Transcript
Today to County Hall, I am County Councillor Simon Gummer, the Chair of Development Control Committee and my colleagues and I welcome you to Tech.
Before we begin, I would just like to go over some procedures and housekeeping.
Housekeeping, please be advised, we are not anticipating any fire alarms in the course of this meeting.
However, if you do hear an alarm, should you exit the nearest route, which is the doors, following the green signs,
lifts should not be used in evacuation, and if you do need assistance, wait to the refuge point in the stairwell next to the reflection lift outside.
Fire wardens will assist you in going to assembly point C on Arthur Street car park.
Please ensure all tablets and mobile devices are on silent to not disturb anyone while speaking, filming.
Please be aware that this is a public meeting and will be webcast live at the County Council on our cameras.
We will focus on you as you speak.
Through the Council tab, our meetings and information and selecting development control on the highlighted date, which is today, the 16th of July.
Speaking in the meetings, can I remind members of the committee and the public of the need to speak directly into the microphone, switching them on, and once you're finished speaking, switch it off.
Thank you.
Communicating with members during the meeting.
Could I ask members of the public that they do not attempt to communicate with members of the committee during the meeting?
Thank you.
Comfort breaks.
If members feel they need to briefly adjourn comfort break, please let me know, because it is important that you take all the information in, and we can adjourn for a few moments.
Thank you.
Now I'd like to get on to item number one on the agenda.
Appointment of Chair and Deputy Chair.
To note the appointment of the Lancashire County Council on the 22nd of May, 2025, the County Council as Gummer and Lord as Chair and Deputy Chair of the committee for 2025-2026.
Item number two.
How are we doing?
Sorry, we started without you.
It's all right.
We're just on item number two, anyway.
Item number two, there's no apologies.
However, there are replacements for the meeting, and these are as follows.
Councilor Councillor Sean Crimmins for Councilor Councillor Liam Thomas.
Councilor Councillor Chris Snow for Councilor Councillor Kim Snape.
And Councilor Councillor Gordon Johnson for Councilor Aidan Owens.
The Development Control Committee has agreed as full council on the 22nd of May, 2025,
and noting that since the meeting and further changes of the membership have been made,
which are, Councilor Councillor Ashley joins, has permanently replaced Councilor Councillor James Crawford.
Thank you and welcome along.
Item number five.
The minutes of the previous meeting on the 16th of April.
The committee is here, but thank you very much for that.
Item number six is the update sheet.
Do you all have a copy?
Item number seven is Weaburra, Weaburra, the land on Hill House Energy.
Thank you.
Yes, thank you, Chair.
So just by way of background, this application came before committee in April 2024,
when it was resolved to not look at regional or sub-regional issues.
There were no operational energy recovery facilities in Lancashire,
and therefore no present capacity.
Thank you, Chair.
George Luke and CEO Sisona.
Who is Sisona?
We are an independent UK business working with a reputable contractor
who has delivered and operates multiple energy from waste plants throughout the UK.
What is this facility?
It's an energy recovery centre for up to 120,000 tonnes of refuse-derived fuel,
which is waste which cannot be economically or feasibly recycled at the present time.
The plant has the potential to supply electricity and heat to local business
or electricity direct into grid.
Sisona has an electrical connection agreement in place with electricity northwest,
and will look to advance this agreement once planning permission is granted.
The committee will be pleased to hear that we have already engaged with Victret's PLC
to consider the possibility of supplying heat direct from our plant
to their neighbouring chemical processing facilities.
How much waste are we talking?
Well, between 2019 and 2022, regrettably, landfill waste disposal in Lancashire actually increased
by 6.5% from 203,000 tonnes to 217,000 tonnes,
and over twice that volume exists in the joint authority area.
There is an opportunity to target this waste and move the disposal further up the waste hierarchy.
What are the environmental benefits?
Well, avoiding local waste being sent to landfill, obviously,
and releasing methane to atmosphere when in landfill.
To this must be added the benefits from energy recovery being the displacement,
at least in part, of fossil fuel, which would otherwise be burnt to generate grid electricity.
Do we look to improve on these savings?
Yes, anticipating ever-tightening emission standards,
we are already engaged with carbon capture specialists to see what can be retrofitted in the future,
given our considerable distance from carbon capture hub at Hynet near Liverpool.
It won't be easy, but we have some solutions already.
What are the local economic and social benefits?
The facility will provide some hundred jobs during construction,
40 full-time employees during operation,
and we believe as many, again, created indirectly as a consequence of operation.
We've estimated some 3.2 million positive impact on the local economy annually,
including direct benefits in terms of rates.
In conclusion, the facility is compactly designed,
being an operating site commensurate with the existing transport network
and fitted with emissions controls,
which meet with the EA's best available techniques criteria
for our already validly issued permit,
which we recommend strongly for approval.
Thank you for allowing me to speak.
I'd like to express my support for the proposed energy centre
located at the Hill House Enterprise Zone.
I'm the managing director of NPL Group,
and one of my key responsibilities is the development of Hill House Enterprise Zone.
I was a member of the team who bid to establish the EZ status in the first place,
and I helped to develop and continue to develop the master plan on the site.
The master plan categorises the land that's nominated for an energy recovery centre.
Power production for use by others on site was always planned for this location.
The proposal complements the existing and planned businesses for the site,
consistent with the master plan.
The facility help with much-needed investments in the area
that will provide both power and heat for use on the site directly,
in addition to the creation of new jobs in the area,
both during construction and operations.
I look forward to the permission being granted
and continuing to work with Sisona to deliver the project
and to help the Enterprise Zone reach its full potential.
The ex-ICI plant that was located on the project site
was demolished over 25 years ago.
It's been unused since.
Please support us in our goal to bring a new lease of life to this area,
to help us introduce new industry to the area,
and to add new jobs and help the EZ at Hill House reach its full potential.
Language Council helped us,
and WIRE Council helped us achieve EZ status.
Please continue with your support
and help us move our plans and objectives forward
by granting the application.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Yes.
As you're going up there,
I just wanted to remind you,
you've got three minutes to speak.
You don't have to use all the time,
and we'll let you know when you've got, like, a minute to go.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning, councillors.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today
in support of our planning application.
As George said,
Sisona is an established UK business,
working with reputable contractors
to deliver and operate multiple energy
from waste facilities here in the UK.
Our facility maintains its electricity grid connection,
and within the last months we've continued to progress
our localised heat off-take discussions
with neighbouring businesses.
As Mark said,
the Hill House is a strategic development opportunity
with supporting planning policy for this type of development,
and in 84,
the Planning Committee approved the development
subject to conditions.
It is our view that the previous committee decision remains enduring,
as there have been no changes to our proposed development
that requires reassessment.
Matters regarding odour, air quality, traffic movements
have all been assessed by statutory consultees,
deemed necessary to consider the details of the note
before this committee.
And Sisona are happy to state its case
in respect to local waste capacity.
At the present time,
there are no operational energy recovery facilities in Lancashire.
Local residual municipal waste from Lancashire household,
which advocates waste management near the point of origin.
Sisona's own independent market assessment
concluded that availability for municipal waste sources
is in excess of 2.2 million tonnes.
Lancashire was sending approximately 217,000 tonnes to landfill
as of 2022.
With an upward trend,
this is now estimated to be approximately 340,000 tonnes.
Our proposal will redirect waste from landfill
into a modernised and fully enclosed facility,
preventing odour release and cum standards.
It is Sisona's strong-held view
that the development fulfils the details of the capacity note
by providing an alternative solution to city
and provide a local source of heat consumption.
We would welcome the committee's approval for our application.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Mr Hayne, can I just respectfully direct you
to the timely correspondence from the Honourable Member?
And specifically, is it your position
that her objections based on the cumulative environmental burden,
paraphrases, enough is enough,
and the proximity principle,
her objections fall away
because there are no other facilities of this sort
in that particular locality?
Yes, I mean, her concern appears to be mainly in relation
to the potential cumulative impacts of this side.
Questions?
I did give you advance notice.
I've got four questions.
In actual fact, I think you've covered two of them,
but I'd like to start off with a retrospective question.
I thought we had a chance to question the chaps that speak.
No?
Right, okay.
Well, you might ask him,
what's the projected turnover in monetary terms?
A bit of a crude question,
but it does have relevance in a second.
What's the projected...
Your chum here might be able to help out.
I wouldn't really know that.
I mean, that's...
I know, I knew that, so he might know that.
That's not really a planning issue.
No, well, I did say it will have relevance.
Council, that won't actually be relevant
in terms of the application itself.
All right, well, I'll go on to my second bit.
So we can say that that bit's not been answered.
The Section 106 agreement,
£12,000 seems a minuscule amount of money
for something that I'm projecting here
is going to turn over millions of pounds.
And I notice that we have,
on page 21, Section 5,
it does say that we have a chance to reconsider this.
Well, that's the way I'm reading it.
Could you span on that a little bit?
Page 21, what?
Page 21, item 5.
It's this one, right, I think.
Yeah, both.
It says,
when we're finished,
due to the elapse of time
since the application was considered,
before a planning commission is granted,
it is necessary to consider any changes in policy
or additional representations
that may have implications for the proposal.
All I want to know is
who came up with the figure of 12,000 quid?
Should I respond on that one?
So that was agreed in conjunction
with our highways team.
So our highways officers have valued
the extent of the work
that would need to be done
in order to discharge the Section 106 notice.
It is index linked,
so there will be a slight increase
on that value to reflect the fact
that we set in the figure
that needs to be agreed for the 106.
And then just coming back
to your other point around page 21,
correct that the decision
is for the committee to make again today
to confirm whether it wishes
to approve the application or not.
The reason it's coming back here
is for some of the reasons
that Jonathan outlined,
that there has been new national guidance issued,
which has the potential
to potentially give a different perspective
on your view of the merits
of the application,
in particular that note
that came out from DEFRA
around their views
around the construction
of energy from waste plants.
But as Jonathan explained
in his introduction,
whilst there are some changes from DEFRA,
the view is that they wouldn't
materially impact...
Can I go on to my next question?
There are issues.
I mean, when I look at these things,
I try to think,
if I was living next door to this thing,
how would I feel about it?
So it may be...
My questioning may be a little bit tedious,
but I think it's only right
for the citizens of Lancashire
that we ask these questions.
So I'll come back
to the Section 106 in a second.
It says in the report
there's 90,000 tonnes of waste
to be brought into this site a year,
yet when you spoke,
like you said, 120 tonnes.
So that's a 25% increase
since the written.
But what I'd like to know
is it says on page 28
and on Section 4,
all vehicles transporting
with covered materials
and ash from the site
shall be adequately sheeted,
covered or contained
to prevent the discharge
of such materials
during transport.
Now, I'd like to think,
you chaps,
did you chaps,
or are you aware
of the Corby toxic town
where basically
planning permission
was given
for toxic materials,
and I'm not saying
this is toxic materials,
to be transported
across town,
and once planning permission
was given,
the lorries were flying around,
tarpauling,
flapping about
all over the place,
and toxic materials
were dispensed everywhere.
It doesn't seem to me
very,
or let me say,
how many wagons a week
will be going
into this plant?
Right,
it's a roughly
40 HGVs per day
bringing waste in.
So say again?
It's a 40 HGVs per day,
40 loads.
So it can be 48 lorries
a day coming in?
40 lorries a day
coming into this site,
okay.
How are you going
to monitor?
I know it's not your job,
but it's the enforcement
side of,
well I can see you're
gigging to get in,
aren't you?
It's the enforcement
side of this
that is important,
and I've,
just one little paragraph
here,
saying all vehicles,
that should be really
tightened up
and strengthened up.
And that's something
the committee might want
to recommend,
clear around that,
but the key point
to make would be
that enforcement
does sit with us,
so once the approval,
if approval was
to be granted,
then planning enforcement
would sit with us,
and any breaching
of those conditions
would be subject
to enforcement
with any application
that,
where there's been
a breach
of a planning condition.
Okay.
Can I just,
my last final
point,
I'm finishing now,
okay,
apart from an observation.
So we're saying
for a one-off sum,
lump sum
of 12,000 quid,
this lot can
take 40 lorries a day
into this site
year in,
year out.
It just seems
pathetic to me.
So I'd like to say
that we look at
the Section 106
agreement again,
and we also look at
strengthening up
this paragraph four.
One,
so there.
Just in relation
to the,
I mean,
12,000 quid,
you can't,
you can't get
a second-hand car
for that.
You probably can,
you probably get
a very good car.
And just,
can I finish
with an observation?
One last thing,
one last observation.
As an ordinary layperson
reading this stuff,
I think,
and reform
are meant to be different,
we're not just going
to accept how
it's meant to be,
there should be
an executive overview
of this.
So this thing,
you just read
through this thing,
and it would be
far better off
for members
if there was
an executive overview
that perhaps went
through the comms
department
to make it
into proper people
speak rather than...
I mean,
we're happy
to take that away
and obviously
we want to provide
comprehensive
but succinct
information for you
and what we wouldn't
want to do
is leave information
at overview,
but we're always
happy to take away
comments if there is
more that we need
to do to simplify
the information
that's presented,
then of course
we will,
you know,
we'll look to do that,
but at the same time
we can't compromise
the need to have
sort of robust
and detailed information
in there
because that's fair
both to the applicant
and to yourself
as the,
as the,
committee.
So is there any way
forward that we can
re-look at the
section 106 agreement
and beef up
this number four
on page 28,
I think it's 20,
yeah,
page 28,
the 12,000 quid.
Just on that,
Jonathan.
It is just worth
pointing out
that that 12,000
pan is a contribution
so there will be,
all have to be
making a,
making a contribution
and that's the view
of the technical officers
within,
within highways
as to the realistic
amount,
you know,
we're not in a position
where we can make
a profit or retain
in that highway
and that's the figure
that the highway team
have come up with.
Just for the final comment
then,
that I've just been
involved in a section 106
on 90,
90 social housing,
a development with 90
social housing on it
and the developer
had to pay 400 grand.
I imagine that
would have been
for a new road
to be constructed.
No,
it's for new playing fields.
There just seems
no correlation here.
It doesn't,
this is for the record,
this doesn't make sense
to me.
So,
sorry,
it shouldn't be
is,
is how?
Yeah,
I understand that.
I'm just saying
I think the,
perhaps the highways
department need to get
their calculator
batteries changed.
We could definitely do them.
Yeah,
just on that,
there would have to be
some justification.
We couldn't just say,
say it's £100,000
and have you justified
that £100,000
there needs to be
some form of calculation.
So,
I get what you're saying
and we'll consider that.
Councillor Jones.
Makes sense.
That's something I'm thinking
that we need to have.
Yeah,
I mean,
absolutely.
We will be,
we have limited
enforcement resource
at the moment.
I think being completely honest,
I do think we need to bolster
our enforcement resource
as a council.
It's something that we're
taking active steps,
steps to do.
But obviously,
you know,
we've been monitoring
potentially hundreds of sites
across the county
and we're talking
a geographic footprint
of,
you know,
top to bottom
40,
50 miles.
So,
there would be a,
there would be
a disproportionate amount
of resource
that we would need
to have in place
to provide
probably the level
of supervision
and,
you know,
surveillance
that you might,
that you may well wish for,
but we will have
some enforcement activity
in any intelligence
that we receive,
we would obviously
respond to that
and wouldn't hesitate
to take enforcement action
which ultimately
could lead to a prosecution
for the,
for the operator
of the,
operator of the site.
And similarly,
you know,
issues around odors
or other issues
with the site
would be picked up
through the enforcement activity
on the environment agency
side as well.
so there'd be
multiple agencies
that would be
playing a role
in actively monitoring
the activities
on the,
on the site
but it's a fair point
to raise.
We do not have
the resource
to have 24-7.
Resource to,
um,
again,
I go back
to 40 lorries a day,
52 weeks,
uh,
a year.
Um,
again,
I find this
quite concerning
but again,
I pass it on
to other councillors.
Thank you.
Um,
Councillor Snow.
Um,
I think
Councillor Belching
needs a bit
of an explanation
really of
what Section 106
agreements
are about
and what,
you know,
it's irrelevant
how,
how big this,
uh,
development is.
It's,
you're only,
you're only looking
at the road
so it's,
that is the figure.
Is the,
your,
um,
example of,
uh,
the social housing
contribution,
yeah,
that's how it's
calculated.
That's the result
you get up.
Now,
in,
in terms of these
40 lorries a day
and monitoring it,
yeah,
we all understand
that,
uh,
Lancashire County Council
hasn't got somebody
to sit and watch
40 lorries a day
go in but you
as councillors
and your,
uh,
constituents
will certainly
take a great
interest in
what's going on
and you react
to that
and you'll bring
it to the
enforcement,
to the planning
department,
to the enforcement
people so I
wouldn't be afraid
of that.
The condition
in here about,
um,
about auto
vehicles transporting
recovered materials
is quite clear.
It's very,
very clear.
Uh,
they have to be,
uh,
covered in a
correct way.
You'll be watching
that.
If it doesn't
happen,
you'll bring it
to,
to the enforcement.
You know,
I can understand,
I wouldn't like
to live near,
near,
near this
particularly,
but I don't
particularly
understand,
uh,
no,
sorry,
it's
Councillor Mills.
Um,
my questions
in regards
to how
this facility
will fit in
with the,
uh,
existing local
waste management
contracts
and would
the capacity
of the site,
uh,
be fulfilled
given that
with people
who may or
may not want
to take their
waste to that
site.
Um,
there's
absolutely
no guarantee
or assurance
that any
of Lancashire's
municipal
domestic waste
would be
tendered.
We'd have to
go out for
contract to
determine which,
which location
and which site
our waste
ultimately was,
was tipped
into or
delivered,
delivered into.
So there's,
there should be
no correlation
between this
site and
Lancashire's
waste.
Um,
any decision
around that
would be
subject to
an open
standard?
Is there
any more?
Uh,
thank you.
Um,
back to
the letter
from Lorraine
Beavers,
um,
timely letter
from Lorraine
Beavers.
Um,
the second
point that
she raises
is about
the statement
of community
involvement
saying that
it doesn't
reflect the
contemporary
engagement
standard.
I know
that you
mentioned
that last
year's
process
was extensive
but could
you clarify
whether
it adhered
to the
new
standard?
Thank you.
Just
statements
on a couple
of questions.
A statement
did the
local council
approve
this development?
Well,
I thought,
thank you.
Uh,
we had,
uh,
presentations
from those
that supported
it.
Were there
no presentations
from those
that rejected
it?
Um,
no,
that doesn't
really exist
as part
of the
planning
process.
you know,
the,
um,
if the,
um,
um,
or is
a day.
Um,
you know,
so again,
if,
if,
if I was
living nearby,
I would
not want
to pick
the phone
up and
or contact
the relevant
officers
and not
not be
controlled
properly,
then that,
um,
that monitoring
would,
um,
pick that
up and
therefore
the
Environment
Agency
would have
the ability
to,
um,
take
the,
um,
the
required
act.
Can I
propose
that we
move to
the vote
on the
recommendation
that it
be granted?
Um,
I've also
councillor
Bolton.
Uh,
me again,
section 106.
Uh,
if,
had I been
on,
and this,
sorry,
I don't know
your name.
Right.
Um,
had I been
on the
original
committee,
I think
I know
a bit
more about
section 106
agreements
than you
think.
I would
have,
I would
have been
arguing
section 106
agreement
should have
something to
do with
the monitoring
and enforcement.
By,
by your own
admission,
the enforce,
the enforcement
is,
is lacking
in Lancashire
County
Council.
so I
can see
18 months
time,
a November
afternoon,
there's
lorries
whizzing about
and banging
about everywhere,
there's dust
and flumes
going everywhere,
and what do
they do?
They get on
a,
they get onto
the We Love
Clean Streets
app,
and,
uh,
nothing happens
whereas a
section 106
agreement built
round some
way of paying
for enforcement
would have been
a much more
sensible way to
progress and not
would you like to
respond?
I think the
12th out,
I can just,
um,
just come back
on the 106
agreement.
Um,
the issue here
is,
I'm obviously
not getting my
point across
very well at
all,
I just want it
minuted that
I'm not happy
with the
section 106
agreement,
and I'm not
happy with,
uh,
page 28,
section 4,
that really
needs beefing
up,
and I think
we'd be derelict
if we don't
beef that up,
and that's,
that's it,
there's nothing
else I can do
but walk around
the room
protesting,
but it's easy
to say these
things in a
meeting,
oh,
it's going to
be fine,
it's going to
be that,
we've got to
think about
reality,
and you said
yourself,
and I know it's
other borough
councils,
we are wholly
lacking in
enforcement,
so you've got
a member of
the public
ringing up
saying there's
lorries doing
this,
there's lorries
doing that,
and nobody
might go out
there for
weeks,
and I think
it's wrong,
and it's all
right to sit
in these
committee rooms
and agree
these things,
let's think
about practicality,
and I'm afraid
you chaps
haven't convinced
me on
practicality,
but that's it,
I've finished
now,
I promise I
will not press
that little red
button once more.
Thank you,
Councillor Hutchinson
if that's okay,
and then.
Yeah,
just quickly,
was there a
consultation period
done with the
local residents
of the.
Which complies
with the relevant
statutory requirements.
Was there any
feedback from the
local residents,
either positive
or negative?
I think page
49 in the report,
as you can see
there we had
three objections
who raised
a variety
of different
issues,
summarised
in the report.
Can I ask
something myself?
When is the
road likely
to be built
or constructed?
But I think
the important
point to make
is that there's
no trigger
in terms of
when this
road has
to be
built.
The
HGVs?
It's,
I mean,
it's a hard
thing to
uncondition.
Ultimately,
it relies on
us,
so I just
couldn't handle
that volume
of waste.
So the
40 vehicles
per day
is worked
out on the
basis of
the size
of the site
and the
capacity
of the plant.
so in terms
of HGVs?
Thank you very
much.
So going
back to the
question,
I'm not quite
clear about
this consultation
exercise.
That's
actively engaged
with people,
I would like to
know,
or was it just
generally it's
been mentioned
on local
newspaper and
just that it
was more of
an informative
purpose rather
than engaging
with people and
asking for the
views and
comments and
feedback.
Again,
this project,
this development
is going to
significantly
impact on the
lives of the
residents and
local.
So I would
like to know
how,
to what extent,
what would you
say people were
engaged and
they've been
heard?
Thank you.
I mean,
we did write to
the residents and
we did do the
notices and the
things in the
press and the
site notices.
I think probably
your view
around proactive
and active
engagement may
be slightly
different from
what our
statutory
responsibility is
in terms of
planning applications
that come in.
Had this been a
scheme that the
council was
bringing forward,
had this been
our own energy
from waste
plants, I would
have expected us
to have done far
more engagement.
We should have
been out there
engaging with
communities,
knocking on
doors, doing
that real
extensive engagement.
This isn't the
council's development,
this isn't the
council that
are bringing
this forward.
We are acting
as a planning
authority with
our statutory
role as planning
authority.
We're not the
scheme promoter,
we're not the
people that are
here to advocate
for this scheme
and please don't
take anything
that we've said
today as us
advocating for
the scheme.
We are neutral
around that, we
have a planning
process to follow
and that is the
process that
Jonathan and the
team have
followed but
have we probably
done the level
of engagement that
you would like
to have seen,
possibly not but
have we consulted
in the way that
we are required
to consult under
planning law, yes.
Thank you.
It's just, I'm
unsure of his
name, when he
was just giving
us some brief, he
started his
sentence with
that we've been
neutral so I'm
kind of, you
know, in
contradict, but
anyway, thank
you, in
conflict.
Just to clarify
on that, I
think the
point I was
making was
more around
we have no
predetermined
view on
whether we
support the
scheme or
not.
The process
that we go
through and
the planning
law and
legislation that
Jonathan needs
to abide by,
that determines
our recommendation,
not our personal
views on the
scheme.
Would you like
to respond?
Yeah, so in
terms of the
road, we
can't have a
definite time
frame for it,
which is
explained in
the report,
asking for
contribution.
If the
developer wants
to provide
something
voluntarily, they
could do that,
but in terms of
a planning
requirement, I
think that
will be
difficult on
this side.
I'd like to
second
Councillor
De Freitas'
request that
we move to
the vote.
I'd also like
to observe
that this is
a really
comprehensive
report and
there was a
lot of
information
provided.
And it's
fairly clear
that a lot
of councillors
have not
either read
this properly
or understood
it.
Thank you.
How it's
going to
operate and
then everyone
whether it
Yes, I mean,
if you look at
the report,
it does have
various conditions
that deal with
management on
all those
kind of matters.
Okay, you
want to move
on to the
mark?
Do we have
a proposal?
Second there.
Sylvia, sorry.
Thank you very
much for that.
Before we go
on to the next
item, can I
apologise, I
need to adjourn
for a moment
just to use
facilities, is that
all right with
everybody?
If they don't
want to, they're
more than
welcome to
leave as
well.
It's your
choice.
If you're
enjoying it,
you're more
than welcome
to stay.
Item number
eight is
West
Lancashire
Borough,
land
at present.
Thank you.
Just by
way of
background, this
application came
before committee
on 15th of
January this
year when it
was deferred to
allow further
information in
relation to
drainage site.
This application
relates to
Roundo
Quarry, which
is a former
sandstone
quarry and
inert landfill
site located in
West Lancashire,
just between
Newburgh,
extra hedgerows
across the
site.
You will see
from the report
there's been
various drainage
issues, which
will come on
to you later
on, which
have been
raised, and
the applicant
is to look at
the drainage
of the site.
One of the
issues that's
been raised is
that drainage
from the site
is running
off the site
and causing
issues for
adjacent land
to his land
or that of
his neighbour.
He's concerned
that there is
existing ditch
on Greens
Lane, which
is the ditch
here, which
could provide
an acquisition.
Firstly, in
terms of
drainage, the
concerns relate
drainage from
the site
affecting
surrounding
farmland and
also property,
whilst there
may have been
no evidence
of impact on
adjacent
agricultural
activities or
gullying caused
by site runoff
as shown in
the photographs.
To address the
issues raised, the
applicant has
nevertheless
commissioned an
independent
drainage consultant
to look at the
ditch next to
Greens Lane.
information.
So in terms of
the management
of the site, this
issue is covered
in paragraph 15
of the report.
The normal
after-
Councillor for
this ward as
well.
And UK
Waste bragged
in the late
1980s that it
was to be the
biggest domestic
landfill site in
the north of
England.
The residents of
Newburgh, Dalton,
Latham and the
good people of
Skelmersdale
disagreed.
This went to
public inquiry and
the planning
inspector refused
permission.
Residents were
delighted.
When proposals
came forward for
an inert site, they
failed to realise
the long-term
implications.
You might find
this hard to
believe, but back
then, I was a
young Bobby on
the beat and
this was my
patch.
That's the truth
and nothing but
the truth.
The proposal
today is all
about water
management,
particularly along
the western and
northern edge of
the site.
The independent
drainage
consultant says
there's no such
continuous ditch.
That's the truth.
He says the
applicant says that
he has dug a new
ditch to capture
all the water.
That is not
true.
The landscape
consultants say
they've inspected
the site.
They repeat the
statement about the
new ditch.
Did they not see
there was no
new ditch?
Jonathan believes
both statements
but has failed to
check.
He repeats for the
third time a
false statement.
There is no new
ditch.
There is a
recommendation to
grant permission
because they
believe the new
ditch will solve
all the drainage
problems.
It will but it
doesn't exist so
it can't and
therefore you should
not approve it
until it's dug.
Both the
drainage and
landscape consultants
agree that the
ditches, gullies and
culverts are
neglected or
blocked.
That's the truth.
They both recommend
sorting but neither
say by who.
Neither do they
say who will pay.
You should not grant
permissions until
someone takes
responsibility.
Both consultants
visited in August
during dry weather
when undergrowth was
dense.
Their observations
were correct.
If they went now
after wet weather
in the winter it's a
different story.
They would see the
runoff into the
fields.
They would see the
uneven buns and
water coming through
the buns across the
rows onto fields.
This community has
put up with problems
from Roundor for
35 years.
No short five-year
management plan is
good enough.
There needs to be a
long-term plan to
manage the aftercare
of this site otherwise
the problems will
recur.
The applicant should
use the extra
revenue made by the
oil filter to cover
this so that future
generations don't have
to put up with the
mistakes of our
generation.
We should tell the
truth not cover up.
We should take
responsibility and do
the right thing and
only grant permission
when we know things
are going to be
right.
First job, refusing
at the applicant to
do what he says he's
done.
Dig the ditch, sort
clearing the ditches,
sort a long-term
plan.
Then and only then can
we accept the
recommendations of the
drainage and landscape
consultants, accept
annual meetings,
include the PC, then
grant permission.
Thank you.
Which captures any
water running off the
site in that direction
towards the surrounding
farmland.
Oak Bay design
consultants repeat the
assertion, as does
Jonathan and his
reports.
This is simply not the
case.
There is no new
ditch.
Dr. Hargut explains
that there is no
continuous ditch and
obviously no onward
connection to any drain
in the northwest corner
of the perimeter.
And it is likely that
runoff either infiltrates
to the fields or
continues as surface
runoff west towards
Lowes Farm.
We agree.
However, Oak Bay design
and Jonathan failed to
pick up this
contradiction.
Dr. Harvick is clear
there is no obvious
watercourses or drain
outlet.
He also acknowledges
ditches require
maintenance to
maximise flow and
minimise the risk of
surface water.
Similarly, he recognises
that roadside ditches
and gullies need
cleaning.
I sent photographs to
this committee which
shows torrents of water
emerging from the
western bund down the
existing ditches across
farmland because of
block gullies and
culverts.
If the ditch existed
as Jonathan assumes
then the PC would
accept the landscape
plans as submitted by
Oak Bay design.
Oak Bay make too many
false assertions.
There has never been
any landscaping and
you keep repeating
information about the
ditch that does not
exist.
They say the boundaries
have been inspected
but fail to admit the
ditch wasn't there.
They do, however, agree
ditches are overgrown and
need maintenance but
don't suggest who should
pay or take responsibility
for that work.
Oak Bay provides
short-term management
objectives for a
five-year plan but no
medium or long-term
objectives for future
care.
We require some
assurances that there
will be plans and
funds available for the
future.
We should not burden
future generations of
our village with cheap
fast fixes.
Because of the
overfill there has
been a huge uplift in
revenue gained by the
applicants.
We believe that a
fraction of those
windfall funds should be
made available as a bond
for long-term aftercare.
We will support the
proposal of an annual
visit but request the PC
take part.
There have been so many
broken promises over the
years with no
enforcement.
This might not happen
again.
Once the owner digs the
ditch, he says he's done.
Once the runoff is
managed, then the PC will
withdraw its objections.
We believe the committee
should not support this
application until this is
done.
Thank you.
Mr Chairman, thank you for
allowing me to speak again.
You all know my comments
last time how much I
object to leaving this
towering flat plateau in
its current state and how
disappointing it is that
the conditions imposed by
this committee have been
totally ignored.
We've made some progress
but I do feel there is a
lot more to be done before
rubber stamping this
over-tipping.
I very much appreciate
this committee's request
for a hydrology
assessment at the last
meeting and I commend
Paul Hardwick's
assessment of the site
which highlights the
lack of drainage ditches
on the site and on the
perimeter.
It fails to discuss the
destination of drainage
from the east to a
culvert destination
unknown in figure six of
the report which may
historically have
followed the line of
trees through the
pre-corried site.
If you look at the
black and white photo
from the 60s on page
106 of your reports
pack you will see a
road and ditch network
on the fields.
That doesn't exist.
There is no drainage
plan for the site
itself.
It just relies on
permeation.
The water now floods
the fields to the north.
The lack of permeability
data on the site as
picked up by your county
drainage engineer is
also really pertinent.
The swales to the north
and particularly
northwest of the site
are welcomed but where
does this water go?
It just permeates into
the site and into the
fields to the west.
The recommendation for
ditches on my own and
my neighbour's land
requires some
clarification.
They do not exist at the
moment on the north and
west sides.
Just a few holes dug and
the water has nowhere to
go.
Who is going to form
these ditches and who
is going to maintain
them?
The proposal doesn't
match up with the
hydrological survey.
Your report from your
team's state says that
there is work on slope
stability.
There is not.
The structural stability
of the perimeter mounds
which after all are made
up of the soil which
should have been returned
to the surface of the
landfill and never
engineered to retain
millions of tonnes of
inert waste has definitely
not been proved.
Are you really going to
rely on casual opinion
of a paid consultant?
It's disappointing that
there's been only limited
interaction from the
environmental agency.
It would appear that the
landfill permit is still
livened before surrender.
The applicant will have
to satisfy the EA on
perimeter stability and
water runoff.
How will this impact the
very detailed timings if
you were to grant
permission?
Would it not make sense to
wait for that technical
assessment and surrender
of the permit before
granting this permission?
Finally, I would like to
ask the question whether
you can really rely on
conditions to ensure this
costly restoration of the
site and detailed 10-year
management.
Every one of the
conditions laid down on
this permission have been
ignored.
There are 20 conditions
laid down here.
What makes you think the
applicant is going to
comply this time?
I think it's absolutely
essential that you get a
financial bond put in
place or enter a section
106 agreement to make
sure that this very
generous absolution of
extremely profitable
illegal activity is
allowed.
Thank you very much.
My name is Martin
Lovelock.
I'm a consultant, worked on
the application, been
involved with the site since
2021, at which time it was
already closed.
I'd like to comment on a
number of issues.
In terms of the site levels,
the site is not visually
intrusive.
It's no higher at the
highest point that it was
under the permitted
permission.
There's some additional
planting has been proposed
to fill the gaps around the
perimeter to soften the
impact.
The landscape, I believe that
the claims made are
completely unfounded.
there is no evidence
whatsoever that the site is
unstable or there is any
instability along the
perimeter that the site is
causing any contamination
in the surrounding area.
The Environment Agency
agrees and has said so in
their response.
In terms of drainage, the
picture at the top is not
as a result of runoff from
the landfill.
This is a drain that takes
water from underneath
Cobbsbrough Lane and the
drain has simply become
blocked with leaf litter
that's been washed to the
culvert that goes under
Green Lane and blocks
that.
It is a maintenance issue.
I walked the entire
perimeter of the site
yesterday.
There is no evidence
whatsoever of water
running off the site.
None of the photos
provided on Monday show
flooding in the fields
around the site.
Despite the horrendous
weather that was
befell the western boundary
part of which is outside
the boundary and part of
which the northern section
is inside the boundary
wall.
Both appear to have done
their jobs.
I have to stop you there.
Let you know when you've
got one minute anyway.
So you've got three
minutes and we'll let you
know when you're down to
the last minute.
Lovelock, the agent.
Same principle apply.
Three minutes and then I'll
let you know when you've got
one minute.
Thank you.
Ask questions and who's
first one up?
Counselor the fetus.
Thank you, Chair.
So I've got four questions
and I'll read them out
slowly so that you can
note them down as I go
along.
And they relate to the
conditions that have been
imposed to safeguard the
watercourses and deal
with drainage.
The final questions about
the timeline involved.
So condition three requires
a CEMP to be produced and
submitted to LCC which under
3F will include provision for
drainage control measures
during the construction phase.
Can I ask whether this will
be made public so that the
parish council, councillors
and residents can understand
the standards expected
during the construction
phase?
Secondly, moving on to
conditions 15 through 19
which deal with long-term
surface water and drainage
matters, can we be assured
that if these should be
addressed?
Thirdly, condition 19
specifically requires a
post-completion
verification report with
as-built pictures included.
Can officers confirm again
whether this report will be
available publicly and what
steps the council could take
scheme that's been agreed
by the committee?
And then just finally, in terms
of the time frame, could you
give some sort of indication
as to what time frame we
should expect on the CEMP
report, how long the, and when we
can expect that post-completion
verification report?
And as I say, I'm happy to
repeat any of those if you need
any.
Thank you for that, Jonathan.
But I mean, just in terms of the
general theme of your question,
just in terms of the, you asked
about with the drainage report or
any sort of restoration or
landscaping schemes, can we meet?
Councillor?
Councillor Lodd?
Why was enforcement action not
taken when it became materially
apparent that they'd been
overfilling?
Recourses would be to take
enforcement action against the
over-tipping.
So at that point, you would
consider enforcement?
That's right, but of course the
applicant would have a right to
repeal it, getting a reason why we
would take enforcement action.
Are the committee being presented
effectively with almost a fetter
complete here?
Thank you.
Councillor Edwards?
Yeah, I'd like to make an
observation really, and possibly
could lead to a solution.
I'm assuming that the land is to be
totally restored to agricultural
land.
Is that correct?
Yes?
Well, the restoration scheme is to a
bit of open, I mean, yeah,
effectively, yeah, which could be
farmed, or it could just be left
wild land.
Yes.
So has anybody thought about getting
in touch with the local farmers?
And because I guarantee that the
local farmers will know exactly where
the ditch should be run and the
have the capability of putting the
ditches in.
Now, if the council then approached
the farmers and said, a certain of
this land, to be restored as farm
land, could be used, would you
consider that an option to be able to
use that land and maintain those
ditches?
To me, that seems like a perfectly
logical step to the solution.
So I think the drainage issues have been
satisfactorily addressed.
Yes, but surely, you know, nobody knows
the land better than the farmers, and
they're the people that are capable of
putting the ditches in.
So if they're tasked with maintaining
that, surely that's a great option in
England.
Yeah?
I don't think it's the farmers' land, is
it?
And from our perspective, as a council,
we've consulted with our own internal
drainage colleagues, so they've given
their technical view.
Now, I'm sure the local farmers will have
local knowledge and an understanding of
it, but that sort of, to the communities,
whoever that may well be, we've had to
rely on the advice from our in-house
drainage experts, and obviously the other
drainage information that's provided as
part of the application.
So I'm not contesting that it's a bad
suggestion, but I think just in terms of
the proportionality and the ability to
sort of have the time or ability to do
that.
Is that wrong, councillor?
Yeah, yeah.
I just failed to see, really, why it
couldn't be put forward as an option,
really, because it seems to me that it
would sort the problem out at a
an extremely low cost, and it would be
beneficial to the area as well.
Okay, thank you.
I don't think I've seen it.
Well, that was dug last week, so of
course, up until this time, there hasn't
been a big rainfall event that's tested
the efficiency of the swale, but the
swales are a recognised way of dealing
with water runoff.
And you'll see from the drawing here, the
issue of concern, I was sort of thinking
that we could, if it's your concern about
the effectiveness of that swale, it would
be possible to run off from this part of the
site running towards the western boundary.
And the swale, which is the blue line on this
plan, that is designed to capture water.
Okay.
Councillor Hutchinson?
Yeah, just going back to the information from
Mr. Smith, and also Andrew Webster talks about
the things he's done to clear that, but they
both talk about, and they both mention about
actually channeling the water away, not just
having the swathe in and storing it, but
channeling it away into either, you know, the
river on one side, the river on the other.
But, we're just, the swale itself here is just
going to basically store it, and like you said,
it's just evaporating it away.
Is there no chance of actually channeling it
across into one of the rivers?
And actually is either flat, where it runs
slightly uphill towards Greens Lane, so the
swale can't link into Greens Lane ditch
anyway, because the water wouldn't flow that
way.
Multiplicity of problems now.
And we are being asked to grant an application
on behalf of a demonstrably unreliable
applicant.
And that causes me a degree of concern that
I have little faith that there will be
further compliance, and I know not why there
was overfilling in the first instance.
At the most.
Done how they were supposed to be done, of
planning permission, or permit, would that have
actually been able to work, that the swale could have
finished into the, the always runoff from this
side, along the surface, towards the western boundary.
So the actual raising levels around the edge here, I don't think
has made the drainage.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Do we have a proposal and a seconder for which way you would like to vote on this?
Sorry, should you not have done that before?
I'll give her the reasons for refusal.
Apologies.
We should have, we should have actually got the full planning reasons, uh, before we voted.
Can we have to have a review on that?
You can put these together for a review on that.
So, yeah, we can do that.
And the committee is properly informed.
Yeah, no, that's fine.
We can do that.
Apologies for that.
So can we have planning?
Planning grounds, and I would suggest the only reason you could possibly use is the landform
that's been, um, created is unacceptable.
I don't agree with that view, I don't think.
Um, so to make a decision whether it is, I know you can say it could be adequate and
then we can see, but then if we give approval and it didn't, then we could put conditioning.
But what about if it wasn't adequate right now and we did approve it, it's still not adequate,
then we've got to go back, but we've had, we've done the approval.
Or the other side is that we say we're unsure, that's why it's going to be successful until
we can be shown that it will be successful.
I mean, that, that, that was why I, um, suggested that we, we, um, could have a seven that dealt
with the review of the swale so that if, if it transpired that the drainage mechanisms
on site weren't sufficient to deal with drainage issues, there'll be a.
Um, okay, thank you very much for that.
Um, well then we'll move on to item nine.
I just want to say the members of the book and the speakers, you're more than welcome
to leave and you're also more than welcome to stay.
It's entirely up to you.
Thank you very much for your time.
Item nine is file borough, land in Ellswick generation, generation, generation station.
Jonathan to present.
Thank you.
Is it not working now?
Just going to pause while we, uh, get PowerPoint working.
There's a condition set out in the report.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for that.
Um, we do have one speaker on this.
Um, it's council Roberts, Josh Roberts.
Um, same.
Yeah, yeah, please.
Yeah.
Same applies to you.
You've got three minutes and I'll let you know when you've got one minute.
All right.
So thank you, chair.
Um, I'd just like to put this out there.
I'm not speaking on my cabinet position.
This is just because it's in my division and the county council of the area.
So thank you for allowing me to speak today on behalf of the concerned residents and in
particular for the communities in and around Ellswick, which falls within my division
of Fouled East.
This application and its implications for the Ellswick site deserve far greater scrutiny
that they've been afforded.
We're looking at land that is not only best and most fertile farmland, but also critical
to our nation's food security.
The economic value of this mineral site has clearly diminished.
After over three decades of operation, there's been little to no meaningful output in recent
years.
In fact, the revived production in 2024 was so minimal, it barely registered against national
figures.
It is clear that this site has passed its useful life.
And the question now isn't whether it can produce more.
It's whether it can be properly restored.
That restoration, which should support agricultural benefits and community well-being, cannot proceed
safely or responsibly without a robust traffic management plan, and we still don't have
one.
Moreover, we must acknowledge repeated non-compliance at this and other related sites by Quadrilla,
which undermines trust in the operator, commitments and capacity to meet restoration conditions.
There's also a significant financial concern, with the operator's parent company showing
signs of deteriorating stability.
It would be ineligible not to consider a restoration bond to protect the taxpayers from future risk.
This is not about halting progress.
It's about upholding planning standards, protecting residents and ensuring that policy decisions
are granted in national and local regulations.
The people of Ellswick and Foude more broadly deserve a careful, accountable and transparent
process.
I respectfully ask the committee to consider these points before fully proceeding.
Thank you.
I have one.
Council's no.
I don't know whether this is any sort of planning consideration, but if there's any gas
there, or if there's no gas there, and the applicant just finds it convenient not to do the restoration
because he's notionally...
