The following comments relate to the "Supporting Statement" to the Milton Landfill Section 73 Application dated July 2000 which I put forward for the Council's consideration as an addition (in whole or part) to our comments on application S/1570/00 under agenda item 5.
Paul Oldham
We have the following comments to make about the "Supporting Statement" for this application.
| PA.33 |
states that the remaining capacity of this site is 2.5 million m3
and the current rate of input is around 150,000 m3 per annum giving
an expected life of approximately 16-17 years, which is why the application
is looking for an extension until the end of 2016.
The Deposit Waste Local Plan makes it clear that the proportion of waste which is land filled must drop significantly in the period covered by that plan (up until 2011). Therefore it seems to us that calculating the remaining life on this site based on the current rate of input is misleading.
|
|---|---|
| PA.41 PA.57 |
refer to the modification to the shape the northern section of the
consented landform and, eventually, the creation of a shallow water area.
We have serious concerns about this proposal not least because we question
the motivation for proposing it, which seems primarily concerned with two
issues: reducing the amount of (now difficult to obtain) inert material
required and providing a buffer for water run off from the mound.
We have to question the advantages of this scheme from an environmental diversity viewpoint, given the existance of the county park which provides large areas of deep and shallow water wetland. We also question the viability of the mound shape now envisaged, which seems to include gradients down to the shallow water area which will be unsustainable in the long term. Milton PC therefore ask that the mound contours specified in 1990, and as shown drawing 007-05 of the Supporting Statement, be retained with minor variations if required to allow for car parking.
|
| PA.58 |
claims that the Mere Way underpass under the A14 "could be developed
to accommodate pedestrian access and a cycle way to link into the [site]"
which would benefit employees on the Science Park. Given that the location of
this underpass would mean a significant detour for Science Park users and would
involve them navigating their way past the travellers' site we would suggest
that this proposal is without merit. If the company is really serious about
providing better access from the Science Park then they should consider
providing a bridge or underpass mid-way between the Mere Way and the
A10/A14 junction.
|
| PA.70 |
in relation to reversing warning bleepers the document states that
"the [company] will therefore ensure that wherever possible alternative
systems are used on all plant operating on the site". We would like to see
this made a condition of the consent and the words "wherever possible" removed.
|
| PA.72 |
when discussing odour states that "The existing operation does not
generate problems or complaints from the public". This is simply not true:
Milton PC have received a steady stream of complaints over the years about
odour from the land fill site and have complained repeatedly, both by phone
to East Waste and in writing (most recently on 9th June 1999).
|
05/09/00 - the comments relating to PA.33, 58 and 72 were adopted by council as part of their response.