Agenda and minutes

Venue: Civic Hall, Leeds

Items
No. Item

63.

Chair's opening remarks

Minutes:

  Whilst the intention was to hold the meeting in committee rooms 6/7, in view of the number of people in attendance for this meeting, the Chair announced that the Council Chamber would be used for the meeting and there was a short delay to enable the move to take place

 

  The Chair then announced the sad news of the death of Councillor Suzi Armitage who had died the previous evening after a difficult illness.  Councillor Taggart stated that he had known Councillor Armitage for over 30 years and that she would be greatly missed.  Although not a member of Plans Panel, as this was the first meeting since her death, the Chair asked everyone to stand and to observe a minute’s silence in her memory

 

 

64.

Late Items

 

To identify items which have been admitted to the agenda by the Chair for consideration

 

(The special circumstances shall be specified in the minutes)

 

Minutes:

  Although there were no formal late items, the Panel was in receipt of the following additional information which had been circulated to Members in advance of the meeting:

·  colour copies of illustrations included in the submitted reports (minutes 69, 70, 71 and 72 refer)

·  a paper produced by the Director of Public Health and dated 5th February 2013, on the health impact of energy from waste plants in Leeds, in response to requests from Members that the Director of Public Health be consulted on this matter (minutes 70, 71 and 72 refer)

 

 

65.

Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary and Other Interests

 

To disclose or draw attention to any disclosable pecuniary interests for the purposes of Section 31 of the Localism Act 2011 and paragraphs 13-18 of the Members’ Code of Conduct.  Also to declare any other significant interests which the Member wishes to declare in the public interest, in accordance with paragraphs 19-20 of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

 

Minutes:

  There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests or other interests

 

 

66.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

  Apologies for absence were received from Councillor D Blackburn.  The Chair announced that although Councillor Nash had arrived for the meeting, she was not well and due to moving the meeting to the unheated Council Chamber, she had had to withdraw, with regret

 

 

67.

Preliminary procedural matter

Minutes:

  The Chair referred to a late representation which had been received from the registered speakers against both of the applications, which he read out.  Concerns related to pre-determination of the applications and that the Council had a financial interest in one of the applications and therefore the Plans Panel should be dissolved

  The Panel’s legal adviser was asked to respond and the Head of Development and Regulatory referred to a report of the City Solicitor which had been included as an appendix to the Officer’s report on application 12/02668/FU, relating to determining planning applications where the Council has a financial interest, which addressed this aspect.  The report confirmed that the Council has a statutory responsibility to determine planning applications submitted to it and therefore it was appropriate for the Council and this Panel to consider the applications on the agenda.  Members were also informed that the Secretary of State expected Local Planning Authorities to undertake this role.  Reference was made to paragraph 3.18 of this appendix which related to the clear separation of responsibilities and matters which Panel had to have regard to

  Concerning pre-determination, that was for individual Members to take a view on and that pre-determination occurred where someone has a closed mind to the matters being considered.  The Panel’s legal adviser stated that if any Member felt they had a disclosable pecuniary interest in the matters being considered, they should declare such an interest and take no part in the meeting, otherwise, the advice was that it was appropriate for the Panel to consider these applications

  Clarity was sought that having expressed a view in the past, this did not preclude a Member from participating in the meeting, with the Head of Regulatory and Development confirming that was correct

 

 

68.

Order of the meeting

Minutes:

  The Chair stated that in view of there being two applications for similar facilities which raised some issues common to both schemes, a possible way to deal with the applications was following the Minerals, Waste and Contaminated Land Manager’s report (minute 69 refers) that each of the Officer reports on the applications would be presented, followed by questions from the Panel and discussion of general issues in respect of both applications.  There would then be public speaking on application 11/03705/FU, deliberations and determination of the application, with this being repeated for application 12/02668/FU

  The Panel was content to proceed in this way

 

 

69.

Background report to support the Strategic Waste Applications pdf icon PDF 68 KB

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer which provides context for the two site specific applications being considered on the agenda

 

(report attached)

 

 

Minutes:

  The Panel considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer which provided context for the two applications being considered at the meeting

  The Minerals, Waste and Contaminated Land Manager presented the report

  Members were informed that the policy context for the applications was the Natural Resources and Waste Development Plan Document (NR&WDPD) which had been adopted in January 2013

  Residual waste, this being commercial, industrial and municipal waste, including mixed, damp and rotting waste was currently sent to landfill sites.  As these sites were approaching capacity and due to landfill tax, alternatives had to be considered

  In drafting the NR&WDPD, the amount of land needed had been considered with potential sites over 6 acres being identified and scored for their suitability.  Three sites were identified as being suitable, with these being located around the Cross Green area of the city

  The NR&WDPD had been examined by a Planning Inspector who confirmed that the Council’s approach to this was sound, with the plan being adopted in January 2013

  In terms of concerns which had been raised in respect of these two applications, the following information was provided to Members:

·  regarding overprovision through there being two applications, that the Veolia site had been scaled appropriately and that the application from Biffa was for a lower tonnage

·  concerning possible health impacts due to air quality, that these issues were covered in the two Officer reports and that a representative of Leeds PCT was in attendance.  It was stated that an objection to the proposals on health/air quality grounds had cited paragraph 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which in fact related to noise nuisance

·  on the view that incineration was not the right technology, that technology was not a planning matter but as an observation, that this method was widely used

·  the implication that both decisions were needed and the justification for this given future changes in behaviour and practice – however, the Inspector agreed with the approach taken to the long term planning for residual waste

·  that self-sufficiency in this matter was an insular option and ignored the sub-regional context, - however Leeds has always been self-sufficient and the Council has consulted with adjoining authorities on their proposals and that there had been support for Leeds’ approach which had also been endorsed by the Inspector

In response to a question from the Panel regarding the capacity figures, Members were informed that as part of the NR&WDPD, work on existing and future levels of waste arisings was included, with a range of figures being produced.  In terms of Veolia’s application, the figures were scaled for the amount of waste over the period of the contract and that if the Council achieved recycling levels of 60%, Veolia would expand its commercial and industrial collections in Leeds

  RESOLVED – To note the report

 

 

70.

Applications 11/03705/FU and 12/02668/FU - Energy from Waste applications - Presentation of Officer reports and discussion

Minutes:

  In line with the procedure adopted by Panel, Planning Officers presented their reports

 

  Application 11/03705/FU – Energy Recovery Facility (incineration of waste and energy generation, associated infrastructure and improvements to access and bridge on site of the former Skelton Grange Power Station

 

  Further to minute 36 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 22nd November 2012, where Panel considered the latest position statement on proposals for an Energy Recovery Facility for the incineration of up to 300,000 tonnes per annum of commercial and industrial waste, with associated infrastructure and landscaping on the site of the former Skelton Grange Power Station the Principal Minerals Planner, Mr Saul, presented a further report of the Chief Planning Officer seeking determination of the application

  Appended to the report were the following documents:

·  a summary of the proposed conditions

·  minutes relating to discussions of the proposals from Plans Panel East of 23rd February 2012; Plans Panel East of 9th August 2012 and City Plans Panel of 22nd November 2012

·  information on the regulation and monitoring roles of the Environment Agency in respect of EfW facilities

 

Plans, graphics, historic images of the site, drawings, photographs and photo-montages from key locations were displayed at the meeting

  Mr Saul presented the report and referred to the Members site visit which had taken place in November 2012 and the visits undertaken by Members to view similar facilities to that proposed and to previous deliberations on the proposals by this Panel and the former Plans Panel East

  The proposal would redevelop the currently cleared site, provide a ERF, ancillary accommodation, landscaping and improvements works to the access bridge and to the Trans-Pennine trail

  In terms of highways issues, there would be a separate staff/visitor entrance from that being used by the HGVs.  Members’ comments about the access bridge and the need to ensure the remainder of the site was not compromised had been given further consideration and the applicant had now agreed to accept a condition in respect of full widening of the bridge, strengthening works and dual access together with cycle/footpath improvements, with these works being required before occupation of the site

  In respect of landscaping treatment, a formal scheme was proposed within the site, although an area of scrub land was being retained to provide a habitat for birds.  An attenuation pond was also being provided and more informal planting around the periphery of the site

  The design of the facility had undergone a series of revisions since the original drawings.  A glass block for the offices and visitor centre provided a better balance with the main facility and was considered to be more visually appealing

  Concerns were raised about the colour of the building as it appeared to Members and that it was important that the visuals presented to Panel accurately depicted how a scheme would appear on site

  The view was expressed that all of the daylight images should also have been produced showing night time views to illustrate how the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

71.

Application 11/03705/FU - Energy Recovery Facility (incineration of waste and energy generation), associated infrastructure and improvements to access and bridge - Site of former Skelton Grange Power Station, Skelton Grange Road Stourton pdf icon PDF 646 KB

 

Further to minute 36 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 22nd November 2012, where Panel considered the latest position statement on proposals for an Energy Recovery Facility (incineration of waste and energy generation), associated infrastructure and improvements to access and bridge, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer, seeking determination of the application

 

(report attached)

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Chair stated his intention that for both of the applications being considered, to allow a period of up to six minutes per side to enable the speakers to make their representations to Panel

 

The Panel then heard representations from two objectors, Mr Rudge and Mr Fanaroff, and from Mr Harty, on behalf of the applicant who attended the meeting

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  the concerns raised about the lack of public consultation on this application and the lack of any legal obligation to carry out public consultation

·  the design of the ERF, that some local concerns remained about this and whether this could be given further consideration in view of its visibility from a wide area

·  the possibility of local people benefitting from the energy which could be generated through lower fuel bills

·  the possibility of the applicant publishing statistical data on its website

·  the community benefit fund.  On this point the Chief Planning Officer stated that this offer was voluntary and could not be considered when reaching a decision on the application

·  the possibilities of reduced costs to Leeds businesses through the £80 landfill gate fee not being passed to customers

·  highways costs associated with the development

·  the lack of a response to the proposals from the West Yorkshire Fire Authority and the explanation for this

·  the colour of the building

·  the extent of the benefits for the local community and that more could have been expected from the applicant

·  the reasons for identifying three sites for possible waste management facilities

·  the commitment to local employment and whether the phrase ‘best endeavours’ could be strengthened

·  that rather than the standard approach whereby if the S106 Agreement was not completed within 3 months, the final determination of the application be deferred to the Chief Planning Officer, that in this case the application should be returned to Panel for determination

The following responses were provided:

·  that further consideration could be given to the design and colour of the building

·  that the point of gate fees was to discourage landfill and that the ERF would lead to reduced waste removal costs for Leeds businesses

·  that data from the ERF could be published on the applicant’s website

·  that Officers had consulted West Yorkshire Fire Service several times on both of the applications.  On this point, Mr Shaw, of the EA stated that there was a requirement for operators to have an emergency plan, although due to the nature of the proposed operation, the risk of an fire incident escalating on the site was low

·  that some off-site improvements were being delivered as part of the scheme and that there would also be the closure of the existing landfill site, which was another significant benefit

·  that several sites had been considered in order to provide choice, rather than settling on one site which might not have proved to be available, therefore three sites had been selected as being suitable

·  that a commitment to use ‘best endeavours’ was the strongest  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

72.

Application 12/02668/FU - Energy Recovery Facility (with mechanical pre-treatment) for the incineration of residual municipal solid waste and commercial and industrial waste and associated infrastructure at land at the former Wholesale Market Site, Newmarket Approach, Cross Green Industrial Estate LS9 pdf icon PDF 670 KB

 

Further to minute 9 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 27th Septmeber 2012, where Panel considered a position statement on proposals for a Energy Recovery Facility (with mechanical pre-treatment) for the incineration of residual municipal solid waste and commercial and industrial waste and associated infrastructure, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer seeking determination of the application

 

(report attached)

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

  Prior to hearing the public representations on this application, Councillor P Gruen withdrew from the meeting

 

  The Panel then heard representations from two objectors, Mr Rudge and Mr Fanaroff, and from Mr Hollands on behalf of the applicant who attended the meeting

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  the research on the health effects of waste incinerators, referred to by an objector and that this information had not been seen by Panel.  On this point Members were directed to page 155 of the submitted report, paragraphs 10.6.10 – 10.6.11, which made reference to this information and provided the HPA’s evaluation of it.  The Chair questioned Dr Balmer on whether the research referred to by the objector had extracted all other possible causes and attributed the findings to incinerators.  Dr Balmer stated that the HPA, having considered the report, maintained its position that well regulated and well maintained incinerators contributed little

·  the pollutants which were alleged to exist in the area and what action would be taken.  Mr Shaw of the EA stated that as part of the permitting process, all pollutants in the area would be examined.  If it was felt the proposed facility would be harmful to the environment or human health, a permit would not be issued.  In respect of the issue raised at the meeting about the presence of Chromium, this would be investigated without delay

·  the commitment to local jobs

·  local concerns about air quality and whether comparisons of this were made before and after a plant opened

·  the absence of solar panels on the building and the reason for this

·  the need to consider the role of the EA in the regulation of these facilities; that standards were in place and monitoring undertaken and that therefore Members should have a degree of reassurance, although there was an issue about the tipping point and that if high level of pollutants were in existence in the area and that the emissions from the ERF added to that, this could be problematic but that a degree of trust was needed in the agencies which had responsibility for monitoring such matters

·  that Panel had considered the application in detail; that in other European countries, incineration was not controversial and that doing nothing was not an option

The following responses were provided:

·  regarding local employment, that a range of approaches, including working with the Council was being used to target the local community and devise the best ways in which to train people in different roles, for example waste management and HGV driving

·  air quality issues; that the applicant had a complaints register so if concerns were raised they could be addressed and ERFs had to satisfy Environmental Health and the EA.  The applicant also published data and retained video footage of what was expelled from the stack

·  in respect of the provision of solar panels on the building, this had been considered but in terms of pay back, solar panels did not deliver in this case and therefore  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

73.

Date and Time of Next Meeting

Thursday 14th February 2013 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds

 

 

Minutes:

  14th March 2013 at 1.30pm in the Civic Hall, Leeds