STOP THE INCINERATOR (STI) PLANNING OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED BEDDINGTON LANE INCINERATOR

Initial submission from Stop The Incinerator (STI) in response to Planning Application Number: D2012/66220 regarding a proposal for a Beddington Farmlands Waste Management Facility at Beddington Lane, Beddington CR0 4TD

CONTENTS: 1. Introduction 01 2. Summary 02 3. Impact on wildlife and the Wandle Valley Regional Park 03 4. Metropolitan Open Land / Greenfield status 11 5. Waste Local Plan 14 6. Lack of need 18 7. Impact on the Waste Hierarchy 22 8. Traffic impact 26 9. Impact on Health 30 10. Regulation 22 questions 36

9TH NOVEMBER 2012

STOP THE INCINERATOR

D2012/66220

1

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. This objection is made on behalf of Stop The Incinerator (STI), and is further to

the holding objections submitted by Paul Pickering on the 5th September 2012 and Shasha Khan on 14th September 2012.

1.2. The Stop The Incinerator group, based primarily in Croydon, was born in 2009 of alarm that local councils could consider building a waste incinerator in the middle of one the largest areas of population in the country. The founding members were already friends, having met on the terraces of a local non-league football club. Some of the initial group were members of the Green Party and other environmental groups and this small band set about informing a wider public of the plans afoot by the South London Waste Partnership (SLWP).

1.3. The group has remained apolitical, despite its obvious links to the Green Party, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, etc. The chairman, Paul Pickering, has never been a member of any political party and many of the current steering committee are concerned residents rather than party activists. The group has cross-party support including the Green Party, Labour and Conservative councillors from across the four SLWP boroughs.

1.4. There were in excess of 100 people on the anti-incinerator march in May 2012, including many who were marching for the first time in their lives and many children.

1.5. This submission was initially compiled by Only Solutions LLP on behalf of STI, and then completed and submitted by STI, and comprises contributions from the following STI members: Derek Coleman, Jim Duffy, Dave Pettener, Brendan Walsh, Jay Ginn, Chris Sciberras, Gordon Ross, Teresa Tipping, Shasha Khan, Joy Prince, Paul Pickering, Joe Hague, Anne Keeley, Bob Steel and Jonathan Essex.

2

2. SUMMARY 2.1. This objection is made on behalf of Stop The Incinerator (STI), and is further to

the holding objections submitted by Paul Pickering on the 5th September 2012 and Shasha Khan on 14th September 2012.

2.2. The proposal specified in application D2012/66220 runs contrary to local, regional and national planning policy, and other material planning considerations weigh against the proposal.

2.3. This representation primarily covers the following:

2.3.1. Impact on wildlife and the Wandle Valley Regional Park;

2.3.2. Metropolitan Open Land / Greenfield status;

2.3.3. Waste Local Plan;

2.3.4. Lack of need;

2.3.5. Impact on the waste hierarchy;

2.3.6. Traffic impact and;

2.3.7. Impact on Health;

2.4. There are also a number of respects in which the Environmental Statement is incomplete, and STI has framed a series of questions that should be posed to the applicant in conjunction with Regulation 22. These are contained within Section 10 of this submission.

2.5. STI notes that the applicant’s failure to provide an Environmental Statement that meets the requirements of the 2011 EIA Regulations is not a reason for refusing permission, but this failure would be a barrier to planning permission being lawfully granted.

2.6. STI also notes the following objections submitted by nature conservation groups: 2.6.1. The RSPB objection dated 21st September 2012; 2.6.2. The London Wildlife Trust objection dated 21st September 2012; and 2.6.3. The Beddington Farmlands Bird Group objection dated 18th September

2012.

3

3. IMPACT ON WILDLIFE AND THE WANDLE VALLEY REGIONAL PARK

3.1. The importance of wildlife is recognised in local, regional (i.e. London-wide), and national planning policy, and wildlife interests are protected under domestic and European law. As such, the protection of wildlife interests provides valid and compelling planning grounds for refusing this application.

3.2. STI notes that planning objections have been submitted by several organisations with expertise in wildlife and nature conservation, including The RSPB, London Wildlife Trust and The Beddington Farmlands Bird Group.

3.3. The purpose of this section of STI’s planning objection is not to repeat the evidence, concerns and material considerations set out in detail by other parties; instead, STI would like to stress that we share their concern for local wildlife, and believe that the threat to the wildlife interests provide sufficient grounds to render an approval of planning permission unconscionable, and potentially open to legal challenge.

3.4. Furthermore, as the site is clearly safeguarded for the Wandle Valley Regional Park, and as the proposed incinerator would conflict with this intended safeguarding, then the site is plainly inappropriate, and planning permission should be refused in order to protect the environmental and social objectives of the Wandle Valley Regional Park.

3.5. STI notes the exchanges that took place within the context of the scoping process, in particular the requirement to consider the fully restored site as the baseline, in line with good practice, e.g. as set out in Paragraph 142 of the Environmental Impact Assessment: A guide to good practice and procedures, published by the Department for Communities and Local Government in 2006.

3.6. STI would specifically like to highlight some of the policies that the application goes against on wildlife grounds contained within the following:

3.6.1. The London Plan – Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London, July 2011 [LP2011]

3.6.2. South London Waste Plan (adopted 5 March 2012) [SLWP]

3.6.3. London Borough of Sutton Core Planning Strategy (December 2009) [CS2009]

3.6.4. London Borough of Sutton DPD on Site Development Policies (March 2012)

3.6.5. Planning Policy Statement 10 [PPS10]

3.6.6. The National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF]

4

The London Plan – Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London, July 2011 [LP2011] 3.7. The proposed development site is a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature

Conservation (SMI), and a UK and London Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitat, in an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The site is also scheduled to become part of the Wandle Valley Regional Park.

3.8. Paragraph 84 of Circular 06/2005 states that: “The potential effects of a development, on habitats or species listed as priorities in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), and by Local Biodiversity Partnerships... are capable of being a material consideration in... the making of planning decisions.”

3.9. STI calls attention to LP2011 Policy 7.18 Biodiversity and access to nature (D), which states: “On Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation development proposals should...(b) give strong protection to sites of metropolitan importance for nature conservation (SMIs). These are sites jointly identified by the Mayor and boroughs as having strategic nature conservation importance...”

3.10. The proposed development goes against LP2011 Policy 7.18 (D)(b) in that the development would harm rather than protect the SMI.

3.11. STI also calls attention to LP2011 Policy 7.19 (E), which states: “When considering proposals that would affect directly, indirectly or cumulatively a site of recognised nature conservation interest, the following hierarchy will apply: 1 avoid adverse impact to the biodiversity interest; 2 minimize impact and seek mitigation; 3 only in exceptional cases where the benefits of the proposal clearly outweigh the biodiversity impacts, seek appropriate compensation”.

3.12. As the objections from the nature consultees make clear, the proposal would adversely affect a site of recognised nature conservation interest, would not avoid harm, would miss opportunities for mitigation, and would not provide adequate compensation.

3.13. Furthermore, the proposed development does not represent an exceptional case where the claimed benefits clearly outweigh the biodiversity impacts. Indeed, due to the inadequacy of the Environmental Statement, e.g. in relation to tree sparrows, one cannot even quantify the full extent of the biodiversity interests on the site, nor the harm that would be caused.

3.14. As such, the proposal clearly runs contrary to the hierarchy set out within LP2011 Policy 7.19 (E).

3.15. With respect to plans to include the proposed development site within the Wandle Valley Regional Park, STI calls attention to LP2011 Policy 2.18, which promotes the creation of the Wandle Valley Regional Park.

3.16. The proposal would harm the Wandle Valley Regional Park because the land is safeguarded for inclusion within the Park, and its value for this purpose would be undermined if the planning application were to be granted permission.

5

South London Waste Plan (adopted 5 March 2012) [SLWP] 3.17. Page 39 of the SLWP makes it clear that both the Viridor Recycling and

Composting Centre (also known as CIC), Beddington Lane, Beddington and the other waste facilities on Beddington Lane, Beddington are located on land that will “be incorporated into the Wandle Valley Regional Park” after the temporary planning permissions expire in 2023.

3.18. As such, the proposed incinerator development goes against the clear intention as set out in SLWP Schedule 1 of WP3.

3.19. STI calls attention to the explicit reference to the expiration date of 2023 as part of the site description for Site 18 - Viridor Recycling and Composting Centre, Sutton, which states: “The current waste operator [Viridor] has a licence for the site until 2023, after which the site is intended to become a Country Park within the proposed Wandle Valley Regional Park”.

3.20. The same entry, under the subheading “Planning designations should be respected”, goes on to state: “Schedule 1 indicates waste management use is a temporary use and will not be continued beyond 2023 when the site will become part of the Wandle Valley Regional Park. Also, see Schedule 4, Point 36 regarding restoration and after care”.

3.21. Furthermore, as the entry makes clear, biodiversity policies were strengthened to protect Site 18: “Biodiversity should be protected - Policy WP7 strengthened, see point (b) particularly”, and that “A large number of protected species have been sited (sic). Sightings are recorded as 'Beddington Sewage Farm' which is adjacent to the existing waste facilities. Species recorded in the vicinity of the site include: Annual Knawel, Arctic Tern, Bar-tailed Godwit, Blue-Headed Wagtail, Common Bullfinch, Common Kingfisher, Daubenton's Bat, Eurasian Curlew, Eurasian Tree Sparrow, Common Goldeneye, Green Sandpiper, Eurasian Marsh Harrier, Lesser Spotted Woodpecker, Stag Beetle, House Sparrow, Hedge Accentor, Lesser Redpoll, Northern Pintail, Sand Martin, Reed Bunting, Red Kite. Northern Lapwing, Greylag Goose, Peregrine Falcon, Black-tailed Godwit, Bartailed Godwit, Tree Pipit, Tundra Swan, Yellow Wagtail, [and] Spotted Flycatcher”.

3.22. SLWP Policy WP7: Protecting and Enhancing Amenity states that “Particular regard will be paid to the impact of the development in terms of: (a) The Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land, recreation land or similar; (b) Biodiversity, including ensuring that development does not harm nature conservation areas protected by international and national regulations as well as ensuring regional and local nature conservation areas are not adversely affected...”

3.23. The proposal clearly goes against SLWP Policy WP7, as the applicant has failed to demonstrate that “any impacts of the development can be controlled to achieve levels that will not significantly adversely affect people and the environment”.

6

London Borough of Sutton Core Planning Strategy (December 2009) [CS2009] 3.24. As the London Wildlife Trust submission of 21st September 2012 makes clear,

the weight to be given to the policies safeguarding the site for the Park is not diminished by the existing temporary permissions and time-limited safeguarding for waste use, and the plan-led system would be undermined by granting planning permission for the proposed development.

3.25. CS2009 Core Policy PMP5 – Wandle Valley states that: “The Council will promote sustainable regeneration within the Wandle Valley Corridor in partnership with the neighbouring boroughs of Wandsworth, Merton and Croydon and with public agencies, external investors, local business and community groups by implementing proposals for [inter alia]…creating the Wandle Valley Regional Park (as shown on the Proposals Map), including improved provision for recreation and leisure along the River Wandle and within adjoining parks and open spaces”.

3.26. The proposed site clearly falls within the CS2009 Proposals Map as land intended for inclusion within the Wandle Valley Regional Park. A grant of planning permission would thus go against CS2009 PMP5.

3.27. The application would offend against CS2009 Core Policy PMP9 – The Open Spaces Network which instructs that: “The Council will seek to safeguard and enhance the Borough’s open space network, including: land within…MOL; parks and other open spaces comprising the Wandle Valley Regional Park...The Council will seek to safeguard and enhance the Metropolitan Green Chains within the Borough (as shown on the Proposals Map) and will improve public access to and through them...The Council will protect and seek to enhance the Borough’s biodiversity through supporting measures, which meet the objectives of the London and Local Biodiversity Action Plans and will seek to improve access to nature”.

3.28. In the text accompanying Core Policy BP8, CS2009 Paragraph 6.142 states that: “When considering planning applications for new waste management facilities the Council will have regard to the site selection criteria to be set out in the Site Development Policies DPD and the additional locational criteria set out in PPS10 and its Companion Guide”. This weighs against the proposal as demonstrated in the analyses of nonconformity with PPS10 and the DPD below.

7

London Borough of Sutton DPD on Site Development Policies (March 2012)

3.29. For the reasons outlined within this objection and within the objections of nature conservation consultees, planning permission should be refused in line with the London Borough of Sutton Site Development Policies DPD Policy DM17 – Biodiversity, Habitats and Species, adopted March 2012, which states that: “(a) The Council will not grant planning permission for development within or adjacent to SINCs (as shown on the Proposals Map) where there would be a significant damaging impact on the nature conservation value or integrity of the site unless the need for, and benefits of, the development clearly outweigh the harm; where the Council is satisfied that there are no reasonable alternative sites that would result in less harm; and, where adequate mitigation and compensation measures can be put in place”.

Planning Policy Statement 10 [PPS10] 3.30. STI draws attention to PPS10 Paragraph 29, which states: “In considering

planning applications for waste management facilities waste planning authorities should consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity (see Annex E)”.

3.31. In relation to the requirement to protect nature conservation interests and to safeguarding the Wandle Valley Regional Park, STI calls attention especially to the stated need to consider both “nature conservation” and “potential land use conflict” when considering the suitability of sites proposed for waste management uses.

3.32. The Locational Criteria set out within PPS10 Annex E reflect Government policy aims and are material planning considerations. The proposed development does not accord with the criteria, and this should weigh heavily against this proposal.

3.33. Indeed, conflict with Annex E was a factor in the Secretary of State’s refusal of plans for an incinerator and other waste infrastructure in Cheshire on the 20th of July 2012 (PINS ref. 2129865 and 2142388). Paragraph 35 of the Decision Letter states that: "The Secretary of State also considers that the proposal would conflict with the policy aims of Annex E of PPS10 in terms of visual intrusion, nature conservation, traffic and access, and air emissions (as they apply to traffic)..."

8

The National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] 3.34. The National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] emphasises the requirement

that planning permission be granted only for development that is sustainable in nature. As is explained elsewhere in this objection the development is unsustainable, due in part to the negative impact on nature conservation interests and delaying or preventing the inclusion of the site in the Wandle Valley Regional Park.

3.35. A facility can be deemed to be unsustainable irrespective of the merits of the technology used or the need for a facility simply on the grounds that it is in the wrong location. As explained elsewhere in this objection, the proposal is in the wrong place in part because of its impact on nature conservation and incompatibility with the Wandle Valley Regional Park vision.

3.36. As such, STI notes the determination of the Planning Inspector when refusing planning permission for an incinerator as part of the “Green Lane Eco Park” in Salford (PINS ref. 2162103): “The Framework refers to PPS10, which states that planning has an important role in delivering sustainable waste management by providing sufficient opportunities for new waste management facilities of the right type, in the right place and at the right time. For the reasons set out above, I do not consider that the appeal site is the right place for the proposed facilities. I note that the Framework provides that development should be permitted if its impacts are, or can be made, acceptable. However, in this case the proposals would not respond to the local character, and the impact of the proposed facilities could not be made acceptable. Having regard to the core principles of the Framework, I find that the proposed development...would not represent sustainable development to which the presumption in favour set out in the Framework would apply”.

3.37. Of course, the NPPF presumption would not apply in any case in relation to the Beddington Lane application because it falls within Metropolitan Open Land. This matter is covered in more detail elsewhere in this objection.

3.38. NPPF Paragraph 8 states that: “...The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions”; and, to quote Greg Clark (Minister of State, Communities and Local Government): "No development can take place that is unsustainable. That is the commitment that we give on that point" [HC Deb, 27 March 2012, c1344].

3.39. As is expressed in the Ministerial Foreword of the NPPF: “Sustainable means ensuring that better lives for ourselves don’t mean worse lives for future generations”. The Forward goes on to explain how Government planning policy recognises that: “Our natural environment is essential to our wellbeing, and it can be better looked after than it has been. Habitats that have been degraded can be restored. Species that have been isolated can be reconnected. Green

9

Belt land that has been depleted of diversity can be refilled by nature – and opened to people to experience it, to the benefit of body and soul”.

3.40. Paragraph 9 of the NPPF states clearly that: “Pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people’s quality of life, including (but not limited to)...moving from a net loss of bio-diversity to achieving net gains for nature”.

3.41. In the footnote to NPPF Paragraph 9 explicit reference is made to the Natural Environment White Paper, The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature, published in June 2011.

3.42. The application currently being considered goes against the spirit of the sustainability requirement of the NPPF and the need to achieve net gains for nature as outlined in the Natural Environment White Paper, and as such should be refused permission.

3.43. Turning now to the core principles and detailed policies enshrined in the NPPF, STI notes that a core planning principle is that “...planning should...take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character...[and] contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment...so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations...” [NPPF, Paragraph 17].

3.44. As the site is safeguarded for the Wandle Valley Regional Park (CS2009 Core Policy PMP9), the planning decision should take account of Paragraphs 85 and 176 of the NPPF.

3.45. NPPF Paragraph 85 reads: “...Planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land should only be granted following a Local Plan review which proposes the development”.

3.46. As stated elsewhere in this objection, the full extent of harm cannot be determined and thus it would be impossible to determine that any level of compensation was adequate, let alone that adequate safeguards could be secured through planning conditions or obligations. This falls foul of NPPF Paragraph 176, which reads: “Where safeguards are necessary to make a particular development acceptable in planning terms (such as environmental mitigation or compensation), the development should not be approved if the measures required cannot be secured through appropriate conditions or agreements.”

3.47. With regard to the NPPF’s expression of Government policy on conserving and enhancing the natural environment, STI draws attention to Paragraphs 109 and 118: “The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by...minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to

10

halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent eco-logical networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures...When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles: ...planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats...unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss...”.

3.48. The proposed development does not represent an exceptional case where the benefits clearly outweigh the loss of habitat. The loss of the wetlands habitat should weigh heavily against the incinerator proposal, and indeed the level of detail provided within the Environmental Statement would make it impossible to either quantify the full extent of the harm caused or verify some of the claimed benefits.

3.49. Without knowing the full extent of the harm that would be caused by the proposed development, it is impossible to either: (a) accept any claim that benefits would outweigh the harm, or (b) accept any suggestions that any proposed mitigations or compensations would be adequate. In circumstances, such as this one, where planning proposals cannot be made acceptable through mitigation, compensation or planning conditions and obligations, planning permission must be refused, and cannot lawfully be granted.

3.50. Indeed, the NPPF has much to say about the requirement to make planning decisions that derive from an adequate evidence base. Paragraph 165 of the NPPF, for example, makes explicit that: “Planning policies and decisions should be based on up-to-date information about the natural environment...this should include an assessment of existing and potential components of ecological networks”.

3.51. The inadequacy of the Environmental Statement is highlighted elsewhere in this planning objection, and has been raised and evidenced by various nature conservation consultees.

3.52. Furthermore, as the site falls within a declared Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), we note NPPF Paragraph 124: “Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan”.

11

4. METROPOLITAN OPEN LAND / GREENFIELD STATUS 4.1. The proposed development is on a Greenfield site within and adjacent to

Metropolitan Open Land (MOL). MOL is equivalent to, and benefits from the same protections as, Green Belt land.

4.2. The importance of protecting and preserving MOL / Green Belt and avoiding inappropriate development in the MOL / Green Belt is thus recognised in local, regional, and national planning policy, as is the promotion of developing brownfield sites ahead of Greenfield sites.

4.3. As such, the protections for Metropolitan Open Land and Greenfield sites provide valid and compelling planning grounds for refusing this application.

4.4. STI notes that a core planning principle is that “...planning should...take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them...[and] contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment...so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations...” [NPPF, Paragraph 17].

4.5. It is clear that the NPPF does not provide for a general presumption in favour of development within the Green Belt. Indeed, the NPPF includes a general presumption against development in the Green Belt.

4.6. Paragraph 87 of the NPPF states: “As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances”.

4.7. The proposed development falls within the definition of ‘inappropriate development’ at Paragraph 89 of the NPPF, and does not meet any of the permissible exception criteria.

4.8. The applicant, e.g. at Paragraph 5.246 of their Planning Supporting Statement, accepts that the development is an inappropriate use for MOL and that the proposal would harm the MOL, and that this is a material planning consideration in relation to both MOL and Green Belt policies: "The site remains in MOL...and the development is technically inappropriate, which means there is technically harm to MOL, in the terms of Green Belt policy expressed in the NPPF, as assumed also to apply to MOL".

4.9. As is clear from NPPF Paragraph 14 and the accompanying footnotes 9 and 10, even where plans are “absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date” it is not advised to grant planning permission if, as is the case here, “material considerations indicate otherwise” or, as is also the case here, where “specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”.

12

4.10. Footnote 9 of NPPF Paragraph 14 explicitly cites policies relating to “land designated as Green Belt” as an example of a specific NPPF policy indicating that development should be restricted.

4.11. It should be further noted that NPPF Paragraph 88 goes well beyond consideration of whether development would harm the Green Belt. The Paragraph reads: “‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations”. [emphasis ours]

4.12. In relation to demonstrating whether or not ‘very special circumstances’ exist, we draw attention to Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Pehrsson [1991] 61. P&CR 266. This legal precedent established that the burden of proof rests with the applicant, and thus the onus is on Viridor to show that the advantages of their proposed development would clearly outweigh all of the associated harm.

4.13. If the benefits do not clearly outweigh the harm then very special circumstances will not exist. However, as per Chelmsford BC v First Secretary of State and Draper [2003] EWHC 2978, simply overcoming that barrier is not sufficient to demonstrate that ‘very special circumstances’ exist. It is not for the waste planning authority to show the absence of very special circumstances, but for the applicant to prove them.

4.14. Viridor has failed to demonstrate that such ‘very special circumstances’ exist in relation to their proposal, and the Planning Officer and the Planning Committee must assume that very special circumstances therefore do not exist, and accordingly planning permission must be refused.

4.15. Viridor fail to demonstrate the validity of their claimed benefits which, as this objection demonstrates, are overstated, with many claimed advantages actually being disadvantages. Similarly, by not producing an appropriate Environmental Statement the applicant has failed to demonstrate the extent of the environmental harm that would arise if the proposal were to go ahead.

4.16. Even if Viridor was to be given the benefit of the doubt in both instances, the benefits would not clearly outweigh the harm. Taking into account the uncertainties and inaccuracies in relation to these matters it must be said that very special circumstances do not exist in relation to the proposed development.

4.17. As such, this inappropriate development must be refused planning permission in line with established Green Belt and MOL policy. Such a refusal would promote the objectives of Green Belt and MOL policies, as well as preventing those objectives from being undermined.

4.18. In terms of assessing the proposal against the reasons for inclusion within the MOL, and responding to claims made by Viridor in their application and associated documents in this regard, we refer to the 21st September 2012 submission by the London Wildlife Trust.

13

4.19. The restoration plans associated with the proposed development site render the site a Greenfield site for planning purposes. The Greenfield status of the site is not disputed.

4.20. In this regard we draw attention to PPS10, Paragraph 21, which states: “In deciding which sites and areas to identify for waste management facilities, waste planning authorities should...(ii) give priority to the re-use of previously-developed land, and redundant agricultural and forestry buildings and their curtilages”.

4.21. LP2011 Policy 7.17 – Metropolitan Open Land states: “The Mayor strongly supports the current extent of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), its extension in appropriate circumstances and its protection from development having an adverse impact on the openness of MOL”.

4.22. LP2011 Policy 7.17 goes on to direct that: “The strongest protection should be given to London’s Metropolitan Open Land and inappropriate development refused, except in very special circumstances, giving the same level of protection as in the Green Belt. Essential ancillary facilities for appropriate uses will only be acceptable where they maintain the openness of MOL”.

4.23. The accompanying text at LP2011 Paragraph 7.56 states that: “...MOL has an important role to play as part of London’s multifunctional green infrastructure and the Mayor is keen to see improvements in its overall quality and accessibility. Such improvements are likely to help human health, biodiversity and quality of MOL...”

4.24. The site is also protected open space, and as such the proposal would run contrary to LP2011 Policy 7.18, which states that: “...The loss of local protected open spaces must be resisted unless equivalent or better quality provision is made within the local catchment area. Replacement of one type of open space with another is unacceptable unless an up to date needs assessment shows that this would be appropriate...”

4.25. The text accompanying London Borough of Sutton Site Development Policies DPD Policy DM15 highlights the fact that: “The Council’s ‘Open Space and Biodiversity’ Report of Studies (2008) reviewed the boundaries of the Green Belt and concluded that they were both logical and defensible and that there were no strategic development needs that would require boundary amendments”.

4.26. CS2009 Core Policy PMP9 – The Open Spaces Network has been cited in relation to environmental protection and protecting the Wandle Valley Regional Park. This policy is also relevant to protection of MOL as it states that: “The Council will seek to safeguard and enhance the Borough’s open space network, including: land within the Metropolitan Green Belt; Metropolitan Open Land...” As such, there are numerous reasons why the proposal should be refused in line with PMP9.

14

5. WASTE LOCAL PLAN Impact on wildlife and the Wandle Valley Regional Park

5.1 SLWP Policy WP6: Sustainable Construction of Waste Facilities states that “Waste facilities will be required to: ... (f) protect, manage and enhance local habitats and biodiversity.” STI assert that mitigation and/or compensation does not equate to protection, and indeed harm is not protection.

5.2 SLWP Policy WP8: Sustainable Energy Recovery states that “Proposed energy recovery developments, including thermal treatments, will be required to: ...(d) minimise potential adverse impacts on human health, local amenity and environment in accordance with Policies WP6 and WP7.” We maintain that because of failings in the Environmental Statement the applicant has not demonstrated that they have minimised harm to the environment, i.e. habitat, according to the Nature Consultees.

5.3 Paragraph 5.134 of the SLWP: Sustainability Appraisal Report [March 2012] states that: “The wider area, which is identified as a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation, is safeguarded for the creation of the proposed Wandle Valley Regional Park following completion of the landfill and site restoration in around 2023.” This outcome will not be realised if the planning application is allowed.

Metropolitan Open Land / Greenfield status 5.4 SLWP Policy WP7: Protecting and Enhancing Amenity states that

“Developments for waste facilities will be required to demonstrate that any impacts of the development can be controlled to achieve levels that will not significantly adversely affect people and the environment... Particular regard will be paid to the impact of the development in terms of: (a) The Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land, recreation land or similar...”. STI asserts that the proposal represents inappropriate development in MOL, and should therefore be refused planning permission as the proposal goes against SLWP Policy WP7.

5.5 SLWP Policy WP8: Sustainable Energy Recovery states that “Proposed

energy recovery developments, including thermal treatments, will be required to: ...(d) minimise potential adverse impacts on human health, local amenity and environment in accordance with Policies WP6 and WP7.” STI asserts that as the applicant has not demonstrated that they have gone for the best viable site/technology, insofar as there is no alternative site that would have a lower visual footprint or that is in a location outside MOL/Green Belt, the impact on the MOL has not been shown to have been minimised and hence the proposal offends SLWP Policy WP8 as it relates to SLWP Policy WP7.

15

5.6 SLWP Indicators, Page 58: “WP7(a) – Number of facilities with no or a

positive impact on Green Belt or MOL”; associated Sustainability Appraisal Indicator (SLWP 1.13 Appendix 3): “7.1 to safeguard permanence and integrity of Green Belt and MOL”; Target: “100% of waste management developments to have no or a positive impact on Green Belt / MOL”. If approved, the proposed development would hinder the achievement of this target.

Lack of need / Impact on the waste hierarchy 5.7 SLWP Para 3.23 - Waste minimisation will remain a key priority throughout

the plan period for all partner boroughs. It features strongly in the boroughs' Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS) which describes how they will manage waste more sustainably. This strategy was published in 2011 and contains the following targets to minimise waste:

JMWMS Target 3: "Zero growth in the amount of waste produced by each household per year."

JMWMS Target 4: "Zero overall waste growth from 2019/20 (i.e. even when new houses are built there is not an increase in total waste produced)."

JMWMS Target 5: "To reduce the amount of waste not re-used, recycled or composted by residents of the South London Authorities to 225 kg per capita by 2020."

5.8 SLWP Policy WP8: Sustainable Energy Recovery: “Proposed energy recovery developments, including thermal treatments, will be required to: (a) demonstrate that the waste identified for treatment cannot practicably be reused or recycled in accordance with Policy WP1”.

5.9 SLWP Para 4.79: “Although energy recovery facilities are likely to play an important role in the future management of waste arisings across the plan area and as a source of renewable heat and power, it is important to note that recovery is lower in the waste hierarchy than other waste management options. In line with Policy WP1 such proposals will be required to demonstrate that the waste cannot practicably and reasonably be re-used or recycled. This will ensure that the thermal treatment plant does not 'crowd out' the potential for recycling, composting or re-use”. As there is no proactive plan for pre-sorting of the waste sent to the proposed incinerator we maintain that these explicit aims will not be met by the application.

16

Site selection 5.10 SLWP Fourth Objective (page 27): “Minimise adverse impacts on

people and the local environment, taking climate change into account, by having waste facilities in suitable locations...”. STI maintain that the proposed location is not suitable on these grounds.

5.11 SLWP, Footnote on page 39: “These sites are subject to temporary planning permissions or resolutions to grant temporary planning permissions. All are due to expire in 2023. After this, the land will be incorporated into the Wandle Valley Regional Park.” We note the SLWP’s use of the term “will be” rather than “may be”. We have already made comment regarding the impact on the Wandle Valley Regional Park above.

5.12 SLWP Para 4.48: “PPS10 (Annex E) and 2011 London Plan Policy also set out locational criteria for waste management facilities...” which should be taken into account.

5.13 SLWP Para 4.58: “Planning Policy Statement 10 "Planning for Sustainable

Waste Management" (Annex E) and 2011 London Plan Policy 5.17 identify a wide range of factors which need consideration when locating waste facilities...” (emphasis ours).

5.14 SLWP Para 4.61: “Therefore, in accordance with PPS10, 2011 London Plan

Policy 5.17 and this plan's objectives:” “WP5: Windfall Sites and Non MSW and C&I Waste Location Criteria Proposals for waste facilities on windfall sites will be considered and planning permission granted, provided the proposed development meets all of the following criteria: (a) It can be demonstrated that the proposed facility is not deliverable on one of the sites safeguarded in Policy WP3 or in one of the areas identified in Policy WP4; (b) In the case of waste management facilities, it can be demonstrated that there is a need for the development either in accordance with Policy WP1 for Municipal Solid Waste and Commercial and Industrial Waste or on a case-by-case basis for those wastes identified in Policy WP2; (c) The other policies of the relevant borough's Development Plan are met; and, (d) The following locational criteria are met:

(i) The site is not within or will not have an adverse effect on nature conservation areas protected by international or national regulations; (ii) The site does not contain features or have an adverse effect on features identified as being of international or national historic importance; and, (iii) The site has no adverse effect on on-site or off-site flood risk, meets the Sequential Test for flood risk as set out in Planning Policy Statement 25

17

"Development and Flood Risk" and, where appropriate, the criteria for the PPS25 Exception Test. Proposals involving hazardous waste will not be permitted with Flood Zones 3a or 3b. Particular regard will be given to sites which:

are designated by the Waste Plan area's local authorities as suitable for industrial development in the planning policy documents or within extensive areas of despoiled, contaminated, previously developed or derelict land or areas with a history of a waste-related use other than restored landfill or to be restored landfill; do not result in visually detrimental development conspicuous from strategic open land (eg Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land); are located more than 100 metres from open space; are located outside Groundwater Source Protection Zones (ie sites farthest from protected groundwater sources); have access to sustainable modes of transport for incoming and outgoing materials, particularly rail and water, and which provide easy access for staff to cycle or walk; have direct access to the strategic road network; have no Public Rights of Way crossing the site; do not adversely affect regional and local nature conservation areas, conservation areas and locally designated areas of special character, archaeological sites and strategic views; offer opportunities to accommodate various related facilities on a single site. Appropriate mitigation measures will also be considered in assessing site suitability.

We maintain that passing the application as submitted will cause direct conflict with the above stated policies.

18

6. LACK OF NEED 6.1 Further evidence that the proposed Beddington incineration facility is not needed is provided by the following:

On the 20th of October 2010 the Government withdrew PFI funding for the North London Waste Authority project because, in the words of Treasury’s 2010 Spending Review: “DEFRA will cease funding for seven waste PFI projects which, on reasonable assumptions, will no longer be needed to meet landfill diversion targets set by the European Union...” [Source http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sr2010_completereport.pdf].

6.2 There is now greater evidence than was available in 2010 to demonstrate over-capacity at local, national and European levels.

2011/12 waste infrastructure data for London indicates a current operational residual waste treatment capacity in London as a whole of around 2.3 million tonnes per annum, made up of three existing incineration facilities and three MBT facilities. As for existing incineration facilities just within London: “Edmonton Solid Waste Incinerator”, Advent Way, Edmonton (675,000 tpa); “SELCHP”, The Kennels Site, Landmann Way, Lewisham (488,000 tpa); and Norman Road, Belvedere (670,000). Existing MBT facilities within the boundaries of London include: Jenkins Lane (180,000 tpa); Frog Island (180,000 tpa); and Southwark (87,500 - 113,000 tpa). Additionally, planning consent has been granted for approximately half a million tonnes of additional incineration capacity (150,000 tpa at Brent Cross, Cricklewood, Barnet; 100,000 tpa at Dagenham; 120,000 tpa at Thames Gateway Energy Facility, and around a further 100,000 tpa at the Chequers Lane and Gibbs Road facilities).

There is a further 2 million tonnes, to make more approximately 5 million tonnes of capacity, by including proposed facilities such as the 100,000 tpa facility at Burts Wharf, Crabtree Manorway North; the 300,000 tpa facility proposed for the Tate & Lyle sugar refinery site, Factory Road, Silvertown; the 320,000 tpa facility proposed for Pinkham Way; another 130,000 tpa for the facility proposed for Dagenham; a further 200,000 tpa for the facility proposed for either Brent, Ealing, Hillingdon and/or Hounslow; nearly another 100,000 tpa for a facility proposed for Park Royal, and 500,00 tpa for the British Airways facility proposed for East London. Further capacity would be realised if we also include the 320,000 tpa subject to a planning application to handle North London’s waste at the Fieldes Lock Power Station, Ratty’s Lane, Hoddesdon.

This 5 million tonne figure could be greatly increased if facilities near London were also taken into account, e.g. 500,000 tpa for the existing incinerator at Allington, Maidstone, Kent; and 102,000 tpa at the Basingstoke Incinerator, Whitmarsh Lane, Reading Road, Chineham to name but two.

19

This picture of over-capacity is repeated for the UK as a whole. Eunomia has modelled the quantity of residual waste generated against existing and forthcoming treatment infrastructure to determine where capacity gaps exist across Great Britain. Eunomia’s Residual Waste Infrastructure Review shows that, in most regions, there may be an over-supply of treatment infrastructure by 2015/16. The capacity gap between residual waste arisings and available treatment capacity is expected to fall over time, decreasing from 19 million tonnes in 2011/12, and moving to a situation of overcapacity in Great Britain of between 1.2 and 6.6 million tonnes in 2015/16.

6.3 According to LetsRecycle “Britain is at risk of heavily over-investing in residual waste treatment infrastructure, according to a new study by Eunomia Research and Consulting” [source: http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/waste-management/britain-2018risks-over-investing2019-in-waste-infrastructure].

The article quotes Eunomia Director, Dr Dominic Hogg, as saying: “The waste treatment industry continues to tell us that the planning system is preventing us from achieving high-levels of landfill diversion. The facts however tell a different story. If all consented facilities are built, then we’ll have far more residual waste treatment capacity than we need. In fact we risk ending up in the same position as is now being faced in Germany, where treatment costs are falling and so undermining the economics of recycling”.

6.4 At a European scale the over-capacity problem is even more extreme, resulting in the closure of some high-profile incinerators, such as the one that used to operate in Rotterdam, and a dramatic fall in gate fee changes for incineration in European countries facing over-capacity such as Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands, resulting in a surge of exports from the UK. According to UK Government figures, more than 2 million tonnes of RDF / SRF was permitted for export from the UK in the year ended 31st March 2012, with even more export licenses granted in this financial year.

6.5 Incinerators in many European countries are relying on waste from the UK to remain operational. In May 2012 it was reported that “The Environment Agency has issued its largest ever permit to date for the export of refuse-derived fuel to Europe. SITA UK has been granted permission to export up to 600,000 tonnes of refuse-derived fuel (RDF) to the Netherlands over the next three years...The waste will help power the combined heat and power facility in Amsterdam run by the City of Amsterdam Waste and Energy Company, Afval Energie Bedrijf” [source: http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/energy/agency-issues-largest-ever-permit-to-export-rdf-1].

6.6 Because the process of converting residual waste into RDF (e.g. via Mechanical and Biological Treatment) reduces its weight by on average 25% (and in some cases up to 50% depending on the moisture content and moisture loss) then the tonnage of

20

RDF reported as being exported represents only around 75% of the tonnage of waste required to feed these Continental facilities. To quote Environment Agency Guidance: “...the default adjustment factor for MBT within the WDF [WasteDataFlow] mass balance calculation will be 1.33 [100/75] to take account of moisture loss from an MBT or similar process.” [source: http://www.wastedataflow.org/documents/MBT/EA_MBT_Guidance_270910v2FINAL.pdf].

6.7 Regarding prospects for topping up any shortfall in Local Authority Collected Waste with Commercial and Industrial (C&I) waste, we note that the Environment Agency's March 2010 C&I waste survey that showed: "...that up to 97.5% of the C&I waste landfilled...could be recycled if the correct facilities and services were available". As UK law now requires that C&I waste is managed in accordance with the waste hierarchy, there is no justification to expect quantities of C&I waste to be available to meet the inevitable shortfall in incinerator feedstock.

6.8 In 2002 Veolia promised the city of Sheffield that a capacity of 225,000 tonnes was essential to manage household waste arising in Sheffield. Sheffield residents never produced that quantity of waste for incineration, and so Veolia attempted to top up with C&I waste. They failed to find sufficient C&I waste from Sheffield, or from further afield, i.e. within a radius of more than 15 miles from Sheffield, and so Veolia was forced to return to Sheffield's Planning Committee with an application to vary their planning condition so that Veolia could accept household waste from Rotherham, Barnsley, Doncaster and parts of North Nottinghamshire and North East Derbyshire.

Veolia’s 225,000 tonne per annum Sheffield incinerator opened in 2006. In 2008 an application was made to amend a condition limiting it to taking 10% of its input from outside the city. That application was withdrawn and resubmitted, in an amended form, in 2010 with more details. In a letter dated 13th May 2008 Jonathan Standen, on behalf of Veolia, explained to Sheffield City Council’s planning officer that:

There was a shortfall in Sheffield’s anticipated incinerator feedstock due to higher than anticipated levels of recycling;

There had been an unexpected change in the composition of C&I waste from that expected in 2001;

Veolia was experiencing difficulties obtaining MSW incinerator feedstock from nearby waste authorities because those authorities were contractually bound to send their waste elsewhere; and

The Sheffield incinerator experienced notable inefficiencies to the energy generating process due to burning unsuitable C&I waste. The boiler became “unstable” when there was a shortage of waste.

21

Veolia wanted to take first 75,000, then 50,000 tonnes from outside the city and environs due to a shortage of MSW and suitable C&I waste. The RPS report that accompanied Veolia’s application to vary Planning Condition 3 showed that there is unlikely to be enough C&I waste to fill a 65,000 tonne treatment gap in Sheffield even though the city had managed to generate something in the region of 954,000 tonnes of C&I waste according to RPS. [Source: Availability of Commercial and Industrial Waste in Sheffield. RPS, November 2010. Planning application ref: 10/03861/FUL].

6.9 Please note the independent quotes below which further make the case that falling arisings and increasing reuse/recycling/composting will mean less potential feedstock in the future:

“The amount of residual waste from municipal and commercial sources is expected to decline gradually to 2030 as policies to encourage better environmental and energy outcomes succeed (i.e. waste prevention, reuse and recycle)…” (UK Bioenergy Strategy. Published April 2012. DECC, Defra, DfT.. Paragraph 3.9)

“If waste is to become a resource to be fed back into the economy as a raw material, then much higher priority needs to be given to re-use and recycling…Milestone: By 2020, waste is managed as a resource. Waste generated per capita is in absolute decline. Recycling and re-use of waste are economically attractive options for public and private actors due to widespread separate collection and the development of functional markets for secondary raw materials. More materials, including materials having a significant impact on the environment and critical raw materials, are recycled. Waste legislation is fully implemented…Energy recovery is limited to non recyclable materials, landfilling is virtually eliminated and high quality recycling is ensured.” (Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe. European Commission, 20 September 2011. Section 3.2 – Turning waste into a resource)

“Around 70 per cent of household waste is readily recyclable…” (Well Disposed. Audit Commission, September 2008.Paragraph 140)

“…increasing recycling from residual waste is likely to remove high calorific value materials from that waste stream, such as paper, plastics, wood etc. This would reduce the calorific value of residual waste over time, potentially changing its suitability for energy recovery” (“Rubbish Economy” – A Review of Business Waste production in England: Past, Present & Future. Urban Mines, September 2011. Page 23)

“…the recorded data suggests that up to 97.5% of the C&I waste landfilled in the [North West] region could be recycled if the correct facilities and services were available.” (North West of England C&I Waste Survey 2009 for the Environment Agency. Urban Mines, March 2010. Page 43)

22

7. IMPACT ON THE WASTE HIERARCHY 7.1 It is widely acknowledged that incineration can harm reduction, re-use, and recycling, and that recyclable and compostable material does currently go to incineration. This section brings together authoritative sources that confirm this, and discusses the mechanisms by which this occurs.

7.2 Much of what is currently sent for incineration is not genuinely residual waste. That is to say, if the proper collection, sorting and treatment infrastructure were in place that material could be recycled, composted or anaerobically digested, and/or if the correct education were provided then the waste would not arise in the first place. Much of the waste that is genuinely residual would likely not be suitable for incineration, or at least not suitable as the primary feedstock for an incinerator designed to treat mixed waste.

7.3 STI notes, for example, the Environment Agency's 2009 North West of England C&I waste survey that showed: "...that up to 97.5% of the C&I waste landfilled...could be recycled if the correct facilities and services were available". As UK law now requires that C&I waste is managed in accordance with the waste hierarchy, there is no justification to expect quantities of C&I waste to be available to meet the inevitable shortfall in incinerator feedstock.

7.4 STI also draws attention to Paragraph 140 of the Audit Commission's September 2008 Well Disposed report, which reads: “Around 70 per cent of household waste is readily recyclable…”

7.5 Additionally, STI calls attention to page 23 of “Rubbish Economy” – A Review of Business Waste production in England: Past, Present & Future. Urban Mines, September 2011. This explains that: “…increasing recycling from residual waste is likely to remove high calorific value materials from that waste stream, such as paper, plastics, wood etc. This would reduce the calorific value of residual waste over time, potentially changing its suitability for energy recovery”.

7.6 To recycle, compost or anaerobically digest material one needs the proper collection, sorting and treatment infrastructure. The cost of the infrastructure can vary from stream to stream, and the returns that can be made for each stream can vary from year to year.

7.7 Incineration infrastructure is expensive, and for most waste streams incineration is vastly more expensive than recycling. However, if investment is made in incineration capacity, whether it be by building the facility, by paying someone else to build it or by promising to pay them for the availability of built capacity whether one uses it or not, then there is already a commitment to paying for that infrastructure. In such circumstances, one has already committed themselves to paying for incineration capacity, either directly or indirectly, whether or not that capacity is actually used to burn the material. If one does not end up subsidising their own use of the capacity by paying for the infrastructure, then one ends up subsidising

23

someone else using the capacity. In either case this then makes it artificially cheaper to use the incineration capacity that has already been paid for rather, than paying towards increased recycling, composting and anaerobic digestion even if that would have otherwise been cheaper1.

7.8 This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the full environmental impact of incineration is not included in the price of disposal, as is recognised by the Government in Defra’s Economics of Waste and Waste Policy report, which states that: “The emissions from waste combustion of non-biogenic material (via any technology including mass-burn incineration) are also not comprehensively reflected in the price of disposal. Unless the installation in question is in the ETS (municipal solid waste incinerators are excluded) a negative externality persists – such installations are creating GHG emissions without paying the relevant price”.

7.9 Even where the actual total cost to society of incineration might be higher than alternatives, the marginal cost to the local authority of incineration may be less than that for reduction, re-use or recycling of certain types of waste, meaning that doing the right thing would effectively result in a financial penalty. This results in increasing the relative marginal cost of reduction, re-use or recycling. This is an example of an opportunity cost of incineration as the incinerator reduces the affordability of moving waste further up the waste hierarchy whilst spending money that can then not be spent to invest in reduction, re-use and recycling.

7.10 On a macroeconomic level, incineration results in a barrier to investment in recycling and re-use, and in turn this barrier stifles innovations in recycling and re-using materials that are currently ‘cheaper’ to incinerate, thus hampering the opportunity for such materials to be more affordably recycled or re-used in the long term.

7.11 The advice to the European Commission specifically in relation to the UK is that: “The big challenge is to reduce the amount of waste that is sent for incineration which could be recycled instead. In the UK there is a decrease in the proportion of waste that is going to landfill, which is good, but this is still a high proportion of the total waste…To solve this, the UK should look to reuse and recycling and not to over capacity of incineration – Countries like Denmark and Switzerland are burning much more than they should and that’s not good. There is an opportunity for the UK to take positively; I hope they will move in the right direction”.2

1 One cannot rely upon third party waste to come along and fill the gap, because not only might that waste not exist, but in order to secure it one would likely have to charge significantly less than what would be needed to cover the cost of the infrastructure. This is, in part, because of increased competition from other domestic residual waste treatment capacity and the increasing demand for the UK’s waste to be exported to EU countries that are experiencing feedstock shortfalls, in order to keep their incinerators going. 2 UK edges up European recycling league table. LetsRecycle, 1 March 2012. Available from: http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/waste-management/uk-creeps-up-european-recycling-league-table

24

7.12 Section 3.2 of the European Commission's 20 September 2011 Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe confirm that recyclable and compostable material is being incinerated and calls for this practice to stop: “By 2020...Energy recovery is limited to non recyclable materials...”, and as Action 33 of the European Parliament's 24 May 2012 Resolution on a Resource Efficient Europe: “[The European Parliament] Calls on the [European] Commission...to make proposals by 2014...for the phasing-out, by the end of this decade, of incineration of recyclable and compostable waste...”

7.13 European Commissioner for the Environment Janez Potočnik stated in September 2012 that: “...Today, even in countries with high recovery rates, there is simply not enough plastic available for recycling because most of it goes to energy recovery. A dominance of energy recovery over recycling is not acceptable in the medium-term…” [http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-12-632_en.htm?locale=en]

7.14 The Audit Commission’s September 2008 Well Disposed study makes the following observations:

"WDAs [Waste Disposal Authorities] might buy too much disposal infrastructure if they: overestimate future volumes of waste arising (including other authorities’ waste or trade waste). They may also achieve a worse environmental solution if, by building large disposal facilities, they reduce their own financial incentive to pursue waste reduction or recycling initiatives." [Paragraph 151];

"One of the common objections to Energy from Waste (EfW) facilities is that after they have been built they will discourage further improvements to recycling because the facility is designed to process a fixed amount of waste (between an upper and lower limit). WDAs therefore need to build ambitious forecasts for recycling and waste minimisation into business cases for disposal infrastructure if they are to avoid creating such a disincentive. Where possible they should design facilities and contractual terms to be flexible to changes that might occur in future..." [Paragraph 160]; and

"In procuring waste disposal infrastructure, WDAs should avoid creating disincentives to pursuing waste minimisation and recycling initiatives".

7.15 The House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s (Efracom’s) Third Report of Session 2009–10 records Dr Paul Leinster, Chief Executive of the Environment Agency, stating that: “The objective for me would be that you should not have an incinerator which then destroys waste minimisation programmes or interrupts re-use and recycling” [Ev13, Q53 - Evidence given to the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Committee. Third Report of Session 2009-10, Volume II (Published January 2010). Third Report of Session 2009–10. Available from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmenvfru/230/230ii.pdf].

In answer to the question: “…During the 25 years [of the Nottinghamshire Waste PFI contract] and in the next 25 years the way that we dispose of our waste will change radically. I do not think in 25 years’ time there will be enough waste to feed this

25

[proposed] incinerator. Is that a concern of yours?” Dr Leinster replied: “Absolutely. What we should not be doing is having incinerators which then mean minimisation, re-use, recycling get impacted and that has to be over the 25 year period. I do have concerns over locking technologies in on a 25 year basis when technologies are moving as fast as they do” [Ev14, Q58 - Evidence given to the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Committee. Third Report of Session 2009-10, Volume II (Published January 2010). Third Report of Session 2009–10. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmenvfru/230/230ii.pdf].

7.16 According to the Local Government Improvement and Development group (formerly known as I&DeA): "There is a danger that investing in large, inflexible EfW incineration facilities as a technical fix to divert waste from landfill can undermine efforts to prioritise minimisation and recycling” [Is energy from waste a sustainable option?. Local Government Improvement and Development (formerly known as I&DeA), May 2010. Available from: http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=9594626].

7.17 Richard Benyon, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, told Parliament that: “Following the logic of the waste hierarchy, it is reasonable to ask whether, if we are burning waste, we need not recycle it. Worse, might we be providing incentives specifically not to reduce, reuse or recycle before recovering energy from waste?” [HC Deb, 26 July 2010, c715W].

7.18 Indeed, even industry representatives have raised concerns regarding incineration:

The Confederation of Paper Industries - “Subsidies for Energy from Waste and large scale energy only biomass should be phased out as they put at risk supplies of the Paper Industry’s basic raw materials – recycled fibres and wood pulp”.3

The Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Association - “Source-segregation and the treatment of organics through AD is the only way that we can recoup the value both of the energy and nutrients trapped in the food we throw away, as well as saving money. Incinerating valuable resources that can be recycled does not make environmental or economic sense in the long term. We are facing a period of economic difficulty that throws our short sighted attitudes to resource use into sharp relief. This is true of all our vital materials: paper, glass, metals, electrical components and food”.4

FEFCO, an umbrella organisation representing European associations of corrugated board manufacturers - “…what we strongly object [to] is incineration of paper. Our raw material is far too valuable to be burned”.5

3 UK Paper Industry Calls for U-turns in Manufacturing Policy. Confederation of Paper Industries, 18 September 2012. Available from: http://www.paper.org.uk/news/2012/CPI%20Party%20Conference.pdf 4 Use our understanding of resource efficiency. MRW, 24 February 2012. Available from: http://www.mrw.co.uk/opinion/use-our-understanding-of-resource-efficiency/8626155.article 5 Packaging boss: ‘Paper for recycling is short in Europe’. EurActiv, 23 May 2012. Available from: http://www.euractiv.com/sustainability/packaging-boss-paper-recycling-short-europe-interview-512881

26

8. TRAFFIC IMPACT 8.1 The residents of Beddington Lane are already living next to a very busy road, with narrow pavements, unacceptable noise, vibration and air pollution, no pedestrian crossing points for over a kilometer, and more traffic accidents than the average for Sutton. Their concerns have been ignored for years, and little done to improve the traffic situation.

8.2 The traffic and transport impact assessment produced by Mouchel for Viridor contains data showing that the proposed ERF will increase traffic beyond what this road can handle, this would mean more vehicles idling at junctions, and more noise, pollution and vibration for residents, and more fear and intimidation for pedestrians and cyclists. The data in the EIA has been handled in such a way as to make a significant increase in traffic look like a tiny increase in traffic.

8.3 Some of the road junctions are already operating at more than 90% of their design capacity. It is generally accepted by transport planners that you get unacceptable queue lengths and delays where a junction is operating at 85% of design capacity. Adding more traffic to junctions that are already struggling to cope will result in congestion, long queues of stationery traffic and residents having to deal with increased noise, vibration and air pollution.

8.4 We have several concerns with the traffic and transport impact of the proposed incinerator (ERF), and concerns that the impact assessment is flawed and doesn’t show the increased traffic that would occur during the construction phase of the proposed incinerator (ERF).

8.5 Firstly the Transport Assessment has not been produced using DfT best practices, despite Viridor stating that they would do this in an earlier scoping document.

8.6 Para 14.12 of the Environmental Impact Assessment says “The Transport Assessment on which this section of the EIA has been based has been prepared in consideration of the Transport for London (TfL) Transport Assessment Best Practice Guidance Document (April 2010), which seeks to complement the Department for Transport (DfT) ‘Guidance on Transport Assessment’ (DfT, 2007)”.

8.7 The DfT document requires “an analysis of the injury accident records on the public highway in the vicinity of the site access for the most recent three-year period,

27

or five-year period if the proposed site has been identified as within a high accident area”.

8.8 In Chapter 14 of the Impact Assessment, the chapter called Traffic & Transport, Viridor and Mouchel only present 3 years of accident data (para 14.32) rather than 5 years data, despite admitting that the accident rate is higher than the Sutton average (Para 14.34)

8.9 The accident data should have covered a 5 year period rather than a 3 year period.

8.10 Secondly we are concerned that the IA under represents the amount of extra traffic generated during the construction phase of the proposed incinerator. We would expect an additional 338 car journeys due to the 300+ construction staff, and that is assuming half the staff come by public transport, the rest by car. It is being optimistic to assume half of the employees will come to work by public transport, so more car journeys can be expected.

8.11 Para 14.43-14.45 shows the site has poor pedestrian and cycle access – plus poor public transport access (Para 14.46-14.51). As such the site is not sustainable in terms of journeys to work – employees have little choice but to drive. Despite this at Para 14.96 they say “In addition to the goods vehicles, there are expected to be around 338 construction staff on site at the peak of works in month 23. It is estimated that approximately 50% will drive, with the remainder made up of passengers, public transport users and other sustainable modes”. How exactly are these 169 employees going to travel by sustainable modes given the poor sustainable links?

8.12 Thirdly we are concerned that there would be an extra 92 HGV movements (lorry journeys) a day at the peak of the construction phase. This data is in the EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) document, but Mouchel claim it would have no impact on traffic, as they have chosen to say none would occur during the morning and evening peak hour. It is unrealistic to say you have 92 extra HGV journeys to and from the site each day, but none will occur between 08:00-09:00 and 17:00-18:00.

8.13 Even outside the peak hours even a few extra HGV movements are enough to cause queues of stationery traffic.

8.14 These extra 92 HGV movements are significant, as they would be using road junctions that are already beyond the 85% of design capacity where you get overly long queues and congestion. In these circumstances it only takes one or two extra HGV movements per hour to cause lines of stationery traffic to form.

8.15 They say that peak construction will lead to 46 HGV loads per day (that’s 46 arrivals and 46 departures – total of 92 HGV movements per day). They also say that 50% of employees will drive, so 169 employees arriving by car and then driving home at the end of the day – a total of 338 car journeys. Adding construction HGV

28

and employee car trips gives a total of 430 vehicle trips per day or 550 PCU trips per day.

8.16 The data in the EIA gives us an extra 550 PCU trips per day, but the report then says it is only 237 PCU trips.

8.17 Saying there are going to be 237 extra PCU’s per day is incorrect and misleading. We can see from the report’s own data that there will be 550 extra PCU’s per day.

8.18 They say in Para 14.97 that the total will be 237 PCU movements. Then if the 50% of staff that they say will use sustainable modes can’t / don’t because of the poor sustainable links then that’s potentially another 169 car journeys per day to work and another 169 cars journeys per day back home. In summary we think they have incorrectly identified the increase in traffic during the construction phase.

8.19 The increase in traffic during the construction phase is significant and will cause traffic problems. The EIA has not presented this increase as significant, but has misrepresented it as a minor increase.

8.20 Hence in Para’s 14.102 to 14.113 where they test the increase in construction traffic on local road junctions (some of which are currently operating in excess of their design capacity), the results are not likely to be correct. Neither are the environmental impacts assessed in Para’s 14.114 to 14.120.

8.21 Looking at the site once it’s in operation, 2017 Scenario – at Para 14.130 they suggest a 4.96% increase in the number of HGV trips – that equates to 36 additional HGV trips per day. However they claim that there would be no increase in the number of HGV trips during the AM and PM peak hours (Para 14.133) – hence the increase will take place during the periods outside of peak hours (e.g.: 08:45-17:00).

8.22 However, that means at other times of the day there will be 36 additional HGVs on local roads, but they don’t say when. These 36 HGV all create pollution, noise and vibration – but there’s no mention of this.

8.23 Also, there is very little variation in hourly flows on local roads – i.e. hourly flows over the period 09:00 to 17:00 aren’t very different to 08:00-09:00 and 17:00-18:00. Hence the additional 36 HGV could have a traffic impact during hourly periods they haven’t detailed. Where junctions are already over design capacity, just adding one or two HGV’s per hour could cause them to fail, or at least lead to increased delays and queuing – all of which means more vehicles idling at junctions, and more noise, pollution and vibration for residents living along this already very busy road.

8.24 Another potential source for significant numbers of additional vehicle journeys is to be found elsewhere in the planning application, where it is stated that the incinerator could operate at up to 10% above the 275,000 tonnes of waste per year

29

planned. This extra 27,500 tonnes would be brought by lorry like the rest of the waste, adding another 10% to the traffic movements each day.

8.25 The existing situation for residents is unacceptable, and the construction and operational phases of the incinerator (ERF) would result in increased vehicle traffic only adding to the problems. The Traffic impact assessment is flawed and has underestimated and misrepresented the increase in traffic on Beddington Lane, it has also failed to look at the accident statistics for the past 5 years.

8.26 STI maintain that planning approval should not be given for any project that will add to the traffic using Beddington Lane, and the residents’ legitimate traffic, noise, vibration, pollution and safety concerns should be addressed urgently.

30

9. IMPACT ON HEALTH We believe that the health risks from even the most up-to-date facilities are very significant despite the complacent comments of the Health Protection Agency (HPA). Studies of evidence are being published on a regular basis. 9.1 A report by the British Society for Ecological Medicine (Ecomed).

Here is a summary of the report, published June 2008:

• Large studies have shown higher rates of adult and childhood cancer and also birth defects around municipal waste incinerators: the results are consistent with the associations being causal. A number of smaller epidemiological studies support this interpretation and suggest that the range of illnesses produced by incinerators may be much wider.

• Incinerator emissions are a major source of fine particulates, of toxic metals and of more than 200 organic chemicals, including known carcinogens, mutagens, and hormone disrupters. Emissions also contain other unidentified compounds whose potential for harm is as yet unknown, as was once the case with dioxins. Since the nature of waste is continually changing, so is the chemical nature of the incinerator emissions and therefore the potential for adverse health effects.

• Present safety measures are designed to avoid acute toxic effects in the immediate neighbourhood, but ignore the fact that many of the pollutants bioaccumulate, enter the food chain and can cause chronic illnesses over time and over a much wider geographical area. No official attempts have been made to assess the effects of emissions on long-term health.

• Incinerators produce bottom and fly ash which amount to 30-50% by volume of the original waste (if compacted), and require transportation to landfill sites. Abatement equipment in modern incinerators merely transfers the toxic load, notably that of dioxins and heavy metals, from airborne emissions to the fly ash. This fly ash is light, readily windborne and mostly of low particle size. It represents a considerable and poorly understood health hazard.

• Two large cohort studies in America have shown that fine (PM2.5) particulate air pollution causes increases in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and mortality from lung cancer, after adjustment for other factors. A more recent, well-designed study of morbidity and mortality in postmenopausal women has confirmed this, showing a 76% increase in cardiovascular and 83% increase in cerebrovascular mortality in women exposed to higher levels of fine particulates. These fine particulates are primarily produced by combustion processes and are emitted in large quantities by incinerators.

31

• Higher levels of fine particulates have been associated with an increased prevalence of asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).

• Fine particulates formed in incinerators in the presence of toxic metals and organic toxins (including those known to be carcinogens), adsorb these pollutants and carry them into the blood stream and into the cells of the body.

• Toxic metals accumulate in the body and have been implicated in a range of emotional and behavioural problems in children including autism, dyslexia, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), learning difficulties, and delinquency, and in problems in adults including violence, dementia, depression and Parkinson’s disease. Increased rates of autism and learning disabilities have been noted to occur around sites that release mercury into the environment. Toxic metals are universally present in incinerator emissions and present in high concentrations in the fly ash.

• Susceptibility to chemical pollutants varies, depending on genetic and acquired factors, with the maximum impact being on the foetus. Acute exposure can lead to sensitisation of some individuals, leaving them with lifelong low dose chemical sensitivity.

• Few chemical combinations have been tested for toxicity, even though synergistic effects have been demonstrated in the majority of cases when this testing has been done. This synergy could greatly increase the toxicity of the pollutants emitted, but this danger has not been assessed.

• Both cancer and asthma have increased relentlessly along with industrialization, and cancer rates have been shown to correlate geographically with both toxic waste treatment facilities and the presence of chemical industries, pointing to an urgent need to reduce our exposure.

• In the UK, some incinerators burn radioactive material producing radioactive particulates. Inhalation allows entry into the body of this radioactive material which can subsequently emit alpha or beta radiation. These types of radiation have low danger outside the body but are highly destructive within.

• Some chemical pollutants such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals are known to cause genetic changes. This represents not only a risk to present generations but to future generations.

• Monitoring of incinerators has been unsatisfactory in the lack of rigor, the infrequency of monitoring, the small number of compounds measured, the levels deemed acceptable, and the absence of biological monitoring. Approval of new installations has depended on modeling data, supposed to be scientific measures of safety, even though the method used has no more than a 30% accuracy of predicting pollutants levels correctly and ignores the important problems of secondary particulates and chemical interactions.

• It has been claimed that modern abatement procedures render the emissions from incinerators safe, but this is impossible to establish and would apply

32

only to emissions generated under standard operating conditions. Of much more concern are non-standard operating conditions including start-up and shutdown when large volumes of pollutants are released within a short period of time. Two of the most hazardous emissions – fine particulates and heavy metals – are relatively resistant to removal.

• The safety of new incinerator installations cannot be established in advance and, although rigorous independent health monitoring might give rise to suspicions of adverse effects on the foetus and infant within a few years, this type of monitoring has not been put in place, and in the short term would not reach statistical significance for individual installations. Other effects, such as adult cancers, could be delayed for at least ten to twenty years. It would therefore be appropriate to apply the precautionary principle here.

• There are now alternative methods of dealing with waste which would avoid the main health hazards of incineration, would produce more energy and would be far cheaper in real terms, if the health costs were taken into account.

• Incinerators presently contravene basic human rights as stated by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, in particular the Right to Life under the European Human Rights Convention, but also the Stockholm Convention and the Environmental Protection Act of 1990. The foetus, infant and child are most at risk from incinerator emissions: their rights are therefore being ignored and violated, which is not in keeping with the concept of a just where their health effects will be maximal: this needs urgent review.

• Reviewing the literature for the second edition has confirmed our earlier conclusions. Recent research, including that relating to fine and ultrafine particulates, the costs of incineration, together with research investigating non-standard emissions from incinerators, has demonstrated that the hazards of incineration are greater than previously realised. The accumulated evidence on the health risks of incinerators is simply too strong to ignore and their use cannot be justified now that better, cheaper and far less hazardous methods of waste disposal have become available. We therefore conclude that no more incinerators should be approved.

The report concludes that “a policy of building more incinerators and cement kilns will mean that many more lives will be lost unnecessarily from cancer, including those of children, more people will die prematurely from heart disease, there will be an increase in birth defects and health costs will increase….there are far better ways of dealing with waste and these methods would be cheaper, would be safer and would produce more energy”.

The full report and HPA response can be found at http://www.ecomed.org.uk/content/IncineratorReport_v3.pdf

33

9.2 European report (2012) raises alarm over nano-particles The European Respiratory Journal (ERJ) is the scientific journal of the European Respiratory Society, made up of respiratory researchers and medics. Their latest (March 2012) editorial severely criticises the EU commission for choosing the wrong limits for air quality, and discusses the reasons for this. They claim that fine particles (PM 2.5s) and Ozone are the most serious pollutants, and that there is an urgent need to reduce their concentrations significantly. “It is generally recognised that effects of ozone and fine particles have a very low [safety] threshold, if indeed there is one. This means that exposure to levels even below the WHO [World Health Organisation] air quality guidelines can still be expected to produce sizeable adverse effects on public health. Reductions of air pollution over the past two decades have been shown to be associated with increases in life expectancy in the USA and improved respiratory health” The article stresses that compliance with current limit values for major air pollutants in Europe confers no protection for public health. “In fact, very serious health effects occur at concentrations well below current limit values, especially those for fine particles”. Although incinerators are of course far from the only source of fine particles, they will compound the health problems from all sources which are in any case set to rise, for example with climate change leading to higher levels of ground level ozone. Nano-particles, so-called PM10s and PM2.5s are linked, among other things, to cardiovascular deaths and higher infant mortality rates. The full article can be read at erj.ersjournals.com/content/39/3/525.full.pdf Although incinerator fumes pass through expensive filter systems, modern incinerators still emit significant levels of NOx and of ultrafine particles. The latter includes nano-particles which are of great concern because they can pass through the lung lining, causing internal inflammation and penetrating to organs (even to the foetus in a pregnant mother). Several recent studies have concluded that air pollution is set to become a bigger global killer than even dirty water. [see for example OECD March 2012: “Urban air pollution is set to become the top environmental cause of mortality worldwide by 2050, ahead of dirty water and lack of sanitation. The number of premature deaths from exposure to particulate air pollutants leading to respiratory failure could double from current levels to 3.6 million every year globally”]

34

9.3 The HPA have failed to monitor health impacts of incinerators. In Aug 2003, the newly-formed Health Protection Agency promised to examine health data around incinerators & landfill sites due to public concern. This promise has never been delivered. This lack of investigation was highlighted in two Surrey newspapers on 22 May 2008, Dorking Advertiser & Surrey Mirror. These articles were written following a Freedom of Information request to the HPA, asking for a list of incinerators around which they'd examined rates of illness & rates of premature deaths (at all ages) in electoral wards upwind & downwind of incinerators. The HPA admitted that they had failed to check the data around any incinerator but continued to insist that there were not any significant health risks related to waste incineration. This has led councillors across the country to accept the HPA's "wisdom" and give incinerators the "green light". Belatedly, the HPA have now announced a new study but this will not report until 2014 which is outside of the current timeframe. As such, there is no reliable evidence upon which to pass this planning application. We believe that this could leave the member councils of the SLWP and individual councillors open to future litigation similar to that in Corby in 2009.

9.4 Numerous studies have been conducted on the health risk from low level radiation, concluding that there is a significant cancer risk particularly to children whose cell systems are still developing but also to adults.

One example is the German Government study in 2007 known as 'Kikks' which observed: "In the vicinity of nuclear power plants, an increased risk of 60% was observed for all types of cancer taken together and for leukaemia, the risk doubled, equaling a risk increase of approximately 100%." (http://www.bfs.de/en/kerntechnik/kinderkrebs/statement_kikk_en.pdf). Other studies eg by Professor Chris Busby have shown breast cancer and leukaemia excesses near UK nuclear power stations, e.g. a 2008 report showing a three fold increase in the incidence of infant mortality close to Hinkley Point nuclear power station: http://stophinkley.org/NewsPages/news080301.htm; a 2000 report showing a doubling of breast cancer mortality in the nearest town downwind from Hinkley Point (http://stophinkley.org/Health/CancerMortPart%201.pdf) and a 1988 Somerset Health Authority report showing excess leukaemia near Hinkley Point (http://stophinkley.org/Health/Leukaemia%20Incidence%20In%20Somerset1988.pdf) In all these cases there should have been no detectable health effects given the dose recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Although STI's position is that no incinerator should be built or licensed, we hold that if the incinerator is authorised that no radioactive material should be incinerated there.

35

9.5 STI are unhappy about the emissions that will escape the 85m high chimney and the effects this will have on a neighbourhood that is already designated an Air Quality Management Area. We are most concerned about the health effects that residents will suffer from an increase in the level of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). We are lead to believe that these NOx emission concerns are also shared by the Environment Agency. We are extremely concerned that any increase in the level of NOx emissions into the north Croydon area, which is the area most at risk as shown in the wind plume map below, where the levels are already above recognised safety levels, will have severe detrimental effects on the health of residents.

NO2 Annual Mean (µg m-3)

36

10. REGULATION 22 QUESTIONS

10.1 Schedule 1 Regulation 2(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (“the 2011 EIA Regulations”) focuses on descriptions of development for the purposes of the definition of “Schedule 1 development”. In STI’s understanding it is not disputed that the proposed development falls within the definition of a “Schedule 1 development” by virtue of the application being one for a waste disposal installation for the incineration of non-hazardous waste with a capacity exceeding 100 tonnes per day. As such, there is no dispute regarding the requirement for the applicant to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and to communicate this by means of an Environmental Statement (ES) accompanying the planning application.

10.2 The term “environmental statement” is defined under §2 of the 2011 EIA Regulations as meaning “a statement (a) that includes such of the information referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 4 as is reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development and which the applicant can, having regard in particular to current knowledge and methods of assessment, reasonably be required to compile, but (b) that includes at least the information referred to in Part 2 of Schedule 4”.

10.3 Part 1 of Schedule 4 lists the following information for inclusion in environmental statements:

1. Description of the development, including in particular (a) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole development and the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases; (b) a description of the main characteristics of the production processes, for instance, nature and quantity of the materials used; (c) an estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc) resulting from the operation of the proposed development. 2. An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects. 3. A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors.

37

4. A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment, which should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the development, resulting from (a) the existence of the development; (b) the use of natural resources; (c) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of waste, and the description by the applicant or appellant of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment. 5. A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment. 6. A non-technical summary of the information provided under paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Part. 7. An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the applicant or appellant in compiling the required information.

Part 2 of Schedule 4 requires the following information:

1. A description of the development comprising information on the site, design and size of the development. 2. A description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects. 3. The data required to identify and assess the main effects which the development is likely to have on the environment. 4. An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects. 5. A non-technical summary of the information provided under paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Part.

10.4 Regulation 22 of the 2011 EIA Regulations (the successor to Regulation 19 of the 1999 EIA Regulations) provides for situations where the applicant has not supplied sufficient environmental information. In such circumstances the planning authority shall request such “further information” as is necessary, and the 2011 EIA Regulations sets out the relevant procedures in Regulation 22.

10.5 Even without the legal requirements under the Regulations, as a matter of good administration it would be prudent for the planning authority to ensure that clarification and further information is sought in circumstances where not doing so could result in any grant of planning consent being considered legally defective on the grounds that the planning committee were unable to properly assess the application, or consultees were not able to properly comment on the application, because they had insufficient and/or inaccurate information.

38

10.6 This is especially important in light of the Waste Review 2011, Paragraphs 209 and 230 of which state respectively that: “...while energy from waste has the potential to deliver carbon and other environmental benefits over sending waste to landfill, energy recovery also produces some greenhouse gas emissions. It is important to consider the relative net carbon impact of these processes, and this will depend on the composition of feedstocks and technologies used”, and that: "Waste infrastructure has a long lifetime and therefore changes in the composition and potential volumes of waste in the future cannot be ignored in the development and selection of technologies now...”

10.7 With all of the above in mind, STI outlines a series of questions, pertaining to the applicant’s WRATE assessment (referred to, for example, in the Need Assessment and Carbon Balance document).

10.8 The applicant should be required to provide the following environmental information, which has yet to be provided, so that consultees and the planning committee have access to the information required to identify and assess the main effects which the development is likely to have on the environment, one of which is the impact in relation to climate change:

1. Full detail of the results of the WRATE modelling.

2. Full detail of any discrepancies between the facility / methods modelled and the proposed facility / method.

3. Full detail of the assumptions and settings used for the WRATE modelling, sufficient to enable an expert WRATE user to replicate the applicant’s results.

4. Full detail and rationale for the feedstock assumptions (C&I and municipal), and an assessment of the impact of any inconsistency with the planning application and the impact of changes in waste composition expected over time (i.e. full sensitivity analysis). This should include the impact of different feedstock assumptions, e.g. anticipated reduction of food waste in the residual stream and proportional increase in hard-to-recycle plastics in the residual stream and how the proposed facility would operate for a range of potential feedstock composition assumptions, e.g. impact on thermal efficiency, anticipated emissions, climate change impact and overall environmental impact.

5. A detailed assessment of the climate impacts of the proposed incinerator of not discounting biogenic carbon, and of PAS 2050:2011 to calculate the impact of carbon sequestration for landfill (including MBT-Landfill with a high degree of stabilisation and efficient landfill gas capture).

6. Full detail of the basis for assumptions regarding thermal efficiency, and analysis of consistency with the Environmental Permit application.

39

7. Full detail regarding the impact of using different assumptions for the marginal energy mix (i.e. state of the art conventional CCGT, CCGT with carbon capture, and a future marginal energy mix consistent with the IAG/DECC carbon intensity figures that supplement the Green Book). This should cover the changes expected throughout the lifespan of the facility.

8. Full detail of the potential impact of changes in collection methodology on the assessment of the various technologies, e.g. the introduction of separate collection of food waste for AD, and/or the introduction of kerbside sorting.