Meeting Minutes 29 January 2024

Bryn Engagement Group - Minutes of the meeting held on 29 January 2024

Present

• Councillors: Councillors A. Gair, P. Leonard (Chair), B. Miles, J.A. Pritchard, H. Pritchard
• Resident Representatives: H. David (MS), L. Green, K. Roberts, M. Roberts, G. Davies, A. Gray, V. Muxworthy and T. Evans
• Bryn Group: J. Price
• NRW: J. Rock and G. Gardiner
• Officers: C. Davis, C. Edwards, H. Lancaster, R. Hurn and R. Thomas

Welcome and Introductions

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and circulated a copy of the Bryn Engagement Group’s Terms of Reference for information. It was noted that this was not the most up-to-date version of the document and Committee Services confirmed that they would circulate the revised document following the meeting.

Resident Representatives referred again to their opinion that Community Councils should be formally allocated a seat on the Group. The Chair acknowledged the request and advised that as many of those present were also Community Councillors there was ample opportunity for feedback to be provided to their respective Community Councils. A Resident Representative felt that as the Group had been established for Residents, and as they were well represented, its current membership was about right and there was no need to add to it. As this subject had been fully considered in other meetings and not wishing to go over old ground, the Chair moved debate on to the next agenda item.

Minutes of the Meeting held on the 19th October 2023

Residents expressed concern as to the length of time it had taken for the minutes of the October meeting to be circulated, the Senior Committee Services Officer apologised for the delay and gave assurances that future minutes would be circulated within the agreed timeframe, 4 weeks after the meeting date.

A matter of accuracy was raised in relation to of the agenda pack and the minute relating to Community Councils/County Borough Councillors acting as a point of contact for complaints, and an amendment was requested that this should be noted as a suggestion only, as it would not be practical given the part time hours of Community Council Clerks and the workload of Elected Members for them to act as points of contact for complaint referrals.

Subject to the above amendment the minutes were approved as an accurate record.

Matters arising from the Minutes.

Bryn Power – Electricity provision from Bryn Power to Caerphilly Council – a Member highlighted that there was a report on the Cabinet Forward Work Programme for the meeting on the 21st February 2024 titled, ‘Private Wire Arrangement from Bryn Group to Tredomen Campus’, however the report would be exempt and therefore discussion on this would not be open to the public and press due to its commercial sensitivity.

NRW - Personal Gas Monitors – An updated was requested relating to NRW Officers personal gas monitors. NRW confirmed that the problems with the equipment, used when Inspectors were accessing confined spaces, had been resolved and inspections at the site would take place at the end of March. However, it would not be appropriate to provide any details to the meeting ahead of the inspections as these were intended to be unplanned, with no prior notice being given to Bryn Group.

Complaints – Clarification was sought as to whether the reference number generated when an initial complaint was made to the Contact Centre, was the same as the reference number generated by Environmental Health and did this reference number follow the incident reported throughout the investigation process. The Officer confirmed that she believed that it would be the same reference number, and explained the process involved when a complaint/call was logged, it was also noted that it was a relatively easy process to track back a logged call to its origins.

Tonnage – Although data of tonnage was provided within the meeting pack on food waste, the Resident Representative advised that the request had been made in relation to lorries in and out of the Quarry. The Bryn Group confirmed that they would provide this information to the Resident following the meeting.

Update from Natural Resources Wales

Natural Resources Wales presented their briefing note, which provided a general overview of their regulation of the Bryn Group and confirmed that since the last meeting they have received 2 odour complaints.

It was noted that there was no current enforcement action with the Bryn Group and a comparison of Odour Complaints from 2019 to 2022 showed a decrease in numbers.

In relation to the 2 complaints received NRW had not been able to confirm that the smell was attributable to the permitted facilities and often found that where there was an obvious odour present in the area it was linked to an agricultural activity both on-site and from neighbouring farms, e.g. cleaning out of cattle sheds or slurry spreading.

Clarification was sought as to whether the public should complain to NRW or to Environmental Health. Residents were advised that if the odour related to a permitted activity, then NRW should be advised and would investigate if outside this then it would be the responsibility of Environmental Health to investigate. The Group were advised of the close working relationship between NRW and the Council’s Environmental Health Officers and it was explained that if odour proved to be outside the permitted areas, they would contact the Council and vice versa.

Residents felt that this was confusing, with an unfair expectation that residents would be able to differentiate odours between permitted and non-permitted points of origin.

The Environmental Health Manager felt that residents were familiar with the various types of odours generated and could differentiate between them. As the AD was an enclosed process most odours being reported now related to spreading taking place in the fields. It was noted that the Bryn Group would notify the Council and NRW when such activities and alert them that they may be a possible odour problem and would likely see an increase in complaints while this was ongoing.

A Ward Member noted a sulphurous smell when driving through Gelligaer and queried who this should be reported to, she confirmed that had not reported it at the time. Residents Representatives advised that they had also noted that odour and as no slurry spreading happened between November and February it was unlikely that it would be connected to that.

The Environment Health Manager advised that this could be due to rotation of feeding, reed beds, mining water etc, all of which were odorous, which is why it was so important to report incidents. Only if reported could the source of the odour be investigated to establish which process within the organisation it related to or if it related to other causes.

The Bryn Group confirmed that spreading was seasonal but can be undertaken more often at various points throughout the year.

Residents Representatives felt that people were fed-up of reporting when nothing was being done in response.

The Environmental Health Manager stressed the importance of timely reporting, that way Officers can go to the site and investigate and would look at odour causes in context of locality, wind direction etc. The Chair also emphasised the importance of reporting.

Clarification was then sought as to whether raw fertilizer or digestate was being spread and the Bryn Group confirmed that it would be a combination the majority being digestate and advised that they did not spread between October and February. During summer months there could be a cluster of spreading activity and this would be digestate.

A Resident Representative read from an email complaint by a Member of the Public. In the email the complainant had requested feedback on her complaint in relation to a sulphurous odour, details were given in relation to a call made via the ‘call centre’ for Environmental Health and how the complainant felt that the systems had let her down. This incident Residents felt clearly illustrated why people had stopped reporting.

The Environmental Health Manager confirmed that she was aware of the complaint as it was submitted via a Freedom of Information Request. The Environmental Health Manager reported that the complaint had been investigated and information reported back to the complainant. The only registered call from the complainant’s phone number to the contact centre had lasted less than one minute and had not proceeded beyond the recorded message. As such the complaint was not upheld.

A Member queried if there was something wrong with the Council’s telephony system and the Officer confirmed that there was no fault on the system.

Update From Environmental Health

Environmental Health Manager outlined the update included in the agenda pack in relation to dust monitoring. It was noted that since the last meeting the dust monitor had been repaired, however there had been a subsequent issue with the modem, which had now been resolved and the equipment was in place and operational.

The Officer referred Members to the report dated 19/10/2023 to 12/01/2024 (since the last meeting) demonstrating the Period Mean Conc. at 7ug/m3 in the first table and advised that this can go up to 40ug/m3. It was reported that this data has been consistent since the monitors installation. The Officer also referred to the report dated 01/01/2024 to 12/01/2024 which had a data capture rate of 96.5% illustrating that the equipment was again working properly and capturing the correct amount of data.

The officer referred to the report dated 01/01/2023 to 31/12/2023. Reference was made to the gaps in data where the equipment was not working properly however, even during this period when data had been collected, the Period Mean Conc. had been recorded at 8ug/m3 , thereby demonstrating good levels of air quality. The Group were advised that there had been advanced warning that a Sahara sandstorm was on its way and therefore residents may experience an increase in dust deposits.

Residents Representatives referred to dust deposits on windowsills and cars and the Environmental Health Manager confirmed that it was not possible to take reliable dust deposits samples from a car, due its movement; dust could be accumulated from numerous areas.

Clarification was sought on the positioning of the dust monitoring equipment and whether it could be moved. The Environmental Health Manager confirmed that residents had been consulted on the various positional options including close to the school and the old age complex and taking into account residents’ complaints about dust and the prevailing wind from the quarry, the equipment had been placed at Brynheulog.

The Resident felt that having monitored wind direction himself as directly cross Gelligaer then the equipment should be moved and suggested a location near his address. The Environmental Health Manager advised that the current location of the dust monitoring equipment had been based on scientific data from the Met. Office and evidence. Also, that the main complainant regarding dust lived in Brynheulog. It was noted that very few dust complaints had originated from other areas in the locality.

Spikes in the dust monitoring reports were noted and clarification was requested as to the cause. The Officer explained that as dust monitoring happened over time and did not concentrate just on quarry dust particles, there could be numerous reasons for spikes including exhaust fumes and wood burners. It was also reported that dust reading are monitored as averages over a period of time, rather than one off time limited incidents.

Members referred to the size of dust particle being monitored and sought clarification as to whether much smaller particles at 2.5ug/m3 were being monitored. The Officer reported that the smaller dust particles tend to be a smaller percentage of the PM10 data and that the smaller dust blows far and wide, so the presence of PM2.5 may be attributable to various other sources. The Bryn Group confirmed that they monitored to 2.5ug/m3 and their data could be viewed via their website, the link to which was also made available on the CCBC Bryn Group webpage.

Reference was then made to the Residents’ own dust monitor, and it was noted that 2 Resident Representatives had attended a meeting of Gelligaer Community Council to discuss the Community Council taking on the calibration and analysis of the dust monitor. A Member confirmed that the Community Council had agreed to defer this matter for 2 months so that additional information on options could be investigated, including costs. Furthermore, this would require a big commitment from the Community Council Clerk who had only a part time contract. The Member agreed to provide feedback to the Group on the outcome of those discussions at the next meeting.

Clarification was then sought regarding why lorries were entering the site early mornings. The Officer confirmed that this had related to historic incidents and the decision had been taken in the interests of highway safety, to allow vehicles to park inside the entrance to the site rather than stack on the hill while they waited for the site to open. A Resident expressed his opinion that he had never seen this occurrence. The Officer was pleased to note that this was no longer an issue. Residents noted that vehicles were seen parking on site overnight, and assurances were given that should a vehicle arrive late and outside permitted hours of operation they would wait on site until the following morning but there was no work undertaken outside the permitted hours. Officers confirmed that this could be kept under review.

Returning to dust monitoring reference was made to larger nuisance dust particles gathering on cars and windows and the impact this had on residents. The Officer confirmed that various monitoring methods had been used previously including directional deposit gauges and petri dishes placed on windowsills and the monitoring did not evidence nuisance dust from the quarry. As previously stated, the Officer reiterated that it was not possible to take reliable dust samples from a car due its movement, dust could be accumulated from numerous areas.

The Group were directed to the meeting room monitor which displayed the live connection to the Air Q website, the provider of the Bryn Group’s air quality monitoring equipment and the company that analysed and posted the monitor results. The Bryn Group took Members through the various filters that could be applied to the webpage to generate results, including by the day, week, month or even hour. It was noted that only when levels were over 40 would an alert be generated by Air Q to Bryn to let them know that the air quality objectives had been exceeded.

Residents’ representatives felt that this level of data was far too complicated however if the public knew that 40 was the threshold for an alert to be generated to the Bryn then this was sufficient. It was agreed that this link would be shared with Residents Representatives.

Reference was made to the dust monitoring reports within the agenda pack and noted they referenced that the data included was provisional and clarification was sought as to when the data became final. The Environmental Health Manager confirmed that she would need to go back to Ricardo Energy and Environment the company used to analyse the data and confirm, as she believed that this was the final data set. Reference was then made to the health of Bryn employees in terms of dust inhalation and whether the Bryn Group monitored their levels. Officers confirmed that employee health would be regulated by the Health and Safety Executive and health and safety legislation.

Clarification was then sought on large dust particle mitigation and preventative measures taken by the Bryn Group. It was noted that topography and natural barriers like trees mitigated dust dispersal and it would be highly unlikely that larger particles would travel beyond the site itself. Reference was made to a partially finished bund and other planned landscaping, although as details were subject to a current planning application, they could not be discussed any further.

Update from Bryn Group

The Bryn Group provided an update on the community projects they were involved in; these were noted to include the provision of changing rooms for Gelligaer and Nelson junior football clubs. The Bryn Group were also providing learning placement opportunities to candidates from the University of South Wales Master’s Degree Course on Renewable Energy as well as giving opportunities for local schools to visit the site.

The Bryn Group also confirmed that donations had been made to local food banks.

Resident Representative referred to the increase in larger and heavier vehicles travelling through the Nelson area which seemed to be coming from the Quarry and clarification was sought as to whether the tonnage had increased and if the Bryn Group were doing any motorway work.

The Bryn Group confirmed that they would supply the tonnage information requested and that they were working on the Heads of the Valley road. The Resident advised that the data should include the number of lorries in and out and the tonnage.

A further Resident Representative noted that there were new cables on the road outside the site and sought clarification as to whether these were automatic traffic counters and what data they would record.

The Highways Officer confirmed that the tubes had been positioned because of a request made during the last meeting. The tubes were automatic traffic counters and were placed either side of the site entrance and they would remain on the road for 7 days. They would count the number of vehicles, speed of travel and the classification of the vehicle by axil. It was noted that 7 1 /2 tonne vehicle would have 3 axils so the counter would recognise this classification and record it. The data system breaks down the classification of each vehicle, groups them and drops them into various categories. Resident’s Representatives advised that they weren’t that concerned about the speed of vehicles more about the number and size of vehicle accessing the site.

A Member felt that the recording of the speed would be very valuable as it helped to identify whether the vehicle had entered the site or continued past, a vehicle would naturally reduce its speed to make the turn into the site. The Highways Officer confirmed that the counter would also identify if a vehicle passed over one or both tubes. If a vehicle passes over one tube, and not the second it indicates that the vehicle had entered the site.

A Member queried whether the proposed Waste Strategy would mean increased lorries into the site. The Bryn Group confirmed that there were 7 door-step collection vehicles from CCBC using the site and 2 smaller collection vehicles, at the moment all these vehicles were arriving well under capacity, so they did not expect more vehicles, but fuller ones as a result of increased food recycling. There was a large quantity of available space so the increase would be balanced out and there should be a better distribution.

Clarification was then sought on the lighting strike safety and the report included in the agenda pack. It was noted that in order to meet the recommendation in the report the Bryn Group would need to invest in towers and antennae that would have a visual impact at the site and their installation would be subject to a forthcoming planning application. The Bryn Group confirmed that if residents had any questions, the Bryn Group would pass them on to the company that produced the Lighting Protection System Specification report.

A Resident Representative expressed concern in relation to the date of the report and comments that she attributed to the Bryn Group at the last meeting. This was refuted by the Bryn Group and an email from the Atlas group was shared with the Chair and read out to the Group to corroborate the completion date of the report and when it would be shared with the Bryn Group.

Reference was made again in relation to odours and specifically to a sulphurous odour and the Environmental Health Manager again emphasised the importance of reporting instances when they occurred so that they could be investigated, and the origin established.

A Member sought further information on the AD process and slurry spreading and how odours could be generated. The Environmental Health Manager confirmed that as the AD process was an enclosed one it did not emit odours, gasses were trapped inside in order to generate energy and therefore it was vitally important to capture them.

In terms of slurry spreading the Bryn Group summarised the umbilical process that they used and explained that omissions from this process would be more organic in nature. How lagoons were used was then explained and it was noted that the digestate stored there had gone through the system and how the aerobic conditions kill the bacteria reducing odours. The material in the lagoon envelope being cold and inactive would produce few odours.

The Member thanked the Bryn Group for all the information provided and the efforts being made to reduce odours and would welcome the opportunity to visit the site when they were next spreading slurry. The Bryn Group representative agreed to host a visit.

A Residents Representative next sought clarification in relation noise levels from the ‘Pecker’, who emphasised that the continuous noise from 7am in the morning until the evening was unacceptable and stressed that the Council needed to take action to prevent this continuous disturbance.

The Environmental Health Officer advised that the use of the ‘Pecker’ was governed by the Mineral Technical Advisory Notes which states that work can begin at 7am and also by planning conditions and would coincide with the permitted hours of operation at the Quarry. However, the Bryn Group had agreed to limit its use between 8am and 4pm, it was noted that this was a voluntary undertaking by Bryn in the interests of resident amenity and there was no requirement for them to change their conditioned hours of operation.

The Planning Manager advised that he believed that there were no restrictions on the ‘pecker’ in terms of its day-to-day use and it would be aligned with the Quarry’s hours of operation, however he would double check and provide feedback at the next meeting.

Resident’s Representatives felt that more consideration needed to be given to these issues and that the noise experienced was unacceptable. The Environmental Health Manager confirmed that they would undertake noise monitoring to establish the levels of noise and whether mitigated was warranted. Residents suggested that Aneurin Bevan and Brynheulog areas would be suitable locations for monitoring.

A Resident’s Representative noted that the noise could be heard at 6.30am and earlier on some mornings, for those working nights this would be completely unacceptable.

The Environmental Health Manager advised that noise nuisance guidance was based on an ‘average’ person’s activity and therefore would not consider ‘nightshift’ workers. Although there had previously been very few noise complaints, they had noticed a recent increase and so arrangements would be made for Officers to go out and proactively monitor noise levels. They would also arrange for monitoring without notice to try and get a clear picture on noise levels and try and pinpoint them within a timeframe.

Resident’s Representatives queried that if the operation of the ‘pecker’ was within the conditioned use, would the Council do anything about it as they felt there was no end to the quarry noise, they also felt CCBC to be biased to the Bryn Group given their alignment with Bryn Power and seemed to be refusing to accept the word of residents. Tree planting would not be enough to mitigate noise given the length of time it would take them to mature.

The Environmental Health Manager emphasised that they worked to legal requirements and professional standards and would look to explore all options including the monitoring previously discussed. The Environmental Health Officer also emphasised the importance of diary sheets as they allowed Officers to track back on an issue and by providing as much information as possible to assist an investigation. Residents Representatives were assured that diary sheets were taken seriously, and inspection and monitoring would take place as they, as much as residents wanted to see improvement.

The Bryn Group confirmed that they had agreed to limit the operation of the ‘pecker’ to 8am-4pm and it should only be operating within this time. It was further noted that staff were not supposed to be on site until 7am and therefore it was surprising to hear that the ‘pecker’ had been heard as early as 6.30am. The Bryn Group confirmed that this would be looked in to and staff reminded that the equipment should only be used between 8am and 4pm.

Clarification was then sought as to any planning policies that would govern the use of this equipment. The Planning Manager advised that the planning perspective would be different to that of Environmental Health although their guidance was sought in relation to planning conditions. He advised that 7am was considered to be an acceptable start time at this type of site and would be in line with planning guidance.

Residents Representatives queried the level of benefit that the Council would receive from Bryn Power and again voiced their opinion that this relationship would bias the Council against residents and their concerns. Residents again expressed the concern that discussions were not any further advanced.

The Chair advised the Engagement Group that this matter was outside its terms of reference.

Residents Questions

It was noted that the majority of residents questions submitted had been answered during the update items. The Engagement Manager confirmed that she would collate responses to all questions, and they would be appended to the minutes of this meeting and circulated by Committee Services.

Resident’s Representatives asked if they would be able to submit questions earlier and have responses circulated with the agenda to allow them more time to prepare for the meeting and this was agreed by the Chair.

It was also noted that 4 further questions had been recently submitted and a request was made to include these, and the responses, with those detailed in the agenda pack.

Any Other Business

The Engagement Manager asked if Members would find it beneficial to arrange another site visit to Bryn or another organisation with a similar operational model.

All Group Members agreed that this would be useful and particular interest was expressed in visiting the quarry operations and the farm operation during slurry spreading.

It was agreed that these would be arranged before the next meeting in June.

Date of Next Meeting(s)

The dates of the next meetings were confirmed on the agenda.

Meeting Closed At 15:30pm