by Jackie Porter on 10 December, 2019
This response to the Stage 2 Consultation does not require the simple matter of an objection or support: the consultation invites response.
As the County Councillor for the division covering Sutton Scotney and nearby communities in the north of Winchester district, there are a number of points I wish to make and information I need to know and/or be reassured on before DCO the application is even made.
1. The impact of the site on the Highway network: the A34 and A303 are frequently closed by accidents. The application (and your staff at the Sutton scotney consultation) stated that if this were the case, the lorries would stay in the queue on the trunk roads. This is unlikely and impractical if the road is closed. Lorries cannot enter a junction/stay on the road and will use narrower roads to travel to and from the site.
The junction design onto the A303 was designed for light traffic. Additional traffic arising from the transportation of 500,000 tonnes of waste would make this a junction with heavy traffic use, posing an unacceptable risk to the public as heavy, slowly accelerating lorries meet vehicles travelling through the junction at 70mph on the A303
2. The waste is described as industrial/commercial. What is the exact expected input, where does it go now and from where will it come?
You state the waste will come from an average time of 2 hours away, but this is an average. What is the maximum distance? If the waste stream changes in the next 25 years as the number of recyclables increases, will the waste need to come from further afar? I would like to see a current and projected waste profile over at least 10 years.
3. The health implications of the ingestion of particles, relative to the size of those particulates are becoming ever apparent. WCC want to know how the emissions of the site are managed, and monitored, what are the measures to monitor, and how particulates of PM 10, 2.5 and in the future 1.0 (and possibly smaller) are managed and filtered out. How is this process future proofed?
4. With Wheelabrator’s record of compliance in other countries not being good, what exactly is Wheelabrator’s record of non-compliance in the UK and how can this be prevented at this plant?
5. I would like more clarification of the water cycle of this plant , in particular the ‘source’ of all water in, the journey of ‘water out as steam ‘ , water collection, and what will be the receptor of the ‘water out’ noting it will be potentially water containing contaminants?
6. What alternatives were considered in the choice of site? It is a restored greenfield site (restoration by Raymond Brown as part of their permission). Dicot (old Power station) would seem to be a better option with better road infrastructure and better placed to cover the south of England.
7. Good practice in the guide for incineration and large scale energy projects states that the heat generated at this site should be directed towards a use. Although it states it is available, there are no planned uses. How will Wheelabrator address this?
7. Though connection to the National Grid is not included in the DCO application, the connection is of vital importance at this site, and needs certainty. Pylons are not acceptable. We need to know how and where the link will be constructed, and the form it will take.
8. Is there a local and national need for this site at all? (HCC has been asked to provide information too.) WCC will query this in their submission too.
9. I believe there is a case to seek another public consultation round including schools and residents to show these issues have been addressed before the applicant seeks a DCO (development consent order).
For further information on the progress of this proposal and HCC’s response to this and other NSIP’s in the affecting the County (and Winchester district), please see this linkLeave a comment