Agenda item

Further to minute 94 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 24^th October 2013, where Members considered a position statement on proposals for the erection and installation of an Energy Recovery Facility (using Autoclave and Pyrolysis) and an Anaerobic Digestion Facility, an integrated education/visitor centre, provision of rail freight handling infrastructure and an new industrial link road access to the site via Knowsthorpe Gate, associated parking and landscaping, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer on the formal application

(report attached)

  Further to minute 94 of the City Plans Panel meeting held on 24^th October 2013, where Members considered a position statement on the proposals, the Panel considered a further report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the formal application

  Plans, photographs, graphics and an artist’s impression of the buildings were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report which related to an application for a waste management facility which would be capable of treating up to 195,000 tonnes per annum of unsorted, non-hazardous municipal, commercial, industrial and green (biodegradable) wastes, which would operate 24 hours a day, 7 days per week except during shutdowns for maintenance

  Members were informed that the waste would be imported to the site from within the Leeds administrative boundary and that the proposals would deliver a new link road and upgrade the adjacent rail sidings infrastructure

  Having considered the scheme, Officers were of the view that the application should be refused, with recommended reasons for refusal being included in the submitted report

  Members were informed of additional letters of representation which had been received, including one from local Ward Member, Councillor R Grahame, who was supportive of the application.  Councillor Grahame’s letter was read out to the Panel.  A letter had also been received about the nature of the proposed waste management processes and whether this constituted incineration.  Members were informed it was the view of Officers that the pyrolysis element of the processes constituted incineration at this stage

  Further information had also been received on the ecological aspects of the proposals, which Officers were now satisfied with and a letter of response from the Agent in respect of the objection made by Miller Homes

  The Panel heard representations firstly from the applicant who provided information to Panel which included:

·  that the site was a brownfield site

·  that the scheme would bring sustainable benefits to Leeds

·  the waste stream and that there was sufficient waste feed stock within Leeds for the facility

·  the use of rail for transporting waste

The Panel then heard from an objector who supported the Officer’s

recommendation and provided information to Panel which included:

·  the impact of the proposals on the residents at Yarn Street

·  concerns about odour, noise and the visual impact of the proposals

·  that the application was contrary to policy and would lead to the reindustrialisation of the area

·  that a nearby unauthorised waste management use (LPR at the Knostrop Depot) had adversely impacted on the living conditions of residents at Yarn Street

·  25m flues would dominate the landscape and the proposal would result in the re-industrialisation of the site

·  investment in road was recognised but asked Members not to attach too much weight to this

The Chair allowed the applicant’s agents who were in attendance, to

respond to questions from the Panel

Members discussed the proposals with the following matters being

raised:

·  the extent of the buffer which would be required between the site and the housing land opposite, together with planting required for the Flood Alleviation Scheme in this area

·  issues relating to noise and odour and the proximity of housing land

·  that the technology proposed was supported in principle but was in the wrong place

·  that the site was not allocated for waste management use and was not part of the original plan for Aire Valley Leeds

·  the level of waste arisings in Leeds; the recent approvals for Energy Recovery Facilities at Cross Green and Skelton Grange and whether the proposed facility would need to import waste from outside Leeds to remain operational

·  how the adjacent rail sidings would be upgraded and used for rail freight in connection with the proposal and a lack of clarity on how this would work in practice

·  the difficulty of developing in this area without having an adverse impact; how rail would be brought into use through the scheme; that odour could be controlled and that further consideration should be given to the proposals

The Panel considered how to proceed:

RESOLVED -  That the application be refused for the following reasons:

1  The proposed development site is not identified in Leeds City Council’s Natural Resources and Waste Local Plan 2013 as an allocated, preferred or safeguarded waste management site.  In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the applicants have failed to demonstrate that the safeguarded, preferred and allocated locations for waste management use, as identified by policies Waste 2, 5, 6 and 7 in the Local Plan, are not appropriate or available for the proposed use.  This is contrary to policy Waste 8 of the Leeds Natural Resources and Waste Local Plan 2013

2  In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the applicants have failed to demonstrate how the proposed development would utilise the adjacent railway line or to any substantial extent for freight movements in connection with the proposed use.  As such, there are considered to be no exceptional circumstances to depart from the policy in the adopted development plan, which seeks to ensure that the application site is developed for rail related uses.  The proposed development is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of policies H3-A1.45, T1(i) and T31 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review 2006

3  In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed development would prejudice the delivery of housing on the land allocated for residential development at Bridgewater Road.  It would do so by restricting the land available for the location and/or relocation of rail based freight uses whilst simultaneously ensuring that sufficient land is available to function as an effective buffer between the two uses.  This buffer is required in order to provide an adequate standard of amenity for the occupants of the future planned housing.  The proposed development is therefore contrary to the Hunslet Riverside Strategic Housing and Mixed Use Site policy H3-1A:45 and GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review 2006 and Waste 9 of the Natural Resources and Waste Local Plan (2013) and undermines the emerging policy base contained in Spatial Policy 5 of the Consolidated Core Strategy comprising Publication Draft Feb 2012 and Pre-Submission Changes Dec 2012 (CD01) and the Proposed Modifications Schedule 1 (March 2014) and the aspirations of the emerging Aire Valley Area Action Plan for the regeneration of the wider Hunslet Riverside Area

Following the determination of the application, Councillor Ingham

brought to the Chair’s attention that she had not indicated her support for the proposals, as referred to in paragraph 7.3 of the submitted report