Note:
Since the actual Report is 55 pages long, there was not time to publish it all on this web site.
Full Report is available from Flintshire County Council at:  http://www.flintshire.gov.uk
We repeat here the last few pages:

Index
 General Summary and Conclusions
         Main Objections
         Supporter's Main Points
         No undue Health Impacts from the Proposal
         Public Concern is a 'free standing' material consideration

 Benefits

 Disbenefits

 Conclusion

 RECOMMENDATION
         Reason
 
 

CANK's Initial Response
        By CANK Chairman, Arnold Woolley in Evening Leader 27 January 2000
 
 

GENERAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The planning issues raised by this application are complex. The proposal is a major development in it's own right. Members must clearly keep in mind that in this case there are two regulatory authorities: Flintshire County Council as the local planning authority and the Environment Agency as the authority dealing with Integrated Pollution Control (IPC). The Environment Agency will be responsible through it's authorisation for controlling emissions from the plant. This authority in determining the planning application has to consider only the land use planning issues. The planning authority should not duplicate controls which are exercised by another regulatory authority.

There has been a very substantial volume of representations in relation to this application which have been summarised in the report above. The main objections have been on the grounds of:-

• Concern about burning wastes as a fuel;
• Concern about emissions;
• Concern for public health;
• Concern about the visual impact and effect on character of area;
• Concern about impact on traffic and highways.

Supporters of the proposal have generally pointed to:-

• Employment opportunities;
• Ability to provide a new "state of the art" kiln;
• Ability to update the plant at the works to provide modern equipment and to meet modern pollution control standards.

Members will have to carefully weigh up the degree of public concern against the proposal and the public support in favour of the proposal in reaching a decision.

Members will see from the report submitted by the North Wales Health Authority (Appendix D) that the Health Authority considers that there would be no undue health impacts from the proposal.

The Environment Agency considers that, in principle, the proposal is acceptable and envisage that it would be able to issue an authorisation for the process in due course, once further details have been provided.

The consultants employed by Flintshire County Council to appraise the Environmental Statement consider that sufficient information is now available on which to base a decision, and that the Environmental Statement is adequate.

In assessing the application, Members should also not forget that public concern is a "free standing" material consideration in planning terms. Members should therefore consider the significance of the concerns. Although there are a large number of issues in this instance, the main reason for concern is health. It is my advice that this could not be substantiated as a reason for refusal.

In terms of the policy background, Members should have regard to the advice in Planning Policy (Wales), 'The Draft Waste Strategy' and various 'Development Plan' policies set out in Section 7 and Appendix E. The burning of wastes as an alternative fuel would be compatible in principle with the draft waste strategy, while the location of the site within a Development Zone would indicate that the proposal could be acceptable in principle subject to meeting the criteria of policy G1 in the Alyn and Deeside District Plan.

In the case of some of these criteria in Polcy G1 initial objections or reservations have been overcome or can be overcome by the imposition of planning conditions if permission were to be granted. For instance, the initial objection lodged by British Aerospace has now been overcome after negotiations between the companies involved. Therefore, the decision whether to grant or refuse permission rests on the extent to which the benefits of the proposed development outweighs the disbenefits. These are set out below:-

Benefits

• Major investment in Flintshire and safeguarding of jobs and cement production facilities in the County;

• Upgrades ageing capital equipment and provides a new production facility capable of meeting modern emission standards although the Environment Agency will require the upgrading of the works in any event due to new legislation;

• Compatible with draft strategic waste policy which encourages the recovery of energy from waste as opposed to landfilling;

• Restoration of licenced waste site, removal of existing kiln stacks and off site planting.

Disbenefits

• Widespread public concern about the likely impact of authorised emissions and potentially unauthorised emissions on public health and amenity in the area;

• Widespread concern about the fuelling of the kilns with hazardous wastes;

• The contruction of 110m high preheater tower and chimney which will have a significant visual impact (in it's own right and cumulatively with the existing works) on a wide area of Flintshire and the adjoining countryside which includes listed buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Historic Parks and Gardens included on the Register.

• Consequential detrimental effect on the character of the area due to the visual impact of the tower and the potential loss of other investment and employment opportunities as a result.

After carefully considering the benefits and disbenefits outlined above, I consider that the visual impact of the proposal is such that the detrimental effect would outweigh the benefits. The existing cement works is largely an isolated industrial complex set in the countryside, distant from any other industrial areas or nearby towns. The nearby towns and villages have grown considerably since 1948 when the works was established here.
The construction of the bulky and high pre-heater tower and associated chimneys and plant would have a severe detrimental effect on the landscape (including a Scheduled Ancient Monument, Listed Buildings and Parks and Gardens included on the Register of Parks and Gardens of Historic Interest in Wales), both locally and in more distant views from the Clwydian Range Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and also parts of Cheshire.

I have taken careful note of the widespread public concern regarding the possible health effects resulting from emissions caused by the works or the use of certain wastes as fuels. Whilst acknowledging the widespread concern regarding this matter, in the light of the views of the Health Authority and Environment Agency, I do not consider that a refusal would be warranted based on these grounds. I therefore recommend that the application be REFUSED on landscape grounds alone as set out below.
 

RECOMMENDATION

Refusal

Reason

The pre-heater tower and associated chimney would be seen from a wide area of the surrounding countryside including parts of the Clwydian Range Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Sites and parts of Cheshire. By virtue of their height and mass the pre-heater tower and associated chimney would form an unacceptable visual intrusion into the landscape and create an impact in their own right and cumulatively with the existing works which would be detrimental to the character of the area and to visual amentities contrary to Policies A3, A5 and H3 of the Clwyd Structure Plan First Alteration, Policies GEN1 and EMP6 of the Structure Plan Second Alteration - Flintshire Edition and to Policies G1, EM3, E8, E10, and E20 of the Alyn and Deeside Local Plan (Deposit Draft).