Agenda item

Gas fuelled capacity mechanism embedded generation plant to support the National Grid.

The Principal Planning Officer, Claire Teasdale gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The application was for a gas fuelled capacity mechanism embedded generation plant to support the National Grid and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

The Principal Planning Officer referred to a site plan on the projector screen, highlighting a nearby solar farm, the B1283, the A19 and the North West Industrial Estate.  She also noted the nearby residential properties included: Moor House Farm, Calf Close Farm and Calf Close Farm, Cow Close Farm and Home Lea.

Members were referred to a new access running north to south, and connections to the gas pipeline and the electricity grid.  Photographs were displayed showing the existing access, and views of the site.  The Principal Planning Officer explained the site layout, consisting of 40 gas generator sets and transformer equipment, sub-station, switch gear and welfare area.  It was explained that the proposed CCTV poles would be 6 metres high, as set out in the application.  It was explained that it was envisaged that the development would take 8-10 months to complete and that an engineer would attend the site daily once in operation.

The Principal Planning Officer noted a change in the conditions, with trees as set in the report being replaced with hedgerows.  Members noted a 4 metre high acoustic fence in addition to a 2.4 metre high security fence, and were referred to elevations showing the maximum height of flues at approximately 7 metres.

The Committee were informed that there had been no objections from statutory or internal consultees, subject to the conditions as set out within the report.  The Principal Planning Officer explained that there had been 4 letters of objection, 2 received since the report had been produced, with 2 speakers in attendance at Committee.  It was noted the objections had been summarised within the report, and an issue had also been raised in relation to notification.

The Principal Planning Officer noted the report set out the relevant polices from paragraph 49 onwards, with Easington District Local Plan (EDLP) Policies being 1, General Principles and Development, and 3, Protection of the Countryside being felt to be out-of-date and therefore NPPF Paragraph 14 would apply.  It was added that Officers felt that the landscape harm and small loss of agricultural land did not outweigh the benefits of the development.  The Principal Planning Officer noted the application was recommended for approval subject to conditions, reiterating that Conditions should now refer to hedgerows rather than tree belts as previously mentioned. 

The Chairman thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked Mrs N Wilson to speak in objection to the application.

Mrs N Wilson noted she appealed to the Committee to have careful consideration of the impact of the application on the agricultural businesses and reported that residents had many concerns.  She added that issues as regards a new access route had been raised with the Case Officer and noted no consultation as regards this.  Mrs N Wilson noted the proposed access was on a blind bend and would contribute to congestion.  She added that there would be negative impact in terms of noise, exhaust pollution, visual impact and impact upon livestock. 

Mrs N Wilson referred to Paragraph 64 of the Committee Report, which stated that EDLP Policies 1 and 35 required that an application safeguard visual amenity and have no serious adverse impact on the amenity of people and existing adjacent land in terms of privacy, intrusion, noise and other pollutants and traffic generation.  She added that the NPPF and EDLP protected agricultural land, with the application site having been classified as Grade 3a.  Mrs N Wilson noted the report at Paragraph 54 was incorrect, the land having always been used as arable land, not for use by horses.  She added that the application was not comparable to the nearby solar farm, that development not creating noise.  Mrs N Wilson noted to stick to conservation at the site, grazing of sheep nearby and to secure wildlife for future generations.

The Chairman thanked Mrs N Wilson and asked Ms J Wood to speak in objection to the application.

Ms J Wood noted she lived at Holme Lea, off Durham Lane and that her main concern was the proposed access arrangements.  She noted the point of access that was adopted adding it was not very well maintained.  She added that there had been a number of assumptions as regards potential noise levels and asked if there was noise at night and it was at an unacceptable level what recourse did residents have?  She concluded by seconding the comments from Mrs N Wilson in relation to refusal of the application.

The Chairman thanked Ms J Wood and asked Mr B Atkinson, the Applicant to speak in support of the application.

Mr B Atkinson thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak on behalf of Enso Energy Limited, a highly experienced developer providing energy using a range of techniques to supply to the grid and businesses.  He added the business was an advocate of sustainable energy and also supported Government policies with the application being, whilst relatively small, a way to help balance demand at peak times.

Mr B Atkinson noted that the site was chosen as it met all the critical parameters, with good access to the electricity grid and gas pipeline and provided minimum environmental impact and was sufficiently removed from residential receptors.  He added that the application had been assessed and Officers had deemed it acceptable against local and national polices.  Mr B Atkinson noted the construction and operational phases offered economic benefit locally and that the location meant that power from the facility would be used locally first in periods of peak demand.  Accordingly, Mr B Atkinson asked that the Committee agree with the Officer’s recommendation and approve the application.

The Chairman thanked Mr B Atkinson for his comments and asked if the Principal Planning Officer could speak in relation to the points raised.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that in relation to highways issues raised by the objectors, those had been considered by the Highways Section and the proposed access had been deemed suitable with details of access arrangements to be provided for through condition.  In relation to the period of construction, a construction management plan would set out further details of how this process would be managed.  It was stated that once operational there would be an engineer visiting the site daily.  It was reiterated that the impact on the environment and visual impact had been considered.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that there was a small loss of Grade 3a agricultural land and this had been considered within the planning balance.  It was noted that in terms of sound levels, Condition 5 of the report would be required to be adhered to which would limit noise levels during 23.00 – 07.00 hours; else it would be an issue for Planning to take action on.

The Chairman thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked Members for their comments and questions.

Councillor J Maitland asked if the proposed site layout could be shown on the projector screen, and then asked as regards the gas containers, their locations and sizes.  The Principal Planning Officer noted their proposed locations on the site plan and explained they would be 3 metres wide, 12 metres in length and 4 metres high.

Councillor J Clark noted the application was along a route she often used in travelling back from Durham City to the coast.  She added the development would be an eyesore on the field, and that you would not wish to see this while travelling to the Durham Heritage Coast.  Councillor J Clark noted that if it was located on the nearby industrial estate would be more suitable and suggested this option be explored.  She added that the loss of Grade 3a agricultural land was not appropriate.

Councillor J Blakey noted she appreciated the comments of Councillor J Clark and noted the report mentioned employment adding there were a number of industrial sites within the Peterlee area.  She noted she agreed with Councillor J Clark in that the proposed site was not the right site for this application.

Councillor O Temple noted reference to the application supporting renewable energy and asked for further explanation of this and also asked as regards how biodiversity would be enhanced by the application as he could not see how this would be the case unless very obliquely.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the proposal would support the national grid at times of peak demand and represented support to solar and wind turbines when they could not cope with demand.  In reference to the site selection, the Principal Planning Officer noted the applicant chose the site due to the relatively short distances to existing gas and electricity connections.  It was reiterated that the loss of Grade 3a agricultural land had been considered, however, it was noted it was a small area of land.  In terms of the increase to biodiversity, this included the planting of new native hedgerows and bat and bird boxes along the fencing at the site. 

Councillor O Temple noted he had experienced problems in his area as regards noise issues and understood local objections that had been raised.

He added that if the equipment was not run at night how could it be said it was supporting solar power.  Councillor O Temple noted that application fell outside of EDLP Policies 1 and 3, which Officers had noted were out-of-date.  He noted that in other cases, Local Plan policies were referred to be Officers as relevant.  Councillor O Temple noted he was minded not to support the application.

Councillor P Jopling noted that she felt the same as other those Members that had spoken, in that the site may offer convenience for the applicant, however, she felt it may set a precedent in terms of such development on arable land and that brownfield sites should be looked at first.

Councillor S Iveson asked as regards ownership of the land.  The Principal Planning Officer noted there was agreement from the landowner for the applicant to use the land.  The Chairman noted the Applicant wished to clarify and allowed him to speak.  Mr B Atkinson noted issues of commercial sensitivity, however, explained the land was owned by a local farmer and the land would be occupied under leasehold.

Councillor J Clark asked for clarification in terms of the removal of a condition as mentioned by the Officer.  The Principal Planning Officer noted reference to Conditions 11 and 12, with the replacement of “tree belt” with “hedgerow”, and the removal of the compound and restoration of the site was still set out at Condition 12.  Councillor J Clark reiterated she felt the nearby industrial estate would be more suitable and felt this area must also have access to the gas and electricity supplies.

Councillor O Temple moved that the application be refused as it was contrary to EDLP Policy 1 in that agricultural land was not protected.  Councillor D Freeman seconded Councillor O Temple and added he agreed with Councillor J Clark in that the nearby industrial estate would be more suitable, with the report at Paragraph 79 stating that the applicant had not demonstrated the need to locate at this site.

The Solicitor - Planning And Development noted that her advice to Committee was that she would be nervous as regards a refusal solely based upon the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land.  She noted Members had mentioned issues in terms of landscape character.  The Solicitor - Planning And Development added that the need and ability to locate elsewhere was not a material planning consideration.

Councillor O Temple added that further to the application being contrary to EDLP Policy 1, that it was also contrary to EDLP Policy 3 in relation to protection of the countryside. 

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

The Local Planning Authority considers that the countryside location of the development would create adverse impacts in terms of unacceptable visual amenity and loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, and these are such that they would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in the context of Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and accordingly, the proposals are considered contrary to Policies 1 and 3 of the Easington District Local Plan and Part 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.