Agenda item

Erection of building to house biomass power plant with chimney stack with external cooling plant (resubmission). [Rural West York]  [Site Visit].

Members considered a major full application (13 weeks) from Yorwaste Heat and Power Ltd for the erection of a building to house a biomass power plant with chimney stack with external cooling plant (resubmission)

The Planning Officer circulated a series of e-mails received from Hessay Parish Council, Upper Poppleton Parish Council and Nether Poppleton Parish Council, which raised concerns about the environmental impact of the proposals.

He clarified that the completion date referred to in Condition 4 to Planning Permission 00/02689/FUL is 12 May 2017 and not 12 May 2013. He also advised that the final sentence in paragraph 4.4 of the committee report should therefore be amended to read “On balance this may be taken as “very special circumstances” justifying location of the plant in the Green Belt, however this is dependent upon the operation of the waste disposal site which currently operates with the benefit of a permission expiring in 2017.”

He also reported that Condition 10 should be amended to read “In the event of the Biomass Power Plant permanently ceasing to operate, or in the event of landfilling operations at Harewood Whin ceasing, all plant, associated structures and buildings shall be removed from the site and the land shall be restored in accordance with the previously approved Scheme of Restoration for the Harewood Whin Site. (Reason: To safeguard the character of the site in the interest of visual amenity and to secure compliance with York Development Control Local Plan Policy GB1)“ Members suggested that a time limit be imposed on the removal and restoration and officers agreed that this could be added to the condition.

Members raised the issue that Nether Poppleton, Upper Poppleton and Hessay parish councils had not been consulted regarding the application and officers explained that this was because the Harewood Whin Site fell solely within the Rufforth with Knapton Parish Council boundary and not any other parishes.

Members also discussed whether an Environmental Impact Assessment  (EIA) should have been undertaken and officers explained the rules governing EIAs and advised Members that this type of development was classified as a Schedule 2 development and did not fall within the criteria which required a EIA to be undertaken.

Representations were received from the Chairman of the York and Selby Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) in objection to the application. He raised concerns over potential pollution from burning wood, which had been painted or treated with preservatives. He also stated that the report contained no information on contaminates produced through the furnace process or whether there was any intention to return ash to the land.

Further representations, in objection to the application, were heard from a local resident who was also a member of the York Environmental Forum. He advised Members that he was also representing Wheatlands Educational Community Woodland and circulated information about this. He advised Members that he lived close to the site and also had a commercial property in the vicinity. He explained that he didn’t accept that surrounding parishes should not have been consulted on the application and stated that Yorwaste’s record was poor in relation to methane and water pollution and rubbish collecting on the ring road. He believed the application being granted could lead to health concerns and would impact on community woodland. He stated that at the application site, landscaping had not been done well, the cycle track was not yet complete and there were insufficient trees to absorb the pollution.

Representations were also received from a local resident of Rufforth in objection to the application. He raised concerns that if this application was granted, Harewood Whin could become a permanent site, and the original intention to landscape the site when the landfill operation was complete would not go ahead. He raised a question over the quantity of timber required and whether this would increase HGV traffic to site through the need to bring more timber onto the site. He also raised the issue of pollution and recommended an EIA to determine whether timber treated with preservative and paint was safe to burn.  He also raised the question of whether the plant would need to be relocated on the site in order to maximise use of available energy.

In response to a query from Members regarding current air quality in the area, the representor explained that it was dependent on the prevailing wind but that sometimes there was an appalling stench, which, in the past had been of a chemical nature but more recently composting nature.

Representations were also received from the Director of the Land Development Practice  representing Rufforth with Knapton Parish Council. He was of the opinion that an EIA should have been a requirement. He stated that there was insufficient information in the report on which to base a decision, no specific assessment of emissions from the chimney stack and issues over the height of the chimney stack.

Representations were heard from the consultant representing Yorwaste in favour of the application. He answered Members concerns in relation to specific issues, which had been raised and made the following points:

• due to existing waste management activities already on site, there would be no need for extra deliveries to the site
• the proposed technology had been recommended by Environment Agency as the best available.
• wood would be shredded in the current wood stock pile area before entering the plant
• Potential pollutants from chimney stack would be monitored by way of a constant emissions monitor on the stack, which would take readings at regular intervals.
• Ash would be regularly tested and could be sent to landfill or used in blockwork aggregates.
• The site would be permitted to burn painted but not treated timber – treated timer is deemed hazardous waste and would not be allowed on the site

Councillor Galvin moved and Councillor Moore seconded a motion to defer the application. On being put to the vote this motion was lost.

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved after referral to the Secretary of State subject to the conditions listed in the report and the amended condition listed below.

Amended Condition 10

In the event of the Biomass Power Plant permanently ceasing to operate or in the event of landfilling operations at Harewood Whin ceasing, all plant, associated structures and buildings shall be removed from the site and the land shall be restored in accordance with the previously approved scheme of restoration for the Harewood Whin Site within six months of the cessation of operations.

Reason for amended condition 10: To safeguard the character of the site in the interests of visual amenity and to secure compliance with York Development Control Local Plan Policy GB1.

REASON:                  The proposal, subject to the conditions listed in the report and the amended condition above, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to impact upon the open character and purposes of designation of the Green Belt, impact of the proposed chimney stack on the visual amenity of the adjoining countryside, impact of the proposal on air quality and emission levels in the surrounding areas, cumulative impact upon amenity taken together with other activities taking place at the site, impact upon traffic volumes using the surrounding road network, impact upon the level of waste materials disposed to landfill and the contribution of the proposal to meeting energy need from sustainable sources. As such the proposal complies with  Policies MW5, GB1,GB11,GP4a),GP4b) and GP5 of the City of York Local Plan Deposit Draft and the national policies contained within PPG2 "Green Belts"  PPS10 "Planning for Sustainable Waste Management" and PPS23 "Planning and Pollution Control".