Compound Rear of James Farm, James Lane, Grazeley Green GF Energy Ltd

Item Application No. 8 Week Date Proposal, Location and No. and Parish Applicant

(3) 15/02065/FUL 28th September 2015 Change of use of vacant former Burghfield agricultural site to use for the installation and operation of a 20MW gas fuelled capacity mechanism embedded generation plant to support the National Grid. Thereafter, upon cessation, the restoration of the land back to agricultural use. Compound rear of James Farm, James Lane, Grazeley Green GF Energy Ltd

The application can be viewed on the Council’s website at the following link: http://planning.westberks.gov.uk/rpp/index.asp?caseref=15/02065/FUL

Recommendation Summary: To DELEGATE to the Head of Planning and Countryside to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to conditions

Ward Members: Councillor Carol Jackson-Doerge Councillor Ian Morrin

Reason for Committee Determination: Level of objection

Committee Site Visit: 13th January 2016

Contact Officer Details Name: Bob Dray Job Title: Senior Planning Officer Tel No: 01635 519111 Email: [email protected]

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 20th January 2016 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This application seeks planning permission for the change of use of a vacant former agricultural site to use for the installation and operation of a 20MW gas fuelled capacity mechanism embedded generation plant to support National Grid. Thereafter, upon cessation, it is proposed to restore the land back to agricultural use.

1.2 The proposed development comprises 18 transformers, associated buildings, security and sound attenuation fencing, and other ancillary development. The connections from the gas source and to the National Grid would be underground; no overhead power lines are proposed. It is understood from the applicants that the connections will be made by statutory undertakers under permitted development, and therefore these details do not form part of this planning application.

1.3 The application site comprises land to the rear of James Farm in Grazeley Green. The site is accessed from a shared road that runs along the southern edge of James Farm, serving a number of industrial and commercial uses. The application site itself is enclosed by a 2 to 3 metre high earth bund. There is a belt of trees along the southern boundary, and a mixture of other vegetation around the perimeter of the site.

1.4 In terms of planning constraints, the application site is located in open countryside within the East Kennet Valley. It is located in EA Flood Zone 1, although higher flood zones are present at the front of the site as Burghfield Brook passes through the wider site.

2. PLANNING HISTORY

149993 Minerals Consent: Retain clay/sand section, add top soil, landscaping incorporating tree planting to boundaries and new grassland. Approved, 08/04/1997.

13/02517/CERTE Lawful Development Certificate Application: Use of land as B8 storage. Withdrawn 16/12/2013.

13/03185/FUL Full Planning Application: 20MW gas fuelled capacity mechanism embedded generation plant to support National Grid. Withdrawn 31/03/2014.

14/01034/FUL Full Planning Application: Change of use of vacant former agricultural site to use for the installation and operation of a 20MW gas fuelled capacity mechanism embedded generation plant to support National Grid. Thereafter, upon cessation, the restoration of the land back to agricultural. Returned as invalid 31/10/2014.

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 20th January 2016 3. EIA & PUBLICITY

3.1 The application has been considered under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. A screening opinion has been issued from the Council confirming that EIA is not required.

3.2 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (DMPO) requires that the application be publicised by giving requisite notice: (a) by site display in at least one place on or near the land to which the application relates for not less than 21 days; or (b) by serving the notice on any adjoining owner of occupier.

3.3 The publicity undertaken by the Council has been in accordance with the DMPO and the West Berkshire Council Statement of Community Involvement. A site notices was displayed at the site entrance from James Lane. Neighbour notification letters were sent to 10 nearby properties.

3.4 It has been brought to the Council’s attention that a flyer has been distributed to properties in the wider area, including Mortimer, Burghfield, Theale and Calcot. The flyer included the Council’s logo and was headed “Power station development proposal”, but was created and distributed by an unknown third party. The flyer uses subjective language and suggests reasons to object, but does not specify the precise nature of the development. The majority of representations appear to have been submitted in response to the incomplete information contained in the flyer because they quote similar reasons for objection and a number have interpreted the information to relate to a solar farm, wind farm, or other forms of electricity generation that are not proposed.

4. CONSULTATION

4.1 Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultations

Burghfield Parish Council: No objections Wokefield Parish Council: Object 1. Too close to residential properties, regarding emissions, noise and vibration. 2. In a predominantly rural area, not industrial as implied by the application. 3. Wokefield Parish believes the Parish has made a significant contribution to the supply of ‘green’ energy with adjacent solar farm. 4. Further long-term loss of agricultural land. Highways: No objections Environmental Health: Conditional permission Environment Agency: No objections Ecologist: No objections Drainage Officer: Comments (see section 6.13) Tree Officer:: No objections Office of Nuclear Regulation: Advise against if Emergency Planning object Emergency Planning: No objections

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 20th January 2016 Health & Safety Executive: No response Minerals and Waste: No response MOD: No response AWE: No response Scottish Southern Electric: No objection British Gas: No response Energy Efficiency Officer: Advice (see section 6.2)

4.2 Public consultation

Original consultation: Total: 36 Support: 1 Object: 28

Summary of comments  Impact on neighbour amenity;  Devaluation of property;  Noise during construction and once in use;  Pollution and emissions;  Close to local schools;  Increase in traffic;  Risk to security at AWE;  Flooding;  Risk to safety of residents;  Brownfield sites should be made use of;  Solar panels preferred / support letter in relation to solar farms;  No evidence to back up amount of power supply to be generated;  May then seek to support scheme for 15,000 new houses;  Other sites in the vicinity are doing enough to support renewable clean energy;  Health implications for nearby residents;  Impact on landscape;  Impact on local roads during construction;  Query over inconsistencies in application documentation;  Impact on wildlife;  Scheme should be on higher ground;  Query why gas powered and not aerobic digesters or renewable energy sources;  Right of access issues;  General queries about nature of application;  Infrastructure in Calcot already reduced

5. PLANNING POLICY

5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that the determination of any planning application must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The statutory development plan for West Berkshire comprises:  West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026)  West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007)  Replacement Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire (2001)  Waste Local Plan for Berkshire (1998)

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 20th January 2016 5.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and who these are expected to be applied. It is a material consideration in planning decisions. The NPPF is supported by the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

5.3 According to paragraph 215 of the NPPF, due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given).

5.4 The West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) is the first development plan document (DPD) within the new West Berkshire Local Plan. It sets out a long term vision for West Berkshire to 2026 and translates this into spatial terms, setting out proposals for where development will go, and how this development will be built. The following policies from the Core Strategy are relevant to this development:  NPPF Policy  ADPP1: Spatial Strategy  ADPP6: The East Kennet Valley  CS5: Infrastructure Requirements and Delivery  CS8: Nuclear Installations AWE Aldermaston and Burghfield  CS9: Location and Type of Business Development  CS10: Rural Economy  CS13: Transport  CS14: Design Principles  CS16: Flooding  CS17: Biodiversity and Geodiversity  CS18: Green Infrastructure  CS19: Historic Environment and Landscape Character

5.5 A number of policies from the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007) remain part of the development plan following the publication of the Core Strategy. The following saved policies from the Local Plan are relevant to this development:  OVS.5: Environmental Nuisance and Pollution Control  OVS.6: Noise Pollution  OVS.7: Hazardous Substances  OVS.8: Hazardous Substances  TRANS.1: Meeting the Transport Needs of New Development

5.6 The Replacement Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire 2001 (RMLP) was first adopted in 1995 with alterations adopted in 1997 and 2001. The Waste Local Plan for Berkshire 1998 (WLP) was adopted in 1998 and covers the period of up to 2006. The Secretary of State has directed that a number of policies in the RMLP and WLP should be saved indefinitely until replaced by national, regional or local Minerals and Waste policies. The following policies from the RMLP and WLP are relevant to this development:  RMLP Policy 1  RMLP Policy 2

5.7 The following local policy documents adopted by the Council are material considerations relevant to the development:

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 20th January 2016  Quality Design SPD (2006)

6. APPRAISAL

6.1 Decision taking context

6.1.1 To the extent that development plan policies (detailed in Section 5 of this report) are material to an application for planning permission the decision must be taken in accordance with the Development Plan unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise (in accordance with Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

6.1.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration. It stresses the importance of having a planning system that is genuinely plan-led. However, the NPPF has a presumption in favour of sustainable development that provides for where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, the Framework says planning permission should be granted unless:  any adverse impacts in 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, including sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directive, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Local Green Space, AONB, designated heritage assets, and locations at risk of flooding.

6.1.3 The Development Plan includes policies which are generally applicable to all development, and a Spatial Strategy that seeks to guide development to the most sustainable locations. These policies are consistent with the NPPF and attract full weight. The Development Plan does not, however, include policies which specifically relate to the type of development proposed. As such, due regard must also be had to the presumption in favour of sustainable development as detailed above, and the Council should look to grant planning permission wherever possible.

6.1.4 The development must therefore be regarded as acceptable in principle and planning permission granted unless substantive grounds for refusal can be clearly demonstrated.

6.2 Electricity Market Reform and Energy Policy

6.2.1 The energy policies in the National Planning Policy Framework are limited to the encouragement of renewable and low carbon energy generation. The consideration of this application therefore requires wider consideration of more recent Government energy policy.

6.2.2 The development is proposed in response to the Government’s current Electricity Market Reform (EMR). The UK faces very rapid closure of existing electricity generating capacity as older, more polluting plants, go offline, whilst UK electricity demand is expected to grow as our economy grows and heat and transport systems are increasingly electrified. The EMR is designed to decarbonise electricity generation, keep the lights on, and minimise the cost to consumers. One of the two

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 20th January 2016 main mechanisms that the Government is introducing to reform the electricity market is the Capacity Market (CM).

6.2.3 The Capacity Market aims to enhance the security of our electricity supply by ensuring that sufficient reliable capacity is in place to meet demand. The Capacity Market works by offering all capacity providers (new and existing power stations, electricity storage and capacity provided by demand side response) a steady, predictable revenue stream on which they can base their future investments.

6.2.4 In return for this revenue (capacity payments) they must deliver energy when needed to keep the lights on, or face penalties. The cost to consumers for this capacity will be minimised due to the competitive nature of the auction process which will set the level of capacity payments.

6.2.5 According to Government, the first capacity auction was due to be undertaken in December 2014, subject to state aid clearance being received. Capacity will be in place by the winter of 2018. In advance of this, the Government will run two transitional auctions for demand side capacity in 2015 and 2016. This will help grow the demand side industry and ensure effective competition between traditional power plants and new forms of capacity; driving down future costs for consumers.

6.2.6 During the consideration of application 14/01034/FUL The applicants have made the following representations on how their proposal responds to the needs of the EMR.

“This is from the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s Electricity Market Reform – Capacity Market; Impact Assessment published 23rd June 2014.

While the market has historically delivered sufficient investment in capacity, the market may fail to bring forward sufficient capacity in the future. The UK faces very rapid closure of existing capacity as older, more polluting, plant go offline and as the power system decarbonises. The decarbonisation of the power sector means that thermal plant can expect to run at lower load factors in future and so need to recover a greater proportion of their fixed costs through scarcity rents at times of stress. This increases risks for investment in thermal capacity exactly at a time when the UK needs significant investment in new gas build to replace the existing ageing fleet. So while there have always been risks that an energy-only market would fail to invest sufficiently in new capacity, these risks have become significantly more material and so necessitate intervention to ensure security of supply.

Prior to the latest DECC publication above we were present at Stakeholders Forums where this impact was discussed and how the industry could provide this reserve capacity.

The preference was for low cost generation, which can be held in reserve and start within a minute. The requirement is for an emergency 24 hour availability of generation by the cleanest most efficient low carbon means. Ideally this is rapid response hydro, but building new elevated height reservoirs is not possible due to planning considerations, civil engineering and time constraints, ignoring capital cost. Solar and wind generation by their very nature are not dependable and are part of the problem on late winter afternoons when the country often has a peak demand of

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 20th January 2016 power. CCGT power stations (gas turbines) which are generally accepted as the cleanest and most efficient of UK’s main generation would take too long to respond. The only real answer to an emergency power requirement is small scale packaged generators hibernating until called for. By substituting traditional diesel standby generation with gas power it is much quieter, more efficient, cleaner emissions and by comparison can be recorded as lower carbon. Perhaps in 10-15 years time the promised series of nuclear power stations and long life lithium type batteries will be able to provide the UK’s emergency standby capacity but until then the best available technology not entailing excessive cost (BATNEEC) is gas fuelled reciprocating generators.”

6.2.7 Ed Davey, Secretary of State at DECC in a speech in December 2012 directly identified this kind of technology as low carbon, delivering half the carbon of a coal- fired power station and able to turn on in eight minutes to respond to demand. In the same speech he covered this as a technology that met with the need for localised energy generation capable of responding quickly to the needs of customer pressure on the National Grid.

6.2.8 The Council’s Energy Efficiency Officers confirm that distributed energy generation appears to remain a central part of Government policy due to the anticipated demands over the next 3-5 years, especially when coupled with a reduction in fossil-fuel power stations. The Energy Officer points out that this form of technology doesn’t currently qualify for a Feed in Tariff (FiT), or similar payment, from any Government Initiative, but it does seem to be an underlying technology that is likely to become more prevalent, probably destined to become a key support of the Governments EMR agenda.

6.2.9 Scottish and Southern Electric (SSE) have confirmed that they have no existing infrastructure on the proposed site and therefore have no objection to this application. This statement refers to this planning application only; it in no way should be taken as an indication of available network capacity. SSE advise that the development will need to apply for a connection in the usual way.

6.2.10 Overall, the current EMR is seeking to fill the impending gap in energy generation nationwide, and schemes such as that proposed are considered to make a significant contribution. The application submission explains that the application site has been selected as it fulfils a number of technical requirements, which are not necessarily suitable in any location. The need for the development should therefore be given significant weight.

6.3 Compliance with the Development Plan and NPPF

6.3.1 One of the core planning principles of the NPPF is that Planning should support the transition to a low carbon future, and encourage the use of renewable resources. It is considered that the EMR as a whole shares this objective, but also seeks to address issues of energy security in the medium term. As the proposal is judged to be in accordance with the EMR, it is also considered that it, somewhat indirectly, supports the transition to low carbon energy generation. Whilst renewable and low carbon forms of energy generation would be preferable, it should be noted that diversity in support is generally beneficial in terms of energy security, and that the proposed site is suitable for this form of decentralised energy generation.

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 20th January 2016 6.3.2 The Core Strategy’s Spatial Strategy (Policies ADPP1 and ADPP6) seeks to only permit appropriate limited development in the countryside. The character of all settlements in this area will be conserved and enhanced by ensuring that any development responds positively to the local context. The proposed development is not considered to conflict with the Spatial Strategy because of the local context of adjacent industrial development, the absence of sensitive uses in very close proximity, and the low level of vehicle movements anticipated to be generated by the use.

6.3.3 Overall, the development is in general conformity with the NPPF and the Development Plan.

6.4 Similar developments

6.4.1 The applicants have provided decision notices for four planning permissions for similar developments. Officers have reviewed these other applications online, and it is considered that the schemes are broadly comparable in scale and type to that being proposed at James Farm.

6.4.2 A number of these sites are on undeveloped agricultural land, one within a metropolitan greenbelt. Most are within, or at the edge of, industrial areas. In most cases, environmental health officers’ primary interest has been neighbouring amenity, and none appear to have objected to the other schemes subject to conditions relating to acoustic fences and maximum noise levels, as recommended in this instance. Concern has evidently been raised regarding emissions at some of these sites, but there is no evidence on the public files to indicate that there was a particular concern on air pollution.

6.4.3 Having reviewed the information available on other similar approved sites, officers are satisfied that the current scheme has been comprehensively assessed, and that all relevant material considerations have been taken into account.

6.5 Existing use

6.5.1 The application site was formerly used for agricultural purposes. An application for a Lawful Development Certificate (Existing Use), which sought to establish an existing B8 use of the land, was withdrawn because it could not be demonstrated that the B8 use was taking place up until the submission of that application. The site had been vacated before the submission of the application and no substantive evidence was submitted in support.

6.5.2 It is evident from site inspection, historical aerial photography, and the recollection of planning enforcement officers that one or more uses of an industrial character have taken place on the site without the benefit of planning permission, but no such uses have, to date, been demonstrated as lawful.

6.5.3 The site is currently vacant. It is accessed via the shared road that serves the various uses to the rear of James Farm. The application is accompanied by an Agricultural Impact Assessment, prepared by the applicants. The Assessment states that the proposal would result in the loss of less than one hectare of Grade 5 agricultural land. The Council’s records indicate that the application site is within an

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 20th January 2016 area of Grade 4 agricultural land, and it is unclear from the report whether the land has been properly surveyed.

6.5.4 In any event, it is clear that the value of the site as agricultural land is significantly diminished by the presence of hard-standing and by its small and enclosed nature. The Framework places greatest weight on the retention of the best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land, which is defined as land within Grades 1 to 3a. It is clear that the land could not be classified as BMV, and therefore relatively limited weight can be afforded to its loss.

6.5.5 Nonetheless, the application includes proposals to revert the land back to agricultural use following the cessation of its use for generating electricity. There is not a set lifetime for the development, and therefore relatively little weight can be attributed to this element of the proposal. Nonetheless, these proposals do weigh in favour of the application because they present an opportunity to restore the land to agriculture in the long term.

6.6 Health and safety

6.6.1 The health and safety merits of the proposal would be determined by separate legislation, and it is not the purpose of the planning system to duplicate such controls. However, in strictly land-use terms it is considered that the application site lends itself to the proposal in terms of security. With security fencing and CCTV it is considered that such development in this location is unlikely to increase the risk of crime and disorder.

6.6.2 The application site is within the Inner Land Use Planning Consultation Zone for the Burghfield Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE(B)), a licensed nuclear facility to which Core Strategy Policy CS8 applies. The policy enables the consideration of the impacts of any development on the risks and response capabilities to any incident at AWE(B).

6.6.3 Accordingly, the Council’s Emergency Planning Officer has reviewed the application, but has made no adverse comments. On this basis, the Officer of Nuclear Regulation also do not advise against this application.

6.7 Landscape impact

6.7.1 The application site is located to the rear of James Farm, with open countryside beyond to the north, west and south. Immediately to the east are the other buildings and uses of James Farm. There is an earth bund that encloses the site along its western, north and eastern boundaries; this bund varies between two and three metres in height. The southern boundary of the site comprises a mature belt of trees and other low level vegetation. Some trees and vegetation also encompass the other boundaries of the site, on the outer side of the earth bunds.

6.7.2 The boundaries are such that there would be no views into the site from the open countryside to the south, and any views into the site from the open countryside to the west and north would be largely mitigated by the intervening bund and vegetation, which are located outside the application site and would therefore not be affected by the proposals.

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 20th January 2016 6.7.3 The height of the transformer is 2 metres, of the engine enclosure is 3.5 metres, and to the top of the protruding exhaust is 4.5 metres. The proposed substation near the access to the site is shown as 5.3 metres in height. This is considered excessive, and a reduction is considered necessary. It is understood that a lower alternative substation design is being developed by the contractors, and it is considered reasonable to impose a condition requiring that development shall not take place until a lower building has been approved. Otherwise, the maximum height of the proposed buildings is 3 metres, and following an on-site visual assessment it is considered that it is unlikely that these buildings and plant would be visible from surrounding open countryside. Any views of the development above the bunds would in any event be limited and obscured through the surrounding boundary vegetation. The acoustic fence would measure 4 metres in height, but could be limited to the eastern and southern boundaries where it would be largely hidden from the surrounding countryside.

6.7.4 The acoustic fence may be more readily discernible from the east, within James Farm, because of the relative absence of vegetation along the eastern bund. However, James Farm already has an industrial character by virtue of the existing industrial buildings and other uses. The proposed use is not considered to detract from the existing character.

6.7.5 For these reasons it is considered that the site is capable of accommodating the proposed development without demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and is therefore compliant with Core Strategy Policies CS14 and CS19 in this respect.

6.7.6 During their consideration of the comparable development proposed by application 14/01034/FUL, members of the Eastern Area Planning Committee expressed the view that the landscape impact may only be acceptable if the earth bund surrounding the application site is retained for the duration that the development occupies the site. It is a reasonable conclusion that the retention of the bunds is necessary to ensure the landscape impact is acceptable. This can be secured by condition.

6.8 Neighbouring amenity

6.8.1 The adjacent site to the east has planning permission for B8 storage for the siting of up to 20 storage containers and the open storage of up to 26 caravans. The next site to the east contains a number of industrial uses, which are authorised by a Lawful Development Certificate (13/02517/CERTE). It is therefore not considered that the proposal would result in any loss of light, privacy or outlook, or cause an overbearing impact on neighbouring uses. Environmental impacts that may also impact on residential amenity are considered in sections 6.9 to 6.11 of this report.

6.9 Noise

6.9.1 According to Paragraph 123 of the NPPF, 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; and mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions.

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 20th January 2016 6.9.2 There are residential properties to the front of James Farm, as well as an approved residential development near the shared access that has yet to be constructed. The impacts on these properties, in terms of any noise generated by the development, is therefore a material consideration. The following table provides the distances between the application site and neighbouring properties.

Property Approximate Approximate Direction Distance James Farm, James Lane (The Old Stables, The Old East 200m Smithy and Smithy Top are closely grouped together) Brook Cottage, Goring Lane South-east 230m Culverlands House, Mans Hill, Burghfield Common West 650m 1 & 2 James Lane North 500m North Lodge & Simpsons Farmhouse, Burghfield North-west 650m

6.9.3 Consequently, a noise assessment report accompanies the application. This has been revised during the course of the application to reflect the location of the nearest sensitive receptor. The report concludes that, with mitigation measures in place, noise from the plant will be at least 5dB below background during the night time period (2300 – 0700), thus indicating that complaints are unlikely.

6.9.4 Environmental Health Officers have reviewed the noise assessment report, and have raised no objections subject to the imposition of conditions to ensure that noise is controlled.

6.9.5 A four metre high acoustic fence is required to ensure that sufficient noise mitigation is achieved and the specification for this is included in Paragraph 7 of the report. According to Environmental Health Officers, the acoustic fence would need to be provided along the eastern and southern boundaries, and turn the corner to ensure the noise generated by the development is enclosed. They are satisfied that the whole site does not need to be enclosed because of the long distance to the nearest residential properties to the west and north. This means that the acoustic fence is not required along the western and northern boundaries, which are the most visually sensitive with open countryside beyond.

6.9.6 It would be necessary to apply a condition to ensure that the fence is constructed in accordance with the submitted specification before the use commences and ensure that the acoustic fence is retained and maintained for the duration of the permitted use. A further condition stipulating maximum noise levels (generated from the development) from the nearest sensitive premises should also be imposed. Subject to these conditions it is considered that any potential adverse noise impact would be avoided.

6.10 Air pollution and quality

6.10.1 According to Paragraph 120 of the NPPF, to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution, planning policies any decision 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.

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 20th January 2016 6.10.2 Paragraph 112 states that local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impacts 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

6.10.3 Depending on its size, Environmental Permitting is undertaken on such operations by the Local Authority (Environmental Health) or Environment Agency under the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control regime. Local Authorities are responsible for permitting plant with an output greater than 20MW, and the Environment Agency is responsible for permitting plant with an output from 50MW.

6.10.4 The total output of the proposed site is stated in the application to be 20MW, although officer calculations based on the submitted datasheets indicate a maximum operating capacity of 20.88MW. The proposed site comprises 18 individual transformers. Environmental Health Officers interpretation of the guidance is that it is not the cumulative amount of power generation that can be considered; therefore each plant at 1160kW is dealt with separately in terms of Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Control. As such, the proposed site would not require a permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations.

6.10.5 Notwithstanding the above, in terms of assessing the polluting potential of the entire development, it is noted that even the combined output of all transformers may only just fall within the regime. Environmental Health Officers consider this to be an indicator that the potential for the development to cause significant environmental pollution is low.

6.10.6 Environmental Health Officers are satisfied that emissions from the development would not cause an unacceptable elevation in oxides of nitrogen or particulates (PM10) that would impact on human health. Environmental Health is satisfied that the development would not have a significant impact on local air quality, or cause a breach of the Air Quality Objectives.

6.11 Nuisance from fumes and odour

6.11.1 The emissions to consider when assessing any odour impacts are particulates and hydrocarbons. Having regard to the low levels of such emissions indicated by the datasheets, Environmental Health Officers consider that there should not be any issues as long as good combustion is achieved. The guidance on permitted processes (>20MW) states that gas-powered generators should not create significant odours or fumes if they are working efficiently.

6.11.2 If complaints are received about fumes or odours due, for example, to the lack of maintenance and servicing, they will be investigated as a potential ‘statutory nuisance’ under powers using Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It is considered unlikely that there will be an occurrence of a statutory nuisance.

6.12 Transport and highway impacts

6.12.1 On completion of works it is stated that the site will be visited by engineers and service contractors. An engineer will visit daily. The level of vehicle movements will therefore be relatively low.

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 20th January 2016 6.12.2 The highways officer has examined details of vehicle movements during the construction period. It was estimated that this period would last approximately 18 weeks with varying levels of vehicle movements during each phase. This was accepted by the Highways Authority.

6.12.3 Overall, it is considered that the development would have a short term impact on the local highway network during the construction phase, but not to a level that could not be safely accommodated. Following construction, the impact on the local highway network would be negligible.

6.13 Flood risk and sustainable drainage

6.13.1 The NPPF states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk. Core Strategy Policy CS16 strictly applies a sequential approach across the district. The application site is located in the Environment Agency’s Flood Zone 1, which has the lowest probability of fluvial (river) flooding. The development is therefore appropriately located in flood risk terms.

6.13.2 Core Strategy Policy CS16 states that on all development sites, surface water will be managed in a sustainable manner through the implementation of Sustainable Drainage Methods (SuDS). The more recent Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) is more specific; it advises that whether a sustainable drainage system should be considered will depend on the proposed development and its location, for example whether there are concerns about flooding. Sustainable drainage systems may not be practicable for some forms of development.

6.13.3 The PPG encourages sustainable drainage in locations where there are concerns about flooding and major developments (as defined by the DMPO). Neither of these conditions applies to the development. SuDS do not, therefore, need to be considered in accordance with current national policy.

6.14.4 The Lead Local Flood Authority normally only comments on major applications. They have, however, encouraged the use of SuDS, and highlight the need for pre- treatment measures for surface water drainage. The EA have made similar comments. Given the presence of possible pollutants on the site, it is reasonable and necessary to apply a condition requiring the prior approval of pre-treatment measures for the surface water drainage of the site.

6.14 Tree protection

6.14.1 There are a number of trees on the perimeter of the site. The Council’s tree officer is satisfied that the development could be carried out without impacted upon these trees.

6.15 Mineral sterilisation

6.15.1 The application site is located in an area where there are likely to be aggregate mineral reserves. As such, Policies 1 and 2 of the Replacement Minerals Local Plan (1995), which relate to sterilisation of the Districts Mineral reserves, apply.

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 20th January 2016 6.15.2 Policy 1 states that, the [Berkshire] local planning authorities will seek to husband the mineral resources of Berkshire, to prevent their wasteful use or sterilisation.

6.15.3 Policy 2 states that, the [Berkshire] local planning authorities will oppose development proposals which would cause the sterilisation of mineral deposits on the proposed development site … except where it is demonstrated that: (i) the mineral deposit is of no commercial interest, and is unlikely to be so in the future; or (ii) having regard to all relevant planning considerations, there is an overriding case in favour of allowing the proposed development to proceed without the prior extraction of the mineral; or (iii) extraction of the mineral would be subject to such strong environmental or other objection that it would be highly unlikely that it would ever be permitted in any circumstances.

6.15.4 Owing to the location of this site and the nature of the development proposal, Minerals and Waste officers consider it is unlikely that it will result in any major sterilisation of the mineral deposit, and therefore raise no objection. It is considered that exceptions (i) and (ii) of Policy 2 apply.

6.16 Conditions

6.16.1 According to the Framework, Local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations. Planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

6.16.2 Standard conditions relating to timescale for implementation, listing approved plans and documents, and materials are necessary. As detailed in the report, specific conditions are required in relation to: the pre-approval of a smaller substation, the provision of the acoustic fence, maximum noise levels, and decommissioning and restoration to agriculture. In addition to those already detailed, conditions are also required for the pre-approval of any external lighting in order to avoid intrusive lighting in the rural area that could potentially detract from the landscape.

7. CONCLUSION

7.1 Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF encourages approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay, or where the development plan is silent on a matter, granting planning permission unless there is significant and demonstrable harm or clear conflict with NPPF policies.

7.2 The proposal would support the Government’s Electricity Market Reform (EMR) by providing a new form of decentralised electricity generation for the Capacity Market (CM). There would be no demonstrable harm to the surrounding landscape or the character and appearance of the area. The development would not have a significant impact on the local highway network, and no objections have been received from the Council’s Emergency Planning Officer regarding the close proximity of AWE(B).

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 20th January 2016 7.3 Environmental Health is satisfied that the potential noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors (residential dwellings) may be mitigated by an acoustic fence and planning conditions. Environmental Health is also satisfied that any emissions would not have a significant impact on human health or air quality.

7.4 The proposals may also present an opportunity to secure the long-term restoration of the site to agriculture or other ecological end-use that would greater respect the rural character of the surrounding area. In the meantime, the development would generate electricity for the local area and would be a relatively low-key use on the site, compared to other existing uses within the wider James Farm complex.

7.5 Having regard to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, it is considered that there are clear and demonstrable economic and social benefits to the scheme in terms of generating electricity for the local area. The proposal would also deliver environmental benefits by ensuring the eventual restoration of the land to agriculture.

7.6 Overall, it is considered that the site is well-suited to the proposed use. Notwithstanding the current ambiguity in the historical use of the site, it is considered that the proposed use is better suited to such a site that is remote from more intensive residential development adjacent to mostly light industrial and commercial uses. It is therefore considered that there are strong grounds for granting planning permission. As such, the application is recommended for conditional approval as set out in Section 8.

8. FULL RECOMMENDATION

To delegate to the Head of Planning & Countryside to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions.

1. Full planning permission time limit The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2. Standard approved plans The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents listed below:

 GF Energy Location Plan 095/002 Revision D  GF Energy Existing Site Plan 095/003 Revision B  GF Energy Proposed Site Plan 095/004 Revision C  GF Energy Site Survey and Section Drawing 095/005  GF Energy Background Noise Data Plan 095/007 Revision A  GF Energy Transformer Drawing STD/010  GF Energy Containerised Generator Drawing STD/011  GF Energy Gas Governor Kiosk Drawing STD/013 Revision B  GF Energy PIR Pre Insertion Resistor Drawing STD/014  GF Energy 12m Long Switchroom Drawing STD/019

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 20th January 2016  GF Energy Welfare Cabin Drawing STD/021 Revision A  GF Energy Acoustic Fencing Drawing STD/023  Indicative Drainage Scheme Drawing dated 18/02/2014  Heras UK Fencing Systems Zenith System Document (90.3) JH2 October 2010  GF Energy Design and Access Statement Revision E dated 30/06/2015  Clover Acoustics BS4142 Noise Assessment 3057-R3 dated 04/07/2014  GF Energy Noise Data Readings 095/008 dated 08.04.2014  GF Energy Agricultural Impact Assessment 095/009 dated 22/04/2014  GF Energy Contextual Photos 95/006

GF Energy 33Kv Substation Drawing STD/012 Revision A is not an approved plan. A smaller building (lower height) is subject to pre-approval pursuant to Condition 3.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

3. Pre-approval of smaller substation No development shall take place until details of a smaller substation building, with a reduced height, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Notwithstanding the approved plans, no substation building shall be provided except in accordance with the details approved pursuant to this condition.

Reason: The currently proposed substation is considered excessive in height, such that it would be a prominent addition. The height is not justified by its function, and it has been stated that an alternative design is being developed. Given that the redesigned building would be smaller, its approval can reasonably be given pursuant to a condition without causing prejudice. This condition is imposed in the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP1, ADPP6, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Quality Design Supplementary Planning Document (June 2006).

4. Pre-approval of lighting Notwithstanding the approved plans, no development shall take place until details of any external lighting to be provided within the application site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall include information on the location, type and luminance of such lighting. Any lighting installed pursuant to this condition shall be provided in strict compliance with the approved details.

Reason: To avoid intrusive external lighting that would detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding open countryside. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP1, ADPP6, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Quality Design Supplementary Planning Document (June 2006).

5. Acoustic fence The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use (including the operation of plant or generation of electricity) until the acoustic fence has been fully provided in accordance with the approved details. The noise barrier shall meet the recommended specification as detailed in the Clover Acoustics BS4142 Noise

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 20th January 2016 Assessment Report Ref 3057-R3. The acoustic fence shall thereafter be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To protect the living conditions and amenities of residents in the vicinity of the application site, by preventing excessive noise impacts generated from the development. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006- 2026).

6. Surface water drainage The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use (including the operation of plant or generation of electricity) until surface water drainage measures have been provided in complete accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include pre-treatment measures to prevent fuels and any other potential pollutant stored within the site entering local watercourses.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the environment from potential pollutants stored on site. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Policies OVS.5, OVS.7 and OVS.8 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991- 2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

7. Materials as specified The materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall be as specified on the plans and/or the application forms.

Reason: To ensure that the external materials do not detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Quality Design Supplementary Planning Document (June 2006).

8. No external lighting without prior approval Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or an order revoking and re- enacting that Order, with or without modification), no external lighting (except that expressly authorised pursuant to Condition 4) shall be installed within the application site without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority in respect of a formal application made pursuant to the details reserved by this condition. The submitted details shall include information on the location, type and luminance of such lighting. Any lighting installed pursuant to this condition shall be provided in strict compliance with the approved details.

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 20th January 2016 9. Maximum noise levels Noise arising from the use of plant, machinery or equipment from the development hereby permitted shall not exceed a level of 5dB(A) below the existing background level when measured according to British Standard BS4142-1997, at a point one metre external to the nearest noise sensitive premises.

10. Decommissioning – restoration to agriculture The development hereby permitted shall be removed in its entirety and the land restored to agriculture within six months of the development failing to generate electricity for 12 consecutive months. The land shall be restored to agriculture in accordance with a scheme of decommissioning work and land restoration that shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the land is restored to its original undeveloped condition once the development fails to generate electricity, in the interests of protecting the amenity of the open countryside. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies ADPP1, ADPP6, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

11. Decommissioning – removal of operational development As part of the decommissioning process of Condition 10, all operational development in, on, over or under the land within the application site (red and blue lines) associated with the development hereby permitted (including, but not necessarily limited to: plant, machinery, buildings, security fence, acoustic fence, hard-standing, cabling/pipework, external lighting and security columns) shall be completely removed from the application site within six months of development failing to generate electricity for 12 consecutive months.

Reason: To ensure the land is restored to its original undeveloped condition once the development fails to generate electricity, in the interests of protecting the amenity of the open countryside. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies ADPP1, ADPP6, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

12. Retention of earth bund No development shall take place unless the earth bund surrounding the development on the western, northern and eastern boundaries of the application site is retained in its current form (the levels shall not be reduced). The earth bund shall be retained in its current form for the lifetime of the development, and the levels shall not be altered in any way until the development has been decommissioned and all operational development has been removed from the site in accordance with Conditions 10 and 11.

Reason: To ensure the retention of the earth bund that visually screens the development from the surrounding area. This condition is imposed in accordance

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 20th January 2016 with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies ADPP1, ADPP6, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

INFORMATIVES

1. Proactive actions of the LPA The Local Planning Authority (LPA) has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with a planning application. In particular, the LPA: a) [Specific examples to be completed by officers after committee resolution]

2. Damage to Footways, Cycleways and Verges The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Berkshire Act, 1986, Part II, Clause 9, which enables the Highway Authority to recover the costs of repairing damage to the footway, cycleway or grass verge, arising during building operations.

3. Damage to the Carriageway The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Highways Act 1980, which enables the Highway Authority to recover expenses due to extraordinary traffic.

4. Foul drainage Foul drainage should be connected to the main sewer. Where this is not possible and it is proposed to discharge treated effluent to ground or to a surface watercourse the applicant may require an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency. The granting of planning permission does not guarantee the granting of a permit under the Environmental Permitted Regulations 2010. A permit will only be granted where the risk to the environment is acceptable.

5. Fuel storage Any facilities for the storage of fuels, oils and/or chemicals will need to comply with the requirements of the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001 (OSR England).

Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be provided with secondary containment that is impermeable to both the oil, fuel or chemical and water, for example a bund.

The minimum volume of the secondary containment should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is more than one tank in the secondary containment the capacity of the containment should be at least the capacity of the largest tank plus 10% or 25% of the total tank capacity, whichever is greatest.

All fill points, vents, gauges and sight gauge must be location within the secondary containment. The secondary containment shall have no opening used to drain the system. Associated above ground pipework should be protected from accidental damage. Below ground pipework should have no mechanical joints, except at inspection hatches and either leak detection equipment installed or regular leak checks. All fill points and tank vent pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.

This is a requirement of the: . Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001;

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 20th January 2016 . The Control of Pollution (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) Regulations 2010; . Building Regulations 2010;

More information on the minimum legal requirements is available in ‘Above Ground Oil Storage Tanks: Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) 2’: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/290118/pmho0811bucr-e-e.pdf

6. Waste If any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then the site operator must ensure a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material off site to a suitably permitted facility.

The Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 for dealing with waste materials are applicable for any off-site movements of wastes. The developer as waste producer therefore has a duty of care to ensure all materials removed go to an appropriate permitted facility and all relevant documentation is completed and kept in line with regulations.

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 20th January 2016