Planning Regulatory Committee Minutes of the Meeting Held on 29 June 2012

Members Present:

Mr N Dixon Mr P Rice Mr P Duigan Mr J Rogers (Chairman) Mr R Hanton Mr J Shrimplin (Vice-Chairman) Mr D Harrison Mr B Stone Mr B Iles (part) Mrs H Thompson Mr J Joyce Ms J Toms (substitute) Mrs J Leggett Mr J Ward (substitute) Mr G Nobbs (substitute) Mr M Wilby

Norfolk County Council Officers Present:

David Collinson Assistant Director for Public Protection - ETD Dave Higgins Principal Engineer, Major and Estate Developments, ETD Nick Johnson Planning Services Manager - ETD Kristen Jones Committee Officer - Democratic Services Luke Mills Planning Officer - ETD Nick Palmer Principal Planner - ETD Tim Shaw Committee Officer - Democratic Services Chris Skinner Legal support (NPlaw) Simon Smith Planning Officer - ETD Ed Stocker Ecologist - ETD Heidi Thompson Biodiversity and Countryside Manager - ETD

Advisors to County Council Present:

Mark Broomfield AEA Technology Neil Cameron QC Legal support

Environment Agency Officers Present:

Neil Goudie Environment Agency Kevin Rutherford Environment Agency

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

County Councillors Present:

Dr A Boswell Mr P Morse Mr M Brindle Mr G Plant Mrs D Irving Mr M Scutter

Public Speakers Present (in order of speaking):

1. Henry Bellingham MP 9. Dr Pallavi Devulapalli 2. Mr de Whalley 10. John Dobson 3. Anna Reeves 11. Alistair Beales 4. Richard Burton 12. Mr Marmont 5. Mike Knights 13. Ann Philips 6. Jonah Oliver 14. Jim Elliott 7. Judi Knights 15. Gary McGuiness 8. Ian Findlater 16. June Leamon

Statutory Consultee Present:

Cllr Vivienne Spikings Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Development at King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council (KLWN) and Chairman of KLWN Planning Committee Stuart Ashworth Planning Officer (KLWN) Leon Clement KLWN Nicola Leader KLWN Geoff Hall KLWN

Parish Council Representatives Present:

Elaine Oliver PC Adrian Bramwell PC Judy Close West Wynch PC Richard Morrish PC

Applicant/Agent:

David Archibold RPS Planning and Development John Boldon Planning Director, Cory Environmental Claire Brook Dickenson Dees Paul Green Wheelabrator Julian Harrison Cory Andy Leonard Wheelabrator Roger Miles Planning Consultant Samantha Neck RPS Planning and Development Dan Smyth RPS Planning and Development Max Wade RPS Planning and Development

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

Richard Wilkinson Cory

Supporters Present:

Dr John Burgess Medical professional and local resident of King’s Lynn Pauline Johnson Local resident of King’s Lynn John Boal BAM Nuttall

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

1. Apologies and Substitution

1.1 Apologies for absence were received from Mr B Bremner (Mr G Nobbs substituting), Mr A Gunson, Mr M Hemsley (Ms J Toms substituting), and Mr T Tomkinson (Mr J Ward substituting).

2. Minutes

2.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 25 May 2012 were confirmed by the Committee and signed by the Chairman.

3. Declarations of Interests

The following Members declared personal interests in Item 5A:

Member Reason for declaration

3.1  Member of Town Council when this topic Mr Ward * was discussed on 4 July 2011. He stated that he had not commented on the matter at the Parish Council and had approached today’s meeting with an open mind.

3.2 Mr Joyce  Member of the Waste Project Board.  Had attended meetings of Parish Councils in his Division when this matter had been discussed but had not commented on the matter.

3.3 Mr Harrison  Member of Town Council and was present when this topic was discussed but had not participated in the discussion or in the vote.

3.4 Mr Rice  Member of the Environment, Transport and Development Overview and Scrutiny Panel and present when the matter had been discussed at Parish Council meetings in his Division.

3.5 Ms Toms  Employee of RSPB but not involved in the consultation process.

3.6 Mr Wilby  Member of Cabinet Scrutiny Committee and present when this topic was discussed in April 2011 but had not come to a view on the proposal.

* It was agreed that this minute be amended and was corrected at the committee meeting on 27 July 2012. Please view the minutes of that meeting in order to note the correction made.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

3.7 Mrs Thompson  County Council Member appointed to Eastern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority.  Member of District Council.  Had attended the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee meeting when this matter had been discussed. She stated that she approached today’s decision with an open mind.

3.8 Mr Stone  Member of Borough Council when this matter had been discussed but he had not participated in the discussion or in the decision.

3.9 Mr Hanton  Member of Great Yarmouth Borough Council but had not participated in the discussion or in the decision.  Member of Cabinet Scrutiny Committee but did not participate in discussions around this topic.

3.10 Mr Dixon  Member of North Norfolk District Council but did not take part in any discussions around this topic.  Member of Cabinet Scrutiny Committee but did not take part in any discussions around this topic.  Member of Environment, Transport and Development Overview and Scrutiny Panel but did not take part in any discussions around this topic.

3.11 Mr Nobbs  Member of Cabinet Scrutiny Committee which heard the call- in of the Cabinet decision in March 2011 within the report ‘Waste PFI Award of Contract’ and also a signatory of the call- in.

3.12 Mr Shrimplin  Member of Great Yarmouth Borough Council but when this topic was raised he did not participate in discussions.  Member of Ormesby St Margaret Parish Council and had answered factual questions but did not discuss the topic further.  Member of Cabinet Scrutiny Committee when this topic was discussed but did not comment.

3.13 Mr Duigan  Member of Cabinet Scrutiny Committee but did not comment on this topic.  Member of Environment, Transport and Development Overview and Scrutiny Committee but did not comment on this topic.

3.14 Mr Rogers  Member of Breckland Council but did not comment on this topic.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

 Member of Watton Town Council but did not comment on this topic.  Member of Carbrooke Parish Council but did not comment on this topic.  The following Members were attending the meeting but were not Members of the Planning Regulatory Committee. They declared the following personal interests in Item 5A:

3.15 Mr Dobson  Conservative Group Lead on Cabinet Scrutiny Committee at the time and signatory of call-in of the Cabinet decision in March 2011 within the report ‘Waste PFI Award of Contract’.  Chairman of Old Parish Council but did not comment on this topic.

3.16 Mr Morse  Chair of Cabinet Scrutiny Committee when the Committee heard the call-in of the Cabinet decision in March 2011 within the report ‘Waste PFI Award of Contract’.

3.17 Dr Boswell  Signatory of the call-in of the Cabinet decision in March 2011 within the report ‘Waste PFI Award of Contract’ and was present at the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee meeting in April 2011.

3.18 Mr Plant  Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation.

3.19 Mrs Irving  Member of Breckland Council.  Served as a substitute Member on Cabinet Scrutiny Committee.

4. Urgent Business

4.1 There were no items of urgent business.

5. Applications Referred to Committee for Determination:

Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk: C/2/2011/2020 The Willows Business Park, High (Saddlebow) Road, King’s Lynn Proposed Energy from Waste facility, integrated steam turbine generator plant, grid connection cables, infrastructure to enable Combined Heat and Power, incinerator Bottom Ash recycling area, visitor centre, offices, ancillary development including weighbridges, access and internal roads and parking facilities, landscape and biodiversity enhancement areas: Cory Environmental Management Ltd and Wheelabrator Technologies Inc.

5.1 The representative from NPlaw updated Members on recent developments

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

regarding the above mentioned planning application. He stated that because of an intervention the previous day by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, a decision notice in respect of this planning application could not be issued until the Secretary of State had decided whether to “call in” the decision for his own determination (and lift what was known as a direction under Article 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010. It was clarified that the meeting should go ahead and the Committee should reach its decision. He stated that should the committee resolve that planning permission be granted the Committee’s decision would need to be amended to reflect the fact that a direction was in force.

5.2 Officer Presentation and Member Questions

5.2.1 The Principal Planner made the following points during his presentation:

 Members had an addendum report on the above application, which included details of the responses received after the publication of the original officers’ report.

 The Principal Planner identified the documents which make up the development plan, namely the East of Plan, the King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Core Strategy, the saved policies of the King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan and the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, as referred to in the officers’ report.

 The Principal Planner reminded Members that they must take into account the environmental information including the environmental statement.

 The Principal Planner described the site and presented maps and photos of the Saddlebow site to show the application area relative to King’s Lynn town centre.

 The Principal Planner referred to the fact that regard must be had to local finance considerations, and outlined the process whereby the County Council would receive substantial PFI credits from the Government that would assist in achieving certainty that the proposal would be developed but which was not essential, and without which the application could still proceed.

 The Principal Planner drew Members’ particular attention to an addendum report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development which contained information received since the full report had been dispatched. This Addendum Report is attached at Appendix A to these minutes.

 The Principal Planner outlined public and Parish Council Objections which included issues regarding:

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

- Air pollution; - Unsuitable technology; - Bad location and that it was unsustainable to transport waste to West Norfolk; - 65,000 people voted against the principle of an incinerator at the Willows Business Park prior to this application; - Out of over 8,000 letters received regarding this application, 90% objected and 7.68% supported it. It was noted that 64% of letters received were standard letters.

The Principal Planner did not consider that the objections the County Council had received contained sufficient grounds for the planning application to be rejected.

 The Principal Planner went on to say that he had received a letter of objection from the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk citing objection on the grounds of Richard Burton’s critique of the carbon assessment in the Environmental Statement (ES) and the Centrica letter dated 23 May 2012. The letter from Richard Burton stated that had based their recommendations on the applicant’s carbon assessment which was based upon assumptions derived from methane gas release at landfill sites in the Netherlands and not on data relating to landfill sites in Norfolk. The Principal Planner read out the letter from Mr Burton which is attached at Appendix B to these minutes. The Principal Planner did not disagree with Mr Burton about the data and referred Members to paragraphs 7.407 to 7.415 of the report. He also highlighted that the Environmental Health Officer at the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk did not object to the application.

 It was noted that the Highways Agency, English Heritage, the Environment Agency, the Internal Drainage Board, the RSPB, and the NHS all had no objections to the application. The report considered flood risks up to 2115 and had taken these risks into account. Both the air quality and health consultants from both Norfolk County Council and the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk found no detriment to health from this application.

 It was noted that this application represented 40% of the waste recovery requirement for Norfolk as identified in Norfolk’s Waste Core Strategy and it was therefore only part of the plan.

 The public had brought forward studies from the past when emission controls were much less rigorous. A study at a modern Energy from Waste (EfW) plant in Italy showed that 99.9% of particles were removed by the stack’s filters.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

 It was noted that the species survey showed there was no detrimental impact. It was added that if the decision was delayed past the end of July these surveys may need to be carried out again.

 Regarding the Appropriate Assessment, if the process contribution of nitrogen dioxide and sulphur combined was greater than 1% in respect of aerial depositions on ‘Depressions on peat substrates’ at Roydon Common SAC, it could be concluded that an Appropriate Assessment was required. Even though this figure was 0.97% and Natural England felt that this was not required, the County Council had carried out an appropriate assessment. It was concluded from this that there were no adverse effects on plants, , surface water, or shellfish and therefore no adverse effects on the integrity of the European sites, and Natural England had confirmed they were content with the assessment. All information up[on which the Appropriate Assessment was based had been subject to public consultation. It was therefore recommended that no further public consultation was necessary.

 It was noted that noise concerns were not significant. It was also noted that the visual aspects of the site fit in well and would be covered in cladding, similar to other surrounding structures.

 It was noted that there had been requests from consultees for Section 106 agreements but officers did not feel these could be justified.

 The Principal Planner read out a late representation received from Mr Brian Long.

5.2.2 The following comments were made in response to questions from the Committee:

 The Principal Planner was asked to respond to the specific points raised in Mr Burton’s email, namely if he disagreed with his data to which the answer was ‘no’ but he added that he had been given insufficient time to examine the data within Mr Burton’s most recent letter in any detail because it was received only 24 hours before this meeting began.

 Members stated that Mr Burton’s figures for the carbon footprint were important because choosing an option with a higher carbon footprint than the current situation would be contravening various national and international policies on carbon, waste, and sustainability. Members asked for more information about how the carbon footprint related to policies and legislation.

 The Principal Planner stated that there would be two emissions tests per year. The Planning Services Manager stated that there was no justifiable reason for offsite monitoring and if there was this would be specified as part

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

of the Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency.

 The Principal Planner stated that the figures in the applicant’s carbon assessment reflected the assessment of methane produced and this made no difference where the landfill was located. The difference between landfills would more reflect the age of the landfill and the stage the landfill had reached. A range of methane capture rates was typical and would reduce once the landfill was capped. Older sites would have a greater amount of methane loss. The Planning Services Manager added that the report made it clear that landfill was the lowest form of waste disposal and the proposal being discussed was higher up the waste hierarchy.

 Regarding the likelihood of flooding it was questioned whether there were inconsistencies in the data used. Within the report prepared by RPS on behalf of Cory Wheelabrator (on page 365 of the agenda papers) it referred to storm events compromising the facility ‘1 in 200 years’ while later at 5.6.5 in the same report it stated the design of the surface water facilities had been based on worst case duration, storm profiles, and rainfall intensities associated with ‘1 in 100 year’ return period events. Further, (on page 408 of the agenda papers) the same report stated the depth of the reclaim storage zone would be set such that all run-off except in extreme or prolonged heavy rainfall events, ‘1 in 200 or greater, or 1 in 1 year events of greater than one week duration’ would be retained in the storage zone prior to pumping to the facility. The Principal Planner did not feel that the statistics were contradictory but as the report was written by the applicant they would be best placed to answer.

 Members agreed there was a need to move waste up the waste hierarchy and asked whether consideration had been given to include a front-end Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) or ‘dirty’ MRF to do this. The Principal Planner responded by saying that there was no proposed MRF at the site and it had not been considered as this was a recovery facility. The Planning Services Manager stated that this facility would move waste up the hierarchy in relation to landfill.

 Members questioned the economics of the incinerator process and the cost of different processes compared to it. The representative from NPlaw added that economic considerations were capable of being material considerations, and that socio-economic effects were consider in Chapter 14 of the Environmental Statement.

 Members asked about the average and maximum drainage requirements at the site. The Planning Services Manager confirmed that Anglia Water were confident that they could cope with the requirements of the facility.

 It was noted that the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk had

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

granted planning permission for the Palm Paper facility which had an 80 meter stack.

 Members asked whether there was a requirement to pay Cory Wheelabrator £20m if the planning permit was not granted. The legal advice was that this was not a material consideration.

 Members asked whether the fact that the Health Protection Agency (HPA) had started conducting research into the health impacts of modern incinerators on unborn infants and newborn babies was a material consideration. It was noted that in particular the HPA were researching links with infant deaths, still births, and congenital abnormalities such as cleft palate and spina bifida. It was asked whether the fear and the risks of health impacts on infants were substantial enough to delay this decision until the results of this research were available. The representative from AEA Technology stated that the Health Protection Agency had confirmed that there were no significant impacts from this technology and this was confirmed by their research. The British Society for Ecological Medicine carried out a study at a similar facility to that which was proposed in the planning application. The study incorporated continuous monitoring.

 Members asked for further information on potential pollution of The Wash and agricultural areas and whether there had been any evidence of breaching the controls. The representative from AEA Technology responded by saying that there were no significant or detectable effects to the food chain. As to the performance of the site and its adherence to its operating permit it would have to be assumed that operations would be carried out in accordance with its operating permit.

 Members noted that PM2.5 particles had proven links with heart attacks and lung cancers and asked if the PM2.5 particles would be monitored. The representative from AEA Technology stated that the total particles would be monitored but not specific types of particles. He stated that he was confident that the site would not contribute to any increase in these particles and that continuous monitoring of particles would take place every few seconds. Specific monitoring of PM2.5 would be monitored through a one-off test.

5.3 Public Speaking

The Chairman offered objectors three minutes each to make representations to the Committee. Following each representation Members asked them questions. Below is a summary from each objector:

5.3.1 Henry Bellingham MP

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

 A public enquiry would allow up to 30 hours of evidence gathering and testimony compared to the three minutes offered by Norfolk County Council.

 The proposed site was situated too far west in Norfolk for the collection of waste from across the county. This was called the Proximity Principle.

 The carbon footprint was higher than alternative options and the value for money argument was lost as the current proposal cost £110/tonne while landfill cost £92/tonne.

 There were environmental and health issues to do with toxic fly ash, extreme climatic events, and emissions, particularly nano and micor- particles.

 Wheelabrator had a poor record in the United States, where they were known to have breached permits, had a history of lawsuits and undermined a referendum.

 Members stated that the Localism Act was intended to give local people more influence on the planning system and to make planning more democratic. Mr Bellingham felt that discounting the result of the local referendum and the lack of weight given to it went against the spirit of the Localism Act.

 All Norfolk MPs had expressed their opposition to this proposal.†

5.3.2 Michael De Whalley

 The County Council had conducted an Appropriate Assessment for this development on possible ecological impacts in the area, especially to Roydon Common Special Area of Conservation as required under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. However it was understood that as the owner and manager or Roydon Common, the was not consulted regarding the evidence used to compile the assessment. Mr De Whalley believed that this lack of consultation, both prior and subsequent to its compilation, had led to the inclusion of information that was unreliable and incorrect. The assessment was not appropriate to its purpose under the Habitat Regulations in several areas and this issue had been raised in an email to the Council dated 26 June. The onus was on Norfolk County Council to ensure this development did not adversely affect the integrity of this European site.

† This comment was incorrect. Norfolk MPs have requested that the matter be called in for consideration by the Secretary of State.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

 Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive requires that “the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan… only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned…” To be certain the Council should be convinced that no scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects on Roydon Common. In Mr De Whalley’s opinion under the Habitat regulations the assessment did not provide the required information and was not appropriate and therefore the Council could not make an informed decision based on the document with any degree of confidence that this development would not adversely affect the integrity of Roydon Common.

 Mr De Whalley requested that the Committee resolve to defer the application to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for determination via a public inquiry.

5.3.3 Anna Reeves

 Fear of harm was acknowledged in planning law as a valid reason for turning down an application such as this. There was serious concerns regarding long term threats to health and the environment

 Issues of emissions, flood risk, incinerator bottom ash, air quality, and the use of water had been consistently raised but there had been few if any satisfactory answers provided and evidence of rigorous independent analysis was lacking.

 Ms Reeves responded to a Member question by saying that Members did not have sufficient information to be sure that Norfolk and its residents would not be harmed if this application went ahead.

5.3.4 Richard Burton

 Mr Burton introduced himself as an Independent Environmental Consultant who advised Norse and Norfolk Environmental Waste Services (NEWS), as well as some of Norfolk County Council’s waste and service delivery companies.

 The key driver behind County’s choice of incineration was its claim that this was the most sustainable form of waste disposal because, they claim, it has a lower carbon footprint than alternatives. If it was demonstrated that this was wrong it removed a fundamental justification for the scheme that goes to the heart of planning. The assertion by officers that the scheme had a lower carbon footprint was wrong. It had a significantly larger carbon footprint – exceeding that of mechanical biological treatment (MBT) and even landfill.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

 Norfolk’s Waste Core Strategy had the aim “of minimising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions both from ... waste management... activities... as much as possible.” The officers fail to mention conflicts with the Strategy and NPPF (Planning Policy Framework?) in their report. Even the applicant’s own figures show MBT with composting has the smallest carbon footprint – which means to award planning permission conflicted with the Strategy.

 The applicant misrepresented the true carbon footprint of incineration. Because the incinerator diverted waste from landfill the methane GHG emissions from landfill were subtracted from the incinerator’s own footprint. However, the applicant exaggerated methane loss from landfill, to maximise what was subtracted, thereby artificially reducing the incinerator’s carbon footprint. The applicant argues 50% of landfill methane was lost to air. This conflicts with the scientific consensus of 25%. More importantly the real figures were known because this data was collected by Norfolk’s landfills by the Council and its contractors. This data proved the applicant was wrong because it revealed 28% methane loss and falling. This would continue to fall substantially but this information was not including in the report.

 Council officers had withheld the real methane data and allowed the applicant to skew the results using irrelevant data from Dutch landfills. They had ignored it when it was presented to them, failed to inform consultees, and failed to mention it in the Committee report.

 A second significant error related to food and other such waste. When burnt, this waste released ‘biogenic’ carbon which was not included in carbon footprints. The applicant had exaggerated the quantity of excluded ‘biogenic’ carbon, thereby artificially suppressing the incinerator’s carbon footprint. When this was corrected, for example by recognising from 2013 West Norfolk would send food waste to composting, not incineration, the carbon footprint of the incinerator was much larger (additional 45,500 tonnes). The only way to avoid this was to hinder composting in which case planning should be refused due to conflict with the waste hierarchy.

 It was a legal requirement that local authorities must follow the waste hierarchy. Over the next 25 years there would be a reduction in food waste sent to landfill which would decrease the need for a solution such as an incinerator. There was a risk that the policy of the waste hierarchy would be at odds with the need to burn waste to sustain the incinerator.

 There were other Material Planning Considerations related to the carbon footprint calculation but there was insufficient time to explain.

 It was claimed in public that Palm Paper would buy the steam from the facility but this was not certain and the company could choose to buy power from Centrica.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

5.3.5 Mike Knights

 Wheelabrator did not have a satisfactory track record in the United States when it came to operating within their permit and this demonstrated why fear was a material planning consideration.

 In May 2011, according to the Massachusetts Attorney General, Wheelabrator had to pay out $7.5m to resolve pollution violations associated with their incinerators at Saugus, Andover, and Millbury. The local Saugus press reported how two Wheelabrator ‘whistleblowers’ were honoured for alerting the authorities “…because without them, the violations would still be going on.” Local residents living near the incinerator told how they could see the plume of ash when the wind was blowing toward the town and explained that the effects of the pollution were clear on their windows at their home. The local residents also noted the affect on local marshes and the ash sludge in the water.

 In December 2011, according to the Maryland Department of the Environment and the Office of the Attorney General Wheelabrator had to pay a $77,500 penalty for alleged violations of Maryland’s air pollution control laws relating to its Baltimore incinerator.

 In 2005 the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection announced Wheelabrator had to pay a $106,849 civil penalty for numerous air emissions and monitoring violations at its incinerator in Falls Township. They said Wheelabrator had violated at least one permit condition every quarter since April 1999, with some quarterly reports documenting as many as 15 separate violations.

 The San Diego District Attorney’s report on Wheelabrator’s parent company Waste Management Inc. stated that their “methods of doing business and history of civil and criminal violations has established a predictable pattern which has been fairly consistent over a significant number of years. The history of the company presents a combination of environmental and anti- trust violations and public corruption cases which must be viewed with considerable concern. Waste Management has been capable of absorbing enormous fines and other sanctions levied against it while still maintaining a high earnings ratio. We do not know whether these sanctions have had any punitive effect on the company or have merely been considered as additional operating expenses.”

 It was noted that if more time was available Mr Knights would have also discussed the impacts on tourism already evident and the long-term impacts on farming.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

 Members noted that as Wheelabrator operated 17 sites in the United States and Mr Knights had shown examples of three separate incinerators which had breached their permit that meant nearly 20% of sites had documented problems. Mr Knights clarified that he felt the monitoring standards in the United States were similar to the UK.

 In response to a Member question, Mr Knights stated that tourism in King’s Lynn was temporarily increasing because tourists were saying that they were visiting the town for the last time.

 Mr Knights responded to a Member question that he felt Wheelabrators record of permit breaches in the United States was a material consideration.

(The meeting broke at 12:30 for lunch and reconvened at 1pm.)

When the meeting re-convened, Members voted and agreed to continue to ask questions after each speaker instead of holding questions after all the speakers had finished speaking.

Members then continued questioning Mr Knights:

 Members asked about Wheelabrator’s track record in the United States and how this related to Wheelabrator’s performance in the UK. In reply, a breach at its Nottingham incinerator was highlighted by Mr Knights. He said that up to nine times the limit of dioxins were emitted from the plant for up to six months as checks only took place twice annually. Mr Knights added that the Dundee incinerator was one hundred times over the limit but that the levels of dioxins and heavy metals were not monitored.

5.3.6 Jonah Oliver

 The incinerator would be located in the highest risk flood zone.

 It would comprise a 280 feet building in the flattest part of the country.

 The scale of environmental and tourism damage would be colossal if something went wrong.

 Incinerators were the technology of the past. Competitors in China and Germany were using different and newer technologies and the UK should be doing the same.

 In response to Member questions Mr Oliver confirmed that he had not visited an incinerator.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

 Members pointed out that incinerators were still being built and that one had recently come into production in Jersey.

5.3.7 Judi Knights

 The Government’s Health Protection Agency (HPA) said about municipal waste incinerators that any possible health effects were likely to be very small if detectable. Her Freedom of Information (FoI) request for evidence of safety revealed misplaced confidence in the effectiveness of the European Union’s waste incineration directive legislation, the Waste Incineration Directive (WID). In Belgium, an incinerator was forcibly closed down due to health damage despite being WID compliant. The HPA also rely on an outdated and flawed cancer study. This is all the HPA could offer in response to Ms Knights’ enquiry on safety. Yet the HPA’s opinion on incineration is sought as standard procedure by Public Health Directors, the Environment Agency and is regarded as the ultimate authority on the subject even by the UK’s courts of law.

 Incinerator filters, even of the best technique classification could allow particulate matter to be released into the atmosphere, which if 2.5 microns or under could get into the lungs and in either short- or long-term cause heart attacks, stokes, and infant deaths. Instances of these health problems are occurring in excess numbers around many UK incinerators if the data from the Office for National Statistics was correct. The Government was aware of these statistics but had chosen not to investigate.

 Particulate matter from incineration was more harmful than from traffic as it can be carrying not just dioxins but cadmium, mercury, and arsenic depending on for instance household chemical residue or batteries.

 The incineration industry seeks to reassure of the safety of incineration by saying that filters were effective and the emissions were low and mentioning research about incinerators in Finland or Italy. However, these incinerators were of a far higher specification than any built in the including the one proposed for Norfolk. Norfolk County Council’s report mentioned these examples and its advisor from AEA wrote within their report “We have not evaluated whether the plant mentioned in the study was representative of the proposed facility in King’s Lynn.”

 Even if the incinerator proposed was up to the standard of those in Finland or Italy there would still be the problem of incinerator bottom ash (IBA). Cory Wheelabrator had estimated 60,000 tonnes per year which they said customers would pay for and remove from the site. However, there was surplus of this ash already and there were also concerns over safety of its leachate. (The Environment Agency’s website which previously had said

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

that tests had been done on the water course changed in 2010 to say it was in the process of doing testing on the water course.)

 Members pointed out that they knew of incinerators in Wolverhampton, Kirklees, and Coventry.

5.3.8 Ian Findlater

 There were concerns about the history of the incinerator industry.

 The sustainability of the proposed plant was a concern.

 Moving waste up the waste hierarchy was the only feasible reason to support the application. However, it was important to reduce, reuse, recycle, and then look at treatment options. Norfolk was behind the times when compared to what was happening elsewhere with regard to waste management.

 Regulations in Wales stated that in excess of 70% recycling was required before consideration was given to an incinerator facility. Norfolk was well below this level.

 Once an incinerator was built there was a risk of the need to “Feed the beast”. Doing this would result in reduced recycling rates and would not encourage NCC to push to find better ways of recycling as the need to keep the incinerator running at full capacity would be at odds with increasing recycling rates.

 Members pointed out that the Waste Core Strategy said that by 2026 Norfolk would be a leader in waste prevention and increasing recycling. They asked Mr Findlater if he considered it was realistic for Norfolk to achieve this while burning 270,000 tonnes of municipal waste every year without pre-sorting for recyclable waste. Mr Findlater said that he did not think this was realistic.

5.3.9 Dr Pallavi Devulapalli

 Dr Devulapalli introduced herself as a GP from King’s Lynn and stated that she was one of 22 local doctors who had issued a public statement earlier in the year opposing the proposal to build an ‘Energy from Waste’ (EfW) incinerator in King’s Lynn.

 She outlined the reasons for her unease. She stated that while she accepted that modern incinerators were safer than their predecessors and emitted fewer pollutants, the most dangerous pollutants were still being emitted. According to a reply that she had received from the Environment

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

Agency, in relation to a Freedom of Information (FoI) request, 70% or more of the fine particulate matter of 2.5 microns or smaller escaped the filters. The effects of these particles had been proven to include lung cancer and cardiopulmonary disease.

 Incinerators also released varying amounts of organochlorines which included substances commonly known as dioxins. The World Health Organisation (WHO) produced data in 2006 on dioxin release estimates into the air, land, and water for the UK which confirmed incineration to be the third largest source of dioxins. Studies had shown that the amount of dioxins released varied with the rubbish that was being burnt at any particular time and was also much higher during start up or shutting down of an incinerator. According to the American Public Health Association virtually all organochlorines (including dioxins) that have been studied exhibited at least one of a range of serious toxic effects such as endocrine disruption, developmental impairment, birth defects, reproductive dysfunction, and infertility, immunosuppression and cancer, often at extremely low doses.

 The Health Protection Agency (HPA) was concerned and was currently conducting a study investigating the potential link between the emissions from Municipal Waste Incinerators (MWIs) and health outcomes including low birth weights, still births, and infant deaths. The first findings were due to be reported in April 2014.

 Dr Devulapalli stated there was no doubt that there were vast information gaps in knowledge and understanding of the complexity of biological processes and chemical toxicity. However the weight of existing evidence suggested that caution should be shown and that deferring a decision until the HPA reported its findings seemed the least the Committee could do at this stage to safeguard the health of the population. It went without saying that in the event that these results indicated a statistically significant health risk then planning permission for the incinerator should be refused.

 Members commented that within the conclusions of the Air Quality Consultants report (page 535) the findings of the Air Quality Assessment and Health Impact Assessment were consistent with the findings of the Health Protection Agency, namely, that ‘modern, well managed incinerators made only a small contribution to local concentrations of air pollutants’. Dr Devulapalli replied that the HPA was undertaking a new study which showed that they had concerns and reservations about incinerators.

 Members asked Dr Devulapalli how long it would take before any health effects from an incinerator would become evident. She replied that the first case of health problems would likely be within a few years.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

 Members asked whether there was evidence in Slough, where a similar incinerator had been built, that the public health had been affected. Dr Devulapalli replied that there had been very few studies but that research was currently being undertaken.

 In response to a Member question Dr Devulapalli stated that even though the filters to be used at the proposed incinerator were of a high specification there were still a tiny percentage of particles which could escape. These small particles, however, were the most toxic, even in low amounts.

5.3.10 John Dobson (County Councillor for Division)

 The majority of residents of Mr Dobson’s division lived a few miles away from the proposed site and oppose the incinerator

 This application went against planning policy and Mr Dobson said he would rather see alternative methods investigated further.

 It was clear that NCC had not shown due regard to democratic process and the Committee had an opportunity to restore NCC’s reputation for good governance by rejecting the application. Mr Dobson felt a full public inquiry was needed.

 Members asked Mr Dobson if as a Borough Councillor he went on public record against Palm Paper to which Mr Dobson responded that he never had any input into the decision on Palm Paper and that this was not relevant to today’s decision. He also said that he could not answer as to why other County Councillors from King’s Lynn and West Norfolk were not present and drew Members’ attention to the response from Mr Brian Long (set out within the Addendum Report at Appendix A of these minutes).

5.3.11 Alistair Beales

 It had been stated that the incinerator would be cheap to run and save money but the cost per tonne was higher than alternative technology.

 If the incinerator was a solution for all of Norfolk’s waste than why was it sited on the extreme western edge of the county away from were most of the waste was produced.

 It was claimed that the incinerator would produce cheap energy for Palm Paper on the same site but the Chief Executive Officer of Palm Paper had said in a meeting with the Leader of the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk that there was no such agreement for Palm Paper to purchase this energy.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

 The local referendum showed that 65,000 people were against the incinerator which NCC had tried to discredit.

 The Leader of Norfolk County Council had recently relocated from King’s Lynn to .

 The HPA had undertaken no research but had now contracted Oxford University to look at the health implications of incinerators.

 The public speaking arrangements for today where inadequate and chaotic throughout. Thankfully the Department for Communities and Local Government had taken the first step in calling in the application.

 Many people in West Norfolk felt betrayed by NCC in the politically arrogant and unhelpful way this matter had been handled. Many people were angry that some of our County Councillors have either backed this proposal and ignored public concern or simply kept their heads down and failed to properly represent that concern.

 Under Article 25 of the Town & Country Planning Act the Committee could not approve this application today and given it was clearly the wrong technology in the wrong place at the wrong price. The representative from NPlaw referred Members to his previous comments regarding the statement received from the Secretary of State. A decision notice in respect of this planning application could not be issued until the Secretary of State had decided whether to “call in” the decision (and lift what was known as an Article 25 direction). He stated that the Committee was legally able to approve or reject the proposal but if it chooses to approve it would not yet be able to issue the planning permission notice until the Secretary of State had made his decision on whether to call-in the decision.

5.3.12 Stanley Marmont

 Mr Marmont explained how he had been exposed to particulate matter when worked with boilers at a special needs school in King’s Lynn between 1982 and 1989. He had developed mild breathing problems from working in the boiler house. By 1989 he was diagnosed with chronic severe breathing difficulties. By 1995 he was rediagnosed as possibly having chronic obstructive airways disease. Exposure to particulates had ruined his health.

 Mr Marmont had suffered from a stroke caused by a lack of oxygen to his heart, a heart attack, and blood clots on his lungs. He was on numerous medications to help him breath, had difficulty walking, and was quickly out of breath.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

 Mr Marmont became emotional when he shared with the Committee that his doctor had stated that he was medically unfit to fly to the United States and Australia to visit members of his family.

 Some Members commented that Mr Marmont’s experience was an example of the need for the ‘Precautionary Principle’ because the absence of proof was not proof of absence.

 Mr Marmont added that he was a member of the GMB union and that a survey carried out by the GMB showed that 460,000 people were against incineration in the UK.

5.3.13 Ann Philips

 The proposal was to build an incinerator in the highest risk flood zone with storage of 67,000 tonnes of potentially noxious incinerator bottom ash (IBA) in open air so that it could ‘weather off’.

 Should this development proceed, people in West Norfolk and adjoining areas could be threatened with serious flooding of a possibly toxic nature because of these large stockpiles of incinerator bottom ash at the site.

 On the matter of flooding, a senior Environment Agency officer wrote on 9 May 2006 to Mott MacDonald (an NCC contractor) in relation to the Police Investigation Centre at Saddlebow, directly adjacent to the proposed site. The letter stated that ‘whilst we can forecast predicted high astronomic tides and possible surge tides due to meteorological conditions, advance warnings are virtually impossible for breaching scenarios and widespread flooding can occur within less than an hour. …I would consider there was a significant danger that people confined in cells (at this Police Centre) would not be evacuated in time’.

5.3.14 Jim Elliott

 Suggested the Council devised a binding Planning Condition which legally required NCC to maximise the re-use of commercial and industrial “waste” as a resource and required businesses to divert reusable resources to Mini-Scrapbox and other approved reusers.

 Mini-Scrapbox had evolved into one of the more sustainable scrapstores in the country since taking over the Scrapstore banner from Norfolk County Council in 1995. Mini-scrapbox had taken on the role of collecting, sorting, pricing, and selling commercial and industrial waste from businesses as resources prepared for re-use and were operated by unpaid volunteers with over 300 member bodies. Businesses gained as their waste was removed for free, the community gained when it accessed low cost

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

resources, and everyone gained when waste was diverted from landfill.

 People of all ages using Mini-scrapbox were inspired to think creatively about the precious, finite resources while using these items over again.

 The County Council currently operated six re-use centres at main recycling centres across Norfolk but these were for domestic items not commercial and industrial resource reuse. Burning this commercial and industrial waste was not reusing it and did not move as far up the waste hierarchy as was possible with schemes similar to Mini-scrapbox.

5.3.15 Gary McGuiness

 Mr McGuiness noted that he was a Borough Councillor in King’s Lynn in the ward in which the facility was being proposed but was speaking only in his capacity as a resident of South Lynn, where there had been two major flood events in the past 60 years.

 Mr McGuiness stated that he was willing to accept that there was no firm evidence either way as to whether the emissions from such facilities were harmful to humans, flora and fauna within the locality and he felt this was why the HPA had commissioned a full study into the long term effects of such emissions.

 He noted that South Lynn was an area with a very high level of health deprivation, including some of the highest levels of respiratory disease in the country.

 He noted that the point had been made that with regard to the proximity principle there was little net difference in the required transportation of waste across the county because of the requirement to send waste to landfill at Blackborough End. The Cabinet Member of Environment and Waste had stated on Radio Norfolk that the requirement to transfer waste to this landfill facility was not a current one but would eventually be required in future if changes were not made to the way Norfolk deals with its waste. Mr McGuiness felt that NCC should take issue with the notion that the vast majority of waste generated in the county had to travel in excess of 40 miles to reach its intended destination, along some of the county’s poorest trunk road infrastructure. He added that the incinerator in Jersey was built close to the population centre, where the waste was produced.

5.3.16 June Leamon

 Ms Leamon introduced herself as Vice-Chairman of West Norfolk Patient Partnership and said she would speaking on health matters relating to toxic

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

emissions and in particular dioxins.

 Norfolk County Council and Cory Wheelabrator claim that there was no evidence for a link between the incidence of disease and the current generation of incinerators, quoting the DEFRA 2004 paper. This paper, however, shows that no studies had looked at this link since the Waste Incineration Directive came into force in 2000. Their statement, therefore gives a false impression. The HPA admitted to Parliament in 2009 that they had not commissioned research to measure the impacts on health of down-wind incinerators (as in this proposal), and advised that such studies not be undertaken (Hansard 30/11/2009). Since then, they have commissioned a study but the preliminary study report is not due until March 2014.

 When discussing filtration systems, such as that proposed, NCC stated that advanced filtration systems limit particles from incinerators to pollen-sized particles, for example PM10. The danger, however, comes from particles much smaller than this – PM2.5 and below. These represent the micro- particles which were the real hazard to health, and which Cory says cannot be measured. This was incorrect and it was possible to measure down to a factor of nil, demonstrated by the National Radiological Protection Board of Great Britain routinely since the beginning of the atomic age. These facts were peer proven, endorsed by the World Health Organisation and contained in an EC Directive 2008. If NCC and Cory could not commit to this procedure, then they were putting the health of an entire population and descendants at considerable risk, remembering that the maximum downwind fall-out will be over the heart of King’s Lynn Town.

 The remit of the West Norfolk Patient Partnership was to represent the concerns of the Borough’s population in all aspects of Health Care, including Primary Care, Secondary Care, Preventive Medicine, and monitoring and to bring any issues to the appropriate Body. As these concerns have been expressed in very strong terms, it was the duty of this Group to bring such concerns to this meeting.

 Ms Leamon stated that the Committee must consider the vast number of people who had a genuine fear of health harm from toxic emissions from the incinerator but said that following hearing the meeting today she had no confidence in that happening.

(The Chairman adjourned the meeting for a break at 2:17pm and the meeting resumed at 2:25pm.)

(Mr Iles was not present for the remainder of the meeting.)

5.4 Statutory Consultee – King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

5.4.1 Vivienne Spikings, the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Development at KLWN and Chairman of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council Planning Committee outlined her Council’s reasons for opposing the application and stated the following:

 There were no Members representing any area of the county west of that were present for the consideration of this planning application.

 It was important, even if the public disagreed with the final decision, that they viewed the process which led to the decision as fair and impartial and that their views were properly listened to and taken into account. This approach was particularly important where the County Council’s roles conflicted as both commissioning authority and a planning authority setting both policy context and determining the application.

 It was noted that NCC officers had refused to meet with objectors against this proposal to discuss their concerns despite a formal request by officers at King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council while at the same time meeting with the applicant to clarify their proposal. This reinforced the perception that the process was biased with the outcome predetermined following the signing of contracts with a default of £20m.

 The referendum which was held polled 70,763 people representing a electoral turnout of 61.3%. From this 65,516 people voted against the proposals representing 92% opposition to it. Norfolk County Council refused to take part in this poll. Cory Wheelabrator was prepared to but later was advised against this as it was felt unlikely they would be able to sway public opinion.

 Due to such strong expressions of local concern, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council was in the advanced stage of procuring an alternative solution for dealing with waste. This recycling plant would delivery recycling rates of up to 98%, saving money and providing a far more acceptable solution for the disposal of waste.

 It was felt that localism was being ignored. Bob Neil MP, Parliamentary Undersecretary of State, said on 13 June 2012 decisions on major waste proposals should be “taken by those who know their areas best and the need to place communities at the heart of decision making.”

 On March 12, 2012 the King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council Planning Committee made the recommendation that it was premature to approve this application ahead of the Site Specific Allocation DPD. The deadline for receiving representations on the Mineral and Waste site

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

allocations consultation closed at 5pm that day.

 King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council felt that the best solution was to refuse the application, with a recorded vote or refer the final decision to the Secretary of State.

5.4.2 Stuart Ashworth – Planning Officer, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council

 Mr Ashworth highlighted the reasons for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council’s objection to the application. The first objection related to the proximity principle which was the idea that waste should be managed where it was generated. Policy CS4 of the Waste Core Strategy showed the waste management that was needed for the period 2010-2020. CS4 indicated that in accordance with the proximity principle a number of plants would be provided across the County with a maximum capacity indicated of 100,000 tonnes and did not mention a 275,000 tonne facility. Policy CS5 spoke about how major waste management facilities should be situated in relation to 4 main areas of population. A network of facilities should be provided close to the 4 main areas, not a strategic scale facility provided in a geographically remote area of the County considering that the majority of Municipal Waste was generated in the east of the County. This could not be a logical interpretation when seeking to use these policies to justify the fact that, as confirmed by NCC officers, 170,000 tonnes per annum of residual Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) would have to be transported to the western extremity of the County to be treated. This represented 82% of last years residual MSW arising from Norfolk. As the proximity principle was a key element of nation waste policy there was a strong objection to the reports interpretation of these core strategy policies and to the developments relationship to the proximity principle, as supported by PPS10 and through the Core Strategy policies CS4 and CS5.

 The second objection related to flood risk. As agreed with the Environment Agency all applications in the Borough were considered using the SFRA Climate Change maps, which placed the site in flood zone 3. A Sequential test had therefore been undertaken and there was agreement that this should be carried out on a County wide basis. The Borough Council’s view after carrying out its own Sequential test was that there were potentially other sites available within flood zone 1 across the County. The purpose of the Sequential test was to direct development to sites with a lower risk of flooding. The Sequential test carried out was not considered to be robust and other sites with a lower flood zone were ruled out far too easily. The Borough Council’s view was that the Sequential test had been failed and as such the proposal was considered to be contrary to Waste Core Strategy policy DM4 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and its accompanying technical guidance.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

 The third objection related to the prematurity of the decision on the grounds that in determining such a large-scale application ahead of the Waste Allocations DPD. The Waste Allocations DPD was due to go to Examination in November and with that in place it would be possible to determine whether a facility of this scale, dealing with Municipal Solid Waste from across the County, should be located at the western extremity of the County.

 The fourth objection was that the Norfolk Wildlife Trust (NWT) had very recently raised serious procedural failings in the Appropriate Assessment published only last week. There were (1) Regulation 61(4) of the Habitat Regulations, regarding consultation, had not been complied with; (2) The impacts of other plans or projects had not been properly addressed; and (3) It was impossible to use the information to reach a scientifically sound decision on the possible impacts upon Roydon Common. They concluded by stated that the Appropriate Assessment did not contain sufficient or accurate information for the Competent Authority to assess any likely adverse effects on the Roydon Common SAC.

 The fifth objection was based on the fact that the majority of the County’s residual municipal waste arisings (82% when compared with last year’s MSW arisings) were to be treated at this facility. This would act as a disincentive to continue to drive up recycling rates and was considered to be contrary to a sustainable waste management regime as set out in PPS10.

 Members asked what consultation King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council carried out in relation to the Palm Paper site. Mr Ashworth replied that there was a good level of consultation regarding the Palm Paper site, which needed to be located near a large body of water. There was a special meeting of the Council to discuss this application. Ms Spikings added that the public had time to speak and there were no £20m clauses in the contract.

 Members asked about the formal requests made on behalf of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council to meet with NCC planning officers. Ms Spikings stated she had received no replies to these requests. The Planning Services Manager (ETD) stated that NCC officers had gone well beyond what was required of them to consult the Borough Council on the application, as well as all other interested parties, and he was confident all such parties who had wanted to contribute had an opportunity to contribute to the planning process.

5.5 Statutory Consultee – Surrounding Parish Councils

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

5.5.1 Elaine Oliver – Wiggenhall St Germans Parish Council

 The decision which the Committee had to make was not just about King’s Lynn but was a decision for the whole of Norfolk and if there was any doubt regarding the potential of negative effects on the people of Norfolk the application must be rejected.

 Fear of detrimental health effects were a material consideration.

 Other countries were turning away from incineration as a solution to dealing with their waste.

 Flooding was a serious consideration as planning permission for residential properties had not been granted due to the flooding risk.

5.5.2 Adrian Bramwell – Leziate Parish Council

 It was clear there had been a number of errors and omissions within the report presented to Members.

 Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) would not be handled appropriately. The proposal anticipated that the ash would be stored with no protection from wind, rain, or flood.

 There were serious concerns about additional lorry traffic on Norfolk’s roads, the smell from rotting waste, and a lack of proper processes being adhered to with this planning application.

5.5.3 Richard Morrish – North Runcton Parish Council

 Concern was raised over the thousands of polluting HGV journeys per year.

 A multinational company would take money out of the local economy and this was not supporting the sustainability of the proposal.

5.6 Applicant/Agent including Supporters – Cory Wheelabrator

5.6.1 John Boldon – Planning Director, Cory Environmental

 Mr Boldon’s role in the Willows Power and Recycling project had been to direct the teams responsible for dealing with this planning application. In this role he also acted for Wheelabrator, Cory’s joint venture partners.

 Both companies had tremendous in-depth knowledge of waste management and in the case of the Willows project had sought to be totally professional and thorough in developing and assessing their proposals. At

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

all times their objective had been to bring forward a project which would be of the highest benefit to Norfolk.

 Cory was one of the UK’s leading waste management companies and was committed to delivering sustainable waste management for local communities throughout the UK. The company’s services had been recognised with a number of awards for sustainable transport, the management of facilities, and city cleanliness and they were very proud of their reputation.

 Cory had recently brought into operation a major new Energy from Waste (EfW) facility at Belvedere in the Borough of Bexley and this was one of the largest facilities of its kind in the UK. It was built in a highly urbanised area and Cory was very sensitive to the concerns raised by local people and believed they had responded to these concerns with respect and dignity.

 Wheelabrator was an organisation that had more than 35 years operational EfW experience and was one of the leading developers, owners, and operators of EfW facilities in the United States. Wheelabrator commenced operations of its first EfW facility in the US in 1975 and today operated 17 EfW facilities throughout the US. Each year these facilities processed more than 6.9m tonnes of waste which was over twice the total EfW capacity in the UK.

 Throughout this long period of continuous operation, Wheelabrator had operated under the strict standards and scrutiny of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which was the US equivalent of the Environment Agency in the UK.

 Further evidence of the partnership between the two companies could be found in their agreement for Wheelabrator to bring its experienced managers to London to operate and maintain their new EfW facility at Riverside.

 Both companies placed sustainability at the core of their business. The Willows project was conceived as the best way to address the urgent need for new residual waste treatment facilities within Norfolk, not only to treat municipal waste, but also to contribute towards managing residual commercial and industrial waste generated within the County.

 The ambitious recycling targets set by the adopted Waste Core Strategy would still need to be met and other strategic residual waste treatment facilities would need to be provided somewhere in the County if landfill diversion targets were to be achieved. The Willows proposed development would not preclude or hamper either of these requirement from being met.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

 Both companies had worked hard in preparing the application and by addressing concerns raised during the very extensive public consultations and in their community and stakeholder engagement to demonstrate the overall sustainability of their proposal. They had sought through their submissions to express how well the proposal accorded with both the objectives and the policies of the recently adopted Waste Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework and how it could be delivered in the short term without any significant effects on the environment or to local communities.

 It was felt that this was an excellent project and a sustainable one on a site that Mr Boldon could say was one of the best he had ever seen anywhere for the development of new waste management infrastructure. For those reasons he was totally committed to its delivery.

5.6.2 Richard Wilkinson – Cory

 Mr Wilkinson introduced himself and it was noted that he managed the preparation of the planning application with Mr Smyth from RPS (the environmental management consultants on the project).

 Mr Wilkinson endorsed the officer’s report and commended them on the comprehensive and thorough consideration of the proposal. Cory wholeheartedly endorsed the conclusions reached and hoped that Members would do likewise.

 Achievement of Norfolk’s policy aims for sustainability was at the heart of the proposals. The facility was designed to address directly the urgent and pressing need for the development of 703,000 tonnes of residual waste processing capacity within Norfolk over the next eight years, over half of which was required by 2015 if landfill diversion targets were to be met. This requirement was embodied within the Waste Core Strategy and was at the heart of that Plan’s vision for the County.

 This treatment capacity needed to be provided not instead of new recycling facilities but in addition to them. There was an urgent need for both. Currently there were no existing residual waste treatment facilities available in Norfolk, only landfills. This proposal was the only major facility that could realistically contribute toward the delivery of the required capacity by 2015. It had been claimed that other sites may be available before 2015 however given the long lead time required both to secure the necessary planning permission and thereafter to build the plant, none could deliver operation capacity by that date.

 The scale of the need meant that the proposal would actually cater for less

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

than 40% of the Waste Core Strategy’s requirement for new residual waste treatment capacity. Whilst this represented a significant contribution towards meeting the need that had been identified, it must properly be seen in the context of its role as part of an integrated network of facilities rather than as a single isolated facility. Therefore if planning permission was not forthcoming the aims of the development plan in seeking to urgently establish a modern, sustainable network of residual waste treatment facilities would simply not be met and waste would continue to be sent to landfill as at present. That outcome was simply not sustainable.

 In addition to the requirement of the development plan in policy CS4 the proposal addressed the specific requirement of the residual waste treatment contract for Norfolk to provide for the recovery of 170,000 tonnes of municipal waste from 2015 onwards. Again, if the proposal failed or was delayed then the contract objectives would not be met.

 Significant weight therefore had to be given to the existence of what was undeniably an urgent and pressing need for new residual waste treatment facilities within the County. The scale and urgency of the need was also important when considering the contribution that the Proposal would make towards low carbon and renewable energy generation. Government guidance placed considerable weight on the need to bring forward new generating capacity within the immediate future to reduce carbon emissions and provide greater security of supply.

 The National Planning Policy Framework described the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure as “central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development”. The National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure reinforced this: “Electricity generation from renewable sources of energy is an important element in the Government’s development of a low-carbon economy. There are ambitious renewable energy targets in place and a significant increase in generation from large-scale renewable energy infrastructure is necessary to meet the 15% renewable energy target.”

 At a regional level, the Plan set a target to supply 17% of the region’s energy from renewable sources by 2020. This amounted to 1620 Megawatts of installed capacity, excluding the anticipated contribution from off-shore wind. In 2011, the most recent date for which figures were available, less than 30% of this requirement had been met and of this, one third was in the form of electricity generation from landfill gas which would decline over time and would therefore need replacing from alternative sources. A significant increase in the delivery of renewable energy projects was therefore required if the regional target for 2020 was to be met. The proposal would make a material contribution towards delivering this

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

increase.

 With regard to site location, the adopted Core Strategy also provided specific guidance on where to locate new strategic residual waste treatment facilities. Considering the proposal site against such guidance; it was set within the identified settlement boundary of the town of King’s Lynn and occupies land that was recognised through the King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan as being appropriate for development, provided that development was in keeping with the general industrial character of the area. That character was already defined by the King’s Lynn Power Station and the Palm Paper plant which you would have seen on your visit to the site. In both respects the proposal complied fully with the locational policies of the Core Strategy.

 Despite this compliance, objectors had expressed concerns that a plant of this type and scale should be located more centrally within the County and that if it were, it would reduce the need to transport waste and, in their view, be more sustainable. In response to these concerns, we undertook in November last year a detailed assessment of greenhouse gas emissions arising from a range of different scenarios. What this work showed was that the Willows proposal was directly comparable in terms of its sustainability with a more centrally located site. This was because the biggest carbon savings to be gained were from landfill diversion, EfW efficiency, the potential for providing Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and from Incineration Bottom Ash recycling. By comparison, emissions from transport were not a significant factor. Indeed, the delay that would inevitably result in bringing forward an alternative to the current proposal would result in the County being entirely reliant upon landfill for the disposal of its waste in the short term and consequently would result in higher carbon emissions when considered over the lifetime of the development as a whole.

 In relation to its scale, the plant had been sized to accommodate the requirements of the municipal waste contract as well as providing capacity for locally generated commercial and industrial wastes. The scale of the plant was entirely appropriate therefore in the context of its intended role. The fact that the proposed Willows Business Park site remained as one of the favoured locations within the County’s emerging waste site allocation documents endorsed this conclusion and in line with the newly published National Planning Policy Framework was a material factor to be taken into account here today.

 Concerns had also been expressed about whether the site was the best site available within the County on which to locate a facility of this type and scale. To address this Cory Wheelabrator had undertaken a comprehensive study of alternative sites, which concluded that the Willows

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

had the greatest potential of all possible sites to accommodate a strategic residual waste (EfW) facility. This conclusion was all the stronger given that the requirements of Waste Core Strategy (WCS) policy CS5 could not and would not be met from a single site and that the range of sites that had come forward would need to be distributed across the County and not simply located within a single centre.

 Of particular importance was its potential for Combined Heat and Power (CHP), being located adjacent to Palm Paper, the largest identified heat user within Norfolk. Therefore, the Willows site offered an unrivalled opportunity for CHP that should not be squandered.

 Regarding the assessment of potential environmental impacts, a full environmental statement had been presented as part of the planning application and was supplemented by additional information during the determination process. This work demonstrated that development could take place without giving rise to significant or unacceptable harm either to the environment or to the amenities of the local community. More specifically, this information had demonstrated that the proposal complied with all relevant environmental and development control policies of the development plan.

 This assessment work was supported in all the key areas by the responses received from technical consultees. NCC officers had described the feedback from Natural England, the Environment Agency, NHS Norfolk, the Food Standards Agency, Drainage Board, the Highways Agency, the local highway authority, and local environmental health officers (as well as specialist air quality consultants engaged by both the Borough and County Council). All were independent and their responses cover comprehensively the key topics of ecology, including the effect on Roydon Common and The Wash, air quality, transport, public health and other possible effects on the local community. All were satisfied that the proposal was acceptable and would not cause unacceptable harm. In particular, both Natural England and the Environment Agency concluded that any potential impacts on Roydon Common or The Wash would be insignificant and as such did not warrant an Appropriate Assessment. In adopting a highly precautionary approach towards this issue, the County Council had carried out an Appropriate Assessment. This had only served to confirm the views of the technical consultees regarding the absence of any likely significant effects. The County Council was therefore entitled to rely on these expert judgements as NCC officers have indicated.

 The aforementioned responses of the technical consultees had served in large part to allay the fears of the Borough Council, who had in their latest response withdrawn previous objections on the grounds of air quality, public health, traffic and transport, residential amenity, socio-economic effects,

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

and water abstraction. Such responses should help allay the fears of objectors at this meeting.

 The integrity of the air quality modelling in particular had been thoroughly scrutinised by consultants for the County and Borough Councils and by the Environment Agency and had been endorsed as being sound. Whilst concerns may continue to be expressed by objectors to the proposal, these concerns had not been borne out when assessed by the independent experts or the relevant specialist advisory bodies. The same applied in respect of concerns expressed over flooding. The Environment Agency, as the UK Agency with primary responsibility for flood matters, had comprehensively assessed the proposals for flood risk and had deemed them to be acceptable.

 The Environment Agency had recently issued a draft Environmental Permit signifying further its satisfaction that the facility could be operated both safely and without harm. The conditions imposed on that permit would ensure that this continued to be the case throughout the life of the operation. Furthermore, it was Cory Wheelabrator’s understanding that the Agency expected to be in a position to issue the permit shortly.

 King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council still maintained an objection to this application, the grounds of which either contradict the advice of those agencies that may have primary responsibility for the issues under consideration, such as Natural England and the Environment Agency or were based upon a misinterpretation or misrepresentation of national and local policy. In the view of Cory Wheelabrator, none of these objections therefore measured up when assessed against prevailing policy and guidance.

 This proposal would represent a significant investment in the local economy, both in the short and long terms. In addition to the construction jobs, there would be numerous commercial and supplier opportunities for local businesses. Over the 25 years of the contract there would be 40 permanent members of staff employed directly on site and a multiplier effect in terms of goods and services purchased and indirect employment opportunities contributing to an increase in spending in the local economy. We were committed to working with local colleges to ensure the long-term opportunities at this site were maximised for local people and future generations.

 As acknowledged in the Planning Officers Committee Report, the proposal would also save money for local tax payers over the 25 years contract by reducing waste management costs and lowering landfill tax payments.

 Cory Wheelabrator had produced a sustainable and highly beneficial

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

proposal for Norfolk. The proposal accorded in all respects with the development plan. This was acknowledged explicitly by NCC officers at paragraph 7.441 of their report. The proposal would meet directly the urgent need to develop new residual waste treatment capacity by 2015. In the absence of this proposal there would be no choice but to continue to rely on landfill. At the same time it would contribute towards meeting the pressing national and regional need for a significant increase in low carbon and renewable energy generation both to reduce carbon emissions and improve security of energy supplies. It had been shown to occupy probably the best site within Norfolk for a development of this kind. It was also comparable or better in terms of its sustainability to other locations within the County. Its potential to exploit CHP was unrivalled given its proximity to Palm Paper.

 The proposal would not cause significant effects to the environment or to local communities and was considered acceptable by technical consultees including Natural England, the Environment Agency, NHS Norfolk, the Food Standards Agency, Drainage Board, the Highways Agency, the local highway authority, and local environmental health officers (as well as specialist air quality consultants engaged by both the Borough and County Council). Whilst public concerns remained despite the detailed responses that had been provided at all stages in the planning application process, the satisfaction of the aforementioned experts together with the thorough and balanced consideration given by NCC officers should go a long way towards allaying those concerns.

5.6.3 Dr John Burgess

 Dr Burgess introduced himself as a 1963 medical graduate from the University of Birmingham. He completed his postgraduate studies and was awarded Diplomas from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. In 1976 he gained a Master of Science Degree with distinction in Occupational Medicine from the University of London. In 1978 he was admitted a Member of the Faculty of Occupational Medicine and in 1982 was made a Fellow. Much of his postgraduate training and work since then was to be directly related to the proper application of medical statistics, epidemiology, and toxicology.

 Dr Burgess stated that he had worked in a variety of industries, as a consultant occupational physician throughout the UK and Europe, many of which had been chemical manufacturers or distributors. He had also been a member of health and Environment Advisory groups for various concerns and also for the Chemical Industries Association in the UK and International Chemical Associations based in Belgium and Switzerland. He had been appointed as a consultant for HM Government at the Chemical Defence

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

Establishment in Porton Down. In addition, he had been required to provide expert advice to a Parliamentary Select Committee in respect of chemical toxicity and health issues.

 When the adverse publicity about this proposal began Dr Burgess felt that as he was a local person and had spent most of his professional life assessing such issues it was only right to make comment.

 In spite of all the issues raised about health concerns relating to the proposal he had never seen any definitive or reliable evidence that the installation and operation of the proposed unit would significantly result in any adverse health or environmental effects. The whole crux of the issue was the assessment and determination of relative risks using acceptable epidemiological techniques. He believed the initial concerns about health had been suitably addressed. The environmental aspects of the development also appeared to have been fully investigated by Norfolk County Council and King’s Lynn Borough Council with no significant concerns regarding the construction of the unit.

 The potential for such possible health effects was initially given wide publicity and understandably raised concern amongst local residents. Unproven data and some misleading reports were then issued at regular intervals by King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council and the local newspaper. The ‘bandwagon effect’ resulted in a local referendum to be held which was only staged in King’s Lynn and West Norfolk. The referendum was held prior to the various consultation processes later held throughout the county and before the electorate had been fully informed about the nature of the unit and any likely health issues. It was also held on a day when there would have been large numbers of people at the polls for a local council election ensuring a high turnout of voters. The referendum question was a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ option for the construction of the unit and, not surprisingly, in the light of the adverse publicity, an overwhelming ‘No’ vote was recorded. It is accepted that over 60,000 of the electorate voted ‘No’ but it must be remembered that with a total electorate of over 100,000 nearly as many did not vote ‘No’ and the majority of those who had voted were probably not in possession of the actual scientific data required to make an informed decision. The result merely provoked more adverse publicity, still with dubious factual content.

 Dr Burgess stated that Norfolk was made up of many sites of historical and architectural importance and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The proposed site at the Willows was outside the town centre in an industrial area where there was once a sugar beet refining plant and there was now a power station, a large paper production unit, and other industries. It was certainly not an area which could be remotely described as having any natural beauty and was not a residential area.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

 Dr Burgess could not see any justifiable reason why the proposal should not go ahead at the Willows site. It was a much needed facility for the whole county, not just for West Norfolk, and it was necessary to develop such units safely using up-to-date technology to ensure proper management of our waste disposal during the next decade or so and to avoid the scars and health hazards of landfill.

 It would become increasingly important to develop more efficient recycling procedures in the years to come but it was still necessary to address the issues of safe and effective waste disposal now and in the immediate future.

5.6.4 Pauline Johnson

 Ms Johnson stated that if the incinerator was as harmful as some insisted it was then why was Palm Paper given permission for one.

 Ms Johnson stated that she lived in King’s Lynn and she had always voiced her opinion for the incinerator and had not met anyone who strongly disagreed with the proposal to build at the Willows.

 It was noted that there were a significant number of waste incinerators in Europe and in addition vehicle pollution should be of greater concern.

 Jobs and investment were needed in King’s Lynn and this project would bring these benefits to the town.

 Delaying this important decision was a waste of taxpayers’ money and Ms Johnson felt that it should be decided to approve the application before the Committee today.

5.6.5 John Boal – BAM Nuttall

 Mr Boal introduced himself as the Area Manager for the East and South East region for BAM Nuttall, which was the chosen civil contractor for the Willows project. He was based at the BAM Nuttall offices in Shipdham near East Dereham in Norfolk and had lived and worked in Norfolk for the past 18 years. BAM Nuttall was one of the UK’s top performing civil engineering and construction companies and operated on a regional basis.

 BAM Nuttall was proud to be associated with the Willows project which they consider to be an environmentally friendly scheme. The company was an environmentally conscientious and caring organisation with a strategy of seeking to improve the environment through the way we conduct our construction activities. Other regions of the business had already, in recent

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

years, constructed two Energy from Waste facilities in the northeast of England and London similar to the Willows project. Both schemes had achieved positive environmental outcomes.

 BAM Nuttall’s industry was in deep recession and therefore welcomed construction opportunities such as the Willows, particularly in Norfolk where there was a real need to maintain jobs for local staff, operatives, and supply chain partners. BAM Nuttall had been established in Norfolk since 1969 and had many long term employees living and working in the county. Local schemes such as the Willows were vital to sustain this business in Norfolk.

 More than fifty local companies had made enquiries showing a keen interest in being involved as BAM Nuttall’s supply chain partners in constructing the Willows project. This clearly underlined its importance to the local business community. BAM Nuttall pledged to involve and employ as many local suppliers and individuals on this scheme as possible in order to maximise the local and economic benefits. They were acutely aware that many contractors sought to employ cheap imported labour and suppliers in a purely market driven way but this was not BAM Nuttall’s policy. Their approach was to retain regional strength by nurturing a long term presence through employing local people.

5.6.6 Members had the opportunity to ask question of the applicant and it supporters and the following points were noted:

 Members asked the representatives from Cory how objections were handled regarding the Belvedere site in London. The Cory representatives pointed out objections were dealt with a great deal of sensitivity. Similar issues were raised with the Belvedere facility with regard to moving waste from Central London to East London, air quality, emissions, and public health. The Belvedere facility generated in excess of 50 Megawatts. This facility was brought into operation under the previous legislation following 16 weeks of public enquiry and was handled by the Department for Trade and Industry. Cory had commissioned a Community Liaison Group which was comprised of officers and Members of Bexley Council.

 Members asked Dr Burgess about the particles which may escape the 277 foot chimney. They asked where they may settle. Dr Burgess responded by saying that any particles which were released were released at such a height that they were diluted and spread over huge distances. He noted the further any particles were spread the less of an issue they were.

 Members asked about Wheelabrator’s reputation in the United States and the breaches of their operating permits. Paul Green, a representative of Wheelabrator, replied saying that regarding the accusations against Wheelabrator all US facilities had been operating in accordance with their

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

permits and they were all compliant. He noted that the facility in Massachusetts had the highest record of compliance in the state. He noted that in the examples which were previously stated Wheelabrator settled the cases to avoid costly litigation. Mr Green stated that over the company’s 37-year history they had operated facilities for 8 million hours under the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which maintained extremely high health and safety standards. He added that their Massachusetts facility had achieved the Federal Occupational VPP-Star award which only 0.3% of facilities in the US had earned. He said that Wheelabrator was one of the world’s most ethically minded companies and was well aware of its responsibilities.

 It was noted that Belvedere was three times the size of the proposed site at the Willows. Members asked why there were four stacks at Belvedere and only one was proposed for the Willows site. Mr Leonard responded that at the Belvedere site there would be two planned shut downs per year.

 Mr Boldon reiterated that the Willows site was one of the best sites he had seen in his career. It was situated on an industrial site which was owned by Norfolk County Council. It was nearby the Centrica Power Station and the Palm paper plant which was an obvious customer for the heat which was generated from the incinerator. The Willows site would not be out of place at the proposed location and it was not close to major housing but had good access links to the road network.

 Mr Leonard, a representative of Wheelabrator, stated that a potential manufacturing source for the turbines was Siemens in Hamburg, Germany.

 In response to a question, Mr Leonard also advised the site would be operational 34 months following the building works commencing.

 Members asked why Cory Wheelabrator did not use the actual methane emissions figures for Norfolk’s landfills in the carbon footprint calculation as these would be more accurate than figures from other countries. Members also stated Mr Burton said that biogenic waste had been greatly over- estimated by 45,000 tonnes, which further skews the carbon footprint in favour of the incinerator.

 Member asked why there were discrepancies between the Waste and Resources Assessment Tool for the Environment (WRATE) assessment and the Carbon Assessment in calculating the carbon footprint – the applicant used different methane emission figures (50% and 25%) yet reached almost the same carbon footprint. Members asked what other parameters had been tweaked to arrive at the same outcome. Mr Smyth responded to the questions by explaining that the technical data regarding input assumptions to the carbon assessment were based on a range of

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

figures. The conclusion was that EfW was favourable in comparison with other methods of waste treatment and landfill. Methane emissions from landfill were considered including a direct comparison with active landfill methane emissions during the filling phase. This demonstrated that comparison with landfill in active phase assumptions were reasonable. The proposal also included energy recovery and incineration of the biogenic component was considered. The biodegradable element will decrease over time. The assessment was based on the current situation. Any alternatives would take time to develop and in the meantime there would be carbon emissions from landfill in Norfolk. Energy recovery performed very well in comparison to the alternatives.

 Members asked if the applicant could explain discrepancies in storm frequency figures. The report said that the drainage system could cope with normal circumstances, except for extreme events of 1 in 100 years, 1 in 200 years, and 1 in 1 year events of 1 week duration. They asked if this meant that contaminated water would flood into The Wash at these frequencies. They also asked on what basis were these frequencies calculated. Mr Smyth stated that there were no discrepancies at all with the flood events and that the design was appropriate and there was enough storage capacity on site. He noted that the ‘1 in 1 year’ event was an annual figure while the ‘1 in 100 year’ and ‘1 in 200 year’ were statistical figures. In any case, he assured Members that the drainage system could accommodate these events.

 Members asked why the applicant did not use figures on landfill emissions from Norfolk if these were available.

 Members asked Mr Boal whether he specifically welcomed this project or would welcome any EfW project. Mr Boal replied that his company were looking for fresh projects in Norfolk but were also looking to enhance projects and sadly other projects have not had this potential for enhancement.

 Members asked Ms Johnson whether she would agree that it would be a better solution to sort waste first and remove what could be reused and then incinerate the waste which could not be reused.

 Members asked the applicant if they were confident they would find a buyer for combined heat and power which would be generated at the site. In response it was noted that the site was close to the largest known heat user in the UK. Discussions had taken place with Palm Paper but it could not be guaranteed that they would buy into this source.

 Members asked the applicant about the release of dioxins into the atmosphere and whether this was monitored continuously. They also

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

asked why the smallest particles could not be removed. The applicant replied that 99.9% of particles were removed and they were using conservative assessments to make this statement. They were confident that the filters were even more effective than this.

 In response to questions it was pointed out that the stack was built so that it was high enough to avoid any turbulence produced by the building and 2.5 times the height of the building was the recommended height for the stack.

 Members asked about water usage at the proposed site. In reply, Mr Leonard said that high quality pure water would be used in the demineralisation process. Members went on to ask about the potential for contamination of the river. Mr Leonard said that the incinerator facility would have no need to abstract water as the water came from water utilities and there was relatively low water demand at the site.

 Members asked about the compensation payment written within the agreement and how this might affect the public perception of the legitimacy of the democratic process. Mr Boldon responded by saying that this was a contract issue and was not open for debate. He noted that this type of clause was common for major contracts such as the one for the proposed application. Mr Boldon said that it was unlikely that the planning application would be rejected due to the quality of the proposal and he was confident because he believed in the proposal him and colleagues had put together.

(The Chairman adjourned the meeting for 15 minutes at 4:15pm and the meeting reconvened at 4:30pm.)

5.7 The Assistant Director for Public Protection asked officers to clarify the following points:

 The Principal Planner was asked to clarify his responses to the questions within the email from Mr Burton. He responded that in regard to the question whether he disagreed with the data used he said he did not. In regard to whether he disagreed with the methodology used he said he did not. In regard to whether he disagreed with the application of the methodology to the data he said he did not.

 The Principal Planner clarified the position regarding the frequency of storm events as set out in the ‘Information to inform a Habitats Regulations Assessment’ prepared by RPS on behalf of Cory Environmental and Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. (Annex 4 of the Appropriate Assessment. The Principal Planner stated that paragraph 5.6.5 refers to a 1 in 100 year return period, which related to the design of surface water facilities. Paragraph 6.7.2 which referred to 1 in 200 events related to the IBA recycling area. Paragraph 6.7.4 referred to 1 in 1 year events of greater

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

than 1 week duration and related to the reclaim water storage zone. The Principal Planner explained that there was no inconsistency between these figures.

 Mr Broomfield was asked to clarify whether the information within the letter received from Norfolk Wildlife Trust affected the Appropriate Assessment. He agreed with Norfolk Wildlife Trust on the survey technique used. He stated that IBA had been considered and confirmed that other plans and projects and consequent cumulative effects have been considered. The points made by Norfolk Wildlife Trust related to declining levels of nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide in the environment and both Mr Broomfield and Norfolk County Council were in agreement with the points made in principle. Mr Broomfield confirmed that the findings of the Appropriate Assessment remained sound.

 Mr Skinner said that planning permission ran with the land, and unless permission restricting the benefit of the permission to a particular person was imposed, the identity of the applicant was of limited relevance. He said that contractual matters were not material considerations for the Committee. He said that the Council could not grant planning permission whilst the Article 25 Direction remained in force. He noted that the Secretary of State expected the Committee to come to a decision at the meeting. If the decision was to refuse the application the Council would issue a refusal notice. However if the Committee decided to approve the application the Secretary of State would first need to decide whether or not he would call-in the decision, and no decision notice could be issued until the Article 25 Direction had been lifted.

5.8 Local Member for King’s Lynn (South & West) – Mr David Harwood

5.8.1 Not present due to illness.

5.9 Committee Debate

5.9.1 Mr Nobbs proposed that the decision on this planning application be deferred pending further investigation of the alternative technology under current consideration by King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council and the outcome of the judicial review into the granting of PFI credits for the proposal. His motion was seconded by Ms Toms.

The vote was as follows:

With 4 votes in favour and 7 votes against the motion was declared LOST.

5.9.2 Mr Nobbs proposed, seconded by Mr Joyce, that recorded votes be taken on the matter and on a show of hands this was AGREED.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

5.9.3 Following the agreement of the Committee to take a recorded vote on the same proposal in 5.9.1 the vote was as follows:

For Against Abstain Mr Harrison Mr Duigan Mr Dixon Mr Joyce Mr Hanton Mr Rice Mr Nobbs Mrs Leggett Mr Rogers Ms Toms Mr Stone Mr Shrimplin Mrs Thompson Mr Ward Mr Wilby

With 4 votes in favour, 7 votes against, and 4 abstentions the motion was declared LOST.

5.9.4 Mr Dixon then proposed that the decision on this planning application be deferred as he felt the Committee had conflicting data about important and relevant considerations that were capable of being significantly resolved if time were given and he was not satisfied that the Committee had sufficient reliable information to make a fully-informed decision. He raised three material considerations as follows:

1) Carbon footprint comparison and the impact that flows from these comparisons;

2) Sustainability to achieve the best possible compliance with the waste hierarchy; and

3) Financial implications arising from more expensive incineration as compared to alternative methods of waste treatments.

He stated that he believed the uncertainty could be resolved following further investigation of the issues. His motion was seconded by Mr Rice.

The vote was as follows:

For Against Abstain Mr Dixon Mr Duigan Mr Harrison Mr Hanton Mr Joyce Mrs Leggett Mr Nobbs Mr Rogers Mr Rice Mr Shrimplin Ms Toms Mr Stone Mrs Thompson Mr Ward

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

Mr Wilby

With 6 votes in favour, 9 votes against, and no abstentions the motion was declared LOST.

5.9.5 Mr Stone proposed that the Committee vote separately on the recommendations A1, A2 and B (subject to the withdrawal of the Article 25 Direction from the Secretary of State). His motion was seconded by Mr Wilby and the following votes were taken.

The vote was as follows:

Recommendation A1 –

For Against Abstain Mr Duigan Mr Harrison Mr Dixon Mr Hanton Mr Joyce Mr Rice Mrs Leggett Mr Nobbs Mr Rogers Ms Toms Mr Shrimplin Mr Stone Mrs Thompson Mr Ward Mr Wilby

With 9 votes in favour, 4 votes against, and 2 abstentions recommendation A1 in the report was AGREED.

Recommendation A2 –

For Against Abstain Mr Duigan Mr Harrison Mr Dixon Mr Hanton Mr Joyce Mr Rice Mrs Leggett Mr Nobbs Mr Rogers Ms Toms Mr Shrimplin Mr Stone Mrs Thompson Mr Ward Mr Wilby

With 9 votes in favour, 4 votes against, and 2 abstentions recommendation A2 in the report was AGREED.

Recommendation B –

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

For Against Abstain Mr Duigan Mr Harrison Mr Dixon Mr Hanton Mr Joyce Mr Rice Mrs Leggett Mr Nobbs Mr Rogers Ms Toms Mr Shrimplin Mr Stone Mrs Thompson Mr Ward Mr Wilby

‡ With 9 votes in favour, 4 votes against, and 2 abstentions recommendation B subject to the withdrawal of the Article 4 Direction from the Secretary of State was AGREED.

5.9.6 It was therefore RESOLVED:

A. Appropriate Assessment

(1) That, in light of the consultations undertaken on the proposal to date, it is not appropriate to consult further under the provisions of regulation 61(4) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010;

(2) To approve and adopt the contents of the Appropriate Assessment Report as their assessment of the implications of the proposal for the European sites in light of the sites’ conservation objectives; and

B. Subject to the withdrawal of the Article 25 Direction from the Secretary of State, that the Director of Environment, Transport and Development be:

(i) Authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out in Section 13 above and in the draft Decision Notice attached at Appendix 1. The decision notice must state, in accordance with Regulation 3(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 that the environmental information has been taken into consideration in granting planning permission.

(ii) Authorised to:

‡ ‡ It was agreed that this minute be amended and was corrected at the committee meeting on 27 July 2012. Please view the minutes of that meeting in order to note the correction made.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012

(a) inform the Secretary of State of the decision;

(b) inform the public of the decision, by [local advertisement]; and

(c) make available for public inspection at the place where the appropriate register (or relevant section of that register) is kept a statement containing—

(i) the content of the decision and any conditions attached thereto;

(ii) the main reasons and considerations on which the decision is based [including, if relevant, information about the participation of the public] ;

(iii) a description, where necessary, of the main measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset the major adverse effects of the development;

(iv) information regarding the right to challenge the validity of the decision and the procedures for doing so.

(iii) The delegation of powers to officers to discharge conditions where those detailed above require the submission and implementation of a scheme, or further details, either before development commences, or within a specified date of planning permission being granted or at any other period.

(iv) The delegation of powers to officers to deal with any non- material amendments to the application that may be submitted.

The meeting concluded at 5:15pm.

CHAIRMAN

If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Kristen Jones 0344 800 8020 or Textphone 0344 8008011 and we will do our best to help.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012 APPENDIX A

Planning (Regulatory) Committee 29th June 2012

Application reference C/2/2011/2020

The Willows Business Park, High (Saddlebow) Road, King’s Lynn

Proposed Energy from Waste facility, integrated steam turbine generator plant, grid connection cables, infrastructure to enable Combined Heat and Power, incinerator Bottom Ash recycling area, visitor centre, offices, ancillary development including weighbridges, access and internal roads and parking facilities, landscape and biodiversity enhancement areas: Cory Environmental Management Ltd and Wheelabrator Technologies Inc.

Addendum Report by the Director of Environment, Transport and Development

The paragraphs below update or amend or replace the paragraphs in the officer’s report as indicated.

Para.

7.34 penultimate line: delete ‘necessarily’

7.74: delete and replace with:

The draft Site Allocations document has not yet been submitted to the Government, although it is anticipated that it will be submitted in autumn 2012, it is considered that refusal of permission on the grounds of prematurity would not be justified on the particular facts which apply in this case, in particular those summarised at paragraphs 7.72 and 7.73 above. Your officers have come to that view on two alternative bases, namely taking into account the general approach indicated in the General Principles document, and also when considering the issue of prematurity without having regard to that guidance.

7.106 to 7.108: delete and replace with:

The aggregate material produced is typically used in asphalt, concrete and lightweight blocks. The aggregate would be purchased from the site operator and taken away from the site for use elsewhere. Whilst it remains a possibility that the aggregates could be used for backfilling operations, their potential uses are wider than this.

If there is no demand for Incinerator Bottom Ash Aggregate as a product, it is taken to landfill for disposal in the same way as any other waste material. However, given that the product would be produced for use in construction and there is no evidence to suggest that it would

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012 APPENDIX A not be used for this purpose.

The scrap metals removed from the bottom ash would be sent elsewhere.

“recycling” is defined in the Waste Framework Directive as: “ ‘recycling’ means any recovery operations by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or substances whether for the original or other purposes. It includes the reprocessing of organic material but does not include energy recovery and the reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels or for backfilling operations.”

‘other recovery’ and falls above ‘disposal’ and below ‘recycling’ in the waste hierarchy as set out in Article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive.

In your officers’ view you should consider the nature of the operations proposed, namely to recover energy from waste, and as a result produce incinerator bottom ash. That incinerator bottom ash would be processed into an aggregate product and scrap metals would be separated from the incinerator bottom ash. The production of incinerator bottom ash is likely to be considered to be energy recovery, whereas treatment of the scrap metals is likely to be considered to be recycling. Whether the treatment of the scrap metals, or of the incinerator bottom ash, is considered to constitute recycling or recovery for the purposes of the Waste Framework Directive would not alter the conclusions reached by your officers, or their recommendation.

7.137 – delete the second sentence and replace with: The Waste Framework Directive 2008 extends this principle to the recovery of waste, but only in relation to mixed municipal waste which can include some C&I waste.

Errata

1.9 Last sentence should read “The application states that nearly 100% of process water would be recycled, and that the average flow of foul drainage to the sewer would be 0.1 litres per second over a 24 hour period.”

13.1 Recommended conditions 30 - 64: Re – number as conditions 29 – 63.

13.1 Condition 44 (as re-numbered) to refer to condition 43.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012 APPENDIX A

ANNEX – Additional Representations Received

Received Comments Response to comments from Norfolk Maintain objection:  The Appropriate Wildlife  The site visit on behalf of Assessment does not Trust the applicants by Denyer draw conclusions in Ecology is not sufficient relation to air pollution evidence to show that effects on the basis of Roydon Common is not the site survey negatively influenced by information. air pollution.  The reported modelling  Uncertainties in the work has been modelling of emissions. reviewed in detail and  The ADMS pollution revised by the dispersion model used by applicant. Modelled the applicants is unable levels of released to take into account the substances from the large quantity of warm air stack are typical of emitted by the nearby facilities of this nature. (yet to be built) Centrica  Warm air discharge B power station. from air cooled  The orientation of condensers at Centrica Centrica B has changed would not be significant and this has not been in the dispersion taken into account in the modelling in the locality modelling. of the application site  The process contribution or further afield at the for sulphur, when taken in designated habitat combination, would sites. From a represent a serious threat preliminary calculation, to the integrity of Roydon the volume of air would Common. be approximately 0.3% of the air passing over the proposed development site.  Any slight effect would tend to increase thermal energy in the lower atmosphere. If anything, this would

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012 APPENDIX A

result in a slight trend towards a more unstable atmosphere. This would, if anything be expected to result in slightly lower designated habitat sites away from the immediate vicinity. However, any such effect can be expected to be insignificant.  In – combination effects are considered in the Appropriate Assessment. Norfolk NWT and the general public Further quantification is given Wildlife have not been given the in the RoTAP report Technical Trust opportunity to comment on the Summary page xv, where information contained within the deposition of nitrogen is Appropriate Assessment (AA). described as reducing by 13% NWT reiterate the points between 1988 and 2008, a previously made and are of the reduction of 0.69% per year. opinion that the AA does not On page xiv, dry and wet contain sufficient or accurate deposition of sulphur is information for the Competent described as reducing by 93% Authority to assess any likely and 57% respectively adverse effects from this between 1987 and 2008, development on Roydon corresponding to reductions of Common SAC. The NWT state 11.9% and 3.9% per year that: respectively. “Much is made of the reduction in emissions of NOx in the UK. For comparison, the modelled However given that the latest process contributions to acid Review of Transboundary Air deposition represent Pollution (RoTAP) states: increases of 0.18% of background for nitrogen- “The deposition of nitrogen in derived acid and 0.80% of the UK has changed little over background for sulphur- the last 20 years, despite derived acid. substantial reductions in emissions of nitrogen oxides.” Hence, although the reductions in deposition of Any implications that there is a nitrogen in the UK have direct correlation between UK- changed relatively little over wide nitrogen emissions and the 20 year period (as quoted

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012 APPENDIX A

nitrogen deposition is by NWT), the annual unfounded. reduction is nevertheless several times greater than the Similarly while sulphur dioxide increase in contribution that emissions have decreased would result from the substantially over the last 30 proposed facility. This only years, it is incorrect to state “UK- serves to emphasise the small wide emissions to air of sulphur scale of the contribution to dioxide are declining at a rate of nitrogen deposition from the approximately 17% per year” facility. In view of this, we when there was a significant consider that the conclusions increase in UK emissions for the of the Appropriate period 2009-2010.” Assessment remain sound.

In relation to NWT's comment regarding an increase in emissions of sulphur dioxide between 2009 and 2010, the downward trend shown in Figure 2.1 of the RoTAP report is clear, and uses the same source data as used in the Appropriate Assessment. Figure 2.1 confirms that ongoing decreases in sulphur dioxide are forecast to occur during the periods up to 2015 and 2020. In view of this, we consider that the conclusions of the Appropriate Assessment remain sound.

Borough Objection on the grounds of: Noted. A Carbon Assessment Council of is outlined in Paragraphs King’s Lynn 1. Richard Burton critique of 7.407 to 7.415 of the report. and West the carbon assessment in Norfolk the ES Centrica raise issues that 2. Centrica Letter dated 23rd need to be addressed to May 2012 preserve their commercial interest in the locality. The Conditions attached to the Draft Decision Notice, The Draft Environmental Permit, and Statutory Environmental Protection measures ensure

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012 APPENDIX A

Centrica’s interests will be protected.

Borough 1. The committee report 1. The alternative Council of does not mention the sequential test and King’s Lynn alternative sequential test alternative site and West and alternative site assessments were Norfolk assessments carried out reviewed. This is a by the Borough Council. critique of the 2. The report does not applicant’s assessment include the latest using different objections on cumulative interpretations of the impacts in the criteria used and assessment of ecology therefore reaching made by the Borough different conclusions Council and the Norfolk regarding the sites Wildlife Trust. assessed by the 3. The report does not refer applicant. to flood risk as being a 2. The latest objection by key material NWT is included in this consideration. Addendum Report. 4. The report states that 3. The site is not methane capture rates considered to be at from landfills in Norfolk unacceptable risk from will be relatively low. This flooding. is an incorrect 4. Methane capture rates assumption. depend on a number of 5. The Appropriate factors, and generally Assessment refers to those from older landfill monitoring of invertebrate sites will be lower. assemblages. This 5. The monitoring of should be secured invertebrates referred through a condition or S to in the Appropriate 106 agreement. Assessment is a 6. There would be a large management exceedance of 4% of the requirement to ensure critical Load Function, continued favourable and potential to impact condition of Roydon upon Roydon Common. Common. This should 7. The air dispersion be implemented by modelling must take into NWT and is not a account the revised requirement arising layout of Centrica B. from the proposed 8. The Borough Council development. does not agree that 6. The additional process cumulative traffic contributions from the

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012 APPENDIX A

movements during proposal will be more construction of Centrica B than cancelled out by can be screened out the decline in sulphur using the IEMA 30% dioxide in the threshold. environment generally. 9. The Borough Council has 7. The revised layout of asked for the applicant to Centrica B is unlikely to fund monitoring where significantly affect the the Air Dispersion air dispersion Modelling has predicted modelling results. the highest ground level 8. This is noted, however concentrations and this the Borough Council would help alleviate does not provide public anxiety. AQC on justification for not behalf of the Borough screening out traffic Council have not movements associated accepted the view that with Centrica B. such monitoring is not 9. AQC on behalf of the required. Off – site air Borough Council state quality monitoring has as follows: been secured in relation “The review of the Air to Centrica A and in Quality Chapter of ES relation to an incinerator suggested that in light of proposal in Plymouth. the (small) increase in 10. The cumulative NO2 concentrations in the addition is incorrectly AQMA as a result of stated in the report. emissions from the stack, 11. The Environmental it may be appropriate to Permit does not require obtain a contribution from any off-site monitoring. the developer towards 12. Conditions are implementation of recommended to cover a measures within the Action Commissioning Plan. The Additional Management Plan, Information states that, Operational Odour, Litter ‘given the Proposals will and Dust Management have no effect on traffic in Plan, HGV Route Plan, the AQMA, it is difficult, in and a S106 Agreement is the context of Circular requested to provide for 05/05 Planning air quality monitoring. Obligations, to justify as reasonable or necessary any contribution from the Applicant for the Proposal toward implementation of measures within the AQAP, particularly if these

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012 APPENDIX A

are focussed on control of traffic emissions.’ This is accepted.” 10. This is accepted, but this does not alter the conclusions. 11. The Permit would require monitoring on site, which is considered to be sufficient. 12. Conditions are recommended which cover dust management and HGV routeing. Other matters are covered under the Permit. The need for a S106 agreement has been considered in the report.

National National Grid has been Noted. Grid incorrectly referred to in the officer’s report. The connection would be to the local distribution network, operated by UK Power Networks. Councillor “As the County Councillor Brian Long representing King’s Lynn North And Central Division I feel I have to relay the strong feelings expressed to me by the local electorate. Never in my 9 years as a councillor have I ever experienced such public outcry about a proposed development. I have both as Division Member and as the West Norfolk Borough Deputy Leader and Environment Portfolio Holder received hundreds of emails against this proposal and a sum

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012 APPENDIX A total of 2 in support of it. I understand that it is my duty to represent those that elected me even if this is at odds with my political peers and as such I have to state that the people of West Norfolk simply do not want waste incinerated up-wind of their town. The scheme as proposed does not employ the best means of addressing Norfolk’s waste as it fails to employ any sort of “Pre-sort Materials Recovery Facility”, such a facility would remove recyclable materials and allow them to be recycled and re- used. Burning them loses them as a resource for ever. The quandary of what to do with waste has led me to an alternative solution, one that will cost the Norfolk taxpayer millions of pounds less than the proposal at the Willows. One that while it is new technology would see a recycling rate of over 80% across all of Norfolk’s districts, will employ hundreds of workers and will I am sure be more acceptable to Norfolk’s residents. Only a small time is needed to allow this to be fully explored, I am asking for two months to save Norfolk Millions of pounds, recycle instead of incinerate and to satisfy the public that we have really explored this alternative. I would therefore ask for members of the Planning regulatory committee to reject the application for the Willows EFW Plant on the basis that it is not sustainable in pure environmental terms given the

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012 APPENDIX A

emergence of alternative technologies.”

174 Public Objections encompassing the Noted. Responses full range of issues associated with the scheme. No additional points raised. One response detailing the recent chemical spill into The Wash which highlights poor management by the Environment Agency.

Natural As noted “this application will not Noted. England adversely affect the integrity of Roydon Common”...

Anglian “The surface water Noted. The Environment Water strategy/flood risk assessment Agency has been fully submitted with the planning consulted as part of the application is not relevant to application process. Please Anglian Water and therefore this refer to page 36 for their is outside our jurisdiction for response. comment and the Planning Authority will need to seek the views of the Environment Agency.”

Combat Objection on the grounds of lack Noted. Stress.org of democracy.

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012 APPENDIX B

From: Richard @ Burton Environmental [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 28 June 2012 10:43 To: Palmer, Nick; Rogers, John; Jackson, Mike Cc: Bremner, Bert; Dixon, Nigel; Duigan, Phillip; Gunson, Adrian; Hanton, Ronald; Harrison, David; Iles, Brian Subject: Urgent - Data critical to fair planning determination Importance: High

Re. Officers Report to the Planning Regulatory Committee for the Willows EfW mass burn incinerator.

Dear Mr Jackson,

I have sent objections relating to the carbon footprint, including the influence landfill methane emissions have on the carbon footprint of incineration, being that they are subtracted from it.

Cory Wheelabrator’s consultants RPS use data from Dutch (and other international) landfill sites to argue a high loss of methane - which gives the incinerator a lower carbon footprint.

I use methane loss data from Norfolk’s own household waste landfills which shows the incinerator has a much larger carbon footprint than alternatives. The incinerator would divert waste from Norfolk’s landfills, so Norfolk landfill data is what is relevant, not that from The Netherlands. Your officers have omitted this issue from their report.

This may seem academic, but it has a significant effect, which would lead to refusal of planning permission.

Could you therefore answer the 3 questions:

1) Do you disagree with the data I have used?

2) Do you disagree with the methodology I have used? (I use RPS’s own Table B1 in the Carbon Assessment)

3) Do you disagree with the application of the methodology to the data? (I use RPS’s own Table B1 in the Carbon Assessment)

Many thanks,

Richard Burton Managing Director Burton Environmental Consulting Limited Tel: 07761 256231 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.burtonenvironmental.co.uk

Planning Regulatory Committee – 29 June 2012