Agenda item

Further to minute 9 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 27^th 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)

  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 they would not be cost effective for the city

The Panel considered how to proceed

In view of the alleged existence of a pollutant in the area, it was suggested that the EA report on this before final determination of the application.  The Chief Planning Officer stated that these were two separate issues; the EA would investigate the matter which had been raised but the LPA had to deal with the application on its merits

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 Planning Officer for approval, subject to the specified conditions outlined in Appendix A of the submitted report (which may also include other conditions as deemed necessary) and following completing on a Section 106 Agreement to cover the following matters:

1.  highway improvements to Newmarket Approach to include resurfacing and improved layout

2.  cycle path to be provided on Newmarket Approach linking Pontefract Lane with existing cycle path to north

3.  HGV Lorry Routing Strategy to be provided

4.  Travel Plan Fees to be paid and monitoring required

5.  Green Corridor Landscaping Scheme to be provided along western boundary of Newmarket Lane

6.  Landscape and Ecological Management Plan to be provided to ensure extended aftercare to site

7.  Local Employment – applicants to use best endeavours to employ people from application ward and those adjoining

8.  Formation of a Community Liaison Group comprising representatives of local community, local Councillors, Environment Agency and Local Planning Authority

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