Councillor Stephen Clee
Incinerator Campaign
Home
Latest Press Releases
Contact Me
County Council Report
Map of Wyre Forest
District Council Report
Stourport Town Council
Bewdley Town Council
Photographs at work
Kidderminster Hospital
Incinerator Campaign
Education in Wyre Forest
District Roads
Links Page
Worcestershire Ambulance Trust

I led the County Group Campaign to STOP an Incinerator in Kidderminster

incinerator.jpg

A copy of my speech to the Incinerator Hearing;
 

PROOF OF EVIDENCE FOR AN APPEAL

BY Mercia Waste Management

Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Against Refusal of Planning Permission

For "An Integrated Waste Management Facility on land

at the British Sugar Factory in Kidderminster"

By Councillor Stephen Clee

Chaddesley Division - Worcestershire County Council

Appeal Ref No: APP/E1855/A/01/1070998

 

My name is Stephen Clee, I live at Three Gables, Hop Pole Lane, Bewdley, Worcestershire. I am the County Councillor for the Electoral Division of Chaddesley on Worcestershire County Council.

  1. I am a current member of Worcestershire County Council's Planning and Regulatory Committee and have been a member of this Committee since its first meeting in June of 2000. Prior to that I had been a member of its predecessor, the Planning Sub-Committee since August 1999. The Committee deals (amongst other things) with the determination of all applications for Planning Permissions made to the County Council.

  2. I am also the current Chairman of the Wyre Forest District Council Planning (Development Control) Committee and have many years of planning committee experience. I have undertaken Planning training at both County and District levels. During my membership of the two Planning Committees I have, taken part in the determination of a full range of such applications which have come before me, including applications for Planning Permission for the Waste Disposal facilities at the County Council.

     

  3. I am familiar with the British Sugar site which is the subject of this appeal, as a resident and member of Wyre Forest DC and through my membership of the County Councils Planning and Regulatory Committee. As a member of that Committee I have visited the site on two occasions both in connection with an application submitted by the appellant for a scoping opinion under regulation 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, and after receipt by the County Council of the application to which this appeal relates. I also visited, together with other members of the county Planning Committee, facilities at Dudley and Coventry similar to that proposed in this application. I also attended a visit to Coventry's Energy from Waste Plant on July 11th 2000.

  4. At the Coventry site we all saw first hand an Incineration Waste to Energy Plant in operation. It was built immediately off a dual carriageway road network on the outskirts of the City. I am aware of hundreds of the letters of objection that have been lodged against the Worcestershire County Council Planning application relating to the lack of road infrastructure and related problems.

  5. Many people have alluded to their concerns regarding dioxins in the air, and problems of health resulting from increased pollution levels.

     

  6. At Coventry it was clear that their Waste to Energy Plant was built in a far more appropriate location than the proposals that have been submitted for our determination. The running of the operation at Coventry I thought was very well managed, however, when we visited the roof of the Plant, one of the members of the Planning Committee felt unwell and stated "As a child he had suffered from Asthma due to pollution in the air in the City of Birmingham this childhood illness had been brought back to him whilst on the roof of this operational plant after an absence of 53 years".

  7. I was one of the members of the committee which sat on the 9th April 2001 in Kidderminster to determine the application the subject of this appeal. The application provoked a very large number of representations from interested parties and members of the public and, in order to assist in dealing with the determination of the application, I have read many letters of representation that have been sent to me directly or copied to me from the County Council.

What did my County Colleagues for Wyre Forest Do at the hearing?

This is who attended the Planning Meeting for Worcestershire County Council and also who attended the appeal hearing!

 

COUNCILLOR

PLANNING MEETING

HEARING

S Clee (Con)

YES

YES

P Carter (Lib)

NO

NO

J Gordon (Lab)

NO

NO

J Gretton (Lab)

NO

NO

N Knowles (Lab)

YES

YES

D Lewis (Lab)

NO

NO

M Oborski (Lib)

NO

NO

K Peers (Con)

YES

YES

L Townley (Lab)

YES

NO

J Wardle (Lab)

NO

NO

C Warren (Lab)

NO

NO

8. Whilst the representations were all put in slightly different ways, in general terms they raised a number of issues of public safety and security and environmental impact of the development proposed by the application. These were:

  1. Contrary to Hereford and Worcester Structure Plan Policy CTC.6 which states no development that adversely affects skyline features will be allowed.
  2. Contrary to PPG 10, where a site should be close to a railway or water transport or major junctions of the road network.
  3. Contrary to PPG 15, and Wyre Forest District Councils Policy CA1 relating to proposals that do not preserve or enhance the appearance of the conservation area.
  4. Contrary to Policy LR5 of the Wyre Forest District Local Plan and PPG 17 and draft PPG 17 (March 2001) as it involves the loss of local sports provision.
  5. Contrary to PPG 25 and the European Directive that waste should be recovered or disposed without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment.
  6. Locality regarding traffic, contrary to policy WD3, adverse on the local road network and lack of sufficient details relating to vehicle movements and existing road usage.
  7. Sports England objected to the loss of local sports facilities.
  8. The Environment Agency, states a detailed landscaping scheme should be submitted but nothing had been produced at the time of the Planning meeting.
  9. English Nature oppose the development as it will affect the site of special scientific interest (SSSI). Messrs Entec stated in their report that Badger Sets and Bat activity had been identified on the site and I believe that this particular application would harm those species.
  10. The application is contrary to the Human Rights Act (Freedom of Expression) This right includes freedom to hold opinions, receive and impart information and ideas without interference of public authority.
  11. Its contrary to article 1 part 2 of the Human Rights Act stating "Everyone is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions".
  12. It's contrary to article 8 of the Human Rights Act where everybody has a right to respect for his privacy, family and home and there shall be no interference by a public authority.
  13. The application was contrary to the House of Commons Select Committee's report on Environment, Transport and the Regional Affairs (5th Report), relating to blighting Towns and Cities by the presence of a large incinerator which must not be allowed to happen.

9. At the meeting on the 9th April 2001 I was very concerned at the large number of these representations and the strength of feeling expressed in them. As a member of the Planning and Regulatory Committee that adjudicated on this application we spent an enormous amount of our time reading reports and data. We also carried out as previously stated two visits to neighbouring plants. And what focussed my mind most was the Coventry visit where we all saw first hand an Incineration Energy to Waste Plant in operation and it was built immediately off a dual carriageway road network on the outskirts of the town. Hundreds of the letters of objection that have been lodged with the Planning Department relating to this application have done so because of road infrastructure problems. When we visited Coventry it was clear that their Energy to Waste Plant was built in a far more appropriate location than the proposals that were submitted for our determination. The running of the operation at Coventry was very well managed, however, when we visited the roof of the Plant, one of the members of the Planning Committee felt unwell and stated "As a child he had suffered from Asthma due to pollution in the air in the City of Birmingham". He felt unwell from the odours that we were breathing in on the roof of the Coventry Incineration Plant. Many people also eluded to the fact of dioxins in the air and my colleagues illness whilst on the site visit in Coventry brought home to me the hundreds of letters of objection on the grounds of pollution.

10. I was concerned at the large numbers of representations and the strength of feelings that were expressed in all of the written representations and following our practical site visits to running plants in Coventry and Dudley, also having read the Environmental Statement and reviewed the local District Council and County Structure Plans, my colleagues and I, by 11 votes to 2, felt we could not support the application.

Statement made by Dr Lord - Leader of Worcestershire County Council on the Incinerator Appeal - 18th July 2002
 
Members will know that the decision of the Planning and Regulatory Committee not to give consent for a Waste to Energy Plant at Kidderminster was appealed by the applicant, Mercia Waste Management.  A lengthy Planning Inquiry was held at Kidderminster earlier this year.

 

Last week we received the Planning Inspector's decision letter.  The Inspector has dismissed the appeal thereby supporting the County Council's Planning Committee decision.  The full decision letter is available in the Members room.

 

Members will want to know the implications of this for the County's Waste Disposal Contract with Mercia/Severn Waste.  Clearly there are very serious implications as a waste to energy plant forms a major part of the Contract.  We know the Contractor is considering the situation and is taking legal advice, and the situation will become clearer over the next few weeks.

 

It is no secret that the Inspector's decision is a serious blow to the Integrated Waste Management Strategy for both Worcestershire and Herefordshire.  It is too early to tell what will happen next but clearly we will need to discuss matters carefully with the Contractor and Herefordshire.   I intend that members will have an opportunity to debate this issue and have called for a report to be made to the September Cabinet and the subsequent Council.

 

It is worth understanding some of the background to the current position.  Since the contract was signed in late 1998, the Council has been in a very difficult position acting as both Waste Disposal and Planning authorities.   I believe that it has bent over backwards to deal with the relevant issues as fairly as possible in the circumstances.  Given the potential conflict of interests, we asked the Secretary of State to call-in the planning application, but this was refused.  As a matter of law, we then had no choice but to deal with the planning application even though we clearly had an interest in the outcome.   To deal with the application fairly, we divided officer responsibility between Waste Management and Planning.   We appointed independent planning consultants to provide professional advice to the Planning Committee.

 

The Council has acted completely honourably in supporting the decision of the Planning and Regulatory Committee through the recent lengthy and expensive Public Inquiry, despite its conflicting wider interest in the success of the Waste Contract.  I would hope even the Council's critics would openly recognise this and also that our Planning Team pulled no punches at the Inquiry and did a thoroughly professional job.  There were no 'secret instructions' to give the Waste Contract a helping hand, and our Planning Team defended the decision of the Planning and Regulatory Committee to the best of its ability.

 

The Contractor will be considering whether to appeal to the High Court against the Inspector's decision.   Another intricacy of the contract is that our consent as Waste Disposal authority is needed for any such appeal.  The grounds for appeal are restricted, but Council needs to be aware that if there is a reasonable prospect of success, and if an appeal is reasonable in all the circumstances then we would be in breach of the Contract if we blocked such an appeal.  Should there be an appeal, then the Contract also provides that the Council as Waste Disposal authority will effectively be resourcing the Contractor's appeal costs [check confidentiality].

 

As Council will recognise, these are weighty and important issues affecting all residents of Worcestershire.  What I can assure Council is that I and my Cabinet colleagues will be trying our utmost to do the right thing for Worcestershire people.

 

I think everyone agrees that dealing with increasing volumes of waste is one of the greatest challenges facing this country and that we must make progress on recycling as quickly as possible.  The way forward in relation to the other aspects of the contract will need careful consideration.

Information provided by Councillor Stephen Clee, Three Gables, Hop Pole Lane, Bewdley, Worcestershire, DY12 2QH