Agenda item

The Committee considered a report where planning permission was sought through the Development Consent Order (DCO) procedure by 'Alternative Use Boston' for the Boston Alternative Energy Facility at Boston. The proposal was to construct Energy from Waste Plant that would have an annual throughput of 1.2 million tonnes of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) that would be brought to the site by boat via the River Haven. The facility would have a total gross generating capacity of 102 MWe and would deliver approximately 80 MWe to the National Grid.

The Head of Planning guided members through the report and set out the main issues to be considered in the determination of the application.

The report recommended that, the Committee confirmed that the proposed scheme was contrary to the policies of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan and the Planning Inspectorate was informed of the Councils objections to the scheme together with the conclusions of the other matters that fell under the responsibility of the County Council to comment on.

Councillor Smith vacated the room for a period during officers' report and abstained from the vote to determine this application. He continued to contribute to the discussion.

Sam Williams, Boston Alternative Energy, was invited to address the Committee in capacity as the applicant for this proposal. Boston Alternative Energy had been in the in operation for over 25 years and had developed sites within the county including a gasification site adjacent to the subject site. The Boston Alternative Energy Facility was classed as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project resulting in the need for a development consent order. Lincolnshire County Council was one of the statutory consultees in this process. While this project may not be totally adherent to the Council's waste polices, he hoped to convince the Committee of its benefit. A wharf would be constructed to avoid undue impact to the port or adjacent road network. The energy from waste plant itself had a capacity of 1.2 million tonnes to produce approximately 85 MWe of electricity. Resources were being put into offering a carbon capture facility for this application. A lightweight aggregate facility was proposed to mitigate ash residue from the energy from waste process. The feedstock for the plant was subject to existing contracts; however, the applicant sought to work with the Council to seek waste policy compliance. 350 skilled jobs would be created during construction and 160 skilled and semi-skilled jobs during operation. Apprenticeship opportunities would be offer with the support of Boston College. Contracts and agreements were already in place with the Port of Boston for use of their pilot services. As part of the development of the site, the habitats for wildlife would be improved across the edges of the River Haven. Local retail and hospitality would also see a benefit from this development. Boston Alternative Energy was open to receiving processed waste from Lincolnshire County Council subject to contracts and permissions.

Referencing the suggestion that this application would include the facility for carbon capture, Members sought clarity as to what degree this offer would extent. Mr Williams advised that carbon capture capacity was one of the main requirements for this for this application, it was proposed to extend to two of the three lines on the site, capturing 20 per cent of carbon per line. As technology progressed, it was anticipated that the carbon capture offering of this application would increase. The carbon capture provision from this site would be made into food grade; however, an agricultural alternative would also be possible. In a follow up comment, Members registered their appreciation that of the carbon capture offering, considering it a positive environment step. They estimated that this application would not only emit less carbon than a typical land fill, but also capture more carbon than common power plants.

Similar sites had been functional through the use of mining buried waste; the Committee asked if any consideration had been given to this prospect. Mr Williams explained that this application sought to address processed RDF waste. If, in future, a plant such as this had insufficient fuel, then consideration could be given to alternative methods.

Referencing the suggestion within the report that the decision maker should start with a presumption in favour of granting consent to applications for energy NSIPs unless any more specific policies set out in relevant NPSs clearly indicate that consent should be refused, the Committee asked if there were any examples of NPSs indicating that consent should be refused. The Head of Planning explained that the Council wasn't the decision maker when considering this application, it was only a consultee. He noted that within the Planning Policy Statement, there was reference to the requirement for local Planning Policy to be considered. As it stood, this application was in conflict to the Council's Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

The Committee sought clarity on how Policy W1 applied within the context of this application. The Head of Planning explained that, amongst other matters, the Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan looked at making provision for facilities for waste that were processed in Lincolnshire. In the development of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan there was a requirement to co-operate with other waste planning authorities to assess the amount of waste leaving Lincolnshire to be processed elsewhere and also to make provision for waste that comes into Lincolnshire from other areas.  Therefore, policies in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan were required to take into account both waste generated in Lincolnshire and waste that came into Lincolnshire from other areas. Policy W1 was therefore relevant to this application. He explained that the applicant suggested that the proposal was in accordance with Policy SL3 of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan Site Location Document and the site was allocated for energy recovery through waste. However, officers took the view that the allocation suggested was limited to waste that was needed to be processed in Lincolnshire pursuant to Policy W1. Policy DM2 referenced locations being identified that reduced distances travelled by HGVs, the Committee noted that the tonnages received by this plant via ship negated thousands of HGV journeys per year.

Policy DM2, amongst other matters, referenced locations being identified that reduced distances travelled by HGVs, the Committee noted that the tonnages received by this plant via ship negated thousands of HGV journeys per year.

Members commented that, although the service offered by the site extended beyond Lincolnshire, the issue of climate change affected everyone regardless.

Referencing the impact to the 1km of public rights of way, Members felt that the footpath was currently unsightly and this application was an opportunity to improve this area.

Members commented that energy capacity for both incoming industry and domestic electric vehicle charging had been an issue in the area. They saw this application as an opportunity to increase the energy supply in the County.

Noting that, within the report, there wasn't a suggestion that carbon capture facilities would be offered, the Committee felt that, if they offered their support, they would like to encourage that use of carbon capture wherever possible. The Head of Planning stated that officers had doubts that this facility could realistically offer a carbon capture capacity based on the current scheme proposed due to the current and anticipated future industries that will require carbon capture in the Boston area.

The report indicated that food waste would be channelled away from general waste, thus increasing the proportion of plastics within that waste, potentially leading to EFW impacts being pushed above landfill leading to unessaerry emissions; Members sought an assessment on this possibilities likelihood. The Head of Planning noted that the material that would be used for this project needed to be carefully selected, noting that there could be an impact to the recycling hierarchy

On a motion proposed by Councillor Ashton and seconded by Councillor Austin, it was:

RESOLVED (8 to 1 with 1 abstention (Councillor Smith))

That the Committee support this application and includes an informative that the Committee would encourage the use of carbon capture if that was feasible.

That the Head of Planning, in Consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning and Regulation Committee, be given delegated authority to amend the Council's response to this application during the Examination Process should further information be provided that addresses Members' comments and observations.