Question No

Question By

Cabinet Member

Subject

14 (11/12)

Richard Lawrie

Cabinet Member for Community Services (Street Scene, Waste and Sustainability)

Incinerator at the North Dockyard

Will the council put ‘on hold’ the ‘go ahead’ for the incinerator at the North Dockyard? Because of the shocking report on Health disparities in the city, and the HEALTH PROTECTION AUTHORITY’S decision to commission further research into the adverse effects of such incinerators, I urge it to do so.

Response:

No, the Council is satisfied that any potential adverse impacts of the development have been fully considered and mitigated as part of the statutory planning and on-going permitting process and no formal objections were received from either the Environment Agency or NHS PCT.

We are aware that the Health Protection Agency has indicated its intention to undertake a study to update its research to take into account any recent evidence but has also stated that its current position statement remains valid in that; well run and regulated modern Municipal Waste Incinerators are not a significant risk to public health and that any potential damage to the health of those living close-by is likely to be very small, if detectable.

It should be recognised that the Council has a need to implement an urgent new solution for treating its residual waste as an alternative to landfill. Plymouth City Council along with its partners in Devon and Torbay has a signed contract with MVV, planning permission has been granted for the development and the Environment Agency is minded to grant an Environmental Permit having satisfied itself that the proposed facility will be constructed and operated in a way that will not harm human health or significantly pollute the environment.

(a)

the Department for Education approved a capital allocation of £9.4m for the Marine Academy Plymouth, of which Plymouth City Council was a co-sponsor;

(b)

the allocation was on the basis that the delivery of this capital investment was procured through the Partnership for Schools Academies Framework and managed through the local authority;

(c)

a feasibility study had been undertaken on the building options and had been through a pre-application planning process.  The study had received approval by Partnership for Schools on 24 November 2011;

(d)

a report on the All Saints Academy would be submitted to a future meeting of Cabinet;

(e)

the tender process included the option to use the successful

contractors to deliver the University Technical College at a later stage should the Council wish to do so, saving a considerable amount of procurement time;

(f)

following a tender process and evaluation of the tenders received,  BAM Construction Ltd was recommended as the selected panel member (preferred bidder). This recommendation had been endorsed by the Academy, and by the Academy’s main sponsors who were the University of Plymouth;

(g)

the capital investment into the city would have an important impact on the local economy. It was estimated that as much as 80% of this value would be spent in Plymouth and the demand for skilled trades would also allow the Council to negotiate with the contractor to take on apprentices as part of the proposal.

(1)

approval is given to the appointment of BAM Construction Ltd as the selected panel member to deliver the capital improvements to the Marine Academy Plymouth and that expenditure of the design fees is awarded to this contractor; 

(2)

the final approval to agree the scope and quality of works is delegated to the Director for Place. 

(a)

a consortium of Plymouth University, City College Plymouth and Plymouth City Council had developed a vision to promote employer led learning in Plymouth that would be delivered through a University Technical College (UTC);

(b)

the University, who acted as lead sponsors, City College and leading employers formed a limited company in order to make a bid for a UTC based at a Devonport location. They had been supported in this by, amongst others, Babcock Marine, Princess Yachts International, Plymouth Manufacturers Group, Plymouth Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Plymouth Federation of Small Businesses;

(c)

the Government had announced that Plymouth’s bid for a UTC had been successful and that the Secretary of State hoped that the Plymouth UTC would be opened in 2014, but that there were possibilities of an earlier start in 2013;

(d)

Plymouth University, Plymouth City College and Babcock Marine were developing the governance arrangements for a UTC Academy Trust.  This body would take forward the proposals to form a UTC with a view to signing a formal Funding Agreement with the Secretary of State for Education;

(e)

these partners had proposed the site of the former Parkside School as a suitable location and a feasibility study was currently being developed;

(f)

Partnership for Schools had set out its preferred delivery of the capital investment in the buildings which was for the Council to add this proposal as a follow-on project to the procurement of the Marine Academy Plymouth. This procurement route would be very cost effective for the private sector with reduced procurement costs.  It would also allow a very fast turnaround in development time as the procurement time would be minimal; 

(g)

Partnership for Schools had advised that it was the Government’s preferred route for the Council to act as procurement agent and the University, as main sponsors, and the co-sponsors, had endorsed this as a preferred procurement method;

(h)

theUTC would bring capital investment, in the order of £8m, into the city. This would have an important impact the local economy. It was estimated that as much as 80 per cent of this value would be spent in Plymouth and the demand for skilled trades would also allow the Council to negotiate with the contractor to take on apprentices as part of the proposal.

(1)

formally becomes a co-sponsor of the UTC Plymouth and were very proud to do so;

(2)

becomes the delivery agent for the University Technical College.