0
On Monday 16 September 2024, the Secretary of State granted planning permission to Powerfuel Portland for its proposed thermal treatment plant for the recovery of energy from waste (ERF) with capacity to process up to 202,000 tonnes per annum of non-hazardous residual waste in the port at Portland, enabled to provide shore power to cruise ships at the port and heat off-take to HMP the Verne and/or the YOI Portland.
Dorset Council had refused permission contending, amongst other things, that the need for residual waste treatment set out in the recently adopted waste plan no longer existed, that allocated sites in the Green Belt were to be preferred and that there would be an adverse impact on the heritage assets in and around the port and upon the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site (which excludes the port).
An inquiry was held at Portland in December 2023 (which included a site inspection by boat) and the Inspector, Paul Griffiths, recommended the grant of permission with which the Secretary of State agreed in her decision. The harm that the proposals would cause was outweighed by the benefits and the proposal, though not allocated, was preferable to allocated GB sites and the harm they would cause to the GB, and had distinct advantages including the provision of port power.
As the Inspector found, a key issue with regard to the visual and heritage impacts of the proposals was its location within a historic working port which had continued to change throughout its history:
“12.15 Having considered the evidence on this matter, and carried out extensive site visits that took in the various heritage assets referred to, it seems to me imperative that the starting point for any analysis of the impact of the proposal on the setting and thereby the significance of all the heritage assets that are said to be affected, is clearly set out.
12.16 The appeal site is within a working commercial port that used to be a significant naval base. The port, or former naval anchorage, is the reason why most, if not all, the assets cited, are where they are, and take the form that they take.
12.17 The question then arises as to whether the proposed ERF is a facility that would happily fit into the context of a busy commercial port, that was formerly a naval base, or whether for reasons of use, form or design, it would appear as an alien insertion.”
“12.19 Firstly, I do not consider the process involved in the proposal to be an incongruous one in the context of a working port. As is documented in the evidence, there have been buildings of significant scale, serving shipping, within the port, since its inception. For example, the breakwaters were built to provide shelter for ships from wind and waves; there were coaling sheds to store fuel for steam ships; and oil storage facilities.
12.20 A very important part of the proposal at issue is the provision of shore power. Leaving aside for a moment the doubts expressed by the Council and the Rule 6 parties about whether it will come forward, that I deal with below, that provision ties the facility into the evolving nature of the port where different means of serving shipping have formed an important part of the function of the port. This has taken the port from coal through to oil and the provision of shore power proposed would bring the port into the modern age, where shipping relies on to shore power to reduce emissions when in port, and beyond that perhaps, to charge batteries that form their primary power source. In that way, the generation of electricity through the ERF is part of a progression, and not, therefore, something that can be said to be unusual.
…
12.22 The main concerns raised centre on the size and bulk of the main building, and the prominence of the stack. As I have set out above, the scheme would be an insertion of massive scale. However, one cannot form any value judgment about that in isolation. The port itself is a facility of great scale and it includes, and will include, other buildings and structures of great scale, for example the breakwaters, the various quays and their ancillary structures, the Mulberry Caissons, and the Glencore warehouses, with the Dragon Portland Cement Silo to come. The port itself lies in the shadow of the Verne Citadel – a structure of quite enormous scale.
12.23 Moreover, in terms of the stack, there are precedents. The evidence shows that there has been, in the past, a creosote pressure chamber or factory with a tall stack in the port, and subsequently, an electricity sub-station with what appears to be a brick chimney. It is difficult to say whether these chimneys were similar in height to what is proposed as part of the scheme (a stack 80 metres high) but the point is that there have been, at various times, relatively tall chimneys in the port, with plumes emanating from them.
12.24 One cannot disregard the influence of shipping either. Much was made of the fact that ships come and go, but that is the nature of a port. When ships are in port, and the evidence shows that they are in port regularly, they are a massive, inescapable presence. That is especially the case in relation to the visiting cruise ships, but the RFAs are very large vessels too, and so is the Bibby Stockholm.
12.25 Against that background, I do not consider that the proposal would appear out of scale, or out of place. Rather, it would take its place as another functional building or structure of significant scale, within the immediate and wider port context. That conclusion underpins my approach to the individual assets.”
The decision letter and Inspector’s Report can be found here.
David Elvin KC and Luke Wilcox, instructed by Tor & Co, represented the Appellant, Powerfuel Portland.
Barney McCay represented the Portland Association and Stop Portland Waste Incinerator.
