Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT
APPLICATION DETAILS
APPLICATION NO: CMA/1/84 Development of a 1MW Anaerobic Digestion Energy Plant including 1 No. Digester Tank, 1 No. Residue Tank, FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION : Technical Building, Bunker and Cooling System, Access Roadway, 2 No Silage Clamps, Gas Flare. Lagoon and Section of Watercourse Culvert NAME OF APPLICANT : Hallwick Energy Land adjacent to and north east of Thomas Swan & Co ADDRESS : Ltd, Rotary Way, Consett, Durham ELECTORAL DIVISION : Delves Lane Chris Shields Planning Officer CASE OFFICER : Tel. 03000 261 394 E-mail: [email protected]
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS
1. The application site is located on the eastern edge of Consett and the north of Crookhall. The site is agricultural land to the north east of the existing Thomas Swan chemical factory. The application area is 1.95 hectares comprising of two fields with a hedgerow and watercourse running through the middle on a broadly east/west axis. The land slopes gently from north to south with a fall of approximately 7 metres across the site.
2. The A692 Leadgate bypass runs to the north of the site on a raised embankment with tree planting on either side. The A692 turns sharply south west at the Villa Real roundabout and bypasses the southern edge of Consett Town Centre.
3. The proposal is not located within, or within the setting of, any national or local designated landscape or nature conservation designation. Public Footpaths 38 and 39 (Consett) run to the east and south of the site respectively.
The proposal
4. Planning permission is sought for an anaerobic digester with a combined heat and power (CHP) plant. The development would consist of 2 large, cylindrical tanks; 1 for the digestion process and 1 for the storage of digestate residue, technical room, concrete clamp for storing feedstocks, lagoon for collecting rainwater and runoff from the storage clamp, containerised CHP plant and transformer, separator and gas flare. New infrastructure would consist of an access road leading from the adjacent Thomas Swan site and 3 new culverts to cross the network of drainage ditches on the application site.
5. The digester tank would have concrete walls to a height of 8 metres and a textile domed roof to a height of 5.2 metres giving a total height of 13.2 metres. The digester tank would have a diameter of 30 metres. The residue storage tank would have concrete walls to a height of 8 metres and a textile domed roof to a height of 6 metres giving a total height of 14 metres. The residue storage tank would have a diameter of 32 metres. The tanks would be set into the ground at different depths so that both would have a total exposed height of 10.41 metres. The technical building would be a flat roofed structure sandwiched between the 2 tanks measuring 5 metres by 3.5 metres with a height of 4 metres.
6. The storage clamp would be a flat, L-shaped, concrete pad measuring 93 metres in length (maximum) and 80 metres in width (maximum). The pad would have concrete walls measuring 4 metres in height on the north, east and west sides and open on the south side for access. The clamp would be divided into 4 sections with additional 4 metre walls. The clamp would be set into the ground, which naturally inclines from south to north, providing natural screening. The clamp would be used to store up to a years supply of feedstocks for the digester. The feedstocks would be packed in to the clamp and protected with a cover.
7. A lagoon would be required in order to capture rainwater and run off from the site which would then be used in the digester. The lagoon would be a rectilinear earth bunded structure measuring 33 metres by 57 metres with a capacity of 5000 cubic metres.
8. The CHP plant would comprise of a gas engine, generator and control equipment within a steel container measuring 12 metres by 3 metres with a height of 3 metres. Additional equipment including the exhaust stack and induction apparatus would be mounted to the roof of the container and this would rise to a maximum height of 8 metres (from ground level). The transformer is a small structure (1 metre by 2 metres) located adjacent to the CHP plant.
9. The separator, measuring 4.5 metres by 5.4 metres with a maximum height of 8.5 metres, would be used to extract the solid fraction material from the digestate so that it may be removed from the site and spread as a solid fertiliser. The remaining liquid digestate would be returned to the residue storage tank. The separator would be located to the north west of the residue storage tank and would comprise of a pump, pipework, hopper, storage clamp and access steps and platform.
10. The flare stack is required to burn off excess gas in the event that the CHP plant is not operational due to maintenance or failure. It is unlikely to be used very often and its primary function is as a safety feature. The flare stack would have the appearance narrow, tubular chimney and would have a height of 5.5 metres.
11. The site would be secured with a 2.4 metre high perimeter palisade fence finished in green. A security light on a PIR sensor would be mounted above the door of the technical room along with 2 security cameras.
Process
12. The Anaerobic Digester (AD) plant would produce energy by breaking down the feedstocks to release gas that can be used to drive a generator. Feedstocks for the proposed facility would originate from local farms within a 10 mile radius and would be grown specifically for this purpose. The facility would process some 21,000 tonnes of organic matter per annum consisting of (approximately) 32% grass, 34% maize and 34% barley. The maize and barley would be collected at harvest time (August/September depending upon weather). Grass would be brought to the site for 1 week during May, July and August (again, depending upon the weather). The feedstocks would be transported to the site using tractors with 15 tonne capacity trailers and articulated lorries with a 30 tonne capacity. The overall tonnage of feedstock would be split evenly between the vehicle types. The storage clamps would have capacity to store a full year supply of feedstock. Vehicle movements would be a maximum of 60 per day (30 in/30 out) for deliveries of feedstocks and collection of digestate which would occur all year round. Access into the site would be through the Thomas Swan factory. The factory is accessed off the A692 Consett Bypass and operates 24 hours per day.
13. The process begins with the transportation of the feedstocks from the storage clamps using a loader. The feedstock is then deposited into a hopper, which automatically delivers the feedstocks in to the digestion tank at the required rate.
14. The feedstocks would stay in the digestion tank for approximately 40 days being kept at a constant temperature of 37 degrees centigrade. The material would be occasionally agitated using a mixer to promote digestion and the resultant gas production. Once the material in the digestion tanks has been broken down it would be sent through a pipe to the residue storage tank until required. The digestate would be collected periodically for use on the farmland that produces the crops.
15. The Combined Heat and Power Unit (CHP) plant would have an output of 1 MW and this energy would be used by Thomas Swan with the excess being directed to the national grid. At times of high demand Thomas Swan would utilise 100% of the energy produced, although it would still be dependant upon a grid connection at times of peak demand. The electricity would be transferred via underground cabling and there would be no requirement for additional overhead cables. 30 to 40% of the heat generated by the CHP plant would be used to sustain the constant temperature in the digester tank.
16. The proposal would create 2 jobs; 1 full time and 1 part time.
17. The application has been accompanied by an Extended Phase 1 Ecological Survey, Flood Risk Assessment, Coal Mining Risk Assessment, Noise Assessment, Transport Assessment and a Farm Business Plan.
18. The application is reported to the County Planning Committee because it is a major development with a site area of more than 1ha.
PLANNING HISTORY
19. The application site is an agricultural field that has been subject to historic land reclamation in the mid 1970’s and construction of the A692 Consett Bypass in the mid 1980’s. Thomas Swan is a long established chemical manufacturing facility that predates planning history.
PLANNING POLICY
NATIONAL POLICY
20. The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), although the majority of supporting Annexes to the planning policy statements are retained. The overriding message is that new development that is sustainable should go ahead without delay. It defines the role of planning in achieving sustainable development under three topic headings – economic, social and environmental, each mutually dependant.
21. The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF requires local planning authorities to approach development management decisions positively, utilising twelve ‘core planning principles’.
22. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the weight to be attached to relevant saved local plan policy will depend upon the degree of consistency with the NPPF. The greater the consistency, the greater the weight. The relevance of this issue is discussed, where appropriate, in the assessment section of the report below. The following elements are considered relevant to this proposal.
23. One of the twelve core principles of the NPPF (paragraph 17) supports “the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate .. and encourages the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy).” The NPPF also states in paragraph 98 that states that “when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should: • Not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions... • Approve the application (unless material considerations indicate otherwise) if its impacts are (or can be) made acceptable.”
24. NPPF Part 1 – Building a strong, competitive economy – The NPPF outlines in paragraph 19 that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.
25. NPPF Part 10 – Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change , Flooding and Coastal Change – Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy.
26. NPPF Part 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment – The planning system should contribute to, and enhance the natural environment by; protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, recognising the benefits of ecosystem services, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, preventing new and existing development being put at risk from unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability, and remediating contaminated and unstable land.
LOCAL PLAN POLICY :
Derwentside District Local Plan (1997)
27. Policy GDP1 – General Development Principles – The policy states that as well as assessing each application against other policies in the Plan it is expected that, where appropriate, specific measures are incorporated within each scheme. Especially relevant are criteria on protection of existing landscape, natural and historic features; protection of important national or local wildlife habitats, no adverse effect upon, or satisfactory safeguards for, species protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), no harmful impact on the ecology of the District and promotion of public access to, and the management and enhancement of, identified nature conservation sites; the protection of open land which is recognised for its amenity value or the contribution its character makes to an area; protection of ground water resources and their use from development.
28. Policy EN1 – Protecting the Countryside – states that development in the countryside will only be permitted where it benefits the rural economy or helps to enhance landscape character. Proposals should be sensitively related to existing settlement patterns and to historic, landscape, wildlife and geological resources in the area.
29. Policy EN2 – Preventing Urban Sprawl – seeks to prevent development outside of existing built up areas where it would result in the merging of neighbouring settlements, ribbon development or an encroachment in to the surrounding countryside.
30. Policy EN26 – Control of Development Causing Pollution – states that when determining planning applications consideration of potential pollution by the proposed development must be taken account of. Planning permission will only be granted for development which is not likely to have an adverse impact on the environment having regard to the likely levels of air, noise, soil or water pollution.
31. Policy TR2 – Development and Highway Safety – indicates planning permission for a development will be granted if the council can be satisfied that; there is a clearly defined and safe vehicle access and exit, adequate provision for service vehicles, adequate vehicle manoeuvring and access for emergency vehicles at all times.
Emerging Durham Local Plan
32. The site is within 100m (across the main road) of the proposed strategic housing allocation HA/56 English Martyrs & Villa Real Railway Bridge, Consett (SHLAA: 1/CO/08&09, assessed as ‘Green’) in the emerging County Durham Plan Preferred Options, which is directly opposite and runs parallel to the Thomas Swan site and is proposed to accommodate up to 250 units. This strategic site is of 12.2ha and is considered developable in 6-10 years, available and viable in the Plan period. It is bounded by Crookhall Lane to the East; the A692 to the South and West and Leadgate Road to the North.
CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES
STATUTORY RESPONSES :
33. The Highway Authority – has raised no objections to the proposal. Highway Authority officers have calculated that there would be a maximum of 60 delivery vehicle movements per day, plus a maximum of 4 staff vehicle movements. The relevant section of the A692 Consett Bypass currently carries in the region of 13,000 vehicles per day with peak hour flows varying between 700 and 1,100 vehicles. The A692 is capable of carrying significantly more traffic than this and the introduction of two or three vehicles per hour would have little effect.
34. Natural England – Has stated that the application does not appear to fall within the scope of what it would routinely comment upon as the proposal is not likely to result in significant impacts on statutory designated sites, landscapes or species. Natural England advises that it is for the local authority to determine whether or not the application is consistent with national and local policies and should seek the views of its own ecologists when determining the environmental impacts of the development. It expects the Council to assess and consider the possible impacts resulting from the proposal on protected species, local wildlife sites, biodiversity enhancements and local landscape.
35. The Environment Agency (EA) – Has no objections to the proposal but proposes two conditions to ensure its acceptability. The first requiring drainage details to be submitted and the second requiring submission of a scheme for the development of 2 metre wide buffer zones around the watercourses within the development site. Both schemes would require agreement in writing with the Council prior to the commencement of development. Additionally, the Agency has also noted that as the watercourses in the area are ‘Ordinary’ watercourses any proposal to divert, fill or obstruct the watercourse should be agreed with the Local Authority. The Environment Agency has noted that as the facility would use virgin crops rather than waste an Environmental Permit would not be required. If, however, the feedstock was to change to include waste this would alter the regulatory position and an Environmental Permit would be required. The Agency also advises that the proposed development lies within 250m of a historic landfill known as Crookhall Works with the licence being surrendered in 1994. The waste types included hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid, sodium and/or potassium hydroxide/oxide.
36. The Coal Authority – has no objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of a planning condition. The Coal Authority concurs with the recommendations of the Geo-Environmental Desk Study and Mining risk Assessment Report submitted with the application. This being that coal mining legacy potentially poses a risk to the proposed development and that intrusive site investigation works should be undertaken prior to development in order to establish the exact situation regarding coal mining legacy issues on the site. The Coal Authority therefore recommends that the Council imposes a planning condition, should planning permission be granted, to require the intrusive investigation works as recommended within the Report to be undertaken prior to commencement of development.
37. Northumbrian Water – has no objections to the scheme and notes there is no water main or public sewer near to the site.
INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :
38. Spatial Policy – states that the proposal would appear to be a departure from the strategy for sustainable development in the former Derwentside area set out in the Derwentside District Local Plan. Specifically, the principle is contrary to Policies EN1 and EN2. It is considered that Development Management officers needs to be satisfied that the information provided is adequate to assess the criteria in Policy GDP1 as at present the information provided is insufficient to address landscaping requirements and the protection of the character of the area.
39. Amenity and traffic impacts on the prospective housing allocation identified in the County Durham Plan Preferred Options report are also considered to be material planning considerations. However, whilst a degree of weight can be attributed to this (as the proposed housing allocation has been through consultation and there are a limited number of objections to it) it is not considered justifiable to attribute a sufficient degree of weight in the decision making process to uphold a refusal of planning consent given the status of the proposed allocation and the available land supply elsewhere within the Consett area. Development Management officers will need to be satisfied that the applicant has sufficiently addressed the issues in order to grant planning permission for the development and the wider benefits of the development outweigh the impacts or that these can be satisfactorily mitigated.
40. Landscape – officers have raised no objections to the proposal. They note that some trees would be lost from the creation of the internal access road and the creation of the culvert across the centre of the site. It is noted that the plantation to the north west offers screening benefits and should therefore be retained. East of the site, some trees have been planted along the embankment of the A692 in the past but these are young and currently not creating a screen and it is advised that mitigation planting should be undertaken in this area. It is further recommended that the existing field boundary and residual hedge that separates the proposed silage pits from the structures are defined on plan, and similarly, temporary protective fencing employed during the build process should be indicated. Officers also advise that the development footprint could be reduced with a revised design for the lagoon.
41. Ecology – officers have not identified any ecological issues with the proposed development. Officers have, however, stated that the developer should provide species rich grassland on areas currently identified as amenity grassland on the proposed landscape plan.
42. Pollution Control – has assessed the noise, air quality and land contamination elements of the proposal. In relation to noise officers recommend that a condition be imposed limiting vehicle deliveries to the development to 07:00hrs to 22:00hrs Monday to Saturday and 08:00hrs to 18:00hrs on Sundays, Bank Holidays and Public Holidays. Officers also recommend a condition which allows only stated cereal fuels to be digested and no waste by products should be used.
43. In relation to air quality Pollution Control officers have advised that the use of biogas as a fuel source to provide heat and power for the site is unlikely to give rise to significant emissions of any of the seven air quality pollutants (benzene, 1,3 butadiene, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulates (PM10) and sulphur dioxide) considered in the assessment. Indeed the combustion of biogas is seen as beneficial in reducing carbon emissions in comparison to the burning of fossil fuels or biomass material. The proposed site for the development is not close to an area of known ‘poor’ air quality where elevated levels of pollution have been measured or indeed a declared Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). Furthermore, the traffic movements associated with the proposed development are unlikely to have a significant impact on traffic pollution emissions taking into consideration the proposed site as the development is close to a major route. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on air quality and it is unnecessary in the case of this development to proceed to undertake a further traffic impact or air quality assessment.
44. In relation to land contamination, officers note that the proposal relates to the development of land with a previous contaminative land use. The land quality of the site is that expected of an industrial environment with a long industrial past. It is considered that this development would not require a contaminated land risk assessment as the site is not changing to a more sensitive end receptor. Any controls/protocols to deal with land contamination on site would be dealt with specifically through The Building Regulations 2010 or The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Act 2002
45. Access and Rights of Way – officers have commented that there do not appear to be any registered public rights of way affected by the proposed energy plant layout but there are one or more unregistered footpaths which abut or pass within the site, and which may have accrued public rights through 20 years plus uninterrupted usage. It is suggested that to mitigate the loss of existing unregistered paths the applicant may wish to consider allowing a degree of public access to the remaining area of open fields.
46. Design and Conservation – officers raise no objections to the proposal. The proposed plant may be visible in some long distance views, in particular from the western edge of Iveston Conservation Area, but would be viewed in the context of the existing industrial operation and would not cause any specific harm to the setting of the heritage asset.
PUBLIC RESPONSES :
47. The application was advertised in the press, by site notices and letters to neighbouring residents. Additionally, a public drop in session was organised by the local ward member at Crookhall Community Centre on 25 April 2013. The session was attended by the representatives from Thomas Swan, Hallwick Energy (the applicant), R&K Wood (the planning agent), local ward members and the planning officer.
48. A total of 23 no. letters have been received from local residents objecting to the proposed development. Concerns have been raised on the following grounds: • Potentially odours arising from the storage and processing of the feedstocks • There was concern that there facility would be importing waste in the form sewage, slurry, rotten veg and also animal carcasses; • The impact of additional vehicles on the roads • The use of tractors to transport materials to and from the facility as their restricted speed may cause disruption and highway safety issues; • The 24 hour operation of the facility and the noise that would be produced by the generator; • The potential risks to human health from the anaerobic digestion process; • The potential risk of fire or explosion from combusting methane/failure of the plant.
49. Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) has commented on the application and has raised concerns relating to the proposed housing allocation to the north of the A692, identified in the emerging County Durham Plan; the use of cereal crops and the effect that this would have on food for humans and animals and also bedding for animals; the guaranteed availability of cereal crops with the stated 10 mile radius, and; the impact of noise, in particular night time noise, that the development would have upon residential amenity.
APPLICANTS STATEMENT :
50. This site is adjacent to the existing Thomas Swan complex in Consett. It is for an anaerobic digester which would be fed by agricultural feedstock maize, barley and grass in order to create electricity that can be used by Thomas Swan.
51. The feedstock would be stored in silage clamps and then fed into a digester tank where bacteria break the material down to create methane gas that can be fed into a CHP engine, generating electricity. The maize and grass will be grown as spring break crops as part of crop rotation on farms in the local area. Spring sown crops bring many benefits to a farming rotation and the use of the digestate from the plant reduces the need for inorganic fertilisers. Digestate also improves soil fertility and structure.
52. A public exhibition was held in April and the concerns of local residents were listened to and addressed. In particular, it was apparent that residents were concerned about the traffic movement to and from the site and, to help alleviate this concern the feedstock supplier has agreed to bring in 50% of feedstocks in articulated lorry, thus reducing overall traffic movements. However, time restrictions on the import and export of the feedstock and digestate, as requested by Councillors, will not be possible as it will be too restrictive at harvest time.
53. The applicant was also able to address concerns relating to the nature of the feedstock and risk of odours from the site. The feedstock is agricultural in nature and therefore does not have offensive odours like waste material might. The plant has not been designed to utilise waste material of any kind. The feedstock will be stored in the silage clamps where it will be covered with a heavy plastic sheeting to keep it dry and air tight. Storing it this way limits breakdown of material and therefore the release of any odours. The digester is airtight so no odours can escape from the plant itself.
54. Officers also raised concerns at the overall height and impact of the development on this entrance route into Consett. However, as the A691 is on an embankment above the site, and with additional proposed planting in between the site and the road, these concerns have been addressed.
55. Overall, it is considered that this development is in line with government policy for sustainable development and in particular it will support an important local business. For the farming community this development represents a secure market for crops and an organic fertiliser for the land. For an important local employer this scheme offers a sustainable and affordable source of electricity for the future, securing the long term future of the business.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT
56. Having regard to the requirements of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase act 2004, the relevant development Plan policies, relevant guidance and all other material considerations including representations received it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to the principle of development, national and local planning policies, landscape and visual impact, residential amenity issues including noise and odour, ecology, access and traffic, flood risk, coal mining risk and other matters.
Principle of development 57. Anaerobic Digestion is a process of creating renewable energy by breaking down organic matter in a sealed environment. The result of this break down is the release of biogas that can be burnt in a gas engine to produce electricity and heat. In certain situations the biogas can be cleaned and piped to the gas grid. The breakdown of organic matter is a self sustaining reaction and as the fuel is renewable this is very sustainable means of generating energy.
58. AD plants are capable or processing a wide variety of organic matter, including waste. In this case the plant would only use maize, barley and grass. The advantages of using virgin crops as opposed to waste are that the calorific value by quantity is higher, the energy output is constant and predictable, the feedstocks can be stored more easily and there is no requirement for pre-processing.
59. The Anaerobic Digestion Strategy and Action Plan (Defra 2011) sets out the principles of anaerobic digestion and provides information in relation to uses, key legislation and incentives. The document also provides an action plan for assisting the development and growth of anaerobic digestion in the UK. The document promotes anaerobic digestion as a means of meeting the Governments renewable energy targets.
60. The proposed facility would supply 1MW of electricity to an existing business thereby reducing the consumption of fossil fuel derived energy and contributing towards renewable energy production. Energy would be provided at a cheaper rate with long term stability relatively decoupled from the rising trend in energy prices. This strengthens the viability of the business and provides long term confidence in their ability to continue operating in County Durham.
Location
61. The site is located directly adjacent to the Thomas Swan chemical manufacturing facility, which is on land allocated for general industrial use.
62. The NPPF sets out in Paragraph 14 the presumption in favour of sustainable development and it is stated that 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 this Framework taken as a whole. The Derwentside District Local Plan (DLP) contains saved policies relating to development beyond settlement boundaries, agricultural diversification, and a general transport policy which are considered relevant to the determination of this application. The relevant policies are considered in the following sections of this report. It should be noted that there are no saved policies relating to renewable energy development or anaerobic digestion in the DLP.
63. Saved DLP Policies EN1 and EN2 seek to protect the countryside and limit urban sprawl. The proposed development would be located on agricultural land between the settlements of Consett, Crookhall and Leadgate. The site is not allocated for any use within the Local Plan and is therefore considered to be open countryside. Development in the countryside would not normally be permitted and therefore the proposal is considered to be a departure from the development plan.
64. Whilst it is accepted that unnecessary development in the countryside should be avoided, the application site is a relatively small field that is constrained on 3 sides by the A692 to the north and east, and the Thomas Swan facility to the west. The proposed development could not extend any further as it would be contained by the natural boundaries of the site. The AD plant needs to be in close proximity to Thomas Swan in order for the electricity to be efficiently transmitted and the application site is the most appropriate land within the vicinity to achieve this.
65. It is considered that the benefit of being able to provide a sustainable and cost effective means of producing energy in order to secure the future viability of the Thomas Swan facility is sufficient to outweigh the loss of open countryside and impact upon the landscape character. This accords with the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in Paragraph 14 of the NPPF as the Local Plan is silent in respect of renewable energy and anaerobic digestion. There is also a secondary benefit to the rural economy in that a secure income can be obtained from growing a spring break crop (maize and barley) that would not impact upon normal food production. Digestate produced by the AD plant would be used on the suppliers’ land in place of man made fertilisers and growing the additional crops would reduce the need to use herbicides on what would normally be unplanted ground. Furthermore, the facility would provide employment for 2 people.
66. The encroachment in to the countryside would be minimal and the boundary features would prevent any further expansion. Whilst it is accepted that the development would not fully comply with Policies EN1 and EN2 the departure would not undermine the key aims of the development plan. Indeed, the proposal would comply with all other relevant local plan policies
67. In summary, it is clear that national planning policy guidance generally supports renewable energy schemes. Measured against this and in the absence of any relevant Development Plan policy and the presumption in favour of sustainable development within the NPPF, the proposal is considered acceptable in principle. The following sections of this report consider the specific impacts of the proposed development.
Landscape and Visual Impact
68. The proposed development occupies a site of 1.95ha and is arranged in a way to minimise the footprint and reduce the visual impact. The concrete storage clamps would be positioned to the north of the site, close to the road embankment, and set into the ground to reduce visual impact. The digester and residue storage tanks would be placed side by side in the centre of the site with the technical building concealed between them. In this arrangement the tanks would be viewed against the back drop of mature tree planting and the large industrial buildings of the Thomas Swan site. The loading hopper and CHP plant would be located to the east of the tanks and these smaller elements of the scheme would, in turn, be viewed against the larger tanks. The lagoon would be located in the south of the site, benefiting from the slope of the land to allow collection of water run off. This is considered to be the most appropriate design for the site given the topography, existing features, access and viewpoints.
69. In terms of landscape, there are no national or regional landscape designations covering the site or in its vicinity. The development would fully screened from views to the south and west by the existing Thomas Swan facility and established tree planting on these boundaries. The main views would be from the A692 Consett Bypass to the north and east and Public Footpaths 38 and 39 (Consett) to the east and south, respectively.
70. The development features 2 large, dome topped, cylindrical tanks as the most prominent features. To the north of the site is the extensive 4 bay concrete storage clamp and to the south is the lagoon. These structures, at a maximum height of 10.41 metres above ground level, would be visible from the identified viewpoints but would be viewed against a backdrop of tree planting and the large industrial buildings on the Thomas Swan site. The plant would operate autonomously with no visible moving parts and very limited human interaction. The operation is a sealed process so the buildings and site area would remain clean and tidy.
71. At present the site consists largely of improved agricultural grazing land, bordered by good tree planting to the west, south and south east, and there is a hedgerow across the centre of the site following a watercourse. The vast majority of the existing tree planting would not be affected with only minimal losses in the western plantation to allow construction of the internal access track. The development does, however, present opportunities to create biodiversity improvements to the site. Should planning permission be granted then through condition landscaping details would be required including tree planting, particularly on the embankment of the A692 in order to screen the site from the road, and to enhance the existing grassland to a species rich mix.
72. In order to further reduce the visual impact of the proposal, a condition is recommended to agree details of all planting. Screen planting would be required on the eastern road embankment to compliment and improve the existing trees. Areas of existing grassland not built upon would be seeded with a species rich grassland mix as a biodiversity benefit. The applicant has submitted a landscape and visual impact assessment which states that the site is located within The West Durham Coalfield character area, as identified by The County Durham Landscape Character Assessment. The assessment concludes that views of the proposed development are largely prevented from the west, south and much of the east by woodland around the Thomas Swan plant and mature hedges to the east and even views from Public Footpaths 38 and 39 (Consett) would be largely restricted by a well established woodland belt. When the occasional more open view occurs, the proposed development would typically be seen in the context of the Thomas Swan plant.
73. Residents have expressed minimal concern in relation to visual impact. Landscape officers have considered the proposal and have not raised any objections but a condition is recommended to agree landscaping details. An additional condition is recommended to agree details of the lagoon, however, this would be limited to the exact shape and slopes as the location is fixed due to the need to intercept water run off from the site. Due to the available screening and limited views it is considered that the development would accord with DLP Policies GDP1 and EN1 in that the development would be laid out in a way to reduce the visual impact as far as possible and additional planting would be incorporated into the scheme to improve screening and biodiversity.
Residential Amenity
74. The proposed site lies in open countryside to the south east of Consett town centre. The closest residential properties are at Leadgate, 365 metres to the north east, Crookhall, 395 metres to the south west and Consett, 430 metres to the north. The nearest school is Consett Junior School, located 640 metres to the north west. Consett Academy is to be located 1km to the north west.
75. The proposed development is a large industrial facility that would operate continuously 24 hours per day. Concerns have been raised by local residents in relation to noise, odour and risks to health.
Noise
76. The proposed development would be in constant operation, both to supply energy to the 24 hour operations at Thomas Swan and because the AD process is a continuous, self sustaining reaction that is not practical to stop and start. As such the generator would always be running. During the day additional noise would be generated by the loading shovel transporting feedstocks from the storage clamps to the feed hopper as well as any deliveries that may arrive, depending on the time of year. This has caused concern for both residents and CPRE, particularly in relation to night time noise.
77. The development would be quiet with limited visible operation and most of the process sealed within tanks. The generator would be housed within a sound insulated container and would have appropriate silencers on the exhaust equipment. The applicant has submitted a noise assessment to support the application which states that the predicted overall noise level at the nearest residential receiver would be 39.8dB(A). The Pollution Control team have considered the application in relation to noise and have not identified an issue in relation to the operation of the plant but have recommended that a condition be imposed that would limit deliveries to 07:00hrs to 22:00hrs Monday to Saturday and 08:00hrs to 18:00hrs on Sundays, Public and Bank Holidays. In order to maintain consistency it is recommended that export of digestate from the site should be within these hours. It should be noted that the vehicle movements for Thomas Swan would not be restricted by this condition.
Odour
78. Local residents have expressed odour as being one of the primary concerns in relation to this development. However, many of the objections received assumed that the facility would be importing and processing waste material. This is not the case and the only feedstocks that would be imported are a combination of maize, barley and grass. These crops produce very little odour and any perceptible smell is not incongruous with the agricultural surroundings. Notwithstanding this, the feedstocks would be kept under covers in the concrete storage clamps in order to limit contact with the air. Keeping the feedstocks in a relatively air-free environment limits decomposition.
79. The anaerobic digestion process occurs in a sealed environment within the digester tank and any odour produced at this stage is contained. The resultant digestate from the process would also be stored in a sealed tank; however, at this stage the material is almost odourless. The digestate would be stored on site in the residue storage tank, and therefore fully enclosed, until required off site as a fertiliser, or would be drawn back in to the digester tank to increase the moisture content, if necessary. The digestate would be used on farms as both a solid and liquid fertiliser and would be periodically collected by tractor and trailer.
80. It is considered that the proposed development would not have a significant impact upon residential amenity in terms of noise and odour. Any odour emitted from the site would be very slight and would not be incongruous in the rural context. Noise from the generator may be perceptible at night but it would not be of a level that would cause a nuisance and given the proximity of the site in relation to the existing Thomas Swan facility and the busy A692 road it is unlikely that it would be detectable. It is therefore considered that development accords with the aims of DLP Policy EN26.
Ecology
81. The applicant submitted an Extended Phase 1 survey to support the application. The survey notes that the site is primarily comprised of improved grassland fields with small areas of scattered scrub, seasonally wet drains, semi-improved grassland and young, mixed plantation woodland. The survey concluded that overall the site is poor in terms of habitat structure and wildlife value, recommending that opportunities should be sought for nature conservation with landscaping areas designed to maximise biodiversity.
82. Ecology Officers have assessed the application and concur with the conclusions set out in the survey. Officers recommend that biodiversity improvements are achieved through planting open areas with a species rich grassland mix. A condition is recommended to agree the planting details. It is considered that the development would accord with the criteria set out in DLP Policies GDP1 and EN1 in respect of protection of wildlife, creation of wildlife habitats and the enhancement of landscape character.
Access and Traffic
83. A transport assessment was submitted with the application which identifies the local road network, traffic flows and highway safety. The assessment goes on to explain the proposed traffic generation from the development, stating the number of vehicle movements (tractor and trailer) required over the harvest period to import the feedstocks. Many of the objections to the development cited traffic and this became more apparent at the public meeting and it was clear that reducing the number of vehicle movements and using larger, faster lorries over tractors would be preferable.
84. Following the public meeting held prior to submission of the application the applicant reconsidered the transport options and now proposes to use a mix of tractor and trailer, and lorries to deliver the feedstocks. Tractors are still required because the feedstocks are brought directly from the field and not all of the suppliers fields are accessible by lorry.
85. The proposed feedstocks are maize, barley and grass. The maize and barley and harvested for approximately 2 weeks in September with an average of 40 tractors and 20 lorries per day over this period. Grass is cut for approximately 1 week in May, June and August with an average of 12 tractors and 6 lorries per day over this period.
86. Objections have still been raised over this with one objector stating that all deliveries should be by lorry. The County Highways Authority has considered the proposal and stated that the A692 is capable of carrying significantly more traffic than the current flows, even at peak hours, and the introduction of two or three vehicles per hour would have little effect. The deliveries are for short periods in the year and for most of the time road access into the site would be limited to the occasional tractor collecting digestate.
87. The proposed development would utilise the existing Thomas Swan access, which has good visibility in both directions and a protected right turn. The existing good access and relatively low vehicle movements over short periods of time would ensure that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of highway safety and would therefore accord with Policy TR2 of the Derwentside Local Plan.
Hydrology
88. The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment to support the application as the development would occupy an area greater than 1ha. The application site is located within Flood Zone 1, which indicates a low probability of flooding. The assessment recommends that sustainable drainage techniques and interceptors be incorporated into the scheme. The proposed lagoon would capture run off from the development and rainwater and reuse this in the process.
89. The application site has several drainage ditches running from the north and east to a confluence close to the boundary with Thomas Swan. In order to access and operate within the site 3 new culverts would need to be created to provide access over these ditches. The locations of these culverts have been shown on the site layout plan. Consent for culverting of the ditches would be subject to a separate application to the Local Authority.
90. The Environment Agency has considered the flood risk assessment and culverting proposals and has raised no objections. The proposal would therefore accord with DLP Policies GDP1 and En26 in that it would offer adequate provision for surface water drainage and protection of ground water resources.
Coal Mining Risk
91. The application falls within the defined Coal Mining Development Referral Area. The Coal Authority’s records indicate that within the application site and surrounding area there are coal mining features and hazards which need to be considered in relation to the determination of the application, specifically past underground coal mining at shallow depth and past surface coal mining.
92. A ground stability report has been submitted in support of the application and the Coal Authority concurs with the recommendation that coal mining legacy potentially poses a risk to the proposed development and that intrusive site investigation works should be undertaken prior to development in order to establish the exact situation regarding coal mining legacy issues on the site. These works include gas monitoring. A condition is recommended to ensure that these works are carried out.
93. The Coal Authority considers that the content and conclusions of the Coal Mining Risk Assessment are sufficient for the purposes of the planning system and meet the requirements of the NPPF in demonstrating that the application site is, or can be made, safe and stable for the proposed development. Any necessary mitigation works would be carried out prior to commencement of development and it is therefore considered that the proposal would accord with Paragraphs 120 and 121 of the NPPF, which require new development to be appropriate given site conditions in relation to land stability.
Other Matters
94. A number of local residents commented that the proposal would impact upon house values. The perceived impact that a development would have upon property values is not a material consideration that should be taken into account when determining a planning application.
95. CPRE raised concerns relating to the use of cereal crops and the effect that this would have on food for humans and animals and also bedding for animals. The applicant submitted a statement from the supplier which states that growing crops for energy would form part of a crop rotation cycle and would not impede the production of other food crops such as wheat. Indeed, it is stated that growing maize and grass in particular as a spring break crop will help increase the organic content of the farms soils, improving growing conditions for a subsequent wheat crop, for example.
96. Public Footpaths 38 and 39 (Consett) run adjacent to the south eastern and south western edges of the site but would not be affected by the development. The Public Rights of Way team have noted that there are one or more unregistered footpaths that abut or run within the site. The site has been recently double fenced to redirect and improve the footpaths on the eastern side of the site.
97. Some concern has been raised by local residents relating to the potential for fire and explosions. It is true that the AD process produces methane gas as a fuel to burn in the generator. The gas is collected in the digester tank but it is not held at high pressure and the reactions to create it are relatively slow. In the event that the roof of the digester ruptured and the gas was ignited it would burn but for less than a second. The tank would not be flammable and neither would the partially digested material inside so the risk of fire spreading is negligible. In considering an application it is unreasonable to assume that things might go wrong, and adopt a precautionary stance on that basis. It must be accepted that when the plant and equipment are operating under normal conditions, they would operate safely and efficiently.
98. Health risks have also been a cause for concern but this appears to have been attributed to the importation of waste and animal carcasses. As the facility would only process maize, barley and grass there are no risks to health.
99. The Environment Agency have advised that the proposed development lies within 250m of a historic landfill known as Crookhall Works. The Pollution Control team have considered this in respect of land contamination and have not requested any mitigation measures be put in place.
CONCLUSION
100. The application site is located in open countryside, adjacent to the business which it would supply energy directly too. The proposal would provide a sustainable and cost effective means of producing energy in order to secure the future viability of the Thomas Swan facility. Planning policy is generally supportive towards proposals for renewable energy development. The proposal would provide 1MW of electricity from local sourced crops for an existing industrial development thereby contributing to renewable energy generation and reducing the use of, and dependence upon, fossil fuel derived energy.
101. The development itself is self sustaining and would provide significant sustainability accreditation to the associated business that it would supply. The use of maize, barley and grass as feedstocks would not harm the ability of the supplying farm to produce food crops and would provide benefits to the benefits to the farm through improved soil nutrient levels and therefore better yields from subsequent food crops. The farm benefits from reduced dependence upon herbicides and fertiliser as the energy crops would prevent weed growth during current spring break periods and the resultant digestate from the AD process can be used as an organic fertiliser. The farm would also have a stable and dependable income.
102. The proposal would conflict with DLP Policies EN1 and EN2 in that it would be development in the countryside and outside of existing built up areas. However, when assessed for conformity against the NPPF it is considered that these policies are overly restrictive. Paragraph 28 of the NPPF states that the sustainable growth of all types of business in rural areas should be supported. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the development of the application site would not have a noticeable impact on the openness or amenity value of the countryside bordering the settlements of Consett, Crookhall and Leadgate. The proposal is in general conformity with relevant Development Plan policies and accords with the principles of sustainable development and climate change objectives of the NPPF. It would provide confidence and security for a major existing business and offer future economic growth prospects in an economically acceptable way.
103. The proposal has generated a degree public interest and representations reflect the issues and concerns of local residents affected by the proposed development. Whilst there would be some impacts upon local traffic at certain times of the year these would be at acceptable levels and can be controlled through the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures and planning conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions;
1. The development hereby approved must be begun no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
° Drawing No. P13-CNST-AD-001 ‘Location Plan’ ° Drawing No. P13-CNST-AD-002 ‘Existing Site Layout Plan’ ° Drawing No. P13-CNST-AD-005 ‘Flare Stack Plan and Elevation’ ° Drawing ‘View and Sectional Drawing’ dated 31.05.13 ° Drawing ‘Pump Room’ dated 31.05.13 ° Drawing ‘Discharging Place’ dated 31.05.13 ° Drawing ‘Separator’ dated 31.05.13 ° Drawing ‘MT-Alligator 96m3 with MixBox’ dated 31.05.13 ° Drawing ‘Digester’ dated 31.05.13 ° Drawing ‘Residue storage tank’ dated 31/05/13
Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved documents.
3. Prior to the commencement of development precise details of the colours and finishes for all buildings, fixed plant and machinery shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved documents and in the interests of visual amenity (Derwentside Local Plan Policy GDP1).
4. Prior to the commencement of development the intrusive investigation works recommended in the Coal Mining Risk Assessment Report shall be undertaken. If the investigation works confirm that remedial works are necessary then these must be also be carried out prior to commencement of development and the Local Planning Authority notified of the remedial works to be undertaken.
Reason: In the interests of safety and limitation of coal mining risk (National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 120 and 121).
5. Prior to the commencement of development a landscaping scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing. This scheme shall provide details of earthworks, tree planting and grass seeding.
Reason: In the interests of local amenity (Derwentside Local Plan Policy GDP1).
6. Prior to the commencement of development precise details of the lagoon shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing. The lagoon shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: In the interests of landscape character (Derwentside Local Plan Policy EN1).
7. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for surface water drainage shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing. The scheme shall be based upon sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrogeological context of the development. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the agreed details prior to development being brought into use.
Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality and improve habitat and amenity (Derwentside Local Plan Policy GDP1).
8. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the provision and management of a buffer zone alongside the watercourse intersecting the site shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the agreed details prior to the development being brought into use. The buffer zone scheme shall be free from built development including lighting, domestic gardens and formal landscaping; and could form a vital part of green infrastructure provision. The schemes shall include: • plans showing the extent and layout of the buffer zone (which should be as wide as possible but at least 2m and should consist of appropriate vegetation for the locality i.e. through natural regeneration) • details of any proposed planting scheme (for example, native species) • details demonstrating how the buffer zone will be protected during development and managed/maintained over the longer term including adequate financial provision and named body responsible for management plus production of detailed management plan • details of any proposed footpaths, fencing, lighting etc. • where a green roof is proposed for use as mitigation for development in the buffer zone ensure use of appropriate substrate and planting mix.
Reason: Development that encroaches on watercourses has the potential to severely impact upon their ecological value (Derwentside Local Plan Policy GDP1).
9. The total number of vehicles delivering feedstocks and collecting digestate shall not exceed 60 per day (30 in and 30 out). A record of all vehicles entering and leaving the site shall be maintained by the operator and a copy of this record shall be afforded to the Waste Planning Authority within 2 working days of such a request.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety (Derwentside Local Plan Policy TR2)
STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT
The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its decision to support this application has, without prejudice to a fair and objective assessment of the proposals, issues raised, and representations received, sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner with the objective of delivering high quality sustainable development to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area in accordance with the NPPF. (Statement in accordance with Article 31(1) (CC) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.)
BACKGROUND PAPERS
• Submitted application forms, plans supporting documents and subsequent information provided by the applicant. • The National Planning policy Framework (2012) • Derwentside District Local Plan (1997) • Anaerobic Digestion Strategy and Action Plan (Defra 2011) • Statutory, internal and public consultation responses
SITE BOUNDARY
CMA/1/84 Proposed Development of a 1MW Anaerobic Digestion Energy Plant including 1 No. Digester Tank, 1 No. Residue Tank, Technical Planning Building, Bunker and Cooling System, Access Services Roadway, 2 No Silage Clamps, Gas Flare. Lagoon and Section of Watercourse Culvert on land adjacent to and north east of Thomas Swan & Co Ltd, Rotary Way, Consett, Durham This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material Comments with the permission o Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding. Date July 2013 1:5000 Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005