S_16_1055-COMMENTS_FROM_SKIP_-_20-04-17-588841

Supplementary Comments on S/16/1055 - SKIP Residents’ Group, 20 April 2017

Comments on Ref S/16/1055 - Incorrect Categorisation of
Development for Environmental Impact Assessment Purposes and
Subsequent Incorrect Description

S/16/1055: Erection of a Renewable Energy Centre with associated plant, infrastructure, Land at
Keypoint, Thornhill Road, South Marston, Swindon.

Comments submitted by S.K.I.P. - Stop Keypoint Incinerator Project Residents’ Group.

The applicants, who are proposing to build a waste incinerator at the Keypoint site, initially
submitted an Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report in February 2016. This was
processed by Swindon Council as a request for a Scoping Opinion under reference S/EIA/16/0251.

In their initial submission the applicants sought a Scoping Opinion from the Council on the basis
that they had “… volunteered to undertake an EIA…” (Scoping Report, paragraph 1.5). The
‘voluntary’ nature of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was justified by claiming that the
proposed development fell within Category 3(a) of Schedule 2 of the 2011 EIA Regulations, and
that an EIA is discretionary for Schedule 2 developments. (We note in passing that it is not the role
of an applicant to carry out an EIA, but to provide an Environmental Statement as input to the EIA.
It is the responsibility of a Planning Authority to undertake the EIA.)

We would like to point out that:
• The proposed development should properly have been categorised as falling within Category 10

of Schedule 1 of the EIA Regulations - a waste disposal installation for the incineration of non-
hazardous waste. (We set out the reason for this in the annex below.)
• An Environmental Impact Assessment is mandatory for Schedule 1 developments.
• The applicants use the title ‘Renewable Energy Centre’ to refer to their proposed development.
There is no reason - in principle - why a Schedule 1 Category 10 development might not also
generate renewable energy. However the proposed plant would process feedstock which includes
a proportion of non-biogenic material - possibly as much as 50% (applicants’ Planning Statement
4.78).
• Government guidance is clear that: “Energy from residual waste is only partially renewable due to the
presence of fossil based carbon in the waste …” (paragraph 67, Energy from waste: A guide to the
debate, February 2014 (revised edition), DEFRA).
• consequently we suggest that the title used for the development - Renewable Energy Centre
(REC) - is misleading since it:

skip_suppComment_incorrectDescription_S_16_1055_v2.pages

Page 1! of 3!

Supplementary Comments on S/16/1055 - SKIP Residents’ Group, 20 April 2017

(a) gives no indication that the proposed development would be a waste incinerator, and
(b) incorrectly gives the impression that all the energy generated could be considered

renewable.

Notifications issued by the Planning Authority have followed the applicants’ lead in using the title
“Renewable Energy Centre (REC)”. For instance a notice which appeared in the Swindon
Advertiser paper on 28 June 2016 described the proposed development as “Erection of a Renewable
Energy Centre with associated plant, infrastructure, associated works and a B8 warehouse with associated
plant and a vehicular access (EIA Development)”. No further details of the application were given.
The same description appears to have been used in all public notices issued by the Planning
Authority in relation to this development.

We suggest that the title and description used by the Planning Authority in its notifications was
wholly inadequate. It omitted to point out either that the development would be a waste incinerator
or that the energy generated would only be partially renewable.

Government guidance states that:
“Before publicising and consulting on an application, the local planning authority should be
satisfied that the description of development provided by the applicant is accurate.”

(From paragraph: 046 Reference ID: 14-046-20140306, Revision date: 06 03 2014 -
available at www.gov.uk/guidance/making-an-application, accessed at 17:15 on 19 April
2017)

Public response to the proposed development has inevitably been coloured by a title and description
that are inaccurate, and which are at variance with Government guidance on publicising an
application.

Annex: Proper Categorisation of Proposed Development Under EIA Regulations

In their submission of February 2016 the applicants claim that the proposed development falls
under Schedule 2 Category 3(a) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact
Assessment) Regulations 2011. The applicants give the definition of Category 3(a) as “Industrial
installations for the production of electricity, steam and hot water where the development exceeds 0.5
ha.” (from section 1.4 of applicants’ Feb 2016 Scoping Report).

However the applicants are incorrect in their suggestion that the proposed development falls within
Schedule 2 Category 3(a). The full definition of this category, as given in the EIA Regulations is:

skip_suppComment_incorrectDescription_S_16_1055_v2.pages

Page 2! of 3!

Supplementary Comments on S/16/1055 - SKIP Residents’ Group, 20 April 2017

“Industrial installations for the production of electricity, steam and hot water (unless included in
Schedule 1)”

(our underlining)
The proposed development does not fall within Category 3(a) of Schedule 2 because it is clearly
included by a category in Schedule 1.

Category 10 of Schedule 1 of the EIA Regulations is given as:
“Waste disposal installations for the incineration or chemical treatment (as defined in Annex
IIA to Council Directive 75/442/EEC under heading D9) of non-hazardous waste with a
capacity exceeding 100 tonnes per day.”

The proposed Energy Centre clearly falls within this category since it would process 150,000
tonnes of waste a year (applicants’ Planning Statement 3.2). The applicants describe their proposed
development as using a ‘gasification’ process and have sought to distinguish this from incineration
(for instance Planning Statement 3.16, 6.10). But the law is clear - a plant using gasification
technology to process waste is regarded as an incinerator. Regulation 2 of The Environmental
Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 clearly identifies waste
gasification as just one form of incineration:

“waste incineration plant” means a stationary or mobile technical unit and equipment dedicated
to the thermal treatment of waste, with or without recovery of the combustion heat generated,
through the incineration by oxidation of waste as well as other thermal treatment processes,
such as pyrolysis, gasification or plasma process, if the substances resulting from the treatment
are subsequently incinerated
Furthermore the process in the proposed plant fits this definition. According to paragraph 3.16 of
the applicants’ Planning Statement, which describes this process:
“… The first stage involves the gasification (heating) of the residual [waste] within the
gasification unit (primary chamber). The outputs from the gasification process is a synthetic gas
called ‘syngas’ and ‘bottom ash’ (see Ash Management below). The second stage involves the
high temperature oxidation of the syngas within the High-temperature Oxidation Unit …”

(our underlining - word in square brackets missing from original text)

skip_suppComment_incorrectDescription_S_16_1055_v2.pages

Page 3! of 3!