Previous references:           Minutes 107 (2013/14) and 28 (2015/16)

 

A report will be submitted by the Assistant Director – Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AF”) in respect of a planning application for the development of two plants to recover energy from waste, including a materials reception, a waste bunker hall, a turbogenerator hall, a bottom ash hall, an education/visitors centre, offices and a workshop/warehouse for plant operatives with associated parking and landscaping, on land to the east of the Former Gas Works, Airedale Road, Keighley – 16/006857/FUL.

 

Recommended –

 

(1)       That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report.

 

(2)       That the grant of planning permission be subject also to the completion of a legal planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or such other lawful mechanism for securing the heads of terms as may be agreed in consultation with the City Solicitor, in respect of:

 

the payment of a commuted sum of £8,200 for the undertaking of tree planting at East Riddlesden Hall,

 

the legal planning obligation to contain such other ancillary provisions as the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (after consultation with the City Solicitor) considers appropriate.

 

(John Eyles – 01274 434380)

Keighley East

 

Previous references:           Minutes 107 (2013/14) and 28 (2015/16)

 

A report was submitted by the Assistant Director – Planning, Transportation and Highways (Document “AF”) in respect of a planning application for the development of two plants to recover energy from waste including a materials reception, a waste bunker hall, a turbogenerator hall, a bottom ash hall, an education/visitors centre, offices and a workshop/warehouse for plant operatives with associated parking and landscaping, on land to the east of the Former Gas Works, Airedale Road, Keighley – 16/06857/FUL.

 

The Assistant Director reported on the following matters which had arisen further to the publication of the technical report:

 

·         The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had requested that the Authority withhold issue of the Decision Notice to allow him time to consider whether he wished to ‘call in’ the application for determination.

·         Bingley Town Council had stated that following further consideration of the matter it now objected to the proposal.

·         A representation had been received from Ilkley Parish Council in respect of the need to ensure that the regulatory requirements in relation to emissions were subject to scrutiny. They neither supported or objected to the proposal.

·         A further 161 representations had been received. Any material planning issues raised had been considered within the report or would be addressed in presenting the application to Members.

·         An additional petition had been received from residents of The Croft.

·         The online petition now contained 5299 signatures.

·         It had been pointed out by a small number of residents that there were subtle differences in the colour of the main building on one photomontage (provided by the applicant) uploaded to the Council’s website. He clarified that the final colour of the cladding would be controlled through a condition.

·         It was recommended that, should Members be minded to approve the application, Condition 5, in relation to permitted times for HGV movements, be amended to read 0730 to 1800 Monday to Friday, 0730 to 1200 on Saturday and none on Sundays or bank/public holidays.

·         It was also recommended, in response to an issue raised by the UK Without Incineration (UKWIN) pressure group and as suggested by the applicant, that an additional condition should also be included in respect of the verification of R1 status and compliance thereafter. (R1 denoting that the facility would sit within the ‘other recovery’ category of the EU ‘Waste Hierarchy’).

·         Other issues raised by UKWIN were that climate change and the effect on tourism had not been sufficiently covered. He considered that there was sufficient information for the purposes of determining the planning application and it was noted that there was no specific requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to balance harm to tourism against public benefits as there was for heritage assets and that, in terms of specific planning designations in respect of tourism, the only reference in the Council’s Replacement Unitary Development Plan (RUDP) was to the Leeds Liverpool Canal.

 

The Assistant Director gave a full presentation on his technical report including the display of numerous photographs and plans and highlighting the following points:

 

·         The previous planning history affecting the site:

o   13/04217/FUL – planning permission granted in April 2014 for three plants to recover energy from waste.

o   15/01381/FUL – application for two plants refused due to detrimental impact on visual amenity and landscape character as a result of the height, massing, form, finish, design and scale.

·         The applicant had notified the Council, in October 2016, that work had commenced on site and they had implemented the 2014 planning permission.

·         This application sought to address the reasons for refusal in 2015 by amending the height, massing, form, finish, design and scale of the buildings.

·         The processes, operations, HGV numbers, emissions, noise levels, hours of operation etc remained as set out in 2015. Nevertheless all matters were considered again and should be taken fully into consideration for the purposes of determination of this application.

·         Significant concerns had been raised by the public in relation to a number of matters including health, emissions, loss of residential amenity, need for the facility, impact on heritage assets and that any benefits did not outweigh the harm.

·         The key issues included: consideration of sustainable development; need for the facility; regeneration, community, economy, employment and other socio-economic benefits; health, emissions and air quality; transport/highways impact; environmental impacts; design; flood risk; visual impact and cultural heritage impacts.

·         The facility would not be able to operate without the relevant Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency (EA) and the EA had stated that if it considered ‘that emissions would cause significant pollution, the permit would be refused’.

·         The remit of the Local Planning Authority (LPA) was established in Paragraph 122 of the NPPF and supported by relevant case law.  The Authority had taken appropriate technical advice from the relevant statutory bodies to satisfy itself that the development would not result in significant air quality, pollution, or health impacts and it had to work on the assumption that the relevant control regime would be properly applied and enforced. It was not part of the Council’s role to consider the impact of the stack emissions in detail.

·         Overall it was considered that the public benefits outweighed the less than substantial harm to the setting of the listed buildings at East Riddlesden Hall and the harm to residential visual amenity was not sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.

 

The Assistant Director answered questions from Members:

 

·         The applicant had started work on site and had indicated an intention to move forward with the April 2014 permission.

·         There were differences between the current proposal and that approved for an Energy from Waste facility in April 2014. The main building was similar and the height of the stack was the same at 60 metres but its diameter had been reduced from 4 metres to 2.2 metres and it had been repositioned. 

·         It was understood that the proposed cladding material was made from an aluminium type material and would be colour integrated; the finish was toned down from that proposed previously.

·         In terms of proximity to the play area of a local nursery; emissions and their monitoring and control was a matter for the Environment Agency and the Environmental Permit regime.  The information submitted with the application showed that the levels would not exceed what would be permissible.

·         In respect of comparison with the extant 2014 permission, the Committee had to consider the application before it on its own merits.

·         Legal advice had been sought and the Council’s emerging Waste Development Plan Document (DPD) was not affected by the current Holding Direction on the Core Strategy.

·         The 2014 application had not been ‘called in’ by the Secretary of State.

·         In respect of the weight to be afforded to the two applications at Dalton Mills (for a battery based energy storage centre and a Data Centre; the energy for which would be supplied by this facility) these proposals were to be considered alongside the other public benefits of the proposal.

 

A representative of the objectors (representing the Aire Valley Against Incineration pressure group) showed a number of photographs and diagrams, with the agreement of the Chair, and put forward the following concerns:

 

·         5325 people had signed a petition objecting to the development, there had been 804 formal written representations submitted and thousands of other local residents would be affected.

·         It was questioned why this application was before the Committee for determination if the April 2014 permission was to be implemented.

·         The concerns about the negative impacts on health were a material consideration and were based on actual data.

·         Greenpeace had stated that the data was ‘strongly indicative that incinerators are potentially very damaging to human health’.

·         Keighley residents already had a lower than average life expectancy.

·         The Environment Agency had not said that this facility would be safe; it had not yet been assessed. The emissions from the facility would not be regularly monitored and toxins could be released on a regular basis without penalty.

·         A response was awaited to a Freedom of Information request and it was suspected that very few Environmental Permits were ever refused.

·         It was questioned where the waste was coming from and where the by-products would be disposed of.

·         How would temperature inversions in the valley affect dispersal?

·         Defra (the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) had stopped PFI (Private Finance Initiative) funding for waste disposal projects as it believed that there was sufficient capacity to meet targets.

·         Air Quality in the area already breached EU levels with consequent implications for health.  The Environmental Pollution Team had stated that the additional traffic could have public health implications beyond the immediate site. The proposal would lead to an increase in HGV movements.

·         The 2015 application had been refused; it was believed that there was no real difference between that proposal and this in terms of height, scale or massing.  The current development would be 35 metres high; 16% higher than that approved in 2014.

·         To quote the Council’s Landscape Architect, the facility would be a ‘formidable structure’.  It would be huge and could not be in a worse location. The plume would be visible from Haworth and Ilkley Moor.

·         The plant would be in the field of vision of the residential hamlet of The Croft and would make this an unpleasant place to live.  It would have a direct adverse effect on the four properties at this location and would be contrary to planning policy. It would also have an impact on the visual amenity of many other houses.

·         The applicant claimed that the development would have economic benefits and improve prosperity but an independent report claimed that incinerators had a detrimental effect on a local economy.  The construction jobs would be temporary and the office jobs were non-existent.  No other incinerator in the country employed more than 40 people.  The proposal would lead to a loss of jobs associated with the tourism sector, the nearby playing fields and nursery, and the Nursing Home at The Croft.

·         It was considered that the benefits had been exaggerated and the negatives minimised.

·         This development would blight the valley and local people would have to live with it.

 

In response to a question from a Member she explained that the independent report referred to concerned the Newhaven Incinerator, which had discouraged business.

 

A representative of objectors from the Riddlesden and East Morton areas was also given the opportunity to address the Committee:

 

·         In a recent email to the LPA, dated 7 February, it was believed that the applicant’s agent had made two fundamental errors in respect of the R1 status of the facility.  It had been stated that the plant was R1 when it patently was not; there was no evidence to this effect and it would not be R1 until it gained the necessary certificate. The achievement of R1 status was not a requirement of the Environment Agency; an Environmental Permit would be needed but the company would have to apply separately for R1 certification. The concession (of the additional condition in this respect) was welcomed but it was very important that, if the Council gave approval, this was made watertight.

·         It was understood that the Council was required to request an Environmental Impact Assessment for the whole facility and would need information on the total emissions. No information had been provided in respect of the waste plastic processing element.  The applicant had stated that the emissions would be negligible but a letter from the Environment Agency in September 2016 had said that this was not adequate. It was questioned how the Environmental Impact Assessment could be signed off without these details.

·         The Committee was requested to refuse the application.

 

In response to the issues raised by the objectors and in answer to a further question, the Assistant Director explained that:

 

·         The application approved in 2014 did not have a condition in relation to R1 status attached.

·         It was proposed that, if permission was granted, a condition on the achievement of R1 certification be included as set out by the Secretary of State (in respect of the Bilsthorpe RDF plant case).

·         In terms of the emissions related to the waste plastic melting/bio fuel element, the Environmental Permit process would address this issue.

·         The Environmental Impact Statement gave an overview of the relevant issues and the total emissions and was not ‘signed off’ by the LPA but would be considered by the Environment Agency as part of the permitting process.  It was reiterated that the site could not operate without this permit.

 

A representative of Bingley Town Council also spoke in objection to the development:

 

·         The Town Council recommended that the application should be refused.

·         The proposal would lead to a large number of vehicle movements causing noise and pollution.

·         This would be a large facility that would be visible for miles.  It would have an impact on the local heritage and visual amenity including that of Riddlesden and the Leeds Liverpool Canal.

·         It was believed that toxins would be dispersed to a wide area.

·         There was a lack of information and this was particularly important in respect of the issues of public health and air quality.

·         It was considered that incineration was not an acceptable way to deal with waste.  It was questioned what would happen if the facility was not built.

·         Infant mortality had doubled in the area around Colnbrook (in Slough) further to an incinerator development nearby.

 

A Keighley Town Councillor made the following comments:

 

·         The Town Council was concerned about the damage that would be caused to Keighley and the surrounding area by this larger application. It would be better to build a smaller facility and see if it worked.

·         The damage to the properties at The Croft would be substantial. There would be a reduction in the value of these houses and residents’ quality of life would be affected, they would have to live with this development.

·         There were already issues in and around Keighley and its town centre with traffic flow.  The proposed visitor’s centre would potentially bring people into the town but would exacerbate the traffic problems.

·         It was not believed that the development would benefit the people of Keighley.

·         Virtually all the old mill chimneys had gone but it was now proposed to erect this stack; the smoke would be seen for miles. It would be seen from Ilkley and Rombalds Moor; Keighley did not want to be known for that reason. 

·         It was understood that if something did go wrong 48 hours was permitted to pass before the facility had to shut down.

·         There was a nursery and a large number of residents in close proximity and a sports facility directly opposite the site.

·         It was questioned whether this was appropriate next to the gateway to the Bronte legacy.

 

In response to a question about the impact on highways the Assistant Director said that the Transport Assessment had taken account of existing movements at the main junctions and the impact of this development in terms of both HGVs and cars.  There were no concerns in respect of capacity during the peak hours.  The flows were very low and the pattern of HGV movements and the shift pattern of employees meant that the traffic would not affect the peaks,  It was noted that major schemes seeking to resolve the existing traffic issues in Keighley were being progressed.

 

A Ward Councillor spoke in objection to the application:

 

·         A number of questions and concerns had been raised by objectors in respect of R1 status and the Environmental Impact Assessment.

·         The 2015 application had been refused on the grounds of visual and residential amenity and it was considered that very little had changed.

·         This was considered to be the wrong scheme in the wrong place; it constituted overdevelopment.

·         The technical report stated that the ‘development could be perceived as part of the wider urban sprawl’ but it was questioned by whom?; the site was surrounded by Green Belt land and the Aire Valley was a ‘green lung’ which should not be jeopardised.

·         The development would cause serious detriment to residential amenity.  It would also cause harm to the setting of a heritage asset; East Riddlesden Hall which was a Grade I listed property located 600 metres from the site. Historic England and the Council’s Conservation Officer agreed that harm would be caused.  The Hall currently attracted 40,000 visitors a year not just to the hall and gardens but to adjacent land which had open access.

·         There would be an impact on the Leeds Liverpool Canal, St Ives, Druids Altar, the River Aire, which was used for fishing and Bronte Country.

·         There was a nursery located 500 metres from the site which had recently been refurbished and provided specialist provision for children with special educational needs.

·         800 objections had been received to the proposal, many on health grounds.  The Council had a responsibility for public health.

·         He had been informed that in an area of London, Chingford Green, which was close to a large incinerator the infant mortality rate between 2003 and 2011 had been more than double the national average which was not what you would expect for an affluent area.

 

The Assistant Director clarified that the site was allocated for employment use and that case law confirmed that property value was not a material planning consideration in its own right.

 

The applicant’s agent and their technical advisor on emissions spoke in support of the application:

 

·         The background to the application was set out within the Assistant Director’s technical report.

·         Planning permission had been granted in 2014 and a particular French plant manufacturer had then been selected to work with the UK based construction company. This company had a strong ethos in terms of the recruitment of local labour and co-operation with Trades Unions.

·         A number of similar plants, built by the same contractors, had received approval from other local authorities nationwide and were operational.

·         In 2015 an amended application had been submitted in respect of the envelope of the building. This had been refused for reasons associated with height, massing, form, finish, design and scale.  Measures had been taken to address the Committee’s concerns as part of this application and paragraph 14.3 of the officer’s report outlined the main changes.

·         The current design was a further development of the approved 2014 application. Although 7.2% larger in volume than that proposal it was 11.1% less than the refused (2015) application.

·         When the 2015 application had been considered Members had viewed a sample of materials that they had considered to be inappropriate. The proposed materials had been discussed at length with the planning officer and visual images were now provided.

·         There had been no reference to emissions, the plume or air quality within the refusal of the 2015 application. However, it was respected that the objectors had concerns in this regard. All the expert consultees were satisfied and the issue of the necessary Environmental Permit was within the remit of the Environment Agency not the Council.

·         If it was not possible to operate within the relevant regulations it was questioned how it would be possible to do so in the eleven other areas where such facilities were sited.

·         The location of the site was advantageous in terms of proximity to Keighley’s primary sub-station at Dalton Lane and adjoining land which was the subject of applications for a Data Centre and Battery Store. These would be powered by energy generated by this plant and this development would be the first one of its kind in Yorkshire and the Humber.

·         The scheme represented a total capital investment of £160 million with consequent benefits for the local economy.

·         This was a suitable site with an extant permission and this application was a revised proposal.

·         It was considered that the applicant’s commitment to deliver the scheme had been demonstrated and officers had concluded that the reasons for refusal had been addressed.

·         The assessment of air quality, plume visibility and health risk had been taken very seriously.

·         In terms of air quality, computer modelling had been used to assess the dispersal of emissions and the results had shown no significant effect. A plume plotter website had also been used. Results had not indicated anything that would cast doubt on the conclusions of the Air Quality Study and were well within permit limits. There would be no effect from either the plant or associated traffic. The studies had taken into consideration vulnerable members of society and account had also been taken of the plastic melting element of the proposal.

·         The location in a valley was by no means unique; there were similar situations in other parts of the country and this had been taken into account when undertaking the modelling.

·         The influence of temperature inversion could be a cause for concern with ground level emissions but was less so for high level sources as they would be discharged above or close to the inversion level and would then remain above it.

·         The visibility of the plume was caused by white water vapour only.  This could be visible for several hours a month, approximately 17% of daylight hours; this was less than previously proposed.

·         Detailed analysis had been undertaken of the risks to health. Public Health England had concluded that the risk was likely to be very small.

·         The Environment Agency had refused to issue permits in the past and would take action if they were not happy with a facility.

·         The statements in relation to infant mortality rates were untrue.  Concerns about effects on asthma were also unfounded.  There was no discernible effect on health.

·         The concerns were understood and it had been ensured that the facility was properly designed.

 

They responded to questions from Members:

 

·         A number of similar facilities were located in residential areas and some in agricultural settings.

·         He had also been responsible for the Air Quality Study submitted with the previous application and this had used the same environmental benchmarks. There were some slight differences but essentially no difference in the environmental impact and the results were very similar.

·         The zero or very low emission figure applied to both methane and ethane. There may potentially be a slight impact in environmental terms but no impact on health.

·         The applicant planned to utilise the best available technology and the plastics melting technology was so sophisticated that there would be no emissions.

 

The Assistant Director also responded to further questions:

 

·         It was understood that the plume would be similar in colour to the one emitted from a rendering plant located within the district.

·         The moisture content of the plume had been reduced so that it would only be visible for 17% of daylight hours. Other processes may well contain a higher water content so would probably be visible for more of the time.

·         The 2014 permission would also require the grant of an Environmental Permit.

 

Following a visit to the site and the surrounding area, the Assistant Director gave the following responses to additional questions:

 

·         The fencing on the site was as had been approved as part of the 2014 planning permission and was to be retained.

·         The developer had been requested to supply examples of the proposed cladding but had said that as the material was a bespoke product it was not available.

 

Members expressed the following views:

 

·         There was not a great deal of difference in the size in comparison to the previous application, that had been refused on the grounds of visual amenity, and the inclination was therefore not to support the application.

·         There was concern about the safety of Keighley residents and the people who lived close to the site.  Health issues were very important and there was a school near by.

·         Whatever decision was made an incinerator could be built on the site as planning permission had been granted and building had commenced.  This scheme was preferable to that previously approved; it would include a condition in respect of the achievement of R1 status.

·         If the Committee voted for approval the Secretary of State had the opportunity to call the application in for determination.

·         It was not satisfactory that no sample of the proposed cladding material had been supplied for Members to view.

·         Approval of materials could be the subject of a condition.

·         Permission had been granted for an incinerator on this site in 2014.

·         The recovery of energy from waste could be viewed as a positive rather than the use of fossil fuels.

·         The potential impact on health had not been confirmed.  A refusal on that ground would not be sustainable. There was existing case law and it was not for the Committee to second guess the Environment Agency.

·         In respect of the question of visual impact; it was believed that there would not be significant harm to East Riddlesden Hall and there was therefore no need to show substantial public benefit.  The inclination was that there was net benefit. It was more about the impact on residential properties.

·         Planning permission had already been granted for such a use and work had commenced on site. The diameter of the stack had been reduced and this proposal would have an R1 status condition.  The matter would also be considered by the Secretary of State.

·         The company would have to go through the Environmental Permit process.

·         If granted, a condition should be included requiring samples of the materials to be checked and approved to ensure that they were appropriate.

 

It was noted that there was a proposed condition in respect of the approval of the colours and finishes to be used and that this could be amended to ensure that this happened.

 

Further to which it was:

 

Resolved –

 

(1)       That the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways’ technical report further to the amendment of Conditions 5 and 30 as set out below:

 

HGV hours when facility operational

5. Heavy goods vehicles, including those for the transportation of waste, biofuel and any other materials (including Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA)) shall only enter or leave the site between 07:30-18:00 hours Monday to Friday and 07.30–12.00 Saturday. No transportation shall take place on Sunday, bank or public holidays.  

 

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to accord with policies UR3, P7, P8 and P11 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan;  paragraph 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework; and paragraphs 1 and 7 of the National Planning Policy on Waste.

 

Details colour finish etc

30. Notwithstanding any details shown on the permitted plans, on completion of the acoustic fence and prior to any other development commencing details of the colours and finishes to be used on all the buildings and stack, including full sample panels, shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority before construction commences, and the development shall thereafter be constructed in the approved colours and finishes. The details shall include future maintenance of the colour, finishes and materials.

 

Reason: To ensure the use of appropriate materials in the interests of visual amenity and to accord with Policies UR3, D1 BH4A and BH7 of the Replacement Unitary Development Plan; paragraphs 128,129 and 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework and paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy on Waste.  

 

            and an additional condition in respect of:

 

Prior to the development hereby permitted being brought into use, the operator shall submit to the Waste Planning Authority for approval in writing, verification that the facility has achieved Stage R1 Status through Design Stage Certification from the Environment Agency.  The facility shall thereafter be configured in accordance with these approved details.  Once operational, alterations to the processing plant may be undertaken to satisfy Best Available Technique or continued compliance with R1.

 

(2)       That the grant of planning permission be subject also to the completion of a legal planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or such other lawful mechanism for securing the heads of terms as may be agreed in consultation with the City Solicitor, in respect of:

 

the payment of a commuted sum of £8,200 for the undertaking of tree planting at East Riddlesden Hall,

 

the legal planning obligation to contain such other ancillary provisions as the Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways (after consultation with the City Solicitor) considers appropriate.

 

ACTION:       Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways

                        City Solicitor