Agenda item

Plans to develop a new Energy from Waste (EfW) Combined Heat and Power (CHP) facility generating electricity and steam, (and associated grid connections) on land at Algores Way, Wisbech:  Medworth CHP Ltd

Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube

Councillor de Whalley left the meeting and addressed the Committee in accordance with Standing Order 34.

The Committee was reminded that at the Council meeting on 25 February 2021, a motion was passed to OBJECT to the principle of the proposal for an energy from waste facility in Wisbech.  It was explained that the remained in place and was unaffected by this specific technical consultation response.

The Principal Planner explained that this was a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP), so it was considered by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) and ultimately determined by the Secretary of State.  The applicants were seeking what was known as a Development Consent Order (DCO) which was effectively the equivalent of planning permission.

The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) had invited the Council to submit a Relevant Representations Response (RR), to the submission of the Medworth EfW, CHP Facility and associated grid connections application.  This was a specific stage in the Development Consent process.

The deadline for comments to PINS is Tuesday 15 November 2022.  In order for comments to be taken into account, those making representations would need to register as an interested party.

PINS would consider comments it received from the RR stage, which would help to inform the topics and questions to be dealt with at the Examination stage.

The Committee was informed that the Borough Council was one of four host authorities, as the plant and infrastructure were sited within each council area.  The other authorities were Fenland District Council (FDC), Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) and Norfolk County Council (NCC).  The main plant and infrastructure was located within FDC and CCC’s area, with the underground cabling connecting to a substation in Walsoken in West Norfolk.

The Committee noted the key issues for consideration as set out in the report.

In accordance with Standing Order 34, the following Councillors attended and outlined their concerns to the application:

Councillor A Kemp stated that incinerators emitted a number of harmful substances such as PCBs and PAHs.  She explained the effect of exposure to PCBs and exposure to small amounts of these could cause developmental and neurological problems in children.  PCBs could also build up in sediment in coastal areas and rivers and the fatty tissue of fish, which could then be transmitted through the food chain.  PAHs were a class of widespread environmental carcinogens and there was no legal limit to the emissions which came out of incinerators from pcbs and pahs however much modelling or monitoring there was.  She added that the dispersion modelling was uncertain.  It did not account for whether the weather was static and whether there was going to be fast and strong winds.  The direction of the winds would be south-west prevailing over West Norfolk.   There had been no health damage costs included within the papers put forward by Medworth.   She also had concerns over the diesel generator back-up system which could emit harmful diesel.

There had been no consideration of the fact that the area downwind of the incinerator was the 30% most vulnerable and most deprived population area in the whole country.  We as a Council had to safeguard the area.  There was no need for the incinerator, it was outdated technology and once it was there it would be very difficult to get it stopped if anything went wrong.  It was known that breaches did occur and that the deprived population did look for the Council to safeguard them.  The Council should continue to tell the Government that this was not acceptable and must not happen.

Councill de Whalley stated that there was significant public interest in this proposal and was over an extended area and would suggest that pressing the necessity to hold the examination process in public in its entirety.  PM 2.5 had been mentioned, they were seldom properly monitored because it was expensive, and done by mass rather than particle numbers, which was a far more informative indicator of the harm that they were causing.  There was no need for waste incineration and there was over capacity in this country for waste incinerators and did not want to be in the position of burning other people’s waste.  It would also harm recycling and the more incinerators would make it harder to reach recycling targets.  Co2 capture was unproven technology and was expensive and inefficient. 

Councillor Blunt addressed the Committee and outlined his concerns.  Firstly, why this site on the edge of Wisbech.  If I was considering an Energy from waste site

I would consider firstly is their sufficient waste to feed the plant, located close to the proposed site.  Secondly is their sufficient demand to use the Energy being generated.  On the first point, by the need to transport several lorry loads of waste to the site every day, there is clearly not enough waste generated locally to need the site in Wisbech.  Therefore, look for sites where sufficient waste is generated to feed the demand now and in the future.

On the second point is their enough demand locally for the energy generated either steam or power.  This area has a limited demand for the steam to be used in local factories and the power generated will be fed into the National Grid and be used anywhere the need arises.   Therefore, there is no real reason why the plant needs to be built here, build it where the demand for steam is high.

Next have alternative sites been considered by the applicant.  Based on the lack of need for the site in Wisbech, has the applicant considered sites where there is a local need for incinerating waste.  Has the applicant considered any sites where the demand for the steam generated by the plant is high either now or in the future?

Thirdly the impact on people of the surrounding area including Wisbech and West Norfolk.

The fact that the A47 that will be used to bring waste to the site is currently heavily congested seems have been ignored.  When travelling north the traffic on the stretch of the A47 from the Tesco roundabout to the Elme House roundabout is regularly at a complete standstill.  This the main southern entrance into Norfolk from the Midlands.  It is a route for business traffic and visitors supporting the economy of Norfolk.

Has any consideration be given that within 1 mile there are several schools.  The Thomas Clarkson Academy, Meadowgate Academy, Elm road Primary School, Ramnoth Road Junior, Wisbech Grammar School, Peckover Primary School Orchard Church of England School.  That is where the majority of the children of Wisbech are educated.  All these schools are north of the proposed site and in the direction of the prevailing winds from the proposed site.

Finally, I think we should be looking at methods that encourage solutions that reduce the production of waste and encourage the use of renewables and therefore reduce the need for such a plant to be built.

Councillor Dark addressed the Committee and stated that there was a sad irony that COP27 was being held that day.  He added that the Secretary of State was the decision-maker and the Council was not the determining body.  However, Officers would put in a technical response.  The Council had put a motion forward that it opposed this.  Norfolk County Council had also taken a similar stance and other Councils in the surrounding area were doing the same.  There was significant community concern regarding this application and concerns of the Parish Councils regarding the narrowness of the consultation which was supported by this Committee.  The Council had widely promoted how people could have their say. 

He added that he felt that the proposal was not needed and was too large.  He was not against business or development.  However, with regards to this particular site Norfolk County Council and the Borough Council had sufficiency in the disposal chain.  There were also ambitious targets on how to reduce waste and how to increase recycling so the demand for this type of project should be reduced.  He asked if the facility was needed and whose waste it would burn, why this location.  He felt that there was an insufficiency of data. 

The Principal Planner advised that with regards to the A47, National Highways would be commenting separately.  Norfolk County Council would also be commenting separately on health grounds and the issue of need.  With regards to schools, Cambridgeshire County Council would respond on that together with need. 

The Assistant Director explained that technical issues would be dealt with at the Examination which would be held in public.  This was an important part of the process which would help to inform the Inspector to set the topics for discussion at the Examination.  He advised that anyone wishing to participate had to register their interest to do that.  He added that the Council would be working closely with the other host authorities on both the Statement of Common Ground and Local Impact Report as it would enable the Councils to pool resources and use the technical expertise that the Council’s had.

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings expressed concern relating to the impact of traffic on the Elm High Road, which was congested at the present time.  She also made reference to Bottom Ash and whether this had been taken into account.  She added that the report also made reference to an emergency generator and asked for clarification regarding that. 

With regards to if there was a major accident or emergency on site, the Principal Planner advised that Norfolk County Council would be responsible and would comment on this.

The Environmental Health Manager advised that bottom ash would not be processed on the site and would be transported off site, however the location was not known but would likely be in the locality.   Also transported off-site in sealed units would be the residue from the air handling plants which would collect the particles and other types of chemicals and would be taken off site and disposed of as land fill. 

With regards to the back-up generator and disasters, this would be covered by the Environmental Permit, the back-up generator had been modelled and tested.  The back-up generator was there if the site lost electrical power and the site had to do an emergency shutdown.  The details would be covered by the Environmental Permit.

Councillor Rust stated that it was clear in the documents that the Borough Council’s role was to provide local technical knowledge.  Many of the people that lived downwind of the site were the 30% most disadvantaged in the country.  She added that whilst Norfolk County Council and Health might be putting forward reports or information about the health in general, it was important that the Council made the case for the residents in the area.  She added that it would be significant as hazardous waste and bottom ash would be exported off the site and anything that had to be moved out and transported would present more danger.  The health, air quality and highways issues would all impact on the health of the Borough’s residents, and it was up to the Committee and Members to make the strongest possible case for the residents.

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings referred to page 23 of the report where it referred to cumulative impacts.

Councillor Parish added people got very emotive over the health hazards that the proposal might generate, quite rightly, but explained that West Norfolk’s waste was burnt in Suffolk, and what about the health hazards of those people in Suffolk.  He made reference to COP27 taking place today, which would be talking about reparation, and this was a similar instance.

Councillor Squire explained that everyone in the room had their waste burnt somewhere else and lorries of waste were sent somewhere else, however with regard to this application it was not just the A47 which was affected but also the A1101.   The traffic impact would be significant, and the Council needed to comment on this and not leave it to Norfolk County Council.  She added that the traffic was worse in the summer particularly on a Friday.  She also explained that the A47 would be at a standstill from the Tesco roundabout to the Elm Hall roundabout.  She also had concerns about digging up the verge and how this would affect the traffic.  The whole road system needed to be redesigned around there and would not cope with lorries going into the site and bottom ash being removed from the site.

In response to a question from Councillor Holmes, the Principal Planner advised that, as a host authority, it should submit a representation, otherwise it might be difficult to be involved at the Examination stage.  It was also important for individual Members to comment and register through the Planning Inspectorate website.

The Assistant Director explained that officers could attach an extra appendix of Members individual comments so that the Inspector would be aware of issues that had been raised. Given the timescales for submission this should be by then end of day on 11^th November.  He added that if Members wished to speak at the Examination, then they would need to register to do so themselves.  Details on how to do so had been provided to Members.

Councillor Storey added that the proposal was in the wrong place and was the wrong project at the wrong time.

RESOLVED:   (1)        Officers considered the comments in Appendix 3 should be submitted to PINS as part of the Relevant Representations consultation:  It was recommended that:

(a)   To note the views expressed about compliance with these statutory duties would not prejudice the Council’s objection in principle to the application, or any future views; and

(b)   To endorse the technical Relevant Representations in Appendix 3 for submission to PINS, with the exception of NCC comments as these would be submitted separately by NCC, and with the addition of the Air Quality comments, as set out in late correspondence.

(c)   That individual Councillors comments would be added as Appendix 4 and should be submitted to officers by end of day on 11 November 2022.