Agenda item

To receive a report from the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development presenting a progress update on the implementation of the recommendations arising from the previous Scrutiny Inquiry into Peckfield Landfill Site.

The Head of Scrutiny and Member Development submitted a report which set out the progress made in responding to the recommendations arising from the Scrutiny Inquiry regarding Peckfield Landfill Site.

The following information was appended to the report:

-  Recommendation tracking flowchart and classifications

-  Details of progress against each of the recommendations

-  Public Health Report – Summary of Analysis of Local Health Data 2015

-  Impact on Health of Emissions from Landfill Sites – Advice from the Health Protection Agency.

The following were in attendance:

-  Councillor Mary Harland, Ward Member for Kippax and Methley

-  Councillor James Lewis, Ward Member for Kippax and Methley

-  Councillor Keith Wakefield, Ward Member for Kippax and Methley

-  Neil Evans, Director of Environment and Housing

-  Clive Saul, Minerals, Waste and Renewable Energy Planning Manager (Acting)

-  Nicola Hoggart, Environment Management Team Leader – Waste (Leeds, Bradford & Craven), Environment Agency

-  Roy Thompson, Regulatory Officer, Environment Agency

-  Anna Frearson, Consultant in Public Health (Healthy Living and Health Improvement), The Office of the Director of Public Health, Technorth

-  Dr Mike Gent, Consultant in Communicable Disease Control, Public Health England

-  Ian Walker, Specialist Registrar, Public Health England

-  Greg Hodgson, Head of Unit, Centre for Radiation Chemicals and the Environment, Public Health England

-  Christine Boothroyd, Local resident and member of the Peckfield Liaison Committee

-  Carolyn Walker, Local resident and originator of the Scrutiny request.

A brief overview was provided regarding the role of the Environment Agency and Public Health England in relation to Peckfield Landfill Site.

The key areas of discussion were:

·  Clarification sought regarding the subsistence fee, which it was noted had not featured as part of the Scrutiny Inquiry into Peckfield Landfill Site.  The Board was advised that the subsistence fee was contained within the Environment Agency’s fees and charges public document.

·  Clarification provided regarding assessment of the site and non-compliance arrangements.

·  Confirmation that the site operator was unable to attend today’s Board meeting.

·  Confirmation that there had been no indication from the site operator regarding abandonment of the site.  The operator continued to maintain and develop the infrastructure of the site.

·  The Environment Agency suggested that if the site was abandoned then the permit would cease to exist and the site would be classified as contaminated land. 

·  Clarification of whether any contingency plans were in place in case the site was abandoned, particularly in terms of sufficient financial security for restoration and other contingencies. 

·  It was noted that financial security (in the form of a bond) would be used to ensure that the active phase of the site was capped so that it no longer posed an environmental risk. This would also be used as part of a 60 year aftercare and monitoring scheme, which involved capping the site, although it did not include full restoration of the site.

·  A representative from the Environment Agency advised that the exact amount of financial security could not be disclosed as it was considered commercially sensitive information.  However, it was confirmed that the Environment Agency had ownership of the bond and that this was subject to review every 6 years.

·  The Board expressed concern that that there was still a need to provide reassurance regarding aftercare and restoration of the site.  Members also questioned whether a 60 year aftercare and monitoring scheme was sufficient after learning that the site would still produce small levels of landfill gasses after 60 years. 

·  Clarification was sought about the types of waste disposed at the site and where the waste came from.  The Board was advised that since 2006, the site only received non-hazardous waste.  There were no restrictions in terms of where the waste came from.

·  Confirmation that the operator was currently on target with completion of the site by 2020.

·  An update on regular dialogue that existed between the Environment Agency and the Peckfield Liaison Committee.

·  The Board acknowledged the Public Health report relating to the Peckfield Landfill Site and also the praise given by local residents for the work undertaken in this regard.

The status of recommendations were agreed as follows:

·  Recommendation 1 – Not fully implemented (Progress made not acceptable. Continue monitoring)

·  Recommendation 2 – Not fully implemented (Progress made acceptable. Continue monitoring)

·  Recommendation 3 – Not fully implemented (Progress made not acceptable. Continue monitoring)

·  Recommendation 4 – Not fully implemented (Progress made acceptable. Continue monitoring)

·  Recommendation 5 – Achieved

·  Recommendation 6 – Not fully implemented (Progress made acceptable. Continue monitoring)

·  Recommendation 7 – Stop monitoring

·  Recommendation 8 – Not fully implemented (Progress made acceptable. Continue monitoring)

·  Recommendation 9 – Achieved.

RESOLVED –

(a)  That the contents of the report and appendices be noted

(b)  That the above status of recommendations be approved

(c)  That the Board will determine the most effective means of proceeding with some of the issues that had been identified.

(Councillor A Khan joined the meeting at 2.50pm during the consideration of this item.)

(Councillor A Gabriel left the meeting at 3.40pm at the conclusion of this item.)