CC Ref.CC1/2
PROOF OF EVIDENCE
OF
ROGER JOHN MILESBSc, MSc, Dip TP, MRTPI
ON BEHALF OF CORNWALL COUNCIL
APPEAL REFERENCE: APP/DO840/A/09/2113075
(PLANNING AUTHORITY REFERENCE 08/00761)
In respect of the Planning Appeal by SITA Cornwall Ltd
Relating to the decision by the former Cornwall County Council (now Cornwall Council) to refuse planning permission for the Cornwall Energy Recovery Centre (CERC) and associated development on land at Rostowrack Farm, Wheal Remfry, Goonvean and Parkandillick Dryers St Dennis St Austell Cornwall.
Proof of Evidence of Roger Miles
CONTENTS
Section / Title / Page1 / Introduction and Scope of Evidence / 1
2 / The Appeal Proposals / 4
3 / Waste ContextwithinCornwall / 6
4 / Waste Planning Policy / 14
5 / Conformity of the Appeal Proposals / 27
6 / Consideration of Alternatives / 42
7 / Summary and Conclusions / 81
Appendices
A / Figure 3.1; Waste Management Facilities within CornwallB / Forecast of Future MSW Arisings
C / Consideration of “Future Landfill Provision in Cornwall for Municipal Solid Waste and Commercial Industrial Waste; December 2008.
D / Extracts from Commercial and Industrial Waste Data Analysis of the North West Region; Urban Mines 2008 and Study to fill Evidence Gaps for Commercial and Industrial Waste Streams in the North West Region of England, Urban Mines 2007
E / Extracts from EA website ref.
F / Defra Briefing Note on Advanced Thermal Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste
G / Map of Wheal Remfry, Fraddon Down showing application of constraints
H / Map of VictoriaBusinessPark showing potential redefinition of area.
I / Details of emerging proposal for HallenbeagleBioPark
Proof of Evidence of Roger Miles
SECTION 1INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF EVIDENCE
Roger John Miles will say
1.1I am a Director of Roger MilesPlanning Limited which was established as an independent town planning and environmental consultancy in May 2000. I have a Bachelor of Science Degree from the London School of Economics and a Master of Science Degree and Diploma in Town Planning from Oxford Polytechnic, now the OxfordBrookesUniversity. I have been a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute since 1979.
1.2Prior to the establishment of my own Company, I was Director of Planning at EDAW, an international planning, landscape and design consultancy having been appointed in 1997. Before joining EDAW, I was a Director of Development Planning and Design Services (DPDS) based in Swindon.
1.3Previous to this, I was employed as a planning officer within the RMC Group of Companies and, prior to that, as a planning officer within the minerals andwaste section of the Surrey County Council.
1.4I have worked for the last 26 years on a wide range of waste management projects including facilities for the integrated management of waste, materials recycling, the generation of energy from waste, anaerobic digestion, in-vessel composting, autoclaving, waste transfer and landfill. During this period I have represented both waste planning authorities and waste management operators and have been involved extensively in the preparation and evaluation of environmental impact assessments, the preparation and negotiation of planning applications and in providing advice on the need for new waste management facilities.
1.5I was first instructed in relation to the Cornwall Energy Recovery Centre (CERC) on 19th November 2009. My brief was to review reasons for refusalnumbers 1 and 6 in the light both of current waste management policy and relevant background papers and to determine the conformity of the appeal proposals with that policy framework. In addition I was requested to review the appellant’s Assessment of Number of Facilities ERM March 2008 (ANF)[CD A2(ii)]; the Cornwall Option Appraisal; ERM March 2008 (COA) [CDA2(iii)] and the Assessment of Alternative Sites;ERM March 2008 (AAS)[CD A2(v)], within the context of relevant planning policy and to determine the extent to which together these meet a reasonable requirement to consider alternatives. More recently I was instructed to evaluate the Assessment of Alternative Sites Update Report January 2010 (AAS Update) and the Residual Waste Treatment Options Report produced for the County Council by Fichtner January 2010(RWTO) [CD O1].
1.6My evidence therefore addresses the waste planning policy issues raised by the appeal proposals, and that form the basis of reasons for refusal 1 and 6. In so doing I touch also upon conformity of the appeal proposals with the policy for sustainable transport proposals as addressed within reasons for refusal 8.
1.7I first visited the site in 23rd November to familiarise myself with both the area generally and the site in particular. Since that date I have attended a number of meetings with Cornwall Council in order to understand the background to the current appeal.
Format of Evidence
1.8In Section 2 of my evidence I describe the key features of the appeal proposals as they relate to the strategy for the management of waste within Cornwall. This is followed in Section 3 by a description of the current waste management context generally within the County and the manner in which this is forecast to change having particular regard to the requirements of emerging waste management policy.
1.9In Section 4 I set out the relevant waste planning policy framework as it applies to a consideration of the appeal proposals. I consider the weight that should be attributed to specific policy documents. Then in Section 5 I assess the appeal proposals to determine the extent to which they conform or conflict with that framework. Where the interpretation of waste planning policies calls for a judgement to be made on environmental and amenity impacts, I rely for those judgements on the evidence of other witnesses for the Council.
1.10In Section 6 I consider the requirement to assess alternatives and look at the adequacy of the work undertaken on behalf of SITA within the context of that requirement. In doing so, I have particular regard to the requirements of PPS10 and the draft RSS and the extent to which these documents point towards the need to develop alternatives strategies to meet the future waste management needs of Cornwall.
1.11My conclusions are set out in Section 7.
1
Proof of Evidence of Roger Miles
SECTION 2 THE APPEAL PROPOSALS
2.1Within this section of my evidence I describe the main features of the appeal proposal that will inform a consideration of both its conformity with existing and emerging waste management policy and the extent to which, within this context, it can be held to form part of an integrated and sustainable strategy for the management of Cornwall’s municipal solid waste (MSW) and commercial and industrial waste (C/I waste), or contribute towards important sustainable development objectives.
Description of the Development
2.2The appeal proposals comprise a single large mass burn Energy from Waste facility designed to manage up to 240,000 tonnes of MSW and C/I waste per annum.
2.3Waste inputs to the site will not be subject to any prior sorting to remove the recyclable fraction of the waste other than that which has already been conducted by householders and businesses,and through segregated deposit at HWRCs.A limited quantity of ferrous metals are removed at the CERC following combustion.
2.4All MSW will be transported to the appeal site by road both from a number of transfer stations located around the County but also by direct delivery where waste arises locally. There is no control over the form or origin of C/I waste deliveries. I will expand upon the existing network of facilities within the next section of my evidence. Similarly, all residual waste for landfilling, re-processed ash, fly ash and sorted metals will be exported by road. There are no proposals to utilise rail for the transport of any of this material notwithstanding the requirements of policy and the existence of a rail line immediately adjacent to the site. Whilst reference is made within the application to the potential for future use of rail, this should not be given any material weight given the absence of any commitment to providing it on the part of the appellant. Furthermore, a report prepared by Mr Sharpe which is appended to Mr Millington’s evidence demonstrates how the current design of the site is likely to preclude its future use.
2.5The combustion of 240,000 tonnes of waste will give rise to up to 60,000 tonnes of bottom ash. This material will be reprocessed on site and subsequently exported to be recycled as an aggregate substitute. Approximately 10% of this material (6,000 tonnes), based upon the appellant’s own estimate,will comprise waste from this process which will need to be landfilled. The proposal is not specific about the destination for this material.
2.6In addition to the bottom ash, the process will also give rise to 11,000 tonnes of pollution control residues or “fly ash” per annum.The “fly ash” comprises a hazardous waste and requires disposal at suitably licensed landfill facilities. The nearest suitable site is located within Gloucestershire at a distance of 315 kms from the appeal site.
1
Proof of Evidence of Roger Miles
SECTION 3WASTE CONTEXT WITHIN CORNWALL
3.1Within the section of my evidence I set out the background to current waste management practice within Cornwall and the manner in which this is required to change in the future to meet the requirements of PPS10 and the emerging RSS. In so doing I will look briefly at the quantities of waste that are forecast to require management and the manner in which the CERC is proposed to address this requirement.
3.2The most recent figures for MSW arisings within Cornwall indicate a total for 2008/9 of 314,311 tonnes[1]. Of this total nearly37.8% (118,700 tonnes) was recycled or composted. A total of 194,958 tonnes was therefore disposed of to landfill.
3.3The volume of MSW sent to landfill has generally been declining since the beginning of the decade from a total in 2000/01 of approximately 250,000. This represents a decrease of 22% during the eight year period. In the same period, recycling has increased from 24,069 tonnes to 118,700 tonnes. This represents a growth of nearly 400% during this period. The total for MSW arisings has remained broadly steady since 2004/5 when it reached over 320,000 tonnes.
3.4There are currently twelve Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRC) operating for the management of MSW throughout the County and sixroad-based Refuse Transfer Stations. A number of the existing Household Waste Recycling Centres have undergone or are undergoing refurbishment and/or expansion, with new facilities also under construction or proposed at Falmouth, Penzance, Truro and Redruth. Two materials recycling facilities are also operating for the reception of kerbside segregated dry recyclables.
3.5There are currently three landfill sites operating within the County for the reception of non hazardous, non inert waste. These are at United Mines, Redruth; ConnonBridge, Liskeard and Lean Quarry, Liskeard. Planning conditions require the cessation of the United Mines and ConnonBridge sites in 2010 and 2014 respectively. Both are understood to be likely to have remaining capacity at these dates and further extensions of time may therefore be sought. Indeed the latter is already the subject of pre-application discussions. The Lean Quarry site has planning permission and remaining capacity to operate through to 2032.
3.6The location of all these facilities is shown on drawing number 3.1 which is included at Appendix A.
3.7In relation to future arisings, recent trends would suggest that there will be minimal,if any increase in arisings of MSW and a continuing increase in recycling and composting. The eventual target set is torecycle and/or compost 50% of household waste by 2020[2]. Cornwall is currently recycling 36.18% of household waste[3]. The additional and improved Household Waste Recycling Centres referred to in paragraph 3.4 above are designed to increase the recycling and composting rates within Cornwall. The site currently under construction at Falmouth, to be operated by SITA, would accept between 7,500 – 10,000 tonnes per annum of municipal waste with 25% of this material being composted, 40% being recycled and the remaining 35% being sent for disposal. It is clear that the planned network of improved and expanded Household Waste Recycling Centres throughout Cornwall will, therefore, continue to reduce the amount of MSW requiring disposal.
3.8If MSW was to increase at 1% per annum and recycling was to increase year on year to a total of 50% in 2020[4], then the requirement for recovery capacity in that year to treat MSW would be 175,439 tonnes. This is shown in Figure 3.2 overleaf. The details of how this figure is derived are set out in Appendix B. Further, I have set out in Appendix C why, and in what way the figures that I present herein differ from those presented by the Cornwall Council in its document entitled “Future Landfill Provision in Cornwall for Municipal Solid Waste and Commercial and Industrial Waste” December 2008.
3.9The proposed capacity of the plant therefore exceeds that required to manage MSW within the County.
3.10If MSW arisings increase by less than 1% per annum then the requirement for additional recovery capacity will be less than the predicted 175,000 tonnes in 2020. For example, if waste minimisation initiatives result in no increase in waste arisings, as has been the position in the last 5 years, then MSW arisings requiring recovery by 2020 will reduce to 157,156 tonnes[5].
3.11It is notable that original assumptions regarding the requirement for a plant of 200,000 – 240,000 tonne per annum capacity stem from the adoption of forecasting assumptions that I consider are no longer appropriate. Table 3 of the Cornwall Waste Development Framework (CWDF) [CD D6]sets out the projections that underpin the requirement for a 240,000 tpa plant. This assumes arisings in 2020 of 410,115 tonnes based upon a year on year increase since 2005 reducing from circa. 2.5% in the period to 2012 to 0.75% by 2020.
3.12Adopting the starting point of 2005 and applying the CWDF growth assumptions contained within Table 3 would give total MSW arisings for 2008 of nearly 344,852. The actual figure for that year was 314,311. In the space of three years therefore the CWDF has overestimated arisings by over 30,000 tpa. This discrepancy shows that an assumption regarding 2.5% growth throughout this period is incorrect and significantly over estimates waste arisings. The table further assumes that the proportion recycled and composted remains at 38% throughout the period to 2020[6], considerably lower than the target figure set more recently within WS2007.
3.13As just noted, the adoption of more realistic assumptions would therefore give rise to the need for a facility of up to 175,000 tpa in 2020 to treat MSW arisings[7]. This is of particular relevance in the context of Policy L6 of the Cornwall Waste Local Plan (CWLP) [CD D5]which addresses the provision of new energy from waste facilities for the management of MSW, not other waste streams.
3.14The draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West, Proposed ModificationsJuly 2008 (RSS)[CD D2]sets out in policy W1 the quantitative requirement for secondary treatment capacity for MSW[8] assuming that recycling and composting targets are met. For Cornwall the requirement in 2020 is for capacity amounting to 190,000 tonnes per annum. This is of a similar order as the estimatethat I have set out in 3.12 above.
3.15In addition to MSW arisings, arisings of C/I waste were estimated at 534,602tonnes in 2008/9[9] of which 304,723tonnes was estimated to be re-used, recycled or recovered[10]. A total of 229,879tonnes was therefore disposed of in that year. Included within the arisings figure of 534,602 tonnes is a total of 24,685 tonnes of trade waste collected and disposed of through the HWRCs and therefore that has already been taken into account in the figure for MSW. The net estimate of additional C/I waste is therefore 509,917 tonnes (See Appendix C). This is forecast to increase to 553,149 tonnes by 2019/20.
3.16Work undertaken by Urban Mines in the North West Region on behalf of the Environment Agency in 2008[11]produced valuable evidence in relation to the amount of waste within the commercial and industrial waste stream that is likely to be either recoverable or potentially recoverable. Read in conjunction with their earlier report entitled “Study to fill Evidence Gaps for Commercial and Industrial Waste Streams in the North West Region of England”, published in 2007 on behalf of the North West Regional Technical Advisory Body, Urban Mines arrive at the following conclusions:
(a)Of the total commercial and industrial waste stream, about 25% is either recoverable or potentially recoverable[12];
(b)This equates to approximately 55 - 60% of the residual commercial and industrial waste stream;
(c)“Most of the potential for energy recovery lies in the commercial sectors:
• 83% of the recoverable waste is found in the commercial sectors and
• 76% of the waste recorded as possibly recoverable is also found in the commercialsectors.”[13]
(d)“The material identified as providing the greatest potential for increased recycling (undifferentiated, paper & card and household) are also the materials which are identified as presenting the greatest potential for energy recovery. This therefore suggests that increased recycling would reduce the availability of materials for recovery, and maximised recycling would therefore severely limit recovery opportunities.”[14]
(e)“the greatestopportunity lies in the commercial sectors, with significant quantities ofrecoverable and possibly recoverable waste in each of the three commercialsectors.”13
3.17Relevant extracts from both reports are included at Appendix D.
3.18Based upon this work, and applying it to the estimated level of commercial and industrial waste arisings in Cornwall, it might reasonably be estimated that about 288,000 tonnes per annum of C/I waste will require treatment or disposal following recycling in 2020. Of this, a maximum of about 60% has the potential to be recovered[15] (172,582 tonnes). Capacity already exits to treat 46,000 tonnes of this waste.There will therefore be an estimated 126,582 tonnes of additional commercial and industrial waste that is capable of combustion requiring treatment in 2019/20[16].
3.19Based upon these figures the CERC is sized to accommodate, in 2020, all MSW arisings that are not recycled either through kerbside segregation or at HWRC sites, together with an estimated51% of the additional C/I waste recovery capacity for waste that is capable of combustion needed within the County. It would therefore be wrong in my opinion to characterise it as a facility for MSW with a small proportion of C/I waste inputs. It will have to compete for a sizeable proportion of the residual C/I waste fraction if it is to operate at its design capacity.
3.20Unlike MSW, where the contract has been awarded to SITA, the C/I waste stream is subject to commercial competition. No guarantees exist that SITA will be able to attract this proportion of the C/I waste stream. Indeed for much of the eastern part of the County, facilities in neighbouring Devon and Plymouthwould be better located to serve this market. Similarly, the continuing landfill operations at Lean Quarry, Liskeard, which based upon current input ratesand the terms of its planning permission will continue until 2027, would similarly compete for an element of this waste stream[17]. Lastly, any further new facilities that are proposed within the County, such as that at Hallenbeagle[18], would also compete directly for this waste.