On farm anaerobic digester to generate renewable energy.

Ward - Backbury

On farm anaerobic digester to generate renewable energy.

The Principal Planning Officer Minerals and Waste gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided as follows:

§               A letter of objection had been received from Madeleine Townson of The Lawns, Hampton Bishop, Hereford, HR1 4JY.  The contents of the letter were summarised.

§               A letter had been received from the applicant’s agent which sought to respond to local concerns. The contents of the letter were summarised.

§               Amendments were made to paragraph 6.20 of the report, to include reference to other crops and to read ‘It should be noted that the feedstock would be exclusively generated within the farm holding’.

An officer comment was provided as follows:

§               No new issues are raised, and these points have been addressed in the committee report.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs. Knipe spoke in objection to the application and Mr. Morphy spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JE Pemberton, the local ward member, acknowledged the views of the speakers and paid tribute to the content and quality of the officer’s report.  Key elements of the report were highlighted, including:

·         There was no recorded planning history on the site.

·         There were no objections from statutory or internal council consultees.

·         Hampton Bishop Parish Council supported the proposal.

·         The proposal would minimise the release of methane gas and odorous compounds into the atmosphere.

·         The chosen site was close to existing farm buildings and other infrastructure on an area of unused derelict ground and no other properties were visible from the application site.

·         Small scale plants of this type were not comparable with large municipal sewage treatment works.

·         The Environment Agency would regulate the entire process and had enforcement powers to intervene if the site were not up to standard.

·         The applicant’s proposed to set up a complaints system and site diary and, on this basis, officers accepted that air quality would be adequately monitored and protected in accordance with the Unitary Development Plan policies.

·         The application explained that a minimal amount of gas would be held at any one time and site management, including safety, would fall within the scope of the Environmental Permit.

·         Measures to mitigate light and noise impact were noted.

·         The reduction in the number of HGV movements was welcomed; Councillor Pemberton commented on the damage caused by large farm vehicles to the margins of roadside banks.

·         Offices were satisfied that flood risk factors had been adequately addressed by the application.

·         The site was currently used for the storage of vehicles, scrap metal and other equipment; Councillor Pemberton suggested that these items should be cleared as part of any planning permission granted.

·         An extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey had been undertaken and the findings accepted by both Natural England and the Conservation Officer.

Councillor Pemberton advised that the Chairman of the Parish Council had held a public meeting about the application and that the majority of attendees were in favour of the proposal subject to the necessary controls.

A number of Members made comments about the proposal, including:

w        Conditions in respect of noise mitigation, landscaping, flood evacuation management plan, and the implementation of a complaints system were supported.  The local ward member’s comment about the need for the site to be cleared was also supported.

w        It was noted that elements of the application relied on Environment Agency advice, monitoring and action and a concern was expressed about the lack of an area office in Herefordshire.  It was hoped that work could be undertaken with the applicant and the local community to maximise the benefits of the development.

w        Clarification was sought about the amount of energy to be generated by the anaerobic digester.

w        Subject to no feedstock being imported to the site from outside the landholding, the principle of the development was supported; particularly given the gains in terms of generating renewable energy and limiting greenhouse gases.

The Cabinet Member (Environment and Strategic Housing), commenting on general policy issues rather than on this specific proposal, said that the principle of anaerobic digestion to generate energy was supported, with the caveat that fuel should not be grown at the expense of food production.

In response to questions by Members, the Principal Planning Officer Minerals and Waste advised that: the electricity produced would go into the national grid; no utility poles were included as part of the application; it was not considered that a Section 106 contribution could be justified in this instance, furthermore the identified benefits of the scheme could be regarded as contributing to the local environment and community; the scheme would reduce stockpiles of animal waste compared to existing farm practices; and a condition was recommended to require details of external finishes to mitigate visual impact.

Councillor Pemberton was given the opportunity to close the debate in accordance with the Council’s Constitution; she commented that the community was acutely aware of the need for appropriate flood evacuation management plans.

RESOLVED:

That the officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be authorised to issue planning permission subject to the following conditions and any additional conditions considered necessary

INFORMATIVES: