Agenda item

A major full application for the demolition of existing buildings and 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 (reconsidered application) [Wheldrake Ward] [Site Visit].

Consideration was given to a major full application by Mr. Richard Barker for the demolition of existing buildings and re-profiling of bunds and areas of the former North Selby Mine, construction of an anaerobic digestion combined heat and power facility and horticultural glasshouse and associated infrastructure works.

The Council’s Solicitor addressed the Committee to advise that in the opinion of officers and the external Planning Barrister consulted by the local planning authority, all the points of note raised in the detailed letter received from Cunnane Planning (attached to the online agenda)  have been addressed in the committee report or in the officers’ update but that it is important that Members have read and understood the full contents of that letter.

Officers briefly provided background details to the application following the Committees decision to approve it in April 2013 being successfully challenged at the High Court. The application was being presented back to Committee for reconsideration taking into account the reasons for the successful challenge.

An update to the committee report was circulated, full details of which are attached to the online agenda for this meeting. The main points were as follows:

·        Further objections had been received since the committee report was published. Copies were made available to Members.

·        Response to the Cunnane Planning letter.

·        Amendments to conditions 2, 4 and 7.

Colin Davies had registered to speak as a local resident living within half a mile of the site. He advised that he considered there to be a number of reasons to refuse the application such as noise, water pollution and an increase in traffic in the area. The main issue he did not agree with was the special circumstances for development in the Green Belt. He stated that with 270 similar plants in the country he did not see why this site had been selected. He requested that Members consider carefully and discuss the matter of special circumstances.

Dr. Hill had registered to speak in objection to the application. He advised that the land is in the green belt and there are no special circumstances to allow the application. He also had concerns about the application site being too close to Sheepwalk Farm, planning conditions not being met and the potential for the shortening of lives due to the environmental impact, he referred to a study by the University of Utrecht. He suggested that the applicant should consider other sites and that the land should be sold to the community for use as a community site.

Mrs Williams had registered to speak in objection as a resident directly affected by the proposal. She strongly objected to the application in particular that residents were being asked to give up their amenity and accept the special circumstances outlined in the officers report. She referred to paragraph 4.87 of the committee report which outlined the cumulative factors for special circumstances and advised that she could not accept that residents should suffer for any of the factors. She also raised concerns about highway safety on the A19 and the fact that there were already safety concerns and the recently reduced speed limit at Deighton reflected this.

Richard Hardy had registered to speak as a local resident and in his capacity as a chartered surveyor. He advised that the speakers before him had covered many of his points but reiterated that he did not agree with the special circumstances for development in the green belt. He advised that through his work he had not encountered the applicant searching for alternative sites and questioned why the site was so important to the applicant. He also questioned the safety of heavy goods vehicles turning right out of the site and advised he had taken measurements which indicated this would not be safe and would rely on lorry drivers using their judgement. In bad weather conditions such as fog, the turning could be even more dangerous.

Mr Bedford had registered to speak as the farmer occupying Sheepwalk Farm, directly facing the site. He advised that the mine had been a blight for the 3 decades he had occupied the farm since British Coal gave him a tenancy. He stated that UK coal had promised that the land would be returned to agriculture and that he would be able to buy the land but this had not happened, instead he was informed that the site was to be developed. He raised concerns about the proximity of the greenhouse to the front of his property and the impact upon his amenity  due to noise and smells coming from the site.

Mr. Randon had registered to speak as the Chair of Wheldrake Parish Council. He stated that the whole of the proposed development would be in the draft green belt, there would be a negative impact upon residents and an impact on Wheldrake indirectly. He stated that in the York and Selby area there wasn’t enough food manufacturers or schools to produce enough waste to supply the plant. He also referred to the Draft Waste Plan and considered that the site scored poorly in the assessment method for waste sites. He urged the Committee to reject the application.

Mr. Oldridge had registered to speak in objection to the application. He advised that there were numerous other anaerobic digestion plants in the UK and circulated details of these to Members. He questioned why waste would be brought from the M62 corridor to this site. He suggested that the use of the gas fired boiler in winter would cancel out any energy saved in the summer and questioned how much of a contribution the plant would make to the national grid.

Councillor Barton had registered to speak as Ward Member for Wheldrake. He advised that rarely had he seen a village so united against something and that public consultations on the proposal had been boycotted by residents. The village had been promised that the site would be returned to agriculture but this had not happened. He stated that the A19 south was already congested particularly at the Designer Outlet and the additional traffic as a result of the proposals was unacceptable. He raised concerns about the smell from the site and the fact it will be carried by the wind towards Wheldrake and Escrick.

Claire Harron had registered to speak as the agent on behalf of the applicant. She advised that the application encourages sustainable development and there is an assessed need for the proposal. In relation to the application site, she advised that no other viable sites are available within the York and Selby area. The application had been made in consultation with planning officers and in line with policy. The application had been designed to limit the impact on the Green Belt.

In answer to a number of questions, the applicant’s agent and the Planning Officers made the following points:

·        The boiler would be sized to be able to provide full heat demand but it is only for back-up and to top up heat levels in the winter.

·        Bio-mass is a possibility instead of the gas boiler.

·        The applicant would be willing to liaise with Mr. Bedford on the scheme.

·        The site is likely to remain derelict if the development does not go ahead.

·        Beyond York and Selby, the applicant had looked at 362 sites within a 50km radius.

·        In relation to noise issues the Council’s Environmental Protection Officer confirmed that noise from an increase in traffic on the A19 and on New Road was considered to be within accepted limits. Noise from the haulage and service yard and the operation of the plant was not considered to be insignificant and would need to be controlled by condition.

Members entered debate on the application. Some Members did not support the application due to it being development in the draft green belt and the concerns raised by residents. Following further lengthy discussion, the officer’s recommendation to approve, subject to referral to the secretary of state, was moved by Councillor Riches and seconded by Councillor Simpson - Laing.

Councillor D’Agorne then moved an amendment to add a condition for highways officers to discuss restricting HGV’s turning right out of the site. Councillor Orrell seconded. On being put to the vote this amendment was lost.

The motion to approve the officers’ recommendation, in the names of Councillors Riches and Simpson Laing was then put to the vote and it was:

Resolved:           That the application be approved subject to referral to the Secretary of State and the following amended conditions:

Condition 2 - The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans:-

Drawing no. PP-001 Rev. P1A ‘Application Site Local Plan’ dated September 2013.

Drawing no. PP-009 Rev. P1A ‘Proposed Roof Plan’ dated April 2013

Condition 4 - the fourth paragraph of the condition should state the following:

Finished floor levels are set no lower than 8.75m above Ordnance Datum (AOD) for the AD Building and 8.5m AOD for the adjacentCHP building and tank farm.

Condition 7 - Note: The combined rating level of  all noise associated with fixed plant or and equipment at the site should not exceed 25dB(A), 1 hour, free-field at a location representative of the nearest noise sensitive facades when assessed in accordance with BS4142: 1997, this being the design criterion adopted by EPU, including for any acoustic correction for noises which contain a distinguishable, discrete, continuous note (whine, hiss, screech, hum, etc.); noise which contain distinct impulses (bangs, clicks, clatters, or thumps); or noise which is irregular enough to attract attention.

Reason:              Overall, it is concluded that the identified adverse impacts as described in the committee report do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits also as described. Therefore, the application is on balance recommended for approval, subject to the prior referral to the Secretary of State due to the identification of the Anaerobic Digestion facility as inappropriate development in the green belt.