Question No

Question By

Subject

1 (12/13)

Mr A Ramage

Energy From Waste Plant – North Yard, Devonport.

Should the operators, if the plant is allowed to go ahead, be required to give an alarm to the community when abnormal operations occur take so people, especially those in vulnerable categories, can wear suitable safety masks or take other appropriate measures?

Response

No, this is not required under the planning permission granted by the previous Planning Committee in December.

The Draft Environmental Permit that was reported to the Planning Committee in December 2011 requires the Environment Agency to be notified without delay following the detection of:

a)any malfunction, breakdown or failure of equipment or techniques, accident, or emissions of a substance not controlled by an emission limit which has caused, is causing or may cause significant pollution;

b) the breach of a limit specified in a permit; or

c) any significant adverse environmental effects.

Subsequently the Environment Permit was issued on 6^th March 2012.The Environmental Permitting Regulations require that an operator maintains an Accident Management Plan and implements it in the event that an accident occurs.  An Accident Management Plan was prepared as part of the Environmental Permit application and was agreed by the Environment Agency in its granting of the Environmental Permit.  This plan will be subject to routine testing for ongoing effectiveness.  The Accident Management Plan does not specify the need for sirens or the issuing of the public with gas masks etc. 

Resident safety concerns about dockyard/industrial-type activities in proximity to houses are understandable. Local Waste Planning Authorities are required to work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced by the Environment Agency.

Safety measures that are required in the event of any accidents associated with the operation of the plant are essentially a matter for the Environment Agency to enforce through the Environmental Permit.

Question No

Question By

Subject

2 (12/13)

Mrs M Ramage

Energy From Waste Plant – North Yard, Devonport.

Additional Air Quality Management Areas have been proposed. Is an additional site advisable if the scheme goes ahead at the higher Chaddlewood area of Plympton as it is in line with prevailing winds from the incinerator and close to Langage Power station?

Response

Air quality standards are set by government as air quality objectives.  The council monitors air quality against these standards throughout the city at 80 locations.  Only where an air quality standard is confirmed as being exceeded, is an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) declared.

Plymouth’s existing AQMAs and proposed AQMAS are all in areas where the levels of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO₂), measured as an annual mean, have exceeded the standard.  These are all located on main traffic arterial routes into Plymouth and all the exceedances are traffic related.

The view of the Environment Agency was that emissions from the incinerator will not impact on Chaddlewood.

The Environment Agency will regulate the operation of the incinerator once it is operational.  They have issued a permit for that operation. This permit requires the plant to have stack monitors that will continually monitor all the emissions.  

In addition Plymouth City Council already has a monitor for NO₂ at one location in the Chaddlewood area.  This monitor will be capable of detecting any changes in NO₂ level in that area.

South Hams District Council also monitor at three locations in Chaddlewood for NO₂ and monitor for Sulphur Dioxide at Sparkwell.  These sites were set up to assess emissions from Langage Power Station however they are capable of detecting changes in that area created by any source.  PCC can access the data from the South Hams Council monitoring sites. 

All monitoring  results in the Chanddlewood area are currently showing air quality standards comfortably and consistently below the National Air Quality Standards and consequently the Council will not be declaring an AQMA in that area.

Question No

Question By

Subject

3 (12/13)

Sarah Elvin

Energy From Waste Plant – North Yard, Devonport.

The whole process is corrupt, non-transparent, non-democratic and we are not allowed to be part of it. None of our questions are being answered. Why has this been allowed and why are our hands still being tied? 37 words v 3000 pages plus.

Response

Any evidence of corruption in the planning process should be reported immediately to the Council's Monitoring Officer and/or the Police.

Planning decisions must always be evidence based and determined in accordance with the development plans. The process is democratic and Councillors may decide to vote against Planning Officer recommendations, if there are relevant planning grounds.

I (the Chair) have personally pledged to bring openness, transparency and trust back into Plymouth's Planning committee and I expect to be held to account for this.

Question No

Question By

Subject

4 (12/13)

Mr Spargo

Energy From Waste Plant – North Yard, Devonport.

Why was planning permission granted for an incinerator when, for the same money, a plasma gasification plant could be built at Coypool or Lee Moor which would process four times the amount of waste and generate a profit for Plymouth City Council of approximately £10 per tonne?

Response

A planning application has not been received by Plymouth City Council’s planning department for such a development proposal but if it were then it would be considered and appraised against relevant national and local planning policies to decide whether an application could be recommended for approval.

In terms of a long term solution for Plymouth City Council’s residual waste, again no such proposal was received as part of Plymouth City Council’s procurement with the South West Devon Waste Partnership.

This Planning Committee can only decide on applications submitted to it.

I (the Chair) can't say why the incinerator was given planning permission as I voted against. The question as to why it was approved should be directed to those who voted for it.