CONSULTATION BY DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL (WASTE PLANNING AUTHORITY)

Grid Ref: SX737655 District/Borough: Teignbridge

Officer: Dave Kenyon Parish: Buckfastleigh

Proposal: Construction and Operation of Materials Recovery Facility for Inert Construction and Demolition Waste and Construction and Operation of Incinerator Bottom Ash Processing Facility together with associated Site Engineering and Infrastructure.

Location: Whitecleave Quarry, Buckfastleigh

Recommendation: That SHDC in its role as a neighbouring Local Planning Authority raises no objections in terms of impact on the District of South Hams relating to traffic generation, impact on watercourses and landscape/visual considerations but raises a holding objection relating to habitats and protected species, subject to further comments made by Natural England.

Introduction This proposal has been placed before the Development Management Committee at the request of Cllr Smerdon (Eastmoor Ward Member), Cllrs Gorman and Vint (Totnes Town Ward Members), and Cllr Pennington (County Cllr), such Members having been approached directly by third parties residing within the South Hams.

The Committee is advised that SHDC is not the determining Planning Authority for this proposal, nor does the site lie within South Hams. Rather, the views of the Committee will be forwarded to Devon County Council for due consideration during its determination of the application.

The proposal site is Whitecleave Quarry, Buckfastleigh which lies within the administrative boundary of Teignbridge District Council but adjoining the National Park and in close proximity to the administrative boundary of South Hams District Council. The application is being determined by Devon County Council, as the Waste Planning Authority. The proposal is subject to Environmental Impact Assessment and an Environmental Statement has been submitted. The application comprises the following:

• Materials Reclamation Facility (MRF). The MRF to the north of the site will receive and process construction and demolition waste from the operator’s main business. This will take place in a Sorting Unit where inert waste arriving at the site is fed via excavator to a conveyor and hand sorted into appropriate bays. Material suitable for mixing as an aggregate product will be crushed within the quarry void area where it will then be stockpiled.

• Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) processing facility. This facility will process the residual IBA from the proposed Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Plant at Devonport, Plymouth into a useable product. Material will arrive where it is kept in storage bays for 3-6 weeks, during this time it is kept wet and forms a crust. After this ‘maturation’ process the material is screened and sized in the IBA Processing Building before being stored in the quarry void.

• The removal of a dolerite (rock) spur and infilling of the existing quarry void. It is proposed to remove an area of rock adjacent to the quarry void; this will create a level area for the IBA facility and provide up to 300,000 tonnes of rock. This rock will be used initially to infill the void, and will then be mixed with material from the MRF and IBA facility to provide a marketable aggregate product. In time it is proposed to backfill the quarry void with material from the MRF with a view to eventually relocating the MRF into the main quarry area (subject to a future application).

Representations It is understood that DCC has received many objections from third parties within the vicinity of the site. One objection sent to DCC, and copied directly to this Local Planning Authority, raises the following objections which help summarise the main reasons for said objections.

1) The effect of soluble/water leachable toxins from the waste entering the River Dart and affecting: - the natural environment: the Dart flows through an AONB with special regard for the estuarine environment and its ecosystems. There is concern about the impact of the development in both the short and long term. - the quality of drinking water. - long term health issues for people who live by the River Dart and those who use it for business or recreation.

2) Effects on the immediate environment: - the impact on the ecosystem, and future generations. - the impact on health: a Health Impact Assessment, carried out jointly by the NHS and MVV identified 29 negative impacts on health. Buckfastleigh already has an above average asthma rate. - the SSSI, geology, palaeontology (the site has is the home of the largest greater horseshoe roost in western Europe, also peregrines there). - the negative impact on air quality, particularly being so close to Dartmoor National Park. - possible effect on the organic status of nearby land (Riverford).

3) General impact on the local and surrounding area: - it will damage the local economy and tourist industry. - it will damage the environment and is not sustainable. - it will threaten bats, Peregrine falcons, otters and other protected species. - it will create safety risks for cyclists, children and the elderly. - it will create fumes, noise and dust, and leach toxins into local rivers.

4) Inadequate information: - how toxic is the waste? - inadequacy of river management - any pollution incident would be disastrous for wildlife, shellfish, tourism. - monitoring - 12 tests (on the ash) in the first year, then 4 p.a. - inadequate, test details unknown

5) Sustainability: - concerns about the sustainability of dealing with waste in this way. - incineration will be a disincentive to recycle. - alternatives, either for processing the waste, or other sites, have not been adequately considered. - the negative environmental impact of increased traffic (up to 400 lorries a day). Everyone travelling beyond Totnes will be affected by additional traffic.

Material Planning Considerations In terms of impact on the South Hams, it is suggested that there are four main material considerations, namely impact of traffic generation on the road network and amenities of properties within the Lower Dean area; impacts on nearby watercourses; impact on Greater Horseshoe Bats within the nearby SSSI which is within the South Hams Special Area of Conservation; and landscape/visual impact.

Traffic Generation The site is accessed via a private road under the A38 from the B3380 (Strode Road/Plymouth Road), shared with a coach storage area. From here access to the A38 is via the Lower Dean junction (1.1km to the south) or the Dart Bridge junction (1.9km to the north). A Transport Assessment accompanying the application indicates that the highest number of trips will occur during the operation, rather than construction of the facility. This is estimated at 63 daily trips (two-way journeys) and constitutes an increase in overall traffic of up to 4.8% during operation (post 2016). Whilst the overall increase in traffic is less than 5%, the increase in HGV movements on the road is assessed as up to a 70% increase in one location on the B3380.

In terms of impact on the South Hams, whilst the increase in overall traffic movements is not considered to be significant, there are a number of properties along Plymouth Road that will be affected by additional traffic movements. A clearly perceptible increase in HGV movements is likely to impact upon the amenity of residents of properties close to Strode Road and Plymouth Road.

Initially, the Highways Agency was unable to accept the proposals based on the information submitted. Additional information relating to “Junction analysis of A38 off-Slip Roads” and a Supplementary Note on Environmental Impact Assessment of Traffic, both dated February 2012 have been prepared by the applicant’s traffic consultants. In addition, a Road Traffic Noise Assessment, dated February 2012, has been prepared by DCC.

The Highways Agency has reviewed this additional information and offers no objections to the proposal.

The County Highway Authority is aware of the previous traffic generation when the site operated as a quarry and is of the opinion that the current proposals are an improvement to road safety. The Highway Authority raises no objection to the on site layout. The applicant has offered to provide a wheel washing facility and dust preventative measures on site to stop mud, stones and debris from entering the highway. These will need to be conditioned appropriately by the County Planning Authority.

SHDC’s Environmental Health section is aware of this proposal and mindful of possible impact on residential amenities of those properties that lie within South Hams. No objections have been raised in relation to air quality impact on those residential properties because the number of vehicles described in the submitted Transport Assessment falls below the levels at which air quality assessments are recommended, according to appropriate and nationally accepted guidance within the document Development Control : Planning for Air Quality (2010 update), Environmental Protection UK.

Impact on Watercourses The application has been made on the basis that the IBA is non-hazardous (but not inert). Both the applicant and the Environment Agency (EA) have advised that if the IBA is a hazardous waste, it will not be brought to this site as it would have to be dealt with at a hazardous waste facility.

The Environmental Statement has identified that the proposal may impact upon water quality in the Dean Burn, which is a tributary of the River Dart. Whilst the operation will require an Environmental Permit from the EA, the potential impact of adverse water quality upon the Dart needs to be assessed.

Initial concerns, during August 2011, were raised by the EA regarding flood risk and the inadequacy of submitted information for the purposes of demonstrating that potential impacts on controlled waters have been appropriately identified or addressed. The Environmental Statement makes qualitative statements on the likely level of risk to controlled waters that are not supported by either quantitative assessment of data, or proposals to collect and assess such data.

The EA therefore objected to the current application on the basis of insufficient information and an unacceptable risk to controlled waters. Such concerns primarily related to the potential impact on water quality from the operational and post operational phases and the impacts on the prevailing groundwater regime during operation phase. Fundamentally, statements made within the Environmental Statement were not supported by a detailed Hydrogeological Risk Assessment (HRA). The hydrogeology of the site had not been suitably characterised (for example by means of a robust conceptual hydrogeological model), nor had the applicant outlined a proposed scope of work to remove uncertainties in the current understanding.

Further, there was no demonstration that the IBA would be truly inert in terms of leachability to groundwater. The potential for alteration in recharge characteristics (quality, quantity, and timing), and the associated impacts on surface water features and cave systems from the operational and post operational phases had not been discussed.

With regard to consideration of contamination issues arising from previous activities on site, the EA noted that the Environmental Statement had not incorporated proposals to investigate identified potential historical sources of contamination (e.g. fuel storage, buried vehicles etc) and considered that the failure to address this issue was unacceptable.

In conclusion, the EA recommended that the applicant must support any subsequent application with a detailed HRA, which should consider historic contamination, impacts of the IBA and un-weathered dolerite, and the potential impact on the hydrogeological regime, particularly in relation to the SSSI cave systems. The applicant should also support the HRA with a water features survey and include any unlicensed groundwater abstractions in the vicinity.

During October 2011, the EA confirmed that a Flood Risk Assessment had been received and no objections were now being raised to the proposal from a flood risk aspect.

In addition, the EA acknowledged receipt of a revised "Hydrology and Hydrogeology" assessment. This document has been prepared following a meeting involving the EA’s Planning Liaison and Groundwater and Contaminated Land team during September 2011.

The conceptual model now being proposed is one of hydraulic isolation from the underlying limestone (which forms the adjacent Potters Wood SSSI). The EA has confirmed its willingness to consider the proposed conceptual model and the conclusion that the development site is now hydraulically isolated from the SSSI. Objections previously raised by the EA have now been withdrawn.

The Council’s Environmental Health section has been consulted about this application and has had extensive involvement in considering the merits of the proposal. However, it should be noted that the responsible authority in relation to Environmental Protection issues is the EA, which has the necessary technical expertise to assess the environmental impact of the proposed development. The statutory framework for allocation of responsibilities is quite clear and SHDC’s Environmental Health section has no formal remit to play in the decision-making process. Neither does it have the technical capability to assess this application with the same degree of vigilance that the EA would possess.

Currently the Environmental Health section is raising no objection, partly because it is not a statutory consultee in this process, but also because the issue of potential contamination to the Dean Burn has been adequately assessed by the EA. Detailed information will become available once a permit has been applied for to the EA. Any primary objections must be lodged with the EA as responsible authority as it is the EA that will be the decision-maker regarding environmental protection issues.

DCC has contacted Totnes Town Council during November 2011 to respond to various concerns that have been raised. DCC has confirmed that any discharge from this site to the Dean Burn requires a discharge consent from the EA and the EA is aware of representations and concerns that have been submitted to DCC by various third parties with relation to the Dean Burn; downstream water abstractions and hydrogeology. The EA will advise DCC, as Waste Planning Authority, on matters relating to groundwater and water quality. Any discharge of leachate to the Dean Burn will be controlled by the EA through the separate discharge consent and environmental permitting regimes.

Habitats and Protected Species The site is approximately 600m from the Buckfastleigh Caves Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which lies within the National Park, this site forms part of the South Hams Special Area of Conservation (SAC); a site of European importance designated for its population of Greater Horseshoe Bats. Part of the proposal site is also within the Potter’s Wood SSSI, designated also for Greater Horseshoe Bats. This SSSI straddles the South Hams and Teignbridge boundaries, with the directly impacted part of the site being within the Teignbridge part of the SSSI.

Based on initial documentation submitted as part of the application, officers have queried the applicant’s conclusion that the proposed development would not impact upon greater horseshoe bats and thus the SAC. This was specifically due to a lack of adequate information and analysis in relation to:

- Habitat loss and mitigation - particularly inadequacies in the provision of new hedgerow planting; - Lighting levels - a proposed level which significantly exceeds best practice and would likely have a detrimental impact upon commuting bats; - Blasting - whilst this has been subject of some debate the current proposals are not considered to be acceptable in respect of the time of year for blasting which would not minimise impact upon bats; - Monitoring - there is no clear monitoring strategy for the impact upon bats; - Impact on Potter’s Wood SSSI - specifically hydrology, and the consequential impact upon the South Hams SAC bat population.

The above concerns were echoed by Natural England in its response to the County Council.

In response to such concerns, a further report entitled “Ecological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan” dated February 2012 has been produced at the request of DCC. This report incorporates the existing information contained in the Environmental Statement for the scheme and includes additional supporting documentation covering ecological mitigation and monitoring proposals for habitats and protected species. The Plan is based on further survey work and detailed and on-going consultation with Natural England and DCC on mitigation requirements for the scheme.

Given the potential impact on the integrity of the South Hams SAC, the County Council, as the competent authority, is required to undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment to ensure that adequate mitigation is in place to ensure the integrity of the SAC. The Assessment needs to be informed by the submitted information and consultation with Natural England. SHDC’s Natural Environment and Recreation Manager has reviewed the recently submitted revised information. Whilst this appears to satisfactorily address the earlier concerns, the issues still need to be signed off by Natural England to allow DCC to complete its Habitats Regulations Assessment. Until this is completed, Officers recommend a holding objection on this particular issue.

Landscape and visual impact The main quarry area sits in an elevated location above Buckfastleigh; the A38 is, at that point, also elevated and separates the site from the town (as well as marking the boundary of the National Park). The quarry is visible from a large number of locations around the town and surrounding landscape, particularly in residential areas towards the southern end of the town, but views of the site from South Hams itself are very limited. The site is well surrounded by woodland, the visible quarry face is weathered and ‘greening up’, and the aspect of the site also means it is often in shadow, making it appear less prominent in the hillside.

The Materials Reclamation Facility (MRF) is proposed at the north edge of the site. This area is outside of the quarry void and, whilst elevated, is screened by some existing broadleaf tree cover. The visual impact of the MRF is not considered to be significant.

The proposed development of the site includes the removal of a large spur of rock at the western edge of the quarry void in order to create a level area for the IBA plant. The removal of this spur is a consideration in the proposal as it plays a role in screening views into the quarry site, and reduces the impact of noise, dust and light trespass from the site. The spur is covered with broadleaf trees which limit the views into the quarry and sit behind a lower area of coniferous screening. Even with the elevated quarry floor, the IBA plant would be visible from only a very small number of locations and its impact is not considered significant, in particular in relation to impact on the South Hams. The removal of the spur would reduce the perception of enclosure of the site and the amount of vegetation around the quarry edge and expose a larger area of the previously worked quarry face to views, thus making the site more noticeable in the landscape. However, in terms of visual impact from the South Hams, there is considered to be no overriding adverse visual impact to justify a recommendation of refusal.

Conclusion Having due regard to the fact that the Highways Agency, DCC Highways Authority, the Environment Agency and this Council’s Environmental Health Officer are all raising no objections to the proposal, Officers recommend that this Council should raise no objections to the application in terms of impact on the District of South Hams relating to traffic generation, impact on watercourses and landscape/visual considerations.

In relation to the matter of ecology, Officers recommend that this Council should raise a holding objection , subject to the satisfactory completion of a Habitats Regulations Assessment by DCC.