Minutes:
The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.
Since the publication of the agenda an update was presented by Officers which informed that 13 letters of support had been received from employees of Viridor supporting the application on the grounds that it would ensure the future viability and sustainability of INEOS ChlorVinyls and the EfW plant; supply a reliable source of energy; and secure jobs in the local area. One further objection had been received from a local resident on the grounds of traffic congestion.
It was reported that the application had received queries as to whether or not Halton Borough Council had the jurisdiction to determine this application, given that the original application was determined by the Secretary of State. In response it was confirmed that a letter from the Department of Energy and Climate Change to Ineos, dated 16 March 2010, confirmed that an application made to alter a condition could only be referred to the Secretary of State through the appeals process. This could only be done once the local authority had either determined the application or failed to do so within the required time scales.
Officers referred Members to Section 5 of the agenda report which summarised the assessments made in relation to air quality, transport, noise, ecology, climate change and socio economics. They then provided Members with conclusions to the above matters, stating that to approve the change in the Condition would allow for a sustainable choice in mode of transport of RDF, and would divert waste from landfill. The request to vary the level of fuel tonnage delivered by road could be seen as being supportive of the national policy. The proposal was considered to comply with the National Planning Policy framework and the definition of Sustainable Development, as well as UDP policies PR1, PR2, TP13, TP14 and TP19 and Policies CS2 and CS19 of the Halton Core Strategy.
The update also included details of Freight on Rail’s objection letter which was received in January. The issues raised had already been considered within the Committee report. They had however, re-sent the objection and asked that their objection letter be presented to Members on the update list. The list was provided to them in advance of the meeting and published on the Council website.
It was reported that Councillor John Bradshaw had submitted an objection to the application requesting that it be read out at the meeting and noted, as he was unable to attend.
The Committee was then addressed by Mr Jeff Meehan from HAGATI (Halton Action Group Against The Incinerator). He argued that sustainable RDF transport methods had not been considered by Ineos so 60% of the RDF would be transported by lorry. He stated that the efforts to reduce traffic were welcome however not relative to the issues relating to the number of lorries that would be used. He commented that Ineos was more concerned with increasing their profit margins than listening to the concerns of local people. He said that the application had not changed since 2008 and urged the Committee to refuse it. It was noted that HAGATI’s full objection details were appended to the report at Appendix one.
Mr Grant Scott then addressed the Committee speaking on behalf of Viridor Waste Management, a partner company, in support of the application. He stated that rail and canal transportation would be used a much as possible and that road would be the most sustainable mode of transportation. He advised that the vehicles would be out of sight of residents and that they would move outside of peak travel times. He further stated that employment would be created to the benefit of the local economy and that Ineos have a ‘Liaison Forum’ providing residents an opportunity to air their concerns.
The Committee was then addressed by a representative for the applicant, Mr Julian Watts. He stated that the application before Members was supported by expert technical assessment to ensure that it addressed all of the issues thoroughly, including those raised by the Committee when it last considered a proposal to vary Condition 57 and those raised by residents during pre-application consultation. He further stated that Ineos was proposing a legally binding routing agreement to give local residents’ assurance that HGV’s would follow an approved route. He stated that approving the application would allow for a sustainable choice in mode of transport and for the diversion of waste from landfill which was consistent with UK climate change policy.
Councillor Gareth Stockton then addressed the Committee as a Ward Councillor and local resident, objecting to the application. He stated that the increase from 85,000 tonnes to 480,000 tonnes was a huge difference and no risk analysis had been carried out by Ineos to determine the possible impact of this on the local area.
Councillor Gerrard then addressed the Committee objecting to the application and read out a statement which had been distributed to Members before the start of the meeting. He urged the Committee to refuse the application and retain the current Condition 57.
Members debated the application and issues raised taking into consideration the comments made by speakers and officers and the details provided in the report and update list.
A motion was made to refuse the application due to the volume of road traffic movements in the locality, this was seconded. Prior to a vote, clarity was requested over a referral to Secretary of State if this was to be made. The Committee did not pursue this. Members proceeded to vote for a refusal which was supported by eight members; therefore the motion to refuse the application was carried.
RESOLVED: That the application be refused to minimise road traffic movements in the locality.