LOCAL MEMBER OBJECTION

COMMITTEE DATE: 15/08/2012 APPLICATION No. ED: APP: TYPE: 10/149/E SPLOTT DISCHARGE OF SUBSEQUENT APPLICATIONS ATTACHED TO PLANNING CONSENT 10/00149/E Viridor Waste Management Limited Land at Trident Park, Glass Avenue,Cardiff APPLICATION DATE: 01/02/2010

APPLICANT: LOCATION:

___________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION 1: That the subsequent applications dated 9 November 2011 (material samples and drawing no. EfW-POR-17.PL1) and 16 May 2012 (supplementary information) be approved in partial discharge of condition 2 of planning permission number 10/00149/E dated 29 June 2010. RECOMMENDATION 2: That the subsequent applications dated 7 February 2012 (Geotechnical and Geo-Environmental Factual and Interpretive Reports) and 9 February 2012 (Remediation Strategy Report), be approved in discharge of condition 3 of planning permission number 10/00149/E dated 29 June 2010. RECOMMENDATION 3: That the subsequent application dated 16 November 2011 (Ground Gas Risk Assessment) be approved in partial discharge of condition 7 of planning permission number 10/00149/E dated 29th June, 2010. RECOMMENDATION 4: That the subsequent application dated 31 January 2012 (Piling Method Statement) be approved in partial discharge of condition 10 of planning permission number 10/00149/E dated 29 June 2010. RECOMMENDATION 5: That the subsequent applications dated 9 February (Roads, Footpaths, Drainage Details Report) 20 April, 2012 (Surface Water Drainage Strategy) and 6 June and 28 June, 20121 (Supplementary Information) be approved in partial discharge of conditions 11 and 15 of planning permission number 10/00149/E dated 29 June 2010. RECOMMENDATION 6: That the subsequent applications dated 9 November 2011 (Geo-Archaeological Investigation Method Statement), 16 May 2012 (Geo-Archaeological Investigation), 28 June and 2 July 2012 (Archaeological Monitoring Method Statement) be approved in partial discharge of condition 12 of planning permission number 10/00149/E dated 29 June 2010. RECOMMENDATION 7: That the subsequent application dated 21 March 2012 (drawing no. EfW-PO-105.PL1) be approved in partial discharge of

condition 13 of planning permission number 10/00149/E dated 29 June 2010. RECOMMENDATION 8: That the subsequent application dated 16th January, 2012 (Cycle Compound Details) be approved in partial discharge of Condition 14 of planning permission number 10/149/E dated 29th June, 2010. RECOMMENDATION 9: That the subsequent application dated 26 March 2012 (Construction Management Scheme) be approved in partial discharge of condition 16 of planning permission number 10/00149/E dated 29 June 2010. RECOMMENDATION 10: That the subsequent application dated 9 November 2011 (Landscape Master Plan) be approved in partial discharge of condition 17 of planning permission number 10/00149/E dated 29th June 2010. RECOMMENDATION 11: That the subsequent application dated 22 March 2012 be approved in partial discharge of condition 19 of planning permission number 10/00149/E dated 29 June 2010. RECOMMENDATION 12: That the subsequent application dated 9 November 2011 (Lighting Strategy) be approved in partial discharge of condition 20 of planning permission number 10/00149/E dated 29 June 2010. RECOMMENDATION 13: That the subsequent application dated 22 March 2012 (drawing nos. 0036.00306.25.125 & 128 plus specifications) be approved in partial discharge of Condition 21 of planning permission number 10/00149/E dated 29 June 2010. RECOMMENDATION 14: That the subsequent application dated 9 November 2011 (Green Roof Specification) be approved in partial discharge of condition 24 of planning permission number 10/00149/E dated 29th June 2010. 1. 1.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Planning permission for the erection of the Energy from Waste (EfW) Facility was received by Viridor in June 2010, following Planning Committees resolution to grant permission subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement. Following the issuing of the planning permission, the following details were submitted in pursuance of the pre-commencement conditions attached to the permission: (i) Condition 2 (Samples of Materials): Material samples and drawing no. EFW-POR-17.PW (9 November 2011), letter stating intent to submit samples on appointment of contractor (19 March 2012), specifications for materials (16 May 2012); 3 (Risks of Contamination): Geo-Technical and Geo-Environmental Factual and Interpretive Report (7 February 2012) and Remediation Strategy (9 February 2012);

1.2

(ii)

(iii)

4 (Verification Report): Letter stating the verification report would be submitted on completion of the remediation works (19 March 2012), letter confirming no pre-commencement remediation works are necessary and outlining a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan (13 July 2012), Phase One Remediation Verification Report (19 July 2012) which states: The site was subject to extensive investigation and remediation works in the 1990s (1994-1996) when the site was redeveloped for the Ocean Technical Glass (Nippon Glass Manufacturing Plant). The extensive investigation, risk assessments and remediation works undertaken at the time established that the site was suitable for an industrial use and the risks to human health and the wider environment post development were negligible. These issues were considered in the original planning application and the Environmental Statement (January 2010); Verification reports will be submitted on a phased basis as follows: 1: Pre-commencement; 2: Bunker Excavation and Construction 3: External Earthworks (i.e. soft landscaping and planting); Given the extensive investigations at the site it is considered that the ground conditions are well established and no further assessment of the site is required at this time. Further data on soil quality will be submitted with future verification reports.

(iv)

7 (Ground Gas Protection): Ground Gas Risk Assessment Report (16 November 2011); 10 (Piling): Method Statement (31 January 2012); 11 (Drainage Details): Surface Water Drainage Strategy (20 April 2012), Supplementary Information (6 and 28 June 2012); 12 (Archaeology): Geo-Archaeological Investigation Method Statement (9 November 2011), Geo-Archaeological Investigation (16 May 2012), Archaeological Monitoring Method Statement (28 June & 2 July 2012); 13 (Loading, Unloading and Parking Within Site): Drawing no. EFWPO-105.PL1 showing areas for unloading waste and loading incinerator bottom ash and air pollution control residue, together with car and lorry parking areas (21 March 2012); 14 (Cycle Parking): Compound details (16 January 2012); 15 (Details of Roads): Roads, Footpaths, and Drainage Details Report (9 February 2012); 16 (Construction Management) Scheme of construction management

(v) (vi)

(vii)

(viii)

(ix) (x)

(xi)

detailing traffic routes, wheel wash, hoardings and other information (26 March 2012); (xii) 17 (Landscape Details): Landscape Master Plan and illustrated car park layout (9 November 2011); 19 (Construction of Site Enclosure): Perimeter security mesh fencing details for the operational phase and 2440mm high plywood/chipboard hoarding during the construction phase (22 March 2012); 20 (External Lighting): Lighting strategy detailing the strategy for the operational phase of the works, including lux levels (9 November 2011) 21 (Aviation Warning Lights): Drawing nos. 0036.00306.25.125 & 128 showing 2 no. lights on each stack at 45 metres above ground level and 360 degrees coverage lighting at the top of the stack by a single light, plus specification and data sheets (22 March 2012); 24 (Green Roof): Report detailing the design and construction considerations, its specification, maintenance and warranty (9 November 2011).

(xiii)

(xiv)

(xv)

(xvi)

1.3

The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1999 were amended in 2008 by the EIA Amendment Wales Regulations, requiring submissions to discharge a pre-commencement condition to be treated as a subsequent application for the purposes of the Regulations. Prior to determining the subsequent applications the Council must take into account the environmental information and publicise the applications as required by the Regulations and the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995. Viridor implemented the planning permission on 20 July 2012. The Council has written to Viridor to advise that it does not condone any commencement of development in advance of the determination of the subsequent applications. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The site is located within the Trident Park development and relates to 4.5 hectares of the total 20.2 hectares. The site was formerly occupied by Nippon Glass and is surrounded by industrial premises. The site is accessed via Glass Avenue and lies to the south and west of Ocean Way (see attached location plan). SITE HISTORY 10/00149/E: Permission granted in June 2010 for the erection of an Energy from Waste facility to include a combined heat and power plant, pretreatment/recycling facility, incinerator bottom ash recycling and ancillary offices

1.4

2. 2.1

3. 3.1

3.2

08/2616/E: Permission refused in July 2009 for the erection of an energy from waste facility with combined heat and power plant and ancillary offices for the following reason: 1. In order to operate at its design capacity, without compromising the recycling targets of the Welsh Assembly Government, the proposal would need to import substantial quantities of residual waste material from outside the administrative boundary of Cardiff Council and to export a substantial quantity of hazardous fly ash waste for disposal at an unspecified authorised disposal site in England. This would result in the unsustainable transportation of waste material contrary to the objectives of Technical Advice Note 21: Waste.

3.3

97/1390/R: Permission granted in October 1997 for waste management compound including associated roadway extension. 96/0616/R: Permission granted in June 1996 for erection of third phase of TV screen manufacturing facility (erection of warehouse). 96/0578/R: Permission granted in May 1996 for combustible warehouse, cullet pool, NG control room and chimney blower room. 95/1368/R: Permission granted in December 1995 for second phase of TV screen manufacturing facility (production area, plant and warehousing). 95/0100/R: Permission granted in February 1995 for first phase of TV screen manufacturing facility (production area, offices and warehousing). 94/1217/R : Outline Permission granted in October 1994 for construction of a television component manufacturing facility. 81/161: Permission granted for layout and construction of roads, sewers and other site development. 78/787: Outline permission granted to carry out industrial redevelopment, general industry. 2237: Outline permission granted in 1948 for a blast furnace. POLICY FRAMEWORK The site is on land allocated for business, industry and warehousing uses on the Local Plan Proposals Map. International Policies: European Community (EC) Landfill Directive 1999/3/EC; and EC Framework Directive for Waste 75/442/EEC as amended by 91/156/EEC.

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

3.10

3.11 4. 4.1

4.2

4.3

National Policies: Wales Spatial Plan (November 2004); Environment Strategy for Wales (2006); National Waste Strategy for Wales (2002) and Draft Strategy (2009); Planning Policy Wales 4th Edition (February 2011) (as amended); Technical Advice Notes: 5 Nature Conservation and Planning (2009); 8 Renewable Energy (2005); 9 Enforcement of Planning Control (1997) 11 Noise (1997); 12 Design (2009); 15 Development and Flood Risk (2004); 18 Transport (2007); and 21 Waste (2001)

4.4

Regional Policies: South East Regional Waste Plan: 1st Review (October 2008)

4.5

The following Policies from the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan 1991-2011 (April 1997) are relevant: EV1 EV2 EV4 E3 MV1 U3 Towards Sustainable Development Urban Regeneration Pollution Protection of Business and Industrial Land Location of New Developments Renewable Energy

4.6

The following Local Plan Policies are of relevance to the determination of this application: 11 17 18 36 37 39 55 Design and Aesthetic Quality Parking and Servicing Facilities Provision for Cyclists Alternative Use of Business, Industrial and Warehousing Land Safeguards for Residential Amenity and Existing Industrial Areas or Operational Docks Older Industrial and Commercial Areas Other Waste Disposal Facilities

4.7

The following Policies from the deposit Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) are also of relevance: 1A 1B 1C 1E 1H General Principles for the Location of Development Achieving Good Design Planning Obligations The Economy and Employment Sites of International or National Importance for Nature Conservation

1K 1N 1P 2.20 2.24 2.37 2.46 2.48 2.57 2.58 2.63 2.64 2.73 4.8

Movement and Transport Priorities Car Parking Waste Management Good Design Residential Amenity Change of Use of Industrial and Warehousing Land Sites of International or National Importance for Nature Conservation Biodiversity Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements Impact on Transport Networks Contaminated and Unstable Land Air, Noise and Light Pollution Sites for Waste Management Facilities

Relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG): Locating Waste Management Facilities (2006) Access, Circulation and Parking (2010)

5.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES 3 (Risks of Contamination)

5.1

The Environment Agency is satisfied with the subsequent application submitted and has no objection to all parts of this condition being discharged. The Operational Manager, Environment (Contaminated Land) has reviewed the Environmental Statement and the subsequent applications and considers that the investigations and risk assessments have been undertaken in accordance with current UK best practice and demonstrate that contamination concentrations are within generic soil assessment values for the proposed end use (commercial/ industrial). However the developer has decided in order to provide further protection to the end users that any soft landscaped areas (which are proposed to be minimal) will have clean imported soils. Whilst not fully necessary, he agrees that this is appropriate to reduce any potential risks to future site users to as low as reasonably practical. As such the developer has produced a remedial strategy report which details the requirements for this remediation. Overall he is satisfied with the contents of this report apart from two points, namely: (i) The proposed frequency for testing of imported soils does not meet their current guidance note values, and he therefore requests that the sampling frequency is increased to meet this. (ii) Section 3.2 of the report provides details that should imported or site won crushed concrete contain <50% fines then testing will not be required. He does not agree with this and would advise that testing requirements as laid out in their Imported Materials guidance note are followed. However, as these points relate more to the verification element of the

5.2

process, he is satisfied that the condition can be discharged. 4 (Verification Report) 5.3 The Environment Agency has reviewed the Phase One Remediation Verification Report (Trident Park EfW Scheme, Cardiff, SLR, Ref. 402.00036.00306) dated July 2012, which was submitted in support of this application. This report sets out the remedial works completed to date on the application site. It summarises the results of previous site investigations and the remedial strategy report which confirmed that the site is not grossly contaminated and that a significant amount of remediation is not required prior to the commencement of development. It is proposed to verify the ongoing works in a phased approach with a Phase Two and Phase Three report issued to the local authority at key stages in the development. These will verify any remedial works, and external earthworks, soft landscaping and planting scheme. Based on the results and recommendations of this report, Environment Agency recommends the partial discharge of Condition 4 (Verification Report). It will be able to provide comment on the Phase Two and Phase Three reports once these become available. 5.4 The Operational Manager, Environment (Contaminated Land) has considered the submitted phase 1 remediation verification report and is satisfied that the site is suitable to enable the development works to proceed. It demonstrates that minimal remedial works are required, as has been previously agreed, with only landscaped areas requiring capping. His only concern relates to the frequency of the testing for the imported materials that have been detailed in the Remediation Statement and Verification Reports (see comments relating to condition 3 above). The testing frequency currently proposed is 1/1000m3, which is less than their current guidance note value of 2/500m3 for commercial/industrial developments. He would therefore request that the verification report be amended to comply with their guidance note. In addition he also requests that testing requirements are followed as laid out in the Imported Materials Guidance Note. It is noted that two further verification reports will be submitted due to a phased approach of the works, namely the bunker excavation and construction (Phase 2) and the external landscape works (Phase 3). As such Pollution Control can only recommend partial discharge of the condition (based on the information contained in the Phase 1 report), which should enable the development to commence. Full discharge will only be considered once the Phase 3 Final Verification Report is received upon completion of this element of the works. 7 (Ground Gas Protection) 5.6 The Operational Manager, Environment (Contaminated Land) is satisfied with the submitted details and recommends that this condition be partially discharged.

5.5

10 (Piling) 5.7 5.8 The Environment Agency has no objection to the discharge of this condition. The Operational Manager, Environment (Contaminated Land) has reviewed the method statement which has been issued and is satisfied with the contents thereof. He is aware that the Environment Agency Wales has recommended discharge of this condition and has no additional comments to make in relation to this condition. 11 (Drainage Details) 5.9 The Operational Manager, Drainage Division is satisfied with the submitted details. Welsh Water considers that the information submitted by the agent is sufficient to discharge this condition. The Environment Agency notes that the applicant has stated that surface water runoff from the site currently drains to the public combined sewer, via private surface water sewers, and that this method of disposal will be kept. A number of attenuation and SUDS techniques are to be used on site to control the rate of flow to the sewer. Foul water is to be disposed of to the main sewer. Based on these plans it has no adverse comments to make regarding the discharge of conditions 11 and 15 of the above planning permission. However, this is on the assumption that all the calculations provided within the report are correct and will be implemented as part of the final drainage design. Whatever regulation method is adopted to control the rate of surface water runoff from the development, it is essential that the developer makes suitable provision to ensure satisfactory long-term maintenance of the system/structures installed which must also be agreed with the local planning authority and the appropriate adopting body. 12 (Archaeology) 5.12 The Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust (GGAT), is satisfied with the submitted Archaeological Monitoring Method Statement and considers that this represents a written scheme of archaeological investigation as required by the condition. It considers that the information within the Archaeological Assessment and the results of the geo-archaeological investigation dated December 2011 satisfactorily meet the requirements of this condition. GGAT has also considered the submitted scheme of archaeological investigation in July 2012. They conclude that this has considered the likely impact of the development on the archaeological resource, meets current professional archaeological standards and is therefore acceptable. They therefore recommend that condition 12 can be partially discharged. However,

5.10

5.11

5.13

given that archaeological site work and subsequent post-excavation analysis will be required to be undertaken to fulfil the submitted programme of archaeological investigation they recommend that the applicant should not be fully discharged from their responsibility to ensure that the work is carried out and the final reports are submitted to the local planning authority. 13 (Loading, Unloading and Parking Within Site) 5.14 The Operational Manager, Transportation, is satisfied with the submitted details and recommends that this condition be discharged 14 (Cycle Parking) 5.15 The Operational Manager, Transportation, is satisfied with the submitted details and recommends that this condition be partially discharged 15 (Details of Roads) 5.16 Welsh Water considers that the information submitted by the agent is sufficient to discharge this condition The Environment Agency notes that the applicant has stated that surface water runoff from the site currently drains to the public combined sewer, via private surface water sewers, and that this method of disposal will be kept. A number of attenuation and SUDS techniques are to be used on site to control the rate of flow to the sewer. Foul water is to be disposed of to the main sewer. Based on these plans it has no adverse comments to make regarding the discharge of conditions 11 and 15 of the above planning permission. However, this is on the assumption that all the calculations provided within the report are correct and will be implemented as part of the final drainage design. Whatever regulation method is adopted to control the rate of surface water runoff from the development, it is essential that the developer makes suitable provision to ensure satisfactory long-term maintenance of the system/structures installed which must also be agreed with the local planning authority and the appropriate adopting body. 5.18 The Operational Manager, Drainage Division is satisfied with the submitted details. The Operational Manager, Transportation, is satisfied with the submitted details and recommends that this condition be partially discharged 16 (Construction Management) 5.20 The Operational Manager, Transportation, is satisfied with the submitted details and recommends that this condition be discharged

5.17

5.19

17 (Landscape Details) 5.21 The Councils Tree Officer is satisfied with the Landscape Master Plan and recommends that this condition be discharged. 20 (External Lighting) 5.22 The Operational Manager, Environment (Noise & Air) considers that the submitted lighting scheme is acceptable given the nature of the use and its location and he recommends that the condition be partially discharged. 21 (Aviation Warning Lights) 5.23 Cardiff Heliport considers that the proposed lighting solution is more than adequate. The Civil Aviation Authority advise that the submitted lighting scheme exceeds their recommend specification. Cardiff Airport confirms that the submitted details are sufficient to partially discharge this condition. 24 (Green Roof) 5.26 The Councils Parks Services notes that the proposed details remain as previously submitted and considers it to be a good, well-considered scheme. He requests clarification regarding the arrangements for long term maintenance once the initial three year contract has expired. Any appointment would need to be a specialist in this type of maintenance, rather than a general landscape contractor. He assumes that the annual maintenance would deal with the same operations outlined for years 2 and 3, and include replanting where required and he requests more information and reassurance on these aspects. He would prefer that the Kalzip system be used unless changes are notified and approved in advance, and the work, including 3 years maintenance, is carried out by Kalzips specialist team or appointed specialist contractors only. One point that may be useful to the applicant derived from the Councils experience on the green roof on Cardiff Library, is that during establishment the roof is very vulnerable to bird attack, particularly sea gulls (which he suspects could be a problem in the part of Cardiff where the development is taking place), with a lot of damage potentially resulting. In this case of the Library a bird of prey was used during the initial period. REPRESENTATIONS Local Members for Splott and Butetown have been consulted. Councillors L Holland, H Thomas, and G Marshall jointly make the following requests:

5.24

5.25

5.27

5.28

6. 6.1

(i) (ii)

(iii)

(iv)

that any future applications by Viridor be determined by the Planning Committee; that at the Planning Committee meeting, subject to the usual criteria being fulfilled, those wishing to make representations are given every opportunity to do so; that the Council, under the recommendation of the Planning Committee, look at taking appropriate enforcement action against Viridor for their clear breach of condition 4. Viridor have shown a disinterest in ceasing works on site. Enforcement action is a very real option for the Council and they would welcome such action being taken; they confirm their fundamental objection to the granting of planning permission.

6.2

The subsequent applications were advertised in the press on 24 July 2012. The 21 day consultation period expires on 14 August 2012. Any additional comments will be reported to Planning Committee. The subsequent applications were also advertised by site notice at the following 10 locations which are in the vicinity of the site: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) Muirton Road; Splott Road; East Tyndall Street; Ocean Way; Glass Avenue; Adventurers Quay; Falcon Drive; Galleon Way; Schooner Way; and Bute Street.

6.3

6.4

10 no individual letters of objection have been received including 3 no. letters from persons residing at Windway Avenue (Canton), Ely (Cambridgeshire) and Adventurers Quay (Cardiff Bay) and 7 no. unaddressed emails. Their reasons for objecting to the proposals are summarised as follows: (i) The incinerator site is on a flood plain. Extreme storm conditions are becoming worse and more frequent, making the "100 year" flood prediction inadequate. The flood-risk should be considered under Condition 11 because the toxic ash stockpile could become flooded and spread widely over the surrounding area; The consultation is very poorly publicised. They have not yet received any official notification whatsoever of the proposals. The council have been little better at informing the public this time round than they were during the initial maladministration; Viridor breached planning laws by starting development on 20th July, the day after publishing their application. Other breaches may occur if planning permission is granted;

(ii)

(iii)

(iv) (v)

(vi) (vii)

(viii)

Viridor have not cleaned the site of previous contamination as was part of their conditions (3 and 4); The 'bottom ash' will be processed on-site which contravenes condition 24 (forbidding hazardous waste). Bottom ash is inevitable therefore the application should be null and void; Flood risk of toxic ash stockpile contaminating the surrounding residential areas poses an unacceptable risk; The council should be working in behalf of the residents of Cardiff and not putting their health and quality of life at risk. The pollution from road noise, damage and fumes, even without an accident will cost the health and money of residents. This is not a suitable gateway to Cardiff for residents or visitors. It should be rejected now. The consultation documents are difficult to understand due to the legal and technical language.

7. 7.1

ANALYSIS Members should note that the applicant commenced works on site on 20 July 2012. The local planning authority does not condone any commencement of development in advance of the determination of the subsequent applications relating to the pre-commencement conditions and has written to advise the applicant of its position. There is an ongoing dialogue with the applicant and their agents regarding the pre-commencement conditions. The question of whether the Council should take enforcement action against the unlawful development must therefore be considered. Paragraph 23 of Technical Advice Note 9 Enforcement of Planning Control (1997) states that Where a local planning authority considers that an unauthorised development is causing unacceptable harm to public amenity, and there is little likelihood of the matter being resolved through negotiations or voluntarily, they should take vigorous enforcement action to remedy the breach urgently, or prevent further serious harm to public amenity. The presentation of this report follows discussions with the applicant and their agents which demonstrates that the Council is actively seeking to address the outstanding matters i.e. the subsequent applications. Taken together with Counsels advice, it cannot be said that there is little likelihood of those matters being resolved until such time as the consultation process has been carried out. It is the view of officers that, until the outcome of the subsequent applications has been decided by Committee, it would be unreasonable to commence enforcement action. If the Council were to reach a point where there is little likelihood of matters being resolved, then enforcement action could be pursued. The following paragraphs comment on the acceptability of the subsequent applications relating to each of the pre-commencement conditions. The consultation responses to each of the applications is in Section 5 of this report.

7.2

7.3

7.4

2 (Samples of Materials) 7.5 It is considered that the subsequent applications dated 9 November 2011, 19 March 2012 and 16 May 2012 relating to samples of materials are acceptable in respect of its environmental impacts and it is recommended that they be approved in partial discharge of Condition 2. 3 (Risks of Contamination) 7.6 It is noted that the Operational Manager, Environment (Contaminated Land) and the Environment Agency are satisfied with that the additional environmental information in pursuance of this condition is acceptable and both consultees recommend that this condition may be discharged. The agent has agreed to increase the frequency for testing of imported soils to meet Council guidelines and follow the Councils testing requirements for imported materials. Objectors to the applications claim that the site remains contaminated from its previous occupants and the applicants should have cleaned it up but have failed to do so. The Environment Agency acknowledges that the remedial strategy report confirms that the site is not grossly contaminated and that a significant amount of remediation is not required prior to the commencement of development. The Local Planning Authority has no valid reason to question the conclusions of the Environment Agency, who are a statutory consultee and qualified to comment on the issue. It is recommended that condition 3 be discharged as the submitted details satisfactorily meet the requirements of this condition and the environmental effects are not considered to be unacceptable. 4 (Verification Report) 7.9 It is noted that the Operational Manager, Environment (Contaminated Land), is satisfied with the applicants intention to submit 3 no. verification reports throughout the construction phase (Phase 1: Pre-Commencement; Phase 2: Bunker Excavation and Construction; Phase 3: External Earthworks) and recommends that this condition be partially discharged. The Environment Agency also supports the phased submission of verification reports at key stages in the development process and recommends the partial discharge of this condition. As with condition 3 above, objections to the subsequent applications, (paragraph 6.4) state that no clean-up of the site in advance is inadequate, and throwing away soil that is excavated should instead be processed and reused on site.

7.7

7.8

7.10

7.11

7.12

The precise wording of condition 4 reads as follows: Prior to commencement of development a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include a plan (a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, and for the reporting of this to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to ensure that the safety of future occupiers is protected.

7.13

Whilst the statutory consultees are satisfied with the submitted details and the phased approach to the submission of verification reports, the structure of this condition does not provide the Council with the option to partially discharge this condition; the condition can only be fully discharged. However, the option of fully discharging this condition is not available to the Council as the full amount of verification information required to discharge has not yet been submitted (and indeed cannot be submitted by the condition until such time as the works have taken place). The Council has written to the applicant inviting them to submit a Section 73 application to vary this condition to overcome the anomaly in the wording. The applicant has declined to submit such an application. This leaves the Council with the option to take enforcement action. However, as stated in paragraph 7.2, the advice contained in TAN 9 discourages local planning authorities from taking such action when it is likely that the matter can be adequately resolved. On the basis that the Operational Manager, Environment (Contaminated Land) and the Environment Agency are satisfied with the submitted verification report, and the applicants declared intent to submit further verification reports on a phased basis, it is not considered to be expedient for the Council to take enforcement action at this stage. 7 (Ground Gas Protection)

7.14

7.15

7.16

It is noted that the Operational Manager, Environment (Contaminated Land) is satisfied with the submitted Ground Gas Risk Assessment Report. It is therefore considered that the subsequent application dated 16 November 2011 is acceptable in respect of its environmental effects and it is recommended that the submitted details be approved in partial discharge of Condition 7.

10 (Piling) 7.17 It is noted that the Operational Manager, Environment (Contaminated Land) is satisfied with the submitted method statement. It is therefore recommended that the subsequent application dated 31 January 2012 be approved in partial discharge of Condition 10 as its environmental effects are considered to be satisfactory. 11 (Drainage Details) 7.18 The Councils Drainage Division, Welsh Water, and the Environment Agency have all concluded that the surface water drainage strategy is acceptable. It is therefore considered that there will not be any unacceptable environmental effects and therefore it is recommended that the subsequent applications dated 9 February 2012, 20 April, 6 June and 28 June 2012 be approved in partial discharge of this condition. 12 (Archaeology) 7.19 It is noted that the Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust (GGAT) is satisfied with the subsequent applications dated 9 November 2011, 16 May, 28 June and 2 July 2012. Given that GGAT are the appropriate body to assess the acceptability of the impact upon the archaeological resource, it is considered that the environmental effects of the development are satisfactory and it is recommended that these subsequent applications be partially discharged. 13 (Loading, Unloading and Parking Within Site) 7.20 It is noted that the Operational Manager, Transportation, is satisfied with the submitted details showing provision for parking, loading and unloading within the site. The submitted details were included in the original application. The environmental effects of this provision are considered to be acceptable and It is therefore recommended that the subsequent application dated 16 January 2012 be approved in partial discharge of this condition as the environmental effects are acceptable. 14 (Cycle Parking) 7.21 It is noted that the Operational Manager, Transportation, is satisfied with the submitted details showing cycle parking provision within the site. It is recommended that the subsequent application dated 16 January 2012 be approved in partial discharge of this condition as the environmental effects are considered to be acceptable. 15 (Details of Roads) 7.22 The Operational Managers for Transportation and the Councils Drainage Division, Welsh Water, and the Environment Agency have all concluded that the road details and measures for their satisfactory drainage are acceptable. It

is therefore considered that there are unlikely to be any unacceptable environmental effects as a result of these details and therefore it is recommended that the subsequent application dated 9 February 2012 be approved in partial discharge of this condition. 16 (Construction Management) 7.23 It is noted that the Operational Manager, Transportation, is satisfied with the details submitted in pursuance of this condition. It is therefore considered that the subsequent application dated 26 March, 2012 are acceptable in respect of its environmental effects and it is recommended that they be approved in partial discharge of Condition 16. 17 (Landscape Details) 7.24 It is noted that the Councils Tree Officer is satisfied with the landscaping scheme. It is considered that the subsequent application dated 9 November 2011 is acceptable in respect of its environment effects and it is recommended that they be approved in discharge of Condition 17. 19 (Construction of Site Enclosure) 7.25 The subsequent application dated 22 March 2012 showing timber hoarding during the construction phase and wire mesh fencing during the operational phase of the development are considered to be satisfactory in respect of its environmental impact. Partial discharge of condition 19 is therefore recommended. 20 (External Lighting) 7.26 The submitted lighting strategy details the types of lighting required and their lux levels. The Council's Noise and Air Pollution Service is satisfied with the submitted details and the environmental effects are considered to be acceptable. Partial discharge of condition 20 is therefore recommended. 21 (Aviation Warning Lights) 7.27 It is noted that Cardiff Heliport, Cardiff Airport and the Civil Aviation Authority are satisfied with the subsequent application dated 22 March 2012. It is therefore recommended that the subsequent application be approved in partial discharge of condition 22 as the environmental effects are considered to be acceptable. 24 (Green Roof) 7.28 The green roof details and maintenance schedule, confirming on-going annual maintenance of the green roof (after the initial 3 year maintenance contract expires with installer) is considered acceptable and Council's Parks Section have no objections. The environmental effects are considered to be acceptable. partial discharge of condition 24 is recommended.

Outstanding Third Party Representations 7.29 The consultation process in relation to the subsequent applications has been widely publicised, taking into account the Ombudsmans decision. 10 no. site notices were displayed at key locations in the locality (4 no. additional locations), including Galleon Way, which was the subject of the Ombudsman decision (see paragraph 6.3). The subsequent applications were also advertised in the press for 21 days in accordance with the regulations, and approximately 50 notification letters were sent to those who were consulted on the original application, plus those who objected to the development. The subsequent applications are also available to view online. The Council therefore considers that its consultation process has been extensive and goes beyond the minimum requirements set out in the regulations. It is condition 23 and not condition 24 which prevents hazardous waste from being processed within the facility. This condition reads as follows: The waste processed within the approved energy from waste facility shall at all times be non-hazardous. Reason: In the interests of safety. 7.31 Bottom ash is a bi-product of the incineration process and is estimated to amount to approximately 75,000 tonnes per annum (25% of input material). It is not hazardous nor will it be received and processed at the plant, rather it will be treated and recycled for use in the creation of construction materials. It is therefore incorrect to state that the creation of bottom ash fails to comply with condition 23. The original application considered the issue of flood risk in chapter 9 of the Environmental Statement and the following comments of the Environment Agency were received (paragraph 6.1 of the June 2010 committee report): In respect of flood risk, their floodplain maps show that the site is not within a fluvial floodplain and they have no record or awareness of any flooding having occurred to the site. The site lies entirely within zone B, as defined by the development advice map (dam) referred to under TAN 15 Development and Flood Risk (July 2004). They have no adverse comment to the application in terms of flood risk. 7.33 The concerns relating to the spreading of hazardous fly ash across the surrounding area as a result of flooding is not a view that is shared by the Environment Agency. Members should also be aware that the hazardous fly ash will not be stored on-site. Approximately 10,500 tonnes (3% of input material) will be generated per annum which will be transported via sealed tankers to an authorised hazardous waste disposal site in Gloucestershire. Regarding risk to public health and quality of life, these issues were originally assessed in detail during the consideration of the original application and were found to be satisfactory, following consultation with statutory

7.30

7.32

7.34

consultees. Members are advised that the Environmental Permit granted by the Environment Agency under separate legislation will ensure that the facility complies with regulations. The subsequent applications have also been assessed by statutory consultees and no objections on grounds of risk to public health and quality of life have been raised. Conclusions 7.35 The subsequent applications have been assessed and it is considered that they would not have an unacceptable environmental impact. It is therefore recommended that the subsequent applications submitted in pursuance of the pre-commencement conditions be approved, with the exception of Condition 4. In respect of Condition 4, it is concluded it would not be expedient for the Council to take enforcement action as there is a strong likelihood that the required verification reports will be submitted when each phase of the works are complete. It is also noted that the Operational Manager, Environment (Pollution Control) and the Environment Agency are satisfied with the findings of Phase 1 of the Verification Report submitted to date.