Agenda Item No: 05
Democratic Services County Hall Northampton NN1 1AT
Development Control Committee
Minutes: 10 October 2018 starting at 10am
Venue: Council Chamber, County Hall, Northampton
(Meeting held in public)
PRESENT:-
Councillor Judith Shephard (Chairman)
Councillor Rebecca Breese Councillor Andrew Kilbride Councillor Graham Lawman Councillor Stephen Legg Councillor Winston Strachan (Deputy Chairman)
Also in attendance (for all or part of the meeting)
Councillor Gill Mercer Northamptonshire County Council Councillor Andrew Mercer Northamptonshire County Council Councillor Jason Smithers Northamptonshire County Council Councillor David Jenney Deputy Leader, East Northamptonshire District Council Councillor Richard Lewis East Northamptonshire District Council Peter Bone, MP Member of Parliament for Wellingborough Roy Boulton Assistant Director Environment, Planning and Transport Mark Chant Head of Planning Services Ben Luck Democracy Officer (Minutes), NCC Paul Hanson Democratic Services Manager, NCC Peter Moor Principal Development Control Officer Phil Watson Development Control Manager (DCM)
30 members of the public also attended.
13/18 Apologies for non-attendance
Apologies were received from Councillor Osborne, Councillor Waters and Jenny Daniels.
14/18 Notification of Requests from Members of the Public to Address the Meeting
Item 7 (20/18) – Construction of Plastic Recycling and Recovery Facility involving the conversion of waste plastic by pyrolysis into diesel, petrol and liquid petroleum gas at Land at Upper Higham Lane, Rushden, Northamptonshire , NN10 0SU:
Against:
• Kaye Pentland on behalf of residents association called RAID.
• Mr Philip Giddings – speaking on difference aspects on behalf of RAID • Cllr Jason Smithers • Patricia Buckman • Peter Bone MP • Councillor Gill Mercer • Councillor Richard Lewis • Councillor Andrew Mercer • Councillor David Jenney – speaking on the Chelveston Plant
[Letter also submitted from Tom Pursglove, MP who sent apologies due to parliamentary business. Members took the appropriate time to read the contents of the letter during the meeting.]
For: • Victor Buchanan – representing the applicant
15/18 Declaration of Members’ Interests
Item Councillor Type Nat ure 7a Gill Mercer Discloseable Councillor Mercer did not participate non-pecuniary as a committee member due to her interest. involvement against this proposal.
There was no declaration of whip.
16/18 Chairman’s Announcements
The Chairman welcomed committee members and thanked Barbel Gale, the outgoing Democracy Officer supporting the committee, for her sterling work with the committee.
The Chairman explained that the Development Control Manager (DCM) would introduce each item, the public speakers would then be invited to speak with Members of the Committee being able to ask questions following their address and then the DCM would respond to points raised.
17/18 Minutes of the meeting held on 27 February 2018
RESOLVED that: The minutes of the meeting held in public on 27 February 2018 (copies of which were previously circulated) were agreed as a true and accurate record of the meeting.
County Council Planning Applications
19/18 County Council planning applications determined and outstanding
RESOLVED that: the Development Control Committee noted the report on County Council planning applications determined and outstanding.
Minerals and Waste Planning Applications:
20/18 Construction of Plastic Recycling and Recovery Facility involving the conversion of waste plastic by pyrolysis into diesel, petrol and liquid petroleum gas at Land at Upper Higham Lane, Rushden, Northamptonshire , NN10 0SU (NCC ref: 18/00006/WASFUL; ENC Ref: 18/00349/NCC)
The Chairman invited the DCM to introduce the report (copies of which had been circulated previously) who made the following points: • The application site was circa 1.9 hectares in size as seen in the site visit, and situated to the east of the towns of Rushden and Higham Ferrers. The total size of the industrial complex was 7 hectares. • One of the industrial buildings was subject to fire damage over ten years ago. • The site currently was used for the recycling of rubber tyres. • Planning permission was granted in 2016 for replacement of the fire damaged building to locate a combined heat and power plant to convert Refuse Derived Fuel and Solid Recovered Fuel into energy pellets. • The proposal concerned the applicant, Energy Roots Ltd, seeking planning permission to redevelop the site and construct a new plastic recycling and recovery facility which would process/convert plastic by pyrolysis into diesel, petrol and liquid petroleum gas replacing the current rubber recycling operations.
Consultation: • The summary of responses from the consultation was described including: • Objection from East Northamptonshire District Council – Planning and Environmental Protection; • Objection from Chelveston-cum Caldecott Parish Council regarding the health of nearby residents and concerns relating to ecology, HGV routing, visual impact and archaeology and air quality; • Objection from Melchbourne and Yelden Parish Council concerning health risks from pollution, ecology, visual impact, cumulative impact, noise, HGV movement, impact on public rights of way. • Objection from Stanwick Parish Council regarding inappropriate location, traffic, health risk in the event of fire, contrary to National Planning Policy for Waste. • Objection from Rushden Town Council regarding the impacts of pollutants on the local population and sensitive sites, the appropriateness of the technology to be used, achieving environmental regulatory requirements, and noise and odour. • Objection raised from RAID Residents Association on behalf of some residents regarding the use of agricultural land. (It was confirmed no agricultural land would be used). • No objection from the Environment Agency with comments provided on the permitting process. It was clarified at the meeting that this development would be a high profile site for monitoring and that there was a requirement for the applicant to pay for the monitoring regime as part of the permitting process. • No objection from Anglian Water bar the condition of a foul water strategy being submitted. • No objection from Public Health England. • No objection in principle subject to conditions relating to further access improvements.
Public Advertisement and Neighbour Notifications: • 102 letters were received from local residents objecting to the proposed development with themes including: traffic/highway safety, amenity/pollution impacts, risk to health, ecology, contamination, design, fire risk, visual impact. • Tom Pursglove MP. A letter was circulated to the committee that stated his objections to the application on behalf of his neighbouring constituents.
Development Plan Policies and National Planning Policies: • The report listed the most relevant plans for the proposal including the National Planning Policy Framework, National Planning Policy for Waste, Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan, North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy and Chelveston-cum-Caldecott Neighbourhood Development Plan.
Assessment: • Reference was made to the waste hierarchy and the proposed development satisfying the NPPW’s aim of sustainable development. • Reference was made to the Chelveston-cum-Caldecott Development Plan at paragraph 7.13 and the fact that the development would not satisfy these requirements on building height but that a precedent for higher buildings had already been set by the 2016 permission. • Reference was made to legal fall-back being a material consideration and the relevant case law outlined in paragraph 7.16 and weight should be attributed to this in the balanced judgement. • The application was seeking to alter and improve the teaching facilities at the school to ensure its educational spaces were suitable for the increased pupil numbers and for modern teaching requirements;
Traffic and Highway Safety: • Reference was made to traffic volumes relating to the proposed and existing permitted developments in the table under paragraph 7.20. Column C reflects the total HGV figures.
Amenity Impact: • In regards to noise impact, a noise assessment was submitted in accordance with British Standard BS 4142:2014 and deemed appropriate. • In regards to odour, the impact has been deemed to be minimal and acceptable. • In regards to air quality and concerns over potential health impacts, the emissions from the plant would be assessed in detail by the Environmental Agency as part of the environmental permitting process and the applicant has submitted the environmental permit application. • The perceived risk of harm to health was acknowledged but there is no evidence to support the development would create an unmanageable risk.
Landscape and Visual Impact • Reference was made to wind turbines and cranes as at paragraph 7.44. The assessment noted the views about the proximity of wind turbines and cranes near the development. It was noted that these will provide a context for the most prominent element of the proposed development, the 35m chimney stack, which will partially mitigate its visual effect. The fall back permission also permits a larger building and a 25m flue. Nevertheless, the development will have a negative impact on landscape character.
Other Matters • Reference was made to paragraph 7.59 – the Rushden East Sustainable Urban Extension, which is a proposed housing development of 2,500 new homes 850 metres southwest/west of the application site. This was not yet at the planning application stage but the development would not result in any significant material impact on the amenities or safety of future residents due to the distance and pollution control regime that would protect the residents in the area. • Reference was made to paragraph 7.60 – risk of commercial failure. This was deemed to be risk that sits with the developer and though the technology proposed to
be used is not being used successfully elsewhere in the UK, the operation is based on a small scale plant being operated in Australia by Foy Group Ltd who support this proposal. • Reference was made to paragraph 7.62/7.63 – environmental appropriateness. The RAID Residents Association objections based on carbon emissions were not considered to be justifiable to refuse the application given that the recycling of waste plastic to create fuels rather than crude oil had significant environmental merit and that the quantities of diesel produced would not adversely impact on the government’s requirement to reduce reliance on diesel.
In summary, quoting section 8 of the report, the DCM stated that on balance it was considered that taking into account the development plan, the NPPF, the NPPW and other material considerations, the development was acceptable in principle and that the positive benefits of the development outweigh the negative impacts.
At the Chairman’s invitation Kaye Pentland, speaking on behalf of the RAID Residents Association, made the following points: • This was the first development of its kind in the UK and was untested with no evidence of success. • Much of the data was based on scaled up projections and inaccurate sources that were not locally specific: the results were only as good as the data inputted. • The measurement figures used for environmental pollutants were not accurate and not locally specific, including the atmosphere dispersal rates. • The assertion that there would be no long term health effects from the development was not accurate. • The chemical composition of the pollutants was not properly explained and the development appeared akin to an oil refinery. • The committee needed to be certain that the technical aspects in the proposal had been addressed and carefully considered.
In response, Kaye Pentland clarified that the residents group does include an independent expert on air quality, a Mr Steve Saxby, who was not happy with some of the generalisations on air quality being made.
At the Chairman’s invitation, Philip Giddings, speaking on behalf of the RAID Residents Association, made the following points: • There had been 57 objections to this development submitted to the Environment Agency. • The current development was an eye sore with derelict buildings and Greenfield Properties think this will improve. • This type of recycling has not been proven to work and the technology has not proved successful – a lot more testing was required. Other sites including in Lancashire had failed and closed down so the commercial viability was questionable. • The modelling data was flawed with inaccurate conclusion. • The future expansion plans were concerning with increased fuel production and increased emissions. • The NNJCS paragraphs 20, 31 and 8.24 and 8.38 reference is made to the cumulative impact this development would have and this had not been properly taken into account.
At the Chairman’s invitation, Councillor Jason Smithers made the following points: • The 900,000 litres of fuel that would be utilised on this site was highly concerning in terms of the risks posed to the surrounding area. This was comparable to half an airport’s fuel storage.
• A condition should be added that all fuel is removed from the site every day. • This did not feel like a sustainable energy plant but a petrol chemical plant. • Referenced the Buncefield Disaster in 2005 where a series of explosions occurred during petrol fuelling of tanks. The presence of HGV fuel tankers was a step change in increasing highway safety risk, with the increase of movement from 12 to 30 HGV’s per day on average. Strong concerns raised that this type of disaster could be replicated and that the fire risk was high, and there was concern whether the emergency services could cope. This would have major implications and there was a public duty for councillors to raise this significant risk to the surrounding community. • The development was a barrier to the expansion of the areas around Rushden and Higham Ferrers. • The commercial viability was questionable given the lack of current success of these types of proposals in the UK. • The developer has to date shown a lack of respect for the community and not listened adequately to the concerns raised. • The height of the hall had been reduced following consultation; • He confirmed that the shadow of the building would not reach the residential dwellings; • The photo’s presented demonstrated that it was not possible to see the site when approaching it; and • He confirmed that much consideration was given to the proposals. • If it goes ahead fuel should be removed daily.
In response, Councillor Smithers suggested that fuel being removed every day would be via the fuel being dispatched out to relevant depos to mitigate against the fire risk. Councillor Smithers also clarified that the 900,000 litres figure referred to the size of the fuel storage tanks and was a maximum figure.
At the Chairman’s invitation, Patricia Buckman made the following points: • Referred to a 233 local petition by residents handed in at Downing Street objecting to this development. • 100 objections had been submitted to NCC including objections from local councillors, Peter Bone MP and Tom Pursglove MP. • Whilst she recognised the plastic recycling issue, this development was not the solution. It was effectively a petrol chemical plant next to a small residential community with small country lanes. • The process relied on new technology and the storage of up to 900,000 litres of fuel each day was highly concerning in terms of the fire risk and environmental implications. • Inadequate reference had been made to the amount of combustible materials that would be used in the development. • There had been previous tyre fires on the site and the risks were greater with this new development. Raised concerns that there was not a fire risk management plan to mitigate against the worst case scenario. • Raised concerns that the developer had not been in open dialogue with residents and that there continued to be a veil of secrecy regarding the development. • She made it clear that the residents strongly disagreed with the NCC Planning department and that they were not confident that all the technical aspects of the proposal had been thoroughly considered as this proposal affects the residents’ way of life and is about the legacy that would be left by a decision made by this committee.
In response, Patricia Buckman clarified that she did not think the developers had consulted sufficiently with residents and that information had been received second hand from parish council meetings on the matter.
Also, upon being asked whether the Fire and Rescue Service were consulted, after clarification and checking with officers, it was established that the Fire and Rescue Service were consulted and did not raise any significant concerns about the development or its access routes (E-mail from P.McDonald with no specific comments)
At the Chairman’s invitation, Peter Bone MP, made the following points: • He acknowledged the hard work done in such committees and the difficult decision that was before the committee today. • He stated he rarely spoke at a planning meeting and this was only the third such time in 13 years. • He felt this was of such significance that he had to speak to put on record his concerns for the safety of his constituents from what were new and untested plans that have not been enacted in Western Europe with a structure like an 85ft chimney. • He raised strong concerns that there was not sufficient fire and rescue resource in the area with the nearest stations being either Wellingborough or Bedford. • He stated that he thought the data modelling was ten years out of date with no mention of the 900,000 litres of fuel that could be generated. • He raised strong concerns about the proximity of the proposed development to Chelveston wind farm and stated he has raised this with the relevant Secretary of State at DEFRA. • He stated that the Environment Agency had not given its approval for this development and could not understand why Public Health England had raised no objections. He questioned what evidence they had seen to confirm they had no objections to this development. • He deemed that all of the above points made the proposed development unacceptable. • He also gave Tom Pursglove MP’s apologies and referred the committee to his letter, copies of which had been presented to the committee earlier in the meeting.
In response Peter Bone MP stated that he did have faith in the Environment Agency and that the permitting process was separate to the planning application process but reiterated his view that the Environment Agency had not approved the plans. He also raised concerns about the negative impact of this development on the plan to build the 2,500 houses in Rushden East which may prevent this from occurring. It was his view that the housing should be the priority.
At the Chairman’s invitation, Councillor Gill Mercer made the following points: • Declared that she was not acting in her role as member of the Development Control Committee due to her objection to the proposed development at two planning meetings at East Northamptonshire Council. • Raised concerns that no UK plants of this kind were in existence. • Raised strong concerns about the detrimental impact this development would have on human health with dioxins emissions being at an unsafe level and therefore that can be highly toxic and adversely affect the reproductive and developmental aspects of human life and questioned where the blame would lay if this were to occur. • Raised concerns that the planned new housing in Rushden East was only 850 metres away and that houses in that area are already going up for sale. • Reiterated other speakers’ views that the data modelling was not locally accurate in particular the windfarm and how this affects the fall out pattern.
• Reiterated the concerns around the Fire and Rescue service not being adequately consulted and the significant fire risk associated with producing 900,000 litres of fuel. • Raised concern regarding how the developers would control pollution levels and sighted another site in Rushden that had a fly infestation for six years that the Environment Agency seemed powerless to control.
In response, Councillor Mercer clarified that whilst the site has had recycling occurring, this is new material and an untried and untested method. She also stated that she believed that potential developers for the new housing in Rushden East had also objected to the proposals. This appeared to be confirmed by the Deputy Leader of East Northamptonshire Council who was sat in the public gallery. Councillor Mercer also confirmed she had visited the site and that it was her view that the new development posed a greater risk to public health than the current site due to the potential for fire devastation with the amount of fuel involved.
At the Chairman’s invitation, Councillor Richard Lewis, speaking on behalf of Rushden Town Council, made the following points: • Objections from Rushden Town Council were also submitted to East Northamptonshire Council. • Real concerns were raised about the basic technology that is being utilised within the proposal and that there is only something comparable in Amsterdam that did not appear to work. Therefore any safety and efficiency assertions could not be compared properly and prototyping could often be dangerous. • Strong concerns were raised about dioxins and noxious gases entering the atmosphere from 900,000 litres of fuel and little assurance had been given that purification of emissions would occur thereby adversely affecting the health of humans and wildlife. • Little consideration had been given to the fact that 10,000 people live in close proximity. • Concerns raised regarding the increase in traffic movements; traffic congestion and narrow exits from any road infrastructure.
In response, Councillor Lewis stated that Greenfield Properties had come to speak to the town council about the development. Clarification was required about how this company was connected to Energy Roots Ltd. (Officers would confirm this.)
At the Chairman’s invitation, Councillor Andrew Mercer made the following points: • Confirmed he spoke as a medically qualified doctor and engineer. • Seriously questioned the fall-out pattern of the pollutants with the data modelling which was based on assumptions regarding airflows in Bedford and not over the area concerned. • Stated that with the reduction of wind speeds in the area due to the nearby wind farm, there would be a higher density of pollutants and therefore high levels of dioxins in the atmosphere around the development. • Reiterated that this proposal was experimental and not the same scale as the development referenced in Australia. • Questioned whether the surround roads and travel infrastructure would adequately support this proposed development.
In response, Councillor Andrew Mercer clarified it was his informed view that there would be a significant diminution on average wind speeds which had not been properly modelled or taken into account. He also stated he disagreed with the conclusions of the health assessment by Environment Visage as their dispersal pattern did not include windfarm. He clarified that an average wind speed in the area would lead to a concentrated dispersal pattern that had not been adequately tested by the applicants with the absence of tools such as a test mast that is used when other sites are developed.
At the Chairman’s invitation, Councillor David Jenney, speaking as Deputy Leader of East Northamptonshire District Council, Chairman of the Joint Planning Committee and Deputy Chairman of the Rushden SUE Board, made the following points: • The local housing strategy had the target of 8,600 homes in East Northamptonshire prior to 2031, 2,600 of these were due to be built in Rushden East, a mile from the proposed development. This development would negatively impact on this site and might even prevent the houses being built. • There had been no consultation with the Joint Planning Committee on such a major industrial process. • No mention was made of the objections provided by East Northamptonshire Council with the seven good planning reasons why this should not go ahead. • Reference was made to the health concerns regarding florins and dioxins alongside the proximity to proposed and existing housing. • The history of previous fires on the site was referenced. • A related risk was the application for a chicken farm near this development that had been received that was proposed to contain 2339 chickens per year within five miles of the site. Pollutants could endanger human health if it endangered the health of the chickens. • Modelling of risk had been non-existent. • A summary of the proposed conditions from East Northamptonshire, that it was confirmed had been referenced in NCC’s report were: a management plan for the day to day operation (staff, opening times, safe removal of hazardous material); contamination mitigations/decommissioning current site; details of monitoring equipment; chimney height restrictions; funding for the prevention of contaminating surrounding area.
At the Chairman’s invitation, Victor Buchanan, on behalf of the applicant, made the following points: • The concerns referenced had been noted but this proposal was sound and evidence- based on planning grounds and the development was zoned in the right place according to the planning policy.
In response to a number of questions from the committee, Victor Buchanan made the following points: • There were a hierarchy of sites that were reviewed as part of the process and a site in Grimsby is also at the planning stage. The site in question was seen as the best area to develop in the locality – based on a review of industrial activity in the area and the proximity of the original aviation storage tanks for the site. • The chimney was modelled at 85 feet (35 metres) with no average wind speed required and it was confirmed that the operation works at zero wind speeds and the modelling supports this. Therefore, the objections concerning the proximity of the windfarm were irrelevant. • In reference to transport movement and access routes, it was Mr Buchanan’s view that the total number of vehicles would reduce apart from a marginal increase in HGV numbers, and also that no concerns were raised by the Highways department. • It was an unintended omission not to include the 900,000 litres in the Design and Access Statement. The size of the tanks were in the plans/drawings the figure is actually slightly more than 900,000 litres. Clarification was given that the average amount of fuel at a supermarket was 60,000 litres, and that there was no intention to fill the storage tanks to capacity.
• In answer to questions raised about this being new technology, it was clarified that objections were based on misunderstandings about other technologies and that this process has been tested and does work. • It was clarified that other developers using similar technology had taken all types of plastic, whereas this plant will only take plastic that is suited for the process; a supplier has been identified to provide the correct types of feedstock and checks will be made to deliveries. • In terms of consultation, it was clarified that the developer did consult with the local community via the parish councils attending a meeting that was chaired by a councillor. • It was clarified that the hours of transport movement would be based on a modular approach based on four modules and that though the operation would be for 24 hours a day, the developer is open to sensible restrictions. • It was confirmed that IGES are responsible for operations and build and that £60 million is their total investment into the plant. • It was also confirmed that full compliance with the Environment Agency would occur to ensure risks are mitigated against and the development is done well.
Members of the Committee were then invited to make comments on the proposal with the main points listed below: • Councillors emphasised their disappointment that there was not a report from the Fire Service on the risk mitigations that would be put in place as a result of this proposal. • Councillors suggested there could have been more information from the Highways Authority in reference to the proposal.
In response to comments and questions by members the DCM made the following points: • It was possible to include a local liaison committee for residents as a condition to mitigate against public concern. • It was possible to include bunding around the storage areas as an appropriate condition. • Confirmation as mentioned earlier that the Fire Service were consulted on the proposed development and that they are aware of the capacity of the site and the storage capacity of fuel involved as they would have received the plans in the same way as other consultees, though specific figures were not quoted in the original planning application. It was also confirmed that the Fire Service have knowledge of the site from its current rubber recycling operation. • It was clarified that in terms of air quality and other factors, the Environment Agency would cover this and other regulatory responsibilities as part of their permitting process. • It was confirmed that fuel being removed from the site every day would not be a reasonable planning condition. • It was confirmed that the pyrolysis process was an appropriate process in planning terms for the reasons outlined in the report and that there were no land use planning reasons to refuse the application. • In reference to risk of disaster, it was clarified that similar facilities would need to have been refused in the county based on such a premise. • In reference to the East Northamptonshire Council conditions, it was confirmed the list of conditions were summarised and addressed in the NCC report and that most relate to permitting matters. • It was confirmed that the developers do sign up to ensuring financial security for dealing with the permitting process and that a planning condition was proposed in the event of the plant ceasing requiring decommissioning and dismantling of the site.
• It was clarified that the risk to the housing development in the area was a material consideration but given that a process would be in place to regulate and monitor the development, there was not weight to refuse the application on these grounds.
At this point the Chairman proposed that the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report and the additional amendments discussed. The Chairman then asked the Committee to vote upon that proposal. Upon a vote of five in favour and one against, the application was approved subject to the conditions in the report and during the discussions.
RESOLVED that: The Development Control Committee agreed that the application be approved subject to the conditions in Appendix B and the following additional conditions: • The addition of a requirement for bunding around the storage tanks within the development. • The addition of a requirement for a local liaison committee for the development.
21/18 Minerals & Waste Planning Applications Determined and Outstanding:
RESOLVED that: the Development Control Committee noted the report on County Council minerals and waste planning applications determined and outstanding
22/18 Enforcement Action undertaken by County Planning Authority
RESOLVED that: The Development Control Committee noted the report.
23/18 Town and Village Green Applications Determined and Outstanding:
RESOLVED that: The Development Control Committee noted the report.
24/17 Committee Dates 2019/20
RESOLVED that: The Development Control Committee agreed to meet on the following dates during 2019/20: • Thursday 6 June 2019 • Tuesday 25 June 2019 • Tuesday 16 July 2019 • Thursday 5 September 2019 • Tuesday 24 September 2019 • Tuesday 15 October 2019 • Tuesday 19 November 2019 • Tuesday 17 December 2019 • Tuesday 21 January 2020 • Tuesday 25 February 2020 • Tuesday 17 March 2020 • Tuesday 28 April 2020
25/17 Urgent Business
There was none.
There being no further business, the meeting concluded at 12.31PM.
Ben Luck, Democracy Officer, Democratic Services
This Information can be made available in other formats upon request. Please contact Jenny Daniels, Democracy Officer, Democratic Services on Tel. (01604) 367560, or E-mail: [email protected]
Signed:
Date: