To consider a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding this application which had been deferred from the previous meeting for further consideration of conditions.
Minutes:
The Committee had before it a further *report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration following discussions at the previous meetings where Members had requested that a full set of conditions be produced to include monitoring arrangements as follows:
She outlined the contents of the report highlighting the site location plan and the additional conditions that had been proposed and that how they must meet all 6 tests as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, she also highlighted a previous appeal decision which stated that all conditions must be seen to be reasonable and to not require an intolerable level of supervision. With regard to vehicle movement and weight recording she highlighted the amendments made to Condition 10 which considered the weighbridge data. Vehicle monitoring equipment was addressed through an additional condition 22, she added that the entrance did not just serve the AD plant but also an agricultural building and therefore there could be some confusion as to the vehicle movement on the site. Control of digestate destination was addressed through Condition 10. With regard to records of power output, she had visited the site and there were 2 CHP units on site, the application was for only 1 unit, the second plant on the plan was where the office and containers should be. The applicant had stated that a second unit was on site in order that maintenance could take place on the original CHP unit. She felt that the second CHP unit was unnecessary and therefore this had been covered by a separate enforcement recommendation to service a notice to remove the 2nd CHP unit. With regard to access to the monitoring systems, there was a need to consider necessity and reasonableness. A monitoring liaison group would have be voluntary and should not be conditioned, the applicant had been contacted and was willing to set up such a group.
In response to questions posed in Public Question Time:
· Traffic movements and the number of loads, this was covered within condition 2 and 10.
· Energy Output of the plant – condition wording was provided, nut Members would need to consider if this met the test for conditions.
· The overlay plan, this was the plan prepared by the Council’s consultants. She considered the profile of the dome to appear flatter due to its base being shown on drawings as obscured behind a gantry. The drawing was therefore unclear, however she had no issue with the profile of the dome. The levels were different as the ground levels had been reduced, therefore that was the difference on the plan. However she would expect compliance with the details.
· With regard to unauthorised development being a material planning consideration, Dr Bratby was right it is a material planning consideration, but that the policy as set out in the Chief Planner’s letter applied to all new applications received from August 2015, the current application was dated 17 July 2015. It therefore predated that advice and was rightly not taken into account in this application.
· With regard to what the first operation is, that would be the firing up of the AD plant and the generation of power.
· Pollution issues, she was aware of this information and informed the meeting that the Environment Agency were the investigating body and that any issues with regard to pollution would be covered until the Environmental permit.
· Trustworthiness of the applicant, planning permission was granted for the development and not to the applicant.
Discussion took place regarding:
· The positioning of a barrier to funnel vehicles to go over the weighbridge.
· The 2 CHP units on the site and whether 1 additional unit would be required to cover maintenance downtime.
· Ultimate destination and original source of feedstuff for the plant
· Total movements to and from the site
· Recording of outputs
· Additional access to the site and notice required for spot checks.
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to:
a) Conditions set out within the report with amendments and additional conditions sought by Members; to include:
(i) Condition 10 as amended with additional amendments to refer to original source and ultimate destination, gross and net weights;
(ii) Additional conditions 22, 23 and 24;
(iii) Condition 23 be amended to require power output not to exceed and average of 500kw over a quarterly period;
(iv) Conditions to be further amended to include the erection of a physical barrier to funnel any traffic over the weighbridge.
(Proposed by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge and seconded by Cllr B A Moore)
(Vote 6 for: 5 against)
b) That the Legal Services Manager be authorised to take any appropriate legal action, including the service of an enforcement notice or notices seeking the removal of the second combined heat and power plant (CHP) from the site. In addition, in the event of the failure to comply with any notice served, to authorise prosecution, direct action and/or authority to seek a court injunction.
(Proposed by Cllr R F Radford and seconded by Cllr R L Stanley)
c) That Officers assist in the establishment of a monitoring liaison group and that the applicant facilitate the setting up of such a group.
(Proposed by Cllr R F Radford and seconded by Cllr P J Heal)
Notes:
(i) Cllrs Mrs F J Colthorpe declared a personal interest as she had recently met Mr Clapp at a social event;
(ii) Cllr D J Knowles and R F Radford declared personal interests as the landowner and some of the objectors were known to them;
(iii) Cllrs R J Dolley, B A Moore and R L Stanley made declarations in accordance with the protocol of Good Practice for Councillors in dealing with Planning Matters as they had received correspondence regarding the application;
(iv) Cllrs Mrs C Collis, R J Dolley, F W Letch, R F Radford and R L Stanley requested that there vote against the decision in (a) be recorded;
(v) The following late information was reported: Reference: Conditions Planning Application 15/01034/MFUL
On behalf of Greener for Life Energy, the applicant for the above planning application, I would like to express our objections to the proposed additional planning conditions (Numbers 22, 23 and 24) contained within your report to the Planning Committee 6th July 2016.
These additional conditions do not fully meet the tests required for conditions these being:
Necessary
Relevant to planning
Relevant to the development to be permitted
Enforceable
Precise
Reasonable in all other respects.
Condition 22:
Within 1 month from the date of approval, details are to be provided in writing to the Local Planning Authority of the location and type of electronic system to be installed to monitor the number and type of vehicles entering and leaving the anaerobic digester site. Such approved system is to be installed and operational prior to the first operation of the anaerobic digester site. Such results of the monitoring system shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority quarterly or within any other frequency as requested by the Local Planning Authority. The approved system is to be so retained for the duration of the operation of the site.
Reason – In the interest of highway safety and consideration of the impacts on the environment, neighboring residents due to the number of movements to and from the site and in order to accord with policies DM5 and DM22 of the Local Plan Part 3 (Development Management Policies).
We not feel that this condition meets the necessary or reasonable tests required for planning conditions.
The proposed changes to condition 10, which we offered at our site visit on the 16th June 2016 and is contained in your proposed conditions as condition 10, provide full control of the feed stocks arriving into the site and digestate being removed by road - through the use of weighbridge and log book records. These records can be compared to the Triolet weight records (item V condition 10) to ensure that imported tonnage of feed stock match those being processed. In addition the inclusion of the planning statement and transport plan contained in Condition 2 - approved reports and statements listed in the schedule on the decision notice detail the number, type and location of all feedstock and digestate vehicle movements.
As such condition 22 is not necessary as conditions 2 and 10 detail and monitor all transport movements. Due to the discussed layout of the site in relation to the farm storage buildings and their operations and the adjacent farmhouse, all of which use the same site entrance and farmyard, the installation of an electronic monitoring system is impractical, onerous and unreasonable to implement.
It would not be appropriate to impose such a condition in the determination of the application
Condition 23:
The permission hereby granted is for a 500kw anaerobic digester only. Power generation from the development shall not exceed 500kw. Records of power generation shall be kept and submitted quarterly in writing to the Local Planning Authority.
Reason - To ensure the power generation from the AD plant is in accordance with that as set out in the application and supporting information and in order to ensure that the impacts of the development are acceptable.
Given that there are no changes in transport movements proposed in this application, from the current consent, the addition of this condition does not control or affect any impact on local amenity.
Moreover the condition runs counter to local and national policy on producing energy from renewable sources. The impacts of the development have been identified and controlled, the level of power generation is not a planning consideration. The output of the digester should not be restricted by condition, as its output is effectively controlled by the restrictions on the feedstock materials imported . If on the basis of the agreed feedstock the plant can operate more efficiently and generate more electricity based on the same material being imported then this should be supported as it is a more effective means of creating renewable energy.
This and the fact that the condition restricts the commercial viability of the development mean that it does not meet the reasonable test or is it supporting planning policy.
Condition 24:
The Local Planning Authority shall be afforded access at reasonable times to all on site monitoring systems associated with the operation of the AD plant hereby granted.
Reason - To ensure the AD plant operates in accordance with the parameters and limitations as approved and as set out within the application and its supporting information.
The reason for the inclusion of this condition is not clear which parameters and limitation it refers to. Given the concerns of local residents and committee members we assume that it relates again to the impact of transport and the output of the plant. The former is monitored, controlled and can be enforced through conditions 2 and 10 (as detailed above) and the later has no relevance to the impact on local residents and is therefore not reasonable to impose. As such this condition represents a further unnecessary and burdensome required on the operator and the local planning authority.
Overall
With the inclusion of these three conditions (22,23,24) there are a total of 24 attached to this application. Our discussions with Mr Rance have indicated that the Council has a policy of keeping the number of conditions for planning applications a low as possible - generally below 5. Given the relatively small size of this developed this large number of condition is, in our view, unnecessary and onerous on both Greener for Life as an operator and the LPA as the enforcement body. As highlighted in the statement these new conditions duplicate the conditions and controls already proposed and as such are not required.
The committee report refers to a recent appeal case (appeal ref APP/T4210/A14/2224754) where both the inspector and Secretary of State concluded that a number of proposed conditions were unreasonable and did not meet all six tests. A number of similar conditions to those proposed in 23, 24 and 25 where rejected because they would be difficult for the local planning authority to monitor and require an intolerable level of supervision.
In the committee report it states that officers have been mindful of this appeal decision and the comments within it on conditions in drawing up their recommended list of conditions. However in our view these three additional conditions do represent an intolerable level of supervision and, in places, duplicate other conditions. If conditions 23, 24 and 25 are imposed we will be applying for them to be removed.
(vi) *Report previously circulated copy attached to minutes.
Supporting documents: