Proposed modification to existing agricultural building to accommodate a biomass boiler, including flue.

The application was refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed modification to existing agricultural building to accommodate a biomass boiler, including flue.)

The Principal Planning Officer (PPO) 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 R Brook, of Marden Parish Council spoke in opposition to the scheme. 

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Guthrie, spoke on the application.

She made the following principal comments:

·        Marden was a rural village served by a small road network of unclassified and C class roads.  The applicant’s business had expanded and become industrialised rather than agricultural.  There was concern about the cumulative impact of more heavy goods vehicles on the road network.

·        The infrastructure in and around Marden could not cope. Residents were fed up with noise and traffic problems.

·        Leystone Bridge, grade 2* listed, had regularly been damaged by HGVs. When flooding closed one access route, Moreton on Lugg Bridge also grade 2* listed had to carry the traffic suffering the same risks.

·        The Parish Council did not consider the site to be appropriate for an industrial biomass boiler.  This would increase the industrialisation of the site.

·        She was concerned about the cumulative effect of emissions on air quality referring to the existing boilers and heat and power unit described in paragraph 1.2 of the report.  The Parish Council (PC) had highlighted in its representation that no data was available on the effect of emissions on local residents in adverse weather or wind directions. There must also be concern for the health of the workforce in and around the site. 

·        It was unclear how emissions would be reduced.  She questioned how transporting the woodchip into the site could be considered sustainable.

·        The PC had also noted that the applicant had stated that the deliveries would occur in the winter months.  However, there was concern that heating could be used at other times in the event of poor weather, exacerbating traffic, noise and pollution problems.

·        Residents of a nearby property, Woodbine House had been affected by noise. 

·        Noise from the boiler and heavy goods vehicles would also affect the three rivers bridleway presenting a particular danger to horse riders. 

·        There were a number of grounds for refusing the application:  the cumulative effect of increased traffic including damage to roads and the grade 2* bridges, the boiler stack being significantly higher than the other buildings, increased noise levels from machinery and traffic and potential harmful emissions having an adverse effect on nearby residents and workforce.  The proposal was contrary to Marden Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) policies M7 M10 and core strategy policies MT1 and RA6.  The development did not represent sustainable growth and was contrary to the environmental objective of the National Planning Policy Framework.  It did not protect and enhance the environment, improve biodiversity, or help to minimise waste and pollution.    It did not help climate change.  Residents and the environment should be protected.

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

·        Concern was expressed about the impact on local residents.  Expansion of what had initially been small businesses in a rural area did put pressure on residents and the road network.

·        Clarification was sought on the noise and particulate measurement process and what data was available.  It was noted that the noise level at Ditton Green had been considered unacceptable.

·        The Environmental Health Officer commented on the noise assessment process, which had been conducted in accordance with the nationally prescribed methodology.  The assessment had concluded that the noise level experienced by residents to the east of the site and at Marden would be less than the overall background level.  There may be an impact at Ditton Green.  However, that was in a context of background noise levels being very low and the noise attenuation would be achieved by the structure of the residences.  The BS833 internal day and night time standards of noise should continue to be achieved with the Biomass plant in place.

·        A concern was expressed about the sustainability of the wood supply and its source and the impact of a biomass boiler on emissions and air quality.

·        Consideration had to be given to the impact of increased numbers of heavy goods vehicles through the village.

·        Despite some reservations about the use of biomass boilers a Member suggested that there were no planning grounds upon which to refuse the application.

In response to questions the PPO commented:

·        It was proposed to install filtration equipment to process exhaust gases from the boiler prior to them reaching the flue.

·        In terms of concern about noise generated by the method of delivering fuel to the boiler and the automatic activation meaning it would come on at various times of the night she commented that the fuel would be delivered by conveyer belt.  The process was contained within the building.  The noise assessment concluded that the construction of the building would ensure that local residents would not be harmed by loud noise.

·        The wood for the boiler would be virgin wood.  The council could not exercise control over the source. It was added that the wood would come from sustainable forests in Wales.

·        The gas boilers were fed from the mains.  Neither of the two gas boilers required planning permission.  The biomass boiler was to be an alternative to those boilers providing the main source of heat.  The gas boilers would remain to provide reserve capacity in the event of severe weather.  A biomass boiler was considered to be more efficient.  If the application were to be refused the applicant could install an additional gas boiler to achieve the required capacity.

·        There was no current application to expand the site itself.

·        The proposal would create some jobs in haulage, and forestry.

·        The Transportation Manager had advised that the highway network had sufficient capacity and there was no reason to refuse the application on highway grounds.

·        The application had been supported by a detailed air quality assessment. Officers had been content with the proposal and that it would not lead to additional emissions.

·        If the application were to be refused the applicant could install another gas, diesel or electric boiler without planning permission.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the professional opinions presented to the committee concluded that the noise levels and emission levels associated with the proposal were acceptable and that there was capacity within the highway network.  If the application were to be refused the applicant could install another gas boiler but could also consider an appeal.  He cautioned that given the technical information that had been provided he considered an appeal would be difficult to defend.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She reiterated that HGVs and noise currently generated from the site had a significant detrimental impact on residential amenity.  The additional impact of the proposed development would be substantial.  Priority should be given to the residents and protection of the environment.  The application should be refused on policies M7, RA6 and the NPPF as it was not sustainable development.

A motion that the application be approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation was lost.

Councillor Kenyon proposed and Councillor Harrington seconded a motion that the application be refused on the grounds that the application was contrary to core strategy policies RA6 and MT1, and NDP policy M7 and relevant paragraphs of the NPPF in particular paragraph 109 relating to highway safety and capacity. 

The motion was carried with 8 votes in favour, 3 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the application was contrary to core strategy policies RA6 and MT1, and NDP policy M7 and relevant paragraphs of the NPPF in particular paragraph 109 relating to highway safety and capacity and officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers be authorised to detail the reasons for refusal.

(The meeting adjourned between 11.10am and 11.20 am.)