Objections
to Laybrook Landfill
Planning
application reference: WSCC/048/09/T
I wish to lodge objections to the proposal by Cory
Environmental to fill the Laybrook quarry
site with waste. My objections are largely
focussed on the ecology of the site and the
adjacent countryside. The proposed landfill
constitutes a real and long-term threat to
the integrity of the biodiversity of this
rural area and constitutes a serious and
long-term risk to the environment and
wildlife of the Knepp Wildland project and
the River Adur restoration project.
1.
Only one option considered.
The
landfill is non-compliant with the West
Sussex Mineral Sites – A Biodiversity
Action Plan,
published by West Sussex County Council in
2004. In this publication, landfill is not
considered to be an option “where the
water table is near the surface of the
working and there is a risk of groundwater
pollution via leachate from landfill”,
which is the case for the Laybrook quarry
site and much of the surrounding area. The
eventual restoration of the Brickworks
should consider a number of options, not
just landfill with non-inert waste.
2.
The risk of pollution.
Water
and soil contamination will be caused by the
toxic effects of phosphates, nitrogenous
compounds, heavy metals, thallates,
sex-disruptive hormones etc. entering
watercourses and groundwater by means of
rainwater run-off, flooding, leachate
seepage and possibly liner failure. These
will have highly adverse effects on aquatic
flora and fauna (including water voles,
coarse fish and sea trout). Livestock and
wildlife depend on drinking and
well-water supplies downstream of Laybrook.
All these effects will be felt during site
construction, operation and post-operation,
for well over 40 years.
Other
unavoidable pollutants include noise,
vermin, smell, dust, litter and light
levels. Other potential pollutants include
disease – for humans as well as wildlife
– that may be air-borne or be spread by
vectors such as rats, seagulls and flies. It
is mendacious to state these will be minimal
– ask anyone living downwind of Warnham
landfill.
3. Ecological impacts on the Laybrook quarry site.
3.1 Habitats survey
The full implications of habitat changes and destruction as
assessed by ESL’s habitats surveys of 2007
& 2008 for Cory Environmental are
contestable. There may well be few plant
species of conservation interests, but
overall there was a considerable plant
biodiversity across the woodland, grassland,
ruderal and wetland habitats. Some of the
hedgerows were ranked as having medium
biodiversity value within the landscape,
which is a poor evaluation of the function
of established hedgerows within a rural
landscape.
The combined value of these habitats was not fully assessed.
The stated
‘negative impact of moderate local
importance’ is not a true picture of the
losses the development will have over its
construction and operation stages. The
combination of woodland, wetlands plus damp
grassland and woodland, ruderal vegetation
and semi-improved grassland together are
responsible not only for a significant
invertebrate diversity (565 invertebrate
species recorded), but also for the
considerable insect biomass that, together
with seeds and hedgerow fruits throughout
the year, is what supports a good avian
diversity (69 species of which 56 are likely
to be breeding) either directly or
indirectly. This insect biomass is also what
supports at least 8 species of bat. The
effects of loss of this habitat mosaic for
many decades are likely to be severe, for
the site itself and for the surrounding
countryside.
3.2. Impacts on flora and fauna.
Overall, from the ecological standpoint, it is considered
that the restoration of the Laybrook
Brickworks Quarry by means of 4-6 million
tonnes of non-inert waste over a period of
30 years will have severe impacts on
existing flora and fauna. Essentially
irreversible biodiversity changes will occur
due to:
·
Major losses of established natural and semi-natural habitat
·
Disturbance during construction and operation
·
‘Restored’ landscaping resulting in simplified habitats
incapable of supporting original
biodiversity.
·
Changes in water chemistry and quality from treated leachate
and potentially from leachate seepage and
pollution.
·
Risk of introducing invasive aliens to watercourses that
would have severe impacts downstream.
·
Increased incidence of ragwort on disturbed ground during
construction and operation, the occurrence
of which concerns the local equestrian /
livestock interest, and the control of which
could have a further adverse impact on
invertebrates.
·
Increased local predation on sensitive fauna from generalist
predators that would be attracted to waste,
eg gulls, crows, magpies and rats.
·
The projected operating life is of 30+ years and
‘short-term’ is likely to be some 40
years. This is a considerable length of time
that, even in the absence of any pollution
from seepage, ran water run-off or
floodwater, is likely to have a considerable
negative impact on the biodiversity of the
area as a whole, and of vulnerable species
in particular.
3.3. Impacts on species of conservation importance and
protected species.
Ecological surveys carried out on behalf of Cory
Environmental by ESL recorded a minimum of
16 UKBAP Priority species on the site. The
landfill will have adverse impacts on all 16
species, especially as the ‘short-term’
for this development is likely to be 35-40
years. Many of the Priority species are
niche specialists whose habitats would be
irrevocably damaged or destroyed.
Re-landscaping after the cessation of
landfill would carry no guarantee that these
niches would be re-created, or that the
niche specialists would still exist in the
area following the local extinctions that
would be an inevitable consequence of the
landfill. Other UK BAP species such as
hedgehog, harvest mouse and brown hare have
not been recorded – but neither have
surveys been carried out to look for them.
The
cumulative negative impacts on the wildlife
need to be evaluated. This will be far
greater than the impacts on each group
(birds, bats, flora, invertebrates and the
arboricultural assessment) so far seemingly
considered separately in the ecological
survey reports commissioned by Cory.
The
known wildlife interest of the Laybrook
site, the Knepp Castle Estate, and the wider
countryside of this part of West Sussex is
of such high value that any proposal that
threatens its integrity should not be
permitted. Mitigation and restoration would
take so many decades before beginning to
compensate for losses that any gains
suggested by Cory are meaningless.
3.4. Bats
All bats are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act
1981. ESL’s bat surveys, carried out for
Cory Environmental identified eight species
of bat, including 4 UKBAP Priority species
(soprano pipistrelle, brown long-eared bat,
noctule and barbastelle). The sex of these
is unknown (except the barbastelle, see
below) so it is not possible to predict or
identify whether there are nursery colonies
on or adjacent to the site. This means that
it is also not possible to ascertain the
importance of hedgerows identified as
flightlines. Disrupting flightlines along
which bats commute from nursery roost to
foraging habitat has serious impact on
nursery colonies.
The bat surveys for Cory Environmental do not permit a full
ecological assessment of bat use of the
site. The surveys commissioned were simply
detector surveys, which
·
do not allow the breeding status of bats using the site to be
ascertained
·
do not allow the identification of nursery roosts
·
do not enable the identification of commuting routes of bats
from nursery roosts to foraging habitat
either on site or elsewhere.
If the project goes ahead, the hedgerows, Laybrook Copse and
the existing course of the Lay Brook will be
destroyed. These features comprise known
flightlines of bats, as shown in ESL’s bat
surveys. This includes the barbastelle bat
(additionally protected under the Habitats
Regulations). In 2008, a pregnant
barbastelle bat was radio-tracked from The
Mens barbastelle nursery colony across
Laybrook Brickworks and on to wet grassland
and open water on the Knepp Estate where it
foraged. This bat was one of a number of
female bats radio-tagged and tracked from
The Mens in 2008 by Frank Greenaway under
contract from Sussex Wildlife Trust.
The Mens, near Petworth, is an SAC, NNR, SSSI and Sussex
Wildlife Trust reserve. The dense, unmanaged
woodland in The Mens supports a nursery
colony of at least 80 breeding female
barbastelles, which are noted in the SAC
designation. All of these forage over wet
grasslands, predominantly in floodplains and
other wetland features. All the barbastelles
commuting out of The Mens have to do so in a
north-east, east and south-east direction,
as the land to the west of The Mens is
occupied by the Ebernoe barbastelle nursery
colony and there is no overlap between the
commuting and foraging areas of the two
colonies. The Laybrook Brickworks thus lies
on a known and important route between this
nursery colony of barbastelles and one of
the feeding areas. Any disruption of it will
have immediate and on-going adverse impacts.
A
total of eleven species of bat has been
identified breeding or foraging on the
adjacent Knepp Castle Estate in summer 2009
(bat survey by Frank Greenaway, report
available in autumn 2009). It is highly
probable that colonies of at least some of
these species are also breeding within or
closely adjacent to the Laybrook quarry
site. Soprano and common pipistrelles were
recorded in some numbers on the Laybrook
site by ESL, indicating nursery colonies
close to the site. Deliberate destruction of
any bat roost infringes the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 and the Habitats
Regulations 1994 and, as modified in 2007,
this also makes accidental destruction an
offence.
In
addition, the ESL surveys dismissed the
existing buildings on site as not needing a
bat survey, whereas such industrial
structures are known to be used as night
roosts by species such as brown long-eared
bats. These buildings should therefore be
surveyed for bat use, and, should evidence
for such use be found, a Defra licence will
be required before demolition can begin.
Mitigation measures in the form of bat boxes are unlikely to
be successful if foraging habitat and
flightlines are lost. Adjacent habitat, for
example the ponds to the south of the
brickworks will not function as replacement
for lost habitat, as these ponds will
already have bats foraging over them, and
bats tend to occupy and defend discrete
foraging territories.
Any increase in lighting levels that will have adverse
effects on those bats that forage throughout
milder weather during winter at
dusk/nightfall.
A full bat survey requiring trapping and radio-tagging
female bats on site and in the adjacent
woodlands and ditch/brook corridors carried
out from April – September would be an
absolute minimum requirement before ANY
accurate evaluation of bat use of the
Laybrook site can be made.
3.5. Water vole
Water voles are legally protected in Britain under Schedule 5
of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as
amended); it is a UKBAP Priority species and
the subject of UK and Sussex
Species Action Plans for their conservation.
Water voles were recorded on
the Laybrook Brickworks in the middle
drainage ditch (the original Lay Brook)
where there were active burrows, latrines,
feeding remains and a sighting. Local
evidence suggests that they may be present
in the ditches, streams and ponds adjacent
to Laybrook, especially as signs of activity
have been recorded downstream at Knepp. The
proposed landfill, rather than affording
protection, will result in the total
destruction of their habitat.
ESL admits that the colony would be
lost and that this would ‘constitute a
negative impact of high significance locally
and at least medium significance in a county
context. All the peripheral sites would also
be affected by a landfill, due to rats,
deterioration in water quality and effects
of dust and pollutants on bankside
vegetation.
Numbers of water voles have plummeted in the UK in recent
years. There are very few colonies anywhere
in the Adur, and the existing populations
are extremely fragmented and vulnerable to
extinction, although signs of water vole
have also been recorded downstream within
the Knepp Wildland Project area. Water voles
have suffered a 90% decline in Sussex and
are very vulnerable on the Adur catchment,
which does not have a good resident core
breeding population. The habitat destruction
and degradation that would be caused by the
proposed landfill could cause a local
extinction.
3.6. Birds
The
proposed landfill site and access road will
cause the destruction of woodland and many
of the hedges, scrub and trees around the
periphery of the quarry, which hold the
highest density of species; much of the open
wasteland used by ground nesting birds and
the lagoons used by the wading birds. This
will have a disastrous impact on the birds
at the site and beyond, resulting in the
loss of breeding, foraging and sheltering
habitat. The ESL surveys carried out at
Laybrook in 2007-2008 recorded:-
- 69
bird species, 53 of them breeding or
possibly breeding on site.
- 11
UK BAP bird species, 8 of which were
resident and therefore breeding
(skylark, dunnock, song thrush,
starling, house sparrow, linnet,
bullfinch and yellowhammer) and three of
which (lapwing, turtle dove and cuckoo)
were possibly breeding.
- 3
species, listed on Schedule 1 of the
Wildlife & Countryside Act (hobbies,
little ringed plover and kingfisher),
were recorded as possibly breeding.
- 9
Red List species (as defined in Birds of
Conservation Concern 3, 2009), skylark,
song thrush, starling, house sparrow,
linnet and yellowhammer residing and
breeding and turtle dove, lapwing and
cuckoo, probably breeding, and
- 21
Amber List species, 13 of which are
breeding or possibly breeding.
This is a very conservative
record of birds that inhabit the area. The
database of Sussex Biodiversity Record
Centre (SxBRC) holds records of 109 bird
species within a 3km radius of the Laybrook
site. This includes additional species of
conservation importance, some of which are
rare seasonal migrants but a number of
which, including barn owl, skylark, lesser
spotted woodpecker, spotted flycatcher,
marsh tit and willow tit, are either known
to be breeding in the area, according to
Sussex Ornithological Society, or for which
suitable breeding habitat exists. Some of
these birds have suffered severe population
crashes in recent years, the reasons for
which are not yet fully understood. This
re-enforces the need to maintain
undisturbed, unpolluted and diverse habitat.
As
the area thus has a much larger and more
diverse bird population then the information
gathered by ESL suggests, additional
breeding bird surveys and winter bird
surveys need to be carried out in order to
evaluate the real impact of the proposed
landfill.
The surveys also need to be extended
beyond the boundaries of the brickworks as
Laybrook as the effects of the development
will have a far greater footprint across the
surrounding countryside.
Gulls
and corvids (crows etc) attracted to the
site to scavenge for food are a major threat
to woodland and open ground nesting birds as
they will take the eggs and young. Foxes,
rats and other vermin attracted to the site
as a food source will also take eggs and
young.
These would be of particular
significance to the rare breeding wading
birds such as the little ringed plovers
found on the site, and tree and hedge
nesting species such as song thrushes.
The
birds’ food sources will be compromised as
dust from landfill will smother plants,
interfering with photosynthesis,
transpiration and thus growth rates, seed
set etc.
It can also harm invertebrates
indirectly by eliminating their habitat or
food plants or making them effectively
unavailable, and directly through being
toxic or causing mechanical damage.
Litter from the site, leachate and
polluted runoff water will also have a
detrimental effect on birds nesting and/or
feeding nearby.
3.9 Invertebrates
The
invertebrate survey carried out for ESL
recorded 565 species on the Laybrook site,
including 114 species of beetle, 139 moths
and 67 bees, wasps and ants.
They describe it as a ‘site with a
wide diversity of invertebrate interest’
and concluded that is of ‘significance’
at county level. Of the 565 species recorded
to date, 60 have formal conservation status
- 5 Nationally Notable Na species, 14
Nationally Notable Nb species and 39
Nationally Local species. The 565 species
recorded is not an accurate total – the
surveyors failed to contact the SxBRC who
have additional records including 21 Sussex
Rare Species within a 3 km radius of
Laybrook including Stag Beetles (a UKBAP
Priority species) and 11 other Nationally
Notable species.
The
invertebrate diversity of woodlands such as
those on or adjacent to Laybrook reflects
their age and continuity at the site and the
adjacent countryside to which the site is
inextricably linked by hedgerows and
watercourses. Insect communities comprise an
extremely complex web of those that feed on
plants, pollen and nectar, those that are
active predators and those that parasitise
other insects. Each species has its
individual habitat requirements. The
woodland, which will be destroyed by the
access road, supports particularly high
numbers of invertebrates and is described by
ESL as a ‘habitat unit of high quality’.
Many insects have precise microclimate
requirements, some depending on dead or
dying wood and associated fungi to complete
their lifecycle. Opening up woodland or
reducing its size so the humidity is altered
will cause loss of species.
The mosaic of habitats is essential
for the continued survival of the wider
invertebrate community at Laybrook.
Landfill
sites are recognised as having a significant
impact on invertebrates, indirectly by
eliminating their habitat or food plants or
making them effectively unavailable, and
directly through being toxic or causing
mechanical damage. This and the loss of
habitat will result in loss of
invertebrates, which will have a significant
effect on the ecology of the site as a whole
and the surrounding area. Invertebrate
biodiversity and abundance is vital to a
fully functional ecology, as it is this that
supports many bird species as well as bats,
shrews, hedgehogs and other mammals.
‘Rare’ species are vulnerable largely
because they have exacting ecological
requirements, and often have a slow rate of
reproduction. Such an invertebrate
assemblage cannot simply be ‘restored’
by landscaping following landfill.
4. Impacts of the landfill on Knepp Castle Estate and
Knepp Wildland Project.
The
Knepp Wildland Project is unique ecological
endeavour that aims to return 1,000 hectares
of lowland Sussex Weald to a natural
wildland grazing system. This is being
seriously threatened by plans to dump the
4.7 million tons of London’s waste at
Laybrook, which is only just over 1km away
to the southwest. The Lay brook flows
througfh the landfill site and directly onto
Knepp.
Knepp
Wildland Project is a major, nationally
important, nature conservation initiative.
It is based on the idea of “re-wilding”,
essentially an approach whereby natural
processes are used to deliver nature
conservation and landscape benefits. It has
attracted much interest and participation
from leading ecologists both from the UK and
mainland Europe. The changes in biodiversity
and habitats driven by low levels of large
herbivores ranging freely across the estate
are being monitored, in order that maximum
scientific information can be extracted. The
re-wilded land has considerable potential
for the delivery of ecosystem services,
according to initiatives being implemented
by the EU and Defra. The land has Soil
Association organic status, and produces
high-grade beef, pork and venison from its
free-ranging livestock.
There
are encouraging signs that wildlife is
already benefiting from the Wildland
project, with to date (August 2009) 23
UKBAP Priority Species recorded from the
project area:
- 5
bats – soprano
pipistrelle, noctule, brown long-eared
bat, Bechstein's bat and barbastelle.
- 12
birds – skylark, dunnock,
song thrush, starling, house sparrow,
linnet, bullfinch and yellowhammer,
lapwing, turtle dove, cuckoo and
woodlark.
- 1
mammal – water vole
- 3
reptiles - slow
worm, grass snake & common lizard.
- 1
amphibian - great
crested newt
- 1
insect - stag beetle
Invertebrate
abundance, as noted during the 2009 bat
survey, is already far higher over the Lay
Brook, Lancing Brook, River Adur and
associated wetlands and ditches than similar
sites in West Sussex that border
agricultural land.
The
project is supported by governmental
organisations such as Natural England, the
Environment Agency and the Centre for
Ecology and Hydrology as well as many
non-governmental organisations including the
British Trust for Ornithology, Sussex
Wildlife Trust, the Grazing Animals Project,
the National Trust, the Royal Society for
the Protection of Birds – and many others.
Public as well as private money has been
invested in this project, which stands to be
wasted if its scientific aims and value are
compromised.
All
potentially adverse impacts are of very real
concern to the Knepp Wildland Project. A
polluting and destructive landfill with
run-off and wastewater flowing through the
project area would be extremely damaging and
both livestock and wildlife would be at risk
from air and water-borne pollutants,
diseases from these and other vectors and
overall environmental degradation for
decades into the future. Monitoring the
beneficial changes of the rewilding will be
impossible if pollution is reducing
biodiversity and adversely affecting soils,
water and air quality.
In
addition, the stretch of the River Adur
passing across Knepp is under assessment for
re-naturalising so that the floodplain can
function naturally and reduce flooding
further downstream; any pollution or
nutrient enrichment would have a virtually
irreversible effect on this, poisoning
aquatic life, wetland invertebrates and
livestock drinking the water, and turning
what should be a naturally functioning
floodplain into something little short of an
open sewer.
5. Mitigation and monitoring
The mitigation measures proposed by ESL for Cory
Environmental are essentially to replace
habitats lost elsewhere on site in advance
of clearing, felling trees and destruction
of wetlands. It is completely erroneous to
think that such ‘new’ habitats would
replicate and replace well-established
habitats and habitat mosaics, and there is
little hope that any but the more common,
generalist species of animals and insects
would flourish. It will take very many
decades for newly created areas of woodland,
wetland and open ground to attain the
complexity of mature habitats.
Replanted trees and shrubs will take years to reach maturity
and to become suitable for cavity-nesting
birds and roosting bats. Bat boxes are NOT a
replacement for naturally occurring tree
roosts – at best they distort the existing
community of bat species, at worst there is
little or no take-up. Breeding birds in any
case will be deterred by the increased
levels of noise, predators and other
disturbance over the construction and
operational phases of the landfill.
Replanted hedgelines and re-aligned watercourses are not a
simple fix ensuring bat flightline
continuity or successful water vole
translocation (if this is permitted). Any
such re-alignment of watercourse would need
to be routed in such a way to avoid all
likelihood of water contamination from the
Laybrook site and across the intervening
land into the Knepp Estate. This would need
to be planted up with a strip of large
hedgerow shrubs as well as retaining
suitability for water voles. Compulsory
purchase of such intervening land may be
required, and preventing contamination from
groundwater seepage would be difficult.
Mitigation at best has limited proven
success - and what is the action Cory
Environmental propose to implement should
the mitigation measures demonstrably fail
– which is highly likely?
Any action that impacts on protected species needs licences
issued by Natural England or Defra. This
includes proposals for the translocation of
water voles and for the destruction of bat
roosts, following an effective bat survey
using methodology that will actually
identify bat roosts.
The proposed monitoring implies that Cory Environmental has
given environmental and ecological issues
due regard, but monitoring would need to be
carried out over very many decades to cover
the construction, operation, restoration and
post-completion phase of the land-fill in
order to have any scientific validity.
In practice, monitoring is almost
NEVER carried out, as it is very costly –
there is no guarantee that Cory
Environmental would be willing to do this
over the long term– or even that the
company may last long enough for this to be
carried out.
Again, what is the strategy should any monitoring that is
carried out shows that there are
biodiversity losses and environmental
degradation? Is there one? Or would it just
prove that the site, the surrounding
countryside and the Knepp Wildland project
have been trashed?
Theresa
Greenaway, August 2009
Back
to Press Comments Page
Back
to Laybrook Introduction
|
