Cabinet by changcheng2


									                                                                   Agenda Item No. 2

Disposal of hazardous waste by landfill in cell 6 and regularisation of current
and historic co-disposal of hazardous & non-hazardous waste, amended final
restoration details and related engineering and ancillary operations at Warboys
Landfill Site, Station Road, Warboys
For: Fenside Waste Management Limited
LPA Ref: H/05035/03/CW
To:                      Development Control Committee
Date:                    26 May 2004
From:                    Head of Strategic Planning
Electoral division(s):   St Ives North & Warboys; Ramsey
Purpose:                 To determine the above planning application
Recommendation:          It is recommended that
                         (a) authority be given to the County Solicitor acting in
                             consultation with the Head of Strategic Planning to
                             conclude a planning obligation under Section 106 of
                             the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the
                             matters listed in Annex 1 to this report
                         (b) following completion of the planning obligation
                             referred to in (a) above then planning permission be
                             issued for: -
                                  the disposal of only hazardous waste in Cell 6 as
                                   identified on plan ref PA 3.4 (Drwg NLO6096/42)
                                  the co-disposal of hazardous waste with non-
                                   hazardous waste in Cell 5A as identified on plan
                                   ref PA 3.4 (Drwg NLO6096/42)
                                  the retention of hazardous waste in Cells 1, 2,
                                   3A, 3B, 4, 4A and 5 as identified on plan ref PA
                                   3.4 (Drwg NLO6096/42)
                                  revised final restoration levels as set out in plan
                                   ref PA 5.1 (Drwg NLO6096/33)
                                  temporary overburden storage as identified on
                                   plan ref PA 3.4 (Drwg NLO6096/42)
                                  ancillary operations as detailed in the
                                   Application, including the waste transfer station,
                                   leachate compound, landfill gas compound and
                                   extension of the balancing pond
                            subject to conditions as outlined in Annex 2 to this
                         (c) the Head of Strategic Planning be instructed to write to
                             the Environment Agency requesting that those matters
                             identified in Annex 3 to this report should be taken into
                             account by the Environment Agency in the
                             determination of the Pollution Prevention and Control
                             Permit application for the site.

         Officer contacts:

Name:    Mark Vigor
Post:    Head of Strategic Planning
Tel:     O1223 717605

Name:    David Atkinson
Post:    Minerals and Waste Planning Manager
Tel:     01223 717617

Name:    Helen Wass
Post:    Development Control Officer
Tel:     01223 717616

CONTENTS – main report                                       Paragraph   Page
Recommendation                                                              1
Introduction and Background                                        1.0      5
The Proposals                                                      2.0      7
The Applicant’s Case                                               3.0      8
The Site and Surroundings                                          4.0     10
Consultations and Publicity                                        5.0     10
Results of Consultations                                           6.0     11
Huntingdonshire District Council                                   6.1     11
Warboys Parish Council                                             6.2     13
Wistow Parish Council                                              6.3     15
Chatteris Town Council                                             6.4     15
Environment Agency                                                 6.5     15
Huntingdonshire Primary Care Trust                                 6.6     17
Ramsey First (Hollow) IDB/Middle Level Commissioners               6.7     17
English Nature                                                     6.8     18
Defence Estates                                                    6.9     19
Regional Waste Technical Advisory Body (on behalf of EERA)        6.10     19
Countryside Agency                                                6.11     20
Government Office for the East of England                         6.12     20
Warboys Landfill Action Group                                     6.13     20
Highways Authority                                                6.14     22
Civil Protection Unit                                             6.15     23
Representations Received                                           7.0     23
Site Planning History                                              8.0     25
Policy Background                                                  9.0     27
EU Directives and UK Regulations                                  10.0     29
Principal Issues Raised                                           11.0     29
Land Use Planning Considerations                                  12.0     30
National and Regional Policy                                      12.2     30
Development Plan                                                  12.4     30
Sustainable Waste Management/BPEO/ Waste Hierarchy                12.5     31
Need, importation of waste and the Proximity principle           12.20     34
Pollution Control and health risks                               12.37     37
Traffic and highways                                             12.64     42
Residential amenity                                              12.73     43
Impact on the Countryside                                        12.81     44
Nature conservation and geology                                  12.86     45
Aircraft safeguarding                                            12.91     46
Ancillary Development                                            12.96     47
Mineral extraction                                              12.100     47
Development related provisions                                  12.103     48
Other Considerations                                              13.0     49
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS                                               14.0     51

CONTENTS – Annexes (green pages)                                      Page

Annex 1 – Scope of draft S106 Planning Obligations                      54

Annex 2 – Draft Planning Conditions                                     55

Annex 3 – Recommended Environment Agency controls                       67

CONTENTS – Appendices (buff pages)

Appendix A – Information from the Environment Agency                    69

Appendix B – Views of the Huntingdonshire Primary Care Trust            80

Appendix C – Local written representations & views expressed at the     93
public exhibitions

Appendix D – National and Regional Planning Policy Guidance on          98
Hazardous Waste

Appendix E – Development Plan Policies                                 106

Appendix F – EU Directives & UK regulations and control on             114
Special/Hazardous waste

Appendix G – Hazardous waste management & disposal – national,         118
regional & county

Appendix H – National, regional and local hazardous waste statistic    121

Appendix J – Best Practicable Environmental Option                     122

Appendix K – Proximity principle                                       139


      The Application

1.1   A planning application has been submitted by Fenside Waste Management
      Limited (FWM Ltd) for the disposal of hazardous waste at their existing landfill
      site at Warboys. The application has attracted a large amount of public
      interest, primarily opposition from residents of Warboys village, whose
      concerns centre around the potential adverse effect on human health from
      emissions to air and to farmland, possible pollution to water and the effect of
      lorry traffic on the public highway. These concerns are set out in Appendix C.

1.2   This planning application has been submitted at the request of the Waste
      Planning Authority following the receipt of specialist legal advice received in
      early summer 2003 that the deposit of hazardous waste at this site, under
      current legislation, amounted to a material change of use and that the
      proposal had not previously been through the process of environmental impact
      assessment as required by primary legislation and consequently was in
      breach of planning control. As there was insufficient evidence of harm on
      which to base any enforcement action the submission of a planning
      application was invited. This has enabled wide consultation and the gathering
      and assessment of relevant environmental information concerning the
      environmental impact of the disposal of hazardous waste. It should be noted
      that the submitted planning application encompasses retrospective, current
      and future elements of the deposit of hazardous waste at the site.

1.3   An Environmental Statement (ES), prepared by the Applicant‟s environmental
      consultants Wardell Armstrong, has been provided in support of the planning
      application and has been considered through the process of environmental
      impact assessment as prescribed in planning regulations. The views
      expressed by the County Council in a formal “scoping opinion” have guided
      the Applicant in the production of the ES.

      Background to the Application

1.4   In 1994 an application for planning permission by Shanks & McEwan was
      granted for the restoration of derelict former Warboys clay pit to a nature
      conservation afteruse by landfilling of controlled waste for a period of 6 years
      (until 31 December 1999). Shanks and McEwan decided not pursue the
      approved development and the landowner consequently sought another

1.5   The site was acquired by FWM Ltd and following the issue of a waste
      management licence (WML) to the company in 1995 the disposal of waste
      from Categories 1 and 2 (inert and slowly degradable waste respectively)
      commenced. The Category 2 degradable waste generates landfill gas which
      will continue to be produced over a significant period of time. The full range of
      waste categories can be summarised as follows:

                          Waste Categories

        Category 1 –      Inert waste – Uncontaminated soils, clays, rock, brick,

        Category 2 –      Putrescible (degradable waste from a variety of sources,
                          commercial, industrial and domestic)

        Category 3 –      Non toxic industrial waste

        Category 4 –      Special Waste, now termed Hazardous Waste

        Category 5 –      Clinical waste

1.6   In September 1996 FWM Ltd submitted a planning application to extend by 9
      years the period during which waste could be deposited to December 2008.
      Planning permission was granted, under delegated powers, by the Council in
      February 1997.

1.7   In December 1996 FWM Ltd applied to the Environment Agency to modify the
      WML to allow the disposal of wastes from Categories 3, 4 and 5 in addition to
      those already permitted. The WML was modified by the Agency in May 1997
      to allow the deposition of more heavily contaminated material than in the
      original licence, but apart from asbestos, not special (Category 4) waste. It
      was modified again in April 1998 to allow the site to accept special waste.
      Under the Landfill Regulations those wastes formerly categorised as “special”
      have broadly speaking been renamed “hazardous”.


         Hazardous waste (category 4) is waste which presents potential risks to
         human health and the environment as a result of properties such as
         being explosive, flammable, corrosive, toxic or carcinogenic. It includes
         liquids, sludges and solids generally recognised as potentially
         dangerous such as pesticides, asbestos, organic/inorganic process
         waste, solvents, adhesive, ink and acids. It also includes some
         household waste such as bleach, paint, batteries and engine oils. There
         are strict controls over the types of hazardous waste that may or may
         not be deposited as landfill.

1.8   From April 1998 to date, the disposal of non-hazardous waste and hazardous
      waste has been undertaken together in the individual landfill cells (1-5), on a
      co-disposal basis. The proportion of hazardous waste in relation to non-
      hazardous waste deposited over the period 1998 to 2003 at the site averages
      approximately 16% (Source: Environment Agency public register).

           WHAT IS CO-DISPOSAL ?

           Co-disposal is the disposal of hazardous waste with household or other
           similar waste. The process utilises the properties of non-hazardous waste
           to attenuate those constituents in hazardous waste which are polluting
           and potentially hazardous and thereby minimise their impact on the
           environment. A balanced input of hazardous and other waste is required
           together with management of all operations to ensure both safety and
           environmental acceptability.

1.9    In July 1999 the WML was modified, at the initiation of the Environment
       Agency, to minimise the potential for malodorous emissions from the site by
       controlling the types of waste acceptable at the site and the methods of their

1.10   The EU Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC requires that after 16 July 2004 landfill
       sites may dispose of only one of three broad categories of waste: inert waste
       or non-hazardous waste (eg most household waste) or hazardous waste.
       The UK practice of co-disposal will therefore be banned after 16 July 2004. In
       2002, in accordance with the Landfill Regulations 2002, FWM Ltd submitted a
       Conditioning Plan to the EA stating that the Warboys Landfill Site would, after
       16 July 2004, receive hazardous waste only. The Landfill Regulations also
       require that existing WMLs are replaced with Pollution Prevention Control
       (PPC) Permits and an application for a permit was duly submitted to and is
       currently being considered by the Environment Agency.


2.1    The planning application is for the disposal of hazardous waste at the site,
       encompassing a number of elements, which can be summarised as follows:

       -   the disposal of only hazardous waste in the last cell (Cell 6) from July 2004

             the void capacity of Cell 6 is approximately 275,000 m3. At a density of
             1.2 tonnes per m3 this gives a capacity of 330,000 tonnes. It is
             proposed that hazardous waste only will be deposited at a maximum
             rate of 100,000 tonnes per year, which is less than half the current input
             rate of waste at the site

       -   retrospective planning permission for the current co-disposal of hazardous
           waste with non-hazardous waste in Cell 5A

             the void capacity of Cell 5a is approximately 175,000 m3 and the
             application proposes that the current co-disposal of hazardous and non-
             hazardous waste will continue until 16 July 2004

       -   retrospective planning permission for the retention of historic co-disposal
           of hazardous and non-hazardous waste since 1998 in Cells 1 to 5

            between 1998 and 2003 1,674,697 tonnes of waste was deposited in
            Cells 1 to 5 of which 373,115 tonnes (22%) was waste having
            hazardous properties

      -   planning permission for revisions to the site and some cell boundaries, cell
          to include areas of temporary overburden storage, revised details of
          proposed final restoration levels and ancillary operations, including the
          formation of a site surface water storage and balancing lagoon

            the proposed boundary of the last cell (Cell 6) has been “squared –off”
            from the earlier curved boundary of the original permission. This would
            create an additional void capacity of 75,000m3. This is to provide
            additional in-situ blue clay material for the site engineering due to
            presence of former quarry overburden that was loose tipped and to
            facilitate easier construction. The boundary does not however extend
            any further eastwards than the original permission. The final restoration
            levels have been revised to take this change into account. The
            proposed balancing pond is larger than that approved under the 2001
            planning permission for temporary overburden storage. The application
            area includes all the land within FWM Ltd’s ownership. It thus
            incorporates the waste transfer area, the leachate compound, the
            landfill gas compound, the weighbridge, access, parking, administration
            and other ancillary areas

2.2   The application does not seek to extend the lifetime of the site beyond that of
      the existing planning permission (December 2008). The proposed restoration
      is to a nature and geological conservation after-use similar in character to the
      requirements of the existing planning permission.

2.3   The submitted restoration plan shows the final landform of the completed
      landfill area sloping down from the height of the adjacent farmland to the south
      towards the original ground level of the overburden storage area. Both the
      landfill area and the overburden storage area are to be grass seeded with
      wildflower seed mix and managed for nature conservation whilst in the south
      eastern part of the site, an accessible geological exposure will be recreated for
      future academic study. A surface water balancing lagoon for the site is to be
      constructed on part of an adjacent parcel of land. The remainder will be
      returned to agricultural use.


3.1   The Applicant considers that in respect of the regularisation of historic tipping:
      -   the co-disposal of hazardous waste and non-hazardous waste has
          assisted in meeting hazardous waste disposal requirements within
      -   there has not been a significant impact to the environment or amenity of
          the area because of the change of waste type; and
      -   no changes in operational, engineering or environmental protection
          measures within the landfill area have been required by the change of
          waste type.

3.2   In respect of the continued disposal of hazardous waste in Cells 5A and Cell 6
      FWM considers that:
      -   changes in legislation will result in an increase in the volume of hazardous
          waste produced whilst in turn there will be a reduction in the facilities
          available for treatment and disposal. Warboys Landfill has an important
          role to meet this increasing demand;
      -   the application is in accordance with the objectives of the Best Practicable
          Environmental Option;
      -   Warboys Landfill provides the only disposal option for hazardous waste in
          Cambridgeshire and is thus in accordance with the proximity principle and
          ensures that the County assists the East of England in its regional self-
      -   the natural geology of the site makes it environmentally suitable for the
          disposal of hazardous waste; and
      -   the impacts of the development have been thoroughly assessed through
          environmental studies and are reported in the Environmental Statement.
          No discernible adverse impacts have been identified for the historic or
          future disposal proposals; and
      -   there are no policy, environmental or operational grounds on which the
          application should be opposed.

3.3   In respect of the nature of hazardous waste historically disposed and to be
      disposed at the site the Applicant‟s environmental consultants advise:
      -   Wastes which are radioactive or which are explosive will not be, are not
          and never have been disposed of at the site
      -   The overall range of hazardous waste deposited at the site will not change
          except insofar that all wastes will have to be treated prior to receipt at the
          site (i.e. will have reduced hazardous properties)
      -   Hazardous wastes received at the site since 1998 fall into the following
          broad categories:

            (a) Empty used containers (drums, kegs, bags etc) used to supply raw
                materials to manufacturers and which have residues of their former
                contents adhering to them;
            (b) Floor sweepings and general rubbish from industry contaminated
                with production residue or contained within (a) above;
            (c) Asbestos – double bagged fibrous asbestos or bonded
                cement/asbestos building products;
            (d) Contaminated soils from brownfield development sites;
            (e) Out of specification products;
            (f) Out of shelf life products;
            (g) Filter cake – from effluent treatment plants;
            (h) Reacted resins (solid);
            (i) Timber and timber products treated with wood preservative;
            (j) Solidified paint.


4.1   The 26 hectare site is located approximately 10 km northeast of Huntingdon,
      lying to the north of the village of Warboys on the side of the escarpment
      overlooking Wistow Fen, and is shown on Plan 1. It comprises active landfill
      operations, partially restored tipped land, landfill gas engine/flare facility
      producing electricity, a waste recycling/waste transfer area, overburden
      storage and ancillary land used for access, parking and administration

4.2   The landfill has been developed as a series of cells as shown on Plan 2.
      Landfilling in Cells 1 to 5 has been completed and is now subject to
      progressive restoration using stored clay, overburden and soils, which will be
      followed by long-term monitoring after closure in accordance with the Waste
      Management Licence. Cell 5a is currently being filled with waste by co-
      disposal. It is anticipated that this will be completed by 16 July 2004. The
      final cell (Cell 6) is currently being prepared and it is proposed will receive only
      hazardous waste from 16 July 2004.

4.3   Warboys and Wistow Woods Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) adjoins
      most of the western boundary. To the north, northwest and south is
      agricultural land and to the east a small lake, Puddock Road and number of
      residential properties shown on Plan 3, some of which are in close proximity
      to the application site. That part of Warboys village comprising residential
      development off Coronation Avenue, Orchard Close, Little End and part of
      Station Road lies some 650 m from the southern boundary of the site. The
      main part of the village is some 1200 m from the southern edge of the landfill
      site. Immediate access to the site for HCV is via a purpose-built access onto
      Puddock Road.

4.4   An existing legal agreement requires lorries visiting and leaving the site to use
      Fenside Road between the A141 and Puddock Road, rather than Station
      Road within the village (see Plan 4). Station Road is also subject to a 7.5
      tonne vehicle environmental weight limit from a point just south of the junction
      of Fenside Road and Puddock Road. Passing places were constructed on
      Fenside Road as a requirement of the 1994 planning permission, as was the
      realignment of the junction of Fenside Road with Puddock Road.


5.1   The planning application was advertised on site on 14 November 2003, in the
      local press on 19 and 21 November 2003, and on public notice boards in the
      village of Warboys. The occupiers of those properties within approximately
      500m of the site were notified individually, as were those who had already
      registered their concerns about the site. In addition, information on the
      proposal was inserted in the newspaper delivered free to houses in Warboys.
      Staffed public exhibitions were held in December 2003 and January 2004 in
      Warboys Parish Centre. The application and ES were placed on deposit in
      Warboys Library for public reference. Copies were also available for
      inspection at Huntingdonshire District Council and Shire Hall. The non-
      technical summary of the ES was put on the County Council‟s website. An
      extended period of 10 weeks was given for consultees and individuals to
      consider the submitted documents and submit their views.

5.2   Further information was submitted by the Applicant on 29 March 2004 in
      response to issues raised during the initial consultation period. This additional
      information was also advertised on site and in the local press. The
      supplementary document was again placed in Warboys Library and the other
      deposit points and also put on the County Council‟s website. All individual
      members of the public who had made written representations were notified
      and, together with the consultee organisations, given a 5 week period within
      which to submit any additional comments.


6.1   Huntingdonshire District Council – Object. The decision was made at
      HDC‟s Development Control Panel on 6 May 2004 and informed by
      recommendations made by consultants (NETCEN) acting on behalf of the
      district council. HDC‟s formal response states:

      “ In view of the advice received from the Council‟s consultants particularly
      concerning likely odour emanating from the tipped material, the County
      Council be advised that this Council OBJECTS to the application.

      In addition the County Council be advised of this Council‟s concern on
      potential harm to ground water due to leachate and to the food chain due to
      Dioxin and Furan emissions.”

      By way of background, NETCEN‟s recommendations to HDC (taken from the
      executive summary of the report dated April 2004) are:

      1.     “The substantial history of complaints about odour from the site has
      coincided with the use co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste.

       2.      “Co-disposal of wastes has allowed the landfill capacity to be filled
      more quickly than was envisaged when planning permission to operate with
      non-hazardous wastes until December 2008 was given in 1997. The site is
      now approaching capacity and would reach capacity in 2005 at current rates
      of filling, more than 3 years ahead of time. The faster rate of filling has led to
      increased rates of landfill gas generation, increased rates of fugitive emission
      and increased rates of odour emission.

      3.     “A large percentage of the predicted odour emission will be associated
      with the operation of cell 6. From an odour perspective, the sooner tipping
      operations cease, the better the air quality will be. Cell 6 would be filled two
      years earlier under Scenario 1 with non-hazardous waste only, than it would
      under the proposed Scenario 3 with hazardous wastes.

      4.      “The planning application indicates that a substantial part of the
      proposed Cell 6 lies outside the current permitted and consented area.
      Refusal of planning permission would prevent landfilling outside the consented
      area, limiting the landfill capacity and leading to an earlier cessation of
      odorous tipping activity in the open landfill cell.”

NETCEN also conclude:

   “There does not appear to be substantial reasons for refusal of the
    application on the grounds of dust. However, some concerns remain that
    uncontained dusty hazardous material will be tipped loose into the landfill
    site. It is recommended that Huntingdonshire District Council seek to limit
    the tipping of uncontained loose wastes to specified wastes by means of a
    Section 106 agreement or other means if planning permission is given.

   “The approach used to assess the impact of gaseous emissions from the
    site involves considerable uncertainty, not least in the estimation of fugitive
    emissions. For most of the substances considered, it is likely that there is
    an adequate margin of protection between the predicted concentrations
    and the air quality standards or environmental assessment levels, despite
    the uncertainty. However, the margin of protection for short-term impacts
    of hydrogen sulphide is small. The critical short-term impact of exposure to
    hydrogen sulphide is odour nuisance.

   “The co-disposal of hazardous waste and the disposal of hazardous waste
    proposed in the planning application would lead to a change in the
    composition of the landfill gas. Changes in the landfill gas composition
    have the potential to change the dioxin and furan emissions from the
    landfill gas engines and flare. It is recommended that the exhaust
    emissions concentration of dioxins and furans should be limited to 0.013
    ng Nm-3 ITEQ at stated reference conditions by Section 106 agreement or
    similar and that achievement of the emission limit be demonstrated by
    means of a programme of emissions monitoring. Emissions monitoring
    should conform to BSEN 1948 and both sampling and analysis should be
    carried out by a UKAS accredited organization. Reported emissions
    concentrations should provide an indication of measurement uncertainty
    and report detection limits for each of the dioxin and furan congeners.

   “The supplemental environmental assessment contains no assessment of
    the potential human intake of dioxins and furans through the food chain.
    This source-receptor pathway provides the major part of human exposure
    to dioxins and furans. It is recommended that Huntingdonshire District
    Council require (by Section 106 Agreement or similar) that Fenside Waste
    Management Ltd assess potential rates of ingestion of dioxins and furans
    for the hypothetically most exposed individual, taking account of the use of
    the landfill site for the grazing of animals.”

NETCEN commissioned a peer review of the hydrogeological risk
assessment, which has raised some concerns regarding the output of the
conceptual model used by the Applicant‟s consultants because the conceptual
model pathways and receptors appear to be incorrect in that:
    there appears to be a groundwater gradient into the site, rather than
      away from it
    compliance point for List 1 substances should be the groundwater
      beneath or adjacent to the site
    the whole life cycle of the landfill has not been assessed

6.2   Warboys Parish Council – recommend refusal in the strongest possible
      terms. An immediate Stop Notice should be issued to prevent any further co-
      disposal of hazardous waste. The Applicant must not be allowed to exhaust
      the appeal process to carry on depositing hazardous waste until such time as
      an appeal is determined.

      In consideration of the application the Council have had the benefit of the
      Applicant‟s submissions, views of statutory consultees and consultants‟
      reports provided to the District Council.

      In terms of odour, problems have been experienced by local residents since
      the site began accepting waste. Consultants advising the Parish Council have
      challenged the Applicant‟s assessment that any odour impacts will be of low
      probability. The consultants advise that nuisance caused will be of sufficient
      magnitude to refuse planning permission, with which the Council concur.

      In respect of potential seepage of leachate from the site the Council point to
      the concerns raised by the Middle Level Commissioners, on behalf of the IDB.
      Independent review of the hydrological risk assessment has identified
      concerns, which questions the validity of the conceptual model used by the
      Applicant‟s consultants. This provides further ground for refusal.

      The Applicant cannot rely on the mere existence of the site to demonstrate
      that it fulfils the Best Practicable Environmental Option. This disregards the
      provisions of the Cambridgeshire Waste Local Plan and Landfill Directives. In
      respect of alternative sites able to accept hazardous waste the Council point
      to the existence of a site at King‟s Cliffe near Peterborough, together with
      other facilities planning to develop capacity on existing sites. If BPEO cannot
      be demonstrated then permission should be refused. Concerns have also
      been raised by the Regional Waste Technical Advisory Body on this issue.

      Concern expressed that the Huntingdonshire Primary Care Trust‟s initial views
      did not consider long-term exposure effects. Little weight can be attached to
      these views as the need for further information was identified by the Health
      Protection Agency.

      Great concern expressed that little attention has been paid to potential impact
      from emissions from gas and leakage of leachate could have on adjacent
      farmland used for growing crops.

      Submissions have been scrutinised by the Warboys Landfill Action Group and
      the Council wish to associate themselves with their remarks.

      The Parish Council has engaged a consultant who has raised serious concern
      about the omissions from the application and the failure of the Applicant to
      address certain aspects of the Development Plan and the Landfill Directive.
      There is major concern locally about the impact of this application. Warboys
      Parish Council urges the County Council in the strongest terms possible to
      refuse this application for the reasons given below:
      -   the application fails to meet the requirements of the “Relevant Objectives”
          of the Waste Management Licensing Regulations and Waste Framework

-   the application is contrary to the Development Plan and national policy on
    the grounds of lack of sustainability and the failure of the Applicant to
    demonstrate Best Practicable Environmental Option and to comply with
    the requirements of the proximity principle, waste hierarchy and regional
    self-sufficiency. The region is well served by the existing permitted site at
    Slipe landfill at King‟s Cliffe, Peterborough which is geographically in a
    better position to handle the waste from the region without imports from
    outside the area.
-   the disposal of hazardous waste alone is likely to increase the already
    extended life of the site;
-   the safety of the proposed operations has not been demonstrated by the
-   the previous operational problems with the site and subsequent impact on
    amenity has generated a high level of public concern about the potential
    health impact of the proposal, including the already well-documented
    complaints of odours emanating from the site. It has been demonstrated
    over a period of several years that neither the Environment Agency with
    the pollution control regime nor local authorities with powers in relation to
    statutory nuisance are capable of eliminating the odour nuisance in
    practise and is material to the proposed future operations. If however
    planning permission is granted then conditions should be included which
    require that no odours are permitted beyond the site boundary.
-   the failure of the Applicant to assess the timescale to fully stabilise the site
    is contrary to the sustainability criteria of the Environment Agency
    Regulatory Guidance Note 3 and Government policy for stabilisation within
    one generation, ie 30 – 50 years;
-   the application fails to demonstrate a local need for the disposal of
    hazardous waste at the site and relies on the importation of waste by long
    distance haulage which is contrary to the Waste Local Plan, PPG10
    “Planning and Waste Management” and Waste Strategy 2000 and
    therefore does not represent the Best Practicable Environmental Option;
-   recent studies on the impact upon health of living within close proximity of
    landfill sites gives legitimacy to the fears of local residents about the risks
    that they face in both the short and long terms if the application were to be
-   the acknowledgement in the application that fugitive emissions of landfill
    gas may be as high as 60% is wholly unacceptable. Moreover the use in
    the Environmental Statement of modelling base upon the 95th percentile is
    inadequate when the Environment Agency draft technical guidance note
    on odour suggests the use the 98th percentile. Even so it is likely that the
    95th percentile of 1 hour average concentrations could be of the order of 4
    ou m-3 to 73 ou m-3 at Warboys Wood edge whereas a typical annoyance
    value for odour is considered to be 5 ou m-3 and above. It is significant
    that there is no reference to odour over which there have been many
    complaints in the past in the non-technical summary submitted by the
-   case law has confirmed that public concern is a material planning
    consideration which must be given significant weight in the planning
    process. Such public concern is substantiated by past operations at the
    site, the results of recent health studies and the comments of statutory

          consultees and consultants, and is of a sufficient magnitude that the
          application should be refused;
      -   the proximity to the site to residential properties and grade 1 agricultural
          land renders it unsuitable for the proposed use in view of the dangers to
          health posed both from the release of fugitive gas emissions and odours
          and the risk of leachate contaminating adjoining farmland and entering the
          food chain;
      -   the local road network is unsuitable for the transportation of hazardous
          waste as demonstrated by the fact that since it opened, there have been 4
          known accidents of laden heavy goods vehicles en route to the site
          overturning between St Ives and the site itself. The haulage of hazardous
          material poses greater risk of contamination in the event of future

      The Parish Council urge that if this application is refused, a stop notice be
      issued to prevent the further co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous
      waste without planning permission at the site with immediate effect.

      Finally, the Parish Council trusts that the County Council will not be influenced
      in their decision by the fact that the site has accepted co-disposal without a
      valid planning permission and waste management licence. There is sufficient
      evidence to demonstrate the adverse impact upon the local community and
      the environment, which has arisen from co-disposal during that time.

6.3   Wistow Parish Council – No comments received.

6.4   Chatteris Town Council – Supports the Warboys Landfill Action Group in its
      objection to the planning application. As a neighbouring parish the Town
      Council is concerned that the application to accept hazardous only waste from
      mid 2004 will create health risks for local residents, could lead to the
      contamination of waterways, which are used to irrigate local farmland and will
      lead to more accidents as lorries carrying toxic waste use the inadequate
      roads. The consequences of these problems could be fatal.

6.5   Environment Agency – Has no objection in principle to planning permission
      being granted. Any areas of concern will be addressed via the PPC permit.
      The EA has provided a background paper to assist the County Council
      determining the planning application. The paper is reproduced in full in
      Appendix A and has been summarised as follows:

      National perspective on landfill of hazardous waste – After 16 July 2004 there
      will be fewer sites able to take hazardous waste and there is likely to be an
      increase in the amount of hazardous waste produced.

      Health risks posed by landfill sites – The Agency has a statutory duty for
      health in respect of landfill sites through the PPC permit, the purpose of which
      is to regulate activities which are capable of causing environmental pollution,
      including harm to human health. The PPC permitting regime considerably
      strengthens the regulating position of the Agency. The Agency is not aware of
      any causal link between landfill sites and any adverse health outcome.

The Agency‟s position on Warboys Landfill Site – The Agency has policies
which enable it to object in principle to certain types of application eg
development in a flood plain or landfill of waste directly on aquifers. However,
any issues which may be of concern to the Agency at Warboys are capable of
control through a PPC permit. If the site cannot meet PPC requirements the
permit application will be refused.

PPC Permits – An installation must be operated using Best Available
Techniques (BAT) and for landfill sites this means compliance with the Landfill
Directive. Unlike the WML the PPC permit can control odour and noise.

The Landfill Regulations – Waste acceptance procedures must be in place.
Waste must be pre-treated; certain wastes eg clinical, liquid and certain
hazardous wastes can no longer be landfilled. There is a specific procedure
for closure of a site.

Surface Water Drainage – The EA is not aware of any reports of the surface
water run-off from the site resulting in a pollution incident. The PPC permit will
control surface water management.

Engineering and containment of leachate – Warboys is situated on a non-
aquifer which means that there is no significant volume of water and any
movement of that water is very slow. It is recognised that within the clay
which underlies the site there are siltstone bands which may be slightly more
permeable and there is a small risk that over a long period these bands could
provide a pathway for leachate out of the site. Although in a very low-risk
setting from a water pollution point of view, engineering has been required to
provide extra protection. It is the Agency‟s view that the engineering
measures employed at the site to control leachate in cells 1 – 5 are
appropriate for the types of waste being deposited. It is the Agency‟s view
that Landfill Directive compliant engineering, the natural containment from the
in-situ clay and leachate management will acceptably control any leachate
migration pathway. Groundwater, surface water and geotechnical stability
issues are not grounds for objection by the Agency. If these issues cannot be
satisfactorily addressed, a PPC permit cannot be issued and any permit
issued will contain conditions to ensure compliance.

Gas emissions – Although there are some outstanding technical issues, on the
basis of improving technology and legal requirements (specifically effective
capping, effective gas extraction and combustion, effective monitoring,
remedial action procedures, high temperature flaring and engine emission
abatement technology) the landfill gas matters do not justify an objection from
the Agency. A PPC permit will not be issued unless these matters are
addressed satisfactorily, with appropriate arrangements for site operations and
monitoring being secured by permit conditions.

The Special Permitting Group of the Environment Agency, who are assessing
the current application for a PPC permit in the light of submitted
supplementary information, have more recently confirmed that the Agency is
satisfied that they will be able to write enforceable permit conditions that will
adequately control emissions to air from the landfill and from the gas engine
and flare.

      Waste acceptance – Waste acceptance procedures and types of wastes
      permitted are clearly set out in the working plan and the WML. The Agency is
      content that these have been adhered to in the past. The permitted types of
      waste will be defined by the PPC permit should it be issued.

      Past co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste – the Agency advise
      that there are no technical grounds, which would require cessation of
      operations and the removal of previously deposited waste.

6.6   Huntingdonshire Primary Care Trust – advise that the Trust has concluded
      that that there is no reason to expect adverse health events from the
      proposed development. In coming to this conclusion the Trust have given
      consideration to the following:
            Available information on the current health of the population of
             Warboys. Routine health surveillance from 1997 does not show any
             increase above normal rates expected for measures such as all cause
             of death, death from accidents, low birth weight, congenital
             abnormalities or cancer registration.
            Reviews of the literature on landfill sites and health. The literature is not
             convincing enough to warrant objections to proposals for hazardous
             waste sites per se, providing they are properly managed and there are
             no local circumstances that would lead to a significant exposure.
            Extensive advice from the Chemical and Poisons Division of the
             National Health Protection Agency

      The Huntingdonshire Primary Care Trust does not raise an objection to the
      grant of planning permission either for:
            The disposal of hazardous waste only in Cell 6
            The co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste in cell 5A until
             mid July 2004
            The regularisation of the historic co-disposal of hazardous waste and
             non-hazardous waste since 1998 in Cells 1-5
            Revisions to site boundary to include areas of temporary overburden
             storage, revised areas of infilling, revised boundary and extension to
             balancing pond, revised details of proposed levels and other

      Although there is no reason to expect adverse health events from the site
      development, the PCT will continue its monitoring of the health of people in
      Warboys. The Primary Care Trust welcomes the enforcement powers which
      the PPC application will now make available under European legislation to
      reduce emissions from landfill sites. The Trust will press for best possible
      regulation of the site through the PPC permit.

      A full copy of the views of the Huntingdonshire Primary Care Trust dated
      7th May 2004 together with the summary of their literature review is
      Appendix B.

6.7   Ramsey First (Hollow) Internal Drainage Board/Middle Level
      Commissioners – previous reports indicated that the landfill site may not be
      adequately engineered to be a proper containment for the fill and that
      escape/leakage to the underground water table could be possible. In the
      absence of other reports to the contrary the Board object to the planning
      application and require further investigation into the following matters before
      planning permission is considered further:
      - local hydrogeology and the effect that any leachate seepage may have on
          the surrounding area; and
      - the Applicant should consider the possible damage arising during the
          working of the site and any remedial actions that could alleviate the

      The Board have been given the opportunity to comment further on the
      hydrological risk assessment, the supplementary information provided by the
      Applicant and the stated position of the Environment Agency on matters of
      pollution control. Any late views received will be reported verbally at

6.8   English Nature – The application is within Warboys Claypit SSSI, adjacent to
      Warboys and Wistow Wood SSSI and close to Pingle Wood and Cutting and
      Broadpool/Turf Fen Drains County Wildlife Sites. Warboys Claypit SSSI is
      notified due to its geological interest and Warboys and Wistow Wood because
      it is ancient semi-natural woodland.

      The scheme for the retention of three areas which are features of the
      geological SSSI and which was approved by English Nature must be
      safeguarded. English Nature confirms that Warboys Claypit SSSI will not be
      affected by the proposal. There is a duty on the Council under other legislation
      to further the conservation and enhancement of the SSSI.

      English Nature expects the Environment Agency as the competent body in
      respect of site licensing to consider potential for dust pollution, air pollution,
      noise pollution and hydrological impacts that could impact on Warboys and
      Wistow Wood SSSI to ensure that the SSSI is not damaged. General site
      condition assessments undertaken by conservation staff provide no evidence
      to suggest that this site is damaging the notified interest of Warboys and
      Wistow Woods SSSI.

      Bats – welcome the fact that existing buildings (potential bat roosts) are not to
      be adversely affected by the proposals. Confirmation sought whether any
      trees (potential bat roosts) are to be affected affected by the proposals. Any
      trees that may be lost should be surveyed for bats. This requirement should
      be secured by condition on any permission granted.

      Great crested newts – the proposed further mitigation before removal of the
      clay storage areas is endorsed. A planning condition should be used to
      secure production of a great crested newt mitigation plan and the
      implementation of any subsequent Defra approved mitigation plan.

      Birds – query how nesting birds will be safeguarded during site engineering,
      restoration and ancillary operations. Recommend that planning condition
      should prohibit any site clearance during the bird nesting season.

      Should planning permission be granted then the precise terms of the
      permission shall be notified to English Nature together with a statement of how
      EN views were taken into account prior to implementation.

6.9    Defence Estates – The Ministry of Defence (MoD) does not object to the
       proposal subject to the inclusion of measures to control bird species
       hazardous to aircraft during the operation of the co-disposal facilities at the
       site and amendments to the site restoration scheme to minimise the
       attractiveness of the water body to be created on the site to certain bird

       The site is situated within the birdstrike safeguarding zones surrounding RAF
       Wyton being located approximately 7km northeast of the aerodrome. The
       MoD objects to any removal of condition 3 of planning permission H/0447/93
       and the specifications of Waste Management Licence LS 197 prohibiting the
       disposal of bird attractant wastes at this site. However, the MoD does not
       object to wastes from the sources listed in the planning application being
       accepted at the site provided that the wastes are not of a putrescible nature
       and attractive to scavenging birds.

       In Appendix 3 of the ES, a bird survey by the Huntingdon Fauna and Flora
       Society identifies the landfill as having caused unnatural increases in the
       corvid (crow) population. Co-disposal operations at the landfill site may attract
       populations of scavenging bird species hazardous to aircraft and an auditable,
       results-based bird management plan should be implemented for the duration
       of co-disposal operations.

       The restoration plans for the site include the establishment of a permanent
       pond, which will create habitat attractive to feral geese, dabbling ducks and
       loafing gulls. To inhibit the movement of waterfowl from land to the water the
       banks to the pond should be steepened and planted with thick marginal
       vegetation The water body should be deeper with a smaller surface area thus
       reducing the habitat opportunities available to waterfowl and loafing gulls.

6.10   Regional Waste Technical Advisory Body (on behalf of the East of
       England Regional Assembly) – draws attention to policy 21 of the East of
       England Regional Waste Management Strategy which identifies the need for
       facilities for the treatment and disposal of hazardous and other wastes
       requiring specialised treatment. The policy also identifies that such facilities
       will need to be considered in a regional context. RWTAB is unaware of
       facilities within the region solely for the treatment and disposal of hazardous
       waste. There is still a high degree of uncertainty as to what types of waste
       existing “non-hazardous” landfill sites will be taking under the
       classification/permitting procedure.

       In respect of the additional information there is still concern as to how the
       application has addressed need and has considered Best Practicable
       Environmental Option (BPEO). “Need” is a relevant issue to be addressed
       under policy WLP3 of the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Waste Local Plan.
       BPEO is relevant according to policy WLP1 of the Waste Local Plan. Waste
       Strategy 2000 Chapter 3 details the issues to be considered in assessing
       BPEO, namely: international obligations, national policy framework in
       WS2000, and policy guidance at regional and local level.

6.11   Countryside Agency – has advised that its policy is not to comment on
       individual planning cases, rather to review and comment on statutory
       development plans, Planning Policy Guidance Notes and other official policy
       documents. In exceptional cases the Countryside Agency may wish to
       consider some direct involvement in development control cases. These are in
       circumstances where a proposal would:
       - set a national precedent where national guidance is lacking;
       - have a major impact on an important Countryside Agency initiative; or
       - have a fundamental effect on the intrinsic character of a National Park,
           Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) or Heritage Coast.

       It is not considered that the proposal falls within these exception criteria and
       therefore, the Agency does not wish to comment upon the planning

6.12   Government Office for the East of England – No comments received.

6.13   Warboys Landfill Action Group (WLAG): – Strong objections made.
       WLAG‟s formal response to the planning application is set out in their letter
       dated 28 April 2004, an executive summary (dated April 2004) and a further
       supporting document providing detailed comments on Wardell Armstrong‟s
       response (acting on behalf of Fenside Waste Management) to the planning
       application consultation responses received by the WPA. A copy of the WLAG
       documents has been circulated to all members of the Development Control
       Committee and made available for inspection in the Members‟ Lounge. It
       would be impracticable to detail each point made in support of the objection.
       The aim here is to capture and convey the main themes to assist Committee
       in reaching a clear view of the main grounds for objection.

       Main themes to WLAG’s objection

       1. Potential and perceived risks to human health

       a. 300 letters of representation and a petition signed by 1500 people
          supporting the refusal of the application on the grounds of the potential
          health risk of hazardous waste.

       b. No studies can categorically refute the potential risk. Therefore, the risks
          are real and a material planning reason for refusing planning permission.
          The exceptionally high level of perceived risk is an additional material
          planning consideration.

       c. The consultation response by the Huntingdonshire Primary Care Trust
          (PCT) has not reassured the local community.

       2. Environmental concerns

       a. There is a very narrow gap between the hazardous waste (cell 6) and the
          adjacent privately owned lake, which drains into the Fen Drainage System.
          Similarly, the underlying limestone bands have historically leaked water
          from the southern boundary to the Fens. The edge of the landfill will
          probably be within 50 metres of the nearest houses.

3. Traffic issues

a. Three accidents resulting in waste transporters being overturned have
   occurred between Warboys and the B1040/B1086 junction. Purely by
   good fortune, there were no other vehicles involved and thus no fatalities
   or injuries were sustained.

b. It is not accepted that approving the development would result in fewer
   lorries, less inconvenience to the local community from inconsiderate
   parking or any improvement in compliance with the vehicle routing

4. Dust and odour

a. The site has an existing odour problem. It is not accepted that less volume
   through the new material will generate less unpleasant smells. Indeed, the
   risks are greater.

5. Bird strike risk

a. Evidence has been produced to demonstrate that the site attracts birds
   which can be a hazard to aircraft

6. Operator competence

a. The premise that depositing hazardous waste only in cell 6 will lead to
   better quality environmental controls than achieved under co-disposal is
   flawed because the operator has had a poor record of environmental

7. Need and Alternatives

a. Warboys is not the proven optimum location for the deposit of hazardous
   waste. Better alternative sites are available nearby elsewhere (eg King‟s
   Cliffe, Northamptonshire).

b. The site has already accepted substantial quantities of hazardous waste
   from outside of Cambridgeshire. How does this sit with the principles of
   Regional self-sufficiency and the Best Practicable Environmental Option?
   Cambridgeshire, and Warboys in particular, has already taken its fair

8.   Procedural deficiencies

b. Past errors and oversights by the WPA have denied local residents and
   their elected representatives the proper opportunity to voice their
   democratic rights in relation to the change to co-disposal.

c. The absence of a valid planning consent since March 1998, according to
   advice WLAG has obtained, renders the current landfill operation “illegal”.

6.14   Highways Authority

       Trip Generation – The current use of the site is as a landfill facility for the
       disposal of waste. The Applicant has undertaken a survey of the number of
       vehicles arriving at the site over a four month period between 1 st May and
       31st August 2003. This survey showed that on an average working day 90
       vehicles arrived at the site equating to 180 vehicle trips. Of these, 170 trips
       were generated by HCVs.

       Based upon the expected tonnage of waste to be deposited at the site under
       the proposed operation and the split in vehicle types that was observed in the
       2003 survey, it is expected that there will be a reduction of 67% in HCV
       arrivals to 26 per day, a reduction of 128 trips to 52 vehicle trips per day.

       The current level of operation of the site and the narrow width of Fenside
       Road results in instances of congestion when there are vehicles travelling in
       opposite directions. Passing places have been constructed along Fenside
       Road as part of the previous permission for the site, but this still results in
       some queuing while vehicles pass. The expected volume of traffic is below
       that for the current operation, together with the new booking regime for HCVs
       to visit the site, and as such will reduce the instances of congestion along
       Fenside Road.

       Highway Safety – The visibility splay for vehicles leaving Fenside Road onto
       the A141 is obstructed by vegetation, particularly the view to the southwest.
       This provides a visibility splay of 141 metres, which is inadequate for such a
       high- speed road. The required visibility splay length is 215 metres. The
       County Council accident records have recorded three incidents at this junction
       involving HCVs. It is considered that improved visibility at this junction is
       needed to reduce the risk of accidents. Therefore, the following work should
       be undertaken:

          Removal of a self-sown shrub/tree situated on the road side of the ditch 10
           metres north east of electricity pole 30 is required
          The hedge needs to be cut back for a distance of 30 metres either side of
           electricity pole 30

       The undertaking of this work would provide an acceptable visibility splay for
       this junction.

       Forward visibility along Fenside Road is reduced due to over grown vegetation
       along both sides of the road. In order to improve forward visibility it is
       necessary to cut back this vegetation. If any part of the hedge is outside of
       the highway boundary the Applicant will need to agree this works with the land

       In order to ensure that the HCVs which are using the site do not drive at
       inappropriate speeds the following measures should be provided:

          Advanced warning of the turning to the landfill site should be upgraded;
          Replace existing junction ahead and “Landfill Site” signs with yellow
           backing border signs highlighting the junction;

          Place 1 metre wide central hatching on the A141 100 metres either side of
           the junction and lay a bifurcation arrow for HCVs travelling from the
           northeast turning right into Fenside Road; and
          A signage be placed at the exit of the site to remind drivers of the legal
           speed limit for HCVs along single carriageway roads is 40mph.

       Maintenance – The transport assessment has shown a large number of heavy
       vehicles use Fenside Road on a regular basis. This has caused the
       degradation of the surface and a substantial amount of repair work has been
       undertaken in the past two years. Given the nature of the operation of the site
       in attracting HCVs it would be appropriate to secure a commuted payment
       towards the maintenance of the highway network within the vicinity of the
       Applicant‟s site. This is because the future traffic, even though at a lower
       level, will continue to impact on the need for maintenance on a more frequent

       HCV Routing Agreement – The scope of the routing agreement that is
       currently in place for the existing operation of the site remains acceptable.

       Conclusions – The transport assessment has demonstrated that the proposed
       development will result in a net decrease in the numbers of vehicle trips
       to/from the site. Therefore, the surrounding transportation/highway network
       can accommodate this new level of traffic. However, there are a number of
       issues that relate directly to the site, namely highway safety and maintenance
       issues that need to be addressed. It is considered that the impact of this
       development is acceptable in highway capacity and road safety terms and as
       such no objection is raised, subject to the undertaking of the works detailed

6.15   Civil Protection Unit – It would not be unreasonable to request of Fenside
       Waste Management Ltd that they adopt as a „best practice procedure‟ that
       which is compulsory for top-tier sites under the COMAH Regulations 1999. In
       essence this requires sites to produce an “On-site” plan to cover the
       eventuality of a major accident happening at the site and must list the
       preventive, mitigatory and restorative measures that would be introduced to
       ensure, as far as is reasonable practicable, the safety of the site and of the
       surrounding populace and environment. The plan would also demonstrate
       that consultation had been undertaken with the relevant emergency, health
       and local authorities. In the case of the Warboys Site the production of a plan
       along similar lines to the “On-site” plan referred to above would be an example
       of „best practice‟.


7.1    A total of 267 letters of representation have been received, primarily from
       residents of Warboys, but also a small number from nearby villages. The
       points raised are summarised below under general subject areas and have
       been drawn form the letters received and from the comments noted at the
       public exhibitions. The most frequently raised issues are to do with the effects
       on human health, followed by pollution of the water, fen and agricultural
       environment and traffic and highways. A summary of the issues raised locally
       is set out in Appendix C.

7.2    A petition with 1512 signatories has been received objecting to the

7.3   County Councillor Victor Lucas – local Member for Warboys. The main
      grounds for objection (based on consultation responses dated 18 January
      2004, 16 February 2004 and 4 May 2004) are summarised as follows:

      Risk of health impacts. Gaseous emissions from the landfill site are
      potentially harmful to health. Government sponsored research has identified
      a greater risk of birth defects for those living near to a hazardous waste site.

      Perception or fear of risk to health. There are exceptionally high levels of
      concern locally that living near a hazardous waste site is damaging to health.

      Odour. There is an existing odour problem at the moment, which could be
      potentially exacerbated. No prospect of a beneficial afteruse for the site given
      the ongoing need to deal with gaseous emissions.

      Traffic and noise impacts. There are frequent complaints already from local
      residents about the disturbance, danger and inconvenience caused by waste
      vehicles travelling to and from the site. Waste material and litter are routinely
      dropped on local roads. Lorries start queuing from 05:30 in the morning.

      Land instability. High risk of future ground movement could cause leachate to
      pollute local groundwater.

      Compatibility with adjacent land uses. Flocks of birds are known to visit the
      site despite the existing safeguards required for RAF at Wyton.

      Operator suitability. There is little confidence locally in the operator‟s ability to
      satisfactorily or safely manage waste deposit operations.

      Exit strategy. The Development Control Committee needs to be advised of a
      clear way forward in the event that planning permission is refused.

      Retrospective planning permission. There is a real prospect that had an
      application for co-disposal been submitted to the Committee in 1997 it would
      have been refused.

      Types of waste. Hazardous waste would be deposited using drums. There is
      a potential, therefore, for these drums to contain banned liquid waste.

      Best Practicable Environmental Option and Alternative sites. When assessing
      this planning application against the BPEO regard must be given to the
      nearby King‟s Cliffe site in Northamptonshire, which is in a better position to
      handle the wastes from the region and beyond.

      Duration of operations. The landfill site has operated well beyond the period
      originally envisaged. Any planning permission must make it clear that a
      further extension to the landfill operations at the site would not be permitted.

      Ecology: The development would damage local wildlife.

7.4   Copies of representations received will be available for inspection by Members
      at the meeting and also a copy will be available in the Members‟ Lounge from
      14th May until the Committee date.


8.1   This Section identifies the range of planning decisions that have previously
      been made in respect of all developments on the site, not only those
      concerning waste. It also includes earlier consultation on a proposed change
      to the Waste Management Licence, which permitted the deposit of hazardous
      waste with non-hazardous waste, which commenced in 1998.

8.2   Old Mineral extraction consents

      1st January 1947 permission to work minerals approved under Interim
      Development Orders (IDO)

      H/0394/92 Re-registration of old mining permission granted in 1947

      H/0523/96 – approval of scheme of conditions for winning and working of clay
      minerals under IDO permission granted 12/07/96

      H/1303/98 – extension time for mineral extraction until 31/12/06 granted

8.3   Waste disposal & recycling decisions

      H/0543/74F – deposit of domestic, trade & industrial refuse granted 29/09/75
            This permission was granted to the London Brick Company subject to
            conditions and allowed the disposal of primarily household and solid
            industrial waste but also wastes of a toxic nature which were notifiable
            under the Deposit of Poisonous Wastes Act 1972. The geological
            evidence presented at the time was assessed as indicating indicated
            that the site was suitable for this type of development.
            The permission was not implemented so lapsed in 1980.

      H/1666/91 – restoration of former claypit by the controlled infilling of waste
      refused 16/09/92
            This application was submitted by Shanks & McEwan Ltd for the
            disposal of inert and slowly degradable industrial and commercial waste
            (Categories 1 & 2). It was accompanied by an Environmental
            Statement. Permission was refused because the applicants were
            unwilling to enter into a legal agreement to secure off-site highway
            improvements, HCV routing, nature conservation safeguards and
            landfill gas safety measures.

      H/0477/93 – restoration of Warboys Clay Pit by the controlled landfilling of
      waste granted 10/02/94
            This application, again submitted by Shanks and McEwan, was an
            amended version of H/1666/91 and included the construction of passing
            places along Fenside Road. Permission was granted following the

      completion of a legal agreement, which includes a routing agreement,
      ecological management, creation of new geological conservation faces
      and secondary glazing for nearby properties. A condition required
      landfilling to cease by 31/12/99

H/0331/96 – variation of condition 4c of H/0477/93 granted 01/05/96
      Allowed the installation of a staggered junction instead of a roundabout
      at the junction of Fenside Road and Puddock Road

H/0560/96 – waste transfer station granted 13/09/96
      Allowed the sorting, processing and storage of inert, non-toxic, non-oily
      and non-readily putrescible waste within and adjacent to the former

H/1420/96 – variation of condition 2 of H/0477/93 granted 24/02/97
      Extended the duration of the landfill permission from 31/12/99 to

H/0476/97 – variation of condition 1 of H/0560/96 granted 13/09/96
      Extended the duration of the waste transfer station from 31/12/99 to

The Council was consulted by the Environment Agency on a proposed
modification to the Waste Management Licence to move to co-disposal of
hazardous and non-hazardous waste. However the Council did not respond to
the consultation at that time. Whilst planning law was ambiguous on whether
there was a material change of use requiring planning permission at the time,
the Council did not identify to the Environment Agency any new planning
issue. The Agency modified the licence and the co-disposal of waste
commenced in 1998.

H/1105/99 – leachate and landfill gas control measures granted 23/03/2000
      Permits the installation of gas collection pipework, gas management
      plant and flare stack and a leachate storage tank and pre-treatment
      facility which are required by the waste management licence

H/1226/99 – variation of conditions 8 and 10 of H/0560/96 granted 08/03/00
      Permits testing special waste prior to landfill and the temporary storage
      within part of the waste transfer building of out of specification special
      waste before removal from the site

H/122901/CW – temporary storage of overburden granted 06/11/01
      Allowed the storage of overburden until 31/12/08 on a field adjacent to
      the landfill area. The overburden is required for covering and capping
      the landfill prior to its restoration. Also permits the creation of a
      balancing pond to reduce the level of suspended solids in surface water
      run-off from the site before discharge

H/50056/02/CW – portable building for office use granted 31/07/02
      Allowed the retention of a portable building for use as additional office
      space in connection with the landfill operations. A planning condition
      restricts the use of the building to the administration of the landfill site
8.4   Industrial Development

      In May 1988 the District Council granted outline planning permission for
      100,000 sq ft of light industrial development on the site of the former
      brickworks, adjacent to the disused quarry. This permission has lapsed.

      0303071FUL – change of use of portable building and land to skip hire
      business submitted to Huntingdonshire District Council November 2003
            The portable building and adjacent land are being used by Meridian
            Waste to run a skip hire business. A retrospective application is
            currently before Huntingdonshire District Council and will not be
            determined until the outcome of the landfill application is known.


9.1   National planning policy is contained within Waste Strategy 2000, COSU
      Report “Waste not, want not”, Air Quality Strategy 2000 and Planning Policy
      Guidance Notes PPG1 – General Policy and Principles; PPG10 – Planning
      and Waste Management and PPG23 – Planning and Pollution Control.
      Commentary on national policy together with the most relevant sections of
      PPG10 and PPG23 are set out in Appendix D.

9.2   The relevant regional policy documents are RPG6 – Regional Planning
      Guidance for East Anglia, PG14 – Regional Planning Guidance for the East of
      England (Draft) and the Regional Waste Management Strategy, July 2003.
      Commentary on regional policy together is also set out in Appendix D.

9.3   In accordance with Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
      (as amended), the primary consideration for the Committee is whether the
      application is in accordance with the Development Plan. Thereafter the
      Committee should consider whether there are any material considerations
      which might override the position of the application in relation to the
      Development Plan.

9.4   The relevant local planning policies are contained within the development plan
      which comprises the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Structure Plan, the
      Huntingdonshire Local Plan and the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Waste
      Local Plan. The relevant policies are listed below and are set out in full in
      Appendix E.

      Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Structure Plan 2003

      The Structure Plan is a statutory document which provides the strategic policy
      framework for planning and development that will take place locally. It has
      been adopted in anticipation of major growth in the economy and housing
      needs. It establishes the broad requirements for new homes, industry, shops
      and supporting services and infrastructure in the County to 2016. Individual
      planning applications are considered within the context of both the Structure
      Plan and Local Plan Policies. Structure Plan Policies relevant to the
      determination of this application are:

P1/2 – Environmental Restrictions on Development
P6/1 – Development Related Provision
P7/1 – Sites of Natural and Heritage Interest
P7/2 – Biodiversity
P7/4 – Landscape
P7/8 – Safe and Healthy Air, Land and Water
P7/9 – Minerals Supply
P7/11 – Sustainable Waste Management.

Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995

The Huntingdonshire Local Plan seeks to implement the policies of a previous
Structure Plan and provide for the continued growth and prosperity of
Huntingdonshire, whilst conserving the character and quality of its towns and
villages and open countryside. The plan is intended to give clear guidance to
residents, businesses, local groups, developers and investors as to how the
District will develop. Local Plan policies relevant to the determination of this
application are:

LPS 1 – Infrastructure, Services and Amenities
E15 – Special and Heavy Industrial Uses
En17 – Development in the Countryside
En22 – Nature and Wildlife Conservation
En23 – Sites of Scientific Interest

Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Waste Local Plan 2003

The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Waste Local Plan has examined the
waste management needs of the plan area over the next 10 years. It has
identified the existence of existing facilities in particular areas and suitable
locations for future sites having regard to geological, hydrological and amenity
considerations. The policies of the Plan reflect the waste hierarchy in
signalling the need to move away from the dependence on landfill as the
predominant form of waste management in the County. Whilst seeking to
promote reuse, recycling and recovery the plan does however recognise that
landfill will remain a significant waste management option in the short to
medium term.

The Waste Local Plan expects the Warboys Landfill Site to contribute to the
sustainable management of waste in the Plan area, as the site has permission
for the disposal of waste by landfill up to 2008 and is identified as a
safeguarded facility (WLP 17). However this does not imply that additional
planning permissions will be granted. All applications must be considered on
their merits in relation to the Development Plan and any other material

WLP1 – Sustainable Waste Management
WLP2 – Resource Recovery – Materials and Energy
WLP3 – Need for Waste Development and the Movement of Waste
WLP4 – Traffic/Highway matters
WLP5 – Transport of Waste – Proximity Principle
WLP7 – Protection of Landscape Character
WLP9 – Protecting Surrounding Uses
WLP10 – Nature Conservation

       WLP11 – Protected Species
       WLP15 – Water Resources and Pollution Prevention
       WLP16 – Land Drainage and Floodplain Protection
       WLP17 – Airport Safeguarding
       WLP19 – Safeguarding Waste Management Sites
       WLP28 – Putrescible, Hazardous and Inert Landfill
       WLP31 – Hazardous Waste Facilities
       WLP34 – Ancillary Waste Development
       WLP37 – Planning Conditions
       WLP38 – Legal Agreements


10.1   A summary of current legislation and UK regulations together with drivers for
       future change are set out in Appendix F. Restrictions on the landfilling of
       hazardous waste, driven by these legislative changes, are identified in
       Paragraphs 12 - 15. The introduction of an enhanced regulatory regime
       (PPC) for landfill sites is outlined in Paragraphs 16 – 20.


11.1   A wide range of individual issues has been raised through the consultation
       process, including those identified by local residents. There is however one
       issue that dominates the others, namely concerns expressed over the
       potential impact on human health that could be associated with the
       transport and disposal of hazardous waste.

11.2   The issues that have been raised have can be broadly classified as follows:

       Planning Policy

          National and regional policy
          Development Plan
          Best Practical Environmental Option
          The Proximity Principle

       Pollution Control

          Impact on human health
          Risk of pollution to groundwater and surface water
          Emissions to air – particularly odour
          Noise
          Dust


          Adequacy of the local highway network
          Highway capacity of Fenside Road
          Vehicle speeds and accidents involving waste lorries
          Enforceability of lorry traffic routing
          Damage to Fenside Road by lorries

       Other matters

          Public fears
          Bird strike risk to aircraft
          Damage to SSSI
          Impact on Protected Species
          Visual impact/landscape character


12.1   In accordance with Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
       (as amended) the primary consideration for the Committee is whether the
       application is in accordance with the Development Plan. After considering
       relevant policy considerations the Committee should then consider whether
       there are any material considerations, which might override the position of the
       application in relation to the Development Plan. Relevant national planning
       policy and national planning guidance (PPGs) will therefore also need to be
       taken into account.


12.2   The scope of national and regional policy is briefly summarised in Appendix D
       Paragraphs 1 – 6 (national) and 34 – 36 (regional).

12.3   Paragraph 13 of Appendix F identifies the restrictions now in place on the
       nature of hazardous waste accepted at landfill sites, including Warboys. The
       extent of new powers to control landfill development under the new PPC
       regime is summarised in Paragraphs 18 and 19. It will be noted that the
       Applicant has a current PPC application for the site awaiting determination by
       the Environment Agency, as mentioned in Paragraph 21.


12.4   In the context of the current application the Development Plan consists of the
       policies contained in the adopted Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Structure
       Plan (2003), the adopted Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Waste Local Plan
       (2003) and the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995).

       SUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT (including Best Practicable
       Environmental Option – BPEO – and the Waste Hierarchy)

       Policy Requirements

12.5   The Structure Plan indicates that proposals for waste management will be
       favourably considered where they achieve the Best Practicable Environmental
       Option, taking into account international obligations, national policy, regional
       and local policy, the principle of regional self-sufficiency, the proximity
       principle, and the waste hierarchy (Policy P7/11).

12.6   The Waste Local Plan similarly seeks to achieve sustainable waste
       management by requiring proposals to be considered in the context of
       achieving the Best Practicable Environmental Option whilst taking into
       account the aim of regional self-sufficiency, the proximity principle and the
       waste hierarchy (Policy WLP 1).


12.7   The Development Plan policies are based on a requirement of government
       policy that local authorities should use the process known as the Best
       Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) when taking decisions on waste
       management proposals.

       A more complete description of BPEO is set out in Appendix J but in essence
       BPEO is a systematic and consultative decision-making procedure, which
       emphasises the protection and conservation of the environment (land air and
       water). The BPEO procedure establishes the waste management option that
       provides the most benefits or least damage to the environment at acceptable
       cost both in the short and long term.

12.8   Whilst guidance is available on the key features of BPEO there is no
       prescriptive methodology laid down. However, the process undertaken in
       assessing this application can be checked against the requirements of BPEO
       as follows:

             Protection of the Environment The environmental implications of the
              proposals have been comprehensively assessed through the
              Environmental Assessment and scrutiny by appropriate organisations.

             Consultation The proposals have been subjected to considerable
              consultation with the relevant regulatory and advisory bodies as well as
              local organisations and the wider public. The responses are integral
              the assessment of the proposals.

             International obligations The proposal to end co-disposal and move to
              hazardous only landfill complies with the EU landfill directive.

             National Waste Policy Framework The national strategy and guidance
              includes the “proximity principle” and “the waste hierarchy” which are
              considered in later in this report.

             Regional Policy The proposals need to be considered against Policy 21
              of the East of England Regional Waste Management Strategy (EoE
              RWMS) which highlights the need to consider provision of facilities to
              manage hazardous waste in a regional context.

             Local Development Plan Policy The proposals are fully assessed
              against the relevant Policies of the Development Plan in this report.

12.9   The specific BPEO assessment criteria are as follows:

             Air quality
             Land and water environment
             Global climate change
             Local Amenity
             Natural Heritage
             Cultural Heritage
             Resource Utilisation
             Accident Risk
             Economy
             Employment
             Producer Responsibility
             Public Acceptability
             Impact on skills base
             Social implications.
             Flexibilty
             Best use of existing resources
             Deliverability
             Technical feasibility
             Compliance with other policies

12.10 These issues are given more detailed consideration in the appropriate
      sections of this report. A summary of conclusions against each of the criteria
      is set out at the end of Appendix J.

12.11 Government Policy set out in Waste Strategy 2000 indicates that in
      considering the application of BPEO to hazardous waste there are particular
      considerations to be taken into account including:
             Re-use and recycling of some wastes will not be appropriate in certain
             Specialised treatment of some wastes to reduce their hazardous
              properties may increase their volume.
             The limited availability of specialist hazardous waste landfill facilities.
             The suitability of certain wastes for disposal to landfill.

12.12 A key element of BPEO is the Waste Hierarchy. This is a theoretical
      framework which acts as a guide to waste management options. The
      hierarchy, in descending order of general priority, is set out in the diagram
      below. Waste reduction is the most favoured option and landfill the least
      favoured. However, where options towards the top of the hierarchy are not
      readily available, other options will need to be considered. There are no
      national targets for the minimisation or diversion of hazardous waste from
      landfill. The volume of such wastes is likely to increase.

12.13 The position of the Warboys landfill site within the Waste hierarchy is shown
      on the diagram both before and after the introduction of electricity generation
      from landfill gas.

                                      Waste reduction


                                 Recycling and composting

                            Energy recovery with heat and power

                                      Energy recovery

                               Landfill with energy recovery *2

                                            Landfill *1

             *1 – Warboys LFS 1995– 2001                  *2 – Warboys LFS 2001 to date

12.14 In respect of reuse, recovery and recycling of hazardous waste, Waste
      Strategy 2000 advises that this may not be appropriate for the more
      hazardous waste streams. These should either be treated or destroyed. There
      is however potential for other waste management options for some less
      hazardous waste.

12.15 There are very limited treatment facilities for hazardous waste available in the
      East of England Region. Two sites have been identified in Hertfordshire. The
      facilities, one of which only deals with water/oil liquid waste (which cannot be
      sent to landfill), have limited capacity. It is clear that many more treatment
      facilities will be required in the future to meet the objectives of the Landfill
      Directive for treatment of waste.

12.16 In respect of the recovery of hazardous waste the region also has limited
      capacity regionally mainly associated with the recovery of heat from blended
      solvents and oils used as fuel.

12.17 A significant proportion of locally produced hazardous waste arises from
      brown-field development projects often in the form of contaminated soils and
      demolition waste. This has traditionally been simply dug out and taken to
      landfill. A shortage of available disposal sites threatens the future of this
      method of land remediation. There are potential alternative methods of
      managing brown-field and construction wastes, such as on-site containment,
      but the opportunities for this are highly constrained.

12.18 Conclusion on Sustainable Waste Management

       The process of assessing the proposals for Warboys has followed the
       principles of BPEO. The process, as summarised in this report, should
       therefore provide an appropriate framework for determining the
       conformity of the proposals with Policy P7/11 and WLP 1.

12.19 The limited availability of alternative methods of managing hazardous
      waste means that additional landfill appears to be the best practical
      environmental option in principle, subject to the significance of
      particular environmental impacts at this site.


      Policy Requirements

12.20 The Waste Local Plan indicates that major new waste developments (or
      extensions) will only be permitted where there is a demonstrated need within
      Cambridgeshire and Peterborough (WLP3). Permissions are dependent on
      binding restrictions on catchment area, tonnages and/or types of waste. More
      specifically, the Plan requires that any proposals for additional hazardous
      waste landfill capacity must demonstrate need (WLP 28).

12.21 The Waste Local Plan is clear that proposals resulting in unacceptable
      importation of waste will not be permitted (WLP 3). However, the policy
      indicates that permission may be granted for development involving the
      importation of waste where this is demonstrated to be the Best Practical
      Environmental Option taking into account regional self-sufficiency, the
      proximity principle and the waste hierarchy.

12.22 The Waste Local Plan requires that proposals for hazardous waste of a
      regional scale must accord with an agreed regional waste strategy (WLP 28).
      The supporting text of the Plan indicates that in the absence of an agreed
      regional strategy the Waste Planning Authority must determine what is
      acceptable in the light of national guidance and local policies.

12.23 The Regional Waste Management Strategy advises that new treatment and
      disposal facilities for hazardous waste will be needed but has identified
      difficulties in predicting the scale of the future need for facilities due to the
      variety of waste treatments available, limited volumes involved and limited
      availability of reliable data. In determining proposals the WPA should take into
      account their Local Plans together with into account advice on need from the
      Environment Agency and the Regional body.


12.24 An assessment of need is required to ensure that:
              any environmental impacts can be judged in relation to the need for
               development; and
              over-provision in the plan area does not result in unnecessary
               movement of waste.

12.25 On the other hand, adequate provision for hazardous waste is required:
              for the efficient operation of business and industry, including
               construction needs and regeneration of brown-field sites;
              to minimise the risk of stockpiling of hazardous waste or of
               unauthorised tipping of hazardous waste, with consequential risks to
               environment and health.

12.26 Account should be taken not only of the requirement in the plan area but also
      the potential contribution to regional self-sufficiency; the proximity principle;
      actual and forecast arisings of hazardous waste; and the number, type and
      capacity of other existing sites in the locality.

12.27 As part of the preparation of the Waste Local Plan, a study was undertaken to
      forecast future waste management requirements over the plan period.
      Controlled waste has been considered on the basis of a number of waste
      streams of different characteristics, including special/hazardous waste. Over
      the plan period (1998-2011) the amount of special/hazardous waste to be
      managed in the plan area was predicted to be some 418,000 tonnes. This
      compares to a capacity within Cell 6 for 330,000 tonnes.

12.28 However, the Waste Local Plan acknowledges that specialist facilities for
      hazardous waste are likely to serve a larger area than that covered by the
      plan, especially as we move to a situation where a smaller number of
      specialist sites serve a wider area as a result of the implementation of the
      Landfill Directive.

12.29 The Warboys site is the only commercial landfill facility planning to dispose
      solely of hazardous waste in the East of England and indeed there are none
      planned for London. In 2002 these two regions alone produced approximately
      884,000 tonnes of hazardous waste, about ¾ of this going to landfill. An
      average of 475,000 tonnes of hazardous waste per annum (1999 – 2002) is
      disposed of to landfill in the East of England Region of which 70,000 tonnes
      were in Peterborough and Cambridgeshire. Hazardous waste volumes are
      set to rise in the next few years (see Appendix F paras 4-9). It is not easy at
      this stage to identify alternative facilities to accommodate the likely scale of

12.30 In the adjacent region of the East Midlands only one site, located near King‟s
      Cliffe in Northamptonshire, is available to service part of the annual regional
      production there, which amounted to approx 253,000 tonnes (2002). This site,
      which is licensed to receive 250,000 tonnes per annum, lies reasonably close
      to the Cambridgeshire border and its location suggests that it could also make
      some contribution to managing hazardous waste in adjacent parts of
      Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. This site can accept a similar range of
      hazardous waste to that proposed at Warboys. However, the King‟s Cliffe
      site, which is understood to have limited overall capacity readily available,
      could not reasonably meet anticipated levels of need in Cambridgeshire and
      the East of England, as well as contributing to the management of hazardous
      waste in its own region.

12.31 In addition to dedicated sites, the Landfill Regulations will permit the disposal
      of some types of hazardous waste in a dedicated cell within a non-hazardous
      landfill. Such waste includes most asbestos, and solidified and vitrified waste.
      Information recently circulated by ODPM/Defra indicates that there are some
      28 proposals for such cells. Five of these sites lie within the East of England
      Region, with one at Peterborough. Whilst these sites could make a useful
      contribution to the regional requirement in these specific categories, it is clear
      that a significant shortfall in regional provision will remain overall.

12.32 Whilst there should be an increased capacity for recycling /treatment, this is
      unlikely to become available on a significant scale in the next few years as
      noted in the previous section. Therefore disposal of hazardous waste by
      landfill will remain the predominant method of disposal in the lifetime of the
      Warboys site.

12.33 Specific consideration needs to be given to the proximity principle (see
      Appendix K for more detail). This requires that waste should be managed as
      near as possible to its place of production, because transporting it has an
      environmental impact. However, bearing in mind the specialist requirements
      for hazardous waste, it is to be expected that some waste may have to travel
      long distances. For example, 42% of hazardous waste produced nationally in
      2002 crossed a regional boundary on its way to treatment or disposal. In the
      case of Warboys, between 1998 and 2003, just 30% of the 190,000 tonnes of
      hazardous waste deposited at Warboys came from within Cambridgeshire/
      Peterborough and 70% from further afield (which would also include the
      remaining part of the East of England region).

12.34 In these particular circumstances it is considered that the application of the
      Proximity Principle means that:
              in the short to medium-term at least, some wastes will have to travel
               long distances;
              provision of additional hazardous waste facilities will tend to reduce the
               average distance travelled;
              site operators should be asked to use all reasonable endeavours to
               accept waste offered from the County and East of England Region. It
               is recommended that this commitment should be secured by a
               planning obligation.

12.35 Questions have been raised in the consultation about the need to extend the
      permitted landfill area at Warboys. The submitted proposals include a design
      for Cell 6 with rectangular boundaries. These enclose a larger area than in the
      original planning permission, which envisaged a curved boundary. The
      Applicant considers there is a need to address existing ground conditions as a
      result of previous mineral extraction, which involves site engineering and
      removal of some virgin clay. This would result in an increase in void capacity
      of 75,000 cum being some 4% over the total original permitted void. The
      engineering reasons for this increase appear to be valid and are not regarded
      as significant in the terms of WLP 3.

12.36 Conclusion on Need, Importation of Waste, Regional Self-Sufficiency and
      the Proximity Principle

      There is an urgent need for additional capacity for hazardous waste
      landfill capacity to serve both Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and the
      East of England Region in the period up to 2008.

       Whilst the proposals would result in the importation of hazardous waste
       they would help to provide for regional self-sufficiency and improve the
       availability of facilities locally in line with the proximity principle. In this
       respect the proposals at Warboys are therefore acceptable in relation to
       WLP3 and WLP 28.

      However if permission were to be granted, the developer should be
      asked to accept a target percentage for waste to be sourced locally and
      regionally and included in planning obligations.


      Policy Requirement

12.37 The Structure Plan requires that development should be located and designed
      to minimise and where possible avoid air, land and water pollution. Individual
      and cumulative effects are to be taken into account. Developers are expected
      to take appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures (Policy P7/8).
      Development will be resisted if there are considered to be unacceptable risks
      to ground or surface water (Policy 1/2).

12.38 The Waste Local Plan requires that there should be no unacceptable harm to
      the environment or to human health or safety (Policy WLP 9). Development
      should not pose a significant adverse impact or risk to the quality or quantity
      of surface or ground water resources, water abstraction or the flow of
      groundwater. Development must incorporate adequate pollution control and
      monitoring measures (Policy WLP 15).


12.39 Concern over possible pollution and health risks has been the most significant
      issue raised by objectors. This concern applies both to the current co-
      disposal of hazardous waste and to the future proposal for disposal of
      hazardous waste only.

12.40 It must be borne in mind that the County Council, as Waste Planning
      Authority, has to rely on the expertise of the Environment Agency, and cannot
      replace or override their powers under the Pollution Prevention and Control
      (PPC) permitting regime. However the Council does need to be satisfied that
      issues of pollution and health risk are capable of being resolved in order to
      ensure compliance with the relevant policies of the Development Plan. The
      Council has the benefit of independent advice from Entec in reaching a
      judgement on these matters. The Council has also received advice from the
      Huntingdonshire Primary Care Trust (PCT), including guidance from the
      Health Protection Agency, on health issues.

12.41 The nature of hazardous waste handled at Warboys has been summarised in
      Paragraph 3.3 of this report and includes empty containers and floor
      sweepings contaminated with remaining residues, bagged or bonded
      asbestos, contaminated soils from brownfield development sites and solidified
      paints and resins. It is not expected that the nature of these wastes will
      change significantly from July 2004. It can be noted that under the Landfill
      Regulations hazardous waste must be pre-treated prior to landfill (to become
      fully operational by July 2005). Also certain wastes e.g. clinical, liquid, certain
      hazardous wastes can no longer be landfilled (see Appendix F para 13).

12.42 The key sources of concern about hazardous waste landfill at Warboys are:

       -   Gas emissions;
       -   Odours;
       -   Leachate to ground and surface water;
       -   Health impacts from one or more of the above.

       Gas Emissions

12.43 Landfill gas emissions appear to represent the most likely source of any
      health risks arising from the landfill, either during the active phase or in the
      longer term after capping and restoration has been completed.

12.44 The Applicant has undertaken a risk assessment of emissions to air including
      known pollutants. Computer modelling has been undertaken to predict
      impacts and reference those against appropriate environmental standards.
      The results of modelling have been reviewed by independent consultants
      engaged by both the County Council and Huntingdonshire District Council. In
      general predicted emissions of pollutants to not breach Environmental
      Assessment Levels (EALs) which are used to indicate whether health effects
      can be expected from emissions. However, both the Council‟s consultants and
      those engaged to advise the District Council have identified that the emission
      predictions for hydrogen sulphide suggest some potential for odour emissions
      that could impact on those living close to the site.

12.45. In response to the planning consultation, the Special Permitting Team of the
       Environment Agency, who are considering the PPC permit, have advised that
       they are satisfied that enforceable permit conditions can be imposed on the
       permit to satisfactorily address emissions to air. The relevant regulatory
       control in this matter is clearly not with the planning authority but with the
       Environment Agency whose clear advice should be accorded considerable
       weight, in accordance with national planning guidance (PPG23 – see
       Appendix D para 15 ).

12.46 The PCT view is that revised site modelling data suggests that air emissions
      from toxic substances will be substantially lower than short and long term
      Environmental Assessment Levels (EALs), which are used to indicate whether
      health effects can be expected from emissions. These levels are considered
      very conservative. No conditions are indicated when these levels would be
      exceeded. Protected Environmental Concentrations do not exceed Air Quality
      Objectives or Eco-toxic Limits. The PCT has taken advice from the Health
      Protection Agency on whether the modelling undertaken is appropriate.
      Additional air modelling results supplied by the Applicant do not indicate that
      EALs will be exceeded. Some pollutants are predicted to exceed the 1% level

       of EALs that would normally trigger additional modelling or the use of actual
       monitoring data for further assessment. However, The Environment Agency
       conclude that „several attempts have already been made to predict off site
       concentrations, and this modelling has predicted concentrations off site that
       do not reflect reality at and around the site.‟ They conclude that „further
       modelling would not be productive.‟

12.47 The Environment Agency has informed the Applicant and PCT that they
      intend to establish trigger levels, set below the EALs, that would ensure the
      activation of measures to ensure production of atmospheric emissions were
      kept below EALs in order to mitigate against any potential for odour impact.

12.48 The Environment Agency has clearly indicated that they have no grounds for
      objection. The Agency are satisfied that measures to be identified through the
      PPC will resolve all outstanding matters, specifically effective capping,
      effective gas extraction and combustion, effective monitoring, remedial action
      procedures, high temperature flaring and engine emission abatement
      technology. There is no evidence of a breach of national Air Quality
      Standards and predictions of other pollutants and dust are within acceptable
      limits. Agency sampling of soils in the vicinity has shown no significant
      contamination effect.


12.49 Odour from the landfill site has been the subject of complaints in the past,
      both from nearby homes and from Warboys village itself. On occasions it is
      understood that this has been very unpleasant and affected local amenity.
      The prevailing wind direction, however, is away from the village, although a
      small number of properties are located close to the site in the prevailing wind

12.50 The production of odour is influenced by the lateral extent of the operational
      working area as the waste is placed in layers. Some of the earlier cells were
      extensive in area providing greater potential for release. Also some difficulties
      were encountered in the past with certain malodorous Category 2 waste
      streams, the deposit of which was discontinued following discussions between
      the operator and the Environment Agency. An earlier practice of trench
      excavation into the waste for receipt of certain waste deposits was also
      discontinued, whilst temporary gas flaring was introduced to reduce fugitive
      gas emissions. With the installation of the permanent clay capping to
      Cells 1 – 4, and on-going operations to cap Cell 5, such actions, together with
      the introduction of active gas extraction to the flare/landfill gas engine, can be
      expected to lead to much reduced risk of fugitive gas emissions and potential
      for odour detectable at the nearest properties.

12.51 The change from co-disposal to hazardous waste only will reduce some of the
      more obvious sources of odour arising from biodegradable commercial and
      industrial waste. However, as noted above, the modelling indicates that there
      could remain some potential for odour nuisance for residential properties
      close to the site.

12.52 Huntingdonshire District Council has objected to the application, citing
      concerns over odour as a principal factor.

12.53 In contrast to current waste management licensing regime, the new PPC
      permitting regime seeks to address odour release. The Council‟s consultants,
      Entec, consider that with a smaller working area in Cell 6, in comparison to
      the previous operational position, it appears that the potential for future odour
      annoyance should be much reduced. Through the new regime it will be
      important that the active area used for the daily emplacement of waste within
      Cell 6 is kept as small as practicable. It has been observed at the site that
      most of the solid hazardous waste currently received at the site arrives in
      packaging, drums and plastic containers. These containers are then taken into
      the site for disposal. Such containment of waste assists in minimising risk of
      odour. However the Environment Agency is the appropriate regulatory body
      for these detailed matters. It will be noted that the Environment Agency has
      concluded that any outstanding odour concerns will be adequately controlled
      through conditions attached to the PPC Permit.

       Leachate leakage to ground and surface water

12.54 The consultation process has also revealed concerns about the effects of
      contaminated water impacting on the natural environment, on farmland or on
      water supply.

12.55 The Environment Agency is not aware of any reports of the surface water run-
      off from the site resulting in a pollution incident. The Agency considers that
      that the site represents a low risk to the environment, with deep clay
      underlying the site, no aquifer and only very slow movement of water in the
      area. Whilst siltstone bands under the site could theoretically pose a small
      risk but site engineering will acceptably remove any potential leachate
      migration pathway to receptors. Groundwater, surface water and geotechnical
      stability issues are not grounds for objection by the Agency.

12.56 It should be noted that surface water is kept separate from any polluted
      drainage from operational waste handling areas and a new leachate storage
      facility is to be provided for collection prior to movement off-site disposal to an
      authorised treatment facility. The waste handling area will have enhanced
      containment design to contain any accidental spillage. These matters will also
      be regulated through any PPC permit.

       Health Impacts

12.57 The Primary Care Trust reports that routine health surveillance in the Warboys
      area from 1997 does not show any increase above normal rates expected for
      measures such as all cause death, death from accidents, low birth weight,
      congenital abnormalities or cancer registration. In any event, the national
      advice from the Small Area Health Statistics Unit is not to undertake any study
      related to one specific landfill site (the population size is far too small).

12.58 Objectors have quoted a number of health studies, which it is suggested
      provide evidence of a link between landfill sites and health risks. However,
      the PCT advise that it is widely accepted that the evidence regarding the
      health impacts of landfills is characterised by a series of weaknesses in the
      study designs. For example, exposure measures are absent, the exposure
      zones are inappropriate, adjustments are not made for other risk factors such
      as smoking, and the use of multiple statistical testing. The conclusion is that
      the literature is not convincing enough to warrant objections to proposals for

       hazardous waste sites per se, providing they are properly managed and there
       are no local circumstances that would lead to a significant exposure.

12.59 The PCT have taken into account in their assessment, assurances from the
      Environment Agency that Best Available Technologies will be enforced, and
      that monitoring will be ongoing to meet the Environmental Assessment Levels
      standards. Given the understandable concern of local residents, the Primary
      Care Trust welcomes the enforcement powers, which the PPC application will
      now make available under European legislation to reduce emissions from
      landfill sites.

12.60 The government has very recently (May 2004) issued a report examining any
      potential linkage between landfill sites and health impacts. The main findings
      are briefly summarised in Appendix D, Paragraphs 31-33. It will be noted that
      the government‟s expert advisory committee did not find that firm conclusions
      regarding particular health impacts could be drawn from earlier studies.

12.61 The Environment Agency has statutory responsibilities to safeguard human
      health in the exercise of its regulatory functions. In respect of landfill sites this
      is undertaken through the PPC permitting process. The purpose of the PPC
      permit is to regulate activities, which are capable of causing environmental
      pollution, including harm to human health, and the prevention or control of
      emissions capable of causing such pollution. The Environment Agency are
      satisfied that areas of concern in relation to pollution prevention and control
      will be dealt with by the Agency. They have indicated that:

       - the new PPC regime strengthens the position of the EA;
       - PPC controls now include odour and noise;
       - permitted types of waste will be defined by the PPC permit should it be
       - A PPC permit will be refused if requirements cannot be met.

12.62 Huntingdonshire Primary Care Trust concludes that there is currently no
      reason to expect adverse health events from the proposed site development.
      However the PCT will continue its monitoring of the health of people in
      Warboys. It will press for best possible regulation of the site through the PPC

12.63 Conclusion on Pollution Control and Health Risks

       There are insufficient grounds to object to the proposals on the basis of
       pollution to air, land or water.

       It has not been possible to demonstrate unacceptable risk to the
       environment or human health on the basis of testing, modelling and
       literature reviews.

       Any outstanding issues relating to pollution control and monitoring are
       capable of resolution through the PPC permit regime administered by
       the Environment Agency, including those of odour control.

       The proposals are therefore considered acceptable in relation to
       Structure Plan Policies P1/2 and P7/8 and in relation to Waste Local Plan
       Policies WLP9 and WLP 15.


       Policy Requirement

12.64 Waste Local Plan policy WLP4 seeks to ensure that traffic impacts associated
      with development proposals do not compromise road safety or result in high
      traffic volumes using roads of insufficient capacity.


12.65 The site already has planning permission for landfill operations until the end of
      2008. When the duration of the planning permission was extended in 1996 it
      was anticipated that the average rate of waste deposit would be 250,000 cubic
      metres per annum or approximately 300,000 tonnes per annum although there
      are no input limits imposed by condition on the planning permission. Projected
      waste input volumes will reduce to 100,000 tonnes per annum with the
      proposed move to hazardous waste only.

12.66 As part of the earlier grant of permission the Applicant undertook highway
      improvements to Fenside Road to increase its capacity. The Applicant also
      carried out improvements to the junction of Fenside Road and A141 and the
      junction of Fenside Road and Puddock Road to improve road safety.

12.67 There is sufficient concern locally about the dangers of the road system and
      its suitability for HCV traffic from the site. There have been a number of
      accidents involving HCVs.

12.68 The Highway Authority has not objected to the proposals on highway capacity
      or road safety grounds, but has suggested limited improvements to road
      signage for HCV visiting the site, including road markings at the junction of
      Fenside Road and A141. In response to a known accident blackspot on the
      A141 south of the village a new roundabout is to be constructed on the A141
      south of the village. The scheme is at the design stage. It is recommended
      that the site HCV signage scheme should be extended to this junction
      improvement to minimise the risk of vehicles entering the main body of the
      village looking for the site. 40mph advisory speed limit signs for HCV on
      Fenside Road are suggested which reflects the national speed limit for such
      vehicles on single carriageway roads. Such signage and road marking can be
      secured through a planning obligation.

12.69 Existing advisory signs for outgoing drivers are in need of improvement. To
      minimise the risk of HCV vehicles travelling up through the village (in
      contravention of an existing environmental weight limit) the installation of a
      CCTV camera at the site entrance is recommended. This would record HCV
      movements through the junction of Puddock Hill and Fenside Road.
      Recordings of movements will assist the operator in monitoring compliance
      with its own instructions on traffic routing, but should also be made available to
      the Council if requested. The provision of such equipment can be secured by
      planning condition.

12.70 Over recent years it has become apparent that traffic flows have caused rapid
      deterioration to the surface of Fenside Road. Whilst this may not be solely
      attributable to the site traffic, and developers are generally not required to fund
      road maintenance, the Highways Authority recommend that in the particular

      circumstances of this case that the operator be requested to make a
      contribution to increased maintenance costs of Fenside Road. This matter can
      also be addressed through a planning obligation.

12.71 It should be noted that the local highway authority and the police have powers
      to take action in relation to road safety and road traffic offences. The
      Environment Agency imposes strict controls over the movement of hazardous
      waste. Given the comments of the Civil Protection Unit it is considered
      appropriate to require the submission of a safety plan to reflect best practice
      guidance. This can be secured by a planning condition.

12.72 Conclusion on Traffic and Highways

      There are no highway grounds to oppose the development and it is
      considered acceptable in the context of Policy WLP 4 provided that the
      requirements of the highway authority are implemented through
      conditions and planning obligations.


      Policy Requirement

12.73 Huntingdonshire Local Plan requires that special and industrial uses will only
      be allowed in locations where traffic and environmental conditions permit and
      where residential amenities will not be detrimentally affected (Policy E15).

       The Waste Local Plan requires that development must be compatible with
       neighbouring land-uses and that there should be no loss to residential or other
       amenities (Policy WLP 9).


12.74 The issues most likely to affect residential amenity are traffic impacts, site
      noise and odour from landfill operations. Odour has already been addressed
      in the preceding sections.

12.75 In recent years complaints have been received from the nearest residents to
      the site regarding the environmental problems caused by traffic queuing on
      Fenside Road waiting to enter the site early in the morning. An earlier limited
      experiment to allow vehicles to queue inside the site appeared to bring some
      environmental improvement for the nearest local residents. A formal change
      was not however pursued at the time. Similar concerns have again been
      raised through the consultation. It is considered therefore that whilst vehicles
      carrying hazardous waste are required to give the site 3 days‟ advance notice
      of their arrival it would be appropriate to permit any vehicles arriving before
      landfilling operations commence to enter the site and queue at the
      weighbridge, being further away from local residential development. This
      would help minimise any potential for disturbance to the nearest residents
      together with restrictions on the amount of waste that can be disposed of at
      the site in any one year. It is recommended that limits on waste inputs,
      appropriate hours of operation and arrangements for off-public highway
      waiting be secured by condition.

12.76 In respect of noise emissions from landfill operations the Council‟s
      consultants, Entec, have advised that in order to minimise any disturbance
      caused by noise then noise limits should be set at an appropriate level to
      reflect the sensitivity of the local area. It is however the view of the consultants
      that night-time noise emissions from the flare and generator are unlikely to
      give rise to sleep disturbance.

12.77 Under the new comprehensive PPC regime, noise emissions from the landfill
      site can be controlled. To avoid duplication of regulatory controls, it has been
      recommended that the Council pass on advice on appropriate noise limits,
      produced by the Council‟s consultants, to the Environment Agency for
      consideration within the PPC permitting process. The advice is reflected,
      together with other PPC matters, in Annex 3.

12.78 Vehicle reversing bleepers from mobile plant have the potential to cause local
      annoyance. Whilst such equipment is required under health and safety law it is
      considered that in respect of future site operations these should reflect current
      best practice. New lower noise emission technology is available and should be
      fitted to site mobile plant. The planning authority can influence the choice of
      system fitted through the imposition of an appropriate condition.

12.79 Whilst there are significant local concerns about both odour and traffic and to
      a lesser extent about site noise, none of these issues provides sufficient
      grounds for refusal. However, it should be noted that the control of odours is
      dependent on the effectiveness of measures to be stipulated and if necessary
      enforced by the Environment Agency. The effect of commercial vehicles
      visiting the site will be controlled by conditions and planning obligations to be
      monitored and enforced by the County Council as Waste Planning Authority.
      This is in addition to the power of the Council as Local Highway Authority and
      the legal powers of the police in relation to road safety and road traffic
      offences. The movement of hazardous waste is also strictly controlled and
      monitored by the Environment Agency through the hazardous waste tracking
      system and the sole use of registered hauliers for waste transport.

12.80 Conclusion on Residential Amenity

       There are insufficient grounds to object to the proposals on the grounds
       of impact on residential amenity, although it is clear that controls to
       protect the interests of local residents will need to be rigorously
       monitored and enforced. The proposals are therefore considered
       acceptable in relation to Huntingdonshire Local Plan Policy E5 and
       Waste Local Plan Policy WLP 9.


       Policy Requirement

12.81 The Structure Plan requires that development is sensitive to the local
      environment and landscape character (Policy 7/4).

12.82 Huntingdonshire Local Plan requires that development in the countryside will
      generally be restricted to that which is essential to the efficient operation of
      appropriate activities including permitted mineral extraction (Policy En17).


12.83 The application site lies on the flank of the escarpment overlooking Wistow
      Fen. In the short term the stockpiling of overburden to await restoration on the
      last cell will be visible in some middle distance views from the village. This will
      be of limited duration and the impact will be reduced by existing tree cover on
      the southern boundary of the site.

12.84 Upon final restoration the land will slope down towards the fen, almost
      replicating the former landform prior to the commencement of mineral
      extraction. The land to the northwest of the landfill site will be restored to
      agricultural use and a surface water balancing lagoon. This matter did not
      attract much local comment during consultation. No objections are raised to
      the proposed final landform on landscape character or visual grounds.

12.85 Conclusion on impact on the countryside

       The development will not adversely impact on the character of the
       existing landscape and the proposals are in compliance with WLP7.


       Policy Requirement

12.86 The Structure Plan will not permit development within or which is likely to
      adversely affect internationally and nationally important nature conservation
      areas - including Sites of Special Scientific Interest (Policy P1/2). Habitats
      where protected species are known to exist and important geological sites will
      be protected. In circumstances where development is necessary, disturbance
      should be minimised, and mitigating and compensatory measures, including
      replacement habitat creation and enhancement of existing features, will be
      required (Policy P7/1). It is an objective of Policy P7/2 to seek to conserve
      and enhance biodiversity through management taking into account local
      biodiversity action plans.

12.87 Huntingdonshire Local Plan requires that where a development adversely
      affects an important amenity or environmental resource on site, adequate
      mitigation or compensation will be sought (Policy LPS1). In the determination
      of planning applications Policy En22 requires nature conservation interests to
      be taken into account whilst Policy En 23 seeks to protect Sites of Scientific
      Interest from damaging development.


12.88 The site is adjacent to Warboys Wood SSSI and a geological SSSI lies within
      the site. English Nature have not raised objection to the proposals. Protected
      species are known to be present on adjacent land and these should be
      appropriately safeguarded. Defra are currently considering the renewal of
      licensing matters in respect of Protected Species. It is recommended that
      implementation of a scheme of mitigation for Protected Species be secured by
      condition, whilst longer term access arrangements to the geological site for
      academic study can be secured by planning obligation.

12.89 It is proposed that when completed the surface of the capped landfill site be
      restored to a nature conservation after-use. This is similar to the existing
      approved restoration scheme. Provided the site is adequately managed the
      scheme should deliver biodiversity benefits. It is recommended that a 10 year
      maintenance term be sought which can be secured by planning obligation.
      Some concern has been expressed that grazing animals that might be used in
      site management could pass into the food chain. It should however be feasible
      to manage the site without grazing. This matter can be secured through a
      planning obligation.

12.90 Conclusion on Nature Conservation and Geology

       The submitted proposals are in compliance with Waste Local Plan
       policies WLP 10 & WLP 11.


       Policy Requirement

12.91 Waste Local Plan policy seeks to safeguard operational aerodromes from any
      development whose associated operations could constitute a danger to air


12.92 The application site falls within the operational flying zone of RAF Wyton,
      which still sees active flying for training purposes. At the request of the MoD a
      condition excluding the deposit of bird attractive waste was imposed on the
      original permission. This requirement effectively prevents the deposit of
      household domestic waste at the site. The MoD has requested that any grant
      of permission be subject to similar restrictions to prevent bird attractive waste
      being disposed at the site. This can be required by condition, although the fact
      that most hazardous waste arrives in containers or packaging suggests a
      much reduced potential for attracting birds to the site in the future.

12.93 Through the local consultation exercise photographic evidence was submitted
      that despite the restrictions on waste the site remains attractive to birds. Birds
      will be attracted by any earthmoving operation and thus to minimise the risk a
      strengthened planning condition is recommended that would establish a
      formal scheme of mitigation, which can use varying techniques as
      appropriate. This can be required by condition.

12.94 The MoD have also requested that the design of the surface water balancing
      lagoon should reflect the need not to create habitat that is attractive to certain
      bird species that are a hazard to aircraft. This is likely to result in a lagoon with
      steep banks and little emergent waterside vegetation. As such it will provide
      little of biodiversity merit.

12.95 Conclusion on Aircraft Safeguarding

       Appropriate mitigation safeguards can be put in place to ensure that the
       site is not attractive to birds and the proposals are in compliance with
       Policy WLP17.


       Policy Requirement

12.96 The Waste Local Plan provides that activities which are ancillary to a waste
      management facility should be linked to the life of the site, if temporary, and
      be subject to other environmental policies in the Development Plan


12.97 This policy is of relevance to the landfill gas utilisation plant, administrative
      facilities and the proposed leachate storage facility. The life of these facilities
      can be linked to the operation of site controls, but it will be necessary for them
      to remain operational for many years after the deposit of waste has ceased.
      The Environment Agency will be the arbiter of when such facilities are no
      longer needed and the site of such facilities can be finally restored.

12.98 The operation of control equipment will be regulated by the PPC permit which
      can also now impose limits on noise emissions from the gas utilisation
      engines. It is considered appropriate that advice on appropriate noise levels
      should be offered to the Environment Agency when considering the PPC
      permit. Such advice should form part of the Committee recommendation (see
      Annex 3)

12.99 Conclusion on Ancillary Development

       Subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions the
       development is not considered contrary to Waste Local Plan WLP 34.


       Policy Requirement

12.100 The Structure Plan seeks to provide an adequate landbank of permitted non-
      aggregate minerals to meet the needs of the particular industry that utilises
      them (Policy P7/9).


12.101 The site has the benefit of a planning permission for the extraction of clay. No
      end user is specified and engineering clays have been extracted and removed
      from the site in the past. The area over which the clay extraction consent
      exists has now been covered with waste. Practically therefore no additional
      clay can be removed from the base of the site for resale and export. Case law
      would not however prevent waste being removed and mineral extraction being
      re-commenced, although this is highly unlikely.

12.102 Conclusion on Mineral Extraction

       Whilst it is considered unlikely that mineral extraction could resume it is
       recommended that the Applicant be required to agree not to extract
       further mineral from the site, except for site engineering.


      Policy Requirement

12.103 The Structure Plan requires that additional infrastructure and community
      requirements generated by development must be secured by condition or
      legal agreement or undertaking (Policy P6/1). Waste Local Plan policies
      WLP37 and WLP38 refer to the WPA‟s use of planning conditions and
      agreements where appropriate and necessary.


12.104 It is appropriate that arrangements for the mitigation of environmental impacts
      and identified after-use of the site that are relevant to land-use planning be
      secured by planning condition for on-site activities whilst off-site arrangements
      can be the subject of agreed planning obligations. A comprehensive schedule
      of planning conditions has been prepared to regulate the development (see
      Annex 2). This would be supplemented by the terms of the recommended
      planning obligations (set out in Annex 1) which seek limits on mineral
      extraction; additional highway improvements; retention of lorry routing; long-
      term maintenance of the nature conservation afteruse; retention of the Site
      Liaison Forum, and the establishment of a Technical Monitoring Panel to help
      inform the work of the Site Liaison Forum.

12.105 Conclusion on Development Related Provision

       It is considered that the regulatory controls set out in the
       recommendation would fulfil the requirements of Waste Local Plan
       Policies WLP 37 and WLP 38



13.1   Co-disposal of hazardous waste with non-hazardous waste commenced in
       1998. No planning permission was sought. The operations were, however,
       regulated by an amendment to the site‟s Waste Management Licence, which
       controls the proportion of hazardous waste that can be accepted in relation to
       non-hazardous waste.

13.2   The Environment Agency has confirmed that since the commencement of co-
       disposal at the site the waste acceptance procedures and limitations of waste
       received at the site, as set out in the Waste Management Licence and site
       working plan, have been adhered to. The Agency advises that there are no
       technical grounds which would require cessation of operations and the
       removal of previously deposited waste.


13.3   It is accepted that within the local community there is widespread fear that any
       emissions to air and water associated with the deposit of hazardous waste will
       be harmful to human health. There are a substantial number of local
       representations on this topic. It appears to be the most important issue raised
       by those who responded to the consultation. There is also concern about any
       risks to health arising from any accident and spillage on the highway involving
       lorries carrying hazardous waste to the site.

13.4   Relevant case law has been researched, including Newport County BC v
       Secretary of State for Wales, and it is accepted that a perceived concern can
       be a material planning consideration, even if it is an unsubstantiated public
       fear. However a clear distinction must be drawn between accepting fear as a
       material consideration and the relative weight which should be attached to the
       issue when weighed in the balance with other material considerations,
       including the development plan and the views of other statutory bodies which
       have a major national role in establishing an appropriate regulatory framework
       for waste i.e. the Environment Agency in consultation with the Primary Care
       Trust/Health Protection Agency. In this case, it is considered that refusal
       solely on the basis of public fears of health risks would not be justified.

13.5   The fact that such fears may not be fully substantiated does not mean they do
       not have an impact on the community and do not affect quality of life.
       Perception of risk can be heightened by a number of issues. There is a deep
       mistrust of waste in general, potentially influenced by some or all of the

             Studies on health have been sensationalised and subject to
              contradictory comment;
             Waste is considered to be intrinsically unhealthy;
             Any health risks of waste disposal are seen to impact unfairly on local
             There is no apparent benefit to the locality;

             The record of the waste industry in the operation of facilities may be
              called into question (Note: local representations raise this issue in
              respect of the current site operator);
             The ability of the regulatory authorities to control the risks may be
              called into question;
             Individuals and communities have little control over waste disposal

13.6   At Warboys, the fact that hazardous waste, disposed of at the site since 1998,
       was not subject to public scrutiny at that time seems to have added to local
       public anxiety.

13.7   As public concern runs so deep, it is considered essential that the community
       should have better access to monitoring reports and an improved ability to
       advise on corrective actions. The continuation of the Site Liaison Forum would
       be guaranteed, with an independent facilitator. Additionally, there would be a
       Monitoring Panel, also assisted by the independent facilitator, to receive and
       make recommendations to the Site Liaison Forum on the results of technical
       monitoring. The operator should be required to underwrite these
       arrangements in the planning obligations.


13.8   The obligations of the Council under the Human Rights Act 1998 have been
       considered. The relevant rights appear to be the right to life (Article 3), and
       the right to the protection of property (First Protocol Article 1).

13.9   There is no evidence to show that danger to life would arise from the proposal
       – see the discussion in Paragraphs 12.55 to 12.61.
       As to the protection of property, the issues relating to impact on residential
       amenity are discussed in Paragraphs 12.67 to 12.71 of the Report. Odour
       issues are discussed in Paragraphs 12.47 to 12.51. The Local Planning
       Authority‟s conclusion is that there are insufficient grounds to refuse the
       proposals because of the impact on property and the enjoyment of property.


14.1   The primary consideration for the Committee is whether or not the
       application for the deposit of hazardous waste at Warboys Landfill Site
       is in accordance with the Development Plan. The assessment in this
       report suggests that the proposals are in accordance with the
       Development Plan taking into account the following considerations:

       a) In relation to Sustainable Waste Management (P7/11 and WLP1) the
          proposals are considered to be acceptable in principle as the Best
          Practicable Environmental Option, given the limited availability of
          alternative facilities for managing hazardous waste.

       b) In relation to Need, Importation of Waste, Regional Self Sufficiency
          and the Proximity Principle (WLP3 and WLP28), it is accepted that the
          proposals would result in the importation of hazardous waste into the
          plan area, but they would meet an urgent need for hazardous waste
          landfill capacity locally in the East of England up to 2008. The
          developer should be asked to accept targets for locally and
          regionally sourced waste.

       c) In relation to Pollution Control and Health Risks (P1/2, P7/8, WLP9
          and WLP15) the proposals meet relevant standards in relation to
          possible pollution of air, land and water. There is no unacceptable
          risk to the environment or human health on the basis of testing,
          modelling and literature reviews. Any outstanding issues relating to
          pollution control and monitoring are capable of resolution through
          the PPC permit regime administered by the Environment Agency.

       d) In relation to Traffic and Highways there are no highway grounds for
          refusing permission provided that there are appropriate conditions
          and provision in a Planning Obligation.

       e) In relation to Residential Amenity (E15 and WLP9), there are
          insufficient grounds to object to the proposals although controls to
          protect the interests of local residents will need to be rigorously
          monitored and enforced.

       f) In relation to Impact on the Countryside the development would not
          adversely impact on the character of the landscape.

       g) In relation to Nature Conservation and Geology there is no evidence
          of material harm to the adjacent SSSI whilst proposals for creation of
          a geological exposure will safeguard educational interest.

       h) In relation to Aircraft Safeguarding appropriate mitigation can be
          secured by condition that prohibits the receipt of bird attractive
          waste, appropriate design of the new water body and also provides a
          management scheme should birds try to use the site.

       i) In relation to Ancillary Development appropriate conditions can be
          imposed to ensure that ancillary development is removed when no
          longer needed with the land occupied to be restored.

       j) In relation to Mineral Development existing mineral extraction rights
          can be constrained through a planning obligation.

       k) In relation to Development Related Provision the recommendation
          encompasses appropriate measures to secure highway
          improvements and retain and enhance site liaison and reporting
          arrangements with the community.

14.2    If the Committee is satisfied that the application for the disposal of
        hazardous waste at Warboys is in accordance with the Development
        Plan, the question arises whether there are other material
        considerations which should override the development plan.

14.3    On the advice of the Environment Agency and taking into account the
        result of consultations with the Huntingdonshire Primary Care Trust it
        is concluded that there is no technical or health justification for
        seeking the removal of previously deposited special/hazardous waste
        undertaken in Cells 1-5.

14.4    It has been suggested that public fears of health impacts might
        constitute such a consideration. Such fears are genuinely felt by many
        members of the local community, particularly those living closest to
        the landfill site. These fears clearly constitute a material
        consideration. However, the weight to be accorded to such fears has
        to take account of the fact that no evidence of significant health risks
        has been identified, despite extensive analysis by the relevant
        regulatory and advisory bodies. It is the officer view that refusal is not
        justified on the basis of such fears alone.

14.5    However, it is considered essential that the concerns expressed by a
        large number of the objectors should be addressed in the planning
        obligation. The obligation should provide for enhanced joint
        monitoring arrangements with an independent facilitator and an
        opportunity for the local community to be directly represented on a
        technical monitoring panel.

Source Documents
Planning application and Environmental Statement
Entec Preliminary ES Review – January 2004
Entec Technical Review – February 2004
Entec Review of Applicant‟s response to consultations – April 2004
Netcen report to Huntingdonshire District Council – February 2004
Netcen advice to Huntingdonshire District Council – April 2004
Robert Long Consultancy report to Huntingdonshire District Council
EU Framework Directive on Waste
EU Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC
Hazardous Waste – a growing challenge – EA February 2004
Letter from ODPM/Defra – 7 April 2004
Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management
– Extended summary Defra May 2004
Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002
Hazardous Waste Directive (91/689/EEC)
Special Waste Regulations 1996
Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations
Waste Strategy 2000
COSU Report “Waste not, want not”
Air Quality Strategy 2000
Planning Policy Guidance Notes:
    - PPG1 - General Policy and Principles
    - PPG10 – Planning and Waste Management
    - PPG23 – Planning and Pollution Control
Regional Planning Guidance for East Anglia (RPG6)
Regional Planning Guidance for the East of England (draft RPG14)
Regional Waste Management Strategy – July 2003
Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Structure Plan 2003
Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995
Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Waste Local Plan 2003
Newport County BC v Secretary of State for Wales

Location of source documents
Castle Court
Shire Hall


To top