Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 21 July 2014.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting and drawn to the Committee’s attention by the officer. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the applicant was seeking to build a new combined heat and power plant to replace the existing steam generating gas-fired boilers with a steam and electricity producing burning plant.  She provided details of the size of the application site which would include a stack of 35 metres high.  The proposed access would be from the Dock Road and lay within flood zone C1 of the Development Advice Map provided by Natural Resources Wales (NRW).  Wirral View was located 100 metres to the south west of the site at an elevated level. 

The main issues for consideration when determining the application were reported at paragraph 7.20 and included impact on air quality, flood risk and residential amenity.  There had been no objections from statutory consultees but the objections and comments from Mostyn Community Council and the Residents Action Group were detailed in the report.  Three petitions had also been received along with six letters of objection.  Comments from the Port of Mostyn were reported in the late observations which indicated that they did not object to the proposed development but had concerns in relation to highways and the access/egress.  It had been suggested that potential congestion on the Dock Road could be an issue but Highways had indicated that this would not be a problem as there was sufficient room for two HGVs to wait should the access gates be closed and that there was sufficient room in the site for vehicles to wait before reaching the weighbridge.  The Port of Mostyn had also raised concern about inconsistencies in relation to proposed annual tonnage of both biomass fuel/waste and additional materials stated within the planning application and the environmental permit application. The initial figures provided in the environmental permit application were incorrect and subsequently amended. The tonnage of the ‘additional materials’ which were omitted from the details of the planning application had been calculated and considered and the increased vehicle movements per day were found to be acceptable and not material as it amounted to an extra vehicle per day. 

                        The officer also commented on a letter received from local residents about lack of consultation and added that it had not been necessary to consult with interested parties in the Wirral across the Dee Estuary as emissions would disperse before reaching the other side of the Dee Estuary.  She drew Members’ attention to the biomass facility at Whitford Primary School which was on a much smaller scale than this proposal and also the Biomass Combined Heat and Power Plant at UPM Shotton which was a much larger facility which was operational and had caused no concern or complaints. It would be highly regulated and would require compliance with an industrial omissions directive as part of its environmental permit.  Paragraph 7.07 detailed the waste which would not be permitted into the biomass boiler and the officer explained that the project would assist with carbon reduction targets in compliance with waste hierarchy.  The project would allow Warwick International Limited to be more competitive to allow it to provide job security for this and the whole project.  Natural Resources Wales had concluded that mitigation would not have a significant effect on the Dee Estuary and even though the area was within a flood zone, it was not felt that the application should be refused. 

                        Mr. P. Heesom spoke against the application.  He said that in reality the project was a major biomass incinerator which would produce 8.5MW of power.  It was a major plant which could not be compared with Whitford School and it was proposed that it would burn continuously for 25 years.  He felt that there had been limited public consultation.  Mr. Heesom said that the issue of harm and disamenity had been acknowledged but it had been reported that harmful emissions would dissipate; he did not feel that they would.  He highlighted paragraph 7.61 where it was reported that the applicants had carried out the necessary assessments and created ‘realistic’ worst case estimates of risk on the health of residents, but Mr. Heesom felt that this was still a concern.  He asked what safeguards were being put in place to guard against the high levels of carbon and such emissions as a result of the facility burning waste for 24 hours a day.  He referred to the environment statement which had been submitted and asked that if the application was not refused, then it be deferred to allow for a proper independent assessment of the environmental impact. 

                        Ms. B. Clark, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  She said that the aim of the project was to provide heat for Warwick International from a renewable source of energy.  Approval would allow the company to compete on a global scale and would create 17 permanent jobs.  The proposal was in line with national and local policy and there had been no objections from statutory consultees.  A public exhibition had been held which had received very positive feedback.  There would be no significant impact from the process and regulation would be undertaken by Natural Resources Wales.  The site was of an industrial nature and there was sufficient lorry parking on site. 

                        Councillor D. Roney from Mostyn Community Council spoke against the application.  He said that the Community Council had contacted Warwick International when they heard about the application and were advised that the facility was like a wood burning stove.  He felt that this was not the case due to its significant size and it was intended that it would burn continuously for 25 years.  The facility would be built below houses at Wirral View and Councillor Roney highlighted paragraph 7.76 where it was reported that the view from these properties was already compromised by the existing industrial development and was also blighted by considerable night time pollution.  It was also reported that harmful emissions would not travel towards the south in the direction of Wirral View but Councillor Roney said that noise and pollution would harm the area for the length of the project.  He commented on a letter which had been sent to Mostyn Community Council about the sounding of an annual alarm at the site and said that to his knowledge, this had not been undertaken.                                    

            Councillor Derek Butler proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He welcomed the comprehensive and detailed report which covered all of the issues raised.  The site was in an industrial area and the proposal would secure renewable energy in line with national policy.  There had been no objections from statutory consultees and the proposal would be monitored by NRW.  He highlighted paragraph 7.61 where it was reported that the Head of Public Protection was satisfied that the applicants had demonstrated that the public would not be subject to a significant carcinogenic risk or non-carcinogenic hazard, arising from exposures via both inhalation and the ingestion of foods. 

            Councillor Owen Thomas spoke of the site visit which had been undertaken which included visiting Wirral View.  He felt that the higher houses would look down on the chimney stack and that the smoke would blow towards the houses, which caused him concern.  Councillor Carolyn Thomas commented on the boiler which would burn for 24 hours a day and the view of the chimney from Wirral View.  She spoke of the biomass boiler in Whitford Primary School which was on a much smaller scale than this proposal.  She felt that the impact of the proposal was unknown and that there was no guarantee for the health of the families living in the nearby houses.  She concurred that the application should be deferred for consultation and further examination and to allow all of the issues to be resolved. 

            Councillor Mike Peers raised concern at the proposal and asked whether other alternatives had been explored.  He sought an assurance that only the materials indicated as suitable in the report would be used.  He was concerned that the boiler would burn for 24 hours a day and in noting the comments of the Head of Public Protection in paragraph 7.61, raised concern that an environmental impact assessment had not been undertaken.  Councillor Peers said that there was a need to look at the storage facilities and whether the vehicles could continually supply fuel in inclement weather.

            Councillor Richard Jones was in favour of deferring the application.  He asked whether the fuel source was sustainable for the 25 year term and said that alternative sources might be suggested in the future.  Councillor Gareth Roberts said that when compared to what was currently in place, then this proposal would appear to be less harmful and therefore preferable.  He highlighted paragraph 7.61 in relation to impacts on humans and health and added that Wirral View overlooked the site and as it was in a north easterly direction, the prevailing south westerly winds should not have an impact on the properties.

            In response to the comments made, the officer said:

-       The levels of omissions would be regulated by NRW to ensure that they were not harmful. 

-       On the issue of climate change, this project would reduce Carbon dioxide emissions by 30,000 tonnes per annum

-       The application has been independently assessed by the Council’s internal and external consultees such as NRW who would also carry out regular monitoring to ensure that Warwick International were complying with the environmental permit

-       It was in the best interest of the company to ensure that the fuel was clean and that any contracts with companies that did not supply clean fuels would be terminated

-       The current boilers would be retained as a back-up in the event of a problem with the biomass boiler to ensure continuous operation at the site

-       No complaints had been received about the similar facility at UPM Shotton Paper which was three times the size of this proposal

-       A landscaping scheme would be undertaken at the site

-       The prevailing winds and technologies in the facility would ensure that no harm was caused in the area

-       The boiler would have to comply with the Industrial Emissions Directive.

-       Pre-application discussions had taken place with the applicant and the level of consultation was in line with normal procedures, in accordance to the Regulations and a public exhibition event held by the applicant.

-       There was provision for storage of 600 tonnes of fuel which would be controlled by the permit and would be restricted by the storage capacity on the site.  A condition would also be imposed that no waste or fuel material was to be stored outside the facility. 

-       The use of any other fuels would require a new planning application and a new permit

In response to an earlier comment from Councillor R. Jones about whether the fuel source was sustainable for the term of the project, the Democracy & Governance Manager advised the Committee that this was not relevant in their determination of this application. 

            In summing up, Councillor Butler highlighted paragraph 7.05 where the grade of waste wood to be used was reported and said that paragraphs 7.48 and 7.49 addressed the concerns raised about the supply of materials.  He felt that references to the facilities at Whitford and UPM Shotton Paper were pertinent as the process was the same as was proposed at this site, even though the sizes were different.  He said that no other fuel could be used as the boiler was specifically designed to burn the types of fuel reported, so this provided an additional safeguard.  Councillor Butler welcomed the comment in paragraph 7.142 that the applicant and operator were supportive of forming a Liaison Committee for the site, which would provide a formal forum for liaison with the local community which would seek to address concerns from residents about the proposal.   

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).