Agenda item

Construction of an energy recovery facility with ancillary

buildings and works including administrative facilities,

gatehouse and weighbridge, parking and circulation

areas, cable routes to ship berths and existing off-site

electrical sub-station, with site access through Portland

Port from Castletown.

This application had been subject to a site visit by the committee members prior to the date of the committee meeting.

 

The Head of Planning introduced the application for the Construction of an energy recovery facility with ancillary buildings and works including administrative facilities, gatehouse and weighbridge, parking and circulation areas, cable routes to ship berths and existing off-site electrical sub-station, with site access through Portland Port from Castletown. 

 

A presentation in respect of the policy context and strategic overview

was presented by the Service Manager for Spatial Planning, highlighting considerations from various policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) relevant to the application.  A recent appeal decision in Wiltshire and the reasons the inspector allowed the appeal was also presented to the Committee together with an update of Habitats Regulations and the need for an Environment Agency Appropriate Assessment should members decide to approve the application.

 

Following the above introductions, the Minerals and Waste Planning Manager presented the report to the committee.  This included the details of the proposal, buildings and the proposed energy generation.  Members were shown details of the proposed site layout, proposed images, elevations and treatment in terms of a mesh printed with scenic images on the outside of the building.  Vehicle movements were estimated at 40 each way maximum, assuming no ship movements and their proposed travel routes were explained.

 

The Key Planning Issues and policies were detailed as part of the Minerals and Waste Planning Managers presentation, all of which were detailed within the Officer’s report.  These included the effect of the proposal on heritage and landscape.

 

The report and conclusion was summarised by the Head of Planning, these included the benefits of the proposal to the port and local area.

 

On balance it was considered that the benefits did not outweigh the harm.

 

However, if members were to approve the application a framework had been drawn up with the applicants for the conditions and heads of terms which would need to be finalised with a S106 agreement.

 

Comfort Break 10.25 to 10.45

 

Oral representation in objection to the application was received from the following members of Stop Portland Waste Incinerator Campaign: Paul Cottrell, Tony Dobbs, Paula Klaentschi, Diane Fowler, Barry Walsh, Cllr Jon Orrell and Eleanor Fitzgeorge-Parker. 

The objections voiced related to the location of the proposal, the energy issues and alternatives, design comparison with industry norms, the socio-economic impact, local wind and weather and the consequential impact on residents, the climate and ecological emergency, health and wellbeing impacts for local people and the value of the location balanced against the harm to the AONB, Jurassic Coast and wildlife.

 

Oral representation in objection to the application was received from the following members of The Portland Association: Debbie Tulett, Helena Berry, Jonathan Tweedle, Steve Christmas, Laura Baldwin, Hilary Breakwell and Catherine Bennett.  Their concerns focused on lack of need for the application, heritage assets, landscape, natural heritage, biodiversity, onshore power, waste management and traffic congestion.

 

11:54 In accordance with procedural rule 8.1 a vote was taken, the committee agreed to exceed the 3 hour meeting time limit. 

 

Additional representation in objection to the application was received from: Michael Kelly (Weymouth & Portland Access Group), Gerry Hinde, Chris Moyle (Weymouth and Portland Civic Society), Rev’d Alasdair Kay (The Anglican Greyfriars) and Raina Summerson (B-Side Arts Organisation).  They addressed the following matters: the location of the proposal and resulting pollution, biodiversity, health and wellbeing concerns, impact on the environment, road infrastructure, additional traffic, risk to school children, tourism, arts, heritage, Portland’s economy and unique image.

 

Lunch Break 12.25 – 13.00

 

Oral representation in support of the applicant was received from: Bill Reeves (Portland Port Group), Stephen Othen (Fichtner Consulting Engineers Ltd), Jane Davies (Terence O’Rourke Ltd), John Trehy (Terence O’Rourke Ltd), Tim Hancock (Terence O’Rourke Ltd), David Elvin KC (Landmark Chambers).  The speakers in support of the application raised port related matters and the help this application would offer the cruise industry and in turn the local area and economy.   Supporters responded to issues relating to technical matters relevant to air quality, public health, landscape and visual assessment, cultural heritage, compliance with planning and policy matters relating to the reasons for refusal, the planning balance, legal, planning and process matters in response to the Officer’s report.

 

Oral representation was received from the following Town and Dorset Council Councillors:

 

Cllr Jim Draper (On behalf of Portland Town Council)

Cllr Kate Wheller (On behalf of Weymouth Town Council)

Cllr Avril Harris (On behalf of Swanage Town Council)

 

Cllr Paul Kimber (Dorset Council)

Cllr Clare Sutton (Dorset Council)

Cllr Brian Heatley (Dorset Council)

Cllr Rob Hughes (Dorset Council)

Cllr Nick Ireland (Dorset Council)

 

All representations from Councillors, on behalf of their constituents, were in objection to the application with their concerns being similar to those raised by the objectors earlier in the meeting.

 

Comfort Break 14.54 – 15.15

 

The Head of Planning referred to the points raised by the speakers, both objectors and supporters.  He picked up and addressed the salient points that he felt needed to be responded to and clarified.

 

The Service Manager for Spatial Planning clarified some points relating to the world heritage site and the two types of setting, the functional setting and the experiential setting.

 

The Lawyer (Dorset Council) reiterated that should the committee be minded to approve the application, it would be subject to consideration of possible conditions S106 obligations and Environment Agency Appropriate Assessment.  The report stated where harm could be mitigated with conditions which was consistent with other authorities.  If the application was approved, it would need to be subject to a resolution that officers report back to committee with those matters for a final approval.

 

Members were given the opportunity to ask questions of the Planning Officers and debate the application.

 

The committee made reference to the limited knowledge of Incinerator Bottom Ash, its disposal and the required water supply needed to operate the facility.  However, Members’ main concerns related to the historical heritage, the location of the flue stack and the effects on those residential properties that were located on the hill above.  The cumulative effect of 80 additional  daily HGV movements, including construction traffic on the narrow streets of Portland, the dangers of spillages, airborne particles, sulphur dioxide and smog and their effects on residents and local biodiversity. 

 

Although accepted that the port was an industrial area and the provision of shore power would be a bonus for the area it was not considered a suitable location for this facility.  The proposed building and stack was big and bulky, would have a detrimental impact on the landscape, alter the skyline, and cause irrevocable harms for a considerable length of time

 

On balance the committee were not convinced that the benefits would outweigh the harm that the development would cause to the heritage assets and the physical and emotional health and wellbeing of residents. The Jurassic Coast was on the UNESCO map as a unique coastline, the proposal would upset the whole setting.  “An unwanted dinosaur on the Jurassic coastline.

 

Proposed by Cllr Jespersen, seconded by Cllr Clayton.

 

Decision: that the application be refused due to the reasons outlined in the appendix to these minutes.