Archived decisions

Contact: Peter Chadwick, ext: 6728 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 In February 2004 planning permission was granted for an Energy Recovery Incinerator at Shanks, Fawley. Planning permission is now sought to remove the planning condition that restricts the waste incinerated at the plant to only Meat and Bone Meal (MBM). It is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not materially harm the character of the area or the amenity of local residents and would be acceptable in terms of highway safety and convenience. Therefore the recommendation is to grant planning permission.

2. Site and Proposal

2.1 The site, as shown on the attached plan, is at the existing Shanks site at the Charleston Road Industrial Estate. The site is within a kilometre of the New Forest Heritage Area, and close to sites of Special Protection Areas (SPA), Special Areas for Conservation (SAC), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation. The nearest houses are about 300 metres from the site at Hythe.

2.2 The Shanks site was granted planning permission for the energy recovery incinerator in February 2001. The heat being used to generate electricity which is fed directly into the National Grid. The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement. The new incinerator was in addition to the high temperature rotary kiln incinerator which was already at the site. The purpose of the new incinerator was to dispose of MBM arising from the over 30 month scheme to cull cattle (OTMS), which was part of the Government measures to combat BSE. The OTMS is being changed to allow animals born after August 1996 to re-enter the food chain. The result will be less MBM for disposal. Consequently the applicant wishes to consider alternative wastes.

2.3 The proposal is to remove the condition restricting waste to MBM to allow more flexibility in waste inputs. The alternative waste streams being considered are biomass (wood, paper and board, food and food processing waste), refuse derived fuel (RDF) and sludges, including dewatered sewage sludge.

2.4 Whilst the waste to energy process would remain unchanged, a change in waste stream would require some changes to the plant. For RDF this would be limited to conveyor changes and incinerator feed. Storage would remain within the existing dry storage system. For sludges new storage would be required, there would also be the need for a mixing facility for support fuel (shredded wood or RDF) within the confines of the existing plant. There may also be the need for additional pollution abatement equipment within the confines of the existing plant, dependent on the waste processed.

3. Environmental Statement

3.1 The original application for the energy recovery incinerator was accompanied by an Environmental Statement. This assessment was based on MBM being the waste source and did not consider other wastes.

3.2 This proposal requires assessment under the Environmental Impact Assessment regulations. An Environmental Statement has been submitted with the application. It concentrates on the changes that would occur as a result of proposed alterations in waste source. The conclusions present a comparative analysis to the impacts reported in the original Environmental Statement produced in 2000. Four issues were identified as being of particular concern and were fully assessed:

(i) air quality;

(ii) traffic and transport;

(iii) landscape and visual impacts; and

(iv) ecology and nature conservation.

3.3 Under the Integrated Pollution Prevention Control (IPPC), issued by the Environment Agency, the emission limits are specified. A change in waste would require a variation of the IPPC, but such variation would not be allowed to increase the existing emission limits. Therefore the air quality impacts should not exceed those shown in the previous Environmental Statement and the previous air quality assessment is still valid. There would be a small impact on the local air quality.

3.4 The assessment concluded that there would be no significant impacts in terms of traffic disruption, impacts on pedestrians and cyclists and traffic related air quality and noise.

3.5 The assessment concluded that there would be no significant additional landscape or visual impacts from the changes in the plant to accommodate a change of waste type.

3.6 The assessment concluded that no impacts are predicted on the existing or future condition of the plant communities from the change in fuel.

4. Development Plan

4.1 Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Adopted December 1998) Policy 45 concerns waste processing facilities which enable recovery of energy and reduce the volume of waste going to landfill. The site is next to Preferred Site G for an integrated waste processing plant.

5. Consultations

5.1 New Forest District Council raises no objection to the proposal.

5.2 The Environmental Health Officer (New Forest) - no comments have been received.

5.3 Fawley Parish Council raises no objection and supports the application.

5.4 Hythe and Dibden Parish Council - comments awaited.

5.5 The Environment Agency confirms that the site has an IPPC permit for the current process (MBM incineration) but has not yet received an application to modify the permit to allow other wastes to be used.

5.6 English Nature raises no objection, commenting that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on the interest features of the Solent and Southampton Water SPA/RAMSAR, Solent Maritime cSAC or the Hythe to Calshot Marshes SSSI.

5.7 New Forest Officer supports the principle of broadening the variety of waste materials to include a wider variety of waste materials. However, the Environmental Statement does not make an evaluation of the impacts for the New Forest Heritage Area and proposed National Park.

5.8 BAA raises no objection to the proposal.

5.9 The Highways Adviser raises no objection to the proposal.

6. Representations

6.1 There was no local Member at the time the application was out for consultation.

6.2 No comments have been received from local residents.

7. Chief Planning Adviser's Comments

7.1 The principle of the operation of the plant at this location is established. However the proposal and the accompanying Environmental Assessment were based on incinerating MBM only. Therefore the issues are whether the proposal to dispose of a wider range of waste through the plant gives rise to any additional impacts and whether such impacts would be acceptable.

7.2 The adopted approach of submitting a further Environmental Statement that concentrates on the issues which could be affected by the change in waste types, is supported. In terms of air quality and emissions, the plant is controlled by IPPC which specifies the limits, and the plant would still be required to comply with these limits if the range of waste was extended. Therefore the conclusions of the air quality assessment in the Environmental Statement remain valid. Similarly the proposal would not give rise to unacceptable traffic impact, nor have an unacceptable visual impact. The site is close to sensitive nature conservation sites but the proposals would not have an unacceptable impact. The comments of the New Forest Officer are noted about the close proximity to the New Forest Heritage Area and Proposed National Park. However the proposed change in waste would not have an unacceptable impact either visually or to nature conservation interests and so would not adversely impact on the New Forest.

7.3 The waste to energy plant has been constructed and operated in accordance with modern standards. There is a need for additional waste facilities for meeting the requirement to reduce the amount of waste which is landfilled, to comply with the Landfill Directive and the targets set in Waste Strategy 2000. Changing the range of waste would enable the plant to have flexibility and stability, both economically and environmentally to ensure the long term operation of the site.

7.4 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and would not materially harm the character of the area or the amenity of local residents and would be acceptable in terms of highway safety and convenience. Therefore it is recommended to grant permission to remove the condition restricting the waste to only MBM.

Recommendation

That planning permission in respect of removal of condition restricting incineration to meat and bone meal (MBM) (Condition 1 of Planning Permission 70529) at Shanks WTE Plant, Charleston Road, Hardley, Hythe (80542) be granted permission for the following reason.

Reason for Approval

It is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan (summarised as attached) and would not materially harm the character of the area or the amenity of local residents and would be acceptable in terms of highway safety and convenience.

Advice Note

All other conditions of planning permission 70529 continue to apply.

8714/PC

APPENDIX

HAMPSHIRE, PORTSMOUTH AND SOUTHAMPTON MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN (ADOPTED 17 DECEMBER 1998)

Policy 45

The Waste Planning Authorities will normally permit waste processing facilities which enable the recovery of resources (materials and energy) from waste and reduce the volume of waste requiring disposal by landfilling provided that:

(i) there is a need for the disposal of biodegradable or combustible waste materials which cannot practicably or reasonably be avoided, reused, recycled or composted;

(ii) the proposed site is appropriately located to help meet the waste disposal needs of the main urban areas within Hampshire;

(iii) the proposed site is located close to and has adequate access to the Hampshire Lorry Route Network so that the development would not be likely to cause unacceptable traffic impact on the local highway network;

(iv) the proposed sit is located within an urban area or within an area which is permitted or allocated for industrial development, or is a site within the countryside that has already been disturbed by permanent development;

(v) the proposed site is not located within the South West Hampshire Green Belt or a Strategic Gap or open countryside unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the County Council that there is no other suitable site available and that the overall benefit to be gained from the proposed facility outweighs the adverse environmental impact that it would have on the area concerned;

(vi) the proposed site is located and the proposal includes adequate measures to ensure that no unacceptable impact would be likely to be caused to the occupants or users of houses, other residential buildings, schools, hospitals and other environmentally sensitive buildings and land uses by reason of noise, dust, fumes, smell or other cause;

(vii) the proposal site is located so as to avoid unacceptable impact on landscape, nature conservation and archaeological interests;

(viii) the proposed site is located and the proposal includes adequate measures to ensure that there would be no significant risk of pollution or danger to public health or safety; and

(ix) the proposed siting, design and landscaping of the facility are of the highest practicable standard and are appropriate to the location of the development to ensure that it would not cause unacceptable visual intrusion.