AGENDA ITEM 10 10.1 SMD/2015/0080 TEMPORARY PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A SHORT TERM OPERATIONAL RESERVE (STOR), INCLUDING GROUND WORKS, PLACEMENT OF GENERATING EQUIPMENT AND TRANSFORMERS, SUB STATION ROOM, LAYING OF A HARDCORE BASE AND ACCESS TRACKS, BUNDED FUEL STORAGE, SECURITY FENCING, GATES AND CAMERAS AND OTHER ASSOCIATED WORKS AT BOOTHS FARM, CLAMGOOSE LANE, KINGSLEY FOR HIGHVIEW CONSULTANTS LIMITED. Parish: Kingsley Grid Reference: 400881 345133 Case Officer: Mrs L. Jackson Registration: 18/02/2015 THE APPLICATION The application is for a Short Term Operating Reserve Facility (STOR) at land belonging to Booth's Farm, Clamgoose Lane, Cheadle. The applicant's Planning Statement clearly sets out the rationale behind the submission. The need for the STOR facility can be summarised a follows; The demand for power is constantly changing depending upon the time of day, localised events, weather conditions and numerous other factors; Power supply can vary as it reacts to demand at any one time; Variations can occur by the network adjusting to load conditions and ensuring that the average power supply remains as constant as possible; Load fluctuations and supply outages can vary more so in rural areas where distances covered by power lines are greater; Historically large scale generators (on standby) would be in place to feed extra power into the grid network when required, this means having to keep a generator permanently on tick over which uses fuel and produces carbon emissions; UK is moving towards greater use of low carbon/renewable technology, therefore introducing more variables (wind or sun) which impact upon the power level supply; Transition of the UK to more reliance upon low carbon technologies has created a need for additional balancing capacity to provide short term electricity generation at peak times where the supply is stable and constant. Generator units would be installed to respond to the fluctuating power levels; Equipment held on standby and only operational when a shortfall in supply is identified; Generators remotely turned on by a computer controlled system; STOR only operational at times of need, often an hour or less but can be for longer periods of time if need dictates; The applicant's identified environmental benefits include; Smaller STOR generators around the network is more efficient than having large centralised generators at the power stations;
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
AGENDA ITEM 10
10.1
SMD/2015/0080 TEMPORARY PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A SHORT TERM OPERATIONAL RESERVE (STOR), INCLUDING GROUND WORKS, PLACEMENT OF GENERATING EQUIPMENT AND TRANSFORMERS, SUB STATION ROOM, LAYING OF A HARDCORE BASE AND ACCESS TRACKS, BUNDED FUEL STORAGE, SECURITY FENCING, GATES AND CAMERAS AND OTHER ASSOCIATED WORKS AT BOOTHS FARM, CLAMGOOSE LANE, KINGSLEY FOR HIGHVIEW CONSULTANTS LIMITED.
Parish: Kingsley Grid Reference: 400881 345133 Case Officer: Mrs L. Jackson Registration: 18/02/2015 THE APPLICATION The application is for a Short Term Operating Reserve Facility (STOR) at land belonging to Booth's Farm, Clamgoose Lane, Cheadle. The applicant's Planning Statement clearly sets out the rationale behind the submission. The need for the STOR facility can be summarised a follows;
� The demand for power is constantly changing depending upon the time of day, localised events, weather conditions and numerous other factors;
� Power supply can vary as it reacts to demand at any one time; � Variations can occur by the network adjusting to load conditions and ensuring
that the average power supply remains as constant as possible; � Load fluctuations and supply outages can vary more so in rural areas where
distances covered by power lines are greater; � Historically large scale generators (on standby) would be in place to feed
extra power into the grid network when required, this means having to keep a generator permanently on tick over which uses fuel and produces carbon emissions;
� UK is moving towards greater use of low carbon/renewable technology, therefore introducing more variables (wind or sun) which impact upon the power level supply;
� Transition of the UK to more reliance upon low carbon technologies has created a need for additional balancing capacity to provide short term electricity generation at peak times where the supply is stable and constant.
� Generator units would be installed to respond to the fluctuating power levels; � Equipment held on standby and only operational when a shortfall in supply is
identified; � Generators remotely turned on by a computer controlled system; � STOR only operational at times of need, often an hour or less but can be for
longer periods of time if need dictates; The applicant's identified environmental benefits include;
� Smaller STOR generators around the network is more efficient than having large centralised generators at the power stations;
AGENDA ITEM 10
10.2
� STOR equipment is much smaller and takes less time to go from standby to fully operational when compared to a larger machine;
� STORs located on the customer network so electricity is fed into the local system faster and without transmission losses;
� Smaller generators can operate from a cold start and do not need to be kept on 'tick over.'
� Would burn fossil fuels but would only do so on an infrequent basis and n an efficient manner, offering a carbon reduction compared to centralised large scale development.
Development on the ground would include;
� The installation of 30 generators; � 8 No. transformers; � 2 No. fuel tanks; � 1 No. switch room; � 1 No. 33kV transformer; � 1 No. Distribution Network Operators switch room; � 2.2m high welded mesh fence and gates surrounding the site; � Earth bunds (landscaped and 1m high acoustic wooden fencing atop highest
points of earth bunds. � Installation of CCTV cameras. � Site clearance ad levelling to allow for hardcore stone base; � Trenching.
The application is brought to committee at the request of Councillor Elsie Fallows on the grounds that the location, although a brownfield site, lies within the Green Belt and no development should take place unless very special reasons can be demonstrated. No such reasons have been demonstrated in this case and no public consultation (by the applicants) has been undertaken. The application is accompanied by the following documents which members are encouraged to read in advance;
� Supporting Statement; � Coal Mining Risk Assessment;
SITE DESCRIPTION / LOCATION The application site is a parcel of land to the south east of Booths Farm house. Although Booths Farm is accessed via Clamgoose Lane, the application site itself is more easily accessed off the A521 Froghall Road via a wide junction and gravel surface track. The Froghall Road access would be used for construction, and for fuel deliveries and maintenance visits once the facility is operational. The site has been used as a tipped area, possibly to a depth of 1-2 metres and the surface comprises fragmented timber with some artificial (sparsely grassed) mounds. The site is clearly within a rural area, on a slight dome in relation to the wider landscape setting which generally falls away to the west and south and is set well back from the roadside behind land and hedgerow boundaries. The wider area of land belonging to Booths
AGENDA ITEM 10
10.3
Farm is subject to a number of Staffordshire County Council applications for permitted waste management facilities (including organic waste treatment and aggregate recycling). For the purposes of planning policy consideration, the application site is located in the open countryside within a part of the Staffordshire Moorlands Green Belt and is within the catchment area of the Churnet Valley Masterplan. PLANNING HISTORY There is no planning history directly related to the land of the application site however the wider site of Booth's Farm is subject to a number of County Council applications for the use of the site for purposes such as landfill, composting and tipping. The County Council is aware of this application. REPRESENTATIONS Expiry of:- Site Notice: 8th April 2015. Press Notice: 25th March 2015. (Published within the Cheadle and Tean Times). CONSULTATIONS Kingsley Parish Council: Objects to the application for the following reasons;
� The location, although a brownfield site, lies within the Green Belt and no development should take place therein unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated. Such reasons do not appear to have been demonstrated in this case;
� This is a major development and, under the terms of the Aarhus Convention, prior public consultation should have taken place. No such consultation has taken place;
� Such a large development would create a significant visual impact from the Parish of Cheadle and is wholly inappropriate in the countryside.
Staffordshire County Council Highways Officer: No objections subject to conditions including deliveries to be carried out in accordance with the Supporting Statement section Construction Traffic and the prevention of mud/debris being deposited on the highway. Planning Policy Officer: Objection, comments can be summarised as follows; The applicant is effectively proposing ancillary equipment for electricity generation through fossil fuels. Given the greenbelt location, the industrial/urban nature of the structures, Very Special Circumstances are required. Having reviewed the
AGENDA ITEM 10
10.4
particulars I do not consider these have been provided. I appreciate that these facilities are more optimally located near power lines but there does not appear to have been any demonstration that other sites (anywhere in the country?) outside the greenbelt/countryside, in urban areas, have not first been considered. Additionally even if Very Special Circumstances were considered the scheme would still have to satisfy landscape character/design. Although renewables may have intermittent characteristics, different types of renewables are intermittent in different ways. Policy SD1(1) of the Core Strategy directs development to more sustainable/brownfield locations. The agent's argument centres on the "need" to provide for a 'gap filling' fossil fuel electricity generator along a particular existing electricity line where capacity for the connection has been confirmed. There is no information concerning how the need has been confirmed. Agent does not elaborate on the viability of locations at greater distances away from line (factoring in rate of transmission loss) or, how the distance from it of this site compares to other sites. Its absolute requirement is questioned, especially as it is not identified as a 'special case' in greenbelt policy. The agent argues that there is no need to explore alternative sites (on countrywide scale). Respond that as greenbelt very special circumstances are required and would have expected the applicant to fully justify why the development must be sited in the greenbelt in this area with recourse to an exploration of a reasonable number of reasonable alternative sites which prefer brownfield sites in urban areas, although demonstration of this in itself may not amount to Very Special Circumstances. Does this area/ region in particular suffer this stop gapping problem more than other areas/Regions of the Country? The inference from the agent's submission is that more STOR facilities are needed because of the growth in decentralised renewables - has this area/region been targeted because it has a greater reliance on renewables? Although a number of alternative options were identified in the attached statement, all of these were in relatively close proximity to the site/Kingsley Holt substation. Is there a reason why sites over a wider scale (but close to the route of the line) were not explored? As there is a presumption against the automatic harm of inappropriate development in the Green Belt, it is not agreed that urban sites should not be considered; and notwithstanding greenbelt policy, the scope of most developments in the countryside are limited by policies SS6C/R1 of the Core Strategy/para 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The applicant also refers to the limited times (3 or 4 times per year) when the facility would be required - this seems to weaken the Green Belt case. Note that the applicant discounts a number of the alternative options suggested because of their perceived impacts on neighbour amenity (pollution). Were any of these sites the subject of consultation with Environmental Health officers' or is there other Environmental Health evidence demonstrating they were too close to housing to be acceptable In summary, I would repeat that there is no 'special case' policy basis generally for STOR facilities (of any size), and certainly not in the greenbelt where Very Special Circumstances will be required. With regards Very Special Circumstances I do not consider these have been demonstrated because the applicant has not provided
AGENDA ITEM 10
10.5
enough information to conclude that the scheme must be located in the (Staffordshire Moorlands) greenbelt; the electricity line and available connections to it are not identified; there is no explanation of how distances from it affect viabilities; why all the 'alternatives' are in the immediate locality and why (a reasonable number of) further alternatives were not considered etc. Even if this were provided is there a 'special case' need that this area/region exhibits for more predictable, back-up electricity capacity? I would also query the applicant's assumptions that facilities must be located away from built up areas, within quarries etc. Staffordshire County Council Archaeologist: No objections and comment as follows; Archaeology Ridge and furrow is recorded on aerial photography for the area of the scheme. However, this appears to have been impacted by subsequent industrial works across the area. A review of up to date aerial photographs suggests little of the cropmark evidence survives. It is therefore considered that archaeological mitigation would not be appropriate in this instance. Rights of Way The County Council’s Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way shows that no rights of way are recorded in the immediate vicinity of the proposal. The County Council has not received any application under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to add or modify the Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way, which affects the land in question. This does not preclude the possibility of the existence of a right of way at common law, or by virtue of a presumed dedication under Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980. It may, therefore, be necessary to make further local enquiries and seek legal advice in respect of any physically evident route affecting the land, or the apparent exercise of a right of way by members of the public. Staffordshire County Council (Planning, Policy and Development Control) Planning Officer: No objections. The site falls within a Mineral Consultation Area and a proposed new Minerals Safeguard Area for Fire Clay, but the temporary nature of the usage would not preclude future recovery of any mineral, should the demand arise. The site is also about 300m away from permitted waste management facilities including organic waste treatment and aggregate recycling, but the nature of the proposed development is such that neither its construction, nor its operation are likely to have any adverse impacts on the continued operation or expansion of the waste management facilities. It is reasonable to conclude that the proposals will not lead to the sterilisation of any important mineral resources, or prejudice the implementation of the waste hierarchy and/or the efficient operation of existing waste management facilities, contrary to national and local minerals and waste policy. Trees and Woodlands Officer: No objections subject to condition and consideration of the decommissioning operations at the end of the 25 year period. Ecologist: No ecological objections to the application. The site appears to have been used in its entirety as a tipped area to a depth of at least one to two metres and that the surface comprised fragmented timber with minimal / no vegetation cover. The edges of the site were formed of grassed artificial mounds. The development would need good landscape planting to help assimilate it into the area. The location is on a
AGENDA ITEM 10
10.6
slight dome (or low shallow-sloping hill) in relation to the immediate wider setting which tends to fall away to the west and south and towards Kingsley Holt. Environmental Health: No objections subject to conditions. Comments are as follows and are based upon additional information supplied by the applicant. Contamination The site is a recent former landfill (fallows landfill), albeit inert, and is may/likely to be producing associated landfill gases (notably Methane & Carbon dioxide). Therefore prior to development a contaminated land risk assessment should be undertaken to ensure there are no risks to the proposed development from these gases (notably methane) or other contaminates. Contamination conditions are therefore recommended. Noise A noise assessment has been supplied with this application. The noise predictions are based on worse case scenarios of maximum noise and lowest background noise levels. Background noise readings have been undertaken and details supplied on request. The assessment proposes a bund and noise barrier, this mitigation should be incorporated into the proposed development. This mitigation should ensure that predicted sound impacts from this development on the nearest noise sensitive receptor at 320 m will be 9.5db lower than the existing background noise levels. There is a condition advised below which takes account of these predictions and protection of the nearest noise sensitive receptors. It would be expected that full implementation of all proposed mitigation as set out in drawing 5700/CS/ASP3 Revision A by Aspect Landscaping Planning and the mitigation set out in paragraph 5 of the Peak Acoustics Assessment, report no. 2603151NR is completed prior to first use. Consideration should be given to taken account of low frequency noise and the design of the acoustic screen.
Nuisance The proposed development is near existing properties so care needs to be taken during construction phase to ensure these activities do not cause unreasonable disruption to the neighbour’s enjoyment of their properties. Severn Trent Water: No objections to the application subject to condition. Environment Agency: No objections in principle to the application; provides advisory notes which could be added if planning permission was granted. Coal Authority: No objections. The application site falls within the defined Development High Risk Area, therefore within the application site and surrounding area there are coal mining features and hazards which need to be considered. Further information would be required for Building Regulations approval (if relevant) Any intrusive activities which disturb or enter any coal seams, coal mine workings or coal mine entries requires approval from the Coal Authority. Conservation Liaison Panel: Setting of a Grade II Listed Building. Comment that a check needs to be done on site to see if the site detrimentally affects the setting of the Listed Building.
AGENDA ITEM 10
10.7
Conservation Officer: Verbal confirmation of no objections to the application. Representations: 24 letters of objection (including one representation from the Chair of Kingsley Holt Action Group). The objections can be summarised as follows;
� Green Belt site; � There are no very special circumstances to allow the development; the
applicant has not proved that there is an overriding reason why the facility has to be here and only here;
� There could be other sites for miles in either direction; � Applicant's argument that the site is only just in the Green Belt is
unacceptable; this would be urban and industrial sprawl/creep, eroding the Green Belt between Cheadle and Kingsley Holt;
� Other applications in the area have been refused based on Green Belt encroachment;
� Approving the application would set a precedent for similar schemes; � Elevated site and if installed would have a negative visual impact; mitigating
measures would not be effective; � Area has the potential for AONB status; � Need to preserve landscape amenity for future generations; � Generators are an expensive way to generate electricity; � Potential diesel spillage; � The site could be a green field site; � Industrialisation of the countryside, visual impact over a large area; � Dirty diesel generation of electricity; � Is not a renewable energy project, it is proposed because renewable energy
devices don't work when needed to meet demand; � High level of noise which would be continuous; � No figures for air pollution. The generators will run when there is little or no
wind therefore pollution will drift into the valley and residential areas affecting peoples health;
� Noise assessment seems to be based on only one generator working, there would be 30 and they could be running for hours or days at a time;
� No pre consultation with SMDC or with local residents, Parish or Town Councils;
� 25 years is not temporary; � Any lighting would be intrusive in the landscape and visible from a wide area;
100 signature petition raising the following objections;
� Lack of public consultation; � Serious concerns regarding diesel fumes pollution to properties; � Serious concerns regarding noise pollution/disturbance; � Loss of Green Belt open countryside; � Environmental concerns.
AGENDA ITEM 10
10.8
POLICIES Core Strategy Development Plan (Adopted 26th March 2014) SS1 Development Principles SS1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development SS6c Other Rural Areas strategy SS7 Churnet Valley Area Strategy SD1 Sustainable Use of Resources SD2 Renewable/Low Carbon Energy SD4 Pollution and Flood Risk DC1 Design Considerations DC2 The Historic Environment DC3 Landscape and Settlement Setting R1 Rural Diversification NE1 Biodiversity and Geological Resources T1 Development and Sustainable Transport Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment (2008) Churnet Valley Masterplan (SPD) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) including; Section 3: Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy. Section 7: Requiring Good Design. Section 9: Protecting Green Belt Land Section 10: Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change. Section 11: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment. Section 12: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. OFFICER COMMENT 1. The Local Planning Authority is required to determine planning applications in accordance with the Development Plan and any other material planning considerations, unless there are material circumstances which indicate otherwise. In this case the Development Plan for Staffordshire Moorlands District Council consists of the Adopted Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy Development Plan Document (March 2014) however, regard must also be had for the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as well as Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents. For the purposes of planning policy consideration the application site is located within a part of the Staffordshire Moorlands which has a Green Belt designation, it is outside of any identified village development boundary and is also within the catchment area of the Churnet Valley Masterplan. 2. Core Strategy policy SS1 identifies that development should contribute positively to the social, economic and environmental improvement of the Staffordshire Moorlands. Policy SS1(a) establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable
AGENDA ITEM 10
10.9
development in association with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), specifying that applications which accord with the relevant policies should be approved unless there are material considerations to indicate otherwise. Principle of Development (Green Belt and Open Countryside) 3. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Green Belt designation serves five purposes;
� to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; � to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; � to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; � to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and � to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and
other urban land. 4. Local Planning Authorities should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Exceptions are;
� buildings for agriculture and forestry; � appropriate facilities for outdoor sport/recreation; � extension/alteration of buildings; � replacement buildings; � limited infilling in villages under policies set out in the Local Plan; � limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously
developed sites (brownfield land) which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.
5. Paragraph 87 of the National Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Strict control will continue to be exercised over inappropriate development in the Green Belt (Core Strategy policies SS6c and R1) allowing only for exceptions as defined by Government policy. The inappropriateness of the development in the Green Belt attracts substantial weight against it. Paragraph 88 (NPPF) states that 'Very Special Circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations'. 6. It is clear that the proposed development is 'inappropriate development' within the Green Belt due to the conflict with paragraph 89 of the NPPF (for ease of reference paragraph 89 is replicated above as paragraph 4). The application does not propose any of the buildings identified as those which can be identified as 'not inappropriate' development. The onus is therefore upon the applicant to demonstrate the very special circumstances as to why planning permission should be granted. Although the applicants contend that the application site is only just outside of the Green Belt, this does not give any weight to the argument of whether the scheme is acceptable. The Green Belt boundary is there for a purpose, the application site is Green Belt land and therefore the policies apply.
AGENDA ITEM 10
10.10
7. Much information has been provided by the applicant explaining why the development is required and why this particular site has been chosen. The facility works by providing power to the local area and will supply topped up electricity to the network around the Kingsley Holt substation; by doing this, the electricity which would have been sent from the wider network can be diverted to other locations when required. The applicants inform that although there is never any guarantee of the number of times in which the facility would be needed, they anticipate it may only be 3-4 times a year. Officers question whether this anticipated use really does demonstrate 'essential need' and whether it would be sufficient to overcome the resultant harm to the Green Belt; the conclusion is that it would not. There is no evidence to prove that the power fluctuation within the Kingsley Holt area is so bad that a facility of this nature is essential. At the time of writing there are 22 wind turbines within the Staffordshire Moorlands District which benefit from planning permission (some consents obtained through appeal decisions). 13 of the turbines have been built and there are a few areas with solar development approvals. It is questioned whether there is an essential existing need for the development within the Staffordshire Moorlands. Members may be aware of a recent statement published by the House of Commons (written by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government) confirming the way in which wind turbine applications will now be determined. Local Planning Authorities should now only grant planning permission if the site is one which is identified as being suitable within a Local or Neighbourhood Plan and where it has the backing of local communities; these considerations took affect on 18th June 2015. No such sites have been identified within the Staffordshire Moorlands, further questioning any future 'essential need' for a STOR facility. 8. The applicant has confirmed that this location was chosen as they had identified that the Kingsley Holt substation (located on Lockwood Road) had capacity to receive locally generated electricity. The applicants contend that this is the most suitable location in the area, in terms of remoteness from neighbours, land where commercial activity was already taking place, and where screening could be achieved to hide the development from view. Information has been submitted stating that other sites within the area had been looked at but were discounted for reasons including proximity to residential properties, visual impact and availability of land. None of the alternative sites have been subject to pre-application advice and the matter of neighbour amenity has not been discussed with Environmental Health officers. Wider assessment of alternative sites does not necessarily mean that very special circumstances have been demonstrated. Predominantly the facility would serve the Kingsley Holt area and again it is questioned whether the benefits of the scheme would outweigh the 'in principle' Green Belt objections. Visual Impact 9. Core Strategy policy DC3 requires the council to protect and where possible enhance local landscape and the setting of settlements. The policy specifies that development should be resisted where it would harm or be detrimental to the character of the local and wider landscape. Development should only be supported which respects and enhances the local landscape character. Core Strategy policies SS6c and DC1 also require development proposals to be high quality and add value
AGENDA ITEM 10
10.11
to the area whilst respecting and responding sensitively to the qualities of the surrounding landscape. 10. The Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment (2008) identifies that the application site is located within an Ancient Slope and Valley Farmland landscape character type; this is middle-ranked in terms of its assessed landscape quality in the county-wide context. The Ancient Slope and Valley Farmland landscape character type is one which covers a large proportion of the Staffordshire Moorlands. Incongruous landscape features include electricity pylons, quarrying/mining activities and localised industrial and residential development. This is an area identified as requiring landscape maintenance and around the Cheadle area as requiring landscape enhancement. The impact of urban expansion needs to be monitored and care should be taken not to introduce any unnecessary urban features into the rural scene. 11. The application site falls within the Churnet Valley Masterplan Boundary where one of the Development and Management Principles is that 'the protection and enhancement of the natural beauty of the Churnet Valley is the overriding requirement for any development. Land uses and the siting and scale of development should respect and enhance the valued characteristics of the Churnet Valley. This requirement ties in with the principles of Green Belt development which protects against urban sprawl and assists in preventing the countryside from encroachment. 12. The site is located on a slight plateau in a gently undulating wider area generally comprising agricultural land. The site sits on/beyond gently rising ground relative to the nearest public highway at A521 Froghall Road to the east. There are no significantly important existing landscape features on the proposed development area, such as trees and hedgerows, which would be removed or which would be damaged by the construction and operation of the scheme. The council's Trees and Woodlands officer has no tree related objections. The applicants have submitted landscaping and sectional details. Proposed bunding areas would be of varying heights ranging between 0.5m - 1.5m with 1m high acoustic wooden fencing on top. The outer slopes of the bunding would benefit from planting and a detailed landscaping plan has been submitted. It is likely that the proposal could be screened by a combination of securing on site land levels details and implementation of the landscaping scheme. 13. Although conditions could be added to mitigate visual impact, the development will still have unacceptable visual impact within the site, encroaching upon the countryside. This is an urban/industrial development within an area predominantly having a rural character. The development would see the area levelled in order to make it suitable for a hardcore stone base and it is intended that each of the transformers and generators would sit upon a concrete base of up to 0.5m deep. The scheme clearly encroaches into the open countryside and does have an adverse impact upon the openness and permanence of the Green Belt. Although the scheme is described as a temporary planning permission, at 25 years it is not realistically considered to be so. Temporary implies an arrangement established with no thought of continuance but with the idea of being changed soon. A temporary structure is something that lasts only a short time.
AGENDA ITEM 10
10.12
Highways 14. The Core Strategy and National Planning Policy Framework both require the provision of safe/satisfactory and suitable access to development proposals. Core Strategy policy T1 informs that all new development should be located where the highway network can satisfactorily accommodate traffic generated by the development. The proposal would be accessed using the existing vehicular access directly off Froghall Road; this arrangement is considered to be acceptable from a highway safety perspective. The County Highways officer raises no objection to the proposal subject to conditions including deliveries to be carried out in accordance with the Supporting Statement section Construction Traffic and the prevention of mud/debris being deposited on the highway. Environmental Health Matters 15. A revised STOR Generator Noise Report has been submitted following on from initial concerns voiced by the council's Environmental Health Department. The Environmental Health officer comments that the assessment proposes a bund and noise barrier and that the mitigation measures should be incorporated into the proposed development. As the site is a former landfill, it is recommended that a contamination land risk assessment should be undertaken. Based on the information supplied and the Environmental Health officer's assessment, it is concluded that there are no noise related objections to the proposal. Listed Building Setting 16. Core Strategy policy DC2 'The Historic Environment' specifies that the council will safeguard and where possible enhance the historic environment including historic landscape character and the settings of designated assets. Development which would harm historic buildings and/or environments should be resisted and only development which sustains, respects or enhances buildings/settlements should be supported. The National Planning Policy Framework (Section 11) states that great weight should be given to the heritage asset's conservation. Booths Farm is a Grade II Listed 17th Century Farmhouse which is located approximately 300 metres to the North West of the application site. The farmhouse can be seen from the application site but at a separation distance of approximately 300m it is not considered to be close enough to have any significant impact upon the Listed Building or its setting. The Councils Conservation Officer has confirmed that there are no Conservation/Listed building reasons to object to the development. For these reasons it is concluded that the application is acceptable in terms of its listed building impact. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Planning Permission be refused for the following reason(s): Planning policies within the National Planning Policy Framework identify that the proposed development constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The proposal will result in substantial harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness. Local Planning Authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any identified Green Belt harm. Inappropriate development is, by
AGENDA ITEM 10
10.13
definition, harmful to the Green Belt and it is not considered that very special circumstances have been demonstrated to overcome the potential harm. The effect on openness on account of the proposal's scale, appearance and layout would be significant in that there would be a clear material conflict with the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy, which is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Furthermore, there is material harm to the visual amenity of the Green Belt from the proposal on account of its unsympathetic scale and urban design, harming the predominantly rural character of the area. Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework advises that applications should be approved without delay, unless any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole or specific policies within the Framework indicate that development should be restricted. In accordance with the Core Strategy and National Framework, the proposal, therefore, should be regarded as unsustainable development and conflicts with policies SS1, SS1a, SS6c, SS7, DC1, DC3, R1 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Adopted Version 26th March 2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework.
AGENDA ITEM 10
10.14
AGENDA ITEM 10
10.15
AGENDA ITEM 10
10.16
Related Documents
