Representation by CPRE Cambridgeshire and Peterborough (CPRE Cambridgeshire and Peterborough)
- Date submitted
- 14 November 2022
- Submitted by
- Non-statutory organisations
CPRE Cambridgeshire & Peterborough objects in the strongest possible terms to this application. Following a request by local residents, CPRE have reviewed this proposal which is located close to an area of national heritage importance, the town centre of Wisbech. We consider the application to be unacceptable for the following reasons. (1) Effect on Conservation Areas. The proposed development would be within 950 metres to the south of the Wisbech Conservation Area, which includes 227 listed buildings and the town centre character areas which are 1.5 km north of the site. The development would be approximately 1.6 km to the north-west of Elm Conservation Area. Both Conservation Areas demonstrate their medieval heritage in the form of street layout and a number of buildings. These historic settlements pre-date the drainage of the Fens by some five hundred years and it is possible that if archaeology were carried out in these areas, artefacts as significant as those discovered at Flag Fen near Peterborough might be found. The looming mass of the proposed building and the visible plume from its 95-metre, high, chimney will clearly affect the character of the town and will negate any improvements that could be made to the town setting in the future by removal of less attractive buildings between the Conservation Areas and the proposed site. The Wisbech Conservation Area Appraisal dated March 2016 demonstrates clearly the historical and architectural richness and significance of the Conservation Area which forms an unusually large proportion of the town centre. This is an area of national significance which should be protected and improved, not put at risk due to the negative influence on local property that the proposed development will have. The Wisbech Conservation Area is listed on Historic England’s Heritage at Risk Register. CPRE fully supports Fenland District Council’s plans and objectives for improvement and restoration of the Conservation Area as set out in the Wisbech Conservation Area Management Plan dated March 2016. (2) Effect on Key Heritage Assets. Historic buildings are not confined to the two Conservation Areas. Historic England records 290 listings in Wisbech, Fenland, Cambridgeshire. It is clear the effect on most of these has not been considered individually at all as part of the preparation for this development, despite their being listed in the PEIR document. Wisbech is of particular significance to both CPRE and the National Trust because it contains the birthplace of Octavia Hill, at what is now Octavia Hill’s birthplace museum (Grade II*). Wisbech is a town with a wealth of heritage assets and a history of involvement in the national conservation movement. It is of major importance that this heritage is not lost, damaged or belittled. Rather, the efforts of the local council should be applauded and the heritage of the town should be restored, developed and protected for the economic and leisure benefit of current and future generations. (3) Climate Emergency Parliament has declared a Climate Emergency in the UK and the Government has set a target for the UK to be carbon neutral by 2050. Local councils including Cambridgeshire County Council and Cambridge City Council have also declared Climate Emergencies. The past 36 months have seen an undoubted acceleration in the effects of climate change. We are experiencing wildfires burning in the Arctic Circle, much of the west coast of North America, Brazil, Bolivia, southern Europe, Turkey and Australia. There have been major flood events and storms in China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Australia as well as parts of the USA. In the UK, intense rainfall has caused floodwater to run into parts of the London Underground and in Peterborough, in a single event, two months’ rainfall occurred in two hours and many roads, homes and businesses were flooded. During the 2020/21 winter local Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) reported water levels and flooding at levels not experienced since 1947 and 1953. Several started pumping 24/7 on 23rd December and continued until mid-February. The significance of this is that the Fens are an entirely man-made area which is kept drained or flooded only by a managed process overseen by the IDBs. Without further major investment in flood protection, the Fens will be lost completely, and if this occurs it will become impossible to continue growing on the Fens 60% of the food crops grown in this country. In 2019 the UK Government was warned by the Environmental Audit Committee that climate change will likely make it impossible for the UK to continue relying on food imports from southern countries. We make these points to demonstrate just how urgent it is that every organisation and every individual does everything they can to minimise greenhouse gas emissions. Burning waste plastic and other recyclable or compostable materials adds unnecessarily to these emissions This proposal takes no responsibility for local greenhouse gas emissions or the efforts of elected local councils to reduce them. Instead, it seeks to hide an irresponsible approach in national or even international figures where someone else can do the saving while this proposal adds to the problem. Furthermore, the PEIR Chapter 14 attempts to prove that building and operating this plant and transporting waste from outside the local area to it, and fly-ash away from it, will create less greenhouse gas emissions than not building it. It seeks to do this by assuming that if this waste is not burned, it will end up permanently in landfill. This is a deliberately false assumption. The Climate Change Committee in its 2019 annual report to Parliament and more recently stated that ‘surface transport’ is now the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the UK. In this context deliberately adding significantly to routine HCV movements is unacceptable. We therefore regard this proposal to transport large quantities (c. 200 lorry loads per week, 400 HCV movements) of waste over significant distances and burn it for profit as totally irresponsible in the context of the now extant Climate Emergency. (4) Waste hierarchy and alternative waste management The DEFRA document “Guidance on applying the Waste Hierarchy” produced under regulation 15(1) of the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 requires that any person subject to the regulation 12 duty must have regard to it. Section 1 describes the waste hierarchy which shows that incineration with energy recovery is the next to worst option in the waste hierarchy. (5) Waste Mix In the document PEIR, Chapter 3: Description of the Proposed Development, it is stated in paragraph 3.7.5 “The focus will be on categories 19 and 20 with an anticipated 90-95% of the EfW CHP Facility’s fuel coming from waste streams within these categories.” Waste categories 19 and 20 are defined as follows by the European Waste Catalogue: 19 – waste from waste management facilities, off-site wastewater treatment plants and the preparation of water intended for human consumption and water for industrial use; 20 – municipal waste (household waste and similar commercial, industrial and institutional wastes) including separately collected fractions. Put simply, these are all combustible organic materials, with high carbon content. Many of these materials are relatively reactive, such as food waste, bio-waste, wood, paper, cloth, plastics etc. It is because they are relatively reactive organics that they are combustible. However, that does not mean they have to be burned. Quite the opposite. There are now alternative treatments that are higher in the waste hierarchy. This proposal is based entirely on an outdated, greenhouse gas emitting, redundant technology. (6) Alternatives to burning – anaerobic digestion of biodegradable material Anaerobic digestion is a well proven process used both to manage waste and to produce fuels. It is used to treat biodegradable waste and sewage sludge. As part of an integrated waste management system, anaerobic digestion reduces the emission of landfill gas into the atmosphere and is now widely used as a source of renewable energy. The process produces a biogas, consisting of methane, carbon dioxide, and traces of other 'contaminant' gases. The gas can be used directly as fuel in combined heat and power gas engines or upgraded to natural gas-quality bio-methane. The nutrient-rich residue can be used as a soil improver. A significant proportion of the material contained in waste streams 19 and 20, such as food wastes and paper, are suitable for anaerobic digestion. For example, near Baldock in Hertfordshire an anaerobic digestion plant designed specifically to process food waste has been operating successfully for several years. Wood wastes do not break down easily under anaerobic digestion due to their lignin content. However, there is a global shortage of wood and even waste wood can now be used as the source material for the manufacture of building and packaging materials such as chipboard, hardboard and industrial cardboards. In other words, these materials can be reused/recycled, processes that are higher up the waste hierarchy. (7) Alternatives to burning – plastic waste re-use and re-processing Plastic waste is insufficiently reactive for anaerobic digestion. However, it does not decompose in landfill either but, if necessary, it can be stored there until it can be processed and either re-used or recycled using developing technologies. Many companies are now making great strides in the recycling and re-use of plastics and these processes include: Chemical recycling of plastics which involves the decomposition of the plastic into its basic materials (e.g.oils) by chemical processes. These raw materials can then be reused. Chemical recycling is particularly suitable for plastics for which materials recovery is either impossible or difficult. Materials recovery is ecologically and economically more advantageous, since the processes required are less complex than the production of plastics from raw materials during chemical recycling. An important prerequisite for material recycling is collections being sorted by type. The technical processes involved in material recycling are diverse. In general, the recycling process consists of various steps such as shredding, cleaning, separating and reprocessing, mostly by melting the materials collected in order to obtain raw materials for new products. Thermoplastic materials are easier to recycle than other types of plastic, as they can be melted and reshaped at a certain temperature range and hence re-used without any chemical processing. Composite plastic materials, such as some building materials, are more difficult to recycle, since separating the different component materials can be energy intensive, complex and difficult to do cost effectively. However, even for these, more processes are being developed, such as the removal of the plastic filler in glass fibre reinforced plastics by thermal means, allowing it to be re-used. New technologies. The available technologies for managing the re-use and recycling of plastic waste are increasing rapidly in capability, capacity and number all the time. Below are seven examples which have been reported recently. 1. A process reported in Materials World in April 2019 makes black plastic food-packaging waste identifiable and hence available for recycling using existing waste sorting machinery. 2. A second process designed to segregate plastic waste used in the food chain that was reported in Material World in August 2019. Chemical markers had been proven to quickly and accurately segregate food-grade plastics for recycling. 3. The feasibility of producing plastic railway sleepers to UK standards from mixed plastic waste was demonstrated by TRL Limited in 2006. Manufacturing and use is now established in the UK. 4. The Trifol process turns plastic waste into waxes which can be used for new plastic, lubricants or fuels. Reclaimed polyolefin derived soft plastics are turned into polyolefin waxes as a substitute for materials that would otherwise be crude oil-derived. Polyolefin materials are derived at a key stage in the oil-refining process and are then further refined into product streams for fuels, lubricants and plastics. Details of this process were published in Materials World in September 2019. Following the oil shortages arising from the Ukraine war, this process has the potential to significantly reduce the UK’s oil import requirements. 5. Waste plastic can be used as a component of road surfaces. Used in a Scottish development - Feb 2020. Plastic that is currently hard to recycle is increasingly being used in the UK and other countries as an alternative to bitumen. 6. Genetically engineered microbes have been developed which convert waste PET (Polyethylene terephthalate) plastic into vanillin. Vanillin is the extract from the vanilla plant widely used in food and cosmetics and as an industrial platform chemical. Global demand currently outstrips supply. In June 2021 it was announced that two researchers at the University of Edinburgh had found a way of using microbes to make vanillin from waste plastic. A briefing paper about the vanillin producing process was published in Chemistry World. The full scientific paper was published in July 2021 in another of the Royal Society of Chemistry journals, Green Chemistry, and is free to access S Wallace and J Sadler, Green Chem., 2021, 7. Upcycling Plastic Waste Into High-Performing Mechanical Lubricants – ongoing project In the USA a research team led by Iowa State University is working on upcycling plastic waste into liquid lubricants, including oil, hydraulic fluids, heat transfer fluids and greases. The details are here: New processes for sorting and re-processing waste or replacing the materials, mainly plastics, which would be incinerated are being successfully researched and developed constantly. Cambridge University and Cranfield University are heavily involved in such research. CPRE regard it as unsustainable to burn materials that are already, or in future are likely to become, reusable or recyclable. (8) Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Local Minerals & Waste Plan. CPRE believes that this application must be considered in the context of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Plan which was adopted by the County Council on July 21 2021 and that it is the County Council who should have the final say on the waste processing requirements of the County. It is significant that in the introductory notes to the emerging Minerals and Waste Local Plan on the County Council web site, it is stated “No allocations are being proposed for waste management development over the plan period as the plan area has, on the whole, sufficient capacity to manage the forecast waste arising.” Furthermore, the adopted Plan makes no reference to a need for a major waste incineration facility in the County. Policy 1 states: “Proposals should, to a degree proportionate with the scale and nature of the scheme, set out how this will be achieved, such as: a. demonstrating how the location, design, site operation and transportation related to the development will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (including through the adoption of emission reduction measures based on the principles of the energy hierarchy); and take into account any significant impacts on human health and air quality;” This application does not appear to be consistent at all with that Policy statement. It could be argued that the proposed development is consistent with the next paragraph of Core Policy 1: “b. where relevant, setting out how the proposal will make use of renewable energy including opportunities for generating energy from waste for use beyond the boundaries of the site itself, and the use of decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy;” Except that this proposal cannot be considered in any way to be providing either renewable or low carbon energy. It is very largely the once-off burning of bio-degradable materials and re-usable or recyclable oil-derived plastics. Appendix 3: The Location and Design of Waste Management Facilities states very clearly the air quality issues likely to arise from Energy from Waste facilities: “3.33. Air quality issues may arise from on and off site dust, this may come from different sources for example, traffic, and from the on site operations of the facility. Emissions from most Energy from Waste facilities will be monitored and regulated by the Environment Agency through their environmental permitting regime. Particulate concentrations are particularly high in parts of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and the contribution of any waste management could be relevant to attainment of local air quality objectives.” Policy 3 states: “The Waste Planning Authorities will seek to achieve net self-sufficiency in relation to the management of wastes arising from within the plan area, plus additional provision until 2026 in order to accommodate needs arising from London (specifically regarding non-apportioned household and commercial & industrial waste).” This proposal as written shows clearly in the document “PEIR Draft Waste Fuel Availability Assessment” that it is totally dependent upon the import of waste for incineration from many other local authorities external to Cambridgeshire and Peterborough in order to make its project financially viable. These are listed as: • Bedford (Unitary Authority); • Central Bedfordshire (Unitary Authority); • Essex County Council; • Hertfordshire County Council; • Leicestershire County Council; • Lincolnshire County Council; • Luton (Unitary Authority); • Norfolk County Council; • Northamptonshire County Council (as of 1 April 2021, North Northamptonshire and West Northamptonshire Unitary Authorities); • Nottinghamshire County Council; • Rutland (Unitary Authority); • Suffolk County Council. • City of Leicester (Unitary Authority); • Coventry City Council (Unitary Authority); • Milton Keynes (Unitary Authority); • North Lincolnshire (Unitary Authority); • North-East Lincolnshire (Unitary Authority); • Nottingham City Council (Unitary Authority); • Warwickshire County Council. This will clearly put the achievement of Policy 3 at risk and it is not consistent with government guidance which is intended to reduce waste movements and not encourage waste swapping over long distances. Furthermore, we have found no clear evidence that any of these authorities have actually committed to using this facility if development were permitted. Several of these authorities already have sufficient waste management capacity within their area, as have Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. (9) Health Hazards arising from Emissions of Fine Particulates (PM2.5) It is now well recognised that the health risks arising from the presence of small particulates, PM2.5, in the atmosphere are considerable. Over recent years many respected publications have addressed this risk and built upon the considerable knowledge base which has developed since the mid-twentieth century. The Chief Medical Officer of Health devoted the whole of her 2017 Annual Report, published in March 2018, to the health risks arising from pollution and three Committees of Parliament came together in the same month to issue a joint report on the subject of improving air quality. In the last few years many more organisations and research groups, ranging from NICE and UNICEF to recognised academic institutions, have published reports on the mechanisms and effects of air pollution on health and the need for controls and reductions. In December 2020, a London coroner made legal history by ruling that air pollution was a cause of the death of a nine-year-old girl. A list of recent reports relevant to the subject of air pollution in the United Kingdom and wider is given in the full publications list below at Appendix 1. These demonstrate the seriousness with which the current situation is being taken. For example, the Guideline from NICE published in 2017 recommends to: “Include air pollution in 'plan making' by all tiers of local government, in line with the Department for Communities and Local Government's National Planning Policy Framework. This includes county, district and unitary authorities, as well as regional bodies and transport authorities.” and “When 'plan making' consider: • minimising the exposure of vulnerable groups to air pollution by not siting buildings (such as schools, nurseries and care homes) in areas where pollution levels will be high”. However, the overarching document which is relevant to this subject is the European Union (EU) Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC, implemented in the UK as the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010. These regulations remain in force in the UK. The EU were late in publishing its Air Quality Directive compared to earlier World Health Authority, (WHO), recommendations for air quality limits. This was because it was argued by many consultees that in a situation where it was considered there are no safe limits, the publication of limits would be misused by those seeking to cause pollution within those limits, just as this proposal is doing. Ultimately, the EU did publish limits for PM2.5. However, the Directive makes the situation very clear that because there are no safe limits for PM2.5, these limits are set on the basis of regular review with targeted reduction rates. The following two paragraphs are taken from the Directive 2008/50/EC: “(2) In order to protect human health and the environment as a whole, it is particularly important to combat emissions of pollutants at source and to identify and implement the most effective emission reduction measures at local, national and Community level. Therefore, emissions of harmful air pollutants should be avoided, prevented or reduced and appropriate objectives set for ambient air quality taking into account relevant World Health Organisation standards, guidelines and programmes. (11) Fine particulate matter (PM2,5) is responsible for significant negative impacts on human health. Further, there is as yet no identifiable threshold below which PM2,5 would not pose a risk. As such, this pollutant should not be regulated in the same way as other air pollutants. The approach should aim at a general reduction of concentrations in the urban background to ensure that large sections of the population benefit from improved air quality. However, to ensure a minimum degree of health protection everywhere, that approach should be combined with a limit value, which is to be preceded in a first stage by a target value.” Furthermore, Annex XIV of the Directive 2008/50/EC sets out how exposure reduction targets should be applied to PM2.5 because, as stated in Para 11 above, there is no safe limit for PM2.5. The reduction process is quite complex to read but simple in principle. Basically, member states were obliged to carry out background measurements and then follow a reduction target regime based on percentage reductions of the measured background levels. Additionally, with effect from January 2015, an absolute limit value of 25 µg/m3 was applied. This was to be reviewed in 2013 when it was expected to be reduced to 20 µg/m3 with effect from January 2020. However, the 2013 review decided upon a different approach as indicated by the EU document “Clean Air Outlook -COM(2018) 446” published in June 2018 which states: “The 2013 Clean Air Programme concluded that it was not at that time appropriate to revise the Ambient Air Quality Directives 2008/50/EU and 2004/107/EC, stressing the need to ensure compliance with existing standards, and bring down emissions through the NECD.” This decision does not alter the fact that there is no safe limit for small, PM2.5, particulates but the EU had decided upon a complementary approach and in 2016 the EU set national emission targets for these and other pollutants in the National Emissions Ceilings Directive 2016/2284/EU, (NECD), referred to in the previous quotation. The above principles are followed by the UK Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010. The proposal document, PEIR Chapter 8 Air Quality, states that “all changes in concentration at human receptors as a result of the EfW CHP Facility Site, CHP Connection and Access Improvements are considered to be not significant.” CPRE disputes that conclusion in respect of PM2.5 because although emissions are claimed to be low and well within statutory limits, as stated above in paragraph 11 of Directive 2008/50/EC, “there is as yet no identifiable threshold below which PM2,5 would not pose a risk.”. Just as feared by the EU and its scientific advisers, this application is seeking to hide its irresponsibility behind the cloak of meeting air quality limits whose setting was considered inadvisable for this very reason. There is currently a significant background level of PM2.5 particulates in the air across the UK, with local variations. Table 8C.5 provided in the PEIR Chapter 8, indicates in its modelled results this background is at a level around 40% of the current limit value at around 9–10 ug/m3 locally. This is consistent with DEFRA’s mapped results for the area, Table 8.11 which are shown as 8.7 – 9.9ug/m3. This is significantly higher than the latest published measured average at urban background sites in the UK of 7.9 ug/m3. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/air-quality-statistics/concentrations-of-particulate-matter-pm10-and-pm25 A rural area like Wisbech should not be demonstrating higher pollution levels than urban conurbations. Therefore, any emissions should be avoided by all responsible persons because all such emissions, no matter how small, are additive to that background which appears to have doubled in the last ten years. There are further issues with respect to PM2.5 particulates. Because of their small size, they are extremely difficult to remove from emitted exhausts using current technology while simultaneously allowing a furnace to ‘breathe’. Compliance inspections by the Environment Agency, due to its reduced budget, tend to be infrequent, perhaps annual, and so it is well known from third parties that frequently such sites exceed their permitted emission targets with impunity. CPRE would recommend a condition, whereby frequent, preferably continuous, independent, measurement of emissions are funded by the operator and managed by the Environment Agency. It is a simple rule of physics that what goes up must come down. However, we can find no modelling of the deposition of particulates in the proposal. Such deposition results in particulates being found in street and playground dusts, which can be dangerous to health, as well as on crops grown for human consumption. Unfortunately, there is no statutory consideration of the deposition effects of PM2.5 particulates. However, with a school very close nearby and this site being located in the centre of a nationally significant food crop growing area, CPRE believe that consideration should be given to this issue by the relevant authorities in order to evaluate the long-term health risk it poses. (10) Health Hazards arising from Emissions of Toxic Metals and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Following the Seveso disaster in July 1976, people were reporting high levels of several diseases and follow-up studies in the 1990s led to the conclusion that exposure to dioxins was a root cause. In 1996, the EU decided that it would fix binding concentration levels for thirteen air pollutants. Later, for five other pollutants – cadmium, arsenic, nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, mostly emitted from industrial installations, Directive 2004/107/EC introduced target air concentration values. Directive 2004/107/EC is also implemented in the UK by the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010. This pragmatic approach should not be taken as allowing complacency because it is clear that it is an EU and UK national objective to ensure that people are not exposed to these substances at all if possible. The following paragraph is taken from Directive 2004/107/EC. “(3) Scientific evidence shows that arsenic, cadmium, nickel and some polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are human genotoxic carcinogens and that there is no identifiable threshold below which these substances do not pose a risk to human health. Impact on human health and the environment occurs via concentrations in ambient air and via deposition. With a view to cost-effectiveness, ambient air concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, nickel and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which would not pose a significant risk to human health, cannot be achieved in specific areas. In the case of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, aka dioxins, and heavy metals such as cadmium and nickel, again the proposal seeks to claim the safety of the airborne concentrations of emissions from the proposed installation by treating the published target values as limits. As can be seen from reading the legislation they are not and should never be treated as such. As written above in paragraph 3 of Directive 2004/107/EC there is no safe airborne concentration limit for these materials. Furthermore, paragraph 11 of Directive 2004/107/EC makes it very clear that these materials exhibit a second major hazard to human health and that is their deposition and build up in soils. (11) The effects of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons on human health, including via the food chain, and the environment as a whole, occur through concentrations in ambient air and via deposition; the accumulation of these substances in soils and the protection of ground water should be taken into account. In order to facilitate review of this Directive in 2010, the Commission and the Member States should consider promoting research into the effects of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons on human health and the environment, particularly via deposition.” Where there are no soils, this build up will be on surfaces and in dusts. This will present a long term health hazard to the local population, including the children in the nearby school. The area surrounding the proposed plant is a nationally important growing area for horticultural crops such as potatoes, root vegetables, leeks and onions, brassicas and salad crops. Immediate rates of deposition on crop surfaces under normal operating conditions will likely be low. However, deposition and build up in soils of the fall-out from the proposed plant over its working life as well as direct deposition onto the leaves of growing edible crops if there is an accidental high concentration release, does not appear to have been considered. Far more attention has been paid, attention which we welcome, to the deposition effects on local wildlife sites. We consider that further serious consideration should be given to the issues of deposition and airborne emission concentrations as recommended in Directive 2004/107/EC for these dangerous materials. Our greatest concern is cadmium and nickel emissions which will occur because tiny batteries, often discarded carelessly, cannot be easily separated from the proposed waste stream. (11) Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015 (COMAH) Following the Seveso disaster, in order to avoid similar industrial accidents in the future, the EU passed the Seveso Directive, 82/501/EC in 1982. This has since been updated by Directive 96/82/EC, known as the "Seveso II Directive" and Directive 2012/18/EU, known as the "Seveso III Directive". The Seveso III Directive is currently implemented in the UK as the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015 (COMAH). Because the starting point for the Seveso directives and COMAH was the prevention and minimisation of the effect of accidents involving particular hazardous substances, there has always been a concentration of COMAH applicability to the chemical industry and accidents involving locations where large quantities of chemicals are stored and used. Frequently, sites declare themselves as non-COMAH sites solely because they do not hold dangerous quantities of listed chemicals. However, COMAH applies to any industrial site which has the potential to cause a major accident, especially one where the result may be the creation and uncontrolled emission of major volumes of airborne hazards. Major fires at waste processing sites are relatively frequent and good examples of such an accident. According to the Environment Agency, during 2012 there were 232 fires at permitted and exempt waste management sites, with some of these sites having repeated fires. The number of fire incidents involving waste sites varies year on year. The Agency stated there is no discernible downward trend. On average there are 23,000 pollution incidents per year, 3,000 due to fire arising from waste management sites. This is consistent with the National Fire Chiefs Council advisory on waste site fires which states “UK fire and rescue services attend around 300 significant fires in waste sites each year.” [REDACTED] HSE Guidance Document L111 (Third edition) published 2015, for COMAH, states: “43 It is not necessary for the dangerous substance(s) to cause serious danger but it must play a part in the chain of events leading to the danger. The substance that ultimately causes the harm may not be a dangerous substance in COMAH terms, but such substances can still cause serious danger to the environment, for example through releases into water. An example is an explosion or fire involving a dangerous substance that leads to vessel failure and the release of a non-COMAH substance that could then cause harm.” and “50 Presence of dangerous substances can be split into two categories: firstly, substances that are or could be present as part of normal activity; and secondly, substances that could be produced during loss of control of a process. The regulation uses the term ‘reasonable to foresee’ which refers to being able to predict, within reason, that a scenario is possible. For example, it may not be reasonable to foresee that two incompatible substances stored in separate areas within an establishment could come into contact leading to the generation of an unwanted third substance. 51 Where a substance has multiple properties, ie toxic and environmental hazards, the appropriate aggregation calculation should be performed for each group. There is further guidance on applying the aggregation rule in note 4 to Schedule 1. 52 The requirement to consider substances that could be produced during loss of control of a process has its origin in the incident at Seveso in 1976, which led to the original Seveso Directive. This incident was caused when a reaction between two substances went wrong and generated a third chemical, a dioxin named TCDD, resulting in a major accident.” and “73 Only landfill sites are excluded by regulation 3(2)(g). Waste incineration sites will be within scope if they meet the qualifying criteria. If a landfill site also has other activities involving dangerous substances which would bring the establishment under the COMAH Regulations then advice should be sought from the competent authority. 74 A waste landfill site will be within the scope if metallic mercury is stored there under the cited regulation.” Given the high volumes of waste that the proposed plant would handle, the flammable nature of these materials and the admission that they can burn to emit materials for which there is no safe limit, such as dioxins, the proposed installation should be registered and managed as a COMAH site. Our view and that of our expert consultant of many years standing, is that the legislation is being misinterpreted with respect to these major waste burning sites. This site, if approved, would contain a further major hazard, its furnace, boiler and steam turbine. Any of these could be the subject of explosion and if that occurred in this relatively close proximity to built-up areas and a school, could lead to serious injury and/or multiple loss of life. For this reason, if approved, it should be managed as a COMAH site. (12) Drainage. The proposed development is on a low-lying site which clearly has drainage issues and potential conflicts with drainage infrastructure and systems, including nearly 60 km of drains and 5 major drainage structures. The site is located within flood zone 3 (high risk). This development could well alter the hydrological pressures in the surrounding area and cause additional drainage issues for neighbouring properties and farm land. CPRE recommends that the Waldersey Internal Drainage Board, the Hundred of Wisbech Internal Drainage Board and the Middle Level Commissioners must be consulted about the run-off and drainage issues likely to arise from this proposed development. It is their water management and drainage expertise which results in this part of the Fens being a safe and economically productive place to live and work and their opinion and advice on these issues must take precedence over all others, including the local Councils and the Environment Agency. (13) Countryside and landscape. This application will have a significant negative impact on the Fen Landscape as defined by The Fens National Character Area. The Fens’ characteristics are “expansive, flat, open low-lying wetlands … offering extensive vistas to level horizons and huge skies …”. In our view it will also have a significant negative effect on the locally designated Landscape Character Types and Areas in Cambridgeshire, Peterborough, South Lincolnshire and West Norfolk. This area is also a key part of the planned Fens Biosphere for which UNESCO biosphere designation is being sought by the partners Natural Cambridgeshire, Cambridgeshire Acre and the BCN Wildlife Trust in a Post Code lottery-funded project. CPRE consider that this project could put that designation at risk. As usual with any planning application that we see, the presented documents try to play down the significance and unique character of the Fen landscape. We consider that this proposal would have significant and adverse visual impact on the local character and surrounding countryside due to its prominence, large scale and industrial appearance. The 95-metre, high, chimney would be clearly visible from public viewpoints on higher ground and it would be visible for miles across the surrounding low-level and open Fenland. Consider how visually intrusive this giant industrial structure will be in that landscape. Not just from the few carefully chosen locations of the landscape professionals but through the eyes of ordinary people who live and work here and the tourists who come to visit our historic cities of Ely and Peterborough as well as the towns of Wisbech, March and Kings Lynn, while experiencing the wide-open vistas and skies of the Fens. The Fens have very few massive buildings. The largest by far are the ancient cathedrals of Ely and Peterborough. This proposal will create a building significantly more massive in every dimension than either cathedral or any village church. This demonstrates incredible insensitivity to any form of environmental, social, artistic or cultural value associated with the English countryside and our unique Fen landscape. To quote Fenland District Council from the current Local Plan: “Fenland has a unique environmental character, with its flat, open landscapes, big skies and complex network of drainage channels and watercourses. Although much of the land outside settlements is intensively farmed, there are areas, including within the watercourses, which remain important for their biodiversity and/or heritage value. Each of the four market towns in the district has its own individual character which has evolved over time in response to key changes in history – the drainage of the fens, the arrival of the railways and the growth of the motor car. There are 20 scheduled monuments, 10 conservation areas and over 650 listed buildings of special architectural or historic interest. The gardens of Peckover House in Wisbech are included in English Heritage’s register of parks and gardens of special historic interest.” One of the most treasured views in Cambridgeshire is from the top of the South Tower of Ely Cathedral, from where on fine days, it is possible to see Peterborough Cathedral across the Fen landscape. This enormous structure will create a major industrial intrusion, larger and taller than both cathedrals in this view that attracts tourists globally. It is unacceptable. (14) Light Pollution Light pollution prevents us all from seeing the wonders of the night sky. It is also becoming apparent that it has a significant negative effect on wildlife whose body clocks and habits are attuned to the natural rhythms of day and night. CPRE are concerned that the light emitting from the buildings and car parks during the 24-hour, year-round operation of the proposed plant will add to the light pollution in this primarily rural landscape. This will add to the urbanisation of the landscape within the district, within this area of Fenland and on the edge of West Norfolk. This will have most effect closest to the site leading to a very negative impact on the Wisbech conservation area and the surrounding residential areas of Wisbech. We are very concerned that much of the good work by the County Council recently in replacing all its streetlights with much more directional and less polluting technology will be undone. The proposal will create a major source of light pollution in the wider night time landscape, particularly the bright red, omni-directional, flashing, navigation lights that will be needed at the top of the smokestack and at intervals from bottom to top in order to warn aircraft of its hazardous presence. (15) Planning Policy. The proposed development appears to be inconsistent with the following planning policies of the current Fenland Local Plan 2014 which is currently under review. Policy LP2 – includes: “Development proposals should positively contribute to creating a healthy, safe and equitable living environment….” This development puts the healthy and safe living environment at risk. Policy LP3 – includes: “Development should create strong, sustainable, cohesive and inclusive communities,”. This development would not meet that objective. Policy LP6 – includes: “Employment proposals will be assessed against the following selection criteria: 1. Fit with the Council’s spatial strategy (in terms of distribution and scale) 2. Fit with the specific and broad locations for growth identified in this Local Plan, or in other suitable locations on the edge of Market Towns where it can be demonstrated that such growth would be compatible with adjacent urban land uses 3. The size of the settlement and scale of housing growth proposed 4. Availability of and accessibility to public transport services 5. Site suitability in terms of physical constraints (e.g. access, flood risk) 6. Impact on natural and heritage assets 7. Impact in terms of urban/landscape character, and setting of settlements 8. Infrastructure capacity (see LP13) 9. Availability and deliverability of sites” Apart from point 9, this proposal meets none of the above criteria in our opinion. Policy LP8 – Wisbech includes: “Wisbech, alongside March, is the main focus for housing, employment and retail growth. All development should contribute to the promotion of Wisbech into a strong, safe and community focussed market town, preserving and enhancing its unique historic character and making appropriate use of its heritage assets to benefit its regeneration, tourism potential and sense of place. However, the growth of Wisbech is constrained by the capacity of the highway network both internal (i.e. within the town) and external (i.e. the A47). As such, all Wisbech development proposals, and especially the urban extensions described below, must have an exceptionally strong focus on the provision of deliverable measures which should result in a modal shift to sustainable transport modes for residents and workers of both the new development themselves and, where possible, for existing communities.” This proposal contravenes both of these objectives. It will detract from the historic character of the town and it will clearly add significantly to the HCV traffic on the over-loaded A47. Policy LP13 includes: “Planning permission will only be granted if it can be demonstrated that there is, or will be, sufficient infrastructure capacity to support and meet all the requirements arising from the proposed development. Conditions or a planning obligation are likely to be required for many proposals to ensure that new development meets this principle.” Clearly this proposal does not meet this criteria and will place an excessive burden on the already stretched local road network. Policy LP16 - This development does not appear to: (a) protect and enhance any affected heritage assets and their settings to an extent commensurate with policy in the National Planning Policy Framework and in accordance with Policy LP18. (b) protect and enhance biodiversity on and surrounding the proposal site. (c) retain and incorporate natural and historic features of the site such as trees, hedgerows, field patterns, drains and water bodies. (d) make a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness and character of the area, enhance its local setting, respond to and improve the character of the local built environment, provide resilience to climate change, reinforce local identity and not adversely impact, either in design or scale terms, on the street scene, settlement pattern or the landscape character of the surrounding area. (e) not adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring users such as noise, light pollution, loss of privacy and loss of light. Policy LP18 – It appears to us that this development will negatively affect the Conservation Areas and significant heritage assets.