Agenda item

Proposed erection of 2 buildings, 1 storage lagoon, provision of weighbridge and change of use of existing slurry store to blending plant and laboratory/office to create fertiliser for agricultural use with associated access and hardstanding.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the erection of 2 buildings, 1 storage lagoon, provision of weighbridge and change of use of existing slurry store to blending plant and laboratory/office to create fertiliser for agricultural use with associated access and hardstanding on land to the west of Lane Head Farm, Lanehead Lane, Hutton Magna (for copy see file of Minutes).

C Shields, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included a site location plan, site photographs and proposed layout. Members of the Committee had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the location and setting.

Claire Bradley of Kirkwells Planning addressed the Committee on behalf of Hutton Magna, Ovington, Dalton and Barningham Parish Councils. Mrs Bradley wholeheartedly agreed with the Planning Officer’s recommendation; the planning application had been submitted in 2012 and it had been five long years for residents and Parish Councils. Policy W2 of County Durham Waste Local Plan required the demonstration of need for a development, and excessive provision should not be permitted. 70,000 tonnes of waste from Durham, Cumbria and Teeside would be stored at the site for end use as a fertiliser. There was no established need and importing waste that was not to be used until after treatment conflicted with Policy W2 of the Plan.

There would be 60 HGV movements every day creating adverse noise and further noise would be produced from on-site generators. This cumulative noise would be emitted 24 hours a day all year, resulting in significant impact on residential amenity.

In terms of odour the Environment Agency had said that the waste had the potential to be extremely odorous and the existing store had generated many complaints in the past. It was acknowledged that at certain times odours were created but the blending of waste would create a nuisance over and above this level.

The proposals if approved would also impact on tourism. The proposed development was in a remote location and did not constitute sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF.

Councillor J Rowlandson, local Member addressed the Committee stating that as had been said 70,000 tonnes of material would be transported and stored at the site. WLP Policy W38 stated that proposals for the recovery of waste materials would be permitted provided they could be satisfactorily located at existing waste transfer stations, on land identified for general industrial use, in sustainable locations. This site was a considerable distance from any digester capable of taking the material. This was too large a project for where it was sited. The Member noted the comments of Ecology Officers as outlined in paragraphs 102-104 in the report and stated that this was a low-lying area where water pumps were required to maintain it as farmland. He asked Members to agree the Officer’s recommendation for refusal of the application.

Mr R Laidler, local resident addressed the Committee against the application. From a personal perspective he explained that this was a beautiful area with wide expansive views which gave a sense of space and freedom. Mr Laidler was a photographer whose main interest was the area in which he lived and two photographs were displayed for Members consideration which had been taken two days previously; the first from Lanehead Lane looking north west over the application site and the second showing the existing concrete structure which was now unused. There had been a serious leakage in 2015, following which activity was ceased.

The proposals would create a new industrial site in this lovely area when there was no shortage of existing industrial sites in the wider region. If approved this scheme would set a dangerous precedent and it would be difficult to resist any other proposals to expand the business further. This location was a priceless heritage asset that should be protected against unacceptable development, and preserved as a jewel in the County.

David Marjoram of ELG Planning addressed the Committee as the applicant’s agent. He explained that the proposals would provide a specialist facility utilising established anaerobic digester plants in the area at Southbank, Middlesbrough.

He believed that up to date guidance and the Government’s AD Strategy and Action Plan which was published after County Durham Waste Local Plan acknowledged the key role of the renewable and low carbon energy sector. Reduced weight should therefore be placed on Policy W2. The proposed facility would handle 70,000 tonnes of material per annum, the majority of which would be in the form of farm crops, sourced from their extensive landholdings in the local area, agricultural matter related to the location and an element of food waste from elsewhere, but most material would be sourced close to home so it was argued that the site was in a suitable location. There was no facility of this type in the north east and material would otherwise be directed to landfill.

Relevant Technical Officers considered that there was no impact upon amenity and therefore the key consideration was the principle of development. The site was a logical location for such a facility and was supported by up to date guidance. Jobs would be created and the material would be returned to the farm as an odourless fertiliser.

The Senior Planning Officer pointed out that the Government’s AD Strategy and Action Plan was not referred to in the report as it did not contain any planning guidance and the facility proposed was not an anaerobic digester. Policy W2 of County Durham Waste Local Plan was therefore relevant. 

Councillor Richardson stated that he could not support the application. The proposals would cause violent odour for surrounding areas. The applicant’s agent had referred to material which would otherwise be directed to landfill, however he was aware of a plant in Newton Aycliffe where food waste was taken.

Given that it was clear from the Officer’s report that the proposals were non-compliant with planning policies, Councillor Shield felt that there was no option but to refuse the application. He was aware of a local anaerobic digester which caused complaints about odour from the transport of feedstock on a regular basis. Councillor Shield moved refusal of the application.

Councillor Bell noted the significant objections to the application, including from all Parish Councils in the area and considered that these should be taken into account. Councillor Bell seconded the motion to refuse the application.

Councillor Clare sought clarification of the suggestion by the Agent that the County’s Waste Local Plan had limited weight. The Senior Planning Officer explained that paragraph 14 of the NPPF established a presumption in favour of sustainable development where relevant policies were out of date, silent or absent. The Waste Local Plan, adopted in 2005, was considered to be broadly consistent with the NPPF and the relevant policies applicable to this application were not out of date. Therefore paragraph 14 did not apply in respect of this application.

Councillor Tinsley stated that in accordance with Policy W2 there was no established need for the development and that there were more sustainable locations for the operation. Whilst the Environment Agency had not raised any significant objections an incident had occurred, and the Environment Agency had noted that the site was in a vulnerable location. The Councillor concurred with the comments of the local resident Mr Laidler that the area was a beautiful part of the County, and tourism and economy were key strands running throughout the NPPF.      

Upon a vote being taken it was Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reasons contained in the report.