Beckton Sewage Treatment Works, East Ham
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
planning report PDU/0953b/02 19 January 2011 Beckton Sewage Treatment Works, East Ham London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (in the London Borough of Newham) planning application no.10 /01713/LTGDC Strategic planning application stage II referral Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 The proposal Installation of an enhanced sludge digestion plant and relocation of an existing workshop building. The applicant The applicant is Thames Water Utilities Ltd, and the architect is Mott MacDonald. Strategic issues The issues for reconsideration are energy, transport, air quality and odour; and ambient noise and vibration. The Development Corporation’s decision In this instance the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation has resolved to grant planning permission. Recommendation That the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal. Context 1 On 1 September 2010, the Mayor of London received documents from Newham Council, on behalf of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Categories 2D and 3D of the Schedule to the Order 2008: 2D: ” Waste development which does not accord with one or more provisions of the development page 1 plan in force in the area in which the application site is situated and which falls into one or more of these sub-categories—(a) it occupies more than 0.5 hectares; (b) it is development to provide an installation with a capacity for a throughput of more than—(ii) 20,000 tonnes per annum of waste.” 3D: “Development—(a) on land allocated as Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land in the development plan, in proposals for such a plan, or in proposals for the alteration or replacement of such a plan; and (b) which would involve the construction of a building with a floorspace of more than 1,000 square metres or a material change in the use of such a building.” 2 On 6 October 2010, the Mayor considered planning report referenced PDU/0953b/01, and subsequently advised the Corporation that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 104 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 106 of that report could address these deficiencies. 3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. Since then, the application has been revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below). On 9 December 2010, the LTGDC decided that it was minded to grant planning permission for the revised application, and on 6 January 2011 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged or direct the LTGDC under Article 6 to refuse the application. The Mayor has until 19 January 2011 to notify the LTGDC of his decision and to issue any direction. 4 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case. 5 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk. Update 6 At the consultation stage the Corporation was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 104 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 106 of that report could address those deficiencies: Energy 7 In the energy section of the report responding to earlier consultation, the applicant was requested to submit additional information in respect of district heating, the potential for export of excess heat off-site and the use of fans for cooling purposes. 8 In response, the applicant has indicated that high-grade heat from the CHP engines would be used for steam generation within the thermal hydrolysis process. Thames Water anticipates that it would be able to make use of the surplus low temperature water within the process e.g. by heating the final effluent used for sludge dilution, polyelectrolyte makeup and other uses within the sewage treatment works. It is therefore unlikely that there will be any residual excess heat suitable for exportation off site. 9 On the use of fans for cooling, the applicant has confirmed that the potential exists to adopt less intensive forms of cooling for the product emerging from the thermal hydrolysis process. Fans would not be required, for example, if open-loop heat exchangers with final effluent were used. The latter requires further investigation at the detailed design stage, as there might be page 2 a need to disinfect the final effluent and the power requirements would need to be fully understood. Thames Water will, therefore, encourage the appointed contractor to explore other methods of sludge cooling. Transport for London’s comments 10 At stage 1, TfL advised that the applicant should not develop the land adjacent to the safeguarded Docklands Light Railway (DLR) extension and the Thames Gateway Bridge areas. A travel plan covering, both the construction and operational phases, a construction logistics plan (CLP) and a delivery and servicing plan (DSP) were also requested. 11 Since stage 1, additional information has been submitted by the applicant to address the above concerns. As a result, TfL is satisfied that all of the issues previously raised have been adequately dealt with. TfL also welcomes the condition included in the LTGDC’s draft decision notice, which secures the requirement for a travel plan, for both the construction and occupational phases of the development, to be submitted to and approved prior to commencement on site, and also for the production of a DSP and CLP. 12 TfL is also satisfied that the redevelopment of this site would not affect the DLR and Thames Gateway Bridge safeguarded areas. Air quality 13 At the consultation stage, the GLA air quality advisor accepted the cumulative effects of the proposed CHP engine and boiler emissions and the sludge energy-from-waste (Efw) plant on annual average nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations, but requested additional information to address remaining concern over the short-term ground level concentrations at locations where relevant exposure occurs. It was also requested that the applicant provide an assessment of the potential impact of emissions from the development on ecological sites, such as the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the Ripple Local Nature Reserve (LNR). 14 In response the applicant has clarified that with the proposed 45-metre stack, the plant would contribute less than 10% of the hourly limit value for nitrogen dioxide. Environment Agency guidance (H1, Annex f) provides that if the short term process contribution is <10% of the short term environmental standard, it can be considered insignificant. The 10% threshold is based on the judgment that it is an order of magnitude below the standard and provides a substantial safety margin to protect health and the environment. It can, therefore, be concluded that the impact of the proposed facilities on short term NO2 concentrations would not give rise to significant effects with a 45m stack, regardless of the presence of other combustion sources, such as the sludge energy-from-waste plant, in the area. The relevant modelling and its conclusions were provided in the Environment Report submitted in support of the referral at consultation stage. 15 The applicant has also confirmed that the modelled change in annual mean NO2 concentrations would be less than 1% of the limit value across all parts of the air quality study area where residential properties and subsequent public exposure is likely to occur. However, a change of less than 1% of the annual mean limit value also represents an imperceptible change, regardless of the baseline annual mean concentration. 16 It was conceded that the process contribution in parts of the sewage treatment works and the adjacent industrial estate to the east of Barking Creek, located along River Road (in the neighbouring borough of Barking and Dagenham), would be more than 1% of the annual mean NO2 objective; resulting in a small, but insignificant, change. 17 The impacts of emission on ecological sites need to be addressed as part of an application for an Environmental Permit for the proposed facilities. This requires comprehensive dispersion page 3 modelling and assessment of nature sites within 10 km. However, Environment Agency guidance on screening nature conservation sites for air quality impacts is that, apart from internationally important sites, only Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) and other sites within 2 km of the emitter require screening assessment. 18 As the nearest point of the Epping Forest SAC is approximately 8 km from the application site, it is considered unlikely that the operation of the proposed plant would significantly affect features of interest, particularly as the emissions to air from the plant would be small and the distance between them is quite considerable. 19 Whilst the Ripple LNR is within 2km of Beckton sewage treatment works, the applicant has cited the UK Air Pollution Information System to show that background nitrogen disposition in that locality is already high.