ESS/23/25/BTE – Section 73 Changes to Existing Permission at Rivenhall Integrated waste Management Facility
The application proposes a number of changes to the already approved IWMF scheme, including:
Sunday HGV movements
Changes to delivery and operating hours
Changes to noise controls
Acceptance of additional waste types
Removal of some planning conditions
Updates to drainage and landscaping plans
Main Concerns
1. Increased Activity at the Site
The application would allow more flexibility in how the site operates, including Sunday deliveries and wider waste acceptance. In our view this represents a clear intensification of use and would increase impacts on nearby communities.
2. Noise Impacts
The Environmental Statement accepts there could still be harmful noise effects, especially at night. Although the applicant says mitigation will reduce these impacts, there remains concern about: night-time disturbance, loss of rural tranquillity, and, long-term impacts on residents.
This is particularly important for nearby communities and rural properties where background noise levels are currently low.
3. Traffic and Highways
The development already allows a high number of HGV movements and this application would add more flexibility to traffic movements.
The application documents identify: minor to moderate impacts on local roads, cumulative impacts with other developments, and impacts on walkers and other road users.
There is concern about the effect on: the A120, Woodhouse Lane, local rural roads, and Public Rights of Way.
4. Removal of Existing Safeguards
The application seeks to remove or weaken some planning conditions, including controls on waste sourcing. Subsequent to this application, ECC have advised that the operators wish to source waste from anywhere in the UK and possibly from further afield. This will include rejected waste that was intended for recycling. We find this to be totally unacceptable in that the original permission allowed waste to be from Essex and Southend authorities only. This change will lead to more waste being burnt, and increased lorry movements. Where are the controls? How would this change be monitored and policed?
Planning conditions were originally imposed to make the development acceptable. In our view, the applicant has not fully justified removing these protections.
5. Environmental Concerns
The Environmental Statement generally describes impacts as “minor” or “negligible”, but many of these conclusions depend heavily on: future mitigation, monitoring, and environmental standards.
Planning decisions should still consider whether the development is acceptable in planning terms as they stand now, not simply rely on future regulation.
Conclusion on ESS/23/25/BTE
While the principle of the IWMF has already been approved, this application would loosen important controls and increase operational flexibility. We remain concerned about: noise, traffic, cumulative impacts, and the removal of safeguards.
For these reasons, Stisted Parish Council believes there are strong grounds for objection unless much tighter controls are imposed.
ESS/24/25 Rivenhall Integrated Waste Management Facility, Construction of a Carbon Capture Plant, Heat Offtake Plant plus, associated infrastructure and pipelines linked to energy from Waste Facility
Main Concerns
1. Limited Climate Benefit
Reducing emissions is clearly important. However, the applicant’s own documents state that only around 15% of CO₂ emissions would be captured. The overall climate benefit is described as relatively modest in planning terms. This raises the question of whether the benefits are enough to justify the additional industrial development being proposed.
2. More Industrialisation of the Area
The proposal would add: more external plant, more infrastructure, more operational activity and, a more detrimental visual impact. Taken together with the main IWMF site, this represents further industrialisation of the rural area around Bradwell, Silver Ends and other communities nearby such as Stisted
3. Lack of detail
This an application for outline planning permission, meaning many details are still unknown such as: final design, layout, appearance and, the full operational arrangements. This proposal would add to the existing and future impacts from the main IWMF and other associated developments. On-going concerns relate to: traffic, noise, visual impact and increased pressure on an overstretched local infrastructure.
While carbon capture technology may bring some environmental benefits, we do not believe the current application demonstrates fully that the social benefits outweigh the social costs.
There is a lack of detail overall and too much reliance on future controls and mitigation. There is insufficient information must be provided before this application is considered in full.
We request that stronger controls be forthcoming covering such area as: noise, traffic, operating hours and environmental safeguards. It would seem sensible to provide for a strong and thorough impact assessment covering all related developments on the site.