Agenda item

Further to minute 36 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 22^nd 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)

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 term which could be used in the S106 agreement

The Chair stated that in the event of a significant changes arising with the application, Section 106 Agreement and conditions, then it would be returned to Panel

Having regard to the contents of the discussions detailed in minutes 69 and 70 above, and the additional paper submitted by the Director of Public Health; the reports and presentations, the Panel

  RESOLVED -  To defer and delegate the application to the Chief Officer for approval, subject to the specified conditions outlined in Appendix 1 of the submitted report (which may also include other conditions as deemed necessary), further consideration of the design and colour of the ERF and an agreement to provide statistical data from the ERF on the internet and following completing of a Section 106 Agreement to cover the following matters:

  Transport

-  travel plan fees and monitoring

-  routing of HGVs between Gelderd Road MRF and Skelton Grange ERF

-  routing management plan for other HGVs including Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) vehicles

-  contribution towards bus stop improvements on Pontefract Road, including real-time information

-  contribution towards pedestrian crossing equipment and an ‘all-red’ phase of the signals at junction of Skelton Grange Road and Pontefract Road

Public Rights of Way

-  cycle path and footpath provision linking the Trans Pennine Trail – across bridge and along edge of access road to a point level with the site access

-  Trans Pennine Trail improvements (and maintenance) including first phase of alternative route along northern river bank and re-engineered ramp access

Biodiversity

-  Integrated landscape and ecological management plan

-  off site ecological works at Lagoon 21 of Skelton Grange Landfill

-  off site planting and maintenance – planting between site boundary and river and within ramp loop linking Trans Pennine Trail and the bridge

Closure of Skelton Landfill

-  cessation of importation of waste to Skelton Grange Landfill within six months of first acceptance of waste at Skelton ERF

Local employment

-  applicants to use best endeavours to employ people from application wards and those adjoining

Community Liaison

-  the formation of a community liaison group comprising representatives of the local community, local Councillors. Environment Agency and Local Planning Authority

Community Fund

-  a voluntary community/environmental project fund equivalent to £0.30 per tonne of waste received at the site.  Submission of scheme required to detail administering of fund – to relate to Burmantofts and Richmond Hill, City and Hunslet, Beeston and Holbeck, Temple Newsam, Rothwell and Garforth and Swillington wards.  Fund to be index linked  (Panel Members were advised that this was not material to the determination of the application)

In the circumstances where the Section 106 has not been completed within 3 months of the resolution to grant planning permission the final determination of the application shall be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer unless a significant issue arises, whereby the application be returned to Panel for determination