Response to Pins
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BUTTINGTON QUARRY ENERGY RECOVERY FACILITY Response to formal request for further information under Regulation 15(2) of the DNS (Wales) Regulations 2016 for further information ECL Ref: ECL.001.01.02/FIR ISSUE: FINAL August 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. RESPONSE TO THE OBJECTION OF THE NATIONAL TRUST 3 3. RESPONSE TO THE LOCAL IMPACT REPORT 4 4. RESPONSE TO THE OBJECTIONS MADE BY BIIG 5 APPENDICES Appendix 1: Response Regarding Landscape and Visual Matters Appendix 2: Technical Note on Noise Appendix 3: Technical Note on Geotechnical Appendix 4: Critical review of BIIG responses to dispersion modelling report Appendix 5: Written Statement on Economic Issues Raised Appendix 6: Response Regarding Heritage Matters i ECL Ref: ECL.001.01.02/RFI August 2021 Issue: Final ACRONYMS/TERMS USED IN THE TEXT BIIG Buttington Incinerator Impact Group CCS Compliance Classification Scheme DfT Department for Transport DNS Developments of National Significance EA Environment Agency ERF Energy Recovery Facility ES Environmental Statement HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle HIA Health Impact Assessment HZI Hitachi Zosen Innova ITL Intermodal Transportation Limited LVIA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment LIR Local Impact Report PIA Personal Injury Accidents PINS The Planning Inspectorate PM2.5 Particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5µm RHPG Registered Historic Park and Garden TA Transport Assessment TAN Technical Advice Note WHIASU Wales Health Impact Assessment Support Unit WHO World Health Organization ii ECL Ref: ECL.001.01.02/RFI August 2021 Issue: Final 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Overview 1.1.1. This report addresses the formal request for further information under Regulation 15(2) of the Developments of National Significance (Wales) (“DNS”) Regulations 2016 (as amended) for further information. 1.1.2. The matters that will be addressed in this report are as follows: • A response to the objection of the National Trust (REP003) regarding the impact of the proposal on the Registered Historic Park and Garden (“RHPG”); • Any response that the applicant wishes to make to the Local Impact Report (“LIR”) from Powys CC. The following areas have been included in this response: • the Landscape and Visual Impact (“LVIA”) of the proposal and the assessment of significance [LIR Paragraphs 5.39-5.51], • impacts on nearby properties as a result of noise [LIR Paragraphs 5.100- 5.109]; and • geotechnical issues including slope stability [LIR Paragraphs 5.110-5.116]; • responses to the objections made by the 2. (“BIIG”) (and other objectors). Issues raised include • the effect of the ERF on air quality especially possible issues with temperature inversion; • impacts on human health; • highway safety issues, • the effect on the local economy, and • the adverse impacts on local cultural heritage. 1.1.3. The information that will be provided in the response to be submitted by the 24th September will be as follows: • The Welsh Government has recently published its Programme for Government 2021- 26 and Well-Being Statement (available on Gov.Wales). The Well-being Statement sets out the Welsh Government’s latest well-being objectives, which are aligned to the well-being goals derived from the Well-Being of Future Generations Act; the Programme for Government sets out a series of actions through which the objectives will be met. The fifth well-being objective is to Embed our response to the climate and nature emergency in everything we do. The associated action commitments indicate a drive to reduce and avoid waste including legislation to abolish the use of more commonly littered, single use plastics and the introduction of an extended producer responsibility scheme to incentivise waste reduction by businesses. The applicant is invited to comment on the proposal’s consistency with these objectives/commitments and the direction of travel that they indicate. • Broad Energy (Wales) Limited also requested the opportunity to submit further information on the Welsh Government Strategic Assessment. This response is also closely aligned with points made in the LIR for the regional need for an Energy Recovery Facility (“ERF”) (paragraphs 5.1 – 5.11) and BIIGs comments on the waste planning statement. A combined response will therefore be provided; • the points made in the LIR with regard to the potential for the re-use of material within the site and as secondary aggregate [5.10, 5.115, 5.118]; and 1 ECL Ref: ECL.001.01.02/RFI August 2021 Issue: Final • matters which were raised by BIIG in relation to: • sustainability issues (including Carbon generation as a result of incineration); and • alternative sites. 2 ECL Ref: ECL.001.01.02/RFI August 2021 Issue: Final 2. RESPONSE TO THE OBJECTION OF THE NATIONAL TRUST 2.1. Introduction 2.1.1. The Planning Inspector requires a response to the objection of the Nation Trust (REP003) regarding the impact of the proposal on the Registered Heritage Park and Garden (“RHPG”) and listed building at Powis Castle (included comments of Cadw). 2.1.2. In addition, it has been requested that the applicant should cross-refer to the analysis of the impact from Viewpoint 24 in the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (“LVIA”) and consider if supplementary viewpoints and information should be supplied as suggested by the National Trust. 2.2. Response 2.2.1. Comments raised by the National Trust are addressed in Section 2 of Bright and Associates Report “Response Regarding Landscape and Visual Matters”, August 2021, provided as Appendix 1 of this report. 3 ECL Ref: ECL.001.01.02/RFI August 2021 Issue: Final 3. RESPONSE TO THE LOCAL IMPACT REPORT 3.1. Landscape and Visual Impact 3.1.1. This section specifically considers the Landscape and Visual Impact (“LVIA”) of the proposal and the assessment of significance [LIR Paragraphs 5.39-5.51]. 3.1.2. Matters raised in the LIR, and those raised in Appendix 2 of the Landscape Input to the LIR on behalf of Powys County Council (Enplan) (May 2021) may be found within Section 3 of Bright and Associates Report “Response Regarding Landscape and Visual Matters”, August 2021, which may be found as Appendix 1 of this report. 3.2. Noise 3.2.1. This section specifically considers the impacts on nearby properties as a result of noise [LIR Paragraphs 5.1005.109]. 3.2.2. A Technical Note has been prepared in response to the comments in the LIR and may be found as Appendix 2. 3.3. Geotechnical 3.3.1. This section specifically considers geotechnical issues including slope stability [LIR Paragraphs 5.110-5.116]. 3.3.2. A Technical Note has been prepared in response to the comments in the LIR and may be found as Appendix 3. 3.4. Materials Re-Use 3.4.1. As mentioned in Paragraph 1.1.3., the points made in relation to the re-use of material within the site and as secondary aggregate [LIR Paragraphs 5.10, 5.115, 5.118] will be addressed in the response to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on the 24th September 2021. 4 ECL Ref: ECL.001.01.02/RFI August 2021 Issue: Final 4. RESPONSE TO THE OBJECTIONS MADE BY BIIG 4.1. Comments on the Health Impact Assessment in Response to Appendix 2 of BIIG Submission 4.1.1. The BIIG objections to the HIA highlight, and repeat, shortcomings identified within the HIA of both the consultation process and the level of participation. These are key aspects to a meaningful and comprehensive HIA. 4.1.2. Invitations were sent to a range of stakeholders on more than one occasion requesting if they would like to take part. Many of those asked were within public sector organisations, and a number of those organisations have endorsed the ten National Principals for Public Engagement in Wales. It is acknowledged that these principals are aimed at public service organisations within the Public and voluntary sectors in Wales, with no specific remit for engagement with the private sector. 4.1.3. Lack of engagement was raised as a concern at the Stakeholder meeting, along with querying whether it was the appropriate time for starting the HIA and requesting engagement when there were very few technical details that had been confirmed. Members of the Group expressed concern about engaging with and trying to comment on a development proposal lacking full details. However, delivering an HIA after the design has been developed creates scope for unintended consequences and requirement for re- design at further costs and time delays, potentially affecting the viability of a development. 4.1.4. The concerns of HIA timing and lack of engagement were put to a couple of members of WHIASU who confirmed there is no prescribed timings for delivering HIA’s and it was accepted that too early, or late, in a development cycle could lead to problems. It was suggested that lack of engagement from public sector organisations may be due to perceived conflict of interest. These aspects severely limit the delivery of a truly holistic HIA. 4.1.5. In their submission, BIIG repeat paragraphs from the WHIASU and Welsh Government guidance in respect of HIA and the importance of stakeholder engagement and collaboration. Large sections of the submission criticise the lack of meaningful engagement on the part of Broad and ECL. It is understood that at least one member of BIIG attended a drop-in session but did not engage with the HIA team. We would have welcomed the opportunity to engage in further dialogue with BIIG at that time, as this would have better informed the HIA process. 4.1.6. The impartiality of ECL has been questioned, and criticised, with an assumption that if the developer is paying for the HIA then what is produced will only be what the developer wants.