Meeting documents

SSDC Area West Committee
Wednesday, 17th September, 2014 5.30 pm

  • Meeting of Area West Committee, Wednesday 17th September 2014 5.30 pm (Item 80.)

Minutes:

The Planning Officer with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda report including the key considerations.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for approval.  The Planning Officer updated the report with the following information:

·         The Highway Authority had been asked to response to residents’ concerns over the number of vehicles movements.  The response from the Highway Authority was read out to members of the Committee.  They concluded that 10 movements was unlikely to present a ‘severe’ impact on the highway network;

·         Correspondence had been received from Hinton St George Parish Council advising that they had changed their view at the September meeting and agreed to recommend refusal of the application.  Reasons for refusal included: highway access was inappropriate, size of digester and scale of operation was too large, heritage and conservation issues, adverse visual impact and concerns over the levels of noise, smell and lighting;

·         A letter had been received from Crewkerne Town Council commenting that the potential for additional movements through Crewkerne would be unwelcome and the residents would have a concern;

·         A nearby resident had commissioned a background noise survey based on assumed levels.  In response to the survey, the Environmental Protection Officer had considered the report and commented that the background noise in the area was very low and the impact would be marginal.  The plant would be regulated by the Environment Agency which imposes standard conditions and it would be inappropriate to impose noise conditions considering that the Environment Agency conditions would apply;

·         Further technical information had been received from the applicant in relation to manure sample lab test figures;

·         Further comments had been received from the Environment Agency in terms of richness of the manure.  The comments were read to members of the Committee;

·         Two additional letters had been received in favour of the application, one had expressed concern over the way in which the Parish Council had changed their view;

·         One additional letter had been received in objection to the application over the growth of the industry.

The Planning Officer proposed amended conditions to the application and circulated a copy to members at the meeting.

In response to questions, the Planning Officer clarified points of detail raised by members.  Members were informed of the following:

·         Any Councillors could be involved with approving the details of conditional items;

·         The manure that would be stored on the site during the day would be covered although it could not be confirmed whether it would be fully covered;

·         With regard to the lab results it was not known whether the results would vary according to temperature.  The evidence provided by the applicant had to be taken on face value;

·         Hinton St George had changed their decision due to pressure from residents;

·         The Planning Officer was satisfied with the consultation process undertaken.  The closest neighbours to the site had been consulted and a site notice had been displayed;

·         Some conditions were more enforceable than others.  With regard to condition 2, the applicant could be asked to keep a log which would be available for inspection;

·         The Planning Officer clarified the position with regard to the Environmental Impact Assessment;

·         As the loss of agricultural land was only small it was considered to be acceptable;

·         The existing vehicle movements used a 7 tonne trailer.  The impact on the highway network by the use of larger trailers had been taken into consideration by the Highway Authority;

·         The solid residue would be used at both holdings and would provide bedding to the cattle;

·         No concerns had been raised by the statutory consultees regarding the issue of odour from the cattle bedding;

·         The distance from the site to the village of Hinton St George was 400 metres;

·         It was confirmed that where comments have been made from the Highway Authority it should be assumed that a site visit had been made.

The Committee noted the comments of Tina Cogan, representing Hinton St George Parish Council.  She thanked the Ward Member for bringing the application to Committee which had enabled the Parish Council to review their response in light of new information.  She advised that the decision to refuse the application had not been unanimous and was carried 3 votes to 2.  She asked members to consider the views of the residents when making their decision on the application.

The Committee was addressed by Steve Atherton, Peter Mallen and Robert Heelis in objection to the application.  Concerns expressed related to the following:

·         Hinton St George was a Conservation Area and this has not been taken into consideration or referred to in the Planning Officer’s report;

·         There was no consultation with the Conservation Officer;

·         Lack of Environmental Impact Assessment;

·         Impact on the local character of the area;

·         Concerns over the levels of noise and that the Conservation Area and not been taken into account;

·         Visual intrusion and not enough planting proposed;

·         No benefit to the community;

·         Concerns over the increase in traffic with no agreed route;

·         The site was less than 10 metres to the source of the water course;

·         Concerns over safety and the proximity of the plant to the village and flammable buildings;

·         Potential to pollute the adjacent stream;

·         Only one test had been made on the feed stock;

·         The track was inappropriate for the size of the trailers;

·         Noise would be heard 24 hours a day and this was unacceptable at night;

·         NPPF refers to the need to protect areas of tranquillity;

·         Concerns over flooding of the brook which runs very close to the farm;

·         Potential to pollute the adjacent stream.

The Committee was addressed by the Applicant, Mark Voss.  He informed members that his cattle were reared indoors and fed ‘TMR’ from one week old.  He advised that manure was currently stored in a field 150 metres from Hinton St George and that no concerns had been raised regarding odour.  Reference was made to the transportation of manure already taking place via the highway network.  A 14 tonne trailer would be used as it had higher sides and would prevent spillage.  He also referred to the issue of noise and that he had measured his calves bleating at feed time at 100 dB and local residents were unaware of the time he fed his calves.

The Applicant’s Agent, David Manley, referred to the application meeting national and local planning policy.  With regard to transport, there would be a decrease in traffic movements with less than one load per day from the A30.  The Highway Authority had approved the application even if the increase was tenfold.  The Landscape Officer had approved the application and did not consider the scheme to be intrusive; the structures would be grouped and set against agricultural buildings.  None of the professional consultees had objected to the application and therefore he urged members to support the application. 

Ward Member, Cllr. Paul Maxwell commented that the application was always going to be controversial due to the picturesque nature of the village.  He had carefully considered all the issues such as highways, noise, odour, proximity to the village and the Merriott watercourse.  He knew the area extremely well and had visited the site and considered the report in depth including the contributor comments.  He commented that other Anaerobic Digesters in the area were considerably larger than the proposed application.  He had also taken into account national and local policy context and was struggling to find any planning reasons to refuse the application.

During the ensuing discussion, Members expressed various views which included the following:

·         Some members expressed concern that no Environmental Impact Assessment had been undertaken;

·         A member felt that there was insufficient information within the report to be able to make a proper decision;

·         The issue of flooding had not been covered in the report;

·         Each application should be looked at on its own merits;

·         The application should be supported as there were no objections from statutory organisations;

·         The application was likely to be overturned if it went to appeal;

·         There would be an enormous amount of benefit from the operation;

·         Some members expressed concern that the Conservation Area had not been taken into consideration;

·         There were no planning reasons to refuse the application.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the site was not located within a Conservation Area and the boundary was several hundred metres away from the site.

It was proposed and seconded to defer the application for the receipt of an Environmental Impact Assessment, Transport Plan and Management Plan. The proposal was not seconded.

It was subsequently proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the Planning Officer’s recommendation circulated at the meeting subject to the Ward Member being consulted on the Landscaping Scheme and the Construction and Environmental Management Plan.

On being put to the vote, members voted 5 in favour and 5 against with 3 abstentions.  The Chairman used her casting vote to approve the application.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Application No. 14/02907/FUL be APPROVED as per the Planning Officer’s recommendation circulated at the meeting subject to the Ward Member being involved with the approval of the Landscaping Scheme and the Construction and Environmental Management Plan for the following reason:

01. The proposed development will satisfactorily respect the character and appearance of the area, will preserve the setting of the nearby Listed Park, will provide a needed and efficient means of dealing with farm waste, will contribute to renewable energy supply and will not have an adverse impact on residential amenity or highway safety in accordance with Saved Policies ST3, ST5, ST6, EH8, EC2, EC3, EP 2, EP3, EP4, EP7, EP9 and ME5 of the adopted South Somerset Local Plan and Chapters 3, 10, 11 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

01. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02. Other than as required by conditions 3,4,5,6 and 10 the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Unnumbered site location plan date stamped 30th June 2014; SA 16151/04;

SA16151-03; SA1615/01 Rev A; SA 16151/02; unnumbered plan titled Low temperature

flare NTF; unnumbered plan titled 'Appendix 2-Higher Burrow

Buildings Plan only.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

03. The feedstock to serve the anaerobic digester hereby approved shall be limited to manure and farm waste associated with Stockbridge Farm as identified on plan No. SA16151-03 and from Higher Burrow Farm as identified on document titled 'Appendix 2 Higher Burrow Buildings Plan' date stamped 13th August 2014.

Reason: In the interests of general amenity and to preserve the setting of the Listed Park to accord with Saved Policies ST6 and EH8 of the adopted South Somerset Local Plan.

04. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until samples of all of the materials, colour and finish to be used for external surfaces of the digestion and storage tanks and have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once agreed, no alterations or changes shall be made to the buildings without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the in interests of visual amenity and to preserve the setting of the Listed Park to accord with saved Policies ST6 and EH8 of the adopted South Somerset Local Plan.

05. The development hereby approved shall not be commenced until details of the surfacing materials for all hardstanding and access tracks have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and in the interests of visual amenity and to preserve the setting of the Listed Park in accordance with Saved Policies ST6 and EH8 of the adopted South Somerset Local Plan.

06. The anaerobic digester hereby approved shall not be brought into its intended use until the digestate pipeline has been implemented and is operational in accordance with details that have been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The pipeline shall be retained and operated as such thereafter and it shall be the only means by which the digestate is transported to fields for spreading.

Reason: In the in interests of general amenity and to preserve the setting of the Listed Park to accord with saved Policies ST6 and EH8 of the adopted South Somerset Local Plan.

07. The development hereby approved shall not be commenced until details of underground and over ground development to connect the development to the electricity grid have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the in interests of general amenity and to preserve the setting of the Listed Park to accord with saved Policies ST6 and EH8 of the adopted South Somerset Local Plan.

08. Within 3 months of the cessation of the use of the development hereby approved, a scheme for removal of all buildings, structures, hard standings, plant and machinery, roadways, fencing or other structures in association with the development hereby permitted have been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of the restoration and a timetable for completion. The scheme shall be fully implemented within 3 months of the date of approval.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities and character of the area in accordance with Saved Policies EC3 and ST6 of the adopted South Somerset Local Plan.

09. No external lighting shall be erected on the application site unless details including size, design, location and degree of luminance have been previously submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities and character of the area and to preserve the setting of the Listed Park in accordance with Saved Policies ST6, EC3 , EP3 and EH8 of the adopted South Somerset Local Plan.

10. No development shall commence unless a surface water drainage scheme for the site (to accord with SuDS requirements where necessary), based on the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system in accordance with Saved Policies ST5 and EP9 of the adopted South Somerset Local Plan and guidance in the NPPF.

11. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced unless there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in conjunction with the local ward member) a scheme of soft landscaping, including a scheme for the provision of biodiversity enhancements. The landscaping scheme shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of the development, as well as details of any changes proposed in existing ground levels; all planting, seeding, turfing or earth moulding comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the building or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities and character of the area and in accordance with Saved Policies EC3 and ST6 of the adopted South Somerset Local Plan.

12. The development hereby approved shall not be commenced unless a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include details of the phasing of construction, pollution prevention measures (to include details of the construction of the storage tanks), hours of construction, routing for construction vehicles, parking for construction and contractors vehicles. The development shall thereafter be carried out in strict accordance with such details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard highway safety and rural amenity in accordance with Saved Polices EP6, ST5 and ST6 of the adopted South Somerset Local Plan.

13. The development hereby approved shall not be commenced unless a farm waste management plan to include details of the storage capacity for digestate in relation to the area for spreading of the digestate and details of how the cropping regime and nutrient requirements may affect this.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities and character of the area and highway safety in accordance with Saved Policies EC3, ST5 and ST6 of the adopted South Somerset Local Plan.

Informatives:

01. The following informatives have been provided by the Environment Agency:  This activity will require a Permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010.  The Environment Agency is required to consider all forms of pollution when issuing an environmental Permit. Odour can be classed as pollution if it causes offences to man's senses. If a permit is issued for this site, it will require the operator to take all appropriate measures to prevent or minimise the emission of offensive odours from the activity. However, this does not mean that there will be no odour from these activities.

02. The proposal is to separate and dry the fibre element of the digestate and use it as animal bedding. The applicant is advised that the current situation is that this cannot be done without seeking an End of Waste Submission for the digestate fibre. The applicant is further advised to contact the Environment Agency to discuss this requirement further. If the applicant wishes to discuss their future proposal then they should contact Dan Aplin in our Environment Management Team on 01278 484617.

03. All new, substantially enlarged or re-constructed slurry lagoons must comply with the Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (England) Regulations 2010. To comply, it has to be built in accordance with British Standards set out in CIRIA (Construction Industry Research and Information Association) Report 126. The applicant is advised to contact our local Environment Management team on 01278 484617 for further guidance.

04. The applicant is advised of the requirement to notify the Environment Agency in writing at least 14 days before construction. The appropriate forms are available at:

http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO0810BSXI-e-e.pdf The Environment Agency will then be able to determine whether an inspection or any modifications to the construction plans might be required. This does not necessarily need to be covered as part of the planning process, but neither will it be considered as part of the permit application. We therefore recommend that the applicant demonstrate how they will ensure compliance with the SSAFO regulations at an early stage. Aspects such as 'will the silage effluent be directed into the AD plant' can be discussed.

Should any of the material for the construction of the proposed bund be imported then a permit or exemption will be required. If earth embankments are proposed to surround the slurry facilities then the material used will need to be suitably tested and agree with the Environment Agency to ensure that it is fit for the purpose of containment.

05. Safeguards should be implemented during the construction phase to minimise the risks of pollution from the development. Such safeguards should cover:

- the use of plant and machinery

- oils/chemicals and materials

- the use and routing of heavy plant and vehicles

- the location and form of work and storage areas and compounds

- the control and removal of spoil and wastes.

The applicant should refer to the Environment Agency's Pollution Prevention Guidelines at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/pollution/39083.aspx.

In accordance with the waste hierarchy, we wish the applicant to consider reduction, reuse and recovery of waste in preference to offsite inceneration and disposal to landfill during site construction.

If any waste is to be used onsite, the applicant will be required to obtain the appropriate waste exemption or permit from us (the Environment Agency). We are unable to specify what exactly would be required if anything, due to the limited amount of information provided.

If any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then site operator must ensure a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material off site to a suitably authorised facility.

If the applicant require more specific guidance it is available on the Environment Agency website: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/waste/. Page 5 DC PCFULZ.v7

06. The applicant is advised that the amenities of nearby occupiers should be considered in relation to the use of vehicle reversing alarms.

(Voting: 6 in favour, 5 against, 3 abstentions)

 

Supporting documents: