MoreThanWaste.com - Inspector's decision on Brogborough 'extension' expected in January (04/12/2006)

"In our opinion, the importance of the quality of life of residents far outweighs the case put forward by WRG"

Cllr John Scott, Bedfordshire County Council

A decision on controvertial plans to extend the life of Brogborough landfill site, is expected in January 2007 following a public inquiry.

The public inquiry resulted from an appeal by the Waste Recycling Group (WRG) after an earlier planning application to raise levels at the site over a short period, were rejected by the Bedfordshire County Council.

Government planning inspector Andrew Newman heard evidence over a 2 week period and is expected to deliver his decision on the future of the landfill site in January.

Statements were made to the inquiry by the 3 main parties these being Sue Clark, spokesman for LAG (a local residents group), Bedford County Council and WRG.

Ms Clark for LAG, felt that the information provided by WRG underestimated the nature of the problems that people suffer. She considered that tipping had gone on for long enough and she would like to see site closure as promised.

The public inquiry followed rejection of WRG's application to keep the site at Brogborough open for further 11 months, from its current closure date of 28 January 2008. WRG appealed against that decision.

WRG consider that there is an identified short term need for landfill capacity at the site. The improved final profile would also have advantages in terms of environmental control.

Officer support

At the meeting of the county councils Development Control Committee last April, consideration was given to a set of 4 planning applications (BC/CM/2005/24A plus others) for variation of conditions to enable restoration of the landfill to alternative levels, deferment of end dates for waste disposal operations and restoration and other consequential amendments

WRG's plans included raising the height of the landfill. This included removal of any existing clay-cap layer before adding other layers of waste is above.

Officers at the council put the proposals through with a recommendation for approval, though the proposal was rejected by the committee.

Guarantee of end date

WRG originally proposed to guarantee the end date under a new legal agreement. In response to concerns about the security of such a guarantee, the company proposed to reinforce the legal agreement with a restoration bond which would allow the Planning Authority to take action if the operator did not fulfill its obligations.

The aim here was to give the Committee and residents maximum reassurance of the operator's commitment to end the tipping.

The Development Control Committee were advised by officers that by offering a restoration bond thereby enabling the County Council to secure the restoration of the site in accordance with the timescales being sought, the operator was offering as much security as possible in the circumstances.

However, the risk that the operators could submit a further application which, if refused, could be appealed against. If the appeal were allowed it would be very difficult for the County Council to rely on any end date contained within an existing section 106 agreement and it might be forced to vary such an agreement to reflect any new end date permitted on appeal.

It was considered that the operator's proposal in respect of an end date was the best possible offer in respect of the end date under the then current circumstances.

Rejection of the application by Bedford Council

The planning submission was rejected by the Development Control Committee at its April meeting as:

It was not considered that the continued disturbance to the local communities and surrounding area caused in particular by noise odour vehicle movements and litter was outweighed by the planning benefits of the proposals, having regard to Policy GE 18 of the Bedfordshire and Luton Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
There was no clear planning benefit arising from the proposal which would justify landraising at the site, resulting in a landform with no significant advantages over the approved restoration scheme and detrimental to the landscape in the short to medium term. The proposal was therefore contrary to Policy W 17 of the Bedfordshire and Luton Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

The decision of the Planning Inspector is awaited.


	Inspector's decision on Brogborough 'extension' expected in January (04/12/2006) "In our opinion, the importance of the quality of life of residents far outweighs the case put forward by WRG" Cllr John Scott, Bedfordshire County Council A decision on controvertial plans to extend the life of Brogborough landfill site, is expected in January 2007 following a public inquiry. The public inquiry resulted from an appeal by the Waste Recycling Group (WRG) after an earlier planning application to raise levels at the site over a short period, were rejected by the Bedfordshire County Council. Government planning inspector Andrew Newman heard evidence over a 2 week period and is expected to deliver his decision on the future of the landfill site in January. Statements were made to the inquiry by the 3 main parties these being Sue Clark, spokesman for LAG (a local residents group), Bedford County Council and WRG. Ms Clark for LAG, felt that the information provided by WRG underestimated the nature of the problems that people suffer. She considered that tipping had gone on for long enough and she would like to see site closure as promised. The public inquiry followed rejection of WRG's application to keep the site at Brogborough open for further 11 months, from its current closure date of 28 January 2008. WRG appealed against that decision. WRG consider that there is an identified short term need for landfill capacity at the site. The improved final profile would also have advantages in terms of environmental control. Officer support At the meeting of the county councils Development Control Committee last April, consideration was given to a set of 4 planning applications (BC/CM/2005/24A plus others) for variation of conditions to enable restoration of the landfill to alternative levels, deferment of end dates for waste disposal operations and restoration and other consequential amendments WRG's plans included raising the height of the landfill. This included removal of any existing clay-cap layer before adding other layers of waste is above. Officers at the council put the proposals through with a recommendation for approval, though the proposal was rejected by the committee. Guarantee of end date WRG originally proposed to guarantee the end date under a new legal agreement. In response to concerns about the security of such a guarantee, the company proposed to reinforce the legal agreement with a restoration bond which would allow the Planning Authority to take action if the operator did not fulfill its obligations. The aim here was to give the Committee and residents maximum reassurance of the operator's commitment to end the tipping. The Development Control Committee were advised by officers that by offering a restoration bond thereby enabling the County Council to secure the restoration of the site in accordance with the timescales being sought, the operator was offering as much security as possible in the circumstances. However, the risk that the operators could submit a further application which, if refused, could be appealed against. If the appeal were allowed it would be very difficult for the County Council to rely on any end date contained within an existing section 106 agreement and it might be forced to vary such an agreement to reflect any new end date permitted on appeal. It was considered that the operator's proposal in respect of an end date was the best possible offer in respect of the end date under the then current circumstances. Rejection of the application by Bedford Council The planning submission was rejected by the Development Control Committee at its April meeting as: It was not considered that the continued disturbance to the local communities and surrounding area caused in particular by noise odour vehicle movements and litter was outweighed by the planning benefits of the proposals, having regard to Policy GE 18 of the Bedfordshire and Luton Minerals and Waste Local Plan. There was no clear planning benefit arising from the proposal which would justify landraising at the site, resulting in a landform with no significant advantages over the approved restoration scheme and detrimental to the landscape in the short to medium term. The proposal was therefore contrary to Policy W 17 of the Bedfordshire and Luton Minerals and Waste Local Plan. The decision of the Planning Inspector is awaited.