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 22 June 2015.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

            The Manager (Minerals and Waste) detailed the background to the report and explained that the proposal was for a small-scale temporary energy centre for a period of five years for a pyrolysis plant to produce bio-oil, bio-gas and char, a gas cleaning unit and a gas powered engine electricity generator set.  It was predicted that the unit would have capacity for 16 tonnes per day of feed stock in pelleted form and would generate up to 1 MW of electricity which would feed into the National Grid and onto other users.  The heat from the proposal could be reutilised and would be available for other businesses in the area to use.  No new buildings would be erected as a result of the proposals as an existing warehouse would be used but it was anticipated that a number of offices would be erected outside of the building and would include welfare facilities.  The noise levels from the site would be very low and the proposal was for a small scale experimental facility to demonstrate whether the process would work.  The Manager (Minerals and Waste) advised that the proposal was within Welsh Government guidelines and added that the process required a permit before the treatment and processing of any waste could take place.  In this instance, it would be regulated via a Part B Authorisation under the Environmental Permitting Regulations from the Council’s Public Protection Department rather than from Natural Resources Wales. 

            The site was in a flood risk zone C1 but was considered to be in a less vulnerable area and an upgrade of the flood defences was to take place in the near future at the Port of Mostyn.  The Manager (Minerals and Waste) commented on the access to the site from the A541 Coast Road and said that it was anticipated that there would be one or two HGV deliveries per day.  The process would run for 24 hours per day and it was likely that the site would employ two or three staff in the office and three to four operatives on each of the three shifts.  The feed store would be located inside the building but anything stored outside would be plastic wrapped until it was needed for the process.

            Mr. D. Levis spoke in support of the application.  He commented on the consultation exercise that had been undertaken on the proposals and indicated that the Local Member, Councillor David Roney, had been invited to attend a meeting on 24 February 2015 to discuss the scheme.  Mostyn Community Council had also been invited to attend the site but no representatives had taken up the invitation and had not provided a response to the consultation.  He added that further information had also been sent to the Planning Committee about the proposals.  On the issue of the processing equipment, Mr. Levis indicated that it was not an incinerator and that time had been spent by the applicant to find the most advanced equipment for the scheme.  The facility would not enable oxygen to reach the feed store and therefore it would not be able to combust.  The bio-gas would be cleaned to remove particles so that the product could be used elsewhere in the process and Mr. Levis explained that the process was so advanced that it was classed as renewable energy.  The feed stock would be wrapped and baled and the primary use for the proposal was to generate electricity which would assist to meet renewable targets.  The proposal was fully compliant with local and national policies, including policy EM3 and the Waste Strategy policy.               

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He felt that the concerns that had been raised by Councillor Roney and Mostyn Community Council on access and highways grounds had been addressed.  The facility would be for a temporary period which would allow the opportunity for the proposal to be assessed.  He added that there were no planning or highway reasons to refuse the application.  Councillor Mike Lowe concurred with the comments of Councillor Bithell and added that there had not been any objections from Highways or Natural Resources Wales. 

            The Local Member, Councillor David Roney, said that he had been invited to visit the site by the Port Manager, not the applicant, and when he had attended, representatives from Aeternis Energy (Mostyn1) Limited were also in attendance.  He agreed that Mostyn Community Council had been invited but it had been indicated that health and safety checks would take a whole day before they could be allowed on to the site.  The facility would take commercial waste from outside the area which would be burned to produce electricity.  Councillor Roney commented on applications for incinerators at Warwick International and on Deeside industrial Park and on the issue of fracking in the area.  He spoke of TAN 8 which indicated that the proposal needed to have a carefully sited heat load adjacent to the site, which this did not.  He quoted from the Unitary Development Plan paragraph 19.4 which indicated that proposals that would use waste from elsewhere should be discouraged.  He also referred to policy EWP6 about managing waste arising from Flintshire rather than from elsewhere, which he felt should not be permitted and therefore the application should be refused. 

            Councillor Mike Peers queried why the temporary permission was for five years and asked whether this could be reduced to three years.  Members had been advised that the main fuel source would be pellets and he therefore sought clarification on paragraph 7.24 about the facility assisting Wales to become more self-sufficient for the final treatment of residual wastes. 

            Councillor Richard Jones said that he was aware of a similar facility in Sandycroft and queried whether the proposal was experimental, as had been indicated earlier.  He sought clarification on the heat load and requested further information on the feed source.  Councillor Richard Lloyd queried whether waste was being taken to the plant which would then be made into pellets and he also asked whether it was appropriate to undertake consultation with the Fire Authority or Network Rail.  He raised concern about the waste and asked for a guarantee that it was pellets rather than waste that was stored in the bales. 

            In response to the comments made, the Manager (Minerals and Waste) said that there was no link between this application and fracking and there were currently no proposals for fracking in the area.  TAN8 required the proposal to be sited in an appropriate location but did not require an end-user of the heat load to be identified at the application stage.  The majority of the output would be to generate electricity and the heat produced could be used for ambient heating and could be sold on to other users.  He explained that warming up the fuel stock would make the process more efficient and added that the majority of the fuel stock was pelleted but it was possible that some would be non-pelleted, but he added that there was very little difference between pellets and flocked materials.  It was a small scale proposal and the waste would be compacted into bales rather than delivered to the site in loose form and would be brought into the unit and unwrapped when it was required.  In referring to policy, the Manager (Minerals and Waste) said that the UDP policies were considered during consideration of the applications but where newer national policy was in place, this was considered instead of the UDP.  He did not feel that a temporary permission of three years was appropriate and that five years would allow the operators to monitor the effectiveness of the proposal.  The technologies used at the site in Sandycroft were slightly different and the Manager (Minerals and Waste) added that this proposal was for an energy generation plant rather than an energy from waste facility.  The Fire Authority and Natural Resources Wales had not been consulted as the proposal was to be sited within an existing building.  On the issue of the final treatment of residual wastes referred to in paragraph 7.24, he said that the feed stock could come from anywhere in Flintshire but anticipated that the applicant would not be looking to take waste from a distance of more than 50 miles away from the plant.  He reminded Members that the waste would not just be waste from the Council but would also be commercial waste too.  In response to a query from Councillor Roney, the Planning Strategy Manager reiterated the earlier comment that the UDP was the starting point when considering applications but that national policy could not be ignored if it was more up to date.  He added that the proposal was for a renewal energy generating source which did not conflict with other proposals in the area.

            In summing up, Councillor Bithell said that the small scale proposal complied with local and national policy.  Safeguards to reduce any risk or harm were in place and were reported in paragraphs 7.21 and 7.22 and he added that there were no highway or planning reasons to refuse the application and the proposal would not cause any environmental or public amenity nuisance.  

            RESOLVED:

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