Proposed construction of earth slurry lagoon.

The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed construction of earth slurry lagoon.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr R Hawnt, a local resident, spoke in objection.  Mr A Murphy, 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 KS Guthrie spoke on the application.

She commented on a number of issues including:

·         The scale of the development was large. 

·         The slurry pit was situated on the brow of a very steep hill.

·         There was concern about the potential for pollution.  The pit had been constructed on porous rock and three expert reports had highlighted the harmful effects of a leak.  If there was a leak, local boreholes would be contaminated and there was concern that the leakage would flow downhill into the village.

·         The banking surrounding the lagoon was not sound. This could compromise any liner put in place.  If a leak were to occur it would then be too late to seek to retrieve the situation.

·         There was also concern about the smell that the lagoon would cause.

·         She cited a number of policies that she considered formed grounds for refusal: S2, DR1,DR2, DR4, DR7, DR8, DR11, E13, M3, M5, M7, LA2, LA5, NC1 and Arch1.  The development was also contrary to the three core principles of the National Planning Policy Framework relating to sustainable development. 

·         In short, the development was wrong, in the wrong place and would have an adverse effect upon the local community.

Councillor JW Millar, as adjoining local ward member, also spoke on the application.  He made the following principal points:

·         The original retrospective application had been refused on eleven grounds. Only six of these had been fully addressed with the remainder addressed only to some extent.

·         Whilst Marden Parish Council supported the application, Bodenham Parish Council remained opposed to it, requiring assurance that all eleven grounds for refusal had been fully addressed.

·         There was continuing concern about the risk of leakage. The original excavation had broken through a porous limestone layer.  The proposal to install an artificial sealed liner was not infallible.  Even with a robust leak detection system there was concern that remedial action could not be taken swiftly enough to prevent pollution.

·         The standard of work undertaken to date had been poor.  Trees had been damaged.  The sides of the pit were collapsing. No archaeological work had been carried out. He did not have confidence in the quality of future work. 

·         The development presented a risk to the area.

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

·         There was concern about the stability of the land and the prevention of future landslips.

·         An alternative site should be considered.

·         There was doubt about the ability to guarantee the prevention of leakage given that seals on liners did fail.

·         Farmers had a duty of care to their neighbours who appeared not to have been consulted about the development.

·         The Environment Agency and Natural England had not submitted objections.  The Principal Planning Officer commented that she had been unable to recommend refusal in the absence of objections from these bodies, to whom she had made representations, but noted the constraints within which those bodies had to operate.

·         Whilst the Environment Agency had stated that it had no objection it was questioned what level of detail it had considered.

·         It was suggested that the farming industry now considered metal storage tanks above ground to be the preferred solution for slurry storage.

·         It was a concern that given the time that had elapsed the grounds for refusal of an earlier application still remained to be addressed.

·         The quality of work undertaken to date at the site was poor.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She reiterated that she considered the development to be inappropriate, presenting an unacceptable risk of pollution to the local area. 

Councillor Millar commented that three reports representing independent expert opinion highlighted the risks of the proposed development.  He had no confidence in the solutions proposed by the applicant.

It was proposed that the application should be refused on the grounds that the land on which the development was located was unstable, the application presented a risk to water courses, the location was unacceptable being on a steep escarpment, and the development was contrary to a number of policies as outlined by the local ward member.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused on the grounds set out below and officers named in the scheme of delegation be authorised to finalise the drafting of the reasons for refusal for publication based on the Committee’s view that the land on which the development was located was unstable, the  application presented a risk to water courses, the location was unacceptable being on a steep escarpment, and the development was contrary to a number of policies as outlined by the local ward member:  S2, DR1,DR2, DR4, DR7, DR8, DR11, E13, M3, M5, M7, LA2, LA5, NC1 and Arch1.  The development was also contrary to the three core principles of the National Planning Policy Framework relating to sustainable development. 

Informative

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations and by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and clearly setting these out in the reason for refusal.  Furthermore, Members of the planning committee which took the decision to refuse planning permission have been asked to consider whether there are opportunities to amend the development to address this harm.  The Local Planning Authority is willing to provide pre-application advice in respect of any future application for a revised development.