Noise checks have to be improved at Plymouth incinerator site
NOISE and vibration monitoring at the construction site of the Plymouth incinerator is “woefully inadequate”, says an independent consultant.
Monitoring should be continuous and not for half an hour every fortnight, the consultant, David Trevor-Jones, said in a report commissioned by anti-incinerator activist Lynne Hayden.
-
Mr Trevor-Jones, said the present regime was “so woefully inadequate as to be of little clear practical use”.
He said MVV Environment Devonport Ltd, which is building the energy from waste plant, should be monitoring construction throughout the permitted working hours, as was common for large construction projects around the country.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Sunday, June 30 2013
Cllr George Wheeler (Lab, St Budeaux), told yesterday’s meeting of Plymouth City Council planning committee residents had become so frustrated that they had commissioned their own report on the project from Mr Trevor-Jones.
The committee, of which Cllr Wheeler is a member, was told that MVV had been given a warning over eight breaches of noise limits and permitted working hours.
Local residents had complained that contractors working on the site in Devonport Dockyard’s North Yard had made too much noise and worked longer hours than permitted.
After an investigation, Plymouth City Council found that MVV had breached its conditions eight times.
MVV has offered monitoring for half an hour once a week instead of once a fortnight.
Mrs Hayden of the group Plymwin said later that giving MVV 21 days to respond was “a joke”.
“They’ve let MVV get away with it again. It’s driving us to the brink.”
She said that intermittent monitoring of noise and vibration was completely inadequate.
“The council needs to be dealing with what they have done before, not with the next 21 days.
Planning officer Chris Watson told councillors on the planning committee that they had received a response from MVV.
“They are taking steps to ensure compliance,” he said.
The company had said it would step up the frequency of monitoring and install extra acoustic barriers. “We will watch most vigilantly what happens in the coming weeks.”
He said the last reported breach was in November.
“The actions we have taken have been in line with national advice and in accordance with normal procedures.”
MVV publishes details of the excess noise on its website and has sent apologies to residents who may have been affected.
It sent 200 letters to properties in Talbot Gardens, Savage Road and Poole Park Road in November.
MVV said that louder than expected noise was a result of workmen striking concrete and other hard materials.
A pile drilling rig had hit an obstruction on November 28 – the company’s noisiest breach yet – and workers had to place extra acoustic barriers around it.
MVV managing director Paul Carey said pile drilling was due to resume on Monday after a Christmas break and finish by the end of this month.
“We will continue to be extra vigilant in carrying out mitigation work and monitoring,” he said.
“Once piling is over the nature of the noise will change and we hope it will be less problematic.”
But Mrs Hayden said: “Next month they will move on to another kind of noise when the steel work starts.
“From now and until whenever there is just going to be noise there.”
The council granted planning permission for the incinerator on February 3 last year after a controversial December 23, 2011 planning committee meeting.
Comments
by Mark2Plym
Monday, January 07 2013, 12:29AM
“Paul Carey you still sleep well at night?”
by LHPlymouth
Saturday, January 05 2013, 12:15AM
“Did you know the incinerator at Exeter went £13 million over budget.....
who foots that bill....the tax payer
We have to meet the recycling targets otherwise the security of the PFI funding is at risk
who pays for the PFI funding.... the tax payer
Who won't benefit from this incinerator.........”
by LHPlymouth
Saturday, January 05 2013, 12:12AM
“pogle63a
Yes we have been 'dumped' on but not rolling over and giving up.
Agree with you completely ref the nature of the waste. Who will be checking what goes into it from the access road from the dockyard never mind the commercial and industrial waste from elsewhere.
How desperate were they to rush it through and get it on this small piece of land regardless of proximity to homes and topography of area. Why go to all the trouble and expense of 600 sturdy stilts due to the structure of the land and flood risk area. None of this would be necessary if it were to be just Plymouth's waste dealt with anyway - we wouldn't even have to have an incinerator.
Landfills are closing due to shortage of waste so we will start importing waste from EU countries to meet our "Renewable Energy targets" in oil guzzling, polluting ships.
By the way everyone when you have a moment just have a look at the planning docs and see how much gas oil will be needed to operate this incinerator.......
MVV say to supply heat and power to Plymouth's largest employee.....well the University is a long way from this site......
There are so many reasons why this will go down in History and not one of them is good and positive. Just a shame that many others in the rest of Plymouth haven't woken up to this. Had they done so three years ago when local residents found out and started to alert people then people power could possibly have stopped this.....people power could still work even if it becomes operational.
If there already concerns with noise management plans and monitoring regimes then what of the emission monitoring?”
by pogle63a
Friday, January 04 2013, 11:45PM
“@LHPlymouth has more to do with getting rid of the waste generated by nuclear dismantling than Plymouths waste needs. They actually expect us to believe a Dockyard that is a skeleton of its former self actually needs more power and heat now than it did in its hey day.
Sadly the Clouncil think we Plebs are indeed so stupid as to believe it and so it is built.”
by pogle63a
Friday, January 04 2013, 11:40PM
“You can rest assured if the noise was disturbing some bats or other wild life the Clouncil might actually do something about it, but since they have rubber stamped the building of this monstrosity they are hardly likely to do anything to hamper its completion. Just have to accept the fact that Clouncil has dumped on the people surrounding this abomination and don`t REALLY give a hoot about it.”
by LHPlymouth
Friday, January 04 2013, 11:37PM
“civil_unrest
You can ask your question at the next planning meeting on January 31st. You have to keep it to less than 50 words - which your question it. You can send it in and they will answer but not at the meeting or you can attend and ask it in person and they will answer there and then. It will be at the beginning so you don't have to stay for the whole of the meeting.
Letters must be received by the Democratic Support Unit at least 5 complete working days before the meeting and you can confirm if you will be attending to read out in person; the address is:
Democratic Support Officer, Chief Executive's Department, Plymouth City Council, Floor 1,
Civic Centre, Plymouth PL1 2AA.
or email: Ross.Jago@plymouth.gov.uk”
by LHPlymouth
Friday, January 04 2013, 8:02PM
“AnniDarko
Exactly!! We sat in that planning meeting yestersday knowing they wouldnt fine them as the Planning Contrvention Notice had been issued with the 21 days to comply.
Yes they SHOULD have fined them and also they SHOULD have issued that notice at the last planning meeting on October 18th when they discussed further action, how many breaches before they did, how the noise regime was inadequate, potential legal action, renegotiation of the plan and much more and yet the meeting yesterday bore no relation to any of that and what has happened with these breaches is that MVV have got away with it.
I don't care the reasons why (surely after test pile drilling the previous December and January they should have known what was there) the issue is that they breached. PCC should have dealt with it. So I suggest you all contact PCC Planning and tell them what you think. A planning condition is a condition made to be adhered to but then again Condition 8 could have stopped it but the officer allowed a modification to be added which changed the meaning.
Anyone who doesn't have to endur this may think that 15 minutes over the agreed hours is nothing but please understand that those who do and have ten hours per day of this Monday to Friday and four and a half on a Saturday (they keep forgetting to mention the Saturday hours) are watching that clock waiting for 6pm or 1pm (Saturday) to sigh with relief that they can have some peace and quiet. It is not something to take lightly I can assure you.
Its quite interesting to attend a planning committee meeting. Double standards are rife. Yesterday one Tory was getting her knickers in a twist because so much consideration was being given to bats on Drakes Island and whilst I agree that bats do get thought more of than human beings I did find it strange that this Tory didn't appear to like the EU laws that we have to follow regarding wildlife and their protection...and yet that same Tory didn't think there were any problems with EU law when it came to waste directives and incineration and plonking this far too close to homes (not hers obviously). That very same Tory was concerned that there was only one way in and out of the housing estate proposed at Pennycross and muttered about the traffic being horrendous (onto Ham Drive) but didnt think that 254 lorry movements at the already manic Camels Head junction would be horrendous.
This preliminary report (full report to follow) is just the tip of the iceberg as to how all of this was masterminded and if anyone still believes incineration is the right way to go at least accept that the way this has been presented to those who are supposed to be concerned about the citizens of Plymouth and has been manufactured to suit MVV and their profit and foot in the UK door.
There is a whole can of worms that will be opened one day.
Personally I dont believe this had very much to do with the solution to dealing with Plymouth's waste.....and I know I'm not alone in that.”
by circles1
Friday, January 04 2013, 1:04PM
“Its PCC that is what everyone now expects of them,nothing”
by civil_unrest
Friday, January 04 2013, 1:03PM
“The question I would like put forward to the planning commitee is ' Knowing the close proximity of local residence to the construction site why wasn't a more stringent monioring regime put in place'
It is hardly surprising that according to them they have broken planning conditions 8 times considering the woeful lack of monitoring.”
by Winstonsmith0
Friday, January 04 2013, 12:44PM
“For anyone who wishes to bore themselves stupid for a good few hours, looking at the planning documents reveals the very high probability that the cladding stage of the build - when the steel framework is given a skin, will be even noisier than the drilling (if that is possible).
Documents also distinctly show that the acoustic barriers are only capable of reducing noise for ground and first floor properties nearby. That might be okay if any of the nearby homes were at the same level as the incinerator site but that is not the case. Most 'ground floors' are at least the equivalent height of a house above the site to begin with due to their being built on a hill so, really, these baffles are only reducing noise for those working on site - funny that!
And cladding will take place at heights far too great to baffle!
As if the developer even really cares about the nearby community it is destroying. If truth be told, local residents merely represent a hindrance to the speedy and efficient acquisition of PROFIT for far too many individuals. Monitoring for less than 1% of the time actually means they can get away with it for 99% of the time! That's the way they look at it.
Anybody had a good look at what remains of Blackies Wood recently - the area designated as a site of natural importance to the community? It remains to be seen whether the intentional disposal and redirection of site surface water onto previously dry established wooded ground will have any affect on the remaining trees, especially since the water is likely to contain lime and other chemicals from the concrete slurries also being dumped nearby.
Still, who cares? I haven't noticed any of the protection agencies leaping up to 'protect' after all, permission has been given so we are expected to just accept anything that happens now so they can have a quiet life.
Quiet life? Not for those near the incinerator.
Ah, the true face of business!”