Your ref WS010003
ARROW ref 10024954 Nicola Escott ref 10024302
Friends of the Earth North West
60 Duke St
Liverpool
L1 5AA
26 June 2014
Case number: WS010003
Dear Sir / Madam
Friends of the Earth England North West objects to the application from Whitemoss Landfill
Limited for an extension to the Whitemoss landfill site, and submits this written statement in
support of ARROW.
Friends of the Earth objects to the application on the following grounds:
1. Inconsistent with previous time limited permissions for period of operations
2. Inconsistent with precautionary principle
3. Inconsistent with National Policy Statement
4. Inconsistent with Lancashire Waste and Minerals Plan
5. Inconsistent with waste hierarchy
6. Community and local economic impact
1. Inconsistent with previous time limited permissions for period of operations
Operations at the site were scheduled to end by 1995 and a further eight extensions have
been granted. The Lancashire Waste and Minerals Plan has not identified need for a further
extension. The incremental granting of extensions in life may result in much greater
cumulative impact than has been properly assessed.
2. Inconsistent with the precautionary principle
Friends of the Earth notes that the precautionary principle should be applied in this case.
This is essential to protect groundwater supplies from contamination, in accordance with the
EU Water Framework Directive. Unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that there
will be no groundwater contamination from the operations, the development should not go
ahead.
The EU Water Framework Directive and environmental law provide for the precautionary
principle to be considered in planning.
A summary of the Water Framework Directive is as follows:
The case of groundwater is somewhat different. The presumption in relation to
groundwater should broadly be that it should not be polluted at all. For this reason,
setting chemical quality standards may not be the best approach, as it gives the
impression of an allowed level of pollution to which Member States can fill up. A very
few such standards have been established at European level for particular issues
(nitrates, pesticides and biocides), and these must always be adhered to. But for
general protection, we have taken another approach. It is essentially a precautionary
one. It comprises a prohibition on direct discharges to groundwater, and (to cover
indirect discharges) a requirement to monitor groundwater bodies so as to detect
changes in chemical composition, and to reverse any anthropogenically induced
upward pollution trend. Taken together, these should ensure the protection of
groundwater from all contamination, according to the principle of minimum
anthropogenic impact.
3. Inconsistent with National Policy Statement
Submissions by ARROW which we support highlight the evidence linking hazardous landfill
to adverse health impacts for nearby residents from decreased air quality, the risk to the
water environment and Nature Conservation areas locally.
The NPS outlines reasons for refusal on the grounds of adverse impacts on water quality, air
quality and protection of other habitats and species, as follows:
Water Quality and Resources
5.15.1 Infrastructure development can have adverse effects on the water environment,
including groundwater, inland surface water, transitional waters and coastal waters. During
the construction, operation and decommissioning phases, it can lead to increased demand
for water, involve discharges to water and cause adverse ecological effects resulting from
physical modifications to the water environment. There may also be an increased risk
of spills and leaks of pollutants to the water environment. These effects could lead to
adverse impacts on health or on protected species and habitats (see Section 5.3 on
biodiversity and geological conservation) and could, in particular, result in surface waters,
groundwaters or protected areas failing to meet environmental objectives established under
the Water Framework Directive.
Air quality
5.2.7 In all cases the Secretary of State must take account of relevant statutory air
quality limits which are laid down in EU legislation. Where a project is likely to lead to a
breach of such limits, the developer should work with the relevant authorities to secure
appropriate mitigation measures to allow the proposal to proceed. In the event that a project
will lead to non-compliance with a statutory limit, the Secretary of State should refuse
consent.
Protection of other habitats and species
5.3.17 Other species and habitats have been identified as being of principal importance
for the conservation of biodiversity in England and Wales and thereby requiring
conservation action. The Secretary of State should ensure that applicants have taken
measures to ensure these species and habitats are protected from the adverse effects of
development. Where appropriate, requirements or planning agreements may be used in
order to deliver this protection. The Secretary of State should refuse consent where harm
to the habitats or species and their habitats would result, unless the benefits (including
need) of the development clearly outweigh that harm.
4. Inconsistent with the Lancashire Minerals and Waste Plan
The Lancashire Minerals and Waste Minerals and Waste Local Policy Plan LF3 Site for
Hazardous Landfill does not identify a future extension for Whitemoss and states
“Development will be supported for the disposal to landfill of residues from the treatment of
hazardous waste that cannot be recycled or recovered or otherwise treated only when it can
be demonstrated:
There is a continued national or regional need for that disposal; and
The residues cannot be deposited at a suitable licenced landfill nearer to their origin; and
The proposed landfill contributes to the objective of net self sufficiency.”
The applicant has not demonstrated need for the disposal facility and figures from Defra
show that the amount of hazardous waste to landfill is reducing year on year and will
continue to do so in line with policy.
5. Inconsistent with waste hierarchy
The application does not conform with national policy on the waste hierarchy as it seeks a to
develop a very large capacity for hazardous waste for which no need has been
demonstrated and for which alternative routes are available. Creating such capacity may
undermine efforts to increase reuse and recycling if it provides a cheaper alternative when
the waste hierarchy states that landfill should be the last resort.
Waste hierarchy
5.4.14 The applicant must demonstrate that all waste produced by the facility
will be managed in accordance with the waste hierarchy and that during construction,
excavated soils and subsoils will, where possible, be reused on site e.g. for the balancing
of cut and fill. The applicant should seek to minimise the volume of waste produced and
the volume of waste sent for disposal unless it can be demonstrated that this is the best
overall environmental outcome.
6. Community and local economic impact
We are concerned that granting permission may have a harmful effect on the local economy
by dissuading other forms of economic activity, particularly for the nearby vicinity and for the
town of Skelmersdale. As outlined above the proposal gives rise to unacceptable adverse
health impacts for local residents.
On the grounds on unacceptable adverse impacts for health and the environment, in line
with the precautionary principle, and the lack of demonstrated need or justification for the
permission sought, we strongly oppose the application.
Yours sincerely
Helen Rimmer
North West Friends of the Earth