SUBJECT Charlton Lane Community Liaison Group (CLG) Meeting

SUBJECT
Charlton Lane Community Liaison Group (CLG) Meeting
PURPOSE
To discuss proposals for an Eco Park at Charlton Lane
MEETING DATE
15 July 2014
LOCATION
Sunbury Golf Centre, Charlton Lane
RECORDER
Emma Jordan
DISTRIBUTION
DATE
16 September 2014
Gareth Phillips
GP
SITA UK, Head of Planning &
Property - South
Richard Parkinson
RP
Surrey County Council, Waste Group
Manager
Emma Jordan
EJ
SITA UK, Regional Communications
Manager
Gareth Swain
GS
SITA Surrey, Regional Manager
Cllr Gerry Forsbrey
GF
Spelthorne Borough Council and
resident (Chair)
Ken Snaith
KS
Resident
Peter Francis
PF
Resident, LOSRA committee
member
Andrea Koskela
AK
Resident
John Seaman
JS
Resident
Jim Maxwell
JM
Resident
Richard Kennedy
RK
Resident, Charlton Village Residents
Association Chair
Malcolm Robertson
MR
Resident
Peter Hughes
PH
Resident
Dr Sandy Muirhead
SM
Spelthorne Borough Council
Karen Howkins
KH
Resident
Cllr Richard SmithAinsley
RSA
Spelthorne Borough Council,
resident
Julia Bachmann
JB
Resident
Brian Catt
BC
Resident
1 of
14
DISTRIBUTION
Ref
Note
1.0
OPENING
1.1
2.0
2.1
3.0
3.1
4.0
4.1
4.2
Peter Crews
PC
Resident
Chris Lowe
CL
Environment Agency
Tracey Cocker
TC
Environment Agency
Participants and stakeholders – Mark O’Hare and Alan Stones
(Surrey County Council Planning); Chris Lowe, Tracey Cocker, David
Rushton, Esther Van Lith (Environment Agency); Tracey Wilmott
French (Spelthorne Borough Council Environmental Health).
Action
GF opened the meeting and welcomed the two representatives from
the Environment Agency who were attending to provide members with
an update on the consultation process for SITA's application to amend
the Eco Park's environmental permit.
APOLOGIES
Apologies were received from Richard Hewitt, Cllr Robert Watts,
Calum James and Stuart Moss. EJ explained that when giving his
apologies, as this was the second meeting he had been unable to
attend, Richard Hewitt had confirmed he still wished to be a member
of the group.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved by the group. A
member thanked EJ for the quality of the minutes.
MATTERS ARISING
Referring to item 4.1 of the minutes of the previous meeting, a
member expressed confusion regarding the numbers for ammonia
production in the minutes (400m3 per day) and those contained in the
Environment Agency document circulated to the group (4.3 / 4.4m3
per day). Based on this, he calculated that a 1% ammonia solution
would be discharged to the sewer.
GS explained that the concentration of the ammonia solution is
measured in mg/l, and the Eco Park would therefore not discharge 1%
ammonia solution to the sewer as the solution would be 20ppm.
A member referred to the information from Monsal circulated at the
previous meeting. He commented that in an operators’ briefing note
on the effective digestion of food waste produced by DEFRA, there is
one item that questions if there is problem with ammonia affecting the
AD process for all types of food waste. He believed that there were a
handful of commercial anaerobic digesters that accept only food waste
in the world, and that the majority of such facilities handle mixed
feedstock in order to overcome issues with ammonia. He queried if
the ammonia produced by the Eco Park AD process could be recovered
and if so, if it would be collected and a value secured for it.
2 of
14
GP replied that at present it was not proposed to use the effluent from
the process as a by-product and that the primary output will be
digestate.
4.3
4.4
The member provided GP with the technical report on the optimisation
of processes for the stable operation of food waste digestion.
Referring to item 4.2 of the minutes of the previous meeting, a
member asked for an update on progress with the hazardous area
drawings. GP reported that these were not available yet, HAZAN had
been completed for the digester tanks but the hazard zoning had not
yet been done for the flare. He suggested this remain as an action in
the minutes as a reminder to bring the drawings when available.
GP
GP referred to item 4.3 of the minutes of the previous meeting which
discussed a European guidance document on the gasification of
biomass. He had since had opportunity to review the document which
dated from November 2009. He observed that it focussed on the
gasification of biomass as a fuel material distinctly, and considered
that the document had some good guidance for biomass gasification.
He added that the document contains guidance that is already covered
by the planning and permitting regimes and SITA has therefore
already take account of these matters.
GP explained that with regard to fuel storage, there is a distinction
between biomass and municipal solid waste (MSW). In this instance,
biomass is shredded wood and the guidance says that this should be
stored separately to the gasification process. GP provided context to
this recommendation, explaining that the process of shredding wood
to a certain size to produce a homogenous fuel creates wood dust,
which can be combustible. This is different from shredding MSW to
produce a fuel: MSW has a different moisture content, less dust is
produced and this dust is more silica based, so it has different
combustion properties. Having reviewed the document, GP concluded
that the Eco Park design already takes on board the relevant areas of
the guidance, and the design of the fuel preparation wouldn't change
as the guidance document relates to a different type of fuel.
The member commented that the guidance document makes clear
that offices and the control room shouldn't be housed in the same
building as the process. GP replied that this recommendation was
caveated, as it suggested the control room and offices should either
be housed separately or in the same building with appropriate fire
prevention, a high performance fire curtain.
The member disagreed and said that the guidance recommended that
the control room be in a separate building and should have its own air
supply. GP explained that this fed into the ongoing HAZOP studies, in
terms of where air vents into the building and into the control room
and offices, and with regard to fire escape procedures.
The member suggested that there were other items in this document
that were relevant to the Eco Park and reported that when he
submitted it to the Environment Agency during the earlier
3 of
14
consultation, the Agency responded that it could be ignored as it
refers to smaller plants. The member suggested that if an issue is a
concern for small plant, it would be a greater concern for a larger
plant, however he believed this argument had been dismissed by the
Environment Agency. GP replied that the guidance was for a certain
size of plant and for biomass facilities in developing countries. He
added that there was nothing in the guidance that had changed the
design of the Eco Park so far, but as SITA was not yet at the end of
the HAZOP and HAZAN reviews there may be future design changes
resulting from these processes.
The member asked if these processes would be undertaken upfront as
per the Environment Agency recommendation that they take place
before commissioning. GP explained that the processes were
underway, the tanks were being reviewed now and design changes
were occurring e.g. moving a pump from one side of a tank to
another.
4.5
4.6
The member asked if the documentation from these processes was
available for review. GP replied that these were not public
documents.
Another member suggested that SITA was dismissive of the potential
problems of storing household waste on the same site as a gasification
facility. He referred to problems at the plant in Dargavel, where a fire
started with the storage of household waste and said SITA should take
this seriously. GP explained that whilst the storage of wood waste and
RDF from MSW have different fire risks, that doesn’t mean that there
is no fire risk from storing RDF produced from MSW. This has been
discussed since early design meetings and there will be fire control
measures both through the processing line and in the RDF storage
area. There will also be systems in place to detect any fire, deal with
it and evacuate the building. He emphasised that he had not been
suggesting that there was no need to take into account risk, rather
that it is a different level of risk.
The member commented that waste will be delivered and then pretreated to produce RDF, querying if both the storage of household
waste and RDF would therefore be a problem. GP explained that the
Eco Park will be able to store 3-4 days RDF in the bunker (not the
reception bay), and this will therefore have an appropriate level of fire
detection and fire management that will be different to the reception
bay. Both the RDF bunker and the reception bay will be in the main
building.
A member raised the alleged breaches of emissions at Grundon's
Lakeside Energy from Waste plant discussed at the previous meeting
(item 4.4). GF explained that SITA could not comment on Grundon's
facility. The member said that he had been back in touch with his
contact at Slough Borough Council, who had confirmed the air quality
readings are correct and not spurious, and had been caused by a
breach of emissions at the Grundon plant.
TC explained that SITA shouldn’t have to report that information to
the CLG as the plant in question is operated by Grundon who report
4 of
14
the plant's emissions monitoring data on their website. This data is
also on the public register at the Environment Agency offices and can
be obtained by contacting the Agency's customer engagement team.
A member queried if this had been reported to Spelthorne Borough
Council as a neighbouring authority. SM explained that as the facility
is not in the borough the council would not be informed of any
emissions breaches but the environmental health officers can check
the monitoring data.
4.7
4.8
4.9
Another member commented that the issue of alleged breaches at
another operator's plant was not business for this meeting.
Referring to item 4.3 of the minutes of the previous meeting, a
member queried if dust produced when the fines from the RDF
process were removed could be an issue. GP explained that there is
an issue with dust as it is a pollutant and an amenity issue for both
employees in the process building and the wider community. The dust
from fines is a different type of dust of a sandy, gritty nature. RDF
from MSW results in an inert slilca based dust that is quite distinct
from the dust generated by shredding wood.
With regard to item 7.1, a member queried progress on SITA's
application to OfGEM for pre-accreditation for ROCS. GP replied that
this was still in process.
Another member asked how the group would know what OfGEM
decides and how the outcome of the process will be made public. GP
did not know as it was not an area he is involved in. However, he
suggested that as the applicant, SITA would be informed in due
course and that when it receives a decision it, will inform the CLG
members as SITA knows this is of interest to the group.
Referring to item 5.6 of the minutes of the previous meeting, a
member commented that someone had tried to block the footpath
that runs near to the site boundary and asked if SITA was aware of
this. Both GP and GS were unaware. The member said that the
footpath had been blocked with heras fencing and barbed wire, and
that someone kept placing it across the footpath and tying it in place.
GS offered to go and have a look.
EJ
GS
The member added that previously it was possible to carry on and
walk all around site, now this isn't possible due to the fencing and
barbed wire. RP explained that the County Council had fenced off part
of the site to make it secure as trespassers had been accessing the
site from Charlton Lane as reported at previous meetings. At present
there is no public access to the site other than footpath 70. The
member suggested that a small opening could be left for walkers but
RP replied that the point of the fencing is to make the site secure as it
is not a piece of land that the public have access to. The member
commented that she would like access as it is a nice walk. GP
explained that the Eco Park scheme will have a diverted footpath
running east to west together with a new connecting footpath running
north to south from Charlton Lane. The Eco Park scheme will
therefore allow the access the member would like. He added that
there is currently no official footpath in this location and that there are
5 of
14
measures to prevent trespassers. Once the Eco Park is in
development, there will be a permanent footpath there.
Another member suggested that trespassers were coming in across
the railway line. RP agreed to look at this.
4.10
5.0
5.1
5.2
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
RSA commented that the county council had been to look at the
footpath and said that it was passable but that there was vegetation
overgrown by the motorway, which would be maintained in the next
few weeks. Another member commented that there were fallen trees
at the tree tunnel, heras fencing and barbed wire obstructing access.
A member asked if an electronic copy of the document given out at
the last meeting on ammonia could be circulated with the minutes.
GP agreed to supply an electronic copy for EJ to circulate.
RP
GP/EJ
PROJECT UPDATE
Planning - GP reported that there was little by way of update on
planning matters. SITA was still awaiting a decision from the
Secretary of State on whether or not to call in the Section 73
application following the County Planning Authority's decision to
approve it, subject to referral to the Secretary of State as it is a Green
Belt site. GP had called the officials who administer this process on
behalf of the Secretary of State and was informed that there would be
no decision that week due to the Cabinet reshuffle. He hoped a
decision would be issued once the reshuffle was complete. SITA
therefore has planning approval for the Section 73 application but
does not yet have planning permission. For clarity, the original Eco
Park planning permission SP10/0947 still remains in place.
Environmental Permit - SITA had no update on this since the last
meeting and suggested any further discussion on the permit follow the
Environment Agency's update under any other business.
SITE UPDATE
GS informed the group that SITA had started collecting rigid plastics
at the community recycling centre having secured a consistent outlet
for this material. This removed rigid plastics from the residual waste
stream and provided a means of recycling this material, which local
residents had been requesting.
A member asked what items were considered bulky plastics and how
the CLG members could help raise awareness of this. GS gave an
example of plastic garden furniture and agreed to provide the
members with information on the sort of plastics accepted in this
stream so that they could share this information.
Referring to the reduction in the number of windows for depositing
green waste in the Eco Park plans, a member asked if SITA planned to
test this for a day over the summer. GS agreed to consider this
suggestion, adding that the busiest months for green waste were
April, May and September, rather than the summer months.
A member observed that the sign displaying the number of days since
the last lost time accident was still stuck at 83. GS had also noticed
this, he expressed his disappointment and said he would ask the site
to remove the sign or manage it.
GS
GS
6 of
14
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
GS reported that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) had recently
reviewed safe working practices across SITA's sites in Surrey,
including Charlton Lane. The HSE had interviewed site operatives and
site managers as part of the review. GS was pleased with the positive
report, which included good feedback on the culture and performance
of the sites and on the induction procedure. The report had identified
opportunities for further improvements that SITA were considering
e.g. padlocking the gates at end of the gantries for accessing
containers to prevent members of the public entering the operational
area.
EJ reported on customer feedback from May to June, which had been
minimal. In May the site received one compliment about staff, one
complaint about staff and one comment that the height barrier was
too low. In June the site received one compliment about the staff and
customer service and two complaints - one that the opening hours
were too short and another concerning the policy on removing and
exchanging items at the site and the way this was implemented by
staff. There had been no feedback in July to date.
GS explained that as part of SITA's aim to give something back to the
communities in which it operates, it promotes equal opportunities. As
part of this it had been working with Surrey County Council to offer
work placements to individuals with learning difficulties. A trial
placement had taken place at Charlton Lane that included a bespoke
risk assessment, induction and safe working procedures, and SITA
was looking to extend this to increase its offer to the community.
SITA had also taken a stand at the Shepperton Fair with Spelthorne
Borough Council, to promote the circular economy message. Staff
from Charlton Lane and Spelthorne Borough Council staffed the stand
and gave re-used pots from the CRC away to residents. The pots
were filled with compost from Spelthorne Borough Council's waste
contractor and plants from the Borough Council's parks and gardens
contractor. 300 residents came to the stand, whilst a few people
expressed their objection to the Eco Park overall it was a good
opportunity to talk to residents about what can be done with their
waste and how materials can be used as a resource. The stand raised
£164 for Macmillan Cancer Support.
EJ informed the group that SITA UK's Big Ride in aid of the company's
corporate charity, Macmillan Cancer Support had visited Charlton Lane
and other sites in Surrey on 10 June. The ride, which started at one
of SITA's sites in Scotland and then travelled around the country
finishing at one of its sites in Cornwall, had raised over £80,000 for
the charity.
A member suggested there was a contradiction in SITA operating
facilities that produce PM2.5s and supporting Macmillan. GS
disagreed, commenting that there were many sources of P.M2.5s, e.g.
cars. He explained that SITA chose the charity as cancer was
something that had touched employees and their families, both
directly and indirectly and that the charity delivers a huge range of
services. Supporting Macmillan was one of a number of ways SITA
gives something back.
7 of
14
7.0
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS
7.1
One question had been received from a member regarding the options
for a third runway at Heathrow. One runway option would require the
Colnbrook Energy from Waste plant to be re-located to a site within
Surrey, in which case the member suggested that a new, larger plant
could be built to take the Eco Park feedstock. The member therefore
suggested that plans for the Eco Park be postponed until the future of
a third runway at Heathrow had been decided and also questioned
why the Stanwell / West Bedfont site wasn't included as a potential
site for the Eco Park.
GP commented that his first job in SITA in 2002 had been to look at
the runway options at Heathrow, as the company owns land under
one of the options and had therefore been following the debate closely
as any landowner would. 12 years on, there has been no progress,
and the Davies Commission on airport capacity isn't due to report until
2015. There are four options under consideration by the Commission,
two options for expansion at Heathrow, one option for Gatwick, and
one for the Thames Estuary. Only one of the two Heathrow options
involves a third runway. There are therefore a lot of uncertainties and
no guaranteed timetable, so as an operator SITA wouldn’t delay the
Eco Park to await the outcome of this process.
With regard to the sites at Stanwell Moor sites, GP was unsure which
site was referred to here. RSA suggested it was a site at the top of
Long Lane, not Stanwell Moor. GP said that SITA had looked at four
sites around Stanwell Moor and had visited site SP20, at which time
there were no vacant plots of a suitable size available for the Eco Park
proposal so the site was discounted as SITA doesn’t have the
compulsory purchase powers that would be available for airport
expansion as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. RSA commented that this sounded like a sensible answer but queried
why on this basis SITA had looked at the Centrica site in Staines and
sites at Shepperton Studios and one by the Station. GP explained that
SITA had looked at 203 sites in total, with those making it through to
second stage screening receiving a pro forma from an agent to see if
the owner would make land available for development (the use was
unspecified). GP added that the sites that would appear on paper to
be suitable were visited, but not all 203.
7.2
A member asked if the core site assessment was done in 2002. GP
confirmed that it was not and that the alternative site assessment had
been done in 2010.
A member queried if the Eco Park would become defunct in the event
a large Energy from Waste plant was later built in the area. GP
explained that the Eco Park was being built for a specific purpose, and
that purpose would still exist if a large Energy from Waste plant was
built nearby.
RSA asked what would happen if a large Energy from Waste plant was
8 of
14
built nearby and offered to take the waste. SM commented that the
current Colnbrook plant is at capacity with its existing contracts, which
would transfer to any new facility. GP added that the Colnbrook plant
takes waste from a wide area, including Wiltshire and Dorset, not just
from Greater London.
The member suggested that if the Council looked at where was best to
send the waste, the Eco park wouldn't achieve more than 70%
efficiency at best whereas the Colnbrook plant could reach better
efficiency.
Another member commented that the discussion was based on a
hypothetical proposition as the Davies Commission was ongoing, and
if a third runway at Heathrow was chosen in this location there would
be a public inquiry before construction, and that a decision was many
years away. The member who raised the question insisted that it was
still a possibility in 25 years time.
GF queried where waste would go if the Eco Park was postponed.
SM commented that if a third runway was located here, Heathrow
would pay for a new plant and wouldn't fund a larger plant, it would
only replace the existing facility.
7.3
Another member believed that the law required RDF to go to the most
efficient plant in the OECD. GP took issue with this, commenting that
this was guidance, not legislation and that there is no legal
requirement to ensure non-recyclable waste is burnt in an R1 facility
in the OECD. The member suggested it would be burnt for profit,
when it could be burnt more cheaply elsewhere. GP also disagreed
with this proposition.
A member commented that the Eco Park was based on the premise
that Surrey will use the 55,000tpa capacity. He suggested that Surrey
was now meeting and exceeding recycling targets, and queried where
waste would come from for the Eco Park and if it would import waste.
RP explained that Surrey produces around 550,000tpa of municipal
waste and this is currently increasing. The Eco Park will therefore deal
with around 10% of the county’s waste, so Surrey would need to
reach 90% recycling rate before there was insufficient waste to feed
the gasfier. The current recycling rate within Surrey is just over 50%
but all Surrey local authorities have a target to achieve 70% recycling.
GP added that the Eco Park was sized for 70% recycling. Post
meeting note: in 2012/13 537,000 tonnes municipal waste was
produced in Surrey, this rose to 572,000 tonnes in 2013/14.
A member asked if Surrey is recycling 50% of the waste it produces
now or if this was based on old figure. RP explained that it recycles
50% of what it produces, and that the council supplies data to a
Government body every quarter, so it is a live figure and an average
over a year with seasonal fluctuations. The rate doesn’t include
rubble as this isn't counted towards recycling figures. Green waste is
included and road sweepings are not, although they are sent for
9 of
14
recovery.
The member asked who gets the benefit of recycling. SM explained
that Spelthorne Borough Council get a recycling credit payment from
Surrey County Council for every tonne of recyclate it collects but that
it also pays a gate fee to have this material processed.
7.4
7.5
RSA asked if the 70%target was calculated based on the amount of
potentially recyclable materials in the waste stream. RP confirmed
that the target was based on worldwide research on what can be
achieved. Surrey Waste Partnership had recently undertaken a
composition analysis and if everyone put all their recyclable materials
in their recycling collection it could be achieved, but the Council can’t
force people to recycle so it doesn’t capture all the potentially
recyclable material.
A member asked SITA to clarify of all the waste going into the
gasification facility, how many tonnes a year of ash will go to landfill.
GP couldn't remember the figures for ash and agreed to provide these.
GS added SITA was looking at recycling opportunities for both the
bottom ash and the air pollution control residue with the aim of
achieving zero landfill. Post meeting note: approximate amount of
bottom ash is 6,350tpa to be recycled into secondary aggregate, and
air pollution control residue is around 2,750tpa to be sent for further
treatment.
GP explained that for the planning application, SITA had specified
what will come into the Eco Park and what will go out in order to
calculate HGV movements. It had therefore assumed a worst case so
there is an amount allowed for in these calculations.
A member queried if a 70% recycling target was realistic given it was
set in 1995 and recycling is currently at 50%. RP explained that it was
a joint target set by Surrey County Council and the districts and
boroughs under the Surrey Waste Partnership. He considered it was
ambitious but what the County should aim for, adding that European
targets were heading towards 70%. He added that it was realistic in
terms of what is in the waste stream, but that increased participation
was needed to achieve the target. A member supported this, adding
that top performing countries like Sweden achieve 70%, with the
current rate of 50% being good for a UK authority.
8.0
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
8.1
Environment Agency Update on Environmental Permit
Variation Application: CL explained that with regard to items 5.7
and 5.10 of the minutes of the previous meeting, SITA has agreed to
make the permit application document and Schedule 5 requests
available on its website.
CL explained the next steps for the permit variation application and
where information could be found about this. The Environment
Agency will carry out a 'minded to' consultation where it will share its
thinking with stakeholders and residents that it is minded to issue an
amended permit for the Eco Park to SITA Surrey Ltd. The
consultation documents - a draft variation to the environmental permit
and decision document - would be available the following day at
8.2
GP
10 of
14
midnight on the gov.uk website and can be found by searching the
site's postcode or the site name.
The consultation will last six weeks instead of the usual four weeks to
take account of the published Surrey school holidays. The formal
consultation period will start on 24 July when it is advertised in the
Staines Informer so the CLG members will actually have more than six
weeks to consider the documents and respond.
Hard copies of the consultation documents will be sent to Spelthorne
Borough Council, Shepperton Library and the Environment Agency's
Hatfield office. If residents can't get to this office, they can arrange to
view the documents at a different Environment Agency office. The
hard copies would be posted the following day and CLG members
should allow 72 hours for them to arrive before viewing them.
It is important that the Agency receives any responses to the 'minded
to' consultation process as soon as possible and members were asked
not to save them until the end of the consultation period.
The decision document sets out the Agency's thinking and is a longer
document than the permit. CL encouraged members to review the
decision document as it responds to the questions and issues raised
during the previous consultation on SITA's application, and it was
therefore not appropriate for him or TC to answer detailed questions
at the CLG meeting. If members felt any of their questions hadn't
been answered by the decision document he explained that they
should respond to the Agency's National Permitting Service so that the
Agency can address any outstanding issues.
8.3
He added that the Agency had produced some clarifications on
previous minutes of the CLG and on the consultation process, that had
been circulated with the agenda together with information on how to
make environmental complaints about the site's operations.
A member queried how responses could be tracked when sent to a
generic email address at the National Permitting Service. CL replied
that anyone responding to the 'minded to' consultation and providing
their contact details would receive a copy of the Agency's final
decision document and varied environmental permit, if it was issued.
He added that approximately 82 points had been raised so far in the
previous consultation, some of which were duplicates and not all of
which were relevant to the application e.g. those relating to traffic
movements. The comments have not been attributed to specific
consultees in the decision document but consultees should be able to
recognise their questions or comments.
CL explained that the Agency wasn't making hard copies of the
consultation documents widely available as they are long documents
to print and the Agency doesn't encourage printing for environmental
reasons. The documents can be downloaded from www.gov.uk and a
hard copy will be available to view at Shepperton Library, Spelthorne
Borough Council offices and the Agency's Hatfield office.
11 of
14
8.4
A member suggested that the Environment Agency's consultation
assumed that residents had a computer or purchased a newspaper.
CL explained that the consultation notice was being placed in a free
newspaper which had the highest local circulation and repeated that a
hard copy of the application would be available in the library.
Another member asked if this consultation was a normal part of the
Agency's permitting process. CL explained that the Agency had
identified the Eco Park as a 'high public interest' site, as are most
applications like this and as happened for the last Eco Park permit.
RSA commented that whilst the Staines Informer may have the
highest circulation he didn't consider it to contain much news, so
people don't read articles unless they are on the front page. CL
replied that the Staines Informer had been chosen based on feedback
from group members that the consultation should be advertised in the
newspaper with the highest circulated.
RSA suggested the notice needed to be on the front page. CL
explained that the Agency did not have editorial control of the paper.
Another member was not convinced that the Staines Informer had the
highest circulation as he saw lots piled up outside newsagents and
therefore thought that whilst it might in theory have the highest
circulation, it may not in practice. GF commented that the Informer
doesn't cover Ashford and suggested the Surrey Herald as an
alternative.
Another member asked if the Agency would put an advert in the
Surrey Herald as he had not seen the Staines Informer, which wasn't
delivered to him.
8.5
TC added that the consultation documents would be available online,
in the library, at Spelthorne Borough Council offices and at the
Hatfield or other Agency office if preferred, as the Agency recognises
that Hatfield is not near to Shepperton.
A member queried if the consultation documents addressed the
definition of gasification. CL explained that SITA had been served a
Schedule 5 notice as part of the variation application process and had
supplied information, and that this issue was addressed at length in
the draft decision document.
Another member thought that in this instance the definition of
gasification was set by OfGEM. CL explained that from the Agency's
perspective it is regulating a specified activity as set out in the
Environmental Permitting Regulations and the definition of gasification
isn't a relevant consideration. The Agency's principle concerns are the
operations on site and the emissions, and not the name of the
process.
A member drew comparisons with a facility at Dargavel and TC
explained that the Dargavel facility couldn't be compared to the
current proposal.
12 of
14
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
8.10
8.11
8.12
GF reminded members that the Agency officers were at the meeting to
update on the consultation process and couldn't answer detailed
questions on the permit. CL added that the detailed points should all
be addressed in the decision document and if members found this
wasn't the case they could respond to the consultation.
A member commented that he had recently spoken on the phone to
the Agency and discussed air quality. He reported that he had been
informed that it wasn't the Agency's duty to control air quality in the
area and queried if this duty fell to Spelthorne Borough Council. CL
explained that local authorities are responsible for air quality in their
area and the Agency is involved in terms of the sites it regulates that
have emissions which contribute towards this. Every four years local
authorities do a screening and submit the information to DEFRA.
A member queried if the Cabinet reshuffle that was preventing a
decision on the Section 73 planning application also applied to DEFRA
and the permit consultation. GP suggested these were two different
processes - the decision on the Section 73 application is a political
decision made by the Secretary of State, whereas the Agency is
issuing a 'minded to' consultation which is not a ministerial decision.
A member asked the Agency if it held public meetings and if it would
do so in this case. CL explained that it did not as the Agency did not
consider public meetings to be a free and fair way of collecting
opinions, commenting that those in favour don't feel able to express
their views. The Agency hoped that CLG members would cascade
information about the consultation to their networks and it was also
making people aware of the 'minded to' consultation by publishing
notices, but it wouldn't hold a public meeting.
A member asked if the fact the Agency was consulting on a draft
variation to the environmental permit indicated that it was reasonably
happy to issue a permit. CL replied that this was exactly what the
process is for, the Agency is letting people know that it is minded to
issue a permit but opening the floor to the applicant, local authority,
stakeholders and others to raise any further issues.
A member asked if the Agency would make people aware that its fact
sheet on gasification was prepared by SITA. CL explained that the
document wasn't prepared by SITA, it was a non-technical summary
of SITA's application and it is a fact that that SITA has applied for a
permit for gasification.
A member commented that the Agency had referred to the facility as
an incinerator and asked if that was definitive. CL explained that it is
a specified activity that falls under Section 5.1 of the Environmental
Permitting Regulations.
The member queried the impact of this on subsidies and CL replied
that this wasn't a consideration that the Agency was able to take into
account as part of its determination of the variation application.
A member asked what air quality monitoring was being undertaken in
the area as a lot of equipment had been taken down and not replaced
after the Olympics, e.g. at Sunbury Cross. CL explained that air
quality monitoring is the responsibility of the Borough Council so he
couldn't comment on the infrastructure in place on their behalf. SITA
will monitor what comes out of the stack via the continuous emissions
monitoring systems (CEMS). It will be required to send the emission
13 of
14
reports to the Agency. Further ambient air quality monitoring is not
within the Agency's remit.
8.13
8.14
A member asked if the CEMS would include dioxins. TC said that
monitoring would take place as required by the permit. There are
different methods for dioxin monitoring and those used will be based
on what is in SITA's application and on Agency guidance. GP added
that there isn't constant monitoring for dioxins as this isn't sufficiently
reliable, so dioxins are monitored by spot checks backed up by
physical samples. CL added that the Agency monitor the operator's
monitoring. A member concurred with GP, as dioxins need to
accumulate over time to ensure accurate monitoring.
A member asked if the Agency were in a position to know what the
County Council's position was on the Agency's position. CL replied
that the Agency is responsible for regulating the facility to prevent
pollution, harm to human health and serious detriment to amenity
where planning is not in place. These are the objectives of the permit.
He added that it is the Agency's responsibility to issue a permit and
ensure that the facility complies with its permit. It doesn't ignore
other stakeholders and will listen to and take on board their views.
The County Council will come to its own decision on the Section 73
planning application.
The member thought that there was a misunderstanding of the
Agency's role at the County Council as he thought that at a public
meeting in June 2013 the County Council and SITA had given the
impression that it was the Agency's role to guarantee the safety of the
facility. Another member said that they did not see it this way but
thought there had been a misrepresentation of the Agency's role.
A member believed that the National Audit Office was investigating
PFI funding, and commented that £850m had been awarded to the
County Council of which SITA had received £100m. RP replied that
SITA had received payment from SCC under the PFI contract and that
SCC received a grant from DEFRA, and suggested that the member
read the National Audit Office report.
9.0
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
9.1
After a discussion, it was agreed that the next meeting would be on
Tuesday 23 September.
14 of
14

Download Report