Oxfordshire County Council logo

Agenda item

Finmere Quarry

(1)               Change of use of the materials recycling facility which is the subject of planning permission reference 10/00361/CM to add biodrying and gasification waste treatment technologies and associated power generation together with the extension of the operational life of the materials recycling facility – Application 11/00015/CM

 

(2)     To continue development of non hazardous landfilling operations without complying with conditions of planning permission 00/01480/CM (as varied by appeal reference APP/U3100/A/09/2117987/NWF) relating to phasing of landfilling and restoration, life of the site, restoration and aftercare schemes and tipping levels – Application 11/00026/CM

 

Report by Assistant Director of Environment & Economy – Growth & Infrastructure (PN5)

 

These applications are to (1) add gasification plant to the MRF permission to process more waste and (2) continue with landfilling operations at Finmere quarry without complying with conditions related to an end date for filling, changes to phasing of tipping and restoration and assessment of pre-settlement levels. The gasification plant would process wastes that would otherwise be landfilled so reducing the amount of waste going to landfill by half. It is proposed to end both the MRF and landfill in 2035 rather than  the currently permitted date of  2020 to cope with the reduction in landfill material. It is proposed to change the phasing so that the edge of the site closest to Finmere village will be landfilled and restored first in order to reduce the visual and other impacts of the remaining tipping so for most of the site’s life the developments would not impact on the village unacceptably.  The proposals are, therefore, acceptable.

 

The report outlines the consultation responses received, comments from third parties, relevant Development Plan and other policies and key considerations for the Committee to take account in determining the application together with the views and recommendation of the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy – Growth & Infrastructure are also included.???

 

It is RECOMMENDED that::

 

(a)                    subject to a legal agreement requiring restoration payments and operation of a hinterland that planning permission be granted for Application (1) (11/00015/CM (MRF) ) subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment Growth and Infrastructure the heads of which are set out in Annex 3 to the report PN5; and

 

(b)                    subject to a legal agreement requiring early application for diverting bridleway 4, restoration payments and operation of a hinterland that planning permission be granted for Application (2) (11/00026/CM (Landfill)) subject to the condition changes proposed in the application as set out in Annex 1 to the report PN5 (with the exception of condition 4), the modified condition 4 and any other conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy - Growth and Infrastructure but to include the heads of which are set out in Annex 3 to the report PN%.

 

 

Minutes:

Change of use of the materials recycling facility which is the subject of planning permission reference 10/00361/CM to add biodrying and gasification waste treatment technologies and associated power generation together with the extension of the operational life of the materials recycling facility – Application 11/00015/CM

 

To continue development of non hazardous landfilling operations without complying with conditions of planning permission 00/01480/CM (as varied by appeal reference APP/U3100/A/09/2117987/NWF) relating to phasing of landfilling and restoration, life of the site, restoration and aftercare schemes and tipping levels – Application 11/00026/CM

 

 

The Committee considered (PN5) two applications. The first to add a gasification plant to the existing MRF permission to process more waste and the second to continue landfilling operations at the quarry without complying with conditions which related to an end date for filling, changes to phasing of tipping and restoration and assessment of pre-settlement levels.

 

Mr Kerford-Byrnes referred to the dismay locally at yet another request to extend operations at the quarry. This translated to a total operational life of 42 years which was wholly disproportionate when compared to the area of land involved which was only 16 hectares.  Finmere Parish Council considered that amounted to grounds for refusal in itself.  Previous operations had blighted the landscape.  There were also many unknowns regarding the gasification process and provenance of the operation itself with no guarantee that it would be successful.  There were also serious safety concerns.  He urged the Committee to refuse the application on the grounds of the length of the restoration operation and uncertainties regarding gasification technology.  At the very least residents would expect a condition to be imposed to revoke any permission for the plant if it was not operational after a certain time in order to prevent any unnecessary delay to the restoration programme.

 

He then responded to questions from:

 

Councillor Reynolds – previous problems at the site had been largely containable but this was new technology even closer to the village and if a major incident occurred, say an explosion, could potentially have catastrophic results.  Residents had from past experience little confidence in the quality of operations at the site.

 

Matthew Horton QC reminded the Committee that permission for the MRF and the extension to operations at the site had been granted on appeal in September 2007 and that circumstances which existed before that date were irrelevant because ownership had changed.  The nature of the MRF had also changed as a result of new technology.  Gasification was in line with government policy and complaints regarding odour had been overcome.  Delays to landfill had occurred because of problems with the Environment Agency, the recession and increased levels of recycling.  There would be a further reduction in landfill material because of gasification which had resulted in the need to apply for an extension to the landfill operation.  He did not accept statements made regarding uncertainties relating to gasification technology nor was there any risk of explosion.  The gas produced would be sealed and transported via pipes and not emitted to the air. Safety was the responsibility of the Environment Agency and Health Protection Agency and county planning officers had been right to recommend approval. He asked the Committee to support that recommendation.

 

He responded to questions from:

 

Councillor Sanders – gas was not processed in 2007 and therefore was not part of the applicant’s case.  Permission was now being sought to process waste using the best practice and resources.

 

Councillor Reynolds – the earlier history regarding the EA had arisen from problems experienced by the previous owners.

 

Councillor Owen – he considered that the detail in the proposal completely addressed the safety concerns and there was no danger to local residents.  That had been borne out by comments from relevant agencies. The gas produced would be in a sealed unit and the only substance emitted would be filtered exhaust fumes from the facility’s engine.

 

At the invitation of the Chairman Mr Krantz summarized the gasification technology.  Although the process itself was not new its adaptation to burning waste was.  The technology was used more commonly used abroad than in the UK but more sites were beginning to appear.  The process itself involved drying waste prior to degrading it thermally which produced a synthetic gas  composed of hydrogen, methane and carbon dioxide and monoxide.  The gas was then oxidised to clean it prior to it being used in a turbine/engine to produce electricity.  Non hazardous ash was also produced as a by product  which could be disposed of as landfill He clarified that the engine would produce exhaust fumes which would be passed through a filtration system to meet permitted toxin levels. The plant itself was very expensive and companies would be unlikely to undertake such an investment unless they were satisfied that the process would work.  Similar systems had been commissioned by the Royal Navy and after extensive trials on shore had been installed on naval vessels with proposals for further installation.

 

He responded to questions from:

 

Councillor Armitage – if the system used was a singular unit it would need to be capable of being switched off for maintenance.  If a modular system then one unit could be switched off while others remained operational. The system itself was more versatile and the heating process was so great that it removed toxins.  In the unlikely event that the residue ash was found to be hazardous then it would have to be disposed of correctly.

 

Councillor Owen – if the gas produced was breathed in for long periods of time then it could be harmful.  However, if it did escape then it would disperse in the atmosphere over a distance.  The Environment Agency and Health & Safety Executive would ensure that any risk was minimal.

 

Councillor Seale – he estimated that the proportion of used energy to energy produced was about 31/2 to 1.

 

Councillor Tilley – there were a lot of differences between this process and incineration not least of all scale and efficiency.  Gasification degraded waste thermally rather than incineration.

 

Councillor Lindsey-Gale – he listed other sites in the country including Rainham (Essex), Dumfries and South Wales.

 

Councillor Tanner – there would be no increase in waste throughput or change to the type of waste or catchment area.

 

Mr Duncalfe introduced the report together with additional information and amendments as set out in the addenda sheet.

 

Mr Dance confirmed there were no changes to the type or amounts of waste or where that waste came from. The applicants were looking to adapt an existing facility to use new technology and extend the landfill operation to allow for the diversion of waste from landfill.  Furthermore the two applications were inextricably linked and the Committee needed to agree or refuse both.  There was now regular monitoring of activity at the site which now generally complied with conditions and benefitted from regular liaison at which the county council and environment agency were present. The Committee needed to look at the application on its merits.  The history of the site had been dealt with and the Committee were now required to consider the application before it.  It did represent industrial use in a rural area but as there was an existing gravel site it seemed logical for it to be sited there.  There were existing consents for waste and the type of waste to be used (commercial and industrial) was different to the type of waste going to Ardley.

 

Councillor Mrs Fulljames appreciated the explanation regarding the process even though it seemed a little biased in favour.  She endorsed all that Mr Kerford-Byrnes had said and advised that the Parish Council at a recent meeting had been extremely concerned over the largely unknown technology.  She felt the report had done a  disservice to the chequered history at this site and local residents were being asked to live alongside a visual eyesore until 2035.  She was also concerned about bi products from this process and where the waste would come from bearing in mind this facility was only 9 miles from the proposed energy from waste facility at Ardley and recycling levels continued to rise.  Figures given in paragraph 11 did little to remove those grounds for confusion.  She could not support the applications.

 

Councillor Reynolds wondered whether tipping could be carried out to a lower level and therefore reduce the time required.

 

Councillor Tanner believed that the Council had little choice other than to approve the application.

 

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Tanner, seconded by Councillor Jelf and amended with their agreement by Councillor Armitage and carried by 13 votes to 2):

 

(a)                     subject to a legal agreement requiring restoration payments and operation of a hinterland that planning permission be granted for Application (1) (11/00015/CM (MRF) ) subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment - Growth and Infrastructure the heads of which were set out in Annex 3 to the report PN5; and

 

(b)                     subject to a legal agreement requiring early application for diverting bridleway 4, restoration payments and operation of a hinterland that planning permission be granted for Application (2) (11/00026/CM (Landfill)) subject to the condition changes proposed in the application as set out in Annex 1 to the report PN5 (with the exception of condition 4), the modified condition 4 and any other conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy - Growth and Infrastructure but to include the heads of which were set out in Annex 3 to the report PN5 together with the following additional conditions:

 

-                no implementation of this permission unless or until the gasification plant was operating in the MRF and variation of end date if plant implementation was delayed, relative to the effect of that delay in terms of filling rates

-                tipping and restoration of cells 1 – 6, 8 and 9 to be completed by 2015.

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: