(a)            

Foot Anstey had been asked as to whether planning permission for the energy from waste facility granted on the 3 February 2012 could be revoked;

(b)           

advice had been provided in accordance with section 97 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990;

(c)            

the site was not one which was in the Waste Development Plan. However PPS10 guidance stated that other sites should be considered favourably when consistent with national policy and authorities waste plans. The site was in accordance with policies w7 and w8 of the Waste Development Plan.  When assessed and subject to the consideration and treatment of amenity issues the site was acceptable;

(d)           

the need to provide a facility to divert waste from landfill was undisputed and was a relevant consideration to apply;

(e)           

the choice of facility was in accordance with the waste plan. Its ability to be efficient and deliver heat was an important and appropriate consideration. The energy benefits, good overall efficiency and section 106 provisions were appropriate advantages subject to consideration of amenity and health issues;

(f)             

flood risks, transportation and access issues have been addressed appropriately through plans and improvements to infrastructure to mitigate impact;

(g)            

the merits of the applicants design, landscape design, effect on landscape character, visual amenity, impact on the historic environment and impact on natural environment had been subject to a logical and reasoned assessment and the judgements of the committee were reasonable;

(h)           

appropriate considerations were applied regarding the impact of noise during the construction phase and the operational phase of the plant;

(i)             

the committee considered advice from competent authorities regarding the plant’s impact on air quality. The plant had been issued a permit from the environment agency and the council’s public protection service had provided further advice.  The committee had appropriate consideration of the issues;

(j)             

safety concerns had been addressed by appropriate management plans.  The issue was also considered by the environment agency as part of the issue of a permit;

(k)           

neither the Health Protection Agency or the Plymouth Primary Care Trust recommended the rejection of the proposal and the committee had taken a reasonable approach to issues of health and wellbeing based on the evidence and documents available to them;

(l)             

the committee had given due consideration to Human Rights;

(m)          

the polytechnic report which had often been referred to was commissioned by the council in 1991 in connection with a gas fired power station in the prince rock area of the city.  As the report was with regard to a facility which differed from the North Yard facility in terms of location, nature and technology it could not form a consideration that would justify a revocation;

(n)           

the application had been subject to a previous unsuccessful judicial review.  Having paid regard to the development plan, other material considerations and the financial consequences, the independent advisers could not identify any grounds on which warranted revocation of the consent.

(o)           

a withdrawal from the Joint Working Agreement (JWA) and the Project Contract was theoretically possible, it would however be prohibitively expensive and the levels of compensation could potentially exceed £400 million;

(p)           

withdrawing from contractual arrangements risked one or more parties seeking to challenge by way of judicial review;

(q)           

any decision to withdraw needed to be proportionate, robust and based on the “Wednesbury principles”.

(r)            

withdrawal from the JWA and/or the Project Contract would not necessarily stop the facility being built at North Yard.

(s)            

MVV Environment had provided a supporting document on the reasons for choosing the site. Plymouth’s waste plan caters for that circumstance under policies W8 and W7;

(t)            

in respect of air monitoring, environmental officers had advised the committee. In the section 106 agreement negotiated there was a schedule confined to air quality. MVV environment had submitted an air quality management plan. There were also provisions within the environmental permit;

(u)           

the £400 million possible compensation payable from breaching or withdrawing from the contract was twice the annual net revenue budget of the council.  If that payment was to be made it would mean that no services would be provided by the council at all for two years. The Council would be unlikely to secure borrowing to cover such a liability;

(v)            

the withdrawal from contract and revocation of planning consent were separate issues however, the natural consequence  of revocation would be a breach of contract and would likely result in a judicial review;

(w)          

procedural aspects of the consent being given was not a consideration for revocation by the committee but an issue for a judicial review. Any new challenge on that basis would be deemed out of time for a new judicial review.

(1)  to note the report;

(2)  that the committee receive regular reports from the Assistant Director for Planning on the compliance of planning conditions with recommendations for appropriate action where there is evidence of non-compliance.