AT Bletchley Landfill Site, Bletchley Road, Newton Longville FOR Shanks Waste Services Limited. The Proposal

Transcription

1 02/00866/MIN WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY INCLUDING MATERIALS RECOVERY, COMPOSTING, BIOLOGICAL WASTE TREATMENT, ENERGY RECOVERY, CONTINUED LANDFILL AND ASSOCIATED CLAY EXTRACTION, ACCESS ROAD, VISITOR CENTRE, CAR PARKING, RAIL ACCESS, RAIL SIDINGS, RAIL RECEPTION AREA, RAIL CONTAINER LOADING AND UNLOADING PLANT AND RAIL CONTAINER STORAGE AREA AT Bletchley Landfill Site, Bletchley Road, Newton Longville FOR Shanks Waste Services Limited The Proposal Planning permission is being sought for an Integrated Waste Management Facility to be sited at Bletchley Landfill Site. The proposal includes facilities for materials recovery from waste, buildings for composting and other biological treatment, plant for the recovery of energy from residential waste through thermal treatment, a research and development complex, a visitor centre, continued landfill and associated day working, a new road access connecting to the Stoke Hammond bypass when constructed, offices and car parking, a new rail access and rail reception area comprising a rail spur from the Bletchley to Oxford line, rail sidings and an associated area for container loading, unloading and storage. The Application Site The application site extends to 155 hectares as the development site includes the existing landfill site. The final landform of the landfill site would be altered from that recently given planning permission to enable the proposed waste management facility to be sited at the lowered ground level within the former brick clay pit. The application site straddles the boundary of this authority and Buckinghamshire County Council. The parts of the application comprising the composting facility, the rail reception area and the southern part of the new access road would, therefore, fall to Buckinghamshire County Council to determine. The majority of the built development would be located in the North Eastern corner of the landfill site. It would be bounded on its eastern edge by the Blue Lagoon country park and to the north by the fields which lie between the existing landfill site and the Oxford to Bletchley Railway line. At the western end of the application site the boundary is extended northwards to include some of the field

2 adjacent to the railway line and the former brickworks site to accommodate the proposed railway sidings and the area for container loading and unloading and storage. The remaining landfill area to the south and west of the proposed development would continue until restored to fields and woodlands principally for nature conservation purposes. A new vehicular access consented with the planning permission for the recontouring of the landfill site would run parallel to the west coast main line to link the proposed development with the Stoke Hammond bypass when this is developed. Vehicular access (up to 750 deliveries per day) would be via this access. Residential areas, including schools, are located beyond the field to the north of the area where the majority of built development is proposed to be located and beyond the Blue Lagoon, the west coast mainline and Drayton Road to the east. Residential properties lie immediately beyond the railway line at the point at which the railway sidings and associated development would be located to the north. At this point the nearest residential property would be approximately 40 metres from the proposed railway siding junction. The nearest residential property would be 345 metres from the main development area. The fluidised bed energy recovery plant would be 645 metres from the nearest residential property. Development Details The most prominent part of the development is the fluidised bed energy recovery plant. Within this building the residual waste, following materials recovery and bio-drying would be burned. Energy would be recovered in the form of electricity generated within the building, and the heat itself which could be used within development scheduled to take place in the vicinity. This Energy from Waste building would be 63 metres tall and have two chimney stacks reaching 103 metres. It would, however, be located approximately 15 metres below the original ground level within the former brick clay pit. This building would cover a ground area of 8380 square metres. The building is of curvilinear form with the footprint being a series of ellipses and oblongs with the roofline being a series of compound and symmetrical curves. The building would be clad in metal panelling with lowered sections at the eaves and southern end of the building in plastic coated sheet metal coloured blue/green. To the north of this building would be a line of 5 Bio-materials recycling buildings each covering an area of 2,835 square metres. These would be approximately 15 metres high and clad in sheet steel/aluminium. These would have shallow pitched eaves and be of a general industrial/commercial appearance. These would be linked to the fluid bed energy recovery building by conveyors. To the east of the bio-mrf buildings would be five similar buildings, but of varying sizes

3 which would accommodate segregated materials recovery (3940 sq. metres), a maintenance workshop and store (1,180 sq. metres), a staff welfare facility (675 sq. metres), mixed materials recovery (3,940 sq. metres) and an early landfill store (3,660 sq. metres). To the west of the fluid bed energy recovery building two further buildings, similar to those housing the bio-mrfs, are proposed. These would provide for a research centre (1,405 sq. metres) and an ash conditioning unit (2,700). A compound is proposed between these two buildings. Free standing air coolers associated with the fluid bed energy facility would be located to the east of the main building. The complex would be landscaped with areas containing grass, shrubs and trees and a linear water feature running the length of the southern boundary of the complex. A building containing a visitor centre would be located between the waste processing complex and the site entrance. This building would contain a lecture theatre, seminar room and offices. This building would reflect the main building with part of its roof structure having a curvilinear form. It would also feature a round tower and flat metal panelling. The proposed rail reception area includes a hall with a ground area of 2,800 sq. metres to contain the composting clamps, a chipping shredding building of 300 sq. metres and a compost bagging building of 240 sq. metres. The larger building would be 12 metres high, the two smaller buildings, 8.5 metres. The rail reception/composting area would be linked to the main compound by a site haul road which would run along the northern boundary of the landfill site. An acoustic bund would be provided to screen vehicular noise substituted by a fence where space is limited. The final length of the road would run through a tunnel. Planning Policy National Planning Policy Guidance Note 23 : Planning and Pollution Control (July 1994) PPG 23 details those matters which are to be considered by Waste Planning Authorities and those which are the responsibility of the Environment Agency. It aims to prevent unnecessary duplication of the controls emphasising that waste planning authorities should assume that pollution prevention will be adequately dealt with through the waste licencing system operated by the Environment Agency. It does, however, specify that it is the function of the waste planning authority to determine the most appropriate locations for waste facilities taking account of the surrounding land uses.

4 Planning Policy Guidance Note 10 Planning and Waste Management (Sept 1999) PPG10 replaced parts of PPG23 providing advice on how the land-use system should contribute to sustainable waste management. In particular, it emphasises that waste disposal methods should represent the Best Practical Environmental Option. Local Buckinghamshire County Structure Plan remains the strategic planning policy document for the Milton Keynes area. It contains a number of policies relevant to the proposal. Policy WM1 supports the establishment of recycling and associated facilities in locations where there would be no significant adverse impact on the environment. Policy WM3 seeks to ensure the provision of adequate capacity for the safe disposal of waste arising in Buckinghamshire. It refers to the accommodation of a proportion of waste disposal requirements originating from outside of the County. Policy WM4 generally supports the filling of voids created by mineral extraction with waste where this enables the land to be returned to an appropriate after use. Policy T12 encourages the local planning authorities: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) To seek to use rail for the carriage of freight. To site suitable new industries in growth areas next to railway lines to which sidings could connect. To consider favourable the establishment of rail freight depots. To favour developments which would maximise the use of rail rather than those that would use road access, as long as there would be no conflict with any other structure plan policy. Policy EN2 supports proposals for the generation of energy from renewable resources as long as there is no conflict with other structure plan policies and no adverse environmental impact on nearby communities. The policy specifically refers to proposals for the incineration of waste materials as an example of such an energy project. Policy P1 states that planning permission should be withheld from potentially polluting developments which would pose unacceptable risks to other land uses. The policy also states in circumstances where development proposals may be

5 able to satisfy relevant pollution control requirements, the local planning authorities may nonetheless withhold consent if having regard to other social economic and environmental factors, unacceptable risks are still considered to exist which cannot be overcome by appropriate planning conditions. The Waste Local Plan for Buckinghamshire remains the waste planning policy for the Milton Keynes area. It too has policies directly relating to the planning application namely:- WLP2 states In order to ensure that provision for the deposit of incinerator residues, degradable or other polluting wastes continue to be maintained at an adequate level, the County Council will seek to husband void space within engineered landfill sites so long as this does not unacceptably conflict with the operational requirements of the site or result in overriding environmental disadvantages to the surrounding area. Policy WLP 3 states : The County Council will support a proposal for an incinerator where: a) the need for such a facility can be demonstrated; b) it can be located to minimise the overall road transport of waste; c) it can be connected to a railway or a waterway. Where it can be demonstrated that access by rail or water is not feasible, facilities should be located so that they can gain ready access to the strategic highway network without generating heavy traffic on unsuitable roads; d) it can contribute to energy production or provide energy for local industry and housing where economically feasible and environmentally acceptable; e) a suitable landfill site or sites with sufficient capacity to accommodate the residue over a considerable period of time can be identified; f) it can make a major contribution to reducing the amount of waste to be disposed of as landfill in Buckinghamshire; g) it can be accommodated without significant loss of visual amenity; h) the pollution control authority indicates that there would be no significant risk of pollution or danger to public health or safety; and it accords with Policies WLP13 (green belt), WLP16 (land use constraints) and WLP17 (high grade agricultural land).

6 Policy WLP7 also supports the development of renewable energy schemes, in particular, those associated with waste incineration, and the use of landfill gas provided that it can be shown that such developments would be environmentally acceptable. All applications for incineration and landfilling of putrescible waste are to be preceded by an investigation of the potential for renewable energy use. Policy WLP16 states:- Permission will not, in general, be granted for waste management facilities where such proposals would endanger or have a significant adverse effect on the character, appearance or setting of the following:- a) the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; b) source protection zones as defined in the Environment Agency s document entitled Policy and Practice for the Protection of Groundwater ; c) areas liable to flood as defined by the Environment Agency; d) Sites of Special Scientific Interest, other nationally or internationally important nature conservation sites and Local Nature Reserves; e) Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other important archaeological sites; f) Historic Parks and Gardens; g) Conservation Areas; h) Listed Buildings; i) designated Areas of Attractive Landscape; j) areas of nature conservation importance which are not otherwise protected by subparagraph d) above; k) ancient semi-natural woodlands, as defined by English Nature; l) country parks, common land and village greens; m) airfields in current use; n) water features of substantial environmental or aesthetic value; o) National Trust land which is not otherwise protected by sub-paragraphs a) n) above.

7 Where such harm is identified and cannot be reduced to acceptable proportions by planning conditions, permission will only be granted if there are other important material considerations in favour of the development, for instance the existence of an essential need for the facility which cannot be adequately met on any other site or by any other means. In striking such a balance due heed will be paid to national guidance appropriate to the feature or features affected. Proposals will also have to accord with other policies, especially WLP18 (proximity principle) and WLP19 (rail, water and road access). Policy WLP 18 states that preference will be given to waste management facilities as close as practicable to the origin of the waste. Policy WLP 19 gives preference to waste management proposals which utilise rail or water transport links. The policy also requires waste management facilities, which do not have rail or water transport links to have ready access to the strategic highway network. Policy WLP 20 lists the factors that will be taken into when applications for waste management facilities are considered. These are:- a) the type of waste acceptable, insofar as this might particularly affect local amenity, neighbouring land use and the standard of site restoration; b) the provision of satisfactory access to a public road, including arrangements for minimising mud on such roads and routing proposals to keep lorries away from residential and other sensitive areas; c) the scale, type, appearance of the operation, including the location of plant and machinery and any associated workings; d) the effects of the proposed development on the environment in terms of noise, dust, odour, emissions and illumination; e) the provision of satisfactory buffers to safeguard the amenity of nearby uses, (refer to Table 8 of this plan for buffer zones associated with landfilling and land raising); f) the effects of the proposed development on existing trees, hedgerows or other features of nature conservation or screening value on or near the site;

8 g) the extent to which the development provides additional planting and screening, including planting in advance of the commencement of the development, and the extent to which sites which are difficult to screen are avoided; h) the effects of the proposed development on the flow and quality of watercourses and associated floodplains, water supplies, groundwater, drainage of the sites and adjoining land; i) the effects of the proposed development on buildings and their settings; j) the need to protect local landscape including any areas of Districtwide importance designated in Local Plans, well-managed woodland and areas of amenity/recreation importance (including public rights of way); k) the effects of the proposed development on any important archaeological remains and the extent to which facilities are provided for the excavation and recording of lesser importance; l) the likely effects of any proposal on any ecological/geological interest of the site and adjoining land; m) the likely effect of the proposal on agricultural land and in particular whether any best and most versatile land, ie land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food s Agricultural Land Classification of England and Wales is involved; n) the likely effect of the proposal and its location on farm structure and management; o) the extent to which the proposal exploits the potential to utilise landfill gas and the effect this might have on the site s afteruse; p) restoration of a landfill/landraising site to a suitable afteruse (such as agriculture, forestry, nature conservation or amenity) ensuring the site s continued aftercare; q) the need for the development and the markets to be served; r) any other relevant consideration that may be raised at the public consultation state.

9 Newton Longville Brickworks Planning Brief A planning brief for the area of the former Newton Longville Brickworks was produced by the former Borough Council, Aylesbury Vale District Council and Buckinghamshire County Council in This includes the application site. The brief identified the site of the waste to energy plant and much of the proposed ancillary development as an area for the disposal of waste through landfilling. The proposed rail reception area is identified in the brief as an area which could provide useful accommodation for open storage and low value/bad neighbour uses and units for small businesses provided there is no significant nuisance to nearby residents. The brief also refers to the potential to improve leisure routes (recreational footpaths and bridle routes) around Bletchley particularly from housing north of the Oxford Bletchley railway line to the Blue Lagoon Park including provision for a parkland corridor through the site of the old brickworks. Adopted Borough of Milton Keynes Local Plan The majority of the appliction site is designated as landfill. Land on the northwest of the site is designated for employment, recreation and open space. The proposed access road falls within land designated for housing, recreation, employment and open space. Policy D32 states that planning permission will normally be granted for proposals to develop energy resources provided there is no significant adverse environmental impact. Policy L5 seeks to protect land for recreational purposes and open space. The proposals map within the draft plan also allocates part of the landfill site as wildlife corridor and a wildlife site. The wildlife site is also designated as a Regionally Important Geological Site. The situation in relation to these areas is not, however, directly altered by the proposals. Other policies in the draft plan relating to rail freight, planning obligations, renewable energy and general principles are broadly similar to those within the adopted plan. Policy KS1 in the first deposit Local Plan identified land to the south of the landfill site for comprehensive development including housing, employment local shopping recreation and community facilities. An additional requirement was the

10 provision of a landscape buffer of between 50 and 250 metres around the southern and eastern boundaries of the landfill site. Recent changes to the draft plan include a change from the designation of landfill site to waste management facility. The housing allocation for Newton Leys was deleted by the Local Plan Panel in January of this year and redesignated for employment purposes. Other relevant policy documents. There are a number of other national and local policy documents which are not planning documents but give guidance on how local authorities should deal with waste arisings. They are, therefore, material considerations in the determination of this application. These are:- Waste Strategy 2000 This details the need to maximise the amount of value that is recovered from waste through increased recycling, composting and energy recovery. It points out that by 2010 value must be recovered from 45% of municipal waste with 30% being through the recycling or composting of waste. By 2015 these figures are required to have increased to 60% and 50% respectively. It emphasises that energy recovery facilities are needed but that these should be appropriate sized to avoid competition with recycling. Such facilities should include opportunities for combined heat and power. Waste Strategy 2000 specifies the Best Practical Environmental Option for waste disposal as that which provides the most benefits or the least damage to the environment as a whole, at acceptable cost, in the long term as well as in the short term. It goes on to state that the concept of the BPEO means that local environmental, social and economic preferences will be important in any decision. The strategy focuses on the proximity principle as a means of ensuring that the B.P.E.O. is applied. This is the requirement that waste is disposed of as close as possible to its origin. The waste strategy points out that the proximity principle has two important functions. i) it is a tool for planning authorities and businesses when considering requirements for, and the location of, waste management facilities. ii) it helps to raise awareness in local communities that the waste they produce is a problem with which they must deal. The waste strategy also states that the use of rail to transport waste to its recycle/disposal location may be preferable to a shorter road journey.

11 It also supports the Environment Agency work to develop the twin tracking of planning and pollution control applications to ensure that applications are dealt with as speedily as possible and that all of the information required to make a reasoned decision is available. Finally the Waste Strategy states that where the environmental impact or cost of transport to a distant reprocessing facility or market outweighs the benefit of recovering the waste, the BPEO for a waste stream may justifiably be toward the lower end of the waste hierarchy. The most recent government advice in relation to waste planning matters is the Guidance on Policies for Waste Management Planning issued earlier this year. This is aimed principally at waste planning policy matters but provides guidance which directly related to the planning application. It specifies that waste development plans should not contain policies on matters other than the development and use of land. Policies should not duplicate provisions in other legislative regimes notably pollution control. This requirement, that planning authorities constrain themselves to matters relating to the use and development of land implies that, similarly, planning authorities should not seek to refuse planning permission for waste management facilities in relation to matters which are properly the responsibility of the Environment Agency to control. The guidance re-emphasises the requirements of the Best Practical Environmental Option of the Waste Strategy and the need to reduce the amount of waste disposed of through landfill as defined in the Landfill Directive. It also repeats the Landfill Directive s requirements in relation to the distances that landfill should be from sensitive land uses. It also specifies the Landfill Directives requirement that the planning of waste disposal facilities must ensure the protection of an areas natural or cultural patrimony (inheritance). The Guidance advises when decision makers are considering the BPEO they must have regard to international obligations, national regional and local policy. Apart from the need to take account of the proximity principle, the Guidance also refers to the principles of self-sufficiency which requires that most waste be treated or disposed of within the region in which it is produced and the requirement that waste is dealt with at the upper end of the waste hierarchy in the first instance i.e. reduction, re-use, value recovered (regarding, composting and energy recovery) and finally landfill.

12 The Guidance advises that land use planning should meet the following objectives:- (a) The provision of a planning framework which ensures adequate provision to be made for waste management facilities to meet the needs of society for reuse, recovery and disposal taking account of the potential for waste minimisation. (b) encourage sensitive waste management practices to preserve or enhance the overall quality of the environment and avoid risks to human health. (c) protect areas of designated landscape and nature conservation from inappropriate development. (d) minimise the adverse impacts from the handling, processing and disposal of waste. (e) consider what new facilities might be needed. (f) ensure that opportunities for new waste reduction, re-use and recycling in new developments are properly considered. The Guidance recognises that waste management facilities are likely to be contentious and contrary to established policy. In the circumstances, it is advised that a balance of need with harm is a necessary consideration and need therefore requires definition. It is suggested that the gap between capacity and future waste levels is the starting point for assessing the need for new facilities. It is concluded that waste development plans should provide for a adequate network of facilities. This network should provide for the equivalent of waste arising in an area together with agreed imports and exports. Excess facilities would encourage the input of waste over long distances. It is reasonable to require that a need be demonstrated which outweighs any harm. The guidance re-emphasises the advice given in PPG10 that it may be necessary to recognise smaller units than regions but larger than Waste Planning Authorities when addressing self-sufficiency. Finally the guidance, in recognition of the large installations that are required to process waste, advises that these are celebrated with good design rather than attempting to hide them in the landscape.

13 There are also a number of European Directives which although not directly related to planning legislation are, nevertheless material considerations in the determination of the application. Briefly these are:- Waste Framework Directive (75/442/EEC, amended by Directives 91/156, 91/692 and 96/350) This establishes the principle that the essential objective of all provisions relating to waste disposal must be the protection of human health and the environment against harmful effects. It states that the recovery of waste and the re-use of recovered materials should be encouraged in order to conserve natural resources. It also introduces measures designed to implement these principles. Landfill Directive (99/31/EC) This aims to ensure high standards for the management and regulation of landfill sites, in order to stimulate recycling and the recovery of waste, and to reduce associated greenhouse gas emissions. It does this by ensuring proper management and monitoring of landfill sites, by restricting the types of waste that may be landfilled, and by requiring the pre-treatment of all waste that is to be landfilled in order to reduce its volume, facilitate its handling or enhance recovery. In particular, the Directive sets targets for reducing the volumes of non-inert waste that are landfilled. Directive on Waste Incineration (2000/76/EC) This Directive has merged the former separate Directives on the combustion of hazardous and non-hazardous waste into a single text. Its aim is to prevent negative effects on the environment caused by combustion and co-combustion of waste or, where prevention is not practicable, to reduce these effects as far as possible. Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (96/61/EC) This establishes the IPPC process as a means of achieving a high level of protection of the environment taken as a whole by, in particular, preventing or (where that is not practicable) reducing emissions into air, water and land. It seeks to ensure that regulators set permit conditions to achieve a high level of protection for the environment as a whole.

14 Emerging Planning Policy Guidance The office of the Deputy Prime Minister has recently issued a consultation Paper on revisions to PPG23 (Planning and Pollution Control). Where as those revisions are not yet formally adopted, it does represent the government s current views in relation to potentially polluting developments. In particular the consultation paper:- Seeks to encourage developers to submit applications for planning permission and pollution control permits in parallel. Re-emphasises that any air or water quality consideration is capable of being a material planning consideration in so far as it affects land use. The point is made that the planning system focuses on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of land rather than the control of the processes or the substances themselves. Therefore, planning authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced. Planning applications for potentially polluting developments which are statutorily required to have an environmental statement attached may require an assessment of alternative locations to be a material consideration when applications are determined. Similarly alternatives to the scheme should be taken into account with an indication of the reason for the choice made. The draft guidance also states that perception of risk should not be material to the consideration of the planning application unless the land use consequences of such perceptions can be clearly demonstrated. Where such consequences are considered unacceptable and cannot be overcome by appropriate planning conditions, permission should be refused. Finally the draft guidance makes clear that it is not the role of the planning authority to undertake detailed risk assessments of releases into the environment from development proposals. In any assessment of a particular risk, planning authorities should rely on the judgement of the relevant pollution control authority. Recent Appeal Decisions Generally, national planning guidance gives favourable consideration to the thermal treatment of waste to enable energy to be recovered from it following the recovery of recyclables. However, this has not been reflected in recent appeal decisions related to proposals for incinerators a number of which have been dismissed. 3 recent appeal decisions which have been cited by both the applicants and objectors to the proposal are:

15 Proposed extension to energy from waste generating station at Edmonton. The Secretary of state was of the view that there was a strong risk that the extension could end up sucking in waste and act as a disincentive to others to deal with their own locally produced wastes and might also indicate to them that this was an easier route for the disposal of their waste than recycling. The Secretary of State was also of the view that with less modest recycling targets, the existing station could handle waste arisings from the North West London Authorities, without the need for the extension. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed. A proposed waste to energy plant on the site of a former sugar beet processing factory in Kidderminster was also dismissed on appeal. The principle reasons for the dismissal were the visual effect of the plant on the local landscape and the effects of the development on an adjacent area of some ecological importance. The Inspector also concluded that the perception of risk was also a material consideration. The perception of risk was heightened by the site history. Local residential areas were previously affected by the odour of the sugar beet processing. Many residents, therefore, felt that the emissions from the incinerator would similarly affect the local area, and these were perceived to be more harmful. The perception of harm was also considered to be a material consideration in relation to an appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for a waste to energy plant at Portsmouth. However, in this case, the Inspector concluded that the benefits of the development outweighed the disbenefits and the appeal was allowed. Another recent appeal decision relates to a development which raised a considerable amount of public concern. This related to mineral extraction and the backfilling of the site with waste at Betworth, Surrey. The appeal was allowed principally because the Inspector concluded that the authority had, in reaching its decision, concerned itself with the concerns of local residents rather than assessing the benefits of the proposal and the technical advice provided by consultants. As a result the costs of the Inquiry for both parties had to be met by the Council. Council decisions in relation to the disposal of waste. The Environment Committee resolved in 2000 that the Newton Longville Site is an appropriate location for a regional waste management facility. Earlier this month, the Cabinet, in reviewing the existing Milton Keynes waste strategy, concluded that it was opposed to the incineration of waste unless residents of Milton Keynes were satisfied that it is safe.

16 Consultations A number of corporate bodies were consulted on the planning application as part of the normal process. However, as a result of the widespread publicity given to the application a number of other bodies have expressed views on the proposal. These are included here:- The Environment Agency has advised that the site is within an area of limited drainage capacity. The application as submitted, does not consider sufficiently the issue of surface water drainage. The Agency is, therefore, unable to agree the surface water drainage details as submitted. In addition the agency confirms that the proposed activities will fall for regulation by them under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act `1999 and no application for a permit has been received at this time. In determining the conditions of a permit, the Agency takes account of the general principles that installations should be operated in such a way that ensures that all the appropriate preventative measures will be taken against pollution through the application of the Best Available Techniques. The Agency has also drawn attention to some aspect of the proposal which are outside its direct regulatory remit namely: 1. The applicant does not appear to have undertaken a detailed assessment that fully justifies the choice of Best Practicable Environmental Option for the waste being managed at the facility. It is suggested that the applicant be asked to undertake such an assessment, and that they use the methodology in external consultation draft IPPC Horizontal Guidance Note (H1) for Environmental Assessment and Appraisal of BAT produced by the Agency in collaboration with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and the Northern Ireland Environment and Heritage Service (EHS). 2. The Agency requests that a plan be drawn showing the outline of the engineering against the outline of the existing landfill waste so as to indicate if any structures overlie the landfill. 3. The Agency is concerned with the potential consequences of slope failure from the pit edge and from the landfill slope. We would suggest that these would warrant a greater factor of safety than those currently used. We will be in discussions with the operator of the landfill on this point with respect to the landfill slope, but are mindful that the outcome of these discussions may be material planning consideration as they could define the building footprint.

17 4. We remind you that diversion of the stream across area A2 was refused 2 years ago for gas and stability reasons. These concerns remain relevant to this proposal. 5. The Agency is mindful of the potential hazard of landfill gas in the bottom of the pit. Matters relating to the minimisation of the risk from landfill gas to the installation shall be managed by the Agency within their PPC permit. However, we recommend that: Proposals for prevention of ingress and accumulation explosive or harmful concentrations of landfill gas within all structures and building should be submitted and agreed in writing before the commencement of construction; Detailed procedures for the minimisation of the risks from landfill gas during the construction stages of the facility should also be submitted and agreed in writing before the commencement of any construction works. 6. Detailed schemes for the provision and implementation of foul and surface water drainage for the whole of the site should be submitted and agreed in writing before the commencement of any development. 7. Detailed procedures for the prevention of pollution during the construction stages of the facility should also be submitted and agreed in writing before the commencement of any construction works. Any piling undertaken at the site should not cause pollution of the Kellaways Sand minor aquifer or the Blisworth Limestone and should be in accordance with the Agency s pollution prevention guidance, publication NC/99/73, Piling into Contaminated Sites. 8. The facility proposes to take a considerable amount of input from London. This breaches the Government s Regional Self Sufficiency principle London is in a different region to MK. As a result, the proposal may conflict with the emerging South East Regional Waste Strategy and should be considered in the context of this emerging strategy and that of the London Mayor. The facility is large. If it was dealing with residues this would be fine, but taking mixed waste it could conflict with source separation strategies in London and the South East. In addition: The site is underlain by Oxford Clay, which is excavated in the permitted quarry. The Oxford Clay is underlain by, in the following order, the Kellaways Sands, the Kellaways Clay, the Cornbrash Limestone, the Blisworth Clay and the Blisworth Limestone. While the Kellaways Sands are classified as a Minor Aquifer, the Blisworth Limestone is classified as a Major Aquifer. In the Environmental statement (Section 16.10) the Blisworth Limestone is incorrectly described as Minor Aquifer.

18 Our understanding of the site hydrogeology can be summarised as follows:- Oxford Clay has been excavated in the quarry to a depth of around 50maOD, with the requirement of at least 2 metres remaining clay thickness on top of the Kellaways Sands. According to the Groundwater Risk Assessment for Bletchley Landfill Site (ENTEC, November 1999) the top of the Kellaways Sands was encountered at depths between 46 maod and 56maOD. The top of the Blisworth Limestone was encountered between 36.7maOD and 47.7maOD. Piezometric levels for September 1997 were reported to be between 74maOD and 84maOD for the Kellaways Sands and between 70maOD and 80maOD for the Blisworth Limestone. The level of the leachate within the landfill site is believed to be above the piezometric level of the Kellaways Sands. Potential impacts on the water resources, i.e. the aquifers represented by the Kellaways Sands and the Blisworth Limestone, may be breached by the construction of deep pile foundations. Both acquifers are confined, with piezometric levels 30 to 40 metres above the top of the aquifer. Therefore, any breaches created in the confining layers of lower permeability by the construction works may induce a loss of groundwater during construction as well as in long term operation. It has to be considered that due to the high piezometric heads of the confined aquifers a removal of confining material may lead to a breach, even if the aquifer itself is not encountered by the piling works. While the Environment Agency may agree to a minimal loss of groundwater during the construction period, a permanent loss during operation is not acceptable. The applicant should submit details of the proposed foundation works and the results of any site investigations carried out to establish the local geological and hydrogeological situation. The applicant should demonstrate that the techniques proposed for the construction of the deep foundations do not allow any negative impact on the water resources during construction and in the long term. In addition: Comments on Chapter 21 Landscape and visual: pg 21-32/33: Care should be taken in the planting of ornamental/semi-ornamental species, which could detract from the natural character of the area, and may provide a source for the colonisation of non-native species. It is noted (Chapter 22, pg 22-13, para ) that appropriate native species will be used in the restoration of wildlife areas, which is favourable,

19 in addition, efforts should be made to ensure that these species are locally sourced. Comments on Chapter 22: Ecology pg 22-5, para Black redstart is also listed on Page 1, Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). pg 22-10, para smaller ponds on the site represent a habitat type that is in decline, mainly due to changes in agricultural practices and lack of management. The restoration proposes small and medium sized ponds around the perimeter of the landform, and these should therefore comprise an area at least as large as the original ponds. pg 22-10, para Great Crested Newts are also protected by European legislation, being listed under Annex IV of the Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora). pg 22-10, para Bats and their roosts are fully protected under. The Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 which were brought in to implement the Habitats Directive. Pg para The Environment Agency has a general policy against culverting of water courses. The culverting of Water Easton Brook should be avoided or minimised as far as possible. General ecology comments The developer should ensure that the appropriate ecological surveys are carried out, as discussed in the report, to identify the presence of any protected species. English Nature should be closely consulted on any mitigation measures necessary. Timing of the works and a method of working should be agreed prior to work being carried out. The placing of bat boxes and barn owl boxes in restored areas should be considered, to increase the habitat potential of these areas while they are still establishing.

20 Restoration plans should take account of the Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Biodiversity Action Plan, and the key habitats and species listed within, in order to maximise the potential wildlife benefits that this project proposes. Countryside and Landscape Manager considers that the building which would contain the waste to energy plant would have a significant detrimental effect on the landscape. There is also concern that the micro-climate of the Blue Lagoon nature reserve would be significantly altered as a result of changes to the prevailing wind. The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment considers that the waste to energy building will be striking but advise that more successful examples of this sort of facility have relied on simple forms utilising good detailing of high quality materials rather than a self-conscious attempt to produce an icon. It is also felt that the Research Centre and Staff Welfare facilities deserve more attention. The Environmental Health Officer considers that as the modelling for the predicted emissions in accordance with the National Air Quality Strategy. The modelling results demonstrate that in general the emissions from the waste to energy plant will have a low impact on local ground level pollutant concentrations. The effects of emissions are small when compared with guidelines values and limits are not expected to have a significant impact. The plant will have to meet the WID dioxin and furans emissions limited value of 0.1 ng/m 3. The waste to Energy Point and landfilling will be the subject of an Integrated Pollution Provision and Control permit. The IPPC application will have to contain more detailed process information to demonstrate how the requirements of the regulations will be met. The modelling carried out for the Bio Material Recover Facility shows the odour will be below the detection threshold at the site boundary. Odour is controlled in the composting operation by its enclosure within a building this may, however also be subject to IPPC certification by the Environment Agency. Odour is unlikely to be a problem with waste arrivals as closed containers are used. They will, however, need to be maintained in good condition and sealed. Traffic emissions are unlikely to make a measurable impact on local air quality objectives. With regard to noise the Chief Environmental Health Officer has also advised that conditions should be imposed on any grant of permission requiring an assessment of ground conditions prior to the development being undertaken.

21 The Chief Environmental Health Officer advises that the noise generated by all of the proposed operations will fall within nationally defined limits. The Health and Safety Executive has no objections to the proposal. Railtrack has no objections in principle to the development. English Nature points out that the habitats within the proposed development area are important for nature conservation and bio-diversity within a wide range of flora and fauna. English Nature advises that if the Council is minded to grant planning permission that conditions are included that safeguard the existing biodiversity interest and enhances the site for the future. Aylesbury Vale District Council support the principle of the facility subject to the relocation of the Rail Reception area, the release of dioxins, odours and pollutants being controlled, no development taking place until the Stoke Hammond by-pass is available for use, an agreement on traffic routing, landscaping mitigation works taking place at an early stage and further assessment of the visual impact of the complex day and night and the surface of buildings having a matt finish. Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council regret that Milton Keynes Council would not support the request for an independent investigation. The Council recognises the concerns of residents particularly those related to Health and Safety issues involved in the incineration process. The Council, therefore, object to any further development until these have been resolved. The Council consider that it is essential that efforts are made to minimise waste by using one of the available recycling methods and are concerned that changes made to the recycling scheme has made it less effective. The Council therefore asks that Milton Keynes Council redoubles its efforts to increase the level and participation in the recycling schemes by improving its publicity on materials that are now acceptable for recycling and to ensure that those materials properly presented for collection are removed and allocated to the correct bins by the collectors. Woburn Sands Town Council is concerned about the emissions which would descend some distance from the site itself and some will be transported to Woburn Sands. In anticylonic conditions the impact will be added to within the toxic waste trapped at lower levels and spreading out mushroom fashion to descent on all surrounding areas. The scarp running south-west to north-east will create an edge which will funnel toxic fumes along the settlements of Bow Brickhill and Woburn Sands. Consequently Woburn Sands will suffer from toxic fumes on days when the prevailing winds blow and when anticylonic conditions prevail. Therefore it will be on rare conditions when Woburn Sands will not suffer. As much of the waste will be transported by road and the quickest route

22 from junction 13 of the M1 to the site is through Woburn Sands and Bow Brickhill there will be a considerable increase in traffic through these settlements. Residents of Woburn Sands suffered from asthma and bronchitis when the brickworks were operational, especially amongst children. They are threatened with the return of this. Woburn Town Council therefore urges, in the strongest possible terms, the refusal of the proposed incinerator. Bow Brickhill Parish Council support and agree with objections of Woburn Sands Town Council. They are also concerned about large quantities of waste being transported within close proximity of residential properties via the railway. Newton Longville Parish Council are concerned about emissions from the chimney in terms of both the visual and polluting effects, increased density of vehicle movement into the site in relation to congestion and smell, the need for appropriate signage to stop vehicles travelling along narrow streets through Newton Longville, the disposal of ash and wash out of the filters and the railway operating outside normal working hours. Little Brickhill Parish Council are strongly opposed to the proposal as the village and surrounding area will be adversely affected by the proposed plant. Great Brickhill Parish Council considers that the development will have a material impact on Great Brickhill and neighbouring parishes. The area of attractive landscape has views across the Ouzel Valley and directly to the site on the opposite side of the valley. There will be twin plumes of white condensed water vapour and emissions, driven by the plant s fans reaching thousands of feet above the area significantly increasing the visual impact of the facility. This will be added to during fogs and cold damp weather. The industrial facility will blight and jeopardise the environmental value of the rural Attractive Landscape. The size of the facility will attract waste from other areas. This will increase traffic with associated hazards, noise and pollution and require additional maintenance. It will not accord with the proximity principle. The risks associated with incineration are not worth taking. Milton Keynes should aspire to recycle 75% of its waste This would obviate the need for incineration. The incinerator would not enable Milton Keynes to achieve the planned higher levels of recycling. Great Brickhill Parish Council also forwarded a copy of the House of Commons Select Committee report on Environment Transport and Regional Affairs. This encourages higher levels of recycling and limitations on the size of incinerators. Leighton Linslade Town Council object to the development as lorries will be using the A5 and the Leighton Buzzard bypass which was not constructed to accommodate such vehicle movements. The Town Council also considers that