The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the Environment Agency should reconsider the permit allowing thousands of tons of industrial waste to be spread on the Musden Low area; notes that this is one mile from the conservation village of Calton and within the Peak District National Park; declares that there has been a detrimental impact on wildlife, especially the RED listed Curlew which was common in the area before the spreading started but has now virtually disappeared; further that the spreading has caused a pungent smell which penetrates people’s washing and homes and makes it unpleasant to be outside; further that there is unsuitable access for road tankers, which are causing damage to roads and verges; further that several public footpaths cross into the designated spreading area; and further that the risk assessment presented to the Environment Agency had various points that were questionable or omitted such as underground water courses and soil type.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the concerns of the petitioners and urge the Environment Agency to withdraw the permit allowing industrial waste to be spread on the Musden Low area.
And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Karen Bradley, Official Report, 9 February 2022; Vol. 708, c. 1052.]
[P002712]
Observations from The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow):
Thank you to the residents of Calton and the Musden Low area for raising this issue. I am sorry to hear the residents’ concerns around land spreading activities. The permitting and risk assessment of spreading waste to land sits with the Environment Agency (EA) which issued the relevant deployments permits under The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.
The EA have a rigorous process in place for evaluating applications before a permit has been issued. This seeks to ensure the activity is fully utilising these materials, in this case, to supply nutrients to meet a crop and soil need, while minimising the risk and impact of said activities. This can include conditions relating to odour, potential pollution—such as run-off risk—and to minimise any impacts on locally vulnerable species, such as curlew.
I requested the EA to assess the use of permits raised in the period in question to ensure that permit conditions were complied with. In this instance, the EA has found no evidence of compliance issues with the issued permits and as spreading has not yet commenced on the current deployment permit, the agency has no grounds to withdraw it. When the operator notifies the EA of their intention to spread, the EA will inspect the operation to determine whether the spreading is compliant with the deployment permit and any other associated rules.
However, in response to community concerns, there have been a number of steps taken to further minimise the impact of these spreading activities since then. I believe the EA has met and discussed this with my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), and I have also raised this with them. In terms of actions derived from the specific concerns raised in the petition:
Impact on wildlife
Since the issue of the previous deployment permit, the EA has become aware that certain fields at the site in question come under the environmental impact assessment regulations and countryside stewardship schemes which aim to protect various aspects on the land such as the nesting curlews. It is the responsibility of the farmer-landowner to ensure they are meeting the requirements of any stewardship scheme they are involved in and to inform the relevant authority of any changes.
Pungent smell in the village
While some of the wastes being spread are of an odorous nature which cannot be eliminated, in response to concerns raised about the smell, the operator is now using ground injection methods to minimise this. If residents continue to experience odour issues, they should report these to the EA for investigation.
Unsuitable access
Traffic movements and damage to roads and verges are the responsibility of the local council, Staffordshire County Council in this case, and should be reported to it for investigation.
National Park/conservation area
The area in question is in a remote agricultural area with limited public access. Spreading should only take place during appropriate conditions and should avoid any footpaths. Any specific details about issues with footpaths being impacted by this activity should be reported to the EA.
Risk assessment
Through the permitting process, the operator is required to identify potential pollution pathways including any impacts to groundwaters, air, people, and designated sites. They are also required to put in place management controls to remove or reduce any risks and control any risk to human health or pollution of the environment. As touched upon above, fields covered by the countryside stewardship scheme are included in a site-specific risk assessment. This risk assessment was reviewed and agreed through the EA’s robust permitting process. The permit is a standard rules SR2010No4 mobile plant for land spreading which has standard rules and conditions that are not alterable. This along with the agreed individual deployment should limit the risk, if implemented accordingly. Actions in the risk assessment include:
delivery of waste in daylight hours;
no spreading at weekends and bank holidays;
complying with the agreed spreading plan;
no spread zones and being aware of local aspects (access and footpaths);
only spreading when the ground conditions are appropriate, when there is a crop need and at the correct application rates, and;
injecting the waste at sub surface level.