00031652 cleveland street (former adm cocoa plant
TRANSCRIPT
DRYPOOL
00031652
Cleveland Street (Former ADM Cocoa Plant) , Dalton Street (Council Waste Depot Site) ,
Connecting To A Strip Of Land Alongside The River Hull , Kingston Upon Hull
1. The Development of an energy works consisting of various buildings and plant (such as silos,
conveyor belts, air cooled condensers, weighbridges and stack - 70m [230ft] high) which will produce
sustainable electricity and biomethane through Advanced Gasification (25 Mwe), Anaerobic Digestion
(900,000 therms) and Solar Photovoltaic's (0.5NWe).
2. Erection of additional infrastructure to include an energy academy and in vessel composting facility.
3. Laying out of servicing and parking areas and ramps and alterations to Glass House Row.
C Spencer Ltd
SUMMARY
- Energy works (integrated waste energy facility) development
- Objections received.
- Application accompanied by an Environmental Statement
- Recommended for conditional approval.
SITE
The planning application involves a 5.13 hectare (ha) (12.68 Acres) site. It is located within a
commercial area of the city and is predominantly surrounded by industrial premises (but see below),
with the western boundary adjoining the River Hull. There are other waste management facilities in
the vicinity. The Site consists of three adjacent parcels of land: the Hull City Council refuse
collection, street cleansing and lighting depot at Dalton Street, 2.02 Ha (5 acre); -the former ADM
Cocoa manufacturing site (now cleared) fronting onto Cleveland Street, 3.36 Ha (8.3 acres); and an 88
metre (m) (288ft) long strip of land connecting the Dalton Street and Cleveland Street.
The nearest residential properties are a block of flats on the east end of Glass House Row, and a
permanent Traveller’s site, which is located on Bedford Street, directly opposite the site across
Cleveland Street.
PROPOSAL
The proposed development is an integrated waste facility consisting primarily of waste disposal
facility that would also include the installation of the following low carbon energy generation
facilities, providing up to but not exceeding 25.5 megawatt electrical output (MW) and 900,000 therms
of gas, as follows:
1. The Anaerobic Digestion (AD) plant will produce up to 900,000 therms of biomethane gas per
annum (26,376 megawatt hours). AD is a method by which organic materials such as agricultural,
household and industrial residues are treated (by bacterial fermentation in oxygen-free conditions) to
produce a gas with high methane content (a biogas). The biogas can then be used to produce heat and /
or electricity. The proposed plant will convert organic materials into biogas, which will then be
upgraded for injection into the national gas grid as biomethane.
2. An Advanced Gasification plant (25MW), which will use a variety of fuels including Solid
Recovered Fuel (SRF) (produced on site from commercial, industrial and municipal sources), the end
product of In-Vessel Composting, pre-processed SRF, and processed waste wood. It is anticipated that
the Gasification plant will process 24,000 kilograms (kg) of material per hour to produce steam, which
in turn will be used to power a generator to export electricity to the national grid; and
3. Roof mounted solar panels (0.5MW), which will be used to help meet the parasitic load of the
proposed development (i.e. the electrical output will be used on site by the gasification plant or AD).
4. In Vessel Composting of digestate from the AD process and material unsuitable for the AD
process;
The Dalton Street site will receive up to 365,000 tonnes per annum (TPA) consisting of waste
unprocessed commercial/industrial/municipal material and unprocessed organic material. It will
export up to 95,000 TPA (recyclates). The Cleveland Street site will receive up to 115,000 TPA
consisting of raw material for the operation of the facilities and solid recovered fuel. Up to 40,000
TPA of ash by product will be generated.
All existing buildings would be demolished where they haven’t been cleared already.
In total there are 34 structures proposed on the 3 sites with a footprint of approximately 24,355m2
(262,060ft2)
The feedstock storage/screening building would measure 30.3m (99’) high x 160m (525’) long x 44m
(144’) wide, plus solar panel stanchions. Attached to this to the south would be electrical equipment
building measuring 15m (49’) high x 46m (151’) long x 33m (108’).
The energy academy would measure 20.8m (68’) high (max) x 55m (180’) long x 35m (115’) wide.
The steam turbine generator/balance of plant building would measure 22m (72’) high x 30m (98’) long
x 29m (95’) wide).
The Dalton Street material reception and processing building would measure 25m (82’) high x 105m
(346’) long x 73m (240’) max wide
The Dalton Street bio filter and air treatment plant would measure 8m (26’) high x 34.2m (112’) long x
29.9m (98’) wide
The Dalton Street tunnel composting plant would measure 14m (46’) high x 35m (115’) long x 43.1m
(141’) wide.
The gasification plant stack would measure 70m (230’) high x 2.3m (8’) diameter. This would be the
highest feature of the site.
The various other plant on the site would vary with highest being 29m (95’) high (the gasification
plant feedstock buffer silo).
The enclosed conveyor system would vary in height up to 30m (98’).
Other ancillary operations would include:
- Fuel handling and storage facilities;
- In-Vessel Compositing;
- Condensing and Cooling systems;
- Water Treatment Plants;
- Flue Gas Treatment systems; and
- Air pollution control equipment.
In addition, an Energy Academy is proposed and would house the following:
- Research and development facilities;
- Social enterprise / training facilities;
- Education centre;
- Welfare facilities and cafeteria;
- Offices and meeting facilities;
- Control room; and
- Workshop.
The Material Reception and Processing Building would be located on the Dalton Street site, which
would also house the backup boiler and storage tanks associated with the AD process. This area would
also contain the delivery vehicle access point and weighbridge and tipping bays. The gasification plant,
associated equipment and storage building would be located on the northern part of the Cleveland
Street site, with the Energy Academy with the car park located to the south. The Glass House Row
Link Connector would contain two covered-conveyor belt systems, whereby fuel and materials would
be transported between the Dalton Street and Cleveland Street sites.
The site also includes an existing barge berth along the River Hull, in the event that fuel deliveries can
be facilitated by river. A mobile crane would be located adjacent to the barge berth, which would
unload material from a barge and discharge into an adjacent hopper, which would transfer the material
onto a conveyor system to be stored in the Feedstock Storage / Screening Building.
The proposed development would utilise existing vehicular points, including accesses on Cleveland
Street, Dalton Street and Glass House Row. The existing access on Cleveland Street, closest to
Chapman Street would be closed.
A total of 58 car park spaces and 3 minibus spaces are proposed. Most would be located at the
southern end of the Cleveland Street site. Cycle parking and motorcycle parking bays are also
proposed adjacent to the energy academy building. A coach lay-by would be provided on Cleveland
Street for visitor groups - local schools etc.
Material will be delivered by road; however the applicant has allowed for the use of the River Hull to
receive deliveries via barge. An approximate weekly total of 9,450 tonnes of fuel would be delivered
to site by 636 heavy goods vehicles. The site would be in operation seven days per week, 24 hours per
day. The fuel receipt, processing and storage functions would be operational six days per week
(Monday to Saturday) from 07:00 until 19:00. However, to reduce congestion on the local road
network it is proposed that there will be no deliveries between 07:30 and 09:30 and 15:30 and 18:00
Monday to Saturday and at any time on Sunday.
A one-way system would be employed to minimise any on site traffic congestion and to avoid the need
for a turning station. Stacking lanes will be provided, to avoid queuing of vehicles on public highways.
Unprocessed commercial, industrial, municipal and biodegradable material will not be stored on site
for long periods, with processing occurring as soon as possible when the material arrives at the site.
Storage of all processed material (including waste wood and SRF) would take place within the
enclosed specific buffer silo or in the Storage / Screening Building on the Cleveland Street site for feed
to the gasification plant. The process feed into the gasification plant would be continuous, and
therefore storage times in the buffer tank will be minimised.
Similarly, material for the AD plant would be stored in the Material Reception and Processing
Building on the Dalton Street site, from where it will move into the adjacent enclosed specific buffer
tanks.
Processed feedstock would be stored onsite in enclosed storage buildings and material would be
transported around the site by an enclosed conveyor system.
The plant would use a variety of raw materials during the combustion and processing of the fuel.
Limestone and hydrated lime would be delivered to the Cleveland Street site as raw materials for use
in the bed and exhaust gas treatment plant for the gasification plant respectively. These would be
stored in individual hoppers and bunded tanks located adjacent to the gasification plant on the
Cleveland Street site. Aqueous ammonia would be used in the gasification plant exhaust gas treatment
system to control emissions of nitrogen oxides, and would be stored in a dedicated bunded tank on the
Cleveland Street site. The tank would incorporate a suitable vent scrubber system to minimise
ammonia gas releases during tank filling and breathing operations. Amines (to be used in the biogas
scrubber) and phosphates (for water treatment) would be stored in small quantities in a suitably bunded
area within the steam turbine building or local to the biogas clean-up equipment. Lubrication oil will
be stored in drums in the workshop area.
Up to 200 construction staff would be employed, a construction staff travel plan is proposed. It is
estimated that the operational proposed development would provide approximately 60 permanent
members of staff, 20 social enterprise users and 10 students and university staff.
Walls proposed - Prefinished steel profiled cladding, polycarbonate translucent cladding and raw cut
aluminium profiled cladding.
Roof proposed - Prefinished steel profiled cladding and polycarbonate translucent cladding
Windows proposed - Powder coated aluminium double glazed units
Doors/shutters proposed - Powder coated
Boundary treatments proposed - Existing boundary walls to remain where possible. A planting strip
will distinguish the boundary in parts.
Vehicle access and hard-standing proposed - Proposed hardstanding to be asphalt
Lighting proposed - LED mounted on 6m (20ft) high galvanised steel columns and various structure
mounted locations
Cooling towers and plant- Pre-fabricated modules with a combination of Prefinished steel profiled
cladding.
Drainage - To existing sewers.
Finished floor levels would be 600mm (2’) above the existing average ground level with refuge
platforms within the units. The floors would be concrete with flood proofing incorporated.
The height of the feedstock storage building has been reduced from that originally submitted by 4.7m
(15’).
PLANNING HISTORY
Various related to existing and former uses of the site.
Screening opinion issued 19th May, 2011 stating need for an Environmental Statement.
Other sites for reference and background.
29745B - Saltend EfW - The EfW building would be 135m (443’) in length and 50m (164’) wide,
giving a total ground level floor space of 6,750m2 (72,630 sq ft) with a maximum height of 49m
(161’). The chimney Stack would be 95m (312’) high. The EfW plant would be capable of treating
240,000 tpa of household and municipal waste collected by the councils and would produce 18.3mw
pa.. Approved with conditions (29/12/08).
22215F - Mytum And Selby Waste Recycling Ltd - Holliday Pigments site Morley Street - Use of
industrial site for materials recycling facility including the erection of a single storey building
following demolition of some buildings on site - Approved with Conditions 17.02.2010
REPRESENTATIONS
Environmental Health
No objections subject to conditions.
Yorkshire Water Services Ltd
Object to proposal since it involves building over sewer. Otherwise no objections subject to conditions
regarding protection of sewer that runs across the site, surface water drainage, foul water disposal, car
park surface water interceptors, tank bunding. The sewer may be suitable for removal, subject to
suitable evidence and alternative provision, if necessary.
Humber Archaeology Partnership
No objections, no need for conditions.
Natural England
Conditions should be imposed to allow for bat surveys prior to demolition, scrub planting should not
be removed during bird nesting periods, clarification is required regarding the impact on the Humber
Estuary. Clarification received considered acceptable subject to conditions.
Highways Development Control
Originally raised some concerns and required clarification on a number of points, such as parking and
detailed access arrangements. Revised details have addressed their concerns and they raise no
objections.
Environment Agency
No objections subject to conditions. Originally raised issues and objected but the issues raised have
been addressed by the applicant. During the determination process for an Environmental Permit the
applicant’s Air Modelling Study will be audited in detail by the Environment Agency Air Quality
Monitoring and Assessment Unit (AQMAU).
The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Drainage Report of the Environmental Statement contain
sufficient information to condition various parts of the development.
East Riding Of Yorkshire Council
Wish to make no comments.
English Heritage
No objections.
Highways Structures and Waterways Manager
No issues with this development in principle. However if water borne transport is proposed
arrangements will have to be made to discuss suitable vessels and navigation with the Harbour Master.
Friends of the Earth
Have raised the following issues:-
1. It will divert potential compostable waste to being burnt. This contradicts the EU waste
hierarchy and the Local Authority waste plan. Although the applicant says that currently
biodegradable material is going to landfill, building the gasification plant will risk diverting material
from current composting systems if the supply is short or it becomes financially attractive to local
authorities.
2. It is expected by DEFRA that heat from energy producing waste plants is made use of, in order
to extract maximum energy. There are no plans to use heat in this proposal. Would like to urge the
council to make this a requirement of all applications in the future and also to facilitate waste heat use
through overall planning strategy.
Seeking clarification with the agent directly regarding the following:-
1. FoE are puzzled by the need for an in-vessel-composter (IVC),in the process. If the applicant
were to replace the IVC by a dryer, and not input the HWRC green waste, wouldn’t this prepare the
digestate for gasification just as well as ‘composting’ what is already a process residue? Possibly it
might be a more efficient process? Please provide the evidence, (eg, comparative energy efficiency),
which caused applicant to reject the idea of a dryer. It would simplify the process considerably,
allowing for a much smaller site.
2. Need evidence showing the market price (per tonne) that applicant would obtain for
(specifically the filthy, mixed plastics retrieved in the first stage sort), approaches the £250 that is
claimed.
3. Why is there a ‘Stage Two’ separation process? Aren’t the ‘HWRC Green waste’, and ‘Green
waste, food waste, cardboard), and ‘residual household waste’, streams, separate right from receipt at
the site? Does Stage Two actually exist?
4. Need indication of the market (in tonnes) presently available, and (projected to be available in
the future for bottom ash).
5. Need indication of how many MW of the process heat will be wasted, vented to the
atmosphere. Why is it not made use of? It would boost the energy efficiency dramatically. If research
has been carried out on using the excess, process heat, will be grateful to see the results. (Maybe there
are realistic limitations because of the location of the site?)
27 letters/emails of objection received raising the following issues (rom 2 individuals including a
person stating that he is acting as an agent on behalf of Communities Against Toxics, and a local
business)
1. As part of the Environmental Statement, Spencer’s investigated 24 alternative sites. Where are
they?
2. What explanation did the company give for withdrawing the proposed wind turbine?
3. Why is there no mention of the silo which stopped the Foster St incinerator?
4. At what stage is the sale of Dalton Street to the applicant?
5. Information provided by the City Council to the objector regarding the sale of the Dalton Street
depot contains redacted (blanked out) sections. The objector believes that, legally, the Planning
Committee can refuse to consider the planning application because objectors have not been allowed
access to all data relevant to the Environmental Statement associated with the gasification project.
6. C. Spencer Ltd., has asked various campaigners to face-to-face discussions of serious
shortcomings which they now realise were/are present in their consultations. It is requested that the
council investigate any legal implications this latter matter poses. This may show their consultation
procedures to be flawed.
7. In the planning application Environmental Statement, the applicants talk about the potential for
water transport; then skid round this saying they’ll evaluate the impact of road transport because this
is the worst case scenario; and then simply forget about water transport. Considered to be contrary to
JWLP policy W2.
8. The proposal is too close to residential properties, harming their amenity. Considered to be
contrary to JWLP policy W2.
9. The proposal would probably need at least 50% of its feed stock from outside the JWLP area.
Considered to be contrary to JWLP policy W26.
10. In relation to a brownfield sites, did Spencer and Co. and/or the Waste Planning Authority
undertake an evaluation against the criteria within Annex E of PPS10 within the context of an
alternative site appraisal?
11. Evidence has not been supplied of the 24 sites considered. This information is necessary to
assess the sequential approach needed to comply with JWLP policy W4. How have officers been able
to judge the alternative sites without this information?
12. This site is clearly close to residential properties which is a consideration in the PPS10 and W4
site alternative sites test, so how can this matter be judged properly without full disclosure of the
alternative sites?
13. It must be remembered at all times that this application uses waste, (particularly Municipal
Solid Waste), as feedstock. Therefore the legislation covering the efficient management of waste is
just as important as the legislation on renewable energy.
14. The proposal does not comply with JWLP policy W29 in that it is not efficient energy
recovery; it will not be used to heat homes and only a little will be used by the facility. Neither will
the heat be used by other industries.
15. Anaerobic digestion (AD) which forms an important part of the planning application, the sole
purpose of using AD is the short-term proposal to ‘squeeze every scrap of immediately-retrievable
energy’, from the material treated. Everything is short-term gain. No consideration is taken of long-
term loss which this may create. The fibrous portion of the digestate from the AD process, is burnt,
and it is understood that the nutrient-rich liquor of the digestate will be discarded. The Anaerobic
Digestion and Biogas Association state that 'We believe that the best outcome for digestate is to return
it to land as a fertiliser substitute, as this 'closes the loop' by reusing critical nutrients, and makes
further carbon savings by replacing artificial fertilisers (which have a very heavy greenhouse gas
footprint). However, if for whatever reason this isn’t possible, using it to generate further energy is
obviously better than simply wasting it. This proposal by not re-using the materials and digestate more
effectively is contrary to JWLP W3.
16. It seems that a vital part of the renewable energy process, (24% of the total), involves burning
48,000 tonnes of Hull and East Riding garden waste, food waste, and cardboard which residents are
under the impression is to be composted, thus destroying the important nitrates and phosphates
contained therein. Not only is it proposed to burn 48,000 tonnes of biomass which could count
towards recycling targets; biomass which can be converted into valuable compost important for
growing food crops, but to produce the artificial fertilisers brought about by this destruction, will
require energy.
17. The proposal would have a similar impact on nearby Listed Buildings as the Foster Street
refusal did, which amounted to a reason for refusal. In this case the impact would mainly be to the
Almshouses, contrary to JWLP policy W29.
18. The gypsies and travellers who live 20 metres across the road from the proposed site are
extremely angry. But at least one cannot read or write. What steps are being taken to welcome their
comments? After all, they are potentially, the 'most damaged sensitive receptors,' possible.
Additionally there are dwellings closer. This is considered to be an infringement of these residents'
Human Rights. Officers are neglecting to carry out their duty of care.
19. Objectors are receiving some strange answers to the questions that we are putting to Spencers.
Some of these answers suggest that they do not know what they are doing. It is requested that the
Local Planning Authority grant an official, temporary halt to the consultation process until Spencers
have spoken with the objectors' experts.
20. It seems clear that the applicant believes the Government desires that the extraction of energy
from all forms of waste shall have total priority above all other waste management methods and
technologies. This is incorrect. It seems clear that they have made this application under that
misconception.
21. We are dismayed to now learn from a statement in the Environmental Statement, that it is
envisaged that biomass could be imported by barge. Objectors had the impression that the attraction of
the facility was that it dealt with waste from this area only. Under JWLP policy.W26(b), one may not
import waste, nor biomass which consists of waste. It is believed that the applicant will (be forced to)
bring in waste from outside the area in the immediate or near future to satisfy the substantial feedstock
needs of the gasification / anaerobic digestion / in-vessel-composting plant.
22. The applicant has no contract with the local authority to manage its MSW. (Because the new
Joint Waste Management Contract has to be awarded on a competitive basis, the applicant cannot
assume that it will gain that contract). Suggest that there is a strong indication that substantial tonnages
of waste will be brought in from outside the JWLP area.
23. Local businesses have serious concerns about the impact of the development on the health of
their employees.
24. Not enough consultation took place, consultation should be re-opened with businesses on the
river being written to. Companies on the Council’s consultation list were unaware of the application.
Further discussions with the applicant and local businesses have been arranged but meetings postponed
by the applicant. The company’s representatives do not know enough details about the application to
answer key questions such as the details of barge movements and the chemical emissions that can have
adverse effects on human health..
25. It appears they will be shipping waste by barge wharfs have frequently been damaged. What
arrangements have they made to ensure Wharfs are not damaged?
26. Whilst would like to see the ADM Cocoa mills site redeveloped, the plan for an
incinerator/energy plant is inappropriate for this area.
27. No doubt during the conversion of waste to power there will be an element of fall out and the
smell of methane (a greenhouse gas). In the section of the proposal titled ‘Air Quality’ it clearly states
that 1 pollutant from the gasification plant has an “adverse additional impact” on human health. What
is this pollutant? As this pollutant has an adverse affect on human health both the Council and
companies have a responsibility not to put peoples’ or employees' health at risk.
28. Scott Street Bridge was permanently damaged by the negligent actions of a Pilot/Captain
taking a vessel down the river. Businesses have had considerable and exhausting battles in the past
when trying to make claims for wharfs to be repaired which have resulted in insurance companies not
wanting to offer insurance for wharfs.
29. No numbers for vessels using the river have been quoted. If they are given permission to use
the river then a business is sure that insurers will insist on the installation of CCTV to monitor the
wharfs - this will involve an employee viewing the footage on a regular basis. A cost that they should
not have to incur, so will the operator of the incinerator plant be paying?
30. Depending on how many vessels the proposer wishes to use on the river the bridges will have
to be open for much longer or more frequently therefore having a negative impact on businesses and
the flow of traffic in the city apart from increasing carbon emissions
31. Cleveland Street has frequent drainage issues mainly due to the age of its drains. Regularly
during spells of heavy rain the drains back up and flood offices. A site of this size can only make this
situation worse due to the amount of water they will be using on a daily basis during the production of
power and possibly being flushed down the drains.
32. The water pressure on Cleveland Street is not high enough and there have been problems when
it comes to the fire brigade extinguishing fires.
33. The proposal states that the power plant will requires 24,000kg of waste per hour to operate
and that they will be having their waste from the process of producing power removed from the site.
This will result in a massive increase of articulated lorries on Cleveland Street and barges on the river.
34. The existing infrastructure cannot cope with the current level and weight of traffic. Cleveland
Street is a very dangerous road at the moment and is often gridlocked. Increasing the volume of traffic
to this degree will only lead to more wear & tear, more hold ups and accidents.
35. If this development does occur then a business will have no option but to put their site up for
sale and move the company or close the business making 10 staff redundant. If they have to sell their
premises due to lack of trade then there will be a significant impact on the value of the property. Who
will be compensating for this?
36. This project will have a negative impact on the area's economy as people will make a conscious
effort to avoid crossing the river if there are long queues of traffic. During the North Bridge closure
most businesses in the area suffered a significant reduction in trade. The potential long term increase
in traffic volume & bridge opening is devastating and will have a bigger financial impact on the city
than only employing 60 staff.
37. If approved there should be conditions limiting the type of waste that can be burnt, excluding
radioactive waste.
38. Some addresses that were written to did not receive the letters.
39. The gasification plant proposed is a disposal facility, and so ranks alongside landfill. It is not
efficient enough to be classified as an energy recovery facility.
40. In the Environmental Statement (ES), it discusses the evaluation of the Melton site, as part of
the mandatory sequential site selection process. On offer was a totally adequate, (size wise),
8+hectares plot, but in the evaluation it is claimed that the site is too close to the Humber estuary with
its Ramsar site, SSSI, SPA, and SPAC classifications. Yet the Saltend incinerator received planning
approval, despite being almost on top of the Humber conservation area. There seems no reason for the
diametrically-opposed logic, resulting in diametrically-opposed decisions being made.
41. The ES states that the Melton site is 14 km west of Stoneferry . It is claimed that this is
important as it means that it is too far from the Stoneferry sources of fuel, and the local recipients of
the electricity produced. Yet, 50,000 tonnes p.a. waste wood is to be transported in, a distance of 80
km, and waste a distance of 20 km, to the Stoneferry site. In addition, the electricity is to be fed into
the grid, not pumped straight into the offices of the recipients of the discount-price electricity. Isn't it
probable that the arguments were used to prove the site was unsuitable, rather than to objectively
evaluate it? The sequential site selection process was flawed in being subjective not objective.
42. The applicant seems not to really have time for the value of composting or compost and seems
not to realise that composting is higher level in the Waste Hierarchy, than energy recovery. Isn't the
IVC, window-dressing, helping to distract from the weaknesses of the disposal gasification
incinerator? Object to the planning application on the material planning grounds that the IVC is
unnecessary, and so imposes an unnecessary land-take of 1400 sq metres. Further, that this may have
rendered the sequential site selection review subjective rather than objective, hence invalid.
43. The transport assessment was carried out in December during the bad snowfall, and when a lot
of local businesses are shut down. This is not a sound basis for assessment.
APPLICANT’S CASE
The purpose of this proposal is to seek planning permission for an energy park incorporating ‘green’
technologies utilised to generate energy via the introduction of an alternatively sourced feedstock.
'Traditionally', fossil based feedstock are utilised to generate energy and thus are becoming
increasingly unsustainable. The proposed facility will provide a sustainable system of energy
production through the sole use of biodegradable materials that are non-fossil based, all the while
complementing recycling strategies.
It is proposed that principally the main technologies will provide a solution for the generation of
electricity via an Advanced Gasification process and solar photovoltaic system and a solution for the
generation of biomethane gas through the use of an Anaerobic Digestion technology. In vessel
composting will also be employed.
This proposal also seeks to provide a realistic solution to the question of landfill and the disposal of
domestic and commercial material.
Under the EIA Regulations an ES is required to provide - an outline of the main alternatives studied by
the applicant and an indication of the main reasons for his choice taking into account the
environmental effects. The applicant has examined the following:-
- The 'do nothing' alternative;
- Alternative sites (24 unnamed sites identified);
- Alternative site layouts;
- Alternative thermal treatment / power generation technologies;
- Alternative wet processing technologies (incorporating alternative biogas processing
technologies); and
- Transportation of fuel to the Site.
Many of the sites earmarked at this stage were discounted following evaluation due to constraining
factors such as their proximity to residential properties and their insufficient transport network. Where
the proposed development was found not to be in line with Council’s development policies in the
locality, the site was also discounted. Through this initial evaluation process, the Applicant and the
Councils identified four potential locations that warranted further investigation, as follows:
- Site 1 - Melton Park, North Ferriby;
- Site 2 - Staithes Road Storage Land, Salt End;
- Site 2 - Capitol Park, Goole; and
- Site 4 -Stoneferry, Hull (the chosen site);
The application site performs well against all of the above criteria and benefits from the following
characteristics:
The site is brownfield and located within an established industrial area, largely associated with waste
management and processing
- The site is flat, will be cleared prior to development and lacks natural features of ecological
importance. There are no sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) within or adjoining the site;
- The combined size of the Cleveland Street and Dalton Street sites (5.1ha) is sufficient space for
the proposed plant;
- The site is well located within close proximity to potential feedstock suppliers at Stoneferry
and potential exported power and gas consumers. Hence road freight costs ,transport impacts, and
distribution losses would be the least of the four sites; and
- The nearest residential areas (Stoneferry) are located approximately 400m from the site (though
there are some residential properties within 20m) and are outside the proposed road transport routes for
construction and operation of the proposal. Impacts on residents associated with road traffic generated
by the proposal (e.g. noise and air pollution) are therefore likely to be minimal.
Mass-burn incineration is designed to receive unscreened material. By contrast, the gasification plant
is designed to receive selected material which has been screened and sorted. It should therefore be
seen as complementary to existing and future recycling schemes and as compliant with the waste
hierarchy.
The applicant has recently examined the feasibility of sourcing feedstock deliveries by barge. The
applicant believes that there is potential to utilise this link by using the existing river berth at the
southwest of the Cleveland Street site. The infrastructure for this mode of transport already exists and
so, improvements will be minimal.
The Transport Assessment has assumed, for the purposes of this planning application that all feedstock
deliveries will be by road, as this represents the ‘worst case scenario’ for the purposes of assessing the
environmental impacts of the proposed development. The existing access roads to the Site were
assessed in terms of suitability for the transportation of construction loads. These routes were found to
be suitable for this purpose.
Based on the results of a plume dispersion modelling exercise (January 2011), the gasification plant
stack height was increased to 70m to ensure that emissions to air will be dispersed appropriately and in
line with relevant legislation and guidance. In addition, a re-heater was added to the facility, which
increases the final exhaust gas temperature, and thus prevents plume grounding.
Material storage and processing buildings will be kept under negative pressure to minimise fugitive
odour releases to the environment. The extracted air from the building will also be ducted through a
biofilter to control odour and dust emissions.
Operational impacts of the proposed development have been modelled and results indicate that all of
the pollutant species emitted from the gasification plant will have negligible additional impacts on
either human health or ecological receptors, except for cadmium and thallium, which is conservatively
predicted to lead to a minor adverse impact. This is largely due to the worst case assumptions used in
the assessment and the assumption that metal releases occur continuously at the Waste Incineration
Directive emission limit values and all as cadmium, whereas in reality, it is likely that emissions will
be below this value, and that associated impacts would be negligible.
There is also the potential for a back-up boiler to be utilised for providing heat to the AD plant,
although it is likely that this would only operate when waste heat was not available from the
gasification plant. Nevertheless, the two emission sources have been modelled together with the flare,
to account for a worst case assessment, and the additional impacts from the back-up boiler and flare do
not change the outcome of the assessment for the gasification plant.
ES Contains:-
Odour Management Plan
Fugitive Releases Management Plan
Noise and Vibration Technical Information
Transport Assessment
Travel Plan
Flood Risk Assessment, Drainage Report, Sequential and exceptions Tests
Ecology Assessment
Ground conditions report
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
Climate Change Assessment
Lighting Management Plan
Dust Management Plan
Design and Access Statement
Conclusion of ES
The site preparation and construction of the proposed development is anticipated to lead to short-term
potentially adverse impacts, such as noise, dust and air emissions. These would be limited to only a
few months in duration and a number of mitigation measures will be put in place to ensure that these
are minimised. The operational impacts of the proposed development would be predominantly
negligible, with a minor adverse impact associated with construction noise at nearby dwelling along
Glass House Row, as well as beneficial impacts such as employment generation and the linkages to
Hull
University and other educational facilities, and an estimated reduction in road traffic movements
compared with the existing operations onsite.
The proposed development would positively contribute towards renewable energy targets, a reduction
in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and the generation of the energy required through the use of new,
cleaner technology.
The proposed development would also provide a disposal route for materials which would potentially
otherwise go to landfill, thus freeing up valuable landfill space and reducing subsequent greenhouse
gas (methane) emissions that would have otherwise been produced during the breakdown of such
material in landfills.
In summary, the key benefits associated with the scheme include:
- Energy generation through use of new, cleaner technology;
- Contribution of up to 25.5MW towards Hull’s target to provide 39MW renewable energy to the
national grid by 2021;
- Estimated carbon savings of 45,841 tonnes CO2 per annum over conventional energy
generation;
- Diversion of material from landfill and the subsequent avoidance of the production of 8,880
tonnes CO2 per year, which would be generated from the breakdown of such material within a
traditional landfill;
- Approximately a 71% reduction in traffic generation when compared with the existing /
previous land use operations (refuse vehicle depot and cocoa manufacture);
- Improved public safety on the local road network as a result of reduced traffic generation;
- Permanent employment for 60 people in the operational plant;
- Employment of a local construction workforce where possible;
- Procurement of materials and services from the local supply chain where possible; and
- Provision of visitors' access and education and research services.
The proposed development has been designed to adhere to government’s sustainable development
strategy. In particular, the principles and objectives for delivery of sustainable development (PPS1),
reducing the risks of climate change (PPS1 Companion Guide) and managing waste sustainably
(PPS10) have been considered and built into the design.
The proposed development adheres to the following key objectives of the East Riding and Hull Joint
Waste Local Plan (2004 –saved policies 2007):
- Identification of future waste management needs;
- Sustainable waste management; and
- Protection of people and the environment from the potential harmful effects of waste
development.
Overall, the proposed development adheres with the objectives of the relevant planning policy
framework, and is considered to be in accordance with governmental objectives for sustainable
development and renewable energy.
It is understood that an interested party has asked for more information regarding the alternative sites
considered. Under the EIA Regulations, an ES is required to provide an outline of the main
alternatives studied by the applicant and an indication of the main reasons for their choice taking into
account the environmental effects. As the ES states, an initial list of available (but not necessarily
suitable) sites was drawn up as a starting point. As stated most of these were discounted for various
reasons in an initial sift and only 4 main ones taken further. These 4 were evaluated in more detail and
the conclusions are given in Chapter 3 of the ES.
The requirements of the Regulations have therefore been satisfied. Once the main alternatives had
been discarded as not being suitable, the planning application for the ADM Cocoa Mills site and the
Dalton Street site was submitted. It is that application that is under consideration and it has to be
judged on its merits. These merits are amply set out in the documents submitted with the application.
The applicant has provided additional information about heavy metal emission in response from issues
raised by the Environment Agency in its initial response.
The applicant has responded to the Natural England comments stating that the modelling done against
the Humber Estuary habitat type represents the worst case scenario so is a deliberately conservative
estimate. The also confirm that a licensed bat worker would attend the site demolition and an on-site
check would take place for nesting birds prior to any works that might affect them.
In response to questions posed to the developer the following answers were provided.
Q. Can you confirm the efficiency of the incinerator?
A. While it is feasible that the Energy Works advanced gasification plant could qualify as a
Recovery plant (according to the Waste Framework Directive) we are not in a position to state this at
this stage. The R1 ratio (EU guidance on recovery) is heavily influenced by heat utilisation from the
process. Heat uses we have identified are:
Anaerobic digestion plant tank heating
Various internal heat uses.
In addition to these identified heat demands we are seeking out third party heat users in the vicinity of
the proposed development.
The R1 calculation is also influenced by the fuel quality. We have made provision for a wide variety
of feedstocks in the submission and do not know at this stage what the fuel blend will be.
C Spencer Ltd endeavours to develop a plant which qualifies as recovery rather than disposal, but
cannot and has not made a definite commitment that this will be the case, at this stage.
Notwithstanding this, we can make a definite commitment to move residual waste material up the
waste hierarchy. The pre-treatment of residual waste will recover recyclates which are currently being
disposed of.
Q. What type of vehicles does the waste come in on?
A. The material coming into the development will come in on a variety of Heavy Goods Vehicles
including tipper trucks, walking floor trucks and roll on / roll off trucks.
We have predicted (on worst case scenario assumptions) that these will have loads of 10 tonnes, 15
tonnes or 20 tonnes depending on the material types.
Q. Is the main source of waste projected to be the Domestic waste collection system? If this is the
case what happens if Spencers don't get the contract?
A. Spencer’s intention is to process material from the local area – this may include household
material however, having carried out a feedstock survey of the local area, we understand there to be an
abundance of commercial and industrial material available as well. As such, the development’s
successful operation is not solely dependant on the local authority waste contract.
In the unlikely event that it is not possible to source material from the local area, we intend to bring
material into the development using waterborne transport, most likely in the form of waste wood.
After carrying out an initial assessment, we have concluded that the maximum required barge
movements would not have a significant effect on road traffic in the area. An addendum to the
transport assessment to demonstrate this has been submitted.
Q. Stated Tonnages - why does the ‘tree diagram' differ from some data within the ES?
A. The tree diagram was produced for the public consultation process and shows typical tonnages
entering/leaving the facility. The tree diagram was produced for illustrative purposes only and was not
included in the planning application. The planning application states maximum tonnages to allow for
all worst case scenarios. For example we have assumed that there could be a large amount of inert or
recyclable material arriving into Dalton St, which will be sorted, unsuitable for further processing and
thus sent from Dalton St. to respective (plastic, glass, metal) recyclers. This is quantified as 95ktpa,
but the tree diagram shows only the 20ktpa we expect to be in the residual household waste stream. As
another example we have allowed for 70ktpa of SRF deliveries to Cleveland St; however, this quantity
of SRF is unlikely to be needed if the household waste material contract is secured.
It was necessary to quantify material movements in this way so as to define acceptable parameters
within which the facility can operate, while maintaining flexibility to accommodate the various waste
streams in the area.
To reiterate, our proposed tonnages for the purposes of our submitted planning application are as
detailed in Table 4-5: Project Energy Works Material Movements. The applicant has also submitted a
revised ‘tree diagram’ which removes the tonnages and is intended to be a schematic.
Response to FoE issues:-
Issue:- It will divert potential compostable waste to being burnt. This contradicts the EU waste
hierarchy and the Local Authority waste plan.
The applicant does not plan to gasify (or burn) the compostable incoming material in the plant; this is
processed by anaerobic digestion to recover energy.
While recognising the importance of composting and the EU waste hierarchy the applicant concur with
the opinion of Friends of the Earth given in the attached briefing note - extract as follows:
"At the moment in the UK, most of the food and garden waste separately collected by councils is
composted. However, AD has the advantage of generating energy, which reduces emissions of climate
change gases by offsetting emissions from fossil fuelled power
stations. It therefore gives higher net carbon savings than composting."
Friends of the Earth Briefing - Anaerobic Digestion
It is acknowledged that a small proportion of the incoming material comes back out of the process as a
waste product - digestate. Integration of AD with
In-Vessel Composting and Advanced Gasification allows the processing of this waste product and
recovery further energy from it. Alternatively, if sufficient waste heat can be utilised for pasteurisation
and there is a demand for the product from local land users, would consider the provision of the
digestate for use a fertiliser.
Issue:- Although the applicant says that currently biodegradable material is going to landfill, consider
that building the gasification plant will risk diverting material from current composting systems if the
supply is short or it becomes financially attractive to local authorities.
While the dryer, residual material will go to landfill most of the local authorities’ compostable material
is not going to landfill but a combination of open windrow and in-vessel composting. The AD plant
will take the available amount of local authorities’ compostable waste.
In addition to the Authorities’ waste streams a substantial amount of suitable waste is also collected in
the vicinity of the site (and currently being transported across the country to suitable processing
plants).
Furthermore the Advanced Gasification cannot process material suitable for composting or an AD
plant, mainly due to the moisture content of the material being too high. Therefore, even in the very
unlikely event that material for the Advanced Gasification plant did become short, it would not be
feasible to gasify large quantities of compostable material as it is too wet.
Issue:- It is expected by DEFRA that heat from energy producing waste plants is made use of, in order
to extract maximum energy. There are no plans to use heat in this proposal. FOE would like to urge
the council to make this a requirement of all applications in the future and also to facilitate waste heat
use through overall planning strategy
This is not the case. As a minimum, heat from the gasification plant shall be used to heat the AD
digester tanks in addition to a number of internal heat users.
The applicant has submitted an additional consultation report which details the publicity measures and
events carried out including media engagement and coverage, exhibition week, bus tour in the local
area, leaflets and business visits, and engagement with FoE and the Travellers site residents. They also
confirm that they intend to set up a community liaison group if planning permission is granted,
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Regional Spatial Strategy
YH2 - Climate Change and Resource Use
YH4 - regional cities (including Hull) and sub-regional cities and towns should be prime focus for
housing, employment etc; they will be transformed into attractive, cohesive and safe places.
HE1E - focus most development on Hull, Scunthorpe, Grimsby/Cleethorpes; manage housing in Hull
to reduce housing development in East Riding; manage flood risk.
ENV5 - maximise energy efficiency and increase renewable energy capacity (Humber targets 124MW
to 2010, 350 MW to 2021)
ENV1 - Floods and Flood Risk
ENV12 - waste management - reduce, reuse, recycle and recover.
ENV13 - WPA's to ensure adequate sites available to manage waste.
ENV14 - Site designation for waste facilities.
E1 - create successful and competitive regional economy.
Joint Structure Plan (adopted July 2005)
EC1 - Strategic focus for employment development.
SP5 - High standard of design in development proposals.
Local Plan -
The application site is shown on the Proposals Map as within an existing area of predominantly
employment uses where appropriate development will be encouraged.
G1 - Unless material considerations indicate otherwise:
1. development complying with plan allowed
2. development complying with some policies allowed if benefits outweigh disbenefits
3. development not complying with plan not allowed.
G2 - Allow development subject to location and detailed considerations being acceptable.
G4 - Compatible with predominant land use.
ME1 - Sustainable development which respects environmental constraints supported.
ME2 - Development not allowed if unacceptable pollution impact.
ME3 - No unacceptable risks near pollution sources unless can demonstrate level of risk is acceptable.
ME4 - Support development on contaminated land subject to site investigation.
ME5 - No unacceptable hazardous installations
UR1 - Encourage urban regeneration.
NE14 - Protect SNCIs.
NE19 - Support tree planting initiatives.
BE1 - Seek high standards of design.
BE2 - High standards of energy efficiency promoted.
BE6 - Good landscaping required.
BE9 - Quality of employment developments.
BE10 - Access for the impaired.
BE17 - (a) Noise generating development not allowed if unacceptable effect on amenity,
(b) Design of development to take noise into account.
BE21 - Allow development in vicinity of a C.A. which does not detract from its character or
appearance.
BE28 - Avoid adverse effects on setting of Listed Building.
M1 - Encourage balanced transport system.
M2 - (a) Allow development which minimises travel.
(b) Encourage facilities locally.
(c) Allow major development in public transport corridors or City Centre.
(d) Allow housing where public transport good.
(e) Mixed use development encouraged near transport centres, corridors or city centre.
(f) Allow freight movements near rail, water or primary route.
M3 - Adjacent to Primary Route, take account of: (i) main function as through route;
(ii) capacity to meet predicted traffic.
M27 - T.I.A. required for significant development.
M28 - Developer will contribute to necessary off-site improvements.
M29 - (a) Development allowed if access, servicing and parking satisfactory.
(b) Traffic generation and road safety must be acceptable.
M30 - Development outside City Centre to meet parking standards in table M1.
M36 - Encourage movement of freight by rail and water.
E1 - Employment development allowed subject to location and details.
E9 - General employment development allowed subject to criteria.
East Riding & Hull Joint Waste Local Plan – Adopted November 2004
W2 Development complying with specific policies of the Joint Waste Local Plan will be allowed if
detailed planning considerations are acceptable.
W3 The Waste Planning Authorities will seek to use planning obligations, if appropriate W4
(a)The Waste Planning Authorities will require a developer to demonstrate that a sequential
approach has been adopted in selecting a site for waste management development and that in the case
of development:
(i) on undeveloped land within an urban area, it cannot be located on previously developed land; and
(ii) on undeveloped land outside an urban area, it cannot be located on previously developed land or on
land within an urban area.
(b) Waste management development on agricultural land which satisfies the sequential approach must
comply with Policy W17
W9 Waste management development adversely affecting a Local Nature Reserve (LNR), or Site of
Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), will not be allowed unless:
(i) the reasons for the development clearly outweigh the nature conservation value of the site; and
(ii) adverse affects on the site are minimised.
W10 Waste management development within Areas of High Landscape Value, as shown on the
Proposals Map, will not be allowed unless it is clearly demonstrated that any effect on the special
character and appearance of the landscape is acceptable.
W11 Waste management development will not be allowed if it harms:
(i) groundwater source protection zones;
(ii) aquifers; or
(iii) surface waters.
W19 (a)Waste management development affecting sites of known or potential archaeological
importance must be accompanied by an archaeological assessment and, if appropriate, an evaluation.
W22 (a)Waste management development will, if possible, make use of rail or water transport to meet
its operational requirements.
(b)Development making significant use of road transport will clearly demonstrate that reliance on rail
or water transport is not feasible.
W23 Waste management development will be allowed if:
(i) road traffic movements arising can be satisfactorily accommodated on the local road network; and
(ii) impacts on local communities, including businesses, are acceptable.
W24 Transport improvements required to allow waste management development must be completed
before the development is brought into use.
W26 (a)Waste management development contributing towards self-sufficiency in the Joint Waste
Local Plan area will be allowed in appropriate locations.
(b) Waste management development dealing exclusively or substantially with waste from outside the
Joint Waste Local Plan area will not be allowed unless a clear need for the development is
demonstrated.
W28 (a) Materials recovery, anaerobic digestion and central composting development will be
allowed if:
(i) it is within the site of an established waste management facility; or
(ii) it uses appropriate existing buildings; or
(b) (iii) it complies with Policy W4
Materials recovery, anaerobic digestion and central composting development proposals will be allowed
in other locations if development in established facilities, in existing buildings or on sites previously
developed is clearly not practicable
W29 Incineration with energy recovery development will be allowed if:
(i) its advantages in the particular circumstances over materials recovery, anaerobic digestion and large
scale composting are clearly demonstrated;
(ii) it includes the efficient recovery of energy;
(iii) it complies with Policy W4; and
(iv) its visual impact, in particular the chimney, is acceptable.
Other Material Considerations:-
Hull Core Strategy Publication Version - June 2011
CS1/1 Development and investment supported where it can contribute best to priorities for the city
CS1/6 - 8 Business development. Major economic development focused along the A63 Western
Corridor, the A1033 Eastern Corridor, at Clough Road, at Kingswood, and at the Port. Development to
maximise the opportunities to support identified growth sectors including the Port, added value
logistics, renewable energy, healthcare technologies, and food processing and manufacturing. The Port
of Hull will continue in its role as an operational port.
CS4/1 - 2 Investment supported in employment areas to enable existing companies to expand or
relocate, and to attract small and medium-sized enterprises; Within Heartlands Area, support given to
regeneration and reclamation of vacant and derelict areas.
CS4/5 Development of research and innovation activities will be supported, including expansion of
existing firms, expansion and redevelopment of University of Hull, and by encouraging the start-up of
small and medium-sized enterprises producing innovative products or services.
CS6/1 Local distinctiveness will be promoted with particular reference to:
a. the Port and making effective use of the city’s waterfront and maritime assets along the rivers Hull
and Humber;
b. creating a network of landmarks in prominent or gateway locations;
c. encouraging innovative architecture; and
d. key views, vistas, the townscape of the Old Town, and the historic skyline of the City Centre.
CS7/1 Development supported if meets Local Standing Advice on flood risk, including addressing the
sequential approach within the locally defined Flood Zone 3a sub-areas.
CS7/3 flood risk assessment to demonstrate adequate flood mitigation measures, no increase in flood
risk elsewhere, and surface water managed efficiently on site.
CS8/5 Sites of Nature Conservation Interest protected from development that would adversely affect
value. Their improvement supported.
CS9/1 Development which demonstrates sustainable design (minimising use of non-renewable
materials; energy and water consumption; waste; pollution; flood risk; and travel by car) supported.
CS9/2 Proposals to incorporate principles of passive solar design to optimising use of solar heat,
daylight and natural ventilation.
CS9/4 Development must not have adverse impact on groundwater quality.
CS9/4(ii) Development of 10 or more dwellings or 1000 sq m or more non-residential floorspace
should reduce its predicted carbon emissions by at least 10% by using on-site renewable or low-carbon
energy technology. If not feasible equivalent off-site contributions will be required or equivalent
reduction in carbon emissions by improving on Building Regulations.
CS9/5 Proposals for renewable energy supported if environmental impacts can be satisfactorily
addressed, particularly on air quality, residential amenity, and if demonstrated European sites not
adversely affected.
CS10 Waste facilities
Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development
High quality and inclusive design should be the aim of all those involved in the development process -
ensuring that developments - create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder or fear
of crime does not undermine quality of life or community cohesion.
Development Plans should address, on the basis of sound science, the causes and impacts of climate
change, the management of pollution and natural hazards, the safeguarding of natural resources, and
the minimisation of impacts from the management and use of resources.
PPS1 (Supplement): Planning and Climate Change (2007)
In their consideration of the environmental performance of proposed development, taking particular
account of the climate the development is likely to experience over its expected lifetime, planning
authorities should expect new development to: - provide for sustainable waste management…
Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth
EC10.1 Local planning authorities should adopt a positive and constructive approach towards planning
applications for economic development. Planning applications that secure sustainable economic
growth should be treated favourably.
Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment
HE7.2 In considering the impact of a proposal on any heritage asset, local planning authorities should
take into account the particular nature of the significance of the heritage asset and the value that it
holds for this and future generations. This understanding should be used by the local planning
authority to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the
proposals.
Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
The aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity and geological conservation
interests. Where granting planning permission would result in significant harm to those interests, local
planning authorities will need to be satisfied that the development cannot reasonably be located on any
alternative sites that would result in less or no harm. In the absence of any such alternatives, local
planning authorities should ensure that, before planning permission is granted, adequate mitigation
measures are put in place. Where a planning decision would result in significant harm to biodiversity
and geological interests which cannot be prevented or adequately mitigated against, appropriate
compensation measures should be sought. If that significant harm cannot be prevented, adequately
mitigated against, or compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.
Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management - Including update March
2011
By more sustainable waste management, moving the management of waste up the 'waste hierarchy'
(see hierarchy diagram attached) of prevention, preparing for reuse, recycling, other recovery, and
disposing only as a last resort, the Government aims to break the link between economic growth and
the environmental impact of waste.
In the interim period before the development plan is updated to reflect the policies in this PPS,
planning authorities should ensure proposals are consistent with the policies in this PPS and avoid
placing requirements on applicants that are inconsistent.
Modern, appropriately located, well-run and well-regulated, waste management facilities operated in
line with current pollution control techniques and standards should pose little risk to human health.
The detailed consideration of a waste management process and the implications, if any, for human
health is the responsibility of the pollution control authorities. However, planning operates in the
public interest to ensure that the location of proposed development is acceptable and health can be
material to such decisions.
In determining planning applications, all planning authorities should, where relevant, consider the
likely impact of proposed, non-waste related, development on existing waste management facilities,
and on sites and areas allocated for waste management. Where proposals would prejudice the
implementation of the waste strategy in the development plan, consideration should be given to how
they could be amended to make them acceptable or, where this is not practicable, to refusing planning
permission.
In the case of waste disposal facilities, applicants should be able to demonstrate that the envisaged
facility will not undermine the waste planning strategy through prejudicing movement up the waste
hierarchy.
In searching for sites and areas suitable for new or enhanced waste management facilities, waste
planning authorities should consider:
- opportunities for on-site management of waste where it arises;
- a broad range of locations including industrial sites, looking for opportunities to collocate facilities
together and with complementary activities (reflecting the concept of resource recovery parks).
Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport
Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy
Development proposals should demonstrate any environmental, economic and social benefits as well
as how any environmental and social impacts have been minimised through careful consideration of
location, scale, design and other measures.
Planning permission for renewable energy developments likely to have an adverse effect on a site of
international importance for nature and heritage conservation (Special Protection Areas, Special Areas
of Conservation, RAMSAR Sites and World Heritage Sites) should only be granted once an
assessment has shown that the integrity of the site would not be adversely affected.
In handling planning applications for anaerobic digestion, local planning authorities should consider
carefully the potential impacts of odour and the proposals put forward for its control. In cases where
odour would have an impact, such plants should not be located in close proximity to existing
residential areas.
Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control
Any consideration of the quality of land, air or water and potential impacts arising from development,
possibly leading to an impact on health, is capable of being a material planning consideration, in so far
as it arises or may arise from any land use.
Development control decisions can have a significant effect on the environment, in some cases not
only locally but also over considerable distances. LPAs must be satisfied that planning permission can
be granted on land use grounds taking full account of environmental impacts. This will require close
co-operation with the Environment Agency and/or the pollution control authority, and other relevant
bodies such as English Nature, Drainage Boards, and water and sewerage undertakers, to ensure that in
the case of potentially polluting developments:
- the relevant pollution control authority is satisfied that potential releases can be adequately regulated
under the pollution control framework; and
- the effects of existing sources of pollution in and around the site are not such that the cumulative
effects of pollution when the proposed development is
added would make that development unacceptable.
The remediation of land affected by contamination through the granting of planning permission (with
the attachment of the necessary conditions) should secure the removal of unacceptable risk and make
the site suitable for its new use. As a minimum, after carrying out the development and
commencement of its use, the land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land
under Part IIA of the EPA 1990.
Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise
Much of the development which is necessary for the creation of jobs and the construction and
improvement of essential infrastructure will generate noise.
The planning system should not place unjustifiable obstacles in the way of such development.
Nevertheless, local planning authorities must ensure that development does not cause an unacceptable
degree of disturbance. They should also bear in mind that a subsequent intensification or change of use
may result in greater intrusion and they may wish to consider the use of appropriate conditions.
Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk
Draft National Planning Policy Framework - confirms the NPPF contains no waste policies and PPS10
will remain in palce until the National Waste Management Plan is published.
Government Statement
Climate Change Act (2008)
An Act to set a target for the year 2050 for the reduction of targeted greenhouse gas emissions.
The Energy Act 2008
The Energy White Paper - Meeting the Energy Challenge (2007)
Waste Strategy for England (2007)
The Government’s key objectives are to:
- decouple waste growth (in all sectors) from economic growth and put more emphasis on waste
prevention and re-use;
- meet and exceed the Landfill Directive diversion targets for biodegradable municipal waste in
2010, 2013 and 2020;
- increase diversion from landfill of non-municipal waste and secure better integration of
treatment for municipal and non-municipal waste;
- secure the investment in infrastructure needed to divert waste from landfill and for the
management of hazardous waste; and
- get the most environmental benefit from that investment, through increased recycling of
resources and recovery of energy from residual waste using a mix of technologies.
UK Biomass Strategy (2007)
The Government’s strategy for biomass is intended to:
- realise a major expansion in the supply and use of biomass in the UK
- facilitate the development of a competitive and sustainable market and supply chain
- promote innovation and low-carbon technology development so biomass can deliver relatively higher
energy yields
- contribute to overall environmental benefits and the health of ecosystems through the achievement of
multiple benefits from land use
- facilitate a shift towards a bio-economy through sustainable growth and development of biomass use
- maximise the potential of biomass to contribute to the delivery of our climate change and energy
policy goals: to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse emissions, and achieve a secure, competitive and
affordable supply of fuel.
Anaerobic digestion has significant potential to contribute to our climate change and wider
environmental objectives. It is a well-proven renewable energy technology. At the same time, it can
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by capturing methane from the decomposition of organic materials,
such as livestock manures and slurries, sewage sludge and food wastes.
Accelerating the Uptake of Anaerobic Digestion in England (2010)
UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009)
It sets out the path for us to meet our legally-binding target to ensure 15% of our energy comes from
renewable sources by 2020: almost a seven-fold increase in the share of renewables in scarcely more
than a decade.
UK Low Carbon Transition Plan (2009)
The plan to 2020 will secure power supplies and cut emissions from power and heavy industry
together by 22% on 2008 levels, over half of the savings needed to meet carbon budgets, so that by
2020 around 40% of our electricity will come from low carbon sources.
The Renewables Obligation Order (2009 – Amended 2010)
The Renewables Obligation (RO) is the current main mechanism for supporting large-scale generation
of renewable electricity
Accelerating the Uptake of Anaerobic Digestion in England: An Implementation Plan (2010) The
Government is committed to encouraging a significant growth in the use of anaerobic digestion, a
technology with great potential to contribute to our climate change and wider environmental
objectives.
Government Review of Waste Policy (2011)
Government supports efficient energy recovery from residual waste which can deliver environmental
benefits, reduce carbon impacts and provide economic opportunities. Our aim is to get the most energy
out of genuinely residual waste, not to get the most waste into energy recovery. Anaerobic digestion
offers a positive solution to food waste, and the Government is publishing separately an anaerobic
digestion strategy.
The Anaerobic Digestion Strategy and Action Plan (2011)
AD can play an important role as a means of dealing with organic waste and avoiding, by more
efficient capture and treatment, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are associated with its
disposal to landfill. AD also offers other benefits, such as recovering energy and producing valuable
biofertilisers. The biogas can be used to generate heat and electricity, converted into biofuels or
cleaned and injected into the gas grid.
Renewables Obligation Orders and the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation Orders (2011)
Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC
The objective of the Directive is to prevent or reduce as far as possible negative effects on the
environment from the landfilling of waste, by introducing stringent technical requirements for waste
and landfills.
The Directive is intended to prevent or reduce the adverse effects of the landfill of waste on the
environment, in particular on surface water, groundwater, soil, air and human health.
Revised Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC).
This Directive lays down measures to protect the environment and human health by preventing or
reducing the adverse impacts of the generation and management of waste and by reducing overall
impacts of resource use and improving the efficiency of such use.
The directive defines the whether a treatment constitutes disposal operations (Annex I), and recovery
operations (Annex ii).
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Approach to the Decision
In accordance with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 for any
determination under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan; the determination
shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
In this case the Development Plan consists of The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS); The Joint Structure
Plan; Hull and East Riding Joint Waste Local Plan (JWLP); and The Hull City Plan.
The Government’s Waste Strategy 2007 for England and Wales, various Planning Policy Guidance
Notes and Planning Policy Statements are amongst the material considerations.
In the Citywide Proposals Map the application site is located within an existing area of predominantly
employment uses where appropriate development will be encouraged.
An Environmental Statement as required under the 1999 Regulations accompanies this planning
application.
Need/Alternatives/BAT(Best Available Technique)
Removing waste from landfill would constitute an environmental benefit. Following further
clarification from the applicant (see above) it is considered that part of the proposal represents disposal
in terms of the waste hierarchy. This is due to the efficiency of the plant and whether it can be
interpreted as being considered to be energy recovery or primarily just a disposal method. However,
the proposal also includes in vessel composting, sorting and anaerobic digestion, which are clearly
higher in the waste hierarchy than disposal and can be classed as ‘other recovery’. This development
is therefore considered to be what is envisaged as a ‘resource recovery park’ as referred to in PPS10
above and also supported by Core Strategy policy CS10/2. RSS policy ENV14 supports the co-
location of waste facilities.
Therefore on balance it is considered that this ‘package’ of waste disposal/treatment methods is one
that would make a positive contribution to the current waste reduction strategy - Target 45%+
Sustainable Waste Management Strategy - developed in partnership by Kingston upon Hull City
Council and the
East Riding of Yorkshire Council. The Strategy has 8 aims and the first four aims (which are the most
relevant) are:-
Aim 1 Deal with waste in the most sustainable way by moving waste management practice up the
waste hierarchy.
Aim 2 Raise public awareness and responsibility for waste.
Aim 3 Ensure the area is well served by an integrated network of waste management facilities.
Aim 4 Divert biodegradable waste from landfill.
This proposal must be judged against the fundamental principle of moving waste up the waste
hierarchy and any proposal that would prejudice this strategy should not be supported.
In the absence of the proposed facility it is likely that reliance upon landfill would continue until the
medium term. Landfill is at the bottom of the waste disposal hierarchy and given the lack of local
landfill sites within the immediate area this is not considered sustainable.
There would still be waste disposed to landfill, however the treatment process reduces the volume of
waste significantly. Therefore the amount of landfill would be reduced even if all the gasification
residues were landfilled. Policy ENV13 of the RSS identifies that treatment and recovery facilities to
deal with waste will need to double by 2020.
Objections and submissions have stated that the proposal would sideline alternative methods of waste
minimisation and reduction. As stated above this proposal is considered to offer a package of
measures and it is considered that this adequately addresses this concern.
The concept of Best Available Technique (BAT) are required to be considered (under EC Directive
96/61) in order to avoid or reduce emissions resulting from certain installations and to reduce the
impact on the environment as a whole. Use of BAT is required by the EA when licensing the major
potentially polluting industries under the IPPC legislative regime. BAT takes into account the balance
between the costs and environmental benefits.
In accordance with Environmental Assessment requirements, alternatives to the proposed development
were considered by the applicant, including:
- The ‘do nothing’ alternative;
- Alternative sites;
- Alternative site layouts;
- Alternative thermal treatment / power generation technologies;
- Alternative wet processing technologies (incorporating alternative biogas processing technologies);
and
- Transportation of fuel to the Site.
24 Alternative sites were initially examined which was reduced to 4 named sites (Melton Park, North
Ferriby; Staithes Road Storage Land, Salt End; Capitol Park, Goole; and Stoneferry, Hull (the chosen
site) There has been some criticism of the failure to identify the 20 discounted sites but, on balance, the
selection criteria and ensuing analysis represent a rational and appropriate assessment of sites. This
approach is considered to comply with the guidance as outlined PPS10 annex E.
Traffic/Transport
A Transport Assessment (TA) was submitted as part of the Environmental Statement (complying with
Local Plan Policy M27).
The findings of the TA are that the relative impact of the proposed development will not be significant
in terms of environmental, road safety and traffic capacity issues. In fact compared to the approved
uses there would be a reduction in traffic. The traffic reductions come about primarily due to the
reduced activity at Dalton Street, currently it has a range of council services running from the site with
multiple visits and larger numbers of staff, however the proposed operation would involve simpler and
less intensive levels of activity resulting in fewer vehicle movements.
Although the immediate opportunities for transporting material by river are limited, the location of the
facility adjacent to the river suggests that any future potential for river transport could be exploited,
this accords with Joint Structure Plan policy T4 and Joint Waste Local Plan policy W22. The use of
the river would have to comply with navigation guidelines. It is not considered that increased river
traffic would have an adverse impact upon businesses adjoining the river or upon the road network as a
consequence of additional bridge movements.
The predicted traffic generation has been analysed by the Council’s Highway officers and changes
have been made to the proposal to improve aspects of the access and servicing including improvement
to Glass House Row. They conclude that the proposal would be acceptable in highway grounds,
subject to conditions. The applicants have suggested that they would operate limited delivery times
during the day to avoid the peak hours, similar to the Mytum and Selby approval to the north. A
condition like that imposed on the Mytum and Selby approval is recommended, which allows for
slightly longer delivery times.
The proposed layout is considered to offer adequate turning, servicing and parking facilities and these
should be conditioned on any approval.
The transport of materials off the site has also been considered, the disposal of Flue Gas Treatment
Residues and bottom ash will be carried out by road.
The shipment of these forms of by-products will be in an authorised form through the IPPC consent to
ensure the safe shipment and disposal of such wastes.
The impact on the road network, access, parking and servicing are considered, subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions, to be satisfactory complying with Joint Structure Plan policies
T4; Joint Waste Local Plan policies W22, W23, and W24; and Local Plan policies M2, M3, M19,
M28, M29, M30, and M33.
Noise and Vibration
During demolition and construction there would be some noise and vibration from the building work.
In particular piling could lead to a significant noise level. These matters could be controlled through
conditions.
The City Council’s Environmental Health (Pollution) Section has also considered noise from the site in
operation. While there may be some potential for noise pollution, given the site and distance from the
nearest residential properties (including Glass House Row and traveller site), it would not affect the
amenity of any residents. A mitigation strategy is proposed and should be conditioned on any
approval.
Noise from traffic given the existing background levels is not likely to lead to an impact to the amenity
of the area. This complies with Local Plan policy BE17 and Joint Waste Local Plan policy W2.
Litter and Vermin
A licence would have to be issued by the Environment Agency for the operation of this facility. These
issues will be covered by that licence.
However, given the location and the control mechanisms that would be put in place litter and vermin
are not considered to be an issue that require conditions or would affect the amenity of the immediate
or the wider area.
Television Interference
Given the size of the proposed buildings there is potential for interference to television signals. This
can be addressed by a condition to ensure that this impact is mitigated.
Heat Recovery
Heat recovery and electricity generation is proposed as part of this scheme. To ensure that this form of
renewable energy and heat is maximised it is recommended that conditions be imposed that ensure that
all reasonable efforts are made to export the heat as well as the electricity. This would ensure that
there is a realised power generation facility rather than a theoretical scheme. However, it is recognised
that the export of heat to other users is very difficult to achieve and the conditions should be worded to
ensure that whilst every effort is made it is not an unreasonable obstacle in carrying out this
development. This complies with Local Plan policy BE2 and Joint Waste Local Plan policy W29.
Cumulative Impact
This area has a concentration of waste uses with waste transfer stations and also with committed waste
facilities to the north (Mytum and Selby). These have been taken into account and it is considered that
the impact upon the area would not create any cumulative impacts that would warrant refusal.
Regeneration
It is considered that the proposed building would be of an acceptable design and would appear
appropriate in its context. On this basis it is not considered to pose a threat to economic regeneration
and may improve prospects for better quality design in the area, which would assist in economic
regeneration.
Therefore it is not considered that existing employment uses in the area would be harmed.
Also linked to this benefit is the University of Hull linked Energy Academy. This is considered to
provide a positive contribution to the area and the city as a whole and the proposal would comply with
the council priorities which seek to improve the quality of Hull’s business infrastructure by creating a
pipeline of employment sites and premises to support the growth of existing businesses and the
creation of new businesses. Additionally the proposal would improve the competitiveness of one of
the three identified key economic growth sectors, the emerging renewable sector. The proposal is
therefore considered to comply with Hull Core Strategy policy CS4/5.
Dalton Street Land Disposal
Questions have been asked about the disposal of the Council Depot at Dalton Street via the Freedom of
Information Act. The council’s management of its land assets has no bearing on the determination of
this planning application.
Design
The River Hull has traditionally featured incidental mill buildings above 40 metres in height and has a
characteristic and distinctive skyline dividing the city.
The bases of these buildings are often surrounded by subsidiary equipment and buildings such as
storage tanks etc. The proposal is consistent with this unique riverside industrial typology as the
height of the feedstock buildings on Cleveland street is around 35m. and the riverside is occupied by
apparatus for waste processing with supplementary buildings.
A 70m (230’) high stack at the gasification plant on the Cleveland Street site is proposed. Further up
the river is Reckitt’s chimney which is 141m (463’) high. At the south end of the high range of
feedstock buildings the scale breaks down in two parts through the electrical equipment building and
the ‘energy academy’. The Dalton Street site is lower for the fuel reception processing plant and
subsidiary buildings with a 21m (69’) stack at the west end. Altogether height is acceptable in the area
but when combined with an extensive footprint the feedstock buildings have a considerable massing.
The massing would be significant because the feedstock building is extensive and occupies the
boundary along Cleveland Street creating a 155m (509’) ‘wall’ adjacent to the boundary. The building
would be an imposing and distinctive landmark, of a significant mass. This has been recognised by the
developers and the cladding has been designed to feature horizontal blocks of tonally contrasting
cladding that counter the verticality. There are two vertical sections in aluminium cladding which
break down the elevation into 5 elements. There is a framework on the outside that subdivides these
elements in a kinetic movement across the façade with vertical projections above the roofline.
The existing boundary treatment for the Spillers Mill site has merit and is an fine example of art deco
style and also constructed in wrought iron. This is considered worthy of retention and refurbishing,
but would probably need to be relocated to allow for new accesses.
The wharf side revetments are another historic element on the site as is a short stretch of wharf side
wall with a stone coping and brick revetments dating from about 1900 this is at the site of the conveyor
belt transfer tower currently operating as a yard at the end of Glass House Row. Care should be taken
to retain this historic fabric.
The scheme is supported from an urban design point of view. It would be a very large series of
buildings and will have a dramatic impact on the streetscape of Cleveland Street and to a lesser extent
on the city’s skyline. The detailing of the cladding and overlaid framework address the monolithic
form and break it down in a stylish approach that sets it apart from mundane industrial buildings. It is
a context where employment use is allocated on the development plan and large industrial structures
should be expected to support the processes that make up the activity of the area. The context has
some listed mills and a locally listed pub but they are all integral to the unique industrial character of
the River Hull corridor of which the energy works would be a continuation. There are some historic
elements which are worth retaining that do not unduly inhibit the scheme which should pay due regard
to them.
Landscape and Visual Impact
The site and surrounding area is primarily in use for industrial purposes. The applicant has assessed
the visual impact on the surrounding area, including the flares stacks.
Given the nature of the site and the range of views the impact on the landscape is considered to be
negligible. The nearby flat occupants and the traveller’s site would have their views impacted,
however it is not considered that the impact would harm their amenity to a degree that would warrant
refusal. This site and those sites are within a commercial area where such developments are likely to
occur in the interest of economic development.
The size of the buildings would be of a larger scale than most of the other buildings in the area. Views
would be available from long distances, however many of the views would be seen in the context of an
industrial landscape. Given this context and layout of the area the impact on the existing landscape
value would be negligible. The use of materials and the design of the buildings is considered to be of a
quality that would enhance the environment.
There are a number of Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas that can be identified and within the
setting of the application site, immediately to the southwest, is Sculcoates Bridge, a Grade II listed
structure. This is the closest heritage asset. Given the relationship of the application site to buildings
or areas of historic interest it is considered that the impact as such would not harm their character or
appearance. It is accepted that the degree of impact of any particular development must have regard
for the scale of the development, and consequently the larger the building the wider the potential area
of impact. On balance, even considering the larger scale of the proposed buildings, the impacts on the
historic environment is not so great as to impact on their setting.
The plume would be visible during certain weather conditions. Given the industrial nature of the area
this is not considered to be so significant as to impact on the landscape and skyscape, this would
comply with Joint Structure Plan policy ENV6, Local Plan Policies BE19 and BE21and Joint Waste
Local Plan policies W22, W23 and W24
Emissions to Air
This planning application must be assessed in light of today’s standards. If the statutory bodies
responsible for controlling emissions state that emission levels are within acceptable limits it is not the
role of the Local Planning Authority to dismiss their expert opinion without strong planning reasons
based on evidence. Government advice in this field is contained in PPS23 which states: - "The
planning system should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and
the impacts of those uses, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves. Planning
authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly
applied and enforced. They should act to complement but not seek to duplicate it."
Some objections relate to the possible implications on health of the emissions of the proposed
advanced gasification facility. The applicant has stated that the emissions of the plant will contain
pollutants. The test is whether the pollutants contained would lead to pollution to a degree that would
impact upon health and the environment to a degree that would cause material harm.
The proposed plant will also be the subject of an Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Consent
Application that addresses issues relating to emissions and pollution. As a Local Planning Authority
the City Council is the appropriate body to consider all the material considerations relating to a
planning application, which includes the pollution implications of any application. However, the
Government makes it clear in its guidance to local planning authorities (PPS23 and PPS10) that they
should not duplicate the controls exercised by other regulatory bodies such as the Environment
Agency. As a result when the IPPC application is determined by the Environment Agency they will
assess the pollutants impact on helath and the environment. It is not the Local Planning Authority's
role to do this.
The production of electricity from the plant would mean that fossil fuels currently burnt to provide the
same energy would not be used giving a net saving in fossil fuel consumption, and the associated
benefits to the environment. It should not be expected that such a plant would perform as well as a
dedicated power generation facility, its primary objective is the disposal of waste.
Given the nature of the proposal, where most the activities take place within enclosed buildings with
negative pressure the potential for odour emissions is low. Additionally biofilters would remove 80%
of odour emissions from key parts of the plant.
It is considered that there is no justification on these or other air pollution grounds to refuse the
application. These conclusions also cover vehicle emissions which have been considered and were
also addressed in the Environmental Statement. The proposal is considered to comply with policy W2
of the Joint Waste Local Plan.
Hazardous Waste
Conditions should be imposed to ensure that the site does not handle hazardous or radioactive waste,
other than hazardous waste and products produced or needed by the processes.
Drainage
Yorkshire Water have highlighted the need for conditions relating to drainage, as have the
Environment Agency. Yorkshire Water have also objected due to the proposal to build over the public
sewerage system, there are a number of possible solution to this objection such as redirecting the sewer
(by 1m approximately at the developers' cost) or re-siting the building in question to avoid the sewer.
This latter option has now been chosen with revised plans being submitted, following direct
discussions with YW. This matter should still be covered by a condition to allow flexibility if YW
have any further revision requests. Given the small scale change that this solution creates it is
considered that this matter can be addressed by condition, as will the normal drainage requirements.
Waste Sources
In a recent appeal case at King George Dock (which was an appeal against a condition that restricted
only road transported waste wood from Hull and East Riding) the principle of seeking to secure the
sources of waste from only within the JWLP area was tested. The appeal was allowed and the
Inspector stated that:-
"JWLP policy W26 supports waste management developments which contribute to self-sufficiency
and does not allow such developments dealing exclusively or substantially with waste from outside the
JWLP area. RSS policy ENV14 requires that waste is managed at the nearest appropriate location, but
there is no evidence before me of a capacity problem for disposing of waste wood within the JWLP
area which would render this plant essential for the processing of local arisings and, in any event, the
condition does not ensure that only waste wood from within the JWLP is used.
Overall I consider that the condition places an artificial restriction on the source of fuel for the plant
Although the Council has expressed concern that the transport of waste wood by road is unsustainable,
the appellants point out that is it not commercially practicable to haul material any further than
necessary because of transport costs. Moreover, the appellants argue that the number of lorry
movements on the local road network would not change and that the carbon emissions savings from
using waste wood to generate electricity rather than coal or gas far outweigh those from the transport
of the material even over considerable distances. These claims have not been disputed by the
Council."
This appeal demonstrates that whilst it is desirable that this facility derives energy from waste sourced
only from this area, thus reducing landfill, promoting energy self sufficiency, and reducing green
house gases – it is not considered necessary. The difference between whether a lorry comes from
Doncaster (for example) or Beverley is negligible, there would be no more lorry movements on the
immediate road network and the substantial environmental benefits remain.
This proposal is being progressed in isolation from the Council’s current waste contract. This contract
is soon to be retendered. It is likely that this facility will form part of a bid for all or part of that
contract from the applicant. This is not a planning matter and the approval or refusal of this
application should not be judged against any factors other than planning considerations. As can be
seen from above the link between waste disposal self sufficiency which was established in previous
planning policies has been removed.
However, on balance it is considered that the contribution that this ‘package’ of waste management
measures proposed for this site would enable waste in the area to be diverted from landfill.
Consultation/Equalities
This proposal has been considered against the duty of the Council to consider equality issues. This
development is considered to comply with these requirements.
Concerns have been raised about the adequacy of the consultation for this application. It is considered
that adequate consultation did take place and additionally the applicant has undertaken an extensive
consultation campaign directly.
There have been no letters received from the residential properties consulted and a press notice and a
site notice were posted. At the time of writing only 2 individuals had commented.
Wildlife and Habitat - including impact on nearby sites of Nature Conservation Interest
The applicant has addressed the nature conservation issue in the ES. Given the nature of the area and
the distance from sensitive areas it is considered that the potential impact would not be so great as to
harm those areas, the closest being the River Hull SNCI.
The proposal does have the potential for impacting the areas of Nature Conservation Interest. The ES
identifies these areas of impact (groundwater impacts mainly) and proposes mitigation to off-set the
impacts. These mitigation measures (ie general environmental controls at the site rather than speciif
off-site measures) mean that the proposal would not harm these areas, subject to conditions.
It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with Joint Structure Plan policies ENV2, ENV3
and ENV4; Joint Waste Local Plan policy W9; and Local Plan policies ME1, NE14, NE15, and NE17.
Crime and Disorder
Given the nature of the proposal it is considered that there would not be, or likely to be, an increase in
crime or disorder or the potential for such an increase.
Energy efficiency and renewables
The Draft core strategy includes policies relating to the energy efficiency and to the generation of on
site renewable energy for all development over 1000m2. This application clearly meets these policies
as well as the policies elsewhere in national guidance and the Development Plan. The energy
efficiency as an energy from waste facility has been discussed above but also forming part of this
application is solar power and biomethane. This package of measures would make a positive
contribution to the sustainable energy supply to the city. The 10% renewable condition is appropriate
due to the scale of the development.
Flood Risk/Groundwater
The proposal is considered acceptable under flood risk grounds due to factors such as the mitigation
strategy, the brown field nature of the site, and the nature of the proposal.
This site is located within a high hazard high risk area (3aiii) due to its relationship to the River Hull.
A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted as part of the application. The Environment Agency has
commented that they have no objections, subject to conditions; they also considered the guidance in
PPS 25.
Given that the majority of the City is at risk from flooding the safeguards proposed are in line with
those that have been approved elsewhere.
The Environment Agency did raise initial concerns about groundwater/aquiver impacts. Following
further submissions they have raised no objections subject to conditions. It is considered that
conditions can adequately address this matter and therefore the development would comply with Local
Plan Policy NE2, JWLP policy W11
Contamination
Given the location it is considered that there is the potential for existing sources of contamination on
the site. A contamination condition which seeks the identification and remediation of the
contaminated land is considered adequate to protect the environment and health.
Human Rights Act 1998
The proposal, if approved would be subject to planning and environmental control. It would pursue
the legitimate aims of waste management identified and in accordance with other considerations
described above. It is for a purpose necessary in our society. The need for effective waste
management is described in more detail above and the proposal appears to represent a proportionate
response to that need. In considering these issues as part of the balancing exercise involving all
material planning considerations with regard to this application, the local planning authority will have
ensured that its decision takes into account Human Rights Act requirements.
Conclusion
It is considered that the Environmental Statement has satisfactorily addressed the likely impacts of the
development and has included mitigation measures and monitoring procedures to ensure that the
development is carried out and is operated to the required standards. Additionally the impacts on the
nearby areas of nature conservation interest have been considered and the proposal would not lead to
an impact on their nature conservation value.
The relevant controlling authorities in respect of public health and pollution have raised no objections
in principle and are satisfied that their requirements would be met.
Consequently it is considered that the proposal complies with the National Waste Strategy as well as
government guidance and is in line with the Development Plans and is considered, on balance, taking
into account all the material considerations, to be acceptable subject to conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that, having taken the information contained with the planning application and
Environmental Statement into account the Planning Committee should approve the application for the
following reasons : -
1. It is considered that the Environmental Statement and environmental information has
satisfactorily addressed the likely impacts of the development and has included mitigation measures
and monitoring procedures to ensure that the development is carried out and is operated to the required
standards. Additionally the impact on the nearby areas of nature conservation interest and the nearby
residential areas have been considered and the proposal would not lead to an impact on their nature
conservation value or residential amenity.
2. Consequently it is considered that the proposal complies with the National Waste Strategy as
well as government guidance and is in line with the adopted Development Plans and is considered, on
balance, taking into account all the material considerations, objections, and the other matters referred
to in the planning officer’s report, to be acceptable subject to conditions.
and subject to the following conditions: -
1 DET2Atime limit - 3 years
2 DET1A(development to accord with plans)
3 DES2(Details of materials)
4 DES3(Surfacing materials)
5 The building(s) hereby approved shall not be occupied until a means of vehicular access has
been constructed in accordance with the approved plans (in the interests of amenity and public safety
and to comply with policy M29 of the Local Plan).
6 H8(Parking before building/use)
7 H9(Cycle Parking)
8 H10(Motor Cycle Moped and Scooter Parking)
9 H12(Servicing/Turning Area)
10 H20(No open storage)
11 NE1A(Landscaping Scheme)
12 Before the development begins a scheme shall be submitted providing details of the position,
design, materials of any means of enclosure to be used in the development shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in particular this shall include the retention of the
wrought iron railings/gates and pillars on the Cleveland Street elevation (either in situ or relocated
elsewhere on the site) and any means of enclosure which is installed shall comply with the approved
details, unless agreed beforehand in writing with the Local Planning Authority (in the interests of a
visual amenity and to comply with policy BE1 of the Local Plan).
13 No deliveries shall be received or dispatched except between the hours of 0700 and 2100
(excluding between 08.00-09.30 and 16.30-18.00 Monday to Fridays) and between 0700 and 1300 (on
Saturday, Sunday and Bank Holidays) (in the interests of residential amenity and highway safety and
to comply with policy E1 of the Local Plan).
14 All waste off loading, sorting and handling operations, with the exception of the transfer of
materials to and from storage areas, shall take place inside the building, with doors and windows kept
closed, except for means of access and egress of personnel and vehicles (in the interests of residential
amenity and to comply with policy E1 of the Local Plan).
15 Unless otherwise agreed all vehicle deliveries to and from the site of windborne materials shall
be in sheeted or enclosed lorries (in the interests of amenity and to prevent air pollution in accordance
with Local Plan Policy ME2 and E1).
16 The total tonnage of waste treated at the site shall not exceed 435,000 tonnes per annum (to
limit the movement of heavy goods vehicles in the immediate area in accordance with Local Plan
Policy M29).
17 Prior to use of the site commencing details of the means to generate energy from the operation
of the plant shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These
details shall be implemented in accordance with the approval (to ensure that energy is recovered and to
ensure energy efficiency in accordance with policy W29 of the Joint Waste Local Plan).
18 Prior to use of the gasification plant commencing details of the means to reuse/export heat from
the operation of the plant shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. These details shall be implemented in accordance with the approval or in the absence of an
identified project off-site shall be subject to review in accordance with a timetable to be agreed with
the Local Planning Authority, before the use of the plant commences unless otherwise agreed in
writing beforehand with the Local Planning Authority (to ensure that energy in the form of heat is
recovered and to ensure energy efficiency in accordance with policy W29 of the Joint Waste Local
Plan).
19 All movements of ash within the site but outside the buildings shall be within covered vehicles
or plant (to prevent potential windblown pollution or spillage in accordance with Local Plan Policy
ME2).
20 No hazardous or radioactive waste as defined within the Hazardous Waste (England and
Wales) Regulations 2005 and Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, shall
be stored or processed at the site, other than the storage of hazardous waste which is produced as a by
product of the approved facility or needed to carry out the approved operation, in accordance with a
scheme that shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval prior to the storage
commencing. This scheme shall specify the means of storage on site, the duration of storage on site,
methods of shipment off site, method of disposal and the amount of residues/raw materials that shall
be stored on site (to define the permission and to ensure that the facility does not store or process
potentially hazardous waste beyond its operational requirements in accordance with Local Plan Policy
ME2).
21 Provision shall be made for a temporary car park to accommodate operatives' and construction
vehicles during the period of construction, in accordance with details to be agreed in writing with the
Local Planning Authority and shall also indicate the eventual use of the area (to provide adequate car
parking during construction in accordance with Local Plan policy M29).
22 A report on potential interference to television or radio signals resulting from the development
shall be prepared by an appropriately qualified person. The report shall be submitted to and approved
by the Local Planning Authority. It shall include details of any remedial measures necessary to
maintain signal reception in the vicinity following and during the erection of the building. The
remedial measures shall be carried out as approved by the Local Planning Authority before the
building hereby approved is brought into use or the potential impacts identified occur (in the interests
of amenity, and to comply with policies G2 and G4 of the Local Plan).
23 No development shall commence on site until wheel cleaning facilities have been provided
within the curtilage of the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and be provided in writing
by the Local Planning Authority and this facility shall be retained and used for the duration of the
construction works (To prevent the deposit of debris on the road network in the interests of highways
safety and to comply with local plan policy M29).
24 DRAIN4(Bunding of Tanks)
25 DRAIN3(Surface Water Interceptor)
26 DRAIN1(Foul Drainage)
27 DRAIN2(Surface Water Drainage)
28 DRAIN5(No discharge to Groundwater or Surface
29 The proposed development shall not be brought into use until the redundant vehicular accesses
have been reinstated back to footway in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority (in order to ensure safe pedestrian movements in accordance
with policies M29 and BE1 of the Local Plan).
30 Prior to the commencement of demolishing the existing buildings, the site shall be surveyed for
bats by an appropriately qualified person and a management/mitigation plan shall be prepared and
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the
development detailing the measures to relocate any bat roosts discovered. The works shall be carried
out as approved (to ensure the protection of bats in accordance national requirements and to comply
with policy NE20 of the Local Plan).
31 Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, no building or other
obstruction shall be located over or within 5 metres either side of the central line of the sewer that
crosses the site i.e. a total protected width of 10m (in order to allow sufficient access for maintenance
and repair work at all times and to comply with policy E1 of the Local Plan).
32 In accordance with a scheme to be submitted and prior to development provision shall be made
for an alternative sewer arrangement to protect the public sewer affected by this development (in order
to protect the existing sewer service sufficient access for maintenance and repair work at all times and
to comply with policy E1 of the Local Plan).
33 CLC1APhase 1 Desk Study Report
34 CLC2Areporting of unexpected contamination
35 CLC4ASUBMISSION OF TEST CERTIFICATES FO
36 Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be permitted other
than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those
parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to
groundwater. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details (to protect
the aquifer in accordance with policy S1 and ME4 of the Local Plan).
37 Boreholes present on site that are no longer intended for use shall be decommissioned in
accordance with the Environment Agency's guidance document 'Decommissioning Redundant
Boreholes and Wells'. (A number of boreholes have been shown to be present on site. Boreholes can
act as a direct pathway for contaminants to the underlying aquifer and adjacent River Hull. Due to the
past contaminative use and future industrial nature of the site, these boreholes should be
decommissioned in line with Environment Agency guidance, and to comply with policy ME2 of the
Local Plan).
38 The development hereby approved shall be carried out and operated in accordance with
Appendix II Odour Management Plan provided in the Environmental Statement. The development
shall thereafter proceed in accordance with the approved mitigation measures (in the interests of
amenity and to comply with policy E1 of the Local Plan).
39 CONS1B(Construction)
40 The development hereby approved shall be carried out and operated in accordance with the
Environmental Statement noise and vibration recommendations and the additional supplementary
information provided (email of 14th September 2011). The development shall thereafter proceed in
accordance with the approved mitigation measures (in the interests of residential amenity and to
comply with policy E1 of the Local Plan).
41 The development hereby approved shall be carried out and operated in accordance with App
XIV Dust Management Plan provided in the Environmental Statement. The development shall
thereafter proceed in accordance with the approved mitigation measures (in the interests of residential
amenity and to comply with policy E1 of the Local Plan).
42 The development hereby approved shall be carried out and operated in accordance with ES Vol
II App XIII Lighting Management Plan provided in the Environmental Statement. The development
shall thereafter proceed in accordance with the approved mitigation measures (in the interests of
residential amenity and to comply with policy E1 of the Local Plan).
43 The development hereby approved shall be carried out and operated in accordance with ES Vol
II App VII Flood Risk Assessment, Drainage Report and Sequential and Exception Tests provided in
the Environmental Statement. The development shall thereafter proceed in accordance with the
approved mitigation measures (To protect the development against existing and future flood risk as
advised within PPS25 and to comply with Local Plan Policies G2 and ME11).
44 BREEAM(Sustainable Building Standards)
45 RENEW(Renewable energy)
