Comments to Waste Local Plan : Deposit

Background

Some background information for those who weren't at the meeting where we discussed this response: WLP section 4.7.1 indicates two incinerators are required if they go for "Scenario 3" which includes the use of Energy From Waste plants (aka incinerators). All the other major waste management facilities designated as possible sites for incinerators are near Peterborough. The only one in the south of the county is the AWA sewage works site. Therefore, if the WLP goes unchallenged, the chances of us getting an incinerator of some sort of this site are very high.

We are required to comment or object section by section. This is the final draft of our responses, as agreed at parish council on 2nd October.

4.6 Do We Need More Landfill Capacity?

We note with concern the information we gained from our meeting with County Council officers that the figures in paragraph 4.6.1 for existing land fill capacity include the remaining capacity of the Milton Land Fill site (2.5 million m³). We would remind the County Council that the permission for this site runs out in 2003 and at the current fill rate there is no way that this will be used by then.

It's clear to us that the WLP takes it as given that the current application for an extension to the life of the land fill site will be approved by the County Council. We object strongly to that assumption, which to our mind suggests that the County Council has already made up its mind to accept the application, regardless of any objections from Milton PC or other interested bodies.

WLP17 - Major Waste Management Facilities

The Waste Local Plan (Deposit) has a new site added, namely the Anglian Water Site, Cowley Road (WLP7(m)), which wasn't in the Consultation Draft of the Waste Local Plan.

We object to the inclusion of this site as a Major Waste Management Facility for the following reasons:

This site forms part of the Cambridge Northern Fringe. Planning for this area is currently under review and we feel that it's designation for waste purposes is premature.
It's likely that the Northern Fringe review will result in development of the land around this site for residential, retail and office use (previous designations have been for these classes of use). Hence designation as Major Waste Management Facility is likely to be counter to WLP9 which calls for the protection of surrounding uses.
This site is already surrounded to the north by houses and retail units (Tesco and the village of Milton) and to the south and west by offices. It already causes disturbance to residents and users of these sites and to residents further to the south and east due to the smell from the existing sewage works. New uses are likely to increase those problems. We would suggest that this is again contrary to WLP9.
We question the logic in planning a Major Waste Management Facility inside the A14. Traffic is already a severe problem on the A1309. Placing such a facility here can only make it worse.
We especially object to the designation of this site as suitable for Energy From Waste (WLP26).
1. Despite verbal assurances from County Council officers that this could simply mean the burning of methane arising from anaerobic digestion we note that the Dickersons Site (WLP19(b)) which is going to do just that is not designated as a possible EFW site. In addition WLP26 makes no mention of burning methane and concentrates solely on the burning of waste. We conclude therefore that an EFW plant on this site would be an incinerator of some sort, probably a pyrolysis scheme. (If this is not the case and the officers' assurances to us are correct then this can be simply resolved by removing the WLP26 designation from this site and we will withdraw our objection - we have no problem with the burning of methane as a by product of anaerobic digestion.)
2. Our village already suffers from the smell from the Milton Land Fill site and the stench from the existing sewage works on the Anglian Water Site. We would argue that we're already taking more than our fair share of the "fall out" from the disposal of Cambridgeshire waste and it's unfair to expect us to put up with the fumes from an EFW plant as well. WLP9 applies yet again.
3. It's clear to us from previous documents and presentations that the plant that the City Council favours is a pyrolysis plant. This is largely unproven technology and we would be "early adopters" of such a plant. It seems to us that building what is essentially an experimental plant in a position where it is surrounded by houses on all sides which would be exposed to the plume whichever way the wind blows is foolhardy and again calls into question the suitability of this site when judged against WLP9.
We note with concern that WLP9 is not listed in Appendix 6 in the entry for this site under "Policy Issues Arising From WLP" and would strongly suggest that these are issues arising.

WLP17 - Major Waste Management Facilities

Milton Land Fill Site is not designated as a Major Waste Management Facility under the WLP so the only development on there mandated by the WLP would be the completion of the land filling. We suspect there may be pressure from the current owners of this site to have the Milton Land Fill Site included as a Major Waste Management Facility, allowing uses other than those currently permitted. We would be strongly opposed to any such use for the following reasons:

It would be contrary to WLP8 (Green Belt). The land fill site is in the Green Belt and WLP8 para 7.8.2 says that "Waste management facilities are not cited as appropriate development within the Green Belt and only in exceptional circumstances might permission be given". It also says in 7.8.3 that "[as] the primary aim [of land filling in the Green Belt] is to bringing green belt land back into a beneficial after-use, and the landfill operation is purely [temporary] the WPA would not wish to see the life of such operations unduly prolonged".
It would be contrary to WLP9 (Protecting Surrounding Uses). Any further development on the site will have an adverse impact on our community and on our recreational use of the restored land fill site, which we expect to be agreed as part of the extension of the permission on the site.

Any development of a Major Waste Management Facility at the existing household waste point on the site would also be less than 250m from houses within the parish.

Appendix - Responses From Other Parties

We have been given copies of the responses by other parties. These included:

Villager, Townsend Close Opposed energy from waste because of pollution hazards

Villager, High Street Opposed energy from waste because of greenhouse gas emissions, advocated re-cycling, also objected to "yet another method of rubbish management sited near Milton". Stressed need to reduce inputs.

Jones Lang Lasalle on behalf of Anglian Water Services Opposing use of AWA site because it would be incompatible with use of the site and surrounding sites for development within the Northern Fringe.

Donarbon Several modifications in line with their planning application

Cambridge City Council Opposes energy from waste or any other proposal for AWA site which would preclude other developments in the Northern Fringe such as housing and offices. Also objecting on grounds of vehicles movements and health implications for residents of Cambridge.
Supports energy from waste only as an alternative to land fill (ie it prefers re-cycling and re-use).
Supports pyrolysis in preference to incineration.
Supports extension of the life of the Milton land fill site (which isn't strictly part of the WLP, but is relevant) but their concern appears to be mainly to ensure the whole land fill capacity of the site is utilised and it's not shut prematurely.

WS Atkins on behalf of Waste Recycling Group Opposes AWA site because of implications of Northern Fringe development and traffic issues.
Wants Milton land fill site added to the list of Major Waste Management Facilities. Suggests "hypothetically" that aggregate recycling or larger scale composting" might be carried out there and that it should be allocated as a "future waste management site".
Later on it says that it envisages Milton being used for activities including:

composting of municipal waste
composting of green waste
inert waste recovery
timber recycling
segregation of household recyclables (cans, plastics, newspapers)
transfer of residues from the above for final disposal or further treatment

Talks about purpose designed waste reception and recycling facility buildings. Stresses the need to locate these at land fill sites rather than elsewhere.
States that "assuming the Company is successful in obtaining the above planning permissions [eg the extension of the life of the Milton site] it will then be in a position to invest in further recycling/recovery facilities at [these sites]. It is on this basis that these representations have been framed".

Last modified: Tue Oct 3 08:40:29 BST 2000

Villager, Townsend Close	Opposed energy from waste because of pollution hazards
Villager, High Street	Opposed energy from waste because of greenhouse gas emissions, advocated re-cycling, also objected to "yet another method of rubbish management sited near Milton". Stressed need to reduce inputs.
Jones Lang Lasalle on behalf of Anglian Water Services	Opposing use of AWA site because it would be incompatible with use of the site and surrounding sites for development within the Northern Fringe.
Donarbon	Several modifications in line with their planning application
Cambridge City Council	Opposes energy from waste or any other proposal for AWA site which would preclude other developments in the Northern Fringe such as housing and offices. Also objecting on grounds of vehicles movements and health implications for residents of Cambridge. Supports energy from waste only as an alternative to land fill (ie it prefers re-cycling and re-use). Supports pyrolysis in preference to incineration. Supports extension of the life of the Milton land fill site (which isn't strictly part of the WLP, but is relevant) but their concern appears to be mainly to ensure the whole land fill capacity of the site is utilised and it's not shut prematurely.
WS Atkins on behalf of Waste Recycling Group	Opposes AWA site because of implications of Northern Fringe development and traffic issues. Wants Milton land fill site added to the list of Major Waste Management Facilities. Suggests "hypothetically" that aggregate recycling or larger scale composting" might be carried out there and that it should be allocated as a "future waste management site". Later on it says that it envisages Milton being used for activities including: composting of municipal waste composting of green waste inert waste recovery timber recycling segregation of household recyclables (cans, plastics, newspapers) transfer of residues from the above for final disposal or further treatment Talks about purpose designed waste reception and recycling facility buildings. Stresses the need to locate these at land fill sites rather than elsewhere. States that "assuming the Company is successful in obtaining the above planning permissions [eg the extension of the life of the Milton site] it will then be in a position to invest in further recycling/recovery facilities at [these sites]. It is on this basis that these representations have been framed".