The Development Control Committee met to discuss planning applications for an energy recovery centre, a quarry, and a generation station. The committee approved the energy recovery centre, but deferred a decision on the quarry to allow for a review of drainage. They approved the continued use of the generation station.

Hill House Energy Recovery Centre

The committee voted to approve the construction of an energy recovery centre at Hill House Business Park in Wyre. The decision was deferred from a previous meeting, and was subject to a Section 106 agreement¹ to secure a contribution of £12,000 towards road safety improvements on Fleetwood Road North and to secure off-site biodiversity net gain.

The proposed energy recovery centre is for up to 120,000 tonnes of refuse-derived fuel², which is waste that cannot be economically or feasibly recycled. The plant has the potential to supply electricity and heat to local businesses or electricity direct into the grid.

George Luke, CEO of Sisona, told the committee that between 2019 and 2022, landfill waste disposal in Lancashire increased by 6.5% from 203,000 tonnes to 217,000 tonnes. He argued that the facility would avoid local waste being sent to landfill, and displace fossil fuels. He also stated that the facility would provide 100 jobs during construction, and 40 full-time employees during operation.

Mark Hayne, managing director of NPL Group, expressed his support for the proposed energy centre, saying that power production for use by others on site was always planned for this location.

The committee heard concerns from an Honourable Member, about the cumulative environmental burden, and the proximity principle³.

Councillor Balchin raised concerns about the Section 106 agreement, saying that £12,000 seemed a minuscule amount of money. He also raised concerns about the number of lorries that would be going into the plant, and how they would be monitored. He asked for clarification of paragraph four on page 28 of the Public Reports Pack, which states that all vehicles transporting materials shall be adequately sheeted, covered or contained to prevent the discharge of such materials during transport.

Jonathan Edwards, Head of Development Control, responded that the £12,000 was agreed in conjunction with the highways team, and is index linked. He also stated that enforcement sits with the council, and any breaching of those conditions would be subject to enforcement.

Councillor Snow said that Councillor Balchin needed a bit of an explanation of what Section 106 agreements are about, and that it's irrelevant how big this development is, you're only looking at the road, so that is the figure.

Councillor Mills asked how this facility will fit in with the existing local waste management contracts, and whether the capacity of the site would be fulfilled given that people may or may not want to take their waste to that site. He was told that there was absolutely no guarantee or assurance that any of Lancashire's municipal domestic waste would be tendered, and that any decision around that would be subject to an open standard.

Councillor Bolton said that the Section 106 agreement should have something to do with the monitoring and enforcement, as enforcement is lacking in Lancashire County Council.

Councillor Hutchinson asked about the consultation period with the local residents, and whether there was any feedback from the local residents, either positive or negative. He was told that there were three objections who raised a variety of different issues, summarised in the report.

Round O Quarry

The committee deferred a decision on an application relating to Round O Quarry in West Lancashire, to allow further information in relation to drainage at the site. The application seeks amendment of Condition 6 of planning permission 8/10/0241 to allow approval of amended restoration contours together with the submission of a restoration and aftercare scheme to comply with Conditions 29 and 31 of planning permission 8/10/0241.

The committee heard from Councillor Jukes of West Lancashire Borough Council, who objected to the application, outlining the history of the site and explaining that the main issue with the application was water management particularly on the western and northern sides of the site. He maintained that there was no ditch on these sides of the site and believed that the application should not be approved until such a ditch has been constructed.

Councillor Roughneen of Newburgh Parish Council also objected to the application, noting that the applicant has provided an independent report on drainage issues and the Parish Council is generally supportive of his findings, conclusions and recommendations. The three issues that need addressing are drainage, landscaping and bund slippage.

Martin Ainscough, a local resident, said that he was concerned about the raised levels and that the conditions imposed by the Committee have been ignored. He thought some progress had been made but more was required before the application could be approved particularly in relation to drainage issues.

Martin Lovelock, agent on behalf of applicant, supported the proposal, considering that the heights of the site are acceptable in landscape and visual terms.

The committee were told that the applicant had commissioned an independent hydrologist to review the drainage of the site and to provide a report detailing drainage catchments, investigate patterns of run off and proposals for any necessary mitigation measures. The report was received, and its findings and conclusions were detailed in the report to the Committee on 15 January 2025.

The committee were told that the applicant considers that extending any existing drainage ditches that exist on the northern and western boundaries of the site would be difficult due to access and lack of space between the toe of the perimeter bund and their ownership boundary. In any event there does not appear to be evidence of substantial volumes of water leaving the site causing issues for adjacent land that would require the installation of a perimeter ditch. The proposed swale system would provide a suitable alternative drainage measure.

Elswick Generation Station

The committee voted to approve the retention and continuation of use of Elswick Generation Station for natural gas extraction and electricity generation until 15 July 2030 including installation of a new generation unit.

The committee heard from Councillor Josh Roberts, who spoke on behalf of the concerned residents and in particular for the communities in and around Elswick. He said that the application and its implications for the Elswick site deserve far greater scrutiny that they've been afforded, and that the land is not only best and most fertile farmland, but also critical to our nation's food security. He also said that there's also a significant financial concern, with the operator's parent company showing signs of deteriorating stability, and that it would be ineligible not to consider a restoration bond to protect the taxpayers from future risk.

The committee were told that the application is for the continuation of gas extraction for a further period of five years and for the use of the gas to power an on - site electricity generating unit.

The remaining lifetime of the development would be split into three stages:

• Stage 1: Production and wellbore maintenance
• Stage 2: Plugging and decommissioning of the wellbore
• Stage 3: Site restoration

The committee were told that the site is an established hydrocarbon production site, and that the screening surrounding the site compound provides a high level of visual screening and the existing site infrastructure is not prominent in views from any of these locations.