(a)

the Planning Authority issued its formal planning conditions and planning decision in February 2012;

(b)

the Environment Agency issued MVV with an Environmental permit in March 2012;

(c)

following the planning decision and permit approval MVV began preliminary works on site in late March 2012;

(d)

on 19 March 2012 notice was received of a Judicial Review challenge being lodged against the planning decision; permission to proceed with  this challenge was currently awaiting judgement by an Administrative Court Judge;

(e)

in addition to Judicial Review challenge an injunction application was lodged in March to stop MVV from carrying out any construction works on site; this application was refused by the Courts;

(f)

on 25 April 2012 the Devon Planning Authority refused to grant the planning application for MVV’s Incineration Bottom Ash (IBA) facility at Buckfastleigh;

(g)

the partnership and project had been nominated for three separate awards hosted by the Public Private Partnership AWARDS 2012. The awards would be judged in May 2012 with the partnership’s nominations coming in the following categories –

Best Waste/Energy/Water project;

Best Sustainability in a Project;

Best Local Government Project Team.

(a)

MVV started preliminary works on site on 26 March 2012 and these were scheduled to finish in June 2012;

(b)

the preliminary work activities included –

erecting a new high-security boundary fence;

a new substation and power supply to the site;

Highway junction improvements;

setting up pre-construction site and facilities;

formation and modifications to MOD access roads around the site;

(c)

all preliminary works planning conditions had been completed and to date no complaints regarding these works had been received by Plymouth City Council’s Planning Department, MVV or the SWDWP;

(d)

MVV were also working on discharging the planning conditions for the main construction phase, these included –

Community Trust Scheme plan;

local employment scheme;

odour, litter and dust management plan;

improvement scheme for the junction at Wolseley Road and Weston Mill Drive;

(e)

the main construction works would begin onsite in mid-late June 2012 subject to completion of the preliminary works, the discharging of remaining planning conditions and the outcome of the Judicial Review;

(f)

the Partnership and MVV maintained a strong working relationship and continued to drive improvements from lessons learned.

(a)

a new opposition group had formed; PlymWin, an offshoot of IIW. They lodged an application for an injunction to stop MVV beginning their preliminary works on site, which was rejected by the Courts. They also requested for a Judicial Review, challenging the planning permission granted by the Planning Authority;

(b)

MVV’s application for the Incinerator Bottom Ash processing facility at Buckfastleigh had attracted extensive local media coverage with the majority of recent opposition activity being directed toward this application;

(c)

the Incinerator Liaison Committee (ILC) had continued to meet, although recently several of the original ILC membership who were opposed to the incinerator had resigned and new members of the public were being sought ;

(d)

the ILC were aiming to engage more fully with the local community and were inputting to the development of the North Yard Community Trust Scheme which would manage the allocated Section 106 monies;

(e)

the Environment Agency had attended a recent ILC meeting to provide information on MVV’s environment permit which had recently been approved;

(f)

MVV had distributed a newsletter in February to make the local community aware of the preliminary works that were being carried out on site and had recently appointed a Community Liaison Manager;

(g)

the Partnership had only received four written queries since the last meeting with the main concerns relating to emissions, traffic, cost of the solution, ash produced and the visual impact.

(a)

the judicial review challenge, submitted by PlymWin in March 2012, was submitted on two separate grounds, these were firstly, that Plymouth City Council planners had breached the EU Habitats Directive by failing to undertake the appropriate environmental assessment and secondly, that a condition requiring 95% of Incinerator Bottom Ash be recycled mislead the Committee, therefore Plymouth City Council acted unlawfully in granting planning permission for the incinerator;

(b)

it was believed that the Environment Agency would also receive a Judicial Review challenge on its decision to grant an environmental permit;

(c)

if the Judicial Review challenge permission was agreed by a High Court judge and taken through the courts then Plymouth City Council planning department may incur significant costs in defending a decision that was key to the Partnership. In order to promote equality and fairness it was proposed that these costs, if proved to be significant to PCC, be divided proportionately amongst the three partnership authorities.

(1)

the South West Devon Waste Partnership Joint Committee confirm its opposition to the legal challenge of the planning permission and confirm its authorisationfor the Chair of the Project Executive to take such steps as considered necessary in consultation with the legal adviser to the Partnership to protect the Partnership’s interests;

(2)

theSWDWP endorse the idea that costs be divided proportionately between the three partnership authorities if the planning decision is subjected to a full Judicial Review process.