Minutes of Special Meeting between Burngreave and Owlerton and Southey Green Area Panel 12 April 2005

BURNGREAVE AND OWLERTON/SOUTHEY GREEN AREA PANELS


Special Joint Meeting held on 12th April, 2005, at Shirecliffe Community Centre, Shirecliffe Road

PRESENT:		Councillors Vic Bowden, Leigh Bramall, Jackie Drayton and Ibrar Hussain.

		Also in attendance:-
		Andy Shallice	-	Area Co-ordinator, Burngreave Area Panel

		Andy Wier	-	Area Co-ordinator, Owlerton/Southey Green Area Panel

		Matthew Rush	-	Area Support Officer, Owlerton/ Southey Green Area Panel

		David Shepherd	-	Neighbourhoods Directorate

		Stephen Hodges	-	Viridor Waste Management

		Dr. Jeremy Wight		North Sheffield Primary Care Trust

		Una Kelly	-	North Sheffield Regeneration Team

		Johanna Mawson	-	Parks, Woodlands and Countryside

		Vicky Taylor	-	Development Services

		Roy Mosley	-	Sheffield Wildlife Trust

		Jo Zasada ) Helen Lomas )	-	Sure Start

		John Turner	-	Committee Secretariat

There were approximately 22 local residents and representatives of local community groups in attendance.

…………….

1.	APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR
	RESOLVED: That Councillor Jackie Drayton (Chair of the Burngreave Area Panel) be appointed Chair of the meeting.

2.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
	Apologies for absence were received from the Chair of the Owlerton/ Southey Green Area Panel (Councillor Tony Damms) and Councillors Gill Furniss, Steve Jones and Alan Law.

3.	PARKWOOD LANDFILL SITE
	Viridor Waste Management - Vision for Meeting Local Priorities
	Stephen Hodges, Technical Director, Viridor Waste Management, gave a presentation on the background in respect of the operations on the Parkwood Landfill Site, together with the company’s proposals for the rephasing works on the site. He stated that Viridor had received extensive comments following the public exhibitions held in Shirecliffe last week, and the majority of comments received from local residents had indicated that the Company’s proposals offered the best compromise in meeting local concerns. Residents, however, wanted assurances that Viridor’s proposals with regard to site management could be maintained.
	Mr. Hodges reported that Viridor’s proposals consisted of three elements of development at the Parkwood Landfill Site, which included better rephasing of the site, the construction and operation of a renewable power plant, using landfill gas to produce electricity and the construction and operation of a leachate treatment plant, that would consist of a storage and dosing tank and a wetland area. Formal planning applications for the power plant and leachate treatment plan had been submitted to the City Council, and an application for planning permission in respect of the rephasing proposals would be submitted to the Council early in the Summer.
	He reported on the present operations on the site, indicating that the site received and safely disposed of approximately 450,000 tons of household and non-hazardous commercial waste per year, which equated to approximately 220 lorry loads per day. Viridor had voluntarily stopped accepting hazardous wastes last year and since becoming responsible for the site, the Company had invested well over £1m in improved site management, including the installation of a number of extra gas wells to improve gas and odour control, the provision of a newly constructed windy tipping bay to reduce the risk of loose waste getting off site and implementing better ways of ensuring that dust, litter and other potential impacts did not create problems locally. Further improvements included the planting of nearly 1,000 trees on 13,000 square metres of a recently capped and restored part of the site and there were plans to install 600 metres of new security fencing along the northern flank of the site. As part of the review of the site, Viridor had taken into account the needs of a number of various groups and organisations, including the Parkwood Landfill Working Group, local residents, the City Council and its customers and employees.
	Brief reference was made to a number of issues that had been identified by the City Council, highlighted through the Parkwood Landfill Working Group, and which required addressing. These included the establishment of the Parkwood Landfill Liaison Committee which provided a link between Viridor, local residents and other agencies, the screening of site operations from local housing, air quality monitoring, improved phasing of the landfill, better cleaning of local roads, improved site security and the undertaking of a Health Impact Assessment.
	Mr. Hodges reported on the details of the planning applications in respect of the power plant and the leachate treatment plant, referring to the locations of the two plants on the site and the processes involved in their operation. He went on to report on the key benefits of the better phasing of the work on the landfill site, which was subject to a planning application to be made this Summer. The rephasing proposals would mean that Viridor would be able to move quickly away from the houses nearest the site, in that operations would move from North to South, and enable the completed areas to be restored as quickly as possible. It would also result in the provision of improved screening between the houses and the main works on the landfill site. Other benefits involved the active waste tipping being moved permanently further away from the closest houses, a reduction in the life of the site, quicker landscaping, the reduction of open areas and the re-contouring of the final approved land form of the completed site.
	As part of its screening proposals, Viridor intended to construct a minimum 50 metre landscaped buffer zone, permanently putting distance between the nearest houses and active waste tipping, and having looked at the possible design of the buffer zone, and based on feedback from local residents, it was intended, in addition to the buffer zone, to incorporate a screening bund into the proposals. The temporary bund would be three metres high, and made from the same inert material used to construct the inert buffer area, and would be planted with grass. As shown on the diagram exhibited at the meeting, the bund would be located along the interface between the active tipping area and the buffer zone. As the adjacent active waste landfill area attained finished level, and was capped, the material from the bund would be used in the soil profile above the engineered cap.
	The proposals were dependent on Viridor receiving planning permission from the City Council, together with an agreement from the Council as owners of part of the landfill site. Also, any rephasing proposals would require authorisation from the Environment Agency, who must be satisfied that the environmental controls in place would ensure that there would be no unacceptable environmental impacts arising from site operations.
	Mr. Hodges emphasised the fact that there would be no increase, as part of the proposed operations, in the size of the site, and that Viridor intended to change the type of waste deposited in parts of the site, replacing inert waste with active waste. The construction of the buffer zone would be combined with new site phasing to ensure that the site was filled quickly in the area closest to the nearest properties. Due to the change in the type of waste deposited, from inert to active, and the relative size of annual inputs in terms of the amount of inert as opposed to active waste, Viridor filled active landfill space about 4.5 times quicker than inert landfill space, which would hopefully result in operations on the site being completed in 11 to 12 years instead of the current estimate of 20 years.
	Mr. Hodges concluded by referring to Viridor’s responsibilities from a business point of view, and the requirement of the Company to balance the varying needs of those who had a legitimate interest in what they did. He stressed that Viridor’s proposals were a genuine effort to improve the design of the site, whilst meeting the needs and demands of its customers, and to the benefit of those most affected.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. Was active incinerator waste dumped on the site?

	R. If the waste was non hazardous, it could be dumped on the site. No hazardous waste had been dumped on the site since March, 2004.

	Q. Was planning permission granted in respect of the dumping of inert waste in the Cell 4 area only on the basis that this area of land was owned by the City Council?

	R. A large proportion of the Cell 4 area was under the ownership of the City Council and this was the case at the time Viridor purchased the site.

	Q. What safeguards did Viridor have in connection with checks on asbestos being brought for dumping at the site? A large number of old properties in the City, which were likely to contain asbestos, had been demolished over the last few years, and the waste had been brought to the site in lorries, on a regular basis, therefore there was a high probability that some asbestos was being brought to be dumped on the site.

	R. There were a number of different checks made at different stages of the dumping process to ensure that no hazardous waste, such as asbestos, was brought and dumped on the site. All customers wishing to dump waste on the site had to produce the relevant paper work and this was checked by Viridor staff at the weighbridge. There would also be further visual checks of the waste at the weighbridge, and as the waste was tipped on to the site and, if it was found that there was any hazardous waste, it would be isolated immediately and the Environment Agency informed. Further, all buildings were required to be cleared of asbestos by specialists prior to general demolition.

	Q. Following the gas explosions on the site last year, on which the Environment Agency had taken action against Viridor, could the Company provide an assurance that no more hazardous waste would be dumped on the site?

	R. The explosions, which had been caused as a result of batteries being dumped on the site, occurred in early May, 2004, prior to the regulations stopping the dumping of all hazardous waste on the site with effect from July, 2004. Viridor regretted the incident and the company responsible was immediately banned from dumping on the site. A full report on this incident would be submitted to the next Parkwood Landfill Liaison Group, and be shared with all the local community groups.

	Q. On the basis that Viridor were moving their dumping operations further South, which would make it nearer to the proposed Adventure Playground at the Ski Village, did the company consider there to be any risks to children using the playground?

	R. The proposals to fill the site working from North to South were to make it possible for the entire site to be completed and restored at the earliest possible opportunity. Dumping near the boundary to the Ski Village would be controlled under the terms of Viridor’s licence, therefore there would be strict regulations as there was for dumping on all the site. It was not envisaged that the operation on this area of the site would cause any problems for children using the new Adventure Playground.

	Q. Had Viridor been approached by the operators of the Ski Village to discuss their expansion plans as and when the dumping operation was complete and the site closed?

	R. Yes.

	Q. What was the power output of the generators in the power plant on the site?

	R. There would be four to five generators, having an output of 4 to 5 mega-watts.

	Q. Whilst it was planned for the site to be completed and restored by 2016, the leachate treatment work would most probably continue for approximately 30 years. What effect would this have with regard to access to the land after restoration in 2016?

	R. During the continuing leachate treatment and gas management on the site, Viridor would still undertake regular controls with regard to active gas emissions. The site will only be signed off following completion of the operational phase, the subsequent restoration, and aftercare to the approval of the Environment Agency. There will be a number of gas wells left on the site, but these will be buried after activity had finished. It was accepted that there may be issues with regard to access to some parts of the site, but there will be controls in place to ensure that there were no risks involved. Further discussions with the authorities will be necessary to secure early release of land for public access.

	Q. Were there financial gains for Viridor in the company’s move to dump more active waste as opposed to inert waste and how much did the company receive for each type of waste?

	R. Whilst the amount paid for different types of waste to be dumped varied due to the nature of the site, Viridor generally would be receiving approximately £18 per ton of active waste and £5 per ton for inert waste. The operating costs in connection with dumping active waste however, were substantially higher in order to cover the engineered containment and extra environmental controls necessary.

	Q. Were Viridor expecting any problems with regard to the planning application in respect of the rephasing of the site?

	R. No.

	Q. From the photograph shown as part of the presentation, it appears that the site boundary in respect of dumping abuts a number of property boundaries. Why had Viridor erected a fence, which had involved the removal of a number of trees, when they had not yet received planning permission in respect of the rephasing of the work of the site?

	R. The fence which was along the existing permitted site boundary had been erected on the grounds that Viridor were required to secure the boundary of the site.

	Q. There had been a recent article in a Sunday newspaper on the deaths of two girls in the Cheshire area, and it had been reported that there had been some link between their deaths and gas emissions from a nearby landfill site. Were Viridor aware of this?

	R. Viridor were not aware of the specific allegations made in the recent Sunday press. The proposals were to move dumping operations further away from the nearest properties. As shown on one of the diagrams as part of the presentation, any dumping would take place within a minimum distance of 50 metres from any properties bordering the site and there would also be a buffer zone, which would include the planting of a number of trees.

	Q. Whilst the residents appreciated the buffer zone, it did not safeguard all the properties bordering or near the site and several residents living in these properties suffered from smells and dust in their gardens, which problems were likely to get worse when the waste was dumped nearer to ground level. Were Viridor aware of the residents’ concerns?

	R. Viridor were well aware of residents’ concerns. There will be strict regulations in place in connection with the dumping of waste at this higher level on the site. Controls will be in place to stop any problems occurring and Viridor would listen to any complaints from residents and take any appropriate action. Whilst Viridor were mindful of the potential adverse effects of its dumping operations on residents living near the site, it also had to take its business operations into consideration, which taking the views of the company’s shareholders, employees and customers into consideration.

	RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported, together with the responses given to the questions, be noted;
	(b) the thanks of the Area Panels be conveyed to Stephen Hodges for the presentation now made and for the efforts being made by Viridor in minimising the impact of its dumping operations on the site on local residents; and
	(c) the Panels request the Area Co-ordinator of the Burngreave Area Panel to write to the Head of Planning requesting that he delays making a recommendation to the West Planning and Highways Area Board on the application by Viridor to rephase the land, until the North Sheffield Primary Care Trust had completed the final stages of the Health Impact Assessment.

	North Sheffield Primary Care Trust - Parkwood Landfill Site Health Impact Assessment
	Dr. Jeremy Wight gave a presentation on the progress of the Health Impact Assessment being carried out in respect of the Parkwood Landfill Site, which had been undertaken in response to concerns expressed by local residents.
	Dr. Wight reported on the findings of Phase 1 of the assessment, which had indicated that:-

	· People who lived near the landfill site were more likely to report a number of symptoms than people who lived further away. These included Chronic Obstructive Airways Disease (COPD), skin, eye and nose irritation and neurological symptoms.

	· People who lived near the site were also significantly more likely to be smokers.

	· There was no increase in the number of cases of cancer in people living near the landfill site, compared to further away.

	· There was no increase in congenital abnormalities, or low birth weight, in babies of women who lived near the landfill site.

	Following Phase 1 of the assessment, a number of questions remained unanswered. In particular, the reason for the increased reporting of symptoms was not clear. This could be because the landfill site was making them ill, there were other sources of environmental pollution making them ill, or due to reporting bias. Other unanswered questions included whether there was any truth in statements made by local residents, indicating that people who lived near the landfill site had said that lots of people were dying of cancer who lived close by. Also residents were questioning whether there were more deaths from cancer in the area, even though the number of new cases had not increased.
	Dr. Wight reported on what methods had been used as part of the assessment, which involved looking at other sources of environmental pollution, undertaking a more detailed analysis of the results of the survey undertaken, looking at GP records to see if people who reported symptoms also sought medical advice, measuring lung function in survey respondents and analysing cancer deaths. As part of its work in connection with examining other sources of environmental pollution, the Trust had examined, through the Environmental Health Department and the Environment Agency, all other known sources of pollution in the area, and had included pollution through nitrogen dioxide levels in the air in the analysis of the survey results. Further work was to be undertaken in this area. The Trust had also undertaken analysis of the weather and the area’s topography that may affect the distribution of any pollutants coming off the landfill site, and had undertaken further analysis of the survey data using this, rather than simple distance from the site, as a measure of possible exposure. Again, further work in this area was to be undertaken.
	As part of the analysis of the survey results, the Trust wanted to see whether people who had said they had symptoms, had also sought medical advice. The Trust had obtained permission from the Research Ethics Committee to examine GP records of people who had completed the survey, but unfortunately, many practices insisted on individual patient consent before allowing access to the records. The collection of this data was still in progress. As part of the analysis, Dr. Wight stated that the Trust wanted to see how badly damaged the lungs were of people who reported COPD in the survey, as well as those who did not. Preliminary analysis of the testing, which had been undertaken by a Research Nurse, had indicated that there was no evidence of reporting bias. Among people not categorised as having COPD, lung disease was no more common in people living close to, rather than further away from the site. It was also found that cases of COPD were mild to moderate. As part of the analysis of the results regarding cancer deaths, cancer mortality did show a small increase in areas closer to the landfill site, in that there was approximately a 4% increase for each kilometre closer to the site. However, the increased number of smokers in areas close to the site would cause this level of increased mortality. A comparison with regard to cancer mortality was made in Gleadless, which was considered to be a similar area to Shirecliffe, and which showed that there was no increase in cancer mortality in this area.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. In connection with the analysis regarding cancer mortality as a result of high levels of smokers in the area, reference had also been made in a paper produced by the Primary Care Trust, to higher levels of cancer mortality rates in people with poor diets. Why had there been no reference to this at this meeting?

	R. There is evidence to show that a poor diet can contribute to cancer, but whilst the Primary Care Trust had data on levels of smoking in the area, it had no hard data on residents’ diets. Evidence showed that the high levels of smoking by residents in this area contributed to causes of cancer.

	Q. Was there any evidence to show any differences in the types of cancer suffered by residents both here and at Gleadless?

	R. No.

	Q. Were there any plans to undertake a further Health Impact Assessment whilst the landfill site was still active on the basis that people could have developed illnesses after the research had been undertaken approximately two years ago? Residents were aware of new cases of pneumonia in the area.

	R. There were no plans to undertake any further research. It was proposed that this assessment would be completed and it was considered that any further survey would not be of any benefit. There will always be individual cases of people contracting pneumonia.


	Q. How many residents were surveyed as part of the Health Impact Assessment?

	R. Approximately 10% of people who lived within a kilometre of the landfill site were involved in the survey, with a slightly smaller percentage of people living a further distance away from the site. The PCT aimed to look at a certain number of residents’ GP records, but only received permission from approximately 50% of the residents involved. In total, the Trust were able to access the medical records of approximately 200 people.

	Q. Who had financed the Health Impact Assessment?

	R. The North Sheffield Primary Care Trust.

	Q. If, on completion of the analysis of results of the assessment, there was evidence to show that the operations on the landfill site did have an adverse effect on the health of those residents living near the site, would steps be taken to defer the planning application for the rephasing work on the site pending the production of the final report?

	R. This decision would have to be taken by the City Council, acting as the Planning Authority. It was the decision of the Council as to what information it considered when determining the application for planning permission.

	Q. Why as the analysis of cancer mortality had shown a small increase in areas closer to the landfill site, were Viridor still carrying out dumping operations within 50 metres of the boundaries of some properties?

	R. The analysis did not indicate an increased risk of getting cancer, but of dying within five years after contracting cancer. The dumping operations of Viridor were not the cause of the slight increase in cancer mortality rates - this was due to the fact that in the area surrounding the landfill site, residents were 8% more likely to be smokers, which, as medical research had proved, was the biggest cause of cancer. There was therefore no increased risk of cancer mortality as a result of the operations on the landfill site.

	Q. Could the PCT provide an explanation as to why there was a high rate of people who lived near the landfill site suffering from anxiety and depression? Would this also explain why there was such high levels of smoking in the area?

	R. The Trust was not able to explain why the levels of these mental illnesses were so high, and it would be very difficult to assess why the levels were so high, and if this had resulted in higher levels of smoking.

	Q. There has been a reduction in the number of flies on and around the landfill site which, it was believed, had been as a result of the increased use of pesticides - was the use of such pesticides being monitored by the PCT?

	R. No, this was the responsibility of the Environment Agency. Viridor had specialist contractors who were responsible for spraying the pesticides. There were regulations to ensure that the use of pesticides was carried out in a proper and controlled manner, and at particular times of the day.

	Q. As part of the assessment, the PCT should have been more proactive in that instead of looking at the causes of deaths in the area, residents living near the site should have received blood tests. Would this have been a better method of assessing any possible health risks of the landfill site?

	R. Some tests had been carried out such as lung function testing. Undertaking blood testing would not be helpful unless there was a specific chemical to be tested for, which there is not.

	Q. Had, as part of the analysis of the results of the Health Impact Assessment, the PCT liaised with other medical experts?

	R. The PCT had talked to, and had been in continual liaison with the National Chemical Response Service, in connection with the Health Impact Assessment, and would be liaising further with that Service prior to the official publication of the results. The PCT had also reviewed all the relevant scientific literature with regard to landfill sites and the potential health effects of such sites. Some of this literature showed that there was an increase in congenital abnormalities in babies of mothers who lived near landfill sites.

	Q. Could the PCT undertake a further Health Impact Assessment in connection with the health risks of the landfill site?

	R. It was doubtful that a further assessment would be undertaken in the light of the resources required. The PCT had a limited amount of funding and this was required to fund other work.

	Q. If the results of the analysis of the Health Impact Assessment showed that the landfill site was a cause of ill health, would the site be closed down?

	R. The PCT would forward a copy of the results of the assessment to the Environment Agency, who had the powers, if there were relevant grounds, to issue an order to close down the site with immediate effect.

	The following comments were also made:-

	· If the results of the Health Impact Assessment did not show that there was an increased health risk to residents from the landfill site, it was not possible to deny the fact that there could be possible health risks due to the dust, smells and noise as a result of operations on the landfill site.