Agenda item

That the contents of the update report be noted.

The Leader introduced the report on Walleys Quarry problematic odours and the recent suspension notice.

The Chief Executive provided an update on the situation, stating that February had been a bad month, with over 1000 complaints being received and the Environment Agency’s (EA) complaints had also been significantly higher.

Throughout February, it had been MMF1 consistently showing that hydrogen sulphide levels for one third of the time each week, had been above the annoyance threshold.  MMF9 had shown more variety, still with high figures but not reaching the levels and consistency of MMF1.

At the beginning of March the EA issued a suspension notice on the site whilst works were carried out.  Walleys Quarry did the required work in just over one week and the site was reopened for the receipt of waste products.

A special meeting of the Council was held on 14 February, 2024 to discuss the issues at Walleys Quarry and the actions from that meeting were outlined at paragraph 2.11 of the report.  There was discussion at the meeting regarding two potential Judicial Reviews; firstly, the EA’s decision not to bring forward a Suspension Notice.  However, this had now been done, with work ceasing for just over one week whilst remediation works were undertaken.  The second potential Judicial Review was around the Secretary of state’s decision to not grant a public inquiry into the performance of the EA.  The Council’s Monitoring Officer had outlined the complexities of this and the information was appended to the report.

Paragraph 2.26 outlined the process that would need to be undertaken in terms of the Abatement Notice.

Councillor Fear expressed his disappointment at the increase in complaints during February and asked, if that were to happen again, was that evidence that Best Practical Means were not being used.

The Chief Executive advised that there were two aspects of a challenge of Best Practical Means, one being that they only applied to ‘normal’ operations.  The other issue, by the nature of Best Practical Means, it meant that there was the prospect of the operator using the best techniques available at the time but there still being an odour off-site.  There was also the issue of affordability.

Councillor Fear stated that an adverse event would be presumptive evidence that Best Practical Means was not happening.  Councillor Fear commented on the notion that if the operator claimed that it was too expensive to put it right then they did not have to and asked if there was any documentation that would give a sense of proportionality, giving the limit of expenditure that was deemed to be excessive.

The Council’s Service Director – Regulatory Services advised that in terms of the cost element there were industry standards guides in relation to what constituted Best Practical Means.  The economics of it also had to be taken into account; the available technology available and the practicality of delivery.

The Leader stated that the EA had not listened and had not dealt with Walleys Quarry and the Council had been let down by them.  The Leader referred to paragraph 2.26 – the Council’s enforcement policy stating that people had a right to know at what position the Council was on the chart and asked for an update.

Referring to the report, the Chief Executive stated that the odours off-site at the current stage could be consistent with a breach in the abatement notice and the question was whether that was an actionable situation, if it was a one off event, where it fitted with Best Practical Means and whether it had been resolved.

The Leader stated that the Council would have to make a decision at some point to enforce its enforcement policy on the operator and would continue to press for a public inquiry on the EA and DEFRA.

Resolved:     That the contents of the update report be noted.

Watch the debate here