Sussex Ornithological Society

SUSSEX ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Registered charity 256936

Beavers Brook,

The Thatchway,

Angmering,

W Sussex BN16 4HJ

10 December 2017

By e-mail only

Mr Jeremy Patterson,

County Hall,

St Anne’s Crescent,

Lewes,

East Sussex BN7 1UE

Planning Application LW/799/CM(EIA) – Brett Aggregates, Newhaven

The Sussex Ornithological Society (SOS) wishes to register its objections to this planning application because of the severe detrimental effects we believe it will have on the adjacent Tide Mills Local Wildlife Site (LWS), which lies on the eastern border of the proposed development site.

Tide Mills is one of the premier birding sites in Sussex, and our database contains 16,165 records of 200 species (plus two subspecies) of bird recorded at Newhaven Tide Mills. This means that nearly half of the 406 species on the Sussex Bird List have been recorded there. Although some of the pelagic species, such as Puffin and the Skuas, will have been observed at sea from the beach at Tide Mills, most have been observed on land or using Mill Creek. This is shown by the illustrative records of each of the 202 species in the separate attachment with this letter. All birds are protected by some form of legislation or other, but of the 200 species42 of them are afforded protected status under Schedule 1 of the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act.

We also know that the LWS is one of the premier butterfly sites in Sussex, and we are therefore copying this letter to the Sussex Branch of Butterfly Conservation for their consideration.

The reasons for our objections are as follows:

1) The Wildlife impact:

The 192-page development application devotes all of two and a half lines to acknowledging the existence of the adjacent Tide-Mills SNCI (now LWS) [10.51] but does not discuss any of the potential impacts upon it.

The Bioscan Report does make more reference to the LWS but only assesses the impact on the 4.1ha of LWS that lies within the development site. It does not discuss whether the development will have any impact on the other 151Ha of the adjoining LWS. It therefore makes no tangible or empirical reference to the extremely adverse impact that this development will have on the overall LWS, which lies downwind of this development and, in our opinion, is likely to be severely degraded by the dust, noise and water pollution that this development will generate. Indeed, we do not know whether the Ouse Estuary Project and South Downs National Park, which lie further east, might also be impacted. Any assessment of such impacts, which underpin this objection from the SOS, are completely ignored.

2) Air Pollution:

Aggregates handling, especially unprocessed aggregates, is a dirty business and cement manufacturing is known to be amongst the most polluting industrial activities in the world as it creates abrasive dust, which is dangerous to humans as well as the entire biome. Cement is highly alkaline when dry and highly caustic when wet. The impact of any cement dust on the nearby Local Wildlife Site, which lies directly downwind, would be devastating.

Whilst we recognise that this development will be designed to limit air pollution we also note that the Air Quality Assessment (AQA) document lists 13 different potential sources of Particulate Material (PM) generation when the site is fully developed:

●vehicle tail-pipe emissions;

●vehicle brake- and tyre-dust;

●vehicle movements;

●dredged sand and gravel being fed into the processing plant by high-lift loading shovel via a feed hopper and conveyor and washed;

●dredged sand and gravel being graded and crushed;

●stored fine (sand) products in bays;

●aggregate bagging;

●stored sand being loaded into the feed hopper by high-lift loading shovel and being discharged into a weigh hopper, and then into bags;

●material handling when ship unloading and train loading;

●crushed rock imported in vessels which are not self discharging being handled, being placed in the feed hopper, and transported by the tripper conveyor to the stockpile;

●the controlled discharge of measured quantities of sand, stone, cement (and cement substitute), any admixtures, and water;

●cement being loaded pneumatically into silos;

●aggregate, cement and pigment being drawn from storage for weighing in a weigh hopper and then transported to a planetary mixer.

To these we would add that lorries will have to be washed out when they return to the site.

It should be noted that the unprocessed (dirty) dredged sand and gravel is moved along open conveyors 12 metres above the ground. Clearly any PM’s blown from them will be high in the air and will therefore be blown further by the wind, which fact the AQA does not appear to mention.

Instead the AQA calculates that any PM will be blown no more than 400 meters. This assessment is based on the “the percentage of winds blowing from the sources to the relevant receptors (which) were calculated from 2015 data from the UK Meteorological Office weather station located at Herstmonceaux, approximately 21 km north-east of the site”.The details behind this optimistic statement are not laid out, but it appears to take no account of the well-known fact that wind speeds in gales and storms are much higher in exposed coastal areas such as East Quay, Newhaven, than in sheltered inland areas such as Herstmonceaux.

We also know that various kinds of PM will be generated, some of which are much lighter (and therefore will blow further) than others. The AQA does not mention such variances but appears to treat all PM as uniform. Whilst the SOS is not expert in air pollution we have done some internet research about the potential impact of air pollution from cement works on birds, which is laid out in Appendix 1. We have also found that in the worst examples of overseas cement plants (in Nigeria and India) significant levels of airborne PM have been found at least 5km downwind of the cement site, and remain significant at least 20km downwind. Were cement PM’s to be found half a kilometre to the east of the site boundary the western half of the LWS outside the SDNP could be devastated and were they to be found one kilometre downwind the whole of the LWS plus the overlapping SDNP could be similarly devastated. This is because cement dust will solidify if it becomes damp, so that plants on which it falls are quickly killed and the ground becomes sterile.

We therefore feel that there are huge shortfalls in the AQA. Instead we fear that PM’s are likely to be blown over a much longer distances than 400 meters, and that this would have devastating consequences on the LWS and all its wildlife, including birds. It would also have devastating consequences on the amenity value of the beach, and could also affect the health of local residents. We note that there are already air pollution concerns in Newhaven which this development could well exacerbate.

3) Water Pollution:

Besides gaseous, aerosol and particulate pollutants, there can also be enhanced levels of toxic heavy metals in and around the environment of a cement factory (such as cobalt, lead, chromium, nickel and mercury).

This site will process 250,000 tonnes of aggregates a year, and will require huge volumes of water to do this, as well as to manufacture cement. The Water Environment and Flood Risk Assessment’ (WEFRA), lays out the plans to treat waste and prevent water pollution. The WEFRA states that this site sits on a 6m depth of ‘made ground’ laid over chalk [3.2.1]. It also states that “the chalk is classified as having a groundwater vulnerability of ‘Major Aquifer High’ indicating that the chalk is highly sensitive to pollution due to its fractured nature” [3.2.4].Therefore we feel that any transportation processes within the aquifer must be unpredictable at best, meaning that were the aquifer to become polluted the pollution could end up anywhere. It can be argued that a development capable of such pollution should over-engineer its mitigation to reduce the chance of such events to a likelihood of zero.

Yet the development does not appear to be designed in this way. Instead the WEFRA goes to great lengths in Section 4 to apparently accept that there may be water pollution but firmly state that it would be nothing other than ‘negligible’, which seems to sit in direct contrast to its findings and observations in Section 3. Furthermore the WEFRA states that no groundwater level monitoring data are available for the site [3.2.2], and so it is not clear on what basis they can make any conclusions about what the impact would be of escaped polluted water.

SOS also understands that currently rainwater runs off the site into the River Ouse and into Mill Creek, and that these run offs will not be shut off. Given the nature of some of the particulate material that may be blowing around the site, the health of the River Ouse and of Mill Creek could rapidly deteriorate if any PM were washed into it. Mill Creek is an important part of the LWS for birds.

As with the AQA and Bioscan Report, SOS feels that there are huge shortfalls in the WEFRA.

4) East Pier – presence of Species Protected Under Schedule 1:

The East Pier at Newhaven is the most reliable site in Sussex to see wintering Purple Sandpiper, which have been recorded there every year since 1991. It is a species of medium conservation concern whose status in Sussex is listed as ‘A scarce winter visitor and passage migrant: rare in summer’. Purple Sandpipers prefer using the outer half of the East Pier and given the extensive redevelopment of this pier proposed in these plans we would like to see any development of this site ensuring that the outer half of the pier stays completely unmodified and remains free from human disturbance. It is not clear that this application will achieve this.

5) Failure to implement previously agreed Mitigation Measures:

Outline planning approval to develop this site was given in LW/15/0034, but because of its impact on the LWS this approval was given subject to a set of mitigation measures being put in place. Chief amongst these is the creation of a new area of vegetated shingle to replace that that would be lost by this site being developed, and the creation of a new 3.5ha nature reserve on land on the south side of Mill Creek. It is not apparent to the SOS that any of the mitigation measures set out have yet been implemented. The SOS believes that no planning application for this site should be approved until significant progress on implementing the mitigation measures attached to LW/15/0034 can be demonstrated to have occurred.

6) links to the New Port Access Road:

The New Port Access Road (NPAR), will end in a roundabout a short distance to the east of the development site, i.e. outside it but inside the LWS. This means that a separate planning application will have to be made to link at least two access roads from this and other development sites in the Port Authority area to the NPAR and that these link roads will have to be built across the LWS, thereby destroying additional LWS. For this reason the SOS will vigorously oppose such a planning application. Instead, we believe that any access roads between the end of NPAR and the current Port boundary should be built within the boundary of this development site, and that a single, short stretch of road should be built from this development site to link up with the end of NPAR. This would have the added advantage of eliminating the need for any roundabout at the end of the NPAR. East Sussex CC and Highways are urged to do some “joined up” thinking on this matter. Changing the road layouts on this development (or any other development proposal for this site) to achieve the shortest possible link between the end of the NPAR would protect as much of the LWS as possible.

7) Wider Issues:

The objections above are based on our concerns that this development will have on birds in the whole LWS. However, we also realise that there are a number of other major objections to this development which will be raised by other organisations and individuals, including:

a)the very high levels of noise that will be created by unloading hundreds of tons of aggregates each time a deep sea dredger docks, and the movement of these unwashed aggregates from the quayside along open conveyors high above the site for processing. We understand that it will take 6 to 8 hours to unload a dredger and that the unloading will occur according to the state of the tide which will determine when the dredger docks. This noisy unloading will therefore occur, on occasions, at night. Noise pollution will create a high level of disturbance not only on the local human population but also on local wildlife, with nesting birds and aquatic species specifically suffering from the effects. Light pollution will also be an issue, and a large proportion of nocturnal Lepidoptera may suffer disturbance where previously there was none.

b)This is a 5.17Ha site. The proposed development will only create 100 direct jobs, which is a very low density. One could expect that were it to be developed for light industry several hundred jobs, if not a thousand, would be created on a site of this size. Indeed the Newhaven Development Plan states ‘[9.7] Lewes District Council has undertaken a detailed analysis of the potential benefits of the Enterprise Zone for Newhaven. This estimates that, commencing in April 2017, EZ status will directly lead to the creation of around 55,000m² of new commercial floor space, refurbish a further 15,000m² of commercial floor space and create and sustain around 2,000 jobs over the Zone’s 25-year lifespan. Alongside the other Newhaven-focused regeneration activity, the Enterprise Zone therefore has the potential to have a significant positive impact on local residents, businesses and economic growth.’ Given the size of the proposed development on this site it is hard to see how these job creation opportunities are going to be realised if only 100 jobs are created yet so much EZ land is taken up. Rather it looks as though this development would prevent the EZ’s delivering the hoped for 2000 new jobs in Newhaven.

c)The LWS is one of great local amenity, providing much-loved space for quiet enjoyment of the unspoilt countryside and the beach, as well as for wildlife watching. The community as a whole would suffer loss as a result of the development of this site.

d)We believe that far from regenerating Newhaven this development is likely to blight it.

e)We also note that, within the ‘East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Sites Plan’, adopted in February 2017, and with specific reference to Appendix A ‘Areas of Opportunity’, the proposed site is not listed as a preferred option for such a proposal – indeed it does not feature in this document at all.

8) Specific Black Redstart Mitigation Measures:

The developers propose to make the site attractive for breeding Black Redstart by planting a green roof on the warehouse. Were this development to be a non-polluting light industry, rather than an aggregates and cement works, this would be welcome. However, because of the abrasive dust that a cement factory produces we doubt it will remain green for any length of time. We regard this mitigation as unrealistic in the form offered in the Design Statement.

9) Conclusion

In Appendix I we lay out the information that we have been able to gather about the potential impacts of pollution from cement plants on birds. It makes horrifying reading. The manufacturing of cement and the processing of aggregate is an inherently noisy and dusty business which pollutes the surrounding area. We are not equipped to assess the exact extent to which this would happen at Newhaven, but, as outlined above, we do not feel that the AQA, WEFRA or Bioscan Reports submitted as part of the planning application attempts to comprehensively address this either. We do not believe that this type of industry should be located next to, and upwind of, such a pristine Local Wildlife Site as Tide Mills, and the South Downs National Park beyond.

However, were ESCC not minded to reject this planning application outright we believe that they should commission an independent analysis of the environmental impact on the LWS (and the whole surrounding area), using peer-reviewed data specific to aggregate and cement manufacture, as an essential prerequisite to being able to properly consider this planning application. The risks associated with cement production, both for flora and fauna, but even more so for humans, are just too great to ignore doing this.