St. Dennis Parish Council |
PREFERRED OPTIONS REPORT.
Preferred Option No:- 4 Paragraph No:- 2.21 Chapter No:- 2
Location of Waste Management Facilities.
Comment.
Planning Policy Statement 10 states that Waste Planning Authorities should give priority to the re-use of previously developed land.This statement is not reflected in some of the sites selected for an EfW plant.What are the reasons for this?
Preferred Option No:- 4 Paragraph No:- 2.23 Chapter No:- 2
Location of Waste Management Facilities.
Comment.
The paragraph states that the transportation of waste is to be minimised with communities taking greater responsibility for the waste they generate.How does this statement square with the establishment of 1EfW plant for the whole of Cornwall?
Preferred Option No:- 4 Paragraph No:- 2.24 Chapter No:- 2
Location of Waste Management Facilities.
Comment.
The environmental criteria which sites are assessed includes ‘proximity to sensitive land uses eg.dwellings’.The site at Parkandillick lies less than 400 metres from a village of 3,500 people.What weighting is given to this criteria in the choice of sites?
The Parish Council would draw your attention to the Sustainability Appraisal published in May/June 2005,Review Issue Q on Page 29 which stated.’These issues,coupled with public concerns about health impacts are principal determinants of a suitable location.A 6-10 km separation may be suitable but greater separation may be appropriate’.
Preferred Option No:- 4 Paragraph No:- 2.26 Chapter No:- 2
Location of Waste Management Facilities.
Comment.
The paragraph refers to emerging technologies that could provide valuable assistance in the future.Why then opt now to go for the draconian solution of one EfW plant which will be a blot on the landscape for over 30 years?
Preferred Option No:-5(vi) Paragraph No:- Chapter No:- 2
The Sustainable Transport of Waste.
Comment.
Preferred Option 5(vi) states that sites identified for use as waste management facilities are in reasonable proximity and have good access to the Primary Route Network.In the case of the Parkandillick site what measures would be taken to ensure that vehicles transporting waste particularly from the South do not establish ‘rat runs’ through local villages where the roads are totally inadequate to cope with them.
Preferred Option No:-13 Paragraph No:- 2.106 Chapter No:- 2
Energy from Waste.
Comment.
Data used for the introduction of a 240,000 tonne EfW plant assume a recycling rate of 38% and the County Council target is 40% by 2010.If these targets are exceeded there will less waste available to incinerate.How will the shortfall be made up to the required 240,000 tones?
Preferred Option No:-13 Paragraph No:- 2.107 Chapter No:- 2
Energy from Waste.
Comment.
How can it be assured that energy recovered from waste will be used solely in Cornwall and how will electricity be transferred to the National Grid?
Preferred Option No:-13 Paragraph No:- 2.108 Chapter No:- 2
Energy from Waste.
Comment.
The proposal is for a single thermal treatment plant.How does this fit with key objectives K05 and K07?
It is understood from figures quoted by Councillor Paynter at a public meeting that the introduction of two smaller plants would cost an additional £40 million over 30 years.This is £1.3 million per year or 0.25% of the County Council net budget and equates to an average Band ‘D’ council tax increase of 76p per week which seems a small price to pay for the establishment of 2 smaller plants in the County and would:-
Preferred Option No:-23 Paragraph No:- 3.17 Chapter No:- 3
Landscape & Townscape Character.
Comment.
The Parish Council feel that the size of a single EfW plant at Parkandillick would have a devastating impact on one of the few green areas around the village on land currently used for farming.
Preferred Option No:-26 Paragraph No:- 3.23 Chapter No:- 3
National Designations.
Comment.
The Goss Moor (an SSSI site) lies in close proximity to the Parkandillick site.How will damaging impacts be prevented?
Preferred Option No:-28 Paragraph No:- 3.26 Chapter No:- 3
Protected Species.
Comment.
The Goss Moor on which there are protected species lies in close proximity to the Parkandillick site.How will these be protected?
Preferred Option No:-29(i) Paragraph No:- Chapter No:- 3
Water Resource Protection.
Comment.
The source of the River Fal lies on Goss Moor.How will the water be protected from contamination by emissions and run off?
Preferred Option No:-30(i) Paragraph No:- Chapter No:- 3
Agricultural Land Quality.
Comment.
The Parkandillick site is situated on agricultural land.How is the perceived benefit of development measured against the need to protect agricultural land?
Preferred Option No:-31 Paragraph No:- Chapter No:- 3
Public Rights of Way.
Comment.
County Footpaths nos 5,2 & 18 lie in close proximity to the proposed site at Parkandillick.What measures will be taken to protect them?
Preferred Option No:-32 Paragraph No:- Chapter No:- 3
Noise.
Comment.
The Parish Council is concerned that one EfW plant will generate a lot of traffic and noise.In addition if rail transport is used this will create additional noise.How many vehicles per day will be using the plant and at what times would both rail and road transport be operating?
Preferred Option No:-33 Paragraph No:- Chapter No:- 3
Air Pollution - Dust.
Comment
Is pollution from the incineration process and from transport covered in this Option?
What toxins will be contained within the emissions and how will it be monitored?
The Parish Council are very concerned about this and any pollution from these sources will add to the existing dust pollution from the Clay Industry.
The St Dennis area already contains the following plants and the people have to live with their emissions:-
Power Station at Domellick.
2 Drying Plants at Treviscoe.
2 Calciners and 4 driers at Parkandillick.
Working clay pits almost surround the village and another is to be reopened soon on Trelavour Downs directly overlooking the village.
The Council consider there will be an unacceptable cumulative effect on people in the Parish where there already exists a high incidence of asthma.
Preferred Option No:-34 Paragraph No:- Chapter No:- 3
Odour.
Comment.
Will there be odours produced from an EfW plant?The Parish Council have heard reports from other areas of the country that such plants do produce odours.
Preferred Option No:-35 Paragraph No:-3.37/38 Chapter No:- 3
Sustainable Transportation of Waste.
Comment.
Government Guidelines contain ‘the proximity principle’.Why has the option of providing smaller EfW plants in Cornwall been dismissed when this would meet the proximity principle and be a fairer way to deal with the problem of waste at little extra cost?
Preferred Option No:-36 Paragraph No:-3.40 Chapter No:- 3
Highways.
Comment.
The Parish Council is concerned that the level of traffic generated by the installation of one EfW plant is totally unacceptable in an area very close to a village where the local highway network is already too narrow and congested.
THE SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL.
Chapter No:-6 Table 6.1 Page 30
PO 13. Energy from Waste Plant.
| BD1 | Biodiversity | Strong adverse impact | What effective mitigation will take place? |
| CC3A | Climate Change-Transport | Strong adverse impact | What effective mitigation will take place? |
| OR3 | Recyling/Reuse Recovery | Minor adverse impact | Capacity of proposed plant could discourage recycling |
| AQ1a | Air Quality - Dust | Minor adverse impact | Combined with current dust pollution from Clay Industry the cumulative impact would be strong. |
| AQ1b | Air Quality-Traffic | No impact | Proposed plant would generate a large amount of traffic affecting air quality |
| LT1a | Landscape | Minor impact | The Parish Council does not agree that a huge plant less than 400 metres from a village is a minor impact on the landscape. |
| PH1 | Public Health | Minor impact | Emissions from the stack and from traffic when added to existing air quality constitute a strong adverse impact. |
Chapter No:-6 Table 6.3 Page 45
Site R4 – Restowrack Farm,St Dennis.
| AQ1a | Air Quality- Dust | Minor impact | Parish Council disagree.Air Quality will be have a strong adverse impactwhen existing air quality is taken into account. |
| AQ1b | Air Quality-Traffic | Minor impact | Parish Council disagree.The proposed plant would generate a large amount of traffic strongly affecting air quality. |
| LT1a | Landscape | ?? Printed table misaligned | The Parish Council does not agree that a huge plant less than 400 metres from a village is a minor impact on the landscape. |
| PH1 | Public health | Minor impact | Emissions from the stack and from traffic when added to existing air quality constitute a strong adverse impact. |
| CC3 | Climate Change -Transport | Shown on Table as beneficial effect? Table misaligned?? | What effective mitigation will take place? |
Home
| About
St. Dennis | Councillors
| Committees
| Meetings
| Freedom of Information
Public
Footpaths| Contact
Clerk