Member Guidance Note Planning Committee Protocol Items for Decision Chair’s Introduction Pre-committee Amendment (if any) Officer Presentation Questions to Officers (if no speakers) Speakers (if any) – Opposition first, then Supporter, max 5 mins each, Questions to Speakers (Members to question speakers about issues raised in their presentation) Further Questions to Officers (if any) Movement of Officer Recommendation (Proposer and Seconder required) Vote for Officer Recommendation (Members must show their vote by clearly raising their hands in the air). Proposer & Seconder for Amendment if not accepting Officer Recommendation Movement of Amendment (ie overturn, deferral etc) (Proposer and Seconder required) Vote for Amendment (Members must show their vote by clearly raising their hands in the air) Reasons for Amendment (Members must give clear and precise material planning reasons for refusal, grant or deferral) DONCASTER METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
Agenda Item No Date 2nd February 2010
To the Chair and Members of the PLANNING COMMITTEE
PLANNING APPLICATIONS PROCESSING SYSTEM
Purpose of the Report
1. A schedule of planning applications for consideration by Members is attached.
2. Each application comprises an individual report and recommendation to assist the determination process.
Human Rights Implications
Member should take account of and protect the rights of individuals affected when making decisions on planning applications. In general Members should consider:-
1. Whether the activity for which consent is sought interferes with any Convention rights.
2. Whether the interference pursues a legitimate aim, such as economic well being or the rights of others to enjoy their property.
3. Whether restriction on one is proportionate to the benefit of the other.
Andy Gutherson Assistant Director of Development and Planning Directorate of Development and Planning
Contact Officers: Mr M Roberts (Tel: 734897), Mr G Stent (Tel: 734994) and Mrs D Holgate (Tel: 734925)
Background Papers: Planning Application reports refer to relevant background papers Summary List of Planning Committee Applications ( 03 )
NOTE:- Applications are in NUMERICAL order except those deferred from previous meetings for a Site Visit which are marked 'SV' and appear first and Major Proposals which are marked ‘M’.
Schedule Application No Ward Parish No
1. M 08/03469/CON Finningley Finningley Parish Council
2. M 09/02333/MINM Thorne Hatfield Parish Council
3. 09/03097/3FUL Bentley Schedule No: 1.
Application No: 08/03469/CON
Ward Finningley Parish Finningley Parish Council
Proposal Consultation by Doncaster / Sheffield Airport on Amended Variations to Agreement under Section 106 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to upgrade noise provisions
Location Robin Hood Airport, Hayfield Lane, Auckley, Doncaster
Applicant Doncaster Sheffield Airport Ltd
Agent Airport Planning And Development
Date of Valid Application: 5th January 2009
======
MAIN POINTS OF REPORT
The Airport consulted the Council in 2008 on proposed variations to the Section 106 Legal Agreement. The proposals have more recently been amended by the applicant following discussions with the Council. The applicants amended proposals put forward a package of several detailed amendments to the agreement.
* Local and Parish councils have made observations mainly opposing the night flying proposals. A reconsultation has recently taken place on the amendments.
*A large number of representations have been received from the public mainly objecting to the increase in noise levels that would result from night flying proposals. Representations have also been received in support of the application. A reconsultation has recently taken place on the amendments.
*The amended proposals have been assessed by Environmental Health and Noise Consultants retained by the Council and are considered to represent acceptable amendments to the agreement.
*The main issues for consideration by Committee are whether the amended variations are acceptable in terms of their impact by way of noise on the living conditions of surrounding residents bearing in mind the economic impact of the development.
* It is considered that Noise impacts will be at an acceptable level due to the package of amended proposals The economic benefits of the proposal are beneficial. Other impacts are not at a significant level.
*It is recommended, on balance, that the Committee resolve to support the variations and to make the following specific decisions in relation to the consultation namely
1 Scheduled night time flying by QC4 Aircraft - approve variation with a limit of 100 movements a year. 2 Noise Sanctions Scheme Review - approve variation 3 Introduction of Control over QC O.25 Aircraft - approve variation 4 Prohibition of QC8 andQC16 at night - approve variation 5 The London Airports Noise Restriction Notice - amendment to the current version - approve variation. 6 Existing Quota Count Totals reduction - approve variation 7 Quota Count Totals Review in 2016 - approve variation
* The Section 106 Obligation be varied in accordance with the above recommendations .
======
Introduction 1 The airport originally proposed in 2008 to make changes to the Obligation under Section 106 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which forms part of the planning permission granted in 2003 for the airport. It was seeking the councils views on the changes and produced a draft deed of variation. The main proposed variations in the original application were as detailed below.
1 Scheduled Night time flying by QC4 Aircraft 2 Prohibition of QC8 andQC16 at night 3 Introduction of Control over QC O.25 Aircraft 4 The London Airports Noise Restriction Notice be amended to the current version.
2 In support of the application the applicant originally submitted the following information/ documents A Application to Update Noise Provisions and to Alter Restrictions on Night Cargo Operations B QC Variations Economic Considerations.
The airport considered in these documents that the variations would benefit the economic operation of the airport without causing environmental problems. In particular it would remove restrictions that are preventing the growth of freight traffic and allow for further job creation. It would update the Section 106 agreement in line with current practise and reflect restrictions in place at other similar airports. 3 The proposals have been discussed in detail between the applicant and the Council. The council have retained consultants Cole Jarman to provide expert advice on the noise impact of the proposals.
4 Following the above discussions the airport have recently submitted revised proposals in the following documents Application to Update Night Noise Restrictions and to Alter Restrictions on Night Cargo Operations Clarification of Road Traffic Implications QC 4 Variation Economic Considerations Section 106 Heads of Terms Review of Noise Sanctions Scheme.
5 The consultation is not a formal application to vary the Section 106 Agreement but the Committees support for the proposals would allow the Council to legally amend the Agreement through a Deed of Variation. The airport is able but has not submitted a formal planning application for the proposed variations.
Site and Surroundings
1 The airport has been operational as a civil airport since April 2005. The runway 02/20 runs nearly north/south and has specific noise preferential take off and landing routes for aircraft. 2 The airport is adjoined by open countryside and the villages of Finningley, Auckley, Austerfield, Blaxton and Hayfield Green. Further to the north and south and affected by the flight paths are residential towns and villages in South Yorkshire, North Nottinghamshire and North Lincolnshire.
History
1 RAF Finningley closed as a military airbase in 1995. 2 Planning permission was granted for the civil airport development in April 2003 by central government following a public inquiry. The planning permission included planning conditions and an Obligation under Section 106 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The approval included an Inspectors Report to the First Secretary of State and the First Secretary of States decision notice. The documents considered the impact of the airport and in particular reached the following conclusions relevant to the current consultation. 3 The Inspectors decision In relation to noise issues he concluded at 13.213 The proposed development would cause disturbance, annoyance and general loss of amenity through noise. This is a virtually inevitable effect of any airport development. The number of people affected would be less than around many airports elsewhere but that would be no consolation for those affected. Mitigation measures could help to lessen the noise impact but only to a limited extent Noise impact is clearly an important factor to be weighed against the proposal. At 13.284 he continued that In essence it is necessary to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the adverse environmental impact from the proposed airport (principally noise) and on the other hand, beneficial effects (principally economic regeneration). At 13 .285 he concluded that the likely economic benefits of the proposal outweigh the likely environmental disbenefits
4 The Secretary of States decision letter concluded at Para 37 that night noise disturbance will in practise be limited between the hours of 2300 and 0700 as a result of the restrictions on aircraft with higher quota counts , that such noise disturbance as arises from airborne noise will be confined to a comparatively small number of properties and may be mitigated by sound insulation, that controls will be in place to make the airport operator report regularly on the usage of the Quota and that parallel controls are available to the Secretary of State for Transport in respect of night quotas should that become necessary.
The Secretary of State went on to accept the inspectors conclusions and granted the planning consent on 3 April 2003
5 The airport was the subject of a report to Planning Committee in June 2008 entitled Robin Hood Airport Doncaster/ Sheffield Progress report on Implementation of Planning Conditions/ S106 Agreement. This report addressed noise issues in detail . Committee resolved to 1 Note the progress of implementation of the planning conditions/ Section 106 Obligation. 2. Resolve to approve the proposed scheme in relation to the Aircraft Tracking System
6 The tracking system has now been introduced, is being monitored by the council and a review will take place in the near future
Development Plans and Airport Master Plan
1 Doncaster UDP the site is allocated as the Finningley Airbase policy area subject to Policy T36 which supports civil airport use of the site. The policy was finalised prior to the closure of RAF Finningley and is thus of very limited relevance. Other relevant policies include economic policies which promote economic regeneration and environmental policies to protect amenity.
2 Finningley Airbase S.P.G 1999. set out a framework for consideration of the development of the site as a civil airport.
3 Emerging Doncaster LDF -is supportive of the role of the airport as its supports regeneration of the borough and will support Doncasters economic role as a location for logistics.
4 The Yorkshire and Humber Plan- Regional Spatial Strategy to 2026 -forms part of the Development Plan. Policy T6 identifies that the relevant considerations to airport development in the region; achieving better access to air freight facilities in the region, contribution to regeneration, meets the principles of sustainable development, reducing surface travel to airport outside the region, make best use of existing transport infrastructure. A key issue in the RSS is for the region to develop its own airports so as to reduce reliance on airports outside the region and thereby reduce travel. It specifically notes that air freight is largely serviced by airports outside of the region and there is a need to examine development of airfreight where environmentally acceptable to support the competitiveness of the region. The freight policy notes that the efficient movement of goods is a key factor in the economy and recognises that the need for efficient freight and distribution links to the rest of the country and overseas will be essential to attract greater investment. In addition its economic policies recognise the need for airports as significant economic drivers.
5 Robin Hood Airport Master Plan - the airport has produced a draft of its airport Master Plan which includes projections of future activity on the site including freight development proposals.
6 Doncaster Economic Strategy this sets out how the economy of Doncaster should grow to increase the employment rate and reduce the economic output gap. An important theme to achieving this is developing Robin Hood Airport which includes attracting major freight carriers and boosting freight volumes. The Aviation Strategy notes the very small cargo throughput but also the large volumes of potential cargo in the region and the suitability of the airport to handle higher volumes of freight.
Consultation Responses
1 Consultations were carried out with relevant consultees following submission of the application. Consultees were also consulted recently on the amended proposals. Their initial views are set out below and any amended views will be reported verbally to Committee.
2 Local Councils Sheffield City Council resolved on 04/02/09 that this council, being mindful that people not only in Sheffield but also in the United Kingdom are affected by increasing CO2 emissions notes that the owners of Doncaster/Sheffield Airport have submitted a consultative document to DMBC with the aim of relaxing the noise rules for night flying and that although this relaxation is in relation to freight aircraft it could easily expanded to other users It continues that it will write to local authorities in South Yorkshire and to Yorkshire Forward urging them to reject any request to relax the rules on night flying into and out of Doncaster Sheffield Airport. Bassetlaw Council - no observations received North East Lincolnshire Council - no objections
3 Parish and Town Councils
Bawtry Town Council opposes the application on the following grounds 1 The limits on QC4 aircraft were imposed by the planning permission to protect local residents and there is no justification for change 2 No limits are proposed on the number of QC4 Flights 3 The QC4 flights are not limited to shoulder periods 4 Existing aircraft monitoring is inadequate and no changes should be permitted 5 Independent expert advice is needed 6 Traffic will increase and no changes should be allowed prior to completion of FARRRS Link road 7 The airports economic growth should not be permitted without considering amendments to lessen the environmental impacts including restricting the number of flights, restricting flights to shoulder periods, adjusting Noise Prefential Routes. Improving noise insulation and implementing road/rail improvements. Finningley Parish Council no objections but raises concerns over increase in road traffic and noise and nuisance from freight loading. Auckley Parish Council - serious concerns in relation to sleep disturbance, freight loading disturbance and lack of infrastructure. Other airports have night flying restrictions Austerfield Parish Council objection on grounds of adverse impact of noise at night on residents. Thorne TC - no objection. Wroot Parish Council - supports the development of the airport Scrooby Parish Council the relaxation of the restrictions on night flying are not justified on noise/economic grounds Misson Parish Council object on grounds of increased noise pollution and damage to health Gringley on the Hill PC support the proposal but would prefer to see a temporary restriction to allow the matter to be reviewed if noise nuisance ocurrs Everton PC objects to QC 4 operations on noise grounds but supports other variations Harworth and Bircotes PC no comment Misterton PC concern over noise disturbance
3 Yorkshire Forward no comments
4 Yorkshire and the Humber Regional Assembly/ Local Government Yorkshire and Humber - no comments
5 DMBC - Environmental Health noise impacts have been assessed with assistance from specialist noise consultants Cole Jarman. In particular the following points are made The initial proposals submitted were not considered acceptable on noise grounds. The revised proposals following detailed discussions are now considered to be acceptable 1. A restricted number (100) of QC4 movements are allowable at night under these proposals, but these can only operate within limits for QC2 Aircraft, otherwise they will incur a noise penalty under the Noise Sanctions Scheme. This can be achieved by Aircraft Operators restricting cargo/fuel. 2. A new category QC0.5 has been created within the Proposed Noise Sanctions Scheme with a lower noise limit than for QC1 Aircraft. 3. Categories QC8 and QC16 are now totally banned. 4. The proposals offer a considerable reduction in Annual (Summer and Winter) Quota Count Points for night flights between 23:30 and 06:00. The limits will be fixed until 2016.
6 Highways Development Control - Based on the technical assessment carried out in support of the proposed development, the Councils Highway Development Control team have raised no objections to the proposal being satisfied that the small increase in HGV traffic can be satisfactorily accommodated on the local highway network.
7 Airport Consultative Committee considers that although the proposal will have an impact on the local community, an increase in night operations must be gauged in the context of the significant economic benefits that the change would have in the region. The proposal is supported subject to monitoring. 8 Civil Aviation Authority the variations are not part of the licensing process and the Authority will not comment.
Publicity Responses
The application was advertised on receipt and has recently been further advertised in relation to the amended proposals. Initial responses are summarized below and any amended views will be reported verbally to Committee
1 Local resident’s objections Before receipt of the consultation about 115 objection were received and following submission about 75 further objections were received from residents in surrounding areas of South Yorkshire including particularly Bawtry, Finningley, Austerfield, and Blaxton. Objections were also received from adjoining areas of North Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire. A standard letter circulated in Bawtry was also received. About 100 copies were received mainly objecting to the Increase in QC4 flights The main grounds of objection in the above representations relate to Increase in noise and disturbance at night due to noisier aircraft taking of and landing causing detriment to residents living conditions Lack of economic need for aircraft freight movements because of proximity of other airports Precedents being set for further such changes Impact of additional traffic
2 Local residents support Before receipt of the consultation about 10 representations in support were received and following submission about 40 further representations were received The main grounds of support relate to the benefit of the economic benefit of the growth of the airport and the limited noise impact
3 Campaign to Protect Rural England - increase in noise and loss of tranquillity is of concern. The significant increase in noise levels would disturb local residents and disturb the tranquillity of the surrounding countryside including the Humberhead Peatlands National Nature Reserve. The airports argument that it needs to compete with other airports is misleading and access to the airport is poor.
4 Councillor Mrs Schofield - Finningley Ward objects to unacceptable noise impact of night flying and seeks assurance that the fixed noise monitors wiil be fully operational to record noise levels when complaints are received .
5 Doncaster Central Constituency Labour Party Central Ward - object to the proposed QC4 variation.
6 Tickhill Residents Association the existing restrictions on night flying should be retained to protect local residents
7 A petition has been submitted by Councillor Tatton-Kelly, enclosing 221 names objecting and 2 not objecting from residents of Austerfield, Bawtry and Tickhill. Assessment of Proposal
Introduction
1 The main issues for consideration by Committee are whether the amended variations are acceptable in terms of their impact by way of noise on the living conditions of surrounding residents bearing in mind the economic impact of the development
2 The consultation seeks to secure the agreement of the Council to alterations to the Obligation under Section 106 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and these will be examined individually in more detail below
3 Aircraft are classified in relation to their noise impact on take off and landing. In technical terms aircraft are allocated Quota Count Numbers, the larger the Quota Count Number the noisier the aircraft. The range of each QC band is just below 3 dB . Current aircraft able to use the airport in the day time range from QC 0.25 TO QC16 with the majority at QC1 or below. No aircraft with a QC greater than 2 , excluding exemptions can take off or land at night time Noise impact is generally measured using decibel (dB) levels and is illustrated in spatial terms using noise contour maps.
4 Airports in U.K. have varying restrictions on their operations in relation to their noise impacts and in particular night aircraft operational restrictions also vary. The applicant has summarized some of these restrictions in his noise assessment.
5 The airport operates in accordance with annual, seasonal and daily restrictions controlled through the planning permission. Annual Restrictions - the airport is restricted to a set number of aircraft movements and Quota Count Points per year. for night flights defined as 23.30 to 06:00 Seasonal Restrictions numbers also vary between winter and summer seasons Daily Restrictions a 24 hour day is split into 4 periods Daytime 07.00 23.00 Night Time 23.00 07.00 Night Shoulder 23.00 23.30 Morning Shoulder -06.00 07.00
6 The planning permission provides a framework for consideration of noise issues. In particular A Planning Condition 5 restricts the number of aircraft movements per year B. Planning Conditions 86-90 provide for a noise complaints procedure and restrict Training and Non Commercial General Aviation Flying C. Planning Condition 109 requires approval of Noise Mitigation Measures. D. The Section 106 Agreement includes Noise Management Clauses and the Third Schedule within the Agreement sets out in detail the airports Quiet Operations Policy. The airport has established its Airport Consultative Committee and operates a Noise Sub Committee which meets on a 3 month cycle to monitor and review the Quiet Operations Policy. It also operates a noise monitoring system which consists of 2 fixed monitors and a mobile monitoring facility. Noise complaints have also been received by Local Members and Officers. Environmental Health also receives complaints which are recorded and passed to the airport for investigation. The airport has been developing facilities and procedures to secure compliance with the Quiet Operations Policy. These include the installation of radar facilities with Track Keeping capability as required by the Quiet Operations policy. The necessary hardware and software to make effective use of these facilities is now operational.
Assessment of Economic Impact of Proposed Variations to S 106 Agreement
7 The application in relation to QC4 operations is related to the airports strategy to attract operations by cargo/ freight operators. This would improve business access to such facilities and make use of the long runway. In particular the QC4 restriction has resulted in freight operations being significantly lower than originally predicted and cargo business being lost to other airports where noise restrictions are less onerous. The application would allow the use at night of large aircraft including Boeing 747 / 777 and DC10/MD11 freighters too carry considerable cargo over long distances. It would also permit freight operators/airlines to make more flexible use of their cargo fleets which generally include a range of different aircraft types. The Airport Master Plan forecasts for 2016 that 86 movements a year of large freighters are envisaged. The airport seeks to provide some commercial flexibility and now proposes a limit of 100 such movements a year. It is argued that commercial freight operations would not be viable at a lower level.
8 The applicants economic report identifies potential air freight growth that would result from the variations as being significant. It estimates that such growth would initially generate about 440 direct jobs. It states that the current noise restrictions are preventing the establishment of an airport freight hub. Other airports such as Stansted, Manchester and East Midlands do not have similar restrictions and therefore have a competitive advantage. The lack of flexibility for freight operators to fly at night is seen as a fundamental obstacle to attracting freight operators. The lack of suitable air freight facilities in the region and reliance on airports outside the region is recognised. The improved prospects for air will stimulate businesses, reduce reliance on airports outside the region and support new jobs at the airport. The noise impact of this has been negotiated with the council to ensure that any increased levels of noisier aircraft are minimised whilst providing the airport with the best prospects of attracting air freight in line with the original proposals for Finningley approved by the Secretary of State.
9 The economic impact of an increased level of freight operation at the airport needs to be assessed - it is considered that the additional economic activity at the airport that would be generated by the proposal would be acceptable in planning policy terms and enable the airport to continue to form part of the economic regeneration of the area. In particular policies within the Development Plan including the Doncaster UDP / LDF and Yorkshire and Humber Regional Spatial Strategy identify the need for economic regeneration in Doncaster and the Region and this will be enhanced by improving air freight facilities. The airport is put forward as a regionally significant development site.
10 The proposals would be likely to increase the attractiveness of Doncaster and the airport for freight distribution. This would complement Doncasters growing role as a multi-modal logistics sector in the region and reduce reliance on airports elsewhere The additional business would provide additional economic activity to support the implementation of the Finningley and Rossington Regeneration Route Scheme and would relate well to the proposed Strategic Rail Freight Interchange adjoining Junction 3 of M18.
11 Freight distribution by aircraft takes place in varying volumes at most UK airports and the airport seeks to compete for this business. In particular it seeks to provide a business service to users in the local region which is not available at present and requires road movement to other airports. The growth of freight business at the airport has been below the projected levels predicted in the planning application because the restrictions have made the site unattractive to freight operators which are constrained by the lack of 24 hour flexibility.
12The revised consultation reflects the Airport Master Plan forecast that that the airport would be likely to generate about 84 movements a year of QC4 freight aircraft at night but seeks some commercial flexibility and proposes 100 such movements. The revised S106 agreement would specifically control this number but would facilitate additional freight use of the airport.
It is considered that the additional economic activity at the airport that would be generated by the proposal would be acceptable.
Assessment of Noise Impact of Proposed Variations to S 106 Agreement
13 The airport proposes a package of variations in its revised documents Application to Update Night Noise Restrictions and to Alter Restrictions on Night Cargo Operations and Review of Noise Sanctions Scheme The noise impacts of the changes have been discussed with and assessed by Environmental Health with expert advice from noise consultants Cole Jarman. In general terms the noise impacts of QC4 flights at night will not increase noise levels as they have to fly within the limits set for QC2 aircraft. Alterations to other parts of the Agreement aim to reduce the overall impact of the changes.
Variation to Permit QC4 Aircraft to Fly at Night
14 The planning permission for the airport currently allows 24 hour operation by aircraft. The Quiet Operations Policy of Section 106 Obligation however restricts night operations by A. Preventing scheduled take off or landing, with certain exemptions, of noisier aircraft (known as Quota Count 4, 8 and16 aircraft) between 2300 hours and 0700 hours B, restricting the number of aircraft that can operate at night by imposing Quota Count limits . The current proposal is to allow the airport to fly QC4 aircraft during the night time periods but restrict the aircraft to a 100 movements a year.
15 The forecast noise impacts of the above proposals have been assessed in detail by the applicant and the following points are considered particularly relevant 1 Individual aircraft noise footprints have been prepared for various aircraft types using North West and South East approaches. 2 Airport Noise Contours have been prepared for the night period 23.00 to 07.00 using various future scenarios. 3 A comparison of the specific noise impacts for the following aircraft types has been carried out. Boeing 737-300 (QC0.5) Airbus A300 (QC2) Boeing 747-400 (QC4) The Boeing 737 and Airbus A300 are currently permitted to take off and land at night. The Boeing 747 represents the noisiest aircraft type likely to be utilized. 4 The noise footprint for the Boeing 747 has the following impacts. North West Take Off - the footprint extends beyond the M18 near to junction 3 at Armthorpe and includes a number of residential properties in Blaxton and Finningley South East Take Off - the footprint extends near to the village of Everton and includes properties in North East Bawtry, Austerfield, Scaftworth and Finningley 5 The applicants forecasts indicate that 90% of Boeing 747-400 movements will be during the day and will comprise only1% of night time movements.
16 The applicants forecasts have been assessed by the Council and are considered to represent an acceptable methodology and reasonable conclusions. The additional noise impacts at night of the introduction of a limited number of QC4 aircraft will not adversely affect residents in the areas outlined as they are only allowed to operate within QC2 noise limits. It will be necessary to ensure that the details of these movements are reported to the Council on a monthly basis,
Variation to Noise Sanctions Scheme
17 The airport has an existing approved Interim Noise Sanctions Scheme which applies sanctions to departing aircraft at night which make an unreasonable level of noise. It is proposed by the airport to amend the scheme levels to reduce the level at which sanctions come into force. The current and proposed levels are summarized in the tables below.
Current Sanction Scheme Noise Limits
Definition Limit, dB LAmax All aircraft types with a QC greater on departure than 4, and those with QC on 94 departure of 4 and a MTOW greater than 100 (07:00-23:00) tonnes
Aircraft with a QC on departure of 4 and a 90 MTOW less than 100 tonnes (07:00-23:00) Aircraft with a QC on departure of 2 and a 89 MTOW greater than 100 tonnes (24 hrs)
Aircraft with a QC on departure of 2 and a 85 MTOW less than a 100 tonnes (24 hrs)
Aircraft with a QC on departure of 1 or less 85 (24hrs)
Proposed Sanction Scheme Noise Limits
Definition Limit, dB LAmax
92 All Aircraft types with a QC greater on departure than 4 (0700-23:00) 89 Aircraft with a QC on departure of 2 or 4 (24 hrs) 85 Aircraft with a QC on departure of 1 (24 hrs) 83 Aircraft with a QC on departure of 0.5 or less (24 hrs)
18 These revisions establish lower limits on the noise restrictions on some categories of departing aircraft as measured at the fixed noise monitors. This means that QC4 aircraft departing at night will not be permitted to create any more noise than a QC2 aircraft. It is also proposed to introduce a limit for QC0.5 aircraft.
It is considered that the additional noise control impact of this proposal is acceptable.
Variation to prohibit QC8 and QC16 Operating at Night
19 The existing S106 Agreement controls,with limited exemptions the use of QC8 and 16 aircraft at night but it is proposed to alter the agreement to completely prohibit their use. In noise terms this amendment will bring about additional controls over the noisiest aircraft.
It is considered that the additional noise control impact of this proposal is acceptable.
Variation to the London Airports Noise Restriction Notice
20 The existing S106 Agreement refers to the The London Heathrow, London Gatwick and London Stansted Airports Noise Restrictions No. 2 Notice 2001". The revised agreement is intended to refer to the The London Heathrow, London Gatwick and London Stansted Airports Noise Restrictions (No.2) Notice 200 (S38/2009). This update makes reference to the latest version of the above guidance which has been adopted subsequent to the original S106 Agreement. It introduces QC0.25 aircraft as a new category.
It is considered that the impact of this proposal is acceptable.
Variation to Quota Count Points Totals
21 The airport planning permission restricts night flights between 23.30 and 0600 by use of a Quota Count Points system in each year of its operations. This in effect restricts the number of aircraft movements from the site which can take place in any year. The airport is proposing to reduce these curent Points Totals in accordance with the following table
Existing Proposed
Summer Season 5,000 3700
Winter Season 3100 2300
Total 8100 6000
22 This represents an annual reduction equivalent of 26%. This reduction in overall flights movements will limit overall noise impact and mitigate the impact of QC4 variation.
It is considered that the additional noise control impact of this proposal is acceptable
Variation to The Review of Quota Count Levels
23 The airport will not seek to review the above proposed lower Quota Count Points totals until 2016. It is considered that the additional noise control impact of this proposal is acceptable.
Conclusion on Noise impacts
24 The airport has put forward a number of revised proposals to vary noise controls at the airport which have been assessed above. The proposals need to be considered individually and as a package of alterations. The applicant concludes that the above proposed restrictions would lead to a lower level of overall impact in noise terms than the existing restrictions because of the limit on QC4 movements and the reduction in Quota Count Budget. It is considered , in the light of the expert noise advice the noise impacts of QC4 flights at night will not increase noise levels as they have to fly within the limits set for QC2 aircraft. Alterations to other parts of the Agreement will also reduce the overall impact of the changes.
Assessment of Other Impacts of Proposed Variations to S 106 Agreement
25 Highways - The applicant has assessed the impact of the proposals on the highway network in the area. In particular the impact of Heavy Goods Vehicle Movements has been examined. The original forecast for freight at the airport at the time of the application was 62,000 tonnes annually by 2014. A more recent forecast, taking into account use of QC 4 aircraft at night, projects 67,600 tonnes in 2016. An increase from 17 to 19 HGV movements per day is forecast. The study shows that for an additional 5,600 tonnes of cargo per year there is a corresponding increase of 280 HGV's (based on a 20 tonne load) which equates to about an additional 1 HGV per day and hence two HGV movements per day. It is considered that this small increase in HGV traffic will not materially affect the highway network.
26 Representations - In considering the application Members will need to consider the views expressed by the public concerning the impact of noise from additional night flights. The original proposals put forward by the airport were not considered acceptable by Officers because of the noise impacts and therefore discussions took place to reduce this impact. The revised proposals following these discussions are considered to represent a reasonable set of proposals that will have an acceptable level of noise impact.
27 Aircraft Tracking - aircraft taking off and landing at the airport are required to follow noise preferential routes. The computer system for tracking of these routes and thus ensuring compliance with the routes has recently become operational. This allows the Council to identify individual aircraft movements and monitor the overall performance of the airport more effectively than was originally available since the opening of the airport. The current reliability of the system, including the fixed noise monitors, is considered acceptable.
Final Conclusion and Recommendation
26 It is therefore considered, on balance, that
1 The noise impacts of the variations are acceptable 2 The economic impact is beneficial 3 Other impacts are not on a significant scale
27 It is recommended that
1 MEMBERS RESOLVE TO VARY THE AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 IN RELATION TO THE FOLLOWING MATTERS 1 Scheduled night time flying by QC4 Aircraft - approve variation with a limit of 100 movements a year. 2 Noise Sanctions Scheme Review - approve variation 3 Introduction of Control over QC O.25 Aircraft - approve variation 4 Prohibition of QC8 andQC16 at night - approve variation 5 The London Airports Noise Restriction Notice - amendment to the current version approve variation. 6 Existing Quota Count Totals reduction - approve variation 7 Quota Count Totals Review date 2016 - approve variation
2 THE HEAD OF PLANNING MANAGEMENT BE AUTHORISED TO ISSUE THE VARIATIONS TO THE AGREEMENT.
Appendix 1
Definitions
Decibel (dB). Units describing sound level or changes of sound level. dB(A). Units of sound level on the A-weighted scale.
A-weighted. A filter that is applied to the output of the microphone within a sound level meter to simulate the way the sensitivity of the human ear varies with sound frequency, broadly being more sensitive to high frequencies than low. With this filter, the meter output is A- weighted sound level.
EPNdB. The measurement unit for EPNL.
EPNL Effective Perceived Noise Level. Its measurement involves analyses of the frequency spectra of noise events as well as the duration of the sound.
LAeq.. The level of a notional steady sound that over a given period of time would have the same A-weighted acoustic energy as the fluctuating noise.
LAmax. The maximum sound level measured during an aircraft fly-by.
NTK Noise and Track Keeping monitoring system. The NTK system associates radar data from air traffic control radar with related data from both fixed (permanent) and mobile noise monitors at prescribed positions on the ground.
SEL Sound Exposure Level. The constant level acting for one second, which has the same amount of acoustic energy as the original sound. Appendix 2
Applicants Proposals to Amend Legal Agreement
The Developer and the Council will update the agreed Scheme for the Imposition of Sanctions Relating to Departing Noise at Robin Hood Airport pursuant to paragraph 3.3 of the Third Schedule to the Section 106 Agreement to confirm the following new agreed specific noise values:-
Proposed Sanction Scheme Noise Limits
Definition Limit, dB LAmax
All Aircraft Types with a QC greater on departure 92 than 4
Aircraft with a QC on departure of 2 or 4 89
Aircraft with a QC on departure of 1 85
Aircraft with a QC on departure of 0.5 or less 83
Key Changes to Section 106 Agreement
The key changes to the Section 106 Agreement will be as follows 2.1 The words The London Heathrow, London Gatwick and London Stansted Airports Noise Restrictions No. 2 Notice 200 (S38/2001) in the definition of Noise Restrictions Notice shall be deleted and replaced by the words The London Heathrow, London Gatwick and London Stansted Airports Noise Restrictions (No.2) Notice 2009 (S38/2009).
2.2 The table in paragraph 8.1(b) of the Third Schedule to the Section 106 Agreement shall be deleted and replaced by the following table
Noise Classification Quota Count Points (QC)
84-86.9 EPNdB 0.25
87-89.9 EPNdB 0.5
90-92.9 EPNdB 1
93-95.9 EPNdB 2
96-98.9 EPNdB 4
99-101.9 EPNdB 8
Greater than 101.9 EPNdB 16 2.3 The wording of paragraph 8.1(c) of the Third Schedule to the Section 106 Agreement shall be deleted and replaced by the following wording:- The following aircraft shall be exempt namely aircraft which, on the basis of their noise data, are classified at less than 84 EPNdB and which are indicated as exempt in Part 2 of the Schedule to the Noise Restrictions Notice and the take-off or landing of such aircraft shall not count towards the Quota.
2.4 The wording of paragraph 8.2 of the Third Schedule to the Section 106 Agreement shall be deleted and replaced by the following wording:- No aircraft with a Quota Count of QC8 or QC16 shall be permitted to take off or land during the period 2300 to 0700 hours. Aircraft with a Quota Count of QC4 shall be permitted to take off or land during the said period, subject to no more than 100 QC4 movements taking place within a twelve month period, comprising consecutive Summer and Winter Seasons during the period 23.00 to 07.00 hours.
2.5 The wording of paragraph 8.4 of the Third Schedule to the Section 106 Agreement shall be deleted and replaced by the following wording The Quota shall be 3,700 Quota Count Points in each Summer Season which shall not be reviewed pursuant to paragraph 8.10 of the Third Schedule to the Section 106 Agreement until 2016.
2.6 The wording of paragraph 8.5 of the Third Schedule to the Section 106 Agreement shall be deleted and replaced by the following wording The Quota shall be 2,300 Quota Count Points in each Winter Season which shall not be reviewed pursuant to paragraph 8.10 of the Third Schedule to the Section 106 Agreement until 2016.
2.7 The wording of paragraph 8.7(b) (iii) of the Third Schedule to the Section 106 Agreement shall be deleted.
The above objections, considerations and resulting recommendation have had regard to Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention for Human Rights Act 1998. The recommendation will not interfere with the applicant’s and/or objector’s right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. Schedule No: 2.
Application No: 09/02333/MINM
Ward Thorne Parish Hatfield Parish Council
Proposal Continued use of the existing Hatfield Moor reservoir for natural gas (gas) storage and extraction, the retention of the Lindholme gas processing facility (GPF) and retention of all existing infrastructure associated with Hatfield Moor; development of the existing Hatfield west reservoir for the storage and extraction of gas; drilling of an appraisal well and 2 no. production wells with related plant and equipment; development of an underground gas pipeline from the wellhead HM-02 and an above ground gas pipeline from the wellhead HM-03, both to the Lindholme GPF; modifications and additions to the existing GPF including a secondary gas turbine driven compressor; temporary facilities associated with drilling activities; and appropriate landscaping and bio diversity enhancement measures.
Location Land At, Moss Croft Lane, Hatfield Woodhouse, Doncaster
Applicant Scottish Power Generation Ltd
Agent Mr K Dalton
Date of Valid Application: 29th September 2009 b======
MAIN POINTS OF REPORT
* The application is being presented to Committee because it is of significant public interest.
* The proposal involves the continued use of the Hatfield Moor underground reservoir for natural gas storage and extraction, together with the retention of the existing infrastructure related to this facility, the retention of the Lindholme gas processing facility, the development of the existing Hatfield West underground reservoir for the storage and extraction of gas, together with the ancillary infrastructure associated with this activity, including an appraisal well and 2 production wells, as well as two pipelines, one underground approximately 700m in length and one above ground approximately 60m in length.
* The application site has a total area of 1890ha, designated as Countryside Policy Area, as well as partly being within a site of international importance for nature conservation (Hatfield Moor Site of Special Scientific Interest) * 111 letters of representations have been received from local residents objecting to the proposal.
* Government guidance recognises the national need for new gas storage infrastructure.
*
RECOMMENDATION – PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED
MEMBERS RESOLVE TO ENDORSE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT TO ACCOMPANY THE DECISION NOTICE (SUBJECT TO SUCH AMENDMENTS AS MAY BE AGREED BY MEMBERS AT THE MEETING):
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PERMISSION
The Local Planning Authority has decided to grant planning permission :-
1. Having regard to the policies and proposals in the adopted Doncaster Unitary Development Plan set out below, and all relevant material planning considerations:
UDP Policies
ENV4 - Development within the Countryside Policy Area ENV46 - Sites of Special Scientific Interest ENV39 - Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation ENV42 - Development affecting a Designated Conservation Site SENV5 - Conserving the Wildlife Resource SM6 - Thorne and Hatfield Moors M8 - Oil and Gas Development M10 - Facilities for Oil and Gas Development M29 - Mineral Extraction at Thorne and Hatfield Moors M31 - Minerals Development and Nature Conservation Value of Thorne and Hatfield Moors ENV65 - Pollution
RSS Policies
ENV4 - Minerals Development
Other material considerations Government Guidance Minerals Policy Statement 1 - Planning and Minerals 2006 Energy Review
2. For the following reasons:
Having taken into account all the planning considerations raised in the consultations and representations, against the policy background referred to above, it has been concluded that the proposed development is acceptable. In particular, the Local Planning Authority is of the view that its accordance with the relevant policies of the Doncaster Unitary Development Plan, taken together with advice in the relevant national planning policy guidance, justifies the development in this location.
A number of issues have been raised by objectors, mainly related to the Health and Safety aspects of the operation, and the impact of the proposal upon the SSSI, Hatfield Moor. In terms of the impact upon the moor, no objections have been received from statutory consultees to the development, subject to the imposition of conditions to ensure the preservation of the nature value of the area, and the impact upon the surrounding landscape value.
Other issues raised by objectors, including additional traffic, noise and disturbance and terrorist threat, have raised no objections from the relevant authorities and are capable, where necessary, of being dealt with by condition. All other development plan policies have been confirmed with. No objections have been made to the proposal by any consultees, apart from the local parish council. No objections have been received from the Health and Safety Executive, and the report and response from the HSE makes clear the framework within which the proposed development would operate, including the different consents and legislation required and the level of information which would have to be provided. The development would not be able to operate without this information provided and consents in place.
======
Introduction
1. This application seeks planning permission for the underground storage of gas within two depleted gas reservoirs (Hatfield West and Hatfield Moor) and ancillary infrastructure, including the Lindholme Gas Processing facility, 2 new wellheads, and one underground and one overground pipeline. Planning permission was originally granted in 1999 for the storage of gas under the Hatfield Moor reservoir and the gas processing facility, for a period of 25 years. The current proposal seeks to include both reservoirs under a new planning permission to store gas, together with the retention of the existing Lindholme gas processing facility and retention of all existing infrastructure associated with the Hatfield Moor operation, together with the new pipelines and wellheads described above.
Site and Surroundings
1. The application site consists of a total area of 1890 ha, within which are the Hatfield Moor reservoir (308ha) and Hatfield West reservoir (208ha), as well as the Lindholme Gas Processing Facility (1.6ha).
2. The application site consists of 2 main areas as outlined above. The Hatfield Moor reservoir is located on the eastern side of the A614, and mainly to the east of Moor Dike Road. HM Prisons Moorlands and Lindholme, as well as the village of Lindholme are located to the western side of the Hatfield Moor reservoir. Stainforth Moor Road is located some 1.2km to the north, and Ellerholme Farm 1km to the south.This reservoir is located underneath the designated area of Hatfield Moor. 3. The Hatfield West reservoir is located to the western side of Moor Dike Road, and beneath land on both sides of the A614. Part of the village of Lindholme as well as HMP Moorlands are located above the Hatfield West reservoir. Brick Hill Carr Common and Higgin Carr are located to the western side of the reservoir, with main village of Hatfield Woodhouse over a kilometre away to the north at the closest point. Aside from the prison and properties within Lindholme village, Redhouse Caravan Park, a sewage works, farm land and scattered dwellings are also located above the Hatfield West reservoir.
4. The Lindholme gas processing facility (GPF) is sited to the eastern side of the Hatfield West reservoir, within the farm grounds of HMP Lindholme. The GPF was granted planning permission in 1999, and is located approximately 500m to the east of the prison. It provides the gas processing facilities required to allow the safe import of gas from the national transmission system (NTS) and the export of gas from the reservoir back to the NTS.
History
1. Planning application 06/02961/WCC, was granted on the 22nd of December 2006, and was for the removal of Condition 15 of a previous permission (98/51/2734/P/MINA), and provision of new conditions. This condition related to the operation of compressors on the site.
2. Planning application 98/51/2734/P/MINA, was granted on the 18th January 1999, and was for the development of a gas storage facility together with continuation of gas production, and the use of the reservoir for gas storage for a period of 25 years. The reservoir forming part of that proposal was the Hatfield Moor reservoir, which also forms part of the application currently being considered.
3. Hazardous substances consent application 98/25/3600/P/HAZ was granted on the 7th January 1999, for the underground storage of gas. This consent related to the above planning permission for gas storage within the Hatfield Moor reservoir.
4. Planning application 85/51/538 was granted on the 8th August 1985 for the development of natural gas production and treatment facilities. This was the original planning permission granted for the extraction of gas from the Hatfield Moor and West reservoirs.
Development Plan Allocation
1. The application site is within an allocated Countryside Policy Area, whereby Policy ENV4 of the Doncaster Unitary Development Plan is applicable. The land is also partly within a site of international importance for nature conservation (Hatfield Moor Site of Special Scientific Interest), whereby Policies ENV46 (Sites of Special Scientific Interest), and ENV39 (Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation are applicable. Policies M8 and M10 of the Development Plan relate to oil and gas exploration and proposals. Policy ENV4 of the Regional Spatial Strategy is concerned with minerals development, and is also applicable in this case. Consultation Responses
1. Hatfield Town Council - Object on the grounds of insufficient geological and seismic data being provided with the application, and that full information is given to mitigate the effects of noise and visual impact.
2. Shire Group of IDBs - No objections
3. Health & Safety Executive (HSE) - raise no objections.
4. South Yorkshire Mining Advisory Service (SYMAS) - Letter to DMBC confirming SYMAS has no further comments or recommendations.
5. National Grid - Based on the information provided and the sensitivity of these networks the risk for the national transmission gas and electricity networks is negligible.
6. English Heritage (EH) - Consider that it is not necessary for this application to be notified to EH.
7. South Yorkshire Fire & Rescue - Access is to be in accordance with Approved Document B Volume 2 Part B5 Section 16.2 16.11 and Table 20.
8. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) - Raise no objections
9. DMBC Ecologist Planner - Satisfied with the scope and content of the ES in relation to ecological issues, subject to imposing a condition concerning reinstatement of the arable field margins.
10. The Coal Authority - Confirm that The Coal Authority has no objection to the proposals.
11. DMBC Highways - Confirm no objection to the proposal from a highways point of view.
12. Natural England - Confirm no objections subject to the imposition of conditions in relation to noise & vibration, lighting and drainage provision.
13. Thorne & Hatfield Moors Conservation Forum - Confirm no objection to the proposal
14. DMBC Landscape - Confirm no objection in principle to the proposal subject to the imposition of a condition requiring replanting of native hedgerow and additional screen planting.
15. Environment Agency - Confirm no objection subject to the imposition of planning conditions regarding flood risk, groundwater and contaminated land.
16. The Highways Agency - Confirm no objection subject to the imposition of a planning condition regarding construction transport management plan. 17. Yorkshire Wildlife Trust - Raise no objections to the proposal, highlight the need for replacement hedge and scrub planting, and that removal of habitat areas takes place outside of the bird breeding season.
Publicity Responses
1. The application has been advertised in accordance with Circular 15 / 92, by way of a notice in the press and multiple notices around the site.
2. In addition to this, the applicants have carried out consultations with the local community prior to the submission of the application. 2 rounds of public exhibitions were held in November 2008 and May 2009 at Lindholme Prison Learning Centre and Hatfield Woodhouse Village Hall, where information on the proposed development was presented and feedback sheets made available.
3. The proposal has also gone through the Environmental Impact Assessment process, with consultees identified through the formation of a scoping report. Consultations were carried out with the identified bodies, the responses to which have helped to form the information provided as part of the Environmental Statement submitted with the planning application.
4. 111 letters of objection were received, the majority of which are from properties in the locality of the application site including Lindholme village and Hatfield Woodhouse. The issues raised by the letters of objection are as follows:
- The age and reliability of the geological information and seismic survey - the health and safety requirements involved with such an undertaking - the possibility of a leakage and/or explosions from the storage facility - the safety records of other underground gas storage facilities - noise and disturbance from drilling activities - disturbance from traffic - the impact upon the rural character of the area - the impact upon wildlife and the designated Hatfield Moors - the terrorist threat from having such a facility - the cumulative impact of the proposed development together with the nearby prisons, airport flightpath, motorcross track and main roads - potential devaluation of property.
The main issue of concern raised in the representations received is concerned with the health and safety aspects of the proposal, and the risk to properties and the population sited above the Hatfield West reservoir. The representations highlight the lack of geological information provided with the application, and concern over accidents and incidents which have occurred at other underground gas storage facilities around the world. Residents have noted that they have witnessed evidence of gas leakage from lagoons near the prison, and call for up to date survey work to identify any possibility of leaks or faults in the field. Assessment of Proposal
1. The proposed development involves a somewhat unusual project to store natural gas in a partially depleted underground gasfield. Gas has been extracted from the Hatfield Moor and Hatfield West reservoirs since 1985, and in 1999 planning permission was granted to store gas in the Hatfield Moor reservoir following its depletion. As such, this activity has already been carried out for around 10 years on this part of the site. This permission was limited to a 25 year consent. The current proposal seeks to include both reservoirs under a new planning permission to store gas, together with the retention of the existing Lindholme gas processing facility and retention of all existing infrastructure associated with the Hatfield Moor operation. Permission is also sought for the drilling of an appraisal well, 2 production wells with related plant and equipment, an underground and above ground pipeline connecting the well heads to the gas processing facility, modifications to the gas processing facility including a new compressor, temporary facilities associated with drilling activities and appropriate landscaping and biodiversity enhancement measures.
2. The demand for gas is seasonal, and it is noted that during the winter period the demand can exceed supply. Gas storage is one of the most effective ways in which the differences between supply and demand can be matched, with gas going into storage during low demand periods and out of storage when demand is high. The issue of gas storage has become more pronounced over the last few years, as UK domestic supply levels are reduced and there is an increasing reliance on the import of supplies to balance the demand and to aid moderating price volatility. The supply position in the UK has historically been markedly different from other countries within Europe, having had large reserves in the North Sea. As a result, the need for storage has been limited and storage capacity low compared to the European norms. In 2007, gas storage capacity within the UK was 4.4 billion cubic metres, equivalent to 4.5% of the annual gas demand of the country, or 17 days of average consumption. In contrast, the average European storage levels equated to 16.2% of annual demand, or 59 days of consumption.
3. Given that by 2015 the pattern of supply to the UK will be similar to the rest of Europe with greater reliance on imported gas, the need for additional gas storage to manage winter demand peaks is clear. This need has been recognised by central government in various papers and reviews. The 2006 Energy Review stated;
“As the production of our indigenous supplies of gas storage continue to decline and the UK becomes more reliant on imported sources of gas for both electricity and heat, there is an increasing need for gas supply infrastructure, such as gas storage projects and LNG (liquefied natural gas) import facilities”.
Also in 2006, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry issued a written statement on the “Need for Additional Gas Supply Infrastructure”, this being the only energy policy document exclusively related to gas. Its main conclusions were;
- Great Britain is becoming increasingly dependent on gas imports and requires new gas supply infrastructure to help ensure security of supply;
- New projects enable extra supply and storage options if they proceed without avoidable delays; - There are limited locations currently suitable for much needed has storage projects;
- Onshore storage is needed to enable slow moving gas to be available close to market when consumers require it; and
- New energy infrastructure projects provide national benefits, shared by all localities.
On this basis, it can be seen that the need for gas storage is one of national importance recognised as such by Government.
4. Further Government advice on the underground storage of natural gas is held within Minerals Policy Statement 1: Planning and Minerals. This document reiterates the points raised above, advising that issues to be taken into account include the Governments support for proposals to increase flexibility in the UK gas market, the national energy policy benefit of the proposal, the likelihood that suitable onshore locations for such facilities will be very limited, mitigation of potential environmental impacts of the proposal, and the safety of underground facilities.
5. At a local policy level, Policies M8 and M10 of the Doncaster Unitary Development Plan are the currently applicable guidance in this case, both being concerned with oil and gas deposits. Policy M8 states that the Council will normally support exploration drilling for oil and gas, subject to relevant environmental protection policies. Whilst gas has already been found, worked and substantially depleted at the site, the proposal does involve exploratory drilling to ascertain the optimum position for the proposed wellhead. Policy M10 states that proposals for facilities required for commercial production will be considered within the framework of an overall development scheme agreed between the applicant and the council. The subtext to the policy explains this to mean the connection of wellheads to a gathering station and associated pipelines. This infrastructure is already in place at the application site, with the Lindholme gas processing facility and pipelines connecting into the wider distribution network.
6. As previously mentioned, the application site is within land allocated as Countryside Policy Area by the Doncaster Unitary Development Plan, whereby Policy ENV4 is applicable. ENV4 states that, within the Countryside Policy Area, development will not normally be permitted for purposes other than a range of developments a) to f) appropriate for rural areas. The text accompanying Policy ENV4 (para 5.31), however states that “As in the Green Belt mineral extraction may be acceptable in the Countryside Policy Area. Minerals may be worked only where they are found. Their extraction is a temporary activity and need not be incompatible with the purposes of including land in the Countryside Policy Area provided that high environmental standards are maintained (the development should be carried out in such a way that it contributes as far as possible to the objectives of the use of the land in the Countryside Policy Area) and that the site is well restored. This requirement will apply to other significant development in the Countryside Policy Area (e.g. waste tipping, road and other infrastructure development). Mineral extraction and landfill operations and their ancillary developments such as screening and washing plants may therefore be acceptable in the Countryside Policy Area subject to this requirement and to compliance with the relevant minerals and waste disposal policies of the UDP.”
The proposed development involves minerals development but the vast majority of the site is underground, will have little visible workings and as such the principal does not conflict with the UDP policy on the Countryside Policy Area, provided that the high environmental standards are maintained and compliance with the relevant minerals policies of the UDP.
Impact Upon SSSI
7. One of the main issues in the determination of the proposal is that the development involves land that is designated as a SSSI (Hatfield Moor), and hence the possible impacts upon the wildlife and archaeological resources on the moor. The part of the site within the SSSI is that which already has a current permission for the storage of gas and is being renewed as part of this application. Detailed consultations have been carried out during both the screening process and as part of the planning application with a number of environmental and wildlife bodies, including Natural England, Thorne And Hatfield Moors Conservation Forum and the Councils own Ecology Officer, as well as South Yorkshire Archaeology Service. Policy ENV40 of the Development Plan relates to proposals potentially effecting important sites for nature conservation. Development likely to have an adverse effect either directly or indirectly on the conservation value of a site of special scientific interest (SSSI) will not be permitted unless it can be clearly demonstrated that other material considerations outweigh the special interest of the site and the national policy to safeguard the intrinsic nature conservation value of the national network of such sites. Policy ENV42 of the Development Plan states that where development is permitted that would adversely effect a designated conservation site, the Council will require the reduction in nature conservation value to be kept to a minimum and will, where appropriate, seek compensatory measures to secure the protection and enhancement of the sites nature conservation interest.
Minerals policies within the Development Plan also relate to developments affecting Thorne and Hatfield Moors. Policy SM6 states that the Council will oppose any further reduction in the nature conservation interests on both Thorne and Hatfield Moors. The subtext to this policy shows that one of the main drivers for this restriction has been previous peat extraction and the historical cases of the land being drained and stripped of all vegetation prior to cutting or milling. Policies M29 and M31 reiterate the advice held with ENV40 and ENV42 with a specific emphasis on the Moors sites, in seeking to prevent further loss of wildlife resources and seeking compensatory measures, and stating that minerals development which would significantly impact upon the Moors only being permitted in exceptional cases.
8. Given that the proposal involves the utilisation of existing gas reservoirs located some 300 metres beneath the surface, it is recognised that the main potential for disturbance to Hatfield Moor lies within the initial construction and drilling phase prior to the facility actually being brought into use. The new works beyond the existing infrastructure applied for to be retained involve the drilling of an appraisal well, 2 new production wells (one, HW02, located above the Hatfield West reservoir and the other, HW03, located within the compound of the Lindholme gas processing facility) and a new underground pipeline, approximately 700m in length, connecting HW02 with the gas processing facility. An additional above ground pipeline is also proposed linking HW03 to the gas processing facility (GPF), however this will be located within the GPF compound. The appraisal well is to be drilled to ascertain the optimum position for the micro-siting of the new production well. This well is proposed to be drilled in advance of the main construction period, and will be located in the same position as one of the main proposed wells. 9. The exploratory drilling process should be assessed for its impacts on the SSSI. It involves the use of a mobile truck mounted drilling rig, served by a temporary construction laydown area, which will take around two weeks to prepare. The drilling operation will last up to 40 days over a 24 hour period operated by 2 crews on 12 hour shifts. The borehole drilling activities of the main wells will be undertaken over a similar time period with the exception of the preparation of the site will take an additional week. The wellheads themselves will be approximately 3.5 metres in height, with HW02 located within a secure fenced compound measuring 40m by 30m together with ancillary plant equipment. HW03 and its ancillary apparatus will be sited within the existing Lindholme GPF compound. Final details of the proposed plant equipment would be approved at a later date by the Council. The overall construction and commissioning period is proposed to occur over 10 months, with at its peak up to 73 construction workers employed and an average of 37 over the period.
10. No objections have been received from consultees with regards to the impact of the proposed development upon the nature and scientific interest of the site. Natural England have recommended that a condition be added to any permission to ensure that any heavy construction works (ie drilling, pipeline tie-ins) at the Lindholme GPF and wellhead HW03 should be carried out outside of the breeding season for the protected nightjar. The construction work at HW02 does not have an adverse impact due to its distance from the SSSI. Lighting is also considered to have a potential impact upon nightjars, however the undertaking to ensure that no heavy construction works are carried out during the breeding season allays any concerns from Natural England. A condition is recommended to ensure that any additional lighting required during the operational stages of the development should be low intensity and fitted with directional shielding.
11. The Councils Ecology officer also has raised no objections to the application, subject to the imposition of a condition to ensure the satisfactory reinstatement of the arable field margins disturbed during the installation of the pipeline. Likewise, both the RSPB and the Thorne and Hatfield Moors Conservation Forum have raised no objections to the scheme.
12. The previous planning permission for the Hatfield Moor reservoir included a legal agreement ensuring that the applicants provide funding of habitat management, archaeological research, and the Thorne and Hatfield Moors Conservation Forum for their continued conservation work on the moors. The applicants have agreed to continue this arrangement, with the provision of a unilateral undertaking covering the same heads of terms.
13. The surface area of the application site has been identified as having archaeological interest, with a high probability of Iron Age and Roman remains existing on the site. The conditions for preservation of remains are likely to be enhanced due to the waterlogged nature of the soils and potential presence of peat deposits. The South Yorkshire Archaeology Service have raised no objections to the proposed development, recommending a condition to ensure that a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
14. On this basis, in the absence of objections from the concerned statutory consultees, and in relation to the policy framework outlined above, it is concluded that the application will not have a detrimental impact upon the conservation value of the SSSI subject to the imposition of recommended conditions. That part of the site actually beneath the SSSI is the Hatfield Moor reservoir, which is currently already operating and is included within the application site in order to extend its permission. The applicants currently contribute annual payments to both Natural England and the Thorne and Hatfield Moors Conservation Forum to be spent on habitat management and for general conservation work. This was agreed as part of a s106 agreement on the previous approval for gas storage under Hatfield Moor, and would be continued as part of this application.
Safety Issues
15. The main basis of objections received from local residents surround the health and safety aspects of the proposed development, in particular the extent of seismic / geological information known about the reservoirs and the potential for gas leaks and / or explosions as a result of the operation of the proposed storage facilities. These are real and understandable concerns, given that the Hatfield West reservoir lies beneath Lindholme village, where the majority of representations have been received from. The last known geological information for the reservoirs dates back to the 1980’s, and has since been updated using industry standard modelling software to define the field boundaries, in compliance with BS EN1918-2 1988 to undertake due diligence of the gas reservoir data. The principal reservoir structure itself is the Oaks Rock Sandstone, the structural crest of which lies over 300 metres below the ground surface. Planning permission for the Hatfield Moor reservoir for the storage of gas was granted 1999, and this facility has been running for a number of years.
16. .Residents have noted in their representations that they have witnessed evidence of gas leakage from lagoons near the prison. It has been confirmed by the prison however that these are lagoons used to take water from vegetable matter and that, if not kept full, they can rise because of the water table and gases produced through natural rotting vegetation
17. To operate the proposed facility, there are a raft of permissions and legislation that the applicants must have and to comply with. The first point to raise is that no objections have been received from the Health and Safety Executive to the proposal in terms of its potential impact upon nearby residents.
18. There is a comprehensive regulatory framework covering the safety of gas storage sites. Sites wishing to store in excess of certain thresholds of particular hazardous substances must obtain hazardous substances consent from the authority under the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 1992, with the HSE being a statutory consultee in this process. It has not been necessary to submit a separate Health and Safety study with the submitted Environmental Impact Assessment. Instead a detailed technical study outlining further geological and design information will be submitted as part of the Hazard Substances Consent which will have to be submitted and approved prior to the any operations taking place.
19. In addition to the requirement of gaining Hazardous Substances Consent, safety issues during construction and operation of the site are dealt with under the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (COMAH) and under the Borehole Sites and Operations Regulations 1995(BSO). Pipelines running to and from gas storage sites are regulated by the Pipelines Safety Regulations 1996. These regulations are jointly enforced by the HSE and Environment Agency, with the HSE being the lead authority. A full COMAH Safety Report will be required, to describe the level of hazards on the site and the means by which the establishment will meet the key safety requirements for operation.
20. As previously mentioned, the HSE has not raised any objections to the submitted planning application, and will also be consulted as part of the Hazardous Substances Consent application. The HSE assesses the safety implications of each proposal on a case by case basis and will consider any risks to people living in the vicinity as well as any implications for future surrounding land use. The HSE will advise local planning authorities whether, on the basis of safety, a particular proposed gas storage facility should be given consent. In its role as the statutory regulator of health and safety the HSE has wide-ranging powers of inspection, enforcement and ultimately prosecution under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The HSE will exercise these general responsibilities in ensuring the safety of a particular gas storage facility during both its construction and operation. There are also speci?c requirements under both the COMAH and Borehole Regulations which require an operator to provide information to the HSE prior to starting work.
21. Subsurface storage of gas, in its many various forms, occurs many hundreds or thousands of metres below the ground surface. In the case of depleted reservoirs they have naturally contained either gas or oil for many millions of years and more recently have co- existed with human activities, with populations living above them. For new storage facilities, HSE assesses the risks taking into account the quantities of gas to be stored, the installation type and speci?cation and the local population. It provides advice to the relevant Hazardous Substance Authority which takes the ?nal decision whether to grant hazardous substance consent. Safety considerations will always be central to this process.
22. Natural gas can be extremely ?ammable and explosive when it encounters a source of ignition, if in a con?ned space. However, explosions cannot occur in underground storage as positive pressure is maintained, preventing the ingress of large quantities of air. The BSO, enforced by the HSE, require the operator to assess the risks and show there is no unacceptable risk due to gas migration from depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs used for gas storage. As such, the required geological information needed to show that the site will not be a risk will have to be provided to the HSE prior to the development being allowed to be brought into use.
23. In terms of emergency planning, operators of depleted reservoir storage sites are required to develop an on-site emergency plan of how they will respond to an incident and seek to minimise the consequences. These responsibilities exist under the Boreholes Regulations. In addition, the Pipelines Safety Regulations (1996) also require the operators of gas transport pipelines to have emergency procedures in place. It is worth noting that in terms of the safety record of underground gas storage facilities in the UK, there have been no incidents involving members of the public. Also, it is again noted that the Hatfield Moor reservoir which forms part of this application, received both planning permission and Hazardous Substances Consent in 1999 and has operated safely since.
24. In addition, a new Environmental Permit will also be required. The current storage facility and Lindholme GPF operates under an existing Environmental Permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EP Regulations). As the Hatfield West facility will fit connect into the Lindholme GPF, a variation to the existing Environmental Permit will be required. Further information relating to the surrounding geology and engineering design will also be required as part of this process, and so again is another safety net to ensure that this information is provided before the facility can operate.
Visual Impact of the Proposal
25. As already noted, the application site lies within allocated Countryside Policy Area. The new above ground apparatus is to be located above the Hatfield West reservoir, within a fenced compound area measuring 40m by 30m some 700m to the west of the GPF, as well as within the compound of the existing Lindholme GPF. As described above, this consists of wellheads HW02 and HW03 The Councils landscape officer has been consulted as part of the application process, and whilst making observations has not raised any objections to the scheme.
26. It is noted that although Hatfield Moor is an area of unique landscape character that would justify its designation as an areas of special landscape value, the area where the new equipment is proposed is surrounded by existing woodland and hedging which provides an effective screen to views both from and to the moors. It is noted that there will likely be an adverse effect on views from within Hatfield Moors during the construction period of the work, but these would be temporary. The quality of the landscape in the vicinity of the site is presently seen to be reduced by the existing GPF on the edge of the moors, and by further build development around the site including the prison and residential properties. The construction of wellhead HW03 within the compound would result in the loss of a small area of young woodland, however in the context of the surroundings with the prison and local roads and the motorway on balance this is considered to be acceptable.
27. A further impact would be from views from the track adjacent to the property Woodhouse Grange, due to its proximity to wellhead HW02. There is intervening vegetation, and so whilst there would be some adverse impact upon the landscape in this localised area, it is not considered that on balance there would be significant visual harm to the wider area.
28. The proposed work would have a substantial local impact on the countryside due to the height of the drilling rig and necessity to carry out soil stripping and engineering works; however these impacts would be temporary and restricted to the construction period. The removal of hedgerow and young woodland that would reduce the quality of the landscape in the short term but this would be mitigated by replacement hedge planting. Because the pipeline is underground it will not affect the landscape once the hedgerows have been replanted and have become established.
29. On the basis of the above factors, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impact upon the visual character of the area. It is recognised that some harm will be caused during the construction period, however this will be on a temporary basis and the finished works would be mitigated by a condition to ensure replanting of native hedgerow and additional shelterbelt / screen planting. Other Issues
30. One of the other main issues raised by local objectors is the impact of the proposal upon property values within the area. Both the applicants and objectors have provided conflicting information from land valuers over the impact of the proposed development upon property values, however this in itself is a not a material planning matter which would influence the decision making process.
31. Noise and disturbance from traffic generated as part of the development has also been raised by objectors. It is recognised that this is a potential issue during the construction phase of the project. During the drilling phase it is estimated that there will be 20 HGVs per day during each of the 2 weeks during mobilisation, and up to 6 HGVs per day during demobilisation. During the main construction works there will be up to 10 HGVs per day. The applicants are proposing a Transport Management Plan to be agreed with the Council prior to the commencement of construction works, and anticipate that materials are to be delivered via the M18 and M180 rather than the A614. The Highways Agency have been consulted as part of the application process and have raised no objections to the scheme, subject to a condition requiring a plan for the management of construction traffic be approved prior to the commencement of development. The Councils Highways Development Management officer has raised no objections to the scheme. On this basis, and subject to the imposition of the above condition, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of its highways impact.
32. The Environment Agency have raised no objections to the scheme, recommending conditions be attached to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with submitted Flood Risk Assessment, a scheme for surface water drainage is agreed, a scheme and details to assess the risks to all groundwater receptors and site investigation results, and additional conditions to ensure the protection of groundwater sources from contamination.
33. The Councils Environmental Health department has been consulted with regards noise and vibration disturbance from the proposed development, and has raised no objections subject to a condition relating to working hours during construction, and the development to be carried out in accordance with the mitigation schemes provided within the Environmental Statement. A scheme of noise monitoring would also have to be agreed prior to the commencement of development. It is again reiterated that potential noise disturbance would be for a temporary period during the construction phase.
34. Some of the objections received to the application are concerned with the potential risk of a terrorist attack on such a facility. To this end the Councils Police Architectural Liaison Officer has been consulted. Having looked at the proposal with regards to Counter Terrorism legislation, no objections to the proposal have been raised.
Conclusion
35. In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable. The main issues raised by the proposal are the impact of the development upon the designated SSSI of Hatfield Moor, and the health and safety aspects of the operation.There is Government support for the need for additional gas storage facilities, and on balance, taking into account all of the material planning issues it is considered that the proposal is acceptable.
36. With regards to the impact of the proposal upon Hatfield Moor, no objections have been received from consultees to the development, subject to the imposition of suitable conditions to ensure the minimum impact and maximum mitigation upon the special nature value of the moor. The development, when operational, will have a minimum visual impact upon the surroundings, and further conditions are recommended to ensure that suitable replanting is carried out where necessary.
37. In terms of the Health and Safety impacts of the proposal, no objections to the proposal have been raised by the HSE, and conditions are recommended that during both the construction and operational phases of the development any disturbance is mitigated and kept to a minimum in accordance with a monitoring scheme. The report makes clear the statutory framework in which such a proposal operates, showing the additional consents and legislation in place to ensure that the developers are operating the site in the safest manner possible. The proposed development will not be allowed to take place without the consents in place, which involves the production of the additional information objectors have asked for.
38. In light of the above, the application is viewed favourably and recommended accordingly. Schedule No: 3.
Application No: 09/03097/3FUL
Ward Bentley Parish
Proposal Erection of new food technology classroom (9.63m x 10.37m) (Being application under Regulation 3 Town and Country Planning (General) Regulations 1992)
Location Bentley Training Centre, High Street, Bentley, Doncaster
Applicant Bentley Training Centre
Agent John Hill Associates
Date of Valid Application: 18th December 2009
======
MAIN POINTS OF REPORT
* The application is being presented to Members as it is an application submitted by the Council for its own development and constitutes a departure to the Doncaster Unitary Development Plan adopted 1998.
* The site is an educational facility located within an area designated as Green Belt and as such policies ENV3, CF3, ENV52 and T5 are applicable.
* No objections have been raised from Consultees.
* No letters of objection have been received.
* The erection of this building allows the establishment of Bentley Horticultural Training Centre as part of the Work, Skills and Enterprise Programme to develop. It is considered to invest into the continued use of a training centre in this location without harm to the Green Belt is considered to be appropriate and in accordance with policies CF3, ENV3 and ENV52 of the development plan.
RECOMMENDATION - PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED
MEMBERS RESOLVE TO ENDORSE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT TO ACCOMPANY THE DECISION NOTICE (SUBJECT TO SUCH AMENDMENTS AS MAY BE AGREED BY MEMBERS AT THE MEETING):
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PERMISSION The Local Planning Authority has decided to grant planning permission :-
1. Having regard to the policies and proposals in the adopted Doncaster Unitary Development Plan set out below, and all relevant material planning considerations:
ENV3 - Development within Green belt CF3 - Educational Facilities ENV52 - Design of new buildings T5 - New Development and Traffic Generation
National Policy
PPS1: Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivery Sustainable Development PPG2: Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts
2. For the following reasons:
Having taken into account all the planning considerations raised in the consultations and representations, against the policy background referred to above, it has been concluded that the proposed development is acceptable. In particular, the Local Planning Authority is of the view that its accordance with the relevant policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan, taken together with advice in the relevant national planning policy guidance, justifies the erection of the building.
It is considered that the size, design and use of the new structure to be used in connection with the existing facilities would not impact upon the openness of the Green Belt and as such very special circumstances exist to warrant a departure from the provisions of the Development Plan. The land is a currently derelict former Nursery and the new project building will enhance the attitude, culture and work readiness of beneficiaries in a supportive environment.
======
Introduction
1. This application seeks approval for the erection of a brick built building to be used for teaching and training purposes at Bentley Training Centre, High Street, Bentley.
2. The application is presented to committee as it is an application submitted by the Council for its own development and constitutes a departure to the Doncaster Unitary Development Plan 1998.
Site and Surroundings
1. The site comprises a series of permanent and relocatable buildings situated within the larger established complex used for educational and training purposes. The majority of buildings throughout are free standing and single storey in construction. The new building will be positioned on derelict land formerly used as a Nursery. 2. The site is accessed from High Street along the school. The site has sufficient car parking within the site.
History
1. 09/01971/3FUL – Granted 04.11.2009 Erection of prefabricated steel workshop (18.00m x 8.90m) for teaching and workshop to replace existing re-locatable building (being application under Regulation 3 Town and Country Planning (General) Regulations 1992
2. 07/03839/FUL – Granted 28.02.2008 Retention of three re-loctable buildings (2 @ 18.5m x 8.5m for office/training use and 1 @ 4.8m x 3.0m for use as toilet block) (being application under Regulation 3 Town and Country Planning (General) Regulations 1992) (being renewal of application 04/7279/P due to expire on 09.12.07)
3. 06/03139/3FUL - Granted 02.03.2007 Erection of re-locatable classroom 6.0m x 2.4m overall (being application under Regulation 3 Town and Country Planning (General) Regulation 1992)
4. 05/03522/3FUL - Granted 05.04.2006 Erection of pitched roof extension to rear of Education Pupil Referral Unit (5.5m x 4.5m) (Being application under Regulation 3 Town & Country Planning (General) Regulations 1992)
5. 04/7279/P - Granted 15.12.2004 Retention of three re-locatable buildings (2 @ 18.5m x 8.5m for office/training use and 1 @ 4.8m x 3.0m for use as toilet block) (Being application under Regulation 3 Town and Country Planning (General) Regulations 1992)
Development Plan Allocation
1. The site consists of an Educational Facility located within an area allocated as Green Belt as defined within the Doncaster Unitary Development Plan adopted 1998 and as such the following policies are applicable.
ENV 3 - Development in Green Belt ENV 52 - Design of new buildings in relation to setting CF3 - Retention and Development of Community Facilities T5 - New Development and Traffic Generation
Consultation Responses
1. South Yorkshire Fire •& Rescue Service - The proposal appears satisfactory.
2. Highways Development Control - Have raised no objections from a highways point of view.
Further consultation responses will be added as pre-committee amendments as the consultation date at the time of writing this report had not expired. Publicity Responses
1. The application has been advertised by means of a site notice and local press, which is in accordance with Circular 15/92 - Publicity for Planning Applications. At the time of preparing this report no individual letters of representation have been received from local residents.
Assessment of Proposal
Main Issues
1. The application site consists of an Educational Facility located within an area allocated as Green Belt and as such the application needs to be assessed principally in relation to Policies CF3 and ENV3 of the Doncaster Unitary Development Plan 1998. The main issues for Members to consider are the impact on the Green Belt, the provision of the additional educational facility and finally the flooding implications of the site. Policy ENV 3 relates to development in Green Belt and only allows development in very special circumstances unless for agriculture, forestry, outdoors sport, limited extensions, re-use of buildings etc. Policy CF3 states that educational facilities will usually be retained, developed or used for educational purposes.
The Use
2. Bentley Training Centre (BTC) works in partnership with training providers and industries to provide vocational training and employment opportunities for individuals aged 14 and above and has links with several of the Council's Corporate Plan targets. BTC is committed to working with schools to recognise that study and work are critical to a young person's future, enabling them to become multi-skilled while still continuing their academic route of learning. Through the centre, the Council are able to provide work tasters, placements, recognised qualifications and careers advice/guidance.
3. In 2006 BTC provided training opportunities for over 200 individuals both within the centre and local community centres. BTC are the only training provider in the Northern Corridor. Due to budgetary constraints there is currently no other suitable accommodation in the area, however, this is constantly under review. Relocating to North Bridge is not an option as this site has been earmarked for the Waterfront Development.
4. This new development seeks to develop a new brick built building as an accredited Horticultural Training Centre by converting currently derelict land and buildings. BTC’s training provision will be increased to encompass relevant qualifications including NVQ Horticulture and Landscape Practice’s. The project will also further the knowledge and understanding of healthy eating, exercise and general well being by producing crops that encourage and emphasise the importance of healthier lifestyles in all aspects of life.
Green Belt
5. With regard to Policy ENV3, this seeks to restrict inappropriate new development, unless there are very special circumstances demonstrated. The criterion within this policy bears no direct relation to the educational use but to the impact upon the Green Belt. Policy CF3 seeks to retain or develop such uses. It is therefore considered that the application demonstrates very special circumstances in terms of the need for the building for educational purposes. The building is regarded as inappropriate development, however in this instance it is considered that very special circumstances exist. These are: * No new visual harm to the openness of the Green Belt * Re-use derelict Nursery land and re-use associated buildings * Integrate part of the site for school use as a community garden linked to opening up the wood area to the rear of the site for school use (wildlife study) * The facility will allow the continued use and enhancement of the training facility in a sustainable location.
Design of the Building
6. In terms of the design of the building, policy ENV52 deals with the design of new buildings and states that 'new buildings should respect their townscape and landscape setting with layout, siting, form, scale, detailing and materials being appropriate to the character of the surrounding area'. The building has been designed to match existing surrounding brick built buildings within the training centre. The building sits comfortably alongside the vehicular entrance and other buildings, which are to be re-used as part of the development (poly tunnels, sheds outbuildings etc). The building forms part of an established complex of buildings used for educational purposes and will therefore be seen in context with the existing buildings. As such the proposed development demonstrates the requirements of Policy ENV 52.
Flooding
7. The site lies within Flood Zone 3 according to the Environment Agency maps. The vulnerability of a site's risk of flooding is categorised by Flood Zones from Flood Zone 1 to 3a. Flood Zone 3a being the highest at risk of flooding. National Policy with regards to flooding is found in Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk which states that minor extensions with a footprint of less than 250m2 do not require a Sequential or Exceptions Test. Although this building is detached it is regarded as an extension to the existing educational establishment and as such proposals will have to meet requirements on flood risk reduction. The footprint of this proposal is 94m2 and as such a Sequential Test is not required. A Flood Risk Assessment accompanies this proposal and states that the site was not affected by the floods of June/July 2007 and that the proposed floor levels will be 300mm above A.O.D. as stipulated by the Environment Agency. Also, the applicants stipulate that an early flood evacuation plan is in place and this will be brought into action as and when necessary. This accords with policy and satisfactorily deals with the risk of flooding to the site.
Summary
8. Although the application has been advertised as a departure to the Development Plan, it is not necessary to refer the application to Regional Government Office as the development is small scale in nature.
9. The application is considered to be acceptable in that, the erection of the building would not have a harmful effect in the openness of the Green Belt and it would not injure the visual amenity of the area. Whilst there is a general presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that the proposal is a departure from policy ENV 3, in that it does not fit within the set criterion, it has been demonstrated that very special circumstances exist in terms of the need for the building for the continuance of the valuable service that the Bentley Training Centre provides for educational purposes in partnership training providers and industries. It is for these reasons that it is recommended that planning permission be granted.
The above objections, considerations and resulting recommendation have had regard to Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention for Human Rights Act 1998. The recommendation will not interfere with the applicant’s and/or objector’s right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Permission be GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND INFORMATIVES
01. SB021 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with date of this permission. REASON Condition required to be imposed by Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
02. SH08 The permission hereby granted shall be for the benefit of the Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council only. REASON Condition necessitated by the provisions of Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992.
01. IQ171 INFORMATIVE The developer shall consider incorporating all possible sustainability features into the design of the proposed development.