Agenda item

Further to minute 178 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 23^rd February 2012 where Panel considered a position statement on the application, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer providing an updated position statement on proposals for an Energy Recovery Facility (incineration of waste and energy generation), associated infrastructure and improvements to access and bridge

(report attached)

  Further to minute 178 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 23^rd February 2012, where Panel considered a position statement on proposals for an Energy from Waste Facility (ERF) on the site of the former Skelton Grange Power Station, Members considered a further position statement.  Attending for this item were representatives from the Environment Agency, the body responsible for issuing permits for ERFs to provide information on the permitting process for the benefit of new Panel Members.  Also attending the meeting to provide technical advice to the presenting Officer on issues relating to minerals and waste, was Ms White, the Senior Minerals Planner, who was dealing with the Council’s own application for an ERF

  Before the report was presented, the Head of Planning Services referred to the information in the report provided about need, in response to questions raised by Members at the meeting in February 2012 and stated that the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework suggested that need was not a material planning consideration

  Officers presented the report which related to proposals for an ERF taking in 300,000 tonnes of commercial and industrial waste per annum

  Plans, photographs, drawings, graphics and a sample of the proposed main cladding material were displayed at the meeting

  In the light of Members’ previous comments, the design of the building had been modified to include additional detail to the facades of the building and the redesigning of the office accommodation

  The bridge serving the facility would be strengthened but would remain single lane.  An improved footway/cycleway across the bridge would also be provided and the applicant had been asked to consider how pedestrian and cyclist access could be improved to and from the nearby Trans Pennine Trail

  The Panel then heard from Tim Shaw, a representative of the Environment Agency (EA) who outlined the permitting process and provided the following information:

• that in respect of incinerators, the EA needed to ensure that the facilities were built and run to meet the strict environmental standards
• that the EA was a consultee in the planning process but that it was for Councils to decide how waste should be managed
• in terms its Environmental Permitting role, it was not necessary for planning permission to be in place before the permit was granted but that the permit had to be granted before the ERF could operate
• that the EA would only grant a permit if it was demonstrated that the facility would run in compliance with the relevant UK and European legislation and would not cause significant pollution or harm to people’s health
• that the EA could require older facilities to retro-fit to ensure they were meeting best available technologies
• that receipt of an application for an ERF, once deemed to have been duly made, would be advertised and a period of public consultation on the proposals would commence.  If the application was considered to be controversial, drop-in sessions would be held for the public where further information on the permitting process could be obtained.  As well as public consultation, comments were also sought from a range of consultees including the Primary Care Trusts and the Health Protection Agency (HPA).  Once the closing date for comments had passed and the application assessed, the EA’s draft decision would be published and further comments sought.  If the decision was to grant the permit, the EA would then move into regulation mode, where its role would be to ensure emissions from the ERF did not cause significant harm to human health or the environment
• strict monitoring would take place which would include checking that the equipment met the required standards and was correctly calibrated.  The management of the plant would also be checked to ensure it was being appropriately operated.  The energy efficiency of the plant would be checked as would measures in respect of accident prevention; noise and odour, although it was stated noise and odour were not particular problems for ERFs.  Checks to ensure the facility complied with the Waste Incineration Directive and the environmental permit conditions would be undertaken
• the environmental permit did not cover traffic movements; visual impact; operating hours or light pollution
• most of the checks would be audit-based and monthly emissions data would be provided to the EA.  In the event of any exceedences of the limits set, the EA would need to be informed together with what measures had been put in place to bring this back into compliance.  Whilst occasionally there were issues, the EA did work with operators and the community to resolve these and there were very few complaints made about such facilities
• enforcement action could be taken against operators with the EA having a range of measures including a site warning; a formal caution; prosecution and suspension or prohibition notices

In response to questions from the Panel, Mr Shaw provided the following information:

• that the emission of dioxins from modern ERFs were extremely low; were monitored regularly and to tight limits
• that the systems used to prevent dioxin emissions were very reliable with few, if any, breaches of the dioxin limits occurring
• in order to determine an application for an environmental permit, all emissions were modelled using very conservative levels, so building in safety factors
• that the EA would not issue a permit to an ERF if there was an indication it would have a significant impact on health or the environment
• in terms of a link between health issues and living close to such a facility, the HPA had undertaken much work on this subject which was well-documented, with no link being found.  To access this research, the EA had set up a link to the HPA’s website
• in respect of whether the environmental permit matched the conditions on the planning permission, the permit issued by the EA was a separate process to the planning permission and any such issues would be flagged up in the EA’s consultation process which included the LPA

Concerning the health issues raised, Councillor R Grahame referred to a letter from the Director of Public Health, Dr Cameron, which he would be passing to the Chair of Plans Panel East

Members then commented on the following matters in respect of the proposal:

• the colour of the proposed cladding, with a mix of views on whether this should be altered to reduce the visual impact of the building or whether for a development of this scale it should be accepted for what it was
• the landscaping proposals and the types of trees to be considered in the planting scheme
• the proximity of the site to Newsam Green and the boundary to Swillington, with Officers agreeing to provide this information directly to Councillor McKenna
• whether there was capacity to take municipal waste at this site; how it could be ensured that the applicant was recycling as much material as possible rather than burning it; the Combined Heat and Power (CHP) process and where the energy produced on the site would be used
• that the wharf should be retained
• the bridge to the site and whether a new, two-lane bridge could be constructed

Officers provided the following responses:

• that the total capacity of the ERF would be 300,000 tonnes of waste per year and the proposals for this plant was to take commercial and industrial waste.  As two lines would be operating it was feasible for one line to take municipal waste, but that would then reduce the amount of commercial and industrial waste being dealt with, which would still need to be managed
• that there were economic reasons in respect of the amount of materials being recycled; the applicant wished to sell waste which could be recycled, and as incineration was a more expensive option of waste disposal, it was also cheaper for customers to recycle as much material as possible
• that there was capacity for CHP but this relied on a company coming forward to express an interest in using this, but that the electricity produced on site would be used to power the site with spare capacity being sold to power homes
• that the future of the wharf could be given further consideration
• that for technical reasons relating to power supplies, it was not possible to demolish the bridge.  On this matter the Chief Planning Officer stated that the application site was within the city’s Urban Eco Settlement where new and higher standards of living, employment and energy were being encouraged and that the ERF had the potential to complement this but that it was important to consider in detail how this area could be linked to the wider area.  Whilst the traffic flow from the ERF was relatively light, the longer-term picture should be considered at this stage and that a temporary, single lane access did not achieve this

RESOLVED -  

i)  To note the contents of the report

ii)  To note the information provided from the Environment Agency

iii)  To note the design changes and the comments now made on aspects of this

iv)  To note the comments about the vehicular access; the need for two way access and for sufficient access to be provided to open up the site to a wider area of the city to maximise its potential