(1)

Councillor Michael Leaves is appointed as Chair until the first meeting of the Joint Committee after the 1 May 2012;

(2)

Councillor Roger Croad is appointed as Vice-Chair until the first meeting of the Joint Committee after the 1 May 2012.

(a)

since the signing of the contract with MVV Devonport Environment Limited in late March 2011, the project’s focus had moved onto securing planning and environmental permit approvals;

(b)

since April the partnership’s key activity had been assisting MVV in preparing their planning and environmental permit applications, with MVV formally submitting their planning application to the local planning authority (LPA) in May and their environmental permit application to the Environment Agency in June;

(c)

work on the planning application had continued since in response to queries and clarification requests made by the LPA and other statutory consultees, as well as defining and improving aspects of the project that may benefit the local community.

(a)

communication activity since April had been steady and included briefings with –

?

Plymouth Chamber of Commerce;

?

MP’s;

?

councillors;

?

dockyard staff;

?

schools and a group of professionals;

(b)

a number of public exhibitions were held throughout June, with a noticeable reduction in the number of attendees when compared to the previous round of public exhibitions;

(c)

there were fewer public opposition activities with a public march organised by Incineration is Wrong (IIW) attracting less than 40 attendees;

(d)

the partnership had only received 20 letters in the last quarter with the main issues in both the letters and the public exhibitions tending to be about vehicle emissions, traffic and noise;

(e)

the Incinerator Liaison Committee (ILC) had met formally on two occasions and was providing a useful forum where a greater understanding of the project could be provided to committee members and through them onward to the wider public;

(f)

the ILC was a local community committee chaired by a local resident and attended by interested members of the public and representatives from Environment Agency, MVV, SWDWP, the Ministry of Defence and most recently at the ILC’s request local Plymouth City Council councillors;

(g)

MVV had been invited to participate in a documentary with the regional BBC about energy from waste and proposals across Devon.

(h)

MVV remained convinced that the technology proposed to be used was appropriate, reliable and safe;

(i)

the BBC documentary would endeavour to demonstrate other technologies other than the technology proposed by MVV;

(j)

a number of people in the local area had volunteered to be part of the ILC, however, as yet no teachers or school representatives had come forward to be on the committee.

(a)

all project milestones were currently on target with MVV having submitted both an application for planning permission and an application for an environmental permit;

(b)

the planning application was submitted with an Environmental Impact Assessment; which concluded that –

?

air quality emissions were well below the limits allowed;

?

there was no significant impact on traffic and no requirement to modify the Wolseley Road junction;

?

there were no problems with noise during the day;

?

there was no significant impact on local residents’ health;

?

there was no significant contamination impact;

?

there was no significant impact on ecology;

?

there was an improvement in sustainability;

?

there was a significant visual impact from the development;

(c)

the proposed development offered significant environmental and economic benefits through the combined heat and power (CHP) developed from the waste and this delivered and complied with national and local policies;

(d)

in response to the planning application MVV had received a request for further information from the local planning authority under regulation 19;

(e)

the further information required was being discussed with local planners with detailed S106 requirements being negotiated and costs assessed;

(f)

during pre-application discussions local planners had expressed concerns with the proposed architecture and as a result new plans had been developed and submitted with the planning application that saw the architecture of the site take on a maritime appearance to fit in with its surrounding environment.

(g)

qualified ecologists were currently relocating slow worms off the proposed site;

(h)

delivering waste by sea and rail to the site could be reviewed in the future although the decision of how waste would be delivered ultimately rests with the partnership;

(i)

the data and costs on the S106 agreement was being quantified and would be submitted to the partnership at a future meeting;

(j)

a planning application risk register had been created which was monitored by partnership officers and MVV representatives;

(k)

if a shopping centre was to be developed in Weston Mill then MVV would contribute to improving the Carlton Terrace junction.

(l)

the lighting proposed to be on the outside of the building was requested by planners and would be fuelled by solar photovoltaic systems.

(a)

the procurement phase had now been fully completed and the project programme had moved into its next phase;

(b)

the environmental permit application was submitted on 6 June 2011 and had been declared duly made;

(c)

following the submission of the application for planning permission the project programme had been amended so that the Planning Committee date was now in December 2011;

(d)

if successful planning approval would be completed in January and was subject to a three month judicial review, meaning that work on site was anticipated to begin in April 2012 with the site being fully operational from November 2014.