EiP Statement

Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan Part 2

Our ref 41915/02/JG/MWl
Date August 2018
To Programme Officer
From Lichfields

Subject Matter 16: Development Management Policy; Issue 4 Health and

Wellbeing (Policy DM30)

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Lichfields is instructed by Encirc Limited (Encirc) [Representor ID: 1149791] and has submitted
duly made representations to the Cheshire West and Chester [CWaC] Submission Local Plan
Part 2 (March 2018) [SLP2].

1.2 This Statement is submitted in the context of Encirc’s interest in CWaC, namely land at Encirc
Glass in Elton, Ellesmere Port and expands upon the written representations concerning Matter
16: Development Management Policies and in particular focusses on Issue 4: Health and well
being (Policy DM 30).

1.3 The representation in this Statement is additional to, and should be read in conjunction with,
Encirc’s previous submissions on the Local Plan Part 2. Although this Matters Paper focusses
on our concerns with Policy DM 30, other concerns outlined in our previous representation
continue to be pertinent.

1.4 This Statement responds to the Inspector’s Matters Issues and Questions. Where relevant, the
comments made are assessed against the tests of soundness established by the National
Planning Policy Framework [the Framework] and the National Planning Practice Guidance [the
Practice Guidance].

1.5 A detailed Technical Report has been prepared on behalf of Encirc by acoustic consultants Amec
Foster Wheeler (now part of Wood Group), which considers the content and implications of
Policy DM 30 and the accompanying explanatory text in detail. This report was submitted as an
appendix to the previous submissions on the Local Plan Part 2. The key findings of the report
and all technical details have been used to inform the comments made in this Statement. We
have not re-appended the Technical Report to this Matter Paper but this Statement must be
read in conjunction with the Technical Report.

Background to Encirc and the Encirc Glass site at Ellesmere Port

1.6 Encirc is a nationally significant player in the UK’s glass industry. After entering the market in
1998 it set out to provide a more sustainable and less energy intensive offer to clients and now
represents a third of the entire UK’s glass market. Encirc opened its Elton Plant in 2005 and it
is now one of the largest of its kind in the world, where galls containers are manufactured and
filled on-site for customers. The development of its Elton site, which was previously the site of
Ince B power station, is an example of large scale brownfield regeneration best practice.

Pg 1/6 Lichfields.uk
16364816v3
1.7 After strong growth and expansion of its business, Encirc’s Elton site workforce has increased to
more than 800 staff. Encirc offers high value roles and well paid jobs across a range of
occupations and skill levels, which is particularly important given that the roles created by
Encirc align closely with the occupations sought by local job seekers.

1.8 The Elton site has a strong economic presence in the North West of England and helps
businesses across the UK, Europe and further afield to reduce their environmental impact and
particularly lower their emissions. Encirc is committed to the sustainability agenda and in 2018
have rebuilt one of the furnaces at a cost of £40m, with the second furnace due a similar rebuild
investment in the coming 1-2 years, to improve efficiency. Encirc has also installed a rail head
for the importation of raw materials which has resulted in a significant transfer of road-based
HGV movements to rail.

1.9 Encirc’s operations at Elton generate significant expenditure in the local and national supply
chain, estimated to be £103m a year. This supports an additional 776 supply chain jobs,
representing a very significant contribution to the local and national economy.

1.10 Reflecting the scale of its operations at Elton and the number of locally employed residents,
Encirc plays a significant role in the community and wider society by directly supporting local
charities and education providers.

1.11 Encirc continues to commit and invest in its Elton site and it is important that CWaC Council
supports its continued successful operation. Any planning policy resulting in an impact on the
operation or facilities of the Elton site must therefore be considered in light of Encirc’s
significant economic, environmental and social benefits. Finally, Encirc is very much
committed to its Elton operation and would intend to continue to maximise its operational
output which will ensure long term job stability in the manufacturing industry whilst
minimising the impact on local residents in the area.

2.0 Policy DM30: Noise

2.1 The stated objective of Policy DM 30 is to avoid significant adverse impacts on health and
quality of life, from noise. It specifically refers to noise associated with industrial and
commercial development and the importance of ensuring that residential development is not
detrimentally affected by noise, and a consideration of noise arising from construction and
demolition activities. The policy also establishes working hours for demolition and construction
works when residential development is likely to be affected.

2.2 Encirc considers that Policy DM30 fails to meet the following tests of soundness because:
1 It is not positively prepared: The policy as currently worded is likely to have the
consequence of stifling the delivery of development by placing unduly restrictive limits on
internal and external noise levels and is therefore likely to have a negative effect on
economic growth and prosperity.
2 It is not justified: The noise levels set within the policy do not reflect good practice
guidance, BS 8233:2014 or other accepted standards such as the Design Manual for Roads
and Bridges (DMRB). It is lacking in flexibility to accommodate development which may be
wholly suitable despite not meeting standards quoted.
3 It is not consistent with National Policy: Policy DM 30 fails to properly consider
national policy in the Practice Guidance which highlights the importance of considering
new development within an appropriate context.

Pg 2/6 Lichfields.uk
16364816v3
2.3 Encirc objects to Policy DM 30 and the accompanying explanatory text as currently worded. In
order to address the conflicts identified above and ensure that Policy DM 30 is sound, it is
considered that CWaC Council should amend the policy as follows:

“In line with Local Plan (Part One) policy SOC 5, development must not give rise to significant
adverse impacts on health and quality of life, from noise.

Industrial and commercial development, including oil and gas development and energy
generation schemes, shall not result in an unacceptable rise in background noise levels as
measured as an L90dB(A). Where development, likely to produce industrial or commercial
noise, is proposed adjacent or near to noise sensitive receptors, noise levels from the
development shall be determined as a rated sound level in accordance with the British
Standard BS4142:2014 and shall be 5dB(A) or more below the background level at the nearest
façade of the residential use:

All forms of residential development will be expected to meet all of the following:

1. Noise levels within habitable rooms during the day (0700 - 2300 hours) of 35dB LAeq, 16
hours;

2. Noise levels within bedrooms during the night (2300 – 0700 hours) of 30dB LAeq, 8 hours
and individual noise events should not exceed 45dB LA; and

3. Noise levels within outdoor living areas (excluding balconies and communal areas) during
the day (0700 – 2300) should not exceed 50dB LAeq, 16 hours.

Where there is potential for an industrial, commercial, residential or wind turbine proposal to
result in noise or vibration impacts which affect residential properties, or other sensitive
receptors, the applicant must undertake a noise impact assessment carried out in accordance
with current guidance and in agreement with the Council’s Environmental Protection team.

For the purpose of assessing noise, noise that is intermittent, distinctive, impulsive or tonal in
nature will be subject to a correction penalty, as stated in British Standard BS4142:2014, for
the purpose of deriving noise rating level. Where noise gives rise to more than one of these
characteristics, the penalties applied are additive.

Where residential uses are likely to be affected, it is expected that demolition and construction
works shall be carried out during normal working hours i.e. 08.00 to 18.00 hours Monday to
Friday, and 08.00 to 13.00 hours on Saturdays, with no works being permitted on Sundays or
Bank Holidays.

The Council must be satisfied that the proposed location of any construction/demolition site
compound will minimise the noise impact on neighbouring residential uses”.

2.4 The explanatory text to the policy [§13.13] should be amended to reflect BS8233:2014 (which
gives guidance on sound insultation and noise reduction for buildings) and the Professional
Practice Guidance on Planning and Noise published in May 2017 [ProPG] which both indicate
that the relaxation of internal limits by 5 dB may be appropriate and reasonable internal
conditions still achieved under certain circumstances.

2.5 The explanatory text [§13.14] should be amended to reflect BS8233:2014.

2.6 The explanatory text [§13.15] should include the requirements of the ProPG which refers to a
two-stage approach to noise assessments resulting in (if necessary) the submission of an

Pg 3/6 Lichfields.uk
16364816v3
 appropriate detailed Acoustic Design Statement [ADS] with applications for residential
development.

2.7 The explanatory text [§13.16] should correctly reference the title of BS 5228, namely:
BS5228:2009=A1:2014 “Code of Practice for noise and vibration control on construction and
open sites” Part 1: Noise and Part 2: Vibration.

2.8 The wording of the explanatory text [§13.17] should be adapted for industrial/commercial
developments and new residential developments referring to BS4142:2014 and ProPG
respectively.

Inspector’s Questions on Policy DM 30

Q1. Does the policy comply with national policy in regard to mineral extraction as
set out in paragraphs 142 and 143 of the Framework in developing noise limits,
PPG Minerals paragraphs 091 and 124 and BS8233:2014 Noise control on
construction and open sites and the WMS relating to Shale and gas and oil?

2.9 Encirc has no comments to make on this matter.

Q2. Does the use of fixed noise thresholds accord with national policy and are they
justified? Would the thresholds as set out accord with Local Plan Part One Policy
SOC5 with reference to ‘significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life’?
Would the approach accord with guidance on the PPG Health and wellbeing ID 53
paragraph 002?

Does the fixed noise thresholds accord with national policy?

2.10 Encirc notes that the Framework does not identify the use of fixed noise thresholds within
development plan policy as a means of controlling the impact of noise from new development.
The Framework1 recommends that the mitigation of adverse impacts arising from noise from
new developments is controlled through the use of conditions, which can set noise thresholds as
necessary).

2.11 Encirc considers that Policy DM 30 fails to properly reflect national policy in the Practice
Guidance2 which highlights the importance of considering new developments within an
appropriate context. Practice Guidance states that while local planning authorities may decide
to develop and include local standards, they should work with communities and business to
exercise care: “… to avoid these being implemented as fixed thresholds as specific
circumstances may justify some variation being allowed”. It is understood that this
consultation has not been undertaken by CWAC Council.

2.12 Planning Guidance3 advises that external noise impacts of new developments may be partially
offset if residents have access to “relatively quiet alternatives, for example a quiet façade or
externally publicly accessible amenity space”. This sets out a requirement for setting new
development within an appropriate context rather than applying fixed thresholds. Again, Policy
DM 30 does not accord with this approach.

1 National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), §123

2 Practice Guidance – ID:30-010-20140306
3 Practice Guidance – ID: 30-009-20140306

Pg 4/6 Lichfields.uk
16364816v3
2.13 An arbitrary and unjustified policy insistence on a level of 5dB or more below background is
overly cautious and is not sanctioned in BS 4142:2014. The use of rigid thresholds in the policy
makes no allowance for considering the context of individual development proposals.

2.14 Encirc would also have expected to see reference being made to ProPG [specifically in
explanatory text §13.17] and inclusion of this alongside reference to BS4142:2004 would negate
the need to include fixed thresholds within the policy wording.

2.15 The use of fixed noise thresholds within the policy does not therefore accord with national policy
and guidance. National policy and guidance set out above suggests that new development must
be considered within an appropriate context and with its current wording, Policy DM 30 allows
for no such consideration or flexibility.

Are the fixed noise thresholds justified?

2.16 Encirc does not consider the thresholds applied to be justified. The inclusion of these thresholds
has the potential for the levels quoted to set ‘inflexible’ standards above which no development
would be allowed, which may prejudice the delivery of otherwise suitable development.

2.17 As noted in §2.13 above, Policy DM 30 includes a requirement for rating levels to be 5 dB or
more below the measured L90dB(A) background noise level. The actual wording in BS
4142:2004 is that “if the rating level from site operations does not exceed the existing
background sound level then this is an indication that the specific sound source has a low
impact, depending on the context”. Encirc considers that Policy 30 is not justified in giving this
threshold in the context of BS4142:2014. Furthermore the use of this threshold does not give
any allowance for considering site context and any evidence presented by an applicant for
development relating to noise at application stage.

2.18 ProPG4 indicates that in noise sensitive rooms (i.e bedrooms) individual external noise level
events should not normally exceed 45dB LAmax,F more than 10 times a night “as this
represents a threshold below which the effects of individual noise events on sleep can be
regarded as negligible”. Policy DM 30 states that noise levels within bedrooms during the night
should not exceed 45dB LA. The wording in DM30 is overly restrictive in that it does not allow
for a single breach over 45dB, which is generated from outdoor noise sources. This is, therefore,
contrary to the guidance set out in ProPG.

2.19 Similarly, the requirement that “noise levels within outdoor living areas (excluding balconies
and communal areas) during the day (0700-2300 hours) should not exceed 50dB” does not
appear to accord with the wording in BS 4142:2004. This wording gives a higher upper
guideline of 55 dB which would be acceptable in noisier environments. BS 4142:2004 also
recognises that the guideline values may not be achievable in all circumstances and that in areas
of high noise a compromise between elevated noise levels and other factors would need to be
met. It concludes stating “in such a situation, development should be designed to achieve the
lowest practicable levels in these external amenity spaces, but should not be prohibited”.
Again, Policy DM 30 does not accord with the sentiment of this guidance and the thresholds are
not justified in relation to this guidance.

2.20 It is considered that absolute thresholds as proposed to be set out in Policy DM 30, should not
be applied in order that the Part 2 Local Plan policy may accord with national policy and
guidance.

4 Professional Practice Guidance on Planning and Noise (May 2017) §2.31

Pg 5/6 Lichfields.uk
16364816v3
 Would the thresholds as set out accord with Local Plan Part One Policy SOC 5 ‘significant
adverse impacts on health and quality of life’?

2.21 Encirc considers that the wording of Policy DM30 and the application of fixed noise thresholds,
sometimes at levels below background, is not consistent with Local Plan Part One Policy SOC 5.
Policy SOC 5 states that “development that gives rise to significant adverse impacts on health
and quality of life [e.g. …noise…] including residential amenity, will not be allowed”. It is
therefore not a requirement to apply thresholds within Policy DM 30 to accord with Policy SOC
5.

2.22 In the context of individual developments, it may be that noise levels above those defined in the
current draft policy could be allowable, in that they may not necessarily give rise to ‘significant
adverse effects’, thereby prejudicing development in some instances. The development
management function should then be applied through the submission of appropriate evidence
with planning applications and the consideration of applications against relevant codes of
practice and good practice guidance by the Council’s Environmental Health Officers. In
addition, as supported by the Framework, where necessary noise thresholds can be set via
planning conditions.

Would the approach accord with guidance on the PPG Health and wellbeing ID 53 paragraph
002?

2.23 As noted above in reference to Policy SOC 5, guidance on the PPG Health and wellbeing seeks to
ensure that through the plan-making process issues such as the “potential pollution and other
environmental hazards, which might lead to an adverse impact on human health, are
accounted for in the consideration of new development proposals.”

2.24 Again, it is not a necessity to set fixed thresholds to accord with this guidance and the
development management process can be used to mitigate the impact of noise on human health
for new development proposals.

Pg 6/6 Lichfields.uk
16364816v3