SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS

Planning Application Ref; 2011/C472/02

Biffa Waste Services Ltd. at Newhurst Quarry

I wish to object to the Planning Application for the following reasons and to draw the Planning Officer’s attention to the fact that relevant information was either not provided or was not given sufficient weight in the CE’s report to the members of the Development Control and Regulatory Board (DCRB) at the decision meeting on October 15th 2010. Consequently the Board’s decision on Planning Application  Ref: 2009/2497/02 failed to include proper consideration of important issues which should have been included in the reasons for refusal. I submit them as grounds for refusal of the current application.

1. Location and Visual Impact

The location of the proposed incinerator is wholly unacceptable on visual grounds. The site is located in The National Forest and the proposed Charnwood Forest Regional Park within an area of outstanding beauty. The main building mass, flue stacks and plume will be visible over a large distance and will dominate the skyline introducing an alien, industrial building many times the size of any other existing in the area. It would be totally out of character in what is essential a rural landscape

The Charnwood Borough Council Core Strategy envisages transforming Garendon Park into a fully fledged Country Park as a visitor attraction. An incinerator built a short distance away would be a significant visual blight on the landscape. Emissions from the flue stacks would accelerate erosion of the 12 listed buildings on Garendon Park. Biffa is admitting this by proposing payment to the owner for the upkeep of the buildings but these payments will do nothing to mitigate harm to the rest of the area and its residents.

Biffa have not reduced the size of the incinerator and cannot screen it from view. The colour scheme has been changed for the second application but this will do nothing to mitigate the visual impact, rather it will make the building stand out even more.

2.Existing obligations for the restoration of the Quarries

Now that working of the quarries has ceased, existing planning conditions require restoration and regeneration of the area. These should be applied for the benefit of wildlife and public. This restoration was part of the agreement with the National Forest and to replace it with an incinerator is wholly unacceptable. Having the status of greenfield land, the site should not be allocated for waste treatment.

3.Local health issues should be considered.

Residents and local GPs have submitted concerns over local health issues and statistical data shows area has the highest rate of asthma in the county.

For application Ref: 2009/2497/02, the Leicestershire and Rutland NHS (PCT) deferred comment to the HPA and failed to provide available evidence which would have drawn the attention of the decision board to the increased rate of asthma and other respiratory illness in the locality. The HPA did not comment on, and is unlikely to possess, information about local health issues and consequently only submitted its general position statement on the health effects of incinerators.

4.Air Quality

The Planning Authority is responsible for Air Quality and has a duty to consider the negative effects on Air Quality and health caused by emissions from the traffic servicing the incinerator. (PPS10, paragraph 30).

5.Traffic problems

The Highways Agency and Leicestershire County Council (Leics CC) Planning Officers failed to provide the Board with relevant advice relating to the effect of the amount of traffic servicing the incinerator. This advice was subsequently reported to the Consultation on Waste Site Allocations where it is recorded in the Regulation 30 document:

“High impact on SRN. Close proximity to M1 junction 23. This junction is expected to come under increasing pressure in the future and owing to the large number of anticipated HGV trips (666 trips per week) from the site this could have a significant impact.”

6. Alternative means of transport should be considered.

The applicant and planning authority failed to follow the Governments advice in giving insufficient consideration to putting forward proposals offering alternative means of transport to avoid road use.

7.The location of the stack is unfit for purpose

The Planning Authority failed to give sufficient weight to the objections raised over the location of the incinerator stack, which does not provide optimum dispersion of the plume. The Environment Agency only consider the height of the stack from its base, not the topography. The location is the responsibility of the Planning Authority (see POPs below) and it is clearly unfit for purpose. Other sites available to the Planning Authority and these should be considered for better suitability for emission dispersion.

8.Persistant Organic Pollutants

The Planning Authority failed to consider its responsibilities under the Stockholm Convention to give preference to alternative methods for dealing with waste which would produce less Persistant Organic Pollutants (POPs) than the proposed incinerator. The Environment Permit Team only considers whether the operation of the facility will meet the requirements of the European Waste Incineration Directive (WID).

It is the larger particles, called PM10, are measured because that is what the available equipment measures. These are capable of removal from the air passages by coughing. Equipment to measure smaller sizes is not routinely available. Ultrafine particles, PM2.5 and smaller, often contribute only a few percent to the total mass, though they are the most numerous, representing over 90% of the number of particles. These are breathed deep into the lungs where they get into the blood stream.

A recent Freedom of Information request to the Environment Agency has revealed that the most modern and efficient filters still left up to 95% of PM2.5 in the air.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) advise in Air Quality Guidelines in Europe:

No guideline values were set for particulate matter because there is no evident threshold for effects on morbidity and mortality.

It is important to point out that in his report to the DCRB (October 15th, 2010), the Planning Officer acknowledged that the Planning Authority has responsibilities for health impacts beyond those of the pollution control authorities (Environment Agency Permit Team) and refers to PPS10, paragraph 30 which states that “Planning operates in the public interest to ensure that the location of proposed development is acceptable and health can be material to such decision.

9.Alternatives

The applicant’s claim that in the absence of the incinerator the waste will go to landfill cannot be substantiated. Studies have shown that over 97.5% of C/I landfilled waste could be recycled (The North West Regional Study, 2007).

In the absence of the incinerator, the C/I and municipal sectors will be encouraged to increase recycling rates by using:

•better segregation of waste to reduce contamination thus improving the quality and value of recyclables

•separate collection of compostable material

•separate collection of food waste for anaerobic digestion.

In the latest Defra Waste Review (2011), the Government are encouraging AD by making funds available to councils who wish to choose this technology.

10.Waste levels have been exaggerated.

The predicted waste levels submitted by Biffa refer to projections from 2003 levels with an assumption that levels will continue to rise each year. This assumption has been shown to be incorrect because since then residual waste has been steadily decreasing in both municipal and commercial/industrial (C/I) sectors.

Many existing incinerators have already experienced difficulty sourcing enough waste. In fact the nearby Nottingham and Sheffield incinerator operators have had to look outside the area to import waste.

11.  Community lacks faith in the operator.

Biffa has no previous experience of this sort of operation and we do not believe that the applicant is capable of managing the proposed incinerator to the standards required for high levels of safety.

The company has been issued with numerous prosecutions for breach of Environment Permits and Health & Safety Executive regulations resulting from mismanagement of its landfill operations.

The company has a lamentable record in community relations which ranges from ignoring repeated complaints about odour and refusing to talk with residents to what amounts to attempting bribery.

12.The facility’s description is misleading

The prime purpose of the application is the disposal of waste by incineration.

The Environment Permit says “The Applicant has described the facility as an Energy Recovery Facility. However our view is that for the purposes of the WID and EPR, the installation is an incinerator”.

13. The incinerator is a poor energy producer.

Only 18-20% of the heat generated will be used to produce electricity, the rest of the heat will be wasted. The incinerator is a very inefficient way to produce electricity Calling it an energy recovery facility is an attempt to disguise the fact that the proposed incinerator lies at the bottom end of the waste hierarchy, with only unmanaged landfill of biodegradable waste below it.

14.The incinerator will have a negative impact on global warming by emitting at least 10 million tonnes of CO2 along with other greenhouse gases over 25 years or more. Much of the waste will be brought from outside the county and yet the county will be accountable for these emissions possibly incurring financial penalties in future as regulations tighten.

15.This is not renewable energy.

Energy from the incineration of mixed waste cannot be considered renewable because it is produced from finite material resources.

Renewable energy is defined as: “those energy flows that occur naturally and repeatedly in the environment – from the wind, the fall of water, the movement of the oceans, from the sun and also from biomass”. Fossil fuels are finite therefore processes which rely on fossil fuels or materials derived from them would not be consistent with this definition.

16.Incineration is an unwelcome and outdated technology.

Incineration is being discouraged in Europe and the US and if it goes ahead, this incinerator will almost certainly fail to comply with future regulations.

The Paris Appeal Memorandum on Environment and Sustainable Health (2006), supported by the European Standing Committee of Doctors (representing 2 million doctors), urged a moratorium on building any new incinerators stating:

“Despite current regulatory precautions and standards, incineration and co-incineration remain very polluting, and thus incompatible with a healthy environment.”

This is recognised in the USA where no incinerators have been built since 1995.

Right now, throughout Europe, communities are succeeding in getting incinerators closed down.

The UK Government’s Waste Review (June 2011) is promoting the use of Anaerobic Digestion by making available funds to those Authorities choosing to use it. The Government is taking steps to introduce an incineration tax.

17.Incinerators produce toxic residues.

Incinerator Bottom Ash forms a large amount of residue amounting to 30% by weight but occupying 40-50% of the space of compacted unburned waste. This still has to be disposed of. IBA can be toxic as it contains some of the heavy metals and dioxins generated from the waste and yet this ash is sold for use as aggregate and to make breeze blocks for building housing. Problems have arisen from heavy metals and dioxins leaching into surrounding soil and incidents of explosions.

Fly Ash is produced amounting to approximately 10% weight c/w IBA. The better the air pollution control, the more toxic becomes the fly ash; it contains the scrubbed materials from the IPPC including dioxins, the most toxic chemical known to mankind.  At least a quarter of a million tonnes of highly toxic fly ash would be produced during the operative life of this incinerator his material will be transported by road to a specialised site.

If the site is, or operates like, the site at Bishop’s Cleeve, the ash is pumped into silos, mixed with leachate  drained from landfill, or contaminated garage forecourt water, or other hazardous liquid waste. After mixing it is dumped in open trucks and driven across the site to be tipped. The ash is scattered into the environment as dust dry or carried by the steam the ash generates.

18.The Incineration of recyclables and compostable material is a massive waste of resources.

Leicestershire has one of the highest recycling and composting rates in the Country. Shepshed RHWS already achieves a recycling rate of 78%  Leicestershire currently achieves a recycling rate of over 52%. (10 years ahead of the national target and is aiming for 58% by 2017). A target of 70% recycling is achievable in Leicestershire.

The Flanders region in Belgium has achieved and maintains a 70% recycling rate. Scotland and Wales have set 70% recycling targets for 2025 and so could Leicestershire, and in the process create far more job opportunities than Biffa are able to provide at Newhurst.

19. We need to aim towards Zero Waste

Charnwood Borough Council has a Zero Waste Policy. This does not mean zero waste to landfill; it means recognising that all materials are finite and valuing them by minimising waste creation, reusing, recovering and recycling them.

Ask the Planning Authority to turn down this incinerator and allow the people of Charnwood to work towards achieving the Borough Council’s Zero Waste Policy.