Agenda
Meeting: Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee
Venue: The Grand Meeting Room, County Hall, Northallerton
Date: Tuesday, 20 October 2015 at 10.00am
Recording is allowed at County Council, committee and sub-committee meetings which are open to the public, please give due regard to the Council’s protocol on audio/visual recording and photography at public meetings, a copy of which is available to download below. Anyone wishing to record is asked to contact, prior to the start of the meeting, the Officer whose details are at the foot of the first page of the Agenda. We ask that any recording is clearly visible to anyone at the meeting and that it is non-disruptive. http://democracy.northyorks.gov.uk
Business
1. Minutes of the Meeting held on 1 September 2015 (Pages 1 to 7)
2. Public Questions or Statements.
Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice to Steve Loach of Democratic Services (contact details below) by midday Thursday 15 October 2015, three working days before the day of the meeting. Each speaker should limit themselves to 3 minutes on any item. Members of the public who have given notice will be invited to speak:-
at this point in the meeting if their questions/statements relate to matters which are not otherwise on the Agenda (subject to an overall time limit of 30 minutes);
when the relevant Agenda item is being considered if they wish to speak on a matter which is on the Agenda for this meeting.
Enquiries relating to this agenda please contact Steve Loach Tel: 01609 532216 Fax: 01609 780447 or e-mail [email protected] (or 0800 220617 after office hours) Website: www.northyorks.gov.uk
County Matters
3. NY/2015/0233/ENV - (C3/15/00971/CPO) - To hydraulically stimulate and test the various geological formations previously identified during the 2013 KM8 drilling operation, followed by the production of gas from one or more of these formations into the existing production facilities, followed by wellsite restoration. Plant and machinery to be used includes a workover rig (maximum height 37m) hydraulic fracture equipment, coil tubing unit, wireline unit, well testing equipment, high pressure flowline, temporary flowline pipe supports, permanent high pressure flowline and permanent pipe supports KMA wellsite, Alma Farm, Off Habton Road, Kirby Misperton - Members Site Visit (Pages 8 to 72)
4. NY/2014/0275/ENV - C3/14/00970/CPO - Planning Application accompanied by an Environmental Statement for natural gas production and water re-injection at the existing borehole at the Ebberston Moor South well site; the construction and drilling of a second borehole for water production and re-injection; the construction of a 13.9km long 12" diameter steel underground pipeline from Ebberston Moor South well site to transfer natural gas to the Knapton Generating Station and installation of a new gas reception module at the Generating Station at Ebberston Moor South wellsite, Ebberston Common Lane, Snainton -interconnecting pipeline- to Knapton Generating Station, East Knapton, Malton –Update (Pages 73 to 176)
County Council Development
5. NY/2015/010/COU - (C8/2015/0447/CPO) - Change of use of field and woodland area from agricultural to D1, for use as playing field and other outdoor activity associated with Saxton C of E Primary School at Land adjacent to Saxton C of E Primary School, Dam Lane, Saxton, Tadcaster (Pages 177 to 208)
General
6. Items dealt with under scheme of delegation (Pages 209 to 212)
7. Other business which the Chairman agrees should be considered as a matter of urgency because of special circumstances.
Barry Khan Assistant Chief Executive (Legal and Democratic Services)
County Hall Northallerton
October 2015
NYCC Planning & Regulatory Functions 2015-10-20 Agenda/2 NOTES: (a) Members are reminded of the need to consider whether they have any interests to declare on any of the items on this agenda and, if so, of the need to explain the reason(s) why they have any interest when making a declaration.
The relevant Committee Administrator or Monitoring Officer will be pleased to advise on interest issues. Ideally their views should be sought as soon as possible and preferably prior to the day of the meeting, so that time is available to explore adequately any issues that might arise.
(b) Emergency Procedures For Meetings
Fire The fire evacuation alarm is a continuous Klaxon. On hearing this you should leave the building by the nearest safe fire exit. From the (insert relevant room and relevant evacuation procedure). Once outside the building please proceed to the fire assembly point outside the main entrance
Persons should not re-enter the building until authorised to do so by the Fire and Rescue Service or the Emergency Co-ordinator.
An intermittent alarm indicates an emergency in nearby building. It is not necessary to evacuate the building but you should be ready for instructions from the Fire Warden.
Accident or Illness First Aid treatment can be obtained by telephoning Extension 7575.
NYCC Planning & Regulatory Functions 2015-10-20 Agenda/3 Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee
1. Membership County Councillors (11) Councillors Names Political Party 1 BLADES, David Conservative 2 HESELTINE, Robert Independent 3 HOULT, Bill Liberal Democrat 4 IRETON, David Conservative 5 LEE, Andrew (Vice-Chairman) Conservative 6 LUNN, Cliff Conservative 7 McCARTNEY, John NY Independent 8 PACKHAM, Robert Labour 9 SOWRAY, Peter (Chairman) Conservative 10 TROTTER, Cliff Conservative 11 WINDASS, Robert Conservative Total Membership – (11) Quorum – (3) Con Lib Dem NY Ind Labour Liberal UKIP Ind Total 7 1 1 1 0 0 1 11
2. Substitute Members Conservative Liberal Democrat Councillors Names Councillors Names 1 HARRISON-TOPHAM, Roger 1 GOSS, Andrew 2 WELCH, Richard 2 JONES, Anne 3 PEARSON, Chris 3 GRIFFITHS, Bryn 4 JEFFELS, David 4 5 5 NY Independent Labour Councillors Names Councillors Names 1 BARRETT, Philip 1 BROADBENT, Eric 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5
NYCC Planning & Regulatory Functions 2015-10-20 Agenda/4 A167
B6271 A684
A1 Northallerton
A684 A19
Bedale A168
A1 A167 Thirsk
CountyCounty HallHall
------ww -- -- ww --
CountyCounty HallHall VisitorVisitor ParkingParking NorthallertonNorthallerton NationalNational NorthallertonNorthallerton BusBus StopsStops ww atat CountyCounty HallHall -- RailRail StationStation -- NorthNorth YorkshireYorkshire DL7DL7 8AD8AD
©©© CrownCrownCrown copyright.copyright.copyright. AllAllAll rightsrightsrights reserved.reserved.reserved. NorthNorthNorth YorkshireYorkshireYorkshire CountyCountyCounty CouncilCouncilCouncil 100017946100017946100017946 200820082008 (Produced(Produced(Produced bybyby CorporateCorporateCorporate GIGIGI Team)Team)Team) TelTel :: 08450845 88 7272 7373 7474 ITEM 1
North Yorkshire County Council
Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee
Minutes of the meeting held at County Hall, Northallerton on 1 September 2015, commencing at 10.00 am.
Present:-
County Councillors Peter Sowray (Chairman), David Blades, Robert Heseltine, Bill Hoult, David Ireton, Andrew Lee, Cliff Lunn, John McCartney, Bob Packham and Cliff Trotter.
Apologies were received from County Councillor Robert Windass
There were 10 members of the press and public in attendance.
Copies of all documents considered are in the Minute Book
132. Minutes
Resolved -
That the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 July 2015, having been printed and circulated, be taken as read and confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record, subject to the following alteration:-
133. Exclusion of the Public
The Committee was recommended to exclude the press and public from the meeting during consideration of item 8 on the agenda.
Members opposed the exclusion of the press and public and called for consideration of item 8 on the agenda to be deferred to a later date so that the press and public could attend.
Resolved -
That exclusion of the press and public during consideration of item 8 on the agenda is refused.
134. Public Questions or Statements
The Assistant Chief Executive (Legal and Democratic Services) reported that apart from people who had registered to speak in respect of the applications listed below and who would be invited do so during consideration of those items, there were no public questions or statements from members of the public.
NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 1 September 2015/1
1 135. NY/2015/0116/FUL (C3/15/00470/CPO) - Installation of up to five (5) water monitoring boreholes comprising three shallow boreholes (approximately 10 metres in depth) within the KM8 Wellsite, one intermediate borehole (approximately 50 metres in depth) and one deep borehole (approximately 220 metres in depth) within the adjoining KM1 Wellsite on behalf of Petroleum Safety Services Limited
Considered -
The report of the Corporate Director – Business & Environmental Services inviting the Committee to determine a planning application for the installation of up to 5 water monitoring boreholes comprising three shall boreholes (approximately 10 metres in depth) within the KM8 wellsite, one intermediate borehole (approximately 50 metre in depth) and one deep borehole (approximately 220 metres in depth) with the adjoining KM1 wellsite on land at the KMA wellsite, Alma Farm, Kirby Misperton on behalf of Third Energy UK Gas Limited.
The application was subject to unresolved objections from local residents, action/campaign groups ‘Frack Free Ryedale’ and ‘Frack Free Kirby Misperton’ and District Councillor, Malton Town Councillor and Habton Parish Council Chairman, Paul Andrews. Details of the objections were contained in the report. A letter of representation sent by Friends of the Earth, the legal advisers to ‘Frack Free Ryedale’ had been circulated to Members and the Head of Planning Services prior to the meeting. Hard copies of the letter (dated 28 August) were tabled at the meeting. Members all indicated that they had seen and read the letter sent by Friends of the Earth.
David Davis a Ryedale resident addressed the Committee and spoke on behalf of Frack Free Ryedale in objection to the application highlighting the following:-
That approval of the application that day would predetermine an application to hydraulically fracture at KM8 That the geotechnical evaluation of the site indicated that contamination was in the soil and that there was a pathway to surface water sources The need for further clarification in respect of the deepest borehole about which section of the Corallian aquifer should be monitored/sampled The lack of an agreed monitoring regime with the Environment Agency in respect of the top 30 metres of the Corallian aquifer The lack of response by Ryedale District Council to further information posted on the NYCC portal That concerns raised in respect of owls and bats had not been referred to the County Council’s adviser for comment Statements made by the Applicant indicating that if the application was not approved then an appeal to the Secretary of State for non-determination would immediately be lodged Urged Members to defer making a decision so that further information/advice could be obtained
Liz Walker, planning agent for the applicant addressed the Committee and spoke on behalf of Third Energy in support of the application highlighting the following:-
The comprehensiveness of the report That the proposal accorded with local and national policy That there were no objections from statutory consultees
NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 1 September 2015/2
2 That the wellsite had for 20 years produced gas and electricity during which time there had been no major incidents That the Applicant had an excellent health, safety and environmental record The visual impact would be negligible That independent legal advice sought by the Applicant had confirmed that a positive determination of the application could not viewed at pre-determining any future application on the site.
Shaun Zablocki of Third Energy read out a statement that had been prepared by the Applicant’s hydrogeologist in support of the application highlighting the following:-
That the baseline would provide a reference point against which any change in the quality of the groundwater could be measured Monitoring boreholes and the establishment of a groundwater quality baseline was not controversial and would provide a robust evidence base for the operator, the public and regulators The construction of monitoring boreholes was routine and would be in accordance with British Standards and the equipment used would be the same as would be used to construct a domestic water well or water borehole for a farm The baseline monitoring data would supplement baseline data the Applicant had already been collecting for seven months The baseline data would be made publicly available The monitoring boreholes would be made available to the British Geological Survey so they could incorporate them into their own independent baseline data collection programme
At this point in the meeting a television cameraman entered and indicated that he would like to film the meeting. The Chairman asked if anyone present had any objection to being filmed. No objections were received.
The Head of Planning Services presented the report, highlighting the proposal, the consultations that had taken place, the advertisement and representations, planning guidance and policy and planning consideration, together with the conclusion and recommendation. A series of plans, photographs and visual information was presented to complement the report.
The following verbal updates were given in respect of the report at the meeting:-
Paragraph 5.3 of the report - As at the date of the meeting sixty-four letters/emails of representation had been received. Of those, four had not responded to a request to provide an address. Only one of the sixty four letters/emails conveyed comments as opposed to a stated objection to the proposals. The spatial distribution of the additional representations received were as follows Settrington (1), Oswaldkirk (1) Brawby (1) Paragraph 3.4 of the report– The Applicant had confirmed in writing that the same drill rig as that proposed for the shallow boreholes was proposed for the intermediate and deep borehole Paragraph 3.5 of the report– The Applicant had confirmed in writing that one lighting tower with a bank of four lamps of 1,000w power was proposed and had provided a plan showing the proposed location of the lighting tower Paragraph 4.1 – at the beginning of the sixth line in the published report, the date referred to should read Thursday 14 May
NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 1 September 2015/3
3 Paragraph 4.6 – the Environment Agency had confirmed that the sampling of the top 30 metres of the Corallian Aquifer was acceptable at this point in time Paragraph 9.1 – the list of recommended conditions should include those conveyed by the Highway Authority details provided later in the meeting and an Informative as recommended by the Public Rights of Way Team to be inserted on any Decision Notice should Members resolve to grant permission
The Head of Planning Services requested that the following additional conditions be attached to the application:-
USE OF EXISTING ACCESS There shall be no access or egress between the highway and the application site by any vehicles other than via the existing access with the public highway at Habton Road. The access shall be maintained in a safe manner which shall include the report of any damage to the existing adopted highway occurring during construction. REASON In the interests of both vehicles and pedestrian safety and the visual amenity of the area.
PRECAUTIONS TO PREVENT MUD ON THE HIGHWAY There shall be no access or egress by any vehicles between the highway and the application site until details of the precautions to be taken to prevent the deposit of mud, grit and dirt on public highways by vehicles travelling to and from the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. These facilities shall include the provision of wheel washing facilities where considered necessary by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. These precautions shall be made available before any excavation or depositing of material in connection with the construction commences on the site and be kept available and in full working order and used until such time as the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority agrees in writing to their withdrawal. REASON To ensure that no mud or other debris is deposited on the carriageway in the interests of highway safety.
CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN No development for any phase of the development shall take place until a Traffic Management Plan for that phase has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the County Planning Authority in consultation with the County Highway Authority. REASON To avoid conflict with vulnerable road users.
INFORMATIVE – Public Rights of Way The existing Public Rights of Way on the site must be protected and kept clear of any obstructions until such time as an alternative route has been provided and confirmed under an Order made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Applicants are advised to contact the County Council’s Access and Public Rights of Way Team at County Hall, Northallerton via [email protected] to obtain up to date information regarding the line of the route of the way. The Applicant should discuss with the Highways Authority any proposals for altering the route.
NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 1 September 2015/4
4
Members noted the updates and endorsed the proposed amendments. In response to questions from Members the Head of Planning confirmed that there had been no response to the consultation by the North York Moors National Park Authority and that it was a requirement that methane in groundwater was monitored for twelve months before high volume hydraulic fracturing could occur.
Members said they were satisfied that approval of the application that day would not predetermine an application for hydraulic fracturing at the KMA wellsite at Alma Farm.
Resolved -
That planning permission be granted for the reasons stated within the report and subject to the additional conditions outlined above and the conditions detailed within the report.
136. NY/2015/0052/FUL (C6/15/02630/CMA) - Installation of a steel container at The Forest School, Park Lane, Knaresborough, HG5 0DZ on behalf of The Headteacher at The Forest School
Considered -
The report of the Corporate Director - Business and Environmental Services asking the Committee to determine a planning application for the installation of a steel container on land at Forest School, Park Lane, Knaresborough on behalf of the Forest School.
This application was subject to an objection from Knaresborough Town Council. The grounds for the objection were detailed within the report.
A representative of the Head of Planning services presented the report highlighting the proposal, together with the conclusion and recommendation. A series of plans, photographs and visual information was provided to complement the report.
Members were disappointed that representatives of Knaresborough Town Council were not in attendance.
A Member proposed and it was seconded that the following additional condition was attached to the application:-
“That permission for the approved container is for a maximum of six years”.
The amendment was put to the vote and declared lost.
Resolved -
That planning permission be granted for the reasons stated within the report and subject conditions detailed within the report.
NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 1 September 2015/5
5 137. Items dealt with under scheme of delegation
Considered -
The report of the Corporate Director - Business and Environmental Services regarding items dealt with under the Scheme of Delegation for the period 24 June 2015 to 10 August 2015.
Resolved -
That the report be noted.
138. Publication by Local Authorities of Information about the Handling of Planning Applications
Considered -
The report of the Corporate Director - Business and Environmental Services outlining the County Council’s performance handling ‘County Matter’ and County Council development planning applications for Quarter 1 (the period 1 April to 30 June 2015).
The Head of Planning Services advised that subsequent to publication of the report Inspectors decision on the Whitewall Quarry application had been received. The Planning Inspector had dismissed the appeal. The Planning Inspector had agreed with the planning authority that the application was contrary to policy. Details of the Planning Inspector’s decision were summarised by the Head of Planning Services.
A Member referred to a number of legacy applications described in the report where progress had halted due to the failure of the Applicant to contact the planning authority. The Member asked in such instances whether the Applicant still had grounds to appeal and if not that the applications were dismissed. The Head of Planning Services agreed to look into the situation and to bring a report to a future meeting.
Resolved -
That the report be noted.
139. Former Wistow and Stillingfleet Mine sites - Potential enforcement action in respect of failure to comply with extant planning conditions requiring the removal of buildings, plant and equipment and the restoration of land at the above sites
Considered -
The report of the Corporate Director - Business and Environmental Services seeking instructions from Members on whether to pursue enforcement action at Wistow and Stillingfleet Mine Sites.
The local member said the matter had a long history and was very contentious. For these reasons and in the interests of transparency he did not agree with the report being classified as ‘exempt’. He called for the report to be made a public document and for the decision to be deferred to a later date, so that the public could attend.
NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 1 September 2015/6
6
In response the County Council’s legal adviser said that information in the report satisfied the criteria for the report to be classified as ‘exempt’ however the decision to exclude the press and public rested with Members.
Members agreed with the local Member and requested that any ‘exempt’ information in an updated report was in a separate appendix, that way the whole report would not have to be exempt.
In view of the timescales involved Members agreed an additional meeting of the Committee would need to be held during September.
Resolved -
That an additional meeting of the Planning & Regulatory Functions Committee be held on Monday 21 September 2015 at 2.00pm to consider a report on enforcement action at Wistow and Stillingfleet Mines.
The meeting concluded at 11.20pm.
JW
NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 1 September 2015/7
7 ITEM 3
North Yorkshire County Council
Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee
20 October 2015
C3/15/00971/CPO (NY/2015/0233/ENV) - Planning application hydraulically stimulate and test the various geological formations previously identified during the 2013 KM8 drilling operation, followed by the production of gas from one or more of these formations into the existing production facilities, followed by wellsite restoration. Plant and machinery to be used includes a workover rig (maximum height 37m) hydraulic fracture equipment, coil tubing unit, wireline unit, well testing equipment, high pressure flowline, temporary flowline pipe supports, permanent high pressure flowline and permanent pipe supports on land at KMA wellsite, Alma Farm, Kirby Misperton, North Yorkshire on behalf of Third Energy UK Gas Limited (Ryedale District) (Malton Electoral Division)
Report of the Corporate Director – Business and Environmental Services
1.0 Purpose of the report 1.1 To provide Members with a report summarising the application and the consultation responses and representations received thus far, together with an appraisal of the guidance and policy at national level as well as relevant extant Development Plan policies at this interim stage and a summary of the principal planning considerations that are able to be identified at this stage in the processing of this application and finally recommend that prior to the determination of the application Members consider undertaking a formal Committee Site Visit. 1.2 Members are advised that while this report is comprehensive, it is not the substantive report for the purpose of the determination of the planning application. This report enables Members to be appraised of the detail of the application and the outcome, thus far, of consultation and public engagement in the application and will facilitate Members’ understanding of the application in advance of any potential visit to the application site should Members resolved to undertake such a visit prior to any subsequent determination of the application.
2.0 Background
2.1 The KM A wellsite is an existing wellsite formed of two wellpads; one relates to wells which are known as KM3 and KM7 (a side tracked well of the former KM1well) and the other relates to the well which is known as KM8. For the purpose of this report, the distinction is made between wellsite and wellpad to aid understanding. The KM A wellsite comprises the siting of three wells, KM3 and KM7 upon the earlier constructed wellpad and KM8 on the more recently constructed wellpad forming an extension to the KM A wellsite. The original KM1 well is stated as having now been ‘abandoned’, having been successful
8 2
as a producing gas well. The KM7 well, a side track of KM1, was drilled in 2012, but was unsuccessful in producing gas and the KM3 well is used for water and condensate disposal. A plan showing the location of the application site is appended to this report (Appendix A).
2.2 For the purpose of aiding the understanding of the context of the proposal, the applicant company also operates another wellsite within the vicinity of the site of the proposed development. This is known as KM B. This is the site of two wells, KM2 (later sidetracked to form KM4) and KM5. The application under consideration relates solely to the KM A wellsite.
2.3 Further afield, there are the following well sites which are all within the operational control of the applicant company. These include:
• the Pickering well site which is the location of the Pickering wells, PK1 & PK2 is located at Haygate Lane, off Malton Road, Pickering. It is understood that PK1 (completed in 1996) and PK2 (completed in 2009) target gas within the Kirkham Abbey Formation (KAF), but PK1 is not currently producing (correct at 26th August 2015); • the Marishes well site is the location of the Marishes (MAR 1) well near Wath Hall, Low Marishes; • the Malton (M A) well site is the location of the Malton 1 (MN 1) well on Habton Lane, Great Habton. It is understood that MN 1 is still in production; and, • the Malton (M B) well site is the location of the Malton 4 (MN 4) well near Wellfield Farm, Kirby Misperton Lane, Great Habton; although, it is understood that this well is currently suspended.
2.4 An existing pipeline network joins all of the afore mentioned wells to the existing operational Knapton gas fired electricity generating station (as shown on the plan accompanying this report as Appendix B).
2.5 KM A lies some 800 metres south west of the village of Kirby Misperton (taken from a point in the approximate centre of the village to the centre of the site of the proposed development). The surrounds of the wellsite are predominantly rural in character with a gently undulating field system of hedgerow boundaries, intermittent trees and woodland copses. Agriculture (both pastoral and arable) is one of the principal economic drivers in the local economy and benefits from a significant proportion of the land in the local area being classified as ‘best and most versatile land’ (i.e. land of Grade 3a and above). Much of the wider landscape is ‘cut’ by numerous man made drainage ditches owing to the Vale of Pickering being low lying and floodplain.
2.6 Properties on the edge of Kirby Misperton village, nearest to the site of the proposed development, lie at a distance over 600 metres. However, a number of individual residential properties lie closer to the site of the proposed development, namely Glebe Farm (some 450 metres to the north), High Grange Farm (some 550 metres to the east), ‘Marlin’ (a bungalow) and Kirby O Carr Farm (some 210 metres to the south east), Alma Farm (approximately 280 metres to the north west) and Sugar Hill (some 150 metres to the north west). Various stated distances in documents relating to the application, including this report, depend upon whether curtilage to curtilage distances or commrep/2 9 3
centrepoint to centrepoint distances have been used. For the purpose of this report, the former has been used.
2.7 In addition to permanent residential properties in the vicinity of the site of the proposed development, there exist a number of parks for caravanning and camping (the closest of which lies some 400 metres from the KM A wellsite) and also the holiday resort of ‘Flamingo Land Theme Park and Zoo’. This and tourism in general is another significant economic driver in the locality of the site for the proposed development.
2.8 The existing KM A wellsite is accessed from the public highway of Habton Road (between the villages Kirby Misperton and Great Habton) along an existing track which is a shared access to Alma Farm and the earlier referred wellsite known as KM B. This access track also forms a section of public right of way, a public footpath (Definitive Map ref. no. 25.53/5/2). A second public footpath (Definitive Map ref. no. 25.53/4/1) lies contiguous with the northern boundary of the KM A wellsite and, in part, contiguous with the most northern section of the eastern boundary.
2.9 The topography of the land is such that there is a fall from north to south and, thereby, the floor of the KM A wellsite, for the most part, sits below the height of the adjacent surrounding land. The obscuring of a clear view of the site is further augmented by screening bunds and landscaping (with species including oak, ash, birch, cherry, pine, willow, hazel, dogwood and hawthorn ranging from 8 10 metres in height) which, having been established at the time of the development of the original wells, have matured to provide an effective screen, thereby, affording only limited views of the existing well pad comprising the KM3 and KM7 (formerly KM1) wells. However, this is less so the case in respect of the more recently constructed well pad of KM8, where long views are gained from higher ground due to the immaturity of the screen planting on the recently constructed bunds around the KM8 well.
2.10 The KM A wellsite itself comprises a compound, surfaced with stone aggregate and enclosed by a gated 2.8 metre high security fence. Upon the floor of the wellsite lies an array of pipes and associated paraphernalia of above surface equipment in use for various processes in connection with the production of natural gas and, in the case of KM3, the re injection of water and condensate from the existing production wells as a result of the conventional gas extraction process currently being undertaken.
2.11 The KM A wellsite boundary treatment comprises a black, wire mesh security fence and screening mounds topped by mature landscaping insofar as the wellpad for wells KM3 and KM7; the wellpad for KM8 has only a screening bund at this point in time as the planting scheme only recently implemented will require some 10 to 15 years to become wholly mature and, thereby, provide the effective screen it is designed to achieve.
Planning constraints 2.12 The application site does not fall within designated national or european sites including World Heritage Sites, National Parks (the North York Moors National Park lies 6km distant), Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (the Howardian commrep/3 10 4
Hills AONB lies 6km distant), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (the River Derwent SSSI), National Nature Reserves, Conservation Areas, Special Areas of Conservation (the River Derwent SAC (and SSSI) lies some 6.8 kilometres to the south west), Special Protection Areas/RAMSAR sites (the North York Moors SPA and SAC (and SSSI) lies some 12 kilometres to the north) or Green Belt designations. Furthermore, protected or priority species (either on the application site per se or on land adjacent to the application site) have not been identified as either being present or their habitat affected by the proposed development.
2.13 However, lying within 20 metres of a watercourse, the application site is affected by the constraints of Flood Zones 2 and 3 and public rights of way, more specifically, footpaths, namely Definitive Map ref. no.s 25.53/5/2 and 25.53/4/1, lie in close proximity to the application site and for a distance abutting or even within the red line boundary of the application site itself .
2.14 Further afield, is the Grade II* Listed building of the Church of St Laurence in the village of Kirby Misperton (a kilometre distant) due north east and a Scheduled Monument, known as ‘Earthworks at Manor House, Great Barugh’ (just over two kilometres distant to the west).
2.15 The Church of St Laurence is described by Historic England as “largely 14th century in date within 19th century additions, incorporating 10th century carved stone”. It goes on to describe the church as being “centrally located and prominent in the village although its significance derives from its strength as an expression of a largely inward looking village growth and development”.
2.16 At the scheduled monument at Great Barugh lies an “earthwork and buried remains of a substantial enclosure considered to be medieval or potentially early medieval date. The Roman (or medieval) Wade’s Causeway crosses the site from south to north”.
2.17 Historic England also advises there lie heritage assets of nationally important “waterlogged early prehistoric archaeological deposits in the Vale of Pickering affording a unique example of layered occupation, adaptation and use”.
2.18 Whilst referred to as a locally designated Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) by the applicant, the County Planning Authority has been notified by its adviser on matters of ecology that Low Carr Farm, lying some 1.8 kilometres to the east of the proposed development, “is not formally designated within the Ryedale Local Plan”.
Planning history 2.19 The first of the KM A wells was an exploratory well drilled in 1985 by Taylor Woodrow Exploration, but consent for the commercial production of gas from KM A was granted in March 1993 (planning permission ref. no. C3/71/29D/FA). Ten years after gas was first discovered, commercial production from the four fields of Kirby Misperton, Pickering, Marishes and Malton began in 1995. commrep/4 11 5
2.20 In order to continue the operation of producing gas from the KM A well site, planning permission was sought and granted in August 2006 (planning permission ref. no. C3/06/00625/CPO/C) to extend the time in which to so do until 19th May 2018.
2.21 Notwithstanding a permission in January 2009 to extend the KM A wellsite (planning permission ref. no. C3/08/01050/CPO), the absence of implementation of that permission meant that in 2012/13, planning permission was again sought and granted on 9th January 2013 for the construction of an extension to the existing wellsite (Kirby Misperton 1), and to drill and test up to two (2) production boreholes followed by subsequent production of gas. The extension and the well known as KM8 were subsequently implemented in 2013. The KM8 well was drilled to a true vertical depth of some 3,104 metres (10,184 feet) down to the Bowland Shale formation which is the target formation from which the intention of the applicant company is to exploit the shale gas within, should commercially viable quantities of that gas be discovered. At depth, the well bore is encased in a 178mm (7”) steel casing running for 1,854 metres (6,084 feet) down from 1,249 metres (4,100 feet) below ground level to the base of the bore down at 3,104 metres (10,184 feet).
2.22 According to the schematic submitted to the County Planning Authority at the time of the application for the KM8 well, the design provided for three further layers of casing the closer to the surface the borehole reaches, such that from the ground down to 1,249 metres (4,100 feet) below there were included casings of decreasing diameter from 50.8 cm (20”) within the first approximately 252 metres (830 feet), 33.97 cm (13 3/8”) within the next 2,470 metres (8,103 feet) down to approximately 1,005 metres (3,300 feet) and within the next a 24.44 cm (9 5/8”) diameter casing down to approximately 1,249 metres (4,100 feet). The schematic is attached hereto as Appendix C.
2.23 Earlier this year, an application was before Members on the 12th of May which sought planning permission for the purpose of the erection of a 2.7 metre high security fence, access gates and two pedestrian emergency access gates. Members will recall, having been satisfied that environmental aspects had been considered and that its appearance would be mitigated by existing fencing and vegetation, that approval was given for the reasons stated within the Officer report and subject to the conditions detailed therein. The formal Decision Notice pertaining to the planning permission has been issued, but the fencing has yet to be erected (correct at 30th September 2015).
2.24 More recently, on 1st September 2015, Members resolved to grant planning permission for the purpose of the sinking of five groundwater monitoring boreholes on the KM A wellsite to undertake baseline monitoring of groundwater to characterise groundwater quality prior to the undertaking of any operation to hydraulically stimulate and test various geological formations through which KM8 has previously been drilled. The formal Decision Notice in respect of this more recent decision was issued on 3rd September 2015. As of 30th September 2015, this permission has yet to be implemented. In the event that the groundwater monitoring boreholes were to be installed, they would be used to compare the characterisation of baseline groundwater from existing water features with the baseline groundwater quality at the wellsite, resulting commrep/5 12 6
in an overall baseline water quality characterisation. In the long term, the applicant proposes that the boreholes would be used to monitor groundwater quality during and after the proposed KM8 hydraulic fracturing operation were planning permission to be granted to undertake such an operation.
3.0 The proposal
3.1 The proposal would comprise five principal phases: • Phase 1 Pre stimulation workover; • Phase 2 Hydraulic fracture stimulation / well test; • Phase 3 Production test; • Phase 4 Production; and, • Phase 5 Site Restoration.
Phase 1 – Pre stimulation workover (two weeks duration) 3.2 Phase 1, the pre stimulation workover, as proposed, would involve the mobilisation of a work over rig stated as reaching a maximum height of 37 metres which would be used in the operation of: • removing the equipment already down the well; • sending equipment down the well to appraise the depths of the target formation zones that are proposed to be hydraulically fractured; • ‘perforating’ the well • ‘cleaning’ the well after the well has been perforated; and, • sending back down the well a completion string with ‘packers’ and ‘plugs’ providing for the isolation of each ‘zone’ (explained below).
3.3 In addition to these operations are proposed to be the erection on site of a barrier (on the east, north and west flanks of the inside edge of the existing screening bund around the KM8 well) formed of forty two (42 no.) ISO shipping containers stacked three (3) high reaching 8.7 metres (28’6”) to act as both a noise attenuation barrier and a visual screen. Thirty three (33) of these shipping containers would measure twelve (12) metres (40 feet) in length and nine (9) would be six (6) metres in length.
3.4 Although unconfirmed by the applicant (correct at 30th September 2015), to achieve the 8.7 metre high barrier as proposed, the individual shipping containers would, by necessity, have to be the high cube variety of 2.9 metres (9’6”) in height. This is subject to a point of clarification with the applicant.
3.5 Within the application details put forward to the County Planning Authority is a statement which reads “alternative noise attenuation systems are currently being considered”. However, the County Planning Authority has made a request of the applicant to furnish the Authority with details of those alternatives.
3.6 Associated HGV vehicle movements in connection with the erection of the shipping containers would amount to 78; comprising 42 containers brought into the site and a crane (with a reach height of 60 metres) to mount them in place. A further 30 vehicle movements have been identified in the application commrep/6 13 7
details as being necessary for Phase 1 of the proposed development and additional six vehicle movements (including LGVs and cars) per day. At the busiest of times, the site would experience a frequency of vehicle movement approximately every ten minutes.
3.7 With the exception of the vehicle movements to and from the site which are proposed to take place between the hours of 7am and 7pm, all other operations/activities that are proposed to take place on the site during Phase 1 of the proposed development would take place on a 24/7 basis for a period of two weeks.
3.8 In proposing that activities would take place during hours of darkness, the health and safety requirements of the operations necessitate the use of two lighting towers each reaching 8 metres in height and each comprising a bank of four metal halide lamps each of 1,000W power. These two lighting towers are proposed to be sited on the ‘inside’ of the proposed noise attenuation barrier and being 0.7 metres lower than the barrier would not be visible from views outside the site, with the exception of ‘glow’. Other than that which would be required within the site itself, additional external lighting, in the form of linear fluorescent lighting, would be that which is necessary to ensure that the block which travels up and down the mast of the workover rig may be seen. Considering the height of the proposed rig of 37 metres, the portion of the rig that would rise above the barrier formed of shipping containers would be visible both during the day and also at night time too.
3.9 Any waste associated with the Phase 1 pre stimulation workover operations have been stated by the applicant as being confined to well suspension fluids amounting to less than 25 tonnes and the tailings and scrapings from the well bore clean up operations amounting to 0.05 tonnes in weight.
3.10 After the Phase 1 operations are complete, the 37 metre high workover rig is proposed to be demobilised from the site.
Phase 2 Hydraulic fracture stimulation / well test (six weeks duration) 3.11 Phase 2 would require the mobilisation onto site of a 25 metre high coil tubing tower replacing the earlier referred 37 metre high workover rig. This particular phase comprises the hydraulic fracturing operation which is proposed to take place within five separate ‘zones’ (A to E with ‘E’ being the deepest zone) within the target formation at the following depths:
• Zone A 2,123m (6,965ft) to 2,129m (6,985ft); • Zone B 2,247m (7,370ft) to 2,253m (7,390ft); • Zone C 2,652m (8,699ft) to 2,658m (8,719ft); • Zone D 2,760m (9,056ft) to 2,766m (9,076ft); and • Zone E 3,037m (9,964ft) to 3,043m (9,984ft).
3.12 Each zone would have a vertical extent of six (6) metres (20 feet), but each lateral reach is not as consistent and each are dependent upon many variables such as the particular composition of the level within the target formation. The Applicant has been requested to provide plans of a larger scale and greater clarity in respect of the schematic showing the completion commrep/7 14 8
string and the hydraulic fracture design considering that the information submitted in both electronic and hard copy form are currently illegible.
3.13 Along each zoned six metre vertical length of the well, during the aforementioned Phase 1 operations, operations would have seen the sending of a perforation gun down into the well to ‘puncture’ the well casing creating direct communication between the borehole and the target formation within each of the five zones.
3.14 In order to ensure isolation between each of the proposed zones, the proposal would involve the sending down into the well a ‘completion string’ that would allow the installation of completion ‘packers’ and ‘plugs’ to ‘separate off’ each zone from another; notwithstanding that the zones are proposed to be at least 102 metres apart. Again, this operation is proposed to be undertaken in the earlier Phase 1 due to the need to utilise the 37 metre high workover rig to undertaken the necessary works. A schematic submitted with the original application details dated 29th July 2015 is appended hereto as Appendix D.
3.15 Once each zone has been isolated the proposed hydraulic fracture stimulation of the well is proposed to be undertaken.
3.16 Hydraulic fracturing is defined as being “A stimulation treatment routinely performed on oil and gas wells in low permeability reservoirs. Specially engineered fluids are pumped at high pressure and rate into the reservoir interval to be treated, causing a vertical fracture to open. The wings of the fracture extend away from the wellbore in opposing directions according to the natural stresses within the formation. Proppant, such as grains of sand of a particular size, is mixed with the treatment fluid to keep the fracture open when the treatment is complete” (Source: Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary (2015)).
3.17 The Royal Society explains the process as follows: “Once a well has been drilled and cased (‘completed’), explosive charges fired by an electric current perforate holes along selected intervals of the well within the shale formation from which shale gas is produced (‘production zone’). Pumps are used to inject fracturing fluids, consisting of water, sand (‘proppant’) and chemicals, under high pressure into the well. The injection pressure generates stresses in the shale that exceed its strength, opening up existing fractures or creating new ones. The fractures extend a few hundred metres into the rock and the newly created fractures are propped open by the sand. Additional fluids are pumped into the well to maintain the pressure in the well so that fracture development can continue and proppant can be carried deeper into the formation (API 2009). A well may be too long to maintain sufficient pressure to stimulate fractures across its entire length. Plugs may be inserted to divide the well into smaller sections (‘stages’). Stages are fractured sequentially, beginning with the stage furthest away and moving towards the start of the well. After fracturing, the plugs are drilled through and the well is depressurised. This creates a pressure gradient so that gas flows out of the shale into the well. Fracturing fluid flows back to the surface (‘flowback water’) but it now also contains saline water with dissolved minerals from the shale formation (’formation water’). Fracturing fluid and formation water commrep/8 15 9
returns to the surface over the lifetime of the well as it continues to produce shale gas (‘produced water’)” (The Royal Society, 2012).
3.18 In this specific proposal, the applicant refers to a “designed hydraulic stimulation treatment”. This is also referred to, by others, as ‘fracking fluid’. The “designed hydraulic fracture treatment”, as explained in the application details, comprises additives which have been approved for use by the Environment Agency and are described as being “non hazardous to groundwater properties”.
3.19 The details, as submitted, provide for each proposed fracture zone a specific quantity of components that comprise the “designed hydraulic fracture treatment”. However, for the purpose of this report, the components of the treatment, as opposed to their quantities, are provided herein. Should Members wish to review the components and their respective quantities these are available on the Online Planning Register under document entitled ‘150821_NY20150233ENV_doc_acc_ltr_from_Agent_addendum.pdf’.
3.20 The components of the “designed hydraulic fracture treatment” are stated to be as follows: • water; • sand; • salt (potassium chloride or an alternative sodium chloride); • gelling agent; • crosslinker (a bonding agent of aluminium sulfate & sulfuric acid); • gel breaker (a viscosity reducer of hemicellulose enzyme & sulfuric acid); • high temperature gel breaker; • surfactant (a surface tension reducer of sodium lauryl sulphate); • pH buffer (of acetic acid).
3.21 The proposed development would involve the blending of the “designed hydraulic fracture treatment” on the application site as the component materials would be delivered to the site separately.
3.22 The applicant has stated that the overall water requirement for the process to be 4,000m3 (4 million litres or 880,000 gallons). In order to reduce the amount of vehicles required to undertake the hydraulic fracturing operation, the proposals provide for the utilisation of an existing underground pipeline which runs from the Knapton gas fired electricity generating station to the existing KM3 re injection well on the well pad to the south of the KM8 well, but still on the KM A well site. The pipeline currently carries ‘produced’ water from the existing complex of producing wells via the station and down into the KM3 well. While assurances have been given that the applicant has accounted for a contingency should there be a disruption to the mains water supply at the gas station, the applicant has been requested to provide further information with regard to a scenario where the actual pipeline itself become unavailable for whatsoever reason.
3.23 Once piped to the KM8 site, the ‘fresh’ water from the gas station is proposed to be transferred into 19 tanks (each capable of holding 70m3 (70,000 litres or
commrep/9 16 10
15,397 gallons) mobilised to the site for the purpose of ‘fresh’ water storage pending use in the ‘designed hydraulic fracture treatment’.
3.24 Zone E, the deepest of the five zones proposed to be subjected to hydraulic fracturing would consume the largest volume of the ‘injections’ of the designed hydraulic stimulation treatment at 1,250m3 (1.25 million litres or 274,961 gallons). Zone D is stated as requiring 700m3 (700,000 litres or 153,978 gallons), Zone C, 475m3 (475,000 litres or 104,485 gallons), Zone B, 442m3 (442,000 litres or 97,226 gallons) and Zone A (the shallowest of the proposed zones at over 2 kilometres (or nearly 7,000 feet) below ground) 425m3 (425,000 litres or 93,486 gallons).
3.25 The application details as submitted explain that the “surface pressure required to hydraulically fracturing the target formations will range from circa 6,000psi to 7,000psi, with an indicative fluid pumping rate of circa 4.8m3 (30bbls) to 8m3 (50bbls) per minute”.
[Officer note: ‘bbl’ has not been defined by the applicant within the submitted application details, but, for the purpose of this report, it is taken to mean an equivalent to 159 litres or 35 imperial gallons and a conversion of 6.29 barrels = 1m3 (source: www.oilandgasuk.co.uk ]
3.26 The applicant states in the submitted details that “fluids going into the well may be subject to UV treatment” and explains that “UV treatment is a modern technology that kills bacteria and eliminates the requirement for biocides”. However, this contradicts details submitted as part of the planning application within the Waste Management Plan which states “all fluids going into the well will be subject to UV treatment”. The applicant has been requested to confirm which is correct, whether the applicant “may” or “will” make use of the UV treatment to which reference is made in the application.
3.27 The application details explain that prior to undertaking what the applicant refers to as the ‘main’ hydraulic fracture treatment, there are proposed a number of “initial fracture tests anticipated to be circa three (3) tests per zone”. These initial tests would be used to determine the point at which formation breakdown would occur (that is the pressure required to be reached to the point of rock fracture) and the propagation pressure (i.e. the amount of force required to propagate fissures into which the “designed hydraulic fracture treatment” would be pumped in the ‘main’ treatment. Although the application details state that the initial test “involves the pumping of a small volume of fracture fluid”, this has not been quantified. The applicant has therefore been requested to provide the County Planning Authority with further information as to how much more water and other materials would be required for these ‘initial’ or ‘mini’ treatments in the absence of specific reference to such ‘mini’ treatments in the calculations of water usage.
3.28 The applicant explains that each ‘main’ fracture treatment is “expected to be approximately five hours in total per treatment”. However, the applicant has been asked to provide the County Planning Authority with further information regarding the timing and duration in respect of the proposed ‘mini’ treatments.
commrep/10 17 11
3.29 During the main treatment within each of the five zones, the “designed hydraulic fracture treatment” comprising water, additives and sand (used as a proppant to ‘prop’ open any fissures created by the treatment and, thereby, preventing their closing and consequently stopping the flow of any gas that might be present) would be pumped at high volume down into the zone to be treated.
3.29 The application is accompanied by details which provide statistics in respect of the proposed operations within Zone A (the shallowest of the five zones). The hydraulic fracture treatment is proposed to give rise to a fracture length of 179.68 metres (589.3 feet) and a fracture height of 153.47 metres (503.5 feet). The average width of a facture is calculated as being just short of a centimetre (0.363 of an inch). It is only Zone A for which this specific information has been provided by the applicant.
3.30 Upon each zone being fractured, the proposed operations provide for the ‘plugging’ of each zone to isolate the zone from next subsequent fracture treatment. This would ensure that any gas that may be released is retained in the well until such time as the well is tested i.e. after the five hydraulic fracture treaments.
3.31 Having been pumped down the well at high pressure, the applicant has stated that between 50% and 70% of the “designed hydraulic fracture treatment” would remain within the target formation and, correspondingly, between 30% and 50% would return to the surface as ‘flowback fluid’.
3.32 The composition of the ‘flowback fluid’ will not be identical to the ‘designed hydraulic fracture stimulation treatment’ that is proposed to be pumped down the well. Instead, the ‘flowback fluid’ would comprise the ‘treatment’ and, additionally, any suspended solids, heavy metals, hydrocarbons and/or naturally occurring radioactive materials otherwise known as NORM. In the event the levels of NORM exceed those as specified by the Environment Agency, waste water and any waste solids would be required to be removed from the site and disposed of at an appropriately licensed waste management facility. The application is accompanied by information concerning the anticipated capacity of licensed waste management sites capable of accepting the anticipated waste arisings from the proposed development.
3.33 The applicant makes the statement that “the anticipated flowback from all zones is between 30% and 50%, which for Zone E equates to between 399m3 and 665m3. Flowback water will return to surface and be diverted to a number of the 70m3 storage tanks on site, where it is held for subsequent reuse or offsite treatment and/or disposal at an Environment Agency permitted facility. In the unlikely event that >50% of flowback water is returned to surface, 100% flowback water storage is available”. This is subject to a request for clarification made on behalf of the County Planning Authority to the applicant with regard to the calculations and demonstration that the plans and proposals correlate with the capacity calculations as supplied.
3.34 The application details describe the proposal as including the treatment of waste water or ‘flowback fluid’ stating that “each of the five (5) fracture treatments will be returned to surface and treated making it suitable for reuse commrep/11 18 12
in the next zone”. However, it states only that this “may include electrocoagulation”; whereas, the submitted Waste Management Plan states “treatment will consist of electrocoagulation”. The applicant has been requested to confirm or otherwise whether the process of electrocoagulation is proposed to be used.
3.35 Linked to this is the later statement made within the Waste Management Plan that “all flowback fluid may be diverted to storage tanks on site, where it will be held for subsequent offsite treatment and/or disposal”. In order that Members may be furnished with the exact details of the proposal when the application is brought before Committee for determination, this is also subject to a request for clarification.
3.36 The applicant explains that the treatment of waste water by the use of electrocoagulation would mitigate the traffic impacts of the proposed development by reducing the numbers of vehicle movements transporting waste water off the application site; although there would be vehicle movements associated with the disposal of the non hazardous solid waste arising from the electrocoagulation process. An alternative is stated within the application details that a decision against the treatment of the waste water would be a reduction in “the duration and impact of the operation”. Without the electrocoagulation treatment, the waste water has been calculated by the applicant to amount to 1,645.55 tonnes requiring disposal. If electrocoagulation is utilised, the amount to be disposed of reduces to 200 tonnes; although whether this applies to a 30% or 50% flowback fluid return is not stated. The proposals being put forward are, therefore, unclear at this stage in the processing of this application. Furthermore, the figures provided within the application details with regard to the volumes of water required to undertake each hydraulic fracture process do not make clear whether the figures include the volumes with or without electrocoagulation treatment and this is therefore subject to a request for further information in this respect.
3.37 Following seismic events experienced in Lancashire, the Government Department of Energy and Climate Change introduced a ‘traffic light’ monitoring system for seismic activity. The applicant has explained its intention to adopt this system in its proposals in respect of this application. This would be applicable to the fracture treatments, be they ‘mini’ or ‘main’. The absence of any seismic activity, in real time, would be the ‘green’ light for injection to proceed. If seismic activity of a magnitude of less than 0.5 on the Richter scale, injection would be allowed to proceed, but under caution (the ‘amber’ warning light). Any seismic activity detected at levels greater than a magnitude of 0.5 on the Richter scale would see operations immediately suspended.
3.38 The HGV movements associated with Phase 2 of the proposed operations have been stated by the applicant to be 388 in total to both mobilise and de mobilise the equipment associated with the Phase 2 operations. A further 18 daily vehicle movements (including HGVs, LGVs and cars) have been identified in the application details as being necessary for Phase 2 of the proposed development. At the busiest of times, the site would experience a frequency of vehicle movement approximately every ten minutes commrep/12 19 13
3.39 With the exception of the vehicle movements to and from the site which are proposed to take place between the hours of 7am and 7pm and also excepting that each hydraulic fracture operation (of “approximately five hours” in duration) is proposed to take place “during daylight hours” (which depending upon the time of the year and location can range from 0442 hours until 2121 hours (16 hours and 39 minutes of daylight) (London data)) (source: www.uk.weather.com, 2015), the remaining operations/activities that are proposed to take place on site during Phase 2 of the proposed development on a 24/7 basis for a period of six weeks.
3.40 In proposing that activities would take place during hours of darkness, the health and safety requirements of the operations necessitate the use of eight (8 no.) lighting towers each reaching 8 metres in height and each comprising a bank of four (4 no.) metal halide lamps each with a 1,000W power. These eight lighting towers are proposed to be sited on the ‘inside’ of the proposed noise attenuation barrier and being 0.7 metres lower than the barrier would not be visible from views outside the site, with the exception of ‘glow’.
3.41 Additional lighting includes sixteen (16 no.) lighting units on the hydraulic fracturing pumps with a power of 400W each. Other equipment which is stated as being lit include the dry blender, ACE blender, Annulus Truck and office accommodation. The 25 metre high Coil Tubing Tower would also be illuminated at the top by four (4 no.) metal halide lights each of 400W power to provide for visibility of the coil tubing injector.
3.42 Upon the completion of the activities that the application details identify as taking place within Phases 1 & 2 of the proposed development, the earlier referred noise attenuation barrier/visual screen of the bank of ISO shipping containers are proposed to be removed from the site. Associated vehicle movements in connection with the removal of the shipping containers would amount to 78; comprising 42 containers taken off the site and a crane to dismount them. A further 18 vehicle movements (including cars) have been identified in the application details as being necessary for Phase 1 of the proposed development.
3.43 After the last of the zones to be fractured, each of the ‘bridge plugs’ used to isolate each of the zones is proposed to be ‘drilled out’. The resultant open well, having had all the plugs milled out, would then allow the well to be flow tested. The gas which comes to surface is proposed to be transported via an existing underground pipeline to the gas fired electricity generation station at Knapton operated by the Applicant. Third Energy UK Gas Ltd has estimated that the percentage of methane within the surfacing gas to be, on average over the five hydraulic fracture stimulations, 91.13%.The applicant proposes a “number of well tests”, but the precise number has not been stated nor an estimated number. This is also the subject of a request for clarification made on behalf of the County Planning Authority.
Phase 3 – Production test (24/7 working basis for upto 90 days) 3.44 The application details explain that upon establishing that the well is capable of producing commercial quantities of gas, a decision will be taken as to whether the operations would progress to Phase 3; the production test. commrep/13 20 14
3.45 It further explains that the production test “is to gain a greater understanding of the flow characteristics of the formation over an extended period of time” and is proposed to take place immediately after the aforementioned well test in Phase 2.
3.46 The production test would involve the mobilisation of flowline equipment to ‘hook up’ to the existing equipment on site to facilitate the flow of gas to the Knapton station. Whilst the flowline installation works are proposed to only take place between the hours of 7am and 7pm, the production test itself is proposed to take place on a 24/7 basis and for a period of 90 days.
3.47 Vehicle numbers associated with this phase of the operation are proposed to be low, being four daily LGV/car movements and one HGV every two or three days. External lighting would be similarly minimal with the requirement only for inspection and maintenance. Although, the absence of the 8.7 metre high noise attenuation barrier would mean the one portable lighting tower of four 1000W lamps would be visible from viewpoints outside the application site. Again, with regard to waste, should any waste water from the formation be produced, it is proposed that this be disposed of at a permitted waste treatment facility.
Phase 4 – Production (24/7 working basis for nine (9) years) 3.48 The production phase of the proposed development pre supposes a commercially viable flow of gas from the well. Were a commercially viable source of gas to be determined by the applicant company and production commenced, the applicant has referred to the industry wide undertaking of the possibility of a “Community Benefit Scheme” of £100,000 to the local community and 1% of revenues from production. However, no mechanism to secure this, such as a legal agreement, has accompanied the application submitted to the County Planning Authority. The applicant has, therefore, been requested to provide further information explaining how such financial provisions would be secured for the purpose of the application.
3.49 This phase would see the flowline equipment installed on a permanent basis and the ‘hook up’ of an array of other equipment necessary for a permanent producing well facility. The applicant has stated an estimated period that gas could be produced from the well to be nine years.
3.50 Vehicle numbers associated with this phase of the operation are proposed to be low, being four daily LGV/car movements. External lighting would be similarly minimal with the requirement only for inspection and maintenance. Again, with regard to waste, should any waste water from the formation be produced, it is proposed that this be disposed of at a permitted waste treatment facility.
3.51 Upon the cessation of gas being produced from the well in commercially viable quantities, the applicant is legally obliged to de commission/‘abandon’ the well. The use of the word ‘abandon’ in this context is not the common meaning such as ‘to forsake completely’; ‘desert’, ‘leave behind’; ‘give up completely’; ‘give up before completion’ etc. Instead, the abandonment of a well in the oil and gas industry is a formal and regulated process. The applicant refers to the industry standard provided within the “Guidelines for the commrep/14 21 15
suspension and abandonment of wells’ (July 2012) published by Oil and Gas UK (an industry group whose strap line reads ‘the voice of the offshore industry’). The Oil and Gas UK website states the guidelines “have been prepared to steer operators on the considerations that need to be taken when suspending operations in a well for a limited period of time and when finally abandoning a well”. When operators abandon a well they are obligated to leave it in a condition that protects both the downhole and surface environment in perpetuity.
3.52 The de commissioning/abandonment of the well would involve the removal of the completion string from down the well and all equipment associated with the recovery of the gas whilst in well was in production. Permeable zones through which the well was originally drilled are proposed to be isolated from one another by the use of permanent barriers of cement and then closer to the surface the casing would be ‘cut and capped’ 1.5 metres below ground level. The ‘cap’ would be a steel plate welded to the top of the casing. One pre cast concrete ring section of the drilling cellar would remain underground above the well site would be restored.
Phase 5 – Site Restoration (six weeks) 3.53 Upon the removal of all the equipment and infrastructure associated with the proposed development (including the impermeable membrane layer on the well pad), the soils originally removed and stored all the boundaries of the well site would be respreads over the site to their original depths. Restoration of the well site has been estimated by the applicant to take six weeks.
3.54 With respect to the monitoring and aftercare of the proposed development, the applicant has included within its submission details of how it proposes to monitor air and water quality prior, during and post development phases.
3.55 The proposed working hours to undertake the restoration works have been stipulated to be between 7am and 7pm on Mondays to Saturdays with no working on Sundays. Daily HGV movements have been estimated by the applicant to amount to 36 and daily LGV/car movements to amount to six. The external lighting would be minimal (i.e. one portable lighting tower of four 1000W lamps) with the requirement only for restoration works undertaken during “low levels of daylight”. Although, the absence of the 8.7 metre high noise attenuation barrier would mean this tower would be visible from viewpoints outside the application site. With regard to waste, the applicant has listed the waste materials that will necessitate removal and disposal off site at a permitted waste treatment facility amounting to nearly 5,000 tonnes.
The application documentation 3.56 The planning application has been submitted along with a Planning Statement and an Environmental Statement (ES) together with accompanying Technical Appendices and a Non Technical Summary (NTS).
3.57 The Planning Statement is accompanied by: • an Air Quality Impact Assessment and Air Quality Management Plan (paragraphs 3.59 to 3.65 below refer); • a Heritage Impact Assessment; • the results of a Phase 1 Habitat Survey; commrep/15 22 16
• a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment; • a Lighting Management Plan; • a Noise Management and Monitoring Plan; • an Appraisal of Seismic Activity Monitoring; • a Transport Assessment and Traffic Management Plan; • a Waste Management Plan; • a Flood Risk Assessment; • an Hydrogeological Risk Assessment; • a Baseline Water Quality Management Plan; • a Foul Sewerage and Utilities Assessment; and, • a Site Aftercare and Restoration Plan.
A Statement of Community Involvement has also been submitted with the application.
3.58 The Environmental Statement comprises chapters which assess the proposed development in respect of such matters as air quality, cultural heritage, ecology, greenhouse gases, landscape character, lighting, noise, public health, seismicity, impacts upon communities and the economy in both the local context and beyond, traffic and transport, waste and water. It also addresses alternative sites and the legacy implications of the proposed development as well as cumulative and interactive impacts.
3.59 Electronic copies of all documents herein referred have been available to view and download from the County Council’s Online Planning Register since their original submission on 29th July 2015 or shortly after receipt in respect of information submitted after the application was originally submitted.
3.60 An Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) considered receptors both in the human and natural environments and identified specific receptors as being
Human environment receptors (no Natural environment receptors (all in distances from the application site excess of 4km distant from the have been provided) application site) Alma Farm Howardian Hills AONB Kirby O Carr Newbridge Quarry SSSI Tuiffit Manor River Derwent SSSI, SAC High Grange Farm Green Lane Pit SSSI Glebe Farm Cropton Bank SSSI Caravan Park The Ings SSSI Manor Farm Haugh & Gundale Slacks SSSI North west Farm Golden Hill Pit SSSI Ellerburn Bank SSSI
3.61 The results of the AQIA indicate that • “the maximum process contribution to ground level concentrations of methane, ethane and propane was predicted to be equivalent to no more than 8% of the estimated long term environmental assessment levels at the site boundary falling to below 1% of these levels at the nearest residential locations”; • “at the closest statutory designated nature conservation sites process contributions to ground level concentrations of sulphur dioxide and commrep/16 23 17
nitrogen dioxide are mostly below the level of significance and do not pose any substantial risk to attainment of the critical levels”. This similarly applies in respect of nutrient nitrogen and acid deposition; and, • “at the nearest locations of permanent human habitation, process contributions to ground level concentrations of carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, volatile organic compounds and PM10 [particulate matter of less than 10 micrometres in size] are not considered to be likely to have any significant impact on air quality”.
However, it does state “process contributions of nitrogen dioxide are more significant, although it is concluded that these are unlikely to pose a substantial threat to the continued attainment of air quality standards”.
3.62 The AQIA concludes “the well operations will not affect the attainment of air quality standards around the areas of permanent human habitation closest to the wellsite and will have negligible impact at local statutory designated conservation sites. Exceedences in short term air quality standards for some pollutants are likely on occasions around the site boundary. No exceedence in air quality standards is indicated for the locations of temporary habitation in the Caravan Park and nearby Flamingo Land Theme Park.” Although, it the report does stress “the overall results and conclusions reached [ ] incorporate a reasonable margin of comfort in spite of the inevitable uncertainty of such modelling studies.”
3.63 The air quality impacts have been assessed as ranging “from neutral/slight to slight with the potential for a temporary negligible change in baseline conditions” with mitigation in place.
3.64 Notwithstanding the results and conclusions of the AQIA, the applicant has proposed to undertake environmental ambient air monitoring; the details of which are contained within an Air Quality Monitoring Plan which has accompanied the planning application submission.
3.65 The Air Quality Management Plan proposes the commissioning of expert consultants to, firstly, establish a baseline of air quality and, secondly, to undertake a monitoring programme “for the duration of the KM8 well site operations”.
3.66 Parameters proposed to be monitored from four monitoring stations on each corner of the KM A well site on a two weekly basis “until the completion of the well testing phase” (after which a further two final sampling rounds are proposed to be undertaken) comprise the following: • Methane (CH4); • Carbon Monoxide (CO); • Non Methane Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs); • Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2); • Nitric Oxide (NO); • Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx); • Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S); • Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF6); and commrep/17 24 18
• Fugitive Dust (dust deposition and direction).
3.67 Through undertaking an Heritage Impact Assessment and arriving at a view that the potential impacts would only likely occur within Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed development, the impacts upon cultural heritage have been assessed as ranging “from neutral to slight with the potential for a temporary negligible change in baseline conditions” with mitigation in place in the form of the short duration of relevant operations (i.e. eight weeks), visual screening and seismic monitoring.
3.68 A Phase I Habitat Survey (the purpose of which is to identify any protected species constraints to the proposed development) has been used by the applicant to supporting its assessment of the potential impacts on interests of ecological importance resulting from the proposed development. The assessment concluded the residual effects on ecology to be neutral with no change in baseline conditions with mitigation in place.
3.69 The potential effects of the proposed development upon climate change and greenhouse gas emissions has been assessed by the applicant as being greatest in Phases 1 and 2, but whilst the greatest effects are likely within these phases, the total emissions of greenhouse gases has been estimated by the applicant, as a percentage contribution to the 2013 UK total, at 0.0014% and concluded that the residual effects would likely range from neutral/slight to slight with the potential for a negligible change in the baseline conditions with mitigation, in the form of the limited duration of operations of eight weeks, in place.
3.70 A Landscape and Visual Assessment identified that the principal sensitive receptors to the proposed development would likely be those residential properties on the southern and western edges of Kirby Misperton village (particularly Ducks Farm Close and Habton Road), properties on the edge of Little Barugh and the farms of Alma Farm, Glebe Farm and Kirby O’Carr Farm. However, this is stated to be for a temporary duration of eight weeks. On an identical time frame would be the notable visual impacts upon users of the public rights of way and those using the public highways in the vicinity of the application site. With the impacts mitigated by way of a limited duration of eight weeks and the reversible nature of the proposed development through the removal of the elements causing the most significant impacts i.e. the 37 metre high drill rig, 25 metre high coil tubing tower and the 8.7 metre high noise attenuation barrier, the assessment of the landscape and visual effects of the proposed development have been stated to range from neutral to slight with the potential for a temporary negligible change in the baseline condition.
3.71 The effects of the proposed development in the long term, that is to say the legacy of the proposed development, have been assessed by the applicant within Chapter 14 of its submitted Environmental Statement. The assessment includes drawing the various regulatory responsibilities of the Mineral Planning Authority, the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and the Department for Energy and Climate Change as well as the legislative controls including the ‘Offshore Installations and Wells (Design and Construction, etc.) Regulations 1996’ (applicable to onshore as well as offshore) and the ‘Borehole Sites and Operations Regulations 1995’. The commrep/18 25 19
assessment concludes the residual effects of the proposed development to be neutral with the potential for a temporary negligible change in baseline conditions with mitigation by way of following the ‘Guidelines for the suspension and abandonment of wells’ (2012) adopted by the industry group, Oil & Gas UK.
3.72 A Baseline Lighting Assessment has been undertaken to quantify existing lighting conditions at sensitive receptors. The potential effect of the proposed development through external lighting has been assessed by the applicant as being greatest in Phases 1 and 2. By way of mitigation, the limited duration of the Phase 1 and 2 operations (which give rise to the greatest of potential impacts through the use of external lighting) is considered by the applicant to result in residual effects to be neutral with the potential for a temporary negligible change in baseline conditions. While the Assessment concluded street lighting to be the most significant light source in Kirby Misperton village having more effect on sensitive locations than any existing land use at the Kirby Misperton well site, it nonetheless recommended that the Applicant should aim to ensure that lighting levels remain low during any future development due to the proximity of a number of residential receptors. The application is therefore also accompanied by a proposed Lighting Management Plan.
3.73 Supporting the assessment of environmental effects is a document containing the results of a Baseline Noise Monitoring undertaken over a two week period earlier this year between 16th February 2015 and 2nd March 2015. Three noise sensitive receptors identified and subject to monitoring included Alma Farm (approximately 280 metres to the west of the site of the proposed development), Kirby O’Carr Farm (approximately 210 metres to the south) and No. 5 Shire Grove (750 metres to the north east) in the village of Kirby Misperton.
3.74 Predicted noise levels at the above mentioned noise sensitive receptors have been described in respect of Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed development as follows (nb there have been no equivalent noise predictions provided in respect of the other phases of the development):
Development Phase Noise sensitive receptor (NSR): Alma Farm Kirby O’Carr No. 5 Shire Farm Close Baseline <25 dB <25 dB <25 dB Phase 1 – pre stimulation workover <40dB <45dB <35dB without noise barrier Phase 1 – pre stimulation workover <35dB <45dB <30dB with noise barrier at night time Phase 2 – hydraulic fracture without <70dB <75dB <60dB noise barrier during day time Phase 2 hydraulic fracture with <55dB <60dB <50dB noise barrier during day time Phase 2 – hydraulic fracture without <40dB <45dB <30dB noise barrier at night time Phase 2 – hydraulic fracture with <35dB <45dB <30dB noise barrier at night time commrep/19 26 20
3.75 Whilst no specific noise monitoring has been undertaken at the nearest caravan park lying some 420 metres to the north east of the site of the proposed development, the noise climate of the caravan park which provides static and touring caravan accommodation, further from the site of the proposed development than the first two identified noise sensitive receptors, is predicted to be broadly similar to that at other receptors in the village. The noise consultant on behalf of the applicant advises that to establish the predict noise climate for the caravan park, reference should be made to the contour maps within the technical appendices. The information therein displays the following: NSR Development Phase Caravan Park Baseline <25 dB Phase 1 – pre stimulation workover without noise barrier <40dB Phase 1 – pre stimulation workover with noise barrier at night time <35dB Phase 2 – hydraulic fracture without noise barrier during day time <65dB Phase 2 hydraulic fracture with noise barrier during day time <55dB Phase 2 – hydraulic fracture without noise barrier at night time <35dB Phase 2 – hydraulic fracture with noise barrier at night time <35dB
3.76 The relevant chapter of the Environmental Statement on noise concludes that with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures (that is to say, the temporary noise barrier provided by the imported shipping containers stacked 8.7 metres in height), the impact on the nearest sensitive receptors, for each phase of the proposed development, is not significant and that their residual effects would be neutral with the potential for a temporary negligible change in the baseline conditions. A proposed Noise Management and Monitoring Plan also accompanies the submitted planning application.
3.77 The assessment of the public health impacts of the proposed development is discussed within the ‘Public Health’ chapter of the Environmental Statement. The assessment concludes that with appropriate measures of mitigation by way of limited duration of operations giving rise to public health impacts and the proposed monitoring of noise, air and water quality, the residual effects are stated as ranging from neutral to neutral/slight. Notwithstanding, the applicant also proposes a Community Forum through which the concerns of residents may be conveyed to the operator.
3.78 The supporting information accompanying the application explains that the Applicant commissioned a study of the potential for induced seismicity as a result of the operations proposed in the application. That study concluded that with the proposed mitigation measures in place, the residual effects from seismicity would range from neutral to neutral/slight with No change in the baseline conditions. Notwithstanding, the applicant proposes a Real time Monitoring of Subsurface Programme using a network of twelve subsurface autonomous seismic recording stations installed within 3 kilometres of the KM8 well able to distinguish between a naturally occurring seismic event as opposed to an induced seismic event attributable to the proposed hydraulic fracture stimulation. commrep/20 27 21
3.79 Socio economic impacts of the proposed development including both the impacts on the local economic drivers of agriculture and tourism and impacts upon the community (including housing, infrastructure, crime, public safety and the enjoyment of public rights of way) have been assessed as part of the study of environmental effects. In taking into account the short duration of the proposed operations as mitigation and the employment opportunities as well as the possibility of a “Community Benefit Scheme” of £100,000 to the local community and 1% of revenues from production, the applicant has assessed the effects of the proposed development to range from neutral to moderate/slight positive “with the potential for a temporary slight to moderate positive change in the baseline conditions”.
3.80 A Transport Assessment, founded upon a baseline survey of traffic undertaken for seven days beginning 6th March 2015 on Habton Road and Kirby Misperton Road accompanies the application setting out the predicted vehicle movements associated with the proposed development. The A169/Kirby Misperton Road junction was also the subject of a traffic survey The Assessment concluded the traffic impacts of the proposed development are not expected to be severe, nor give rise to any significant detrimental impact in terms of road safety, traffic or the highway itself. The assessment of the effects of traffic has been considered by the applicant to be within the range of neutral to neutral/slight with the potential for a temporary negligible change in the baseline conditions.
3.81 The application is also accompanied by a Traffic Management Plan which proposes a route to be taken by all vehicles associated with the proposed development as follows: • travel along the A169; • turn west onto Kirby Misperton Road; • after approximately 2.4km bear left at the roundabout on to Main Street ; • after approximately 230m bear right on to Habton Road; and • after approximately 1.3km turn right on to the access track which leads to the KM8 wellsite.
3.82 While the effects of the proposed development in respect of the generation of waste have been assessed and the outcome of that assessment explained within the accompanying Environmental Statement as being “neutral/slight with the potential for a temporary negligible change in the baseline conditions”, a Waste Management Plan accompanies the planning application comprising the measures proposed to be incorporated into the development proposal by way of mitigating potential adverse effects.
3.83 In assessing the effects of the proposed development upon the water environment, the applicant’s assessment is that the proposed development “presents a very low or no overall residual impact to surface water and groundwater features” and, furthermore, that “the proposed development presents no significant risk to hydrology and hydrogeology”. The conclusion drawn within the Environmental Statement is that with the mitigation in place “the residual effects on water [would] range from neutral/slight to slight with the potential for a temporary negligible change in the baseline conditions”.
commrep/21 28 22
Scoping Opinion 3.84 Prior to the submission of the planning application, the County Planning Authority received a request for a Scoping Opinion from the Applicant and a Scoping Opinion was duly adopted on Thursday 9th April 2015. A copy of that Opinion is available to view on the County Council’s Online Planning Register using the ref. no. NY/2015/0029/SCO.
Clarification information submitted by the applicant 3.85 On Friday 21st August 2015, the County Planning Authority received a letter from the Agent seeking to clarify information submitted within the Planning Application documents and also within the Environmental Statement and its accompanying Technical Appendices. This clarification explained that in specific instances within the information, the word ‘litres’ had been mistakenly typed where the words ‘cubic metres’ should have appeared. This clarification has been available to view on the County Council’s Online Planning Register for all interested parties since Monday 24th August 2015 and an explanatory note inserted into the Register to draw attention to this information. This explanatory note was inserted into the Register on Friday 28th August 2015.
4.0 Consultations
4.1 The application was received, validated, and then registered as a duly made application on Wednesday 29th July 2015. Consultation with statutory consultees, along with other organisations/agencies consulted at Officer discretion, commenced on Wednesday 19th August 2015.
4.2 The latest date by which responses to consultation were requested was Wednesday 14th October 2015 providing an extended period of five additional weeks to that which is the statutory minimum period in which to seek views of consultees.
4.3 Of the thirty seven consultation responses sought on behalf of the County Planning Authority, fourteen have been received thus far (correct at 8th October 2015). All responses to consultation received by the County Planning Authority have been displayed in their entirety (with the exception of personal information removed for the purpose of data protection) on the County Council’s Online Planning Register either on the date of receipt or shortly thereafter. Thereby, all interested parties, including the Agent and Applicant, have had readily available accessible to their content and, as a consequence, afforded the opportunity to react or respond as appropriate to their content at the earliest possible point in time in the processing of this application.
Consultation responses received to date (correct at 8th October 2015):
4.4 Rillington Parish Council responded to consultation on Tuesday 15th September 2015 returning an objection to the proposed development stating that “the public have very serious concerns about the effect on the local environment both in the short term and also the long term legacy” as wells as citing the following grounds for objection: commrep/22 29 23
• It was well known that Fracking will permanently damage the underground geology. We are all well aware of the earth tremors & minor quakes set up when undertaking such operations in Lancashire. • In America they have encountered serious environmental damage as a direct result of Fracking operations and they have no idea how to avoid such problems. This will happen in North Yorkshire if Fracking is allowed. • No‐one knows how to cap off disused wells properly, therefore all wells will leak harmful vapours into the atmosphere, as well as leaching underground. Disused wells will remain a hazard for many years to come. • The drilling operations will drill through the water catchment area for local drinking water supplies. The whole of the Ryedale area and much of Scarborough, Filey and elsewhere get their drinking water supplies from the aquifers in the area affected by this application. Such operations will cause toxic chemicals to leak into drinking water supplies which will cause on‐going health problems (or worse!) for the local population. If Fracking goes ahead the local drinking water supplies will have to be supplied from another part of the country unaffected by Fracking operations. • Properties will be blighted as a direct result of Fracking operations with house prices severely adversely affected throughout a very wide area.
The Rillington Parish Council response continues by stating “The public are vehemently against any Fracking taking place anywhere in the area, and we can all foresee major protests at all Fracking sites. The environment risks are monumental as are the major risks to public health. NYCC has a duty of care towards local residents for their health & environment, and will be in breach of this if Fracking operations were permitted We strongly demand that this (and all other Fracking applications) are refused. No‐one wants Fracking anywhere in the area!”
4.5 Heslerton Parish Council – responded to consultation on Friday 4th September 2015 stating the following: “Heslerton Parish Council has no objections to test wells being drilled provided it stops after that for the following measures to take place: 1. No permission for any Fracking operations should be given until the results of the test drilling is known. 2. A full report for the results of the test drilling should be made available to the public for consideration, and sufficient time allowed for the public to respond before any decision is made. 3. A full independent scientific report on the potential effects to the underground geology to be made public for consideration also with sufficient time for the public to respond before any decision is made. 4. A full independent scientific report on the potential effects to local drinking water supplies, including potential effects on public health (given that drilling will take place though the aquifer that provides local drinking water supplies. This also needs to be made public with sufficient time for comments to be made before any decision is reached.
commrep/23 30 24
5. A full report on vehicle movements and the routes taken to be made public for both the test drilling operations, and also for the actual Fracking operations should permission be granted. This is also required before any decision can be made. In general the public have grave concerns about the effects of Fracking on the local environment both in the sort and long term. From operations already taking place in other countries it is well known that significant damage has occurred. It is also known that no one yet knows how to safely cap off the disused wells after operations have been completed. We require reassurance that no permission for actual Fracking operations will be given until the above reports have been made public (copies required by the Parish Council). Sufficient time must then be allowed for the public to absorb the facts and to allow for comments to be made before any decision is reached. We trust the planning committee we take account of public concerns on this issue.”
4.7 Historic England – responded to consultation in a letter dated 3rd September 2015 and received on Friday 11th September 2015) stating that “the effect of vibration on the significance of the heritage assets during the extraction phase has yet to be clearly defined by the applicant”. It goes on to state that the meaning of the Applicant’s statement “With the implementation of mitigation, no adverse impacts on the appreciation of the identified heritage assets are anticipated resulting from the proposed development.’ is not clear. Historic England explain that “‘appreciation’ of heritage assets is not the same as preserving or mitigating the impact on the significance of heritage assets”. Historic England later state in their response that before reaching a decision the County Planning Authority must be satisfied that “the impact of vibration is understood and the proposed mitigation (particularly in regard to vibration) can be deemed to preserve, and as necessary repair, affected heritage assets” and furthermore, that were planning permission forthcoming, provision should be made to inform interested parties of the outcome of a review of the Heritage Impact Assessment during and post development.
[Officer note: Members’ attention is drawn to the fact that the applicant has been made aware and it is understood that a response from the applicant will be forthcoming (correct at 1st October 2015)]
4.8 Natural England responded to consultation on Monday 7th September 2015 returning comments advising the County Planning Authority that “the proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes” and referring the County Planning Authority to the Standing Advice it provides in respect of protected species by dint of the site falling within the notified SSSI Impact Risk Zone of the River Derwent SSSI
[Officer note: the aforementioned Standing Advice (as current on 7th September 2015) has been reviewed for the purpose of the processing of this application and has given no rise to further information being requested of the applicant in respect of the species identified within the advice which include all species of bats, great crested newts, badgers, hazel dormice, water voles, otters, wild birds, reptiles, protected plants, white clawed crayfish, commrep/24 31 25
invertebrates, freshwater fish, natterjack toads and ancient woodland and veteran trees.]
4.9 Rye Internal Drainage Board – responded to consultation on Tuesday 1st September 2015 confirming “The Board have no comments to make regarding the [ ] application”.
4.10 Northern Gas Networks – responded to consultation on Tuesday 25th August 2015 returning “no comments to make on behalf of this application”.
4.11 Health & Safety Executive (Well engineering & Operations) – responded to consultation on Wednesday 16th September 2015 confirming that there are “no issues or concerns with the proposals” from a well operations perspective. As well as explaining its regulatory role, the Executive has informed the County Planning Authority in its response to consultation that “the well operator will be required to submit notification(s) of operations they propose to conduct on the well. The notification has to be submitted a minimum of 21 days prior to the start of operations and the notification will be inspected by a specialist well operations inspector. The well notification will be inspected for, amongst others, compliance with the wells aspects of the offshore installations and wells design and construction regulations 1996 for well integrity and a demonstration that the risks of a release of fluids from the well are as low as is reasonably practicable”.
4.12 Public Health England (Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, Nottingham) - responded to consultation on Wednesday 16th September 2015 setting out its own understanding of the proposal, but then identifying specific areas of concern as including the following: “While the applicant considers point source emissions from e.g. diesel fuelled plant on site and fugitive emissions from e.g. pipe connections, it is unclear if they have considered emissions during transfer and connection operations and whether these have the potential to cause odour / nuisance to residential receptors. The Regulator should be satisfied that the applicant has fully considered all operations which may cause off site odours”. It goes on to state that “the Regulator should validate the suitability of the applicant’s proposals for monitoring so that any unexpected impact from operations will be detected and investigated promptly and results presented with comparison to relevant health based standards, where applicable”. Notwithstanding, Public Health England “has no significant concerns regarding the risk to the health of the local population from the installation”.
4.13 North Yorkshire Police Authority – responded to consultation on Friday 28th August 2015 confirming “they have no objection regards this current application”.
4.14 NYCC Lead Local Flood Authority – responded to consultation on Wednesday 2nd September 2015 confirming they “have no objections to the proposals with regard to surface water management”.
4.15 NYCC Public Rights of Way Team – responded to consultation on Tuesday 8th September 2015 recommending that, in the event of planning permission commrep/25 32 26
be forthcoming, an informative be appended to any Decision Notice drawing the applicant’s attention to the imperative to ensure all public rights of way are maintain free of obstruction.
4.16 NYCC landscape adviser – responded to consultation on Thursday 3rd September 2015 returning the following:
“No objection on grounds of unacceptable landscape and visual impact. Should the application be approved, I suggest the following conditions, unless further information is provided before determination:
Planting and maintenance Within 3 months of the date of planning permission, a landscape scheme detailing proposals for strengthening existing native screen planting (dating from 2014) on the northern and eastern boundaries of the KM1 extension site and providing effective protection and maintenance of all planted areas within the KMA site shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for written approval. No development shall commence until such approval has been given. The scheme shall be implemented in the first planting season (Nov Mar) following approval. Additional and existing trees and shrubs at the KMA site from the date of permission shall be maintained throughout the course of the development in accordance with approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy 7/5 of the NYCC Minerals Local Plan
Restoration and aftercare scheme Within 6 months of the commencement of development a scheme for restoration of the whole KMA site to a state suitable for agricultural use or other use as may subsequently be approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be submitted for written approval. The restoration scheme and aftercare measures shall be in accordance with the general approach to restoration and aftercare set out in ES Appendix 10, together with a timescale for the work, and proposals for phasing of restoration if likely to be needed. The site access shall be removed and the land restored to a condition suitable for agricultural cultivation in accordance with approved details unless prior approval is obtained for retention of access for agricultural purposes. Restoration shall be implemented within (?) months of the cessation of gas production. Reason: To secure effective and timely restoration and reinstatement to a satisfactory standard in the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy 7/10 of the NYCC Minerals Local Plan.
Clarification in needed on the future route of public right of way number 25.53/4/1 which was diverted in 2013 to allow for the construction of the Kirby Misperton 1 wellsite extension . It is not clear from the information submitted whether it will be restored to its original route (adjacent to the hedgeline to be restored between the KM1 and KM8 parts of the site).
It is also recommended that effectiveness of visual mitigation is required to be included in the monitoring programme. commrep/26 33 27
Having reviewed relevant sections of the application, the County Council’s adviser on landscape matters concludes “I am generally satisfied that the likely additional landscape and visual effects of the proposed development have been assessed in line with current best practice guidance and with the scoping opinion dated 9th April 2015 issued by NYCC. Pre submission consultation on study area, ZTV and viewpoints was carried out. I agree with the evaluation of effects in the Environmental Statement.
However I feel that more attention could have been paid to mitigation of views from the PROW that follows the north and north eastern boundary, as there are currently open views into the site. Remedial work to existing planting and additional planting of fast growing native species is required, particularly on the north eastern boundary.
Restoration proposals do not sufficiently consider the implications of different timescales for the northern and southern parts of the site – they cannot be treated entirely independently because some of the soil for restoration of the southern part of the KMA site was moved to the northern boundary of the northern extension. The restoration plan only addresses part of the site and provides insufficient information although the generic approach to restoration in ES Appendix 10 is acceptable.
4.17 NYCC adviser on matters of ecology responded to consultation on Thursday 17th September 2015 drawing the attention of the County Planning Authority to the requirement that a Habitats Regulation Assessment be undertaken and that this assessment is required to be sent to Natural England for their consideration. In addition, the County Planning Authority’s adviser on matters of ecology concurred with the applicant’s submitted environmental impact assessment’s conclusion that any significant effect upon statutorily or non statutorily designated sites would be unlikely. Similar satisfaction is also conveyed with respect to the conclusions of the assessment relating to habitats and also to protected species, but that, with regard to the latter, subject to mitigation measures as outlined with the Lighting Management Plan and the Bat Monitoring Strategy being implemented, minor indirect impacts upon foraging bats could potentially be minimised. Notwithstanding a conclusion within the Environmental Statement that there is unlikely to be any significant negative impacts resulting from the proposed development, a caveat is provided such that the adviser on ecology matters has not commented or advised upon any direct effects that may potentially impact upon species and habitats through changes to air quality, hydrology and hydrogeology and greenhouse gases (climate change). One final comment is that the proposals do not provide for any bio diversity enhancements sought and therefore the adviser counsels that the proposals should “include more semi natural habitats over all or part of the site”.
4.18 NYCC adviser on matters of archaeology responded to consultation on Thursday 1st October 2015 advising the County Planning Authority that the “archaeological works undertaken to date have demonstrated that the site does not contain archaeological deposits of interest, as the monitored site strip exposed the natural geology across the development area and demonstrated a complete absence of archaeological features or commrep/27 34 28
deposits therefore no further archaeological recording is required for this application.”
4.19 NYCC Director of Public Health – responded to consultation on Thursday 8th October 2015 referring to the consultation response of Public Health England, reiterated and reemphasised many of the points made therein and also draws attention to ensuring that: • any decision maker must be “satisfied that the applicant has fully considered all operations which may cause off site odours”; and, • “robust environmental monitoring is conducted prior to, during and post the proposed operations such that resident groups can be reassured that any potential impacts can be identified and investigated further”. The applicant has, therefore, been asked to demonstrate how the above is to be achieved by the provision of further information such that the Authority may be assured of robust ‘prior to’, ‘during’ and ‘post’ environmental monitoring enabling the detection, prompt investigation and presentation of results “with comparison to relevant health based standards, where applicable”.
4.20 The responses to consultation which remain outstanding include those from the following organisations / bodies: • Ryedale District Council (Planning); • Ryedale District Council (Environmental Health); • Kirby Misperton Parish Council; • Malton Town Council; • Marishes Parish Meeting; • Great & Little Barugh Parish Council; • Norton on Derwent Town Council; • Pickering Town Council; • Habton Parish Council; • Normanby Parish Council; • Scampston Parish Council; • Yorkshire Water Services Ltd; • National Grid (Plant Protection); • Northern PowerGrid (Yorkshire); • Department of Energy & Climate Change; • Health & Safety Executive (York); • Environment Agency Yorkshire Area Oil and Gas Team; • North York Moors National Park Authority; • Howardian Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB); and, • NYCC Highway Authority.
Notifications: 4.21 County Councillor Mrs Lindsay Burr was notified of the submission of the application in a letter dated 19th August 2015. A letter has been received on behalf of the County Planning Authority from County Councillor Mrs Burr who has written along the lines of the following to County Councillor Mr Peter Sowray as Chair of this Committee: • in the interest of ensuring Members hear all the evidence and are able to understand the many complex issues, residents should be afforded the same opportunity as afforded in the case in Lancashire in respect of commrep/28 35 29
presenting evidence to Members comprising six thirty minute presentations (in opposition) in a private meeting; and, • at the meeting to determine the application “seventy people spoke, with approximately half in favour of the application and half in objection”
4.22 Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government was notified of the submission of the application in a letter dated 19th August 2015.
5.0 Advertisement and representations
5.1 Under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, this application has been advertised by means of Site Notices erected in four locations (i.e. at the entrance to the wellpad itself, alongside the access road which is shared by users of the public rights of way and Alma Farm, at the entrance to the Village Hall and adjacent to the village Notice Board) on Wednesday 19th August 2015 and a Press Notice which appeared in the Malton Gazette & Herald newspaper also on Wednesday 19th August 2015.
5.2 In addition to the publicity afforded to this application under statute by means of a Press Notice and Site Notices, there have also been Neighbour Notification letters sent to residential properties within the vicinity of the application that are amongst those cited within the application details as being potentially affected by the proposed development and not due to an arbitrary distance from the application site itself. These notified properties (shown on the plan accompanying this report as Appendix A) are as follows,
• Kirby O Carr Farm, Habton Road, Kirby Misperton; • Marlin, Habton Road, Kirby Misperton; • Alma Farm, Kirby Misperton; and, • Sugar Hill, Kirby Misperton.
5.3 As the purpose of this Report seeks Members’ consideration of conducting a formal Site Visit in respect of this application, it is only possible to provide an interim summary on the response to publicity received thus far.
5.4 The Authority has, thus far, received 2,465 letters/e mails of representation (correct at 8th October 2015). Some have not provided an address, but where this has been the case, they have been contacted on behalf of the County Planning Authority and asked to provide an address such that due weight may be given. There have been multiple representations from individuals and same property addresses and there have also been many received in an array of template letters/e mails submitted ‘en masse’.
5.5 Those representations received ‘en masse’ via e mail have included e mails and letters that were sent unbeknown to the owner of the e mail address or the named person on the letter. This has come to light by dint of each representation being acknowledged by the Authority. The Authority has been informed by members of the public that their personal data may have been used without their consent. The scale of this is unknown at this point in time. However, prior to the presentation to Members of the substantive report, a full commrep/29 36 30
review of the representations received will take place and within the substantive report there will be provided a summary of the representations received up to a particular point in time as close as is reasonably practicable to the date of the meeting of the Committee. Should any representations be received after that date, they will be reported orally at the meeting.
5.6 The County Planning Authority has received twelve e mails/letters of support for the proposed development (correct at 8th October 2015) including a letter from a ‘national pressure group’ known as ‘Backing Fracking’ which ask the County Planning Authority to take into consideration • knowledge of the industry’s safety record; • job security which the industry has provided; • dismiss the scaremongering of the anti fracking brigade; • a wish for the country to be in control of its own energy sources; • North Yorkshire already has a long history of gas exploitation; • the economic benefits that the shale gas industry can bring; and, • the minimal impact on climate change.
5.7 The letter from ‘Backing Fracking’ states, “according to our research, a total of 95 on shore oil and gas wells have been drilled in North Yorkshire since about 1937/38...[and] we haven't been able to find any recorded evidence of these wells causing any localised harm despite the claim often advanced by fracking opponents that "all wells leak"”. Furthermore, “the existing operations also appear to have been conducted safely, responsibly and with minimal impact to the rural character of the area [and] The Environment Agency will only grant environmental permits if it is satisfied that local environmental concerns have been minimised and appropriate mitigation put in place”. Members are invited to read the full representation of this group which is readily available to view on the County Council’s Online Planning Register: https://onlineplanningregister.northyorks.gov.uk/register/PlanAppList.aspx
5.8 Of the representations received, not all conveyed an explicitly stated objection and, instead, made comment upon the application. To date, these have amounted to three in number and have not been regarded as objections unless specifically asked to do so by the representor. These representations, raising neither support nor objection, have contained either comments or queries on matters relating to the application. Where reasonably practicable to do so, the Applicant has been forwarded the queries that have been raised (subject to the redaction of personal information) and, thereby, been provided with an opportunity to respond to those queries. The National Farmers’ Union has commented stating it would, amongst others, like to see • a standardised process for negotiating underground access, with an agreed minimum level of compensation, as for other major infrastructure schemes; • some kind of industry or government underwriting of landowner compensation; and, • industry or government underwriting of possible long term liabilities.
5.9 Those who have returned their objection to the development as proposed, have done so on the grounds of adverse impacts in respect of:
commrep/30 37 31
• additional traffic including HCVs on rural roads not built for such vehicles based on a survey that was undertaken when Flamingo Land was closed so cannot be considered representative; • damage to health; • destruction of the peace and tranquillity of the area/adverse noise impacts; • pollution/contamination of water supply, surface waters and groundwater; • potential adverse impact upon the local economy and damage to tourism; • high risk of earthquakes/seismic activity; • explosion risk; • visual intrusion caused by the stacked shipping containers; • despoliation and industrialisation of the countryside; • degradation of air quality/air pollution including odours; • inconsistent with tackling climate change, should be investing in renewable energy; • potential to discourage those who may have chosen to visit the area; • potential to lead to more frackiing, more wells and more pipes; • integrity of the wells in the long term and responsibilities for clean up when things go wrong; • impact upon water resources; • impact upon the North York Moors National Park and the Howardian Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; • especially worried about chemicals including carcinogenic and toxic chemicals being used such as benzene; • concerns about what would happen in the event of an accident; • potential release of methane to the atmosphere, with consequent adverse impact on climate change; • contamination of soil and thereby potential contamination of food chain, livestock and agricultural products; • 24 hour lighting would destroy the night sky and confuse wildlife; • the Angling Trust has “grave concerns about fracking and the potential for pollution of ground and surface water, and for exacerbating over abstraction of water from already depleted supplies” as well as “risks to aquatic ecology and in particular fisheries”; • concerns about vibration damage to homes; • the proposed noise barrier made up of shipping containers is completely out of keeping in the landscape; • approving this will be opening the door to more/the community should be told the full story of what Third Energy’s plans are for the future; • Third Energy are not honouring that which they told everyone at public consultation events; • potential adverse impacts upon vulnerable listed buildings/heritage assets; • accidents happen; • knowledge is insufficient to be able to make an informed decision and as such the ‘precautionary principle’ should apply; • cumulative impact of the development considering there are more to come; • negative impact on property prices; • lack of regulations; • lack of resources on the part of regulatory bodies; • would set a precedent; • increased insurance premiums; commrep/31 38 32
• unproven technology; • misguided view that UK shale gas will result in lower energy costs; • the traffic survey was done at a time of the year before Flamingo Land opened for the 2015 season and is therefore unrepresentative; • the expert consultants, AECOM, acting on behalf of the applicant have recommended “a proper site survey of the surrounding area in order to assess any ecological interest that may be present before proceeding with any development”; • protected species including otter, badgers, brown hares, barn owls and several species of bats as well as lapwings curlews and cuckoos are known to live, breed and forage in the area around the KM A well site;
5.12 Members’ attention is drawn to the fact that letters of representation from private individuals are not routinely uploaded to the County Council’s Online Planning Register, unless an express wish to do so is received by the Authority. To date, twenty eight representations (with their personal information having first been redacted) have been uploaded for public viewing on the Online Planning Register following the receipt by the County Planning Authority of specific requests to do so (correct at 8th October 2015). Notwithstanding, it is important to note that any representation made constitutes a document relating to the application and, as such, hard copies of the letters are available to be viewed within the offices of Planning Services upon request.
5.13 In addition to the representations arising from private individual members of the public, the County Planning Authority has received representations from Parish Councils further afield than those adjacent to the Parish within which the application site is situated. These representations mirror, verbatim, that which has been received from Rillington Parish Council (with the exception that the last four of those listed below expressed “we strongly recommend that this (and all other Fracking applications) are refused” rather than “we strongly demand that this (and all other Fracking applications) are refused”): • Slingsby Parish Council; • Willerby Parish Council; • Folkton Parish Council; • Muston Parish Council; and, • Foxholes Parish Council.
5.14 Members’ attention is also drawn to a petition which was received by the County Council on the 31st March 2015 containing 1,021 signatures. The petition had been signed predicated upon the following statement “We, the undersigned, demand that the North Yorkshire County Council publicly oppose fracking and all other forms of unconventional fossil fuel extraction in North Yorkshire. In addition, that this anti fracking position should be reflected in all decisions relating to mineral planning applications in North Yorkshire”. The County Council’s formal response, as published on the County Council’s website, states “The strength of feeling on this matter is noted” and “The petition will be drawn to the attention of the Ryedale area committee and it is proposed that in a report which relates to a planning application regarding fracking or any other unconventional fossil fuel extraction in North Yorkshire, members attention will be drawn to the existence of this petition”. commrep/32 39 33
5.15 The spatial distribution of the representations (for those addresses that have been provided) will be displayed on a plan accompanying the substantive report when the application is due to be determined and the report itself will explain the distribution split by those representations arising from: • within the parish of Kirby Misperton; • within the district of Ryedale; • within the county of North Yorkshire; • within the City of York administrative area; and, • beyond the administrative county of North Yorkshire.
6.0 Planning guidance and policy
6.1 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In considering the application, other material considerations need to be taken into account. Important such considerations include other relevant policy and guidance, particularly national planning policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and other relevant Government policy statements, as well as National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG). Key policy and guidance relevant to determination of the application is identified in this section of the report.
Context Government Energy Policy
6.2 National Government has a key role in managing and regulating the supply of energy resources to ensure that the UK has access to secure, clean affordable energy supplies whilst also aiming to meet international obligations on climate change including reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
6.3 The 2007 Government White Paper on Energy (‘Meeting the Energy Challenge’, May 2007) set out the Government's intended approach to the two main challenges of cutting greenhouse gases to meet climate change objectives and targets, and to ensuring the availability of secure, clean and affordable energy as imports replace declining North Sea production. The White Paper identified that these challenges should be addressed in a way that was consistent with energy policy goals including cutting CO2 emissions, maintaining reliability of energy supplies, promoting competitive markets and ensuring that every home is adequately and affordably heated.
6.4 The Climate Change Act of 2008 requires that levels of the main greenhouse gases in 2050 emitted by UK households, industry, transport and the energy generation sector are at least 80% lower than 1990 levels.
6.5 Subsequent to the 2008 Climate Change Act, the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan, which was published in 2009, proposed a move towards a system based on renewables in order to meet climate change objectives, including relevant obligations in the Act. The Plan identifies that there will be a continuing need for energy generation from fossil fuel sources, including gas, as part of this commrep/33 40 34
transition together with an emphasis upon the use of associated carbon capture technologies in order to help meet climate change objectives.
6.6 The National Policy Statement for Energy (EN 1), which was published in 2011, intended primarily to provide national policy for consideration of proposals for energy infrastructure dealt with by the Infrastructure Planning Commission under the 2008 Planning Act. However, the Statement indicates that it is likely to be a material consideration in decision making on planning applications that fall under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). It indicates that whether, and to what extent, the Statement is a material consideration, will be judged on a case by case basis. There are a number of policy objectives within the policy document which include: • the need to meet legally binding targets to cut greenhouse emissions by at least 80% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels which will require major changes in the way that energy is generated and used by individuals, industry and the public sector; • the Government considers that it is critical that the UK continues to have secure and reliable supplies of energy resources to be achieved by ensuring the existence of reliable supply chains (for example fuel for power stations) to meet demand as it arises; • a diverse mix of technologies and fuels including the need to source fuels from a wide range of locations; • the need to address issues raised by increased imports of oil and gas as North Sea reserves decline in an environment where energy demand is rising and supply is increasingly politicised; and, • the requirement to make substantial and timely investment in new infrastructure over the next two decades including in new fossil fuel generating capacity during the transition to a low carbon economy.
6.7 The Government published a Gas Generation Strategy in 2012. The Strategy notes that a third of UK energy demand is met by gas and that, as coal use declines for use in power generation, gas will have an important role to play in filling the gap alongside renewable and nuclear generation thereby helping to reduce carbon emissions. The Government's forecast is that gas use in 2030 will be at similar levels to 2012 and that gas will still be needed for many years into the future. The Strategy notes that the important role of gas in energy generation has been supported by a secure supply of fuel and that the global outlook for gas supply is good, which has been recently enhanced by developments in unconventional gas extraction. It also states that an important component of Government energy security policy is to ensure that the UK is not over dependant on any individual fuel source and that over reliance on gas, or any single energy resource, could put the UK at more risk if there were any disruption to supply. Such risks are likely to become greater for gas as the UK become dependent upon imports as domestic production declines. The strategy notes the developments in unconventional (shale) gas in the US, highlights the favourable geology in some parts of the UK and provides a commitment to provide various policy and fiscal incentives to encourage exploration for shale gas in the UK as a possible means to provide additional security of supply for gas.
6.8 This summer Government policy on energy policy was restated in the budget statement where the Chancellor indicated that the Government believes in commrep/34 41 35
making the most of the UK’s oil and gas resources, including the safe extraction of shale gas and, more recently, on September16th, two Ministerial Statements were laid before the House. The first by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the Right Honourable Amber Rudd MP, which sets out the Government’s view that there is a need to explore and develop our shale gas resources in a safe, sustainable and timely way, and the steps it is taking to support this including the planning measures that the Government is putting in place with the aim of reaching timely decisions on shale proposals, and to making the planning system faster and fairer for those affected by development and, the second, by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Right Honourable Greg Clark MP, which sets out the intention to identify underperformance in respect of oil and gas applications and a revision to the recovery criteria for appeals for planning permission for shale gas. These reiterate the Government’s backing for the safe development of shale gas on the grounds of employment opportunities, energy security and its potential contribution to decarbonise the economy; and its belief in the countrywide potential for safe and sustainable use of shale gas, whilst at the same time re emphasising the need to ensure people’s safety and safeguarding the environment.
National planning policy:
6.9 National planning policy relevant to the determination of this planning application is contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in March 2012. Although the NPPF does not form part of the development plan, it is nevertheless, an important material consideration when determining planning applications.
6.10 The NPPF indicates that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, with the system required to perform an economic role, a social role and an environmental role, with gains across all three of these broad objectives being sought simultaneously. It sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development which, for decision taking, means approving applications that accord with the development plan without delay; and, where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or, specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted.
6.11 Within Section 11 of the NPPF it is clear that the effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account.
6.12 Section 13 of the NPPF relates to facilitating the sustainable use of minerals. This section states when granting permission for mineral development there should be no unacceptable impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety, and take into account the cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites in a locality. commrep/35 42 36
6.13 The principal relevant paragraphs of the NPPF include: • Paragraph 17setting out the twelve core planning principles; • Paragraphs 18 20 building a strong, competitive economy • Paragraphs 32 and 34 promoting sustainable transport • Paragraph 57 promoting high quality design • Paragraph 69 relating to promoting healthy communities • Paragraph 100 and 103 relating to avoidance of inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding • Paragraphs 109 and 120 125 relating to conserving and enhancing the natural environment; • Paragraphs 128 to 136 conserving and enhancing the historic environment • Paragraphs 142, 144, and 147 148 facilitating the sustainable use of minerals • Paragraphs 186 206 taking decisions; and • Paragraphs 208 216 of NPPF Annexe 1: Implementation
6.14 Paragraph 17 identifies the core land use planning principles that should underpin decision taking. In the context of this planning application the most relevant principles include that planning should: • proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver homes, businesses and industrial unity, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs; • always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings; • recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it; • support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate and encouraging the use of renewable resources (for example by the development of renewable energy); • contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution; • conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life for this and future generations; • focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable; • take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs.
6.15 Paragraphs 18 20 state that the Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity and meeting the twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future. The planning system should do everything it can to support sustainable economic growth therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system and support an economy fit for the 21st century.
6.16 Paragraphs 32 and 34 state that decisions should take account of whether opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, safe and suitable access to the site can commrep/36 43 37
be achieved and that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. Decisions should ensure that developments that generate significant movements are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised, although in rural areas this needs to take account of other policies in the NPPF.
6.17 Paragraph 57 states that it is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes.
6.18 Paragraph 69 states that the planning system can play an important role in creating health, inclusive communities and that, local planning authorities should seek to involve all sections of local communities in planning decisions.
6.19 Paragraphs 100 and 103 state that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas of highest risk, that in determining applications planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere and where it can be demonstrated that the most vulnerable development is located in areas of the site at lowest flood risk, that development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant and priority is given to use of sustainable drainage systems.
6.20 Paragraph 109 states, inter alia, that: “The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: • Minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gain sin biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; • Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at an unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability”
6.21 Paragraph 120 states that: “To prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account ”
6.22 Paragraph 121 states that: “planning decisions should ensure that the site is suitable for its new use taking account of ground condition sand land instability, including from natural hazards or former activities such as mining, pollution arising from previous uses and any proposals for mitigation ” and that “adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented”
commrep/37 44 38
6.23 Paragraph 122 states: In doing so, local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under pollution control regimes. Local planning authorities should assume that these regimes will operate effectively. Equally, where a planning decision has been made on a particular development, the planning issues should not be revisited through the permitting regimes operated by pollution control authorities.
6.24 Paragraph 123 states that: planning decisions should aim to: • avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; • mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from new development, including through use of conditions; • recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established; and • identify and better protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.
6.25 Paragraph 125 states that “by encouraging good design, planning policies and decisions should limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation”
6.26 Paragraph 128 states that: In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary.
6.27 Paragraph 129 states: Local Planning Authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.
6.28 Paragraph 131 states: In determining planning application, local planning authorities should take account of: (first bullet) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation.
6.29 Paragraph 132 of the NPPF advises that: When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, commrep/38 45 39
great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade ll listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notable scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade l and ll* listed buildings, grade l and ll* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.
6.30 Paragraphs 133 and 134 state: Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply: • the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and • no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and • conservation by grant funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and • the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.
Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.
6.31 In relation to facilitating the sustainable use of minerals, paragraph 142 states that: Minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth and our quality of life. It is therefore important that there is a sufficient supply of material to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. However, since minerals are a finite natural resource, and can only be worked where they are found, it is important to make the best use of them to secure their long term conservation.
6.32 Paragraph 144 of the NPPF states that: When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should: (first bullet) give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy; (third bullet) ensure, in granting planning permission for mineral development, that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety, and take into account the cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality; (sixth bullet) provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions, where necessary commrep/39 46 40
6.33 Paragraph 147 states that: Mineral planning authorities should also when planning for inshore oil and gas development, including unconventional hydrocarbons, clearly distinguish between the three phases of development (exploration, appraisal and production) and address constraints on production and processing within areas that are lincensed for oil and gas exploration or production
6.34 With regard to decision taking, the NPPF states at paragraph 186 that: Local planning authorities should approach decision taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development, and paragraph 187 indicates that: Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems and decision takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.
6.35 Annex 1 to the NPPF deals with implementation and states that: For the purposes of decision taking, the policies in the Local Plan should not be considered out of date simply because they were adopted prior to the publication of this Framework. It confirms that the policies contained in the NPPF are material considerations which planning authorities should take into account from the day of publication. Where local plans have not been updated to take into account the policies in the NPPF (as is the case with the North Yorkshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan ‘saved’ policies) due weight should be given to relevant policies in such plans according to their degree of consistency with the framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).
6.36 Within paragraph 147 it states that “Minerals planning authorities should also: when planning for on shore oil and gas development, including unconventional hydrocarbons, clearly distinguish between the three phases of development (exploration, appraisal and production) and address constraints on production and processing within areas that are licensed for oil and gas exploration or production”.
6.37 The National Planning Policy for Waste (2014) may also be considered material, bearing in mind that the development would, indirectly, involve the creation of a mining waste facility. It states that, when determining waste planning applications, waste planning authorities should amongst other matters “consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity against the criteria set out in Appendix B and the locational implications of any advice on health from the relevant health bodies”. The locational criteria in Appendix B are: a. protection of water quality and resources and flood risk management b. land instability c. landscape and visual impacts d. nature conservation e. conserving the historic environment f. traffic and access g. air emissions, including dust h. odours i. vermin and birds commrep/40 47 41
j. noise, light and vibration k. litter l. potential land use conflict
National planning practice guidance 6.38 National Planning Practice Guidance was first published online in March 2014 and has subsequently been updated in a number of respects. It is intended to be read alongside policy in the NPPF. In respect of this particular planning application, the relevant advice includes that relating to the: • quality of water, its supply and related infrastructure as well as possible ground and/or surface water impacts; • mitigation against noise impacts; • traffic impacts; • safeguarding of biodiversity and sites of local, national or international designation as well as possible loss of protected species and their associated habitats; • visual impacts both locally and beyond and impacts upon wider landscape character; • extraction of minerals; • impacts of external lighting; • risks of land instability and/or subsidence; • impacts upon features of archaeological and heritage value; • risks to community health and well being; • impacts upon agriculture and the quality of the land in the area in respect of ‘best and most versatile land’ i.e. Grade 3a and above; • risk giving rise to flooding events not previously experienced or new ones; • design of the proposed development; • mitigation against the impacts of climate change; • risk of contaminating land; and, • impacts upon air quality including dust.
6.39 Paragraph 12 (ref ID: 27 013020140306) of the online guidance sets out the relationship between planning and other regulatory regimes reflecting Paragraph 122 of the NPPF and also noting that “the planning system controls development and the use of land in the public interest” including ensuring development is appropriate for its location and an acceptable use of land. Significantly it notes that “the focus of the planning system should be on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land and the impacts of those uses, rather than any control processes, health and safety issues or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under regimes. Mineral planning authorities should assume that these non planning regimes will operate effectively.”
6.40 Paragraph 13 (ref ID: 27 013 20140306) sets out the environmental issues that minerals planning authorities should address including noise, air quality, lighting, visual impact, traffic, risk of contamination to land, geological structure, flood risk, impacts on protected landscapes, surface and in some cases ground water issues, and water abstraction.
commrep/41 48 42
6.41 Paragraph 14 (ref ID: 27 014 20140306) sets out issues which are for other regulatory regimes to address. For hydrocarbon extraction this links to Paragraphs 110 to 112 (inclusive) of the online guidance which set out the key regulators in addition to the Mineral Planning Authority, as referred to earlier in this report.
6.42 Paragraph 17 (ref ID: 27 017 20140306) notes that the cumulative impact of mineral development can be a material consideration in determining planning applications.
6.43 Paragraph 91 (ref ID: 27 093 20140306) to Paragraph 146 (ref ID: 27 146 20140306) (inclusive) specifically provide guidance in respect of planning for hydrocarbon extraction. The Guidance indicates that unconventional hydrocarbons are an emerging form of energy supply and that there is a pressing need to undertake exploratory drilling to assess whether or not there are sufficient recoverable reserves to allow full scale production on an economically viable scale.
6.44 Paragraph 110 (ref. ID: 27 110 20140306) of the NPPG states that the key regulators for hydrocarbon extraction are: a. Department of Energy and Climate Change – issues Petroleum Licences, gives consent to drill under the Licence once other permissions and approvals are in place, and have responsibility for assessing risk of and monitoring seismic activity, as well as granting consent to flaring or venting; b. Mineral Planning Authorities – grant permission for the location of any wells and wellpads, and impose conditions to ensure that the impact on the use of the land is acceptable; c. Environment Agency – protect water resources (including groundwater aquifers), ensure appropriate treatment and disposal of mining waste, emissions to air, and suitable treatment and manage any naturally occurring radioactive materials; and d. Health and Safety Executive – regulates the safety aspects of all phases of extraction, in particular responsibility for ensuring the appropriate design and construction of a well casing for any borehole
6.45 Paragraph 111 (ref. ID 27 111 20140306) indicates that other bodies which may be involved in the consenting of the process include: a. the Coal Authority, whose permission will be required should drilling go through a coal seam; b. Natural England, who may need to issue European Protected Species Licences in certain circumstances; c. the British Geological Survey, who need to be notified by licensees of their intention to undertake drilling and, upon completion of drilling, must also receive drilling records and cores; and d. Hazardous Substances Authorities, who may need to provide hazardous substances consents. commrep/42 49 43
There may also be additional consents and orders, such as stopping up rights of way or temporary road orders, which must be obtained. 6.46 Paragraph 112 (ref. ID 27 112 20140306) deals with the responsibilities of various regulatory bodies and states that some issues may be covered by other regulatory regimes but may be relevant to mineral planning authorities in specific circumstances. For example, the Environment Agency has responsibility for ensuring that risk to groundwater is appropriately identified and mitigated. Where an Environmental Statement is required, mineral planning authorities can and do play a role in preventing pollution of the water environment from hydrocarbon extraction, principally through controlling the methods of site construction and operation, robustness of storage facilities, and in tackling surface water drainage issues. 6.47 There exist a number of issues which are covered by other regulatory regimes and mineral planning authorities should assume that these regimes will operate effectively. Whilst these issues may be put before mineral planning authorities, they should not need to carry out their own assessment as they can rely on the assessment of other regulatory bodies. However, before granting planning permission they will need to be satisfied that these issues can or will be adequately addressed by taking the advice from the relevant regulatory body:
• Mitigation of seismic risks –the Department of Energy and Climate Change is responsible for controls, usually through the licence consent regime, to mitigate seismic risks. Seismic assessment of the geology of the area to establish the geological conditions, risk of seismic activity and mitigation measures to put in place is required by the Department of Energy and Climate Change for all hydraulic fracturing processes; • Well design and construction – the Health and Safety Executive are responsible for enforcement of legislation concerning well design and construction. Before design and construction operators must assess and take account of the geological strata, and fluids within them, as well as any hazards that the strata may contain; • Well integrity during operation – under health and safety legislation the integrity of the well is subject to examination by independent qualified experts throughout its operation, from design through construction and until final plugging at the end of operation; • Operation of surface equipment on the well pad – whilst planning conditions may be imposed to prevent run off of any liquid from the pad, and to control any impact on local amenity (such as noise), the actual operation of the site’s equipment should not be of concern to mineral planning authorities as these are controlled by the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive; • Mining waste – the Environment Agency is responsible for ensuring that extractive wastes do not harm human health and the environment. An environmental permit is required for phases of hydrocarbon extraction and this will require the operator to produce and implement a waste management plan; • Chemical content of hydraulic fracturing fluid – this is covered by the environmental permit as operators are obliged to inform the Environment commrep/43 50 44
Agency of all chemicals that they may use as part of any hydraulic fracturing process; • Flaring or venting of any gas produced as part of the exploratory phase will be subject to Department of Energy and Climate Change controls and will be regulated by the Environment Agency. Mineral planning authorities will, however, need to consider how issues of noise and visual impact will be addressed; • Final off site disposal of water – Water that comes back to the surface following hydraulic fracturing may contain naturally occurring radioactive materials. Whilst storage on site and the traffic impact of any movement of water is of clear interest to local authorities, it is the responsibility of the Environment Agency to ensure that the final treatment/disposal at suitable water treatment facilities is acceptable • Well decommissioning/abandonment – following exploration, the well is likely to suspended and abandoned for a period of time. Health and Safety Legislation requires its design and construction that, so far as reasonably practicable, there is no unplanned escape of fluids from it. The mineral planning authority is responsible for ensuring the wells are abandoned and the site is restored.
6.48 Paragraph 124 (ref. ID 27 124 20140306) states that Mineral planning authorities should take account of Government energy policy, which makes it clear that energy supplies should come from a variety of sources. This includes onshore oil and gas, as set out in the Government’s Annual Energy Statement published in October 2013.
6.49 Finally, the section of the guidance on air quality notes that when deciding whether air quality is relevant to a planning application, considerations could include whether the development would (in summary): significantly affect traffic (through congestion, volumes, speed, or traffic composition on local roads); introducing new point sources of air pollution; give rise to potentially unacceptable impact (such as dust) during construction; or affect biodiversity (Paragraph 5 (ref ID: 32 005 20140306) refers).
The Development Plan
6.50 Notwithstanding the NPPF and the relevant national guidance being an important material consideration, Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that all planning authorities must determine each planning application in accordance with the planning policies that comprise the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
6.51 In this instance, the Development Plan consists of the ‘saved’ policies of the North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan (NYMLP) (insofar as having been ‘saved’ by Direction of the Secretary of State in 2007) any relevant ‘saved’ policy in the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan 2006 (NYWLP) and the policies contained within the Ryedale Plan Local Plan Strategy (RP LPS) (2013).
commrep/44 51 45
North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan
6.52 The principal relevant policies of the NYMLP comprise: • the criteria based policy, ‘saved’ Policy 4/1, concerned with the determination of applications; • ‘saved’ Policy 4/10 with regard to water protection; • ‘saved’ Policy 4/13 with respect to traffic impact; • ‘saved’ Policy 4/14 with regard to the local environment and amenity; • ‘saved’ Policy 4/15 with regard to public rights of way; • ‘saved’ Policy 7/3 identification of geological structure; • ‘saved’ Policy 7/4 relating to appraisal boreholes; • ‘saved’ Policy 7/5 with respect to production wells; • ‘saved’ Policy 7/7 with regard to the development of new reserves; and, • ‘saved’ Policy 7/10 with regard to restoration.
6.53 ‘Saved’ Policy 4/1 states that: “In considering an application for mining operations, the Minerals Planning Authority will need to be satisfied that, where appropriate: (a) the mineral deposit on the application site has been fully investigated; (b) the siting and scale of the proposal is acceptable; (c) the proposed method and programme of working would minimise the impact of the proposal; (d) landscaping and screening has been designed to effectively mitigate the impact of the proposal; (e) other environmental and amenity safeguards would effectively mitigate the impact of the proposals; (f) the proposals and programme for restoration are acceptable and would allow a high standard to be achieved; (g) a high standard of aftercare and management of the land could be achieved; (h) the proposed transport links to move the mineral to market are acceptable, and (i) any cumulative impact on the local area resulting from the proposal is acceptable”.
6.54 ‘Saved’ Policy 4/10 states that “Proposals for mining operations and the associated depositing of mineral waste will only be permitted where they would not have an unacceptable impact upon surface or groundwater resources”.
6.55 ‘Saved’ Policy 4/13 concerning traffic impact states “Where rail, waterway or other environmentally preferable modes of transport are not feasible, mining operations other than for coal, oil and gas will only be permitted where the level of vehicle movements likely to be generated can be satisfactorily accommodated by the local highway network and would not cause undue disturbance to local communities”.
6.56 ‘Saved’ Policy 4/14 states that “Proposals for mining operations and the associated depositing of mineral waste will be permitted only where there
commrep/45 52 46
would not be an unacceptable impact upon the local environment or residential amenity”.
6.57 ‘Saved’ Policy 4/15 states that “Proposals for mining operations and the associated depositing of mineral waste which would interrupt, obstruct or conflict with use of a public right of way will only be permitted where satisfactory provision has been made in the application for protecting the existing right of way or for providing alternative arrangements both during and after working”.
6.58 ‘Saved’ Policy 7/3 (relating to oil and gas) states that “Before considering any planning application for appraisal work the Mineral Planning Authority will require operators to identify the probable extent of the geological structure involved and will expect planning applications for the additional boreholes to be demonstrably related to this area”.
6.59 ‘Saved’ Policy 7/4 (relating to oil and gas) states that “Proposals for the drilling and testing of appraisal boreholes will only be permitted where the applicant can demonstrate that the proposal: i) is necessary to determine the quality, nature and extent of the deposit; and ii) forms part of an overall scheme for the appraisal and delineation of the field as a whole. Planning permission for appraisal drilling will not commit the Mineral Planning Authority to any subsequent grant of permission for development”.
6.60 ‘Saved’ Policy 7/5 relates to production boreholes and states “Proposals for the conversion of previously "short term" exploration and appraisal borehole sites into production wells will be approved only when they make full provision for an improved standard of landscaping, protection of local amenity and site restoration”.
6.61 ‘Saved’ Policy 7/7 (relating to oil and gas) states that “Unless such development would be technically impracticable or environmentally unacceptable, planning permission for the development of oil or gas reserves as yet undiscovered will only be granted where the development utilises existing available surface infrastructure or pipelines”.
6.62 ‘Saved’ Policy 7/10 (relating to oil and gas) states that “Planning permission for the exploration, appraisal or development of oil or gas resources will only be permitted when provision is made for the full restoration of the site and its related means of access to a beneficial after use. In particular, the Mineral Planning Authority will impose:
i) a 1 year time limit for the restoration of exploration sites or the submission of proposals for continued appraisal work; ii) a 2 year time limit for the restoration of appraisal sites or the submission of proposals for development as a production site; and iii) a 2 year time limit for the restoration of a production site, to run from the cessation of significant oil or gas production from the site”.
commrep/46 53 47
North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan
6.63 The principal relevant policies in the NYWLP comprise: • ‘saved’ policy 4/1 with regard to waste management proposals • ‘saved’ policy 4/19 with regard to quality of life
6.64 It should be noted that relevant policies in the NYWLP 2006 are considered applicable in this instance because the development indirectly incorporates the provision of a waste management facility. This is a result of the expectation that a proportion of the fracking fluid used in the development will remain in the underground formation to be fracked and such retained fluid is expected to be classed as mining waste under environmental permitting regulations under the jusrisdiction of the Environment Agency. In effect, therefore, the development incorporates provision of a new waste management facility.
6.65 NYWLP ‘saved’ Policy 4/1 states that: “Proposals for waste management facilities will be permitted provided that: a) the siting and scale of the development is appropriate to the location of the proposal; b) the proposed method and scheme of working would minimise the impact of the proposal; c) there would not be an unacceptable environmental impact; d) there would not be an unacceptable cumulative impact on the local area; e) the landscaping and screening has been designed to effectively mitigate the impact of the proposal in a way that is sympathetic to local landscape character; f) where appropriate, adequate provision is made for the restoration, aftercare and management of the site to an agreed afteruse; g) the proposed transport links are adequate to serve the development; and, h) other environmental and amenity safeguards would effectively mitigate the impact of the proposal; i) it can be demonstrated that the proposal represents the Best Practicable Environmental Option for dealing with the waste; j) the location is geographically well located to the source of the waste thereby according with the proximity principle.”
6.66 NYWLP ‘saved’ Policy 4/19 states that “Proposals for waste management facilities will be permitted only where there would not be an unacceptable impact on the local environment and residential amenity”.
Ryedale Plan Local Plan Strategy
6.67 The principal relevant policies of the RP LPS comprise • Policy SP1 concerning the general location of development and settlement hierarchy; • Policy SP6 concerning the delivery and distribution of employment/industrial land and premises; • Policy SP12 concerning heritage matters; • Policy SP13 with regard to landscape; commrep/47 54 48
• Policy SP14 concerning bio diversity; • Policy SP15 concerning green infrastructure • Policy SP16 on design; • Policy SP17 with regard to managing air quality, land and water resources; and, • the criteria based policy, Policy SP20, concerning generic development management issues, including character, design, amenity and safety, and access, parking and servicing.
6.68 RP LPS Policy SP1 states, in relation to significant industrial processes in the open countryside, that: Significant Industrial Processes in Open Countryside Locations: Major industrial processes involving the extraction, utilisation, working or harnessing of natural materials or land assets will be supported where: • They are required in that location and no other suitable sites are available in the locality • They can be satisfactorily accommodated on the highway network and will not lead to significant adverse highways impacts • They do not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring occupants of the site in line with Policy SP20 • They can be satisfactorily accommodated in the surrounding landscape in line with Policies SP13 and SP16 • The economic benefits to the District outweigh any adverse impacts
6.69 RP LPS Policy SP6 on the delivery and distribution of employment/industrial land and premises seeks to steer such development toward main settlements of Malton/Norton, Pickering, Kirbymoorside and Helmsley and to a lesser extent other service villages. The District Council envisages a provision of circa 37 hectares is needed spread throughout the Plan period.
6.70 RP LPS Policy SP12 states that: Distinctive elements of Ryedale’s historic environment will be conserved and where appropriate, enhanced. The potential of heritage assets to contribute towards the economy, tourism, education and community identity will be exploited including: • The nationally significant prehistoric archaeological landscapes of the Yorkshire Wolds and the Vale of Pickering • The individual and distinctive character and appearance of Ryedale’s Market Towns and villages • Large country houses and associated estates and estate villages, with Castle Howard being of international importance • The unique distribution of Saxon churches on the fringe of the Vale of Pickering and the North York Moors, including Kirkdale and Stonegrave Minsters • Victorian churches throughout the Yorkshire Wolds • Medieval features including relatively large numbers of deserted medieval villages, moated manorial sites and granges, such as Kirkham Priory and notable castle sites, including Sheriff Hutton and Bossall Hall, Pickering and Helmsley
commrep/48 55 49
• The network of historic field systems across the District and in particular, the historic field patterns around Pickering and other settlements on the northern side of the Vale of Pickering • The Roman Derventio site at Malton To assist in protecting the District’s historic assets and features, the Council will: • (2nd bullet point) Seek to ensure the sensitive expansion, growth and land use change in and around the Market Towns and villages, safeguarding elements of the historic character and value within their built up areas, including Visually Important Undeveloped Areas*, as well as surrounding historic landscape character and setting of individual settlements Designated historic assets and their settings, including Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Scheduled Monuments and Registered Parks and Gardens will be conserved and where appropriate, enhanced. Development proposals which would result in substantial harm to or total loss of the significance of a designated heritage asset or to the archaeological significance of the Vale of Pickering will be resisted unless wholly exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated. Proposals which would result in less substantial harm will only be agreed where the public benefit of the proposal is considered to outweigh the harm and the extent of harm to the asset In considering and negotiating development proposals, the Council will seek to protect other features of local historic value and interest throughout Ryedale having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. *Visually Important Undeveloped Areas are as defined on the adopted Proposals Map”
6.71 RP LPS Policy SP13 states that: “The quality, character and value of Ryedale’s diverse landscapes will be protected and enhanced by: • Encouraging new development and land management practises which reinforce the distinctive elements of landscape character within the District’s broad landscape character areas of: • North York Moors and Cleveland Hills • Vale of Pickering • Yorkshire Wolds • Howardian Hills • Vale of York
Landscape Character Development proposals should contribute to the protection and enhancement of distinctive elements of landscape character that are the result of historical and cultural influences, natural features and aesthetic qualities including: • The distribution and form of settlements and buildings in their landscape setting • The character of individual settlements, including building styles and materials • The pattern and presence of distinctive landscape features and natural elements (including field boundaries, woodland, habitat types, landforms, topography and watercourses) commrep/49 56 50
• Visually sensitive skylines, hill and valley sides • The ambience of the area, including nocturnal character, level and type of activity and tranquillity, sense of enclosure/exposure The Council will work with landowners and statutory agencies to encourage land management practises that will protect and reinforce landscape character across the District and proposals which seek to restore areas of degraded landscape or individual landscape elements will be supported. Outside of those landscapes protected by national landscapes designations, the Council will carefully consider the impact of development proposals on the following broad areas of landscape which are valued locally: • The Wolds Area of High Landscape Value • The Fringe of the Moors Area of High Landscape Value • The Vale of Pickering The Vale of Pickering, the Wolds and the Fringe of the Moors are of significant historic landscape value and loss or degradation of the elements that are integral to their historic landscape character make these landscapes particularly sensitive to change.”
6.72 RP LPS Policy SP14 states that: In considering proposals for development – Proposals which would have an adverse effect on any site or species protected under international or national legislation will be considered in the context of the statutory protection which is afforded to them. Proposals for development which would result in loss or significant harm to: • Habitats or species included in the Ryedale Biodiversity Action Plan and priority species and habitat in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan • Local Sites of Nature Conservation Importance or Sites of Geodiversity Importance • Other types of Ancient Woodland and Ancient/Veteran Trees will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that there is a need for the development in that location and that the benefit of the development outweighs the loss and harm. Where loss and harm cannot be prevented or adequately mitigated, compensation for the loss/harm will be sought. Applications for planning permission will be refused where significant harm cannot be prevented, adequately mitigated against or compensated for. Loss or harm to other nature conservation features should be avoided or mitigated. Compensation will be sought for the loss or damage to other nature conservation features which would result from the development proposed. Protected sites, including internationally and nationally protected sites and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation are identified on the adopted Proposals Map.”
6.73 RP LPS Policy SP15 states that: “A network of green open spaces and natural features will be created and managed across Ryedale to support biodiversity and environmental systems to enhance the attractiveness of places and to support healthy lifestyles by providing opportunities for activity and relaxation. This will be achieved by: Protecting, enhancing, creating and connecting wider elements of Green Infrastructure including: Protecting and enhancing: commrep/50 57 51
• Public Rights of Way and Open Access Land and where practicable securing multi user access • Informal open spaces, allotments, street trees, hedgerows, stream corridors and beck sides, woodlands, formal public open spaces, recreational and play space • Biodiversity, wildlife corridors and buffer zones necessary to support these features or areas • The quality and usability of public open spaces
6.74 RP LPS Policy SP16 states that: Development proposals will be expected to create high quality durable places that are accessible, well integrated with their surroundings and which: • Reinforce local distinctiveness • Provide a well connected public realm which is accessible and usable by all, safe and easily navigated • Protect amenity and promote well being To reinforce local distinctiveness, the location, siting, form, layout, scale and detailed design of new development should respect the context provided by its surroundings including: 6th bullet: • The type, texture and colour of materials, quality and type of building techniques and elements of architectural detail The design of new development will also be expected to: 6th bullet: • Proposals for major development will be expected to include a statement identifying the waste implications of the development and measures taken to minimise and manage waste generated
6.75 RP LPS Policy SP17 states that: Flood risk will be managed by: • Requiring the use of sustainable drainage systems and techniques, where technically feasible, to promote groundwater recharge and reduce flood risk. Development proposals will be expected to attenuate surface water run off to the rates recommended in the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. In addition, major development proposals within areas highlighted as having critical drainage problems in the North East Yorkshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (or future updates) as Critical Drainage Areas may, if appropriate, be required to demonstrate that the development will not exacerbate existing problems by modelling impact on the wider drainage system • Ensuring new development does not prevent access to water courses for the maintenance of flood defences • Undertaking a risk based sequential approach to the allocation of land for new development and in the consideration of development proposals in order to guide new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding, whilst taking account of the need to regenerate vacant and previously developed sites within the towns. In considering development proposals or the allocation of land, full account will be taken of the flood risk vulnerability of proposed uses and the national ‘Exception Test’ will be applied if required
commrep/51 58 52
Water resources will be managed by: • Supporting the water efficient design of new development and requiring developers to demonstrate how development proposals will seek to minimise water consumption • Ensuring applications for new development assess impacts on water quality and propose mitigation measures to reduce the risk of pollution and a deterioration of water quality • Protecting surface and groundwater from potentially polluting development and activity. Sources of groundwater protection within and adjacent to the District will be protected using the Source Protection Zones (SPZs) identified by the Environment Agency. Within SPZ1 the following types of development will not be permitted unless adequate safeguards against possible contamination can be agreed: • Septic tanks, waste water treatment works, storage tanks containing hydrocarbons or any chemicals or underground storage tanks; • Sustainable drainage systems with infiltration to ground • Oil pipelines • Storm water overflows and below ground attenuation tanks • Activities which involve the disposal of liquid waste to land • Graveyards and cemeteries • Other specific types of development identified within the Environment Agency’s Groundwater Protection Policy • Within Source Protection Zones 2 and 3 a risk based approach will be applied to the consideration of development proposals with the exception of development involving deep soakaways, sewerage, trade and storm effluent to ground which will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that these are necessary, are the only option available and where adequate safeguards against possible contamination can be agreed. • Within Source Protection Zones developers will be expected to provide full details of the proposed construction of new buildings and construction techniques, including foundation design as part of their proposals. • Ensuring that necessary sewerage and water treatment infrastructure improvements are provided in tandem with new development and that scale, type, location and phasing of new development or land based activity can be accommodated without an unacceptable impact on water supply
Air Quality will be protected and improved by: • Locating and managing development to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution and promote the use of alternative forms of travel to the private car • Supporting measures to encourage non car based means of travel or the use of low emission vehicles • Reducing air quality emissions from buildings through renewable energy provision and sustainable building standards in line with Policy SP18 • Requiring development proposals within or adjoining the Malton Air Quality Management Area to demonstrate how effects on air quality will be mitigated and further human exposure to poor air quality reduced. All commrep/52 59 53
development proposals within or near to the Air Quality Management Area which are likely to impact upon air quality; which are sensitive to poor air quality or which would conflict with any Air Quality Action Plan will be accompanied by an Air Quality Assessment • Only permitting development if the individual or cumulative impact on air quality is acceptable and appropriate mitigation measures are secured
6.76 RP LPS Policy SP20 states that: Character New development will respect the character and context of the immediate locality and the wider landscape/townscape character in terms of physical features and the type and variety of existing uses Proposed uses and activity will be compatible with the existing ambience of the immediate locality and the surrounding area and with neighbouring land uses and would not prejudice the continued operation of existing neighbouring land uses The cumulative impact of new development on the character of an area will also be considered
Design The design of new development will follow the principles established in Policy SP16. Extensions or alterations to existing buildings will be appropriate and sympathetic to the character and appearance of the existing building in terms of scale, form, and use of materials
Amenity and Safety New development will not have a material adverse impact on the amenity of present or future occupants, the users or occupants of neighbouring land and buildings or the wider community by virtue of its design, use, location and proximity to neighbouring land uses. Impacts on amenity can include, for example, noise, dust, odour, light flicker, loss of privacy or natural daylight or be an overbearing presence Developers will be expected to apply the highest standards outlined in the World Health Organisation, British Standards and wider international and national standards relating to noise New development proposals which will result in an unacceptable risk to human life, health and safety or unacceptable risk to property will be resisted. Developers will be expected to address the risks/potential risks posed by contamination and/or unstable land in accordance with recognised national and international standards and guidance All sensitive receptors will be protected from land and other contamination. Developers will be expected to assess the risks/ potential risks posed by contamination in accordance with recognised national and international standards and guidance
Access, Parking and Servicing Access to and movement within the site by vehicles, cycles and pedestrians would not have a detrimental impact on road safety, traffic movement or the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. Information will be required in terms of the positioning and treatment of accesses and circulation routes, including how these relate to surrounding footpaths and roads commrep/53 60 54
Access into and within buildings will be expected to be of a standard that allows all to access the building unimpeded Development will be expected to comply with the relevant standards in place at the time a planning application is made to the Local Planning Authority. A Travel Plan may be required to set out how the use of the building can be made more sustainable by reducing the need to travel by private car Where applicable, proposals will need to demonstrate the inclusion of safe and effective vehicular servicing arrangements
Draft North Yorkshire, York and North York Moors National Park Authority Minerals and Waste Joint Plan
6.77 Members will be aware that the Authority is currently working towards the adoption of a Joint Minerals and Waste Plan together with the City of York Council and North York Moors National Park Authority. When adopted, the new polices in the Joint Plan will replace existing ‘saved’ policies in the Council’s Minerals and Waste Local Plans. The current timetable for preparation of the Joint Plan indicates that adoption is expected in early 2017. Annex 1 to the NPPF states that decision takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: • The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); • The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and • The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in (the NPPF) (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this framework, the greater the weight that may be given).
6.78 The Joint Plan is currently mid way through preparation, with a ‘Preferred Options’ consultation commencing in November 2015. The consultation presents full draft policy text for new policies to be included in the Plan, including policies for oil and gas.
6.79 With regard to development of unconventional resources, draft Policy M16 relating to the overall spatial policy for hydrocarbon resources states, in respect of proposals located outside National Parks, AONBs and certain other protected areas:
Proposals for conventional and unconventional hydrocarbons development across the rest of the Plan area will be supported where it can be demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable impacts, taking into account proposed mitigation measures, on the environment or on local amenity or on the setting of heritage assets including the historic City of York and where they are consistent with other relevant policies in the Plan. Particular regard will be had to protecting designated Green Belt from harm resulting from hydrocarbons development.
In determining proposals, consideration will be given to any cumulative impacts arising from other hydrocarbon development activity in proximity to commrep/54 61 55
the proposed development, including any impacts arising from successive hydrocarbons development taking place over substantial periods of time. Proposals will be supported where there would be no unacceptable cumulative impacts.
6.80 Draft Policy M17 relating to exploration and appraisal for hydrocarbon resources states:
Proposals for the exploration and appraisal of hydrocarbon resources will be supported where they are considered to be in accordance with the overall spatial policy as set out in Policy M16 for onshore hydrocarbon development and the following requirements are met: i) any unacceptable adverse impact on the environment, local amenity, and heritage assets is avoided or can be appropriately mitigated so far as practicable taking into account the geological target being explored or appraised; and ii) a robust assessment has been carried out to demonstrate that there will be no harm to the quality and availability of ground and surface water resources, harm will not arise from ground stability considerations and that public safety can be adequately protected; and development would be consistent with other relevant policies in the Plan.
6.81 In view of the current stage of preparation of the Plan, it is considered that only very limited weight should be given to these draft policies in the determination of the application.
7.0 Planning considerations
7.1 Whilst the principal planning considerations in the determination of the application are not a matter for inclusion in this report which seeks solely to convey to Members as much information as is reasonably possible to facilitate consideration of deciding whether to undertake a formal Committee Site Visit, it is felt helpful to Members to outline below the principal material planning considerations envisaged at this point in time in the processing of this application.
7.2 The principal material planning considerations, therefore, include, inter alia: • the principle of the proposed development and the planning policy context; • the nature and characteristics of the proposed development; • the scale of the proposed development; • the location of the proposed development; • the potential adverse or favourable impacts upon interests of acknowledged importance (including local communities and the natural and historic environment) in respect of: o air quality; o external lighting; o noise and disturbance; o public health; o landscape & visual impact; o cultural heritage; o bio diversity/ecology; commrep/55 62 56
o traffic & transport; o induced seismicity; o waste; o water; and, o socio economic impacts. • other material considerations include: o the wider issues of energy policy and climate change together with the impact upon greenhouse gas emissions; and, o the longer term issue of the legacy left behind after the proposed development.
7.3 The representations received by the County Council (including both objections and representations from those in support of the proposed development) have cited many, if not all, of the material planning considerations outlined above. However, there have been other issues raised that, for the purpose of the proper consideration of the application cannot be taken into account as material planning considerations. Of those received to date, these include, inter alia: • an alleged negative impact on property prices; • a lack of regulations; • a lack of resources on the part of regulatory bodies; • an approval would set a precedent; • alleged increases in insurance premiums; • unproven technology; and, • a misguided view that UK shale gas will result in lower energy costs.
Other considerations:
7.4 Members’ attention is drawn to the County Planning Authority having recently been invited to take up an offer of support through an independent and impartial service, the national Advisory Team for Large Applications (ATLAS). The invite provides an opportunity to receive training with specific regard to this specialist area and an understanding of the regulatory regime affecting such development which exists in this country.
8.0 Conclusion
8.1 With the purpose of this Report being to seek Members’ consideration to conducting a formal Site Visit in respect of this application, it is considered necessary to provide the basis upon which the recommendation is founded.
8.2 The County Council’s adopted Planning Code of Good Practice (the relevant text is appended to this report at Appendix E) explains that the decision to undertake a formal Committee Site Visit may arise in a circumstance of a Member requesting a visit, a Committee resolution to visit having received a substantive report for consideration before them or an Officer recommendation prior to determination of the application by the Committee.
commrep/56 63 57
8.3 The Code draws attention to a formal Committee Site Visit only being likely to be necessary “if the scale or impact of a proposed development is difficult to understand from the plans and any supporting material including photographs taken by Officers, or if a proposal is particularly contentious” [own emphasis].
8.4 In light of the public and media interest in this specific application, it is considered that the application is ‘caught’ by this second scenario in the extract from the Code above.
8.5 As such, it is considered both reasonable and wholly appropriate that a formal Committee Site Visit is conducted; thereby allowing for: o the appraisal of Members of the Planning Committee of potential visual and amenity impacts of the development from both short and long distances; o Members to gain an understanding of the proximity of the proposed development in the context of the setting of any heritage assets; o an appreciation of the topography of the land both pertaining to the application site itself and the surrounding area; and, o experiencing the levels of traffic volumes that are currently experienced with a view of envisioning the proposed levels arising from the development at all stages of the proposed development as described in the application details.
8.6 Whilst every endeavour will be made at the point in time of the determination of the application to provide Members of the Committee with photomontages and presentational material to gain an appreciation and understanding of the application site and the context in which it is situate, it is considered that in this particular instance, such materials will not be able to fully and comprehensive fulfil that which is may be gained by the conduct of a formal Site Visit.
8.7 In conclusion, it is therefore considered that the nature and level of public interest in this proposal warrants consideration of conducting a formal Committee Site Visit.
9.0 Recommendation
9.1 That, Members
(i) consider and accept the offer of training provided by the independent and impartial advisory service, ATLAS; and,
(ii) resolve to undertake a formal Committee Site Visit after receiving the aforementioned training, but prior to the determination of the application.
D BOWE Corporate Director, Business and Environmental Services
Background Documents to this Report: commrep/57 64 58
1. Planning Application Ref Number: NY/2015/0233/ENV registered as valid on 29th July 2015. Application documents can be found on the County Council's Online Planning Register by using the following web link: https://onlineplanningregister.northyorks.gov.uk/register/ 2. Consultation responses received. 3. Representations received.
Author of report: Victoria Perkin
commrep/58 65 APPENDIX A
66 APPENDIX B
67 APPENDIX C
68 APPENDIX D
69
APPENDIX E 13 Site Visits - The Decision to Conduct a Site Visit
13.1 The decision to have a site visit may come about in a number of different ways. The Committee may decide to visit a site prior to agreeing a recommendation on an application or a request may come from a Member for an affected Electoral division. In some cases it will be the Planning Officer who is recommending the site visit. However, site visits can cause delay and add costs so should only be used where there are substantial benefits.
Therefore:-
o A site visit is likely to be necessary only if the scale or impact of a proposed development is difficult to understand from the plans and any supporting material including photographs taken by Officers, or if a proposal is particularly contentious. Settings and surroundings are also fundamental to the consideration of applications. o The reasons for a site visit should be stated and should be relevant to material planning considerations and will be recorded in the Minutes of the meeting. o All Members (and Substitute Members if they are to attend the meeting itself) of the Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee should make every effort to attend.
13.2 A site visit is not a meeting to discuss the planning merits of the scheme or to make decisions.
13.3 Who Should Attend Site Visits
13.3.1 Ideally all Members (and Substitute Members if they are to attend the meeting itself) of the Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee should endeavour to attend.
13.3.2 One or more Planning Officers will attend and in addition there may be a need for other representatives from the Authority to attend such as Highways, Heritage or Conservation Officers.
13.3.3 No other parties will usually be invited to attend the site visit unless considered necessary by the Committee or the Planning Officers.
13.3.4 Prior to the site visit taking place, the agent or applicant will be notified of the proposed date and time, however they should not normally be in attendance unless there are legal or insurance requirements necessitating their attendance. If their attendance cannot be avoided it may be necessary to invite representatives from the objectors to ensure fairness, but both parties will be advised that they may not make representations to the Committee while on site (except in exceptional circumstances or at the discretion of the Chairman).
70 2
13.3.5 In cases involving operational sites confirmation will be sought that the applicant has appropriate third party insurance liability cover for all parties attending the site visit.
13.4 The Site Visit
13.4.1 The site visit will be conducted in a formal manner:- (i) The Chairman will open the meeting and explain the purpose and conduct of the meeting. If other persons are present such as the applicant, public or objectors there will be a need to outline the procedure which is to be followed during the meeting. (ii) The Planning Officers will highlight the issues relevant to the site inspection and other material planning considerations. The Planning Officers will draw attention to the main site features which the Members need to note. (iii) Any other Officers present such as the Highways Officer will then have the opportunity to highlight any issues, which are relevant to the consideration of the matter and again they can point out relevant features on site which can be observed. (iv) Members can also point out features which can be observed or ask questions of the Officers. (v) While on the site visit Members should keep together as a group at all times. If other parties are present the Members of the Committee should avoid being spoken to individually by any persons present and should endeavour to see and hear everything on site as a group. (vi) The public, applicant and objectors will not normally be invited to the site visit, however, it may be that they attend the meeting. They will not normally be allowed to participate except in exceptional circumstances or if an actual point is to be clarified. (vii) To avoid giving an impression of being lobbied, Members should not listen or talk to anyone on site, unless in exceptional circumstances where they are being addressed as a group in accordance with arrangements agreed beforehand. Any comments should be made to the whole Committee through the Chairman. (viii) Whilst on site the Members should confine any remarks they make to matters of fact and avoid expressing any views or opinions which suggest that they have pre-judged the application. (ix) No discussion about the merits of the application or decision making will take place on site. (x) No hospitality will be accepted on site visits because of the impression this may create.
13.5 Exceptional Circumstances
13.5.1 In most cases site visits will be able to be conducted without the presence of the applicant, public and objectors.
13.5.2 If there is a situation where the site cannot be viewed without the attendance of the applicant then consideration must be given to whether objectors and members of the public should also be able to attend. Where the applicant has commrep/2 71 3
to attend then in the interests of fairness a representative of the objectors should also be able to attend. The applicant and objectors would be attending as observers only. They should not participate or make representations. If however, there are insurance reasons prohibiting the attendance of the public or objectors, then clear advice should be given to the applicant that there can be no representations made to the Committee whilst on site and any which are made will be ignored.
13.5.3 In cases where there are considerable numbers of objectors to an application or the application site is a significant distance from County Hall consideration will need to be given to whether representations may be heard on site from parties who have indicated they would not be able to attend a meeting at County Hall; whether the meeting of the Committee to determine the application can be held at a local venue or whether it would be appropriate to have a meeting arranged following the site visit at which representations could be heard from any parties who would not be able to attend the Committee meeting at County Hall.
13.5.4 In a case where the application will be considered by the Committee at County Hall, but a number of parties have indicated they are unable to attend that meeting, arrangements could be made to hear representations from those parties on the site visit or at a meeting following the site visit which would be held at a local venue. If representations are to be heard at the site visit or a subsequent meeting, arrangements should be made for this beforehand and all parties should be advised.
13.5.5 It will be made clear that the Committee will only hear representations from parties who would not be able to attend the meeting of the Committee to consider the application.
13.5.6 Anyone making representations will be allowed the same amount of time to speak as those who made their representations to the Committee at County Hall.
13.6 Non attendance at the site visit
13.6.1 If a Member is unable to attend the site visit they will need to consider whether they can take part in the discussion and decision making on that item.
13.6.2 Just because a Member has been unable to attend a site visit does not debar that Member from taking part in the decision making, but the purpose of a site visit is to understand the proposals and impact of development on site because it is felt that plans and photographs may not be sufficient.
commrep/3 72 ITEM 4 1
North Yorkshire County Council
Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee
20 October 2015
C3/14/00970/CPO- Planning Application Accompanied by an Environmental Statement for the Purposes Of Natural Gas Production and Water Re-Injection at the Existing Borehole at the Ebberston Moor South Well Site; The Construction and Drilling of a Second Borehole For Water Production And Re- Injection; The Construction of a 13.9km Long 12” Diameter Steel Underground Pipeline From Ebberston Moor South Well Site to Transfer Natural Gas to the Knapton Generating Station and Installation of a New Gas Reception Module at the Generating Station On Land At Ebberston Moor South Wellsite, Ebberston Common Lane, Snainton -Interconnecting Pipeline- To Knapton Generating Station, East Knapton, Malton on behalf of Third Energy Uk Gas Ltd and Moorland Energy Ltd (Ryedale District) (Thornton Dale and The Wolds Electoral Division) – UPDATE REPORT
Report of the Corporate Director – Business and Environmental Services
1.0 Purpose of Report
1.1 To update Members on the proposed updated highways conditions and the legal agreement associated with the above planning application which was reported to Members of the Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee on 31 March 2015.
1.2 This application is subject to 149 objections having been raised by members of the public and detailed objections from Frack Free Ryedale and Frack Free North Yorkshire. A plan showing the application site is attached to this report at Appendix A and the locations of the objectors are shown on the plan attached to this report at Appendix B. A copy of the report presented to Members of the Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee on 31 March 2015 is appended to this update report at Appendix C. The consented pipeline routes are shown in the Figures contained in Appendix D.
2.0 Background
2.1 On 31 March 2015 Members will recall resolving to grant planning permission for natural gas production and water re-injection at the existing borehole at the Ebberston Moor South well site; the construction and drilling of a second borehole for water production and re-injection; the construction of a 13.9km long 12” diameter steel underground pipeline from Ebberston Moor South well site to transfer natural gas to the Knapton Generating Station and installation of a new gas reception module at the Generating Station on land to the Ebberston Moor South wellsite, Ebberston Common Lane, Snainton - interconnecting pipeline- to Knapton Generating Station, East Knapton, Malton.
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/1
73 2
2.2 A copy of the minutes of that meeting can be downloaded from the below webpage: http://democracy.northyorks.gov.uk/committees.aspx?commid=12&meetid=21 33
2.3 The resolution, as stated in the minutes, was as follows:-
“That planning permission be granted for the reasons stated within the report subject to the following additional requirements as requested by Members:
(a) Planning Conditions An amendment to the planning condition to ensure traffic movement on the A170 on a Saturday morning is not inhibited by traffic lights or HGV traffic associated with the construction of the development.
(b) Letter to NYMNPA A formal letter to be sent to NYMNPA to confirm the NYCC Committee resolution reached on 31/03/15 and to support the inclusion of conditions, on any permission granted by the NYMNPA, in respect of water injection rates, extraction quantity, target reservoir and drilling methods, noise monitoring, and noise level limits, odour management plan, removal of above ground well site structures and site restoration.
(c) Section 106 legal agreement To seek the applicant’s agreement through a S106 legal agreement that the extant permissions (Moorland Energy- granted 2012 & Third Energy- granted 2014) would not be implemented in the event that permission is also granted by NYMNPA and then implemented for the current application”.
3.0 Updates
3.1 With regard to item (a) of the Members resolution amended highways conditions have been agreed with the Local Highway Authority. In summary Condition 13 was amended to remove references to HGV movements and Condition 29 was amended to include reference to HGVs. Condition 26 remained unchanged as it was established that as drafted the condition does include provisions (Construction Traffic Environment Management Plan) for the Highway Authority to considered proposals for access to the application site during the construction period and the prior approval of the traffic management controls such as temporary traffic lights (position, timing, effect on peak traffic flows etc). On 22 April 2015 a copy of the amended highways conditions were forwarded by email to the agent representing the applicants, NYMNPA and Members of the Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee. The amended highways conditions are incorporated in the list of planning conditions contained with the recommendation at the end of this report.
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/2
74 3
3.2 In terms of item (b) on 22 April 2015 a letter was sent to NYMNPA to confirm support for the inclusion of planning conditions to mitigate and control the environmental impact.
3.3 Item (c) is the subject of this update report and the following section contains an update on the legal agreement.
Update on duplicate application under consideration by the NYMNPA 3.4 The planning application boundary straddles the National Park administrative boundary and therefore the application for planning permission falls to be jointly determined by North Yorkshire County Council and the North York Moors National Park Authority (NYMNPA). Therefore an identical planning application was submitted to the North York Moors National Park Authority. The decisions made will relate to that part which lies in their respective administrative area albeit still looking at the proposed development holistically.
3.5 On 20 August 2015 planning application ref. NYM/2014/0587/EIA (identical planning application) was reported to the NYMNPA Planning Committee. The recommendation was conditional approval subject to the applicant signing a Section 106 Agreement with the NYMNPA to secure £10,000 planning gain contribution to mitigate residual harms from the development. The application was approved with the decision delegated to the NYMNPA Director of Planning to clear following discussions with the applicant concerning the Section 106 obligation and potential for a restoration bond. The applicants and NYMNPA have agreed that a Section 106 financial contribution proposal of £1,000 per annum for a duration of 20 years as defined by the life of the project, is acceptable. The initial payment shall be payable on the first day that construction commences.
Update on planning officers report 3.6 There are no updates or changes to report in respect of the information contained within Sections 3-8 of the report to Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee dated 31 March 2015.
4.0 The legal agreement
4.1 The resolution reached on 31 March 2015 includes a requirement for authorisation to seek a Section 106 legal agreement. Members expressed concern about the number of pipeline permissions and potential for adverse impacts if all permissions were implemented. The consented pipeline routes are shown in the Figures contained in Appendix D.
4.2 The Government's policy on the use of planning obligations is set out on the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) website. The PPG states that “Planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. Planning obligations may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if they meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind”.
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/3
75 4
4.3 A Section 106 legal agreement would only relate to the part of the application site which lies within the NYCC administrative area and would therefore exclude the Ebberston Moor South Wellsite and a short stretch of the pipeline route at its northern extent which both fall within the North York Moors National Park. Furthermore the agreement would only relate to the interconnecting pipelines associated with the following planning permissions:
(1) Applicant: Moorland Energy Ltd
‘Natural gas production, alterations and the provision of new facilities at Ebberston Well site; the construction of two underground gas pipelines from the Ebberston Well site to a proposed gas processing facility to be located off Hurrell Lane, Thornton Le Dale; the provision of a new vehicular access road between the A170 and the proposed gas processing facility; and the construction of a gas processing plant to include buildings, plant, and other associated works and infrastructure, the construction of an export pipeline between Hurrell Lane to a proposed National Transmission System - Above Ground Installation to be located south of New Ings Drain, off Hurrell Lane’ also referred to as the ‘Ryedale Gas Project’.
Granted permission by the Secretary of State reference’s APP/W9500/A/11/2155352 and APP/P2745/A/11/2155358, decision date 28 June 2012. NYCC ref. C3/10/00529/CPO (NY/2010/0159/ENV).
(2) Applicant: Viking UK Gas Limited (now known as Third Energy UK Gas Ltd)
‘Natural gas production from the existing Ebberston Moor 'A' wellsite; and construction of a 15.3 km long 8" steel underground pipeline from the Ebberston Moor ‘A’ Wellsite to Knapton Generating Station’
Granted permission by the Council (ref. C3/13/01195/CPO (NY/2013/0273/ENV)), decision date 11 April 2014.
4.4 A Section 106 obligation is to be undertaken by a “person interested in land in the area of the local planning authority” and is only enforceable by that local planning authority (s 106(9)(d) of the Town and Country Planning 1990 Act). It is binding on the land itself (it is registered as a Local Land Charge), and enables the Authority to enforce the agreement against persons with an interest in land and their successors in title.
4.5 In this case neither the pipeline route from the well site to Knapton Generating Station or the site of the Knapton Generating Station is land owned by, or leased to, the applicants Third Energy UK Gas Limited and Moorland Exploration Limited (Licensees of PL 077 and PEDL 120 respectively). The land affected by the pipeline route, the vast majority of which is agricultural land, is in multiple ownership. This being the case, the applicant highlighted
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/4
76 5
that they may not be able to secure those with an interest in land as signatories to enable a Section 106 Agreement to be completed.
4.6 As an alternative to a Section 106 Agreement the applicant has suggested that they could enter into a binding agreement with the local authority pursuant to Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972. This enables a Local Authority to do anything that is calculated to facilitate, or is conductive or incidental to, the discharge of any of its functions. It provides Local Authorities with a general power to enter into contracts for the discharge of any of their functions. The relevant function here is NYCC’s planning function as minerals and waste planning authority. The requirements contained in the Section 111 agreement, would mirror those proposed for the Section 106 namely, that the applicant would forgo the ability to implement the other planning permission(s) for the pipeline route. Such an agreement could be considered necessary to facilitate the discharge of NYCC’s mineral planning function. The key difference between this proposal and a Section 106 is the effect of binding the land and successors in title. If a Section 111 agreement was secured this is just a contractual arrangement enforceable against the party entering into the agreement.
5.0 Conclusion
5.1 Members need to consider if in granting permission they still wish to seek a Section 106 agreement in this case or whether they would be satisfied in this case with an agreement offered by the applicant pursuant to Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972.
6.0 Recommendation
6.1 That the updates contained within this report are noted and that for the following reasons:
i) The development is in accordance with the ‘saved’ policies of the North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan (1997), the policies of the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013) and overall is consistent with the NPPF (2012);
ii) The proposal does not conflict with the abovementioned policies as it is considered that the existing highway network is capable of handling the volume of traffic generated by the development, the visual impact of the proposed development can be mitigated through condition, the environmental impacts of the proposed development can be controlled, neighbouring residential properties will not be adversely affected and there are no other material considerations indicating a refusal in the public interest;
iii) The imposition of planning conditions will further limit the impact of the development on the environment, residential amenity and the transport network; and
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/5
77 6
iv) Having taken into account all the environmental information submitted as part of this planning application included within the Environmental Statement
That, PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to completion of either a Section 106 or Section 111 agreement and the following conditions:
Conditions
1. The development to which this permission relates must be implemented no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this Decision Notice.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the application details dated 8 August 2014 and the Environmental Statement dated August 2014 and the ‘Approved Documents’ as listed on the Decision Notice and the following conditions which at all times shall take precedence.
3. Tree protection measures as set out in BS5837- 2012 ‘Trees in relation to construction’ shall be provided for retained trees adjacent to the pipeline corridor prior to the development hereby approved being commenced and shall thereafter be retained throughout the lifetime of the construction works. During construction there shall be no parking of vehicles, siting of compounds or materials stored within the vicinity of any of the retained mature trees or hedgerows adjacent to the application site.
4. No development shall take place within the application area until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the County Planning Authority.
5. The details submitted in pursuance of Condition 4 shall be preceded by the submission to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing, and subsequent implementation, of a scheme of archaeological investigation to provide for: (i) The proper identification and evaluation of the extent, character and significance of archaeological remains within the application area; (ii) an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the archaeological significance of the remains; This shall be followed by the submission of: (iii) proposals for the preservation in situ, or for the investigation, recording and recovery of archaeological remains and the analysis and publishing of the findings, it being understood that there shall be a presumption in favour of their preservation in situ wherever feasible; These proposals shall be approved by the County Planning Authority in writing, and implemented before any development authorised by this permission shall commence.
6. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, no works are to be undertaken which may create an obstruction, either permanent or temporary, to the Public Rights of Way adjacent to the proposed development nor to the route of the
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/6
78 7
claimed Public Right of Way until all works connected with the Temporary Closure Orders have been carried out to the satisfaction of the County Highways Authority and the appropriate notices have been issued. Once the works are complete the surfaces of the affected Public Rights of Way shall be reinstated to the same condition as they were prior to the works commencing on site.
7. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures recommended for protected species as set out in Chapter 6 of the submitted Environmental Statement (ES) dated August 2014.
8. Prior to the commencement of development surveys for badger and water vole (as referred to in Chapter 6 of the submitted Environmental Statement (ES) dated August 2014) shall be completed to ensure that any presence can be taken into consideration in line with the relevant legislation. These surveys must be undertaken at the appropriate time of year by a suitably qualified ecologist and a report detailing changes in the status of these species and any additional mitigation measures that may be required shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for written approval.
9. Prior to the commencement of development a detailed reptile mitigation method statement shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. The development shall then proceed only in strict accordance with the approved scheme.
10. Prior to the commencement of development a habitat restoration scheme detailing the type and source of materials to be used, methodologies to be utilised, timing of the works and details of initial aftercare and longer-term maintenance shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. The development shall then proceed only in strict accordance with the approved scheme.
11. Prior to the commencement of development details of biodiversity enhancement features to be incorporated in the detailed design of the project shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. The development shall then proceed only in strict accordance with the approved scheme.
12. Prior to the commencement of any development a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. This plan shall detail the following:
1. An assessment of the risks posed to groundwater quality during the construction phase. 2. The implementation of mitigation measures designed to protect groundwater 3. Details of the size, location and design of any site compounds, including how any potentially polluting materials will be stored to minimise the risk of pollution 4. No amount of fuel/oil greater than a 10 litres shall be stored in a portable
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/7
79 8
container 5. All other fuel/oil to be stored in proprietary tanks with integral bunding with a capacity equal to not less than 110% of the capacity of the tank. Such tanks shall be not more than 2 years old at the time of installation on site and shall be located on a bunded, impervious hardstanding with a capacity of not less than 110% of the largest tank or largest combined volume of connected tanks. 6. All replenishment of tanks and containers and all refuelling of vehicles, plant and equipment shall take place within that bunded, impervious hardstanding. 7. Outside the normal hours of operation of the site on which they are deployed, all vehicles and plant operating shall be parked or stored on bunded, impervious hardstandings with a capacity not less than 110% of the fuel/oil that can be stored in the storage facilities, vehicles, plant or machinery that they are intended to accommodate. 8. Details of a protocol to deal with any pollution that may occur during the course of construction. 9. Details of how the requirements of the approved plan will be disseminated to all relevant staff/contractors throughout the construction period.
The development shall then proceed only in strict accordance with the approved plan.
13. With the exception of the initial site establishment phase, no construction work shall take place unless between the following times: - Monday to Friday: 07.00 - 18.00 Saturdays: 07.00 - 13.00
No construction work shall take place on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays. The applicant shall make provision for notifying in writing the County Planning Authority and neighbouring residents 5 days in advance of any night time working within the application site.
14. There must be no raising of ground levels in the flood plain. All excess spoil arising from the works must be removed from the floodplain. Any spoil stockpiles which are to be stored within the flood plain should be done so in broken heaps, positioned parallel to the flood flow.
15. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a scheme of crime prevention measures to be implemented during the construction period shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of arrangements for site security (including plant and machinery) and material storage during the construction period. Thereafter the construction period shall proceed in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.
16. All soils excavated to allow for the installation of the pipeline shall be retained in stockpiles within the application site and shall be used during the
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/8
80 9
reinstatement of the surface of the land following the installation of the pipeline. Topsoil and subsoil shall be stored separately. During soil movement and handling operations, machinery shall be routed to avoid the compaction of soils.
17. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a detailed landscape strategy and maintenance programme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The development shall then proceed only in strict accordance with the approved scheme.
18. No external lighting associated with the development hereby approved shall be installed in the application site until details of the lighting and the times of their illumination have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and shall be maintained in working order.
19. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a detailed Method Statements and Risk Assessment detailing how the Applicant intends to cross the National Grid High-Pressure Gas Pipeline (Feeder 06 Pickering to Burton Agnes) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the National Grid. The development shall then proceed only in strict accordance with the approved schemes.
20. Prior to each phase of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority) no development shall take place until a scheme that includes the following components shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the County Planning Authority:
1. Conduct a water features survey along the route of the pipeline and to an appropriate distance beyond to determine any water features, including springs, boreholes and water courses, that may be impacted by the earth works and pipeline. 2. Treatment and removal of suspended solids from surface water run-off during construction 3. Disposal of foul drainage and surface water 4. Seal roof drainage at ground level 5. Storage of materials 6. Storage of chemicals 7. Storage of oil 8. Storage of hazardous materials 9. Pressure testing of the pipeline 10. Method of working 11. Phasing of development 12. Maintenance and after-care of the site 13. Provision of road and wheel cleaning facilities 14. Proposed scheme for monitoring
Any such scheme shall be supported, where necessary, by detailed calculations;
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/9
81 10 include a maintenance programme; and establish current and future ownership of the facilities to be provided. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or any details as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the County Planning Authority.
21. Notwithstanding the details submitted for the proposed development of the site, there shall be no: 1. de-watering of the site; 2. interruptions to ground or surface water flows; without the written consent of the County Planning Authority
22. There shall be no movement by construction or other vehicles between the highway and the application site (except for the purposes of constructing the initial site access) until that part of the access(es) extending 15 metres into the site from the carriageway of the existing highway has been made up and surfaced in accordance with the approved details and the published Specification of the Highway Authority. All works shall accord with the approved details unless otherwise approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Any damage during use of the access until the completion of all the permanent works shall be repaired immediately. Before the development is first brought into use the highway verge/footway shall be fully reinstated in accordance with the scheme approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.
23. There shall be no access or egress by any vehicles between the highway and the application site until details of the precautions to be taken to prevent the deposit of mud, grit and dirt on public highways by vehicles travelling to and from the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. These facilities shall include the provision of wheel washing facilities where considered necessary by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. These precautions shall be made available before any excavation or depositing of material in connection with the construction commences on the site and be kept available and in full working order and used until such time as the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority agrees in writing to their withdrawal.
24. There shall be no HGVs brought onto the site until a survey recording the condition of the highway listed below have been carried out in a manner approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Within one month of the commencement of gas production from the existing wellsite, or any time prior to that date which shall have been agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority, the applicant shall carry out a second survey recording the condition of the same highways. The survey shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval and thereafter any works reasonably required in order to rectify any damage to the public highway resulting from traffic arising from the construction, installation and erection of any infrastructure required for the commencement of gas production from the
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/10
82 11
existing wellsite including pipeline installation shall be completed to the satisfaction of the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. A further survey shall be undertaken by the applicant within one month of the completion of decommissioning and restoration works to the site (if applicable) in the manner as described above. a) Ebberston / Ebberston Common Lane – unclassified road, whole length b) A170 High Street – twenty metres east and west of the junction with Ebberston Lane c) Wilton Ings Lane – from the junction of the B1415 to the pipeline crossing d) Marishes Lane – from the junction of the B1258 to the pipeline crossing. e) Link road between B1258 and A170 Snainton
25. There shall be no establishment of a site compound, site clearance, demolition, excavation or depositing of material in connection with the construction on the site until proposals have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority for the provision of: (i) on-site parking capable of accommodating all staff and sub-contractors vehicles clear of the public highway (ii) on-site materials storage area capable of accommodating all materials required for the operation of the site.
The approved areas shall be kept available for their intended use at all times that construction works are in operation. No vehicles associated with on-site construction works shall be parked on the public highway or outside the application site.
26. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a Construction Traffic Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Construction Traffic Environment Management Plan shall identify the measures and procedures that will be implemented to manage vehicle access to and from the site including the proposed routing to be used by HGV traffic. The routes to be used by HGV construction traffic shall be as described in the appropriate sections of the submitted Environmental Statement but with the amendment that all HGV traffic shall be limited to 25 miles per hour along the whole length of Ebberston Common Lane, Malton Lane and Marishes Lane. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority, once approved the Construction Traffic Environmental Management Plan shall be adhered to at all times and until the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority agree in writing that its operation can be withdrawn.
27. There shall be no excavation or other groundworks, except for investigative works, or the depositing of material on the site in connection with the construction of the access road or building(s) or other works until:
(i) The details of the following off site required highway improvement works, works listed below have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority:
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/11
83 12
a. Provision of a vehicle holding area on Penniston Lane b. Provision of temporary measures at the bends on Malton Lane to allow HGV movements c. Carriageway haunching and patch repairs on Malton Lane.
(ii) A programme for the completion of the proposed works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority.
28. There shall be no excavation or other groundworks, except for investigative works, or the depositing of material on the site until the following highway works have been constructed in accordance with the details approved in writing by the County Planning Authority under condition number 27:
a. Provison of a vehicle holding area on Penniston Lane b. Provision of temporary measures at the bends on Malton Lane to allow HGV movements c. Carriageway haunching on Malton Lane.
29. There shall be no HGVs permitted to arrive, depart, be loaded or unloaded at or within the application site via the A170 during weekends or on a Bank Holiday.
30. Prior to each phase of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority), no development shall take place until a scheme that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the County Planning Authority:
1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: all previous uses; potential contaminants associated with those uses; a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors; potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. 2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. 3. The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. 4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/12
84 13
31. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the County Planning Authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.
32. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details describing the means of protecting the three public water supply pipelines (listed within the YW consultation response dated 13 October 2014) that are laid within the development boundary have been submitted to and approved by the County Planning Authority and it has been proven to the satisfaction of the County Planning Authority that the protection works have been fully and properly implemented. The details shall include protective measures during the construction phase of the development and the means by which future access for repair and maintenance of the pipes is assured.
Reasons
1. To comply with Section 91 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved application details.
3. To protect retained trees and hedgerows along the pipeline corridor.
4 & 5. The site is of archaeological interest.
6. To protect public rights of access in the area.
7 - 11. In the interests of protecting and enhancing the ecological value of the site.
12. In order to enable the County Planning Authority to retain control over the scale of activity at the site.
13. In the interests of highway safety and the general amenity of the area.
14. To ensure that there is no loss of flood storage, and existing flood flow routes are not altered, thereby ensuring that flood risk to others is not increased and to allow for the free passage of any possible future flood flows.
15. In the interests of site security during construction and the prevention of crime.
16. To protect soil resources.
17. In the interests of protecting and enhancing the landscape character of the area.
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/13
85 14
18. In the interests of the general amenity of the area.
19. To protect National Grid pipelines and infrastructure.
20. To protect the water environment.
21. To manage risk of obstruction to groundwater flow
22. In the interests of both vehicle and pedestrian safety and the visual amenity of the area.
23. To ensure that no mud or other debris is deposited on the carriageway in the interests of highway safety.
24. In the interests of highway safety and the general amenity of the area.
25. To provide for appropriate on-site vehicle parking and storage facilities, in the interests of highway safety and the general amenity of the area.
26. To avoid interference with the free flow of traffic and to secure safe and appropriate access and egress to the site in the interests of safety and convenience of highway users and the amenity of the area.
27. To ensure that the details are satisfactory in the interests of the safety and convenience of highway users.
28. In the interests of the safety and convenience of highway users.
29. To avoid conflict with vulnerable road users.
30. Protection of the water environment is a material planning consideration and new development should not harm the water environment. This proposal poses a threat to water quality because it crosses through Source Protection Zone 2 of Scarborough’s drinking water supply and through a principal and secondary aquifer.
31. Protection of the water environment is a material planning consideration and new development should not harm the water environment. This proposal poses a threat to water quality because it crosses through Source Protection Zone 2 of Scarborough’s drinking water supply and through a principal and secondary aquifer.
32. In order to protect the public water supply network.
Informatives
Condition 22- Access Construction- You are advised that a separate licence will be required from the Local Highway Authority in order to allow any works in the adopted highway to be carried out. The ‘Specification for Housing and Industrial Estate Roads and Private Street Works’ published by North Yorkshire County Council, the Highway
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/14
86 15
Authority, is available at the County Council’s offices. The local office of the Highway Authority will also be pleased to provide the detailed constructional specification referred to in this condition.
Condition 28- Section 278- There must be no works in the existing highway until an Agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 has been entered into between the Developer and the Highway Authority.
Public Rights of Way- Adjacent public rights of way No works are to be undertaken which will create an obstruction, either permanent or temporary, to the Public Right of Way adjacent to the proposed development. Applicants are advised to contact the County Council’s Access and Public Rights of team at County Hall, Northallerton via [email protected] to obtain up-to-date information regarding the line of the route of the way. The applicant should discuss with the Highway Authority any proposals for altering the route.
Cultural Heritage English Heritage advises the applicant that Scheduled Monument Consent shall be obtained prior to the commencement of work on site.
Protection of Yorkshire Water Apparatus The applicant is advised to refer to the list of water mains contained within the YW consultation response dated 13 October 2014. A minimum of 300mm clearance is required where new third party apparatus crosses any of the above mentioned water mains. The depth of the water mains is unknown and the developer must locate the mains on site before pipe laying commences. Any potential conflict between the water mains and the proposed pipeline should be notified in the first instance to: [email protected] who can also provide the developer with further information regarding the required pipe protection measures
National Grid Prior to crossing any National Grid pipeline/assets, with either pipelines, cables, construction traffic (Heavy loads, which require load protection for the pipeline) or other services the applicant is required to enter into a Deed of Consent with the National Grid.
Network Rail Pipeline route- An easement will be required to pass under the railway and the applicant is urged to consult with the Network Rail easements section to discuss requirements.
Construction traffic - The applicant is reminded of the need to inform Network Rail of their passage over the crossing (particularly slow and heavy vehicles), and the need to make good any damage to the surface caused by the passage of such vehicles.
Nesting Birds
Vegetation clearance work shall take place outside the main nesting season; approximately the beginning of March to the end of August. - wherever possible. However, birds can occasionally nest at any time of year. If any work (including site
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/15
87 16 clearance work), is likely to take place when birds may be nesting, either in any trees/shrubs/walls to be affected, or in any potentially suitable building, these parts of the site should be thoroughly checked by a qualified Ecologist prior to vegetation removal.
Environment Agency- Water Environment
Given the sensitivity of the water environment along the pipeline’s route and in the vicinity of the proposed gas production, it is important to be aware of the following informatives (which will be addressed in detail at the permitting stage): a) no oil-based drilling methods should be used in strata shallower than, and including, the Corallian Group aquifer. b) no oil-based drilling methods should be used in strata deeper than the Corallian Group aquifer unless all shallower strata are cased off and pressure tested to ensure no loss of drilling fluid into the shallower strata. c) details of the drilling muds must be agreed with the Environment Agency on submission of a drilling method statement and WR – 11 form, and mining waste permit. d) no potentially contaminating substances should be allowed to enter groundwater in strata shallower than, and including, the Corallian Group aquifer. e) any boreholes should be constructed in such a way so as to cause no contamination between, and including, any overlying drift deposits and Corallian Group aquifer. f) any boreholes should be constructed in such a way so as to cause no contamination between, and including, the Corallian Group aquifer and any underlying deposits. g) boreholes should be decommissioned according to Environment Agency guidelines in ‘Decommissioning Redundant Boreholes and Wells’ and best available technique. h) under Section 198 of the Water Resources Act 1991, British Geological Survey (Maclean Building, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, OX10 9BB) shall be informed of the intention to sink a well or borehole, and be sent a copy of all details of drilling logs i) under ‘The Borehole Sites and Operations Regulations 1995’ the HSE must be notified when drilling boreholes more than 30 metres deep into used or disused mining areas. The regulations define “mining area” as land within one kilometre in a horizontal or other direction of workings in a mine, or where a licence to mine for minerals has been granted.
Environment Agency- Regulatory advice to the applicant
Drilling a minerals borehole now requires a mining waste permit issued under Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2012 (EPR). Operations will require a mining waste permit for the management of extractive wastes which may include drill cuttings, spent drilling muds and drill fluids, flowback fluids, waste gases and any wastes left underground.
If the operation involves any kind of ‘well stimulation’ that produces oil or gas, then it
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/16
88 17 is highly likely that a radioactive substances EPR permit for the management of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) wastes (such as produced water, sediments and scales) will also be required. This will include the re-injection or transfer of produced water which is found to be ‘in scope’.
Depending on the proposed activities and the local hydrogeology, operators may also need to consider applying for an EPR groundwater permit. The Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 make it an offence to cause or knowingly permit a groundwater activity unless authorised by an environmental permit which we will issue. A groundwater activity includes any discharge that will result in the input of pollutants to groundwater.
If you are planning to flare large quantities of gas, you may also be required to have an Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) permit.
You will also need to notify us of your intention to construct or extend a boring for the purpose of searching for or extracting minerals using Form WR - 11 under the Water Resources Act 1991 (Section 199(1)). A drilling method statement should be submitted alongside the Form WR – 11 and any drilling should be carried out to this approved statement.
A reinjection borehole is proposed as part of this application. Third Energy already holds a permit for the injection borehole at Ebberston Moor A (Permit Number EPR/AB3593DU) As this permit applies to this specific location, if the location were to change, Third Energy would need to apply for a new permit.
A groundwater abstraction borehole is also proposed and this will require a groundwater investigation consent followed by a water abstraction licence if you plan to abstract more than 20 m3/day for your own use rather than purchasing water from a public water supply utility company,
A water discharge activity permit may be required if surface water run-off becomes polluted.
We strongly recommend that you contact us (the EA) for pre-application advice before submitting any permit applications.
Environment Agency- Rivers consent
Formal consent under the Water Resources Act 1991 will be required from for any main river watercourse crossings. Both permanent and temporary works will be required. It is noted that the applicant intends to use an appropriate directional drilling method. All watercourse crossings of no main rivers will likely require consent under the Land Drainage End 8
Act 1991 from either NYCC in their role as Lead Local Flood Authority or the relevant Internal Drainage Board. All works must be completed in accordance with PPAGE5.
Approved Documents
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/17
89 18
Ref. Date Title --- 8 August 2014 Application Form --- August 2014 Environmental Statement (including Technical Appendices & Figures) --- August 2014 Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary --- August 2014 Design & Access Statement --- August 2014 Planning and Sustainability Statement --- August 2014 Outline Safety Document P010 6 August 2014 Site Location Plan P011 6 August 2014 Application Site Boundary P012 8 August 2014 Gas Extraction Location Plan P101- P112 5 August 2014 Detailed Site Layout Sheets 1-12 P013 7 August 2014 Typical Indicative Pipeline Cross Section P25 19 Sept 2012 Indicative Section P_01 Rev A July 2014 Site Location Plan P_02 Rev A July 2014 Existing Site Plan P_03 Rev A July 2014 Existing Site Sections P_04 Rev A July 2014 Proposed Site Layout P_05 Rev A July 2014 Proposed Sections Figure 8.5 March 2014 Proposed Traffic Control at Site Crossing of A170 Figure 8.7 --- Footpath Diversion south of Wilton Ings Lane Figure 8.8 --- Proposed Layby on Penniston Lane EMJV-EMS- 14 May 2014 Knapton Generating Station- Revised Plot Plan PL-DRG-003 Rev 1 3250-4005 --- Gas Reception Module Rev B
Statement of Compliance with Article 35of the Town and Country Development Management Procedure Order 2015
In determining this planning application, the County Planning Authority has worked with the applicant adopting a positive and proactive manner. The County Council offers the opportunity for pre-application discussion on applications and the applicant, in this case, chose to take up this service. Proposals are assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework, Replacement Local Plan policies and Supplementary Planning Documents, which have been subject to proactive publicity and consultation prior to their adoption. During the course of the determination of this application, the applicant has been informed of the existence of all consultation responses and representations made in a timely manner which provided the applicant/agent with the opportunity to respond to any matters raised. The County Planning Authority has sought solutions to problems arising by liaising with consultees, considering other representations received and liaising with the applicant as necessary. Where appropriate, changes to the proposal were sought when the statutory determination timescale allowed.
DAVID BOWE Corporate Director, Business and Environmental Services
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/18
90 19
Author of report: Alan Goforth
Background Documents to this Report:
1. Report to Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee dated 31 March 2015 2. Planning Application Ref Number: C3/14/00970/CPO (NYCC ref no NY/2014/0275/ENV) registered as valid on 19 August 2014. Application documents can be found on the County Council's Online Planning Register by using the following web link: https://onlineplanningregister.northyorks.gov.uk/register/ 3. Consultation responses received. 4. Representations received.
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/19
91
Appendix A- Application Site
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/20 92
Appendix B- Representations Plan
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/21 93 ITEM 3
North Yorkshire County Council
Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee
31 March 2015
C3/14/00970/CPO- Planning Application Accompanied by an Environmental Statement for the Purposes Of Natural Gas Production and Water Re-Injection at the Existing Borehole at the Ebberston Moor South Well Site; The Construction and Drilling of a Second Borehole For Water Production And Re- Injection; The Construction of a 13.9km Long 12” Diameter Steel Underground Pipeline From Ebberston Moor South Well Site to Transfer Natural Gas to the Knapton Generating Station and Installation of a New Gas Reception Module at the Generating Station On Land At Ebberston Moor South Wellsite, Ebberston Common Lane, Snainton -Interconnecting Pipeline- To Knapton Generating Station, East Knapton, Malton on behalf of Third Energy Uk Gas Ltd and Moorland Energy Ltd (Ryedale District) (Thornton Dale and The Wolds Electoral Division)
Report of the Corporate Director – Business and Environmental Services
1.0 Purpose of Report
1.1 To determine a planning application accompanied by an Environmental Statement for natural gas production and water re-injection at the existing borehole at the Ebberston Moor South well site; the construction and drilling of a second borehole for water production and re-injection; the construction of a 13.9km long 12” diameter steel underground pipeline from Ebberston Moor South well site to transfer natural gas to the Knapton Generating Station and installation of a new gas reception module at the Generating Station on land to the Ebberston Moor South wellsite, Ebberston Common Lane, Snainton - interconnecting pipeline- to Knapton Generating Station, East Knapton, Malton on behalf of Third Energy UK Gas Ltd and Moorland Energy Ltd.
1.2 The proposed development straddles the administrative boundary between the North York Moors National Park Authority (NYMNPA) and North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC). As such, identical applications have been submitted to both Planning Authorities. This report and any subsequent resolution by Members of the Committee, whilst making reference to the development proposal as a whole, are made only insofar as it lies under the jurisdiction of the County Council as Mineral Planning Authority.
1.3 This application is subject to 149 objections having been raised by members of the public and detailed objections from Frack Free Ryedale and Frack Free North Yorkshire in respect of this proposal and is, therefore, reported to this Committee for determination.
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/1
94
2.0 Background
Site Description 2.1 The application site is partly inside and partly outside of the North York Moors National Park and comprises the existing Ebberston Moor South Wellsite, the proposed pipeline corridor route from the Ebberston Moor South Wellsite to Knapton Generating Station (KGS) and the construction of ancillary works at the Generating Station. The Ebberston Moor South Well Site is an existing wellsite located wholly within the boundary of the North York Moors National Park lying on a ridge plateau north of Ebberston village and east of Givendale Head Farm. The well site is located 4.5km north east of the village of Ebberston and occupies an elevated position of approximately 220 metres AOD. The existing Ebberston Moor South Well Site and the proposed northern extent of the gas pipeline corridor is located on the southern boundary of the National Park. The proposed pipeline corridor initially follows an east-west alignment from the Ebberston Moor South Well Site (parallel to the National Park Boundary) then would head in a northeast-southwest direction following the National Park boundary through the Givendale Rigg part of Dalby Forest. The pipeline corridor would then take a north-south alignment between Stonygate Moor and Given Dale and then southwards between the villages of Allerston and Wilton and west of Yedingham. The pipeline corridor then continues across agricultural land before crossing the River Derwent, the railway line between York and Scarborough and terminating at KGS where it would connect into a pipeline inspection gauge Receiver Module (known as a Pig) within the KGS.
2.2 A plan showing the application site is attached to this report at Appendix 1.
Site Constraints 2.3 The northern extent of the pipeline including the Ebberston Moor South Well Site is located on the edge of Wykeham Forest, in the North York Moors National Park. The majority of the pipeline corridor would affect agricultural fields within the Vale of Pickering.
2.4 The pipeline route would affect the River Derwent, the York-Scarborough railway line and road crossings including the A170; Wilton Ings Lane; Marishes Lane; B1258 Malton Road; and nearby unclassified roads. There are a number of isolated dwellings and farmsteads in proximity to the proposed pipeline route including Knapton Lodge (100 metres west of pipeline), Wath House Farm (250 metres east of pipeline), Crayke Hall Cottage (200 metres east of pipeline), Wilton Grange Farm (90 metres east of pipeline), Cliff Edge Farm (240 metres east of pipeline), Warren House Farm (120 metres west of pipeline), and Givendale Head Farm (350 metres north of pipeline and 950metres west of the well site).
2.5 The application site is in close proximity to the North York Moors Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The River Derwent SAC is located over 6km to the west of where the proposed pipeline would cross the River Derwent. Eller’s Wood and Sand Dale SAC & Site of
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/2
95
Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is located approximately 1.2km to the west of the application site (pipeline route). A SAC is a European designation protected under the EU Habitats Directive (adopted in 1992). The list of natural habitats and species for which the River Derwent has been designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) are those considered to be most in need of conservation at a European level (“the Qualifying Features”). The list is held by Natural England and includes water-crowfoot (floating vegetation), river and sea lamprey, bullhead (catfish) and otter. There are several Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) within a 2km radius of the application site, including the River Derwent, Eller’s Wood and Sand Dale and Troutsdale and Rosekirk Dale Fens. There are several Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) within a 2km radius of the application site.
2.6 With regard to cultural heritage the application site would encompass land known to contain archaeology from the prehistoric to the post-medieval periods and the development site as a whole will impact upon Scheduled Monuments of National Importance. At its northern extent the alignment of the pipeline route would pass underneath a series of prehistoric linear boundaries, the Oxmoor, Givendale Upper and Givendale Lower Dykes complex which are protected as Scheduled Monuments. This is described by English Heritage as being as one of the most significant series of banks and ditched linear boundaries along the southern edge of the North York Moors. The Scheduled Monument is aligned roughly north-south but divided into two principle ‘fingers’. English Heritage state that the dyke systems are believed to date from the Bronze Age and are thought to have functioned as territorial or estate boundaries. In terms of indirect effects, during the construction phase the Development will have a minor adverse effect on the setting and visual integrity of the nearby Scheduled Monuments including barrows to the west of the well site, a pit alignment on Givendale Rigg and a further barrow northeast of Warren House. In addition the nearest listed building is the Grade II listed Knapton Lodge located close to the southern extent of the pipeline route.
2.7 The proposed pipeline route would affect existing Public Rights of Way (PRoWs) in the area. These PRoWs include 25.111/1/1, 24.4/8/1, 25.81/11/1, 25.111/4/1, 25.4/7/1, 25.4/6/2, 25.4/6/1 and 25.4/5/1.
2.8 The land subject to this application lies outside Development Limits in the open countryside. The proposed pipeline route affects land with an Agricultural Land Classifications ranging from Grades 2 to 4 (Grade 1 is best quality and grade 5 is poorest quality). Land graded 3a to 1 is land regarded as being ‘best and most versatile’ land. It is estimated that the pipeline corridor would affect ‘best and most versatile’ land along approximately 4km of the route. The proposed pipeline route would also run through land at risk of flooding identified by the Environment Agency as Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3 (150 metres of floodplain on each side of the River Derwent). The existing Ebberston Moor South Wellsite lies within the Groundwater Source Protection Zone 2 (SPZ2) of the Corallian aquifer and a short section of the pipeline route from the well site westward would also cross part of the SPZ2.
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/3
96
Planning History
The Gas Field 2.9 The Ebberston Moor gas field was discovered in 1966 and produced gas between May 1971 and 1974. Ebberston Moor falls within the northern part of Third Energy Ltd’s (previously known as Viking UK Gas Ltd) exploration and development licence area (PL077- Lockton and Wykeham gas field). The gasfield has been dormant since the 1970s but field studies and analysis of seismic data by Third Energy show that the gas reservoir still contains large commercially viable quantities of gas, which remain un-tapped. Moorland Energy Ltd owns an onshore Production Exploration and Development Licence, number 120 (PEDL 120) in the Cleveland Basin. The Ebberston South Well Site falls within the PEDL 120 license block. Significant reserves of gas have been discovered at the existing Ebberston Moor South Well Site.
Knapton Generating Station 2.10 On 25 March 1993 planning permission was granted by the Secretary of State (following a Public Inquiry held in 1992) for the construction and operation of an open cycle gas turbine generating station on land at Claypit Plantation, East Knapton (referred to as Knapton Generating Station (KGS)).
2.11 Knapton Generating Station (KGS) opened in May 1995 (commissioned by Scottish Power). It is located in close proximity to the village of East Knapton and approximately 10 km to the east of Malton. Third Energy Ltd supplies their gas-powered station at Knapton with natural gas from the Vale of Pickering Gas Fields (also referred to as the Ryedale Gas Fields), which is delivered by pipeline to KGS where it is treated and utilised for power generation in a gas-fired turbine. The natural gas is used to generate electricity that can provide power the equivalent of up to 40,000 homes when run at full capacity.
2.12 The wells in the Vale of Pickering Gas Fields produce gas from the Permian Zechstein limestones (Kirkham- Abbey Formation - KAF) and the Carboniferous sandstones (Namurian formation). The active elements of the Vale of Pickering Gas Fields comprise six well sites within the County Council administrative boundary at the following locations: - - Wath Hall, Low Marishes - Alma Farm (east), Kirby Misperton - Alma Farm (west), Kirby Misperton - Wellfield Farm, Great Habton - Habton Lane, Great Habton - Malton Road, Pickering
2.13 In November 2006 Ryedale District Council granted planning permission ref. 06/00609/73 under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the variation of Condition 4 on planning approval ref. 3/114/51/PS to authorise the use of Knapton Generating Station for a further 10 years to 19 May 2018. It is the Applicant’s intention to apply to extend the life of the Knapton Generating Station before the expiry of planning
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/4
97
permission in 2018 although this will be subject to a separate planning application to be considered on its own merits by Ryedale District Council.
Ebberston Moor South Well Site
2.14 The Ebberston Moor South Well Site was granted permission ref. NYM/2007/0901/FL by the North York Moors National Park Authority (from hereon referred to as NYMNPA) in December 2007. The permission was for the drilling and siting of temporary borehole and access for exploration, testing and evaluation of hydrocarbons. The site was constructed by Moorland Energy Ltd in late 2008 and exploratory drilling commenced in 2009.
2.15 A further planning permission ref. NYM/2010/0871/FL was granted by NYMNPA in December 2010 for the variation of Condition no. 1 of planning permission NYM/2007/0901/FL to allow the retention of existing wellsite for a further two years.
2.16 In June 2012, following a public inquiry held in October-November 2011, planning permission was granted by both NYCC (ref. NY/2010/0159/ENV) and NYMNPA (ref. NYM/2010/0262/EIA) for a development known as the ‘Ryedale Gas Project’ (Moorland Energy Ltd). The approved development comprises the following: -
Natural gas production from the existing Ebberston South Well Site near Givendale Head Farm, Ebberston; the construction of two underground gas pipelines from the existing well site to a new Gas Processing Facility; a new access road between the A170 and the proposed Gas Processing Facility a Gas Processing Facility at Hurrell Lane, Thornton-le-Dale; and an Above Ground Installation (AGI) which allows connection into the existing National Transmission System (NTS) pipeline to the south of the Hurrell Lane Gas Processing Facility on land off New Ings Lane.
2.17 At the time of writing this Committee Report planning permission ref’s NYM/2010/0262/EIA and NY/2010/0159/ENV have not been implemented.
2.18 In December 2013 and April 2014 planning permissions were granted by NYMNPA (ref. NYM/2013/0593/EIA) and NYCC (ref. C3/13/01195/CPO) respectively for natural gas production from the existing Ebberston Moor 'A' wellsite (2.5km north of the Ebberston Moor South wellsite); and construction of a 15.3 km long 8” steel underground pipeline from the Ebberston Moor ‘A’ Wellsite to Knapton Generating Station, East Knapton, Malton.
2.19 Following the grant of planning permission for the abovementioned EMA-KGS scheme, a formal application for a groundwater permit was submitted by the applicant to the Environment Agency (EA) under the EPR 2010 and a permit (Permit Ref. EPR/AB3593DU) was granted in May 2014. A Radioactive Substances (RSR) Permit covering the disposal of produced water containing naturally occurring radioactive substances (NORM) has also been obtained
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/5
98
(Permit Ref. EPR/SB3730DE). The assessment has considered the cumulative effects of injecting water with the EMA Well Site which holds a groundwater permit to inject water. The permit allows injection of up to 1,900m3/day (11,951bbl/day) of produced water into the Sherwood Sandstone from the EMA well site.
2.20 At the time of writing this Committee Report planning permission ref’s NYM/2013/0593/EIA and C3/13/01195/CPO have not been implemented.
Update on duplicate application under consideration by the NYMNPA 2.21 The planning application boundary straddles the National Park administrative boundary and therefore the application for planning permission falls to be jointly determined by North Yorkshire County Council and the North York Moors National Park Authority (NYMNPA). Therefore an identical planning application was submitted to the North York Moors National Park Authority. The decisions made will relate to that part which lies in their respective administrative area albeit still looking at the proposed development holistically.
2.22 On 19 March 2015 planning application ref. NYM/2014/0587/EIA (identical planning application) was reported to the NYMNPA Planning Committee. The officer recommendation was conditional approval and the conclusion of the report to Members stated “It has been reasonably demonstrated that there are not significant risks from the project to water pollution or land stability. Given the lack of environmental harm and the benefits to the nation of an improvement to the nations ‘bridge’ to a mixed energy supply, that exceptional circumstances apply to justify this form of major development in a National Park. In summary the planning balance considered to lie in favour of approval of planning permission”. Members of the Committee resolved to defer a decision on the application pending receipt of further information pre- determination in respect of groundwater impacts and land stability for consideration by NYMNPA officers and the AMEC hydrogeologist.
Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) & (Environmental Impact Assessment) (EIA) Regulations 2011
2.23 The proposed pipeline is 2.1km short of the 16km threshold for it being a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). The proposed development is considered EIA development under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and as such an Environmental Statement accompanies the planning application. The Environmental Statement contains extensive background information including chapters on Site and Development Description, EIA Methodology, Alternative and Design Evolution, Construction Methodology and Programme, Ecology and Nature Conservation, Landscape & Visual Assessment, Traffic and Transportation, Noise and Vibration, Air Quality, Flood Risk, Hydrology and Drainage, Produced Water Disposal, Cultural Heritage, Economics and Ground Conditions and Contamination.
2.24 In addition an Environmental Permit Application has been submitted by the applicants to the Environment Agency for a radioactive substances activity
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/6
99
(the produced water is known to be naturally radioactive, and production and re-injection of water is therefore deemed a radioactive substances activity and subject to Environmental Permitting Regulations).
3.0 The Proposal
3.1 Full planning permission is sought for natural gas production and water re- injection at the existing borehole at the Ebberston Moor South well site; the construction and drilling of a second borehole for water production and re- injection; the construction of a 13.9km long 12” diameter steel underground pipeline from Ebberston Moor South well site to transfer natural gas to the Knapton Generating Station and installation of a new gas reception module at the Generating Station on land to the Ebberston Moor South wellsite, Ebberston Common Lane, Snainton -interconnecting pipeline- to Knapton Generating Station, East Knapton, Malton.
3.2 The proposed development seeks planning permission to effectively combine elements of the two extant planning permissions (unimplemented) referred to in paragraphs 2.16 and 2.18 of this report. The development would comprise the following:
Gas production and water re-injection from the existing borehole well at the Ebberston Moor South Well Site; Drilling a second borehole for water production and re -injection at the Ebberston Moor South Well Site; Construction of an 12” (300 mm) diameter steel underground pipeline from the existing Ebberston Moor South Well Site to deliver natural gas and condensate (liquid naturally generated with gas extraction) to the Knapton Generating Station at East Knapton where it will be used to produce energy; and Construction of equipment to receive the gas at Knapton Generating Station.
Ebberston Moor South Well Site (within the National Park)
3.3 The existing Ebberston Moor South Well Site is 1.61ha in area and comprises a drilling platform, an existing borehole and associated wellhead and well cellar. The site is enclosed by a 2 metre high post and wire fence. The Well Site is surrounded by woodland plantations on three sides and is accessed from the west via a 750 metre long dedicated access road off Ebberston Common Lane.
3.4 The existing well site would be developed to allow for gas production. The development of the site for construction and operation would comprise of a construction compound, laydown area for pipes, workforce facilities – messing, catering and offices, security cabin, 19 parking spaces, potable water tank and a 1MW diesel fuelled electric generator. The main equipment at the Well Site would include, one gas production and water re-injection well, one water production and reinjection well, site office, fire water tank (50 cubic
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/7
100
metres), pipeline pig trap area, water separator building, gas fired heater, water storage tank, 1 MW diesel generator and a closed circuit television (CCTV) tower.
3.5 The existing borehole at the EMS Well Site would be used for gas production and re-injection of water. The volume of gas to be produced is anticipated to be up to 15 million standard cubic feet per day (mmscf/d) and would be extracted from deep below ground in the Permian Kirkham Abbey Formation (KAF) reservoir. The gas, produced water and condensate would flow from the well head on the Ebberston Moor South well site through a flow line, into the three phase separator. The inlet separator would operate at the pipeline pressure with the rate of flow limited by the energy generating capacity at KGS. The three-phase wellhead separator would then separate the gas and condensate from the produced water, before transfer of the gas and condensate along the pipeline to the KGS. The wellhead pressure would provide the driving force for the liquid and gas flow. Pig launchers would allow the pipelines to be inspected and/maintained but will not be used during normal operation.
3.6 A new borehole just to the north of the existing borehole within the Well Site would be constructed for the purpose of producing water and water re- injection. The water produced during the production of gas is from the gas reservoir within the Permian Kirkham Abbey Formation (KAF). The borehole would help reduce the water level within the gas reservoir and improve the flow rate of gas. The produced water is highly saline with salt concentrations greater than would be found in seawater and contains naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORMs). The applicant proposes to re-inject the produced water through the new borehole into the Triassic Sherwood Sandstone which is located above the KAF as shown on the conceptual cross section drawing attached to this report at Appendix 4. The applicant states that the combined rates of injection at the EMS Well Site and Ebberston ‘A’ Well Site will not exceed the 1,900m3/day (11,951bbl/day) rate that has been permitted. The water found in the KAF and Sherwood Sandstone beneath the well site is not used for drinking water (more than 35 km from groundwater used for drinking water).
Proposed pipeline corridor route
3.7 The northern extent of the pipeline would be located within the elevated plateau at the edge of Wykeham Forest in the National Park. From the Ebberston Moor South Well Site, the pipeline corridor would follow a westerly alignment for approximately 1.7 km to the south west of Givendale Head Farm before then following a north east-south west alignment through a section of the Dalby Forest in the National Park (Givendale Rigg). The pipeline corridor would then take a north-south alignment east of Stonygate Moor and Warren House then southwards crossing the A170 where the road dips between the villages of Allerston and Wilton. The pipeline corridor then continues across agricultural land in the Vale of Pickering before crossing the River Derwent, the railway line between York and Scarborough and terminating at KGS where
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/8
101
it would connect into a pipeline inspection gauge Receiver Module within the KGS.
The proposed pipeline
3.8 The underground pipeline would be a 12” (300mm) diameter steel pipeline to deliver natural gas and condensate (liquid naturally generated with gas) from the Ebberston Moor South Well Site to KGS. The pipeline would be laid in at a depth of 1.1 metres within a 1.8 metre wide-open trench, top soil would be stored separately from subsoil in individual rows along the edge of the construction working corridor ready for covering/reinstatement after installation as shown on the cross section drawing attached to this report at Appendix 5. A 360 degree tracked excavator would be used for the soil stripping and trench excavations. The pipeline would be lowered into the trench using side boom tractors or equivalent plant. The trench would then be backfilled with the excavated soils to provide in excess of 1 metre cover of the pipe to avoid any modern farm machinery potentially striking the pipeline. During pipeline installation the working corridor would 30 metres in width and 13.9 km long (total area of 62 hectares).
3.9 It is proposed that the construction of the pipeline would progress continuously from the EMS Well Site southwards along the pipeline route and terminate at KGS. The pipeline would be buried for the entire 13.9km. During construction of the pipeline, lengths of pipe would be strung out along the line parallel to the trench. The pipes would then be welded together to make a continuous pipeline with all the welds subject to inspection and non- destructive test. The pipeline would be accompanied by a fibre optic communications cable. Once construction has been completed, a 10-metre easement would be maintained during the operational lifetime of the proposed pipeline for maintenance purposes.
3.10 In terms of pipeline storage during construction the applicant does not propose any intermediate compounds in the pipeline route north of the A170, but a compound for pipe storage and welfare facilities would be required adjacent to Grange Farm on Wilton Ings Lane to the south of the A170. A further pipe storage facility and additional welfare facilities would be located at KGS to supply the pipeline route south of the River Derwent.
Knapton Generating Station (KGS)
3.11 The gas arriving at KGS from the Ebberston Moor South Well Site will be used as fuel-gas to generate power. The proposed development includes works to install a pipeline and pipeline inspection gauge Receiver Module at KGS to receive the gas pipeline. The gas treatment would be undertaken using existing facilities at the KGS.
Access (to Well Site, KGS and for pipeline construction)
3.12 The access to the Ebberston Moor South Well Site would be via existing access roads comprising the A170 via Ebberston Lane and Ebberston
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/9
102
Common Lane. The existing access to Knapton Generating Station would be unchanged. Access to the pipeline corridor would be from the local road network including: A170; B1415 Penniston Lane; Allerston Lane; Marishes Lane and B1258 Malton Road where the pipeline crosses these roads. The applicant states that construction traffic will not be allowed to access the site south of the A170 through the villages of Wilton, Allerston or Ebberston. Vehicular access along Malton Lane will be required for HGVs as well as LGVs and private vehicle traffic. Traffic turning into and out of the site entrance would occur where the pipeline route crosses the A170, the B1258 and Wilton Ings Lane. The site traffic routes are shown on the drawings attached to this report at Appendices 6-8.
3.13 The application is accompanied by a detailed traffic and transportation assessment which identifies the A170 as the most heavily trafficked road in the vicinity of the application site. The proposed traffic management plan has been orientated to using the A64, the B1258 and the A170 between Snainton and the site. The applicant states that this routing has been adopted to reduce to a minimum the vehicle movements passing through Pickering and Thornton-le-Dale as these communities are already affected by the existing traffic using the A170. One of the main access points is at the A170 between Wilton and Allerston. In this location it is proposed that vehicles would approach the pipeline crossing point from the east and would turn right to access the northern part and left to access the southern part of the pipeline route. The applicant proposes that a “traffic management schemes on the A170 and B1258 will avoid causing delays of any magnitude to drivers, with the maximum time spent stationary at lights being no more than for lights at an urban road junction. Avoidance of any unnecessary lights or operation of lights when there is no traffic entering or leaving site will also reduce the magnitude of any effect”.
3.14 The applicant anticipates that the accesses from the A170 into the fields north and south of the road would most likely use the existing field entrances near the crossing point but the final positions would be determined during the detailed design stage. The applicant acknowledges that sight lines from the entrances are marginal and, to improve safety, road traffic signs would be erected to warn approaching traffic of manoeuvring vehicles. A speed restriction would also mitigate the effects on safety of sub-standard sight lines. Traffic lights would be used to control both the traffic on the A170 and construction plant crossing the road. The applicant proposes that the details of phasing and response timing of the lights be confirmed in the detailed design stage. The proposed traffic controls at the A170 site crossing are shown on the drawing attached to this report at Appendix 9. In summary, the proposals for safe access off the A170 during construction are: -
1. A 40mph speed restriction on the A170 in the vicinity of the pipeline crossing for a period of 8 weeks, extending at least 300 metres either side of the proposed works; 2. All HGV traffic to approach the site from the east;
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/10
103
3. All HGV traffic to turn left from the A170 onto the southern pipeline section. Any deliveries to the northern section shall then cross the A170 under the control of the traffic lights; 4. All traffic exiting the site shall be controlled by traffic lights.
3.15 In addition to a traffic management plan the application is accompanied by vehicle swept paths to demonstrate that articulated HGVs can safely manoeuvre through the junctions of minor roads with the A170 and these swept paths are shown for the A170/B1258 junction and for the A170/Ebberston Lane junction and therefore no mitigation is required for these junctions.
3.16 It is proposed that a method such as auger boring, directional drilling or a suitable alternative method would be used to limit surface disturbance when crossing roads. The Environmental Statement indicates that the pipeline would be constructed over a 23-week period with an anticipated 18 HGV movements per day associated with the pipeline installation.
Landscaping along pipeline corridor
3.17 The proposed landscaping works would involve some ground modelling works associated with felling of woodland. Additional works within the pipeline corridor would include soil preparation, tree and vegetation planting and seeding once the pipeline has been constructed.
Drainage
3.18 During construction, all drains severed by the trench digging operation would be identified and recorded and the most appropriate method of reinstatement discussed and agreed with the land owner or his agent. If necessary, new lateral and header drains would be laid to outfalls to replace drains rendered inoperative by the pipeline. It is proposed that along the northern extent of the pipeline route between the well site and the A170 drainage would be reliant on the natural drainage of the land with the majority of surface water infiltrating into the ground. In contrast, south of the A170 where the ground is impermeable, existing field drains would be modified to ensure that drainage of the fields remains unaffected by the presence of the pipeline.
Hours of working
3.19 The proposed working hours during construction would be 07:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday and 07:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays. The drilling activities at the Ebberston Moor South Well Site (anticipated to be up to 30 days duration for the first well and up to 60 days for the second well) will be undertaken 24 hours a day. The applicant proposes that all construction work outside these hours is subject to prior notification and written agreement with the NYMNPA and/or NYCC.
Employment
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/11
104
3.20 The applicant states that the development would create approximately 50 jobs during the construction period (short term, temporary) and 3 additional jobs when the scheme is operational. Furthermore the development would safeguard the existing 23 full time jobs at Knapton Generating Station.
Proposed development timeframe
3.21 If planning permission is granted the applicant envisages that construction would commence in 2015 with gas production to follow in 2016. The construction of the facilities and structures required on the Ebberston Moor South Well Site, the KGS and the construction of the pipeline would occur simultaneously. The applicant states that it is anticipated that construction will be completed in 8 months. The gas production associated with the development is expected to be up to 15 years duration.
Restoration
3.22 Whilst the Ebberston Moor South Well Site would be restored at the end of the operational life of the development (anticipated to be 15 years) the pipeline would be left in situ with the ends capped to avoid further disturbance of the ground.
4.0 Consultations
4.1 As required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 and the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 formal consultation has been undertaken with the following bodies, agencies and organisations. Formal consultation in respect of this application began in September 2014. As required by the Regulations, notification of the Secretary of State (National Planning Casework Unit) of the planning application was undertaken on 1 September 2014.
4.2 On 11 March 2015 consultees were notified of the receipt of the ‘AMEC Technical Note Application Review- Groundwater pollution and land stability’ document from the North York Moors National Park Authority.
4.3 North York Moors National Park Authority (NYMNPA)- in response to the numerous objections which raised concerns about the impact upon hydrogeology the National Park Authority commissioned consultancy AMEC to undertake an independent review of the hydrogeological information submitted with the application. The AMEC report was received by NYMNPA in late February 2015. On 19 March 2015 the planning application was reported to the NYMNPA Planning Committee with a recommendation for the grant of conditional planning approval. Members of the Committee resolved to defer a decision on the application pending receipt of further information pre- determination in respect of groundwater and land stability for consideration by NYMNPA officers and the AMEC hydrogeologist.
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/12
105
4.4 Ryedale District Council (Planning)- responded on 20 October 2014 and supports the proposal subject to considerations and conditions to cover habitat restoration and enhancement, impact on hedgerows, a CEMP, hours of construction, attenuation of noise from equipment, machinery and vehicles, notification of work and noise monitoring, and noise level limits, odour management plan and to limit extraction to conventional natural gas with no hydraulic fracturing of any part of the gas reservoir.
4.5 Ryedale District Council (Environmental Health Officer)- responded on 20 October 2014 and requests conditions to cover a CEMP, hours of work, attenuation of noise from equipment, machinery and vehicles, notification of work and noise monitoring, and noise level limits, odour management plan and to limit extraction to conventional natural gas with no hydraulic fracturing of any part of the gas reservoir.
4.6 Scampston Parish Council- has not commented on the application.
4.7 Ebberston & Yedingham Parish Council- has not commented on the application.
4.8 Allerston & Wilton Parish Council- did not comment following the initial consultation on the application.
4.8.1 On 15 March 2015, in response to the notification of the receipt of the AMEC Technical Note from the NYMNPA, Allerston & Wilton Parish Council made the following comments:-
“Allerston Parish Council is very concerned that the phrase used concerning Allerston Water that the drilling will Probably not contaminate the drinking water (emphasis added by the Parish Council). We would like to point out that Allerston Water supplies over 100 properties and farms including a herd of milking cows and would like to know what measures the company will take a) to prevent any contamination b) how are they going to monitor the drinking water in Allerston to make sure they have not caused any contamination? c) what measures will be put in place to supply these properties with clean drinking water in event of any contamination either short term or long term. The Parish Councillors feel that to say PROBABLY shows little or no regard to the 250 – 350 people who drink this water daily and more should be done to prevent any contamination (emphasis added by the Parish Council)”.
4.9 Snainton Parish Council (sent under Officer discretion as neighbouring Parish adjacent to wellsite)- has not commented on the application.
4.10 NYCC Arboricultural Officer- responded on 3 September 2014 and has no objections from an arboricultural viewpoint in respect of the application details.
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/13
106
4.11 Highway Authority- responded on 31 October 2014 and highlight that the A170 is a traffic sensitive route and as such there will be restrictions as to when the traffic management arrangements proposed to enable access to the site can be implemented. It is recommended the applicant discuss any programme of construction with the Highway Authority as soon as is practicable. The Highway Authority confirmed that there are no highway objections to this proposal subject to conditions being attached to any permission granted to cover the construction of accesses, precautions to prevent the deposit of mud on the highway, a highway condition survey, on- site parking and storage of materials, the prior approval and construction of off site highway improvement works, a restriction on access via the A170 to avoid weekends and Bank Holidays, a construction traffic environmental management plan and an informative to protect public rights of ways in the area.
4.12 NYCC Public Rights of Way Team- has not formally responded although the consideration of the impact upon rights of way is included in the Highway Authority response which includes a request for an informative to ensure rights of way are not adversely affected by the development.
4.13 Head of Emergency Planning (NYCC)- responded on 1 September 2014 and confirmed that they have no comments on the application but would be interested in any emergency procedures in place once the development progresses.
4.14 NYCC Heritage - Landscape Team- responded on 10 September 2014 and states that there are no substantial grounds for objection to the development for most of the route (which already has separate consents under previous permissions), and concurs generally with the conclusions of the LVIA. The Principal Landscape Architect does acknowledge that there would be impacts on the setting of the National Park during construction. The Principal Landscape Architect requests conditions to cover timing/phasing of the work to minimise intrusion and disturbance for recreational users, avoid poor soil conditions and reduce disruption to normal agricultural operations for the areas traversed. In addition a condition requiring details, before work commences, of hard and soft landscape works associated with the development (fencing, surfacing, ground modelling, soiling, cultivation, planting, seeding, establishment and replacement, aftercare) and similarly a detailed scheme will be needed for restoration and aftercare following decommissioning.
4.15 NYCC Heritage - Archaeology- responded on 1 September 2014 and stated that given that the diversity of known archaeological heritage assets, coupled with the lack of previous archaeological research, that field evaluation should take place along the route of the pipeline in support of any planning application and to advise a mitigation strategy. The present evaluation/mitigation strategies all target known archaeological or areas adjacent to them. The evaluation strategy should be extended to comprise a geophysical survey of the route of the pipeline as a minimum, preferably with
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/14
107
targeted trial trenching of anomalies of interest. It was recommended that this element of the work takes place prior to the determination of the application.
4.15.1 On 22 October 2014 the County Archaeologist revisited their initial response and stated that whilst the scheme would benefit from the additional geophysical survey, given that the previous application was permitted with a condition, in this instance there is not sufficient new archaeological evidence to merit an objection. Therefore, in this instance, the County Archaeologist has no objection and recommends an archaeological condition should the application be approved.
4.16 NYCC Heritage – Ecology- responded on 9 September 2014 and confirmed that the development would not impact on any statutory protected sites (SAC, SPA) due to separation distances and the absence of proposals which would directly impact upon the qualifying features of the protected sites. The County Ecologist has considered applicant’s ‘Report to Inform Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) Screening’ and contained with the Environmental Statement and has completed a stage 1 HRA screening assessment which concluded that there will be no significant impacts on the River Derwent SAC.
4.16.1 The County Ecologist acknowledges that there are several SINCs within a 2km radius of the application site. However, it is unlikely that any Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) would be adversely affected by the proposals. The County Ecologist agrees with the applicant’s Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) which states that the potential impacts of the proposed works to local habitats would not be significant.
4.16.2 With regard to protected species it was identified by the County Ecologist that a number of trees, and tree groups, within the pipeline corridor have the potential to support roosting bats. The County Ecologist states that the protection of retained trees and tree groups (T5, T15, T38 and TG3) through root protection areas should be covered by condition. The County Ecologist agrees with the applicants conclusion that there is no reasonable likelihood of bat roosts being affected by the proposals.
4.16.3 With regard to badgers the County Ecologist agrees with the proposed mitigation measures during construction works (infilling of excavations and use of ramps) and also recommends a pre-commencement badger survey to ensure no badgers are harmed or foraging areas affected. The County Ecologist requests that both of those recommendations are secured by condition.
4.16.4 The County Ecologist notes that suitable habitat for species such as goshawk and nightjar were found to be scarce in the NYCC area which would be impacted by the proposed development. However, in accordance with the recommendations of the applicant’s Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) in order to avoid harm to widespread farmland and woodland bird species the timing of the works shall avoid bird-breeding season (March to the end of August).
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/15
108
4.16.5 With regard to reptiles the County Ecologist states that the works within the NYCC area would be unlikely to result in any permanent long-term losses of reptile habitat. The mitigation measures proposed within the ES, which describe how harm to reptiles would be avoided during the proposed works, should be implemented and a detailed reptile mitigation method statement should be secured by condition.
4.16.6 The County Ecologist notes that the ES recommends that water vole surveys on those ditches with potentially suitable habitat are undertaken prior to the commencement of construction. The County Ecologist concurs with this and advises that the pre-commencement water vole survey is secured by condition.
4.16.7 The County Ecologist agrees with the applicant’s conclusions that there is no reasonable likelihood of great crested newts, otter or white-clawed crayfish being affected by the proposals.
4.16.8 The County Ecologist has requested that a planning condition is included to require the applicant to submit a detailed habitat restoration scheme in response to the development.
4.16.9 The County Ecologist has advised that the proposed mitigation measures to be applied during construction (summarised in Table 6.15 of the ES) are acceptable and should form a part of the proposed Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).
4.16.10The County Ecologist states that opportunities to provide ecological enhancements as a part of the scheme should be explored by the applicant. In this case, potential enhancement measures could include increasing the botanical diversity of impacted ditches, creating species-rich hedgerows in appropriate areas and erecting bat and bird boxes.
4.16.11 On 12 March 2015 the County Ecologist confirmed that there are no further comments to make in relation to this application and the additional information (AMEC report).
4.17 Highways Agency- responded on 22 September 2014 to confirm that there are no objections to the application.
4.18 Ministry of Defence (Defence Infrastructure Organisation)- responded on responded on 10 September 2014 to confirm that the Ministry of Defence have no safeguarding objections to the proposal.
4.19 Forestry Commission- has not commented on the application.
4.20 Natural England- responded on 4 September 2014 and with regards to internationally and nationally designated sites highlight that the application site is within or in close proximity to a European designated site (also commonly referred to as Natura 2000 sites), and therefore has the potential to affect its interest features. The application site is in close proximity to the North York
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/16
109
Moors Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC), the Ellers Wood and Sand Dale SAC and the River Derwent SAC which are European sites. The sites are also notified at a national level as the North York Moors, Ellers Wood and Sand Dale and River Derwent Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). The proposal is also close to the Troutsdale and Rosekirk Dale Fens SSSI.
4.20.1 Natural England highlight that in considering the European site interest, as a competent Authority under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, NYCC should have regard for any potential impacts that a plan or project may have. This would comprise information to demonstrate that the requirements of Regulations 61 and 62 of the Habitats Regulations have been considered by the Authority, i.e. the inclusion of a Habitats Regulations Assessment. Natural England states that to assist the Authority in screening for the likelihood of significant effects, Natural England advises that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on any European site, and can therefore be screened out from any requirement for further assessment.
4.20.2 Natural England has no objections to the application in terms of potential impacts upon internationally and nationally designated sites.
4.21 Yorkshire Water Services Limited- responded on 13 October 2014 and highlight that the pipeline is proposed to cross water mains at three locations. Yorkshire Water request the inclusion of conditions to cover the protection of the public water supply pipelines and a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to include protection of groundwater.
4.22 Eddsfield Airfield- has not commented on the application.
4.23 Environment Agency- responded on 1 October 2014 and from a groundwater perspective, recommended conditions and informatives and has advised on regulatory requirements and has also recommended a number of flood risk related conditions.
4.23.1 The Environment Agency notes that the northern half of the proposed pipeline intersects Corallian Limestone (a principal aquifer) and superficial deposits of sand and gravel overlying Ampthill Clay and Kimmeridge Clay in the southern half. The Corallian Limestone is highly vulnerable to any polluting activity. The extreme northern portion of the proposed pipeline route (underlain by the Corallian Limestone principal aquifer) falls inside Source Protection Zone 2 (SPZ2) of Scarborough’s drinking water supply boreholes.
4.23.2 The Environment Agency stated that before the application is progressed the applicant would need to provide a justification as to why this pipeline has to pass through SPZ2 (i.e. that there is an ‘unavoidable need’).
4.23.3 The applicant responded to the Environment Agency on 14 November 2014. The applicant stated that the existing well site is within the SPZ2 and there is an existing permission for a short stretch of pipeline westwards from the wellsite within SPZ2 for which the EA raised no objections subject to a
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/17
110
number of conditions to protect the water environment. The applicant highlights that in granting the permission the Secretary of State was satisfied that the development would not have an adverse impact upon the groundwater protection zone. The pipeline proposed as part of the application under consideration follows the route previously approved. Furthermore the applicant states that the Environmental Statement demonstrates that the construction and operation of the pipeline would not have any adverse impact upon the groundwater protection zone. The applicant concluded that given the existing wellsite is within SPZ2, any pipeline route to the site would need to cross part of the SPZ2, making the route therefore unavoidable.
4.23.4The Environment Agency requested the inclusion of 6 conditions relating to groundwater protection and two conditions on flood risk together with informative advice to the applicant.
4.24 English Heritage- responded on 2 September 2014 and acknowledge that the proposed works are to take place across a rich archaeological landscape significant for its extensive and highly visible earthwork remains of the prehistoric period. Many of these features, most notably the dyke systems and groups of burial mounds are designated as Scheduled Monuments. English Heritage initially stated that the application be deferred to permit the compilation and implementation of an agreed scheme of assessment of the archaeological potential of the application site and thereafter the creation of an agreed mitigation strategy.
4.24.1 On 17 November 2014 English Heritage made further comments to clarify their position in light of the NYMNPA and NYCC Archaeologists accepting there is not sufficient new archaeological evidence to merit an objection and that an archaeological condition should the application be approved. English Heritage confirmed that they are content to support this approach.
4.24.2 On 17 March 2015, in response to the notification of the receipt of the AMEC Technical Note from the NYMNPA, English Heritage stated that they have considered the additional information and do not wish to offer any comments on this occasion.
4.25 Yorkshire Wildlife Trust- has not commented on the application.
4.26 Campaign to Protect Rural England- has not commented on the application.
4.27 RSPB- has not commented on the application.
4.28 Health & Safety Executive- responded on 9 September 2014 and stated that their principal concerns are the health and safety of people at work and those affected by work activities. Therefore HSE cannot usefully comment.
4.29 Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) - has not commented on the application.
4.30 National Grid Plant Protection Team- responded on 18 September 2014 to lodge a holding objection to the proposed development which will cross the
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/18
111
National Grid High-Pressure Gas Pipeline (Feeder 06 Pickering to Burton Agnes).
4.30.1 On 20 November 2014, the National Grid confirmed no objections to the development subject to the inclusion of a condition requiring the submission of a detailed Method Statements and Risk Assessment detailing how the Applicant intends to cross the National Grid High-Pressure Gas Pipeline (Feeder 06 Pickering to Burton Agnes) and an informative to require that the Applicant enters into a Deed of Consent with the National Grid.
4.31 Fire and Rescue Service- has not commented on the application.
4.32 Northern Gas Network- has not commented on the application.
4.33 Thornton IDB- has not commented on the application.
4.34 NY Police Architectural Liaison Officer (PALO)- did not comment following the initial consultation on the application.
4.34.1 On 12 March 2015 the PALO confirmed there are no comments to make.
4.35 Network Rail - has not commented on the application.
Notifications
4.36 National Planning Casework Unit- has been notified of the receipt of the planning application accompanied by an Environmental Statement.
4.37 Cllr Janet Sanderson- responded on 15 September 2014 to give the views of residents in her division without prejudice, reserving her final opinion and decision for the planning committee meeting. The public consultations run by Third Energy for this application have been exemplary. The residents views are broadly in line with the findings of the applicants Public Consultation meeting and are summarised as follows: -
The residents and opposition groups welcome the application because it negates the need for infrastructure duplication (including pipelines) wherever this may be - Thornton le Dale, Ebberston forest or any other village.
The potential for the water injection well to create problems for the aquifer was of great concern to residents but it should noted that the matter has been compounded by emotive information put out by pressure groups reacting to possible unconventional shale gas production.
The construction work during the summer months would be an issue with the tourism trade and operational work should be conditioned to mitigate any disruption at seasonal times of the year.
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/19
112
The problem of HGV traffic on Ebberston Common Lane road which is in very poor condition with few passing places and little room to pull over as a stream runs along the side of the road and there is a steep bank on the opposite side.
The residents and Parish Council have ongoing issues with this stretch of the A170 in terms of increased traffic and safety.
5.0 Advertisement and Representations
5.1 The planning application was advertised by means of eight Site Notices posted at various points along the proposed pipeline route and surrounding area on 5 September 2014 (which expired on 26 September 2014) and also a Press Notice which appeared in the Malton Gazette and Herald on 10 September 2014 (which expired on 24 September 2014). The application was advertised as proposed development affecting: - the setting of a Grade II Listed Building; - the site of Scheduled Monuments; and - rights of way to which Part 3 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 applies.
5.2 With regard to neighbour notification, the occupiers of the following 14 properties were notified by letter on 1 September 2014: (1) Givendale Head Farm, Snainton (2) Warren House, Allerston (3) Cliff Edge Farm, Allerston (4) Wilton Gatehouse, Wilton (5) Hayfield, Wilton (6) Lane End Farm, Wilton (7) New House, Wilton (8) Wilton Grange Farm, Wilton (9) Crayke Hall, Yedingham (10) Crayke Hall Cottage, Yedingham (11) Newstead Grange, Yedingham (12) Wath House Farm, West Knapton (13) Knapton Lodge, West Knapton (14) Difford Farm, West Knapton
5.3 In addition, on 1 September 2014, a notification letter was also sent to Frack Free North Yorkshire who had stated an interest in commenting on the application.
5.4 The County Planning Authority has received a total of 149 objections to the proposed development from members of the public. The locations of the objectors are shown on the plan attached to this report at Appendix 3. In addition to the individual objections on 24 October 2014 the County Planning Authority received a 17-page detailed objection from Frack Free Ryedale and Frack Free North Yorkshire. The objection document covers the reinjection of waste water and well-site; alternatives site assessment; public engagement and information; landscape, environment and wildlife; archaeology; traffic; and
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/20
113
the pipeline. The reasons for the objections are set out below in no particular order: -
Re-injection of produced waste water and pollution
the wellsite is within the source protection zone (SPZ2) of the Corallian Limestone aquifer and within 250 metres of Zone 1 (SPZ1) The chemistry of the produced water is highly saline and radioactive, with many chemical parameters exceeding drinking water or environmental quality standards re-injection of produced waste water will contaminate underground aquifers/groundwaters Yorkshire Water have stated that the re-injection wells might ‘directly affect their asset’ There are 13 groundwater extraction licences in the vicinity of the well site – the closest being Givendale Head Farm, which is 500m away. can the Sherwood Sandstone layer absorb the amount of water envisaged (10.4 million cubic metres)? ensuring safety of water supply is even more important than ensuring our energy supplies thousands of gallons of water is needed for this operation, what happens during drought? well casings and joints degrade over time, if well casing fail radioactive waste water could pass into the drinking water supply the chronic risks will be present in perpetuity owing to the nature of the installation, which creates a pathway between the aquifers the technology and the procedures are untested. More importantly, the consequences of failures are very far reaching and there are no measures that can be taken to reverse accidents. There is no discussion of other methods of disposing of the produced waste water. Other solutions, such as pipelining the water into the Vale for treatment and recycling, or pre-treatment of the water on-site before re-injection, are not discussed. this will set a precedent for disposal of toxic water from fracking within sensitive areas There is no proposed treatment process for the waste water before it is re-injected into the ground the applicant’s Best Available Technology (disposal by re-injection) is driven by financial considerations and is not the best available environmental option no evidence is presented in the documentation that disposal of radioactive waste water into a different strata to the gas-producing strata has now become BAT or BPEO All previous applications for disposing of waste water have either involved returning the water to the producing strata from which it came, or pipelining produced waste water for treatment before subsequently being transferred to a third party processor to ensure the water is treated appropriately and recycled. objection to environmental permit for radioactive substance activity
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/21
114
Third Energy’s proposals are based on a conceptual model using third party information and water analysis from Kirby Misperton, which is 9 miles away and from Ebberston B, which is nearly 3 miles away. No recent geological or water testing has been carried out at the Ebberston South site in order to assess the risks of produced water disposal. The design information should be made publicly available before either the planning application or environmental permit application are determined. This has not been done in this application and there is no specific information on the borehole construction there is no guarantee that the natural geology will control the polluted waste water this technology has not been tested in the UK and the precautionary principle should be applied There is no quantitative assessment of the potential emissions from the well-site to groundwater. There is no baseline water quality data to describe the water environment. The quality of the produced water and of the Sherwood Sandstone has been assessed but the groundwater quality in the shallow aquifers, including the Corallian Limestone aquifer, has not been tested. There is therefore not a baseline against which to measure future changes in water quality. “A huge amount of water is to be injected under pressure into the supposed containing layer of Sherwood Sandstone but nothing other than a conceptual model supported by no tested practice in the UK mainland of re-injecting into a non-producing strata proves it will work”. Over time the toxic water may migrate vertically and laterally through the fractured rock and via the "significant geological faulting" The Environment Agency has failed to conduct any independent survey or analysis of the geology or water composition in the area, and is simply relying on clearly flawed data that is presented to them by the applicant. the disposal of waste water in this way shows a complete lack of respect for nature the applicant proposes that the injection operation will be designed to keep the pressure forcing the produced water into the Sherwood Sandstone below the point of fracture. However should injectivity not succeed at this level of pressure, what will he do – raise the pressure or close down the operation? In the US, operators have often exceeded their agreed pressure the geological faulting, which will make drilling difficult, will also be an easier way for this waste water to migrate in any direction Faults can act as conduits or barriers to groundwater flow. The lack of assessment of the risks arising from faults is considered a significant failing in the application; it is imperative that the applicant and regulators have a full understanding of the role of the local fault system prior to the application decision being made. the pollution of water will affect crops, animals and wildlife and will cause cancer and deformities
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/22
115
untested technology poses a genuine risk to the health and wellbeing of both people and wildlife in the area. The damage would be irreversible if a pollution event were to be realised, the impact on the Corallian Limestone aquifer and shallow local aquifers could be severe and long lasting the safety mitigation measures relating to spills, site drainage, groundwater and other aspects of site construction and maintenance are inadequate “Greed, human error and miscalculation of the technical risks involved means we cannot trust the assurances of the companies concerned”. “Don't allow this to happen as it will turn the area into a toxic waste dump where nobody would want to live or visit and will cause people to die”. “lt’s troubling that short-term financial gains for a corporation could be seen as more important than other factors such as the long-term future of the environment” No amount of regulation and conditional permits can stop accidents happening and this application is too risky.
Site Selection
The existence of a Petroleum Exploration Development Licences (PEDL) carries no weight in planning terms and the applicants’ Planning and Sustainability Statement states that the boundary of the PEDL licence prevents other alternative site selection. It is noted that this application is made in partnership between two companies who hold all the current PEDLs in the wider locality. Therefore the PEDL boundary cannot be used as a valid argument in this regard for the location of the proposed new well-sites. the case for Ebberston Moor South to be the most suitable site for accessing this reserve has not been made. no alternative sites have been put forward for sites outside of the National Park
National Park & Local Economy
The proposed works conflict with national parks policies as they are not compatible with the maintenance of openness for the countryside and do not protect or enhance the countryside. The gas reserve of Ebberston gas field is not of national significance and this is not exceptional circumstances. The proposed development is considered by the applicant to not be of ‘national significance’, and as such should be rejected under Section 116 of the NPPF the National Park should not be a testing ground for potentially dangerous new procedures the National Park should not be open to industrialisation and the area is threatened by overdevelopment “The National Parks were never created to act as a dump for toxic waste” NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/23
116
The application will set a precedent for wells in the National Park and unconventional gas extraction the proposed development will have little or no impact on the local economy in terms of number of jobs provided The works are close to Dalby Forest and may affect tourism in the area Dalby Forest is one of the darkest skies in the UK for astronomy will they still be able to retain this status with the proposed lighting? increase in traffic, noise and general disruption, particularly during the construction phase of the project, will have a damaging effect on tourism in the area incompatible with Ryedale’s two main economies agriculture and tourism it may have a negative impact on tourism in the National Park- the noise pollution created during the 3-month drilling stage, which would require drilling to continue 24 hours a day, would deter visitors from visiting the area, damaging the tourist business in the area.
Seismic Activity
studies from the USA show that waste water re-injection is a major cause of seismic activity waste water re-injection is linked to the increase in earthquakes in Oklahoma
Traffic
Increase in traffic on A170 during construction period Large number of HGVs travelling through villages, on narrow moorland lanes and roads causing congestion Road improvements will be required to make junctions and bends safe for large HGVs The main access road from the A170 has a steep uphill gradient in many places. All HGV movements need to be made with many low gear changes, thus greatly increasing emissions and noise. This will have a significant impact on the tranquillity in this area of the National Park.
Amenity
the 24/7 drilling will create constant noise and light pollution for 3 months the Moor to Sea cycle path will be compromised by both the construction of the site, and the site itself “the social damage is immeasurable…a development such as this is likely to lead to young people looking to leave the area. This will disintegrate communities”. The application also requires moving a public footpath
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/24
117
Ecology
the noise and light pollution will have an adverse affect on wildlife (birds, bats, badgers) which maybe in contravention of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. the landscape and flora and fauna of the National Park should be protected at all costs
Carbon emissions
The development of the gasfield is incompatible with the Government’s legal obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There should be a move away from fossil fuels towards cleaner energy such as hyrdo, wind and solar
Community consultation
There was only one public exhibition event and local residents only received leaflets advertising the event only 48 hours before it was due to take place.
the application states that the feedback at the event was positive but there is no discussion of what was asked or how the feedback was either given or collated. There is also no record of who attended.
none of the exhibition display boards, leaflets or adverts mentioned re- injection boreholes – they only mention a ‘water disposal well’.
the company failed in its duty to engage in open and clear public engagement on this matter and information provided by the company was wholly inadequate, and was also misrepresented in the application
Pipeline Route
The pipeline will cross the River Derwent which contained protected species such as otters and water voles The pipeline ditch south of the A170 may intercept the shallow water table. This will most likely necessitate the dewatering of the ditch to enable construction activities to be completed. Dewatering has the potential to derogate water features and groundwater uses A more detailed hydrogeological survey is required to identify pipeline sections likely to be subject to dewatering and provide an assessment of the likely influence of dewatering activities and any necessary mitigation measures The pipeline will cross areas of archaeological importance from the prehistoric period which have not been adequately researched or documented the decision should be deferred until a full and complete study has been done on the archaeology of the area NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/25
118
Others
The adverse effect on property value in the area
5.5 The Frack Free Ryedale and Frack Free North Yorkshire objection document dated 24 October 2014 is accompanied by a Hydrogeological Report produced by H Fraser Consulting Ltd and request the report is considered as independent supporting evidence for the objection. The report concludes that further information is required on the following:-
environmental performance to be monitored in the future
provided and implications for long term aquifer management assessed
and restoration should be provided n B site should be made
management of rainwater, run-off, and produced water, including any treatment and storage systems should be provided clude monitoring of groundwater quality at the site, at local groundwater abstractions, and of any site discharges should be provided -specific environmental management and pollution response procedures should be provided to maintain the integrity of the bentonite mat during construction should be provided.
along the pipeline route, to include an assessment of impacts on designated conservation areas and wildlife habitats.
regard to injection volumes, and the Ebberston A permit rescinded or transferred appropriately s should be provided
injection pressures should be made
operation clude pre-treatment of produced water
5.6 On 14 November 2014 the agent representing the applicants submitted a formal response to the matters raised by consultees and those groups and members and members of the public who raised objections to the application.
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/26
119
5.7 In light of the number and nature of objections the NYMNPA received in respect of the proposal to re-inject produced water at the Ebberston Moor South wellsite, the Park Authority obtained (in February 2015) an independent focused review of the hydrogeological information entitled ‘AMEC Technical Note Application Review- Groundwater pollution and land stability’.
5.8 The County Planning Authority has received one representation from a member of the public in support of the proposed development. The reasons for the support are summarised and quoted below in no particular order: -
o The local hysteria is unjustified o “in the present climate anything associated with gas exploration and production finds itself under attack from the media and the 'anti' groups who present many negative myths, untruths and possibilities but little in the way of proven facts”. o The anti fracking groups are professionally organised by people who do not live in the local area but have the audacity to act as if they speak for the people of Ryedale. o The anti fracking groups encourage people to copy templates they have written to object to the application and then request that the people customise them a little so that they do not look identical. o “it is easy for people to object but most people who generally are quite happy with the application do not have the same driving force behind them to actually write in with their approval. This then gives a biased view that most people are objecting when actually most are very content with life in Ryedale and the gas industry with everyone working together without any problems”. o “I wish to give my positive support for the gas industry in this area. Gas exploration and extraction has occurred in the Vale of Pickering and surrounding areas for many decades and we have all managed to co exist very happily with no problems. I see no reason for this to change”. o The gas company has always acted with great integrity and honesty and there has never been any issues or incidents with the existing gas industry and infrastructure in Ryedale o The company engages with the local community when they apply for planning permission o “I am fearful that outside influences will ruin the special relationship we have with the gas industry within this area. Most people wouldn't know how many gas wells there are or even where they are situated as they are so well screened”. o The energy supply is needed to keep the economy going o “Economically it will ultimately be good for our area. They have been here for decades and we have all lived and worked together very happily”.
6.0 Planning Guidance and Policy
National Planning Policy 6.1 The policy relevant to the determination of this particular planning application provided at the national level is contained within the National Planning Policy
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/27
120
Framework (NPPF) (published 27 March 2012) and also the National Planning Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.
6.3 The overriding theme of Government policy in the NPPF is to apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision-making this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay (if plans are up-to-date and consistent with the NPPF). The Government has set down its intention with respect to sustainable development stating its approach as “making the necessary decisions now to realise our vision of stimulating economic growth and tackling the deficit, maximising wellbeing and protecting our environment, without negatively impacting on the ability of future generations to do the same”. The Government defines sustainable development as that which fulfils the following three roles: An economic role – development should contribute to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; A social role – development supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities; and, An environmental role – development that contributes to protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment and as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.
6.4 The NPPF advises that when making decisions, development proposals should be approved that accord with the Development Plan and when the Development Plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this framework indicate development should be restricted.
6.5 This national policy seeks to ensure that there are positive improvements in people’s quality of life including improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure.
6.6 Paragraph 28 within Section 3 (Supporting a prosperous rural economy) of the NPPF states that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. This, inter alia, includes the promotion of the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses.
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/28
121
6.7 Paragraph 32 within Section 4 (Promoting sustainable transport) of the NPPF states that plans and decisions should take account of whether opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site; safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.
6.8 Paragraph 58 within Section 7 (Requiring good design) of the NPPF identifies 6 objectives that planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that new developments: “function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit; optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses (including incorporation of green and other public space as part of developments) and support local facilities and transport networks; respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation; create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion; and are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.”
6.9 Paragraph 103 within Section 11 of the NPPF (Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change) states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere.
6.10 Within Section 11 of the NPPF it is clear that the effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account.
6.11 Paragraph 109 within Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) of the NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, minimising impacts on biodiversity, preventing development from contributing to or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution.
6.12 Paragraph 112 within Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) of the NPPF states that “Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/29
122
agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality”.
6.13 Paragraph 115 of the NPPF advises that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks. Paragraph 116 states that:
“Planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of:
(i) the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy; (ii) the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and (iii) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.”
6.14 Paragraph 118 within Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) of the NPPF sets out a number of principles for determining planning applications which aims to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Paragraph 118 states: “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles (inter alia): if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused”.
6.15 Paragraph 120 within Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) of the NPPF states that to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution, decisions should ensure that the development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area should be taken into account.
6.16 Section 12 of the NPPF provides the context for conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Paragraph 128 within Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the NPPF states that “Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation”.
6.17 Paragraph 132 within Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the NPPF states that “when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset,
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/30
123
great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional”.
6.18 Paragraph 134 within Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the NPPF states “Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use”.
6.19 Paragraph 135 within Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the NPPF requires consideration of the application on the significance of non-designated heritage assets.
6.20 Section 13 of the NPPF (Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals) sets out principles for facilitating the sustainable use of minerals. Paragraph 142 of the NPPF acknowledges the essential role that minerals play in supporting sustainable economic growth and quality of life. The NPPF seeks to ensure that there is “sufficient supply of material to provide the infrastructure, buildings and energy and goods that the Country needs”. The NPPF also acknowledges that “minerals are a finite resource” and can “only be worked where they are found”.
6.21 Paragraph 144 of the NPPF provides considerations relevant to the determination of planning applications, including the benefits of minerals extraction; ensuring that no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety arise from the development; ensuring that any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions are controlled.
6.22 Paragraph 144 of the NPPF states that “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should (inter alia): Give great weight to the benefits of the mineral extraction, including to the economy; ensure, in granting planning permission for mineral development, that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety, and take into account the cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality; and ensure that any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any blasting vibrations are controlled, mitigated or removed at source, and establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties; and
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/31
124
provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions, where necessary. Bonds or other financial guarantees to underpin planning conditions should only be sought in exceptional circumstances.
6.23 Paragraph 147 states that, when planning for on-shore oil and gas development, Minerals Planning Authorities should: “…clearly distinguish between the three phases of development (exploration, appraisal and production) and address constraints on production and processing within areas that are licensed for oil and gas exploration or production.”
National Policy Statement for Energy Infrastructure (2011) 6.24 In addition to the NPPF, there is a suite of National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure. The suite includes an overarching Policy Statement for Energy Infrastructure and accompanying Statements relating to the following:- Fossil Fuel Electricity Generation Renewable Energy Gas Supply (including gas and oil pipelines) Electricity Networks Nuclear Power
6.25 The above-mentioned Statements are, in particular over-arching Policy Statement EN-1 and gas supply infrastructure and gas and oil pipelines EN-4, a clear indication of the Government’s policy direction in respect of these matters and contain statements to the effect that they may be material in determining planning applications under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). They may, therefore, constitute a material consideration to which due regard must be made in the consideration of the application which is the subject of this report.
6.26 EN-1 sets out the Government’s aims to secure the transition to a low carbon energy system. The particular gas infrastructure requirements that it supports are those to facilitate gas importing and storage.
6.27 EN-4 sets out particular considerations in relation to gas supply infrastructure including pipelines, such as noise and vibration, biodiversity, landscape and visual amenity impacts, impacts on soil and geology, and impacts on water quality.
National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (2014) 6.28 On 6 March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched the National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) web-based resource. This was accompanied by a Written Ministerial Statement which includes a list of the previous planning practice guidance documents cancelled. The NPPG supports the national policy contained within the NPPF. The guidance relevant to the determination of this application is contained within the following sections: - - Air Quality
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/32
125
- Climate Change - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment - Environmental Impact Assessment - Light Pollution - Minerals - Natural Environment - Noise - Water supply, wastewater and water quality
6.29 The main guidance relevant to this application is Planning Practice Guidance in relation to ‘Minerals’ and the sections relating to ‘Planning for minerals extraction’ (Section 3 of PPG) and ‘Planning for Hydrocarbon extraction’ (Section 9 of PPG).
6.30 The Minerals guidance acknowledges that minerals ‘make an essential contribution to the Country’s prosperity and quality of life’. Section 3 of the Minerals PPG states that: “Mineral planning authorities are encouraged to plan for minerals extraction using Ordnance Survey-based proposals maps and relevant evidence provided by the minerals industry and other appropriate bodies. This approach will allow mineral planning authorities to highlight areas where mineral extraction is expected to take place, as well as managing potentially conflicting objective for use of land.”
6.31 Section 3 advises mineral planning authorities that they should plan for the steady and adequate supply of minerals in one or more of the following ways:
1. “Designating Specific Sites – where viable resources are known to exist, landowners are supportive of minerals development and the proposal is likely to be acceptable in planning terms. Such sites may also include essential operations associated with mineral extraction; 2. Designating Preferred Areas, where are areas of known resources where planning permission might reasonably be anticipated. Such areas may also include essential operations associated with mineral extraction; and/or; 3. Designating Areas of search – areas where knowledge of mineral resources may be less certain but within which planning permission may be granted, particularly if there is a potential shortfall in supply.”
6.32 Section 9 (Planning for Hydrocarbon Extraction – ‘Determining the Planning Application’) states that: “Mineral planning authorities should take account of Government energy policy, which makes it clear that energy supplies should come from a variety of sources. This includes onshore oil and gas … Mineral planning authorities should use appropriate planning conditions … to mitigate against any adverse environmental impact …”
6.33 Section 9 also states, under ‘Aftercare and Restoration’ that:
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/33
126
“Mineral planning authorities will ensure the proper restoration and aftercare of a site through imposition of suitable planning conditions and, where necessary, through section 106 Agreements. For hydrocarbon extraction sites where expected extraction is likely to last for a short period of time, it is appropriate for the mineral planning authority to impose a detailed set of planning conditions as part of the planning application.”
The Development Plan 6.34 Whilst the NPPF is a significant material consideration, under Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, planning authorities continue to be required to determine each planning application in accordance with the planning policies that comprise the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan for the determination of this particular application comprises the following: The extant ‘saved’ policies of the North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan (adopted 1997); and The extant policies of the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013).
6.35 Emerging local policies may also be afforded weight in the determination process, depending on their progress through consultation and adoption. In this respect, it is worth noting that the following document contains emerging local policies that may be of relevance to this application: Joint Minerals and Waste Local Plan Issues and Options Document (North Yorkshire County Planning Authority, the City of York Council and North York Moors National Park Authority, February 2014).
6.36 At the current stage, it would not be appropriate to give any significant weight to this emerging document. However, its development is an indication that the current local policy context needs to be updated, to bring it in line with national policy and a more up to date evidence base.
6.37 The NPPF states that for the purposes of decision-taking, the policies in the Local Plan should not be considered out of date because they were adopted prior to the publication of the NPPF. However, the policies contained within the NPPF are material considerations which local planning authorities should take into account from the day of its publication.
6.38 If, following the 12 month transitional period given to local planning authorities to ensure compliance of their Local Plans with the NPPF, a new or amended plan has not been adopted, due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF (paragraph 215 of the NPPF). The closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the NPPF the greater the weight that may be given.
6.39 Therefore, relevant policies within the NPPF have been set out above and within the next section the relevant ‘saved’ policies from the North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan (1997) are outlined and the degree of consistency with the NPPF is considered. This exercise is not applicable to the policies contained within the recently adopted ‘Ryedale Plan: Local Plan Strategy’
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/34
127
(Adopted September 2013) as the Local Plan Strategy is a post-NPPF adoption and has been deemed to be in compliance with the general aims of the NPPF.
North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan ‘saved’ policies 6.40 The Planning and Compensation Act 1991 placed a duty on each County Council in England and Wales to prepare a Minerals Local Plan. The North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan was adopted in 1997 under the 1991 Act. In the absence of an adopted Minerals Core Strategy and in accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as of 27 September 2007 only the ‘saved’ policies can now be considered as comprising of the Development Plan.
6.41 The ‘saved’ policies relevant to the determination of this application are the general policies from Section 4 of the North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan (adopted December 1997) which seek to protect the environment and local amenity from potential harm from minerals development: - Policy 4/1 - Determination of Planning Applications - Policy 4/6a - Nature Conservation and Habitat Protection – Local - Policy 4/10 – Water Protection - Policy 4/13 - Traffic Impact - Policy 4/14 - Local Environment and Amenity - Policy 4/15 – Public Rights of Way - Policy 4/18 – Restoration to agriculture - Policy 4/20 - Aftercare
6.42 In addition, Section 7 of the North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan (1997) contains a number of ‘saved’ policies relating to oil and gas development, including; - Policy 7/5 - Production Wells - Policy 7/6 - Development Scheme - Policy 7/7 - Development of new reserves - Policy 7/10 - Restoration - Policy 7/11 - Retention of features
6.43 The aforementioned ‘saved’ policies from Sections 4 and 7 of the North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan (1997) are outlined in more detail in the following paragraphs.
6.44 ‘Saved’ Policy 4/1 – Determination of Planning Applications, states that: “In considering an application for mining operations, the Minerals Planning Authority will need to be satisfied that, where appropriate:- (a) the mineral deposit on the application site has been fully investigated; (b) the siting and scale of the proposal is acceptable; (c) the proposed method and programme of working would minimise the impact of the proposal; (d) landscaping and screening has been designed to effectively mitigate the impact of the proposal; (e) other environmental and amenity safeguards would effectively mitigate the impact of the proposals;
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/35
128
(f) the proposals and programme for restoration are acceptable and would allow a high standard to be achieved; (g) a high standard of aftercare and management of the land could be achieved; (h) the proposed transport links to move the mineral to market are acceptable, and (i) any cumulative impact on the local area resulting from the proposal is acceptable.”
6.45 The NPPF does not mention the matters raised in points a), b), c), d).
6.46 Where criterion e) is concerned, Paragraph 144 of the NPPF states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that any unavoidable emissions or vibrations are controlled or mitigated (if it is not possible to remove them at source).
6.47 With regard to criteria f) and g), Paragraph 144 of the NPPF states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions, where necessary.
6.48 Criterion h) of ‘saved’ Policy 4/1 does not conflict with the provisions of the NPPF; however, there are differences in the objectives. Criterion h) states that transport links should be acceptable whereas paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that improvements to the transport network should be considered, therefore, the NPPF should be given more weight in this instance.
6.49 Criterion i) of ‘saved’ Policy 4/1 is consistent with paragraph 144 of the NPPF. Paragraph 144 states that in granting permission for mineral development the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality should be taken into account.
6.50 ‘Saved’ Policy 4/6A ‘Nature Conservation and Habitat Protection – Local’, states that in making decisions on planning applications, the Mineral Planning Authority will protect the nature conservation or geological interest of Local Nature Reserves and of other sites having a nature conservation interest or importance, and will have regard to other wildlife habitats.
6.51 This Policy is consistent with paragraph 109 of the NPPF. Paragraph 109 states that that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity.
6.52 ‘Saved’ Policy 4/10 ‘Water Protection’ states that ‘Proposals for mining operations and the associated depositing of mineral waste will only be permitted where they would not have an unacceptable impact upon surface or groundwater resources’.
6.53 This policy is considered to be consistent with Paragraph 143 of the NPPF which states that when ‘preparing Local Plans, local planning authorities
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/36
129
should set out environmental criteria, in line with policies in the NPPF, against which planning applications will be assessed so as to ensure that permitted operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the flow and quantity of surface and groundwater…’.
6.54 ‘Saved’ Policy 4/13 – ‘Traffic Impact’, states that where rail, waterway or other environmentally preferable modes of transport are not feasible, mining operations other than for coal, oil and gas will only be permitted where the level of vehicle movements likely to be generated can be satisfactorily accommodated by the local highway network.
6.55 This Policy does not conflict with the provisions of the NPPF, however, there are differences in the objectives in that paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that improvements to the transport network should be considered, therefore, the NPPF guidance should be given more weight in this instance.
6.56 ‘Saved’ Policy 4/14 – Local Environment and Amenity, states that proposals for mining operations and the associated depositing of mineral waste will be permitted only where there would not be an unacceptable impact upon the local environment or residential amenity.
6.57 This Policy is considered to be consistent with paragraph 144 of the NPPF. Paragraph 144 states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural environment and human health and should take into account cumulative impacts of a development in a locality.
6.58 ‘Saved’ Policy 4/15 – Public Rights of Way, states that where proposals would interrupt, obstruct or conflict with use of a public right of way development will only be permitted where satisfactory provision has been made in the application for protecting the existing right of way or for providing alternative arrangements both during and after working.
6.59 The NPPF makes no explicit reference to public access or the protection of public rights of way but supports sustainable modes of transport.
6.60 ‘Saved’ Policy 4/18 – Restoration to Agriculture, states where agriculture is the intended primary after-use, the proposed restoration scheme should provide for the best practicable standard of restoration. Such restoration schemes should, where possible, include landscape, conservation or amenity proposals provided that these do not result in irreversible loss of best and most versatile land.
6.61 This Policy is consistent with paragraph 144 of the NPPF. Paragraph 144 states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards.
6.62 ‘Saved’ Policy 4/20 – After-care, states that planning permissions which are subject to conditions requiring restoration to agriculture, forestry or amenity
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/37
130
(including nature conservation) will additionally be subject to an aftercare requirement seeking to bring the restored land up to an approved standard for the specified after-use. Normally this requirement will run for a period of five years following restoration. Additionally, where forestry and amenity (including nature conservation) after-uses are proposed, the Mineral Planning Authority may seek to secure longer-term management agreements.
6.63 This Policy is considered to be consistent with paragraph 144 of the NPPF. Paragraph 144 states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards.
6.64 ‘Saved’ Policy 7/5 - Production Wells - “Proposals for the conversion of previously "short term" exploration and appraisal borehole sites into production wells will be approved only when they make full provision for an improved standard of landscaping, protection of local amenity and site restoration.” The NPPF does not include any specific policy in relation to gas production wells and it is considered that weight can be given to this ‘saved’ policy of the NYMLP.
6.65 The explanatory text accompanying this Policy states that the “County Council will resist the possibility of every individual hydrocarbon discovery being regarded as a separate oil or gasfield in its own right. Sustainable development principles require maximum integration and elimination of duplication. Therefore, for development purposes, definition of a "gasfield" or "oilfield" should, where relevant, be regarded as consisting of several relatively small deposits in a single area brought together into one set of proposals. It is recognised that this does not fit neatly with the licensing system under which several companies may be active in an area. However it is considered to be in the best interests of the North Yorkshire environment to minimise duplication of surface infrastructure and to encourage companies to work together on development schemes” (NYMLP, 1997).
6.66 ‘Saved’ Policy 7/6 - Development Scheme - “The Mineral Planning Authority defines a gasfield or oilfield as including a number of separate hydrocarbon reservoirs within a single area, irrespective of licence rights and obligations. Planning permission for commercial production will be granted only within the framework of an overall development scheme relating to all proven deposits within the gasfield or oilfield. Where appropriate, applications should be accompanied by an Environmental Statement and schemes should provide for the full development of the proven field.”
6.67 This Policy seeks to ensure that commercial production takes place only within the framework of an overall development scheme relating to all proven deposits within the gasfield or oilfield. The NPPF does not include any specific policy in relation to frameworks for the development of gasfields and it is considered that weight can be given to this ‘saved’ policy of the NYMLP.
6.68 ‘Saved’ Policy 7/7 - Development of New Reserves - “Unless such development would be technically impracticable or environmentally
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/38
131
unacceptable, planning permission for the development of oil or gas reserves as yet undiscovered will only be granted where the development utilizes existing available surface infrastructure or pipelines.”
6.69 This Policy requires that, unless impracticable or environmentally unacceptable, permission for the development of new reserves (undiscovered at the time of preparation of the NYMLP) will only be granted where the development uses existing available surface infrastructure or pipelines. The NPPF does not include any specific policy in relation to the use of existing infrastructure and it is considered that weight can be given to this ‘saved’ policy of the NYMLP.
6.70 ‘Saved’ Policy 7/10 – Restoration – seeks to ensure that proposals for oil and gas developments put forward applications that make provision for the full restoration of the application site and its related means of access to a beneficial after use within a defined period to ensure that sites are returned to a beneficial use with minimal delay. The NPPF does not include any specific policy in relation to oil and gas developments but paragraph 144 of the NPPF states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards. It is, therefore, considered that weight can be given to this ‘saved’ policy of the NYMLP.
6.71 ‘Saved’ Policy 7/11 – Retention of features - this Policy addresses such circumstance that might arise by proposals seeking to retain features required at the operational stages of the development. In such circumstance, such proposals to retain features such as an access or areas of hard-standing, these will be only approved where a clear agricultural or other benefit can be demonstrated. The NPPF does not include any specific policy in relation to retention of features associated with the development of gasfields and it is considered that weight can be given to this ‘saved’ policy of the NYMLP.
‘Ryedale Plan: Local Plan Strategy’ (Adopted September 2013) 6.72 Furthermore, also at the local level, consideration has to be given to the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013). The introduction to the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013) states that “The purpose of the Ryedale Plan is to encourage new development and to manage future growth whilst ensuring that change across the District is based on a presumption in favour of sustainable development”.
6.73 The Local Plan Strategy (2013) document states that “the Plan acts as a local expression of national policy. It establishes local policies which comply with national policy (NPPF) but which also provide a specific local policy response which reflects the distinctiveness of this District and best integrates local social, economic and environmental issues”. The policies relevant to the determination of this application are: - Policy SP13 - ‘Landscapes’; Policy SP14 - ‘Biodiversity’; Policy SP15 ‘Green Infrastructure Networks’ Policy SP16- ‘Design’
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/39
132
Policy SP17 - ‘Managing Air Quality, Land and Water Resources’; Policy SP19 – ‘Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development’; and Policy SP20 - ‘Generic Development Management Issues’.
6.74 SP13 ‘Landscapes’ seeks to protect and enhance the quality, character and value of Ryedale’s diverse landscapes. Specifically in relation to ‘Landscape Character’ the policy states that: “Development proposals should contribute to the protection and enhancement of distinctive elements of landscape character that are the result of historical and cultural influences, natural features and aesthetic qualities including: The distribution and form of settlements and buildings in their landscape setting; The character of individual settlements, including building styles and materials; The pattern and presence of distinctive landscape features and natural elements (including field boundaries, woodland, habitat types, landforms, topography and watercourses); Visually sensitive skylines, hill and valley sides; and The ambience of the area, including nocturnal character, level and type of activity and tranquillity, sense of enclosure/exposure”.
6.75 SP14 ‘Biodiversity’ states “In considering proposals for development – Proposals which would have an adverse effect on any site or species protected under international or national legislation will be considered in the context of the statutory protection which is afforded to them. Proposals for development which would result in loss or significant harm to: Habitats or species included in the Ryedale Biodiversity Action Plan and priority species and habitat in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan; Local Sites of Nature Conservation Importance or Sites of Geodiversity Importance; Other types of Ancient Woodland and ancient/veteran trees, will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that there is a need for the development in that location and that the benefit of the development outweighs the loss and harm. Where loss and harm cannot be prevented or adequately mitigated, compensation for the loss / harm will be sought. Applications for planning permission will be refused where significant harm cannot be prevented, adequately mitigated against or compensated for. Loss or harm to other nature conservation features should be avoided or mitigated. Compensation will be sought for the loss or damage to other nature conservation features, which would result from the development proposed. Protected sites, including Internationally and nationally protected sites and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation are identified on the adopted Proposals Map.”
6.76 SP15 ‘Green Infrastructure Networks’, inter alia, seeks to protect and enhance Public Rights of Way and Open Access Land and where practicable securing multi-user access.
6.77 Policy SP16- ‘Design’ states, inter alia, that “To reinforce local distinctiveness, the location, siting, form, layout, scale and detailed design of new
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/40
133
development should respect the context provided by its surroundings including: Topography and landform that shape the form and structure of settlements in the landscape The structure of towns and villages formed by street patterns, routes, public spaces, rivers and becks. The medieval street patterns and historic cores of Malton, Pickering, Kirkbymoorside and Helmsley are of particular significance and medieval two row villages with back lanes are typical in Ryedale The grain of the settlements, influenced by street blocks, plot sizes, the orientation of buildings, boundaries, spaces between buildings and the density, size and scale of buildings The character and appearance of open space and green spaces including existing Visually Important Undeveloped Areas (VIUAs) or further VIUAs which may be designated in the Local Plan Sites Document or in a Neighbourhood Plan. Development proposals on land designated as a VIUA will only be permitted where the benefits of the development proposed significantly outweigh the loss or damage to the character of the settlement Views, vistas and skylines that are provided and framed by the above and/or influenced by the position of key historic or landmark buildings and structures The type, texture and colour of materials, quality and type of building techniques and elements of architectural detail.”
6.78 SP17 ‘Managing Air Quality, Land and Water Resources’, inter alia, includes references to protecting land resources such as best and most versatile agricultural land, reducing flood risk and the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS).
6.79 SP19 ‘Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development’ carries forward the presumption contained in the NPPF and states that the Council will take a positive approach when considering development proposals and “always work proactively with applicants jointly to find solutions which mean that proposals can be approved wherever possible, and to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area”. The policy states that “planning applications that accord with the policies in this Local Plan (and, where relevant, with policies in Neighbourhood Plans) will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise”. The policy also contains the text from the NPPF which is set out in paragraph 6.4 of this report which advises of instances where there are no policies relevant to the application or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision.
6.80 SP20 ‘Generic Development Management Issues’, with regard to character states “New development will respect the character and context of the immediate locality and the wider landscape character in terms of physical features and the type and variety of existing uses”.
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/41
134
7.0 Planning Considerations
7.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that all planning authorities must determine each planning application in accordance with the planning policies that comprise the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In light of the abovementioned policies the main considerations in this instance are the principle of the proposed development, the objections to the development including the reinjection of produced water and risk perception, the impact of the pipeline on the Source Protection Zone (SPZ2), the impact that the proposed development may have on land resources, crossings and the pipeline installation, flood risk and drainage, landscape and visual impact, local amenity, traffic and transportation, public access, the historic environment, habitats, nature conservation and protected species and employment.
Principle of the development
7.2 The NPPF reflects the Government’s overall commitment to secure economic growth aimed at the creation of jobs and prosperity and particularly the support for sustainable economic growth in rural areas (paragraph 28). It also highlights that minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth (paragraph 142 & 144).
7.3 The proposed development would involve the piping of gas from the existing surface infrastructure at the Ebberston Moor South well site along a new 13.9km long 12” diameter underground pipeline to the existing Generating Station at Knapton together with water production and re-injection at the Ebberston Moor South well site in the National Park.
7.4 It is acknowledged that there is some conflict with ‘saved’ Policy 7/7 of the NYMLP which encourages the use of existing available pipelines in preference to duplication but the development would avoid duplication of surface installations in accordance with ‘saved’ Policy 7/7. The pipeline would form part of a wider network which serves a number of gasfields for which licenses have been approved within the Vale of Pickering and Ebberston Moor area and would therefore comply with ‘saved’ Policy 7/6 of the NYMLP (1997). Furthermore, the development is a joint venture between Third Energy and Moorland Energy and it would effectively combine elements of the two extant planning permissions (unimplemented) referred to in paragraphs 2.16 and 2.18 of this report, namely the Ryedale Gas project and the EMA-Knapton gas pipeline. As a result the benefits are two-fold in that the development would utilise existing infrastructure at both the well site and KGS and combine the two extant permissions so to avoid duplication arising from the implementation of two separate and competing projects. This is considered to be a material consideration which should be afforded significant weight in the decision making process.
7.5 Members will recall that the planning permission) granted by NYCC in April 2014 (ref. C3/13/01195/CPO) permitted the construction of a 15.3 km long 8” underground pipeline from the Ebberston Moor ‘A’ Wellsite to Knapton NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/42
135
Generating Station, East Knapton, Malton. The Ebberston Moor ‘A’ Wellsite is 2.5km north of the Ebberston Moor South wellsite. The current proposed development under consideration would follow much of the same consented pipeline route. The length of pipeline route from Ebberston Moor South wellsite to the Dalby Forest and to the north and east of Warren House will follow the same route as part of the pipeline consented by the Secretary of State in June 2012 (Ryedale Gas Project). The only sections of the proposed pipeline route which does not have consent is from south of Warren House to the A170, a distance of 1.5km.
7.6 The applicant states that significant reserves of gas have been discovered at the well site and elsewhere within the Ebberston Moor gas field. The proposed development forms part of the phased development of the Ebberston Moor Gas Field, to transfer the extracted gas via a pipeline to KGS where the sour gas would be burned to produce energy. There is national support for energy infrastructure to help manage the UK’s need to import gas and the NPPF recognises the benefits of mineral extraction to the national economy. Furthermore, the Government supports an appropriate mix of technologies to meet the Country’s energy demands and gas has a role to play.
7.7 Since the granting of the extant permissions the Government has published a significant amount of planning policy and guidance relating to unconventional gas extraction (‘fracking’). However, it is not considered that there has been any significant national or local policy changes since the previous two principle permissions to warrant a refusal on existing or changed policy grounds alone. Therefore, having regard to the national and local policy and guidance summarised above it is considered that the principle of the proposal for the utilisation of natural gas extraction from an existing well site and piped to the existing generating station to create electricity is considered to be acceptable subject to the effect of the development upon the local environment and wider landscape, highway safety and local amenity.
Opposition to the applications
7.8 NYCC has received approximately 150 objections to the application and it is understood that the NYMNPA received approximately 200 objections regarding the duplicate application. The most significant environmental objections to the development relate to the proposals at the existing Ebberston Moor South well site within the North York Moors National Park administrative area. A number of objections raise concerns based on the perceived similarity to the concerns relating to hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’) that is used in the extraction of unconventional gas or oil from deep tight shales. In summary the objections include the risks of groundwater pollution, the role of geological controls on pollution, borehole integrity, injection rates and the risk of seismicity, the use of conceptual models, the lack of an independent analysis or survey, that the application may set a precedent for future applications and that a pre-cautionary principle against the development should be adopted.
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/43
136
7.9 The aforementioned objections were considered in the NYMNPA report to their Planning Committee on 19 March 2015. It is not considered necessary to deliberate such objections in detail in this report although for completeness the main issues will be explained in the subsequent paragraphs of this report.
7.10 Firstly, a number of objections have made direct links between the proposal under consideration and similarities with hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’) that is used in the extraction of unconventional gas or oil from deep shales. It is important to note that the application does not propose the use of ‘fracking’ techniques and also the NYMNPA Committee report for the Ebberston Moor South well site includes a planning condition, should permission be granted, which would only permit the extraction of conventional natural gas by conventional drilling methods and would not permit drilling down to the Bowland-Hodder Shale horizons or hydraulic fracturing of any part of the gas reservoir resource. It should be noted that should NYCC members resolve to grant planning permission there would be no duplication of planning conditions specific to the Ebberston Moor South well site on a permission granted by NYCC as Minerals Planning Authority. The Ebberston Moor South well site falls within the NYMNPA administrative area and therefore, should NYMNPA grant permission, it would be within their remit to include planning controls in respect of matters such as injection rates, extraction quantity and methods, removal of above ground well site structures and site restoration etc). 7.11 A number of objections have raised concerns about risks from pollution. In considering such objections it is important to note that planning and other regulatory regimes are separate, but complementary. The planning system controls the development and use of land in the public interest and, as stated in paragraphs 120 and 122 of the NPPF, this includes ensuring that new development is appropriate for its location taking account the effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution. The focus of the planning system is on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land and the impacts of those uses, rather than any control processes, health and safety issues or potential pollutants themselves where these are subject to approval under other regimes. The NPPF advises that local planning authorities should assume that these regimes will operate effectively. 7.12 There are several layers of regulation associated with the exploration and production of gas which, in addition to local planning authorities, involves the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency.
7.13 The Environment Agency’s Environmental Permits are issued under Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2012 (EPR) and the process requires the detailed technical investigations to examine the potential risks and the use of best available technology and best practice. In this instance the proposed development borehole would require a mining waste permit for the management of extractive wastes and a permit for the management of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) wastes NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/44
137
(such as produced water, sediments and scales) will also be required. The Environment Agency have advised that the development may also require a groundwater permit, an Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) permit, a groundwater investigation consent followed by a water abstraction licence and also a water discharge activity permit.
7.14 With regard to the produced water re-injection process, which is subject to the Environmental Permitting consenting regime, in line with the abovementioned NPPF policy it is not a planning authority’s role to duplicate the control of processes which the Environment Agency exercise. However, numerous objections were received in relation to the risks of the produced water re- injection process and the Planning Authority should be satisfied that such matters can be satisfactorily addressed. On this point the NYMNPA took the decision that in order to ensure the NYMNPA can “satisfy itself at a ‘high level’ that the hydrogeology concerns have been satisfactory addressed other than relying on the Environmental Permitting Regime” commissioned an independent hydrological and hydrogeological review of the project (‘AMEC Technical Note Application Review- Groundwater pollution and land stability’). The findings of the AMEC report are referred to in the following sections of the report.
Reinjection of produced water
7.15 At the EMS well site the applicant proposes the reinjection of the waste water produced from the gas producing strata (the Permian Kirkham Abbey Formation) into the Sherwood Sandstone Layer. All the produced water is highly saline and contains Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORMs) in its composition, along with other chemicals associated with drilling. The injection of water into the water already present in the Sherwood Sandstone would occur more than 35km from groundwater aquifers.
7.16 The objections from the anti fracking groups state a concern that the re- injection of the ‘produced water’ into different strata to that drilled for the gas reserve is based on a conceptual model and is a new technique untested onshore. The anti-fracking groups and individual objectors are concerned that with the large amount of water to be injected into the Sherwood Sandstone layer and the pressure of the injection when combined with the natural geology (faulting) indicates that there would be considerable risk of migration of produced waste water into aquifers (i.e. contamination of groundwater used for drinking water).
7.17 The applicant states that the diameter and construction of the existing borehole will physically limit the amount of water that can be injected into the Sherwood Sandstone to a maximum of 573m3/day (3,500bbl/day). In order to achieve higher rates of production and injection, it is also proposed to construct a second borehole to extract water from the KAF and inject it into the Sherwood Sandstone.
7.18 The applicant states that the “injection pressure will always be maintained below the material strength of the Sherwood Sandstone formation and
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/45
138
therefore below the pressure required to fracture or displace the rock. There is consequently a negligible risk of induced seismicity as a result of produced water injection”.
7.19 The NYMNPA, following consideration of the findings of the Independent Hydrogeological Report, stated in their Committee report to Members that the main issue “is the mismatch between the significant risk mitigation afforded by the limiting of water injection rates to 556m3/d and distance to the most relevant Helmsley-Filey fault against the applicants suggested possible maximum injection rate of 1344m3/d. In the absence of evidence to demonstrate that the upper 1344m3/d rate has the same or similar risk mitigation it is recommended that a planning condition be imposed to secure the risk mitigation”. Therefore, the NYMNPA Committee report included a planning condition which, if planning permission is granted by NYMNPA, would limit the daily produced water injection to a maximum of 556 m³/d at the Ebberston Moor South well site.
7.20 In terms of the risk of seismicity and in light of the planning condition referred to above the injection pressure would not exceed the fracture pressure and continuous monitoring would ensure pressures do not rise too high or too quickly. On this matter the NYMNPA Committee report concluded that officers were satisfied that “having regard to the suggested planning conditions and to the detailed protection of the various dimensions to the Environmental Permitting Regime, it is not considered that there are grounds to warrant a refusal of planning permission on hydrogeological grounds in respect of pollution and ground stability”.
Risk perceptions
7.21 The objections demonstrate that there are fears held by the public due to the nature and location of the development. The perceived risks largely relate to the proposed injection of produced water at the EMS well site into the Sherwood Sandstone. There are worse case scenarios and emergency events described in the objections such as well casing failure or groundwater migration affecting drinking water, seismic activity and the release of radioactive substances, toxic and explosive gases to the atmosphere. Such concerns held by the public may constitute a material planning consideration even if the actual risk is low.
7.22 However the actual risk has been quantified and assessed by the applicant’s groundwater consultant in the Environmental Statement which in turn has been verified by the independent AMEC hydrogeological report commissioned by the NYMNPA.
7.23 In brief the independent hydrogeological report found that having regard to the mitigation proposed, AMEC considers the applicant’s position that the potential ‘significant’ effects can be reduced to ‘not significant’ (including contamination of watercourses and aquifers which support public water supplies and induced seismicity) although it should be noted it is effective delivery of the mitigation which delivers the risk reduction.
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/46
139
7.24 It is considered that subject to planning controls in the form of conditions and the incorporation of the proposed mitigation (regulated by the Environment Agency permit) the actual risk to the environment and public is very low and, therefore, whilst the perceived risk is a material consideration, it should be afforded limited weight in the decision making process. Pipeline and the Source Protection Zone (SPZ2)
7.25 The Environment Agency initially raised concerns that the short section of pipeline which leads to the EMS well site would pass through the Source Protection Zone 2 (SPZ2) of the Corallian Limestone principle aquifer which feeds Scarborough’s drinking water. The Environment Agency stated that they would only permit pipelines to passes through SPZ2 if the applicant can demonstrate that their siting within these areas is unavoidable.
7.26 The applicant responded to the Environment Agency and stated that the existing well site is within the SPZ2 and there is an existing permission for a short stretch of pipeline westwards from the wellsite within SPZ2 for which the Environment Agency raised no objections subject to a number of conditions to protect the water environment. The applicant highlighted that in granting the permission the Secretary of State was satisfied that the development would not have an adverse impact upon the groundwater protection zone. The pipeline proposed as part of the application under consideration follows the route previously approved. Furthermore the applicant states that the Environmental Statement demonstrates that the construction and operation of the pipeline would not have any adverse impact upon the groundwater protection zone. The applicant concluded that given the existing wellsite is within SPZ2, any pipeline route to the site would need to cross part of the SPZ2, making the route therefore unavoidable. The Environment Agency has not raised any further concerns or objections and request the inclusion of conditions relating to groundwater protection and flood risk together with informative advice to the applicant. Community engagement
7.27 With regard to objections that are critical of the applicant’s pre-submission community engagement exercise it is evident that the applicant held a pre- submission public exhibition although the effectiveness is a matter disputed by the anti-fracking groups. However, whilst best practice at the national level in the PPG and local level in NYCC’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) encourages developers to engage with the public prior to submitting an application it is not a statutory requirement and no weight is to be afforded to such objections in the decision making process.
Devaluation of Property
7.28 A number of concerns have also been raised with regard to the potential negative impact of the development on the local housing market in terms of property prices. However, whilst a genuine concern to residents, the potential
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/47
140
adverse effect on property prices and land value is not a material planning consideration and is not afforded any weight in the decision making process. Land Resources
7.29 The proposed route of the pipeline corridor would affect a combination of land used for agricultural, forestry or access purposes. However the majority of the land affected by the pipeline corridor is in agricultural use which includes approximately 4km of the route considered to be ‘Best and Most Versatile’ agricultural land. Section 11 of the NPPF and Policy SP17 of the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013) seek to minimise the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land to new development. There are concerns that the development would be incompatible with Ryedale’s agricultural economy in terms of operation farms and productive capacity of farmland directly affected by the development both during and after construction. 7.30 The proposed development would impact upon a large stretch of agricultural land and therefore the land resource cannot be fully protected. However, due to the extent of the pipeline route and the rural location of the development in the Vale of Pickering, the proposed underground pipeline to link the Ebberston Moor South well site to KGS cannot be located elsewhere to avoid impacting upon agricultural land.
7.31 During pipe installation topsoil and subsoil would be stripped and stockpiled in rows along the edge of the construction working corridor to be distributed on completion of the construction activities. The trench would be backfilled with in excess of 1 metre of topsoil and subsoil to cover the pipe to avoid any modern farm machinery potentially striking the pipeline from above. Therefore soils would be retained at the construction site and re-used during the reinstatement of the agricultural land and associated drainage. The applicant has demonstrated that the installation of the pipeline could be managed to minimise the impact upon the agricultural land and the land reinstated so there is not an irreversible loss of agricultural land in accordance with the aforementioned national and local policy.
7.32 It is considered that the need for the development and specifically the requirement to bury the pipeline within the ground outweighs the temporary disruption to the use of the land resource and the development is in compliance with the guidance contained within the NPPF and Policy SP17 of the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013). Crossings and pipeline installation
7.33 The pipeline route would cross various features along its route including the Scheduled Monuments in its northern extent, the railway, the River Derwent and a number of roads. The applicant proposes the use of auger boring, directional drilling or alternative suitable installation techniques where appropriate to limit surface disturbance.
7.34 Auger boring involves a length of pipe being moved through the ground beneath the obstacle by an auger tool in the pipe which removes the spoil NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/48
141
from the face of the pipe. In contrast directional drilling would involve drilling the reception hole and then pulling the pipe through it. Once the pipe has reached the end of the crossing, it forms part of the permanent pipeline. These options would be used for the construction of the pipeline crossings rather than open cut techniques because they cause less surface disturbance.
7.35 The proposed development would cause short-term disruption to landowners but the proposed remediation scheme to return the land to farmland indicates that the pipeline can be accommodated without permanent loss of agricultural land. It is therefore considered that the development would not result in a significant adverse impact upon local agriculture and the rural economy and would not conflict with Section 3 of the NPPF.
7.36 In addition, where the proposed pipeline would cross existing high pressure pipelines, high voltage electricity or other third party services will be clearly identified by the owner of the service and hand excavated within the last metre on both sides. 7.37 The National Grid initially lodged a holding objection to the proposed development which will cross the National Grid High-Pressure Gas Pipeline (Feeder 06 Pickering to Burton Agnes). However following negotiations with the applicant in respect of their proposed crossing details the National Grid confirmed that their holding objection can be overcome by a condition requiring the applicant to enter into a Deed of Consent to protect National Grid assets. If planning permission is granted the requirement for a Deed of Consent can only be covered by an informative whereas a condition shall be included requiring the submission of detailed Method Statements and Risk Assessment to ensure that the development would not have an adverse impact upon National Grid infrastructure.
7.38 The proposed pipeline would pass under the York – Scarborough Railway line immediately north of KGS. Network Rail have not commented on the application although in line with the Network Rail requirements included in planning permission reference C3/13/01195/CPO it is considered prudent to include an informative on any grant of planning permission to cover the requirement for an easement to pass under the railway.
7.39 It is considered that the development would not have an unacceptable impact upon existing installations, infrastructure and features in the area and would not conflict with the NPPF or ‘saved’ policy 4/1(c) of the NYMLP (1997). Flood Risk and Drainage
7.40 The proposed pipeline would affect land adjacent to the River Derwent and its associated flood plain (Flood Zones 2 & 3 immediately to north and south of the river). Paragraph 103 of the NPPF states that “when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere”. The Environmental Statement includes a Flood Risk
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/49
142
Assessment which concludes that the proposal development would not exacerbate or add to the risk of flooding.
7.41 With regard to land drainage the applicant proposes that the drainage of the land crossed by the pipeline would be preserved. During construction, all drains severed by the trench digging operation would be identified and recorded and the most appropriate method of reinstatement discussed and agreed with the landowner. The applicant states that, if necessary, new lateral and header drains will be laid to outfalls to replace drains rendered inoperative by the pipeline.
7.42 The fields affected by the pipeline route south of the A170 that are located within Flood Zone 1 are kept free of flooding by the network of drains and dikes that cross the area. The applicant highlights that these watercourses must be maintained to avoid groundwater levels rising and causing floods. To the south of the railway sands and gravels form a minor aquifer in the superficial deposits.
7.43 The objector’s hydrogeological report states that there is the potential for the pipeline ditch to intercept the shallow water table south of the A170, in which case there may be a requirement to dewater the ditch during construction activities.
7.44 The applicant’s proposals state that to ensure dewatering of sections of the pipeline ditch the water course crossings will be flumed with approved designs prior to commencement of construction and the water flow would not be interrupted or diverted. This would involve pipes laid within the watercourse over a length greater that the maximum crossing of construction traffic, a ‘terram’ or similar fabric layer and granular fill material deposited to a level to match the surrounding ground level. Upon completion of construction the materials would be removed and the watercourse reinstated.
7.45 The dewatering would be undertaken by either excavation sump and pump through filtration system into the existing watercourse or by the ‘well point system’ which is standard temporary method for controlling water ingress and would only cause temporary water derogation. The dewatering would be design for minimal disruption and the applicant has confirmed that the pipeline construction would take place during summer when the water tale is at its lowest. All dewatering activities would be subject to Environment Agency and Water Drainage Board approval prior to construction. The adverse impacts caused by any require dewatering would be short term and localized and mitigation measures are to be incorporated to reduce the impacts.
7.46 In addition, in compliance with Policy SP17 of the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013), Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) would be used to reduce flood risk, improve water quality, assist groundwater recharge whilst also providing amenity and wildlife benefits. The Environment Agency has raised no objections to the development subject to the inclusion of specific flood risk conditions. It is considered that the development would not increase flood risk within the River Derwent flood plains nor have an adverse impact
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/50
143
upon the water environment and the development is in compliance with the guidance contained within the NPPF, ‘saved’ Policy 4/10 and 4/14 of the NYMLP (1997) and Policy SP17 of the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013).
Landscape and Visual Impact
7.47 The Environmental Statement includes a full Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) and a Landscape Strategy Plan. The majority of the pipeline route within North Yorkshire is through low-lying arable farmland in the Vale of Pickering.
7.48 During construction the pipeline corridor would have a 30 metre working width. The elements of the construction works that would have the most significant visual effect (albeit temporary) would be the presence and movements of plant and vehicles, the site compound, soil stripping and material storage during the installation of the pipeline. However the pipeline construction activity in the working corridor would be a moving event; activity remaining in one location for a relatively short period.
7.49 There would be localised adverse visual impacts during construction and due to the topography of the landscape in the Vale of Pickering the temporary disturbance along the route of the pipeline would be potentially visible from further afield. The County Council’s Principal Landscape Architect acknowledges that there could be views from public rights of way and some residential properties during construction. It is considered that temporary screening would not be required in this instance given the mobile nature of the pipeline construction corridor and views of the construction corridor from roads within the Vale of Pickering would be generally screened by intervening hedgerows.
7.50 The County Council’s Principal Landscape Architect has acknowledged that in terms of the potential for cumulative landscape effects the current application under consideration is preferred scheme as there is clear benefit in a combined development as opposed to the construction of the two previously consented routes.
7.51 The Landscape Strategy Plan for the development identifies the existing planting to be retained, removed, and proposed. The proposed landscaping works would involve ground modelling works associated with felling of woodland. In addition the works would include soil preparation, tree and vegetation planting and seeding once the pipeline has been constructed. 7.52 The pipeline working corridor would run parallel to a plantation of trees (Avenue Plantation at Knapton Lodge) and it is important that root protection areas are established and that trees are protected and avoided during construction. It is proposed that conditions are imposed should any grant of planning permission be forthcoming to ensure that work takes account of the potential for damage to existing planting adjacent to the pipeline route.
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/51
144
7.53 The proposed development includes plans to restore the agricultural landscape, through which the pipeline route passes once the pipeline has been completed to an equivalent quality to that prior to construction. This would include the reinstatement of hedgerows and field boundaries immediately following construction. A planning condition could be imposed should a grant of planning permission be forthcoming to secure the implementation of proposals for landscape mitigation.
7.54 With regard to the proposed works within the existing KGS to install a new gas reception module adjacent to the existing gas reception infrastructure it is considered that in light of the existing mature vegetation on the site perimeter with a significant canopy cover will ensure there is no landscape or visual impact.
7.55 The County Council’s Principal Landscape Architect has not raised any concerns about residual impacts on amenity, views or landscape character within the Vale of Pickering. A Landscape Strategy has been developed which would include replacement planting which would aim to enhance and complement the local landscape character. It is considered that whilst there would be temporary disturbance within the landscape during construction the development, once complete, would be accommodated with the rural landscape and there would be minimal landscape and visual impact in the long term. It is considered that the development would not have an unacceptable impact upon the landscape character of the area nor visual amenity and complies with the NPPF, ‘saved’ policies 4/1 and 4/14 of the NYMLP (1997) and policies SP13, SP16 and SP20 of the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013). Local Amenity
7.56 The route of the pipeline working corridor would pass isolated residential properties however the construction activities would be mobile within the working corridor and any impacts would not be ‘fixed’ in one location during construction (the working corridor would be a moving event). The District EHO has highlighted that during pipeline construction noise and dust are potential issues for the nearby sensitive receptors which, at the closest point, stand approximately 100 metres from the pipeline corridor. However the EHO acknowledges that “the construction of the pipeline will be transitory and limited in duration with respect to any single noise receptor”. The EHO does not anticipate any undue disturbance to sensitive receptors and is satisfied that any potential for noise disturbance during the pipeline construction could be adequately controlled by restricting the hours of work during construction which would be covered by the CEMP. There would be no odour issues associated with the installation of the pipeline. With regard to vibration it is not anticipated that the occupants of residential properties would be disturbed or damage caused due to the separation distance from the pipeline construction machinery. A planning condition requiring the approval of the CEMP could be imposed should any grant of planning permission be forthcoming. With regard to the proposed works in the National Park at the existing Ebberston Moor South well site the District Council (Planning & Environmental Health) has
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/52
145
requested the inclusion of conditions requiring an odour management plan, restrictions on the method of drilling for the gas (conventional extraction) and has also set noise limits and requirements for noise monitoring for the well site. As these matters fall within the NYMNPA administrative area those conditions are not required to be duplicated on any planning permission granted by NYCC for the development.
7.57 With regard to the potential for light pollution security lighting is proposed at the construction compound. However the applicant states that steps would be taken to minimise upward and outward light pollution. In addition, the Applicant would ensure that only the minimum area would be lit, for the minimum period of time. The lighting would correspond with the working hours which could also be restricted by condition. In addition a condition could be included to ensure the prior approval of the lighting scheme prior to the commencement of development should Members be minded to resolve to grant planning permission. 7.58 For these reasons, it is considered that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on local amenity and complies with the NPPF, ‘saved’ policies 4/1 and 4/14 of the NYMLP (1997) and policies SP17 and SP20 of the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013). Traffic and Transportation
7.59 The Environmental Statement indicates that the pipeline would be constructed over a 23-week period with an anticipated 18 HGV movements per day associated with the pipeline installation. The applicant has confirmed that delivery and construction hours would be between 07:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday and 07:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays.
7.60 The application is accompanied by a detailed traffic and transportation assessment which includes a traffic management plan including details of proposed access arrangements to the pipeline route off the A170 and B1258 Malton Road and from Marishes Lane and Malton Lane. The applicant states that the vehicular access points to the pipeline working corridor would be near to, but not necessarily at, the point where the line of the pipeline crosses a road and therefore the applicant proposes to use existing field entry points. The applicant also proposes highways measures to include pre-entry road surveys, traffic light controls where appropriate, and advance warning signs erected either side of the access point, which would be chosen to ensure adequate sight lines, and the entrance design would enable unsupervised safe access and egress.
7.61 The Highway Authority confirmed that there are no highway objections to this proposal subject to conditions being attached to any permission granted to cover the construction of accesses, precautions to prevent the deposit of mud on the highway, a highway condition survey, on-site parking and storage of materials, the prior approval and construction of off site highway improvement works, a restriction on access via the A170 to avoid weekends and Bank Holidays, a construction traffic environmental management plan and an informative to protect public rights of ways in the area. NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/53
146
7.62 With regard to level crossings in the area the applicant has confirmed that there is no intention for any general use of crossings by construction traffic and private although any exceptions to this, which may include movement of machinery that might need to cross the railway from one section of the pipeline to the other, will be under the direct supervision of a Network Rail linesman. This requirement can be detailed in an informative which would be attached to any grant of planning permission. The vehicle routing and details of any potential requirement for passage over a railway crossing could be included in the construction traffic management plan to be secured by condition should planning permission be granted. In light of the above it is not anticipated that the traffic arising from the pipeline construction period would have an adverse impact upon Network Rail infrastructure or the safe operation of the railway in the area.
7.63 Once the construction phase is complete, there will be minimal traffic relating to the operation of the development. It is not anticipated that the construction traffic would cause any disturbance at unreasonable hours. It is considered that the bulk transport of material by road is necessary given that other nonroad transportation is not feasible in this locality and furthermore the traffic generated will not have an unacceptable impact on the local community and complies with the NPPF, ‘saved’ Policy 4/13 of the NYMLP (1997) and Policy SP20 of the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013). Public Access
7.64 There are a number of Public Rights of Way affected by the proposed pipeline route. The applicant has identified a number of PRoWs in their ES which are either affected by the construction work by virtue of being a nearby visual receptor or directly impacted by the route of the pipeline construction corridor.
7.65 The supporting text for ‘saved’ Policy 4/15 contained within the NYMLP (1997) highlights that the public rights of way network is an important means of accessing and enjoying the countryside. It is therefore important that this network and the public using it are protected from mineral-related development. The policy indicates that operators will be required to protect existing users and to provide acceptable alternative arrangements with a measure of segregation from mineral activities.
7.66 It is proposed that the impact on footpath users during construction would be mitigated through implementing footpath diversion orders for the duration of the works. These matters could be covered by the inclusion of conditions and informatives on any permission granted for the development.
7.67 Any potential detrimental effect upon the enjoyment of the use of the network of footpaths and bridleways in the area would be on a temporary basis during the construction period after which existing routes would be reinstated. It is considered that subject to the temporary closure/diversion of footpaths and bridleways affected by the pipeline installation the development would not conflict with the NPPF, ‘saved’ Policy 4/15 of the North Yorkshire Minerals
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/54
147
Local Plan (1997) or policies SP15 and SP20 of the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013). The Historic Environment
7.68 The Environmental Statement has highlighted that archaeology from the prehistoric to the post-medieval periods is present within the assessment area and the scheme as a whole would impact upon Scheduled Monuments of National Importance.
7.69 English Heritage has acknowledged the impacts of the development upon Scheduled Monuments of National Importance and the wider landscape, which is of considerable archaeological importance. English Heritage have highlighted that the area is significant for its extensive and highly visible earthwork remains of the prehistoric period, most notably the dyke systems and groups of burial mounds. English Heritage initially stated that the application be deferred to permit the compilation and implementation of an agreed scheme of assessment of the archaeological potential of the application site and thereafter the creation of an agreed mitigation strategy.
7.70 However, following further discussions between the applicant, English Heritage, NYMNPA and the County Archaeologist, it was accepted that there is not sufficient new archaeological evidence to merit an objection and that an archaeological condition would be appropriate should the application be approved.
7.71 The archaeological monitoring and recording arrangements proposed and secured by condition would ensure the development would have negligible impacts on archaeology. It is considered that the development would have ‘less than substantial harm’ (paragraph 134 of NPPF) and the physical impact can be mitigated through the implementation of directional drilling beneath the Scheduled Monument and by securing an agreed archaeological mitigation strategy. Therefore an informative could be included to advise the applicant of the requirement for Scheduled Monument Consent before work on site commences and also a condition requiring that a comprehensive Written Scheme of Investigation for the archaeological strategy is agreed. This approach would allow for the development of a strategy for mitigation in accordance with Section 12 of the NPPF.
7.72 A section of the proposed pipeline construction corridor would run parallel to the Grade II listed property at Knapton Lodge which stands approximately 100 metres west of the pipeline corridor and whilst not physical affecting the building it could be considered to affect its setting. The construction activities would be a temporary feature in the landscape and would not be located adjacent to Knapton Lodge for any significant length of time. Furthermore the applicant has confirmed that the construction methods will take account of root protection requirements to ensure the development does not undermine the established plantation of trees to the east of the property (‘Avenue Plantation’). Upon completion of the pipeline installation it is not anticipated
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/55
148
that the development would have any long term impact upon the setting of the Grade II listed property.
7.73 The existing plantation to the east of the property would provide a visual and physical buffer between the pipeline construction corridor and the Grade II listed Knapton Lodge. It is therefore considered that as a result of the separation distance and the intervening planting the proposed development would cause less than substantial harm to the heritage asset. Furthermore the pipeline installation, once complete, would not give rise to material harm to the setting of Knapton Lodge and the development would not conflict with the guidance in Section 12 of the NPPF. Habitats and Nature Conservation
7.74 The proposed pipeline would run underneath the River Derwent, approximately 6km upstream from the River Derwent Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The pipeline crossing at the River Derwent follows the alignment which was approved in April 2014 (permission ref. C3/13/01195/CPO). However, there are objections that have highlighted concerns that the pipeline crossing of the River Derwent would adversely affect nature conversation and protected species. Due to the nature of the development there is potential that drilling activities underneath the river during construction could result in increased sedimentation of the designated section of river and impact upon the fish populations for which the river is designated (also a SSSI). As the competent Authority (North Yorkshire County Council) a required to undertake a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) of the proposed development due to the potential for likely significant effects on a European site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects).
7.75 The County Ecologist has considered applicant’s ‘Report to Inform Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) Screening’ contained with the Environmental Statement. The report provides information on the type of drilling proposed to be undertaken under the River Derwent, the depth of drilling, impacts on underlying geomorphology and the distance from the river where trenching would stop and directional drilling would begin. The applicant proposes non open-cut horizontal directional drilling techniques to construct the pipeline beneath the River Derwent to minimise disturbance to the watercourse and river habitats. This technique is a non-intrusive and trenchless method of installing underground pipes, conduits and cables in a shallow arc along a prescribed bore path by using a surface launched drilling rig. The entry and exit pits would be outside of the flood plains so to minimize any possible effect on the River Derwent.
7.76 The County Ecologist has completed a stage 1 HRA screening assessment which concluded that there will be no significant impacts on the River Derwent SAC. This conclusion is in line with the Natural England advice that “the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on any European site, and can therefore be screened out from any requirement for further assessment”.
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/56
149
7.77 With regard to non-designated habitats the County Council’s Ecologist notes that the proposed pipeline working corridor would affect largely arable land of low nature conservation value and woodland blocks and is satisfied that the potential impacts of the proposed works would not be significant. Protected Species & Biodiversity
7.78 The Environmental Statement indicates that the likely ecological implications are limited to potential impacts on breeding birds, bats, badger, water vole and reptiles and the applicant proposes to set out all the necessary steps to mitigate ecological impacts to an acceptable level during the construction phase.
7.79 The County Council’s Ecologist is satisfied that the development would not have a significant ecological impact subject to the inclusion of conditions requiring the protection of retained trees and tree groups (for bats), updated pre-commencement species surveys and the implementation of habitat restoration plans.
7.80 With regard to ecological enhancement, paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that “opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged”. The County Council’s Ecologist has requested that the applicant considers the inclusion of ecological enhancements as a part of the scheme. In this case, potential enhancement measures could include increasing the botanical diversity of impacted ditches, creating species-rich hedgerows in appropriate areas and erecting bat and bird boxes. This is capable of being secured by planning condition if planning permission is granted.
7.81 There are no statutory protected sites (SSSI SPA/SAC, RAMSAR sites) or local designations (SINCs) that would be impacted by the proposed development. The County Council’s Ecologist has no objections to the proposed development subject to the imposition of the aforementioned conditions and it is considered that there would be no significant adverse impact on any statutory protected sites or on any locally designated SINCs. The development is therefore considered to be in compliance with the NPPF and would not conflict with ‘saved’ Policy 4/6A of the NYMLP (1997) or Policy SP14 of the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013). Employment
7.82 The proposed development would create approximately 50 direct jobs during the construction phase and once operational would create three jobs for the applicant’s employees relating to the management of operations at the site and site management along with indirect jobs. In addition the development, which would support the generation of power at KGS for up to 15 years, would help safeguard the employment of the 23 existing employees at KGS.
7.83 The development would beneficial effect on employment and it is considered that the development would have a positive impact upon the local economy
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/57
150
through the generation of local employment opportunities and economic activity which is supported in national planning policy in the NPPF. 8.0 Conclusion
8.1 The proposed development would effectively combine elements of the two extant planning permissions (unimplemented), namely the Ryedale Gas project (Moorland Energy) and the EMA-Knapton gas pipeline (Third Energy). The implementation of the proposed development would avoid duplication and would utilise existing infrastructure at both the EMS well site and KGS. This is considered to be a significant material planning consideration in favour of the scheme.
8.2 Notwithstanding the resolution of the NYMNPA Planning Committee on 19 March 2015 to defer a decision, the officer recommendation, as contained in the report to members, concluded “that ‘exceptional circumstances’ apply to justify this form of major development in a National Park” and that “it has been reasonably demonstrated that there are no significant hydrogeological risks from the project to water pollution or land stability”. Furthermore there are no objections to the proposed development from any statutory consultees.
8.3 It is considered that the proposed development overall, is consistent with the aims of national planning policy and guidance, the ‘saved’ policies from the adopted North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan and ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’. The proposal would sustain energy supply and the contribution of mineral-related employment to the local economy and would not result in material harm to the landscape character nor have an unacceptable impact upon the environment and local amenity.
8.4 This report and any subsequent resolution by Members of the Committee, whilst making reference to the development proposal as a whole, are made only insofar as the part of the application which lies under the jurisdiction of the County Council as County Planning Authority. It is considered that there are no material planning considerations to warrant the refusal of this application for natural gas production and water re-injection at the existing borehole at the Ebberston Moor South well site; the construction and drilling of a second borehole for water production and re-injection; the construction of a 13.9km long 12` diameter steel underground pipeline from Ebberston Moor South well site to transfer natural gas to the Knapton Generating Station and installation of a new gas reception module at the Generating Station.
9.0 Recommendation
9.1 For the following reasons: i) The development is in accordance with the ‘saved’ policies of the North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan (1997), the policies of the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013) and overall is consistent with the NPPF (2012);
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/58
151
ii) The proposal does not conflict with the abovementioned policies as it is considered that the existing highway network is capable of handling the volume of traffic generated by the development, the visual impact of the proposed development can be mitigated through condition, the environmental impacts of the proposed development can be controlled, neighbouring residential properties will not be adversely affected and there are no other material considerations indicating a refusal in the public interest;
iii) The imposition of planning conditions will further limit the impact of the development on the environment, residential amenity and the transport network; and
iv) Having taken into account all the environmental information submitted as part of this planning application included within the Environmental Statement
That, PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
Conditions
1. The development to which this permission relates must be implemented no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this Decision Notice.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the application details dated 8 August 2014 and the Environmental Statement dated August 2014 and the ‘Approved Documents’ as listed on the Decision Notice and the following conditions which at all times shall take precedence.
3. Tree protection measures as set out in BS5837- 2012 ‘Trees in relation to construction’ shall be provided for retained trees adjacent to the pipeline corridor prior to the development hereby approved being commenced and shall thereafter be retained throughout the lifetime of the construction works. During construction there shall be no parking of vehicles, siting of compounds or materials stored within the vicinity of any of the retained mature trees or hedgerows adjacent to the application site.
4. No development shall take place within the application area until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the County Planning Authority.
5. The details submitted in pursuance of Condition 4 shall be preceded by the submission to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing, and subsequent implementation, of a scheme of archaeological investigation to provide for: (i) The proper identification and evaluation of the extent, character and significance of archaeological remains within the application area; (ii) an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/59
152
archaeological significance of the remains; This shall be followed by the submission of: (iii) proposals for the preservation in situ, or for the investigation, recording and recovery of archaeological remains and the analysis and publishing of the findings, it being understood that there shall be a presumption in favour of their preservation in situ wherever feasible; These proposals shall be approved by the County Planning Authority in writing, and implemented before any development authorised by this permission shall commence.
6. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, no works are to be undertaken which may create an obstruction, either permanent or temporary, to the Public Rights of Way adjacent to the proposed development nor to the route of the claimed Public Right of Way until all works connected with the Temporary Closure Orders have been carried out to the satisfaction of the County Highways Authority and the appropriate notices have been issued. Once the works are complete the surfaces of the affected Public Rights of Way shall be reinstated to the same condition as they were prior to the works commencing on site.
7. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures recommended for protected species as set out in Chapter 6 of the submitted Environmental Statement (ES) dated August 2014.
8. Prior to the commencement of development surveys for badger and water vole (as referred to in Chapter 6 of the submitted Environmental Statement (ES) dated August 2014) shall be completed to ensure that any presence can be taken into consideration in line with the relevant legislation. These surveys must be undertaken at the appropriate time of year by a suitably qualified ecologist and a report detailing changes in the status of these species and any additional mitigation measures that may be required shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for written approval.
9. Prior to the commencement of development a detailed reptile mitigation method statement shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. The development shall then proceed only in strict accordance with the approved scheme.
10. Prior to the commencement of development a habitat restoration scheme detailing the type and source of materials to be used, methodologies to be utilised, timing of the works and details of initial aftercare and longer-term maintenance shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. The development shall then proceed only in strict accordance with the approved scheme.
11. Prior to the commencement of development details of biodiversity enhancement features to be incorporated in the detailed design of the project shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. The development shall then proceed only in strict accordance with the approved scheme.
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/60
153
12. Prior to the commencement of any development a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. This plan shall detail the following:
1. An assessment of the risks posed to groundwater quality during the construction phase. 2. The implementation of mitigation measures designed to protect groundwater 3. Details of the size, location and design of any site compounds, including how any potentially polluting materials will be stored to minimise the risk of pollution 4. No amount of fuel/oil greater than a 10 litres shall be stored in a portable container 5. All other fuel/oil to be stored in proprietary tanks with integral bunding with a capacity equal to not less than 110% of the capacity of the tank. Such tanks shall be not more than 2 years old at the time of installation on site and shall be located on a bunded, impervious hardstanding with a capacity of not less than 110% of the largest tank or largest combined volume of connected tanks. 6. All replenishment of tanks and containers and all refuelling of vehicles, plant and equipment shall take place within that bunded, impervious hardstanding. 7. Outside the normal hours of operation of the site on which they are deployed, all vehicles and plant operating shall be parked or stored on bunded, impervious hardstandings with a capacity not less than 110% of the fuel/oil that can be stored in the storage facilities, vehicles, plant or machinery that they are intended to accommodate. 8. Details of a protocol to deal with any pollution that may occur during the course of construction. 9. Details of how the requirements of the approved plan will be disseminated to all relevant staff/contractors throughout the construction period.
The development shall then proceed only in strict accordance with the approved plan.
13. With the exception of the initial site establishment phase, no construction work or movement of HGVs to and from the site shall take place unless between the following times: - Monday to Friday: 07.00 - 18.00 Saturdays: 07.00 - 13.00
No construction work or movement of HGVs to and from the site shall take place on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays. The applicant shall make provision for notifying in writing the County Planning Authority and neighbouring residents 5 days in advance of any night time working within the application site.
14. There must be no raising of ground levels in the flood plain. All excess spoil
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/61
154
arising from the works must be removed from the floodplain. Any spoil stockpiles which are to be stored within the flood plain should be done so in broken heaps, positioned parallel to the flood flow.
15. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a scheme of crime prevention measures to be implemented during the construction period shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of arrangements for site security (including plant and machinery) and material storage during the construction period. Thereafter the construction period shall proceed in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.
16. All soils excavated to allow for the installation of the pipeline shall be retained in stockpiles within the application site and shall be used during the reinstatement of the surface of the land following the installation of the pipeline. Topsoil and subsoil shall be stored separately. During soil movement and handling operations, machinery shall be routed to avoid the compaction of soils.
17. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a detailed landscape strategy and maintenance programme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The development shall then proceed only in strict accordance with the approved scheme.
18. No external lighting associated with the development hereby approved shall be installed in the application site until details of the lighting and the times of their illumination have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and shall be maintained in working order.
19. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a detailed Method Statements and Risk Assessment detailing how the Applicant intends to cross the National Grid High-Pressure Gas Pipeline (Feeder 06 Pickering to Burton Agnes) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the National Grid. The development shall then proceed only in strict accordance with the approved schemes.
20. Prior to each phase of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority) no development shall take place until a scheme that includes the following components shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the County Planning Authority:
1. Conduct a water features survey along the route of the pipeline and to an appropriate distance beyond to determine any water features, including springs, boreholes and water courses, that may be impacted by the earth works and pipeline. 2. Treatment and removal of suspended solids from surface water run-off during construction NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/62
155
3. Disposal of foul drainage and surface water 4. Seal roof drainage at ground level 5. Storage of materials 6. Storage of chemicals 7. Storage of oil 8. Storage of hazardous materials 9. Pressure testing of the pipeline 10. Method of working 11. Phasing of development 12. Maintenance and after-care of the site 13. Provision of road and wheel cleaning facilities 14. Proposed scheme for monitoring
Any such scheme shall be supported, where necessary, by detailed calculations; include a maintenance programme; and establish current and future ownership of the facilities to be provided. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or any details as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the County Planning Authority.
21. Notwithstanding the details submitted for the proposed development of the site, there shall be no: 1. de-watering of the site; 2. interruptions to ground or surface water flows; without the written consent of the County Planning Authority
22. There shall be no movement by construction or other vehicles between the highway and the application site (except for the purposes of constructing the initial site access) until that part of the access(es) extending 15 metres into the site from the carriageway of the existing highway has been made up and surfaced in accordance with the approved details and the published Specification of the Highway Authority. All works shall accord with the approved details unless otherwise approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Any damage during use of the access until the completion of all the permanent works shall be repaired immediately. Before the development is first brought into use the highway verge/footway shall be fully reinstated in accordance with the scheme approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.
23. There shall be no access or egress by any vehicles between the highway and the application site until details of the precautions to be taken to prevent the deposit of mud, grit and dirt on public highways by vehicles travelling to and from the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. These facilities shall include the provision of wheel washing facilities where considered necessary by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. These precautions shall be made available before any excavation or depositing of material in connection with the construction commences on the site and be kept available and in full working order and used until such time as the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority agrees in writing to their withdrawal. NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/63
156
24. There shall be no HGVs brought onto the site until a survey recording the condition of the highway listed below have been carried out in a manner approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Within one month of the commencement of gas production from the existing wellsite, or any time prior to that date which shall have been agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority, the applicant shall carry out a second survey recording the condition of the same highways. The survey shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval and thereafter any works reasonably required in order to rectify any damage to the public highway resulting from traffic arising from the construction, installation and erection of any infrastructure required for the commencement of gas production from the existing wellsite including pipeline installation shall be completed to the satisfaction of the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. A further survey shall be undertaken by the applicant within one month of the completion of decommissioning and restoration works to the site (if applicable) in the manner as described above. a) Ebberston / Ebberston Common Lane – unclassified road, whole length b) A170 High Street – twenty metres east and west of the junction with Ebberston Lane c) Wilton Ings Lane – from the junction of the B1415 to the pipeline crossing d) Marishes Lane – from the junction of the B1258 to the pipeline crossing. e) Link road between B1258 and A170 Snainton
25. There shall be no establishment of a site compound, site clearance, demolition, excavation or depositing of material in connection with the construction on the site until proposals have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority for the provision of: (i) on-site parking capable of accommodating all staff and sub-contractors vehicles clear of the public highway (ii) on-site materials storage area capable of accommodating all materials required for the operation of the site.
The approved areas shall be kept available for their intended use at all times that construction works are in operation. No vehicles associated with on-site construction works shall be parked on the public highway or outside the application site.
26. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a Construction Traffic Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Construction Traffic Environment Management Plan shall identify the measures and procedures that will be implemented to manage vehicle access to and from the site including the proposed routing to be used by HCV traffic. The routes to be used by HCV construction traffic shall be as described in the appropriate sections of the submitted Environmental Statement but with the amendment that all HCV traffic shall be limited to 25 miles per hour along the whole length of Ebberston Common Lane, Malton Lane and Marishes Lane. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority, once approved NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/64
157
the Construction Traffic Environmental Management Plan shall be adhered to at all times and until the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority agree in writing that its operation can be withdrawn.
27. There shall be no excavation or other groundworks, except for investigative works, or the depositing of material on the site in connection with the construction of the access road or building(s) or other works until:
(i) The details of the following off site required highway improvement works, works listed below have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority: a. Provision of a vehicle holding area on Penniston Lane b. Provision of temporary measures at the bends on Malton Lane to allow HGV movements c. Carriageway haunching and patch repairs on Malton Lane.
(ii) A programme for the completion of the proposed works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority.
28. There shall be no excavation or other groundworks, except for investigative works, or the depositing of material on the site until the following highway works have been constructed in accordance with the details approved in writing by the County Planning Authority under condition number 27: a. Provison of a vehicle holding area on Penniston Lane b. Provision of temporary measures at the bends on Malton Lane to allow HGV movements c. Carriageway haunching on Malton Lane.
29. There shall be no vehicles permitted to arrive, depart, be loaded or unloaded via the A170 during weekends or on a Bank Holiday.
30. Prior to each phase of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority), no development shall take place until a scheme that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the County Planning Authority:
1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: all previous uses; potential contaminants associated with those uses; a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors; potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. 2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. 3. The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/65
158
giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. 4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
31. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the County Planning Authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.
32. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details describing the means of protecting the three public water supply pipelines (listed within the YW consultation response dated 13 October 2014) that are laid within the development boundary have been submitted to and approved by the County Planning Authority and it has been proven to the satisfaction of the County Planning Authority that the protection works have been fully and properly implemented. The details shall include protective measures during the construction phase of the development and the means by which future access for repair and maintenance of the pipes is assured.
Reasons
1. To comply with Section 91 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved application details.
3. To protect retained trees and hedgerows along the pipeline corridor.
4 & 5. The site is of archaeological interest.
6. To protect public rights of access in the area.
7 - 11. In the interests of protecting and enhancing the ecological value of the site.
12. In order to enable the County Planning Authority to retain control over the scale of activity at the site.
13. In the interests of highway safety and the general amenity of the area.
14. To ensure that there is no loss of flood storage, and existing flood flow routes
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/66
159
are not altered, thereby ensuring that flood risk to others is not increased and to allow for the free passage of any possible future flood flows.
15. In the interests of site security during construction and the prevention of crime.
16. To protect soil resources.
17. In the interests of protecting and enhancing the landscape character of the area.
18. In the interests of the general amenity of the area.
19. To protect National Grid pipelines and infrastructure.
20. To protect the water environment.
21. To manage risk of obstruction to groundwater flow
22. In the interests of both vehicle and pedestrian safety and the visual amenity of the area.
23. To ensure that no mud or other debris is deposited on the carriageway in the interests of highway safety.
24. In the interests of highway safety and the general amenity of the area.
25. To provide for appropriate on-site vehicle parking and storage facilities, in the interests of highway safety and the general amenity of the area.
26. To avoid interference with the free flow of traffic and to secure safe and appropriate access and egress to the site in the interests of safety and convenience of highway users and the amenity of the area.
27. To ensure that the details are satisfactory in the interests of the safety and convenience of highway users.
28. In the interests of the safety and convenience of highway users.
29. To avoid conflict with vulnerable road users.
30. Protection of the water environment is a material planning consideration and new development should not harm the water environment. This proposal poses a threat to water quality because it crosses through Source Protection Zone 2 of Scarborough’s drinking water supply and through a principal and secondary aquifer.
31. Protection of the water environment is a material planning consideration and new development should not harm the water environment. This proposal poses a threat to water quality because it crosses through Source Protection Zone 2 of Scarborough’s drinking water supply and through a principal and secondary NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/67
160
aquifer.
32. In order to protect the public water supply network.
Informatives
Condition 22- Access Construction- You are advised that a separate licence will be required from the Local Highway Authority in order to allow any works in the adopted highway to be carried out. The ‘Specification for Housing and Industrial Estate Roads and Private Street Works’ published by North Yorkshire County Council, the Highway Authority, is available at the County Council’s offices. The local office of the Highway Authority will also be pleased to provide the detailed constructional specification referred to in this condition.
Condition 28- Section 278- There must be no works in the existing highway until an Agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 has been entered into between the Developer and the Highway Authority.
Public Rights of Way- Adjacent public rights of way No works are to be undertaken which will create an obstruction, either permanent or temporary, to the Public Right of Way adjacent to the proposed development. Applicants are advised to contact the County Council’s Access and Public Rights of team at County Hall, Northallerton via [email protected] to obtain up-to-date information regarding the line of the route of the way. The applicant should discuss with the Highway Authority any proposals for altering the route.
Cultural Heritage English Heritage advises the applicant that Scheduled Monument Consent shall be obtained prior to the commencement of work on site.
Protection of Yorkshire Water Apparatus The applicant is advised to refer to the list of water mains contained within the YW consultation response dated 13 October 2014. A minimum of 300mm clearance is required where new third party apparatus crosses any of the above mentioned water mains. The depth of the water mains is unknown and the developer must locate the mains on site before pipe laying commences. Any potential conflict between the water mains and the proposed pipeline should be notified in the first instance to: [email protected] who can also provide the developer with further information regarding the required pipe protection measures
National Grid Prior to crossing any National Grid pipeline/assets, with either pipelines, cables, construction traffic (Heavy loads, which require load protection for the pipeline) or other services the applicant is required to enter into a Deed of Consent with the National Grid.
Network Rail Pipeline route- An easement will be required to pass under the railway and the applicant is urged to consult with the Network Rail easements section to discuss requirements.
Construction traffic - The applicant is reminded of the need to inform Network Rail of their passage over the crossing (particularly slow and heavy vehicles), and the need to make good any damage to the surface caused by the passage of such vehicles.
Nesting Birds
Vegetation clearance work shall take place outside the main nesting season; approximately NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/68
161
the beginning of March to the end of August. - wherever possible. However, birds can occasionally nest at any time of year. If any work (including site clearance work), is likely to take place when birds may be nesting, either in any trees/shrubs/walls to be affected, or in any potentially suitable building, these parts of the site should be thoroughly checked by a qualified Ecologist prior to vegetation removal.
Environment Agency- Water Environment
Given the sensitivity of the water environment along the pipeline’s route and in the vicinity of the proposed gas production, it is important to be aware of the following informatives (which will be addressed in detail at the permitting stage): a) no oil-based drilling methods should be used in strata shallower than, and including, the Corallian Group aquifer. b) no oil-based drilling methods should be used in strata deeper than the Corallian Group aquifer unless all shallower strata are cased off and pressure tested to ensure no loss of drilling fluid into the shallower strata. c) details of the drilling muds must be agreed with the Environment Agency on submission of a drilling method statement and WR – 11 form, and mining waste permit. d) no potentially contaminating substances should be allowed to enter groundwater in strata shallower than, and including, the Corallian Group aquifer. e) any boreholes should be constructed in such a way so as to cause no contamination between, and including, any overlying drift deposits and Corallian Group aquifer. f) any boreholes should be constructed in such a way so as to cause no contamination between, and including, the Corallian Group aquifer and any underlying deposits. g) boreholes should be decommissioned according to Environment Agency guidelines in ‘Decommissioning Redundant Boreholes and Wells’ and best available technique. h) under Section 198 of the Water Resources Act 1991, British Geological Survey (Maclean Building, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, OX10 9BB) shall be informed of the intention to sink a well or borehole, and be sent a copy of all details of drilling logs i) under ‘The Borehole Sites and Operations Regulations 1995’ the HSE must be notified when drilling boreholes more than 30 metres deep into used or disused mining areas. The regulations define “mining area” as land within one kilometre in a horizontal or other direction of workings in a mine, or where a licence to mine for minerals has been granted.
Environment Agency- Regulatory advice to the applicant
Drilling a minerals borehole now requires a mining waste permit issued under Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2012 (EPR). Operations will require a mining waste permit for the management of extractive wastes which may include drill cuttings, spent drilling muds and drill fluids, flowback fluids, waste gases and any wastes left underground.
If the operation involves any kind of ‘well stimulation’ that produces oil or gas, then it is highly likely that a radioactive substances EPR permit for the management of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) wastes (such as produced water, sediments and scales) will also be required. This will include the re-injection or transfer of produced water which is found to be ‘in scope’.
Depending on the proposed activities and the local hydrogeology, operators may also need to consider applying for an EPR groundwater permit. The Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 make it an offence to cause or knowingly permit a groundwater activity unless authorised by an environmental permit which we will issue. A groundwater activity includes any discharge that will result in the input of pollutants to groundwater.
If you are planning to flare large quantities of gas, you may also be required to have an NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/69
162
Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) permit.
You will also need to notify us of your intention to construct or extend a boring for the purpose of searching for or extracting minerals using Form WR - 11 under the Water Resources Act 1991 (Section 199(1)). A drilling method statement should be submitted alongside the Form WR – 11 and any drilling should be carried out to this approved statement.
A reinjection borehole is proposed as part of this application. Third Energy already holds a permit for the injection borehole at Ebberston Moor A (Permit Number EPR/AB3593DU) As this permit applies to this specific location, if the location were to change, Third Energy would need to apply for a new permit.
A groundwater abstraction borehole is also proposed and this will require a groundwater investigation consent followed by a water abstraction licence if you plan to abstract more than 20 m3/day for your own use rather than purchasing water from a public water supply utility company,
A water discharge activity permit may be required if surface water run-off becomes polluted.
We strongly recommend that you contact us (the EA) for pre-application advice before submitting any permit applications.
Environment Agency- Rivers consent
Formal consent under the Water Resources Act 1991 will be required from for any main river watercourse crossings. Both permanent and temporary works will be required. It is noted that the applicant intends to use an appropriate directional drilling method. All watercourse crossings of no main rivers will likely require consent under the Land Drainage End 8
Act 1991 from either NYCC in their role as Lead Local Flood Authority or the relevant Internal Drainage Board. All works must be completed in accordance with PPAGE5.
Approved Documents
Ref. Date Title --- 8 August 2014 Application Form --- August 2014 Environmental Statement (including Technical Appendices & Figures) --- August 2014 Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary --- August 2014 Design & Access Statement --- August 2014 Planning and Sustainability Statement --- August 2014 Outline Safety Document P010 6 August 2014 Site Location Plan P011 6 August 2014 Application Site Boundary P012 8 August 2014 Gas Extraction Location Plan P101- P112 5 August 2014 Detailed Site Layout Sheets 1-12 P013 7 August 2014 Typical Indicative Pipeline Cross Section P25 19 Sept 2012 Indicative Section P_01 Rev A July 2014 Site Location Plan P_02 Rev A July 2014 Existing Site Plan P_03 Rev A July 2014 Existing Site Sections P_04 Rev A July 2014 Proposed Site Layout NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/70
163
P_05 Rev A July 2014 Proposed Sections Figure 8.5 March 2014 Proposed Traffic Control at Site Crossing of A170 Figure 8.7 --- Footpath Diversion south of Wilton Ings Lane Figure 8.8 --- Proposed Layby on Penniston Lane EMJV-EMS-PL-DRG- 14 May 2014 Knapton Generating Station- Revised Plot 003 Rev 1 Plan 3250-4005 Rev B --- Gas Reception Module
Statement of Compliance with Article 31 of the Town and Country Development Management Procedure Order 2012
In determining this planning application, the County Planning Authority has worked with the applicant adopting a positive and proactive manner. The County Council offers the opportunity for pre-application discussion on applications and the applicant, in this case, chose to take up this service. Proposals are assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework, Replacement Local Plan policies and Supplementary Planning Documents, which have been subject to proactive publicity and consultation prior to their adoption and are referred to in the reason for approval. During the course of the determination of this application, the applicant has been informed of the existence of all consultation responses and representations made in a timely manner which provided the applicant/agent with the opportunity to respond to any matters raised. The County Planning Authority has sought solutions to problems arising by liaising with consultees, considering other representations received and liaising with the applicant as necessary. Where appropriate, changes to the proposal were sought when the statutory determination timescale allowed.
D BOWE Corporate Director, Business and Environmental Services
Background Documents to this Report:
1. Planning Application Ref Number: C3/14/00970/CPO (NYCC ref no NY/2014/0275/ENV) registered as valid on 19 August 2014. Application documents can be found on the County Council's Online Planning Register by using the following web link: https://onlineplanningregister.northyorks.gov.uk/register/ 2. Consultation responses received. 3. Representations received.
Author of report: Alan Goforth
NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/71
164 73 Appendix 1- Application Site
commrep/73 165 74 Appendix 2- Constraints Plan
commrep/74 166 75 Appendix 3- Representations Plan
commrep/75 167
Appendix 4- Conceptual Model - Cross Section
168 77
Appendix 5- Typical Indicative Pipeline Cross Section
commrep/77 169
Appendix 6- Proposed Site Traffic Routes
170 79
Appendix 7- Proposed Site Traffic Route (north)
commrep/79 171 80
Appendix 8- Proposed Site Traffic Route (south)
commrep/80 172
Appendix 9- Proposed Traffic Control at Site Crossing of A170
173
Appendix D- Figure 3.1 Consented Pipeline Projects - Plan no. 23428P012
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/23 174
Appendix D continued– Figure 2.3 Application Site Boundary - Plan no. 23428P011
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/24 175
Appendix D continued– Figure 4.2 Ryedale Gas Project Red Line Boundary granted permission by the Secretary of State (2012)
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/25 176 ITEM 5
North Yorkshire County Council
Business and Environmental Services
Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee
20 October 2015
C8/2015/0447/CPO – Planning application for the purposes of the change of use of field and woodland area from agricultural to D1, for use as playing field and other outdoor activity associated with Saxton C of E Primary School, on land adjacent to Saxton C of E Primary School, Dam Lane, Saxton, Tadcaster, LS24 9QF, on behalf of the Governing Body of Saxton C of E Primary School (Selby District) (Cawood and Saxton Electoral Division)
Report of the Corporate Director – Business and Environmental Services
1.0 Purpose of Report
1.1 To determine a planning application for the change of use of field and woodland area from agricultural to D1, for use as playing field and other outdoor activity associated with Saxton C of E Primary School, on land adjacent to Saxton C of E Primary School, Dam Lane, Saxton, Tadcaster, LS24 9QF, on behalf of The Governing Body of Saxton C of E Voluntary Controlled Primary School.
1.2 This application is subject to 31 objection(s) having been raised in respect of this proposal, from 29 members of the public, Saxton-cum-Scarthingwell with Lead Parish Council and from Save Saxton’s Green Belt. Therefore, the application reported to this Committee for determination. The grounds for the objections are detailed within paragraph 5.3 of this report.
2.0 Background
2.1 A plan showing the application site is attached to this Report.
2.2 Saxton Church of England Primary School is a small village primary school situated within Saxton, near Tadcaster. The school is located on the western edge of the village. The main school complex is set within a narrow confined site approximately 900 square metres in area which includes the main school building on the eastern side and a small tarmacadam playground immediately to the west. The school building is built onto or up to the northern and southern boundaries. The site perimeter is demarked by a 1.3 metre high stone wall which also runs the length of the footpath off Dam Lane and divides the playground from the existing playing field which is on land leased by the County Council.
2.2 The original school buildings consist of a mix of early 19th century “traditional” stone buildings (School Hall and Reception) with pitched slate roofs and flat roofed 20th century extensions in modern cavity wall construction with external buff brickwork. The school building has a footprint area of approximately 375 square metres (external measurement).
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/1
177
2.3 The land to the north, east and south of the school site comprises residential properties and the land further to the west is agricultural land and open countryside. The school occupies an elevated position in relation to the public highway and residential properties on Dam Lane to the north. The land immediately to the west of the school is a grassed field which is leased by North Yorkshire County Council and used as the school playing field (0.27 hectares). There is an existing field gate in the north-west corner of the playing field which provides access for maintenance and emergency vehicles.
2.4 There is no vehicular access to, or on-site parking at the school. As such staff vehicles currently park along Dam Lane. The main pedestrian access to the school is off Dam Lane to the north and the footpath leads north-south to the school playground and main school entrance on the west facing elevation of the existing building. This route is used by visitors, staff and pupils. The school also has an informal arrangement with All Saints church that allows visitors and the Early Years pupils to use the footpath which leads from Main Street in a westerly direction to the back of the school.
2.5 The school, which is Voluntary Controlled and of Church of England denomination, currently has 85 pupils on roll (age range 4-11). The pupils are taught as three classes in the main school building. Class 1 has children from Reception and Year 1, Class 2 has children in Years 2 and 3 and Class 3 has children in Years 4, 5 and 6. The applicant states that the children of the village make the highest proportion of the intake. From Saxton CE Primary School pupils would transfer to Sherburn High School, Tadcaster Grammar School, and other Secondary and Independent schools in the surrounding area.
Site Constraints
2.6 The proposed development site covers an area of approximately 0.53 hectares and is located within the Saxton Conservation Area and is approximately 65 metres west of the Grade I Listed Church of All Saints located immediately adjacent to the school site. The application site consists of approximately half of an existing agricultural field, used for the grazing of animals. The proposed development site is 105 metres from a Scheduled Ancient Monument which lies to the south-east (Saxton Castle: a motte and bailey castle with a later medieval manor house). A Registered Battlefield (Battle of Towton 29 March 1461- Part of the Wars of the Roses) is approximately 500 metres to the north of the proposed development site.
2.7 The site is in close proximity to the historic core of the village, a Scheduled Ancient Monument, a Grade I listed church and churchyard and within the hinterland of the Battle of Towton and as a result the proposed development site has high archaeological potential.
2.8 The proposed development site falls within the West Yorkshire Green Belt (the village is ‘washed over’) and outside of the ‘Development Limits’ for the village (within open countryside). The proposed development site is Grade 2 Agricultural Land Classification (‘Best and Most Versatile land’).
2.9 The nearest residential properties are those on Dam Lane to the north of the application site at a distance of approximately 15 metres.
2.10 There are no further constraints relevant to the determination of this planning application.
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 2
178
Planning History
2.11 The school has benefited from the grant of a number of planning consents. Most significantly however, it is noted that planning consent was granted in September 2002 (ref: C8/67/98A/PA) for the change of use of land from agricultural to a playing field. The land subject of this permission covers an area of approximately 0.27 hectares, and is located to the immediate east of the current application site. At the time of the grant of this consent it was noted that the school was a confined space within the ground of the church yard and as such, pupils had to travel elsewhere to undertake team games and physical education. As such, the change of use would provide a playing field for the school. Furthermore, it was considered that the development would not have an impact upon residential amenity or upon the open character of the West Yorkshire Green Belt. The land subject to this planning permission is presently used as playing field by the school.
2.12 In September 2008, planning consent was granted (ref: C8/67/98/PA) for the construction of a first floor extension over existing flat roof, rendering of existing brickworks and construction of a new porch and disabled access to the main entrance. In July 2010, planning consent was granted (ref: C8/67/98D/PA) for a single storey extension to the principal elevation incorporating a 1 metre high wall and ramped access, the installation of roof lights and the formation of a temporary access, load and parking area.
2.13 In February 2014, planning consent was sought (ref: NY/2014/0047/FUL) for the erection of a prefabricated classroom unit and associated landscape works to be sited on the schools existing playing field, adjacent to the application site. However, following discussions with the County Planning Authority it was noted that the application was to be put before the Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee with a recommendation of refusal and as such the application was withdrawn.
3.0 The proposal
3.1 Full planning permission is sought for the change of use of a field and woodland area from agricultural to D1, for use as playing field and other outdoor activity associated with the school. The applicant has confirmed that the use of this 5,300 square metre piece of land would be for the proposed use would supplement the schools existing outdoor space provision. The applicant has confirmed that this land would provide the school with an additional playing field as well as opportunities for outdoor learning and informal activities. The school has confirmed that the land will be used for:
Use as a further junior playing pitch; Habitats creation for field study and science; A school garden and growing area; A reflection area; Whole site activities; and Forest school activities within the woodland area.
3.2 In addition, the applicant has confirmed that the two separate playing fields will facilitate segregation of pupils of different ages and sizes; to reduce accidents that can happen when joint plays occurs. Furthermore, the applicant has confirmed that the additional playing field area will facilitate the use of the land by a sister school, Oldfield Primary. It was noted that Oldfield Primary school visits occur once a term and this puts strain on the current available space.
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 3
179
3.3 The application site is ‘L’ shaped in nature, as shown on the plan accompanying this report. The main part of the application site to the west of the existing playing field, is presently agricultural land whilst the smaller area to the south is an area of woodland. The application seeks to alter the use of the existing agricultural area to be used as an extension to the school playing field, whilst the smaller woodland area would remain as such to be used for outdoor learning. The woodland area would also be used as a habitat area, providing pupils the opportunities to study wildlife. The applicant considers that the additional space may also be used for extra-curricular activities and community uses, although no details on such uses has been provided. The applicant has noted that the existing agricultural land has not been used for the cultivation of crops for in excess of 10 years and, therefore, has made no contribution to agricultural production in the area for a considerable amount of time. As such, the applicant considers that the benefits of the proposal, outweighs the loss of agricultural land.
3.4 The applicant has confirmed that the proposed development will be beneficial for the school in the light of the inadequate size of the school’s internal teaching space generally (particularly one of the classrooms), and the higher than average proportion of children in the school that have special educational needs. In addition, an assessment undertaken by North Yorkshire County Council’s Children and Young People’s Services have found that the current playing field area is significantly below the minimum space for primary schools recommended in Building Bulletin 103. The current area of approximately 3,100 square metres, which includes the hard standing playground, is short of the recommended 4,907 square metres, based upon a calculation of the area of playing field space required for each student on the role with in the inclusion of a minimum area for primary schools. In the event that planning permission was granted for the proposed development, this would mean that the school benefitted from 8,400 square metres of outdoor play area.
3.5 There is no built development proposed as part of the planning application. The proposals do however include the erection of a post and rail timber fence along the length of the western boundary of the application site and also a new thorn hedge with trees, to separate the application site from the remainder of the field which will continue to be used for agriculture. The existing agricultural land will require scrub and weed clearance to enable the site to be grassed and used by the school, and also drainage works which will require ground disturbance works. It is noted that there are no works proposed to any of the existing trees or hedges around the site.
3.6 The application does not involve the creation of any new site access. If granted consent, gaps would be made in the existing school boundary fence to enable the free flow of children and access to the playing field and woodland area through the existing school site and playing fields.
3.7 In response to the consultation process and representations made by members of the public, the applicant produced a report detailing the ‘Very Special Circumstances’ as supporting information to accompany the planning application. The report provides an outline of the relevance of Chapter 9 (‘Protecting Green Belt Land’) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and comments upon recent case law relating to changes of use within the Green Belt. The report provides further detail in relation to the beneficial use of the application site, in particular detailing the proposed uses of the land, as detailed in paragraph 3.1 above. The report looks at the potential harm caused by the development proposals, considering that there will be no harm caused to the Green Belt, visual amenity, residential amenity, to the setting of the conservation area and listed buildings or any archaeological remains. The applicant’s report concludes that the potential harm which would be caused by the proposed
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 4
180
development would be very small, with the benefits to be derived from the proposal considerable.
4.0 Consultations
4.1 Selby District Council (Planning) – a detailed response was received on the 05 May 2015 from the Lead Planning Officer of the Council. In the response the Local and National Policy context for the application was outlined, which are considered to be the NPPF, Policies SP1, SP2, SP3, SP18 of the Core Strategy and ‘saved’ Policies ENV1, ENV15, ENV24, ENV25 and RT3 of the Selby District Local Plan. In addition the principle of the development within this policy context, and also the principle of development within the Green Belt were further outlined and discussed. It was noted that the District Council considers that:
the proposed development would not have a significant detrimental impact on the openness of the Green Belt; as the development is for outdoor recreation and study which does not include any new built structures, the proposed development would not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt; the proposal should not result in any significant issues in relation to highway safety and capacity; as the development would be used by the same children using the existing playing field there would not be any overall increase in noise, overlooking or through general disturbance. As such the proposed development will maintain a good standard of residential amenity; the conclusions of the supporting heritage statement are accepted and it is considered that the proposed development would have a neutral impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and nearby Listed Buildings by virtue of its character and nature;
4.2 It was further noted by the Lead Planning Officer that the applicant, although alluding to the benefits of the proposal, has not put forward a case that very special circumstances exist. Subsequently the applicant has provided a response to objections received which included a very special circumstances report (see paragraph 3.7 of this report). The District Council have been consulted on this document and asked for their further opinions. To date no further response has been received.
4.3 Selby District Council (Environmental Health Officer) – has not provided a response to date.
4.4 NYCC Heritage - Ecology – responded on the 23 April 2015, noting that a Phase 1 Habitat Survey had been undertaken to accompany the application. Agreement was reached with the survey that the habitats within the site appear to be of low ecological value; however they do provide habitat for species such as nesting birds, small mammals and invertebrates.
4.5 It was noted that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant ecological impact provided that measures to prevent harm to protected/notable species are implemented in accordance with the Phase 1 Habitat Survey. To this effect it was recommended that an informative be included in any decision notice as may be granted in relation to implementing the recommendations of the ecology report in relation to protected species.
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 5
181
4.6 It was also noted that the proposals would involve the clearance of the existing rank grass and tall ruderal vegetation, although the extent of the area affected is not clear. Whilst not of significant botanical value, this habitat will be of some local value to small mammals and invertebrates and its loss would represent an overall net loss of wildlife habitat in the absence of any compensation. It is noted that the school intend to incorporate a wildlife area into the site utilising the existing tree and scrub habitat in the south east corner of the site, in addition to the inclusion of a new hedgerow and tree planting. It is recommended that further details of appropriate landscaping/habitats creation and enhancement should be conditions in the event that planning consent is granted.
4.7 NYCC Heritage - Principal Landscape Architect – responded on the 05 May 2015 confirming there are no objections to the proposals, however it was noted that a condition should be included in any decision notice granted covering the protection of existing vegetation to be retained, together with details of any hard and soft landscape works. It was further noted that the proposal significantly enlarges the existing playing field area towards open countryside to the south and west, although the retention of woodland is supported.
4.8 It was further noted that the application notes that the land is currently not in agricultural use, however this does not mean that it cannot be classed as ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land. Its potential for agricultural use according to the Agricultural Land Classification could be ascertain, as the change of use to school playing field would represent a loss of land which could be productive.
4.9 Sport England – responded on the 20 April 2015 confirming that they do not wish to comment on this particular application.
4.10 Highway Authority (NYCC) – responded on the 29 April 2015 confirming that there are no local highway authority objections to the proposed development.
4.11 NYCC Heritage – Archaeology – responded on the 28 April 2015 advising that the proposed development has no known archaeological constraint.
4.12 Historic England – responded on the 27 April 2015 noting that the only physical works proposed are the erection of a timber post and rail fence around the playing field. With regards to archaeological mitigation, attention is drawn to the potential for the presence of battlefield archaeology associated with the Battle of Towton (1461 AD).
4.13 Campaign to Protect Rural England – have not provided a response to date.
4.14 Saxton cum Scarthingwell & Lead Parish Council – responded on the 21 May 2015 registering an objection to the application. The Parish Council noted that the site lies within the Green Belt and insufficient and exceptional reasons have not been demonstrated as to why the site should be removed from the Green Belt. Furthermore, the applicant has not demonstrated that there is a compelling need for this extra playing field provision. The use classification of D1 would allow the land to be used for a wider use which does not reflect the wishes of the local community. Concern has been raised that the current application is a disguised form of planning application for the previously withdrawn application for a Pre-fabricated Classroom Unit at the site. The current application could be seen as a tactic by the applicant to open the way for further development of the site.
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 6
182
4.15 Notifications
4.16 Cllr Andrew Lee – was notified of the planning application on the 14 April 2015.
5.0 Advertisement and representations
5.1 This application has been advertised by means of six Site Notices posted on 22 April 2015 (responses to which expired on the 13 April 2015) and a Press Notice which appeared in the Yorkshire Post on 23 April 2015 (responses to which expired on the 07 May 2015). The Site Notices were posted at the following locations:
Access gate to the application site off Dam Lane; Highway Sign opposite the application site on Dam Lane; A prominent lamp post on Hungate Close; School pedestrian gates on Dam Lane; The Parish Notice Board on Main Street; A public footpath way marker on Main Street.
5.2 In addition, the occupiers of 44 properties located within the village of Saxton were notified of the application. These properties were chosen on the basis that they were notified or made representation at the time of the previous planning application (ref: NY/2014/0047/FUL) at the school site. It is noted that both the previous and current applications have received a relatively high level of local interest.
5.3 In total, it is noted that 31 letters of objection have been received to the application following the consultation process, the posting of the Site Notices, the advertisement of the Press Notice and the neighbour notifications letters sent out. The objections have been raised by 29 members of the public, from Saxton cum Scarthingwell and Lead Parish Council and from Save Saxton’s Green Belt. The objections have been made on the following grounds:
the proposed extension is unnecessary and inappropriate as the school has adequate playing space per head of child presently at the school; the development would result in an increased demand for places at the school, thereby generating demand for further inappropriate development in the Green Belt; the development would lead to a loss of Best and Most Versatile (Grade 2) Agricultural Land and more development within the setting of a Listed Building and in a Conservation Area; the loss of the Best and Most Versatile (Grade 2) Agricultural Land is contrary to the NPPF; more development would worsen traffic congestion in the village; the school is not under threat of closure and has been asked by the community to manage down demand for spaces rather than seek to increase; the lease agreement for the land is only for 15 years with a 10 year break clause and as such it would be irresponsible for North Yorkshire County Council to grant the change of use without providing the school with long term security when the landowner wants his land back; it is a waste of money as the land is not fit for purpose as a school playing field and will require large amount of money to maintain it; due to the size of the land, if a child fell into difficulty or is injured they could be out of sight of the school, and failing in their duty of care; the application is contrary to the development plan;
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 7
183
the use of the land for D1 status would make it easier for a future application for housing on the land; the application site falls outside of the defined development limits for the village; Saxton is a Secondary Village and as such further planned development is not deemed appropriate; the growth of the school has presented the village with numerous problems. the village is not equipped to sustain further growth; the school governors want consent to undertake a feasibility study for extending the school in some form in the future. Further growth of the school is not sustainable for the village; the proposed urbanisation would be out of keeping with the size and character of the village; Listed Building status for surrounding buildings is only of value if the surrounding environs of the property are respected in the same way as the property itself. The proposal will threaten this is allowed to proceed; Dam Lane is not able to cope with existing traffic levels experienced which would be made worse by the proposal; Pupil numbers at the school have already risen to a level that the village is unable to sustain. The proposals would worsen this by increasing pupil numbers further; 60% of the children attending the school come from outside of the village. the school should be for village children only and does not need further development; the application site has a medieval ridge and furrow field pattern which is the last area of its type within the village confines; the ridge and furrow field system must have been linked to the motte and bailey scheduled monument off Main Street. The proposals would surely greatly affect the heritage of the village; the proposed fence would destroy the continuous, open and uninterrupted nature of the ridge and furrow feature; the proposed fence would cause indirect harm to the setting of a Grade I Listed Building as it would impair views of the church glimpsed through the broken hedge forming the western boundary of the playing field; it is noted that the proposed use of the woodland is for reflection and prayer. However, the children are fortunate to be able to have use of the Grade 1 Listed Church adjoining the school; the use of the extra playing field for when a visiting school comes to Saxton could instead be covered by use of the Saxton Cricket Club ground, an agreement for which was drawn up between the Club and NYCC on the 6th June 2003. The available space at the club is approximately 8,000 square metres; the application falls outside of the Defined Development Limits of the village; with extensive development planned in nearby Sherburn-in-Elmet for in excess of 700 new homes, the money would be better spent to provide new facilities at either of the 2 school already there or to provide a new school for the area; the development within the Green Belt is contrary to national planning policy; access to the site would require the removal of trees/hedgerows which will severely damage the appearance of the Green Belt; the wildlife within the Green Belt would suffer; the proposal could lead to adverse ecological impacts which have not been assessed properly; the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan has objectively established that Saxton does not have the capacity to accommodate any growth; NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 8
184
the application is contrary to the NPPF and Policy SP2 of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan; the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken in October which is outside the recommended survey season stated within the report. Therefore, this cannot comprise a robust and objective assessment of the proposal on species; the landscape around Saxton is important and highly sensitive to change; the application would harm a designated landscape area and the visual amenity of residents and walkers and therefore, have a significant adverse impact in terms of landscape and visual amenity which have not been properly assessed; the development would lead to future planning applications which would have a devastating effect on the community; the supporting statement does not include any assessment of the harm which would be caused; the application smacks of pre-determination and judging development in its own interests. An approval would be highly questionable and vulnerable to challenge; the application does not provide details of proposed ground works or other changes to ground levels; The ‘need’ for additional play space is derived from bringing children in from another school and not for pupils from Saxton School;
5.4 In total, it is noted that one letter of support has been received to the application following the consultation process, the posting of the Site Notices, the advertisement of the Press Notice and the neighbour notifications letters sent out. The letter of support has been received from the Parochial Church Council of All Saints, Saxton. The support has been made on the following grounds:
the application would enable the school to provide an outdoor education space for pupils offering opportunities which they do not have at present; the provision of a reflection and prayer space and development of the woodland would enable pupils to experience the enjoyment of and care for the outdoor environment and wildlife; the outdoor learning area would allow for the requirements of the Statutory Inspection of Anglican and Methodist Schools, to be met which is not possible at the moment due to the constraints of the school. This will complement the school’s formal prayer and reflection that takes place in the church; the development would have no significant impact on existing traffic problems within the village; the application would provide a value for money facility to improve the quality of the children’s education; the development would not have any effect on the Grade I Listed Church building, but rather would be an improvement to the environment.
6.0 Planning guidance and policy
6.1 The policy relevant to the determination of this particular planning application provided at the national level is contained within:
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (adopted March 2012)
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 9
185
6.2 The NPPF advises that ‘the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development’, and that ‘there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental’. Furthermore, the NPPF advises that a role for the planning system to perform is to contribute to ‘building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by identifying and co- ordinating development requirements’. The NPPF also states that ‘in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development’.
6.3 Within the NPPF, paragraph 17, the core planning principles of the Framework are outlined. In part, it is noted that planning should ‘take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the Countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it.’
6.4 Within the NPPF Chapter 7, titled ‘Requiring Good Design’, states that ‘good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people’. It also states that planning policies and decision should aim to ‘ensure that developments:
will function well and add well to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit; optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses (including incorporation of green and other public space as part of developments) and support local facilities and transport networks; respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation; create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion; and are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping’.
6.5 The NPPF advises that when making decisions, development proposals that accord with the development plan should be approved without delay and when the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, permission should be granted unless:
‘any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole: or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted’.
6.6 The NPPF further advises at paragraph 72 on the importance of ensuring that a sufficient quantity of school places for children is available for existing and new communities. Furthermore it is advised that Local Planning Authorities ‘should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. They should:
Give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools’.
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 10
186
6.7 Within paragraph 73 of the NPPF, the importance of ensuring access to open space for sport and recreation is outlined and the important contribution this can make to health and well-being for the communities involved. It is noted that planning policies ‘should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision.’ It is further noted that such assessments should ‘identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreation facilities in the local area.’ It is further noted that the information gained from undertaking such assessments should be used in the determination of the level of open space; sports and recreation provision are required for locations.
6.8 Within the NPPF Chapter 9, titled ‘Protecting Green Belt Land provides guidance in relation to the determination of planning applications located within the Green Belt. Furthermore, the importance placed upon the Green Belt is outlined within paragraph 79 of the Framework, noting the aim of Green Belt Policy being to ‘prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open’, this is due to the main characteristics of Green Belt being their openness and permanence. It is noted that the purposes of green belt are:
‘to check unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; To prevent neighbouring towns 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 generation, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.’
6.9 Within the NPPF, paragraph 81 notes that Local Planning Authorities should ‘plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged or derelict land.’
6.10 Within the NPPF, paragraph 86 notes that ‘If it is necessary to prevent development in a village primarily because of the important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included in the Green Belt.’ This element of the NPPF is considered relevant as the village of Saxton is ‘washed’ over by Green Belt, which is likely to be due to the extent that the character of the village contributes to the Green Belt status.
6.11 Within the NPPF, paragraph 87 notes that ‘inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.’
6.12 Furthermore, within paragraph 88 of the NPPF, guidance is given in relation to the determination of planning applications within the Green Belt, and in particular that substantial weight should be given to any harm that a development would cause to the Green Belt. It is noted 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’.
6.13 Within the NPPF guidance is given with regards to the construction of new buildings within the Green Belt. It is noted that such developments should be considered to be inappropriate development with the exceptions of:
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 11
187
‘buildings for agriculture and forestry; Provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it; The extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; The replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces; Limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or Limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), 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.’
6.14 Within paragraph 90 of the NPPF, further forms of development are noted as also not being inappropriate within the Green belt on the basis that they do not conflict with the purpose of including land within the Green Belt or upon its openness. Such developments include:
‘mineral extraction; engineering operations; local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location; the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction; and development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order.’
6.15 Within the NPPF Chapter 11, entitled ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment’ provides advice in relation to the role that the planning system plays to both protecting and enhancing the natural environment. Within the Framework paragraph 109 in part, notes that the planning system should contribute by ‘protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils’. Furthermore, paragraph 112 advices that Local Planning Authorities should ‘take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land.’
6.16 Within the NPPF, further guidance is provided for the determination of planning applications by local planning authorities in relation to the impact upon conserving heritage assets. It is advised that all such decisions should consider:
‘the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;
the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and
the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness’.
6.17 Furthermore, it is noted within paragraph 132 of the NPPF, that consideration should be given to the significance of a heritage asset whereby ‘great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation’. In such cases, the greater the importance that is given
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 12
188
to an individual asset, the greater the level of weight given to it should be. It is advised that harm should be avoided to heritage assets which can result from ‘alteration to destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting’. The NPPF advises that heritage assets such as Grade II Listed Buildings are awarded the highest significance and as such substantial harm should only occur in exceptional circumstances.
6.18 Within the NPPF, Paragraph 135 of the Framework advises that the ‘effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset’.
6.19 The National Planning Guidance considered relevant to the determination of this application is:
Planning Practice Guidance (March 2014)
6.20 Within the Planning Practice Guidance, further guidance is offered in relation to what constitutes a ‘well-designed place’, to ensure that they are ‘successful and valued’. On this, reference is made to the importance of a ‘well-designed place’ being functional, in that it relates well to its surrounding environment, and is designed so that it delivers its intended purpose whilst maintaining a distinctive character. It is noted however, that distinctiveness is ‘not solely about the built environment – it also reflects an areas function, history, culture and its potential need for change’. However, the extent to which a development will respond to and integrate with, the character of the surrounding area is noted to be ‘an important design objective’.
6.21 Within the PPG, further guidance is offered in relation to the recognition and protection of landscapes and the character and beauty of the countryside. On this it is advised that planning authorities should ‘include strategic policies for the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, including landscape. This includes designated landscapes but also the wider countryside.’
6.22 Within the PPG, further guidance is offered in relation to the provision of open space and sport and recreation and the value that this this has in creating healthy communities. On this it is advised that ‘Open space, which includes all open space of public value, can take many forms, from formal sports pitches to open areas within a development, linear corridors and country parks. It can provide health and recreation benefits to people living and working nearby; have an ecological value and contribute to green infrastructure, as well as being an important part of the landscape and setting of built development, and an important component in the achievement of sustainable development.’
6.23 Within the PPG, further guidance is offered in relation to the role of the planning system and the links between it and health and well-being in creating healthy communities as referred to within Chapter 8 of the NPPF. It is noted that healthy communities should be achieved, in part, through securing access to facilities and open space. Of particular significance to this application it is advised that encouragement should be given for the production of environments which ‘meets the needs of children and young people to grow and develop.’
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 13
189
6.24 The policy relevant to the determination of this particular planning application provided at the local level is contained within: The extant policies of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan (adopted 2013); The ‘saved’ Policies of the Selby District Local Plan (adopted February 2005).
6.25 Within the Selby Core Strategy Local Plan, the extant policies relevant to the determination of this application are:
SP1 – ‘Sustainable Development’ SP2 – ‘Spatial Development’ SP3 – ‘Green Belt’ SP18 – ‘Protecting and Enhancing the Environment’ SP19 – ‘Design Quality’.
6.26 Within the Selby District Local Plan, the ‘saved’ policies relevant to the determination of this application are:
ENV1 – ‘Quality of Development’ ENV15 – ‘Locally Important Landscape Areas’ ENV24 – ‘Listed Buildings’ ENV25 – ‘Conservation Area’ RT3 – ‘Sport and Recreation Facilities’ CS2 – ‘Educational Establishments’.
Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan
6.27 A Legal Challenge to the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan was received in December 2013. A hearing took place in July 2014 with a judgement to dismiss the legal challenge issued in October 2014. However, the Court of Appeal has given permission for an appeal against the dismissal of the legal challenge to the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan, the hearing of which will be heard in October 2015. Until such time as the appeal is heard by the Court of Appeal, the Selby District Core Strategy remains in force. The challenge does not, in itself, change the status of the Strategy in relation to the determination of planning applications. The Core Strategy remains part of the Development Plan unless or until any part of it is remitted or quashed by the Courts. Therefore, the County Planning Authority will continue to use the adopted Selby District Core Strategy as a means of determining planning applications in the Selby District.
6.28 Policy SP1 states ‘When considering development proposals the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. It will always work proactively with applicants jointly to find solutions which mean that proposals can be approved wherever possible, and to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area. Planning applications that accord with the policies in the Local Plan (and, where relevant, with policies in neighbourhood plans) will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where there are no policies relevant to the application or relevant policies are out of date (as defined by the NPPF) at the time of making the decision then the Council will grant permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise – taking into account whether:
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 14
190
• Any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole; or
• Specific policies in that Framework indicate that development should be restricted’.
6.29 Policy SP2 sets out the Spatial Development Strategy and includes statements relevant to the determination of this application. It states that the location of future development within Selby District will be based on the following principles (inter alia):
“(c) Development in the countryside (outside Development Limits) will be limited to the replacement or extension of existing buildings, the re-use of buildings preferably for employment purposes, and well-designed new buildings of an appropriate scale, which would contribute towards and improve the local economy and where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, in accordance with Policy SP13; or meet rural affordable housing need (which meets the provisions of Policy SP10), or other special circumstances.
(d) In Green Belt, including villages washed over by Green Belt, development must conform to Policy SP3 and national Green Belt policies”.
6.30 Policy SP3 states ‘In accordance with the NPPF, within the defined Green Belt, planning permission will not be granted for inappropriate development unless the applicant has demonstrated that very special circumstances exist to justify why permission should be granted.’
6.31 Policy SP18 seeks to sustain the high quality and local distinctiveness of the natural and manmade environment. The relevant paragraphs from that policy are set out below:- “1. Safeguarding and, where possible, enhancing the historic and natural environment including the landscape character and setting of areas of acknowledged importance.
2. Conserving those historic assets which contribute most to the distinct character of the District and realising the potential contribution that they can make towards economic regeneration, tourism, education and quality of life.
3. Promoting effective stewardship of the District’s wildlife by: a) Safeguarding international, national and locally protected sites for nature conservation, including SINCs, from inappropriate development. b) Ensuring developments retain, protect and enhance features of biological and geological interest and provide appropriate management of these features and that unavoidable impacts are appropriately mitigated and compensated for, on or off-site. c) Ensuring development seeks to produce a net gain in biodiversity by designing-in wildlife and retaining the natural interest of a site where appropriate, and ensuring any unavoidable impacts are appropriately mitigated and compensated for, on or off- site. d) Supporting the identification, mapping, creation and restoration of habitats that contribute to habitat targets in the National and Regional biodiversity strategies and the local Biodiversity Action Plan.
4. Wherever possible a strategic approach will be taken to increasing connectivity to the District’s Green Infrastructure including improving the network of linked open
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 15
191
spaces and green corridors and promoting opportunities to increase its multi- functionality. This will be informed by the Leeds City Region Infrastructure Strategy.
5. Identifying, protecting and enhancing locally distinctive landscapes, areas of tranquillity, public rights of way and access, open spaces and playing fields through Development Plan Documents.
6. Encouraging incorporation of positive biodiversity actions, as defined in the local Biodiversity Action Plan, at the design stage of new developments or land uses.
7. Ensuring that new development protects soil, air and water quality from all types of pollution.
8. Ensuring developments minimise energy and water consumption, the use of non- renewable resources, and the amount of waste material.
9. Steering development to areas of least environmental and agricultural quality”.
6.32 Policy SP19 of the Selby District Core Strategy states ‘Proposals for all new development will be expected to contribute to enhancing community cohesion by achieving high quality design and have regard to the local character, identity and context of its surroundings including historic townscapes, settlement patterns and the open countryside. Where appropriate schemes should take account of design codes and Neighbourhood Plans to inform good design. Both residential and non-residential development should meet the following key requirements:
a) Make the best, most efficient use of land without compromising local distinctiveness, character and form; b) Positively contribute to an area’s identity and heritage in terms of scale, density and layout; c) Be accessible to all users and easy to get to and move through; d) Create rights of way or improve them to make them more attractive to users, and facilitate sustainable access modes, including public transport, cycling and walking which minimise conflicts; e) Incorporate new and existing landscaping as an integral part of the design of schemes, including off-site landscaping for large sites and sites on the edge of settlements where appropriate; f) Promote access to open spaces and green infrastructure to support community gatherings and active lifestyles which contribute to the health and social well- being of the local community; g) Have public and private spaces that are clearly distinguished, safe and secure, attractive and which complement the built form; h) Minimise the risk of crime or fear of crime, particularly through active frontages and natural surveillance; i) Create mixed use places with variety and choice that complement one another to encourage integrated living, and j) Adopt sustainable construction principles in accordance with Policies SP15 and SP16. k) Preventing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water, light or noise pollution or land instability. l) Development schemes should seek to reflect the principles of nationally recognised design benchmarks to ensure that the best quality of design is achieved.’
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 16
192
Selby District Local Plan
6.33 Notwithstanding the adoption of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan in 2013, referred to above, some of the policies in the existing Selby District Local Plan (adopted in 2005 and saved in 2008 by Direction of the Secretary of State) remain extant following the adoption of the Core Strategy. ‘Saved’ Policy ENV1, advises that ‘proposals for development will be permitted provided a good quality of development would be achieved.’ The plan further advises that when considering proposals, considerations will take into account of ‘the effect upon the character of the area or amenity of adjoining occupiers’; ‘the potential loss, or adverse effect upon significant buildings, related species, trees, wildlife habitats, archaeological or other features important to the character of the area’; the ‘relationship of the proposal to the highway network, the proposed means of access and arrangements to be made for car parking’; and the ‘standard of layout, design and materials in relation to the site and its surroundings and associated landscaping’. This policy is consistent with the NPPF’s objectives of presumption in favour of sustainable development, as outlined in paragraph 17 of the Framework, which relates to the importance of achieving a good quality of design to ensure a good quality and standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants and therefore full weight is given to this policy in the determination of this application.
6.34 ‘Saved’ Policy ENV15 states ‘Within the locally important landscape areas, as defined on the proposals map, priority will be given to the conservation and enhancement of the character and quality of the landscape. Particular attention should be paid to the design, layout, landscaping of development and the use of materials in order to minimise its impact and to enhance the traditional character of buildings and landscape in the area.’ This policy is considered broadly consistent with the NPPF’s objectives or protecting Conserving and Protecting the Natural Environment as outlines within Chapter 11 of the Framework, specifically in relation to paragraph 109 which outlines the importance of protecting valued landscapes. Therefore, full weight is given to this policy in the determination of this application.
6.35 ‘Saved’ Policy ENV24 advises that the alteration to any listed building ‘will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the proposal:
1. Would not have any adverse effect on the architectural and historic character of the building, and its setting: 2. Is appropriate in terms of scale, design, detailing and materials; and 3. Would not harm the historic fabric of the building.’
6.36 This policy is consistent with the NPPF’s objectives of conserving and enhancing the historic environment, as outlined in Chapter 9 of the Framework which relates to the preservation and conservation of Heritage Assets. This policy is also considered relevant to the determination of this planning application as the proposed development has the potential to impact upon the setting of a Grade I Listed Building.
6.37 Policy ENV25 states that “Development within or affecting a conservation area will be permitted provided the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area, and in particular:
1) The scale, form, position, design and materials of new buildings are appropriate to the historic context; 2) Features of townscape importance including open spaces, trees, verges, hedging and paving are retained;
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 17
193
3) The proposal would not adversely affect the setting of the area or significant views into or out of the area, and 4) The proposed use, external site works and boundary treatment are compatible with the character and appearance of the area.
Where necessary in order to be able to fully assess proposals, the council will require applications to be accompanied by detailed plans and elevations showing the proposed development in its setting”.
6.38 ‘Saved’ Policy RT3 states that ‘Proposals for sport and recreation development will be permitted, provided: 1) The proposal would not be so intrusive as to seriously detract from the character of the area by virtue of its appearance or associated noise; 2) The proposal would not create conditions prejudicial to highway safety or which would have a significant adverse effect on local amenity; 3) New buildings or structures would be well designed and appropriately landscaped; and 4) The facilities are designed in such a way as to allow easy access and active participation by disabled people in sport. Within areas of green belt, proposals will only be permitted where they relate to uses of land and essential facilities for outdoor sports and recreation which preserve the openness of the green belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it.’
6.39 This policy conflicts with the requirements of the NPPF in that changes of use of land are no longer included in the those developments which are considered not to constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. To this effect limited weight should be afforded to this policy in the determination of this application.
6.40 Within the Selby District Local Plan, ‘Saved’ Policy CS2, advises that ‘proposals for the development of new schools and other educational establishments, and the extension of existing premises, will be permitted provided the proposal would ‘be situated within or adjacent to defined developments limits’; would not ‘create conditions prejudicial to highway safety or which would have a significant adverse effect on local amenity’; and would ‘achieve a standard of design, materials and landscaping appropriate to the locality and which would not have a significant adverse effect on the appearance or character of the surrounding area’. This policy is also consistent with the NPPF’s objectives of presumption in favour of sustainable development, as outlined in paragraph 17 of the Framework, which relates to the importance of achieving a good quality of design to ensure a good quality and standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants and is therefore full weight is given to this policy in the determination of this application.
7.0 Planning considerations
7.1 The main considerations relevant to the determination of this planning application are the principle of the development and acceptability on planning grounds in relation to the impact of the proposed use of land upon the Green Belt, upon the character of the area including the loss of best and most versatile land, impact upon local amenity, impact upon the highway network and the impact upon ecology.
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 18
194
Principle of the Development
7.2 The proposed development seeks a change of use of a piece of agricultural land and woodland area to that of D1 for use as playing field and other outdoor activities associated with the use of the adjacent Saxton Primary School. The applicant has stated that the proposed development is required to supplement the schools existing outdoor provision through supplementing the schools existing outdoor space provision for the uses detailed within paragraph 3.1 of this report. The applicant has further confirmed that the proposed development would be of benefit to the school in light of the inadequate size of the school’s internal teaching space generally and particularly one of the classrooms, and the higher than average proportion of children in the school that have special educational needs. Finally the applicant has confirmed that an assessment undertaken of the school site has indicated that there is a shortage of playing field area at the school when assessed against the Building Bulletin 103. At the present time the school benefits from 3,100 square metres of playing field which is short of the recommended 4,907 square metres based upon a calculation of the area of playing field space required for each student on the role with the inclusion of a minimum area for primary schools. The Bulletin does concern land use so may be a material consideration, however it is considered that as is not a planning policy or planning guidance document it can only be given limited weight in the determination of this planning application.
7.3 The current application does not propose any form of built-development and as such, until such time as any future applications may be submitted for any form of built development or ancillary operations, the current change of use application will be considered as a proposal for an extension of the school playing field and grounds only. It is noted that the principle of improving school facilities receives support within paragraph 72 of the NPPF in both securing sustainable development, whilst supporting the need to alter/enhance schools. Furthermore within paragraph 73 of the NPPF, the importance of securing access to ‘high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation’ is outlined, which is further supported by ‘saved’ Policy C2 of the Selby District Local Plan, both of which emphasise the importance that this can make to health and well-being.
7.4 Notwithstanding the above, as previously noted, the application site is located within the West Yorkshire Green Belt which ‘washes’ over the village. As such, it is noted that the principle of the development cannot be established until further consideration is given to whether the development is considered to be inappropriate development within the Green Belt or not.
Green Belt
7.5 The application site falls wholly within land designated as Green Belt. It is accepted that the proposed change of use would enhance opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation in line with paragraph 81 of the NPPF however; this does not mean by definition that the proposed change of use is not inappropriate development for the purposes of NPPF 90. The considerations set out within this Section of the report are on the basis that the proposed change of use is considered ‘inappropriate’ for the purposes of paragraph 90 of the NPPF. This is highlighted by the Selby District Council in their consultation response and acknowledged by the agent representing the applicant in an e-mail to the County Planning Authority dated the 13 May 2015. It is, therefore, necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that ‘very special circumstances’ exist to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. This approach is consistent with recent case law on the interpretation of the NPPF Green Belt policies which are referred to later in the report.
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 19
195
7.6 Within the NPPF, considerable guidance is provided in relation to the purpose of Green Belts and the important role that they play. Within paragraph 79 of the Framework, it is noted that the primary aim of Green Belt policy is to ‘prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open’, noting that the main characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence. Within the Framework, the paragraph 80 of the Framework, it is noted that Green Belt serves five purposes:
‘to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns in merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.’
7.7 Due to the importance placed upon Green Belt, the NPPF advises that inappropriate development within the Green Belt is ‘harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.’ When consideration is given to Chapter 9 of the NPPF in its entirety it is noted that the starting point for any development within the Green Belt is that it should be treated as prima facie ‘inappropriate’, and can only be justified by reference to “very special circumstances” save for the defined exceptions set out in paragraph 89 and 90 of the Framework. This is affirmed by the 2013 case of Timmins v Gelding Borough Council v Westerleigh Group Limited during which the inspector confirmed that ‘any development in the Green Belt is treated as prima facie “inappropriate” and can only be justified by reference to “very special circumstances” save in the defined circumstances set out in paragraphs 89 and 90.’
7.8 In considering the proposed use of land, it is evident that the proposed development does not fall within the exceptions listed within paragraph 89 of the Framework as the planning application does not include the construction of any buildings. This view is supported by the 2013 case of Fordent Holdings Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, where the inspector ruled that paragraph 89 of the NPPF did not apply to changes of use, but was concerned with “new buildings”. This is further supported by the 2013 case of Timmins v Gelding Borough Council v Westerleigh Group Limited during which the inspector notes “I share the view of HHJ Pelling QC and Ouseley J that paragraph 89 is concerned with new building and not with other types of development.” In addition, it is considered that the proposed development does not fall within any of the exceptions listed in paragraph 90.
7.9 Consequently, any developments that do not fall within the exceptions listed within paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF will only be supported in instances where ‘very special circumstances’ arise. This position is further supported by Policy SP3 of the Selby District Core Strategy which further notes that planning permission should not be granted for inappropriate development within the Green Belt unless ‘very special circumstances’ have been demonstrated. Therefore, in order to make such an assessment it is noted that a development must be assessed against both the five purposes of designating Green Belt set out in paragraph 80 and also paragraph 88 of the NPPF which notes that substantial weight should be afforded to any harm caused to the Green Belt by a proposed development. More significantly, it is noted 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 circumstances.’
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 20
196
7.10 In assessing such harm, the case of Redhill Aerodrome Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 2014considered that the definition of ‘any other harm’ as referred to within paragraph 88 of the NPPF, is to be interpreted to mean harm relevant to planning purposes and as such given its usual meaning within the planning process, i.e. impact upon landscape, best and most versatile agricultural land, visual amenity, heritage assets etc, and not solely limited to other harm caused to the Green Belt. Such matters will be considered later within this report, once further consideration has been given to the impact of the proposed development upon the five purposes of the application site being located within the Green Belt.
i) To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
7.11 It is considered that the proposal would result in an increase in an extension of the school grounds and playing field into the open countryside. It would appear that the purpose of the inclusion of the land surrounding the village of Saxton and the village itself was to preserve the open and rural countryside and landscape. Whilst the current application does not include any built development, there is the potential for equipment, associated with the proposed sports pitch, such as goal posts or storage containers, could be provided, all of which would be out of keeping with the surrounding open countryside. However the application does not provide details on this or in relation to the extra-curricular or community uses proposed.
7.12 Due to the nature of the proposed development increasing the footprint of the school site into existing agricultural land, it is considered that the proposal would result in the loss of open countryside. Whilst this would not constitute a ‘sprawl’ of an urban area, there could be an impact on the character of the land due to the proposed use as playing field is not entirely in-keeping with the nature of the surrounding agricultural land and countryside around the village of Saxton. As such, although the potential impact of the loss of this land in the open countryside is considered to be relatively small, due to the size of the application site and the lack of built development, considerable weight must be given to the fact that the proposal goes against this reason for including land within the Green Belt.
ii) To prevent neighbouring towns in merging into one another;
7.13 It is noted that due to the location of the nearest settlement to the application site, outside of the village of Saxton, is in excess of 2 kilometres. As such, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in neighbouring towns merging together, and as such does not conflict with this reason.
iii) To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
7.14 The proposed development would result in an extension of the school playing field into agricultural land currently within the open countryside and outside of the development limits of the village. Although the proposed development would largely preserve the openness of the Green Belt, the extension of the school boundary is considered to be a form of encroachment. Therefore, the principle of the proposal is considered to be contrary to this reason for including land within the Green Belt.
iv) To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns;
7.15 It is noted that the village of Saxton is located within the Saxton Conservation Area, designated as such for its architectural and historic importance. Within the village are a number of Listed Buildings, with the most prominent being the Grade I Listed Church of All Saints located immediately adjacent to the school site. In addition, the
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 21
197
application site is located approximately 105 metres from a Scheduled Ancient Monument which lies to the south-east (Saxton Castle: a motte and bailey castle with a later medieval manor house). A Registered Battlefield (Battle of Towton 29 March 1461- Part of the Wars of the Roses) is approximately 500 metres to the north of the proposed development site.
7.16 However, notwithstanding these significant historic features, due to the nature of the proposed development including no form of built development, it is considered unlikely that there will be any impact upon them. It has been noted by objectors to the application that the application site contains a ridge and furrow system of local importance which would be adversely impacted by the proposed development. In response to consultations, Historic England has not commented in detail having deferred to the recommendations of the County Council’s Archaeology Team. In response to consultations, the County Council’s Principal Landscape Architect has noted that the site is of archaeological potential. Therefore, as the proposed development would include drainage works that might affect the sites archaeology, it was recommended that conditions be attached to any decision notice granted requiring an earthwork survey to be undertaken to record the presence of ridge and furrow followed by the undertaking of an archaeological watching brief during ground disturbance works.
7.17 Although Saxton does not fall under a definition of a ‘historic town’, its character as a village warrants inclusion within the Green Belt designation. Therefore, as previously noted the proposed change of use being sought, is not entirely compatible with the countryside location and the neighboring land uses as it would alter the character insofar as a change from low intensity agricultural use to playing field. Therefore, whilst the proposed development would not impact upon the local Listed Buildings, Conservation Area or the Scheduled Monument, with suitable mitigation is proposed in relation to the sites archaeology and ridge and furrow system, the proposed development would have the potential to impact upon the setting or character of the village of Saxton. Therefore, the proposed development partially conflicts with this reason, and should be afforded some weight.
v) To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
7.18 It is noted that the land subject of this application is previously undeveloped Grade 2 ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land in the open countryside. As such, the land is not considered to be derelict, urban or in need of urban regeneration. However, this reason is not applicable in the context of the site and the nature of the proposed development.
“Very Special Circumstances”
7.19 As the development does not fall within any of the exceptions to inappropriate development listed in paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF, it is necessary to consider whether ‘very special circumstances’ exist for development within the Green Belt. In line with paragraph 88 of the NPPF, it is noted that very special circumstances will not exist unless any harm is outweighed by other considerations. Developments accepted as being ‘very special circumstances’ are by their very nature rare and often involve a specific judgement being made that no other options are available to an applicant to achieve the required outcome in light of the unique circumstances of the individual case and site. When attempting to demonstrate very special circumstances, the onus is upon the applicant to prove that the exceptional nature of the proposal outweighs the harm that it would cause to the Green Belt. This is further
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 22
198
emphasised by Policy SP3 of the Selby District Core Strategy which advises that planning permission should not be granted for inappropriate development unless ‘very special circumstances’ have been demonstrated.
7.20 On this matter, in the 2013 case of Timmins v Gelding Borough Council v Westerleigh Group Limited, the Inspector made comments in relation to the principle of changes of use within the Green Belt, noting that ‘The remaining argument that I have to consider is that the construction I favour archives absurdity because it would mean for example that a proposal to convert a field used for agricultural purposes into an outdoor sports field with no buildings being proposed as part of the scheme would be regarded as inappropriate and thus could not be permitted in the absence of very special circumstances.’ It was further noted that the inspector noted ‘Merely because a proposed development is inappropriate does not mean that there is a prohibition on it. The categories of what constitute very special circumstances are not closed.’ Notwithstanding, it is further noted that the inspector confirmed that in relation to establishing special circumstances ‘That factor is not and not intended to be decisive however. It will have to be weighed with all other inevitably fact sensitive material considerations in order to arrive at a conclusion outweighed by the other considerations in order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether whatever potential harm to the Green Belt is identified is clearly outweighed by the other potential harm to the Green Belt.’
7.21 In the current application the applicant has submitted a report detailing what is considered to be the ‘very special circumstances’ existing in this case., The argument and consideration of ‘need’ for the proposed development is considered by the applicant to be significant in the determination of this planning application, and a contributing factor towards the applicants justification that ‘very special circumstances’ exist. Support is given within paragraphs 73 and 81 of the NPPF to ensuring access to open space for sport and recreation, it is noted that such matters should be ‘based upon robust and up-to-date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision.’ In the case of the current application, the applicant has included a brief assessment to demonstrate the need for the proposed development based upon the guidelines detailed within the Building Bulletin 103 ‘Area Guidelines for Mainstream Schools’. The applicant has noted that this assessment of the schools playing field area has concluded that the school has a shortage of playing field space, on the basis that the available outdoor play space and playing field provision for each student of the primary school is presently below the minimum recommended amount outlined within the Building Bulletin 103. However, it is considered that the information provided is not sufficiently robust to justify the need for the development in light of its location within the Green Belt.
7.22 It also noted that a similar detailed assessment has also been undertaken by ‘Save Saxton’s Green Belt’, which concludes that there is an excess of playing field space at the school site. This view has been taken as the assessment undertaken by Save ‘Saxton’s Green Belt’ questions the validity of the assessment undertaken by the applicant. The ‘Save Saxton’s Green Belt’ assessment provides details and an argument to the contrary, in that it suggests that the school does in fact have an over- supply of available space based upon the ‘School Premises Regulations’ (2012) and, therefore, questions the need for the proposal. Furthermore, the assessment advises that the ‘Area Guidelines for Mainstream Schools’ (2014) confirms that in certain instances where certain school sites are restricted in terms of available space, access to suitable off-site provision will be provided, which is currently the case given the agreement with Saxton Cricket Club for the shared use of the space as detailed further within paragraph 7.25 of this report.
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 23
199
7.23 It is considered that the school benefits from a relatively large area of playing field, approximately 3,100 square metres, which is unrestricted by topography, vegetation or any form of built development, for a school of its size and location. Furthermore, it is noted that although the applicant has suggested that there is an existing shortage of playing field through reference to the Building Bulletin 103, it is noted that an application (ref: NY/2014/0047/FUL) was submitted in 2014 for the construction of a pre-fabricated temporary classroom unit, which included an extension of the school’s hardstanding playground onto the existing playfield. This application was sought to accommodate a forecasted increase in pupil enrolment and therefore, subsequent need for additional classroom space. However, despite the fact that this proposed development would have potentially increased pupil numbers at the school, whilst at the same time reducing the amount of playing field provision, the application made no reference to concerns relating to a level of playing field provision at the school. In addition, the application did not propose the need for any extension to or additional playing field provision at the time to accommodate pupil numbers.
7.24 In relation to the use of playing field, the applicant has confirmed that an additional playing field will enable the partial segregation of children of different ages to reduce accidents, however no details have been provided by the applicant to confirm the frequency or nature of such accidents, to add weight to their argument of need for the development. It is considered that such issues are unlikely to be different to those experienced at any other school, which does not outweigh the Green Belt constraint, and therefore, ‘not exceptional.’ Furthermore, the applicant has confirmed that the extra playing field will ease strain put on the site when a sister school visits once a term. However, it is considered that the use of the proposed additional playing field space by an external school 2-3 times per year does not represent a sufficient reason or justification for the development.
7.25 In relation to the proposed uses of the playing field, being use for extra-curricular activities, forest activities, habitat creation, a growing area and use as a junior playing pitch, it is considered that the arguments put forward by the applicant are not considered to be exceptional or unique to this site. It is considered that the applicant has failed to satisfactorily demonstrate why other options in the school catchment, are not available or viable to be used, nor demonstrate why the additional educational activities cannot be accommodated without the need for an extension of the playing field. To this extent, consideration is given to the existing agreement between the school and the local cricket club for shared use of the land at this local sporting facility. Whilst it is noted that only limited weight can be given to this agreement in the determination of this planning application, the applicant has confirmed that they were unaware of such an agreement, due to the agreement being made between the Cricket Club and North Yorkshire County Council. Nonetheless, the school has suggested that such space cannot be used as it is unsuitable due to not being adjacent to the school which would result in complicated safety and emergency procedures being in place for child movements. It is noted that the principle of a school using land or facilities not adjacent to the school site, is not an uncommon occurrence, and is not considered unachievable in a small village such as Saxton. Whilst it is noted that the current application must certainly be viewed as a preferable option for the school, it is considered that it is unlikely to be the only option available to the school. Furthermore, the response from the applicant would suggest that other options have not been explored fully. As such, it is considered that this does not support the applicant’s view that special circumstances exist.
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 24
200
7.26 In relation to the applicant’s suggestion that the proposed change of use could be supported through a community use, outside of the schools operating hours, no details of this use or justification for its need has been demonstrated. To this effect, there is seemingly no requirement for such use which would have the potential to impact upon local amenity and the setting/character of the area, depending upon the nature of this use. Openness of Permanence of Green Belt
7.27 A further consideration in the determination of any planning application with the Green Belt is the potential impact that the development would have upon the openness and permanence of the Green Belt. This is supported by paragraph 79 of the NPPF which notes that the ‘essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence’. It is important to note that such consideration is different to that of visual impact of a development, which will be addressed later within this report. As the proposed development does not include any form of built development, it is considered that the proposed change of use would not have an adverse impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. The physical works associated with the development would be shrub clearance, drainage works and the planting of a hedgerow with a new post and rail fence, none of which would mean that there were any obstructions to sight. However, it is noted that the proposed change of use of this land, would likely result in the use and storage of play equipment and materials associated with the schools proposed use of the playing fields as previously detailed. Whilst this may not represent a significant impact upon the openness or permanence of the Green Belt, some consideration must be given to this.
7.28 In relation to the permanence of the development, it is not that as the change of use does not involve any physical built development, if permitted the change of use could be reversed with relative ease. No element of the works to clear existing vegetation, improve drainage or plant a hedgerow, would result in a change to the site which could not be reversed in the future if required. As such, it is considered that the proposed development will not have an impact upon the permanence of the Green Belt. It is also noted, that despite concerns having been raised by Saxton Parish Council, the proposed development would not result in the application site being removed from the Green Belt.
Green Belt Conclusion
7.29 The proposed development does not adversely impact upon the main characteristics of the Green Belt as outlined within paragraph 79 of the NPPF being the openness and permanence of the Green Belt.
7.30 However, it is noted that the proposed development does have the potential to cause harm to the Green Belt, by virtue of being contrary to the purposes for the application site being located within the Green Belt itself, as outlined within paragraph 80 of the NPPF. Whilst it is noted that some of these impacts may be considered to be minor, due to the protection that is offered to Green Belt protection in both National and Local Policy, the substantial weight that this harm is afforded is high. Furthermore, the applicant has not demonstrated that very special circumstances’ exist in this case. The argument of ‘need’ for the proposed development has not been sufficiently and robustly demonstrated and other alternative options do not seem to have been explored. Whilst the applicant has provided a brief assessment based upon Building Bulletin 103 to demonstrate the need for the proposed development, it is considered that the information provided is not sufficiently robust to justify the need for the development in light of its location within the Green Belt. The applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that ‘very special circumstances’ exist to an extent that
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 25
201
clearly outweighs the harm caused to the Green Belt. It is important to note that a development within the Green Belt must clearly outweigh the harm, and not just simply be deemed to be acceptable on balance. As such the proposed development is considered to be inappropriate development within the Green Belt.
7.31 For the reasons detailed above it is considered that the proposed development is not in-compliance with the principles of the NPPF and Policies SP2 and SP3 of the Selby Core Strategy Local Plan in relation to the protection of Green Belt, which note that inappropriate development within the Green Belt should be refused unless very special circumstances exist.
Impact upon Character and Setting of the Surrounding Area
7.32 It is noted that the proposed development does not include any form of built development and as such, it is considered that it would have a limited visual impact upon the character of the area. However, as previously noted, whilst Saxton is not a “historic village”, its character is an important feature for its inclusion within the Green Belt, which warrants protection. As such, whilst the proposed development is considered largely to be in-compliance with the landscape character protection elements of the NPPF, ‘saved’ Policies ENV1 and ENV15 of the Selby District Local Plan and Policy SP19 of the Selby District Core Strategy relating to the natural environment, the development would alter the character of the land from that of agriculture to playing field.
7.33 It is noted that the development would result in a loss of the use of agricultural land (albeit reversible) within the open countryside to be used as an extension to the school playing field. Whilst the proposed use of the land as playing field and educational purposes would have an impact upon the character of the area, the impacts are considered likely to be minimal due to screening that is offered by the mature boundary treatment, and further mitigation offered through the proposed hedgerow to be planted. The application site is located on a previously undeveloped piece of land which is currently used for agricultural purposes. The land, which has a Grade 2 Agricultural Land Classification, is considered to be ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land, which is offered protection within the NPPF. However, for the purposes of Paragraph 112 of the NPPF, the proposal is not considered to be “significant development” as the proposed change of use affects only a relatively small area of land (approx. 0.53 hectares). In addition, provided that the land is not subject to any form of built development at a later date, it is considered that the proposed change of use is reversible with the land capable of being returned to agricultural use.
7.34 Notwithstanding the above, it is noted that the applicant has stated that the application site is presently covered in tall grass to chest height and has historically only been used as pasture for grazing sheep and horses. Therefore, the applicant is of the opinion that the land cannot be classed as being within the ‘best and most versatile’ category of agricultural land. Therefore, it is suggested that the proposed change of use will not harm or restrict agricultural activities. Notwithstanding this view, it is noted that the land is considered to be Grade 2 ‘best and most versatile land’ which is capable of being used as such, and, therefore, whilst the views of the applicant are noted, they are not accepted as the current agricultural use does not alter its classification. Within paragraph 112 of the NPPF, it is noted that ‘Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land.’ This view is further supported by Policy SP18 of the Selby District Core Strategy which seeks to steer development ‘to areas of least agricultural quality.’
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 26
202
7.35 This view is supported by the County Council’s Principal Landscape Architect who has advised that whilst the land is not currently in agricultural use ‘that does not mean that it cannot be classed as ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land’. It is further noted by the Principal Landscape Architect that the proposed change of use ‘would represent a loss of land which could be productive.’ Therefore, it is considered that the applicant has not provided sufficient justification for the loss of ‘best and most versatile’ land and would be considered contrary to the protection offered to such land within Chapter 11 of the Framework, and to the agricultural land protection element of Policy SP18 of the Selby District Core Strategy.
7.36 For the reasons detailed above, it is considered that whilst the proposed development would not have an adverse impact upon the character or setting of the local area, it is considered that arguments made by the applicant in terms of need for the proposed development are insufficient to warrant the loss of an area of ‘best and most versatile land’ within the open countryside.
Impact upon Local Amenity
7.37 It is noted that some concerns have been raised by objectors to the application that the proposed development would result in an adverse impact upon local amenity. It is noted that the proposed change of use of the land would represent an increase in the area of the school site, however as no built development is proposed, it is considered that the development would not have a detrimental impact upon the local environment in terms of visual impact or noise pollution. The application site is well screened by existing vegetation, with only limited views available from a small number of residential properties located along Dam Lane. It is considered that due to the application site being located immediately adjacent to the existing playing field, and would not result in an increase in pupil numbers at the site, the noise levels associated with the proposed use of this land are considered to be associated with normal school activities and as such would not cause harm to the amenity of neighbours or cause nuisance. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development is in compliance with the amenity protection elements of ‘saved’ Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan and Policy SP19 of the Selby District Core Strategy, both of which seek to reduce the impact of a development upon local residents.
Highway Impact
7.38 It is noted that concern has been raised by a number of objectors in relation to the impact that the proposed development would have upon the local highway network, in particular relating to increased traffic congestion. It has been noted by objectors that the village of Saxton presently suffers from highways congestion relating to the existing use of the school site, which it is feared would be exacerbated in the event of future increases in pupil numbers at the site and proposed vehicular access to the playing field off Dam Lane.
7.39 Notwithstanding the concerns raised in relation to the impact upon the local highway network, in particular Dam Lane, it is noted that the current proposal does not seek to NY/2014/0047/FUL accommodate an increase in pupil numbers at the school, but aims to provide a larger and more varied play area for existing pupils. Furthermore, there is no proposed vehicular access to site with access only by foot through the existing school site and playing field area. This would be facilitated through the creation of an opening in the existing fence around the current playing field area on the eastern boundary of the school site. In the event that vehicular access is required for emergency purposes, an existing gate and entrance to the site is presently
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 27
203
located on the northern boundary of the applications site onto Dam Lane, and as such no further point of access would be required.
7.40 There are no proposals for any built development as part of this application and as such, the impact upon the local highway network can only be assessed against the details contained within the current application and not against any potential future proposals. As such, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in an increase in traffic on the surrounding public highway network, nor result in an increase in traffic congestion along Dam Lane. This view is supported by the County Highways Department who have raised no concerns or objections to the application.
7.41 Whilst it is noted that objections have been received in relation to the impact of the development upon the highway network, it is not considered reasonable to conclude a recommendation of refusal based upon highways concerns. It is considered that the development as proposed would have no additional impact upon the highway network. Therefore, the proposed development is considered to be in-compliance with the Highway protection elements of ‘saved’ Policies ENV1, CS2 and RT3 all of which seek to ensure that a development would not result in an adverse impact upon the local highway network or users of it.
Impact upon Ecology
7.42 It is noted that the proposed application seeks a change of use of an existing piece of agricultural land located in the open countryside. However, due to there being no form of built development included as part of the application details, and as only limited ground clearance and earth works required, with no tree or hedgerow removals, the impact upon ecology is considered to be minimal. Notwithstanding, whilst the County Council’s Ecology Team have confirmed that the development is unlikely to have a significant ecological impact, the proposed vegetation clearance would lead to the some net loss to wildlife habitat in the absence of any compensation. Therefore, it is recommended that should planning permission be granted further details on additional landscaping and habitat creation be secured through condition as mitigation. To this effect, it is considered that the proposed development would be unlikely to result in an adverse impact upon ecology. Therefore, the proposed development is considered to be in-compliance with the Natural Environment Protection element of Policy SP18 of the Selby District Core Strategy and with the principles of the NPPF in protecting the natural environment.
Future Development
7.43 It is noted that concern has been raised by a number of objectors in relation to the precedent that a grant of planning consent for the current application would set for the school site. The concerns raised are on the basis that the proposed change of use of the land to D1 status would enable future applications for built development to be more likely to be granted approval than at the present time. For the purpose of clarity, within the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, Class D1 is described as:
‘Non-residential institutions Any use not including a residential use – a) for the provision of any medical or health services except the use of premises attached to the residence of the consultant or practitioner, b) as a crèche, day nursery or day centre, c) for the provision of education, d) for the display of works of art (otherwise than for sale or hire),
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 28
204
e) as a museum, f) as a public library or public reading room. g) As a public hall or exhibition hall, h) For, or in connection with, public worship or religious instruction.’
7.44 Predominantly, the concerns raised focus on the likelihood that the change of use would result in future planning applications at the school site to facilitate an increase in pupil numbers, similar to the previous planning application at the school site (ref: NY/2014/0047/FUL) in 2014 for the construction of a pre-fabricated classroom unit, or other forms of development that would be unsustainable and detrimental to the village of Saxton.
7.45 In determining planning applications, decisions must solely be based upon the proposals relevant to that particular application and not upon possible future developments that may or may not be submitted. Should any future planning application be submitted for a built development in the future, such proposals would be determined on their own merits and would need to be assessed against National and Local planning policy. This would enable any future proposal to be assessed as to whether or not it was inappropriate development, as has been the case with the application. Therefore, notwithstanding the concerns that have been raised by a significant number of objectors to the application, matters pertaining to possible future developments are to be given no weight or consideration in the determination of this planning application.
7.46 It is also noted that concerns have been raised by a number of objectors to the fact that the school’s lease of the application site is presently only for 10 years. As such, concerns have largely centred on what will happen to the land once this lease expires. It is noted however, that North Yorkshire County Council’s Children and Young People’s Services have confirmed that should the landowner not be in agreement to renew the lease, the Council could use compulsory purchase powers to acquire the land at the market rate at that time, based upon its use as a playing field and not a more premium rate. However, it is noted that this is a civil/private matter and should be given no weight in the determination of this planning application.
8.0 Conclusion
8.1 The proposed development seeks the change of use of a field and woodland area from agricultural to D1, for use as playing field and other outdoor activity associated with Saxton C of E Primary School. Whilst the proposal appears relatively minor in nature, the application is complicated by the numerous constraints which affect the application site.
8.2 It is noted that the harm resulting from the proposed development is generally considered to be relatively minor by virtue of the change of use including no form of built development. However, the application site is located within the Green Belt, and as the proposed use does not fall within one of the exceptions listed within the NPPF, as a starting point the development is considered to be ‘inappropriate development’ which should be not be granted planning permission unless very special circumstances exist which clearly outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt.
8.3 It is noted that applicant has provided an argument as to why they believe very special circumstances exist for the proposed development. However, whilst it is considered that the proposal would not impact upon the openness or permanency of the Green Belt, it is not considered that the need for the development or special circumstances has been sufficiently demonstrated to an extent that clearly outweighs
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 29
205
the harm caused to the Green Belt. For this reason it is considered that the applicant has not fully demonstrated that very special circumstances exist, and as such the proposed development is considered to be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be contrary to National and Local Planning Policy in relation to the protection of Green Belt.
8.4 For the reasons mentioned above, it is therefore considered that, the proposed development is not compliant with the policies which comprise the Development Plan currently in force for the area and all other relevant material considerations.
9.0 Recommendation(S)
9.1 For the following reasons:
i) the proposal represents an inappropriate development within the Green Belt as it is considered that the proposed development as it is not considered to be one of the exceptions noted within Paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF;
ii) the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed development represents a ‘very special circumstance’ to an extent that clearly outweighs the harm to the Green Belt ;
iii) the need for the proposed development does not clearly outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt which is afforded significant weight;
iv) the applicant has not demonstrated sufficient justification for the loss of ‘best and most versatile’ land;
v) the proposed development is not considered to be in-compliance with the principles of the NPPF, PPG and with Policies SP2 and SP3 of the Selby District Core Strategy in that the development is considered to be inappropriate development within the Green Belt and ‘very special circumstances have not been sufficiently demonstrated.
9.2 That, PLANNING PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the change of use of field and woodland area from agricultural to D1, for use as playing field and other outdoor activity associated with Saxton C of E Primary School, on land adjacent to Saxton C of E Primary School, Dam Lane, Saxton, Tadcaster, LS24 9QF.
Statement of Compliance with Article 35 of the Town and Country Development Management Procedure Order 2015
In determining this planning application, the County Planning Authority has worked with the applicant adopting a positive and proactive manner. The County Council offers the opportunity for pre-application discussion on applications and the applicant, in this case, chose to take up this service. Proposals are assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework, Replacement Local Plan policies and Supplementary Planning Documents, which have been subject to proactive publicity and consultation prior to their adoption. During the course of the determination of this application, the applicant has been informed of the existence of all consultation responses and representations made in a timely manner which provided the applicant/agent with the opportunity to respond to any matters raised. The County Planning Authority has sought solutions to problems arising by liaising with consultees, considering other representations received and liaising with the applicant as
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 30
206
necessary. Where appropriate, changes to the proposal were sought when the statutory determination timescale allowed.
D BOWE Corporate Director, Business and Environmental Services
Author of report: Nick Atkinson
Background Documents to this Report:
1. Planning Application Ref Number: C8/2015/0447/CPO (NY/2015/0107/COU) registered as valid on 01 April 2015. Application documents can be found on the County Council's Online Planning Register by using the following web link: https://onlineplanningregister.northyorks.gov.uk/register/ 2. Consultation responses received. 3. Representations received.
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 31
207
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&RF Committee Saxton Primary School/ 32
208 ITEM 6 North Yorkshire County Council
Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee
20 October 2015
Items dealt with under the Scheme of Delegation
Report of the Corporate Director – Business and Environmental Services
The Items reported below have been determined between: 11 August 2015 – 21 September 2015 inclusive
A. COUNTY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT
C8/2015/0921/CPO (NY/2015/0223/FUL) Carlton in Snaith CP School, Townend Avenue, Carlton, Goole, DN14 9NR Decision Notice: 14 September 2015 Planning application for the purposes of the erection of metal store to replace existing shed on land at Carlton in Snaith CP School, Townend Avenue, Carlton, Goole, DN14 9NR (South Selby Electoral Division - Selby District) PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED subject to conditions
C1/15/00578/CM (NY/2015/0209/FUL) Richmond Methodist Primary School, Darlington Road, Richmond, DL10 7BH Decision Notice: 10 September 2015 Planning application for the purposes of the erection of a gazebo on land at Richmond Methodist Primary School, Darlington Road, Richmond, DL10 7BH (Richmond Electoral Division - Richmondshire District) PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED subject to conditions
C6/79/1124/N/CMA (NY/2015/0203/FUL) Springwater School, High Street, Harrogate, North Yorkshire,HG2 7LW Decision Notice: 2 September 2015 Planning application for the purposes of the erection of a permanent prefabricated classroom unit and demolition of garage and three stores on land at Springwater School, High Street, Harrogate, North Yorkshire,HG2 7LW (Harrogate Starbeck Electoral Division - Harrogate District) PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED subject to conditions
C2/15/01655/CCC (NY/2015/0202/LBC) Thirsk New Bridge, Finkle Street, Thirsk, North Yorkshire Decision Notice: 15 September 2015 Application for Listed Building Consent for the localised dismantling of the Southern parapet and replacement with new stones, replacement of heavily weathered stone to the northern elevation, eroded joints to be raked out and repointed using mortar to match prevailing existing mortar, resurface the northern footway over structure, resurfacing of the bridge over the full width up to the kerb face, refresh road markings, structure to be cleaned of vegetation on land at Thirsk New Bridge, Finkle Street, Thirsk, North Yorkshire (Thirsk Electoral Division - Hambleton District) LISTED BUILDING CONSENT GRANTED - subject to conditions
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&R F Committee Items dealt with under Scheme of Delegation/1 item 209 C2/15/01751/CCC (NY/2015/0183/FUL) Huby C of E Primary School, Tollerton Road, Huby, York, YO61 1HX Decision Notice: 10 September 2015 Planning application for the purposes of the extension of existing car park on land at Huby C of E Primary School, Tollerton Road, Huby, York, YO61 1HX (Stillington Electoral Division - Hambleton District) PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED subject to conditions
NY/2015/0170/A27 Brompton on Swale Church of England, Primary School, Brompton Park, Brompton on Swale, North Yorkshire, DL10 7JW Decision Notice: 2 September 2015 Brompton on Swale Church of England, Primary School, Brompton Park, Brompton on Swale, North Yorkshire, DL10 7JW on land at Application for the approval of details reserved by condition No. 4 of Planning Permission Ref. No. C1/15/00047/CM which relates to samples of the brickwork on behalf of North Yorkshire County Council Details APPROVED
NY/2015/0169/A27 Alverton Community Primary School, Mount Road, Northallerton, North Yorkshire, DL6 1RB Decision Notice: 2 September 2015 Alverton Community Primary School, Mount Road, Northallerton, North Yorkshire, DL6 1RB on land at Application for the approval of details reserved by condition No's 4, 5, 6 & 7 of Planning Permission Ref. No. C2/14/02522/CCC which relates to hours of construction works, site compound, site clearance, demolition, excavation or depositing of material in connection with the construction on the site and details of the routes to be used by HCV construction traffic and precautions to prevent the deposit of mud on the public highway on behalf of North Yorkshire County Council Details APPROVED
C4/15/01222/CC (NY/2015/0165/FUL) Airy Hill CP School, Airy Hill, Waterstead Lane, Whitby, North Yorkshire, YO21 1PZ Decision Notice: 18 August 2015 Planning application for the purposes of the erection of a single storey classroom extension and creation of a new footpath on land at Airy Hill CP School, Airy Hill, Waterstead Lane, Whitby, North Yorkshire, YO21 1PZ (Whitby / Streonshalh Electoral Division - Scarborough District) PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED subject to conditions
C6/63/41/V/CMA (NY/2015/0152/FUL) Roecliffe Church of England Primary School, Roecliffe Village, Roecliffe, North Yorkshire. YO51 9LY Decision Notice: 18 August 2015 Planning application for the purposes of the erection of single storey extension, external steps with landing, handrail and demolition works. on land at Roecliffe Church of England Primary School, Roecliffe Village, Roecliffe, North Yorkshire. YO51 9LY (Boroughbridge Electoral Division - Harrogate District) PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED subject to conditions
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&R F Committee Items dealt with under Scheme of Delegation/2
210 C6/63/41/U/CMA (NY/2015/0150/LBC) Roecliffe Church of England Primary School,Roecliffe Village, Roecliffe, North Yorkshire, YO51 9LY Decision Notice: 11 September 2015 Listed Building Consent application for the purposes of the erection of single storey extension, external steps with landing, handrail and demolition works on land at Roecliffe Church of England Primary School, Roecliffe Village, Roecliffe, North Yorkshire, YO51 9LY (Boroughbridge Electoral Division - Harrogate District) LISTED BUILDING CONSENT GRANTED
C8/2015/0527/CPO (NY/2015/0142/LBC) Outwood House Farm, Selby Common, Selby, North Yorkshire, YO8 3RN Decision Notice: 2 September 2015 Listed Building Consent application for the purposes of the installation of an oil fired central heating system on land at Outwood House Farm, Selby Common, Selby, North Yorkshire, YO8 3RN (Selby Barlby Electoral Division - Selby District) LISTED BUILDING CONSENT GRANTED
C4/15/01099/CC (NY/2015/0044/FUL) Northstead Community Primary School, Maple Drive, Scarborough, North Yorkshire, YO12 6LP Decision Notice: 10 September 2015 Retrospective planning application for the purposes of the replacement of a damaged concrete roof with a fibre glass flat roof, roof lights, new window openings and relocated doorway on land at Northstead CP School, Maple Drive, Scarborough, North Yorkshire, YO12 6LP (Woodlands Electoral Division - Scarborough District) PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED subject to conditions
B. COUNTY MATTER DEVELOPMENT
NY/2015/0260/SCR Pickering 1 wellsite, Malton Road, Pickering, North Yorkshire Decision Notice: 17 September 2015 Request for a formal Screening Opinion for a change of use from a single use natural gas production well to dual use natural gas production and produced water reinjection well SCREENING OPINION ISSUED
NY/2015/0250/A27 Low Grange Quarry, Low Grange Farm, Melsonby, Richmond Decision Letter: 1 September 2015 Application for the approval of details reserved by condition No. 5 of Planning Permission Ref. C1/15/00326/CM which relates to surface water drainage on land at Low Grange Quarry, Low Grange Farm, Melsonby, Richmond on behalf of Mr Austen Richardson Details APPROVED
NY/2015/0218/A27 Tofts Road, Kirby Misperton, Malton, North Yorkshire, YO17 6BG Decision Letter: 10 September 2015 Application for the approval of details reserved by condition No.'s 6, 8, 11, 12, 24 and 27 of Planning Permission Ref C3/14/00005/CPO which relates to highway improvements, culverting of the watercourse, precautions to prevent the deposit of mud on the public highway, provision of storage areas, surface water drainage and landscaping on land at Tofts Road, Kirby Misperton, Malton, YO17 6BG on behalf of North Yorkshire County Council. Details APPROVED NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&R F Committee Items dealt with under Scheme of Delegation/3
211 NY/2015/0131/A27 Eggborough Sand Pit, Weeland Road, Hensall, Goole, DN14 QRL Decision Letter: 25 August 2015 Application for the approval of details reserved by condition No's 13 & 14 of Planning Permission C8/2012/1045/CPO which relates to a dust control scheme and a drainage scheme on land at Eggborough Sand Pit, Weeland Road, Hensall, Goole, DN14 QRL on behalf of Mone Bros Details APPROVED
To access the planning application details, consultation responses and a copy of the report and decision notice containing any planning conditions relevant to the development please access the County Council’s Online Planning Register at the following web address: https://onlineplanningregister.northyorks.gov.uk/register/PlanAppSrch.aspx (Please enter the planning application reference number (NY/…) into the ‘Application Reference’ field).
DAVID BOWE Corporate Director – Business and Environmental Services
Author of Report: Andrea Taylor
Background Documents: None
NYCC – 20 October 2015 – P&R F Committee Items dealt with under Scheme of Delegation/4
212