Oct 24, 2012 - The next point relates to the wind turbine. If you take the lever-arch file and turn to tab 17, we see the granted planning permission, do we not, ...
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE taken before
2
The Joint Committee on the Rookery South (Resource Recovery Facility) Order 2011 on the ROOKERY SOUTH (RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY) ORDER 2011
Wednesday 24 October 2012 in Committee Room 4A Present: Mr Brian Binley MP (Chair) Lord Dear Bill Esterson MP Lord Geddes Paul Uppal MP
Ms Saira Kabir Sheikh appeared as Counsel on behalf of Central Bedfordshire Council and Bedford Borough Council (petitions 36-39) Mr Alastair Lewis (of Sharpe Pritchard) appeared as agent for Central Bedfordshire Council and Bedford Borough Council (petitions 36-39) Ms Alison Ogley (of Walker Morris Solicitors) appeared as agent for Waste Recycling Group Limited, WRG Waste Services Limited and Anti-Waste Limited (petition 35) Mrs Alison Gorlov (of Winckworth Sherwood) appeared as agent for Covanta Rookery South Ltd (applicant) Mr Tim Mould QC appeared as Counsel on behalf of Covanta Rookery South Ltd (applicant) _________________
1
Ordered at 9.47 am: That the Parties be called in.
107. CHAIR (MR BRIAN BINLEY MP): Order, order, which means that this Committee is now in public session; those words will denote the start and end of public sessions. You will get quite used to it. First, can I ask everybody, including those distinguished barristers present, to switch off their telephones?
Nobody is checking, so it seems to me that
everybody has already done so and I am grateful. 108. Can I read a housekeeping note, first of all? It will hopefully be helpful to you and will explain some of the odd things that may happen from time to time. First, let me explain the Division Bells and the fire-alarm system to you. If you hear a loud ringing bell during the proceedings, do not worry. A loud, constantly ringing bell means that one or other of the members of this body will have to go to vote. I will suspend the sitting to allow that process to take place. You will have to bear with us. 109. In the case of fire, bells are not used on the Parliamentary Estate; instead, a two-tone siren followed by a series of taped messages is broadcast. If evacuation is necessary, please follow the instructions of the doorkeeper, the gentleman who will turn round and smile at you in a second. Thank you very much. Anyone not in the Committee Room itself should find the nearest Security Officer; if you are taking a comfort break or whatever, they are dotted around and you will find them. 110. Lastly, regarding today’s timetable and indeed the timetable for the rest of the sittings, we intend to start at 9.30 and we will adjourn at 11.45. In the afternoon, we will reassemble at 2 pm. and we will adjourn at 4 pm. I might tell you that this is because I think your workload, presenting the petitions, is going to be pretty intensive, and our workload, in trying to work out what you are explaining to us, will also be pretty intensive. I hope that
2
you will appreciate that we are not going to use the full time that we initially said we might. I hope that meets with your approval. Thank you very much. 111. There are just a few more matters. I would highlight the fact that Hansard is keeping a record. Can I ask everybody to speak up to assist those good people to do so? I remind you that the microphones are quite sensitive, and if you knock them about they will make a row. Are you okay? 112. MS KABIR SHEIKH: No, but I will fix it. 113. CHAIR: Is there anybody around who can help? We will provide some help for you. Can I go on to tell you that this is the first Substantive Hearing on the petitions against the Rookery South (Research Recovery Facility) Order 2011.
For the official record, the
members of the Committee have no interests to declare. 114. At the preliminary hearing in July, the Committee decided to interpret its remit in the widest sense, and the Committee will therefore hear the case for the petitions referred to in full. We are doing so as a part of the democratic process and, equally, as a part of the legal process because there are quite a number of people out in the wider world who have expressed a great interest in this particular matter. 115. Consequently, five decisions have been referred to the Committee, and the onus is on the petitioner to prove the case for their petition.
I would add that we expect all
submissions to be in keeping with the petitions, and if anyone strays and tries to lead us into other avenues, I will be quick to close you down. 116. Secondly, like the BBC programme would have it, hesitation or repetition are not in keeping with the professionalism of your body or indeed ours; no, they are in keeping with our body, actually, but I would hope that you would abide by our ruling that you should not dwell on any repetition. Of course, you are all much too professional to be hesitant.
3
117. The parties have proposed an order of proceedings, and the Committee is content to proceed on that basis. We are perfectly happy with your programme, quite frankly. Once the case for the petitions has been made, the Committee will decide whether or not there is a case to be answered. If there is a case to be answered, Covanta Rookery South Ltd will be invited to do so. If not, the Committee will proceed to hear the case for the next petition. 118. Proceedings will start with a short presentation of a factual statement, which has been agreed by the three petitioners and Covanta, the applicant. Afterwards, the Committee will hear the case for the Petition of General Objection received from Central Bedfordshire Council, Petition 36. 119. I will now ask members of this Committee and leading counsel and agents to introduce themselves very briefly, and consequently I will start by saying that my name is Brian Binley and I am the Member of Parliament for Northampton South. Could we proceed from my left? 120. PAUL UPPAL: My name is Paul Uppal and I am the Member of Parliament for Wolverhampton South West. 121. LORD GEDDES: I am Euan Geddes, Member of the House of Lords, elected hereditary peer. 122. MS LAWRENCE: I am Kate Lawrence; I am one of the Clerks to the Committee. 123. MR WEIR: I am David Weir; I am one of the Clerks to the Committee. 124. MR BROOKSBANK: I am Peter Brooksbank, Deputy Counsel from the House of Commons. 125. LORD DEAR: I am Geoffrey Dear; I sit on the crossbenches in the House of Lords. 126. BILL ESTERSON: I am Bill Esterson, the MP for Sefton Central. 127. CHAIR: Would you be so kind?
4
128. MR MOULD QC: Yes, sir. I am Timothy Mould, Queen’s Counsel. I am instructed on behalf of Covanta by Mrs Alison Gorlov, Parliamentary Agent with the firm of Winckworth Sherwood. Might I just indicate for the record, sir, that Covanta here appear as the delegate of the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 243? 129. MS OGLEY: Good morning, sir. My name is Alison Ogley of Walker Morris Solicitors. I am a Parliamentary Agent representing FCC, your petitioner. 130. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Good morning, sir. I am Saira Kabir Sheikh. I am of Counsel and am representing here your petitioner, Central Bedfordshire Council and Bedford Borough Council. I am instructed by Parliamentary Agent Alastair Lewis, who is sitting to my left, from Sharpe Pritchard. 131. CHAIR: Thank you.
I assume that as we proceed other counsel and agents will
introduce themselves when the appropriate time comes. I then invite Mr Timothy Mould QC and Ms Alison Gorlov, the agent on behalf of Covanta, to present the factual statement agreed between the three petitioners and Covanta, the applicant for the Order. 132. MR MOULD QC: Sir, that task falls to me. Might I just inquire through you—so that I can get a sense of how detailed I need to be in relation to this—whether you and members of your Committee have had an opportunity to glance through the statement? 133. CHAIR: Every Member of my Committee has read the statement and you might simply wish to present it for inclusion in the record, if you felt we were capable enough to understand the intricacies of the statement. I think we might be, but I leave that to you. 134. MR MOULD QC: I will very briefly summarise, if I may, the key points. If I go too far in that respect, I have no doubt—as you have indicated already—that you will let me know. Might I also just indicate this? The Committee is of course hearing petitions in relation to an
5
Order; I take it that members of the Committee have a copy of the Order available to them. There is also a little booklet of plans that was provided: COV 1, 2 and 3, I think it was. 135. CHAIR: All members of the Committee have copies of those documents. 136. MR MOULD QC: Thank you.
Finally, I do not know whether members of the
Committee have a copy of the document titled Panel Decision and Statement of Reasons, which is the document that reflects the infrastructure planning permissions decision. 137. CHAIR: We have copies. 138. MR MOULD QC: Thank you very much indeed. The statement of fact is in a number of parts. It begins with a glossary that defines a series of technical terms. I draw attention, for the record, simply to the reference to an RRF on page 2, which is a reference to a resource-recovery facility. That is the development that is the subject of the Development Consent Order that is before this Committee. It includes as one of its principal components an energy-from-waste facility, which is a facility that processes waste in order to create energy in the form of electricity or heat from the incineration of waste material; in this case, that facility is proposed to generate an average gross electrical output of 65 megawatts of electricity from the treatment of 585,000 tonnes of waste on a nominal estimate, that waste being residual mixed municipal waste and residual commercial and industrial waste. 139. The other principal component of the resource-recovery facility is a materials-recovery facility, which is a plant dedicated to receiving, separating and preparing incinerator-bottom ash, which is the material that falls to the bottom of the incinerator during the combustion process, and commingled metals, which, again, is what it says: a mixture of metals that also are left over as a residue of the combustion process. It takes those materials and processes them for reuse or for recycling.
For example, they will provide some material for
road-building and that kind of thing.
6
140. There are other features of the facility that I draw to your attention. The first is that the facility necessarily has a stack as part of the resource-recovery facility, which is of the order of 110 metres in height. (10 am) 141. Secondly, in order to transmit the electricity generated by the energy-from-waste component from the plant to the grid, the facility requires to be connected to a transfer station. That is located distant from the facility, and for that purpose cables are required to be laid, either beneath the road surface or within the verge of a highway known as Green Lane. You will be hearing about that part of the process—I have no doubt—as these proceedings continue. That is a brief account of the facility itself. 142. The pages 4 and 5 of the statement of facts identify briefly the Order and the fact that it was made, at paragraph 4, under the provisions of the Planning Act 2008 as a nationally significant infrastructure project. The significance of that term, known by the acronym NSIP, is that this is an electricity-generating facility whose output is in excess of 50 megawatts and therefore it falls within the definition of a nationally significant infrastructure project under that particular Statute. 143. It has been dealt with hitherto by the Infrastructure Planning Commission—and I have referred already to their decision. That body no longer functions as a result of changes made by the Localism Act 2011. Its functions as a decision-making body in relation to projects of this kind are now with the Secretary of State or, rather, with the secretaries of state, I should say. So far as the detailed processes for the evaluation and determination of a project of this kind are concerned, the change in the decision-maker does not affect the process whereby those decisions are made in any material degree. 144. The parties the Committee is aware of. The applicant for the Order was those whom I represent, that is to say Covanta, a firm that is not presently operating any
7
energy-from-waste or resource-recovery facilities within this country but, as members of the Committee are well aware, is a very well established operator of such facilities both within the United States and elsewhere in the world. 145. The local authority petitioners are the local authorities for both the area within which the facility would be located, in Central Bedfordshire, and the neighbouring authority, that is to say Bedford Borough Council. They are also, as it happens, the highway authorities for the surrounding road network other than the main trunk road, which is the A41. That of course rests with the national highway authority and the Secretary of State for Transport. 146. Your third petitioner is a member of the FCC group of companies, Waste Recycling Group Ltd. There has been a name change recently, as is set out in paragraph 7 of the statement of facts, and, as is recorded in paragraphs 7 to 9, that group of companies is also a very well established operator of waste-management facilities both in this country and elsewhere. 147. The facility itself is described in some detail in paragraphs 10 to 15 of the statement of facts; unless it would help you for me to go through that, I do not propose to do so. The area in which the facility is proposed to be located is described in paragraphs 16 to 21. I just draw attention to two matters of context there. 148. First of all there is paragraph 18. The site of the proposed facility lies within an area that, for planning policy purposes, is identified as a growth area. That is something that is set out in the core strategies—to use the current terminology—both of Central Bedfordshire Council and of Bedford Borough Council. 149. The second is paragraph 21, which says that the site itself is identified in an emerging waste-planning core strategy, which is being promoted by those councils that petition you and also the Luton Borough Council. Those three councils have jointly identified the site as being a site they propose for waste-management purposes, including waste recovery, in that
8
emerging strategy. That is an important point of context for you to be aware of. That is at paragraph 21. 150. Proceedings on the Draft Order are set out in paragraphs 22 through to 27. Again, I do not propose to deal with that in any detail but, just for the record, members of the Committee may find it helpful to know that within the IPC Decision and Reasons document, at appendices B and C, is a record of the procedural history of the hearings before the IPC and of all the various parties who appeared before or who made representations to the IPC. 151. Paragraph 25 refers to another important point of context, that is to say two national policy statements. Those are the key policy documents in relation to nationally significant infrastructure project proposals, which are dealt with under the Planning Act 2008. The two that are relevant here have the acronyms EN1 and EN3. One is a national policy statement that deals with major energy development proposals generally: that is EN1. EN3 deals specifically with renewable and low-carbon energy generation proposals. 152. Since the Infrastructure Planning Commission heard proceedings on this particular scheme, the Coalition Government has published its National Planning Policy Framework, which is a feature of national policy that will be familiar to members of the Committee, I have no doubt. I mention that now simply to reassure the Committee that the publication of that national policy framework does not affect the continuing primacy of the national policy statements as the key policy driver for major projects of the kind that you are dealing with today. If it is necessary to give you a reference for that, we can do so in due course, but I thought it would be helpful just to mention that to you. 153. I have referred to the IPC decision document. Some important references are given on pages 7 and 8. I do not need to go through those. The procedure before this Committee is obviously very familiar to members of the Committee. That is summarised in paragraphs 29 and following. I do not propose to say any more about that.
9
154. The grounds of objection are very helpfully summarised, and we are grateful to the petitioners for having summarised the points they wish to focus on in paragraphs 40 and 41 of the statement of facts. As I understand it, today’s sessions are likely to be focusing upon paragraphs 40(e) and 40(f), that is to say waste planning policy and, to an extent, local planning policy. I hope I have that right, but my learned friend will reveal that to us in a moment when I have ceased speaking. We are to hear from WRG obviously a little later in the proceedings of the Committee. 155. The order itself is explained in a little detail in paragraphs 40 to 52. Essentially, Article 3 of the Order, taken with Schedule 1 of the Order, would give authority for the construction and operation of the resource-recovery facility, the development that is proposed by Covanta. It would also provide for a number of ancillary or associated matters, including improvements to public footpaths, landscaping and matters of that kind. We will be no doubt discussing those to some degree as the proceedings proceed. 156. Paragraph 43 gives some brief details of the physical dimensions of the facility: a maximum roof height of 43 metres, but because it is set in the foot of a former brick-clay pit, it would be about 33 metres above the surrounding unexcavated ground level. The stack is given there as 105 metres. I think I gave the maximum allowed under the Order, which is 110, but the expectation is that it will be five metres lower than that, which means it will be 95 metres above the surrounding unexcavated ground level.
Some further
dimensions are given in that paragraph. 157. Perhaps it is just worth noting, in paragraphs 46 and 47, that the Order does amongst other things authorise compulsory acquisition of land and rights. For present purposes, all the Committee needs to be reminded of is this: so far as the councils are concerned, the degree of compulsory acquisition that the Order proposes—in relation to their interests in
10
Green Lane, which is the special land for the purposes of the Committee—is the right to run electricity cables beneath the highway surface. I mentioned that earlier. 158. So far as WRG is concerned, they have an interest, as we understand it, in the subsoil of part of Green Lane. That is what brings them before the Committee. They also have the benefit of a restriction or, to use the legalese, a restrictive covenant in relation to other land in the area. The basic effect of that restriction is set out in paragraph 50 of the statement of facts. 159. In effect, what it does is enable them to restrict the use of the Order land, the Rookery South pit, for a variety of waste-handling and waste-management purposes.
Unless
overridden, it would obviously to a significant degree prevent Covanta’s proposed development from taking place. So it is that one of the provisions of the Order has the effect, if made, to override the effect of that restriction. It would effectively convert the right to rely on that restriction into a right to claim financial compensation for any loss in land value that WRG would suffer as a result of being deprived of the right to enforce that restriction. I hope that is a tolerably clear explanation of its position for now. 160. Paragraph 49 refers to a very substantial set of requirements, which you will find set out in the first Schedule to the Order. For those of you who are familiar with planning permissions generally, you will know that planning permissions in the conventional sense are very often granted subject to a series of conditions that restrict or control the development authorised by the permission.
In the case of a Development Consent Order, the
requirements do exactly the same thing; they just happen to be called requirements. Why it was felt necessary to call them requirements rather than conditions, I do not know. But they are effectively conditions, and there are some 41 of them attached to this Draft Order. They cover, as I say, a wide variety of matters.
11
161. I might just draw attention to two of them now because they may be of some significance as the Committee proceeds. One is a requirement, which is set out in numbers 2 and 41 of the requirements, that the facility should only receive and treat what is described as “residual” waste. A scheme is in place to control that process; that will be a subject of some debate during the course of proceedings. 162. The second is that, if permitted, the facility is required to take steps to deliver not only power but also heat. A combined heat and power plant is what is required, and that is also the subject of one of the requirements. There are others; we will look at them no doubt as the proceedings take their course. 163. Finally, there is a reference at paragraph 53 to Section 106. That is a reference to an agreement or an undertaking that a developer is able to deploy in order to give additional commitments to those that are set out under the requirements.
It is relevant here
principally because of the commitments that are contained in a Section 106 agreement—to use the jargon—entered into between Covanta and the councils in relation to the Bedford and Milton Keynes Waterway, which is described in paragraphs 54 to 58. The nub of the commitment that has being given is set out in paragraphs 57 and 58. Effectively, we have said that we will bear the cost of relaying or adjusting our cables under Green Lane insofar as it is necessary to do so in order to accommodate the future route of the proposed Bedford and Milton Keynes Waterway, which is intended to run beneath Green Lane as it passes through this area. (10.15 am) 164. Again, that is a matter of debate before the Committee, because the suggestion from the councils, as I understand it, is that we should do more than that, but you will be hearing about that in due course.
12
165. Sir, I do not know whether that fulfils your desire that matters should be dealt with briefly, but that is a very quick run-through of the statement of agreed facts. Unless there is anything else at this stage, I think I shall give way, if I may, to Ms Sheikh. 166. CHAIR: Do the members of the Committee have any questions to raise at this stage? In other words, Mr Mould, you have done your job exceptionally well, as usual, and we are grateful. 167. MR MOULD QC: That is very kind of you, thank you. 168. CHAIR: Can I therefore call upon Saira Kabir Sheikh to commence the presentation of the Central Bedfordshire Council? Before I do, I would highlight the fact that you may call witnesses as part of your presentation. If you do so, you should ensure that witnesses are introduced with their full name and title for the record. You should ensure that they have been sworn in by Committee staff before they give evidence, and the counsel for Covanta, the applicant, will have the right to cross-examine any witnesses before they are discharged. Finally, I give you the very good news that members may question you at any time. 169. MS KABIR SHEIKH: I look forward to it. 170. CHAIR: I hope they do not mess your flow up too much, but I have said to members of the Committee that if they do have questions it perhaps would be helpful if they jotted them down and kept them to the end of your presentation, in order to give you free flow. 171. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Thank you, sir—however they come.
Can I just, before
proceeding, make one point? My learned friend—as you say, very helpfully—went through the statement of facts that have been agreed. There is just one point that I feel I ought to mention. My learned friend took the Committee to paragraph 21, and the point that he made about 21 was that it was an important point of context that the site was identified in the emerging Minerals and Waste Core Strategy plans of the councils.
13
172. Sir, it is also an important point of context just to look five lines up from the bottom of that paragraph, please, which states that the emerging policy provides that such facilities should be sized to manage waste generated within the plan area. That is important. 173. The other point for the record is that I appear on behalf of Central Bedfordshire Council and Bedford Borough Council, rather than Bedfordshire Borough Council as I think I said at the beginning. I apologise for that, but it ought to be Bedford Borough Council. Sir, I have a few introductory comments and then I propose to call my first witness, if that is acceptable. 174. CHAIR: Very much so. 175. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Sir, the councils appear before you asking that this Order should not be confirmed. You have allowed your petitioners to present their objections in full; they are grateful and they will do so. We will do this by presenting evidence in support of each of the objections in the petitions, that is the Petitions of General Objection and the Petitions of Amendment. The councils’ evidence, I hope, will demonstrate to you that the Order is not justified. 176. The Promoter’s waste facility, we say, is harmful on many levels, and your petitioners are the local authorities for their areas. They have responsibilities for planning, but also for waste planning, collection and disposal. This scheme was approved by the IPC despite the councils’ very real concerns and opposition. What they say is that these proposals and the issues they have raised undermine the proper planning for their areas and undermine the sustainability agenda for the area. 177. Sir, the key areas that you will hear evidence upon are, firstly, the harm to amenities through the reindustrialisation of the area in which the facility would be located, and that is the Marston Vale in Central Bedfordshire. Mrs Susan Marsh will give you evidence based on her vast knowledge of local issues relating to the area and the council’s careful work—
14
successful until this proposal—to regenerate an area that had been dominated by brickworks and then by the use of the clay pits, which were once used for brick-making, for landfill. They were used for landfill sites, importing large volumes of waste from afar. She will explain to you the scale of this facility; it is breathtaking, we say. This will lead to negative impacts on amenities, including the large volumes of HGVs that will travel from outside of the councils’ area to the facility through largely residential areas. 178. You will also hear evidence in relation to the lack of need for a facility of this scale and mass. There is simply not the local waste arising for an industrial facility of this scale. There is no opposition to facilities per se, in principle; it is the scale of this facility. There are numerous other facilities either operating, with planning permission or in the process of obtaining planning permission. 179. Mr Roy Romans’ evidence will show you, I hope, why allowing a facility of this size and capacity is not needed and, indeed, is contrary to the proper management of waste. Waste should be managed sustainably by using the nearest appropriate facility. We will show that Covanta do not have access to sufficient residual waste from the councils’ area for a facility of this capacity and scale. It has therefore produced a nominal catchment area—it is not restricted—and that demonstrates that they are hoping to carry waste into the councils’ area from Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire. That of course causes waste to be transported in HGVs—up to over 500 per day to the Rookery site. Mr Romans’ evidence, however, will show you that, even using this wider five-counties catchment area, it is unlikely that anything like the amount of waste that is needed to feed a facility of this scale and size would be available to Covanta. It simply does not have the contracts through the procurement process. This means that it will need to be sourcing waste from even further afield than these countries in order to feed the
15
facilities. The Promoter’s approach will create the very real risk that waste will be imported from very distant areas in order to feed the facility. 180. I would just point out at this stage that this is what has happened in the Netherlands; you will hear this from Mr Romans. They have such excess capacity that they are actually importing waste from Germany and England. That is not proper waste management. That is the consequence of overcapacity. While treating waste higher up the hierarchy is of course a good thing, this must be done in a responsible, planned way. Planning appropriately sized facilities and having regard to available capacity is essential.
We say that this proposal
undermines that. 181. This is all a consequence of the facility being, again, of a wholly inappropriate scale. Other waste facilities that are much smaller in scale would be the correct way to deal with waste sustainably, would have the public interest at heart and would accord with local, regional and national policy. 182. The scale of the facility, you will hear from Mr Romans, puts at risk the treatment and management of waste in accordance with the waste hierarchy. Mr Romans will explain and expand on the waste hierarchy and what that means. Mr Romans will also give evidence on the issues in the Petitions of Amendment, which relate to the need to limit the catchment area. If, sir, you were minded to confirm the Order, then we would look to at least limit the catchment area to those five counties. We also would be asking through the Petitions of Amendment to have a definition of residual waste. There currently is not one, which means that quite a quantity of waste would go into this facility that has not been recycled to the extent that it could be. It is black-bin waste, which could be recycled further before it goes into this facility. That is in accordance with the waste hierarchy, which says that you should recycle as much as you can before you recover through facilities such as this.
16
183. You will be also hearing evidence from Mrs Bettina Kirkham in relation to visual impact. Again, it is the sheer scale and size of this facility that leads to the councils’ objections in respect of the serious visual harm caused to the area, including to the setting of a number of important listed buildings in the area. 184. Mr Nicholas Stubbs will be giving you evidence in due course on the poor design of the facility. You will hear from him as to his evidence, and you will also hear from Ms Laura Kitson, who will give the councils’ evidence on the harm caused by the proposal to the delivery of the Bedford and Milton Keynes Waterway; you have those in the petition. 185. We hope in due course that the evidence will convince you that the Order ought not to be confirmed, so with your leave, then, I would propose to call my first witness, who is Mrs Susan Marsh. 186. CHAIR: May I welcome you, Mrs Marsh? Do make yourself comfortable. Before you start, can I just ask you to confirm that you have been properly sworn-in as required? 187. MRS MARSH: Yes I have, sir. 188. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Could you please introduce yourself? 189. MRS MARSH: I can. Are you circulating the exhibit? 190. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Yes, do not worry. Just go ahead and introduce yourself, please. 191. MRS MARSH: Good morning. My name is Susan Marsh. I am employed as the Principal Minerals and Waste Planning Officer in the Minerals and Waste Planning Team and have worked in this team since March 2010.
Whilst this team is hosted by Central
Bedfordshire Council, there is a shared-service agreement with Bedford Borough Council and Luton Council to undertake minerals and planning work for their authority areas. I therefore undertake both development management—that is, dealing with planning applications—and forward-planning work on the emerging minerals and waste local plan,
17
192. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Thank you.
Could you also give the Committee some
background in terms of the experience that you have in the public and private sectors, please? 193. MRS MARSH: I have a much wider planning background to draw upon, having worked in both the public and private sectors, mainly undertaking minerals and waste planning work. Prior to working in Bedfordshire, I was employed by Peterborough City Council as their Principal Minerals and Waste Planning Officer, again undertaking both development management and progressing the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and Site Allocations Development Plan Document with Cambridgeshire County Council. 194. Before then, I worked for Entec UK as a Principal Consultant and acted as a project manager for a range of projects, including the comparative assessment of locations for sewage works on the south coast, locations for waste-management facilities, work for a major waste-management company on household-waste recycling sites, seeking a site for the location of a major waste facility and, also, undertaking work for the Crown both on forward housing and commercial sites, as well as a sustainability appraisal for the management of inert waste. Over my career, I have dealt with a wide range of large-scale waste-management development proposals. These range from landfill facilities through to energy and waste facilities, material recycling facilities, composting and household waste recycling facilities. 195. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Thank you. Could you also tell us your qualifications, please? 196. MRS MARSH: I have the following qualifications: I have a BSc (Hons) in Plant Sciences from the University of London; I have a Diploma in Town Planning from the Polytechnic of Central London; I undertook the Institute of Quarrying exams and achieved a Distinction; I
18
am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute; I am an Associate Member of the Institute of Quarrying; and I am an Affiliate Member of the CIWM. 197. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Thank you. Now, you have produced a number of exhibits. Sir, I wonder if I could ask for those to be handed to you. (10.30 am) 198. Sir, I propose to take Mrs Marsh through these exhibits and for her to give her evidence with reference to them. On the left-hand side of most of the exhibits is a summary of the oral evidence that she will be giving. We hope that will be helpful. It is just bullet points that summarise what she is going to be saying as she addresses you, sir. 199. Sir, in essence, just to give a roadmap so you know where we are going, she will be giving evidence in relation to the history of brickworking in the Vale and how the area has been affected by it over the last 120 years.
She will comment on the impact of the
brickmaking operations on the health, amenity and lifestyle of local residents—positive and negative. She will explain the way the area is changing since the demise of the brickworks at Stewartby. She will comment particularly on the reindustrialisation and erosion of the semirural character of the area if the facility is developed, the amenity impacts of the proposed facility on the surrounding area, its residents and visitors, and how the facility would adversely affect the environmental regeneration and landscape enhancement of the area. 200. Sir, if I could ask you to turn to Exhibit 1 first. Mrs Marsh, Exhibit 1 is titled The changing face of the Marston Vale. Could you explain, please, first of all, the location of the Rookery facility in the Marston Vale? 201. MRS MARSH: There is a map of the UK on the page entitled Exhibit 1 and that shows the location of the Rookery South facility. It is located approximately 40 miles to the north of London, just south of Bedford. There is another map on page 2, which is also entitled Exhibit 1, and this shows the location in a bit more detail. It shows that the facility is located
19
within the Marston Vale, which stretches from Bedford in the northeast through to the M1 in the southwest. It shows the location of the A421, which goes through the Marston Vale. 202. This plan also shows a number of developments that will be taking place or are taking place within the Marston Vale. It also shows a number of the villages close to where the facility would be located. The nearest villages are Marston Moretaine and Stewartby, and you can see these on the map to the east and west of the Rookery South pit, which is shown in red on the map. There are quite a number of other villages relatively close, within a few miles, and these include Lidlington, Millbrook, Cranfield, Houghton Conquest, Wootton, Kempston Hardwick, Brogborough and there is also the small town of Ampthill, which is just to the south of the Green Wash, which shows the forest of Marston Vale. 203. The forest of Marston Vale is still very rural in character, even though there is housing and commercial development either taking place here or proposed here in the future. I intend, very briefly, to go through the development that is taking place in this area 204. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Thank you. Mrs Marsh, if you could just wait for a moment, there is another plan, sir, that I would like to have handed round, which identifies pictorially where these developments are. Thank you. Now, what you say is that it has rural character despite other development in the area.
We have this plan; could you please take the
Committee through what it shows and what you would like them to take away from it? 205. MRS MARSH: This plan shows the development that is either committed and is currently being built or it shows development that is proposed—and sometimes there is a planning application either just approved or awaiting approval. It certainly shows that there is a level of development within the Marston Vale and indeed, as Mr Mould commented, the Marston Vale is a growth area, so that would be anticipated. 206. I will go from Kempston, in the north, more or less in a south-westerly direction down the A421 and the parallel railway line, setting out what the development is. Just in the
20
Kempston area there are yellow and blue areas; these two areas are called West of Kempston and Great Denham. Overall, there are 2,760 houses proposed and over 7,000 square metres of employment area, a country park and schools. A bit further down, near Wootton, to the east of Wootton, there is an area known as Field Road; 900 houses plus open space and nine hectares of employment are proposed here. South of Wootton you have a yellow area, and this is the former Stewartby brickworks site, where currently there is no development, but there are proposals. There is a possibility of having up to 1,000 houses on this site, on either side of the railway line, plus commercial development. 207. Beyond this, where it says Marston Moretaine, there is land at Moreteyne Farm. That is 125 dwellings and commercial development. To the east of that, you have Marston Park. That is 400 houses and that is proposed directly opposite the forest centre. Then, if you go further down, virtually at the M1 motorway, there is an area there called Marston Gate. That is an area of warehousing that has already been built; that is of the order of 15 to 18 metres in height. 208. CHAIR: Excuse me. Might I just clarify, because I want to be absolutely clear in my mind? It sounds to me like you are planning for an intake of about 10,000 people, given the number of houses that you have already quoted—or a number crudely around that area. Yet you refer to it as a rural area; are you not quickly urbanising the area? 209. MRS MARSH: Well, inevitably there will be an element of urbanising but, if you look at the plan, most of the areas are extensions to existing villages. I do not have it yet, but if you look at the plans for the Wixams—which is quite a large village development area that will also include a station, a village centre and schools etc—they are actually very green. They include green area; they include lakes. Parts of the developments are referred to in the brochures as lakeside developments. It is quite a green development. Indeed, as you drive past it on the A6, the overall impression is of green areas, lakes, etc. It does not come at
21
210. It is part of the forest of Marston Vale. There are policies and plans in place to increase the planting in Marston Vale. When the forest was created in 1990 only 3% of that area was covered by trees, and as a result of the implementation of the plan for the forest area, that coverage is going to be increased by about 30%, while increasing recreational opportunities and biodiversity. There are a lot of things in place to green the area and make it a much better area in which to live. Yes, there is development. It is small-scale development— generally two-storey housing with a bit of three-storey housing and commercial development, but it is generally on a small scale. 211. CHAIR: Thank you. 212. MRS MARSH: I will go back towards Kempston. There is what is shown on this plan as a large blue area. It is slightly misleading, in that the northern part of the blue area is actually what is called Elstow North, which is a former landfill area where there is already waste management development. But part of that area is proposed for the car parking for the NIRAH development, which is proposed elsewhere within the plan area. That is the National Institute for Research into Aquatic Habitats. They are proposing a very large development within this area with biospheres, etc. If this area does go forward for car parking, it will be ground-level car parking. If the car parking does not go ahead, then it will be restored to country park, because that is what the approved restoration scheme is for that former landfill site. In fact, it will remain largely open. 213. The larger area of the Wixams is, as I have already said, designated for a village development and there are proposals to extend that area. There are some 4,000 to 5,000
22
214. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Can you explain please about NIRAH? What is likely to be said—and has been said previously and, indeed, Mr Binley is also alluding to it—is that if there is a development like NIRAH, which is a large-scale development, what difference does it make if you have a large-scale development such as the Rookery facility in the same area? 215. MRS MARSH: Well, the NIRAH development will be a very iconic development, with biospheres and various activities on the site. As I have already said, it is a centre for aquatic research. The facility will very much celebrate that. It will be a research facility, but it will also be a tourist facility. That and Center Parcs—which is also proposed in the area, right at the extreme south, south of where it says Millbrook—are both tourist facilities; they are both low-key developments. They are well landscaped.
Certainly Center Parcs is in a
woodland area and it will be very heavily landscaped; it will largely not be noticeable outside the actual area.
Both of these developments are very much welcomed by the local
community and are seen as positive moves for bringing in recreational facilities both for local residents but also to encourage tourists into the area—and bring jobs into the area as well. 216. MS KABIR SHEIKH: In terms of these developments and the positive elements that you have described, what is it that you see as the problem with the Rookery facility being in the same location or close by, in the context of the impact on amenities? 217. MRS MARSH: As I have already said, most of the development that is proposed is largely two-storey and a little bit of three-storey development. It is quite small scale. It relates to the existing development that is in the area and is generally extensions to existing villages and towns. It is growth and inward investment that is welcomed, both by the councils and by the local communities. With the Covanta proposal, it is an extremely large development. It cannot be screened because of its size. It is—from the point of view of the
23
residents and the council—effectively a reindustrialisation of the area. As I will explain later on, the area is moving forward from its industrial past. This facility, which, I should say, will be seen from many places in the Vale, will be a constant reminder of that industrial past. (10.45 am) 218. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Could you turn, please, to Exhibit 2? Here you deal with the brick-making past of Marston Vale. Perhaps you could take up this exhibit and explain the relevance of it, particularly with reference to your last answer about the reminder of the past and what the council is seeking to do going forward. 219. MRS MARSH: Thank you. The map that is shown on Exhibit 2 shows the extent of the brick permissions and the extent of the clay extraction that took place in the Marston Vale. You can see from that plan that the Marston Vale was very greatly affected by the clay extraction that resulted from the brickmaking operations in that area. 220. Briefly, brickmaking first started in Bedfordshire in the late 1880s because there were large reserves of Oxford clay in this area and this was ideal for brick production. Brickmaking dominated the Vale for over a century. There were at least seven brickworks at various places in the Vale, and I have listed them: Elstow, Lidlington, Ridgmont, Kempston Hardwick, Arlesey and Westoning, as well as Wootton Pillinge, which became known as Stewartby. This is the brickworks I already mentioned, very near to the Rookery site. 221. The Marston Vale, were brick production was focussed, was primarily agriculture with scattered woodland and hamlets. 450 acres of land were acquired by the London Brick Company near what is now Stewartby in 1905, and this subsequently became the mainstay of brickmaking in the Vale for the next 500 years. The London Brick Company became the dominant brick company. 222. CHAIR: Do you mean 50 years? 223. MRS MARSH: No, well, it began in 1905.
24
224. CHAIR: Yes, but you said 500 years. 225. MRS MARSH: Sorry. I am getting ahead of myself. 226. CHAIR: Thank you. 227. MRS MARSH: We are talking more like 100 years, not 500 years. At one time, the Stewartby brickworks was the biggest in the world. It had 25 chimneys; it employed 2,000 people; and it produced an amazing 500 million bricks every year.
The Stewartby
brickworks continued to thrive through both World Wars, which was not the case with all of the brickworks, and despite brickmaking being in recession in the 1960s and 1970s, the brickworks continued to operate until it closed in 2008, which was partly due to poor trading conditions but largely because it could not comply with European air-quality standards. 228. In addition to the brickworks, there was also a model village that was constructed, which became known as Stewartby. This is actually quite close—within about a mile of the brickworks. This brought housing for the workers and welfare benefits for their families. It also brought security for the workers in retirement. The development of the brickworks had a significant impact on Marston Vale. It very much industrialised it. You had the brickworks itself, which was the large complex, and you also had all of the structures and conveyors, etc., associated with the clay extraction.
There was activity and the traffic
associated with it. 229. Subsequently, you also had the infilling of the brick pits with waste. It is only now, following the closure of the brick pits, the cessation of clay extraction and the completion of the landfill operations that the countryside is beginning to heal in the Marston Vale, and that is because of the proactive measures that are taking place to improve and restore the area. 230. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Over the page, you have Exhibit 3. 231. LORD DEAR: May I ask a question?
25
232. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Of course you may. 233. LORD DEAR: On the map attached to Exhibit 2, dated February 2011, we have a large number of areas that are blue. Now, I should declare a position because I lived for a long time, years ago, just south of Peterborough. The area to the south of Peterborough itself had a very large brick industry, which was also run by the London Brick Company, so I have some feeling for the sort of environment you are describing. Locally, are those areas, which I suspect are still lakes or were lakes, where the pits were in-filled? 234. MRS MARSH: Certainly, some of the former pits have become flooded and are now lakes. Indeed, as I will mention later, some of them are now used for active sports and nature conservation, etc. 235. LORD DEAR: Are they the areas shown in blue on the map attached to Exhibit 2? 236. MRS MARSH: That is correct. 237. MS KABIR SHEIKH: It may be worth very briefly looking at Exhibit 7, located further into this document on page 12. I think in the top right-hand corner, in blue, one of them is indeed showing Stewartby Lake. 238. LORD DEAR: It is an environment I remember very well, although it was 70 miles to the north of that; locally, they called them knotholes. I do not know what they are called in Bedfordshire, but they were dealt with by infilling. I might come back to that in a question later. Thank you. 239. MS KABIR SHEIKH: I am grateful. Mrs Marsh, going back, then, to Exhibit 3, you were about to explain the use of the former clay pits for waste disposal. It might be helpful to explain why there were the clay pits and the next stages. 240. MRS MARSH: The clay pits were clearly there because of the brickworks and because of the number of brickworks. As I mentioned before, there were seven. There were quite a few brickworks to feed, and the duration of the operations was such, as I said before, that
26
241. As a result of the clay extraction in the Vale, it became pock-marked with worked-out clay pits. This was especially the case around the Stewartby area near the clay pits. If you go to Exhibit 3, there is actually a plan and a photograph that shows some of the pits closest to where the Stewartby brickworks were. 242. CHAIR: Can I stop you there, if you will allow me? The whole of this area has been well used to extraction for a very long time: Northamptonshire ironstone; the Nene and Ouse Valley with gravel extraction. It has been a well-extracted area for a sizable amount of time. Your photograph is pretty dramatic. I am a Northamptonshire man and am used to landfill sites because of the ironstone. I just think that it is slightly misleading in terms of the present situation. Would that be fair or not? 243. MRS MARSH: I do not think it is necessarily fair to compare them with sand or gravel extraction. I also have quite a bit of experience with that. 244. CHAIR: No, the point I am making that you have missed is that the photograph is quite a dramatic photograph. I just wonder whether you feel that is the usual situation in this case. I do not believe it is, but you must tell me. 245. MRS MARSH: Well, I think it is. This is actually one of a series of photographs. 246. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Sorry, I think Mrs Marsh is looking at the wrong photograph. If you could turn back, it is the photograph of a typical household landfill waste site in the 1970s and 1980s. That is the photograph that Mr Binley is looking at. 247. CHAIR: I just wonder whether you are slightly overegging the pudding with the photograph; that is all.
27
248. MRS MARSH: Well, I have to admit I do not actually know where this picture was taken. 249. CHAIR: That is what I thought; just carry on. 250. MRS MARSH: Having said that, I do have quite a bit of experience of going on to non-hazardous waste landfill sites, and I can assure you that I have seen quite a few like this, where there are gulls and assorted rubbish that you actually have to wade through. Admittedly, every night there has to be a cover of soil to prevent pests and the blowing of litter, etc., but that certainly was the case until relatively recently. 251. CHAIR: Let me clarify. This is not specifically a photograph of the area we are talking about. It is a generic sort of photograph used as an example. Is that the truth of it? 252. MRS MARSH: That is the case. 253. CHAIR: Thank you. 254. MRS MARSH: There is a photograph further down on Exhibit 7, which shows Stewartby landfill with some of the landfill activity. 255. MS KABIR SHEIKH: That is page 11, sir. 256. CHAIR: Yes, I have it. 257. MRS MARSH: It is less dramatic, but that is a photograph that was taken by an Officer of the Council. 258. CHAIR: Thank you. 259. PAUL UPPAL: Just for the sake of clarity, although it says it is a 1970s/1980s scene, do we know whether that is a UK site. Do we actually know whether that is a UK landfill site? Do we know the source of that? This is just out of interest. 260. MRS MARSH: I tried to track it down precisely, but the source is one of these generic sites that provides pictures of various different things, so I cannot tell you precisely where it is. I believe it is in England and, from my point of view, I have been on sites like that.
28
261. CHAIR: As long as we understand that, that is helpful. 262. MRS MARSH: If I did not feel that was the case, I would not have been happy to include it. 263. CHAIR: I am not accusing you of dishonesty in any sense at all. We are just trying to identify what the actual photograph is about. You have been helpful; thank you. 264. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Thank you. Going back, Mrs Marsh, then, to the exhibit—or the page with the photograph—you have produced a table. Can you explain what that shows in terms of the Stewartby landfill site? 265. MRS MARSH: Stewartby landfill site is the landfill site that was the last to be completed, or, at least, waste stopped going into that site in December last year so memories of the completion of waste operations there are still quite fresh and, indeed, there are still soils going in to complete the restoration of that site. 266. You can see Brogborough if you go back to the map in Exhibit 2—the westernmost site. It is a little distance away but is not actually terribly far because it is also accessed off the A421. Both Brogborough and Stewartby took in tens of millions of tonnes of household waste, not only from Bedfordshire but from a very large area. It certainly took it from London; it took it from Berkshire; and it took it from a lot of the South East. For many years it was known that Bedfordshire had huge brick pits and this was an easy option for the landfilling of household waste. 267. Residents in this area have basically had to put up with other people’s waste in very large quantities coming to that area for many, many years. Indeed, because the permissions under which this operated were quite old permissions, they did not have the levels of conditions and constraints on them that modern permissions do.
Many of these sites’
operations would start at four o’clock in the morning and carry on throughout the day.
29
Residents had to put up with, as I will talk about later, ongoing continuous operations with very large volumes of waste. 268. What this table shows is the amount of waste that was imported to the site over the last three years of operation. Even in the last three years, when it was not coming in as intensively as it had done in many of the years previously, you can see that we are talking about between 250,000 and 500,000 tonnes of waste coming in to Stewartby before it closed in December last year. 269. MS KABIR SHEIKH: What are the sorts of activities associated with those imports? 270. MRS MARSH: As I have mentioned, it came in in very large lorries, so with Stewartby the main access to that was on Green Lane. There was quite a bit of HGV traffic from the early hours throughout the day. This created difficult conditions on Green Lane. (11 am) 271. Some of those vehicles would also lose waste, which would then fall on the roads. There was also waste from the operations generally that—especially if there were adverse weather conditions—would blow onto the surrounding land and generally make life unpleasant for local residents, local farmers and tourists etc. There was also the antisocial use of lay-bys by the drivers of waste vehicles and there were odours from rotting waste that was deposited on the landfill site. 272. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Just on the activities associated with the HGVs, could I ask you to turn to page 9 of your exhibits, please? You have produced a bar chart. Do you see that? 273. MRS MARSH: Yes, I do. 274. MS KABIR SHEIKH: It says, “Predicted HGV traffic impact”. Could you explain what these two bars show? 275. MRS MARSH: These figures are taken from the traffic assessment that was undertaken by Covanta, and the table basically indicates what the level of HGV traffic was on the roads
30
at the time the assessment was undertaken, which I believe was 2010. That indicates 152 movements up and down Green Lane. It also indicates what the change in the level of traffic would be when Covanta is operational; according to the requirements, they are permitted 594 two-way movements. That is double the amount of one-way movements up and down. You have this huge increase, as you can see, from 152 movements to nearly 1,200 movements a day along Green Lane. 276. From our point of view, we consider—and indeed this is reflected in some of the comments made by local residents—that this will affect local residents, particularly those in Stewartby who use Green Lane to go towards Bedford and towards the A21, which then takes them to the M1 or the A1. It would slow them down; it would make driving more difficult because of the number of HGVs; and there is also concern about the safety of pedestrians and cyclists using Green Lane due to the sheer sort of intimidation factor of having large lorries going up and down that road. 277. LORD GEDDES: Chairman, could I ask a question? 278. LORD DEAR: Might I? 279. CHAIR: My Lord, I think you were just in first. 280. LORD GEDDES: Yes—by a fraction. Since we are on the subject of delivery, I notice from the single-sheet map we have been given that there is a thing called the Marston Vale line; is that a railway line? 281. MRS MARSH: There are two railways lines. 282. LORD GEDDES: I can see. There is a Midland Main Line. 283. MRS MARSH: There is a more local line as well. 284. LORD GEDDES: I am looking at the Marston Vale line, which appears to run very close to the proposed site. 285. MRS MARSH: Yes, it does.
31
286. LORD GEDDES: Could that not be used for delivery? 287. MRS MARSH: The current proposals at the site are for all waste to come in by road and all of the traffic assessment is on the basis of the number of vehicles that would take waste in by road. There are proposals by Covanta to look at the feasibility of using rail at some time in the future for taking in waste to that site. There is land that could provide a siding there for it, but of course from the councils’ point of view it would also attract waste from even further afield than would probably currently be the case. Also, you can only use rail for the delivery of waste to this site if there is a facility to upload that waste on to the wagons located where you are sourcing that waste from. 288. LORD GEDDES: With respect, I can appreciate that but, on behalf of the petitioners, you are making the case that there will be a huge increase of road traffic. 289. MRS MARSH: Yes, sir. 290. LORD GEDDES: I am merely asking whether there is another way of delivery. I think you said, “Yes, there is.” 291. MRS MARSH: Yes, there is, theoretically, but certainly if the facility opened in a couple of years’ time, all of the waste and everything would be delivered by road. 292. MS KABIR SHEIKH: My Lord, I will assist. The short answer is that there may well be, but the proposal at the moment is for them all to come by HGV. There is no proposal at all by Covanta to bring any of it by rail. 293. LORD GEDDES: Thank you. 294. LORD DEAR: My point was going to be very similar. In fact, it is probably a question for Mr Mould, but, drawing on my experience of Peterborough many years ago, I do remember very clearly that those disused brick pits were eventually filled with fly ash from northern UK power stations—particularly from power stations in the Midlands. All of that, to my certain knowledge, was moved by rail. I may be wrong on perhaps the very small pits
32
scattered around the periphery, but the bulk of the fly ash was moved by rail. I simply reinforce the point as made by Lord Geddes: somewhere—and I mean no pun—along the line in this Inquiry I will have to ask a question, probably of Mr Mould, to see whether that has been properly considered as an option, but you are making the case for large amounts of road traffic to be generated, and I think we take your point. 295. CHAIR: Before you go on, can I just check something? Is the Marston Vale line in operation? 296. MRS MARSH: Yes, they are both active lines. 297. CHAIR: Where does it come from? 298. LORD GEDDES: It comes from somewhere to the south, Chairman. 299. CHAIR: I knew that bit. 300. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Sir, it comes from Bletchley and Milton Keynes. 301. CHAIR: I thought it might be. Thank you very much. I understand now. 302. MRS MARSH: Just to make the point, I am also familiar with Peterborough because I used to work there. I do acknowledge the point about bringing in fly ash to fill the pits, particularly in the south of Peterborough. Much of the new area of Hampton in the south of Peterborough is actually built on fly ash, though I doubt many of the residents are aware of that. 303. The point is that, at the moment, while rail might be a possibility that Covanta may look at in the future, there are no rail sidings from the railway line on to the site. If you do have waste coming in by rail, you find that because of the way that passenger traffic is given priority, you would probably have the waste coming in at very early and antisocial hours of the day, which, again, could affect the amenity of people living locally. 304. BILL ESTERTON: You have mentioned this point about the amenity of people living locally. How many people live close to the site or live along Green Lane?
33
305. MRS MARSH: There are very few people who live along Green Lane, very largely because that area has been so affected by the brickworks and the brick pits that most of the frontage is actually lakes or sites that are being restored as a result of the restoration of those pits. There is very little development along Green Lane. There is one road that goes off near the western end of Green Lane shortly before it meets the C94, which is the old 421. That goes to a small industrial area and also a few houses. There are also a few houses on the C94, which the vehicles would pass when they came out of Green Lane and turned left in order to access the A421. 306. BILL ESTERTON: I was asking it in the context of the previous question about rail access. Does anybody live near a place where, if there was a rail route, they would be affected? 307. MRS MARSH: There is one farm that is extremely close—virtually next door to where the rail sidings would go—but other than that it is the local communities at Lidlington and at Marston Vale that may well be affected by the noise if there were trains shunting, stopping and starting and so on at very early hours of the day, when you would not normally expect that activity. 308. MR MOULD QC: Sir, would Ms Sheikh just allow me a minute? 309. CHAIR: Can I look for a nod? 310. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Yes, thank you. 311. CHAIR: You do have the right to cross-examine, Mr Mould. 312. MS KABIR SHEIKH: I do not know what Mr Mould is going to say. I do not want him to give an explanation at the moment. That I certainly do not want. 313. MR MOULD QC: In that case I will say no more. I was going to offer some relevant facts on the rail position, but if the preference is that I should leave that until later, I shall.
34
314. CHAIR: I think Ms Sheikh is indicating she would rather you did not. You, being a gentleman, I know will desist. 315. MR MOULD QC: That is very kind of you; I shall. 316. MS KABIR SHEIKH: And, as a gentleman, I am sure he was trying to be helpful. Going back, Mrs Marsh, can we just deal with this point for the moment, about the rail versus HGVs? Now, it is a reality that the Order allows for just over 500 HGVs per day. 317. MRS MARSH: That is correct. 318. MS KABIR SHEIKH: That is dealt with in the requirements or, as Mr Mould earlier explained, what are really conditions. Who drafts those conditions or requirements? 319. MRS MARSH: The conditions were drafted by DLA Piper, the legal advisers to Covanta, but the councils did input into the wording of those requirements, but obviously they were subject to consideration by the Commissioners and there are some requirements that went forward that were not approved. 320. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Did Covanta—and when I say Covanta, I take into that DLA Piper and everyone else who was involved in this process—put forward any requirement or condition that could have removed the need for HGVs by bringing the waste by rail? 321. MRS MARSH: No. There is a condition there that specifies the maximum number of vehicle movements per day. It is 594, I believe. There can be up to 594 vehicles importing or exporting waste, incinerator bottom ash or flue ash residues. That is talking about the large vehicles and is specified in requirement 38. There is, within the legal agreement, a requirement to review the situation with regard to rail. 322. MS KABIR SHEIKH: One of the issues in the councils’ petition relates to the objection that the waste can be brought from any distance. There is no limit on the catchment area; that is one of the key issues. You made the point just now that if it comes by rail it can
35
come from great distances. Is there anything to stop the HGVs coming from great distances at present? 323. MRS MARSH: No, there is nothing. My colleague Mr Romans will go into this in more detail, but whilst the councils asked for a waste catchment restriction—in other words to limit the distance from which waste could be sourced—this was not acceded to and waste can be brought to the site from basically anywhere. 324. PAUL UPPAL: Chair, can I just pick up on that very specific point? This may be for Ms Sheikh to answer specifically. On the statement of facts, just to draw you back to the key issue here, it talks about a resource facility that generates 65 megawatts, projected on 500,000 tonnes of waste. The issue was primarily about scale. There is no issue with the resource facility, but specifically one about scale. Do you have an opinion, just in terms of the catchment area we were initially talking about, of what would be something that would be to scale and would be—I hate to use the term; I do not mean to be leading—fit for purpose, in essence? That is the nub of the argument. Do you have any view on that? 325. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Yes, indeed. We will be calling evidence from Mr Romans, who will give you a whole range of different types of waste facility that would potentially be of a smaller scale. (11.15 am) 326. The councils’ position is that the correct scale is one that deals with waste in its local plan area, which would be Bedfordshire and Luton. The correct scale would be anything that can deal with waste from that area. The difficulty with the scale we have here is that it inevitably requires much more waste to be sourced. That waste just does not arise in this plan area or even in the wider catchment area. It will involve—you will hear detailed evidence on this—getting waste from anywhere, basically, Covanta can secure a contract. They have so far been very unsuccessful in securing contracts. The answer is yes. We seek
36
a much smaller type of facility. It does not have to be an energy-from-waste facility, either; it could be one of a whole range of other types of facility. We will call evidence on the various different types that exist. 327. PAUL UPPAL: I daresay I am a bit of an anorak on figures—sorry. We will probably hear your own projections of what would be the tonnage we are talking about, I would imagine. 328. MS KABIR SHEIKH: We will indeed—as much as you like. We have another anorak behind us. Thank you. Mrs Marsh, going back, we were at page 5. Is there anything else you want to say about page 5 of the exhibits? 329. MRS MARSH: I was only going to say that the photographs illustrate in a bit more graphic detail what is shown on the plan. It shows the brickworks in the centre and a number of the pits surrounding the former brickworks, which are there because of the extent of the clay extraction that was required to feed the brickworks over the last 100 years or so. 330. Very briefly, there is Stewartby Lake, which is now a sailing lake; there is Stewartby Landfill, which as I have said has taken millions and millions of tonnes of household waste in and is only now being restored; there is Coronation Pit, at which currently alternative use is moving forward; there is Quest Pit, which is where the NIRAH development will go, assuming it goes ahead; there is also Rookery North; and, beyond that, there is Rookery South. The whole of the area around the brickworks has been seriously affected over the last 100 years. The extent of the impact those works had on their lives is very fresh in the minds of local residents. 331. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Could we turn to Exhibit 4, please? What you have here, again, is a plan. On the left-hand side there are some bullet points dealing with the adverse impacts of the brickmaking operations on the health and amenity of local residents and the
37
countryside. On the right-hand side there is a plan. You have already commented on the effect on amenities and people’s views of this kind of operation. Could you please explain what this AQMA area is—the one you have marked out on the plan on the right-hand side—and what that has to do with the brickworks and industrialisation in general in the area? 332. MRS MARSH: The AQMA is an Air Quality Management Area. These are designated by the local authority when measures are required in that area to reduce air pollution levels. It was designated here in 2005 and that was because of the brickworks. It related to the sulphur emissions from the brickworks. If you look at this plan, it is coloured in two different colours because, although it is all one area, there were two authorities involved, Bedford Borough Council, who are the continuing authority, and the former Mid Bedfordshire District Council; they both had an AQMA in place. The brickworks are just north of where Rookery South is shown in red; it is in the orange area. Because of the prevailing winds, the AQMA affected much of the area going towards Bedford town, as well as affecting a number of the villages in the wider area, which included Marston Moretaine and Stewartby, as well as a number of other villages. 333. You had, if you like, proof that there were noxious emissions that needed to be dealt with from the brickworks, which was demonstrated by the imposition of this Air Quality Management Area.
That designation was only revoked following the closure of the
brickworks. I think it was probably revoked in 2009, after the brickworks closed. So it is not just hearsay that residents in the area were very badly affected by the emissions and odours from the brickworks. In a way, the imposition of the Air Quality Management Plan is proof of that impact on them, and the ongoing impact, and the need to do something. 334. Indeed, in the 1970s the former Bedfordshire County Council commissioned research into the air pollution issues associated with the brickworks. That related to the acidic gases,
38
the fluorides and the sulphur oxides, the mercaptans and the emissions to air from the brickworks. This research found that sulphur oxides could cause stress and respiratory illness to local communities, vegetation could be subject to injury due to sulphur dioxide concentrations, crop yield could be reduced, and forest crops—suitable for grazing animals—could accumulate concentrations of fluoride resulting in cows ingesting more than the recommended daily limit. As I say, this was at a time when the company had been thinking of new brickworks, etc. Clearly, there was a problem with the air quality in that area. 335. CHAIR: Ms Sheikh, can I just question you on the relevance of past history in this respect? 336. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Yes. 337. CHAIR: Would you just very briefly tell us how this is relevant to the future of the site? 338. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Yes. Sir, it is relevant for this reason: the emissions and the odours and the various pollution issues that lead to the AQMA have had an impact on the psyche of the people who live in the area. The prospect of having another very large-scale operation, which will have emissions—and the next exhibit deals with the emissions from Rookery—is something that will harm the amenities of those residents. The idea is that it has the same effect on them because it reminds them— 339. CHAIR: Can I just advise you not to stretch the point too much? 340. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Your point is taken, sir. If we wrap up that particular issue, Mrs Marsh, you have explained that the AQMA was put in place and has been revoked because the landfill operations have closed, but over the page you make the point that there are emissions as a result of the development of the facility and you have listed what those emissions are. Before you say anything about them, very briefly, in making this point do you
39
accept, Mrs Marsh, that there are measures in place to manage emissions associated with the rotting waste from the facility? 341. MRS MARSH: Yes. 342. MS KABIR SHEIKH: You accept that there are measures in place; what, then, is the relevance of these pollutants that you have mentioned in Exhibit 5? 343. MRS MARSH: It goes back in many ways to the previous exhibit, where I mentioned that residents in the area have been subject for decades to emissions. 344. CHAIR: We have heard that; please, move on. 345. MRS MARSH: As has been said, this is in their psyche. The air quality assessment that was undertaken by Covanta does show that the impact of most of the pollutants is likely not to be significant; however, it does mention that there is still a risk of respiratory or cardiovascular disease. I think it is one hospital admission every 13 years and, also, there is a risk of cancer, which is very low, which is one in 1 million over a lifetime of 70 years. Nevertheless, from a local resident’s point of view, if you happen to be that person—or a member of your family happens to be that person—that is something that you do not actually want to happen. 346. The residents are moving from a situation that was bad but has been cleared up, and they are now facing the possibility of a reindustrialisation that will result in further emissions to the air, and there is the possibility of an impact on their health. Certainly, there is the possibility of an impact on their amenity. There is also some potential for effects on habitats as well. 347. BILL ESTERTON: This will not be the first energy-from-waste plant to be built, if it is built, in this country. There are some that are in areas of very high population density. Are you saying that this is more dangerous than those existing sites, the same, or less, given that people live with these things and have done for many years?
40
348. MRS MARSH: First of all, this is a very large plant compared with most of those that have been built elsewhere. Certainly, a lot of facilities are between about 200,000 and 400,000 tonnes, whereas this is over 600,000 tonnes throughput per annum, so it is a very large facility compared with many others. We are in a difficult position in that we have to work with the Environment Agency, which is the controlling authority. We do not deal in detail with pollution and how it is measured. I cannot stray into that camp. 349. All I can say is that because of the history of the area, residents are particularly concerned that the area will go from having been cleaned up from what was a very nasty industrial past through to a situation where they will have a very large facility with a very large chimney that nobody can miss, which brings with it the possibility of more health and amenity issues. 350. BILL ESTERTON: So you have got no way of knowing how the acceptable level of lifetime risk that is quoted in here compares with other sites. 351. MS MARSH: No, I have not. 352. BILL ESTERTON: Okay. 353. CHAIR: You are arguing that the memory of previous history will connect with new fear and that will add to stress in the area. 354. MRS MARSH: Yes, I am. 355. CHAIR: That is all very well if an area remains static in terms of the individuals living in that area, but is this not an area where there has been quite a lot of movement of people? I am trying to get to the genuine impact of the argument you are trying to make. Is this not an area that has had a massive amount of movement in terms of residents over the last 20 years? Could your rate list not tell you that? 356. MRS MARSH: I cannot comment on the rate list offhand.
41
357. CHAIR: I would be grateful if you could ensure that we could have that information, because I believe if it is an area with a great deal of movement, it lessens this particular argument a bit. 358. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Yes, we will find out whether there is a transient population. 359. CHAIR: Thank you. My Lord? 360. LORD GEDDES: I just have one point. In our meeting on 11 July, I raised this point with Mr Mould. Whether this is the right time to raise it again I do not know, but at page 13 of the minutes I specifically asked the question about any form of chemicals, and, I quote, Mr Mould said, “The answer is water vapour.” To which I asked the question, “So there would be no other form of chemicals whatsoever,” to which Mr Mould replied, “No, water vapour.” But it does appear that Exhibit 5, which is headed “Pollutants of Interest Identified by Covanta”, does include chemicals. 361. MR MOULD QC: Yes, My Lord. There is a difference—sorry, I thought I ought to answer that question. 362. CHAIR: I think on this occasion you ought to, but I really would like to stick to the rules in these terms, quite frankly. It is very unfair to Ms Sheikh to have her flow disrupted. 363. MR MOULD QC: Of course. Let me leave it. I will deal with it later, if I may. (11.30 am) 364. LORD GEDDES: My apologies, Chairman. 365. CHAIR: As long as it is dealt with, I am very happy, My Lord. 366. MS KABIR SHEIKH: I am grateful. Just for the record, it is our understanding that there will be emissions other than water vapour. They will be managed; we do not dispute that. But it is not simply water vapour; it includes these other emissions, but Mr Mould can obviously explain in due course. 367. MRS MARSH: Shall I respond to Ms Sheik’s question?
42
368. CHAIR: Do continue, please. 369. MRS MARSH: You were asking about how the area was changing. 370. CHAIR: I think we will get that answer later. We have moved on from there; you will provide me with the figures that will highlight flexibility or otherwise. 371. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Sir, absolutely. We will obtain that so you get a sense of whether the population is transient or whether it is permanent. Mrs Marsh, we can move on from Exhibit 5 to Exhibit 6, which is your evidence in relation to what it is that is happening in the area.
You have explained very clearly about the background, the pits and the general
impression of the area over the years. What are the positive changes that your councils are involved in and are undertaking, and why will this scheme undermine that? 372. MRS MARSH: Thank you. Briefly, as I have already mentioned, the Vale is greening over. From the residents’ point of view and from the councils’ point of view, it is moving forward from its industrial past, which was epitomised by the brickworks and the activities associated with them. Many of the former clay pits are showing environmental regeneration and landscape enhancement, which is taking place as a result of the restoration of those pits. This is happening in the immediate vicinity of the facility. These former pits are now being used for agriculture, for recreation and amenity purposes. They are open land, which is being used beneficially. There are also opportunities within those sites to provide new rights of way and greater public access. 373. Certainly, even without the Covanta proposals, the restoration plans for the Rookery North and South pits—this is the lower level restoration scheme—have rights of way. Some of them are recreated from when they were severed many years ago by the clay extraction and some of them are new rights of way. The Stewartby landfill site, when it is restored, will also have a number of rights of way within it for cyclists and horse riders as well as pedestrians.
43
374. The whole area has been made greener, more open and more accessible. We come back to the traffic. Because the last landfill has finished, the HGV traffic associated in any way with clay extraction and landfill has now pretty much ceased. Aside from the clay extraction, there is new housing and commercial development—we go back to this being a growth area—but this new development is relatively small in scale and is designed to integrate with the existing towns and villages.
These developments are very much
extensions to villages and, as I said before, are two- and three-storey developments, which is very different from the scale of the facility that is proposed. 375. MS KABIR SHEIKH: In terms of the scale, could you turn to page 9, please? You are not giving evidence on landscape impact, visual impact or design, but just in terms of this point you have made about scale, there are two images; could you comment on those, please? 376. MRS MARSH: Yes. Very briefly, I have said how the new housing and commercial development that is going ahead is very much on a small scale. It is on a human scale. It is housing as we all know it. These sections are in here to illustrate the relative size of the facility that is proposed. I suppose most striking is the one at the top of page 9, where it shows a person and it shows the scale of that person in relation to the facility. This is not something that you would get just looking at the drawings within the application documents. Very clearly, that person is totally dominated and overwhelmed by the scale of that facility. 377. LORD DEAR: Do you wish now to leave Exhibit 5? 378. MS KABIR SHEIKH: I was going to. 379. LORD DEAR: Can I, for my own peace of mind, stay with Exhibit 5 just for a moment?
There is a long list on the left-hand side of that sheet giving all sorts of
malodorous and dangerous metals. Notwithstanding that, at the top of the right-hand side of Exhibit 5 it states that the results of the study show that many emissions are unlikely and
44
380. MRS MARSH: My understanding is that there are treatment systems in place within the flue to extract the emissions. 381. LORD DEAR: It extracts everything except steam, I think. 382. MRS MARSH: I personally am not in a position to say that it extracts absolutely everything. 383. LORD DEAR: With respect, you are tendering the exhibit and therefore you have to give your own view on that exhibit. I am simply asking whether it is your understanding that what comes out of the flue, having been treated, is unlikely to have significant effects, given that the acceptable level of lifetime risk is one in 1 million over 70 years? 384. MRS MARSH: Certainly, this figure came from the air quality assessment that was undertaken by Covanta. The conclusions within that are that the emissions will not have significant effects. The figure—it should be in here—of one in 1 million over 70 years relates to risk of cancer. 385. LORD DEAR: Thank you. The other question is allied to that and it refers partly to Exhibit 4 and also to Exhibit 6 and the temperature inversions, which, from my experience of Peterborough, we used to call downdraft; it was rather cold, damp weather, as we have had quite recently. One would get a falling down rather than blowing up of the emissions. You are quite right in Exhibit 4: that was what one used to experience, and I experienced it myself. But we are now talking about temperature inversion. Is there a peculiar propensity in this valley for local temperature inversion or is it just something that could occur anywhere?
45
386. MRS MARSH: It is something that is acknowledged to occur in the Marston Vale, which is very much a crescent-shaped structure, where there is the Greensand Ridge and the Clay Ridge. It forms a sort of bowl and inversions can occur within the Vale; it is something that is acknowledged to happen and is something that local residents have expressed considerable concern about. 387. LORD DEAR: Thank you. 388. MS KABIR SHEIKH: My Lord, could I just clarify one point? The emissions, as we understand it, are not only water vapour. They are these other pollutants. The issue is that they are managed to what is considered in the industry an acceptable level. That is how these risks are assessed. It is not that they do not come out; they do. In light of current scientific knowledge, however, it is felt that is an acceptable emission level. 389. PAUL UPPAL: I may have missed the figures—and forgive me if I have—but on the issue of scale, are there any figures in terms of how many square feet this development is? I say that not to be difficult; I come from a construction background and that is my interest. It is in terms of the scale. You could provide that to me later, if you wish. 390. MS KABIR SHEIKH: There certainly are those figures, which set out the whole area and how much is covered. We can provide those. 391. CHAIR: Can I give you a just over five minute warning? 392. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Sir, are you happy for us to leave Exhibit 5? 393. CHAIR: Carry on as you wish to carry on. 394. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Thank you. Mrs Marsh, you have at page 10 a photomontage of the facility. That is there. I do not think there is much to say about it. We are going to have evidence from Mrs Kirkham on it.
46
395. MRS MARSH: It is in here just to show how the building would be visible from one of the listed buildings. It, again, illustrates the sheer size of it. It is in Mrs Kirkham’s landscape evidence and she will deal with it in more detail at that time. 396. LORD GEDDES: Chairman, I thought it was a shame that this photomontage did not show the existing chimneys. That would have been highly illustrative. 397. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Yes, there are photographs of the existing chimneys. There is one image on page 12, which shows two of the existing chimneys. 398. LORD GEDDES: But not in this photomontage. 399. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Not in this photomontage. 400. LORD GEDDES: I do not know whether it is possible to get those inserted, because it would give us an idea of the scale. 401. CHAIR: That would be helpful to us. Ms Sheikh, could you do that? 402. MS KABIR SHEIKH: We can do that. There are images of the four and then the Covanta chimney. We can do that. 403. CHAIR: We are very grateful; do proceed. 404. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Mrs Marsh, if you turn to page 12 you are showing images here of the beneficial use of the lakes and the pits. Pages 13 and 14 have further images. Page 14, at the bottom right-hand corner, has illustrations of the proposed NIRAH development. Can you see that? 405. MRS MARSH: Yes, that is correct. 406. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Now, can you just explain, please, looking at all of these images together, what it is you say is the current situation in relation to the area and the benefits you are bringing as councils, and why you say these would be harmed? 407. MRS MARSH: Basically, this is just to give members of the Committee an indication of how the area is moving forward from its industrial past with the restoration of the pits and
47
generally. On the left, we have put what the area did look like when the pit was being extracted. Certainly, with some of the older sites, we have had to patch together what are effectively photographs that were taken just post-war. Indeed, they were quite old pictures. 408. The first one on page 12 actually shows Stewartby Lake, which is just to the south of Green Lane. It is one of the main pits in that area and it was one of the first pits that was extracted for clay for the Stewartby brickworks. You can see here that it is now very well used for amenity purposes. It is used for sailing, active water sports and, indeed, many of the participants actually camp at the side of this lake at the weekend. That camping area is very close to where the access road would be into the facility. 409. The top photo showing the sailing shows part of the former brickworks in the background, and the picture at the bottom shows the Greensand Ridge in the background. They are both pictures showing how Stewartby Lake is now used. It is not only used by the local community; a lot of people come in from further afield to take part in those water-based activities. 410. The photographs on page 13 show what was Pillinge Pit, as was the case with Stewartby Lake, but Pillinge Pit has now also been restored and it forms the Millennium Country Park. There would be views from the Forest Centre in the Country Park across the railway line directly to this facility, and the facility will block the views of the Greensand Ridge. The photo in the top right-hand corner shows some of the lakes within the Country Park. This is a sort of natural regeneration—increasing biodiversity and so on—and you have the Greensand Ridge very clearly in the background. The picture at the bottom shows one of many walks within the Country Park. (11.45 am) CHAIR: I am going to stop you now. I am going to call “Order, order” and point out that this Committee will adjourn until two o’clock this afternoon. 48
Public session adjourned at 11.45 am. _________________
49
Ordered at 2.00 pm: That the Parties be called in.
411. CHAIR (MR BRIAN BINLEY MP): Order, order. We will continue, I think, for a brief while, with the finalisation of your examination, and then I shall call upon Mr Mould, who, I think, wishes to cross-examine. So, Ms Sheikh, the floor is yours. 412. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Thank you, sir. Sir, over lunch, we have looked to deal with some of the questions that were raised, so I can deal with those now, if that is helpful, or carry on with Mrs Marsh. 413. CHAIR: If you could deal with those very quickly, we would be very delighted. 414. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Good. Sir, insofar as the square footage is concerned of the buildings, for the moment, just excluding the ancillary buildings, so including the main building and the condenser area, the square footage is 202,040 square feet, and I can give that in meterage too, if that is wanted. 415. CHAIR: Do not confuse us. 416. MS KABIR SHEIKH: No, I had not planned to. Without the condenser area, it is 178,736 square feet. As I say, there are some ancillary buildings and we will get those calculations and add them, but this gives a pretty good idea. 417. Sir, in relation to the chimneys—I think it was Lord Geddes who had asked about this—we do, in fact, have two photomontages which show the Covanta chimney against the existing Stewartby chimneys, and they are being printed out as I speak. As soon as we have them, I will pass them up. They are quite useful. We have them on the computer but I think it will be better for you to have hard copies, so we have that. 418. There are a couple of other points that arose. Sir, you asked the question, rightly, about urbanisation and growth, and the rural-character point. Sir, what I should point out is
50
that I am not going to ask Mrs Marsh to deal with that any more, but what I would say is that, when you go on site and when you look around the landscape— 419. CHAIR: We might not go on site. We have not made that decision yet. 420. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Sir, if you go on site— 421. CHAIR: Thank you. 422. MS KABIR SHEIKH: —you will see that, notwithstanding the proposed development of a growth area, this is still a semi-rural character. It is not, for example, like the Medway Towns, and that is not the impression we get. 423. CHAIR: I do know the area personally, and I think a number of my colleagues do too. It was just the signs of prospective development that really rather blew my mind, because I think we added, slightly further to the south, another 10,000, so it looks around 20,000 people living in about 9,000 homes. Politicians are always very concerned about the number of leaflets they produce, and it is normally 2.1 people per household, so it is about 20,000 people coming into that slightly wider area but within a five-mile touch of the pit. 424. MS KABIR SHEIKH: It is a growth area. 425. CHAIR: Very much so. 426. MS KABIR SHEIKH: So, we make no apology for that. The main point is that it is a growth area with a positive outlook rather than a growth area looking back. 427. CHAIR: Let me put your mind at rest: that can work just as well for your case as against it, so I am making no point there. It simply would be very useful to know how that fits in. 428. MS KABIR SHEIKH: On that point, we are just checking through mobility, inward migration and outward migration. 429. CHAIR: That would be helpful. 430. MS KABIR SHEIKH: We will not have those figures, regrettably, today.
51
431. CHAIR: I can understand that. 432. MS KABIR SHEIKH: But we are looking to see if we can break it down by ward. 433. Sir, if I can just deal very quickly with one other point, I think you asked me, sir, what the relevance was of past impacts to the future in terms of the emissions and so forth. I did give an answer, and I know Mrs Marsh has as well, but what I should point out is that there is also a health impact assessment that was undertaken by Covanta itself, which makes good that point as well. I have not burdened, sir, you and the Committee with that. We can do. There is an appendix which makes very clear the visual connection and the perceptions of the past, and the impact that can have on amenities for the future, at least in terms of the psyche and the mindset. I can make that available, if it is helpful. 434. CHAIR: If we feel we need it, we will come back to you. 435. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Thank you. Sir, any other any points that I have not addressed, we are still dealing with. 436. CHAIR: I think you have done very well. 437. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Mrs Marsh, if I could just pick up, then, a few points that you have yet to make, it is really, I think, the last exhibits that you have produced. 438. MRS MARSH: In Exhibit 7, there is one pit which I did not deal with before the recess, and these are photographs which show Quest Pit. Quest Pit is the location of the proposed NIRAH development. About two thirds of that pit would be developed as the NIRAH development. 439. MS KABIR SHEIKH: So, this is page 14. 440. MRS MARSH: Page 14. The NIRAH development is quite a large development and it composes a research centre, partly because of the nature of the use; there would also be a hotel there; there would also be a water recreation area there, with waterslides and things like that for the public; and there would also be tropical biospheres there, rather like the Eden
52
441. CHAIR: May I ask, Mrs Marsh? I assume planning permission has been given. 442. MRS MARSH: Detailed planning permission has been given. 443. CHAIR: When was it given? 444. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Sir, 2009, outline planning permission was given, so reserved matters at application still have to be determined. 445. CHAIR: So, you still have two years to run on the outline planning permission. Do you have any news at all, because the development has not started, has it? 446. MS KABIR SHEIKH: No, it has not started at the moment, as I understand it. 447. CHAIR: What is the local buzz? Can you tell me? 448. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Sorry, sir? 449. CHAIR: Sorry, the word “buzz” should not have been used. What is the local information that you can pass on to us about the possible start to this site? 450. MS KABIR SHEIKH: The local information on this is that there are still discussions on funding. It requires funding. It is something that is highly desirable. The local information is also this: that, when permission was granted for this scheme, cheers broke out, so it is one of the schemes that actually is very highly desired by the local population who attended. 451. CHAIR: Thank you for that. They did when I got elected, but it is not necessarily a good thing. 452. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Sir, if you attend Planning Committee meetings, you will know it is a good thing, when there is something approved, to have cheers. In this particular case, however, there are funding discussions going on. It is hoped they will be resolved and it is certainly something the local people want.
53
453. CHAIR: I think we now have a better understanding of it. 454. BILL ESTERSON: Can you tell me how tall the biospheres are going to be? 455. MRS MARSH: I believe the maximum height is about 43 metres, that sort of order, but obviously the whole of it is not anything like that height. If you wanted details— 456. BILL ESTERSON: How does that compare to the height of the chimneys? You will have to forgive me for not remembering. 457. MRS MARSH: The Covanta facility is about 48 metres in height, and the chimney is 110 metres. 458. MS KABIR SHEIKH: We can do an overlay if that is helpful as well. 459. CHAIR: That would be helpful. 460. MS KABIR SHEIKH: We will do that. 461. MRS MARSH: In addition to saying that there are going to be 4,000 jobs as a result of the NIRAH development, the Center Parcs, which I mentioned earlier, would provide in the order of 2,000 jobs. Again, that is viewed very positively. In terms of coming forward, the development there has already started and is due to be completed in 2014, so that is a tourist development that is going ahead at the moment. These figures are to be compared with about 80 jobs being created for the operation of the Covanta facility. 462. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Is there anything else you want to say about Center Parcs and NIRAH? 463. MRS MARSH: No, I do not think so. 464. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Thank you. Mrs Marsh, there is just one other point then: in the petition, one of the objections also relates to the impact on sustainability. As I have already indicated, Mr Romans will deal with the detail of the waste issues and sustainability and the impact, but from your perspective and from the perspective of amenities, I know you have
54
already dealt with HGVs, but just in the context of this particular objection, is there anything you want to add? 465. MRS MARSH: Really, harking back to the rail issue, as we have already indicated, the maximum number of HGVs going in there every day is approaching 600. That is, actually, 1,200 movements, when you count going in and going out separately. That is shown on the graph that is in the exhibits. Clearly, if you are talking about reducing the impact on the local roads, then the use of rail would be much more sustainable, but that is not what is being proposed by Covanta. So, from our point of view, in this context, the proposal undermines sustainability. 466. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Thank you. Is there anything else you want to add, Mrs Marsh, at this stage? 467. MRS MARSH: I do not think so. 468. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Thank you. Sir, as I said, the chimneys photograph, I hope, will be arriving very shortly and, when it does, I will hand it up. Sir, I just want to also emphasise that Mrs Marsh’s evidence is setting the context—I hope that is clear—and I hope will ultimately be helpful and save time in terms of going forward and understanding the later evidence. Our detailed evidence, however, on landscape, visual impact, scale, waste and sustainability will come from the witnesses identified at the opening. 469. CHAIR: I understand. Thank you very much for your presentation. 470. LORD GEDDES: Could I just ask one question of fact? 471. CHAIR: Of course you may. 472. LORD GEDDES: I think my second question was actually to know exactly where this proposed Elstow site was, but I think I have found it on page 6. I have found Elstow, anyway. The main one I had, however, was, on the free-standing map, I noticed there is a Marston Mill wind turbine. Do we know how tall that is?
55
473. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Yes, we do, in fact. 474. LORD GEDDES: Because it is right next-door to Rookery. 475. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Yes, I can assist with that. It has not been built yet. It has been permitted, and it is 120 metres to tip, though I do not know what the hub height is. 476. MRS MARSH: Can I just come back on the Elstow development? 477. LORD GEDDES: Yes, I was just trying to locate exactly where it was, but I looked at, in your evidence, the map on page 6, and I found Elstow just to the south of Bedford, immediately above the “i” of Bedfordshire as it is written.
I am thinking now of the
statement of fact, paragraph 39, which talks about Anti-Waste Ltd proposing a much smaller plant on the west side of Wilstead Road, Elstow.
Is that approximately where that is
proposed? 478. MRS MARSH: I think probably an easier map to look at it on is perhaps page 2. 479. LORD GEDDES: Page 2? 480. MRS MARSH: Yes. If you look on there, there is a brown area which says “Wixams”. 481. LORD GEDDES: Yes. 482. MRS MARSH: If you go north of that, there are a couple of lakes shown. 483. LORD GEDDES: I am sorry, if I go north of that— 484. MRS MARSH: There are a couple of blue areas, which are lakes—they are currently fishing lakes. 485. LORD GEDDES: I see, yes. 486. MRS MARSH: It is in that location. 487. LORD GEDDES: How far away is that from Rookery? 488. MRS MARSH: It depends whether it is as the crow flies or not. 489. LORD GEDDES: “The seagull” might be more appropriate. Sorry—strike that from the record.
56
490. CHAIR: It was very good, my Lord. 491. MRS MARSH: Three or four miles. 492. LORD GEDDES: It does say “some 8km”—I beg your pardon. That is in 39. 493. MRS MARSH: Three or four miles—five miles maybe. 494. LORD GEDDES: Thank you very much. 495. CHAIR: Thank you. My Lord? 496. LORD DEAR:
For the avoidance of doubt, the Marston Mill wind turbine, as I
understand it, is 120 metres high. 497. MS KABIR SHEIKH: To tip, yes. 498. LORD DEAR: To tip, and outline planning permission has been given for that. (2.15 pm) 499. MS KABIR SHEIKH: It has. 500. LORD DEAR: That is, then, going to be considerably taller than the proposed flue. 501. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Yes, it will be 10 metres taller. 502. LORD DEAR: To which objection has been taken. 503. MS KABIR SHEIKH: To which objection has been taken. I do not know what the position was on the— 504. LORD DEAR: We will hear more about that. I wanted to make sure I had the measurements in my mind. 505. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Yes. Mr Romans will be able to give more information about that turbine. He knows the planning background to it. 506. CHAIR: Thank you very much. Mr Mould, would you like to cross-examine? 507. MR MOULD QC: Yes, I would, sir. I fear I am going to burden the Committee with some more documentation. 508. CHAIR: Not too much, we hope.
57
509. MR MOULD QC: I will leave the Committee to judge that. What I am going to ask you to take hold of is an A3 bound bundle of documents, an A4 bound bundle of documents, but I am also going to ask you to take hold of a lever-arch file. The only, I hope, reassurance at least is to say that that is intended to include the documents that we expect to refer to throughout the proceedings. 510. CHAIR: Thank you. 511. MR MOULD QC: It is not, then, going to be the first of seven or eight lever-arch files. 512. CHAIR: Thank you very much. 513. MR MOULD QC: So, take a deep breath, if I can ask you to do so. 514. CHAIR: Can I put this on the floor or do you need to refer to this now? 515. MR MOULD QC: I shall be referring to it, actually, yes. 516. CHAIR: Thank you. 517. MR MOULD QC: We will all recall those heady days of, what, 10-15 years ago when we were told that the advent of the electronic age was going to turn us into a paperless society, and, of course, we all know that it has done exactly the opposite. 518. CHAIR: To be fair, you did your best in Crossrail, because I remember we had absolutely piles of it, but do carry on. 519. MR MOULD QC: Yes, we have to admit some level of guilt in that respect. Sir, I hope without distracting Members of your Committee whilst documents are still being handed out, can I just deal briefly with the two points that have just been raised? I will do it through cross-examination. Mrs Marsh, good afternoon to you. 520. MRS MARSH: Good afternoon. 521. MR MOULD QC: First of all, do you have to hand the A3 book of plans and aerial views that was provided in July? 522. MRS MARSH: Not to hand.
58
523. MR MOULD QC: The only reason I mention it is because it actually does have quite a useful plan which shows the relationship of the Elstow South site with the Rookery Suth site. It is COV 1. It is the first sheet in that set of plans. Have you orientated yourself? 524. MRS MARSH: Yes. 525. MR MOULD QC: You can see that Elstow South is marked, is it not, with a purple outline. 526. MRS MARSH: That is correct. 527. MR MOULD QC: Rookery South is marked to the south. 528. MRS MARSH: That is correct. 529. MR MOULD QC: Thank you very much. Do you not have that? Shall I move on and provide that? 530. CHAIR: If you would. 531. MR MOULD QC: Yes. Thank you. Perhaps if I can have mine back. 532. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Are we not going to that? 533. MR MOULD QC: I have made the point I want to make. Thank you. The next point relates to the wind turbine. If you take the lever-arch file and turn to tab 17, we see the granted planning permission, do we not, Mrs Marsh? 534. CHAIR: Yes, we do. 535. MR MOULD QC: And you see that the council gave reasons for granting that planning permission, and I will just read out the first couple of lines to you: “The proposal for the installation of a turbine would not impact detrimentally upon the surrounding landscape character or upon the cultural heritage”. That was part of the council’s justification for granting planning permission for that wind turbine, was it not?
59
536. MRS MARSH: I have not read the planning permission before, so I can only confirm what is actually written there, but I have not been involved with this planning application at all. 537. CHAIR: I think, to help Mrs Marsh, we have it, we see it and we recognise it, if you would like to go on. 538. MR MOULD QC: Thank you. If we can take the A3 clip that has just been handed to you— 539. MRS MARSH: I do not have a copy of it. 540. MR MOULD QC: Do you not have it? This is COV 4. If you please turn to page 5—I think it is—you see there is a series of panoramic images from Ampthill Park to the south looking out over the vale. The second of them is a computer-generated image with a wire-line showing the view from Ampthill Park with the approved turbine. You can see there the turbine in place. 541. CHAIR: Yes. 542. MR MOULD QC: Can you see that? 543. MRS MARSH: Yes, I can see that. 544. MR MOULD QC: Thank you very much. It is clearly a feature that is going to be visible in the landscape, is it not, from that location on the Greensand Ridge. That is right. Is that correct? 545. MRS MARSH: From this picture, that would appear to be the case. I think, if you are asking detailed landscape questions, these need to be put to our landscape witness rather than myself. 546. MR MOULD QC: Mrs Marsh, I am not going to ask detailed landscape questions. It is just a question of fact. The second question of fact is it is clear from this image, is it not, that it will break the skyline?
60
547. MRS MARSH: From what I can see in front of me, that appears to be the case. 548. MR MOULD QC: Thank you very much. I am going to put that to one side, if we may, for the moment. I would like now to ask you one or two questions just to add a little flesh to the bone of your Council’s aspirations for the Rookery South site in its emerging waste planning policy; that is to say, in its Waste Core Strategy. Just to remind ourselves and get our bearings on that, can we please just remind ourselves of the statement of facts at paragraph 21? You will recall—this is a matter of agreement—that the site is identified in your emerging policy WCP 2 as a strategic site for both waste recovery uses and for nonhazardous landfill, and waste recovery uses would include an energy-from-waste plant, would it not? 549. MRS MARSH: The plan is not technology-specific, and it certainly could cover energyfrom-waste. 550. MR MOULD QC: Thank you. The Core Strategy, we are told, “defines a ‘strategic site’ as one which is essential to the delivery of the plan, and includes recovery facilities with a capacity of more than 75,000 tonnes per year”. And then the point you have just made, “Could contain a range of waste treatment facilities. Some would be for the treatment of waste prior to landfill”. The point is made that “Such facilities should be sized to manage waste generated within the plan area and could range from an EFW facility to a mechanical biological treatment facility through to a materials recycling facility or an anaerobic digestion plant”. We are told that the plan is on its way through the examination process. That is the agreed position. 551. What I would like just to do now, please, is to just look at the council’s position as set out in the Core Strategy document itself, and forgive me, sir, we have to go back to the large file, and I do assure you that the jumping around will start to cease a bit in a minute. We go
61
back to the large file for now and we find, if we may, tab 22, where I have produced the relevant chapter from that draft document. 552. If we work to the internal pages, we see that, after the title page, we begin with page 18. If we can turn on, please, to page 24, we will find the policy that is referred to in the statement of facts; namely policy WCP 2. We can see, can we not, that the site, Rookery Pit South, is identified as one of four sites for waste recovery uses, bottom of the page, yes? 553. MRS MARSH: That is correct. 554. MR MOULD QC: If we turn to the top of 25, paragraph 4.8, we see that it is identified as being “one of the most appropriate, given the land-use circumstances of the plan area” and providing a location, amongst others, where “large-scale recovery operations should take place”. That is the stated position of these councils in relation to this site, is it not? 555. MRS MARSH: It is, but that is in the context of the facilities dealing with the waste generated within the Local Plan area and in the context of a strategic site being identified as one that deals with more than 75,000 tonnes per annum, so everything is relative. It is largescale in that it would deal with more than waste, but not in terms of the size that Covanta are proposing. 556. MR MOULD QC: Yes, I take your point about scale, but I just want to get an understanding, I hope for the benefit of the Committee, of what underlies the council’s thinking in relation to this site, which I hope is helpful. I take your point. Next, turn back to page 23, please. 557. CHAIR: I have a question. Might we interject? I am sorry to interrupt your flow. 558. MR MOULD QC: I am so sorry, yes. 559. CHAIR: Could we ask Mr Esterson— 560. BILL ESTERSON: While we are on page 24, the box there shows that Rookery Pit South is identified for waste recovery use, but also land filling of non-hazardous waste. I do
62
not know who to address my question to, but can somebody clarify, please: is it intended to be one more than the other or is it a combination, or is it too early to say? 561. MRS MARSH: May I respond to that? 562. BILL ESTERSON: Of course. 563. MRS MARSH: The site is identified for both purposes. We have identified four sites for waste recovery, and that could be a number of technologies to deal with residual waste. We have also identified two sites for non-hazardous waste landfill. The only sites that we are able to identify within the plan area are Rookery Pit and Elstow South Pit, because they are the only two clay pits which are suitable, largely in geological terms, to accommodate nonhazardous waste. Those are the only two left in the plan area that could accommodate such waste. 564. BILL ESTERSON: Can you just explain what it is, in geological terms, that makes them suitable, where the others are not? 565. MRS MARSH: It is the clay. The clay is extremely impermeable and the clay, used in conjunction with certain other linings, means that it is able to safely contain the waste that is put in it. 566. BILL ESTERSON: Thank you. 567. MR MOULD QC: If we turn back to page 23, Mrs Marsh, we can see that Mr Esterson’s question is really dealt with in the third paragraph down on that page, which begins “It should be noted…”, do we not? “It should be noted that Rookery Pit South has a substantial land area—107.2 hectares—and it is a large mineral void created by historic clay working. The site is capable of accommodating both non-hazardous waste landfill operations as well as one or more recovery operations in different areas of the site”. It is presented as being able to embrace each of those preferred uses in the policy itself.
63
568. MRS MARSH: Yes, it is a large pit and it was considered that it could accommodate both built development and landfill. 569. MR MOULD QC: You very kindly made a point I was going to put to you, but just to confirm: as regards Elstow South, that has characteristics that would mean that the council’s preference is very much that it should be reserved for land-filling. (2.30 pm) 570. MRS MARSH: That is not strictly the case. My colleague, Mr Romans, may better deal with some of these points, but, as I said before, Rookery South and Elstow South are two of the only surviving clay pits that are considered suitable for landfill. Having said that, the policy in the plan that is going forward for examination has been modified, following the consultations that took place earlier in the year, to enable pre-treatment facilities to be accommodated on sites which would also take landfill, so that it would enable the waste that is to be land-filled to be truly residual waste; in other words, all the recyclable elements and all the organic waste—or a very large proportion—would be taken out before that waste was land-filled. That would significantly reduce the volumes of waste being land-filled, and it would also significantly reduce the amenity impacts on the surrounding area. The nature of the waste would be nothing like what was experienced by the residents at Stewartby and at Brogborough, which caused them such a problem over the years. 571. MR MOULD QC: Nothing like the photograph that the Chairman was asking about earlier, in fact. 572. MRS MARSH: It would be very different from that. 573. MR MOULD QC: Quite. Thank you. Of course, in terms of the preferred route to waste management or disposal, it will always be preferable, in principle, for wastes to avoid going to landfill altogether, will it not? If it is possible to provide a recovery route to residual
64
wastes which avoids them going to landfill disposal, such as energy-from-waste, that is the preferred approach. 574. MRS MARSH: I think what you are saying is very much straying into my colleague Roy Roman’s evidence as far as the waste hierarchy is concerned, but clearly landfill is the last resort and there are alternative ways that we will encourage recycling and the reuse of materials. 575. MR MOULD QC: I shall resist pursuing that further with you. Just while we are on 23, a further point of context, if I may: the next paragraph to the one I have just read out says this: “The allocation of sites that are broadly acceptable in principle, that can manage either municipal or commercial/industrial wastes, and that can supply substantial amounts of recovery or disposal capacity, provides certainty that the waste capacity gap identified will be met”. It is clear, is it not, that these strategic sites that have been identified, which include Rookery South, are seen as being suitable either for municipal solid waste or for commercial/industrial waste, or for both sorts of residual waste? That is right, is it not? 576. MRS MARSH: That is correct, yes. 577. MR MOULD QC: The fact, then, that there may be a greater supply of commercial/industrial waste to feed a plant than there may be municipal waste, from the council’s policy perspective, is not a point of concern. 578. MRS MARSH: The sites have been identified to manage both municipal and commercial/industrial waste. 579. MR MOULD QC: If it were the case, then, a site that was fed 90% by commercial/industrial waste would be completely consistent with the council’s forward planning strategy, would it not? 580. MRS MARSH: The simple answer is probably yes. 581. MR MOULD QC: Yes.
65
582. MRS MARSH: As I said, however, my colleague, Mr Romans, is dealing in more detail with waste matters, and it may be more appropriate to put that question to him. 583. MR MOULD QC: Thank you. This plan has a plan horizon of the end of the 2020s, does it not? It takes us up to, I think, 2028-2029. 584. MRS MARSH: It goes to 2028, providing it is adopted next year. 585. MR MOULD QC: Yes, so it is looking forward a fair way into the life of this facility, if it is constructed. 586. MRS MARSH: That is right. 587. MR MOULD QC: Can we just turn on, please, to internal page 30? 588. LORD GEDDES: Could I just ask a question before you move on? 589. CHAIR: Yes, of course, my Lord. 590. LORD GEDDES: All the arguments that you have just propounded, Mr Mould, seem to be—let me put it as a question: would they not be equally true about Elstow? 591. MR MOULD QC: No, because Elstow, as we have heard, is identified specifically for land-filling, because it has certain characteristics which make it particularly suitable for that. 592. LORD GEDDES: I am sorry, but if we look at page 24, Elstow appears in both waste recovery and landfill. 593. MR MOULD QC: Elstow North, my Lord. 594. CHAIR: There is Elstow North and South. 595. LORD GEDDES: Thank you—an important point. 596. MR MOULD QC: Page 30, the council has a positive planning policy for energy generation from waste, does it not—WCP 11 at the top of that page? 597. MRS MARSH: It does, yes. 598. MR MOULD QC: Internal page 30: “Such proposals will be viewed favourably”, we are told.
66
599. MRS MARSH: That is correct. 600. MR MOULD QC: If we look at the text that supports that in paragraph 4.15—I will not read it all out, but if you could just please find, about halfway through, there is a word “bespoke” struck out. Do you see? Then there is a sentence which reads as follows: “Energyfrom-waste facilities should be sited close to major sources of waste and are directed by this policy to the strategic sites in policy WCP 2”. So, the site is seen as one that is, in principle, close to major sources of waste, is it not? 601. MRS MARSH: That is correct in that it is near areas of population. 602. MR MOULD QC: Thank you. “This would assist in encouraging the co-location of energy generation with other forms of waste recovery processes on the same site”. In that respect, this plan is completely consistent with national policy, which seeks to achieve the same objective. That is right, is it not? 603. MRS MARSH: That is correct. 604. MR MOULD QC: Yes. “This policy, providing a limited number of strategic locations which can serve the major urban areas within the plan area, will balance the need for such facilities and locate them in appropriate locations”—it speaks for itself. “In addition, there is scope for heat and electricity from these energy-from-waste facilities to provide energy to nearby housing, commercial and employment sites; i.e. combined heat and power”. That is something that is built into the Development Consent Order that is brought before the Committee, is it not? 605. MRS MARSH: That is correct. 606. MR MOULD QC: Yes. “Given the agenda for substantial housing growth in the plan area, it is expected that there is the scope for this source of renewable energy to be utilised substantially in new developments”.
67
607. MRS MARSH: There is certainly scope for the energy to be utilised, and a number of potential developments were identified as part of the proposal. Some of them are housing developments and some of them are commercial developments, but there is no certainty that any of them will come forward at the end of the day. 608. MR MOULD QC: If you would keep that page open and just find the small pack that I had distributed earlier, which is COV 5, and turn, please, to page 6 of that document, which is pretty visual. Just to get our bearings, this shows, in a pictorial way, the electricity generated by the plant operating at nominal capacity and the number of homes that it would power if it was working on that basis. You can see that it would provide sufficient electricity—55 MW of electricity—to power 82,500 homes, yes? 609. MRS MARSH: I am sorry, which page are you on? 610. MR MOULD QC: I am on page 6. Do you have it? 611. MRS MARSH: Yes, I do. 612. MR MOULD QC: Sufficient electricity generated by the facility operating at nominal capacity to power the equivalent of 82,500 homes. That would be, if not all, a substantial proportion of the existing and planned housing within the Bedford and Marston Vale growth area, would it not? 613. MRS MARSH: The Council has never denied that there is the opportunity for energy from the facility to be used positively, but there is no commitment within what has been issued at the moment to utilise that energy at any particular development. 614. MR MOULD QC: Once the electricity goes into the grid, it becomes the responsibility of the National Grid and we cannot influence that, can we? I accept that this is, to a degree, a hypothetical exercise—that is why we say it is the equivalent—but you take my point, do you not, on that basis? It can be seen as providing power to support a substantial proportion, if not all, of the homes within the Bedford and Marston Vale area. That is a fair point, is it not?
68
615. MRS MARSH: As I said before, I am not denying that there is the potential for this facility to provide energy to other developments. 616. MR MOULD QC: What you will know as well, and I am sure you will confirm to the Committee, is that, amongst the planning obligations that we have entered into with your council and others is to operate an electricity subsidy scheme within the local area. That is right, is it not? 617. MRS MARSH: There is, but it is for a limited number of households, and there are a number of other caveats to it as well. I believe it involves around about 8,000 households. 618. MR MOULD QC: 8,000 households can expect some subsidy in their electricity bills in the local area in the event that electricity is generated and provided to the grid by this facility. That is a benefit, is it not? 619. MRS MARSH: It is, but it only applies to households where people are living at a property when the Development Consent Order is issued and, if those residents move, it does not apply to the successors to those properties, so it does not help people who feel that their house may be less saleable as a result of this development. It is something that diminishes over time, because, clearly, as people move, the pool of people receiving the subsidy reduces. 620. MR MOULD QC: Given, as you say, that it is targeted at people who are existing residents at the time when the facility becomes operational, it may go, in some small way, to compensating for that sense of psychological unease about the continuing use of the vale for industrial processes. That is right, is it not? That is the psychological concern that was part of your evidence earlier. 621. MRS MARSH: Clearly, any residents receiving the subsidy are likely to be grateful for it, but it may well not compensate for having the facility in the immediate vicinity of their home.
69
622. MR MOULD QC: The reason why I left us on page 30 of your draft Core Strategy was, to the degree that we are able to do so—as I say, we are exporting energy to the grid, and it is for the grid to decide where it should go – 623. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Sir, I am sorry to cut in, but the question has been put a number of times in this way. CHP does not go into the National Grid. 624. MR MOULD QC: No, we are talking about renewable energy, I think. Renewable energy goes into the National Grid when it is generated from an energy-from-waste plant. To the degree that we are able to do so, we are proposing a facility, are we not, where there is scope for the source of renewable energy to be used substantially in new developments? 625. MRS MARSH: That is correct. 626. MR MOULD QC: Yes. Thank you very much. Whilst we are in the large file, can we turn back, please, to tab 12? 627. CHAIR: Forgive me, Mr Mould. I think I asked this question back in July, when we were initially talking. 628. MR MOULD QC: Yes. 629. CHAIR:
Can I just confirm that the whole of the Covanta proposal is about
incineration and not about any aerobic work? 630. MR MOULD QC: That is right, yes. 631. CHAIR: I just wanted to clarify that. 632. MR MOULD QC: Lest I mislead, the principal process is incineration, as you put it. It is that that generates the electricity, but there is, of course, a materials recovery facility. 633. CHAIR: I understand that. I was just trying to confirm that there is no waste food to be processed on this site in aerobic terms, or is there?
70
634. MR MOULD QC: That is not our intention. The reason I hesitate is there is, of course, to be brutally frank about it, the possibility that, within the black bag, there will be some residual foodstuffs that have been put in by a householder. 635. CHAIR: You will not, however, have an aerobic converter on the site. 636. MR MOULD QC: No, that is right. 637. CHAIR: That is all I was trying to establish, thank you. 638. MR MOULD QC: Thank you. Mrs Marsh, I wanted just to go back to tab 12 and, if we can find bundle page 576, or internal page 123, whichever you prefer—page 576/123—you will find there a policy, CS 13, headed “Climate Change”, which is a policy within Central Bedfordshire Council’s current Core Strategy. That is right, is it not? 639. MRS MARSH: It is the Core Strategy for part of the Central Bedfordshire area. 640. MR MOULD QC: Right. At the very bottom of that policy box, we see the council’s position as regards low carbon impact energy generating proposals. The council will consider such proposals positively, will it not? 641. MRS MARSH: Yes. (2.45 pm) 642. MR MOULD QC: To that degree, what we are proposing is consistent with the council’s plans. 643. MRS MARSH: Yes. 644. MR MOULD QC: Thank you. I think I can ask you another question. It touches on a point that I think Mr Uppal was interested in earlier. The Council, as you have emphasised, would see the opportunities for waste recovery development on this site as being what you might call county-scale. 645. MRS MARSH: Yes.
71
646. MR MOULD QC: Yes. That is a point between us. A county-scale energy-from-waste plant is going to require a certain amount of kit to function, is it not? It is going to need a boiler and so forth. 647. MRS MARSH: Obviously, any technology requires a certain amount of kit. 648. MR MOULD QC: It is going to need to be housed in a building which is going to have a certain height. 649. MRS MARSH: I think this sort of evidence is probably better directed at my colleague, who will deal with the more detailed aspects of different sorts of waste technology. 650. MR MOULD QC: I cannot ask you a basic question about how high you expect a county-scale facility to be. 651. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Put that matter to Mr Romans, please. 652. MR MOULD QC: Alright, I will leave that for him. Thank you. You gave some evidence about NIRAH, so shall we put this file away now— 653. CHAIR: Delighted to. 654. MR MOULD QC: —at least for, I think, most of the rest of my cross-examination? Can we take out COV 4—the A3 pack of visuals that I handed out earlier? I would like you, please, to turn to sheet 15 in that pack. Earlier on this morning, you were asked about the scale of the NIRAH development, and you agreed it would be a large-scale building but you said that it was saved by being an iconic design. Here, we see a photomontage in which, in the view, I think—I will be corrected if I am wrong—from Ampthill Park—no, that cannot be right. It must be Houghton House. Yes, it is Houghton House. That is right, is it not? Is that right? 655. MRS MARSH: Off-hand, I do not know. Again, I think this is probably better directed at our landscape witness.
72
656. MR MOULD QC: Because you raised the point about an iconic design, we can see the NIRAH iconic design, as you put it, and we can see the proposed Covanta design in this view on a computer-generated image. That is a helpful image, is it not, for the Committee to have in mind in judging the concerns you make about the impact of the resource recovery facility and whether it might be saved by what you describe as an iconic design? 657. MRS MARSH: I do not think I actually made a big point about iconic design this morning. 658. MR MOULD QC: I certainly heard it but perhaps I misheard it. 659. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Once again, I hate to interrupt, but I have a witness who deals precisely with design and iconic designs and comparisons. 660. CHAIR: Providing the answers will be forthcoming from that witness, I am happy that that should be the case, Mr Mould. Are you? 661. MR MOULD QC: I certainly am. 662. CHAIR: Then I am delighted. 663. MS KABIR SHEIKH: I am grateful, sir. I can assure Mr Mould that he is going to produce his own exhibits and he is going to go through various designs and he is going to go through that whole process, so these sorts of points will be usefully put to Mr Stubbs. 664. CHAIR: I think Mr Mould has accepted that, and we can move on. 665. MR MOULD QC: I hesitate to go to the next point but it was a point raised by my Lord, Lord Geddes, and so I hope that at least I can be excused for it. 666. CHAIR: It must be dealt with, sir. 667. MR MOULD QC: Indeed so, and there is another point I must deal with as well from Lord Geddes, which I have not forgotten about. Page 28 in the same bundle, the question from Lord Geddes was: is there an image where we can see the stack of the recovery facility in the same view as the existing chimneys? I have put up in front of you a view from the
73
track, which is a public right of way in front of Ampthill Park House, on which that relationship has been shown. Do you see that? 668. MRS MARSH: Yes, I do. 669. MR MOULD QC: Thank you. Again, I will not ask you to comment on it, for the reasons that have just been given. 670. LORD GEDDES: Sorry, is it the second one down, the existing chimneys on the right? 671. MR MOULD QC: Yes, it is, my Lord. You see the four chimneys. 672. LORD GEDDES: Yes. 673. MR MOULD QC: Of course, we can imagine the wind turbine, in this view, in the rear ground behind the resource recovery facility stack, can we not? 674. MRS MARSH: Yes. If the wind turbine is developed, yes, it will be an additional structure in that view. 675. MR MOULD QC: Yes, turning away in the view. Yes? 676. MRS MARSH: What I cannot tell you, without having the information in front of me, is just how big a structure it will actually be in that view. 677. MR MOULD QC: Thank you very much. Let us turn to another topic. Let us turn to your exhibits, and if we can find, please— 678. CHAIR: Sorry to interrupt you, Mr Mould, but would you be happy to carry on for a few minutes to allow my colleague to take an urgent telephone call, which I am assured is quite important? 679. MR MOULD QC: My Lord, for my part, I am quite content. Are others? 680. CHAIR: I am very grateful. 681. MR MOULD QC: On page 9 of your exhibit, Mrs Marsh, you have produced a bar chart or a graph in which you show traffic generated. This is intended to show the development
74
traffic that would be added onto existing traffic flows on Green Lane, is it not, over a 24-hour period? 682. MRS MARSH: That is correct. 683. MR MOULD QC: Yes. 684. MRS MARSH: It is intended to show largely HGV traffic. 685. MR MOULD QC: Yes. I think two points on that: first of all, one of the principal reasons why the council preferred to identify Rookery South Pit as a major or a strategic waste management site in its emerging Core Strategy was that it had good road access directly via Green Lane onto the A421 trunk road. That is right, is it not? 686. MRS MARSH: That is correct, but we are envisaging a rather smaller-scale facility, and if you were talking of, say, 120,000 tonnes per annum, you can reduce that HGV down accordingly, so you are talking of a considerably lower number of traffic movements. 687. MR MOULD QC: It would still be hundreds of HGV movements in a 24-hour period, would it not? 688. MRS MARSH: If it was, say, a 120,000-tonne facility as opposed to one which is 600,000 tonnes, you can reduce that figure to something like 20% of the vehicle movements, simplistically, that are shown there. Yes, there would be a considerable increase but nothing like the increase that is proposed by this facility. 689. MR MOULD QC: The figure you have given here—the two-way flow of development traffic—of 1,188 is based on the maximum throughput of the facility, is it not, not the nominal throughput? 690. MRS MARSH: It is based on the figures that were set out in the traffic assessment, and it is based on the figure that is set out in the requirements.
75
691. MR MOULD QC: Lest anyone is in any doubt about it, the traffic flows for the facility operating at a nominal throughput are 356 HGV movements a day as opposed to the 594 movements a day which you have shown in this graph. Would you accept that from me? 692. MRS MARSH: I would accept that, if the facility is running at a lower level, then the number of HGV movements is likely to be lower as well, but the Order allows for up to 594 two-way movements each day to and from that facility. 693. MR MOULD QC: Thank you. Covanta and the councils, as highways authorities, have entered into a lorry routing agreement, have they not, in the event that this scheme is constructed and becomes operational? 694. MRS MARSH: Yes, they have. 695. MR MOULD QC: The purpose and effect of that routing agreement is to ensure that HGV lorry traffic keeps away from residential areas. That is right, is it not? 696. MRS MARSH: It is to ensure that HGV traffic keeps to the main distributor roads that have been identified by the highway officers for both Bedford Borough Council and Central Bedfordshire Council, but, in order to access that main road network, all the traffic will have to go down Green Lane. 697. MR MOULD QC: Yes, which has no residential frontage upon it, does it? 698. MRS MARSH: No, it does not, because, to each side of Green Lane, there are workedout clay pits. 699. MR MOULD QC: Yes, and it is not just a case of a lorry routing agreement; there is a particular reason why lorry traffic will not go through the nearest settlement—that is to say Stewartby—and that is that there is a low bridge and a 7.5-tonne weight limit on the only road linking Stewartby village to the B530. That is right, is it not? 700. MRS MARSH: The weight limit itself would not preclude heavy vehicles going in there if they had a reason to do so.
76
701. MR MOULD QC: But the bridge would. 702. MRS MARSH: But certainly there is a bridge, and that would be a physical constraint for HGVs that wanted to pass through. That is not to say that they would not go into and then out again for some reason, such as refuse collection vehicles. 703. MR MOULD QC: Local refuse collection traffic, if it was accessing the site—I take your point—but it does provide a measure of comfort, does it not, that, physically, unless a lorry is going to take its top off, it cannot actually pass via Stewartby to the facility and back? That gives a measure of comfort to local amenity, does it not? 704. MRS MARSH: I think the matter has been addressed by having an agreement that vehicles would pass down Green Lane to access the 491. Certainly, it is an additional benefit, if that is the right word, that large vehicles cannot drive straight through Stewartby, because of the low bridge at the other side of the village. 705. MR MOULD QC: That is a benefit, yes. Thank you. Rights of way and cyclists and so forth: one of the commitments that Covanta have entered into as part of its promotion of this scheme is to provide improvements to the local footpath and cycleway network. That is right, is it not? 706. MRS MARSH: The layout of the proposed rights of way is substantially the same as that which is approved for the low-level restoration scheme for Rookery North and Rookery South. What would happen if the Covanta development went ahead is that certain footpaths would be upgraded to multiuse, so they could be used by cyclists etc, and there are one or two extra short footpaths proposed near the access to the site and near where the station is, so there would be some additional benefit, yes. 707. MR MOULD QC: You made a particular point this morning about your concerns about the interaction between lorry traffic, pedestrians and cyclists on Green Lane. Do you remember that?
77
708. MRS MARSH: Yes, I did. 709. MR MOULD QC: One of the particular commitments that Covanta has entered into is this, is it not: it is to upgrade the length of footpath 72 that runs parallel to Green Lane, between the level crossing on the branch line and the western end of that road, and that upgraded parallel length of footpath would be upgraded so as to include a cycle track. That is one of the commitments we have made, is it not? 710. MRS MARSH: Sorry, do you mean on Green Lane or do you mean next to the access road? 711. MR MOULD QC: On Green Lane, running parallel to Green Lane. 712. MRS MARSH: Yes, but that is not to say that it would make it as pleasant a road to walk down as if the facility was not operational. It can be quite intimidating for pedestrians and cyclists to have heavy traffic passing by. 713. MR MOULD QC: If you feel intimidated by the lorry traffic, instead of walking down the road you go along the parallel footpath and cycleway, do you not? It is separated from the road by a vegetative boundary, is it not? (3.00 pm) 714. MRS MARSH: It would still make it a less pleasant experience. 715. MR MOULD QC: Thank you. 716. MRS MARSH: There are also other sites, such as Stewartby, where, when they are restored, there will be a footpath network in them, and you will have people wanting to cross Green Lane to go to or from Stewartby, to cross Stewartby to go to other parts, in order to undertake circular routes. In the council’s view and, indeed, in the transport assessment, it does acknowledge that there can be a perception of fear and intimidation in situations where you have a lot of HGV traffic along the road.
78
717. MR MOULD QC: I have explained some of the relevant improvements that we have committed to and you have been kind enough to acknowledge them. You expressed a concern about the impact of the development on people camping on the camping ground at Stewartby Lake. Do you remember that? 718. MRS MARSH: I mentioned it in passing, yes. 719. MR MOULD QC: Yes.
Another of the commitments we have made directly to
Stewartby Water Sports Club—we have given an undertaking to them—is that we are going to erect and maintain two noise attenuation fences, are we not, in the northeast corner of that site? That is to say, to shield that site, including its camping ground, from noise from the operation of the facility and traffic. Do you accept that? 720. MRS MARSH: There is a separate agreement which I believe Covanta has with Stewartby Lake to erect some swing fencing. 721. MR MOULD QC: Yes. Just before we leave traffic and these other related matters, the plain fact is this, is it not: that both Bedford Borough Council and Central Bedfordshire Council, as the highway authority, were content with the arrangements for traffic and access that were placed by Covanta before the IPC and were the basis for the draft Development Consent Order that is before this Committee? 722. MRS MARSH: I do not know if “content” is the appropriate word. Certainly, from a technical point of view, they did not object to the number of vehicles that were going up and down Green Lane. That is a different point from taking up the amenity point of view. I am aware that they were considerably exercised about the condition of Green Lane and getting Covanta to contribute to the ongoing maintenance of Green Lane, as they considered the surface would be compromised by the large number of vehicles that would be going up and down that road as a result of the development of the facility.
79
723. MR MOULD QC: You are going to tell the Committee that we have entered into a commitment to make good the surface of the road and to take the necessary steps, are you not? 724. MRS MARSH: That is part of the agreement now, yes. 725. MR MOULD QC: Thank you. Can we turn to the question of rail, please, that was raised earlier this morning? The position as regards rail is this, is it not: first of all, a rail feasibility study was undertaken and was presented as part of the application for the Development Consent Order, was it not? 726. MRS MARSH: It was. 727. MR MOULD QC: It was on the basis of that study that it was accepted that, presently, the construction of a railhead to serve the facility is not a feasible prospect. 728. MRS MARSH: That is the case. 729. MR MOULD QC: Covanta, however, have entered into two commitments, have they not? One is that they have entered into a commitment to undertake periodic rail feasibility studies in order to continue to test whether what is presently not feasible has become feasible. That is right, is it not? 730. MRS MARSH: That is the case. 731. MR MOULD QC: The Council will be presented with those studies so that it can see for itself what the position is and take a view on that—yes? 732. MRS MARSH: That is the case. 733. MR MOULD QC: The second is, picking up a point made earlier, Covanta have expressly agreed to reserve an area of land within the site to be used to construct rail sidings, should it be concluded at some future date that waste could be brought into the site using the branch railway line. That is right, is it not?
80
734. MRS MARSH: I believe that land is to be set aside for a specified period as part of the agreement. 735. MR MOULD QC: Thank you very much. 736. CHAIR: Mr Mould, would you allow me to prompt a question through you in terms of your cross-examination? Could you just explore a little why a railway head was not feasible at this time? I think that would be of interest to Members of this Committee. 737. MR MOULD QC: I am only hesitating because I am not sure that I can pursue that effectively in cross-examination. 738. CHAIR: Then I can ask the question, can I not? 739. MR MOULD QC: Essentially, it does not stack up economically. I cannot give you the details on that off the top of my head, but what I can do is ask for a note to be prepared so that we can give you that information next time we meet. 740. CHAIR: I think this would be of import to the Members of the Committee, but Lord Geddes has a question. 741. LORD GEDDES: If I could just follow on from the Chairman’s question, I was going to ask exactly the same one, but my supplementary is: if—and this is a hypothetical point—it was made mandatory, then presumably a railhead would be feasible. 742. MR MOULD QC: I am not sure about that. It may be that, if it was made mandatory, nothing would happen, because, of course, economic feasibility goes to whether the plant can be funded and so forth. If I may, I will not go further than that, because I would like to give you an accurate statement of the position. 743. CHAIR: I understand your hesitation. I recognise I am slightly out of order myself in raising it at this time, but I think it is important to the Committee, and I am sure you will understand, Mr Mould. 744. MR MOULD QC: Of course I do, and we shall certainly do that.
81
745. CHAIR: Thank you. 746. MR MOULD QC: Thank you very much. I then turn, I think, to the question of air quality, which is another matter that I know Lord Geddes is interested in. Can we turn, please, to your exhibits, and turn back to page 7, please? One or two questions about this: first of all, I just want to be clear. The reason why you have produced evidence of the air quality management areas that previously existed is to show that there used to be a problem with local air quality as a result of brick production. 747. MRS MARSH: It is, simplistically, to show that, yes. It is not saying per se there is going to be another air quality management area there because this development occurs, but it is saying historically there were problems with emissions, and this air quality management area confirms there was a problem with emissions from the brickworks. That is why it was designated. 748. MR MOULD QC: I think you confirmed that it has since been revoked. 749. MRS MARSH: That is the case, yes. 750. MR MOULD QC: Presumably because the degree of brick-making has reduced. 751. MRS MARSH: It was revoked following the closure of the brickworks, which resulted in a significant fall in emissions; particularly the sulphur emissions that were causing most of the problems. 752. MR MOULD QC: Control on emissions in relation to waste facilities is a matter which is dealt with under the auspices of the European Waste Incineration Directive, which is then translated into domestic regulatory control; that is right, is it not? 753. MRS MARSH: Yes. 754. MR MOULD QC: The body which is responsible for that is the Environment Agency. 755. MRS MARSH: That is correct, so that is why I did not want to go into detail earlier on.
82
756. MR MOULD QC: No, but the position, as you understand it, is shown in the second bullet down on the right-hand side on page 7: “It is acknowledged that measures are in place to effectively manage emissions and to manage odours associated with rotting waste”. 757. MRS MARSH: Certainly my understanding from reading the submission is that there would need to be certain treatment systems put into the stack of the facility in order to clean the flue gases and the various gases and metals created during the combustion process so that they complied with the relevant legislation. That is not to say that there would be absolutely nothing coming out of the stack at the end of the day, but yes, there would be measures put in place to manage those pollutants that were created. 758. MR MOULD QC: You may not be able to help, in which case do tell the Committee so, but, from what you know, are you able to confirm that the essential limit that the permitting regime—which I have just described and you have just agreed is the relevant regime—works to is that emissions must be at or below a level that is unlikely to have significant effects on human health? At or below that level. 759. MRS MARSH: I cannot confirm that categorically. From a common-sense point of view, it makes sense, but I cannot confirm that categorically. I have had nothing to do with the environmental permit. 760. MR MOULD QC: You are also aware, I think, that we are well advanced in our application for the relevant permit from the Environment Agency. That was a matter that we had applied for at the time of the hearings before the IPC, was it not? 761. MRS MARSH: Yes, I am aware of that. 762. MR MOULD QC: My instructions are that that is expected to be dealt with within the next two months, I think by December of this year. 763. Might I just deal directly with the point that Lord Geddes made earlier? In July, I wrongly, I think, focused on the content of the plume that would be emitted from the plant,
83
which I think I am right in saying consists of water vapour, but I think, in giving that answer, I gave what was unintentionally a partial answer. There clearly will be some traces of emissions from the stack, but the important point is, as you just heard, that they are subject to strict controls under the auspices of the Environment Agency, and that, unless a permit from that body is in place, the site simply cannot function. It would not be allowed to start up. Because I regret that there was that degree of uncertainty in what I said, what I am proposing again is that we should prepare a note in which we explain the standard that is applied and the process whereby that standard is applied, and I hope that that will assist the Committee with regard to the position on this issue. 764. LORD GEDDES: Could I just follow up on that? Thank you, that would be very welcome, I am sure. Mr Mould, do your clients have any other plants effectively identical to the proposed Rookery South? 765. MR MOULD QC: Would you just allow me a moment? I hear the way you put it. 766. LORD GEDDES: What I am getting at is—I am sure you know—we would rather like to see what actually happens. 767. MR MOULD QC: Yes, of course, yes. 768. MS KABIR SHEIKH: There are none in this country. I can confirm that. 769. MR MOULD QC: The answer is yes, we have a number of plants throughout the world, of essentially the same scale, and operating to essentially similar emission limits. 770. LORD GEDDES: Any in this country? 771. MR MOULD QC: No. 772. CHAIR: Ms Sheikh, I see you looking just a little agitated. Did you want to make any comment? 773. MS KABIR SHEIKH: No, I will leave it. 774. CHAIR: Thank you for that. Mr Uppal?
84
775. PAUL UPPAL: None in this country—any in Europe? 776. MR MOULD QC: In Europe? 777. PAUL UPPAL: Yes. 778. MR MOULD QC: I am told there is one in Italy, which is a little bit smaller. 779. LORD GEDDES: In Eastleigh? 780. MR MOULD QC: Italy. 781. LORD GEDDES: Italy. Sorry, I thought you said Eastleigh. Eastleigh is in Hampshire. 782. MR MOULD QC: The good people of Eastleigh will be momentarily very surprised. 783. CHAIR: Can we just make sure the minutes are correct? Do carry on. 784. MR MOULD QC: That is how I propose to deal with that. 785. CHAIR: We are very grateful. 786. MR MOULD QC: Thank you very much. Just bear with me a moment. Perhaps a technical but nevertheless, I hope, a point of some importance which I want to ask you about is this: you have made a number of points about the perception of local people, for example in relation to air quality, in relation to traffic and so forth. Your petition is concerned with impacts on local amenity, is it not? We had certainly understood that to be concerned with things, if you will, that were measurable, rather than things that were in people’s minds. Is that a fair distinction to draw? 787. MRS MARSH: I do not think so, necessarily. 788. MR MOULD QC: I see. I have made the point, thank you. (3.15 pm) 789. CHAIR: It is a point that bothers me, Mr Mould, because evidence must be objective. I am concerned about the subjective nature of what people might or might not think, which is one of the reasons I asked for the movements in and out, if you like, so I do think we can return to this a little later, Ms Sheikh, because I think the Committee will feel that the
85
subjective nature of the evidence given needed to be clarified in a much more objective way. Is that fair? 790. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Sir, that is very fair, and that is why I earlier offered to produce the health impact assessment and the appendices to those. There is another one called a human health impact assessment. 791. CHAIR: Then you will have the opportunity to do so as the process unrolls, will you not? 792. MS KABIR SHEIKH: I can certainly introduce that document at a later stage, and that is a document, in fact, produced by Covanta, which makes this objective assessment based on a number of facts. 793. CHAIR: I think you have got the point. 794. MS KABIR SHEIKH: I have got the point and I shall make sure it comes in. 795. CHAIR: Thank you very much. Mr Mould? 796. MR MOULD QC: Thank you. I just have, I think, one other question for you, Mrs Marsh. It relates to Mr Uppal’s question about dimensions. We have agreed the essential dimensions, I think, and you can see that, I think, in paragraph 43 of the statement of facts. Do you have that available? The agreed position is that “the facility would have a maximum roof height of 43 metres”—do you see that? —“but because the plant would be set in the floor of the clay pit, it would be some 33 metres above the surrounding unexcavated ground level. The stack would be 105 metres in height from ground level, some 95 metres above the surrounding ground level. For comparison purposes, the four remaining brickwork chimneys at Stewartby are approximately 70 metres, 69 metres, 67 metres and 56 metres above the surrounding ground level. The EFW facility would extend to just over 5 hectares and be located on the western side of the resource recovery facility, with the materials recovery
86
facility, approximately 4 hectares, located on the eastern side”. That is the agreed position, is it not? 797. MRS MARSH: It is certainly the agreed position there that the overall site of the facility is approximately 9 hectares, and that is divided as 5 hectares within which the energy-fromwaste facility is located, and then the materials recycling facility, car parking etc is on the other 4 hectares. What we were trying to identify, other than that broad figure, and as we had understood the question that was asked this morning, was more in the case of: what is the square footage of the actual built development? That was the question that we were seeking to ask, so I do not think one contradicts the other; it adds to what information is already there. 798. MR MOULD QC: Finally, can we just take the large pack—my large pack of images— just so we can translate the essential dimensions to a plan? Turn, please, to page 26. This is a plan which, as the heading shows—plan 13a on page 26—is seeking to illustrate the planting strategy, and the legend contains a series of different shades of green and so forth for that purpose. Just for my purpose, however, we can identify the development, can we not, on the western side of Rookery Pit South, just below the water body? Do you see that? 799. MRS MARSH: Yes. 800. MR MOULD QC: The energy-from-waste component is the western or the left-hand component of the footprint, is it not? Immediately to the right of the branch railway line— you can see it, yes? 801. MRS MARSH: Yes. 802. MR MOULD QC: Are we orientated alright? 803. MRS MARSH: Yes. 804. MR MOULD QC: The materials recovery facility is the right-hand side, or the eastern side, of the footprint, is it not? 805. MRS MARSH: Yes.
87
806. MR MOULD QC: The remainder of Rookery South Pit is not subject to development under the terms of the Development Consent Order, is it? 807. MRS MARSH: No. 808. MR MOULD QC: It is subject to low-level restoration in accordance with the existing low-level restoration scheme. 809. MRS MARSH: There are certain elements of landscaping which may be proposed there, but there is no built development. 810. MR MOULD QC: It is right, is it not, to get a sense of how far, if you will, the proposed resource recovery facility extends into the body of Rookery South Pit as a whole? 811. MRS MARSH: That 9 hectares is the main area of development. 812. MR MOULD QC: I am very grateful to you. Thank you very much indeed. 813. CHAIR: Thank you very much, Mrs Marsh. I do not think you wish to come back again, Ms Sheikh, do you? 814. MS KABIR SHEIKH: I do not, sir. 815. CHAIR: I thought that by your looking away. Then I will continue to thank you, because I think that you have appeared as an excellent witness for your employers. I think you tried very hard to be totally to the point and truthful, and we are most grateful. 816. MRS MARSH: Thank you. 817. CHAIR: Would you like to call your next witness, Ms Sheikh? 818. MS KABIR SHEIKH: I would sir. Can I just, before I do that— 819. CHAIR: Sorry, can I make a point before we do? 820. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Yes. 821. CHAIR: I do hope—and I am sure this will be the case—that you will be considerate to us by not double-deckering the facts that we have already established with one witness. I
88
do not think it needs to be re-established with another witness, and I am sure you will help us in that respect. Thank you. 822. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Sir, just before I call my next witness, I have now got the relevant exhibit that shows the Rookery chimney against the Stewartby chimneys. I know one has already been put in earlier, but this is the one that I wanted to put forward. It is coming round. 823. CHAIR: Thank you. That is very helpful. 824. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Sir, you will see that it is a view from Ampthill Park, which is one of the heritage assets. Sir, I do not propose to say anything more. It is a pictorial image. It is a montage. Mrs Kirkham will give more comments about this in due course. 825. CHAIR: Give me a second to rearrange my files. 826. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Yes. 827. CHAIR: Thank you. Do carry on. 828. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Sir, my witness, then, is Mr Roy Romans, if I could ask him to take up his post. 829. CHAIR: Thank you. Mr Romans, can I welcome you to the witness stand, as it were, and can I simply check that you have taken the necessary obligation? 830. MR ROMANS: Yes, I have, Chairman. 831. CHAIR: Thank you. 832. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Sir, before I introduce Mr Romans, I do have a very small clip of documentation to put in with this witness’s evidence and the exhibits. 833. CHAIR: We would have been disappointed if you would not have. 834. MS KABIR SHEIKH: I have tried to keep it to the absolute minimum, and you will know, sir, that I produced nothing extra with Mrs Marsh. It is very slim. It is certainly not a big folder. 835. CHAIR: Do carry on.
89
836. MS KABIR SHEIKH: It is coming round. 837. CHAIR: Thank you. 838. We did not get your job title for the record, Mr Romans, if you could tell us that. 839. MR ROMANS: My job title is Team Leader, Minerals and Waste. The Team Leader position is responsible for all aspects of minerals and waste planning within Central Bedfordshire. 840. CHAIR: Thank you. 841. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Thank you. Sir, you should now have a set of exhibits entitled “The Need for the Facility”, which is an A3-type document, and there should also be a few tables clipped together, which I think Mr Lewis is bringing round. Then there should be a clip. Sir, I propose to introduce Mr Romans while that is happening, if that is acceptable. You have confirmed that you are Roy Romans, and you have given your current job title. Can you just give a little bit of your background experience, please? 842. MR ROMANS: Yes. I have been employed by Central Bedfordshire and its predecessor authority since November 1990. Central Bedfordshire was formed from the amalgamation of both Mid Bedfordshire and South Bedfordshire District Councils, and the remainder of Bedfordshire County Council. Bedford Borough Council is also a unitary authority. Before joining what was Bedfordshire County Council, I was employed as a Minerals Planning Officer at Avon County Council from September 1986, which was, effectively, the beginning of my career. 843. As part of my role, I have represented the Bedfordshire area in waste planning matters and have been involved in planning for waste management facilities in the East of England. During my career, I have determined proposals for a variety of large-scale waste management facilities.
These include landfill sites, waste-to-energy facilities, recycling
facilities and waste transfer sites. I therefore have an in-depth knowledge of waste planning
90
matters within the area that the site is located and the subject of the proposed Development Consent Order. 844. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Good. And your qualifications, please, Mr Romans? 845. MR ROMANS: I have a BSc Honours Degree in Applied Science and an MSc in Environmental Technology. I have a Diploma in Quarrying Operations and a Certificate in Planning Law. I am a Member of the Institute of Quarrying and a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. 846. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Good. You are going to be dealing with the petitions of general objection and petitions of amendment. I want to take you through your evidence but, before doing that, could you please deal with the question raised by Mr Uppal about what size facility would be appropriate in the Rookery South area, and what type of facility might be considered? 847. MR ROMANS: I think that it is relevant to look at the type of facility first, because the type of facility may well determine things like height and scale. I think, in terms of volume, in terms of a local facility, as some of the evidence I will be presenting will show, we need approximately around the 200,000 tonnes a year mark to deal with full recovery operations provided for within the plan area; that is, the areas of Central Bedfordshire, Bedford Borough and Luton. We would be looking at a maximum size facility of around 200,000 tonnes. 848. MS KABIR SHEIKH: That is the size facility. What about the various alternatives? 849. MR ROMANS: I have a number of exhibits to demonstrate the different types of waste management technology, and perhaps things will become clearer if I was to do that first. 850. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Yes, if you could take us through those exhibits, and we will go into more detail later. Just for the moment, for the purposes of this question, if you could direct us to the relevant exhibit. (3.30 pm)
91
851. MR ROMANS: I think, if the Members of the Committee could to turn, to start with, to Exhibit 6 on page 7, the site at Rookery South identified in the emerging plan is a site identified for a recovery facility. That contains quite a wide definition of waste management facilities, the first being a materials recovery facility, and I would point out that this is different from the materials recovery facility identified as part of the Development Consent Order that Covanta are proposing in terms of the recovery of the ash at the end of the process. This is more a materials recovery facility that separates materials at the beginning of the waste process, before it would go into an energy recovery process. 852. The types of facility that could go into Rookery South could be a materials recovery facility, which would effectively separate out recyclables from what is known as black bag waste—residual waste. Then, on page 8, Exhibit 7, the type of facility that could also go on site would be an anaerobic digestion plant treating biodegradable waste. On page 9, a mechanical biological treatment facility, which would also treat more biodegradable waste. Again, page 10 refers to a mechanical heat treatment facility. As I say, I will go through these in more detail. On page 11, an energy recovery facility similar to the one being proposed by Covanta. Finally, on page 12, Exhibit 11, what is known as an advanced thermal treatment facility. All of those different technologies would come under the umbrella of “recovery”. Each of those technologies have a different footprint in terms of the size of the facility and the area that the facility would take to deliver a 200,000-tonne throughput. 853. MS KABIR SHEIKH: You have been sitting here. You will recall that Mr Mould went to the emerging planning policy for the area. Would these technologies that you have identified fall within the policy requirements or not? 854. MR ROMANS: Yes.
As I said, the forward plan that is emerging is looking at
identifying sufficient recovery capacity, and all of these types of treatment facility we would look at as recovery.
92
855. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Mr Romans, if we could start your evidence proper and turn to Exhibit 2, it sets out somewhat of a roadmap. Sir, I should say at the outset that it is necessary for Mr Romans to go through the waste hierarchy to understand how this particular facility sits within it in order to understand the evidence that follows, so there will be some background evidence being given here about the waste hierarchy and how the responsibilities fall on the councils. Mr Romans, if you could explain, then, this exhibit. 856. MR ROMANS: Yes. As you have said, it sets out the framework, and I will try to be brief. Initially, I think it is important to understand the organisation of waste management responsibilities in England and Wales. There has been some discussion already about the roles of the Environment Agency and the roles of the council, so really a brief exhibit just to set that in context. I think, then, it is important to understand the waste hierarchy, again to understand where this particular proposal sits within the waste hierarchy, which is relevant when we come to consider later parts of my evidence. Then the types of waste management facility, as I have just referred to; again, an understanding of what the options are will also be relevant. Then I do set out in quite a bit of detail the identification of the potential demand for the facility, to again set that in context. 857. MS KABIR SHEIKH: These next two points deal with the petition for amendment. 858. MR ROMANS: The last two deal solely with the petition for amendment in terms of identifying the need for a catchment area and why we need a definition for residual waste. 859. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Sir, if you turn, then, to Exhibit 3 and deal with the waste management in England and Wales, again I think you can probably take it relatively succinctly. 860. MR ROMANS: Yes, the waste management is dealt with by a variety of organisations. Some responsibilities fall within the same organisation. The Environment Agency are the waste regulator and have the responsibility for enforcing waste management legislation,
93
which includes the licensing of sites and waste carriers, and ensuring compliance with the Duty of Care Special Waste regulations. The Environment Agency also acts in an advisory capacity, advising central Government in policy formulation and offering assistance to businesses and industry on waste management practices. 861. The waste collection authorities are responsible for arranging the collection of household and commercial waste within their area. The waste collected by waste collection authorities must be taken to sites designated by the waste disposal authority. In addition, the waste collection authorities are responsible for investigating the potential for recycling in their area and preparing a recycling plan. 862. The waste disposal authorities are also local authorities and are responsible for ensuring the provision of disposal facilities in their area for controlled waste. Since 1990, these facilities must be run either by the private sector or by a local authority waste disposal company (LAWDC), rather than by the local authority. Before 1990, it was not uncommon for local authorities to have local authority-run sites, such as incinerators or landfill sites, but that is no longer allowed. 863. Waste disposal authorities must ensure provision for the disposal of all waste collected in their areas by the waste collection authorities and provide facilities for householders to deposit their own waste and arrange for disposal of that waste. Waste disposal authorities and waste collection authorities in England are encouraged by Government to develop jointly municipal waste management strategies for their areas, which are set out in the Strategic Framework for Municipal Waste Management in each waste disposal authority area, including provisions for recycling. 864. Waste planning authorities have responsibility for land use planning control for waste management, which includes identifying sites and areas suitable for new or enhanced waste
94
management facilities for the waste management needs of their area, and considering waste planning applications and enforcing planning legislation with respect to waste. 865. MS KABIR SHEIKH: In terms of Central Bedfordshire— 866. CHAIR: Excuse me, Ms Sheikh, my apologies. My colleague, Mr Esterson, would like to ask a question. 867. MS KABIR SHEIKH: I apologise. 868. BILL ESTERSON: Hopefully you can shed some light on my understanding of this. Are the waste collection authority, waste disposal authority and waste planning authority the same organisations? 869. MR ROMANS: Where you have a unitary authority, then it is the same organisation, but especially in the shire counties, in two-tier authority areas, the waste planning and waste disposal authority will be, effectively, the county council, and the waste collection authority the district council. 870. BILL ESTERSON: You are a single-tier authority. 871. MR ROMANS: Central Bedfordshire, Bedford Borough and Luton are now all singletier unitary authorities. 872. BILL ESTERSON: Is the waste planning authority the same planning committee as deals with other planning applications? 873. MR ROMANS: It is, yes. 874. BILL ESTERSON:
While I am on that subject, did this go to Members; what
happened? 875. MR ROMANS: Because this was not a planning application in the normal sense of the word, the application was not determined by the authority but went through the IPC process. 876. BILL ESTERSON: However, they will have considered it, presumably, in summary.
95
877. MR ROMANS: The committee of the authority that considered the application was the council’s Executive Committee rather than the Planning Committee, as the Planning Committee only have delegated authority from the main council to determine planning applications rather than comment on Development Consent Orders. 878. I think you have to bear in mind that this was the first Development Consent Order to go through any authority anywhere and, unfortunately, I think it probably still applies that local authorities’ schemes of delegation to their various committees have not been set up to deal with these unusual processes. 879. BILL ESTERSON:
A final question: what was the view taken by the Executive
Committee? 880. MR ROMANS: The Executive Committees of both local authorities—both Bedford Borough Council and Central Bedfordshire Council—were to object to the development. 881. BILL ESTERSON: Was that unanimous? 882. MR ROMANS: I cannot recollect anybody abstaining or refusing, so I am not sure whether or not there was a recorded vote, but I do not recall any non-consent. 883. BILL ESTERSON: Thank you. 884. MS KABIR SHEIKH: I am grateful. I was going to take you to the question of what the role of the councils was. I should just say, for Mr Esterson, hopefully helpfully, the council’s role was very limited during this process, in the sense that their input was through local impact reports. They wrote two reports setting out what they regarded as the impact of the facility. That is a document that is publicly available and can be provided if need be. We have little sections of that in some of our documentation. That set out the council’s formal position in relation to the scheme, and it objected on, essentially, many of the points that we are raising before you here. They are, in fact, in the core documents that have been provided. I think there are two folders, perhaps, there.
96
885. Thank you, Mr Romans.
You have just confirmed that Central Bedfordshire and
Bedford Borough Council are the planning authority, the waste collection authority, the waste planning authority and the waste disposal authority. 886. MR ROMANS: That is correct, yes. 887. MS KABIR SHEIKH: There is no question of a second tier or a county council in your area. 888. MR ROMANS: No longer—that is correct. 889. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Yes, we will not go into the reorganisation for now. Thank you. Moving on, then, to the waste hierarchy, it may be helpful to just explain what this is and how this particular facility sits in the waste hierarchy—where it actually is. You have Exhibit 4, which sets out the waste hierarchy and how it ranks waste management options according to what is best for the environment. Could you go through, please, that hierarchy? 890. MR ROMANS: Yes. The definitions of each stage of the hierarchy derive from Article 3 of the European Directive. There is a non-exhaustive list of disposal and recovery operations which form part of that Directive, but they are quite long and I will not go through those. 891. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Just so you know, the clip that we have put in that looks like that has as the first document the relevant Directive and Article 3. 892. MR ROMANS: I think, if I start at the top of the hierarchy, which is “prevention”, it is important to be clear what that means. That means: “Measures taken before a substance, material or product has become waste that a) reduce the quantity of waste, including through the reuse of products or the extension of the lifespan of products, and b) the adverse impacts of the generated waste on the environment and human health, or c) the content of harmful substances in materials and products”. That is the very top of the hierarchy. That is where people are encouraged to start thinking about reducing or giving rise to a reduction in waste.
97
893. The next stage is the reuse stage, which effectively means “Any operations by which products or components that are not waste are used again for the same purpose for which they were conceived”. Again, that is reusing products, so you are not really doing anything to them; you are simply reusing the same products. 894. The next stage would be preparing for reuse, which means “Checking, cleaning, repairing or recovery operations by which products or components of products that have become waste are prepared so they can be reused without any other pre-processing”. (3.45 pm) 895. Then we come on to recycling, which means “Any recovery operation by which materials are reprocessed into products, materials or substances, whether for the original or other purposes, and includes the reprocessing of organic material but does not include energy recovery and the reprocessing into materials”. 896. Then we get into recovery, which means “Any operation, the principal result of which is waste, serving a useful purpose by replacing other materials which would otherwise have been used to fulfil a particular function, or waste being prepared to fulfil that function in the plant or in the wider economy”. I think you will see from Exhibit 4 that other recovery also includes incineration with energy recovery, gasification and pyrolysis. 897. Then we have disposal at the bottom, which means “Any operation which is not recovery, even where the operation has, as a secondary consequence, the reclamation of substances or energy”. I think that refers to landfill and incineration without energy recovery. 898. MS KABIR SHEIKH: In terms of the current facility that the Committee is considering, that would fall just above disposal. 899. MR ROMANS: That is correct. It would fall just above disposal in terms of other recovery.
98
900. The guidance on how to apply the waste hierarchy for different wastes was published by Defra in 2011, although this is currently under review. As waste management technologies evolve, so their impact on the environment relative to other options may well change. For example, current research shows that, for food, anaerobic digestion is environmentally better than composting and other recovery operations. The evidence also indicates that, for garden waste and for mixtures of food waste and garden waste, dry anaerobic digestion followed by composting is environmentally better than composting alone. Also, the scientific data for certain waste management technologies is currently limited, so we are not always able to determine their environmental benefits relative to other options within the hierarchy. 901. Businesses and local authorities are likely to consider other factors when they make decisions on waste, including social and economic impacts, as well as their technical feasibility. Those factors will vary in line with the size of an organisation, the range of materials it handles, and its location. 902. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Mr Romans, your voice is falling a little bit. 903. MR ROMANS: Sorry, I seem to be sat between two microphones. 904. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Maybe shuffle along. 905. MR ROMANS: Maybe if I shift over a bit. Is that any better? 906. MS KABIR SHEIKH: I think it is, yes. 907. MR ROMANS: I accept that recovery activities such as energy-from-waste are also a key part to the hierarchy; however, the evidence shows that, for most materials, recycling is better for the environment than energy-from-waste, and that energy-from-waste is better than landfill. As new technologies emerge, Defra has stated that it will review the evidence available regularly, and update their guidance on the hierarchy accordingly. 908. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Thank you. Your next few exhibits, which I think we can take relatively swiftly and perhaps finish by four on this point, relate to the types of waste
99
management facility that deliver the waste hierarchy. You start at Exhibit 5, and I think you go through on this topic to Exhibit 12. Perhaps you could not race through them, clearly, but focus more on the ones that need perhaps more explanation. Landfill is not likely to need much explanation, for example. 909. MR ROMANS: I understand. If we start off with waste transfer stations, waste transfer stations effectively just bulk up small loads of waste into larger loads for cheaper transport to other waste treatment facilities. There is no actual intensive treatment or recovery there; it is purely a transfer operation and the name says it all, really. They can contain quite large buildings, but as the proposal is not part of this, I will not dwell on that particular facility. 910. If we move on to Exhibit 6, materials recovery facility, this is, I think, one of the more important types of facility. This is a facility where recyclables can be recovered from a variety of inputs of mixed waste. Although materials recovery facilities can sort many types of mixed waste, they are generally considered to be facilities for the reception and separation of what is known as mixed dry recyclables, such as paper, card, plastic, cans and bottles, usually collected from households but sometimes from commercial properties. Those types of materials recovery facilities are called clean MRFs. 911. There are also mixed materials recovery facilities where unsegregated mixed waste is sorted. They are known as dirty MRFs within the industry. Those types of facilities typically will sort what is known as black bag waste. A number of waste collection authorities will have facilities for householders to separate their waste in terms of recyclables, and there will be a residual bin to take materials. Dirty MRFs will take that black bin waste and will further treat those recyclables to extract added value out of those. You have, then, two different types of materials recovery facility. The second—the dirty MRFs—are a more intensive form of treatment to squeeze out every last drop of recyclates out of the waste stream. On Exhibit 6, I
100
have given an indication of the different percentages of material that could be extracted from black bag waste. 912. Exhibit 7, in terms of anaerobic digestion: this is a biological process which treats biological waste, such as garden and kitchen waste, and breaks it down into a digestate and biogas. Again, I have given an example of the type of facility in terms of the photograph, which is a facility at Milton Ernest, to the north of Bedford in Bedfordshire, which has been operating for a number of years. There is normally a small industrial-type building associated with it for the delivery of the waste, and there is a separation process before the organic waste then goes into a vat and is heated and stirred for a few weeks, which produces the gas and the digestate. 913. CHAIR: Could I interrupt, Ms Sheikh? 914. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Yes, of course. 915. CHAIR:
The anaerobic digestion plant at Milton Ernest: how many heavy goods
vehicle movements does that require and what sort of size of contract with food producers and farmers etc have you got? 916. MR ROMANS: The facility is run by a private company, and, in terms of the total capacity of the facility, I think it can accept up to 35,000 tonnes of food waste each year. That waste is mixed with 12,000 tonnes of pig manure from a nearby pig unit, which helps the digestion process. The number of lorries associated with that, off the top of my head, is in the order of 20 a day. 917. CHAIR: Thank you. It just gives me an idea. I am grateful. 918. MR ROMANS: 20 a day to deal with that volume of throughput. 919. CHAIR: Thank you. 920. MR ROMANS: If we go on to Exhibit 8 on page 9, mechanical and biological treatment, this is a process that removes metals and other recyclables, and uses bacteria in a biological
101
treatment to produce a compost-like material from the remainder of the waste. Mechanical biological treatment is a generic name for a combination of technologies and systems, which sometimes undertake the mechanical treatment element first—i.e. the removal of all recyclable materials; in other systems, the biological process may come first. That type of system is designed to suit a particular compensation of waste being processed or to enable a particular output of the material to be produced. 921. Dependent upon the method used and the degree of mechanical and biological treatment that has taken place, the remaining material at the end of the process can either be sent to landfill, used as an agricultural product or soil additive, or used in a thermal treatment to recover energy from it. 922. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Exhibit 9? 923. MR ROMANS: Exhibit 9, page 10, mechanical heat treatment, this process is well established in the sterilisation of clinical waste at dentists or hospitals. It is also known as an autoclave within the industry. Effectively, mixed waste is loaded into a sealed cylinder and high-temperature steam is applied while the vessel rotates, grinding the waste and breaking it up. The cooking process causes the biodegradable part of the waste to be broken down into an organic fibre, whilst causing plastics to soften and flatten. The main reason for using the autoclave process is to enable individual material types to be easily recovered from a mixed waste stream. The fibre that is produced can be sent for thermal or biological treatment, or potentially has a use in the manufacture of cardboard-like products. Some of the residual material from that process can be used again for refuse-derived fuel. If we go on to Exhibit 10— 924. CHAIR: Can I just check: I assume this is the resource that we are talking about. 925. MR ROMANS: No, not Exhibit 9. 926. CHAIR: No, I am talking about Exhibit 10.
102
927. MR ROMANS: 10, yes. 928. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Sir, yes. 929. CHAIR: It is the resource we are talking about at Rookery South. 930. MS KABIR SHEIKH: Yes. 931. MR ROMANS: That is correct, yes. 932. CHAIR: Thank you. 933. MR ROMANS: Energy recovery facilities involve the incineration of waste at high temperature. The heat may then be used to generate power. They can be used as a treatment for a variety of wastes. An ERF, or energy recovery facility, can be referred to as an incinerator, but incinerators do not necessarily recover energy. 934. I have included a generic-type diagram for the waste-to-energy process. I have a later exhibit to go through, in a bit more detail, the process at Rookery, so I will not dwell on this one in particular, because that will become more evident when we do that in more detail on the specific proposal. 935. CHAIR: We would be grateful, thank you. Let me get the last one in, in 60 seconds. 936. MR ROMANS: Yes. Only to say that Exhibit 11 deals with advanced thermal treatment. Effectively it is a thermal treatment process, and it heats waste in a reduced oxygen environment to create a gas which is then burnt, and steam is then used to generate electricity. They are known as advanced thermal treatment processes. They are either called gasification or pyrolysis.
Pyrolysis is when it is burnt in virtually a complete absence of oxygen
environment. I think that completes a very quick run-through of the different types of facility. 937. CHAIR: I might just point out that you ended correctly, because the division bell has just gone. It is a good time to say order, order. This Committee will reassemble next Wednesday, 31st October, at 9.30 am in the morning. Thank you very much indeed.
103
Committee adjourned at 4.00 pm.
104
