Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

 

Use of land for gas fired electricity generating station to deliver electricity during times of peak demand of up to 49.99 MW.

RESOLVED: That application 17/01195/1 be REFUSED planning permission, subject to condition 1 and the reasons as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Use of land for gas fired electricity generating station to deliver electricity during times of peak demand of up to 49.99 MW.

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised that there were some updates to the report.

 

St Ippolyts Parish Council had submitted the following comment:

It was agreed to object as it was not a special enough case to warrant St Ippolyts Parish Council to support development on green belt land.

 

The Applicant had submitted a copy of the lease and options agreement with the landowner, which referred to the provision of a sinking fund to provide for the clearing of equipment from the site. The intention of this was to overcome the second objection and showed a clear intention to make provision for the clearance of the site after the 20 year temporary permission.

 

She therefore recommended withdrawal of the second reason for refusal. If Members were minded to grant the application then there should be a condition to ensure that a bond was in place before work commenced on the site.

 

In respect of the first reason for refusal, which stated that the development was contrary to the green belt policy, the Applicant had submitted a table showing 167 sites that had been considered in the eastern and southern region. However, having considered this table, she felt that it was such that it would not amount to very special circumstances and the recommendation for refusal on green belt grounds remained.

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised that the Applicant was requesting that Members consider deferring a decision, in order to allow for a further amended scheme to be submitted that would reduce the number and height of the chimneys.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site.

 

Mr Adrian Hawkins, Wymondley Parish Neighbourhood Plan Committee, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to the application.

 

Mr Hawkins advised that he wished to draw attention to certain aspects regarding the application and suggest further reasons for refusal.

 

There was growing concern about air pollution and the residents of Wymondley, in particular Little Wymondley, were particularly concerned about the pollution levels that would emanate from this power station.

 

North Herts District Council were meticulous in measuring the air quality at the Three Moorhens in Stevenage Road and following extensive dialogue with the Environmental Protection Officer, it was acknowledged that, although there were long term measurements of air quality PM 10 and various other obnoxious air pollutants, particularly those emitted by motor vehicles, there were no long term measurements regarding PM 2.5.

 

PM 2.5 was recognised by Public Health England as contributing to the premature death of 29,000 people in the UK and the World Health Organisation estimated that this contributed to the premature death of 4.3 million people worldwide.

 

The residents of Wymondley, who were bordered by the A1M to the west, the A602 to the south and the main railway line to the north, felt that having a power station to the east would be disappointing, particularly as they were already suffering from air pollutants.

 

It had been established that Defra had an Air Quality Management Area on the A1M that covered Little Wymondley and there were two aspects for the Committee to consider in respect of the air quality, being measured by the Government monitoring station.

 

PM 2.5 at the Three Moorhens Roundabout was measured at 13, this measurement in London was 12.5 to 15. When looking at the equipment installed on the A1M, this situation also applied to Little Wymondley, which demonstrated that the area was already being subjected to very high levels of pollution and the installation of this power station would only add to this.

 

Consideration should be given to the provision of alternative methods of power support for the infrastructure of Hertfordshire, such as long term storage facilities such as batteries which would not necessarily accrue pollutants or create noise and vibration issues.

 

Mr Hawkins concluded by stating that he wished, on behalf of Wymondley Parish Council, to support the officer’s recommendation to refuse this application.

 

A Member asked for clarification regarding the type of batteries referred to in the presentation.

 

Mr Hawkins advised that he was referring to the fact that this was near to the sub-station and the power was drawn from the National Grid and some for peaking power support could be investigated for the infrastructure of Hertfordshire through batteries rather than a gas fired generator.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr Hawkins for his presentation.

 

Mr Andrew Troup, the applicant, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee.

 

In respect of air quality PM 4, 5, 10 and 2.5, Mr Troup advised that he had worked with officers to get to a position where they agreed on need.

 

He had looked at 166 facilities and in the south these facilities, that had to be next to the sub-station, were inevitably in urban locations and on green belt as that was where the demand and the electrical interface was.

 

There were currently three other proposals which were all in the green belt being Newcastle, Tilbury and Rayleigh, this is because these locations were where support was needed and there were no alternatives.

 

Officers agreed that there would be no material noise impact and that air quality was not a problem.

 

In respect of the suggestion regarding batteries as an option, they currently are unable to do the job that this facility could in particular it could not provide voltage control.

 

This development was completely unsubsidised as it was predicated on the contracts with the National Grid.

 

Once built, the development would not generate any traffic and the Environment Agency were positively in favour of the development stating that ultimately they were strongly in favour of this development.

 

It was necessary to consider the planning balance between harm and need

 

In respect of the landscape, Officers recognised that the chimneys were an artificial element in the landscape, however there were relatively few footpaths in the area and it was likely that this development would not be visible, particularly from longer distances and there was a backdrop of nearby pylons and, subject to a condition regarding landscaping, raised no objection regarding the visual aspect.

 

Mr Troup informed Members that he could see both sides and had agreed a change of design reducing the number of chimneys from 11 at 15 metres to 4 at 7 metres.

 

He asked Members to defer the application in order to give officers the opportunity for the amended plans, submitted 10 days previously, to be considered.

 

Members asked for clarification regarding the need for demand.

 

Mr Troup advised that the primary driver was a change to the method of delivery system. Currently more than a quarter of power was from wind or solar energy. In winter, when solar power was much reduced, the winter margin meant that we were getting close to running out of power.

 

This Council previously agreed to a 20 megawatt gas-fired power system in the green belt in Letchworth, this was more of the same. There was a need for 2 or 3 gigawatts of fast reacting power and this facility also did inertia and therefore could provide more stability to the grid system than other forms of renewables.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr Troup for his presentation.

 

Members asked for clarification regarding pollution

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised that the applicant had submitted an air quality report as part of the application and the Environmental Services had concluded they had no objection with regard to air quality subject to two conditions that the flue stacks should be a minimum of 15 meters high and that there was a written guarantee relating to the make and model of the gas engine.

 

Members acknowledged the need for more power, particularly with the proposed number of new houses but commented that the site was raised and the chimneys were some 50ft high. They recognised that the chimneys needed to be that high in order to address air quality but commented that this was not acceptable in the green belt.

 

It was proposed, seconded and

 

RESOLVED: That application 17/01195/1 be REFUSED planning permission, subject to condition 1 and the reasons as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.