Agenda item

Preapp/10/005200 - Pre-application report - Recycling and Energy Recovery Facility - site of former Wholesale Market Newmarket Approach Cross Green LS9

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer and presentation providing details on proposals for a Recycling and Energy Recovery Facility on the former Wholesale Market at Cross Green LS9

 

This is a pre-application presentation and no formal decision on the development will be taken, however it is an opportunity for Panel Members to ask questions, raise issues, seek clarification and comment on the proposals at this stage.  There is no opportunity for public speaking about the proposals outlined in the presentation

 

(report attached)

 

 

Minutes:

  Plans, photographs and graphics were displayed at the meeting

  Further to minute 137 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 20th January 2011 where Panel received a presentation from the Environment Agency on the monitoring and permitting regulations associated with Energy from Waste (EfW) facilities, Members considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer on the anticipated submission of a planning application for such a facility, following the Council’s entering into an agreement in November 2011 with Veolia Environmental Services (VES) concerning the design, construction, funding and operation of a waste management facility

  Officers presented the report and outlined the proposals for a RERF – Recycling and Energy Recovery Facility - which would accept 180,000 tons of residual waste per annum and would have a front-end recycling facility to further increase the amount of recycling the Council achieved annually

  The Panel then received a presentation from representatives of Veolia, the Council’s Preferred Bidder for the development and operation of such a facility which would be located on a brownfield site at Newmarket Approach Cross Green LS9

  Details were provided in respect of:

·  the proposed solution to waste in Leeds

·  the company

·  the site and proposed design of the RERF

·  the local environment

·  planning timetable

·  key issues including traffic and emissions

·  local benefits and community engagement

Members questioned Veolia’s representatives and Officers on a range

of issues and received the following information:

·  that Biffa, which had indicated an interest in providing a EFW facility in this area for commercial waste, had been involved at the early stages of the Council’s procurement process for a waste facility for household waste, however Veolia had reached the point of the Council’s Preferred Bidder after a lengthy and rigorous process.  The Council’s Waste Strategy and Policy Manager who was in attendance stated that due to the threat of escalating landfill costs, a solution to this had to be found and that it was not possible to rely on an application from Biffa which was yet to be submitted, to resolve the problems of dealing with the city’s waste

·  that 16 weeks was the usual timescale to consider an application and frame a recommendation, however it was felt this could take longer, with much depending on the responses from the Statutory Consultees.  The Environmental Permit and the Planning Application would be submitted simultaneously in this case

·  that the heights of the buildings were likely to be 42m for the main facility and 15m for the smaller building.  The main facility would house the stack which was likely to be 75m high.  The majority of the stack would be housed inside the main facility with just 33m of the stack being visible.  In terms of visibility of the smaller building from the nearest residential properties, it was felt that the changes in land levels would mean it unlikely this could be seen

·  that view points and most recent images of the proposals were likely to be available for the next round of consultation which was due to take place in March 2012; these would also indicate the position of cycle ways, green corridors and give details of the landscaping proposals

·  regarding the ownership of the site, Veolia would occupy the site at a peppercorn rent, with the facility being paid for by the Council

·  the number of groups contacted about the proposals, with Veolia confirming that more than the 15 groups referred to in the submitted report had been consulted and contacted

·  that Veolia had appointed a communications company; that a website had been set up and that comments received would be taken into account, however it was stressed that it would be through the planning process that the application was finally determined

·  that detailed car parking numbers would be provided in March 2012 but the desire was for the minimum number of spaces as sustainable travel would be encouraged, with a Green Travel Plan being provided as part of the planning application.  As part of the Environmental Impact Assessment which would be required to accompany the planning application, a full transport assessment would be carried out.  Members were informed that Veolia did not expect to use the rail network for the transportation of waste

·  in terms of storage of waste at the facility, there would be the capacity to store up to 5 days waste inside the building, as set out in the procurement process

·  that waste would be tipped inside the building and as there would be negative air pressure, nothing would be released into the air.  All of the materials processed would be handled and stored undercover on site, with the bottom ash being kept separate from the other materials. 

·  the facility would be CHP (Combined Heat and Power) ready and that a heat user analysis would be provided which was expected to generate interest from possible heat users looking to use the energy provided by the facility

·  in terms of capital spend, a significant element of this would be to overseas suppliers as there were relatively few suppliers of the necessary technology and these were not located in the United Kingdom, however in terms of labour and consumables, the intention was to resource these from within the UK.  Local employment and training initiatives would form part of the planning application, with the facility creating approximately 300 construction jobs and around 45 permanent post construction with other indirect posts being created.  The on-site jobs would vary but would include supervisory, technical and non-technical positions

·  that the contact with Leeds would be different from the one operating in Sheffield which was an integrated contact, whereby Veolia also collected the waste

·  the monitoring process and that nitrous oxide and sulphur dioxide would be monitored with the parameters for these being set out in the Environmental Permit

·  that if approved, the RERF would be operating a highly efficient boiler and would meet the R1 criteria of Waste Management Directives

·  that the majority of the waste would arrive at the facility directly from street collections

·  that the images provided were an accurate representation of what would be built, if planning permission was granted, although there could be minor alterations which arose from the Environmental Impact Assessment

·  health risks.  Reference was made to the presentation by Veolia which stated the facility should not cause significant health risks, with concerns being raised over the word ‘significant’.  Members were informed that this was the wording of the Health Protection Agency which had been cautious.  The Environment Agency was satisfied that such technology was safe but could not say there was zero risk

·  the level of waste being imported, with Veolia explaining that the size of the plant had been decided upon taking into account future growth.  As it was necessary for the plant to operate at optimum efficiency an element of commercial waste would be included.  Members were informed that Veolia would guarantee that only 1% of waste coming into the plant would be from beyond the LCC boundary

Members commented on the following matters:

·  the ‘green’ wall and that consideration should be given to siting this on the elevation which faced the residential properties rather than it facing the industrial landscape

·  that sample materials should be provided

·  that large-scale representations of the proposals should be provided which should also include visuals of the height of the building and stack and from a range of different directions, including from the nearest residential areas

·  the need for more information on the S106 contributions and on the construction methodology, including mitigation measures in respect of noise and traffic

·  further information on the amount of waste being taken from elsewhere and consideration of a condition in respect of this

·  long-term use; the possibility that in time, with greater recycling levels the amount of waste being generated would reduce and free up capacity at the plant and how this would be taken up

·  concerns about the height of the building and the stack and its impact on visual amenity

Councillor Grahame referred to documents prepared as part of the site

selection process for the facility which he considered should be provided to Panel Members, together with information compiled by objectors relating to Veolia.  It was agreed that this information be supplied initially to the Head of Planning Services and the Panel’s Lead Officer

  RESOLVED -  To note the report, the presentation and the comments now made

 

 

Supporting documents: