Client: London Borough of Enfield - Planning Inspectorate · 2016. 5. 24. · planning R dynamic...

planning

R

dynamic development solutions TM

Local Impact Report Edmonton EcoPark, Advent Way, London N18 3AG

For and on behalf of London Borough of Enfield Council ref: 16/01082/DCO

April 2016

1

Client: London Borough of Enfield

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

Application by North London Waste Authority for an Order Granting Development Consent for the North London Heat and Power Project

Local Impact Report

The Edmonton EcoPark, Advent Way, London, N18 3AG

Prepared by DLP Planning Ltd

London

April 2016 DLP reference: LEN5002P

planning

R




April 2016

CONTENTS PAGE

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

2.0 INTRODUCTION 2

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT 3

4.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 5

5.0 POLICY CONTEXT 7

6.0 IMPACT ON THE LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD 9

7.0 CONCLUSION 50

APPENDIX A: SUGGESTED CHANGES TO DRAFT DCO 52

APPENDIX B: SCHEDULE OF ISSUES WITH DRAFT DCO 53

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF CHANGES NEEDED 58

planning

R




April 2016

1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 This Local Impact Report has been prepared for the London Borough of Enfield in

accordance with section 60 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) which provides

that relevant local authorities can prepare a report giving details of the likely impact of

the proposed development on the authority’s area (or any part of that area). This

report supplements representations already made by the local authority on the

proposed development as part of the application by the North London Waste

Authority for a Development Consent Order to authorise the scheme.

1.2 The local authority is clear that it supports the principle of the development proposed

here. The local authority is one of the seven boroughs that are preparing the joint

North London Waste Plan, and therefore notes that the proposed development will

make a significant contribution to diverting residual waste away from landfill in line

with local, regional and national policy and in line with the waste hierarchy.

1.3 There are, however, a number of issues that the local authority has identified with the

proposed development that are set out in more detail in this report, and in response

to this a number of changes are suggested to the draft Development Consent Order

and supporting documents to overcome these issues.

planning

R




April 2016

2

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 DLP Planning Ltd has been instructed by the London Borough of Enfield (the local

authority) to prepare a Local Impact Report (LIR) as part of the application for a

Development Consent Order (DCO) which has been submitted by the North London

Waste Authority (NLWA, the applicant), and has been accepted by the National

Infrastructure Directorate of the Planning Inspectorate. The local authority is the

local planning authority for the area in which the DCO is proposed; accordingly, the

local authority is a designated ‘interested party’.

2.2 This LIR has been prepared in accordance with section 60 of the Planning Act 2008

(as amended) which provides that relevant local authorities can prepare a report

giving details of the likely impact of the proposed development on the authority’s area

(or any part of that area).

2.3 To date the local authority has made two formal representations on the DCO

application which are the Relevant Representation on the 22nd December 2015 and

Written Representation on the 23rd March 2016. This LIR provides more detailed

information on the anticipated impacts within the London Borough of Enfield should

the proposed development go forward in its present form and how unsatisfactory

elements of the application can addressed.

planning

R




April 2016

3

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT

3.1 The Edmonton EcoPark site covers to 22.2 hectares and is located wholly within the

Borough and comprises an existing waste management site. The site is located to

the north of the A406 North Circular Road in an area that is predominantly industrial.

The Lee Valley Regional Park (LVRP) is located to the east while land to the north

and west is predominantly industrial in nature. Immediately to the north of the

Edmonton EcoPark is an existing Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) which is

operated by a commercial waste management company, alongside other industrial

buildings. Further north is Deephams Sewage Treatment Works (STW).

3.2 Beyond the industrial area to the north-west is a residential area with Badma Close

being the nearest street, approximately 600m from the Edmonton EcoPark and 60m

from the nearest part of the site boundary (the northern access road – Ardra Road).

Zambezie Drive is the closest residential area to the boundary of the application site,

located approximately 310m north-west of the Edmonton EcoPark. Eley Industrial

Estate located to the west and comprises a mixture of retail units, industrial and

warehousing uses.

3.3 Advent Way is located to the south of the site adjacent to the A406 North Circular

Road (Angel Road). Further south of the A406 North Circular Road is an area that

contains a mix of retail, industrial and light manufacturing use, with some of which is

designated as a Strategic Industrial Location (SIL) and is known as Meridian Water.

A Masterplan document setting out the vision for the development of this area (The

Meridian Water Master Plan) was published by the local authority in July 2013. The

area also sits within the wider the Central Leeside area for which an Area Action Plan

(AAP) is being developed. Central Leeside is one of the most significant

regeneration opportunities in Enfield. It occupies a strategic position in the London

and wider Stansted corridor and lies in the London-Anglia Growth Partnership sub

region.

3.4 The LVRP and River Lee Navigation are immediately adjacent to the eastern

boundary of the Edmonton EcoPark, and the Lee Park Way, a private road which

planning

R




April 2016

4

also forms National Cycle Route no. 1, runs alongside the Navigation. The LVRP is

located to the east of the River Lee Navigation where the William Girling Reservoir is

located along with an area currently occupied by Camden Aggregates which is used

for the crushing, screening and stockpiling of concrete, soil and other recyclable

materials. The nearest residential areas to the east of the Application Site and LVRP

are located at Lower Hall Lane (in the London Borough of Waltham Forest),

approximately 550m from the Edmonton EcoPark and 150m from the eastern edge of

the Application Site.

planning

R




April 2016

5

4.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

4.1 The DCO application is seeking consent for an Energy Recovery Facility (ERF)

generating electricity using residual waste as a fuel and capable of an electrical

output of around 70 MW comprising:

two process lines, with each line having a capacity of 350ktpa, a moving

grate, furnace, boiler and a flue gas treatment plant and stack;

a steam turbine and generator set;

‘heat off-take’ equipment within the ERF which will generate an initial heat

supply through a connection to a separate heat network centre that will be

located on the site. This separate heat network centre is not part of the

Project and will be developed by the London Borough of Enfield. The

separate heat network will be designed to be capable of providing heat in the

region of 30 MW which will provide benefit to north and east London;

a waste bunker with two overhead cranes and capacity to hold a minimum

equivalent of 5 days of residual waste;

air or water cooled condenser(s);

a plant control and monitoring system;

an emergency diesel generator;

tipping hall and one way access ramp

4.2 The application also covers:

the decommissioning and demolition of the existing Edmonton EfW facility

(timed to take place following commissioning of new ERF and transition

period of up to a year – this time period is set out explicitly as a requirement

of the draft DCO in Schedule 2 Paragraph 22);

a Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) encompassing a Reuse and Recycling

Centre, transfer hall, and bulky waste / fuel preparation facility;

administrative buildings and visitor centre (EcoPark House);

new internal weighbridges, roads and parking areas;

hard and soft landscaping directly related to main building works

planning

R




April 2016

6

refurbishment or replacement of the waste water treatment facility;

new site access points from the Lee Park Way and Deephams Farm Rd, in

each case subject to agreement on terms with the land owners, Lee Valley

Regional Park Authority and Thames Water;

works for the creation of a Temporary Laydown Area and its temporary use in

an area of open scrubland located to the east of the River Lee Navigation.

planning

R




April 2016

7

5.0 POLICY CONTEXT

5.1 The national planning policies and policies of the Development Plan, as well as other

planning documents that are relevant to the proposed development and / or its

location are set out as follows:

National

• National Planning Policy Framework

• Planning Practice Guidance

• National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure

• National Planning Policy Statement for Energy

• National Planning Policy Statement for Waste

Regional

• London Plan (March 2016)

• Upper Lee Valley Opportunity Area Planning Framework (2013)

Enfield’s Local Plan

• The Enfield Plan: Core Strategy 2010-2025

• Central Leeside Proposed submission Area Action Plan (2014)

• Enfield Development Management Document (adopted 2014)

• Edmonton EcoPark Planning Brief Supplementary Planning Document

(adopted 2013)

Other policy documents

• Emerging North London Waste Plan

• Meridian Water Master Plan (2013)

• LBE Section 106 Supplementary Planning Document (2011)

• LBE Section 106 Revised Draft Supplementary Planning Document

(Emerging)

• LBE CIL Charging Schedule (2016)

• London Plan Sustainable Design and Construction SPG

• Mayor’s Climate Change Adaption Strategy

planning

R




April 2016

8

• Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy

• Mayors Water Strategy

• Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy

• Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy

• Mayor’s Transport Strategy

• Land for Transport Functions SPG

• Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy

• Circular 06/05 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory

Obligations and Their Impact within the Planning System

• Biodiversity Action Plan

planning

R




April 2016

9

6.0 IMPACT ON THE LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD

6.1 The local authority has reviewed the application documents submitted by the

applicant, and in particular the Environmental Statement (ES), which consists of

three volumes, appendix figures, appendix reports and non-technical summary. The

ES includes a consideration of the residual effects, interrelationships, cumulative and

non-significant effects of the proposed development. The ES cross references a

number of other application documents in terms of setting out how the potential

impacts will be mitigated against or controlled, and in particular the Code of

Construction Practice (CoCP) is key in this respect.

6.2 The local authority’s assessment of the impacts of the proposed development are

based on the 12 topics included in the applicant’s ES Volumes 2 and 3, which are:

Air Quality and Odour (ES Volume 2)

Archaeology (ES Volume 2)

Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing (ES Volume 2)

Ecology (ES Volume 2)

Environmental Wind (ES Volume 2)

Ground Conditions and Contamination (ES Volume 2)

Noise and Vibration (ES Volume 2)

Socio-Economics (ES Volume 2)

Transport (ES Volume 2)

Water Resources and Flood Risk (ES Volume 2)

Interactive Effects (ES Volume 2)

Visual assessment (ES Volume 3)

6.3 The local authority notes that the assessment of these topics in the ES is broken

down into four stages which reflect the main stages of the project, as follows:

- Stage 1: Site preparation and enabling works, construction of Resource

Recovery Facility (RRF), EcoPark House, commence use of Temporary

Laydown Area, Operation of RRF, EcoPark House and demolition/clearance

planning

R




April 2016

10

of northern area, construction of ERF (it is note that this stage is split into its

own four sub-stages)

- Stage 2: Commissioning of ERF alongside operation of existing EfW facility

- Stage 3: Operation of ERF, RRF and EcoPark House, demolition of existing

EfW facility

- Stage 4: Operation of ERF, RRF and EcoPark House

6.4 Following the four stages as set out above which in essence relate to the

construction and then subsequent operation of the proposed development (with

stage 2 covering the operation of both the EfW and ERF at the same time for an

assumed period of six months with an additional six to represent a worst-case

scenario), the ES includes an assessment of the decommissioning of the project.

The local authority also notes that the ES assessment includes a ‘sensitivity test’ has

which considers if the environmental effects of the proposed development would be

any different if the programme as set out (in paragraph 3.5.6) were to change by plus

or minus 12 months.

6.5 As per PINS Advice Note 1, the local authority has not carried out its own

consultation with the community, but has undertaken a limited internal consultation

with key departments within the Council that are able to provide their expertise on the

impacts of particular technical topics. There are a number of agencies that would

respond to would also provide input on such technical matters to the local authority in

relation to planning applications that it is responsible for determining – for example,

the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLASS) provide input on

matters related to archaeology – which will respond directly to the Examining

Authority as part of the examination of the draft DCO.

Air quality and odour

6.6 London Plan Policy 7.14 sets out the Mayor’s approach to improving air quality and

requires: minimisation of increased exposure to poor air quality; provision to

address local problems of air quality; measures to reduce emissions during

demolition and construction; proposals to be ‘air quality neutral’ and not to lead to

planning

R




April 2016

11

further deterioration in air quality; ensure on-site provision of measures to reduce

emissions; and assessment of the air quality implications of biomass boilers.

The Mayor’s SPGs provide further amplification of air quality issues in relation to this

and related London Plan policies. Core Policy 32 and Policy DMD65 of the

Development management Document seek to ensure that development proposals

should achieve reductions in pollutant emissions and minimise public exposure to air

pollution. The Development Management Document notes that the whole borough is

designated as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) with major sources of

pollution identified in the Air Quality Action Plan including road traffic and some forms

of industry (paragraph 11.1.1).

6.7 The ES assesses the impacts of the proposed development separating these into the

distinct stages of construction and operation and sets out that both construction and

operational phases of the development will be subject to a complete air quality

assessment. This will encompass air pollution dispersion modelling to consider the

effects of the new stack emissions on the local environment and a dust risk

assessment for the construction phase. Site traffic for both construction and

operational phases will be considered as part of the assessment.

6.8 The local authority’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the assessment of

air quality and odour in the ES, and confirmed that it is acceptable in terms of

protecting the Borough, noting that:

“…the assessment has sufficiently addressed the various aspects of the potential

impact of the development. It has shown that there will not be significant impacts

from the transition phase or use of the new facility in terms of stack emissions. This

would be expected as the facility will have to meet the requirements of its

environmental permit. The construction dust is unlikely to have an impact due to the

distance from the source to the nearest receptor and with a suitable dust

management system in place, such as that in the Mayor of London’s Supplementary

Planning Guidance, dust should not be an issue. Traffic will not significantly increase

during construction and again there are no issues.

planning

R




April 2016

12

6.9 As part of its Phase 2 Consultation response at pre-application stage, the local

authority made comments in relation to the cooling technology installed at the

proposed plant, as this has an impact on the plume. Of the two technologies being

considered – a wet cooling system or an air cooled system – it was advocated that

the latter should be used as this does not result in a visible plume (although it was

noted that this system does generate less electricity). The local authority, therefore,

welcomes the decision of the applicant to proceed with the air cooled system (ES

Volume 1 paragraph 3.3.25), considering that the alternative may have resulted in

negative impact upon the Borough.

6.10 Accordingly, it is the local authority’s view that the impact of the proposed

development on the Borough in terms of air quality and odour would be neutral.

Archaeology

6.11 Section 12 of the NPPF and London Plan Policy 7.8 emphasise that the conservation

of archaeological interest is a material consideration in the planning process.

Paragraph 128 of the NPPF says that applicants should be required to submit

appropriate desk-based assessments, and where necessary undertake field

evaluation, to describe the significance of heritage assets and how they would be

affected by the proposed development.

6.12 The application site is clearly industrial in nature with the current EfW facility

operating from 1971, with the immediate area to the north, south and west also

industrial. The Lee Valley to the east is generally undeveloped, although of course

the Camden Aggregates site to the immediate east is subject to its current

commercial operations.

6.13 The local authority notes that there are no designated or non-designated heritage

assets within the application site itself (e.g. scheduled monuments, listed buildings,

local listed buildings, battlefields, World Heritage Sites or registered parks and

gardens) but that the collection of three grade 2 listed buildings around the Chingford

Mill Pumping Station lie to the east of the site. The impact on heritage assets was

planning

R




April 2016

13

scoped out of the ES and therefore the impact on the setting of these buildings is not

set out. Given the existing use of the site and that this fundamentally would not

change as a result of the proposed development along with the separation of the site

from the designated heritage assets, it is the local authority’s view that it is

acceptable that this impact was not included in the ES assessment; in other words,

that the proposed development would not have a negative impact on the Borough’s

heritage assets.

6.14 The ES sets out there are a number of potential archaeological interests that could

be affected by the proposed development, with moderate potential for prehistoric

archaeology with high potential for palaeoenvironmental evidence but low potential

for archaeological remains from other periods. Twenty-four archaeological

investigations have taken place in the assessment area, and are summarised as:

- At Deephams STW between 2001 and 2010, which identified some drainage

features associated with the medieval and later Deephams Manor Farm and

significant levels of truncation in the western part of the Deephams STW site,

but survival of alluvium and peat in the south-eastern part adjacent to the

application site;

- At Ravenside Retail Park to the south of the application site a

geoarchaeological borehole survey indicated good survival of deposits with

potential to contain archaeological remains. Geoarchaeological assessment at

Advent Way to the south-west of the Application Site identified surviving

Bronze Age peat; however subsequent trial excavations failed to encounter

any archaeological remains;

- Excavations at a number of sites at Montagu Road in 1999 and 2000

produced evidence of Bronze Age and Iron Age ditches and enclosures.

6.15 The ES sets out that there are thee three landscape zones (LZs) each with varying

levels of archaeological and palaeoenvironmental potential. These are:

- LZ 1 is situated on the northern part of the Application Site within the vicinity

of the proposed ERF. This zone has low archaeological potential but

planning

R




April 2016

14

moderate to high palaeoenvironmental potential including organic deposits

within the basal gravel known as the Lea Valley Arctic Beds.

- LZ 2 is located predominately on the northern and central area of the

Application Site and extends as far south as the proposed RRF. The zone has

moderate palaeoenvironmental potential and low to moderate archaeological

potential.

- LZ 3 is located on the western, south-eastern and southern areas of the

Application Site. Parts of the RRF fall within this zone. This zone has the

highest palaeoenvironmental potential across.

6.16 In terms of the potential impact of the proposed development on archaeological

deposits, the ES focuses on the construction, demolition and then decommissioning

stages of the development. In order to mitigate potential impacts, it is the applicant’s

intention that the CoCP would require that any archaeology discovered is

appropriately handled and recorded. The applicant commits through this to work with

GLAAS to use Watching Briefs for the excavations for the storage bunker and also

for site preparation for construction of RRF and EcoPark House. A Written Scheme

of Investigation, detailing the generic principles, standards, methods and techniques

to be employed for archaeological works, would be prepared for submission to the

local authority in consultation with Historic England (HE).

6.17 The local authority notes paragraph 3.14 of the ES Volume 2 which sets out the

residual effects of the proposed development will have no significant effect on

archaeological interests during the affected stages of the development (construction

and decommissioning), but this is subject to the appropriate measures being secured

through the CoCP. It is the local authority’s view that any comments made in relation

to this by either HE or GLASS in terms of recommended alterations to the DCO to be

accepted by the Examining Authority.


development on the Borough in terms its potential archaeological deposits would be

neutral.

planning

R




April 2016

15

Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing

6.19 Policies 7.6 of the London Plan, Core Policy 30 of the Core Strategy and DMD37 of

the Development Management Document all seek to ensure that new developments

have appropriate regard to their surroundings, and that they improve the environment

in terms of visual and residential amenity.

6.20 Insofar as the impact of the proposed development is concerned with regards to

daylight, sunlight and overshadowing, the context of the existing site is highly

relevant to what, if any, additional impacts will occur. The ES sets out the current

baseline conditions, highlighting that:

- The existing EfW building’s height is 35m above ground in the middle of the

application site, and is the tallest building (on the application site).

- The existing flue stack is 100m above ground.

- The existing in-vessel composting (IVC) facility, incinerator bottom ash

reprocessing plant, bulky waste recycling facility and fuel preparation plant

are located at the north of the site and are all approximately 20m in height.

- The buildings to the south of the EfW building have a maximum height of 6m

and are in a more open setting

6.21 The local authority notes that the ES assessment is based on the maximum built

envelope of the project being constructed, i.e. a worst-case scenario. On this basis,

the maximum height of the proposed ERF would be up to 56.5m above ground and

the proposed stack would be up to 105m above ground.

6.22 The assessment of day daylight, sunlight and overshadowing in the ES uses the

industry standard BRE 209 (2011) Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A

Guide to Good Practice – Second Edition (the BRE Report). This sets out that, for

example, in terms of daylight amenity a window transgresses the BRE Report

guidelines when the proposed Vertical Sky Component (VSC) figure is less than 27%

and the proposed VSC is less than 0.80 times the VSC value in the existing

conditions. Using the Daylight Distribution assessment a room transgresses the BRE

planning

R




April 2016

16

Report guidelines when it experiences a reduction in skylight to 0.80 times the

existing area. In terms of sunlight amen

6.23 ity a window transgresses the BRE Report guidelines when the proposed Annual

Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH) figure is less than 25% or less than 5% during the

winter months and the proposed APSH figure or winter sunlight figure is less than

0.80 times the value in the existing conditions.

6.24 As already noted, principally the surrounding area is commercial not residential. An

ES is required to assess the sunlight and daylight availability and shadow impact

from the proposed development on the surrounding existing properties and on the

surrounding amenity areas. Prior to assessing these, however, the BRE Report sets

out a guideline that in essence screens whether properties or areas need to be fully

considered. This is:

“The guideline is met if the distance of each part of the new development from the

existing windows is 3 or more times its height above the centre of the existing

window, including that obstruction within 90° of due north of assessed windows need

not to be analysed”.

6.25 The local authority notes that Zambezi Drive is the closest residential area to the

boundary of the proposed development, located approximately 310m north-west of

the Edmonton EcoPark. The Montagu Recreation Ground to the north west of the

application site is closest amenity area. Whilst Badma Close lies application 60m to

the west of the red line boundary of the application site, this relates to the Ardra Road

access and not the actual proposed development. On this basis, the impact on the

Badma Close properties has not been assessed as the Zambezie Drive properties

are closer. Also referred to in the ES are properties to the east on Lower Hall Lane,

which lie some 470m from the proposed development. However, as they are located

in the adjoining London Borough of Waltham Forest they are not for consideration in

this LIR.

6.26 Using the BRE Report guideline referred to above, and based on a combination of

the maximum built envelope for the proposed development of the ERF and RRF but

planning

R




April 2016

17

also at stage 2 of the project when the existing EfW facility is continuing to be used,

the following image (source: ES Volume 2 Plate 4.2) indicates the areas that are

within three times the height of the massing of the buildings (indicated in blue) and

three times the height of the stacks (indicated in blue hatch):

6.27 It is clearly evident from this that neither the residential properties nor amenity area to

the north west of the application site would be affected in terms of a loss of or undue

impact of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing in terms of the BRE Report. On this

basis, the ES concludes that the effects on this matter from the proposed

development would be not significant.

6.28 What the ES does not assess, however, is the impact of the development on the

amenity areas of the towpath on the east of the River Lee Navigation. The towpath

was not included as a potential receptor that would affected by the proposed

development. The map above indicates, however, that a small part of the towpath

would be affected in terms of both the height of the stack, and to a lesser extent the

planning

R




April 2016

18

ERF and other buildings. The local authority accepts that the nature of the use of

towpath is different to the other amenity areas referred to, such as the Montague

Recreation Ground. Nonetheless, it is clear from the applicant’s own assessment

that the proposed development wold result in some overshadowing of the towpath,

and, in the absence of the information being provided in the ES in terms of the

baseline conditions (i.e. comparing the proposed to the existing) it is not possible to

quantify the impact. As such, the local authority is concerned that the proposed

development would result in some additional impacts on the daylight, sunlight and

overshadowing of this part of the towpath, which residents of the Borough have

access to and use.


development on the Borough in terms a loss of or undue impact of daylight, sunlight

and overshadowing on existing residential properties and amenity areas would be

negative in terms of the use of the River Lee Navigation towpath to the east of the

application site.

Ecology

6.30 Paragraph 118 the NPPF sets out the principles for conserving and enhancing

biodiversity, which include resisting development that would cause significant harm

that cannot be avoided, mitigated or compensated-for; have an adverse effect on a

Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The NPPF highlights that opportunities to

incorporate biodiversity in and around developments are encouraged. London Plan

Policy 7.19 echoes the need for development proposals to make a positive

contribution to biodiversity, to protect statutory sites, species and habitats, and to

help achieve Biodiversity Action Plan targets. Core Policy 36 and Policy DMD78 of

the Development Management Document require development opportunities,

particular on major sites, to maximise opportunities to improve access to nature.

6.31 The assessment of the impact on ecology in the ES is based on a search radius of

2km from the application site for non-statutory sites and a 10km radius for European

designated sites. The ecological sites potentially affected by the proposed

planning

R




April 2016

19

development range from International to County level, the former being a Ramsar

site, wetlands of international importance, designated under the 1971 Ramsar

Convention. The local authority notes that the ecological sites potentially affected

include:

- At its closest point, approximately 1.5km to the south of the boundary of the

application site boundary the Lee Valley Special Protection Area (SPA) and

Ramsar Site (Walthamstow Reservoirs) are located, and are classified as

being of international value. The Lee Valley SPA is a series of man-made

and semi-natural wetlands and supports bird populations of European

importance over the winter.

- To east of the application boundary site approximately 2.8km at its closest

point is the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC), designated

because it supports habitats of European importance, and classified as being

of international value.

- To the north east of the application site approximately 300m from its

boundary lies the Chingford Reservoirs Site of Special Scientific Interest

(SSSI). These are the William Girling Reservoir which is closest to the

application site and the King George’s Reservoir, and are a major wintering

grounds for wildfowl and wetland birds in the London area. Accordingly,

Chingford Reservoirs SSSI is classified as being of national value

- Located approximately 1.5km to the south of the application site is

Walthamstow Reservoirs SSSI and consists of ten relatively small and

shallow water storage basins within the Lee Valley SPA and Ramsar site.

Walthamstow Reservoirs SSSI is classified as of national value.

- Located approximately 8.5km north of the application site is Turnford and

Cheshunt Pits SSSI and consists of ten former gravel pits. Turnford and

Cheshunt Pits SSSI is classified as of national value.

- The Epping Forest SSSI, the majority of which falls within the Epping Forest

SAC is of national value and is considered in the ES assessment due to the

potential for effects associated with the deposition of nitrogen compounds and

acidity associated with the operation of the proposed development.

planning

R




April 2016

20

- The Lea Valley Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation

(SMINC) is part of the much larger LVRP but a small area of which is located

partly within the application site, and is therefore effected by the proposed

development. The SMIC is a non-statutory site is therefore classified as

being of county value, but is considered in the assessment due to its location

within the application site and the potential for disturbance to bird species

associated with the SMINC.

6.32 There are a number ecological sites referred to in the applicant’s ES but are deemed

to not be effected by the proposed development. These include Ainslie Wood Local

Nature Reserve (LNR) a locally important area of woodland containing a range of

tree species and classified as of county value, located approximately 1.5km to the

east of the application site boundary. The applicant’s ES sets out that due to the

distance from the application site, that there is no potential for disturbance from

noise, lighting or activity, and as such this designated site is not considered further.

Similarly, there are eight other (SINCs) within 2km of the application site that are of

sufficient distance away to ensure there is no potential for disturbance due to noise,

lighting or activity and, therefore, are not considered further in the applicant’s

assessment in the ES.

6.33 The applicant’s ES concludes that with respect to all of the identified ecological sites

there would be no significant effects from the proposed development at its various

stages (construction, operation and decommissioning), subject to the control and

mitigation measures set out in the CoCP being implemented.

6.34 There would, however, be a significant but temporary effect on the Linnet, a bird

species protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), as the

clearance works undertaken to the Temporary Laydown Area in stage 1

(construction) of the proposed development would remove the birds’ nesting habitat.

This clearance and the general disturbance created through stages 1 to 3 would

likely deter birds from nesting within the application site. The ES notes that the at the

end of stage 3 the Temporary Laydown Area would be landscaped and this would

result in a new meadow and planting of scrub and scattered trees around the

planning

R




April 2016

21

perimeter and that the native scrub proposed will provide permanent nesting

opportunities. Accordingly, the ES considers the impact to be a parish scale and to

be significant adverse temporary.

6.35 The measures detailed in the Environmental Commitments and Mitigation Schedule

(ECMS) in relation to tree, hedges and shrub removal outside of nesting season are

welcomed by the local authority.

6.36 The local authority notes the Deadline 2 Written Representation response by the

Environment Agency (EA), in which they comment that have no objection to the

application in principle to the proposed development, but have made a number of

comments in relation to the ecological impacts of it. In particular, the local authority

notes the EA’s view that:

6.37 “We [the EA] welcome the plans to improve and enhance the Enfield Ditch. The

proposal to remove the existing scrub alongside the Enfield Ditch and the creation of

a landscaped riparian buffer zone is acceptable providing it is continuous and planted

with appropriate native species as specified in AD06.02_ES_Vol_2 p118…The

lighting strategy outlined within AD06.02_ES_Vol 1, is appropriate and should ensure

reduced light output from the site and avoid impact on bat corridors. Bat boxes are to

be put in on the site. The development must implement these strategies to ensure

minimised impact on bat communities and maintain a ‘dark corridor’ along the river

channels. This work is detailed within the Environmental Commitments and Mitigation

Schedule (ECMS), AD06.03_ECMS. We wish to see a requirement provided in the

DCO to maintain and enhance the biodiversity along the river corridor along the

following lines. Riparian buffer zone A riparian buffer zone of at least 8 metres must

be maintained along the banks of all of the river / ditch channels that run alongside

the site (Lee Navigation, Salmons Brook and Enfield Ditch). This will ensure that

there is a green corridor of valuable riparian habitat….We would expect to see a

separate reference within the Environmental Commitments and Mitigation Schedule

for the identification and protection of the buffer zone for all main rivers within the site

boundary. Further details should be included for the protection and enhancement

during each stage of the development. The buffer zone should be clear of all built

planning

R




April 2016

22

development including, where feasible, hard standing, access roads and the

abutments for proposed bridges.”

6.38 Accordingly, in order to address the potential issues on this element of ecology as

identified by the EA, it is the local authority’s view that a minimum 8m Riparian buffer

zone is maintained along the banks of all of the Lee Navigation, Salmons Brook and

Enfield Ditch, and that the Environmental Commitments and Mitigation Schedule

should be updated to reflect this position.

6.39 The local authority also notes the EA’s comment that the an Invasive Species

Management Plan is produced (which is a recommendation of the ES) and that the

plan, which should detail the proposed removal or long-term management required to

prevent the spread of invasive species during all stages of development, should

include the temporary laydown area as well as the main part of the application site.

6.40 In relation to the impact on ecology, it is evident that subject to the measures set out

in the CoCP that for the most part these would not be significant, notwithstanding that

there would be a significant amount of vegetation lost from the proposed

development, in particular on the north and east of the site. The impact on the Linnet

is of concern but given the scale of the impact (at a parish level, as opposed to, for

example, international level), and that it would be temporary, overall the local

authority deemed the impact on the Borough from the proposed development on

ecology to be neutral.

Environmental Wind

6.41 The NPPF does not contain policies that explicitly relate to wind microclimate issues,

but it does of course generally advocate the principles of high quality design in terms

of requiring a good environment for people to work and live in. Similarly, the London

Plan, the Core Strategy and Development Management Document all advocate high

quality design as being a key planning policy objective with a view to ensuring the

effects of wind and microclimate do not have an adverse impact on the future users

of a development or the adjacent land and properties too. For this reason, the

planning

R




April 2016

23

Scoping Opinion required that environmental wind be assessed in the ES, and in

particular to take account of the potential for adverse effects on nearby

leisure/recreational users (including Edmonton Sea Cadets) and other users such as

those occupying the Eley Industrial Estate.

6.42 The local authority notes that the ES assessment is based on the maximum built

envelope of the project being constructed, i.e. a worst-case scenario, on the basis

that considering the maximum height of the proposed facilities provides a generally

conservative assessment of local wind conditions as taller buildings tend to

downdraft a larger fraction of the upper level winds. On this basis, the maximum

height of the proposed ERF would be up to 56.5m above ground and the proposed

stack would be up to 105m above ground.

6.43 The ES sets out that the baseline conditions for environmental wind are:

- South-west winds are the most frequent and strongest winds at all times of

the year, blowing from a quadrant centred on west-south-west (240° east of

north). These winds are relatively warm and wet.

- North-east winds are almost as common as the south-west winds during

spring but are weaker. They are often associated with cold dry conditions.

- Winds from the north-west can be as strong as the south-west winds but are

less frequent.

- South-east winds are generally rare and light.

6.44 The assessment in the ES of the environmental wind focuses on when the proposed

development is operational. The ES flags up two areas of potential concern

regarding this, which are:

1. Conditions along the pedestrian route in the passage between the ERF and

cooling condensers would not be suitable for use as a pedestrian route and

access, therefore there would be a significant permanent adverse effect.

planning

R




April 2016

24

2. Conditions along the south-east corner of the ERF would not be suitable for

use as a pedestrian route, therefore there would be a significant permanent

adverse effect.

6.45 In both of these instances, the detailed design stage will set out ‘local mitigation’ to

address these concerns, and on that basis concludes that there will be no significant

effect.

6.46 Outside the application site boundary the ES states that amenity areas to the east

and River Lee Navigation, and the area used by the Edmonton Sea Cadets, would be

in the ‘Standing to Strolling’ range as set out in the Lawson Criteria (the tool used for

describing the acceptability for particular activities in terms of 'comfort' and 'distress'),

therefore the effect on windiness would be not significant. Similarly areas to the west

and north of the application site, including Eley Industrial Estate would not be

affected due to the distance, direction of prevailing winds and geometry of buildings,

the effect on windiness would be not significant.

6.47 On the basis that the environmental wind effects would be a) limited in scope to two

small areas within the application site boundaries and that the impacts of these can

be, to some extent, mitigated through a design solution which would be developed at

a later date and b) the adjoining and adjacent areas would not experience any

adverse effects, it is the local authority’s view that the impact of the proposed

development on the Borough this respect would be neutral.

Ground Conditions and Contamination

6.48 Paragraph 109 of the NPPF recognises that there is a role for the planning in

the remediation and mitigation of derelict and contaminated land. Furthermore,

the National Planning Practice Guidance advises that the planning system should

ensure that a site is suitable for its new use and prevent unacceptable risk from

pollution, and states that as a minimum land should not be capable of being

determined as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act

1990. Reference is also made to the EU Water Framework Directive. London Plan

planning

R




April 2016

25

Policy 5.21 Contaminated Land requires appropriate measures to be taken to ensure

that the redevelopment of contaminated land does not activate or spread the

contamination. Core Policy 32 and Policy DMD66 of the Development Management

Document seek to address the risks arising from the reuse of brownfield sites to

ensure its use does not result in significant harm to human health or the environment.

6.49 The ES assesses the impacts of the construction, operation and decommissioning

effects of ground conditions of the proposed development on contamination and

groundwater receptors. Salmon’s Brook is included as a receptor as it is hydraulically

connected to groundwater aquifers within the application site. However, other

surface water bodies in the vicinity of, but not in, the application site are assessed in

the Water Resources and Flood Risk section of the ES.

6.50 Paragraph 7.1.4 of the ES states that the scoping assessment (undertaken at pre-

application stage) did not find any unacceptable risks to human health construction

from the operational and decommissioning effects of ground conditions and

contamination and that “…no significant construction, operational or

decommissioning effects on human health receptors are therefore likely and human

health receptors have not been considered further in this assessment.” This was

accepted by the local authority as part of their Phase 2 consultation response.

6.51 The local authority did, however, raise concern with the potential impact of piling on

the London Clay as this is important as a barrier to prevent surface contamination

from reaching the chalk aquifer. The applicant’s ES confirms in response to this that

a Piling Risk Assessment has been completed and is included (at Vol 2 Appendix

7.3). The ES also confirms that a Piling Method Statement will be prepared before

any piling works are undertaken and that this would be agreed with the EA.

However, as set out in the Deadline 2 Written Representations, in terms of the

potential for excavation works the local authority is concerned that the Limits of

Deviation set out in the draft DCO, i.e. where there is no downwards limit. As such, it

is the local authority’s view that a limit must be imposed through the DCO process.

planning

R




April 2016

26

6.52 The ES concludes that the effects of the proposed development during construction

and operation will not be significant with regards to ground conditions and

contamination. This conclusion is based on a combination of implementation of

CoCP measures, design mitigation, measures from the Piling Method Statement,

controlled demolition methodology and design developed in consultation with the EA,

and a Decommissioning and Demolition Method Statement to be developed in

consultation with the EA and the latest environmental measures and guidance at the

time of decommissioning. The local authority’s Environmental Health Officer has

reviewed the assessment in the ES of the impact of the proposed development upon

contamination and confirmed that it is acceptable in terms of protecting the Borough,

commenting that:

“Contamination can be adequately managed at each stage of the development and I

do not foresee any risk to human health from the development. The Environment

Agency will likely want to agree methods for piling to protect controlled waters.”

6.53 Accordingly, accordingly, it is the local authority’s view that the impact of the

proposed development on the Borough in terms of contamination and ground water

would be neutral.

Noise and Vibration

6.54 London Plan Policy 7.15 sets out criteria by which development proposals should

manage noise. These can be summarised as avoiding adverse noise impacts on

health and quality of life as a result of new development; mitigating and minimising

potential adverse noise impacts upon new development; improving the acoustic

environment; separating new noise sensitive development from major noise sources

or, where separation is not possible, apply good acoustic design principles; and to

promote new technologies/improved practices to reduce noise at source. Policy

DMD68 of the Development Management Document states that development that

would generate or would be exposed to an unacceptable level of noise will not be

permitted. Where permissible, developments must be sensitively designed,

managed and operated to reduce exposure to noise and noise generation. Particular

planning

R




April 2016

27

regard should be given to the following matters such as building design, layout of

rooms, positioning of building services, landscaping sound insulation, hours of

operation and deliveries.

6.55 The ES assesses the noise and vibration effects of the proposed development in

relation to construction and operational traffic, and operational plant. The local

authority notes that the ES a construction noise assessment for the Temporary

Laydown Area and a construction vibration assessment which was not set out in the

Scoping Report at pre-application stage. The local authority did set out, however,

that their standard requirement is that noise form any plant must be 10dB below the

lowest measured background level during operational hours, noting that given the

distance between the site and the residential properties that this should be

achievable. The ES acknowledges this but comments that “these criteria are subject

to ongoing discussions and agreement has not yet been reached. In all other

respects they are satisfied with the information contained within the PEIR and the

proposed methodologies for detailed assessment at the ES stage.”

6.56 The local authority’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the assessment in

the ES of the impact of the proposed development upon noise and vibration and

confirmed that it is acceptable in terms of protecting the Borough, commenting that:

“In terms of noise the construction noise will be controlled through a Section 61

Agreement between LB Enfield and the constructor; the assessment makes a

preliminary assessment that the noise from construction will not be significant.

Considering the distance between the site and the nearest receptor, this is likely to

be the case. Operational noise will be subject to the terms of the environmental

permit needed to operate the site and this will be decided by the Environment

Agency, although we have previously stated our preferred criteria for operational

noise. Traffic noise due to the development will not have an impact upon residential

properties considering the location and distance.”


development on the Borough in terms of noise and vibration would be neutral.

planning

R




April 2016

28

Socio-Economics

6.58 At the heart of the NPPF is, of course, the commitment to and need to balance the

three roles of planning, being economic, social and environmental, where none of

which should be carried out in isolation because they are mutually dependent and the

gains in each should be sought jointly and simultaneously; and the pursuit of

sustainable development which includes improving the conditions in which people

live, work, travel and take leisure. The NPPF notes the Government’s commitment

to securing economic growth, jobs and prosperity to meet global competition and a

low carbon future; and, that supporting sustainable economic growth and that

economic growth should be given significant weight in planning decisions.

Paragraph 21 states that existing business sectors and their expansion are to be

supported.

6.59 The socio-economic effects of the construction, operation and decommissioning of

the proposed development assessed in the ES relate to the employment, which

includes relevant opportunities for local people, and the Edmonton Sea Cadets. The

local authority notes the applicant’s comment that on the basis that the LondonWaste

Limited (LWL) fleet depot is to be retained and will remain operational on-site

throughout the project, the impact on the depot in terms of employment has been

judged to be negligible and therefore this has not been included in the ES

assessment.

6.60 Currently, there are approximately 193 full time equivalent employees on the

Edmonton EcoPark, with the existing EfW facility accounting for approximately 96 of

these. The remainder cover a range of other site operations and or the management

of LWL and the Edmonton EcoPark as a whole. It is noted that the park operates 24

hours a day, seven days a week (and would continue to do so).

6.61 The existing wharf located on the River Lee Navigation is currently leased by the

Edmonton Sea Cadets. The ES notes that typical usage of the wharf is two evenings

per week and is currently accessed through the application site. The wharf is also

planning

R




April 2016

29

used by a number of other cadet groups from the adjoining boroughs of Haringey and

Waltham Forest but this is on an occasion, rather than regular, basis.

6.62 In relation to employment, the ES states that a quantitative assessment of

employment effects from construction of the proposed development has been

undertaken at the Greater South East level (London, South East and East of

England, and for the UK, and that the “assessment considers construction

employment effects for Stages 1, 2 and 3 of the Project as a whole and comprised a

calculation of full-time equivalent employees (FTE) employment based on the capital

expenditure of the Project.” (Paragraph 9.3.9). The ES then refers to the CoCP

which sets out a range of measures that will be needed to manage and mitigate

impacts from the proposed development, with an assessment of the opportunities

required for this being based on a qualitative assessment of the skills and training

opportunities needed. Similarly, the ES also notes that a qualitative assessment of

effects on the Edmonton Sea Cadets has been undertaken, which includes an

assessment of the changes associated with the existing facilities, such as any

potential disruption to the Edmonton Sea Cadets functions and proposed alternative

facilities, and baseline socioeconomic conditions.

6.63 In terms of new employment opportunities, the principal means of this is clearly the

various stages associated with the construction of the proposed development, which

includes demolition etc of the existing facility. The ES estimates at paragraphs 9.7.1

to 9.7.3 that:

- The construction of the Project is expected to support a total of approximately

2,623 FTE net additional jobs across the UK comprising around 971 FTE net

additional direct construction jobs and 1,651 FTE indirect and induced

employment jobs.

- Of the total net additional construction jobs, around 1,311 FTE net additional

jobs are expected to be located at the Greater South East level.

- Around 486 of those FTE jobs are expected to be net additional direct

construction jobs and an estimated 826 FTE jobs are expected to arise

planning

R




April 2016

30

through indirect and induced effects based on the net additional direct

construction jobs.

- Given the timeframe of the construction process, the number of FTE jobs

does not give an indication of the peak level of employment on the Application

Site. Rather, it gives a more rounded indication of the employment effects on

a comparable basis with on-going employment effects. The estimated

average direct employment on-site per construction year is approximately

1,766.

6.64 The ES refers again to the accompanying CoCP, where this document commitments

the applicant to require that the contractor will employ:

“…an appropriately qualified and suitably experienced workforce. The Contractor will

be responsible for identifying the training needs of their personnel to enable

appropriate training to be provided and engaging suitably qualified and experienced

professionals for this purpose. Employment policies relating to opportunities for skills

and training opportunities would be in line with LB Enfield policies.” (Paragraph 9.7.5)

6.65 Once the proposed development becomes operation, the ES sets out that the

applicant estimates that it would support a total of approximately 229 FTEs in the UK

generally, but that 197 FTEs would be at the local level, with 153 operational jobs

directly linked to the project. The project, therefore, would result in a net reduction of

around 52 FTE jobs at the local level, with this reduction in direct employment being

due to “improvements in the proposed ERF compared to the existing EfW facility,

such as operational efficiency and a reduced requirement for maintenance.” Of the

operational jobs supported by the project, these will include “managerial and

specialist positions associated with the ERF, as well as maintenance, transport,

administration and support staff.” The ES notes that the potential for local people to

access employment opportunities will be expected to be similar to the baseline

conditions in terms of the range of skills required, and also confirms that that

employment policies relating to opportunities for skills and training opportunities

would be in line with LB Enfield policies, albeit without direct reference to Enfield’s

s106 SPD (or emerging SPD) which would be required as per Deadline 2 Written

planning

R




April 2016

31

Representations. Whilst negotiations on this point are ongoing, the ES and

documentations surrounding the DCO should make explicit reference to these

documents.

6.66 Whilst it is likely to be the case that the range of skills required as part of the

operation of the facility once it is up and running will be similar to the current

situation, the ES does confirm that there would be a net reduction in jobs required.

This reduction is on local jobs (indeed, existing local jobs) and therefore this aspect

of the project would have a negative impact on the Borough. It is noted, however,

that the central area of the Edmonton EcoPark would become available once the

existing EfW facility is demolished, and therefore the applicant highlights that this

could potentially be used for other employment generating uses, most likely waste

management related. This potential positive impact is noted by the local authority but

it does not form part of the proposed development and in any event is by no means

certain in terms of delivery; accordingly, it falls outside of the scope of the

assessment of this report.

6.67 In terms of the Edmonton Sea Cadets, the ES sets out that there would be a range of

effects on their activities, both temporary during the construction and upon operation

associated with the new facility. The ES sets out the following:

- The Edmonton Sea Cadets would be temporarily relocated to appropriate

facilities within the Edmonton EcoPark during construction. During Stage 1,

the Edmonton Sea Cadets would be relocated to EfW facility meeting rooms

for a temporary period of approximately two years.

- Their equipment would be stored in a container located at the front of the EfW

facility and boats would be relocated to an alternative Edmonton Sea Cadets

facility on-site.

- During this two year period Edmonton Sea Cadets access to the water would

be restricted. The Edmonton Sea Cadets would continue to follow safe and

secure access routes shared with site staff. The operating hours of the

Edmonton Sea Cadets would not be altered in relation to the construction of

the Project.

planning

R




April 2016

32

- Access would be retained during temporary relocation and measures to

ensure safe and secure access shared with site staff would be implemented

through the CoCP.

6.68 During this two year period, therefore, the activities of the Edmonton Sea Cadets

would be limited to building-based activities but water access via the application site

would be restricted and therefore water activities would need to be relocated off-site

for example at alternative facilities in the local area. This would similarly affect the

other Sea Cadets within the local area that use the facility.

6.69 On the basis that the Edmonton Sea Cadets would be able to continue to function as

usual for the majority of the construction period, with a limitation on water-based

activities restricted at the application site for a period of two years – meaning that

alternative facilities most likely in the Lee Valley Regional Park would be needed to

be found (of which there are a number of options) – the ES concludes that the effect

on the Edmonton Sea Cadets from construction would be ‘minor adverse’, but overall

to be not significant.

6.70 The proposed development includes the provision of the EcoPark House building, a

two-storey building used to accommodate visitor, community and education centre

with offices, and a base for the Edmonton Sea Cadets which would include a launch

into the River Lee Navigation. Within EcoPark House a new facility would be

provided for the Edmonton Sea Cadets with continued access to the wharf area; and

also parking space for a minibus (a requirement for the Edmonton Sea Cadets). The

ES advises that the Edmonton Sea Cadets have been involved in the development of

the proposals for their relocation during construction and their subsequent part

occupation of EcoPark House on-site.

6.71 The ES highlights that the new EcoPark House would be a modern and enhanced

facility for the benefit of the Edmonton Sea Cadets, and, would also be available for

other community activities, visitor and Project information and LWL office

requirements. The ES therefore classifies this effect as beneficial but overall not

significant.

planning

R




April 2016

33

6.72 Clearly, the job creation that the project would create during the lifetime of the

construction would be significant and would benefit the local economic. It would,

however, be temporary, and therefore its effects are tempered by this. As the local

authority’s Deadline 2 Written Representations sets out, the employment

opportunities will need to be identified and secured in accordance with the provisions

of the Council’s adopted Section 106 SPD (currently 2011 with a revised document

due to be adopted in Spring 2016). In terms of operational jobs linked directly to the

proposed development when complete, the net reduction in these will have a

negative impact to those employees effected and to the overall local economy, but as

the ES states the difference to the baseline employment situation would not be

significant and therefore this cannot be considered to have a negative effect on the

Borough overall. The temporary adverse impact on the Sea Cadets through the

restricted access to water-based activities is also noted, but this is for a limited time

of two years and alterative facilities are available. When juxtaposed with the benefits

of the new modern facility at EcoPark House, this temporary adverse impact is

considered to be limited. Given all of this, overall, the impact on the Borough in

terms of socio-economic effects is judged to be neutral subject to employment and

training opportunities being secured via s106 obligations and in accordance with the

Section 106 SPD (including the emerging document). Discussions on this matter are

currently ongoing.

Transport

6.73 The NPPF sets out the overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable

development through the planning system. It emphasises the importance of reducing

the need to travel, and encouraging public transport provision to secure new

sustainable patterns of transport use. Paragraph 29 of the NPPF states that

transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable

development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives.

Smarter use of technologies can reduce the need to travel. The transport system

needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real

choice about how they travel. Paragraph 33 of the NPPF states that all

developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported

planning

R




April 2016

34

by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Plans and decisions should take

account of whether:

- the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up

depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major

transport infrastructure;

- safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and

- improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost

effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. The NPPF is clear

that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds

where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

6.74 The London Plan Policies 6.3, 6.9 and 6.13 seek to regulate parking in order to

minimise additional car travel, reduce trip lengths and encourage use of other, more

sustainable means of travel. The Parking Addendum to Chapter 6 of The London

Plan sets out maximum parking standards for new development dependent upon

their use and level of public transport accessibility.

6.75 The local authority has already made detailed comments on the Transport

Assessment in the Deadline 2 Written Representation. Further to this representation,

the local authority can advise that a meeting has taken place between the applicant

and the authority’s highways officers on 31/03/16. This meeting clarified issues

relating to Schedules 4-9 and highways officers have since updated their position,

stating that they are:

“…satisfied with the proposed highway works as set out in the DCO, specifically

Schedules 4-9.”


development on the Borough in terms of transport and highways matters would be

neutral subject to a Section 106 Agreement relating to highways mitigation

measures. Such discussions are currently ongoing.

planning

R




April 2016

35

Water Resources and Flood Risk

6.77 The NPPF states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should

be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where

development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere

(para 100). Paragraph 103 of the NPPF states that, when determining planning

applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased

elsewhere. London Plan Policy 5.12 Flood Risk Management states that

development proposals must have regard to measures proposed in Catchment

Flood Management Plans. London Plan Policy 5.13, Core Policy 28 and Policy

DMD62 of the Development Management Document seek to achieve greenfield

rainwater run-off rates from new development through the integration and

deployment of sustainable urban drainage systems. The objective is to help restore a

more natural response to rainfall within river catchments, and to address/prevent

localised surface water flooding. London Plan Policy 5.13 sets out a hierarchy of

sustainable drainage measures, with the aim of managing surface water run-off as

close to source as possible. Policy 5.11 Green Roofs and Development Site Environs

calls for major developments to incorporate green roofs where feasible and Policy

5.15 Water Use and Supplies identifies rainwater harvesting as one of the methods

that can help to conserve potable water. Policy DMD55 of the Development

Management Document seeks to ensure that new-build developments, and all major

development, will be required to use all available roof space and vertical surfaces for

the installation of low zero carbon technologies, green roofs, and living walls subject

to technical and economic feasibility and other relevant planning considerations.

Policy DMD62 of the Development Management Document sets out that a Drainage

Strategy will be required for all developments to demonstrate how proposed

measures manage surface water as close to its source as possible and follow the

drainage hierarchy in the London Plan, emphasising that all developments must

maximise the use of and, where possible, retrofit Sustainable Drainage Systems

(SuDS) which meet the requirements listed in the policy.

6.78 The ES sets out the impact of the proposed development upon water resources and

flood risk, noting that an impact leading change on the water environment can lead to

planning

R




April 2016

36

the a higher chance of flood risk both in the application site itself and the land

surrounding it. The site is, of course, surround on three of its site boundaries by a

number of watercourses. These include the River Lee Navigation to the east of the

application site and in the adjoining Le Valley Regional Park. To the west of William

Girling the River Lee (also known as the Lee New Cut) flows parallel to the Lee

Navigation. Enfield Ditch, a main river, runs partly within and partly outside the

application site on its eastern boundary, again running parallel with the River Lee

Navigation and then along the southern boundary of the Edmonton EcoPark. Enfield

Ditch is ephemeral and is often dry or with little flow suggesting that it does not

receive significant inflows from groundwater accordingly to the applicant’s

Hydrogeological Risk Assessment. To the west of the site is Salmon’s Brook. It is

noted that the Deephams STW outflow channel flows into Salmon’s Brook

immediately north of the application site.

6.79 The application site is located primarily in the inner and partly in the outer zones

(Zone 1 and 2) of an EA designated Source Protection Zone for groundwater sources

to Public Water Supply (PWS). In terms of flood risk, the ES states that the EA’s

Flood Risk maps indicate that the site is in a combination Flood Zones 1 and 2. The

majority of the site falls into the former, with the central area falling within the latter,

as well as the Temporary Laydown Area (entirely located within Flood Zone 2). The

Flood Zone 2 areas, therefore, are at risk during an extreme fluvial flood (the 0.1 per

cent Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) event, i.e. 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000 year

event for flooding from a river).

6.80 In relation to the construction, operation and then decommissioning stages of the

project, the local authority notes the conclusions of the ES that there will be no

significant effects on water resources or flood risk, subject to the applicant

undertaking the measures committed to in the CoCP and the requirements of the

FRA. Clearly, to a large extent, as part of their regulatory role the EA will be

responsible for ensuring that proposed development does not result in water

resource or flood risk impacts. The local authority notes that, separate to this

application for a DCO, that an Environmental Permit is required under the

Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (as amended).

planning

R




April 2016

37

Furthermore, that a ‘Flood Defence Consent’ (FDC) for any works in, under, over or

within 8 metres of the top of bank of any watercourse designated as a ‘main river’ as

per the requirements of the Water Resources Act 1991 (as amended) and the

Thames Land Drainage Byelaws 1981 will need to be applied by the applicant, and

this could relate to any and all of Salmon’s Brook, Enfield Ditch and the River Lee

Navigation.

6.81 The local authority notes the Deadline 2 Written Representation response by the EA,

in which they comment that have no objection to the application in principle to the

proposed development, but at this time have some outstanding concerns. However,

the EA’s view is that they are confident these concerns can be resolved through their

ongoing discussions with the applicant.

6.82 In relation to flood risk, the EA note that part of the site that lie in Flood Zone 3 (the 1

in 100 year flood event). This is, presumably, the River Lee Navigation area of the

site. Notwithstanding this, the local authority notes that the EA have reviewed the

submitted FRA October 2015 and considers that “the document to comply with the

requirements of the National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1), the National

Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Planning Practice Guidance and

represent an accurate assessment of the flood risks on site.” This endorsement by

the EA is welcomed by the local authority, as is that the confirmation that their new

guidance, Flood risk assessments: climate change allowances, was published on

19th February 2016 and supports the implementation of the NPPF, dos not materially

affect the assessment and findings of the existing FRA, which remain valid and can

continue to be used to support the application.

6.83 In relation to the groundwater source protection zone (SPZ1), the local authority

notes that the EA are satisfied with the principles of the remedial options submitted to

deal with the risks to controlled waters posed by contamination at this site, but that

they require changes to the DCO to ensure that risks are appropriately addressed

prior to development commencing. The local authority would therefore echo these

concerns, and also refer back to paragraph 6.51 of this report where the issue of the

downwards Limit of Deviation is raised.

planning

R




April 2016

38

6.84 The local authority’s Phase 2 consultation response as part of the pre-application

acknowledged that a flood risk assessment will be submitted with the application and

will be commented upon by the EA, but stressed that the FRA will should reflect the

need to maximise the potential for SuDS being adopted within the development. The

Local Authority’s Relevant Representations and Written Representations have both

made reference to the concern in relation to the relationship of the Temporary

Laydown Area as a component of the flood relief strategy for the regeneration of

Meridian Water and proposals for its reinstatement.

6.85 The local authority notes that the FRA includes a Preliminary Surface Water

Drainage Strategy. This sets out that:

“A preliminary Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) selection assessment has

been undertaken to assess the suitability of various SuDS with respect to the

Application Site constraints, as well as quality, quantity, ecological and amenity

benefits and the opportunity to combine various SuDS techniques to produce a

recognised management/treatment train solution. Finally, a preliminary SuDS

drainage strategy for the Application Site has been determined, which can

subsequently be used as the basis for detailed drainage design at the appropriate

time.” (Source: FRA Appendix C)

6.86 The Council’s SuDS Team have been consulted on the DCO application and

reviewed the relevant document. They have provided the following comments in

relation to the applicant’s Preliminary Surface Water Drainage Strategy:

“The concept proposed does not maximise above ground features (such as

permeable paving, swales, rain gardens), which would significantly improve the water

quality discharged into the Enfield Ditch. There is scope to minimise the size of the

underground storage tanks (and possibly the amount of oil interceptors) in

maximising these features. We agreed that a liner can be used for above ground

features to prevent infiltration to the aquifer and contamination. We discussed that

the triangular area of land on the east side of the site could potentially be re-

landscaped as a wetland feature and detention basin to serve a drainage purpose.

planning

R




April 2016

39

What are the reasons for this option not being explored? Discharge onto permeable

paving can manage silt on the surface before discharge into tanks, and is favourable

in terms of maintenance regimes. To confirm, the proposed permeable paving is

shown to be located above tanks 2 and 3? Will the water that drains into tanks 2 and

3 be draining through the permeable paving first? Are there other areas where

permeable paving can be used that have not been identified in the report?

- The green and brown roof plan is acceptable in concept

- To confirm, will the limited discharge rate into Enfield Ditch be Greenfield- 168

L/s?

- We agree that the temporary lay down areas should utilise above ground

SuDS (and infiltration if possible), with scope for not using below ground

features. This requires a preliminary drainage strategy. If swales, rain

gardens and ponds are used in these areas (without below ground features)

we would prefer if the current land is not reinstated once the area is no longer

needed as a temporary lay down. We are happy to engage in further

conversations on this.”

6.87 The Councils SuDS Team are have also made the following comments

- The SuDS Strategy must follow the SuDS management train by providing a

number of treatment phases corresponding to their pollution potential and the

environmental sensitivities of the locality; this will help prevent silt build up in

underground tanks.

- The discharge / run-off rate has not been agreed. The discharge rate should

be based on a runoff rate of 5 L/s/Ha in line with the London Plan. The

discharge rate into Enfield Ditch has not been agreed with LBE, and as the

river is owned by the EA, the discharge rate must also be agreed with them

too. Comments were sent on the Preliminary Drainage Strategy in October

2015, outlining that the strategy did not fully address all of our SuDS

requirements. Some information is therefore pending, and includes

clarification on the discharge rates off site.

planning

R




April 2016

40

6.88 The Councils SuDS Team, therefore, of the view that that the overall drainage

proposals are not acceptable without any response from the applicant on the

comments they have made as set out above. Specifically, they are object to the

Temporary Laydown Area SuDS Strategy on the basis that insufficient detail has

been provided at this stage to give them confidence that it will meet the relevant

planning policy and other objectives. Furthermore, it is their view that the Temporary

Laydown Area is not reinstated to grassland if the applicant intends to utilise above

ground and infiltration SuDS.

6.89 In addition to the above, as referred to in the local authority’s Relevant

Representations and commented on in detail in the Written Representations, there is

a significant concern in relation to the proposed development relates to the

compatibility of the use of the Temporary Laydown Area as part of the Meridian

Water regeneration proposals. This land is identified in section 6.6 of the Meridian

Water Masterplan as reconfigured open space and potential compensatory flood

storage associated with the wider development proposals. The local authority

recognise that the Temporary Laydown Area is very important to the overall delivery

of the project and therefore accept that during the course of the construction phases

of the proposed development that it will not be accessible or able to be used in

association with the Meridian Water proposals. However, in recognition of the

strategic objectives associated with the delivery of the regeneration of the Meridian

Water site – these being set out at a regional level in the London Plan and Upper Lee

Valley Opportunity Area Planning Framework and at a local level in the Core Strategy

and emerging Central Leeside Area Action Plan – it is the local authority’s firm view

that there must be a commitment as part of the final DCO that reinstatement of the

land to ensure that when the lay down area is no longer required takes place in

accordance with a scheme that is submitted to and approved by them. The exact

nature of the reinstatement works will need to be judged at that time based on the

needs of the delivery of the wider Meridian Water regeneration proposals, but, being

mindful of the potential need for flood storage/open space being progressed must not

preclude this. As a consequence, the local authority respectfully requests that an

additional requirement be inserted to the DCO that will require the reinstatement of

planning

R




April 2016

41

the Temporary Laydown Area. Suggested wording for the amendments to the DCO

are set out in Appendix A.

6.90 In terms of overall impact on flood risk and water resources on the Borough that,

noting the conclusions of the ES and the EA’s Written Representation response, that

no undue harm will occur subject to the appropriate mitigation etc measure being

undertaken. There is the potential, however, for a undesirable impact to arise by the

incorrect approach being undertaken by the application in relation to SuDS as part of

the overall strategy for the Temporary Laydown Area and the current lack of

commitment for the reinstatement of the area to be associated with the flood storage

needs for the Meridian Water regeneration proposals; therefore, the local authority

consider that although this would be limited to a modest geographical area and that

the effects would not be far-reaching, it would nonetheless have a negative impact on

the Borough.

Interactive Effects

6.91 The assessment of interactive effects is to establish whether one receptor is subject

to multiple effects from different topics, i.e. whether the effect occurs in isolation or

interacts with other effects on that receptor. This assessment is required by

Schedule 4, Part 1 of the EIA Regulations.

6.92 The applicant’s ES states that the interactive effects for the sensitive human,

ecological and water receptors in the vicinity of the application have been assessed

and that “There are no receptors predicted to experience a significant effect in

relation to more than one topic.” (Paragraph 12.1.3).

6.93 The local authority notes this conclusion and has no reason to dispute it.

Accordingly, in terms of interactive effects it is clear that the proposed development

would have a neutral impact upon the Borough.

Visual assessment

planning

R




April 2016

42

6.94 In terms of the relevant national planning policies that set out the importance of

design and the visual impact of new development, the NPPF emphasise that:

- The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built

environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is

indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making

places better for people. (Para 56)

- It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and

inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and

private spaces and wider area development schemes. (Para 57)

- Although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are

very important factors, securing high quality and inclusive design goes

beyond aesthetic considerations. Therefore, planning policies and decisions

should address the connections between people and places and the

integration of new development into the natural, built and historic

environment. (Para 61)

6.95 Similarly, the London Plan, the Core Strategy and Development Management

Document all advocate high quality design as being a key planning policy objective

with a view to ensuring the effects of wind and microclimate do not have an adverse

impact on the future users of a development or the adjacent land and properties too.

In particular, London Plan Policy 7.4B states, inter alia, that all development

proposals should have regard to the local context, contribute to a positive relationship

between the urban landscape and natural features, be human in scale, make a

positive contribution and should be informed by the historic environment. The

London Plan Policy 7.6 states, inter alia, that all development proposals should be of

the highest architectural quality, which complement the local architectural character

and be of an appropriate proportion, composition, scale and orientation. The

application site’s location adjacent to the Metropolitan Green Belt is also of note and

therefore the regional (Policy 7.16 of the London Plan) and local planning policies

(Policy 33 of the Core Strategy and Policy DMD83 of the Development Management

Document).

planning

R




April 2016

43

6.96 The visual assessment of the proposed development is set out in the ES Volume 3

and “describes the nature of existing views within the surrounding area as

experienced by visual receptors and examines the beneficial and adverse effects on

these receptors resulting from the Project during construction, operation and

decommissioning.” The ES notes that on the basis that the existing waste

management facility including its building and stack dominate the immediate and

wider area that the visual assessment does not include an assessment on townscape

character. The assessment, rather, limited to individuals and/or groups of people

who might be affected by the proposed development, i.e. the visual receptors.

6.97 The ES confirms that the visual assessment methodology has been informed by

industry best-practice guidance, in particular:

- Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd Edition

(GLVIA);

- Advice Note 01/11 Photography and Photomontages in Landscape and

Visual Impact Assessment 2.

6.98 The areas assessed in the ES is determined by the extent of the Zone of Theoretical

Visibility (ZTV). The radius of the ZTV has been set 2km from the application site on

the basis that any significant effects are only expected to arise within that distance in

terms of the physical components or changes caused by the proposed development.

The applicant states at paragraph 1.3.5 and 1.3.6:

“Beyond the 2km radius the Project would gradually become less prominent within

the view as other structural features such as tall residential buildings, pylons and

industrial buildings can be seen in the foreground of the views. Representative

viewpoints from sensitive receptors have been selected within the 2km radius of the

ZTV.

All viewpoints selected represent the view from recreational and/or residential

receptors, which have a high susceptibility to change and are therefore likely to have

a high sensitivity to change.”

planning

R




April 2016

44

6.99 The local authority note that two separate ZTV maps have been produced by the

applicant in the ES: one which covers just the proposed development of just the

buildings and one which focuses on the visual impact of the stack.

6.100 As with the other parts of the assessment, the ES sub-divides into the construction,

operation and decommissioning elements of the proposed development. Within the

construction phase of the proposed development, a large number of the selected

viewpoints would be effected, with the ES classifying the extent of the effect as

significant adverse but temporary because they are related to the construction

activities on the site.

6.101 In terms of the plume, as noted above the local authority supports the use of an air

cooled condenser system that produces no visible plume. The local authority notes,

however, that a plume would be created via one of two technologies being

considered for the Flue Gas Treatment (FGT) for the ERF, being either a wet or

combined system. The local authority notes that a wet FGT with no reheat has been

assumed as it presents the worst-case in terms of the height and frequency of a

visible stack plume, and that plume visibility depends on ambient meteorological

conditions, i.e. air temperature and humidity, as well as flue gas humidity and

temperature. However, of greatest concern to the local authority is that the ES sets

out that the ERF is likely to generate a visible plume for some periods of the year.

Given the proximity of the site to the major regeneration development of Meridian

Water as referred to above, it is the local authority’s view that the visibility of the

plume must be kept to a minimum.

6.102 Of the 20 views considered in the ES (covering views from existing receptors and

future receptor viewpoints such as Meridian Water) there are a number that would

experience a noticeable change. These include Viewpoint 2: View north-west from

Lee Valley Public Right of Way (PRoW) and National Cycle Network Route 1 north of

A406 North Circular Road; Viewpoint 7: View south-east from Montagu Recreation

Ground; Viewpoint 8: View south from Pickett’s Lock; Viewpoint 11: View north-east

from Tottenham Marshes.

planning

R




April 2016

45

6.103 The applicant’s wireframe views of these as set out in the ES are shown at stage 2 of

the proposed development when both the existing EfW facility and the proposed ERF

would be operating at the same time. The applicant highlights that whilst this stage is

expected to last for around six months, it has nonetheless been assessed for a full

year as a worst case assessment. The wireframe views referred to above are

classified by the applicant as either having a minor adverse or moderate adverse on

the basis that the extent of the site coverage from both facilities along with both flues

operating would have the potential to cause the greatest visual impact. These are, in

essence, the worst case views. However, as this stage of the development would

only be temporary for a period of six to 12 months, the applicant has judged the

impact to be not significant.

6.104 After the existing EfW has been decommissioned and removed, the visual

assessment focuses on how the proposed development will be perceived from the

identified viewpoints. The ES notes that from a number of the viewpoints the

proposed ERF building will “be noticeably larger than the existing EfW facility building

(which would have been demolished)” but that any visual impact will largely be

mitigated by a) screening of the building by way of either vegetation and or other

smaller buildings within the proposed development (e.g. EcoPark House) and b) the

effect will be reduced because of the industrial setting and surroundings in which the

new buildings will sit in.

6.105 Broadly speaking, and reflecting the Deadline 2 Written Representation responses,

the local authority does not consider that the proposed development would cause

visual harm to the wider area. The conclusions of the ES assessment that the

construction and decommissioning activities would result in some adverse impacts

but that these would be temporary and that the impacts of the scheme when in

operation would not be significant overall are noted and agreed with.

6.106 Of greater importance is the detailed design approach undertaken by the applicant.

In this regard, paragraph 1.7.70 of the ES Volume 3 is of particular note:

planning

R




April 2016

46

“On the basis of the Design Code Principles which provide a commitment to a high

quality design and the use of light colour materials on the stack and upper facades of

the ERF, we have considered that the new buildings would be more aesthetically

pleasing than the existing EfW facility. However, it is acknowledged that in a number

of the views the ERF would increase the bulk and scale of built form present within

the view. Therefore, taking these together our assessment has concluded that no

significant adverse effects would occur during this stage.”

6.107 Whilst in general the local authority supports much of what is in the Design Codes

Principles, there is concern that the emphasis is on cost rather than quality; for

example, the requirement in Section 2.3 of the Design Codes Principles that

materials be “sensitive to the local environmental conditions and surrounding” is

expressed as a secondary requirement rather than being on even basis with the

requirement for low cost and maintenance. Such wording could entail a situation

where the quality of the materials for the proposed development is compromised as

the other factors referred to take precedence, and this would then have a negative

impact on the overall quality of the scheme.

6.108 The local authority’s Deadline 2 Written Representations set out concerns with the

submitted plans in relation to the Limits of Deviation. In terms of the height of the

ERF building, as noted above this would be a maximum of 56.5m. This is indicated

on Drawing C_0003 Rev 00, which indicates the height of the ground on which the

building will be based on, expressed as Above Ordnance Datum (AOD), and then the

subsequent height of the buildings. However, the subsequent plans that relate to the

RRF and EcoPark House do not have similar reference measures – i.e. no ground

height is listed, and so an accurate representation of the heights of these building is

not clear. This poses serious concerns regarding the potential heights of these

buildings.

6.109 Furthermore, and again as set out in the Deadline 2 Written Representation, the local

authority has significant concerns regarding the associated development that would

support the main buildings and to what extent this, or rather is not, captured in the

Limits of Deviation plans. The local authority is concerned that the absence of clearly

defined parameters may serve to undermine and increase the impact of development

planning

R




April 2016

47

on the sensitivities of the surrounding area including, in particular the land designated

as Green Belt, and further serve to undermine relevant mitigation strategies including

landscaping.

6.110 A further concern as already expressed by the local authority but reiterated here is

the impact on the visual amenity of the development at stage 4 of the project, i.e.

when the existing EfW facility has been removed. As is set out in the ES

assessment, the visual benefit to the area will be, on the whole, beneficial as the

most significant visual impacts occurs when both the existing EfW and new ERF are

both present on the site. However, following the demolition of the EfW the proposed

development indicates that the space where the existing sites will become

‘Temporary Hardstanding’ (Design Code Principles Indicative Drawing ref. D_0007).

The local authority accepts that at some point in the future some form of

development, most likely related to waste management, may be proposed in this

location. However, the local authority does not consider that hardstanding is the

correct approach for what is a large expanse of area. Accordingly, it is the local

authority’s view that this element of the proposed development would result in

negative impact on the Borough, albeit in a modest localised geographical area. The

Design Code Principles document should be amended to overcome to this concern.

The emphasis is to break up the sheer expanse of the area while acknowledging the

need for efficient operations and the Design Code Principles should be updated to

reflect alternative landscaping and material options for the area of the former EfW

facility – this would include the reference to the area on page 35 of the document and

Indicative Drawing ref. D_0007).

6.111 A final detailed concern in relation to the visual assessment of the proposed

development, again reflecting comments that have previous been expressed at

different stages of the project, is the appropriateness of the observation platform to

be installed on the Tipping Hall.

6.112 In essence, it is the local authority’s view that this element of the scheme detracts

from the overall proposed development disrupting the setting down design approach

put forward for the main ERF building. The local authority welcomes this broad

principle, where the massing of the building is broken up and the elevations that face

planning

R




April 2016

48

towards the Lee Valley (which as noted before lies within the Metropolitan Green

Belt) are stepped down from the larger element of the Process Hall to the smaller

Crane Hall and then the lowest element of the Tipping Hall – with the accent colour

on Crane Hall providing a contrast between Process Hall and Tipping Hall to further

break down the massing. The proposed observation platform, by contrast, goes

against this approach by appearing as a prominent feature sitting above the lower

element of the Tipping Hall and disrupts the view of the Crane Hall which, through its

massing and in particular the aesthetics of the facing materials, is the ‘focus element’

as set out in the submitted Design and Access Statement.

6.113 It is the local authority’s view that no particular need for this facility is provided and

although encouraging access to the facility as part of a wider community education

program is supported, this feature is not seen as key to this to outweigh the concern

regarding the impact on the appearance of the building and its relationship to the

wider area especially given the provision of EcoPark House which would also serve

as a visitor centre. Furthermore, it is not considered that the concerns of the LPA

could be overcome by careful selection of materials and the provision of signage to

this feature – as table in the Design Code Principles – would exacerbate its overall

impact and should be resisted.

6.114 In terms of the visual impact of the proposed development, whilst it is true to say that

on the whole the new buildings will be noticeably larger than the existing ones from a

number of short and long term views, the industrial context in which they sit would

not be materially different and therefore the perception of them would also not

significantly change. The local authority, therefore, accepts the results of the visual

assessment as set out in the ES Volume 3. However, the local authority does have

concerns regarding a number of detailed design matters associated with the

proposed development that must be addressed – these being ensuring the overall

design quality of the materials is high, and is not compromised by overriding costs

factors; the vacant space left once the EfW facility is decommission and demolished

and the need for this to be a high quality soft landscaped scheme in the interim rather

than subject to hard landscaping; and, finally, the visual impact of the proposed

observation platform where this is considered to detract from the overall design

planning

R




April 2016

49

approach of stepping down the massing of the ERF building as it gets closer to the

boundary with the Green Belt-designated LVPR.

6.115 Therefore, until these matters are addressed, it is the local authority’s view that the

proposed development would have a negative effect with regards to the visual impact

of the scheme.

Other considerations

6.116 The submitted Deadline 2 Written Representations has already set out the local

authority’s views on the need for the proposed development to contribute to the

delivery of the Lee valley Heat Network (LVHN) but given the importance of this

matter it is set out again in full in this report. The Edmonton EcoPark SPD makes

clear that the development of this site is to provide the key heat source for the LVHN

and supply low carbon heat to local homes and business. This is a key strategic

policy, with policy DMD52 of the Development Management Document adding to this

by requiring certain types of major developments which provide heat and/ or energy

to contribute to the supply of decentralised energy networks. The Council’s evidence

base confirms that it is feasible to and viable for existing and future waste

development on the Edmonton EcoPark Site to provide heat to a decentralised

energy network. Given this context, the DCO proposals must explicitly address this

policy requirement by including a firm commitment to providing a heat supply to the

Lee Valley Heat Network and making adequate provision for associated

infrastructure within the site. The Edmonton Eco Park SPD and Central Leeside

Proposed Submission AAP (CLAAP) provide more specific requirements in this

regard.

6.117 It is noted that a CHP Strategy has been prepared to demonstrate the opportunity for

CHP. This opportunity is also confirmed by the Council’s own evidence which

concluded that it is feasible to and viable for existing and future waste development

on the Edmonton EcoPark Site to provide heat to a decentralised energy network.

The detailed design of the Energy Recovery Facility, specifically the arrangements

for how/when the heat off take occurs, should ensure that it does not prevent this

planning

R




April 2016

50

identified opportunity while also ensuring the supply of energy for a decentralised

energy network is as efficient as possible and is not made less viable which could

prejudice its benefits to the wider area. The submitted DCO proposal must include a

firm commitment to supplying heat to a decentralised network in order to satisfy

national, regional and local planning policies. While it is noted that the draft DCO

contains a requirement for the provision of a CHP, the exact wording of the

requirement is not agreed at this stage and dialogue is ongoing. In particular the

LPA object to the caveat of ‘commercial arrangement’ and a reference to ‘economic

viability’. Commercial arrangements are beyond the scope of the DCO and should

not be featured as part of the requirement. Further economic viability is not defined

nor is it stated who would verify the viability of connection. The processes involved in

CHP operation inevitably provide waste heat and as such the provision of such heat

is guaranteed and whilst the heat output and associated infrastructure for the CHP

needs to be secured via the DCO and Section 106 Agreement, the detailed

contractual arrangements between the commercial operator and the applicant is not

relevant to the DCO nor is relevant to any subsequent Section 106 Agreement. Any

reference to such contractual arrangements should be removed, and until such time

as this occurs it is the local authority’s view that the failure of the scheme to commit

to providing heat to the LVHN has a negative impact on the Borough in terms of the

potential for the strategic project to not be delivered. Appendix A sets out the local

authority’s suggested change to this part of the DCO.

planning

R




April 2016

51

7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 In terms of the principle of the development, the local authority has already made

clear its view that it supports the proposed development at a strategic level and

considers that it is broad accordance with the Development Plan as this supports the

continued use of Edmonton EcoPark as a strategic waste site, and maximising its

use with more sustainable and efficient waste management processes.

7.2 In strategic terms it is the local authority’s view that the majority of the potential

effects identified as part of the Environmental Statement assessment would, subject

to suitable controls and mitigation set out in the various application documents (and

in particular the Code of Construction Practice), have a neutral impact on the

Borough.

7.3 There are a number of impacts that would arise that are identified as having a

negative impact on the Borough. These are (in no particular order):

- Minor impact on the Linnett protected bird species through loss of habitat;

- Loss of a number of jobs associated with the operation of the existing Energy

from Waste facility and a net reduction in overall jobs needed for the

operation of the new Energy Recovery Facility;

- There is a need to agree an employment and training strategy consistent with

the principles of the Section 106 SPD (and emerging SPD)

- Lack of an appropriate strategy for the Temporary Laydown Area in terms of

its restoration following the completion of the project, with particular regards

to the lack of an appropriate Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme and

potential flood compensation measures for the Meridian Water regeneration

development;

- Lack of agreement of SuDS Strategy including drainage and run-off rate

- Visual impacts in terms of the design of the proposed development, with

particular regard to the proposed hardsurfacing treatment of the vacant space

following the demolition of the existing Energy from Waste facility, and

concerns regarding the impact of the proposed observation platform on top of

planning

R




April 2016

52

the Tipping Hall where this disrupts the visual pattern of the dropping down in

height and massing of the other two elements of the Energy Recovery Facility

(the Processing Hall and the Crane Hall)

- Need for an unqualified commitment to the use of high quality materials with

no overriding caveat that the decisions on this are driven by costs at the

expense of other factors.

7.4 The local authority accepts that the impacts identified are, on the whole, modest, but

respectfully requests that there are changes to the draft DCO to overcome these.

The changes requested are:

- Removal of the proposed observation platform from the draft DCO;

- Revisions to the Design Codes Principles to amend references to the

hardsurfacing of the area of the existing Energy from Waste facility following

its demolition;

- Revisions to the Design Codes Principles to secure an explicit commitment to

high quality materials, and the installation of PV or heat generating panels;

- Revised and additional wording is proposed to the draft DCO in Appendix A to

address the issue of the Temporary Laydown Area.

7.5 With respect to the concerns expressed regarding the use of the wording

‘commercial arrangement’ and a reference to ‘economic viability’ in connection with

the connectivity to the Lee Valley Heat Network, Appendix A sets out the local

authority’s suggested changes to the draft DCO to overcome this

planning

R




April 2016

53

APPENDIX A: SUGGESTED CHANGES TO DRAFT DCO

1. Schedule 1, paragraph 2(e)(x) be amended to read as follows:

“restoration of the temporary laydown area to include suitable landscaping,

Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme and compensatory flood storage.”

2. Schedule 2, paragraph 19, removal of the following text from this requirement:

“…should a commercial arrangement be identified for combined heat and power

which is economically viable.”

3. Schedule 2, additional paragraph:

Temporary Laydown Area

“23. — (1) The restoration of the Temporary Laydown Area shall be in accordance

with a scheme submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority. No

works of this stage of the development shall take place prior to the approval of the

scheme.

(2) The scheme referred to paragraph (1) shall include details of the following—

(a) suitable soft landscaping;

(b) a Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme;

(c) compensatory flood storage.

(3) The relevant stage must be carried out in accordance with the details approved

pursuant to requirement 23(1)

planning

R




April 2016

54

APPENDIX B: SCHEDULE OF ISSUES WITH DRAFT DCO

Reference Issue

Definitions

“authorised development”

Definition too wide – if an item does not constitute development, then the process under section 35 – 35A must be followed for a direction from the SoS. Not aware that the process has been followed here. If, alternatively, “not” has been included in error then please remove.

Definitions “carriageway”

Should reference section 329 of the 1980 Act.

Definitions

“code of construction practice”`

The LPA support the inclusion of this definition consistent with the comments of TfL at the issue specific hearing.

Definitions

“commissioning”

The LPA would agree with the comments by the Examining Authority. The definition of commissioning must be clearly defined and should not be based on a reliability test – however this test may be defined.

Definitions “commence”

Definition too wide. The LPA contend that the definition should not include “site clearance” given the scale of clearance required. Any definition must be consistent and used within the draft s106

Definitions

“design code principles”

Words after “which” not required.

Definitions

“environmental commitments and mitigation schedule”

Words after “which” not required.

Definition “maintain”

Definition too wide. Anything but very minor adjustment, alteration, removal, clearance and refurbishment is inappropriate. Reconstruction, decommissioning, demolition, replacement and improvement are far too wide and should be removed. Note that the Hinkley C DCO refers only to “maintain”.

Definition “order land”

Should this not refer to ‘book of plans’ not ‘book of references’. Is the definition of ‘Order Land’ and ‘Order Limits’ appropriately linked to the wide ranging powers conferred under subsequent articles?

Definition “relevant planning

Definition can end after Enfield

planning

R




April 2016

55

authority”

Definition “stage” Should not include “enabling works”. “Enabling works” are only referred to in the schedule 2 definition, and here, and so effectively this is a carve out from approval by the LBE. Not clear why such enabling works as are required cannot form a defined “stage” in and of themselves.

Definition “undertaker”

Need only to name undertaker, other text not necessary – article 8 and section 156(1) achieves the same thing

Article 4(2)(b) Normal position is to specify depth in metres below the seabed. Issues relating to ground water contamination must be addressed. Upward limits of deviation are not agreed as per paragraph 8.11 of LBE written representations.

Article 5 Article 5(1) is a general provision. Why is there then a need to specify within article 5(2). If specification is necessary need to define “apparatus” – possibly could use definition in article 10(4). Why are the items in article 5(3) excluded?

Article 6(1) Article 8 would cover the circumstance of a contractor operating the plant, so wording associated with that is not needed here (bar the exclusion in article 8(4) which the LBE are proposing is removed).

Definitions are required here – potential to use the already defined term “authorised development”.

Article 8(4) This exclusion is entirely inappropriate. A wholly owned company ought to be subject to the same requirements of approval in order that the SoS can verify that the entity is an appropriate one to operate the facility.

Article 9(b)(ii) This sub clause is not needed if the requirements set out in 9(b)(i) are complied with.

Article 10(1)(e) & (f)

Support deletion of (e) and (f)

Article 12(5) Insert ‘highway’. Any public right of ways will need to be replaced and there is insufficient detail to confirm replacement rights of way are acceptable. Objections to all plots / items in this section relating to Schedule 6.

Article 13 and (6) Removal of the highway status may not be the most appropriate course of action therefore objections to the legal process. (6) This is not standard drafting and should be removed.

Article 18(4)(b) Remove “shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed”.

Article 19 For certainty, this article should refer explicitly to schedule 10. Also unclear why it is subject to articles 23 and 27

planning

R




April 2016

56

Article 20 The time scale should be the normal 5 years. There is no reason that we can see why it should be extended to 7 years.

Article 21 Wording relating to successor not required given the provisions in article 8.

Article 22 Not needed due to provisions of section 152 and 158 of the Act.

Article 23 Not clear how this ties in with article 21(1)(b) and schedule 12.

Article 24 Is this needed in light of articles 19 and 21?

Not clear how this ties in with article 21(1)(b) and schedule 12.

Article 24(5) Missing some words at the end – suggest include “applies”.

Article 27 Relationship with article 20(2) unclear

The end of sub-paragraph (4) and (5) are duplicated.

The requirement for restoration in sub-paragraph (4) should also be subject to the consent of LBE. Sub-paragraph (3) – two years are not justified.

Article 28 Sub-paragraph (3) should require 28 days notice (as referenced in sub-paragraph 13)

Article 32(3) This article should be removed.

Article 37 The decommissioning of the energy from waste facility should be carried out under requirement 20, and the decommissioning of the proposed electricity and heat generating station in accordance with requirement 21, but it is not clear why this article is required.

Article 38 This article is unnecessary. Instead the provisions of sections 78 and 79 of the TCPA 1990 should be imported.

If the article and schedule 3 are to be accepted, sub-paragraph (3) is not appropriate. Deemed consent is not utilised anywhere within the statutory regime and is not required in this instance.

Schedule 1 Article 3

The judgement of whether a change is material must be with the Local Planning Authority and should feature as a requirement

Schedule 2

Definition

“enabling works”

Definition is too wide. Should not include demolition.

In any event, the definition is used only in the definition of “stage” and effectively therefore operates as a carve out for a vague list of matters which ought properly to form a stage in themselves.

Schedule 2

Article 3

Requirement 3 be amended to incorporate the installation of photovoltaic (or heat generating) panels as per paragraph 4.9 of written

planning

R




April 2016

57

representations.

Schedule 2

Article 3(3)

Wording “unless otherwise approved by the relevant planning authority” ot required

Schedule 2

Article 4

Limits of deviation are too wide. See comments in relation to article 4(2)(b) above.

Lists of works in column 1 do not tally with listed works in schedule 1

Further comments as per paragraph 8.11 of written representations

Schedule 2

Article 6

There should be a limit on the tonnage of waste to be managed/treated at the authorised development.

Schedule 2 Article 9

Confirmation of certification against BREEAM required. Relevant BREEAM Version year / number required.

Schedule 2

Article 10

Sub-paragraphs (e) and (f) are properly design issues and should be included in schedule 2, article 3.

Wording “unless otherwise approved by the relevant planning authority” not required

Cross-reference to environmental commitments and mitigation schedule and Design Code Principles required as per written representations required

Schedule 2

Article 11

Remove “reasonable”. Goes without saying that the opinion will be reasonably held.

Schedule 2

Article 12

“Access management scheme” requires definition.

Schedule 2

Article 13

In sub-paragraph (2) to drainage scheme must be constricted before the commissioning of the electricity and heat generating scheme.

Schedule 2

Article 14

The LPA would express concern that requirement 14 does not include relevant clauses for the verification and ongoing monitoring of remediation works. The LPA request that such measurements be included within the requirement.

Schedule 2

Article 15

Should be amended to “Commissioning of the electricity and heat generating…”

Cross-reference to environmental commitments and mitigation schedule and Design Code Principles required as per written representations required

planning

R




April 2016

58

Schedule 2

Article 16

The LPA would express concern that requirement 16 does not include relevant clauses for a mechanism to amend and review the CoCP. The LPA request that such measurements be included within the requirement to be agreed with LBE in consultation with TfL.

Schedule 2

Article 17

Should be amended to “Commissioning of the electricity and heat generating…”

Schedule 2

Article 19

Should end after “its later connection to such systems”. Whether or not a commercial arrangement is available should not impact on whether the development has the ability to operate as described. This is particularly so where an agreement may not be reached before the issue of a DCO.

Also insufficiently precise as to location and provision of pipes.

Schedule 3 Not required. See comments at article 38 above.

In particular the fees cited are unacceptable and are not consistent with government direction for determination of fees.

Schedule 5 - Concerns over repositioning of the cycle ways and footways (plots 14, 15, 21, 22, 32)

- Work to Advent way access acceptable (plot 31)

- Works to Ardra Road acceptable (plot 34)

- Works to Lee Park Way acceptable (plot 28 and 29)

- Work to Deephams Farm Road not referenced with a plot. Objection.

Schedule 6 Any public right of ways will need to be replaced and there is insufficient detail to confirm replacement rights of way are acceptable. Objections to all plots / items in this section.

Schedule 7 As with Schedule 6 insufficient info on the replacement public rights of way. Objections to all plots / items in this section.

Schedule 8 Stopping up cannot be supported. Removal of the highway status may not be the most appropriate course of action therefore objections to the legal process

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF CHANGES NEEDED

Limits of Deviation Plans:

planning

R




April 2016

59

- requires maximum downwards depth for excavation to be defined and if

necessary piling separately defined.

- Wider limits of deviation for works 1b need to be defined or additional

requirement for detail of structures

SuDS Strategy (and if necessary FRA) – Updated to reflect discussions and concerns of

Council. The LPA would invite continued dialogue

Design Code Principles – amended to reflect LPA requirements for high quality materials,

alternative surfacing options to the former Energy from Waste site and Requirement 3 to be

amended to reflect installation of photovoltaic or heat generating panels to the ERF, RRF

and Ecopark House

Employment and Training Strategy – needs to be agreed with the local authority via Section

106 Agreement

Highway Mitigation measures – needs to be agreed with the local authority via Section 106

Agreement

Client: London Borough of Enfield - Planning Inspectorate · 2016. 5. 24. · planning R dynamic...

Documents

Transcript of Client: London Borough of Enfield - Planning Inspectorate · 2016. 5. 24. · planning R dynamic...