Cheshire Planners have rejected outline planning permission for the development of a major Resource Recovery Park at Ince Marches. Amongst other issues the application is considered to be premature as the results of a public inquiry into the Cheshire Waste Local Plan are not yet known.
Development Regulatory Committee members unanimously backed the recommendation of county planners to refuse the application from Peel Environmental Ince Limited.
They agreed that it contravened the policies of the Cheshire Structure Plan and North West Regional Spatial Strategies and that the application was premature with the inquiry into the county’s Replacement Waste Local Plan drawing to its close.
The Inspector is due to report next spring and his report will include his ruling on the 247 acre site at Ince Marshes.
A separate application to the Department of Trade and Industry for a Refuse Derived Fuel Plant will be considered by the County Councils’ Executive – as a consultee - on November 23. This application to the DTI is required under Section 36 of the Electricity Act, 1989.
Members felt that the applicants were likely to appeal against the recent refusal and both applications were likely to go to a Public Inquiry for further consideration.
The application
Peel Holdings planned to establish an Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF) and an Environmental Technologies Complex (ETC) on the site, which would include 105 acres of landscape and habitat creation.
The IWMF is designed principally to provide facilities for the management of source – segregated municipal, industrial and commercial waste diverted from landfill and the ETC to include a range of waste re-processing and associated uses.
A berth on the Manchester Ship Canal together with a rail head and road access make the proposal a multi-modal transport facility, which is favoured under national planning guidance.
Amongst other things the site would have been provided with facilities for refuse derived fuel (RDF) production (50,000 tpa), mechanical biological treatment (MBT - 100,000 tpa), In-vessel composting (IVC - 40,000tpa) and industrial and commercial waste transfer (100,000 tpa).
The ETC was to include a bioethanol facility, a waste electronic and electrical waste recycling facility and also facilities relating to the reprocessing of plastics, soils, wood.
Council comments
County Councillor Danny Maguire said:
“This is an absolutely massive proposal to basically put an industrial estate by Helsby. The concept is good – but the location is wrong. The whole waste resources issue is important and we have got to do it properly. I don’t think that a Greenfield site is the right location. It should be redirected to a brown field site.”
County Councillor Neville Price referred to the applicant’s lack of plans to accommodate the additional traffic movements – 400 lorry movements a day:
“Highways is one of the most important parts of any development of this size. That alone would make me accept the recommendations to refuse.”
Local member Derek Bateman commented:
“The area had a lot of perceived pollution problems over the years. Both Cheshire County Council and Ellesmere Port Borough Council have been vigilant to maintain air quality in difficult circumstances.
He continued:
“If this development eventually goes ahead we must be sure to maintain that vigilance for the sake of all local communities.
“Then if there was any pollution, those on the south bank of the Mersey Estuary would be at risk from the prevailing wind.”
County Councillor Rod Fletcher believed that the proposed development – the biggest in Europe - was not in the best location because as a regional facility it would be situated in the extreme southern part of the north west.
He commented:
“And as a former BR manager I can tell you that it is extremely difficult to introduce any new flow of freight traffic. Therefore I am concerned that we could see even greater pressure on our roads.”
County Councillor Allan Richardson agreed the plans were premature.
“The County Council had deliberated about this site for 40 years but we cannot get away from the fact that this massive proposal conflicts with its present Structure Plan designation.
“I am sure this application will come back to us in the future but until then it is premature, in breach of planning regulations and we have no alternative but to refuse.”