The Planning Act 2008 Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Planning Act 2008 Wheelabrator Kemsley Generating Station (K3) and Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) Waste to Energy Facility Examining Authority’s Report of Findings and Conclusions and Recommendation to the Secretary of State for Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy Examining Authority Grahame J Kean BA (Hons), Solicitor HRA 19 November 2020 This page is intentionally blank OVERVIEW File Ref: EN010083 The Applicant, WTI/EFW Holdings Ltd (WTI), made an application under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 which was received in full by The Planning Inspectorate on 11 September 2019 (the Application). The Application was accepted for examination on 8 October 2019. The examination of the Application began on 19 February 2020 and was completed on 19 August 2020. The Proposed Development comprises two projects. The first is to increase the generating capacity of Wheelabrator Kemsley (K3) generating station up to 75MW with a tonnage throughput of up to 657,000 tonnes per annum (“K3 Proposed Development” or “Project K3”). Secondly, Wheelabrator Kemsley North (WKN) would be a waste-to-energy generating station with a generating capacity of up to 42MW and an annual through put of up to 390,000 tonnes of waste. (“WKN Proposed Development” or “Project WKN”). The Secretary of State (SoS) for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) made a direction under Section 35 of the Planning Act 2008 to treat the Proposed Development as one for which development consent is required. Together the two projects are referred to as the Proposed Development. It would be located adjacent to the DS Smith Paper Mill to the north of Kemsley in Sittingbourne, Kent. The K3 grid connection is constructed as part of the construction of the K3 facility and both Project K3 and Project WKN would connect to an existing UK Power Networks electricity substation located within the DS Smith Paper Mill site. Summary of Recommendation: The Examining Authority recommends that the Secretary of State should grant consent for the K3 Generating Station only and should make the Order in the form attached at Appendix D. The Examining Authority recommends that the Secretary of State should withhold consent for the WKN generating station. If, however the Secretary of State decides to give consent, then the Examining Authority recommends that the Order should be in the form attached at Appendix E. WHEELABRATOR KEMSLEY GENERATING STATION (K3) AND WHEELABRATOR KEMSLEY NORTH (WKN) WASTE TO ENERGY FACILITY: EN010083 REPORT: TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE: 19 NOVEMBER 2020 i REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1 1.1. INTRODUCTION TO THE EXAMINATION ................................................... 1 1.2. APPOINTMENT OF THE EXAMINING AUTHORITY ........................................ 2 1.3. THE PERSONS INVOLVED IN THE EXAMINATION ....................................... 2 1.4. THE EXAMINATION AND PROCEDURAL DECISIONS .................................... 2 1.5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................................. 8 1.6. HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT ................................................... 9 1.7. UNDERTAKINGS, OBLIGATIONS AND AGREEMENTS .................................. 10 1.8. OTHER CONSENTS .............................................................................. 10 1.9. STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT ............................................................... 12 2. THE PROPOSAL AND THE SITE ........................................................................ 14 2.1. THE APPLICATION AS MADE ................................................................. 14 2.2. THE APPLICATION AS EXAMINED ........................................................... 14 2.3. THE APPLICATION AT THE CLOSE OF THE EXAMINATION ........................... 16 2.4. DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA .......... 17 2.5. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY ............................................................. 18 2.6. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ......................................................................... 19 3. LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT.......................................................................... 21 3.1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 21 3.2. THE PLANNING ACT 2008 ..................................................................... 21 3.3. NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENTS ........................................................... 23 3.4. EUROPEAN LAW AND RELATED UK REGULATIONS .................................... 26 3.5. OTHER LEGAL PROVISIONS .................................................................. 33 3.6. MADE DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDERS ................................................ 36 3.7. TRANSBOUNDARY EFFECTS .................................................................. 37 3.8. OTHER RELEVANT POLICY STATEMENTS ................................................. 37 3.9. THE NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK ...................................... 38 3.10. LOCAL IMPACT REPORTS ...................................................................... 38 3.11. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ..................................................................... 38 3.12. THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S POWERS TO MAKE A DCO ............................. 39 4. THE PLANNING ISSUES .................................................................................. 39 4.1. MAIN ISSUES IN THE EXAMINATION ...................................................... 39 4.2. ISSUES ARISING IN WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS .......................................... 41 4.3. ISSUES ARISING IN THE LOCAL IMPACT REPORTS ................................... 42 4.4. CONFORMITY WITH NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENTS (NPSs) ...................... 43 4.5. CONFORMITY WITH THE MARINE POLICY STATEMENT AND MARINE PLANS .. 44 4.6. CONFORMITY WITH DEVELOPMENT PLAN ................................................ 45 4.7. APPLICATION OF OTHER POLICIES ........................................................ 46 4.8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................................................. 46 4.9. HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT .................................................. 48 4.10. WASTE HIERARCHY AND FUEL AVAILABILITY ........................................... 49 WHEELABRATOR KEMSLEY GENERATING STATION (K3) AND WHEELABRATOR KEMSLEY NORTH (WKN) WASTE TO ENERGY FACILITY: EN010083 REPORT: TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE: 19 NOVEMBER 2020 ii 4.11. AIR QUALITY ...................................................................................... 77 4.12. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE .............................................. 82 4.13. ECOLOGY .......................................................................................... 87 4.14. GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE .......................................... 96 4.15. GROUND CONDITIONS ...................................................................... 109 4.16. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ........................................................ 111 4.17. NOISE AND VIBRATION ..................................................................... 122 4.18. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT .................................................................. 125 4.19. WATER ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................... 141 5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN RELATION TO HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................. 148 5.1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 148 5.2. PROJECT LOCATION .......................................................................... 150 5.3. HRA IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROJECT ................................................... 151 5.4. ASSESSMENT OF LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS (LSE) ............................ 156 5.5. CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES .............................................................. 158 5.6. FINDINGS IN RELATION TO ADVERSE EFFECTS ON INTEGRITY ................. 158 5.7. HRA CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................... 160 6. CONCLUSIONS ON THE CASE FOR DEVELOPMENT CONSENT .............................. 161 6.1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 161 6.2. CONSIDERATIONS IN THE OVERALL PLANING BALANCE .......................... 161 6.3. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS ON THE PLANNING BALANCE ............................ 172 7. DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND RELATED MATTERS ...................... 175 7.1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 175 7.2. THE DCO AS APPLIED FOR.................................................................. 175 7.3. CHANGES DURING EXAMINATION........................................................ 180 7.4. LEGAL AGREEMENTS AND OTHER CONSENTS ........................................ 205 7.5. NUISANCE ....................................................................................... 205 7.6. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................. 206 8. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................... 207 8.1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 207 8.2. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ..............................