arpley landfill site pavement report v2.0 · pdf fileatkins was appointed in february 2012 to...

Arpley Landfill Site Pavement Report Warrington Borough Council

July 2012

Arpley Landfill Site Pavement Report

Atkins Arpley Landfill Site - Pavement Report | Version 2.0 | July 2012 2

Notice This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for Warrington Borough Council’s information and use in relation to the condition of the pavements adjacent to Arpley Landfill.

Atkins assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents.

This document has 36 pages including the cover.

Document history

Job number: 5110765 Document ref: Pavement Report

Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date

Rev 1.0 For Comment JM JPG SJ GR 10/05/12

Rev 2.0 Final issue JM JPG SJ GR 04/07/12

Client signoff

Client Warrington Borough Council

Project Arpley Landfill Site Highways and Environmental Consultancy Support

Document title Arpley Landfill Site - Pavement Report

Job no. 5110765

Copy no.

Document reference

Pavement Report



Contents Section Page Notice 2

1. Introduction 4

Background 4

Site Location 4

2. Pavement Investigation 5

Scheme referencing system 5

Visual Condition 5

3. Existing Pavement Analysis 9

Construction 9

Trial Hole Plate Bearing Testing 10

Traffic 11

Standard Design 16

4. Assessment of Current Condition 17

5. Treatment Design 18

Constraints 18

Options 19

Recommendation 20

Tables Table 3.1 - Existing Pavement Construction from Cores 9 Table 3.2 - Existing Pavement Construction from Trial Pits 10 Table 3.3 - AADF Without Landfill Operation 11 Table 3.4 - AADF With Landfill Operation 12 Table 3.5 - Past Traffic Since Landfill Opening 12 Table 3.6 - 11 Year Design Traffic (2014 - 2025), Landfill operational 14 Table 3.7 - 11 Year Design Traffic (2014 - 2025), Landfill closure 14 Table 3.8 - 37 Year Design Traffic (1988 - 2025) 15 Table 5.1 – Extent of Recommended Treatment 20

Appendices A.1. Site Location Plan A.2. VCS Photographs A.3. VCS Plans A.4. Core Samples Location Plan A.5. Trial Pit Location Plan A.6. Traffic Figures A.7. Whole Life Cost A.8. Treatment Plan



1. Introduction 1.1. This report has been prepared on behalf of Warrington Borough Council (WBC) following the

receipt of the Arpley Landfill site Planning Application 2011 / 19244. In order to assess the impact of the proposal to extend the operation of the Landfill site to 2025 on the local highway network, the Local Authority have requested the following,

A summary analysis report of the Council’s recent trial hole plate bearing tests. Advice as to whether the current carriageway construction standards are suitable to

accommodate the traffic arising from the existing and proposed development.

1.2. This report presents the findings from the pavement cores, trial holes, plate bearing tests and the subsequent data analysis. Findings from the pavement investigation are presented, followed by treatment options and recommendations for further testing.

Background 1.3. Following receipt of the Planning Application from Waste Recycling Group (WRG) for the

extension of operation of Arpley Landfill, WBC conducted trial hole plate bearing tests and core sample testing on the local highway network. This formed the data handed over to Atkins for detailed analysis and review. Atkins was appointed in February 2012 to carry out this task and to ultimately provide advice as to whether the current carriageway construction standards are suitable to accommodate the HGV traffic arising from the proposed licence extension.

Site Location 1.4. Arpley Landfill is located in the Sankey Bridges area of Warrington. The highway network

considered for this investigation was the local highway network used by traffic to access the site. The network consists of Thewils Street, Old Liverpool Road, Liverpool Road, Barnard Street and Forrest Way.

1.5. A site location plan is included in Appendix A.1.



2. Pavement Investigation 2.1. In March 2012 Atkins undertook a pavement condition survey of this site. This consisted of a

visual condition survey (VCS) only and a review of the data provided by WBC. i.e. Core samples, trial pit logs and plate bearing test results.

Scheme referencing system 2.2. The VCS was split into 4 sections. Sankey Island Roundabout to Barnard Street, Barnard Street to

Penketh Road, Barnard Street to Forest Way and Forest way to the Landfill entrance.

2.3. For the section between Sankey Island Roundabout and Barnard Street Chainage 0m was established at the easternmost end of Thewils Street at Sankey Island Roundabout in line with Lighting Column ref 184. This chainage increased in a westerly direction towards Barnard Street.

2.4. For the section of road between Barnard Street and Penketh Road Chainage 0m was established in line with the pedestrian crossing column on the westbound carriageway on the western edge of the junction with Barnard Street. The chainage increased in a westerly direction toward Penketh Road.

2.5. For the section of road between Barnard Street and Forest Way Chainage 0m was established at the northern end of Barnard Street in line with the pedestrian crossing column on the northbound carriageway. The chainage increased in a southerly direction towards Forest Way.

2.6. For the section of road between Forest Way and the Landfill entrance, chainage 0m was established at the northernmost end of Forest Way in line with lighting column ref 9. The chainage increased in a southerly direction towards the Landfill site entrance.

Visual Condition 2.7. A selection of the photographs taken during the VCS carried out on 14/03/12 & 20/03/12, are

included in Appendix A.2.

2.8. Atkins undertook a VCS in accordance with HD 29/081. The survey was split into 4 sections. The resultant VCS strip-plans are included in Appendix A.3. The main findings of the survey were as follows:

Sankey Island Roundabout to Barnard Street, chainage 0m to 960m. The Hot Rolled Asphalt (HRA) is generally in good condition with discrete lengths displaying concentrated defects.

(a) There a significant number of defects from chainage 0m to 100m. This is most likely due to the turning movements of HGVs on the exit and entrance to Sankey Island roundabout. The following defects were recorded between chainage 0m to 100m: - Rutting on the westbound carriageway between chainage 13m to 40m. Rutting on

the eastbound carriageway between chainage 21m to 45m.

- Broken up surface with a number of patch repairs from chainage 12m to 20m on the westbound carriageway. Broken up surface on the eastbound carriageway from chainage 17m to 26m and 43 to 49m.Pothole at chainage 37m on the eastbound carriageway.Sunken manhole at chainage 53m on the eastbound carriageway.

(b) The bend from Thewils Street round to Old Liverpool road, Chainage 100m to 200m also shows a significant number of defects. There is a pavement joint at chainage 170m

1 HD 29/08 – Data for Pavement assessment



between HRA surfaces, the joint appears however to be in good condition. The following defects were recorded around this bend: - A number of cracks at chainage 137m on the westbound carriageway. Longitudinal

cracking between chainage 137m to 142m and 145m to 150m on the eastbound carriageway. Extensive cracking and patchwork repairs between chainage 153m to 170m on the eastbound carriageway. A number of transverse cracks at chainage 190m on the eastbound carriageway.

- Transverse trench with extensive cracking at chainage 152m on the westbound carriageway.

- Offside wheel track rutting between chainage 187m to 193m on the westbound carriageway. Offside wheel track rutting between chainage 187m to 192m on the eastbound carriageway.

(c) The remainder of the road appears to be in good condition. There are a number of patchwork repairs and transverse trenches, some of which have failed. There are also a number of surface cracks and sunken iron work. There are 4 No. areas of high friction surfacing along this stretch of carriageway, all of which were in good condition. The following defects were recorded from chainage 200m to 960m: - Carriageway has sunk at chainage 205m and 305m on the westbound carriageway.

- Transverse crack from mid way across westbound carriageway to the kerb on the eastbound carriageway at chainage 367m. Transverse crack at chainage 273m and 448m on the westbound carriageway. Wide crack at chainage 817m on the eastbound carriageway.

- Sunken manhole at chainage 418m on the westbound carriageway, 480m & 542m on the eastbound carriageway. Large manhole patch surround has failed at chainage 884m on the eastbound carriageway.

- Sunken gullies at chainages 592m, 690m, 775m, 821m, 861m on the westbound carriageway and 937m on the eastbound carriageway.

- Failed longitudinal patch repair at chainage 715m to 742m on the westbound carriageway.

- Failed trench at chainage 756m across both carriageways. Failed trench at chainage 875m on the eastbound carriageway.Rutting from chainage 934 to 960m in the centre of the carriageway.

Barnard Street to Penketh Road, chainage 0m to 1190m:

(a) The HRA surface appears to be in good condition until chainage 585m where the surface has been overlaid with a 6/10mm surface dressing. Beyond this point there are a significant number of patch repairs, failed trenches, sunken ironwork and areas of rutting and cracking. There are a number of defects prior to this chainage. The defects recorded on this section of road from chainage 0m to 1190m are listed below: - Sunken manholes on the westbound carriageway at chainage 75m, 127m, 209m,

946m and 1145m. Sunken manholes on the eastbound carriageway at chainage, 382m, 495m, 510m, 974m, 1110m and 1117m.

- Sunken gullies on the westbound carriageway at chainage 27m, 180m, 201m, 262m, 298m, 571m and 908m. Sunken gullies on the eastbound carriageway at chainage 221m, 235m, 260m, 468m 472m, 525m, 554m, 586m, 673m and 1125m.



- Failed transverse trenches at chainage 180m, 200m, 340m, 390m, 482m, 578m, 584m, 645m, 653m, 981m and 1077m. Failed trenches on the westbound carriageway at chainages 458m to 511m & 1059m. Failed trenches on the eastbound carriageway at chainage 218m to 228m, 359m to 371m and 395m.

- Extensive rutting at chainage 314m to 328m on the westbound carriageway and 653m to 683m, 700m to 763m, 863m to 882m, 947m to 991m, 1018m to 1030m on the eastbound carriageway.

- Large cracks on the westbound carriageway at chainage 495m and 515m. Large cracks on the eastbound carriageway at chainage 325m to 340m, 600m to 619m and 839m to 859m.

- A number of large potholes and cracks at chainage 1150m to 1159m on the eastbound carriageway.

Barnard Street to Forrest Way chainage 0m to 260m:

(a) The HRA appears to be in good condition until chainage 236m with the junction with Forrest way where there are large cracks, areas of rutting and failed patches. There are two areas of high friction surfacing, the northern most area shows signs of deteriorating. The following major defects recorded over this stretch of carriageway are listed below; - Sunken manholes on the southbound carriageway at chainage 146m, 258m and

703m.

- Sunken gullies on the northbound carriageway at chainage 550m, 138m, 186m, 212m and 235m.

- Rutting on the southbound carriageway at chainage 28m to 51m, 79m to 113m and 248 to 260m. Rutting on the northbound carriageway at chainage 105m to 115m.

- Significant step in levels at chainage 78m and 113m. This is at the joint with the bridge deck. There are a number of transverse cracks along these chainages.

- Sunken patch repair on the southbound carriageway at chainage 240m.

- Large transverse crack at chainage 238m. There are a number of cracks adjacent this on the westbound carriageway.

Forrest Way to Landfill entrance chainage 0m to 721m:

(a) The HRA is showing a number of large areas of rutting, in particular on the southbound carriageway. There are also a number of defects at the junction with Barnard Street. The following defects were recorded on this section of road; - Sunken manhole in the centre of the road at chainage 202m.

- Sunken gullies on the southbound carriageway at chainage 74m, 168m,199m, 239m, 260m, 345m, 355m, 357m, 697m and 718m. Sunken gullies on the northbound carriageway at chainage 20m, 325m, 344m, 355m and 357m.

- Failed transverse trench at chainage 83m and 550m

- Rutting on the southbound carriageway at chainage 12m to 20m, 142m to 240m, 368m to 377m, 420m to 455m, 529m to 542m, 606m to 621m, 705m to 708m and 718m. Rutting on the northbound carriageway at chainage 180m to 197m.



- Sunken patch at chainage 8m on the southbound carriageway. This has resulted in a large level difference with the adjacent carriageway.

- Longitudinal crack on the northbound carriageway at chainage 14m to 19m

2.9. The summary provided in section 2.8 shows that there are numerous sunken manholes/gullies

and failed trench reinstatements. These have resulted in several areas of uneven surface, crack development and pot holes. These surface undulations will lead to noise being generated from the passage of heavy goods vehicles along the surveyed highways. Of particular relevance to the landfill operation will be the noise caused by body roll of empty refuse vehicles.



3. Existing Pavement Analysis Construction

3.1. Cores were taken by WBC on the 9th & 10th October 2008 along Old Liverpool Road and Liverpool Road between the junctions with Barnard Street and Penketh Road, chainage 0m to 1190m. The cores identified the pavement construction along this stretch of road to be fully flexible with a total depth of bituminous material shown in Table 3.1. The location of these cores is shown on the location plan contained in Appendix A.4.

3.2. It is to be noted there was very little information available to support the core logs. It is unknown what quality control measures were put in place to ensure accurate results. In addition to this no photographic records of the cores were available.

Table 3.1 - Existing Pavement Construction from Cores

Direction Approximate

Start Ch Approximate

End Ch No. of Cores

Surface Type Total Asphalt

(mm)

Westbound 0 150 3 HRA 187-225

Westbound 150 270 2 HRA 225-170

Westbound 270 390 2 HRA 170-150

Westbound 390 720 7 HRA with

6/10mm Surface Dressing

150-100

Westbound 720 900 4 HRA 100-95

Westbound 900 1020 2 HRA 95-215

Eastbound 0 40 2 HRA 175-205

Eastbound 40 160 2 HRA 205-168

Eastbound 160 280 2 HRA 168-157

Eastbound 280 390 2 HRA 157-190

Eastbound 390 450 2 HRA 190-128

Eastbound 450 730 6 HRA with


128-130



130-163



163-196



Trial Hole Plate Bearing Testing 3.4. Trail pits were excavated on 23rd & 24th February 2011 and plate bearing tests carried out at their

base. It has been assumed in this report that during the testing works the trial pit was excavated to the underside of sub base material, or top of sub grade. There is a discrepancy between the bituminous material depths shown from the core test results and trial pit data. For the purpose of this report the depth of existing intact road construction material is taken as those measured in the more recent trial hole investigations. A summary of the trial holes and plate bearing testing is presented in Table 3.2 below. A plan showing the location of the trial pits is included in Appendix A.5.

Table 3.2 - Existing Pavement Construction from Trial Pits

Trial Hole Ref

Approximate Chainage

Material Tested

Depth of Asphalt

(mm)

Depth of bound sub base (mm)

Depth of unbound sub base

(mm)

Estimated CBR (%)

TP1 1110 GSB 200 150 250 55

TP2 1160 Asphalt 450 - Unknown >100*

TP3 1030 GSB 260 210 Unknown 6.8

TP4 1020 Ash 310 - Unknown 7.7

TP5 930 Red Shale 230 100 Unknown 14

TP6 930 Made

Ground 300 - 150 8.6

TP7 810 Red Shale 230 100 Unknown 7.1

TP8 780 Red Shale 215 - 305 9.7

TP9 670 Red Shale 200 220 60 5.8

TP10 670 GSB 250 - 260 5.2

TP11 590 Red Shale 180 - 160 8.1

TP12 600 GSB 325 - 170 2.9

TP13 470 Red Shale 180 - 280 24

TP14 500 CBM 130 - 200 36*

TP15 380 Red Shale 335 - 115 No Test

TP16 380 Red Shale 200 - 130 9.9

TP17 260 Made

Ground 170 290 Unknown 7.2

TP18 200 Unknown 150 - 120* 34

TP19 60 Concrete 110 190** Unknown >100*

TP20 60 Unknown 150 -** Unknown 3.8



GSB – granular sub base, CBM – Cement Bound Material

*Test was carried out on a bound layer so result is high **Road construction includes cobbles underlaid by concrete. Trial Pit 20 was partially full of water so layer depths have not been determined

Traffic 3.5. Surveyed traffic flows were obtained from the Axis Transport Assessment written on behalf of

Waste Recycling Group in November 2011. The traffic survey was conducted by Nationwide Data Collection (NDC) on 19th October 2010. A further traffic survey has been undertaken on behalf of WBC to validate the original NDC survey.

3.6. Traffic accesses the landfill site either from Sankey Island roundabout, along Old Liverpool Road before turning into Barnard Street or from Penketh Road, along Liverpool Road before turning into Barnard Street. Due to the different traffic flow on the approaches the site has been split into three sections as shown on the site location plan in Appendix A.1.

3.7. The traffic assessment undertaken by AXIS considered a number of scenarios but the two pertinent to this report are the, 12 hour Baseline + ‘Do Something’ (Figures 25d and 26d) and 12 Hour Baseline Traffic Flows, Including Committed Development Traffic (Figures 21d and 22d). These figures have been included in Appendix A.6. Axis have included flows generated by other committed development. It has been assumed that this committed development will have been completed and the flows realised by 2013. The traffic flows have been included in Tables 3.3 and 3.4.

3.8. The surveyed traffic flows presented by Axis were taken on one day in October 2010. These have been modified to produce the 2 scenarios mentioned in paragraph 3.6. These flows will be converted to AADF flows using the process detailed in the COBA manual.

3.9. The NDC traffic survey only refers to total “OGV” vehicles and does not include any split between “PSV + OGV1” and “OGV2” categories. As no split between the different vehicle classes has been provided the typical commercial vehicle flow compositions given in Table 2 of HD24/06 have been used i.e. 38% is OGV2. This distinction is required to determine the past and future traffic and is required to estimate future design requirements in millions of standard axles (msa), a standard axle being that of a HGV axle i.e. 8 tonnes.

Table 3.3 - AADF Without Landfill Operation

Section

2014 2025

CV2 OGV1 +

PSV OGV2 CV

OGV1 + PSV

OGV2

A - Sankey Island Roundabout to Barnard

Street 528 327 201 576 357 219

B - Barnard Street to Penketh Road

451 280 171 497 308 189

C - Barnard Street to Landfill Site Entrance

383 237 146 400 248 152

2 CV – Commercial Vehicles



Table 3.4 - AADF With Landfill Operation

Section

2014 2025

CV OGV1 +

PSV OGV2 CV

OGV1 + PSV

OGV2

A - Sankey Island Roundabout to Barnard

Street 589 365 224 644 399 245

B – Barnard Street to Penketh Road

630 391 239 631 391 240

C - Barnard Street to Landfill Site Entrance

584 362 222 569 353 216

3.10. Table 3.5 provides an estimation of the traffic that will have been carried by the pavement from landfill opening in 1988 to the potential closure in 2013. These figures have been calculated using the AXIS Transport Assessment figures for 2014 (converted to AADT using the COBA manual) and removing the committed development traffic (as this would have a significant increase on total design traffic) which is not due to impact on traffic until onwards of 2013. It is acknowledged that background traffic flows and development traffic flows will have varied across this period. However, in the absence of historical data, the figures in Table 3.5 provide an estimate of possible traffic flow and msa.

Table 3.5 - Past Traffic Since Landfill Opening

Section

Years Since

Landfill Opening

Current traffic Growth factors Traffic (msa)

OGV1+ PSV

OGV2 OGV1+

PSV OGV2

Weighted Annual

Total Past

A - Sankey Island

Roundabout – Barnard Street

26 325 199 1 1 0.289 7.6

B - Barnard Street –

Penketh Road 26 277 170 1 1 0.247 6.5

C - Barnard Street – Landfill

entrance

26 214 131 1 1 0.19 5.0

Standard wear factors for maintenance were used from Table 2.3 of HD 24/06 – these have not been tabulated here.

3.11. Table 3.6 shows the estimated future design traffic flows based on the Arpley Landfill licence being extended to 2025. Table 3.7 shows the estimated future design traffic up to 2025 based on the closure of Arpley Landfill in 2013.

3.12. For the purpose of this report, it has been assumed the data from the traffic survey conducted in 2010 is unchanged in 2013.



3.13. Growth factors for future traffic on each of the 3 main sections of highway have been calculated for the 2No. scenarios mentioned in section 3.6 using the differences in OGV traffic presented in Figures 21d & 22d and 25d & 26d. The past growth factor for landfill traffic has been taken as 1 as the daily intake of waste has not changed in any significance since 1988.

Arpley Landfill Site

Pavement Report

Arpley Landfill Site Pavement Report v2.0.docx 14

Table 3.6 - 11 Year Design Traffic (2014 - 2025), Landfill operational

Section Vehicle

Category AADF (cv/d)

Growth Factor (2)

Wear Factor (1)

Weighted Annual Traffic

Total Weighted Annual Traffic

% Vehicles in Lane

Design Period (years)

Design Traffic (msa)

A - Sankey Island Roundabout – Barnard Street

OGV1 + PSV 365 1.06 0.6 0.085

0.345 100 11 3.8

OGV2 224 1.06 3 0.260

B - Barnard Street – Penketh Road

OGV1 + PSV

388 1.03 0.6 0.088 0.361 100 11 4.0

OGV2 242 1.03 3 0.273

C - Barnard Street – Landfill entrance

OGV1 + PSV

362 0.97 0.6 0.077 0.313 100 11 3.5

OGV2 222 0.97 3 0.236 (1)

Standard wear factors for maintenance were used from Table 2.3 of HD 24/06 (2)

Growth factors have been calculated using the difference in OGV traffic between 2014 and 2025, from the traffic figures contained in Axis Transport Assessment report.

Table 3.7 - 11 Year Design Traffic (2014 - 2025), Landfill closure

Section Vehicle

Category AADF (cv/d)

Growth Factor (2)

Wear Factor (1)

Weighted Annual Traffic

Total Weighted Annual Traffic

% Vehicles in Lane

Design Period (years)

Design Traffic (msa)

A - Sankey Island Roundabout – Barnard Street

OGV1 + PSV 327 1.09 0.6 0.078

0.318 100 11 3.5 OGV2 201 1.09 3 0.240


OGV1 + PSV

280 1.1 0.6 0.067 0.273 100 11 3.0

OGV2 171 1.1 3 0.206


OGV1 + PSV

237 1.07 0.6 0.056 0.227 100 11 2.5

OGV2 146 1.07 3 0.171 (1)

Standard wear factors for maintenance were used from Table 2.3 of HD 24/06 (2)

Growth factors have been calculated using the difference in OGV traffic between 2014 and 2025, from the traffic figures contained in Axis Transport Assessment report.



3.14. Table 3.8 shows the total design traffic in million standard axles (msa), calculated above, from 1988 to 2025 for both scenarios.

Table 3.8 - 37 Year Design Traffic (1988 - 2025)

Section Scenario Design Traffic

Total Design Traffic

1988 – 2014 (msa)

2014 – 2025 (msa)

1988 – 2025 (msa)

A - Sankey Island – Barnard Street

Landfill remains operational

7.6 3.8 11.4

Landfill closure 7.6 3.5 11.1



6.5 4.0 10.5




5.0 3.5 8.5


3.15. Design traffic is calculated by adding the traffic from the past 26 years to the projected traffic for the next 11 years. Past traffic is used in order to make allowance for traffic induced damage that has taken place since the landfill became operational. Accordingly, the 37 year (1988 to 2025) design traffic, using the worst case (Sankey Island Roundabout to Barnard Street with the landfill remaining in operation until 2025) is 11.4msa.

3.16. If the landfill were to close in 2013, the worst case total design traffic from 1988 to 2025 would be 11.1msa (Sankey Island Roundabout to Barnard Street). This shows no significant difference in total design traffic between the two scenarios, when considering the worst case. Barnard Street to Penketh Road and Barnard Street to the Landfill Entrance both show a difference in design traffic of 1msa between the two scenarios.

3.17. If the landfill was to be granted an extension to its licence the worst case increase in traffic loading is 0.3msa. This will have a minimal impact on the required pavement construction thicknesses.

3.18. The historical weighbridge data back up the minimal impact loading from landfill traffic has had on the highway network. Weighbridge data was only available between 2001 and 2010. Over this period 0.8msa accessed the site. This correlates with the levels of traffic that have been calculated later in this report.

3.19. The data collated by Atkins further supports this finding. Traffic count data collected on Forrest Way only included vehicles that were entering the waste facility. This traffic was extrapolated, in a similar manner to earlier in this section, for the next 11 years of use and equated to 1.3msa.



Standard Design 3.20. An average Calafornian Bearing Ratio (CBR) of 8% has been derived from the values contained in

Table 3.2. The upper bound values have been disregarded to produce this average. Based on the values contained in Interim Advice Note (IAN) 73/06 this would require 270mm of Type 1 to achieve a Class 2 foundation or 230mm of bound sub base to achieve a Class 3 foundation.

3.21. Eight of the trial pits showed that the pavement has a bound foundation. In these locations none were recorded as having a depth of 230mm but all of the Cement Bound Material (CBM) appeared to be in good condition and providing a sound foundation. With a Class 3 foundation a standard fully flexible design for 11msa (using HD26/06) would comprise 250mm of DBM50 asphalt. Only one of the trial pits has a greater depth of asphalt than this.

3.22. The remainder of the pavement has an unbound foundation. Only one of these pits contained pavement with greater than 270mm of type 1 sub base. With a class 2 foundation a standard fully flexible design for 11msa (using HD26/06) would comprise 280mm DBM50 asphalt. Several locations have depths of asphalt greater than this but most of the locations have thinner asphalt construction.



4. Assessment of Current Condition 4.1. Although the pavement does not meet the minimum design criteria of HD26 for all locations the

general assessment of the condition is that the pavement foundation and lower bound layers, consisting of both asphalt and cement, are performing well.

4.2. The deterioration of the pavement would appear to be limited to life expired materials contained in the upper asphalt layers. Particularly the surface course, predominately consisting of HRA, which is experiencing some level of deterioration throughout the roads considered.

4.3. Several trenches which have been reinstated, after New Road Works and Street Works Act works, have failed or have open joints throughout the scheme. These areas of weakness provide a potential path for water to penetrate lower pavement layers and exacerbate their deterioration.

4.4. Invasive pavement investigation has only been conducted on Liverpool Road to the west of Barnard Street. The VCS showed this area of carriageway to be the most deteriorated. Inspection of the remainder of the highway under consideration showed that it is generally in good condition with localised defects as discussed above.

4.5. The rutting and cracking recorded is likely to be confined to upper layers of the pavement. This will be clarified during future resurfacing works after exposure of the binder course. Additionally, failure of the trench reinstatements may be leading to reflective cracking appearing at the surface of the pavement. This will also be clarified after removal of the surface course.

4.6. The continued use of this highway by traffic using both the surrounding highway network and the landfill site will lead to the further deterioration of the pavement surface.

4.7. The traffic analysis in section 3 of this report showed that for the section of highway between Penketh Road and the site entrance the continued operation of the landfill will add approximately 1msa to the pavement between 2014 to 2025. Between 2014 and 2025 the additional traffic from the landfill will equate to a 40% increase in loading on this section of highway.



5. Treatment Design Constraints

5.1. The following factors will influence the selection of an appropriate maintenance treatment for this site.

Finished road level 5.2. The access roads discussed throughout this report are all located within an urban environment.

The road levels are constrained by a number of factors including kerbs, drainage infrastructure, junctions and bridge structures. It would not be possible to alter the levels of the existing carriageway without extensive work being carried out.

5.3. There are 4No. bridge structures within the scheme limits.

Drainage 5.4. Each section of road is drained by kerb and gullies. Although there did not appear to be any sign

of blockage, a number of gullies on each section of road have sunk as shown in the photographs contained in Appendix A.2.

Network Disruption 5.5. All roads under consideration are single 2 carriageway (SU2) through an urban area. The

proposed traffic management to undertake any pavement works would be temporary traffic lights. There are a large number of junctions and direct residential access along Liverpool Road, therefore the layout and phasing of the works would have to be carefully planned. Any diversion route put in place would cause significant disruption to local traffic.

Hazardous materials 5.6. No laboratory testing has been undertaken to confirm the presence (or otherwise) of hazardous

materials such as tar. Representative sampling of the treatment layers would be required before work commences to determine if any TAR bound materials are present within the existing construction as special disposal of this material would be required.

Maintenance History 5.7. The maintenance history for each access road is unknown.

Buried services 5.8. No STATS searches have been undertaken as part of this study. There is however a significant

number of trenches on each surveyed road, in particular from Barnard Street to Penketh Road. As the highways are located in an urban environment it is anticipated that there are a large number of services crossing the roads.



Options 5.9. Based on the survey information, the majority of existing pavement appears to be in reasonable

condition, excluding the far western end of Liverpool Road. This stretch of road has a large number of cracks and previous repair patches. Throughout the remainder of the access roads there are a number of sunken ironworks, the surface appears worn and has little texture depth. There are also localised areas which show significant defects which will require an inlay to rectify the issues.

5.10. The future committed development and the continued operation of the landfill will accelerate the deterioration of the pavement. Therefore, the early treatment of these defects will help reduce the amount of future deterioration and lengthen the life of the pavement.

5.11. Although the foundation and lower layers appear to be functioning and providing adequate support for the pavement the upper layers are showing extensive signs of deterioration.

5.12. The following treatment options have been considered for this site. A whole life cost associated with each option has been included in Appendix A.7.

“Do nothing” 5.13. The age and general wear of the existing HRA would suggest that a “Do nothing” approach is not

appropriate for this site.

“Replace Surface” 5.14. Replacing the road surface throughout would remove the existing potholes, cracks and areas of

rutting. This would provide a level running surface, which will reduce noise from traffic. Resurfacing will prevent the ingress of water, which may stabilise the pavement condition and prolong its life albeit, perhaps only for a short time. This would involve planning off and relaying approximately 40mm of surface course along the full length of the roads under consideration. All sunken ironworks along each of the access roads would be reset to the correct level.

“Inlay Treatment” 5.15. A surface inlay treatment is considered appropriate for the areas showing significant defects and

will provide a pavement structure capable of carrying the predicted future traffic. It will also restore the surface characteristics to an acceptable level for the type of road.

5.16. This would involve removing the upper 100mm of road construction in areas of carriageway which are displaying multiple defects including surface rutting and cracking. The deeper inlay would comprise 60mm of binder course and 40mm surface course. All sunken ironworks in the area would be reset to the correct level.

“Inlay Treatment with Reinforcement Grid” 5.17. This treatment area would include the same extents of 100mm inlay as the option described in the

previous section. In addition to the inlay an asphalt reinforcement grid would be placed targeted at the areas showing significant defects. This would delay reflective cracking from old trenches and defects in the layers below appearing at the surface. It will also strengthen the pavement and increase the time it will take the road to rut, providing the pavement with a longer life.

5.18. This would involve placing an asphalt reinforcing grid at the base of the proposed binder course to prevent damage during future resurfacing works. All sunken ironworks in the area would be reset to the correct level.



Recommendation 5.19. Based on the information discussed above, it is recommended that an inlay treatment is provided

in those areas showing significant defects whilst the remainder of the carriageway is resurfaced. As the continued operation of the landfill will significantly increase the loading of the pavements considered in this report, it is recommended that the remedial works are completed prior to the extension of the landfill operation.

5.20. The whole life cost calculations show that this option is the most cost effective as the additional costs of a reinforcing grid are avoided but the failing areas of surface will be sufficiently treated to reduce future surfacing works. However, it should be noted that there is little cost difference between the three options as shown in the summary sheet in Appendix A7.

5.21. Based on the visual condition of the road and the construction depths from the trial hole data (Table 3.2) there appear to be no major underlying issues. It is recommended that deflection testing is undertaken along with a new batch of core samples to support the conclusion in this report. These core samples should be taken at regular intervals along the other roads under consideration to confirm their construction.

5.22. The areas of recommended treatment are shown on the strip plan in Appendix A8. The extent of works is summarised in Table 5.1. The 100mm inlay with reinforcing grid is recommended for Liverpool Road to the east and west of Barnard Street and short sections on Barnard Street itself.

Table 5.1 – Extent of Recommended Treatment

Recommended Works Distance (metres)

Resurfacing 1430m

100mm Inlay 320m

100mm Inlay with reinforcing grid 690m

Appendices



A.1. Site Location Plan

Arpley Landfill Local Access Roads

Liverpoolemail

New Stamp



A.2. VCS Photographs

1. Worn surface with rutting at the exit of Sankey Island Roundabout

2. Broken up surface at the entrance to Sankey island Roundabout



3. Example of a sunken gully on Liverpool Road

4. Example of sunken manholes on Liverpool Road



5. Cracking and patch repairs at the easternmost bend on Thewils Street

6. Example of sunken carriageway on Liverpool Road



7. Typical surface condition throughout

8. Typical surface condition towards western end of Liverpool Road



9. Potholes and cracking at the Junction of Liverpool Road and Penketh Road

10. Potholes and cracking at the Junction of Liverpool Road and Penketh Road



11. Sunken carriageway at Railway Bridge joint (southern end) on Barnard Street

12. Sunken carriageway at Railway Bridge joint (northern end) on Barnard Street



13. Failed trench on Liverpool Road

14. Sunken trench on Liverpool Road



A.3. VCS Plans



A.4. Core Samples Location Plan

Scales

e-mail

Drawing No.

Date:Revision DetailsRevn. Chk byRev by

Phase / Revision

AutoCAD File Ref:

Project

Drawing Title

Drawn by

Approved by Telephone

Fax Sheet ofDate 01925 44

NOTES

01925 44

Liverpool Road.dwg

Environment and Regeneration DirectorateTransportation Service, Palmyra House, Palmyra Square North, Warrington WA1 1JN

Liverpool Road, Sankey Bridges

Road CoresLocation Plan

H08-000/00/01NTSNTS

1 1

SCD

Aug2008

[email protected]

2533

3255Based on Ordnance Survey mapping with thepermission of The Controller of Her Majesty'sStationery Office Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyrightand may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.Warrington Borough Council Licence no. 100022848.Published 2008.

NB Positions for cores will be identified priorto commencement on site (approx. 30no.Cores)

Approximate position of core

C15B

C15AC14B

C14A C13B

C13A C12B

C12A C11B

C11A C10B

C10A C9B

C9AC8B

C8AC7B

C7A

C6B

C6A

C5B

C5A C4B

C4AC3B

C3A

C2B

C2A

C1BC1A

Liverpoolemail

New Stamp



A.5. Trial Pit Location Plan

CU

T LI

NE

CU

T LI

NE

Scales

e-mail

Drawing No.

Date:Revision DetailsRevn. Chk byRev by

Phase / Revision

AutoCAD File Ref:

Project

Drawing Title

Drawn by

Approved by Telephone

Fax Sheet ofDate 01925 44

NOTES

01925 44

Trial Pits.dwg

Transportation, Engineering and Climate Change

New Town House, Buttermarket Street, Warrington WA1 2NH

Environment and Regeneration Directorate

gtBorough Council

Liverpool Road, Sankey BridgesTrial Pits

Locations and Results

H10-M01/002 D/A1:1000

1 1

Clive Arnold

25.01.11

[email protected]

2698

3255

Based on Ordnance Survey mapping with thepermission of The Controller of Her Majesty'sStationery Office Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyrightand may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.Warrington Borough Council Licence no. 100022848.Published 2011.

TP1

TP3

TP4

TP2

TP5TP6

TP7

TP8

TP9

TP10

TP11TP12

TP14TP13

TP16TP15

TP17

TP18 TP20

TP19

6.8

>100

7.1

>100

34

7.7

24

55

3.8

7.2

9.9

5.8

8.6

8.1

36

5.2

9.7

no test

14

13

14

12

1

2

15

16

3

4

17

18

6

19

7

11

8

10

9

52.9

Bitumen bound layers 200mm





3






Bitumen bound layers 150mmBitumen bound layers 150mm









SettsSetts

Setts

Concrete

Trial pit locations shown:

% CBR result shown:

See trial pit descriptions also.

TP1

14 7 Test ref no.

Liverpoolemail

New Stamp



A.6. Traffic Figures

2010-2014 Growth Factor: 1.006

(Average Weekday)

6753

7801 3635 1047 1430 641 TOTAL (PCUs)

91 90 162 33 OGVS 8043

3445 868 1104 574 Car/LGV

18 1 4 1 M/C

8457 5981 199 5566 32

2417 144 2125 9

58 1 56 0 18153 4488 121 4231 31 2 291 7 306

5927 180 5554 24 30 5130 162 5469

8051 7713 333 7024 46 12 1629 128 1891

13443 21 3 16 0 1 246 14 274 7940

4 1 2 0

M/C 9 48 0 0 46 0 46 11180

Car/LGV 1808 6903 135 24 5515 186 5900 17508

OGVS 140 244 1 42 6263 250 6784 12730

TOTAL (PCUs) 2094 7415 137 M/C 0 6 5 6

9646 9338 Car/LGV 286 1360 1144 1090 0 46 61 169

OGVS 16 105 92 250 0 95 25 145

TOTAL (PCUs) 317 1572 1331 1594 5 1082 175 1435

4814 50 7222 418 8082

9 1175 255 1688 11519

4648

9273

832 384 6 369 5

232 7 218 0 273 4177

56 0 56 0 231 167 22 84 TOTAL (PCUs)

159 3 153 0 9148 0 0 1 OGVS

172 7308 417 1251 TOTAL (PCUs) 167 22 80 Car/LGV

1332 8 277 8 108 OGVS 0 0 5 M/C

155 6734 401 1033 Car/LGV 4023 149 3 143 0

2 41 0 3 M/C 2539 261 2010 15

1335 138 1059 0

10031 219 5 209 0 3278 4 67 0 69

7753 272 7184 51 13 1927 266 2465

1758 220 1313 10 3 1089 194 1479 4014

300 3 293 3 0 523 100 723 4004

4 616 72 763 M/C 0 0 1

11 1232 164 1565 Car/LGV 1075 13 1192

9359 0 29 0 29 3080 OGVS 148 0 181

M/C 2 1 1 0 TOTAL (PCUs) 1372 13 1554 2837

Car/LGV 318 177 406 36 2939

OGVS 4 0 4 0

TOTAL (PCUs) 327 178 414 36

955 803

TOTAL (PCUS)

TOTAL (PCUS)

TOTAL (PCUS)

TOTAL (PCUS)

M/C

Car/LGV

OGVS

OGVS

M/C

Car/LGV

TOTAL (PCUS)

OGVS

Car/LGV

TOTAL (PCUS)

TOTAL (PCUS)

M/C

M/C

M/C

M/C

OGVS

Car/LGV

OGVS

Car/LGV

Car/LGV

TOTAL (PCUS)

TOTAL (PCUS)

OGVS

TOTAL (PCUS)

M/C

Car/LGV

M/C

OGVS

OGVS

Car/LGV

M/C

M/C

Car/LGV

OGVS

OGVS

Car/LGV

978-01 Arpley Landfill

FIGURE 21d

2014 12 Hour Baseline Traffic Flows, Including Committed Development Traffic (07:00-19:00)

Princess Street

Sankey Way

Thornton Road

Penketh Road

Barnard Street

Lovely Lane

Froghall Lane

Liverpool Road North

2010-2025 Growth Factor: 1.122

(Average Weekday)

7527

8694 4052 1167 1594 714 TOTAL (PCUs)

101 100 181 37 OGVS 8917

3840 967 1231 639 Car/LGV

20 1 4 1 M/C

9389 6666 222 6204 36

2658 155 2342 10

65 1 63 0 20233 5002 135 4716 35 2 324 8 341

6606 201 6191 27 34 5717 181 6095

8938 8597 371 7828 52 13 1781 136 2060

14983 24 3 18 0 1 274 16 306 8802

4 1 2 0

M/C 10 54 0 0 52 0 52 12444

Car/LGV 1989 7694 150 27 6147 208 6575 19513

OGVS 152 272 1 47 6980 279 7562 14189

TOTAL (PCUs) 2297 8265 153 M/C 0 7 6 7

10715 10372 Car/LGV 319 1515 1240 1203 0 52 68 188

OGVS 17 117 96 277 0 105 28 162

TOTAL (PCUs) 354 1752 1436 1759 6 1206 195 1599

5301 56 8049 466 9008

10 1297 281 1865 12822

5116

10300

927 428 7 412 6

259 8 243 0 305 4591

63 0 63 0 258 186 25 94 TOTAL (PCUs)

177 3 170 0 10160 0 0 1 OGVS


1485 9 308 9 116 OGVS 0 0 6 M/C

173 7505 446 1125 Car/LGV 4432 166 3 159 0

2 46 0 3 M/C 2829 291 2240 17

1436 147 1143 0

11174 245 6 233 0 3611 4 75 0 77

8641 303 8007 57 15 2148 296 2748

1954 245 1458 11 3 1168 208 1584 4409

335 3 326 3 0 557 106 769 4411

4 686 81 850 M/C 0 0 1

12 1368 182 1738 Car/LGV 1161 15 1282

10425 0 33 0 33 3390 OGVS 158 0 193

M/C 2 1 1 0 TOTAL (PCUs) 1477 15 1668 3045

Car/LGV 354 197 452 40 3160

OGVS 4 0 4 0

TOTAL (PCUs) 365 198 462 40

1064 895

OGVS

OGVS

Car/LGV

M/C

M/C

Car/LGV

OGVS

OGVS

Car/LGV

TOTAL (PCUS)

TOTAL (PCUS)

OGVS

TOTAL (PCUS)

M/C

Car/LGV

M/C

TOTAL (PCUS)

M/C

M/C

M/C

M/C

OGVS

Car/LGV

OGVS

Car/LGV

Car/LGV

TOTAL (PCUS)

OGVS

Car/LGV

TOTAL (PCUS)

TOTAL (PCUS)

TOTAL (PCUS)

TOTAL (PCUS)

TOTAL (PCUS)

M/C

Car/LGV

OGVS

OGVS

M/C

Car/LGV


FIGURE 22d

2025 12 Hour Baseline Traffic Flows, Including Committed Development Traffic (07:00-19:00)

Princess Street

Sankey Way

Thornton Road

Penketh Road

Barnard Street

Lovely Lane

Froghall Lane


6753

7801 3635 1047 1430 641 TOTAL (PCUs)

91 90 162 33 OGVS 8117

3445 868 1104 574 Car/LGV

18 1 4 1 M/C

8636 5981 199 5566 32

2596 232 2128 9

58 1 56 0 18159 4488 121 4231 31 2 291 7 306

5927 180 5554 24 30 5130 162 5469

8196 7713 333 7024 46 12 1630 165 1965

13448 27 5 16 0 1 246 14 274 8014

4 1 2 0

M/C 9 48 0 0 46 0 46 11203

Car/LGV 1811 6903 135 24 5515 186 5900 17513

OGVS 211 247 1 42 6263 253 6790 12736

TOTAL (PCUs) 2238 7421 137 M/C 0 6 5 6

9796 9523 Car/LGV 286 1360 1145 1090 0 46 61 169

OGVS 18 105 129 262 0 95 25 145

TOTAL (PCUs) 323 1572 1405 1617 5 1082 175 1435

4916 50 7222 418 8082

9 1175 266 1711 11542

4750

9423

832 384 6 369 5

232 7 218 0 273 4279

56 0 56 0 231 167 22 84 TOTAL (PCUs)

159 3 153 0 9332 0 0 1 OGVS


1332 8 277 8 199 OGVS 0 0 5 M/C

155 6734 401 1036 Car/LGV 4311 149 3 143 0

2 41 0 3 M/C 2539 261 2010 15

1623 280 1064 0

10135 219 5 209 0 3566 4 67 0 69

7753 272 7184 51 13 1927 266 2465

1862 271 1314 10 3 1091 245 1582 4116

300 3 293 3 0 526 173 872 4292

4 616 72 763 M/C 0 0 1

11 1234 232 1703 Car/LGV 1080 13 1194

9497 0 29 0 29 3368 OGVS 290 0 231

M/C 2 1 1 0 TOTAL (PCUs) 1660 13 1656 3227

Car/LGV 318 177 406 36 3329

OGVS 4 0 4 0

TOTAL (PCUs) 327 178 414 36

955 803

OGVS

OGVS

Car/LGV

M/C

M/C

Car/LGV

OGVS

OGVS

Car/LGV

TOTAL (PCUS)

TOTAL (PCUS)

OGVS

TOTAL (PCUS)

M/C

Car/LGV

M/C

TOTAL (PCUS)

M/C

M/C

M/C

M/C

OGVS

Car/LGV

OGVS

Car/LGV

Car/LGV

TOTAL (PCUS)

OGVS

Car/LGV

TOTAL (PCUS)

TOTAL (PCUS)

TOTAL (PCUS)

TOTAL (PCUS)

TOTAL (PCUS)

M/C

Car/LGV

OGVS

OGVS

M/C

Car/LGV


FIGURE 25d

2014 12 Hour Baseline + 'Do Something' Traffic Flows (07:00-19:00)

Princess Street

Sankey Way

Thornton Road

Penketh Road

Barnard Street

Lovely Lane

Froghall Lane


7527

8694 4052 1167 1594 714 TOTAL (PCUs)

101 100 181 37 OGVS 8970

3840 967 1231 639 Car/LGV

20 1 4 1 M/C

9536 6666 222 6204 36

2804 227 2344 10

65 1 63 0 20237 5002 135 4716 35 2 324 8 341

6606 201 6191 27 34 5717 181 6095

9054 8597 371 7828 52 13 1782 162 2113

14987 28 5 18 0 1 274 16 306 8855

4 1 2 0

M/C 10 54 0 0 52 0 52 12460

Car/LGV 1991 7694 150 27 6147 208 6575 19517

OGVS 208 274 1 47 6980 281 7565 14192

TOTAL (PCUs) 2413 8269 153 M/C 0 7 6 7

10834 10522 Car/LGV 319 1515 1241 1203 0 52 68 188

OGVS 19 117 122 284 0 105 28 162

TOTAL (PCUs) 357 1752 1488 1775 6 1206 195 1599

5373 56 8049 466 9008

10 1297 289 1880 12838

5188

10419

927 428 7 412 6

259 8 243 0 305 4663

63 0 63 0 258 186 25 94 TOTAL (PCUs)

177 3 170 0 10310 0 0 1 OGVS


1485 9 308 9 190 OGVS 0 0 6 M/C

173 7505 446 1127 Car/LGV 4671 166 3 159 0

2 46 0 3 M/C 2829 291 2240 17

1675 264 1147 0

11263 245 6 233 0 3850 4 75 0 77

8641 303 8007 57 15 2148 296 2748

2043 289 1460 11 3 1169 243 1656 4481

335 3 326 3 0 559 165 889 4650

4 686 81 850 M/C 0 0 1

12 1370 241 1858 Car/LGV 1165 15 1283

10545 0 33 0 33 3629 OGVS 276 0 228

M/C 2 1 1 0 TOTAL (PCUs) 1716 15 1740 3356

Car/LGV 354 197 452 40 3471

OGVS 4 0 4 0

TOTAL (PCUs) 365 198 462 40

1064 895

TOTAL (PCUS)

TOTAL (PCUS)

TOTAL (PCUS)

TOTAL (PCUS)

M/C

Car/LGV

OGVS

OGVS

M/C

Car/LGV

TOTAL (PCUS)

OGVS

Car/LGV

TOTAL (PCUS)

TOTAL (PCUS)

M/C

M/C

M/C

M/C

OGVS

Car/LGV

OGVS

Car/LGV

Car/LGV

TOTAL (PCUS)

TOTAL (PCUS)

OGVS

TOTAL (PCUS)

M/C

Car/LGV

M/C

OGVS

OGVS

Car/LGV

M/C

M/C

Car/LGV

OGVS

OGVS

Car/LGV


FIGURE 26d

2025 12 Hour Baseline + 'Do Something' Traffic Flows (07:00-19:00)

Princess Street

Sankey Way

Thornton Road

Penketh Road

Barnard Street

Lovely Lane

Froghall Lane




A.7. Whole Life Cost

Warrington Borough Council

Arpley Landfill Pavement Options Report


A.8. Treatment Plan

© Atkins Ltd except where stated otherwise. The Atkins logo, ‘Carbon Critical Design’ and the strapline ‘Plan Design Enable’ are trademarks of Atkins Ltd.

John Grayston Atkins Chadwick House Birchwood WA3 6AE

[email protected] 01925 238328

Planning Support – Arpley Landfill Application 2011/19244

Final Report

31st May 2012


Arpley Landfill

2

Date Details Prepared by Reviewed and approved by

11/05/12 Draft Report Alethea Evans, Senior Planner

John Martin, Principal Planner

25/05/12 Final Report Alethea Evans, Senior Planner

John Martin, Principal Planner

CONTENTS

Executive Summary 5

1. Introduction 7

2. Site Description and Surroundings 7

3. Relevant Site History 8

4. Details of Proposal 9

5. Appraisal of wider landfill capacity and the need for the proposed

extension of time at Arpley 10

Assessment of current landfill capacity in Warrington and future landfill

requirements for managing Warrington’s waste 10

Appraisal of wider need for the development 16

Merseyside and Halton Joint Waste Plan 17

Greater Manchester Waste Plan 19

Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Chester 19

Assessment of Need Summary 20

6. Assessment of re-profiling proposals, landfill design, phasing and

restoration 20

Re-profiling 21

Landfill Design 22

Phasing and Restoration 22

7. Appraisal of the proposal against national, regional and local waste

planning policy 23

National Planning Policy 24

Regional Planning Policy 26

Local Policies 29

Policy Assessment Summary 33

4

Glossary of Abbreviations

AOD Above Ordinance Datum

CHP Combined Heat and Power

EfW Energy from Waste

ES Environment Statement

LACW Local Authority Collected Waste

MBT Mechanical Biological Treatment

MWMS Municipal Waste Management Strategy

NPPF National Planning Policy Statement

PPS10 Planning Policy Statement 10

RSS Regional Spatial Strategy

RWS Regional Waste Strategy

UDP Unitary Development Plan

WBC Warrington Borough Council

WNA Warrington Needs Assessment

WPA Waste Planning Authority

WSE2007 Waste Strategy for England 2007

5

Arpley Landfill Final Report

Executive Summary Warrington is currently largely self-sufficient with regards to landfill. The Warrington

Needs Assessment identifies that in order to maintain self sufficiency if Arpley

landfill, the subject of this report, closes in 2013, an alternative landfill site would

need to be found within Warrington. However, Regional Spatial Strategy Policy

EM13 supports the continued use of existing landfill facilities in preference to new

sites. If no alternative sites become available within Warrington then the waste

would have to be exported out of the district. This would place additional pressure

upon Gowy landfill (Cheshire West and Chester) and other landfills further afield to

manage the residual element of Warrington’s waste.

Warrington is not the only district that relies on Arpley for residual waste disposal as

only 7% of the waste imported to Arpley in 2010 originated from within Warrington.

The Merseyside districts and Halton envisage continued reliance upon

neighbouring authorities to accommodate between 80 and 300,000 tonnes per

annum of their residual LACW and commercial and industrial waste steams up until

2027 (their Plan period).

If this application is permitted there would be a capacity surplus in excess of

200,000 tonnes per annum at Arpley for managing Warrington’s waste. This would

result in Warrington remaining as a net importer of waste from across the region in

order for the site to reach final restoration levels. As Arpley is used for the disposal

of waste arising from both within Warrington and neighbouring authorities, the

Arpley site should be considered a regionally significant facility.

Moving any future landfill operations away from sensitive locations are to be

welcomed and this is enshrined within Option 3 which extend the life of the landfill

by re-profiling within the Walton and Boundary Phases and reducing the plan extent

of landfill in the Arpley phase. However a 4th option has not been considered in the

ES which would be to further develop Option 3, using the same area, but reducing

the levels and thereby the quantity of material imported to the site,

would reduce the visual impact and shorten the duration of the landfilling

operations.

Due to the size and complexity of the restored area it is considered that a 10 year

aftercare period or longer would be considered suitable for the Arpley site.

Consideration may also be given to extending the management of the Moore

Nature Reserve to ensure consistency with any extended aftercare scheme.

In assessing the application against the Development Plan and other material

considerations it is clear that the proposals, in the main, fit well with national and

regional policy. There is a clear need for the provision of residual waste disposal

capacity and the Arpley landfill is considered to be a regionally significant residual

waste disposal facility. However there remain issues, specifically relating to the

6

impacts of the proposals as set out within local policy, which require further

assessment by Warrington Council.

1. Introduction

1.1 Warrington Borough Council has recently received a planning application that

seeks approval for the extension of operational life of Arpley Landfill facility and

ancillary developments to 2025 including re-profiling, revised sequence of landfill

phasing and restoration.

1.2 The Council has appointed Urban Vision’s specialist Minerals and Waste Planning

Unit to assist them in determining the impacts of the application by carrying out an

independent review of the submitted Planning Statement and associated

documentation within the planning application. This has involved:

• An appraisal of wider landfill capacity and associated need for the landfill

capacity which would be provided by the extension;

• Assessment of re-profiling proposals, landfill design, phasing and

restoration; and

• An appraisal of the proposal against current national, regional and local

planning policy guidance.

1.3 This report provides an overview of the site, its surroundings and the proposed

development as well as the findings of the above tasks ending with a summary to

help inform the Council’s Officer Report.

2. Site Description and Surroundings

2.1 The existing Arpley Landfill Site (the site) covers an area of approximately 160ha

and is situated approximately 2km south west of Warrington town centre. The

northern boundary is formed by the River Mersey, a bund / embankment stands

between the river and the site, the height of the embankment varies but is typically

between 10.5m and 12.5m AOD. The River Mersey is tidal in the stretch adjacent

to the site and forms part of the Mersey Estuary.

2.2 The southern boundary of the site is formed by Moore Nature Reserve created as

part of the original planning permission for the landfill through a Section 52

Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. The Agreement

specifies the setting-up, ongoing management and funding of the nature reserve.

2.3 The Manchester Ship Canal is located approximately 100m to the south of Moore

Nature Reserve. A section of the former Runcorn and Latchford Canal, now

disused, is located along the south eastern boundary of the site. To the east and

the west of the site are agricultural fields. The West Coast Mainline railway (Crewe

to Warrington) and the Warrington to Chester railway line run to the south east of

the site.

8

2.4 The undeveloped areas in the eastern half of the site have been historically used

for depositing dredged material from the Manchester Ship Canal and the River

Mersey area.

2.5 A residential housing estate (Saxon Park) has recently been developed

approximately 400m to the north of the site and is accessed from Forrest Way, this

is the closest residential area to the site. Moss Side Farm, a residential property, is

located approximately 400m to the south west of the site. The residential area of

Sankey Bridges is located to the north of the site, adjacent to Liverpool Road.

2.6 The landfill site itself is partially restored and includes areas of mixed woodland,

scrub and grassland. The restored areas of the site cover an area of approximately

100 hectares. Waste disposal operations are currently being undertaken in the

central areas of the site, within the Boundary Phase of the landfill. Construction of

Boundary Phase Landfill Cell 3 has been completed and waste disposal

operations will be undertaken over the next two years.

2.7 Under the existing permission, the site is divided into five phases as shown in the

applicants submitted Figure 1.2;

• Birchwood – to the south east (restored)

• Lapwing – to the west (mostly restored)

• Walton – to the north west (partially restored)

• Boundary – currently being filled; and

• Arpley – far east, not yet affected.

2.8 The site includes several elements of built infrastructure including the following:

• site office and car park;

• weighbridge and office;

• landfill gas utilisation plant;

• leachate treatment facility;

• site compound and Warrington transfer pad; and

• surface water attenuation pond.

3. Relevant Site History

3.1 As is the case with most landfill sites, there are a number of planning permissions

associated with the Arpley site. The original permission (reference 1/17988) was

granted on the 30th May 1986 for a “Proposed waste disposal site on land

between the River Mersey and the Manchester Ship Canal, Walton / Arpley,

Warrington”. The planning permission time limited waste disposal operations to

continue for 25 years from the date to which they were commenced. Waste

disposal operations commenced on the 13th October 1988 and without a

9


subsequent grant of planning permission all waste disposal operations would be

required to cease on the 13th October 2013. The list below provides a summary of

the planning permissions considered relevant to the current planning application;

• 30th May 1986 (1/17988) Waste Disposal to cease 25 years from

commencement

• 19th July 1995 (1/33081) Variation of condition 7 – sequence of operations

• 31st March 1998 (1/34522) Variation to restoration, landform and sequence

of operations (inc. S106 Agreement 31 March 1998)

• 11th January 1999 (1/34522) Variation (by letter) to phasing of cells 3a, b

and c of Walton phase

• 27th March 2001 (1/34522) Variation (by letter) to Condition 8 to revise haul

road and amend phasing sequence

• 11th March 2003 (1/34522) Amended phasing sequence for Walton phase

to allow Cell 4 to be completed before Cell 3

• 5th July 2004 (1/34522) Variation of Condition 8 – amendment to approved

phasing scheme, varying boundary Cell 3c and reverting back to completing

Cell 3c before Cell 4.

3.2 There are also permissions relating to an access road to enable the importation of

waste by rail and permissions concerning amendments to working hours which

have not been included in the above list.

4. Details of Proposal

4.1 According to the applicant’s Supporting Statement (paragraph 1.3.1), the main

details of the proposal are:

• an extension to the operational life of the landfill by approximately 12 years, this

would involve the creation of void space with a capacity to receive approximately

6,500,000m3 of residual waste. This would result in no “net increase” in waste

input from that already consented;

• re-profiling the site to increase the height of areas of the landfill but enable the

footprint of the landfilled areas to be reduced when compared to the currently

consented scheme (moving the boundary of the currently consented landfill

areas away from the closest residential properties);

• a revised sequence of landfill phasing (the order the site is filled in);

10

• a restoration scheme for the completed landfill enabling the continued

reclamation of the former dredging deposit grounds;

• retention and continued operation of the existing leachate treatment facility,

landfill gas utilisation facility and the Warrington Waste Transfer Pad;

• continued use of associated ancillary infrastructure including access roads, a

site compound, fencing, weighbridges, wheel washes, surface water

management, site offices;

• a commitment to continue the provision and management of the Moore Nature

Reserve until 2030; and

• provision of a vehicle cap to ensure a reduction in traffic movements over the

operational lifetime of the landfill.

4.2 The scope of the applicant’s submitted supporting documents was assessed by

Urban Vision and was deemed sufficient for the purposes of producing this report.

5. Appraisal of wider landfill capacity and the need for the proposed extension of time at Arpley

5.1 This section of the report provides an assessment of the current and future need

for the proposed extension of time of Arpley landfill to manage Warrington’s and

other North West authorities’ waste.

Assessment of current landfill capacity in Warrington and future landfill

requirements for managing Warrington’s waste

5.2 Information provided by the Environment Agency shows that at the end of 2010

the remaining capacity of non-inert landfill sites within Warrington was 8,565,677

m3 at Arpley and 264,744 m3 at Risley. It should be noted that Risley now has no

capacity and is under restoration.

5.3 Planning application: 2006/08766 was refused by Warrington Borough Council on

4th April 2007 for a 13.5ha extension to import an additional 900,000m3 of

additional residual waste disposal capacity over a period of 2 years at the Risley

landfill site. This decision was subsequently appealed (reference:

APP/M0655/A/07/2052946) but was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate on

26th August 2008. The Inspector’s Report states “If it is assumed that disposal at

Arpley is allowed to continue beyond 2013, the Council and the appellant agree

that the Warrington sub-region would have sufficient capacity when viewed in

isolation for more than ten years of the annual rates set out in the DRSS [Draft

Regional Spatial Strategy]”. The Inspector concluded that “other considerations

11


[such as need] would not clearly outweigh the harm that inappropriate

development would cause together with the harm that the proposal would cause in

relation to the visual amenity of the Green Belt and the prudent use of natural

resources.” The appeal dismissal was therefore partially based on the assumption

that an extension of time at Arpley, beyond 2013, would be granted planning

permission.

5.4 In 2010 non-inert wastes produced within Warrington were sent to a number of

landfill sites both within Warrington and beyond. The table below identifies all

landfill sites which received waste arising from within the borough of Warrington

during 2010.

Table 1: List of landfill sites (within and outside Warrington) which received Warrington’s waste

during 2010 sourced from the Environment Agency Interrogator 2010

Facility District Site Name Operator Tonnes Received

Warrington

Arpley Landfill

EA/EPR/BS7668IH/V005 3C Waste Limited 62282.329

Warrington

Risley landfill site

EA/EPR/BV7877IR/V003

Biffa Waste

Services Ltd 509.5

St. Helens

Lyme and Wood, Haydock

landfill site

Cory

Environmental

(Central) Ltd 30224.43

Salford/Wigan Whitehead Landfill Site

Viridor Waste

Management Ltd 708.12

Cheshire West

and Chester Gowy landfill site 3C Waste Limited 114.76

Total 93,839

5.5 Approximately 33% of Warrington’s waste which was landfilled during 2010 was

deposited at landfill sites outside the district boundary (i.e. the top two rows of the

table as a percentage of the 93,839 total). Risley landfill (Warrington) is now under

restoration and Whitehead landfill (Salford) and Haydock landfill (Cory

Environmental – St.Helens) are expected to close during 2013 in accordance with

their planning permissions (although Whitehead is allocated in the Greater

Manchester Waste Plan for a physical extension which is discussed later in the

report).

5.6 If Arpley closes in 2013 in accordance with the existing planning permission and

no other time extensions are granted at other sites, pressure will be placed upon

Gowy landfill (Cheshire West and Chester) and other landfills further afield to

manage the residual element of Warrington’s waste.

12

5.7 Paragraph 2.3.13 within Section 2 of the applicant’s Supporting Statement entitled

‘Need’ identifies a number of landfill sites outside of Warrington which have not

been considered within the applicant’s needs assessment for various reasons. The

applicant’s needs assessment is restricted to Arpley, Lyme and Wood (Haydock,

St.Helens) Risley and Whitehead. The most notable omission from the applicant’s

needs assessment is Gowy Landfill in Cheshire West and Chester which already

accepts some of Warrington’s waste (albeit a relatively small quantity – 114.76

tonnes in 2010).

5.8 The remaining capacity (at the end of 2010) of the sites outside Warrington which

accepted Warrington’s waste during 2010 was 1,199,000m3 at Lyme and Wood,

Haydock (St.Helens) and 2,307,034m3 at Gowy Landfill in Cheshire (now Cheshire

West and Chester). The applicant’s needs assessment should have a wider scope

to include landfill sites further afield. The remaining capacity (m3) of other sites

across the surrounding districts of Cheshire East, Cheshire West and Chester,

Merseyside, Halton and Greater Manchester at the end of 2010 is set out in the

table below:

Table 2: Remaining capacity (m3) at other sites surrounding Warrington

Site Name Remaining capacity (end 2010)

m3

Clifton Hall (Salford) 600,000

Danes Moss (Cheshire East) 146,536

Hilltop Brinefields (Cheshire East) 488,857

Holford Brinefields (Cheshire West

and Chester) 1,877,107

Kinderton Landfill (Cheshire West

and Chester)

2,100,000

Pilsworth South (Bury) 7,178,182

Whitehead Landfill (Salford) 1,990,339

Maw Green (Cheshire West and

Chester) 1,071,547

Total 18,958,606

5.9 If Arpley closes in 2013 then the above sites could potentially manage

Warrington’s residual municipal waste (now known as Local Authority Collected

13


Waste/LACW) and commercial and industrial waste. The total void space at the

end of 2010 for all non-inert landfill sites within the surrounding districts was

18,958,606 m3.

Warrington Borough Council’s Waste Needs Assessment

5.10 Warrington Borough Council (WBC) commissioned UrbanMines to produce a

Waste Needs Assessment (WNA) which was then published in August 2009. The

WNA provides a comprehensive analysis of current and future waste arisings and

uses information on current and planned capacity to identify waste capacity gaps

and the number/type of facilities required to meet the gaps.

5.11 We acknowledge that the WNA utilises data which is predominantly sourced from

the 2007 Environment Agency Interrogator. Whilst the data used in the

assessment is now somewhat dated the trends and capacity gaps remain pertinent

now and in the future. This is because the assessment incorporates various

scenarios of economic and waste growth to allow for flexibility.

5.12 The timescales and remaining capacities of existing landfill sites within the

Borough were taken into account, including running 2 different scenarios to reflect

the operation of Arpley landfill site. One model assumed that that the Arpley landfill

site will close in 2013 and the other assumed that an extension of time is approved

and the site continues to be operational until 2026 (albeit the current application is

for 2025).

5.13 The WNA provides an analysis of a range of scenarios which resulted in the

identification of future waste management capacity gaps and provides some

interesting conclusions. The following four graphs depict the landfill capacity at

Arpley (orange line) and the waste arisings within Warrington (blue line) under four

separate scenarios. Under a baseline scenario, landfill capacity for residual non

inert waste (which includes both LACW and commercial and industrial wastes)

falls marginally below the available capacity from 2014, as shown in Graph 1

below and rises to almost 100,000 tonnes per annum from 2020. This gap would

widen from 2015 if planned LACW treatment capacity is not commissioned by

then.

Graph 1: Baseline Scenario

5.14 The WNA found that if recycling and recovery is maximised (Graph 2) then some

important differences in capacity requirements would emerge. Landfill capacity for

residual non-inert waste (including both LACW, commercial and industrial wastes)

would not go into deficit until 2020.

Graph 2: Maximised Recycling and Recovery

5.15 If a median level recycling is achieved (Graph 3) then a marginal landfill capacity

gap for residual non-inert waste would emerge at 2014 to 2016 and then from

2020.

Graph 3: Median Recycling and Recovery

5.16 The WNA notes that “one of the most significant changes to projected capabilities

would come with an extension to the planning permission of Arpley landfill site.

This is significant for all modelling scenarios with respect to landfill capacity for

residual LACW, commercial and industrial waste. If this assumption is modelled

(additional 10 years landfill), capacity would remain in surplus until 2024.” (Graph

4)

Graph 4: Arpley extension of time is permitted

5.17 Page 31 of the WNA states “Closure of the Arpley site after 2013 would mean that

in order to maintain self sufficiency an alternative site must be found. Theoretical

capacity could be available at the Fir Tree Farm/Moat Lane site although this

would be subject to the uncertainties of contractual negotiations and complex site

specific planning considerations. Any future application to extend the time period

over which landfill deposits could be made in order to reach the full existing profile

of the site would provide longer term capacity of landfill of waste arisings in

Warrington. However, this may also extend the period for which the site provides

capacity for waste from other parts of the region. Similar considerations may also

16

apply if a new landfill site to meet the borough’s requirement for self sufficiency

were to be developed at an alternative location.”

5.18 The approval of the proposed time extension and reprofiling of Arpley Landfill

would result in the over capacity depicted in Graph 4 above. This leads us to the

following section which provides an appraisal of the wider need for the

development.

Appraisal of wider need for the development

5.19 The districts that sent waste to Arpley (excluding Warrington) during 2010 are

listed in the following table:

Table 3: List of Waste Planning Authorities which exported waste to Arpley Landfill during 2010

(Source: Environment Agency Interrogator 2010)

Origin Waste Planning

Authority

Waste

received

(tonnes)

Bolton 2077.12

Halton UA 49150

Knowsley 144551

Liverpool 357557

Cheshire East 2.48

Manchester 120719

Unidentified 6430

Nottingham UA 2.94

Sefton 51268

St Helens 967

Lancashire 97.4

Wirral 59721

Total 792542.94

5.20 The above table identifies that the authority areas which are most reliant on

Arpley landfill are: Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, Manchester, Sefton and

Wirral. Warrington sent 62,000 tonnes of non-inert waste to Arpley in 2010

(representing 7% of total waste landfilled at the site during 2010). The

following two sections of this report look at future waste management

aspirations of these authority areas to establish whether their reliance on

Arpley is likely to continue.

17


Merseyside and Halton Joint Waste Plan

5.21 The Merseyside Joint Waste Development Plan Proposed Submission document

(November 2011) covers the local authority areas of Liverpool, Sefton, Knowsley,

Wirral, St.Helens and Halton. Paragraphs 2.32 and 2.50 of the Plan state that;

5.22 “The interim landfill contract was awarded to WRG and procures landfill capacity at

the WRG site at Arpley Landfill in Warrington. This has been counted as local

capacity within the Needs Assessment as it is contracted... Waste is currently

exported to Arpley Landfill in Warrington under contract until 2015, after which

most residual waste will be diverted from landfill via the Resource Recovery

Contract (RRC).”

5.23 Paragraph 2.111 states, “Table 2.8 [shown in Table 3 below] summarises the

forecast of non-inert void space requirements for the optimistic scenario. It

includes the void space requirement for non-LACW waste as all LACW is assumed

to be managed by WRG at Arpley or another WRG landfill until 2015 under the

terms of its contract with MWDA. After 2015 it is assumed that LACW residual

waste which is not recovered will continue to be landiflled by means of commercial

contracts and therefore some LACW material is included in these figures.”

Table 4: Forecast for non-inert void space requirements for the Merseyside (and Halton) area

Optimistic and Pessimistic Figures are per annum

5.24 Paragraphs 4.32 to 4.34 state, “The landfill site survey did not identify any future

opportunities for non-inert landfill, which leaves a deficit in capacity for non-inert

waste, even when the contracted LACW capacity at Arpley Landfill, Warrington is

taken into account. Therefore, Merseyside and Halton will need to continue to

18

rely on neighbouring authorities for landfill provision of non-inert waste. [Our

emphasis]. As discussed in the evidence base (Section 2), Merseyside and Halton

has liaised with neighbouring waste planning authorities regarding availability of

non-inert landfill capacity. Unfortunately, each of the neighbouring WPAs have

only accounted for their own needs when determining landfill capacity

requirements, and are not in favour of making provision for Merseyside and

Halton.

However, the waste management industry operates commercial contracts across

local authority boundaries, and discussion with landfill operators across the region

has been more positive with strong indications that the capacity requirements of

Merseyside and Halton can be easily met within the region, although some of

these sites will also be subject to planning applications extending timescales for

landfill operations. The response from industry is backed up by the report,

Nationally, Regionally and Sub-Regionally Significant Waste Management

Facilities (October 2008), produced for the former Regional Assembly to support

RSS, which indicates that landfill sites across the NW region should be considered

as regionally significant facilities.”

5.25 The Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (MEAS) submitted a consultation

response dated 6th March 2012 to the Arpley planning application on behalf of

Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool City, Sefton, St.Helens and Wirral Councils. The

response acknowledges that authorities in Merseyside and Halton continue to

send Local Authority Collected Waste and some other non-household wastes to

Arpley but also notes that some non-household waste originating in Warrington is

sent to the one operational landfill in Merseyside (Lyme and Wood Pits, Haydock,

St.Helens). This is factual; however, in 2010 approximately 600,000 tonnes was

imported into Arpley from Merseyside and Halton (Table 3), whereas just 30,000

tonnes was sent from Warrington to Lyme and Wood Pits landfill, Haydock,

St.Helens. The MEAS response also quotes the Regional Spatial Strategy in

relation to local authorities being flexible and agreeing to extend operations at

landfill sites in the Region. The response also states “the progressive closure of

other landfills along the Mersey Belt is likely to increase the importance that sites

such as Arpley remain in operation in order to fulfil their strategic role envisaged by

the RSS evidence.”

5.26 Clearly Merseyside and Halton consider Arpley and other North West landfill sites

to be regionally significant facilities and will be hoping they will accommodate

between 80,000 – 300,000 tonnes (bottom row of Table 4 above) of their non-inert

waste per annum.

19


Greater Manchester Waste Plan

5.27 Since the applicant produced their Supporting Statement the Greater Manchester

Waste Plan (the GM Plan) has been adopted (1st April 2012). The GM Plan

identifies that between 2012 and 2027, a total of 7.8 million tonnes of waste

disposal capacity will be required which will be accommodated at two landfill

facilities. These facilities are Whitehead Landfill in Salford and Pilsworth North in

Bury which are both allocated within the GM Plan for physical extensions.

Paragraphs 2.41 and 2.46 state, “New permissions are required to maintain an

adequate landfill capacity. Adequate means recognising the needs of Greater

Manchester and also the importance of landfill capacity regionally whilst seeking

not to over-provide which may encourage unnecessary landfilling of wastes.”

“The provision of landfill facilities within the Waste Plan is sufficient to deal with the

predicted waste arisings from 2012-2027 and, therefore, the sub region will be self

sufficient in this respect. At a regional level the reduction of suitable landfill

locations means that the sites identified in Greater Manchester must be

recognised as regionally significant especially where, due to new legislation, these

sites fail to fill up at the anticipated rate.”

5.28 The Greater Manchester sub-region is therefore not relying on an extension

of time at Arpley landfill to accommodate its residual waste stream over the Plan

period as it aims to utilise two existing landfill sites allocated for extensions through

allocations within the adopted Plan to meet their needs.

Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Chester

5.29 Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Chester produced a joint Needs

Assessment in May 2011. Section 2.10 identifies that by applying Scenario 1, the

preferred option, and viewing C&I waste arisings against the capacity of facilities

able to treat the waste there would be a shortfall of 50,000 tonnes per annum from

2018. The report states on page 78, “Commercial waste is currently landfilled with

waste at the Gowy Landfill which has a time limited consent until 2017, when a

new landfill will be required unless the consented but not yet operational site at

Kinderton Lodge commences operation which will defer the need for a new landfill

until approx 2025.” [by which time Arpley would be commencing restoration].

5.30 Contact has been made with waste planning officers at both Cheshire authorities

to gain a progress update with regards to their Local Plan preparation. Both

authorities confirmed that the Needs Assessment is the most up-to-date report

available on planning for waste management facilities within their districts.

5.31 Bearing in mind that Kinderton Lodge has an extant planning permission, it would

appear that Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Chester Councils will not

20

be relying on an extension of time at Arpley landfill to accommodate its

residual waste stream.

Assessment of Need Summary

5.32 Warrington is currently largely self sufficient with regards to landfill, however, the

Warrington Needs Assessment identifies that the closure of Arpley after 2013

would result in the need for an alternative site to be opened within Warrington in

order to maintain self sufficiency (see Graphs 1-3 on pages 10 and 11 of this

report for capacity gaps under various waste arising scenarios). If an alternative

site was not identified within Warrington then the waste would have to be exported

thus placing additional pressure upon Gowy landfill (Cheshire West and Chester)

and other landfills further afield to manage the residual element of Warrington’s

waste.

5.33 Warrington is not the only district that relies on Arpley for residual waste disposal

as only 7% of the waste imported to Arpley in 2010 originated from within

Warrington. The Merseyside districts and Halton envisage continued reliance upon

neighbouring authorities to accommodate between 80 and 300,000 tonnes per

annum of their residual LACW and commercial and industrial waste steams up

until 2027 (their Plan period).

5.34 Graph 4 on page 12 of this report shows the demand/capacity relationship should

the extension of time be granted. If permitted there would be a capacity surplus in

excess of 200,000 tonnes per annum for managing Warrington’s waste. This

would result in Warrington remaining as a net importer of waste from across the

region.

5.35 Later sections of this report which focus on the Localism Act, the North West

Regional Spatial Strategy and the Regional Waste Strategy provide evidence that

Arpley should be considered to be a regionally significant site.

6. Assessment of re-profiling proposals, landfill design, phasing and restoration

6.1 The application proposes to extend the working life of the Arpley Landfill by a

further 12 years until 2025 and, relevant to this chapter, includes:-

• re-profiling of some currently landfilled areas

• a revised sequence of landfill phasing;

• restoration scheme for the completed landfill enabling the continued

reclamation of the former dredging deposit ground

• a commitment to continue the provision and management of the Moore Nature

Reserve until 2030

21


Re-profiling

6.2 Chapter 3 of the Environmental Statement considers three alternative design

scenarios with Option 3 being chosen as the preferred option by the applicant:

• Option 1: Extend the life of the landfill as per the phasing described in the

extant planning permission.

• Option 2: Extend the life of the landfill as per the extant planning permission but

vary the approach to the phasing.

• Option 3: Extend the life of the landfill by re-profiling within the Walton

and Boundary Phases and reducing the plan extent of landfill in the

Arpley phase

6.3 All three options would provide approximately the same capacity of landfill void

and would be operational for the same length of time. Option 3 will raise the

presettlement contours to a maximum height of around 13 metres above current

permitted levels.

6.4 Site cross sections have been provided (figures 5.5a and 5.5b of the ES).

However, although these figures are not to scale they do provide an idea of the

limited impact on the proposed increase in height of the existing landfill from

distant views.

6.5 The applicant has also provided a number of photomontages. Photomontages

8.2b and 8.2d of the ES compares permitted pre settlement views against the

proposed post settlement views. We are unsure as to the value of these

comparisons as there is little, if any, discernible difference in the montages and

any judgement on the visual impact should approach them with caution. There is

a brief mention of photomontages in paragraphs 8.4.22 to 8.4.25, we can find no

justification as to why these comparisons were made and this issue may be raised

with the applicant.

6.6 The ES states at 8.4.26 that “The proposed development would be taller in height

than the consented landfill (and predicted 2013 restored landform) and operations

would be present over a longer duration of time than those currently consented”. It

is clear that there would be an impact on the landscape but that this would be

limited.

6.7 Moving any future landfill operations away from sensitive locations are to be

welcomed and this is enshrined within Option 3. However a 4th option has

not been considered in the ES which would be to develop Option 3. Using

the same footprint but reducing the levels and thereby the quantity of

22

material imported to the site would reduce the visual impact and shorten the

duration of the landfilling operations.

Landfill Design

6.8 The applicant provides details on the landfill design at Section 5.3 of the ES. The

first stages would involve the re-profiling of existing areas of landfill within the

Walton and Boundary Phases of the site. The remaining stages would involve the

creation of new cells within the Boundary and Arpley Phase of the site. In order to

re-profile the site in previously landfill areas the capping would need to be

removed although this will be carried out in a staged manner to avoid large areas

being exposed at any one time. An odour suppression system would be available

as historic wastes are exposed.

6.9 The new cells in the Boundary and Arpley Phases would be excavated to

approximately 8 metres below current ground levels with the excavated material,

most consisting of dredging deposits stockpiled and used for restoration and

engineering of cells.

6.10 The main criteria for the design of a landfill site is to ensure that any wastes or

leachate (liquid that has percolated through the layers of waste material) do not

migrate into adjacent areas.

6.11 The Environment Agency requires that proposals for landfills are designed in such

a way as to protect the environment. The applicant will need to make an

application for an Environmental Permit Application and a Re-profiling

Management Plan would form part of the Environmental Permit for the site. The

Environmental Permit would regulate the permit for the site.

6.12 Landfill Design and construction will be subject to additional regulation

through the Environmental Permitting regime which would control this

aspect of the development

Phasing and Restoration

6.13 The ES states at paragraph 5,3,32 that “The first phase of operations, post 2013,

would involve re-profiling on the existing cells with the Walton and Boundary

Phases of the site. There would be six re-profiling stages resulting in a total of

approximately 2,862,000m3 of void space. Each re-profiling stage is predicted to

last 1 year with the reprofiling waste disposal operations completed by the end of

2019. Waste disposal operations would then commence in the newly constructed

Boundary and Arpley Phase Cells”.

6.14 The phasing and restoration of landfill sites can produce a number of benefits in

that it minimises rainfall soaking into the waste and maximises early completion of

23


discrete areas or phases to the final pre settlement levels which would allow

maximum landfill gas extraction.

6.15 Furthermore The Environment Agency, as stated earlier, will also regulate the

phasing of the landfill and state that they “expect that operators adopt a principle of

‘Landfill by design’. This means, we expect landfill operators to use sound

scientific techniques and detailed calculations to design a specific solution to

protect the environment from the particular risks at the proposed location”.

(Environment Agency leaflet LFE1- Our approach to landfill engineering issued

10th August 2009)

6.16 Phasing of the landfill will be subject to additional regulation through the

Environmental Permitting regime which would control this aspect of the

development.

6.17 The proposed restoration scheme is indicative only and this is provided in figure

5.10. We would not comment on the broad thrust of the restoration but further

details will need to be provided at some stage and this can be achieved through

the imposition of a planning condition attached to any grant of permission.

6.18 The applicant states in the ES that “the proposed restoration scheme would be

subject to a planning condition that would include the provision of an aftercare

plan. The aftercare plan would address the ongoing management of habitats at the

site to ensure that they provide ongoing ecological benefit to the local area.” No

time scale has been provided for the duration of aftercare. However, due to the

size and complexity of the restored area it is considered that a 10 year

aftercare period or longer would be considered suitable for the Arpley site.

Consideration may also be given to extending the management of the Moore

Nature Reserve to ensure consistency with any extended aftercare scheme.

7. Appraisal of the proposal against national, regional and local waste planning policy

7.1 This section of the report appraises the application in relation to the Development

Plan and relevant additional sources of guidance and policy which should be

considered material considerations in determining the application.

7.2 Within the application documents, Part 2 of the Supporting Statement makes

reference to the range of planning policy and guidance documents which are

considered material considerations by the applicant. The Supporting Statement

focuses on national planning policy in the form of the range of Planning Policy

Statements/Guidance extant at the time of submission. Following the release of

the National Planning Policy Framework, national planning policy for waste

remains within PPS10 but all other planning policy and guidance is now contained

within the Framework.

24

National Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework

7.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into force on 27th March

2012. Whilst the Framework does not contain specific waste policies, as these will

be set out within the National Waste Management Plan (to be published in 2013),

it is clear that local authorities taking decisions on waste applications must have

regard to policies in the Framework so far as relevant. The Government’s policy

on waste management is set out in the National Waste Strategy 2000 (with a

review of the strategy Published in May 2007 “Waste Strategy for England 2007”).

7.4 NPPF reaffirms that the Development Plan is the starting point for decision making

cemented by the “presumption in favour of sustainable development” set out in

paragraph 14. Additionally, when taking decisions, the presumption guides Local

Planning Authorities to grant permission where the development plan is absent,

silent or relevant policies are out of date, unless:

• Adverse impacts of the proposal would ‘significantly and demonstrably

outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF as

a whole or

• Specific policies in the NPPF indicate the development should be

restricted.

7.5 In the case of Arpley Landfill, the Statutory Development Plan comprises the

‘saved’ policies of the Warrington Borough Council Unitary Development Plan

(UDP) (2006) and the North West of England Regional Spatial Strategy (2008).

7.6 Following the Localism Act attaining Royal Assent (15 November 2011) legislation

is now in place for the future abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies from the

statutory development plan. Their abolition is subject to the appropriate

commencement orders coming into force. There is presently no programme for

these commencement orders. Therefore, policies of the Regional Spatial Strategy

remain extant at this time and are covered in more detail later in this report.

Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management

7.7 The NPPF makes clear that, in advance of the publication of the National Waste

Management Plan, the Government’s overall approach to planning and waste

management is set out in Planning Policy Statement 10, “Planning for Sustainable

Waste Management” (PPS10).

7.8 PPS10 sets the overarching objectives for positive planning in the delivery of

sustainable waste management. This includes “providing sufficient opportunities

for new waste management facilities of the right type, in the right place and at the

25


right time” (Paragraph 2). PPS10 acknowledges that landfill is at the bottom of the

waste hierarchy and that a key objective of national waste policy is to help deliver

sustainable waste management through driving waste up the waste hierarchy by

addressing waste as a resource and looking to disposal as the last option.

Nevertheless PPS10, and the supporting Companion Guide to PPS10, recognises

that disposal by landfill is an option which must be adequately catered for.

7.9 The Arpley proposal is seeking to further contribute towards the

management of residual non-hazardous waste. Whilst landfilling operations

are the least desirable option within the waste hierarchy, PPS10 is clear that

provision for such operations remains necessary. The proposals are

therefore considered compatible with PPS10.

Waste Strategy 2007 and Review of Waste Policy 2011

7.10 Waste Strategy for England (WSE2007), published in May 2007, identifies the

importance of waste management in accordance with the waste hierarchy and

comprises the objectives for waste management and targets for landfill diversion.

Within the application documents, Part 2 Supporting Statement (pg 67) sets out

the range of targets contained within the WSE2007 as relevant to this application.

7.11 A Review of Waste Policy in England was published in 2011 and whilst the

document is not a direct replacement of the Waste Strategy 2007 it aims to update

much of the data and thinking behind the 2007 document. The Review can be

seen as a broad direction of travel, indicating the latest considerations prior to the

production of the National Waste Management Plan in 2013.

7.12 The Review reaffirms England’s commitment to meeting the EU Landfill Directive

Targets (which requires Member States to reduce Biodegradable Municipal Waste

to 50% of 1995 quantities by 2012/13 and 35% of 1995 quantities by 2019/20) and

to sending only residual wastes to landfill. Landfill is confirmed again as a waste

management option for some materials (para 242) for which provision must be

made.

7.13 The proposal includes the development of a landfill gas capture and energy

generation system which will impact positively in relation to the

Government’s energy recovery targets. The proposal will limit the

movement of residual waste arising in Warrington, Merseyside and Cheshire

and therefore contribute to the reduction in greenhouse gas production

associated with road transport of waste. The Arpley proposal is considered

to be in conformity with WSE2007, additionally the Review of Waste Policy

2011 and therefore judged to be in conformity with the emerging national

waste policy direction of travel.

26

Regional Planning Policy

NW Regional Spatial Strategy (2008)

7.14 Whilst it is the Government's intention to revoke existing regional strategies

outside London, this is subject to the outcome of Environmental Assessments and

will not be undertaken until the Secretary of State and Parliament have had the

opportunity to consider the findings of the assessments. As yet there is no

timetable for the revocation of Regional Strategies, therefore the policies within the

North West Regional Spatial Strategy have been set out below and are considered

part of the Development Plan.

7.15 The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the North West of England was published

on 30 September 2008 and sets the framework for the development of the North

West region over a 15-20 year time period. The North West of England Plan was

drafted and examined in the light of the latest national guidance on sustainable

waste management, including Waste Strategy 2007 and Planning Policy

Statement 10: Sustainable Waste Management. The RSS is therefore compliant

with the most up to date policy framework.

7.16 Policy EM11 ‘Waste Management Principles’ states that “every effort should be

made to minimise waste, maximise re-use, and maximise opportunities for the use

of recycled material. Such residual waste as does arise should be managed at the

highest practicable level in the Government’s waste hierarchy…” The policy goes

on to set out the principles which should be followed (in line with the waste

hierarchy), including waste disposal supported with energy generation from landfill

gas and states that facilities should be provided to allow waste to be managed in

line with these principles.

7.17 The Arpley proposals make provision for waste disposal and also include

landfill gas capture and energy generation. Despite waste disposal being the

final waste management option of the waste hierarchy it is clearly an option

for which provision must be made, therefore the principles of the Arpley

proposals are specifically supported by Regional Spatial Strategy Policy

EM11.

7.18 Policy EM12 ‘Locational Principles’ states that “The final residue, following

treatment, of municipal, commercial and industrial waste should be disposed of in

one of the nearest appropriate installations. Local authorities should ensure that

waste management facilities are sited in such a way as to avoid the unnecessary

carriage of waste over long distances…” EM12 goes on to set out that the location

principles should be balanced against sustainable transport opportunities and the

environmental impact of the proposed development.

27


7.19 The Arpley Landfill is sited in close proximity to the residual waste arisings

which are currently and proposed to be imported to the site, including waste

arising in Warrington and neighbouring authorities such as Cheshire East,

Merseyside and Halton. Within the application documents (Part 2

Supporting Statement, page 84, Table 4.1) it is confirmed that waste

imported into the site will be moved by road as a result of the anticipated

subregional nature of arisings. Therefore the proposal does not offer any

benefit in terms of sustainable transport of waste. Assessment of the wider

environmental impact(s) of the proposal is not part of this report, but it is

clear that the Council should weigh the environmental impact of the

proposal against the overall need for landfill and general suitability of the

location on relation to waste arisings on a sub regional basis as set out

within Regional Spatial Strategy EM12.

7.20 Policy EM13; ‘Provision of Nationally, Regionally and Sub-Regionally

Significant Waste Management Facilities’ states that “In considering proposals

for waste management facilities (including additional landfill capacity) the ability of

existing established sites to meet the needs of the region / sub-region should be

fully explored. Wherever possible, such sites should be used in preference to other

sites where waste management activities have not previously been located

provided proposals for the development of waste management facilities satisfy

general planning and licensing conditions, including the likely cumulative impact on

the environment, landscape, cultural heritage, groundwater, the amenity and

health of the neighbourhood and residents, the traffic impact; available transport

links; the prevention and control of pollution and any specific technical issues”.

Policy EM13 goes on to state that whilst primary treatment and transfer facilities

should be located close to arisings, secondary treatment and disposal facilities

may be located on a sub regional strategic basis to serve a wider catchment,

specifically acknowledging the needs of the Mersey Belt.

7.21 Policy EM13 supports the continued use of existing landfill facilities in

preference to new sites. This support is caveated to allow Warrington

Council to consider the full range of impacts of a proposal such as the

amenity and health of the neighbourhood and residents, the traffic impact;

available transport links; the prevention and control of pollution. In relation

to the Arpley proposal Warrington Council must balance any possible

impacts set out in Policy EM13 against the impacts which would result from

similar proposals at a site not previously used for waste disposal. Even in

the absence of responses from experts in the field of these impacts it seems

likely that the impacts on a site not previously used for waste disposal would

be greater than at the application site.

7.22 In disposing of waste arising both within Warrington and from neighbouring

authorities, the Arpley proposal is a regionally significant facility. This is

28

supported in Section 5 of this report, where the future landfill requirements

of authorities in the Mersey Belt are set out.

7.23 As highlighted earlier, the policies of the Regional Spatial Strategy remain

extant at this time, but given the Government’s publicised intention to

remove regional tier of planning the material weight attached to the polices

of the North West RSS is diminished. Whilst the figures and capacity

requirements set out within RSS have been superseded with more up to date

information, the principles set out within the Strategy are underpinned with

sound evidence at the regional level, including work carried out by the

Regional Technical Advisory Body. The policies within RSS may soon cease

to be applicable, but as they are based on the waste planning principles

contained within PPS10, it is considered that significant weight be attached

to the RSS policies.

North West Regional Waste Strategy (as updated in 2010)

7.24 The North West Regional Waste Strategy (RWS) was published in September

2004. As set out within the application documents, Part 2 Supporting Statement,

a revised Regional Waste Strategy was published in 2010 which aimed to update

the RWS to reflect legislative, regulatory and policy changes in the form of:

• EU Waste Framework Directive,

• Waste Strategy for England 2007,

• the introduction of the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) and

• RSS for the Northwest (September 2008).

7.25 The application documents assert that significant material planning weight should

be afforded to this updated RWS due to it including current policy and legislation

should be supported.

7.26 The following information sets out the aspects of the updated RWS as relevant to

the Arpley proposals and assesses them in relation to the application.

7.27 A key objective of the updated RWS is to ‘ensure that waste management

infrastructure, facilities and systems are developed in accordance with the

principles of sustainable development, the low carbon agenda and integrated

waste management at the highest practicable level in the Government’s waste

hierarchy, by (amongst other means listed) maintaining sufficient landfill capacity

for the disposal of final residues following treatment and recovery including the

recovery of energy from landfill gas where practicable’.

7.28 The Strategy sets out a series of Policy Statements; section 4.7 contains Policy

Statement 10: Landfill. Of relevance to the Arpley proposals, the Statement

recognises:

29


• the need for maintaining landfill capacity in the region by restricting the

use of existing landfill capacity to the disposal of final residues and where

the waste has no residual value;

• the provision of any additional landfill capacity should explore the potential

for:

o Extending the timescales where capacity may be used;

o Extending capacity at existing sites; and

o Exploring opportunities for new landfill capacity.

7.29 The Arpley proposal relies on the disposal of residual waste material to be

achieved through an extension of timescale encompassing re-profiling

works at an existing landfill site and is therefore consistent with the

approach set out within the updated Regional Waste Strategy Policy

Statement 10: Landfill.

Local Policies

Warrington Borough Council Unitary Development Plan: Saved Policies

7.30 For the purposes of assessing the Arpley Planning Application the saved policies

of the adopted Warrington Unitary Development Plan (adopted in 2006) constitute

the relevant local policies. Those policies which were saved and, therefore,

continue to constitute part of the Borough's statutory Development Plan which are

relevant to this report are as follows:

7.31 MWA4 ‘Requirements for all Waste Management Applications’ sets out the

range of requirements to support planning applications for waste management

uses such as the Arpley proposals. In summary applicants must include

information relating to the:

• Types/quantities of materials;

• duration of operations and restoration operations;

• hours of operation of the facility, including hours of vehicle movements and

plant or equipment maintenance;

• access arrangements;

• assessment of existing archaeological, ecological, geological,

geomorphological and landscape features and any mitigation measures as

relevant;

• adequate and effective measures to manage the generation of landfill gas

and leachate, both during site operations and after operations have ceased;

• satisfactory and suitable restoration and aftercare measures; and

• information relating to on-site provision for deliveries, collections and

storage of materials, and parking.

30

7.32 The applicant sets out, in paragraph 4.3.5 of the Part 2 Supporting Statement, that

the Environmental Statement addresses the requirements of the policy and is in

compliance with this policy. Urban Vision conclude that the application

documents submitted to Warrington Council includes information relating to

each of the above listed requirements and therefore is judged to be in

compliance with Policy MW4A.

7.33 MWA5 ‘All Minerals and Waste Management Developments’ sets out the range

of considerations which Warrington Council will use to asses planning applications

for waste management uses such as the Arpley proposals. MWA5 requires that

proposals will not have an unacceptable impact upon:

• the green belt;

• urban open space;

• existing or proposed dwellings or other sensitive uses;

• the quality of the water environment,

• the structural integrity and setting of listed buildings;

• sites of archaeological importance;

• the best and most versatile agricultural land;

• public rights of way and the amenity of their users;

• conservation areas;

• Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation;

• features of landscape or geomorphological interest, including the general

setting, protected trees and ancient woodland;

• airport operational safety; and

• highway safety and transport capacity.

7.34 The policy also requires that proposed developments utilise sustainable transport

modes wherever possible, will be sited away from dwellings so as to avoid

unacceptable impacts from site operations or includes sufficient mitigation

measures against such impacts and finally that the proposals include plans for

high quality restoration and aftercare. The Council should ensure they are satisfied

that the proposed development accords with the criteria of Policy MWA5. In order

to assess the proposal against the above criteria the Council will require input from

the relevant expert consultees.

7.35 MWA13 ‘Aftercare’ sets out a requirement for waste management proposals to be

subject to a programme of aftercare management, at a high standard, for a period

of five years following completion of site restoration and applicants are required to

submit an outline scheme as part of the application.

7.36 The Arpley application includes details of the aftercare management of the

landfilling operations within the Environmental Statement (pgs 58-59). In summary,

the applicant sets out, “The aftercare of the site would include maintenance of

grassland, woodland, hedgerows and other habitats in accordance with a long

31


term management plan to ensure that the ecological and recreational resource is

optimised. It is proposed that the management plan would be secured by a

suitably worded planning condition or obligation. The landscaping at the site has

been designed to integrate with the habitats at Moore Nature Reserve. The

restored site in combination with the nature reserve would provide a significant

area of land dedicated to nature conservation and public recreation. The funding

for the management of Moore Nature Reserve is currently provided for by WRG

under legal agreement with WBC, this funding includes for maintenance works as

well as the provision of one full time and one part time reserve warden. The

funding for the nature reserve would be extended until 2030, providing an

additional 14 years of funding than that currently in place, ensuring that this award

winning nature reserve continues to provide an ecological and educational benefit

to the local area”.

7.37 It is considered that the restoration and post-closure management plans

illustrated within the application conforms to the criteria of Policy MWA13.

However, it is recommended that a longer aftercare period than 5 years is

attached to any grant of planning permission

7.38 Additionally, other UDP policies bear relevance to waste management issues in

relation to the Arpley application, but which are not covered by the scope of this

report, including; GRN1 'The Green Belt', REP1 'The Prudent Use of Resources',

REP2 'Protection of the Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land', REP9 'Air

Quality', REP10 'Noise', REP11 'Odours', REP13 'Hazardous Uses/Installations'

and REP16 'Renewable Energy'. It is recommended that Warrington assess the

proposals against these policies.

Warrington Borough Council Core Strategy

7.39 On Monday 21st May 2012 Warrington Borough Council published the Proposed

Submission Draft Local Plan Core Strategy. The Core Strategy is emerging policy

and can be seen as an indication of the land use aspirations of Warrington

Council, as such is a material consideration. However the weight attached to the

policies it contains is limited by the fact that it has yet to be subject to Examination

in Public or adopted by the Council and therefore is not part of the current

Development Plan.

7.40 The Proposed Submission Draft Core Strategy includes a specific vision,

objectives and policy (MP8) on waste issues within the Borough. The Core

Strategy supports the production of a separate Joint Minerals and Waste Plan from

2013, and detailed waste policies will be developed within such a document. In

advance of this, the relevant emerging waste policy in relation to the Arpley

proposals is Policy MP8.

32

7.41 Policy MP8 sets out support for sustainable waste management in accordance

with the waste hierarchy. Policy seeks to achieve continual reduction in the

amount of residual waste imported into the borough and encourage waste

minimisation.

7.42 The Arpley proposals involve the disposal of non-hazardous waste arising

from municipal and commercial and industrial (C&I) sources in Warrington,

Merseyside, Halton and Wigan and residual C&I waste from Bolton, Trafford

and Salford. If permitted, the Arpley proposals will result in the continued

importation of residual waste into Warrington. Importantly, the total amount

of waste to be deposited over the length of the new proposal remains the

same as that currently permitted; there is no net increase in waste imported

into Warrington. Policy MP8 seeks a reduction in the amount of waste

imported into the borough and it is clear that the requirement for an

extension of time at Arpley is evidence that waste imports have been lower

than predicted in the current planning permission. This proposal sets out a

12 year extension of operations. Given that the waste planning policy

landscape is changing rapidly, with the release of NPPF and imminent

publication of the national Waste Management Plan and, locally, the

emergence of Warrington’s Local Plan, it seems reasonable to consider

potentially limiting the extension to a shorter time span to allow Warrington

to reconsider the proposals in line with the Core Strategy, containing Policy

MP8, and Joint Minerals and Waste Plan once adopted.

Warrington Municipal Waste Management Strategy

7.43 The draft Municipal Waste Management Strategy (MWMS) for Warrington Borough

Council was published for consultation in June 2008. The final MWMS remains

unpublished and therefore only limited weight can be attributed to the contents of

the draft version. The draft sets out a vision for Warrington “method by which the

authority can deliver sustainable waste management services to the community.

The Council have a vision of sustainable resource use that promotes re-use and

recycling / composting activities and ensures that residual waste can be treated to

maximise recovery and minimise the impacts of final disposal. The Council aims to

improve the quality of services provided to the community and establish best value

waste management practices that encourage reuse, recycling and composting.

The Council also seeks to minimise waste growth and divert significant quantities

of biodegradable waste from landfill”.

7.44 The draft MWMS sets out eight key principles, of which three are particularly

pertinent to the Arpley proposals: ‘Self-sufficiency and the Proximity Principle’,

‘Reduced Reliance on Landfill’ and ‘Less Waste Imported to the Area’

7.45 In respect of the Arpley proposal, it is clear from these draft principles that

Warrington:

33


• aims to handle its Local Authority Collected Waste (LACW) within the

boundary of the Authority wherever possible;

• recognises that there will always be a need for landfill for residual wastes

and that encourage a reduction in the amount of waste disposed of within

Warrington, the Authority must lead by example; and

• seeks to encourage neighbouring authorities to become self sufficient in the

recycling, recovery and disposal of their own waste with the aim of reducing

waste imported into the Borough.

7.46 The MWMS confirms that the majority of LACW in Warrington is sent to landfill but

outlines the options available to treat and recover value from LACW arising in

Warrington in future including Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT),

Autoclaving, Advanced Thermal Treatment, Energy from Waste (EfW) and

Combined Heat and Power (CHP).

7.47 The proposals support the achievement of the key principals of the draft

MWMS. Section 5 of this report sets out the current status of neighbouring

Authorities planning strategies as relevant to the Arpley proposals.

Warrington is yet to identify a suitable solution to handle its LACW and

despite neighbouring Authorities striving to achieve self sufficiency this has

yet to be achieved. Therefore it is likely that there will continue to be a need

for residual waste disposal capacity, due to the lack of identified alternative

treatment and disposal sites at present.

Policy Assessment Summary

7.48 In assessing the application against the Development Plan and other material

considerations it is clear that the proposals, in the main fit well with national and

regional policy. However there remain issues, specifically relating to the impacts of

the proposals as set out within local policy, which require further assessment by

Warrington Council.

7.49 This section sets out a summary of the areas of policy which the application has

been assessed against by Urban Vision, as represented in bold text in the section

above.

• PPS10: The Arpley proposal is seeking to further contribute towards the

management of residual non-hazardous waste. Whilst landfilling operations

are the least desirable option within the waste hierarchy, PPS10 is clear

that provision for such operations remains necessary. The proposals are

therefore considered compatible with PPS10.

• Waste Strategy 2007/2011 Review: The proposal includes the

development of a landfill gas capture and energy generation system which

will impact positively in relation to the Government’s energy recovery

34

targets. The proposal will limit the movement of

residual waste arising in Warrington, Merseyside and Cheshire and

therefore contribute to the reduction in greenhouse gas production

associated with road transport of waste. The Arpley proposal is considered

to be in conformity with both WSE2007 and the Review of Waste Policy

2011 and, therefore, judged to be in conformity with the emerging national

waste policy direction of travel.

• NW RSS: The policies of the Regional Spatial Strategy remain extant at this

time, but given the Government’s publicised intention to remove regional

tier of planning the material weight attached to the polices of the North West

RSS is diminished. Whilst the figures and capacity requirements set out

within RSS have been superseded with more up to date information, the

principles set out within the Strategy are underpinned with sound evidence

at the regional level, including work carried out by the Regional Technical

Advisory Body. The policies within RSS may soon cease to be applicable,

but as they are based on the waste planning principles contained within

PPS10, it is considered that significant weight be attached to the RSS

policies.

• RSS Policy EM11: The Arpley proposals make provision for waste disposal

and also include landfill gas capture and energy generation. Despite waste

disposal being the final waste management option of the waste hierarchy it

is clearly an option for which provision must be made, therefore the

principles of the Arpley proposals are specifically supported by Regional

Spatial Strategy Policy EM11.

• RSS Policy EM12: The Arpley Landfill is sited in close proximity to the

residual waste arisings which are currently and proposed to be imported to

the site, including waste arising in Warrington and neighbouring authorities

such as Cheshire East, Merseyside and Halton. Within the application

documents (Part 2 Supporting Statement, page 84, Table 4.1) it is

confirmed that waste imported into the site will be moved by road as a result

of the anticipated subregional nature of arisings. Therefore, the proposal

does not offer any benefit in terms of sustainable transport of waste.

Assessment of the wider environmental impact(s) of the proposal is not part

of this report, but it is clear that the Council should weigh the environmental

impact of the proposal against the overall need for landfill and general

suitability of the location on relation to waste arisings on a sub regional

basis as set out within Regional Spatial Strategy EM12.

• RSS Policy EM13: Policy EM13 supports the continued use of existing

landfill facilities in preference to new sites. This support is caveated to

allow Warrington Council to consider the full range of impacts of a proposal

such as the amenity and health of the neighbourhood and residents, the

traffic impact; available transport links; the prevention and control of

35


pollution. In relation to the Arpley proposal Warrington Council must balance

any possible impacts set out in Policy EM13 against the impacts which would

result from similar proposals at a site not previously used for waste disposal.

Even in the absence of responses from experts in the field of these impacts it

seems likely that the impacts on a site not previously used for waste disposal

would be greater than at the application site. In disposing of waste arising both

within Warrington and from neighbouring authorities, the Arpley proposal is a

regionally significant facility. This is supported in Section 5 of this report, where

the future landfill requirements of authorities in the Mersey Belt are set out.

• NW Regional Waste Strategy: The Arpley proposal relies on the disposal

of residual waste material to be achieved through an extension of timescale

encompassing re-profiling works at an existing landfill site and is therefore

consistent with the approach set out within the updated Regional Waste

Strategy Policy Statement 10: Landfill.

• Warrington UDP Policy MWA4: Urban Vision conclude that the application

documents submitted to Warrington Council includes information relating to

each of the above listed requirements and therefore is judged to be in

compliance with Policy MWA4.

• Warrington UDP Policy MWA5: The Council should ensure they are

satisfied that the proposed development accords with the criteria of Policy

MWA5. In order to assess the proposal against the above criteria the

Council will require input from the relevant expert consultees.

• Warrington Core Strategy emerging Policy MP8: The Arpley proposals

involve the disposal of non-hazardous waste arising from municipal and

commercial and industrial (C&I) sources in Warrington, Merseyside, Halton

and Wigan and residual C&I waste from Bolton, Trafford and Salford. If

permitted, the Arpley proposals will result in the continued importation of

residual waste into Warrington. Importantly, the total amount of waste to be

deposited over the length of the new proposal remains the same as that

currently permitted; there is no net increase in waste imported into

Warrington. Policy MP8 seeks a reduction in the amount of waste imported

into the borough and it is clear that the requirement for an extension of time

at Arpley is evidence that waste imports have been lower than predicted in

the current planning permission. This proposal sets out a 12 year extension

of operations. Given that the waste planning policy landscape is changing

rapidly, with the release of NPPF and imminent publication of the national

Waste Management Plan and, locally, the emergence of Warrington’s Local

Plan, it seems reasonable to consider potentially limiting the extension to a

shorter time span to allow Warrington to reconsider the proposals in line

36

with the Core Strategy, containing Policy MP8,

and Joint Minerals and Waste Plan once adopted.

• Warrington MWMS: The proposals support the achievement of the key

principals of the draft MWMS. Section 5 of this report sets out the current

status of neighbouring Authorities planning strategies as relevant to the

Arpley proposals. Warrington is yet to identify a suitable solution to handle

its LACW and despite neighbouring Authorities striving to achieve self

sufficiency this has yet to be achieved. Therefore it is likely that there will

continue to be a need for residual waste disposal capacity, due to the lack

of identified alternative treatment and disposal sites at present.

Appraisal of current landfill capacity and need for future landfill capacity across the North West Region

Initial Assessment Review Report

28th November 2012


CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL NON HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL CAPACITY IN

THE NORTH WEST 2

3. MAPPING 6

4. IMPACT OF THE CLOSURE OF ARPLEY ON LANDFILL CAPACITY IN NORTH

WEST 8

5. PLANNING AND POLICY TRENDS IN THE NON HAZARDOUS WASTE STREAM 12

6. FORECAST FROM WASTE DISPOSAL TRENDS IN THE NORTH WEST 14

8. CONCLUSION 21

3

Arpley Landfill - Waste Planning Consultancy Support

Date Details Prepared by Reviewed and approved by

02/11/12 Draft Report Peter Greifenberg/Gill Tatum,

Directors 4Resources Ltd

Philippa Lane, Senior Planner,

Urban Vision

16/11/12 Final Report Peter Greifenberg/Gill Tatum,


Philippa Lane , Senior Planner,

Urban Vision

28/11/12 Final Report –

reissued

Peter Greifenberg/Gill Tatum,


Philippa Lane , Senior Planner,

Urban Vision

1

1. INTRODUCTION

Appraisal of wider landfill capacity and direction of demand for landfill in the

North West Region (excluding Cumbria)

1.1 Warrington Borough Council has recently received a planning application that seeks

approval for the extension of operational life of Arpley Landfill facility and ancillary

developments to 2025 including re-profiling, revised sequence of landfill phasing

and restoration.

1.2 The purpose of this report is assist in the determination of the planning application

by providing an appraisal of wider landfill capacity and direction of demand for

landfill in the North West Region. It includes an assessment of what the effect

would be on landfill capacity in the region if the Arpley Landfill site in Warrington

were to close in accordance with its current planning consent, including the impacts

on distances that waste would need to be transported.

2

2. ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL CAPACITY IN

THE NORTH WEST

2.1 Urban Vision and 4Resources have undertaken research into all existing planning

permissions for non-hazardous landfill in the North West. This excludes capacity in

Cumbria as it is unlikely that waste to be disposed at Arpley Landfill would travel that

distance.

2.2 Therefore, for the purposes of producing this report, the North West is taken to

include Warrington, Lancashire, the five Merseyside Authorities (Liverpool, Sefton,

St Helens, Knowsley and Wirral), Halton, Greater Manchester (including Bolton,

Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford and

Wigan), Cheshire West and Chester and Cheshire East.

2.3 Research has been carried out using the following sources; 2011 Environment

Agency Waste Data Interrogator and Reporting tool, Waste Data Flow 2010 and

2011, and direct consultation with the Local Planning officers representing

Merseyside and Halton, Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Cheshire West and

Chester and Cheshire East. The research has identified and collated all existing

planning permissions providing non-hazardous waste landfill capacity in the

northwest (excluding Cumbria).

2.4 An assessment of the available and projected landfill capacity at operational sites

within North West planning authority areas at year end 2009 is shown in Table 1. An

estimate of the remaining capacity at the end of 2013 is also shown. The end of

2013 has been chosen because this is the year that the current Arpley planning

permission finishes. This estimate is based on subtracting the known fill rates for

2010 and 2011 and assuming that years 2012 and 2013 are filled at the same rate

as year 2011. In the light of the recent trend in reducing disposal to landfill it is likely

that this would be an under estimate of remaining available capacity. In making this

estimate a number of sites will have ceased to take waste before the end of 2013.

Waste quantities deposited at these sites have been allocated to alternative sites

(Danes Moss to Maw Green, All Greater Manchester Sites to Pilsworth and Risley to

Pilsworth). No capacity is shown for Arpley as planning permission is presumed to

have ended.

3


Table 1: Non-Hazardous Landfill Sites and estimated capacity, 2009, 2010 &

2011 (EA Interrogators 2010 & 2011)

Waste Planning Area

Non-Hazardous Landfill Site

Capacity 2009 m3

Filling rate 2010 Tonnes

Fill Rate 2011 Tonnes

Capacity @ end 2013 (assume 2011 fill rate) m3

Cheshire East

Maw Green 1,394,336 119,101 126,491 746,714 Danes Moss 300,000 73,702 74,524 0

Cheshire West & Chester

Gowy 2,684,000 219,461 237,736 1,751,331

Kinderton 2,400,000 0 0 2,400,000

Greater Manchester

Highmoor Quarry 2,680,000 181,022 183,747 0 Pilsworth South 5,270,000 406,300 402,316 2,160,186

Whitehead 2,500,000 134,827 112,452 0 Clifton Hall 407,000 0 69,235 0

Lancashire

Clifton Marsh 2,270,000 185,957 265,056 0 Clayton Hall 500,000 127,791 102,481 64,766

Jameson Road 2,500,000 341,990 195,055 1,042,733 Whinney Hill 6,000,000 251,049 232,712 5,050,815

Merseyside Lyme Woods Pit 820,000 273,516 222,211 0

Warrington

Arpley 11,000,000 854,827 692,151 Planning End

Fir Tree Farm 1,005,000 5,647 78,002 765,347 Omrod Farm (2,000,000) 0 0 (2,000,000)

Risley 410,449 435,495 0

Totals 41,730,336 3,429,664 13,981,892

2.5 There are sites with planning permission for landfill which have not yet commenced

operation. Kinderton Lodge in Cheshire West & Chester has planning permission

for 2.4 million m3 capacity, however plans for commencement of operation of the

site are not known. The Warrington site at Omrod Farm (2 million m3) would

require clay extraction before any landfill operations could commence (not expected

before 2017 and thus excluded from table 1 totals). Whinney Hill Landfill site in

Lancashire has further landfill capacity but only subject to clay extraction (see

Appendix A).

2.6 A negative capacity is shown at Lyme Woods Pit reflecting that the site would be

filled before the end of 2013 at the rate of fill used in the calculation.

2.7 The significant reduction in capacity at the end of 2013 is a result not only of waste

deposits but also the closure or “mothballing” of sites due to a lack of demand for

landfill and economies of scale in diverting waste to a smaller number of strategic

facilities.

2.8 From 2012, the Clifton Marsh landfill site in Lancashire is no longer accepting non-

hazardous waste. Deposits at this site are now confined to asbestos and low level

radioactive waste. Waste that would have been deposited at Clifton Marsh is

diverted to Jameson Road, also in Lancashire.

2.9 Two sites in North Wales have also been considered as potentially providing

capacity within reasonable travel distance of the North West region. These sites are

both within the Wrexham unitary authority at Hafod and Pen y Bont. Input rates at

these sites are in the order of 80,000 tonnes per annum each. However, constraints

on waste input rates (including traffic and other input restrictions) mean that there

would be very limited opportunity for diversion of waste to these sites.

2.10 Therefore, the main non-hazardous landfill sites with remaining capacity at the end

of 2013 will be:

• Maw Green Cheshire East

• Gowy Cheshire West and Chester

• Kinderton Cheshire West and Chester

• Pilsworth South Greater Manchester

• Jameson Road Lancashire

• Whinney Hill Lancashire

2.11 The allocation of waste from Arpley to alternative sites within the Northwest region

may have a significant impact on the planned life of the remaining operational

landfill sites. Table 2 shows the capacity that would be available at currently

operational sites assuming landfilling continues at 2011 rates of disposal and that

the waste streams currently disposed of at Arpley have not been deposited at these

sites.

Table 2: Non-Hazardous Landfill capacity at end 2013 (EA Interrogator 2010 &

2011)

Waste Planning Area

Landfill Site Capacity @ end 2013 (assume 2011 fill rate) m3

Remaining Capacity m3 at site planning end date @2011 fill rates

Current planning End Date

Assumptions

Cheshire East

Maw Green 746,714 -53,286 2017

Danes Moss - - 2012 Input moves to Maw Green

Cheshire West

Gowy 1,751,331 1,038,123 2016

Kinderton 2,400,000 2,400,000 2024 Site not operational

Gtr Manchester

Harwood Quarry - - N/A 95% inert input

Highmoor Quarry - - Site closed 2012

Input moves to Pilsworth

5


Pilsworth South 2,160,186 -1,862,974 2023 Site extension of 1.8 m3 from 2024

Whitehead - - Site Mothballed

2012, Planning

permission ends 2013


Clifton Hall - - 2013 Input moves to Pilsworth

Lancashire Clifton Marsh - - 2015 Site closed 2012 (Mothballed)

Clayton Hall 64,766 - 2028

Jameson Road 1,042,733 67,458 2018

Whinney Hill 5,050,815

-1,930,545

2043 Additional capacity available subject to clay extraction

Merseyside Lyme Woods Pit - - 2016

Warrington Arpley - - 2013

Fir Tree Farm, Moss Hall, West of Moat Lane

765,347

-1,340,707

2040

Omrod Farm Lane

(2,000,000) - Capacity subject to clay extraction

Risley - - Site closed 2012


13,981,892 -1,681,931

2.12 A negative capacity illustrates that a site would be filled before the planning

permission.

2.13 Whilst some capacity is seen to remain at Maw Green as shown in Table 2 this site

is projected to be filled by 2017, at 2011 rates of deposit, and thus would be less

likely to be able to accept large quantities of waste diverted from disposal at Arpley

without significantly bringing forward the closure date. The mothballing of Clifton

Marsh in 2012 will mean that waste is diverted to Jameson Road and with a

maximum input rate allowed of 250,000 tonnes per annum capacity (Environment

Agency Permit revised 2006), Jameson Road would be effectively utilised through

2014 and 15 and by its planning end date. Whinney Hill shows a negative number

(more capacity needed than is available by 2043). There is additional capacity with

planning permission but this is subject to clay extraction, whilst the brickworks is

now closed (See Appendix A).

2.14 This analysis indicates that the main non-hazardous landfill sites which may have

remaining capacity to accept waste streams previously disposed of at Arpley at the

end of 2013 will be:





3. MAPPING

3.1 Map 1 identifies all non-hazardous waste landfill sites across the northwest

(excluding Cumbria). For the main non-hazardous landfill listed in paragraph 2.13

which may have remaining capacity at the end of 2013, capacity (by size) and origin

of wastes deposited at the site are identified. The map also identifies non-

hazardous landfill sites currently non-operational (not yet commenced, or currently

mothballed as at October 2012).

7


Map 1: Non-hazardous Landfill Sites in Northwest (excluding Cumbria) (waste

flows shown using blue arrows)

4. IMPACT OF THE CLOSURE OF ARPLEY ON LANDFILL CAPACITY IN NORTH

WEST

4.1 If Arpley landfill site were to close by October 2013 it may be assumed that

alternative disposal facilities either through treatment or landfill would be required for

those waste streams which have relied on Arpley as their primary disposal option.

4.2 In considering the potential impact of closure on those waste streams it is necessary

to examine the types, quantities of waste and origin of waste that have recently

been disposed at Arpley landfill and, for each waste stream, to review what

alternative options there may be for treatment and disposal. The most recent data

available for deposits at Arpley landfill are found in the EA Interrogator for calendar

year 2011. The EA Interrogator shows that a total of 692,150 tonnes of waste were

deposited at Arpley Landfill site in year 2011 (Table 3), of which 665,926 tonnes

were non-hazardous waste and the remainder inert waste. Information on Local

Authority Collected Waste (LACW) deposited at Arpley for calendar year 2011 is

found in WasteDataFlow, a database provided through Defra.

4.3 The waste deposited at Arpley in 2011 consisted predominantly of two waste streams: Household Waste; and Sorting Residues. These two waste streams accounted for 97.5% of deposits. The only other significant waste type deposited was of unused medicines and non-infectious human healthcare waste which totalled 2.3 % of deposits. Other waste deposits were only a little over 1000 tonnes. This breakdown is shown in figure 1.

Figure 1: Non-Hazardous waste deposits at Arpley Landfill, 2011 (EA

Interrogator 2011)

Household

78%

Other Sorting

residues

20%

Unused

medicines and

Non-Infectious

Human

Healthcare

Waste

2%

Other waste

0%

Non Hazardous Deposits at Arpley 2011

9


Table 3: Waste deposited at Arpley in 2011 with origin where recorded

Table 3 Arpley Total Non-hazardous Waste deposits 2011 (EA Interrogator 2011)

Waste Type Total Quantity

(Tonnes) Origin Quantity Tonnes

LACW to Arpley (Waste

DataFlow 2011)

Household 518,593

Merseyside & Halton

461,785 457,360

Warrington 54,258 53,520

Wigan 2,483

North West Region 67

Other Sorting residues

130,786

Merseyside & Halton

88,522

Greater Manchester 36,836

Warrington 5,428

Unused medicines and Non-Infectious

Human Healthcare

Waste

15,393 Merseyside 10,663

NW Region 4,730

Other waste 1,154

1,154

Inert 26,224

26,224

Total all waste 692,150

692,150

4.4 The three main waste deposits at Arpley in 2011 have been reviewed as follows:

LACW (Household Waste)

4.5 Household Waste as recorded in the EA Interrogator data is predominantly local

authority collected waste (LACW). However, site operators may classify some

commercial waste with a similar appearance or composition as Household Waste

and thus the recorded deposits of Household Waste usually exceed the quantities of

LACW waste deposited to landfill by Waste Disposal Authorities as recorded in

Waste DataFlow. In the case of Arpley, Household Waste deposits exceed the total

inputs recorded by Merseyside, Halton and Warrington by 7,713 tonnes. Table 3

shows that 88% of Household Waste deposits originated as LACW from Merseyside

and Halton, whilst LACW from Warrington accounted for 10% of Household Waste

deposits.

4.6 Should Arpley close, the options for the alternative management of Household

Waste include treatment, energy recovery and diversion to alternative landfill sites.

4.7 Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority (MRWA) and Halton are currently in the

procurement process for treatment of their residual LACW. However, commissioning

of the treatment facilities is not expected until 2015 or 2016. MRWA have a target of

landfilling less than 10% of waste arisings by 2020 and less than 2% by 2030. It is

expected that residual landfill requirements will reduce to low levels soon after

successful commissioning of the new waste treatment facilities. In the interim

period, MWRA anticipate residual household waste landfill requirements in the order

of 350,000 tonnes per annum, which would rise to the order of 380,000 tonnes per

annum including Halton’s landfill requirements. Whilst there are a number of waste

treatment plants within the Merseyside catchment area with planning permissions,

none is adequately progressed to commissioning such that it would become an

alternative interim option from 2013.

4.8 Warrington will not require landfill facilities for its residual LACW from 2013 onwards.

4.9 The closure of Arpley in October 2013 could therefore leave a shortfall in landfill

capacity for LACW in the order of 380,000 tonnes per annum for waste from MRWA

and Halton. It is likely that the total requirement would be around 1 million tonnes in

the period from the closure of Arpley to the commissioning of new treatment

facilities, assuming commissioning does not commence until 2015/16.

Sorting Residues

4.10 Recorded sorting residues deposited at Arpley were 130,786 tonnes for year 2011.

This is a 41% reduction on the 221,876 tonnes recorded as deposited at Arpley in

2010. Sorting residues from Greater Manchester reduced from 147,759 tonnes to

36,836 tonnes whilst sorting residues originating in Merseyside rose from 63,637 to

88,522 tonnes. Sorting residues from these two planning areas accounted for 96%

of sorting residue deposits.

4.11 The overall reduction in sorting residue deposits may reflect the increasing cost of

landfill disposal. The Landfill Tax escalator has increased tax levels from £24.00 per

tonne in 2007 to £64.00 per tonne in 2012, proposed £72 in 2013 and £80.00 in

2014. This increasing cost provides a strong incentive to minimise the quantity of

residual waste and encourages waste producers and management companies to

seek alternative options through waste segregation and additional sorting of waste

for recycling.

4.12 It appears likely that the quantity of sorting residues requiring landfill disposal will

continue to reduce. There is no precise measure of how rapidly this decline will

continue. An ongoing requirement for the landfill disposal in the order of 130,000

tonnes per annum would appear to be a worst case scenario.

4.13 As with LACW, although there are planning permissions for waste treatment plants

in particular within the Merseyside catchment, none is adequately progressed to

commissioning such that it would become an alternative interim option in the short

term (operational at 2013). However in the medium term it remains possible that

treatment options for sorting waste residues will become available.

11


Healthcare Waste

4.14 A total of 15,393 tonnes of unused medicines and non-infectious healthcare waste

were deposited at Arpley in 2011. About 70% of this was from Merseyside with the

remainder coming from the North West region. No wastes of these types were

recorded in 2010 and thus alternative options must have been available. Alternative

options would include alternative landfills and also a clinical waste treatment facility.

Other Waste

4.15 Other Waste amounted to 1,154 tonnes in 2011. This quantity may be regarded as

not significant in examining the impact on alternative options and availability.

Summary of Waste Requiring Alternative Disposal from October 2013

4.16 If Arpley were to close by October 2013, waste currently disposed of at the site

which would require alternative disposal options would include:

• LACW Waste - 380,000 tonnes per annum (indicative 1million tonnes in total

to 2015); and

• Sorting Residues - 130,000 tonnes per annum (ongoing or more likely

reducing).

5. PLANNING AND POLICY TRENDS IN THE NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE STREAM

5.1 A review of the procurement process of facilities for the management of LACW

across the North West has been undertaken. Table 4 reviews the status of the

implementation of waste treatment facilities and sets out the expected landfill

requirements for LACW.

Table 4: Proposed Landfill requirements by Northwest Waste Disposal

Authorities (NW WDAs & WasteDataFlow)

Waste Disposal Authority

Landfilled LACW 2011 from Waste Data Flow (tonnes)

Location of Landfill Facilities

Implementation of Waste Treatment facilities

Landfill requirement post 2013

Notes

Blackburn with Darwen

33,958 Lancashire In procurement Not yet Known

Cheshire East 86,667 Cheshire East

In procurement Requirement up to March 2014

Slippage in procurement could extend landfill requirements

Cheshire West & Chester

85,563 Cheshire West

In procurement Requirement up to March 2014

Slippage in procurement could extend landfill requirements

Greater Manchester

39 Greater Manchester

Fully commissioned

105,000 per annum

GMWDA is discussion with various local authorities to use spare capacity on short and longer term basis

Lancashire & Blackpool

131,286 Lancashire Fully commissioned

Contracted capacity in Lancashire to 2025

Landfill requirement may vary with residual waste treatment plant performance

Merseyside & Halton

36,262 (Halton) + 421,098 (Merseyside) = 457,360

Warrington (Arpley)

Commissioning expected 2015/6

In order of 380,000 tonnes per annum until treatment commissioning

Final commissioning dates not confirmed

Warrington 53,523 Warrington (Arpley)

None Required

Wigan 70,096 Cheshire West

In procurement Negligible requirement

5.2 As indicated in section 4 of this report, the requirement for landfill capacity by

MRWA and Halton is likely to be in the order of 380,000 tonnes per annum from the

end of 2013 until either 2015 or 2016, depending on procurement and

commissioning of new waste treatment facilities. Cheshire East and Cheshire West

and Chester expect landfill of residual waste to cease from March 2014. The

13


remaining authorities expect to require minimal landfill capacity with residual waste

treatment fully commissioned. This should apply to all the North West authorities

from 2016.

5.3 The non-hazardous landfill planning policy position for the waste planning authority

areas adjacent to Warrington is set out in Table 5.

Table 5: North West Planning Authority Areas (excluding Cumbria) Landfill

planning policies (2006 RTAB Monitoring Report).

Planning Authority Landfill Planning Policy

Cheshire East Reduced use of landfill identified as a key challenge but no

policy position has been developed yet

Cheshire West & Chester No position on landfill capacity has been proposed

Greater Manchester Provides for continuing operation at / and extension of the

principal non-inert sites. No specific restriction on accepting

imported waste, but the site operator would have to

demonstrate need if applying for any extension to an existing

permit

Lancashire Proposes long term landfilling of non-hazardous waste

supported at Whinney Hill only. New landfilling capacity

limited to time extensions at other existing permitted sites

Merseyside & Halton Proposes a criteria-based policy to evaluate applications for

inert and non-inert sites. Contains three allocations, two of

which are mineral extraction sites capable of being re-

activated as inert landfills

5.4 Information on C&I waste is shown in Table 6. However, the only significant C&I

waste being deposited at Arpely other than LACW are sorting residues (C&I) and

Arpley does not accept a wide range of C&I wastes. There was a 40% decline in

sorting waste deposited from 2010 to 2011 and it has been assumed this situation

will continue. It is therefore not relevant to include information on planning and

policy trends for this waste stream.

6. FORECAST FROM WASTE DISPOSAL TRENDS IN THE NORTH WEST

6.1 The trend for a reduction in the disposal of non hazardous waste to landfill is shown

in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Non-Hazardous Waste landfill trends 2000- 2011 (DEFRA 2012)

6.2 In preparing the analysis on waste management for the now abandoned Regional

Strategy, in 2010, the North West Regional Technical Advisory Body (RTAB)

provided estimates on the quantity of non-hazardous waste that may require landfill

facilities. These are given in Table 6. Municipal requirements were estimated from

the Landfill Allowance Trading regime. Indications from the Waste Disposal

Authorities are that landfill quantities will be significantly below these levels following

the commencement of residual waste treatment processes.

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

00

0s

ton

ne

s

Non Hazardous Waste Landfill Trends

2000 to 2011

NW Region

England and Wales

15


Table 6: RTAB (North West Regional Technical Advisory Body, now

abandoned, 2010) Landfill Requirements (NORTHWEST REGIONAL

TECHNICAL ADVISORY BODY (RTAB) REGIONAL STRATEGY WORKING

GROUP June 2010 Consolidated Background Paper)

Estimated Annual Landfill Requirement from 2020 - Assumes No Growth in

Commercial & Industrial Waste Arisings (Data in 000s tonnes)

Landfill requirement @ 70%

diversion from landfill

C&I Municipal Total

Cheshire East 114 49 163

Cheshire West & Chester 103 44 147

Cumbria 173 68 241

Greater Manchester 700 357 1057

Lancashire 427 199 626

Merseyside 312 193 505

Warrington 125 26 151

1,954 936 2,891

landfill requirement @ 90%

diversion from landfill

Cheshire East 44 49 93

Cheshire West & Chester 40 44 84

Cumbria 54 68 122

Greater Manchester 273 357 630

Lancashire 167 199 366

Merseyside 122 193 315

Warrington 49 26 75

749 936 1686

6.3 The RTAB also made use of the North West Commercial and Industrial Waste

Survey 2009 to estimate how much of this waste could be potentially recycled or

used for energy recovery. These figures are set out in Table 7: Recycling, and Table

8: Energy Recovery. This analysis shows that high levels of recycling or energy

recovery are possible (energy recovery would depend upon the availability of

facilities). If energy recovery were taken to its full potential this would leave just

13% of arisings for landfill.

Table 7: NW Recycling Potential from Commercial & Industrial Waste (2009)

(NORTHWEST REGIONAL TECHNICAL ADVISORY BODY (RTAB) REGIONAL

STRATEGY WORKING GROUP June 2010 Consolidated Background Paper)

Data in

000s

Tonnes

Currently

Recycled

(2009)

Recyclable Possibly

Recyclable

Recycled &

Recyclable

Commercial 2,392 343 1,350 2,735

55% 8% 31% 63%

Industrial 1,841 525 800 2,366

59% 16% 25% 75%

Table 8: NW Energy Recovery Potential from Commercial & Industrial Waste

(2009) (NORTHWEST REGIONAL TECHNICAL ADVISORY BODY (RTAB)

REGIONAL STRATEGY WORKING GROUP June 2010 Consolidated

Background Paper)

Data in

000s

Tonnes

Currently Recovered

(2009)

Recoverable Possibly

Recoverable

Recovered &

Recoverable

Commercial 2,397 1,679 154 3,066

55% 38% 4% 93%

Industrial 2408 410 227 2818

74% 13% 7% 87%

6.4 In forecasting ongoing landfill requirements an assumption has been made on the

basis of ongoing landfill disposal at 2011 rates as the best observed data available.

However, the implementation of treatment processes for the disposal of LACW and

the increased cost of landfill tax is likely to reduce the requirement for landfill

disposal in the medium to long term.

17


7. WASTE IN WARRINGTON: WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES TO LAND FILLING

AT ARPLEY?

7.1 The shortfall in capacity resulting from the closure of Arpley in October 2013 is likely

to be in the order of 1 million tonnes (see section 4).

7.2 Although there are planning permissions for new waste treatment plants, in

particular within Merseyside, none are adequately progressed to commissioning

such that they would become an alternative option for the waste streams currently

disposed of at Arpley in the short term. However, in the medium term there are plans

to divert the LACW waste currently disposed of at Arpley to treatment plants, (see

Table 9). It also remains possible that treatment options for Sorting Residues will

become available in the medium to long term. Diversion of significant quantities of

waste to treatment facilities appears impractical in the short term (before the close

of 2013). There is also considerable doubt as to commissioning dates indicated in

Table 9 below and thus additional treatment capacity from 2013 cannot be relied on.

Table 9: Known Planning Position of Waste Treatment Facilities, North West

Region (excluding Cumbria) at October 2012

Planning

Area

Site Total

Annual

Capacity

Start

date

if

post

2012

Actual or

Predicted

throughput

if post

2012

Grid

Reference

Notes

Cheshire

West &

Chester

Ince Marshes

EFW

2015? 600,000 SJ 46700

77000

Under

construction

Ince Marshes

MBT

2015? 100,000 SJ 46700

77000

Under

Construction

Greater

Manchester

Viridor

Reliance Street

MBT 130,000

130,000

Viridor Longley

Lane MBT 125,000

125,000

Viridor Bredbury

Parkway MBT 220,000

220,000

Viridor

Arkwright Street

MBT 120,000

120,000

Viridor Cobden

Street MBT 110,000

110,000

Recon

Packaging Ltd 7,020

2,552

SD 86800

00000

Roydon

Polythene Ltd 10,400

7,819

SD 89648

14717

U B U

Environmental

Ltd 250,000

1,500

SD 74305

03605

Frank O' Gara &

Sons Ltd 8,610

8,610

SJ 72218

93310

U K Metal

Industries Plc 3,448

3,448

SJ 99151

97092

U K Metal

Industries Plc 5,115

5,115

SJ 95061

98541

Bolton Energy

Recovery 120,000

85,000

Merseyside

& Halton

Orchid

Environmental

MHT, Huyton 120,000

Ceased

operation

Mersey Green

Solution

(Biossence/New

Earth

Solutions), MBT

Hooton Park 400,000 ?2013 400,000

Permission

revised 2009 &

implemented

construction on

hold

Energos

gasification

plant Penryhyn

Road, Knowsley 80,000 ?2014 80,000

Draft permit

agreed, not

known

commencement

date

Mersey Green

Solution, MBT

Widnes

Waterfront 200,000 ?2015 200,000

Dec 2010

secured

planning

permission

awaiting

construction

Jack Allen

Holdings,

Autoclave

Garston Dock 150,000 ?2015 150,000

Permitted but

understood

operator pulled

out

19


PDM Group, AD

Widnes 150,000 ?2013 15,000

National facility

10% origin NW,

permitted

awaiting

construction

EMR/Chinook,

autoclave

Bootle 134,500 ?2013 134,500

Permitted,

construction on

hold

Lancashire

Global

Renewables

MBT Leyland 225,000 93,146

SD54000

24000

100%

Lancashire

waste

Global

Renewables

MBT Thornton 225,000 78,772

SD33600

44500

100%

Lancashire

waste

North

Wales

Deeside

Industrial

Estate,

Flintshire North

Wales Residual

Waste

Treatment

Project 150,000 2017 150,000

Under

procurement, 2

preferred

bidders SITA &

Wheelabrator

TEG AD Waen,

ST Asaph 20,000 2013 20,000

Commissioned

by Debighshire,

Conwy &

Flintshire

Councils

7.3 The analysis in Section 2 indicates that the main non-hazardous landfill sites which

could have remaining capacity to accept waste streams previously disposed of at

Arpley at the end of 2013 are:





7.4 Disposal of waste from Merseyside to sites in Cheshire West and Chester Greater

Manchester or Lancashire would be potentially viable although transport costs

would increase. These landfill sites are commercially operated and any diversion of

waste to these sites would only be possible subject to contractual arrangements.

7.5 A controlling factor on the availability of these alternative landfill sites would be the

controls on daily waste or annual waste inputs and vehicle movements.

7.6 Pilsworth South has a planned annual capacity of 600,000 tonnes. In making

projections of available capacity it has been assumed that waste will be diverted

from sites in the Greater Manchester area that are in the process of closing up to

the end of 2013. It would therefore appear possible that capacity at Pilsworth could

be effectively fully utilised. Alternatively however, overall reductions in deposits to

landfill under influences such as the Landfill tax escalator, may result in adequate

additional capacity remaining.

7.7 At the Whinney Hill landfill site, 600,000 tonnes of non hazardous waste per annum

are allowed in the site permit (Deposit data for 2011). However, evidence provided

by SITA, the site operator, raise an issue of availability of void subject to mineral

extraction (see Appendix 1). Detailed negotiation with the landfill operator would be

required to determine the availability of capacity from 2013.

7.8 The Gowy landfill has an indicative remaining capacity in the order of 1.8 million m3

at the end of 2013. There are no planning restrictions on the waste quantity that can

be accepted but there are constraints on the routing of traffic into the landfill site,

with no more than 270 movements in and 270 movements out Monday to Friday

and half the number on Saturdays. The scope for additional waste input would

required detailed analysis of current vehicle movements and the extent to which

large volume bulk loading could utilise remaining vehicle movement numbers

allowed.

7.9 The other site in Cheshire West and Chester is Kinderton Lodge. This site has

permission for 2.4 million m3 capacity and whilst the permission has been activated,

the timescale for commencement of operation is not known. The planning

permission restricts waste receipt through an unilateral undertaking (by the

applicant), which states that no more than 25% of the total tonnage of waste

received per annum or 50,000 tonnes of waste, whichever is the greater, shall be

received on to the land from outside the administrative area of Cheshire County

Council (per annum being each successive 12 month period commencing on landfill

commencement date).

7.10 The mothballed site at Clifton Marsh in Lancashire has a remaining capacity in the

order of 1.8m m3 indicated at the end of 2013 and remains a possible option for

accepting non-hazardous waste for disposal. However, provision of ongoing

capacity cannot be guaranteed as reopening would be subject to negotiations with

the site operator and permitting compliance.

21


8. CONCLUSION

8.1 If Arpley were to close by October 2013, non-hazardous waste requiring alternative

disposal options would include;

• LACW Waste - 380,000 tonnes per annum (indicative 1 million tonnes in total

to end 2015)

• Sorting Residues - 130,000 tonnes per annum (ongoing or more likely

reducing year on year)

8.2 The requirement for landfill capacity by MRWA and Halton is likely to be in the order

of 380,000 tonnes per annum from the end of 2013 until either 2015 or 2016

depending on procurement and commissioning of new waste treatment facilities. It

is therefore reasonable to say that this is a short term issue from 2013 – 2015/16

when the commissioning of waste contracts takes effect, assuming there are no

significant delays to the procurement process.

8.3 The Landfill sites with significant remaining capacity at the end of 2013 are:





8.4 There are constraints on the total quantity of waste which each of these sites is able

to accept over and above the remaining sites capacities, either expressed as total

annual quantity through the planning permission or Environment Agency Permit, or

through maximum permitted vehicle movements controls. Revision of these

conditions would require variation to existing planning permissions and permits.

8.5 Whilst the travel distance for disposal from Merseyside to alternative sites in

Cheshire West and Chester, Greater Manchester and Lancashire is practicable, any

use of these sites will require detailed negotiations with the relevant site operators to

determine if these site options are in practice capable of receiving additional waste

deposits.

8.6 Sites currently mothballed and with remaining permitted capacity, for example

Clifton Marsh, could potentially be reopened but this is not a certainty and use of

these sites would be subject to negotiations with the site operator and permitting

compliance.

8.7 It appears unlikely that any single site could provide all of the additional landfill

capacity that has been identified as being required following the closure of Arpley in

October 2013. In theory, dispersal of the identified landfill requirement from 2013 to

2015 or 2016 to more than one, or all of the sites with remaining landfill capacity, is

possible and should be considered as an option, although this would add to the

complexity of contractual arrangements and costs.

8.8 In forecasting ongoing landfill requirements an assumption has been made on the

basis of ongoing landfill disposal at 2011 rates as the best observed data available.

However, implementation of treatment processes for the disposal of LACW and the

increase cost of landfill tax is likely to reduce the requirement for landfill disposal in

the medium to long term and thus estimates made using historic data may

underestimate future remaining capacities.

23


Appendix 1

http://lancashire-consult.objective.co.uk/portal/reg27?pointId=1279029012200#section-1279029012200 Lancashire County Council – Waste Planning Consultation 2011

SITA UK have made repeated representations during the Development Framework process warning that Whinney Hill is an active

quarry and availability of landfill void depends on the progress of mineral extraction and weathering. As the quarry has planning

permission to 2042 and the recession has resulted in the associated brickworks being mothballed, it is highly unlikely that all of the

void will be available during the Plan Period to 2021 as the strategy currently assumes. To add to the uncertainties in timing the

eastern half of the site does not yet have an Environmental Permit to operate as a landfill site, yet this void is assumed to be available

during the plan period to 2020. Three fifths of the total landfill void assumed in the DPD to be available over the plan period to 2020

is in Whinney Hill Quarry.

arpley landfill site pavement report v2.0 · pdf fileatkins was appointed in february 2012 to...

Documents