Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Draft Waste Local Plan January 2022

Comment

Representation ID: 803

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Mick George Ltd

DM10
We also support policy DM2 – Health, Wellbeing and Amenity, policy DM3 – Design of New and
Extended Waste Management Facilities, policy DM4 – Landscape Protection, policy DM5 – Protecting and Enhancing Biodiversity, policy DM6 – Historic Environment, policy DM7 ‐ Water resources and Flood Risk, policy DM8 – Public Access, policy DM10 – Cumulative Impacts of Development, policy DM11 – Airfield Safeguarding, and policy DM12 ‐ Highway Safety and Vehicle Movements/Routeing.

Comment

Representation ID: 804

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Mick George Ltd

DM11
We also support policy DM2 – Health, Wellbeing and Amenity, policy DM3 – Design of New and
Extended Waste Management Facilities, policy DM4 – Landscape Protection, policy DM5 – Protecting and Enhancing Biodiversity, policy DM6 – Historic Environment, policy DM7 ‐ Water resources and Flood Risk, policy DM8 – Public Access, policy DM10 – Cumulative Impacts of Development, policy DM11 – Airfield Safeguarding, and policy DM12 ‐ Highway Safety and Vehicle Movements/Routeing.

Comment

Representation ID: 805

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Mick George Ltd

DM12
We also support policy DM2 – Health, Wellbeing and Amenity, policy DM3 – Design of New and
Extended Waste Management Facilities, policy DM4 – Landscape Protection, policy DM5 – Protecting and Enhancing Biodiversity, policy DM6 – Historic Environment, policy DM7 ‐ Water resources and Flood Risk, policy DM8 – Public Access, policy DM10 – Cumulative Impacts of Development, policy DM11 – Airfield Safeguarding, and policy DM12 ‐ Highway Safety and Vehicle Movements/Routeing.

Comment

Representation ID: 806

Received: 04/04/2022

Respondent: Mick George Ltd

MGL wish to promote a site for inert landfill at Dorket Head Quarry, Arnold, which is shown on the attached plan no. 211 (hereinafter called ‘the site’).
Site Location
21. The Dorket Head brick quarry, of which the site is a part, is located approximately 7.5 kilometres
north east of Nottingham City Centre on the northern edge of Arnold, 10 miles from Mansfield/Sutton in Ashfield, and 20 miles from Newark. The quarry extends in a generally west-east direction along the south side of the B684 Woodborough Lane and west of Calverton Road. The brickworks lies to the west on the other side of Calverton Road. The quarry therefore lies in a position between the settlement of Arnold and the B684.
Brief Site Description
22. The area being sought for allocation in the plan is part of the historic core of the quarry and the
Eastern Extension granted in 2013. It is therefore an active mineral site and is available for restoration. The western part of the quarry has been infilled with non‐hazardous waste, and is under active post landfill management, and is not part of this proposal. To the south is the recent Southern Extension of Dorket Head Quarry which has permission to restore by infilling with inert waste.
23. The site is well screened by boundary trees at its western end from the north and south. Towards
the current and future workings, screening is accommodated by low, well‐kept boundary hedgerows
with occasional trees. Some vegetated temporary soil and overburden stores are visible above the
boundary hedges and partial views are possible of the top of the excavation at points along Woodborough Lane.
24. The site has a vehicular access from Woodborough Lane which is of a high standard.
25. The site is fairly remote being between 330‐380 metres north of Surgeys Road and Strathmore Road
in Arnold. However, the closest properties to the site are Arnold Lodge (200 metres north) and Mellish RFC (107 metres south east). The newbuild development site (Killisick Lane: H8 in the Gedling Borough Local Plan) when constructed will be about 160 metres from the southern part of the Eastern Extension area being screened from it by a belt of trees and a large topsoil store. All other properties are about 400 metres or more distant from potential operations.
Relevant Planning History
26. The site is subject to three existing planning permissions for clay extraction and subsequent
amendments; the oldest is 7/97/0697NCC dating from 1998 which affects a small triangle of land directly above the Southern Extension. This has permission for restoration by waste disposal. The western half of the site also benefits from a clay permission dated to 2003 (7/2003/0335, referred to in the 2013 variation but otherwise absent from the planning register). Although the current restoration scheme for this part of the site is to low level in order to dovetail with the Eastern
Extension restoration, it still retains full rights to infill with waste. The eastern half of the site 6 comprises the Eastern Extension to the quarry under permission 7/2013/0760NCC and has permission for restoration to low level. This part of the site has no permission to receive wastes.
The Proposal
27. The proposal is simply to fill in the existing and permitted void at the quarry with inert waste. This is
defined as wastes which arise from Construction and Demolition, plus Excavated soils and is often described under the acronym ‘CD&E waste’. As the plan points out, and the analysis presented in these representations shows, the vast majority of CD waste is recycled, which approaches 95% or more of the quantity arising. What is residual waste is the E waste for which there are few methods for recycling and recovery. Some E waste is recycled as good quality topsoil but the majority is either
landfilled in dedicated inert landfill sites, such as Dorket Head would be, or is used as engineering material / cover in non‐hazardous landfill sites, or is used as bulk fill / topsoil in land recovery operations such as infilling former quarries. One can readily see that the nature of filling in inert landfill sites and land recovery operations in quarries is essentially the same thing. The only
difference is often that inert landfill sites are engineered to higher specifications than land recovery operations.
28. Inert waste is defined by the Environment Agency (EA) as that which “does not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biological transformations. Inert waste will not dissolve, burn or otherwise physically or chemically react, biodegrade or adversely affect other matter that it comes into contact with, in a way likely to cause environmental pollution or harm to human health. The total leachability and pollutant content of the waste and the ecotoxicity of the leachate must:
• be insignificant
• not endanger the quality of surface water or groundwater.”
This is confirmed by the Draft Local Plan itself which states that “As this waste does not break down
in the ground it will not give off any gas or leachate. Inert sites do not therefore post any risk to the environment or human health.” Inert landfill permits issued by the EA contain strict acceptance criteria for wastes to ensure that non‐inert matter is excluded from the site.
29. The site contains and estimated 2,000,000 cubic metres of voidspace, about half of which already
has consent to fill. It is intended to fill the site at a rate of between 150,000 and 200,000 tonnes a year. This would imply average daily traffic loads of between 30 and 40 per day, or 60 to 80 trips. Traffic would use the existing dedicated access on Woodborough Lane and use major roads and the B684 to access the site.
30. The operational details of the site’s design will be determined at the application stage, but as a general indication, the site would need only minimal office and weighbridge facilities, plus a wheelwash or long metalled haul road to ensure vehicle wheels leaving the site are free of mud and debris. Since the site is an active mineral site it already benefits from substantial screening from
outside views and whilst additional screen bunding may be required it is expected that allowing the boundary hedgerows to grow to supply additional visual containment will be sufficient. A further benefit of a filling operation is that the material required for constructing a geological barrier already exists on site and will consequently not have to be imported.

31. The restoration configuration is expected to be the same as already permitted with a mixture of woodland and agricultural fields. The only changes to the permitted scheme would be the contours of the final landform, and it is intended that the final restoration levels will result in a naturalistic appearance consistent with local landscape character. It will also be necessary to provide for surface
water drainage so that flow rate discharges for storm water runoff from the site meet the criteria for greenfield runoff rates for 1 year, 30 year and 100 year return periods. This may require a
dedicated part of the site where a SuDS storage area can be established.
Planning Constraints
32. The major planning constraints relating to the site are as follows;
• Need
• Green Belt,
• Proximity to housing,
• Landscape,
• Hobbucks Local Nature Reserve, Kilbourne Road Amenity Green, Broadleaved woodland (much
of which has been planted as result of minerals extraction), Gedling Community Forest,
• Water issues,
• Public Footpaths,
• Relationship to the completed landfill to the west, and
• Traffic impacts.
33. Due to the proposal being part of an active mineral site, the issues of archaeology and agricultural
soil grade are not considered relevant to the consideration of a Local Plan allocation, whilst there is
little or no ecological interest on this developed site. There are two Scheduled Ancient Monuments
lying to the north at distances of about 1.5 km, whilst the nearest Listed Building is about 1 km to
the east. None of these sites or their settings are likely to be impacted by the development by
reason of distance and intervening topography/buildings/vegetation.
Need
34. The draft Waste Local Plan requires that future inert waste disposal capacity be justified “only where
it can be shown that this is necessary to manage residual waste that cannot be recycled or
recovered.” (Policy SP2). However, for inert waste recovery projects will need to demonstrate that
they “will not prejudice the restoration of permitted mineral workings and landfill sites.” (Policy SP4
a) v.) in addition, part c) of Policy SP4 requires that “In all cases, the resulting final landform,
landscaping and after‐uses must be designed to take account of and, where appropriate, enhance
the surrounding landscape, topography and natural environment.” In terms of Policy SP5 waste
management facilities (including presumably disposal facilities) “should make efficient use of natural
resources, limit climate impacts by avoiding damage to air quality, water or soil and reduce the need
to transport waste,” and “be designed to ensure that they are resilient to the future impacts of climate change.” Policy SP6 requires proposals to minimise the distance waste needs to travel and make the best use of the existing transport network. There are additional conditions to fulfill if waste is proposed to be imported from outside Nottinghamshire.
35. There is already permission for a significant amount of inert landfill at Dorket Head in the 1998 and
2003 consents, and the 2018 Southern Extension. The only part of the quarry not permitted for landfill is the Eastern Extension whilst landfilling in the 2003 consent area (varied in 2013) has been “paused” to allow the Eastern Extension to be worked and restored at low level. The committee report for application 7/2013/0757NCC states that “The need for the pause position is because the Eastern Extension would effectively halt new landfill void space being created for disposal in the existing permitted area. The pause position also enables an area to be created in the worked out quarry base of the current working area for the storage of non‐usable clay materials originating from the Eastern Extension, prior to its use in restoration.” (paragraph 31) the pause was expected
to last from “around 2015 to 2025, after which landfilling could resume in line with the current landfill permission”. (paragraph 32). Consequential amendments were therefore permitted to condition 13 of the 2003 clay extraction consent. In 2018 the Southern Extension was permitted and this was accompanied by a Section 73 application to further vary the restoration of the 2003
consented area. The committee report for this application stated, “The current application seeks to utilise inert waste within the southern area landfill operations and also change the composition of waste when landfill recommences in the original quarry area, changing from non‐hazardous waste to inert waste in these ‘resumed’ landfill operations”. (paragraph 120) 36. The issue is that since the landowner has reserved the rights to further landfill the western part of the quarry, which is nominally programmed to resume after 2025 and has been limited to inert waste, whether the restoration of the Eastern Extension on its own to low level without fill is now
viable and acceptable. Whilst a competent restoration for this area could be carried out, the landowner and MGL consider that the resulting smaller landform will because of its bowl‐like shape and depth of up to 14 metres, be neither suitable nor acceptable. Given that this is now the only part of the quarry that will not be filled, it is considered that in its long term interests it makes sense
to provide for restoration of the Eastern Extension by filling. As such, this proposal is making the case for the need for the whole quarry to be restored by infilling with inert waste.
37. The draft strategic policies require proposals for waste disposal to show among other things, that it
is necessary to manage residual waste that cannot be recycled or recovered. However, in acknowledging that inert waste recovery operations must be shown to not prejudice the restoration of permitted mineral workings and landfill sites, the draft plan tacitly admits that permission should be governed by what is right for each individual site. Moreover, disposal proposals must also
demonstrate in all cases that they should be appropriate to, and enhance the surrounding landscape, topography and natural environment. What is right for Dorket Head quarry is asserted to be filling with an appropriate waste with consequent enhancements to landform, landscape and the environment.
38. MGL also has a business need for the voidspace since its business model relies on a muck‐away
service to customers. This includes a number of contracts with national and regional housebuilders.
The operator offers a service to its construction customers, that combines demolition, groundworks,
earthmoving and delivery of sustainably sourced aggregates/concrete with removal of construction
and excavation wastes for processing and land restoration. This activity has several sustainability
benefits. Firstly, the construction sector increasingly operates under the maxim of Lean Construction
because its customers (the private sector development industry and the government) require their projects to be demonstrably sustainable, sourced from certified suppliers and constructed at least cost. Contracts are drawn up which require the constructor to operate with minimal waste and impact on the environment. These requirements are then passed down the supply chain for
aggregate and civils sub‐contractors to demonstrate compliance with sustainable sourcing standards. Thus the construction industry moves towards Zero Waste and a Circular Economy in line with national policy. This relationship with its customers ensures that MGL’s supply of raw materials is always paired to waste treatment operations.
39. It is expected that most waste would emanate from Nottinghamshire, particularly around the city
itself and the heavily populated surrounding districts. However, because of its proximity, the city of
Derby and its surrounding areas are also within the economic range, particularly as inert waste
disposal capacity is in short supply in southern Derbyshire. This minimises the transport of residual
wastes by putting it into the nearest suitable disposal location.
Green Belt
40. Draft Policy SP7 – Green Belt recognises that waste disposal is inappropriate development in the
Green Belt and requires very special circumstances to justify it. This involves demonstrating that
development “maintains the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within
it.” This includes in line with national policy, that very special circumstances show that potential
harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and other harm, is outweighed by other
considerations.
41. The inert waste disposal enables the quarry to be restored with a mixture of woodland blocks and
agricultural fields similar to what remains in the surrounding areas and is therefore needed for an
acceptable restoration. The landfill operations would also assist in achieving an acceptable standard
of restoration with enhancements to biodiversity. Because it would not involve the erection of large structures inappropriate to the Green Belt or damage the openness of the designation, it would normally be considered appropriate in the context of national and local policy with respect to the
Green Belt.
Proximity to Housing
42. Although the site is situated on the edge of Arnold there are very few properties in close proximity
to it (defined as within 250 metres). However, the construction of new houses on the Killisick Lane
site (H8 in the Local Plan) does have the potential for creating unacceptable amenity effects from
parts of the filling operations. Indeed, this was recognised in the 2018 permission for the Southern
Extension which was granted in order to avoid sterilisation of valuable minerals. However, the
proximity of an unidentified number of houses to part of the site can be managed by the operator.
This may include the presence of tree screen belts (already present to some extent) plus the
creation of temporary screen bunds and the alteration of phasing to avoid most impacts before the
houses are built. Such factors would properly be the subject of detailed environmental assessment
at the application stage, and here it is only necessary to point out there are no insuperable barriers
to development.
43. It also needs to be emphasised that because of the nature of the waste, there will be no issues
arising from odour or litter because the waste would be completely inert and environmentally
benign. What potential amenity disbenefits there might be would be limited to noise and dust but
as previously stated these are capable of mitigation to acceptable levels.
Landscape & Visual Impact
44. The landscape and visual impacts of the current clay working are minimal and have been mitigated
by design by screening. As previously stated, it is not thought that many further measures would
need to be taken to accommodate infilling, but in any event, specific impacts would be best treated
in detail at the application stage in an environmental assessment. There are however, defined
benefits from restoring quarries with solid fill, because this leads to enhancements in landform
closer to the surrounding landscape character and the potential for recreation of lost landscape
features. As such, it is not likely that filling the site would lead to any significant harmful landscape
impacts.
Biodiversity Issues
45. The site lies about 200 metres north east of the Hobbucks Local Nature Reserve and the Kilbourne
Road Amenity Green, it is skirted by deciduous woodland (much of which has been planted as a
result of screening measures for the mineral working), and it lies within the Gedling Community
Forest. There is no ecological interest in the site itself once it has been worked for clay.
46. Hobbucks Local Nature Reserve and the Kilbourne Road Amenity Green are unlikely to be adversely
affected by filling operations given good management of the operations to avoid fugitive dust and
mitigate noise. The continuation of the mix of restoration features such as new woodland and
species rich grassland would have no adverse effects on wildlife and will enhance existing
biodiversity networks and be consistent with the aims of the Community Forest.
Water issues
47. The inert waste would be deposited into prepared cells designed to have least impact on any
groundwater present. There are no natural surface water features or water dependent habitats
within the surrounding area. Contours would be designed to shed water the edges of the landform and following restoration it will be necessary to design and install a SuDS to manage runoff from the site.
Public Footpaths
48. Existing public rights of way have already been / will be diverted either permanently or temporarily
in relation to the clay extraction, and then reinstated on permanent routes as per the approved restoration scheme. Landfill operations would not affect the current routes of these footpaths and restoration configurations would be unchanged. Measures would be taken to protect the amenity of footpath users during filling operations, and the only significant effect of filling on footpaths would be an extended duration for diversions, which would be mitigated by an enhanced experience of
walking once restoration activities ceased.
Relationship To The Completed Landfill To The West
49. The company is aware that there are concerns about any repetition of adverse amenity impact on
local communities such as were experienced up to 2014 when the non‐hazardous landfill was operating. As previously emphasised, there is no comparison with the two types of activity in terms of their propensity to generate odour, and the inert landfill will not lead to previously experienced nuisance.
Transport
50. The expected levels of traffic associated with inert filling as proposed is very similar to levels
historically associated with non‐hazardous filling. The site access is of a good standard and in good
condition, and the B684 Woodborough lane is a wide straight road of also good standard which
connects to the city of Nottingham to the east and south, and also to the A60/A614 to the west and
north. The impact on the traffic network would be minimal.
Summary and Conclusions
51. MGL has suggested some modifications to the Plan strategy to allow for more inert landfill since the
disposal capacity gap analysis is unrealistically low, with too much reliance placed on risky and
uncertain land recovery operations, the conditions for acceptance of which as described in the draft
plan, are very challenging. We therefore consider that a more generous allowance should be made
for inert landfill.
52. We also take the opportunity to promote a site for inert waste landfill at Dorket Head Quarry. This
includes part of an area historically permitted for restoration by fill, which has been “paused” for
eight years and has recently been modified to restrict input to inert waste. It also includes the
Eastern Extension which will be the only part of the site which is currently not being considered for
filling. To fill this area too will result in enhancements to the landscape and biodiversity whilst eliminating an unsatisfactory landform and returning the landscape character to something like its former state. A brief analysis of all relevant issues confirms the proposed site to be an excellent location for inert waste disposal which will not have any significant adverse environmental impact which would preclude it from being allocated in the Local Plan.
53. MGL therefore commends its proposal to the County Council and trusts that it will consider the inclusion of the Dorket Head site in the plan for inert landfill. The company is of course, willing to answer any questions officers might have, and provide any additional information requested.