Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position in respect of an application for an energy recovery facility (incineration of waste and energy generation), associated infrastructure and improvements to access and bridge

(report attached)

  Plans, photographs including historical images and graphics were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day

  Officers presented a position statement on proposals for an Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) on the site of the former Skelton Grange Power Station at Stourton.  The former Plans Panel East had previously received pre-application presentations and position statements on the proposals and minutes from these meetings were included in the report before Panel, to provide further background information.  In view of two applications for ERFs in the city being received, a visit by Panel, relevant Ward Members and Officers to two such facilities in Sheffield and Mansfield would take place on 23^rd November 2012

  With reference to the detailed report before Panel, Members were informed that the proposals were for an ERF which could accept up to 300,000 tonnes per annum of non-hazardous commercial and industrial waste and that if planning permission was granted, there was the potential to ensure that landfill ceased at the Skelton Grange landfill site which was operated by Biffa, the applicants for the ERF

  The facility would result in 40 jobs at the site with approximately 300 jobs during the construction phase

  Currently the site was derelict concrete and rubble which was now evolving into scrub land.  Some poplar trees on the site would need to be removed but the area around the building would be landscaped and improved

  In terms of the size of the building, this was largely dictated by the scale of the plant within it although design principles had been set at an early stage, with some modifications being made to the design in view of comments made by Plans Panel East.  The proposed scheme provided additional detailing at the end of the building’s elevations, with the office element now being raised higher and having a more refined facing to it.  Good quality landscaping was proposed which would set the benchmark for future developments.  As part of the scheme the Trans-Pennine trail would be re-engineered, giving improved pedestrian and cycle access

  One matter which was considered by Plans Panel East at the meeting in August 2012 was vehicular access and the single carriageway solution which was proposed.  Plans Panel East was of the view that there was a need for two way access and for sufficient access to be provided to open up the site to a wider area of the city to maximise its potential

  Members were informed that this had been considered but that the applicant had agreed to carry out full strengthening works to the bridge which would allow the full width of the bridge to be provided as other developments came along

  The Panel then received a presentation from Tim Shaw, a representative of the Environment Agency (EA), who outlined the EA permitting process and provided the following information:

·  that applications for ERFs were assessed to ensure they were designed to the highest standards

·  that the EA had a role as a consultee in the planning application process as well as a permitting role once an application for an environmental permit was received

·  that a permit could be issued before planning permission was granted but that currently no permit had been applied for on this site

·  that an environmental permit contained strict conditions to ensure the environment and people’s health were protected and only when the applicant had demonstrated that the ERF would operate in line with UK and European laws and using best available technology, would a permit be issued

·  that for older plants, the EA could require these to be retro-fitted to meet best available technology

·  that once the permit application was received and checked that all the necessary information had been submitted, it would be advertised and a period of public consultation would commence which would also include other agencies, e.g. Natural England and PCTs.  The EA had an obligation to take into account all comments which were received and once the application had been assessed, a draft decision was produced with further consultation on this being held and then a final decision was taken

·  once a permit was issued the EA then assumed a regulatory role which required audits and inspections; continuous monitoring of emissions and periodic sampling.  Emission reports would be reviewed and published

·  management and operating procedures would also be monitored but the EA’s role did not cover issues relating to traffic movements; visual impact of the development; operating hours or light pollution

·  the enforcement action could be taken if this was necessary with a range of sanctions being available to the EA including suspension/prohibition notices being issued and prosecution for non-compliance

Members discussed the report and the presentation by the EA and

commented on the following matters:

·  concerns that the applicant had not yet applied for an environmental permit and that they should be encouraged to do so.  The Chair advised that this was a matter for the applicant

·  the transportation of waste from the applicant’s materials recovery facility (MRF) on Gelderd Road and that it would be more efficient to sort the waste on the same site as it was being incinerated

·  the fact there was another application for an ERF in close proximity and whether in the EA’s evaluation, these were considered separately or collectively

·  whether there was sufficient waste in the city to fully utilise both of the proposed facilities

·  the topography of the area where the ERFs were proposed with concerns that due to the shallow valley these were sited in, the dispersion of emissions could be slow

·  whether any similar scheme to that proposed had been refused an environmental permit

·  the possibility of utilising the waterways to transport waste

·  the possibility of both facilities being located on this site

·  for residential properties which were sited close to an ERF, whether a higher standard for emissions or vibrations was required

·  whether permits were time limited or had to be renewed

The following responses were provided:

·  regarding the movement of materials from the MRF on Gelderd Road, whilst planning permission for the Gelderd Road site had been granted, it had not yet been implemented.  In theory it would be more efficient to sort and incinerate waste on the same site, that proposal had not been put forward and it would only be residual waste which was transported from the MRF, which equated to around 9-10 vehicles per day

·  that when determining the environmental permit for this site, the fact there was another facility proposed in close proximity would be taken into account and the EA would only grant the permit if it was satisfied it was safe to do so.  When considering a permit for this site, the assumption would be made that the operators of the other site – which had applied for an environmental permit – would be operating at full capacity, so these emissions would be added to the background emissions and then those produced by this site would be added for the EA’s consideration.  If it was felt that the air quality standard was at risk through the level of emissions, it would be possible to refuse the permit or require additional technology to be provided to mitigate against this

·  that in terms of waste arisings, the RSS set out the amount of waste the region produced and then further detailed information had been obtained in the research for the Natural Resources and Waste Development Plan Document (NRWDPD) which indicated that between 350,000 and 500,000 tonnes of commercial and industrial waste per annum had to be catered for, which included recycling materials but not municipal waste which was in addition to that figure

·  that some applications for ERFs had been withdrawn, rather than refused an environmental permit

·  that the NRWDPD was supportive of transporting goods by water but that this was a difficult site to achieve this at as transport stations would be required along the route

·  that the standards applied to emissions and vibrations were the same regardless of location but that all complaints would be investigated and where there were problems, the EA could require the operator to put in further measures

·  that environmental permits were not time limited and would remain in force until either the EA revoked them or the operator sought to surrender the permit, although the permits were reviewed regularly

The views of Members were sought on the bridge and whether this

should be two way either now or in the future

  The Panel’s Highways representative stated that an assessment had been carried out and that the proposed one-way signalled controlled operation of the bridge would be sufficient for the proposed development but that there were concerns for the future development of the site and that a two way bridge would be needed when all the land was developed.  Members noted that the footpath and cycleway would be cantilevered at the side and separated from vehicular traffic which would provide a safer environment

  Panel discussed the proposals and that if a two way route could not be provided by this development, that details were needed about the trigger point to achieve this, for further consideration

  RESOLVED -  To note the report, the presentation and the comments now made

  During consideration of this matter, Councillor Coulson left the meeting and Councillor Gruen also withdrew from the meeting for a short while