Land Fill site

Draft First Letter

Milton Parish Council has now had the opportunity to read the paper dated 19th March 2001 from the Head of Strategic Planning to the Development Control Committee relating to this application. We are very angry to find that points which we raised, which we emphasised were key points in our objections, have been ignored in this document. As a result of this watering down of our objections, and in the light of other information that's come to our attention since we made our original objection we're therefore taking the unusual step of writing again about this application.

Milton Parish Council wish to re-iterate our fundamental objection to extending the life of the land fill site. This site has been a blight on the village from the start with odour, flies, wind blown litter and and increased traffic levels. It has also resulted in greatly increased traffic at the A10/Butt Lane junction resulting in many accidents and one fatality.

We are concerned that, in considering this application, the County Council appear be ignoring their own policies. In particular, extending the life of the Milton land fill site is contrary to the Waste Local Plan (Deposit). Milton is not on the list and WLP17 states "sites will be considered favourably only if it can be demonstrated that they are required as replacements for preferred sites which are no longer suitable or generally available"

In the six months since we first considered this application it has also become clear to us that there is clear conflict of interest here in that the County Council, who are to determine this application, have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the application. Milton Parish Council's view is that, in these circumstances, it is unacceptable for Cambridgeshire County Council to determine the application and suggest that the application should go to public enquiry. If the County Council doesn't do this we will have to consider a complaint to the local government Ombudsman and possibly, taking the decision to judicial review.


Private and Confidential

Draft Full Letter

VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 3 AND 19 OF PLANNING PERMISSION S/0289/91 TO EXTEND THE TIMESCALE FOR THE DEPOSIT OF WASTE AND RESTORATION OF MILTON LANDFILL BY WASTE RECYCLING GROUP

Milton Parish Council has now had the opportunity to read the paper dated 19th March 2001 from the Head of Strategic Planning to the Development Control Committee relating to this application. We are very angry to find that points which we raised, which we emphasised were key points in our objections, have been ignored in this document.

In particular we made various comments about things we would be looking for if this application, to which we objected most strongly, were approved. These were:

These four points were replaced by the words "limited recreational use of the restored section of the site should be made available to for local residents". That's a much weaker statement than our actual position. We were looking for specific timescales to be written in to guarantee open access by the public to the site in the shortest possible timescale. If we were to have to put up with the land fill site for at least the next 16 years we wanted some benefit for the village as soon as possible.

As a result of this watering down of our objections, and in the light of other information that's come to our attention since we made our original objection we're therefore taking the unusual step of writing to all those involved in determining this application directly, as we feel it is the only way of ensuring that our views are accurately represented.

Why We Object to Extending the Life of the Site

Milton Parish Council wish to re-iterate our fundamental objection to extending the life of the land fill site. This site has been a blight on the village from the start with odour, flies, wind blown litter and and increased traffic levels. It has also resulted in greatly increased traffic at the A10/Butt Lane junction resulting in many accidents and one fatality.

Our complaints about the site have been ignored and now seem to have been conveniently lost by both Environmental Health and by the applicant. The applicant actually had the nerve to state in the original application (PA.72 of the Supporting Statement) that they had had no complaints from Milton Parish Council or the public. Their Supplemental Statement dated January 2001 again claims the applicant has not received any complaints (SUP.I.62). This is simply not true: Milton Parish Council 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, as our clerk can confirm.

Every time the life of the land fill site has been extended the village has been assured that this represents the actual life of the site. Here again we're being told that the site will be filled by 2017. We don't believe this any more than the previous end dates. There is now an overcapacity for landfill, as we will show below, and there will be a decreasing demand if government targets are met. We therefore think it likely that the landfill sit will last into the middle of this century if it's not stopped now.

The Need for Landfill

The Waste Local Plan (Deposit) has figures for landfill capacity (4.6.1) which indicated a shortfall of between 1.45 and 1.79 million m3 in putrescible landfill over the life of the Plan. This was offset by an overcapacity of between 0.26 and 0.92 million m3 for inert land fill, giving a net shortfall of 0.53 to 1.53 million m3. These figures included the remaining capacity of Milton land fill (2.5 million m3), despite the fact that, at the time, this application had yet to be determined, a point to which we'll return later.

However what these figures didn't include was two applications relating to existing sites which have gone through the planning process recently to extend their capacity. This provides an additional 5.6 million m3 (Dickerson's, subject to finalisation of the s106 agreement) and 1.8 million m3 (Eyebury). These two sites together will ensure that there is ample land fill capacity through the life of the Waste Local Plan, even if Milton was removed from the picture.

Moreover the waste processing plant at Dickerson's at Waterbeach which already has planning permission and which previously might have required Milton to take the waste it couldn't re-cycle, now has sufficient landfill capacity of its own. The Best Practical Environmental Option is to use landfill close to the waste processing plant, and not to add a second journey by lorry to Milton.

Paragraph 9.7 of the paper to the Development Control Committee states that very significant levels of recycling are unlikely to be achieved until the end of the Plan period so the rate of landfill is unlikely to drop until then. As the Waste Local Plan (Deposit) makes clear this is would put the County in breach of the Landfill Directive whose mandatory requirements include the reduction of total landfilled putrescible waste to 75% of 1995 levels by 2006 and to 50% by 2009. However the life of the land fill, if this application is taken at face value, runs to 2017. Therefore, if it stays open, we would expect far lower fill rates than we're seeing today, whereas the applicant expects to retain the current fill rate.

A10/Butt Lane Junction

This junction has the highest accident rate of any road junction on the A10. Much of the traffic using this junction is going to the land fill site. We were promised, after many years of lobbying, action on this junction this year in the form of traffic lights.

We now discover that there is some concern about traffic lights here and work is to be carried out to assess if there could be an unacceptable impact with traffic backing up on A14/A10 junction and the A14. If this is so then it would be irresponsible to be considering extending the life of the land fill site any longer than is necessary based on the current consent.

Public Access

One of the things Milton Parish Council was looking for, which was omitted from the paper presented to the Development Control Committee, was for specific timescales for access to areas of the land fill site which have been restored. It became clear to us during the discussions we had with the applicants that the proposals they were making for restoring the land for informal recreation rather than agricultural use, although sounding marvellous, were just that: proposals. There was no clear timescale as to when they would happen, or when we would get access. On the existing parts of the site, which have been capped for a good number of years they stated that they wouldn't be able to give us access for at least another five years.

We therefore find it difficult to take seriously any proposals for restoration of the site for public access in any reasonable timescale. As ever this is "jam tomorrow", except that the distance to "tomorrow" appears to be measured in decades.

Moreover it's clear from the paper presented to the Development Control Committee (9.25) that the Head of Strategic Planning is opposed to these proposals because it would contradict policy 17 of CALP and is still looking for a return of the site to agricultural use (9.26).

In the face of these difficulties we have little faith in the Site Liaison Forum's ability to deliver a scheme for public access which would be either acceptable or deliverable in reasonable timescales.

Waste Local Plan

Milton Parish Council has been an active participant in the consultations on the Waste Local Plan. We welcome the Waste Local Plan's objective of provided a planning framework for waste management.

Given that this Plan is now close to finalisation and has now been broadly agreed by all parties, including the applicant and the County Council, we're at a loss to understand why the Head of Strategic Planning is now recommending that the County Council agree to extend the life of the Milton land fill site as it contradicts the Waste Local Plan in so many ways. A full list is attached as an appendix to this document but to our mind it is WLP17 which is the key section. It states that "proposals for putrescible and/or inert landfill will be considered favourably at the following preferred sites: Dickerson's, Great Wilbraham Quarry, Eyebury".

Milton is not in that list. Moreover WLP17 goes on to say that "other sites will be considered favourably only if it can be demonstrated that they are required as replacements for preferred sites which are no longer suitable or generally available". As we've already stated Dickerson's and Eyebury are not only suitable but have even more space available than in the plan. We're therefore at a loss to know how the County Council can be being recommended to extend the life of this site when this would directly contradict the Waste Local Plan.

Fait Accompli and Conflicts of Interest

In our submission to the Waste Local Plan (Deposit) Milton Parish Council made the following comment in relation to the figures for landfill capacity:

We've felt right from the outset that the officers believed that Cambridgeshire County Council would accept this application and the Waste Local Plan (Deposit) confirmed us in that belief.

Documents we've seen recently, for example a document entitled "Waste Management Best Value Review" from the Director of Environment & Transport to the Environment and Transport Committee dated 29th March 2001 show clearly that this officer also expects Milton to be approved. For example item 18 of the plan calls for the Council to "Carry out feasibility study to convert Milton to split level or "on floor" sorting ... for the 2003/2004 budget, which would mean it would start as the landfill closes under the current permission!

In the six months since we first considered this application it has also become clear to us that there is clear conflict of interest here in that the County Council, who are to determine this application, have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the application.

Milton Parish Council's view is that, in these circumstances, it is unacceptable for Cambridgeshire County Council to determine the application and suggest that the application should go to public enquiry. If the County Council doesn't do this we will have to consider a complaint to the local government Ombudsman and possibly, taking the decision to judicial review.


Appendix - Waste Local Plan

WLP1 - states that all proposals for waste development will be considered in the context of achieving the Best Practical Environmental Option (BPEO) and have regard to the waste hierarchy. Landfill is at the bottom of the waste hierarchy; there is no need for the landfill to continue except to complete a sensible landform. The site is in the Cambridge Green Belt, is extremely visually intrusive and involves landraising on best and most versatile agricultural land. There are no benefits to the environment or the local community and therefore it cannot represent the BPEO.

WLP2 - requires proposals to demonstrate integrated proposals to recover resources from waste. Apart from the landfill gas recovery no recycling or composting is proposed.

WLP3 - requires the applicant to demonstrate a need within Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. The local plan identifies a shortfall of 1.8million m3 of putrescible voidspace during the Plan Period. Since this estimate, the County Council has resolved to approve a further 4.9 million m3 at Waterbeach and Peterborough City Council has resolved to approve 0.7 million m3 at Eyebury, both are allocated in the Local Plan. Although the voidspace at Milton was included in the figures for the Waste Local Plan calculations it was not identified as a site for further development and the whole of the site is now not needed with further allocated sites being permitted.

WLP7 - seeks to protect landscape character. The site is clearly visually intrusive and is creating an unnatural feature in a flat open landscape.

WLP8 - states that waste development in the Green Belt will only be permitted if it represents the only option for the essential reclamation of a mineral site, or other derelict or degraded void, to an appropriate beneficial after-use within an acceptable timescale. Although the original permission at Milton was to fill in a mineral working i.e. a borrow pit for the A14, the 1991 permission is purely a landraising exercise. The remaining area to be landfilled is a greenfield site of high quality agricultural land. A total timescale of 36 years to complete the site is clearly not an acceptable timescale. Any subsequent permissions for clay extraction was for the removal of a small amount of surplus material for a specific project, this cannot be considered as reclamation of a mineral site.

WLP10 - protects statutorily protected species, flora and fauna of the site. As English Nature has asked for a reptile and amphibian survey it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not have an adverse impact.

WLP13 - protects best and most versatile agricultural land. The proposal will result in the loss of the land quality. A site cannot be restored to the original quality this has been shown by the poor quality of restoration at the site. It has not been demonstrated that there are no alternative sites and as there is no need for the landfill to continue, the policy on best and most versatile land should prevail.

WLP27 - this policy identifies preferred sites for putrescible landfill, Milton is not listed as one of those sites.

WLP28 - states that landraising will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where there is a need for a waste disposal facility. Exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated and there is no need for the development. If this application is approved then it will be very hard to resist further development, particularly for recycling, if this is approved you are effectively approving it as a major waste management facility and you will have to rewrite the Waste Local Plan.