8. Development Management Policies

Comment

Representation ID: 767

Received: 30/03/2022

Respondent: Mansfield District Council

The suite of draft development management policies in section 8 of the draft plan are supported. Please note the following minor comments on this section:
• Paragraph 8.35 refers to Policy DM2: Design and landscaping, but the title in the draft plan is Health, wellbeing and amenity.
• Paragraph 8.37 refers to the Landscape Character Assessments (LCAs) published in 2009 which cover the whole plan area. Mansfield has an updated LCA addendum (published in 2015) which should be referred to. It is available at: https://www.mansfield.gov.uk/heritage-conservation-trees-hedges/landscape-character-assessment-1
• Paragraph 8.80 includes an incomplete last sentence.
• Paragraph 8.93 refers to Table X rather than Table 13.
As a general note, some of the boxes which contain the findings from the sustainability appraisal at issues and options stage do not match up with the correct draft policies. In addition, there are some references to the 2019 version of the NPPF rather than 2021.

Comment

Representation ID: 783

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Via East Midlands

I respect of 'Noise and Vibration'.
Chapter 8 presents a list of Development Management (DM) Policies. The purpose of DM policies is to help to deliver the strategic policies and objectives by providing the criteria against which future waste development will be assessed. Noise and/or Vibrations are well
represented in the following DM policies:
· DM2 - Health, Wellbeing and Amenity;
· DM5 - Protecting and Enhancing Biodiversity;
· DM6 - Historic Environment;
· DM 9 - Planning Obligations;
· DM10 - Cumulative Impacts of Development; and
· DM12 - Highways Safety and Vehicle Movements/Routeing.
In terms of references to noise, we have identified a typing error on Page 131 where you can
read:”vx Crushing and screening of construction and demolition waste ……………………...”,
and you should read: “ix Crushing and screening ………………..

Comment

Representation ID: 856

Received: 12/04/2022

Respondent: Shlomo Dowen

96. Only Solutions notes the sentence at dWLP paragraph 8.3 that refers to the role of the Environment Agency (EA). The way that the second sentence of paragraph 8.3 is worded could mislead the reader as to the respective roles of the EA and the Waste Planning Authority (WPA) with regard to waste management facilities.
97. Whilst the EA is responsible for ensuring compliance with the permitting regulations, and while it should be assumed that the EA will carry out their duty in
that regard, the EA is not able to go beyond the legal requirements of the
permitting regulations to prevent nuisances and dis-amenities and other harmful
effects such as odours, vibration, vermin, flies, and diminution of air quality.
98. This means that even when the EA is fulfilling its duties some dis-amenities can be
expected to arise from waste management developments, and it is therefore
necessary for WPA’s to take these adverse impacts into account when
determining planning applications for waste management facilities.
99. As such it is misleading and counter-productive for dWLP paragraph 8.3 to create
the impression that the “Environmental Permit which is issued by the
Environment Agency” would, in and of itself, “prevent air and water pollution,
thus protecting human health and the environment from any potential impacts
from proposals”.
100. On the contrary, Environmental Permits allow for certain levels of air pollution
and other adverse impacts to occur. As any assessment of a EA-regulated facility
would show, such facilities do emit pollutants, including to the air, and are
therefore accompanied by adverse amenity impacts.
101. In this respect, Only Solutions notes how, according to the EA’s Pollution
Inventory, in 2019 the Eastcroft incinerator was responsible for the release of
152,755,000 kg of Carbon dioxide, and 199,000 kg of Nitrogen oxides, and 1,864
kg of Ammonia, and 1,252 kg of Particulate matter, as well as 35 kg of Chromium,
and 22.5 kg of Copper.48
102. It is wrong to suggest, as dWLP paragraph 8.3 does, that Councils must
assume that the EA’s permitting regime will be effective regarding compliance
with planning policies.
103. It is only safe to assume, in line with paragraph 7 of the National Planning
Policy for Waste, that the EA will ensure that permitting regulations are followed,
i.e. “Waste planning authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant
pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced”.
104. As paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy for Waste makes explicit,
WPA’s retain responsibility for ensuring that any proposed development is an
appropriate of the land given the impacts of that use.
105. WPA’s are obliged to “consider the likely impact on the local environment and
on amenity against the criteria set out in Appendix B” of the National Planning
Policy for Waste.
106. This is in line with paragraphs 185 and 188 of the NPPF which state that:
“Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is
appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including
cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural
environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to
impacts that could arise from the development” and that: "The focus of planning
policies and decisions should be on whether proposed development is an
acceptable use of land”.
107. This is also in line with the legal precedents. Hopkins Development Ltd. v SS
and North Wiltshire DC [2006] EWCH 2823 (Admin) states (at Paragraph 15 of the
judgment) that: "...planning authorities should focus on the impacts rather than
the control of emissions...[but that does not mean]...that they must subordinate
their judgment on the impacts to those of the pollution control authority", and
Harrison v SSCLG [2009] EWHC 3382 (Admin) states (at Paragraph 21 of the
judgment) that: "The thrust of the decision in Hopkins … is that the planning
decision maker was entitled to reach his own conclusions as to the impact of the
proposed development on amenity and whether the site under consideration was
the appropriate location for the proposed development. The fact that the impact
might be capable of being regulated under a pollution control regime did not
necessarily mean that the only possible option available to an Inspector was to
leave everything to that regime. If the planning decision maker considered that
there might be adverse consequences because of the effects of the proposed
development on amenity and/or issues as to the appropriateness of locating the
development on the site in question, he was entitled to have regard to such
matters as material considerations in making his decision on the planning merits
of the proposed development".
108. The ‘Letter from the Environment Agency on the differences between the
approach of the Environment Agency and Scottish Environment Protection
Agency in policy towards incinerators, 14 December 2017’ sets out how: “...The
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is clear that the planning system
should not duplicate the controls of other regulatory regimes...That does not
mean to say that the residual impacts of matters controlled through the permit
cannot be material planning considerations. Such impacts are relevant to whether
the proposal represents an acceptable use of the land and they can legitimately
have a bearing on any planning decision".49
109. The Local Waste Plan should be amended to reflect the correct legal position,
as set out above.