Agenda item
Development of an Energy Recovery Facility and Associated Infrastructure at Alton Materials Recovery Facility, A31, Alton GU34 4JD (No. 33619/007) (Site Ref: EH141)
To consider a report of the Assistant Director of Waste, Planning and Environment regarding a proposed Energy Recovery Facility in Alton.
Minutes:
Development of an Energy Recovery Facility and Associated Infrastructure at Alton Materials Recovery Facility, A31, Alton GU34 4JD (No. 33619/007) (Site Ref: EH141)
The Committee considered a report from the Assistant Director of Waste, Planning and Environment (item 6 in the minute book) regarding an application for an Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) at the Alton Materials Recovery Facility (MRF).
The
Chairman introduced the item, highlighting the significance of the
application and the two update reports that had been circulated
with some minor amendments.
The officer gave a detailed presentation on the application, and
the Committee was shown aerial plans and photographs of the site
and surrounding area, as well as the importance of the proposed
site and how it would operate. 5,598 representations had been
received from 4,049 individuals and the key issues were
summarised.
The Committee received deputations from Emma
Barnett - No Wey Incinerator Action Group, Christopher Napier
– CPRE Hampshire, Alison Melvin - Binsted Eco Network,
William Butler – West End Flower Farm, Dr Alexandra Roberts
– Froyle Parish Council, Councillor Mark Merryweather,
Farnham Town Council, Councillor Adam Carew - East Hants District
Council, Councillor Rob
Mocatta – South Downs National Park and Councillor Martin Tod
– Hampshire County Council, who all spoke against the
proposals.
The main reasons for objecting were:
- The location was not suitable for such a big development;
- There was no need for an ERF;
- The visual impact of the site on the landscape, walkers and local residents as well as visitors to the South Downs National Park;
- A devastating impact on local businesses and potential tourism;
- The impacts on the local road network;
- Emissions and plumes from the chimney stacks; and
- Finding an alternative to incinerating and shifting focus to increasing and improving recycling.
The
applicant spoke to support the application, stating how the County
was running out of landfill, exports commercial and industrial
(C&I) wastes the importance of finding an alternative for
businesses to manage C&I waste. It was confirmed that 365,000
tonnes was currently being exported or going to landfill each year.
The ERF is a well-established technology. Carbon Capture Storage
(CCS) technology would be implemented once the technology was
available and regulated. The ERF was focussed on C&I waste
rather than municipal solid wastes . The emissions would also be
safe and closely monitoring by an Environmental Permit regulated by
the Environment Agency.
County Councillors Jackie Porter, Andrew Joy and Mark Kemp-Gee also
spoke as local Members. Councillor Jackie Porter and Mark Kemp-Gee
shared their objections of the proposal and Councillor Andrew Joy
read a statement of objection on behalf of Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP
who felt that the benefits did not outweigh the negative aspects of
the application.
During questions of the officer, the following points were clarified:
· Assessment work included in the Environment Statement on the emissions and potential health effects and it concluded that there would be no risk to human health. Public Health England, the Public Health team at Hampshire County Council and the Environmental Health Officer were consulted on this assessment;
· Heat transfer would offer benefit in the longer term once potential customers had been sought;
· Alternative sites had been investigated and contained within Appendix I to the report;
· Existing Traffic Regulation Orders were in place to protect more rural routes from HGV’s, but a lorry routing set out in the proposed section 106 would be monitored by the Monitoring and Enforcement Team.
During debate, some Members agreed that there was a need to focus more on recycling and were against a market-led approach to incineration, whilst others highlighted the need to have an alternative to landfill and exports.
Whilst the importance of recycling was acknowledged, some Members felt that the focus on residential recycling mentioned by some of the deputations caused confusion as the proposal was for a merchant facility with a focus on C&I waste and not related MSW.
It was highlighted that the ERF would only be used for ‘residual’ waste that had no other option but to go to landfill and export and an Environmental Permit would be in place to monitor odour, light and noise from the site.
RESOLVED
The application was
REFUSED.
Notwithstanding the proposed mitigation, it was considered that the
proposal:
a)
Would result in significant adverse
impact on the character of the area, the wider landscape, and the
visual amenity contrary to Policies 10 (Protecting public, health,
safety and amenity) and 13 (High -quality design of minerals and
waste development) of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan (2013),
paragraphs 130 and 174, 176 and 177 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (2021);
b)
Did not demonstrate a special need for
its location and the suitability of the site could not be
adequately justified and therefore is contrary to Policies 27
(Capacity for waste management development) and 29 (Locations and
sites for waste management) of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste
Plan (2013).
Vote
Favour: 3
Against: 12
Supporting documents:
- Report and Appendix A - Conditions, item 42. PDF 4 MB
- Appendix B Committee Plan, item 42. PDF 2 MB
- Appendix C Existing Site Plan, item 42. PDF 456 KB
- Appendix D Proposed Ground Floor Site Plan, item 42. PDF 1 MB
- Appendix E - Proposed Elevations - NORTH _ EAST, item 42. PDF 829 KB
- Appendix E Proposed Elevations - SOUTH & WEST, item 42. PDF 966 KB
- Appendix E - Proposed Site Elevations - NORTH _ EAST, item 42. PDF 4 MB
- Appendix E - Proposed Site Elevations - SOUTH _ WEST, item 42. PDF 4 MB
- Appendix E - Proposed Sections A_B_C, item 42. PDF 619 KB
- Appendix E Proposed Sections D, E & F, item 42. PDF 697 KB
- Appendix F Landscape Design, item 42. PDF 1 MB
- Appendix G - Nearby ecological, landscape designations, heritage assets and ROW, item 42. PDF 3 MB
- Appendix H - Viewpoints, item 42. PDF 3 MB
- Appendix I - Alternatives, item 42. PDF 66 KB
- Appendix J - Landscape Character Areas, item 42. PDF 84 KB
- Appendix K - Zone of Theoretical Visibility, item 42. PDF 18 MB
- Appendix L - Application documentation, item 42. PDF 473 KB
- Appendix M - Report on Residual Waste Capacity in SE v5.0 FINAL, item 42. PDF 481 KB
- Appendix N - Wider South East Residual Waste Capacity Report Final 2021, item 42. PDF 1015 KB
- Appendix A - Conditions, item 42. PDF 292 KB
- Update Report, item 42. PDF 631 KB
- Update Report II, item 42. PDF 468 KB