Committee and date Item
South Planning Committee
7 3 December 2013 Public
Development Management Report
Responsible Officer: Tim Rogers email: tim.rogers@shropshire.gov.uk Tel: 01743 258773 Fax: 01743 252619
Summary of Application
Application Number: 13/04014/MAW Parish : Woofferton
Proposal : 500kW Anaerobic Digester (AD) Plant and Associated Infrastructure on Land off Park Lane, Woofferton
Site Address : Land off Park Lane, Woofferton
Applicant : Ludlow Bioenergy Ltd
Case Officer : Graham French email : [email protected]
Recommendation:- Grant Permission subject to the conditions and legal obligation set out in Appendix 1.
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 1 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
Statement of Compliance with Article 31 of the Town and Country Development Management Procedure Order 2012
The authority worked with the applicant in a positive and pro-active manner in order to seek solutions to problems arising in the processing of the planning application. This is in accordance with the advice of the Governments Chief Planning Officer to work with applicants in the context of the NPPF towards positive outcomes. The applicant sought and was provided with formal pre-application advice by the authority. Further information has since been submitted on noise, odour and vehicle movements in response to comments received during the planning consultation process. The submitted scheme, has allowed the identified planning issues raised by the proposals to be satisfactorily addressed, subject to the recommended planning conditions and legal agreement.
REPORT
1.0 THE PROPOSAL
1.1 The applicant, Ludlow Bioenergy Ltd is proposing to establish an agricultural anaerobic digestion facility at the site which would use feedstock from a nearby poultry unit and from surrounding farmland. The AD unit would represent a vertical integration whereby the digestate produced can be utilised to fertilise the crops grown as feedstock for use in the digester. The AD plant would produce energy, heat and digestate (a nutrient rich soil improver). The feedstock used in the digesters would include ill include crops grown on the local farms such as maize, grass silage, and whole crop silage.
1.2 The AD system will digest approximately 9,500 – 10,000 tonnes of feedstock per annum, dependent on the feedstock mix used. This would equate to approximately 3,000 tonnes of broiler chicken manure and some 6500 tonnes of farm crops. All feedstock is proposed to be sourced from the poultry local unit at Comberton Farm and other nearby farm holdings. The AD process would produce a high quality nutrient rich digestate. The applicant states that the digestate would produce little or no odour and is preferable to spreading chicken manure directly without treatment. Any electricity not utilised locally would be fed into the National Grid. The heat produced by the plant would be used initially to maintain temperatures in the digester tank before potentially being used to heat other buildings in the locality. Heat would also be used to assist power a pasteurisation unit that would be used to pasteurise the digestate which can then be used as organic compost. The AD facility would be operated under the business name Ludlow Bioenergy Ltd.
1.2 The development would involve the following structures:
• Digester Tank : The digester tank is 25 metres in diameter, with a nominal height of 7 metres and a height of 11.5 metres to the top of the gas holder dome. The digester would be set 1m into the ground reducing the height above ground level. The digester tank is where the enclosed AD process and biogas production takes place. • Digestate Tank : The digestate tank is 25 meters in diameter with a nominal height of 7.15 metres. The digestate tank is the end storage tank for the liquid digestate. • Buffer (Slurry) Tank : The buffer tank is 10 metres in diameter with a height of 7.26 metres and situated next to the digestate storage tank.
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 2 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
• Feedstock Building : The building is 26 metres in length, 25 metres in width, and 9 metres to the ridge. This enclosed storage shed would harbour the poultry manure feedstock. • Feedstock Clamps : The feedstock clamps are 4 metres in height and consist of four clamps of 75m length and 50m in width. The clamps would provide storage for the energy crop feedstocks. • Solids Feeder : The solids feeder is loaded with and mixes the feedstock prior to delivery to the digester tank. It is contained within the storage shed. • Combined Heat and Power Unit (CHP) : Biogas would be utilised by the CHP unit to generate electricity and heat. • Transformer and substation : The transformer and substation would feed the renewable electricity produced directly to the local grid. • Separator and Fibre Clamp : The separator would separate the end-product digestate into solid and liquid form. The liquid form being transferred to the digestate end storage tank and the fibre falling to a storage clamp below. • Control Room : The AD plant would be monitored and operated from this central control room which is to be contained within the shed. • Surplus Gas Burner : During normal operations biogas would be consumed by the CHP gas engine. In the event of surplus biogas production or if the CHP is shut down (e.g. for maintenance) the biogas would diverted to the surplus gas burner for burning, to prevent an overpressure situation arising in the gas holder. This surplus gas burner would ensure no unburned gas is released to the atmosphere. • Weighbridge : The weighbridge would weigh produce in and out of the site. • Pasteuriser : Used to process the digestate so that it becomes a PAS110 accredited organic compost
1.3 The agricultural feedstock would be stored in the feedstock clamps to the east of the site with the poultry manure stored in the enclosed storage shed. The majority of the feedstock would transported onto the site via tractor and trailer and lorry. The AD plant would process around 25 to 30 tonnes of the above feedstocks per day. The exact tonnage used would depend on the feedstock mix. The feedstock would be delivered to the solids feeder via a JCB loader or similar handler. Once the load is deposited, the stationary feeder conveys the crop to the feed system where it would be pumped into the digester tank. The feed unit would operate intermittently for 24 hours a day, loading the digester automatically every hour.
1.4 The feedstock remains in the digester for a minimum of 50 days in order to allow the Anaerobic Digestion process to occur, during which time biogas generated as a product of the process is collected in the gas holder. The feedstock mixture is subjected to heat by a system of heat exchangers contained within the digester tank. A proportion of the biogas produced is re-circulated through the feedstock mixture in the digester via a series of nozzles mounted on the tank base in order to agitate the tank contents and thus promote biogas generation; this re-circulated biogas is then piped back to the gas holder. Biogas collected in the gas holder is piped to the CHP plant, which powers a generator to produce electricity. The AD plant is to be a 500 kWe system producing energy to be utilised at the site with the surplus exported to the National Grid. Energy production/usage, based on Ofgems assumption of typical household electricity usage (3300kWh per annum) the plant would export enough electricity to power around 1,000 - 1,200 local households. Some power would be
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 3 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
used for the site. The electricity is transmitted directly into the National Grid via a high voltage connection.
1.5 The process would also produce approximately 0.6 MW of heat per hour; a proportion of this would be used in the process in order to maintain temperatures in the digester tank. An end-use for the substantial amount of surplus heat would be via pasteurisation and / or exporting the heat to Comberton Farm to further reduce the carbon footprint of the local area. Digested material is discharged from the digester tank and is pumped to the separator which separates the nutrient rich digestate into solid and liquid form. The solids from the separator fall onto a pad below the gantry or can be collected directly in a trailer. The liquid fraction of the digestate would be piped away to the digestate end storage tank. The odour-free digestate end product is to be stored on site prior to being used as a nutrient rich fertiliser on land farmed locally. The end digestate store has a more than sufficient 5 month storage capacity.
1.6 Landscaping Although the site is relatively remote from residential properties the proposals include a planting scheme to aid integration of the development with its rural setting.
1.7 Hours of Operation The AD process, once initiated, would carry on continuously for 24 hours a day. On site, the crops and manure would be moved to the stationary feeder by a mechanical loader once a day. This would be predominantly undertaken during daylight hours, in order to minimise light and noise pollution.
1.8 Traffic / access A new access is proposed onto the Park Lane at a point of good visibility. A proposed track would take traffic to the AD site and would be of an appropriate construction to accommo0date the anticipated traffic visiting the facility. The current average number of agricultural vehicle movements affecting the site each year is 1,060. This would increase to 1,722 under the current proposals (662 more – average of 1.8 additional movements per day). These would mainly be tractor and trailer movements. However, seasonal peaks during the harvest season would be reduced as a result of the introduction of maize and grass in place of combinable crops. Poultry manure would also only be transported 600m, whereas at present it travels much further on the local road system. The applicant states that the local road network is capable of handling the anticipated traffic and the farm already frequents these local roads as a result of existing operations. The applicant has discussed the proposals with Shropshire Council (Highways) and Highways Agency officers prior to submission of the application.
1.9 Lighting In order to ensure a safe working environment, external lighting would be required on the transformer unit and tanks for use during low light levels in the winter months. The lighting shall only be used during permitted operational hours and would be designed to minimise light spill.
1.10 Anaerobic Digestion Process AD is a process where organic material is biologically treated, in the absence of oxygen using naturally occurring micro-organisms to produce biogas, which can be used to generate a renewable green energy fed into the National Grid, and a nutrient rich bio-fertiliser and soil improver. Heat is also produced as a by-product, which can also be utilised. The use of on-farm AD with combined heat and power (CHP) units using farm slurry, maize silage and other crop products is well developed on the continent, particularly in Germany and Austria. The UK now has
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 4 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
International and European obligations to generate more renewable energy and such facilities are encouraged in National Energy, Waste and Planning Policies with the overreaching objective of producing 12% of the UK’s energy from renewable sources by 2010 and 20% by 2020. The Government advises that AD could make a significant contribution towards the UK’s renewable energy targets.
1.11 Preparation of the application was informed by a formal pre-application enquiry. The applicant has subsequently provided further clarification and reassurance on detailed elements of the scheme in response to questions from officers. These issues are referred to in Section 7 of this report.
2.0 SITE LOCATION / DESCRIPTION
2.1 The proposed AD site is situated to the west of the A49 road near Woofferton, Ludlow, Shropshire. The site extends to 1.869 ha with a new access track to be constructed off Park Lane. The grid reference of the site is SO514687 and a Site Location Plan has been submitted with the application. The land is currently used for grass and the field is relatively level with a steady fall down to the proposed site of the digester. There is an existing plant and machinery yard area to the east of the proposed site which is screened by a substantial high hedge.
2.2 The closest residential properties are over 300 metres away from the site. Woofferton is the closest settlement, which is a scattered settlement which is close to the village of Brimfield and contains a number of facilities and services which include a public house, restaurant and small hotel, it also contains a number of commercial users. The large and prominent feature of the Woofferton radio transmitter mast is located to the south west of the site.
2.3 The site is not affected by any statutory rural or historic designations and there are no pubic footpaths running across the site or which will be directly affected by the proposals. There are public footpaths which pass to the north and west of the site but a visual appraisal concludes that these would not be adversely affected.
3. REASON FOR COMMITTEE DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION
3.1 The proposals have been referred to the Committee by Councillor Viviene Parry and this decision has been ratified by the Development Manager.
4. CONSULTEE RESPONSES
4.1 Richards Castle Parish Council – The Parish Council discussed the above application at a meeting held on the 28 th October 2013 which was attended by representatives of the application and 25 members of the Public. The Parish Council agreed to object to the application on Environmental issues relating to Noise, Smell and Traffic as members of the Council were of the opinion that the application will have a detrimental environmental impact to the local community for what is a commercial project with no sustainable gain for the local community. The application and appropriate papers do not give the required assurances that there would be no smell or noise nuisance during the daily operations of the Digester and with increased traffic usage there will be an impact to other road users on what is already a very dangerous stretch of roadway accessing the site. The Parish Council would expect to see a detailed
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 5 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
assessment from the Environment Agency who would be responsible for monitoring the site and also a detailed assessment from the Highway agency and its impact to the junctions with the A49. The Parish Council further request that local residents be given an extended period to submit their comments and have requested that Shropshire Councillor Mrs V Parry submits a request for the Application to be determined by the Planning Committee with a site inspection being held by the planning committee members.
4.2 Environment Agency - No objections, in principle subject to the following comments: i. Controlled Waters and Pollution Prevention : We are not aware of any licensed abstractions within 250 metres (m) of the site, based on our records. There may be private water supplies nearby (records of which are held by your Council). This should be confirmed in the planning application. The nearest brook is an ordinary watercourse located approximately 160m north east of the site. Brimfield Brook (Main River) runs approximately 370m to the south west. Geological mapping for the proposal area indicates that the site is located on superficial drift deposits of glacio-fluvial sand and gravel (Secondary A aquifer). The site is not located within a designated Source protection Zone (SPZ). With regard to Water Framework Directive (WFD), the site is located within the waterbody catchment of the ‘Brimfield Brook source to confluence of the River Teme’, which is currently classed as ‘poor status’. The aim is to achieve overall ‘good status’ by 2027. We note that all tanks and storage facilities will essentially be above ground and will incorporate appropriate pollution prevention measures, for example leak detection systems, along with the suggested secondary containment (discussed further below). ii. Environmental Permitting Regulations (2010): Anaerobic digestion (AD) and the combustion of the resulting biogas for combined heat and power (CHP) are waste management activities that require authorisation under an Environmental Permit (EP). Operations at the site and measures to prevent pollution will be regulated by the EP. From the information provided, without prejudice, it appears that the applicant could design the plant for a SR2012No12 ‘Anaerobic digestion facility including use of the resultant biogas’ (New Standard Rules). This is on the basis that the site capacity is less than 100 tonnes of waste (including process water) per day. Looking through the potential constraints which might affect the appropriateness of the land use, we do not anticipate any significant cause for concern, at this stage. This is on the basis that the engine stack is not within 200m of a ‘sensitive receptor’ (can include farmhouses, tenanted properties, or other commercial workplaces/recreational facilities). We note that some properties are located approximately 300m from the proposal. It is also subject to confirmation that there are no domestic private water supplies (including a spring, well or borehole) within 50m of the proposed site. The EP also requires the gas engine stack height to be no less than 3m.
iii. SRP controls : We can confirm that the EP would regulate and control matters such as the following: - General Management of the site. - Permitted activities e.g. operations. - Waste Acceptance (quantity and type of waste). - Emissions to land, water and air (including Odour, Noise and Vibration relevant to the ‘operational area’). - Monitoring, Records and Reporting. It should be noted that the Environmental Permitting Regulations require “all liquids in containers, whose emission to water or land could cause pollution, should be provided with secondary containment unless the operator has used other appropriate measures
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 6 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
to prevent or where that is not practicable, to minimise leakage and spillage from the primary container”. We note the proposal to incorporate a clay bund (in accordance with CIRIA 164) to surround the area of the site housing the tanks. We welcome this proposal, to provide appropriate ‘secondary containment’ and protect the water environment. We would recommend that the bund be constructed in accordance with the Containment of Bulk Hazardous Liquids at Comah Establishments Containment Policy — Supporting Guidance for Secondary and Tertiary Containment. We would recommend that the detail of this may be a condition of any planning consent granted i.e. to include detailed information on the bund design/construction.
iv. Odour and Noise : With regard to odour and noise impacts the proposal is located over 300m away from nearby residential properties. However, the activity should incorporate measures to avoid and minimise potential impacts on local air quality and noise. In this instance, the application provides a basic assessment of noise and odour impacts and offers reasonable mitigation measures to minimise impact on receptors. For example, we note the proposal to store poultry manure in an enclosed building. However, AD has the potential to generate odour emissions from the anaerobic stabilisation process. In addition exhaust and combustion gases can also contain odorous compounds. The most likely compounds to cause odour issues are ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, volatile fatty acids, mercaptans, alkyl sulphides and terpenes. These compounds are present in many feedstocks or are formed during the process. Odours can also create negative perception of AD facilities by local residents and communities. The potential for odour therefore needs to be assessed and managed carefully with each new facility. The Permit will control appropriate Odour Management techniques to minimise pollution. Operational handling and management of wastes has a part to play in the management of odour but it is accepted that the nature of the feedstocks and process may make some fugitive emissions unavoidable. The EP has a requirement for an Odour Management Plan to help manage and control potential odour emissions. The EP will also control the storage of raw materials, any fugitive emissions from the plant, and/or potential issues from poor management. The operator will be required to ensure that there is an effective management system in place for operations. We would advise that Operator should employ basic good practice measures for the control of noise, including adequate maintenance of plant or equipment whose deterioration may give rise to increases in noise. Again this will be controlled by the EP.
v. Dust : The main sources of dust will include the handling of waste and the movement of vehicles on site. A number of control measures should be implemented by operators to suppress particulate creation and dispersion. This will be controlled via a dust management plan in the EP. Your Public Protection team should also be consulted on emissions in relation to statutory nuisance, and so that all the relevant key issues are ‘joined up’, to ensure the pollution control regimes are complimentary etc.
vi. Woofferton Tip (historic landfill) : The proposed development is located adjacent to a former landfill. Our records suggest that the historic landfill, on the eastern boundary, does not form part of the planning application boundary (area edged red) where infrastructure involving groundwork is proposed. On this basis we would make no comment but refer you to your Public Protection team given the proximity to the tip.
v. Surface Water (flood risk) : The site (1.869ha with access tracks) is located within Flood Zone 1 (low probability of fluvial risk) based on our indicative Flood Map. would
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 7 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
not make any bespoke comments on the Flood Risk Assessment/surface water quantity on the basis of the scale and nature of the proposal in this location. However, we would draw your attention to our West Area Flood Risk Standing Advice – development greater than 1ha in flood zone 1, for your consideration in consultation with your Land Drainage (Flood and Water Management) section.
4.3 Network Rail : No objection in principle subject to the following comments and requirements for the safe operation of the railway and the protection of Network Rail's adjoining land.
i. Drainage : Additional or increased flows of surface water should not be discharged onto Network Rail land or into Network Rail's culvert or drains. In the interest of the long- term stability of the railway, it is recommended that soakaways should not be constructed within 20 metres of Network Rail's boundary.
ii. Landscaping : Where trees/shrubs are to be planted adjacent to the railway boundary these shrubs should be positioned at a minimum distance greater than their predicted mature height from the boundary. Certain broad leaf deciduous species should not be planted adjacent to the railway boundary. We would wish to be involved in the approval of any landscaping scheme adjacent to the railway. Where landscaping is proposed as part of an application adjacent to the railway it will be necessary for details of the landscaping to be known and approved to ensure it does not impact upon the railway infrastructure. Any hedge planted adjacent to Network Rail’s boundary fencing for screening purposes should be so placed that when fully grown it does not damage the fencing or provide a means of scaling it. No hedge should prevent Network Rail from maintaining its boundary fence. Lists of trees that are permitted and those that are not are provided below and these should be added to any tree planting conditions: Permitted: Birch (Betula), Crab Apple (Malus Sylvestris), Field Maple (Acer Campestre), Bird Cherry (Prunus Padus), Wild Pear (Pyrs Communis), Fir Trees – Pines (Pinus), Hawthorne (Cretaegus), Mountain Ash – Whitebeams (Sorbus), False Acacia (Robinia), Willow Shrubs (Shrubby Salix), Thuja Plicatat “Zebrina” Not Permitted: Alder (Alnus Glutinosa), Aspen – Popular (Populus), Beech (Fagus Sylvatica), Wild Cherry (Prunus Avium), Hornbeam (Carpinus Betulus), Small-leaved Lime (Tilia Cordata), Oak (Quercus), Willows (Salix Willow), Sycamore – Norway Maple (Acer), Horse Chestnut (Aesculus Hippocastanum), Sweet Chestnut (Castanea Sativa), London Plane (Platanus Hispanica).
4.4 Natural England – No comments received.
INTERNAL COMMENTS :
4.5 Public Protection – No objection - The design and access statement clearly states that the Anaerobic Digester is of a size and nature as to require a permit regulated by the Environment Agency to be issued prior to use. The permit will capture emmissions to land, water and air including noise and odour. As a result it is not appropriate for the planning regime to try and control these elements as stated within the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 122.
4.6i Highways Development Control – The highway authority raises no objections to the granting of consent.
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 8 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
Condition: The access shall be constructed in accordance with the approved drawing prior to the development hereby approved being first brought into use. Reason: To ensure the formation and construction of a satisfactory access in the interests of highway safety.
ii. Traffic movements to/from the site : It is stated in the DAS that the proposed unit would take feedstock from the neighbouring poultry farm and from around 300 acres of surrounding farmland in the form of maize and beet. It is likely that the vehicle movements generated by this will only have to travel a relatively short distances along Park Lane and some of these would be offset by existing vehicle movements. Material brought in from further afield would be likely to travel along the A49 Trunk Road before turning into the Park Lane junction. I understand that the Highways Agency, who control this road as Highway Authority, do not consider the intensified use of this junction to be an issue. The County Road from the junction to the proposed site entrance is narrow and occasionally presents difficulties for opposing vehicles to pass. I consider however that there are a number of passing opportunities along the relatively short distance of carriageway to the site and although there is likely to be some increase in vehicle movements generated by the scheme, these can be accommodated.
iii. Site Access : The scheme proposes a new vehicular access onto the highway to replace the existing agricultural one into field where the anaerobic digester would be located. I consider this is essential to accommodate the vehicle movements generated and is positioned further to the north-west where highway conditions in terms of visibility are more favourable. I do not consider the existing access position to be suitable.
4.7 Ecology : No comments received.
4.8 Natural Environment (arboriculture) : No comments received.
4.9 Archaeology : – No objections. The proposed development site is located adjacent to a known cropmark site Woofferton Junction (HER PRN 02151) described as linear features of unknown date. A number of other cropmark sites are located in the immediate surrounding area including Cropmarks c.250m south of Woofferton Junction (HER PRN 02150) which is a complex of adjoining rectangular or subrectangular cropmark enclosures and Skewbridge Cottages North (HER PRN 02152) a group of at least three ring ditches, one with a gap on the east side. In view of the above and in line with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), I would recommend that a programme of archaeological work be made a condition of any planning permission for the proposed development comprising a watching brief during groundworks. An appropriate condition has been recommended in appendix 1.
4.10 Conservation : No objections.
4.11i. Flood & Water Management - No objection. The drainage details, plan and calculations could be conditioned if planning permission were to be granted. 1. The use of soakaways should be investigated in the first instance for surface water disposal. Percolation tests and the sizing of the soakaways should be designed in accordance with BRE Digest 365 to cater for a 1 in 100 year return storm event plus an allowance of 20% for climate change. Alternatively, we accept soakaways to be
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 9 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
designed for the 1 in 10 year storm event provided the applicant should submit details of flood routing to show what would happen in an 'exceedance event' above the 1 in 10 year storm event. Flood water should not be affecting other buildings or infrastructure. Full details, calculations and location of the percolation tests and the proposed soakaways should be submitted for approval. If soakaways are not feasible, drainage calculations to limit the discharge rate from the site equivalent to a greenfield runoff rate should be submitted for approval. The attenuation drainage system should be designed so that storm events of up to 1 in 100 year + 20% for climate change will not cause flooding of any property either within the proposed development or any other in the vicinity. Reason: To ensure that the proposed surface water drainage systems for the site are fully compliant with regulations and are of robust design.
ii. This development is adjacent to a historic landfill site. The construction of soakaways should be kept away from this boundary. Evidence is required ensuring that no migration of surface water to the landfill site takes place. Reason: To ensure no pollution of the water table take place.
iii. As outlined in the FRA, effluent from the feedstock clamps will be diverted to underground tanks and pumped back to the digester. The applicant should submit details on how the contaminated water will be isolated from the main surface water system. Reason: To ensure no pollution of the water table take place.
iv. Informative: The applicant should consider employing measures such as the following: Water Butts; Rainwater harvesting system; Greywater recycling system.
4.12 Chief Fire Officer – No comments received. The following generic advice has however been received in relation to similar recently approved AD facilities:
‘Adequate access should be provided for emergency fire vehicles to within 45m of every point in the site or a percentage of the perimeter, whichever is less onerous. This issue will be dealt with at the Building Regulations stage of the development. The benefit of installing a correctly designed sprinkler system, which can detect and control fire at an early stage is strongly emphasised’.
4.13 Councillor Mrs V.Parry (Ludlow South) – has been informed of the proposals.
5. PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 The application has been advertised in the press and by site notice and the nearest 56 properties have been individually notified, including some commercial premises. At the time of writing 30 objection responses have been received making the following comments:
i. Traffic : As a resident of Park Lane I am concerned about the increased traffic. The lane is very narrow and twisty making visibility poor. The lane has not got good base structure who will be responsible for its maintenance. The Highways department does not foresee any problems with the junction at the A49 but having lived on the lane for many year I am aware of numerous accidents. Danger to road traffic and pedestrians. How can anyone believe that it is OK to approve regular movements of additional slow-moving heavy vehicles on a fast stretch of road which includes three difficult turns, a junction on a poor visibility bend and is already a well-known accident black
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 10 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
spot area? Park Lane is a very narrow, quiet, country lane. It is suitable for pedestrians, for driving slowly and carefully, and for the occasional tractor. If the council wants to site a plant that requires regular deliveries from slow-moving heavy vehicles then it must find somewhere with a wide, good visibility access and where there are safe pedestrian facilities. The section of the A49 that falls within the confines of Woofferton is short because, as already stated, Woofferton is a hamlet. However, for such a short stretch of main road it still contains, to my knowledge, 3 notorious accident black spots within yards of each other. One of these is located on the area where Park Lane joins the A49. This lane being the narrow lane onto which the plant is proposed. It therefore seems not only without merit but unintelligible that anyone can "understand that the Highways Agency, who control this road as Highway Authority, do not consider the intensified use of the junction to be an issue". At present a minuscule proportion of the traffic volume, at this junction, turn in or out of Park Lane; yet it is still an accident black-spot. There has over the last dozen years been a considerable increase in the amount of heavy goods traffic on the B4362, and this project threatens to aggravate the situation with no countervailing benefit to the local community, and to increase the likelihood of accidents on the already dangerous junction with the A49. Concern about road safety during the construction phase. Additional traffic movement into and exiting the junction of Park Lane onto the A49 will present a greater risk to road users travelling either north or south with restricted visibility especially for oncoming traffic travelling from the North. Visibility for vehicles exiting Park Lane and turning right onto the A49 would have to be substantially improved by the removal of existing hedgerow. am astounded that the Highways Agency/Authority have considered that the alleged additional traffic movement to the proposed site is of little consequence. I would like the Highways Agency/Authority to respond on exactly what they have based their comments. Have they carried out a site inspection and assessed all risks to road users? Also consider that there will be increased traffic movement especially during the construction phase and with much heavier vehicles that a 15 ton tractor and trailer. What is the weight limit for the Park Lane railway bridge? I object to the creation of this digester on the grounds that access to the site is very dangerous. Traffic from the north of the site would have to cross the A49 on a bend where traffic from the south is accelerating after turning from the A456/Presteigne Road. Traffic from Leominster will also be speeding up after slowing for the junction just mentioned. For accessibility the A49 is the main road in Shropshire. However, the section where the site is proposed has 3 renowned accident black-spots within yards of each other. This plant will increase the volume and variety of traffic here. It will also, given its site on Park Lane, considerably alter the directions vehicles usually enter and leave this section. This will not only cause greater impediments to traffic flow on an already busy road but inevitably more accidents occurring on this dangerous section. Park Lane is too narrow for the proposed traffic and has soft verges, so even the proposal that vehicles could pass will inevitably bring mud and debris onto the road making it hazardous for other users. Whilst the proposal states the use of tractors and trailers for transport, commercial pressure on costs will dictate that these are the largest available. The proposal's Environmental Supporting Statement, Table 3.1d, admits to an increase in traffic movements of 662 from a current estimate of 1060, an increase of about 65% - which is then described as "a small overall increase"! Surely, nobody could agree that 65% is a small increase.
ii. Odour : I already tolerate the smell when the poultry units are cleaned but Ii fear a increase of animal waste and its storage is going to intensify the odour especially during the summer months. There will inevitably be noxious smells of chicken manure
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 11 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
during periods of its operation and almost continuously from vehicles delivering it. These type of plants are usually sited within farmland as distant from other residents and businesses as possible yet this one is being sited close to two leisure businesses - the Travelodge and the Salwey Arms - the latter of which has only recently re-opened after years of being closed. How popular will this hotel and this pub be once it becomes known that they are from time to time invaded by noxious smells? Even closer and more perplexing is the apparent lack of consideration given to the care home at Woofferton House. If this proposal is approved, it will bring shame on a council that is prepared to give such scant consideration to vulnerable people. It is unimaginable to me that the council is prepared to place the futures of three businesses at risk for the sake of one business that will employ just one person and is likely to annoy local residents, even if many of them are over the border in Herefordshire. No guarantee was given that there would not be bad smells. Is there likely to be a restriction on the site ever accepting food waste. Although I do not see it specifically mentioned in the application, it is not specifically excluded either. This needs urgent clarification. It is well known that AD plants have potential odour problems. This does not just apply to plants processing food waste. It is not difficult to find examples of complaints about odour problems with other AD plants utilising the proposed feedstock for this plant. There is numerous evidence of complaints from residents within 800 meters of AD plants who have experienced odour problems. An 800 metre radius of this site takes in a substantial proportion of the village of Wyson. Are we to suppose that Shropshire council does not care about this as it is in Herefordshire? It is difficult to believe that a site cannot be found that is further from residential properties. It surely can not be in the councils interest to run the risk of on- going conflict with local residents regarding problems with odour. Who will deal with the dangers to public health posed by the spillage of noxious matter? Living in a rural area, local residents have had to accept, for a few days each year, the stench raised by the spreading of chicken manure on the fields. It now appears that the Council is preparing to countenance the daily infliction of this blight on the community. This promises to be a nuisance grossly out of proportion to the projected output of electricity. Spending time in the garden and enjoying long walks locally(quality of life and reason for moving to and living in a rural area) will no longer be possible. I will be forced to sell my property and move elsewhere. There are no guarantees that can be given on eliminating the resulting stench from the digester into the atmosphere either from the production, storage or during transfer of feedstocks. It is not acceptable to the residents of Woofferton or Brimfield to have the constant reminder of a Digester that will be ever present on a daily basis. I don't think an enclosed shed can possibly eliminate any odour and the daily loading of this is bound to create strong smells. The occasional spreading of this waste on the odd field nearby is merely a temporary inconvenience with the smell only lasting a few days and is accepted by all country residents. However, the daily movement and disturbance of chicken manure by JCB will mean 365 days of the year when obnoxious, strong smells will be polluting the air, which I think is unacceptable. Prevailing westerly winds will take odours, noise and other emissions directly to Woofferton homes, nursing home, hotels and public house. It is well documented that despite planning claims, AD plants do create strong odours that can cause significant issues within an 800 metre radius of the plant and less significant issues over a much wider area.
iii. Noise : Noise generated from the plant in operation. By its nature, AD is a 24hr operation. Other industries in the area have had restricted operating hours and practices imposed for the benefit of local residents. This will not be possible for a plant
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 12 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
of this nature, which in turn will give grounds for others in the area to appeal their restrictions.
iv. Property : Reduction in the value of properties in the local area. After living in Woofferton for the last 12 years we have seen a lot of changes e.g.the concrete plant with all it's cement dust and noise, the haulage company/sand blasting, the new industrial site. The new site will only and more noise pollution and air pollution and will devalue our property
v. Safety of the local population - a site operated by a single person (lone worker). What happens when thinks go wrong with the plant of with the operator? There is clear evidence in the proposal that the applicant is understating the impact of the plant on the local environment. So what trust can be placed in his other claims about how "benign" the plant will be in relation to odours, noise, hazards, flies, etc. On the webpage www.tagnotowasteplant.wordpress.com/anaerobic-digestion , Howard Leberman, Industry regulation policy adviser at the Environment Agency is quoted as saying of AD in 2012, ?You are dealing with an aggressive working environment. Anybody that deals with an explosive gas/biogas runs the risk of catastrophic issues. Loss of containment can wipe out an ecosystem, so it’s not low risk and you need to understand the risk at whatever scale?
vii. General objection : Badly conceived, badly sited and badly communicated.
viii. Procedural : Residents in Herefordshire had no formal notification of this proposed development. Shropshire County Council seem to have completely forgotten that the world does not end at the county boundary and in addition to those Woofferton, Shropshire residents who will be affected by it, there are even more Wyson, Herefordshire residents who will also be affected by it, as it will be far closer to the centre of Wyson than to Richards Castle. This power plant proposal is the biggest decision our whole community has had to make for a very long time. However not even all the residents of Woofferton which is a hamlet had been directly informed? I'm also concerned over the apparent lack of opportunity, to date, for this application to be appropriately considered. I hope very much that Shropshire Council will accede to the request for the application to be "called in" thus making more time available for consultation.
ix. Landscaping : Questioning effectiveness of proposed landscape screening. This is an appalling blot on the landscape, traffjc hazard and a blight on an area already suffering creeping industrialisation. My home overlooks Wooferton and the proposed facility, presently a relatively unspoilt green field area viewed from a significant elevation. Will the AD plant still be in operation by the time the screen of trees shown in the proposal have reached the necessary height? The loss of the large oak tree at the proposed new entrance is unnecessary. Most user vehicles would have sufficient height to see safely over the brow of hill if the existing field entrance were used.
x. Sustainability : AD power plants generate greenhouse gases in similar ways fossil-fuel power plants do. We are not debating a wind farm here. The chicken farm which is cited as being a likely customer for electricity (and maybe even heat) already has a very large solar array. Is this now to be redundant? If the chicken farm is such a strong potential partner, why is the proposal not to site the AD on the same site, rather than 600 metres away along the road and across other landowners fields?
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 13 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
xi. Concern about prospective operator : Does the applicant have a record of success in running a business of this nature, or will the Council have to pick up the bill if it fails? Concern about expansion to maximise future profits, which characterise such private enterprises when coupled with political support. All of SC's previous approvals for rural AD have been for applications serving and sited adjacent to agricultural establishments. I believe that this proposal is different in that it is a purely commercial enterprise set up to take advantage of government financial incentives. I believe that its priorities and actions will be driven purely by profit and likely to frustrate even the best enforcement efforts of cash-strapped local and national government agencies.
xii. Community benefits : I am a strong supporter of progress and the role of business in such progress. However whilst this project appears to reflect technological progress it does not show any worthwhile benefits to this community nor guarantees the prevention of the intrusion or risks which concern us as local residents. This proposal has clearly been made to benefit a few individuals at the cost of the local community in which it will be sited. It does not even comply with policy CS5 (page 6 on the planning statement) which cites "community benefits". Where are these? Do they mean the inevitable increase in foul smells in our environment; agricultural communities are formed around the seasons, this plant is not? Siting of the plant offers no efficient use of the waste heat generated. The proposal is totally reliant on chicken manure feedstock from the nearby poultry farm, but makes no assessment of the impact on operations of the loss of this supply, temporary or permanantly, e.g. very significant further heavy traffic to bring in alternative supplies. The developer demonstrates doubtful "green" credentials with no commitment to use vehicles powered by the gas or electricity generated, eg on site and to/from chicken farm.
xiii. Policy : I understand that the SC and Parish area development plan identifies no need for industrial-scale development in this locality. Clearly this proposal goes against that. A key requirement of the Shropshire Core Plan is that of development for employment. This proposal does little to further that requirement, claiming just 1 employee. There is no commitment to control pests and vermin. Other obnoxious feedstocks could be added at a later date. No commitment not to expand the plant if the initial proposal is successful.
5.2 Woofferton Residential Care Home : Objection. The care home is one of the closest buildings to this proposed site and I am concerned about the impact on my service users' well being and quality of environment given the unpleasant odours that are likely to occur from the operation of this plant. I am also concerned about the potentially significant increase in traffic on Park Lane (which is currently a narrow but quiet lane) and the negative impact this will have on my service users, their families and my staff whilst travelling to and from the residential home.
5.3 The Salwey Arms : We have recently renovated The Salwey Arms (350 metres from the proposed site) as a fully functioning indoor / outdoor amenity for the local community and as a luxury residential facility for visitors to the area. We are also a significant local employer. Neither our diners, drinkers or resident guests deserve the unpleasant smells that are likely to be emitted by this plant (processing) and stocks held in clamps. Has consideration also been given to the Nursing Home and Travelodge hotel that are in even closer proximity than The Salwey Arms? Claims are made in the application that the processing of chicken manure at a single site will be
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 14 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
preferable to the current regime of spreading directly onto fields (creating temporary strong odours), this is misleading. Unprocessed manure is spread on fields only occasionally (creating an issue for maybe a day or two) - anyone living in the countryside can cope with that. Storing, loading and processing the entire annual volume at a single site close to homes and businesses 365 days a year is not a comparable scenario. My second objection is the increased risk of road traffic collisions at two well known accident black-spots that will both see significant additional movements of slow moving agricultural vehicles. In the last 7 months there have been 4 serious accidents on the A49 / A456 junction (due to emerging vehicles), and 2 accidents at the entrance to Park Lane (from the A49) due to static vehicle build up on a blind bend (due to large and slow vehicles turning into Park. Lane. I am fully supportive of alternative energy and green industry, but they need to be sensibly located.
5.4 Brimfield and Little Hereford Council : Objection. We first heard about this application from concerned residents in our parish and would comment as follows: Firstly, as a parish council, we are disappointed not to have been consulted on this application as a neighbouring parish council. In the past, we have been consulted on applications that border our parish and as this could be considered a major planning application, we would have expected to be consulted. Listening to the concerns of our residents in Wyson and Brimfield whom it will affect, we support their concerns as follows: • Problems with odour both in transportation of materials to and from the plant and whilst on site • Increased traffic to and from the site, especially turning into and out of the A49 junction. This has always been an extremely busy junction and we have made numerous requests to improve road safety at this site, this application will only increase traffic at this already dangerous junction. • Our residents are concerned regarding the detrimental impact this will have on their community, increased noise, smell and traffic will be constant reminders • Our residents, like us, feel that not enough consultation has taken place regarding this application to a wider community. • There appeared to be a lack of reassurance by the applicant regarding assurances of safety, their experience and knowledge at the Richards Castle meeting, these do not appear to have been addressed either by the applicant or by Shropshire Council. There does not seem to be any benefit from this application to the wider community • Businesses such as the recently renovated Salwey Arms, the local care home as well as many residents were unaware of these plans. • Plans for a local travellers site were rejected on the grounds of traffic concerns in this area To summarise, we object to this application on the grounds outlined above. Mrs Karen Yates - Clerk - Brimfield & Little Hereford GPC
6. THE MAIN ISSUES
• Whether there is a clearly established need for the facility; • Whether the proposals comply with relevant policies and guidance in relation to wider environmental issues such as sustainability, climate change and energy policy; • Whether the site is an appropriate location for the proposed development; • Whether other off-site impacts are acceptable including with reference to: - odour; - traffic; - noise and vibration; - visual impact;
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 15 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
- air quality and health - water resources; - community benefits.
7. OFFICER APPRAISAL
7.1 Assessment of need The climate change section of the National Planning Policy Framework advises that planning authorities should not require applicants for renewable energy schemes to demonstrate the overall need for the renewable energy (s98). Notwithstanding this, there are a number of justifications for the proposals:
7.2 Need - Farm business : The AD unit will be operated in association with local farming enterprises and will represent a vertical integration whereby the digestate produced can be utilised to fertilise the crops grown as feedstock for use in the digester, along with feedstock sourced from other local businesses. The AD plant would produce energy, heat and digestate (a nutrient rich soil improver). The feedstock used in the digesters will include crops grown on the local farms such as maize, grass silage, and whole crop silage. Some 3,000 tonnes of broiler chicken manure and some 6500 tonnes of farm crops will be used to fuel the AD plant and produce a high quality nutrient rich digestate to be used as organic soil conditioner on local holdings. It is considered that the proposals the proposals are sized appropriately for the anticipated level of available feedstocks and would in principle promote the development and diversification of agricultural business in a way that supports the rural economy (NPPF s28).
7.3 Need - Renewable energy : The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (July 2009) implements EU legislation requiring the UK to provide 14% of its final energy production from renewable sources by 2020. It is estimated that about 25% of Britain’s current fossil fuel and nuclear based electricity generating capacity is likely to be lost over the next 10 years. The Government has stated that renewable technologies such as anaerobic digestion have a major role to play in replacing this lost capacity. The proposed facility would produce 3,300 kWh per annum of electricity. This is equivalent to the amount used by 1200 households after energy use by the plant is taken into account. It is accepted that this would contribute to the objective of achieving the UK Renewable Energy Strategy target and providing more secure and diverse sources of energy supply. The proposals would also comply with paragraph 97 of the NPPF and related sections referring to renewable energy.
7.4 Need - Climate change : The NPPF advises that ‘local planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change (s94). Under the current farming system poultry manure is spread directly as a fertilizer onto farmland. This farm waste is however rich in methane which is a potent greenhouse gas. The applicant states that renewable energy produced by the plant would reduce carbon dioxide released from the traditional fossil fuel generation by around 2100 tonnes of carbon equivalents each year. Processing of 3000 tonnes of poultry manure in the digester before spreading onto land would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 750 tonnes of carbon equivalents. The methane rich gas produced by the AD process would be used to power the generator, creating renewable electricity to replace fossil fuels. Whilst the generator exhaust gas contains carbon dioxide (a weaker greenhouse gas than methane) this would not add to global warming as equivalent quantities of carbon would be fixed by growing next season’s energy crops. In addition, the
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 16 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
applicant states that the digestate produced by the AD process would replace conventional fertilisers, the manufacture and distribution of which is very energy intensive. The climate change benefits of the proposals are a significant material consideration. It is also necessary however to assess the extent to which the proposals comply with other development plan policies, guidance and local considerations.
7.5 Energy efficiency / use of surplus heat : As well as producing electricity, the proposed facility would generate an equivalent amount of energy in the form of surplus heat (0.6 MW of heat per hour). Some of this would be used to maintain the temperature of the AD tanks. It would also be possible in principle to utilise remaining heat energy in nearby buildings. It is recognised that provision of the necessary infrastructure for distributing the heat is costly and the ability to utilise remaining surplus heat will therefore be influenced by factors including the availability of suitable local end-users and the level of government grant subsidy available for renewable heat energy schemes. The ability to optimise the use of surplus heat would be beneficial in terms of national climate change and energy policy and would further reduce the carbon footprint of the proposals. It is therefore considered that, if planning permission is granted, a condition requiring an annual review of the potential to maximise use of renewable heat energy is imposed. It is understood that discussions have already taken place with one potential heat user. Subject to this it is considered that the proposals can be accepted in relation to the objectives of national climate change and energy policy and related development plan policies.
7.6 Visual impact : Development Plan policy seeks to protect landscape quality (e.g. Core Strategy Policy CS5, CS17). The nearest residential properties are generally well screened visually from the site and the proposed landscaping works would further improve this containment. Although the proposed facility would produce renewable energy, the applicant states that the structures within the site would have an agricultural appearance and would be directly related to the agricultural activities taking place within the wider farming unit. The site is separated from the nearest residential properties and viewpoints by distance, topography and intervening vegetation. A belt of landscape planting is proposed on the site’s east and southern margins to further integrate the site visually with its surroundings.
7.7 The proposal includes the installation of crop storage clamps and storage/digestion tanks and a manure storage building which are quite large structures, but with an agricultural appearance. The tallest structure, the digestion tank would be set back 240m from the highway edge and set down immediately adjacent to an excavated slope at the western end of the site. It would be 7m to the tank top with a conical roof reaching to 11.5 metres high at the apex and would be coloured dark green. Given the careful siting of the AD tank and the ability to treat this and other structures in appropriate colours it not considered that the proposals would represent an unacceptable intrusion in the rural area, taking account also of the proposed landscaping measures. Whilst some limited views towards the site would be available from surrounding publicly accessible areas, it is considered that such views would be fleeting and would not appear out of context in this setting between the Woofferton transmitter station and a railway embankment, with other industrial uses located to the south and east. The proposals also incorporate landscape planting on the southern and eastern margins and adjacent to the access road. The site would extend to within 60m of the edge of the Shrewsbury – Hereford line. Whilst fleeting views towards the
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 17 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
site may be available to some northbound rail passengers these would be mitIt is not considered that the site would represent an unacceptable visual intrusion
7.8 Location : The NPPF advises that local planning authorities should not require applicants to demonstrate the overall need for low carbon energy and should approve the application it its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable (s98). It is recognised that most renewable energy resources can only be developed where the resource exists and that renewable energy projects have the potential to play an increasingly important role to play in the diversification of rural economies. The NPPF also supports the diversification of agricultural businesses (s28). There are however a number of justifications for choosing the current site:
• The proposed site is centrally located in relation to the wider farm unit and is close to a number of field areas where energy crops could be grown and the resultant digestate could be spread; • It is close to a source for poultry manure feedstock; • It is close to a connection point to the electricity grid; • It is possible to obtain a satisfactory access with good visibility from the site onto Park Lane; • The site offers landscape advantages given that existing vegetation and buildings would provide a degree of pre-existing screening before proposed landscaping measures are implemented; • The site is relatively remote from residential property, not generally directly overlooked from principal windows and is not affected by any statutory environmental designations.
It is considered that the location of the proposed site is capable of being supported in principle, provided the proposals would not give rise to any unacceptably adverse impacts on the environment or local amenities.
7.9 Odour : Most of the concerns raised in relation to the proposals by local residents refer to odour from the AD process. The owners of the nearby residential home and the recently refurbished Salwey Arms have also expressed concerns in relation to this matter. The main source of potential odour is poultry manure which is currently spread on farm land at the site seasonally its raw state. The AD process actually has the potential to reduce odour in some respects relative to the current situation as poultry manure would be fed into the AD units rather than being spread on land. The resultant digestate, which is odourless or has a much reduced odour, would be spread onto the land instead. A number of measures are proposed in order to minimise odour, including storage of poultry manure and the solids feeder in a contained storage shed and a requirement for manure to be imported in covered loads. An appropriate planning condition covering this matter has been recommended in Appendix 1. The AD process itself is fully contained. Having left the feeder, at no time would any material be directly exposed to the atmosphere. The externally sited tanks would be completely sealed to facilitate anaerobic gas collection and to eliminate odour release. Production and capture of this gas in the absence of oxygen is a fundamental part of the process. The roof of the digester is specifically designed to capture and store biogas, and is sized to minimise the amount of gas storage required, with gas production closely linked to rate of use.
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 18 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
7.10 In recognition of local concerns the applicant has commissioned a report by an independent odour consultant from ADAS in relation to the proposals. This assesses the potential for odour from the individual uses within the proposed site including silage clamps, the poultry litter storage building, feedstock and digestate handling and the gas holder. The report concludes as follows:
In my opinion the risk of adverse impact at receptors properties separated from the proposed development by distances of ≥300m is no higher than would be the case for a non intensive livestock (beef or dairy) farm, providing that the proposed AD operation is well managed and maintained. With normal standards of management I would not expect any significant adverse effect from a livestock farm at such separation distances, and thus conclude by analogy that the proposed development has a low risk of causing any adverse odour impact on local amenity. I am also of the opinion that the risk from land spreading digestate from a long residence time digester, such as that proposed here, would not provide any greater risk of adverse odour impact than normal applications of agricultural slurries and manures.
7.11 The report also refers to the additional controls on odour which are imposed under the Environment Agency’s permitting process:
The local authority and local residents can be reassured that the Environment Agency can, and indeed does, rigorously enforce odour related permit conditions and the requirements of site specific OMPs. By way of example, I am aware that just within the pig and poultry sectors alone three operators have been prosecuted and heavily fined over odour issues in recent years, and in one case a permit has been withdrawn. These prosecutions and enforcement actions were taken where permit odour conditions had been breached and/or where OMP procedures intended to control odour impacts have not been complied with. I am therefore content that even though there is, in my opinion, a very low risk of the proposed development causing adverse odour impact there is as, a backstop contingency, a suitably robust regulatory regime in place if odours were ever to become an issue in the locality.
7.12 The applicant has organised a visit to a local AD plant near Ludlow where locals and members of the parish were able to view at first hand the operation of such a site. The applicant states that this visit was generally well received and there appeared to be a general view that such plants can operate without harm to the locality. This conclusion is generally supported by evidence from other similar facilities now operating within the county. There are now 11 AD plants across Shropshire which are operating under the strict controls of the environmental permitting system. There is no history of odour complaints from sites of an equivalent type in Shropshire, including sites much closer to residential property than the current proposals. Shropshire Council’s Public Protection service has not objected. It is considered on balance that subject to the recommended conditions the measures proposed by the applicant are sufficient to prevent any reasonably foreseeable loss to amenity at neighbouring residences.
7.13 Air quality : The gas engine would emit carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), water vapour (H2O) and very low levels of Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) at the same level as standard internal combustion engines. The total CO2 emissions would however be offset by reductions in methane emissions from manure containment, as well as by reducing the use of energy intensive manufactured fertilisers. All the exhaust gas from
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 19 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
the gas engines would be strictly monitored and limited under the provisions of a permit administered by the Environment Agency.
7.14 Noise and hours of working : It is recognised that renewable technologies may generate small increases in noise levels. Local planning authorities should therefore ensure that renewable energy developments have been located and designed in such a way to minimise increases in ambient noise levels. The applicant states that the site has been chosen partly due to its screened location and also because it is not sited close to a large number of sensitive receptors. However, the proposed development is not anticipated to result in unacceptable levels of noise.
7.15 The process of anaerobic digestion is itself silent running continuously over a 24-hour period. The pumps and loading system moving feedstock from the feeder to the digester tank will operate intermittently over the 24-hour period. The only continuous noise would emanate from the CHP engine. The CHP unit is fitted within an acoustic container with attenuation to a sound level of 65dBA at 10 metres (according to manufacturer's data); a noise level comparable to a vacuum cleaner. The CHP is located set down and behind substantial bunding from the nearest residential properties; the CHP is also to the west and north of the site with the tanks, clamps and poultry manure building all providing additional sound screening from the nearest residential properties. The World Health Organisation (WHO) in its publication Guidelines for Community Noise (1999) in reference to continuous noise exposure for dwellings states "At night, sound pressure levels at the outside façades of the living spaces should not exceed 45 dB" so that people may sleep with bedroom windows open”. The applicant states that predicted noise levels as a result of the CHP at the nearest residential properties are significantly below this.
7.16 The only other noise generating activities would be the limited vehicle movements associated with agricultural vehicles delivering feedstock and exporting digestate, as well as a loading shovel transporting the energy crop silage to the diet feeder. The proposed plant is located away from residential properties, with the closest being over 350 metres to the east of the site on the edge of Woofferton. The properties in Woofferton are also on the other side of the railway line to the AD plant. The closest dwelling on the same side of the railway line is over 350 metres to the north-west. Given the separation distance and the positioning of the CHP, it is not anticipated that the plant would give rise to an increase in ambient noise levels at any nearby residential property. With the exception of short periods during feedstock harvest, it is not anticipated that any mobile plant would be operational on the site outside the hours of daylight.
7.17 The Council’s Public Protection service has not objected. To provide added reassurance in relation to noise however it is recommended that a condition is imposed to ensure that noise from the engine is attenuated to 5 decibels above the night time noise level outside the nearest residential property. It is also recommended that on-farm vehicle movements associated with the anaerobic digestion plant do not take place outside of 07.00 hours to 21.00 hours. Subject to these measures it is concluded that noise from the proposed facility is capable of being controlled to an acceptable degree.
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 20 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
7.18 Traffic and Access The proposed AD facility would process 6500 tonnes of locally grown crops, 3000 tonnes poultry manure and 500 tonnes of other buffer crops. The energy crop feedstock would be supplied from surrounding farmland under the control of the applicant. These materials are already exported onto the local road network as a consequence of existing farming activities. The proposals would however significantly shorten the journey length of some of the poultry manure. There would also be an output of 8000 tpa of digestate which would be spread on surrounding farmland. A new access would be provided to ensure good visibility and plenty of room would be available within the site for turning.
7.19 A traffic report accompanies the application. The main conclusions of are:
• There would be an overall increase in vehicle movements of about 662 per annum (averaged at 1.8 additional movements per day) • These would be primarily tractor / trailer movements which would have minimal impact locally over and above the current situation • The harvest season would be equalised over more months of the year as a result of reduced combinable crops grown and the introduction of maize and grass • Overall the report concludes that traffic would not have a major impact locally and the environmental benefits of replacing artificial fertilisers with organic digestate should not be underestimated.
7.20 Some local residents have expressed concerns about the impact of increased site traffic on the public highway and the danger of Woofferton Crossroads. Highways Development Control officers have been made aware of these concerns, but have not objected and have reiterated that the local road network is capable of handling the small increase in traffic proposed. The applicant has also forwarded to officers comments from the Highways Agency (responsible for the A49 and Woofferton Crossroads), received in response to pre-application consultations. This confirms that the Agency has no objection in principle to the scheme.
7.21 At present, there would be seasonal peaks in activity, mainly during harvest time. The applicant has agreed in principle to implement a voluntary code of traffic management in order to minimise the potential for adverse highway impacts during peak times. This is to be welcomed and an advisory note covering this matter has been included in Appendix 1. There would be additional movements during the construction phase but liaison would occur with the suppliers to ensure that the minimum of disruption is caused during construction.
7.22 In recognition of local concerns the applicant has commissioned a further supplementary report on highway matters from a transport consultant which concludes as follows:
It has been indicated that the proposals will see a small increase on traffic, whilst stocking and feedstock is brought to the AD facility. However these movements will in part be offset by the loss of the land for cropping. Park Lane has a number of existing passing areas and upon agreement with the Local Highway Authority the Applicant has offered to provide some improvements thereto. Such improvements would bring benefit to all road users and the wider community. It is recommended that these improvements are provided where possible to give more purpose to the existing
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 21 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
passing facilities. These improvements could be sought subject to a suitably worded planning condition.
7.23 It is concluded that the proposals will not have an unacceptable impact on the local highway network. There will only be a limited increase on the local highway relative to that which could occur under normal agricultural practices. Traffic to the site is also capable of being managed more effectively than would be the case for a normal agricultural operation. The applicant’s offer to provide funding for some improvements to Park Pane (i.e. incorporating informal carriageway overrun / passing areas into the public highway) is to be welcomed. Whilst not considered essential to ensure an acceptable development in highway terms it would provide benefits for the local community. The application can therefore be accepted in relation to highway and access considerations. (Core Strategy Policy CS7; Waste Local Plan Policy 25)
7.24 Ecology The site is not located within or adjacent to a designated ecological area. An Ecological Survey has not identified any potential impacts but has recommended some mitigation measures. A foul water body 100m away in the section of woodland adjacent to the railway line to the north-east is not thought suitable for use by GCN; there were no buildings present which could accommodate bats; there was no evidence of any other protected species on the site or within 50m of the site. The report concludes that the extensive proposed planting and the buffer zones around existing mature planting will provide ecological enhancement of the site. An appropriate condition covering ecological matters has been recommended. It is considered that the proposals can be accepted in relation to ecology and biodiversity. (Core Strategy Policy CS17, NPPF section 11- natural environment)
7.25 Water resources : The site is located in flood zone 1 which is not a flood risk area. A suitable clean surface water drainage system would be installed with dirty water being separated and diverted back into the AD system. AD offers a completely sealed liquid management system. All incoming materials are immediately stored in the designated feedstock clamps or storage shed. Following feeding to the digester the process is totally enclosed and no liquids leave the plant other than the digestate to be spread on the agricultural land. The end digestate store has a more than sufficient 5+ month storage capacity. The AD plant design allows for easy inspection of areas where a leak could potentially occur. In addition, the following points are relevant:
• The actual area of impermeable hard surfaces within the site would be less than half the area of the overall site. Surrounding surfaces would be permeable; • The site is on elevated sloping well drained ground a significant distance from any water courses and with no history of flooding;
7.26 A number of safeguards are also included to minimise the risk of pollution and recommended conditions covering these matters are included in Appendix 1. Water use is expected to be minimal as the liquid digestate can be recycled in the plant to add any required moisture to the incoming feedstock. The Environment Agency and the Council’s land drainage sections have not objected. It is concluded in these circumstances that adequate information and commitments relating to drainage and pollution control have been provided at this stage. It is concluded therefore that the proposals can be accepted in relation to development plan policies and guidance covering the protection of water resources. (Core Strategy Policy CS18; NPPF – natural environment (s110))
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 22 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
7.27 Lighting The proposed site is located away from private dwellings. Low levels of external lighting are proposed. The applicant has confirmed that measures would be employed to minimise any unnecessary light spill. There would be no round the clock external lighting. It is recommended that this is conditioned in the event that planning permission is granted.
7.28 Health Emissions to air, water and land would be controlled through an Environmental Permit issued by the Environment Agency. The Agency has confirmed that emissions from anaerobic digestion are low compared with other waste management options such as composting. As the main process is enclosed and anaerobic all emissions would be sufficiently reduced. It is considered that the proposals can be accepted in relation to health matters. (Waste Local Plan Policy 4, 25)
7.29 Pests The proposed silage clamp would incorporate measures to ensure secure storage of feedstock materials. A visual inspection regime and associated measures would be implemented to prevent pests or vermin. It is recommended that a planning condition to cover this is imposed in the event of permission being granted.
7.30 Gas storage The AD process produces biogas (methane) but the plant is designed and sized to minimise the amount of gas storage required, with gas production closely linked to rate of use. The gas holders are mainly employed to provide a sealed cover to the plant and to manage minor interruptions to the generator system. The design of the proposed facility would incorporate appropriate fire prevention measures. Sufficient access to the AD tanks would be available for fire-fighting purposes, via the area between the silage clamps. It is recommended that a condition is imposed requiring details of fire prevention measures to be submitted in the event of permission being granted.
7.31 Community benefits : Objectors have expressed concerns that the proposals as submitted offered no benefits for the local community. The applicant has however agreed subsequently to make a voluntary payment towards improvement works on Park Lane, Woofferton. This is to be welcomed in accordance with the principles set out in Core Strategy Policy CS5.
7.32 Consultations : Objectors have expressed concerns about the fact that some residents and Parish Councils in nearby areas surrounding the proposed site were not formally consulted on the proposals. However, 56 properties have been individually notified of the scheme, including all properties directly fronting field areas surrounding the site. Officers are satisfied on this basis that the relevant statutory consultation requirements have been fully met and exceeded.
7.33 Other matters . Some excavations are required for the purpose of site levelling and to create appropriate development platforms. The applicant states that loss of 1.87 ha of pasture land would be compensated through increased yields across the remainder of the farm, as a result of improved crop rotation and digestate fertilizer use. A nearby ancient monument would not be affected. A watching brief would be implemented during soil stripping work.
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 23 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
8.0 CONCLUSION
8.1 It is considered that design and location of the proposed facility and the control measures being recommended would allow the impact of the proposals to be controlled within acceptable limits. The site is in a greenfield location not associated with any farm buildings complex. However, it is considered that the choice of location can be supported in principle, given the central location of the site in relation to the farming unit and the ability to adequately contain the development. This is having regard also to the renewable energy, and economic benefits of the proposals.
8.2 The Parish Council has objected to the proposals and local residents have expressed concerns particularly in relation to traffic, odour and noise. However, the applicant has provided further information in relation to these matters and there are no outstanding objections from technical consultees. The proposals would generate a limited number of additional farm vehicle movements relative to the current situation and the access is considered acceptable to accommodate these movements. The proposed facility would allow renewable energy to be generated from existing agricultural materials which are already being grown / received within the wider farming unit. Detailed planning controls are available and have been listed in Appendix 1. These would be supplemented by detailed operational controls available through the waste permitting regime.
8.3 The NPPF requires that applications for renewable energy should be approved if the impacts are, or can be made, acceptable (s98). It is concluded on balance that the proposals are capable of being accepted in relation to relevant development plan policies, guidance and other local considerations.
9. RISK MANAGEMENT AND OPPORTUNITIES APPRAISAL
9.1 Risk Management
9.1.1 There are two principal risks associated with this recommendation as follows:
• As with any planning decision the applicant has a right of appeal if they disagree with the decision and/or the imposition of conditions. Costs can be awarded irrespective of the mechanism for hearing the appeal, i.e. written representations, hearing or inquiry. • The decision may be challenged by way of a Judicial Review by a third party. The courts become involved when there is a misinterpretation or misapplication of policy or some breach of the rules of procedure or the principles of natural justice. However their role is to review the way the authorities reach decisions, rather than to make a decision on the planning issues themselves, although they will interfere where the decision is so unreasonable as to be irrational or perverse. Therefore they are concerned with the legality of the decision, not its planning merits. A challenge by way of Judicial Review must be made a) promptly and b) in any event not later than three months after the grounds to make the claim first arose first arose.
Both of these risks need to be balanced against the risk of not proceeding to determine the application. In this scenario there is also a right of appeal against non-determination for application for which costs can also be awarded.
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 24 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
9.2 Human Rights 9.2.1 Article 8 give the right to respect for private and family life and First Protocol Article 1 allows for the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. These have to be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others and the orderly development of the County in the interests of the Community. First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balanced against the impact on residents. This legislation has been taken into account in arriving at the above recommendation.
9.3 Equalities 9.3.1 The concern of planning law is to regulate the use of land in the interests of the public at large, rather than those of any particular group. Equality will be one of a number of ‘relevant considerations’ that need to be weighed in Planning Committee members’ minds under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1970.
9.4 Financial Implications 9.4.1 There are likely financial implications of the decision and/or imposition of conditions if challenged by a planning appeal or judicial review. The costs of defending any decision will be met by the authority and will vary dependant on the scale and nature of the proposal. Local financial considerations are capable of being taken into account when determining this planning application – in so far as they are material to the application. The weight given to this issue is a matter for the decision maker.
10. BACKGROUND
RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES
Central Government Guidance :
10.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (DCLG – July 2011)
10.1.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into effect in March 2012, replacing most former planning policy statements and guidance notes. The NPPF provides a more concise policy framework emphasizing sustainable development and planning for prosperity. Sustainable development ‘is about positive growth – making economic, environmental and social progress for this and future generations’. ‘Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay - a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision’. The framework sets out clearly what could make a proposed plan or development unsustainable.
10.1.2 The Government’s objective is that planning should support the transition to a low carbon economy in a changing climate, for instance, by the development of renewable energy (s17). To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low-carbon energy, local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low-carbon sources. They should:
• have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low-carbon sources, including deep geothermal energy; • design their policies to maximise renewable and low-carbon energy development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily;
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 25 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
• consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low-carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the development of such sources; • support community-led initiatives for renewable and low carbon energy, including developments outside such areas being taken forward through neighbourhood planning; and • identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for co- locating potential heat customers and suppliers (s97).
10.1.3 When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development and:
• 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; and • approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once opportunity areas for renewable and low-carbon energy have been mapped in plans, local planning authorities should also expect subsequent applications for commercial scale projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets the criteria used in identifying opportunity areas (s98).
Special tests apply however for development affecting National Parks and AONB’s (para. 116) and such areas should be afforded the strongest protection. Planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest.
10.1.4 The areas covered by the NPPF include:
• 1. Building a strong, competitive economy; • 2. Ensuring the vitality of town centres; • 3. Supporting a prosperous rural economy; • 4. Promoting sustainable transport; • 5. Supporting high quality communications infrastructure; • 6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes; • 7. Requiring good design; • 8. Promoting healthy communities; • 9. Protecting Green Belt land; • 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change; • 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment; • 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment; • 13. Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals.
10.2 Core Strategy :
10.2.1 The Shropshire Core Strategy was adopted in February 2011 and sets out strategic objectives including:
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 26 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
• To rebalance rural communities through the delivery of local housing and employment opportunities (objective 3); • To promote sustainable economic development and growth (objective 6); • To support the development of sustainable tourism, rural enterprise, broadband connectivity, diversification of the rural economy, and the continued importance of farming and agriculture (objective 7); • To support the improvement of Shropshire’s transport system (objective 8); • To promote a low carbon Shropshire (objective 9) delivering development which mitigates, and adapts to, the effects of climate change, including flood risk, by promoting more responsible transport and travel choices, more efficient use of energy and resources, the generation of energy from renewable sources, and effective and sustainable waste management.
10.2.2 Core Strategy policies of relevance to the current proposals include:
• CS5: Countryside and Green Belt; • CS6: Sustainable Design and Development Principles: • CS13: Economic Development, Enterprise and Employment: • CS14: Managed release of Employment Land • CS16: Tourism, Culture and Leisure • CS17: Environmental Networks • CS18: Sustainable Water Management
10.3 Saved Local Plan Policies:
10.3.1 Shropshire Structure Plan – Relevant saved policies:
• P16: Protecting air quality; • P67: Environmental considerations.
10.3.3 The South Shropshire Local Plan The site is not affected by any specific designations in the Plan. Previously relevant policies have now been replaced by the policies in the Core Strategy.
10.4 Emerging planning policy documents and guidance
10.4.1 Site Management and Allocation of Development Document (SAMDEV) – The site falls within the Ludlow area of the emerging SAMDEV but is not subject to any specific allocation. The SAMDEV acknowledges that ‘Shropshire must play its part in providing energy from renewable sources. We want to encourage renewable energy developments but we also need to conserve Shropshire’s high quality environment. Current Government guidance suggests we should develop criteria to enable low carbon and renewable energy development to proceed when there are no significant adverse effects on recognised environmental assets’.
10.4.2 Draft development management policies for the SAMDEV have been published and indicate the direction of future policy change. The most relevant directions for the current proposals are:
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 27 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
• MD2 – Promoting sustainable design; • MD7 – Managing development in the countryside (seeks to protect heritage, landscape and biodiverstty assets); • MD9 – Safeguarding and improving employment investment (includes seeking to protect existing employment sites in rural areas); • MD12 – Protecting and enhancing Shropshire’s natural and historic environment.
It is considered that the proposals are in broad compliance with these policy directions.
10.5 Other strategies and considerations :
10.5.1 The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (July 2009) implements the EU Renewable Energy Directive which includes a legally binding UK target to secure 15% of energy from renewables by 2020 (a seven-fold increase from 2008 levels). The government states that this will assist in addressing climate change and security of energy supply whilst creating up to half a million jobs in the renewable energy sector by 2020. The strategy advocates the following targets:
• More than 30% of our electricity generated from renewables, (up from about 5.5% today); • 12% of our heat generated from renewables, (from very low levels today); • 10% of transport energy from renewables, (current level of 2.6%).
10.5.2 The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan (July 2009) aims to deliver emission cuts of 18% on 2008 levels by 2020. This will be achieved amongst other matters by getting 40% of our electricity from low carbon sources by 2020 (30% from renewables) and by substantially increasing the requirement for electricity suppliers to sell renewable electricity. The plan also sets out measures to promote greener homes and industries. The Government has put in place a legally binding target to cut emissions 80% by 2050 and a set of five-year “carbon budgets” to 2022 to keep the UK on track.
10.5.3 The Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006 sets out the Government's long term goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by 2050.
10.5.4 DEFRA’s Climate Change Plan 2010 sets out how DEFRA will deal with the challenges of climate change. It refers to anaerobic digestion and states: “Anaerobic Digestion can reduce methane emissions from manures and slurries, whilst at the same time producing renewable energy in the form of biogas and digestate that can be used as fertiliser. The Anaerobic Digestion Implementation Plan published by DEFRA in March 2010, provides a framework for joint action by Government and Industry to drive a major increase in the use of anaerobic digestion.”
11. RELEVANT PLANNING AND SITE HISTORY:
11.1 The application site itself is not affected by any previous planning permissions.
12. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
12.1 Policies Material To The Determination Of The Application In determining the Local Planning Authority gave consideration to the policies listed in section 10 of this report.
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 28 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
List of Background Papers: Planning application reference 13/04014/MAW and associated location plan and documents Cabinet Member (Portfolio Holder) Cllr M. Price Local Member : Cllr Vivienne Parry (Ludlow South) Appendices : Appendix 1 – Conditions
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 29 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
APPENDIX 1
Recommended Legal Obligation (Unilateral Undertaking)
1. The developer hereby covenants to make a financial contribution of £10,000 towards the cost of upgrading Park Lane Woofferton. Such payment will become due prior to the bringing into use of the proposed facility.
Conditions
COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
1a. The development to which this planning permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
b. Not less than fourteen days prior notice shall be given of the intended date for the commencement of any development under the terms of this permission, including Site preparation and construction works. Such date shall be referred to hereinafter as "the Commencement Date".
c. Not less than seven days prior notice shall be given in writing of the intended date for the commencement of anaerobic digestion operations at the site, hereby referred to as the “Commissioning Date”.
Reason: To comply with Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (1a), to define and provide appropriate advance notice of the Commencement Date (1b) and to facilitate proper monitoring of Site operations linked to the commencement of the use hereby approved (1c).
DEFINITION OF SITE AND DEVELOPMENT
2. This planning permission shall only relate to the area edged red on the approved planning application boundary plan (drawing number MB47001) hereinafter referred to as "the Site".
Reason: To define the area to which this planning permission relates.
3. Except as otherwise provided in the conditions attached to this permission the operations and uses hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved scheme comprising:-
i. The application form dated 3rd October 2013 and the accompanying information including:
• Environmental Supporting Statement; • Planning Statement;
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 30 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
• Ecological Report; • Visual Appraisal; • Flood Risk Assessment; • Surface Water Management Statement.
ii. The permitted drawings accompanying the planning application. For the avoidance of doubt these include:
• Drawing no: MB47001 – Location plans; • Drawing no: MB470002 – Elevations; • Drawing no: MB470003 – Site Layout Plan; • Drawing no: 01/01 – Topographic Survey.
iii. The supplementary information from Berries, namely:
• Odour report from ADAS (dated 15/11/13),(received 21/11/13); • Additional noise statement and management plan (received 18/11/13); • Highways Statement (received 21/11/13); • Addendum Statement (received 21/11/13).
Reason: To define the permitted development.
TRAFFIC AND ACCESS
4. Access to and egress from the site shall not be obtained other than via access onto the public highway at Park Lane to the north of the Site.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and residential amenity.
5. Prior to the Commencement Date the developer shall submit to the Local Planning Authority a Construction Management Plan confirming the details of the construction phase. The scheme shall include amongst other matters the timing of the construction works, the location of any contractor’s compound and confirmation of traffic management measures to facilitate the importation of construction materials to the Site.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety, residential and general amenity.
6. The site access, internal circulation areas and secondary access road shall be cleaned as necessary with a tractor mounted brush or other similar device in order to prevent the trafficking of mud onto the public highway.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
USE OF THE FACILITY AND CONTROL OF TONNAGES
7. The principal uses of the Site shall be restricted to:
i. the anaerobic digestion process and the associated receipt, handling and storage of agricultural wastes and crop products;
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 31 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
ii. generation of electricity and heat and other ancillary operations associated with the above activities.
Reason: To define the type and sources of materials permitted to be managed and handled at the Site in accordance with the approved scheme, in the interests of general amenity and to protect surface and groundwater from pollution.
8a. The maximum tonnage of materials imported to the Site in any calendar year shall not exceed 12,000 tonnes. For the avoidance of doubt a calendar year shall comprise the period between 1st January and 31st December.
b. The Site operator shall maintain a record of the tonnage of materials including energy crops and agricultural wastes delivered to the Site and the numbers of associated HGVs and tractor and trailer loads. The record shall be made available to the Local Planning Authority upon prior written request. A report of the total tonnage of waste imported to the Site in each successive calendar year shall also be provided to the Local Planning Authority in writing within one month of the year end.
Reason: To ensure that the development remains within the general levels of activity specified in the planning application in the interests of highway safety and general amenity whilst having regard to the fact that different potential feedstocks may have different calorific values (10a). To facilitate monitoring of tonnages imported to the anaerobic digestion facility by the Local Planning Authority (10b).
Note : The operator should employ traffic management measures to reduce the impact of Site traffic during peak times such as harvesting. Consideration should be given to:
• Control of dispatch of vehicles from the Site to reduce the possibility of tractor and trailer units associated with the Site meeting on narrower parts of the public highway; • Reducing the need where possible to harvest different crops within the farm unit at a similar time; • Controlling the importation of poultry manure so that it is not coincident with harvesting or digestate spreading wherever possible; • Ensuring drivers of AD tractors & trailers adhere to appropriate speed limits and safeguards whilst negotiating the local highway network; • Providing identification markings so that vehicles using the Site can be readily identified.
STORAGE
9. The storage of feedstock materials at the Site in connection with the anaerobic digestion process hereby approved shall not take place other than in the silage clamp which is shown on the approved plans.
Reason: To ensure that storage of feedstocks for the anaerobic digester can be adequately accommodated within the overall Site layout and in the interests of general and visual amenity.
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 32 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
NOISE
10a. Noise from the operation of plant in the engine room (together with noise from system pumps, and from any other associated plant) shall be attenuated to achieve a calculated level which does not exceed 5 decibels (dB(A)) above the night time background noise level outside the nearest noise sensitive property (Lea Hall).
b. A scheme of noise monitoring shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the Commissioning Date. The submitted scheme shall make provision for monitoring to record night time noise levels before and immediately after the plant becomes fully operational. The scheme shall also make recommendations for implementation of further noise attenuation measures in the event that the night time noise levels attributable to the development hereby approved exceed the levels stated in Condition 10a above.
Reason: To protect the amenity of the occupiers of nearby properties.
11a. Notwithstanding condition 10a and b, the following noise attenuation measures shall be applied during operation of the site:
i. All vehicles and mechanical plant employed at the Site shall be fitted with effective exhaust silencers which shall be maintained in good efficient working order.
ii. Machines in intermittent use shall be shut down or throttled down in the intervening periods when not in use or throttled down to a minimum.
iv. All ancillary plant such as generators, compressors and pumps shall be positioned so as to cause minimum noise disturbance;
b. All fixed and mobile plant based at and operating within the Site shall be fitted with attenuated reversing alarms. Details of the types of reversing alarm proposed to be fitted to vehicles / plant under the terms of this condition shall be submitted for the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority prior to the Commissioning Date.
Reason: To minimise the possibility of adverse noise impact from Site operations at the closest receptor locations, including properties adjacent to the access from the public highway.
ODOUR AND AIR EMISSIONS
12a. Prior to the Commencement Date the operator shall submit an odour management plan for the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The submitted plan shall be designed to ensure that operations are carried out in such a way that odour is minimised so far as is reasonably practicable and that best practicable means are employed to avoid the creation of a statutory nuisance, including implementation of the following measures:
i. Management and containment of stored feedstock materials to reduce odour emissions;
ii. Ensuring that all site personnel recognise the importance of odour minimisation and that relevant personnel are aware of how to control odour emissions;
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 33 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
iii. Ensuring that poultry manure is not imported to the Site via the public highway and site access road other than in covered loads and any cattle slurry which may subsequently be imported is not imported other than in enclosed tanks;
iv. Provision to cover the digestate storage tank if necessary in order to further reduce the potential for odour emission.
b. Following approval of the scheme required by condition 12a the Site shall thereafter be managed in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: To reduce the impact on local amenities of odour arising from Site operations.
13. All yard surfaces and circulation areas within the Site shall be swept as necessary to remove mud / debris and water shall be applied to such areas as appropriate during dry conditions in order to prevent the generation of dust.
Reason: To reduce the impact on local amenities and air quality of dust arising from Site operations.
PEST / VERMIN CONTROL
14a. No delivery of waste to the Site shall occur until a detailed scheme for the control of pests and vermin has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall in particular provide for:
i. Measures to reduce the attractiveness of the Site to pests and vermin, including maintenance of secure feedstock storage areas;
ii. An inspection regime with prompt implementation of appropriate control measures in the event that a pest control problem becomes apparent, with details to be provided to the Local Planning Authority upon implementation of the measures.
b. Following approval of the scheme required by Condition 14a the Site shall thereafter be managed in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: To ensure that appropriate measures are in place to control the possible effects of pests and vermin.
AMENITY COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
15. Prior to the Commencement Date the operator shall submit for the approval of the Local Planning Authority a complaint procedures scheme for dealing with noise, odour and other amenity related matters. The submitted scheme shall set out a system of response to verifiable complaints of noise received by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include:
i. Investigation of the complaint;
ii. Reporting the results of the investigation to the Local Planning Authority;
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 34 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
iii. Implementation of any remedial actions agreed with the Authority within an agreed timescale.
Reason: To put agreed procedures in place to deal with any verified amenity related complaints which are received during site operation.
HOURS OF OPERATION
16a. With the exception of use of the generator and normal continuous running of the anaerobic digestion process no operations hereby permitted shall be undertaken at the Site, except during the following hours:
Mondays to Fridays 07.00 to 21.00 hours Saturdays: 07.00 to 21.00 hours Sundays / Bank Holidays 08.30 to 18.30 hours
b. Notwithstanding Condition 16a, provision shall apply for extended working for not more than 10 periods in any calendar year in order to cater for exceptional circumstances. During periods of extended working no operations hereby permitted shall be undertaken at the Site, except within the hours specified in Condition 16a above and during the following hours:
Mondays to Fridays 05.00 to 23.00 hours Saturdays: 05.00 to 23.00 hours Sundays / Bank Holidays 06.30 to 20.00 hours
Records of extended working under this condition shall be maintained and shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority upon request.
c. Construction activities shall be restricted to within the following times:
Monday to Friday: 07:30- 18:00, Saturdays: 08:00 - 13:00. No construction shall occur on Sundays or bank holidays.
d. Vehicle movements and deliveries during construction shall be restricted to the following times:
Monday to Friday: 07:30- 18:00, Saturdays: 08:00 - 13:00. No construction shall occur on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Reason: To ensure that operational times at the Site are controlled in order to reduce the impact of the development on the local area and amenities (16a, c, d) whilst making appropriate provision for extended working to cater for exceptional circumstances (16b).
Note : Wherever possible, the Local Planning Authority should be notified in advance of any proposed periods of extended working under the terms of Condition 18b.
BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND PLANT
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 35 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
17. Prior to the Commencement Date the detailed specifications and surface treatments including cladding colour (BS reference) of the anaerobic digester units and associated buildings and structures shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. This shall include confirmation of the exact form and dimensions of the generator building and measures to reduce the visibility of the site as viewed from surrounding areas. The structures and associated surface treatments shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of construction and in the interests of visual amenity.
18. All buildings, hard surfaces and fencing within and on the boundaries of the Site shall be maintained in an orderly state and fit for purpose, including maintenance of even, pothole free running surfaces in circulation areas for vehicles and plant.
Reason: To ensure that the Site is maintained to an acceptable standard in the interests of health and safety and general amenity.
GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT ORDER
19. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no buildings, demountable structures, fixed plant, or structures of the nature of buildings or fixed plant, and no fence or soil mound, in addition to those shown on the approved plans listed in condition 3 above, shall be erected at the Site unless approval in writing for their details and specification has first been obtained from the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To maintain control over the appearance of the site and ensure that the development is in accordance with the permitted details.
POLLUTION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE
20. Prior to the Commencement Date a scheme providing details of secondary containment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include provision for the following:
i. containment of any accidental spills / leaks based on 110% containment of the tank capacity including the proposed bund as shown on drawing no. MB470002 dated September 2013. ii. Compliance with the CIRIA 164 standard including ensuring that no surface water soakaway or drainage pipework breaches the bund; iii. Measures for dealing with minor spillages; iv. Measures for dealing with a catastrophic tank spillage event.
The containment measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme prior to the bringing into use of the Anaerobic Digester facility.
Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 36 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
Note : As required by the Environmental Permit, all storage and process tanks should be located on an impermeable surface (a hydraulic permeability of not greater than 1x 10 9 m/s) with sealed construction joints within the bunded area.
21. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, vessel or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks or vessels plus 10%. All filling points, associated pipework, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund or have separate secondary containment. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework shall be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank/vessels overflow pipe outlets shall be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.
Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.
22. Prior to the Commencement Date a surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme required by this condition shall include the following details:
i. Confirmation of measures for dealing with surface water run-off from the site including surface water soakaways for clean water only which are designed to either cater for the 1 in 100 year + 20% storm event, or cater for the 1 in 10 year storm event, (in which case a flood conveyance drawing for exceedence flows should also be submitted); ii. Confirmation of measures for dealing with contaminated surface water runoff from the site, including provision to isolate, store and manage such drainage in order to prevent groundwater pollution.
Following its approval, the drainage measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the Commissioning Date.
Reason: To ensure that disposal of surface water is undertaken in a sustainable manner which also reduces flood risk.
Notes: i. All concrete areas where feedstock and digestate are handled should have a system in place to allow for water that may be contaminated to be diverted away from the clean water disposal route in to the dirty water system.
ii. Any contaminated/dirty wash water should be collected via impermeable surfaces and disposed of to an appropriate system. The applicant should incorporate measures to prevent the transmission of oils, fuel, or other hazardous materials from entering the AD process. For example, a separate sealed drainage system for areas likely to be contaminated with any wheel washing or oils etc. should be installed, perhaps with a sump system for disposal elsewhere in the absence of a mains foul sewer connection.
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 37 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
iii. As part of the sustainable urban drainage scheme (‘SUDS’), the applicant is encouraged to employ the following measures:
• Permeable paving; • Rainwater harvesting system; • Greywater recycling system; • Green roofs; • Water Butts.
LIGHTING
23a. No work shall commence until an external lighting scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall include the following details:
i. hours of use of external lighting, ii. the exact location and nature of any lights; iii. the specification including height any fixed or mobile structures; iv. the intensity of the lights; v. the identification of areas to be illuminated and any measures to prevent light spilling on to areas outside the Site; vi. measures such as shrouding to minimise disturbance through glare.
b. Following approval of the lighting scheme required under condition 25a external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of lighting for the development, balancing health and safety and security requirements with the visual amenity and ecological considerations and to minimise disturbance to bats, a European Protected Species.
Note : The submitted scheme shall also be designed to take into account the advice on lighting set out in the Bat Conservation Trust booklet Bats and Lighting in the UK.
24. Prior to the Commencement Date a scheme detailing the proposed fire protection measures to be put in place at the Site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the Site shall thereafter be operated in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: In the interests of fire prevention.
Archaeology : 25. No development approved by this permission shall commence until the applicant, or their agent or successors in title, have secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI). This written scheme shall be approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works.
Reason: To allow the recording of any archaeological remains which may be present within the Site.
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 38 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
LANDSCAPING AND AFTERCARE
26a. Prior to the Commencement Date a detailed landscaping scheme to supplement the details provided in the application shall be submitted for the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority, taking account of the recommendations of the Ecological Report from Greenscape Environmental Ltd accompanying the planning application. The approved scheme shall be in the implemented within the first available planting season following the approval of the scheme in writing by the Authority and shall include:
i. Details and specification of planting including the species, specification, origin, method and density of planting, with provision for use of a high percentage of native species and provision of species rich hedgerow;
ii. Details of protection measures and procedures for addition of soil ameliorants.
b. All existing hedgerows, shrubs and trees on the margins of the Site which are not allocated for removal as part of the development and all new planting at the Site shall be retained and protected from damage for the duration of the operations hereby approved.
Reason: To local amenities by reducing the visual impact of the proposal and in the interests of ecology.
27. All new planting within the Site shall be subject to aftercare / maintenance for a period of 5 years following planting, including cultivation and weeding. Any trees or plants that are removed, die or become seriously damaged or defective within the aftercare period, shall be replaced with others of species, size and number as originally approved, by the end of the first available planting season.
Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs.
Notes : i. The active nests of all wild birds are protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (As amended). An active nest is one being built, containing eggs or chicks, or on which fledged chicks are still dependent. Operations shall be managed to avoid the need to commence work affecting vegetation in the bird nesting season which runs from March to September inclusive. If it is necessary for work affecting vegetation to commence in the nesting season then a pre commencement inspection of the vegetation and buildings for active bird nests shall be carried out. If vegetation cannot be clearly seen to be clear of bird’s nests then an experienced ecologist shall be called in to carry out the check. Work affecting vegetation shall not proceed unless it can be demonstrated to the Local Planning Authority that there are no active nests present.
ii. A 6m buffer should be retained between the southern hedge and AD site to allow the hedge to be managed sensitively.
ANNUAL REVIEW
26a. An annual review meeting involving the operator to the Local Planning Authority shall be held in order to review the performance of the Site over the previous calendar year in
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 39 of 40
Land off Park Lane, South Planning Committee – 3 December 2013 Woofferton
relation to the requirements of conditions attached to this Planning Permission. The meeting shall be held no later than 3 months after the year end.
b. The annual review meeting shall also assess the potential for utilizing additional heat from the CHP unit with provision for taking appropriate further action in the event that identified trigger levels are reached.
Reason: To provide a suitable mechanism for the ongoing review of Site operations.
CESSATION OF USE
27a. Not less than 2 weeks prior notice in writing shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority of the permanent cessation date for the operations hereby approved, or for any temporary cessation of operations for in excess of one month.
b. Not less than 6 months prior to the planned date for any permanent decommissioning of the development hereby approved the operator shall submit proposals for decommissioning of the development within an agreed timescale for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. Such plans shall make provision for leaving the site in a condition suitable for future development, with provision to remove all buildings, hardstandings and structures which are not required in connection with the Site’s subsequent afteruse.
Reason: To ensure that the Site is left in a tidy condition capable of a beneficial afteruse in the event of any permanent decommissioning of the development hereby approved.
RETENTION OF APPROVED DOCUMENTS
28. A copy of this planning permission and any schemes permitted under its terms and conditions shall be retained at the Site and be available for inspection by staff at the Site and officers of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure staff on Site are aware of planning controls to be complied with.
Contact: Tim Rogers (01743) 258773 Page 40 of 40