Proposed agricultural anaerobic digester (AD) plant for farm diversification and production of renewable energy.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed agricultural anaerobic digester plant for farm diversification and production of renewable energy.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr M Weatherhead, of Monkland and Stretford Parish Council, spoke on the Scheme.  Mr R Ebrey, a former resident, spoke in objection. 

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor MJK Cooper spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

At a public meeting there had been opposition to the proposal.  Concerns about the digester itself had been assuaged.  However, objections remained about the transport and access.

The applicant appeared to have developed a one way system around the village which involved crossing Monkland Common, to its detriment.  There were also concerns about the safety of riders, cyclists and walkers using the common.  Two tractors would be unable to pass one another.

There were other potential accesses off the A4110 and the A44 which would be preferable.

The condition requiring a traffic management plan was welcome.

There was concern that the road was already in constant use by the applicant at all hours and that the proposal would lead to a further increase in traffic.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

Concern was expressed about the level of training provided for tractor drivers and it was suggested that there would inevitably be traffic problems.

It was questioned whether a traffic management plan could be enforced.  The applicant’s delay in producing a traffic management plan was a cause for concern.

In response to a suggestion that determination of the application should be deferred pending production of a traffic management plan the Planning Lawyer drew attention to proposed condition no 3 which meant that permission could not be granted until such a plan was in place.

A Member questioned the calculations relating to land use used in support of the application.  He also suggested that only a limited number of digesters in the County was sustainable.  If there were too many digesters this would be detrimental to the agricultural economy.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that thirteen anaerobic digesters had been approved to date.  It was not for the planning system to judge what was grown by farmers.  The land available to the applicant would vary over time depending on leases and other factors.

It was suggested that the regulation of digesters was a policy issue to which consideration should be given.

There would be an adverse impact on Monkland Common.

The proposal was another example of industrial farming which would damage the landscape and habitat.

It was regrettable that food crops were to be used to provide fuel.

Attention was drawn to paragraph 6.7 of the report addressing the principle of the development and its sustainability noting that the plant would generate sufficient power to meet the demand of over 1,000 households.  The proposal represented sensible farm diversification.

There had been no objection from any of the statutory consultees.

Condition 4 requiring the provision of a landscaping, biodiversity and habitat enhancement scheme was welcomed suggesting this should ally some concerns.

The importance of adequate passing bays was emphasised.  The Development Manager confirmed that a condition would govern this matter.  He added that the land required to provide the necessary passing places was in the applicant’s ownership.  An informative note could be added to require that the traffic management plan would be approved after consultation with the Chairman and local ward member.

The Area Engineer commented that proposals of this type did generate traffic. However, a traffic management plan could be made to work.  He noted, however, that no control could be exercised over the use of public roads.  He would have concerns over the safety of using the A44 as an exit given concerns over visibility.  However, it might be possible to use it as an entry point.  The provision of sufficient and adequate passing bays was a sensible approach.

It was proposed that a traffic management plan should be approved after consultation with the Chairman, local ward member and Parish Council.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated that a transport management plan was critical.  He expressed some doubt over the ownership of the land required for the provision of passing bays.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions, after consultation with the Chairman, local ward member and Parish Council on a traffic management plan.

1.         A01 (C01)

 

2.         B01 (C06)

 

•           SA 16469/01 Proposed site layout

•           SA 16469/02 Proposed elevations

•           SA 16409/05 Site location plan

•           Details in the submitted ‘Supplementary Information report (Berrys October 2014)

 

3          Before the development hereby permitted begins a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) with respect to the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The TMP shall include the following in particular:

 

a)         A brief overview of the transport implications of the development;

b)         proposals to minimise conflict with other road users and damage to the highway and verges;

c)         Proposals for improving and surfacing specified passing bays on the U93001 where the land falls within the applicant’s ownership or control, subject to Highways Authority specifications;

d)         measures to ensure that contractors and others in the applicants employ are aware of and comply with the details in the approved scheme;

e)         Provision for a complaints procedure, for a named supervisor to record and address any substantiated problems specifically arising from this development.

 

The TMP shall be implemented as approved.

 

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development in the interests of local amenity and to comply with policies S2, DR1, Dr3, T6 and T8 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework with reference to Section 4.

 

4.         Before the development hereby permitted begins, a landscaping, biodiversity and habitat enhancement scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The scheme shall confirm adherence to the recommendations in the submitted Ecological Assessment Report (Turnstone, June 2014) and shall also include the following in particular:

 

a)         A survey plan showing the site and all existing trees and hedges around it, together with an indication of which are to be retained and which are to be removed;

b)         For any tree or hedge that is to be retained, a Tree Protection Plan to comply with the recommendations in BS5847:2012  ‘Trees in relation to Design, Demolition and Construction’

c)         Annotated plan to a scale of  1:500 showing the layout of proposed tree, hedge and shrub planting, grassed and/or wildflower seeding areas ;

d)         Detailed written specifications comprising a native wildflower seeding mix and provision for standard trees and hedgerow planting of native species to an approved mix;

e)         Written specifications clearly describing the sizes, densities and planting/seeding numbers and giving details of cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment;

f)          Identification of target species to be encouraged and suitable habitats to be created and incorporated into the landscape design;

g)         The appointment of a suitably qualified and experienced named person to oversee implementation of the scheme as Ecological Clerk of Works

 

Reason:          To safeguard the amenity of the area , to conserve and enhance biodiversity and to ensure compliance with Policies LA5, LA6, NC1, NC8 and NC9 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan, the requirements of the NPPF with particular reference to section 11, and the NERC Act 2006.

 

5.         G11 [C97] (implementation of landscape and habitat creation scheme)

 

6.         Before the development herby permitted begins, a site drainage scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The scheme shall include the following in particular:

 

a)         Overview of drainage methodology, including infiltration testing methods and results; confirmation that the impacts of climate change have been incorporated into the calculations and appropriate mitigation proposed; confirmation that any changes to surface water run-off arising from the development will not adversely affect people and property elsewhere; and flood event safety precautions for a 1 in 100 year event;

b)         Confirmation that the groundwater table base is in excess of 1 metre below the base of any proposed soakaways;

c)         A large-scale plan showing all roof and surface ‘clean’ water drainage arrangements including any rainwater harvesting proposals, permeable and impermeable surfaces, swales or water storage (Sustainable Drainage Scheme [SuDS]) to meet the draft National Standards for Sustainable Drainage;

d)         A large-scale plan showing drainage arrangements for lightly contaminated and dirty water; Supporting Method Statement detailing how site drainage will be managed and maintained.

 

The scheme shall be implemented as approved before the first use of the development hereby permitted and shall be maintained throughout the life of the development hereby permitted.

 

Reason: To ensure implementation of satisfactory site drainage and to protect the water environment, in accordance with policies S2, DR2, DR4 DR7 and CF2 of the Herefordshire Unitary

 

8.         C09 [C21] external finish colour

 

9.         I16 [CBK] op hours during construction

 

10.       No materials shall be used or processed in the anaerobic digester hereby permitted, other than poultry litter, animal manures and slurry, and agricultural crops/grass silage.

 

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of sustainable development, to prevent pollution or nuisances and because any other feedstock would require further consideration by the local planning authority, in accordance with policies S1, S2, DR1, DR4, DR9 and CF4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

11.       No Combined Heat and Power (CHP) unit shall be installed on the site unless or until it is fully sound-insulated or housed within a fully sound-insulated enclosure so as to ensure that noise levels emanating from the CHP unit do not exceed 40 dB (A) when measured in accordance with BS 4142:1997, at the nearest part of any residential curtilage to the application site.

 

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area and to comply with policies S2, DR13 and CF4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

12.       In connection with the anaerobic digester hereby permitted, all reversing alarms installed on operational vehicles in the applicant’s control shall be of a ‘white noise’ type and no other alarm type is to be used.

 

Reason: In the interests of good practice, to prevent noise nuisance, to safeguard residential amenity and to comply with policies S2, DR13 and CF4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

13.       I33 [CC2] external Lighting

 

14.       I43 [CCC] amend to: ‘no burning or combustion shall take place on the site other than within the CHP unit and/or the contingency flare’

 

INFORMATIVES

 

1.         The applicant did not request any pre-application advice, but wherever possible the local planning authority has engaged with the applicant and his agent in pro-active and positive negotiation during consideration of this project. These have resulted in mutual understanding of nature of the project and the planning requirements, the key factors including local objections, and the means of securing mitigation whilst facilitating the renewable energy project. As a result, the local planning authority has been able to grant planning permission for acceptable development subject to conditions to secure sustainable development with appropriate and proportionate mitigation.

 

2          I30/N11A

 

3          I33/N11C

 

4          I08/HN07 [s278 agreement required] 

 

5          The landscape/habitat conservation and enhancement scheme required by condition 4 is not constrained by the identified site boundary.  Additional habitat is welcomed, and features may be proposed on adjoining land that is in the applicant’s ownership or control.

 

6          With regards to the requirements of condition 6, any SuDS arrangements for site drainage should relate specifically to the anaerobic digester site and associated ancillary development including hardstandings. These should calculate and accommodate the likely clean, lightly contaminated, and dirty water volumes (plus 20% for climate change) quite separately from the similar work relating to the poultry units on adjoining land. SuDS drainage may also contribute to biodiversity enhancement required under condition 4