Mr A Bickerdike Our Ref: APP/F5540/A/12/2174323 Turley Associates 1 New York Street 15 May 2013 Manchester M1 4HD Dear Sir TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY PEEL ENERGY LTD LAND TO SOUTH OF MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL & WEST OF BARTON BRIDGE APPLICATION REF: 76153/FULL/2010 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, David Richards BSocSci Dip TP MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry which sat on 9 days between 13 and 27 November 2012, into your client’s appeal against the refusal of Trafford Borough Council (“the Council”) to grant planning permission for erection of a 20MW biomass fuelled renewable energy plant with associated access, car parking, internal roads, canal side mooring and landscaping on land to the south of Manchester Ship Canal and west of Barton Bridge, Davyhulme, Trafford (application 76153/FULL/2010 dated 2 December 2010). 2. On 3 July 2012 the appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State's determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as it is considered to be a proposal of major significance for the delivery of the Government’s climate change programme and energy policies. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 2. The Inspector, whose report is enclosed with this letter, recommended that the appeal be allowed and planning permission granted. For the reasons given in this letter, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion and recommendation. All paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, refer to the Inspector’s report (IR). Matters Arising After the Inquiry 3. Following the close of the inquiry the Secretary of State received a number of further representations about the appeal scheme. These are listed at Annex A. The Secretary of State has given very careful consideration to all the issues raised in these representations, and is satisfied that there is no need for him to refer back to parties for further comment prior to reaching his decision. Copies of the correspondence received Christine Symes, Decision Officer Tel 0303 444 1634 Planning Casework Division Email [email protected] Department for Communities and Local Government 1/H1, Eland House Bressenden Place London, SW1E 5DU following the close of the Inquiry are not attached to this letter, but will be made available on request to the address at the foot of the first page of this letter. Policy Considerations 4. In deciding this appeal, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 5. In this case, the development plan comprises the Trafford Core Strategy (CS), adopted January 2012 and the Greater Manchester Joint Waste Development Plan Document (GMJWDPD) adopted in April 2012 and, until the North West (Revocation) Order 2013 comes into force on 20th May 2013, the Regional Strategy for the North West. The Secretary of State does not consider that the revocation of the Regional Strategy for the North West raises any matters that would require him to refer back to the parties for further representations prior to reaching his decision on this appeal, and he is satisfied that no interests have thereby been prejudiced. He agrees with the Inspector that the development plan policies most relevant to this appeal are those identified by the Inspector at IR24 – IR30. 6. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the associated Technical Guidance (March 2012), Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS10), Circular 11/1995: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permission; and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 as amended. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that other policy relevant to this case includes the UK Biomass Strategy (2007), the UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009) and energy policy documents EN-1 and EN-3 (IR37 – IR41). Main Considerations 7. The Secretary of State agrees that the main issues to be considered are those identified by the Inspector at IR493. Air Quality and Perceived Health Impacts 8. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector’s remarks at IR35 to IR36 and IR494 to IR496 and he agrees with the Inspector that a fundamental consideration is that the proposal is the subject of an Environmental Permit issued by the Environment Agency (EA) and accompanied by a Permit decision document which sets out the reasons for the EA’s decision in considerable detail (IR496). Air Quality 9. The Secretary of State sees no reason to disagree with the Inspector’s reasoning about NO2 at IR497 to IR515. He has taken account of the Environment Agency’s (EA) conclusion that “the process contribution is 1.7% of the Air Quality Standard (AQS) at the worst affected residential receptor in the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). This is only slightly above the ‘insignificance’ level and so could not reasonably be considered significant taking likely modelling uncertainties into account.” (IR509). Like the Inspector, he considers that it is not the role of the planning inquiry to review the standard operational and monitoring practices of the regulatory authority and that PPS10 is clear that consideration of planning applications should proceed on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be applied and enforced (IR513). 10. The Secretary of State has taken account of the Inspector’s remarks about stack height (IR516 – IR520). He shares the Inspector’s view that the key issue is not the height of the stack but whether the particular configuration can be made to operate within the limits imposed by the Permit and without bringing about a harmful deterioration of local air quality, particularly having regard to the AQMA (IR520). He further agrees that the permit sets a substantially lower limit for lower level NO2 emissions than would be permitted by the Waste Incineration Directive to take into account existing air quality issues in the AQMA and that this offers a high degree of confidence that emissions will result in no significant adverse health effects (IR520). 11. Having had regard to the Inspector’s analysis at IR521 to IR531 the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the ES indicates that no new exceedences at residential properties within the AQMA would occur as a result of appeal proposal, and that there is no clear evidence to contradict this (IR531). The Secretary of State also gives weight to the EA’s conclusion that, ‘when looking at the AQMA as a whole, there will be no measurable effect” (IR531). Other Pollutants 12. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector’s comments at IR543 to IR571. He has taken account of the fact that the EA has concluded that the theoretical risk of arsenic exceeding the EU target value is highly unlikely (IR549), and that it considers that particulate emissions from the installation will not give rise to significant pollution (IR552). He has also taken account of the Inspector’s advice that it can be concluded that predicted emissions of Chromium VI would not give rise to any significant increased health risk for the population of the area (IR562). He sees no reason to disagree with the Inspector’s comments on dioxins and furans (IR563 – IR567) or with his remarks on validation (IR568 – IR571). Health Impacts 13. The Secretary of State has had regard to IR572 to IR576 and he sees no reason to disagree with the Inspector’s remarks at IR576. Overall Conclusion on Air Quality and Health Impacts 14. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector’s comments at IR577 to IR582. He agrees that PPS10 remains current guidance for this type of development and that it clearly sets out the respective roles of the planning system and the environmental permitting regime (IR577). He observes that the Environmental Permit was issued shortly before the inquiry commenced and some 6 weeks after the date of the planning application so that the advice on concurrent processing in PPS10 is satisfied (IR580). The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the EA’s decision making process fully satisfies the requirement for openness and that community representations were responded to at length in the decision document (IR580). He also agrees with the Inspector that whilst there is a level of fear amongst objectors and this is a material consideration to which some weight can be attached, it is not supported by substantive evidence of actual harm to health arising from the proposal (IR582). Effect on Regeneration and Community Confidence 15. The Secretary of State has had regard to IR583 to IR585 and, for the reasons set out in those paragraphs, he agrees with the Inspector that the proposal would not automatically be rendered inappropriate because it lies in an area which is described as predominantly residential (IR585). 16. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector’s comments on the scheme’s scale and visual impact at IR586 to IR589. He agrees with the Inspector that the nature and scale of the proposed structures and the locally controversial nature of the proposal mean that many people would have a heightened degree of consciousness of its presence (IR589). However, in view of the intervening distance, the presence of established planting, and the context of existing large structures, the Secretary of State shares the Inspector’s view that the scheme’s visual impact would not cause material harm to the diverse character and appearance of the surrounding area (IR589).