02/00866/MIN WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY INCLUDING MATERIALS RECOVERY, COMPOSTING , BIOLOGICAL WASTE TREATMENT, ENERGY RECOVERY, CONTINUED LANDFILL AND ASSOCIATED CLAY EXTRACTION, ACCESS ROAD, VISITOR CENTRE, CAR PARKING, RAIL ACCESS, RAIL SIDINGS, RAIL RECEPTION AREA, RAIL CONTAINER LOADING AND UNLOADING PLANT AND RAIL CONTAINER STORAGE AREA

AT Landfill Site, Bletchley Road, Newton Longville FOR Shanks Waste Services Limited

The Proposal

Planning permission is being sought for an Integrated Waste Management Facility to be sited at Bletchley Landfill Site. The proposal includes facilities for materials recovery from waste, buildings for composting and other biological treatment, plant for the recovery of energy from residential waste through thermal treatment, a research and development complex, a visitor centre, continued landfill and associated day working, a new road access connecting to the Stoke Hammond bypass when constructed, offices and car parking, a new rail access and rail reception area comprising a rail spur from the Bletchley to line, rail sidings and an associated area for container loading, unloading and storage.

The Application Site

The application site extends to 155 hectares as the development site includes the existing landfill site. The final landform of the landfill site would be altered from that recently given planning permission to enable the proposed waste management facility to be sited at the lowered ground level within the former brick clay pit.

The application site straddles the boundary of this authority and County Council. The parts of the application comprising the composting facility, the rail reception area and the southern part of the new access road would, therefore, fall to Buckinghamshire County Council to determine.

The majority of the built development would be located in the North Eastern corner of the landfill site. It would be bounded on its eastern edge by the Blue Lagoon country park and to the north by the fields which lie between the existing landfill site and the Oxford to Bletchley Railway line. At the western end of the application site the boundary is extended northwards to include some of the field adjacent to the railway line and the former brickworks site to accommodate the proposed railway sidings and the area for container loading and unloading and storage. The remaining landfill area to the south and west of the proposed development would continue until restored to fields and woodlands principally for nature conservation purposes.

A new vehicular access consented with the planning permission for the recontouring of the landfill site would run parallel to the west coast main line to link the proposed development with the Stoke Hammond bypass when this is developed. Vehicular access (up to 750 deliveries per day) would be via this access.

Residential areas, including schools, are located beyond the field to the north of the area where the majority of built development is proposed to be located and beyond the Blue Lagoon, the west coast mainline and Drayton Road to the east. Residential properties lie immediately beyond the railway line at the point at which the railway sidings and associated development would be located to the north. At this point the nearest residential property would be approximately 40 metres from the proposed railway siding junction. The nearest residential property would be 345 metres from the main development area. The fluidised bed energy recovery plant would be 645 metres from the nearest residential property.

Development Details

The most prominent part of the development is the fluidised bed energy recovery plant. Within this building the residual waste, following materials recovery and bio-drying would be burned. Energy would be recovered in the form of electricity generated within the building, and the heat itself which could be used within development scheduled to take place in the vicinity.

This Energy from Waste building would be 63 metres tall and have two chimney stacks reaching 103 metres. It would, however, be located approximately 15 metres below the original ground level within the former brick clay pit. This building would cover a ground area of 8380 square metres. The building is of curvilinear form with the footprint being a series of ellipses and oblongs with the roofline being a series of compound and symmetrical curves. The building would be clad in metal panelling with lowered sections at the eaves and southern end of the building in plastic coated sheet metal coloured blue/green.

To the north of this building would be a line of 5 Bio-materials recycling buildings each covering an area of 2,835 square metres. These would be approximately 15 metres high and clad in sheet steel/aluminium. These would have shallow pitched eaves and be of a general industrial/commercial appearance. These would be linked to the fluid bed energy recovery building by conveyors. To the east of the bio-mrf buildings would be five similar buildings, but of varying sizes which would accommodate segregated materials recovery (3940 sq. metres), a maintenance workshop and store (1,180 sq. metres), a staff welfare facility (675 sq. metres), mixed materials recovery (3,940 sq. metres) and an early landfill store (3,660 sq. metres).

To the west of the fluid bed energy recovery building two further buildings, similar to those housing the bio-mrfs, are proposed.

These would provide for a research centre (1,405 sq. metres) and an ash conditioning unit (2,700). A compound is proposed between these two buildings. Free standing air coolers associated with the fluid bed energy facility would be located to the east of the main building. The complex would be landscaped with areas containing grass, shrubs and trees and a linear water feature running the length of the southern boundary of the complex.

A building containing a visitor centre would be located between the waste processing complex and the site entrance. This building would contain a lecture theatre, seminar room and offices. This building would reflect the main building with part of its roof structure having a curvilinear form. It would also feature a round tower and flat metal panelling.

The proposed rail reception area includes a hall with a ground area of 2,800 sq. metres to contain the composting clamps , a chipping shredding building of 300 sq. metres and a compost bagging building of 240 sq. metres. The larger building would be 12 metres high, the two smaller buildings, 8.5 metres.

The rail reception/composting area would be linked to the main compound by a site haul road which would run along the northern boundary of the landfill site. An acoustic bund would be provided to screen vehicular noise substituted by a fence where space is limited. The final length of the road would run through a tunnel.

Planning Policy

National

Planning Policy Guidance Note 23 : Planning and Pollution Control (July 1994)

PPG 23 details those matters which are to be considered by Waste Planning Authorities and those which are the responsibility of the Environment Agency. It aims to prevent unnecessary duplication of the controls emphasising that waste planning authorities should assume that pollution prevention will be adequately dealt with through the waste licencing system operated by the Environment Agency. It does, however, specify that it is the function of the waste planning authority to determine the most appropriate locations for waste facilities taking account of the surrounding land uses. Planning Policy Guidance Note 10 Planning and Waste Management (Sept 1999)

PPG10 replaced parts of PPG23 providing advice on how the land-use system should contribute to sustainable waste management. In particular, it emphasises that waste disposal methods should represent the Best Practical Environmental Option.

Local

Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan 1991-2011 remains the strategic planning policy document for the area. It contains a number of policies relevant to the proposal.

Policy WM1 supports the establishment of recycling and associated facilities in locations where there would be no significant adverse impact on the environment.

Policy WM3 seeks to ensure the provision of adequate capacity for the safe disposal of waste arising in Buckinghamshire. It refers to the accommodation of a proportion of waste disposal requirements originating from outside of the County.

Policy WM4 generally supports the filling of voids created by mineral extraction with waste where this enables the land to be returned to an appropriate after use.

Policy T12 encourages the local planning authorities:

(i) To seek to use rail for the carriage of freight. (ii) To site suitable new industries in growth areas next to railway lines to which sidings could connect. (iii) To consider favourable the establishment of rail freight depots. (iv) To favour developments which would maximise the use of rail rather than those that would use road access, as long as there would be no conflict with any other structure plan policy.

Policy EN2 supports proposals for the generation of energy from renewable resources as long as there is no conflict with other structure plan policies and no adverse environmental impact on nearby communities. The policy specifically refers to proposals for the incineration of waste materials as an example of such an energy project.

Policy P1 states that planning permission should be withheld from potentially polluting developments which would pose unacceptable risks to other land uses. The policy also states “in circumstances where development proposals may be able to satisfy relevant pollution control requirements, the local planning authorities may nonetheless withhold consent if having regard to other social economic and environmental factors, unacceptable risks are still considered to exist which cannot be overcome by appropriate planning conditions.

The Waste Local Plan for Buckinghamshire 1994-2004 remains the waste planning policy for the Milton Keynes area. It too has policies directly relating to the planning application namely:-

WLP2 states “In order to ensure that provision for the deposit of incinerator residues, degradable or other polluting wastes continue to be maintained at an adequate level, the County Council will seek to husband void space within engineered landfill sites so long as this does not unacceptably conflict with the operational requirements of the site or result in overriding environmental disadvantages to the surrounding area.

Policy WLP 3 states : The County Council will support a proposal for an incinerator where:

a) the need for such a facility can be demonstrated;

b) it can be located to minimise the overall road transport of waste;

c) it can be connected to a railway or a waterway. Where it can be demonstrated that access by rail or water is not feasible, facilities should be located so that they can gain ready access to the strategic highway network without generating heavy traffic on unsuitable roads;

d) it can contribute to energy production or provide energy for local industry and housing where economically feasible and environmentally acceptable;

e) a suitable landfill site or sites with sufficient capacity to accommodate the residue over a considerable period of time can be identified;

f) it can make a major contribution to reducing the amount of waste to be disposed of as landfill in Buckinghamshire;

g) it can be accommodated without significant loss of visual amenity;

h) the pollution control authority indicates that there would be no significant risk of pollution or danger to public health or safety; and it accords with Policies WLP13 (green belt), WLP16 (land use constraints) and WLP17 (high grade agricultural land). Policy WLP7 also supports the development of renewable energy schemes, in particular, those associated with waste incineration, and the use of landfill gas provided that it can be shown that such developments would be environmentally acceptable. All applications for incineration and landfilling of putrescible waste are to be preceded by an investigation of the potential for renewable energy use.

Policy WLP16 states:-

Permission will not, in general, be granted for waste management facilities where such proposals would endanger or have a significant adverse effect on the character, appearance or setting of the following:-

a) the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;

b) source protection zones as defined in the Environment Agency’s document entitled “Policy and Practice for the Protection of Groundwater”;

c) areas liable to flood as defined by the Environment Agency;

d) Sites of Special Scientific Interest, other nationally or internationally important nature conservation sites and Local Nature Reserves;

e) Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other important archaeological sites;

f) Historic Parks and Gardens;

g) Conservation Areas;

h) Listed Buildings;

i) designated Areas of Attractive Landscape;

j) areas of nature conservation importance which are not otherwise protected by subparagraph d) above;

k) ancient semi-natural woodlands, as defined by English Nature;

l) country parks, common land and village greens;

m) airfields in current use;

n) water features of substantial environmental or aesthetic value;

o) National Trust land which is not otherwise protected by sub-paragraphs a)–n) above. Where such harm is identified and cannot be reduced to acceptable proportions by planning conditions, permission will only be granted if there are other important material considerations in favour of the development, for instance the existence of an essential need for the facility which cannot be adequately met on any other site or by any other means. In striking such a balance due heed will be paid to national guidance appropriate to the feature or features affected.

Proposals will also have to accord with other policies, especially WLP18 (proximity principle) and WLP19 (rail, water and road access).

Policy WLP 18 states that preference will be given to waste management facilities as close as practicable to the origin of the waste.

Policy WLP 19 gives preference to waste management proposals which utilise rail or water transport links. The policy also requires waste management facilities, which do not have rail or water transport links to have ready access to the strategic highway network.

Policy WLP 20 lists the factors that will be taken into when applications for waste management facilities are considered. These are:- a) the type of waste acceptable, insofar as this might particularly affect local amenity, neighbouring land use and the standard of site restoration; b) the provision of satisfactory access to a public road, including arrangements for minimising mud on such roads and routing proposals to keep lorries away from residential and other sensitive areas; c) the scale, type, appearance of the operation, including the location of plant and machinery and any associated workings; d) the effects of the proposed development on the environment in terms of noise, dust, odour, emissions and illumination; e) the provision of satisfactory buffers to safeguard the amenity of nearby uses, (refer to Table 8 of this plan for buffer zones associated with landfilling and land raising); f) the effects of the proposed development on existing trees, hedgerows or other features of nature conservation or screening value on or near the site; g) the extent to which the development provides additional planting and screening, including planting in advance of the commencement of the development, and the extent to which sites which are difficult to screen are avoided; h) the effects of the proposed development on the flow and quality of watercourses and associated floodplains, water supplies, groundwater, drainage of the sites and adjoining land; i) the effects of the proposed development on buildings and their settings; j) the need to protect local landscape including any areas of District- wide importance designated in Local Plans, well-managed woodland and areas of amenity/recreation importance (including public rights of way); k) the effects of the proposed development on any important archaeological remains and the extent to which facilities are provided for the excavation and recording of lesser importance; l) the likely effects of any proposal on any ecological/geological interest of the site and adjoining land; m) the likely effect of the proposal on agricultural land and in particular whether any best and most versatile land, ie land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food’s Agricultural Land Classification of England and Wales is involved; n) the likely effect of the proposal and its location on farm structure and management; o) the extent to which the proposal exploits the potential to utilise landfill gas and the effect this might have on the site’s afteruse; p) restoration of a landfill/landraising site to a suitable afteruse (such as agriculture, forestry, nature conservation or amenity) ensuring the site’s continued aftercare; q) the need for the development and the markets to be served; r) any other relevant consideration that may be raised at the public consultation state. Newton Longville Brickworks Planning Brief

A planning brief for the area of the former Newton Longville Brickworks was produced by the former Council, Vale District Council and Buckinghamshire County Council in 1995. This includes the application site.

The brief identified the site of the waste to energy plant and much of the proposed ancillary development as an area for the disposal of waste through landfilling. The proposed rail reception area is identified in the brief as an area which could provide useful accommodation for open storage and low value/bad neighbour uses and units for small businesses provided there is no significant nuisance to nearby residents.

The brief also refers to the potential to improve leisure routes (recreational footpaths and bridle routes) around Bletchley particularly from housing north of the Oxford – Bletchley railway line to the Blue Lagoon Park including provision for a parkland corridor through the site of the old brickworks.

Adopted Borough of Milton Keynes Local Plan

The majority of the appliction site is designated as landfill. Land on the north- west of the site is designated for employment, recreation and open space. The proposed access road falls within land designated for housing, recreation, employment and open space.

Policy D32 states that planning permission will normally be granted for proposals to develop energy resources provided there is no significant adverse environmental impact.

Policy L5 seeks to protect land for recreational purposes and open space.

The proposals map within the draft plan also allocates part of the landfill site as wildlife corridor and a wildlife site. The wildlife site is also designated as a Regionally Important Geological Site. The situation in relation to these areas is not, however, directly altered by the proposals.

Other policies in the draft plan relating to rail freight, planning obligations, renewable energy and general principles are broadly similar to those within the adopted plan.

Policy KS1 in the first deposit Local Plan identified land to the south of the landfill site for comprehensive development including housing, employment local shopping recreation and community facilities. An additional requirement was the provision of a landscape buffer of between 50 and 250 metres around the southern and eastern boundaries of the landfill site.

Recent changes to the draft plan include a change from the designation of landfill site to waste management facility. The housing allocation for was deleted by the Local Plan Panel in January of this year and redesignated for employment purposes.

Other relevant policy documents.

There are a number of other national and local policy documents which are not planning documents but give guidance on how local authorities should deal with waste arisings. They are, therefore, material considerations in the determination of this application. These are:-

Waste Strategy 2000

This details the need to maximise the amount of value that is recovered from waste through increased recycling, composting and energy recovery. It points out that by 2010 value must be recovered from 45% of municipal waste with 30% being through the recycling or composting of waste. By 2015 these figures are required to have increased to 60% and 50% respectively.

It emphasises that energy recovery facilities are needed but that these should be appropriate sized to avoid competition with recycling. Such facilities should include opportunities for combined heat and power.

Waste Strategy 2000 specifies the Best Practical Environmental Option for waste disposal as that which provides the most benefits or the least damage to the environment as a whole, at acceptable cost, in the long term as well as in the short term. It goes on to state that the concept of the BPEO means that local environmental, social and economic preferences will be important in any decision. The strategy focuses on the proximity principle as a means of ensuring that the B.P.E.O. is applied. This is the requirement that waste is disposed of as close as possible to its origin. The waste strategy points out that the proximity principle has two important functions.

i) it is a tool for planning authorities and businesses when considering requirements for, and the location of, waste management facilities.

ii) it helps to raise awareness in local communities that the waste they produce is a problem with which they must deal.

The waste strategy also states that the use of rail to transport waste to its recycle/disposal location may be preferable to a shorter road journey. It also supports the Environment Agency’ work to develop the twin tracking of planning and pollution control applications to ensure that applications are dealt with as speedily as possible and that all of the information required to make a reasoned decision is available. Finally the Waste Strategy states that where the environmental impact or cost of transport to a distant reprocessing facility or market outweighs the benefit of recovering the waste, the BPEO for a waste stream may justifiably be toward the lower end of the waste hierarchy.

The most recent government advice in relation to waste planning matters is the Guidance on Policies for Waste Management Planning issued earlier this year. This is aimed principally at waste planning policy matters but provides guidance which directly related to the planning application. It specifies that waste development plans should not contain policies on matters other than the development and use of land. Policies should not duplicate provisions in other legislative regimes notably pollution control. This requirement, that planning authorities constrain themselves to matters relating to the use and development of land implies that, similarly, planning authorities should not seek to refuse planning permission for waste management facilities in relation to matters which are properly the responsibility of the Environment Agency to control.

The guidance re-emphasises the requirements of the Best Practical Environmental Option of the Waste Strategy and the need to reduce the amount of waste disposed of through landfill as defined in the Landfill Directive.

It also repeats the Landfill Directive’s requirements in relation to the distances that landfill should be from sensitive land uses. It also specifies the Landfill Directives requirement that the planning of waste disposal facilities must ensure the protection of an areas natural or cultural patrimony (inheritance). The Guidance advises when decision makers are considering the BPEO they must have regard to international obligations, national regional and local policy.

Apart from the need to take account of the proximity principle, the Guidance also refers to the principles of self-sufficiency which requires that most waste be treated or disposed of within the region in which it is produced and the requirement that waste is dealt with at the upper end of the waste hierarchy in the first instance i.e. reduction, re-use, value recovered (regarding, composting and energy recovery) and finally landfill. The Guidance advises that land use planning should meet the following objectives:-

(a) The provision of a planning framework which ensures adequate provision to be made for waste management facilities to meet the needs of society for re- use, recovery and disposal taking account of the potential for waste minimisation.

(b) encourage sensitive waste management practices to preserve or enhance the overall quality of the environment and avoid risks to human health.

(c) protect areas of designated landscape and nature conservation from inappropriate development.

(d) minimise the adverse impacts from the handling, processing and disposal of waste.

(e) consider what new facilities might be needed.

(f) ensure that opportunities for new waste reduction, re-use and recycling in new developments are properly considered.

The Guidance recognises that waste management facilities are likely to be contentious and contrary to established policy. In the circumstances, it is advised that a balance of need with harm is a necessary consideration and “need” therefore requires definition. It is suggested that the gap between capacity and future waste levels is the starting point for assessing the need for new facilities.

It is concluded that waste development plans should provide for a adequate network of facilities. This network should provide for the equivalent of waste arising in an area together with agreed imports and exports. Excess facilities would encourage the input of waste over long distances. It is reasonable to require that a need be demonstrated which outweighs any harm.

The guidance re-emphasises the advice given in PPG10 that it may be necessary to recognise smaller units than regions but larger than Waste Planning Authorities when addressing self-sufficiency.

Finally the guidance, in recognition of the large installations that are required to process waste, advises that these are celebrated with good design rather than attempting to hide them in the landscape. There are also a number of European Directives which although not directly related to planning legislation are, nevertheless material considerations in the determination of the application. Briefly these are:-

Waste Framework Directive (75/442/EEC, amended by Directives 91/156, 91/692 and 96/350)

This establishes the principle that the essential objective of all provisions relating to waste disposal must be the protection of human health and the environment against harmful effects. It states that the recovery of waste and the re-use of recovered materials should be encouraged in order to conserve natural resources. It also introduces measures designed to implement these principles.

Landfill Directive (99/31/EC)

This aims to ensure high standards for the management and regulation of landfill sites, in order to stimulate recycling and the recovery of waste, and to reduce associated greenhouse gas emissions. It does this by ensuring proper management and monitoring of landfill sites, by restricting the types of waste that may be landfilled, and by requiring the pre-treatment of all waste that is to be landfilled in order to reduce its volume, facilitate its handling or enhance recovery. In particular, the Directive sets targets for reducing the volumes of non-inert waste that are landfilled.

Directive on Waste Incineration (2000/76/EC)

This Directive has merged the former separate Directives on the combustion of hazardous and non-hazardous waste into a single text. Its aim is to prevent negative effects on the environment caused by combustion and co-combustion of waste or, where prevention is not practicable , to reduce these effects as far as possible.

Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (96/61/EC)

This establishes the IPPC process as a means of achieving a high level of protection of the environment taken as a whole by, in particular, preventing or (where that is not practicable) reducing emissions into air, water and land. It seeks to ensure that regulators set permit conditions to achieve a high level of protection for the environment as a whole. Emerging Planning Policy Guidance

The office of the Deputy Prime Minister has recently issued a consultation Paper on revisions to PPG23 (Planning and Pollution Control). Where as those revisions are not yet formally adopted, it does represent the government’s current views in relation to potentially polluting developments. In particular the consultation paper:-

Seeks to encourage developers to submit applications for planning permission and pollution control permits in parallel.

Re-emphasises that any air or water quality consideration is capable of being a material planning consideration in so far as it affects land use. The point is made that the planning system focuses on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of land rather than the control of the processes or the substances themselves. Therefore, planning authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced.

Planning applications for potentially polluting developments which are statutorily required to have an environmental statement attached may require an assessment of alternative locations to be a material consideration when applications are determined. Similarly alternatives to the scheme should be taken into account with an indication of the reason for the choice made.

The draft guidance also states that perception of risk should not be material to the consideration of the planning application unless the land use consequences of such perceptions can be clearly demonstrated. Where such consequences are considered unacceptable and cannot be overcome by appropriate planning conditions, permission should be refused.

Finally the draft guidance makes clear that it is not the role of the planning authority to undertake detailed risk assessments of releases into the environment from development proposals. In any assessment of a particular risk, planning authorities should rely on the judgement of the relevant pollution control authority.

Recent Appeal Decisions

Generally, national planning guidance gives favourable consideration to the thermal treatment of waste to enable energy to be recovered from it following the recovery of recyclables. However, this has not been reflected in recent appeal decisions related to proposals for incinerators a number of which have been dismissed. 3 recent appeal decisions which have been cited by both the applicants and objectors to the proposal are: Proposed extension to energy from waste generating station at Edmonton. The Secretary of state was of the view that there was a strong risk that the extension could end up “sucking in” waste and act as a disincentive to others to deal with their own locally produced wastes and might also indicate to them that this was an easier route for the disposal of their waste than recycling. The Secretary of State was also of the view that with less modest recycling targets, the existing station could handle waste arisings from the North West London Authorities, without the need for the extension. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed.

A proposed waste to energy plant on the site of a former sugar beet processing factory in Kidderminster was also dismissed on appeal. The principle reasons for the dismissal were the visual effect of the plant on the local landscape and the effects of the development on an adjacent area of some ecological importance. The Inspector also concluded that the perception of risk was also a material consideration. The perception of risk was heightened by the site history. Local residential areas were previously affected by the odour of the sugar beet processing. Many residents, therefore, felt that the emissions from the incinerator would similarly affect the local area, and these were perceived to be more harmful.

The perception of harm was also considered to be a material consideration in relation to an appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for a waste to energy plant at . However, in this case, the Inspector concluded that the benefits of the development outweighed the disbenefits and the appeal was allowed.

Another recent appeal decision relates to a development which raised a considerable amount of public concern. This related to mineral extraction and the backfilling of the site with waste at Betworth, . The appeal was allowed principally because the Inspector concluded that the authority had, in reaching its decision, concerned itself with the concerns of local residents rather than assessing the benefits of the proposal and the technical advice provided by consultants. As a result the costs of the Inquiry for both parties had to be met by the Council.

Council decisions in relation to the disposal of waste.

The Environment Committee resolved in 2000 that the Newton Longville Site is an appropriate location for a regional waste management facility.

Earlier this month, the Cabinet, in reviewing the existing Milton Keynes waste strategy, concluded that it was opposed to the incineration of waste unless residents of Milton Keynes were satisfied that it is safe. Consultations

A number of corporate bodies were consulted on the planning application as part of the normal process. However, as a result of the widespread publicity given to the application a number of other bodies have expressed views on the proposal. These are included here:-

The Environment Agency has advised that the site is within an area of limited drainage capacity. The application as submitted, does not consider sufficiently the issue of surface water drainage. The Agency is, therefore, unable to agree the surface water drainage details as submitted. In addition the agency confirms that the proposed activities will fall for regulation by them under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act `1999 and no application for a permit has been received at this time. In determining the conditions of a permit, the Agency takes account of the general principles that installations should be operated in such a way that ensures that all the appropriate preventative measures will be taken against pollution through the application of the Best Available Techniques.

The Agency has also drawn attention to some aspect of the proposal which are outside its direct regulatory remit namely:

1. The applicant does not appear to have undertaken a detailed assessment that fully justifies the choice of Best Practicable Environmental Option for the waste being managed at the facility. It is suggested that the applicant be asked to undertake such an assessment, and that they use the methodology in external consultation draft IPPC Horizontal Guidance Note (H1) for Environmental Assessment and Appraisal of BAT produced by the Agency in collaboration with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and the Northern Ireland Environment and Heritage Service (EHS).

2. The Agency requests that a plan be drawn showing the outline of the engineering against the outline of the existing landfill waste so as to indicate if any structures overlie the landfill.

3. The Agency is concerned with the potential consequences of slope failure from the pit edge and from the landfill slope. We would suggest that these would warrant a greater factor of safety than those currently used. We will be in discussions with the operator of the landfill on this point with respect to the landfill slope, but are mindful that the outcome of these discussions may be material planning consideration as they could define the building footprint. 4. We remind you that diversion of the stream across area A2 was refused 2 years ago for gas and stability reasons. These concerns remain relevant to this proposal.

5. The Agency is mindful of the potential hazard of landfill gas in the bottom of the pit. Matters relating to the minimisation of the risk from landfill gas to the installation shall be managed by the Agency within their PPC permit. However, we recommend that:

Proposals for prevention of ingress and accumulation explosive or harmful concentrations of landfill gas within all structures and building should be submitted and agreed in writing before the commencement of construction;

Detailed procedures for the minimisation of the risks from landfill gas during the construction stages of the facility should also be submitted and agreed in writing before the commencement of any construction works.

6. Detailed schemes for the provision and implementation of foul and surface water drainage for the whole of the site should be submitted and agreed in writing before the commencement of any development. 7. Detailed procedures for the prevention of pollution during the construction stages of the facility should also be submitted and agreed in writing before the commencement of any construction works. Any piling undertaken at the site should not cause pollution of the Kellaways Sand minor aquifer or the Blisworth Limestone and should be in accordance with the Agency’s pollution prevention guidance, publication NC/99/73, ‘Piling into Contaminated Sites’.

8. The facility proposes to take a considerable amount of input from London. This breaches the Government’s Regional Self Sufficiency principle – London is in a different region to MK. As a result, the proposal may conflict with the emerging South East Regional Waste Strategy and should be considered in the context of this emerging strategy and that of the London Mayor. The facility is large. If it was dealing with residues this would be fine, but taking mixed waste it could conflict with source separation strategies in London and the South East.

In addition:

The site is underlain by Oxford Clay, which is excavated in the permitted quarry. The Oxford Clay is underlain by, in the following order, the Kellaways Sands, the Kellaways Clay, the Cornbrash Limestone, the Blisworth Clay and the Blisworth Limestone. While the Kellaways Sands are classified as a Minor Aquifer, the Blisworth Limestone is classified as a Major Aquifer. In the Environmental statement (Section 16.10) the Blisworth Limestone is incorrectly described as Minor Aquifer. Our understanding of the site hydrogeology can be summarised as follows:- Oxford Clay has been excavated in the quarry to a depth of around 50maOD, with the requirement of at least 2 metres remaining clay thickness on top of the Kellaways Sands. According to the ‘Groundwater Risk Assessment for Bletchley Landfill Site’ (ENTEC, November 1999) the top of the Kellaways Sands was encountered at depths between 46 maOD and 56maOD. The top of the Blisworth Limestone was encountered between 36.7maOD and 47.7maOD. Piezometric levels for September 1997 were reported to be between 74maOD and 84maOD for the Kellaways Sands and between 70maOD and 80maOD for the Blisworth Limestone. The level of the leachate within the landfill site is believed to be above the piezometric level of the Kellaways Sands.

Potential impacts on the water resources, i.e. the aquifers represented by the Kellaways Sands and the Blisworth Limestone, may be breached by the construction of deep pile foundations. Both acquifers are confined, with piezometric levels 30 to 40 metres above the top of the aquifer. Therefore, any breaches created in the confining layers of lower permeability by the construction works may induce a loss of groundwater during construction as well as in long term operation. It has to be considered that due to the high piezometric heads of the confined aquifers a removal of confining material may lead to a breach, even if the aquifer itself is not encountered by the piling works. While the Environment Agency may agree to a minimal loss of groundwater during the construction period, a permanent loss during operation is not acceptable.

The applicant should submit details of the proposed foundation works and the results of any site investigations carried out to establish the local geological and hydrogeological situation. The applicant should demonstrate that the techniques proposed for the construction of the deep foundations do not allow any negative impact on the water resources during construction and in the long term.

In addition:

Comments on Chapter 21 Landscape and visual: pg 21-32/33:

Care should be taken in the planting of ornamental/semi-ornamental species, which could detract from the natural character of the area, and may provide a source for the colonisation of non-native species.

It is noted (Chapter 22, pg 22-13, para 22.124) that appropriate native species will be used in the restoration of ‘wildlife’ areas, which is favourable, in addition, efforts should be made to ensure that these species are locally sourced.

Comments on Chapter 22: Ecology pg 22-5, para 22.46

Black redstart is also listed on Page 1, Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). pg 22-10, para 22.91 “smaller ponds on the site represent a habitat type that is in decline, mainly due to changes in agricultural practices and lack of management.” The restoration proposes small and medium sized ponds around the perimeter of the landform, and these should therefore comprise an area at least as large as the original ponds. pg 22-10, para 22.96 Great Crested Newts are also protected by European legislation, being listed under Annex IV of the Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora). pg 22-10, para 22.100 “Bats and their roosts are fully protected under …. The Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994” which were brought in to implement the Habitats Directive.

Pg 22-11 para 22.108 The Environment Agency has a general policy against culverting of water courses. The culverting of Water Easton Brook should be avoided or minimised as far as possible.

General ecology comments

The developer should ensure that the appropriate ecological surveys are carried out, as discussed in the report, to identify the presence of any protected species. English Nature should be closely consulted on any mitigation measures necessary.

Timing of the works and a method of working should be agreed prior to work being carried out.

The placing of bat boxes and barn owl boxes in restored areas should be considered, to increase the habitat potential of these areas while they are still establishing. Restoration plans should take account of the Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Biodiversity Action Plan, and the key habitats and species listed within, in order to maximise the potential wildlife benefits that this project proposes.

Countryside and Landscape Manager considers that the building which would contain the waste to energy plant would have a significant detrimental effect on the landscape. There is also concern that the micro-climate of the Blue Lagoon nature reserve would be significantly altered as a result of changes to the prevailing wind.

The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment considers that the waste to energy building will be striking but advise that more successful examples of this sort of facility have relied on simple forms utilising good detailing of high quality materials rather than a self-conscious attempt to produce an icon. It is also felt that the Research Centre and Staff Welfare facilities deserve more attention.

The Environmental Health Officer considers that as the modelling for the predicted emissions in accordance with the National Air Quality Strategy. The modelling results demonstrate that in general the emissions from the waste to energy plant will have a low impact on local ground level pollutant concentrations.

The effects of emissions are small when compared with guidelines values and limits are not expected to have a significant impact. The plant will have to meet the WID dioxin and furans emissions limited value of 0.1 ng/m3. The waste to Energy Point and landfilling will be the subject of an Integrated Pollution Provision and Control permit. The IPPC application will have to contain more detailed process information to demonstrate how the requirements of the regulations will be met.

The modelling carried out for the Bio Material Recover Facility shows the odour will be below the detection threshold at the site boundary.

Odour is controlled in the composting operation by its enclosure within a building – this may, however also be subject to IPPC certification by the Environment Agency. Odour is unlikely to be a problem with waste arrivals as closed containers are used. They will, however, need to be maintained in good condition and sealed. Traffic emissions are unlikely to make a measurable impact on local air quality objectives.

With regard to noise the Chief Environmental Health Officer has also advised that conditions should be imposed on any grant of permission requiring an assessment of ground conditions prior to the development being undertaken. The Chief Environmental Health Officer advises that the noise generated by all of the proposed operations will fall within nationally defined limits.

The Health and Safety Executive has no objections to the proposal.

Railtrack has no objections in principle to the development.

English Nature points out that the habitats within the proposed development area are important for nature conservation and bio-diversity within a wide range of flora and fauna. English Nature advises that if the Council is minded to grant planning permission that conditions are included that safeguard the existing bio- diversity interest and enhances the site for the future.

Aylesbury Vale District Council support the principle of the facility subject to the relocation of the Rail Reception area, the release of dioxins, odours and pollutants being controlled, no development taking place until the Stoke Hammond by-pass is available for use, an agreement on traffic routing, landscaping mitigation works taking place at an early stage and further assessment of the visual impact of the complex day and night and the surface of buildings having a matt finish.

Bletchley and Town Council regret that would not support the request for an independent investigation. The Council recognises the concerns of residents particularly those related to Health and Safety issues involved in the incineration process.

The Council, therefore, object to any further development until these have been resolved. The Council consider that it is essential that efforts are made to minimise waste by using one of the available recycling methods and are concerned that changes made to the recycling scheme has made it less effective. The Council therefore asks that Milton Keynes Council redoubles its efforts to increase the level and participation in the recycling schemes by improving its publicity on materials that are now acceptable for recycling and to ensure that those materials properly presented for collection are removed and allocated to the correct bins by the collectors.

Woburn Sands Town Council is concerned about the emissions which would descend some distance from the site itself and some will be transported to . In anticylonic conditions the impact will be added to within the toxic waste trapped at lower levels and spreading out mushroom fashion to descent on all surrounding areas. The scarp running south-west to north-east will create an edge which will funnel toxic fumes along the settlements of and Woburn Sands. Consequently Woburn Sands will suffer from toxic fumes on days when the prevailing winds blow and when anticylonic conditions prevail. Therefore it will be on rare conditions when Woburn Sands will not suffer. As much of the waste will be transported by road and the quickest route from junction 13 of the M1 to the site is through Woburn Sands and Bow Brickhill there will be a considerable increase in traffic through these settlements. Residents of Woburn Sands suffered from asthma and bronchitis when the brickworks were operational, especially amongst children. They are threatened with the return of this. Woburn Town Council therefore urges, in the strongest possible terms, the refusal of the proposed incinerator.

Bow Brickhill Parish Council support and agree with objections of Woburn Sands Town Council. They are also concerned about large quantities of waste being transported within close proximity of residential properties via the railway.

Newton Longville Parish Council are concerned about emissions from the chimney in terms of both the visual and polluting effects, increased density of vehicle movement into the site in relation to congestion and smell, the need for appropriate signage to stop vehicles travelling along narrow streets through Newton Longville, the disposal of ash and wash out of the filters and the railway operating outside normal working hours.

Little Brickhill Parish Council are strongly opposed to the proposal as the village and surrounding area will be adversely affected by the proposed plant.

Great Brickhill Parish Council considers that the development will have a material impact on and neighbouring parishes. The area of attractive landscape has views across the Ouzel Valley and directly to the site on the opposite side of the valley. There will be twin plumes of white condensed water vapour and emissions, driven by the plant’s fans reaching thousands of feet above the area significantly increasing the visual impact of the facility. This will be added to during fogs and cold damp weather.

The industrial facility will blight and jeopardise the environmental value of the rural “Attractive Landscape”. The size of the facility will attract waste from other areas. This will increase traffic with associated hazards, noise and pollution and require additional maintenance. It will not accord with the proximity principle.

The risks associated with incineration are not worth taking. Milton Keynes should aspire to recycle 75% of its waste This would obviate the need for incineration. The incinerator would not enable Milton Keynes to achieve the planned higher levels of recycling.

Great Brickhill Parish Council also forwarded a copy of the House of Commons Select Committee report on Environment Transport and Regional Affairs. This encourages higher levels of recycling and limitations on the size of incinerators.

Leighton Linslade Town Council object to the development as lorries will be using the A5 and the Leighton Buzzard bypass which was not constructed to accommodate such vehicle movements. The Town Council also considers that the incinerator will have a detrimental effect in terms of air quality on local residents including those in Leighton Linslade.

The Leighton Buzzard Society is concerned about the size of the plant and the large number of lorry movements which it will generate. Many will pass through, or near, Leighton Buzzard and some will be carrying toxic fly ash. The Bletchley site would not appear to accord with proximity principle. The society also has doubts about whether low emissions will be achieved and the Environment Agency’s capacity to monitor these and take action. The incinerator should be replaced by a process such as aerobic digestion or pyrolysis which produce less toxins. The Society is also concerned about the visual intrusion of the tall chimneys.

Drayton Parslow Parish Council objects to the proposal because i) 90% of the waste will be imported, some from considerable distances. ii) It conflicts with planning guidance. iii) The technology is unproved. iv) The incinerator would be inappropriately located being so close to residential areas and Drayton Parslow residents are concerned about contamination by dioxins. Toxic ash will be transported to landfill sites elsewhere and chemicals will escape into the surrounding countryside . v) The surrounding road network is inadequate and vehicles may cut through Drayton Parslow on unsuitable roads. vi) The incinerator will degrade the visual environment. vii) The disposal of a million tonnes of untreated waste would not husband the void to protect future needs.

Friends of the Earth have objected on the following grounds:-

1. It does not comply with the proximity principle 1.1 The railway line cannot take more traffic 1.2 Unacceptable increase in road traffic and associated problems

2. Does not comply with the Waste Hierarchy.

3. It is not the best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO)

3.1 No. SE Regional Waste Strategy is available 3.2 There are cheaper more environmentally sustainable ways of treating waste. 3.3 The compost from the Bio-MRF will not meet EU standards 3.4 23% recycling figure from Bio-MRF will not be transferable to BCC’s recycling targets. 3.5 The centre is not planning for the future introduction of separated bio- waste. 3.6 The pre-sorting in the Bio-MRF is not being done for ‘green’ reasons.

4. Risk to human health and the environment 4.1 Precautionary principle.

5. Loss of visual amenity.

6. Proximity to a large urban area.

7. There are flaws in the environmental statement.

8. Generation of combined heat and power.

8.1 A combined heat and power system is not viable. 8.2 Creates more burning of fossil fuels and the generation of global warming gases.”

Copies of Friends of the Earth’s letter detailing their concerns in full can be provided. However, the concerns raised are addressed later in this report.

People Against Landfill Site (PALS) object to the proposal because:

1) Volumes and composition of waste to be processed are reported differently in different areas of the Shanks’ statement. 2) The atmospheric pollution analysis does not make clear how the height of the chimney and the low ground interact to give an overall working height. Additionally, written data on the diagrams is obscured or tiny, making proper interpretation difficult.

3) Visual impact has not been properly assessed using photomontage from various angles. Shanks have not provided a shadow analysis, nor have they modelled the plume from the chimney. 4) Atmospheric dispersion models do not show annual average exposure, and cover far too limited an area bearing in mind the current controversy over whether the existing pollution limits on such facilities are sufficient to protect health. 5) Discussion of compliance with the ‘proximity principle’ is inadequate. Even according to Shanks’ own data, this facility will handle around 1 megaton of waste per annum. This is hugely excessive for a city producing only around 80 kilotons per annum. 6) Detailed analysis of the expected waste stream is not given, nor is information on its expected geographical source. 7) No predictions seem to have been made as to how market, lifestyle and legislative changes will affect this stream over the coming years. 8) No figures have been given on the predicted composition and contamination of waste at each process stage. 9) There is no adequate discussion of the selection of this recovery/burn process from a menu of alternatives (e.g. Anaerobic digestion). Furthermore, no information has been given as to how the existence of such a large plant and the corresponding contractual obligations on Shanks’ customers will affect their ability to reduce waste or choose to treat it in other, more benign ways. 10) Proper discussion of the opening hours of various parts of the operation and their effect on residents has been omitted. 11) The site’s potential for CHP, cited as a justification for its choice, does not seem to be at all practical considering the existence of heating equipment in all surrounding homes.”

PALS also point out how there have been difficulties at the existing landfill site with dust, odours, vermin, birds and litter. They are also concerned about, transport, traffic, access, protection of groundwater and surface water, land instability, visual intrusion, nature conservation, hours of operation, durations of operational and the compatibility with adjacent development.

PALS have detailed concerns about:

(1) The change of use of the site which is not provided for in the Local Plan. (2) The effects of the development on Bletchley Park Conservation Area and the Blue Lagoon. (3) Visual intrusion which would be contrary to policies DC1 and DC3 of the Local Plan. (4) Air pollution from the waste drying process, the waste transfer and stockpiling. (5) The contingency plans for waste if the energy from waste plant is not operating. (6) Noise, specifically in relation to kerb train arrivals and that the Planning Inspectorate has concluded that operators should not start before 7:00a.m. (7) The site is not allocated for bad neighbour uses. (8) The applicants are not adhered to the existing planning permission in relation to start times. (9) There are discrepancies in the Environmental Statement in relation to the height of building and fires above ordnance datum. (10) Details provided with the application do not show clearly the visual effects of the development. (11) The lack of clarity about whether the sunken base of the plant effects the dispersion study for the chimneys. (12) The dispersion modelling has only been carried out a limited number of emission types but the materials entering the plant can vary widely. (13) There is no analysis of the effect of a temperature inversion or plant malfunction. (14) The limited modelling in relation to the effect of the landfill site. (15) Discrepancies in the amount of material that will be landfilled, that which will be diverted from landfill and that which will be used as fuel for the E & W plant. (16) The validity of the criteria used to justify the site selection in terms of the proximity principle, the recovery of heat for use in local homes, the regeneration of Bletchley and Tourism. (17) Light pollution which would be caused by the proposed flood lighting. (18) The lack of dispersion modelling in relation to flares and electricity operating engines. (19) The lack of evidence in relation to other waste disposal methods which does not involve the thermal treatment of waste. (20) The lack of evidence to indicate that the development would be compatible with a regional waste strategy. (21) Potential fire risk if sprinkler systems fail. (22) The lack of information in relation to possible remedial works on the landfill site if there is a similar failure in the control of landfill gas as occurred in 2000/2001 or excess leachate. (23) The lack of information in relation to the contingency plans to divert waste away from the plant if there is a malfunction.

Copies of PALS objections in full can be provided if required.

John Bercow M.P. hopes that the Council will turn down the application. He advises that the scale of the building at 60 metres high with double chimney stacks rising to 105m is causing consternation. He considers that the enormity of the plant would blight the landscape for miles around and that the capacity of the plant would be far in excess of anything that is needed by Milton Keynes. The noise, pollution and pressure that would be generated by 750 lorries using the site each day would be quite unacceptable. Mr Bercow’s constituents are fearful that the emissions from the facility would be harmful to the health of local residents. The chimneys would be some 80m above the site of High Ash School which is only three miles away. Assurances of plant safety are of no comfort as accidents can and do happen. The health of residents, the protection of the rural landscape and its environment and the problems that would be caused to the already over-stretched infrastructure should be uppermost in the list of Council’s priorities.

Representations

At the time of the preparation of this report the Council has received 3137 letters relating to the development and a number of petitions with a total of 3137 signatures. All but one object to the development in principle although 25 expressions of support for some elements of the development have been received.

The reasons for the objections are:-

1. The development would operate against the proximity principle.

2. Air pollution/health risks.

3. Design, scale and visual intrusion of the building and its effects on the landscape.

4. The need for a continuous waste stream.

5. The development would be contrary to the development plan.

6. The development would generate dust.

7. The increase in vehicle movements which would be detrimental to highway safety and add to traffic congestion and associated emissions.

8. The development would have a detrimental effect on the surroundings during construction.

9. Ground water and waterways pollution.

10. Human Rights would be violated.

11. The impact on recreation within the Blue Lagoon and adjacent playing fields.

12. The impact of wildlife within the Blue Lagoon nature reserve.

13. The development would discourage recycling / No need for the development if more recycling is carried out.

14. The potential for an increase in accidents at the site. 15. Increased employment at the site would create more congestion.

16. Light pollution.

17. Noise of the development, particularly the rail head.

18. Odour.

19. Past performance of the operator.

20. Decrease in property values.

21. Proximity to residential properties.

22. Proximity to schools.

23. Risk of train accidents.

24. Size of the plant compared to local need.

25. Unknown new technology.

26. The development would be premature in advance of waste strategies being determined.

27. Traffic would be diverted onto unsuitable roads.

28. The Council should consider the level of opposition.

Those elements of the development which are supported are:-

1. The building design 2. The reduction in air quality/pollution 3. The creation of jobs 4. The move away from landfill. 5. The operators past performance. 6. The diversion of traffic.

The majority of representations were received from residents of Bletchley although a number were received from the Brickhills, Newton Longville, Drayton Parslow and Woburn Sands. A detailed analysis of the representations can be provided if required. Considerations

The reduction in the amount of waste which is disposed of through landfill is national policy. The government advice is that the thermal treatment of waste which remains after recovery and recycling should be carried out so that energy can be recovered from it and the amount of waste that is finally required to be landfilled is further reduced. The proposed waste management facility aims to do this but as with all proposals of this type, it has raised a considerable amount of public concern. A number of consultees have also objected to the proposal. The principle issues relate to Planning Policy, the effects of the proposal on public health, the perception of harm, whether the proposals represents the Best Practical Environmental Option, the visual effects of the proposal, the social and economic effects of the development, the effects of the development on nature conservation interest, the effects of the development on local traffic patterns and whether the development would affect individual human rights.

A number of these issues are interrelated but due to the complexity of these, they will be dealt with individually. Overlaps will, however, be made clear within each individual section.

Planning Policy

The proposal was advertised as a departure from the development plan principally because the Adopted Borough of Milton Keynes Local Plan and the planning brief for the area identifies the application site as a landfill site. As a result of this, the application will need to be referred to the Government Office for the South East for a determination on whether or not the Secretary of State will issue a direction preventing the Council granting planning permission for the proposal. If the Council is minded to grant planning permission, it is possible that the Secretary of State will “call-in” the application for his own determination. In these circumstances a public inquiry would be held and the Council would be required to provide evidence at this demonstrating why it was minded to grant planning permission. If the Council is not minded to grant planning permission the application would not be “called in”. The applicants would, however, have the usual right to appeal against a refusal which again is likely to result in a local inquiry with Council required to provide evidence on why it considers planning permission should not be granted.

As indicated earlier, however, there are other national and local planning policies and planning policy guidance that the Council is required to take account of in determining the application. In particular the Buckinghamshire Waste Local Plan which was adopted in 1997 and continues as the policy document governing waste planning matters in the Milton Keynes area. This has a policy which supports the provision of incinerators subject to a number of criteria. These include a requirement that the facility can be accommodated without significant loss of visual amenity and that the pollution control authority indicates that there would be no significant risk of pollution or danger to public health or safety. These matters are dealt with in the following chapters. However, a facility on the application site which proposed the thermal treatment of waste which was visually acceptable and did not pose a significant risk of pollution or danger to public health would accord with this general aim.

The latest government guidance relating to Waste Management Planning recognises that sites for waste management facilities, other than landfill, are unlikely to be specifically allocated in development plans because the shift away from land fill as a waste disposal method is a recent requirement. It is implied, therefore, that the absence of a site specifically allocated for waste management facilities should not be considered as the determining issue in relation to planning applications for these. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the site is not specifically allocated for the proposal, the Bletchley Landfill Site would in principle be an appropriate location. However, the policies have a number of detailed requirements which are addressed in the following chapters.

The Effects of the proposal on public health

As with most proposals of this type the greatest concern of residents living in proximity to the site and the surrounding area is the potential emissions from the incineration process. Recent appeal decisions relating to incinerators have not, however, featured the health effects of the processes as reasons to refuse the proposals.

In the current case, the Chief Environmental Health Officer states that as the fluidised bed incinerator process will be burning pre-treated waste and that the combustion process would be controlled more effectively than with a mass burn system. Furthermore, the facility will be subject to stringent air emission limits controlled by the Environment Agency. He therefore, concludes from the information provided that the Fluidised Bed Energy Facility will have a low impact on ground level pollutant levels. District Council’s Environmental Health Officer has similar conclusions. This authority’s Chief Environmental Health Officer, however, advises that he is not responsible for controlling all emissions from the proposed plant.

The Environment Agency will be responsible for licensing the processes and, therefore, their views are key to the determination of the application. Whereas the Council, as the planning authority, is required to assume that the controls that the Environment Agency will apply to any processes will be properly applied it must be able to satisfy itself that the development will be properly located in land use terms. Waste Strategy 2000 and draft government guidance is that an IPPC permit application and planning permission are applied for at the same time. This enables the planning authority and those whose interests they represent, can be fully assured that the processes within the plant will have no deleterious affect on neighbouring property. In the three appeal cases that are referred to earlier the Environment Agency had certified the processes as falling within the limits on emissions set in national and international legislation and guidance. In the absence of this detail, it is not possible to fully conclude that the proposed site is the correct location for the plant.

The requirement of Policy P1 of the Structure Plan requires that pollution control is properly considered in advance of determining whether a development will be properly sited, or not. This approach appears to have been adopted by the Inspectors in the Portsmouth and Kidderminster appeals. In the Portsmouth case the Inspector considered at considerable length the environmental affects of the development in terms of emissions from the plant. In the Kidderminster case, the Inspector took the view that he should consider the acceptability of the site on the basis of the pollution control systems failing.

Furthermore, in this regard, the Environment Agency advise that the applicant has not undertaken a detailed assessment that fully justifies the choice of Best Practical Environmental Option for the waste being managed at the facility. Whereas such an assessment might conclude that the site of facility as proposed would be the best available and the chosen waste reduction method would have the least deleterious effect on neighbouring properties in terms of emissions, at the present time it is not possible to conclude that this is the case.

Presently, therefore, it is not possible to conclude that the Bletchley site is an appropriate location for the waste processing as proposed, or that the emissions that might be produced would be the minimum.

Concern has also been expressed about the noise of the operations, in particular the proposed use of the railway siding at night time. The Environmental Health Officer has indicated, however, that the noise of these operations, will at all times fall within nationally determined acceptable limits. However, in the recent appeal case relating to operational hours on the landfill site the Inspector concludes that no operations at the site should take place before 7:00 a.m. In the circumstances, the night delivery of waste would be inconsistent with this conclusion. Perception of Risk

As advised above the majority of local residents expressing concern about the proposal have done so because they perceive that it will be hazardous to health. As detailed previously, the perception of risk has been considered at planning inquiries, relating to waste treatment plants which include thermal processing, to be a material consideration. In the case of the waste incinerator proposal in Kidderminster this features as one of the reasons for dismissing the appeal.

In the current case the perception of risk has been heightened by two factors. Firstly, the presence of the former brickworks at the site resulted in sulphurous fumes being detected in Bletchley and, it is claimed, as far away as the Brickhills. Secondly the prosecution of the applicant company by the Environment Agency for the release of gasses from the landfill site which could be detected in many locations around the site.

In response to these points the applicants advise that the perception of risk in the Kidderminster case was principally as a result of the appellants providing inaccurate information relating to the proposal. They also point out that the controls on emissions since the brickworks closed has become considerably more stringent. They also refer to the requirement for them to demonstrate, as part of the IPPC Certification process, that they are competent operators.

However, in his determination of the Kidderminster case, the Inspector referred to the presence of a sugar beet factory on the proposed site, which had noxious emissions. This caused local residents to believe that they would also be affected by the emissions from the proposed incinerator. The inaccuracies in the submissions added to the concern. The perception of harm brought about by the site’s previous uses in the Kidderminster case mirrors the situation that exists in relation to the Bletchley Site.

Notwithstanding that the applicants will be required to demonstrate that they are competent, the previous incident of odorous emissions from the landfill site demonstrates that mistakes are still made and these can take time to rectify. This is particularly so when taking into account that, for the existing operations, they also have to demonstrate competency.

The failure to comply with controls has been added to with the non-compliance with the operational hours imposed following an appeal shortly after this was determined. The track record of the operator is also a matter that needs to be taken into account, in accordance with the Waste Local Plan, when determining whether planning permission should be granted or not. Furthermore, because an application for an Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Certificate has not been applied for concurrently with the planning application the Environment Agency has not been able to advise that the operations would comply with national and international regulations. This adds to the concerns of residents.

In the circumstances it is considered that the perception of risk should be a material consideration in the determination of the planning application.

The Best Practical Environmental Option. i) Proximity Principle

Many objectors have expressed the view that the proposed development does not represent the Best Practical Environmental Option as defined in PPG10. The majority focus on the proximity principle and expressing the view that the proposal would not accord with this as planning permission would potentially allow large amounts of waste from other areas to be brought to the facility. The applicants argue that there is no conflict between their proposal and proximity principle. They suggest that guidance in relation to the BPEO does not relate to specific projects such as their proposal but to waste disposal and planning strategies.

The latest government guidance, Guidance on Policies for Waste Management Planning (May 2002) re-emphasises this point by stating PPG10 does not require or suggest that each location (identified for waste management facilities) should have its own individual BPEO assessment.

This latest guidance does, however, make reference to considering applications supplied within a BPEO assessment advising that this needs to be set alongside consideration of local environmental effects as well as social and economic issues. The guidance also points out that the BPEO assessment should be carefully considered because ordinarily it is defined as part of a strategy.

A BPEO assessment for individual schemes therefore, could be considered appropriate. It would appear to be reasonable in this case as the existing waste local plan was produced over 5 years ago when BPEO considerations were only beginning to be developed. Currently there is no regional strategy upon which an updated local plan can be based. The scale of this proposal is such it will have a considerable bearing on the future patterns of waste disposal in the area.

The applicants contend, in any event, that the development would accord with the proximity principle. It is argued that the amount of waste that will be generated in Milton Keynes/Buckinghamshire area is such that this will be more than the facility is capable of processing. It is, therefore, unlikely to encourage the importation of waste from great distances once the initial increase in the early years, to secure the landraising around the plant is completed. They also point out that the transportation of waste by rail, which this facility makes provision for is, in general not subject to the same restrictions in proximity terms as the BPEO principles accept that sustainable waste transport may in environmental terms be preferable to recycling/reuse at the source of the waste. The applicants also point out that as recycling progresses it will be the residual waste that would be brought to the facility. They also refer to the fact that the existing landfill permission allows the importation of waste, regardless of its source via up to 750 lorry loads a day and this could continue for 20 years.

They suggest that it is inappropriate for the waste planning authority to impose restrictions on the markets that can be pursued, particularly as waste transportation does not adhere to administrative boundaries. In the circumstances, the applicants argue that no constraints should be placed upon where waste should be sourced and the method by which this is imported to the facility. The market, and changes to recycling requirements will eventually ensure that the plant would adhere to the proximity principle.

However, whereas there is a potential local market for the quantities of waste that the facility would provide for the applicants have not demonstrated that there would in fact be a significant demand to use the facility from local areas. No assessment has been made of the waste strategies of surrounding areas to suggest that they are not, themselves, identify sites for similar facilities, in recognition that all areas should be aiming toward self sufficiency.

Furthermore, broad agreement to the planning permission for the landfill was given at a time when BPEO principles were less developed. In granting permission for the increased landfill a balance was struck between the disadvantages of a more visible site and the importation of waste from some distance and the advantages of a new site access, removing vehicles from the local area and a more rapid rate of fill completing the site restoration more swiftly. It was anticipated that a large amount of London’s waste, potentially up to 750 lorry loads a day would be delivered to the site. However, as a result of this rate of fill the site would be completely restored within 5-10 years. Whereas this is a matter which needs to be taken into account it has little bearing on the current proposal which would be a permanent facility with the capacity to import and process 750 lorry loads of waste from any location. As markets dwindle with the statutory requirement for recycling the likelihood is that markets would be sought over a much wider area. This would appear to be contrary to the government’s intentions of ensuring that waste is disposed of as close as possible to its source and policy WLP 18 of the Structure Plan which aims to ensure that waste management facilities are located as close as practicable to the origin of the waste. These concerns might be overcome if the applicants were prepared to accept conditions restraining the distance from which road borne waste could be imported or which ensured that only residual waste, following recycling was imported to the facility. They consider that such restrictions are not the responsibility of the planning authority to impose. In amplifying this point, the applicants have referred to an Inspector’s findings in relation to Gloucestershire’s Waste Local Plan. He concluded that the intention for the County to deal with its own waste should be resisted as this would work against sustainable waste management overall. The BPEO should override administrative boundaries and be the subject of cross border co-operation. The inspector also considered that the need should not be determined only on the basis of Gloucestershire’s waste arising as it presumed against facilities that served a regional or national need.

This determination does not, however, justify the current proposal without proper consideration of the proximity principle. At this point in time, there is no agreed strategy between this authority or surrounding authorities, nor have the applicants sought to establish whether such co-operation is appropriate. In this regard, this authority’s Energy Waste Strategy, to process waste without thermal treatment, will have a considerable bearing on the amount of local waste which can be disposed of within the facility. The proposal facility is not such that the type of waste that would be processed renders it a regional or national facility. Notwithstanding the applicant’s claim that planning authorities should not try to influence waste markets, the government’s requirement of adherence to the proximity principal by local authorities inevitably means that they are charged with influencing the markets that waste operators can compete in.

With the information to hand, it does not appear that the proposal represents the Best Practical Environmental Option for the disposal of waste in terms of adherence to the proximity principle. The Environment Agency agrees. The Agency expresses the view that the importation of untreated waste from London and the South East would conflict with source separation strategies.

The Best Practical Environmental Option. ii Regional Self-Sufficiency

Another aspect of determining the Best Practical Environmental Option for a waste processing facility is consideration of whether or not it would promote regional self-sufficiency. In this regard the proposal would not appear to be the best option as it would encourage the import of waste from London which is a separate region to the remainder of the south-east. The Environment Agency suggest that as a result the proposal may conflict with the emerging South-East Regional Waste Strategy and possibly that of London’s own waste strategy. The visual effects of the development

The latest government guidance acknowledges that waste processing plants are likely to be of such a scale that it will not be possible to effectively screen them with landscaping. It is advised, therefore, that buildings are designed to be features. It is also advised that when considering such proposals that local authorities consult the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment for their views. CABE has been consulted and has described the building as “striking” but suggest that it is not iconic but a self conscious attempt to be so.

The Council’s Landscape Manager describes the building as modern and utilitarian but not seriously unattractive. He agrees with the principle of locating it in the former brick pit where much of the built development would be below natural ground level. However, the Landscape Manager is unable to support its location next to the Blue Lagoon Local Nature reserve. The presence of a major building complex on the western side of this local nature reserve would lessen the quality and experience for visitors. The view available to most viewers would be one of the upper parts of the main building and chimney stacks. The Bletchley area has a history of suffering the pollution from the site and the reappearance of new chimneys not so many years after the previous ones were removed could have a psychological effect above that of its actual presence. The impact of the building on local people would be assumed to have a greater impact than had there been a clean history on this site.

The view from greater distances would be mainly the higher parts and the roofs and would pick-up the shiny metallic look of the building. The Landscape Manager considers that the brash style of the building does not assist with setting it into the landscape and adds to the proposed development’s level of unpopularity. He considers therefore that there should be some major concession to reducing the visual impact of the building.

At the time of writing photo-montages of the area, with the IMWF superimposed, are awaited from the applicant. These will provide a much clearer indication of what the impact of the building will be on the surrounding residential areas, the Blue Lagoon and the rural areas to the south. Whereas Aylesbury Vale District Council have indicated that they support in principle, the facility they would favour further assessment of the impact on the landscape by day and night.

The applicants have advised that the scale of the building is dictated by the processes that would be undertaken within it. Its height could have been reduced by 5 metres but this would require the loss of the curvilinear roof form which adds to the buildings visual interest and visually reduces its scale. The chimney stacks would also require a wider diameter as the buildings current roofline provides support for the chimneys as currently proposed. The loss of five metres would, however, have little benefit with approximately 50 metres of the building rising above the original ground level, particularly if the stacks have, as a result, to be made more prominent.

With the information currently to hand, it does appear that the building will dominate its surroundings. Considerable effort has been made to produce a striking modern building. However, it remains clearly an industrial building and because of its scale, is likely to alter the manner in which Bletchley is perceived. Whereas from the rural south it will be seen against the urban backdrop for much of the residential areas to north and east it could well become the backdrop. This is not conducive to the regeneration of Bletchley particularly as the building is perceived as containing a harmful industrial process. The applicants claim that a facility catering for a smaller amount of waste would require a building of a similar scale. However, the approved energy from waste plant at Portsmouth will be housed in a building 32 metres high with stacks 65 metres high. Even when taking account of the fact that the current proposal will be located in a void up to 15 metres deep the building would be 14 metres and the stacks 33 metres higher above the original ground level than the approved Energy from Waste Plant at Portsmouth. Whereas the intended processes in the Bletchley proposal will be different and are claimed to be more efficient on assessment of these benefits, compared to the disbenefit in visual terms, has not been made.

It also appears that the chimneys are higher than necessary. Whereas this will have some benefit in dispersing the emissions further, again no assessment has been made in the application of the benefits and disbenefits of reducing the height of the stacks. In the circumstances, the visual affects of the proposed development are considered to be unjustified and unacceptable.

The Social and Economic Effects of the Development

The social and economic effects of the proposed development are difficult to quantify. The development would bring with it a number of jobs. Construction of the facility would also provide a considerable amount of employment for the short term. It is anticipated that industries associated with the recycling/recovery elements may also be created locally. All of these would boost the local economy. However the longer term effects could bring the opposite. If Bletchley is perceived to be a less desirable place to live or work as a result of the development, inward investment may cease. The environmental statement does not address this, but this should properly have been part of a BPEO assessment. In the circumstances, it is not possible to conclude that the benefits of the development in social and economic terms outweigh the disbenefits. In the absence of this information it is not appropriate to grant planning permission. The effects of the development on nature conservation interests

Concern has been expressed about the effects of the proposal on nature conservation interests, in particular, the flora and fauna within the Blue Lagoon Local Nature Reserve.

The Landscape and Countryside Officer is concerned about the large energy from waste building which may have a serious affect on the micro-climate both through wind turbulence and heat escape. The noise generated by the Materials Recycling Facility and the constant movement of heavy vehicles and trains may also have a detrimental effect on wildlife. This is a particular concern with nocturnal animals which will be active when vehicles are moving.

It is possible that these concerns could be overcome by i) modeling to show the effect of wind turbulence/heat escape, ii) an assessment of further study of local species which has now been submitted and iii) conditions of any planning permission granted. However, with the information currently to hand, it is not possible to conclude that the effects of the proposal are such that they will not damage to the value of the Blue Lagoon as a local nature reserve to an unacceptable degree.

The effect of the development on local traffic

Many objectors to the proposed development are concerned about the effect that up to 750 vehicles per day would have on local roads in terms of traffic congestion and increasing hazards. However, the proposal does state that none of the proposed elements of the facility would be operated until the new site access , required as part of the planning permission for the recontouring of the landfill site, is available for use. The planning permission for the landfill restricts the number of lorries travelling to the site to an average of 180 per day until the new access, leading directly to the proposed Stoke Hammond by-pass, is available for use. Whereas the provision of this access would provide for up to 750 lorry deliveries a day, the major highway networks to which vehicles would have direct access has capacity for many times this number of vehicles. Waste vehicles, other than those which collect waste in the normal way, would not travel on roads passing through residential areas. In the circumstances, there is no reason to reject the proposal on traffic safety or congestion grounds.

Human Rights

A number of objectors to the proposal have suggested that the granting of planning permission would be in contravention of the Human Rights Act, Articles 2(I) the right to life, Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence and Article 1 of the First Protocol-Enjoyment of Property. The Human Rights Act 1998 provides that subject to certain exceptions, it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a convention right.

These matters were the subject of some considerable debate at the Inquiry into the proposed incinerator at Portsmouth.

In relation to Article 2(I) the Secretary of State concluded that there would be some very limited loss of life expectancy. However, the very small effect of the emissions would come within the margin below which it would not be ‘proportional’ to dismiss the appeal on the basis of Article 2(i).

The Secretary of State also concluded that the reduction in property values would be small and the effects on public health would be minimal. He, therefore, similarly concluded that there would be no violation of Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol.

The Portsmouth case has similar issues to the Bletchley proposal and the principal of proportionality suggests that a grant of planning permission for the waste facility would not be contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998. There are, however, two significant differences between the Bletchley proposal and the Portsmouth case, namely, that no certification of the processes has been given by the Environment Agency and the visual effects of the Energy from Waste Plants are not fully known. In relation to the first concern however, the Agency will only issue an Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Certificate if it can be adequately demonstrated that the processes will not have a damaging effects on the surrounding environment. The Environment Agency must also act in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998. Whereas it is not possible to determine that the proposed site is an appropriate location for the facility at this time, the fact that the operations will not be allowed to take place without IPPC certification suggests that the granting of planning permission would not, of itself, violate Human Rights. If the waste management facility does prove to be visually dominant over parts of Bletchley it may have an impact on property values. However, insufficient research has been undertaken in the U.K. in this regard. Objectors to the Portsmouth proposal referred to a study undertaken in the United States. However, the Secretary of State accepted the Planning Inspector’s conclusion that it was unwise to apply this research to property values in the U.K. In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that there will clearly be an effect on property values it would be inappropriate to conclude that the proposal should be refused on the basis that granting planning permission would be a violation of human rights. In any event, interference with the right to respect for ones home is permissible if it is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of, amongst other things, public safety and the economic well being of the country, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Other Considerations i) Alternative Sites

As part of the environmental assessment and the determination of whether the proposal represent the Best Practical Environmental Option, the applicants were required to undertake an assessment of alternative locations for the facility. This is also a requirement of PPG 23. This has been carried out on the basis of assessing the application site, and the alternatives against common criteria.

Of concern, in this regard, is the fact that the assessment criteria were given equal weighting. Site ownership is considered to be of equal concern to the proximity of residential properties.

The applicants advise that the assessment was carried out in this way to provide a clear and open process. However, the inspector in the Portsmouth Appeal case where an assessment was carried out in a similar way concluded that a simple list of criteria with a judgement made on whether the proposed site and its alternatives satisfied these was not sufficient. In the Bletchley case, the assessment has dismissed alternative locations in the Marston Vale on visual amenity grounds without a proper comparison with the effects in this region of the proposal sited at Bletchley. Similarly, the possibility of siting the development at Calvert in Buckinghamshire was dismissed because of poor road access notwithstanding that the Bletchley site is only acceptable in this regard because the applicants are prepared to invest capital in a new access. In all cases, none of the alternative sites have been discussed with the relevant Planning Authority. In the circumstances it does not appear that a proper assessment of alternative sites has been undertaken. ii) Alternative processes

The applicants have given consideration to alternative methods of disposing of the waste but these have been dismissed principally because they have not been tested at a sufficiently large scale to ensure that they are economically viable. Whereas it is important that the plant remains economic to run, no evidence has been presented to adequately demonstrate that alternative processes could not be economically viable. Furthermore, no detailed assessment has been made of the alternative of landfilling the waste after it has been ‘bio-dried’. The applicants have stated that this would not accord with national policy where full recovery, including energy recovery, is encouraged. It could, however, given the scale of the process, have been the Best Practical Environmental Option. Similarly the removal of the bio-dried waste elsewhere for thermal treatment might similarly be the BPEO but again this has not been assessed. Similarly, therefore, the assessment of alternative processes is inadequate. iii) The level of objection

It has been suggested that because a large number of people have objected to the development the application should be refused.

Previous appeal cases indicates that it is not appropriate. A large number of local residents objected to the proposed incinerator at Portsmouth. Full account of their concerns was taken by the Inspector it was concluded that notwithstanding these objections, the benefit to the community as a whole outweighed the concerns. In this regard the appeal relating to the quarry in Surrey referred to earlier is an important consideration. The Inspector concluded that the Local Planning Authority had paid too much regard to the concerns of local residents without establishing whether these concerns were warranted. Appeal costs were, therefore, awarded against the Local Planning Authority. iv) Technical concerns raised by the Environment Agency

The Environment Agency has expressed the view that planning permission should not be granted until the issue of surface water drainage has been properly considered. This ought to have been part of the detailed site assessment and could require significant alteration to the proposals. It is not, therefore, possible to grant planning permission for the development as proposed at this time.

Similarly the Environment Agency has expressed concern about where the development is located in relation to the existing landfill, the possibility of slope failure from the pit edge and the diversion of the stream crossing the site. These may also require significant changes to the application and prevents planning permission being granted for the development as proposed.

The Agency has also expressed concern about a number of other technical issues namely:-

(a) Potential hazard of landfill gas in the bottom of the pit.

(b) The treatment of foul and surface water.

(c) Procedures to prevent pollution during the construction stages.

(d) Potential impacts on the water resources.

These matters would need to feature as conditions of any planning permission, requiring them to be addressed or as reasons for refusal if planning permission is not granted. Conclusions

The initiative to dispose of waste other than via landfill is to be welcomed. However the development as currently proposed would not appear to represent the Best Practical Environmental Option. It could potentially encourage the importation of untreated waste from a significant area which would not accord with the government’s requirement for waste planning authorities to promote regional self-sufficiently and to seek adherence to the proximity principle. The applicants are not prepared to amend the proposal or accept restrictions which would overcome these concerns. In the circumstances the proposal is unacceptable on these grounds.

As an application for an Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Application Certificate was not submitted simultaneously with the planning application it has not been possible, with the information currently to hand, to conclude that the waste management facility would be appropriately located in terms of the possible effects that it may have on its neighbours. Whilst these doubts remain the proposal is unacceptable in this regard.

Further information with regard to the visual effects of the development are required. Presently it does appear that the building housing the Energy from Waste Plant will dominate parts of Bletchley. The visual economic and social effects of this have not been properly considered and could be significant. The application is, therefore, unacceptable in this regard also.

The effects of the proposal on nature conservation interest are also of concern. Whereas these might be overcome, the current proposals indicate that the development would be unacceptable in this regard.

The technical concerns raised by the Environment Agency could be overcome with further information but currently remain.

A number of other concerns have been raised by objectors include concerns about whether:- 1) the processed waste before thermal treatment can be regarded as composite or is processed simply to create fuel; 2) fuel creation reduces the amount of recycling, whether the amount of recovered materials/recycling is as high as claimed; 3) the processes would lock local authorities into a particular waste disposal method removing flexibility for other methods to be considered in the future. However, these issues are encompassed within the major concern that, with the information currently to hand, it is not possible to conclude that the proposal represents the Best Practical Environmental Option.

For all of the above reasons, the development as currently proposed is unacceptable and planning permission should be refused. RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that planning permission for the proposed Integrated Waste Management Facility is refused for the following reasons:-

(1) The development would encourage the importation of untreated waste from London and other regions not in the vicinity of the site. In the circumstances it would not represent the Best Practical Environmental Option.

Insufficient information has been provided with the application to conclude that the application represents the Best Practical Environmental Option in terms of adherence to the proximity principle and regional self-sufficiency and would not accord, therefore, with policy WLP 18 of the Waste Local Plan.

(2) Insufficient information has been provided with the application to conclude that the proposal represents the Best Practical Environmental Option in terms of ensuring that waste is processed in accordance with the waste hierarchy.

(3) Insufficient information has been provided with the application to ensure that the proposed development would not have a detrimental environmental impact on neighbouring property. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy WLP3 of the Buckinghamshire Waste Local Plan.

(4) Insufficient information has been provided with the application to conclude that the proposed site is the best location for the facility and the proposed waste disposal process is the best in terms of the potential environmental effects.

(5) With the information currently to hand, it appears that the proposal would dominate parts of Bletchley and would, therefore, have a damaging effect on the visual amenity and subsequently the economic and social fabric of the area, contrary to WLP 20 of the Waste Local Plan.

(6) With the information currently to hand it appears that the development would have a damaging effect on the nature conservation and public amenity interests of the Blue Lagoon Local Nature Reserve contrary to the Policy WLP 20 of the Waste Local Plan.

(7) The development as proposed has not adequately addressed the effects on land drainage, surface and foul water disposal, existing water courses, land stability and landfill gas. (8) The proposal would require works to be carried out during night time hours which, potentially, will cause disturbance to local residents neighbouring the application site.

(9) The record of compliance with controls by the applicant does not provide confidence that those will adhered to in the future.

Background Papers

1) National Guidance on Waste Planning 2) Planning Policy Guidance Notes 3) County Structure Plan 4) Borough of Milton Keynes Local Plan 5) Buckinghamshire Waste Local Plan 6) Responses of consultees 7) Letters of objection