Sunday, October 28, 2012

Why Gilberdyke Tip planning application should be refused

The application by City Plant Ltd for the Gilberdyke Landfill site is with the East Riding of Yorkshire Council and comments have been invited from interested parties.  This is in many respects a retrospective application because the tip is almost full, to levels way above the presently consented height.  The application seeks to regularise the current levels, change the landscaping plans, install electricity generators to utilise the landfill gas, and try to sort out the surface water run-off. 

City Plant Ltd has been cynical in how they have played the system and the ERYC and the Environment Agency have been powerless to stop the blatant disregarding of planning conditions by the company.  I accept we are where we are with the height and volume of the tip - but how the site is finished and left is of critical importance and in my opinion the application has serious flaws.

It is now time for the ERYC and the EA to work closely together to ensure the tip is left safe for years to come, and not create on-going problems for the communities of Gilberdyke and Newport.  I certainly feel the application should be refused until the following 12 points are addressed. 

  1. The proposal for the finishing of the landfill site including the capping and the finished landscaping is of concern - The original application was for 1.0m clay capping plus a layer of soil and trees to be planted on top.  The new application is to use a thin ‘bentonite type’ carpet and a layer of soil and grass instead.   Clay is flexible and will be much more able to cope with the differing rates of settlement that the tip will experience over time, the differential in settlement resulting from different levels of old waste and new waste and compaction across the area of the site.  It was felt  the bentonite will crack whereas the clay will move naturally and with trees planted in the clay and soil cap the roots will bind the whole together.     The maximum height of the mound to be no more than 19.5m at any time.

  1. Leachate – the proposed management of the leachate from the site is not sufficient as proposed and the risk of pollution of nearby watercourses is thought to be unacceptably high.    There is an absence of an open collection ditch surrounding the site and no flat separation ground between the site and the adjacent dykes.  Both are thought essential to minimise the risk of pollution.  

  1. Gas collection – It is felt there will inevitably be some noise pollution with this process.    There will need to be strict 24 hour noise limitations placed upon the site. 

  1. It is essential that the gas transport/extraction pipes be protected with adequate impact barriers where the pipework is vulnerable. 

  1. Weighbridge – when the site is closed to tipping or capping there will be no need for the weighbridge.   It is felt absolutely essential and non-negotiable that the weigh bridge is removed to prevent further tipping. 

  1. Health – I would like to request that all the potential health risks of the site in both the short and long term must be assessed or appropriately scrutinised by independent health service professionals – who are not engaged by City Plant – these must be engaged by the ERYC in consultation with the local parish councils, and the cost preferably met by City Plant Ltd.

  1. Profile – the profile of the mound must allow for (rain) water to run off rather than being allowed to pool on the relatively flat top as proposed.  The profile to be a domed shape rather than flat, with a comprehensive settlement plan showing how the dome will be maintained of the next 25 years.  

  1. Community Fund – If the landfill gas is to be used to generate electricity it is requested that a community fund be set up with contribution paid into the fund for every megawatt generated for the life of the landfill site’s electricity generation. It is suggested this be similar to wind farm community funding arrangements and be at a rate of £2,500 (per megawatt per year) and for this to be index linked.   The fund to be jointly administered by the ERYC and Gilberdyke and Newport Parish Councils. 

  1. The present ERYC holding objection to the Environment Agency which effectively stops the issuing of a new permit to be held until such time that planning consent is granted.    It is requested that any conditions applied to the planning application are completely in synch, compatible and completely seamless with any conditions applied by the Environment Agency in their permit i.e. no administrative gaps for the company to take advantage of as we have seen in the past. 

  1. I would request that a bond to be provided to East Riding of Yorkshire Council for all remedial work that does not fall within the Environment Agency scope – i.e. residential/road repairs etc. 

  1. When site is no longer in use for tipping of waste materials the company (City Plant) must be responsible for bringing Thimblehall Lane and Mill Lane back to an acceptable standard. 

  1. I would request that the application is NOT approved until ALL the concerns of the Ouse and Humber Drainage Board have been addressed to the Boards satisfaction.
There is to be a public meeting on Thursday 1st November 2012 at 7.30pm in Newport Village Hall to dscuss the the major issues relating to the planning application, and organise a petition so that ERYC officers and councillors are totally aware of the strong feelings held by residents.  Everyone is welcome to attend, but please bear in mind a film crew are expected - so be prepared to be filmed!

1 comment:

Stig of the dump said...

All the time the waste torrent continues! The tip is alleged to be full so it must be time for the EA to issue another stop notice. This time they must not back down!