Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were tabled for Councillor Peter Bedford.  It is noted Councillor Bedford attended this meeting for the initial presentation of the item but left thereafter taking no part in any deliberation.  Councillor Stephen Woodliffee was in attendance for Councillor Bedford.

To sign and confirm the  minutes of the previous meeting.

With the agreement of the committee the Chairman signed the minutes of the previous meeting held on the 14 July 2020.

To receive declarations of interests in respect of any item on the agenda.

No declarations of interest were tabled for the meeting.

To answer any written questions received from members of the public no later than 5 p.m. two clear working days prior to the meeting – for this meeting the deadline is 5 p.m. on Thursday 3^rd September 2020.

No public questions.

A report by the Assistance Director Regulation.

The Council had provided feedback on previous phases of public consultation, which had been warmly welcomed by the agents acting on behalf of the applicant. Many of the amendments to the revised scheme before Members today had been incorporated into the development proposals as a direct result of feedback provided by this Council. Significant changes included reductions in shipping movements, reduction in road transport movements, site layout and noise mitigation, siting of concrete batching facilities, addition of a public footbridge and a proposed visitors’ centre, both on site and in the town centre.

Phase 4 consultation enabled the Council, as a consultee, to make further comment and seek clarity on outstanding issues to continue to influence the final proposal in a positive way for the benefit of the residents of Boston and the Borough as a whole.

Madam Chairman invited Gary Bower, Development Consent Order Project Manager for the applicant’s agent, to address the Committee.

Mr Bower gave a PowerPoint presentation setting out the details of the BAEF proposal as they stood for Phase 4 consultation, and highlighted the differences between the Phase 3 proposal and the Phase 4 proposal.

The facility remained an Energy from Waste (EfW) facility, although the technology used to convert waste to energy had switched from gasification to traditional EfW thermal technology. The changes were anticipated to have only minor and net positive effects, resulting in an overall reduction in potential negative impacts from the development.

[A copy of the PowerPoint presentation to be e-mailed to Members upon request.]

The Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services expressed concern regarding emissions from the site, in particular, the release of CO₂ into the atmosphere, and the importance of using the facility for Lincolnshire’s waste, particularly Boston’s, rather than transport it anywhere else by road. 

In response to these issues and other questions raised by the Portfolio Holder, Mr Bower explained the following.

The site would have three lines of thermal plant and there would be additional plant on site capable of capturing CO₂ from the exhaust gas connected to two of the three lines. Each CO₂ plant would capture 12% of the CO₂ emitted by the line it was connected to; however, there would be no CO2 capture from the third line, which would release 100% into the atmosphere. 

At the current time of submitting the Development Consent Order (DCO) application, it would not be possible to connect a CO₂ plant to all three lines.  This was because the amount of CO₂ that would be produced by the facility was dictated by market demand and it would not be appropriate to create more CO₂ than there was a defined market for it.  The facility would still be compliant with emission limits without capturing any CO₂; therefore, capturing any amount of CO₂ was beneficial.

The household waste currently bulked at Boston’s Slippery Gowt transfer station was taken to the North Hykeham Energy from Waste facility. The Applicant and the County  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.