Agenda item

The Committee considered a report which detailed an application for the erection of a biogas generation plant on land off Creek Way, Frog Island, located to the south of Ferry Lane alongside the River Thames. The proposal would comprise a number of large structures, including tanks, a machine hall, and a chimney. The proposal would employ technology known as anaerobic digestion, which involved processing organic waste in a manner that released biogas (methane). The biogas was then used as a fuel to generate electricity on-site, some of which would be used in the operation of the facility, with the rest being fed into the national grid. The proposed facility would process approximately 100,000 tonnes of organic waste per annum, with up to 5MW of electricity being produced. Heat generated by the facility would be recycled, being used by the proposed facility and an existing, neighbouring facility.

Members noted that there were a couple of amendments to the report.

Page 53 of the report should have the addition that planning permission was subject to no contrary direction on referral to the Mayor of London.

Page 55 of the report should have the addition of a condition regarding land contamination.

Transport for London (TfL) had also requested that consideration be given to investigating the possible use of river transport.

With its agreement Councillor Jeffrey Tucker addressed the Committee. Councillor Tucker commented that the proposal created very few jobs for a scheme of its size and was situated very close to Rainham Village. Councillor Tucker also commented that there was already a processing plant situated in Ferry Lane and that between the two sites the waste produced would be far in excess of the recommended target set by the East London Waste Authority (ELWA). Councillor Tucker asked that consideration be given to a deferral to allow the applicant to consider the extra conditions that were to be included in the report.

During a lengthy debate members discussed issues concerning lorry movements, access and egress to the site and the issue of lorries passing through Rainham Village.

In reply officers advised that it would be difficult to monitor lorry movements but the Head of Development and Building Control could negotiate with the applicant for the inclusion of a condition concerning lorry movements.

A motion was proposed that consideration of the application be deferred to enable officers to speak with the applicant about the proposed new conditions, but that motion was defeated by 2 votes to 8 with one abstention. Councillors Durant and Eagling voted for the motion for deferral. Councillor Ower abstained from voting.

It was RESOLVED that the Committee delegate to the Head of Development and Building Control authority to negotiate inclusion of lorry routing within heads of the legal agreement.  Subject to this succeeding the Committee resolved to grant planning permission subject to prior completion of the legal agreement and subject to no contrary direction on referral to the Mayor of London and also subject to the following changes/additions to conditions:

·               Additional condition to require scheme for river transport both for construction and operation of development (required by TfL)

·               Additional condition regarding maintenance and repair of Creek Way prior to commencement (required by EA)

·               Additional conditions regarding contaminated land (required by EA)

·               Additional condition controlling piling (required by EA)

·               Changes to Condition 6 to reflect fact that Phase I and II reports have already been submitted

·               Changes to Condition 9 to reflect EA suggested wording

·               Changes to Condition 14 to reflect EA suggested wording

·               Addition of EA suggested Informatives

In the event that negotiation to include lorry routing within the legal agreement was unacceptable then the application was to be brought back to Committee for determination.

The vote for the resolution was 10 votes to 1. Councillor Durant voted against the resolution.