DCC 3242 2011 Planning Response

Document Sample
DCC 3242 2011 Planning Response Powered By Docstoc
					   Buckfastleigh Community Forum Response Document




                                         PTE/12/29
                                         Development Management Committee
                                         25 April 2012
County Matter: Waste Disposal
Teignbridge District: Proposed Construction and Operation of Materials Recovery Facility for
Inert Construction and Demolition Wastes; Construction and Operation of Incinerator Bottom
Ash Processing Facility; Removal of Dolerite Outcrop and Filling Quarry with Dolerite and Inert
Material to a Depth of 60m AOD to Facilitate Storage of Recycled Materials with Associated Site
Engineering and Infrastructure, Whitecleaves Quarry, Buckfastleigh
Applicant: MVV Environment (Devonport) Ltd
Application No: DCC/3242/2011 (11/02685/DCC)
Date Application received: 8 August 2011

as made available to Buckfastleigh Community Forum on 17 April 2012




Buckfastleigh Community Forum acknowledge the industrious work by the Planning Officers of
Devon County Council. The planning application itself ran to over 180 documents and provoked a
substantial response from multiple concerned parties. BCF applaud the Planning Officers efforts to
summarise matters but feel that with the volume of material some matters have not received
satisfactory, comprehensive analysis.

Our response takes a photostat of each and every page of the Planning Officer’s document and
appends a page where Buckfastleigh Community Forum (BCF) makes comment. We apologise for
the time taken to respond to the Planners Report and we sincerely hope the Development
Management Committee will find time to read our comments prior to the Determination meeting.




Neil Smith and Julia Walton
Co-Chairs, Buckfastleigh Community Forum
23 April 2012
(a)    The Habitats Regulations Assessment is in the process of revision subject to
consideration of the report by Professor John Altringham, Professor of Animal Ecology and
Conservation, University of Leeds. He stated, “the application is being approved on the basis
of an unfinished and contentious mitigation plan for an SAC bat population.” The Committee
should not endorse the report attached at Appendix IV until this revision has been
completed.

(b)    Buckfastleigh Community Forum (BCF) have requested that the application is called
in on multiple grounds detailed below.

      Buckfastleigh Community Forum respectfully asks that this application is to be
refused and that further consideration of Whitecleave Quarry as a Waste site is to be
prohibited.

1.1      The opening statement of the planning application was edited by a DCC Planning Officer to
include the phrase “element of quarrying”. The applicant plans to remove the boundary rock spur
to infill the quarry void. It is not clear that this activity would be described as “quarrying” in
another location.

1.2  The departure from planning policy is a material reason for lawful rejection of this
proposal.
2.5    Since 2008 Gilpin Demolition Ltd have used the site. Their website
http://www.gilpindemolition.com/ prominently advertises their services as, “Your first choice for
bridge, commercial, marine demolition and asbestos services”. They do not offer any quarrying
services nor products. They are not accredited by any minerals agency nor do they show
accreditation with ISO 14001 Environmental Management System standard.

BCF has complained about breaches of compliance with ROMP and breaches of requirement of HRA
since Gilpin Demolition Ltd started to use the site. DCC planning department is responsible for
enforcement. BCF believe that there have been oversights in the enforcement of this site.

2.7 It was originally suggested by the planning authority that consistent with the aftercare of
ceased quarry workings under ROMP conditions, that the site could be used for recreational activity
(such as a scuba diving school) as soon as practicably possible after quarrying ceased.

The void was drained with no permission (as far as are aware) from the Environment Agency,
discharging millions of gallons of copper enriched quarry water into Dean Burn in 2008-2009.

Currently this area is being used to process waste brought to site. Despite Gilpin Demolition Ltd not
having any quarrying business they have used ROMP permissions to use construction and
demolition waste to “harden tracks” in the quarry.

2.10 The Environmental Statement submitted with the application states in paragraph 12.3.13 that:
“There are 23 properties within 100 m of the site boundary... There are 3 receptors within 50 m of the
site boundary.”

It should be noted that guidance is that waste activities should not be located within 250m of
residential housing, and therefore this provides material lawful grounds to refuse this
application and grant a prohibition order against subsequent applications for waste
processing.

BCF are unsure why the distances were reported in this manner by the Planning Officers.
2.11 Dean Burn is a protected river.

2.14 Gilpin Demolition Ltd advertise asbestos services. The applicant has stated “asbestos-like
material” will be brought to the site and will inevitably be processed to a degree before being
removed for hazardous landfill elsewhere. There is no quarantine area indicated on the plans.

BCF are unsure why asbestos was not discussed by the Planning Officers.

The County Waste Policy manager has stated in his objection response to this development that
enough MRF facilities already exist within Devon.

2.15 During the period the quarry was worked this rock-spur was left in situ to protect the town
from visual intrusion as well as a barrier to noise and dust.

The majority of the town of Buckfastleigh is within 1,000m of this site. The applicant has stated
that dust nuisance can be expected within this zone. The Technical Guidance to the National
Planning Policy Framework has specific concerns and limitation with regard to proposals to
quarry within 1,000m of any residential properties. It should be noted how many children’s
facilities (schools, childcare, nurseries, parks) and care-home facilities are within 1,000m.
Policy now states that: “22. In some circumstances, new or extended permissions for minerals
extraction close to residential property may not provide adequate protection.”

There are houses within 100m of the site of proposed blasting and rock working.

This proximity of blasting to homes is a material consideration is sufficient for the
Development Management Committee to refuse the application.

2.17 The movements associated with IBA arriving form a small part of the total daily HGV
movements. BCF are unsure as to why the Planning Officer has started discussing sub-groups of
HGV movements prior to discussing total HGV movements generated by the proposal.

It is an error of fact to describe the weathering process as chemically stabilising incinerator
bottom ash.

IBA has been shown to contain:

1) Heavy metals (these are known to be toxic and known to accumulate in the food chain) including
chromium, lead, arsenic, cadmium, aluminium, copper, zinc and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(these cause cancer) at levels that exceed Swedish guidelines for land use.

Chang, Cheng-Yuan, Chu-Fang Wang, D T Mui, Man-Ting Cheng, and Hung-Lung Chiang. "Characteristics of Elements in Waste Ashes
From a Solid Waste Incinerator in Taiwan." Journal of Hazardous Materials 165, no. 1-3 (2009): doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.10.059.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389408015549.

Johansson, Inger, and Bert van Bavel. "Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Weathered Bottom Ash From Incineration of Municipal
Solid Waste." Chemosphere 53, no. 2 (2003): doi:10.1016/S0045-6535(03)00299-6.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653503002996.

2) Toxic compounds leach from incinerator bottom ash.

Shih, Hsiu-ching, and Hwong-wen Ma. "Assessing the Health Risk of Reuse of Bottom Ash in Road Paving." Chemosphere 82, no. 11
(2011): doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.11.061. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004565351001369X.

Sato, M, Y Tojo, T Matsuo, and T Matsuto. "INVESTIGATION OF POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHs) CONTENT IN
BOTTOM ASHES FROM SOME JAPANESE WASTE INCINERATORS AND SIMPLE ESTIMATION OF THEIR FATE IN LANDFILL."
2.18 Gilpin Demolition Ltd claimed in their 2008 planning application that they needed
Whitecleave Quarry because their Heathfield was too small as they needed at least 5 acres for their
MRF facility and they could only get access to 4 acres at Heathfield. In this application, they will
only have access to around 3 acres because the IBA facility will take up nearly half the site.

3.1    It should be noted that consultation responses from statutory consultees have not been
made publicly available in a reasonable manner (e.g. the internet) in order for representations to
scrutinised and responded to by our community group. BCF are therefore unable to ascertain the
accuracy of the Planning Officer’s summaries.

3.2    The community was not even aware that they had been consulted and would indeed have
contacted them to point out their misunderstanding of the proposals. Was this voted on by elected
representatives or just a technical exercise?

3.5  It must be noted that SHDC have latterly voted in committee to recommend rejecting the
proposals and to raise significant issues of concern in relation to health and amenity.

3.7    BCF have not seen these questions regarding water management and drainage system nor
the answers. BCF are not convinced that the IBA facility is reliably closed-loop given the models
and data used. This point is addressed in more detail below.
3.8    The community forum fully supports our Town Council’s position and underlines the
principal that Localism and the NPPF states that decisions should be taken as close to those people
affected as is possible.

3.13 BCF echo their concerns about the nature of IBA and the testing regime in Plymouth which is
currently being challenged in the courts.

3.15 This is where confusion reigns: the Environment Agency were only commenting on the
flood-risk of discharge from the site - i.e. the RATE of discharge. They are NOT looking at the quality
of the discharge. This has been held back as part of an as-yet unsubmitted Environmental Permit
application. BCF have repeatedly stated that this appears to be a ruse to keep material
environmental information (that could have consequences for the Dartmoor SAC) out of public
domain and, arguably, is inconsistent with planning law, or at least an expectation of a transparent
and accountable process.

It is not clear the issue of wheel-wash of lorries driving through site has been considered as this
water will flow directly into the Dean Burn with little more than a settlement tank (if that) - indeed
that seems to be what is happening on site today.

The issue of hydrogeology has not been addressed adequately despite a wordy response. The
applicant relies upon a 1:50,000 British Geological Survey Map dated 1974. This was produced
making a best guess about underlying rock formations from evidence visible on the surface. This
survey did not include modern methodology to improve accuracy. The applicant has not submitted
any evidence of more recent assessment such as from drilling core samples. Thus the Applicants
assurances of site isolation from the water table and other water systems is based upon a best
guess.

This lack of rigour again has implication for hydrology in the Potters Wood Caves SSSI which
have NOT been properly addressed as part of this application. The Environment Agency noted
their concerns but concluded that “the development proposals are unlikely to impact on the SSSI.”
The SSSI is part of the South Hams SAC and this position is challengeable under European Law.

3.16 Upon direct questioning several weeks ago DNPA stated that they had NOT withdrawn their
objection. At this time DNPA then withdrew their objection, but did not notify us. DNPA were did
not have the opportunity to consider two reports submitted by Professor John Altringham,
Professor of Animal Ecology and Conservation, University of Leeds. He stated, “the
application is being approved on the basis of an unfinished and contentious mitigation plan
for an SAC bat population.” BCF have submitted these report to DNPA and await their response.
3.19 These negative impacts can be described as a negative impact on amenity - this is a
material and quantifiable planning concern.

3.20 DNPA are to review their Appropriate Assessment in the light of Professor John Altringham’s
reports.

3.21 NE are likely to comment further in the light of Professor John Altringham’s reports. BCF are
surprised that NE felt they were able to satisfy the requirement that there was no scientific doubt
or uncertainty regarding safeguarding the SAC given the reasonable level of scientific doubt and
uncertainty.

BCF have raised questions regarding the effect of material changes to the site made by Gilpin
Demolition since 2008 including pumping out the quarry void, altering bat flight lines and the
ability of DCC to police breaches of permissions.

3.23 Devon Wildlife Trust will be invited to review their submission in the light of Professor John
Altringham’s reports. BCF do not know if DWT are aware of the changes to the site since Gilpin
Demolition commenced activities on the site.

3.24 We note the comments that “the quarry is substantially worked out and that there is little
remaining mineral within the currently consented area.” This view is echoed in the existing site
assessment of the Minerals Local Plan which notes that the existing mineral is hard to reach and
“there is no potential for an extension to the working of the site”.

BCF have been surprised to watch Gilpin Demolition Ltd on site for three years “preparing the
quarry for mineral working” under ROMP permissions.

This also demonstrates that residents, despite the repeated statements that the quarry has mineral
rights until 2042, have a legitimate expectation that the quarry would not (and will not) re-open for
any significant quarrying. The community would likely be more accepting of a genuine offer to
actually work the remaining minerals in a responsible way, which would likely take little more than
a few years anyway, as opposed to the 25-40 years that this waste development would blight the
lives of people in Buckfastleigh for.

The Minerals Policy officer for Devon has objected to the proposals. BCF were surprised to see
this omitted from this section of the Planning Officers report. The Mineral Planning Officer stated
that the plans do effectively sterilise the limited remaining minerals and that hence the proposals
are “contrary to Policies MN1 of the Devon Structure Plan and MP13 of the Minerals Local
Plan”. This provides lawful grounds for refusal of the Planning Application.
3.25    BCF have seen the submission from Devon County Waste Management and drew different
conclusions to that of the Planning Officers. While this submission is partial, it states the “planning
application is predicated on the presumption that IBA is inert”. Incinerator Bottom Ash is not inert. At best
IBA is non-hazardous, at worst IBA is hazardous. Classifying IBA is a permitting matter for the EA, however
as the applicant has withheld the application for the Environmental Permit until after the Planning
Determination the debate over the hazardous nature of IBA will not be aired until after the Planning
Decision.

BCF are surprised by the Planning Officers first mention of heavy metals and pollutants is to say that they
are found in virgin aggregates. BCF would welcome discussion of the potential toxicity of IBA at this point of
the Planning Officers report.

3.26 The RSPB stated there is a requirement not to work within 150 m of nesting Peregrine Falcons.
Much of the site is within 150 m of the Peregrine Falcons nests.

3.28   However, should Incinerator Bottom Ash not be found fit for use it is likely to be landfilled.

3.29 The proximity principle of sustainable waste management is stated in PPS10, whereby waste should
be processed as close as possible to the source of waste, thus IBA should be processed at or near the EfW
plant.

The planners report for the EfW incinerator in Plymouth stated that, “…the movement of waste by rail or
water would not be as effective in terms of time and cost when compared to road. There is an exception in
respect of the above-mentioned statement in respect of the movement of Bottom Ash as this material is
generated in smaller amounts and has the ability to be stored for longer periods of time. It is therefore
recommended that the movement of Bottom Ash by either water or rail be considered by the applicant.”

“Waste delivery by alternative modes has been assessed and it is concluded that this would provide little
flexibility when compared to transporting waste by road. It is considered that the on-site storage of bottom ash
prior to shipment by water (at ‘Table Top Mountain’) would be likely to be injurious to the amenities of
residents at Talbot Gardens and the applicants were advised of this at pre-application stage. The shipment of
bottom ash from another wharf away from the site is a matter that could be investigated by the applicant when
the planning implications of such could also be assessed.”

The planners report also states that: “the proposed Section 106 agreement seeks to establish a mechanism
whereby this material may be utilised in support for the city’s wider growth agenda.”

Thus it is proposed that the IBA will return to Plymouth. BCF are surprised to see this material
statement omitted from the Planning Officers report.

3.30 BCF would welcome further guidance from the HPA on the appropriate disposal of solid ash
residues. Clearly, should solid ash residues not be disposed off appropriately there arises a risk of a
significant route of exposure to people.

The Corby Toxic Waste Contamination ruling (Corby Group Litigation v. Corby Borough Council [2009]
EWHC 1944 (TCC)) established a link between atmospheric toxic waste and birth defects. Corby Borough
Council was found liable in negligence, public nuisance and a breach of statutory duty. Financial penalties
were likely to exceed the council’s annual budget. In this case the council allowed the transportation of
waste through residential areas to an old quarry. This included ‘wet waste’ containing dioxins and heavy
metals such as zinc, arsenic, cadmium, lead and chromium (all of which are known to be present in IBA).

4.1     The Parish Poll underlined our focus on Localism and the Big Society demonstrating why
there is a huge and legitimate political mandate to reject this “departure” application. 95% of those
who voted said ‘No’. 47% of the electorate said ‘No’.
4.4   The Planning Officer has confirmed to BCF that only 5 positive responses came from
Buckfastleigh (which is fewer people than currently work at the site).

4.5     The Planning Officer states, “Local residents clearly believe that the proposal would
represent an unacceptable intensification of an already unwelcome use of the site.” BCF
commend the Planning Officer for this summary. The residents of Buckfastleigh perceive that the
site currently is being used as a waste processing facility, as this clearly against current permissions
the local community do not believe the assurances proffered by MVV/Gilpin Demolition Ltd that all
will be well should permission be development be granted.

4.7    BCF accept that the objection by Dr Sarah Wollaston, MP for Totnes, was omitted from the
report in error.
4.8   BCF have concerns that have not been adequately addressed by the Applicant.
4.13 Avon Bat Group express the requirements of statutory law, “if there is any doubt that the
application would not maintain or increase the current [greater horseshoe bat] population, then it
should be refused.”

BCF contend there is doubt and therefore this doubt allows lawful rejection of this planning
application.
5.4    Paragraph 119 of the NPPF states that: “The presumption in favour of sustainable
development (paragraph 14) does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment
under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or determined.” This application
requires these appropriate assessments therefore this application should not be determined on
the basis of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

5.7   Gilpin Demolition Ltd has used the site for waste disposal since occupation in 2008 under
quarrying permissions. BCF contend the cumulative negative effect on the well being of the
community is a material consideration for refusal of this application.

The availability of rail and sea transport links from the EfW plant can be considered as a
material consideration for refusal of this application.

The requirements of the proximity principle are to process waste as close as possible to the source
of waste. The single trip distance in this instance is 23 miles, there are other potential locations for
this facility closer to Devonport.

The argument that IBA is likely to be sold to the north or east of Buckfastleigh is not admissible;
a)     the applicant has not submitted evidence of this market and
b)     in stating “the proposed Section 106 agreement seeks to establish a mechanism whereby this
material may be utilised in support for the city’s wider growth agenda” Plymouth City Council
Planning Officers suggest the market for the material will be in Plymouth.

The requirement for sustainable movement of waste gives material grounds for refusal of
this application.

5.8    We welcome the statement that the site is classed as a Greenfield site. By definition
Greenfield sites are not associated with do not have historical traffic movements.
5.9    BCF note that for a “departure” from the plan requires compliance with all other policies in
the Plan and are subject to call-in by the Secretary of State.

5.10 Whitecleave Quarry is not allocated in the Waste Plan and was excluded by the Inquiry
Inspector. This provides material grounds for the rejection of the Application and for
prohibition of future applications for Waste Processing at this site.

5.11 The county Mineral and Waste Policy officer has objected to this proposal and noted that
MRF facilities are “footloose” and that there is an already sufficient network in the county.

It is not clear why a site that was excluded by the Inquiry Inspector was selected by the Applicant.

5.12 The argument that IBA is likely to be sold to the east of Buckfastleigh is not admissible;
a)    the applicant has not submitted evidence of this market,
b)     in stating “the proposed Section 106 agreement seeks to establish a mechanism whereby this
material may be utilised in support for the city’s wider growth agenda” Plymouth City Council
Planning Officers suggest the market for the material will be in Plymouth
c)    the market for IBA is in it’s infancy due to the novel nature of the product and as yet
unanswered questions regarding long-term safety and reliability as aggregate.
5.14 BCF are surprised that the Planning Officers have reached this opinion when the evidence to
support the contrary opinion that the development will have a detrimental impact includes:

a) The Economic Impact Assessment co-authored by Mr Charlie McConnell whose many
professional credentials include previous CEO of Carnegie Trust UK and Head of Community
Development for Scottish Government. This Economic Impact Assessment states, “the authors
find it difficult to imagine a more economically damaging plan for a town”.
b) A ‘business’ petition has collected 101 signatures from local businesses against the development.
c) ‘A study to estimate the disamenity costs of landfill in Great Britain’ (DEFRA 2003). This quantifies
the disamenity associated with landfill sites in terms of impact upon house-prices, with substantial
losses over 10% in house price seen in close proximity to landfill sites.

6.2    The NPPF also states that decisions should take account of: “the opportunities for sustainable
transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site”.

The applicant has presented analyses to ensure the Traffic effects are not considered ‘severe’. BCF
contends that these analyses remain flawed.

6.4     The Highways Agency have only consider this application on the grounds of capacity and
safety. The Highways Agency have NOT considered issues of material planning importance
including amenity, noise, emissions and importantly community severance, despite this being
a key concern of sustainable development in terms of community cohesion, and established concept
in Department of Transport analysis.

BCF note that the Highways Agency currently use Gilpin Demolition Ltd to process their waste road
shavings.

6.7    The Planning Officers have summarised the quarrying permission, “the principal purpose of
the development is the winning and working of minerals.”. No minerals are currently being won or
worked on site, and there are no plans to either beyond this waste processing application.

6.9    The Minerals Local Plan states that “the main quarrying operations ceased at the site in
Autumn 1997” and that, “although working and tipping often takes place over a long period of time, it
should not be regarded as a permanent land use”

The site was empty for several years and was reverting to nature under the auspices of the agreed
ROMP conditions (albeit with nine breaches). Having failed to find a new quarry operator, and
having failed in a bid to have the site allocated in the Waste Local Plan as a landfill site, the owner
declared that quarrying was to be regarded as having ceased for good in 2007. A few weeks later
the owner stated that a new operator had been found to operate at the quarry. This was Gilpin
Demolition Ltd who immediately applied to open a waste processing facility. When they withdrew
this application they moved onto the site anyway, stating to the council that they wished to “re-
open the quarry” despite declaring in their previous planning application that the mineral reserves
were limited, of low value and difficult to reach.

They have been operating on site under the auspices of quarrying since 2008. No quarrying has
taken place. MVV have stated in their marketing material that: “Sam Gilpin Demolition Ltd runs a
business recycling demolition waste at the quarry.” Gilpin Demolition Ltd website makes no
reference to quarrying activities nor products.

This current proposal, if granted permission, would extend the life of the site for another 25-
40 years. A return to quarrying could not last this period as the mineral reserves are
considered worked out.
6.13 Contains a factual error as the Devon County Minerals Plans states main quarrying operations
ceased in 1997.
p 177, Devon County Minerals Plan, Adopted Plan: Part B June 2004


BCF are surprised to see a reference to the historical activity of a worked out quarry as justification
for permission for new activity given:
a)     the statement in the Devon County Minerals Plan that, “although working and tipping often takes
place over a long period of time, it should not be regarded as a permanent land use ”
p 121, Devon County Minerals Plan, Adopted Plan: Part B June 2004


b)     The statement at 5.8 above refers to PPS10 and the requirement to consider mineral sites as
Greenfield sites within the planning system.

6.15 BCF are surprised given the emphasis placed upon ‘quarrying’ that the 300 000 tonnes of
stone made available by demolishing the spur have not been considered to contribute to stock
levels of aggregate.
6.19   These traffic predictions overlook the aspiration of Plymouth City Council to use IBA.

6.22 BCF are surprised to see omission of the current traffic flows from the Planning Officers
report. The increases in HGV flow are an average increase of 47 – 70 % with peak increases of 107
– 161 %.
6.29 BCF notes that this represents a choice between road safety or more noise and emissions.
BCF suggests this development is therefore in the wrong place.

6.32 It has not been considered that low levels of pedestrian accidents on this road is due to lack
of pedestrian use, due to the perceived existing nature of the danger of the road that will be
exacerbated if this development goes ahead.

Perceived danger is a material consideration of community severance and as such provides
consideration for lawful rejection of this application.
6.34 The Applicant has counted 266 properties fronting the residential roads leading to and from
Whitecleave Quarry. There are many more properties which back onto the road or are within
earshot of these roads. BCF understand from discussion with DCC Noise Officers that road noise is
not considered under ‘nuisance’ noise.

The increased noise levels from HGV traffic were averaged over 18 hours in this report. Were the
increased noise levels to be averaged over the working hours of the development the levels would
reach threshold criteria.

Were the noise levels to be considered under ‘nuisance’ noise parameters as a HGV passes house
frontages the short burst of 95 – 100 dB reaches nuisance levels.

BCF disagrees with the Planning Officers statement that the increase of up to 400 HGV movements
discussed above will result in, “no perceptible increase in the overall road traffic noise levels.”

6.35 “Policy WPP20 of the Devon County Waste Local Plan requires that proposals for
waste management should seek to minimise the transportation of waste by road.” This is why
it is totally in contradiction of WPP20 to drive Plymouth’s waste 23 miles to Buckfastleigh,
especially when the planners report in Plymouth stated:

“It is therefore recommended that the movement of Bottom Ash by either water or rail [directly from
Plymouth] be considered by the applicant.”

“The shipment of bottom ash from another wharf away from the site is a matter that could be
investigated by the applicant when the planning implications of such could also be assessed.”

The MRF C&D waste is likely to come largely from Torbay and the impact of increased traffic on the
B385 Air Quality Management zone around Totnes has not been considered in the Environmental
Statement.
6.41 BCF submit that the development will be visible from Buckfastleigh Town, the A38 and
Dartmoor National Park, via the road access to the quarry void.

6.43 The MRF facility, for which the site has already been modified to accomodate is clearly
visible from the town. The (unlicensed) removal of vegetation in this flyway for Greater Horseshoe
Bats has demonstrated (based on photographic evidence submitted to the planners) that the MRF
facility will be clearly and overtly visible to residents and visitors.

6.45 The site is clearly not suitable then, if it has to be altered, impacting the park and the town
merely to provide 2 acres of flat concrete space.

There is no overriding need for this development and there are numerous alternate sites available
as declared by the applicant.
6.51 The Planning Officers report has omitted to mention the Buckfastleigh Town Conservation
Area which abuts the B3380 to north of Whitecleave Quarry. Negative impact on a Conservation
Area is a material consideration to allow lawful rejection of this Application.

6.53 Sustainable development has three prongs - one of which is community and one of which is
environment. The Planning Officers seem to only focus on “economic growth”.

BCF contend this is not “sustainable development” as we have outlined in various submissions
totalling dozens of pages.

It is unclear how many new jobs would be created as some of the claimed new jobs are not new at
all. Most employees currently come from outside town, and there is absolutely no guarantee that
new jobs will go to locals.

The Planning Officers have considered and quote upward multipliers with confidence but
have omitted to consider or discuss potential downward multipliers associated with the
downsides of this development.

The discussion of “local economy” must mean Devon as a whole as nowhere like £1.4 million would
be brought in to the local economy.

The DEFRA report and the Economic Impact Assessment discussed above suggest the value of
wealth lost due to the quantifiable impacts of negative amenity of £15 - £20 million. The burden of
this would fall upon Buckfastleigh over the longer term. This figure is reached before the
application of negative multipliers. BCF contend that this development does not offer
sustainable economic growth and this provides a material consideration for lawful rejection
of this application.

6.54 BCF are disappointed at the omission of reporting the numbers of local business for and
against the application. Local representations are against this proposal by an order of
magnitude. The parish poll accurately showed support split 95% to 5%.

6.55 The Economic Impact Assessment was produced by two local professional people, Simon
Rines and Charlie McConnell.

Simon Rines is managing director of International Marketing Reports Ltd a business research and analysis publisher
and consultancy specialising in leisure, sports and marketing. Prior to founding IMR, Rines worked as a business
journalist specialising in marketing and business tourism. His articles featured in most of the UK’s leading business
publications including Management Today, Marketing, Marketing Week, Sunday Business, the Observer and the Daily
Telegraph. Before working as a journalist, he spent two years working in the Marketing Department of the English
Tourist Board / British Tourist Authority.

Charlie McConnell is a former director of Schumacher College, Dartington (retired January 2012), a leading post
graduate international centre for sustainable economics. His former posts include CEO of Carnegie UK Trust, Secretary
General of the International Association for Community Development, CEO of the Scottish Community Education
Council, European and Public Affairs Director of the Community Development Foundation and Head of Community
Development with the Scottish Government. Charlie was the first Chair of the UK’s professional training standards body
for community learning and development. He has written and edited several books and advised the Council of Europe,
OECD, UK and Scottish governments on engaging communities around social and environmental issues.

It must be emphasised that although planners say house prices are not a material planning
consideration, this may be true for individual house prices, but it is totally false in relation to
“blight” on a whole town or even one part of a town. This has material economic implications
and threatens community sustainability.
6.56 A petition signed by 100 locally active business people states that this will have a
serious negative impact on their business or the town.

Five representations supporting the Application have been received from within town. The rest are
from further afield.

6.57 BCF are surprised by this summary by the Planning Officers as we draw diametrically
opposite conclusions from the evidence presented.

6.58 The Dean Burn is formally designated a river, and is a Protected Area for Economically
Significant Fish.

6.61   The Application does NOT describe a closed loop system as is repeatedly claimed.

It is likely that approximately 10,000 m3 (2,200,000 gallons) of rainfall (calculated as 8,000m2 x
125cm of annual rainfall) will fall directly onto the IBA processing facility at this site each year. This
is in addition to the quenching liquid within the IBA that is brought from the Plymouth EfW
quenching pool (estimated at up to 20% of the weight of the IBA as it arrives, or 12,000 tonnes of
concentrated quench-bath liquid each year).

Having percolated through thousands of tonnes of potentially hazardous IBA, the assumption in the
application is that the rainwater will eventually evaporate from this north-facing, impermeable
concrete layer. This assumption is clearly erroneous, this water will need to be discharged and the
Application describes a route of discharge. The Environment Agency have raised no objections on
the grounds of flood-risk, not in relation to the leachate that will be discharged as the Environment
Permit has not been applied for..

The applicant has specifically not applied for an environmental permit at this stage, which
appears to be to keep material environmental information out of public domain of the
planning process. This goes against guidance in the Waste Local Plan and arguably a recent
High Court judgement.

6.63 The issue of hydrogeology has not been addressed adequately despite a wordy response.
The applicant relies upon a 1:50,000 British Geological Survey Map dated 1974. This was produced
making a best guess about underlying rock formations from evidence visible on the surface. The
applicant has not submitted any evidence of more recent assessment such as from surveys
commissioned while quarrying was on-going nor from modern methodology to improve accuracy.

The Applicants assurances of site isolation from the water table and other water systems is
based upon a best guess.

Firstly, the dolerite is very fissured, and sits on a limestone substrata, containing watercourses.

Secondly, it is very possible that water level in the quarry (the fact that it needs to be pumped) may
be due to water seeping into the quarry from water table. They fail to consider the concept of
inflow versus outflow which is a material issue (think of a bath with the plug out but taps running
faster than the water leaving through the drain).

The Applicant discusses a spring at 130m AOD demonstrating water moves around as an
underground water course above the level of the quarry. It should be borne in mind that the
quarry hydrology directly impacts the hydrology of Potter’s Wood Caves SSSI and the EA have not
objected as they think it is “unlikely” that there will be an impact. This may be in
contravention of the EC Habitats Directive.
6.69 Professor John Altringham, Professor of Animal Ecology and Conservation, University of
Leeds has submitted two reports that were unavailable for consideration in the preparation of the
Planning Officers report. BCF understand that the Planning Officers are preparing a response to
these reports. Professor Altringham has stated, “the application is being approved on the
basis of an unfinished and contentious mitigation plan for an SAC bat population.”

The view that the Dartmoor SAC is unlikely to be impacted stems from the mistaken belief that
potentially contaminated water will not enter the Dean Burn. The Planning Application describes
discharge into Dean Burn.

The established principle is the requirement for certainty in relation to the EC Habitats directive
and this is a legal requirement. Lack of certainty regarding safeguarding habitats is grounds
for lawful rejection of this Application.
6.73 Professor John Altringham, Professor of Animal Ecology and Conservation, University of
Leeds has submitted two reports that were unavailable for consideration in the preparation of the
Planning Officers report. BCF understand that the Planning Officers are preparing a response to
these reports. Professor Altringham has stated, “the application is being approved on the
basis of an unfinished and contentious mitigation plan for an SAC bat population.”

6.76   Buckfastleigh residents report seeing signs of otters on this stretch of river.

6.77 It remains unclear in law if the planning authority can rely solely on an Environmental
Agency permit to protect Special Areas of Conservation. A recent High Court Ruling overruled a
planning inspector on this matter.

It is clear that Environmental Permits are risk-based appraisals where known potential for harm
exists. Under established principles of European Habitats Legislation, greater certainty - i.e. the
ability to prove no harm - is required. This is not provided by the Environmental Permitting regime.

This provides material grounds for lawful rejection of this Application.
6.78 The RSPB stated there is a requirement not to work within 150 m of nesting Peregrine
Falcons. Much of the site is within 150 m of the Peregrine Falcons nests.

6.81   Construction appears to have commenced on these projects.

6.82 BCF are surprised by this summary by the Planning Officers as we draw diametrically
opposite conclusions from the evidence presented.
6.85 Revocation of the Mineral Planning Permissions would not appear especially controversial
given the quarry is considered worked-out and not amenable to extension.

BCF have raised issues regarding Gilpin Demolition Ltd’s compliance with these quarrying
permissions. Gilpin Demolition Lts has operated on this site for 3 years without submitting a
blasting schedule as required. Many properties look into the site and the residents do not report
seeing annual maintenance of the quarry walls by manual scaling which BCF understand is a
requirement. We believe that these two issues could allow permission to be revoked without any
compensation payable to the owner.

6.86 It is not clear why a Habitat Regulations Assessment was not carried out and implemented
before Gilpin Demolition Ltd occupied the site and started operating in 2008.
6.92 BCF welcomes the provision of a bond to provide independent monitoring of blasting in
order to assuage the concerns of local residents. BCF would welcome a provision to provide
independent monitoring of toxins in IBA and the rate of escape of these toxins from the
development.

6.93 The EC Landfill Directive (which would apply to this site) specifies that distances to
residential housing is a key issue, and Devon’s own rules on this matter is that dust generating
facilities should not be located within 250m of housing. This would respect the principles of the
National Planning Policy Framework. This provides material grounds for lawful rejection of
this Application.

6.94 Mitigation is not elimination. There is little discussion of the effectiveness of proposed
mitigation.

6.98 Dust is a known feature of IBA facilities. Some of it is produced as the crust is processed.
Runoff is contained in the IBA compound until it is discharged.

6.99 Visiting a site in heavy rain is unlikely to give an accurate idea of dust generation and
dispersal.
6.101 The Environmental Health Officer confirmed that is impossible to understand the true threat
of dust as part of this proposal. This facility will produce dust from a not well understood,
heterogeneous waste product - Incinerator Bottom Ash - that is known to contain various toxins
including heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Some of this IBA is likely to be
legally classifiable as HAZARDOUS WASTE. Due to the Environmental Permit issued at Plymouth
(which is currently under challenge in the courts) this potentially HAZARDOUS WASTE will be
coming to Buckfastleigh because the tests only take place once per month in the first year of
operation, quarterly thereafter, the results take every several weeks to be determined and there is
no area in Plymouth to allow quarantine of IBA while awaiting the results.

6.102 BCF have previously been refused access to EH dust monitoring data because EH did not
own it.

6.105 The Applicant has counted over 200 properties fronting the residential roads leading to and
from Whitecleave Quarry. There are many more properties within earshot of these residential
roads. BCF understand from discussion with DCC Noise Officers that road noise is not considered
under ‘nuisance’ noise.

The increased noise levels from HGV traffic were averaged over 18 hours in this report. Were the
increased noise levels to be averaged over the working hours of the development the levels would
reach threshold criteria.

Were the noise levels to be considered under ‘nuisance’ noise parameters as a HGV passes house
frontages the short burst of 95 – 100 dB reaches nuisance levels.

BCF disagrees with the Planning Officers statement that the increases of up to 400 HGV movements
discussed above will result in, “no perceptible increase in the overall road traffic noise levels.”

6.106 BCF submits that the principle objections are to long term activities and are surprised to see
the Planning Officers refer to short-term nuisance.

BCF welcomes the inclusion of para 123 of the new NPPF states that decisions should avoid noise
from giving rise to “significant adverse impacts” on health and quality of life as a result of new
development and seek to minimise such impacts. This provides lawful consideration for
rejection of this Application.

The phrase, “business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in
nearby land uses since they were established” is not significant as suggested by the Planning Officer.
The quarrying business has ended in Whitecleave Quarry, the Quarry is considered a Greenfield site
and the Applicant is seeking to establish a new business at the site. Thus the residents of the new
houses in the west of Buckfastleigh are entitled to object and these objections do not necessarily
constitute unreasonable conditions.
6.107 BCF would welcome an evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed mitigations.

6.108 Residents at Verwood in Hampshire who live over 1km from an IBA facility complain of dust
and odour specifically from the IBA after IBA was brought onto the site. The application deals with
the requirement to routinely return unburned organic to the EfW plant for a second attempt at
incineration. This partially burnt organic material is likely to have an odour.

6.111 The proximity of dwellings makes this site inappropriate and is a lawful
consideration in rejecting this Application. NHS Devon recommended a cautionary approach as
the hazardous qualities of the material brought to site will not be known.

BCF do not know which site is referred to by the Planning Officer. Sites referred to as ‘similar’
include Beeley Woods, Sheffield and Castle Bromwich. These are on existing industrial parks
whose connections to the strategic road network do not include 2 miles of residential roads.

The EC Landfill Directive (which would apply to this site) specifies that distances to residential
housing is a key issue, and Devon’s own rules on this matter is that dust generating facilities should
not be located within 250m of housing. This respects the principles of the National Planning Policy
Framework.

6.112 BCF has not had sight of contractual arrangements that prevent the landfilling of IBA. We
are curious as to what will happen if the IBA is not sold on the market and not landfilled. While the
Application and Conditions inhibit stockpiling at Whitecleave we are yet to be reassured that
there are adequate robust measures to prevent IBA accumulating for many years in
Whitecleave Quarry. Subsequent termination of the IBA processing business would allow
the operator to walk away. If IBA didn’t sell because it was unsafe this leaves the owner or DCC
with a clear-up problem.
6.113 The example that IBA is in use does not confirm that IBA should be in use. Current
legislation is that IBA is a waste product throughout its lifecycle. When put to its final use it is
classified as disposal according to the EC Waste Directive. EC legislation requires testing of IBA to
determine its safety at this point. These End-of-Waste protocols have not been finalised. When IBA
has been processed into a product it would become subject to regulations under European
chemicals registration, REACH. There is no indication how either test for End-of-Waste or the
requirement to meet REACH standards (which ECHA, the European Chemical Agency have
confirmed would need to be attained) would be carried out on site.

There is an excess supply of secondary aggregate already in the South West - if this is to be used
anywhere beyond Plymouth (as outlined in their planning report), further afield would be likely
(such as London or Holland) and shipping by boat or rail, as recommended by the planning officers
in Plymouth. This alternative would be an excellent opportunity to reach objectives of moving more
waste by more sustainable methods other than road.

The applicant has stated that blending would also likely occur at other sites around the county and
hence again this site is not actually required.

6.114 BCF are reassured that the applicant has stated that no material tested as hazardous would
be brought to the site.

BCF has two concerns with this reassurance:
a)      Given there is no quarantine or significant storage facility at the EfW plant and that testing
takes time this statement is materially misleading.
b)      Most of the material brought to the site will not have been tested and therefore its
hazardous status will not be known.
The uncertainty regarding the import of hazardous material to Whitecleave is a material
consideration that allows lawful deferment of this Application.

6.115 There is a grey area where the correct use for land may be inappropriate for something that
is within limits of a a risk-based environmental regime. Vulnerable communities or sites of
particular economic value in terms of tourism cannot be assessed in isolation because the
Environment Agency do not have any jurisdiction or competence over land control. The risk-based
regime of the permitting process is not applicable equally under all circumstances. This point was
recently made in a ruling by a High Court Judge.

We reiterate that the applicant has specifically NOT applied for an environmental permit, despite
this being regarded as best practice and apparently required in the Waste Local Plan. The
Environmental Permit application would allow the Development Management Committee to weigh
and assess environmental information in the context of appropriate land use.

6.116 The HIA identified 29 direct negative impacts on health, related to the effects of the
development and traffic. This gives material grounds to lawfully reject this application.

6.117 BCF were dismayed that the Applicant did not contribute any scientific data to the HIA given
this data will be used to inform the Environment Permit Application.
6.119 We emphasise the NHS’s acknowledgement that these processes do not take place this close
to housing in other parts of the UK and that a precautionary approach for determination of the
application (as well as conditions) was suggested.

6.120 The HIA identified 29 direct negative impacts on health, related to the effects of the
development and traffic. The HIA did not include potential effects from IBA toxicity but
emphasised the principle adopted by the World Health Organisation that, “ ‘absence of evidence of
risk’ should never be confused with, or taken as, ‘evidence of absence of risk’ ”
Structure Plan Policy CO2 gives a material consideration for rejecting this application.

6.121 The Rookery South Pit site in Bedfordhsire is an IBA processing facility where the site
boundary is 1,300m from the nearest housing, and the actual facility is 400m from the site
boundary. So the report is quoting a facility which is over 1 mile from the nearest housing. In this
Application a town of nearly 4,000 people is within 1,000m of this facility. As above, an absence of
evidence does not necessarily equate with innocence.

6.122 BCF welcome the mitigations proposed, if appropriately policed and enforced.

6.124 BCF have submitted a detailed report on this issue, beyond the issue of whether a pedestrian
crossing was required.

NPPF outlines 12 Core planning principle including: “be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people
to shape their surroundings…not simply be about scrutiny, but instead be a creative exercise in finding
ways to enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives… proactively drive and
support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units,
infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs.; … take account of the different roles
and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green
Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting
thriving rural communities within it… contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural
environment and reducing pollution.… promote mixed use developments, and encourage multiple
benefits from the use of land in urban and rural areas, recognising that some open land can perform
many functions (such as for wildlife, recreation, flood risk mitigation, carbon storage, or food
production)… conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can
be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations… actively manage
patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus
significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable; and … take account of and
support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient
community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs.”

The proposals fail on every aspect of these key guiding principles of the NPPF. This provides
a material consideration to allow lawful rejection of this Application.
6.135 BCF is surprised at this summary as it omits to consider the substantial evidence detailed
above.

6.136 BCF welcomes this recommendation. In 2008-09 the community requested establishment of
a liaison group on the standard terms of reference set out in the good practice guide for the
operation of mineral and waste facilities endorsed by Devon County Council. The request to
establish this group was turned down by the planning authority.

7.1    Paragraph 119 of the NPPF states that: “The presumption in favour of sustainable
development (paragraph 14) does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment
under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or determined.” This application
requires these appropriate assessments therefore this application should not be determined on
the basis of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
7.2    The development plan is not silent, it has previously considered Whitecleave as a Waste site
at Inspector Inquiry level and concluded it is not suitable.

7.3   It is not clear why Gilpin are currently landfilling any C&D waste as there are plenty of
Material Recovery Facilities already available in Devon.

7.4    As existing Devon mineral policy documentation states, Devon already has an abundant
supply of secondary aggregate from the china clay industry. IBA is a waste material that the
Building Research Establishment has suggested should not be used in softwater areas. An honest
appraisal would conclude that it is actually a very unnecessary and unwanted waste stream being
introduced into Devon.

The site is Greenfield and is not required, as per the previously noted policy objection. There are
alternative locations that would better accord with NPPF whose core principles state that planning
should: “contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution.
Allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value …conserve
heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their
contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations”

7.5    The expression “footlose” to describe an MRF was taken directly from the objection to this
application from the County Mineral and Waste Policy Officer. This objection has been omitted
from this report.

This site allocation would be in total disregard of PPS10 and WPP20 and WPP21 and
therefore gives grounds for lawful rejection of this Application and prohibition of
subsequent development as a waste facility.

7.6   The argument that, “IBA would therefore be travelling along the A38 in any case either
processed or unprocessed” is not admissible;
a)    the applicant has not submitted evidence of this market and
b)    in stating “the proposed Section 106 agreement seeks to establish a mechanism whereby this
material may be utilised in support for the city’s wider growth agenda” Plymouth City Council
Planning Officers suggest the market for the material will be in Plymouth.
c)    The Planning Officers report fails to consider movement of IBA by rail or sea.

7.7    BCF is surprised at the Planning Officers conclusion that there are few alternative sites.

7.8    The Applicant presented 74 pages discussing alternative sites in Appendix 5.1. Few of these
sites were in a residential area or on a watercourse. Some had rail or waterway links.

It cannot be guaranteed that the environmental effects will be adequately controlled within the
enclosed quarry.
7.9    It is not so well located to the strategic highway network when HGVs have to drive along two
miles of residential roads, past 266 residencies fronting the street, in a Dartmoor Town in the
middle of Devon’s tourist heartland, where 5 of Dartmoor’s 24 listed attractions are located.

7.10 IBA is considered waste until it reaches it’s final use. It is irrelevant in Planning Policy and
law where the original source of the waste comes from. PPS10 is clear that waste should be
processed as near as practically possible to its source. The waste is produced in Plymouth.

7.11 Core underlying principles of NPPF include that plans should: “be genuinely plan-led,
empowering local people to shape their surroundings …not simply be about scrutiny, but instead be a
creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives”
The Environmental Health Officer stated in their report that there would be a detrimental impact
on health, mitigation does not eliminate impact.

8.1     The Ministerial foreword to the NPPF states: “This should be a collective enterprise. Yet, in
recent years, planning has tended to exclude, rather than to include, people and communities. In part,
this has been a result of targets being imposed, and decisions taken, by bodies remote from them.
Dismantling the unaccountable regional apparatus and introducing neighbourhood planning
addresses this. In part, people have been put off from getting involved because planning policy itself
has become so elaborate and forbidding – the preserve of specialists, rather than people in
communities.”

We are involved and we have demonstrated why this plan is wrong and cannot be conceived as
being consistent with the NPPF.

8.3   The Environmental Permit application process may give an airing to many of these concerns.
The HIA demonstrated the lack of evidence regarding either the safety or the danger of IBA
and suggested caution when determining the Application.
8.4   BCF are surprised by this conclusion as evidence to support this has not been presented.
While deliberate emissions are a matter for permitting the accidental or unforeseen emissions are a
matter for decision making regarding overall land use.

8.6    BCF do not contend the need for an IBA processing facility but object the selection of site.

8.8    Mitigation is a relative concept - the 29 identified direct negative impacts cannot all be
mitigated, nor controlled by appropriate conditions.

8.9    Approximately 100 already active local business people who work locally, have signed a
petition stating that local jobs could be lost as a direct impact of this development.

The local expectation that the quarry would ultimately be restored to amenity use arises from the
ROMP conditions governing rehabilitation of quarries at the end of the quarries working life.
9.2   Buckfastleigh Community reach diametrically opposed conclusions when considering
evidence, some of which was presented above.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:14
posted:6/16/2012
language:
pages:77