BRIDGE WATCH
Sutton Bridge
The Group whose aims are
'Good Governance' and 'Community Spirit'
in Sutton Bridge, Lincolnshire
Menu:
The Proposed 'Energy Park' Complex at Sutton Bridge
CREEPING INDUSTRIALISATION OF THE FENS
Peterborough Renewable Energy Ltd (PREL) intends to mount an exhibition in the Constitutional Club in Sutton Bridge shortly. It will be sure to be a very well-organised display and there will be plenty of representatives to answer any questions you might have.
However, few residents of Sutton Bridge probably know that PREL intends to build a so-called ‘Energy Park’ in the area between Chalk Lane and the Power Station. Those who are aware seem to be under the misapprehension that the development will be for the disposal of household and garden waste.
This is not the case. PREL has said that their ‘gasification’ process will consume ‘pellets’ made from ‘biomass’ coming by lorry from the east and the west of Sutton Bridge and from wherever they can be obtained world-wide. Biomass is virgin wood or wood from sawmills and construction projects, purpose-grown crops and agricultural leftovers, surplus food material, from food and drink manufacture and consumption.
According to PREL, the gasification process will comply with the rigorous operational standards of the Waste Incineration Directive so that the environmental impact of ‘emissions’ from the burning of fuels will be minimised from chimneys designed to provide ‘effective dispersal’. This means that there will be chimneys and that they will somehow emit something that will not be very nice.
Contrary to what PREL have claimed, their Peterborough plant did not have the unqualified support of Friends of the Earth.
Concerned residents may wish to ask questions about possible 24-hour pollution created by the development—noise pollution, chemical pollution, light pollution, traffic pollution. Experience suggests that they will be diligently treated to technical and scientific explanations as to why there will be hardly any pollution; no ordinary person will be able to follow up the answers with further questions. You will be shown boxes of ‘pellets’ and compost that are intended to suggest how clean the whole operation is going to be.
Perhaps the only thing that residents will easily be able to understand is that the ‘Energy Park’ is capable of handling 350,000 tons of ‘waste’ material, or ‘feedstock’, a year. By PREL’s own calculations this means that there will be 80 deliveries a day (HGV & LGV) between 7am and 7pm. That’s one delivery every 9 minutes or one vehicle movement, in and out, every 4½ minutes. PREL have suggested that, though traffic lights might be needed at the junction of Centenary Way and the A17, the proposed development ‘is not expected to place a significant additional load on the existing road network...’. However, people who actually live in Sutton Bridge will easily be able to see that, what with traffic hold-ups, bridge closures, and holiday and rush-hour traffic, there is likely to be gridlock, not to mention the increased noise and pollution. And the HGV’s will not, of course, all go round the by-pass; unless an HGV ban is applied on Bridge Road there will be an increase of heavy traffic through the village, particularly if food waste comes from local food-processing plants.
Since waste will be coming from King’s Lynn direction, no doubt HGV’s, in order to avoid congestion, will soon begin to find their way down the old A17 Clenchwarton route. ‘Travel by water’ is quietly slipped into the Report as a possible alternative to road congestion. And as a way of importing waste from who knows where?
A proper full-scale traffic survey is urgently needed.
What with wind turbines, power stations, incinerators and ‘gasifiers’, the Fens are fast becoming the dumping ground for anything that others would find unpalatable.
In November the elected representatives on Sutton Bridge Parish Council saw no objections to the proposed ‘Energy Park’ nor did they have any comments to make. Were they speaking on your behalf? They certainly weren’t speaking for me.
What questions will you ask at the PREL exhibition?
Letter in Spalding Guardian 17th June 2010
INCINERATORS ARE NOT GOOD FOR US!
On Friday, June 18th, some members of Bridge Watch attended a public meeting in King’s Lynn called by KLWIN (Kings Lynn Without Incineration - www.klwin.org) concerning the proposed incinerator to be built at Saddlebow, Kings Lynn, near the Hardwicke Roundabout.
A detailed, scientific and economic presentation was given by Joel Hull, Project Director, Residual Waste Services, Norfolk County Council, who is in favour of this plan. Other speakers were Jon Beresford of NAiL (Nottingham Against Incineration and Landfill, who spoke about Eastgate plant, KLWN Borough Councillor, Paul Burrall, who opposed incinerators and Henry Bellingham (MP for King’s Lynn & West Norfolk). The meeting was chaired by Dr Ian Gibson. Members of the audience were citizens of King’s Lynn, the Borough Council, members of neighbouring parish councils and ordinary concerned members of the public of all ages.
We were, as usual, being blinded with science by people who wanted to appear to be open and transparent. The science is not sound nor proved, as an environmental consultant in the audience pointed out. It is driven by the need to meet targets.
The main two concerns were:
a) The size of nano particles present in emissions, no matter how effective the filters are said to be. It became increasingly clear that the smaller the particles, the more potentially invasive they are;
b) The obvious increase in heavy traffic movements, which as we already know, are currently among the biggest air polluters.
Both issues concern people’s health: there is already a condition known as the ‘Eastgate cough’ affecting people in the Nottingham areas downwind of the Eastgate plant.
The second is also about health implications, and the mayhem caused by increased volumes of HGV traffic going to and from the proposed plant in King’s Lynn which may very well meet similar traffic coming to and from the Sutton Bridge proposed ‘Energy park’. Both the Hardwicke roundabout and the Cross Keys bridge would become a nightmare for local road users. No amount of traffic enhancement schemes would alleviate the potential chaos this would cause.
In addition, not only are there to be lorry movements in and out of the plant bringing in material, but special enclosed containers will be needed to transport the potentially hazardous bi-products (fly ash) which may be recycled as building materials.
Residents of Sutton Bridge and its surrounding area need to be aware that although PREL’s ‘clean biomass gasifier’ proposed for Sutton Bridge will not be burning waste from plastic bags, there will be emissions and there will be heavy lorry movements.
One important point that emerged from the Meeting was that any form of incineration is not really viable. We do not need to burn rubbish of any kind. It can be, and should be, re-used and recycled. Our demands for energy should be reduced. If more and more incinerators are built, then all the stuff we are currently being urged to recycle will be re-channelled to be burnt in incinerators, that will have contracts of 25 years and more.
The suggestion was that the contract for an incinerator (if it must be built) should only be for 10 years because the technology moves on swiftly. Developers would be less inclined to update if their contracts were for 25 years, or 60 years in the case of Nottingham’s Eastgate plant, where there have already been many lapses in emission control. Monitoring is not effective: one or two spot checks a year (and visits known in advance) is not sufficient to pick up the variations in emissions.
The real issue is the rate at which the civilised world is using limited raw materials as though they were infinite. The fact is that it is predicted that they will be used up by 2040. Unless we curtail their use, the world economy will grind to a halt then.
We should be encouraged to mend, re-use and recycle.
It is worth looking at KWLIN’s website; www.klwin.org for informed arguments.
Biomass and Subsidies
There was a report in the Times of 21st February containing a threat from Drax, whose coal-fired power station near Selby is the biggest polluter in western Europe, to take their proposal to work with ‘biomass’ as a ‘green energy plant’ abroad where regulatory regimes are not so robust.
One of the key points in the report is that incinerating biomass is not economical without heavy subsidy. Any subsidy could be cut after four years.
There’s the standard claim that new power plants would provide jobs for local people; thus, if subsidies are not forthcoming, the government will get the blame for not allowing Drax to employ people.
A spokesperson for Drax said that, without their being able to rely on subsidies, ‘the investment was unjustifiable’—that is to say that they would not be able to make enough profit out of the tax-payer. They would not ‘be able to make a viable business case to our investors...’
It seems that ‘Industry experts have questioned whether the plan is achievable even with subsidies. The [Drax proposed] plants... would have to be fed by a steady stream of cargo ships loaded with trees from as far away as Canada...’
From what far-flung places would Sutton Bridge PREL have to get their ‘feed-stock’? What would their carbon footprint be?
The whole question of emissions and likely traffic chaos is likely to get buried under an argument about subsidies.
The Proposed 'Energy Park' Complex at Sutton Bridge
This paper is a digest of a 39-page statement intended to determine whether a full-scale Environmental Impact Assessment (an EIA) is necessary. The statement (or ‘Opinion’) dated September 2009 was prepared by Peterborough Renewable Energy Limited to support their planning application for the building of an ‘Energy Park’. .
A commentary is printed in italics. All residents of Sutton Bridge and sparsely populated surrounding areas should take account of the contents and ask searching questions of their elected representatives.
Via its subsidiary EnergyPark Sutton Bridge Limited, Peterborough Renewable Energy Limited (PREL) proposes to develop a Renewable EnergyPark on land adjacent to Centenary Way, near to the Power Station. Its stated function will be to recover energy from a range of biomass materials from a variety of sources.
‘Biomass’ is animal and vegetable material. Typical ‘biomass fuels’ that PREL anticipates transporting to its EnergyPark for processing are these: virgin wood or wood from sawmills and construction projects, crops grown specifically and agricultural leftovers, surplus food material, from food and drink manufacture and consumption.
The EnergyPark requires planning permission. PREL has issued a document which, though rather confusing, seems very reasonable in its approach but fundamentally attempts to state a case for avoiding the additional need for an EIA which could scupper the whole thing.
There is plenty of evidence that suggests that these kinds of developments are forced through against strong public opposition. Source: www.ukwin.org.uk
Hidden deep in the text, there is the suggestion that the development could be classed as a ‘smaller conventional power station’ which would not require an EIA. They ask for comments that will ‘assist with defining the scope of an environmental assessment that will support’ their planning application. This will be their very own assessment ...
The proposed site is described as ‘an expanse of flat former arable land... of no conservation importance... located approximately 1.5km south-east of Sutton Bridge, a small community of approximately 4,000 residents.
Is the implication here that a mere 4,000 residents are negligible in the scheme of things?
The proposed site is bounded to the west, south and east by the Centenary Way and to the north by Chalk Lane. Chalk Lane runs immediately parallel to the A 17 and both the aforementioned roads are afforded access off the trunk road...’ PREL say that, though there are a few residential properties nearby the area is already industrialised...
So one more bit of industrialisation won’t make much difference. It is also pointed out that the River Nene is handy—perhaps as a way of importing waste from all over the world when the home-grown product dries up...
‘...The remaining areas surrounding the site are predominantly agricultural (mainly pasture [?], with some arable land) and isolated pockets of woodland...’
Are these of no particular significance to PREL? One has to wonder about the accuracy of the rest of the Report when it is reported that the areas round the site are ‘mainly pasture’—where are all the cows and sheep in the area round Sutton Bridge?
The Report continues. The development site occupies an area of approximately 64 acres. There will be process buildings, fuel storage, ancillary buildings, hardstanding, roadways and car parking spaces.
Potential incentives are listed. The main one being the setting up of a £300,000 annual community fund ‘to support community cohesion and education within the locale’... (whatever that means...)
Then there’s the promise that, apart from converting of energy into electricity for the National Grid, it will go to ‘local neighbours where a private network exists...’
Sounds like Sutton Bridge will benefit from cheap electricity—but only if you’ve got a ‘private network’, whatever that might be. A spokesperson has indicated that this means new industry close to the site...
‘Heat from the operation will be used within the facility and the ancillary buildings, whilst off-take points will be provided for future combined heat and power needs in the area...’
The local population will think it’s going to benefit—highly unlikely...
‘The location of the plant alongside an existing industrial estate and proximate to an area proposed for future industrial expansion makes the realisation of the potential for combined heat and power more likely than in other possible locations...’
Sounds good but what does it mean?
Then there’s the possibility of converting ‘waste’ heat into a cold storage facility which would ‘help facilitate further economic growth in the South Holland area...’ And, of course, as with the Power Station, there’s the creation of employment. The proposed development will help with the infrastructure of the Wingland Industrial Area (or ‘Enterprise Park’), electricity, water & sewage, lack of which has meant that it has hitherto been slow to develop, so we are told. It might even be that the plant will be able to change sea-water into drinkable water...
A big advantage in favour of the chosen site is considered to be that there is space for expansion of the ‘Energy Park’.
The space for expansion is about the same size as that designated for the current proposed development. Further development into this area would, of course, double the amount of emissions and transport movement.
The assertion that there is a ‘good transportation network’ is contradicted later with the statement that there are ‘uncertainties about highway capacity’...
Has the writer of the Report ever stood on the A17 on a summer Saturday morning or at a time when the bridge is opened to shipping?
This consideration is rather important when you know that the ‘Energy Park’ is capable of handling 350,000 tons of ‘waste’ material (called ‘feedstock’ to make it sound grand) per annum.
Consider! By our calculations, that’s 960 tons a day which might come in 30-ton HGV’s. That’s 32 deliveries a day; 3 deliveries every hour; 1 every 20 minutes = an HGV movement (in/out) every ten minutes. What with traffic hold-ups, bridge closures, and holiday and rush-hour traffic, average HGV movement is very unlikely to be maintained with that degree of regularity. There is likely to be gridlock, not to mention the noise and pollution. And the HGV’s will not, of course, all go round the by-pass; unless an HGV ban is applied on Bridge Road there will be an increase of heavy traffic through the village, particularly if food waste comes from Premier Foods.
Now, after this rather conservative estimate, elsewhere in the Report it suggests that there will be 80 deliveries a day (HGV & LGV) when/if the site becomes operational. That’s one delivery every 9 minutes or one vehicle movement every 4½ minutes. The Report rather optimistically concludes that, though traffic lights might be needed at the junction of Centenary Way and the A17, the proposed development ‘is not expected to place a significant additional load on the existing road network...’.
There is no reference in the PREL document to listed buildings. There are several in Sutton Bridge, the most significant being the bridge itself; with the huge extra volume of traffic the bridge will obviously suffer increasingly from wear and tear and pollution.
The document proposes a traffic survey by South Holland District Council but such a survey would be the responsibility of LCC Highways: have they even been informed of the need for this?
‘Travel by water’ is quietly slipped into the Report as a possible alternative to road congestion. And as a way of importing waste from who knows where? It seems that developers tend to exaggerate the amount of future quantities of waste in order to boost their proposals. Source www.ukwin.org.uk
Then of course there’s the processing of the biomass itself. The biomass fuels to be burned are not classified as waste (thought the Report sometimes slips into referring to it thus) but PREL say that the combustion units are, of course, designed to comply with the rigorous operational standards of the Waste Incineration Directive (WID) so that the environmental impact of ‘emissions’ from the burning of fuels will be minimised from a chimney designed to provide ‘effective dispersal’.
Minimised but not entirely eliminated. Just cleaned up by what’s described as a ‘sophisticated pollution control system’... Incidentally, later they refer to chimneys—in the plural...
Other research suggests that ‘although incinerator fumes pass through expensive filter systems, modern incinerators still emit significant levels of... ultrafine particles... Source www.ukwin.org.uk
The PREL document skims over the environmental impact. Natural England and others will want to make sure that an EIA takes place and it is to be hoped that any EIA will look at everything far more thoroughly than a developer with a vested interest might.
The Report suggests that the proposed building that will house the EnergyPark development has been designed in order to mitigate its visual impact—its height will be around 22 metres and there will be new tree planting between it and the nearest dwellings. The building design is ‘innovative and represents an opportunity for the creation of a ‘landmark’ building...’
Another problem associated with the visual impact of the site is the height of the chimneys of the biomass combustion plants: ‘to ensure effective dispersal of pollutants’ the chimneys need to be as high as possible but they will be designed to look more like part of the structure of the building than chimneys. A height of 35 metres is suggested.
It is difficult to imagine how the operational impact of the proposed development could be mitigated—even with so-called ‘acoustic enclosures’ — what kind of barrier can be set up against the combined noise of vehicle engines, extractor fans, cooling tower fans, turbines, machines for processing the waste material [sic], to say nothing of light pollution from 24/7 working? Of all this, the Report asserts that ‘a detailed assessment is not considered appropriate...’
Why? The residents might have something to say about this.
There will also be ‘fugitive dust emissions...’; any ‘fugitive odours’ will be ‘abated by the combustion process and discharged from the chimney...’ So there will be both but from a chimney... The Report blithely states that ‘it is considered that an assessment of the levels of dust, vibration and odour are unlikely to be required...’
The proposed development, being on land adjacent to the Sutton Bridge gas-fired power station, will, the Report suggests, raise the following problem: ‘there may be issues associated with the cumulative impact of emissions to atmosphere from the two facilities...’
It’s all too clear from this that there are emissions from the power station and that there will be emissions from the gasifier in the proposed plant.
The Report suggests that, although ‘emission’ is likely to ‘be perceived as an important issue, particularly by members of the general public’, anything to do with pollution and nuisance are not applicable to the proposed development. It seems that Best Available Techniques (BAT) to the design of the development will ‘minimise the risk of causing nuisance complaints within the surrounding community...’
BAT may be the ‘best’ there are but are they good enough if they only minimise the risk of complaints? What about actual pollution?
The risk of pollution is about the public ‘perception of the issue rather than the actual significance of the magnitude of dioxin release...’
Whatever the ‘significance of the magnitude’, the WHO classifies dioxin as a known human carcinogen—cancer-forming agent. That is certainly not public perception.
It seems that the emission of dioxins is not monitored in the UK during start-up and close-down when high levels are emitted. Source: www.ukwin.org.uk
The same source points out that ‘5-7% of the mass of incinerated waste becomes ‘fly ash’... which is trapped by filters and classed a hazardous waste. Because fly ash is ... high in dioxins and heavy metals, it has to be transferred to landfill...’
It is reported that at a site in Gloucestershire ‘the residents literally see the ash blowing around...’ Can PREL tell us how this will be prevented in Sutton Bridge?
Back to the Report. The Wash Ramsar Site, SPA and SAC is located within 5km of the development site and is therefore potentially at risk from emissions from the biomass combustion process. ‘However, in view of the significant distances involved and the closely regulated emissions from the biomass combustion process’, everything will be fine and dandy.
It is clear that density of human habitation is an issue for PREL—how many people are there in the vicinity whose health may be affected by emissions? How many people will protest?
The Report says that the nearest large centre of habitation is Kings Lynn—8 miles away. The nearest ‘residential receptors’ (i.e. houses) are on the outskirts of Sutton Bridge - 0.4km to the north-west of the site... ‘with individual properties and farms located interspersed throughout the surrounding area. It is considered that emissions... are unlikely to have a significant impact on the health of residents in the locality...’
Is this not a rather strange logic? Because houses and farms are scattered the health of the people living in them won’t be significantly affected? Employing the same logic, in Sutton Bridge where people live closely together the health of residents is likely to be far more significantly affected! As will house prices which the Report does not mention.
If the ‘Energy Park’ is built, it will be difficult to effect any changes to its operation.
www.ukwin.org.uk is the Website of UK Without Incineration Network. All its findings are well-researched.
Contrary to the impression generated by the newspapers, who like a story, Bridge Watch is not a campaigning group. Its stated aim is to make sure that the Parish Council considers all factors in relation to any issue it discusses. Consequently we are pleased that John Dickie of PREL has responded to the analysis of their planning document so that residents of Sutton Bridge can make up their own mind.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL PREL RESPONSE