Agenda item

The application before members related to a 177 hectare site located on the River Thames at the most south-eastern part of the Borough. The application site currently benefited from an existing consent (reference: P1275.96) to deposit refuse materials through controlled landfill amounting to the importation of 12.3 million cubic metres of waste. The current landfill consent requires the site to be restored by 2018, relying solely on river sourced waste imports from 2012.

The report before the Committee had been submitted as the landfill was settling ata greater rate than originally anticipated. This was due to the biodegradable content of domestic waste steadily increasing over time, owing to the imposition of landfill tax and the resultant drive towards recycling which has deprived landfill sites of materials such as bottles, plastics, cans, building waste, which might previously had been landfilled.

As a result, the amount of settlement at this landfill site had been greater than envisaged. Consequently, without re-grading of the landform the site would likely suffer from poor drainage and increased pollution risks. Moreover, current settlement rates would mean that the landform may not be suitable for public access. The additional waste would ensure that a landform could be achieved that was accessible and safe for public use, with incorporation into the Wildspace regeneration project.

The applicant was therefore seeking planning permission for updated settlement rates in order to create a satisfactory final landform similar to that originally envisaged. The revisions included the importation of an additional 3.6 million tonnes of non-hazardous waste over the current landform. This would achieve a higher pre-settlement restoration height than previously approved, which would settle over time to a lower height that was similar to what was previously approved. The revised landform would assist in the delivery of the site for public access, and allow for the potential delivery of various visitor facilities.

The importation of additional volumes of waste would require an extension in time for road-borne waste imports for the life of the landfill. The proposed completion date for landfilling was now 31 December 2024, with restoration to be completed by 31 December 2026.

The original planning permission was subject to a detailed legal agreement which sought to ensure, amongst other things, adequate restoration and aftercare and to ensure public access. It was recommended that the extant clauses in the agreement are brought forward and amended as necessary with changes/additions to allow early public access to the site, local employment training, and any other matters detailed in the recommendation.

The application under consideration proposed the following elements:

?           An extension to the period of working, including landfilling and all other waste processing uses at the site, to 2024;

?           Completion of restoration by 2026;

?           The importation of an additional 3.6 million tonnes of waste over the proposed period of working;

?           An increase in pre-settlement levels of between 3.5m and 12m across the site, including at the peaks and midslopes;

?           An increase in post-settlement levels in the mid-slopes of up to a maximum of 7.5m;

?           Changes to the approved restoration arrangements with previously proposed visitor facilities to be the subject of later applications;

?           Changes to the site approved access so that they remain as existing, with landfill access at the north of the site from Coldharbour Lane, and recycling activities access at the southern end of the site from Coldharbour Lane.

Although the pre-settlement contours are higher than those approved as part of the existing planning permission, this was required in order to achieve appropriate post settlement contours that would be more representative of the current permission. This occurred via a number of means through mechanical and bio-chemical processes. Wastes generally compact and shift to nearby voids and the biodegradable components of the land filled waste break down over a period of time and form landfill gas and leachate. The landfill gas was extracted as part of the process and converted to energy. The leachate was extracted and treated before being disposed of. The total volume of waste therefore steadily reduces and the restoration surface steadily settles. The rate of settlement was comparatively rapid in the early years and the rate gradually decreases with time.

The land raising would be completed on a phased basis that would see the completion of the more visually prominent areas, first along the northern fringe that will both create a visually softer landform to the adjacent marshes and to enable parts of the site for early public access and associated public facilities such as pathways, lookout points and car parking. As the site was restored, this would be the subject of a final restoration plan to detail landscaping, visitor facilities and ecological habitats to ultimately form part of the wider Wildspace project.

Members raised a number of points on the proposal. Members sought clarification of the current planning permission and whether there was a planning condition that required waste to be transported to the site by river. On confirmation by officers that the current planning permission was subject to such a planning condition members asked why this was not a continuing requirement under this proposal.

Members expressed preference for solely river-borne delivery of waste and to the extent that the waste was delivered to the site by road that a significant commuted sum be paid to the Council for the adverse impact over the extended period proposed. Members questioned the Highways Contribution which they considered to be inadequate and officers corrected a mistaken inference that it was calculated on the basis of impact on roads between the A13 and the application site and the costs of remedial road works to ameliorate the impact. The calculation of the sum of £25,000 as a Highways Contribution was the cost of the above solely over the highway from the application site to the entrance to Tilda Rice. Members were not satisfied with the adequacy of the Highways Contribution offered.

Members were concerned that if road borne waste was allowed contrary to the current planning condition, adequate and enforceable controls should be in place to ensure that the HGV movements are not through residential areas including Rainham Village.

Members were cautious in respect of the Council taking any legal interest in the application site. The Legal Advisor suggested that an indemnity covering the Council for the risk of liability during the term of any interest could be considered.  Members sought clarification following officer’s reference to a viability appraisal presented by the applicants in confidence to officers to justify their negotiating position. The Legal Officer considered that an assessment of the viability appraisal could be presented by the applicants to committee, under Part 2 which would be in camera.

A motion to refuse the application based on the perceived shortcomings of the planning obligations and conditions set out in debate was seconded, however before going to the vote the Chairman suggested deferring consideration to fully explore the issues raised by members in debate. This motion to defer was seconded.

Following the debate it was RESOLVED that consideration of the report be deferred to allow officers to contact the applicant for further negotiations of heads of terms of the legal agreement to include the following:

·         Preference for River borne delivery of waste to the application site.

·         Financial contribution reflecting the above comments to compensate for continued road borne waste.

·         Review of highways contributions to ensure that it adequately addresses the effects of HGV movements between the A13 and the Application Site and vice versa

·         Explore confidential presentation of the viability assessment in Part 2 of the Committee. .

·         Measures for monitoring (any movements, e.g. weighbridge/electric count) .

·         Measures to ensure that no HGV Movements to and from the application site are routed through built up residential areas including Rainham Village.

·         Should the Council be minded to take any legal interest in the application site that indemnity against risk of liability to the Council might be explored.