Agenda item

Report by the Director for Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) (PN7)

This is an application to construct a Mechanical Biological Treatment facility (MBT) at the site, to treat 220 000 tonnes of municipal and commercial and industrial waste per year. The facility would be contained within a large building located in the middle of the landfill site in an area which has been infilled and restored. It would treat waste through a number of processes including screening, separating, shredding and biodrying to produce a solid recovered fuel (SRF) that could be burnt elsewhere to create energy. This kind of waste management facility is supported by national and regional waste policy.  There is a need to divert waste from landfill, both locally and for London waste. Although the proposal is for built development in the countryside, it is part of an existing waste management complex and would be temporary. This approach is supported by the Council’s Minerals and Waste policy.

There would be little adverse amenity impact upon local people as the waste process would be entirely enclosed. In addition, other impacts of the development can be mitigated by suitable conditions and agreements. Residual treated waste from the Plant should be less odorous than the waste landfilled at present.

There would be no adverse traffic impacts and road traffic levels could be controlled at those currently permitted.

The Deputy Director for Environment & Economy’s conclusion is that the need for and benefits of the proposed development outweigh the conflict with District policies protecting the countryside and the imposition of the ‘temporary’ condition means that in the long term the development should not prejudice the intentions of that policy for the long term.

It is RECOMMENDED that subject to:

(a)          the decision first being referred to the Secretary of State for him to decide whether to call it in for his own decision under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation)(England) Direction 2009.

(b)          planning obligations and routeing agreements to cover:

1.            long term management of the restored site;

2.            footpath/bridleway improvements on the wider landfill site and the funding of them;

3.            revocation of the clay extraction permission without compensation;

4.            an upper limit on tonnage each year of 905,000 tonnes, of which road transport should not exceed 545,000 tonnes, for all the operations of WRG on the Sutton Courtenay site;

5.            routeing to exclude local roads and limiting HGV traffic travelling east on the A4130 to that in the existing agreement;

6.            the operator reviewing the landfill permission after 15 years and seeking to revise the permission, if necessary, to either extend the landfill life, revise the landform or reduce the landfill area to ensure proper completion of the landfill.

that Application SUT/APF/616/64-CM be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth and Infrastructure) but to include those heads of conditions  listed in Annex 1 to the report PN7.

The Committee considered (PN7) an application to construct a mechanical biological treatment facility at Sutton Courtenay landfill site.

Nicola Beaumont stated that it was not correct to describe this proposal as a new waste facility in an existing site when in fact it was a green field site and would have an immense impact on the surrounding area. It appeared that no alternative sites had been considered.  The planned closure of Didcot A in 2015 presented an opportunity to reclaim this lowland area for the benefit of local communities.

Pauline Wilson considered the report did not justify the need for this development over  a need to retain the landscape gap between Sutton Courtenay and Appleford. Offering unsubstantiated opinions as to the need for this type of facility the report referred to a requirement of 190,000 tonnes of commercial and industrial waste for Oxfordshire, which was considerably less than the 905,000 tonnes demanded by the application and was vague and speculative as to where that shortfall would be found.  Rather than meeting a local need it seemed to provide a convenient solution for London until it could deal with its own waste.  There was concern that the applicants were unwilling to agree a hinterland policy and therefore traffic assessments in the report were at best a guess.  There was no justification to overturn the current planning restriction on this site and if approved would be robustly challenged.

Robin Draper expressed concern that there seemed to be a bias towards the applicants position and a closeness between the County Council and WRG.  There was no overriding need for the facility with a shortfall in levels of commercial and industrial waste.  Ardley had been expected to accept all of that type of waste.  No hinterland agreement meant that this would be a dumping ground for waste from other areas and that was unacceptable.  The County Council had a legal and moral responsibility not to place commercial profits against the needs of local residents.

David Mckenzie stated that this development was a purely commercial venture for the benefit of the company’s shareholders. It presented no benefit to 30,000 local residents or other Oxfordshire residents and there was no support locally for developing this green field site. Referred to hundreds of infringements by WRG which had been logged nationally he called for tighter controls to be imposed on WRG.  The County Council needed to put residents first and suggested that as the great bulk of waste would be imported from London then a site closer to London should be found.

Nick Hards questioned the suitability of Sutton Courtenay for this type of development and plans to import waste from London and Berkshire.  When Didcot A was closed and demolished 3,300 homes to be built west of Didcot would have open views. However, if this went ahead they would look down on this enormous facility which could not be screened effectively.  There was no guarantee that the facility would be completely risk free which could put the River Thames at risk from pollution.  There was uncertainty as to the source of waste and the desirability and sustainability of transporting waste 50 miles and then onwards again after processing needed to be questioned.

Dr Angela Jones questioned the environmental credentials of this process and the need to import waste from outside Oxfordshire.  Appleford Parish Council had opposed  proposals for a waste incinerator but this facility would be worse. No hinterland had been identified with greater movements of waste. The site had been established as  greenfield and should only be developed if an overriding need had been identified – this had not been done.  Original proposals had stipulated landfill should end by 2012 and returned to farmland but this had been pushed on to 2020, then 2031 and now, should this proposal go ahead, to 2036 with a massive building on open space. The original proposal had had the floor area of Heathrow’s terminal 5 and, although reduced, was still ¾ of that area. It offered no benefit to the local or wider community, had been based on a waste strategy still in draft form, was against local planning policy and no consideration had been given to finding alternative sites.  She urged that the application be refused on those grounds used to reject the previous energy for waste application at this site.

Responding to Councillor Mathew she read out the Planning & Regulation Committee’s reasons for refusal of the energy for waste application in October 2009.

Ken Dijksman advised that a proposal to build a facility as enormous as this needed to stand up to scrutiny.  This did not.  No clear evidence of need had been identified and no effort made to find potential alternative sites.  The Committee were perfectly entitled to take a different view from that recommended in the report and should do so.

Responding to Councillor Owen he reiterated that this facility was proposed in this location purely for commercial reasons.  There were no planning reasons for this to be sited here. Whether that would apply at other sites he couldn’t say because no such investigation had been carried out but Sutton Courtenay Parish Council considered there was no justification for it to be sited here.

Gervaise Duffield stated that the Vale of White Horse District Council had been unanimously opposed to this proposal as had other local councils in the area.  He highlighted 4 major concerns.   Views from Wittenham Clumps would remain compromised even after the demolition of Didcot A.  The opinion of County officers was that a huge regional waste site was required in south Oxfordshire. However, an application for such a site had been submitted for Chieveley, which was just over the border and could meet that need making this venture superfluous  There was no benefit to local residents only WRG shareholders and was against the principle of localism. It was a greenfield site and there was no confidence locally that WRG would ever complete its landfill operations.

With regard to Minute 30/11 above Councillor Hannaby advised that as a member of the Vale of White Horse District Planning Committee she had voted against this proposal.  She endorsed all that the previous speakers had said and referred to the long term suffering by the local community. She then left the meeting for the remainder of the item.

Alan Bulpin speaking for WRG emphasised that the site was neither green belt nor an area of outstanding beauty but was remote and within an established industrial and waste site. There had been no objections from statutory consultees and although there had been local objections and concerns he was confident the scheme would meet those to a great extent.  There was a need for this type of facility and stressed that its operation was not wholly dependent on the continuing importation of London waste.  By diverting waste from landfill the proposal supported the aims of PPS10 by using residual waste, which would otherwise go to landfill as a resource/fuel and would help reduce the carbon footprint.  For 20 years Oxfordshire had been net self sufficient for commercial and industrial waste.  The building would contain all waste treatment and the environmental impact had been fully assessed and described in the report along with flood risk proposals.  The proposal was for a temporary facility on a remote site.  The operation, which would be regulated by the Environment Agency under its permit regime, formed an important element of the draft waste strategy. Although it was not an easy decision there was an identified and clear need for this facility and therefore a balance needed to be reached between that and the needs of the local area. WRG considered this proposal did that.  Solid recovered fuel was classified as a renewable energy form and the facility would operate to the highest environmental standards.

He responded to questions from –

Councillor Greene – the application was for 25 years and although he could not foresee what conditions would prevail in 2036 any decision to extend that time would need to be the subject of a further application and ultimately, therefore, a decision for the County Council to make. 

Councillor Tanner -  this was the only site considered in Oxfordshire although other sites had been assessed details of which were in the planning application. The company had felt this was the best option for a site in the south of England.  There were a number of schemes nationwide and it was sensible to locate these facilities within existing sites.  It was a speculative development insofar as it was a commercial venture but waste was currently coming to Sutton Courtenay and this proposal looked to deal with the commercial and industrial element.  It was a biological process which included a drying stage. The proposal was for a throughput of 220,000 tonnes.  The current limit was 905,000 tonnes with a road limit of 504,000 and the rest by rail. There was no increase over current landfill levels proposed.

Councillor Mathew – the site could provide a facility to deal with waste from Oxfordshire, Berkshire and London.  However the estimated need was for Oxfordshire and Berkshire’s waste and it was possible that levels of waste from London could fall away over the next 2/3 years.

Mr Duncalfe presented the report, referred to additional information set out in the addenda sheet and a further letter received from Ed Vaizey MP, which had been tabled. In response to members’ questions he set out as a comparison the existing permitted and proposed activities which indicated there would be no overall increase in waste throughput to the Sutton Courtenay site.

Councillor Lilly commended the points raised by the previous speakers.  There was no direct benefit to Oxfordshire ratepayers and certainly not to local residents.  In the 1970s it had been proposed to restore this area by 2000 now, if this goes ahead, that would extend to 2036.  He could not understand why increased levels in traffic on A34 was considered to be acceptable.  He chaired the local liaison committee and referred to a constant stream of complaints.  Conditions imposed on current operations at the site were not enforceable so it seemed unrealistic to expect this facility to be conditioned any more effectively.  Didcot A was to be demolished and with Didcot itself expanding there was a need to retain open space and although the original scheme had been revised it was not, in real terms, that much smaller.  There was huge opposition to this from Milton Park neither would the facility support the Science Vale UK LEP initiative.  The promise of more night rail activity was appalling and the County Council needed to echo the opposition expressed by all local councils and support the needs of local communities.

Councillor Tanner agreed.  The application was for a large building in a rural area and questioned its temporary nature.  He felt there was little choice but to refuse.

Councillor Mathew felt need had not been substantiated and proposals to move waste around in this fashion were extraordinary.  If permission was granted then waste should be restricted to the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire region with working hours restricted and restoration plans agreed.

Councillor Crabbe had visited the site which prompted him to conclude that the impact of the facility would not be as great as some felt.  He questioned the impact on the Western Park housing development and referred to continuing development at Milton Park.  The application site was not his idea of a green field site and he felt that pylons across the site were more visually intrusive than this facility, which was a processing building for a waste operation, which would be entirely enclosed within the building with the site itself well screened.  

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Armitage, seconded by Councillor Mathew and carried by 9 votes to 4): that Application SUT/APF/616/64-CM be refused for the following reason:

The proposal was for a large building in the countryside. The need for a waste management facility in this location had not been demonstrated such as to justify overriding the conflict with Countryside and Landscape policies GS2, NE9, NE10 and NE11 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011 and harm to the landscape andcountryside in this immediate area.