Marston Moreteyne Action Group www.mmetag.com Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) Grounds for IPC Refusal - February 2011 Introduction On October 26th, the Marston Moreteyne Action Group (MMAG) registered (Our registration ID is 10004662) as an interested party with the IPC stating that the IPC should refuse consent for the Proposed Rookery South Energy from Waste Generating Station (EfW) and listed cumulative detrimental effects which should outweigh any potential benefits - drawn from the headline generic impacts outlined in the Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3). The purpose of this paper is to provide in more detail the justification for the requested refusal. Where relevant we also refer to The Examining Authority’s Written Questions and Requests for Information. Although these questions were addressed principally to the applicant (Covanta Rookery South Ltd) in many respects not unsurprisingly they touch on matters that are fundamental to the arguments advanced by interested parties as to why the application should be refused. MMAG will argue that the interrelationship and accumulation of issues should lead the IPC to refuse. We leave it to others with expertise to focus on specific issues in greater detail. MMAG are a group of volunteers committed to sustainable development within and around the Parish of Marston Moreteyne and as such are opposed to the application. Our website www.mmetag.com outlines in detail our campaigns to defend the essentially rural nature of our communities and village way of life. We are also members of the Covanta Community Liaison Panel. Initially we were not opposed to incineration of non hazardous waste as a last resort in principle, if no other alternative was possible to landfill. However we have since been persuaded of the arguments advanced by United Kingdom without Incineration Network (UKWIN) who campaign for a UK without incineration of household waste and in particular we are grateful to Professor Paul Connett in convincing us this is achievable. At the outset it is worth remembering that the Marston Vale has already made a significant [email protected] 1 of 20 Marston Moreteyne Action Group www.mmetag.com contribution to waste management and that our communities will for centuries to come, effectively forever, be surrounded by millions of tonnes of landfill accumulated over decades. Residents had assumed with the closure of the landfill sites they could look forward to a moratorium on dealing with waste from beyond Bedfordshire. Incineration will never address the issue of why so much waste is produced. Indeed it will only perpetuate the problem rather than offer a solution. The Statutory Framework In this paper MMAG rely on the key assessment principals outlined in the Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) [4.1.1,(ii – iv) and [4.2.4-6] in that the IPC should adhere to the following key principles when examining and determining applications for energy infrastructure and we have italicised key words for emphasis : (ii) The Planning Act 2008 requires the IPC to have regard to the following, in addition to any relevant NPS: any local impact report submitted by a relevant local authority before the deadline for its receipt by the IPC; any matters prescribed in relation to development of the description to which the application relates; the Marine Policy Statement (MPS) and any applicable marine plan; and any other matters which the IPC considers to be both important and relevant to its decision. (iii) The IPC should take into account the national, regional and local benefits (environmental, social and economic) including the contribution to the need for energy infrastructure, job creation and any long-term or wider benefits. These may be identified in this NPS, the relevant technology-specific NPS, in the application or elsewhere. (iv) The IPC should take into account adverse impacts – environmental, social and economic – including those identified in this NPS and the relevant technology-specific NPS, as well as local impacts identified in the application [email protected] 2 of 20 Marston Moreteyne Action Group www.mmetag.com or otherwise. The IPC should ensure it takes account of any longer-term adverse impacts that have been identified and any cumulative adverse impacts. (v) If the IPC is satisfied that the adverse impacts identified (including any cumulative adverse impacts) outweigh the benefits of the proposed development (taking into account measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for those adverse impacts) a consent should be refused. (4.2.4) When considering a proposal the IPC should satisfy itself that likely significant effects, including any significant residual effects taking account of any proposed mitigation measures or any adverse effects of those measures, have been adequately assessed. In doing so the IPC should also examine whether the assessment distinguishes between the project stages and identifies any mitigation measures at those stages. The IPC should request further information where necessary to ensure compliance with the EIA Directive. (4.2.5) When considering cumulative effects, the ES should provide information on how the effects of the applicant’s proposal would combine and interact with the effects of other development (including projects for which consent has been sought or granted, as well as those already in existence). The IPC may also have other evidence before it, for example from appraisals of sustainability of relevant NPSs or development plans, on such effects and potential interactions. Any such information may assist the IPC in reaching decisions on proposals and on mitigation measures that may be required. (4.2.6) The IPC should consider how the accumulation of, and interrelationship between, effects might affect the environment, economy or community as a whole, even though they may be acceptable when considered on an individual basis with mitigation measures in place. Therefore MMAG suggests the IPC has considerable discretion in how it conducts the examination and makes its decision. The IPC should give equal weight to local concerns. The IPC can determine that a single adverse impact [email protected] 3 of 20 Marston Moreteyne Action Group www.mmetag.com could lead to refusal whereas an accumulation of adverse impacts certainly should lead to refusal. Where necessary the IPC should commission its own independent assessments and not rely solely on the applicant or interested parties. The IPC should assess whether the application is destructive to other economic or environmental goals e.g. tourism. The political and policy context The application proposes to provide an important source of renewable energy and the applicant advised the community liaison panel that 50% of the energy produced will be renewable simply through the burning of bio-mass. In July 2009 the then Government published the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan: National Strategy for Climate and Energy pursuant to Sections 12 & 14 of the Climate Change Act 2008. The transition plan aims to deliver emission cuts of 18% on 2008 levels by 2020. This includes getting 40% of our electricity from low carbon sources by 2020 and producing around 30% of our electricity from renewable by 2020 by substantially increasing the requirement for electricity suppliers to sell renewable energy. It is not explained precisely how the application will contribute to achieving the targets arising from the carbon transition plan and Climate Change Act and we believe the IPC as a public body should seek further clarity over this especially since all waste will be transported to the site by road . The Covanta issue has been raised in Parliament twice and local communities have attached great significance to Prime Ministerial statements. On June 30th 2010 our local MP Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) raised the following question during Prime Ministers questions; “The American waste giant, Covanta, is proposing to build in my constituency an incinerator about the size of Wembley. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that decisions about such matters will be made at a local level in future?” The Prime Minister replied “My hon. Friend is right to raise this, and it is right that decisions should be made locally. We want to make sure that all the latest technology for alternatives to incineration is considered, so that we can make sure that we are using the best ways to achieve a green approach.” [email protected] 4 of 20 Marston Moreteyne Action Group www.mmetag.com On February 2nd 2011 Nadine Dorries MP raised the IPC and Covanta at Prime Ministers Questions again and mentioned the welcome MMAG and others were preparing for the IPC. Nadine’s question was: "This Friday, hundreds of Mid Bedfordshire residents, 24 parish councils, the Marston Moreteyne Action Group and I will provide a very warm welcome to the visiting members of the Infrastructure Planning Commission who will be coming to decide whether to grant planning permission for the huge incinerator that Covanta wishes to put in my constituency. If we are truly the party of localism, will the Prime Minister give his assurance that the draft national policy statements that will guide the IPC in its decision will be amended so that the weight is given to the wishes of local people? If they do not want it, it should not be imposed on them”. The Prime Minister replied: "I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We can actually go a bit further than that: I can confirm in her own case that, yes, the IPC will be taking representations from local people, but of course as a Government we have committed to abolish the IPC, because we think that it is too much of a top-down, bureaucratic method and that there should be ministerial decisions that can take into account local opinion and be more democratically run.