Retention of on-farm anaerobic digester and associated ancillary works and equipment; alterations to former slurry lagoon to form a digestate store.

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

(Retention of on-farm anaerobic digester and associated ancillary works and equipment; alterations to former slurry lagoon to form a digestate store.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr S Fleet spoke on behalf of local residents in objection to the application.  Mrs M Stoker, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

•           Planning permission had been granted for a significantly smaller plant.

•           The plant was being well managed and was environmentally sound.

•           No traffic to and from the plant currently used Mordiford Bridge. The main issue was the effect of farm traffic on Eign Road and Ledbury Road in Hereford with concerns about safety and disturbance, noting also that there were three nursing homes on Hampton Dene Road.  He noted that a draft traffic management plan had been drawn up. 

•           The applicant was seeking to provide a private road across his landholding which would avoid Hereford City Centre with an access point to the Ledbury Road at Tupsley.

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

•           It was outrageous that a much larger plant had been constructed than planning permission had permitted, leading to the situation where a retrospective application for planning permission was now having to be considered.  The Principal Planning Officer acknowledged that the situation was regrettable.  However, the reality was that a large well run business with considerable capital invested within it was now in operation generating clean energy. She noted that if the business were to return to conventional farming this would generate additional traffic which would not be subject to any traffic management plan.

•           The development would have a huge impact but little community benefit except to its owner.

•           The main issue was the impact of farm traffic. The tractors and trailers used were of considerable size.  They could not use Mordiford Bridge and this meant that they had to use streets in the City Centre.  Concern was expressed that these large vehicles were being driven by young drivers without sufficient training and experience who were operating under pressure to meet deadlines.  This created a safety risk.

•           There was concern as to whether a traffic management plan would be effective.

•           Many other large vehicles transported material along Eign Road and Ledbury Road without incident and there was a need for perspective.

•           It was requested that the applicant should be encouraged to ensure that the drivers employed were trained to a high standard.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that the draft traffic management plan included provision for guidance to drivers.  The applicant had indicated that he did not propose to employ young drivers for this task.

•           It was asked whether a condition could be imposed requiring the applicant to develop a private road that would provide an access to the Ledbury Road avoiding the City Centre.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that a condition could not be imposed.  The proposed road would need to cross a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSI), a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and pass a scheduled ancient monument.   However, it was clear that the applicant wished to investigate the option seriously not least because of the financial saving the much shorter route would entail.  In the light of this comment it was requested that, if approved, an informative be added to the decision notice. 

•           Another view was that the application should be refused on highway grounds and reconsidered if a suitable alternative access was approved.

•           The City Council and Parish Councils objected to the proposal and there were 25 letters of objection.

•           Some reservations were expressed about the nature of anaerobic digesters, although it was acknowledged they did produce clean energy.  It was questioned how many anaerobic digesters could be supported within the County noting their resource requirements, which included the questionable practice of growing food crops to supply them.  It was also asked whether these, and other large developments such as chicken houses, could be developed away from the City given the traffic constraints.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that 16 applications for anaerobic digester plants within the County had been approved and two had been refused.  She added that the applicant had stated that he had a secure contract for the supply of pomace (apple residue) from the UBL factory at Ledbury to supply the plant.

•           The site was a large, well managed business. 

•           It was asked whether the required habitat screening assessment had been undertaken.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that the necessary work had been undertaken by the Environment Agency as part of the process for granting an Environmental Permit.  She referred also to the comments of Natural England set out at paragraph 4.2 of the report which concluded that the development was unlikely to have a significant effect on the SAC and provided the development was carried out as proposed the SSSI would not represent a constraint.

•           The use of the site did mean that untreated effluent was not being spread on the fields.

•           It was requested that mature trees were used to achieve effective screening of the site.

•           In relation to condition 11 proposed in the recommendation it was asked whether any additional steps could be taken to prevent odour emissions when transporting materials.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that there were some logistical issues in requiring the sealing of all vehicles.  However, it would be possible to require stricter recording in the site diary.  She noted that the digestate itself had no odour and the material being transported to the site was crop material which also had no odour.

•           In relation to the reason associated with condition 5 proposed in the recommendation it was asked whether reference could be made to enforcement action being taken within a specified period in response to any complaints.

•           It was asked whether the weight limit of the vehicles using the site could be reduced thereby permitting use of Mordiford Bridge.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that once a vehicle was on the public highway no planning restriction could be imposed.

The Traffic Manager noted that using smaller vehicles might be more expensive for the applicant.  It would also generate more vehicle movements.  The proposal would represent no more than a 2% increase in traffic on Eign Road and this was generally considered to be a negligible level, well within the highway capacity. There had been no recorded accidents involving tractors and trailers in the relevant period.  The concerns about highway safety were perhaps a question of perception rather than the reality.

The Development Manager commented that the question of highway safety was clearly the main issue.  Granting planning permission would provide an opportunity to regulate the operation of the site through conditions.  The possibility of an alternative access being created was not a relevant consideration for the Committee at this time.  However, an informative could be added encouraging the applicant to pursue such an alternative.  The site had been operational without regulation for three and a half years.  The proposal including a traffic management plan represented an improvement on the current situation.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He expressed the hope that the alternative access could be pursued. He noted that modern tractors had many safety features.

A motion that planning permission for the application be refused was lost on the Chairman’s casting vote.

RESOLVED: (on the Chairman’s casting vote) 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 after consultation with the Chairman and local ward member. 

1.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

2.         Within 8 weeks of the date of this permission, a finalised Traffic Management Plan (TMP), based on the revised draft received on 31 March 2015, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.   The final version of the TMP shall include all features previously agreed; shall reflect updated and accurate assessment of all local school times; and shall provide for tool-box talks with drivers and/or contractors, with periodic review or updating.  The details shall be implemented as approved for the lifetime of the development hereby permitted.

            Reason: In the interests of road safety and free flow of traffic, to avoid unnecessary congestion, and to meet the requirements of Policies S2, S6, DR1, DR3, T8 and T9 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.         C10 Details of external finishes and cladding (industrial buildings)

4.         M07 Flood evacuation management plan

5.         Within 8 weeks of the date of this permission, details of a site diary and complaints system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The scheme shall accord with the terms of the Environmental Permit and shall include in particular:

i)     A named appointed person having a duty to maintain the diary and complaints record;

ii)         Site diary methodology, including the brief recording of daily activities relating to the permitted plant;

iii) Means of receiving and recording any complaints relating to the development hereby permitted;

iv) Permanent location for keeping documentation, and its availability for inspection;

v)         Details of action to be taken in the event that a complaint is substantiated; and

vi)   Provision for monitoring and review of the complaints system.

            The scheme shall be implemented as approved for the lifetime of the development hereby permitted.

            Reason: To ensure that any substantiated complaints are adequately recorded and promptly addressed, in accordance with Policies S1, S2, DR4 and DR9 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

6.         G10 Landscaping and biodiversity enhancement scheme

7.         G11 Landscaping and biodiversity enhancement scheme - implementation

8.         I53 Manure storage

9.         I33 External lighting

10.       I09 Sound insulation of plant and machinery

11.       In relation to the development hereby permitted, no feedstock or digestate materials shall be transported into or out from the site unless they are contained within securely covered or sealed vehicles, trailers or tankers.

            Reason: In the interests of road safety, to prevent the dispersion of materials, dust and bio-aerosols, to prevent odour nuisance, and to protect air quality and local amenity in accordance with Policies S2, DR1, DR4, DR9, T8 and T9 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

12.       No vehicles, which are in the control of the applicant and used in connection with the development hereby permitted, shall be fitted with reversing alarms unless those alarms are of a 'white noise' type.

            Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents and to comply with Policy DR13 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

13.       F14 Removal of permitted development rights

14.       I22 No surface water to public sewer

15.       I28 No discharge of foul/contaminated drainage

16.       I25 Bunding facilities for oils/fuels/chemicals

17.       I43 No burning of materials within the application site except in the CHP unit

18.       I46 Restriction on height of open air storage

19.       K4 Nature Conservation - Implementation

Informatives:

1          The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, which has been taken fully into consideration in determining this application.

2          The local planning authority has acted positively and pro-actively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern within the application as submitted.  The authority has actively engaged in dialogue and negotiations with the applicant and his consultants to secure acceptable amendments.  As a result, the local planning authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework

3          Developers should incorporate pollution prevention measures to protect ground and surface water.  The Environment Agency has produced a range of guidance notes giving advice on statutory responsibilities and good environmental practice, which include Pollution Prevention Guidance Notes (PPGs) targeted at specific activities.  These can be viewed at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/pollution-prevention-guidance-ppg

4          For information on developing a Flood Evacuation Management Plan see Environment Agency guidance: sub-section 22 of the Flood Risk and Coastal Change Section of the PPG and online at: https://www.gov.uk/browse/environment-countryside/flooding-extreme-weather

5          N11C General

6          HN16 Sky glow

7          HN01 Mud on highway

8          Without prejudice, the applicant is urged to expedite proposals for consideration to upgrading existing internal farm tracks between The Court Farm and Tupsley Court, including an appropriate means of accessing the A438 at Tupsley Pitch, in discussion and negotiation with the local highways authority, the local planning authority and statutory consultees as necessary, with a view to submitting a planning application for the said works at the earliest opportunity. Pre-application advice should be sought under the Council’s scheme to enable draft details to be considered in advance and any matters of concern to be fully evaluated.