Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Erection of a gas fired Electricity Generating Station comprising gas engine casements and associated buildings and infrastructure together with means of access and landscaping/groundworks

RESOLVED: That application 17/04353/FP be REFUSED planning permission, for the following reason:

 

Reason for Refusal

The application site is located within an area designated in the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan no. 2 - with Alterations proposals map as Green Belt, within which there is a presumption against inappropriate development unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority this planning application proposes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which would harm the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and cause harm to the purposes of the Green Belt as defined in paragraph 80 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as follows. The proposal would cause harm to the purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the applicant has not demonstrated Very Special Circumstances which are sufficient to outweigh the substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt that is required under paragraph 88 of the NPPF. Furthermore, due to the scale, appearance of the development and its prominent location, demonstrable harm would be caused to the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal therefore conflicts with saved Policy 2 'Green Belt' of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 - with Alterations, Section 9 'Protecting Green Belt Land' of the NPPF and Policy SP5 ‘Countryside and Green Belt’ of the submitted Local Plan 2011 - 2031.

 

Proactive Statement

Planning permission has been refused for this proposal for the clear reasons set out in this decision notice. The Council acted proactively through positive engagement with the applicant in an attempt to narrow down the reasons for refusal but fundamental objections could not be overcome. The Council has therefore acted proactively in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

Erection of a gas fired Electricity Generating Station comprising gas engine casements and associated buildings and infrastructure together with means of access and landscaping/ground works.

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised that this was the second attempt to gain permission for a gas peaking plant at this site

 

Additional information had been submitted by the Applicant regarding air quality and ground water contamination.

 

The Council’s Environmental Health Officer was satisfied with the information regarding air quality and raised no objections to the proposal subject to three conditions.

 

The Environment Agency had withdrawn their objection regarding water contamination and recommended four conditions.

 

It was therefore recommended that reason 2 for refusal be omitted.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager in respect of planning application 17/04353/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site.

 

Mr Adrian Hawkins, Wymondley Parish Neighbourhood Plan, thanked the Chainman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 17/04353/FP.

 

Mr Hawkins advised that he was representing Wymondley Parish Council and  the residents of Wymondley Parish and drew attention to the following:

 

·                The objections of the Parish Council had been submitted;

·                The site was in the Green Belt, in a picturesque area and next to a recently rejuvenated hotel;

·                This development would affect the openness of the Green Belt;

·                At a public meeting the applicant admitted they had not built a facility of this size and scale before;

·                Therefore sound, pollution and vibration levels all remained untested;

·                Flooding in the area was difficult;

·                The site was next to the A1(M) and Wymondley was dissected by the A602:

·                Air quality was a growing concern and NHDC was already monitoring this at the Three Moorhens roundabout and Paynes Park, Hitchin;

·                During the examination in public of the Local Plan, Wymondley Parish Council had an air quality expert in attendance;

·                NHDC documents state that no development should take place if poor air quality existed;

·                Residents of Wymondley had been taking readings regarding air quality in the area;

·                The European Union maximum was 40 micrograms of nitrous oxide and readings at the Three Moorhens regularly exceeded this figure over the past 8 years;

·                The Three Moorhens Air Quality Management Site was just over one mile away from the proposed development;

·                Wymondley had two air quality testing points along the A602. Readings at the air quality testing point at Blakemore End Road regularly exceeded European Union maximum levels of 40 mgs.

 

Mr Hawkins concluded by stating that it was inexcusable to allow development of this site, given the propensity towards delivering additional air pollution that would adversely affect the health and wellbeing of residents of Wymondley Parish and Hitchin.

 

He referred to the Energy Policy for the East of England report, considered by Hertfordshire LEP, which stated that since 2012 electricity usage had been stable.

 

He advised that the same report contained the following statement:

 

“We are a clean growth region that has superb natural assets and a high quality of life in our cities and rural areas. Our local energy strategy shows our commitment to the need to reduce carbon emissions and pollution, to improve air quality and ensure a healthy environment.”

 

Gas powered electricity generating stations did not fit that purpose.

 

He requested that the planning application be refused.

 

Members asked Mr Hawkins to comment on the fact that Environmental Health and the Environment Agency no longer objected to the application.

 

Mr Hawkins advised that as the Parish lay between the A1(M) and A602, with pollution coming from both those roads. He could not believe that, without taking any readings themselves, they had the relevant information to make that judgement.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr Hawkins for his presentation.

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised that Environmental Health had been consulted and required further information which had been submitted.

 

They withdrew their objection to the application, subject to three conditions as follows:

 

1.         The flu stacks should be a minimum of 9.2 metres high;

2.         Evidence to be submitted relating to the emissions of the engines;

3.         Operational activity shall not exceed 1050 hours per year.

 

The Chairman informed Members that he had agreed that, due to exceptional circumstances, Councillor Sam Collins could speak on behalf of Councillor Terry Tyler, who would have acted as Councillor Advocate.

 

Councillor Sam Collins, on behalf of Councillor Terry Tyler, Councillor Advocate, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 17/04353/FP.

 

Councillor Collins advised Members that he had specialist knowledge of high energy combustion engines and drew attention to the following:

 

·                This application was in the wrong location;

·                This application was in the Green Belt;

·                It was totally out of place and there must be better places to build this facility;

·                There were already air quality issues in Hitchin and this facility would make this situation worse;

·                The Local Plan, the Neighbourhood Plan and LTP4 of the Transport Plan all had severe implications regarding air quality;

·                Environmental Health wanted to restrict engine running time to protect human health, so what is coming out of the chimneys;

·                The peak running time of the facility would be between 4 pm and 7 pm. A lot of young children played outdoors in the playgrounds of the immediate vicinity;

·                This was a former residential and industrial tip and we do not know what was under the soil;

·                There would be vibratory oscillation and vibration could rattle buildings to pieces over time.

 

Councillor Collins concluded by asking whether the long term effects of this sort of installation was known and commented that there were a huge amount of unknown consequences.

 

He stated that this was the wrong facility, in the wrong place at the wrong time and asked Members to reject the application in its entirety.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor Collins for his presentation.

 

Mr Andrew Troupe, applicant, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the committee in support of application 17/04353/FP.

 

Mr Troupe informed Members that the company had built an identical plant in Yorkshire, which had been operating since November 2017 and made the following observations:

 

·                The company knew what they were talking about;

·                They had undertaken modelling, reviews and  assessments  regarding air quality, which habeen reviewed by Environmental Health;

·                He would not be advocating this development if he had the smallest doubt that there would be an air quality issue;

·                The plant could not be operated without a permit;

·                They would not be asking permission for this if there were any doubt about air quality

·                Scientifically sound testing had been undertaken on these clean burners;

·                The planning issue was that this development was in the Green Belt rather than about the generation of electricity;

·                The nuclear programme was taking a long time to come to fruition;

·                There was now 16 percent renewable energy penetrating the network;

·                We need highly flexible, fast start, clean gas engines to do a good job;

·                This facility was about covering high usage by providing quick start generation to meet more and more volatile needs;

·                It would run mostly in winter;

·                Having a gas burner helps renewables keep going;

·                Need was essential;

 

Mr Troupe concluded by stating that it may be said “never in the Green Belt” but there was a need for this type of facility, flexible generation on the network was needed and there would be a problem in the South-East if facilities such as this were not allowed in the Green Belt.

 

It was extremely rare to get locations with the gas supply and the electrical capacity.

 

Members had to balance any harm against the benefits.

 

Members asked for clarification for why this site was chosen for this development and what was below the surface in this area.

 

Mr Troupe advised the plant needed some where to export the power to the network as well as a mains supply of gas to find these elements in one site was extremely difficult.

 

In respect of what was below the surface, the view was that it was mainly waste from the construction of the A602 and that if they found they could not dig into it they would sink pylons to spread the weight.

 

At the moment the area was completely untapped and there would be some benefit.

 

He stated the North Herts had already consented to one of these in the Green Belt.

 

The Senior Planning Officer recapped on the issues and considerations as follows:

 

·                This was an inappropriate development in the Green Belt;

·                There must be very special circumstances demonstrated for the development to be deemed acceptable in the Green Belt;

·                The applicant puts forward the need for this type of peeking plant as a reason;

·                It was accepted that it was difficult to find a suitable site with all the technical necessities required;

·                Members had to consider whether reasons for this development in the Green Belt was sufficient to outweigh the harm as very special circumstances.

·                Case Law was a relevant consideration and there were quite a few cases that had been dismissed at appeal for renewable energy across the Country;

·                The Government seemed to have no sympathy for that form of power generation within the Green Belt.

·                There had been a recent appeal decision at Gravesend, relating specifically to a peeking plant generator where the Inspector carefully looked at the need, the difficulty of finding a site etc, but came to the conclusion that this did not overcome the harm to the Green Belt enough and the appeal was dismissed.

 

Members did not feel that the reasons for development outweighed harm to the Green belt and it was moved and seconded that the application be refused permission for reason 1 as detailed in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

RESOLVED: That application 17/04353/FP be REFUSED planning permission, for the following reason:

 

Reason for Refusal

The application site is located within an area designated in the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan no. 2 - with Alterations proposals map as Green Belt, within which there is a presumption against inappropriate development unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority this planning application proposes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which would harm the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and cause harm to the purposes of the Green Belt as defined in paragraph 80 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as follows. The proposal would cause harm to the purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the applicant has not demonstrated Very Special Circumstances which are sufficient to outweigh the substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt that is required under paragraph 88 of the NPPF. Furthermore, due to the scale, appearance of the development and its prominent location, demonstrable harm would be caused to the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal therefore conflicts with saved Policy 2 'Green Belt' of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No. 2 - with Alterations, Section 9 'Protecting Green Belt Land' of the NPPF and Policy SP5 ‘Countryside and Green Belt’ of the submitted Local Plan 2011 - 2031.

 

Proactive Statement

Planning permission has been refused for this proposal for the clear reasons set out in this decision notice. The Council acted proactively through positive engagement with the applicant in an attempt to narrow down the reasons for refusal but fundamental objections could not be overcome. The Council has therefore acted proactively in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.