Liberal Democrats on Kent County Council

ESSEX WASTE BARRED FROM KENT

Trudy Dean, who also Chairs West Malling Parish Council

Trudy Dean has welcomed the refusal of planning consent to importing Essex Waste into the composting plant recently opened at Blaise Farm Quarry between West Malling and Offham.

KCC has refused planning permission on the grounds that the original permission favoured importation of waste to Tonbridge and Malling, Tunbridge Wells, Maidstone and Sevenoaks Boroughs except in special circumstances, importation from Essex would go against the principles of protecting the Green Belt in which the quarry lies. It would also risk taking up space in the plant which would then not be available for Kent based waste.

Trudy Dean, who also Chairs West Malling Parish Council, the only objector at the time of the refusal, said " We are very pleased with this decision which protects the local Green Belt, and prevents the stupidity of causing air pollution from long distance trucking of waste to a green composting plant."

County Council briefing note on proposed refusal:

PROPOSED REFUSAL OF APPLICATION UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY: CONSULTATION WITH CHAIRMAN AND GROUP PARTY SPOKESPERSONS OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

APPLICATION: TEMPORARY VARIATION OF CONDITION 12 OF PLANNING PERMISSION TM/06/762 TO ALLOW UP TO 15,000 TONNES OF WASTE TO BE IMPORTED FROM ESSEX FOR COMPOSTING OVER THE 18 MONTH PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 2008 TO MARCH 2010 AT BLAISE FARM QUARRY COMPOSTING FACILITY, KINGS HILL, WEST MALLING, KENT, ME19 4PN.

REFERENCE: TM/08/2893.

SITE: BLAISE FARM QUARRY COMPOSTING FACILITY, KINGS HILL, WEST MALLING, KENT, ME19 4PN.

APPLICANT: NEW EARTH SOLUTIONS LTD.

Condition 12 of planning permission TM/06/762 (as amended by planning permission TM/07/4435 re-waste capacity per year) states:-

12. Waste imported to the composting facility shall only be sourced from within the Districts of Tonbridge and Malling, Tunbridge Wells, Maidstone and Sevenoaks except in the following circumstances:

(i) those occasions where there is sufficient capacity to handle the additional wastes at the Blaise Farm composting facility without diverting wastes from sources within Tonbridge and Malling, Tunbridge Wells, Maidstone and Sevenoaks Districts; and

(ii) where the additional wastes would otherwise be exported from the County or landfilled; and

(iii) where the additional sources of permitted waste are from within Swale, Ashford, Dartford and Gravesham Districts and the Medway Authority area.

Reason: As the principles of Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO), including the proximity principle, and very special circumstances necessary to justify the Green Belt location have been accepted on the basis that waste will primarily be derived from Tonbridge and Malling, Tunbridge Wells, Maidstone and Sevenoaks and to accord with the principles of (amongst others) Waste Strategy 2000, PPG2, RPG9 Regional Waste Strategy (revised June 2006), Kent Structure Plan (1996) Policies S1 and MGB3, Kent & Medway Structure Plan (2006) Policy WM2 and Kent Waste Local Plan Policy W1, whilst acknowledging that a number of other waste sources are similarly proximate and could be used without undermining the reason for permitting a waste management facility in the Green Belt under certain circumstances.

Planning permission TM/06/762 was granted at Blaise Farm Quarry following careful consideration of various issues including those of the "very special circumstances" necessary to justify the Green Belt location and the proximity of waste sources to the site. It was felt that the above limitations were essential to justify the location and overcome the usual Green Belt objections to the proposals and that the condition would go some way to ensuring that waste handled by the site arose in the four District areas referred to in the first part of the condition (which the facility was primarily designed to serve, which are covered by significant areas of Green Belt and within which the applicant had demonstrated that there were no suitable alternative sites) or the other sites referred to in part (i) which would otherwise be similarly proximate and are, in cases, also covered by significant areas of Green Belt.

At the time of writing this note, objections have been received from West Malling Parish Council on the basis that the proposal would defeat the whole purpose of the condition and be ecologically unsound. No objections have been received from Mereworth and Kings Hill Parish Councils. SEERA does not wish to make representations on the basis that it does not consider the proposals to be of regional significance. SEEDA has no comments to make. Although a formal response is awaited from the Divisional Transportation Manager, an initial response indicates that he would have no objection as HGVs would travel from Essex to the site through Kent on major distributor roads. Comments have yet to be received from Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council, Offham Parish Council, the Environment Agency, DEFRA and KCC Waste Management Group.

To permit the above application to vary the condition (even temporarily) would be contrary to the principles of the policies set out in the reason for condition 12 at the time the application was determined, would be specifically contrary to paragraph 3.2 of PPG2, the 6th bullet of paragraph 3 of PPS10 and Policies SS2 and WM2 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (2006) and would undermine the County Council's previous decision and make it difficult to maintain the intent behind condition 12 for the remaining life of the facility (i.e. about 20 years). In this way it could also lead to capacity for waste arisings from within Kent or Medway (i.e. more proximate waste sources) being unavailable and these wastes either being transported further afield with resultant disbenefits or pressure for additional new facilities in the Kent Green Belt which could further undermine National Green Belt policy.

It should also be noted that the Section 106 Agreement relating to planning permission TM/06/762 includes a clause which repeats condition 12. On this basis, it would also be necessary for the legal agreement to be amended should the County Council be minded to permit the application. If the application is refused and the applicant were to overturn the decision on appeal, it would still need to amend the relevant clause in the legal agreement and this could not be done without the County Council's agreement until 19 September 2011 (i.e. 5-years from the date of the legal agreement). This would be beyond the temporary period now sought.

Subject to no objections from the Chairman and Group Party Spokespersons of Planning Applications Committee to the application being refused under delegated authority, I propose that the application BE REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1. The proposed importation of waste from Essex would be contrary to the principles of Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) and contrary to paragraph 3.2 of PPG2 and Policies SS2 and WM2 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (2006). It would also undermine the County Council's previous decision and lead to reduced capacity for waste arisings from within Kent or Medway (i.e. more proximate waste sources) resulting in such wastes either being transported further afield with resultant disbenefits or pressure for additional new facilities in the Kent Green Belt which could further undermine National Green Belt policy.

2. The applicant has not demonstrated the very special circumstances necessary to overcome the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt contrary to PPG2 and Policy SS2 of the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (2006).