Docstoc

OBJECTION TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF AN ENERGY FROM WASTE FACILITY

Document Sample
OBJECTION TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF AN ENERGY FROM WASTE FACILITY Powered By Docstoc
					               OBJECTION TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

 OF AN ENERGY FROM WASTE FACILITY (MASS BURN INCINERATOR)

                                          ON LAND AT

H600 HARTLEBURY TRADING ESTATE, HARTLEBURY, WORCESTERSHIRE




                        Planning Application No: 10/000032




       Registered Office: Station House, Station Road, Hartlebury, Worcestershire, DY10 4HA.
               Registered in England No: 7171644. WAIL is a trading style of WAIL Ltd


                                              1                                                WAIL Ltd.
CONTENTS:

Foreword

Part 1 - Planning Application Forms, Certificates and Notices - Response

Part 2 - Design & Access Statement - Response

Part 3 - Planning Statement - Response

Part 4 - Technical Report - Response to Environmental Statement

Part 5 - Summary



Appendices

1.     Wychavon District Local Plan 2006
2.     Appeal Decision of the Planning Enquiry of the Planning Application for the British Sugar Site,
       Stourport Road, Kidderminster dated 10.07.2002
3.     Planning & Regulatory Committee Report for the Estech Planning Application dated 14.12.2004
4.     DEFRA Report 2010
5.     Letters with objections on Restrictive Covenant grounds from WAIL to County Council
6.     Photographs showing surrounding residential properties
7.     Photographs showing Hartlebury and Elmley Lovett in the Green Belt
8.     Website Petition as of July 26, 2010 (Paper petition to be supplied under separate cover)
9.     Myths and Facts
10.    Statement by the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable David Cameron, in the House of
       Commons on the 30th June 2010 - Extract from Hansard




                                                2                                     WAIL Ltd.
Foreword

Proposed Development of an Energy from Waste Facility (Mass Burn Incinerator) on land at
H600 Hartlebury Trading Estate, Hartlebury, Worcestershire.

We would refer to the above application for planning permission. W.A.I.L Limited is an official consultee
in the planning process relating to this application and is a Group, representing residents in Hartlebury,
Elmley Lovett and the surrounding areas, set up to object to this application following an initial public
meeting in January 2010 attended by over 400 residents, representatives of the local Parish Councils and
Mr. Peter Luff, MP.

We object to this application for the proposed development of an incinerator (described by the applicant
as an EnviRecover facility) which is inappropriate, as admitted by the applicant in their planning
statement, being of an enormous and disproportionate size and scale, contrary to the Wychavon District
Local Plan adopted in June 2006 and the existing planning restrictions relating to Hartlebury Trading Estate
which is a major developed site in the Green Belt; furthermore, the applicant has not demonstrated “very
special circumstances” to justify this development in the Green Belt, as is otherwise contended by the
applicant in this application.

We set out our objections and comments to this application in these our submissions using, where
appropriate, the same headings, paragraphs and clause numbers as set out in the planning application for
ease of reference purposes.

As the applicant has clearly had a considerable amount of time to prepare this application, together with
the substantial amount of the documents supporting this application and, bearing in mind that this
application was only submitted and available for public scrutiny in May 2010, we submit that,
notwithstanding the agreed extension to the consultation period by a further six weeks, this may not allow
sufficient time for proper consultation by other interested parties including the public at large.

We reserve the right to raise further submissions should the opportunity to do so arise during this present
process.




                                                3                                       WAIL Ltd.
Part 1

Planning Application Forms, Certificates and Notices - Response

The applicant refers to the proposed development as the Mercia EnviRecover Facility – this is, in fact, a
Mass Burn Incinerator and should be acknowledged and accepted as such by all concerned.

Our objections to this proposal are mainly set out in Part 3 Planning Statement together with our
Technical Report in Part 4 which deal with the applicant’s comments regarding the “Proposed Activities
Processes in Machinery” referred to at the end of the planning application form.

With regard to the planning application form, we would comment, using the numbering in the application,
as follows:-

12.      The proposed connection to the private Hartlebury Trading Estate drainage system may well be
         insufficient for this proposed plant.

13.      Having regard to the problems experienced on this Estate with lying water / leachate on the
         adjoining Waresley landfill, this proposed development could further exacerbate these problems
         and have an adverse effect on the water table and water courses which run in through or under
         the Trading Estate.

15.      This is vacant land which has not been developed previously and is an open space which forms a
         buffer between the Trading Estate and nearby residential properties.

16.      Trees have been removed which were the subject of a Tree Preservation Order.

17.      The Incinerator Bottom Ash (n43000tpa) is to be recycled off site, which will cause further
         movement of heavy goods vehicles and transport problems.

21.      The proposed opening hours are as follows:-

         Waste Treatment - 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, every day of the year
         Heavy Goods Vehicle deliveries – 06.00 to 19.00, 7 days per week, every day of
              the year

         This is totally unreasonable and unacceptable, and will inevitably cause substantial noise,
         nuisance, disturbance and annoyance to members of the public and the surrounding residential
         properties. No planning conditions and / or any attempted mitigation by the applicant can
         avoid this.




                                                 4                                       WAIL Ltd.
Part 2

Design and Access Statement - Response

Our objections to this proposal are mainly set out in Part 3 Planning Statement and our Technical Report in
Part 4.

With regard to this Section, we would comment using the numbering of the applicant, as follows:-



3.       Context
         Page 6 – the applicant admits that the site is in the Green Belt and the surrounding area is
         predominately rural.
         Page 7 – the height of the proposed building is 35 metres above ground level
         i.e. 83.5 metres above ordnance datum (AOD). The existing Waresley landfill is 65 metres AOD
         i.e. 17 metres above ground level. The proposed building would be twice as high as the existing
         landfill and at least 3 times as high as the existing buildings on this Trading Estate.

         How can this not impact on the visual receptors and the visual amenity and openness of the Green
         Belt where the skyline would be dominated by this proposed building ?

5.       Design
         5.1 Site Context – the applicant states that “The aim has been to produce a building design which
         sits comfortably within the landscape”. This defies belief and is total nonsense.

         Visual Impact – no amount of architectural design can mitigate the sheer size and scale of this
         proposed enormous power station-sized plant and huge chimney stack.

         Site Layout – the applicant states that an effective “attractive” layout has been achieved. How can
         any development of this size and scale be attractive, especially in the Green Belt in a
         predominately rural area?

         5.2 Design Development – no amount of architectural design, landscaping or planting can mitigate
         the sheer size and scale of this proposed enormous power station-sized plant and huge chimney
         stack. The proposed air-cooled condensers will be very noisy and adversely affect the sensitive
         noise receptors, especially the nearby residential properties, with these proposed to be operated
         24 hours per day, 7 days per week, every day of the year. The plans show that these would be
         located nearest to the residential development at New House Farm in Walton Road, Elmley Lovett
         and other nearby properties surrounding the Trading Estate.

         Photographs provided by the applicant– in many cases, these photographs are not close-ups and
         only show the proposed buildings and chimney stack some considerable distance away with the
         actual location or prospective view not being shown; this is entirely misleading.

         Of the photographs supplied by the applicant, we would specifically draw attention to the
         following photographs which do give some indication as to the size of the problem:

                                                 5                                       WAIL Ltd.
Figure 12 page 17 - East-West and North-South – rectangular design.
Figure 18 page 21
Figure 22 page 26 – the proposed building and chimney stack dwarf the existing buildings on the
Trading Estate.
Figure 27 page 32

We have attached our own photographs in the Appendices to these our objections to support our
submissions.




                                       6                                      WAIL Ltd.
Part 3

Planning Statement - Response

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY MESSAGES

1.       It is noted that this proposal was intended to be a combined heat and power facility, not an
         inefficient power only plant, yet the heat facility is no longer included in the justification.

2.       The need for such a facility has not “long been recognised”; technology has changed since the
         long term contract with Mercia Waste Management was secured in 1998 and the Waste Core
         Strategy has not been finalised.

3.       The people of Worcestershire & Herefordshire would wish to take responsibility for their own
         waste by way of recycling, anaerobic digestion and other preferred emerging technologies
         towards Zero Waste.

4.       The Options Appraisals are flawed; consideration has not been given to anaerobic digestion with
         increased front end recycling for example. Further the alternatives that were considered were not
         treated on an equal basis with the applicant’s preferred solution. These flaws are dealt with in the
         Technical Report in Part 4 of our objections. Any appraisal by Mercia Waste Management would
         inevitably support disposal by incineration for Mercia’s own commercial benefit.

5.       With regard to the generation of electricity, this proposal should have been for combined heat
         and power and the present proposal does not accord with modern technology.

6.       The applicant states that this “is the only suitable and available site” ; it may be available but is
         totally unsuitable because of the following:-

         a. It is in the Green Belt
         b. It will be in breach of the Wychavon District Local Plan
         c. It will considerably exceed the height and footprint laid down by the Green Belt restrictions of
            this major developed site.
         d. It is contrary to the National Strategy for waste proposed by the present Coalition
            Government.
         e. Hartlebury Trading Estate was not envisaged as an industrial estate; planning was hard won
            on the basis that this should be a Trading Estate and was not intended for heavy industry.
         f. It will also be in breach of the Restrictive Covenants imposed in 1980 when the site was sold
            by the Secretary of State for Defence for the original development of the Hartlebury Trading
            Estate. These covenants were imposed in the Conveyance dated 10th September 1980 and
            made between (1) The Secretary of State for Defence and (2) Lansdown Estates (Hartlebury)
            Limited and were entered into to protect certain properties and surrounding land. They are
            binding and enforceable against Worcestershire County Council, as the owners of the land,
            under its existing 999 year lease, the freehold owners, and the other owners/occupiers for the
            time being on this Trading Estate.



                                                   7                                         WAIL Ltd.
7.    The site is located on the extreme northern edge of Worcestershire and a considerable distance
      away from Herefordshire. This clearly cannot be a suitable location, with heavy goods vehicles
      having to travel considerable distances across both counties, and will inevitably have an adverse
      effect on the carbon footprint as highlighted in our attached Technical Report.

8.    This is not a large industrial estate; there is no other industrial process apart from the existing
      Wienerberger Brickworks, which is an individual operation subject to special conditions needing
      proximity to land available for clay extraction. No amount of mitigation can reduce the size and
      scale of the proposed building and stack which, if constructed, will totally dominate this Green
      Belt area with its rural surroundings and villages and will adversely impact on the visual amenity
      for everyone who has chosen to live in this part of the Worcestershire countryside.

9.    Whatever assessments have been made by or on behalf of the applicant, it is totally unrealistic to
      assume that a development of this size and scale will not have a substantially adverse impact on
      the area.

10.   For any such development in the Green Belt, it is acknowledged by the applicant that it will be
      necessary to demonstrate that “very special circumstances exist for the granting of planning
      permission to be justified”. We do not accept the conclusions made by the applicant as assessed
      in the Planning Statement and our comprehensive response to these conclusions is set out in our
      Section 4 relating to this Planning Statement.

11.   If it is acknowledged that the application site already benefits from a planning permission for the
      development of five industrial units, then any such units, if they were to come forward in
      accordance with this planning permission would be a substantially lesser development and the
      height and footprint of any such buildings would also be considerably less. In practice,
      notwithstanding the planning permission in 1999, any modifications to bring the application up to
      date would inevitably be the subject of a new planning application which would have to be
      construed within the existing Wychavon District Local Plan adopted in 2006. This site has never
      been developed before.

12.   We do not accept that the applicant has demonstrated that the scheme meets the test of Section
      38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act as we have outlined in our response to
      Section 4 of the Planning Statement.

13.   We do not accept that the assessment of relevant material considerations has not revealed any
      justification for determining this application other than in accordance with the development plan.
      The application contravenes the Wychavon District Local Plan 2006 and the Green Belt restrictions
      for this major developed site. It will also be in breach of the Restrictive Covenants imposed in
      1980 when the site was sold by the Secretary of State for Defence for the original development of
      the Hartlebury Trading Estate. These covenants were imposed in the Conveyance dated 10th
      September 1980 and made between (1) The Secretary of State for Defence and (2) Lansdown
      Estates (Hartlebury) Limited and were entered into to protect certain properties and surrounding
      land. They are binding and enforceable against Worcestershire County Council, as the owners of

                                              8                                        WAIL Ltd.
the land, under its existing 999 year lease, the freehold owners, and the other owners/occupiers
for the time being on this Trading Estate.

We do not understand how the County Council can support any such application for development,
which will clearly be in breach of these covenants, either in its capacity as the Planning Authority
or as the legal owner of this site.




                                        9                                       WAIL Ltd.
1.0     INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF THE APPLICATION

1.3.2. The applicant admits that the site is undeveloped.

1.3.4. The applicant admits that the area beyond the Trading Estate (and Waresley Landfill Site) is
       predominately rural in nature. The Rushock Trading Estate is another ex-military facility granted
       planning permission as a trading estate and not an industrial estate.

1.3.5. The applicant refers only to the nearest residential properties being two houses located on Crown
       Lane, which are approximately 300 metres to the South East of the site. This is misleading in that
       there are other residential properties within close proximity in all directions of the Trading Estate
       which would be impacted seriously and adversely by this proposed industrial operation.

1.4.1. The photographs and drawings provided by the applicant with this application do not in many
       cases show the extent of the proposed huge building and stack. In fact, to the contrary, they seek
       to minimise the impact by only showing the location from a considerable distance and by not
       showing the incinerator building and stack.




                                                10                                      WAIL Ltd.
2.0     NEED

2.1     Introduction

 AD    Anaerobic Digestion
 BMW   Biodegradable Municipal Waste
 BPEO  Best Possible Environmental Option
 BSW   Biodegradable Solid Waste
       Energy from Waste, (Not just from mass burn incineration but also from MBT and
 EfW   AD)
 JMWMS Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy
 MBT   Mechanical Biological Treatment
 MSW   Municipal Solid Waste
 MWM   Mercia Waste Management
 NOx   Oxides of nitrogen
 PM    Particulate Materials (2 to 10 microns typically)
 RHI   Renewable Heat Incentives
 ROC   Renewable Obligation Certificates
 WDA   Waste Disposal Authority

We do not accept the applicant’s assessment of the need for this proposed development on this site as
stated below.

2.2.1            Reference is made to the Waste Strategy for England 2007 and adherence to the waste
hierarchy. This document gives great support for anaerobic digestion, including EfW from anaerobic
digestion, especially from food waste. This powerful support should have been given fair consideration,
instead it was completely ignored. It is now acknowledged by DEFRA that anaerobic digestion is on a par
with composting in the hierarchy and this puts AD a level above energy recovery from waste. A significant
advantage of AD is that energy is also recoverable in a clean form as methane and a co-product of soil
conditioner and/or fertiliser is also derived. This avoids burning of fossil fuel derived plastics and the
associated hazards of toxic emissions and particles that require expensive and sophisticated mitigation.

2.2.2           Preference is given to managing waste higher up the hierarchy. See above

2.2.3               There is no need for an expensive mass burn incinerator to ensure BMW diversion from
landfill as it is better managed by AD. This method, preferred by the Coalition Government and DEFRA, will
meet the targets by readily accepting the biodegradable fraction and allowing greater front end recycling
thereby also demonstrating adherence to the waste hierarchy by managing waste at a higher level.

2.2.8            Landfill tax has been referred to by the new Government, which stated its commitment to
anaerobic digestion and greater recycling. To drive and support these processes, it will put a floor under
the 2013 landfill tax rate of £72 per tonne. In the light of the Waste Review announced June 16 by
Environment Secretary, Caroline Spelman, there can be no guarantees that Government action will not lift
the £2.5 per tonne tax on bottom ash in line with the general landfill floor value of £72 per tonne.

2.3.2           Sub paragraph 4 states that 45,000 tonnes MSW would need to be shipped from
Herefordshire. This waste would contain 25,000 tonnes of BSW and this does not need an incinerator.
This would be better treated by AD and EfW (methane) with front end recycling. The Proximity Principle is


                                               11                                     WAIL Ltd.
supported through small local digesters and gives great savings on CO2 from short transport runs, this also
demonstrates sustainability. The Precautionary Principle referred to in PPS 10 is also supportive in this
context. Although the Environment Agency monitor the incineration process and ensure emissions are
kept under strictly controlled conditions there is still no limit deemed safe for PM’s and dioxins. As the
alternative technology (AD) does not have these emissions, it would be precautionary to adopt that
technology and eliminate the unknown risks from incinerator emissions.

2.4.5            This study and analysis failed to give proper consideration to modern preferred methods
of dealing with BMW. The Stockholm convention was not considered during this review. Further, the study
(as shown in annexe D of the JMWMS entitled Residual Options Appraisal) prepared by ERM consultants
failed to consider Anaerobic Digestion of the MSW. Furthermore, this report is very similar in structure
and content to the report appended to the planning application by Fichtner, entitled Residual Waste
Treatment Options Appraisal. Who are the original authors of this report, Fichtner or ERM?

In both cases, AD, which we contend is the BPEO, was overlooked or ignored by these consultants. Were
they directed to omit this Government-preferred and DEFRA-supported method of treatment? The BPEO
also would be served by small “community” digesters close to the source of waste production and
therefore also satisfy the Proximity Principle. According to the waste model described by Fichtner in the
above referenced report, 126,000 tonnes of the MSW is biodegradable; this could be digested
anaerobically with methane capture and EfW electricity generation. In addition a soil conditioner and/or
fertiliser would also be produced. Such treatment is mentioned in the recent Coalition Government’s
documentation as being strongly supported. AD with greater front end recycling will give the best results
from a Global Warming potential standpoint and completely avoid the emission of toxic materials and
nano particles. These are characteristic (as acknowledged by the applicant) of waste incineration.

This proposal scored badly in the assessment of Human toxicity demonstrating an increased
environmental burden and this alone raises great doubts as to the process need. Other forms of
treatment show an environmental benefit of reduced toxicity and for these reasons ought to receive a
higher weighting. This proposal also scored worse in freshwater aquatic toxicity and dramatically worse in
acidification and eutrophication. Such compromises can all be avoided with better considered processes
and the need for this proposal is again rebutted.

2.4.8            Although the JMWMS concluded (albeit by the unfair exclusion of AD as an option) that
the best performing scenario would be a single EfW plant producing electricity and heat this planning
application does NOT include heat off take as the report states that there are no substantive opportunities
existing for heat export. Consequently this proposal is not delivering the solution that the WDA require;
ergo there is no need for this particular proposal.

2.4.14            A clear need has not been demonstrated for this proposal; a clear need to divert BSW
from landfill has been shown. However, the BPEO test omitted AD, the process most favoured by modern
authorities and central Government. In the interests of fairness, sound finance and environmental
responsibility, this alternative technology must be fully evaluated prior to any just decision being made.

2.4.17            MWM state that it is not their intention to manage C&I waste but they do not wish to see
a restriction in this planning permission. This is inconsistent with the Environmental Statement 3.1.1
where it is stated that in the unlikely event (sometime in the future) that there is insufficient MSW
available then the plant could treat quantities of such waste. This is at direct odds with section 4.4.12

                                               12                                      WAIL Ltd.
Waste tonnage composition table 10 page 14; waste arising 2014 (the start date of the proposed
incinerator). Of the 200,000 tonnes of waste to be burnt, 29,080 tonnes of it is described as C&I. Such
inconsistencies are repeated throughout the planning application and therefore challenge its veracity.

2.5.2           The need for renewable energy is undisputed. EfW from mass burn is not renewable or
sustainable when the waste burnt comprises fossil fuel derived plastics and other non biogenic materials.
This paragraph does not stand up to scrutiny as it seeks to imply that all EfW is renewable and cites the
glossary in PPS1. It then goes on to say that The Waste Strategy for England 2007 recognises that the
biodegradable fraction is a source of renewable energy. Clearly the biodegradable fraction is the only part
of MSW that can be considered a source of renewable energy. Of the 200,000 tonnes of waste to be
treated 126,000 tonnes may be considered as biodegradable; this is reported by Fichtner in the appended
technical document for MWM Residual Waste Treatment Options. By burning the fossil fuel derived
fractions of MSW there is a massive detraction from the benefit of EfW from the biogenic fraction. No
such trade off occurs with AD; again for this reason there is no need for the current proposal.

2.5.7           For the avoidance of doubt only the biodegradable fraction of MSW may be considered as
renewable low carbon and sustainable. The other 45% of the MSW proposed to be burnt acts counter to
this situation.

2.5.9             The AD method is better than this proposal as it undeniably taps into the renewable
energy source found in biodegradable waste. Consequently the negative effects of burning the balance of
the waste composition are avoided. Burning detracts from the benefits and energy recovered is NOT
classifiable as renewable.
 See extract from PPS22

 “For the purposes of this PPS, renewable energy covers those energy flows that occur naturally
and repeatedly in the environment – from the wind, the fall of
water, the movement of the oceans, from the sun and also from biomass. 1
Policies in this statement therefore cover technologies such as onshore wind
generation, hydro, photovoltaics, passive solar, biomass and energy crops, energy
from waste (but not energy from mass incineration of domestic waste), and
landfill and sewage gas.”


2.5.12           Reducing CO2 emissions is a key target. A further inconsistency has been identified
between the Fichtner report mentioned above and the ERM report on Residual Waste treatment Options
as referred to earlier in this response. Both reports are similar; both use the WRATE model for identifying
environmental burden or benefit. Fichtner declares an environmental benefit from the EfW Power only
option (on which this application is based), saving 7,361 tonnes CO2 eq.. ERM declares an increase of
10,555 tonnes CO2 eq. and an environmental burden. The inconsistency between these two calculations
could have disastrous consequences for the incinerators true carbon footprint. Fichtner declares that
overall 170,000 tonnes of CO2 will be emitted and this is comprised two thirds from biodegradable waste
but one third is from fossil fuel derived plastics. These should not be burnt, as they release fossil CO2 and
the energy generated is not renewable and therefore not sustainable. Energy generated will not qualify
for ROC’s or RHI’s; rather it will offset the valuable energy derived from the biogenic carbon constituents.

The proposed incinerator will generate 61,000 tonnes of CO2 from the non-biodegradable waste for the
100,000,000 kWh of net exported electricity. The corresponding CO2 emission from power stations
connected to National Grid is 59,200 tonnes. In the case of the power station CO2 quoted is the total life
cycle value including mining. In the proposed incinerator’s case it does not include collection and


                                                13                                       WAIL Ltd.
transportation. This proposal therefore does not offset fossil fuel derived energy and even ignoring the
CO2 from biodegradable waste still increases the County’s carbon footprint.



2.5.16           This proposal is not entitled to claim EfW with CHP as the planning application does NOT
include heat off take. Only CHP plants may be so called if the heat is available and actually utilised.

2.5.18          PPS1 claims identifies as renewable only those descriptions as found in PPS22 above. EfW
is not renewable unless from biogenic origin. Low carbon is identified as EfW with CHP. The proposal from
MWM excludes Heat off-take in this application; could there have been some attempts to cloud this issue?

2.5.22           Better, cleaner and safer methods exist, and are preferred by informed authorities over
this proposal, for the generation of CHP from biomass. Indeed the waste composition to be burned in this
proposal contains 45% non biogenic material.

2.5.23           Other references are not identified: the Mayor of London’s plans, the Selby recovery park
, Stoke ( Newcastle under Lyme) are three examples where modern alternative technologies, avoiding
incineration, are the preferred option. These involve increased front end recycling and AD treatment of
the biodegradable fraction with clean processes for energy recovery.

2.5.31           Heat off-take is not included in this proposal and the electricity generating efficiency is
identified in the Fichtner report as 22%. The downsides of higher toxicity and air pollution including NOx
releases outweigh this small generation of electricity; especially as a similar amount of power could be
generated more cleanly and safely by AD of the biodegradable fraction of MSW with methane capture and
conversion to electricity. With AD the NOx is not released to atmosphere but would be available in the
digestate for use as a fertiliser for much needed energy crops for example.

2.5.35          Contrary to the stated conclusion, the identified need is for renewable energy generation
and not for the MWM proposal. There are better methods for such generation and these must be
considered fully.

2.5.42            The composition of the waste is also a point of conjecture. The black bin waste contains a
large quantity of material that would be best treated by recycling. Much is made of the ability of the
incinerator to burn a varying and flexible composition of MSW according to the Fichtner Options report
but it clearly states in the Environmental Statement main report that the preferred range lies within quite
narrow boundaries due to the effect on the calorific value.

 Both statements cannot be true and this will either cause problems when recycling inevitably is increased
or, worse, lock the County into incineration for 25 years with no opportunities for increased recycling. This
could have punitive effects if Government action demands greater recycling.

Already waste collection authorities are being encouraged by Government papers to collect kitchen waste
separately (for treatment ultimately by AD and CHP of the clean Methane produced.)

The black bin waste volume collected by Wychavon is decreasing rapidly as more food waste is diverted to
composting (IVC) and more materials are designated as recyclable. The Mercia proposal is a truly
backwards step. Consequently mass burn incineration is not sustainable and the renewable energy comes
at a very high cost in financial and environment consequence terms. The same amount of ROC’s and RHI
could be obtained far more cheaply and with greater environmental benefits by processing the BSW


                                                14                                       WAIL Ltd.
through AD. Further the recyclables extracted from the black bin will have recoverable value for the
County and its tax payers.

 Policy 23 of the JMWMS Headline Strategy states that “The Partnership will design and operate
collection, transfer and associated transport and treatment systems to minimise the overall carbon
emissions”.

To comply with this policy full and proper consideration must be given to modern options. This has not
been achieved by leaving out what is emerging as many authorities’ preferred route of AD with Methane
(and Carbon Dioxide) collection for combustion and clean electrical generation and CHP in a very
environmentally beneficial system. High grade, much needed fertiliser is produced as a valuable co-
product supported by DEFRA. The Food strategy 2030 also recommends this route as the fertiliser
replaces the synthetically produced version.


2.6     Conclusions

                Worcestershire and Herefordshire have identified the need for thermal treatment of up to
250,000 tonnes of MSW in their JMWMS review. This review was flawed in its assumptions and did not
take into account separate collections of biodegradable waste and subsequent treatment by AD. The
Wychavon district collection model, with separate food waste collection and 47% recycling, is working.
Central Government will certainly encourage greater use of this approach and may well mandate it in the
near future.

               Only the 126,000 tonnes is biodegradable and sustainable not the entire MSW volume of
200,000 tonnes as this proposal would purport.




                                               15                                      WAIL Ltd.
3.0   PLANNING HISTORY

3.2   Hartlebury Trading Estate

      There was a detailed public enquiry when the original planning permission was granted subject to
      conditions under the planning agreement dated 8th July 1981 under Section 52 of the Town &
      Country Planning Act 1971. Restrictive Covenants were also imposed when the site was sold by
      the Secretary of State for Defence in 1980, so that, whilst planning permission was granted for
      buildings including commercial uses, the entire permission was on the basis that there would be a
      minimal impact to the rural aspect surrounding this Trading Estate.

      We deal with the aspects relating to the planning history under Section 4: Planning Policy Context
      Appraisal. However, the applicant’s assertion that this Trading Estate has a long history of
      industrial development is wrong. As previously mentioned, the Wienerberger Brickworks was
      treated, for planning purposes, as a special case due to the need for this to be sited near to land
      available for clay extraction.

      Any precedents for the Planning Authorities setting aside normal Green Belt considerations in
      supporting planning applications on the Trading Estate are not relevant. The Trading Estate is now
      subject to the Wychavon District Local Plan and the Green Belt restrictions on this major
      developed site adopted in 2006, which were specifically introduced to regularise any future
      development of this Trading Estate and were made to protect those living and working in this
      area.

      We have already stated that any implementation of an existing planning permission, if it were to
      come forward in compliance with that permission, would be a substantially lesser development
      than the proposed incinerator and the height/footprint of any buildings would be considerably
      less. It is most unlikely that any such development would conform entirely with the existing
      planning permission and any necessary modifications to bring the development up to date would
      be the subject of a new application which would have to be construed in accordance with the
      existing Local Plan and Green Belt restrictions.




                                             16                                       WAIL Ltd.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT AND APPRAISAL

4.2     Policy Context – Overview

        The Development Plan & Material Considerations

        This planning application does not accord with the Development Plan. The material
        considerations in the application are flawed and presume against such a development in the
        Green Belt. These are specifically identified in Clause 4.3.

4.3     Detailed Policy Context

4.3.1 – 4.3.8.
         The Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands has been thrown into some doubt with the
         possibility that this will be overturned by the recently elected Coalition Government .

4.3.9 – 4.3.11.
         It is understood that the Worcestershire Structure Plan 1996 – 2011 has not been finalised and in
         any event the proposed development on this site is subject to the Wychavon District Local Plan
         2006 and the Green Belt restrictions on the major developed site at Hartlebury Trading Estate.

4.3.12 Waste Policies
       This proposal does not accord with Waste Policies WD.1, WD.2 and WD.3 in that it is not the Best
       Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO), does not comply with the proximity principle nor does it
       comply with the regional self-sufficiency requirement since it would be dealing with waste located
       on a site at the northern most extreme of Worcestershire and a considerable distance from
       Herefordshire; neither does it fit well into the waste hierarchy, as the application indicates it has
       no specific use for the heat generated, which would otherwise elevate this to a higher point in this
       hierarchy.

        Policy WD.2 – Waste Hierarchy - the proposed site does not comply with the requirement for
        waste to be located as near to its place of origin as possible, and the proposed location on this
        trading estate does not fit the requirement for this to be sited where the surrounding
        infrastructure and uses are appropriate. Hartlebury Trading Estate is acknowledged as being in
        the Green Belt area and is burdened with Restrictive Covenants restricting development of this
        nature.

        Policy WD.3 – Waste Management Facilities - the proposal does not accord with this policy in that
        it will be totally incompatible with its surroundings and will have an adverse environmental impact
        where the surrounding land and its features will be significantly harmed by the impact of this
        proposed building and its proposed operation.

        Policy EN.3 – Waste to Energy – this supports incineration from waste only where other policies
        are not compromised and it provides the Best Practicable Environmental Option. Our submissions
        show that these requirements have not been met.

4.3.13 General Policies
       Policy SD.1 – the proposed development neither minimises the use or pollution of natural
       resources nor minimises energy consumption, since it requires massive use of resources and
       energy both to transport the materials to the site and to remove the residual waste to other sites.



                                               17                                       WAIL Ltd.
Policy SD.2 – this proposed development will have a considerable detrimental impact upon the
landscape and character of the proposed site which is within the Green Belt and in a largely rural
area; inevitably this would have a major detrimental effect on the County’s environmental assets
and landscape.

Policy SD.4 – it has already been highlighted that the location in the extreme north of
Worcestershire would substantially increase rather than minimise the need for waste to travel
throughout the whole of Worcestershire and Herefordshire to the very north of these Counties.

Policy CTC.1 – as far back as the public enquiry in the early 1980’s, it was recognised that the
development of the former RAF maintenance unit into a Trading Estate required special treatment
to protect the Green Belt and the surrounding rural areas. In fact, the restrictions in the Section
52 Agreement were imposed to prevent the Trading Estate itself becoming unsightly whilst
covenants were imposed by the Secretary of State for Defence to prevent inappropriate
development of the type now proposed.

Policy CTC.2 – this policy will clearly be overwhelmingly breached by this proposal and no amount
of architectural skill will reduce the sheer size and scale of the proposed building and stack and its
consequential adverse impact upon skylines and hill features, including prominent views of such
features.

Policy CTC.5 – no amount of tree planting, conservation of hedgerows or landscaping will mitigate
this enormous structure or reduce its impact on the surrounding area.

Policy CTC.8, 9 – there is no history of flooding in the area so far as we are aware but there have
been substantial accumulations of water on nearby land and it is believed that several water
courses cross the site. The proposed construction and sinking of the building may well have an
adverse affect on the water table and these water courses in the area.

Policy CTC.10, 11, 12 – the sheer size and scale of the proposed development will have a
detrimental effect on the locality within the Green Belt and an adverse impact on views from a
number of local historic sites including Elmley Lovett Parish Church, which is sited on old Medieval
Ground and adjacent to the site of a Medieval Village.

Policy CTC.16, 17 and 19 – we have no further comment on that as otherwise mentioned in
respect of other policies referred to.

Policy D.39 – this proposed development is clearly in breach of this policy as admitted by the
applicant and no “very special circumstances” have been demonstrated to outweigh the harm to
the Green Belt.

Policy T.1 – the proposed development would not be located within or adjacent to open areas,
contrary to this policy, and it does not minimise travel; indeed it would maximise this. Whilst it is
true that a railway line runs along the edge of this site, it is on the very opposite end of the
Trading Estate and no facilities exist or are likely to be made available for loading or unloading of
any materials to be delivered or removed from this site.

Policy T.15 – as highlighted in Policy T.1 above, there are no facilities to transfer or remove the
transport of goods away from the road network.




                                        18                                        WAIL Ltd.
4.3.14 - 4.3.16 Wychavon District Local Plan
         Hartlebury Trading Estate is identified in this Local Plan adopted as recently as June 2006 as a
         major developed site in the Green Belt. There are serious implications and considerations for such
         sites which can be briefly summarised as follows:-

        i.         Policy SR8 provides that the protection of the Green Belt is an overriding planning
                   consideration and there is a presumption against inappropriate development within it.
                   Any development must retain the openness of the Green Belt and it is important that the
                   scale, location or design of buildings or structures do not impair the open character of the
                   Green Belt.
        ii.        Any proposals involving development of this site should:-
              a.   have no greater impact than the existing development on the openness of the Green Belt
                   and the purposes of including land within it, and where possible have less;
              b.   contribute to the achievement of the objectives for use of land in Green Belts, set out in
                   Policy SR7 (Development in Green Belt) and have regard for the provisions of Policy
                   ECON1 (Employment Land);
              c.   not exceed the height of existing buildings;
              d.   not occupy an area larger than the footprint of existing buildings, unless this would
                   achieve a reduction in height, which would benefit visual amenity.

        It is clear that the application for this proposed development is completely at odds and breaches
        the above policies and is totally inappropriate, especially having regard to the sheer size and scale
        of the proposed buildings, the stack and the proposed operations.

4.3.17 Policy ENV20 – we consider that the proposal will give rise to water, air, noise, light and other
       pollution including toxins and the application has not demonstrated that this can be adequately
       mitigated.

        Policy SUR2 – however high standard the design the proposed building cannot possibly make a
        positive contribution to the visual quality of the environment.

        Material Planning Considerations – Waste Framework Directive (December 2008)
4.3.18 and 4.3.19
        Recital 19 – this proposed waste facility does not come high in the waste hierarchy as it does not
        provide any facility for the heat generated from the proposed operation.

        Recital 20 – this proposal falls short of the requirement of a true combined heat and power plant,
        therefore is not energy efficient and cannot be considered as recovery of energy.

        Article 16 – this application fails on this Article as the proposed development does not meet the
        proximity principle, nor is it recovered in the nearest appropriate installations, nor is the method
        or technology appropriate as identified in our Technical Report with these submissions

       Waste Strategy England (May 2007)
4.3.20 This indicates there is a preference for Energy from Waste (EfW) proposals that recover heat and
       electricity and that such facilities should be in locations where they are able to maximise
       opportunities for combined heat and power. This application clearly fails to identify any
       substantial market or use for the heat to be generated and therefore does not meet these
       requirements.

        The Energy White Paper does indicate Government support for Energy from Waste but it is not
        limited to incineration and further consideration should be given to the recently elected Coalition

                                                  19                                       WAIL Ltd.
        Government’s preference for anaerobic digestion which would better fulfil all of the essential
        requirements.

        Whilst it is stated there is no credible evidence of adverse health outcomes for individuals living
        near incinerators, equally there is no credible evidence which conclusively states that this is safe.
        Indeed there is much evidence to the contrary and in the case of any doubt any planning decision
        should always err on the side of health and safety for the benefit of the public.

        Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10): Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (July 2005)
4.3.21 – 4.3.32
        This policy repeats the points we have already made and dealt with in relation to the proximity
        principle and the unsuitability of this site which clearly show that this proposed development is
        totally inappropriate.

        Planning Policy Guide (PPG) Note No. 2 (PPG2): Green Belt (March 1999) and the Town &
        Country Planning Green Belt Direction 2005
4.3.33 – 4.3.40
        All of these sections simply highlight the presumption against Green Belt development but in
        relation to the proposed site at Hartlebury Trading Estate, all of these considerations are further
        underwritten by its identification as a major developed site in the Green Belt with particular
        constraints against new developments; these do not allow infilling, increased footprint and height
        greater than the existing surrounding buildings. This proposed development flies in the face of
        these restrictions.

        Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands Phase 2 Revision
4.3.41 – 4.3.47
        We have not commented on these sections having regard to the current uncertainty surrounding
        this Strategy and the likelihood of its discontinuance by the recently elected Coalition
        Government.

        Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2005, PPS1
        supplement: Planning & Climate Change (2007, Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22):
        Renewable Energy (2004) and Draft Planning Policy Statement: Planning for a Low Carbon
        Future in a Changing Climate (March 2010)

4.3.48- 4.3.58
        We totally agree with these policies but the proposed development will clearly be in breach of
        these principles in many cases in that it is not the correct process, nor does it adhere to the
        proximity principle. We would particularly draw attention to Clause viii of paragraph 4.3.7 in
        relation to draft policy LCF14.2, dealing with the determination of planning applications for
        renewable and low carbon development which provides that local planning authorities should:

            “recognise that when located in the Green Belt elements of many renewable energy
            projects will comprise inappropriate development, which may impact on the openness of
            the Green Belt. Careful consideration will therefore need to be given to the visual impact of
            projects, and developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances that clearly
            outweigh any harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm if projects are to
            proceed. Such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits
            associated with increased production of energy from renewable resources”.

        Quite clearly, as we have already identified, no “very special circumstances” have been
        demonstrated; there will be no environmental benefits associated with this mass burn incinerator,

                                                20                                        WAIL Ltd.
        indeed this will be detrimental and harmful to the area, and this proposed development is
        therefore totally inappropriate.

        Energy White Paper “Meeting the Energy Challenge” (May 2007); UK Renewable Energy
        Strategy; Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy – Emerging Preferred Options Consultation; and
        Review of the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy for Herefordshire & Worcestershire
        2004 – 2034 (November 2009).

        These strategies are the subject of much change and further consultation in view of the recently
        elected Coalition Government’s proposals to move towards anaerobic digestion and a Zero Waste
        Strategy. In the light of this, the planning authority should give serious pause for thought as to
        whether this application should be considered in the light of the likely major changes in this area
        in the foreseeable future.

4.4     Planning Policy Appraisal

4.4.1   We have set out our comments regarding the applicant’s assessment of the policies and guidance
        described previously within this Section.

4.4.2. We have noted that these specific Policies referred to in this Section apply especially to this
       proposed development and have particular significance to this application.

         Green Belt
4.4.3 – 4.4.4.
         The presumptions against this type of development in the Green Belt and the particular
         restrictions affecting this site have been dealt with elsewhere.

         Historic Green Belt Context
4.4.5 – 4.4.6
         It is recognised that Hartlebury Trading Estate was an RAF Maintenance Unit prior to its sale by
         the Secretary of State for Defence in 1980. The very fact that it required a public inquiry before
         planning permission was granted with Section 52 Agreement conditions and Restrictive Covenants
         were imposed expressly indicates that this site was considered to be of a particularly sensitive
         nature.

        Despite a lack of consistency of applying the planning process in previous years, this was finally
        resolved by its recognition as a major developed site in the Wychavon District Local Plan adopted
        in 2006. It is assumed this adoption was intended to finally ensure a consistent approach to any
        proposed development and planning decisions on this Trading Estate. Clearly, members of the
        public are entitled to consider that these restrictions were made as representations to them by
        the statutory authorities and were matters to be relied on in making decisions to acquire
        residential and commercial properties within the area. Any contravention of this will be a serious
        breach capable of remedy by individuals or companies who or which may suffer loss as a result.

         Policy Relating to Major Developed Sites within the Green Belt
4.4.7 – 4.4.9
         The applicant has again acknowledged that this is a major developed site within the Green Belt
         subject to specific restrictions and in 4.4.9 confirms that the height of both the proposed building
         and chimney stack will be contrary to this Policy requiring the need to establish very special
         circumstances in order for planning permission to be granted; such very special circumstances
         have not been proven by the applicant.


                                                21                                        WAIL Ltd.
       Assessment of Effects on the Green Belt
4.4.10 We consider that the effects on the Green Belt would be as follows:-

        (i)     The need to protect the site in accordance with the existing Local Plan and Green Belt
                restrictions does not accord with the purposes of including the development of this land in
                the Green Belt of this proposed enormous size and scale.
        (ii)    The proposed development does not accord with the objectives for the use of land in the
                Green Belt.
        (iii)   The proposed development would clearly and substantially impact upon the openness of
                the Green Belt; and
        (iv)    The proposed development would clearly and substantially injure the visual amenity of
                the Green Belt.

        The Purposes of Including Land in the Green Belt
4.4.11 – 4.4.13
        The proposed development is on a Trading Estate not an industrial estate, is not situated centrally
        within the site and would be on the extreme boundary adjacent to a now completed landfill site
        undergoing restoration to agricultural purposes. It is improper to suggest, as the applicant has,
        that the proximity to this closed landfill site is relevant as a reason to grant planning permission
        for this application.

        The planning permission granted for the landfill site is very specific in detail in the conditions
        imposed for its restoration and return to beneficial agricultural use in the Green Belt. Clearly, this
        is a further argument against the application rather than for it, as the huge proposed building and
        stack, if permitted, would be a permanent blot on the landscape.

        The applicant suggests that as planning permission exists for 5 industrial units, this would allow
        the incinerator application to have no material adverse consequences. In fact, this planning
        permission, whilst not complying with the current development plan, or the identification of the
        site as a major developed site within the Trading Estate, nonetheless would only permit buildings
        not exceeding the same height and appearance as those which already exist on this Trading Estate
        and not for units which would be several times higher.

        The likelihood of the applicant developing the site along exactly the same lines as the current
        planning permission is judged to be extremely remote meaning that, in reality, a new application
        would need to be made for any new units which would have to be judged on all of the latest
        conditions which have been adopted since this planning permission was granted in 1999 including
        the Wychavon District Local Plan 2006 and the Green Belt restrictions, especially those relating to
        the height and footprint which should not exceed those of existing buildings.

        The site is not previously used or disturbed in the manner suggested by the applicant for previous
        development and, in fact, in the days when the site was an RAF Maintenance Unit, it merely had a
        small long defunct private railway track only serving the movement of goods from building to
        building on the site.

        In the intervening years, nature has recovered the site and, to all intents and purposes, it now
        appears as an open area sitting on the very edge (and not in the centre) of the Trading Estate
        which will be immediately adjacent to land which is to be restored to agricultural use and provides
        a much needed buffer between the Trading Estate and nearby residential properties. This also
        presently retains the open spaces deemed necessary by the requirement that infilling should not
        take place.

                                                22                                        WAIL Ltd.
        The special character of the historic rural environment of Hartlebury and Elmley Lovett, going back
        as far as medieval times, will clearly be adversely affected by any further infilling, let alone this
        proposed enormous power station-sized building and stack which again is on the periphery and
        not centrally sited as the applicant repeatedly but mistakenly maintains.

        This site is not derelict land and has, as previously described, been restored to an undisturbed plot
        of land. The only disturbance has been brought about since the purchase of the site by
        Worcestershire County Council in 2007, whereby a number of trees subject to a Tree Preservation
        Order have been removed. The site can in no way be considered (as the applicant entitles it) as
        “derelict land” and its development would remove a valuable open space within the Green Belt
        (since the Estate is “washed over” by the Green Belt).

        Contrary to the statement by applicant in 4.4.13, it has been clearly demonstrated that the loss of
        this site to development would have material adverse consequences for the purpose of including
        land from the Green Belt and this is totally contrary to the indications in PPG2 and presumption
        against any development in the Green Belt.

        Therefore, all of the arguments upon which the applicant relies are gravely flawed.

        The Objectives for the Use of Land in the Green Belt
4.4.14 – 4.4.16
        The proposed development is not centrally located and is, to all intents and purposes in true
        planning terms, on undisturbed land. This will clearly be contrary to the third, fourth, fifth and
        sixth objectives in PPG2 paragraph 1.6. It will not retain or enhance the landscapes near to where
        people live. The proposed building will interfere with this open land, will be detrimental to nature
        conservation and be contrary to the requirement to retain land in agricultural forestry and related
        uses.

        Openness
4.4.17 – 4.4.21
        The proposed development is totally inappropriate and will significantly impact on the openness
        of the Green Belt contrary to paragraphs to 11-14 of the Town and Country Planning (Green Belt)
        Direction 2005. In every respect, the proposed building contravenes paragraph 12 of this
        Direction and its advice on height or bulk of buildings in the Green belt.

        Additionally, paragraph 13 highlights that a facility which involves intensive on–site activity, a
        large number of parked vehicles, considerable transport movements to, from or around the site
        or require prominent security will have a potentially significant impact on the Green Belt. This
        paragraph 13 is relevant to even small scale buildings and therefore the impact would be
        massively increased by such an enormous building and stack as proposed in this application.

        With regard to paragraph 14, no amount of mitigation in relation to the size and scale of this
        proposed development can be achieved, however carefully the landscaping or planting is provided
        or sited.

       The Degree of Sensitivity of the Land to Harm from New Development
4.4.22 Any argument about whether the Wychavon District Local Plan 2006 allows inappropriate
       development is irrelevant when trying to argue for any development which is clearly contrary to
       the existing criteria in relation to the height and footprint of any new buildings.



                                                23                                       WAIL Ltd.
        The Trading Estates planning history is also irrelevant because the 2006 Local Plan obviously
        sought to once and for all establish the specific manner in which the development should be
        allowed, thus putting to an end the previous apparent inconsistent approach to planning
        decisions. Clearly, this has been represented to and relied upon by the members of the public
        who live and work in the surrounding areas.

4.4.23 Within the Wychavon District Local Plan 2006, it was identified that the entire Trading Estate
       needed to be dealt with in a totally uniform manner and should be identified as a major
       developed site within the Green Belt. This designation in itself accepts that it has a valuable part
       to play in respect of developments in the Green Belt and therefore the contention by the
       applicant that the sensitivity from development on this site is low is completely wrong.

4.4.24 The applicant should not seek to determine the County Council’s or the District Council’s
       interpretation of the planning process. Suffice it to say that the inclusion of the Trading Estate as
       a major developed site within the Green Belt as part of the Wychavon District Local Plan in 2006
       was established after considerable consultation.

        Post the adoption of this 2006 Local Plan, all applications had been judged based on the
        conditions and Green Belt restrictions therein. Any contentious applications and grants of
        planning permission all pre-date the adoption of this Plan which sought to ensure that any future
        developments would be subject to this planning control.

4.4.25 Notwithstanding the comments made regarding the extant planning permission granted in 1999,
       we would repeat that this planning permission was granted more than 10 years ago and would be
       most unlikely to be implemented without considerable modification requiring a revised planning
       application which would be judged under the Wychavon District Local Plan 2006.

        Even if these units were to be built, in accordance with the planning permission granted in 1999,
        in essence the size and scale of them were designed to conform with the remaining units on the
        Trading Estate and not to be at least three times higher as is the case with the existing application.

        Quite clearly, the applicant’s contention that the previous planning permission could be
        implemented in any event is irrelevant because the previously proposed buildings would have to
        conform with the existing buildings in terms of height and appearance and comply with the Local
        Plan. Incidentally, the level of employment that would have been provided by the previously
        proposed units would no doubt have been considerably more than the now proposed
        development of the incinerator. This previous planning permission did not include any consent for
        any operation outside of normal business hours.

4.4.26 For the reasons stated above, it can be concluded that the site and it’s surroundings are indeed
       very sensitive to harm from this proposed development.

        The Nature of the Green Belt (i.e. whether it is narrow or partly confined by existing or planned
        development)

4.4.27 – 4.4.31
        The Green Belt has been identified as being important to the area as a whole and to seek to
        suggest, as the applicant has, that some parts are more important than others is disingenuous and
        totally contrary to the nature of the Green Belt. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to
        prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.
        Consideration of retaining the Green Belt on a small trading estate in a rural area must heighten
        the need to preserve open spaces not to reduce them. In seeking to justify sporadic development

                                                24                                        WAIL Ltd.
         of this nature, this would eventually have a massive impact on the Green Belt and must be
         resisted at all costs.

        Whether the Development is overlooked by or Close to Residential Development
4.4.32 – 4.4.38
        The arguments put forward by the applicant in these Sections are seriously flawed and incorrect.
        There are a considerable number of residential properties which will have free and unrestricted
        views of this proposed massive building and its enormous chimney stack. We attach in our
        Appendices the photographs taken from a structure which is only two thirds of the proposed
        height of the incinerator building. These photographs are taken in various directions around the
        proposed site from a fixed point adjacent to the development site. These photographs quite
        clearly demonstrate two things which are totally at odds with the applicant’s assertions:-

         (i)    There are a considerable number of residential properties which can be viewed from the
                development site and not the small number suggested by the applicant. Since these can
                be seen from the site, it inevitably follows that the proposed development, because of its
                enormity, will be clearly seen from these residential properties; and
         (ii)   A much greater number of these residential properties lie very much closer to the
                proposed development site than the applicant is suggesting to be the case.

                The Land is a Valued Resource for Recreational Purposes
4.4.49          The site of the proposed development is not centrally located nor is it previously used or
                disturbed as we have outlined elsewhere and does, in fact, have connectivity with the
                open countryside as it is immediately adjacent to a closed landfill currently being restored
                to agricultural use in accordance with the strict planning conditions attached to that site.

                It Forms Part of (or has the Potential to Enhance) an Attractive Area of Open
                Countryside or Landscape
4.4.50          Once again, the applicant appears to be attempting to mislead by suggesting that the
                development plot is centrally located and comprises previously used and disturbed land.
                None of these statements are true. The site is in fact bounded on two sides by the
                existing trading estate buildings and on the other sides by the large copse known as
                Middle Covert and the aforementioned closed landfill site being restored to agricultural
                use. Any suggestion that the landfill site is a permanent adverse feature which should
                justify the proposed development is totally inappropriate as this will over time be restored
                to the open countryside whereas this will clearly not be the case with the proposed
                incinerator.

                If it is Important to the Preservation of the Setting and Special Character of a Historic
                Town.
4.4.51 – 4.4.52 Yet again, we need to stress that the site is not centrally located on Hartlebury Trading
                Estate. Hartlebury and Elmley Lovett are both historic villages with a long documented
                history and all of the land upon which theTrading Estate is marked on maps dating back to
                medieval times and before. The Trading Estate was first developed for the purposes of
                civil defence in wartime and has latterly (in 2006) been identified as a major developed
                site in the Green Belt. Any substantial inappropriate development of this nature would
                inevitably adversely affect the setting and special character of these historic villages and
                the surrounding area.

                Consideration of the Scale of the Development
4.4.53 – 4.4.54 The proposed development is on a huge scale which is totally inappropriate to the area in
                which it is intended to be sited. No amount of architectural skill or landscaping can

                                               25                                       WAIL Ltd.
               mitigate the sheer size and scale of the proposed buildings and chimney stack. These
               features would, without question, totally dominate and adversely affect the visual
               amenities and openness of the Green Belt. Furthermore, it has already been
               demonstrated (under Section 4.4.32 – 4.4.48 and its accompanying photographs) that the
               applicant’s suggestion that the visibility and proximity affects few residential properties is
               totally incorrect and, indeed, in one direction it impinges on an entire residential estate.

                The Nature of the Development
4.4.55 – 4.4.57 Once again, we consider the applicant’s statements are completely misleading. The
                proposed development would be sited on the very edge of the Trading Estate; it would
                not be surrounded on all sides by any large scale development and on-site would be
                clearly visible from the wider open Green Belt. This will be particularly true when the
                adjacent Waresley Landfill Site has undergone restoration to beneficial open countryside
                for agricultural or public use.

               Hartlebury Trading Estate may have on-site activities and vehicle movements but any
               external materials storage and handling is contrary to the conditions in the Section 52
               Agreement imposed when planning permission was originally granted in 1981.

               Any attempt to justify this development because of previous breaches occurring is not
               appropriate and, indeed, any such breaches should be remedied and enforced by planning
               control.

                The extent to which any potential impacts of the development could be reduced , or
                mitigated by careful siting, landscaping or planting.
4.4.58 – 4.4.59 As already outlined, the sheer size and scale of the proposed enormous building and
                chimney stack can in no way be mitigated by its siting, landscaping or planting.

                Conclusion on Openness
4.4.60 – 4.4.61 The statements we have previously made clearly show that the proposed development
                would significantly impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. All of the points made by
                the applicant have already been dealt with previously and proved to be incorrect.

                Visual Amenity
4.4.62 – 4.4.64 The arguments made by the applicant in these paragraphs have been effectively
                countered in previous sections but we feel that the following comments are essential. All
                of the surrounding developments on sites in the Green Belt, including Hartlebury Trading
                Estate, were developed as wartime facilities for civil defence which pre-date the
                implementation of the Green Belt and the adoption of the Wychavon District Local Plan in
                2006.

               To seek to justify a huge industrial development or buildings by reference to the landfill
               operations is irrelevant, as in all cases such operations are being and will be restored to
               open countryside for agricultural or public use.

               Electricity pylons are present in the area but no more so than in any other Green Belt
               area, so the introduction of these features to the argument is irrelevant.

               Tall radio masts to the east of the M5 motorway exist but why does the existence of such
               masts some considerable distance away on the other side of the motorway have any
               bearing whatsoever on this application?


                                               26                                        WAIL Ltd.
            Finally, the well treed undulating landform will be considerably and overwhelmingly spoilt
            by an inclusion of such a massive building and its chimney stack.

            Very Special Circumstances

4.4.65      As admitted by the applicant, PPG2 indicates that this proposed development is
            inappropriate development which should only be allowed within the Green Belt if the
            applicant can demonstrate that very special circumstances exist which outweigh any
            potential harm to the Green Belt.

4.4.66.1.   The applicant contends that Hartlebury Trading Estate is the only suitable and available
            site for the development of the proposed incinerator. We consider this to be incorrect
            because it does not fit either criterion.

            (a) “Suitable” – it is impossible to argue that the site is suitable when clearly there are so
                many contra-arguments against a development of this nature in the Green Belt. If, on
                the applicant’s own admission, the development is inappropriate, how can any
                argument possibly be made that any such development would be suitable?
            (b) “Available” – the mere fact that the site (or indeed any site) may be available does not
                make it appropriate nor does it justify “very special circumstances”.

            The applicant concedes that a third party may disagree with any of the Site Search
            Exercise (SSE) conclusions, but argues that the overriding need for the development
            should justify the development in the Green Belt. Clearly, this ignores the fact that the
            applicant has failed to justify any overriding need for a development of this nature.

4.4.66.2.   As previously, detailed in these our submissions, the fall-back position in relation to the
            existing planning permission in its current form represents a much more suitable
            development should this be allowed than that proposed by the applicant. The very fact
            that planning permission has existed for five speculative small warehouse/distribution
            units for approximately 11 years on an estate with a significant number of void units
            demonstrates in itself that there is little appetite for such a development.

            Even if such units were built, whilst they would contravene the latest Local Plan, they
            would nonetheless, comply with many aspects of this Plan, particularly in relation to the
            height of the buildings, much more than the applicant’s proposal.

            In any event, any fall-back development is extremely unlikely to go forward on an 11-year
            -old design and would inevitably require a fresh application for any variations, which
            would be subject to the latest conditions imposed on the site, including compliance with
            the 2006 Local Plan and the Green Belt planning restrictions.

4.4.66.3.   Whilst it is accepted that genuinely beneficial uses for the production of energy from
            renewable sources may provide “very special circumstances”, clearly, from the points we
            have already made in our submissions, this proposal does not comply.

            The applicant has provided no substantive evidence that heat produced from this
            incinerator could be effectively used. This leaves the entire development producing a
            small quantity of electricity very inefficiently, and therefore does not meet the
            requirements which would enable it to be termed truly renewable energy. Much more
            evidence and greater detail is provided in our Technical Report in Part 4 of our objections.


                                            27                                       WAIL Ltd.
           It would be difficult to argue that “very special circumstances” exist for this siting of the
           proposed development even if it were a full scale combined heat and power operation;
           the fact that the heat element is not utilised negates any argument in favour of it.

4.4.66.4   It is acknowledged that on 3rd February 2005 planning permission was granted for the
           proposed Estech plant which did not proceed in any event. This proposed facility
           comprised an Autoclave unit on a much lesser scale and to deal with approximately half
           the quantity of the waste proposed for the incinerator.

           In any event, the 2005 planning permission pre-dated the 2006 Local Plan which, as
           previously explained, identified Hartlebury Trading Estate as a major developed site in the
           Green Belt and sought to rationalise the previous ad hoc planning decisions.

           Also, in any event, this planning permission expired in February 2010 and it is interesting
           to note from the applicant’s own appendix (being the planning permission granted under
           reference 407596) that a number of the conditions attached to that permission reinforce
           our argument that this permission creates no precedent whatsoever.

           In particular, we would draw attention to the following conditions:-

           Condition 6 – this restricts treatment of waste from any areas other than North
           Worcestershire; no treatment of waste from South Worcestershire or Herefordshire
           would have been dealt with by the Estech plant. Therefore, immediately, the proposal by
           the applicant does not comply with any proximity principle that may have applied for the
           Estech unit.

           Condition 7 – a specific limit of 100,000 tonnes of waste per year was imposed, less than
           one half of what is now proposed. This will obviously have an adverse impact on site
           activity vehicle movement and traffic.

           Condition 8 – rather intriguingly, this Condition stated that no materials shall be burnt on
           site – this is quite a challenging condition for an incinerator to overcome!

           Condition 13 – this states that noise activity shall not be audible at the nearest residential
           properties on Sundays, Bank Holidays and Public Holidays. NB: No noise activity. It was
           not sufficient to say that any noise should not disturb any properties, simply that it should
           not be audible at all.

           Condition 24 – it is interesting to note that on an application for development on an
           adjoining site the owners of this Trading Estate objected because the private sewerage
           plant on site had already reached capacity.

           Condition 30 – this provided that the facility should not operate except between 06.00
           and 22.00 hours Mondays to Saturdays and not at all on Sundays, Christmas Day, Boxing
           Day and New Years Day. Clearly, the planning officer considered operation outside these
           hours to be unacceptable. How can this possibly be reconciled with the current
           application for 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, every day of the year operation which is
           totally inappropriate and unacceptable for the surrounding residential properties?

           In any event, the decision making process was based on facts which have since been
           superseded especially by the Wychavon District Local Plan 2006. We attach as one of the
           appendices to our submissions a copy of the Planning and Regulatory Committee Report

                                           28                                         WAIL Ltd.
            dated 14th December 2004 provided at the time of the planning application for the
            proposed Estech unit. Many of the factors taken into account in reaching the decision to
            grant planning permission for that proposed unit would not apply to the current
            incinerator application.

            In particular, emphasis at that time was given to the proximity of the Waresley Landfill
            Site as being available for use in conjunction with the Estech unit. This is no longer the
            case since the site has been capped with no intention to return to landfill for a minimum
            of ten years. Current movement away from landfill (and the site operators agree) means
            any return to operations there is unlikely to occur for a very considerable time, if at all,
            and certainly beyond the time for the operation of any incinerator, if this were to be built.

            The justification for the Estech unit that it would conform with the B1, B2 and B8 planning
            uses would clearly not apply for this proposed enormous building.

            Under Section 136 of the above mentioned committee report, it was acknowledged that
            the proposed Estech unit would be contrary to the then Green Belt policy which has since
            then been superseded as previously stated and ratified by 2006 Local Plan and the Green
            Belt restrictions.

            However, we would comment on the points relating to the “very special circumstances”
            for allowing the Estech unit which do not apply to the proposed incinerator as follows:-

            a) Proximity to waste arisings in North Worcestershire - the applicant’s proposal does
               not conform to the proximity principle as waste will be moved from the whole of
               Worcestershire and Herefordshire.
            b) Well-related to the Waresley landfill site, meaning no off-site traffic when delivering
               residual products to landfill. We repeat that the Waresley site is unlikely to re-open
               for landfilling for a minimum of 10 years, if at all. Any suggestion that such residuals
               are diverted to Hartlebury landfill should be included in the application as there
               already exists substantial traffic problems through Hartlebury village, Station Road
               including the level crossing. If this were to be considered, it would require a full
               report from the Highways Authority which has already expressed its considerable
               concerns in Hartlebury.
            c) The County Structure Plan at that time sought to encourage waste handling and
               treatment facilities to be located in buildings on industrial estates. The Report
               indicates that all operations for the Estech unit would take place within the proposed
               building and there would be little to distinguish it from other businesses there so
               provided consent is considered appropriate, it should have no greater impact. The
               Report goes on to say as the site is well-screened – there would no harm caused to
               the Green Belt and any views of the proposed building would be limited and distant
               and seen against the backdrop of the other buildings on the Trading Estate.

            Clearly, the proposed incinerator would not conform with any of the above matters
            highlighted in relation to the Estech proposal and the proposed incinerator would have a
            much greater impact and cause serious harm to the Green Belt, with the views of the
            proposed building dominating the skyline whilst dwarfing the existing buildings on the
            Trading Estate.

4.4.66.5.   Whilst the applicant provides two letters from companies suggesting that they could
            process bottom ash from the proposed incinerator plant, there is no evidence whatsoever


                                            29                                       WAIL Ltd.
             to suggest there are any means to use this raw material in any process before being
             treated at a site distant from the proposed incinerator.

             Also, there is considerable concern about the use of bottom ash, even after treatment
             and, generally, it is accepted that the only safe way of disposing of this product is at a
             suitably regulated landfill site. There are vast stockpiles of cleaner more useful ash
             generated by coal-fired power stations which have not yet found suitable uses.

4.4.66.6     This has been well-argued previously and the applicant’s contention is irrelevant. We
             have already confirmed that the Wychavon District Local Plan 2006 was intended to unify
             and regularise planning matters on Hartlebury Trading Estate and any planning
             applications or decisions which pre-date this, have no significance; to argue that there is a
             history of mistakes is disingenuous. Any planning decisions or activity in the past cannot
             justify the development proposed by the applicant – many previous wrongs do not make
             this application right.

4.4.66.7.    There is no evidence provided by the applicant that the proposed development is truly
             Combined Heat Power (CHP). No such use for the heat has been identified and the
             applicant simply suggests that the plant could support heat off-take proposals. Without
             the plant being fully CHP, the proposal simply does not meet the criteria for truly
             renewable energy.

4.4.66.8.    Even if , as alleged, 70% of municipal waste arising is within Worcestershire, with the
             majority of this being generated in the North of Worcestershire, the Hartlebury site is very
             much further north than any calculations for the optimum location would conclude.
             Contrary to the proximity principle, large heavy goods vehicles would additionally need to
             travel to this extreme northerly site from the rest of Worcestershire and the whole of
             Herefordshire, contributing considerably to the carbon footprint on these routes.
             Obviously, increasing the mileage required to be travelled by large heavy goods vehicles
             cannot possibly constitute “a very special circumstance” in support of this application.

4.4.66.9.    This clause bases the argument for siting the incinerator at Hartlebury on the premise that
             Wyre Forest has no waste transfer station within the area. It is surely inappropriate to
             structure the entire waste disposal process for the whole of Worcestershire &
             Herefordshire on the basis that the whole process is designed to avoid a waste transfer
             station in Wyre Forest and in other areas in the north of Worcestershire. Surely, the
             provision of such a waste transfer station would enable the same arguments to be made
             as are put forward for other areas which do not have such facilities to have the same
             option to transfer the waste in bulk. This would enable a proper and fairer distribution of
             waste throughout these Counties.

4.4.66.10.   During either planned or unforeseen shutdowns of the proposed incinerator, the applicant
             states it would be necessary to temporarily redirect residual waste to landfill. It identifies
             Waresley/ Hartlebury landfills as very proximate and suitable locations for such short term
             residual waste disposal and “this locational synergy with Mercia EnviRecover development
             is an important planning consideration”. Far from being an important planning
             consideration in support they present clear disadvantages in that :-
             (a)      Waresley landfill is now closed and will be for a minimum of ten years – if it is to
                      reopen at all. i.e. at least five years after the proposed incinerator is to be
                      operational.
             (b)      If Hartlebury landfill is considered as part of the planning consideration, then
                      representations should be made to the Highways Authority as the extra traffic

                                             30                                        WAIL Ltd.
                           would provide very difficult and extreme road conditions in an area which has
                           already been identified as of great concern. It is totally unacceptable to simply
                           make assertions as part of this application without fully identifying the difficulties
                           and impracticalities in being able to implement these proposals.

    4.4.66.11.     The applicant suggests that the co-locational benefit to the adjoining Wienerberger local
                   brickworks is an important planning consideration. Yet again, this is an assumption albeit
                   supported by a letter from Wienerberger which bears closer examination as follows:-

                   (a) There is no technical evidence suggesting that the clay in this area would be
                       acceptable for brick making. There exists in the adjacent site a number of Gypsum
                       seams which preclude the use of clay containing this from the manufacture of bricks.

                   (b) The current existing planning permission for the Wienerberger plant initially granted
                       to Baggeridge Brick clearly defines the area from which the clay can be used for the
                       manufacture of bricks from the adjoining plant which can only be sourced from the
                       quarry which is clearly detailed within this planning permission. Any desire to use the
                       clay excavated from the proposed incinerator site would clearly require a variation to
                       the planning permission granted to Baggeridge Brick.


    4.4.66.12.     The fact that the planning history of the site, including the Estech plant, sets no precedent
                   for its use as a waste management facility has already been clearly identified in our
                   previous submissions above and therefore none of these can be argued as important
                   planning considerations in support of this application.

    4.4.66.13.     The applicant seeks to suggest that the potential availability to secure a grid connection
                   for the export of electricity is an important planning consideration. The existence of such
                   a possible grid connection cannot possibly override all of the disadvantages highlighted on
                   siting such a development in this location in the Green Belt.




    Conclusions on Green Belt



4.4.67    There may well be a need for facilities to be developed within the Counties of Herefordshire and
          Worcestershire to avoid the use of out-of-county alternatives.

          None of the arguments put forward have provided conclusive evidence that there is an overriding
          need for a facility such as that proposed in this application.

          As already pointed out previously, it matters not whether alternative sites are available and such a
          statement does not render a totally unsuitable site such as that at Hartlebury acceptable simply


                                                   31                                        WAIL Ltd.
         because others are not available. The question should be whether the proposed mass burn
         incinerator is indeed the solution or whether smaller, local and more acceptable means of providing
         energy from waste need to be utilised. The Coalition Government are proposing much greater use
         of Anaerobic Digestion with which we would concur.

         The applicant states that any development such as the proposed mass burn incinerator has its own
         locational needs which are listed as follows:

         “Needing to be well located in respect of the local pattern of waste arisings” – the site proposed
         does not meet this requirement. In fact clause 132 of the Planning Inspector’s Appeal Decision
         dated 10th July 2002 into the applicant’s proposal for a mass burn incinerator at the British Sugar
         Site in Kidderminster states:

         “And when considered in relation to all of Herefordshire & Worcestershire, it is seen to lie in a
         relatively remote northern corner.” The Hartlebury site is only some 3.7 miles from the Sugar Beet
         site and so the same observation would apply.



         “A good standard of access to the main highway network”. The A449 has been the subject of much
         remedial work due to a succession of accidents, some of them fatal. In many areas the former dual
         carriageway has been reduced to single lane working for safety. The considerable increase in large
         vehicles would be in addition to those already using these roads.



         “The potential for heat off-take users” – As stated several times this proposal remains only as
         potential. No definite use for such heat off-take has been identified and therefore the plant does
         not meet the true CHP criteria.



          “Sufficient distance from sensitive properties in order to avoid impact on the local amenity” – we
         have already indicated in our earlier submissions that the applicant has sought to play-down both
         the number and the level of impacts this development will have on nearby properties. We would
         draw your attention to the photographs illustrating the number of properties in all directions which
         will be impacted.



         “An available, viable electricity grid connection” – whilst we acknowledge that such an opportunity
         to connect to the local grid exists this should not in our opinion be taken as a sound basis for
         choosing this site. Even if such a facility for mass burn incineration was needed (and we would argue
         that no case has been made for such a need) then the relatively low cost, in comparison to the
         scheme’s overall cost, of providing such a connection should not be used as a determining or
         supporting factor.

4.4.68   In this paragraph the applicant concludes that the points raised in item 4.4.67 attach a significant
         weight to the policies of PPS10 and support this development within the Green Belt.


                                                   32                                       WAIL Ltd.
                Our counter arguments listed under section 4.4.67, we believe, specifically detail that all points put
                forward for the development of this mass burn incinerator do not in fact support such a proposal.
                The very contrary is the case and in every instance the justification is flawed in the manner we have
                described.

                Furthermore the subsequent arguments then put forward by the applicants are also based on
                extremely false conclusions.

                “Would have no material adverse effect on the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.” –
                We have argued at length previously that there is a full and absolute need to maintain this site
                within the Green Belt. Additionally we have pointed out that in acknowledging the site is in fact
                Green Belt it is not valid to justify “ad hoc” developments by suggesting some parts of the Green
                Belt are more important than others.

                “Would contribute to the fourth and fifth objectives for the use of land in the Green Belt and would
                be of no detriment to the achievement of the other objectives.” – We have previously indicated that
                the development does not contribute to the fourth and fifth objectives and in fact is detrimental to
                the achievement of the objectives.

                “Would not significantly impact on the openness of the Green Belt” – As already stated the
                proposed site is on the very edge of the Trading Estate, it has an adjacent development of buildings
                one third of its height on one side only. Of the other two sides in the Trading Estate one is bordered
                by an extensive area of trees and plantings and the other by a road (Oak Drive), beyond which are
                offices and warehouses once again less than a third of the height of the building proposed. The
                fourth side represents the boundary of the Trading Estate land. It is true that the land adjacent to
                this has been used as a landfill site following clay extraction and is shown on the applicant’s
                drawings as a clay pit. In fact this site is currently being capped, seeded and planted with trees and
                bushes. The purpose of this work is to restore it to agricultural use, in accordance with the planning
                conditions laid down. The new mass burn incinerator as proposed would obviously significantly
                impact on what would be an adjacent open Green Belt area.




          “Would not materially injure the visual amenity of the Green Belt” – The proposed mass burn incinerator
          building as stated would be built on the very edge of the Trading Estate which is itself sited in the Green
          Belt. The boundary of the site abuts the landfill site now being restored to beneficial agricultural use or
          public open space. It is impossible to argue that this development sited where proposed would not have a
          severe visual detrimental impact.

4.4.69-

4.4.70    The applicant argues in these sections that there are demonstrably a number of circumstances/important
          considerations which provide very exceptional and even “very special” reasons to allow planning consent.

                                                         33                                       WAIL Ltd.
          We would contend that no important considerations or “very special” reasons have been proven to
          support the granting of such an application. In fact in earlier chapters the applicant has highlighted each of
          the reasons why it would not be appropriate for such a development and then sought to provide
          arguments as to why these reasons should be ignored. In virtually every case we have demonstrated that
          the reasons against such a development are sound and overriding. Arguments that they should be
          ignored are patently without foundation.

          In reality the bottom ash is likely to be disposed of in landfill sites as currently. The clear risk is that the
          favourable terms for disposal of this product in landfill will be removed and it will be subject to the same
          level of tax as everything else disposed of in this way. No allowance in the proposals has been made for
          the massive financial implications which such a change would bring about.

          PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 10.

4.4.71-

4.4.75    According to PPS10, the decision making principles behind waste planning suggests that in many cases the
          waste management sector cannot wait until entire development plans are revised, due to the urgency of
          the need to deal with waste. Whilst this statement may well be correct there is obviously an underlying
          requirement to ensure such waste facilities ultimately provide the most acceptable solution. In saying that
          there may be a need to perhaps deal with waste management facilities with some urgency and under the
          guidelines of PPS10 it does not provide a basis for sacrificing other sound and sensible planning principles.



4.4.76-

4.4.77    The applicant argues that its proposal accords with PPS10 and thus fulfils the criteria as follows:



          “Moving the management of waste up the “waste hierarchy” and helping to implement the natural waste
          strategy and supporting targets”. The proposed mass burn incinerator is not a true combined heat and
          power plant (CHP) as there is no identified market for the heat produced. As such this plant is providing
          very inefficiently generated electricity only and is in fact very low down in the “waste hierarchy” providing
          no overarching benefits worthy of consideration as a key planning objective. Nor would such a facility
          materially contribute in anything like an efficient cost effective manner to the recovery of value from
          municipal waste as set out in Waste Strategy England 2007, as claimed.



    4.4.78-4.4.82

          “Provide a framework in which communities take more responsibility for their own waste and enable
          sufficient and timely provision of waste management facilities to meet the needs of their communities” –
          This particular planning objective has been completely misinterpreted. In essence the proposal for local
          communities to take responsibility for their own waste is laudable. However the suggestion that a


                                                           34                                        WAIL Ltd.
         “community” should comprise the entire population of two counties – Herefordshire and Worcestershire
         is not acceptable. How can this proposed plant in the north of Worcestershire be said to be serving the
         local needs of towns in the south of Herefordshire? For example the shortest route from, say, Ross-on-
         Wye to Hartlebury is 46 miles, but the distance would be much greater if motorways and “A” roads only
         were used, as would be the case with the large goods vehicles transporting the waste. In any event, how
         can the local community of Ross-on-Wye be taking more responsibility for their community’s waste by
         sending it at least 46 miles to Hartlebury?



    4.4.83
         A public inquiry into the incinerator proposed for the British Sugar Site in Kidderminster took place
         between the 19th February and the 27th March 2002. In his report issued on the 10th July 2002 the
         inspector Mr K G Smith BSc (Hons) MRTPI made reference to the location and commented as follows:


         Under paragraph 132

         “Kidderminster is in Area 2 but even when considered in relation to this area the IWMF would not be very
         well related to the centre of the arisings. And when considered in relation to all of Herefordshire &
         Worcestershire, it is seen to lie in a relatively remote northern corner.”



         Under Paragraph 133

         “These figures reveal that the Kidderminster location scores very poorly with regard to the proximity
         principle.”

         It is worth noting that the figures referred to in paragraph 133 are those calculated by the applicant MWM
         themselves.

         Since the Kidderminster application scored so badly it is unreasonable to assume that any plant located
         less than 4 miles away would result in a better score in relation to the proximity principle.

         Furthermore under this section the applicant seems to justify the location by stating that following a site
         search exercise it was concluded that the Hartlebury site was the “only” suitable site. There seems to be
         considerable confusion between “available” and “suitable”. Even if the Hartlebury site was the only one
         available it does not follow that this makes it suitable. For all of the reasons outlined in previous sections
         of our report and within this section the site proposed is quite clearly not suitable and no argument about
         others not being available can change this.



4.4.84
         A detailed appraisal of the proposals in the context of Green Belt policy is provided under the
         following paragraphs


4.4.85   “Reflect the concerns and interests of communities, the need of waste collection authorities, waste
          disposal authorities and business and encourage competitiveness.”

                                                         35                                       WAIL Ltd.
The applicant states that the proposed development would demonstrably meet the requirements of this
policy principle and indicates the reasons why they believe this is to be the case. Before specifically dealing
with items as detailed under the bullet points in this section we would comment as follows.

This policy principle begins with the words “Reflect the concerns and interests of communities”. No
attempt whatsoever has been made to specifically address the concerns in and around Hartlebury. These
concerns are very real and once again we would refer you to the Inspector’s comments at the
Kidderminster appeal and specifically paragraph 114. He comments on earlier paragraphs where concerns
about emissions and the health effects are discussed, as follows:

“Thus, it is clear to me, from the evidence at the inquiry and from the very many letters that I have read,
that most – if not all – of the above factors which can exacerbate the public perception of risk apply in this
case. I am satisfied that these concerns are genuine and are not simply the outcome of an orchestrated
campaign: very many people in this area have a very real fear of what they see as the unknown health
effects of the incinerator. This public perception of risk associated with the appeal process is a negative
factor of some significance to place in the scales of the decision-making process.”

These comments by the Inspector were made in the full acceptance of a sound EA permit being put in
place.

Little if anything has changed regarding the public perception of risk and no definitive evidence has been
produced to categorically state that NO health effects exist.



We would contend that this same level of significant concern should be considered as much now as it
evidently was in 2002.

With regard to the items detailed under each bullet point we would make the following comments.

Once again there is a referral only to the fact that potential exists to provide a CHP solution. No detailed
proposal exists for the use of the heat produced by this Mass Burn Incinerator. It does not therefore
provide the effective solution which should be expected of a true CHP plant.

The proposal in fact provides a very poor alternative diversion from landfill. It does not in any way achieve
efficient waste recovery which would be much better provided by localised more modern technology such
as Anaerobic Digestion.

The proposal for this Mass Burn Incinerator effectively has a massive negative effect on the CO2 emissions
for the whole of Worcestershire and Wychavon in particular. Modern coal fired power stations are likely
to be fitted with Carbon Capture and Storage Systems, dramatically reducing their carbon emissions. This
proposed Mass Burn Incinerator would be a massive producer of CO2 putting the County at risk of massive
carbon taxes when the proposed European carbon tax is introduced. The cost of this carbon tax is
nowhere included in the financial calculations related to the proposed development.

Once again the applicant argues that the site is centrally located in relation to waste arisings, a fact clearly
identified as incorrect in the 2002 public enquiry for a site less than 4 miles away.


                                                 36                                        WAIL Ltd.
          Our earlier arguments, together with our associated technical comments included within the “WAIL”
          Group submission documents, have clearly discounted the benefits to the Waste Disposal Authorities as
          put forward in this planning application.



4.4.86-

4.4.87 These paragraphs suggest that since the site is already in the ownership of Worcestershire County Council
       there are no restraints to prevent the proposal coming forward.



          Whilst the site is indeed in the ownership of the County Council this is the only positive aspect since there
          exist considerable constraints to the development proposed such as:



          1) The site is in the Green Belt with a presumption against such a development.
          2) The site is identified in the Wychavon Plan as a Major Developed Site in the Green Belt with specific
              restrictions regarding, infilling, building footprint and building height which are all being contravened
              by this proposal.
          3) The site is burdened with Restrictive Covenants against nuisance and annoyance which are registered
             at the Land Registry as a charge on the County Council’s title deeds. Additionally the County Council
             has given an undertaking to indemnify the ultimate freeholder of this site against any breach of these
             covenants. Recent case law, in particular the case of Davies v. Dennis (2009) EWCA CIV 1081,
             establishes the existence of a building in itself was held to be in breach of this type of covenant. The
             proposed building, due to its sheer size and prominence would mean such a breach would be
             inevitable, rendering the County Council, and therefore its taxpayers, liable to considerable costs
             under the terms of the indemnity.


   4.4.89
        Once again this paragraph relies on comments which are made without any foundation. We have pointed
        out at length previously that no real proposal exists for the use of heat from this mass burn incinerator. At
        best the heat off-take remains no more than “potential” with little evidence that any substantial market
        for the heat will, in fact, be found.


          Similarly the suggestion that the bottom ash could be used in the immediate locality for brick or block
          production has no basis in fact and is at odds totally with other areas of the planning application where
          letters of intent are provided to say that facilities exist off site to treat this bottom ash.

          The truth is that so far little use has been made of bottom ash and even after it is treated there is
          compelling evidence to suggest that there is little market for such a product.

          In reality the bottom ash is likely to be disposed of in landfill sites as currently. The clear risk is that the
          favourable terms for disposal of this product in landfill will be removed and it will be subject to the same
          level of tax as everything else disposed of in this way. No allowance in the proposals has been made for
          the massive financial implications which such a change would bring about.



                                                           37                                        WAIL Ltd.
4.4.90
     Neither of the statements made in this paragraph support the criteria set out in paragraph 21 of PPS10
     which specifically are:


i)    assess their suitability for development against each of the following criteria:-



      “the extent to which they support the policies in this PPS”. We have detailed our arguments which, we
      believe, effectively demonstrate that the policies of PPS10 are not supported.



      “the physical and environmental constraints on development, including existing and proposed
      neighbouring land uses”. We have clearly shown that the applicants assertions in these respects are
      flawed. The proposals have a major detrimental effect on both existing and proposed neighbouring land
      uses. The building would be so prominent it would seriously affect views from within the Green Belt within
      which the building itself would be sited. The view from considerable distances around would be
      compromised, especially from areas which have remained protected and undisturbed to the extent
      proposed since medieval times.



      “The cumulative effect of previous waste disposal facilities on the well-being of the local community
      including any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality, social cohesion and inclusion or
      economic potential”. Hartlebury and the areas surrounding it has been the site for three landfill sites in
      previous years, one of which is still in operation and causing concern in the community. A further site at
      Waresley which is now being “capped” has been the source over the past two years of considerable
      distress to the local inhabitants. The EA has been heavily involved and there was a period of 6-9 months
      when the level of emissions was so high that it was “red-carded” by the EA and their officers were
      prohibited from entering the site.

      Even now as it is being restored there are considerable problems with escapes of leachate and much
      remedial work taking place. Clearly, the community feels that the cumulative effect of previous and
      ongoing problems should preclude it from having to bear this new proposed facility as allowed for under
      PPS10 paragraph 21.

      “The capacity of existing and potential transport infrastructure to support sustainable movement of
      waste, and products arising from resource recovery, seeking when practicable and beneficial to use modes
      other than road transport”. There is no possibility to use anything other than road transport. Taking this
      factor into account with the proposal’s poor score with regard to the proximity principle previously
      discussed, it is difficult to see how the criteria for this section in the PPS10 are met.



ii)   “Give priority to the re-use of previously developed land, and redundant agricultural and forestry buildings
      and their curtilages.” In every aspect this proposal does not accord with PPS10. The land is not previously
      used and there is a presumption against such development. No redundant and forestry buildings are
      existing on the proposed site.

                                                      38                                      WAIL Ltd.
4.4.91-4.4.96

None of the arguments put forward satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposal should be allowed. As it does
not accord with so many principles it is our opinion that to allow such a development would be totally
inappropriate. The applicant’s conclusion specifically under paragraph 4.4.96 is completely flawed in assuming
compliance with PPS10. Each of our detailed submissions has demonstrated that there are no satisfactory
planning grounds to allow this application to proceed.



4.4 Conclusion

4.4.1 – 4.4.2

Having regard to our comments above, we can find no justification whatsoever for this proposed development
in the Green Belt.




                                                   39                                     WAIL Ltd.
Part 4

Technical Report - Response to the Environmental Statement

Section                                  Comments

1.5.3           This section refers to the JMWMS published in 2004 and the Best Practicable
Environmental Option (BPEO) as an essential requirement according to the Planning Inspector who
refused the Kidderminster EfW proposal. The JMWMS was refreshed in 2009 and continued to support
some form of thermal treatment.

This study and analysis failed to give proper consideration to modern preferred methods of dealing with
Municipal Biodegradable Waste. Further the study—as shown in annexe D of the JMWMS, entitled
Residual Options Appraisal, prepared by ERM consultants—failed to consider Anaerobic Digestion of the
BMW. Furthermore, this report is very similar in structure and content to the report appended to the
planning application by Fichtner, entitled Residual Waste Treatment Options Appraisal. Who are the
original authors of this report, Fichtner or ERM? In both cases, what we contend is the BPEO was
overlooked or ignored by these consultants. Were they directed to omit this government-preferred and
Defra-supported method of treatment? The BPEO also would be served by small “community” anaerobic
digesters close to the source of waste production and therefore also satisfy the “Proximity Principle”.
According to the waste model described by Fichtner in the above referenced report, 126,000 tonnes of the
MSW is biodegradable and could be digested anaerobic ally with methane capture and EfW electricity
generation. In addition, a soil conditioner and/or fertiliser is also produced. Such treatment is mentioned
in the recent Coalition Government’s documentation as being strongly supported. Anaerobic digestion
with greater front end recycling will give the best results from a Global Warming potential standpoint and
completely avoid the emission of toxic materials and nano particles associated with waste incineration
(problems acknowledged in this application).

1.5.6            The in-depth assessment was in fact flawed as it failed to give open and fair consideration
to anaerobic digestion. This exercise should be repeated with inclusion of all methods. Furthermore, the
preferred option, as stated in the conclusion of the assessment, would be a single EfW plant producing
electricity and heat. However, as shown in section 5.4.22, heat off-take is not part of this planning
application. The supportive reasoning behind an EfW with CHP is thereby also undermined.

3.1.1            Reference is made the Waste Strategy for England 2007. This document gives great
support for anaerobic digestion including EfW, especially from food waste. This powerful support should
not have been ignored and must be given fair consideration. Further down this section, MWM states that
it does not intend to manage C&I waste, but in the unlikely event (sometime in the future) that there is
insufficient MSW available then the plant could treat quantities of such waste. This is at direct odds with
section 4.4.12 Waste tonnage composition table 10 page 14; waste arising 2014 (the start date of the
proposed incinerator). Of the 200,000 tonnes of waste to be burnt, 29,080 tonnes of it is described as C&I.
Such inconsistencies are repeated in the planning application and therefore challenge its veracity.

Renewable energy can be derived from EfW plants treating biodegradable waste, but EfW is not limited to
incineration. Within the references cited in the Waste Strategy for England 2007 as acknowledging
renewable energy from waste, anaerobic digestion with methane capture and conversion is more strongly
supported than incineration.


                                                40                                      WAIL Ltd.
3.2.4            The JMWMS was refreshed in 2009 after originally concluding in 2004 that some form of
thermal treatment would be required. Even after the County Council’s own advisory documents on
climate change in Worcestershire and the Treatment of Biodegradable Waste by Biological methods
discussed and supported anaerobic digestion and the Waste strategy for England 2007 also strongly
supported anaerobic digestion, it was not given any consideration in the study of alternatives. Was this as
a result of the WDA directive or the failure of the consultants to recognise the growing support for this
method of treatment? EfW from anaerobic digestion is rapidly being adopted by other WDA in England.

MWM insistence that EfW (incineration) conferred the BPEO could be considered biased and flawed.

The Residual Options Appraisal July 2009 did not give consideration to anaerobic digestion, but did include
2 options for MBT. These were modelled on the ECODECO process of bio-drying and are inferior to the
modern method of anaerobic digestion and EfW from methane.

3.2.6         The ranking of the options gave option B the highest score, which is the single incinerator
with EfW AND CHP. Option A was found to be third. Option A is incineration with power generation only.

3.2.7            This proposal lays claim to Option B and its greater scoring. This is a falsehood. Section
5.4.11 of this report states that there are no substantive opportunities to export heat. Section 5.4.22
states that heat off-take is NOT part of this planning application. Section 4.14 of the Sustainability
statement informs that 7361 tonnes of CO2 equivalent (eq) will be saved by the proposal. The Fichtner
report on Residual Waste Treatment Options clearly shows that the option giving rise to the 7,361 tonnes
of CO2 eq savings is the option of single site incineration with EfW power only (i.e. Option A) in section 5.2.
Clearly the proposal in the application can NOT be considered as an EfW with CHP. It is in fact an
incinerator with electricity generation only. As such it is not deserving of the support given by the WDA
for a plant with combined heat and power generation.

A further inconsistency has been identified between the Fichtner report mentioned above and the ERM
report on Residual Waste treatment Options as referred to earlier in this response. Both reports are
similar; both use the WRATE model for identifying environmental burden or benefit. Fichtner declare an
environmental benefit from the EfW Power only option—which this application is based on—saving 7,361
tonnes CO2 eq. ERM declare an emission of 10,555 tonnes CO2 eq and an environmental burden. The
small swing either way could have disastrous consequences on the carbon footprint. Fichtner declare that
overall 170,000 tonnes of CO2 will be emitted and this is comprised two thirds from biodegradable waste
but one third is from fossil fuel derived waste. This should not be burnt, as it release fossil fuel derived CO 2
and the energy generated is not renewable and therefore not sustainable. This will not qualify for ROC’s or
RHI’s; in fact, it will offset the valuable energy derived from the biogenic carbon constituents.

3.2.10          The eight waste options considered appear to have been based on the initial assumptions
in the 2004 JMWMS document and refreshed in 2009 by ERM. These options remain based on outdated
technology and no account has been taken of the preferred option of anaerobic digestion or even greater
segregation and recycling. This is against the Coalition Government’s recently announced policy of zero-
waste. Further, the recent advances in anaerobic digestion and the adoption of this technology by WDAs
in England have also been ignored. Current examples from which the Council should have considered
include The Mayor of London’s coordinated collection and disposal policy, Selby renewable energy park
and Newcastle under Lyme. The response to the WCS consultation also acknowledged growing support
for AD.

                                                 41                                         WAIL Ltd.
Policy 23 of the JMWMS should also be taken into account. Policy 23

“The Partnership will design and operate collection, transfer, associated transport and treatment systems
to minimise the overall carbon emissions (including “waste miles”) arising from these elements of waste
management activities and measured through Target One of the Strategy.”

3.2.12 & 3.2.13          The use of a bespoke process to evaluate the EnviRecover proposal does not
create a consistent basis for comparing the eight options. It could be considered on careful reading that
the documents were produced to support Option B rather than form a fair and balanced conclusion.

3.12.13        This report seems to claim that the proposal comprises an EfW plant with CHP. This
proposal excludes heat off-take, so to claim the benefits for CHP is inaccurate and misleading. A
comprehensive options study was not performed, as AD and increased recycling were not included.

3.2 15 to 3.2.24 This purports to be an analysis of alternative technologies, but it only considers different
forms of direct combustion technologies. EfW is not synonymous with direct combustion. EfW as
preferred by Defra can also be derived from Biogas from AD, for example.

3.2.29           The referred to EfW plant does not include heat off-take in this proposal. Ravensbank
would indeed be a more appropriate site if heat utilisation could be included; however the overall need
for an incinerator is not proven as other, better, safer and cheaper options exist.

3.2.31           Please refer to the planning statement response document.

5.3.12         NOx is produced from direct combustion processes. With alternative EfW processes, like
AD, such emissions are completely avoided, with the Nitrogen being put to beneficial use as a fertiliser
component.

5.3.33           Confirmation is required that the usage of 140 tonnes per annum of gas oil has been
included in the carbon footprint calculation. Water is also used in the process; confirmation is required of
the quantity. Entec reports that 135,000 tonnes will be consumed per annum.

5.4.1           According to the Fichtner model for 2014, 55% of the MSW ids biodegradable and would
constitute a renewable source. PPS1 identifies as renewable only those descriptions as found in PPS22, i.e.
EfW is not renewable unless from biogenic origin. Low carbon is identified as EfW with CHP. The proposal
from MWM excludes Heat in this application. Again, some attempts to cloud the issue are evident.

5.4.5            Clarification is requested into R1 Calculation variables, as heat utilisation is not part of this
application. Accordingly, this efficiency calculation is not valid and the efficiency will be below the
threshold level for compliance with the WFD.

5.4.11           There is no substantive heat export potential.

5.4.13           The land identified is no longer part of the Strategic housing land assessment under the
SWJCS.

5.4.22           Heat off-take is not part of the current planning application and therefore this proposal is
NOT a combined Heat and Power plant (CHP), even though much of the analysis within this application is
based on the potential of CHP. As such, significant arguments within this application referring to CHP are
not valid and irrelevant.

                                                  42                                         WAIL Ltd.
5.4.25           This application cites several permissions granted on the basis of councils demonstrating
feasibility and commercial viability of exporting heat after conditional permission was granted but before
operations commenced. This application states that there are no substantive uses for the heat and
therefore conditional permission—in contrast with the above cases—should not be granted.

5.7.1            There is no demonstrable need for this type of plant. The need is to divert MSW from
landfill and especially to divert BSW from landfill and to recover energy from the biodegradable fraction.
The best practicable environmental option for doing this is through separate collections (like Wychavon)
and anaerobic digestion with biogas-fuelled electricity generation or direct use of the biogas as a fuel.

5.7.2 Doc 008: EfW: Planning Application - Part 3: Planning Statement - Appendix 2.1: Waste Projections

The projections predict no growth in EnviRecover recycling capacity; these are stuck at 200K tonnes for 25
years. The projected growth in overall municipal waste generated also assumes that there will be no
substantive progress over 25 years. The maximum recycling potential is pegged at an unimpressive 59%,
even in 2034. Residual waste totals are also assumed to continue growing. Taken as a whole, these
projections assume a failure of future efforts towards much higher recycling and lower overall waste
generation, based on a zero-waste principle. Yet several cities in Europe and the USA already achieve
recycling rates in excess of 75%. Why are the two counties’ targets in this area so unambitious?



5.7.4           MWM state that it is not their intention to manage C&I waste, but, in the unlikely event
(sometime in the future) that there is insufficient MSW available, then the plant could treat quantities of
such waste. This is at direct odds with section 4.4.12 Waste tonnage composition table 10 page 14; waste
arising 2014 (the start date of the proposed incinerator). Of the 200,000 tonnes of waste to be burnt,
29,080 tonnes of it is described as C&I. Such inconsistencies are repeated in the planning application and
therefore challenge its veracity.

5.7.5             The composition of the waste is also a point of conjecture. The black bin waste contains a
large quantity of material that would be best treated by recycling. Much is made of the ability of the
incinerator to burn a varying and flexible composition of MSW according to the Fichtner Options report,
but it clearly states in the Environmental Statement Main Report that the preferred range lies within quite
narrow boundaries due to the effect on the calorific value. Both statements cannot be true and this will
either cause problems when recycling inevitably is increased or worse lock the county in for 25 years with
no opportunities for increased recycling. This could have punitive effects if Government action demands
greater recycling. Already waste collection authorities are being encouraged by Government papers to
collect kitchen waste separately (for treatment ultimately by anaerobic digestion and CHP of the clean
Methane produced.) The black bin waste volume collected by Wychavon is decreasing rapidly as more
food waste is diverted to composting (IVC) and more materials are designated as recyclable. The Mercia
proposal is a truly backwards step. Mass burn incineration is not sustainable and the renewable energy
comes at a very high cost in terms of financial and environmental consequences. The same amount of
ROC’s and RHI could be obtained far more cheaply and with greater environmental benefits through AD of
the BSW. Further, the recyclables extracted from the black bin will have recoverable value for the County
and its tax payers. For example, the market prices of recoverable metals have risen by many hundreds of
percentage points in recent years.



                                               43                                       WAIL Ltd.
5.7.9            This paragraph seeks to gain a free hand on tonnage throughput free from planning
consent restrictions or conditions. This is unacceptable. After a gate fee is fixed, any subsequent increase
in throughput—through the inevitable and mandated increase in recycling—will allow MWM to increase
profits at the expense of the two Counties.

5.8.17         As the clay extracted from the void is planned to be put to commercial use via
Wienerberger, does this require a new permit for mineral extraction? Will this be subject to separate
extraction permits?

6.2.4          Please refer to the Planning Statement objections. There is no demonstrable need for this
type of development.

7.3.1          B2/B8 development is described as being already accepted as there are part implemented
permissions. However, the use definitions referred to would not allow the present proposal.

        “B2 General industrial - Use for industrial process other than one falling within class B1 (excluding
        incineration purposes, chemical treatment or landfill or hazardous waste).

        B8 Storage or distribution - This class includes open air storage.”

7.4.13            Waste product exported is reported as 43,200 tonnes of Bottom ash and metals however
the Fichtner report shows 35,300 tonnes Bottom Ash is produced based on the WRATE model. This is
another inconsistency and throws doubt upon the accuracy of modelled and calculated outputs. This also
throws doubt upon the accuracy of predicted CO2 emissions, yet these are critical to the carbon reduction
commitments made by Councils. This proposal has no demonstrable need and does not have consistent
scientific reasoning to satisfy the required level of confidence and is also contra to the precautionary
principle. If an overestimate has been made for bottom ash in order to be robust about transport
emissions, why haven’t the APC residues also been overestimated?

8.1.5            The statement is difficult to reconcile with the building dimensions set out in 8.1.6. The
main building is more than 20 meters higher than any other building on the trading estate and the
chimney is 60 meters higher.

8.1.14          This proposal would constitute a major intrusion on surrounding visual receptors resulting
in dramatic detraction from the visual amenities of the Green Belt.

8.3.2           Again, the statement is difficult to reconcile with the building dimensions set out in 8.1.6.
The main building is more than 20 meters higher than any other building on the trading estate and the
chimney is 60 meters higher.

8.4.8           The edge of Kidderminster is 4.6 km from the site, not “some 5 km” as stated in the
application.

8.5.25             The proposed development is totally out of keeping with the nature of the Green Belt and
its restrictions including covenants.

8.5.26            A major impact will affect Waresley park residents as they walk and travel every day in all
key quality of life parameters, visual, noise, odour and traffic.


                                                44                                        WAIL Ltd.
8.4.44          Due to the language used and the description inferred this proposal would seem prima
face to have a neutral effect. This, however, is greatly contested and the suggestion is made that this be
referred to GOWM for comment on topography and visual receptors and their likely affect.

8.4.57            The chimney would have a significant impact on views from Hartlebury Castle (Grade I
listed and site of Worcestershire County Museum) and Hartlebury Common (Nature Reserve and Site of
Special Scientific Interest) and detract from these amenities.

8.5.49 - 8.6.6 This is completely disputed. The proposed development is massive and will have a major
visual impact on the Green Belt. This development is also contra to the Green Belt restriction, Wychavon
Local Plan and there is no demonstrable need for this type of facility.



9.0             Inadequate survey work has been undertaken to inform a reliable assessment of the
ecological impacts of the development on great crested newt and noctule bat, which are both legally
protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.




Great crested newt

Section 5.2 of Natural England’s great crested newt mitigation guidelines lists three key indicators that
should inform whether a great crested newt survey should be undertaken as follows:

      1)   Any historical records for great crested newts on the site, or in the general area.
      2)   A pond on or near the site (within around 500m), even if it holds water only seasonally.
      3)   Sites with refuges (such as piles of logs or rubble), grassland, scrub, woodland or hedgerows
           within 500m of a pond
The proposed development site clearly triggers all three indicators as follows:

      1)    There are several breeding records of GCN within 1km (Table 9.5 of ES);
      2)    Nine ponds occur within 500m (the closest at c.20m); and
      3)    The site contains ‘high quality terrestrial habitat, with good cover for amphibians’ (Paragraph
            9.3.24 of Environmental Statement)
The Ecology Chapter fails to consider (or even mention) the majority of ponds within 500m of the site,
making reference only to a small watercourse within the site and the closest pond immediately to the
north. With reference to OS maps and the ‘site plan’ available for download on Mercia EnviRecover’s
website1, there are at least nine ponds within 500m of the development site, not including several
transient waterbodies within the adjacent landfill site.




1
    Site plan illustrating ponds accessed online at http://www.envirecover.co.uk/what.htm



                                                 45                                         WAIL Ltd.
The lack of consideration of the ponds within this radius is a critical flaw in the assessment approach,
particularly because it is established that the site contains high quality terrestrial habitat for amphibians,
which could reasonably attract great crested newts using ponds several hundred metres away.

Two field ponds occur at a distance of approximately 270m north-east of the site (GR SO 863 700). These
ponds are within 350m of a known great crested newt breeding pond to the north-east which would
suggest that they have significant potential to be used by this species. A population of great crested newts
could use these ponds, in which case they would be likely to use the high quality terrestrial habitat within
the development site for foraging and hibernation.

Ponds effectively surround the site, giving further potential for the site to be used as a dispersal route by
great crested newt, which does not appear to have been considered within the assessment. For example,
ponds occur within 300m to the west (SO 855 699), north-west (SO 856 701), north-east (SO 863 700),
south-east (SO 862 697) and south-west (SO 857 695) of the site. There is potential for this pond cluster to
support a metapopulation of great crested newts, which could use habitats within the proposed
development site for dispersal between ponds.

Chapter 9 includes a risk assessment of the settling pond on the adjacent landfill site for great crested
newts, concluding that the pond offers poor habitat largely due the presence of fish. However, whilst the
presence of fish does reduce suitability for GCN the Natural England mitigation guidelines state that:

‘ponds should not be excluded simply because they appear superficially unsuitable… ponds containing fish
should not always be disregarded as newt habitat’; and ‘ponds not used by great crested newts for
breeding can still be of importance for the population as they may support prey’

Therefore, whilst predatory fish reduce the likelihood of GCN breeding, the pond may still be used for
foraging by GCN that breed within other ponds within 500m. The presence of a pond used by GCN for
foraging immediately adjacent to the site would further increase the likelihood that this species uses the
high quality terrestrial habitat at the site.

A survey visit to the adjacent settlement pond was undertaken in May 2009 (paragraph 9.2.10) to search
for amphibians, indicating that the project ecologists must consider the pond to have some suitability for
these species. Whilst this single visit found no great crested newts it is important to note that no value can
be attributed to this finding, because the survey methods fall far short of the minimum standards required
by Natural England to demonstrate absence of great crested newt.

In summary, the above points clearly demonstrate that the statement within paragraph 9.3.24 that ‘the
nearest known breeding pond is over 500m away from the site, so the risk of occurrence is likely to be
negligible’ is incorrect. Any site containing high quality terrestrial habitat for amphibians that is
surrounded by numerous ponds has a reasonable likelihood of being used by great crested newts during
their terrestrial phase. The conclusion that an absence of breeding records of great crested newt within
500m equates to an absence of this species using the site, with no survey evidence to support this
statement, is fundamentally incorrect.

It is quite clear that a presence/absence survey of local ponds for great crested newt compliant with
Natural England guidelines is required to understand whether this legally protected species will be
impacted by the development proposals. The LPA’s scoping opinion does not request a survey for great
crested newt. However, it should be noted that the scoping report submitted by the developer makes no

                                                 46                                        WAIL Ltd.
mention of the numerous ponds within 500m of the site. Assuming that WCC and other nature
conservation consultees have based their scoping opinion on this incomplete information, it is not
surprising that a survey has not been requested. I urge the LPA to reconsider the appropriateness of the
approach to the assessment of impacts on great crested newts in light of this additional information.

Noctule bat

Chapter 9 states that ‘a noctule bat roost in Middle Covert has been identified as the key protected species
interest of the locality’ and this roost is assessed within the Chapter as being of ecological value at the
County level. This roost is thought to occur somewhere within the woodland of Middle Covert, located
immediately adjacent to the east of the development site. Table 9.14 of the report identifies potentially
significant effects to noctule bat through noise disturbance, microclimatic changes and loss of vegetation
along the bat commuting routes.

It is therefore established that potential impacts to noctule bats are a likely significant impact of the
development in the absence of appropriate mitigation. However, given the large scale of the development
close to a significant noctule roost, it is essential that the location of this roost be established in order to
formulate a suitable mitigation approach. The current impact assessment and mitigation approach is
based on guesswork, which is simply not good enough for this scale and type of development.

With no information on the size or location of roost, how can the conclusion given within paragraph 9.6.1
of Chapter 9 that the mitigation measures would ‘avoid any potential impacts’ to the noctule bat roost
possibly be made? The error in this statement is best illustrated by way of example; the new incinerator
building will be approximately 35m in height, with a chimney stack 80m tall and thus it will block sunlight
from the west and south-west into Middle Covert. Bat maternity roosts often rely on the warmth from the
sun and if the roost is within a tree that will become more shaded by the development, it may no longer
maintain a sufficient temperature to support bats and the roost could be abandoned.

The above represents just one of several scenarios (e.g. noise, lighting, obstruction of flight paths)
demonstrating that the impacts of development upon noctule bat cannot be assessed until the exact
location of the roost is identified. This roost could potentially represent the most important noctule bat
roost within the county, or even within the country, and no conclusions can be made about potential
impacts or mitigation until survey data on the roost is collected and considered.

The bat survey work that has been conducted within the development site found that up to 14 noctule
bats use the site as a commuting route to their roost within Middle Covert. The bats fly south-east across
open parts of the site that will be obstructed by the proposed incinerator building. The Bat Activity Survey
report within Appendix 9.2 of the ES states that noctule are ‘high-flying bats compared to other species
such as common pipistrelle and are less reliant on landscape features such as hedgelines and field
boundaries for flight lines’, yet the mitigation that is claimed will result in no potential impacts to noctules
is to retain ‘scrub along the northern boundary…which would maintain good habitat connectivity for
foraging and commuting bats’ (paragraph 9.5.2). These statements are contradictory; it is clear that the
proposed extent and layout of the incinerator including only the retention of boundary vegetation will
have a significant effect on noctules commuting across the site to their roost and it is misleading for
Chapter 9 to conclude otherwise.




                                                 47                                         WAIL Ltd.
Furthermore, it is rather incredible that the Chapter completely fails to mention the impact of lighting on
bats. New artificial lighting associated with the incinerator has significant potential to disrupt local bat
populations and this issue does not appear to have been given due consideration.

Conclusions

The main aim of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales)
Regulations 1999 is to ensure that the competent authority for a particular project, i.e. Worcestershire
County Council (WCC), makes its decision in the knowledge of any likely significant effects on the
environment. Chapter 9 acknowledges that there is a potentially significant effect of the project on
noctule bat, but fails to provide any information on the roost to be impacted with which to judge the
significance of the effect or inform whether adequate mitigation is possible.

Furthermore, no surveys for great crested newt have been undertaken, despite currently accepted
standard methods unequivocally indicating that they should be carried out. The potential for a likely
significant effect on great crested newt has not been properly considered. A decision made by WCC on the
basis of the current ecological survey information would not be made in the knowledge of all likely
significant effects on ecological features, and any decision would therefore not be in accordance with the
EIA Regulations or the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s Guidelines for Ecological
Impact Assessment.

Noctule and great crested newt are legally protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2010, which implements EC Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and
of wild fauna and flora. Planning authorities are a competent authority under Regulation 7(1) and they
must have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive in exercising any of their functions, under
Regulation 9(5).

The recent case of R (on the application of Simon Woolley) v Cheshire East Borough Council clarified that
the Local Planning Authority has a legal duty to consider the three derogation tests within the Habitats
Directive when deciding whether to grant planning permission for a development that could harm an
European Protected Species. This includes that “The action authorised will not be detrimental to the
maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their
natural range” (Regulation 53(9)(b)).

For the reasons detailed herein it is clear that the current ecological survey evidence does not allow the
LPA to consider likely significant effects on noctule bat or great crested newt, nor to be certain that the
development will maintain the favourable conservation status of these species.

12.0           Noise and Vibration in the Green Belt. This proposal is totally out of keeping with the
Green Belt and should be refused on grounds of size, annoyance and intrusion, and being contrary to local
plans and covenants. In particular, there is no demonstrable need for this type of plant.

13.2.26          Stack emissions: The emission and modelling data provided shows that various toxic
materials are emitted and give an assurance that these will be within safe limits and not harmful to human
health and will be monitored by the EA. The Stockholm Convention and the Precautionary Principle
should govern here, because there are no known levels at which dioxin and PM 10s and 2.5s are safe. For
example, chlorinated dioxins are widespread global pollutants, extremely toxic and accordingly listed in


                                                48                                       WAIL Ltd.
Annex III of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. There is no demonstrable need
for this plant and all emissions could therefore be avoided by selection of a more appropriate technology.

Greenhouse gas emissions can be considered as above. The proposed plant will emit 170,000 tonnes of
CO2, yet the WRATE analysis referred to by Fichtner declares a 7361 tonnes per year saving of CO2 eq. The
ERM model declares a net emission of 10,555 tonnes using the WRATE software. Such confusion and
inconsistencies are inappropriate for such an important planning application. It is imperative that these
calculations be provided for careful scrutiny and not be taken at face value. The waste calorific value and
tonnage together with the stated energy capture suggests a higher proportion of CO2 would actually be
emitted. We calculate that an amount closer to 212,000 tonnes would be produced in reality, agreeing
more closely with the ERM Model.

MWM claim in the planning application that their scheme would result in net savings of 7,361 tonnes per
annum of CO2 equivalent when operational against not installing it. Benefits from diversion from landfill
are not included.

This EfW plant will export 360,000,000 MJ of energy to the grid.

This is 100,000,000 kWh electricity net export.

To do this CO2 will be released from the plant as stated in the application will be:

Biogenic (from renewable sources)         106,565,403 kg    or 106,000 tonnes

Fosil                                     60,918,949 kg     or     61,000 tonnes

TOTAL                                     167,484,352 kg    or 167,000 tonnes

Reference is made to POSTNOTE Number 268 October 2006 from The Parliamentary office of Science and
Technology. The table below shows published lifecycle carbon footprint data.




                                                  49                                    WAIL Ltd.
The fuel mix described by Fichtner for use in comparison tables is shown on page 15 of the options report
attached to the planning application, as 48% coal and 52% gas.

Using the table below the total Carbon footprint for this fuel mix can be calculated.

Coal 48% of 800g CO2 per kWh, Gas 52% 0f 400g CO2 per kWh.



Footprint per kWh of Electricity at the grid is 592g CO2 per kWh. Or 0.592Kg per kWh.

This is in close agreement with DEFRA /DECC conversion factors for company reporting guidelines 2009.

To generate 100,000,000 kWh for grid net export only 59,200 tonnes of CO2 would be emitted from the
current generating mix for the total life cycle carbon footprint.

MWM proposal releases 167,000 tonnes of CO2

Even if the biogenic CO2 is ignored the fossil CO2 is reported to be 61,000 tonnes and this is disputed as it
does not include the collection of waste. The associated carbon footprint for collection and delivery has
not been added and will be a significant amount. Further the extra footprint of steel making, delivery
fabrication and assembly as well as earth removal and pilings must be added and consequently the
numbers provided by MWM are strongly disputed.



Conclusions

1       Grid production of the same quantity of electricity as proposed by MWM will create a Carbon
footprint 2,000 tonnes lower than the Fossil derived waste emissions of CO2.

                                                50                                        WAIL Ltd.
2      The claimed 7,361 tonnes of savings in CO2 eq are not possible and can not be realised in practice.
167,000 tonnes of CO2 will actually be released together with avoidable ash and pollutants.

 In addition to the released 61,000 tonnes of fossil derived CO2, the extra footprint of steel making,
delivery fabrication and assembly as well as earth removal and pilings will dramatically increase the
carbon footprint. The WRATE model and scaling employed by MWM is therefore inappropriate for this
proposal and detailed further work must be submitted.

3        Generation of electricity from the proposed EfW plant will not offset Fossil derived electricity but
will release more CO2 even if the biogenic fraction is ignored.

4       By 2014 there will also be greater carbon capture from power stations. This dynamic will further
reduce the carbon footprint of power stations and leave the MWM proposal vastly in excess.

5       Should Biomass from anaerobic digestion be considered as fuel for EfW from biodegradable
sources (such as the 126,000 tonnes contained within the MSW) then a net environmental benefit of -
200g CO2 / kWh will be achieved according to POST.

The net Carbon footprint would be 20,000 tonnes SAVING over UK grid production. This must be given
further consideration.

6     The MWM proposal pulls in the opposite direction to the Carbon Reduction Commitments made
by WCC.



NOx emissions are also noted but could be completely avoided by choice of a more preferred treatment
option. Nitrogenous fertiliser could indeed be produced as a bi-product, enabling valuable agricultural use
instead of increased air pollution. Anaerobic digestion was not one of the options considered but would
score highly in the criteria measured within the Residual Treatment Options report if fairly considered.

14.0            Human health. The proposed plant scored very badly in the individual category of
human toxicity in the Options report. In fact, all incineration options showed an environmental burden
and increased human toxicity. Any such increase, however small, fundamentally should NOT be tolerated
when alternatives exist with far lower human toxicity. Not only is there no demonstrable need for this
particular scheme, but there are strong, precautionary and demonstrable reasons why it must not be
allowed on health grounds.



15.3.5          Conservation Area

The assertion that “There are no Conservation Areas within a 2km radius of the development site” is
incorrect. The western boundary of the incinerator site is 1.82km from the southeastern boundary of
Hartlebury Conservation Area (HCA). Therefore, a 180metre swathe of the HCA does lie within 2km of the
site. Even using the centre of the proposed site as the datum point, the southeastern edge of the HCA is
1.93 km distant. The new boundaries under discussion for the HCA will not change in the SE corner, so it
will still be within a 2km radius after any boundary changes. Therefore, the Environmental Statement is
deficient in not taking this into account.


                                                51                                        WAIL Ltd.
Furthermore, Worcestershire County Museum and Hartlebury Castle (a Grade I listed building) are only
2.5km from the proposed site and the entire historic centre of Hartlebury, with its many buildings of
architectural and local historical significance, lies within 2.3km. To underline the perceived value of the
HCA in this part of Worcestershire, we note that Wychavon District Council is currently conducting a
consultation exercise over a proposal to extend the HCA to cover a wider area of the locality. If the
proposed incinerator is built, it will inevitably have a seriously detrimental impact on the HCA.




                                                52                                        WAIL Ltd.
Part 5 Summary

We consider we have conclusively shown from our objections that the application for planning permission for
an incinerator at Hartlebury Trading Estate should not be granted. We summarise our objections as follows:-

1. There is a presumption against development in the Green Belt, especially of this type.
2. The applicant has admitted that the proposed development is “inappropriate” for the Green Belt and has
    not demonstrated “very special circumstances” that it should be built in this location.
3. The proposed building would be massive, at least 3 times the height of any other building on the Trading
    Estate, with a huge chimney stack between 70 – 90 metres high, which would totally dominate the area
    and destroy the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt.
4. This proposal breaches the Wychavon District Local Plan adopted in 2006 and the Green Belt restrictions
    imposed for this site, especially those in relation to the height and footprint of the proposed building and
    chimney stack.
5. The Wychavon District Local Plan 2006 and the Green Belt restrictions were put in place to regularise the
    position regarding planning applicants / developments on the Trading Estate made as representations and
    relied upon by the public and businesses in making decisions to acquire residential and commercial
    properties in the area who would suffer loss as a result of this proposal.
6. The proposed building and chimney stack and the excessive operations would constitute a public nuisance
    at common law and by statute.
7. The proposal would be in breach of the Restrictive Covenants contained in the Conveyance dated 10th
    September 1980 and made between (1) The Secretary of State for Defence and (2) Lansdown Estates
    (Hartlebury) Limited imposed to protect the surrounding area from nuisance damage or annoyance and are
    binding on Worcestershire County Council as the long leasehold owner of the site, the freehold owner of
    the Trading Estate and the other owners/occupiers for the time being of the Trading Estate.
8. Notwithstanding the proposed operation of the incinerator, the proposed building and chimney stack
    would themselves constitute a nuisance and/or an annoyance following the recent Court of Appeal
    decision in the case of Davies v Dennis and Others (2009) EWCA Civ 1081.
9. The selection process for this site in the reports submitted by the applicant is that there are other
    alternative sites which have been identified and are not in the Green Belt and certain other sites have been
    dismissed on the grounds of Restrictive Covenants which also applies to the Hartlebury site as stated above
    where the covenants are more onerous than on other such sites.
10. The plant, if built, would operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, every day of the year, inevitably
    creating noise and disturbance in what is predominately a peaceful, rural environment.
11. No planning conditions would in any way mitigate the sheer size and scale of this development nor reduce
    its impact on the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt.
12. The proposed incinerator would be sited at the northern extreme of both Counties of Worcestershire and
    Herefordshire, meaning waste would need to be transported considerable distances, contrary to the
    proximity principle which requires waste arisings to be dealt with locally.
13. This proposal breaches Herefordshire’s own Unitary Plan which states that Herefordshire waste should be
    treated within that County.
14. The substantial movement of large numbers of heavy goods vehicles transporting waste across the full
    length of both Counties will seriously damage the carbon footprint and the environment.
15. The proposed incinerator would generate large volumes of toxic ash which would still need to be disposed
    of in landfill sites with the nearby sites at Waresley/Hartlebury being unavailable or inappropriate for such
    disposal.

                                                    53                                       WAIL Ltd.
16. The plant would release toxic particulates which a DEFRA report in 2010 states have no safe health
    minimum levels. The emissions would adversely affect air quality which cannot be mitigated by the
    inclusion of an enormous chimney which should not be allowed in any event having regard to the existing
    planning restrictions.
17. There is strong evidence that this process is harmful to health. The applicant is unable to produce any
    conclusive evidence that this is not the case and any planning decision must err on the side of caution and
    not in any circumstances put the public at risk.
18. The proposed incinerator would suppress recycling rates by destroying valuable resources.
19. This scheme, if adopted, reduces the flexibility to bring forward any emerging technology for waste
    disposal for at least 25 years.
20. Compared to alternative technologies, e.g. anaerobic digestion, this incinerator would generate a huge
    carbon footprint at a time when Worcestershire County Council has agreed to adopt an ambitious carbon
    reduction plan.
21. Other areas in the UK and worldwide are working towards Zero Waste Strategy; this proposal is an
    impediment of necessary positive strategies in Worcestershire, Herefordshire and elsewhere.
22. This proposal would involve a very high cost to Council Tax payers to implement this scheme compared to
    already available alternatives.
23. This application should not, in any event, be considered prior to the adoption of the Joint Municipal Waste
    Management Strategy and Waste Core Strategy by Worcestershire County Council.
24. There are three landfill sites in the vicinity either completed, unavailable or inappropriate for this proposal.
    Hartlebury and its environs, where many waste related problems have already been experienced, have
    already taken more than their fair share of responsibility for waste disposal. This proposal could lead to
    further public unrest and a potential breach of the peace – enough is enough.
25. Serious and substantial reductions in property values are being experienced in the area both in relation to
    residential and commercial properties under the threat of this proposal.
26. Worcestershire County Council is acting in its capacity as Planning Authority and owner of the site and
    there is a clear conflict of interests. The exclusive Private Finance Initiative (PFI) Contract involves a huge
    cost involving capital repayments and processing charges which can be calculated together to exceed
    £500,000,000.00 to be financed out of Council Tax payers money at least over 25 years. The County
    Council has already spent £4,500,000.00 to purchase this site in 2007 and along with Herefordshire County
    Council has agreed to subsidise the applicant’s costs in the sum of £1,400,000.00 if the applicant has to be
    withdrawn. The County Council inevitably has a vested financial interest in this application – can it be fair
    and impartial?

    Having regard to all of the above, we are unable to envisage how the County Council, acting in its capacity
    as the Planning Authority or otherwise, can possibly consider granting planning permission for the
    application where the evidence as outlined in these our submissions is overwhelmingly and conclusively
    against this.

    However, if for some reason which we cannot see, the County Council is minded to grant this application,
    then, having regard to the Town & Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, this
    application should be called in by the Secretary of State for Local Government under Section 77 of the
    Town & Country Planning Act 1990.




                                                     54                                        WAIL Ltd.
              OBJECTION TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

 OF AN ENERGY FROM WASTE FACILITY (MASS BURN INCINERATOR)

                                        ON LAND AT

H600 HARTLEBURY TRADING ESTATE, HARTLEBURY, WORCESTERSHIRE




                      Planning Application No: 10/000032




         Registered Office: Station House, Station Road, Hartlebury, Worcestershire, DY10 4HA.
                 Registered in England No: 7171644. WAIL is a trading style of WAIL Ltd


                                            55                                             WAIL Ltd.

				
DOCUMENT INFO