Agenda item

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

The Senior Planning Officer, Chris Shields 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 Senior Planning Officer, CS advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for a gas fuelled capacity mechanism embedded generation plant to support the National Grid - resubmission and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.  Members were reminded that a previous application in this regard had been refused by the Committee at its meeting in May 2018.

The Senior Planning Officer, CS referred to a site plan on the projector screen, highlighting a nearby solar farm, the B1283, the A19 and the North West Industrial Estate.  He also noted the nearby agricultural land and the high voltage electrical lines in the area serving the industrial estate.

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 Senior Planning Officer, CS explained the new proposed site layout, consisting of 34 gas generator sets, reduced from 40 and transformer equipment, sub-station, switch gear and welfare area.  He added that the loss of agricultural land had been reduced from 1.15 hectares to 0.64 hectares.  The Committee noted that a landscaping scheme had been provided with the resubmitted application and there was proposals for a four metre high acoustic fence to baffle noise from the site.  It was noted that there would be planting at the edges of the site with field margin seed mix, a full perimeter native mixed hedgerow and trees to the northern side of the site.  The Senior Planning Officer, CS noted that the chimneys associated with each pair of gas generator sets would be seven metres high.

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 Senior Planning Officer, CS explained that there had been 9 letters of objection, and 8 letters of support with the main points summarised within the report.  It was added Peterlee Town Council and Easington Town Council had objected to the application, with their comments also summarised within the report.

The Senior Planning Officer, CS noted that Officers felt that the landscape harm and small loss of agricultural land did not outweigh the benefits of the development and the application was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out within the report.

The Chairman thanked the Senior Planning Officer and asked Town Councillor A Watson, representing Peterlee Town Council to speak in objection to the application.

Town Councillor A Watson noted that the Town Council’s objections had been summarised within the Officer’s report and that these included loss of visual amenity and loss of agricultural land.  He added that air quality report referred to NO_x levels being “less than 100% of critical levels” and noted he did not understand what was meant by this.

The Chairman thanked the Town Councillor A Watson and asked Mrs N Wilson to speak in objection to the application.

Mrs N Wilson noted she was once again addressing the Committee and noted she was representing herself and Ms J Wood who had also spoke in May, who could not attend due to work commitments.  She appealed to the Committee to have careful consideration of the impact of the application on the agricultural businesses and noted the proposed access was not suitable and would encroach on residential use, business use and in terms of access to the solar farm.  Mrs N Wilson noted that there was a need for 24 hour access in terms of welfare of livestock and noted that Members would have taken the opportunity to have read the letters of objection and the information provided.  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 her previous comments at the May Committee and reiterated that the application was not comparable to the nearby solar farm, that development not creating noise.  Mrs N Wilson noted there was the solar farm, the nearby industrial estate and electricity pylons, however, she suggested that this was more than enough intrusion and asked why should there be further intrusion in terms of the application, adding that she did not feel the proposals were suitable in this location. 

Mrs N Wilson noted that the UK electricity consumption had decreased on average 15%, with the largest decrease 2005-2016 being 20.3%, and the lowest being 7.9%.  She noted that it was therefore reasonable to say that the local area or the North East did not require more supply and that it would be more appropriate to tackle issues in terms of energy conservation and through the Council’s Climate Change Policy and national policies and not through short term generators.

Mrs N Wilson noted the application was not clear in terms of jobs, or opportunities for local suppliers and the proposals were not an attractive prospect.

The Chairman thanked Mrs N Wilson and asked the Senior Planning Officer, CS to respond to the points raised.

The Senior Planning Officer, CS noted that in reference to air quality, the reference within that report submitted reference to levels being significantly less than the 100% critical level and it was concluded that levels would be well below thresholds.  He reiterated that there had been no objections from the Environment Agency or the Council’s Environmental Health Section in relation to air quality issues.

The Chairman thanked the Senior Planning Officer, CS and asked Mr S Wheeler and Mr M Pearson to speak in support of the application.

Mr S Wheeler 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 S Wheeler noted that energy provision was moving away from carbon heavy generation and there were more frequent events of supply and demand and the type of additional energy security the application proposed was being adopted more.  He 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. 

Mr S Wheeler added that the application had been assessed and Officers had deemed it acceptable against local and national polices, with there being a lot of additional work having been undertaken to address issues that had been raised by Members previously, including the reduction to 34 gas generator units, the reduction in the loss of agricultural land, additional landscaping, noise mitigation and air quality measures, resulting in an improved application.  He added that the Environment Agency permit should add a level of assurance in terms of air quality.

Mr M Pearson reiterated that the concerns raised previously had been heard, understood and the revised application before Members reflected this, in terms of the reduced number of generators and improved landscaping.  He noted that in response to Council Officers, acoustic fencing and replacement boundary hedging had been agreed, native hedgerow and buffer planting.  He concluded by noting the site would better fit into the landscape and that the revised submission was an improved application and appropriate for the site.

The Chairman thanked Mr S Wheeler and Mr M Pearson and asked Members of the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor A Gardner thanked all the speakers and noted that carbon intensity when checking online was 252 gCO₂/KWh at 11.00am today, with the target for 2030 being 50-100 gCO₂/KWh.  He noted that the Council had committed to carbon reduction and therefore the application was contrary to this as in increased carbon emissions.

Councillor J Clark reiterated comments she had made at the previous meeting in May, relating to the application site being on a route often used in travelling 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.  She added that she would support refusal of the application on the reasons previously stated and the comments from Councillor A Gardner.

Councillor O Temple noted from the site visit and aerial photographs that the site was bounded on two sides by the existing large solar farm which was very clearly visible from the road.  He added that he had supported the refusal at the May meeting, however, the changes that had been made to the application he felt had “tipped the balance” and he therefore was minded to support the application.

The Chairman asked if any Members wished to propose and second a motion either in support of the Officers recommendation or to the contrary.

Councillor O Temple moved that the application be approved, he was seconded by Councillor D Freeman.  Upon a vote being taken the motion was lost.  The Chairman asked for any Members wishing to propose a contrary motion to do so, giving the relevant reasons for doing so.

Councillor A Gardner noted he proposed refusal as per the reasons he had stated previously, with the application being contrary to Council policies in relation to carbon footprint.  The Chairman asked for clarity in terms of which planning policies the application Members felt the application was not in accord with and for any seconder to the proposal for refusal.

Councillor J Robinson left the meeting at 2.18pm

Councillor J Clark noted that paragraph 70 of the Officer’s report referred to paragraph 170 of the NPPF and noted that while the size of the site and number of generators had reduced, emissions had not reduced and paragraph 71 of the report referred to pollution through noise and exhaust emissions.

The Senior Planning Officer, CS reiterated that in terms of air quality there had been no objections from the Environment Agency or the Council’s Environmental Health Section.  The Solicitor - Planning And Development noted that it would be difficult to refuse the application on the issue of air quality asTechnical Officer advice did not support this.  The Chairman reiterated that the Committee would need to make their decision upon planning considerations and for reasons to be robust in terms of potential challenge at appeal.

Councillor A Gardner moved that the application be refused, he was seconded by Councillor J Clark.

The Solicitor - Planning And Development asked for clarity prior to a vote being taken whether the proposed refusal reasons were an amalgamation of those stated by the Councillors.

Councillor A Gardner noted in terms of the application being contrary to Part 14 of the NPPF relating to climate change, and Councillor J Clark noted in terms of the application being contrary to paragraph 170 of the NPPF regarding pollution. Upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED as the development would have an adverse effect on the general health of the population of the area through emissions that would be generated from the development contrary to Paragraph 170 of the NPPF and the development would also be contrary to climate change objectives set out in Part 14 of the NPPF.