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 building, and especially the stack, would be visible at night. Officers stated that some night time images had been provided from the most prominent locations and that warning lights on the flue could be seen on these
The Panel then heard the presentation of the Officer’s report on the second application on the agenda
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
Further to minute 9 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 27th September 2012, where Panel considered a position statement on proposals for an Energy Recovery Facility (with mechanical pre-treatment) for the incineration of residual municipal solid waste and commercial and industrial waste, with associated infrastructure on land at the former Wholesale Market site, Pontefract Lane, Cross Green, Leeds 9, the Panel considered a further report of the Chief Planning Officer seeking determination of the application
Appended to the report were the following documents:
· a summary of proposed conditions
· minutes relating to discussions of the proposals from the Plans Panel East meeting of 26th January 2012 and City Plans Panel of 27th September 2012
· a letter of representation submitted by Friends of the Earth
· a report of the City Solicitor entitled ‘Determining Planning Applications where the Council has a financial interest’, which had been considered by Joint Plans Panel at its meeting held on 5th December 2012
Plans, graphics, artist’s impressions, a photomontage showing the facility from key views and a model were displayed at the meeting
Ms White, Senior Minerals Planner, presented the report and stated that this application differed from the application on the former Skelton Grange site as it included front-end recycling; would cater for up to 214,000 tonnes of municipal waste per annum and a small quantity of commercial and industrial waste.
As up to a maximum of 20% of the waste would be for recycling, mechanical pre-treatment of the waste would occur to sort and separate out
waste for recycling off site, with the remaining 164,000 tonnes of residual waste going into the ERF, with electricity and energy being generated from that. Members were informed about the further information submitted by the applicant in late October 2012 pursuant to Regulation 22 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011 as set out in paragraphs 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 of the submitted report
The main issues of the application were stated as being siting; potential health impacts; vehicle movements/routing and the junction arrangement on the East Leeds Link Road (ELLR), with these being detailed in the submitted report
The following keys points were made:
· in terms of proximity of the facility to residential properties, the closest property would be sited 200 metres from it
· mechanical pre-treatment process and that the residual waste would be transported internally and following incineration, this waste would be transported off the site
· the landscaping being provided on the site and that a condition was proposed for a biodiversity and landscape management plan for the site
· the design of the facility and that although it would be visible great care had been taken in its design
· highways, with the applicant being asked to consider providing an all moves junction. On this matter, the Panel was informed that this had been considered but the amount of land required to achieve this, some of it being in third party ownership, was prohibitive. An alternative solution of providing traffic lights was also considered but this too would prove problematic due to the amount of land required
· that the ELLR had been designed for large scale vehicles; that further highways measures were not considered necessary and could increase the amount of carbon emissions from the road. Vehicles could be accommodated around the tight bend into the site and Highways Officers were satisfied with the proposals
The level of representations received to the application was updated
and now stood at 673 individual representations. In terms of the content of these, they were largely as reported, with no new matters to comment on
Whilst some representations referred to the procurement process, this was outside of the planning remit
An error on the condition relating to hours of construction was reported with Members being informed this would be 07:00 – 19:00 hours – Monday to Friday, 07:00 – 16:00 hours – Saturday and not at any other time, with these construction hours mirroring those on the application at the former Skelton Grange site
Ms White referred to the additional information received from the PCT which had been circulated to Panel
In response to questions about the absence of night views of the facility and how possible light pollution could affect the environment, Ms White stated that the facility would be operating 24 hours a day and whilst it would give off a glow at night time due to the construction materials being used, this would obscure glare. Unlike the other application being considered, there would not a warning light on the stack as this would not be over 90 metres in height. It was noted that a condition was included to cover these issues
The Chief Planning Officer referred to the issues of health and emissions which were relevant to both of the applications and stated that there was more than one regime which operated at such facilities and that alongside planning controls there were controls by the Environment Agency through their licensing permits
The Panel then heard from Dr Balmer, a Public Health Consultant at Leeds PCT; Mr Bond from the Health Protection Agency (HPA) and Mr Shaw from the Environment Agency (EA) who were in attendance to provide information and to respond to questions and comments from the Panel
Dr Balmer referred to the paper produced by the Director of Public Health on the health impact of ERFs
Members were informed that air pollution in the UK was a significant issue and although there had been improvements, air pollution continued to create problems and contributed greatly to lung and heart disease and mortality rates, with air quality indicators being included in the report
Data on the air quality in Leeds was included in the additional information which had been circulated to Panel
In respect of EFW facilities, the evidence from the HPA had been examined and modelling work carried out, with the conclusion being that in terms of pollutants produced by the plant would, in the majority of cases be considered as ‘non-significant’ and would add very little. If approved, Leeds PCT consider that the facilities will add little to the overall burden of pollution provided they are well managed and maintained
Members commented on the following matters:
· the wording used, i.e. ‘very little’ or ‘non significant’; that these were different and which was the correct term to be applied. Dr Balmer stated it was felt the impact would not be significant and that it could be said to be very small, i.e. not measurable
· the data in the PCT report which showed a sharp decline in pollutants in Bradford and the reasons for this. Mr Bond of the HPA stated that the graph was intended to indicate trends
· the inspection regime and whether there was confidence that any problems would be reported and enforcement action taken and how the public would be aware of what was happening at the plant
The Panel then heard from Mr Shaw, from the Environment Agency who provided the following information:
· that all data received from ERFs was on a public register, was available for public inspection and that many operators published annual reports regarding performance with some choosing to publish live data on the internet. Statistical information was available on the public register which was provided by the EA and this was also held by the Council
Members commented on the following matters:
· whether the EA would participate in a liaison committee
· the accuracy of the data being provided, whether this was tested and in terms of enforcement, the length of time taken to react to potential enforcement issues and whether possible concerns would be raised with the EA
· the need to ensure all the information was clear so people could understand the data being provided
Mr Shaw provided the following responses:
· that the EA would be willing to participate in a liaison committee
· that all of the data held by the EA was audited by specialist colleagues who were experts in monitoring and who scrutinised the methods used to ensure the data was robust and to required standards and that all operators were required to conform to that quality standard. It was also possible to send a member of the EA to collect the data, as this was a power the EA possessed
· in terms of enforcement, the response would be appropriate to the risk. If a major incident occurred, there would be an immediate response. If emissions were not complying, the EA would also respond quickly and if necessary the EA could prohibit the operation of the process by issuing a Notice
· that different limits would exist in an Environmental Permit, e.g. half hourly and daily limits together with different limits for different materials. In the event of a very short breach of, for example a carbon monoxide limit, with a very minor consequence, such a matter was more likely to be dealt with over the telephone, whereas a similar breach of a more serious chemical or a failure of equipment would be followed up immediately and that the swiftness of the response would depend on the risk to the public and the environment
· that experience showed that operators took their Environmental Permits very seriously and that it was part of their procedures to notify the EA on their 24 hour a day, 7 days a week helpline
· that the data on the public register showed the emission limits so it could be clearly seen how the actual levels compared to
these
In response to a question about the poor air quality of the area around the motorway and how this compared to air quality around ERF facilities, Mr Bond of the HPA stated that as the emissions were of a different type there could be not direct comparison
The question of whether, if the applications were granted planning permission and Environmental Permits, that any future report on air quality in Leeds, - assuming there was no change in traffic pollution, - would make reference to these two facilities. The HPA representative stated that air quality was covered in the submitted reports and the Chair reiterated the comments made about the public health impacts of ERFs. It was stated that the terms ‘significant’ and ‘ non significant’ were technical terms used in relation to air quality from such plants
In drawing this part of the discussion to a close, Mr Shaw stated that in some parts of the city, air quality issues were due solely to road traffic emissions; that air quality was considered by the EA and if the EA had concerns about the impact to public health and the environment, then a permit could be refused. In response to whether the facilities would be properly operated and maintained, Mr Shaw stated that whilst this was a difficult generalisation to make as there were a number of different operators and technologies, generally speaking these were well maintained and monitored; that ERFs did receive a high level of scrutiny and if there were problems, the EA could take action to address this
RESOLVED - To note the contents of the reports and discussions and to move on to consider further submissions in respect of each of the applications in order to determine them
The Panel then went on to consider the public representations in respect of application 11/03705/FU