At the 11 th. October meeting,
the following reasons were given for rejection:-
1 It would
encourage the importation of untreated waste contrary to the proximity
principle.
2 Insufficient
information to conclude that it is the 'Best Practical Environmental Option'.
3 Insufficient
information to ensure no detriment to neighbouring property.
4 Insufficient
information to conclude that the site is the best location.
5 It would
appear to dominate part of Bletchley damaging the social & economic
framework.
6 It would
appear to have a damaging effect on nature conservation & Blue Lagoon
park.
7 The proposal
does not adequately address surface & foul water drainage & landfill
gas.
8 Work would
be carried out during night time hours causing potential disturbance to
residents.
9 The record
of compliance by the applicant.
Two additional reason were proposed
by Cllr N.Long.
10 It is contrary
to policy DC3 of the local plan in that it is out of scale with its surroundings.
11 It is contrary
to policy DC1 of the local plan with respect to noise and visual intrusion.
On Tuesday 1 st. October 2002, a meeting organised by PALS and Friends of the Earth was held in Wilton Hall at 7.00 p.m. This was chaired by Cllr Tony Mabott with Alan Watson, an independent consultant and Matt Pumfrey as Speakers. Additional meetings of the West Bletchley Parish Council were held on Monday September 30 th. to hear opposed groups and on Tuesday October 1 st. to hear another consultant (Terry Marsh). The Parish Council met to consider the its position on the waste management facility on Thursday 10 th. October. Their comments were summarised for the Development Control Committee.
Following indications that their application for a full scale waste management plant would not be granted, Shanks had indicated firstly that they would claim non-determination. (i.e. that the application was granted automatically because Milton Keynes Council had not arrived at a decision within a limited timescale). They are also applied for permission for the initial part of the process which is a 'Mechanical-Biological Plant' as a separate application.
Originally, 10 days after the council elections in May, Shanks finally applied for planning permission for the 'Mechanical-Biological Plant' and an incineration system. Essentially the former means shredding and drying to remove moisture and recover some materials from rubbish. However the intention is to burn the major part of the remaining material which is combustible. The incineration plant will be immediately to the west of the Blue Lagoon country park and will incorporate two tall chimneys. Much of the waste material is expected to arrive by rail at a depot on the site of the former brickworks where a composting plant will be sited. The majority will arrive by road.
At a meeting in the City Church on Tuesday 9 th. July, the council cabinet rejected a Labour proposal for an independent inquiry. On Thursday 25 th. July 2002 a meeting of Milton Keynes Council's Environmental, Transport & Localities Overview Committee met publicly in Wilton Hall, Bletchley. The meeting had three talks from specialists in waste management but was specifically prohibited from discussing the Shanks application. Because a large number of members of the public had come with that precise intention, this instruction was to large extent ignored both by both hecklers and those asking questions on the floor. It did emerge that Council Officers had been instructed by the council leader to find a waste strategy which did not involve incineration. It also emerged that with waste reduction strategies being imposed by the government and the number of incineration plants currently planned it is likely that there will be over-capacity.
Although there had been discussions with Milton Keynes Planning Department, it was initially understood that the application would probably, in view of recent events, be called in by the Secretary of State for consideration at central government level. On balance, present government policy is thought to favour such plants. Shanks had apparently promised to consult with local Parish Councils before making any such application but West Bletchley Council members received no prior information. It is also understood that an incinerator will require a licence from the Environmental Agency which Shanks will request later. New plants have been developed which consume combustible materials apparently without fumes. These are, however, new technology of which there has been limited practical experience from the safety viewpoint. 70% of the rubbish deposited at the Landfill is from outside the local area. There are plans to increase this further. The 'proximity principle' suggests that rubbish disposal should be as local as possible to the source.
This proposal has been submitted as Planning Application 02/00899/MIN and may be viewed at Bletchley Library or Parish Council offices. Comments on the Application may be sent to The Chief Planning Officer, Environment Box 125, Civic Offices, 1 Saxon Gate East, Central Milton Keynes MK9 3ZJ. Although a deadline of 13 th. May was given for comments this has now been extended (seemingly indefinitely). The latest information is that it will be considered in September or October but will probably be called in by or appealed to the Secretary of State resulting in a public planning enquiry. It is understood that Shanks will not approach the Environmental Agency for an operating licence until planning permission is granted. If the Agency imposes conditions which affect other amenities or discovers adverse effects it is too late to rescind the decision in principle to grant planning permission.
It seems that the plant will be inside the existing brick pit with a base 15 Metres below ground level. It is intended that the 'Mechanical-Biological Plant' will not be visible above ground level unless you are looking down on it. The incineration (Power Plant) unit is said to be 55 Metres high(40 M above ground level) with chimneys extending a further 50 Metres to 90 Metres above ground level (or 105 above the base) which is higher than the highest point in Great Brickhill. The applicants have produced an Environmental Statement. There is study of the dispersion of the emissions from the chimney using a height of 105 M. The assumptions (including reliability of operation of the plant, the allowances for variation in ground level and the indicative substances used in the model) behind this study will be the subject of most comments. The landscape study uses an overall chimney height of 65M above the 'finished landform' and does not show clearly where the plant or chimneys are visible or where its shadow would fall at different times of the day or year. The Statement also uses the 'proximity principle', regeneration of Bletchley and potential district heating as justifications for the siting near an urban area. The truth of these assumptions may be challenged. Relevant government planning guidance is contained in PPG23. Issues arise relative to the 'proximity principle' (Section 2.3) and the definition of 'fit and proper' persons to operate such a facility.
Possible objections are:-
1 That a building of this size is out
of scale and character with its surroundings contrary to policy DC3 of
the Local Plan
2 That it would cause unacceptable
pollution by
a) Emission
to air
b) Noise
c) Smell
contrary to policy DC1 of the Local Plan
3 That it is not on a site designated
for bad neighbour industry contrary to policy EM8 of the Local Plan.
4 Affects on the Blue Lagoon Nature
Reserve and on the Bletchley Park Conservation area.
5 Noise, pollution and congestion due
to road and rail traffic from outside the area.
6 The construction close to existing
housing given that the proposed Newton Lees development has been withdrawn
from the local plan.
7 That this development is not envisaged
in Policy DS4 relating to the Brickworks site and does not meet the requirement
of section 2.44 which requires that detailed development briefs are subject
to public consultation.
8 That it would damage the special
character and appearance of the Brickhills area contrary to policy DS15.
The PALS
(People Against Landfill Sites) Action Group has engaged solicitors to
establish if some of those affected by the Landfill fumes would be able
to sue Shanks on a 'no win no fee' basis.
The contact name is Neil Stockdale
Hugh James Solicitors
Martin Evans House
Riverside Court
Avenue de Clichy
Merthyr Tydfil CF47 8LD
Tel 01685 371122
Email neil.stockdale@hughjames.com
There is also a Freepost address
for return of forms
Attn. Gwen Evans
HUCH JAMES
FREEPOST SWC1758
MERTHYR TYDFIL
CF47 8GZ
The form sent out to possible clients
involves trying to remember how often the smells occurred in each month
over a period of two years but they are not asking for accuracy at this
stage so if you decide to proceed do not be put off.
Following the successful criminal prosecution of Shanks, the company has appealed against the one of the conditions relating to hours of working which was part of the planning permission granted on 14 th November 2002 for recontouring the of the landfill site. This appeal was allowed
Shanks were fined a total of
£60,000 plus costs on Friday 11 th. February 2002 for four offences
of disposing of controlled waste likely to pollute the environment and
harm health and of failing to prevent odour nuisance from March to June
2001. Leachate levels are still high on site and some may have polluted
the brook. Shanks are still finding difficulty in controlling gas emission.
Apparently a gas pipe fractured
resulting in the release of liquids into the brook. Problems caused by
a breakdown of the vehicle cleaning machinery has also been reported. Fortunately,
pollution effects have been limited.
Shanks are
now free to dump again! The Environmental Agency have lifted the suspension
of Shanks Licence! With Milton Keynes Council refusing to enforce
planning conditions, there are no restrictions on use of the site!
On Sunday (9 th. September
2001) PALS collected signatures for a petition in Newton Road
Please phone 0800
085 9693 if you smell an unpleasant odour.
For The
Environment Agency phone 0800 80 70 60
SITE EXPANSION
GETS 'GO AHEAD'
A planning application MK/806/95
referring to 're-contouring' the landfill site was placed before the Development
Control Committee of Milton Keynes Council. After some 6 years delay, planning
consent was granted on Wednesday 14 th. November 2001. Re-contouring in
fact means raising the level of material being dumped substantially to
23 Metres above the normal ground level. It is deemed necessary to do this
in order to provide for run off of water from the site.
The application was agreed in
principle by Bucks. County Council (then the responsible authority) some
years ago.Various conditions are attached to the current consent. The most
significant is a limit on the amount of the material that can be dumped
until alternative road access can be provided. This road access is in part
planning gain in the form of a contribution by Shanks to Stoke Hammond
by-pass which has not yet been built. Although some screening is being
discussed, current plans are to plant on the mound itself. This by
its nature must be limited in scope and can only be done after work is
complete which means that the site will not be screened while work is going
on and some time afterwards while plants establish themselves. It is assumed
that the visual intrusion was considered by Bucks C.C. but seems to have
taken second place to the new by-pass.
In the interim Shanks appear
to have taken the law into their own hands by building part of the site
up to 21Metres anyway even there was no planning consent for this.
There were 832 signatures on a petition objecting to the planning application MK/806/95 on the grounds of visual intrusion and the precedent set to allow future breaches of planning consent. Pete Shine spoke to the Milton Keynes Development Control Committee which considered this on Wednesday 22 nd. August. He argued against the visual impact (intrusion and obtrusion), suggested the precautionary rule be adopted until health effects were disproven, and mentioned the breach of current planning consent. There was no reply from Shanks. Ian Prosser of Milton Keynes council agreed the planning consent had been breached. The Council have, apparently, had independent legal advice that it would be innappropriate to pursue the matter. This was because the application had been agreed by Bucks. C.C. even though no consent had been granted. However, it was assumed in this advice that no actual harm was being done. It is believed that the planning consent which applied up to the 14 th. November was granted in 1989 and limited the height to 6Metres.
On the basis that it would alter a previous resolution they were unwilling to impose additional conditions such as the use of inert material or screening with trees although in fact, the reason this is being placed before the council again is to relax a previous condition.
Milton Keynes Council again postponed a decision.
An application by Shanks was approved by the Bucks County Council some years ago but this was made conditional on Shanks financing additional access to the site by paying part of the cost of Stoke Hammond by-pass. However, because negotiations with Railtrack have not been completed, the condition has not yet been met. In anticipation, Shanks are nevertheless adding extra rubbish without planning permission. They are thus in breach of the planning laws and under normal circumstances, the council would take enforcement action. Shanks are understood to be happy about this because by the time the matter comes to court they expect to meet the condition. They are unwilling to have additional conditions imposed as the result of an interim application. The current application has apparently been initiated by the Planning Department to avoid their statutory obligation to enforce the planning laws. An additional planning application has also been made for the Newton Longeville part of the site.
Meanwhile the West Bletchley Council Environment Committee decided to support the aims of PALS, recommend expenditure of up to £10,000 on an expert to the full council and hold a public meeting in October. This was subsequently referred back by the full council.
The Environmental Agency prosecution of Shanks Waste Solutions is going ahead but has been delayed to allow Shanks time to prepare their case. Meanwhile Shanks appeal against closure of the plant has also been delayed for similar reasons.. Discussions on a health survey have taken place but expert advice is being sought before proceeding. The highest reading for Hydrogen Sulphide was 220 ppb at Scott's Club on 15 th. June although this may not have been the peak.
The above information was revealed at a liaison meeting on July 5 th. involving members of West Bletchley Council, PALS, Milton Keynes Council and the Environmental Agency. It was also revealed that the Development Control Committee had delayed implementing the 'Recontouring' application because of the current problems. This proposal allowing continued filling to raise the dump to 21 metres above the natural ground was originally approved in 1998. As the rubbish settles, the level is expected to sink to 6 metres. Concern was expressed at how much public consultation took place prior to this decision and the results of environmental impact studies.. It was accepted by the planning officer present that more conditions concerned with screening the site were justified. Conditions were imposed about access as a result of which Shanks contributed to the Stoke Hammond By-pass and associated highways. There was a suggestion that weight limits on lorries through Bletchley should be reviewed.
An unminuted meeting involving Jim Meredith, Managing Director of Shanks Waste Solutions and Dr Starkey M.P. was reported. It was claimed that extensive remedial works were being carried out and that Shanks would finance a medical survey. General concern was expressed that the intention was to pave the way for some form of incineration plant, particularly with regard to safety.
There a Health and Safety Issue
on the landfill site. Workers on the site have been issued with protective
clothing and breathing apparatus etc. because of the high concentrations
of Hydrogen Sulphide.
Shanks claim that this only affects workers in close proximity to the site
who have to drill new gas wells and that the gas will dissipate and will
not cause danger or risk to Bletchley residents. However, internal documents
show lethal concentrations (above 2,000 ppm) have been detected at the
boreholes on site. In whatever concentrations, Hydrogen Sulphide cannot
be described as a harmless gas and has clearly been one of the constituents
of the smell from the site on more than one occasion. Shanks have called
around various local organisations to allay fears should workers be seen
with their 
protective
equipment. So there is no cause for alarm, (unless your children actually
wander on to the site).
Queries to C. Challins or C.
Richardson at Shanks on 01908 367022 -
Click
Here for Eurohazcon Report
PALS
Action Group reports that the noxious
gas is caused by large quantities of Calcium Sulphate from South Wales
diverted from its original site when that licence was terminated.
PALS supporters unsuccessfully
tried to lobby the Prime Minister at Bletchley
Centre.
The Environmental Agency gave Shanks Waste Solutions a deadline of April 2 nd. to end their pollution of the Bletchley Atmosphere. According to PALS the main part of the landfill operation has been closed down until the problem is solved. Part of the site is still operating however. The last word is that the Environmental Agency are now prosecuting Shanks.. There is, however, concern that if for some reason the prosecution fails, Shanks will ask for compensation. Shanks are already appealing against the Agency's closure of part of the plant. Meanwhile, would you trust these people to run a pyrolysis (incineration) plant?
Meanwhile 'People Against the Landfill Site (PALS) Action Group' organised another well attended meeting in Wilton Hall on Wednesday 10 th. April. Residents were asked to write to or Email the local M.P. Dr. Phyllis Starkey who has already replied to letters with attempts to present answers. The group will reply to the points raised. Meanwhile plans to open a new pit with a dumping life of
To complain phone Environmental Health on 0800
085 9693 or (01908) 252398.
To
urgently report environmental incidents to The Environment Agency phone
0800
80 70 60 or less urgently Email
enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk.
It is important that every
incident is notified to these agencies by everyone. Otherwise they
think the problem has gone away. The Agency
have issued forms to residents so that each day on which
the problem occurs can be recorded. These are also available from PALS
Action Group (PALAG).
Several hundred Bletchley and Newton Longeville Residents attended a previous meeting in Wilton Hall on Wednesday, 21 st. February organised by 'People against the Landfill'. The meeting was an opportunity to ask questions of the Chief Environmental Officer of Milton Keynes Council (Phillip Winsor) and the responsible team leader at the Environmental Agency. Many residents were still disatisfied with the tardy response to the nuisance
'People Against
Landfill Sites' Action Group is eager
to receive copies of documented and physical evidence. Address to:-
PALS Action Group
1A Shelley Drive
Bletchley
MK3 5BN
To help contact Peter Shine
on 372602
They suggest that complaints
should be directed by phone on 01480 483293
The Environmental Agency's attempt to wield the big stick on Shanks was revealed at a previous meeting of various groups including 'People againt the Landfill' and Neighbourhood and Parish Councils at Milton Keynes Council Offices on Tuesday 27 th. February. Milton Keynes Council were in a position to order cessation of operations but following an earlier meeting with Shanks Waste Solutions, more effort was put into correcting the problems. As a result Shanks would be able to mount a defence that they were using their best endeavours to solve the problem. The Environmental Agency had already placed additional conditions on the site licence. As a consequence of these, Shanks were required to monitor and control the atmospheric pollution at the site boundaries. The Agency were also collecting evidence for a prosecution. However, although methane and carbon dioxide could be detected, the smell was caused by trace elements. Because special equipment is needed these would be analysed on one day only - 7 th. March. One resident had experience of a household carbon monoxide detector indicating and sent it for analysis. He suggested others do likewise. Toxicology at Guys and St Thomas' were analysing sludge samples. Should problems be reported, soil samples might be considered. The meeting raised other concerns with possible illicit night working and with the causes of overnight build-up of gases said to be due to temperature inversions.
At an even earlier meeting called by Shanks Waste Solutions in a small overcrowded village hall in Newton Longeville on Thursday 8 th. February, the regional manager of Shanks attempted to explain the stench emanating from the Landfill Site and re-assure a largely hostile crowd of local residents that it would be eliminated within eight weeks. He also revealed that they have made an application to construct a plant to burn rubbish before it is deposited on the site.
It is fair to say that both statements were met with suspicions by those present before the meeting broke up into separate groups. Shanks had written to attendees indicating that a further (better organised?) meeting would be held. As a result of the meeting, an action group 'People Against the Landfill' was formed. There is particular medical concern about the impact on asthma sufferers and others with breathing problems.
It took some time to establish that the smells emanated directly from the tip. For a while it was claimed that they were the result of a leak in the area where most of the tipping takes place which it was claimed has been subsequently cured. (Early statements about compost and farm manure being presumably just that.) The current position appears to be that the stench has two causes. The first is that there are leaks past the flame intended to burn off the methane gas. The second is that the damp weather has caused The previous claim was that after spending several hundred thousand pounds, the problem would be sorted out last year. Meanwhile the stench continues.
For information from Mabe Click Here
Some Newton Longeville residents have claimed that unmarked tankers and lorries carrying yellow plastic bags visit the site. Yellow bags are commonly used for hospital waste. Until Shanks are absolutely open about what has been deposited and when, rumours will proliferate.
Complaints about the smells emanating from the landfill site at Newton Longeville and rumours of an incinerator being built to cope with the refuse from a wide area have been current for a long time before any formal response was made. The original proposal for an incinerator was, apparently, a kite flown by a member of Milton Keynes Council. However, some months ago, local bodies were represented at a meeting with Shanks on a proposal for a pyrolysis plant (Not incineration, presumably the change from a Latin to a Greek root makes all the difference) . It will burn rubbish. It is claimed that this will be under such control there will be no dangerous emissions (or that ambient pollutants will remain within the normal range). It is intended that it will be built in 5 years time on the West side of the main railway line opposite the Lakes Estate between the Blue Lagoon Park and the Newton Lees Development. It would be supplied by a spur off the old Oxford line running to the west of the Blue Lagoon Park. It could then process rubbish from the whole of the Northern Home Counties with all the prestige that implies. It is claimed that the underlying clay is particularly valuable to this process. It will be based on an existing plant operated by Shanks in Holland.
Concern has been expressed, given the proximity to habitation, as to whether effluent could be reliably controlled, possible effects of a major breakdown in what is new technology and the noise pollution caused by the rail link. Although the process would be largely automated some jobs would result. However, it is not clear whether this would outweigh the blight such a proposal would cause to regeneration prospects over the next five years. Such a plant would require sanction from both MKC and the environmental agency. It would normally involve a public inquiry. There is considerable doubt locally about the technical ability of Shanks to operate such a plant on the basis of recent experience.