Agenda item

A major full application by Mr. Richard Barker for the demolition of existing buildings and the re-profiling of bunds and areas of the former mine, construction of an anaerobic digestion combined heat and power facility and horticultural glasshouse and associated infrastructure and works. [Wheldrake Ward] [Site Visit].

Members considered a full major application by Mr Richard Barker for the demolition of existing buildings and reprofiling of bunds and areas of the former mine, construction of an anaerobic digestion combined heat and power facility and horticultural glasshouse and associated infrastructure works.

 

Officers pointed to a number of updates in their report which included;

 

·        The amendment of paragraph 1.5 (page 46) to read “Spring House Farm, which is located on the south side of the access road, at a distance of approximately 630m from the side entrance”

·        The amendment of paragraph 4.7  (page 68) to read “The Ministerial statement in respect of the statutory instrument confirmed the importance the Coalition Government places upon the Green Belt and recognised its invaluable role in protecting this treasured environmental and cultural heritage”

·        The amendment of paragraph 4.14 (page 6) to read “However, legal advice from an independent planning barrister given in 2011 with regards to the validity and enforceability of the condition, confirmed that the condition was fundamentally flawed and it was NOT capable of being enforced in full”.

·        Condition 2 (page 82) be amended to read “Reference to Drawing no. PP-001 Rev. P ‘Application Site Location Plan’ dated October 2012 and received 6 November’

·        That a letter had been received Nigel Adams MP on behalf of a number of constituents, in this he highlighted; overwhelming community opposition, congestion and lack of capacity on the A19, location in the Green Belt, the condition to restore the site should mining cease, the release of odorous gases to the rural environment, sustainability of a project which imported quantities of waste by road.

·        That a further letter had been received from Julian Sturdy MP which stated that; the development was inappropriate and alien within a rural community and Green Belt and so close to a Conservation Area, it would blight the landscape, the potential odorous gases would detrimentally affect residential amenity and showed the extent of local opposition.

·        A representation on behalf of Sam Smith’s Brewery who felt that the Officer’s report was flawed in terms of the basis for its assessment on the green belt, and that construction should not take place on site, due to ongoing Enforcement Action. The letter stated that there was the potential for challenge of any decision on this basis. The Council’s Legal Officer responded that he was satisfied that a decision could be taken on the basis of the report before Members.

·        Further correspondence received from local residents. One resident of Spring House Farm asked for further conditions to be added with regards an acoustic study, resurfacing of New Road and the removal or relocation of the speed humps.

·        That further information had been sent by the agent in regards to the transport information for the operation of the mine site, which indicated that there were around 60 two way Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) movements a day, of which 24 were articulated HGVs.

·        That the following amendments be made to permission if granted by Members ;

 

Condition 2

To reflect revised plans- Drawing no PP-008 Rev P1 ‘Site Layout Plan (Proposed Site Plan) dated and received.

 

Drawing no PP-009 Rev P1 ‘Proposed Roof Plan’ dated, but still needing to be confirmed.

 

Additional Condition

That the traffic hump outside Spring House Farm be removed and the roadway for 200 metres outside the property be resurfaced to reduce the impact of noise in the interests of residential amenity. This condition could be deferred to the Environmental Protection Unit if Members wanted more information.

 

Informatives

To highlight the Council’s Low Emissions Strategy

 

Representations in objection to the application were received from the following people in objection to the application:

 

Liz Casling, who spoke on behalf of Escrick Parish Council, opposed the application as she felt the development was inappropriate in the Green Belt, and the height of the facilities would be visible from the surrounding area.

In addition she felt that the application should be considered as one unit for a mixed use facility rather than two separate units.

She commented that waste for the anaerobic digestion combined and power facility to be reprocessed would be brought in from outside of the local area.

 

Tim Williams, a local resident felt that the former condition when the mine closed, to return the site to agricultural usage was being ignored. He also expressed concerns at the level of traffic due to waste being transported to the site.

 

Colin Davies, a local resident felt that the developers would not invest in the community, the application would not protect the Green Belt and that previous planning conditions attached to the site would be ignored by the approval of the development.

 

Doctor Janet Astley commented that local residents would be adversely affected by light, noise, smell and particle pollution from the proposed power facility. She added that it was not environmentally friendly and the new access from the A19 to the site, would not improve congestion on an already busy road.

 

David Astley spoke to Members about how the site supported a variety of wildlife, and suggested that the area be developed into a nature reserve.

 

Richard Hardy did not support the proposal as he felt that it would not benefit the area socially or environmentally.

 

Doctor Michael Hill opposed the proposal because of the emission of smells from the flare stack, the potential for an increased amount of CO2 being dispersed particularly given that prevailing winds would take this towards York and the risk of explosion of drilling near to the mine shaft.

 

Mr Oldridge felt that zero carbon saving targets were misleading, as the transport of waste to the site used fossil fuels. He added that the energy produced would not be sufficient to heat a 9 megawatt boiler which would heat the proposed greenhouse.

 

Bruno Hanneman, a local resident, felt that the application did not provide details of how the facilities would be decommissioned if they fell out of use and that no assessment of its performance had been proposed.

 

Representations in support of the application were received from the following people:

 

Christian Vassie referred to points made by York Environment Forum in the Officer’s report. He supported the application subject to conditions being added to make sure that transportation of waste to the site be by renewable energy methods (such as trains, canals or biogas vehicles).

 

The applicant’s agent, Claire Harron spoke about how the Anaerobic Digester was a recommended Government measure for reprocessing waste materials, and this method was also supported by Friends of the Earth. In addition, she informed the Committee that CO2 emissions would be reduced by 20,000 grams would and that the development was in line with the Council’s Planning Policies.

 

In response to questions from Members, the agent for the applicant explained that the Anaerobic Digester would heat the greenhouse for 34 weeks a year, and that a supplementary boiler would rarely be used to its full extent. It was also noted that any hydrogen sulphide which was created would be cleaned out before any other gas was burned. The agent also informed Members that levels of gas emissions from the plant would be recorded.

 

Regarding the origins of waste for the digester, the agent answered that this would be determined following planning permission, once an Environment Agency permit had been obtained and waste contracts had been secured.

 

In response to additional questions from Members, the agent confirmed that 56 jobs would be created locally some of these would work at the plant and others, mainly made up of seasonal workers, would work in the glasshouse.

 

Representations were received from David Randon, on behalf of Wheldrake Parish Council. He expressed concerns about odour, light from the facility, and HGV’s accessing the A19.

 

Officers confirmed that the access from the site on to the A19 had been designed to national standards and that it would be possible for a HGV to be able to turn around safely.

Some Members felt that the application should be approved as further production of renewable energy was needed.

Others felt that the proposal was a good use of an industrial site and that if the site provided a benefit to the local community that some of the fear about the application might diminish.

 

Others felt that the site would not provide renewable energy for anything other than the glasshouse, and that the waste for reprocessing would be imported from other areas rather than just from York. They felt that there would be an unacceptable level of vehicle movements.

 

Some Members felt that they could support the application with an added condition that the transport of waste to the site  by transport which used a low level of non renewable energy, such as canals and trains. They felt that the emission levels from the plant would be negligible and that any impact caused would be at the level of current standards.

 

Others felt that the plant would be intrusive and larger than what was on the site previously.

 

RESOLVED:       That the application be approved with amended condition 2, an additional condition and informatives as detailed below.

 

19.                       Prior to the commencement of development, with the exception of demolition and site clearance, a scheme for works to the surface of the access road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall include the removal of the traffic table outside Spring House Farm and the resurfacing of the roadway for a stretch of at least 200 metres outside the property along with phasing for the works.  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and phasing plan.

 

 

3. INFORMATIVE:

 

Please note that a bespoke environmental permit is required with regards the anaerobic digestion and combined heat and power facility.  This is issued by the Environment Agency under the Environmental Permitting Regulations.  You are advised to apply for this permit without delay.

 

 4. INFORMATIVE:

 

In order to facilitate the uptake and recharging of electric vehicles / bikes / scooters, a standard domestic 13A electrical socket shall be fitted to an internal or external wall.  This should be capable of charging at a minimum of 3KWh for up to 8 hours without overheating the cabling or socket. Ideally, a 13/32Amp socket should be supplied which can offer up to 7KWh continuous charging with a control and protection function on a specific circuit (to avoid overload through use of other appliances on the circuit). Where mounted on an external wall, a suitable weatherproof enclosure for the socket will be required.

 

Reason:              To reduce the impact of noise from heavy goods vehicles in the interests of residential amenity.

 

REASON:           In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal, subject to the conditions listed above, would not cause undue harm to interests of acknowledged importance, with particular reference to economic benefits, highway implications, design and visual amenity, crime, openness of Green Belt, climate change, flood risk, nature conservation and human health.  As such the proposal complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), policies YH9C and Y1 of the Yorkshire and Humber Plan Regional Spatial Strategy and policies GP1, GP3, GP4A, GP4B, GP5, GP6,GP9, GP15A, GB1, NE1, NE5, NE6, NE7 and T4 of the City of York Development Control Local Plan.