Agenda item

In accordance with Standing Order 32, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item, Councillor Jenny Hannaby left the room during the discussion.

The Officers introduced the report and confirmed that this was a County Council matter and it came before the Committee as the Vale of White Horse District Council was a consultee.

Officers referred the Committee to several photographs of the proposed site of the incinerator and access plans together with photomontages of how the proposed building would look from various vantage points.

It was reported that since the report was drafted a further 35 letters had been received raising the following concerns:-

• the site was unsuitable given the proposed expansion of Didcot.
• the land proposed was supposed to be for agricultural use
• the proposal contravenes Council policies
• serious concerns regarding the effects of the incinerator on human health
• the adverse impact on biodiversity
• the proposal has been made as a result of a desire to avoid EU fines
• the weather data used by the applicant was not accurate, having been taken at Brize Norton

It was also reported that Natural England had raised an objection, the details of which were not yet available. Officers further reported that a letter had been received from Councillor Julia Reynolds, who was not in attendance at the meeting, urging the Committee to recommend that the County Council consider the use of Gasplasma technology. It was noted that Councillor Reynold’s letter had been circulated amongst Member prior to the meeting.

Officers stated that the Committee could consider three elements, the impact on highways/transport, the impact on the landscape and the impact on air quality, noise, contamination and flooding.

With respect to the impact on highways/transport the Committee noted Officer’s concerns that the transport assessment had not considered the redevelopment of older areas of the Milton Park site. In addition it was noted that in order to avoid unacceptable levels of additional vehicular traffic the County Council would need to have in place a comprehensive set of controls.

The Committee noted that the Officers supported the objections of the Environment Agency relating to the potential impact on biodiversity in the area and the risk of flooding.

It was noted that Officers were not satisfied with the air quality model which had been relied upon in preparing the application. It was reported that Officers were recommending that a robust independent audit be carried out on the model.

Councillor David Hignall from Sutton Courtney Parish Council spoke in objection to the application. He commented that he was aware of the content of the Officers report and was pleased with the recommendations. He stated that the proposals conflict with policy plans and government guidance. He stressed that the site was not brownfield.

He commented that the Parish Council was concerned that this application would lead to increased numbers of vehicles and therefore pollution. He stated that residents were very concerned about the implications of the proposed incinerator on their health. He further raised concerns regarding ground pollution and flood risk.

He concluded his statement by commenting that the Parish Council was totally opposed to incineration as a means of dealing with waste and was in support of recycling.

Councillor Nicola Simonson made a statement in objection to the application on behalf of Appleford Parish Council. She stated that in addition to being a resident of Appleford and a Parish Councillor, she was also an Environmental Consultant. She was concerned that there were some significant omissions from the application stating that things were referred to in the application, yet missing from it.   She was concerned that there had been no independent review of the information supplied by the applicant, and that the planning authority was being asked to take their findings on trust. She pointed out that the Environment Agency had not commented on pollution controls and she was concerned that the human health risk assessment was missing, which was of great importance to the residents.

She stated that the height of the stack for the proposed incinerator was 95 metres, which was significant when compared with Didcot B’s stack which was estimated to be 45 metres high.

She highlighted that the photomontages had not considered the detrimental effect on the landscape of a visible plume from the incinerator. In addition to this omission she stated that the photomontages had not considered the need for additional electricity lines. She further commented that there had been no consideration in the application of the fact that Didcot A would be shutting in 2015, which was likely to result in its removal. She made the point that this would mean that the incinerator would have a greater effect on the sensitivity of the landscape.

She raised further concerns in respect of loss of habitat for wildlife, in particular the loss of nesting habitat for Sand Martins.

Mr Paul Green made a statement on behalf of the applicant in support of the proposal. He commented that the Officers concerns highlighted in the report could be overcome by satisfying the points raised in paragraph 6.2 of the recommendations. He stated that the national grid connection had been identified and that the generation of electricity was an essential part of the viability of the scheme.  He commented that the Human Health Risk Assessment had been recently submitted and would be circulated by the County Council shortly.

He advised that development was appropriate in this area and stated that the intention was to enhance the existing landscaping with planting. He commented that this was tried and tested technology and it was being granted approval elsewhere. He stated that it was an appropriate alternative to landfill and was well placed to manage the County’s waste.

The Chair opened the debate by reminding the Committee that the application came to the Vale for consultation.

One Member commented that the Human Health Risk Assessment was missing from the application and it should have been carried out. He considered that the point raised by Councillor Simonson relating to the removal of the Didcot A stack was interesting. He suggested that this be highlighted to the County together with the comments of Councillor Reynolds regarding gasplasma technology.

One Member raised concern regarding the air quality issues. It was explained by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer that the air quality model which the application had been based on had concluded that there was no substantial impact of ground level particulate. He commented that the model had not been the subject of external scrutiny and therefore confidence in the model needed to be established. The same Member was very concerned that this Council had not to date had sight of the Human Health Risk Assessment, which was of great importance to the local residents.

The Local Member commented that the people of Sutton Courtenay and Appleford had been told repeatedly that once the landfill had gone the land would be returned to agricultural use. He stated that he was concerned that the impact of the landscape would be significant when Didcot A was eventually removed as the remaining Didcot B tower was small in comparison. He raised the point that local doctors had raised concerns about repeated exposure to particulates and local residents were very concerned about the potential impact of the incinerator on health. He agreed with the suggestion of Councillor Reynolds, that alternatives need to be explored. Finally he wished to express his gratitude to the Vale’s Officers in Planning and in Democratic Services who had been very helpful in dealing with a great number of queries from local residents.

The Members considered the Officer’s recommendations. It was commented by a Member that amendments ought to be made to the recommendation at 6.2 (iii) to state that the word “peripheries” ought to be stressed and that Natural England’s objection should be noted in the same way that the Environment Agency’s objections had been noted. In addition he suggested that both the human health risk assessment and the air quality model needed to be the subject of robust independent interrogation. Other Members agreed with these proposals, one commented that Members were not experts and should it be determined that the incinerator had an effect on human health it would be deemed unacceptable.

Another Member commented that policy NE11 should be included in objection 1.

By 14 votes in favour, 0 against (one Member having left the room) it was

RESOLVED

that the Vale of White Horse District Council raises objections to the application along the lines of the Officer’s recommendation (set out below) but that the wording of the objection be delegated to the Deputy Director in consultation with the Chair to include the nature conservation objection from Natural England and other minor changes

1.       the development is contrary to Policies GS2, NE9 and NE11 of the adopted Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011;

2.      the development will have an adverse impact on the open rural landscape, particularly having regard to the likely demolition of Didcot A and its cooling towers within the next 5-7 years;

3.      the proposal represents a potential flood risk as demonstrated by the objection received to the proposal from the Environment Agency;

4.      the proposal does not conclusively demonstrate how the energy generated from the EfW incinerator will be fed into the national grid;

5.      no draft legal agreement or heads of terms has been submitted to show how the potential cumulative impact of the proposed use, along with existing permissions on the site, will be controlled to ensure that there is no significant impact on the local highway network as suggested by the submitted transport assessment;

6.      the cumulative impact assessment of other large scale developments in the area has omitted to take into account the redevelopment of the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s site at Milton Park;

7.      the assessment of the impact on local air quality relies solely on a model which has not been the subject of robust independent audit;

8.      although it is understood that a Human Health Risk Assessment has recently been submitted to the County Council, this document has not been submitted to the District, which has concerns that the proposal could have an adverse impact on human health;

9.      the proposal represents a possible harmful impact to local biodiversity in that Environmental Statement has not used the new lower critical levels of ammonia in the analysis of the impacts from potential air pollutants and this has led to an objection from Natural England dated 3^rd October 2008;

10. no independent assessment/review of the Environmental Statement has taken place to ensure that it provides sufficient detail for a proper assessment, to validate the EIA Methodology and to ensure that all legal obligations have been fulfilled; and

These objections could be overcome by the County Council satisfying itself regarding the following:

(i)                 that the applicant demonstrates that the proposed incinerator will genuinely provide a source of energy to the national grid:

(ii)               that it can be demonstrated that the landscape impact of the proposal can be mitigated by a scheme of additional substantial woodland planting on the peripheries of land under the control of the applicant;

(iii)             that the objections to the scheme from the Environment Agency and Natural England can be overcome in full;

(iv)             that in light of existing permissions on the site, the level of traffic generation from the development and its impact on the local highway network can be adequately controlled through Section 106 and other agreements and that the cumulative impact of the recent development at Milton Park has been adequately addressed;

(v)               that the air quality model and the Human Health Risk Assessment are the subject of robust interrogation by an independent suitably qualified parties in consultation with the Environment Agency and the Health Protection Agency respectively and that these audits judge the air quality model fit for purpose and the health risk assessment acceptable; and

(vi)             that that the grant of any planning permission on the site includes the following conditions:

(1) “Noise levels from the proposed development shall not exceed 45dB LAeq (15 min) measured at 1m from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive dwelling between the hours of 0700 and 2300 and 40dB LAeq (15 min) measured at 1m from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive dwelling between 2300 and 0700.”; and

(2) “No development shall commence until a phased contaminated land risk assessment has been carried out by a competent person in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agencies ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Contaminated Land, CLR 11’. All phases need to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). It is recommended that the LPA are consulted at each phase of the investigation for their approval.

Phase 1 shall incorporate a desk study and site walk over to identify all potential contaminative uses on site and to inform the preliminary conceptual site model.  If potential contamination is identified then Phase 2 shall be undertaken.

Phase 2 shall include a comprehensive intrusive investigation in order to characterise the typenature and extent of contamination present, the risks to receptors and to inform the remediation strategy proposals. If significant contamination is found then Phase 3 shall be undertaken.

Phase 3 requires production of a remediation and/or monitoringscheme to ensure the site is rendered suitable for its proposed use. The remediation shall be carried out in accordance with a scheme and timetable first agreed in writing by the LPA and no development or phase of development shall be occupied until all remedial works have been approved by the A. Following implementation of the remedial measures a full validation report detailing the measures carried out to ensure compliance shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.”