02/01472/MIN WASTE RECYCLING AND TREATMENT FACILITY INCLUDING MATERIALS RECOVERY, COMPOSTING, BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT, CONTINUED LANDFILL, NEW ROAD AND RAIL ACCESS WITH CONTAINER LOADING AND & STORAGE

02/01468/MIN PROPOSED RAIL ACCESS AND RAIL RECEPTION AREA FOR PROPOSED WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY

BOTH PROPOSALS BASED A AT LANDFILL SITE , BLETCHLEY ROAD, NEWTON LONGVILLE FOR Shanks Waste Services Limited

The Proposals

Members will recall that planning permission was sought for an Integrated Waste Management Facility at the Bletchley Landfill site. This was reported to a special meeting of the Development Control Committee on 11th October. It was resolved to refuse planning permission.

Planning application No. 02/01472/MIN is seeking planning permission for a development similar to this earlier proposal but omits the Fluidised Bed Energy Recovery Plant. This facility was intended to remove energy from the processed waste through specialised incineration. It would have been contained within a building 63 metres high with two flues reaching 103 metres. It was this element of the previous proposal which raised most objection to the scheme. The applicants, therefore, now propose to export the processed waste from the site once the remaining landfill void around the proposed waste treatment facility has been filled.

The second of the applications, currently being considered, is for an alternative location for the rail sidings and associated development and the proposed composting operation.

This application is intended to be considered as providing an alternative location for the sidings and composting in relation to both alternative development proposals i.e. the facility, with or without the Fluidised Bed Energy Recovery Facility (FBEF). At the time of submission of the application, therefore, the Council was being asked to consider a combination of four possible alternative schemes:-

(a) the original proposal with the FBEF with rail siding running parallel to the Bletchley to Bicester railway line. (b) the original proposal with the FBEF with the railway siding adjacent to the Blue Lagoon. (c) the development without the FBEF with the sidings parallel to the Bletchley to Bicester Railway line and

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc (d) the development without the FBEF with the sidings adjacent to the Blue Lagoon.

With the refusal of the application for the development with the FBEF it is options C & D will currently fail to be considered.

The Application Site – The Waste Recycling and Treatment Facility

As with the previous planning application, the site extends to 155 hectares as this includes the existing landfill. The final landform of the landfill site would be altered from that granted planning permission early in 2002 to enable the Recycling and Treatment facility to be sited at the lowered ground level within the former brick clay pit. Again 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, again fall to Buckinghamshire County Council to determine.

Similar to the previous proposal, 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 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.

As previously, a new vehicular access consented with the planning permission for the recontouring of the landfill site would run parallel to the west coast mainline to link the proposed development with the by-pass when this is completed. 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 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 325 metres from the main development area.

The Application Site - Rail Access and enclosed composting facility option B

The alternative rail siding would be located along the western boundary of the Blue Lagoon immediately to the east of the proposed main development area.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc Access to the siding would be via a single spur from the Bletchley to Bicester line entering the site from the west.

The alternative location for the enclosed composting facility would fall wholly within Buckinghamshire County Council’s administrative area and occupy land currently used as a playing field which would be relocated. Access to the facility would be via an internal site haul road. The nearest residential property to the composting operation would be approximately 270 metres away again within Buckinghamshire County Council’s area.

Development details – Waste Recycling and Treatment Facility

The waste recycling and treatment facility consists 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. They would have shallow pitched eaves and be of a general industrial/commercial appearance. To the east of these buildings would be five similar ones 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 material recovery (3,940 sq. metres) and an early landfill store (3,660 sq. metres). A further building of 1,405 sq. metres would house a research centre.

The proposed rail reception area includes a hall with a ground area of 2,800 square metres to contain composting clamps, a chipping/shredding building of 30 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 to screen vehicular noise substituted by a fence where space is limited would be provided. The final length of the road would run through a tunnel before reaching the main waste processing complex.

Development details – Rail access and enclosed composting facility, Option B

The single open line from the Bletchley to Bicester line would adjoin the waste processing complex from the west after crossing the Water Eaton Brook and the extreme north-west of the Blue Lagoon Country Park. At the point where the railway line runs between the proposed waste processing complex and the Blue Lagoon Country Park it would divide into two parallel tracks. One of these tracks would be used as a siding for the trains while the other would allow locomotives to run around the track in the siding. Trains may also need to be held in other sidings outside the site prior to entering or after exiting the site. As with the original siding proposal up to 3 trains a day would deliver waste to the site in containers. These containers would be unloaded from the train using overhead gantry cranes and transferred to slave vehicles to take them to the Waste Processing area via internal site roads.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc As with the original proposal, the enclosed composting facility would process green waste in clamps where the moisture and oxygen level would be regulated. Once composting has been completed the material would be stored on a surfaced area.

CHANGES TO THE PLANNING APPLICATION

Since the submission of the current applications, the applicants are proposing changes to the planning applications and to enter into a legal agreement and other legal arrangements to constrain development on the application site.

In particular, Shanks have covenanted not to develop an incinerator, on their land at Bletchley. They are also prepared to enter into a legal agreement to constrain the capacity of that part of the proposal which will process the waste to two thirds of the capacity of that originally proposed, restrict the area from which waste can be imported by road to a thirty mile radius, reduce the amount of waste delivered to the site by road by the equivalent amount imported to the site by rail and to provide a civic amenity site in the vicinity of the application site. The applicants have also agreed to a requirement to restrict the waste imported to the site to that which has been subject to a kerb- side recycling programme.

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.

Regional

The South East Region Technical Advisory Body has produced a draft Regional Strategy for waste planning.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc The Advisory Body’s vision is to reduce the amount of waste produced within the region with the overwhelming majority of materials being reused, recycled or having value recovered from them.

The Strategy objectives to achieve this will include a policy framework to ensure provision of sufficient capacity and infrastructure to enable management of the region’s waste to meet and exceed targets; the provision of a regional or sub regional context for waste Local Plans and Management Strategies and the identification of issues requiring joint working between authorities, agencies and industry.

The Strategy identifies the need for facilities of regional significance and recognises that opportunities for the use of soil and water for the delivery of waste will be limited.

The strategy also recognises that the economics of scale and lower unit costs may provide a driver for the provision of larger facilities. SERTAB considers that these may also have benefits through providing integrated waste management facilities comprising a variety of treatment processes and a greater guarantee of delivery. SERTAB acknowledges that large facilities will generate more traffic movements and have larger catchments but considers that the impact can be reduced by locating such facilities where sustainable modes of transport can be used.

The Strategy identifies a number of key issues.

1) The pattern of waste management in the region indicates that landfill sites will be full within a decade. 2) There is a need for a large number of facilities across the region to ensure that sufficient capacity is in place to enable management of the regions waste. 3) Practical application of the proximity principle will result in some cross-border movement of waste within and between regions including London. The size of the hinterland of a facility will need to reflect the scale of the facilities, the type and amount of waste to be managed and availability of additional facilities and suitable sites. The mode of transport will also need to be taken into account and the aim is for a net self-sufficient approach.

4) Modelling of alternatives strategies indicates that scenarios including large facilities consistently out-perform those including only small facilities due to the scaling of impacts associated with the requirement for a higher number of individual small facilities. Therefore, the preferred option for the strategy to provide an achievable and flexible framework for waste planning and management will include a mixture of management methods and facilities of different sizes, emphasing the benefits of large scale facilities. 5) Provision for Londons exports usually will be limited to landfill in line with the Landfill Directive targets and by 2016 only provide for residual waste that has been subject to recovery processes. 6) Given the urgent need to increase capacity, in identifying sites consideration should be given to upgrading or expanding existing sites.

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 proposals.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc 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 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 applications namely:-

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”;

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc 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.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc 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;

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc 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 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 Borough Council, Vale District Council and Buckinghamshire County Council in 1995. This includes the application site.

The brief identified the site of the proposed waste recycling facility and much of the proposed ancillary development as an area for the disposal of waste through landfilling. The proposed rail reception area (Option A) 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 application 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.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc 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.

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.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc 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 relates 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

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc 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.

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)

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc 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 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.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc 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

As detailed in the report relating to the previous application. There have been a number of recent appeal decisions which provide guidance on how large scale waste processing plants should be judged these include:-

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.

More recently the Secretary of State determined an appeal in relation to an Integrated Waste Management Facility at Ridham, Wade, Kent. In relation to this decision the Secretary of State concluded.

i) there is no national or regional guidance and no forecast in Waste Strategy 2000 for the likely rate of growth for industrial and commercial waste. ii) That it is clear that London is being encouraged to manage its own waste so as to greatly reduce its reliance on the export to landfill of untreated non-inert waste However at the same time the Secretary of State notes that RPG 9 also considers it unlikely that London will achieve self- sufficiency and, certainly in the short term it will have to continue exporting some of it waste to adjoining areas. iii) It is not possible to say with any certainty where the appropriate levels of arisings to be dealt with by areas outside London lies. iv) Cost and deliverability are appropriate criteria to include in the assessment. v) The need for the proposal is not clearly and conclusively established particularly as the waste within the hinterland of the site would not be available for disposal at it.

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.

In November, 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.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc Consultations

As in the previous case, a number of corporate bodies were consulted on the planning applications but other organisations have also expressed views on the proposals. These are included here:-

The Environment Agency has commented in relation to the Waste Recycling Facility thus:

The facility proposed is of strategic importance. As a consequence of this it should be considered in the context of the local and regional waste strategies. Specifically, it will need to compatible with the high kerbside recycling collection plans and programmes expected of local authorities in coming years. The estimates of “needs” appear reasonable, using widely quote statistic (Waste Strategy 2002) of a 3% growth. The quoted 2.1% growth in Commercial and Industrial waste may at first sight appear high with downward pressure on the production of waste. However, there are also predictions and proposals for growth in the area. This facility needs to be compatible with high levels of kerbside source separation. Clean source separation will be the direction to go medium to long term, if we are to produce valuable materials from waste and make the industry a productive part of the economy. Ideally both the Government and the Agency want to see Regions becoming more self sufficient in their waste treatment and disposal needs. It is acknowledged, however, that a fair amount of pragmatism is needed in balancing this concept against the proximity and cross-regional movement. From the perspective of the Government’s National Waste Strategy, the proposed facility will help participating local authorities meet their recycling and recovery targets. It should also contribute to a significant diversion of waste away from landfill over the life of the plant.

The Agency, however, has a number of detailed concerns and asks that conditions are attached to any grant of planning permission covering the following matters:

i) 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. ii) Detailed proposals for slope engineering be submitted and agreed in writing before the commencement of construction. iii) Detailed procedures for the prevention of pollution during the construction stages of the facility shall 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’. iv) Proposals for prevention of ingress and accumulation of explosive or harmful concentrations of landfill gas within all structures and buildings shall be submitted and agreed in writing before the commencement of construction. v) Detailed procedures for the minimisation of the risks from landfill gas during the construction stages of the facility shall be submitted and agreed in writing before the commencement of any construction works. vi) Fully detailed plans of the habitat and conservation proposals shall be prepared submitted and agreed in writing before the commence of construction.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc The Agency asks that similar conditions are attached to any grant of planning permission for the alternative rail access and composting site.

The Countryside and Landscape Manager has expressed concern about the impacts of the proposals on the Blue Lagoon local nature reserve and its wildlife and users. It is considered that a number of the potential impacts are not adequately addressed in the Environmental Statement.

In particular, the Countryside and Landscape Manager is concerned that the alternative rail siding would bring about:-

a. the permanent loss of approximately 1 hectare of public open space.

b. the destruction of approximately 1.5 hectares of existing habitat including mature woodland with the loss of all specimens on site of a nationally rare tree. There is also a possible impact on protected animal species.

c. The loss of 512 metres of established footpaths of which 362m of public right of way. N.B. replacement being provided.

d. Visual noise and possibly odour impacts on the amenity of the site.

e. A sub-optional outcome in railway engineering terms.

In detail the Countryside and Landscape Manager advises that the proposed rail option B would require the removal of all woodland in the north western corner of the Blue Lagoon. This currently provides the existing backdrop to the lake, creating a strong sense of enclosure. The removal of the woodland would render the embankment, which needs to be constructed to carry the railway line, clearly visible. Trains with multi-coloured containers would be especially obtrusive. Planting is proposed to screen the embankment but there may be insufficient space as hard engineering is required where the line adjoins the lake. The visual effect of security fencing has not been taken into account.

The option of two footpath routes would be reduced to one where this adjoins the lake, a boardwalk or piling is suggested. This may have safety implications in view of the very deep water.

It is possible that construction wayleaves through the Blue Lagoon will be necessary and this has not been addressed in the environmental statement.

The Countryside and Landscape Manager also feels that there is insufficient information to assess the visual impact of the development – cross sections should be extended and a photomontage should be provided. The planting proposed to mitigate the visual effects will lead to a further loss of grassland and increased shading along the western boundary of the Blue Lagoon.

The ‘Option B’ railhead will introduce mechanical noise throughout the western boundary but this has not been quantified in the Environmental Statement. Similarly the emissions from idling locomotives is not addressed. Neither is reassurance provided that odour will not be generated by the plant.

The Environmental Statement does not identify specific features of nature conservation value including native black poplar, pollard willows, mature, over mature

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc and early mature oak trees, elms (including larger trees apparently resistant to Dutch Elm disease), white hairstreak butterflies, bats, water vole and badger.

The Countryside and Landscape Manger considers that other potential impacts should include accidental pollution of the lake during construction and operating of the plant.

The development of Rail Option B would “lock in” the Blue Lagoon southern boundary increasing roadkill and an increased obstacle to the migration of some species. Isolation might reduce use by badgers, grass snakes and great crested newts. The Countryside and Landscape Manager also points out that the loss of the steep boundary of the existing void has extensive stands of kidney vetch which is the sole foodplant of the small blue butterfly. Destruction of this face might render the Blue Lagoon colony non-viable and it is the last known site in North Bucks. Whereas this face is scheduled to disappear under the existing landfill consent, Option A proposed to retain a rough grassland buffer and semi natural grassland.

The common bird census of the Blue Lagoon identified the species which depend on the existing rough grassland buffer for feeding or nesting. Some could be expected to disappear. The applicants are proposing changes to rail Option B to mitigate the affects of this on the Blue Lagoon. Comments on these changes from the Countryside and Landscape Manager are attached as an appendix.

The Environmental Health Officer advised on the previous proposal which included the Fluidised Bed Energy Recovery Plant, that the noise generated by the proposed operations fell within nationally defined limits. The “Option B” scheme which proposes a rail siding to the west of the Blue Lagoon would, however, have overall a lesser environmental noise impact.

Houses which are nearest to Option A in Newton Road, Milton Grove and Whitely Crescent would benefit from the repositioning. However, as a result of an increased number of train passes and greater engine and wheel noise associated with an increased rail gradient and curvature, premises in Wordsworth Avenue, Coleridge Close, Cottingham Grove and Cathay Close would have a noisier environment as a result of the alternative scheme. Further noise mitigation would have to be provided, therefore, and a scheme detailing this would need to be agreed by the Chief Environmental Health Officer.

The Environmental Health Officer is also of the view that there are no grounds for opposing the waste recycling and treatment facility or the alternative rail access on account of air quality impacts.

He is also of the view that, if the development goes ahead, the applicant should consider forming a local liaison committee to discuss operational issues and address local community concerns as recommended by the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection.

He also considers tha the developers should be required to carry out an assessment of the groundwater conditions and determine if there is any likelihood of ground and/or groundwater and/or gas contamination of the site. If remedial action is necessary, this should be carried out to the Council’s satisfaction.

The Health and Safety Executive have no objections to the proposals.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc Railtrack have no objections to the proposals.

English Nature point out that the application site of the recycling and treatment facility has high nature conservation interest containing a number of species that are protected by law. This requires that these species are protected, with appropriate measures taken if they are threatened by any operations including those with existing permission.

English Nature is generally satisfied with the proposed mitigation measures for bird populations, great crested newts, reptiles, bats and badgers, and other flora and fauna. Further information is, however, required in relation to badger sets.

English Nature, therefore concludes that provided mitigation measures are undertaken as specified in both the original and current Environmental Statements and the Report ‘Additional Information’ - Ecological Surveys 2002, with consideration of the above and provided that such works are undertaken under the supervision of an appropriately qualified ecologist there will be no long term adverse effect on protected species or habitat. Conditions should be attached to any grant of planning permission to safeguard the existing biodiversity interest and enhance the site for the future.

English Nature is very concerned about the loss of approximately 1 ha of the Blue Lagoon District Park and Local Nature Reserve that would be brought about by the “Option B’ railhead proposal. This would set a dangerous precedent as the site is given statutory protection, through the Local Plan. Local Nature Reserve status acknowledges the local wildlife importance of an area and its amenity value to the local community – such sites should be protected.

The loss of certain species such as the Black Poplar, a nationally rare tree, is significant and would be contrary to the Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Biodiversity Action Plan 2000 – 2010. English Nature share the Council’s Ecologist’s concerns about the isolation of the Blue Lagoon that would be brought about by the ‘Option B’ railhead proposal. English Nature’s comments on the mitigation proposals for species of flora and fauna on the Option B rail access site are similar to those on the Waste Treatment Facility proposal.

Their conclusions on this proposal are therefore similar but they strongly advise that the layout of the ‘Option B’ rail access proposals is reconsidered. English Nature have also been consulted on the proposed changes to the Rail Option B. Any further comments will be reported.

In relation to the Waste Treatment Facility, District Council :

(1) Regrets that it is not able to look at all the Shanks applications together; and (2) Objects to the development on the grounds that:

(a) The proximity of the Rail Reception Area to residents in Bletchley Road is likely to lead to considerable disturbance by noise. The relocation of the Rail Reception Area to a position between the Main Development Area and the Blue Lagoon, which has been investigated by the applicant, should be pursued. By being better related to the main facility, this would avoid the need for slave- vehicles transporting the materials along the haul route, and avoid the noise disturbance to Bletchley Road residents.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc (b) There is no indication that the proposal accords with any Regional Waste Strategy.

(c) The proposal fails to give the necessary information to meet the four Government principles of Best Practicable Environmental Option, Regional Self-Sufficiency, Proximity Principle and Waste Hierarchy.

(d) The proposal fails to take account of the proposed future development recommended in the Milton Keynes/South Midlands Study.

(e) Any proposal should be an integral part of the Sub-Regional Waste Strategy, which will form the infrastructure for the Milton Keynes/South Midlands sub-regional growth area.

(3) That if contrary to these objections, permission was to be granted:

(a) No development should take place until the Stoke Hammond Bypass and the spur road from Skew Bridge are fully open and available for use, and the Highway Authority should seek an agreement on traffic routing.

(b) Extensive landscape mitigation works should be undertaken at an early stage. These should include additional continuous landscape belts across the landfill site to provide additional screening to the Main Development Area.

(c) There must be a clear plan to minimise road traffic and maximise rail traffic to and from the site, and in relation to the Option B, rail access and Enclosed Composting Facility: In relation to Rail Option ‘B’ A.V.D.C.

1. Reiterates the concerns expressed by Council in respect of the main application (02/01442/ADW). However, it is appreciated that the revised location for the rail access and Rail Reception Area would lessen the impact upon Bletchley Road residents.

2. Objects to the proposed location for the enclosed Composting Facility which would be isolated from the main plant complex. In this location, the facility and the need for the haul road, would be intrusive in the area, and could cause potential noise or odour problems for Bletchley road residents.

3. Objects to the proposed Composting Facility because the development would encourage the importation of untreated waste from London and other regions not in the vicinity of the site. This is contrary to the proximity principle of treating and disposing of waste as near to its source as possible.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council resolved that the application should be rejected, that Milton Keynes Council should as a priority establish a proximity principle for the acceptance of waste to the site and apply best practical environmental optional to the treatment of waste and with utmost urgency and application. Milton Keynes Council resolve the findings of the current refuse collection and recycling schemes and then expand the recycling schemes to at least meet current national targets.

The Town Council is extremely concerned about the potential damage that would be caused to the Blue Lagoon as a result of the alternative rail access. The parks and lakes are home to a number of rare species and the Town Council, therefore, resolved to oppose the proposals for the location of the railway line and will be seeking an appropriate order through which the whole area can be protected.

The Rights of Way Officer points out that three public rights of way would be affected by the proposals and to a lesser degree a fourth diverted footpath alongside the railway line. Any proposal in the area will have adverse effects on the public use and enjoyment of the rights of way mainly in visual terms, noise and dust. The existing public rights of way will not need drastic realignment. The end of the current network occurs at the south-east corner of the site and provision should be made so that the public could continue from the potential public viewpoint location to existing footpaths which will link both to the countryside beyond and the proposed Newton Leys development.

The diverted footpath between the railway and the proposed new access road should be retained. Proposed footpath/cycleway routes should be segregated.

Dr Phyllis Starkey MP has written expressing objection on behalf of her constituents. Dr Starkey considers that the report by Dr Watson on the previous application sets out clearly the evidence that the proposed waste management facility is too big to be justified by local needs. The facility is designed for dealing with the waste operated by a population of about 2 million. Its excessive size would require waste to be transported from a wide area, it would breach the proximity principle and be incompatible with local, regional and national waste strategies.

As the application could be a precursor to the re-introduction of the incinerator option the expansion area should be excluded from this application.

Dr Starkey also objects to the damage that the proposed rail spur would cause to the wildlife area at the Blue Lagoon. She is particularly concerned that the application would involve the destruction of all of the distinctive Black Poplar trees would extinguish a colony of white-heather and threaten the kidney vetch and the colony of small Blue Butterflies that depends on it.

Dr Starkey considers that the Blue Lagoon is a valuable wildlife habitat and a well-visited leisure area which is accessible to residents from neighbourhoods with a high degree of deprivation. This make it all the more valuable since

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc many of these residents have no access to transport and hence to other more distant recreational areas.

The Leighton Buzzard Society consider that the current application has the appearance of being hastily drawn up because of the widespread opposition to the incinerator. It is not certain what will happen to the treated waste which would have been burned. If it is landfilled, it will reduce the time before the available space is used up. If a market is found for it elsewhere it will exacerbate the problem of traffic operated by the facility which is the Society’s main concern. Either way the sustainability of the operation will be reduced. The facility should, therefore be scaled down with materials being drawn from a smaller catchment area. This would access more with the proximity principle.

The Friends of the Earth considers that the application requires a Section 106 agreement or similar to ensure that it is not used as a stepping stone to the previously rejected application for an incinerator by appeal or re-application. Although the technologies used in the plant are promising their capacities are not in proportion to the waste streams expected from a property implemented kerbside recycling scheme. As such the plant does not represent an integrated solution to waste management within BPEO. A plant on this scale is incompatible with a zero waste strategy or a waste reduction agenda in the region. Any reduction in waste will further expand the source area.

Emission of volatile compounds and bio-aerosils is a potential problem with MBT technology and concentrating units amplifies this problem. The resulting pollution is likely to breach BPEO requirements.

There is no clear justification for locating this facility as proposed – the land does not have the necessary consents for industrial use. The site is close to houses and this limits its suitability for development, particularly on this scale.

The rail scheme amendment is also unacceptable, the land takes from the Blue Lagoon is significant for rare species. Disruption from construction will further affect the park which has recently been identified as an important wildlife refuge.

Friends of the Earth are also concerned about:

S The loss and degradation to an important recreational facility (The Blue Lagoon) in an area of high social deprivation. S Visual, noise and possibly odour and emission impacts to the surrounding reserve. S Ecological damage and impact. S Rights of way and non-statutory paths would be built upon and the circulation of visitors around the Reserve disrupted.

In relation to the ‘Option B’ rail access F O C consider that the recycling and treatment facility is contrary to the proximity principle and has not been demonstrated to be the Best Practicable Environmental Option.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc F O C also point out that this number of Eco-decos has never been assembled and this proposal seems to be for unreliable machines on a massive scale does not comply with the Waste Hierarchy. Does not have destination for the waste after Bio-MRF treatment (RDF) stated has a public perception of risk and that Shanks have a poor record of compliance. There is no SE Regional Waste Strategy. The facility is too near a large urban area and will have a detrimental noise and pollution effect on properties, especially with night-time operations of machinery, HGVs and trains. There is inadequate consideration of watercourses and gas emissions.

The Milton Keynes Green party objects to the proposal principally because of the excessive scale of the plant. At around 900,000 tonnes of waste per year the facility is massively oversized to deal with waste from Milton Keynes and the surrounding area. Waste would almost certainly be imported from London and further afield. This does not comply with the self sufficiency principle.

Severe local noise and traffic problems would be caused by the 700 plus lorry round trips per day, at the site would generate.

Aspects of the RTF should, however, be encouraged but in a scaled down form. It is absolutely right that the landfill site should have some facilities for biological and mechanical treatment of residential waste prior to landfilling. Such facilities are an appropriate part of a waste strategy with enhanced emphasis in recycling and a long term goal of zero waste. The applicants should be encouraged to submit a revised proposal for recycling and MBT facilities on a scale appropriate to the needs of MK and the local area.

Preserve Bow Brickhill feels that the application is a thinly veiled attempt to deliver an incinerator by piecemeal. The size of the proposed development is disproportionate to the likely requirements of Milton Keynes and is contrary to the proximity principle. 750 vehicles a day to and from the site is unacceptable and is evidence of breach of the proximity principle. It is considered that the applicants intend eventually to build an incinerator on the site. PBB is of the opinion that the development will have a detrimental effect on the village of Bow Brickhill and urges Milton Keynes Council to refuse the application.

Great Brickhill Parish Council requests that both of the current planning applications are refused because it has not been made clear where the sources of the imported waste are or where the fuel derived from the waste will be located. The proposals therefore do not represent the Best Practical Environmental Option in terms of adherence to the Proximity Principle and Regional Self Sufficiency and would not therefore accord with WLP18 of the Bucks Waste Local Plan.

Because the facility will receive mixed waste the compost produced by the facility will be incapable of being used for cultivation and can be only be used for landfill and construction purposes. It is unlikely that aggregate produced from ground glass will count towards Milton Keynes recycling target.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc The proposal will exacerbate road and rail traffic as the fuel will have to be transported away to be burned. This will add approximately 32% to heavy traffic on roads near Wing and through . The environmental impact on the local community and wildlife is also unacceptable.

Great Brickhill Parish Council would prefer to have a proper recycling centre receiving locally sourced segregated waste with a recycling target of between 50% and 75% to enable Milton Keynes to honour its commitment to the Zero Waste Chater.

Anglian Water has no objections to the proposals.

Drayton Parslow Parish Council considers that the scale of the operation is inappropriate, it would conflict with planning guidance that waste should be dealt with as close as possible to its source, that the ECO-deco technology is unproven as existing plants have only been operational for 6 years and have been out of action for 10% of this time, that the surrounding road network is inadequate and poor use would be made of the valuable landfill resource.

The Bletchley Park Residents Association believe that the size of the proposal is not in keeping with the location and is, therefore, contrary to Policy DC3; it will be an eyesore when viewed from the Brickhills, it will damage the Blue Lagoon; it will breach the proximity principle; road and rail transport will cause pollution; an incinerator could be installed at a later date; there is no confidence that the applicants will run the site safely; problems with the proximity to housing will be multiplied and further recycling should be pursued. BPRA object to the Option B rail access because of its effects of the Blue Lagoon.

The and River Ouzel Internal Drainage Board point out that the proposed facility is outside of their district but advise that there is a concern that not only could there be a flood risk to the site but there could be an increase in flood risk to downstream property as a result of the development. It is, therefore, recommended that a flood risk assessment is sought in accordance with the precautionary approach recommended in PPG25.

West Bletchley Parish Council Parish Council reaffirms its objection to the applications as previously given in respect of planning application 02/00866/MIN.

Bucks Residents Against The Incinerator have objected to the applications as originally submitted because the proposal appears to be a ‘Trojan Horse’ for a later application for an incinerator as space for this was left for “future development”, the proposal does not accord with the proximity principle and it is not clear how the proposed development can be the Best Practical Environmental Option. The documentation from Shanks has been late, fragmented and not sufficiently available for public consideration.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc BRAIN retains concerns even with the restrictions suggested by the applicants about:

1) The changes being made since the public consultation period closed. 2) A legal undertaking should be available for public inspection as the public would not wish Councilors to adopt a legal mechanism which was not completely robust. 3) The mechanism for enforcing waste brought to the site being subject to front-end recycling should be explained to the public. 4) The plant should be reduced by 50% and there should be controls to keep the scale appropriate to the proximity principle. 5) It is not clear that the new proposal is the BPEO. It is not possible to keep modifying the proposal and repeatedly argue that each new proposal is the BPEO. The Council, Shanks and local people should agree the BPEO solution for the site ahead of a planning application. 6) The Commercial Director of Shanks Chairs SERTAB. 7) The Council should act with the fullest and most open consultation on any proposed changes.

Bucks Residents Against The Incinerator considers that the principles that are important for the Buckinghamshire residents include. i) No incinerator, now or in the future. ii) Facilities for waste management which support a high level of recycling (consistent with BPEO) and certainly well in excess of 50% and which should be demonstrable ‘best practice’ level. iii) Facilities for local needs that accord with the proximity principle and are sized accordingly.

People Against Landfill Sites formal views are awaited but the view has been expressed that the scale of the facility remains too large and rail use should be restrained to bringing in waste from no further away than 100 miles.

Stewkley Parish Council feels strongly that even though an incinerator is no longer planned, that siting such a scheme bordering Milton Keynes and the surrounding towns and villages is not environmentally acceptable. An increase in traffic in the locality would cause extra wear and tear on the roads and extra pollution from vehicles, while extra lorries could bring more cars onto the site roads.

Stewkley Parish Council is concerned that not enough is being done in the locality to educate the public to recycle their waste and are worried that large amounts of waste required by the new application would give local people and local councils less incentive to recycle their rubbish. It is also felt that it is unacceptable for a local site to have to cope with large volumes of non-local waste.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc REPRESENTATIONS

The applications were advertised on site and in the local press. 925 letters have been received objecting to the proposals on the following grounds:-

1. The expansion area indicated on the application plans is compatible with the area of the incinerator proposed in the previous proposal. An incinerator is perceived to be a potential risk to the health of local residents.

2. The scale of the plant is far larger than that needed or efficient for the technology proposed. This breaches the requirement for waste to be treated as close as possible to the source as required by proximity principle.

3. The plant will treat a raw waste stream rather than complementing kerbside recycling or similar. Materials recovered will be low quality and of low environmental benefit. This therefore, fails to meet the Best Practical Environmental Option.

4. There is no obligation for the operation to use rail for the long distance transport of waste.

5. The existence of the plant will make it harder for Councils to recycle or eliminate waste. Further waste reduction will cause waste to be attracted from further away.

6. There is no clear reason why such a plant should be included within an existing landfill facility. The plant should be located within an industrial complex.

7. The proposal is contrary to the development plan.

8. No information is given for the source or distribution of materials. It is not demonstrated that the proposals accord with BPEO principles.

9. The proposed rail sidings would impact substantially on wildlife in the Blue Lagoon Local Nature Reserve.

10. There would be a substantial increase in traffic causing traffic hazards and congestion.

11. The plant is in close proximity to houses and schools and would create disturbance, dust, odour and light pollution.

12. The proposal would cause a risk to health, air quality and cause pollution.

13. There should be greater recycling.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc 14. The operators past performance.

15. The development will be visually intrusive.

16. The development will have an impact on the life of the landfill site and the site restoration.

17. A continuous waste stream will be required.

18. Property values in the area will decrease.

19. The development would be premature.

20. There will be an increased risk of pollution of nearby waterways and ground water.

21. The development will impact on recreation on the adjacent playing field and the nature reserve.

22. There would be impact during construction.

Details of the proposed changes and restrictions suggested by the applicants have been brought to the objectors attention. To date a further 8 letters have been received.

These express the views that:

A robust legal agreement should be in place, the capacity of the plant should be further reduced; waste should not be imported; no waste derived fuel should be produced, there should be more recycling with waste processed at source.

One letter has been received which supports the proposals.

CONSIDERATIONS

The current applications do not include the Fluidised Red Energy Recovery Plant (incinerator). This was the issue generating the most concern with the previous proposal because of the perceived harmful effects on health and the visual impact of this. With the removal of this from the proposal the concerns about visual amenity and harmful effects to health generally no longer apply.

The processes of waste will take place within buildings which, for the most part, will not be seen above either the existing ground levels or those proposed in the land raising already permitted.

A number of concerns, however, remain principally relating to the scale of the proposal. Other concerns have emerged particularly in relation to the effects of the alternative rail access on the Blue Lagoon Local Nature Reserve.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc These concerns are reflected in the views expressed by consultees and the public.

It has been pointed out to the applicants that unless the concerns relating to the scale of the operation were addressed then it would not be possible to conclude that the proposal represented the Best Practical Environmental Option. The applicants have, therefore, now agreed a series of measures which could be covered by legal agreements and conditions if planning permission was granted. These measures, the applicants suggest, would bring the measures into line with National Regional and Local Waste Planning policy and Waste Disposal/treatment strategies. The letter which outlines these measures is reproduced as an appendix to this report. Discussions are currently taking place to arrange legal agreements to cover these matters. A further report detailing these agreements will be produced prior to the Committee meeting.

In addition to these arrangements the applicants are proposing to delete the composting site from Rail Option ‘B’ and relocate this within the main complex on part of the site previously identified for the waste energy plant. The composting site proposed in the Waste Treatment Plant proposal remains part of the application but if the scheme is approved it is intended to amend the proposal so that the composting would again be re-located into the main complex.

These measures and changes are addressed, where appropriate under the topic headings below. As with the report on the previous proposal these issues are inter-related but due to their complexity are dealt with individually. Again where overlaps occur, these will be made clear within each individual section.

PLANNING POLICY

As previously the proposals are considered to be a departure from the development plan principally because the adopted Borough of Milton Keynes Local Plan and the planning brief identifies the application sites as a landfill site and in the case of the Option B railhead that part of the site falling within the Blue Lagoon area as a Local Nature Reserve and Parkland. The ‘call-in’ procedure referred to in the last report would therefore, also apply to the current applications.

Again as previously there are other national and local planning policies and planning policy guidance that the Council is required to take into account when determining the application. However, since the previous report the regional waste strategy has emerged in Draft form. Whereas this has yet to be formally adopted following consultation with a number of bodies, including the public, it is a material consideration particularly as it has a number of recommendations, following research, which have a direct bearing on the proposal. These will be detailed later.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc As previously, the Buckinghamshire Waste Local Plan which was adopted in 1997 is the policy document governing waste planning matters in the Milton Keynes area identifies locations such as the Bletchley landfill site as appropriate for waste management facilities. However, other policies of the plan have detailed requirements, which as the previous proposal, are relevant to these planning applications. These are addressed in the following chapters. To facilitate cross reference, these follow, as closely as possible the order as set out in the previous report.

The effects of the proposal on public health

The waste processing that is proposed would take place within fully contained units. Unlike the previous proposal there will not be any emissions into the surrounding area above those already experienced with the landfill site. Whereas releases from the landfill site in the past have caused difficulties the measures enforced by the environment agency have dealt with these. The Chief Environmental Health Officers concludes that the processes contained within units will not have a detrimental effect on the surroundings.

In the circumstances the guidance in PPG 10 and PPG 25 that the planning authority should pressure that the control mechanisms governing waste processes will be applied should in this case, be the determining factor on this issue.

The majority of those who have written, objecting to the proposal, are concerned that if planning permission is granted for the current proposals that a further application for a thermal treatment facility will follow or the applicants will appeal against the previous refusal. In particular, the absence of any development proposal for the site of the Fluidised Bed Energy Recovery plant proposed in the previous application, adds to this concern. The applicants have, however, stated in their letter that they understand this concern and are prepared to enter into a legal agreement preventing a further application or an appeal. They are also prepared to amend the proposal so that the site formerly proposed for the energy recovery plant does not remain wholly vacant.

Objectors have also reiterated the concern expressed about the noise that would be associated with the proposed rail siding. Members will recall that a planning inspector, dealing with the appeal in relation to the operational hours of the landfill site considered that these should not take place at night time. However, the Chief Environmental Health Officer concluded that the noise levels of the proposed sidings would not exceed acceptable levels. He has advised that fewer houses would hear the operations associated with the siding of this was located as proposed in ‘Option B’ to the west of the Blue lagoon. It would, however, be necessary for noise attenuation measures to be undertaken in relation to the ‘Option B’ railhead proposal to address greater engine noise and wheel flange squeal which would be associated with the tighter curves and steeper gradients associated with the ‘Option B’ proposal.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc The applicants have also agreed not to operate trains between the hours of 12 pm and 6:00 am. This accords with definition of “night time” as defined in the Noise Insulation (Railway and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1995.

The Best Practical Environmental Option Proximity Principle

Concern was expressed to the applicants that the proposals as originally defined in the planning application woudl not accord with Proximity Principle. The original intention was to provide a large scale facility which would input waste without restriction on where it originated. Furthermore, whereas the proposal includes a railhead no commitment was given that this would be used. It would, therefore, have been possible that the, use of rail, which is encouraged by national and regional policy, could be avoided.

The applicants have now advised that they would accept either by a condition of, or a legal agreement attached to, a grant of permission a restriction on importation of waste by road to a thirty mile hinterland surrounding the site. This would reflect the Council’s newly adopted waste strategy which expresses the view that the acceptance of waste with origins which are beyond 30 miles is unlikely to represent the Best Practical Environmental Option.

The applicants have also stated that they are prepared to off-set the number of road borne vehicles delivering waste to the site with deliveries by train on a pro-rata basis.

The Best Practical Environmental Option: ii Regional Self-sufficiency.

As detailed in the report on the previous proposal when determining whether a waste proposal/strategy represents the Best Practical Environment Option, consideration must be given to whether this promotes Regional self- sufficiency. The aim in government advice is to ensure that regions become responsible for their own waste arisings. The concern with the previous proposal is that it was likely to have resulted in waste from some distance away, particularly from London, being delivered to the site. A restriction on the areas from which road borne waste can be imported will prevent this Whereas the use of rail will continue to allow waste to be delivered from some distance, the transport of waste by rail is encouraged in government guidance.

The economics of rail use are such that it is extremely unlikely that the government anticipated rail use for short hauls. The applicants have given a further undertaking, to also be covered by a legal agreement, that any waste imported to the facility by rail will have been subject, to “front-end” recycling only, therefore, bringing a commitment from originating areas to recover value from their waste.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc The Best Practical Environmental Option: iii The Scale of the Facility.

The capacity of the currently proposed facility to process waste was initially the same as the previous proposal. Concerns about the scale of the proposal were expressed in the previous committee report. The likelihood was that waste would be brought from considerable distances to utilize the plant’s capacity and this would be contrary to the proximity principle.

The applicants were advised of this concern. They, therefore, produced further information to demonstrate that the capacity of the proposed facility is considerably smaller than the potential waste arisings within the 30 miles hinterland defined in the waste strategy and are similar to the waste arisings within the Milton Keynes and Buckinghamshire county area. Such county areas are considered in the emerging regional strategy to be the appropriate size for sub-regions when considering the need for waste processing/disposal facilities.

However, it was subsequently pointed out to the applicants that in determining need account must be taken of existing facilities. This reflects the Secretary of State’s decision in relation to a proposed integrated waste management facility at Ridham Dock in Kent.

The applicants have, therefore, agreed to a reduction of the capacity of the facility by a third until the Council is satisfied that local waste arisings have increased sufficiently to warrant the full development. Whereas it remains unclear how the two thirds capacity would equate to need, defined as waste arisings minus existing facilities, it is clear that there are few facilities for waste disposal, other than landfill, within Milton Keynes and its surroundings. This remains the case if the “surroundings” are defined as a county sized area or the thirty mile hinterland defined in the Council’s waste strategy. Whereas there is landfill capacity both adjacent to the application site and within Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire, in the light of the government’s policy to reduce the use of this and to husband remaining void to accommodate residual waste it would not be appropriate to take account of this when determining need.

As advised elsewhere, since the report on the last proposal was written the draft regional waste strategy has been published. Whereas this has yet to be consulted on and formally adopted it does detail research that has been undertaken to reach the draft policies proposed using the WISARD program recommended by the government. It was concluded that the Best Practical Environmental Option for processing waste was larger plants drawing in waste from a broad area rather than small facilities associated with individual communities. Whereas the model used did not utilize the specific process proposed in the application and it remains unclear whether there is an optimum size, (the model used anticipated a combination of waste processing types which would have an overall capacity of 620,000 tonnes per annum) with the best currently available information it does appear that a facility significantly larger than that needed for a particular community, is justified.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc It has been suggested that even if it is accepted that a facility should be of a scale sufficient to cater for a sub-regions (county area) waste then waste importation should be constrained to that arising within this area. This would not, however, accord with government advice or the draft regional strategy. Both urge a flexible approach to the provision of facilities with waste in recognition that its transport and disposal does not adhere to administrative boundaries. It advises that cross border transport should be permitted if this would result in waste having to travel shorter distances to be disposed of.

In the Ridham Docks case, the Secretary of State made it clear that the deliverability of a scheme is a material consideration. The applicants have advised that the deliverability of the scheme is dependent upon the economics of scale. It would not be practicable to realise the benefits, of reprocessing recovered materials locally in a number of small distributed facilities for which the unit costs for comparable levels of recovering would be much greater.

The visual effects of the development

As stated earlier, the inclusion of the building housing the energy recovery plant was the issue of most concern in visual terms in relation to the previous proposal. The removal of this from the proposed scheme removes much of the concern in this regard. The majority of the development would be sited approximately 15 metres below the original ground level within the former brick clay excavations. Because of this, and the ongoing landfilling to the west and south of the application site the principal views of the main development would be from the western edge of the Blue Lagoon and the fields to the north of the site.

Clearly, the views from the footpath on the western edge of the Blue Lagoon will be significantly altered. However, this needs to be considered against the backdrop of the former clay pit which has existed since the Blue Lagoon was itself created from a former clay extraction area. With the current landfilling application this situation could continue for a further 20 years. In the light of this and that the draft local plan anticipates some form of development associated with waste processing anyway, it would be difficult to conclude that, in visual terms, the main development area would have a significant detrimental affect on the Blue Lagoon and other land in the vicinity above that brought about by the current circumstances.

The rail reception area in the location originally proposed will be visible from properties in the vicinity of Newton Road. Much will be obscured by the mounding proposed to screen and attenuate noise but it is likely that the upper sections of the overhead gantries will be seen, particularly from properties on higher ground which have views into the site over the railway embankment. Again, however, the effects of this need to be judged against the current views of the landfill site.

The “Option B” rail reception would have little additional visual impact where this would fall within the confines of the main development area. However, as the rail access to the main rail reception area would require the loss of

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc approximately 1 hectare of ground within the Blue Lagoon local nature reserve and works to construct this will have an affect over a wider area there will be a visual impact on the Blue Lagoon until trees and shrubs lost as a result of this are replaced and grow to maturity.

The Social and Economic Effects of the Development

As the development will, for the most part, not be seen from the surrounding area and the processes within it are generally perceived to be benign, it is unlikely that there will be any detrimental social and economic effect. Conversely, industries could be developed in the vicinity of the plant which utilize the material recovered from the waste. This may assist in boosting the local economy.

The effects of the development on nature conservation interests

In relation to the previous proposal it was concluded that insufficient information had been submitted to conclude that the effects of the proposal on the Blue Lagoon would be such that they would not damage the value of the Blue Lagoon as a local nature reserve to an unacceptable degree. There was particular concern about the effect of wind turbulence or heat escape. This particular concern does not apply in relation to this current proposal.

The Countryside and Landscape Manager has, however, expressed particular concern about the loss of some land, and the trees on it, within the Blue Lagoon local nature reserve. English Nature have expressed similar concerns. The ‘Option B’ rail siding would result in the loss of all of the Black Poplars on the site which are described as a nationally rare species. The Countryside and Landscape Manager is also concerned that the kidney vetch on the exposed face within the landfill site would be lost with the ‘Option B’ rail proposal. This attracts the small Blue butterfly and the colony at the Blue Lagoon is the only one known in North Buckinghamshire. Colonies of other species may be lost as a result of the activities associated with the rail head.

The status of the Blue Lagoon as a Local Nature Reserve signifies the importance of preserving the flora and fauna within it. It requires steps to ensure the continuance of these if they are threatened by development proposals. However, unlike sites identified as being of national importance (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) they are not barriers to development if steps are taken to mitigate the effects of this. This is also provided for in local planning policy.

In this case, translocation of shrubs and trees is possible and the applicants are proposing that large areas of the restored landfill site are returned to nature conservation uses. Black Poplar and Kidney Vetch can be replanted to ensure that these plants and the fauna which depend upon them continue to thrive. Arrangements can be made with the applicants to ensure that such nature reserves are properly attended to. The recently proposed changes to

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc the scheme, which propose a realignment of the railway embankment is intended to avoid the loss of all but four of the Black Poplars.

Whereas the noise of the operations are of concern, the Blue Lagoon is already bounded on two sides by railway lines and the existing landfill operation on its western boundary. Colonies of species important to nature conservation exist on site despite the noise associated with these activities. Furthermore, the nature reserve also functions as a park which attracts many people including those who walk with dogs. It is unlikely that any species which would be sensitive to a rail siding would have survived on site in these circumstances. The proposals to replant important species and provide areas of public open space and for nature conservation for in excess of that committed under the landfill permission appear to be adequate.

The effect of the development on local traffic

A number of objectors to this current proposal have raised concern about traffic that would be associated with it.

They 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, as previously, the proposal states 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 traveling 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.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

1) Alternative Sites and Processes

Concern was expressed in the report on the previous proposal that the site selection process had been too simplistic. Of particular concern was the fact that sites in Marston Vale had been dismissed on visual amenity grounds and no proper comparison had been made with the visual effects of the proposal if sited at Bletchley.

As this proposal will not have a significant visual effect over a wide area assessment focuses more on which is the best placed site with access to rail and significant void capacity, in terms of its proximity to significant local waste arisings. This , in effect reduces the alternative to the Calvert Site in Buckinghamshire. The applicants have undertaken a gravity modeling

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc exercise to determine how the Calvert site compares with the Bletchley site. Principally because of the very large concentration of households in the vicinity of the Bletchley site it is the better of the two, by a considerable margin.

The applicants have provided further details in relation to alternative methods of waste disposal, specifically Anaerobic Digestion. They point out that there is only one sizeable plant undertaking this process in Europe whereas Mechanical Biological Treatment, proposed in the application has a proven track record.

Anaerobic Digestion provides a compost as an end product. However, it is currently not clear whether this would conform to the Animal By-products Order and the future Bio Waste Directive. There remains some doubt therefore how this compost would finally be disposed of. The products from Bio-drying meet landfill pre-treatment criteria, is suitable for energy recovery and produces an acceptable compost fraction. Anaerobic Digestion has much less heat and power potential. As a result Mechanical Biological Treatment attracts investment more easily and is, therefore, a desirable option.

The appropriate level of consideration of other sites is not made specific in planning policy guidance. The guidance on Policies for Waste Management Planning does re-emphasise that an application should be judged on its individual merits and cannot be refused because a better site exists somewhere else.

In the circumstances, it is unlikely that further research for an alternative site or process is warranted in this case.

2) Technical concerns raised by the Environment Agency

The previous proposal raised a number of technical concerns by the Environment Agency in relation to the ingress of surface water into the site, the flow of surface water away from the site, and the isolation of the waste already tipped, the stability of tipped waste, and the protection of underlying geological strain.

Some of these concerns have been repeated in relation to this proposal. However, the agency have made it clear that they do not object to the proposal provided these matters are covered by conditions attached to any grant of planning permission.

3) Zero Waste

A number of objectors to the proposal consider that it would not accord with the ‘Zero Waste’ Charter recently adopted by the Council. This, however, is an aim, not a strategy. The Draft Regional Waste Strategy points out that the changes required to achieve zero waste, or even to move toward it, extend far beyond waste management and planning into all sectors of the economy. To

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc truly achieve zero waste the principles on which industrial production is based would have to change with companies changing the processes, components and materials they employ.

The draft strategy points out that Canberra which is often cited as an example of what a city government can achieve still relies on the landfilling of commercial industrial and household waste. The draft regional strategy suggests that the Canberra example indicates that while it can contribute to more sustainable waste management, it is not yet viable to assume zero waste can be achieved in the short or medium term.

CONCLUSIONS

The changes to the planning application and the legal agreement that the applicants are prepared to enter into would overcome most of the concerns about the applications. However, those who have made further comment following these changes have expressed the view that because the plant would have a capacity significantly large than the waste arisings of Milton Keynes, the proposal does still not represent the Best Practical Environmental Option. However, “Waste 2000” defines the BPEO as “that which provides the most benefit or the least damage as a whole, at acceptable cost, in the long term as well, as in the short term”. Whereas, small facilities dealing with a local community’s waste would appear to provide the most benefit or least damage, the conclusions reached by the recently published study, undertaken for SERTAB, demonstrates that they are not and that larger facilities, with a range of processes for dealing with waste should in fact, be provided. The Regional Strategy has also concluded that the provision of facilities should be considered on a sub-regional basis with sub-regions being approximately county sized.

Regional Planning Guidance and the Regional Strategy both refer to the need for areas outside of London to continue accepting waste for some time to come, albeit at a declining rate. Planning Policy Guidance and the Draft Regional Strategy both seek to encourage the transport of waste by rail.

As far as can be ascertained all communities adapting a zero waste charter still have residual waste to dispose of. In the circumstances the proposal which increases recovery from waste would not appear to be at odds with the long term aim of zero waste.

It would appear, therefore, that the Best Practical Environmental Option for a waste facility would be one with the capacity to cater for the waste arising within a county sized area; would be in proximity to a landfill site to take residual waste and would be access to a railway line, so that the requirement to facilitate the disposal of London’s can be dealt with, without encouraging excessive road use. Ideally such a waste facility would also be sited centrally within its hinterland to reduce the distance traveled by road vehicles carrying waste. Unfortunately such sites are rarely located centrally to administrative areas and government guidance therefore allows for cross border waste transport, in effect shifting the hinterland around the site location. Taking this

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc into account a facility of the right scale based at Bletchley appears to be the Best Practical Environment Option.

The applicants have calculated that the waste arising within Milton Keynes and Buckinghamshire would equate to the capacity of the facility (approximately 950,000 tonnes per annum excluding the landfilling which will continue in the early years of the development principally to provide screening to the plant). However, as indicated earlier, no details of existing facilities, within the proposed plants catchment area have been provided. The applicants have, however, agreed to reduce the capacity of the treatment plants by a third until the Council is satisfied that the full development warranted. As there are few facilities for waste disposal/processing, other than landfill, in the vicinity such an arrangement does not appear to be unreasonable.

The other concern is that presently it is not clear how long the need to take account of London’s waste will continue. A condition might be imposed restricting the importation of London’s waste after 2010 when current strategy anticipates, somewhat optimistically, London becoming self sufficient in waste disposal facilities.

However, due to the cost of the infrastructure, the lead time to securing contracts etc if such a condition was contested, is likely to be considered unreasonable. Furthermore, such a condition would encourage road use which would not represent the BPEO, particularly as the landfill site has permission which will last for another 19 years which could be utilised by road vehicles bringing in many millions of tones of London’s waste.

A permission which encourages waste to be transported by rail appears to be the best environmental option, particularly if, as has been agreed with the applicants, that this is combined with a requirement that waste brought to the site has already been subject to recycling with the recovery of paper, glass, metals and plastics at source and a reduction in road borne vehicles on a pro- rata basis.

The two possible locations for a rail link have both raised objections. A number of objectors have expressed concern about the potential noise from the rail head if it is located on the former brickworks area. The Environmental Health Officer has, however, advised that the noise levels will be within acceptable limits. The recent agreement by the applicants, not to operate trains between 12:00 pm and 6:00 am will bring this activity within government guidelines.

The Council’s Countryside and Landscape Manager have expressed considerable concern about the effect of the ‘Option B’ rail links on the Blue Lagoon, particularly as this will result in the loss of a hectare of land currently within the local native reserve/park area.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc The loss of such land to nature conservation and parkland use is regrettable but it is extremely unlikely that such loss will permanently damage its value to nature conservation or particularly affect the enjoyment of visitors taking account of its location adjacent to the west cost main line and the number of trains that will be associated with the waste recycling facility. The considerable additional land that will be provided for nature conservation and recreational use beyond that already committee, would, in the longer term bring considerable benefit.

In the circumstances there would not appear to be any overriding planning reason why planning permission should not be granted for both of the alternative railheads.

Concern has been expressed that greater wheel flange squeal will be caused by the tighter curves of the Option B (Blue Lagoon) siding. The applicants have, however, provided further information on suppressing this . Details of this will need to be assessed by the Chief Environmental Health Officer but he does agree that suppression is possible and the 12:00pm – 6:00am restriction noise will bring the operators within acceptable links.

In conclusion, it has been anticipated that some form of waste processing facility would be located at Newton Longville for some time. This has been identified in the draft local plan in recognition that waste should be processed rather than continue to be landfilled. Many advocate a small scale facility catering for waste arising within Milton Keynes.

However, the Council’s Waste Strategy defines a wider hinterland for waste facilities and the emerging regional strategy advocates large facilities. Commitment to rail us would not be achievable without a facility of sufficient capacity to sustain this.

The Council is encouraging the re-opening of the Oxford to Bletchley line and this unlikely to be achieved unless a large scale commercial operation is committed to its use. Similarly, a facility must be of sufficient capacity to encourage investment in it and the industries that may arise utilizing recovered materials.

On balance, therefore, it is considered that the proposal, subject to the restrictions offered by the applicants, and both of the rail head options are acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that planning permission for application No 02/01472/MIN is approved subject to the applicants entering into a legal agreement restricting an application for a thermal waste treatment plant or an appeal against the previous refusal, restricting the Bio MRF units to two thirds of the capacity proposed in the planning application until otherwise agreed by the local planning authority and the provision of land and a contribution to a civic amenity site and conditions attached to the planning permission which,

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc amongst others to be determined by the planning officer, constrain road borne waste delivered to the facility to a distance of 30 miles surrounding the site and which requires only waste subject to prior sorting to recover glass, paper, metal and plastics without mechanical means, to be delivered to the facility, and the composting plant to be relocated into the main complex and Planning permission for application 02/01468/MIN for the rail access and reception area is approved subject to the relocation of the proposed composting facility into the main processing complex in accordance with the scheme recently submitted by the Council.

\\MKC_PDC\CorpAdmin\Committee\2002-03\DEVELOPMENT CONTROL\12 FEBRUARY 2003\12-02-03_SHANKSREPORT.doc