Agenda item

Report by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) (PN6).

In July 2012 the Planning & Regulation Committee deferred an application by Viridor which sought to use the leachate treatment plant at the Ardley site to treat leachate imported from other sites.  The application was deferred until September so that Thames Water and Environment Agency representatives could address local concerns regarding flooding from the sewer in the locality of Bucknell. A meeting with local people to discuss flooding concerns has now taken place. This report describes the latest position.   The July report stated that the proposed development is considered acceptable as there had been no objection from the Environment Agency or Thames Water in terms of drainage or pollution and it was in accordance with planning policy relating to the location of waste development.  

At present the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy is minded to make the same recommendation for approval as appears in the July 2012 report to this Committee. However, he feels it appropriate that the meeting with Thames Water and the Environment Agency should take place before doing so. Therefore, he will seek to make a recommendation to the Planning & Regulation Committee on the application at the 10 September meeting.

In July 2012 the Planning & Regulation Committee had deferred an application by Viridor which had sought planning permission to use the existing leachate treatment plant at the Ardley site to treat leachate imported from other sites. That decision had been taken as a result of concerns expressed by residents regarding incidents of flooding from the sewer in the locality of Bucknell and to give Thames Water and the Environment Agency the opportunity to address those concerns and attend the meeting when the application was reconsidered. The July report considered the proposed development acceptable as there had been no objection from either the Environment Agency or Thames Water in terms of drainage or pollution and it was in accordance with planning policy relating to the location of waste development.  The Committee were now asked to consider the application in the light of meetings which had taken place, the original report to the July Committee, the latest report by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy and a tabled recommendation by him to approve the application.

Hazel Watt thanked the Committee for their decision to defer the application in July and county officers for their assistance since then in arranging stakeholder meetings, though, unfortunately not all parties had been able to attend until the latest meeting on the previous Friday.  She reiterated that Viridor had stated that there was no proven link between their operation and incidents of flooding yet there was no proof that it could not be linked and she maintained that if the slightest doubt existed then it would be negligent of the County Council to approve the application.  She referred to further evidence from 2 residents who had experienced flooding earlier this year.

Chris Herbert confirmed that Viridor had ceased importation as instructed immediately after the decision to defer and been involved in the meetings subsequently. He referred to the addenda sheet which reaffirmed that neither Thames Water or the Environment Agency had lodged an objection or  suggested any link between leachate discharge and incidents of flooding. There was clearly a potential flooding problem in Bucknell but it was equally clear from submissions by both Agencies that they felt leachate was not the cause.  He urged the Committee to approve the application.

Mr Herbert then responded to questions from:

Councillor Greene – import of leachate was limited to 18,200 tonnes pa and roughly split equally between imported material and material produced on site.  However, the company might need to limit imported material from time to time in order to treat any increase in material produced on site.

Councillor Tanner – material was imported as other sites were either too old or too small to justify their own dedicated facility.

Councillor Sanders – following processing treated leachate was introduced into the sewer.

Mark Matthews thanked county officers for their help in arranging Friday’s meeting which had been very useful and also Hazel Watt for her assistance.  He acknowledged the extreme concerns locally regarding sewer flooding and the existence of a problem in Bucknell. However, that could be attributed to a number of causes including debris, oil and green build up, fungus and storms and Thames Water were committed to working with the parish council and local residents to correlate previous incidences to see if a cause could be established.  In the meantime he confirmed that Viridor was meeting the terms of its discharge licence and that this operation would not require a new discharge licence and reaffirmed that Thames Water had not objected to the application.

Mr Matthews then responded to questions from:

Councillor Greene – Thames Water had looked through the recorded incidences and had tested samples to try and replicate fungus growth but could not prove a link between the two.

Mary Thompson advised that the Environment Agency had emailed that morning reaffirming that it did not object to the application and confirming their reasons as follows:

The current permit issued to the operator of the landfill by the Environment Agency, already allowed for the importation and treatment of non hazardous leachate from other sites.

The amount and quality of leachate that could be discharged into the sewer from the treatment plant was controlled under the Trade Effluent Discharge consent issued by Thames Water.

The volume and quality of the discharge was not affected by the origin of the Leachate i.e. the limit was specified in the discharge consent regardless of where it came from. The operator could  discharge the same maximum amount of treated leachate down the sewer from the Ardley landfill.

The Agency also confirmed that it had not received any calls to its Incident Hotline since 2010 about sewer flooding in the Bucknell area and the operator had continued to discharge leachate to the sewer network in accordance with its discharge consent.  The 2010 incident had been investigated by Thames Water and attributed to heavy debris in the sewer with no proven link that treated landfill leachate had caused any of the blockages.  Two cases (spring 2012) had been reported at the meeting on Friday but these had not been reported to Thames Water either and had been dealt with privately. Consequently there was no information available to suggest what had caused the blockage.  Prior to that in 2007 the Bucknell pumping station had been upgraded by Thames Water after working with the Agency. The Agency would continue to work with all parties and in general expected Thames Water to manage their network to prevent surcharging and to regulate what went into the sewer from the treatment plant via the trade effluent consent.

At Friday’s meeting Thames Water had also given a ·commitment  to working with Bucknell Parish Council to investigate the two sewer flooding incidents to try and establish a root cause, but it was stressed that this was completely independent of the planning process. It was also reiterated that people should report sewer flooding to both Thames Water and the Environment Agency to help track the effectiveness of completed projects and assess the need for any future works.

Councillor Mrs Fulljames thanked Rob Dance and Mary Thompson for meeting residents at Ardley and Bucknell but unfortunately she had not been invited.  A lot of uncertainty still remained over this operation and the Environment Agency should have been present to address these serious problems.  She maintained that the Committee should not overturn a condition imposed by a government appointed inspector.  Ardley was a distressed area which was fast becoming a dustbin for the county’s waste as well as for imported waste and she asked the Committee to think seriously about the plight of local residents and refuse the application.

In response to a question from Councillor Tanner officers confirmed that restoration of the site was planned for 2019 but it was expected that the treatment plant would be retained after that date in order to treat leachate produced on site although it was difficult to predict how long that would be for.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by the Chairman, seconded by Councillor Nimmo-Smith and carried by 10 votes to 4) that subject to a routeing agreement to ensure that vehicles associated with this development followed the same route as waste vehicles associated with the EfW and landfill (avoiding Middleton Stoney) planning permission be approved for application MW.0084/12 to continue importing leachate for treatment at Ardley Leachate Treatment Plant at Ardley Landfill Site subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) but to include those matters listed below:

Heads of Conditions

1.         Complete accordance with application

2.         End date for importation to coincide with the end of the treatment of leachate generated onsite

3.         Standard working hours for deliveries

4.         Maximum annual import of 180 000 tonnes, as proposed

5.         Leachate to be delivered in sealed tankers only

6.         White noise on reversing bleepers

Informative

Conditions 3 and 4 of permission 08/02472/CM sets out annual and daily maximum tonnages of waste to be imported to this site. Imported leachate permitted under this consent is included in those totals.