(a)

the project team continued to focus on assisting MVV with their planning and environmental permit applications;

(b)

with regard to the planning application MVV had submitted a response to the Planning Authority in September 2011 following a request for further information under regulation 19 and this has been subject to additional formal consultation through planners;

(c)

MMV had commenced negotiations with local planners over detailed S106 requirements; these would be formalised before the planning application was heard at Planning Committee;

(d)

the Planning Committee was scheduled to hear MVV’s planning application on 22 December 2011;

(e)

with regard to the permit application MVV had recently responded to the Environment Agency following a request for further information under Schedule 5;

(f)

MVV had progressed with their detailed facility design work which was being appraised by the Partnership project team;

(g)

MVV had their planning application for test piling at the site approved;

(h)

Waste collection managers in the three Devon District Councils who will contribute waste to the new facility had been briefed on the project and discussions had started regarding the future changes required. Dialogue with these authorities would continue until transition from current to new arrangements.

(a)

since the last meeting opposition activities had increased with regard to the Buckfastleigh site with adverts being placed in a local newspaper. The adverts had been referred to the Advertising Standards Authority by MVV;

(b)

key communication activities since July had included –

?

ongoing engagement with the Incinerator Liaison Committee (ILC);

?

a trip organised for members of the ILC to visit a Combined Head and Power (CHP) plant in Sheffield managed by Veolia Environmental Services;

?

a presentation to Devon and Cornwall Business Council;

?

a presentation to Team Plymouth;

?

an all Councillor briefing;

?

a MPs briefing;

(c)

it was proposed that the Partnership would brief all councillors, in either one all councillor briefing at the three individual councils’ or in individual political group briefings. This was viewed as an important next step with the aim of these briefings to demonstrate the progress of the project and what the potential implications for the project were moving forward;

(d)

the extensive media coverage on the recent High Court decision to overturn planning permission for Cornwall’s waste incinerator proposed for St. Dennis, Cornwall, had provided useful learning for the Partnership.

(a)

the Partnership had been working together now for over four years with a minimum of a further 28 years still contracted;

(b)

the Partnership began with a common goal, which was ‘to secure a timely economic, reliable and proven solution to divert the Partnership’s residual waste from landfill with reduced carbon impact including Combined Heat and Power (CHP) if possible’ and it was recognised that to deliver this goal would require significant political commitment and leadership;

(c)

as a result of the three authorities joining together, the partnership had generated a greater market interest, benefited from an economy of scale, shared cost and expertise and had secured a significant financial PFI grant from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA);

(d)

at the initial stages of procurement nine international companies expressed an interest in the project with eight submitting a solution;

(e)

the Partnership’s preferred solution was by MVV Umwelt, this solution presented a number of significant economic and environmental benefits by delivering a solution partnering with the MoD and Babcock Marine; this potential solution and wider public/private sector partnership had helped the SWDWP to retain the PFI credit support from DEFRA;

(f)

due to the solution proposed by MVV, the economic advantages of  selling heat and power to MoD and Babcock Marine had helped the three authorities to jointly realise savings of £389m against the estimated cost originally projected, this saving combined with the £177m PFI Credits had realised a total financial benefit of £566m for the SWDWP;

(g)

if the MVV solution was delayed against the project programme the financial impact on the three authorities was estimated as follows:

a three month delay equalled an estimated cost of £1.1m;

a six month delay equalled an estimated cost of £3.9m;

a two year delay equalled an estimated cost of £27.3m;

(h)

failure to deliver the MVV solution was estimated to have a financial impact on the three authorities of £285m as well as an additional impact on the future cost effectiveness to the MoD and Babcock Marine;

(i)

the environmental benefits of MVV’s solution included a guaranteed diversion of 97 per cent of waste from landfill which contributes to a net carbon footprint reduction of around 74,000 tonnes per year (approx 5 per cent of Plymouth’s carbon footprint) along with a reduction of emissions in Devonport Dockyard by MVV’s facility providing electricity and heat directly to the MoD and Babcock Marine;

(j)

other benefits of the MVV solution included –

a local waste disposal option for commercial and industrial waste;

the potential to expand the distribution of heat to a wider network outside of the dockyard;

local economic benefits through construction and business opportunities;

developments to the local area through Section 106 agreements included in the planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.