Agenda and minutes

Councillor Graham Chapman – other Council business

Councillor Gul Khan - leave
Councillor Malcolm Wood – non Council business

Councillor Alan Clark declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 5 ‘Eastcroft Energy From Waste Facility, Incinerator Road,’ as a Nottingham City Council- appointed Director of Enviro-Energy, who are also an active customer of the Eastcroft Energy Facility, which did not prevent him from speaking or voting.

Councillor Michael Edwards declared an interest in agenda item 5 ‘Eastcroft Energy From Waste Facility, Incinerator Road.’ As a local representative, Councillor Edwards has expressed support for the scheme so could not take part in the discussion or vote and left the room prior to consideration of the item.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 23 December 2015

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 December 2015 were agreed and signed as a true record and they were signed by the Chair.

Martin Poole, Area Planning Manager, introduced the report of the Head of Development Management and Regeneration and application 15/02548/PMFUL3 submitted by Axis on behalf of FCC Environment for planning permission for the extension and refurbishment of the Eastcroft Energy from Waste (EFW) facility, including:

·  The addition of a third line with a new boiler and grate;

·  New flue gas treatment;

·  New turbine hall and air cooled condensers;

·  Enlargement of tipping hall;

·  New admin and welfare building;

·  New export substation;

·  New workshop;

·  Architectural louvres and mesh screens around existing and proposed external plant;

·  Re-cladding, re-painting and cleaning of existing structures;

·  Miscellaneous ancillary equipment including pipe bridges, tanks and silos;

·  Replacement gatehouse and weighbridge office;

·  Demolition of former clinical waste incinerator building;

·  Temporary accommodation and weighbridges (on site);

·  Temporary compound (off site);

·  Landscape scheme and other associated infrastructure.

The report was brought to the Committee because it is a major development which is sensitive, having regard to the planning history of the site.

The Committee also considered additional information contained in the update sheet, copies of which were placed around the table and which had also been published subsequent to the agenda publication.

During the discussion the Committee considered the following issues:

(a)  The EU Waste Framework Directive and Compliance with Waste hierarchy lays down a priority order of what constitutes the best overall environmental option for managing waste. The framework incorporates an efficiency calculation (known as the R1 formula) which sets a threshold by which to determine whether an incinerator plant can be considered as a more efficient recovery operation. Eastcroft Energy From Waste is operating as an energy recovery facility without the appropriate R1 status. A condition has been included to ensure that a formal process is followed via the Environment Agency to achieve the necessary R1 status;

(b)  The Committee welcomed the design of the scheme and felt that it was appropriate for its surroundings.

RESOLVED

(1)  That the requirements of Part 2 of Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 are satisfied by reason of the Environmental Statement submitted in support of the application including at least the following information:

(a)  description of the development comprising information on the site, design and size of the development;

(b)  a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible remedy significant adverse effects;

(c)  the data required to identify and assess the main effects the scheme is likely to have on the environment;

(d)  an outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant and an indication of the main reasons for rejecting these, taking into account the environmental effects;

(e)  a non-technical summary of the information provided under (a) to (d) above.

(2)  That the implications of the development addressed in the Environmental Statement subject to the mitigation measures proposed do not amount to major adverse effects or main effects or other adverse impacts that would justify the refusal of the application.

(3)  That in making the decision on this application, the environmental information being the Environmental Statement and the representations received on it have been taken into account. The Environmental Statement meets the minimum requirements of Part 2 of Schedule 4 to the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011 and is sufficient having regard to Part 1 of Schedule 4 to those Regulations.

(4)  That Regulation 24(1) of the Environment Impact Assessment Regulations 2011 be complied with as soon as reasonably practical and the Director of Planning and Transport be delegated to undertake the necessary requirements, namely to notify the decision in writing to the Secretary of State, inform the public of the decision by newspaper advertisement and to place on deposit for public inspection a statement containing the content of the decision and the conditions attached to it, the main reasons and consideration on which the decision is based and a description, where necessary, of the main measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible offset any major adverse effects of the development, and also to contain information on the ability to and procedures for the challenge of the decision.

(5)  To grant planning permission subject to the indicative conditions substantially in the form listed in the draft decision notice and the additional condition listed in the update sheet.

(6)  To delegate power to the Director of Planning and Transport to determine the final details of the conditions of the planning permission.

Martin Poole, Area Planning Manager, introduced the report of the Head of Development Management and Regeneration and application 15/02805/PMFUL3 submitted by Axis on behalf of Gilling Dod Architects on behalf of Capital Project Manager – Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS for planning permission for the development of two buildings and the refurbishment and alteration of a third building.

The report was brought to the Committee because it is a major application on a prominent site, where there are important land-use, design or heritage considerations. 

The Committee also considered additional information contained in the update sheet, copies of which were placed around the table and which had also been published subsequent to the agenda publication.

During the discussion the Committee considered the following issues:

(a)  There is concern regarding parking on Joyce Avenue and that access to residential properties may be affected during peak times. Members of the Committee did not wish to see the proposed development affect the quality of home life on Joyce Avenue but were satisfied with the inclusion of a Car Parking Management Plan as a condition of consent requiring car parking to be monitored over a 12 month period;

(b)  Although it is felt that the parking provision proposed will be sufficient to accommodate the anticipated vehicle demand, the Committee welcomed the applicant’s willingness to review the need for a Traffic Regulation Order in the future.

RESOLVED to

(1)  Grant planning permission subject to the indicative conditions listed in the draft decision notice and the additional conditions listed in the update sheet;

(2)  Delegate power to the Head of Development Management and Regeneration to determine the final details of the conditions.