Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for Engineering and associated works to form enclosed area in association with storage use Land North Of Emerald Biogas, Preston Road, Aycliffe Business Park, Newton Aycliffe DL5 6AB (for copy see file of minutes).

The Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included a site location plan, aerial photograph, previously approved and proposed site layout plans, proposed site elevations and site photographs from various locations.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed the following revisions to the report.  The report referred to the site as a Designated Local Wildlife Site within the CDP (paragraph 4 and 131).  This had been the case in 2020, however the land had been de-designated prior to submission of the application in 2023 and was therefore no longer a Designated Local Wildlife Site.  With regards to the reasons for refusal no. 1) referred to a conflict with Policy 43 of the CDP, however this was in error as whilst Dingy Skipper was a Priority Species and not a Protected Species.  The application was still in conflict with Policy 41 and paragraphs 180 and 186 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Mr Greally addressed the Committee on behalf of the Applicant to confirm that the application had been submitted in July 2023 and enhanced following engagement with Officers.  He advised that there would be significant benefits, including the use of a longstanding vacant site within an industrial location.  The proposed storage use was in accordance with the employment use allocation carried forward from the Sedgefield Local Plan and there was a presumption which favoured uses such as storage.  He described the type of equipment and machinery that would benefit from open storage and advised that approval of the application would provide support for existing and new businesses in the area and reduce the potential for relocation.

Mr Greally advised that the previously granted planning permission had been subject to a legal agreement which had resulted in a compensatory payment of £90,000 for offsite habitat.  At the time of approval, the Applicant had been absolved from having to carry out any further biodiversity mitigation works to the application site and there were no conditions attached requiring any of the biodiversity features to be installed or managed over time.  The Applicant was of the view that this payment had offset any biodiversity impacts on the site, however in order to address comments on the scheme, an 0.75 hectare area would be retained and enhanced to provide habitat for Dingy Skipper butterflies.  This was a larger area than the existing areas on site that were considered highly suitable for the species.

Mr Greally suggested that conditions could be attached to actively manage the site,  and to deliver and maintain areas suitable for Dingy Skipper.  This was a regime that did not exist on site, nor through the previously granted planning permission.  The Applicant’s Ecologists had advised that the type of habitat designed, would have the correct ground conditions and landforms to help maximise sunlight and thermal capture, which was essential for the species.  This was considered a significant benefit over the previously approved scheme and the ability to secure the retention and long-term management of these features had not been afforded sufficient weight.

He continued that whilst a number of trees would be removed to facilitate the scheme, a condition could be attached to secure a long-term management strategy for remaining and replacement trees.  Great Aycliffe Neighbourhood Plan had been referred to within the refusal however Mr Greally noted that in responding to the application, the Town Council had raised no objection to the proposals.  A detailed design of the drainage scheme would need updating to accommodate the increased area for Dingy Skipper however the principles of the drainage strategy which had been accepted by the Council, could also be incorporated into a planning condition.

In conclusion, Mr Greally clarified the employment status of the site and that it was no longer a Designated Local Wildlife Site.  The storage facility would support business in the area by providing the opportunity to meet storage needs and he urged the Committee to grant planning permission to enable the site to be brought into productive economic use.

The Senior Planning Officer accepted that measures on the previously approved site had not been secured in perpetuity, however because they were shown on the approved plans they were required for the consent to be lawfully implemented.  He confirmed that the financial contribution secured under the previous planning consent had been discussed at length by Officers, however they did not consider that it mitigated the identified impact of the current application.

Councillor Atkinson confirmed that the site was within his ward and queried the ownership status.  Mr Greally advised that the owner of the site also owned the biomass site to the south.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the landowner had been served notice of the application on receipt of the application, however site ownership was not a material planning consideration.

Councillor Elmer requested a more detailed explanation of the net impact.  The Principal Ecologist advised that it was in relation to the Priority Species, Dingy Skipper.  Although the scheme included a proposed mitigation plan, there were various unresolved issues, including the scale and location of the donor site, the methodology used to move adult population and timescales.

In response to questions from Councillor Currah regarding the payment made in relation to the previous consent, the Principal Ecologist confirmed that the money had been calculated using a metric which accounted for habitats only and had been invested into Durham Wildlife Project to purchase land for uplift in biodiversity habitats.  The payment had mitigated the impact on habitats, however the fundamental issue related to the impact on a Priority Species.  The national population of Dingy Skipper was in decline and most recent data showed a decline of 30% within County Durham.  This site had been listed on the Biodiversity Action Plan and reported as a county level population with 30 individuals, which was significant.  The Council were required to give key consideration to Priority Species in any planning decision.  Councillor Currah asked for further info on the work required to appease the Council and was advised that there were fundamental issues with the proposed methodology, the donor site had not been identified and issues with the viability of the plan and scale of the proposed habitat.  Without further relevant information, the Principal Ecologist advised that he could not be confident that the population on site would be maintained.

Councillor Atkinson confirmed that there were various economic reasons to accept the application.

Councillor Elmer advise that in his former role as an Environment Ranger he had conducted a botanical survey of the whole town council area and this site had been identified as having significant ecological interest.  It was common to find such sites in industrial areas as land was not intensively managed and left untouched for a significant period of time.  The poor soil made the perfect conditions for regeneration and what had become a species rich low nutrient grassland.  In addition to Dingy Skipper this site had a range of plants that would only colonise in particular and sensitive locations.  From experience as an Ecologist, consultants would often propose mitigation such as translocation, to compensate impacts and would make it sound easy and straightforward however it was extremely complex, unreliable, and highly likely to fail.  He would be upset to lose the site, although he appreciated that it might happen one day if someone presented a scheme that could address these complex issues.  He supported the recommendation and moved refusal of the application.

Councillor Currah considered the location of the site and its designated industrial use and considered the Applicant to have made good efforts to mitigate.  He was concerned that if the Committee started rejecting applications for ecology in every instance, they would move problems from one application to next.  If there was a market need for open storage, he questioned where else it could it be sited without impacting elsewhere.  There were some unanswered questions regarding the species which he suggested could naturally relocate.  He confirmed that he was against the recommendation and minded to approve the application for the economic benefits.

Councillor Atkinson agreed that this was the ideal site for storage perfect location and whilst there would not be many employees, the storage would benefit a lot of businesses.

Councillor Currah proposed a motion to approve the application which was seconded by Councillor Atkinson.

Councillor Bell agreed that the location and designation of the land were positive attributes and he queried whether deferring the application would allow some of the concerns regarding ecology to be addressed.  The Planning and Highways Lawyer advised that the Committee would be required to give clear reasons for deferral of the application which would also be informed by whether the Applicant was willing to carry out further work to address the refusal reasons.

Mr Greally confirmed that the Applicant would ultimately like to reach a consensus however he highlighted the significant length of time since the application had been submitted.  The Applicant had made every effort to address concerns and only two weeks prior had agreed to reduce the net development area, however they had subsequently received more enquiries.  They had brought the application to Committee as they had no confidence that they could get approval.  He also added that only five Dingy Skippers had been found during the most recent survey.  In conclusion, the Applicant was willing to enter further negotiations to reach an agreement, however they did not want to incur more costs and delays.  Mr Greally added that the matters raised regarding translocation had been suggested by regionally recognised ecology advisors and he was sure they could find a solution that could be achieved through a planning condition, however a deferral would be accepted, if the Committee preferred that was to be agreed in advance.

The Planning and Development Manager confirmed that he was not aware of any other applications on allocated employment sites that had been recommended for refusal.  The scheme complied with the local plan which identified the land for employment opportunities, however there would be a relatively low level of weight applied as there would be no direct employment.  Ecology Officers were skilled at working with developers to bring forward major development opportunities within the county and it was disappointing to be in this position.  The application had been in planning for a considerable length of time and the delay was not due to Officers who had sought to work positively and proactively throughout the negotiations.  If the Applicant accepted that deferment may lead to more proactive negotiations to resolve outstanding issues, it would be wise in the circumstances.

Councillor Bell moved a motion to defer the application which was seconded by Councillor Hunt.

In response to a point of order from Councillor Atkinson, the Planning and Highways Lawyer confirmed that the motion from Councillor Elmer to refuse the application had not been seconded, therefore there was a motion to approve the application and another to defer it.  It would make logical sense to take the motion to defer the application first and if lost, they would move to the motion to approve.

Councillor Elmer addressed Councillor Currah’s previous statement confirming that it was not the case that ecology stopped applications going forward and in the vast majority of cases it was possible to find a way forward.  This was evidenced as being the first time that Officer’s had been unable to find a solution.

Resolved

That the application be Deferred to allow further work to be undertaken and negotiations between the Applicant and Officers on the issue of priority species mitigation.