comments from Lafarge

[andyg]

these are some of the comments submitted by Lafarge re the proposed gravel extraction they not site specific but give an idea of their proposed ideas

consult.essexcc.gov.uk/common/search/advanced_search.jsp?&page=13&pageSize=20&sortMode=response_date&lookingFor=representations&tab=list

Waste Development Document: Issues and Options PaperLafarge Aggregates Ltd (Mr Stuart Anderson) (ID: 262833)
PDF

Many of the areas indicated are outside the scope of operations undertaken by Lafarge.

It is considered that there is extensive scope for better synergy between the minerals and waste industry, in particular in relation to smaller (i.e. not strategic) sites.
The location of transfer stations and C&D recycling on minerals sites is a use that is consistent with operations already permitted.
Lafarge has proposed three further site allocations.
(C & D is construction & Demolition waste)


Do you agree?
Yes

Please explain why you agree or disagree and expand on any points if specifically asked to do so in the question.
• We strongly disagree with paragraph 2.58 indicating the there is a decoupling between the relationship of a minerals and waste site and to search for additional land capacity. Especially in the case of Stansted Airport (i.e. the need to minimise water based restoration schemes), waste has and will continue to play a fundamental role in the sustainable restoration of minerals sites.

In section 3 of the document, the more encompassing definition of inert waste should have been used. This wider expression of the meaning could lead to greater levels of recycling rather than re-use as the latter is difficult to pursue on an industrial scale from C&D arisings. It should be noted that the use of C&D waste at some minerals sites can now be seen as a recovery activity and the emerging DPD needs to take this into account


Please explain why you agree or disagree and expand on any points if specifically asked to do so in the question.
• Yes, but would suggest that highways capacity and safety should be included as sustainable design (including drainage).
• Visual impacts need also to consider micro climate assessments (i.e. the influence of the facilities on wind / shadows etc).
• Site criteria could also include the scope for landscape improvements / mitigation as part of the proposals

Please explain why you agree or disagree and expand on any points if specifically asked to do so in the question.
The policy criteria does not consider the scope for landfill proposals in particular to create a more interesting or diverse landform.

Do you agree?
Yes

Please explain why you agree or disagree and expand on any points if specifically asked to do so in the question.
We would suggest that where large capacity infrastructure is envisaged (i.e. MRF, EFW), alternative energy could also be pursued in the form of solar panels or wind turbines etc

Waste Development Document: Issues and Options PaperLafarge Aggregates Ltd (Mr Stuart Anderson) (ID: 262833)
PDF

Do you agree?
No

Please explain why you agree or disagree and expand on any points if specifically asked to do so in the question.
Fully agree with issues 1, 3, 4, and 8
• Issue 2 - agreed, but the influence of imported waste from London needs to be taken into consideration after the closure of Pitsea Landfill.



they seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on landfill and also mention the need for new sites once Pitsea closes.

And they are proposing wind turbines as a form of energy on some of their sites – that will really improve the western outlook from Rayne!

[andyg]

having read the above comments I have put in objections as follows, feel free to adapt if yiou wish to comment yourself:

Amenity & Pollution
1: Currently the Rayne site is scored GREEN under this criteria and reading the document it would appear that the score is reflecting the current tranquillity of the site rather than the future situation.
Having read the submissions by Lafarge (the promoters of site A9) it is quite obvious that they view landfill as a fundamental part of their operations and this gives me great concern. They mention the use of C & D (construction & demolition) waste as a form of ‘inert’ landfill and this worries me intensely. Old buildings that are demolished were generally constructed before controls were in place to regulate what was used in construction so as a consequence such demolished buildings could contain all sorts of toxic materials that may not be discovered during demolition and they could they end up on MY doorstep. The demolition material are generally very dry and as they are tipped will form massive clouds of toxic dust blowing right across Rayne especially over the children of Rayne at the nearby primary school – how can you sanction this very high risk to the health of the children in our village? With such a high risk the score can only be RED – please reconsider your score for this item.

2: Some gravel sites have accompanying tarmac production plants which spew clouds of toxic gases into the atmosphere which drift downwind . What reassurances are you able to give that such a plant will not develop on site A9 as this would not only increase traffic further but also pollute Rayne as the toxic clouds drif downwind over our village?

Proximity to sensitive uses

Currently the Rayne site is scored AMBER3 under this criteria. I am concerned after reading the Lafarge submissions that the site may be used for general landfill (they mention the need for landfill sites once Pitsea closes). Landfill (even inert) attracts seagulls by the thousand (or even million) and their droppings can be highly toxic –another point to be considered under pollution. However one of the statements re the Rayne site (A9) is that the site must not encourage birds due to the proximity of Stansted – how do these 2 diametrically opposite points compliment one another? I suggest that this automatically makes this score a RED


Landscape

Currently the Rayne site is scored AMBER2 under this criteria. Having read the submissions by Lafarge (the promoters of site A9) they appear to be promoting the use of wind turbines for power generation on their developments where appropriate, quote:

We would suggest that where large capacity infrastructure is envisaged (i.e. MRF, EFW), alternative energy could also be pursued in the form of solar panels or wind turbines etc

I assume that by the quantity of gravel excavation proposed this will be a large capacity site so not only do you want to ruin or views to the west of Rayne with a massive gravel development with dust clouds and massive heaps of soil you are now likely to receive an application to erect massive wind turbines completing the massive ‘blot on the landscape’ where is all this going to end? How can you justify ruining an tranquil rural landscape with such a combination of eyesores? I suggest that the proposal of wind turbines is the tipping point for turning the score RED


Other

The report makes no assessment of local businesses adjacent to site A9. almost immediately to the east there is a tree nursery dependant on clean water from it’s own borehole and clean air for it’s survival.
Just to the west and north-west there is a restaurant and a small development of rural type businesses which are used partly for recreation this development if allowed will wreck those businesses that are vital to the local economy, far moreso that a few jobs that may be generated by the proposed development.
How do you intend to compensate these businesses for their loss of trade and how will it be addresses in the next stage of the document