Agenda item

The planning application was for the variation of condition 28 (catchment area restriction) of planning permission 08/01081/ELE – Energy Park comprising two fully enclosed materials recycling, conversion and manufacturing buildings (comprising materials receipt and recycling hall, recycled material store and biomass storage, food waste bio-reactor/digester, biomass energy conversion area with 9 stacks; dry cooling system; plasma enhanced vitrification area and remanufacturing processes), research and development centre with visitor space, WEEE re-use building, administration building, vehicle store/workshop, weighbridge, landscaping and habitat creation (including lakes, reed beds, brown and green roofs, tree belt and meadow border) and the realignment of Storeys Bar Road between the junction with Edgerley Drain Road and Vicarage Farm Road and the site access, pelican crossing, shared footpath / cycleway on Storeys Bar Road and extension to the Green Wheel cycle network.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report, and that authority be delegated to the Corporate Director of Growth and Regeneration to issue a notice of refusal if the required Section 106 Legal Agreement was not completed within a reasonable period. The Head of Development and Construction provided an overview of the application and highlighted a number of key issues within the report.

John Dickie, Agent, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·          An update was provided on the status of the Energy Park process highlighting delays, construction work beginning in 2014, the building of a new bridge and internal roadways and future builds;

·         Material would not be able to be drawn from places such as Wisbech, Spalding or Thrapston because they fell outside of the current 32 kilometre restriction. In reality, much of that waste would be exported to mainland Europe or sent to landfill. A larger catchment earlier would enable this waste to be drawn and create additional commercial benefit for the EPP development;

·         It was considered highly unlikely that residents of Peterborough would realise any appreciable difference between the two boundaries. There would be little effect on traffic movements or sustainability by increasing the catchment area; and

·         50km was granted for the Peterborough City Council application and this application was looking to mirror this.

The Committee considered that the application did not significantly alter the impact of the previously granted permission and, in light of the changes in approach to waste catchment areas, was appropriate.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation, subject to the conditions set out in the report, and that authority be delegated to the Corporate Director of Growth and Regeneration to issue a notice of refusal if the required Section 106 Legal Agreement was not completed within a reasonable period. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (unanimous) that:

1)    Planning permission is GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the report; and

2)    If the required Section 106 Legal Agreement was not completed within a reasonable period, that authority be delegated to the Corporate Director of Growth and Regeneration to issue a notice of refusal on the grounds that the development has failed to adequately mitigate its impacts.

Reasons for the decision

The NPPF stated that there was a presumption in favour of sustainable development - in terms of decision taking this meant approving development proposals that accorded with the development plan without delay. The principle of development was in accordance with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy policy CS29.

The proposal was demonstrably sustainable and Historic England had no objections with regards to the changed status of Flag Fen. The increase in the area from which waste could be imported to the site was not considered to be detrimental to the overall provision of waste management within the plan area and was considered to be an acceptable compromise in light of the economic viability of such an operation.

The applicant had presented previously discharged conditions and non-material amendments for consideration, and a review of all conditions and obligations had been undertaken, resulting in appropriate updated conditions and obligations as required. The objections received had been considered and no issues had been raised by statutory consultees. There was no reason not to approve the application in line with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compensation Act.