Planning Application for Landfill at Rock Common Quarry

Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) June 2008

OBJECTION

Index

(section numbers reference Veolia’s submission) page 1.0 Introduction 2 3.0 Construction and Operations 2 4.0 Need 5 5.0 Policies and Plans 7 6.0 Land Use and Water Resources 9 7.0 Ecology and Nature Conservation 17 8.0 Landscape and Visual Effects 19 9.0 Architecture and Cultural Heritage 20 10.0 Transport Assessment 21 11.0 Air Quality 25 12.0 Noise and Vibration 28 13.0 Nuisances 29 Appendix A Report on the Appendix 6 Report entitled ‘Hydrogeological Impact Appraisal of Temporary De-Watering at Rock Common’ Appendix B Addendum to original Medical Report on the Health Risks of Landfill (CLAG Objection 30/03/07)

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 1

Introduction The following comments relate to the report dated June 2008 entitled:

‘Environmental Statement Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales Regulations) 1999

Request for Additional Information under Regulation 19(1),(2) & (10)

Rock Common Landfill Site Washington West Sussex Veolia Environmental Services’

The section numbers used below reference Veolia’s submission and, where applicable, the supporting appendices.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.3 Community Engagement It is simply not true that Veolia has engaged with the local community and stakeholders ‘actively, meaningfully and continuously’ throughout the application process. We have had no direct contact with representatives of Veolia since 2006. There was no public information programme coinciding with submission of the Regulation 19 Report other than a newsletter, which was put through a few letterboxes in Washington, seemingly selected at random.

The Council will also be aware that we received by post from Veolia one electronic copy of the Regulation 19 Report, but it transpired that the information on the computer disk was incomplete. This was reported to the Council, which kindly supplied a printed copy. We would add that CLAG is by no means alone in receiving an incomplete set of information from Veolia. Can we therefore trust the undertakings given by this company?

3.0 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS

3.2.1 Pre and Post-Restoration Settlement levels From page 6 it is suggested that a surcharge allowance of 15% has been suggested as being appropriate. Given the application was originally for 7.3 million cubic metres (approximately 5.5 million tonnes) of non-hazardous waste, does this mean the actual volume of waste that would be landfilled would be 15% higher – in other words 8.4 million cubic metres or approximately 6.3 million tonnes?

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 2

3.2.3 Edge Treatment During the Operational Phase The quarry is substantially overlooked by the village of Washington and its surrounds, as well as by the South Downs Way and Chanctonbury Ring. It is also clearly visible from The Hollow (a public highway) and from a number of public footpaths. Edge treatment will therefore have only a limited impact in terms of screening activities from view. This does not seem to have been considered in Veolia’s response.

Veolia’s long term plan has changed. It is now proposing to ‘transform’ the quarry into ‘a productive landscape of fields and woodlands divided by species rich hedgerows, set on a sympathetically contoured hill’, with management objectives that would ‘aim to create a mosaic of habitats comprising woodland, scrub, hedgerow and wildflower grassland’. This differs from the restoration proposal outlined in 7.6.1 of the application. Nevertheless, we take issue with the concept that either of these proposals would provide an ‘amenity gain’ to the local environment. Our position is as described in Section 13 (p 32) of our Objection (30/03/07) and is unaltered. Namely, that the environmental cost of landfilling at Rock Common over perhaps three decades, together with the time taken for completion works, then the 60 years estimated by Veolia for stabilisation post-landfill, and then the time needed for biodiversity to reoccur, would outweigh the benefits of the final result.

3.3.2 Ashington Parish Council, CLAG – Containment Barriers Veolia states that the barrier it proposes offers ‘certainty in containment’. We maintain that the weight of evidence remains overwhelmingly against this assertion as explained in Section 6 of our Objection dated 30/03/07.

Veolia describes a managed recovery of groundwater levels to provide hydraulic containment, in effect by surrounding the landfill with groundwater at a positive pressure. Veolia describes this as an environment ‘whereby groundwater could potentially enter the landfill through any imperfections in the lining system, rather than allowing leachate to leak out’. This is a highly simplistic and theoretical hydraulic model, which bears no resemblance to real life. We note that Veolia acknowledges in this statement that there is indeed a risk of failure of the landfill lining and we would ask for details of the computer modelling to be made public. It does not look as though any new information has been brought forward here.

3.3.3. CLAG – Landfill Gas and Nuisance We maintain that because the leachates are recirculated in a bioreactor landfill to accelerate decomposition, this type of landfill site would generate more landfill gas at any given moment in time than a conventional landfill of the same size until full decomposition has occurred.

Within its plans for the control and management of landfill gas, Veolia has no proposals to recover gas at all during the early years of the site. It would not do so until gas emissions reach a level where it is forced to.

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 3

Despite assurances, the reality is that landfill sites – even well-managed ones - do create nuisance in the form of noxious gas and air-borne dust. We note that Veolia admits that dust would be generated on site, for example at the tipping face and by the back draft of vehicles. They confirm it would be more problematic in periods of prolonged dry weather. It would appear that prevention is not possible. The best it can offer is to ‘control and minimise’.

Veolia states, ‘It is unlikely that dust would impact on areas surrounding the Site’. Why not? Fugitive dust emissions from landfill sites are typically PM10 (particulate matter less than 10 microns in size). How would Veolia stop all airborne movement of such particulates?

Veolia proposes to make provision for wheel washers to remove dirt from the wheels of HGVs before they leave the site. This would not deal with PM10 dust elsewhere on HGVs which would be re-suspended when vehicles leave the site and gather speed. At Manor Road materials recycling plant in Erith, unusually high concentrations of PM10 dust corresponded with activity at the site and road movements of HGVs around the site. Re-suspended dust is a problem at other waste facilities – it would be at Rock Common too. Veolia states this would not be a problem at Rock Common (see Additional Information, main report page 91). Yet Veolia has only considered PM10 caused by vehicle exhausts – and then it assumes that the HGVs are always moving at a steady speed where emissions are lower. This would not be the case at Rock Common Quarry. Please see also Section 11.00 (Air Quality) and Appendix 11 report below.

3.3.4 CLAG – Groundwater Pumping System The existing ground water pumping system at Rock Common is entirely different in design from the perimeter pumping solution proposed in Section 6.5.4 of the ES. A perimeter dewatering system had been attempted before Tarmac took over sand quarrying at Rock Common. It failed. Please see Section 7 of our Objection 30/03/07 for more details. The existing system can therefore not be considered to be ‘a large scale pumping trial for the proposed groundwater management system’.

3.3.5 Other Objections – Wind Blown Rubbish The quarry is not only very deep, but its upper cliff faces are higher than much of the surrounding land. No assessment appears to have been made of the effects of air movement around the quarry - for example gusts of wind, wind vortices. It seems unlikely that standard litter mitigation methods, such as fencing, would contain wind- blown litter adequately in this instance. Temporary screening bunds would provide only localised wind attenuation.

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 4

4.0 NEED

Veolia was not requested to submit further information relating to the assessment of the need for non-hazardous landfill capacity. However, it has “informally agreed” with WSCC to update the need case set out in chapter 4 of its original Environmental Statement and incidentally respond to comments by consultees and objectors (Para 4.1).

Certain figures quoted by Veolia are not in dispute:

- According to the West Sussex Minerals and Waste Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) 2006/07, published in December 2007, municipal waste arisings in 2006/07 amounted to 449,000 tonnes of which around 36% was recycled or composted and the remaining 63% (286,000 tonnes) was sent to landfill (see Table 4.1) - According to the forecasts prepared for the County Council by AEA Technology the remaining permitted landfill capacity in West Sussex as of March 2007 was 2.1 million tonnes (this figure includes the extension to the Lidsey landfill site which was due to become operational in 2008) (see Table 4.3) - To this must be added the 1.4 million tonne extension to the Brookhurst Wood landfill site, approved in March 2008 (Para 4.4.2), and the 0.3 million tonne addition to the Horton landfill site, approved in April 2008 (Para 4.4.3).

To support the need case for the proposed Rock Common landfill site Veolia invokes two sets of waste forecasts:

(1) The AEA Energy and Environment Waste Forecasts for West Sussex 2007-2021, assuming that a 50% recycling rate is achieved for all non-inert waste streams by 2020, lead to the conclusion that the requirement for additional non-inert landfill capacity would amount to 4.8 million tonnes between 2007 and 2021 (this is significantly less than the shortfall identified by RPG 9). Veolia points out that taking into account the Brookhurst Wood and Horton extensions and assuming that the proposed planning application for Rock Common (2.7 million tonnes) is accepted(sic), this would only provide 4.4 million tonnes of additional capacity, which would be insufficient to meet the requirement set out in the AEA Energy and Environment Waste 2007 Report (Para 4.3.1.3). (2) According to the Planning Committee reports on the planning applications for the Brookhurst Wood (March 2008) and Horton (April 2008) landfill extensions, assuming that the two applications were approved (which they were), West Sussex would still face an annual shortfall in non-hazardous landfill capacity as from 2010/11 of 211,000 tonnes, increasing to 347,000 tonnes in 2020/21. With the revised forecast arisings going to landfill this implies a cumulative shortfall in landfill capacity amounting to 2.6 million tonnes by 2020/21. Given the revised estimates for landfill requirements up to 2020/21 of 6.5 million tonnes, there would then be a cumulative shortfall of 2.6 million tonnes. Veolia points out that this figure is almost the same as the anticipated level of capacity that would be provided by Rock Common Quarry over the same period (2.5 million tonnes)* (Para 4.4.4).

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 5

* There is a slight discrepancy in the figures quoted for Rock Common landfill capacity, which are derived from different sources.

The statistics for waste arisings, landfill capacity, etc used by Veolia are based on the forecasts supplied to WSCC by AEA Technology in October 2007 for inclusion in the WSMWDF Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) 2006/7. These are about to be superseded by the forecasts currently being prepared for the 2007/8 AMR and should be updated accordingly.

There are also two recent developments, which Veolia has failed to take into account:

(1) Rock Common Quarry is not the only possible landfill site in West Sussex. A planning application will shortly be submitted for a landfill site at Laybrook Brickworks, which has a potential capacity of 2.4 million tonnes up to 2021 corresponding very closely to the anticipated capacity of Rock Common Quarry. Another omission is the Langhurst Wood site, with a potential capacity of 1.2 million tonnes. These omissions from Veolia’s presentation are all the more surprising in view of the fact that both sites are provisionally allocated as non-inert landfill sites in the West Sussex Strategic Waste Site Allocations DPD (Preferred Option) of January 2007. This is not the case with Rock Common Quarry for reasons set out below. Please note, that we are not supporting a case for landfill at Laybrook Brickworks, but we are pointing out that the need case submitted by Veolia for Rock Common Quarry is out of date. (2) West Sussex County Council has recently announced that it is negotiating a £1 billion contract with Biffa Waste Services Ltd for the construction and operation of a materials recycling facility (MRF) and an anaerobic digestion (AD) plant at Brookhurst Wood landfill site. Household waste, which would otherwise go to landfill, will be mechanically shredded. Those parts that rot will be separated out and treated by bacteria to produce a fuel gas, while the remaining material will be turned into fuel or used to produce electricity. The plant, which is scheduled to open in late 2011, will significantly reduce landfill requirements in West Sussex on a continuing basis. Similarly, a Mechanical Biological Treatment plant is scheduled to open at Ford in 2011. All of these will further reduce the need for landfill in West Sussex.

Last but not least, Councillor Henry Smith, the leader of WSCC, when announcing the Biffa contract to the press, stated that by 2020/21 West Sussex will only be able to landfill 130,000 tonnes of household rubbish a year since the cost to local taxpayers of exceeding government targets would be prohibitive (see West Sussex County Times of 24 September 2008). This statement has created a new situation in that it implies a political commitment by WSCC to take the necessary additional measures in accordance with the “waste hierarchy” to reduce the volume of household waste going to landfill to the level indicated by Councillor Smith.

In conclusion, Veolia has failed to demonstrate the need for a landfill site at Rock Common Quarry. Its statistical forecasts need to be updated. More important, its revised presentation ignores both the existence of a suitable alternative site and the

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 6

measures being taken or planned by WSCC to bring the volume of household waste going to landfill down to much reduced levels.

5.0 POLICIES AND PLANS

As with the previous section WSCC has not requested additional information but Veolia has taken the opportunity to clarify its position on a certain number of issues which it considers relevant.

(1) South East Plan - : London waste.

The Panel Report published in August 2007 following the public examination of the draft South East Plan confirms that West Sussex will be required to take 9.4% of London’s waste. Veolia points out that this will give rise to additional need for non- hazardous landfill capacity in the county (Para 5.3).

However, Veolia also states that the need case set out in chapter 4 of the Environmental Assessment does not rely on the inclusion of the London apportionment to justify the need for Rock Common. It also recognizes that further work will have to be completed by SEERA before the overall level of non-hazardous landfill capacity in the south east and the extent of the shortfall in West Sussex can be determined (Para 4.2). At this stage, therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn.

As regards the apportionment of London’s waste, Veolia claims that the Jacobs Babtie criteria are a series of weighted criteria for apportioning the amount of capacity for the disposal of London’s waste on a Waste Planning Authority basis and are not intended to be applied to individual sites such as Rock Common as CLAG and others had argued (Para 5.5.3). Without entering into a methodological dispute, it should be pointed out that most of the criteria only make sense when applied to individual sites. This is certainly the case for the second (suitability of geology and/or engineering) and third (proximity to London) criteria, both of which would make Rock Common very hard to justify:

Criterion 1 Availability of suitable void space – medium weighting Criterion 2 Geology/engineering constraints – high weighting Criterion 3 Proximity to London – medium weighting Criterion 4 Sustainable transport – low weighting Criterion 5 Contracts and patterns of movement – not weighted Criterion 6 Environmental constraints – high weighting

Indeed, if West Sussex County Council were to approve Rock Common for landfilling residual waste from London, it would entirely alter the suitability criteria for the apportionment of London waste for the South East of England. Thus all of the objections of CLAG concerning the Jacobs Babtie Report remain valid.

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 7

(2) West Sussex Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF)

The Core Strategy DPD (Preferred Option) of January 2007 lays down that “the identification of strategic waste sites for non-inert (non-hazardous) landfill is limited to those areas where the geology would enable the use of established engineering techniques…. Accordingly, only existing or potential mineral voids in clay areas will be identified” (Para 5.3.53 of the Preferred Option DPD). In line with this rule the Strategic Waste Site Allocations DPD (Preferred Option) of January 2007 includes a number of possible sites, mainly brickworks in clay areas situated in the north of the county. It does not include, Rock Common Quarry, a sandpit situated below the water table.

In response, Veolia argues firstly that the Core Strategy does not exclude the development of alternative, i.e. non clay-based sites, provided that the other criteria are met (see Policy CSW9), and secondly, that the fact that Rock Common Quarry is not included in the Strategic Waste Site Allocations does not justify refusing the proposed development which must be considered on its merits (see Policy CSW8). It adds that neither the Core Strategy nor the Strategic Waste Site Allocations preferred options have yet been adopted, so there are as yet no allocated sites.

Against this, the following points should be borne in mind:

- Firstly, while WSCC admits that it may be technically and economically viable for sites to be located in other non-clay areas, justification would need to be shown on a site-by-site basis. Since the County Council does not have the resources to fully assess the suitability of other sites, it has felt obliged to adopt a precautionary approach to site allocation (see Para 5.3.53 of the Preferred Option of January 2007). - Secondly, it is clear from the wording of Policy CSW9 that WSCC would prefer to consider such proposals only if sufficient acceptable sites i.e. in clay areas, cannot be identified, which is not the case (see Section 4 above). - Thirdly, while it is true that because of procedural delays and the need to seek clarification from GOSE neither the Core Strategy nor the Strategic Waste Site Allocations have yet been approved, they remain a material consideration as evidence of the emerging WSMWDF .

5.2.2 Waste Strategy for England 2007 – 5.2.3 UK Biomass Strategy 2007 Veolia asserts in section 5.2.2 that landfill at Rock Common is consistent with the objectives of the Waste Strategy for England 2007 because it ‘will only accept residual waste left over after all other recyclable and biodegradeable materials have been removed and recovered from the waste stream’.

Two paragraphs later, in 5.2.3, Veolia argues that landfill at Rock Common would be consistent with the objectives of the UK Biomass Strategy 2007 ‘insofar as landfill gas production from the site will be less because many of the traditional biodegradeable elements will have been removed from the waste stream prior to disposal’.

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 8

Is it ‘all’ or ‘many’? It is surely more accurate to say some biodegradeable materials would be removed from the waste stream prior to disposal.

5.4.2 Horsham Local Development Framework Core Strategy With regard to the Horsham Local Development Framework Core Strategy, we understand that West Sussex County Council is the Waste Planning Authority, and it is therefore in the context of the policies of West Sussex County Council that this application will be considered.

5.5.2 Development of Rock Common in Advance of the Adoption of the Minerals and Waste Development Framework We support the concerns of Horsham District Council regarding prematurity. As discussed in 4.0 above, new waste management, recycling and disposal options are being brought forward which alter the need case for landfill at Rock Common.

5.5.4 Human Rights Act 1998 We maintain our objection that if landfill at Rock Common could not be justified as being in the public interest, it would be in contravention of Article 1 of the First Protocol of the Human Right Act (1998). This is explained in CLAG Objection (30/03/07) page 5.

One last point here:

The additional information submitted by Veolia under Section 5 consists essentially of arguments as to why WSCC must consider a proposal for landfill on a non- allocated site in a non-clay area. It has failed to submit new evidence as to the technical validity of its proposal, which has been considered unsuitable by the Environment Agency.

6.0 LAND USES AND WATER RESOURCES

6.2.1 Flood Risk Assessment The inclusion of a proper Flood Risk Assessment is a key planning requirement under Regulation 19. No FRA was provided with the original planning application. The Environment Agency requested this on 4th May 2007.

Referring to Appendix 6, ‘Report on Flood Risk Assessment for Rock Common Landfill Site West Sussex’:

Firstly we would point out that electronic copies of the Regulation 19 report, which were distributed to CLAG and other stakeholders did not include appendices 1 to 3 to this report. We feel this is an unfortunate ‘oversight’ on Veolia’s part as it is not possible to understand the FRA without these.

It is evident from Sections 4.2 – 5.0 of the report that the flood risk assessment is based wholly on data derived from The Flood Estimation Handbook and theoretical

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 9

modelling using WinFAP-FEH software, cross-checked against an ReFH modelled hydrograph. While the modelling methods used are established, they are only as good as the data fed into them. Referring to Appendix 1 (missing from electronic copies) of ‘Report on Flood Risk Assessment for Rock Common Landfill Site West Sussex’ the catchment area has been defined as 1.92 square kilometres.

In order to assess the potential flood risk from a development, it is surely necessary to consider the whole catchment, and the impact downstream of the proposed development. No catchment map has been provided to clarify the estimated area. Why not? How was the catchment boundary (and therefore its area) defined? In fact, the whole catchment of the Honeybridge Stream, excluding the area of Rock Common Quarry, is at least 3.8 square km, and probably larger:

Catchment Map – Honeybridge Stream

All of the calculations for the hydrograph and the estimated 1in 50, 1 in 100 year and 1 in 200 year flooding events are based on a catchment area of 1.92 square km, with a peak flow of less than 0.3 cumecs. For this reason alone, they must be wrong.

The hydrograph modelling assumes that the catchment is grass/soil. It does not take into account surface water runoff from the adjacent A24 and other paved areas. These would materially affect the peak of the hydrograph, as would the degree of saturation of the soil. This does not seem to have been included in the specific surface water runoff calculations in Appendix 3 either. Surface water from the road will flow off very quickly indeed during heavy rain and into the stream at the side. This will exacerbate any enhanced flows in the watercourse, and lead to an increased chance of 'flash flooding'. Similarly, a runoff coefficient of 0.35 (35% of rainfall = runoff) for

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 10

open land is wholly inadequate; if the catchment is already fully saturated, the runoff will be nearer to 100%.

The hydrograph in Appendix 2 (figure 44) is apparently calculated for a 100-year return period storm event. It assumes a total rainfall of 49.8 mm distributed evenly over a 3.5 hour period. However, this does not equate to actual extreme rainfall data recorded for the South Downs:

John Boardman of the University of Oxford and Jonathan J. Butler of the Institute of Geography, University of Edinburgh researched the very severe floods of autumn 2000 across the South Downs area, the wettest autumn there since records began in 1776. What was notable about the conditions leading to the flooding in autumn 2000 was how widespread and prolonged the rainfall was. Exceptional rainfall and river discharges were sustained over 14 weeks beginning mid-September.

According to data cited by both Boardman and Butler, the maximum daily rainfall in October 2000 was a staggering 133.2 mm (at Plumpton), which occurred overnight on 11/12 October 2000. Similarly high 24-hour rainfall figures were recorded at other locations over a wide area of the South Downs, namely 95.2 mm, 115.0 mm and 89.8 mm.

Looking at the original rainfall data for this period in October 2000 on an hour-by- hour basis, and comparing it with the hydrograph data supplied in Appendix 2, there are some inconsistencies. Golder Associates’ hydrograph is apparently calculated for a 100-year return period, and has a total rainfall of 49.8 mm distributed over a 3.5 hour period. On 11/12 October 2000, rainfall rates at several locations were indeed similar to this value overnight, BUT the rain was falling onto saturated catchments where over 30 mm of rain had already fallen in the previous 6 hours. This means the hydrograph on that night would not be starting from a base flow value of zero as it does in the example in Appendix 2. In fact, it is very unlikely that a 100-year return period event would ever occur with zero base flows at start.

It would be very interesting to see a calculated hydrograph that actually used, as input data, the hourly rainfall values measured that night (11/12 October 2000), and that ran for the full 12-hour period of that particular storm, i.e. from 20:00 until 08:00 hours. Indeed, if one did this, the calculated hydrograph would look very different.

The reality for the catchment in question is that overnight on 11/12 October 2000, Pump House Cottage was inundated with water from the Honeybridge Stream to a depth of more than 225mm (it had flooded twice in the previous decade). Rock Lodge was also inundated, and the house at Castle Kitchens was almost inundated.

Was this a 1 in 100 year event, though? In January 2008, Castle Kitchens was inundated when extremely heavy rain fell on a saturated catchment, while residents at Rock House and Rock Lodge prevented inundation by sandbagging their homes. Not only was the Honeybridge Stream out of bank again, but surface water run-off was using The Hollow as a watercourse.

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 11

The entire Flood Risk Assessment is based on theoretical data rather than facts. This was not necessary. Golder Associates was given more than enough time for a detailed field survey. This would have revealed the existence of properties at risk of flooding and these should have been highlighted in the FRA. Golder Associates also had more than enough time to install a rainfall gauge in the catchment, and telemetry at key points in the Honeybridge Stream so they could produce hydrographs based on real rather than estimated data. Significantly, no attempt has been made to quantify the capacity of the Honeybridge Stream or to identify points where breaching occurs, and under what circumstances. As it stands, on the basis of Veolia’s Flood Risk Assessment, the planning application should be refused.

6.2.2 Surface Water Management System Golder Associates proposes installing telemetry in the Honeybridge Stream upstream of the site. It is stated this would trigger an alarm that ‘could’ (or equally we suggest ‘may not’) lead to ‘the temporary suspension of groundwater pumping for a limited period to minimise any risk associated with surface water flooding’. This seems to be a very high-risk strategy in that the prevention of flooding problems would require human intervention. It assumes some expertise in flood risk assessment and the ability to take decisions and actions at times when the site may not even be operating.

We mentioned previously concerns that a run-off coefficient of 0.35 for grassland is not appropriate if the land is already fully saturated. Post restoration, if the rate of discharge to the Honeybridge Stream were to be controlled to this rate, the proposed drainage system and temporary storage capacity would need to be more than is proposed.

Finally, no consideration appears to have been given to ownership of the watercourse of the Honeybridge Stream. Proposals have been put forward to re-engineer parts of the watercourse, for example to provide attenuation weirs, without any consultation with the co-owners. Because of this it is possible Veolia’s proposals could not even be implemented.

6.2.3 Effect on the Integrity of Adjacent Landfill Sites It must be accepted that there is a relationship between the Windmill Hill landfill site and Rock Common Quarry. Both are owned by the same landowner (Wiston Estate). Furthermore, longterm groundwater pollution prevention measures for Windmill Hill landfill site are based on the current de-watering scheme for Rock Common. We do not see how Veolia can assume it would have no responsibility for ensuring a continuing longterm solution other than to suggest, in 2020-2025, it might be willing for Biffa to take over the site’s by then ageing groundwater management system. We note that Veolia has still not provided an assessment of the consequential risk should groundwater management measures fail to be implemented successfully at the Windmill Hill landfill site.

6.2.5 RGN3 The Environment Agency’s concerns regarding this planning application are policy objections. We note that no further evidence has been brought forward by Veolia

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 12

concerning the design, construction and operation of the New Albion and Patterson Court landfill sites. Since one is based on Coal Measures, and the other on Fuller’s Earth, it is difficult to see why Veolia claims their geology and hydrogeology are the same as Rock Common. In fact, out of six sites listed on page 41, at least four are clay-based. We understand permissions for some, including New Albion and Patterson preceded RGN3.

On page 41, Veolia acknowledges the fact that ‘there has been the potential for failure of hydraulically contained landfills’. It describes the possibility of ‘steep hydraulic gradients’ occurring, leading to the ‘catastrophic failure of the lining system’. The report states ‘VESSL are confident such a design can be achieved and be viewed as being ‘acceptably fail safe’. What does that mean? Either it fails safe – or it doesn’t.

In the final paragraph of this section, an explanation is given as to why the lining system at Houghton-le-Spring in Sunderland failed and an assertion that the different liner solution proposed for Rock Common would not similarly fail.

It should be noted that various landfill liner techniques have been tried without success over the years (‘no barrier system can prevent all leachate passing through it – DEFRA/Enviros 2004). Even the computer modelling used for Rock Common assumes a degree of leakage. However, we are quite sure that Golder Associates, the consultants for the Houghton-le-Spring landfill, would have stressed the complete reliability of the lining solution they proposing there, just as they have tried to do in this instance for Rock Common Quarry.

6.3 Other Issues arising from the Responses of Consultees and Objectors

6.3.1 WSCC Planning WSCC made a similar request to the Environment Agency, which was for Veolia to provide details of other sites situated on major aquifers. No details have been provided; just a list of six landfill sites. The timing of these is unclear with regards to RGN3 and we feel this should be clarified. Below are notes on three of the six sites:

Apsley Farm – ‘Although the site has planning permission and is in an existing Preferred Area the Environment Agency have refused a PPC permit on hydrogeological grounds and it is considered unlikely that development will take place.’ (Source: Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Core Planning Strategy Public Examination Paper 2007)

Betton Abbots Landfill – ‘8.23 Because aquifers are both porous and permeable, they are vulnerable to contamination from human activities associated with agricultural practices, urbanisation, industrial processes, disposal of wastes, and spillages of chemicals such as solvents and fuel oils. The vulnerability of an aquifer to contamination can be assessed from the composition of any overlying deposits, the nature and thickness of the unsaturated zone and the speed with which water flows

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 13

through the zone. Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council has a groundwater vulnerability map covering its district published by the Environment Agency showing the groundwater vulnerability of west Shropshire. The Environment Agency has also provide Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council with other groundwater vulnerability issues (see Appendix 8).

8.24 The hydrogeological characteristics have been briefly mentioned in 8.22 above. Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Councils district is in the main underlain by the Permo-Triassic aquifer. This is highly permeable and a major groundwater source and located in the areas north of the County Town. It is also underlain in parts by a minor aquifer comprising of carboniferous strata including Coal Measures and Enville Beds that outcrop at various locations around Shrewsbury. This minor aquifer is beneath the main part of the County Town and spreads in a southerly direction across the width of the district. Other areas of the district are classed as a non-aquifer.

It is imperative that both surface and groundwater quality is maintained and improved wherever possible. If such sources are allowed to become contaminated by pollution from whatever sourc,e then the damage can invariably be irrevocable. The Environment Agency has identified the following sites as affected by contamination: Betton Abbots Landfill. The site primarily accepts waste from the Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council area. Routine monitoring of the groundwater has highlighted an area of the site that requires further investigation.’

8.28 Sites Affected by Contamination . . .The Environment Agency is committed to the delivery of environmental improvement at a local level and through this plan intends to work in collaboration and partnership with others to achieve this aim. The Environment Agency has identified the following sites as affected by contamination:

Betton Abbots Landfill. The site primarily accepts waste from the Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council area. Routine monitoring of the groundwater has highlighted an area of the site that requires further investigation.

(Source – Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council, Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy June 2001)

Westmill Landfill ‘Biffa Waste Services has been fined £32,500 at Hertford Magistrates Court after an Environment Agency investigation into smells and odours from a waste landfill. The company was found guilty of four counts of breaching their Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) license and fined £20,000. In addition the company was also ordered to pay £12,500 costs by Hertford Magistrates on Tuesday 6 November. The landfill site started operations in the early 1980’s accepting household, commercial and industrial waste. The first section of the quarry was filled by the summer of 2004 and tipping moved to the next site under a new PPC license. Within six days after tipping began in the next section of the quarry in July 2004, residents on the Vicarage Estate describing the smell as ‘like standing behind a dustcart’ and registered their complaints with the Environment Agency.

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 14

The Environment Agency said that at first it worked with Biffa, putting together a plan to improve the site and reduce the impact of the smells, but complaints remained high. The regulatory body saw fit to issue the site with an Enforcement Notice in November 2004. This required them to prevent odours polluting the environment or causing a serious detriment to the amenity of the locality. The site was receiving around 90 lorries tipping up to 1,000 tonnes of waste daily. With no improvement after the Enforcement Notice had expired, the Agency decided that a prosecution was the only course of action left. ‘Appeal and re-trial The Agency says that the case has taken many hearings through the courts with the company pleading not guilty. The first case, in April 2006, was dismissed by the judge, but the Environment Agency appealed to the Queens Bench Division of the High Court on 12 December 2006 who found in the Environment Agency’s favour. A retrial was ordered at Hertford Magistrates.’ (Source – www.morethanwaste.com)

6.3.4 CLAG Issue: The proposed barrier containment system is based on flawed data. Issue: Landsim 2.5 is not capable of modelling effectively when the proposed landfill site is below the water table and/or has multiple aquifers.

We would refer the LPA to CLAG Objection (30/03/07) pages 13 and 14, where we explained that LandSim 2.5 is not capable of modelling multiple aquifers and is not capable of making accurate predictions where a site is below the water table. Environment Agency guidance confirms this. Therefore, in this instance, the data outputs from LandSim 2.5 are flawed and cannot be relied upon for the purposes of this risk assessment. Furthermore, with reference to CLAG Objection (30/03/07) Section 6.3.3 (Surface Water Flow), data collected during 1992 indicated that the (Honeybridge) stream is augmented by diffuse ‘ground water ingress to the watercourse’ which enters via the bed of the watercourse close to the Folkestone beds/Sandgate and Hythe beds boundary. This has still not been considered.

In order to justify its reliance on LandSim 2.5, Veolia is now arguing that Rock Common Quarry is ‘not sub-water table as such’ (page 44). Surely this cannot be in dispute?

Issue: The Marehill Clay does not act as an efficient aquitard between the Folkstone Beds and the Upper Greensands and Chalk aquifers. Veolia;s original submission, section 6.4.4 states:

‘The distinctive chemical differences between groundwater abstracted from the Folkestone beds and the Sandgate and Hythe beds is evidence of the hydraulic separation afforded to both systems by the Marehill Clay.’

The 2004 Hydrogeological and Hydrological Assessment by G. Chaplin (which is in fact the only original scientific research conducted into the quarry’s hydrology and hydrogeology) established the opposite; that there is in fact a clear hydraulic relationship between the two aquifers, despite the presence of the Marehill Clay layer.

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 15

Page 17 of CLAG Objection (30/03/07) clarifies this. We therefore believe our objection stands.

Reference: Section 3.4.2.1: ROCK COMMON QUARRY ENVIRONMENT ACT REVIEW (Environment Act 1995, Section 96) Hydrogeological and Hydrological assessment January 2004 author Gavin Chaplin)

Issue: There is a proven relationship between ground and surface water at Rock Common, which has not been taken into account by the hydraulic containment assessment and proposed barrier lining solution. Again, page 17 of CLAG Objection (30/03/07) clarifies that a relationship exists. We note that Veolia’s response ‘acknowledges the sub-water table setting of the site’ which is in contrast to its statement on page 44 of the Regulation 19 submission, that ‘the site will not be sub-water table as such’. Which is it?

Reference: Section 3.4.2.1: ROCK COMMON QUARRY ENVIRONMENT ACT REVIEW (Environment Act 1995, Section 96) Hydrogeological and Hydrological assessment January 2004 author Gavin Chaplin)

Issue: The Buncton Stream has not been considered as a local receptor. With reference to Volume 2, Section 6.3.2 of Veolia’s original planning application (Local Watercourses – para 2) no reference was made to the Buncton Stream system in Veolia’s application despite the fact that one of the headwaters to the Buncton Stream rises a few metres from Rock Common Quarry. While we acknowledge that Veolia proposes would only discharge groundwater (with the attendant pollution risk) to the Honeybridge Stream, this stream does converge with the Buncton Stream in an area, which is predominantly flat and poorly drained. See also Section 6.2.1 above and Appendix 1 to this report (Section 5.2).

Issue: The existence of two principle (principal) tributary headwaters within the site has not been considered Veolia describes two ‘small watercourses which have their headwaters rising upon the lower reaches of the north-facing South Downs and discharge the River Adur some 7.6km to the northeast of the Site’, and discards them as being of any significance to the assessment.

Compare this with page 17, Section 3.4.1.1-3.4.2.5 of Section 3.4.1 of ‘Rock Common Quarry Hydrogeological and Hydrological Assessment’ (Tarmac 15th January 2004):

‘The Buncton Stream, located some 440m east of Rock Common Quarry at its closest approach, is sourced by two principal tributaries (eastern and western tributaries) with headwaters located in the area of the Site. . .’

Issue: Rock Common is in a flood plain. It is a subaquifer site with multiple aquifers and is below the water table. Regardless of containment methods used, there is a risk of contamination to ground and surface water courses. Veolia has not brought any new information forward here. We maintain our objection.

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 16

Issue: The groundwater pumping solution proposed is unlikely to work. It would therefore pose a significant risk of contamination to ground and surface waters. The existing ground water pumping system at Rock Common is entirely different in design from the perimeter pumping solution proposed in Section 6.5.4 of the ES - please see section 3.3.4 above (CLAG – Groundwater Pumping System). A perimeter dewatering system had been attempted before Tarmac took over sand quarrying at Rock Common. It failed. Please see Section 7 of our Objection 30/03/07 for more details. Although a groundwater abstraction system is successfully employed at the site at present, this does not mean the perimeter pumping system proposed by Veolia would work. Past attempts show it would not.

7.0 ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION

7.2.1 Ecological Desktop Study and Phase 1 Habitat Survey The Phase 1 Habitat Survey concerning the southwest field was conducted on the 20th September 2007. This means the survey was performed at a time of the year when the majority of wild plants were over. It was also outside the breeding season of nearly every species of bird and mammal found in the UK. We therefore suggest that the Phase 1 Habitat Survey cannot be relied upon.

We would add that within the time available to Veolia, it would have been possible to conduct the habitat survey at a more appropriate time of year.

The following comments and section references relate to the Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Appendix 7 to the main report).

Appendix 7 - Phase 1 Habitat Survey

With reference to Section 3.2 , the survey failed to identify a long-established badger sett at the west edge of the south west field. The excavations and tracks are clearly visible on the bank of the Honeybridge Stream. Badgers and their setts are offered considerable protection in the UK under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992.

With reference to Section 4.2 of the Habitat Survey, it is stated that the southwest field is ‘a good candidate site for a programme of ecological enhancement’. The fact is, at present, this is poor pasture. Even if managed, it would be unlikely to attract much more wildlife than is presently breeding along the hedgerow and tree boundaries. It is a tiny area compared with the 60 acres or so of the present quarry. The biodiversity of the latter is rich and will be considerably enhanced as an almost unique habitat if the existing restoration proposals (a lake and nature reserve) are adopted.

Three species protected by Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act are present in the quarry. These are Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrines) Kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) and Great Crested Newt (Titurus cristatus). Little Ringed Plover (Charadrius dubius) have frequently attempted to breed in the quarry, but failed due to

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 17

disturbance of the level sand areas. Of the three protected species, the presence of the Kingfisher and Great Crested Newt have not been considered in the Appendix 7 reports. Both are resident here. These are serious omissions from the assessment.

Appendix 2 - Phase 1 Habitat Survey Target Notes Target Notes 1 to 10 describe only botanical habitat. There is no mention of the birds and animals they support.

Appendix 2 - Target note 10 – The working areas of the quarry Target Notes A to E refer only to wetland plants. No mention is made of the animals and fish that occur in the water, notably the Great Crested Newt (Titurus cristatus) and the Marsh Frog (Rana ridibundus). Nor is mention made of the Kingfishers, Herons and Cormorants that feed there. A seasonal survey would have revealed waders around the water margins during the autumn migration period, and several species of ducks in wintertime, particularly during cold spells.

Target Notes 10 to 18 Again only wild plants have been identified. There is no mention of the cliffs that offer nest sites for the declining Sand Martin (Riparia riparia). Sand Martins recently deserted the site because of disturbances, but there is no doubt they would return if the cliff face was left undisturbed. Of equal importance, there is no mention of the importance of the cliff faces as a nesting site for Peregrines (Falco peregrinus). It has been suggested that there would be a 50% chance that they would adopt a nest box if mounted on the cliff face. But this would not work because nest boxes are only adopted by Peregrines if used in elevated positions, such as cathedrals, tower blocks or power station chimneys. Even if they were adopted by some birds, the proposed landfilling would gradually reduce the height of the cliff face, driving any remaining Peregrines away, that is supposing they had not already been driven away by the site activities.

Appendix 7 Mitigation & Monitoring Scheme and Responses to Comments from Various Agencies

1.3.2.3.2 Targets – item 6 Sand Martins will only rest in sand banks next to water – they will not nest in them.

2nd table on page 14 Fish and amphibians are not included in the proposed management activities. They should be considered.

1.3.4.2.1 Method & 1.4.2.2.2 Timing and Programme It should be noted that the legal boundary between Rock Common and both Sandhill Farm and Washington Towers is the centre of the Honeybridge Stream. There has

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 18

been no consultation with joint owners of the water course regarding any of these proposals.

1.4.2 Low Population of Grass Snake We can confirm that the Adder (Vipera Berus) and Common Lizard (Lacerta Vivipara) are both present.

1.4.3.2 Summary of Results There are very few suitable nesting sites in West Sussex for breeding Peregrines, as a result of which, competition is fierce. The loss of Rock Common as a breeding site would be very serious. It is therefore very unlikely that the Peregrines currently breeding in Rock Common Quarry would relocate successfully due to the competition for the few available sites.

1.4.3.3 Mitigation Strategy The proposed tower and nesting platform are impractical and would not be successful in attracting a breeding pair.

1.4.4 Badgers There is considerable badger activity in the vicinity of Rock Common, with an established sett on the banks of the Honeybridge Stream within the application area. This was not recorded in the Phase 1 Habitat Survey. However, with respect to 1.4.4.2.1, there have never been any deaths of badgers in living memory in The Hollow.

1.5 Residual Impacts and Summary We strongly disagree with the summary. The existing ROMPP approved restoration scheme is carefully detailed and will create a unique environment that will promote biodiversity. We support the view of the South Downs Committee (table 6, page 17) that the proposed scheme would provide less ecological benefit than the existing approved scheme – in particular as regards avifauna, invertebrates and reptiles.

Finally, we would add that it should be evident from our response to both of the Appendix 7 documents (above) that insufficient real research has been conducted. The impact of changing the quality/volume of water in the Honeybridge Stream has not been considered, while other owners of the Honeybridge Stream have not even been consulted.

8.0 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL EFFECTS

8.2.1 Pre and Post-Restoration Settlement Levels We have no comments relating to Section 8.2.1, save to say that the ‘unnatural, man- made orange scars in the landscape’ referred to on page 70 have become an awesome and well-liked local landmark - we would suggest Veolia’s keenness to landfill over them has more to do with increasing void capacity than worries about ponding water.

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 19

8.2.2 ‘Edge Treatment’ during the Operational Phase We support the Environment Agency’s concern that landfilling would mean the level of waste would progressively become higher, which would substantially affect the amenity of residential properties and businesses in close proximity to the site boundary, as well as users of the public footpath.

Contrary to the statement on page 72 (under ‘Additional Information’) the existing bank of trees only partially obscures views of the quarry; it does not by any means ‘prevent’ them. Re-profiling the quarry edge and planting new trees would not significantly mask views of the quarry from elevated locations such as the village.

The proposal to progressively raise the perimeter height in six 5 metre stages over the last 5 years of landfilling, would be highly intrusive for nearby residential properties and businesses in this rural location and would be clearly visible from the A24 and A283 and nearby footpaths. It would produce a substantial long-term ‘blot on the landscape’. We maintain our objection.

8.3.2 CLAG Issue: Visual impact on Chanctonbury Ring and AONB Our objection on grounds of unacceptable visual impact has been misunderstood by Veolia. With reference to page 26 of CLAG Objection (30/03/07), it was concerned only with the views from Chanctonbury Ring and the South Downs Way. It concerns visual impact from The Hollow, other nearby public rights of way, footpaths and bridleways, and the village of Washington, where many properties look down onto the quarry. We disagree with Veolia’s assertion that the visual impact from the South Downs Way would be ‘moderate to minor adverse’. This does not take into account the sheer size of the quarry and the many elevated views over if from the surrounding landscape. ‘Moderate’ is SIGNIFICANT; ‘minor’ is not. Which is it?

8.3.2 CLAG Issue: The proposed restoration would not be achieved before the end of the century Section 5.6. of the Planning Application clearly states that upon completion of all operational work in 2035, stabilisation of the waste mass – and therefore settlement of the landform – could be achieved within 60 years of site closure. Without splitting hairs needlessly, 2095 is the end of this century.

9.0 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE

9.3.1 CLAG Issue: There are 56 Grade II listed buildings within 2km of the Site Somewhat belatedly, Veolia has consulted the English Heritage Listings Register, which shows 64 listed buildings within 1000m of the proposed development boundary. This accords with our concern that there are 56 Grade II listed buildings within 2km of the centre of the quarry. Worryingly, according to Veolia’s belated investigations, there are 33 listed buildings within 750m of the site and a staggering 28 within 500m of the site. As we pointed out, there are four Grade II listed buildings around the perimeter of the site: Sandhill Farm, Rock House, Rock Windmill and Green Farm. Of these, Green Farm and Sandhill Farm abut the quarry (the curtilage of

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 20

the latter for a distance of 350m). It is absurd of Veolia to suggest that the development proposals would have a negligible effect on the settings of these listed properties. One only has to look at Rock Windmill to see the detrimental effect of the adjacent landfill site. The traditional, peaceful setting of a windmill on a hill would be spoiled by 500 HGVs a day trundling past.

10.0 TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

Following safety concerns raised by West Sussex County Highways engineers, the proposed routing of HGVs in and out of the site has been revised. It is now proposed that all HGVs would be routed in and out of the site via the A283. Substantial widening ofThe Hollow is proposed, together with changes at the junction of The Hollow/A283, widening of the A283 carriageway towards Washington roundabout (a third of a mile) and lane modifications at the Washington roundabout.

The proposed changes have not taken into account an existing approved transport plan for the new factory extension at Castle Kitchens Ltd., which will be accessed via The Hollow. We also noticed that many pages and diagrams in the additional information still refer to HGVs arriving or departing via the A24. Clearly this is not the proposed routing. In other areas there is an equally clear lack of technical rigour, leading us to conclude that the revised transport assessment cannot be relied on:

10.2.1 Routing Strategy/Widening of The Hollow We feel it is important to recognise that The Hollow is a public highway, not a private access to Rock Common Quarry. If the application were to be approved, The Hollow would still need to afford safe access for the public and for the whole spectrum of motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and horses, rather than just HGVs associated with Rock Common Quarry. Widening of The Hollow to two carriageways is proposed, but this could be problematic due to the presence of a sheer drop on one side. It is proposed to widen the Hollow to 6 metres. Yet a 3 axle HGV measures over 3 metres mirror to mirror.

DMRB Volume 6, TD 27/96 Section 1, Chapter 3, Part 2, Figure 6 states that the width of a single, all-purpose S2 type road should be 7.3m. A six metre road would leave no room for two lorries to pass safely. We believe there is insufficient room to achieve this and it does not seem appropriate to relax the 7.3m standard given the large number of two way HGV movements.

At its nearest point, the existing carriageway is just 10 metres from the Rock Common quarry cliff face, while on the other side, it is just 4 metres from the Windmill Quarry cliff face. Other engineering constraints, such as the proposed perimeter pumping system ring main and pumping stations do not seem to have been factored in. Surely, in light of the proposed 500+ daily two way HGV movements, any road widening here would raise concerns about structural issues? Yet this has not even been considered, let alone addressed in the application.

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 21

10.2.2 Capacity Assessment of the impact of the proposal at the junction of The Hollow and the A283 The Pike and the A24 Washington Roundabout It is a matter of record that the section of the A283 from Steyning to Washington has been subject to special safety measures in recent years due to the high levels of accidents here. Yet for this application, very minor changes are proposed to the junction of the A283 with The Hollow, and no special measures at all for HGVs turning right off the A283 into The Hollow.

The justification for this is set out in the Section 4.4 of the Supplementary Transport Paper (Appendix 10) which states, ‘The accident record shows that the junction has no history of accidents during the latest available three year period. It is therefore concluded that the junction does not suffer from safety related issues as a result of HGV movements and operates efficiently in the local road network’. We would point out that the average HGV movements exiting The Hollow onto the A283 are currently a mere 8 per day (Appendix H; ATC Outputs Hollow South Site – see below). An increase to 500 daily HGV movements at that junction represents a significant intensification in HGV vehicle movements, with clear implications for road safety.

In peak periods, traffic flows along the A283 are considerable. According to Intermodal Transportation’s own traffic count, the average traffic density currently equates to one vehicle every three seconds. During the morning peak, in a line of almost continuous traffic, 27 westbound and 21 eastbound school busses pass the junction (figures from Manual Traffic Survey – Appendix H). If the plan were to be approved, HGVs would be turning into and leaving The Hollow every 40-50 seconds. This would pose a safety risk which does not seem to have been adequately understood by the applicant.

10.2.4 Capacity assessment of the impact of the proposal at the A283/A24 Washington roundabout A supplementary capacity assessment has indicated that the proposed development would increase queues on the A283 Storrington Road, A24 London Road, and A24 Horsham Road approach. In response, localised widening of Washington roundabout is proposed.

Drawing IT528/STA/09 shows the proposed ‘improvements’ to the roundabout. The re-profiling proposed does not take into account the existence of subway accesses on the north east and north west of the roundabout. Safety of the existing pedestrian footpath on the north eastern perimeter of the roundabout appears not to have been considered either. Widening of the A283 Storrington road approach from two to three lanes would appear to mean the loss of parking spaces in the layby in front of Washington Cottages. Where would these residents be expected to park? Finally, on the A283 Storrington road, there is a pedestrian refuge which affords some protection for people crossing to and from the westbound bus stop. Widening the roundabout access to three lanes would seem to greatly increase the risk of accidents involving pedestrians. Has this been considered?

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 22

Despite many pages of computer calculations, the figures presented show the end result would have a negligible effect on queuing traffic on the key north-south A24 transport corridor. According to table 3.7 in the Supplementary Transport Paper – Final Draft (Appendix 10) in the morning peak period, a reduction of just 10 vehicles could be achieved queuing northbound on the A24, while in the evening peak period, the reduction in queuing vehicles southbound on the A24 could be just 13 vehicles. In reality, this would not constitute an ‘improvement’, especially given the many months of misery and delays the roadworks would cause.

10.2.5 Review of the latest available three year period of Personal Injury Accident (PIA) data According to Intermodal Transportation, the junction of The Hollow with the A283 displays an ‘exemplary safety record and this would be unlikely to change following implementation of the development proposal’. A review of PIA data over the last three years indicates no accidents at this junction. This should not be a surprise since there are very few daily vehicle movements at this junction at present.

10.2.6 Safety of the proposed site access junction It can be seen by comparing Figure 10 in the original planning application with Figure 10 in the additional information submitted, that the exact position of the site access would be moved approximately 15m from the original location. The new location does not appear to have been subject to a Safety Audit. We believe that a Stage 1 Safety Audit of the proposed site entrance would highlight HGV conflicts on the 8 metre wide site access road.

Errors in Intermodal Figures The revised transport plan is underpinned by the ‘Supplementary Transport Paper’ produced by Intermodal Transportation in Appendix 10. Diagrams relating to the research for this are included in ‘Figures’. A number of errors have been identified:

Firstly, IT/528/STA/01 appears to be an amalgam of two different surveys, one a survey of Washington roundabout conducted in 2005, the other a survey at The Hollow conducted three years later, in 2008. There are some quite big differences in vehicle movements between the two. For example, the 2005 Washington Roundabout survey shows 44 HGVs leaving the Washington roundabout in an eastbound direction along the A283, while the later Traffic Count at The Hollow shows 34. This is a sizeable difference. Which is correct? Can the base line projections in subsequent diagrams be relied on if the original data are shaky?

The top diagram on IT/528/STA/01 shows observed hourly AM peak hour traffic flows for HGVs entering The Hollow from the A283. The bracketed numbers relate to HGVs which are of course for the existing Windmill Landfill (operated by BIFFA) and Rock Common sand quarry (operated by Tarmac). The next figure, IT528/STA/02 is supposed to indicate projected base flows which would occur in

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 23

2015 if the proposed landfill facility at Rock Common were approved. Again, bracketed numbers relate to vehicles entering The Hollow for the existing Windmill Landfill and Rock Common sand quarry – 11 HGVs in total. But why are these included when both the Windmill Landfill and the sand quarrying operations would have ceased?

According to IT528/STA/01, 44 HGVs were observed travelling eastwards from the Washington roundabout on the A283 during peak hours. The 25 HGVs generated by the proposal (if routed as envisaged) would increase the number of HGVs travelling eastwards on the A283 by 74%. However, Intermodal Transportation has included 12 school busses in the figure of 34 HGVs not connected with the site. Outside school term times, only 22 HGVs would be travelling eastwards along the A283. This means the increase in HGVs travelling eastwards outside school term time would be 114%. Whichever figures one chooses to believe, we feel the increase in HGV movements would be noticeable, particularly around The Hollow/A283 junction.

IT528/STA/03 is also incorrect. The top diagram is supposed to show AM peak hour development traffic relating to the application. It clearly shows 8 HGVs entering The Hollow via the A24. Yet the revised transport plan proposes that all HGVs should enter via the A283. Therefore 25 HGVs would enter The Hollow from a westerly direction, not 17 as shown.

IT528/STA/04 is also incorrect. The top diagram does not show any traffic flows at all to Castle Kitchens and it shows four HGVs exiting The Hollow onto the A24 from the Windmill Landfill. The planning conditions for the Windmill landfill (DC/781/06 [WS]) require all HGVs to arrive and depart via the A283. And the level of vehicle movements approved is 20 arrivals and departures per day – not 10 per hour.

The lower diagram on IT528/STA/04 is also incorrect. Again, no vehicle movements are shown for Castle Kitchens, and there should be zero HGV movements for the Windmill landfill as it closes at 17:00 hours.

IT528/STA/05 is incorrect. Again no movements are shown for Castle Kitchens, but vehicle movements relating to the Windmill Landfill and Rock Common sand quarrying operations are still included. Finally, because the previous diagrams are incorrect, so are the cumulative data on IT528/STA/06.

Appendix H Supplementary Transport Paper – Traffic Counter results Appendix H contains results from two traffic counters placed in The Hollow. The tables show the level of vehicle movements recorded over a period of one week. However, the applicant has omitted the vehicle class headings so it is not possible to see what types of vehicles are actually using The Hollow. Furthermore, the flow charts IT528/STA/01 to IT528/STA/06 do not make the data explicit either. Presented like this, it may seem that there is already a large number of HGV movements in The Hollow.

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 24

We have therefore extracted the HGV movements using the standard vehicle class headings, which are:

1 = Motorbike 2 = Car/Van 3 = LGV 4 = Bus 5 and above = HGV The results by vehicle class are as follows. The figures in brackets are daily averages:

Current weekly vehicle movements Cars, vans LGVs Buses HGVs & motorbikes Towards A283 Monday – Friday 636 (127.2) 112 (22.4) 2 (0.4) 42 (8.4) Saturday & Sunday 86 (43) 9 (4.5)

From A283 Monday – Friday 313 (62.6) 109 (21.8) 1 (0.2) 114 (22.8) Saturday & Sunday 56 (23) 4 (2) 0 1 (0.5)

It can be seen that the overall number of vehicle movements recorded is low, and that there are very few HGV movements indeed. By way of comparison, and to show the intensification in vehicle movements proposed by Veolia’s planning application:

Total weekly HGV movements – Current & Proposed Current Proposed % change Monday – Friday 156 2500 1602% Saturday & Sunday 1 250* 25000%

* estimated as actual figure not provided

Summary The proposal by Veolia would generate in excess of 500 HGV movements per day locally to the site. Fact. As we have shown above, this would be a significant intensification in lorry movements on the local road network, in particular on the A283 and in The Hollow. However, the incorrect routings shown in IT528/STA/03 and IT528/STA/04 indicate that incorrect assumptions have been made concerning HGV movements in the Supplementary Transport Paper (Appendix 10). The diagrams and data presented are clearly misleading and present a picture, which at first appears favourable to the applicant. No account has been taken of an existing approved transport plan for Castle Kitchens Ltd, which is based in The Hollow, and we take issue with the assertion that the ‘exemplary safety record’ of the A283/The Hollow junction means it can safely accommodate the proposed increase in lorry movements with only minor junction changes. Given the overall level of errors in the underlying research, though, we do not feel the County Council should consider the transport plan offers a reliable basis for this planning application, yet alone an acceptable one. We maintain our objection.

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 25

11.0 AIR QUALITY

We have related our comments on air quality to the report in Appendix 11:

Appendix 11 Air Quality Impact Assessment of Road Emissions

1.4 Need for Assessment – Table 1 We share the concern of Horsham District Council that approximately 20% of the HGV traffic associated with the development would pass through Storrington, where air quality tests have already shown excessive levels of NO2 AQO. It should not be considered acceptable to approve a development that would materially increase the existing NO2 levels. We note also that in Additional Information, main report page 92, Golder proposes it would merely ‘liaise with the council as necessary with respect to any potential air quality impacts’ of the proposed development. This simply is not good enough.

2.0 Methodology The methodology proposed relates only to movements of road vehicles on the local road network and in and out of the site (at the site entrance). Site activities will also generate substantial amounts of NO2 for properties abutting the quarry and we cannot see that this has been taken into account at all in the application.

3.1 Baseline conditions/3.2 Future Road Traffic The estimate by site operators at the sand processing plant of the number of daily HDV and LDV movements (60 and 50 two-way trips respectively – i.e. 220 HDV and LDV movements) is considerably in excess of the actual movements recorded by traffic counters in The Hollow (see Appendix H, Supplementary Transport Paper).

This would suggest that in Table 5, the 2015 ‘Do Minimum’ forecasts for The Hollow is overstated while the predicted ‘Increase in Traffic Flow’ is understated, putting the case for the applicant much more favourably than it would actually be.

Peak flows shown in Table 2 appear to be higher than those shown in IT528/STA/01:

Peak AM 3.1 Table 2 IT528/STA/01 % error Storrington Road 2075 1838 12.8 The Pike 1392 1233 12.8 A24 London Road 3473 3076 12.9 A24 Horsham Road 3270 2896 12.9

Peak PM 3.1 Table 2 IT528/STA/01 % error Storrington Road 2054 1798 14.2 The Pike 1267 1113 13.8 A24 London Road 3576 3143 13.7 A24 Horsham Road 3415 3001 13.7

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 26

Peak flows in Table 3 are also at odds with IT528/STA/01 :

Peak AM 3.1 Table 3 IT528/STA/01 % error The Hollow 31 29 6.8 The Pike 1478 1330 11.1

Peak PM 3.1 Table 3 IT528/STA/01 % error The Hollow 19 18 5.5 The Pike 1358 1230 10.4

If IT528/STA/01 is correct, the baseline conditions are wrong to a degree which would considerably favour the applicant in terms of the air quality impact assessment for the proposed development.

We cannot comment on Table 5, since we do not know how the data has been derived. However, on the basis of inconsistencies elsewhere in the reported traffic data, we would be surprised if Table 5 is accurate or realistic.

4.2.1 Air Quality Sensitive Receptors

Human receptors The report gives the impression there are just a few isolated properties located within 200 metres of the local road network that would be affected by road traffic emissions related to the application. It fails to record the village of Washington altogether, most of which is within 200 metres of the A283. The nearest school is stated as being Rydon Community College. The report overlooks the existence of St Mary’s school in Washington and Windlesham School. Receptors to the west of the A24 in London Road Washington are also overlooked, and there is no mention of Castle Kitchens, a leading manufacturer of pre-prepared food, which is based in The Hollow near the entrance to Rock Common Quarry. Castle Kitchens has detailed planning consent for Europe’s first allergen-free food production facility which will be based in The Hollow. The impact of the proposed development on human receptors would be much more wide-reaching than Veolia would like anyone to believe. We maintain our objection.

Biophysical receptors We are concerned that biophysical receptors have been identified which would be affected by the proposal. The Hollow is classified as a notable road verge in the West Sussex Biodiversity Action Plan, and a Nationally Scarce plant has been identified there. Yet the verge could be at risk not just from raised pollution levels, but from the proposed carriageway widening.

4.2.2 Air Quality Impact of Future Road Traffic We are surprised that the report fails to consider the impact of pollutants on Rock House Nurseries, a working fruit farm, which is adjacent to the proposed site entrance.

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 27

Limitations in Modelled Traffic Data Given that the baseline assumptions are incorrectly stated in 3.1 and the traffic data in Appendix 1 to the Appendix 11 report contains the same errors as the Intermodal Figures reported earlier, are the estimated pollutant concentrations likely to have been modelled accurately? Even if they have been, it is noted that the traffic modelling and assessment methods used (main report ‘Additional Information’ page 90) are not able to simulate accelerating and decelerating vehicles. Instead they assume the traffic is free-flowing. Given the huge disparity in pollutants from an HGV moving steadily along a road, and a heavily laden one ‘chugging’ up a steep hill, the entire assessment of airborne pollutants presented appears erroneous and should not be relied upon for planning purposes.

12.0 NOISE AND VIBRATION

We object to Veolia’s proposal for landfill at Rock Common on the grounds that landfill activities and the movement of vehicles around the site will generate noise intrusive for nearby residents.

12.2 Additional Information under Regulation 19 We would agree with the Public Health and Licensing Officer at Horsham District Council that there is a substantial difference between noise levels in the area on weekdays and weekends. It would seem Veolia’s original survey was confined to one weekday and did not cover the hours of operation proposed. In particular, Saturday working was not considered.

We were therefore surprised that a further survey of noise levels was conducted on another weekday (a Wednesday - see para 2, page 95 of the main report). We can say, categorically, that noise levels in the vicinity of Rock Common are considerably lower on weekends, particularly before 10am.

The Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response main report states on page 95:

‘From experience it is felt that the background noise climate on a Saturday would be the same as during the week as changes in road traffic flows would be minimal. Given that it would take a +25% or -20% change in the road traffic flow to bring about a 1dB change in the ambient noise level it is considered that a further noise survey on a Saturday will not be required.’

Yet, with reference to the traffic counters placed in The Hollow (see Appendix H, Supplementary Transport Paper – Traffic Counter results) it can be seen that the total number of vehicle movements in The Hollow drops from around 190 during the week to an average of 66 on a Saturday or Sunday. Perhaps more importantly, the average number of daily HGV movements drops from a weekday average of 31.2 to zero on

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 28

the weekends. Clearly the proposal from Veolia, which would introduce over 500 HGV movements on a weekday and perhaps 250 on a Saturday represents a substantial increase in road movements and, ergo, noise. Perhaps Veolia’s reluctance to measure noise levels on a Saturday should be explored further.

From page 95 of the main report, we notice that site noise levels have been predicted using the methodology given in BS 5228:1997, and the resulting noise impact assessed using BS4142. Yet it is evident from section 2.4 of the Supplementary Noise Impact Assessment in Appendix 12, that BS4142 provides a method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas. We take this to mean urban or suburban areas containing a mix of residential and industrial properties, rather than rural locations such as Rock Common, where the mean noise floor is likely to be much lower.

We also notice from Section 2.5 of the Appendix 12 report that BS 5228 ‘does not provide absolute noise limit criteria’. BS5228 therefore offers a framework for assessment rather than clear cut answers. Among the key factors to consider are the duration of site operations and the operational hours. It is suggested that ‘the assessment of whether changes in noise levels due to construction constitute significant effects will be dependant on the absolute levels of ambient and construction noise’ as well as the ‘magnitude, duration, time of occurrence and frequency of the noise change’.

Table 6 in Section 5.4 of the Appendix 12 report shows measured noise level data at four locations, while Table 7 shows the proposed noise level limits. We are concerned that the latter appear to be only just within Environment Agency guidelines. In view of the fact that the measurements exclude Saturday working we would suggest it is more than likely that the 50dB(A-weighted) criteria would be exceeded.

Page 99 of the main report includes Veolia’s response to concerns that the noise profile of vehicles braking, entering and accelerating away from The Hollow would differ from vehicles moving freely along an open road. Noise from body rattles on unladen vehicles was also raised as a concern. Veolia’s response points out that there is no available guidance for the assessment of noise from braking, accelerating or body rattle from HGV vehicles. In consequence, it states, ‘the impact of noise from such occurrences cannot be accurately determined or assessed’. It would, in fact, be straightforward to make such an assessment using an ordinary sound meter and a tape measure. Veolia’s consultants have a sound meter, but chose not to use it for this purpose.

Notwithstanding this, on page 25 of the Appendix 12 report there are more errors, In paragraph 2, Veolia seems to be suggesting that the majority of vehicles using the local road network would be HGVs and has used this to calculate the base conditions. This, of course, would not be the case except in The Hollow.

In paragraph 6 on page 25 of the Appendix 12 report, Veolia predicts a change in noise levels of 18.6dB (A) in The Hollow. This is considered by Veolia to be ‘a large change in the noise environment’. The report continues:

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 29

‘However, it should be borne in mind that the receptors at this location (Green House Farm) are located in proximity to the A283 where noise levels will be dominated from road traffic on this major national trunk road. Consequently, the actual change in noise levels at Green House Farm [in The Hollow] are expected to be considerably lower than this figure as the noise levels will be drowned out by vehicle noise of the A283’.

Of course, Green House Farm is not in The Hollow, it is next to the A283. It is Rock House Nurseries, located right next to the Quarry entrance in The Hollow that would experience the largest change in noise levels. Rock House Nurseries is situated about half a mile from the A283.

Main report – page 100 – points 28 and 29 Veolia is suggesting that noise levels will be acceptable on the first floor of houses near to the proposed landfill as long as the windows remain closed. This would not be an acceptable basis on which to approve development. Equally insensitively, regarding the Washington Towers campsite, it is suggested that as the landfill would ‘only operate during the daytime period it is not necessary to consider the internal noise levels within tents or caravans’.

We would add that in both instances, the noise levels referred to are only those of HGVs on the road network, not the noise that would be produced by the landfill itself.

13.0 NUISANCES

13.3.2 CLAG Issue: Nuisance assessment in the ES understates the number of human receptors.

It is not clear from Veolia’s response that it has identified all potentially sensitive receptors within 250m of the site. Table 13.1 in the original planning submission excludes William Barton Court. Yet this is nearer to the development boundary than Montpelier Gardens. Therefore the assertion that Veolia has ‘identified the receptors closest to potential sources of emissions to air and nuisances’ needs to be explained.

Issue: Large number of people will be exposed to health risks arising from exposutre to landfill gas and dust (particular reference to dioxins).

Veolia has stated (P118-119) that landfill is not associated with significant health risks to those living in its proximity. In order to make this statement, Veolia has relied on the DEFRA report of 2004 which drew on many sources which because of methodology or changes in practice were already of little relevance at the time of the report’s issue.

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 30

The relevance of the DEFRA Report has already been discussed in detail in the original Medical Consultation Report issued by CLAG and will not be commented upon any further here except to confirm the limitations of that report’s relevance due to the emergence of a substantial amount of new data over the past 10 years which was not included in the DEFRA report. Indeed, the volume of publications in relation to landfill and dioxin-like compounds has increased hugely in the past few years and are the focus of very real and mounting concern pertaining to the public health issues associated with landfill. Veolia has further stated that concerns regarding the health implications of landfill pertain to old data which has now been superseded by new information – i.e. that contained within the DEFRA report.

What Veolia has failed to note, perhaps deliberately, is that this is a rapidly evolving area and that most of the current concerns pertaining to landfill use relate to information made available only within the past few years; information published too late to have been considered in the DEFRA report of 2004 which drew on information published in the previous decade. It is not surprising that Veolia appears to have adopted this line, as neither it nor its associates is able to refute the emerging scientific evidence as quoted in our original report.

In view of the above factors, all of the concerns raised in our original report remain entirely valid and have in no way been refuted by the denials of Veolia or its associates in their submission of additional information. Indeed, much new information has been published within the past year which adds further weight to the CLAG submission and which further accentuates the very real concerns over the health effects of landfill.

Appendix B is an addendum to the original Report and details the most recent medical evidence available.

CLAG: Environmental Statement Regulation 19 Response (Additional Information) – OBJECTION Page 31