A new site at Rivenhall Airfield would provide a modern solution to waste management, according to its backers.

Steven Smith, of planning agents Golder Associates, said the new design would replace old fashioned waste disposal methods in Essex.

The agents for the landowners and applicants, Gent Fairhead and Co, say a number of measures will be introduced to limit the potential nuisance of the 25.3 hectare site, which is in Sheepcotes Lane, Rivenhall.

The Rivenhall area was chosen after being identified as a 'preferred location for waste management' in the Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan.

Proposed access to the controversial site is along the A120 and the existing junction which currently provides access to the Bradwell Quarry.

The new facility would be known as an Evolution of the Recycling and Composting Facility (eRCF). It is an updated version of an RCF (Recycling and Composting Waste Management Facility) and permission to build the RCF was granted by Essex County Council (ECC) in February.

The inquiry heard that the RCF plan was updated to reflect improvements in the waste management industry.

The eRCF would include a variety of facilities capable of processing; 100,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of items such as paper, card, plastic and metals, 85,000tpa of kitchen and green waste, up to 250,000tpa of black bag waste to produce solid recovered fuel, 360,000tpa of reclaimed paper in a paper pulp facility and 197,000tpa of solid recovered fuel and pulp residues. This would take place in a combined heat and power plant.

The visual impact of the facility would be reduced by lowering it 11km below ground level. Nearby Woodhouse Farm would be turned into an education centre with car and coach parking.

Opponents say such a facility would ruin the character of the area.

Residents are concerned about the size of a chimney stack at the facility and these reservations are shared by the Environment Agency.

Objectors have also questioned whether the size of facility proposed is necessary to deal with waste produced within the county but the developers argue it would be a huge step forward and, if needs be, waste could be sourced from further afield than just Essex.

After years of debate over the site, the former Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears, ordered a public inquiry into the proposal which ECC granted permission for.

The inquiry, which finished on October 14, started on September 29 and a decision is not expected until early in the new year.

-----

THE proposal for Rivenhall Airfield is a “state of the art” solution for the need to recover, recycle and treat waste, according to Steven Smith.

Mr Smith, of Golder Associates (UK) Ltd, has acted as a planning agent for the applicants and landowners.

He has a degree in civil engineering and a Master’s degree in geotechnical engineering. His experience includes more than 17 years in the waste industry and he has been involved with the minerals and waste plans at Rivenhall Airfield for five years.

The most contentious issues before the inquiry were transport and the amount of vehicle movements to and from the site and what impact the facility would have on the local landscape visually and in terms of noise.

Mr Smith spoke at the first and second days of the inquiry. He said the permission from ECC for the RCF was for the import of 510,000 tonnes of waste and associated vehicle movements to and from the site.

He said a planning condition has been proposed to limit the number of HGV waste vehicle movements to 404 per day.

“It must be stressed that the transport assessment presented within the environmental statement is realistic and conservative in its approach,” he said.

By the building being built lowered into the ground it will help with “the control of potential nuisance emissions”.

Mr Smith said the site would not operate without an environmental permit being granted by the Environment Agency.

-----

THE PLANT would produce no visible plumes from its chimney stack, an industry expert predicted.

Dr Amanda Gair holds a science degree in chemistry and a PhD in atmospheric chemistry. For ten years she worked in an air quality team at Environmental Resources Management and now runs her own consultancy firm specialising in air quality management and assessment.

During the inquiry she said the main difference between the RCF and the eRCF with regards to air quality is an additional combined heat and power plant.

She said there is a reduction in the number of gas engines required in the revised plan and “to improve dispersion and to reduce the number of stacks, all emissions are combined into one common multi-flue stack”.

She said “worst case assumptions” for air quality assessment were used when modelling emissions from the development.

The height of the stack, 35 metres has been proposed, “demonstrates compliance” with all relevant air quality objectives and Dr Gair concluded the facility would not have a detrimental impact on air quality.

-----

MEETING an identified need for waste management facilities was the driving force behind Essex County Council granting the site permission.

Claire Tomalin, senior planner at Essex Country Council, gave evidence at the inquiry and explained the reasons why the authority gave the proposal the green light.

She is a senior planner in the council’s minerals and waste planning department and has 20 years experience in a similar role, previously working with four other county councils.

ECC fully assessed the proposal against the local, county and regional waste plans.

Ms Tomalin said the council recognised there was a departure from certain county and local policies but “the council’s view is that there is a need for a facility of the type proposed in order to achieve the national waste objectives”.

She said a larger site was justified “to facilitate the provision of the modern technologies proposed and the proposals are not significantly different in size to the permitted waste management facility”.

The “high quality design” of the proposal is such that it does not adversely effect the character of the area, was the council’s view, according to Ms Tomalin.

The council also decided that the facility located several different waste recovery processes in one place, therefore minimising the need for materials being transported between various sites.

-----

THE plan which used to justify the need for a waste facility at Rivenhall Airfield is out of date, according to one opponent.

Tessa Lambert, Development Control Manager at Braintree Council, spoke against the proposal at the inquiry.

She was one of a number of speakers from local council’s who raised objections to the plan.

Ms Lambert holds a degree in geography and a diploma in town planning. She has 15 years development control experience and has worked for four years for a waste disposal authority.

At the inquiry she said: “The Waste Local Plan (WLP) was developed at a time when Waste Planning Authorities were less confident about community’s, residents and businesses, ability to achieve and sustain high levels of waste recycling and composting.”

She said there had been a change in recycling and landfill performance since the WLP was published in 2001.

Ms Lambert said Braintree Council disputed that there are minimal differences between the new plan and the old one which was given permission earlier this year.

She said: “There are difference between the physical extent of the proposed building and these will cause it to have an even greater impact on its setting and upon the character of the countryside.”

She also said it was “very likely” that the eRCF would generate more daily HGV movements.

Braintree Council also feel the proposal is too big for the suggested site, Ms Lambert said, and it “has been scaled to treat a capacity nearly three times greater than that level of perceived need”.

-----

HISTORIC buildings and conservation areas along 18 roads near to the waste facility could suffer as a result of HGV diversions.

That was the evidence presented by Alan Stones who spoke at the inquiry as one of four people who represented the Community Group - a collection of local amenity groups.

Mr Stones, of Kelvedon, has a diploma in planning, he has worked for ECC’s historic building conservation team and currently works as a consultant in urban design and historic building conservation.

His evidence was largely concerned with the historic buildings and environment around the site.

He said there is no certainty that HGVs serving the site would keep to the A120.

“Failure to observe specified routes, Sat Nav failures and police diversions or attempts by drivers to avoid congestion can all lead to HGVs using roads they are not supposed to, even those with height, width or length restrictions,” he said.

Mr Stones listed all the historic buildings close to the site and he said there are a collection of listed buildings dating from the 15th century onwards.

He said policies, principles and guidance form English Heritage and the Government’s Planning and Historic Environment make it clear that historic buildings and conservation areas need “appreciation and protection”.

He added: “Voluntary or involuntary diversions by HGVs on to minor roads could have a much wider detrimental impact on villages and historic buildings in the countryside.”

-----

PEOPLE who walk near to the proposed waste site currently take their life in their hands, an objector said.

Rivenhall resident Kate Ashton spoke at the inquiry and gave the views of someone who would live close to the planned facility.

She said she has spent eight years living in Rivenhall and during their time there her family has seen ten cars come through a fence of theirs.

She said: “The last of these was only a few weeks ago where a car coming from Kelvedon up Parkgate Road appeared to have been going so fast it did not have time to stop at the junction with Park and Western Road.”

She asked the inquiry inspector to consider the impact if it had been a HGV. She also said a lot of the rural roads near to the site would require HGVs to slow to 20mph “with obvious environmental impacts of C0 (carbon monoxide) emissions”.

Ms Ashton said “progress is important in life. Nimbyism cannot stand in the way of progress” and the original waste plant idea, dealing with Essex waste, “subject to understanding its impact, would have been welcomed by local residents”.

She said the way the “incinerator plant has grown and grown is the most naked and unpleasant display of arrogance, greed and total disregard for the local community and the countryside that I - and other residents of the local area - have ever seen”.