Kate Willshaw Sent: 20 August 2010 17:04 To: Trueman, Kerry Subject: RE: MWDF Site Allocation Eip

file:////CCC-PRDC-FP05/Kendal/Filing/planning/policy/p0334-022%2...100820%20from%20Lakeland%20Minerals%20and%20D%20A%20Harrison.htm From: Trueman, Kerry Sent: 23 August 2010 15:46 To: Brett, Sue A Subject: FW: second of 2 emails from Stephenson Halliday further rep - Main Matter 5 Sub Matter2 representor No 64

Importance: High

From: Peter Sent: 20 August 2010 23:48 To: Trueman, Kerry Cc: Nick Subject: FW: CUMBRIA MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK SITE ALLOCATIONS POLICIES AND PROPOSALS MAP - Main Matter 5 Sub Matter2 representor No 64 Importance: High

Dear Kerry,

Thank you for considering my request for an extension of time to submit the above representation. The reason for the time extension was that I am currently involved in the throes of moving house and the last two days my dog has become very ill, necessitating my wife and I having to make the decision to put her to sleep today. As your email of today did not confirm that an extension of time would be allowed I have decided that it will be necessary to get something to you before 12.00 on 20 August, so please find attached the representation. Due to the time constraint I have not been able to produce the quality I would normally aim for but the essence of the case is provided. So this email is being sent at 11.45 (23.45) on the 20 August

Please find attached a further representation made in respect of the Cumbria Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework: Site Allocations Development Plan Document. This submission is made on behalf of Lakeland Minerals (Kirkhouse quarry) and D A Harrison (Goodyhills site) and is made in relation to the decision of Cumbria County Council not to allocate an area for the extension of the Kirkhouse site or an area of search at the Goodyhills site.

I trust that this representation can be considered duly made.

Kind regards

Peter

Peter Stephenson Director Stephenson Halliday Ltd

file:////CCC-PRDC-FP05/Kendal/Filing/planning/policy/p0...from%20Lakeland%20Minerals%20and%20D%20A%20Harrison.htm [30/09/2010 12:37:50] CUMBRIA MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

SITE ALLOCATIONS POLICIES AND PROPOSALS MAP

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF LAKELAND MINERALS LTD IN RESPECT OF

KIRKHOUSE SAND QUARRY AND D A HARRISON IN RESPECT OF GOODYHILLS SAND AND

GRAVEL SITE.

Main Matter 5: Sub Matter 2 Representor: 64

BACKGROUND

This Statement is being submitted under reference 64 which includes both Lakeland

Minerals Ltd (Kirkhouse quarry) and D A Harrison (Goodyhills site).

In respect of the various representations made for Lakeland Minerals Ltd for Kirkhouse quarry I do not wish to reiterate the full content of the representations but would like to make certain that all the points made in my letters to Mr Evans dated 3 February

2010, 9 October 2009, 2 April 2007 and 10 August 2006 references

CMWDF/Kirkhouse/PAS, are all fully taken into account.

Similarly in respect of the various representations made for D A Harrison for the

Goodyhills site I do not wish to reiterate the full content of the representations but would like to make certain that all the points made in my letter to Mr Evans dated 3

February 2010, 9 October 2009, 3 April 2007 and 24 August 2006 references

CMWDF/Goodyhills/PAS are all fully taken into account.

SOUNDNESS APPRAISAL

The examination of Development Plan Documents (DPD) seeks to establish whether the

DPD submitted:

A) meets the legal requirements relating to the preparation of DPD’s; and

B) is sound.

1 The test of soundness is explained in PPS 12 and requires that Core Strategies and

Other DPD’s are required to be;

• Justified;

• Effective; and

• Consistent with National Policy.

The process of preparing a Local Development Framework starts with the Core

Strategy. It is the Core Strategy that establishes the key issues and options for the future development of an area and identifies strategic locations for development. The remaining Development Plan Documents flow from the principles established during the preparation for the Core Strategy. The Site Allocations DPS identifies specific sites and areas for development to deliver the principles established by the Core Strategy.

With regard to the Core Stategy paragraph 10.4 confirms that for sand and gravel preferred areas and areas of search will be identified to maintain a landbank of at least

7 years through out the plan period.

Paragraph 10.13 confirms that with regard to "landbanks", the long standing policy of the County Council has been to maintain a landbank of at seven years for sand and gravel. National policy, as stated in Annex 1 of Minerals Policy Statement 1, is that the landbank indicators, of when new permissions are likely to be needed, are at least seven years for sand and gravel. It also states that separate landbank calculations may be appropriate where there are distinct and separate markets for high specification roadstone, asphalting, building or concreting sands. However the County Council has stated that it is not convinced that there is a need to provide longer landbanks for these markets and that no evidence has been provided relating to any specialist sands.

Paragraph 10.18 states that the sand and gravel reserves at the end of 2005 represented a landbank of just over 13 years at the apportionment level or 11.5 years 2 at recent sales levels. Using the sub-regional apportionment figures and the recent sales figures a seven year landbank for Cumbria would be between 4.9 and 5.6 million tonnes. The County Council has resolved to grant permission for an additional 1.5 million tonnes at High House quarry and 4.5 million tones at Overby quarry. Even with these, the landbank will fall below seven years within the plan period and all of the existing sand and gravel planning permissions will expire well within the period.

Additional planning permissions will be needed to maintain supplies. This may be achieved by extending the life of existing permissions, but is also likely to require new reserves to be released.

Core Strategy Policy 13 confirms that provision will be made to take account of

Cumbria's pattern of quarries and the areas they supply, and its dispersed settlement pattern and transport routes; to identify areas sufficient to maintain landbanks of permitted reserves for supply areas equivalent to at least seven years sales (using the rolling three-year annual average sales figure) for sand and gravel throughout the plan period.

To summarise the foregoing provisions of the Core Strategy in respect of the supply of sand and gravel, it is acknowledged that even with the latest planning permissions at

High House and Overby quarries, the landbank will fall below seven years within the plan period and there will be the need for additional planning permissions. Reference is made to Annex 1 of MPS 1 where it states that separate landbank calculations may be appropriate where there are distinct and separate markets for high specification roadstone, asphalting, building or concreting sands. However the County Council states that it is not convinced that there is a need to provide longer landbanks for these markets and that no evidence has been provided relating to any specialist sands.

Referring to the MWDF Submission Site Allocations Pre-submission Consultations

Statement April 2010, our Regulation 27 Representation stated that it was 3 acknowledged that the latest planning permission at M11 Kirkhouse Quarry will extend its life to 2021, but before that date, it will be necessary to consider an extension, in order to secure reserves for this site and to maintain the minimum 7-year landbank in the county. The County Council’s response was, “With the number of recent planning permissions, for around 7 million tonnes of sand and gravel, it seems unlikely that the landbank will drop below seven years within the plan period”.

With reference to our Regulation 27 Representation in respect of the Goodyhills site we stated that whilst acknowledging that there is a good landbank in the area, M32

Goodyhills should be an Area of Search for the longer term, because of the known high quality of the deposit – there is likely to be a significant demand for this quality of concreting sand, given the proposals for new nuclear build which will occur within this

MWDF timeframe. The County Council’s response was, “An Area of Search between

High House and Overby quarries is identified, but considered unlikely to be needed within this plan period. Another Area of Search has not been included”.

The decision not to include Kirkhouse as an Area of Search is considered unsound principally because there is a complete conflict with the provisions of the Core Strategy which clearly states as described above, “additional planning permissions will be needed to maintain supplies”, and the statement in MWDF Submission Site Allocations

Pre-submission Consultations Statement April 2010, which states, “it seems unlikely that the landbank will drop below seven years within the plan period”.

In respect of the request for the allocation of an extension at Kirkhouse and allocating

Goodyhills as an area of search, a principal reason was the consideration of quality, as well as ensuring the longer term supply. At Kirkhouse the sand is processed not only for a variety of fine aggregates but for specialist sands and composts for particular uses for sports pitches, etc. With regard to Goodyhills the sand deposit here is a geologically coarser sand and gravel which is well suited to be processed into a

4 concrete sand. Geological investigation over the years has confirmed this and due to its location in the overall sand resource it is coarser than the various sites currently working the same resource.

With regard to this issue of quality the County Council has stated that it is not convinced that there is a need to provide longer landbanks for these markets and that no evidence has been provided relating to any specialist sands. The county council has no sound basis for making such a statement; in respect of Goodyhills, geological and quality evidence is available and has been mentioned in letters of representation. With regard to Kirkhouse it is an acknowledged fact that this site does produce specialist sands and composts.

With regard to the question of both quality and the need to maintain a landbank throughout the plan period, the writer (Peter Stephenson) has considerable personal knowledge of the situation in Cumbria from both a geological position of expertise and as a minerals planner, having worked variously as a principal minerals officer and group leader of the minerals and waste section of Cumbria County Council from 1978 to 1990 and since than as a consultant working for most of the mineral operators in

Cumbria from 1990 to the present. In terms of the quality issue there is absolutely no doubt that certain deposits are much better able to produce a concreting sand than others because of the inherent geological nature of the deposit, principally the deposit comprises a coarser grained sand and gravel. In terms of ensuring adequate supplies, the writer can go back to 1978 and list a comprehensive range of sand and gravel quarries and large reserves, which have been worked our and restored over this period.

Finally in respect of the soundness of the non-allocation of these two sites we have requested over the period of consultation to have specific discussions with relevant officers but the request for personal discussions has never been accepted. In this respect it is considered that the process of rejection of sites for allocation without full 5 consultation with the site owner and representative, the DPD is unsound in that full consultation has not been carried out with an interested party.

STEPHENSON HALLIDAY LTD

CMWDF/GOODYHILLS/KIRKHOUSE/20/08/2010

file:////CCC-PRDC-FP05/Kendal/Filing/planning/policy/p0334-022%2...epresentations/66%20-%20email%20100820%20from%20L&W%20Wilson.htm From: Trueman, Kerry Sent: 23 August 2010 15:44 To: Brett, Sue A Subject: first of 2 emails from Stephenson Halliday further commetns - Main Matter 5 Sub Matter7 representor No 66

Importance: High

From: Nick Sent: 20 August 2010 16:49 To: Trueman, Kerry Cc: Peter Subject: CUMBRIA MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK SITE ALLOCATIONS POLICIES AND PROPOSALS MAP - Main Matter 5 Sub Matter7 representor No 66 Importance: High

Dear Kerry,

Please find attached a further representation made in respect of the Cumbria Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework: Site Allocations Development Plan Document. This submission is made on behalf of L & W Wilson (Representor 66) and is made in relation to the decision of Cumbria County Council not to allocate an area for the extension of their site at Roan Edge (Main Matter 5 Sub Matter 7).

I trust that this representation can be considered duly made.

Kind regards

Nick Edwards Principal Planner Stephenson Halliday Ltd

file:////CCC-PRDC-FP05/Kendal/Filing/planning/policy/p...ions/66%20-%20email%20100820%20from%20L&W%20Wilson.htm [30/09/2010 12:39:11] CUMBRIA MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

SITE ALLOCATIONS POLICIES AND PROPOSALS MAP

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF L&W WILSON (ENDMOOR) LTD,

ROAN EDGE LANDFILL AND RECYCLING SITE.

Main Matter 5: Sub Matter 7 Representor: 66

BACKGROUND

On 13 March 2009 I wrote to Mr Evans requesting the inclusion of an extension to the

Roan Edge site in the Site Allocation process. In my letter I set out the justification to secure the availability of the site and the related facilities in the longer term.

The site was not included as a Preferred Area or an Area of Search in the draft Site

Allocations Policies when we were consulted on 17 September 2009, because,

“It is a very prominent site and it would be difficult to screen further development“.

I wrote again to Mr Evans on 9 October 2009, reference CMWDF/Roan/PAS asking that the inclusion of the proposed site as an area of search be further considered and that I would welcome further discussion. In respect of the further discussion I did have a telephone discussion with Mr Evans, the outcome of which was that there was no opportunity to change the status of the site, but there would be a final round of consultation when I would be able to make a further representation.

On 1 February 2010, I wrote a further letter to Mr Evans following his letter, dated 11

December, inviting comments on the final stage of statutory consultations. In this final letter I reiterated and expanded on a number of matters which I outline below:

Visual prominence of the site: Over a period of some 12 months to July 2009 the operations were visually prominent whilst certain engineering works were ongoing. 1 However at a meeting on 24 September 2009 with David Hughes (CCC monitoring and enforcement officer) and representatives of the Parish Council the matter was discussed. At the time of the meeting the various restoration and screening works were well underway and the reaction at the aforementioned meeting was very positive.

At the time of preparing this Statement the restoration and improvement works have now largely been completed and the visual effect of the site is now much improved.

As a matter of principle a potential site should not have been excluded from the Site

Allocation Document on a particular amenity aspect, which is more properly considered and assessed in detail during the preparation of a planning application. It was apparent that the site had been excluded solely because of its visual prominence.

In Mr Evans’s letter of 11 December 2009 he claimed that experience over several years demonstrated difficulties in achieving an environmentally acceptable development in this sensitive area; hence it would not be appropriate to identify the land as a preferred area. I pointed out that Cumbria County Council granted planning permission at Roan Edge under reference 5/06/9008 for an extension of time and variation to the scheme and there was little, if any, opposition.

I strongly believe as a point of principle that the question of visual prominence should be a matter for detailed examination of a specific proposal related to a planning application, as there are ways in which the visual effect of any proposal can be mitigated by screening or operational working methods. As with any complex proposal it would need be subject to detailed design and appraisal, not simply dismissed or for that matter approved on a matter of opinion or cursory examination without a thorough landscape and visual appraisal. I fully accept and appreciate that the visual effect would be an important consideration and suggested in my 1 February 2010 letter that an option would be to include the area as a preferred area / area of search but qualified with the phrase, “… subject to an acceptable scheme which provides

2 satisfactory measures to mitigate any significantly adverse landscape and visual effects”.

Provision of inert landfill and recycling site: It is important that such a facility is provided in South Cumbria and as I have pointed out in all my letters of representation,

Roan Edge is the only available inert licensed site in South Lakeland, the nearest alternatives being Barrow, Penrith and then into Lancashire. The site is very important to L&W Wilson, as they are the main contractors in South Cumbria dealing with construction, demolition and engineering waste. Therefore it is essential that the company has its own facility to dispose of, treat and recycle the different types of waste arising from development sites in the area.

Attributes of the site: In all respects it is a good site, it has good access, there are no nearby residents so there is no loss of residential amenity etc and there is the unquestionable need for such a facility. The activities at the site, in terms of the recycling of inert materials, are completely in accord with Government, policy and the

Core Strategy in making an important contribution to recycling and the reduction of waste. I believe that the site should not be excluded as an Area of Search/ Preferred

Area for reasons of visual prominence at this stage.

Consultation Process: In respect of the consultation procedure that was adopted by

CCC, both my client and myself must express our concerns that despite requests being made to have specific discussions, they were not taken on board. The County Council has been through a consultation procedure, but at no time has there been the opportunity for face-to- face discussion between Mr Evans, my client and I, despite specific requests being made.

I will conclude by reiterating that the site is of strategic importance in providing a facility for the recycling, treatment and disposal of inert landfill which is well located in 3 all respects and on behalf of L&W Wilson I would ask that you reconsider the inclusion of the proposed site as an Area of Search / Preferred Area and we would request further discussion with you.

SOUNDNESS APPRAISAL

The examination of Development Plan Documents (DPD) seeks to establish whether the

DPD submitted:

A) meets the legal requirements relating to the preparation of DPD’s; and

B) is sound.

The test of soundness is explained in PPS 12 and requires that Core Strategies and

Other DPD’s are required to be;

• Justified;

• Effective; and

• Consistent with National Policy.

The process of preparing a Local Development Framework starts with the Core

In the case of the Cumbria Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, there are a number of

Core Strategy Policies and provisions which, inter alia,;

• aim to deliver the overall strategy;

• identify strategic locations for new development;

• set out the waste strategy; and

• aim to deliver the waste strategy. 4 It is clear that the theme of sustainability underpins the document and is reflected in these policies and provisions. To highlight some of these:

• Core Strategy Policy 1 is concerned with sustainable locations and design and

amongst its requirements is a that the location of development should minimize

minerals and waste miles;

• The strategy recognizes that additional landfill capacity is required and at Policy

7 indicates that existing landfill sites should be the first to be considered for

additional landfill capacity, and that the priority is for the release of landfill

capacity in the south of the County;

• The waste strategy at Box 1 envisages that by 2020 that the required waste

management facilities will have been provided in the right locations at the right

time, waste will be managed as close as possible to its point of arising and in

accordance with the waste hierarchy;

• Core strategy policy 8 indicates that provision will be made for the management

of all of Cumbria’s wastes within the county, with the acceptance of limited

cross boundary movements, and to achieve this at paragraph 7.22 it is

recognised that this will require an integrated and adequate network of

facilities.

The core strategy goes on to identify the waste facilities required to provide an integrated and adequate network of facilities, but is silent on the need for facilities to manage inert wastes.

In the absence of a strategic overview on the need for and preferred locations for sites to manage inert wastes, we turn to the generic development control policies to provide guidance on the policy considerations, which could apply on a site-specific basis.

Within this document there is the expected raft of policy considerations to guide development proposals and inform their design to minimise their impacts. These include: 5 • Traffic and transport – Policy DC1;

• Noise and air quality – Policy DC2;

• Biodiversity and geodiversity - Policy DC10

• Historic Environment – DC11;

• Landscape – DC12;

• Flood Risk - DC13;

• The water environment - DC14;

• Soil resources – DC15.

Policy DC4 specifically refers to proposals for recycling facilities for construction and demolition wastes and indicates that they would be permitted at active quarries sand landfill sites. Policy DC5 refers to proposals for new or extended inert landfill sites and the test applied is that they should not undermine the amount of material for agreed restoration schemes at mineral workings.

Given that it will be essential for the policy documents to be consistent, it could be expected that if a proposal for a site allocation is both in accordance with the core strategy and meets the policy tests set out in the Generic Development Control Policies

DPD, then that allocation should be taken up within the Site Allocations Document.

This surely is what ‘deliverable’ means?

In respect of the allocation of the extension of Roan Edge, the council’s own scoring matrix (Regulation 25 consultation September 2009, Site Assessments and Maps South

Lakeland) assessed the proposed allocation against the site selection criteria for waste management facilities set out at table 7.1 of the Core Strategy. That assessment found that the proposed allocation:

• Is located close to waste arisings;

• Has very good access to the primary road network;

• Does not have flood risk issues; 6 • Would not conflict with other land uses;

• Has no residential properties within 250 metres;

• Has no impact on European/National sites species or habitats;

• Is unlikely to impact on nationally designated landscape areas; and

• Would safeguard jobs.

A copy of the matrix is attached for information.

The reason why the site was not allocated was given as its visual prominence and the difficulties in containing the visual impact of existing operations.

The Council’s exclusion of the Roan Edge site on this basis was queried given the site is of strategic importance in providing a facility for the recycling, treatment and disposal of inert waste. The Council’s response was as follows:

“The importance of this site to the operator is not disputed, it is well located

next to M6 junction 37 and its visual and landscape impacts have recently been

mitigated. However it has proved difficult to develop the site in an

environmentally acceptable way and it is difficult to see how an extension could

be developed satisfactorily in this sensitive location. A recently approved

extension required a void to be excavated”.

From this statement it would appear that the Council accepts that in every respect, except that of visual prominence, the allocation of the site would be sound.

It is accepted that the development of the proposal site would result in some visual change. The method of assessing the impact of that change is to examine the magnitude of change and factor the sensitivity of the receptors as indicated in the following matrix:

7 Magnitude of Change

Substantial Moderate Slight Negligible Major/ Moderate / High Major Moderate Moderate Minor Mediu Major/ Moderate / Moderate Minor m Moderate Minor Moderate/ Minor/ Low Moderate Minor Landscape and Visual Landscape and Sensitivity Minor negligible

In this instance the principal receptors are the users of the roads passing the site, there are no properties that have a view of the site. These receptors would be viewed as having a medium sensitivity to change. As regards an extension to the site, there is a range of measures that could be employed to mitigate the potential visibility of the site, including the preparation of sensitively design scheme of working; adopting progressive restoration; construction of screening features etc. Adopting these measures could limit the magnitude of change to moderate. In such circumstances the overall visual impact would be assessed as moderate.

Determining planning applications is a balance between the benefits or need for a proposal and its effects. The council’s decision not to allocate this site suggests a view that it would consider the visual impact of the development of the proposal site would outweigh the need for the facilities that would be provided. Paragraph 6.8 of the core strategy explains that the construction industry is the largest source of waste arisings in England. The latest detailed figures from the Environment Agency’s waste returns for 2004/5 showed that 315,876 tonnes of inert construction and demolition wastes were managed in Cumbria, of which 227,741 (72%) were landfilled. Whilst more up to date figures are not yet available, the conclusion is that there is an unquestionable need for facilities to manage inert waste and there is a shortfall of such sites. In terms of the provision for the management of inert wastes within Cumbria it is apparent that this has not been adequately considered in terms of allocating sites.

8 In carrying out the balancing exercise therefore there is agreement between all parties that in all matters except visual impact that the site is acceptable. The representors view is that a sensitively designed scheme could minimise the magnitude of visual change, which would be interpreted by receptors of medium sensitivity. In contrast, the need for facilities to manage waste in a sustainable manner and dispose of residual wastes in a sustainable location are beyond question.

The site and its recycling facilities well located at Roan Edge is entirely in accord with government policy in respect of the waste hierarchy and in line with the overall strategy of the Core Strategy reference Box 2 Objectives 1, 2, 3 and 9. It is also in accordance with Core Strategy policy 1 in terms of the site’s sustainable location and design and the overall Waste Strategy to manage waste near to where it is produced.

The acknowledged aim of the Core Strategy is set out in paragraph 2.7, where it clearly states that the plan has to identify what waste management facilities Cumbria will need by 2020 and indicate appropriate locations for them. In the light of the refusal to allocate an acceptable suitable site to help deliver the aims of the Core Strategy it is considered that the DPD is unsound.

Moreover, as referred to above it is considered that the process of rejection without full consultation with the site owner and representative, the DPD is unsound in that full consultation has not been carried out with an interested party.

9 file:////CCC-PRDC-FP05/Kendal/Filing/planning/policy/p0334-022%20s...esentations/73%20-%20email%20100817%20from%20Natural%20England.htm From: Trueman, Kerry Sent: 23 August 2010 16:19 To: Brett, Sue A Subject: Nat eng comment - no comment!: 73b/ Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework: Site Allocations Policies

From: Baker, Thomas (NE) Sent: 17 August 2010 16:07 To: Trueman, Kerry Subject: RE: 73b/ Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework: Site Allocations Policies

Hello Kerry,

I can confirm that Natural England, in line with our comments made in 100623 (attached), have no further comments to make and do not wish to attend the hearings. Thanks for your help.

Kind regards,

Tom Baker

file:////CCC-PRDC-FP05/Kendal/Filing/planning/policy/p0.../73%20-%20email%20100817%20from%20Natural%20England.htm [30/09/2010 12:40:00]

file:////CCC-PRDC-FP05/Kendal/Filing/planning/policy/p0334-022%20submission%20draft%20s...earing%20representations/94%20-%20email%20100820%20from%20Cumbria%20Wildlfe%20Trust.txt

From: Trueman, Kerry Sent: 23 August 2010 15:43 To: Brett, Sue A Subject: Cumbria Wildlfe further rep

-----Original Message----- From: Kate Willshaw Sent: 20 August 2010 17:04 To: Trueman, Kerry Subject: RE: MWDF Site Allocation EiP

Dear Kerry

Please find attached a letter with additional information regarding Site AL34 which is to be discussed at Session 2. I would be grateful if you could pass it on to the Inspector.

I will send three paper copies out ASAP.

Best wishes,

Kate

-----Original Message----- From: Trueman, Kerry [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 20 August 2010 12:29 To: Kate Willshaw Subject: RE: MWDF Site Allocation EiP Importance: High

Dear Kate

Thank you for your email I will update the timetable to reflect the information you have provided.

With regards to the additional information regarding site AL34, the Inspector advises that it is for you to decide whether he needs to see it to determine the issue of soundness. If any is to be supplied it must be sent today via email, appropriately referenced with 3 paper copies sent first class.

If you need any further information please let me know.

Regards

Kerry

-----Original Message----- From: Kate Willshaw Sent: 20 August 2010 09:56 To: Trueman, Kerry Subject: MWDF Site Allocation EiP

Dear Kerry

Apologies for the late reply, I am just letting you know that due to a prior commitment I will not be able to attend Session 2 (looking at Main Matter 2, Sub matter 2) on 28th September, but I will be able to attend Session 8 (Main Matter 2, Sub Matter 4) on 12th October.

If it is helpful for the Inspector, I could provide some additional information regarding site AL34 prior to the session that I will be missing. Please can you let me know if this would be useful.

Best wishes,

Kate Willshaw

Dr K Willshaw Planning and Policy Officer Cumbria Wildlife Trust

file:////CCC-PRDC-FP05/Kendal/Filing/planning/policy/p0334-022%20submission%2...epresentations/94%20-%20email%20100820%20from%20Cumbria%20Wildlfe%20Trust.txt [30/09/2010 12:40:36]

Cumbria

Cumbria Wildlife Trust Our ref: KW/CCC Your ref: Head Office: Penrith Office Plumgarths Sergents Barn Crook Road Lowther Ms K Trueman Kendal Penrith Programme Officer Cumbria Cumbria LA8 8LX CA10 2HH Cumbria County Council Busher Walk T 01539 816300 T 01931 711020 Kendal F 01539 816301 F 01931 712808 LA9 4RQ E [email protected] W www.cumbriawildlifetrust.org.uk 20th August 2010

Dear Ms Trueman

CUMBRIA MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK: SITE ALLOCATIONS POLICIES AND PROPOSALS MAP

As I am unable to attend Session 2 (Main Matter 2, Sub Matter 2: Sites in Allerdale) on 28th September, I am writing with regard to the allocation of site AL34 in the Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework Site Allocations document. I have previously made representations about the inclusion of this site within the Site Allocations document on the basis that much of it is a County Wildlife Site and that inclusion in the Site Allocations document is likely to mean damage to parts of the site when development takes place.

The two maps below show the outline of site allocation AL34 and that of the Alcan County Wildlife Site. As can be seen, the Alcan County Wildlife Site (outlined in dark green) falls within parts of the site allocation AL34. As well as being a designated County Wildlife Site, the Alcan Wildlife Site also contains areas of Hay Meadows and Pastures UK Biodiversity Action Plan habitat (light green chequered area). The Wildlife Site citation for the Alcan County Wildlife Site can be found at the end of this document.

The parts of the allocation which are of particular concern are those at the south western end where the site allocation overlaps approximately 1ha of County Wildlife Site, and at the north eastern end approximately 1ha of habitat is found within the site allocation. Bearing in mind that the whole County Wildlife Site is only just over 3ha in size, there is the possibility that the majority of the site’s interest will be lost if development goes ahead on the basis of a site allocation here.

Cumbria Wildlife Trust requests that on the basis of the sensitivity of the County Wildlife Site, either that the site allocation boundaries are redrawn to exclude the County Wildlife Site, or that the site is removed from the allocation document altogether. Cumbria Wildlife Trust disagreed with the Sustainability Appraisal scores in all the iterations of the Site Allocation process as they did not seem to take the presence of the County Wildlife Site into account. The Regulation 27 consultation in December saw factual inaccuracies regarding the County Wildlife Site put forward. To that end, I copy my response to that consultation

S:\Conservation\Wider Countryside\Planning\Structure and local plans\Cumbria County Council\Minerals andRegistered Waste Strategy\Letter Charity No. 218711 to inspector re Session 2 site AL34.doc A Company Limited By Guarantee Registered in London 724133 Protecting Wildlife for the Future

AL 34 Part of former Agree Cumbria Wildlife Trust disagrees with the evaluation matrix Alcan complex, for this site.

Warrington Disagree Much of the site allocation lies within the Alcan Wildlife X Area County Wildlife Site and as such should be evaluated under the heading Local sites or priority species/habitats: Requires compensatory measures for direct adverse impact (site directly within designated area). To evaluate it under the heading Requires mitigation/compensatory measures - Indirect adverse (site outside designated area) is actually factually incorrect as the allocation is not outside the designated area.

The evaluation should be registered as a x rather than a ?. Despite the assertion that “It is assumed the footprints of existing buildings and roads would be used”, any development that takes place within the footprint of the County Wildlife Site (excluding roads) is likely to have an adverse effect on the interest features of the Wildlife Site.

If the County Wildlife Site had been taken into account then the scores for the site would not have been as positive as they appear. Planning policy at both national and local level indicates that sites which are of value for nature conservation should be excluded from site allocations where possible. It would seem that the identification of biodiversity issues at site AL34 at this early stage should preclude it from being taken forward, as any development on the site will need much habitat mitigation, compensation and creation and possibly species relocation which may make it expensive and difficult to deliver for any developer which takes it on.

I apologise for not being able to attend the meeting on 28th September to explain our position, and hope that this letter adequately sets out the reasons for our objections to this site’s allocation.

Yours sincerely,

Kate Willshaw

Dr K Willshaw Planning and Policy Officer [email protected]

2 AL34 Site Allocation

Alcan County Wildlife Site A-NY02-03

CUMBRIA COUNTY WILDLIFE SITES

SITE NAME: Alcan Wildlife Area SITE REF: A-NY02-03 Planning Authority: Allerdale Borough Council District: Allerdale Review Status: Confirmed Review Date: 22/11/2000 Survey Status: Surveyed Survey Date: 31/05/2000 Grid Reference: NY 015 243 Area (ha): 3.08

Site Description An industrial site located north of Distington. The site supports a mosaic of species -rich grassland, semi- improved grassland and scrub. There are also several ponds on the site which support a population of breeding palmate newts . The site is maintained by the company who regularly cut footpaths through the site and maintain the ponds. The areas of wildlife interest are broken up throughout the site boundary.

Species-rich grassland is found in several areas throughout the site here the sward consists of a variety of grass species including abundant sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), quaking grass (Briza media), false oat grass (Arrhenatherum elatius), smooth meadow grass (Poa pratensis) and Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus). Frequent species include crested dog’s-tail (Cynosurus cristatus), red fescue (Festuca rubra sens.str) and yellow oat grass (Trisetum flavescens). Herb species form an important part of the sward with abundant oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), bird’s-foot trefoil (Lotus pedunculatus), creeping cinquefoil (Potentilla reptans), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) and red clover (Trifolium pratense). Lady’s-mantle (Alchemilla spp.), wild carrot (Daucus carota), meadow vetchling (Lathyrus pratensis), common cat’s-ear (Hypochaeris radicata), ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata) and curled dock (Rumex crispus) are frequent. Common spotted orchid (Dactylorhiza fuchsii) and northern marsh orchid (Dactylorhiza prupurella) are occasional.

Semi-improved grassland supports abundant cock’s-foot grass (Dactylis glomerata), Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum) and crested dog’s-tail (Cynosurus cristatus). Here herb species include frequent meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria) , lady’s-mantle, knapweed (Centaurea nigra), red clover (Trifolium pratense), common vetch (Vicia sativa), ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata), bird’s-foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) and oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare). Scrub consists of locally abundant bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.) with frequent hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and grey willow (Salix cinerea). Dog rose (Rosa canina agg) is occasional. The site has four ponds. The central part of the site supports three of these. Two rectangular man made ponds approx. 5m x 2m support abundant broadleaved pondweed (Potamogeton natans) and locally frequent (Glyceria fluitans). The ponds also support tadpoles and palmate newts. The larger pond is a old circular sewage plant. This shallow pond supports abundant reed mace (Typha latifolia) and abundant duckweed (Lemna minor).

To the south of the site there is a large forge pond. This is clay lined with concrete banks. At present warm water is discharged into the pond from the factory. Broadleaved pondweed (Potamogeton natans) is an abundant aquatic species. Surrounding the pond are tall herb species including frequent meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), red campion (Silene dioica), woundwort (Stachys sylvatica), rosebay willowherb (Chamerion angustifolium) and common valerian (Valeriana officinalis).

This form may contain privileged and confidential information. Permission must be obtained from Cumbria Wildlife Trust before reproducing or divulging information contained on this form to any party not directly in receipt of the form from the copyright holders.

Owner: Private Guidelines for Selection: Cumbrian Wildlife Sites Criteria for Selection (Old Guidelines pre 2008) H2.4: Areas of species rich grassland

5 file:////CCC-PRDC-FP05/Kendal/Filing/planning/policy/p0334-022%...mail%20100820%20from%20R%20Western%20re%20main%20matter%204.htm From: Rachel Western [[email protected]] Sent: 21 August 2010 00:10 To: Trueman, Kerry Subject: Main Matter Four - Issues and Questions

Kerry,

This is ten minutes late.

I deleted it from my earlier part four text by mistake.

It directly addresses points raised by the Inspector. best wishes

Rachel

file:////CCC-PRDC-FP05/Kendal/Filing/planning/policy/p...0820%20from%20R%20Western%20re%20main%20matter%204.htm [30/09/2010 12:40:51] Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework: Site Allocations Policy

Submission from Dr Rachel Western BA(Oxon) PhD MRSC (Nuclear Researcher for Friends of the Earth – Cumbria Groups)

(No: 15/96)

Re: Main Matter One

20th August 2010

Draft Law on Nuclear Landfill

Documents Referred To.

These are not on the web, but have been E-mailed to the Programme Officer

Guidance

Draft Guidance on Exemptions Framework under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (Schedule 23 to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2011)

Draft Law

2011 No. 0000 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, ENGLAND AND WALES “The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2011“

Impact Assessment

DECC - Impact Assessment of the Review of the Exemption Orders under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (11 August 2010)

Note – any highlighting or emphasis in quoted documents is added.

Requested Change in the Documents

The draft legislation concerning nuclear landfill was published 11th August 2010. It was therefore not available when Cumbria County Council prepared their draft policy on site allocations.

1 The new law has important implications for CCC – in particular in the way that it defines artificial radionuclides naturally occurring, and also in its consideration of wastes requiring regulatory involvement in document that is ostensibly setting out the legislation for wastes exempt from legislation.

There is also ambiguity concerning the Health Protection Agency dose assessment, referred to by Government – and whether it included the radionuclides that are actually listed in the draft legislation.

In my view it is not possible for a considered view to be taken on the role of nuclear land-fill in Cumbria to be taken until these matters have been resolved.

I would therefore beg to propose that the Inspector postpones the consideration of the placement of radionuclides into landfill within Cumbria until these issues are resolved.

Matters of Detail in the Proposed Law

Landfill as ‘Standard Disposal Route

“The standard disposal route” means disposal to a person who disposes of substantial quantities of non-radioactive waste by burying it in landfill or by incinerating it, or who recycles substantial quantities of such waste, in each case where the radioactive waste is to be mixed with such non-radioactive waste for the purposes of such burial, incineration or recycling1.

Radioactivity Created in Nuclear Reactor Defined as ‘Natural’

The draft legislation refers to ‘NORM’. ‘NORM’ is defined by the Health Protection Agency as ‘Naturally Occurring Radioactive Wastes’2 and at the beginning of the draft legislation DECC set out a number of examples of ‘NORM Industrial Activity3. It can be seen that this list refers to radioactivity that is found naturally.

However the draft law is drawn from the Governments (2007) Policy on Low Level Waste4 5 and contains very important proposals on the landfill of nuclear wastes6 ie wastes:

1 Draft Law (page 20) - top of page 2 T Anderson and S Mobbs ‘Conditional Exemption Limits for NORM Wastes’ HPA – CRCE – 001 – (June 2010) Abstract http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/127409189445665 3 Draft Law (pp 6-7) para 3A 4 Impact Assessment (pp 23-24 ) para 9 5 Guidance (page 19) para 3.19 6 Guidance (page 11) para 2.11 to 2.15

2 “processed or intended to be processed for the radioactive fertile or fissile properties of those radionuclides, it is contaminated by radionuclides originating from such a process.”7 8

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) asked the Health Protection Agency to investigate the amount of NORM waste that could be disposed of to landfill without exceeding specified dosed criteria9. The radionuclides considered by the HPA are set out in Table One of their ‘NORM’ document (page 2) and the radionuclides giving rise to significant doses are set out in Table 6 (page 12).

In contrast, the draft legislation refers to the artificial radioactivity that is created in nuclear reactors. It can be seen that Table Two of the draft law10 refers to a different – much larger – group of radionuclides than those considered by the HPA.

Note:

The draft law refers to radionuclides “processed for their radioactive, fertile or fissile properties”11

The ability of an atom to decay radioactively, to split or to become another atom through absorption of a neutron are all properties of its central nucleus. The capacity to split is also known as being ‘fissile’ and the capacity to take up a neutron is known by nuclear physicists as being ‘fertile’

The Draft Law Contains a Category “Other” Norm Waste

Exemption from authorisation under section 13: other NORM waste 12

22.—(1) The NORM waste referred to in paragraph 21(1)(a) means NORM waste where—

(a) the sum of the concentration levels of the single radionuclide with the highest concentration in each of the natural decay chains beginning with—

(i) U-238; (ii) U-235; and (iii) Th-232,

7 This waste includes radioactive building wastes and equipment – See Guidance (page 11) para 2.11 - second bullet point 8 Guidance (page 10) para 2.7 9 HPA (June 2010) Abstract 10 Draft Law (page 10 para 2B (c) (i) (aa) – refers to Table Two For Table Two – see Draft Law (pp 10-16) 11 Guidance (page 12) para 2.17 – See also Guidance (page 9) Figure One – top line, third box, see also (page 8) para 2.1 second bullet. Plus see also (page 6) para 1.11 12 Draft Law (page 43 – top of page)

In a nuclear reactor a proportion of the Uranium-238 absorbs a neutron and becomes Plutonium. In addition, the Uranium-235 splits into two smaller atoms, which are known as ‘fission products’. Fission products comprise the majority of nuclear waste.

LLW (2007) + HPA Dose Assessments

16. [… ] Waste disposal criteria (concentration or mass limits, disposal methods and conditions relating to disposal) are set out in the Exemption Order, and particularly in Tables 3 and 4 of the Order. These disposal criteria have been developed in the UK, are based to large extent on the Government’s policy statement on low level radioactive wastes (2007), and are supported by radiological impact assessments carried out by the Health Protection Agency.[…] 13

The relationship between the HPA Dose Assessment and that radionuclides referred to in the DECC Draft Law requires clarification

The Possible Disregarding of Radioactivity - Statutory Provision with Comprehensive Remit

Part 7 – Radioactivity to be Disregarded

Radioactivity disregarded: statutory provisions14

2. For the purposes of (a) T/he operation of any statutory provision to which this paragraph applies; and (b) the exercise or performance of any power or duty conferred or imposed by, or for the enforcement of, any such statutory provision, no account must be taken of any radioactivity possessed by any substance or article or by any part of any premises.

This Clause could have quite serious implications for Cumbria.

The Involvement of the Regulator

Radionuclides listed in Table 1 of the Draft Law are subject to regulatory consideration. They are the only ones that are subject to regulatory consideration15. In particular special provisions are proposed for High Volume Low Level Radioactive

13 Guidance (page 37) para 16 14 Draft Law (page 47) para 2 15 Guidance (page 10) para 2.8

4 Waste (LLW)16. This is the one case in the exemptions regime where the environmental regulator requires notification, although a formal permit under the legislation is not required17. Landfills or parts of landfills constructed and operated specifically for RadWaste would require a licence18. Thus not only is the radioactive waste not ‘NORM’ it is also not exempt from a legal requirement for regulatory involvement.

The regulatory requirements include:19

• The person disposing of the waste has made a written disposal-specific radiological assessment in respect of the place where the waste is disposed of.

• That assessment is provided to the environmental regulator at least 28 days before the first disposal is made.

• No objection has been made in writing by the environmental regulator to that assessment.

Waste Producers Decide Whether they Need a Licence

It is for waste produces to decide whether they need a licence20

Artificial Radionuclides Excluded From Calculation of Background Dose

Under the draft law, contamination of the environment that cannot be controlled (eg from weapons tests, Chernobyl or discharges from Sellafield that have already taken place) should not be considered in the evaluation of the total levels of exposure21 22 23 24 25 26. Thus even though a dose will arise from this contamination, DECC propose that this dose calculation should not include this figure.

Measures Required Whilst Radioactivity in Use – cf Following Disposal

16 Guidance (pp23-24) para 3.35 to 3.37 – See also Draft Law (page 43) para 23 17 Guidance (page 24) para 3.38 18 Guidance (page 20) para 3.23 19 Guiance (page 24) para 3.37 – top of page 20 Guidance (page 33) para 5.1 21 Guidance (page 30) para 4.18 22 Guidance (page 28) para 4.5 23 Guidance (page 10) para 2.10 24 Guidance (page 13) para 2.24 25 Guidance (page 13) para 2.26 26 Draft Law (page 17) 2E

5 Under the proposed law, loss or theft of the radioactivity whilst in use should be reported to the regulator27; however, following disposal the radionuclides would no longer be considered to be radioactive28. Similarly, whilst in use the radioactivity should be labelled29, but following disposal the labels should be removed30.

Other Matters

NII & Incorrect Evidence to Waste Planning Hearing

At the (Nov ’08) Cumbria County Council Planning Hearing into their Framework for Wastes31 I referred to the July 2008 NII Newsletter, to show that

• the NII required ‘urgent’ measures to be carried out by the nuclear industry to address problems with waste treatment facilities at Sellafield32

• the NII were concerned that these measures may not be carried out due to lack of funding33

The NII representative at the Hearing ‘negated’ my evidence. During 2009 I pursued the matter, however NII’s response only served to exacerbate the problem.

Subsequently – (in 2009/10) my concerns were confirmed.

For background information on this matter see documents reference below:34 35

Request to the Inspector

I would therefore beg to request the Inspector that the Session One and Session Four of the Hearing are formally minuted.

27 Guidance (page 18) para 3.13 second bullet plus para 3.14 – See also Draft Law (page 37) para 6 (c) 28 Guidance (page 14) para 2.31 See also (page 8) para 2.2 third bullet 29 Guidance (page 18) para 3.10 – first bullet 30 Guidance (page 20 ) para 3.23 - first bullet 31 See http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/planning- environment/planning/policy/minerals_waste/mwdf/mwds.asp 32 NII (July 2008) Newsletter - page 16 http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/nsn4308.pdf 33 NII (July 2008) Newsletter – pp 11,12 http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/nsn4308.pdf 34 “NII & Incorrect Evidence to Waste Planning Hearing - Cumbria County Council Hearing – Nov ‘08” Note by Rachel Western - 20th August 2010 http://www.nuclearwasteadvisory.co.uk/page.asp?Id=55&preview=0 35 Letter to Geoffrey Podger (Chief Executive of HSE) concerning lack of veracity of Mike Weightman (Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations Inspectorate – NII) from Rachel Western (10th July 2009 http://www.nuclearwasteadvisory.co.uk/uploads/7428NII%20- %20letter%20to%20Geoffrey%20Podger%20-%2010%20July%202010%20%20- %20CCC%20Nov%202008%20%20-%2020%20Aug%202010.doc)

6 NDA & ‘Credibility of Evidence Base

For the Autumn 2008 Waste Planning Hearing into the Waste Framework to be adopted by Cumbria County Council, the Inspector had requested evidence concerning whether the proposed approach to radioactive wastes was based on a ‘robust and credible evidence base’.

The response provided by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) did not make any sense. Phil Davies of Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates (NWAA) pursued the matter in order to obtain a more robust response from the NDA. Despite a number of requests to NDA to forward their evidence, the NDA were unable to supply the documentation requested.

Subsequently in August 2010, following a request form Rachel Western (also of NWAA) the NDA stated that it was the responsibility of Cumbria County Council to supply the Evidence Base on radioactive waste.

For background information on this matter see document referenced below:36

Request to the Inspector

I would beg to request the Inspector that it is ensured that the NDA – who are the body responsible for radioactive waste management in the UK – provide a credible evidence base concerning nuclear landfill.

36 ‘NDA & ‘Credibility of Evidence Base’ - Re: Waste Planning Hearing (Cumbria County Council – November 2008) Note prepared by Rachel Western 20th August 2010 E-mailed to the Programme Inspector – due to be posted on the web

7 Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework: Site Allocations Policy

Submission from Dr Rachel Western BA(Oxon) PhD MRSC (Nuclear Researcher for Friends of the Earth – Cumbria Groups)

(No: 15/96)

Re: Main Matter Four

20th August 2010

Draft Law on Nuclear Landfill

Documents Referred To.

These are not on the web, but have been E-mailed to the Programme Officer

Guidance

Draft Guidance on Exemptions Framework under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (Schedule 23 to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2011)

Draft Law

2011 No. 0000 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, ENGLAND AND WALES “The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2011“

Impact Assessment

DECC - Impact Assessment of the Review of the Exemption Orders under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (11 August 2010)

Note – any highlighting or emphasis in quoted documents is added.

Introduction

Under the previous Conservative administration in the 1990s, large-scale dumping of nuclear wastes in Landfill was against Government policy1. However in March 2007,

1 The radioactive wastes that could be sent to Landfill under the 1990s Conservative Government were wastes from: • non-nuclear industries that processed raw materials containing natural radioactivity • hospitals and universities Labour changed this2 so that wastes such as plutonium wastes can now be sent to ordinary disposal sites3.

W Cumbria FoE - Support of CCC Policy

Friends of the Earth West Cumbria are in support of Cumbria’s policy is that lower level radioactive wastes should be disposed of either at Drigg (which has been a disposal site for low level wastes for many years) or at the Sellafield nuclear site. Alternatively Cumbria have proposed that these wastes should be disposed of adjacent to Sellafield4.

However Cumbria’s Policy does not fit in with what the Labour Government put forward – which was that the ‘nuclear landfill market’ should be opened up5.

Furthermore, the new administration has recently launched a Consultation on the law affecting nuclear landfill – which has important implications for Cumbria. This was addressed in my submission to main matter one.

Lillyhall and Keekle Head

There are two particular places in Cumbria that have applied for permission to become dump sites for lower level radioactive wastes – Lillyhall and Keekle Head.

In June 2009, Lillyhall reported that they were planning to dispose of radioactive asbestos6. Lillyhall was the subject of national controversy earlier this year when it

• uranium enrichment and fuel fabrication; and • lightly contaminated excavation spoil from Sellafield ie – most of the wastes from the nuclear industry – even low level wastes could not – could not be sent to Landfill (see - “Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy – Final Conclusions” – Cm 2919 July 1995 – page 32 – para 114 and page 33 – para 115) 2 Revised Policy on Re-Classification of Radioactive Waste – so that a proportion of it could go to Landfill – DTI/DEFRA –26 March 2007 “Policy for the Long Term Management of Solid Low Level Radioactive Waste in the United Kingdom” http://www.decc.gov.uk/media/viewfile.ashx?filepath=what%20we%20do/uk%20energy%20supply/en ergy%20mix/nuclear/radioactivity/llw-policystatement070326.pdf&filetype=4&minwidth=true 3 Feb 2006 – Consultation on Reclassification of Nuclear Waste ”A Public Consultation on Policy for the Long Term Management of Solid Low Level Radioactive Waste in the Untied Kingdom” 28 Feb 2006 Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) – see page 68. Wastes with alpha activity includes plutonium wastes. The Sellafield site, which is a large scale producer of wastes, is for the most part a plutonium production complex. This means that it generates a very large amount of wastes that are contaminated with plutonium 4 Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework, Summary of the Submitted Site Allocations Policies and Proposals Map – April 2010 (see page 5 – site allocations policy 5) for CCC proposed sites for low level and very low level wastes http://www.cumbriacc.gov.uk/elibrary/Content/Internet/538/755/1929/1982/4028913241.pdf See http://www.cumbriacc.gov.uk/planning- environment/planning/policy/minerals_waste/mwdf/regulation30.asp - for summary of documents submitted to the Secretary of State 5 Feb 2006 Consultation document – page 63 was reported that five bags of waste from the Sellafield nuclear site were dumped there by mistake after a faulty scanner had passed them as safe7.

The company ‘Endecom’8 want to dump one million cubic metres of nuclear waste9 at Keekle Head in Cumbria. Keekle Head is a former open cast coal mine10 and is also the source of the River Keekle. If the project were to be given the go ahead then the course of the River would need to be “re-instated”11.

Recently the Keekle River was featured on BBC ‘Countryfile’12 as one of the best salmon rivers in the Lakes:

“worth £60 million to the Cumbrian economy“

Nuclear Landfill – Safety Concerns

More importantly Nuclear Landfill must be challenged as safety cannot be guaranteed. The 2007 policy states that a ‘risk informed policy will ensure safety’13. However, the plutonium example demonstrates that the nuclear industry are simply incapable of providing the safety guarantees which are essential if nuclear waste is to be dumped.

Cellulose - the woody compound used to make paper – breaks down into chemicals that can make plutonium up to 10, 000 times more likely to get into underground water supplies14 15. This means it would be ten thousand times more likely to get into crops or drinking water if it was dumped in Landfill. The Consultation document from 2006 makes it quite clear that ‘alpha’ wastes – which include plutonium - in

6 ‘Environmental Safety Case: Disposal of Very Low Level Radioactive Waste at the Lillyhall Landfill Site’ - June 2009 – see page 2 and page 11 “Waste Recycling Group” and “Energy Solutions” 7 The Times - 26th April 2010 Bags of radioactive waste from Sellafield dumped in landfill site Ben Webster, Environment Editor http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7107865.ece 8 ‘Endecom UK Ltd, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sita UK Ltd has been established to develop disposal facilities for lower level radioactive waste from the nuclear industry. See - Keekle Head – ‘Endecom’ Exhibition Panel (page 4) – 6 October 2009 (page one) 9 Endecom – ‘Proposed Keekle Head Waste Management Centre’ - Six Page Brochure (Summer 2009) – reference to one million cubic metres of waste is on page 2 10 Letter from Richard Evans (Cumbria County Council Principal Planning Officer) to Rachel Western (Nuclear Researcher for Friends of the Earth – Cumbria Groups) 11 December 2009 Re - Cumbria County Council – Planning Policy on Waste – Site Allocation Policy - page 1 11 Keekle Head – ‘Endecom’ Exhibition Panel (page 4 ) – 6 October 2009 12 Countryfile – 24th Jan 2010 “nuclear power means nuclear waste and, as Tom Heap finds out, the biggest issue by far is how we get rid of it.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qh16l Youtube of Countryfile piece - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2Um3Bi6yzQ 13 March 2007 Policy – page 22 14 Ewart (1988) NSS/G103 F T Ewart et al, “Chemical and Microbiological Effects in the Near Field: Current Status” p19 15 Cross (1989) NSS/R151p3 combination with cellulose16, are planned to be included in the Nuclear Landfill dump plans.

More particularly HPA (Health Protection Agency) calculations raise concerns over possible doses17.

Note on Plutonium Wastes

There is a specific category of wastes known as ‘Plutonium Contaminated Materials’18 19. In addition however, the plutonium production work20 21 carried out at Sellafield22 means that, to some extent all Sellafield wastes will be plutonium contaminated.

Plutonium is one of the most radiotoxic wastes23.

When waste has been disposed of or transferred, it is effectively beyond the control of the disposer24. The August 2010 draft legislation prepared by DECC stated that radioactive waste disposed of to landfill could be affected by a process that was not taken into account by the disposing authority and lead to an increase in the radiation exposure to the public or the environment25.

Given the error levels in leakage prediction this is a matter of serious concern. Before nuclear waste can be buried, reliable calculations need to be made of just how contaminated the leaks would be. However, the nuclear industry are simply unable to provide accurate estimates - in fact the error levels in their calculations are huge26.

16 Feb 2006 Consultation document – page 68 17HPA – RPD – 020 ( September 2007) Abstract – bottom of the page http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947322781 18 ‘PCM’ 19 Michael Egan et al - “Treatment of Plutonium Contaminated Material at Sellafield – Best Practicable Environmental Option Study” Quintessa – QRS-1372A-1 – Version 2 (Feb 2008) 20 GMELIN - Transuranium Elements: Part A 1.11: The Elements (New Suppl. Ser. Vol. 7b) Covers manufacture of transuranium nuclides, chemical recovery of the synthesized elements, and isotope enrichment. - Literature closing date: end of 1970. 1974. 89 figs. XX, 370 pages (70 pages in German, 75 pages in French) Cloth ISBN 3-540-93276-3 Page 209 (5.1.6.4) Reprocessing with Neutral Organophosphorus Compounds 21 B F Warner et al “The Development of the New Separation Plant, Windscale” Proceedings of the Geneva Conference on the peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy (1964) Volume Ten, page 224 22 The main work carried out at Sellafield is the application of WWII techniques to extract the weapons material plutonium from waste nuclear fuel. 23 http://www.cea.fr/var/cea/storage/static/gb/library/Clefs46/pagesg/clefs46_16.html 24 Guidance (page 20) para 3.22 25 Guidance (page 14) para 2.32 26 The reason for this is that their calculations are based on the behaviour of chemical ‘elements’ – whereas in the real world chemical elements link up with others in a huge range of different ways – and so have a huge range of different behaviours. Three examples are set out below – followed by the background documentation.

Error Levels in Predicting Nuclear Leakage

i) Radioactive Carbon - up to one thousand.

ii) Plutonium - up to ten thousand

iii) Uranium - up to 100 million

Supporting Documentation

Carbon

In 2006 Nirex27 quoted28 the ‘Tolerable’ release rate of radioactive carbon (‘carbon- 14’) as 2.4 x 10-3 (0.0024) units29. However, in 2008, the NDA quoted30 that it was possible that 10 units31 of ‘carbon-14’32 could be released from a RadWaste Burial facility. This (2008) figure indicates that it is possible that the release of radioactive carbon - could result in a dose that is 4, 000 times greater33 than what was judged to be ‘tolerable’.

Plutonium

Cellulose - the woody compound used to make paper – breaks down into chemicals that can make plutonium up to 10, 000 times more likely to get into underground water supplies34 35. This means it would be ten thousand times more likely to get into crops or drinking water if it was dumped in Landfill. The Consultation

27 The ’Nuclear Industry Waste Executive – now part of the ‘NDA - the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority 28 Basis of dose calculation – ‘C-14 could be transported to the biosphere in either gas or groundwater. If it is released in gaseous form as methane, transported to the soil zone and metabolised by microbes, it could enter the food chain. Calculations based on this pathway in the GPA [1] indicate that, to meet the regulatory risk target, the tolerable rate of release of C-14 as methane is: 2.4 x 10-3 TBq/year (based on a release area of 10,000m2)." - [Nirex, ‘C-14: How we are addressing the issues February 2006’, (Technical Note: Number: 498808) page 1] 29 units - TBq/year 30 'PAMINA Gas Report' “Uncertainties Associated with Modelling the Consequences of Gas” DELIVERABLE (D-N°: D2.2.B.2) Simon Norris (NDA) Nuclear Decommissioning Authority 26th March 2008 – page 75 31 units - TBq/year 32 released as a gas 33 10/0.0024 = 4,000 times 34 Ewart (1988) NSS/G103 F T Ewart et al, “Chemical and Microbiological Effects in the Near Field: Current Status” p19 35 Cross (1989) NSS/R151p3 document36 from 2006 makes it quite clear that ‘alpha’ wastes – which include plutonium - in combination with cellulose37, are planned to be included in the Nuclear Landfill dump plans.

Uranium

In 1991 the nuclear industry carried out a test on the reliability of their ability to predict contamination levels. The test was carried out at the ‘Pocos de Caldas’ uranium mine in Brazil38.

The contamination level that was predicted was:

1.4 x 10 –11 mg/l (pp 9,19)

However, when actual contamination levels were measured, the level that was found was: 3 x 10 –3 mg/l (p10)

It can be seen that the Nuclear Industry under-estimated the uranium contamination level by a factor of:

200 million fold

Four possible explanations39 for were put forward for this degree of error (pp12-13) – though no definitive conclusion was reached. Over fifteen years later (in 2007), the nuclear industry are still quoting data ranges for uranium contamination levels that can vary up to one hundred million units40.

36 Feb 2006 – Consultation on Reclassification of Nuclear Waste ”A Public Consultation on Policy for the Long Term Management of Solid Low Level Radioactive Waste in the Untied Kingdom” 28 Feb 2006 Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) – see page 68. Wastes with alpha activity includes plutonium wastes. The Sellafield site, which is a large scale producer of wastes, is for the most part a plutonium production complex. This means that it generates a very large amount of wastes that are contaminated with plutonium 37 Feb 2006 Consultation document – page 68 38 Cross (1991) NSS/R252 J.E. Cross, D.S. Gabriel, A. Haworth, I Neretnicks, S.M. Sharland and C.J. Tweed “Modelling of Redox Front and Uranium Movement in a Uranium Mine at Pocos de Caldas Brazil” (NSS/R252 ) Nirex, 1991 39 (i) not fully crystalline (ii) non-stoichiometric –ie – the relative amount of the constituents in the relevant compound wasn’t a simple ratio (iii) colloids – ie large unwieldy compounds, and (iv) the presence of uranium (V) 40 D Swan and C P Jackson (SERCO) ‘Formal Structured Data Elicitation of Uranium Solubility in the Near Field - Report to Nirex’ (SA/ENV/0920 Issue 3 - March 2007 – page 6 Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework: Site Allocations Policy

Submission from Dr Rachel Western BA(Oxon) PhD MRSC (Nuclear Researcher for Friends of the Earth – Cumbria Groups)

(No: 15/96)

Re: Main Matter Four – Additional Text

20th August 2010

Re: Main Matter Four – Issues and Questions

Re: para 4.5 and 4.6

Postponement of Decommissioning Programme

The original reasoning put forward in 2006 for Labour’s change in Policy was that the new ‘Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’ (the ‘NDA’) - who had just taken on responsibility for dealing with the UK’s nuclear waste1 - were planning to accelerate the programme of site clearance following reactor shutdown2. It was expected therefore that a very large bulk of low level wastes would be produced on a short timescale.

However, just one year after the production of the 2007 revised RadWaste Policy, the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee (NuSac) reported that the NDA were experiencing very severe problems in finding the funds to carry out their work3. As a result their site clearance programme had to be slowed down. NuSac’s concerns were confirmed by the Times, and the NDA in November 20094.

The fact that a key argument put forward to justify the dumping of nuclear waste in Landfill not longer stands – means that the status of the policy must be questioned.

1 Feb 2006 – Consultation on Reclassification of Nuclear Waste ”A Public Consultation on Policy for the Long Term Management of Solid Low Level Radioactive Waste in the United Kingdom” 28 Feb 2006 Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) – page 41 2 Feb 2006 – LLW Consultation – page 8 para 6 3 Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee (NuSac) “Review of NDA funding issues” 3rd July 2008 Paper by A R Webb (on behalf of Review Group 3) NuSAC Paper NUSAC (2008) P19 4 NDA - Statement in response to Times article published Wednesday - 25 Nov ‘09 http://www.nda.gov.uk/news/responsetotimesarticlenov09.cfm Storage of Waste Fuel in Shutdown Reactors

As an alternative to Magnox reprocessing – the regulators would consider an interim option of ‘in-reactor’ storage – prior to the development of purpose built dry storage facilities5.

5 CoRWM Meeting with HSE and the Environment Agency on Management of Spent Fuels, Plutonium and Uranium Document Number 2520 (9th December 2008) page 2 (para 9) file:////CCC-PRDC-FP05/Kendal/Filing/planning/policy/p0334-022%2...ons/98%20-%20email%20100819%20from%20GMGU%20(urban%20vision).htm From: Trueman, Kerry Sent: 23 August 2010 15:39 To: Brett, Sue A Subject: GMGU (urban vision) no comment comment

From: Williams, Carolyn Sent: 19 August 2010 15:56 To: Trueman, Kerry Subject: RE: 2 of 2 Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework: Site Allocation Policies

Kerry,

Thank you for your email. GMGU do not wish to make any further comments, and will not be attending the hearing, except in an observational role. The representation we made regarding the evidence base is no longer of concern to us as we have since revised and updated our evidence on need for waste facilities and we should be sufficient. Therefore I see no need for us to attend in a formal capacity.

Regards

Carolyn

From: Trueman, Kerry Sent: 11 August 2010 09:55 To: Subject: Cumbria Minerals and Waste Development Framework: Site Allocation Policies Importance: High

Dear Representor

Following the Pre-hearing meeting held on the 29 July 2010 please find enclosed:

• The Hearing Timetable. If you are not registered on the timetable as “attending” please be advised that I will assume that you do not wish to attend your session(s), unless you advise me otherwise by the 20 August 2010. Please note that this timetable replaces the one issued previously and that there have been some amendments. If you or your organisation is registered to participate at the hearings please advise me of the name of who will be attending, unless it is already shown on the timetable by the 20 August 2010.

• A revised copy of the Inspector’s Issues and Questions for Main Matter 4

• The Pre-hearing meeting note

May I take this opportunity to remind you that the deadline for further statements should you wish to submit them, is the 20 August 2010.

file:////CCC-PRDC-FP05/Kendal/Filing/planning/polic...email%20100819%20from%20GMGU%20(urban%20vision).htm (1 of 2) [30/09/2010 12:43:02] file:////CCC-PRDC-FP05/Kendal/Filing/planning/policy/p0334-022%2...ons/98%20-%20email%20100819%20from%20GMGU%20(urban%20vision).htm

Should you require any further information please let me know.

Yours sincerely

Kerry Trueman Programme Officer

file:////CCC-PRDC-FP05/Kendal/Filing/planning/polic...email%20100819%20from%20GMGU%20(urban%20vision).htm (2 of 2) [30/09/2010 12:43:02]