Transcript Draft corporate slide template

Proposed disposal of LLW to landfill near
King’s Cliffe, Northamptonshire.
A Case study
Phil Watson
Development Control Manager
Contents
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Planning History
LLW Application
Development Plan Policy
National Policy/Strategy
Self Sufficiency/Proximity
Need
Perception of Harm
Other Issues
Local Community Involvement
What Next
Planning History
•
•
•
•
Former clay quarry 1950/60/70’s
Inert waste disposal permitted 80/90’s
Hazardous waste application 1998 refused
Appeal dismissed but then Inspector’s decision
quashed
• Amended hazardous application submitted 1999
• Hazardous waste disposal permitted 2000
- Issues with previous operator (Atlantic Waste/ Wastego)
- Planning conditions not discharged
-Pollution incident 2003
-Site over tipped 2004
Planning History
• Augean aquire site 2005
• Retrospective application to regularise
Hazardous disposal 2005. Permitted 2006
• Soil remediation plant permitted 2007
• Local liaison group ongoing
• Site re-named ‘East Northants Resource
Management Facility’
• LLW disposal application July 2009
Photographs of site
Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLW)
Application
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pre-Application publicity and consultation
Local Liaison Group
Application July 2009
DC Committee Training February 2010
DC site visit March 2010
DC Committee Mar 2010
Officer report recommended approval
Refused by DC Committee
Reasons for Refusal
• No national level of planning policy / guidance or
regional or local development plan policies
• No urgent local or regional need for hazardous waste
disposal
• National need not satisfied due to short life of site until
August 2013
• Proximity principle – distance to LLW waste
sources
• Perception of harm
• Application is piecemeal development
Reasons for Refusal
• Environmental Statement submitted inadequate
and needs to deal with cumulative effects of the
totality of the project
• Operations could not be completed and the site
restored by August 2013
Development Plan Policy on Low Level
Radioactive Waste Management
• No specific Development Plan Policy
– Waste Local Plan (adopted March 2006) relevant at time of
decision in March 2010
– MWDF Core Strategy (adopted May 2010)
• Emerging Development Plan Policy
– Locations for Waste Development DPD (Examination in October
2010)
– Control and Management of Development DPD (examination
January 2011)
Development Plan Policy on Low Level
Radioactive Waste Management
• Key Issues
–
–
–
–
–
Specialist nature of LLW
Hazardous waste require specialist facilities
Specialist waste distinct from need for specialist facility
Catchment area for LLW
Impact on hazardous waste disposal capacity
MWDF’s & Local Plans
Key Issues continued:
• Few WPA’s have any development plan policies on radioactive
waste
• Need development plan policies in future
• Are specialist facilities required?
• How can other waste disposal operators be encouraged to take
radioactive waste
National Policies / Strategy
• Policy for Long Term Management of Solid Low
Level Radioactive Waste in the UK (March 2007)
– Not national T&C Planning Policy
– Aimed at LLW Management Plans
– Government Policy so a relevant material consideration
National Policies / Strategy (Cont.)
• Key Issues of Dispute at Inquiry (2007 Policy)
– Augean: The appeal proposal accords with the national policy
statement on LLW, including adoption of a risk based approach;
the need for flexible cost-effective, fit for purpose solutions; the
presumption in favour of early solutions; and the need to
balance consideration of the proximity principle and transport
against these factors.
– NCC: The proposal does not accord with the national policy
statements: it is of a short term nature, rather than arising from
a long term management plan based on a formal assessment of
all practicable options; does not pay sufficient regard to the
proximity principle, and the host community has not been
involved in its development.
National Policies / Strategy (Cont.)
• NDA UK Strategy for Management of Solid LLW
from Nuclear Industry (August 2010)
– Augean: The appeal proposal is fully in accord with the NDA
UK LLW Strategy, includingthe need to make best use of LLR
Repositary near Drigg, the need for new, fit for purpose waste
management routes, and the preference for management at
higher levels in the waste hierachy (as only residual wastes will
be disposed)
– NCC: The proposal does not accord with the NDA UK LLW
Strategy as: it is a short term decision without assessment of
options for long term managment and it would prejudice
strategy objectives by reducing the prospects for enduring and
more localised solutions.
National Policies / Strategy (Cont.)
• NDA UK Strategy for Management of Solid LLW
from Nuclear Industry (August 2010)
• Key Issues:
– Too early for Strategy to influence Dev’t Plans
– Community Involvement and Stakeholder Engagement:
– .”..It will be essential to undertake careful and considered
engagement with local communities in the waste management
and decision making process......
– ....Such engagement needs to be open and transparent in order
to build confidence and credibility.....
– ...the responsibility is shared between all organisations...”
Self Sufficiency / Proximity
• Self Sufficiency
– PPS 10 (key planning objective)
– “Provide a framework in which communities take more
responsibility for their own waste, and enable sufficiently and
timely provision of waste management facilities to meet the
needs of their communities”
• Proximity Principle
– PPS 10 (key planning objectives)
“Help secure the recovery or disposal of waste without
endangering human health and without harming the environment,
and enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest
appropriate installations”
• Key issues
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Kings Cliffe not close to any LLW source. Nearest 90 miles.
Is a specialist facility required?
Will other disposal sites come forward?
Cost of planning and permitting process off-putting?
Need for planning permission of other landfill sites?
National policy leaves option on distance open
How to strike a balanced judgement
Should local communities take responsibility or national
problem?
– Should LLW waste be dealt with at source?
– BAT (Best Available Technology) should be in accordance with
proximity principle
Need
• Key Issues:
– All other existing / potential sites in North West (LLWR, Clifton
Marsh, Lillyhall, Keekle Head, Dounreay)
– King’s Cliffe not close to LLW source (nearest 90 miles)
– No existing Central / Southern England disposal facility
– National need for additional disposal routes and early solutions
– Urgent need for Research Sites Restoration Limited (RSRL) for
Harwell LLW waste
– KC – short term life – short term need
– What about long term need?
– Future provision in MWDF’s DPD’s
Perception of Harm
• Material Considerations
– PPS 23 (Appendix A) – “The objection perception of risk to the
health and safety of the public arising from the development”
– PPS 23 (Appendix A) - “The possible impact of potentially
polluting development (both direct and indirect) on land use,
including effects on health, the national environment or general
amenity”
– Legal Case Law – establishes perception of harm as a material
planning consideration.
Perception of Harm
• Key Issues
– “Land Use” planning consequences need to be clearly
demonstrated
– What constitutes “objective” perception
– Human Factor – local fears can be justified and could give
direct effect in exceptional or special circumstance (Newport BC
v SoS (1998)
– Perception of Harm not been a sole reason for refusal in current
Case Law.
Other Issues at Inquiry
• Piecemeal Development
– Application in submitted on basis of August 2013 site
restoration date
– Plans for future extension in time and area of the site
announced before inquiry
• Key Issues
– Cumulative effects: should the EIA have covered the entirety of
the planned development
Other Issues at Inquiry (Cont.)
• Precedent
– Will the decision on this application set a precedent for the
determination of the future applications
– Will proximity principle be given little weight?
– Will the NDA Strategies be prejudiced by granting permission at
King’s Cliffe?
– Will King’s Cliffe become the long term LLW disposal site for
Southern and Central England?
Local Community Involvement
• “Waste Watchers”
– Rule 6 Party
– Expert Witnesses
• Radioactive Waste Expert – (Maverick Professor)
• Local Resident
– Local Community, Councillors, MP.
• Areas of Evidence
– Perception of Harm –consultation inadequate
– BAT – Better alternatives elsewhere
– Leachate and groundwater – pollution concerns
Local Community Involvement cont’d
– Radioactive and Scientific Arguments
• Questioned risk assessment details
• Long term health risks unknown
–
–
–
–
Need – not urgent
Local Economic Impacts – investment, tourism
Proximity – wait for more suitable sites
Hazardous waste plus LLW a step too far!
What Next ?
•Local Community Parish Poll ?
“Do you want the disposal of Low Level Radioactive
Waste at the East Northants Resource Management
Facility or any other site in the surrounding area?”
•SoS decision on appeal by 24th May 2011.
•Augean commenced EIA Scoping on new
applications to extend life and area of site to
2026.
•LLW to be included in applications?
•Applications to be submitted to NCC by
August 2011.