Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position on an application for an energy recovery facility (incineration of waste and energy generation), associated infrastructure and improvements to access and bridge

(report attached)

The Panel considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer setting out the current position in respect of proposals for an Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) with associated infrastructure and improvements to access and bridge on the site of the former Skelton Grange Power Station, Stourton

  Prior to discussions on the proposal, Members queried the process which enabled consideration to be given to the scheme without objectors being able to put their views to the Panel.  Concerns were raised that the applicant, through the various discussions which had taken place at Panel, had been given a considerable amount of time on this scheme and that objectors should have the same time to address Panel.  The Chair pointed out that what was being considered was a position statement and that objectors would be given the opportunity to speak when the application was to be determined

  Plans, photographs, historical images and graphics were displayed at the meeting

  The proposal was for an ERF on the former Skelton Grange Power Station, operated by Biffa, which was capable of accepting 300,000 tonnes of non-hazardous waste per annum and would create approximately 300 jobs in the construction phase and in the region of 40 jobs at the plant

  The site which was surrounded by six Wards was currently vacant following demolition of the cooling towers and comprised mainly concrete and aggregate.  The area around the site was made up of predominantly industrial land

 Officers presented the report and stated that most of the consultee comments had been received and that further input from Members was sought on several issues, with a series of questions being included in the report for Panel’s consideration

Members questioned Officers on a range of issues and received the following information:

·  the facility would produce 30MW of which 26MW (equivalent to 52,000 homes) would be exported to the National Grid; 4MW would power the plant itself

·  that economic factors largely determined the distance waste could be sourced from in order for it to be disposed of

·  that the design life of the facility was 25 years although it could be required for longer

·  the ERF had been designed taking into account the context of the surrounding industrial landscape and with simple curves and different materials when compared with the usual ‘boxed in shed’ design.  The Design Team and Civic Architect, John Thorp, had been involved in detailed design discussions 

·  that the height of the flue stacks would be 90m.  Even if the building was lowered into the ground – which was not feasible in this case due to groundwater issues – the flue height would not reduce as it would still need to be 90m above ground level

·  the purpose of the plant would be to take the commercial and industrial waste Biffa currently disposed of at landfill

·  that the plant would be capable of taking any kind of non-hazardous residual waste i.e. commercial and industrial or municipal or a combination – up to a capacity of 300,000 tonnes per annum, in two lines of 150,000 tonnes each

·  that details of the total tonnage of Biffa’s waste collected in Leeds annually could be provided in a further report

·  that the total annual amount of waste received at Biffa’s landfill site had decreased from around 500,000 tonnes to about 300,000 tonnes in recent years.  In terms of waste arisings, extensive research to support the Natural Resources and Waste Development Plan Document (NRWDPD) had been undertaken.  The NRWDPD had recently undergone public examination and would provide the basis on which the Council would need to assess the application

·  the capacity of the vehicles transporting the waste to the ERF from customers would generally be 10 tonnes, with the larger, 44 tonne vehicles being used to transport the bottom ash away from and deliver bulked up waste to the site.  There would be about 90 HGVs arriving and leaving each day mainly between 9am – 4pm, although the plant would operate for 24 hours per day

·  regarding the sorting practices of other waste operators, that small skip operators recycled approximately 80% of the waste collected, but that the remainder was sent to landfill, with the total residual waste arisings being approximately 350,000 – 500,000 tonnes per annum as set out in the NWRDPD  and that Government policy was to impose fines on landfill, so alternative methods of dealing with residual waste had to be found and that there were over 1.2 million tonnes of commercial and industrial waste arisings within Leeds per annum

·  that the Environmental Permit which would need to be issued by the Environment Agency would exclude types of waste which could be recycled, so ensuring all materials which were capable of being recycled, were.  Furthermore, economic driving forces ensured operators supported recycling measures.  The average gate fee to ERFs was around £73 per tonne as opposed to £15 per tonne for a recycling centre.  Landfill gate fees were on average £76 per tonne which comprised £20 gate fee and the remainder landfill tax

·  in terms of sorting the waste, it would be the customer’s responsibility to do this.  Concerns were raised about the financial incentives to sort waste, however it was felt that customers would be unlikely to want to pay the additional costs to send recyclable materials to an ERF

·  that Biffa had planning permission for a large materials recycling facility on Gelderd Road where the recycling side of the business would take place

·  there would be storage capacity at the ERF for 5 days worth of waste and as there would be two lines in operation, there was the possibility of operating one whilst carrying out maintenance on the other

·  that the height of the wind turbine which was granted permission on the Yorkshire Water Sewage Works was confirmed at 125m – blade tip height – and 80m – hub height

·  in terms of the footpath on the south side of the river, the proximity of the Transpennine trail was outlined and that the applicants were looking to improve access by improving the existing spiral access; providing a footway and cycle path along the existing bridge, with the potential for re-routing the Transpennine trail past the site and along the northern bank of the Aire and Calder Navigation.  The work beyond the site would need to be completed as future development came along.  This would make it more accessible and would form part of the S106 Agreement

·  Officers confirmed that no water would be discharged from the plant

·  that the plant was designed to be ‘CHP Ready’ but until a consumer of heat came forward, the facility would only produce electricity

Members commented ona range of issues, including:

that a case had not been made on the basis of the information provided for the need of this facility and that issues relating to capacity, sorting procedures and traffic movements had not been clarified and that firm facts and figures must be provided as part of the considerations for such facilities

·  the design of the facility with some concerns that it was reminiscent of 1960s architecture, although it was acknowledged that the previous development on the site had comprised six cooling towers and ancillary structures

·  concerns about the public consultation process and that health professionals had not been made aware of the two ERF schemes under consideration in the city

·  concerns about the content of the waste, and that reassurances were needed that batteries and heavy metals would be properly dealt with

·  whether when maintenance of the plant was required, reciprocal arrangements would be in place with other plants to maintain the waste process

·  whether photo montages were needed showing the following elements, for Members’ consideration: the wind turbine, the subject site and the proposed LCC facility at Cross Green

·  incoming regulations to reduce industrial waste – especially around packaging – and that information on this should be provided as it could relate to what Biffa could harvest

·  that another waste operator in Leeds (Leeds Skips Services) indicated a 75% recycling level could be achieved on the waste they collected and that Officers should view this plant.  The Principal Minerals Planner who presented the report stated he was aware of the site and the recycling levels as it was one which was monitored by the Council

·  that the level of funding from the Caird Bardon fund at Peckfield Landfill had reduced in recent years due to the decrease in landfilling

·  the concerns of Leeds’ citizens about proposals for two ERFs in close proximity to each other and in some of the most deprived areas of the city; that these communities had not been consulted on where they would like such facilities to be sited and concerns that previously Biffa had indicated their facility could take the Council’s household waste

·  whether powers granted under the LGA 2000 in respect of Community Wellbeing applied.  On this provision, the Panel’s Legal Adviser stated that the decision to hold a vote on an issue was discretionary rather than compulsory

·  the view that there were no problems with the site; that the operation was no different to the previous power station use and that the infrastructure was already in place

·  the various figures mentioned, including those in the NRWDPD and the need to judge the proposal on real figures and taking into account the MRF process which would in all likelihood be developed in view of the operator having obtained permission for such a facility on Gelderd Road

·  concern about the use of the Leeds Weekly News (LWN) to advertise the proposals in view of this publication not being in circulation in those areas which would be most closely affected by the development.  Members were informed that site notices were also placed around the area; that the decision to select LWN for the press advertisement was based solely on cost and that in terms of how best to advertise planning applications, newspaper advertisements were found not to be particularly efficient in reaching communities, compared to site notices

·  consultation with local groups and that Ward Members should be contacted for details of these

The Panel provided the following responses to the questions posed

in the submitted report which were to aid Officers in their work on this application, rather than being the Panel’s final thoughts on the proposals

·  that a further visit to an existing ERF would be useful

·  that air quality and health were primarily matters for the Environment Agency to consider

·  that a further discussion session be arranged with the Environment Agency in respect of the Environmental Permitting process.  If the facility was granted approval, that such information should be provided on a regular basis with a suggestion being made that the Council sets up its own monitoring stations

·  that further details be provided on transportation matters, including details of the number of traffic movements and the route from the proposed MRF at Gelderd Road to the site

·  that there were concerns about the proposed design from some Panel Members

·  that in terms of visual impact, it was accepted there would be some impact

·  that in terms of biodiversity and landscaping there were no major concerns although it was felt that a good landscaping scheme was required

·  that no further clarification in relation to waste residues was required

·  in terms of the S106 agreement,  that it was premature to consider issues relating to this

RESOLVED –

i)  To note the report and the comments made at this time

ii)  To note the responses provided by Panel on the specific questions posed in the report and that further information on these matters be provided

iii)  That further information be provided on the amount and type of waste being produced by the city to ensure there would not be over capacity in view of a similar proposal at Cross Green

iv)  That Officers seek clarification from Biffa on the capacity of their proposed ERF; the intended use for this and whether there was the capacity to cater for the Council’s household waste within this development

v)  That a further report be submitted to Panel providing the information requested, in due course

(During consideration of this matter, Councillor Gruen left the meeting)