Agenda item

Anaerobic Digestion Plant.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for an anaerobic digestion plant at Mount Huley Farm, Croxdale, Durham (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

C Shields, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location plan, aerial photograph, site layout, site elevations, view of the site entrance and view of the site.

 

Councillor Blakey, local Member, addressed the Committee to object to the application.  The site of the proposed anaerobic digestion plant was near to the A167 which was an arterial route onto Durham City and access to it would involve heavy wagons with waste from all parts of the country turning in from and out onto the A167, which had a speed limit of 60 m.p.h.

 

There was already an anaerobic digestion plant within 5 miles of this site which could be seen from the site.  The site was near to an area of business development, was on a gateway to Durham City used by tourists and had a Nature Reserve and SSSI within 5 miles of it.

 

Councillor Blakey asked how many jobs would be created as a result of this application.  The design of the digester plant was poor and would be visible from the A167 and there were concerns about possible smells being produced from the plant.  Councillor Blakey asked the Committee to refuse the application.

 

Councillor Dunn, local Member, addressed the Committee to object to the application.  Paragraph 55 of the officer’s report referred to the development resulting in some harmful visual and local landscape effects as a consequence of the scale of the development.  The development proposed a flare stack of some 5 metres in height and other plant on site would measure some 10 metres in height, which would be visible to residents of Hett village, Bowburn, Coxhoe and Quarrington Hill.

 

Councillor Dunn referred to the proposed Condition 5 of the planning permission and asked whether a hedgerow would be sufficient to screen the plant and how fast this would grow.  With reference to the number of public responses to the application, which were detailed at Paragraph 61 of the report, Councillor Dunn informed the Committee that very few local residents had been consulted because the majority of surrounding properties were commercial properties.  However, since Croxdale and Hett Parish Council had been made aware of the application it had received a number of representations.

 

The anaerobic digester at Quarrington Hill was bright green in colour which made it obviously visible.  Councillor Dunn welcomed that if the application was approved the applicants would need to submit details of colours and finishes so that the plant would be less visible.  Councillor Dunn also suggested that if approved Condition 5 should include a requirement for planting capable of rapid growth, the movement of vehicles as detailed in the proposed Condition 12 should be restricted after 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. rather than the proposed 11 p.m. which he considered to be too late.  There should also be a Condition to prohibit the movement of HGV’s through Hett village.

 

Councillor M McKeon, local Member, addressed the Committee to object to the application.  NPPF Part 1 referred to building a strong, competitive economy and NPPF Part 3 referred to promoting economic development in rural areas.  The application site was within the proximity of the DurhamGate development which had attracted businesses such as Costa Coffee, Dominoes and a family pub and there was concern that this development could be act as a deterrent to investors to the area.

 

While the proposed left in/left out access to the site was welcomed, more information about traffic routes to the site was needed, because HGV’s might travel through Hett village as a rat run to the site.  Hett and Croxdale were beautiful, peaceful villages and the impact of this development would be contrary to NPPF Parts 7, 11 and 12.

 

Councillor McKeon requested that the application be rejected, but if approved, consideration be given to additional conditions to screen the digester, prevent of HGV’s through Hett village and limit operating times for HGV access to the site.

 

Mr M Ord, local resident and Member of Croxdale and Hett Parish Council addressed the Committee to object to the application.  The development would have a significant visual impact on Hett and Thinford and would lead to increased traffic movements on the A167, an already busy road.  The development may also have an adverse impact on house sales at a nearby development.

 

Mr Ord asked how vehicles on site would be monitored to ensure they switched off their engines when making deliveries.  He also asked where any gas produced by the plant would go to and whether this could be a fire risk, and whether the presence of food waste on the site could lead to an increase in vermin.

 

Mr Hepplewhite, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee.  The statement from the applicant on the application was contained in Paragraphs 62 to 68 of the officer’s report.  The applicant welcomed the recommendation of officers that the application should be approved and was comfortable with the proposed conditions.  Additionally, the applicant would accept a routing condition so that a rat run through Hett village was not created.  The applicant had worked closely with planning officers and all national planning conditions had been satisfied.   The application would have no significant adverse impact on the landscape, would produce no noise or odour nuisance and was an appropriate form of sustainable development at the site.  Mr Hepplewhite asked that the Committee approve the application.

 

Councillor Blakey informed the Committee that the restriction of HGV’s through Hett village would not be able to be policed because farm traffic used this route.

 

The Senior Planning Officer responded to the issues raised.

 

A vehicle routing condition could be placed on the permission so that there was no access for HGV’s through Hett village.

 

The gas produced would not pose any fire risk and in the event of a fire would burn with a ‘pop’.  The gas flare would only operate when the export gas line was not available.

 

The facility did not intend to hold more waste than was needed and food waste would be stored in sealed containers in the reception building.  The end product was less odorous than compost.

 

Referring to the hours of operation, the hours of 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. was proposed by environmental health officers who did not want the facility to operate overnight.  These hours could be reduced to 9 p.m. if the Committee so decided.

 

Within County Durham there were three other anaerobic digester plants on farms and their buildings were not dissimilar to farm buildings.

 

The agent from the DurhamGate development had not raised any objection to the proposed development.  Nearby businesses produced food waste and may consider it environmentally sustainable to have this facility so near.

 

Councillor Wilkes referred to concerns which had been expressed about the screening of the facility and asked how long it would take for the screening trees to grow and also asked the heights of the proposed buildings.

 

The Senior Planning Officer replied that the reception building would be 10 metres in height and the storage tanks 8 metres.

 

Councillor Wilkes asked what type of green landscaping would be used.  The Senior Planning Officer replied that the whole site would be on a concrete base which would be sunk down and bunded.  The soil bund around the site would be approximately half the height of the site and planting would take place on top of this bund.  The Senior Planning Officer considered that the condition proposed on landscaping offered sufficient latitude to negotiate suitable enhancements to the planting scheme to alleviate the concerns raised by Members.

 

Councillor Richardson referred to a previous application for an anaerobic digester at East Hedleyhope which local people had objected to and which was refused by Committee.  The applicant appealed the decision and this was upheld.  Local people had expressed concern about visual impact and odours, however the digester plant was barely noticeable and there had been no problems with odour.  Councillor Richardson moved approval of the application.

 

Councillor Shield referred to an anaerobic digester plant at Thomas Swan which took feedstock waste and had been the subject of excessive complaints from local residents about odour.  Paragraph 59 of the report referenced that at times there was likely to be odour events which were likely to lead to increased odour and therefore potentially complaints.

 

Paragraph 88 of the report stated that odour levels would be within acceptable thresholds but there could still be incidents of nuisance odours.  These odours were very overpowering.

 

Councillor Shield referred to Policy W31 in the County Durham Waste Local Plan and questioned whether this development could be accommodated safely on the highways network.  Policy W33 in the Local Plan required that suitable mitigation measures were taken to ensure harmful impacts of visual intrusion were kept to an acceptable level.  The two domes of the plant at Iveston were quite visible and Councillor Shield considered that the buildings associated with this application would also be visible.

 

Policy 36 of the Local Plan required that the waste management facilities should be fully contained within well designed buildings or structures.  These were in place at the Thomas Swan facility yet problems with odours still arose.

 

Councillor Shield also considered the application to be contrary to NPPF Part 8 because it did not promote healthy communities.  He therefore opposed the application under Policies W4, W31 and W33 of the County Durham Waste Local Plan and under NPPF Part 8 and moved that it be refused.

 

Councillor Clare informed the Committee that he had noted the worries put forward by local Members and representatives and had given these weight.  Referring to visual amenity he considered that the buildings proposed were similar to those normally associated with a farm and that officers had given assurances regarding screening.  The traffic generated by the development would result in 8 vehicle movements per day, 4 in and 4 out, and this extra level of traffic on a road such as the A167 was not significant, and heavy farm vehicles already accessed the existing farm.  Farms generated odours in any event and the proposed digester would be completely enclosed with material stored inside buildings.  These buildings would be under negative pressure so when doors were opened air would go in to the buildings rather than escape from them.  The success of an anaerobic digester system depended on the quality of practice of the operators of the facility.

 

There was an anaerobic digester facility at Newton Aycliffe located in the middle of an industrial estate and this had not prevented companies from setting up there.

 

Councillor Clare considered there were no grounds for refusal of the application.

 

Councillor Maitland informed the Committee that she had concerns about the level of odour which may be generated depending on climatic conditions.

 

Councillor Kay informed the Committee that he had listened to concerns which had been expressed.  This was an application for an anaerobic digester which meant that it operated without oxygen and Councillor Kay asked whether other digesters being referred to were aerobic digesters.

 

The Senior Planning Officer replied that the facilities at Quarrington Hill, Newton Aycliffe, High Hedleyhope and Hope House Farm were all anaerobic digesters.  Councillor Kay added that an aerobic digester at Easington had not been a success and asked the distance to the nearest residential property.

 

The Senior Planning Officer replied that the village of Hett was 1.3km to the north, with East Farm to the south of the site and DurhamGate to the west.

Councillor Kay considered that this was an agricultural building in the countryside which needed to be in the right colour.  The proposed screening would enhance and mitigate the development.  This was an alternative to fossil fuels and Councillor Kay seconded approval of the application.

 

Councillor Wilkes understood the concerns of local people but struggled to see how the application could be refused and asked how defendable a refusal could be at appeal.

 

The Senior Planning Officer replied that he stood behind the recommendation to approve the application.  The application was similar to that for High Hedleyhope which was refused by Committee but allowed on appeal.

 

Councillor A Bell informed the Committee that he seconded Councillor Shield’s motion that the application be refused.

 

The Senior Planning Officer provided the Committee with information about the odour problems caused at the anaerobic digester at Consett.  The digester took in a blend of crops and stored them on site with no reception buildings and this had caused odour issues.  There was no reception building because the crops were not waste and therefore the facility was not monitored by the Environment Agency.  The management of the site had been an issue with silage clamps not being operated operate correctly and the effluent lagoon not being constructed correctly.  The Consett site was therefore quite different to that under consideration and poor management was the real issue at Consett.

 

Councillor Tinsley informed the Committee that the application had been moved by Councillor Richardson and seconded by Councillor Kay.  The routing of HGV’s by condition and operating time up to 9 p.m. would be delegated to officers in consultation with the Chair of the Committee.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was

 

Resolved:

(i)            That the application be approved subject to the Conditions contained in the report and

(ii)          An amendment to Condition 12 to read 9 p.m. instead of 11 p.m. and

(iii)         An additional Condition for HGV routing precise wording of which would be delegated to officers in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee