Agenda and minutes

Any information received after the agenda has been published, relevant to the Applications on the agenda to be considered by the Committee, will be published here.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Todd and Lane.

Councillor Kreling was in attendance as a substitute.

At this point Members must declare whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest, or other interest, in any of the items on the agenda, unless it is already entered in the register of members’ interests or is a “pending notification “ that has been disclosed to the Solicitor to the Council.

Members must also declare if they are subject to their party group whip in relation to any items under consideration.

There were no declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of intention from any Member to make representation as Ward Councillor.

         The minutes of the meeting held on 18 December 2012 were approved as a true and accurate record.

The site of the proposed EfW facility was located on land off Forth Drove within the Fengate Industrial Estate, on the eastern edge of the built-up area of Peterborough, approximately 2.5km to the east of Peterborough City Centre.

The site covered an area of 1.9 hectares and was currently occupied by the Council’s Materials Recycling Facility (MRF), which was operated by Viridor. This facility was comprised of a portal-framed unit, housing the processing equipment, offices and an education centre, with a weighbridge, car parking and external hardstanding used for the storage of recycled materials.

Viridor Waste Management Ltd (Viridor) has submitted an application made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the variation of conditions 2 and 5 imposed on planning permission 09/0078/MMFUL for the construction of an ‘Energy from Waste’ facility including access from Fourth Drove and exit onto Fengate.

·  Condition 2 stated that the development should be carried out in complete accordance with the specified drawings and information. 

·  Condition 5 stated that the annual throughput of the Energy from Waste plant should not exceed 65,000 tonnes at a Calorific Value (CV) of 9,400 kj/kg or equivalent.

The application for the Energy from Waste (EfW) facility had originally been prepared and submitted on behalf of Peterborough City Council in order to secure planning permission prior to the commencement of a competitive tendering process to procure a facility for the treatment of the municipal solid waste (MSW) arisings of the Council.  To this end the principle of an EfW at the application site was established following the Council’s approval of the application. The waste to be burnt was that which could not be recycled.

Viridor had been chosen as the Preferred Bidder and had entered into a contract to deliver and operate the EfW facility.  However, the facility chosen as part of the procurement process required a number of minor changes to the previously approved scheme. The purpose of this application was therefore to ensure that the necessary planning consent was in place to enable Viridor to build and operate the chosen scheme.

The Group Manager Development Management addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal and outlined the proposed physical changes. The recommendation was one of approval subject to the signing of a legal agreement.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. Comments had been received from English Heritage and meetings had been held which had subsequently resolved their concerns. In addition clarification had been sought from the Highways Authority as to the internal vehicle layout within the site and this had been clarified by the Applicant. There were also two minor corrections to the main report.

Mr Olive addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary, the concerns highlighted included:

·         The proposal contravened the proximity principle as set out in PPS10 and the Cambridgeshire Minerals and Waste Plan Policy CS28;

·         There was no need for an increased  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

A report was presented to the Committee which sought its views in relation to considering alternative time allowances for speaking at the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee meeting, at which three solar farm applications were to be considered.

The Group Manager, Development Management addressed the Committee and outlined the main reasons for requesting Members to consider a possible extension, in the main those being to allow Officers to arrange, manage and liaise with interested parties prior to the meeting in a more effective and efficient manner. The existing speaking arrangements were detailed and it was noted that although any change could be agreed in principle, it could not be confirmed until the day, when the Committee would vote on any such proposal.

The suggested alternative speaking times were outlined and Members debated them. A number of points were raised both for and against any extensions to time.

Following debate, the Committee agreed a scheme in principle with the caveat that any extensions to the scheme would be approved by the Committee on the day of the meeting.

RESOLVED:

The Committee agreed a scheme in principle as follows:

i) 20 minutes (total) be allowed for each of the following:

(a) objectors;

(b) applicant or agent and their supporters

ii) 30 minutes (total) be allowed for speeches from Ward Councillors and Parish Councillors.

iii) MPs be allowed to speak for 15 minutes.

This was agreed with the caveat that any such extensions would be approved by the Committee on the day of the meeting.

Reasons for decision:

The Committee could not make a binding decision on an alternative amount of time to be allocated to speaking at a meeting of the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee, as the Constitution (Paragraphs 9.2. and 9.3 (under Part 4, Section 3) stated that such a decision could only be made on the day of the meeting when the alternative would be applied. However, in the interest of planning for the meeting, and to allow Officers to arrange, manage and liaise with interested parties prior to the meeting in a more effective and efficient manner, a view in principle was sought from Members.