Agenda

Minutes of Meeting of the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Planning Applications Committee held in the Invergordon Social Club, Castle Road, Invergordon on Tuesday 18 August 2009 at 10.30am.

Present:
Mr D Mackay
Mr G Farlow
Mr R Rowantree
Mr W Fernie
Mr G Smith
Mr D Bremner
Mr R Coghill
Mr W Ross
Mr M Rattray
Mr R Durham
Mr A Torrance

Non-Members also present:
Mr A Rhind
Ms M Smith
Mr M Finlayson

Officials in attendance:
Mr A Todd, Area Planning and Building Standards Manager
Mr C Stewart, Area Roads and Community Works Manager
Mr K McCorquodale, Principal Planner
Mr B Robertson, Principal Planner
Mrs D Stott, Principal Planner
Ms S Blease, Solicitor
Miss A Macrae, Administrator

Mr D Mackay in the Chair.

1.  Apologies for Absence and Declarations of Interest

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr J McGillivray, Lady M Thurso and Mrs C Wilson.

2.  Minutes of Meeting of 23 June 2009

The Minute of Meeting held on 23 June 2009 was approved.

3.  New Appeals to Scottish Government Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals - Erection of Retail Store with Associated Fuel Filling Station, Car Parking and Access (Approval of Reserved Matters) at Former Morrison’s Site, Shore Road, Tain for Santon Retail Ltd/Tesco Stores Ltd (08/00453/REMSU)

The Committee were advised that notification had been received of receipt of an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the above development.   The Appellants had indicated a wish that the appeal be determined under written submissions procedure.  As the Committee decision was taken contrary to recommendation, it was for Members to decide which procedure they wish be requested for determination of the appeal.  The options were written submissions, a hearing or a public local inquiry.

The local Members unanimously expressed the view that the appeal should be dealt with by a public local inquiry in view of the level of public opposition to the development in the proposed location.

The Committee AGREED to request that the appeal be determined by way of a Public Local Inquiry.

Mr A Rhind left the meeting at this point.

4.1  Erection of Waste to Energy Combined Heat and Power Plant at Land at Cromarty Firth Industrial Estate, Invergordon for Combined Power and Heat (Highlands) Ltd 08/00455/FULRC

Ms M Smith and Mr M Finlayson had applied for and been granted local Member votes in relation to this item.

Prior to commencement of the hearing on this item, Mr W Fernie seconded by Mr R Rowantree moved that the item be deferred to allow Members to receive extensive training on the technical arguments involved,  as they considered that the technical information provided in the report was inadequate on which to base a decision.

Ms M Smith seconded by Mr M Rattray moved as an amendment that the Committee proceed to hold the hearing and determine the application.

There being no further amendments, votes were cast by roll call as follows:

For the motion: Mr W Fernie and Mr R Rowantree.

For the amendment: Mr D Mackay, Mr G Farlow, Mr G Smith, Mr D Bremner, Mr R Coghill, Mr W Ross, Mr M Rattray, Mr R Durham, Mr A Torrance, Ms M Smith and Mr M Finlayson.

Accordingly the amendment that the Committee proceed to hold the hearing and determine the application was carried by eleven votes to two and became the decision of the Committee.

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-38-09 by the Head of Planning and Building Standards recommending that the application 08/00455/FULRC by Combined Power and Heat (Highlands) Ltd for the Erection of Combined Heat and Power Plant at Land at Cromarty Firth Industrial Estate, Invergordon be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

The Chairman confirmed that the application would be determined in accordance with the Council’s hearings procedure, notes on which had previously been circulated.

Mr K McCorquodale, Principal Planner, summarised the application, the relevant planning policies as set out in the report, together with the consultations carried out.  He advised that as at the date of completion of the report, 7 timeous objections and 1 letter of support had been received in response to the application.  5 late objections, as detailed in the report, together with 28 additional letters, a petition with 57 signatories, and a youth petition with 121 signatories, all objecting to the proposal, had also been received out of time.  He indicated that on the morning of the Committee, a further 203 late letters and a petition of 2052 signatures objecting to the application had been received, and that the results of a Ross-shire Journal poll had confirmed 87% opposition to the application by those participating in the poll.  He advised therefore that although there had been a limited number of timeous objections, there was clearly a large body of public opinion opposed to the proposed development.  He also confirmed that the consistent themes in the late objections were the same as the concerns listed at paragraph 3.3 of the report.

Finally, he confirmed that Invergordon Community Council and Saltburn and Westwood Community Council had both been consulted as statutory consultees, and their responses were summarised in the report.  Ardross Community Council, although not a statutory consultee, had also objected. 

With regard to other statutory consultees, they had raised no technical objections but had requested that any consent be subject to various conditions, as set out in the report.

Responding to questions, Mr McCorquodale advised that the Government’s Zero Waste Strategy consultation document was due to be published shortly (Councillor Farlow then confirming that it was due to be made public on 20 August 2009). He advised that the Council  reviewed its own plans and policies as and when Government policy changed, but emphasised that planning applications had to be assessed against the adopted policies which currently applied. 

Applicant’s Presentation

The Chairman invited Mr Glen Jones, the Applicant’s Managing Director, and Mr Ian Crummack, the Applicant’s expert adviser , to present the case on behalf of the Applicant.

Mr Crummack introduced himself explaining that he had worked in the field of Energy from Waste (EfW) for over 18 years, involved in all aspects from design and construction to operation.  He advised that the proposed (EfW) plant would process non-hazardous residual waste, with all recyclable material removed, drawn from municipal solid waste and from non hazardous commercial and industrial waste, converting the waste into power and heat. The plant would effectively therefore be processing waste for which no other practical use could be found.  He also advised that;

• The EfW process would not hinder or detract from recycling, indicating that all successful recycling countries in Europe had EfW plants as part of their waste strategy.

• Scottish Government targets required that municipal waste to landfill be reduced to 5% by 2025. Currently the majority of Highland waste, not recycled, was transported to landfill sites outwith the area which was not environmentally sustainable.  Energy costs from fossil fuel sources were rising, and there was a forecast energy gap. EfW was therefore part of the solution, providing an alternative renewable energy source.

• The scheme would produce energy for the equivalent of 10,000 homes

• The development accorded with the Scottish Government’s Renewable Energy policy and the Council’s Highland Renewable Energy Strategy

• Invergordon had been identified as a suitable location due to the availability of zoned industrial land on a brown field site, its proximity to a trunk road, and to residual waste sources. The site was located close to a grid connection and to potential heat users. 

• The development would add value to the local economy, creating construction jobs, sub-contract work, 23 full time jobs, and apprentice opportunities.

• A community liaison committee would be established should planning permission be granted

• Emission limits were set by the EU Waste Incineration Directive (WID), using guidance from the World Health Organisation. Emissions from the plant would be strictly monitored on a continual basis by SEPA, and independent monitoring would also be undertaken.  Modern EfW plants operated to a much lower level than the allowable emission limit values. The environmental impact assessment had been drawn up using the maximum allowable levels and therefore represented the worst case scenario.

• Full independent air modelling and human health risk assessments had been conducted under a regime determined by SEPA

• The EfW plant did not represent a threat to the health and well being of the local community

Responding to a number of detailed questions from Members, Mr Crummack indicated that;

• The constant temperature which would be maintained in the combustion zone would destroy the waste including any hydrocarbon chains.  The process was therefore a net destroyer of dioxins rather than a creator. 

• With regard to particulate sizing, modern instrumentation would measure below the PM10 levels but would not measure below PM2.5. Periodically examples of gas would be sent for analysis as a condition of any SEPA licence, and would provide a snapshot of the particulate inventory and a distribution analysis of the size of particles.

• Comparatively speaking the plant was relatively small in UK terms. Waste would be sourced only from the Highland Council area, and he was content for that to be a condition of permission. The size of the plant was based on its thermal capacity and maximum energy output, and not the amount of waste that was processed.

• The size of the plant was average for that located on mainland Scotland

• Responding to a question as to whether the application was speculative, the applicant advised that potential customers would not be prepared to sign a contract for the export of energy until the Applicant could demonstrate that the product was available.  Approaches to potential suppliers and customers would be made therefore only once planning consent and the pollution, prevention and control (PPC) permit which would have to be granted by SEPA were in place. 

• The plant would operate during 8,000 hours a year, leaving 380 hours  for regular planned shut downs of the plant for maintenance purposes and 389 hours held in reserve to allow for unplanned shut downs, commonly caused by relatively minor issues. The licence from SEPA prohibited operation unless all of the continuous monitoring instrumentation was working.  So if a single instrument failed, the plant required to be shut down. 

• Fossil fuel burners would be operated if there was any collapse in temperature in the combustion zone, and the plant would also be shut down if the combustion temperature fell below the required level

• The flue gas filtering system to be operated at the plant represented a highly efficient particulate removal system

• The developer acknowledged it had a duty of care in respect of the operation of the plant. An EfW plant would only be permitted if it was demonstrated that there were no significant detrimental health impacts. 

• Typical emissions for the proposed plant would be only 10% of the allowable emissions under the WID. If the figure increased the operator would be asked to account for the increase by the regulatory authority.

• Responding to the claim that plants in the USA were being shut down, Mr Crummack reported that the life of a plant was generally 25 to 30 years and therefore there would be always be a number of plants in the process of closure, just as there would be new plants in the process of being built.

• Plasma gasification was currently being used successfully in small industrial waste treatment schemes.  No-one had as yet succeeded in operating a plant using alternative technologies such as plasma gasification technology for treating residual municipal waste.

• Low temperature combustion of waste was not permitted and this was strictly regulated under the licensing regime.

• The PPC permit for the plant would specify that only non hazardous waste, whether municipal or industrial, be accepted

• SEPA would impose a detailed and rigorous monitoring regime and in addition the developer would be required to engage an independent measuring house to undertake further monitoring at regular intervals to be prescribed by SEPA.  The monitoring regime was very prescriptive.  All operational records required to be kept. SEPA would undertake both predicted and unannounced visits to the plant so could turn up at any time.

• The community liaison group proposed would not be a statutory body.  However, there would be loss of credibility to the developer if it ignored the views of the local liaison group.

• A number of non waste related businesses could potentially benefit from the heat produced by the plant.

• A plant located to close to the local population could offer a preferential tariff to domestic residences and other buildings for the supply of electricity.  Grid charges were avoided if the supply was below 5 MW and no additional infrastructure was required for such supply.

• To supply larger industrial enterprises,  a private wire network could be installed to avoid going via the grid and so avoid grid transmission charges.  In that instance, the business buying the supply would have to support the cost of the required new infrastructure. 

• The developer would have to support the cost of any infrastructure required, cautioning that there was a point where this may not be economically viable e.g. laying pipe work

• Asked whether the developer would be prepared to put up a bond to protect Invergordon from any potential future contamination, Mr Crummack advised that bond requirements tended to be the remit of SEPA rather than the Planning Authority.  SEPA had powers to pursue the company.

• A PPC permit could not be surrendered without the authority of SEPA, and would be subject to conditions including the reinstatement of the site

• Should the operator of the facility change then the PPC permit would have to be transferred, requiring SEPA approval, and the new operator would have to comply with the conditions contained in the existing permit. 

• Regarding the cumulative impact arising from other plants in the UK, this was not considered to be a significant threat to health

• Modern instruments were extremely accurate and provided an adequate measurement of particles. The requirements contained in the PPC would evolve over time to take account of changes in technology.

• The additional traffic generated at the Tomich junction was relatively small in terms of the overall volume of traffic using the junction.  However Mr Jones confirmed that the developer would not be averse to making a contribution to the upgrading of the junction.

At this point the Chairman advised that one of the objectors, Ms Karen Mackay, had to leave the meeting before lunch due to a work engagement, and had asked that she be permitted to give her presentation out of sequence with the usual hearings procedure.

The Committee agreed to the request, on the basis that Members’ questions to the Applicant’s expert would resume after lunch.

Third Party Objector

Ms Karen Mackay, on behalf of Mrs Margaret Macpherson, reported that the Health Protection Agency had confirmed that the health impacts around any incinerator had not been studied because the number of people located around any incinerator was too small to detect any impact. However there were 3,600 people within a 3 mile radius of the development proposed at Invergordon and she therefore questioned what value had been placed on the health of the local community.  Further points raised by Ms Mackay were as follows;

• NHS Highland had advised that any potential adverse risk factors, even if they were present, would impact on a small number of the local population. GPs based at the local GP practice shared the concerns of the local population.

• Expert advice had been sought from qualified health professionals on the effects of nano-particles together with evidence sourced from research articles.

• SEPA efficiently monitored the level of PM10 emissions, which were known to have little effect on human health.  However SEPA could not monitor below this level and therefore could not monitor the nano-particles or ultra fine particles, which were the most dangerous to health.

• Expert evidence showed that even low dose background environmental dioxin exposure had negative health effects spanning years and possible generations, and that municipal incinerators were amongst the primary sources of these compounds

• A range of comparative statistics proved that Invergordon’s baseline health was poor, housing was poor, unemployment was high and morale was low.  It was felt, therefore, that Invergordon may have been selected because any potential impacts associated with the plant would  be hidden in this particular town.

• The Environmental Impact Assessment was based on assumptions and qualitative data using small samples.  There was no proof therefore that incineration was safe and she questioned whether Members could take the risk by approving the application.

• Questions existed over whether the Council had thoroughly investigated other safer technologies such as plasma gasification and anaerobic digestion, and as to why the proposal was located so close to a community with a high child population and proven health and social inequalities.

At this point the meeting adjourned for lunch at 1.15pm. The Chairman reminded Members that there should be no discussion of the application during the break.

The meeting re-convened at 1.55pm, when Members’ questions to the Applicant resumed.

Mr I Crummack responded to further questions from Members as follows;

• Questioned whether a business model existed which took account of the infrastructure required to deliver the heat and the efficiency levels at the plant, Mr Crummack reported that all new EfW plants had to achieve a particular efficiency rating, and that plants generating only electricity were less efficient.   He explained the difficulty of securing contracts for the supply of heat beforehand, without the certainty of planning consent and the PPC permit being in place. 

• In response to concerns that there had been no assessment within the environmental impact assessment of the impact on climate change, and concerns that no carbon assessment had been done,  Mr Crummack advised that the developer could provide the Council with such information, albeit that exporting energy would save CO2 in the atmosphere. 

• Questioned as to the possibility that an actuarial bond be drawn up to cover the site in perpetuity, Mr Crummack suggested that the Council had to be realistic in terms of what the developer was asked to provide.

Community Councils

Mr John Edmundson then addressed the Committee on behalf of Ardross Community Council.  He submitted that;

• There was a mechanism for the Council to draw up an appropriate bond in respect of the development, such bonds having being secured in relation to wind farm developments

• Referring to previous polluting incidents, he advised that the smaller the particle the further it travelled

• The air modelling had failed to take account of the concentrating effects of the mountains and haar on the Ardross community

• Weather data had been modelled on RAF Kinloss, chosen for its lack of cloud cover, and located on a different coast from Ardross

• The consultants and SEPA had failed to address concerns that emissions from industrial installations become trapped in the inversion layer affecting Ardross, thus raising ground level concentrations that may be harmful to human health. The dispersion modelling was also flawed.

• Pollutants would be present in the form of concentrated heavy metals, dioxins and furans, and the unmonitored and unregulated nano-particles 

• Referring to the terms used in Planning Advice Note 51 there was a need to quantify in scientific terms what is meant by no ‘significant’ health risk in percentage terms. A precautionary approach should be adopted.

• No air modelling had been carried out for Ardross which was subject to special weather conditions, and therefore the impact of air pollutants from the plant and surrounding communities was not known by the applicant, SEPA, or the Council

Responding to a question from a Member, Mr Edmundson confirmed that there had been no assessment of the risks to private water supplies in the area and this was also a matter of concern.

Mrs Norma Young of Saltburn and Westwood Community Council then expressed the following concerns;

• The developer, in a presentation to local community councils, had glossed over the issue of emissions

• There was concern about the roads issues arising at the Tomich junction as a result of the additional traffic, and that any proposed alternative route along the Shore Road would not be suitable, stressing that Invergordon must be kept open for business

• Invergordon Community Council had invited experts on incineration to address the community and this combined, with other research, had changed the views of local people on the application.

• This proposed method of producing electricity had been abandoned in the USA as being inefficient and hazardous

• The development would generate only a modest return in terms of the volume of electricity generated

• A similar proposal in Aberdeen had been rejected on the grounds that it was in proximity to schools, villages and recreational facilities

• The community was fully aware of the difference between the EfW application now being considered and the earlier application for the extension to the waste transfer station at Invergordon.  However  it was not lost on the community that the waste transfer station could facilitate the EfW development, and that the local authority had targets to meet in respect of waste management to escape potential fines.

• The possibility existed in the future that material for the plant could be imported using the Saltburn Pier

• Saltburn woodland, which had been developed by the community, would be contaminated by emissions from the plant
• Invergordon had a contamination legacy from a former smelter, gas works and MOD tanks.  Concern was expressed at the proposal to foist another polluting development on the community.

• Toxic ash from the incineration process would have to be transported elsewhere from the plant

• Local opposition to the proposal was demonstrated by a 2,000 signature petition, 800 on line signatures, and 87% opposition being recorded in a recent Ross-shire Journal poll

• The Council should invest in the recycling programme which was more sustainable

• Councillors should listen to the views of the local community, study the available evidence and reject the application as an unnecessary and polluting facility

Malcolm Harrison and Marion Mackay, Invergordon Community Council, then made the following representations in relation to the application;

• Invergordon suffered from a contamination legacy arising from the former developments, and from odours produced by existing developments.  Why was there no mention of a de-commissioning bond in the application, commonplace with applications of this type?

• There was strong community commitment to the regeneration of the town.  A waste to energy plant would seriously demoralise those working to improve the town’s image.

• The development would impact on the local economy, Invergordon being the gateway to the Highlands for cruise liners, bringing in an estimated £3m to the area.  The Highlands area was promoted for its scenery and air quality, and the development could seriously impact on tourism.

• The application for the EfW plant would create relatively few jobs compared to the high cost of the development, in comparison to recycling alternatives which would create 200-300 jobs

• The image of Invergordon as a waste dumping ground would adversely impact on property and land values

• The Community Council were unaware of any potential customers for the energy and the heat produced or of any resulting benefits to the community, and it was felt therefore that this was a speculative application

• The development would impact on the transport infrastructure, adding to the already recognised dangers at Tomich junction. A TEC Services official had stated in an e-mail that his main concern was the increased use of what he considered to be the sub-standard and hazardous junction at Tomich.

• There could be no effective monitoring of emissions. A waste to energy plant produced particles down to 0.01PM, the most dangerous to health.  The dioxins and furans emitted would have serious effects on the brain, heart and lungs.

• The development would have a substantial carbon footprint, caused by the transportation of waste to and from the site.

• There was a shortfall in the volume of available waste required to make the plant viable, and waste would have to be sourced from further afield. Ultimately Invergordon and Saltburn could be left with another white elephant.

• There were no conditions to safeguard residents’ health, safety and the local economy of Invergordon, Saltburn and surrounding communities.  This was negligence on the part of the Council.

• Councillors had a duty of care to the people who elected them and therefore they should reject the application for a plant where the technology has not been proven totally safe.  

The Area Roads and Community Works Manager clarified that the TEC Services official who had sent the e-mail referred to above, had been referring to the cumulative impact of a number of applications being proposed at the time, and  therefore had expressed only a general view in relation to the application.

Third Party Objectors

Eleanor Scott, Ross-shire Action Waste Network, referred to the progress which had been made in recycling of waste over recent years with a level of 31% in the Highlands now being achieved. She reported that the drive towards zero waste could be achieved through the recycling, reuse, repair and composting of waste, and that the second method was to design waste out of the system.  Therefore both methods could render the incinerator plant a redundant facility during its lifetime. She advised that in a waste free society there was no place for waste or a waste incinerator.

Mr John Auchterlonie expressed concern at the volume of additional traffic that would be generated at the Tomich junction, advising that the number of vehicles and timing of deliveries would impact on road safety.  The developer should be asked to contribute to the upgrading of the junction. There was a nearby docking facility which potentially could be used to accept waste from outwith the Highland area.  He expressed further concerns that the application was premature based on the number of conditions recommended in the report, and that the applicant should have to carry out further consultation with the local community.  Further points related to the fact that any proposed heat plan should have formed part of the application, and that a further period of consultation should have been allowed with all letters of representation being made available locally in Invergordon.

Mrs Catherine Richmond expressed the following concerns:

• The Committee was being asked to approve an application for an incinerator requiring large volumes of waste. The facility would dominate the landscape impacting on visual amenity, and was not the best environmental or technical option available.

• The application was full of assumptions, and estimates. The cost of a district heating scheme could prove prohibitive, and she questioned where the new houses to be supplied would be built.

• Based on Council and SEPA figures, 82,128 tonnes of waste would be dealt with at the proposed plant, however this included waste that was intended for other energy to waste plants in the pipeline for the Highlands, and concern was expressed at the shortfall and at the fact an application would follow to extend planning permission to allow the incinerator to burn commercial waste and waste from other areas.  The port at Invergordon could act to facilitate this in the future.

• Concern that there would be no control over the material being incinerated, and there were not enough initiatives to reduce, re-use, and recycle waste at source

• The Institute of Civil Engineers had stated that it was a misconception that incineration was the only method of extracting energy from waste.  Other methods worked in conjunction with recycling measures such as plasma gasification and gasification plants. 

• Members should consider whether they wished to risk the health of the Highland population by approving the application.

Statutory Consultee

Mr Michael Curtis of SEPA then gave a detailed presentation on the licensing regime by which a PPC permit would be issued for the proposed development and the plant thereafter monitored.  He accepted that the plant was effectively just an incinerator, albeit one from which energy and heat would be produced.  However, under the PPC regime, the plant would require a PPC permit. The application for a PPC permit was a very detailed application, similar in scale to the planning application.  The application required to analyse the reason why this technology had been chosen and show justification of predicted emissions.  It would be available for public inspection, and the public would have the opportunity to make representations.  SEPA required to take into account any representations relevant to the legislation which SEPA enforces.  The whole purpose of the PPC regime was the prevention of future contamination issues.  The application therefore required also to show what would be done at decommissioning and to commit to the provision of a full decommissioning plan.  Before a PPC could be surrendered, the holder had to demonstrate that there had been no additional contamination.

He outlined the consultation process involved.  SEPA would return any application to the developer which did not meet the regulations or contain the required level of information. If an application was accepted by SEPA, it was advertised and a 28-day period allowed for representations to be made. Any draft permit and draft decision document would also be publicised and a further period for representations allowed.

The regulations also required a further application to SEPA if site and PPC were to be transferred.

The PPC requirements were based on use of best available techniques for maintenance, management and training and best available technology.

Mr Curtis further advised that SEPA had considerable enforcement powers and was able to take entry to inspect any regulated site without prior warning at any time.  Monitoring of emissions would be undertaken by SEPA’s Field Chemistry Team. The PPC permit would also specify the types of waste to be treated at the plant and required records to be kept of all waste treated.

With regard to health issues, the PPC regime included a rigid statutory consultation process which included consultation with local Health Boards as well as the Local Authority, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Food Standards Agency.

Finally, he confirmed that the application fee for a PPC was £18,000.

The Committee then heard from SEPA representatives Ms Carole Chapman and Ms Fiona Birkenshaw. Ms Chapman emphasised the fact that Government targets required that 70% of waste be used for recycling or composting by 2025 with only 5% going to landfill and the remaining 25% being dealt with by EfW plants. Under SEPA guidelines a “small” plant was one processing 100,000 tonnes of waste or less, so the proposed plant was classed as comparatively small. She confirmed that in terms of the relevant policies no set distance was defined for the purposes of achieving accordance with the proximity principle.  It was taken simply to mean “in the vicinity”.

Ms Birkenshaw reported that while the monitoring of PM10 emissions was currently the agreed standard, the recommendation of the World Health Organisation and European Commission was that a standard of PM2.5 should be introduced, although this wouldn’t happen before 2010.

Ms Birkenshaw explained that the EU and EC produced guidance documents, prepared by experts, which were regularly updated and reviewed with the latest advances in the available technologies, and applicants must take account of this and demonstrate that they had used the best available techniques.  The applicant had demonstrated that they could operate below the recommended limits for emissions and it was considered that the best available technique was sufficient. A Government report had also concluded that the incineration of municipal waste was a minor source of particulate emissions, and so any potential risk had to be set in context.

Responding to questions from Members, Mr Curtis indicated that SEPA had the power to review PPC permits to update the requirements to use best available techniques as and when improved techniques were found. 

Responding to further questions, Mr Curtis advised that should planning permission be granted, the developer could commence construction of the plant without a PPC permit but this would be at their own risk as they could not, of course, operate the plant without the PPC permit.

Some Members expressed the view that the detailed information required as part of the PPC process should be available to Members before the planning application was determined.  They also expressed concern that no report from the NHS was available to Members.  It was also noted that significant emissions arose from other sources including unregulated burning in the community.

Applicant’s Response

Mr I Crummack responded to the points raised as follows:

• The current EfW plants in the UK produced less than 5% of the overall level of dioxins present.  The primary sources of dioxins in the UK were not EfW plants but sources such as steel works, fireworks and uncontrolled fires and all forms of diesel energy/transport.

• There was a difference between on the one hand what is toxic and on the other what was the level of risk.  At low emission levels, there had to be a judgment on risk and in the case of this proposed development, the level of risk was very low.

• Tracking individual particles was difficult.  Particles could, of course, travel but the key issue was in what concentration.

• Only 2 -3% of the incinerated waste would go to landfill sites

• The air quality modelling had taken into account all relevant parameters

• Dioxins were already present in the industrial estate and they did not represent a threat to health in small concentrations

• Contrary to what the objectors appeared to have been told by those they had consulted, waste incinerators had not been abandoned or abolished in the USA.  This misinformation cast doubt over the validity of what else the objectors had been told.

• It was accepted that this plant would include an incinerator, but an incinerator is only one component of an EfW plant.  The incinerator would drive the plant to produce energy, in the same way as an engine drives a car.

• The best countries in Europe at recycling were doing like for like in terms of recycling and energy from waste

• Construction of the plant would not commence before the PPC permit was in place as the developer would not obtain funding until then.   

• In-house preparation of the PPC application had begun.  There was no requirement that the PPC application and the planning application run in tandem.

In accordance with the procedure the Chairman then declared the Hearing to be at an end and obtained confirmation from those present that there were no further members of the public wishing to speak and that all parties were satisfied with the way in which the Hearing had been conducted. 

Thereafter Mr K McCorquodale, Principal Planner, summarised the report and advised that the applicant’s environmental impact assessment had presented considerable data on the operation and neither SEPA nor the Council’s Environmental Health section had objected to the application.  The Council was not required to consult the NHS on the application as it was entitled to rely on SEPA’s expertise.

In terms of the impact on road safety, no objections had been received from the Trunk Roads authority or TEC Services.  The Trunk Roads authority accepted that the Tomich junction was not what they would design today, but they were content that the additional level of use which this development would bring about was acceptable.  Nor would they expect this single applicant to bear the cost of improvement of the junction.  However, Tomich junction was not the only access available and it would be possible to have an agreement that the applicant divert traffic to other routes.  The volume of traffic, however, was not excessive.

There would be no impact on the surrounding locality during the construction phase.  There would be some impact on landscape but this would not be significant.  Noise, odour and lighting impact could be managed and controlled by condition.

The SEPA representatives had explained how pollution was controlled under the PPC regime.

The development would create employment and should not impact on the tourist trade because it would not spoil amenity.

The criteria as set out in the Development Plan and national policy which included such factors as traffic, noise, air quality etc had been robustly assessed by SEPA.  The application complied with the Development Plan and other local and national policies.  It was considered that there was sufficient waste in the area to supply the plant, and therefore it was recommended that Condition 3 in the report be applied, requiring that the waste must originate from the Highland Council’s area. 

In conclusion he indicated that there were no material considerations to indicate that consent should be withheld and therefore the application should be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Discussion and Debate

During the debate the local Members, Mr M Finlayson, Mr M Rattray and Ms M Smith expressed the following views;

• Road safety issues at the Tomich junction were a significant material consideration in relation to the application

• A TEC Services official had stated in an e-mail that having looked at the traffic impact analysis his main concern was the increased use at what was considered to be a substandard and dangerous junction at Tomich. These concerns about the junction had not been reflected in the report.

• The right turning lane at the junction could not accommodate more than one car and one lorry at any one time, and this became a major safety issue at peak times in the morning and during the school run

• The report stated that the proposal met renewable energy policies, however as yet there was no probable outsource for the heat generated by the plant, or proposals for input into the national grid.  The application was at this stage therefore for an incinerator only and was not a scheme linked to renewable energy.

• The development would impact on amenity.  Invergordon was perceived as a dumping ground and voluntary and community groups were seeking to re-brand the town as a tourist destination.  The town welcomed thousands of cruise liner passengers and the development would impact on their visual amenity

• Incinerator plants had been banned in Germany. In the USA the last plant had been built in 1995.

• Referring to the proximity principle, there was no clear definition of this, and Inverness should not be regarded as being ‘local’

• The presence of an incinerator may act as a disincentive to new businesses locating in the town

• In terms of Policy E8, a centralised development should refer to Inverness, and not Invergordon or Easter Ross

• The Scottish Government’s draft consultation document on ‘Zero Waste Management’ which was to be issued in the near future would increase targets for recycling, not for incineration

• Further expansion proposals for the plant could follow, with hazardous and commercial waste, and waste from further afield being treated at the plant  

• The local community was united in its opposition to the development

• The impact of the development on the health of the community and road safety concerns should be paramount in the determination of the application

• The Committee was being asked to approve the application because the Council had failed to get its act together in the past in respect of waste management

• Invergordon was suffering the legacy of previous industrial development which the community had been advised would be safe

• Road safety issues existed with both the proposed route to the development and the other alternative access routes

• The development would result in an additional 80 lorry movements per day at an already overcrowded A9 junction.  A roundabout should be installed on this section of the A9 and disbelief was expressed that no objections had been received from the Trunk Roads Authority.

• Insufficient information had been made available to the Committee regarding the health risks associated with the development, and confusion existed as to whether it was SEPA or the Planning Service’s remit to produce this information

• The report was flawed in that it contained insufficient information on the main issues associated with the application.  There should have been a more robust assessment regarding traffic movements, air quality and the potential health risks.

• Access to the site via the Shore Road was not suitable, there being a potential conflict between passengers being transported from the cruise liners, and slow moving vehicles transporting waste. 

During discussion further comments from Members were as follows;

• The report stated that the development accorded with the Development Plan but had been advertised as being contrary to the Plan in that did not fall within the mixed industrial uses specified for the site.

• The development should not be linked with renewable energy, the application being for an incinerator

• Action must be pursued to upgrade the Tomich junction to prevent any near accidents or fatalities.  Planning gain should be secured from the developer in this regard.

• Concern was expressed at the potential health risks associated with the development, and that a sufficiently a strong case had not been presented to demonstrate that there was not a risk,  the view being that this matter had not been properly addressed in the report

• The precautionary principle should be applied in respect of the development in light of potential harm to health

• An article produced by the European Environment Agency referred to the quality of information available to decision makers in areas where there was scientific uncertainty and where the potential hazards of technology on health were not known until it was too late.  Often the technology was in place before action could be taken to stop any health impacts.  There was recognition that the precautionary approach may stifle development, but there was a need for better quality information to be provided to decision makers to achieve a better balance in the future. Taking this into account the application should be refused. 

• Refusal of the application would be more likely to upset the environment, and it had been demonstrated that any risks relating to health and the environment were manageable.  However Tomich junction was not fit for purpose, and heavy vehicles from the south would block the junction and impact on road safety.

• A  Highland-wide view must be adopted in relation to the application, and therefore the application should be approved subject to an amendment to the conditions requiring the developer to contribute to the upgrading of the Tomich junction

• The Committee must remain impartial and objective, considering the policy and facts relevant to an application, albeit there were emotional issues associated with development. 

• While recognising the industrial legacy in Invergordon and local sensitivities in this regard, and the preference that the development could be accommodated in another community, waste was a real issue which had to be dealt with and there was a place for energy from waste plants in the Highlands.  This was seen as good practice both in Europe and in countries which also had excellent recycling rates.

• Many of the issues raised in respect of health represented opinion over facts.  Reassurance on this matter lay in PPC permit process regulated by SEPA.  Approval should therefore be given subject to a condition that planning permission is not granted until such time at the PPC permit was granted.

• A condition of permission would be that only non hazardous waste from within the Highland Council area would be accepted.  Any further application to accept waste outwith the area would come back to the Committee.

• Planning gain should be secured in respect of the Tomich junction

• An appropriate insurance bond should be designed for the remediation of the site

• There was a need to accommodate an energy to waste facility in the Highlands, but not in this location

• The application should be refused solely on the grounds of the road safety issues at Tomich junction, noting that the applicant had offered to contribute to the upgrading of the junction although this had not been quantified

• Until such time as proof was available concerning the consequences of the potential effect of pollutants, caution should be exercised and the application refused

• Transparency in relation to the application was important and therefore the Council should have declared an interest in the item as a collector and disposer of waste

•  There was scope for an EfW plant in the Highlands but in an alternative more suitable location.  However the Committee had to determine the application as submitted on planning grounds.

• The precautionary principle should be exercised in relation to the application, the development being located close to a secondary school, two primary schools and a hospital

• TEC Services should be asked to progress a traffic assessment on the A9 between the Cromarty Firth and Nigg roundabouts

The Area Roads and Community Works Manager reiterated that the e-mail comments from the TEC Services official referred to by Ms M Smith had related to the cumulative impact associated with a number of proposed developments, and stressed that the main consultee on the roads impact was Transport Scotland.  However he considered that the number of additional vehicle movements was not considered unacceptable, and that the junction had sufficient capacity.  He also advised that an alternative route to the site and that access via the Shore Road would be considered acceptable.  He confirmed that he would refer Members’ request for a traffic assessment to be carried on the relevant section of the A9, to the Director of TEC Services.

Decision

Ms M Smith seconded by Mr M Rattray moved that the application be refused on the grounds of the following material considerations:

• Road safety issues at the Tomich junction

• Potential detrimental effect on the amenity of the area

• Non-compliance with the proximity principle as the plant would deal with waste from all over Highland

• Non-compliance with Structure Plan policy W5 in that the plant would not be suitably located as it is near housing and schools and in that the transport network cannot accommodate the extra traffic it would generate.

• It cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the plant would not impact adversely on health

Mr G Smith seconded by Mr D Bremner moved as an amendment that the application be refused purely on the grounds of road safety issues at Tomich Junction.

There being no further amendments, votes were cast by roll call as follows:

For the motion: Mr G Farlow, Mr R Rowantree, Mr R Coghill, Mr M Rattray, Mr R Durham, Mr A Torrance, Ms M Smith and Mr M Finlayson.

For the amendment: Mr D Mackay, Mr W Fernie, Mr G Smith, Mr D Bremner.

Mr W Ross abstained from the vote.

Accordingly the motion to REFUSE the application for the reasons stated above was carried by eight votes to four and became the decision of the Committee.

Mr D Bremner left the meeting at this point.

4.2 (i) Erection of 5 Houses and Formation of Separate Access Roads onto the  Scotsburn Road, Installation of Septic Tank and Soakaway System, as Amended, to 3 Houses, a Single Access Point onto Scotsburn Road and Individual Septic Tank and Soakaway Systems at land to west of Evelix Cottage, Scotsburn, Lamington for Galliford Try Construction (ii) Erection of 2 Houses with Sewage Treatment Systems and Detached Garages.  Formation of New Shared Access onto Scotsburn/Tain Public Road, as Amended at land to West of Torvaig, Lamington for CLC (Highland) Ltd (iii) Erection of 2 Semi Detached Houses, in Outline. Installation of Septic Tank and Soakaway System at Land East of Kanerva, Lamington for Clement R Munro and Partners and (iv) Erection of House, Installation of Septic Tank and Soakaway System, Formation of New Access onto Scotsburn/Tain Public Road, In Outline, at Land to East of Torvaig, Lamington for Mr B Logue, and (iv) Erection of House and Installation of Septic Tank and Soakaway at Land to East of Kanerva, Lamington for Clement R Munro & Partners 08/0244/FULSU, 08/00218/FULSU, 08/00258/OUTSU 08/00424/OUTSU and 09/00304/OUTSU

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-39-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager  concerning applications for; i) Erection of 5 Houses and Formation of Separate Access Roads onto the Scotsburn Road, Installation of Septic Tank and Soakaway System, as Amended, to 3 Houses, a Single Access Point onto Scotsburn Road and Individual Septic Tank and Soakaway Systems at land to west of Evelix Cottage, Scotsburn, Lamington for Galliford Try Construction 08/0244/FULSU (ii) Erection of 2 Houses with Sewage Treatment Systems and Detached Garages.  Formation of New Shared Access onto Scotsburn/Tain Public Road, as Amended at land to West of Torvaig, Lamington for CLC (Highland) Ltd 08/00218/FULSU (iii) Erection of 2 Semi Detached Houses, in Outline. Installation of Septic Tank and Soakaway System at Land East of Kanerva, Lamington for Clement R Munro and Partners 08/00258/OUTSU and (iv) Erection of House, Installation of Septic Tank and Soakaway System, Formation of New Access onto Scotsburn/Tain Public Road, In Outline, at Land to East of Torvaig, Lamington for Mr B Logue 08/00424/OUTSU, and (v) Erection of House and Installation of Septic Tank at land to East of Kanerva, Lamington Clement R Munro and Partners 09/00304/OUTSU.  The report recommended that Members agree to grant the application 08/00244/FULSU, and note progress with applications 08/00218/FULSU, 08/00258/OUTSU, 08/00424/OUTSU and 09/00304/OUTSU

Following discussion, Mr R Durham seconded by Mr A Torrance proposed the motion that the application 08/00244/FULSU be REFUSED on the grounds that it is contrary to the Council’s policy BP2 as applied by the Ross and Cromarty East Local Plan, for reasons of overdevelopment.  The Committee so agreed.

Committee further agreed that application 09/00304/OUTSU should be determined under delegated powers by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager, noting that it in principle met the requirements set out by Committee at its meeting on 23 June.

4.3 Erection of Two Semi-Detached Houses at Plot 1, Land to North of Stittenham House, Ardross for Mr Robbie Dunsmore 09/00220/OUTRC

Ms M Smith and Mr M Finlayson had applied for and been granted local Member votes in relation to this item.

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-40-09 by the Area Planning and Building Standards Manager recommending approval of the application  09/00220/OUTRC for the erection of two semi detached houses at Plot 1, Land to the North of Stittenham House, Ardross for Mr Robbie Dunsmore.

The local Members expressed concern that the required visibility splays could not be achieved, and that approval would represent overdevelopment of the site and change the nature of the existing settlement pattern in the area.

Following discussion, Mr R Durham seconded by Mr A Torrance moved that application 09/00220/OUTRC be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to the Council’s General Policy 31 as applied by the Ross and Cromarty East Local Plan, for reasons of overdevelopment. 

Mr W Ross seconded by Mr D Mackay moved that the application be granted subject to conditions detailed in the report.

There being no further amendments, votes were cast by roll call as follows:

For the motion: Mr R Durham, Mr A Torrance, Ms M Smith, Mr M Finlayson.

For the amendment: Mr D Mackay, Mr G Farlow, Mr R Rowantree, Mr W Fernie, Mr G Smith, Mr R Coghill, Mr W Ross, Mr M Rattray.   

Accordingly the amendment to GRANT the application, subject to the conditions set out in the report, was carried by eight votes to four and became the decision of the Committee.

4.4  Demolition of Furniture Warehouse and Garage, Erection of Two Blocks Totalling Eighteen Apartments, Conversion of Storage Block to Form Six Apartments and Associated Car Parking at Brown Place, Wick for Mr Alan Mackenzie 08/00341/FULCA

There had been circulated Report No. PLC-41-09 by the Area Planning and  Building Standards Manager recommending approval of the application 08/00341/FULCA for the demolition of furniture warehouse and garage, erection of two blocks totalling eighteen apartments, conversion of storage block to form six apartments and associated car parking at Brown Place, Wick for Mr Alan Mackenzie.

Members raised the possibility of the three storey buildings being reduced to two storey, to minimise the impact on the neighbouring residents, and discussion followed on the proposed site layout, and its mitigating effects.

Following further discussion, the Committee agreed to GRANT the application subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

5.    Scottish Government Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals

The Committee noted the details of the following appeals:

(a) Erection of a One and a Half Storey House and Garage with all Services, Forest Path, Golspie for Mrs S L Wild 08/00354/OUTSU – Appeal Dismissed.

(b) Reconstruction and Restoration of Eight Houses, Erection of Four Houses, and Formation of Vehicular Access, Land at Elzy Farm, Staxigoe, Wick for Mr and Mrs Thain 08/00310/OUTCA – Appeal Dismissed

(c) Appeal against Enforcement Notice Served for Erection of a Timber Fence, Neibheis Cottage, 5 Baikie Place, Thrumster, Wick for Mr and Mrs N Scobie 03/00340/FULCA – Appeal  Upheld in part

(d) Appeal against Enforcement Notice Served for Erection of a Timber Fence, Whitehill, 6 Baikie Place, Thrumster, Wick for Mrs E Gibbs 03/00340/FULCA – Appeal Upheld in part

6.    Delegated Decisions

The Committee noted that the list of delegated decisions of planning applications was available via The Highland Council Website.

The meeting concluded at 6.20pm.