Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Proposed disposal of LLW to landfill near Kings Cliffe, Northamptonshire. Phil Watson Development Control Manager A Case study.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Proposed disposal of LLW to landfill near Kings Cliffe, Northamptonshire. Phil Watson Development Control Manager A Case study."— Presentation transcript:

1 Proposed disposal of LLW to landfill near Kings Cliffe, Northamptonshire. Phil Watson Development Control Manager A Case study

2 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

3 Planning History Former clay quarry 1950/60/70s Inert waste disposal permitted 80/90s Hazardous waste application 1998 refused Appeal dismissed but then Inspectors decision quashed Amended hazardous application submitted 1999 Hazardous waste disposal permitted Issues with previous operator (Atlantic Waste/ Wastego) - Planning conditions not discharged -Pollution incident Site over tipped 2004

4 Planning History Augean aquire site 2005 Retrospective application to regularise Hazardous disposal Permitted 2006 Soil remediation plant permitted 2007 Local liaison group ongoing Site re-named East Northants Resource Management Facility LLW disposal application July 2009

5 Photographs of site







12 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

13 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

14 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

15 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)

16 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

17 MWDFs & Local Plans Key Issues continued: Few WPAs 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

18 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

19 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.

20 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.

21 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 Devt 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...

22 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

23 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

24 Need Key Issues: –All other existing / potential sites in North West (LLWR, Clifton Marsh, Lillyhall, Keekle Head, Dounreay) –Kings 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 MWDFs DPDs

25 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.

26 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.

27 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

28 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 Kings Cliffe? –Will Kings Cliffe become the long term LLW disposal site for Southern and Central England?

29 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

30 Local Community Involvement contd –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!

31 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 24 th May Augean commenced EIA Scoping on new applications to extend life and area of site to LLW to be included in applications? Applications to be submitted to NCC by August 2011.

Download ppt "Proposed disposal of LLW to landfill near Kings Cliffe, Northamptonshire. Phil Watson Development Control Manager A Case study."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google