is also largely unknown,although experience of similar schemes does not suggest this will presentdifficulties. In particular, Members may be confident that the two landownersof Allerton Park will make applications to the Fund, as they have bothindicated a willingness to do so.7.242 It is impossible to say precisely what the Fund will be spent on, or how far itwill stretch, although it is reasonable to conclude that the Allerton Parklandscape and assets could be prioritised. The full cost of repairs to theTemple of Victory is estimated by its owner to be in the order of £450,000,although that is to a habitable standard rather than merely to weather-proof it.Although spending the Fund will be in the gift of the County Planning Authority(obviously subject to third party applications) the assets at Allerton Park canbe expected to vie for Funds with others (although there may be scope forfinancial support from other bodies such as English Heritage).7.243 There is no evidence of any deliberate neglect of the assets by their owners(which would have a bearing on the weight that could legitimately be given totheir deteriorated state: NPPF paragraph 130). Objectors have questionedthe use of funds to restore assets held in private ownership. The significanceof a heritage asset is not a function of its public accessibility, and theconservation of heritage assets is considered to be in the public interestirrespective of access rights. Where those assets can make a positivecontribution to sustainable communities including their economic vitality,account should be taken of the contribution by decision-makers. Equally,decision-makers should account for the general desirability of sustaining andenhancing the significance of heritage assets, as well as for the desirability ofdevelopment making a positive contribution to local character anddistinctiveness.7.244 The application is not put forward as ‘enabling development’ and there is noevidence before the authority of the owners’ ability, or inability, to fund anyrestoration works. The owners have no positive legal duty to keep theirassets in good condition, although as noted above they could not expect totake any planning advantage from any deliberate neglect. The districtplanning authority and the Secretary of State each have discretionary reservepowers to require repairs to listed buildings which might involve compulsorypurchase. The powers are rarely exercised, and English Heritage have said itis unlikely that the Secretary of State would give it consideration here (emailof 1 June 2012). It appears to Officers that the ‘Conservation, Repair andMaintenance Works’ proposals, and the conservation works expected to resultfrom the proposed Landscape and Cultural Heritage Fund, are public benefitsthat would fairly relate to the development.209NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/209

7.245 Plan 8 shows the AWRP development in the context of the current approvedrestoration plan, which is in the process of being implemented. Plan 9 showsthe AWRP development in the context of the leachate/short rotation coppicescheme (as described in Section 2 which has yet to be implemented), withPlan 10 showing the final version of the restoration after the completion of theleachate/short rotation coppice scheme and Plan 11 shows the final AWRPrestoration scheme. The applicant’s assessment of post-mitigation impactsare that the otherwise ‘large adverse’ impacts on the setting of the RegisteredPark and Gardens and the listed buildings during the construction andoperational phases would reduce to a ‘moderate [adverse] effect’ (ES Tables3.15 and 3.16). There is said to be a beneficial effect followingdecommissioning and restoration, although the application is for ananticipated 25-year development.7.246 Carrying out the ‘Conservation, Repair and Maintenance Works’ has beenassessed by the applicant as being likely to transform a number of ‘slightadverse’ effects into neutral (the Icehouse) or beneficial ones; moderately sofor the Bridge over the path to Pleasure Grounds; the Arched Entrance to theJetty or Boathouse on the Lower Fish Pond; the Boathouse on the Island ofthe Lower Fish Pond; and majorly so for the Folly to the north of Middle FishPond and the Bridge between the Middle and Lower Fish Ponds.7.247 English Heritage are of the view that the mitigation proposals put forward bythe applicant will ‘offset’ the adverse impact on the setting of the historicassets associated with Allerton Park, subject to a timetable for theirimplementation being secured (23 May 2011). They consider that theLandscape Management Strategy (including the Conservation ManagementPlan) will enhance the legibility and significance of the designed landscapeand the designated heritage assets associated with Allerton Park (17 August2012). English Heritage considers the strategy would benefit from greaterclarity, particularly as it relates to the part of Allerton Park that is owned by theRolph Foundation together with the Castle, and that the approach taken tothis part of the Park should be clarified before the Fund commences.However, they do not suggest that clarification is required before a decisionwhether to grant planning permission can be taken. The County Council’sPrincipal Landscape Architect has stated that whether or not conservationworks are carried out to the heritage assets in this part of the Park does notaffect his landscape assessment of the proposal either way, so long as theassets are not at risk of total loss.Conclusion7.248 Members must have regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing thesetting of the relevant listed buildings particularly those in the Registered Parkand Garden. There will also be an adverse impact on the setting of theRegistered Park and Garden itself. If permission is to be granted, it istherefore necessary to identify benefits of the proposal (including mitigationmeasures) that outweigh that harm to setting (and any other harm).210NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/210

7.249 Overall Officers share the analysis of English Heritage that the significance ofthe heritage assets associated with Allerton Park will be “less thansubstantially” affected by the development, by reason of the impact on setting.English Heritage are confident that that harm (as well as the limited residualharm to other heritage assets) will be ‘offset’ in its entirety by the proposed‘Conservation, Repair and Maintenance Works’ and the spending of theLandscape and Cultural Heritage Fund that are offered as part of a proposedsection 106 agreement, although acknowledging that there are no guaranteesthat the Fund will be spent on any heritage assets. There is presently noguarantee of works to assets, such as the Temple of Victory, that are not inthe Earl of Mowbray’s ownership. Moreover, there is unlikely to be enoughmoney in the proposed Fund to pay for everything that is desirable.7.250 Some weight can be given to the Fund in general terms, in that it is likely toresult in some mitigation of the landscape and heritage harm caused by thedevelopment, but it is not possible to give any weight to its potential toachieve any specific individual outcomes (such as repairs to the Temple ofVictory). That is because the Strategy is insufficiently developed to say whatpriorities will result from it, and is insufficiently costed to predict with anycertainty how far it will stretch. However, English Heritage does not object tothe application even on the assumption that no additional heritage works aredelivered beyond the guaranteed ‘Conservation, Repair and MaintenanceWorks’ to some of Lord Mowbray’s assets.7.251 The proposed ‘Conservation, Repair and Maintenance Works’ and Landscapeand Cultural Heritage Fund are some of the public benefits that might beweighed against the ‘less than substantial’ harm to heritage assets, and otherharm, that results from the proposal. To say that those Works and theLandscape and Cultural Heritage Fund are reasons for granting planningpermission, Members must be satisfied that they are necessary to make thedevelopment acceptable in planning terms, are directly and fairly related tothe development, and fairly and reasonably related to it in scale and kind. Ifthe development is acceptable without them, because other public benefitsare thought to outweigh the harm, then they must not be taken into account.This report will return to this balancing exercise in section 8 below.Impact on Residential Amenity7.252 The Development Plan policies relevant to the consideration of the proposalwith regard to the potential for impact upon residential amenity include ‘saved’NYWLP Policy 4/1(h) (which states a criteria such that ‘other environmentaland amenity safeguards would effectively mitigate the impact of theproposal’), ‘saved’ Policy 4/19, ‘saved’ Policy 5/3 and ‘saved’ Policy 5/10(e)(which seek to safeguard against any unacceptable impacts, locally, on bothenvironmental and residential amenity). The proposal must thereforedemonstrate that shall not have an unacceptable impact upon residentialamenity of local residents and that amenity safeguards would effectivelymitigate the proposals impacts.211NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/211

7.253 As well as consideration of specific impacts, in the event of such impactsarising, there should also be consideration of adequate means of controllingnoise, dust, litter, odours and other emissions to minimise and control theeffects of the development in order to protect the amenities of the local area.7.254 The application site is situated in a rural area with several residentialproperties within the vicinity. The site consists of a former mineral processingsite, and in the wider sense forms part of a consented semi-complete landfillsite. There has therefore been a range of activity taking place at the site overa substantial period of time.7.255 The Environmental Statement (ES) submitted by the applicant acknowledgesthat there can be a number of health effects caused or aggravated by noise,dust, odour and emissions from the proposed facility.Air Quality, Pollution and Impact on Health7.256 With specific regard to the potential impact of the proposal upon air quality,pollution and human health, a number of objections have been received fromParish/Town Councils, interest groups and members of the public. Theseinclude the potential adverse health implications perceived to be associatedwith emissions and run-off from the incineration of waste, as well as theemissions from vehicular movements to the site. A number of reports havealso been submitted by objectors identifying the potential adverse impact ofemissions from the proposed plant on air quality, the resulting harm to humanhealth. In respect of this, the attention of the County Planning Authority hasalso been drawn by the objectors to the further research which has beencommissioned into the potential impacts on health through the operation ofsuch facilities by the Health Protection Agency.7.257 In its further consultation response, dated 12 September 2012, HarrogateBorough Council specifically stated that “insufficient consideration had beengiven to the impact of traffic movements generated by the development to theAir Quality Management Areas particularly that at the Bond End junction inKnaresborough and the potential implications should traffic use theWoodlands junction in Harrogate as an alternative route when that junction,too, was an area for Air Quality Management due to the current volume oftraffic”. The Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) to which the local authorityrefers, namely Bond End in the centre of Knaresborough, has been declaredas such since November 2010. There is a stated intention on the BoroughCouncil’s website that an Action Plan to reduce pollution and particularlynitrogen dioxide was to be produced within 18 months of AQMA declaration.To date, such a Plan has yet to be published.7.258 In considering the issues of air quality and, thereby, addressing the potentialadverse impact alleged within the response of the Borough Council, amongstthe responses of others also objecting to the proposed development, it isimportant to acknowledge in relation to the Bond End AQMA and theWoodlands junction in Harrogate that these lie a substantial distance from theapplication site. Furthermore, they are separated from the site by the 6-lane212NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/212

A1(M) motorway and the A168 service road, both aligned on a north/southaxis flanked to the south by the east/west aligned A59.7.259 It should be noted, notwithstanding the returned views of the Borough Councilin respect of the AQMA, the Borough Council’s Environmental Health Officeris of the view that there are insufficient grounds to recommend refusalcommenting that a breach of the air quality objectives is unlikely. As aconsequence of the above, within the specific context of the emissions toatmosphere, it is considered that the proposed development will not give riseto unacceptable harm and therefore does not conflict with ‘saved’ NYWLPpolicies 4/1(h), 4/19, 5/3 or 5/10(e).7.260 Given that a number of objections all raise the issue of the potential impactupon human health, the Health Protection Agency (HPA) has therefore alsobeen consulted by the County Planning Authority in this particular instance.The HPA did not return any objection to the proposal, offering instead torecommend that the Food Standards Agency is consulted and to convey theHPA’s stated position with regard to incineration as follows:“well run and regulated modern Municipal Waste Incinerators (MWIs) are nota significant risk to public health remains valid: While it is not possible to ruleout adverse health effects from modern, well regulated MWIs with completecertainty, any potential damage to the health of those living close-by is likelyto be very small, if detectable. This view is based on detailed assessments ofthe effects of air pollutants on health and on the fact that modern and wellmanaged municipal waste incinerators make only a very small contribution tolocal concentrations of air pollutants” and, that “the Committee onCarcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and theEnvironment has reviewed recent data and has concluded that there is noneed to change its previous advice, namely that any potential risk of cancerdue to residency near to municipal waste incinerators is exceedingly low andprobably not measurable by the most modern techniques. Since any possiblehealth effects are likely to be very small, if detectable, studies of public healtharound modern, well managed municipal waste incinerators are notrecommended”7.261 In light of the above recommendation and the receipt of a number of concernsbeing raised by Parish/Town Councils and concerned members of the publicrelating to the dispersion of nano-particles and the digestion of those particlesthrough pastoral farming and arable crops. The County Planning Authorityundertook to consult the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in this particularinstance. Similar to the HPA formal comment, the FSA did not return anyobjection to the proposal, offering the following in response to consultation“provided the emissions from the incinerator are WID compliant thendeposition to the surrounding agricultural land would be insignificant in termsof risk to the food chain. Where there is a legacy of industrial pollution thenthe additive effects of deposition over time may be of concern. However, thisappears not to be the case for this application”.213NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/213

7.262 The NHS Trust, consulted by the County Planning Authority in this particularinstance, has not commented on the proposal, but refers instead to earliercorrespondence at the Scoping Opinion stage, which raised no objection tothe proposal subject to comments of the HPA and the submission andsubsequent approval of an Environmental Permit.7.263 Representations have been received from those objecting to the proposeddevelopment stating that the County Planning Authority should apply the‘Precautionary Principle’ approach to determining this application. This hasnot been reflected in response to statutory consultation and indeed to takesuch an approach would require a circumstance where the proposeddevelopment had been identified as having potentially dangerous as well asadverse effects in a climate of identified scientific uncertainty. However, thedevelopment as put forward is proposing the operation of a ‘tried and tested’technology in use over a number of years. It is not therefore considered thatthe proposal would give rise to a circumstance where the ‘precautionaryprinciple’ would need to be invoked.7.264 In assessing the land use planning considerations for such a facility, andspecifically assessing the associated air quality and health issues, it isimportant to understand that two separate legislative frameworks apply to theproposed EfW.7.265 The role of the County Council, and the planning system, is to assess whethera proposal accords with the land-use and environmental policies set out in therelevant Development Plan and to address other material planningconsiderations. Separately, and independently, the EfW is also subject toPollution Prevention and Control legislation (PPC) which is administered bythe appropriate regulatory Authority, in the instance of a PPC thisresponsibility falls under the remit of the Environment Agency (EA). Althoughthe planning authority should not seek to duplicate the control exercised bythe EA, regard must still be had to issues of air quality and health from aplanning perspective, particularly as, in this instance, the applicant’sapplication to the EA for a PPC permit is yet to be issued.7.266 The purpose of an EP permit, which is issued by the Environment Agency(EA), is to ensure that a plant is designed and can operate without damage tothe environment or harm to human health resulting from pollution such asairborne particles and direct run-off from the facility.7.267 The design and operation of the EfW is governed by the Waste IncinerationDirective (WID), which sets the framework within which the EA considers anyapplication for an EP. WID requires adherence to specific emission limits fora range of pollutants, and assessment criteria are set out in national AirQuality Standards which set the objectives to be achieved.214NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/214

7.268 Before reaching a decision to grant a permit, the EA must be assured by theapplicant that:• the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed facility meets therequirements of the Environmental Permitting Regulations and uses BestAvailable Techniques in its design and operation;• the criteria set out in other relevant Directives on Air Quality, UrbanWaste Water and Dangerous Substance have been met;• the standards proposed for the design, construction and operation of thefacility meet or exceed the Environment Agency’s guidance, NationalLegislation and relevant Directives;• the comments received from the public and statutory consultees havebeen taken into account;• as far as practicable, the energy generated by the EfW plant will berecovered for use;• the amount of residues and their harmfulness will be minimised andrecycled where appropriate; and• the proposed measurement techniques for emissions are in line withthose specified in National Legislation and relevant Directives.7.269 As well as satisfying itself that plant design and operation will minimise oreliminate key pollutants from the incineration process, the EA must alsoensure that emissions from the proposed stack(s) meet set standards. Inorder to do this, a range of data including the chemical content of theemissions, local topography and climate are applied to a dispersion model.This model determines, amongst other things, the chimney height required toensure that emissions disperse in all conditions, without any potential threat tohealth. The possible effects on sensitive vegetation and ecosystems are alsoexamined.7.270 In parallel with the planning application, the applicant has submitted anapplication for an EP to the EA. The EA has confirmed that the appropriatechecks have been undertaken and the application duly made valid. Theassociated consultations have been conducted. It is understood that while theapplication for a permit has been made, the Agency will not issue a permituntil an applicant is able to demonstrate that the requisite planning permissionhas been obtained.7.271 The Environment Agency is the statutory consultee for pollution controlmatters and has not raised any objection to the application on health risk orany other grounds.7.272 The ES submitted with the application concludes, within the assessment of airquality, that impacts on air quality would be negligible. With regard to humanhealth the assessment concludes there would be a slight adverse impactbased on very worst-case assumptions of a maximally exposed individualconsuming most of his/her animal/dairy and vegetable and cereal food intakederived from the area where maximum deposition of pollutants is predicted tooccur. The ES notes that, in practice, such circumstances are unlikely to ariseand the degree of risk and level of hazard arising from exposure to emissionswill be lower than calculated by the assessment.215NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/215

7.273 It is acknowledged that the potential health impact of the proposal is amaterial planning consideration. The Government’s position is clear thatplanning authorities should call on the advice of the relevant healthauthorities, agencies and pollution control bodies and work on the assumptionthat the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced.Nevertheless, the public’s concerns or perceptions in relation to heath and airquality are also capable of being material considerations. Whilst there is nodoubt that such concerns are genuine, in order for them to carry significantweight there would need to be reliable evidence to suggest that perceptions ofrisk are objectively justified. Planning case law (in Gateshead MBC vSecretary of State for the Environment) indicates that if public concern couldnot be objectively justified then it could not be conclusive and this approachhas been reflected in recent appeal decisions by the Secretary of State.7.274 Given that no objection has been received from the EA, the HPA, FoodStandards Agency or the Borough Council’s Environmental Health Officer onair quality or health grounds, and taking into account the advice in the NPPFthat planning authorities should assume that the pollution control regime willoperate effectively, as well as the advice in PPS10 that “modern,appropriately located, well-run and well-regulated, waste managementfacilities operated in line with current pollution control techniques andstandards should pose little risk to human health, and that the detailedconsideration of a waste management process and the implications, if any, forhuman health is the responsibility of the pollution control authorities” it is notconsidered that a refusal of planning permission on grounds of impact on airquality or health, or the perception of risk relating to such impacts, could besubstantiated.7.275 Such an approach would also be consistent with the position set out in theWaste Strategy for England 2007, which indicates that “an independent healthimpacts review has concluded that on the evidence so far, the treatment ofmunicipal solid waste has at most a minor effect on health. Risks to humanhealth from incineration are small in comparison with other known risks facedby most people in their daily lives” and with advice in the National PolicyStatement for Energy EN-1 that generally, those aspects of energyinfrastructure which are most likely to have a significantly detrimental impacton health are subject to separate regulation (for example for air pollution)which will constitute effective mitigation of them, so that it is unlikely thathealth concerns will either constitute a reason to refuse consent or requirespecific mitigation.7.276 Officers therefore conclude that, with regard to air quality, pollution and impacton health, the application is in accordance with the requirements of Local andNational policies and additional guidance summarised above, includingrelevant elements of ‘saved’ policies 4/1, 4/19, 5/3 and 5/10 of the NYWLPand the criteria in Annex E of PPS10.216NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/216

Noise and Vibration7.277 The waste recycling, recovery and associated operations includingpreparation of incinerated by-product are largely enclosed within the proposedbuildings and thus well-attenuated. The primary noise source from siteoperations is likely to be the air cooled condensers, which consist of a moreopen area to ensure the necessary air circulation. However, other potentialnoise sources include the turbine hall, boiler room and the operations withinthe Tipping Hall. Here, vehicles would be unloading and mechanical shovelsand other loading devices operating. The chimney outlets, external HGVmovements and noise breakout from the building or the Tipping Hall allrepresent potential external sources of both noise and vibration.7.278 The operational nature of the plant’s use would mean that 24 hour dailyactivity would occur, which can vary in nature when there are plannedshutdowns for maintenance and associated activities. The applicant proposesthat waste would be received between 08:00 and 22:00 Monday to Friday and08;00 and 17:00 Saturday, Sunday and Bank holidays. It has been envisagedby the applicant that the vast majority of waste deliveries and exportmovements will be expected to take place between the core hours of 08:00and 18:00 reflecting existing waste delivery patterns.7.279 The existing ambient noise environment around the site has been the subjectof monitoring and the results together with the potential resulting noiseproduction from the proposed facility have been submitted as part of the ES.The applicant acknowledges that a number of noise-sensitive residentialreceptors surrounding the site have the potential to be affected by noise fromthe construction, operational and decommissioning phases of thedevelopment.7.280 The assessment employed by the applicant involved:• the identification of standards and guidance to identify noise andvibration impacts;• the collection of daytime and night-time background and ambient noiselevel data in order to determine the existing baseline noise climate atnoise sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site;• the assessment of noise levels at potentially sensitive local receptorsduring the construction phase of proposed development;• the prediction and assessment of operational noise levels at a selectionof receivers which have the potential to be affected by a change in noiselevels;• the determination of the significance of the effects associated with theconstruction and operation of the development;• the identification of mitigation measures, where appropriate, in order tominimise any potential significant adverse effects arising from thedevelopment;• the prediction of the magnitude of any residual effects that may remainfollowing the implementation of any recommended mitigation measures.217NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/217

7.281 The applicant has produced baseline data that identified the closest noisereceptors to the proposed development. As well as worst case scenarioimpacts based on the four periods of activity at the site which also assessedthe potential sleep disturbance resulting for the operation of the site. Thedisturbance periods consisted:• Construction Noise;• Operational Noise;• Construction Vibration;• Operational Vibration.7.282 The overall conclusion of the applicant’s assessment is that:• “The noise and vibration effects arising from the construction andoperation of AWRP have been assessed to be not significant at residentialreceptors. The results of the operational noise assessment indicate thatcomplaints would be of marginal significance at the nearest residentialareas to the site in the worst case scenario. Noise effects associated withconstruction and operational traffic would not be significant compared withexisting traffic movements on the local road network and, therefore, asignificant adverse noise effect would not occur”; and,• “No additional mitigation, beyond what is already proposed, is requiredduring the operation of the facility, beyond the detailed acoustic design, ofAWRP”.7.283 A number of objections have been received to the proposal as a directconcern and perception resulting from the noise generated during theconstruction, operation and decommissioning phase of the proposal.7.284 Advice has been sought, through the consultation process, from HarrogateBorough Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO). A formal responsewas received from the EHO (see Section 4) which did not raise any specificobjections to the proposal on the ground on noise other than to acknowledgethat, on the whole, the development will have little or no detrimental effect ona number of the surrounding noise receptors. However, it was identified thatthe development would have a detrimental effect on the residents of SouthFarm during the night and weekend periods. The County Planning Authorityhas been advised that, if Members were minded to approve the application,additional mitigation, through the imposition of an appropriately wordedcondition, would need to be carried out to ensure that the predicted impactdoes not occur. Overall, it is concluded that, subject to appropriate controls,the development would not give rise to unacceptable impact by reason ofnoise and therefore would not be in conflict with relevant policies in theNYWLP (Policies 4/1, 4/19, 5/3 and 5/10) or the criteria in Annex E of PPS10.Odour7.285 Waste management sites, such as the proposed AWRP, have the potential tocause odours, unless effectively controlled. In this specific case, the mainsource of odour would be the Tipping Hall (TH) and to a lesser extent otherparts of the facility where raw residual and C & I waste is awaiting treatment.218NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/218

7.286 Chapter 10 of the ES identifies the potential of odour from the remainingprincipal elements of the facility, namely the Mechanical Treatment (MT)process, Anaerobic Digestion (AD) process, Energy from Waste (EfW)process and Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) processing plant have beenassessed as these are identified as the three main sources of atmosphericemissions are associated with the facility. With specific reference to the MTfacility, the result of the environmental assessment judged odour as notcausing an impact as most of the odours associated with the waste stream willbe drawn into the EfW building as combustion air.7.287 The applicant has stated that “these emissions will be regulated by theEnvironment Agency through an Environmental Permit and the emissionsfrom the EfW will comply with the requirements of the Waste IncinerationDirective (WID)”.7.288 On the basis of these controls and that no objections been received from theEHO (other than to require a condition), the EA or the HPA, it is notconsidered that the proposals would give rise to an unacceptable impactthrough odour and, therefore, in this respect would not conflict with relevantpolicies in the development plan including NYWLP Policies 4/1, 4/19, 5/3 and5/10, as well as the criteria in Annex E of PPS10.Dust and litter7.289 Waste imported to the site will be handled within the Tipping Hall and,therefore, the potential for litter around the site is small. There is the potentialfor dust to arise around the site from the movement of vehicles throughout theconstruction period.7.290 It is understood that the Environmental Permit would provide for operationalcontrols, however, during the construction and decommissioning phases, itwill be necessary to secure controls through the planning conditions and theseappropriately should include the provision of an on-site wheel wash to ensurevehicles do not carry mud or other detritus onto the public highway.7.291 The EHO has not objected to the proposal with specific regard to potentialdust or litter issues on the basis of the imposition of a condition covering thepreparatory, construction, decommissioning and operational phases of thedevelopment.7.292 Subject to these controls identified, it is not considered that this aspect of thedevelopment will give rise to any unacceptable dust or litter concerns andtherefore would not conflict with relevant policies in the development planincluding NYWLP Policies 4/1, 4/19, 5/3 and 5/10, as well as the criteria inAnnex E of PPS10.Hazards, Risks and Safety7.293 Helping to secure the recovery or disposal of waste without endangeringhuman health and without harming the environment is a key objective forwaste planning, as expressed in PPS10. Consideration of the impact ofemissions to air from the proposed AWRP facility and the associated potential219NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/219

impacts on health are addressed elsewhere in this section, as are mattersassociated with the potential migration of landfill gas and highway safetymatters. However, objectors have also raised a range of other concernsexpressed about matters relating to hazards, risk and safety. These includeconcerns about use and control of hazardous materials and associated risksfrom fire, explosion and contamination of the ground and water, and theassociated risk of transporting any such materials through populated areas,together with concerns about emergency planning procedures at the site andan absence of information on this matter.7.294 PPS10 indicates that, in considering planning applications for waste facilities,planning authorities should concern themselves with implementing theplanning strategy in the development plan and not with the control ofprocesses which are a matter for the pollution control authorities. It alsostates that planning authorities should focus on whether the development isan acceptable use of the land and the impact of those uses on thedevelopment and use of land. It advises that Waste Planning Authoritiesshould work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regimes willbe applied and enforced.7.295 In this particular case, the development would be regulated through othercontrols not implemented by the County Council and these other controls areconsidered to be the appropriate mechanism for dealing with the mattersraised above. It is noted that there is no objection to the proposal from theEnvironment Agency or the Borough Council’s Environmental Health Officer.It is further noted that the proposed facility would be located a significantdistance from substantial centres of population and is well located in relationto the principal road network, such that vehicles accessing the site would notneed to pass through residential areas. It is therefore concluded that the risk,or perceived risk, from the matters referred to above would not be likely toimpact unacceptably on the use or development of the land or that thedevelopment would be unacceptable for this reason.Landfill Gas Migration Safeguarding7.296 The application site is located to the west of an existing non-hazardous landfillfacility and landfill gas is currently managed at the site via the design of thelandfill such that the gas can be extracted and used in the landfill gasutilisation facility which uses the gas to produce electricity rather than it beingburnt via a flare.7.297 The landfill facility will continue to operate should the application be approvedand developed. The existing approved restoration scheme for the landfill willcontinue to be complied with, and the proposal will effectively supersede therestoration of the area of the landfill facility outside the zone used for disposalof municipal waste.7.298 The Environment Agency (EA) has raised a comment in relation to thepotential overlapping of the permitted boundary of the existing landfilloperation and the proposed AWRP. The EA has stated that “the proposedfacility’s Environmental Permit boundary is likely to overlap with an existingadjacent permit boundary associated with the WRG-operated landfill site” and220NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/220

that “there is a known landfill gas migration issue affecting this area ofoverlapping land, which may also extend beyond this area. As regulator ofthis existing permit, we [the EA] are working with WRG on an on going basisto address this issue. However, the applicant (Amey Cespa) and yourself [theCounty Planning Authority] (as decision maker) must be made aware of thisissue and its potential impact on the proposed facility. You are advised tosatisfy yourself that the proposed facility and its associated infrastructure hasbeen suitably designed to account for this known issue, before any planningpermission is granted”.7.299 With regard to the overlapping permit issue, the applicant has confirmed thatan application for a permit for the proposed facility has been made to the EAand is awaiting their consideration. The County Planning Authority hasreceived a consultation from the EA with regard to the permit applicationmade by the applicant and has confirmed the current planning status of thesite for the EA. Whilst not a planning consideration, it is likely that theoverlapping permit issue would be addressed in the determination of theAWRP permit application by the EA.7.300 PPS10 encourages applicants to apply concurrently for permits and forplanning permission. The County Planning Authority understands the permitapplication was made in April 2012, but that the EA has yet to come to adetermination.7.301 With regard to the potential of landfill gas migration, the applicant’sEnvironmental Statement explains that as a precautionary measure, thedesign of the proposed development will incorporate features to prevent riskfrom any migrating landfill gas such as a re-inforced concrete, cast in-situ,floor slab, a beam and block or pre-cast concrete slab, underfloor venting orpressurisation in combination with either of the afore-mentioned options and,gas detection systems.7.302 The applicant’s ‘‘further and other environmental information’ submissionmade in June explains “the risk from landfill gas ingress is classed (on a worstcase basis) as “low risk” and requires certain measures to be installed.Measures such as these are subject to Building Control approvals (TheBuilding Regulations 2000, Approved Document C, C1 Site preparation andresistance to contaminants) and will also conform to industry best practice fortheir general arrangement and installation. CIRIA 149, Guidance onEvaluation of Development proposals on sites where methane and carbondioxide are present and BRE 414, Construction of new buildings on gascontaminated land both provide details and guidance in this regard togetherwith indicative drawings that depict construction details”. Notwithstanding, theapplicant has stated that the detailed design of the mitigation measures aresubject to further ground investigation, design finalisation, as well asdiscussions with the Environment Agency and Building Control, but themeasures are likely to involve detailed specification for the concrete floors andpotentially under-floor venting or pressurisation in line with the advice ofPPS10.221NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/221

7.303 The Environmental Permit application also contains the following informationsupplied by its appointed consultants, Fichtner Consulting Engineers Limited,with respect to landfill gas migration. It advises that the proposed AWRPbuildings would experience only a low level of exposure to migrating landfillgas through either ground or groundwater pathways and that this is to bemitigated through the design of the buildings being such that they prevent thepenetration of landfill gas into the buildings. The implementation of this level ofmitigation is likely to result an ‘insignificant’ overall risk.7.304 Given that the County Planning Authority must satisfy itself that the potentialrisk of landfill gas migration is not an issue, further advice on the matter hasbeen sought from Harrogate Borough Council’s Building Control Team. TheCounty Council has been advised that, in order for the development toproceed, it will be subject to a rigorous assessment and series ofrequirements under the Building Regulations. In terms of such a proposaladjacent to a landfill site, Part C (December 2004, incorporation the 2010amendments) of the Building Regulations would have to be adhered to. Theproposal would have to incorporate ‘methane protection’ as required by theRegulations. The proposal’s proximity to the landfill site, or source ofmethane, would determine the required level of protection.7.305 It is considered, therefore, that no issue exists in relation to the migration orpotential migration of landfill gas which cannot be addressed through separatelegislation, namely Building Regulations. However, it is considered that itwould be prudent that the details put forward in the planning application andES are acceptable to have via a planning condition that requires details of ascheme for landfill gas ingress protection to be supplied for the final design inorder to ensure that the issue is properly controlled and implemented.Highway Issues7.306 The AWRP development, as described in Section 3.0 of this report, proposesthe transport of incoming waste via road. Other ancillary processesassociated with the development will also give rise to vehicular trafficsubstantial in nature.7.307 The proposed development would generate a number of new HGV trips ontothe primary and secondary road networks under the management of theHighways Agency (in respect of the A1(M)) motorway) and the County Councilas Highway Authority (including in respect of the A168 and A59).7.308 In terms of the three distinct phases of the proposal, namely the construction,operation and decommissioning, the applicant has broken down the expectedvehicular movements explained in the paragraphs below.7.309 The construction period is envisaged (by the applicant) to last 33 months.The maximum traffic generation associated with staff movements is estimatedat 129 vehicles with 71 HGV vehicles (representing 142 combined movementsin and out) per weekday. No movements associated with construction activitywould take place at weekends or Bank Holidays except between the hours of0700-1400 hours on Saturdays.222NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/222

7.310 During the operational phase, the applicant estimates that, under an openingyear scenario, worst-case operational daily HGV movements would be 151movements in, representing a total of 302 HGV movements in and outcombined, with the large majority of these occurring between the hours of0800 and 1600 hours. The applicant indicates that weekend operational andvisitor traffic is likely to be at substantially lower levels compared to weekdayoperation. The applicant also estimates that there would be a further 159movements (in and out combined) associated with staff and visitors witharound 120 of these movements taking place during the core weekday timeperiod of 0800-2200 hours.7.311 Movements related to the de-commissioning stage are identified as eitheridentical or similar to those during the construction phase.7.312 The consideration of the environmental consequences of the proposeddevelopment in respect of highway-related matters is contained withinChapter 11 of the applicant’s Environmental Statement. That Chapter, alongwith Chapters 4, 5, 8 10, deal with the traffic implications of the developmentin terms of the physical increase in traffic, visual impact of the increasedvehicular movements, air pollution, ecology and noise and vibration.7.313 Following the receipt of initial comments from the Highway Authority and theHighways Agency, the applicant submitted ‘further and other environmentalinformation’ under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning(Environment Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2011. A furtherconsultation exercise was therefore undertaken in accordance with the currentlegislation.7.314 The Environmental Assessment also considered alternative modes for thetransportation of waste and looked at the possibility of rail transportation(Section 16 of the applicant’s ES refers). It identifies, amongst otheralternatives, the possibility of transportation of waste to AWRP using the railnetwork. The applicant is of the view that in order for rail to become an optionfor importing waste to the proposal, there are a number of key criteria thatneed to be met. The applicant’s viewpoint as stated in ES Chapter 16(paragraph 16.5.3) is that “there must be sufficient land available at suitablelocations in the rail network to introduce the infrastructure necessary for thetransfer of waste. This would include enough land to install an interchangepoint for offloading waste from RCVs, bulk loaders etc. into rail containers.Each railhead would also require land for a small office and parking spaces”.7.315 The applicant concluded that “for a County the size of North Yorkshire, it islikely that there would need to be a number of these railheads in order toensure the infrastructure is in sufficient proximity to the waste arisings”.7.316 Given the lack of suitable or deliverable railheads for waste purposes and thelogistical limitations of creating new infrastructure negates, in the view of theapplicant, any realistic opportunity for a rail fed facility. The decision taken hasresulted in the application applying the principle of sustainable roadmovements as appropriate rather than waste transportation by rail.223NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/223

7.317 A Transport Assessment was carried out using Department for Transportguidance and the application details state that the assessment “has beencarried out in line with guidance set by the IEMA and the scope of worksagreed with NYCC Highways Authority and the HA [Highways Agency] duringpre-application discussions”.7.318 The assessments carried out within the ES relating to potential trips generatedby the proposed development indicate that the route network canaccommodate the likely levels of vehicle numbers and that, other thanimprovements to existing junctions, no significant infrastructure is required toaccommodate the predicted increase in vehicle numbers. It, therefore,concluded that the road network is capable of accommodating the traffic thatwould be generated during the construction, operation and decommissioningof the proposed facility.7.319 The assessment concludes that there would be no significant environmentaleffects relating to the range of traffic and transportation effects considered inthe ES whether they be during the construction, operation or decommissioningphases of the development. Other conclusions reached in theES are that, from a transport perspective, the site is ideally located havinggood links to the primary road network with no associated highway safetyconcerns.7.320 However, the application has been subject to a number of representations inobjection to the development on the grounds of potential accident risk on theA59/A168 and the A59/A1(M) junctions as a result of the use of the junctionby increased numbers of Heavy Commercial Vehicles associated with theproposed AWRP development. Objectors also contend that the traffic surveyswere undertaken at the wrong time of the year and, as a consequence, haveaffected the ultimate results and recommendations of the transportconsultants appointed by the applicant. They also hold the view that theapplication should not be given due consideration without a rail link beingincluded, in order that rail can be considered for the principal means of accessfor incoming and outgoing waste.7.321 The consultation responses from the relevant consultees in respect of thehighway-related matters in respect of the proposed development have beenoutlined within Section 4.0 of this report. The representations made to theCounty Planning Authority as a result of the publicity on this application aresummarised in Section 5.0 of this report together with the report’saccompanying Appendix A which provides more detail with regard to thesubstance of the representations made on highway-related matters.7.322 However, a specific representation submitted by the Goldsborough andFlaxby Grouped Parish Council on behalf of the Parish Councils’ Group wasaccompanied by a report prepared by URS (a firm of engineering andenvironmental consultants) in relation to the submitted Transport Assessmentand Chapter 11 of the Environmental Statement accompanying the AWRPplanning application. Consideration of this report is set down in theparagraphs that follow.224NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/224

7.323 In summary, the conclusions drawn in the URS report are:• the traffic counts were conducted at the wrong time of year;• there are calculation inaccuracies;• there is an absence of validation of the PICADY junction modelling; and,• further accident analysis should be undertaken together with animprovement options study before any commencement of development.7.324 In assessing the proposal in respect of its potential highways impact, dueregard must be had to the relevant development plan policies as set out inSection 6.0 earlier in this report. The assessment against the policies thatfollow can be found in the remaining paragraphs of this specific section of thisreport dealing with the issues of potential highways impact. The relevantdevelopment plan policies include:• NYWLP ’saved’ Policies, specifically:• 4/1(g) (Waste Management Proposals) (“Proposals for wastemanagement facilities will be permitted provided that: the proposedtransport links are adequate to serve the development”)• 4/18(f) (Traffic impact) (“waste management facilities will only bepermitted where the level of vehicle movements likely to begenerated can be satisfactorily accommodated by the localhighway and would not have an unacceptable impact on localcommunities”);• 5/3(e) (Recycling, Sorting and Transfer etc) (“Proposals for facilitiesfor recycling, sorting and transfer of industrial, commercial andhousehold wastes will be permitted provided that… the highwaynetwork and site access can satisfactorily accommodate the trafficgenerated”); and,• 5/10(d) (Incineration of waste) (“Proposals for the incineration ofhousehold, commercial and non-hazardous industrial waste will bepermitted only after opportunities for recycling and compostinghave been explored and provided the following criteria are met…the highway network and site access can satisfactorilyaccommodate the traffic generated”).• Harrogate District Council LDF Core Strategy Policies specifically:• EQ1 (Reducing risks to the environment) (“the planning, design,construction and subsequent operation of all new developmentshould seek to minimise…. travel by car;• SG4 (Settlement Growth: Design and Impact) (“The travel impact ofany scheme should not add significantly to any pre-existingproblems of access, road safety or traffic flow”) and,• TRA1(c) (Accessibility) (“requiring all developments which are likelyto have significant transport implications to include a TransportAssessment”).7.325 Both the Highways Agency and the Highway Authority are the statutoryadvisers in respect of highway development control matters. The HighwaysAgency have, during the course of the processing of the application, directedthe Authority against concluding the determination of the application until suchtime as they had been satisfied that their specific concerns had been225NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/225

addressed through planning conditions or covered by legal agreement. Uponconfirmation that these matters had been addressed, the Highways Agencyhas confirmed that the Direction is no longer extant and that the Secretary ofState with responsibility for transport has no objection in principle should theCounty Planning Authority be so minded to grant the development consent.7.326 Upon the receipt of the URS report (mentioned in an earlier paragraph), theadvice of the Highway Authority (as the County Planning Authority’s expertadviser) was sought. As a result of the review of the URS Report, the HighwayAuthority in its formal response of 5 September 2012 did not raise any specificconcerns and addressed the matters raised in Section 4.0 above as follows:• “Although counts were undertaken in January 2011, these count datesreflected school term time traffic conditions and were undertaken duringgood weather conditions. No accidents or other incidents took placewithin the study area that would have any material impact on countaccuracy”;• “it is considered that the recalculated CRF values would have nodemonstrable impact on the conclusion of the link capacity review set outwithin the formal TA report, in that it is considered that developmenttraffic would not have a significant impact on capacity on the network”;• “It is difficult to reconcile the local resident queuing survey informationquoted within the URS report to those PICADY results presented in theAWRP TA report, as no details of prevailing traffic flows during thequeuing study are provided. The key conclusion to be drawn from thePICADY analyses included in the AWRP TA, however, is that theaddition of development related traffic demand at the A168 / A59 junctionwould not be expected to give rise to a material change in operatingconditions when compared to baseline traffic demand. The TA PICADYmodelling, for example, only shows a strictly marginal change in RFClevels and queuing demand when compared to baseline peak operation”;and,• It should be recognised that AWRP development traffic impact on thesection of A59 to the east of the A168 link road connection represents anincrease of just 0.85% of predicted 2014 / 2015 total baseline trafficdemand. It is not anticipated that such increases in total traffic volumeswould represent a substantive change in overall accident risk.[Furthermore] The developer of the AWRP project has agreed to fundand deliver local highway safety improvements at the A59/A168 link roadjunction to support the delivery of the proposal scheme. Theseimprovements would pick up many of the minor improvement issuessuggested within the URS report, with the key elements of the agreedimprovement scheme being as follows:o New highlighted ghost island markings through the junction andsupporting highlighted ‘slow’ road markings;o Maintenance of visibility splays to avoid vegetation compromisingsightlines;o High friction surfacing on key junction approaches to improvevehicle stopping / slowing;o Provision of rumble strips on the approach to the A59 eastbound tothe A168 connection point.226NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/226

• The proposed package of local improvement works at the A59/A168junction will form a condition to any planning consent for the AWRPproposal scheme and be delivered via Section 278 procedures.7.327 In light of the above, the Highway Authority has confirmed that the issuesraised in the URS report do not materially affect the formal response made bythe Highway Authority in relation to the proposal. The Highway Authority has,therefore, returned no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition ofplanning conditions and the incorporation of the following matters into thelegal agreement.• Provision of Travel Plan;• Heavy Goods Vehicle Management Plan; and,• Construction Phase Traffic Management Plan, and• Highway Maintenance Contribution of £128,791 for future maintenancecosts of the A168/A59 junction safety improvements that will be requiredunder the Section 278 Highways Act Agreement.7.328 Having regard to the submitted environmental information, the developmentplan policies, government guidance and the comments and representationsreceived, as referred to above, it is reasonable to conclude that, subject tothe imposition of conditions (such as the submission of a Travel Plan includingregarding construction traffic management and access improvements) and therequirements of Section 106 and Section 278 legal agreements related to thematters referred to above, that the proposals would not give rise to anyunacceptable traffic impacts.7.329 It is therefore concluded that the development would not be in conflict withrelevant elements of policies in the NYWLP including ‘saved’ policies 4/1(g)and 4/18(f), 5/3(e) and 5/10(d) and the relevant criteria in Annex E of PPS10.7.330 In terms of Policy SG4 within Harrogate Borough Council’s Core Strategy,although concerns have been raised by objectors about a number of trafficaspects including accidents on the A168 and the A168/A59 junction, noobjections have been raised (subject to the imposition of conditions and aS278 legal agreement) by the statutory highway consultees to suggest thatthe proposal would not accord with that Policy.7.331 Furthermore, the requirement for submission of a Travel Plan will also worktowards minimising any car traffic associated with the development such thatthe development can accord with that element of Policy EQ1 of the HarrogateCore Strategy and work towards the accessibility requirements of Policy TRA1of the Harrogate District Local Plan.7.332 In conclusion, it is considered that there exist no cogent planning reasons torefuse the grant planning permission for the AWRP development on the basisof the highway-related issues alone.227NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/227

Public Rights of Way (PROW)7.333 As described in Section 3.0 of this report, the public right of way potentiallydirectly affected by the proposed development is that in connection with theelements of the development proposal related to the transfer of the electricityfrom the application site to the National Grid sub-station near Coneythorpeusing one of two possible underground cable routes. The Public Right of Wayaffected lies to the west of the core application area and more specifically theother side of the A1(M) motorway. It coincides with that part of the lineproposed as Route A for the underground connection to the sub-station.7.334 Route A follows Spitlands Lane north-west to Hill Wood, where it follows thebridleway (also known as Dale Lane) to meet Moor Lane and then south tothe substation. If Route A were to be used, there would be some disruption,albeit temporary, of the bridleway along Dale Lane as well as the road sectionof the public highway. This would be as a result of the need for the developerto go through a temporary closure order in order to undertake the works onthe Public Right of Way. Nevertheless, the applicant would be required torestore the route to an acceptable standard so it would therefore be limited toa temporary impact.7.335 Route B essentially follows the line of Clareton Lane south-west past Claretonand then north-west along Moor Lane to the substation. Route B would notaffect a bridleway, but would affect a public highway.7.336 The County Planning Authority has been advised by the applicant that theunderground cabling works are likely to be undertaken by the District NetworkOperator which as a Statutory Undertaker has permitted development rights toundertake the works. As a result, the choice of the underground cable routemay be, to a degree, out of the hands of the developer although it would bewithin the control of the County Council through its dual roles regarding itsresponsibility to Public Rights of Way and its role as the Highway Authority.7.337 However, the application has been subject to a number of representations inobjection to the development, The Ramblers Association (Harrogate) hasraised concerns about how safe access to existing public rights of way will bemaintained through the construction of the works and during operation of thesite. The British Horse Society has also raised the issue of ‘fear andintimidation’ for equestrian and non-motorised vehicle users of the A168 whenusing it as a means to link bridleways to the east and west of the A1(M) andobjects to the impact which it considers will sever the link in the public right ofway network because riders will no longer feel safe (or indeed be safe) whenusing the A168. It considers that this would discriminate against those userswhich would be contrary to the North Yorkshire Local Transport Plan 3. Itsuggests that this conflict could be mitigated if the applicant sets aside moneyfor the creation of a “behind the hedge bridleway” along the side A168 for thesafety of equestrian and NMV (non-motorised vehicle) users.228NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/228

7.338 There have also been representations made to the County Planning Authoritywith regard to the potential adverse visual impact upon users of the publicrights of way (and thereby the enjoyment of the public rights of way).Notwithstanding, the public rights of way in the immediate vicinity of theAWRP, including the bridleway routes along Moor Lane and the access toWalls Close House, there are also routes further afield to the north and east.There is no defined footpath route south along the A168, but one exists to thenorth past Thornbar Farm. Although planting is proposed as part of thelandfill restoration, that which is already planted and any additional newplanting will take time to establish and, furthermore, will only filter the views ofthe AWRP facility rather than screening it completely.7.339 The consultation responses from the relevant consultees in respect of thepublic rights of way-related consequences of the proposed development havebeen outlined within Section 4.0 of this report. Representations made to theCounty Planning Authority as a result of the publicity on this application aresummarised in Section 5.0 of this report together with the report’saccompanying Appendix A which provides more detail with regard to thesubstance of the representations made with specific regard to public rights ofway-related matters.7.340 In assessing the proposal in respect of its potential impact upon public rightsof way, due regard must be had to the relevant development plan policies asset out in Section 6.0 earlier in this report. The assessment against thepolicies that follow can be found in the remaining paragraphs of this specificsection of this report dealing with the issues of potential impact upon publicrights of way. The relevant development plan policies include:• NYWLP ’saved’ Policies, specifically:• 4/20 (Rights of Way) (“waste management facilities should nothave an unacceptable impact on the recreational value orenjoyment of the Rights of Way network”); and,• Harrogate District Local Plan ‘saved’ Policies specifically:• R11 (Rights of Way) (“Developments which would result in harm tothe character or recreational and amenity value of existing rights ofway and which do not involve the satisfactory diversion of the routewill not be permitted”)7.341 The County Council as Highway Authority, in response to consultation by theCounty Planning Authority responded via its Public Rights of Way Team. Theyhave confirmed that if the connection to the substation uses the bridlewaythen a temporary closure and full reinstatement will be required. This is amatter that would be handled by an application to the County Council underthe terms of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The works within the publichighway would also be similarly controlled. The Public Rights of Way Teamalso commented on the interaction of site traffic with non-motorised users (i.e.walkers or cyclists or horse-riders) at the site entrance.229NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/229

7.342 With regard to the impact on equestrian and non-motorised vehicle users ofthe A168, there are currently no proposals to provide a ‘behind the hedge’route along the A168, but following the receipt of the British Horse Society’scomments on 25 September 2012, the applicant has been asked to commentand a response was received on 28 September 2012.7.343 The applicant does not accept the contention of the British Horse Society thatthe AWRP development would result in material impact in traffic-relatedseverance or “fear & intimidation effects”. The A168 is a 60 mile per hournational speed limit County A-road with no specific footway / cycleway /bridleway provision within the vicinity of Allerton Park. However, the applicantpoints to there being scope for equestrians and NMV to use the former A168route which runs northwards parallel to, but separate from, the A168 betweenthe access to the AWRP site and the property called ‘Ninevah’. However, italso acknowledges that equestrians and NMV would have to use the A168 (orthe wide verge) for approximately a further 750m northwards to access thebridge across the A1(M) towards Arkendale at Marton Lane.7.344 No objections have been raised by the Highway Authority in respect of theinteraction between the use of the A168 by vehicular traffic (including theAWRP traffic) and the use of the A168 by equestrians and NMV and theapplicant is proposing to sign up to a S106 Legal Agreement that wouldinclude a Travel Plan.7.345 It is acknowledged that users of the routes in the vicinity of the site access arelikely to be affected by the traffic using the site, as they currently are already,both during the construction phase, and during operation anddecommissioning and, in terms of landscape and visual impacts on the rightsof way, these will involve changes to the character, recreation and amenityvalue of the existing routes.7.346 However, in order to address these matters, the applicant proposes someadditions to the existing landscape planting on the western side of the site toenhance the screening of the development. At best, views experienced byusers of the public rights of way to the west over the other side of the A1(M)will be filtered (albeit in the long-term as even ‘standard’ sized new trees takea number of years to establish).7.347 There are no proposals to include public access in the currently approvedrestoration of the landfill site on what is private land and no access would bepracticable for a significant period of time because of the health and safetyrequirements of operating the landfill site. No additional routes are proposedas part of the AWRP development.7.348 In light of the above, the absence of any objection from the relevant statutoryconsultees and an acknowledgement that the views experienced by the usersof the public rights of way are distant views in most cases, it is considered thatit is likely that the development will result in a limited impact upon both thesafety and the recreation and amenity value of the existing rights of way. Tothat extent, it is considered that the development would give rise to limited230NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/230

conflict with saved’ Policy R11 of the Harrogate District Local Plan and ‘saved’Policy 4/20 of the NYWLP.7.349 Notwithstanding, there is merit in the imposition of suitable control over thedevelopment by condition to ensure that impact on the public right of waynetwork is reduced. Consequently, such a condition would require a schemeoutlining the safety arrangements of users of any public rights of way affectedby the development to be submitted to and approved by the County PlanningAuthority. This would address both the issue in the vicinity of the siteentrance and the impact on rights of way irrespective of whether Route A orRoute B was used and so it is not considered necessary to identify prior todetermination which cable route is used.Ecology / Biodiversity issues7.350 The potential ecological and biodiversity impacts were discussed as part of anEnvironmental Scoping request submitted prior to the application being made.The County Council’s Principal Ecologist and Natural England (the statutoryconsultee on such matters) were among those consulted prior to theagreement of the scope. The comments were absorbed and informed theproduction of Chapter 5 of the applicant’s Environmental Statement (ES).7.351 The key potential impacts identified, by the applicant, were:• Possible loss of habitat and the species it supports;• Direct and indirect disturbance of habitats and species in the locality;• Off-site impacts on sensitive habitats and species from emissions to airand water.7.352 The applicant as part of Chapter 5 of their ES identified a number of protectedspecies groups which formed the basis of the study within the surroundingarea. The species groups identified were:• Breeding Birds• Reptiles• Bats• Water Voles• Amphibians• Badgers7.353 The applicant has identified:• 14 non-statutory Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SINCs) within5km of the site;• 2 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) within 5km of the site;• 1 Special Area of Conservation (SAC) within 10km of the site.7.354 The original ES submission accompanying the application gave rise to anumber of queries from the County Council’s Principal Ecologist and NaturalEngland. This was in relation to errors concerning the naming of both locallyand nationally protected sites and, consequently confusion relating to theimpact of the proposal on air quality and the direct impact on SINCs. Theapplicant subsequently submitted revised information under Regulation 22 of231NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/231

the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011 which was consultedupon in July 2012.7.355 A number of objections have been raised with regard to impacts onecology/biodiversity. The main focus of these concerns has been in relation,but not exclusive to, the following:• The impact of the development on habitats surrounding the applicationsite;• The lack of evidence to suggest that biodiversity will not be affected,including the impact on protected and other species (otters and newts);• Impact on SSSIs.7.356 The Yorkshire Wildlife Trust originally objected, having concerns about howthe woodland (Shepherd’s Wood is an ‘ancient woodland’) would be protectedand regarding the impact of the lighting on wildlife including bats. It alsoconsidered that the habitat management should link existing and createdhabitats. In August 2012 it confirmed that it was satisfied that the outstandingecological matters had been dealt with correctly so could withdraw itsobjection, but it still had concerns about the long term sustainability of thedevelopment.7.357 In assessing the proposal in respect of its potential ecological and biodiversityimpact, due regard must be had to the relevant development plan policies asset out in Section 6.0 earlier in this report. The assessment against thepolicies that follow can be found in the remaining paragraphs of this specificsection of this report dealing with the issues of potential ecological andbiodiversity impact. The relevant development plan policies include:• NYWLP ’saved’ Policies, specifically:• 4/9 (National Sites) (Where … proposals … have an adverse effect… on [a] SSSI they will not be permitted unless there are noalternatives and the reasons of the development clearly outweighthe [site’s] value); and• 4/10 (Locally Important Sites) (Proposals for waste managementfacilities will only be permitted where there would not be anunacceptable effect on their intrinsic interest), and• Harrogate District Local Plan ‘saved’ Policies, specifically:• NC3 (Local Wildlife Sites) (Proposals … have an adverse effect ona local nature reserve or a site of importance for natureconservation will not be permitted); and.• NC4 (Semi-Natural Habitats) (Outside designated sitesdevelopment will not be permitted which would result in the loss ofor damage to semi-natural habitats which are important for natureconservation).7.358 In addition to the above development plan policies, the County PlanningAuthority has also had regard to national policy on the protection of wildlife,including both flora and fauna. These are outlined in the paragraphs thatfollow. The Circular, Act and Regulations, also referred to below, provide forspecific procedures which must be followed when consenting operations that232NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/232

are likely to damage or harm identified features (within a SSSI), species ortheir habitat.7.359 Paragraph 5.3.11 of National Policy Statement for Energy EN-1 states:“where a proposed development on land within or outside an SSSI is likely tohave an adverse effect on an SSSI consent should not normally be granted.Where an adverse effect, after mitigation, on the site’s notified special interestfeatures is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits(including need) of the development at this site clearly outweigh both theimpacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it ofspecial scientific interest and any broader impacts on the national network ofSSSIs. Measures to mitigate the harmful aspects of the development and,where possible, to ensure the conservation and enhancement of the site’sbiodiversity or geological interest should be provided.”7.360 Paragraph 5.3.16 of the above document states that:“species and habitats that have been identified as being of principalimportance for the conservation of biodiversity in England and Wales therebyrequire conservation action. These species and habitats should be protectedfrom the adverse effects of development by using requirements or planningobligations. Consent should be refused where harm to the habitats or speciesand their habitats would result, unless the benefits (including need) of thedevelopment outweigh that harm”.7.361 The locational criterion (d) regarding ‘nature conservation’ within Annex E toPlanning Policy Statement 10 (PPS 10) states that:“considerations [for waste management development] will include any adverseeffect on a site of international importance for nature conservation (SpecialProtection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation and RAMSAR Sites) or a sitewith a nationally recognised designation (Sites of Special Scientific Interest,National Nature Reserves)”.7.362 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) identifies the overarchingduty on planning authorities to try to ensure, through development, thefurther conservation and enhancement of SSSIs when making decisions.7.363 Circular 06/2005 on Biodiversity and Geological Conservation defines thestatutory obligations, within the planning system, and provides guidance onthe range of statutory duties imposed on local authorities through Europeanand National Legislation. The Circular also advises that the potential effectsof a development on habitats or species listed as priorities in the UKBiodiversity Action Plan (BAP) are capable of being a material considerationin planning decisions. It is the presence of an internationally and/or nationallyprotected species, pursuant to The Conservation of Habitats and SpeciesRegulations 2010, which implements the requirements of the HabitatsDirective (European protected species) and the Wildlife and Countryside Act1981.233NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/233

7.364 Notwithstanding that the application site is for the most part hard-standing,there are areas of semi-natural habitat that will be lost and there will,undoubtedly, be disturbance through the three stages of development, i.e.construction, operation and de-commissioning, although such disturbance canbe minimised by a number of measures. Notwithstanding, considerations ofboth ecology and bio-diversity are material to the determination of theapplication. It is, therefore, considered the AWRP proposal should beassessed, in the context of matters relating to ecology and bio-diversity, asgiving rise to issues principally including the potential impact upon nationallyand locally designated sites for nature conservation purposes and ‘protected’species under European and national legislation and ancient woodland.7.365 With respect to either nationally or locally designated sites for natureconservation purposes, no part of the application site has a direct impact. Withspecific regard to SSSIs, the nearest such sites (Hay-a-Park and UpperDunsforth Carrs) are located over 4km distant from the application site.Materially, no objection has been returned from Natural England, the statutoryconsultee on such matters) and, furthermore Natural England has stated thatthe application will not be likely to have a significant effect on a SSSI, or otherdesignated areas such as a Ramsar, SPA (Special Protection Area) or SAC(Special Area of Conservation) (Kirk Deighton 9.8km distant).7.366 At the local level of designated sites, there are sixteen Sites of Importance forNature Conservation (SINCs), the closest of which, Bog Plantation, liesapproximately 1.1km from the application site. The ecological impactassessment does not point to there being any unacceptable effect on theintrinsic interest of the SINCs. Neither does the assessment point to therebeing any unacceptable effect on UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority speciesor key habitats, or other wildlife habitats nor are there any Local NatureReserves or Regionally Important Geological/Geo-morphological Sites in thevicinity of the application site. In responding to consultation, no objection wasreturned by Harrogate Borough Council on the specific issue of the potentialfor any adverse impact upon SINCs in their area, nor was any objectionreturned from the County Planning Authority’s adviser on ecological and biodiversitymatters, the County Council’s Principal Ecologist.7.367 With respect to ‘protected species’ under European law, the applicant’s ES,specifically the study which formulated the content of the ES, resulted in theindication of roosting bats in certain areas of the farm buildings of ClaroHouse (which is due to be converted into a Visitor and Education Centre), aswell as the potential of other buildings on site offering limited suitability forforaging. All bats are protected species pursuant to the Habitats Directive asprovided for in UK law through the Conservation of Habitats and SpeciesRegulations 2010.7.368 The bat survey (requested during the processing of the planning application)demonstrated the potential for a number of bat species (which are alsonationally rare species), including Nathusius pipistrelle, to be present at thesite. The County Council’s Principal Ecologist is satisfied with the measuresproposed and the measures are provided for through conditions or legal234NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/234

agreement, including requiring the implementation of the LandscapeManagement Plan. Similarly, Natural England have confirmed that on thebasis of the information available the proposed development is likely to affectcommon pipistrelle bats through disturbance, damage or destruction of abreeding site or resting place. Although Natural England does continue bystating that they “are satisfied that the proposed mitigation would maintain thepopulation identified in the survey report.” and “subject to securing themitigation proposed within Appendix B9 ‘Bat Mitigation and Protection Plan’ ofthe Environmental statement, including, but not restricted to, the provision ofbat friendly features and restriction on timing of works to protect hibernatingbats”. No objection has been returned from either the County Council’sPrincipal Ecologist or Natural England specifically relating to the protectedspecies of bats.7.369 Although a number of objections have been received in relation to theproposal’s potential impact on the population of newts, no great crested newts(GCNs) (a European protected species) were recorded during the surveyswhich informed the applicant’s ES. The applicant did, however, identify otherspecies of amphibian were recorded in the surveys including common toad,common frog and smooth newt, although it should be noted that these are notafford the same statutory protection as GCNs. The applicant’s ES concludesthat whilst none of the water features are to be directly affected by the works,there is the potential for some terrestrial habitat to be affected and therefore,any impacts are assessed to be slight adverse. Again, no objection has beenreturned from either the County Council’s Principal Ecologist or NaturalEngland specifically relating to the amphibian populations that inhabit the areasurrounding the site.7.370 With respect to nationally-protected species and more specifically birds, theapplicant’s ES did not identify the presence of Red Kites during the survey,although, it has been mentioned, by objectors, that the site is within theterritory of the Red Kite. This is confirmed and acknowledged, butnevertheless, their presence has not given rise to any objection from eitherthe Principal Ecologist or Natural England.7.371 With respect to the protected species of badgers (protected under theProtection of Badgers Act 1992), whilst the applicant’s ES identified evidenceof badger activity within the adjacent landfill site, there was no evidence of anysetts found during the surveys. There has been no identified likelihood ofdevelopment disturbing a badger sett or adversely affecting their foragingterritory. Again, their existence their presence has not given rise to anyobjection from either the Principal Ecologist or Natural England.7.372 With respect to the potential for adverse impact upon the ancient woodland asa consequence of the implementation of the AWRP proposal, TheEnvironmental Statement and Natural England both acknowledged thepresence of ancient woodland in the vicinity of the site. Such a habitat fallswithin the classification of ‘semi-natural habitat’ under the terms of Policy NC4of the Harrogate District Local Plan because it is a habitat where current and235NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/235

past management practices including farming and forestry have resulted inthe conservation of areas capable of supporting wildlife.7.373 It is, therefore, necessary to consider the potential impact on that habitat. Thenearest ancient woodland is Shepherd’s Wood to the east of the access to theproperties at Walls Close House which covers an area of approximately 6.3hectares. In its response of 14 December 2011, Natural England advised ithad issued ‘standing advice’ applicable to a collection of authorities in thesouth-east of England. However, it observed that, whilst the advice onlyapplies to those specific local planning authorities, it offers some helpfulguidance which is applicable throughout England.7.374 Ancient woodland is a scarce resource, amounting to about only 3% of thecountry’s land area 2 . NPPF paragraph 118 advises that planning permissionshould be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration ofirreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland. The standing advice alsorefers to the UK Biodiversity Action Plan “Keeper‘s of Time”, issued in 2005 byDefra and the Forestry Commission, which was a statement of policy forEngland‘s ancient and native woodland which re-emphasised their value,evaluates threats and opportunities and sets out a range of actions to improvetheir protection and quality. The ‘standing advice’ sets out a checklist to aidplanners in assessing the effect of individual applications on ancientwoodland.7.375 In terms of the checklist, no part of the development proposals lie withinShepherd’s Wood. The ES and consultation process has considered thepotential impact on the wood and protected species including the potential forair and water pollution impacts; there is no proposal to increase access to thewoodland and it is proposed to use native species in the landscaping of thedevelopment. Natural England and the County Council’s Principal Ecologisthave raised no objections on this specific issue.7.376 The Forestry Commission has been consulted on the application and to datehas raised no objections. It is therefore considered that, subject to theconditions covering the control of dust and drainage, it is unlikely that therewill be any loss or damage to Shepherd’s Wood and hence there is no conflictwith Policy NC4 of the Harrogate District Local Plan. In addition, the proposedlandscaping with native species will contribute to increasing the totalwoodland area in the Region in accordance with the aims of part A of PolicyENV6 of the RSS7.377 In conclusion, both the ES and the revised information, have been reviewedby Natural England and the County Council’s Principal Ecologist whoindicated that they were satisfied that the development will not unduly impacton the surrounding area. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal hastaken into account the requirements of EU Directive (92/43/EEC) regarding onthe conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.2 Natural England “Standing Advice for Ancient Woodland” (30 May 2012)236NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/236

7.378 It is also considered that the development would not be contrary to ‘saved’Policy 4/9 of the NYWLP and does not conflict with the guidance on SSSIs inPPS10 or National Policy Statement for Energy EN-1.7.379 Furthermore, it is considered that the proposal would accord with theprinciples of ‘saved’ Policy 4/10 of the NYWLP and ‘saved’ Policies NC3 andNC4 of the Harrogate District Local Plan subject to conditions. Thedevelopment will also subject to conditions be in accordance with theprinciples of Policy ENV8 of the RSS relating to incorporation of biodiversityinto development (through the proposed planting).Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Flood Risk7.380 The applicant has submitted a detailed Hydrology, Hydrogeology and FloodRisk Assessment (FRA) as part of the ES, Chapter 7, in support of theapplication. A review was undertaken of the local hydrology of the site andthe surrounding area (up to 5km radius from the centre of the site). Thepurpose was to identify the potential impacts associated with the proposal.7.381 The assessment identified that there are no significant surface watercourseson site other than a surface water drain which discharges to Ouse Gill Beck.The Ouse Gill Beck discharges to the River Ouse approximately 2.5km furtherto the east. The other major watercourse in the region is the River Nidd,located approximately 4.5km to the southwest. The applicant has alsoidentified that the site lies within Flood Zone 1 on the Environment Agency’sFlood Maps and therefore at the lowest risk of flooding.7.382 The Government planning policy on flood risk is set out in the NPPF and itssupporting Technical Guidance. It is a requirement that flood riskassessments are provided with applications for sites in areas of higher floodrisk as identified on the Environment Agency’s maps. Section 10, paragraph100 of the NPPF requires that a sequential approach is applied to direct themost vulnerable development to areas of lowest flood risk, matchingvulnerability of land use to flood risk. However, as already identified in theabove paragraph, the site is located in an area identified as one which is leastlikely to flood.7.383 The application site is also located within the outer extent of an EnvironmentAgency (EA) designated Groundwater Source Protection Zone (GSPZ),although there are no potable water abstraction licences within 1km of theSite. The assessment concluded that “control measures in accordance withgood practice will be implemented during the construction phase to minimiseany risk to the receiving water environment. Assuming that these measuresare effectively implemented then there would be no risk posed to controlledwaters”.7.384 The application site will, if approved, incorporate and improve the sitedrainage compared to the existing conditions. No objections have beenreceived from the EA, other than to require the imposition of appropriateconditions, or the relevant drainage board in relation to the use of storagelagoons and the restricted run-off rates.237NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/237

7.385 The development would not have an unacceptable flood risk or other impacton the water environment associated with the development provided theconditions required by the Environment Agency are attached to any planningpermission which may be granted. The development would also be subject toan Environmental Permit issued by the Environment Agency which wouldcontrol any potential pollution of the water environment.7.386 It is therefore considered that the application is in accordance with thefollowing development plan policies: Policy EQ1 of the Harrogate DistrictLocal Plan and RSS Policies ENV1, ENV3 and YH2 as the proposals will,subject to conditions, seek to minimise flood risk. Furthermore, thedevelopment is in a low flood risk area in accordance with the NPPF.Geology, contaminated land and stability7.387 The geology of the area comprises superficial glacial deposits, described aseither till or sandy till, with a local outcrop of glacial sand and gravel, whichwhat has been quarried at the site and to the north. The underlying bedrock isSherwood Sandstone, which is Triassic in age. Chapter 6 of the ES hasidentified a number of potential existing sources of contamination. Theexisting landfill at Allerton Park is monitored in regard to both landfill gas andgroundwater matters and the issues associated with these two topics areaddressed under their respective headings elsewhere in this report. Twoformer areas of landfill located 0.45 and 0.95km to the south are consideredby the ES assessment to be too remote as pollution sources because of alack of evidence of landfill gas emitting from these sites and data thatgroundwater flows from north to south there is no risk to groundwater fromleachate from those sites. Existing above and below ground fuel storagetanks are also potential sources.7.388 There are no reported instances of unstable natural slopes in this area andthe applicant proposes that the design of proposed earthworks will take intoaccount the safe angle of repose of the materials being used. Equally thereare no reports of any gypsum dissolution occurrences, landslips, mining,natural ground subsidence or natural cavities in the vicinity of the coreapplication area of the site. Within the representations received by the CountyPlanning Authority concern has been raised about the potential for pollutedrun-off to leave the site. However, drainage control and contamination arematters which can be controlled by planning condition as recommended bythe Environment Agency both during the development and duringdecommissioning. Furthermore, the development will also be subject to therequirements of the Environmental Permit as regulated by the EnvironmentAgency.7.389 The NPPF recommends preventing both new and existing development fromcontributing to “... unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution orland instability” and it is considered that subject to the imposition of conditionsregarding drainage control and contamination that unacceptable levels ofpollution can be prevented such that there would be accordance with theNPPF, Policy 5/10 (criterion e) of the NYWLP and PPS10 Annex E on thatmatter. In terms of land stability it is not considered that there is an existing238NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/238

issue with this matter and only limited excavation is proposed (to install thewaste bunkers) and hence it is considered that the development does accordwith the principles of ‘saved’ Policy A7 of the Harrogate District Local Plan.Other issuesSocio-Economic Impact7.390 A number of objections have been received against the proposal fromresidents, Parish Councils and Interest Groups citing a number of socioeconomicissues. The main issues raised cite the following:• The development will destroy the tourism industry for a number of years;• The proposal will have a significant effect on house prices in thesurrounding area;• The proposed development will not bring significant long-term financialbenefits to the area that will outweigh the harm to the existing tourismeconomy;• The proposed development offers no benefits to the local economy tobalance the disruption and harm created.7.391 The NPPF (Section 1) states the Government’s commitment to securingeconomic growth. It indicates that the “Government is committed to ensuringthat the planning system does everything it can to support sustainableeconomic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as animpediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should beplaced on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.”It also expresses support for existing business sectors and, a need, wherepossible, to identify and plan for new or emerging sectors likely to locate in thearea.7.392 National Policy Statement for Energy EN-1, paragraph 5.12 states that “socioeconomicfactors, including job creation (both during construction andoperation and the impact on local services) and tourism, are considerationsfor energy facilities”.Job Creation7.393 The ES includes a chapter on socio-economic impacts. This states that theproposal is likely to have a temporary minor beneficial effect at a county levelduring the construction phase in terms of job creation and a minor beneficialeffect at a local level during the operational phase. In the region of 400 jobswould be created during construction and 70 direct full-time jobs during theoperation of the site. This takes account of the displacement of 15 jobs at theexisting quarry and a potential displacement of 8 jobs from the landfill site,such that a net increase of 47 jobs would be created during operation of theplant.7.394 The ES states that approximately 90% of labour would reside within the NorthYorkshire area. However, it also indicates that a proportion of the morespecialised jobs may be filled by people from outside the area. This mayreduce the extent of any benefits which may accrue to the local economy.Indirect benefits from employment are assessed as being of minor beneficial239NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/239

impact at a local level. The applicant estimates that total Gross Value Addedto the North Yorkshire economy over the life of the contract would be £650million (at 2010 prices). Whilst the precise scale of indirect benefits that wouldarise is difficult to predict with a high degree of certainty, it is considered thatthe potential employment opportunities offered by the development, togetherwith any indirect benefits to the economy that may arise, is a factor whichweighs in favour of the development.Tourism7.395 Tourism is important to the local economy in North Yorkshire. Objectors haveexpressed concern that tourism would be prejudiced by the proposal. Thedirect or in-direct impact on tourism and recreation, identified by the applicantas outdoor recreation and venue destination, has been assessed in the ES asbeing minor adverse at a local level. The visitor and education facilityproposed as part of the development is predicted to lead to a minor beneficialimpact at a local level.7.396 Although there are visitor attractions in the area around the application site, itis considered that the overall impact of the development on tourism is difficultto establish with a high degree of confidence. Overall, it is not considered thatthere is sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that there would be asignificant harmful impact on tourism interests, or that the development wouldbe unacceptable for this reason.Devaluation of Properties7.397 A number of concerns have also been raised with regard to the impact on thelocal housing market. However, whilst a genuine concern to residents in thecurrent economic climate, the potential effect on property prices is not amaterial planning consideration.On-site waste minimisation7.398 The applicant has confirmed that due to the estimated cost of the project theSite Waste Management Plans Regulations 2008 require that a site wastemanagement plan is prepared before any works commence on site. Theplans must record details of the construction project, estimates of the typesand quantities of waste that will be produced, and confirmation of the actualwaste types generated and how they have been managed. The aim of theregulations is to ensure that developers manage their own waste effectively inlines with waste management controls and reducing the amount of wasteproduced and encouraging recovery of as much as possible of the remainder.These regulations are enforced by the Environment Agency.7.399 Policy 5/1 of the NYWLP requires that proposals for major developmentsinclude a statement identifying the waste implications of the development andthe measures taken to minimise and manage the waste generated. It isconsidered that the draft site waste management plan submitted as Appendix1B to the applicant’s Planning Statement fulfils this requirement in relation toNYWLP Policy 5/1, as on-site waste minimisation will be enforced by theEnvironment Agency. However, as the draft does not refer to on-site wasteminimisation during decommissioning it is considered prudent to include240NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/240

eference to that element within the proposed planning conditions shouldMembers be minded to resolve to grant planning permission.Agricultural land7.400 As described elsewhere in this report, the area is predominantly agriculturaland prior to extraction the AWRP site included land which would be classifiedas ‘best and most versatile’ (i.e. land at grade 3a and above). The originalquarry and landfill permission provided for the site to be restored to agriculturewith some hedgerows and woodland blocks. The planning condition requiredthe restoration and aftercare to restore the land to the “required standard foruse for agriculture (i.e. to restore its physical characteristics, so far as it ispracticable to do so, to what they were when it was last used for agriculture”.The principle of restoration to agriculture with woodland blocks andhedgerows has been continued through the grant of subsequent planningpermissions at the site.7.401 In terms of Policy 4/7 of the NYWLP and ENV7 of the RSS, this proposal istechnically not being proposed on in-situ ‘best and most versatile’ land; ratherit includes land which prior to extraction was of that quality. Quarry and wastemanagement development (including the stripping of the soils) has beentaking place at the site since the 1990s which pre-dates the adoption of boththe NYWLP and the RSS. In developing the quarry and landfill site theagricultural soils have largely been stripped and stored and, in part, have beenused in the still on-going progressive restoration of the site in accordance withapproved details. The AWRP proposal also includes provision for the site tobe restored to agriculture and will create new woodland (and hence newwildlife habitats) during the landscaping of the development and in the eventof the plant being decommissioned. Consequently, it is not considered thatthere is any direct conflict with either of those policies. Furthermore, as hasbeen the situation with previous decisions at this site, if Members were toresolve to grant planning permission, the standard of restoration of the site toagriculture can be controlled by the use of conditions in accordance withPolicies 4/18 and 4/20 of the NYMLP.Cumulative Impact7.402 The EIA Regulations 2011 require an Environmental Statement to considercumulative effects, i.e. the cumulative effect of the project being carried outalongside other developments. This should form part of the description of thelikely significant effects of the development on the environment. This shouldcover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, “cumulative”, short,medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negativeeffects of the development. It should also cover effects resulting from theexistence of the development; the use of natural resources; the emission ofpollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of waste, and thedescription by the applicant of the forecasting methods used to assess theeffects on the environment.241NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/241

7.403 PPS10, paragraph 21(i) states that in deciding which sites to identify for wastemanagement facilities, waste planning authorities should assess theirsuitability for development against a number of criteria including: “thecumulative effect of previous waste disposal facilities on the well-being of thelocal community, including any significant adverse impacts on environmentalquality, social cohesion and inclusion or economic potential”.(a) Existence of Other Developments7.404 As explained in Section 2.0 earlier in this report, the application site has beensubject to the effects of quarrying and continues to be affected by an ongoinglandfill operation. The landscape impacts of these developments in thecontext of the AWRP proposal have been discussed elsewhere in this report,but it is relevant to consider here whether a grant of planning permission forthe AWRP proposal would prejudice the restoration of the landfill site. Plan 4(attached) illustrates the restoration landform which is currently beingimplemented the landfill operator (FCC Environment). This landform could notbe implemented, in full, if the AWRP development was permitted as theAWRP site would be built on part of the land to be restored under thatscheme. Likewise, the AWRP development would preclude the fullimplementation of the alternative restoration works proposed if the leachateand short rotation coppice development were to be implemented by FCCEnvironment (Plans 5 and 6 illustrate). Consequently, it is necessary toconsider the implications of this situation.7.405 At the site, it appears that the AWRP proposal could be prejudicial to therestoration of the adjoining/overlapping landfill and quarrying operationsbecause:i) The AWRP proposal would prejudice the ability of FCC Environment tofully comply with the restoration condition of the landfill site because bybeing within the footprint of Planning Permission C6/500/63J/CMA itwould affect compliance with the restoration terms of that permission forthe life of the AWRP proposal. Even at 25 years that would be wellbeyond the current permitted life of the landfill site (December 2018) bywhich the landfill site is meant to be restored.ii)iii)The minerals plant site equipment has largely been demolished and,although the concrete plant is still present, the minerals use is virtuallycomplete. However, a clean water lagoon which is part of the quarryoperation and, currently approved for restoration to agriculture, wouldform a surface water attenuation pond as part of the AWRP developmentand, in the long-term, upon decommissioning of the facility, would not bereturned to agriculture. Hence, AWRP would be prejudicial to fullcompliance with the terms of existing planning permissions at the site,although in terms of biodiversity the retention of a pond, this is notnecessarily unacceptable.The applicant has been in discussions with FCC Environment (and whenthe site was operated by WRG) concerning the implications of the AWRPproposal on the EP Permit for the landfill. The current permit covers a242NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/242

smaller area than the footprint of Planning Permission C6/500/63J/CMAand the applicant has indicated that FCC Environment will be applyingfor a revised EP permit with a revised boundary to match the applicant’slease boundary. However, the landfill restoration condition requirementsmake no distinction between the actual landfill cells and the adjacentland where the minerals plant site has been located (and where theAWRP site is now proposed). The approved restoration scheme includessome material placement on the former minerals plant site and‘dovetailing’ into the landfill area. Implementation of the AWRP schemewould prevent that element of the restoration works from beingcompleted until such time as the AWRP facility was removed.7.406 However, it is considered that, notwithstanding the details in the ES and theproposals illustrated in Plans 8-10 attached to this report, a condition shouldbe imposed to require that before the development is commissioned ascheme shall be submitted and approved for addressing the issue of therestoration of the landfill boundaries by the applicant which is considered to bea reasonable solution applicable to the development.7.407 In terms of other developments in the vicinity, the applicant has included in theES an assessment of the potential effects of the proposed development in thecontext of the following developments and the cumulative effects that mayresult, notably those arising from the following proposals (neither of which wassubject to an EIA at the time of their submission for planning permission):• Application Ref 09/01788/FULMAJ – Flaxby Golf and Country Club• Application Ref NY/2009/0263/FUL– Leachate Treatment Facility – WRG7.408 The leachate facility would be screened from the south by the landfill andsome of the short rotation coppice would be visible from viewpoints in the nearvicinity. The landfill operator envisaged at the time of the decision in 2010that, if implemented, the use of the land for short rotation coppice to deal withthe leachate produced by the landfill site would need to occur for up to 30years. Nonetheless, it is not considered that, if implemented, the leachatedevelopment would have a significant additional cumulative impact inconjunction with the proposed AWRP development such that anyunacceptable cumulative impact would occur with regard to the requirementsof ‘saved’ Policy 4/1 of the NYWLP and the requirements of paragraph 21 ofPPS10.7.409 As is noted in the Area 68 part of the Harrogate District Landscape CharacterAssessment (Feb 2004) the agricultural nature of the area has already beenimpacted by the grant and development of the golf course at Flaxby. Indeedone of the sensitivities identified in that Assessment is that the landscape ofthis area provides the setting to the south of Allerton Park Registered HistoricPark and Garden and this setting is described as “already being impactedupon as a result of the A1(M), the A168 and the A59. In addition, the new golfcourse development in the north west quadrant of the A1(M)/A59 junction hasresulted in significant changes to the landscape setting of the Park andGarden. The capacity of the landscape to accept further change withoutdetriment to its character and the setting of Allerton Park is limited”.243NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/243

7.410 The application to erect a hotel and new golf club house at the Flaxby golfcourse as submitted in 2009 (Reference 09/01788/FULMAJ) is still pendingformal determination by Harrogate Borough Council, although their PlanningCommittee have resolved to approve it. The scheme also includesimprovements to an access road, a reed bed system and alterations to ajunction with the A59 highway. The buildings would be centred on the existingclub house which is located to the east of the village of Flaxby and markedwith a CH to the west of the A1(M) on Plan 2 attached to this report. It wouldlie approximately 2km from the AWRP site. Amongst the issues raised duringconsultation by the Borough Council regarding that development are highwaysrequirements in relation to traffic from that development using the junctionfrom Flaxby onto the A59. The requirements are understood to be the subjectof on-going discussions between the applicant for the Flaxby developmentwith the Highways Agency, and the impact on the Temple of Victory which hasbeen the subject of discussion with English Heritage.7.411 As the further development at the Golf Course has yet to be finally determinedit is not possible to fully assess the impact that it would have in combinationwith the AWRP proposal. Nevertheless, the applicant for the AWRP facilityhas considered, in the Environmental Statement accompanying the planningapplication, the potential for cumulative landscape and visual effects of theproposed development at the Golf Course (and also the proposed LeachateTreatment Facility at the Allerton Park landfill site) in association with theAWRP facility.7.412 The ES concludes that, although some cumulative landscape and visualimpacts were identified with the Golf Course development, and negligiblecumulative impacts in association with the leachate facility, none of theseeffects would be sufficient to alter the overall significance of effects identifiedfor the AWRP on its own. It is further noted that the Traffic and TransportationAssessment assumed transport movements for the proposed development atthe Golf Course. Whilst the conclusions of the ES are noted, it is alsorelevant that the Harrogate District Landscape Character Assessment(February 2004), referred to above, identifies the limited capacity of thelandscape in this area. This suggests that the two developments, if permittedand implemented could, in combination, further increase the pressure on thislandscape.7.413 Nevertheless, it is also noted that relevant statutory consultees have notobjected on grounds of potential cumulative impact in terms of landscape andtraffic and it is considered that there would not be a significant additionalcumulative impact from the AWRP facility in conjunction with the proposedGolf Course development such that any unacceptable cumulative impactwould occur having regard to the requirements of ‘saved’ Policy 4/1 of theNYWLP.244NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/244

7.414 A number of objections have been received which state that the applicant hasnot assessed the proposal against other similar developments within the area.The developments cited were:• A Multi-fuel generating station at Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station,Stranglands Lane, Knottingley Decision No. 12.04.09/24C;• 'Wilton 11', Energy Recovery Facility, Wilton International Site, RedcarDecision No. R/2010/0621/CL;• Leeds EfW – proposed as a PFI project and is now subject to a planningapplication ref. no. 12/02668/FU;• Bradford EfW – proposed as a PFI project is now subject to a planningapplication ref. no. 12/01947/FULThese are all located a substantial distance away from the proposed AWRPsite and it is not considered that any significant cumulative impacts are likelyto occur in association with them.7.415 Objectors have expressed the concern that the scheme, if approved, wouldgenerate ‘urban sprawl’ because of the likely co-location of related industrialfacilities that would wish to take advantage of the potential heat supply aheadof other locations. They consider this means that, if approved, the schemewill pave the way for significant urban spread and associated environmentalimpacts. It is not considered that such a scenario is likely. No specificproposals of this nature are part of the AWRP proposal and any additionalbuilt development at or near the site would need to be the subject of aplanning application(s) at which point any potential cumulative impact materialat the time would have to be assessed.7.416 A number of other cumulative issues, in addition to the two identifiedapplications, have also been considered by the applicant, namely the potentialcumulative environmental effects in terms of transport, air quality, noise,landscape and visual amenity, and water resources in various chapters of theES. The ES concludes that no significant impacts have been identified for anyof the environmental topics considered as part of the EIA.7.417 PPS10 requires planning authorities to consider the cumulative effect ofprevious waste disposal facilities in relation to the well-being of the localcommunity, including significant adverse impacts on environmental quality,social cohesion and inclusion or economic potential. There have been anumber of effects arising from the existing waste management operations atthe site: visual, traffic, impact on amenity arising from litter and smells,changes to the landscape. These impacts have been considered during thedetermination of the many applications over the past 20 years and have beensubject to the imposition of planning conditions in order to mitigate andminimise the effects on local residents and the environment.7.418 It is not considered that previous waste disposal activities at the Allertonlandfill site have given rise to significant adverse effects in relation to thematters referred to in PPS10, except to the extent that emissions of methaneand other landfill gases from the landfill are likely to have had an adverseimpact in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. It is not, therefore, considered245NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/245

that the history of previous waste disposal operations in the vicinity lead to alikelihood of unacceptable cumulative impact should the AWRP facility bedeveloped.b) Use of natural resources7.419 Development and operation of the AWRP facility would require utilisation of arange of natural resources including land, water, materials and energy. Theuse of such resources is likely to be required independent of the exact natureof the solution used for managing residual waste and it is not considered thatthere is any evidence to suggest that the AWRP facility would give rise tounacceptable cumulative impact for this reason.c) Emissions and creation of nuisances7.420 For reasons set out elsewhere in this report, it is not considered that thedevelopment would, in itself, give rise to unacceptable cumulative impactthrough specific emissions or other nuisances. It is further concluded, takinginto account the advice received from the relevant consultees, that there is noevidence to suggest that the development either, as a whole, or incombination with other development, would be likely to give rise tounacceptable cumulative impacts with respect to these particular matters.d) Elimination of wastes7.421 The AWRP facility is proposed to operate as an energy recovery facility whichmoves waste up the ‘hierarchy’ by recovering more value from it. It would alsoenable an increased rate of recycling to be achieved and the positive use ofIncinerator Bottom Ash as a secondary aggregate. It is not, therefore,considered that the development would give rise to unacceptable cumulativeimpact in relation to this matter.e) Combination effects7.422 Natural England has confirmed that it is satisfied that there would be nounacceptable adverse impacts from the cumulative/ in combination effects ofother developments.7.423 The Environment Agency has confirmed that they will consider the ‘incombination’ effects as part of their consideration of the Environmental Permitapplications.7.424 In terms of the potential cumulative impact on the road network, neither theHighway Authority nor the Highways Agency has returned any objection to theproposals.Climate Change IssuesEnergy recovery7.425 The applicant considers that a key benefit of the scheme would be theproduction of 24MW of electrical energy for export to the local distributionnetwork. They state that this would be sufficient to power 40,000 homes.This energy would be generated primarily by the EfW facility, with acontribution from the burning of biogas produced in the Anaerobic Digestion246NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/246

facility. Energy derived from the biomass fraction of the waste feedstockwould be renewable energy, with the remainder classed as low carbonenergy. Article 2 of the EU Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC definesbiomass as the “biodegradeable fraction of products, waste and residues frombiological origin from agriculture, forestry and related industries…as well asthe biodegradeable fraction of industrial and municipal waste”.7.426 As a result, energy produced through the AD facility, approximately 1MWwould be renewable energy, with a proportion of the energy produced via theEfW also being renewable. The applicant states that overall a total of around15.5MW of renewable energy (i.e. produced from the biodegradable fractionof waste) would be generated by the facility. To put this in context, such afigure is broadly comparable with the capacity of the Knabbs Ridge WindFarm site near Harrogate. Whilst it is difficult to state with certainty what theactual proportion of renewable energy generated by the facility would be, it isconsidered likely that it would be significant in terms of the total contribution tosuch supply from sources in the area.7.427 The applicant also considers that the energy generated by the developmentwould help increase security, diversity and reliability of supply and also helpcontribute to national targets for increased supply of electricity from suchsources (including the UK commitment to a target of producing 15% of its totalenergy from renewable sources by 2020), thereby helping to contribute tomanagement of the causes of climate change.7.428 Current national planning policy on climate change is set out in the NPPF,which indicates that “... planning plays a key role in helping shape places tosecure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions … and supporting thedelivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure”.It further states that planning authorities should have a positive strategy topromote energy from renewable and low carbon sources and to design theirpolicies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy while ensuring thatadverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscapeand visual impacts.7.429 The NPPF confirms that, when determining planning applications, LPAsshould not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate theoverall need for renewable and low carbon energy and also recognise thateven small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cuttinggreenhouse gas emissions. It also indicates (at paragraph 98) that LPAsshould approve the application if “its impacts are (or can be) madeacceptable”.7.430 The Government’s Review of Waste Policy 2011 also indicates a commitmentto support energy from waste, where appropriate, and for waste which cannotbe recycled, (not only in the context of waste management, but also in relationto low carbon and renewable energy provision and climate change). It alsoindicates a need to work to overcome the barriers to increasing the energyfrom waste which Anaerobic Digestion provides, as set out in the newAnaerobic Digestion Strategy. Further support for the delivery of renewable247NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/247

and/or low carbon energy is provided in the Energy White Paper, the UKRenewable Energy Strategy and the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan.7.431 RSS Policy ENV5 encourages the maximisation of renewable energy capacityand contains a specific target for delivery of new capacity in the NorthYorkshire sub-region of 428MW by 2021. The renewable energy element ofthe development (according to the applicant circa 15.5MW would berenewable i.e. the energy produced from the biodegradable fraction of thewaste) would contribute to meeting this target.7.432 National policy on energy developments is also contained in National PolicyStatement EN-1 and EN-3. Whilst the stated purpose of these is to set outpolicy for nationally significant infrastructure projects determined by the MajorInfrastructure Planning Unit (MIPU), the NPPF indicates that the NationalPolicy Statements (NPSs) are material in taking decisions on planningapplications. The NPSs emphasise the Government’s policy commitment toreducing greenhouse gas emissions and to meet the target of producing 15%of total energy requirements from renewable energy by 2020. They indicatethat recovery of energy from waste where in accordance with the wastehierarchy, is one of the technologies likely to contribute to future energyrequirements, as well as potentially forming an important element of wastestrategies and re-confirms that the energy produced from the biomass fractionof waste is renewable.7.433 NPS1 supports the utilisation of combined heat and power (CHP) and requiresapplicants for nationally significant projects to consider opportunities for CHPat the earliest opportunity, if necessary justify why its use may not be feasibleand allow for potential opportunities for utilisation. The National WasteStrategy also encourages the locating of facilities where there areopportunities for CHP.7.434 It should be noted, however, that the provision of CHP has a knock-on disbenefitof reducing the amount of electricity that can be generated as rejectsteam is diverted away from the turbine and its ability to produce the wattageof electricity currently calculated to be produced. The applicant has indicatedthat the AWRP facility could be configured so as to enable utilisation of CHP.However, at this stage, no specific user of heat has been identified and thereis therefore considerable uncertainty as to whether the facility would operateas a CHP facility.7.435 The Environment Agency, in their response to consultation, has indicated thatlocating waste incineration facilities remotely from potential users of wasteheat “will significantly limit opportunities to achieve high levels of energyrecovery beyond those that can be controlled by an Environmental Permit”.The guidelines suggest that “where facilities are proposed greater than 5kmfrom dense urban areas or significant heat users, combined heat and power isunlikely to be implemented”. They also note that by utilising waste heat,average energy recovery can be increased from around 23% to around 60%or higher. In providing these comments the EA also note that parts ofKnaresborough are within 5km of the proposed site.248NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/248

7.436 In this respect Members’ attention is drawn to the fact that the applicant hasproduced a Heat Assessment, accompanying the planning application andintended as an initial scoping of opportunities to supply heat, which identifies anumber of potential locations of heat demand. The study identifies two mainareas of concentration of potential heat demand sites; mixed developments tothe south west of the site in Harrogate/Knaresborough and; business andindustrial developments to the north around the A1 in the vicinity ofBoroughbridge.7.437 The report states that the majority of these are between 5km and 10km fromthe site. Objectors have expressed the view that there is no realistic prospectof the AWRP facility operating as a CHP facility and that this is a fundamentaldrawback of the proposal. Overall, it is concluded that there is likely to besome potential for heat utilisation from the scheme, but the extent of thispotential is limited by the location of the site in relation to other majordevelopment. In the absence of realistic prospect of delivery of CHP at thispoint in time, it would not be appropriate to give significant weight to anypotential heat usage.7.438 Objectors also express concern about the potential for the facility toencourage other industrial, commercial or other development to co-locate withthe facility to utilise the CHP potential, thus further adding to the extent of newdevelopment in the open countryside. Whilst Officers do not accept that sucha scenario is likely, any such development would need to be subject of aplanning application/s and it is not considered appropriate to give significantweight to this particular concern in determining the AWRP application.7.439 A related issue to climate change and energy efficiency is the sustainabilitycredentials of the proposed buildings themselves. The applicant hassubmitted an assessment utilising the Building Research EstablishmentAssessment Method (BREEAM) for industrial buildings. The applicantanticipates that a scoring of ‘very good’ can be achieved in the construction ofthe development as currently designed, thereby bringing the development intocompliance with Harrogate Borough Council’s Core Strategy Policy EQ1.Conclusion on the energy-related issues7.440 Overall, it is considered that the contribution the development would make tothe supply of renewable and low carbon energy, in general compliance withcurrent national and regional policy on both waste and energy, is a benefit ofthe scheme to which significant weight should be attached. However, theabsence of a confirmed ability to deliver CHP reduces the certainty that themaximum potential energy supply benefit from the scheme could be realisedand it is considered that this reduces the overall amount of weight that couldotherwise attach to such benefit. If Members were minded to resolve to grantplanning permission, it is recommended that a condition is imposed to ensurethat the applicant takes ongoing steps during the life of the development toexplore and where possible deliver opportunities for utilisation of CHP.249NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/249

Waste and Resources Assessment Tool for the Environment (WRATE)7.441 This is a tool which enables the environmental impacts of alternative wastemanagement options to be compared with one another on a ‘like for like’basis. The applicant in this case has included in the planning application thesubmission of a report on the results of what is referred to as a WRATEanalysis. This uses a computerised software tool developed on behalf of theEnvironment Agency.7.442 One of its primary designed purposes is to provide a tool for use by thoseresponsible for the preparation of effective sustainable waste managementstrategies for the disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW), i.e. municipalwaste strategies. Whilst aimed at those working within local government,QUANGOs, consultants and those in the waste industry, its target audienceincludes those tasked with making decisions on the identification ofsustainable waste management strategies.7.443 WRATE uses life cycle assessment to include the resources used, wastetransportation and operation of a whole range of waste managementprocesses with their environmental costs and benefits including the likelypositive and/or negative climate change impacts.7.444 The applicant’s appointed expert in relation to WRATE analysis, FichtnerConsulting Engineers Limited, prepared a report which formed part of a suiteof supporting documentation accompanying the planning application. FichtnerConsulting’s report, dated 7 March 2011, conveys the results of their analysisof the environmental impacts of the proposed development using theEnvironment Agency’s WRATE software.7.445 This document analysed two scenarios. The first being a baseline model (i.e.a scenario where all the waste is sent to landfill) and the second being theproposed development (i.e. the AWRP solution including the Mechanical pre-Treatment (MT) facility, the Anaerobic Digestion (AD) facility and the Energyfrom Waste (EfW) facility).7.446 The results of the analysis concluded that the proposed development (basedon a first year of operation of 2015/16, an input mix of 222,340 tonnes ofMSW, 26,487 tonnes of HWRC residual and 67,584 tonnes of C&I waste (atotal of 316,411 tonnes) and an energy mix of 36.9% Gas CCGT, 32% Coal,12.9% Nuclear, 9.3% Wind and 8.9% Others) was found to have a net climatechange saving of 130,200 tonnes of CO 2e .7.447 Fichtner Consulting explain in their report that this figure is derived from thereduction in carbon emissions from the avoidance of the use of carbon-richfuels, such as oil, gas and coal in the generation of electricity and theprevention against the creation of the greenhouse gases (GHGs) (includingmethane (CH 4 ) which has an environmental effect some 25 times greater thanCO 2. ) from the continuing reliance on the disposal of waste by landfill. Theygo on to explain in their report that the 130,200 tonnes would compriseapproximately 60,100 tonnes of CO 2e in fossil-fuel use avoidance and 70,100tonnes of CO 2e in GHG prevention.250NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/250

7.448 Following the initial consultation by the County Council on this application, anumber of concerns were received from Parish Councils, interest groups andmembers of the public in relation to the use of WRATE as an effectiveanalysis tool to assess the proposal and raised questions in relation to thefigures used by the applicant within their projections.7.449 In its representation received on 31 January 2012, the Parish Councils’ Groupcontends:“The applicant fails to robustly assess the GHG impacts of AWRP againstother technologies and the relative merits of single versus multiple sitesolutions. His WRATE models use inconsistent and misleading base-line datathat provide an inaccurate impression of the apparent GHG benefits of AWRP.This entire approach requires independent validation. Other technologies,notably Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT), offer significantly better GHGperformance yet receive little consideration. AWRP would not secure thehighest resource and energy efficiency nor the greatest reduction in carbonemissions possible. A single site increases carbon emissions by increasingwaste transport compared with two or more sites, particularly in a rural area”.7.450 The action group, NYWAG, disputes the analysis of the consultants acting onbehalf of the applicant stating:“Most of the harm from AWRP results from the EfW (incinerator). From aclimate change standpoint, the advantage over landfill is markedly less forincineration than for any other waste management technology. (The deeplyflawed nature of the WRATE model used by AmeyCespa means that itsfindings must be discounted). Incineration releases high levels of CO 2 withnearly all the carbon content in the waste being emitted as CO 2 . Moreover,incineration is comparable in terms of CO 2 per unit of power to energyproduced from fossil fuel”.It must be appreciated that the apparently favourable results from studiescarried out for the AWRP proposal using the WRATE model which purport toindicate that incineration is a good choice from a climate change standpointare a consequence of known methodological flaws in the model”.7.451 Further criticisms of the WRATE analysis received by the County Councilinclude, in the opinion of the objectors, that the model is inflexible and biasedin favour of incineration, as well as the conclusions subjective being and thatthe applicant has used incorrect assumptions.7.452 During the process of public consultation relating to this particular proposal,significant concerns have, amongst others, specifically focussed upon theresults WRATE analysis produced by the applicant. Those criticisms havebeen outlined in this report.251NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/251

7.453 In light of the responses received by the County Council and by way ofseeking clarification from the applicant, the County Council raised this specificmatter with the applicant company in February 2012. The formal requestsought clarification on three points:(i) a full analysis of the comparative options in order to demonstrate arobust comparison and the complete data results;(ii) an alternative baseline to 2015 in light of the proposed operational lifeto 2040; and,(ii) the assumed energy mix to be reassessed.7.454 The applicant responded in July of this year by producing two further reports.This first submitted as Appendix B4 to the additional and further informationand the second as Appendix B5. Appendix B4 comprises a further WRATEmodel report with the two additional scenarios and using a predicted 2020electricity mix and Appendix B5 a WRATE Model Update Report, the purposeof which was to determine whether the change from a 2015 baseline to a2020 baseline had any negative or positive bearing on the conclusions of theoriginal WRATE analysis that accompanied the application.7.455 Fichtner Consulting were the commissioned consultants and their reportswere received in July 2012. In response to the criticisms levelled at theirearlier report and in response to the formal request of the County PlanningAuthority, Fichtner Consulting developed two further scenarios in the WRATEmodel in addition to those originally used (as described above). The fourscenarios are as follows:1. a baseline scenario that sends all of the waste arising directly to landfill(a scenario used in the original WRATE Model supporting theapplication) ;2. the proposed AWRP solution (a combination of MT, AD & EfW togenerate electricity and outputs recycled where possible) (also ascenario used in the original WRATE Model supporting the application);3. all the waste being sent to an EfW i.e. the ‘EfW Only’ scenario (anadditional scenario modelled); and4. the waste being sorted for recycling, with the rejects going to AnaerobicDigestion (AD) and then landfill (also an additional scenario modelled).7.456 Fichtner also addressed the baseline and analysed the data with a 2020baseline as opposed to the 2015 baseline originally chosen. When comparedto the 2015 position, the 2020 modelling resulted in a climate change savingof 40,200 tonnes of CO 2 equivalents. However, taking into account that thebaseline scenario of ‘all waste going to landfill’ remains unchanged, thecarbon burden in 2020 climbs to 74,000 t CO 2e . An overall net saving, whilstless than in 2015 (being 114,200 t CO 2e in 2020 compared to 130,200 t CO 2e .A net climate change saving still persists in 2020 and, in the opinion ofFichtner Consulting, “still shows a significant net saving”.252NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/252

7.457 On the third point, Fichtner addressed the assumed energy mix by modellinga predicted 2020 electricity mix. Also, whilst not at the request of the CountyPlanning Authority, the applicant nevertheless asked it’s appointedconsultants to additionally investigate the effects of further de-carbonisation ofthe electricity mix into the future beyond the 2020 predicted mix in theEnvironment Agency’s WRATE model with specific attention to climatechange and the depletion of abiotic resources (i.e. non-living resources suchas coal, oil, gas etc.). In so doing, the company is considering the possiblefuture combinations of electricity production split. Fichtner Consulting referredto this future 2030 position as the ‘clean grid’ case (i.e. a carbon-freeelectricity mix). However, it should be noted that this must be qualified by thestatement that there is no expectation that society will achieve a fullydecarbonisedelectricity mix by 2030. This is therefore conveyed as a worstcase scenario for the purposes of analysis only.7.458 The results of the analysis concluded that the proposed AWRP development(based on a first year of operation of 2015/16, an input mix of 222,340 tonnesof MSW, 26,487 tonnes of HWRC residual and 67,584 tonnes of C&I waste (atotal of 316,411 tonnes) and a 2020 energy mix of 43.2% Gas CCGT, 26.4%Coal, 9.7% Nuclear, 11.3% Wind and 9.4% Others) was found to be:• “roughly equal to the ‘EfW Only’ scenario in its environmentalimpact…with slightly more global warming benefit (2,300 t CO 2e );• “second only to the ‘AD to landfill’ scenario’ in minimising global warmingpotential in the ‘clean grid’ case (by 11,000 t CO 2e ), but is clearly morebeneficial in terms of resource depletion; and,• the most environmentally friendly in both categories in the intermediatecase”.7.459 The WRATE assessment for the proposed development has, again, afterfurther modelling, concluded that there will be a positive environmentalfootprint, and amounts to an overall reduction in environmental impacts suchas global CO 2 emissions when compared to the scenarios used within theanalysis tool. This balance can be attributed to the generation of electricityfrom waste and the subsequent displacement of fossil fuel (i.e. carbon-rich)electricity generation. The report finds the AWRP solution to be “equally asgood as the ‘EfW Only’ scenario for the 2020 electricity mix”.7.460 Overall, the conclusion of Fichtner Consulting, having undertaken thesefurther analyses, is that the AWRP “has a beneficial impact on climate changecompared to the baseline solution in all cases. As expected, the benefitreduces as the UK electricity mix is decarbonised, but the proposed solutioncontinues to be beneficial”.7.461 Again, as a result of receiving this additional clarification, the County PlanningAuthority both consulted upon and publicised the information. Thisconsultation on the revised and updated WRATE analysis of the applicantgave rise to further representation in objection.253NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/253

7.462 In particular, the Parish Councils’ Group notified the County PlanningAuthority that it intended to submit a detailed report and critique of theWRATE analysis. That report was received by the County Council on 17September 2012. The Parish Councils’ Group, objecting to the proposeddevelopment, commissioned their own consultants to review the applicant’sWRATE analysis. Their appointed consultants are Eunomia.7.463 Eunomia present the following as their ‘key’ findings in their 29-page report:• Fichtner do not provide full information on the assumptions they makeand therefore Eunomia have not been able to fully verify the results;• Fichtner used residual ‘Local Authority-collected Waste’ (LACW) datafrom 2006/07 unrepresentative of residual LACW today;• Fichtner’s assumptions regarding the recovery of metals are “somewhatoptimistic”;• Fichtner’s results are “not likely to be representative” of performanceover time due to increasing use of non-fossil fuel generated electricity;• “Our [Eunomia’s] ‘future’ scenario...assuming a higher overall level ofrecycling”, in climate change terms, shows AWRP performing “worsethan landfill (the ‘do nothing’ approach)”;• “Our [Eunomia’s] ‘future’ scenario...shows the AWRP solution performssignificantly worse”, in climate change terms, than mechanical andbiological treatment (MBT) technologies; and,• The proposed use of a “highly contaminated feedstock” is likely to resultin “adverse operational issues” and “likely to result in lower energyrecovery”;(Officer comment: It should be noted that Eunomia make clear in their reportthat the last of the afore-mentioned bullet point was “outside the scope ofth[eir] study”. Furthermore, reference to the word ‘contaminated’ aboveshould not be construed as hazardous in the common meaning of the word,but rather more refers to materials that are less desirable as feedstock forincineration.)7.464 In acknowledging that “there is much debate as to the grid mix and associatedcarbon intensity, which should be used for such analysis”, the Eunomia reportcannot state categorically that the Fichtner report is incorrect. Instead, itsuggests that Fichtner are:• being ‘somewhat optimistic’, ‘over-optimistic’ and ‘very optimistic’;• ascribing ‘far higher benefit than should be the case’;• ‘overestimating the likely amount of electricity generation’; and,• Holding ‘highly questionable’ assumptions’.7.465 The Eunomia results, as presented in their report, suggest that the AWRPsolution “will perform less well than is claimed”. The climate changes savingsclaimed by Fichtner of around 60,000 t CO 2e are challenged by Eunomia whocontend that the figure is likely to be around 23,000 t CO 2e . It should be notedthat Fichtner Consulting did, in fact, revise their own original figure down to40,200 t CO 2e in their later report.254NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/254

7.466 In 2030, Eunomia have assumed, for comparative purposes, a decarbonisedelectricity mix and a 60% kerbside recycling rate. On these assumptions, theyanticipate that the AWRP facility will perform worse than landfill in terms ofCO2 savings. The Waste Disposal Authority, through SKM Enviros, has setthis out in the following table:7.467 In the opinion of the Parish Councils’ Group, the review of their ownconsultant’s report (i.e. the report prepared by Eunomia) “valid[ated] andsignificantly strengthened [the] previous concerns” of the Parish Councils.Based upon their own consultant’s report, the Parish Councils’ Group are ofthe view that the applicant’s data “is not representative of residual wastetoday, nor will it represent correctly the waste composition to be treatedthroughout the duration of the contract”.7.468 Furthermore, the Parish Councils’ Group maintain their view that, in theiropinion, their consultant has concluded that “AWRP performs worse than allother options, including landfill […] Thus, AWRP will significantly increase thecarbon and climate impacts of waste disposal – not reduce them as claimed”.7.469 Notwithstanding the applicant’s use of the accepted and acknowledgedstandard software, endorsed by the Environment Agency, the CountyPlanning Authority has sought to examine this particular element of supportinginformation in more detail. Therefore, in the context of the receipt of twodiametrically-opposed expert opinions on the matter of WRATE, the CountyCouncil as Planning Authority sought the further views of the Waste DisposalAuthority (WDA). In turn, the WDA commissioned its own retainedconsultants, SKM Enviros, to review the content of both reports.7.470 As a consequence of the ‘peer’ review of both reports, by SKM Enviros, theWDA has advised the County Planning Authority that:• The approaches adopted within each of the models used by Fichtner andEunomia are markedly different in respect of residual waste composition,plant recycling performance and off-set electricity mix;• The two are so inconsistent in their assumptions that the two cannot becompared on a ‘like for like’ basis;• Detailed comparisons between the two models are not possible andinappropriate because of the significant differences and confusionbetween the two approaches.255NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/255

7.471 However, the WDA has also advised the County Planning Authority thatnotwithstanding the difficulties experienced in undertaking the review of thetwo reports, it is important to note that both WRATE analyses conclude thatthe AWRP proposal will provide considerable greenhouse gas benefitscompared to landfill in 2020. The response of the WDA goes on to say that“despite the different conclusions and apparent contradictions … the Councilshould be able to take comfort that both agree that for the foreseeable future,the AWRP will deliver significant environmental benefits over landfill”.7.472 Whilst the objections and concerns contend that the original and revisedWRATE analysis is inadequate, the purpose of the model is that of an aid toassist in informing the decision-making of Waste Disposal Authorities and notas a determination tool for specific proposals before Planning Authorities.7.473 It appears to Officers that a carbon saving in 2030 over landfill is the likelyresult of the AWRP proposal although, as SKM Enviros point out, neitherFichtner nor Eunomia have provided the detailed assumptions used.However, SKM Enviros have said that based on the information and resultsprovided in the Fichtner model they can support Fichtner’s conclusion that theproposed development would provide an improvement on landfill up to andbeyond 2030, and Officers are content to advise Members accordingly.7.474 It is acknowledged that this is a highly technical and scientific area ofexpertise and the County Planning Authority has endeavoured to examine theissue at both great length and depth. As a result, the view taken on thisspecific issue of the analyses undertaken using the models of both applicantand objectors is that, overall, the proposed development will results in netenvironmental benefits and, accordingly, affords this a significant degree ofweight in favour of a recommendation supporting the grant of planningpermission.Diversion from landfill7.475 Diversion of waste from landfill is a fundamental objective of European andnational policy and legislation, regional planning policy and of local wastestrategy for York and North Yorkshire. A range of policy and fiscal measuresare in place to help deliver this. Existing arrangements for the management ofresidual waste in the area rely primarily on landfill at a number of sites withinthe partnership area, including the existing landfill site at Allerton Park,adjacent to the proposed AWRP site.7.476 In 2011/12 approximately 240,000t of waste from the York and NorthYorkshire partnership area was landfilled, from total arisings of around450,000t. The adopted York and North Yorkshire Joint Municipal WasteManagement Strategy, ‘Let’s Talk Less Rubbish’, sets out a target to, as aminimum, divert 75% of municipal waste away from landfill by 2013, alongsideother targets for increasing recycling and composting of household waste to alevel of 50% by 2020.256NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/256

7.477 The applicant indicates that the proposals will enable the Partnership todeliver on its agreed targets for diversion of waste from landfill, by providingsufficient recovery capacity and additional recycling capacity to enable anoverall rate of diversion from landfill of over 95%, in combination with existingrecycling and composting capacity.7.478 Representations from the Waste Disposal Authority (WDA) (being the WasteManagement arm of the County Council) have emphasised the significance ofthe proposal as a key element of an overall package of measures to reducereliance on landfill, including measures to promote waste prevention, re-use ofwaste and the introduction of recycling and composting schemes, as well asthe management of residual waste further up the waste hierarchy. The WDAhas stated that “AWRP is central to the delivery of (the Joint Municipal WasteManagement Strategy) and, on the basis of current projections, the diversionand recycling performance targets within the joint strategy will only beachieved with the delivery of AWRP”.7.479 It should also be noted that the recent re-definition of municipal waste, to bringit in line with the EU definition, is likely to result in more similar wastes,particularly from commercial sources such as shops, offices and businessesnow falling within the definition of municipal waste, requiring diversion fromlandfill under existing obligations. The WDA states that, according to Defra,the re-definition suggests that national targets and therefore treatmentcapacity requirements to deliver these targets have increased by as much as50% (although the national targets have not been passed down to individuallocal authority level).7.480 The WDA also indicates that, whilst the Councils will have first call ontreatment capacity at the AWRP facility to deal with municipal waste collectedin the Partnership area, any spare capacity would be available to deal withsimilar waste from other commercial sources. In this respect it is relevant thatthe National Waste Strategy 2007 contains an objective to secure diversion ofother wastes from landfill and the better integration of treatment of bothcommercial and industrial waste and MSW.7.481 Other representations, including from Marton-cum-Grafton Parish Council andthe Parish Councils’ Group (including the consultants LDP) indicate that,whilst they recognise the need to divert waste from landfill and are notopposed, in principle, to an appropriate treatment facility being located on theAllerton Park site. However, they object strongly to the proposed solutionwhich they consider to be environmentally harmful, inflexible andunnecessarily expensive. They suggest that technologies such as the MBTscheme used by Darlington and proposed by Barnsley, Doncaster andRotherham Councils would be more appropriate, with any further residualwaste disposed of via landfill or via an existing facility such as that at nowconsented at Ferrybridge.257NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/257

7.482 Concerns are also expressed about the size of the facility, which theyconsider is based on exaggerated and unsubstantiated projections of futurewaste volumes, the inefficiency of the technology proposed, including theabsence of heat usage, and the use of a “single site solution” in what is thelargest rural county in England.7.483 It is not the role of the WPA, in determining planning applications, to expressparticular preferences on technologies and processes. The WPA mustdetermine the application submitted in the light of the policies in thedevelopment plan and all other material considerations. It is clear that there isa very strong imperative, driven by legislation and policy, to move wastemanagement up the ‘hierarchy’, including though delivering diversion fromlandfill. As a recovery facility the AWRP facility would make a significantcontribution to the diversion of waste arising in the area away from landfill,helping the delivery of agreed targets and moving waste management up thehierarchy. This would be in accordance with Policy ENV12 of RSS andnational policy and strategy in PPS10 and Waste Strategy for England 2007.7.484 Whilst the concerns of objectors about the technology proposed and thepotential availability of other means of securing landfill diversion requirementsare acknowledged and understood, these are to a large degree concernswhich have been (and are more appropriately) considered in the decision bythe Councils to jointly award a contract to the applicant, leading to theplanning application now under consideration.7.485 At this point in time there are no alternative arrangements under considerationfor the large scale diversion from landfill of waste arising within the area,although a request for a Scoping Opinion has been received recently inrespect of a proposed energy recovery development adjacent to KellingleyColliery. Members must take their decision on the basis of the proposalsbefore them.Existing and forecasted landfill capacity7.486 The legislative and policy requirement to increase the diversion of waste fromlandfill operates independently of the amount of landfill void capacityavailable. However, with regard to landfill capacity, the WDA has indicatedthat, from late 2012, contracts will remain until 2015 for the disposal of wasteinto two existing landfill sites (Knapton Quarry and Allerton Park Quarry)which are located in North Yorkshire and that the City of York has a contractuntil 2022 to dispose of waste in a third, site, Harewood Whin, located in theCity of York Council area.7.487 The WDA has stated that these contracts cannot be extended and will eitherbe superseded by the AWRP facility or, if consent is refused or delayed, by analternative and as yet unspecified disposal solution. Information available tothe County Planning Authority indicates that the large majority of remainingavailable landfill capacity is concentrated in the Allerton Park and HarewoodWhin sites. Further capacity, not contracted to the WDAs (NYCC and CoYC),exists at a further landfill site at Barnsdale Bar in the south of the SelbyDistrict administrative area, but this site is currently mothballed and it is not258NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/258

currently clear whether further landfilling will take place. With regard to landfillcapacity, therefore, at a regional level, RSS policy ENV13 notes that there isgenerally adequate landfill capacity in the short term, but there may be a needfor new capacity to replace existing facilities, particularly in the West Yorkshirearea. RSS was published in 2008.7.488 Overall, the available data suggests that there is no imminent shortfall inlandfill capacity in the area, although it is not yet clear whether time-limitedpermissions at existing sites (such as that at Allerton Park which expires in2018) will be subject of applications for an extension of time and, if so,whether such proposals would be permitted. There is, therefore, a significantamount of uncertainty about longer term availability of capacity, particularlybearing in mind current policy constraints towards landfill as a wastemanagement option. Existing available landfill capacity is also becomingincreasingly concentrated in geographical terms with sites in the far east andwest of the area (at Scarborough and Skipton respectively) closing, thusconcentrating capacity in the central and southern parts of the area.7.489 Further diversion of waste from landfill (such as would occur if the AWRPfacility is permitted or under any other alternative landfill diversion solution)would be likely to lead to a substantial reduction in input of waste from withinthe Partnership area to landfill, potentially leading to a substantially slowerrate of completion and restoration of existing landfill sites. However, reductionin landfill rates is likely to occur in any event as a result of current policy, fiscaland market pressures to deliver landfill diversion and it is not considered thatimplementation of the AWRP proposal itself would lead to unacceptableimpact by this reason.7.490 Members should also note that the processes to be used at the AWRP facilitywould give rise to outputs requiring final disposal through landfill. Thesewould amount to a total of around 31,000 tpa, comprised mainly of AirPollution Control (APC) Residues (which would require disposal at ahazardous landfill) and Bottom Ash for landfill, with a lesser amount of rejectsfrom the process. There is currently no hazardous landfill capacity in the areaand the applicant has indicated that APC residues would be likely to bedisposed of at a facility in Leeds. They also state that other waste whichcannot be recycled or subject to thermal treatment and which is nonhazardouswould be likely to be disposed of at the adjoining Allerton Parklandfill facility whilst the latter is operational. If delivered this would representa co-locational benefit of the site but, in the absence of certainty that such anarrangement would take place, only limited weight should be attached to thisconsideration.Impact on recycling and waste production (including IBA)7.491 A significant number of representations have expressed the view that theAWRP facility is unnecessary or excessive in capacity as higher rates ofrecycling will reduce the amount of residual waste requiring treatment, or that,if permitted, the AWRP facility would serve to undermine progress towardshigher recycling rates because of a need to continue to supply the facility withwaste under the terms of the contract arrangements. Objectors also state that259NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/259

ecycling targets are bound to increase further over the life of the facility, thussupporting the need for an alternative and more flexible approach.7.492 The preamble to ‘saved’ Policy 5/10 of the NYWLP states that proposals forthe incineration of household, commercial and non-hazardous industrial wastewill only be permitted after opportunities for recycling and composting havebeen explored (and subject to a range of other criteria set out in the Policy).The reasoned justification to the policy indicates that incineration needs to bedeveloped as part of an integrated system that includes other wastemanagement options and that schemes should be suitably sized to avoidcompetition with recycling.7.493 Within the Partnership area, approximately 46% of household waste iscurrently either recycled or composted and, according to the WDA, theproportion is projected to increase to around 48% by 2015/16. A target levelfor recycling and composting of 50% by 2020 has been set via the JointMunicipal Waste Management Strategy, which is also generally in line withcurrent national targets (the current National Waste Strategy contains aminimum national target of 50% although a review of the national wastestrategy is currently taking place). The applicant proposes that the MechanicalTreatment element of the development would involve the separation forrecycling of an element of input waste, estimated to be between 5 and 10%and states that the proposal should be viewed as an important part of therecycling process.7.494 The WDA has confirmed that the applicant would be under a contractualobligation to separate a minimum of 5% of input contract waste for recycling.The WDA indicates that, together with other planned improvements inrecycling arrangements, the combined effect of existing/planned recyclingmeasures together with the AWRP facility would be to deliver a combinedperformance for York and North Yorkshire of “well over 50%”, although this isdisputed by some objectors. The WDA indicates that recycling andcomposting performance could only be increased further through separatecollection and processing of food waste and that, to date, none of the WasteCollection Authorities (WCAs) in the Partnership area have indicated such anintention.7.495 However, in response to the concerns expressed, the WDA has commentedthat the provision within the AWRP facility of mechanical sorting and biologicalprocessing capability offers the potential to respond to future changes incollection systems needed to meet future step changes in recyclingperformance. The WDA has also confirmed that forecasts of waste to bedelivered to the facility take into account further intended improvements inkerbside recycling performance and that there is no specific minimum tonnageguarantee within the contract, although there is a base level of waste(approximately 80% of the original forecast waste to be provided by theCouncils) below which there is a mechanism for adjusting payment to thecontractor if they are unable to secure alternative substitute waste.260NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/260

7.496 The Government has indicated previously the view, based on experience inEurope, that, with certain caveats, recovery of energy from residual waste(including by incineration) can be compatible with high recycling rates. TheWaste Strategy for England 2007 states that “evidence from neighbouringcountries, where very high rates of recycling and energy from waste are ableto coexist, demonstrates that a vigorous energy from waste policy iscompatible with high recycling rates (see Chart 5.2). In the Government’sview, the key to ensuring that both are achieved is, firstly, excellent qualityconsultation between stakeholders, at an early stage when local wastestrategies are being developed; and, secondly, planning and buildingfacilities with an appropriate amount of flexibility built in. This meansflexible – e.g. modular – buildings, and also flexible contracts, which do notlock in fixed amounts of waste for treatment which might become obsolete."[emphasis as in original].7.497 The more recent 2011 national Waste Policy Review document indicates that,at a national level, sufficient residual waste feedstock is expected to beavailable up to 2020, and beyond to 2030 and 2050, through diversion fromlandfill, to support significant growth in ‘Energy from Waste’, even withexpected improvements in waste prevention, re-use and recycling and withoutconflicting with the drive to move waste further up the ‘hierarchy’. In thisrespect, it should be noted that the applicant envisages that the facility couldplay a role (albeit a diminishing role over the life of the facility) in themanagement of other commercial wastes. There is, therefore, potential forany shortfall in input to the facility as a result of unforeseen increases inrecycling rates to be offset by the input of such waste, the provision ofadequate capacity for which is a requirement of national and regional planningpolicy.7.498 Overall, it is not considered that the development, if permitted, would serve toundermine further planned improvements in recycling performance or themeeting of current national and local targets for combined recycling andcomposting performance. The concerns of objectors, particularly in relation tothe need for flexibility, are acknowledged and appear to receive some supportin the form of the national Waste Strategy 2007 extract referred to above.However, there are a range of policy and regulatory drivers, relating tomanagement of municipal waste which are likely to maintain focus onimproving recycling performance, as well as, on the other hand, probableconstraints to very substantial increases in performance, as indicated in the2011 National Waste Policy Review, which acknowledges likely challenges inincreasing recycling rates within the context of tight funding settlements forlocal authorities.7.499 It is also considered that the proposal would not conflict with the requirementin NYWLP Policy 5/10 that opportunities for recycling and composting shouldbe explored before incineration is permitted. The potential impact of thefacility on achievement of any future significant increases in recycling targetscannot be determined with certainty at this stage. However, it is not the roleof the County Planning Authority to seek, in determining this application, tosubstitute its own view of appropriate recycling targets in place of those261NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/261

currently agreed in relevant national and local strategies. It is not, therefore,concluded that the development would be unacceptable for this reason.7.500 A further issue relating to recycling which should be considered is theproposal to co-locate an Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) processing facility onthe site, with a capacity of up to 50,000tpa. It is intended that this would beused to process all IBA from the EfW process into a material capable of beingused as a secondary aggregate (i.e. an alternative to primary aggregate suchas sand and gravel or crushed rock in certain applications).7.501 The Waste Flow Model accompanying the application indicates thatapproximately 37,000 tonnes per annum of IBA would be recycled.Production of secondary aggregate from the IBA would not count as recyclingfor the purposes of calculating recycling rates in the UK. Nevertheless, theproduction of secondary aggregate from the site would help provide analternative source of aggregate to help offset requirements for primaryaggregates, which are produced in substantial quantities in North Yorkshire.Although the amount produced would be relatively small compared toproduction of primary aggregate, the delivery of an increased contribution tosupply from secondary and recycled aggregate is subject of general support inthe National Planning Policy Framework and in RSS Policy ENV4, whichindicates that mineral planning authorities should “... maximise thecontribution by substitute and secondary materials wherever possible…”.Therefore, it is considered that the proposal to generate secondary aggregatefrom IBA at the site represents a benefit of the proposals to which someweight should be attached.Need for the Development7.502 PPS10 states that, when proposals are consistent with an up to datedevelopment plan, there is no requirement for applicants to demonstrate aquantitative or market need for their proposal. With respect to energydevelopment, the NPPF also states that applicants for energy developmentshould not be required to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or lowcarbon energy. In this particular case, it is considered that there is a degreeof conflict with policies in the development plan, although it is also the casethat some elements of the development plan support the proposal. Furtherdiscussion of the weight to be attached to the various elements of thedevelopment plan has been set out earlier in this report. It is also concludedelsewhere in this report that the development would give rise to material harm.It is therefore appropriate to consider the need for the development as part ofthe overall consideration of “planning balance”.7.503 Updated information submitted by the applicant in August 2012 summarisesthe need for the development as arising from:• A need to help meet Government policies relating to waste, energy andclimate change through the provision of urgent treatment capacity and areliable source of renewable energy• A need to help drive waste up the hierarchy whilst helping to ensure subregionalself –sufficiency262NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/262

• A need to meet an identified shortfall in treatment and recovery capacityfor MSW and C&I waste in the North Yorkshire sub-region, as set out inthe RSS• Changes in waste flow and legislative requirements resulting in the needto manage approximately 312,000 tonnes of municipal waste by 2039/40• The absence of other existing and planned facilities to meet the identifiedneed• That landfill as the only alternative option is unsustainable from anenvironmental, legislative and economic perspective and capacity will beexhausted in the short term• That the AWRP facility would represent a sustainable solution whichplays an integral part in a much wider network of facilities• That the AWRP facility is the only realistic mechanism to help increaserecycling or composting rates and thereby help meet and exceedGovernment targets7.504 A number of representations dispute the claimed need for the developmentand/or that the need for the development does not override the harm thatwould be caused. Representations from Marton-cum-Grafton Parish Counciland the associated Parish Councils’ Group (including the consultants LDP)summarise their objections relating to claimed need and economic benefit onthe basis of:• “The applicant does not provide a business case, justifying AWRP’sscale by a single waste contract with NYCC/CYC, the full content ofwhich is not disclosed. A report commissioned by us from Eunomia“Review of Waste Availability Modelling for the Allerton Waste RecoveryPark” shows that important assumptions in this contract, and hence theclaimed ‘need’ for this facility, are open to serious challenge”;• “The applicant claims that the facility is scaled such that it can dispose ofNYCC/CYC residual municipal waste, with a small and decreasingcomponent of trade waste. To the contrary, Eunomia state that thefacility is significantly over-sized from day one of the contract and thatthis will get worse, year-on-year. We agree”;• “Eunomia estimate that when the facility opens the shortfall betweenfacility capacity and residual municipal waste will be c. 100,000 tonnesper year. This will grow over the life of the contract to c. 185,000 tonnesby 2039/40”;• “Because of these shortfalls, AWRP needs very large volumes of nonLAC trade waste to operate at capacity. We challenge that the facilityqualifies as an R1 facility on this basis. We also challenge the use ofpublic money to build a facility which a private contractor will use to treatsuch large volumes of trade waste for private profit”;• “The applicant’s claims regarding the accessibility of large volumes oftrade waste in the region lack any evidence base. No contracts areshown and no market appraisals are detailed. Nor are we aware of anythat exist to support the NYCC/CYC contract, despite asking for them”;263NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/263

• “The applicant cites trade waste from the “Yorkshire and Humbersideregion”. Much of this waste is from the large municipal areas to the southof North Yorkshire, which have their own waste disposal authorities andstrategies. The relevant “need” here is to dispose of residual LAC wastefrom NYCC/CYC only”;• “Eunomia point out that there is a fundamental difference between thepresence of waste requiring treatment and the ability of AWRP to securethat waste at a competitive and sustainable price. AmeyCespa arerelatively new to the UK waste market and will have to compete withestablished big businesses”;• “There is no evidence in this application that it can do so. Wastevolumes are falling within the region and competition for waste is fierceboth here and abroad”;• “The reliance on trade waste collected by other agents will not counttowards the Guaranteed Minimum Tonnage. Eunomia identify this as asignificant project risk”;• “Without a business case, we are being denied fair and proper access toinformation that goes to the heart of this application. There is a strongpublic interest in this matter since the only guarantee that this facility willbe competitive in the trade waste market is if the AWRP trade wastegate fee is very heavily subsidised by the NYCC/CYC contract. If this isthe case, then it is wrong (and potentially illegal) for a public organisationto subsidise a private company”;• “The applicant relies on a broad argument that NYCC must grantplanning permission because it has to choose between an unrealistic “donothing option” or embracing the applicant’s proposals”; and,• “This is untrue because there are numerous things that NYCC could dosuch as approaching existing local companies to handle waste, workingwith Yorewaste, exporting waste to disposal operations in neighbouringcounties, or even continuing using landfill (the current scheme to build anMBT plant at Harewood Whin and send RDF to Ferrybridgedemonstrates just one alternative).”7.505 Objectors also state that the recent proposed abolition of the LandfillAllowance Trading Scheme (LATS) removes a significant area of risk resultingin the facility being needlessly over-sized.7.506 Representations from the Waste Disposal Authority state that the principalneed for the development is to help the County Council and City of YorkCouncil deliver their statutory duties to dispose of municipal solid waste in acost effective and environmentally sustainable way, based on a legal andstrategic framework including obligations under the Environmental ProtectionAct 1990, the need to meet landfill diversion targets established via the EULandfill Directive 1999 and the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003, thelandfill tax regime, the Waste Strategy for England 2007 and the MunicipalWaste Management Strategy for York and North Yorkshire. The WDA alsostates that, as a result of recent changes to the definition of municipal waste,to include greater amounts of waste of commercial origin, future municipalwaste treatment capacity is as much about meeting the needs of localbusinesses and the community as well as local councils.264NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/264

7.507 The WDA states that landfill is no longer a viable long term option, is the mostenvironmentally harmful method of disposing of waste and is increasinglyunaffordable. As a result of increasing constraints on landfill capacity theWDA points out that it is likely, within a few years, that Allerton Park landfillwill be one of only two consented landfills in the sub-region with significantremaining void space and that potential for new capacity is severely limited bynational policy. The WDA states that, as a result, the Allerton Park site islikely to continue to play a major and increasing role in delivering a futurewaste management solution for North Yorkshire.7.508 They indicate that, if permission for the AWRP facility is withheld or delayed,existing temporary landfill contracts (which cannot be extended) will bereplaced by an alternative and as yet unspecified disposal solution which islikely to involve continued landfill in the shorter term, although such anapproach would not be a viable, sustainable or affordable alternative in thelonger term. With regard to the repeal of LATS, the WDA states that thisremoves one of the statutory drivers behind the project, but the primaryfinancial driver remains the risk associated with unpredictable increases inlandfill tax. Furthermore, changes in the definition of municipal waste and therepeal of LATS have no impact on the actual volume of waste produced or onthe volume of residual waste requiring management.7.509 A key area of disagreement between objectors and the applicant (and WDA)is whether the facility is appropriately scaled for the amount of waste likely torequire management over the life of the development. Objectors consider thatthe capacity of the facility would be much greater than necessary, based onwhat they consider to be more realistic projections of future waste volumesrequiring treatment. The facility has a capacity of 320,000tpa. The WDA andapplicant currently estimate that the Councils will present approximately312,000tpa of waste for management by 2039/40. They forecast that residualwaste volumes will grow progressively over the contract period, based mainlyon predictions of growth in the number of households, less an allowance forwaste prevention, as well as modelled assumptions about future recyclingperformance and commercial waste collection by the district/borough councils.Any gap between capacity and waste presented in the earlier years would befilled with similar commercial wastes.7.510 Consultants acting on behalf of objectors have provided alternative estimatessuggesting that the shortfall between capacity and residual municipal wastewould be about 100,000tpa when the facility opens, potentially increasing to agap of around 185,000tpa by 2039/40, leading to a need for very largevolumes of non-local authority collected commercial waste in order to operateat capacity. These figures have been based on an assumption that therecycling rate will increase progressively to a rate of 70% by 2040 and areduction in assumed trade waste capture by 50% compared with Partnershipestimates. They consider the Partnership estimates to be gross overestimatesbased on a number of factors including, what are in their opinion,unrealistic assumptions about the repeal of LATS, on volumes of trade wastecollected by local authorities, competition for waste from other facilities andthe applicants’ lack of established market position in the commercial waste265NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/265

market in the area. These opinions are disputed by the WDA, who commentthat there is no supporting evidence for them.7.511 Projection of waste arisings over substantial periods of time will alwaysinvolve a need to make assumptions and it is not possible to come to adefinitive view about the volume of total arisings or residual waste that willrequire management in the future. Whilst the concerns of objectors about theprojections used to determine the size of facility proposed are understood, itshould be noted that the alternative projections put forward by some objectorsalso involve the use of assumptions, including an assumption about futurerecycling rates which is not directly supported by target levels established incurrent national or local waste strategies. Members are also reminded thatthe methodology used to generate projections which underpin the currentproposal has been subject to review by DEFRA as part of a business case tosupport the award of PFI credits.7.512 It is further noted that the scale of projected future total arisings aresignificantly less than the benchmark projections for total municipal wastearisings for York and North Yorkshire set out in the RSS, although the latteronly cover the period to 2021. This is notwithstanding that the RSS figureswill not include any allowance for increased volumes arising from the recentre-definition of municipal waste.7.513 The RSS was published in 2008 and it is recognised that the benchmarkfigures presented in it may not now be reliable. The weight to be attached tothe RSS may also now be diminished as a result of the (as yetunimplemented) decision by the Secretary of State to revoke all RSSs.Differences in projections, not just in relation to total arisings but in relation toresidual waste volumes as well, reflect differences in assumptions made inorder to generate them and it is therefore not surprising that a range ofalternative numbers can be presented. This illustrates the difficulty inreaching a definitive view on the relationship between capacity and needs,notwithstanding that there is a need to make reasonable assumptions to helpinform the basis for future development.7.514 In considering the capacity of the facility, and concern expressed by objectorsabout the large volumes of other commercial and industrial waste that wouldbe needed to make up any shortfall in input of Local Authority CollectedWaste, it should be noted that as Waste Planning Authority, the CountyCouncil is required by national and regional planning policy to consider wastemanagement needs for all commercial and industrial waste (including C&Iwaste not collected by local authorities) as well as a range of other wastestreams. Closer integration in treatment of municipal and non-municipalwaste is an objective of current national Waste Strategy, as is moving allwaste up the ‘hierarchy’ and RSS Policy (ENV13) supports the delivery ofopportunities to provide treatment facilities for multiple waste streams.266NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/266

7.515 In common with many other parts of the country, detailed and up to date dataon overall arisings of Commercial and Industrial waste in the area and theamount of residual C&I waste that may require treatment is not available,although the projections contained in RSS (published in 2008) suggest thattotal arisings of C&I waste will significantly exceed that of MSW, with totalprojected arisings for 2021 for the North Yorkshire sub-region of slightly over 1million tonnes, with a total requirement for treatment capacity for the sameyear of 667,000 tonnes. For reasons set out above, it is not considered thatmajor reliance should be placed on the RSS figures.7.516 Data, therefore, referred to by the applicant (originally produced byconsultants Urban Mines to inform the applicant’s submission at Call for FinalTenders stage of the contract procurement, and subsequently updated)indicates that total residual waste arising from C&I sources in the York andNorth Yorkshire area is approximately 347,000t (2012 estimate), this figurebeing an estimate of organic waste for Anaerobic Digestion and mixed wastefor MBT/EfW potentially suitable as feedstock for the AWRP facility. Althoughthis figure cannot be verified it is not considered that there is any current basisto dispute it. The applicant also states that the Urban Mines work identifiestotal arisings of residual waste (including C&I and municipal waste) of around3.5 million tonnes across the whole of the Yorkshire and the Humber Region(based on 2011 figures) against current operational capacity of around640,000tpa.7.517 Objectors consider that future arisings of C&I waste will be limited byincreased recycling of such waste and that there is no justification for theAWRP facility in terms of ‘need’ for treatment of residual C&I waste. Whilstobjectors also express concerns about whether the applicant would be able toattract such waste to the facility. The basis of these concerns is disputed bythe WDA and, in any event, this is principally a matter for the market and notan issue to which the County Planning Authority should attach any significantweight. Objectors also consider that there is alternative capacity available tomanage C&I waste arising in the area, such as the Scottish and SouthernEnergy facility under development at Ferrybridge Power station (outside butvery close to the sub-regional boundary) and facilities on Teesside.7.518 The applicant states that, as part of due-diligence requirements relating totheir contract tender, they commissioned work to assess existing residualwaste management capacity in the Yorkshire and Humber Region. This workwas carried out by consultants Urban Mines in 2010 and subsequentlyupdated. A summary of the conclusions of the Urban Mines work has beenprovided by the applicant as part of their clarification of the need for theproposed development.7.519 This indicates existing (operational) residual waste treatment capacity in theRegion of around 640,000tpa, located at facilities in Sheffield, Huddersfield,Grimsby, Barton on Humber and Rotherham. A further 1.74 million tpacapacity is identified by Urban Mines as being likely to become operational(this includes potential capacity which is either in planning, consented but notyet developed, consented but not yet financed or in development). It should267NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/267

e noted that the study includes potential capacity at the mixed fuel plantconsented for development at Ferrybridge Power Station and the more recentproposal (not yet subject of a planning application) for development of aresidual waste treatment facility at the Kellingley Colliery site in Selby District(with a potential capacity of 280,000tpa).7.520 The applicant indicates that, of this theoretically available or potentialcapacity, availability to producers of waste in the York and North Yorkshireareas is in practice likely to be limited for a range of reasons, including; thetying of capacity to other municipal waste contracts; planning restrictions oninput of waste from outside their local planning authority areas; the lack oflong term contracts deterring funding of new facilities, and waste imports fromother areas utilising capacity. The applicant concludes that even if allproposed sites were financed and built (which the applicant considers highlyunlikely) total capacity for C&I waste and municipal waste combined (includingthe AWRP facility) would be broadly equivalent to 2011 combined residualarisings requiring treatment.7.521 A recent view by environmental consultancy Eunomia, relating to theirpublished ‘Residual Waste infrastructure Review’, also highlights the potentialobstacles to actual delivery of capacity, where they note that; obtainingplanning consent for a treatment plant does not equate to getting it built. Withthe current economic backdrop, many facilities with planning consent arestruggling to get financed. Numerous sites have been on the blocks forseveral years.7.522 In considering this matter, Members are advised that the primary justificationfor the facility lies in the need for capacity to manage York and NorthYorkshire’s residual municipal waste. If the volumes of residual wasteforecast by the applicant and WDA to require management are realised, thentowards the end of the contract the facility would not have spare capacity totreat any other waste in any event. It is difficult to establish with a very highdegree of certainty the exact scale of future arisings that will requiremanagement. It is probably even more difficult to estimate with a high degreeof accuracy the scale of other capacity that may become available in future,bearing in mind the range of uncertainties around delivery of new capacity,including those referred to above, as well as the scope to secure that capacityto deal with waste arising in the York and North Yorkshire area.7.523 However, what can be said in this particular instance is that, at this point intime, it is accepted that there is insufficient operational treatment capacity inthe Region to manage residual LACW and other C&I waste. Furthermore,there is currently no large scale capacity for treatment of residual waste in theYork and North Yorkshire area itself. The operational capacity that is in placewithin the Region is also generally located a significant distance from theNorth Yorkshire sub-regional boundary (although as noted above there isconsented but non-operational capacity very close to the sub-regionalboundary at Ferrybridge as well as other potential capacity in the area whichis in the very early stages of the planning process).268NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/268

7.524 Recent appeal decisions relating to the provision of waste treatment capacityhave generally followed an approach of not giving weight to potentialalternative capacity which is not yet operational and given the range ofuncertainty about delivery of operational capacity, referred to above, it isconsidered that this is a reasonable approach. It is therefore considered thatthere is currently a lack of sufficient available and operational capacity inNorth Yorkshire and the Yorkshire and Humber Region to deal with thevolume of residual waste requiring management.7.525 The assessment of alternative capacity referred to by the applicant is limitedby the fact that it does not take into account operational or potential capacityavailable outside the Yorkshire and Humber Region but near to NorthYorkshire, including capacity in Teesside as referred to by some objectors.There is no express policy requirement in the development plan for eitherNorth Yorkshire or the Region to be self-sufficient in capacity to meet all itswaste management needs, although it is considered that such an approachwould be generally in line with the aims of both WLP and RSS policy. Thereis, therefore, no fundamental planning policy reason why any availablecapacity outside the Region could not play a role in managing waste arising inNorth Yorkshire, provided such an approach was consistent, where relevant,with the requirement for waste to be managed at the ‘Nearest AppropriateInstallation’ (referred to earlier in this report).7.526 However, whilst it is acknowledged that there is no express requirement inpolicy for the area to be self-sufficient in capacity, for either LACW or otherC&I waste, it is considered that the availability of capacity within the areawould help contribute to the PPS10 requirement to provide a planningframework in which communities take more responsibility for their own wasteand in which planning authorities enable sufficient and timely provision offacilities to meet community needs. Such an approach would also becompatible with the adopted Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy forYork and North Yorkshire which underpins the AWRP proposal.7.527 Overall, it is considered that, in order to move waste management up thehierarchy, there is a need to help provide opportunities for the diversion ofboth LACW and other C&I wastes (not collected by local authorities) fromlandfill. The existence of any spare capacity within the AWRP facility wouldprovide a potential option within the area to help move management ofsuitable C&I waste up the hierarchy, away from landfill, in line with nationalwaste strategy and policy and it is considered that this represents a benefit ofthe proposal to which some weight should be attached. The potentialavailability of such waste to utilise any spare capacity at the facility would alsoserve to offset the need for undue reliance to be placed on the accuracy orotherwise of forecast arisings in residual waste utilised by the applicant todetermine the capacity of the facility, as the potential for the facility to treatother wastes introduces an element of flexibility in the balance between theoverall capacity of the facility and overall availability of waste requiringtreatment.269NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/269

7.528 A further consideration in relation to capacity, and connection with someenvironmental impacts, is the relationship between the capacity of the facilityand the physical scale of the development itself. It is unlikely, as a result oftechnical considerations relating to the processes proposed, particularly theEfW element, that there would be a linear relationship between the capacity ofthe facility and its physical size, particularly its height. It is, therefore,correspondingly, unlikely that any potentially realistic downward adjustment tocapacity of the facility would result in a substantially smaller facility or overallsite footprint or therefore any substantial diminution in the landscape harmcaused by the proposal.7.529 A key issue raised by some objectors, relating to the need for the facility, isthe concern that the applicant presents the choice starkly between grantingpermission for the facility or a ‘do nothing’ option which is considered to beunrealistic. Objectors consider that there are a range of options availableincluding approaching existing local companies to handle waste, working withYorwaste, exporting waste to disposal operations in neighbouring counties, orcontinuing landfill. The WDA acknowledges that if permission is refused ordelayed there will be a need to identify other, as yet unspecified, means ofdealing with residual waste. This could include development of a revisedproject plan under the terms of the contract to reflect changes that may benecessary to achieve planning consent and deliver a long term service. TheWDA makes it clear that this is intended as a fall-back position and not astrategic option. If this is not achievable then the contract would beterminated and the Council would need to procure an alternative outcome.The WDA states that this would be likely to involve procurement of short termdisposal services whilst deciding on a revised long-term strategy.7.530 In coming to a view on this matter, it should be noted that a key driver behindthe proposal is to assist the Partnership with delivery of the York and NorthYorkshire Municipal Waste Management Strategy. To some extent thealternative possibilities raised by objectors are matters which are mostappropriately resolved through development of waste management strategy,rather than determination of this planning application. The need for thedevelopment is a relevant consideration, as it is concluded elsewhere in thisreport that there is a degree of conflict between the proposals and the policiesin the development plan. However, it would not be appropriate for Membersto refuse the application on the basis that some other potential wastemanagement scenario may be considered preferable. In this respect it isnoted that the National Policy Statement on Energy (EN-1) indicates, inrelation to consideration of alternatives, that “alternative proposals which arevague or inchoate can be excluded on the grounds that they are not importantand relevant to the IPCs decision”. Whilst EN-1 is aimed specifically at majorenergy infrastructure projects, the NPPF confirms that it is material toconsideration of planning applications. As the AWRP proposal includes theprovision of energy infrastructure, the advice is considered to be relevant.Members should therefore address need on the basis of the proposals nowunder consideration and relative to other material considerations identified inthis report.270NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/270

7.531 The close association between policy for waste management and energypolicy has already been recognised elsewhere in this report, with theGovernment Waste Policy Review 2011 providing support in principle for EfW,having regard to low carbon and renewable energy provision and climatechange considerations, as well as in relation to waste management. TheNPPF sates that, when determining planning applications, planning authoritiesshould “not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate theoverall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that evensmall scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gasemissions; and, approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made)acceptable...”. It is therefore accepted that there is a need for the energy thatwould be generated by the facility and that this would make a significantcontribution to achievement of national and regional targets for provision ofsuch energy. It would also contribute to the aims of RSS Policy ENV5 relatingto the maximisation of renewable energy capacity.Conclusions on Need7.532 There is a strong legislative and policy imperative to divert waste away fromlandfill and move management of waste up the waste hierarchy. Thispressure exists now and is expected to remain for the foreseeable future. Theneed for infrastructure to deliver this is recognised in RSS Policy ENV12which states that local authorities should support the urgent provision of acombination of facilities and other waste management initiatives which bestmeets environmental, social and economic needs for their areas based onmoving all waste streams up the hierarchy, achieving statutory wastemanagement performance targets and managing waste at the nearestappropriate location, where necessary by seeking agreement withneighbouring authorities. Furthermore, whilst landfill capacity may currentlybe available in the area for the disposal of residual waste, strong ongoingrestraint towards landfill as an option, for environmental reasons, suggeststhat capacity will become increasingly constrained in future. It is thereforeclear that there is a need to find an alternative solution for the management ofresidual LACW (and other waste) arising in the area.7.533 Strong representations have been received to the effect that the proposedAWRP facility, by reason of the methods it would use to manage waste(particularly the EfW element), does not represent a suitable means ofmanaging residual waste and that any need could and should be met throughmore sustainable methods. Whilst these concerns are acknowledged,consideration of current national, regional and local policy and strategyrelevant to waste does not support the conclusion that the proposed means ofdealing with waste (which would involve a mix of technologies includingmechanical treatment, anaerobic digestion, energy recovery and IBArecycling) are inappropriate in principle.7.534 Objectors have drawn attention to the potential for a range of other solutions,including the utilisation of current or planned capacity elsewhere, theutilisation of other technologies, or the development of a number of more localfacilities around the area. There are currently no other proposals within thepartnership area aimed specifically at the management of residual LACW271NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/271

arising within the area. In the case of utilisation of existing capacityelsewhere, evidence suggests there is currently insufficient operational andavailable capacity elsewhere in the Region and such an approach does notform part of current local strategy for the management of residual waste.Whilst utilisation of capacity elsewhere would not in itself be contrary toplanning policy, and the potential for such approaches is recognised in thenational Waste Policy Review 2011, the requirement in PPS10 to adopt anapproach in which communities take more responsibility for their own wastealso suggests that close consideration should be given to delivery of asolution within the area. It is therefore not considered that such potentialoptions provide a credible alternative at this point in time.7.535 With regard to the need for a facility of the scale proposed, for the reasons setout earlier in this section it is difficult to conclude decisively on the precisefuture scale of residual waste arisings requiring management. However, thisuncertainty does not in itself detract from the underlying need to bring forwardinfrastructure to help meet objectives for more sustainable wastemanagement. The rigour of the process required to bring forward proposalsfor a development of this nature suggests that a degree of confidence may beheld in the projections utilised by the applicant but in any event there is norequirement in policy for a cap to be placed on treatment capacity. It istherefore considered that, as part of a wider network of infrastructure for themanagement of residual waste, particularly LACW, arising in the area, thefacility would play an important role in meeting future waste managementneeds.7.536 As noted earlier in this report, the contribution that the development wouldmake to the need to increase the proportion of energy supply met byrenewable and low carbon energy is also accepted as being consistent withnational and regional policy.7.537 It is therefore concluded that there is a clear need for the delivery of newarrangements for the management of residual waste and that the proposals inthis application are suitable in principle to meet that need, and wouldcontribute to the need for renewable and low carbon energy in line withrelevant regional and national policy. The development would also contributeto the aim of RSS Policy YH2 to facilitate effective waste management andthe aim of RSS ENV12, which supports the urgent provision of facilities tomove waste management up the hierarchy, achieve statutory waste targetsand manage waste at the nearest appropriate location. It would also be inaccordance with relevant national planning policy for waste (PPS10) in termsof moving waste up the hierarchy, enabling sufficient and timely provision offacilities to meet community needs and with relevant elements of (and targetsin) the Waste Strategy for England 2007. Whether the need for thedevelopment overrides any harm that would be caused by the development isa matter considered later in this report.272NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/272

Consideration of alternative technologies7.538 The applicant has indicated that a fundamental parameter guiding theirproposed solution stems from the contract and was to develop “a solution todivert 70% of NYCCs and CYCs contract Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and80% of Biodegradeable Municipal Waste (BMW) from landfill and achieve aminimum of 5% recycling of all contract waste received. The solutionadditionally needed to be adaptable, economic and deliverable and thereforeindependent of waste composition. Demonstrating proven and reliabletechnology was fundamental to justifying deliverability”.7.539 The applicant indicates that they have considered a range of technologyoptions which could meet the requirements identified in the contract and bythe applicant and which would also be compatible with sustainabilityconsiderations. The principal technologies considered included:• Mechanical Treatment• Anaerobic Digestion• Aerobic Digestion (such as windrow and in-vessel composting andbiostabilisation and biodrying)• Autoclave• Advanced thermal treatment (such as gasification and pyrolysis)• Energy from waste (including a range of specific EfW technologies)7.540 Potential combinations of options were considered against a baselinescenario of landfill only. The applicant indicates that the combination oftechnologies in the proposed solution outperformed the other alternativecombinations assessed on the basis of a standardised WRATE analysis andhas therefore been chosen as the preferred option.7.541 It should be noted that representations have criticised both the technologiesproposed (particularly the EfW element) and the use of WRATE as anappropriate tool to assess the impact of waste technologies. Some objectorshave suggested that the priority should be increasing rates of recycling andthe use of what they consider to be more sustainable technologies such asmechanical and biological treatment, greater use of anaerobic digestion anduse of more advanced thermal processes such as pyrolysis and gasification.7.542 Whilst these concerns are noted, it is not the role of the County Council as thePlanning Authority to express a preference on particular technologiesproposed, but to determine the application submitted on the basis of thedevelopment plan and other material considerations. Neither thedevelopment plan, nor national planning policy in PPS10, are prescriptive asto technologies that should be used provided that they contribute to thedelivery of wider waste management and sustainability objectives including, inparticular, moving waste management up the waste hierarchy.7.543 The mix of technologies proposed are considered to be compatible with therequirements of Article 16 of the Waste Framework Directive, providing anappropriate combination of technologies which would contribute to increasingrecycling and recovery of waste, thus helping to divert waste from landfill andmove waste up the hierarchy. Notwithstanding the strong concerns of some273NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/273

objectors that the development would serve to undermine re-use andrecycling rates and not move waste as far up the ‘hierarchy’ as possible,contrary to policy and the principles of sustainable development, thetechnologies proposed are recognised in national policy and waste strategy asbeing potentially suitable and it is not, therefore, considered reasonable toobject to the principle of the technologies proposed in this instance.7.544 Objectors have also questioned whether the facility would qualify as an ‘R1’recovery facility (as opposed to a disposal facility – this point is relevant indetermining the extent to which the facility would help move wastemanagement up the hierarchy), particularly if significant volumes ofcommercial waste are treated. An ‘R1’ facility is one which meets a particularefficiency threshold such that it will qualify, in legislative terms, as an energyrecovery facility. Measurement of performance relative to the threshold is amatter for the Environment Agency. The applicant indicates that the facilitydesign would enable it to exceed the efficiency threshold to qualify as arecovery facility.7.545 Overall, Officers are satisfied that the facility would qualify as a recoveryfacility on the basis of its proposed efficiency and as a result of its technicalcapacity to recover Municipal Solid Waste, even if a substantial amount ofcommercial and industrial waste were to be input. Previous appeal decisionsrelating to EfW facilities have confirmed that it would not be appropriate for thePlanning Authority to impose a condition seeking to require the facility to meeta particular efficiency threshold as this is a matter addressed through thepermitting process administered by the Environment Agency.Consideration of a ‘single versus multiple site’ solution7.546 The applicant states that, having identified what it considers to be thepreferred technological solution, consideration was then given to whether thesolution was best met through a single or multiple site approach. In theabsence of a local plan which has been subject to Sustainability Appraisalunder the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act to guide consideration ofthe approach, the applicant developed a set of high-level sustainabilityobjectives relating to key environmental, economic, social and naturalresource aims and used these to carry out a broad assessment of threepotential approaches; a single site, two sites and multiple sites. Based on thisassessment, the applicant concludes that a single site option has clearenvironmental, economic and social benefits which are considered to be asgood as or greater than either a two or multiple site solution.7.547 A substantial amount of criticism has been expressed by objectors about theadoption of a ‘single site’ approach. In particular, they consider that such anapproach is fundamentally inappropriate and unsustainable in what is thelargest county in England and would lead to unnecessary heavy vehiclemovements with associated adverse carbon and amenity impacts. Theyconsider that two or more sites would better reflect the geography of the area,be more sustainable and flexible and better reflect the principle of localcommunities taking responsibility for waste. Views have also been expressed274NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/274

that the methodology used to identify a single or multiple site approach is alsofundamentally flawed.7.548 The approach adopted by the applicant to determining use of a single ormultiple site approach is relatively simplistic and relies on broad judgementsabout the relative implications of the approaches assessed in a purelyqualitative way. In particular, for example, no quantitative assessment of thepossible implications, in overall transportation terms, of a single versusmultiple sites approach appears to have been carried out. Such limitationsare perhaps inevitable when carrying out an assessment in the absence ofknowledge of the particular locations where development could take place.7.549 There is no policy steer in the development plan itself specifically relating tothe use of a single or multiple sites for the management of residual waste.NYWLP Policy 4/1 indicates that waste management facilities will bepermitted provided that “… the location is geographically well located to thesource of the waste thereby according with the proximity principle” (although itshould be noted that policy references to the ‘proximity principle’ are now outof date). RSS Policy ENV14, dealing with strategic locational criteria forwaste management facilities, states that “waste should be managed on thesite where it arises, or if not possible at the nearest appropriate location”. Akey objective of national waste planning policy in PPS10 is to “provide aframework in which communities take more responsibility for their own waste,and enable sufficient and timely provision of waste management facilities tomeet the needs of their communities”. All these policies are expressed inrelatively general terms and provide a relatively high degree of flexibility to thedecision taker to interpret them in a local context. Whilst current nationalpolicy also requires waste to be managed at the ‘nearest appropriateinstallation’, for reasons set out earlier in this report, it is considered that theproposal, if developed, would allow this requirement to be met.7.550 The concerns of objectors about the dis-benefits of the ‘single site’ solutionproposed are noted. The approach adopted by the applicant to theidentification of the AWRP site (see below) has utilised accessibility to wastearising within the joint area as a fundamental locational criteria, in recognitionof the transportation implications. It should also be noted that the relationshipbetween one or more sites and the consequent transport implications may notbe a simple one. For example, the outputs from a facility on one site mayrepresent inputs to a facility at another location, thus requiring transport,whereas the AWRP facility would co-locate a number of residual wastemanagement activities together. Furthermore, the provision of more locationsfor the management of residual waste may not justify the development of adenser network of transfer locations, thus leading to more utilisation of smallervehicles and lower overall efficiencies in transportation.7.551 In the absence of more detailed knowledge of the actual implications, intransport terms, of single or multiple sites (and the precise nature of the wastemanagement activities that would take place on them) it is difficult to concludethat a single site solution would necessarily be less preferable to a multiplesite solution in overall transportation terms, particularly if the location of a275NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/275

single facility performs well in overall accessibility terms. With regard to thePPS10 ‘theme’ of communities taking responsibility for waste, it could beargued that a single site approach performs less well than a multiple siteapproach. However, it should also be noted that the AWRP facility would notoperate in isolation, but would form part of a wider network of facilities,including local recycling and transfer facilities, across the Partnership areawhich collectively would manage LACW. The requirement to addresscommunity responsibility is not expressed in PPS10 to relate to any particularlevel of the hierarchy, but is an overarching strategic ‘theme’.7.552 Overall, therefore, it is not considered that the proposed utilisation of a singlesite in an appropriate location would, on the basis of information available, becontrary to the development plan or to national policy.Site selection7.553 Having identified a single site solution as the preferred approach, theapplicant has sought to identify an appropriate location for a facility. The fullapproach followed by the applicant is set out in Sections 5.4 to 5.7 of theapplication statement.7.554 In summary, the approach followed by the applicant has been, as a first step,to identify a range of criteria broadly according with the locational criteria inPPS10, which could be used to help define a search area. The search criteriaused at this stage were;• remote from key hydrogeological features;• low flood risk potential;• stable land conditions;• limited visual intrusion;• limited ecological value;• limited cultural heritage value;• good transport and access links;• remote from sensitive receptors (residents, schools, hospitals etc.); and,• good co-location opportunities (including combined heat and power).7.555 These were considered in relation to four broad sustainability criteria (protectand enhance the environment; promote a strong, stable and productiveeconomy; develop strong, vibrant, cohesive communities and; ensure theefficient and prudent use of natural resources). The applicant states that,having carried out this assessment, the criterion best placed to define a sitesearch area search zone was transport and access (“including the ability toidentify a site which minimises vehicle miles and thus carbon emissions”) asbest supporting all four main sustainability aims used in their assessmentprocess.7.556 The applicant further indicates that they consider traffic and access to be arobust criterion on which to define a search area as it would also contribute tothe PPS10 objective of communities taking more responsibility for their ownwaste and the Waste Framework Directive requirement to enable waste to berecovered at the ‘nearest appropriate installation’, as well as NYWLP Policy4/18 requiring that waste facilities minimise vehicle movements such that they276NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/276

can be satisfactorily accommodated on the local highway network and wouldnot have an unacceptable impact on local communities.7.557 The site search zone was identified using modelled drive time areas fromactual or hypothetical waste transfer locations in the joint area and anticipatedvolumes of residual waste requiring management based on a waste flowmodel. The methodology has assumed that all (District/Borough) Councils willbulk their waste irrespective of proximity to the selected treatment site. Thequantity of waste from each transfer point over the life of the contract hasbeen translated into a percentage of the overall total. Maximum drive times,based on minimising tonne/miles travelled and practical turnaround times forvehicles, were then identified on the basis of a maximum 120 minute drivetime where the volume to be transferred represents 10% or less of the total,90 minutes for volumes between 10 and 20% and 30 minutes where thevolume exceeds 20% of the total. Modelled drive time areas were mapped,with an area of search zone identified where the identified areas overlap.Areas within the search area covered by National Park or AONB designationwere subsequently ‘scoped out’ due to being national policy constraints.7.558 The applicant indicates that the search zone has defined the area within whichsites have ideally been sought. Sites beyond the zone were identified andassessed from a high level desk-based perspective. Only if no sites could beidentified within the search zone which met the specific need would sitesbeyond it be considered.7.559 A sequential approach to site identification was then followed. Thiscommenced with a review of the two sites currently allocated in the NYWLP(namely, Jackdaw Crag Quarry and Barnsdale Bar Quarry and Landfill site)notwithstanding that these are both located in green belt and fall outside thesearch area; review of eight sites considered for allocation for large scalefacilities during previous (withdrawn) work on the MWDF 3 (of which only 1,Allerton Park, fell within the search area with a further site (Dalton Airfield)falling just beyond the boundary); consideration of two other sites within theplanning system at the time of submission of the planning application; and areview of other sites such as potential industrial and brownfield sites andemployment allocations in other local plans, utilising criteria drawn from theNYWLP and PPS10.7.560 This latter element of the search led to the identification of 301 possible sitesof which 158 fell within or near the edge of the search zone. These sites werereviewed in relation to a minimum size threshold of 3ha, leading to theidentification of 32 sites which the applicant considered were appropriatelylocated and sized. These were then subject to further assessment in relationto availability, deliverability and suitability and in relation to site locationalcriteria based on PPS10 (Annex E) and subject to site visits. No potentially3 The Allerton Park site was one of a number of sites identified in the draft Waste Site Allocations DPDpreferred options consultation in November 2007 as being suitable in principle for large scale wastemanagement facilities including waste treatment. Work on the Site Allocations DPD wassubsequently stopped as a result of a decision in September 2008 to withdraw the draft Waste CoreStrategy.277NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/277

suitable sites were identified through this element of the search. Therefore,the search exercise returned to review the two potential sites identified earlierin the search process, Jackdaw Crag Quarry and Allerton Park Quarry andLandfill site. The former site, although allocated for waste recovery in theNYWLP, was initially ‘scoped out’ principally due to its location within thegreen belt, a policy requirement to link any new development to life of thequarry and the fact that it lies outside (albeit close to) the search area. Theapplicant indicates that the Allerton Park site was initially ‘scoped out’because, although in the search area, it was not identified as an allocation inthe development plan and, therefore, the applicant considered that a review ofother possible opportunities within the search area should be carried out first.7.561 The Jackdaw Crag and Allerton Park sites were subject to a more detailedqualitative assessment, leading to the applicant’s conclusion that only onesite, the Allerton Park site, met all the necessary criteria, notwithstanding itslocation in the open countryside.7.562 Objectors have criticised the applicant’s site search exercise for a range ofreasons including: lack of justification for discounting or not investigatingalternative sites, including sites located outside the York and North Yorkshirearea; lack of sufficient consideration of opportunities for utilisation of combinedheat and power; and the exclusion of sites in the City of York area. It shouldbe noted with respect to this latter point that the search exercise has identifiedand assessed a significant number of sites in the City of York area,notwithstanding that a large majority of the applicant’s search area lies outsidethe City of York boundary, although these sites were not taken forwardthrough the search process for a number of reasons, as identified in theassessment.7.563 As noted elsewhere in this report, the absence of any confirmed potential forthe scheme to deliver combined heat and power and the likely relative lack ofopportunities to deliver CHP at this site, given its essentially rural location,weakens the case for utilisation of the AWRP site (although it should also benoted that the applicant has indicated that ongoing measures would be takento seek delivery of an opportunity for heat off-take and would be willing toaccept a planning condition to this effect). Overall, it is considered that a sitewith greater potential for CHP should be preferred over an otherwiseequivalent site with lesser potential. The applicant indicates that the sitesearch exercise has considered potential for CHP, as part of widerconsideration of the potential for co-location of waste processes, in assessingsites against criteria based on Annex E of PPS10.7.564 In practice, opportunities for CHP are more likely to be associated with moreurban parts of the area. However, the site search area has primarily beendriven by transport and accessibility criteria as considered in relation to thewhole of the area, with potential for CHP a subsidiary consideration, and thisapproach may have served to reduce the overall potential to identify a sitewhich could deliver CHP.278NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/278

7.565 It should also be noted that the potential for use of sustainable transportmodes has not been an express criterion in the site search exercise, theapplicant stating that “the focus has been to try to identify a site based uponsustainable road movements”. Current national and regional planning policyseeks to encourage modal shift. In considering this issue the applicantindicates that the dispersed nature of waste arisings, the need for road-bornedeliveries from kerbside to transfer locations, and rail infrastructure availabilityrestrictions, means that opportunities for rail transport are not realistic in apredominantly rural area such as North Yorkshire. Notwithstanding theexistence of policies to support modal shift, it is accepted that utilisation ofother transport modes for transport of residual LACW in the area is unlikely tobe realistic and it is not considered that the failure to identify a site where thiscould be achieved undermines the overall robustness of the site searchexercise.7.566 Objectors have suggested that some or all of the residual waste in thePartnership area requiring management could be dealt with at existing orplanned facilities outside, but in relatively close proximity to the area, includingfacilities at Ferrybridge and elsewhere in West Yorkshire and in Teesside.The applicant indicates that the approach adopted in identifying a site “… wasfundamentally driven by the desire to manage waste locally, i.e. within theadministrative boundary of the City of York and North Yorkshire, and, in anyevent, at the nearest appropriate location”.7.567 There is no express policy requirement in the NYWLP for North Yorkshire tobe self-sufficient in terms of provision of infrastructure for managing wastearising in the area, although an overall aim of the Plan is “to secure anadequate and integrated network of facilities for dealing with waste generatedwithin, or in proximity, to North Yorkshire”. RSS Policy ENV13 states that“waste planning authorities should individually or jointly ensure that adequatesites and facilities are available to manage municipal, commercial andindustrial (and other wastes) taking account of the benchmark forecasts (setout in accompanying tables)”. The waste forecasts referred to are provided atsub-regional and individual WPA level. Furthermore, PPS10 indicates that, inpreparing local plans for waste, WPAs should allocate sites to support thepattern of waste management facilities set out in the RSS in accordance withthe broad locations identified in RSS.7.568 Neither the RSS policy nor PPS10 policy referred to above are specificallyaimed at taking decisions on specific applications. More recent Governmentthinking on delivery of waste infrastructure is set out in the Government WastePolicy Review 2011 (paragraph 263) which states “There is no requirement forindividual authorities to be self-sufficient in terms of waste infrastructure andtransporting waste to existing infrastructure to deliver the best environmentalsolution should not be considered a barrier”. It should be noted that this latterstatement does not represent formal planning policy.279NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/279

7.569 The desire, expressed in the application, to deliver a solution within the areawould therefore appear to be generally in line with aim of the NYWLP andRSS policy, but is not an express requirement. It could also help deliver asolution in line with a key planning objective in PPS10 to provide a frameworkin which communities take responsibility for their own waste, and enablesufficient and timely provision of waste management facilities to meet theneeds of their communities. It is certainly less likely that such an objectivewould be furthered by exporting residual waste outside the area formanagement.7.570 On the other hand, neither the Directive requirement to ensure that waste isrecovered at the ‘nearest appropriate installation’, nor the 2011 Policy Reviewreference quoted above (which is not current planning policy) preclude thedelivery of solutions outside the area. Existing and emerging policy, therefore,does not provide a clear guide to the approach to be taken to this particularapplication on this particular point. Whilst objectors have drawn attention towhat they consider to be other, more preferable, solutions using existing orplanned facilities elsewhere, such an approach does not form part of currentlocal waste strategy for the area and it is not considered that such potentialalternatives represent realistic alternatives at this time.7.571 Overall, it is concluded that, notwithstanding the objections received and theobservations expressed above, the identification of the AWRP site has beenderived through a sufficiently robust site search exercise which has takenadequate account of appropriate factors. Further discussion of therelationship of the proposals with locational policy in the development planand other planning policy documents is set out elsewhere in this Section.7.572 As noted above, on 6 September 2012, an EIA Scoping Request wasreceived by the County Planning Authority in connection with a potentialplanning application for development of an energy recovery facility, proposedto be located at the Kellingley Colliery site in Selby District. The developerindicates that the facility would be intended to deal with commercial andindustrial waste, but could deal with municipal waste. It is not yet known if,and when, an application for such development will be submitted and thescheme is not considered to be sufficiently advanced to represent analternative option. The Kellingley Colliery site was one of a range of sitesconsidered by the applicant within their site search exercise. The site was notcarried forward, mainly as a result of its location outside the area of search, itslocation within the Green Belt and accessibility to the motorway network.Financial Considerations7.573 Several representations have been made about the financial implications ofthe proposed development to the County Council and so to the taxpayer.Largely these are critical of the cost to the public purse of the ‘PFI’arrangements by which the development would be funded if permitted.Additionally, representations have been made about the landfill tax savingsthat might be expected to arise as a result of the facility.280NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/280

7.574 These are not planning considerations. No direct land-use consequences ofthese financial savings or expenditure have been identified. The landfill taxregime exists for environmental reasons, and to give weight to any landfill taxsaving would be to impermissibly ‘double-count’ the environmental benefits.7.575 The PFI grant from DEFRA to the County Council if the facility is built wouldconstitute a ‘local finance consideration’ for the purposes of the amendedsection 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. So far as localfinance considerations are material, they are relevant to a planning decision.Here, although the proposed PFI grant could potentially give some comfortabout the deliverability of the proposal, there has been no business case orviability analysis as part of the planning application, and so it adds nothing tothe issues and should not be given weight.Presumption in favour of sustainable development7.576 The NPPF introduced a new presumption in favour of sustainabledevelopment. This does not change the statutory status of the developmentplan as the starting point for decision making and the NPPF confirms thatdevelopment which accords with an up to date development plan should beapproved, and development that conflicts should be refused unless othermaterial considerations indicate otherwise. With respect to decision-taking,the NPPF (paragraph 14) states that the presumption means:• “approving development proposals that accord with the developmentplan without delay; and• Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are outof-date,granting permission unless;‐ any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly anddemonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against thepolicies in this Framework taken as a whole; or‐ specific policies in this Framework indicate development should berestricted”With regard to the latter bullet point above, a footnote to the NPPF indicates,as examples of policies which could indicate development should berestricted, policies protecting sites and areas including designated heritageassets.7.577 The weight that it may be appropriate to attach to key elements of thedevelopment plan (including the NYWLP and RSS) needs to be interpreted inthe light of the advice in the NPPF and PPS10 and the Government’s intentionto revoke RSSs. In this particular case, there is a development plancontaining relevant policies. However, some elements of the developmentplan (including particularly the NYWLP) pre-date key elements of nationalpolicy including PPS10 and the NPPF. Although it is not concluded that theNYWLP is ‘out of date’ at this time, in the context of the presumption in favourof sustainable development, it is considered necessary to have regard to moreup to date national policy, as well as any other material considerations, andthe extent to which these may supersede any policies in the developmentplan.281NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/281

7.578 It is considered that, overall, the proposals receive support from someelements of the development plan, whilst there are areas of apparent conflictwith some policies. Taken as a whole therefore, the development plan doesnot provide a very clear steer in either direction on the determination of thisparticular application and therefore it is not appropriate simply to apply thepresumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the NPPF. It istherefore necessary to have regard to other material considerations, includingmore up to date national policy.8.0 CONCLUSIONS8.1 Members will be very aware that this is a controversial proposal of major scaleand complexity. Notwithstanding the unusually high level of interest in theproposal, it needs to be determined in accordance with the principles applyingto the determination of all applications. The starting point for consideration ofthe application is therefore the development plan and Members shoulddetermine the application in accordance with the development plan, unlessmaterial considerations indicate otherwise.8.2 In this particular case, there are a significant number of individual policieswithin the development plan that are considered to be relevant. However, it isimportant to note that, in assessing the proposals against the developmentplan, regard should be had to the development plan as a whole. It may nottherefore be necessary for a proposal to comply with all policies in order to befound compliant with the development plan.8.3 Consideration of this application against the provisions of the developmentplan is also influenced by the status of the various elements of thedevelopment plan relative to recent national policy in the NPPF, which is itselfan important material consideration. A key element of the development plan,relevant to this decision, is the NYWLP. As the NYWLP was adopted underprovisions pre-dating the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, theNPPF advises that due weight should be given to policies in such plansaccording to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. Members shouldnote that the advice in the NPPF is, however, merely a material considerationand does not usurp the statutory duty to determine applications in accordancewith the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.Members should also note that national planning policy for waste, contained inPPS10, post dates publication of the NYWLP and is an important materialconsideration. The RSS is also important as a further element of thedevelopment plan specifically addressing waste planning, to which someweight should be attached, although the Secretary of State has re-affirmed hisintention to revoke all RSSs. Policies adopted by Harrogate Borough Councilalso form part of the development plan, although these have not beenprepared specifically to address development for the purposes of wastemanagement.282NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/282

8.4 As discussed in Section 7.0 of this report, it is concluded that the proposalsreceive support, or do not conflict with, some policies in the development plan.This includes support from those policies relating to the provision ofrenewable and low carbon energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions,moving waste up the hierarchy, achieving effective waste management andwaste management targets, the provision of waste management facilities,supply of secondary and recycled aggregate and the locational criteria forfacilities for recycling, sorting and transfer of waste. It is considered that thedevelopment would not conflict with those policies seeking to preventunacceptable harm from being caused to residential amenity (including airquality, pollution, impact on health, noise, dust odour and litter), highways andtransport interests, ecology, restoration and aftercare, archaeology, flooding,land instability and cumulative impact. On the other hand, a limited degree ofconflict with some locational policies in the development plan has beenidentified, together with a limited degree of conflict with policy relating toprotection of the historic environment and with policy protecting of the amenityof users of public rights of way. More significant conflict with policies seekingto prevent unacceptable harm to the landscape and visual impact has alsobeen identified.8.5 Of particular relevance to assessing compliance with the development plan inthis instance is the relationship of the proposals with the locational policiescontained in the plan, particularly as, in this case, there is an absence of anup to date range of site allocations for major waste infrastructure within thedevelopment plan and the application site is not allocated in the developmentplan. The NYWLP does not seek to prevent development of waste facilitieson unallocated sites but identifies a range of criteria which any such proposalsshould meet. In this respect it is concluded that certain elements of theproposal meet the specific locational criteria for recycling, sorting and transferof waste (NYWLP Policy 5/3) but that another, substantial, co-located elementof the scheme (the main EfW element) does not clearly meet the specificlocational criteria identified in NYWLP Policy 5/10 relating to the incinerationof waste.8.6 Whilst it is acknowledged that, in policy terms, the site falls within opencountryside, and national and regional policy seeks to prioritise use ofindustrial locations and previously developed land for waste development, it isnot considered that this, in itself, constitutes a reason to refuse permission incircumstances where the applicant was not able to identify a suitable site,more compliant with this aspect of policy, whilst meeting other relevant searchcriteria, particularly as current national policy allows for some locationalflexibility. Overall it is considered, with respect to locational policy, that takentogether the development plan and national policy do not provide a decisivesteer to the determination of this application.8.7 With regard to other elements of national policy relevant to the proposal, thisis contained principally in PPS10, the NPPF and relevant National PolicyStatements relating to major energy infrastructure, with PPS10 beingparticularly significant as representing the Government’s most up to date283NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/283

published planning policy on waste. PPS10 itself states that, in consideringplanning applications for waste management facilities before developmentplans can be reviewed to reflect this PPS (as is the case here), WPAs shouldhave regard to the policies in the PPS as material considerations which maysupersede policies in their development plan. PPS10 also states thatplanning applications for sites that have not been identified, or are not locatedin an area identified, in a development plan document as suitable for new orenhanced waste management facilities should be considered favourably whenconsistent with the policies in the PPS, including the criteria identified inparagraph 21 (of the PPS).8.8 PPS10 identifies a number of key objectives for waste planning. Objectivesparticularly relevant include (in summary):• Helping to deliver sustainable development through driving wastemanagement up the waste hierarchy, addressing waste as a resourceand looking to disposal as a last option;• Providing a framework in which communities take more responsibility fortheir own waste, and enable sufficient and timely provision of wastemanagement facilities to meet the needs of their communities;• Helping to implement the national waste strategy and supporting targets;For the reasons discussed in Section 7.0 of this report, it is considered thatthe proposals would make a major contribution to the delivery of thesenational policy objectives.• Helping to secure the recovery or disposal of waste without endangeringhuman health and without harming the environment, and enable waste tobe disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations 4 ;• Reflecting the concerns and interests of communities, the needs ofwaste collection authorities, waste disposal authorities and business,and encourage competitivenessFor the reasons discussed in Section 7.0 of this report, it is considered thatthe development would further the delivery of these objectives, except to theextent that harm to some aspects of the environment may be caused for thereasons as set out in Section 7.0 and to the extent that there are significantobjections to the proposals from some residents of local communities.8.9 With regard to the criteria in paragraph 21 of PPS10, the location isconsidered acceptable in terms of the capacity of transport infrastructure tosupport the sustainable movement of waste.8.10 The contribution that the development would make to the supply of renewableand low carbon energy (and hence a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions)is consistent with the objectives of national and regional policy and with arange of other national strategies supporting the increased supply of suchenergy. It is also acknowledged that the development would contribute to thesupply of an alternative source of aggregate materials, as supported by4 The Waste Framework Directive (Article 16) indicates that the requirement also applies to therecovery of mixed municipal waste collected from private households284NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/284

national and regional policy. A further benefit of the proposal is considered tobe the creation of employment and any wider contribution that thedevelopment may make to the economy.8.11 A range of arguments have been presented by objectors in relation to mattersincluding the excessive scale of the development, the consequential impactthat operation of the facility may have on achievement of future increases inrecycling performance and the use of what objectors consider to be flawedassumptions about future waste volumes, composition and sources. Theseare linked to associated concerns raised by objectors around what theyconsider to be a lack of flexibility inherent in the proposed solution, theavailability of preferable alternative technologies, facilities and locations forthe management of waste arising in the area and a lack of confidence that theapplicants’ proposals have demonstrated adequately the need for andbenefits of the proposed development, including benefits in terms of carbonsaving and relative to landfill. Objectors have also stated that they considerthe proposed single site solution for the management of residual waste to beinappropriate in a large rural area such as North Yorkshire.8.12 These concerns are discussed in more detail in Section 7.0 of the report. Inconsidering them it is particularly important to note that the proposal has beenbrought forward specifically in response to a need identified in the JointMunicipal Waste Management Strategy for York and North Yorkshire to bringforward a solution to divert residual municipal waste away from landfill and tohelp meet agreed targets contained in the Strategy. The need to move wasteup the hierarchy, away from landfill, is a legal obligation as well as a verypressing policy objective at a national, regional and local level, to the extentthat RSS expresses a requirement for local authorities to support the “urgent”provision of a combination of facilities and initiatives which best meetenvironmental, social and economic needs, in order to move waste up thehierarchy, achieve statutory targets and manage waste at the nearestappropriate location (where necessary by seeking agreement withneighbouring authorities).8.13 For the reasons set out in this report it is concluded that there is a clear andcompelling need for the delivery of new infrastructure to enable the diversionof residual waste away from landfill, thereby moving waste management upthe hierarchy and supporting the delivery of agreed targets. It is furtherconcluded that the range of management methods proposed in thisapplication are consistent with relevant policy and strategy for themanagement of waste and that the renewable and low carbon energy thatwould be generated is a substantial benefit of the proposal. Whilst objectorsconcerns about the potential for the development to constrain furtherimprovements in recycling performance are understood, the evidence fromother countries is that high rates of recycling and energy from waste arecompatible and, in any event, it is considered that the development would, ifpermitted, be fundamental to the meeting of current targets contained in themunicipal waste management strategy, which are, in turn, consistent withcurrent national targets.285NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/285

8.14 Whilst it is difficult to conclude definitively whether the scale of thedevelopment (in terms of its capacity) would match closely the actual scale ofresidual arisings requiring management, there is no requirement in planningpolicy, either nationally, regionally or locally, to place a cap on residualtreatment capacity. In any event the potential for the development to manageother commercial and industrial wastes, management of which current wastepolicy and strategy also seeks to move further up the waste hierarchy,provides an element of flexibility and the potential for the development toprovide some capacity for these wastes is considered to be a benefit of theproposal to which some weight should be attached.8.15 For reasons discussed in Section 7.0 it is also considered that there is noplanning policy reason to object to the development on the basis that itrepresents a ‘single site solution’. Furthermore, it should be noted that thefacility would, in fact, form part (albeit a key part) of an extensive network offacilities across the partnership area all contributing to the management ofLACW. Whilst some objectors may have expressed preferences for othersolutions, including use of existing or planned facilities outside the area, suchpotential options are speculative and Members are reminded of therequirement to determine this application on its merits having regard first tothe development plan and then other material considerations. In this respectit is also concluded that the applicant has followed a robust approach to theidentification of a site for the proposal and that, if developed, the facility wouldrepresent the nearest appropriate installation in the area for the recovery ofmixed municipal waste arising in the area (in line with the Waste FrameworkDirective requirement) and would also help deliver the PPS10 objective ofcommunities taking responsibility for their waste.8.16 With regard to the impacts of the development on the range of environmentaland amenity matters which need to be considered, objections have beenreceived on these matters from local communities and from some consultees,including strong objections from Harrogate Borough Council. In particular, akey consideration with this proposal is the extent of any impact on thelandscape and historic environment, reflecting the fact that the development,which is of large scale, would be located in what is, in planning policy terms,an open countryside location and in close proximity to a range of historicassets including an historic park and garden and important listed buildingsand structures. It is concluded that the proposals would conflict with policiesin the development plan relating to protection of the landscape and visualimpact and, to a lesser extent, with policies seeking to protect or conserve thehistoric environment and the amenity of users of public rights of way. It musthowever be noted, with regard to impact on the historic environment, thatEnglish Heritage, as the statutory consultee, has concluded that less thansubstantial harm would be caused to the overall significance of the historicassets including, and associated with, Allerton Park. This is an opinion whichyour officers share. It should also be noted that the NPPF indicates that,where harm to historic assets (including the setting of such assets) isexpected to be less than substantial, this harm should be weighed against thepublic benefits of the proposal. With regard to impacts on landscape and the286NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/286

historic environment the applicant has also proposed a range of mitigationmeasures which are discussed further below.8.17 The ability to mitigate any harm in order to reduce any adverse impacts isdirectly relevant to establishing the overall ‘residual’ level of harm that mayarise and the ultimate extent of any conflict with relevant policies in thedevelopment plan. With regard to impacts on landscape and the historicenvironment, key elements of the applicants’ mitigation proposals are aLandscape Management Strategy (informed by a Conservation ManagementPlan) and a Landscape and Cultural Heritage Fund.8.18 In relation to the historic environment, members must have regard to thedesirability of preserving or enhancing the setting of the relevant listedbuildings, particularly relevant here being those in the Registered Park andGarden. It has also been concluded there would be an adverse impact on thesetting of the Registered Park and Garden itself. If permission is to begranted it is therefore necessary to identify any benefits of the proposal(including mitigation measures) that outweigh that harm to the setting and anyother harm. Relevant waste related benefits are referred to earlier in thissection. Local planning authorities are also obliged to have regard to Article13 of the Waste Framework Directive which requires waste management tobe carried out without harming (among other things) the countryside or placesof special interest.8.19 For the reasons discussed in Section 7.0 of this report it is concluded that therange of proposed mitigation measures would assist in reducing the extent ofany harm (which in any event, with respect to the historic environment, isconsidered to be less than substantial and which English Heritage say will beoff-set by the proposed mitigation measures). However, members should notethere is an element of uncertainty with regard to whether some historic assets,likely to be adversely affected by the development, would ultimately be subjectto mitigation through the various mitigation measures proposed, although asnoted above English Heritage are satisfied with the approach to mitigation.Overall, the conclusion of your officers is that, with the mitigation proposedand the relevant waste related benefits referred to earlier in this section, thatsuch benefits outweigh the residual harm to the historic environment,including the Waste Framework Directive requirement to manage wastewithout harming the countryside or places of special interest.8.20 With respect to wider considerations of landscape and visual impact inparticular (including impact on users of the Public Rights of Way network), it isconcluded that the level of harm would be such that a significant degree ofconflict with those policies seeking to prevent unacceptable harm to thelandscape and visual impact would arise. However, is also concluded that thedegree of such harm is (or would be) reduced as a result of factors includingthe configuration of the site, the presence of established screening and theproposed mitigation measures (which are considered necessary to help offsetthe impact of the development), to the extent that the harm caused would notbe sufficient to outweigh the need for the development and the other publicbenefits identified earlier in this section.287NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/287

Overall conclusion8.21 The scale and nature of this proposal means that a range of impacts areinevitable. The landscape and visual impact in particular, and the potential forconsequential impacts on the setting of important historic assets, given theproximity of the site to the Registered Park and Garden and associated listedstructures at Allerton Park, are key considerations. Even with satisfactoryimplementation of the range of mitigation measures proposed by theapplicant, there would inevitably be a significant degree of residual impact,particularly on the landscape, such that the proposal would not comply withsome policies in the development plan. Against these residual impacts it isconsidered that there is a compelling need for new infrastructure to helpdeliver overarching policy and strategic objectives for waste, includingdiverting waste away from landfill and further up the waste hierarchy, togetherwith a range of other public benefits. The proposal subject of this applicationhas been brought forward in response to this need and in line with the agreedsub-regional strategy for the management of municipal waste and wouldtherefore be a key means of achieving current agreed targets for managementof such waste.8.22 been concluded that, in this particular case, policies in the development planpull in both directions. Whilst policies seeking to protect environment andamenity are clearly important, there is very strong policy support for movingwaste up the hierarchy. A balanced judgement needs to be made in relationto the harm identified, including areas of conflict with development plan policy,and other relevant considerations including the benefits referred to earlier inthis section. In this respect it is considered that, subject to delivery ofadequate mitigation measures in line with those proposed though legalagreements and planning conditions (as set out in Section 9 below), and forthe reasons contained in this report, the overall balance lies in favour of thedevelopment.8.23 It is also necessary to consider whether consultation with the Secretary ofState would be required, under the Town and Country Planning (Consultation)(England) Direction 2009, before permission could be granted, shouldmembers be so minded. The consultation criteria identified in the Directionincludes development outside town centres which is not in accordance withone or more provisions of the development plan for the area and where thedevelopment includes office use and includes the provision of a building orbuildings where the floor space to be created is 5,000m 2 or more. As it hasbeen concluded in this report that the development would not comply with oneor more provisions in the development plan, and as the overall floor space ofthe development would exceed the threshold and incorporates office use, it isconcluded that consultation with the SoS would be needed should membersresolve to grant permission for the development.288NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/288

9.0 RECOMMENDATION9.1 Upon considering that the Environmental Statement, including further andother information submitted by the applicant, includes such information as isreasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the developmentand which the applicant could be reasonably required to compile; and9.2 Having taken into account the environmental information relating to thisapplication, namely the Environmental Statement, including further and otherinformation submitted by the applicant, and duly made representations aboutthe environmental effects of the development; and9.3 Having had due regard to the Human Rights Act; the relevant issues arisinghave been assessed as the potential effects upon those living within thevicinity of the application site, namely those affecting the right to the peacefulenjoyment of one’s property and the right to respect for private and family lifeand homes, and considering that the limited interference with those rights is inaccordance with the law, necessary and in the public interest; and9.4 Having paid special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing listedbuildings and their settings, and having had regard to Articles 13 and 16 of theWaste Framework Directive 2008;THAT9.5 Subject to the completion of referral procedures;AND9.6 Subject to the prior completion of a planning obligation to secure the followingmatters that are considered to be necessary to make the developmentacceptable in planning terms, are directly related to the development, and arefairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development:(i) Carrying out the Conservation, Repair and Maintenance Works inAllerton Park consisting of repair works and continued maintenance forthe duration of the development of the Ice House, Lady’s Cave, the BoatHouse, the Arched Entrance on the Lower Fish Pond South Side, theBridge between Lower and Middle Fish Ponds, the Tunnel and the(ii)Boundary Wall;Carrying out the works specified by the Landscape Officer as “essential”in “Area 2 (b)” as set out in paragraph 4.174 of this report;(iii) The payment of £839,500 to the Council to be used by the Counciltowards the delivery of enhancement and strengthening of the locallandscape character, biodiversity and/or cultural heritage assets within a3.5km radius of the Site or within the identified Landscape MitigationEnhancement Zones, to be informed by the Landscape ManagementStrategy and the Conservation Management Plan and Outline HabitatManagement Plan;(iv) The submission and approval of a Conservation Management Plandealing with the Registered Park and Garden at Allerton Park;289NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/289

(v) Compliance with the Travel Plan, approval of and compliance with theHGV Management Plan and approval of and compliance with aConstruction Phase Traffic Management Plan;(vi) Payment to the Council of £128,791 as a Highway MaintenanceContribution towards the upkeep of improvements to be carried out tothe A168/A59 junction.PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED for the development of a WasteRecovery Park (Allerton Waste Recovery Park - AWRP) at Allerton ParkQuarry, near Knaresborough comprising the erection and operation of aTipping Hall (TH); a Mechanical Treatment (MT) facility; an AnaerobicDigestion (AD) facility; an Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) Processing,Production and Storage facility; a unit housing six Air-Cooled Condensers andan Energy from Waste (EfW) facility to generate electricity. Includes for theredevelopment, refurbishment and extension of the existing property knownas Claro House to provide a visitor, education and office facility; connection tothe National Electricity Grid System and associated infrastructure; welfarefacilities; parking; surface water management system; hardstandings; internalroads; earthworks, landscaping; fencing and gates; weighbridge; lighting andother associated ancillary development on land at Allerton Park Quarry,Allerton Park, Knaresborough, North Yorkshire, HG5 OSD on behalf ofAmeyCespa Ltd, for the following reasons:(i) The proposed development would assist in the delivery of key wasteplanning objectives in accordance with paragraph 3 (Key PlanningObjectives) of Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for SustainableWaste Management (PPS10) and Policies ENV12 (Regional WastePlanning Objectives) and ENV13 (Provision of Waste ManagementFacilities) of the Yorkshire and Humber Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to2026 (RSS) by enabling the sufficient and timely delivery of wastefacilities to move waste up the hierarchy, divert waste from landfill, andcontribute to the delivery of agreed waste management targets. Theproposed development would also contribute an alternative supply of(ii)aggregate in accordance with Policy ENV4 (Minerals) of the RSS;The proposed development would contribute to the requirement of Article16(3) of the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) to enable therecovery of mixed municipal waste in one of the nearest appropriateinstallations and contribute to the national targets for the recycling ofhousehold waste and the recovery of municipal waste contained in theWaste Strategy for England 2007;(iii) The proposed development would contribute to the supply of renewableand low carbon energy in accordance with policies in the NPPF(paragraph 98), RSS (Policy ENV5 Energy) and National PolicyStatements on Energy EN-1 and EN-3;(iv) The proposed development would generate employment and contributeto the local economy in accordance with policy in paragraphs 18, 19 and20 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) relating tobuilding a strong, competitive economy;(v) The proposed development would not, subject where necessary tomitigation measures and controls, give rise to unacceptable impact on,or conflict with policies in the development plan relating to:290NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/290

• residential amenity (including air quality, pollution, impact on health,noise, dust odour and litter) as required by North Yorkshire WasteLocal Plan (NYWLP) ‘saved’ Policy 4/19 Quality of Life and criterionh) of ‘saved’ Policy 4/1 Waste Management Proposals, criterion g)of ‘saved’ Policy 5/3 Recycling, Sorting and Transfer of Industrial,Commercial and Household Waste and criterion h) of Policy 5/10Incineration of Waste,• highways and transport interests as required by NYWLP ‘saved’Policies 4/1 Waste Management Proposals (crtiterion g), 4/18Traffic Impact, criterion e) of Policy 5/3 Recycling, Sorting andTransfer of Industrial, Commercial and Household Waste andcriterion d) of Policy 5/10 Incineration of Waste,• ecology as required by NYWLP ‘saved’ Policies 4/9 National Sitesand 4/10 Locally Important Sites and ‘saved’ Policies NC3 LocalWildlife Sites and NC4 Semi-natural Haibitats of the HarrogateDistrict Local Plan 2001,• restoration and aftercare, archaeology as required by NYWLP‘saved’ Policies 4/15 Archaeological Evaluation and 4/16Archaeological Sites,• flooding as required by RSS Policy ENV1 Development and FloodRisk,• land instability as required by the NPPF (paragraph 120) and PolicyA7 of the Harrogate District Local Plan 2001• cumulative impact as required by NYWLP criterion d) of NYWLP‘saved’ Policy 4/1 Waste Management Proposals.(vi) The need for, and benefits of, the proposed development would, in theopinion of the Waste Planning Authority, outweigh the harm caused tothe landscape and the historic environment and harm relating to visualimpact and impact on the amenity of users of public rights of way.And, subject to conditions to include the following:ConditionsCOMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of fiveyears from the date of this permission.Reason:To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 asamended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.2. The County Planning Authority shall be notified in writing of the date ofcommencement at least 7 days, but not more than 14 days, prior to thecommencement of development.Reason:To enable the development to be monitored by the County Planning Authority.291NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/291

DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENT3. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except inaccordance with the details contained within the planning application dated 1September 2011 (as amended), the Environmental Statement (datedSeptember 2011), the ‘further and other environmental information’ (datedJune 2012) and the approved documents listed within condition no. 52 below,save for any amendments made pursuant to the other conditions below.Reason:To ensure the development is carried out in strict accordance with theapplication submitted in accordance with ‘saved’ Policy 4/1 of the NorthYorkshire Waste Local Plan (2006)REMOVAL OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS4. Notwithstanding the provisions of Parts 4, 8 and 25 of Schedule 2 of the Townand Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or anyorder revoking, amending or re-enacting that order) and except as may beotherwise approved under the terms of the conditions in this permission, noadditional external fixed plant or machinery, buildings, structures anderections shall not be erected, extended, installed or replaced at the siteunless details have been first submitted to and approved in writing by theCounty Planning Authority.Thereafter the approved details shall be erected, extended, installed orreplaced as approved.Reason:To ensure that measures are in place to manage landfill gas at the site and tosecure control over additional plant and machinery in the interests of amenityin accordance with ‘saved’ Policies 6/4 and 4/19 of the North Yorkshire WasteLocal Plan (2006).CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS5. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, the implementationof the finishes shall not commence until details and samples of the materialsto be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the buildings herebypermitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the CountyPlanning Authority. The development shall not be carried out thereafterexcept in accordance with the approved details.Reason:To safeguard the character of the area in the interests of local amenity inaccordance with ‘saved’ Policies 4/1 and 7/1 of the North Yorkshire WasteLocal Plan (2006)FLOOD RISK & DRAINAGE6. No development shall be commenced until a surface water drainage schemefor the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment ofthe hydrological and hydro-geological context of the development, has beensubmitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Thescheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved292NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/292

details and a timetable to be included within the scheme.The scheme shall also include:a. Detailed design plans showing the use of Sustainable Drainage Systemsto attenuate surface water run off from the additional 3.5ha of hardstandingproposed on site;b. Surface water discharge details that regulate the greenfield run-off ratefrom a 1 in 1 year storm;c. Details that ensure that storm water resulting from a 1 in 100 year event,although surcharging the drainage system, can be stored on the sitewithout risk to people or property and without overflowing into thewatercourse;d. Details of long term surface water storage. The required volume will bethe difference between the predicted runoff volume for the greenfield siteverses the developed site, in a 6 hour, 1 in 100 year event;e. Details of pollution prevention measures which will be included in thesystem;f. An assessment of whether the surface water drainage system willintroduce new pollutants or risk of mobilising any pollutants alreadypresent in the subsoil or groundwater, along with measures to minimisethis risk; andg. Details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed aftercompletion of the construction of the development.Reason:To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality,improve biodiversity and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of thesurface water drainage system, to protect the water environment: in particularthe Sherwood Sandstone Principal Aquifer and nearby designated ecologicalwetland sites in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework(2012).GROUNDWATER AND CONTAMINATED LAND7. Prior to the commencement of development, the following components of ascheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shalleach be submitted to and approved in writing by the County PlanningAuthority:a. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:• All previous uses;• Potential contaminants associated with those uses;• A conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways andreceptors; and• Potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at thesite.b. A site investigation scheme, based on (a) to provide information for adetailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected,including those off site.c. The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessmentreferred to in (b) and, based on these, an options appraisal andremediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measuresrequired and how they are to be undertaken.293NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/293

d. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected inorder to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in(c) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-termmonitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements forcontingency action.Any changes to these components shall require the written approval of theCounty Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implementedin accordance with the approved details and a timetable to be included withinthe scheme.Reason:Due to the historical potential for contaminants to be present on thispreviously worked site and in order to protect the water environment, inparticular the Sherwood Sandstone Principal Aquifer in accordance with theNational Planning Policy Framework (2012).8. Prior to the commencement of development, a verification reportdemonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediationstrategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to andapproved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The report shall includeresults of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with theapproved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteriahave been met. It shall also include any plan (a "long-term monitoring andmaintenance plan") for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages,maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in theverification plan, and for the reporting of this to the County Planning Authority.The long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be implemented asapproved.Reason:Due to the historical potential for contaminants to be present on thispreviously worked site and to protect the water environment, in particular theSherwood Sandstone Principal Aquifer in accordance with the NationalPlanning Policy Framework (2012).9. Reports on monitoring, maintenance and any contingency action carried out inaccordance with a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall besubmitted to the County Planning Authority as set out in that plan. Oncompletion of the monitoring programme a final report demonstrating that alllong-term site remediation criteria have been met and documenting thedecision to cease monitoring shall be submitted to and approved in writing bythe County Planning Authority.Reason:Due to the historical potential for contaminants to be present on thispreviously worked site and to protect the water environment, in particular theSherwood Sandstone Principal Aquifer in accordance with the NationalPlanning Policy Framework (2012).294NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/294

10. If during the construction of the development, contamination not previouslyidentified is found to be present at the site, then the developer shall submitand obtain written approval from the County Planning Authority for aremediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall bedealt with. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved andthe development shall not be brought into use until the contamination hasbeen remediated in accordance with the strategy.Reason:Due to the historical potential for contaminants to be present on thispreviously worked site and to protect the water environment, in particular theSherwood Sandstone Principal Aquifer in accordance with the NationalPlanning Policy Framework (2012).11. No infiltration of surface water drainage through the use of soakaways ordirect discharge to groundwater is permitted other than with the writtenconsent of the County Planning Authority, which may be given for those partsof the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultantunacceptable risk to controlled waters. The development shall be carried outin accordance with the approved details.Reason:Due to the historical potential for contaminants to be present on thispreviously worked site and to protect the water environment, in particular theSherwood Sandstone Principal Aquifer in accordance with the NationalPlanning Policy Framework (2012).12. Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not bepermitted other than with the written consent of the County Planning Authority,which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstratedthat there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. The developmentshall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.Reason:Due to the historical potential for contaminants to be present on thispreviously worked site and to protect the water environment, in particular theSherwood Sandstone Principal Aquifer in accordance with the NationalPlanning Policy Framework (2012).13. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time asa scheme to dispose of foul water has been submitted to, and approved inwriting by, the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implementedas approved.Reason:Due to the historical potential for contaminants to be present on thispreviously worked site and to protect the water environment, in particular theSherwood Sandstone Principal Aquifer in accordance with the NationalPlanning Policy Framework (2012).295NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/295

14. No development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a scheme for thesiting and design of any proposed or existing underground storage tanks hasbeen submitted to and agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority.The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the detailsagreed, prior to the utilisation of any such tanks. The scheme shall includethe following:a. Details of what will be or is stored in any underground tank;b. Details of the exact location of where any tank is or are to be sited;c. Details of the exact size and depth of any proposed or existing tank;d. Details of the hydro-geological characteristics of each relevant locatione.g. the water table level;e. Details of a comprehensive leak detection and alarm system whichdetects over-spilling and leakages and alerts the site operator;f. Details of how the storage tank is or shall be designed and constructed(including appropriate bunding) to minimise the chance of leakage.Reason:Due to the historical potential for contaminants to be present on thispreviously worked site and to protect the water environment, in particular theSherwood Sandstone Principal Aquifer from any potential pollution inaccordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).ARCHAEOLOGY15. No development shall take place within the areas of archaeological interestdefined in the Environmental Statement as Sand Hill (shown on the attachedPlan) and the cable route as shown on 3223-01(PL) G 01 Rev D, until theapplicant or their successor in title has secured the implementation of anarchaeological watching brief in accordance with a written scheme ofinvestigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by theCounty Planning Authority.Reason:To ensure that archaeological remains are preserved by record in accordancewith advice as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).CONSTRUCTION PHASE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN16. No development shall begin until a Construction Phase EnvironmentalManagement Plan (CEMP) has been submitted and approved in writing by theCounty Planning Authority. The approved CEMP shall set out thearrangements for managing all environmental effects of the developmentduring the construction period, including but not limited to:• Traffic and parking,• Temporary site security fencing• Artificial site illumination (including proposed hours of use)• Noise• Vibration• Control of vermin• Dust including management of stockpiles• Air pollution and odour including those effects from any decontaminationof the land296NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/296

• Wheel wash facilities• The control of mud on roads and crushing• Piling operations.The agreed CEMP shall be implemented in full throughout the duration of theconstruction works, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County PlanningAuthority, in advance.Reason:To avoid harm to the amenity of residents in accordance with ‘saved’ Policy4/19 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan (2006).DECOMMISSIONING PHASE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN17. No later than 6 months prior to the permanent cessation of electricitygeneration at the site and prior to the decommissioning of the development, aDecommissioning Environmental Management Plan (DEMP) to address theremoval of the development and restoration of the land) shall be submitted toand approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The DEMP shall beimplemented as approved. The DEMP shall include the following details:a. The demolition/dismantling and removal of the plant and buildings inaccordance with the method statement within the European ProtectedSpecies (EPS) licence;b. Site waste management including measures to recycle materials on theSite;c. Hours of working;d. Car parking arrangements;e. Traffic management;f. Decommissioning worker accommodation and support facilities and theirmeans of enclosure;g. Measures to control lighting, noise, dust, odours and fumes in order tominimise the adverse effects on the amenity of neighbours;h. Temporary storage compounds and stockpile areas;i. Measures to prevent mud and debris being deposited on the highway;j. Measures to protect trees and hedgerows;k. Temporary fencing;l. Measures to minimise the pollution of surface and ground waterm. Measures to inform visitors and liaise with neighbours; andn. A programme for implementation.Reason:To avoid harm to the amenity of residents in accordance with ‘saved’ Policy4/19 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan (2006) and to avoid harm to theEPS in accordance with the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended),and the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 2010 (as amended).18. No later than 2 years after the cessation of electricity generation all thedevelopment hereby permitted (with the exception of Claro House) shall bedemolished and removed from the Site and the land restored in accordancewith the approved Decommissioning Environmental Management Plan.297NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/297

Reason:To avoid harm to the amenity of residents in accordance with ‘saved’ Policy4/19 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan (2006).GRID CONNECTION19. The development shall not be brought into use until the facility has beenconnected to the substation at Coneythorpe.Reason:To maximise the energy benefits of the development in accordance withPolicy ENV5 of the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Spatial Strategy to 2026.PUBLIC PROTECTIONPreparatory, Construction and Decommissioning Phases20 Prior to the commissioning of the development, a CHP Feasibility Reviewassessing potential commercial opportunities for the use of heat from thedevelopment shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, and depositedwith the County Planning Authority. This shall provide for the ongoingmonitoring and full exploration of potential commercial opportunities to useheat from the development, and for the provision of subsequent reviews ofsuch commercial opportunities as necessary. Where viable opportunities forthe use of heat in such a scheme are identified, a scheme for the provision ofnecessary plant and pipework to the boundary of the site shall be submittedto, and approved in writing by, and deposited with the County PlanningAuthority. Any plant and pipework installed to the boundary of the site toenable the use of heat shall be installed in accordance with the agreed details.21 Save for works related to the construction of the bunker and associatedconcrete pours, all preparatory, construction and decommissioning workactivities shall not take place except (save in an emergency) between thehours of 0700 to 1900 Monday to Saturday and no working on Sundays andBank and Public Holidays is hereby permitted.In respect of the work associated with concrete pours for the bunkers,notification will be given to the County Planning Authority of the time thatthese will take place 48 hours in advance of any such works commencing.Reason:To minimise disturbance to residential properties in the interests of amenity inaccordance with ‘saved’ Policy 4/19 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan(2006).22. Prior to the commencement of the preparatory and construction phases adetailed dust assessment shall be provided by a suitably competent personfor the written approval of the County Planning Authority and such anassessment shall identify all dust mitigation measures to be employed duringthe preparatory and construction phases. Such measures as approved shallbe fully instigated and maintained during the preparatory and constructionphases.298NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/298

Reason:To minimise disturbance to residential properties in the interests of amenity inaccordance with ‘saved’ Policy 4/19 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan(2006).23. Prior to the commencement of the decommissioning work a detailed dustassessment shall be provided by a suitably competent person for the writtenapproval of the County Planning Authority. Such an assessment shall identifyall dust mitigation measures to be employed during decommissioning. Suchmeasures as approved shall be fully instigated and maintained during thedecommissioning phaseReason:To minimise disturbance to residential properties in the interests of amenity inaccordance with ‘saved’ Policy 4/19 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan(2006).OPERATIONAL PHASE24. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a detailednoise assessment report by a suitably competent person shall be provided tothe satisfaction of the County Planning Authority. The report shall include adetailed written scheme of how nearby residents will be protected from noisefrom the proposed development. The report shall include an assessment ofnoise emissions from the proposed development and details of backgroundand predicted noise levels at the boundary of nearby residential propertiestogether with noise attenuation measures. The report shall be appropriate forall times of day and night when the development will operate. The reportshould include any supporting calculations. All noise mitigation measures asapproved by the County Planning Authority shall be fully implemented andcompleted prior to occupation of the site. All noise mitigation measures asmay be approved shall be retained and maintained thereafter.Before bringing the development into use, a Validation Test of the approvedsound mitigation measures employed shall have been carried out and theresults submitted to and approved by the County Planning Authority. SuchValidation Test shall:a. Be carried out by a competent person in accordance with an approvedmethod statement; andb. Demonstrate that agreed suitable noise levels have been achieved.In the event that the validation test identifies that suitable noise levels havenot been achieved, irrespective of the sound mitigation measures employedand already approved, a further scheme will be required incorporating therecommendations of an acoustic consultant to achieve the noise levels andshall be implemented thereafter as approved.Reason:To minimise disturbance to residential properties in the interests of amenity inaccordance with ‘saved’ Policy 4/19 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan(2006).299NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/299

25. There shall be no deliveries to or dispatches from the premises outside thehours of 08:00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday and 08:00 and 17:00 Saturdays,Sundays and Bank and Public Holidays.Reason:To minimise disturbance to residential properties in the interests of amenity inaccordance with ‘saved’ Policy 4/19 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan(2006).26. During the operational phase of the development all non-essential externallighting shall be turned off between the hours of 23:00 and 07:00 hours.Reason:To minimise disturbance to residential properties in the interests of amenity inaccordance with ‘saved’ Policy 4/19 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan(2006).27. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the control andmonitoring of dust for the post service commencement phase of thedevelopment shall be submitted to an approved by the County PlanningAuthority The scheme shall identify all dust mitigation measures to beemployed after commissioning of the development. All such measures shallbe retained during the operational phase of the development.Reason:To minimise disturbance to residential properties in the interests of amenity inaccordance with ‘saved’ Policy 4/19 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan(2006).28. Prior to the commencement of the operations hereby approved a detailedodour assessment shall be provided by a suitably competent person for thewritten approval of the County Planning Authority. Such assessments shallidentify all odour mitigation measures to be employed and their effectivenessduring the operational phase. Such measures as approved shall be fullyinstigated and maintained during the operational phase.Reason:To minimise disturbance to residential properties in the interests of amenity inaccordance with ‘saved’ Policy 4/19 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan(2006).29. The development shall not be used for the purposes hereby approved until ascheme for ambient air quality monitoring has been submitted to andapproved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Such a scheme asapproved shall be fully instigated and maintained during the operational stageand shall include the following:a. Monitoring locationsb. Pollutants to be monitoredc. Monitoring periods300NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/300

The scheme shall be suitable for short-term and long-term monitoring.Copies of the monitoring results should be submitted to the County PlanningAuthority and the Environmental Protection Team, Department of CommunityServices at Harrogate Borough Council.Reason:To minimise disturbance to residential properties in the interests of amenity inaccordance with ‘saved’ Policy 4/19 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan(2006).LANDFILL GAS MIGRATION MITIGATION30. Prior to the commencement of the development a scheme for landfill gasingress protection of the buildings shall be submitted to and approved inwriting by the County Planning Authority. The development shall be carried inaccordance with the approved details.The works shall be carried out prior to the commissioning of the development.Reason:To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the landand neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlledwaters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the developmentcan be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighboursand other offsite receptors in accordance with ‘saved’ Policy 4/19 of the NorthYorkshire Waste Local Plan (2006)AVIATION SAFETY31. No development shall commence until the County Planning Authority hasreceived confirmation in writing that the Defence Geographic & ImageryAgency has been notified of the Development and has received the followinginformation:a. The precise location of the Development;b. The date of commencement of construction;c. The estimated date of completion of construction;d. The height above ground of the tallest structure;e. The maximum extension height of any construction equipment; andf. Details of the proposed external lighting including an aviation warninglight to be attached to the flue stack.Reason:To ensure the Ministry of Defence aeronautical charts and mapping recordsare updated in the interests of aviation safety.NO OTHER BURNING ON SITE32. No materials shall be burned outside of the buildings of the development onthe site.Reason:To avoid harm to the amenity of residents in accordance with ‘saved’ Policy4/19 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan (2006).301NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/301

MANAGEMENT OF LITTER SCHEME33. Prior to the commencement of development a litter management schemeshall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County PlanningAuthority. Thereafter the approved scheme shall be implemented and shallbe complied with throughout the lifetime of the development.Reason:To avoid harm to the amenity of residents in accordance with ‘saved’ Policy4/19 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan (2006)VEHICLE SHEETING34. No waste materials shall be imported to the site and no waste or recyclablematerials shall be exported from the site other than in vehicles which areenclosed, sheeted, netted, or equipped with sealed containers. No AirPollution Control Residue and Incinerator Bottom Ash wastes shall beexported from the site other than in sealed containers. During the sitepreparation and construction phase of the development, all open-bodiedHGVs carrying loose aggregate, cement, soil or other potentially loose or dustgenerating material into or out of the site shall be sheeted.Reason:To avoid harm to the amenity of residents in accordance with ‘saved’ Policy4/19 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan (2006)HIGHWAYS35. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the County Planning Authority, thereshall be no excavation or other groundworks, except for investigative works,or the depositing of material on the site in connection with the construction ofthe access road or building(s) or other works until:a. The details of the required highway improvement works, listed below,have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County PlanningAuthority; andb. A programme for the completion of the proposed works has beensubmitted.The required highway improvements shall include:a. Access improvements to the existing quarry entrance onto the A168incorporating a left slip diverge lane; localised widening of thecarriageway to accommodate a right turn facility; amendments to roadmarkings and lining; and signing; andb. Local safety scheme on A59 adjacent to A168 / A59 junction andJunction 47 to include new highlighted ghost island markings through thejunction and supporting highlighted ‘slow’ road markings; high frictionsurfacing on key junction approaches; provision of rumble strips on theA59 eastbound approach to A168 junction and maintenance of visibilitysplay.Reason:In the interests of highway safety and amenity in accordance with ‘saved’Policies 4/18 and 4/19 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan (2006).302NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/302

36. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the County Planning Authority, thereshall be no excavation or other groundworks, except for investigative works,or the depositing of material on the site until the following highway works havebeen constructed in accordance with the details approved in writing by theCounty Planning Authority under Condition 35:a. Access improvements to the existing quarry entrance onto the A168incorporating a left slip diverge lane; localised widening of thecarriageway to accommodate a right turn facility; amendments to roadmarkings and lining; and signing; andb. Local safety scheme on A59 adjacent to A168 / A59 junction andJunction 47. To include new highlighted ghost island markings throughthe junction and supporting highlighted ‘slow’ road markings; high frictionsurfacing on key junction approaches; provision of rubble strips on theA59 eastbound approach to A168 junction; and maintenance of visibilitysplay.Reason:In the interests of the safety and convenience of highway users and inaccordance with ‘saved’ Policies 4/18 and 4/19 of the North Yorkshire WasteLocal Plan (2006).Informative:There must be no works in the existing highway until an Agreement underSection 278 of the Highways Act 1980 has been entered into between theDeveloper and the Highway Authority.37. No part of the development shall be brought into use until the approvedvehicle access, parking, manoeuvring and turning areas have beenconstructed in accordance with drawing number 3223-01 (PL) 04 Rev H.Once created these areas shall be maintained clear of any obstruction andretained for their intended purpose at all times.Reason:To provide for appropriate on-site vehicle facilities in the interests of highwaysafety and the general amenity of the development and in accordance with‘saved’ Policies 4/18 and 4/19 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan(2006).38. There shall be no access or egress by any vehicles between the highway andthe application site until details of the precautions to be taken to prevent thedeposit of mud, grit and dirt on public highways by vehicles travelling to andfrom the site have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the CountyPlanning Authority. These facilities shall include the provision of wheelwashing facilities where considered necessary by the County PlanningAuthority. These precautions shall be made available before any excavationor depositing of material in connection with the construction commences onthe site and be kept available and in full working order and used until suchtime as the County Planning Authority agrees in writing to their withdrawal.303NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/303

Reason:To ensure that no mud or other debris is deposited on the carriageway in theinterests of highway safety and in accordance with ‘saved’ Policies 4/18 and4/19 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan (2006).39. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the County Planning Authority thereshall be no establishment of a site compound, site clearance, demolition,excavation or depositing of material in connection with the construction on thesite until proposals have been submitted to and approved in writing with theCounty Planning Authority for the provision of:a. On-site parking capable of accommodating all staff and sub-contractorsvehicles clear of the public highway; andb. On-site materials storage area capable of accommodating all materialsrequired for the operation of the site.The approved areas shall be kept available for their intended use at all timesthat construction works are in operation. No vehicles associated withconstruction works shall be parked on the public highway or outside of theapplication site.Reason:To provide for appropriate on-site vehicle parking and storage facilities, in theinterests of highway safety and the general amenity of the area and inaccordance with ‘saved’ Policies 4/18 and 4/19 of the North Yorkshire WasteLocal Plan (2006).PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY40. Prior to commencement of development a scheme detailing the arrangementsfor the safety of users of any of the public rights of way affected by thedevelopment (in respect of the connection to the substation or in the vicinity ofthe routes along Moor Lane and the Walls Close access) have beensubmitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority andthereafter it shall be implemented and maintained as approved.Reason:In the interests of the safety and amenity of users of the public rights of way inaccordance with Policies 4/1 and 4/20 of the North Yorkshire Waste LocalPlan (2006).PROTECTION OF NOTABLE FAUNA, FLORA AND HABITATS41. Prior to the commencement of the development, ecological conservation andmitigation measures to be fully integrated into both the Further & OtherEnvironmental Information submission June 2012: (including the LandscapeManagement Strategy June 2012, (specifically Appendix B17; plan L.02.2dated 18.5.2011), and the Conservation Management Plan. This shall besubmitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.Thereafter the approved scheme shall be implemented as approved.304NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/304

Reason:For the protection of legally protected species under the Wildlife andCountryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats andSpecies Regulations 2010.42. Prior to the commencement of the development an ecological mitigationscheme to ensure protection the water environment of Ouse Gill Beck andnearby designated ecological sites including Ouse Beck Wetlands SINC shallbe submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.Thereafter the approved scheme shall be implemented as approved.Reason:For the protection of legally protected species under the Wildlife andCountryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats andSpecies Regulations 2010.43. Any work on site (including site clearance work, appropriate mitigation andcompensation measures), to be undertaken only under ecological guidanceand as set out in Appendix B9 “Bat Survey and Mitigation Plan (datedMay2012), and as set out under the terms of a site specific EuropeanProtected Licence issued by Natural England.Reason:Bats and their roost sites are fully protected at all times under the 1981Wildlife & Countryside Act (as amended), and under the Conservation ofHabitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). Under this legislationit is an offence to deliberately kill, injure, capture or disturb bats or to damage,destroy or obstruct access to any place used by bats for breeding or resting.Informatives:a) Bats: Bats are mobile species, therefore the bat survey data should beupdated after approximately a year if work has not started in themeantime.b) Nesting birds: Work should take place outside the main nesting season;approximately the beginning of March to the end of August - whereverpossible. However, birds can occasionally nest at any time of year. Ifany work (including site clearance work), is likely to take place whenbirds may be nesting, either in any trees/shrubs to be affected, or in anypotentially suitable building, these parts of the site should be thoroughlychecked by a qualified Ecologist immediately before work starts. If nonests are present then works can continue as planned. However, if nestsare present then works which may affect them will not be able to proceeduntil any brood present has fledged.Reason: All nesting wild birds are protected under the 1981 Wildlife &Countryside Act (as amended). It is illegal to kill, injure, or take any wildbird, or damage or destroy the nest or eggs.c) Badgers: Working practices to ensure badgers are not harmed; any openpits to be covered overnight, or where this is not possible, ensure thatappropriate means of escape are available – as advised on-site by anEcologist.305NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/305

Reason: Badgers and their setts are fully protected under the 1992Protection of Badgers Act This legislation makes it an offence to:interfere with a badger sett, disturb a badger in a sett, or to wilfully kill,injure, take or attempt to take a badger from the wild.44. Prior to the commencement of development detailed landscape proposalsshall be submitted for the application area. Proposals shall include:• details of all external access roads, hardstandings, surfaces and finishes• detailed planting proposals showing the layout, species and size of allnew planting together with a 5 yr establishment management plan• details and timing of all planting and establishment aftercare• detailed landscape proposals for Claro House and its immediate settingwhich shall reflect the scale, character and setting of the building as adistinct zone. Particular attention shall be given to the design and layoutof the car parking, access paths and paved surfaces, pond and drainagescheme, external lighting and planting• details of site boundary fencing and gates including fencing type andfinishes• all existing boundary woodland planting trees and hedgerows shall beprotected and retained• details for subsoiling and topsoiling of all landscape areas, includingdetails of conservation, storage, placement, cultivation and drainageshall be submittedThereafter the approved scheme shall be implemented as approved.Reason:To reduce adverse impacts and to ensure successful restoration of the sitefollowing construction in the interests of the environment and visual amenity inaccordance with ‘saved’ Policies 4/3 and 4/19 of the North Yorkshire WasteLocal Plan (2006).45. Prior to the commencement of the development a mitigation scheme for theconservation of existing landscape features affected by the cable route shallbe submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.Thereafter the approved scheme shall be implemented as approved.Reason:To prevent unnecessary damage to or removal of existing trees andhedgerows in accordance with Policy 4/1 of the North Yorkshire Waste LocalPlan (2006).46. No later than six months prior to the permanent cessation of electricitygeneration at the site and prior to the decommissioning of the developmentdetailed landscape proposals shall be submitted for the application area.The proposals shall include:• details for removal of all buildings, fencing, external access roads,hardstandings, surfaces and finishes;• detailed planting proposals showing the layout, species and size of allnew planting together with a 5 yr establishment management plan306NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/306

• details and timing of all planting and establishment aftercare• details of site boundary fencing and gates including fencing type andfinishes• details for subsoiling and topsoiling all landscape areas, including detailsof conservation, storage, placement, cultivation and drainage shall besubmitted• all existing boundary woodland planting trees and hedgerows shall beprotected and retained.Reason:To achieve successful restoration of the site and integrate the land into locallandscape character and context in accordance with Policies 4/1 and 4/22 ofthe North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan (2006).VISITOR CENTRE AND OFFICE47. The visitor centre shall not be used except for business, educational andcommunity visits in association with the development.Reason:To avoid harm to the amenity of residents in accordance with ‘saved’ Policy4/19 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan (2006).48. The offices in connection with this development shall not be used except foras an ancillary use to the development hereby permitted and shall not beused for any other purpose during the development or upondecommissioning.Reason:To avoid harm to the amenity of residents in accordance with ‘saved’ Policy4/19 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan (2006).SITE SECURITY49. The commissioning of the development shall not take place until a schemedetailing security measures to minimise the risk of crime at the site has beensubmitted to, approved in writing by, and deposited with the County PlanningAuthority, in consultation with North Yorkshire Police. The commissioning ofthe development shall not take place until the approved scheme has beenimplemented. The scheme shall thereafter be retained, maintained andoperated throughout the life of the Development.Reason:To ensure adequate security measures are in place to minimise the risk ofcrime.PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH COMPLAINTS50. Prior to the commencement of development a protocol for the recording andinvestigation of all noise and nuisance complaints associated with thedevelopment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the CountyPlanning Authority. Thereafter the approved protocol shall be implementedand maintained throughout the life of the development in full accordance with307NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/307

the approved details.Reason:To avoid harm to the amenity of residents in accordance with ‘saved’ Policy4/19 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan (2006).LIAISON COMMITTEE51. Prior to the commencement of development a local liaison committee shall beset up in accordance with terms of reference, including potential membership,which have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the County PlanningAuthority. Thereafter the local liaison committee will be maintainedthroughout the construction, operation and decommissioning of thedevelopment.Reason:To secure an orderly operation of the site in the interests of the amenity of theresidents and the environment in accordance with ‘saved’ Policy 4/1 and 4/19of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plans (2006).DISPLAY OF CONDITIONS52. A copy of this planning permission and any schemes permitted under itsterms and conditions shall be retained at the Site and be made known to anyperson(s) given responsibility for the management of the site or undertakingworks on site and kept available to officers of the County Planning Authority.Reason:To enable an easy reference and to encourage compliance with therequirements of this permission so as to secure an orderly development of thesite in accordance with ‘saved’ Policy 4/1 of the North Yorkshire Waste LocalPlan (2006).APPROVED DOCUMENTS53. The approved documents shall comprise the following:Site and Location3223-01 (PL) 01 Rev B - Site Location Plan (15 June 2011)3223-01 (PL) 02 Rev F - Existing Site Plan (22 July 2010)3223-01 (PL) 03 Rev H - Proposed Site Plan (22 July 2010)3223-01 (PL) 04 Rev H - Proposed Overall Layout (5 January 2011)3223-01 (PL) 05 Rev B - Site Section 1 of 2 (10 January 2011)3223-01 (PL) 06 Rev B - Site Section 2 of 2 (10 January 2011)3223-01 (PL) 07 - Material Selection (7 February 2011)3223-01 (PL) 08 Rev B - Planning Application Boundary (full) (10 June 2011)3223-01 (PL) 09 Rev B - Planning Application Boundary) (10 June 2011)Energy from Waste3223-01 (PL) EfW 01 Rev C - Energy from Waste – Level 00 Plan (4 January2011)3223-01 (PL) EfW 02 Rev B - Energy from Waste – Level 05 Plan (4 January2011)308NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/308

3223-01 (PL) EfW 03 Rev C - Energy from Waste – Level 09 Plan (4 January2011)3223-01 (PL) EfW 04 Rev D - Energy from Waste – Level 13 Plan (4 January2011)3223-01 (PL) EfW 05 Rev C - Energy from Waste – Level 27 Plan (4 January2011)3223-01 (PL) EfW 06 Rev B - Energy from Waste – Section (10 January2011)3223-01 (PL) EfW 07 Rev C - Energy from Waste – North Elevation (4January 2011)3223-01 (PL) EfW 08 Rev C - Energy from Waste – East Elevation (4 January2011)3223-01 (PL) EfW 09 Rev B - Energy from Waste – South Elevation (4January 2011)3223-01 (PL) EfW 10 Rev A - Energy from Waste – West Elevation (4January 2011)3223-01 (PL) EfW 11 Rev B - Energy from Waste – Roof Plan (18 March2011)Mechanical Treatment and Anaerobic Digestion3223-01 (PL) MT 01 Rev C - MT & AD - Level 00 Plan (6 January 2011)3223-01 (PL) MT 02 Rev C - MT & AD - Level 05 Plan (6 January 2011)3223-01 (PL) MT 03 Rev D - MT & AD Elevations – South and EastElevations (6 January 2011)3223-01 (PL) MT 04 Rev D - MT & AD Elevations – North and WestElevations (6 January 2011)3223-01 (PL) MT 05 Rev C - MT - Sections (10 January 2011)3223-01 (PL) MT 06 - MT & AD - Roof Plan Elevation (18 March 2011)Incinerator Bottom Ash Facility3223-01 (PL) IBA 01 Rev C - IBA – Building and Roof Plans (6 January 2011)3223-01 (PL) IBA 02 Rev B - IBA – Elevations (6 January 2011)Claro House – Visitor and Education Centre3223-01 (PL) CH 01 Rev A - Claro House Visitor Centre - Existing Groundand First Floor Plans (7 January 2011)3223-01 (PL) CH 02 Rev A - Claro House Visitor Centre - Proposed FloorPlans (6 January 2011)3223-01 (PL) CH 03 Rev A - Claro House Visitor Centre - Existing Elevations(7 January 2011)3223-01 (PL) CH 04 Rev A - Claro House Visitor Centre - ProposedElevations & Sections (6 January 2011)Air Cooled Condensers3223-01(PL) Rev B - ACC 01 ACC - Plans and Elevations (6 January 2011)Staff Amenity3223-01 (PL) SA 01 Rev B - Amenity Building Plans and Elevations (6January 2011)309NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/309

Substation3223-01 (PL) SS 01 Rev B - Substation Plans and Elevations (6 January2011)Weighbridges3223-01 (PL) W 01 Rev A - Weighbridge Office Plans and Elevations (1February 2011)Tipping Hall3223-01 (PL) T 01 - Tipping Hall Level 05 Plan (23 May 2011)Fig 1 Cut and Fill Sections - Section AA (undated)Fig 2 Cut and Fill Sections – Section BB (undated)Fig 3 Cut and Fill Sections – Section CC (undated)Landscaping3223-01(PL) L.01.1 Rev D - Landscape Masterplan (showing existing landfillsite contours) (18 May 2011)3223-01(PL) L.01.2 Rev D - Landscape Masterplan (showing extant landfillrestoration plan) (18 May 2011)3223-01(PL) L.01.3 Rev D - Landscape Masterplan (showing approved WRGinterim restoration plan) (18 May 2011)3223-01(PL) L.01.4 Rev D - Landscape Masterplan (showing approved WRGfinal restoration plan) (18 May 2011)3223-01(PL) L.02.1 Rev 1 - Landscape Management Strategy (16 May 2012)3223-01(PL) L.02.2 Rev 1 - Landscape Management Strategy (showingapproved WRG final restoration plan) (16 May 2012)3223-01(PL) L.03.1 Rev B - Landscape Sections – Section AA & ExistingLong Section (18 May 2011)3223-01(PL) L.03.2 Rev B - Landscape Sections – Sections BB & CC (18May 2011)3223-01(PL) L.03.3 Rev B - Landscape Sections – Sections DD & EE (18May 2011)3223-01(PL) L.03.4 Rev B - Landscape Sections – Sections FF & GG (18May 2011)3223-01(PL) L.04 Rev A - Landscape Restoration Plan (showing approvedWRG final restoration plan) (18 May 2011) [currently being checked forexistence of Rev B]Highways3223-01 (PL) H 01 Rev A - Proposed Site Access Arrangement (Jan 2011)Grid Connection3223-01(PL) G 01 Rev D - Grid Connection Proposed Routes (Jan 2011)DrainageCO00206607/DRA/001 Rev A - Foul Drainage General Arrangement (June2011)CO00206607/DRA/002 Rev A - Surface Water General Arrangement (June2011)310NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/310

and any document as may be subsequently approved in writing by the CountyPlanning Authority.Reason:To ensure site operatives are conversant with the approved Scheme(s) andare aware of the requirements of the planning permission in accordance withPolicy 4/1 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan (2006).DAVID BOWECorporate Director – Business and Environmental ServicesAuthor of Report: Vicky PerkinBackground Documents:1 Planning Application, reference numbers NY/2011/0328/ENV andC6/500/63/Q/CMA2 Consultation responses received3 Representations received311NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/311

APPENDIX AThe following issues/concerns represent a more detailed outline of the points madeby residents; Parish Councils not consisting of Statutory or non-Statutory Consulteesand interest groups.(a)Hazards, Risks and Public Safety:• Concerns have been raised over the use of toxic, corrosive andflammable liquids and gases under high pressure;• Potential for loss of containment of gas in the pipeline or at the plantresulting in major explosion and/or fire;• Impact of explosion and/or fire in respect of toxic emissions;• Lack of detail as to how surface water run-off will be separated from firewater run-off, no detail of any provisions to contain contaminated foam ifused;• A potential risk posed to local villages by road tankers delivering andremoving highly hazardous wastes from the plant sites has also beenidentified;• Concerns about the prospect of such a large, potentially explosiveindustry;• Concerns regarding the emergency planning provision for the site whichdo not appear to be in the planning application. Believe the plant is tooclose to members of the public in open spaces in the event of an incidentat the site which takes the incineration plant outside of its normaloperating conditions, not convinced adequate monitoring / safeguardswould be put in place; and• Part of the business case was selling ash for road building – a practicewhich the Highways Agency placed a moratorium on due to lack ofcontrol over ash contents and unexplained explosions.(b)Highway issues (including traffic/transport, road safety etc.):• The applicants concentrate on entry/exit flows at the site. The volumesare clearly understated. The applicants crucially fail to address theincreased traffic on the A59/A168 junction. Traffic flows at this locationwere a significant reason for the refusal of HM Inspectors at a number ofPublic Inquiries to grant planning permission for an MSA. This junctionis already extremely hazardous. Additional heavy vehicle traffic willexacerbate this. The A59 is known to have a very high accident rate.This proposal would increase heavy vehicle traffic from both east andwest along the A59. The application fails to deal with this life threateningissue;• Traffic will increase significantly on the already saturated A59, which,with the size of vehicles proposed, will increase the chance of trafficincidents;312NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/312

• The quoted number of large HGVs joining the A59 at the A168 junctionwill be at least 120 per day. In addition there will be staff & visitorvehicles. Total annual kilometres travelled by lorries serving theincinerator will be huge at just under 3,000,000. (1,850,000 miles). Thatlevel of mileage will create additional large amounts of exhaust gaspollutants and incur large additional fuel costs for which there is noevidence that they have been considered in these proposals;• Data submitted by the applicant as part of the planning application waswrong in suggesting only a small amount of commercial and industrialwaste received to ensure plant runs at full capacity. AWRP’s size isbased on rising projections of waste arisings which are out of line withlocal and national trends. Using future waste arisings, half the wasteentering the AWRP facility would be from commercial and industrialsources;• Weekday traffic surveys undertaken on Tuesday 17th January 2011.Historically January is the quietest month of the year on the A59. Peakflows in September are 20% higher than January. Mondays and Fridaysare markedly busier than Tuesdays. Therefore the applicant’s capacityand congestion levels are seriously flawed;• Batching plant and landfill site traffic will still continue for some timeincreasing movements in and out of the site;• We contend that there will be an increased accident risk on the localroad network as a result of the AWRP. This carries both financial costsand the social costs of pain, grief and suffering. None of this isacceptable and together constitutes a good reason for refusing planningpermission;• Large number of HGV movements will exacerbate local residentsconcerns about road safety on the A1M at J47 and on the A59. Therehave been a number of accidents on the A1M in the last 3 yearsinvolving HGVs, an increase in traffic to the site will increase the risk offurther accidents;• The applicant admits that the accident rates for the A59/A168 are almostdouble the default value in the DfT’s COBA model based on recordedannual average daily traffic. The applicant has however made noproposal to mitigate this crucial issue. This is wholly unacceptable.Crucially the applicant has failed to carry out a predicted COBA analysiswhich is regarded as a major omission in the application;• The increase in traffic from the east of the county along the A59 willmake the junction with our village even more dangerous that it already is;• Traffic should be compared to a baseline in which the AWRP does notexist and the quarry is no more;• A substantial increase in east-west traffic, crossing the major north-southA1 traffic flow will be detrimental to the whole region. There should bemuch greater emphasis on local waste management solutions;• Total lack of provision for the increased traffic at the junction of the A59and the A168;• There is a strong possibility of traffic backing up on the A1(M) flyover,and thus onto the motorway itself;313NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/313

• Concerns over the proposal to transport waste over such distances andon such poorly maintained roads. The more extreme of these journeyswill take in order of 4 hours. This is in a sophisticated vehicle specificallydesigned to make collections on a stop start basis. To then use it tospend half a day or more on a long journey is a massive waste of itscapabilities, a total waste of time for the labour force and a quiteunacceptable waste of resources and damage to the environment;• Potential road damage has been highlighted as well as increased repaircosts;• The A168 is used as a diversion route on a regular basis when there areaccidents on the A1(M). the extra lorry movements would cause chaos;• The Whixley-Catal cross roads are already difficult to get across andthere have been many accidents – some fatal;• Belief that some of the claims and data in the planning application arewrong for example the impact on the local road network is understatedas well as accident numbers; and• Accuracy of figures in Transport Assessment errors in calculations /modelling. Counts wrong.(c)Need for the development:• The planning application attempts to disguise the fact that it isfundamentally for an incineration operation with very little electricitygeneration and without external demand for the heat generated.• The applicant fails to demonstrate the need for a facility of this size andtechnology. The proposed incinerator is too large.• The technology assessment is inadequate. It lacks quantifiedcomparative analysis. Better alternatives, more closely aligned to theNYCC and CYC waste strategy, are not assessed. The applicants aimto recover only 5% of the waste before incineration. Alternative systemssuch as Thermal Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) recover 30%for recycling and resale.• Spare incineration capacity already exists in neighbouring counties andis predicted to increase further in the coming years making this plantincreasingly redundant.• Need is not demonstrated and the plant is too big: it is designed to burn320,000 tonnes of waste a year – much more than North Yorkshirecurrently produces. It will also be too big in future, because volumes ofwaste are going down as re-cycling increases and packaging falls.• It will not improve the level of recycling in the county, which is alreadylow compared with the rest of the country, a county where recycling islow compared with other European countries, since the requirements ofthe incinerator will necessitate much recyclable materials to be burnt.• Given the volume of waste required to keep the plant viable, there isconcern that the proposal is 'anti-green' because the need to feed theincinerator will act as a disincentive to re-cycling. At a time whenGovernment re-cycling targets can bet expected to rise from 50% by2020 to 70% in 2025, as is the case in Scotland and Wales, it cannot besensible to be tied to a decade’s long contract that calls for 80% ofthroughput to be burned.314NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/314

• The development fails to take into account consideration of otherfacilities in the region, such as the new 800,000 tonnes per annumcapacity waste facility at Ferrybridge, and the 300,000 tonnes pacapacity waste facility in Teesside. Both provide over-capacity andwould make more sense to use rather than committing to a new facility.• A combined heat and power plant offers a much better solutioneconomically and environmentally. A process called Thermal MBT offersa better alternative.• The calculations on municipal waste growth assume a 40% increase inresidual waste over the lifetime of the contract, however the onlypublished figures project only a 15% increase for York over the next 25years.• The percentage of bio waste removed for Anaerobic Digestion (AD) willfall over the lifetime of the contract as the plant proposed has a limitedcapacity of 40k tonnes and will therefore not keep pace with theprojected increase in waste.• The AD’s digestate does not need to be burnt; it is a valuable resourcewith plentiful markets for this material.• The future growth statistics that have been used to justify the project areflawed because of the current recession which is believed will continuefor far longer than anyone at County Hall had allowed for in the figures.• Commercial factors mean that the authorities have wrongfully conflatedthe domestic and alleged commercial needs, utilising wrong figures andprojecting these in to the future on a totally misguided and inaccuratebasis.• No business case is provided and financial viability is therefore notproven. The proposed facility will become a disastrously expensive whiteelephant.• Waste arisings are set to fall in the future as the electorate recycle more,manufacturers reduce packaging, and competing waste disposalschemes in the region (and surrounding regions) come on line.• The technology proposed for Allerton Park is inappropriate as it hasbeen superseded by more effective technologies.• The council have not properly explored the waste hierarchy and onlyproposing an incinerator to meet the criteria of the waste to landfill, forwhich the council should have considered years ago.• If we continue to recycle more it will not be necessary and could only bekept going by bringing in materials from other areas.• No evidence to suggest the population will rise significantly – perhaps inbetter times people did move to the countryside but in the presentconditions the housing market has stalled.• If there is a substantial future growth of population has the age profile ofthis growth been factored into the model? Future growth is likely to beamongst the older age group, or the retired who tend to create leastwaste as a result of their awareness, smaller family unit size and lowerlevel of income.315NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/315

• According to the scoping document the maximum capacity of themechanical plant will be 5000k tonnes per annum, the maximumcapacity of the incinerator will be 320k tonnes however the AD will onlyprocess 40k tonnes per annum. To deal with the increase in waste asprojected with an 18% organic fraction the capacity of the AD plantshould be 60k tonnes.• The EU is introducing waste prevention targets. Member states arealready obliged to do more to prevent waste. By 2020 strict targetscould be in place that will reduce the availability of waste.• The AD digestate does not need to be burnt; it is a valuable resource asa soil conditioner ideally suited to land reclamation projects. The EUrecognises the value of AD digestate as a resource and is proposing thatincineration of digestate should be banned.• AD process should be increased / develop AD plants to allow forseparate collection of kitchen waste. This would have a dramatic effecton recycling rates.(d)Location and Single Site Solution (including Site Assessment/Selection):• The applicants fail to justify why a single site is preferable to severalsites.• The assessment against sustainability criteria is flawed and it is highlysubjective. It lacks the necessary evidence. Given that incineration wasthe chosen technical solution it should have prioritised the need to find asite where the incinerator heat output could be used.• The area and site search criteria are dictated by transport and accessbut this is not properly justified because they are constrained by thesingle site philosophy.• The application ignores other more important selection criteria thereforethe conclusions are not valid.• The Government’s Waste Strategy 2007 and NYCC’s proposed WasteCore Strategy 2011, currently under consultation, apply the proximityprinciple to waste treatment, in that it should be treated close to wherethe waste is created. The AmeyCespa proposals completely violate thisprinciple in that they will require the transfer of waste from all parts ofNorth Yorkshire to this centralised facility.• The choice of a single site to treat all municipal waste from NorthYorkshire and the City of York is fundamentally flawed given this is thelargest rural county in England. It would be better to treat the waste atseveral sites close to the sources of that waste rather than at one cornerof the county.• Alleged need for a single site solution is purely an artefact of theapplicant’s technology choice.• Single site solution increases transport miles whereas local solutionsbased on main settlements are likely to reduce transport miles.• It is not clear what will happen if something goes wrong and the planthas to close. There will be only one site (“all our eggs on one basket”)and if it has to close, even for a short time; rubbish will pile up around thecounty. It makes sense that there are several sites.316NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/316

• There should be further, detailed and if required independent suitabilityassessment(s) of alternative sites.• Insufficient work has been undertaken on exploring alternative sites inmore suitable and appropriate locations and there has been littlerigorous research or investigation into alternative locations carried out.• The choice of a single site to treat all of North Yorkshire’s waste makesno sense given this is the largest rural county in England. The positionof the AWRP site is wholly inconsistent with the localism policy, being atone corner of the county.• There are alternative sites, dismissed by the applicant that could be usedin isolation or (preferably) together to better meet the strategic needs ofNYCC/CYC. The site selection process appears not to have followedgood practice (e.g. EfW plant with CHP are preferable, according toDEFRA) and may have been influenced by a wrong appreciation of thepotential for recycling and by a lack of any appreciation of publicperceptions concerning the acceptability of various technology options.• Despite the York City area being the largest waste producer, sites withinthis area are excluded without proper justification. One such is theformer British Sugar Factory (site 041), which is well located to receivewaste from York and areas such as Scarborough, Thirsk andNorthallerton.• This parkland setting is a rural farmland and totally unsuitable for wasteincineration.• The existing quarry and landfill site is not industrial as consent wasgranted subject to the condition to restore the site to agricultural use.Therefore this site should be viewed as a Greenfield site in opencountryside and should not be built on.• The development will make Marton a less attractive, noisy place to live;unnecessary urbanisation of an idyllic rural area;• It appears that the Council has backed this project simply in order tomeet targets for reducing landfill without exploring better, cheaper,greener and more efficient alternatives.• If built, the existence of the plant could lead to ribbon industrialdevelopment in its vicinity in order to utilise the excess heat. Thispotentially would cause further environmental damage to this rural area.• Centralised processing makes little sense. Proximity to the A1 and A59only works for a short radius; the majority of waste will trundle along sideroads for most of its long journey to the central site.• Ferrybridge power station is a far better location.• The site is wrong as it is not connected to the national grid and does nothave access to water, substantial quantities of which are required in theprocess. Although in the plans there are proposals to create a reservoir.If the council had utilised the rail system the site could have been locatedat Drax or Eggborough where in addition to blending into the landscape,it would have access to National Grid, water and the rail network.• The siting goes against government recommendation that such plantsshould be in built up areas (brown field sites) or urban fringes andpresumably not adjacent to a listed building.317NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/317

• The existing planning permission for the site expires in 2016 and at thattime the users of the site are to remediate its condition and return it toGreenfield land use. This implies that the planning community at thetime planning was granted for the landfill site understood the sensitivenature of the locality and as there has been no change since that time,why is it not being viewed as a green field site in terms of the impact ofthe proposed development now.• The remoteness of the location means it could be a target for travellingcriminals from the North East and West Ridings of Yorkshire who seewide open spaces of North Yorkshire as easy pickings and use the localroads and the A1(M) as get-aways.(e)Pollution and Impact on Health• Particulates can carry significant health risks as not efficiently capturedby air pollution control devices, and can penetrate deep into lungs.Recent research suggests that the danger from particulates is greaterthan previously recognised as they remain in the air for longer thanpreviously thought so their concentration is substantially higher. Modelsused by AmeyCespa underestimate the risk. The precautionary principlesuggests that this new evidence be taken into account and theapplication refused.• Waste incinerators are linked with several health risks such as MultiChemical Sensitivity. There is no cure for MCS and little or no help viathe NHS. MCS is a very serious problem but is not the only healthproblem that has connections with air pollution from incinerators.• The prevailing south westerly wind will blow any gases and streamsomitted from the incinerator over the Vale of York which is notorious forlow lying mist and will result in an unacceptable reduction in the airquality. If such a facility cannot be built next to an existing power station,then the next best location would be by the coast where the omissionswould blow over the North Sea.• The site will produce and omit dioxins which are a health hazard.• The Allerton site is in an area of frequent and persistent mist or fog. Theapplicant’s do not address the effect of the outfall from the stack in suchconditions. Clearly it represents an unnecessary risk to health.Incineration is an outdated technology. Other technologies offer muchbetter less risky solutions and could readily be located at Allerton Parkand at other sites in North Yorkshire.• The 2011 Government Waste Review (The Economics of Waste andWaste Policy p25) concluded:- MBT-landfill (landfilling somewhat stabilised wastes with somematerial recovery) provides the best emissions performance interms of the treatment/disposal of residual waste.- The emissions from burning of non-biogenic waste (via anytechnology including mass-burn incineration) are notcomprehensively reflected in the price of disposal.- Such installations will create greenhouse gas emissions withoutpaying the relevant price.318NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/318

• The site is situated in an agricultural area which produces dairy, arable,poultry and meat for human consumption. This incinerator will releasehundreds of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere when the waste isburned including toxic nano-particles. Little is known about the risks ofmany of these toxic chemicals, particularly when they are combined.The exact composition of the emissions from the incinerator will bevariable depending upon the waste being burnt, the efficiency of theincinerator and its operation and the pollution control measuresemployed. As the chemical nature of waste is constantly changing, thepotential for adverse health effects from incineration emissions are verydifficult to assess. In particular, the long term pollution and health effectsfrom the emissions are unknown but are likely to be detrimental tocurrent and future generations as contemporary epidemiological studieshave indicated higher infant mortality rates in communities living in thevicinity of such plants.• The Planning Application is highly selective and deficient in itsassessment of the emission of pollutants from the plant and relies ontheoretical modelling to arrive at pollution levels on only a limited rangeof toxins. Monitoring procedures have also not been sufficiently detailed.• The incinerator bottom ash and spent effluent gas treatment reagentsand filters are extremely toxic. The plans do not contain detailed safehandling, monitoring or disposal procedures for these substances.• Unknown risks to children's health.• As yet the true effect on health from the toxic nano-particles and otherpollutants are still not fully known. This may have a detrimental effect onthe health of young children.• An adult about to start a family is aware of the various students(including that of the British Society for Ecological Medicine) linkingincinerators with birth defects and other complaints in adults andespecially children, particularly for those living within a 5 mile radius. Asthe family are within a five mile radius there is particularly alarm at therisk to the family and future generations' health, not least when Vale ofYork air quality is already very poor.• The potential effects of incineration on the environment and on humanhealth are unacceptable. Incinerators do not make waste disappear;they simply reduce it to ash and to atmospheric emissions, both of whichare potentially hazardous. Incinerator plants are the source of serioustoxic pollutants including dioxins, furans, acid gases (including of courselarge quantities of carbon dioxide with its implications for climate change)particulates and heavy metals. Dioxins are toxic, carcinogenic andaccumulate in the food chain, a concern for farmers in the area affectedby the plant “fall out”, perhaps a reason for avoiding local produce shouldthe plant be built.• The incinerator bottom ash and spent effluent gas treatment reagentsand filters are extremely toxic. The plans do not contain detailed safehandling, monitoring or disposal procedures for these substances.319NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/319

• The chimneys emissions consist of gases, fumes and dust in the form ofnanoparticles. The fumes are particles or organic compounds longrecognised for their carcinogenicity, such as dioxins, polycyclichydrocarbons, complex furans, heterocyclic compounds to name a few.The nanoparticles stay suspended in the air for long periods and remainavailable to be inhaled for a long time. When inhaled their small sizemeans they penetrate deep into the lungs with no clearance mechanism.They will eventually lead to bronchitis obliterans, small airway disease,alveolitis, emphysema, pulmonary fibrosis and cancer. They are unlikelyto affect today’s decision makers but the children and young peoplesubjected to the hazards will become aware of them in later life.• Not able to understand how NYCC can propose such a developmentwhich will do little or nothing to promote the health and well-being of thepopulation.• The application will cause harm to the environment throughunnecessarily high levels of carbon dioxide emissions, both on site andthrough the transport of waste to the site from all of North Yorkshire.• There is evidence that the incidence of cancers and many other illnessescluster around the fallout areas of incinerators. We should err on theside of caution unless it can be proven without doubt that the emissionsare harmless.• The surrounding area is farmland and it worries me that in addition tobreathing in micro particles we will be consuming toxins from theincinerator with every mouthful of produce grown in North Yorkshire.• Incinerators are only deemed safe if they run at 850 degrees so that anydioxins will instantly break down. However if the rate of feeding is wrongor the type of waste is wrong the temperature can drop. Concerns areraised about emissions at start up and shut down when temperatures arerising and falling.• The proposed checks on emissions are inadequate. Only continuousemission testing is acceptable in such a dangerous environment.• The site is in an area of frequent and persistent mist or fog. Theapplicant does not address the effect of the outfall from the stack in suchconditions.• The roads which feed this incinerator will be littered from waste fallingfrom wagons – this experience has been learned from other incineratorsin the country• Presented with carcinogenic and / or mutagenic emission and thepossibility that their effect is enhanced by their presence on particulatesand aerosols along with the risks associated with bio-aerosols.• The existing rat population can only increase when many hundreds oftons of waste are handled and stored. Rats and the parasites they carryspread diseases.• The range of problems associated with incineration … include a range ofcancers (including some childhood cancers), birth defects and prematuredeaths of babies, infants and adults including still births, asthma andchronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery diseasesincluding aggravating exisit6ng problems, endocrine system disordersand multiple chemical sensitivity with allergies and arthritis. Also320NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/320

problems with low doses of heavy metals ranging from behaviouralproblems to reduced educational attainment via memory loss, poorconcentration and poor sleep.• The impact on public health costs money, it will put more strain on theNHS.• As the originally proposed height was through necessary to protectpeople’s health and to reduce environmental damage from stackdischarge’s, the change in height implies that the reduced height mayincrease damage to health and to the environment.• The assessment of emissions is specific to a limited number of individualchemical components and does not consider combined effect of thosechemicals. Furthermore, it is not a comprehensive list of the compoundsthat will be emitted.• A recent report by the United Nations World Meteorological Organization(WMO) found that we are failing in our efforts to reduce carbon emission.This scheme is an example of exactly why that is happening – the needto reduce carbon emissions in not taken as a serious consideration whenevaluating the business decisions of government.• This area of Yorkshire is subject to an unusually high level oftemperature inversions. These conditions would serve to trap andconcentrate pollutants in the locality.• Biological and other quick-decomposing materials which releasemethane are a problem. These could be sorted by an MBT plant foranaerobic digestion.• Proposed controls and checks on emissions are inadequate. It is clearthat testing on an occasional and pre notified basis proves very littleindeed and can be subject to abuse by management. We all now knowthat self regulation simply does not work effectively. Only continuousemission testing is acceptable in such a dangerous environment.• Under the law of the EU the Precautionary Principle has been made astatutory requirement. New research has found that particles fromremain in the air for longer than previously thought. Risks are higherthan previously thought so that their concentrations are substantiallyhigher. Models used by applicant underestimate the risk;• Air quality in the local area, which is already poor, will also be adverselyaffected.(f)Economic Impact on Local Businesses and Tourism• The proposal is economically harmful to the county and its residentsbecause it is unnecessarily expensive. It fails to prove why the proposedsystem should be used when less costly and environmentally superioralternatives such as Thermal MBT which offer better value for money areavailable.• The proposed development will have an adverse impact on visitornumbers, local tourism, businesses and the local economy.• The impacts of the construction phase will adversely impact on thosetourist facilities that have open views to the site.321NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/321

• The proposed development will not bring significant long term financialbenefits to the area that will outweigh the harm to the existing tourismeconomy.• The proposed development offers no benefits to the local economy tobalance the disruption and harm created.• The potential impact of the proposed development on tourism is likely tolead to more jobs being lost than will be created.• The Skelwith Group’s current plans for the Flaxby Hotel and Golfcomplex may not go ahead if the incinerator application is accepted.The Flaxby proposal would be much more beneficial to the area than anincinerator.• The golf course at Flaxby is proposed to be used for internationaltournaments. The prominent feature which television viewers will seeand associate with North Yorkshire will be a huge steel chimney emittingthe residue of incinerated waste.• Tourism is very important to the region; should an industrial site to be thefirst thing visitors to York and Harrogate see on leaving the A1?• The impact on tourism cannot be measured, but such a monster willhave a big visual impact that will haunt all for many years to come.• Such a huge industrial complex will attract industrial creep, furtherdegrading the rural environment both visually and through traffic pollutionand noise. It is inappropriate to have this kind of industry on thedoorstep of tourist honey pots such as Harrogate and Knaresborough.• Reduces investment into North Yorkshire. The plans to host the Ryderin the Region would be put in jeopardy by these plans.• This would impact on people’s decisions to move to / back to the area.(g)European, National, Regional and Local Policy• The applicant’s consideration of policies is superficial and does not provethat it conforms to them.• The application is contrary to a range of planning policies and guidance.The facility fails to view waste as a resource. It does not represent thebest energy efficiency available in waste disposal. Choosing incinerationmoves the treatment only one step up the Waste Hierarchy alternativessuch as Thermal MBT are superior and sit above it in the hierarchy. Itwill cause significant landscape harm that mitigation cannot offset.• The County lacks a Core Minerals and Waste Strategy against which thisapplication can be assessed. The Joint Municipal Waste Strategy is nowoutdated and its planned update and public consultation in 2010/11 hasnot happened. The Saved Policies are inadequate as a basis forplanning.• Conversely the principles underlying the current NYCC Draft Waste CoreStrategy emphasise that waste must be viewed as a resource hencemaximising recycling of municipal waste is essential. The proposedincinerator would not do this indeed it would hinder the growth ofrecycling because it would need to be fed 24 hours per day, 7 days perweek and 365 days per year.322NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/322

• The proposed scheme is contrary to the Governments national/regionaland local policies - The Governments own waste review (2011) statesthat Energy from waste incineration should only be considered forresidential waste that cannot be recycled - this clearly isn't the casebecause in many areas of North Yorkshire we've hardly begun to recyclein anything like the quantities seen outside the county. In any eventthere is nothing in the immediate vicinity that could feasibly utilise theenergy produced from this plant.• Scheme runs contrary to the Environment Agency hierarchy of wastetreatment principles where incineration is at the lower end of thepreference options.• The application runs counter to the UK’s national and internationalcommitments on climate change; breaches certain other internationalcommitments; is contrary to EU, National and District Planning Policies.• Why does the council not apply the stringent planning legislation, withwhich local residents have to comply, with this proposal?• The development sends out the wrong message to the public on theirresponsibility to reduce and re-cycle.• The length of time taken from proposal to planning application may meanthat the basis of the application may not take into account currentpolicies on waste recovery.• The disposal of waste by incineration is the lowest on theGovernment’s/Local Authority’s grading list of preferred methods ofdisposal.• The 2011 Government Waste Review concluded that MBT-landfillingprovides the best emissions performance in terms of treatment/disposalof residual waste. Furthermore it concluded the emissions from burningof non-biogenic waste are not comprehensively reflected in the price ofash disposal. Such installations will create greenhouse gas emissionswithout paying the relevant price.• One centralised facility in the largest county in England goes against theproximity principle.• There is no evidence that landfill penalties will continue to rise for thenext 25 years. The EU might as easily impose carbon emission fines inwhich case the incinerator is nearly as bad as unsorted black bag landfill.• If the application is approved we believe that North Yorkshire will beacting contrary to the trend of creating realistic and environmentallyrelevantwaste disposal policies.• The application should be deferred until all viable strategy options havebeen analysed and costed and a preferred waste core strategy acceptedby the Council.• The planning application, due to its timing may seek of take advantage ofthe revocation of the RSS policies that previously protected theenvironment.• This development represents an industrialisation of the landscape andruns contrary to the local development plan and local planningassessment given that the main building sits in a highly prominentposition.323NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/323

• The development is contrary to the Structure Plan policy of restrictingribbon developments along the A168. This development would create anegative precedent in this regard.• Applicant has been selective with their adherence to planning policy andin many instances this Application does not comply.• HBC is renowned for having strict planning regulations to keep the areain keeping with its spa origins. Surely granting planning permission forthis industrial monstrosity is going completely against the HBCguidelines.• Policies E8 of the Harrogate Local Plan and SG3 of the Harrogate CoreStrategy both presume in favour of small scale industrial / employmentfacilities. Granting the development would be a departure from thedevelopment plan and will need to be considered as such and theSecretary of State invited to consider whether or not the applicationshould be called in.• Policy 5/10 (the objector does not refer to a specific policy document,therefore, it is assumed to be a reference to the saved policy within theWaste Local Plan) requires it to be demonstrated that “opportunities forrecycling and composting have been explored”, this requires that otheroptions are addressed in this application.• Contrary to Policy 5/3 (again, assumed to be a saved policy within theWaste Local Plan) these considerations generally mean that plants willbe located within or very close to urban areas which the location is not.• The CO 2 emissions would compromise HBC’s reduction of greenhousegases by 2020. This also runs counter to national policy on greenhousegas emissions.• Long term plans for incineration such as this one go against the zerowaste strategy promoted by the government and City of York Council.• The Waste Incineration Directive is being misused by government andother authorities to indicate that incineration is safe – it is not.• The development does not align itself with the government’s white paperor existing planning policy and it needs to be considered by the promoterto demonstrate that it uses the best available technology and uses bestavailable practice. The amount of the plant allocated to anaerobicdigestion appears low as does the recycling area and associated sitedesignations.• The Council’s revised waste core strategy does not envisage a centralfacility of the size proposed and is therefore inappropriate as a basis forapproving the Application.• The application contradicts NYCC’s LTP (2011) and Climate ChangeStrategy (2009) to reduce traffic and CO 2 emissions. Nor will theapplication maintain and enhance our environment – Council Plan(2011).324NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/324

(h)Sustainability• Objectors to this development contend that this is a waste incineratorand not, as the application suggests, a waste recovery park;• The application is harmful in that it fails to meet the fundamental basicprinciples of sustainability set out in PPS1 because commitment to theproposed development would restrict, for the next 25 years, theopportunity for future generations to manage the County’s waste usingnew developments (or new technologies) which they judge to be morebeneficial for them and for the environment.• The ‘Proximity Principle’ advocated within Planning Policy Statement 10(Planning for Sustainable Waste Management), Policy ENV5 (Energy) ofthe Regional Spatial Strategy and Policy 4/1 of the adopted NorthYorkshire Waste Local Plan is breached by the proposed development;• Installation is outdated. Recycling will soon reduce much of the wastethe facility was designed to deal with.• Incineration is an old technology which imposes environmental andhealth risks and is not compatible with principles of sustainabledevelopment.• Incineration is not the Best Environmentally Practicable Option.• The choice of technology is a long way from BAT (Best AvailableTechnique). A recent report placed incineration (with electricity only) 9 thout of 10 possible waste treatment methods on both net CO 2 emissionsand net externality. Only landfill is lower on the list.• The technology that the applicant proposes to utilise is likely to be out ofdate even before the plant is constructed.• An open objective assessment of alternative technologies has not beencarried out and the efficacy of this plant has been exaggerated. NYCChave consistently ignored the arguments put forward for alternativetechnologies.• The proposal will not maximise energy recovery from waste.• If there is no alternative (which there is in the case) then the projectshould maximise the utility of the energy produced. (Combined Heat andPower). Since this plan is in the middle of green field site there is noopportunity to use the excess heat produced and it will be simply ventedinto the air.• Facilities that produce heat should be located in places where the heatcan be properly utilised by new housing and employment developmentand so need to be integrated with new urban developments and notdivorced from the county’s main settlement pattern.• Waste should be considered as a resource which can be recycled andcreate jobs. When waste is burned, some of its value may well beextracted by generating heat/electricity, but then after it’s lost forever.• At some point in the future, when raw materials are scarce, landfill siteswill offer a resource to be mined in order to recycle plastics etc. Oncevaluable plastics etc have been incinerated they are gone forever.325NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/325

• The sustainability assessment claims energy is from a renewable sourcecannot be justified. It also compares the incinerator only to a bogus andimpractical and expensive landfill scenario which no one is advocatingand makes the clearly inaccurate claim that “this facility maximises theopportunity for recycling”.• Like to know that every effort has been made to reduce wasteproduction, through legislation on packaging, industrial waste, etc beforean incinerator plan is explored any further.• Efforts to promote recycling not adequate.• The size or even existence of the facility would mitigate against theauthority’s targets to increase recycling or re-use of waste.• Energy efficiency – reducing waste and increasing recycling is estimatedto be 46 times more energy efficient than Energy from Waste. Thisshould not be allowed unless fitted with Carbon Capture and Storage.• Recyclables will be burnt in order to make the plant viable.• If one considers the changes in waste regulation over the last 20 yearshow can we be confident that future changes in legislation will not affectthe ability of the contracted facilities to comply with any new legislation orto be financially viable.(i)(j)Lack of Rail Link• This application lacks a rail link which could be the principal means ofaccess for incoming and outgoing waste; and• The ash stream following combustion would also be best removed byrail.Visual Impact• The application represents a major industrial-scale development in opencountryside. The visual impacts cannot be mitigated.• The applicant accepts that the harm to the local countryside and widerlandscape cannot be mitigated by visual means. The applicant fails torecognise the need to mitigate this and other forms of harm to the widerenvironment.• The applicant’s mitigation proposals benefit primarily the owner of thesite and Allerton Park.• Using examples from existing similar facilities, the plume from thechimney stack will be visible for about 50% of daylight hours.AmeyCespa wrongly claim the figure will be 10%. The chimney andassociated plume will be seen for many miles around and will dominatethe skyline as it is approached from the A59 and A1. It will beparticularly dominant as seen from the surrounding communities ofGoldsborough, Flaxby, Coneythorpe, Arkendale, Marton cum Graftonand the eastern parts of Knaresborough.• The effect of the massive plant will be seen in the local ConservationArea villages.• The development will conflict with Harrogate District LandscapeCharacter Assessment (“the Assessment”) approved in February 2004.326NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/326

• Blight on the landscape. Take a look at Ferrybridge ... is this really wantat the gateway to North Yorkshire. It doesn't exactly portray an image ofa forward looking and progressive county. A 60 - 70m high chimney istaller than York Minster and will be visible from miles around.• The chimney stack's smoke plume would be clearly visible for about 50%of daylight hours; and not the 10% which AmeyCespa quoted at thepublic presentations. Extensive smoke will thus be seen for milesaround - and the 250foot chimney would certainly dominate the skylinefrom the A59 as motorists approach the extremely busy A1 roundabout.• The chimney and plume will be a dominant feature of views that includeAllerton Castle, the eastern Yorkshire Dales, the Kilburn White Horseand the escarpment on which it features, and the Yorkshire Wolds.• AWRP would be a massive and highly visually intrusive industrialdevelopment that would be out of place in a rural setting. This results inmajor adverse landscape and visual impacts that cannot be mitigated.• The development runs contrary to the local development plan and localplanning assessment.• Mitigation of the visual impact of the incinerator will be utterly reliantupon the goodwill and cooperation of the local landowners. Thelandowners would be unwilling to participate in landscaping given thehigh costs of commodities.• The impact on the visual amenity around the site will be so significantthat the area will be damaged beyond repair and the legacy felt in yearsfar beyond the 25 years of operation. The chimney will dominate thelandscape for miles around. This should be totally unacceptable to theCouncil as guardians of this landscape.• The size and scale of the plant would have a massive visual impact inthis location, the highest point in the Vale of York, visible from keylocations, Knaresborough, Harrogate, across the vale towards York andthe moors. The existing facility is well screened in the old quarry but tothe millions of people who will use the A1 A168 corridor this proposedplant, chimney and buildings, will be visible from a great distance in anunspoilt landscape of far reaching vistas undoing the successfullandscaping and restoration work following the construction of themotorway.• The LVIA fails to have included the hamlet of Clareton, despite thishaving the closest houses on the Western side of the A1.• None of the photomontages show the plume.• Photomontages misleading as EIA states that not all impacts could beconsidered.• No photomontages for many of the views in and around the villagesincluding Whixley and Little Ouseburn.• Visual impact on public rights of way.(k)Impact on Residential Amenity• Due to the operation proposing 24/7 operation, the external lighting willbe intrusive in the rural area around Allerton; and• A number of objectors have concerns regarding the potential odour.327NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/327

(l)Public Consultation• There has been no proper consultation exercise from the County Councilor the Applicant.• NYCC has neglected to consult with the public on this matter by hidingbehind their chosen Contractor, AmeyCespa.• Representatives from NYCC should have discussed alternative schemeswith the public in proper consultation meetings. This would enable allparties involved to arrive at an acceptable solution to the waste problem.Following proper consultation with the public and tendering procedureswould be the time to involve a Contractor.• There has been no proper public consultation on this application andmany people who live in the county have no idea even of the proposal.• There has been no proper public consultation. Indeed many local peopleand almost certainly the majority of North Yorkshire citizens are blissfullyunaware of the proposed incinerator or cost to the ratepayers over thenext 25 years.• The case for this project has not been made in a satisfactory mannerand only reinforces a feeling of not living in a democratic society, but thatthe council is to put it strongly, corrupt.• There has been no proper consultation on the grounds of protectingcommercial confidentiality.• I have no confidence in the public consultation exercise carried out asvital information was withheld due to alleged commercial confidentiality,consequently ensuring a lack of transparency in the debate.• The method of steam-rollering the project through the consultation andplanning processes has been unethical to say the least.• Public responses should be made available to view online not just atCounty Hall.• To be able to consider and adequately respond to the details of such ahuge body of documentation, the period of 21 days allowed is notremotely sufficient and the time limit is patently unfair to the council taxpayers whose money is being spent if the development is approved.• Live 2 miles downwind and have not been informed of the planningapplication by the Council. Not seen it advertised or site notices.• Ignores the views of today instead relying on relying on consultationscompleted several years ago.• Never been consulted on different waste disposal technologies.• Every household within North Yorkshire should have received notificationof this planning application by post, and not just those in close proximity.• NYCC own public consultation states that residents would prefer smallerlocal facilities.• Not had sufficient airing in the local papers.• The council changed the procedure at the last minute before the decisionmaking meeting on the 15 th December 2010 and effectively guillotinedthe presentations made by objectors and also prevented supplementaryquestions.• The notion that about 20 members of the public to attend meetings everyweek or so was a joke and nothing short of a lame PR exercise.328NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/328

(m)(n)(o)Adverse Impact on Biodiversity• Wildlife, including a number of protected species, have habitats in andaround the proposed site which will be damaged by the development. Itwas previously promised that the current site be returned to a naturalenvironment at the end of its commercial life. By supporting these plansNYCC have reneged on this commitment.• There is evidence that the site's biodiversity will be adversely affected,including protect species such as otters.• There are a number of protected species in the area including GreatCrested Newts whose environment would be damaged by the building ofthis facility.• Risks to the surrounding flora and fauna due to emissions from theproposal.• The immediate surroundings are home to otters, water voles and greatcrested newts. The habitats of these animals will be threatened if theuse of the site is intensified.Noise Impact• The development, and its associated operation, will result in a highernoise pollution to the surrounding area.• Operations will continue up to 10pm. Given the high frequency nature ofreverse warning sirens this is likely to give rise to nuisance as ambientnoise levels are very low, particularly at night. There is no considerationgiven to frequency band analysis.• Particularly concerned about the noise the plant could generate, inparticular ambient process noise for example from continuously runningfans and motors, and noise from moving machinery and mechanicalhandling equipment.Impact of the Proposal on Climate Change• Emissions of CO 2 will compromise HBC's commitments on the reductionof greenhouse gases by 2020. The proposals also run counter to EUand national policy on greenhouse gas emissions. Research has shownthat Electricity Only Incinerators (like this plant) create 33% more CO 2emissions than an equivalent sized Gas Fired Power Station;• Extra unnecessary HGV travel from around the county means additionalCO 2 emissions and other pollutants.• This technology is now outdated and North Yorkshire has not enoughrubbish to keep this incinerator burning at premium levels so will have to"import” rubbish from Leeds and West Yorkshire and use items whichcould have been re-cycled. The proposal is contrary to local, regionaland national/EU policies which is trying to cut down on greenhousegases.329NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/329

(p)Financial Implications• The plant will be financed through a PFI. Documents released by NYCCreveal the vast sums set to be borrowed by AmeyCespa under the PFIwaste deal will be paid back at rates far above those originally envisageddue to the credit crisis. The documents show that when the two councilsdrew up their first PFI business case for the project back in 2006, theyassumed the interest rate payable would be around 6.8 per cent -already far higher than if the authorities were to borrow the moneythemselves. Since then, the documents state, the actual price of thedebt has “considerably increased” from this assumed level. The actualcost of the expensive new financing has been withheld from thedocuments for “commercial reasons”, but one table of figures shows debtfinancing now makes up more than 28 per cent of the total cost of thescheme – potentially topping £400m. This extra burden will be borne bytaxpayers for the next 25 years.• The Council's proposals to spend £1.4 billion over the life of theincinerator is a complete contradiction to its on going requirement to cutspending and is tantamount to financial mismanagement.• The PFI contract means taxpayers will pay over the odds over tonne ofwaste in comparison to current gate fees, which are due to drop in thefuture over-capacity.• Reports from the government's public affairs and treasury found thatPFIs represent bad value for money.• The scheme relies on a PFI initiative which will cost the taxpayers ofNorth Yorkshire dearly in the future if it is approved. There has beenmuch publicity recently about the high coats of PFI schemes and thisscheme will be no exception as the penalty clauses for not meetingwaste targets are swingeing.• The project is based on a PFI grant of over £60m. The PFI system hasproven to be a hugely expensive system for funding public infrastructureprojects and locks the authority into a long-tem re-payment contract.There are many other waste management contracts in the UK with amuch lower gate price than the proposed solution.• The Chancellor of the Exchequer has vowed to reassess the PFI systembecause of failings in the present system.• Inadequate safeguards are proposed to safeguard rate payers from theimpact of rapidly escalating bills.• Due to facilities in adjoining regions there could be a considerable overcapacityin the region. If the Allerton Park site cannot run at capacityNYCC will have to pay considerable charges to AmeyCespa.• There are much cheaper options (such as the thermal MBT processorused by Darlington) which do not require any PFI funding and wouldsave about £13 million a year.• An alternative system is currently used in Darlington which if adopted bythe County Council would cost in order of £13 million per annum for the25 year period of the project. This is about 25% of the proposed cost of£1.4 billion over the full 25 years.• Financial risk, magnitude and length of commitment, lack of viability, lackof flexibility and lack of proof of value for money.330NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/330

• In today’s financial climate the money would be better spent in localservices and community projects / cannot justify such an enormousfinancial outlay over the proposed number of years.• Money better spent elsewhere.• Committing the tax payer to a 25 year contract in the current economicclimate, with an unknown system is unprofessional and unbusiness like.• The proposals are so large that it is not viable without selling processingto private businesses and there is no evidence that such opportunitieswill be forthcoming will be forthcoming, especially as other districtsendeavour to market their own facilities.• There could be a European carbon dioxide tax and other emissionstaxes which this facility could fall into. This would incur even moreexpense for the NYCC tax payer.• With ever increasing fuel costs, the transportation of matter will turn outnot to be a viable option.• Cannot understand why in a time of recession and when faced with thethreat of global warming, our council propose a Spanish built projectwhich is amongst the worst performing types of waste disposal in termsof carbon emissions.• Marton-cum-Grafton parish council has published a telling report whichuses more relevant and realistic data than AmeyCespa’s with regard tofuture landfill tax, population growth and predicted waste volumes. Itconcludes that the PFI contract would be more costly than the do nothingscenario.• Due to the size of the plant a huge amount of commercial and industrialwaste will need top be burnt to realize the economics of the proposedplant. This is not what has been sold to the rate payer who ultimatelypay for the use of this privately operated venture.• We live in a rural environment where many people are employed inagriculture. These are the people who will be worst hit when thefinancial shortcomings of the proposed scheme become apparent andlocal rate payers are required to contribute to help balance the Councilbudget.• No economic case is made for an economic outlay of this size, nor areadequate safeguards proposed to safeguard rate payers from the impactof rapidly escalating bills.• Permission should not be considered until a comparison of costs andpayments of alternative options have been published.• According to DEFRA PFI guidance there should be broad public supportfor proposals.(q)Use of WRATE to assess the proposal• The WRATE model (used in the AWRP planning application) is known tobe biased in favour of incineration so it is not surprising that is producesresults that are seriously out of line with most other studies.• Conclusions are extremely subjective in favouring the proposed solutionand dismissing combined MBT and AD as being uncertain either asanew technology with little information or research available onprocesses or outcomes.331NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/331

• The waste industry has a similar view of WRATE analysis that it favoursincineration and is inflexible in modelling. ATROPOS model foundscenarios using incineration were amongst the worst performing.(r)(s)(t)Impact on Historic Assets• The development will have an unacceptable adverse effect on historicassets, although English Heritage decided not to object to the proposals,it still considered that as a new and large visual feature within thelandscape, the proposed facility will have an adverse impact on thesetting of the historic assets and this will affect the significance andspecial interest of the historic assets.• The proposal for AWRP will have a destructive impact on the Grade IListed Building Allerton Castle and Allerton Park as well as a number ofGrade II Listed Buildings in Allerton Park.• The setting of the Grade II* Listed Temple of Victory.• The proposal, because the height of the stack at 70 metres, would bevisible from near and far and would be visible from Myton RegisteredBattlefield, 3.5km from AWRP and Boroughbridge Registered Battlefield,which is 6.8km from AWRP.Hydrological Issues• The application is within an existing SPZ protecting a public water supplyborehole. Any development of this nature should be prohibited.• The application does not adequately protect the Sherwood SandstoneAquifer from potential leachate and it is not agreed that the boulder claybeneath the sand in the quarry is sufficient protection.• The calculations for ‘blowdown’ on the process we believe are inaccurateand the applicant will have to supplement the public water supply withfurther groundwater abstraction.• An existing licensed abstraction at Moor Farm has not been included inany impact studies. Any heavy metals that have penetrated the aquiferwill find their way into the food chain.• The facility will have injurious consequences on the local environmentwith possibilities of run-off into the water table.• Who knows what materials exist in rubbish and there is always thepotential for toxic and hazardous materials to leach out onto the localland and hence reach the human and animal food chains.Cumulative Impact and Mitigation• Cumulative impacts of this proposal alongside other similar proposals forthe area are not assessed.• Mitigation proposals are inadequate to offset this harm.• There exists no mitigation plans apart from those made to appeaseAllerton Park Estate.• No mitigation or road traffic layout changes have been proposed to allowfor the already busy and dangerous junctions surrounding access to thesite.332NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/332

• All the mitigation proposals affect minor heritage features invisible toanyone other than those adjacent to them within Allerton Park. Whereasthe chimney and plume will be a dominant feature of views that includeAllerton Castle, the Eastern Yorkshire Dales, the Kilburn White Horseand the escarpment on which it features, and the Yorkshire Wolds.• The so called mitigation payments may be regarded as an extra fee tothe landowner and not as mitigation for the harm to the landscape.• The applicant has not taken into account the cumulative harm resultingfrom pollution generated by the proposed plant added to that generatedfrom local conurbations.• The EIA makes mention of a fund which will be overseen by a QUANGO,with residents able to apply for grants to assist in mitigating the visualimpact of the incinerator. In reality the mitigation of the incinerator will beutterly reliant upon the goodwill and cooperation of the local landowners.Following discussion it is understood the main owner is unwilling toparticipate in landscaping given the high costs of commodities and hisneed to run his business effectively.• The adverse impact on visual character of the surrounding area cannotbe mitigated; the building cannot be adequately screened.• No mitigation relating to accidents at A59/A168 junction.(u)Other Issues:• The development will devalue property by at least 40%; if the applicationsucceeds then legal action will be taken against the County Council torecover the lost property value.• The proposal will have a significant effect on house prices in thesurrounding area.• The prospect of having an incinerator near to property has made itunsellable on the open market.• The proposed operator AmeyCespa has no previous experience insetting up and managing such an installation.• NYCC haven't yet agreed their Waste Strategy - but are planning tocommit to an incinerator nevertheless.• NYCC has no current Waste Strategy; so it seems illogical to commit tothis huge project without objectively considering alternatives.• The core of NYCC's strategy had already been decided, the incineratorat Allerton Park. This was not made clear in the public consultation onwaste strategy, neither were any other options to that facility discussed.• Granting planning permission for AWRP would seriously undermine thedeveloping Core Waste Strategy, which should set the strategic case forwhat needs to be done when and how to meet the waste treatmentneeds in NYCC/CYC.• NYCC have stated that they are in a partnership arrangement withAmeyCespa Ltd and therefore should not be allowed to determine theoutcome.• The Council, itself, should refer this application to an external,independent body for consideration, rather than its own planningcommittee.333NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/333

• The planning application should be called-in for the determination by theSecretary of State.• Rates are paid every year to the local council who are there to act onbehalf of ratepayers, to the best of their ability and for the greater benefitof all the local population. By even contemplating the incinerator, it onlyhighlights that NYCC are not acting on anyone’s best interests other thana political one.• NYCC has backed this scheme in principle because it failed to develop abetter plan for meeting targets to reduce landfill. Now the council will bejudge and jury on the planning application, avoiding full scrutiny of itsineptitude.• Potential vibration damage to properties.• I believe a public enquiry is necessary to determine if this site should beused fro the purposes of waste incineration.• Other options e.g. recycling / smaller facilities would provide more jobs.• Concerned that if Clareton Lane is the route for the cable then the drainpreviously damaged by the electrical cable from the present landfill sitecould be damaged again.• Request whether proposed works will give entitlement to claimcompensation under Part 1 Land Compensation Act 1973.• EIA should be benchmarked to a Greenfield site.• There was no proper debate by County Councillors on the issue of anIncinerator as they were told by the Executive how to vote.FOLLOWING A FURTHER RECONSULTATION EXERCISE WHICH EXPIRED ONTHE 31 AUGUST 2012, BASED ON THE SUBMISSION OF FURTHERENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION (Regulation 22 OF THE 2011 EIARegulations), THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED: -a) Highways issues:• There is nothing in the new information that mitigates concerns abouttraffic volume;• Questions are raised regarding why a full Transport Assessment andmap showing waste routes is not provided;• In accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) a TravelPlan is required. The planning application does not provide a plan and,therefore, cannot be approved;• The addition of visitor centre with education, hospitality facility, car /coach park etc, all increases traffic flow, adding to the heavy trafficalready estimated;• The Travel Plan does little to mitigate unacceptable risks;• There are now extra traffic flows on the A59 due to built developmentand as such figures cannot be relied upon; and• The evidence of the assessment of queuing on the A59 is flawed.b) Need for the development:• HBC recently introduced kerbside re-cycling measures reducing theamount of black bag waste. Time should be allowed to evaluate theeffect of these new services.334NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/334

c) Pollution and impact on health:• Whilst acknowledging the extensive work done on the air qualityassessment the conclusions are still found to be imprecise andunacceptable;• For some pollutants it will be a case of just ‘wait and see’. Surely a wellmanaged operation would be able to ensure that no mix of waste evergoes through the plant that will create above acceptable levels of toxicity;• AmeyCespa’s belief that there has not been enough scientific researchto adequately prove just how widely and seriously waste incineratoremissions can and do damage to human health is incorrect. The BritishSociety for Ecological Medicine’s The Health Effects of WasteIncinerators (Second edition, June 2008), for example, is based uponand gives full details of 349 scientific papers and publications on largeepidemiological studies, smaller scale studies and a large body ofrelated research. The recommendation is that no further incineratorsshould be built;• AmeyCespa ignore the fact that particles can be carried for hundreds ofmiles from source;• Health and environmental issues are not addressed properly in this newinformation; and• Human Health Risk Assessment does not represent a worst casescenario and will seriously underestimate disease effects.d) European, National, Regional and Local Planning Policy:• The new submission ignores the conflict with the government wastestrategy;• The new submission falls short of addressing sustainable development;• The basic principles of the NPPF are ignored and new facility can not bedescribed as sustainable development;• The NPPF places great emphasis on sustainability. The application failsto meet the criteria. The commitment to 25 years means the nextgeneration could not choose the type of waste disposal system theywant;• The proposals are not in line with the three dimensions of sustainabledevelopment set out in the NPPF. 25 years contract will fundamentallycompromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs andlead to destruction of valuable resources that could have been reused orrecycled so virgin resources would have to be exploited;• The NPPF now makes pollution and health risks an important issue inplanning decisions, no matter what it has been in the past. Therefore,past objections are re-iterated on this issue. If air pollution controlequipment fails, emission levels will exceed permitted levels greatly;• Contrary to the NPPF there has been a lack of community involvement.It is only in the last two years that the community have been made awareof the project;• Technology is out of date and in accordance with the NPPF ‘we mustrespond to the changes that new technologies offer us’;335NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/335

• The NPPF states that minerals are essential to support sustainableeconomic growth and our quality of life. Mineral extraction is animportant contributor to the NYCC rural economy and reinstatementrequires landfill. AWRP and NYCC have not quantified the impact oftrying to eliminate landfill on this important rural North Yorkshire industry;• The NPPF opposes decisions by remote bodies and in this contextNYCC is undoubtedly a remote body. Should be decided by HBC orlocal people and communities;• The NPPF also refers to ‘an environmental role’ in sustainabledevelopment, defined as to “use natural resources prudently andminimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate changeincluding moving to a low carbon economy”. Not only does this proposalnot adhere to this guidance by its strategic approach, but in addition, byplacing the facility where heat produced in treatment processes cannotbe put to any productive use, it fails to minimize waste and pollution;• The NPPF presumes sustainability and the AWRP does not meet thiscriteria due to the size and high cost thereby requiring it to be run at fullcapacity even though that may not be required at all times;• This scheme does not ensure better lives for ourselves if these factorsare taken into account: excessive cost; inferior recycling capacity;increased greenhouse gas generation from increased waste transportdistances and waste disposal; serious unavoidable damage to the locallandscape and increased risk of pollution from the incineration element.All of these unnecessary outcomes would be worse for futuregenerations;• NPPF states that planning law requires that applications for planningapplications should be determined in accordance with developmentplans. The plans are contrary to current Waste Core Strategy and theHBC Development Plan;• The proposals do not comply with NPPF policy on conserving heritageassets;• The proposals conflict with supporting sustainable economic growth as itdoes not support a multi site approach which would reduce in increasedemployment opportunities; and• The application fails to ensure the proposal is visually attractive as aresult of good architecture and appropriate landscaping; should notincrease urban sprawl; should not increase the impact of light pollutionon intrinsically dark landscapes; should promote nature conservation.e) Visual Impact:• There is nothing in the submission to convince that the plant will beanything other than an eyesore in a beautiful area;• One respondent welcomes tree plating, however, a number consider thatthe proposals are unsatisfactory;• The second fund is meant to enable tree planting but this will not workbecause AmeyCespa don’t own the land concerned and because treesof adequate size take a very long time to grow; and• Even when fully grown the trees would not be big enough to hide thedevelopment.336NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/336

f) Public Consultation:• A large number of criticisms have been received regarding timescales forthe re-consultation due to holidays and the large number of documentsto read (42 in total).g) Adverse Impact on Biodiversity:• The submission fails to acknowledge emissions would cause damageover a wider area and also fails to discuss the role of eutrophication; and• The Impact on the Great Ouseburn Carr Site of Interest to NatureConservation has still not been adequately addressed.h) Financial Implications:• The cost of decommissioning the plant and re-instating the site by NYCChas not yet been determined and this cost will be borne by the tax payer.i) WRATE• WRATE analysis should be repeated using correct assumptions – it hasdiscounted biogenic carbon and relies on marginal energy mixes that donot conform to those currently set down by DECC; and• Nothing in additional information to later conclusion that WRATE hasmisleading conclusions. ATROPOS Model should be used instead.j) Cumulative Impact and Mitigation:• Section 106 money should be spent on community not one land owner.It could be argued that he should be been maintaining the structures athis own expense; and• It is considered that the Conservation Management Plan and Landscapeand Cultural Heritage Fund are of little relevance and the latter is whollyinadequate to offer any realistic mitigation.k) Other issues:• The latest proposals require more commercial waste to feed theincinerator. This waste can be anything and will not be checked onarrival;• Council may be acting as ultra vires by processing substantial tradewaste at a significant loss;• This increase in commercial waste indicated NYCC are already awarethe plans are too big.• Doesn’t provide any new information to counter objections. Many state ithas reinforced their views ‘in fact I am more against it now’;• Poll by Harrogate advisor recorded more than 95% of respondents beingagainst the project endorsing overwhelmingly their belief that it’s notnecessary;• NYCC recently rejected a small waste facility along the A168. In rejectingthe application David Bowe, Corporate Director for Business andEnvironmental Services wrote “the development would have significantvisual and landscape impact and is not in keeping with the surroundinglandscape, has no relationship with the rural land use around the siteand that it will detract from the intrinsic rural and landscape character of337NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/337

the locality”. If fairness and consistency is to be carried out by NYCC’splanning officials, then the proposed incinerator should be rejected;• Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Regulations are irrelevant as there iscurrently no market for the heat;• Overcapacity problems seen in Germany and Holland and somelocalised areas in the UK are likely to be repeated nationally. Likely itwould be operating at an overcapacity situation for much of operationallife;• Air pollution accelerates degradation of buildings, works of art andarchaeological treasures through corrosion or erosion and soiling.Wrong to limit consideration of this threat to a 3km radius;• Additional information still downplays impacts e.g. health ‘impactssignificantly greater’, ecology ‘ignores the incinerator emissions’,hydrology, hydrogeology and flood risk ‘contains contradictions and failsto give adequate consideration of possible future needs for drinkingwater or issues surrounding local leaching of pollutants’; and• Fails to deal with previous objections and criticisms raised e.g. accidentanalysis on A59 between York and Knaresborough.338NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/338

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE REPORTAcronym / AbbreviationACCsADAODAONBAPCAPCRAQMABMWBPEOBREEAMCAAC&ICABECD&ECEMSCHPCO 2eCPRECSCYCDCLGDEFRADETRDPDEAEfWEHOEIAESEUFFLFRAFSAGHGGSPZHAHBCHGVsDescriptionAir Cooled CondensersAnaerobic DigestionAbove Ordnance DatumArea of Outstanding Natural BeautyAir Pollution ControlAir Pollution Control ResidueAir Quality Management AreaBiodegradable Municipal WasteBest Practicable Environmental OptionBuilding Research Establishment Environmental AssessmentMethodCore Application AreaCommercial and IndustrialCommission for Architecture and the Built EnvironmentConstruction, Demolition and ExcavationContinuous Emissions Monitoring SystemsCombined Heat and PowerCarbon dioxide equivalentCampaign for the Protection of Rural EnglandCore Strategy PolicyCity of York CouncilDepartment of Communities and Local GovernmentDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural AffairsDepartment of Environment, Transport and the RegionsDevelopment Plan DocumentEnvironment AgencyEnergy From WasteEnvironmental Health OfficerEnvironmental Impact AssessmentEnvironmental StatementEuropean UnionFinished Floor LevelFlood Risk AssessmentFood Standards AgencyGreenhouse Gas EmissionsGroundwater Source Protection ZoneHighways AgencyHarrogate Borough CouncilHeavy Goods Vehicles339NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/339

Acronym / AbbreviationHPAIBAIDBIEMAIPPCJMWMSKMLACWLATSLBIALCHFLDFLDPLESLMEZLPLPALVIAMBTMIPUMoDMSWMTMWMWIMWMSNALNENHSNMU’sNPPFNPSNYCCNYMLPNYWAGNYWLPPALOPFIPPCPPSPRoWDescriptionHealth Protection AgencyIncinerator Bottom AshInternal Drainage BoardInstitute of Environmental Management and AssessmentIntegrated Pollution Prevention and ControlJoint Municipal Waste Management StrategyKilometreLocal Authority Collected WasteLandfill Allowance Trading SchemeLeeds Bradford International AirportLandscape and Cultural Heritage FundLocal Development FrameworkLandscape and Development PracticeLow Emission StrategyLandscape Mitigation and enhancement ZonesLocal PlanLocal Planning AuthorityLandscape and Visual Impact AssessmentMechanical Biological TreatmentMajor Infrastructure Planning UnitMinistry of DefenceMunicipal Solid WasteMechanical TreatmentMegawattMunicipal Waste IncineratorsMunicipal Waste Management StrategyNearest Appropriate LocationNatural EnglandNational Health ServiceNon Motorised UsersNational Planning Policy StatementNational Policy StatementNorth Yorkshire County CouncilNorth Yorkshire Minerals Local PlanNorth Yorkshire Waste Action GroupNorth Yorkshire Waste Local PlanPolice Architectural Liaison OfficerPrivate Finance InitiativePollution Prevention and ControlPlanning Policy StatementPublic Right of Way340NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/340

Acronym / AbbreviationQUANGORCVsRMMSROCRoRoRSSS106SACSEASINCSPASPZSRCSSSISuDSTCPATHTOCTPAVOCWCSWDAWET ActWFDWIDWLPWMOWPAWRATEWRGWSEYWTDescriptionQuasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental OrganisationRefuse Collection VehiclesRemote Monitoring Management SystemRenewables Obligation CertificationRoll on Roll off (skip vehicles)Regional Spatial StrategySection 106 (legal agreement)Special Area of ConservationStrategic Environmental AssessmentSites of Importance for Nature ConservationSpecial Protection AreaSource Protection ZoneShort Rotation CoppiceSite of Special Scientific InterestSustainable Drainage SystemTown and Country Planning ActTipping HallTotal Organic CarbonTonnes per AnnumVolatile Organic CompoundsWaste Core StrategyWaste Disposal AuthorityWaste and Emissions Trading ActWaste Framework DirectiveWaste Incineration DirectiveWaste Local PlanWorld Meteorological OrganizationWaste Planning AuthorityWaste and Resources Assessment Tool for the EnvironmentWaste Recycling GroupWaste Strategy for EnglandYorkshire Wildlife Trust341NYCC – 30 October 2012- P&RF CommitteeAWRP/341

Golf CourseKnaresboroughHay-a-ParkHay-a-ParkHay-a-ParkSpellow FieldHay-a-ParkArkendale MoorClareton MoorParson's ClosesClareton FieldAllerton ParkFar ParkAllerton ParkMarton MoorHigh FieldGreat OuseburnLittle OuseburnA1(M)BoroughbridgeApplication SiteFerresnsbyArkendaleApplication SiteConeythorpe00 100metres2001,000metres2,000FlaxbyAllerton CastleA168Application No : C6/500/63/Q/CMATitle: Plan 1 - Location Plan - Development of a Waste Recovery Park (Allerton Waste Recovery Park - AWRP)at Allerton Park Quarry, near Knaresborough342© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. North Yorkshire County Council. 100017946 2012Business &Environmental Services,North YorkshireCounty CouncilCounty Hall, Northallerton,North Yorkshire. DL7 8AHScale :Date :Filename :Compilation & Analysis :1:30,000August 2012Allerton ParkSR/JB

Hay-a-ParkArkendale MoorGoldsborough FieldsClareton MoorParson's ClosesClareton FieldFlaxby MoorAllerton ParkFar ParkAllerton ParkMarton MoorSmithy FieldHigh Field01,0002,0000100 200metresmetresApplication No : C6/500/63/Q/CMA343

Flaxby MoorClaro FieldFlaxby MoorMill FieldGolf CourseSand PitAllerton ParkNew ParkAllerton ParkNear ParkAllerton ParkFar ParkAllerton ParkAllerton ParkNear ParkMarton MoorSmithy FieldGreat Ouseburn MoorGreat Ouseburn MoorRabbit HillCherry HillFar Clockhill FieldOX CLOSEHigh FieldPilly TomsFar Clockhill FieldBurtree FlatsRound HillAllerton ParkNMHK'O' LagoonC6/500/63/O/CMA'N'C6/500/63/N/CMAA'M'C6/500/63/M/CMAEG, I & LOB, C & F'K'C6/500/63/M/CMA'J' & 'O'restorationC6/500/63J/CMAJ & OD'63''H'C6/500/63/H/CMA'B', 'C', 'F'C6/500/63F/CMAC6/500/63C/PAC6/500/63B/PA'E'C6/500/63E/CMA0 450metres900'D'C6/500/63/D/CMA'A'C6/500/63/A/PA'63'C6/500/63/PAAllertonMaulevererLandfill GasUtilisation FacilityC6/500/63/G/CMAC6/500/63I/CMAC6/500/63L/CMAApplication No : C6/500/63/Q/CMATitle: Plan 3 - Permission Areas at Allerton ParkNBusiness andEnvironmental ServicesNorth YorkshireCounty CouncilCounty Hall, Northallerton,North Yorkshire. DL7 8AH344Scale : 1:20,000Date : Aug 2012Filename : Allerton ParkCompilation & Analysis : JB/SR© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. North Yorkshire County Council. 100017946 2012

Title: Plan 4 – Extract from current approved restoration layoutSource: Land & Mineral Resource Consultants Limited DrawingNo.A6.L/12D(1994)345

Title: Plan 5 – Extract from Approved WRG Interim RestorationLayout if Leachate Treatment and Short Rotation Coppice Scheme isimplementedSource: Waste Recycling Group Drawing NO. CE-APK-0147-DW08b (2010)346

Title: Plan 6 – Extract from Approved WRG Final Restoration Layout ifLeachate Treatment and Short Rotation Coppice Scheme isimplementedSource: Waste Recycling Group Drawing No. CE-APK0147/DW015a(2010)347

UndergroundRoute tosubstationVisitor and EducationCentre and Ancillary StaffOfficesIncinerator Bottom AshProcessing FacilityExit WeigbridgesWelfare BlockAir Cooled CondensersSite AccessSurface WaterAttenuation PondLandfill GasUtilisation FacilityExisting quarry LandfillWeighbridgeStaff Car ParkEntrance WeighbridgesEnergy from Waste PlantAnaerobic digestionMechanical TreatmentFacilityTipping HallA168Title: Plan 7 – Core Application AreaSource: Amey Cespa Plan NO. 3223-01(PL) 09 Rev B (2011)348

Title: Plan 8 – AWRP Landscape Masterplan in context of extant landfillrestoration plan349

Title: Plan 9 – AWRP Landscape Masterplan (in context of approved WRG interimrestoration plan)350

Title Plan 10: AWRP Landscape Masterplan (in context of approved WRG finalrestoration plan)351

Title: Plan 11 – AWRP Final Landscape Restoration Plan352

Allerton ParkObjectorTitle: Plan 12 - Location of representations from neighbours353

Site Section A-A (West)Site Section B-B (East)Site Sections 1 of 3354

Site Sections 2 of 3355

Site Sections 3 of 3356

EFW Section357

EFW North Elevation358

EFW East Elevation359

EFW South Elevation360

EFW West Elevation361

Energy from Waste – Roof Plan362

MT & D Elevations - East Elevation363

MT & D Elevations - South Elevation364

MT & D Elevations – North Elevation365

MT & D Elevations - West Elevation366

Section AAMT Sections367

Section BBMT Sections368

MT & AD - Roof Plan369

IBABuilding IBA PlanBuildingPlanIBA Roof PlanIBABuilding & Roof Plans370

IBA – Elevations371

Claro House and Visitor CentreExisting Ground Floor Plan372

Claro House and Visitor CentreExisting First Floor Plan373

Claro House & Visitor CentreProposed Site Plan374

Claro House & Visitor CentreProposed Ground Floor Plan375

Claro House & Visitor CentreProposed First Floor Plan376

Farmhouse South ElevationGarage East ElevationStables North ElevationFarmhouse East ElevationClaro House & Visitor CentreExisting Elevations377

Farmhouse North ElevationFarm and House West ElevationClaro House & Visitor Centre – Existing Elevations378

Farmhouse South ElevationFarmhouse East ElevationFarmhouse WestElevationGarageEast ElevationClaro House & Visitor CentreProposed Elevations & Sections379

Stables South ElevationStables North ElevationSection AAClaro House & Visitor CentreProposed Elevations & Section380

ACC – Plans & Elevations381

Amenity Building – Plans & Elevations382

Weighbridge Office – Plans & Elevations383

Substation – Plans & Elevations384

Tipping HallLevel 5 Plan385

Proposed area ofwatching briefincluding 20 mbufferPlan to be attached to the ArchaeologicalPlanning Condition386