We’re planning a full report on the public meeting for the proposed Asphalt plant that was held in East Cowes town hall last night. As a few people have sent us letters already today, we thought we’d put this marker up, so if people want to leave their impressions of last night, they can, in advance of the article.
As promised, now follows part one of a comprehensive report from the meeting held Tuesday 7th August.
Over 100 people packed into the town hall in East Cowes last night (Tuesday) for the public meeting with asphalt plant applicant, Eurovia Roadstone.
At 6.30pm the Mayor, Jane Rand, made a brief introduction and before handing over to the applicants, she stated that the meeting would finish at 8.15pm. She passed the microphone (which suffered bouts of ear-ringing feedback for most of the evening) to David Marsh, the consultant who had been hired by Eurovia to make the application. Also present was Patrick Reilly, Divisional Director for the company.
Brief presentation
Mr Marsh led the brief presentation about the application explaining that three possible locations had been considered, but two rejected in favour of the proposed site, due to previous objections and closeness to residential areas.
He said that the proposed site ticks all the boxes for planning policy and is sufficiently far from residential areas to mitigate any problems.
How it would work
Mr Marsh went onto explain how the Asphalt plant would work, with details of the storage area, filtering system, loading and HGV traffic.
The company would be mitigating noise and dust issues by enclosing the development on three sides with raised banks and fence screening.
The meeting was then opened to public questions. We weren’t always able to catch people’s names, so apologies if we’ve got yours wrong – do get in touch and let us know and we’ll correct accordingly.
Impact of HGVs on Arctic Rd residents
The first question came from Denise Kirk who lives in Arctic Road. She was very concerned by the noise from lorries using the road and suggested that the company hadn’t considered the impact this would have on residents.
Mr Marsh replied that Arctic Road has always been a designated highway link from the port. Wherever an asphalt plant is located there will be HGVs, he said.
Environmental Impact Assessment
East Cowes resident, Julia Hill, asked the next question. She referred to the lack of an Environmental Impact Assessment. She explained that in March the council stated they believed that the site would be temporary (25 years) and not permanent (as is the case). She asked why the consultants had not corrected the council at the time.
Mr Marsh replied by saying that her interpretation of the legislation was flawed. He argued that and EIA is only needed if there are likely significant environmental effects. The documents produced show there aren’t he said.
Asked by Police to monitor traffic
Lesley Bennett, another resident from Arctic Road questioned the road being a designated port to highway link. She explained her involvement with Neighbourhood Watch for the area and how the local police had asked her and others to monitor the movement of HGV lorries on the road.
Mr Marsh said he was not sure about her point, “We’ve always intended to use Arctic Road,” he said, adding that a transport assessment revealed that it currently has 90% reserve capacity. They would be accessing it with three loads an hour.
Why not a rail network?
Peter Geach asked why a rail network could not be put in place to take the goods from Cowes to Newport. He went to add that he was hearing lots of ‘hogwash’ from Eurovia and believed that a planning decision had already been made.
He pointed out that there was an ‘noxious smell’ coming from the biomass unit at Waitrose when it was in use.
Mr Marsh stated he could not answer for Waitrose. He said that the stacks at the plant take dust emissions from the aggregate, this is then filtered and a water vapour is released which contains a very small amount of aggregate dust. None of this is heated or emitted through the stack, he said.
Safety of particulates?
Luisa Hillard commented on the heated bitumen and asked whether any of the particulates released are known to cause medical problems to the youngest and oldest?
Mr Marsh replied that the bitumen is only exposed to air during the loading process and that this process takes about 20 seconds.
In response to the question about causing medical problems, he replied, “Not to my knowledge.”
He went on to say that the emission of combusted gas contains very fine particles, that aggregates are inert, so it was “unlikely” to cause any health effects on people. He reminded the audience that asphalt plants are regulated by Environment Agency with regulations determined by the State.
How can you call this development?
Tanja Rebel from Cowes spoke next. She said that her question would be mainly semantic. She made several points first in relation to the 3m high fence, there being no safe level for small particulates. She added that Mr Marsh’s assertion that it would be ‘unlikely’ that the small particulates would cause harm seemed like an experiment, “because, unlikely is not certainty,” she said.
She also spoke of the sensitive river habitat and cycle path used by commuters and tourists, the fact that there is already an aggregate plant on the Island with planning application lodged to meet capacity for the PFI Highways project and then asked, “How can you call this development?”
This question was met with a round of applause from the room.
Mr Marsh said that he would try to give “a large answer to a large question.” He said that Islanders had voted to improve the road network, their projects offers the most sustainable option for that highway maintenance improvement.
Jane Rand then asked for the next question.
Simon Perry (VB) called out to ask whether that was the extent of the answer to the question. Mr Marsh replied that “it was so far ranging, it’s difficult to deal with ten questions at once.”
The mayor then said, “one question at a time please, he can’t be bamboozled with a lot of stuff in one go.”
Overnight deliveries
Ivor from Arctic Road asked how many and what time will deliveries by HGVs be made each day, adding that he probably felt it would go on overnight.
Mr Marsh replied that the application was for 24/7 operation, the intention is that the asphalt plant would operate to that number of hours. But he added it was more likely that 60% of total volumes produced would be supplied between 7am-7pm, a further 20% of working would be at a weekend, same hours, 7am-7pm, with 20% of balance of material being supplied between 7pm-midnight.
He said it did not mean that the asphalt plant would be working all those hours as they allowed for hot storage of the manufactured product. Typically it would be manufactured two hours before and stored. It’s a best estimate.
Sit!
A woman in the audience then appeared to ask for clarification on the answer to which the mayor, Jane Rand replied, “ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah,” wagging her finger to indicate the woman should be quiet.
She then moved onto the next questioner.
Contaminated land
A gentleman (no name given) asked whether this proposal was in fact the most sustainable solution. It was being built on contaminated land (ex-landfill), and he understood that the contaminated land would be used to build the bund (embankment) around the site. He asked how trees would survive planted in contaminated land.
He suggested the development would leach out toxic waste into the environment, and affect the protected species such Shad, Trout and Eel in the River Medina. “How are you going to prevent this happening?” he asked.
This question attracted huge applause from the audience.
Mr Marsh said, “Yes the site is a former landfill site, it is what it is, surely better to use derelict land for industrial development than greenfield land,” This response attracted laughter and signs of discontent from the audience.
He then referred to a site investigation that was made 15-20 years ago, compared it to their recent survey and found the outcomes to be similar. They would ‘re-grade’ the top two meters on average of the site. This would generate soil and he suggested it would make more sense to use that than primary materials. “Recover and re-use”, rather than have more waste go to another landfill, he said.
He went on to say that no toxicity had been found in their investigations. They had gone down to 4m and it was all innocuous. He added that it they found anything toxic, they wouldn’t interfere with it.
He went on to say that they would be “improving the situation”, as they would be laying an impermeable surface on the yard with drainage, stopping surface water peculating through waste mass and disseminating any toxicity into the wider environment.
Impact on cyclists
Jennifer Smith from Cowes asked what impact the development would have to cyclists using the cycle path.
Mr Marsh stated that the application would have negligible impact on tourism and that the cyclepath was part of that. He added that tree planting on the boundaries of the site would improve the view to those using the cycle path in future and that the development would not encroach on the cycle path in any way. In short it would not need to close during or after construction of the asphalt plant.
Question of impropriety
Philippe Wines from East Cowes said that many in room and outside held commonly held opinions about the “doubtful standards of professionalism, competence and even savvy proberty of elected and appointed council officials.”
This attracted the biggest applause of the night from the audience, including cheers. Mr Wines added, “present company accepted”, which raised some laughter.
He then asked Mr Reilly to give an assurance that no impropriety had occurred between his firm and the officials and asked Mr Marsh to give the meeting an honest measure of the professional surprise on a scale of one to ten, that the “eco-friendly council” had failed to ask for an environmental impact assessment or failed to undertake an public consultations prior to agreeing to the “noisome and noxious factory”.
Mr Reilly gave his “absolute assurance that there has been no impropriety with our organisation and any elected official on this island.” He didn’t give assurances about appointed officials.
Mr Marsh replied that he “wasn’t surprised in the slightest from the response by the Isle of Wight council”. He said they had demonstrated that there are any likely significant environmental effects.
Consultation before brouhaha?
He was then asked whether it would have been wiser to do some public consultations before the brouhaha had started.
Mr Marsh replied that the screening response isn’t normally a matter that goes out to the public consultation. He explained that there are three stages to the process, firstly to see whether there needs to be an environmental impact assessment (done through the screening process), two, if it does, what should that should that assessment consider and thirdly, involves preparing for submission.
Part two continues tomorrow … next up, “My life trumps your plant.”
Update 2
17.52 9th August
“My life trumps your plant”
A female resident from East Cowes explained that she was Asthmatic (adding like many others in the room) and stated there is evidence that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) do cause death in people with Asthma, adding it was true that it also causes people to gain Asthma.
“My life trumps your plant,” she said. “Do not try to blow smoke up me, because I worked in California state legislature and dealt with air quality issues and if this wouldn’t fly in California, I don’t know why you think it would fly so closely to a densely populated area.”
This was met with huge applause.
Mr Reilly replied, “We’re not in California,” going on to say “there is no evidence currently available in the UK that supports your statement.”
The woman replied that she would be very happy to provide full details of air quality statements and research from the US that backed up her claims.
“We have a duty to comply with UK law and statute”, he said adding that the development that on the Medina Wharf would fully comply with UK law and statute.
List of all Eurovia plants
A gentleman who didn’t give his name asked for a list of all the plants that the company ran on the mainland. “So we can do some investigation ourselves,” he added.
This was agreed by Mr Reilly and said he would supply details through the town council.
Chemical industry expert has concerns
Dr Nigel Buckley explained that he had spent his career in the chemical industry. He said that he was not anti asphalt plant per se, but asked whether this proposal was the right location.
He asked about the supporting statement written by Mr Marsh in relation to the consultation with the IWC planning dept. It stated that on 9th February discussions were held with planning officer Mr Gildersleeves and after that further discussions held with Mr Russell Chick, also a planning officer.
He asked whether they had discussed locations at the time or did the planning officers tell them this was the place to go.
Mr Marsh replied that although the statement was an accurate reflection of discussions that took place, “in some respects it was a bit of a dog’s dinner,” adding that he came to the Island to talk with Russell Chick only to find that he was double booked, so Mr Marsh met with Mike Gildersleeves instead.
He said that during the meeting he mentioned the Medina site, as he had been involved with discussions with Eurovia since October 2011. He confirmed that process of deciding where to site the asphalt plant only involved the Isle of Wight once Eurovia had made their choice on the best place for it.
“There was no positive steer or direction from the council,” he added.
Dr Buckley then asked why it was that four months later, the council wrote to Mr Marsh and asked him to defend the selection of the site and ask whether they’d looked at other sites.
Mr Marsh said it was “quite simple” and that there was “nothing underhand or sinister”. He explained that you would usually have to show consideration of alternative sites when complying with process for EIA, but because this application didn’t fall under that legislation, they didn’t overtly state the two alternative sites – simply because “they didn’t need to”.
He confirmed that it was the council’s judgement at final screening stage as to whether or not and EIA was required.
Other plants near residential areas
David Burdett asked whether a list of existing asphalt plants next residential areas would be supplied, so Islanders could contact them to find out their experience.
It was confirmed that Eurovia do not operate any in the same circumstances, ie, as near to a residential area as the proposed Medina Wharf site.
Where do complaints go?
Matthew Martin said he was cynical about Arctic Road access and asked who would residents direct complaints to if things do not go to plan? What relevant action would be taken?
Mr Reilly said that they cannot predict every last thing, they have averaged it out and put estimates towards the high end in the application. He said there could be six trucks leave at the same time, then nothing for two or three hours.
“We will have to meet the PFI obligation,” he said, but didn’t answer as to who complaints should be made to.
Part three continues follow later today … next up, “Blackwater Quarry best place for site”
Update three
23.22 9th August 2012
The next public question came from Steve Goodman, who asked whether he could address three concerns.
His first concern was the statement from Eurovia that they “have an obligation to supply materials under the terms of the Highways PFI and that the plant is essential,” but that they didn’t have planning permission.
“That’s a serious concern to a lot of us, if you don’t have the plant you can’t meet you side of the contract, so we’re wondering about that or worrying that perhaps there’s no point in having planning applications or process because it’s already a done deal.”
Mr Reilly replied that if that were the case there would be no point in them standing there carrying out the public meeting. He said that they were going through a genuine planning process and that there was an appeal in place.
What appeal?
The appeal was questioned by members of the audience and it was revealed to in fact be a request by a third party appeal to the Secretary of State to enforce an Environmental Impact Assessment.
Mr Reilly apologised for referring to it as an appeal, which was the incorrect terminology.
He was asked by a member of the audience to stick to legal terminology, “so we’re all on the same page please”, to which he replied, “in that case I won’t be able to answer any questions because as I am not a planning process expert.”
Consider a different site
Mr Goodman continued with his second point which was in relation to Medina Wharf being the right site. He said that one way the company could meet the concerns of the people would be to use a different site.
He mentioned that there is already plant on the Island that has an pending application to expand in order to meet the needs of the PFI highways contractor, pointing out that the alternative plant does not attract the criticism and concerns that Eurovia are seeing to the Medina Wharf one.
“One plant would be enough for the Island,” he said.
Strike a deal with existing plant
He suggested that they put their time, money and effort to come to an arrangement to use the existing plant.
“You’ll probably get the backing of just about everyone on the Island if you do that.” he said, which was met with huge applause from the audience.
Bardon Vectis not a viable option
Mr Marsh said that he had looked at the Bardon Vectis application and said that by their own admission in the application, BV say they cannot supply the contract for the Highways PFI project, they don’t have planning permission, they have limited reserves. He begged the question whether they would receive planning permission to have the plant there for the duration of the contract.
“I’m not sure they will, I think they might come up against that one.” he said. “I don’t think that the BV facility as it is now or proposed is a viable option.”
In addition, he said that Eurovia were not constrained by history, he claimed that the Blackwater Quarry was not the best place to locate an asphalt plant (perhaps he didn’t realise there is one there already). “The best place is close to the wharf,” he said.
House prices
A woman from Arctic Rd asked whether the company had considered how the development would affect the value of property. She said that an estate agent had told her something along the lines of, sell before the information is widely known (it was hard to fully hear as she was facing the front and sat at the front).
Mr Marsh replied that the effect on the value of a property was not a material planning consideration. As an RSS valuer, he was able to speak with valuation expertise and said anyone new to the area would look at it with fresh eyes and look at the whole area, they don’t see the change.
He said that overall there would be a negligible effect on the value of properties.
Accuracy of application
The next gentleman (Patrick?) directed his question to Mr Riley and asked whether he was happy with the accuracy and completeness of the planning documentation.
He gave two examples to aid Mr Reilly, the first was that planning documents stated that over 600 samples had been taken, at first glance from Medina, but on closer inspection included results for tests carried out at Victoria Deep Water Terminal in Greenwich.
Mr Marsh attempted to answer the question, but the member of the public was insistent that he wanted Mr Reilly to answer.
He went on to refer to the Habitat survey for land adjacent to Daish Way, Newport, which had spelt the Isle of Wight as White.
The underlying question was, “how much can we and the case officer rely on this information to fully describe to us how this project will work and what it is that you ultimately intend to build?”
Human error part one
Mr Marsh gave his answer stating that the there were no errors in their paperwork, but the lab that had carried out the analysis of the sample had mis-coded the report (from a previous job in Greenwich). He said that the information would be going back to the lab and the same information submitted but with the title changed.
He then moved onto the second point and said, “You’re wrong, black and white, nailed on, you’re wrong!”
The member of the public interrupted saying that he had asked the question to Mr Reilly as to whether he was happy with the quality of the submission and did not want a response from Mr Marsh.
Human error part two
Mr Marsh seemed to ignore this and continued, “Our ecological assessment for the planning application is right, in every way shape and form, it doesn’t have the errors that the gentleman stated.”
“I’ve had the apology from the IWC, they mistakenly put an ecological statement from another development on their website with our application. It’s nothing to do with us, you can go on the council website and you’ll see it’s been amended.” he finished.
Mr Reilly then added his reply to the original question, stating that the paperwork for the application extended to two volumes of lever arch files. He said that the paperwork was vetted by three people and that they had missed the wrong title on soil samples. Given they were talking about 2,000 sheets of paper, he felt it was “one very small error”.
Answer the question
He was asked again by the member of the public whether he was happy with the completeness of the application.
Mr Reilly replied that in terms of planning process the report is comprehensive. He confirmed that they had been asked to supply further information to the case officer, and are in the process of gathering that information.
He said that in planning terms if there was insufficient information the planning officer would ask for more.
Particle measurements
Tony Cawley was up next, explaining that he lived in Cowes Marina and therefore just a few hundred meters from the proposed asphalt plant. He said that he had been looking very closely at the application and pollution levels along the river.
In particular, he had been looking at the measurement of particles; pm1; pm2.5 and pm10. He added that the application makes no reference to the pm1 or pm2.5 particles, which are those that are known to cause serious health problems.
He explained that on the Isle of Wight the incidence of Asthma in children aged between 5-15 was 36% more than the national average.
Add to this the possible pollution from the proposed asphalt plant, bio-mass plants x2, shipping from the Solent, RedJet, and he was very concerned about sources of pollution.
He asked what scientific measurements they have at existing asphalt plants that they run to analyse for low particle measurements, adding that their planning application doesn’t show pm1 or pm2.5 measurements.
Not a planning consideration
Mr Marsh answered that, “the question posed doesn’t really fall into planning,” this was met with booing from the audience.
He went on to say that the development will be subject to legislative control and fine particle emissions would be dealt with at later stage.
On the request of the client, Mr Marsh said that they have brought forward work on analysing air quality, the results of which showed that the air quality in Medina Estuary is very clean, and that the plant will increase particles in the air by only a small fraction.
Model of comparisons
He added that they had employed an independent consultant to model and show graphically the effects of fine particles in the air and make comparisons with and without the asphalt plant and that they would be making that information public in the next two weeks.
A member of the audience reminded the room that “there are no safe levels for small paticulates.”
Mr Cawley added that he could not find any data on the council website about air quality being monitored, although Mr Marsh was able to confirm that there is monitoring carried out every two years.
Look out for the fourth and final part of the report which will continue tomorrow.
Update Four
17.20 10th August 2012
Will extra asphalt be sold to mainland
Corrie Raynor spoke next, stating that she lived in Newport but worked in Cowes and uses the cycle track on the regular basis.
She asked a question in relation to the output of the asphalt plant. She had compared the proposal with other plants existing on the mainland and found it to be a multitude in size of the existing plant at Bardon Vectis, which was adequate for the current supply.
She asked therefore whether there would be any surplus of asphalt, and whether that surplus would be sold to companies on the mainland?
Mr Reilly explained that asphalt plants rarely achieve rate of output, it’s usually 70-80%. The market is finite – it will not run 24 hrs a day, seven days a week otherwise you’d have an asphalt mountain, he said.
“We have absolutely no plans whatsoever to export plans off the Island”. He added that in terms of asphalt plant development, this was a very small development.
Mr Marsh also added this if you compare the application with that of Bardon Vectis that the Eurovia proposal, in terms of physically dimensions, would be fundamentally smaller than the BV application.
Concern over PA system
A gentleman who didn’t give his name expressed his concern at the problems with the PA system given “the great public importance” of the meeting.
There had been terrible feedback on the speaker system for a much deal of the meeting. He asked whether any proper tests had been made of the equipment. He said that a lot of valid points were being made by people that could not be heard by the rest of the audience and asked whether it was part of a deliberate policy.
This was met with a round of applause from the audience.
The acting clerk, Ian Hobb, who had set up the equipment, said he had no interest in the outcome of the meeting, that he had tested the system earlier and it worked adequately. He apologised for the unforeseen problems, and added that if the gentleman felt it was a deliberate intention, that he took great offence to the suggestion.
Let’s hear from county councillors
The mayor, Jane Rann, then advised that it was 8pm and that the meeting would be finishing in 15 minutes. This was met with signs of discontent from the audience.
She added that she didn’t want any county or town councillors to talk. The audience weren’t happy about this, they clearly wanted to hear from Margaret Webster and Edward Giles. When questioned why, Jane Rann answered, “because it is your meeting.”
She said that they (the councillors) had already had a chance to talk to Eurovia. Members of the audience replied that they hadn’t heard what the councillors had said though. This was met with applause and much vocal support.
Jane Rann asked the audience who they first wanted to hear from, “Edward Giles” was the cry from the audience.
Listen to both sides of the story
Edward Giles stood and addressed the meeting, he said that the application as it stood at the moment would not be granted and that they were awaiting further information. He said that councillors would have to make a decision on the information lodged, but that he was not part of the Planning Committee.
He added that councillors have to make objective decisions, that planning is a quasi-judicial process and that they must listen to both sides of story.
He was asked whether the PFI Highways scheme would still go through and Cllr Giles replied that it was not dependent on this application going through.
From the audience, Steve Goodman called out, “They say it’s essential!”
Not a word from Margaret Webster
Jane Rann asked whether there was any other councillor who wished to say something.
The other East Cowes county councillor, Margaret Webster didn’t stand up and share her views.
What happens is refused?
Isle of Wight MP, Andrew Turner asked what were Eurovia’s plans should the application be refused.
Mr Reilly said that they were “concentrating considerable efforts” on making sure that all questions which the council wanted answers to were dealt with, in order to get the planning application through. He confirmed that he had nothing to do with the Highways PFI scheme.
He said he understood that contingency plans were well underway should they not receive planning permission for the plant as proposed.
Will you go away?
Carol Dennett asked whether they would withdraw from the Island if the application was refused.
After a long pause from Mr Reilly he said that they have a number of case scenarios that they are working through, at this moment in time they were concentrating their efforts on getting the planning permission through.
Area action plan
Morris Barton spoke about the Island Plan and noted that within it is an Area Action Plan. He said that when he was a county councillor they were looking at the Medina Valley as being thought of as a leisure attraction with light industry (marine related).
He spoke about the proposed concrete batching plant and said this (asphalt plant )was the second proposal that was breaking the original philosophy of a Medina Valley with leisure.
He asked what the point was in attracting marinas and yachts people, building homes along the Valley “if you are going to break that original philosophy.”
He asked Edward Giles what he believes the proposals for the Medina Valley should be in the new AAP?
This received huge applause from the audience.
Not sustainable to not have industry on Medina
Cllr Giles replied that it had been designated an industrial site for a long time and that Medina Wharf was of strategic importance.
It is not sustainable to not have industry on the Medina, he said.
Would you live by the plant?
A lady who did not give her name asked Messrs Reilly and Marsh to put their hands on their hearts and say whether they would feel happy buying a house and living near the plant with their families.
Both replied yes.
Trees
Another lady who did not give her name asked about the artist’s impression of the plant. It shows the view from the other side of the river, but no impression was given from the same side of the river. She asked how long it was anticipated for the trees to gain designated height.
Mr Marsh replied, “as long as it takes for a tree to grow.”
She then mentioned that a member of the IWC Tree Team had said that no bund could be built adjacent to the south part because it would damage the existing trees.
Mr Marsh said that this advice had come earlier in the year and they had gone back and looked at the area and would shorten the bund by 400mm in one area and by 1.8m in another to protect existing trees.
Undemocratic to cut meeting short
Tanja Rebel objected to the meeting finishing before everyone had asked their questions. Mr Marsh said that they had a handout for people to take away and would be running a series of workshops in the locality.
After much discussion, it was said that the information would be made available in two weeks time via the planning department.
The Marketing Manager said that they would take further questions via the clerk and directed residents to their website for more info.
The fact that there were some residents who did not have access to the Internet was raised. Those people could feed back through the Clerk it was said, via phone calls or letters that would be passed on to Eurovia.
Another public meeting
A gentleman asked for an assurance that once the further information had been supplied that another public meeting, like the one held that night, could take place again for residents to pose questions to the applicant on that new information.
Surgeries where people could speak to Eurovia on a one-to-one basis would be set up and that there would be another public meeting after the outstanding information was made public if the consensus is that this would be required.
The meeting came to a close.
