Looking in on Quinn Glass

---

Planning permission – it is impossible not to broach the subject at an interview with Quinn Glass director Peter Fitzgerald. Last month, the firm took another step closer to obtaining it for its controversial glass manufacturing and bottling facility at Elton, when Cheshire West and Chester Council approved an application that had been submitted in 2008.

It has been a long road to get this far – the journey is not over and the issue now passes to the communities secretary – but the firm is adamant building the plant was the right move. “When we told our customers about the furnace and bottling facility, we were encouraged by the fantastic reception. Lots of customers don’t understand what the challenge is about,” says Fitzgerald.

Planning permission or no, Quinn has clearly grabbed a lot of attention for its different approach to running a glass packaging operation. The site produces around 1.2 billion containers and will fill some 300 million units this year. At full capacity, that figure would rise to 650 million. “It’s a fantastic model,” enthuses Fitzgerald. “We’ve been asked to build it all over the world.”

There are many benefits to the firm’s customers. A drinks company looking to launch a new product can test a tanker’s worth quickly at the site’s bottling facility. Quinn can also carry out the bottling until sufficient quantity is produced to justify investment in the drinks firm’s own bottling line. “We can quickly deal with huge peaks in volume for bulk-imported wine that’s being sold on promotion in UK supermarkets,” says Fitzgerald.

The most important part of the bottling line, he says, is the laboratory. A firm in, say, Australia can send a sample that Quinn compares with delivered product to ensure the drink that reaches the consumer is the right quality. “Wine from Australia has a 12-week lead time and goes through a lot of different temperatures on the way. If it is shipped in bulk, the surface area makes it easier to control and we can condition it on arrival,” says Fitzgerald.

In the past, the firm has been blamed for overcapacity in the glass packaging market, but Quinn says that by including the bottling facility it has grown the sector. “We are making glass bottles that didn’t exist in the UK and are exporting to northern Europe and North America,” says Fitzgerald.

Green, green glass

While it seems there is a good business argument for the bottling line, there are undoubted environmental ones, too. Wrap has done a lot of work on bulk imports, and is also working with Quinn to try to find new ways to

make the most of the recycled glass that is collected. The glass industry as a whole has called for more kerbside separated collections to ensure a good quality of material to turn into new bottles and jars. But Wrap and Quinn are also working to develop a market for what Fitzgerald refers to as ‘not’-coloured glass.

“The UK works to tight flint and green specifications, whereas in Europe they are wider. We are trying to get customers to understand that the colour of containers may not be that crucial,” he says. Rather than stream the glass when changing from a green to a flint production run, Quinn produces bottles throughout the changeover period. It means the firm can take more green cullet out of the waste stream. “They are ‘not’ green or flint, but fine for wine bottles,” says Fitzgerald.

Another area that Quinn, like other glass manufacturers, has been involved in is the lightweighting of glass bottles, the most recent being a 300g wine bottle. But Fitzgerald maintains it is important to ensure that commercial issues match environmental progress. “If you lightweight a bottle, you can make more bottles per tonne of glass. But if you can’t sell the containers then the efficiencies will go,” he says.

The environment plays a key role in everything the firm does. It tries to anticipate how regulations might develop, for example for carbon emissions, even if that means a higher financial outlay initially. “We try to reduce costs, but you have to work within the law. We try to establish best manufacturing techniques, and that adds costs. But it is cheaper than refitting our equipment down the line,” says Fitzgerald.

Forward thinking is clearly of paramount importance to Quinn and, indeed, Fitzgerald says the firm would not rule out further expansion at the site if demand continues to rise. He also says there is potential to create a one-stop-shop packaging business park on the site as label manufacturers, closure producers and carton packaging firms have said they might be interested in coming on board. “I can definitely see more integration of the whole process and could even envisage brewers and distillers coming on to the site,” he says.

With this idea, a company could come on to the site for a period of time and develop an entire concept, including the packaging and branding as well as the product itself. “The biggest benefit would be all the different technologists, designers and other experts who would increase the knowledge base,” he says. Time will tell if that vision is realised, but one thing seems clear. If the planning permission is a bit of a hurdle at the moment, in the long term, it is unlikely to prove to be a glass ceiling

---

QUINN: THE  STORY SO FAR

1998 Quinn Group enters the glass market with plant in Derrylin, Northern Ireland.

2000 Decides to build a plant at Elton after considering a location in northern France.

2003 Construction begins on the site of the former Ince B power station that had closed in 1997.

2004 Submits a second planning application to the then Chester City Council and Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Council to increase the size of the plant by 20%.

2005 Elton plant goes into operation. The council resolves to grant the new planning permission, but the application is the subject of an extensive public enquiry.

2007 Secretary of state for communities and local government refuses planning permission in January, but invites the firm to make a fresh application. Quinn challenges the decision in March.

2008 Makes a new application for the site in February and withdraws its challenge against the secretary of state’s decision in October.

January 2009 Chester council says a four-year period during which enforcement action for the site has to take place expires in November. This period starts from when all activities at a facility are substantially completed, which in Quinn’s case covers bottling and distribution as well as manufacturing.

March 2009 Ardagh challenges Chester City Council in the High Court over the planning permission to persuade it to serve an enforcement notice on the site. This delays the council’s planning board from considering the most recent application, scheduled to appear in February.

April 2009 Judge Mole QC orders the newly formed Cheshire West and Chester Council to issue an order notice to stop work at Elton and says building the facility without full planning consent was a “calculated risk”. He calls the development “unlawful” and agrees with a witness it would be “disgraceful” if the firm achieved immunity from correct planning procedures. Quinn says it will appeal the judgement.

May 2009 Quinn appeals the enforcement notice, which requires it to cease production within nine months, demolish unauthorised buildings and restore the site to its original condition within 24 months, on the grounds the council needs time to consider the planning application.

September 2009 The council’s planning committee approves the 2008 application for planning permission after studying a 100-page report, which says the “benefits of the development are considered to outweigh the limited harm”. The issue now passes to communities secretary John Denham who needs to confirm the existence of “exceptional circumstances” to justify awarding planning permission retrospectively. In the report, planning officers concluded the ‘exceptional circumstances’ related to the redevelopment of a brownfield site, the 2003 planning permission and environmental assessments that had already been carried out.

Popular Articles