The report to these Appendices is available as the text/Word version Appendix I To PTE/11/6
Appendix II To PTE/11/6
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
Representation Substance of response Original Response Reg 19/Further Response 1. Highways Agency (19.4.10) 1. The selected option for access arrangements is satisfactory subject to confirmation on impacts within the TA (applicant has been asked for additional information direct). 2. HA will need to be assured that traffic calming measures along New Park Road will not lead to backing up of traffic onto the trunk road. 3. Clarification is required that all of the traffic calming and access road will be delivered prior to commencement of the EfW to minimise impact of construction traffic. 4. HA wish to know how WPA will control the tonnage of material being brought to the site and seek an appropriate condition to avoid future impacts on the SRN. 5. The TA does not include any indication of the proposed impact on the mainline flow of the A38 and it is important to understand that the slip roads can accommodate the additional HGVs and whether there would be an adverse impact on vehicle weaving on the A38. 1. Highways Agency Still a number of issues not addressed by the TA addendum: 4.4.11 Two proposed changes to the application have the potential to result in a material impact on the safe and efficient operation of the SRN: 1. Duration of landfill (increased by 5 years to 2043) 2. Capacity of void increased from 825,000sqm to 970,000sqm HA requires analysis demonstrating likely impact of revised proposals on the safe and efficient operation of the SRN. HA requires clarification that the new access road and traffic management works will be constructed prior to the commencement of on site construction to mitigate the impacts of construction traffic (condition?) HA requires clarification that the submitted capacity of 275,000tpa is not exceeded in the light of the potential impact of any increase on the SRN The HA is now aware that the proposal is actually in the region of 338ktpa including C&I waste and other materials?) HA require additional information concerning peak flows on the west bound off slip. HA require additional information from the applicant concerning potential impact from personal transport during construction phase. HA require a sensitivity test to determine a cap on the expected number of HGV trips as submitted information on HGVs is inconsistent. HA wish to have a legal agreement not to implement the quarrying permission (Being pursued by DCC) 1. Highways Agency Supplementary Response 9.5.11 Works in relation to the proposed access will need to be secured by Grampian Condition; HA not satisfied with response to query about how the tonnage will be restricted to 275,000tpa and wish to clarify how this would be achieved by DCC. 2. Friends of the Earth (19.4.10) 1. Statement of Community Involvement The SCI produced by Viridor does not meet the requirements for proper SCI. This is confusing “misinformation”. 2. The application gives the impression that recycling will take place at the facility due to the naming of the facility. This is considered to be misleading as the only “recycling” relates to IBA. 3. Figures used in the documentation are inconsistent (examples given). 4. ES not put together in such a way as to be helpful. 5. Proposal is contrary to PPS1 due to existing environmental constraints/ancient woodland/River Yealm. 6. Incineration is not a prudent use of natural resources and will undermine recycling & cause pollution. 7. Focus should be on composting and increasing recycling rates through the SWDWP area so that it meets the same rates of .50% that SHDC has achieved.
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
8. Viridor’s modelling of alternatives (Section 14) is very limited and does not include AD as supported by DEFRA’s waste strategy (2007). 9. The “potential” use of heat doesn’t equate to an actual use. 10. Comparing the carbon footprint only with landfill is misleading as all options are better than landfill. 11. CO2 emissions from transportation to and from the site have not been factored into the overall environmental footprint which ignores 10 million tonnes of rubbish being moved on the roads during the 25 year contract period. 12. If recycling rates reduce then waste will still have to be transported to the site – there is no convincing modelling of transportation over the life of the incinerator. 13. Waste recovery is too far down the waste hierarchy and the proposal contravenes the principles of PPS10. Alternatives do not consider strategies the reduction of residual waste or its modelling. 14. The long fixed contracts being offered by the SWDWP will stifle innovation and not drive waste reduction. 15. The proposed incinerator will not contribute to sustainable communities, will pollute the atmosphere causing harm to human, animal and plant life. 16. The importation of waste from a wide area contradicts the “proximity principle”. 17. TA is very confusingly set out. 18. Modelling of freight movements is limited and the conclusion that the traffic movements are acceptable in traffic and transport terms is not justified. 19. There is no HGV management plan for the operational phase. 20. No analysis of impact of additional HGVs coming from Torbay – would they go through Totnes AQMA – any routing agreement? 21. Even if the general increase in traffic is 2.6%, a 45.2% increase in HGV movements through Lee Mill is unacceptable. 22. The proposal does not promote access by modes other than the car and is therefore contrary to PPG13 and PPG1 which require the consideration of sustainable transport. 23. There will be no walking or cycling routes to the site. 24. The LVI section is subjective in its justification of the proposal. 25. The proposal is contrary to PPS9 in its damaging impact on ancient woodland and habitat areas. 26. The unacceptable impact on the sensitive River Yealm both from leachate from the site and drainage ditches. 27. Impacts on the Yealm would have an impact on bat foraging and this will be inevitable during the construction phase. This is contrary to the habitat regulations and permission should not be granted. 28. The proposal is contrary to the Habitats Regulations due to the unmitigated impacts on bats. 29. The proposal fails the sequential test for essential infrastructure as the access road will be impassable in times of flood. 30. The application is contrary to Government Policies in PPS1, PPS9, PPS10, PPG13; PPS23 and PPS25 and the treatment method is outmoded. 2. Friends of the Earth (5.4.11) Reg 19 response R19.1 Alternatives still not fully modelled; no landfill gas capture (despite landfill being available for putrescible waste); landfill gas not modelled into the CO2 calculations; no use of heat. R19.9 No mention of lorry routeing through Totnes – no indication of routes for Torbay Waste. R19.10 Predicted traffic impacts are meaningless in the light of uncertainty about C&I waste arisings. R19.12 Traffic impacts in construction and operation stage should be modelled into the carbon footprint calculation Using existing transport distances to landfill in no justification for maintaining the status quo - the EfW should demonstrate a significant reduction in transport associated CO2 emissions and does not. R19.17 Recent DEFRA survey revised down the amounts of CIW available. R19.50 Response on Dartmoor SAC is inadequate and unclear. Concern about nano particles smaller than PM10 – no research and therefore no certainty. Impact on Dartmoor SAC from particulates from high speed traffic on A38; Waste sorting not foolproof and therefore the facility will burn lead, cadmium and mercury leading to its content in
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
residue ash and particulates. Different waste streams will mean different emissions therefore not possible to determine impact on SAC; cumulative impacts with Langage and Hemerdon detrimental. R19.98 Recycling options within the facility remain unclear – no indication of what will happen to materials unsuitable for recycling. R19.99 Answer incomplete. Assumed quantities of waste going to landfill not calculated nor have CO2 or CH4 emissions & no provision for gas capture. 3. Government Office for the Refer to regulation 21 of the T&CP (EIA) Regs 1999 which require the LPA to notify the Secretary of State of any decision taken. Request South West (23.2.10) copy of decision notice and any conditions. 4. South West Water (22.2.10) No objection 4. South West Water Reg19 No further comment Response (18.02.11) 5. RSPB (4.3.10) Provide advice on retention and compensation of bird habitat.
5. RSPB (11.4.11) Suggest submission of detailed scheme to form part of a condition 6. South West Councils Will only respond if they consider there are significant issues relating to general conformity or general alignment with the RSS. (Regional Planning Body) (24.2.10) 7. Devon County Mineral/Waste Policy (22.2.10) 7 Devon County Waste Policy Broad assessment of policy fit at Regional Strategic and Local level but no conclusions/recommendation. 8. Commission for Architecture Unable to review proposal due to limited resources – suggest referral to Regional Design Review Panel. and the Built Environment (Subsequent discussion with Timothy Cantrell of the RDP indicated that as they have already seen the initial design and commented on it they (08.3.10) would not have anything significant to add – by e-mail 24.3.10). 9. Devon County Public Rights There are no current or recorded Prows affected by the application of Way (19.3.10) 10. HM Inspector of Quarries No comment (25.3.10) 10. HM Inspector of Quarries No adverse comments to make. Reg19 response (14.02.11) 11. Cornwood Parish Council 1. The Visitor Consultation presented a range of options for traffic through Lee Mill but the final chosen Option 10 was never consulted on and (7.4.10) Visitor should be required to carry out additional consultation. 2. The roads in Lee Mill are already seriously congested, particularly at peak times, and the addition of 150 HGV movements per day is unacceptable. 3. Concern about the impact on the River Yealm and its flood plain and leach ate into the river from bottom ash being treated in the open. 4. The location of the plant in a District with high recycling rates and where the majority of the waste will be imported is inappropriate. 11. Cornwood Parish Council Continued objections (6.4.11) 1. Concern that there are no safeguards on proper separation screening and control of C&I waste. Waste may come from a wide area with no local control. Concern about long term hazard/damage. 2. Traffic Increase in HGVs in both directions on already overloaded roads and junctions. Modelling does not support claims that local road structure is adequate. Access road crosses environmentally sensitive areas. 3. Environment The access road passes over wildlife designated areas, concern about leachate from the landfill will add to existing pollution loads. 4. Technology
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
Old fashioned and out of date technology. 5. Long tern CIW availability Considerable reduction according to recent studies and therefore a CIW facility may not have sufficient material over the operational period. 6. Energy from Waste No use of heat. 12. Devon County Waste The tonnage estimates with regards to municipal waste match those that have been generated by the three Authorities. Management Officer 1. The evaluation of the Environmental performance (CO2) for the proposed technology and other residual waste technologies is provided, but (12.4.10) there needs to be a technical evaluation of other options to justify the Few technology set against other thermal treatment options. 2. The information supplied on C&I waste reinforces the arguments on need but there is a question about whether the figures are as up to date as possible. 3. The application states that the capacity of the facility is 275,000 tap, however taking into account landfill, the facility’s capacity is 308,000tpa but the traffic modelling is based on 275,000tpa. 4. The application is unclear about the type of waste that might enter the landfill and the applicant needs to clarify whether only inert waste will be land filled at the facility. 12 Devon County Waste In response to the original request under R19.1 to provide an evaluation of alternative thermal and non thermal treatment technologies, the Management Officer applicant has re-run the WRATE analysis but this has not provided the supplementary information requested in the initial response. (11.04.11) No consideration has been given to explain what advanced thermal treatments are and why they are unsuitable alternatives to the proposed technology. The WRATE analysis is not detailed enough and little data has been provided about input parameters into the model. The input parameters do not reflect those used by the SWDWP in its own WRATE assessment and the outputs do not include many of the environmental information available from the model including abiotic resource depletion; global warming potential, human toxicity; acidification (amongst others) Information provided in response to R19.104 does not make clear the entire nature of the IBA processing operation – no schematic drawings for the scheme have been provided. The details of the operation remain loose. 13 South Hams District Council The EHO requires a more detailed assessment of future estimated road traffic movements and the effect this may have on air quality – the – Environmental Health DMRB modelling is not sufficient. Officer (informal initial The EHO is concerned about the potential noise impact and proposed mitigation measures, particularly in relation to the most affected response and not SHDC properties i.e. the Piggery. “corporate” view) (12.4.10) 14 Yealmpton Parish Council Raise concerns based primarily on transport, air quality, human health and hydrology/hydrogeology. (14.4.10) The application should be refused due to: 1. Proximity to and likely impact on the River Yealm; 2. Inability of the applicant to achieve a satisfactory transport solution in relation to the A38 for eastbound traffic; 3. The potential risks to human health arising from pollution of air and water. 4. Impact on the Dartmoor National Park and South Devon AONB 14 Yealmpton Parish Council Amended proposals of little consequence and did not address the real issues. No revised views. (25.04.11) 15 Sparkwell Parish Council There is insufficient evidence to support the safe and reasonable use of Western Road through Lee Mill as the recommended access from, the (13.4.10) west to the proposed plant. The statistics presented by the applicant are selective and incomplete. (12.10.10) The proposed option (10) was never part of the public consultation. “The proposed traffic measures are totally inadequate, unacceptable, unreasonable and totally uncaring of the life and amenity of the residents of the village” The Parish Council expresses serious concerns about the impact on the River Yealm and its flood plain, air pollution and impact on human health; the Waste Local Plan indicates that there are issues with flooding and that the Quarry is a County Wildlife Site and originally only rated
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
60th of 87 sites considered in the Local Plan Area. The Parish Council query the need for the facility given that recycling rates in South Hams are nearly 60% and most of the waste is being imported. Representation No 2 12.10.10 Incineration is an outdated technology and it is unacceptable to be locked into this for the next 25 years when there are alternative proven methods. The requirements expressed by the EA for numbers of tight operating conditions imply that the proposal in environmentally unsustainable. The proposed receipt of commercial waste will lead to substantial increases in the numbers of HGV traffic. The proposal is unacceptable in a district in the top 10% for recycling in the country and taking waste from poorer performing areas is “morally indefensible”. 15 Sparkwell Parish Council Additional objection (10.4.11) Commercial and Industrial Waste Sources of waste may have different arrangements and therefore lead to incineration of recyclable waste or hazardous materials. Traffic through Lee Mill Waste from a wider area will increase the numbers of HGVs on the trunk road in both directions. The comment that DCC consider the existing roads suitable for increased loading is unsatisfactory. Consultation No local consultation on the amended application. No consideration or updated modelling of the effects on residents. Impact on the River Yealm; out of date technology, low amounts of energy produced, morality of building an incinerator in an area with high recycling rates and now including importing waste from a wide area. 15A Paul Lacey (Transport Raised a number of queries on the survey data –Pursued with applicants and highways. Consultant for Sparkwell Parish Council) 15A Paul Lacey LVV The Parish Council welcomes the proposed improvement to the Beech Road junction. Highways(Transport Substantial concerns that the data has been incorrectly analysed. Consultant for Sparkwell The quoted numbers in the new Tables and Figures are much higher than those observed in the new surveys. The use of AADT traffic flows Parish Council) also gives an unrealistic impression of the effect of the development traffic during the normal working hours of a weekday. Further assessment of the SLR data indicates that the figures prepared in table 3/3 are based on a combination of HGV and Light Totals rather than just HGV and that the overall increase in HGV movements at the narrowest point of Western Road is 30.64% rather than 12.25% as suggested by SLR and up to 45% over the 07.00 to 08.00 period leading to unacceptable conflict with pedestrians and more local westbound traffic. There should be traffic signals installed to resolve this conflict. The Applicants have suggested 4 options for mitigation in Western Road and have chose Option C as their preferred suggestion for off site works. The Parish objects to this choice (which is the provision of a signal controlled pedestrian crossing adjacent to the Post Office) on the grounds that it will lead to the loss of residents’ and Post Office parking, will cause additional noise and air pollution caused by eastbound vehicles stopping in the narrowest section of road; additional danger to pedestrians on the north side of Western road when lorries are stopped at the signals; no priority to westbound vehicles which will worsen the situation for westbound traffic. Parish Council request that Option B is given further consideration. 16 Devon Stone Federation The infill of the quarry void as a landfill would sterilise the remaining mineral reserve leading to the loss of several million tonnes. (15.4.10) The DSF is concerned that supplies of minerals essential for construction are likely to become scarce in future years and that existing reserves and identified resources should be actively safeguarded. The likely recovery rate for secondary aggregates is small relative to the loss of mineral reserve and although they realise that the proposal has significant merits in terms of resource recovery, they are objecting on the grounds of loss of mineral reserve.
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
16 Devon Stone Federation Issue of sterilisation of reserves is noted, however the applicant has misunderstood the purpose of a Mineral Consultation Area in arriving at (7.4.11) the figure for % of reserves sterilised. DSF has made its point about conservation of mineral resources and leaves the MPA to determine whether the sterilisation is “significant” in terms of determination of the planning application. 17 Landscape advisers The landscape and visual impact of the proposal is a major concern due to the scale and nature of the proposals, loss of ancient woodland DCC/SHDC – interim and location within a predominantly rural setting within visual range of Dartmoor National Park and the South Hams AONB. responses The LVIA methodology is broadly based on that of the Landscape Institute/Institute of Environmental Management, however there is currently insufficient information to understand the full range of likely landscape and visual impacts and further information is requested. The following are major areas of concern: 1. The scale, character, and overall visual impacts of the dome building are inappropriate at this location given its rural context, and its significant visual impact on rural views from local viewpoints. The proposals may also significantly adversely affect the setting of Dartmoor and impinge on its special qualities (subject to consideration of further information requested); having an urbanising effect that may be worse when the plume from the stack is visible and when night lighting is evident. 2. The cumulative effect of the stack with the Langage chimney and planned wind turbines in the area (Sherford New Town) could increase the urbanising effect on local views and skylines. 3. The landscape and visual impact assessment does not acknowledge fully that the site is in a rural landscape context but rather describes the site location in the context of ‘ribbon development’ associated with Lee Mill and other development to the north of the A38 degraded by local pylons and is a brownfield site. The site is located sufficiently distant from these built features to be regarded as ‘rural’, and the presence of the woodland strengthens the separation from the A38 corridor. 4. The applicant acknowledges that the proposals will be highly visually prominent. However, the design rationale, to create a landmark building that will create a ‘pleasing incident’ in views, has not been devised through a consideration of the landscape character and visual context, and is inappropriate and flawed. The applicant has taken care to design a building with a clear image (which has been supported by CABE in architectural terms). However in landscape terms the design approach should have been informed by the need to respect the setting of Dartmoor, the rural landscape character and local visual amenity. The futuristic image and scale of the building does not respect this, and the structure will be seen as an odd industrial building in a rural landscape. A more sensitive approach would be to set a design objective of integration and concealment in keeping with the landscape character context, and to examine the capacity of the site to accommodate development of this nature without significantly affecting the landscape character and visual amenity. The building design in itself may have merit (as noted by CABE) but it is the design approach to the building at this location that is being questioned. 5. The design rationale for colour choice is confused, the brown colour is supposed to blend with the rural backdrop, yet the building is not trying to blend in at all. The warm brown tones will also draw attention to the building rather than it receding in view (as in basic colour analysis, warm colours bring things closer to the viewer, and cool colours recede). Should the development go ahead, the design rationale should be clarified, and the exact colour should be agreed subject to detailed colour analysis including assessment of colour panels in real conditions (as opposed to reproduction in virtual images such as photomontages). 6. The loss of ancient woodland associated with the proposed access road is of great concern and should be resisted, given the fact that ancient woodland is irreplaceable. An alternative access route that avoids the wooded valley is possible and the Applicant has acknowledged that this would be preferred on environmental grounds.
17 DCC Landscape Adviser TBC
18 DCC Climate Change The sustainability appraisal is one sided and incomplete listing only the positive impacts of the project. It fails to include references to negative Support Programme Officer impacts and the associated mitigation required to reduce these. (15.4.10) The application is misleading in its reference to “compliance” with the waste hierarchy as this is merely a presentation of preferred options relative to landfill.
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
No reference has been made in the Sustainability Appraisal to the fact that the burning of combustible recyclable materials recovers only a small proportion of the embodied energy whereas recycling allows recovery of the materials themselves. The incineration of plastics represents an opportunity cost of several product lifetimes and therefore recycling of clean uncontaminated materials is more resource efficient than incineration with (limited) energy recovery. If the self imposed target by the British Plastics Federation of reducing the rate of plastic package recycling from 25% to 50% by 2020 is met then the calorific value of household and commercial waste streams is likely to fall and this could affect the viability of the plant by reducing energy sales and also the environmental benefits in terms of fossil fuel displacement as increased tonnages will be required to maintain electrical output (see Chineham EfW in Basingstoke) The applicant has not stated how much local interest there has been in taking the metal recovered from the bottom ash – the haulage for this will have an impact on the overall SA. The recycling of bottom ash into concrete blocks could be more environmentally beneficial if it were feasible to include a foaming agent such as aluminium powder to produce a light-weight block that has a higher insulation value than normal weight concrete blocks (though light-weight concrete blocks can only be used in applications where a slight reduction in strength is acceptable). Waste: To avoid the on site landfill filling prematurely with waste from outside the area (and further facilities being needed in South West Devon) and to avoid long-distance vehicle movements to the facility from outside the area the plant should take waste only from the South West Devon area. Are there any opportunities for using oxygen from the adjoining site to reduce the BOD/COD of the leachate that will arise from the landfill (or, potentially, from the waste pit)? Initially, the plant is to either recirculate raw leachate through the landfill or tanker it off-site for treatment. Reference is made (in para 3.106), to the potential for a leachate treatment facility on site in the future. Ecological impacts & air quality – Although control and regulation of these impacts is the responsibility of the Environment Agency as Waste Regulation Authority. There is little information about the impacts of exceptional events, rather than ‘business as usual’. For example, how effective is the stack at dispersing emissions when there is no wind? The development proposed could have an adverse impact through wind-blown dust and detritus associated with waste handling and storage on the site. The impact of the loss of wind-blown material from the 130m x 57m open-air drying facility for IBA, which entails the maturation and turning of IBA for 4 to 6 weeks (presumably longer during periods of wet weather), is not properly apprised. Environmental Quality – the SA interprets this indicator as being concerned with design quality and visual appearance, and proposes a positive impact of the development. This is misleading, as the indicator is actually about litter, dog fouling, graffiti, fly tipping, fly posting, etc.
2. Carbon Footprint There is a slight disparity in the amount of commercial and industrial waste that the facility will accept - s 4.8 of the Environmental statement specifies capacity is 275,000 tonnes of which MSW is 203,000 tonnes, leaving a balance of C & I waste of 72,000 tonnes. Para 14.19 of the Carbon Footprint specifies that the facility will process circa 25,000 to 50,000 tonnes of C & I waste.
The WRATE Analysis carried out by Entec for the South Devon Waste Partnership bases its energy from waste option on the Chineham EfW plant. This produces 8MW of electricity from 90,000 tonnes of waste. Scaling up, that would mean that NE’s 275,000 p a capacity would yield 24.4 MW.
The characteristics of the waste stream are, however, critical. A higher than expected biomass content or a reduced plastics component will reduce electricity output. Such factors will be determined largely by the nature and extent of recycling schemes to which the various waste streams are subject prior to arrival of the residual waste at the NE plant. I note that the WRATE Analysis is based on household waste modelled to predict the waste composition in 2020, which incorporates waste growth and the extraction of material through recycling and composting schemes. I am not clear what assumptions have been made in this model and, therefore, the likelihood of the electricity output being as proposed.
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
Para 14.20 includes justification for regarding C & I waste as similar in composition to municipal waste. However, C & I differs from municipal waste in originating from fewer sources, each of which is likely to be more homogeneous that the sources of municipal waste. With C & I waste comprising up to 26% of the waste stream to the plant, closer study of the likely calorific value of the particular C & I waste stream likely to be tapped by the proposed plant in Devon is required, bearing in mind its implications for electricity output (and carbon benefits).
The developer states that they are keen to recover and sell to local homes and businesses the heat from the partially cooled steam and hot water after it has passed through the turbines. This would greatly enhance the environmental benefits (and economic viability) of the plant in terms of its carbon footprint. It is noted that consultations have been undertaken with potential users but that no definite proposals have been put forward. The pursuit of the use of heat will clearly change the sustainability assessment of this proposal.
3. Contingency In August 2009 there was a large fire at Sita’s Billingham Incinerator, which caused the electrics and hydraulics in the incinerator to stop working. Are there contingency plans in place to ensure that if the proposed New England EfW plant were to stop working because of a fire or other reasons the waste would be properly and safely handled without detriment to local residents or the local environment? 19 DCC Ecologist (15.4.10) Objection based on the proposal and the proposed compensation and mitigation package in the ES. 1. The proposal is contrary to National, Regional and Local Planning Policy leading to (1) the loss of ancient woodland, woodland CWS, wet grassland CWS, a County Geological Site and a mosaic of habitats around the quarry void; 2. The ES does not sufficiently address alternative locations as required by EIA guidance and PPS9. 3. The WPA raises a holding objection to the proposal pending the submission of additional information that will enable the WPA and the Environment Agency to carry out an Appropriate Assessment. 4. Loss of CWS and unimproved grassland is contrary to national, regional and local planning policy. There is very little similar wet grassland in the South Hams. There is a lack of compensatory habitat proposed and SLR assess the residual impact to be moderate negative but this is queried as a potentially major negative impact. 5. Locating a road and landfill site within a river corridor of high natural value is contrary to national and local planning policy. Development within this corridor will inevitably lead to increased disturbance to protected and BAP species such as otter, bats (including Barbrastelle which is listed on Annex II of the Habitats Directive) salmon (a feature of Dartmoor SAC) etc. The assessment of this residual impact as negligible is queried. 6. The SLR assessment of the loss of the quarry void as a residual negative impact is considered to be a major negative impact. Open water surrounded by a mosaic of semi natural habitats is rare in the South hams and this habitat should therefore be protected. 7. Although impacts on protected species have been minimised, the proposed development still impacts on a large number of protected species. There will be a loss of bat roosts and foraging habitat within the quarry and a disturbance of the river corridor. 8. The loss of the County Geological site is contrary to National, Regional and Local Planning Policy.
APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT Natural England has advised that there is likely to be a significant effect on three SACs – Dartmoor, South Dartmoor Woods and the Yealm Estuary. The key issues are potential water and air pollution. DCC and the EA need to ensure that there is sufficient information within the EA in order to undertake an Appropriate Assessment and agree as to which organisation will act as the lead competent authority in undertaking the assessment.
Air Quality Current Situation: The ES states that air dispersion modelling shows that there will be no impact on Plymouth Sound and the Estuaries and that the development will not make a significant contribution (>1% of critical level) to Dartmoor SAC. The ES does state that there could be a
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
potential problem at Dendles Wood SSSI (Part of the South Dartmoor Woods SAC) if operating at upper WID emissions. Appropriate Assessment The EA Environmental Permit covers air pollution emissions from the site and will ensure that this modelling exercise meets their requirements. The EA do not, however, cover traffic emissions in the Environmental Permit. NE has agreed to advise as to whether traffic emissions need to be considered given the distance of the SACs from the development site. Provided that traffic emissions do not need to be included the EA will confirm whether they are happy to act as the competent lead authority with respect to the air quality issues within the AA.
Water Quality Current Situation The ES states that water quality issues will be dealt with through a hydrological risk assessment (produced at EA permitting stage) and a Surface Water Drainage Scheme which will ensure there are no impacts on the SAC. Appropriate Assessment The EA will confirm to DCC whether the Environmental Permit covers all water quality issues which may impact on the SACs. These include leachate from the landfill site, surface water runoff, sewage treatment on site, dewatering of the quarry. Provided that all water quality issues are covered by the EA they will consider whether they are happy to act as the lead competent authority with respect to water quality issues within the AA. 20 Dartmoor National Park The DNPA is not currently in a position to come to a view on the application based on the information submitted and requests an extension to Authority the consultation period until such time as requests for additional information have been met. (14.4.10) The DNPA has serious concerns about the impact of this proposal on the Dartmoor national Park. The primary concerns are with regard to the landscape impact of the development and the impact of the operation on ecology, habitats and the tranquillity of the National Park.
Policy Context The scale of the proposal appears to be contrary to the overarching strategy of the Devon Waste Local Plan and whilst this may be an allocated site it does not meet the strategy which suggests a decentralised approach of between four and six locations for strategic waste management facilities to deal with all types of waste in or near to the principal urban areas and sub regional centres. The National Park is concerned that when the NEQ site was allocated there was no consideration of the DNP as a constraint on its allocation and it is therefore clear that the County Council did not intend that a proposal on the site would be of such a scale as to impact on the DNP and it is on this basis that the NPA raised no concerns about the allocation of NEQ in the Waste Local Plan. The application should therefore be considered under Policy WPP4 (Non allocated sites) and accordingly requires that the proposal demonstrates that it would contribute to the achievement of an integrated and sustainable waste management strategy for the County. The principle of such a strategy would require that a significant development which would impact on the National Park as well as an increase in traffic on roads adjoining the National Park should be carefully scrutinised. The NPA has concerns about the timing of the application with relation to the SWDWP procurement process – the application appears to be premature and the NPA is concerned about the proper consideration of alternative sites and also that the context of the application may change as the process continues. Landscape Impact There is inadequate information within the ES to judge whether the landscape impact on the DNP is acceptable. There is concern that the ES suggests that it presents a worst case scenario but this is subject to considerable doubt and therefore additional information is required. Impact on Local Recycled aggregate market In this area of Devon and South Dartmoor there is a relatively high production of recycled aggregate from quarry operations (china clay sand etc). The impact on this from a major further source may impact on the level of surplus needing to be tipped at the China Clay operations and the Hemerdon Tungsten Mine with consequent landscape impacts.
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
Design The design rationale seems confused between a landmark building and blending in with the landscape. The photomontages suggest the choice of colour would not be successful and a design rationale is required to demonstrate how the building’s design reflects the surrounding landscape. The sedum roof appears “tokenistic” and a view very few people would see. The applicant should demonstrate why a more extensive use of sedum is not possible. The structure of the air cooled condensers seems to be a thoughtless element of the design and requires further justification. Ecological Impact The impact of the proposal on the ecology of the DNP is assessed as not significant. In order to agree with this conclusion the DNP will wish to take advice from NE and DCC. There are a number of specific issues that have been raised at this stage: - Records of Barbestelle Bats in the Yealm Valley with a maternity roost in the area of Dendles wood and foraging areas recorded as far south as the A38. It is possible that a maternity roost for this colony is present within the application site 20 Dartmoor National Park The Authority objects to the application on the grounds that it would have an unacceptable impact upon the setting of the Dartmoor National Authority Park and that there is currently insufficient information provided to ensure that the development would not have an unacceptable impact upon the habitats and protected species within the Dartmoor National Park. 21 Devon RIGS Group (15.2.10) The application recognises that the Quarry is a County Geological Site but it is disappointing that no proposals have been put forward to conserve and positively enhance the features which can be seen. It is recognised that the proposed filling of the quarry would take place over 25 years and that the geological features would remain visible for a number of years, however some earlier enhancement and improved access would be beneficial. The proposal as it stands is contrary to PPS9 and therefore the RIGS Group formally objects to the application as it stands because it does not make any proposals for conserving geological features which are important for educational and scientific research purposes and which cannot be seen elsewhere. 21 Devon RIGS Group R19.95/1 – the drawing does not label the proposed areas outlined on the drawing. The geological aspects of the proposal have not been adequately considered in accordance with the guidance in PPS9 and the applicants have not adequately responded to the points raised by RIGS group in their original response. Maintain objection until additional information is received and mitigation proposed in accordance with original requests. 22 Campaign to protect Rural CPRE object to the application on the following grounds: England (Devon) (16.4.10) 1. The strategic waste management case for this plant in this location has not been made; 2. The most advantageous and least damaging technology has not been proposed; 3. The ES does not make clear the real environmental damage likely from the operation of the proposed plant; 4. The likely effects on the local infrastructure in terms of transport and disruption to the local community have not been adequately addressed; 5. Arrangements for the disposal of toxic waste have not been adequately addressed; The proposal will cause serious damage to the River Yealm which is already under considerable environmental pressure. The addition of this facility to a number of abstractions from and discharges to the River System is likely to damage the sensitive habitats within the Estuary such as Oyster beds and sea bass nursery. The River which is already stressed is the subject of numerous environmental designations and management plans.
The proposal is premature in that other sites are being considered through the partnership bidding process for similar facilities in the partnership area. No decision should be made on this application until the wider interests of the whole area have been considered through the partnership process. The proposal does not adequately consider other options such as increasing recycling rates. The proposed generation of renewable energy even as a by product does not justify the proposed technology as it is insignificant when set against the generating capacity at Langage.
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
The proposal is in the wrong place as it cannot utilise the surplus heat and there are no commercially useful users sufficiently close to the site. The reliance on burning plastics will provide little incentive for their future recycling as they will be required to burn for producing energy that is not required. If recycling rates were to increase then residual waste may not keep the plant effective and waste would have to be “imported” from a wider area. The proposal should therefore be balanced against alternative sites which can provide advantages of heat and power that can be properly utilised by the City of Plymouth whilst reducing the road miles for the transportation of waste on already congested roads.
There will be a serious impact on Lee Mill village and the surrounding road network and will be a 25 year blight on Lee Mill as well as adding to traffic on the A38.
There will be an impact on tourism from the impact of the proposal, cumulative with that of the Langage Power station on an area known as the “gateway to Dartmoor”.
There is little confidence that the operator can guarantee compliance with EU and other environmental directives and ensure safe operation at all times. An online facility should be available that can be monitored by the public in real time to ensure that the emissions are 100% compliant with the regulations.
Concerns about the impact of toxic wastes (fly and bottom ash) on the River Yealm and runoff from the site.
The Pennon Group in their alternative guise as SWW already control 10 of the 15 abstractions and discharges into this small river and it is not healthy for one company to have such control over the fragile river environment. 22 CPRE (27.3.11) Clear weaknesses in the SWDWP approach due to complexity of permitting/planning system, artificial administrative boundaries and no comparison of like with like in appraising proposals. Essentially now being asked by Viridor to consider a second large incinerator in the SWDWP area fro C&I waste only. Environmental Impact Proposal is within 75m of the R Yealm which is a fragile river, already stressed by discharges and abstractions. It passes from Dartmoor through the AONB to Heritage Coast and is heavily used for recreation with the estuary being a SSI/SAC, sea bass spawning area and oyster bed. The proposal also passes through the Flood Plain designated as Flood Zone 2. The access road is the critical weakness and is now wider than the original proposal and will impact on Ancient woodland contrary to PPS9 Viridor has not answered questions about how waste reception can ensure that all was delivered is non hazardous. No use of heat. Concern about use of River Yealm for turbine cooling water. No requirement for 2 incinerators and recent DEFRA figures on C&I waste arisings demonstrate that there is insufficient demand for a second C&I waste facility. Concern that if another facility is built it will deal with waste from Cornwall and other SW authorities currently exporting waste elsewhere. Economy Concern about tourism impact when more people being encouraged to holiday in the UK. A further industrial process in this area in addition to Langage will discourage tourists and detract from the beauty and appeal of the area. Serious blight from traffic on Lee Mill and Ivybridge – no action from the applicant on previously promised road improvements. Lack of co-operation Applicant has made very few concessions to public concerns – especially highway based. Conclusion Wrong technology to commit to for such a long time span – in the face of emerging and less damaging technologies.
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
Proximity principle refers to the need for a facility to be close to waste arisings – if the Plymouth Incinerator goes ahead, then the use of NEQ for a C&I waste facility cannot comply with the proximity principle. The chances of operational failure close to such a sensitive location lead to an unacceptable risk. 23 Ivybridge Town Council Object to the proposal on the following grounds: (16.4.10) The A38 eastbound off slip is through the centre of Lee Mill village. The company has not been sufficiently clear about the direction from which their waste would come. Previous developments in Lee Mill have led to a massive increase in traffic with few remedial measures taken to reduce the impact on the village. As the eastbound off slip is on an incline and two way; the HGVs travelling downhill have to brake to stop at the priority access chicanes. There are minimal width footpaths with the potential for waste carrying vehicles to be very close to the front doors of residential properties as well as being an additional hazard for users of the church and shops. Noise, dust and vibration issues are a major concern. If Western Road Ivybridge is acknowledged as having air quality problems it is impossible to imagine that the same issues do not arise at Western Road Lee Mill and this has the potential to get far worse if the proposal goes ahead. The action by Viridor will reduce on street parking ad is a “do nothing” option and as such totally unacceptable for such a major development.
The potential benefit of the use of heat from the plant as a CHP plant has been missed and therefore the efficiency of the proposal is diminished. Alternative sites (such as Devonport) have significant industrial users of heat without the huge infrastructure cost that would be incurred to use it at NEQ.
It is unreasonable to locate a large industrial plant in a small rural parish, the third in Sparkwell after the Langage Power Station and the Langage farm anaerobic digester especially as the South hams has a very good recycling record nationally. It would therefore be shouldering the burden for the poor records of Plymouth and Torbay.
Concerns are also raised about human/environmental health implications but the parish Council feels unqualified to make a comment in the face of differing scientific opinion. 23 Ivybridge Town Council Stands by previous objections and makes the following additional comments: (8.4.11) 1.The type of proposed facility is detrimental to the “recycling message”. 2.The timescale for the proposal is of concern given that waste streams may change over the next 30 years. If the waste is unavailable locally it may have to be brought in from elsewhere. 3. The proposal may landfill 957,000 tonnes of waste but there is no provision for landfill gas capture contrary to WPP39. 4. Concern about permanent pollution of the River Yealm and cumulative impacts on the food chain. Impact on SSSI, fishery and recreation on the Yealm and is an unacceptable risk. 5. Detrimental visual impact on the DNP and South Devon AONB. 24 Food Standards Agency Organic food is subject to the same contaminants regulations (including dioxin limits) as ordinary milk and so whether or not a farm is organic (16.4.10) should make no difference to the assessment of food chain impact. If there was perceived to be sufficient risk to make milk monitoring from a food safety standpoint necessary then the application itself should be questioned. There is no scope to make such a condition a part of the environmental permit and it would be very difficult to make it into a planning condition as there would have to be baseline monitoring in any case which would require the initial support of all food producers. 24 Food Standards Agency No change since previous consultation response. (27.4.11) Defra/EA/HPA are currently looking at Govt Policy on emissions from EfW but there is no indication that there will be any significant policy change at this stage. Testing of locally produced food is not something deemed to be necessary, however if local producers are concerned and wish to have baseline measurements they could either arrange to carry out their own surveys or persuade applicants to pay for the cost (dioxin analysis is about £600-£1000 per sample). FSA can provide advice on testing if necessary.
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
25 Devon Wildlife Trust Their response is based on the Key Principle of PPS9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation) which states: (16.4.10) “Where a planning decision would result in significant harm to biodiversity and geological interests which cannot be prevented or adequately mitigated against, appropriate compensation measures should be sought”. The DWT have considered the quality, quantity and timing of the compensation is appropriate and their view is that the amount any type proposed is insufficient to compensate for the loss. 25 Devon Wildlife Trust The information submitted regarding habitat loss and formation is now clearer, however there are still areas where improved clarity would (11.4.11) assist in assessing the proposal. e.g The figures in Table 1 Vol 1 cannot be summed to reach a total figure for habitat loss. There is insufficient mitigation (particularly as grassland restoration covers a 25 year period) for the loss of 6.7 ha of unimproved natural grassland and ephemeral habitats from within the quarry. DWT would like to see a commitment to the restoration of species rich grassland habitats throughout the two semi-improved fields located in the south east of the site.* 26 South Brent Parish Council The Parish Council has grave concerns about this application due to the environmental and traffic implications and the potential for (16.4.10) contamination of the River Yealm. 26 South Brent Parish Council Grave concerns about the application due to environmental and traffic implications and potential for contamination of the river Yealm. (4.4.11) The loss of the SWDWP contract means that there will be increased traffic due to imported waste material. 27 Brixton Parish Council Support the representation by Yealmpton Parish Council (14) (16.4.10) Permission should be refused: 1. The proximity of the site to the River Yealm and the danger of contamination to the oyster beds in Brixton parish; 2. The inability of the applicant to achieve a satisfactory transport solution in relation to the A38 for eastbound traffic 3. The risks to human health arising from potential pollution of air and water including toxic leachate from landfilled bottom ash. 4. The oysters farmed in the Yealm are able to concentrate pollutants and therefore the risk to the River Yealm from emissions from the plant is unacceptable. 28 Newton and Noss Parish Object to the application:: Council (14.4.10) 1. Risks to water quality and potential long term risk to the mollusc beds in the River Yealm; the cholera outbreak 150 years ago taught lessons about the relationship between river pollution and health. The existing loading on the river is increasing due to increased development and the sewer network poorly maintained. There is concern that the pollutants likely to emanate from the site would accumulate ion the food chain after the eventual break down of the landfill liner. This is considered to be a long term and permanent danger. 2. Visual impact on AONB and the National Park. The plant will be seen from many miles around and not jus the “industrial corridor” described by the applicant. The existing industrial development is not of the scale proposed and the stacks are 50% higher than that at Langage. The aircraft warning lights will be visible from a long distance and will intrude on the AONB and DNP. 3. Inadequate design to minimise the risk to human health; Existing emission standards are minimum acceptable and not best practice. There is concern that the impact of micro particles is not controlled simply because the effects are not yet understood. PM10 particles are already known to have an adverse impact on human health and will be emitted from the plant and from traffic movements around it. There is also concern about the potential impact from dioxins and other similar emissions. The lower temperature generation proposed is not best practice and pyrolysis which acts at much higher temperatures would reduce emissions and potential impacts on health. The monitoring by the EA is doubted and the view is that there will be an increase in chronic ill health around the site. 4. No proper site access road; 5. Unacceptable noise, accident and emission risk from additional traffic in Lee Mill. There will be a significant deterioration in the quality of life for residents of Lee Mill from 300 extra HGV movements per day. The existing road
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
infrastructure is inadequate and the mitigation is impracticable. There are health risks from increased accidents, emissions, noise and vibration. A site with main line railway access should have been chosen to promote a sustainable solution. 6. No proper consideration of sustainability issues 7. Incorrect meteorological analysis of the site weather patterns; the wind rose produced by the applicant has come from a coastal monitoring station (Mountbatten) and does not truly reflect on site conditions as diurnal coastal variations will not be reproduced inland and the applicant has consequently overestimated the clearing effect of the wind around the site particularly during periods of high pressure in the warmer months. No adequate risk assessment has been undertaken and a correct wind analysis is required. 8. Conflict of interest between South West Water and Viridor. 28 Newton and Noss Parish Reiterate previous objection and highlight main concerns about threat to River Yealm: Council (22.3.11) Threats of new access road along the river Toxic risks from commercial and industrial waste Risk to Oysters, Bass, eelgrass beds etc. Stress levels already existing in the river. 29 South West RDA (16.4.10) The proposal will create employment and training opportunities in the priority environmental technology and construction sectors identified within the Regional Economic Strategy (RES). The RES will be supported by encouraging more sustainable waste management practices and contributing toward the delivery of a sustainable energy supply for the region. In doing so it will be essential that the facility efficiently redistributes all of its energy outputs (Including heat) 30 The Crown Estate (19.4.10) The Crown Estate is responding as owner of the tidal portions of the Yealm Estuary and the River Yealm as far north as Newton Wood in Newton Ferrers. Do not object outright but express concerns relating to: 1. Direct ground source pollution of the watercourse 2. Diffuse ground source pollution of the watercourse 3. Airborne pollution of the watercourse and the marine environment (particularly with relation to nanoparticles and the possible concentration of toxins in the food chain) Require baseline monitoring studies undertaken along the course of the estuary prior to commencement of construction and independent monitoring to assess the impacts of the scheme on water quality and shellfish with milestones for re-evaluation should an impact be discerned. 30 Crown Estate Reg 19 The new data seems to address many of the issues raised but the study is localised in nature. Further baseline monitoring studies should be response (16.2.11) carried out at points in the R Yealm and its estuary prior to construction. There should be further independent monitoring on the Yealm and indicator species such as shellfish to monitor pre and post construction environmental impacts and to assess the potential impact of particulates which still seems to be uncertain. 31 Ermington Parish Council Concerned about the impact of extra eastbound traffic exiting the A38 at Lee Mill through the narrow main street which is residential with (16.4.10) narrow pavements. Traffic approaching from Yealmpton would come via New park Road which is already a bottleneck. There is also concern about congestion at the junction of the C194 and Western Road which may lead vehicles to stack back up onto the A38 leading to danger on the trunk road. The PC is concerned about emissions and the stack plume, residual waste, watercourse pollution, water table pollution and the use of outdated technology. 31. Ermington Parish Council 1.The site remains unsuitable and the application ignores the universal environmental objections including HGV access through Lee Mill and (and residents of Hunsdon) via the local highway network The site was not previously a landfill site 2. Question need for second incinerator in the area. Incineration is out of date technology and Zero waste options should be pursued e.g Option 7 which provided clean technology and may the subject of a planning application in the near future on a site which will have appropriate road and rail access. 3. Estimates of future waste arisings flawed based on DEFRA latest figures. Predicted arisings have dropped by 50% (C&I) and the plant could
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
not operate as proposed without importing considerable waste from outside the south west – contrary to the proximity principle. Transport miles would be unsustainable. 4. The proposal will increase the bottleneck at the C194/Western Road junction and will back up traffic approaching from the east to the facilities in Lee Mill and lead to traffic backing up onto the westbound A38. Slow moving traffic will increase accidents on an existing black spot. The proposed pedestrian crossing will not prevent traffic jams and will cause more congestion and will also lead to loss of road capacity and the possibility of traffic backing up onto the westbound A38 at certain times of the day. None of the proposals in the TA would improve the problems at the New Park/Western Road junction or the problems of residents of New Park road. The proposed improvements to Beech Road are desirable but will not improve traffic flow through Lee Mill. The lorry park already holds up traffic in the village and the Western Road c.194 junction is too narrow to cope with the large vehicles executing right hand turns to the west bound A38. 5. Access road routed through Ancient Woodland, subject to TPO and contrary to PPS9. 6. Invokes Localism – residents are speaking with one voice and their objections should be heeded. 32 South West Rivers (Represent the interests of all individual riparian owners and fishery associations in Devon and Cornwall including the Erme and Yealm Association (22.4.10) Association and those Rivers which arise in the Dartmoor SAC. Object to the proposal on the following grounds: 1. The ES does not address or propose mitigation for the potential impact on fish populations in the Yealm and the other SAC rivers and the fisheries they support.(For migratory species such as Atlantic Salmon there is an established principle that fish originating in the SAC or migrating to the SAC must be protected over their entire geographic range). There is no mention in the ES to the sea trout which frequent the river. 2. There is an inadequate assessment of the potential impact on other aquatic biota; 3. There is an inadequate assessment of the potential impact on air quality and its subsequent impact on water quality in the Dartmoor SAC, especially through acidification; 4. The assessment of the risk potential pollution in the River Yealm is overly relaxed and inconsistent with the assessment of probability and the severity of the impact should leachate leak into the river. 5. There are no proposals to mitigate any impacts (foreseen or unforeseen) on the Yealm and Dartmoor SAC and the environment and the fisheries they support. 6. There is no information in the ES on how the river will be affected by re profiling the riverbank. (Comment – understand that this needs separate consent from EA). 7. Query the acceptability of a large part of the ES prior to acceptance of the data by the EA. 8. Parts of the Dartmoor SAC are already experiencing acidification of river water and the ES has failed to address the possibility of this proposal exacerbating and existing unacceptable position. 9. The application contains no specialist surveys of fish or amphibians (some of which are BAP species) 10. Concern that the ecological monitoring and management plan will be inadequate due to deficiencies in baseline surveys and missing out BAP species. Especially concerned about lack of commitment to monitoring and management of fish. 11. The summary of environmental issues makes no reference to water quality or the aquatic environment. 12. The recognition that there is the potential for adverse impact on watercourses and hydrology via the aquifer is stated as “minor” in Para 7.1.1 of the ES however the hydrology/hydrogeology report indicates that this is a higher risk. (This issue will be covered by the EA). 13. There is no information about the potential accumulation from the emissions in water and the cumulative impact on the Dartmoor SAC especially acid flushes from peat bogs during high rainfall events that may have an impact on the rivers leading to fish mortality. 14. The risk assessment is flawed as it is based on a qualitative rather than a quantitative approach and the risks could be underestimated especially with relation to river pollution. The precautionary principle dictates that infrastructure and management arrangements should be
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
robust enough to cope with unexpectedly adverse conditions. Without this approach the ES is seriously flawed. 15. Proposal will be contrary to the Water Framework Directive which requires a minimum of “no deterioration” which cannot be guaranteed by the proposal. 16. The ES predicts a medium probability of the failure of the landfill liner with a consequent severe impact on the river. This is unacceptable and the proposal should be rejected until there is 100% certainty that the liner cannot fail. 32 South West Rivers Some of previous points have been addressed but insufficiently to withdraw the objection. Association (9.4.11) 1. SWRA remains concerned that the hydrological connectivity of the quarry and the river is a key issue for the environmental permit should planning permission be granted. 2. If the adequacy of the liner and the monitoring of it is a matter for the EA through the permit then the Agency must be 100% confident of the proposed monitoring programme and it should be an attached condition of the EP (response passed to EP team) 3. Dispute the applicants contention that acidification of downwind receptors is for the EP and the Habitats Regulations Assessment screening. (N.B This may be a misunderstanding as the Competent Authorities will assess the likely impacts on the basis of the information provided and within the framework of the agreed protocols with Natural England). 4. SWRA originally requested a programme of baseline water quality monitoring in the River Yealm and its estuary; content with the response that monitoring will be carried out as set out in surface water management plan but will require rigorous enforcement by the EA and my require independent assessment. 5. The proposed programme of biological monitoring suggested by the APEM survey but this needs to be a binding condition. 6. Require binding condition on applicant to minimise siltation during construction. 7. Require a binding condition that the applicant will re-survey and remediate the whole of the Yealm freshwater and estuary fishery if there is a failure in the control systems. 8. Proposals to dewater the quarry have not been accompanied by sufficient information as the date of sampling was not given and might have been in the autumn when destratification occurred. The risk of summer destratification should be assessed and sampling should be repeated at intervals through summer 2011. (passed this point to the EA by e-mail on 21.4.11) 9. The SWRA remains concerned that the impact on riparian and fishing rights ha not been properly considered as the legitimate enjoyment of these rights is not just about access but of peaceful enjoyment uninterrupted by major disturbance. In conclusion the SWRA is of the view that the risk to the Yealm and its estuary and the ecologies and fisheries they support is too great and that the County Council could not be confident that granting planning permission would not endanger the environmentally and economically valuable assets. 33 South West Councils The EfW would make a significant diversion of waste from landfill and bring its treatment up the waste hierarchy as supported by RSS Policy (20.4.10) W1. (Regional Authority) The proposal accords with RSS W2 due its proximity to Plymouth and Torbay SSCT’s, the use of previously developed land and maximising efficiency through the use of by products.
Every effort should be made to utilise the heat/electricity from the development to supply nearby users in accordance with Policy RE3. It is noted that the SWDWP would still continue to send some of its waste to landfill despite the efforts made in increasing recycling rates. It is noted that the site is allocated in Devon Waste Local Plan Policy WPP1 provided that the proposals comply with other relevant policies within the Waste Local Plan. The County Council as MPA will need to consider whether the implementation of the proposal would jeopardise the ability to provide a sufficient land bank for crushed rock and with this against the benefits of providing additional capacity for waste recovery and landfill. 34 Sustainable South Brent Objection (19.4.10) 1. Proposal contrary to PPS10 and WPP36(iii) as it does not properly accord with the waste hierarchy and will stifle innovation. 2. The ES does not adequately address the scoping requirement that requested that “the proposed method of thermal treatment should be compared with other alternative incineration and other non thermal waste management technologies”.
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
3. No consideration given to waste reduction strategies and calculations all based on static or increased waste arisings rather than reductions due to increased recycling. This is not carbon efficient. 4. Long term contract inappropriate when waste arisings are not certain and are likely to decline. 5. Modular MBT systems best suited to adapting to waste reduction and capture of dry recyclables and can vary in size allowing more local solutions without the need to transfer waste, therefore reducing transport emissions. 6. The proposal will stifle local innovation and lead to job losses from locally based recycling initiatives and schemes. 35 Plymouth City Council Further response will be issued on strategic planning matters in due course. (interim/draft response) 1. Proposed access is located within functional flood plain and therefore a risk based sequential test should be undertaken to demonstrate that (26.4.10) there are no sites available in Zones 1 or 2. 2. The information submitted in the TA and in Table 6/7 (Calculated Trip attraction) indicates that approximately 2/3 of the trips carrying partnership waste will be generated by Plymouth as well as the majority of C&I waste trips. Reference needs to be made to Policy WPC2 of the Devon Waste Local Plan which reads: “…the preferred strategy is to secure one facility close to the main source of waste. By reducing the waste miles travelled, vehicle emissions and operating costs are minimised.” Additional analysis is required on waste miles (see Point 2 column 3). 3. Additional Air Quality Monitoring may be required within the boundaries of PCC due to likely HGV movements through AQMAs within the City Boundary. 4. PCC concerned about the visual impact of the proposal on the western edge of the city boundary at Langage. The proposal is in a gateway location and should be of exceptional quality using the form and function of the building to bring a positive advantage from the development. 5. As the building cannot be hidden from local views then the colour of the structure should be better integrated into the landscape by the use of a more muted tone. 6. PCC is concerned that the proposal appears to offer no community benefit other than enhanced woodland. There should be consideration of the provision of a community fund to secure wider benefits and the WPA should seek clarification from the Agent on behalf of the Developer as to the full extent of the community benefits of the proposal. Suggest that funding secured through s.106 agreement. 7. The s.106 agreement should secure funding to support the delivery of green parks on the city boundary. 35 Plymouth City Council The principle of the suitability of NEQ for strategic waste management facilities is been established through its adoption in the Devon Waste 7.4.2010 Local Plan. 1. The impact visually on Plymouth is limited 2. PCC encouraged to see that amendments have been made to the design in this “key gateway” position which requires a building of exceptional design. 3. R19.17 Trip generation should be reviewed to take into account the increase in C&I waste as the applicant is unsuccessful in the SWDWP bidding process. The applicant had previously stated that these matters would be reviewed if they were not the successful bidder. 4.R19.18 The TA still does not make clear whether Langage traffic has been included. 5. R19.19 The Waste Miles Travelled analysis conclusions are unclear and some of the figures questioned (Clarification sought via DCC Highways Officers). 36 South Devon AONB Service The application is a significant industrial facility located immediately adjacent to the River Yealm. (23.4.10) The river is significant for wildlife and a range of social and economic uses. It is noted that the ES concludes that with the range of mitigation measures proposed the impacts on the SAC would be “negligible”. The AONB Service does not consider the level of information and proposed controls to be sufficient to enable an Appropriate Assessment to be conducted because: River Yealm 1. The Hydrological Risk Assessment has not been submitted and has been deferred to the permitting stage. 2. The proposed treatment of waste water from the site does not demonstrate that the anticipated chemical composition will not harm the river in the event of WWTW surcharge events. There is insufficient clarity about the discharge points into the River Yealm and the precise means of
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
leachate management to clearly demonstrate that toxins and other chemical loadings will not be added. 3. The ES is limited in its assessment of emergency measures in the event of system failure and does not satisfactorily set out the contingency measures to be used in the event of such failure. There is no reference to trigger levels or thresholds that might trigger emergency measures. 4. There is no reference to a monitoring regime and how this would inform or trigger remedial or contingency actions. Vague statements of intent are not sufficient to demonstrate adequate environmental protection of the river. Impact on landscape character The ES contains a contradictory approach which suggests that the design rationale is both in keeping with local landscape character and creating minimal visual impact, whilst also stating that the structure will be incapable of being hidden due to its size and is therefore a statement building. The ES relates the building to the backdrop of the commercialised A38 corridor, but in visual terms it relates more strongly to the rural and undeveloped landscape to the south, especially on the southern margin of the site at Popples Bridge. Visual impact on AONB The building and chimney is unlikely to have a dominant effect on the character of the AONB in general, however there will be clear views of the whole height of the building seen from vantage points in the AONB from the Yealm Valley and from a number of vantage points on public highways from where it will appear incongruous and conspicuous. The AONB service consider the views to be more than “fleeting” as indicated in the VIA. The chimney stack will be more conspicuous from the AONB due to its additional height and night time lighting. Haul Route The construction of this route adjacent to the River is unfortunate when there is already a route through Challonsleigh most of the way to the site which could prove a more satisfactory access route avoiding the river and river crossing. 36 South Devon AONB Service Objects to the proposal on the grounds of: (19.5.2011) 1. Impact on landscape character The site relates strongly to the deeply rural, tranquil and undeveloped landscape to the south, east and west of the site and the building with its large scale and futuristic design will be wholly out of scale and character and provide an overbearing, discordant feature in the landscape. 2. visual impact on AONB The proposed building (excluding the stack) is screened from much of the AONB by the topography, however there will be clear views and a dominant visual impact from vantage points downstream within the Yealm Valley and from the woodland burial site. The stack will be conspicuous through a wider area of AONB due to its height and night lighting. 3. Impact on hydrology and water quality
A significant industrial facility located immediately adjacent to the River Yealm which is significant for its wildlife and a range of social and economic uses including commercial shellfishery, bathing beaches and boating. The river already experiences significant stresses and there is concern about the potential for harm. 37 Environment Agency (7.5.10) Support the principle of CHP, however raise the following objections: 1. Flood Risk The EA object to the application as there is no evidence that the Sequential Test has been applied as per PPS25. A further objection is raised due to insufficient information contained in the Flood Risk Assessment Avoidance is the most robust method of managing flood risk and building in the flood plain should only be considered where alternative routes are not possible. If there is no alternative route (as confirmed by the WPA), measures to mitigate flood risk should be reconsidered and access road constructed at existing ground levels to avoid infilling and bridging the flood plain. (subject to adequate operational/safety measures) At this location, the 100 year floodplain should be defined as “functional”
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
2. Fisheries, recreation and biodiversity and impacts on the River Yealm EA object to the proposal due to the adverse impact on nature conservation and the migratory salmonid fishery. The likely impacts on designated sites would be contrary to National. Regional and local planning policy as there will be impacts on designated sites, protected species and habitats and also networks of natural habitats. The proposal is contrary to Policy PPS1 and PPS9 as the proposal will be detrimental to the maintenance, restoration and enhancement of biodiversity and the proposal does not sufficiently address alternative locations as required by the EIA Directive and PPS9. (Detail in Section 2 of annex to letter dated 7.5.10).
The fragmentation of the broadleaved woodland, by creating the access road will reduce its biodiversity value as more “edge of wood” will be created. The proposal provides a significant risk to resident and migratory fish species in the River Yealm and legal protection of fish species is potentially impacted by the proposal – the EA would welcome further discussions. Biological baseline data of the River Yealm and proposed biological monitoring is required (invert; diatom and fish surveys) in order to inform a holistic approach to the health of the ecosystem and to enable a detection of slow trends in environmental effects.
The EA is concerned that the proposed SUDS systems will need to be maintained, managed and monitored for the life of the site and for a considerable period afterwards to maintain their effectiveness.
The EA is concerned that this proposal has the potential to damage the River Yealm rod and line fishery and that the estimation/assessment of potential damage to the ecological and economic importance of the River has not been properly carried out. This underpins the importance of baseline monitoring of the river and its ecosystems and continual monitoring and assessment of the water quality.
EA object to the application because of the potential impacts to the geomorphological functioning of the River which is at this location active with eroding bends and angular turns. This provides a rich habitat for BAP species and additional information is required on the 2 areas of the river that require engineering works. Landfill Location The hydrogeological and stability risk assessments submitted with the Environmental Permit also need to be submitted as a part of the information within the ES. This will enable an assessment of risk to groundwater and the wider water environment in accordance with planning guidance.
The EA issue a holding objection until such time this information is received in the context of the ES which will allow evaluation of the likely impact of the proposal in the context of locational criteria as set out in Annex E of PPS10. At present there is an unacceptable risk of adverse impacts on the River Yealm.
The EA draw the attention of the WPA to the locational criteria set out in Annex 1 (Para 1.1) of the Landfill Directive and the advice issued by DEFRA in the Landfill Directive and Environmental Permitting Regulations which advises in Para 4.138 that: “Landfills should not be developed where an environmental risk assessment demonstrates that active long term site management is essential to prevent long-term groundwater pollution, and the proposed site is below the water table in any strata where the groundwater provides an important contribution to river flow or other sensitive waters.”
The EA in its advice on Understanding the Landfill Directive (Para 6.29) states that the relevant factors to be taken into account are: • Proximity of surface water
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
• Directness of the hydraulic connection • Quality and quantity of both the groundwater and the receiving surface water • Consequences of the potential impact on surface water quality • Consequences of the potential impact on the ecology of the surface water due to changes in quality or level. The EA is of the view that the ES addresses some of these factors; however the potential for contaminant release and the consequences of such on surface water quality and ecology are not sufficiently addressed. The inclusion of the hydrogeological and stability risk assessment documents in a format that will support the ES should be required.
Air Quality The air quality impact assessment appears to be comprehensive, however the EA will not be able to comment on the detail until the National Air Quality modelling and assessment unit have audited the EP application air quality submission for human health and ecological impacts.
IBA Facility Section 9.120 of the Hydrogeology assessment refers to the generation of leachate from temporary storage of waste and bottom ash bunkers which will be collected and directed to the site’s “Industrial Waste Pit”. Further information is required relating to this pit as above ground storage tanks with a bund are preferred to underground storage where monitoring and containment is more difficult. The EA considers that this water may be more useful as quenching water rather than being discharged. 37 Environment Agency R19.38 Proposed fisheries work is not sufficient to protect salmonids and their habitat 29.3.11 R19.41 The proposed biological monitoring is not adequate to detect impacts on the River Yealm R19 52 and 53 The ES proposed mitigation for fisheries is inadequate and therefore piling activities should not take place between October and April inclusive R19.59 Inadequate consultation has been undertaken with the Emergency Planning Officer regarding the likely impact of flooding on the access road. R19.69 The information regarding the loss of wed woodland is unclear and the information relating to Ancient Semi Natural Woodland types/loss/compensation/impact is insufficiently clear or detailed and should be properly indicated on a plan. R19.70 Any loss of Ancient Woodland is contrary to PPS9 – EA consider that the location of the access road is unacceptable. R19.71-76 Proposals for management of remaining wet woodland are inadequate and unclear.
37 Environment Agency Recommends that permission is not granted until it has been demonstrated that the loss of wet woodland (a Biodiversity Action Plan [BAP] 01.07.11 priority Habitat) which would result from this proposal could be adequately compensated. The ES has shown that the total loss of wet woodland amounts to 0.5ha. The application should not be determined until it is demonstrated that the proposed compensation is viable. Without this information a condition is not enforceable and would not meet the tests set out in Circular 11/95. 38 Natural England (26.4.10) Object on the following grounds: • Inadequate assessment of alternatives • Additional information is required to properly assess the landscape impact given the identified shortcomings in the LVIA • Additional information is required on decommissioning and restoration with relation to site ecology • The application contains insufficient information on emissions to air and water on designated sites and clarification is required and decisions on environmental permitting should be made before PP is granted. • Additional information is required to resolve issues around the Habitats Regulations and the need for Appropriate Assessment. 1. Assessment of alternatives is flawed. The scoring system appears to be designed to favour the application site over other alternatives.
2. Landscape
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
The proposal potentially affects areas of land designated as National Park and AONB within which the statutory purposes of National Parks and AONBs should be pursued. NE note that the LVIA has been produced in accordance with generally accepted guidelines and methodologies, however there are a number of omissions and shortcomings: • Visual “baseline assessment” is unsound, the extent and number of viewpoints is limited, lacking middle distance high ground analysis above Ermington and Brixton and containing only one viewpoint from the South Devon AONB. • The visual representations reproduced in the LVIA have not been produced according to recognised guidance. They lack the metadata required to either replicate the image or to consider the objectivity of presentation. The specific location of some viewpoints has included extraneous foreground clutter and may not be representative of the general experience from that distance and landscape type. • The LVIA does not consider the night time effect of the proposal. • Although significant quantities of tree planting are identified, the likely effectiveness of this planting is not fully considered. • The LVIA contains no prediction of the long term impacts and changes in the landscape and visual resource over the construction, operational phase and after use of the site. • The application does not fully explore the impact of cumulative development with other development in the vicinity. At para 11.369 the cumulative impact of both stacks (NEQ and Langage) and plumes is considered but there is no methodological assessment for the prediction of significance provided. • The assessment of significance of impact on the landscape and visual resource is inconsistent and lacking in clarity (for example paragraph 11.351 introduces the phrases “moderate/substantial and substantial…” not used anywhere else in the document. Given the definitions of significance included in the LVIA (table 11.10) “moderate” as well as “major moderate” and “major” impacts could be considered significant. It then follows that in Table 11.11 character area “moorland edge and slopes” with overall moderate landscape effect, should be highlighted and discussed in the same way as is “Lowland Plains”. It is a landscape of much higher sensitivity. A similar level of consideration should be given to the significance of impact on selected viewpoints (table 11.13). • In consistencies such as those between table 11.13 and 11.11 make the document difficult to comprehend and should be clarified. In conclusion the LVIA is deficient in detail to determine the full and likely landscape and visual impacts of the proposed development over its anticipated construction, operational and decommissioning phases. Until such time that these deficiencies are addressed and impacts identified and satisfactorily resolved we would object to the granting of planning permission.
3. On site wildlife and mitigation The site fails to achieve BRE credits because two of the three require a positive increase in the ecological value of up to (but not including) 6 species. There is a considerable reduction in the BAP habitat, with a consequent likely fall in the number of species using the site including protected species. NE draw the WPA to the requirement of the NERC Act which requires: “every public body must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far is as consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity.”
NE would wish to be convinced that if PP is granted then every effort has been made to ensure a minimal loss of wildlife with all losses mitigated and compensated as far as possible. Enhancement and gains in biodiversity should be sought wherever possible.
The River Yealm Is identified by NE as a valuable river corridor which connects the Dartmoor SAC and the Yealm Estuary SAC for which it will be necessary to mitigate any proposed impacts from the development.
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
The location of a road and landfill within a river corridor of high natural value is contrary to national and local policy as it will increase disturbance to protected and BAP species and would not maintain or enhance the green links for the migration and general movement of wildlife contrary to policies in the NERC; PPS9; and South Hams DPD Policy DP5 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation). The loss of 1.75 ha of ancient woodland is contrary to PPS9 which states: Planning Authorities should not grant planning permission for any development that would result in its loss or deterioration unless the need for, and benefits of the development in that location (my underlining/SP) outweigh the loss of the woodland habitat. Air and Water Emissions, potential receptor sites and habitats regulations NE strong advice is that PP is not determined pending further information and consultation with the EA pending determination of the Environmental Permit (EP) related to the operation of the application site. The importance of the permits to the operational viability is such that the resolution of permitting and Habitats Regulations Issues must be material in the grant of any planning permission. A meeting will be required between DCC/EA and NE on Appropriate Assessment NE is not convinced that adverse impacts on European sites could be ruled out and the development could have a likely significant impact on the Yealm Estuary which is a part of the Plymouth Sound and Estuaries SAC. There is the potential for impacts on several SACs and SSSIs through atmospheric pollution and the ES should provide information adequate to inform any Appropriate Assessment. The EA is unable to comment on the hydrogeological information in the ES until it has received advice from the EA. [N.B The EA has already asked for additional information in this respect – see response 37 above]. NE is unable to advise the WPA on whether the information within the ES is sufficient to inform an appropriate assessment of the likely impacts on European Protected Sites until the EA has concluded its investigation in respect of this issue and given its advice NE VIEW IS THAT THE AA CANNOT BE FINALISED UNTIL THIS WORK IS COMPLETED TO THE SATISFACTION OF EA/WPA. 38 Natural England Natural England strongly recommend that development including the loss of Ancient Woodland should only be allowed if there is sufficient 18 March 2011 reason for this to be undertaken (quotes PPS9) Local Planning Authorities should not grant planning permission for any development that would result in its loss or deterioration unless the need for, and the benefits of, the development in that location outweigh the loss of the woodland habitat.” NE consider that it would be preferable to consider constructing the road outside the woodland where the damage would be far less and refers to standing advice and Planning Inquiry documents. Natural England Objects to the application on the grounds of the loss of ancient woodland and the lack of data on bat usage of the site. There needs to be additional information on dormice. 38 Natural England (04.07.11) Welcomes the additional survey work but notes that Ancient Woodland loss is not mitigatable or compensatable and permission should not be granted unless the benefits of the development in that location outweigh the loss. NE consider that loss due to the road may be avoidable. Only direct woodland loss is quantified, no impacts of bisection or edge effects that would cause long term deterioration. The County Council should have regard to the requirements to have regard to the statutory purposes of National Park and the AONB and support the views of the DNPA and South Devon AONB service (both of whom objected). 39 South Hams DC EHO Comments restricted to air pollutants concerned with Local Air Quality Management and to the human receptors for them. It is accepted that the predicted process contributions to all LAQM pollutants are very small and as there are no known existing problems for these pollutants then there is unlikely to be a problem from a LAQM viewpoint. Predicted NO2 process contribution levels are also relatively small but there are some known problems in meeting the annual average objective for NO2 in this area. An AQMA has been declared for Western Road, Ivybridge and the EHO would like to see the predicted short and long term process contributions for properties along this road.
Cumulative Impacts
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
At the end of technical annex 7.1 of the EIA, there is a brief report that data from the Langage power station modelling exercise was used to construct a “cumulative impacts sensitivity model” which concludes that the maximum ground level process contribution from the two sources 3 (Langage power station + the Viridor Plant) would be 0.58 ug/m for the annual average NO2 and 14.93ug/m3 for the hourly average NO2. This has been compared with the results of the Langage modelling undertaken by Mertz and McLellan and reported in 1998 and 2000. These show much higher results for the power station alone; e.g. assuming 10 days oil firing and the rest gas firing the worst case process 3 3 contribution from the power station was 1.85ug/m for annual average NO2 levels and 100.7ug/m (on gas firing) for the maximum hourly level.
Vehicle contributions to NO2 and PM10 SHDC would like to see the result of dispersion modelling of the effects of operational traffic on receptors (roadside housing) at Western Road Lee Mill. They would like to see the results for NO2 and PM10 . for the relevant short and long term time periods given for assessing these pollutants in the Air Quality Regulations. Influences on ambient pollution levels in this location from the A38 and from Langage power station should also be taken into account in this assessment.
39 South Hams DC EHO R19-28 request for predicted short and long term process contributions to properties within the Air Quality Management Area (08.04.2011) (AQMA) along Western Road in Ivybridge SLR has only produced results for process contributions to annual average NO2. The argument given is that the AQMA was declared only on the basis of exceedence of this Air Quality Objective. The predicted annual average process contribution given for grid ref. 263200 56000 (north side of Western Road) is 0.10 ug/m3. This quantity is described as ‘imperceptible’ which is the correct description, according to the guidance provided by Environmental Protection UK (EPUK, 2010). SLR argue that predicted process contributions for other pollutants and/or averaging periods are insignificant, so have not been shown in the original EIA. R19-29; Request for clarification of modelling data used for Langage input in cumulative assessment predictions. SLR have replied that the Langage input data ‘was supplied by the EA and represents the most recent available’. David Mudge of the EA is checking that the data used are appropriate. R19-30; Request for detailed dispersion modelling at Western Road, Lee Mill – see R19-111, below. R19-31; request for more detailed assessment of future estimated road traffic movements. SLR has responded by referring the enquirer to the original TA and the modelling done under R19-111 (below). R19-111 Request for modelling of air quality impacts at Western Road, Lee Mill village SLR has undertaken a dispersion model of annual average Nitrogen Dioxide levels predicted at this location as a result of the development. The following has been assumed in the interpretation of the modelling exercise; *Traffic data input to the model is consistent with the Travel Assessment. *The most recent (Jan 2010) NOx:NO2 ratios are used (this seems to be implied in section 2.2 of R19-111-1). *The Plymouth Mountbatten Met. data is used and it is an up-to-date and valid data set. Notwithstanding this query however, and based on the assumptions listed above, and following the verification and checking of the modelled results (which SLR have done), the results of the model and the discussion in section 5.4 that the magnitude of change (an increase of up to 0.43% of the standard) would be described as ‘small’ (according to the guidance provided by Environmental Protection UK) in the worst case location is accepted. The opinion expressed in section 4.2 that there is no need to investigate the effect on the 1-hour mean objective for NO2 because the predicted annual average levels are so low is accepted. For information; the most up-to-date average results that the Council has for the diffusion tubes referred to by SLR which are located along 3 3 3 Western Road, Lee Mill are approximately 20ug/m and 22ug/m (unadjusted for bias). The NO2 annual average objective is 40ug/m . Modelling for PM10 has not been done for this location, however the screening guidance given by defra in LAQM. TG(09) state that assessments for this type of pollutant is only necessary in the following circumstances;
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
• Where there are roads with an unusually high proportion of heavy duty vehicles (greater than 20%) • Roads with more than 10,000 vehicles per day with an expected increase of more than 25% in traffic flow. • Junctions with more than 10,000 vehicles per day and relevant exposure (ie. housing/schools etc) within 10m of the kerb. Section 6 of R19-111 deals with the cumulative impacts of NO2 in relation to the ecological objectives – this is for Natural England and the Environment Agency to comment on.
R19-113; Request for modelling of particulate matter from the process, including the landfill. Little information is provided about predicted particulate matter emissions from the landfill. SLR do refer correctly to LAQM guidance (TG(09)). This guidance says that further assessment of particulate emissions should be undertaken if a landfill site is ‘near’ to receptors. If the 3 background level of PM10 (the fraction of particulate matter which is of concern) is less than 26mg/m (which is likely in this case), then ‘near’ is defined as up to 200m. In para 11, SLR indicate that, at later stages of landfilling, the site will be within 200 m of the New England Bungalow. They add that it will by then be possible to monitor levels of PM10. SLR state that the submissions in section 7 of the ES and at R19-111 address particulate matter from the process stack and traffic exhaust respectively. This is true regarding the process stack but, as mentioned above, R19-111 does not address particulate matter from traffic.
Noise R19.23 – The applicant should liaise with the EHO to agree the number and duration of background noise measurements as the presented figures are not considered to be sufficient to properly demonstrate the predicted impact. There appears to be some doubt about whether the noise assessment locations have been agreed with the EHO – this needs to be clarified and other locations agreed with South Hams DC if necessary.
SLR state that; The noise monitoring locations and the quantity and duration of the measurements where discussed and agreed with Drew Powell of South Hams District Council by telephone on 20th April 2009 and as such are considered representative of the nearest noise- sensitive receptors to the proposed development site and sufficient to properly demonstrate any predicted impact.
R19.24 – The applicant should provide a more detailed assessment of potential noise impact from the site, particularly in relation to the most affected properties. Clarification of predicted noise levels in Table 8.4 is required as there are anomalies in the figures. SLR replied that ; The predicted noise levels shown in Table 8.4 are for construction noise impacts and are based on the construction operations taking place in their worst-case or most exposed location in relation to individual properties, i.e. the predicted noise levels for Piling impacts on Beacons View and made when Piling operations are being undertaken in the north-west of the plant area and the predicted noise levels for Piling impacts on Swainstone are made when Piling operations are being undertaken in the south-west of the site.
R19.25 – The applicant should provide noise contour maps to clearly demonstrate predicted noise levels at surrounding locations (including noise from on site traffic on the haul road, particularly from the steep incline from the proposed river bridge to the EfW and from reversing warning alarms). SLR replied that ; The noise contour maps requested are attached, these contour plots relate to traffic movements along the site access road and along the main approaches to the proposed development and to the fixed plant associated with the proposed development. The site traffic noise levels are based on measurements taken, in August 2010, of laden waste lorries traversing a 10° incline at approximate 30kph. The measured LAmax has been used to determine the sound power level of the lorries and this has been used to assess the noise impacts at the proposed development as a worst-case situation.
Further observations Chapter 8 of the Environmental Statement contains an assessment of noise levels from the proposed operation. This assessment concludes
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
that “predicted daytime and night time noise rating levels produced by fixed plant at the proposed development are unlikely to give rise to complaints at any of the nearest noise sensitive receptors. On-site vehicles movement would have no impact on ambient noise levels and the cumulative impact of all operations would have no effect on the existing ambient noise levels at of the nearest noise sensitive receptors.”
40 South Hams DC (Planning) 1. The application lacks clarity about the proposed new road with relation to the three European Habitat Tests – particularly the potential for 13.5.10 alternatives for both road and site. 2. If the development can offer heat then this should be secured by s.106 agreement. If there is no real prospect for this then it cannot be a material planning consideration – the inability to deliver such a system is a disadvantage and the limited period of 25 years would imply that Sherford would not wish to build its energy requirements around such a scenario. 3. The building will have a significant landscape impact but there seems to be no commensurate offer of s.106 funds for off site planting as was required of Langage. 4. The developers suggest that there will be ongoing engagement with the community but there is no specification regarding how this might work and should be clarified and included in the s.106 agreement with clear provisions that the developer will pay any administrative coasts. 5. The policy context includes reference to the SHDC SPD on sport and recreation. There is no indication about how the developer proposes to respond to the developer contributions required. 6. The submitted details do not show with sufficient clarity the IBA recycling plant. 7. The District Council would like a view of the developers response to the issues with HGVs in Lee Mill village that have been raised by Sparkwell Parish Council. 8. The application does not appear to contain proposals for odour management from either the landfill or from the gas generated by it. 41 South Hams DC (Planning) This application was discussed at their Development Management Committee on 20th April 2011 where it was resolved to object to the 13.5.10 proposal: (i) The proposal does not meet the criteria set out in the DWLP in that there is a viable alternative within the Plymouth PUA at Devonport. Consequently there is no strategic need which outweighs the harm that would be caused. (ii) The proposal will have a harmful impact on landscape character as it would be a visually very intrusive development within an otherwise rural landscape. It is contrary to Devon Structure Plan Policy CO2 (sic1) and South Hams Development Plan Policy DP2. (iii) The proposal will result in the loss of a County Wildlife Site and Ancient Semi Natural Woodland. There are no benefits to the proposal which outweigh the harm to biodiversity interests. In consequence it is contrary to Policy DP5 of the South Hams Development Plan and CO10 of the Devon Structure Plan.
The District also raises holding objections with relation to: (i) Impact of the development on the character of the Dartmoor National Park in accordance with Structure Plan Policy CO2 (ii) impact on Nationally and Internationally protected species unless the WPA is satisfied that the tests under the Habitats Regulations Assessment are met, (iii) pending clarification of number and duration of background noise measurements taken to carry out the submitted noise impact assessment. The SHDC has also suggested a number of planning conditions should permission be granted and has requested clauses within the s.106 agreement to cover the requirement for a detailed landscape design implementation and management plan across the entire land holding; an integrated Biodiversity Design, Implementation and Management Plan to dovetail with the landscape scheme; clauses securing the 2 management and maintenance of these in perpetuity; securing funding for the monitoring of noise and PM10
1 The District Council was asked to confirm this Policy and has stated that the letter should have referred to CO1. 2 The EHO has asked for this separately and it did not form a part of the response received from the District as Local Planning Authority
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
41 South West Peninsula Health The planning application as well as considering the process and stack emissions also looks at wider issues such as traffic management and is Protection Unit assessed in relation to Council’s planning policies. Local issues such as any extra vehicular movements, which might cause air pollution, will 19.5.10 not have been considered when the position statement was drawn up. The HPU does not believe that there is sufficient information within the application for a full response to the application, and recommend that further information is sought from the applicant. 41 Health Protection Agency The HPA has responded and stated that on the basis of the information supplied by the applicants. Including the modelling of emissions, there 13.05.11 is no evidence to suggest that the design and operation of the plant cannot meet the requirements of the Waste Incineration Directive via the Environmental Permit regime. The HPU goes on to note that public perception of waste incineration and treatment plants is generally based on the experiences of older facilities which were designed and constructed before the more stringent control conditions imposed by the current Environmental Permitting process.
42 DCC Highways There has been much discussion between the Highways Agency, the developer and the Highway Authority producing various alternatives of both the approach from the west, and the proposed new junction on the south side of the A38, from which there will be a new private service road to the project area. Many versions of a completely new slip road from the west were contemplated but finally abandoned through the unavailability of the land required. Thus the existing off slip from the west (known as Western Road) is proposed to be utilised. Whilst the Highway Authority is aware that residents here may have concerns, it has to be borne in mind that this road was the old A38 before the dual carriageway was built and improved immeasurably the safety and quality of life, and (perhaps more importantly in this scenario) the projected number of additional traffic movements is an increase of 105 (HGV’s) over the existing approx 4,800 (total traffic). On this basis there is no highway objection on grounds of highway safety or capacity. Various mitigating measures have been proposed and these will be provided by the developer. In addition, consideration was given to alter the geometry of the Western Road roundabout in order to provide greater deflection for approaching vehicles, but local intelligence deemed this unnecessary. There will also be a requirement for a new wearing course to be provided in Western Road, constructed by planing (some basecourse regulation will doubtless be necessary) and 40mm layer of HRA applied. This will secure the integrity of the carriageway and provide some measure of noise reduction. The Transport Assessment provided by the developer has demonstrated the existing serving road network and its relevant junctions to have adequate capacity for the modest increase in traffic movements that would result if the proposal were to be granted approval. A satisfactory safety audit was carried out (which was requested to be extended by the Highway Authority), recommending certain measures and these will be carried out by the developer. Many of the objections related to the impact of the increased traffic on the amenity of residents in terms of noise, pollution and severance. Consideration should be given to the provision of funding for investigation of a scheme to mitigate these issues on Western Road – and its subsequent implementation if required. In a similar vein some increased queuing on Beech Road as a consequence of the increase in eastbound traffic has been identified. This increased queuing is in part a consequence of limited or restricted gap acceptance by emerging drivers. This could be mitigated to some extent by the provision of a left turn lane in to Beech Road for traffic emerging from the west. The Highways Authority suggests a number of conditions. 42 DCC Highways The Transport Assessment and addenda accompanying this planning application have attracted considerable interest and comment from objectors. Sparkwell Parish Council have also raised a strong objection to the application and have submitted a transport consultant’s report in support of that objection. These objections primarily relate to the volume of traffic generated by the development and impact the development will have on the village of Lee Mill. The parish’s transport consultant’s report raised a number of questions that the applicants traffic consultants have commented on. The Parish Council’s consultants report however concluded that, “with a few minor exceptions, the report has
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
been prepared using reasonable assumptions and the levels of generated HGV movements are robust and suitable for the assessment of junction capacity”.
Whilst many objectors have raised doubts regarding the veracity of the traffic figures the highway authority agrees with the Parish Council’s assessment of the applicants Transport Assessment. The traffic data is summarised in SLR’s letter of 4th April 2011, attached as appendix XX. The proposal will generate in the order of 150 heavy goods vehicles per day (300 two way), broken down in to 105 from the west and 45 from the east. As with the majority of Transport Assessments this is based on an assessment of expected and projected movements associated with the planning application and can not be considered definitive or as an absolute maximum. It is however considered to be a realistic assessment of the traffic likely to be generated by the proposed use. The 105 vehicles from the west will result in an increase in traffic on the east bound off slip of the A38 and consequently through the village street known as Western Road. Most junctions from dual carriageways are comprised of two ‘off’ slip roads, one in each direction, and two ‘on’ slip roads, one in each direction. The A38 is a Trunk Road managed by the Highways Agency. The A38 junction at Lee Mill is centred around a north – south running un-named road that passes under the A38 dual carriageway, with the majority of the village being located to the west of this junction. The westbound off and on slip roads to the south of the A38 junction at Lee Mill are broadly satisfactory, as is the east bound on slip. These slips also serve as the main access to a large industrial estate and large Tesco store. Western Road, which runs to the immediate south of the village and is effectively a village street land performs the role of the east bound off slip road. Therefore, all the traffic accessing the Industrial Estate and the Tesco site from the west has to travel through the village. The route through the village is characterised by on street parking, some traffic calming features and footways that are of restricted width. It is of two vehicle width but the presence of parked cars results in it being substantially restricted to single file working. The village shop/Post Office is located on the southern side, whilst the majority of dwellings in Lee Mill are to the north. It is recognised that the current situation, which has developed incrementally over a number of years is detrimental to the amenity of the village. However, there is no current recorded personal injury accident problem and traffic flows do not cause noticeable congestion other than occasionally during peak hours. One of the overwhelming issues arising from the applicants public consultation exercise was concern regarding this increase in heavy goods vehicles using this street. In the lead up to the public consultation the applicants were cognisant of the concerns emerging and entered in to discussion with the Highways Agency, the developer and the Highway Authority. The applicant’s transport consultants subsequently producing various alternative highway layouts to overcome the issue of the substandard east bound off slip road the function which is being performed by a village street. These included various alignments of new layouts for vehicles approaching from the west, and also of the proposed new junction on the south side of the A38, from which there will be a new private service road to the project area. The applicants were however expressing a view at this time that whilst they were investigating alternatives, in their view the provision of an alternative east bound access route was not required as a consequence of the 105 lorries generated by the development proposal. Nevertheless a number of versions of a completely new slip road from the west were contemplated and displayed to the public during the applicants public consultation exercise. Ultimately these alternatives were abandoned, it is understood due to the unavailability of the land required, the costs involved, and the applicants view that the scale of additional lorry traffic did not justify such investment. It is therefore the applicants intention that the existing off slip from the west (Western Road) is to be utilised. Considering the impact on Western Road the % increase in traffic is very low, 105 trips in a flow of 5,000, approximately 2%. Looking at it in terms of HGV, as the current level of HGV’s is 1,000 vpd, the increase is in the order of 10%. These numbers, although emotive are not sufficient to cause a material difference to current conditions. Congestion will not noticeably increase and there is no current personal injury
Appendix II to Report PTE/11/6: Responses from Statutory and Technical Consultees
accident record. Therefore although the operation of the network is substandard, the impact of the development is not sufficiently material for the council to recommend a clear reason for objecting to the development. On this basis there is no highway objection on grounds of highway safety or capacity. 43 DCC – Archaeology Any consent should carry the standard archaeological condition ‘No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.’ The development shall be carried out at all times in strict accordance with the approved scheme, or such other details as may be subsequently agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority. Reason 'To ensure that an appropriate record is made of archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development'. 44 Woodland Trust Objects to the application due to loss of and damage to ancient woodland which contravenes Government Guidance in Paragraph 10 of PPS9. 4.10.10 It is not possible to mitigate for or compensate this loss as it is an irreplaceable habitat. In addition to this the application has not fully demonstrated that there will not be an impact on European protected species such as otters. 45 Civil Aviation Authority Few observations as the 90m chimney does not technically constitute an aviation en-route obstruction. Need to check airport safeguarding 27.10.10 maps and to confirm with Plymouth Airport and the MOD safeguarding as well as the Emergency Services air support units. It is likely that for safety purposes, the lighting of the chimney will be requested by local operators although it is below the statutory height of 150m.
Appendix III To PTE/11/6
Appendix III to Report PTE/11/6 Detailed Objections from other groups and organisations
Original Response Regulation 19/Further Response Eco Ivy Objection on the basis of: (Frankie Dolan on behalf 1. Need of local campaign group) 1.1 The submission is based on the local plan allocation and SWDWP decisions rather than submitting evidence of need in its own right. 21.4.10 The DWLP is a land use plan and not a waste management strategy and does not specify the ways in which specific waste should be managed. The Devon Municipal Waste Management Strategy stresses the importance of the waste hierarchy and states in Paragraph 2.9.4 that: “any energy recovery facilities will need to be of a scale that ensures no diversion from reduction, recycling or composting is required to make them viable.” A facility of this size would compete with the recycling industry for paper and plastics. 1.2 The municipal waste management strategy (MWMS) suggests that if incineration is a preferred scenario then two 136k tonne incinerators in Exeter and Barnstaple would be able to dispose of Devon’s waste. The choice of one much larger option at New England would mean that waste would have to travel much longer distances and there would be no local source to make use of the heat generated. 1.3 The Devon MWMS states in Paragraph 2.9.20 that: …”the most appropriate form of thermal technology required to meet the recovery and landfill diversion targets will be for 4-6 relatively small gasification/pyrolysis facilities across the County which will need to be in place from 2010 onwards. There is a commitment to keep this document under review and to incorporate changes of technology, legislation and revision of waste forecasts and assumptions. The document is now up for review and should incorporate new information about alternative technologies and in particular anaerobic digestion. 1.4 Eco Ivy propose that there is an alternative to incineration based on higher recycling rates (especially of mixed plastics and other dry recyclables) based on alternative collection methods by the waste collection authorities and a mixture of composting and pyrolosis of the resulting much reduced residual waste based on the “zero waste” approaches used in other areas such as San Francisco and London. 1.5 The applicant has therefore not sufficiently justified the choice of technology in the ES or adequately explored alternative options as suggested in the Devon MWMS. 1.6 The proposal is contradictory to Devon’s strategy regarding energy recovery as stated in Devon’s Municipal Waste Strategy. 2. Traffic 2.1 The proposal for one large facility means that there will be transportation of waste for unnecessarily long distances contrary to the proximity principle in the Waste Strategy Policy Statement 14. 2.2 The proposed location has poor road access. 2.3 As ⅔ of the 120-150 lorries will be coming from the west and exiting the A38 through Lee Mill, it will make life unbearable for the residents of the village. 2.4 Vehicles exiting the A38 westbound may tail back onto the dual carriageway as traffic is obliged to give way at the bottom of the off-slip. Such potential congestion on the A38 will impede the traffic flow and lead to increased danger on an already dangerous stretch of road. It is the local view that the junction is already so busy that whilst the increase in lorries may not be a large percentage of the overall flow, it may tip the system over the edge in terms of functionality. 2.5Did the TA include the likely traffic generated from the 65 new houses granted planning permission in Lee Mill? 3. Ash Disposal 3.1. The transportation of fly ash to a hazardous waste disposal facility in Cheltenham will result in the waste of energy and further emissions from transportation and is contrary to the proximity principle. This landfill is likely to fill quickly and there are concerns about where it might go in such circumstances. 3. 2. The bottom ash is high in metals and may contain trapped dioxins. There is concern that as it is left outside to “weather” this will lead to acidic runoff high in metals which will eventually leak from the landfill liner which will eventually degrade. Maybe after many years once the site has been completed and
Appendix III to Report PTE/11/6 Detailed Objections from other groups and organisations
Original Response Regulation 19/Further Response restored – who will then be responsible and will it be possible to protect the river in perpetuity form the potential impact of the leachate leaking from the landfill. The river is extremely sensitive to build up of toxins within the estuarine mud which could then enter the food chain (and especially shellfish) through micro-organisms in the estuary. 3.3 Eco Ivy queries the local market for incinerator bottom ash (IBA). There is no detail given of the processes required to convert the IBA into useable aggregates. 3.4 There have been instances of concrete containing IBA exploding and the Highways Agency has prohibited its use until further tests have been carried out. There is concern about its long term health impacts on the construction industry.. There is a concern that with no local markets the landfill will be completed quicker than its predicted life leading to additional traffic movements. 4. Emissions 4.1 Concern that incinerators can emit dioxins at periods of start up and shut down and also due to malfunction. Eco Ivy submit a number of instances where incinerator operators have been fined for breach of permit. 4.2 Given the number of health concerns about incinerators (Eco Ivy send links to a number of websites) and current research being carried out or about to be commissioned, the WPA should adopt the “precautionary principle” and avoid the use of such technology until such evidence has been fully investigated. 4.3 There is concern about the regularity and impartiality of the testing for dioxin emissions. The levels during start up are also likely to be many times higher than during normal operating times. The current system of measuring twice a year is inadequate and there should be continuous emission monitoring for dioxins which is not proposed for this incinerator. The knowing use of EfW which has been proven to produce dioxins and furans is inappropriate when there are other technologies that could produce residual waste without such emissions. The use of this kind of technology when there are known alternatives is contrary to the Stockholm Convention which states in Annex C, Part V A (f) “when considering proposals to construct new waste disposal facilities, consideration should be given to alternatives such as activities to minimise the generation of municipal and medical waste, including resources recovery, reuse, recycling, waste separation and promoting products that generate less waste. Under this approach, public health concerns should be carefully considered.” 4.4 As the main risk to human health from dioxins is build up in the food chain, the location of the facility next to farmland and on a river important for shellfish is inappropriate. 4.5 There is concern about the impact of “nanoparticles” on human health and Eco Ivy refer the WPA to a number of reports including that from DEFRA in March 2010 which states: “Current evidence suggests that there is no safe limit for exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) The document also identifies the likely adverse impact on ecosystems from such fine particulates. 4.6 Eco Ivy consider the comparative statistics issued by the SWDWP showing the emissions from EfW set against emissions from road lengths, indicate high levels of pollution from one site. 4.7 There is concern that the microclimate in the area would result in emissions would reach the ground closer to the plant than predicted unless the stack is raised 50 metres. Although the increase in height would be visually detrimental, impacts on health should not be a risk. 4.8 Emissions from the plant may further impact on the AQMA in Western Road, Ivybridge. 4.9 The combined effect of emissions from the proposed plant, Langage, and Hemerdon Mine will all combine in this area and there are concerns about the potential impact on the ecology of Dartmoor as well as human health. 4.10 The incinerator emissions will cause acid rain which will damage Dartmoor and the Rivers Yealm and Erme. 4.11 There is concern about private water supplies on Dartmoor and from boreholes supplied by the River Yealm. 4.12 The proposal is contrary to Planning Policy Statements PPS1; PPS7 and PPS9 due to the known impacts of the proposal on the natural environment and protected sites and species. (Details given on Page 9 of submission) 5. Climate change and energy waste 5.1The proposal is contrary to PPS1 (Climate Change supplement) as it does not foster opportunities for co-locating potential heat customers with potential heat suppliers) 5.2 The applicant’s arguments about diversion from landfill and the relative benefits of EfW set against landfill are misleading as landfill will not be an option
Appendix III to Report PTE/11/6 Detailed Objections from other groups and organisations
Original Response Regulation 19/Further Response in the future. 5.3 The figures provided do not take account of traffic emissions and the premise that all options would have the same overall movements is questioned. 5.4 The reduction in emissions needs to be set against the full ecological consequences of the proposed solution. The DEFRA Paper (March 2010) states the importance of promoting “renewable sources of energy which do not involve combustion”. 5.5 The proposal may lead to ocean acidification from increased levels of acid rain and reference is made to research being carried out by the Plymouth Marine Laboratory. 6. Lack of Sustainability 6.1 The proposal is contrary to PPS1 which promotes the use of renewable resources and advises of the danger of using non renewable resources in an unsustainable manner or in ways that may cause serious damage or pollution. 6.2 Incineration is a user of renewable resources and prevents them being recycled. 6.3 The proposal is not the most efficient manner of producing renewable energy from the available resource. 6.4 What will happen after 25 years when the incinerator closes? The proposal is unsustainable for long term waste management. 7. Risk to endangered species 7.1 The proposal will have an impact on a large number of endangered species and additional survey work should be carried out including an analysis of the water within the quarry void. Questions whether it is actually possible to mitigate for the likely scale of loss which is contrary to Devons Biodiversity and Geodiversity action plan (BAP). 8. Economic Damage Impact on tourism, farming and fishing (particularly organic farming). People who have moved to the area for the environment may move away. Concern about children who already have respiratory illness. Perceived risk to health is considerable and perception may have an economic impact. There is an opportunity cost attributed to the loss of resources that could be recycled creating jobs within that industry. Eco Ivy R19.1 13.4.11 This report compares EfW with heat and power to landfill. This is of little value as any alternative technology dealing with waste compared to landfill will have a smaller carbon footprint. Viridor still has no evidence to show it has a market for the heat from the plant. Viridor has not fully explored other technologies to deal with waste such as mechanical biological treatment in combination with anaerobic digestion. R 19.17 Viridor’s original justification for the incinerator and it's consultation with the community, concerned getting rid of South Devon's household waste. Viridor did not gain that contract from SWDWP. Viridor based its projections on primarily burning household waste. These castings are no longer accurate. DEFRA's 2010 “Survey of Commercial and Industrial Waste Arisings” has predicted a decrease in commercial and industrial (C&I) waste within Devon. Even now Devon is not creating enough C&I waste to warrant another incinerator. This will result in Viridor importing waste from outside Devon. EcoIvy also concurs with DAIA's response to this issue. R19.50 EcoIvy concurs with Friends of the Earth's response 1. The bulk of the response to this question cites information provided by agencies in response to other incinerators and not specific information related to the Dartmoor SAC affected by this application. The response is therefore inadequate and unclear. 2. There is no such thing as complete certainty and no database is ever complete. Our understanding of airborne particles and nanoparticles is developing all the time. We can consider their size, distribution and shape and their chemical composition and surface properties, but most of our information relates to PM10 particulates and there is very little data on PM2.5, PM1.0 and PM0.1 which are typically created by forms of incineration. 3. We know that the effect of high speed traffic, such as that found on the A38, creates high particle number concentrations and the smallest particle size. This will have an effect on the Dartmoor SAC
Appendix III to Report PTE/11/6 Detailed Objections from other groups and organisations
Original Response Regulation 19/Further Response 4. We know that waste will contain lead, cadmium, mercury, chromium etc., because the waste sorting is not absolutely fool proof. These metals will enter the incinerator waste stream and, because metals can’t be created or destroyed, they will be incinerated and will end up as bottom ash, fly ash or airborne particles. 5. The effect of EfW emissions is almost impossible to assess because of the difference in waste streams. It is irresponsible to conclude that the EfW effect on the Dartmoor SAC is negligible. 6. The EfW effects on the Dartmoor SAC and the SSSIs surrounding the EfW site, in conjunction with cumulative effects of the Langage Power plant and the Hemerdon Quarry are likely to be significant and detrimental. Incineration stifles recycling Viridor has not addressed concerns that incineration reduces recycling especially in relation to commercial waste. They also still need to identify what the recycling centre will recycle. EcoIvy feel the company has still not adequately addressed the waste hierarchy. Waste Strategy for England acknowledges that “burning plastics has a general net, adverse greenhouse gas impact due to the release of fossil carbon” which can “outweigh the returns of energy recovery”. We are concerned that incineration creates so much waste as bottom ash, which still needs to be land-filled. Incinerator Bottom Ash is waste until it is recovered and put to another use. It cannot be used on its own and needs to be treated before it can be used in combination with other substances. The construction sector is the largest single source of waste arisings in England and the largest component of this waste is 90 million tonnes of inert wastes suitable for reprocessing into aggregates. Given that this is the case we don’t need more waste in the form of possibly hazardous Incinerator Bottom Ash being made into aggregates. This is especially as the local market for this product could be saturated from ash aggregates from the proposed MVV Umwelt ash plant at Buckfastleigh.
Environmental Impact EcoIvy still has on-going issues of concern: The revised plans have widened and lengthened the access road to the NEQ site and it would encroach further into ancient woodland. This obviously cannot just be replaced. The plans to drain the quarry void will destroy foraging sites for nine species of bat. The NEQ site to the river Yealm provides a wildlife corridor for recently returned breeding otters and many threatened birds. This will be destroyed or at the very least put at risk. I feel the proposed nature conservation mitigation is completely insufficient. Energy from Waste EcoIvy also has on-going issues of concern that have not been addressed: We remain concerned that after failing to win the argument that incineration was necessary to deal with domestic waste that incinerators are being justified as energy generators. Viridor’s best rational for the incinerator is it will generate electricity – however there are far greener and cleaner ways to generate power and the plant is only two miles from the largest power station in the South West at Langage, which is not generating at capacity anyway; As we have mentioned, Viridor is unable to find a market for the heat by product near enough to make the plant efficient. Even if they did, the incineration technology and waste mix relies on burning readily recyclable material such as paper and plastic which is hugely inefficient use of a valuable resource. For incineration to be considered ‘low carbon’, energy would need to have below-average carbon intensity. By 2030 the carbon intensity of the UK’s energy mix is projected to fall to 50-100g/kWh, while incinerators are expected to emit more than 600g/kWh. This makes incineration by far the worst option in climate change terms. In terms of deliver-ability and economic feasibility, incinerators are 10 times more expensive to operate than coal-fired power stations. They carry huge long- term risks regarding the availability of feedstock of the required calorific value. This has already been demonstrated locally in the Devon DEFRA survey of Commercial and Industrial Waste 2010. Once again these issues have not been addressed by Viridor.
Appendix III to Report PTE/11/6 Detailed Objections from other groups and organisations
Original Response Regulation 19/Further Response Transport The lorry movements transporting waste to the incinerator from outside the county have not been modelled. Even without taking these new movements into consideration, we remain concerned that there will be a substantial increase in HGV traffic through Lee Mill and along theA38.
Conclusion Taking these points into consideration, EcoIvy believes that Viridor’s planning application at New England Quarry should be rejected. South Devon Green Party Green Party is opposed to the use of incineration which conflicts with its National Policies on incineration of residual waste and advocates reduction, re-use (19.4.10) and recycling. 1. Contrary to Policies PPS1 and PPS10 Does not support the production of less waste and contravenes the rationale and spirit of PPS1. PPS10 states that waste facilities should “avoid stifling innovation in line with the waste hierarchy” and recommends the application of the waste hierarchy in finding effective environmental solutions. Recovery via incineration is 4th in the hierarchy and therefore the application does not support the higher objectives of the waste strategy. There are no suitable local users for heat. 2. Incineration stifles other initiatives The efficient use of the incinerator removes waste form the waste stream which could otherwise be reused or recycled with a higher recovery element. The economics of the incinerator will undermine other attempts to reduce or recover waste. The statements regarding the use of bottom ash are questionable as this is not classed as recycling but is a by product of incineration. There is additional concern about the toxicity of bottom ash. 3. Production of toxic ash Will cause pollution elsewhere is used in construction. The GP query the statements made by the applicant that the bottom ash is inert and reference a report by FOE which suggests that there are pollutants from bottom ash that may carry health risks – including dioxins. Without Government Guidelines on the use of this material in construction products, there is a concern that it may prove hazardous. 4. Lack of proper consultation by Viridor Pre consultation was superficial with a lack of engagement. 5. Poorly Identified Site Site was incorrectly identified in the Devon Waste strategy and better sites were overlooked. The strategy was based on the DEFRA 2000 waste strategy which has subsequently been revised in 2007 and moves away from incineration as a solution. The proposal therefore does not follow the most recent guidance and advice. 6. Impact on Health Prevailing winds will blow emissions across Lee Mill and Ivybridge. Incinerators are known to emit toxins and not all particles can be removed. Concern about higher emissions during start up and shut down processes and potential malfunctions. 7. Flood Risk Site is within the Yealm floodplain and there is concern about the potential impact of toxic bottom ash on the river environment and the estuary. There is a concern that water soluble minerals in the bottom ash could leach into the river. Proposal contrary to PPS25 as the road is located partly within functional flood plain despite Viridor claims to the contrary. 8. Impact on Natural Habitats The emissions including dioxins will have long term impacts on agriculture and animals, fish and shellfish. And on local wildlife and habitats contrary to PPS9 In particular the cumulative effects on local SSSI’s and protected species such as bats would indicate that development should not be permitted. 9. Climate The proposal will emit 17 tonnes of CO2 per hour. The additional CO2 from transportation will be substantial. Waste should be disposed of and resource recovered close to the point of generation. The PPS1 climate change supplement requires planning authorities to foster new opportunities for decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and to provide opportunities to supply new and existing development. The energy produces will not
Appendix III to Report PTE/11/6 Detailed Objections from other groups and organisations
Original Response Regulation 19/Further Response meet renewable energy targets or provide district heating which is a substantial waste of the energy available. 10. Roads and A38 The impact of transporting waste across the county has not been assessed and traffic from Torbay will travel through Totnes. There is an increased risk to Health and Safety from the increased use of HGVs on already crowded routes. There is a concern about the likelihood of substantial construction traffic and a concern that such a large proposal should have been located where it would be possible to use rail links. 11. Negative Visual Impact This is a predominantly rural area and the applicant’s claim for the building as a “landmark building capable of having a positive effect on local views” is questioned. 12. Economic Impact There will be a negative impact on tourism from this proposal, whereas there could be an economic benefit from more small scale reuse and recycling enterprises based on resource recovery and the manufacture of products from recycled materials. Save our South Hams Object to the proposal on the following grounds: 1. Landscape and Visual Assessment SOSH has appointed the Terra Firma Consultancy to review the LVIA chapter (11) of the ES on behalf of SOSH. The consent for mineral extraction and bridge crossing (which is at a much smaller scale) should not be used as justification for approving the RRC as the mineral site would have to be restored. As the site is1km from the A38, the statement that the site is located in the context of “ribbon development along the A38” is questioned and planning policy on ribbon development should be used to back up this statement. The Design and Access statement implies that this is an existing industrial area but the area is predominantly rural and within the “lowland plain” landscape character area. 2. Comments on Planning Supporting statement (Chapter 4) PPS1 The applicant does not set the application in the context of the requirement to promote sustainable patterns of development that do not have adverse impacts on the environment as set out in PPS1 which also requires that developments should respond to their local context and are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping. PPS7 The criteria within PPS7 for development within rural areas suggests that proposals should raise quality of life and the environment which promotes local distinctiveness and the intrinsic qualities of the countryside with the highest levels of protection for valued landscapes and natural resources. It also states that development should discourage the use of Greenfield land. The applicant’s promotion of the site as brown field is incorrect in planning terms as the quarry is capable of restoration and the access road and some of the mitigation areas are completely on green field land. The Devon Waste Local Plan (Appendix 1) states that sites for Incineration with energy recovery should normally be located within an industrial area or a brown field site. Draft RSS • The proposal is contrary to Policy SD3 on the environment and natural resources which requires that they should be protected and enhanced. • The design does not have regard to the requirements of SD3. • Devon County Waste Local Plan The site is of greater extent than the worked out quarry which is suggested in the Devon waste Local Plan as an appropriate location for waste management uses, additionally the site is not located close to a usable road network (without significant construction operations), railway or water as set out in paragraph 5.2.1.3 of the Devon Waste Local Plan. The site search is flawed by lack of consideration of the visual impact of the proposal which is in the opinion of SoS a key issue of a development of this size
Appendix III to Report PTE/11/6 Detailed Objections from other groups and organisations
Original Response Regulation 19/Further Response which is highly obtrusive in the landscape. Chapter 6 Core Policies The proposal is contrary to WPC1 as the need for the facility is not outweighed by the adverse impact of the proposal in this location. Policy WPC2 should have included visual impact in its list of considerations. Chapter 7 Detailed Policies The proposal is contrary to Policy CO10 of the County Structure Plan as the proposal runs through the wildlife corridor along the River Yealm which should be protected by this policy and which is specifically referred to in Paragraph 7.3.7.4 of the Waste Local Plan. SoS consider that the site falls within Areas Not Covered by Specific Policy Designations and Policy WPP15. It is their view that the scheme would cause demonstrable harm to the landscape and historic character, particularly in the destruction of ancient woodland. They also consider that there would be demonstrable harm to the recreational value of the area as the A38 is an important tourist route which would affect the visual perception of the area. Paragraph 7.5.10.11 and 12 The scale of the EfW facility envisaged in the Waste Local Plan is unclear and SoS request clarification that the scale of the proposal is as envisaged when the Waste Local Plan was written. Visual Impact is specified in the paragraph as an important consideration, however the applicants do not refer to it in their site search or assessment criteria. South Hams Local Plan This plan is not referred to in the Planning Supporting Statement but it remains a valid document and Policies SHDC 1,3,13 and 16 are all directly relevant. The statement by the applicant that there will be a positive visual impact from the building is incorrect. There will be a negative visual impact. Chapter 5 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment The LVIA is based on an incomplete baseline survey which does not contain any baseline photographic surveys from within the site which could lead to incorrect conclusions on impact. It is not possible to ascertain from the application documents that the statement that “views from within the site are generally restricted” is correct. The application documents make reference to the site being within Landscape Character Areas 3B and 4D. It goes on to discuss character area 4D which refers to industrial, quarrying and electricity pylons, but does not mention that the other landscape Character area 3B contains none of those features. The applicant should have undertaken a closer landscape character study of the site and its close surroundings to refine the studies already available which would demonstrate that the predominant characteristic of the site is rural.
The study area for the LVIA seems to be based on the potential to be fitted on an A3 sheet of paper and does not reflect the true distances (over 10km) from which a 95m stack would be visible. There is insufficient assessment of the potential impact on Dartmoor National Park or on the South Devon AONB. Viewpoints that have been used from within the DNP have not used the highest point on the landscape feature e.g Hanger Down, Henlake Down and Western Beacon. Butterdon Hill and Penn Beacon are missing but should have been used as viewpoints The reasoning for the choice of viewpoints does not appear to be sufficiently comprehensive and there should have been 360 degree coverage of the site even if some of the receptors had no view. Close views, particularly from the north, south and east should have been assessed. There is only one viewpoint available from the Erme/Plym Trail Paragraph 11.15 mentions Appendix 11/2 but this is not available on the planning web pages Paragraph 11.18 implies that there is a view from Saltram House but it is stated that this is not important – this is considered to be misleading. Paragraph 11.32 fails to clarify whether there is a view from Plympton House.
Visual Impact There is a conflict between the objectives of integrating the building into the landscape with the descriptions in the text of “celebrating its presence”, being “distinctive”; a “positive influence on the locality” and a “landmark”. The methodology for the impact assessment states that there would be major; major/moderate and moderate but does not state whether these are adverse or beneficial. The methodology should consider the full range of impacts from high adverse to high beneficial.
Appendix III to Report PTE/11/6 Detailed Objections from other groups and organisations
Original Response Regulation 19/Further Response SoS disagree with the findings of the South West Design review Panel and interpret the CABE guidelines that an adverse impact cannot be beneficial and that therefore the building cannot be a landmark. SoS query the technique used by the applicant to assess the Zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV) – there is a reference to the details of this technique which is cross referred to Appendix 11/1 but this has not been made available on the website. There is concern that the methodology and presentation f the ZTV underplays the visibility of the proposals. SoS question the accuracy of the photomontages and suggest that the construction of the images should be checked and verified – again Appendix 11/1 is not available. Plume Visibility The applicants state that the plume would not be visible at night, however light sources from the site would be reflected in the plume – Photographs are attached to the representation indicating that the plumes from the Marchwood Incinerator in Southampton and the Portsmouth incinerator are visible at night. Night time Impact The application does not indicate the impact of the proposal at night – either the visibility of the plume, lighting from within the building (upper edge of dome comprises translucent panels) or from site lighting. Visual Impact during construction period The application does not address this or potential mitigation. Landscape Impact of the access road Impact of the access has been downplayed especially as it will cause loss of ancient woodland. Potential for landscape enhancement It is assumed that there is already a restoration strategy for Strashleigh Hams Landfill and this could not be used for a potential enhancement. Design of the Building The colour of the building does not integrate well with the existing landscape which is rarely ploughed and that a grey blue colour would be more appropriate. An asymmetrical curve would fit better with the surrounding landforms The design concept does still conflict with the suggestion of landscape integration and Photomontage M indicates that the dome will be very intrusive. The sedum roof is not indicated on the photomontages and is more related to BREEAM rating that the design concept. Cycle Lanes These are mentioned in the BREEAM assessment but not indicated on the road drawings. The BREEAM assessment suggests they should be separate to the road which would make the road wider than indicated. The proposed 1:7 gradient into the site is too steep to cycle. General Birch and limestone plantations would not reflect the local character of the area. The use of SUDS is mentioned in the BREEAM statement but not in the design and access statement and it is unclear which elements of the design fall into this description. SoS query whether there are TPOs on the ancient woodland. Flood Risk The proposal does not comply with Waste Local Plan Policy WPP18 as the access road is within 7m of a watercourse and within the functional floodplain of the River Yealm. SoS query the applicant’s statement that the proposal qualifies as essential infrastructure which should be permitted due to its electricity generating role. Human Health There will be adverse health effects from short and long term exposure to pollution and particulates for which there is no “safe” limit. Alternatives The application contains no consideration of alternative technologies as required in the DEFRA guidelines. Traffic The use of the existing road network will cause severe problems to residents of Lee Mill and the access road through the floodplain is contrary to policy.
Appendix III to Report PTE/11/6 Detailed Objections from other groups and organisations
Original Response Regulation 19/Further Response River Yealm The Yealm which is an SAC would be under constant threat from long term effects of the proposal and potential accidents. The EIA contains no assessment of the impact on the riparian environment and is therefore flawed. Agriculture There will be impact on farming from dioxins including potential loss of jobs at Langage Farm. Save our South Hams R19.2 Updated alternative sites assessment The updated Alternative Site Assessment does not consider the setting of the proposed location, the local landscape character or fully consider any visual impacts, instead focusing on landscape impact only. The Site Search is flawed by the lack of consideration of visual impact, one of the key issues of a development of this size. R 19.2 Section 3.5(e): Existing Land use allocates points for three levels of land use. The New England Quarry site is awarded 2 points for the site being on ‘previously disturbed land’The application site includes areas of greenfield land and on balance should be given 0 points. R19.15 The proposal still results in a considerable loss of ancient woodland and impacts on the River Yealm riparian corridor. It is not possible to re-create ancient woodland which is lost. R19.23 The applicant has not undertaken any noise assessment from the south of the site. No reference has been made to the tranquillity of the site and SoSH would have expected reference to the CPRE work in this field. R19.82: Photomontages The quality of the photomontages is variable; C, I and J are a far lesser quality than the other photomontages. R19.93 Night time lighting The impact of light spill from doors and windows is assessed, but not from the translucent roof panels which are far more extensive. The information submitted indicates no night time lighting of the access road, but there is a slope on the west side with no barrier – would this be safe? The night time montages are merely day time images darkened down – this is not a proper assessment. SoSH is concerned that the night time impact will be far greater than that inferred in the submitted information. The applicant has not considered in sufficient detail viewpoints form the South Devon AONB despite being asked to do so in the Reg 19 request. The applicant has stated that there are relatively few public viewpoints to the south of the site, however in respect of Viewpoint L there is a public footpath only 0.5km further south and this should have been used. R19.88: Impact after decommissioning and restoration This section appears to be incomplete and does not assess the impact, instead giving only a brief description of the proposals. R19.89: Protected landscapes In looking at the effect of night time lighting on the National Park, section 3.8.1 states that the ‘distance of the views and the carefully designed lighting scheme illustrate the limited nature of such effects’. This is based purely on the simulated night-time photographs, the usefulness and authenticity of which were questioned in Point 3. Following on from previous comments which suggests that more viewpoints from the AONB should be included the study area could be extended. Chapter 11 of the ES looked at Landscape Designations within a 10km area, but the visual impact seems to be constrained to the area that will fit on the plan at 1:25,000 on an A1 sheet. SoSH make a number of detailed points on the photomontages, the plume analysis, the night time views, the limitation of the visits to the site and consistency of presentation which have been referred to the County landscape adviser for further observations. R19.119: Design rationale SoSH queries the proposed design rationale for the colour of the dome in particular which they describe as dark mahogany and not reflecting either the colour of ploughed fields (as was specified in the documentation ) or coppery autumn foliage (with photograph submitted to support this), or the “light, bright” structure suggested in the DAS. the dome structure may be suitable for a more extensive green roof. R19.120: Sedum roof
Appendix III to Report PTE/11/6 Detailed Objections from other groups and organisations
Original Response Regulation 19/Further Response On the cross section drawing EfW-POR-25.CFT0 the sedum roof is set at 1m below the level of the adjacent structure. It is not possible to see the sedum roof in any of the photomontages. On the basis of these two points it is difficult to see how the ‘greening effect’ of the sedum roof ‘will have a significant and beneficial impact in developing a visual connection between the building and its context’. SoSH suggest that it would be possible on the basis of current research to use a far more extensive green roof on this structure (reference provided) Section 9.0 Hydrology and Hydrogeology (Dec 2010) Parts of the proposed access road to the north of the site are within the floodplain of the River Yealm. There is inconsistency between the documentation in the Supplementary Environmental Statement which states (at Section 9.98) that one section at the north of the access road might be affected by the 1 in 100 year flood event with a ‘low’ to ‘moderate’ risk Section 9.110 and 9.111 states that ‘The majority of the development is not in the floodplain but two small sections of the access road at the northern and southern extents are indicated to be affected by flooding in the future (2110)’ and that ‘A flood hazard matrix has been completed which indicates the flood risk to this section of the access road to be ‘low’ in the southern area while the hazard to the northern area is indicated to be ‘moderate’ to ‘severe’. The Updated Planning Supporting Statement states at section 401: ‘This document demonstrates the following with regards flood risk: • Both the application site and its secondary entrance (designated emergency access/ egress route) are located within Flood Zone 1 (Low Risk). • Neither the site nor its main access route are shown to be located within Flood Zone 3b (Functional Floodplain29). • The site access road is demonstrated to be largely located within Flood Zone 2 (Medium Risk). • Only two small sections of the access route at the northern and southern extents are affected by Flood Zone 3a (High Risk).’
The range of assessments seems to vary from ‘low to moderate’ to ‘high risk’. This is confusing and needs clarification. Design There is no full explanation of the increased span of the bridge over the River Yealm from 19m to 58m. Other The EIA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment does not include any baseline photographic surveys from within the site. The omission of this information could well lead to incorrect or incomplete conclusions on impact. There is no assessment at all of views out from the site. The Applicant should have undertaken a closer landscape character study of the site and, say 3km surroundings, of their own to refine the Landscape Character Studies already available, which would show that the landscape character of the site and the surrounding area is predominantly rural The methodology used for impact assessment should consider the full range of impact from high adverse to high beneficial. The assessment for the proposals doesn’t state adverse or beneficial in the wording (it is assumed that they mean adverse where there is an impact). Our interpretation of CABE’s guidance is that an adverse impact cannot be positive and that the proposals therefore cannot be a landmark, and we disagree with the SWDRP comments. Should the stack height be increased to reduce issues of air quality then we would suggest that the extent of the ZVT will become wider and the visual impact of the development more adverse. It is clear in comparison with the work undertaken for Langage that the methodology and presentation for the application ZTV underplays the visibility of the proposals Photomontages The accuracy of the photomontages is questioned. Construction Period Visual Impact There is no detail given on this - the proposal would entail the use of cranes etc and these would be highly visible in the landscape. Potential for Landscape Enhancement The inclusion of Strashleigh Hams Landfill which already has a
Appendix III to Report PTE/11/6 Detailed Objections from other groups and organisations
Original Response Regulation 19/Further Response restoration strategy, should not be used as a potential enhancement. Design and Appearance Waste Local Plan Section 7.4.13.2 states that ‘A high standard of design, including landscaping where appropriate, will be sought in proposals for waste management facilities. Any designs must be sympathetic to the character of the surroundings, and must minimise visual intrusion.’ Policy WPP24: Site Design and Appearance states that ‘Only planning applications for waste management facilities which have had regard to minimising visual impact by: • appropriate landscaping, or • utilising existing topography and natural cover, or • grouping structures to prevent sprawl will be permitted. Structures should be designed, and colour applied, so as to minimise visual impact, to minimise light pollution, and to assist integration into the local landscape.’ We find it hard to see that the very ‘futuristic’ symmetrical rounded form integrates with the local topography. It may be that a curved shape is more appropriate than a block, but is the round design more to do with fitting into the quarry and looking attractive on plan. Surely an asymmetrical curve would fit better with the landform? Did the SWDPR offer any other comments that are not mentioned in the D&A statement; i.e. have other negative criticisms being omitted? The D&A Statement states that the substantially glazed forms of other buildings will contrast with the larger forms and scale of the main facades. Even if these smaller buildings are not visible in wider views this again seems to conflict with the objective of ‘integrating in to the landscape’. The impact of this would be considerably less if the colours were muted and the building was integrated in to the dome somehow (See above Policy WPP24: grouping structures to prevent sprawl; minimising impact). Photomontage M shows very clearly how intrusive the dome and the glazed forms will be.
Access Road and Cycle lanes The BREEAM assessment mentions cycle lanes, and implies that they should be separate to the road. This would make the impact of the access road even wider than the 8m proposed road + pavements either side. The 1:7 slope proposed for the final stretch of access road where the road enters the site is to steep to cycle, pedestrians and indeed vehicles, and provision of a single slope pavement to the side would contravene Part M of the Building Regulations. There is no additional or revised information submitted as additional information with regard to BREEAM.
Site in general Page 31 of the D&A statement states that a ‘diverse range of habitats’ in the design will ‘mirror the complexity of the proposed facility’. This is a sentence that needs further explanation to make sense. We are not of the opinion that a plantation of birch or a limestone grassland habitat reflect the local character. The use of a SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage System) system is mentioned in the BREEAM assessment but not in the D&A statement, and it is not clear what aspects of the design fall into this description. Councillor W Mumford Objections on the following grounds: 1. Access and impact on Lee Mill village – the significant measures to mitigate the impact on the narrow roads in the village suggested in the consultation have not been included in the final submission. 2. Impact on the A38 The stretch of the road adjacent to the site is an existing accident black spot which would be exacerbated by a further 600 HGV movements per day. 3. Loss of visual amenity The site is located adjacent to the DNP and on the south side the South hams landscape – the area is heavily dependant on the natural environment for its
Appendix III to Report PTE/11/6 Detailed Objections from other groups and organisations
Original Response Regulation 19/Further Response economic well being as well as that of its residents. The cumulative impact with the langage power station will mean a “gateway” framed by 2 300’ towers and there has been no attempt to design a local solution for the site – the design has been copied from Southampton and is an industrial solution inappropriate to its rural setting. 4. Impact on the River Yealm The site straddles the river which is designated as SSSI and is within the flood plain. The proposal does not sufficiently consider the risk of flooding and leachate from stored bottom ash or material stored prior to landfill. The proposal will increase stress on the river which is an important oyster fishery. 5. local climatic conditions The recent persistent easterly winds add concern to the potential downstream impact on the River Yealm and its valley. Additionally, the trapping of air in the valley during cold and dry conditions would increase the concentration of pollutants. Katabatic winds would draw pollutants down the valley rather than dispersing them. 6. Airborne Pollutants Many impacts such as bio-accumulative toxins are still poorly understood and in the absence of certainty that there would be no ill effects then a solution with a lesser environmental impact should be pursued. 7. Cumulative Impact of stacks No proper assessment seems to have been made of the cumulative impacts of the two stacks. 8. Scale of plant The plant requires the importation of 70,000 tonnes of waste per annum to feed the burners and the plant is to be located within an area that produces only 7% of the waste and has a very high recycling rate. A more rigorous approach to recycling, couples with a technology that is based on newer technology operating at higher temperatures and with lower oxygen would reduce the pollutants per tonne incinerated. 9. Method of incineration The mass burn technology and length of contract will lock the county and the residents into an old style technology and will remove the potential to benefit from technological advances available today and those that may come on-stream during the contract period. 10. Disincentive to recycling A mass burn incinerator will not encourage residents to recycle. 11. No use of heat The plant in this location could not support a district heating system in either Lee Mill or Sherford new community. Energy will be provided by Langage and therefore the plant is not in the best location for the production of heat or power. 12. Consultation A number of local farmers have not been consulted with. The applicant made local presentations where traffic mitigation measures were set out which have not been included in the final submission and there is concern that the consultation phase was meaningless.
Mr T Maskell 1. Waste disposal plants are never the cleanest, best managed or most accident free of industrial processes and even initial high standards tend to fall over time. 2. The impact of nano particles, dioxins and heavy metals in flue gases along with CO2 will have unpredictable harmful effects that my remain undetected for years. Concern that the plant should have insurance to cover possible future claims for two generations after decommissioning. 3. The possibility of the decision leading to the loss of the shell fishery on the Yealm estuary is too important to be left to the County Council – incinerator should be situated at Chelson Meadow with the ash buried in the cement works quarry. 4. The exact energy savings achieved by burning different plastics and with and without paper and card, set against savings gained by recycling should be established before planning permission is granted for the more hazardous incinerator option. Ian Walsh (on behalf of Objects to the actions of the SWDWP and the Viridor application. residents of Huntsdon and 1. Calls for a moratorium on the actions of the SWDWP due to lack of early public consultation on alternative technologies. on the periphery of the 2. Site access
Appendix III to Report PTE/11/6 Detailed Objections from other groups and organisations
Original Response Regulation 19/Further Response quarry). Contrary to the DCWLP which requires that sites should be provided with good road access “to minimise congestion and reduce the risk of accidents” The proposal would make life intolerable for the residents of Lee Mill, existing traffic volumes too high and narrow main street of Lee Mill is already dangerous for pedestrians. Concerns about congestion at junction between C194 and Western Road. A38 is already dangerous and would be made more so by merging traffic. Concern about additional HGV movements in local lane network. Danger to children from lorries ignoring weight restrictions. No use of alternative modes of transport (rail or water) as required by DWLP. 3. No use of heat The DWLP requires that sites are located so as to facilitate the use of incidental heat generated. 4. Proximity of site to residences The DWLP states that sites should be located away from residential areas, however there are premises less than 1km form the site. 5. Surface Water The size of the proposed site and its proximity to the River Yealm leads to concerns about the likelihood of pollution which is considered almost inevitable over the 25 year lifespan of the proposal. The risk is even greater given the increasing incidents of extreme weather events. 6. Special site status The site is designated as County Wildlife Site, County Geological Site, Mineral Consultation Area and flood plain – the objectors query why it was therefore designated for waste management uses in the DWLP. 7. Air Pollution Concerns about PM2.5 particles, toxic metals and organic chemicals amongst others that may have not yet been identified. The location of the site relative to the prevailing wind and known microclimate conditions resulting on northeasterly katabatic winds means that the height of the incinerator chimney would not prevent the creation of a low lying layer of polluted air. 8. Effects of pollution on farmers and fish producers From dioxins that build up in tissues, including local milk producers and oyster beds in the Yealm. Loss of public perception that the area can produce premium quality organic produce would lead to an economic impact on local producers. 9. Dioxins and Human Health The incinerator may not be the only local source of dioxins but would considerably add to the current level. Particular concern about bio-accumulation in fish and shellfish and dairy products. Concerns about impact on childrens’ health due to breastfeeding. The objectors cross refer to a number of studies by the Health Protection Agency, DEFRA and the Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine which support the objectors contention that there are no measured “safe” levels of nano particles. 10. CO2 and NOx emissions The proposed levels of CO2 emissions form the plant would negate any other sustainable building proposals in the area and do not set a good example. NOx contributes to smog and acid rain and could damage the River Yealm and lead to an increase in respiratory diseases. 11. Impact on River Yealm From airborne pollutants as well as surface runoff and quarry dewatering which would damage the river, as well as leachate from the landfill. There will be an economic as well as environmental impact. The Yealm estuary has an important fishery which is notable for sea bass and migratory fish such as salmon and sea trout as well as the shell fishery. Any change to the water quality could damage the fishery. 12. Impact on boreholes There are private water supplies whose owners are concerned about potential water pollution caused by the proposed development. 13. There are credible alternative methods of waste disposal Objector cites other PFI schemes abandoned due to legal challenge and other methods of management including anaerobic digestion 14. SWDWP should reappraise their strategy Response forwarded to the Partnership. 15. Lack of need Should the harvesting of mixed plastics be adopted and the drive to recycle carry forward then there will be insufficient material locally to keep the incinerator
Appendix III to Report PTE/11/6 Detailed Objections from other groups and organisations
Original Response Regulation 19/Further Response supplied therefore increasing the catchment for waste. 16. No need for electricity from EfW Due to presence of new Langage power station 17. No use of heat Langage could also produce heat in competition with this site and has no user. 18. Human Rights Act Visual Impact, Noise, Water and Air Quality and House devaluation all considered to be issues that would impact on peoples human rights. The proposed method is outdated, inappropriately sited, a danger to health and the environment and ignores more cost effective and socially acceptable alternatives. Raises Human Rights issues. Mr J Howell Owner of Lukesland Gardens (only tourist attraction in Ivybridge area) Owns Harford Moor (South Dartmoor SSSI) and is managing is as high level stewardship scheme with NE. Also owns Piles Copse (SSSI). All sensitive areas for which he is custodian fall within 10km area of likely maximum impacts as set out in the ES. The ES does not demonstrate adequately a negligible impact. There is an implied impact but this is insufficiently quantified. Questions: 1. Why the ES does not look at the high ground in detail as the dispersion model indicates that these will be the worst affected. 2. Why was there no collection of baseline data beyond diffusion tubes for certain gases. 3. Why is no importance attached to the prediction of a potential deposition of Chromium (IV) at a rate of 35% of the acceptable standard. 4. Why is a potential dioxin intake by infants of 10% of the acceptable level not considered in greater detail. 5. Why no discussion of a potential doubling of ammonia levels to a concentration that may be damaging to a SSSI (Piles Copse) within the 10Kn impact radius. 6. Why no inclusion of Langage data (now it is operating). 7. What are the mechanisms for ensuring that the filtration system remains within the WID limits. 8. Why no ground monitoring proposed? (needed at Harford). See also Mrs Howell (DB 552) - commercial objection as she grows flowers and foliage for sale from the land and is concerned that emissions may affect her business. Concern about private water supply. Mr J Howell Concerned that there is no revision to Section 7 (Air Quality) or change to height of chimney 07.04.11 AQ assessment uses modelling based on limited measurements and met data relevant to another location and does not model Langage emissions Section 7 of the ES implies there will be an impact on Harford Moor but fails to quantify it. Requests considerable additional information related to Air Quality And specific emission levels. Requests permanent monitoring station at Harford. Mr J Howell Supplementary letter submitted following additional information submitted by SLR on met data. Supplementary 07.05.11 Mathematical modelling is no substitution for empirical data as meteorology is infinitely complex and beyond the ability of mathematical models to forecast with accuracy and will not take into account local factors such as the high ground of Dartmoor or existing local concentrations of pollution levels. SLR could have carried out its own data modelling or obtained data from local weather stations for comparison with the mathematical model to test its accuracy. There is no information about how the averages for the six new figures were arrived at and therefore there may have been selective interpretation of the figures. Further objections therefore based on: 1. Average Long term ground level concentrations are incorrect and the impact of this is uncertain as there are no background levels presented and they are unknown especially since the commissioning of the Langage power station.
Appendix III to Report PTE/11/6 Detailed Objections from other groups and organisations
Original Response Regulation 19/Further Response 2. Short Term Ground Level Concentrations – table submitted is incorrect. The Numerical Prediction Model (NWP) suggests a considerably higher ground level concentration of NOx – potentially 50% higher than the SLR assessment in the ES. Without the background levels it is not possible to say whether the thresholds would be exceeded. 3. SLR should make the full Met Office report public and not just the six figures selected. DCC should ask the developer to re-assess the meteorological and existing pollutant situations through a reasonable period of empirical data collection – probably one full year. The submission should also be re-cast to take on board additional pollutant load from an incineration in Devonport should this obtain planning permission if the applicant is considering implementing a CIW facility. Fish Legal Impact on angling interests on River Yealm. (on behalf of Mr R Does not comply with Annex 1.1 of the Landfill Directive. Bastard - riparian owner) Application is unclear regarding the recreation value of angling on the river Yealm and likely impact of the development on amenity value. Economic benefit of angling on Yealm. Impact on capital value of R Yealm (during operation and construction). Ownership rights affected - impact of fishing rights on both sides of the river by constructing the bridge. Mr D R Irish and Ms L R Proposal would destroy the local community. Eyland (Representative Stated increase in traffic is 2% but this is of total traffic and not HGVs which have a greater impact in terms of emissions and safety. of Lee Mill residents) Flashing sign will not help to enforce the 30mph limit. The proposed highway management features including road footpath widening cannot be accommodated within the space available. There are many unreported accidents - especially minor damage to parked cars. (Other points picked up in general response.) Mr D R Irish and Ms L R New access proposals not safe or workable. Eyland No one from Viridor or DCC has visited residents in Western row – the most affected and narrowest part of the village. Long term safety, social and human implications not considered. New pedestrian crossing reduces (already inadequate) residents parking further and is in a hazardous position. Loss of Post Office parking spaces will lose them passing trade – negative impact on village life. Additional traffic flows from affordable housing project – have they been factored in? Higher volume of traffic noted and incidence of 32 tonne lorries (with unspecified stopping speeds at 20mph) will impact on health and quality of life. Reducing speed limit will increase traffic density through poorer flow – leading to greater noise pollution. The applicant has not taken into account flows of heavy vehicles and holiday traffic – already traffic queues through the village. Danger to day nursery and the churchgoers. No mention of conflict of traffic trying to access the “Famous Lee Mill” outlet where traffic movements are significantly higher during holiday periods. Proposed traffic calming measures not likely to reduce danger. Village is in a “Catch 22” – slower traffic is noisier, denser and more pollution, faster traffic is more hazardous – neither situation is acceptable – new access required. Mr P Brooks Original SWDWP decision to use incineration was made by people unaware of the scientific facts and with insufficient consultation. Proposal will reduce the potential for real materials recovery and convert a waste stream into a uniform toxic residue. The energy calculations presented do not take into account all of the processes to move the materials to and from the plant including the fuel costs of haulage. Burning waste creates the maximum CO2 per kilo of waste.
Appendix III to Report PTE/11/6 Detailed Objections from other groups and organisations
Original Response Regulation 19/Further Response Mr P Brooks “Wanton resource inefficiency” of the incineration process. Radically Changed Business scenario Viridor has lost the SWDWP contract and would have to implement a C&I only proposal to replace the domestic waste stream. Recent DEFRA report shows Viridor’s analysis of C&I arisings overestimated by 2x which means collection area would need to be much wider – almost certainly out of county. Increases road traffic and contrary to the “proximity principle” and need to reduce CO2 emissions. Mission Creep Statements in the application would imply that there could be a request for future new development adjacent to the EfW to use the heat generated. Technology Incineration is outdated. Many other countries are stopping using it (USA & Germany). Many other better methods of managing waste and if PP is granted it will remove from the C&I waste stream a significant proportion of waste that could be dealt with as a resource. Concern that “minimum” contracts means any permitted scheme will need to “feed” the incinerator at the expense of better emerging technologies as the waste is contracted to it. Incinerators not flexible enough to receive lower throughput than designed for. Snowbee (UK) Ltd The ES does not address the potential impact on the fish population of the Yealm and other SAC rivers and the fisheries they support. And Yealm River There has been an inadequate assessment of other aquatic biota. Association There is inadequate assessment of the potential impact on Air Quality and its subsequent impact on water quality in the Dartmoor (SAC) especially through acidification. There is an overly relaxed assessment of the risk of pollution of the River Yealm from the site - inconsistent with the likely severity of the consequences of leachate reaching the river. No proposals to mitigate unforeseen impacts on the Yealm and Dartmoor SAC and the environment and fisheries they support. Lee Mill Community Traffic levels have more that doubled in last 20 years. Association Pensioners and children cannot cross the main road to get to the Post Office. The Yealm already floods - bungalows at Beech Farm were flooded at New Year 1999/2000 to a depth of 2 feet. Destruction of ancient woodland and loss of habitat. No proper consultation with Lee Mill residents about various road options. Salmon and Trout The Yealm is an important salmonid spate river already impacted by water abstraction, waste water disposal, china clay workings and industrial and Association agricultural inputs. It is heavily protected and the Atlantic salmon (designated under annex 1 of the EU habitats directive) run the Yealm. Brown and sea trout are also present in significant numbers and are BAP species. The landfill lies within the water table and there is the potential for leachate into the river. The designation of the site was ranked 60th out of 87 when appraising sites and it is difficult to see how this became allocated. Concern over impact of toxic particles on water environment. Contrary to the EU Water Framework Directive which stipulates that there should be no further deterioration - the proposal is likely to involve legal proceedings under European Environmental Legislation. Construction is likely to interfere with the river ecology (loss of tranquillity). The use of incineration rather than recycling is inappropriate. Mr R Bastard Legal query concerning fishing rights and value. (Riparian Owner)
Mr R Bastard Owns shooting, fishing and riparian rights along both sides of the river and the western side of the site. (also for South West APEM survey of summer 2010 was a snapshot in time – further survey and monitoring required for the river which was classed as “poor” in the 3 year Water Rivers Assoc; Erme and framework Directive study.
Appendix III to Report PTE/11/6 Detailed Objections from other groups and organisations
Original Response Regulation 19/Further Response Yealm River Assoc; The 2008 survey of slamonid numbers on 5 testing stations indicated preponderance of poor and bad results. Westcountry Rivers Trust; Enjoyment of riparian rights not just about fishing – also privacy and quiet. Yealm Estuary Forum) It is the shortest main river in England and is under stress from 2 water abstractions and 7 sewage outfalls. Risk to shellfish industry on the river – already water quality failures. The River cannot take more stress. Devon Alliance Against Detailed objection relating particularly to the relationship of the proposal to planning policy. Incineration Carbon balance ignores emissions from transport and the differing figures given do not assist in assessing the likely impact. Suggest lack of analysis of “well being” issues could lead to Judicial Review. Devon Alliance Against The R19 responses have not taken into account the fact that Viridor has not won the SWDWP contract. The responses are therefore inadequate. Incineration (DAIA) R19.1 06.04.11 Planning application flawed as does not address the waste hierarchy. R19.157 The modelling of alternatives does not take into account the waste hierarchy and the assessment of impact is flawed as it does not properly model alternatives. DEFRA survey shows reducing CIW amounts with 57% being recycled. Legally questionable to determine the proposal without knowing where the waste will come from. R19.2 The justification for the site assessment process is based on the aspirations of the SWDWP. If the site has been rejected by the Partnership it should also be rejected by the WPA. The analysis of waste arisings is outdated and flawed. R19.15. Loss of ancient woodland which cannot be created due to the access road. R19.17 Whole basis for the application was to deal with the SWDWP arisings. In the absence of this waste the bid and the application is flawed. If the WPA grants planning permission for a proposal that requires more work, the application is flawed and any consent would be challengeable. Endorses the response made by Friends of the Earth. The Dartmoor Circle The proposal lacks innovation.
Richard Rowe Has submitted a very detailed paper on stack height modelling and considers that the stack needs to be 50m higher. (Forwarded to the EA Permitting Team) Emeritus Professor of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta Wembury Amenity Objection - stacks in AONB/DNP issues. Society Wembury Amenity Proceeding with the Devonport option means that all local waste can now be dealt with and with access to the sea, Devonport could import waste without Society increasing road traffic. 10.04.11 New England would rely on imported waste brought entirely by road. Robin Hemmings Outfall will destroy his business which is spring water from South Brent South Hams Society Proposal based upon the wrong technology. EfW destroys recyclable materials. Waste transportation to centralised incinerator. (15.10.10) Energy from incineration costly. Concern about flue ash and environment. 25 year investment will eliminate other more productive methods of waste management.
Appendix III to Report PTE/11/6 Detailed Objections from other groups and organisations
Original Response Regulation 19/Further Response South Hams Society Objections remain the same as previously – (11.04.11) outdated technology; high transport costs for centralised facilities; Effect on South Hams tourist economy, organic food industry, landscape and AONB; MVV Incinerator in Plymouth will take all the local feedstock leaving this proposal to receive waste from a much wider area, increasing traffic and carbon footprint; The site is very poorly located to take waste from outside south west Devon due to the location to the National Park. CAVIL Support unreservedly the objections from South Hams Friends of the Earth. (Campaign against Without the domestic waste contract the proposal would only be viable if waste was to be imported from outside Devon. Viridor’s Incinerator and The need for C&I waste is less following the recent Jacobs report. Landfill) (Tessa Trappes The importation of such waste will have no benefit to the people of Devon. Lomax) Incineration is a disincentive to recycling especially for C&I waste. The applicant has failed to demonstrate any investigation of alternative technologies. 30% of the bottom ash still needs to be landfilled. Increased heavy traffic on the A38 and associated feeder roads. No modelling of lorry movements for C&I waste from outside the County. Viridor had widened the access road encroaching into ancient woodland before the contract was awarded (N.B this is not in fact correct). The proposed drainage will destroy foraging sites for 9 species of bat. The wildlife corridor between the quarry and the Yealm serves otters and numerous species of birds. Yealmpton Parish Tree 12 species of bats frequent the woodland many of which roost in the trees and their destruction to accommodate a road will have serious consequences in Warden (04.07.11) the bat population. The new road will decimate large areas of ancient unspoiled woodland also home to badgers (3 fresh setts observed are within 1m of a surveying stake. Protected birds in quarry, brown trout and salmon in upper reaches of the Yealm. The river is the cleanest it has been for many years and home to kingfishers and dippers – any discharge would have serious consequences. Otter spraint observed south of Popdes Bridge – no reason why they would not use the river to the north.
Appendix IV To PTE/11/6
APPENDIX V To PTE/11/6 Planning Policies Relevant to the Application
National Planning Policy Statements PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development, 2005 PPS1 (Supplement on Climate Change), 2007 PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas 2004 PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, 2005 PPS10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management, 2005 PPS10 (Companion Guide) PPG13 Transport PPS22 Renewable Energy, 2004 PPS 23 Planning and Pollution Control, 2004 PPS25 Development and Flood Risk, 2006
In addition to the existing suite of National Policy Guidance, recent statements from the Department for Business and Innovation Skills made in March 2011 (HM Treasury; The Plan for Growth) have made it clear that the planning system is now expected to prioritise employment and economic development, and that there will be a “powerful new presumption in favour of sustainable development”.3
Regional Planning Guidance It was thought that all Regional Spatial Strategies has been withdrawn by the Government and was therefore no longer a material consideration, however, the recent decision by the Secretary of State on the Cornwall CERC Inquiry has stated that the Regional Planning Guidance for the South West is a part of the development plan, and is material to this case”.
In view of this statement the relevant Regional Planning Guidance is: RPG10 (Regional Planning Guidance for the South West) 2001 VIS1 Principles for Future Development SS20 Rural land (including Urban Fringe) Uses EN1 Landscape and Biodiversity EN5 Health, education, safety and other social infrastructure RE2 Flood Risk RE5 Management and Transportation of Waste RE6 Energy Generation and Use
Emerging Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West (Incorporating Secretary of State’s Proposed changes) 2008. SD1 The Ecological Footprint SD2 Climate Change SD3 The Environment and Natural Resources ENV1 Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Historic Environment ENV3 Protected Landscapes ENV4 Nature Conservation F1 Flood Risk RE1 Renewable Energy Targets 2010 and 2020 RE8 Woods and Forests RE9 Air Quality RE11 Maintaining a landbank of aggregates RE12 Recycled and Secondary Aggregates W1 Provision of Waste Sites W2 Waste facilities and the Waste Hierarchy
3 H.M Treasury and Department for Business Innovation and Skills “The Plan for Growth” March 2011 p.44
Strategic Planning Guidance
Devon Structure Plan (2001-2016) The Government has advised that the Structure Plan policies will be withdrawn once an adopted Local Development Framework (LDF) is in place. The relevant LDF for South Hams District Council had been adopted, however it is advised that the Structure Plan will still be relevant and its policies will remain material considerations until such time as the Localism Bill is passed. ST1 Sustainable Development ST3 Self Sufficiency of Devon’s Communities ST4 Infrastructure Provision CO1 Landscape Character and Local Distinctiveness CO2 National Parks CO6 Quality of New Development CO9 Biodiversity and Earth Science Diversity CO10 Protection of Nature Conservation Sites and Species CO11 Conserving Energy Resources CO12 Renewable Energy Developments CO13 Protecting Water Resources and Flood Defence CO15 Air Quality CO16 Noise Pollution MN1 Safeguarding Mineral Resources MN6 Secondary and Recycled Materials WM1 Waste Management TR2 Co-ordinating Land Use/Travel Planning TR3 Managing Travel Demand TR4 Parking Strategy, Standards and Proposals TR7 Walking and Cycling
Local Planning Policy Guidance
Devon Waste Local Plan (June 2004) The Devon Waste Local Plan was adopted in June 2006 and is the most material set of up to date policies against which to examine the proposal.
Strategic Policies: WPC1 Sustainable Waste Management WPC2 Development Control Considerations WPC3 Integrated waste management facilities
Site Specific Policies WPP1 Sites for Strategic Waste Management Facilities (Inset SH17) WPP5 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Effects on National Parks WPP13 Local conservation designations WPP14 Maintenance and enhancement of the County’s nature conservation resource WPP15 Areas not covered by specific policy designations) WPP17 Water resources protection WPP18 Protection of floodplains WPP19 Protection of Mineral Consultation Areas WPP20 Transportation of Waste WPP21 Road Transport WPP22 Health and Air Quality WPP24 Site Design and appearance WPP25 Restoration WPP26 Securing effective restoration
WPP27 Aerodrome safeguarding WPP36 Energy from Waste Incineration WPP39 New sites for landfill of non-hazardous waste
South Hams Local Development Framework South Hams Core Strategy (adopted December 2006) CS1 Location of development CS7 Design CS9 Landscape and the Historic Environment CS10 Nature Conservation CS1 Climate Change
Development Policies Development Plan Document (Adopted July 2010) DP1 High Quality Design DP2 Landscape Character DP3 Residential Amenity DP4 Sustainable Construction DP5 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation DP7 Transport Access and Parking
Non Land Use Policy Documents Waste Strategy for England 2007 Municipal Waste Strategy for Devon 2005 Regional Waste Strategy for the South West 2004.
Emerging Policy Guidance Draft Planning Policy Statement: Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment (April 2010)
Appendix VI To PTE/11/6
Appendix VII To PTE/11/6