MEMORANDUM
To: Members of the Development From Legal and Member Services
Control Committee
Chief Officers Ask for Nicola Cahill
Ext 25554
My Ref NC/DCC/121024
Your Ref ______
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
24 OCTOBER 2012
MINUTES
ATTENDANCE
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
P J Bibby, C N Brazier, T Douris (substituting for C L Berry), D S Drury,
T Heritage (substituting for R H Smith-Chairman), B N W Hammond (Vice-Chairman - in the Chair), N K Brook, J Lloyd, S Quilty, E T Roach, P A Ruffles, R L Shakespeare-Smith, J W A Usher, A D Williams (substituting for M D M Muir), A S M Witherick (substituting for G R Churchard)
MEMBERS ALSO PRESENT
M Cowan, M Frearson, P V Goggins, S Johnson, S Markiewicz, W A Storey
Upon consideration of the agenda for the Development Control Committee meeting on 24 October 2012, as circulated, copy annexed, action was taken or decisions were reached on individual items as recorded below.
Note: No declarations of interest were made by any member of the Committee in relation to the matters considered at this meeting.
Chairman’s Announcements
Prior to the commencement of the meeting the Chairman read out the following statement;
‘This is a special meeting of the DC Committee to consider the planning application for a recycling and energy recovery facility on land at New Barnfield, Travellers Lane, Hatfield.
For the benefit of members of the public and the press, I will start this meeting by briefly explaining the procedure that the Committee will follow.
Given the interest in and scale of the application, I have agreed in line with the County Council’s constitution and DC Committee protocol that normal speaking rights at Committee be expanded – to allow both more time and a greater number of parties to speak. In all other ways the normal procedures of the Committee will be followed.
The meeting will begin as normal with the presentation of petitions.
This will then be followed by the presentations by groups and individuals speaking against the proposal and those in favour of it.
This will then be followed by the officer presentation, which takes us through the matters covered in the printed report and any other matters which have arisen since the publication of the report.
It should be noted that Officers will only present a summary of the contents of the report, as Members have read the report and the supporting material. The Committee has carried out a visit to the site and are therefore familiar with the site and its location.
Members will then ask officers questions of clarification regarding the content of the report and their recommendation, before I ask to the committee to debate the recommendations of officers.
Once the debate has concluded the Committee will vote on the recommendations.
There will now be a statement read out by the solicitor for the Committee, advising Members on the matters to be considered today.’
ANNOUNCEMENTS
At the request of the Chairman the following statement was read out by the Solicitor for the Committee;
‘The meeting today is to consider the planning application for the development of a recycling and energy recovery facility on land at New Barnfield Hatfield.
Members will need to consider this matter taking into account the County Council’s function and interests as Waste Planning Authority and must therefore consider the application with an open mind taking into account all relevant planning considerations only.
This meeting is separate to any previous meetings that may have considered the Waste Core Strategy or the Site Allocations DPD. Members who attended such meetings are not precluded from attending this meeting provided that when considering this application they do so with an open mind taking into account any relevant planning issues that may be raised.
Issues have been raised concerning what financial considerations can and cannot be taken into account when considering this application. Whilst the report touches on the issues of financial considerations, for the avoidance of doubt issues such as whether a property can be blighted from a development, the cost of building this development and the costs of the procurement process are not planning considerations and must therefore not be taken into account when considering this application.’
PUBLIC PETITIONS
Simon Archer presented 4 petitions as per the below and addressed the Committee for five minutes on the subject of the petitions:
Welwyn Hatfield Labour Party Petition- ‘We the undersigned feel that New Barnfield is a wholly inappropriate site for a waste incinerator. It is a site close to residents and school children and is not suitable for waste treatment facilities’.
Welwyn Hatfield Conservative Association Petition- ‘New Barnfield is under threat from the possibility of a waste incinerator. It would mean a lorry passing through every five minutes carrying waste from across Hertfordshire. We are opposed to the use of this site on the basis that there are two schools and a library at the location and in addition the road infrastructure will be unable to support the huge increase in traffic volume. This petition will be presented to the shortlisted bidder and the County Council to demonstrate the strength of local public opinion’.
Liberal Democrat Petition – ‘ We the undersigned call on Hertfordshire County Council Development Control Committee to refuse permission for the Veolia incinerator at New Barnfield as the impact on Southfield School is too significant, especially the noise, smell, vibration and shadowing of the school grounds’.
The Green Party Petition – ‘We the undersigned call on Hertfordshire County Council Development Control Committee to refuse permission for the Veolia incinerator at New Barnfield, Hatfield. An incinerator of this size would emit 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions to combat climate change. Furthermore, to site it right next to a special needs school with all the noise and fumes this will entail, is equally unacceptable’.
Clive Bennet presented a petition as per the below and addressed the Committee for five minutes on the subject of the petition:
‘I am delivering by hand today a Petition signed by 150 people who wish to be represented by the North Mymms District Green Belt Society in their opposition to the latest Consultation concerning Traffic at New Barnfield. The opposition is to the added volume of traffic suggested.
I would re-iterate our previous opposition to the permission for an Incinerator at New Barnfield as the site is within the Green Belt. With an expected volume of waste available at 280,000 tonnes and viable figure needed by Veolia for the incinerator at 380,000 tonnes, where will the lorries be coming from?
The area at the proposed site is used by local residents for recreation, cycling and walking which is most important to health. Furthermore the site is so close to the village of Welham Green that the proposed incinerator will dominate and is totally out of keeping with the area. The proposed increase in traffic at an already busy site will be detrimental to health and happiness.
We would like to represent the undersigned in opposing the Planning Application.’
1. / Planning Application for the demolition of existing library and training buildings and the construction and operation of a recycling and energy recovery facility for the treatment of municipal, commercial and industrial wastes together with ancillary infrastructure including bulking/transfer facilities, administration/visitor centre, landscaping, habitat creation, drainage and highway improvement works on land at New Barnfield, Travellers Lane, Hatfield, Hertfordshire by Veolia Environmental Services Ltd[Officer Contact- Iain Leech Tel: 01992 556 225]
1.1 / Prior to consideration of the Officer’s recommendations made within the report, the Committee was addressed by 8 speakers: Mr Kieran Thorpe representing New Barnfield (Action Fund) Trust opposing the application, Ms Cathy Roe representing Hatfield Against Incineration opposing the application, Mr Mick Bee representing Herts WithOut Waste opposing the application, District Councillor A L Perkins representing Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council opposing the application, Ms Claire Taylor representing North Mymms Green Belt Society opposing the application, Ms Adrienne Nix as local resident opposing the application, Mr Peter Clegg representing Gascoyne Holdings Ltd (Hatfield House) opposing the application and Mr Nick Hollands and Mr Keith McGirk spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of the application.
The main points of those speaking in opposition can be summarised as per the below:
· Impact on Green Belt
· Visual Intrusion
· Traffic Impact
· Loss of Amenity
· Loss of Wildlife
· Noise of HGVs
· Using the cycle-path
· Smell and fumes
· Vermin
· Proximity to Southfield School
· Nature-reserves and wildlife
· Loss of the Central Resources Library
· Prematurity -Waste Sites Allocations document in process of consultation
· Sustainability
· Heritage sites and in particular the impact upon the setting of the Grade 1 listed Hatfield House and its nationally significant parkland
· over-capacity of this type of treatment facility
· problems with Commercial and Industrial waste
· Alternative solutions
· Issues of the size and scale of the proposed RERF
· The number and nature of objections received from local authorities, local groups and residents.
The main points of those speaking in support were as per the below:
· the compatibility of the proposals with national policy;
· the need for the development and the site selection process particularly in the context of the wider Hertfordshire waste management strategy and collection/disposal arrangements;
· the extensive work we have undertaken in relation to alternatives along with traffic and highway considerations;
· the sustainability and design credentials of the development;
· the regard afforded to the Southfield School along with our commitment to community engagement generally;
· the key findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment and in particular those matters addressed in relation to noise, air quality, built heritage, ecology, land stability and hydrology. This will also include the controls and mitigation measures available through planning condition and legal agreement;
· public perception concerns; and
· the interface with the Environmental Permitting regime and the controls and limits that will be imposed and regulated in that regard
· committed to working with local communities
· Community benefits e.g. employment
· Safe, proven and long term technology
1.2 / Members were advised that this was an application which sought planning permission for the development of a recycling and energy recovery facility on land at New Barnfield, Travellers Lane, Hatfield. The facility would be utilised for the treatment of up to 380,000 tonnes of municipal, commercial, industrial and health care waste. Members were reminded as to the height and size of the proposed facility which would measure approximately 170 metres long, 150 metres wide and 41 metres high. Additionally the proposal included two emission flues which would measure 75 metres in height from ground level. The two flue stacks would have a diameter of 2m each. Also proposed within the application were additional landscaping, habitat creation, drainage and highway improvement works.
Member’s attention was drawn to the update on consultation responses which had been circulated to them setting out further representations that had been received since the committee report was prepared. Attention was also drawn to the letter to Members of the committee sent by Cllr Stuart Pile and a reminder that regard to the matters raised in all representations should be made as part of any determination.
1.3 / It was noted that the facility would produce 30 mega watts (MW) of electricity, approximately 4MW of which would be utilised by the plant itself, whist the remaining 26MW of energy would be fed into the national grid.
Officers advised that Hatfield House was a Grade I listed building and parkland of national importance and that English Heritage and the Gascoyne Cecil Estate raised substantial objections to the proposal.
Officers advised members that Hertfordshire County Council had commissioned independent heritage advice regarding the potential impact such a facility might have on Hatfield House and Parkland. As set out in the report this advice stated that there would be less than substantial, i.e. moderate harm to the setting of Hatfield House and Parklands as a result of the proposal subject to the retention of tree screening and planting as per the proposed obligation in the legal agreement.
With regards to highway matters, Members were advised that any routeing would include all HGVs with the exception of local refuse collection vehicles arising from St. Albans, Hertsmere and Welwyn Hatfield districts/boroughs.
1.4 / Officers advised members as to the context within which the proposal had been received. 500,000 tonnes of Local Authority waste was collected annually in Hertfordshire, 50% of which was sent to landfill. Members were reminded that the proposal would restate Hertfordshire’s commitment to the recycling of waste, whilst meeting Hertfordshire’s objectives of managing waste as locally as possible.
In terms of an update on the committee report, Member’s attention was drawn to the order paper and minor drafting changes to proposed conditions.
Clarification was also given in relation to the provisions relating to the local employment protocol and the University of Hertfordshire links. Whilst these had been proposed by the applicant and the Waste Planning Authority considered these to be additional benefits, Members were advised that these benefits were not to be taken into account in reaching the decision regarding the proposal as they did not pass the tests of relevance established by regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations 2010. Furthermore, the following matters that were recommended for inclusion as Section 106 obligations required in connection with the permission were, on further consideration, considered most appropriately dealt with by way of condition. These were HGV routeing, travel plan details, community woodland and nature conservation, RERF visitor centre and publication of emissions monitoring data.
1.5 / Following questions from Members it was noted that:
· With regard to the assessment of pollutants the UK had translated the EU’s Waste Incineration Directive into law, as such pollutants would be monitored by the Environment Agency as the appropriate regulatory body, as part of the site’s pollution control permit;
· vermin control would be undertaken by the developer within the enclosed facility;