DOCSLIB.ORG

Energy Centre Olympic Observations, Item 9.1 PDF 93 KB

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Energy Centre Olympic Observations, Item 9.1 PDF 93 KB Committee: Date: Classification: Agenda Item No: Strategic Development 29 th May 2008 Unrestricted 8.1 Report of: Title: Observations to Olympic Delivery Corporate Director Development & Renewal Authority Case Officer: Ref No: PA/08/00615 and PA/08/00682 Richard Murrell Ward(s): Bow East 1. APPLICATION DETAILS Location: Land East of River Lee Navigation and Land North of Carpenters Road (known as Kings Yard) contained within Planning Delivery Zone 4, London E15 Existing Use: Vacant site, previously light industrial (B1 Use Classes) Proposal: 1. Observations to the Olympic Delivery Authority for a reserved matters application and submission of details with respect to OD 4.1 (i) to (xvii), OD 4.2, OD 4.3, OD 4.4 and OD 4.5 of Outline Planning Permission (Ref: 07/90010/OUMODA) for the Olympic, Paralympic and Legacy Transformation Planning Applications: Facilities and their Legacy Transformation dated 28/9/2008 for The construction of a new Energy Centre building housing combined heat and power units, absorption chillers, gas boilers, electric chillers and associated plant and use of an existing 2 storey building to house biomass boilers, offices and a visitors centre and provision of 3 car parking spaces 2. Observations to the Olympic Delivery Authority on the construction of inter-connecting flue between the existing two storey building and the proposed energy centre. Drawing Nos: Reserved Matters application Drawing numbers : - OEC-KY-G100-P-00-009, OEC-K1-G200-P-00, OEC-K1-G200-P-01, OEC-K3-G200-E-S, OEC-KY-G200-E-N-AL, OEC-K1-G200-S-CC, OEC-K1-G200-S-AA, OEC-K1-G200-E-E, OEC- KY-G200-E-S-AL, OEC-K2-G200-S-DD, OEC-K1-G200-P-RF, OEC- K1-G200-E-N, OEC-K1-G200-E-S, OEC-K1-G200-E-W, OEC-K1- G200-S-DD, OEC-K1-G200-BB, OEC-K2-G200-P-RF, OEC-KY-G100- P-00-004, OEC-K2-G200-E-S, OEC-K2-G200-E-N, OEC-K2-G200-E- E, OEC-K2-G200-E-W, OEC-K2-G200-S-AA, OEC-K2-G200-S-BB, KY-H100-P-00-007, KY-G100-P-OO-EX, OEC-KY-G200-XP-00, OEC- KY-G200-XP-AL, OEC-KY-G200-XP-RF, KY-G200-XE-AL, KY-G200- XS-AL, OEC-K2-G200-P-01, OEC-KY-G100-P-00-006, OEC-K2- G200-P-00, OEC-K1-and G200-P-02. Appendices: Inclusive Design Design and Access Statement Telecommunications Emissions Dispersion / Air Quality Statement Statement of Participation Noise Report Equalities Statement Energy Appraisal Water Use Statement External Lighting Accommodation for loading and unloading, set down and pick up of vehicles Context Drawings Interconnection Flue Planning Application Drawing numbers – OEC-K3-G100-P-00-004, OEC-K3-G200-E-E, OEC-K3-G200-E-N, OEC-K3-G200-E-S, OEC-k3-G200-P-01, OEC- K3-G200-P-02, OEC-K3-G200-P-RF and OEC-K3-G200-S-BB Appendices: Design and Access Statement Emissions Dispersion / Air quality Statement Other Submissions Feasibility study for the Mounting of Telecommunications Equipment to the Olympic Park Energy Centre Feasibility study of Biomass Fuel Delivery to King Yard by Barge Historic Building: No Conservation Area: No 2. SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS 2.1 The Council would raise the following observations in relation to the above proposals In overall terms the Council is impressed with the design of the proposed Energy Centre and flue stack. The retention of the existing western building is also welcomed. However, the Council have a number of concerns over detailed aspects of the proposals which should be resolved prior to the determination of the application. - The Council objects to the current design of the Energy Centre as it does not make provision for the future installation of telecommunications equipment within the flue stack, and it has not been demonstrated that the Energy Centre will not be required to host such equipment. - The Council objects to the omission of a graded entrance route to the Visitors Centre in the retained building. - The Council objects to the failure to provide a step-free access to the Energy Centre control room. - The Council objects to the approval of any design of the retained building that does not make provision for barge deliveries, or that precludes barge delivery in the future. - The Council would object to the discharge of any previous S106 commitment to deliver up to 50% of biomass fuel by barge without further justification. - The Council would object to the proposal unless the ODA demonstrate that consideration has been given to extending the CHP/CCHP scheme beyond the boundary of the Olympic site into surrounding communities. - The Council would object to the proposal unless the ODA demonstrate that the CHP infrastructure delivered as part of the Energy Centre would not prejudice the future delivery of a more comprehensive network in the Fish Island area. As a minimum the Council need to be satisfied that connection facilities to the west are capable of being provided in the future and that there are no impediments as a result of this development that would frustrate these connections being made in the future. This would include the location of, sufficient capacity for and no obstruction to the routes of those potential connections. The Council would also make the following requests for further information / clarification which should be provided prior to the determination of the application:- - Additional information detailing accessible access routes from the site perimeter to the building entrances and of the detailed design of the accessible toilets. - Additional assessments into the potential for windborne noise disturbance from the interconnecting flue structure - Additional assessment of the potential impact of any external lighting on flight paths to City Airport and the closest residential properties. - Detail of the energy efficiency measures that would be applied to the new building and the retained building. - Does the ODA intend to supply power from the Energy Centre to domestic customers? - Can the ODA confirm that the management of the Energy Centre will sign a statement of commitment to only procure the biomass fuel from a sustainable and certified fuel supplier? - Details need to be provided of site-wide voltage optimisation to tap down over-supply of electricity from the grid - That an assessment is made to determine the carbon cost of any external lighting proposals Requests for conditions A condition should be placed on any permission setting maximum permitted noise levels at closest residential receptors. A condition should be placed on any permission restricting the hours of operation of external illumination unless it is demonstrated that it would not have any impact on residential amenity. 3. RECOMMENDATION 3.1 That the ODA Planning Decisions Team should consider the views and issues the London Borough of Tower Hamlets set out above under Summary of Observations. 3.3 That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated authority to make further observations and or recommendations as necessary to the ODA. 4. PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS Proposal Background 4.1 The application site is known as Kings Yard and is located to the East of the River Lea Navigation and to the North of Carpenters Road. The site forms part of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games Site. It is located within the London Borough of Tower Hamlets; however the Olympic Delivery Authority acts as the local planning authority. 4.2 Outline planning permission was granted in September 2007 for development associated with the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games and the subsequent Legacy Transformation (ODA Reference: 07/90010/OUMODA). This outline permission established the principle of the erection of a new Energy Centre on the Kings Yard site and the retention and conversion of the existing western building. 4.3 The Outline permission prescribed the minimum and maximum ‘built envelope’ the proposed energy centre could occupy. This included a footprint of a maximum of 82m long x 42m wide, and a maximum height of 20m. The flue stack could be a maximum of 48m above ground level. 4.4 The detailed design of the proposed Energy Centre and the treatment of the retained western building were reserved by conditions. These conditions also ensure the proposal accords with other aspects of the approved Olympic masterplans. Detail in relation to the following conditions has been submitted to the ODA for approval:- Conditions OD4.1 (i) to (xviii) require the submission of plans and a range of supporting technical information (the full text is attached as Appendix 1). Condition OD 4.2 relates to the treatment of the retained Energy Centre building Condition OD 4.3 requires the provision of a visitors centre Condition OD 4.4 requires detail of, and restricts the amount of, parking provision Condition OD 4.5 requires loading and unloading from vehicles to take place within screened loading docks. 4.5 The proposed Energy Centre must also accord with requirements specified in the Olympic S106 agreement. A full list of the relevant conditions and S106 requirements is appended to this report. 4.6 These reserved matters have now been submitted for approval to the Olympic Delivery Authority and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets has been consulted as a neighbouring Authority. Detail of proposal 4.7 The submissions relate to the provision of an Energy Centre on an area of land known as Kings Yard located off Carpenters Road, E15. The Energy Centre comprises a Combined Cooling Heat and Powe r (CCHP) Plant, gas boilers and biomass boilers. The Energy Centre will supply heating to all developments and venues in the Olympic Park, heating to northern parts of the Stratford City development, cooling to the IBC/MPC and electricity to the grid.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NLWA Annual Report 2020/21
    Annual Report 2020-21 1. Background 1.1 The Annual Report for the Authority is produced each year for the Annual General Meeting (AGM) in June. The report uses waste tonnage data which is still subject to final validation by the national waste data system, WasteDataFlow, so may be subject to further minor changes. Because this data validation is not completed until September each year the Authority usually also produces its annual Waste Strategy Monitoring Report, which includes the validated numbers, in December each year. 1.2 NLWA’s largest ever project – the North London Heat and Power Project, (NLHPP) continued as a key focus throughout the year. The NLHPP is the Authority’s project to replace the existing energy-from-waste facility at the Edmonton EcoPark with a new energy-recovery-facility (ERF) and to provide associated new assets which support recycling. Other recycling and waste prevention activities to manage and reduce the volume of residual waste are set out in the Residual Waste Reduction Plan 2020-2022 and were also implemented during the year. The remaining activities to deliver the 2004-2020 North London Joint Waste Strategy were also delivered. All of the targets within the joint waste strategy have now been achieved, with the exception of reaching a recycling rate of 50%. NORTH LONDON WASTE AUTHORITY / ANNUAL REPORT 2020-2021 2 2. Highlights of 2020/21 2.1 It was a year of strong progress despite the COVID-19 pandemic. 2.2.2 In terms of the amount of local authority collected residua The pandemic disrupted operational services and the Authority’s l waste disposed of by the Authority, (both from households waste prevention work.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020-05-26 XR Rebuttal of NLWA Claims
    STATEMENT 26 MAY 2020 of Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Media contact: +44 7710 269195 Hackney, Haringey, Islington [email protected] & Waltham Forest, together with Extinction Rebellion London TIME TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT incineration The North London Waste Authority (NLWA) has responded to calls for a pause and review of its North London Heat and Power Project (NLHPP)—which includes plans to construct a new incinerator in Edmonton— with statements that include some questionable claims. These statements appear in a letter signed by NLWA chair Cllr Clyde Loakes and dated 21 April 2020, and in a Hackney Citizen article of 11 March 2020, which quotes Hackney Cllr Jon Burke.1 They reveal that the NLWA still is not taking recycling or climate breakdown seriously. In this document, Extinction Rebellion (XR) corrects the record with the intention of convincing North London councillors to pause and review the NLHPP so that the seven boroughs that constitute the NLWA may be free to pursue more sustainable waste management options and help London meet its circular economy policy objectives. The current incinerator is operational until 2027, so there is time for a rethink, as long as procurement and preparatory works are put on hold. This rebuttal is meant as a complement to a letter that XR sent to all North London councillors on 11 March 2020. That letter provides a thoroughly sourced rundown of the environmental, financial, and governance problems associated with the NLHPP, as well as details on proven alternatives to incineration. It is available at: https://stop-edmonton-incinerator.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/2020-03-11-XR-incinerator-letter.pdf.
    [Show full text]
  • Delivering Heat Networks Understanding the Challenge
    Delivering Heat Networks Understanding the challenge District heating networks are a key component These challenges and complexities are best of a future low carbon London. They will addressed by bringing together engineering, provide the means to capture and distribute planning, finance and regulatory expertise into heat from a diverse mix of primary as well as an integrated project delivery unit. secondary heat sources to serve homes and businesses. Development of district heating Arup’s multidisciplinary approach to district networks at scale across the capital over the heating project delivery underpins our work next ten years is therefore essential for London in London and across the UK. We support to meet the Mayor’s target of meeting 25% public and private sector clients from early of London’s energy needs from decentralised stage resource assessments and policy advice sources by 2025. through to scheme design, business case and procurement. We work closely with clients at Thanks to previous mayoral programmes such each stage to scope the opportunities, analyse as the London Heat Map and Decentralised the fundamentals and develop practicable Energy Masterplanning (DEMaP), the solutions for bankable projects. challenge today is no longer knowing where the opportunities lie; it is understanding how to deliver them in the face of multiple barriers, including: - long investment horizons; - limited windows of opportunity; - an opaque regulatory framework; - a stigma of poorly performing schemes in the past; and - limited experience among local authorities and developers. 2 Understanding the challenge Delivering solutions The unique working philosophy at Arup – Through our global knowledge management founded on flexibility, transparency and systems, we are able to harness ideas and ability to deliver – is ideally suited to practical experience from projects worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Delivery Plan Review (October 2018)
    Infrastructure Delivery Plan Review (October 2018) Contents Glossary 2 1. Introduction 1.1. Introduction 3 1.2. Context and Aims 3 1.3. Approach 3 1.4. Report Structure 4 2. Anticipated Growth in the Legacy Corporation Area 2.1. Introduction 5 2.2. Population and Economy 5 3. Social Infrastructure 3.1. Introduction 7 3.2. Primary and Secondary Education 7 3.3. Early Years 13 3.4. Primary Healthcare 15 3.5. Sports and leisure, open space and play space 17 3.6. Other community facilities 21 4. Transport 4.1. Transport 31 5. Utilities and Hard Infrastructure 5.1. Introduction 47 5.2. Energy 47 5.3. Waste Management 51 5.4. Sewage 53 5.5. Water 55 5.6. Flood Risk 57 6. Infrastructure Requirements and Funding 62 Appendix 1 – Draft IDP Long List of Projects 1 Glossary Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) – The Community Infrastructure Levy is a levy on development that local authorities in England and Wales may put in place to help deliver infrastructure to support the development of their area. Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) – Identifies the existing social, transport and utilities infrastructure within the Legacy Corporation area over the period 2014 to 2031. It is based on publicly available information and consultation with the four boroughs and infrastructure providers. Legacy Corporation’s Legacy Communities Scheme (LCS) – The Legacy Communities Scheme sought permission for the long-term development of five new neighbourhoods within the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. Planning Application Reference: 11/90621/OUTODA 2 1. Introduction 1.1. Introduction The Legacy Corporation adopted both their Local Plan and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule in 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • London Borough of Haringey
    London Borough of Haringey Community Infrastructure Study March 2010 CONTENTS SECTIONS PAGE Introduction – Why we need a community infrastructure study 3 Housing and Population Growth in Haringey 9 Health 12 Education 27 Social Care 44 Libraries and Museum 51 Open Space 56 Leisure Facilities 69 Emergency Services 75 Transport 83 Waste Management 98 Water Supply and Waste Water 102 Energy 105 Telecommunications 110 Community Facilities 111 Appendix 1 Cost Assumptions 114 Appendix 2 Key Infrastructure Projects 117 2 INTRODUCTION: WHY WE NEED A COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY The London Borough of Haringey 1.1 The London Borough of Haringey (hereafter referred to as Haringey) covers an area of 11.5 square miles. It is situated in north central London. Haringey is considered to be an outer London borough. However, its proximity and public transport access to Central London and its socio-economic make-up mean that it shares many characteristics with inner London boroughs. Haringey is strategically located in the London-Stansted- Cambridge-Peterborough Growth Area, and is therefore a focus for new housing growth by central government and the Greater London Authority. With strong links to the City, West End, the Upper Lee Valley and Stansted Airport the borough is very well placed as a business location and as a base for out-commuting. 1.2 Haringey is currently preparing its Local Development Framework Core Strategy – A New Plan for Haringey. This will guide growth in the Borough for the London Plan period to 2016 and beyond to 2026. Haringey has a target of 6,800 new homes for the period between 2006 and 2016/17.
    [Show full text]
  • Edmonton Ecopark
    LondonEnergy Ltd LondonEnergy, Temporary Bulky Waste Recycling Facility (TBWRF), Edmonton EcoPark Environmental Permit Application Site Condition Report Wood Group UK Limited – November 2020 2 © Wood Group UK Limited Report for Copyright and non-disclosure notice Tom Bateson The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright Sustainability and Environment Manager owned by Wood (© Wood Group UK Limited 2020) save to the London Energy Limited extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to EcoPark another party or is used by Wood under licence. To the extent Advent Way that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied Edmonton or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose London other than the purpose indicated in this report. The N18 3AG methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Wood. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable Main contributors breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our Lynne Gemmell commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below. Issued by Third party disclaimer ................................................................................. Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this Lynne Gemmell disclaimer. The report was prepared by Wood at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means.
    [Show full text]
  • Ltd 8 Floor 210 Pentonville Road London N1 9JY Our
    Joanne Demetrius Our Ref: APP/M1900/V/13/2192045 Veolia ES (UK) Ltd 8th Floor 210 Pentonville Road 16 July 2015 London N1 9JY Dear Madam TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (SECTION 77) APPLICATION BY VEOLIA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RECYCLING AND ENERGY RECOVERY FACILITY – LAND AT NEW BARNFIELD, HATFIELD APPLICATION REF: 6/2570-11 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, David Richards BSocSci Dip TP MRTPI, who held an inquiry on dates between 10 September and 25 October 2013 in relation to your application under Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the demolition of existing library buildings and construction and operation of a Recycling and Energy Recovery Facility (RERF) for the treatment of Municipal, Commercial and Industrial Wastes together with ancillary infrastructure, including bulking/transfer facilities, administration/visitor centre, landscaping, habitat creation, drainage and highway improvement works (application ref 6/2570-11 dated 16 November 2011). 2. On 28 January 2013, the Secretary of State directed, in pursuance of Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that your application be referred to him instead of being dealt with by the waste planning authority, Hertfordshire County Council (HCC), because the proposal involved matters giving rise to substantial cross boundary or national controversy. 3. The Secretary of State issued his decision in respect of the above application in his letter dated 7 July 2014. That decision letter was the subject of an application to the High Court and was subsequently quashed by order of the Court dated 22 January 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternatives Assessment Report
    NORTH LONDON WASTE AUTHORITY NORTH LONDON HEAT AND POWER PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT REPORT The Planning Act 2008 The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 Regulation 5 (2) (q) AD05.03 NLWA Revision 0 October 2015 North London Waste Authority North London Heat and Power Project Alternative Assessment Report Contents Page Executive summary 1 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Introduction 3 1.2 Purpose of this Report 3 1.3 Structure of this Report 3 1.4 The Applicant 4 1.5 The Application Site 4 1.6 Surrounding area 5 1.7 The Project 6 1.8 Stages of development 6 2 Legislative and Policy Requirements 8 2.1 Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (NPS EN-1) 8 2.2 National Policy Statement of Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) 9 3 Strategic development of the Project 10 3.1 Relevant history of the Application and Edmonton EcoPark 10 3.2 Procurement strategy – further detail 12 4 Summary and conclusions of assessments 13 4.1 Introduction 13 4.2 Approach to technology assessment 13 4.3 Technology options 14 4.4 Technology conclusion 15 4.5 Approach to site assessment 16 4.6 Site criteria for the Project 16 4.7 Site conclusions 17 4.8 The Temporary Laydown Area 18 4.9 Edmonton Sea Cadets 19 4.10 The Project 21 AD05.03 | Issue | October 2015 | NLWA North London Waste Authority North London Heat and Power Project Alternative Assessment Report Appendices Appendix A : Chronology of assessments A.1 Appendix B : Review of thermal treatment options B.1 Appendix C : Design of plant: number of plant
    [Show full text]
  • Waste Management Evidence Base, 2016
    LBTH Waste Management Evidence Base, 2016 Executive summary Introduction The London Borough of Tower Hamlets (LBTH), as unitary waste authority and waste planning authority, commissioned BPP Consulting LLP, working with Land Use Consultants and Reconsult, to assist in the preparation of the evidence base supporting the development of waste policies. These policies are to be included in the revised Local Plan for the Borough which is to cover a 15 year period. The study extends to 2036 to reflect the time period of the London Plan (2015). Context The need for revised policies has been driven by a number of developments as follows: the introduction of revised national planning policy for waste National Waste Planning Policy (NPPW); the adoption of Further Alterations to the London Plan which amongst other matters reduced the Borough apportionments and brought forward the dates by which landfilling of recyclable and biodegradable waste is to cease and London is to achieve net self sufficiency as a whole (London Plan policy 5.16 and 5.17); and the changing character of the Borough. Policies once adopted will form part of the development plan for the Borough, against which proposals for additional waste management capacity, and proposals affecting existing waste management sites, will be considered and determined. Scene Setting Tower Hamlets is a London Borough with a total area of 7.63 sq mi (19.77 km2). An area of the Borough falls under the aegis of the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC). While LBTH remains the responsible authority when planning for provision of the management of waste arising from this area, LLDC is the plan making and determining body for waste related planning applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Edmonton Ecopark Planning Brief SPD Enfield Council
    www.enfield.gov.uk/ecopark Draft Edmonton EcoPark Planning Brief SPD Enfield Council Contents Chapters 1 Introduction 3 1.1 What is the purpose of this Planning Brief? 3 1.2 The challenge ahead 5 1.3 The future role of the EcoPark 6 1.4 Environmental Regulations and Assessment 8 1.5 Policy and Regulatory Context 9 1.6 Structure of the document 13 2 Vision 15 2.1 Objectives 15 3 Identifying Site Opportunities and Constraints 17 3.1 Land ownership 17 3.2 Existing uses 17 3.3 Location 21 3.4 Adjacent land uses 25 3.5 Wider regeneration context 27 3.6 Existing site conditions 28 3.7 Summary of site analysis 38 4 Principles for future development of the EcoPark 41 4.1 Drivers of change 41 4.2 Development response 44 5 Implementation 61 5.1 Phasing and construction 61 5.2 Matters to be addressed by a planning application 61 5.3 Planning Obligations 62 Appendices Appendix A References 65 Appendix B Potential Waste Treatment Facilities 67 Enfield Council Draft Edmonton EcoPark Planning Brief SPD Contents ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f a e f b g e h _ ^ i h j _ f f k f l m ^ k n ` o h ] b f ` k n j c p e q f g k j [ ¡ ¥ O N ¤ O ¢ ¦ P § ¤ ¥ £ L ¢ B § ¢ P ¥ B ¦ L ¥ N ¢ ¢ ¤ ¡ ¥ N £ ¢ L r ¢ § ¤ ¥ £ ¦ ¥ ¦ ¤ ¡ s K C C ¢ ¤ ¡ § L ¢ Y ¦ ¥ A ¡ ¢ § t ¥ ¥ £ ¦ ¥ £ ¢ ¦ ¥ ¤ ¥ ¤ ¡ ¥ A ¤ ¦ ¥ ¥ M ¥ L £ N ¥ ¤ A ¤ ¡ ¥ § ¤ ¥ u K C C [ ¡ ¥ Y ¦ ¥ A § ¥ ¤ § ¤ ¤ ¡ ¥ £ £ ¦ ¤ ¤ ¥ § ¢ § ¤ ¦ ¢ ¤ § A ¦ ¤ ¡ ¥ ¥ M ¥ L £ N ¥ ¤ A ¥ r r ¢ § ¤ ¥ N ¢ ¢ ¥ N ¥ ¤ ¢ ' C ¤ ¡ ¥ ¦ A ¢ L ¤ ¥ § ¤ ¡ ¥ § ¤ ¥ v ¢ § ¥ ¤ § ¤ ¤ ¡ ¥ £ ¦ £ L ¥ § r ¡ ¡ ¤ ¡ ¥ § ¥ § ¡ L A
    [Show full text]
  • Cory Riverside Energy: a Carbon Case’, the Carbon Footprint
    Riverside Energy Park Consultation Report Appendices APPENDIX: PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE NUMBER: EN010093 DOCUMENT REFERENCE: J SUMMARY OF RELEVANT RESPONSES November 2018 Revision 0 APFP Regulation 5(2)(q) Planning Act 2008 | Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 Consultation Report Appendices Riverside Energy Park Contents J.1 Non-Statutory Consultation Comments and Applicant’s Response J.2 Section 42 Statutory Consultation Comments and Applicant’s Response (June- July 2018) J.3 Minor Refinements Consultation Comments and Applicant’s Response (July- September 2018) J.4 Section 47 and Section 48 Statutory Consultation Comments and Applicant's Response (June-July 2018) J.5 Technical notes issued to Greater London Authority Consultation Report Appendices Riverside Energy Park Appendix J.1 Non-Statutory Consultation Comments and Applicant’s Response Riverside Energy Park: Consultation Report Appendix J.1 – Non-Statutory Consultation Responses and Applicant’s Comments Non-statutory Consultation with the Local Community The tables below sets out relevant responses received from the local community during the Non-Statutory Consultation in May 2018 (see Section 3 of the Consultation Report). Table 1 provides relevant responses received in response to the Comments Form (see Appendix D.4 of the Consultation Report) made available on the Riverside Energy Park website and at the non-statutory public exhibitions held in May 2018. In order to retain the context of the responses received, they are grouped in Table 1 under the Comments Form question they were provided in response to. Table 2 below provides a relevant response received in response to the Non-Statutory Consultation in May 2018 which was emailed to the Applicant instead of using the Comments Form.
    [Show full text]
  • North London Waste Plan July 2015
    North London Waste Plan July 2015 Contents FOREWORD .............................................................................................................. 4 1. Introduction and Background ............................................................................. 5 2. Setting the Scene ............................................................................................ 15 3. Aims and Objectives ........................................................................................ 23 4. Spatial Strategy ............................................................................................... 26 5. Current waste management in North London .................................................. 33 6. Future Waste Management Requirements ...................................................... 45 7. Provision for North London’s Waste to 2032 .................................................... 52 8. Sites and Areas ............................................................................................... 57 9. Policies ............................................................................................................ 65 10. Monitoring and Implementation ........................................................................ 82 Appendix 1: Schedule 1: Existing safeguarded waste sites in North London ........... 91 Appendix 2: Individual site/area profiles ......................Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix 3: Replacement policies and changes to proposal mapsError! Bookmark not defined. Appendix 4:
    [Show full text]