Agenda item

The planning application considered was brought before Members on 17 July, 2014. Members resolved to defer the application to allow for additional information to be gathered in relation to various matters. These issues were dealt with further on in the report.

The application 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 required the site to be restored by 2018, relying solely on river sourced waste imports from 2012.

The proposal was for 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 current application had been submitted as the landfill was settling at a 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 resulted in the removal of materials such as bottles, plastics, cans, building waste, which might previously have been landfilled.

Without re-grading of the landform the site would likely suffer from poor drainage and increased pollution risks and may not be suitable for public access. The proposal was to bring in additional waste that would ensure that a landform could be achieved that was accessible and safe for public use, with incorporation into the Wildspace regeneration project.

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 proposed for December 2024, with restoration to be completed by December 2026.

Members had previously expressed a 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. The calculation of the sum of £25,000 as a Highways Contribution only covered an area 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 were 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. However Members felt that the indemnity would need to adequately cover the Council’s liability in to the future and currently that was not adequately provided for.

Members questioned why the waste processing plant would still be required if the site was to be filled with landfill. The figures quoted financial viability case in the application stated that little profit was to be made from landfilling the site but if the site was used for waste disposal there would be a higher level of profit to be gained from the site whilst at the same time increasing the height contours of the site to a much higher level than had originally been planned for. Members required a full and clear financial viability assessment to be provided for further scrutiny.

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

·         What were the safeguards to ensure there wouldn’t be repeated requests for project extension which would result in a progressive delay of the site's completion?

·         The proposal provides inadequate mitigation for the added detrimental impact on the local environment and the quality of life of the local community caused by extending the period, additional material and not utilising the river as required.  What was the applicant's response to this?

·         Since 2012 the development had operated in breach of the requirement that waste was borne to the site only by river.  In light of the failure to transport waste by river, lorry impact had been significantly in excess of that originally envisaged for the project and was having an adverse effect on the infrastructure of the local transport network and would continue to do so until the proposed extended timeframe for completion in 2026.  Additional lorry traffic resulting from the failure to bring river borne waste created additional mitigation need. Members in considering mitigation require that the detrimental effects of the continued breach of planning control through use of road rather than river over the period from 2012 to completion of the proposed works be taken into consideration. In terms of the effect on the highway the basis of calculation for this should be for the road between the A13 and the site entrance.  In this context the proposed mitigation payment of £25,000 was markedly inadequate and what was the applicant's response? 

·         Members wished to see greater clarification in the distinction between waste and landfill.  If the extended programme was dependent on using waste, the Committee had strong concerns that the financial viability case promoted by the applicant is inaccurate.  An independent assessment of the financial viability case was required so that the scope for environmental and social mitigation package could be verified.  If the extended programme was materially dependent on using inert landfill material, what difference would this make to the settlement characteristics of the site and the strength of case for additional material to be brought on to achieve the final finished contours. 

·         In light of the above, there had been an insufficient explanation of why the land form must increase in height from that previously approved to the detriment of local visual amenity.

·         A covenant was required to address risk associated with future public access to and subsequent use of the finished land.

·         Should the Council exercise the options to take leases of the application site or parts thereof, what indemnity and insurance provisions would Veolia have in place against risks of injury or damage to the property of third parties over the term of any lease or tenancy the Council might enter?

·         The Bond which would address default in the event that aftercare works were not completed to the satisfaction of the Council would need to be recalculated and increased in line with inflation.