Beddington Lane Energy Recycling Facility and Revisions to Landfill Restoration Environmental Impact Assessment Update

Transcription

1 Jim Redwood Planning Department London Borough of Sutton 24 Denmark Road Carshalton Surrey, SM5 2JG 15th March 2012 Our Reference: TOR B Dear Jim Beddington Lane Energy Recycling Facility and Revisions to Landfill Restoration Environmental Impact Assessment Update I write to update you on a number of issues in relation to the environmental impact assessment (EIA) that is currently being undertaken for the Beddington Lane Energy Recycling Facility (ERF) and revisions to landfill restoration, including the scope of the assessment and the EIA scenarios that will be considered as part of the assessment process. Site boundary change and scoping In December 2010 Mouchel prepared an EIA scoping report on behalf of Viridor for the Beddington Lane ERF proposals. The boundary of the site was shown in figure 2.1 of the report and included the area required for the ERF and a new access road onto Beddington Lane (approximately 4.4 ha). London Borough of Sutton prepared a scoping opinion in February 2011, responding to the scoping report and highlighting a number of issues to be considered as part of the EIA. Since February 2011 the proposals have evolved and it has been considered necessary, for the purposes of producing a robust, thorough EIA, to increase the site boundary to include the entire landfill site, not just the north east corner where the ERF is proposed. The proposed new site boundary, covering an area of approximately 97.5 ha, is as shown in figure 1 attached.

2 The key changes to the proposals, which have made the enlargement of the site boundary necessary, include: 1. The provision of underground pipelines for delivery of heat as part of the combined heat and power (CHP) element of the ERF proposals. Two pipelines are proposed leading from the ERF to the east and south west boundaries of the wider landfill site, in order to allow for future connections with CHP customers. The pipeline to the east will be constructed beneath the proposed new access road, and so was already included in the smaller site boundary. However, the other pipeline will run towards the western edge of the landfill site. It will then be directed southwards, to the south west corner of the landfill site. A third pipeline will connect the existing landfill gas engines to the pipe heading west. These pipelines need to be covered by the planning application boundary and will require consideration within the EIA. 2. As part of the ERF proposals, Viridor is giving up some of the landfill void, which means that an area in the south eastern part of the landfill site will no longer be filled to the permitted levels. The restoration plan has therefore been amended accordingly to take account of this change, which needs to be included in the planning application boundary. 3. The overall landfill restoration proposals have been given a detailed review and a number of improvements have been made to take account of the progress of restoration to date, and to address changes to the distribution of habitats and other features resulting from the ERF proposals and reduction in void space. While the change in site area of the planning application is quite large (i.e. from 4.4 ha to 97.5 ha) the actual changes to the wider landfill area beyond the ERF site itself are quite small, comprising: - the installation of underground pipelines - the re-profiling of future proposed ground levels in part of the landfill to take account of the reduction in void - the re-arrangement of some aspects of the proposed footpath network and distribution of habitats. The main element of development in the wider site area is therefore the pipeline installation. The changes to the restoration plan are minor. A ground investigation has been undertaken to assess the ground conditions and water environment along the routes of the CHP pipelines. A site walkover has also been undertaken along the pipeline routes, which are also covered by a phase 1 habitat survey. All potential environmental impacts associated with the installation of the CHP pipelines and the changes to the restoration proposals will be considered during construction and operation, as appropriate, in the environmental statement (ES).

3 The February 2011 scoping opinion covers the ERF proposals, and the extent of proposed development in the wider landfill area is limited. It is therefore not considered necessary to submit a second scoping report. However, we would be grateful if London Borough of Sutton could highlight any additional areas of study required for the EIA in relation to the CHP pipe routes and the proposed changes to the landfill, where this is over and above that already noted in the February 2011 scoping opinion. EIA assessment scenarios In the February 2011 scoping opinion the London Borough of Sutton stated that the potential impact of the proposals be assessed on a future baseline where the entire landfill site is fully restored according to the existing restoration plan. As you know we have been considering the EIA scenarios in this context, and have had some discussions with you about this. Whilst we understand the reasons for wanting to see this approach to future baseline, and will accommodate it as best we can, we are concerned that the EIA Regulations do not allow for this approach and that there are considerable difficulties in being definitive about what the future baseline conditions will be, given that this cannot be objectively measured and will have to be subject to professional judgement and a degree of speculation. We would not wish the ES to be subject to challenge as a result. Following due deliberation, we have concluded that the following will be the most appropriate way forward. Firstly the proposals must and will, as normal, be assessed against the existing baseline situation - taken to be the 2011/2012 situation on site, which includes the following current operations: delivery and bulking of dry recyclates for onward transfer, in vessel composting, landfill, landfill gas engines, and the use of the administration building and weighbridges. Please note that whilst there is a resolution to grant permission for an anaerobic digester facility, this is not included in the existing baseline scenario, since it has not yet been built. Instead, the anaerobic digestion facility will be addressed as part of the assessment of potential cumulative effects (i.e. alongside the One51 recycling site, Bioflame gasification, Thames Water dewatering and the Hackbridge master plan which our previous discussions with you have indicated are the projects that should be included in the cumulative assessment). Secondly, the proposals (i.e. the ERF / CHP pipelines and the changes to the restoration of the existing landfill site) will be assessed during: - site preparation / demolition / construction activities - assumed to take place between 2013 and site operation - assumed to be between , and include the operational ERF, CHP pipelines, dry recyclate reception and bulking

4 operations, restored landfill, and landfill gas engines. All other current activities will have ceased. Please note, any impacts associated with operations that will take place for part of the operational period but are not referred to above (i.e. the in vessel composting and completion of the landscape restoration) will be considered within individual, relevant environmental chapters of the ES under the heading interim potential impacts, as appropriate. This assessment will meet the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and will reflect the usual approach to presenting the assessment of potential effects arising from a development proposal. To take into account LBS s request in the scoping opinion to see assessment against a future baseline which would be based on the restored landfill site, we propose that a second assessment will be undertaken and presented in a separate document to the formal ES. This assessment will consider the impacts of the proposals during operation only, as given the timescales involved the construction activities will take place while the existing baseline is still relevant. For the purposes of the future baseline assessment, it will be assumed that the following operations will have ceased: reception and bulking of dry recyclates, in vessel composting, and landfill. The administration building will also have been removed. The landfill will have been fully restored, with the exception of the landfill gas engines, which will remain in operation. The future baseline situation will be applicable from 2023 and onwards. It is acknowledged that not all the above activities cease to operate precisely in 2023 (some stop before this year), but for the purposes of assessment and clarity it was considered more straightforward to have one date to consider. It is proposed that the assessment of the future baseline is based on the attached restoration plan (BTN85) which is the phase 10 plan being used currently for site restoration. It is considered important to differentiate between the two assessments. The formal EIA reported in the ES will be based on a factual baseline (i.e. an actual baseline that can be measured) together with an assessment of potential effects that we can be reasonably certain of and which meets the requirements of the 2011 EIA regulations. The assessment against the future baseline will be presented in a document submitted with the planning application for information, and in the absence of being able to have direct survey and measurement will be based on a professional projection of what the future baseline with the restored landscape in place is likely to be. To reiterate, the reason for this separation is that the future baseline work will of necessity (since no survey or measurement can be made) be a less certain assessment of the potential effects. Furthermore it is not a requirement of the EIA regulations to

5 produce such an assessment. We would not wish the future baseline work to provide a weakness or point of challenge to the formal EIA work. By keeping the future baseline work separate from the formal ES we believe that we can carry out a robust EIA and submit a robust ES which meets the requirements of the EIA Regulations 2011 whilst also meeting LBS s scoping opinion request to see the future baseline assessment. We would be grateful for your early consideration and feedback on the update provided and look forward to hearing from you soon. Kind regards Yours sincerely Steve Molnar Technical Director Cc Ian John, Viridor Waste Management Limited Enc.

6 Legend Application boundary Site Boundary I Client / Project: Viridor South London Waste Drawn by: 14 March 2012 JV Checked by: Scale: 1:6,000 0 SM 150 m Based upon the 2011 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 scale raster map with the permission of the Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown copyright. Terence O'Rourke Ltd. Licence No. AL Copyright Terence O'Rourke Ltd, 2012 Please note the OS background shown does not accurately reflect what is currently on site.

7

8 London Borough of Sutton Environment & Leisure Executive Head of Planning & Transportation, Darren Richards Development Services Your ref: TOR B Call Centre: My ref: AC/TP Fax: Please ask for: Andrew Cook Date: 24 April 2012 Steve Molnar Terence O Rourke Ltd Everdene House Deansleigh Road Bournemouth BH7 7DU Please reply to: London Borough of Sutton Planning Department 24 Denmark Road Carshalton SM5 2JG Dear Mr Molnar Beddington Lane Energy Facility and Revisions to Landfill Restoration Environmental Impact Assessment - Update I refer to your letter dated 15 March in which you ask if a number of changes to the proposals will necessitate a second scoping report and seek clarification of scenarios to be included in the ES. This follows our scoping opinion of 23 February 2011 in response to Mouchel s letter to us of 17 December I understand that the changes to the scheme comprise the installation of underground pipelines, the re-profiling of future ground levels in part of the landfill and the rearrangement of some aspects of the proposed footpath network and distribution of habitats. The inclusion of the underground pipes in the scheme requires the site boundary to be extended to include the entire landfill site. I can confirm that these changes will not require a second scoping opinion. The Council is content that the changes raise no additional environmental issues to those previously identified. It will of course be necessary to address the impact of the additional works under the headings already identified. Turning to the EIA assessment scenarios, it is our view that the post 2023 assessment should be prepared to the same or similar standard as the 2012 baseline and should form part of the ES. The need for the ES to address not only existing baseline conditions on site as of 2012 but also take account of future committed development (including the restoration of the landfill and creation of the regional park) and environmental trends which would be expected to take place over time (i.e. up to 2023 and beyond) in the absence of the proposed facility is confirmed in the CLG document Environmental

9 Impact Assessment: A guide to good practice and procedures published in Paragraph 142 of this document states: Studies need to take account not just of the existing baseline, but also as projected forward under a do-nothing scenario. This essentially takes account of all committed development and environmental trends taking place over time without specific intervention (e.g. how air quality may change over time due to traffic growth and/or technological advancements). LPAs may also wish other current applications to be considered in a cumulative way as if they were part of the committed baseline... Also, for the avoidance of doubt, we would expect the ES to address possible alternative technologies and the technical reasons for the selection of the ERF option. Mouchel have previously identified the need imposed by the EIA Regulations for the ES to address the alternatives available to Viridor and it is important that this should extend to a discussion of alternative technologies. Further guidance on the consideration of alternatives is provided in Paras of the CLG good practice guide. Yours sincerely John Rawlinson Area Planning Manager