East Northants Resource Management Facility Western Extension

Representations received regarding East Northants Resource Management Facility Western Extension

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on East Northants Resource Management Facility Western Extension and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mike Henchy
"The proposed development, situated in close proximity to a SSSI and other areas with extensive wildlife diversity, would seriously threaten the viability of local ecosystems and lead to loss of vital diversity of natural systems, including interrupting some local wildlife corridors."
Other Statutory Consultees
Northants Police and Northants Fire and Rescue
"Northants Police and Northants Fire and Rescue are interested in following this process and wish the implications of the proposal on emergency services to be a consideration by the Inspector. Neither Northants Police or Northants Fire and Rescue appear to have been consulted on this proposal prior to submission. Both are listed as prescribed consultees under s42 schedule 1. I note that NHS England and the CCG have been consulted as a s42 Consultee. The implications of such major developments, are not only at onsite operation stage, but during any construction phase on site and during the transportation of waste materials to the site. If it is intended that contractors will be accommodated on or close to the site, during the course of works, this has implications on fire risk and antisocial behaviour, due to the transient nature of contractors and their accommodation. We respectfully request the opportunity to submit further comments to the Inspector at the appropriate times, once the application documents have been read and considered. Wendy Rousell Infrastructure Planning Manager Northamptonshire Police and Northamptonshire Fire and Rescue"
Parish Councils
Barnack Parish Council
"Please keep us informed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Strutt & Parker on behalf of Cecil Estate Family Trust
"The principal submissions we intend to make in relation to the application are as follows: • The negative impact of the proposals on neighbouring land and local area (including the SSSI), for example the odour, noise and traffic impacts. • The possible negative impact of the proposals and drainage scheme on neighbouring land, in particular linked to the contamination incident caused by the existing site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Berrys on behalf of N W Fiennes
"We act for Mr Fiennes who owns the adjoining farmland The representation is that the designated authority in determining this application is satisfactory must ensure that there is no pathway onto our clients adjoining land either Under surface or over surface . The land adjoining this is due for quarrying and the restraint against the neighbouring boundaries and the barrier of protection by load or travel of pollutants under or over surface must take this in to account ."
Other Statutory Consultees
The Environment Agency
"1.0 Introduction 1.1 The Environment Agency is an executive non-departmental public body, established under the Environment Act 1995. It is an adviser to Government with principal aims to protect and improve the environment, and to promote sustainable development. It plays a central role in delivering the environmental priorities of central government through its functions and roles. It is also an adviser to local decision makers in its role as a statutory consultee in respect of particular types of development, as listed in Schedule 4 of the Development Management Procedure Order 2015. For the purposes of this Development Consent Order (DCO), we are a statutory interested party. 1.2 We take action to conserve and secure proper use of water resources, preserve and improve the quality of rivers, estuaries and coastal waters and groundwaters through pollution control powers and regulating discharge consents. We have a duty to implement the Water Framework Directive. 1.3 We have regulatory powers in respect of waste management and remediation of contaminated land designated as special sites. We also encourage remediation of land contamination through the planning process. 1.4 The Environment Agency is the principal flood risk management operating authority. It has the power (but not the legal obligation) to manage flood risk from designated main rivers and the sea. The Environment Agency is also responsible for increasing public awareness of flood risk, flood forecasting and warning and has a general supervisory duty for flood risk management. We also have a strategic overview role for all flood and coastal erosion risk management. 1.5 We have three main roles: • We are an environmental regulator – we take a risk-based approach and target our effort to maintain and improve environmental standards and to minimise unnecessary burdens on businesses. We issue a range of permits and consents. • We are an environmental operator – we are a national organisation that operates locally. We work with people and communities across England to protect and improve the environment in an integrated way. We provide a vital incident response capability. • We are an environmental adviser – we compile and assess the best available evidence and use this to report on the state of the environment. We use our own monitoring information and that of others to inform this activity. We provide technical information and advice to national and local governments to support their roles in policy and decision-making. 2.0 Scope of these representations 2.1 These relevant representations contain an overview of the project issues, which fall within our remit. They are given without prejudice to any future detailed representations that we may make throughout the examination process. We may also have further representations to make if supplementary information becomes available in relation to the project. 2.2 We have reviewed the DCO, Environmental Statement (ES) and supporting documents submitted as part of the above mentioned application, which we received on 14 October 2021. Our comments are presented below: 3.0 Environmental permit 3.1 Under The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 a permit is required for installations, medium combustion plant, specified generator, waste or mining waste operations, water discharge or groundwater activities, or work on or near a main river or sea defence. 3.2 The current operations at the ENRMF are subject to 3 environmental permits which will need to be varied under Schedule 5, Part 1, Paragraph 19 of The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. 3.3 We can confirm that applications have been submitted to the Environment Agency to vary the environmental permits in respect of the existing waste treatment and recovery facility, as well as the extension to the hazardous waste and low level radioactive waste (LLW) landfill site. 3.4 The environmental permit variation to operate a waste treatment and recovery facility (ref: EPR/YP3138XB/007) has been allocated to a permitting officer, and discussions between the operator and our National Permitting Service are taking place. 3.5 The environmental permit variation to extend the boundary of the landfill facility (ref: EPR/TP3430GW/V005) has been received by our National Permitting Service and is awaiting allocation to a permitting officer. 3.6 We note that the applicant will submit a variation of the environmental permit for the disposal of LLW quantities (radioactive waste comprising solid low level radioactive waste typically with a specific activity of up to 200Bq/g) during the DCO examination. 4.0 Protection of groundwater and land contamination 4.1 We have no objections to the proposal in relation to the protection of groundwater. 4.2 We have been in discussion with the operator’s consultants regarding this extension since 2018, which is clearly presented in the application documents. This has been with particular emphasis on adherence to requirements of our landfill location policy and protection of the swallow hole. 4.3 It should be noted that our landfill location policy, previously contained in our Groundwater Protection: principles and practice (GP3) document, was brought into question prior to the previous extension application. This was in connection to the minimum thickness of natural low permeability geological barrier that should be present above a principal aquifer before a landfill, such as this, could be considered acceptable. This resulted in a clarification, which is now contained in Section E of our document ‘The Environment Agency’s approach to groundwater protection’ (v. 1.2) dated February 2018, which is as follows: A barrier will not be considered 'substantial' for a landfill development if there is unpredictable variability in its layers, or if there are natural or artificial by-pass routes that could compromise its overall protective integrity. There should be a minimum of several metres of natural material in a substantial barrier, such that: • any variations in its thickness over a site are insignificant in terms of the performance of the barrier • any construction/excavation activity at the site poses no risk of breaching the integrity of the barrier • it is clear that the geological barrier is substantial from a basic assessment of the site, which may include confirmatory site investigation data but without the necessity of very detailed site investigation or detailed quantitative risk assessment. 4.4 This clarification along with a full detailed groundwater risk assessment allowed us to agree the current site design and the environmental permit. This requires that at least 2 metres of natural low permeability strata will be left in place below the base of the engineered landfill and above the limestone strata underlying the site. 4.5 The applicant’s consultants have assessed the potential impacts associated with the site geology, hydrogeology and hydrology in the proposed western extension area. This included a detailed site investigation with the drilling of numerous boreholes to establish the geology and hydrogeology of the extension area. As previously mentioned a swallow hole is present to the north west of the existing ENRMF landfill site and there is evidence of other solution features in the limestone geology (dolines). 4.6 The findings of this investigation work and proposed landfill design was discussed in a pre-permit application meeting with the Environment Agency and the applicant’s consultants on 17 July 2020. 4.7 A design consistent with the principles of the current site design and the environmental permit, at least 2 metres of natural low permeability strata will be left in place below the base of the engineered landfill and above the limestone strata underlying the site was agreed in principle. 4.8 A full detailed risk assessment demonstrating that there will be no significant impact on groundwater quality or flow beneath the site or at receptors nearby as a consequence of the extraction and construction of the proposed western extension should be included in the environmental permit application. 4.9 It was also agreed that the final design of the proposed landfill extension in the vicinity of the swallow hole and potential other limestone solution features will be developed in detail following the grant of the DCO and the environmental permit variation for the hazardous waste landfill. This will need further targeted site investigations to be carried out in this central area of the proposed western extension prior to finalising the design in this area. 5.0 Development Consent Order 5.1 The Environment Agency wishes to be a specific named consultee in respect of Schedule 2, Requirement 3 (4) (detailed design for the surface water management plan) and Requirement 4 (1)(Phasing, landscaping and restoration scheme), and requests that the words “following consultation with the Environment Agency” are inserted after “relevant planning authority”. This is to ensure that the proposed plan/scheme does not pose a risk to controlled waters. 5.2 Schedule 3 (Procedure for appovals under requirements) – we have concerns that the procedure outlined under part 4(2) will not allow sufficient time for us to comment on relevant consultations. For example, if the relevant planning authority does not send the consultation to us until day 5 following receipt of the application that will only leave 13 business day in which we need to respond. This falls short of the usual 15 business days (or 21 calendar days) for statutory consultation responses prescribed in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2015. The Environment Agency requests that appropriate amendments are made to part 4 to ensure 21 calendar days (or 15 business days) are available for consultation responses to be made. 6.0 Further representations 6.1 In summary, we can confirm that we have no objection to the proposed development. However, we reserve the right to add or amend these representations, including requests for DCO Requirements and protective provisions should further information be forthcoming during the course of the examination on issues within our remit."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Natural England
"see separate email"
Other Statutory Consultees
Addleshaw Goddard LLP on behalf of National Grid Gas Plc
"APPLICATION BY AUGEAN SOUTH LIMITED FOR AN ORDER GRANTING DEVELOPMENT CONSENT FOR THE EAST NORTHANTS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FACILITY WESTERN EXTENSION PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE: WS010005 SECTION 56 PLANNING ACT 2008: RELEVANT REPRESENTATION OF NATIONAL GRID GAS PLC This is the section 56 representation of National Grid Gas Plc (NGG) provided in respect of Augean South Limited's (Applicant) application for a Development Consent Order (Order) seeking powers for the alteration of existing facilities and the construction of new facilities for the recovery, treatment and disposal of hazardous and radioactive waste and at the East Northants Resource Management Facility (Project). NGG is a statutory undertaker and owns, operates and maintains the national gas transmission network in England, Wales and Scotland. The Book of Reference identifies two plots of land (referenced on the land plan as plots 8 and 9) in respect of which compulsory acquisition powers are sought (Compulsory Powers) for the construction and filling of a landfill. NGG have a high pressure gas transmission pipeline (Gas Asset) located within plot 9 and running parallel to the southern limit of plot 8. The Gas Asset is an essential part of the gas transmission network in England, Wales and Scotland. The Applicant also seeks to realign an overhead electricity cable in close proximity to the Gas Asset (Works No. 5). As a responsible statutory undertaker, NGG's primary concern is to meet its statutory obligations to operate, maintain and develop its gas transmission networks and any third party development must not adversely impact NGG's ability to adhere to these statutory obligations. As such, NGG has a duty to protect its position in relation to infrastructure and land which is within or in close proximity to the Order limits of the proposed Project. To safeguard NGG's interests and the safety and integrity of the gas transmission network, including the Gas Asset and any other apparatus owned and operated by NGG located within or adjoining the Order boundary not already identified, NGG make this relevant representation objecting to the Order. In order for NGG to be able to withdraw its objection, NGG requires: a) the inclusion of appropriate protective provisions in the Order, as well as such additional protections to provide all necessary safeguards for NGG's retained apparatus during and after construction of the Project; b) reassurance from the Applicant that NGG's rights to retain its apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus located within or in close proximity to the Order limits shall be maintained at all times and access to inspect and maintain such apparatus will not be restricted; c) reassurance that Works No. 5 will not interfere with the Gas Asset; d) agreement that the Compulsory Powers will not be exercised in respect of NGG's interests without NGG's express consent; and e) entry into any necessary crossing agreement(s) required in relation to equipment crossed by the cable routes. NGG reserves the right to make further representations as part of the examination process but in the meantime NGG shall seek to cooperatively progress negotiations with the Applicant on the suite of protections required to secure the removal of NGG's objection to the Project."
Other Statutory Consultees
UK Health Security Agency
"Thank you for your consultation regarding the above development. The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) (formerly Public Health England) welcome the opportunity to comment on your proposals at this stage of the project. Advice offered by UKHSA and OHID is impartial and independent. This response should be read in conjunction with our previous consultation responses: Request for Scoping Opinion 27th July 2020 Public Consultation: Section 42 Stage 14th December 2020 We acknowledge that the Environmental Statement (ES) included in this consultation has addressed our recommendations made in our Section 42 response, dated 14th December 2020. The ES outlines proposals for routine monitoring of ambient air quality at the site boundary for gases which have the potential to be emitted from the site activities including the landfill site and treatment plant. The routine monitoring includes methane, hydrogen sulphide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, suspended particles (PM10), asbestos fibres and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). We therefore have no further comments to make. Following our review of the submitted documentation we are satisfied that the proposed development should not result in any significant adverse impact on public health. On that basis, we have no additional comments to make at this stage and can confirm that we have chosen NOT to register an interest with the Planning Inspectorate on this occasion. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns."
Local Authorities
Rutland County Council
"Rutland County Council does not object to the proposed development but would wish to be informed of any changes / amendments to the scheme and the decision."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Glen
"I can’t see how expanding the site is going to a) improve the situation regarding mud on the roads, b) enhance the beauty of the area, c) nurture diversity of wildlife and d) enhance peace and tranquillity for the wellbeing of local residence and visitors."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Osborne Clarke on behalf of Western Power Distribution (East Midlands) Plc (Western Power Distribution (East Midlands) Plc)
"1. Project Reference: WS010005. Osborne Clarke LLP on behalf of Western Power Distribution (East Midlands) plc. 2. We act for Western Power Distribution (East Midlands) plc ("WPD") whose registered office is at Avonbank, Feeder Road, Bristol, BS2 0TB. WPD is the licensed distribution network operator under Section 6 Electricity Act 1989 (the "EA1989") for the area in which the Order is proposed to have effect. Section 9 of the EA1989 places a duty on WPD as the electricity distributor to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity distribution. 3. The application includes land in or upon which WPD has assets which consists of high voltage electricity cables. Schedule 1 of the draft DCO sets out the Authorised Development. This includes a diversion of WPD's overhead high voltage electricity cables as referenced at Work No. 5 of the draft DCO. In addition to this identified diversion, the Book of Reference (document reference 3.4) records that WPD has interests within plot numbers 9 and 10. WPD is reviewing these plots to establish the extent to which their apparatus and interests are affected. 4. Whilst WPD has had positive engagement with the Applicant in relation to diversion works connected with the project, WPD needs to ensure that the wider powers being sought in the Order will not have a detrimental impact on WPD's electricity network and its duties under the EA1989, including ensuring that the terms of the proposed protective provisions are acceptable. 5. WPD is therefore making this representation as a holding objection to the application until asset protection arrangements have been agreed between the parties. No formal agreement has yet been concluded and accordingly we are lodging this representation to protect WPD's position pending conclusion of an appropriate agreement. Once WPD is satisfied that its network is protected we will notify the Planning Inspectorate promptly and withdraw the objection."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Butterfly Conservation
"Butterfly Conservation and the Back from the Brink Project has been working closely with Bat Conservation Trust and Amphibian & Reptile Conservation Trust (ARC) on survey & habitat work across the project area which includes the key woodlands Fineshade & Collyweston Great Wood which border the proposed development site. Rockingham Forest area is of particular importance for the adder as it is one of the few areas where this formerly widespread species occurs in the East Midlands. Even within this area the species has contracted its range and is now confined to Fineshade Wood and some nearby road verges including those bordering Collyweston Great Wood. Aside from the uncultivated margins, the fields between Collyweston Great Wood and Fineshade Wood are unfavourable habitat for adders, offering little potential for movement between the woods, creating a partial barrier, dividing the adders into small, separate populations. Small, isolated populations are prone to decline and extinction. Over its lifetime, extension of the resource management facility over these fields could decrease whatever habitat connectivity there is already between the two woodlands, with harmful consequences for wildlife. Bat surveys carried out on the two hedgerows that currently link Collyweston Great Wood and Fineshade indicate significant bat activity along both of these hedgerows, including Section 41 species Barbastelle, Brown Long-eared, Soprano Pipistrelle & Noctule), highlighting their importance as commuting routes for bats. Our concern over development of the fields between the two woodland blocks, particularly the northern field, lies in the impact of the operation, particularly on bats and adder, if there is any loss of these hedgerows that are vital linkages and commuting routes between the two neighbouring woodlands, the effect of dust produced during operation on these woodland edges and wildlife that use them, and the effect of lighting on bats using the woodland edges and hedgerows for commuting/foraging. If the extension gains approval we would want to ensure that connectivity between the two woodland blocks (Fineshade & Collyweston Great Wood) is maintained during operation. Mitigation work after operation would provide an opportunity to improve connectivity between the two woodland blocks, with natural generation or carefully managed woodland restoration. We would want to ensure that mitigation work provides the best outcome for some of our most threatened species and include a mosaic of habitats along with specific measures to create conditions for reptile dispersal between the woodlands. Alongside woodland/hedgerows connecting the two blocks, we would like to see the inclusion of open areas such as rides or short grassland/scrubby areas that would benefit species such as Adder, Dingy Skipper, Grizzled Skipper & Chequered Skipper as well as provide foraging areas for bats."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Maples Teesdale LLP on behalf of Cecil Estate Family Trust
"The Trust owns land adjacent to the existing Resource Management Facility and adjacent to the proposed western extension. The Trust is also the owner of part of the swallow hole that forms part of the application site. Water discharging into the swallow hole runs across the land owned by the Trust. The Trust opposes the application on a number of grounds as follows: 1. The application is based upon the incorrect premise that the Applicant has the right to discharge a significant amount of the surface water from the facility as extended into the swallow hole and then under the Trust’s land. This is not the case. The Applicant does not have any express or prescriptive rights to do this and the proposed Development Consent Order seeks no powers to allow such discharges to happen. Notwithstanding this a significant portion of the surface water from the current waste site and the extension is proposed to run into the swallowhole and then under the Trust’s land. Accordingly, the application for the Development Consent Order is based upon a flawed premise, as are both the Environmental Statement and the proposed surface water management strategy which forms part of the Environmental Statement. 2. There is a lack of clarity about how the proposed surface water will be channelled from the site. There are several references to an west-east drainage channel, but the design of it is left to a later stage rather than forming part of the application, so it is not clear how water will discharge from the site. 3. The Trust has concerns regarding the fitness of the Applicant to manage the Resource Management Facility. Following an incident in Spring 2020 the surface water catchment system at the existing facility flooded and contaminated water flowed on to the Trust’s adjoining land causing chloride pollution that resulted in the destruction of vegetation. Since that incident the Applicant has not sought to clean up or remediate the pollution and instead they have simply proposed leaving the area to recover over time. The concern is heightened by the presence of a SSSI on the Trust’s land immediately to the east of the extension area, which could be susceptible to future pollution incidents. The Trust is also not clear from the contents of the application how contamination that might be present in the surface water will be monitored or dealt with prior to its discharge. 4. The Environmental Statement in support of the application suggests a high level of biodiversity net gain, however because of the nature of this development those gains will not be provided until each phase of the waste facility is completed and restored, which will be many years in the future. It is considered that more immediate biodiversity gains should be provided by the Applicant to compensate for the extended negative effects of the development whilst it is operational. 5. A section 106 agreement is proposed in support of the application that requires the payment of £5 per tonne of waste to a community fund that can applied towards a range of community projects. Whilst this appears to be in line with an existing section 106 agreement that relates to the current waste facility, the Supreme Court has since ruled that such contributions are not "proposed as a means of pursuing any proper planning purpose". In the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in R (on the application of Wright) (Respondent) v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd and Forest of Dean District Council the local planning authority is not entitled to treat such contributions as a 'material consideration' when granting planning permission. The same considerations must apply to a DCO. 6. Lastly, the Trust has concerns about the impact that additional traffic to and from the extended waste facility will have on the local area."
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Defence Infrastructure Organisation
"see attachment in the comments box"
Parish Councils
Gretton Parish Council
"At a Parish Council meeting held in November 2020, it was agreed that Gretton Parish Council do not have enough reasons to object to this application but have registered as an Interested Party to have the opportunity to participate in the next steps of the process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kings Cliffe Parish Council
"Further to our previous parish council meeting we can confirm that we strongly object to these plans. However, should you proceed with these we would strongly insist an alternative entrance is put into place to manage the additional vehicle movement, maintenance and cleanliness of the road given the recent near misses and road repairs recently carried out. Kind regards *REDACTED* Parish Clerk To Kings Cliffe Parish Council"