Agenda

Meeting: Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee

Venue: The Grand Meeting Room, County Hall, Northallerton

Date: Tuesday 31 March 2015 at 10.00 am

Recording is allowed at County Council, committee and sub-committee meetings which are open to the public, subject to:- (i) the recording being conducted under the direction of the Chairman of the meeting; and (ii) compliance with the Council’s protocol on audio/visual recording and photography at meetings, a copy of which is available to download below. Anyone wishing to record must contact, prior to the start of the meeting, the Officer whose details are at the foot of the first page of the Agenda. Any recording must be clearly visible to anyone at the meeting and be non-disruptive. http://democracy.northyorks.gov.uk/

Business

1. Minutes of the Meeting held on 10 February 2015 (Pages 1 to 19)

2. Public Questions or Statements.

Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice to Mary Davies or Josie O’Dowd of Democratic Services (contact details below) by midday Thursday 26 March 2015 three working days before the day of the meeting. Each speaker should limit themselves to 3 minutes on any item. Members of the public who have given notice will be invited to speak:-

 at this point in the meeting if their questions/statements relate to matters which are not otherwise on the Agenda (subject to an overall time limit of 30 minutes);

 when the relevant Agenda item is being considered if they wish to speak on a matter which is on the Agenda for this meeting.

Enquiries relating to this agenda please contact Mary Davies Tel: 01609 532840 or Josie O’Dowd Tel 01609 532591; Fax: 01609 780447 or e-mail [email protected] or josie.o’[email protected] (or 0800 220617 after office hours) Website: www.northyorks.gov.uk

County Matters

3. C3/14/00970/CPO (NY/2014/0275/ENV) – Planning Application accompanied by an Environmental Statement for the purposes of production and water re- injection at the existing borehole at the Ebberston Moor South well site; the construction and drilling of a second borehole for water production and re-injection; the construction of a 13.9km long 12` diameter steel underground pipeline from Ebberston Moor South well site to transfer natural gas to the Generating Station and installation of a new gas reception module at the Generating Station on land at Ebberston Moor South wellsite, Ebberston Common Lane, Snainton -interconnecting pipeline- to Knapton Generating Station, , Malton on behalf of Third Energy UK Gas Ltd and Moorland Energy Ltd ( District) (Thornton Dale and The Wolds Electoral Division) (Pages 20 to 100)

4. C8/53/125F/PA (NY/2014/0292/ENV) - Planning Application accompanied by an Environmental Statement for the purposes of the Change of Use of Biomass Renewable Energy Facility to Waste Management Facility with Advanced Thermal Treatment, with Extensions to the Existing Buildings and Amendments to Existing Site Layout on Land at the former Arbre , Road, , Goole on behalf of Drenl Ltd () (Osgoldcross Electoral Division) (Pages 101 to 182)

General

5. Items dealt with under scheme of delegation (Pages 183 to 186)

6. Other business which the Chairman agrees should be considered as a matter of urgency because of special circumstances

Barry Khan Assistant Chief Executive (Legal and Democratic Services)

County Hall Northallerton

10 March 2015

NOTES:

(a) Members are reminded of the need to consider whether they have any interests to declare on any of the items on this agenda and, if so, of the need to explain the reason(s) why they have any interest when making a declaration.

NYCC Planning & Regulatory Functions 2015-03-31-Agenda/2

The relevant Committee Administrator or Monitoring Officer will be pleased to advise on interest issues. Ideally their views should be sought as soon as possible and preferably prior to the day of the meeting, so that time is available to explore adequately any issues that might arise.

(b) Emergency Procedures for Meetings

Fire The fire evacuation alarm is a continuous Klaxon. On hearing this you should leave the building by the nearest safe fire exit. From the Grand Meeting Room this is the main entrance stairway.

If the main stairway is unsafe use either of the staircases at the end of the corridor. Once outside the building please proceed to the fire assembly point outside the main entrance.

Persons should not re-enter the building until authorised to do so by the Fire and Rescue Service or the Emergency Co-ordinator.

An intermittent alarm indicates an emergency in nearby building. It is not necessary to evacuate the building but you should be ready for instructions from the Fire Warden.

Accident or Illness First Aid treatment can be obtained by telephoning Extension 7575.

NYCC Planning & Regulatory Functions 2015-03-31-Agenda/3

Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee

1. Membership County Councillors (11) Councillors Names Political Party 1 BLADES, David Conservative 2 HESELTINE, Robert Independent 3 HOULT, Bill Liberal Democrat 4 IRETON, David Conservative 5 LEE, Andrew (Vice-Chairman) Conservative 6 LUNN, Cliff Conservative 7 McCARTNEY, John NY Independent 8 PACKHAM, Robert Labour 9 SANDERSON, Janet Conservative 10 SOWRAY, Peter (Chairman) Conservative 11 TROTTER, Cliff Conservative Total Membership – (11) Quorum – (3) Con Lib Dem NY Ind Labour Liberal UKIP Ind Total 7 1 1 1 0 0 1 11

2. Substitute Members Conservative Liberal Democrat Councillors Names Councillors Names 1 HARRISON-TOPHAM, Roger 1 GOSS, Andrew 2 WELCH, Richard 2 JONES, Anne 3 PEARSON, Chris 3 GRIFFITHS, Bryn 4 JEFFELS, David 4 5 5 NY Independent Labour Councillors Names Councillors Names 1 BARRETT, Philip 1 BROADBENT, Eric 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5

NYCC Planning & Regulatory Functions 2015-03-31-Agenda/4  A167

B6271 A684

A1 Northallerton

A684 A19

Bedale A168

A1 A167 Thirsk

CountyCounty HallHall

------ww -- -- ww --

CountyCounty HallHall VisitorVisitor ParkingParking NorthallertonNorthallerton NationalNational NorthallertonNorthallerton BusBus StopsStops ww atat CountyCounty HallHall -- RailRail StationStation -- NorthNorth YorkshireYorkshire DL7DL7 8AD8AD

©©© CrownCrownCrown copyright.copyright.copyright. AllAllAll rightsrightsrights reserved.reserved.reserved. NorthNorthNorth YorkshireYorkshireYorkshire CountyCountyCounty CouncilCouncilCouncil 100017946100017946100017946 200820082008 (Produced(Produced(Produced bybyby CorporateCorporateCorporate GIGIGI Team)Team)Team) TelTel :: 08450845 88 7272 7373 7474 ITEM 1

North County Council

Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee

Minutes of the meeting held at County Hall, Northallerton on 10 February 2015, commencing at 10.00 am.

Present:-

County Councillors Peter Sowray (Chairman), David Blades, Andrew Goss (as substitute for Bill Hoult), Robert Heseltine, David Ireton, Andrew Lee, Cliff Lunn, John McCartney, Robert Packham and Janet Sanderson.

County Councillors in attendance:- Carl Les and Elizabeth Shields.

There were 29 members of the public in attendance.

Copies of all documents considered are in the Minute Book

98. Minutes

Resolved -

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 December 2014, having been printed and circulated, be taken as read and confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

99. Public Questions or Statements

The Assistant Chief Executive (Legal and Democratic Services) reported that other than the persons who had indicated that they wished to speak on the applications below, and would do so during consideration of those items, there were no public questions or statements from members of the public.

100. C8/2013/0677/CPO - Relocation of Colliery activities and construction of an Energy Centre to recover energy from waste, with ancillary development, including offices and utility uses (eg workshops and electrical rooms); parking; a new access point and improvements to the existing access; internal roads; railway sidings; a weighbridge and gatehouse; a substation and transformer compound; a National Grid connection, private wire connection to the Colliery; sustainable urban drainage systems; lighting; CCTV; landscaping and fencing at Kellingley Colliery, Turvers Lane,

Considered -

The report of the Corporate Director - Business and Environmental Services outlining to Members how, at their Committee held on 2 September 2014, they had determined to permit the above planning application to develop the Southmoor Energy Centre on land at Kellingley Colliery, subject to the signing of a Section 106

NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 10 February 2015/1

1 legal agreement (Appendix 1 to the report outlined a plan for the proposed Southmoor Energy Centre site).

Before the Decision Notice could be issued contact was made with the County Planning Authority by the National Planning Casework Unit on 8 October 2014 with regard to the determination of the planning application. On 16 October 2014 Central Government issued further planning policy relative to waste treatment applications, entitled “National Planning Policy for Waste”, which replaced the revised Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS10). The two events delayed the determination process and it was considered that in view of their implications relative to the application an update report should be prepared for the next appropriate Committee so that the application could be re-determined. A report and supplementary report were prepared for the Committee meeting on 16 December 2014 outlining those two events and their consequences relative to the re-determination of the planning application.

At the Committee meeting of 16 December 2014, the report on the application was introduced to Members, together with statements and representations from speakers. Advice was provided by the Committee’s legal adviser relating to concerns that there had been a number of indications that local residents and local parish councils were unaware of the re-determination of the application and, consequently, the application was deferred for consideration at a later meeting to ensure that the process of obtaining representations could be carried out appropriately.

Members had also been advised that the legal challenge to the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan had been unsuccessful and, therefore, that document remained in force. The report also encompassed the details of the contact made by the National Planning Casework Unit with the County Planning Authority.

As a result of the issues highlighted, the Committee was required to consider the application again for a further decision, following the Committee on 2 September 2014, taking into account the material change in national policy. A revised recommendation for consideration was set out in Section 7 of the report. The recommendation would lead to the proposed planning conditions which would include those originally proposed in the main report to the Committee on 2 September 2014, as well as those amended in the subsequent supplementary report of the same date.

The Section 106 legal agreement had now being drafted to the satisfaction of both parties and could be signed should Members decide to approve the planning application. A copy of the draft Section 106 agreement was attached for reference in Appendix 2 of the report.

A statement, outlining the contact from the National Planning Casework Unit, the publication of the National Planning Policy for Waste and the decision of Members at the 16 December 2014 Committee was issued by the Head of Service in the Planning Department in December 2014 to all statutory, non-statutory stakeholders and members of the public. The statement also informed the reader that it was the intention of the case officer to take the planning application to the Planning and Regulatory Committee on 10 February 2015.

Selby District Councillor Mary McCartney addressed the Committee and spoke in objection to the application highlighting the following:-

 She considered that the applicant had shown no regard for the local environment.

NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 10 February 2015/2

2

 She considered that the application had been driven through by the Planning Officer and that due to the incompetence of that officer a further chance to oppose the application had arisen today.

 She considered that Members would be against the application, if such a facility was being proposed in their own areas.

 She noted that the vehicles travelling to and from the proposed facility would not be allowed to travel along the roads of the neighbouring Wakefield MDC.

 She suggested that it was inappropriate that waste was to be imported from outside to be used in this facility.

 She considered that the application did not accord with the proximity principle.

 There was no need established for the facility with other larger similar facilities being developed in the nearby area. She considered the development to be unnecessary, therefore.

 No market research had been carried out to inform the process.

 The proposal did not accord with the waste hierarchy.

 A huge number of additional HGVs would be travelling through the area, adding to the concerns of local residents already blighted by the number of HGVs travelling through there.

 The use of the land at that location had not been identified as being used for waste in the relevant Local Plan.

 All of the issues highlighted were sound planning reasons as to why the application should be refused.

James Hall, Planning Agent - Barton Wilmore, addressed the Committee and spoke on behalf of the applicant, in support of the application, outlining the following:-

 The applicant had worked closely with the Planning Authority and the County Council’s legal team in respect of the application and the Section 106 agreement that accompanied the application. The applicant was now keen to move forward with this matter.

 He noted that the Secretary of State decided not to “call in” the application following the initial consideration and nothing had fundamentally changed from the initial application.

 Consideration by the Secretary of State had been undertaken against the new Waste Policy and no concerns had been raised in that respect.

 The benefits of the scheme were outlined, including the production of low carbon energy, carbon saving being in the region of 95,000 tonnes; 63,000 homes being provided with electricity; 280,000 tonnes of waste being diverted from landfill; the creation of a facility that was beneficial to the environment

NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 10 February 2015/3

3 and was sustainable; the development of an existing brown field site; the location centrally for ; easy road access from all areas in the heart of the region; potential for alternative methods of transport to be utilised, including rail and canal; being at the heart of the local area to benefit local businesses; and a Section 106 agreement being in place to assist the local area.

 Robust environmental impact assessments had been carried out and every effort had been made to address local concerns and impacts.

 The recommendation to approve provided by officers was fully supported by the applicant.

The representative of the Head of Planning Services presented the report highlighting the proposal, the consultations that had taken place, the advertisement and representation, planning guidance and policy and planning considerations together with the conclusion and recommendations. A series of plans, photographs and visual information were provided to complement the report

Members undertook a detailed discussion of the application and the following issues were highlighted:-

 It was clarified that further representations had been received from local parish councils following the deferral of the application at the previous meeting.

 A Member criticised the referral, continually, during the presentation of the report, to PPS10, noting that the new National Policy for Waste was now the appropriate policy to test the application against.

 A Member criticised the reference in the report to the Government publication “Energy from Waste: A Guide to the Debate”. He considered this provided guidance and was not policy in terms of accepting waste from outside the immediate area and considered that this reference had only been provided as it supported the application and was not material to the consideration of that. The officer acknowledged that the publication referred to was guidance and not policy.

 Clarification was sought in relation to the statement provided in the report as to whether the material concerns of the Committee related to the National Planning Policy for Waste or the local plan that predated that national policy. Clarification was provided in relation to what this statement meant, how this related to the existing local plan and it was noted that within the new national policy the need for facilities did not have to be proven.

 A Member suggested that the report appeared to ignore a number of issues, whilst promoting a number of others in an attempt to favour the application.

 A Member noted that the report indicated that the facility would drive waste management up the waste hierarchy, but questioned how that could be determined if it was not known where the waste was coming from, suggesting that it could even come from abroad. The officer acknowledged that it could not be determined where the waste came from however he was certain that it would not come from abroad.

NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 10 February 2015/4

4

 A Member noted that a previous application had been refused by the Committee due to the proximity principle in terms of waste having to be brought into the site, under the recommendation of Planning Officers. He wondered, if it was the case for that application, why those issues did not transfer into this application. In response the Planning Officer noted that the details of the application the Member referred to were available to him and he highlighted that after due consideration the application had been refused based on fact and diligence. He emphasised that the issues relating to the refusal of that application did not transfer to this application.

 A Member noted that the application site was not designated as being of use as a waste site and considered this to be a sound reason for refusal. He noted a similar situation had occurred in where an application had been refused due to the application site not being designated appropriately. He asked why this was the case for Leeds, but not in North Yorkshire. The Planning Officer stated that the matter in Leeds had been subject to the due process and, for the issues pertinent to that particular application, the application had been refused. He emphasised that each application was determined based on fact and diligence and that the application before Members would be subjected to that.

 A Member asked whether the existing and proposed waste developments in the surrounding regions had been taken into account in terms of this application. The Planning Officer confirmed this to be the case.

 It was clarified that the new National Policy for Waste did not provide guidance in relation to unallocated sites, which had appeared in the previous planning policy. The Planning Officer noted that, previously, under the former policy, Members had applied that and had approved the application.

 A Member suggested that unless the material that was being brought to the application site as waste, was known, it could not be determined that waste was being moved up the hierarchy, as the material may be recyclable. The Planning Officer noted that Condition 44 within the list of conditions sought to protect the position of potentially bringing in recyclable waste and noted that the Environment Agency would also monitor the situation. The Environment Agency stated that they were satisfied with that condition as it would ensure that recyclable material was not being brought into the process. The Member suggested that this would be difficult for the Environment Agency to enforce without having an Enforcement Officer constantly at the site.

 It was clarified that failure to conform with the proximity principle was a reason for refusal. It was noted that the need for such a development was no longer an essential criteria, but did appear in guidance to the new policy and that not being a designated waste area was no longer a reason for refusal in the new policy.

 A Member noted that a recently circulated email relating to new sites designated for waste had included Kellingley and he wondered, if it was not necessary for such facilities to be situated on a designated site, why this had been included on that list. The Planning Officer stated that he was not aware of the list circulated and did not consider this to materially affect the application.

NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 10 February 2015/5

5

 A Member suggested that the application did not indicate that the waste being taken to the site would move up the waste hierarchy and suggested that this could be a reasonable for refusal. The Planning Officer considered that the report indicated that the waste hierarchy could be addressed and noted that the Environment Agency were satisfied with how that issue was being addressed in relation to the application.

 A Member highlighted the large number of additional HGVs that would be travelling through the community of Eggborough, with the additional impact that there would be on residential amenity in view of that and asked whether that could be seen as reason for refusal. The Planning Officer acknowledged that there would be an impact from additional vehicles in that area, however, he noted that the Highways Authority had stated that the road network and systems would be able to accommodate those vehicles and were satisfied with the proposals. It was noted that Wakefield MDC had responded to the application by stating that they were happy for the proposals to go ahead provided that vehicles did not travel through neighbouring Knottingley. The Planning Officer noted that the route indicated in the proposals had been determined as the most appropriate route as other routes in that area were protected by air quality status which would be compromised should the vehicles travel along those routes.

 A Member also raised issues in relation to the volume of HGVs that would be travelling through the area and suggested that the level of traffic travelling through the nearby local communities would be likely to have an affect on local amenity. The Planning Officer acknowledged that there would be an impact, but considered that this had been taken into account by Highways, Environmental Health and the Environment Agency in their report to the Committee, which had also taken into account the air quality zones to the west of the site. The Member considered that the significant impact that would be felt by Eggborough had not been fully taken into account. He noted that the report referred to potential uses of other transportation to the site in future, including the rail network, and asked whether this was a feasible option or whether it was just hoped that this would be utilised. The Planning Officer confirmed that the use of rail was part of the plan going forward. The Member considered that should the railway be used then it was likely that the source of the material would be from much further afield, however, the Planning Officer contested that.

 A Member asked for information relating to the potential emissions from the stack and how these would be regulated. The Planning Officer stated that the height and design were in accordance with planning law. He noted that the effluent and emissions would be monitored by the Environment Agency and that those would have to be within permitted guidelines otherwise the Environment Agency would take appropriate enforcement action.

 A Member sought assurance from the Head of Planning that the recommendation for approval was soundly based around planning policy, which was confirmed by the Head of Planning.

 Members sought clarification as to whether the changes in policy from PPS10 to the new National Planning Policy on Waste had sufficiently changed the circumstances from when they made the decision to approve the application

NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 10 February 2015/6

6 in September 2014. The Planning Officer stated that, in his opinion, the application had been tested against both policies and there was nothing to alter the recommendation put before Members for approval.

 A Member summarised the reasons he considered were appropriate for refusal of the application, highlighting the following:-

- There appeared to be a proliferation of incinerator solutions to waste appearing in North Yorkshire. - There were a number of similar types of facilities emerging in that particular area which would negate the need for this particular facility unless waste was to be brought from much further afield. - The proposals did not tie in with the proximity principle as waste would have to be imported from far afield to the site. - The application site was not a designated waste site. - The large increase in the number of HGVs travelling through the nearby local communities would have a major impact, and, with other facilities being developed in that area, the cumulative impact would be significant. He noted that nearby Wakefield MDC would not allow the HGVs to travel through their local communities. - He described the proposal as unwanted, unnecessary and unneeded.

 A Member queried, taking into account the numerous other facilities of this type being developed in the area, whether there a saturation point that should be taken account of in terms of planning applications. In response the Committee’s legal adviser stated that need was an important factor in determining applications, however, the view of Planning Officers in relation to this particular application was that need in this context was a matter for the market.

Resolved -

(i) That the update to National Waste Planning Policy contained in the National Planning Policy for Waste be noted.

(ii) That the two letters from the National Planning Policy Casework Unit be noted.

(iii) That account be taken of the environmental statement and environmental information submitted by the applicant.

(iv) That due regard be given to the Human Rights Act in relation to the potential effects upon those living in the vicinity of the application.

(v) That planning permission be granted for the reasons stated within the report, subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 agreement in relation to the issues highlighted in the report and subject to the conditions detailed within the report.

NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 10 February 2015/7

7 101. C3/13/00086/CPO – (NY/2012/0340/FUL) - Planning application for the purposes of the installation of an asphalt production plant and the creation of aggregate storage bins (5 no.) on land at Whitewall Quarry, Whitewall Corner Hill, Norton

Considered -

The report of the Corporate Director - Business and Environmental Services requesting the Committee to determine the Council’s position in relation to the aforementioned planning application, which was now subject to an appeal against non-determination to the Planning Inspectorate, in order that the County Planning Authority’s formal view on the matter could be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

The application had been the subject of 179 objections having been raised by local residents and other members of the public on the grounds of the proposed site being an inappropriate location, the proposed increase in HGV traffic, highway safety, the adverse impact upon local businesses, the racehorse training industry and tourism, the hours of operation, noise, emissions and air quality. In addition there were also unresolved objections from Ryedale District Council, Norton Town Council, the Norton Action Group (NAG), the Malton Racing Association (MRA), the National Trainers Federation (NTF), Sustrans and Fenstone Limited. The grounds of objection were detailed in sections 4 and 5 of the report. The County Council had also received 65 representations in support of the application. The application was, therefore, reported to the Committee for determination.

The Clerk read out an email from Mr A White, in objection to the application, which highlighted the following:-

 The plant would create pollution around the rural area, particularly to the north west.

 Several stables related to the horse racing industry in the area would be affected.

 Should the pollution result in the horse trainers leaving the area then there would be a significant economic dis-benefit to the area.

 HGV transportation bringing raw materials to the proposed development would need to travel through Norton and Malton Town Centres, which would create difficulties for both road users and pedestrians.

 Alternative routes to the site would also create traffic problems.

 To mitigate this it would be necessary to build a bypass road to the west of Norton, which would render the application uneconomic.

 Other possible alternative routes were along unclassified roads and totally unsuitable for HGV traffic.

Mrs Fiona Campion addressed the Committee and spoke in objection to the application, highlighting the following:-

 A copy of the Malton Racing Association’s open day programme had been circulated to Members to provide them with an idea of the scale and breadth

NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 10 February 2015/8

8 of the racing industry in Malton and Norton. The brochure also provided context as to the proximity of stables to the proposals within the application.

 Although the Planning Officer’s recommendation within the report was welcomed she emphasised that the length of time it had taken to bring the matter to Committee, since notification of the application, had put a large amount of pressure on her family’s racehorse training business. She noted that there were many more months of uncertainty ahead at further cost to her family.

 She noted that contrary to the NPPF the operator had refused to pre-consult and had refused to apply for an environmental permit in parallel.

 She provided details of the location of the stables in relation to the proposed development. She noted that the stables had been a racing yard for over 200 years.

 Noise nuisance levels at the yard had increased substantially in the last few years, with particular problems emanating in the previous year following the expansion of the quarry and additional “ancillary” operations.

 Existing permissions state that noise levels from operations at the quarry must not exceed ten decibels above background at any noise sensitive locations such as the racing yard. Noise levels consistently exceed this and the issue had not been resolved by planning enforcement. A background noise level of 31 decibels recorded last August was nearly double, if 55 decibels were permitted, and it was considered that this would be unacceptable. The current permissions were set to protect local amenity and should not be loosened.

 The process of recycling planings for the asphalt proposals would need significant and costly adaptations to be made to the existing machinery to avoid clogging screens.

 The aggregate component within the proposals was 60-40 new:recycled. Large quantities of recycled road planings were not consistent with the batching plant. The figures provided within the report appeared to make the additional associated HGV movements sound inconsequential whereas, in reality, there would be many more vehicle movements required.

Mr Rupert Arnold, Malton Racing Association, addressed the Committee and spoke in objection to the application, highlighting the following:-

 He had served the racing industry for around 30 years and was opposed to the application.

 The Malton/Norton area was the third largest horse training area in Great Britain and brought in the region of £14m-£15m to the area, with around 1,300 employees. The industry supported many additional ancillary businesses making this a major factor in relation to the local economy for Malton and Norton.

 The healthy environment for horse training at Norton and Malton was being put at risk by the proposed development.

NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 10 February 2015/9

9

 The health of the horses was being put at risk by the particulates that would be emitted into the atmosphere from the proposed development, as research had shown that air quality conditions affected the performance of racehorses.

 The increase in the number of heavy vehicles on local roads would also put the safety of the racehorses at risk.

District Councillor Luke Ives addressed the Committee and spoke in objection to the application, highlighting the following:-

 He considered that the purpose of the planning process was to ensure that development took place in the correct place. He considered that the proposals within the application were not in the appropriate place and went against national and local policies.

 He considered that the proposed development posed a danger to the horse racing industry and the economy of the local area.

 He noted the risk to the health of horses as outlined by an earlier speaker.

 SP6 of the Ryedale Local Plan was in place to protect the local area and provided appropriate limits in terms of impact on the local area and local highways. The application failed to meet those impacts set out within that plan.

 He did not consider it necessary for the proposal to take place at Whitewall Quarry as there were other more suitable sites in the area for this development.

 He emphasised that the policy was in place to protect the local area and local communities which was why it should be adhered to.

 There would be a substantial increase in the amount of pollutants in the area which would have detrimental consequences, particularly as the proposed development was next to areas where racehorses trained and people took walks.

 The proposed asphalt plant was in entirely the wrong location and more appropriate locations were available in the area.

Liz Johnson, Norton Action Group, addressed the Committee and spoke in objection to the application, highlighting the following:-

 Currently the HGV movements from the quarry were not being monitored and she wondered how, should monitoring take place, differentials between the existing HGV movements and the new traffic movements could be established.

 The area was already suffering difficulties from traffic and this would merely add to those problems.

NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 10 February 2015/10

10  The increase in heavy traffic would also lead to an increase in risks in terms of air pollution, potential accidents, etc, which would put those vulnerable to such issues more at risk.

 There was a cycle route in that vicinity that would also suffer should there be further HGV movements.

 Welham Road and Commercial Street were already dangerous, with two fatalities having occurred there.

 The jobs of those employed in the local racehorse industry and those working in ancillary services were being put at risk by this proposal.

 There was no real need for the process to be situated in Whitewall Quarry as 96% of the raw material was to be imported.

 The proposal was in a totally unsuitable location.

 The proposal, if approved, would have a serious detrimental impact on Norton and Malton for years to come.

County Councillor Elizabeth Shields addressed the Committee and spoke in objection to the application, highlighting the following:-

 She welcomed the recommendation for refusal within the report.

 She noted that the matter had been of huge concern to residents within her Electoral Division, both living close to the proposed asphalt plant and those in the wider area.

 She considered that the role of planning was to ensure that such applications were in the right location and she considered that the negative impact on the local community of the proposed development meant that this was not in the correct location.

 She considered that the proposal did not meet any relevant criteria for this to be approved.

 She noted that the traffic on Welham Road was always busy and this would exacerbate that problem.

 The situation in terms of traffic would only get worse because of proposed development in the local plan.

 The vast majority (96%) of the material being used in the process would be brought in from outside the area.

 The process would create further pollution, as would the transporting in and out of materials.

 The application had caused major concerns for large numbers of people in the Malton and Norton areas.

 There would be a huge impact on the local environment.

NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 10 February 2015/11

11

 The racehorse owners had valid concerns and the racehorse industry was a vital contributor to the local economy.

 She noted that Ryedale District Council had recommended the application for refusal and she urged Members to do the same.

 The Welham Road/Church Street junction was operating at capacity and any extra vehicle movements in that area would exacerbate the problem. The proposal, in relation to this, therefore, contravened SP17 and 20 of the Ryedale Local Plan.

 She read out a letter from a nine year old local resident highlighting concerns in relation to the local environment.

Paul Roberts, Highways Department, provided the following comments in relation to the application:-

 The Highways Authority did not consider that highway issues in relation to this application were a valid reason for refusal.

 The additional vehicle movements were minimal (22 HGV over the course of an ordinary working day).

 The vehicle routeing for the proposal had been discussed extensively with the applicant and it was noted that the issues of concern that had arisen were being addressed through a Section 106 agreement.

 The traffic impact in the area would not be seen as severe in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework, with a very small increase in traffic of less than 1% on Welham Road and Commercial Street.

 Some re-routeing of traffic had been suggested to limit the impact on air quality in the area.

 The Brambling Fields Interchange had been developed in recognition of the Ryedale Local Plan and the land allocations associated with that.

 Data indicated that there would be a minimal impact on highway safety due to the small number of additional vehicle movements generated by the application.

 The Section 106 agreement, required as part of the approval, would provide additional highway safety measures.

 As a result of the issues raised the County Council’s Highways Authority had no objection to the application.

Leslie Heasman, MJCA, representing the applicant, addressed the Committee and spoke in favour of the application, outlining the following:-

 She referred to letters/emails from both the applicant (Mr Watts) and Ringway and drew the Committee’s attention to the following issues from that correspondence:-

NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 10 February 2015/12

12

E-mail from Mr Watts

 W Clifford Watts was a successful family enterprise employing local people and supporting local businesses.

 The company had been operating the limestone quarry at Whitewall since 1956 with minimal complaints from residents until 2013 following the submission of the application.

 Prior to 1980 the quarry was immediately adjacent to the racing stables at Whitewall Quarry but was now separated by a 220 metre stand-off with a substantial landscape bund.

 The proposed asphalt plant would be a further 330m into the quarry giving a total of 550m from the nearest property - Whitewall House.

 A number of photos were attached including details of the location of the proposed asphalt plant.

 The quarry had planning consent in place for the extraction of limestone, concrete batching and recycling and concrete product operations up to 30 November 2023.

 The application was for a small asphalt plant (140 tonnes per day) providing products needed for local construction. Sustainable principles were incorporated as recovered recycled tarmac and aggregate would be used.

 The operating hours would be 0600 to 1730 Monday to Friday and 0600 to 1230 Saturdays.

 The only equipment in operation outside those hours would be bitumen heaters which were electrically operated and silent.

 The plant would be located at the base of the quarry which was some 25 metres below the road which passed by the site.

 Emissions from the plant would be controlled through an environmental permit which would have to be obtained once planning permission was granted.

 The proposals would generate only 22 additional heavy goods vehicle movements each day and the routeing would be controlled by a legally enforceable Section 106 agreement. This was only a small additional amount of traffic in terms of the existing traffic flow around Welham Road and Commercial Street.

 Use would be made of the Brambling Fields Interchange to further reduce traffic impact.

 A decision on the application, which was submitted more than two years ago, had been continually delayed. He noted that no objections had been made by Natural , the Environment Agency, NYCC Archaeology and Landscaping, Environment and Ecology Departments and, therefore, the

NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 10 February 2015/13

13 business had no option but to request that a Planning Inspector be appointed to review the facts of the application and make an independent decision.

Letter from Ringway

(The letter had been circulated to Members of the Committee prior to the meeting and advice had been provided that as the details of the letter related to commercial practice the contents should be disregarded in respect of determination of the application. However Ms Heasman wished to bring the Committee’s attention to a number of issues raised within the letter.)

 The amount of asphalt used per annum throughout the county was in the order of 130,000/140,000 tonnes on the term maintenance contract.

 Since 2012, when Ringway commenced the contract at the Seamer Carr and Whitby Area 3 and Area 4, obtaining asphalt supplies had proved troublesome due mainly to the distance from the supply units.

 Ringway had been actively searching for a more local, convenient and reliable supply of asphalt to reduce haulage distance to the areas in turn this would save in fuel usage and provide a marked decreased in the carbon footprint.

 The asphalt materials recovered from the contract would be able to be recycled and added back into the hot mix material.

 The percentage of recycled material used could be around 20/30% which was allowed within the specification for base and binder asphalt products.

 The asphalt plant at Whitewall Quarry would enable Ringway to improve the efficiency of its operations within the areas with more certainty of supply and the added benefits associated with the use of more local materials and savings on haulage allied with the use of recycling.

Ms Heasman went on to outline the following issues in relation to the report:-

 The application accorded with the vast majority of planning policies and guidance in place for such processes. There was no conflict with policy save for 4/16 of the MLP.

 A number of reasons for refusal had been set out by objectors to the proposal, but the issues raised did not contravene the appropriate policies.

 The application accorded with the National Planning Policy Framework and basis for refusal of the application was being provided against policies in the MLP from 1997 which were now out of date.

 The proposal accorded with the 12 core planning principles.

 The proposal was sustainable and made use of existing resources.

 The proposal supported economic growth.

 Best use was being made of sustainable materials before the extraction of primary materials.

NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 10 February 2015/14

14

 Mineral Planning Authorities were required to take account of supply to local services.

 The process would provide sustainable materials for local roads and pavements.

 There had been a number of letters in support of the application.

 Planning policy suggested that, where appropriate, secondary materials should be utilised and recovered.

 Only elements of environmental considerations were effectively addressed in the report and she noted that the applicant had engaged with planning officers since the submission of the application with a view to controlling these.

 The local plan was putting obstacles in the way of utilising secondary materials and therefore it should be given limited weight in comparison with national policy and guidance.

 This then had to be weighed up against the use of primary materials.

 Planning policy sought to maximise the use of secondary materials, which had been the approach since 1997. The process being applied for would provide asphalt from secondary materials in the main.

 There was no evidence of environmental or amenity impact.

 The process for approaching the application was dealt with through the National Planning Policy Framework and the decision taken should be based upon that.

 There was no objective evidence to corroborate the claims that racehorses would be affected by the proposed procedure and the perception of impact was not a valid reason for refusal.

 The development was an acceptable use of the land in that area.

 The application should be approved in line with the issues stated.

Following the representations, the Head of Planning Services presented the report highlighting the appeal for non-determination of the application by the applicant and the process involved in relation to that, details of the Members’ previous site visit, a subsequent request for a further site visit and that having been declined, the proposal, consultations that had taken place, the advertisement and representations, planning guidance and planning consideration, together with the conclusion and recommendation. A series of plans, photographs and visual information were provided to complement the report.

The Head of Planning Services also brought Members’ attention to the e-mails that had been circulated by the applicant and Ringway, which had been read out to the Committee, a brochure and note circulated by an objector, which provided details of the racehorse industry in the area, a plan pack which had been provided on a larger paper size (i.e. A3) than the plans which had been previously supplied with the report

NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 10 February 2015/15

15 and an elevation drawing of the quarry, which had not formed part of the published report, but was available as part of the application on the on-line register.

Members undertook a detailed discussion of the application and the following issues were highlighted:-

 A Member asked how much weight should be given to the details of potential pollutants provided by objectors to the proposals. In response the Head of Planning Services noted that the recommendation for refusal within the report was not entirely reliant upon issues relating to pollutants and acknowledged that not all the issues raised by objectors had been based on evidence gathered, however, appropriate reasons had been given as to why refusal was being recommended.

 It was noted that a representative of the applicant had placed a great deal of weight on the use of an out of date policy, however, the Head of Planning Services emphasised that the policy used in relation to the importation of materials was still relevant to the National Planning Policy Framework and had been utilised accordingly.

 A Member suggested that the site was not well located geographically in terms of importing materials to the site and issues relating to additional large vehicles coming to and from the site. It was noted, in response that the materials would be brought from as far afield as Scotland and a number of other areas throughout the UK.

 Representatives of the Highways Authority were asked why they did not consider that the impact of the proposals would have a detrimental effect on carbon emissions and on the network itself due to the increased movement of vehicles from the site. In response the Highways representative stated that the proposal was for an increase of 22 vehicle movements per day which was not considered to be an amount that would cause serious detrimental issues in terms of the matters raised by the Member.

 A Member noted that the matter was to be considered by the Planning Inspectorate and sought clarification as to how the matter would be dealt with at the appeal. It was noted that, at this stage, no date had been set for the appeal, therefore, it was not yet known how this would take place. The Member suggested, therefore, that the Committee should put in place an additional recommendation that the appeal took the form of a public inquiry, rather than the written representations procedure, to allow the objectors to submit their issues in person. The Committee’s legal representative emphasised that although a recommendation could be made the ultimate decision on how this would be undertaken lay with the Planning Inspectorate. The Member considered that putting a recommendation that this be undertaken as an informal hearing or public inquiry, enabling those who wished the right to speak at that, would be beneficial to the process. The differing types of inquiry that could be called were outlined.

 Members welcomed the input from highways officers into the detail of the application, at the meeting, and requested that highways officers were present for applications at future meetings. It was stated that efforts would be made to ensure that a highways officer was present at future meetings when this was appropriate, to assist Members with their deliberations.

NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 10 February 2015/16

16

 A Member sought clarification of the issues raised by the letter from Ringway, as contractor to the County Council and the Head of Planning Services emphasised that the letter submitted should be given no weight to the planning process, as outlined earlier.

 A Member asked the Highways Authority representative how they expected to be able to differentiate between the operations from the existing quarry and those from the proposed development in terms of vehicle movements and monitoring those movements. In response the Highways Officer outlined the practical steps that could be taken to monitor the situation and how enforcement action would be taken should conditions be breached. He acknowledged that with ancillary operations taking place within the quarry site that monitoring the new proposals and vehicle movements in relation to that could be difficult. He noted that the proposed Section 106 agreement would assist in developing appropriate systems for monitoring the vehicle movements.

 A Member referred to the issues raised by the objectors relating to breaches of enforcement orders on the existing works taking place in the quarry and suggested that should the application be approved then these would continue. In response the Head of Planning Services stated that there is no evidence to suggest that noise limits were being exceeded, as had been suggested by the objectors, but emphasised that those issues were not part of the deliberations for Members in terms of this application.

Resolved -

(i) That planning permission be refused for the reasons outlined within the report.

(ii) That the Committee recommend to the Planning Inspectorate that the procedure for undertaking the determination of the matter, following submission by the applicant for non-determination, allow public participation, with members of the public being able to submit their opinions in person, either by way of informal hearing or Public Inquiry.

102. C1/13/00295/CM (NY/2013/0042) – Use of land for the siting and operation of a mobile crusher and mobile screen for the purpose of recycling and reclamation of land through landfill by disposal of construction, demolition and excavation waste at Pallett Hill Farm, Racecourse Road, Catterick Village

Considered -

The report of the Corporate Director - Business and Environmental Services requesting Members to determine a planning application for the use of land for the siting and operation of a mobile crusher and mobile screen for the purpose of recycling and reclamation of land through landfill by disposal of construction, demolition and excavation waste on land at Pallett Hill Farm, Racecourse Road, Catterick Village.

The application was subject to an objection having been raised in respect of the proposal by a member of the public and was therefore reported to the Committee for determination. The grounds of the objection were detailed within the report.

NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 10 February 2015/17

17

The representative of the Head of Planning Services presented the report highlighting the proposal, the consultations that had taken place, the advertisement and representations, planning guidance and policy and planning considerations, together with the conclusion and recommendations.

A series of plans, photographs and visual information were provided to complement the report.

Members undertook a discussion of the application and the following issues were highlighted:-

 It was clarified that any additional vehicle movements involved with the process could be accommodated and would not have a detrimental impact on the nearby area.

Resolved -

That planning permission be granted for the reasons stated within the report and subject to the conditions detailed.

103. Items dealt with under Scheme of Delegation

Considered -

The report of the Corporate Director - Business and Environmental Services regarding items dealt with under the Scheme of Delegation for the period 24 November 2014 to 27 January 2015, inclusive.

Resolved -

That the report be noted.

104. Publication by Local Authorities of information about the handling of planning applications

Considered -

The report of the Corporate Director - Business and Environmental Services about the handling of planning applications between 1 October 2014 to 31 December 2014. Information relating to enforcement cases was also attached to the report.

The Head of Planning Services provided the following updates to the report:-

 The issue relating to (NY/2012/00319/ENV) - C6/12/22/P/CME - Potgate Quarry, North Stainley - the extension time secured should read “31.01.15” and it was noted that the decision had been issued on that date also.

 It was clarified that matters relating to the Alne Brickworks Landfill site were still ongoing.

Resolved -

That the report be noted.

NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 10 February 2015/18

18

105. Womersley Quarry - Update

The representative of the Head of Planning Services provided an update as to the current position regarding the Womersley Quarry application, following the update to Committee on 22 October 2014. Among the updated details it was noted that a meeting would be taking place between all parties on 13 February 2015 to further discuss issues that had arisen. It was noted that the issue relating to the watercourses in the area, which were subject to enforcement action by the Environment Agency had not yet been addressed to the satisfaction of the adjacent landowners and details of an email relating to that had been circulated to Members.

Members discussed the update and the following issues were highlighted:-

 There was a potential that state aid could be provided to prolong the life of the pit. In respect of that it was noted that enquiries were being made as to how that would affect the application and any details in relation to that would be shared with the Committee when the application next came before Members.

 Members considered that more action should be being taken by both the Environment Agency, and any other authority with any influence, to protect the Blue Lagoon business which was being affected by the polluted groundwater in that area. Members suggested that quicker action was required than was currently being undertaken.

Resolved -

That the update be noted.

The meeting concluded at 13.15 pm.

SL/JR

NYCC Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee - Minutes of 10 February 2015/19

19 ITEM 3

North Yorkshire County Council

Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee

31 March 2015

C3/14/00970/CPO- Planning Application Accompanied by an Environmental Statement for the Purposes Of Natural Gas Production and Water Re-Injection at the Existing Borehole at the Ebberston Moor South Well Site; The Construction and Drilling of a Second Borehole For Water Production And Re- Injection; The Construction of a 13.9km Long 12” Diameter Steel Underground Pipeline From Ebberston Moor South Well Site to Transfer Natural Gas to the Knapton Generating Station and Installation of a New Gas Reception Module at the Generating Station On Land At Ebberston Moor South Wellsite, Ebberston Common Lane, Snainton -Interconnecting Pipeline- To Knapton Generating Station, East Knapton, Malton on behalf of Third Energy Uk Gas Ltd and Moorland Energy Ltd (Ryedale District) (Thornton Dale and The Wolds Electoral Division)

Report of the Corporate Director – Business and Environmental Services

1.0 Purpose of Report

1.1 To determine a planning application accompanied by an Environmental Statement for natural gas production and water re-injection at the existing borehole at the Ebberston Moor South well site; the construction and drilling of a second borehole for water production and re-injection; the construction of a 13.9km long 12” diameter steel underground pipeline from Ebberston Moor South well site to transfer natural gas to the Knapton Generating Station and installation of a new gas reception module at the Generating Station on land to the Ebberston Moor South wellsite, Ebberston Common Lane, Snainton - interconnecting pipeline- to Knapton Generating Station, East Knapton, Malton on behalf of Third Energy UK Gas Ltd and Moorland Energy Ltd.

1.2 The proposed development straddles the administrative boundary between the National Park Authority (NYMNPA) and North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC). As such, identical applications have been submitted to both Planning Authorities. This report and any subsequent resolution by Members of the Committee, whilst making reference to the development proposal as a whole, are made only insofar as it lies under the jurisdiction of the County Council as Mineral Planning Authority.

1.3 This application is subject to 149 objections having been raised by members of the public and detailed objections from Frack Free Ryedale and Frack Free North Yorkshire in respect of this proposal and is, therefore, reported to this Committee for determination.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/1

20

2.0 Background

Site Description 2.1 The application site is partly inside and partly outside of the North York Moors National Park and comprises the existing Ebberston Moor South Wellsite, the proposed pipeline corridor route from the Ebberston Moor South Wellsite to Knapton Generating Station (KGS) and the construction of ancillary works at the Generating Station. The Ebberston Moor South Well Site is an existing wellsite located wholly within the boundary of the North York Moors National Park lying on a ridge plateau north of Ebberston village and east of Givendale Head Farm. The well site is located 4.5km north east of the village of Ebberston and occupies an elevated position of approximately 220 metres AOD. The existing Ebberston Moor South Well Site and the proposed northern extent of the gas pipeline corridor is located on the southern boundary of the National Park. The proposed pipeline corridor initially follows an east-west alignment from the Ebberston Moor South Well Site (parallel to the National Park Boundary) then would head in a northeast-southwest direction following the National Park boundary through the Givendale Rigg part of Dalby Forest. The pipeline corridor would then take a north-south alignment between Stonygate Moor and Given Dale and then southwards between the villages of and Wilton and west of . The pipeline corridor then continues across agricultural land before crossing the River Derwent, the railway line between York and Scarborough and terminating at KGS where it would connect into a pipeline inspection gauge Receiver Module (known as a Pig) within the KGS.

2.2 A plan showing the application site is attached to this report at Appendix 1.

Site Constraints 2.3 The northern extent of the pipeline including the Ebberston Moor South Well Site is located on the edge of Wykeham Forest, in the North York Moors National Park. The majority of the pipeline corridor would affect agricultural fields within the Vale of Pickering.

2.4 The pipeline route would affect the River Derwent, the York-Scarborough railway line and road crossings including the A170; Wilton Ings Lane; Marishes Lane; B1258 Malton Road; and nearby unclassified roads. There are a number of isolated dwellings and farmsteads in proximity to the proposed pipeline route including Knapton Lodge (100 metres west of pipeline), Wath House Farm (250 metres east of pipeline), Crayke Hall Cottage (200 metres east of pipeline), Wilton Grange Farm (90 metres east of pipeline), Cliff Edge Farm (240 metres east of pipeline), Warren House Farm (120 metres west of pipeline), and Givendale Head Farm (350 metres north of pipeline and 950metres west of the well site).

2.5 The application site is in close proximity to the North York Moors Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The River Derwent SAC is located over 6km to the west of where the proposed pipeline would cross the River Derwent. Eller’s Wood and Sand Dale SAC & Site of

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/2

21

Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is located approximately 1.2km to the west of the application site (pipeline route). A SAC is a European designation protected under the EU Habitats Directive (adopted in 1992). The list of natural habitats and species for which the River Derwent has been designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) are those considered to be most in need of conservation at a European level (“the Qualifying Features”). The list is held by Natural England and includes water-crowfoot (floating vegetation), river and sea lamprey, bullhead (catfish) and otter. There are several Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) within a 2km radius of the application site, including the River Derwent, Eller’s Wood and Sand Dale and Troutsdale and Rosekirk Dale Fens. There are several Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) within a 2km radius of the application site.

2.6 With regard to cultural heritage the application site would encompass land known to contain archaeology from the prehistoric to the post-medieval periods and the development site as a whole will impact upon Scheduled Monuments of National Importance. At its northern extent the alignment of the pipeline route would pass underneath a series of prehistoric linear boundaries, the Oxmoor, Givendale Upper and Givendale Lower Dykes complex which are protected as Scheduled Monuments. This is described by English Heritage as being as one of the most significant series of banks and ditched linear boundaries along the southern edge of the North York Moors. The Scheduled Monument is aligned roughly north-south but divided into two principle ‘fingers’. English Heritage state that the dyke systems are believed to date from the Bronze Age and are thought to have functioned as territorial or estate boundaries. In terms of indirect effects, during the construction phase the Development will have a minor adverse effect on the setting and visual integrity of the nearby Scheduled Monuments including barrows to the west of the well site, a pit alignment on Givendale Rigg and a further barrow northeast of Warren House. In addition the nearest listed building is the Grade II listed Knapton Lodge located close to the southern extent of the pipeline route.

2.7 The proposed pipeline route would affect existing Public Rights of Way (PRoWs) in the area. These PRoWs include 25.111/1/1, 24.4/8/1, 25.81/11/1, 25.111/4/1, 25.4/7/1, 25.4/6/2, 25.4/6/1 and 25.4/5/1.

2.8 The land subject to this application lies outside Development Limits in the open countryside. The proposed pipeline route affects land with an Agricultural Land Classifications ranging from Grades 2 to 4 (Grade 1 is best quality and grade 5 is poorest quality). Land graded 3a to 1 is land regarded as being ‘best and most versatile’ land. It is estimated that the pipeline corridor would affect ‘best and most versatile’ land along approximately 4km of the route. The proposed pipeline route would also run through land at risk of flooding identified by the Environment Agency as Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3 (150 metres of floodplain on each side of the River Derwent). The existing Ebberston Moor South Wellsite lies within the Groundwater Source Protection Zone 2 (SPZ2) of the Corallian aquifer and a short section of the pipeline route from the well site westward would also cross part of the SPZ2.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/3

22

Planning History

The Gas Field 2.9 The Ebberston Moor gas field was discovered in 1966 and produced gas between May 1971 and 1974. Ebberston Moor falls within the northern part of Third Energy Ltd’s (previously known as Viking UK Gas Ltd) exploration and development licence area (PL077- Lockton and Wykeham gas field). The gasfield has been dormant since the 1970s but field studies and analysis of seismic data by Third Energy show that the gas reservoir still contains large commercially viable quantities of gas, which remain un-tapped. Moorland Energy Ltd owns an onshore Production Exploration and Development Licence, number 120 (PEDL 120) in the Cleveland Basin. The Ebberston South Well Site falls within the PEDL 120 license block. Significant reserves of gas have been discovered at the existing Ebberston Moor South Well Site.

Knapton Generating Station 2.10 On 25 March 1993 planning permission was granted by the Secretary of State (following a Public Inquiry held in 1992) for the construction and operation of an open cycle gas turbine generating station on land at Claypit Plantation, East Knapton (referred to as Knapton Generating Station (KGS)).

2.11 Knapton Generating Station (KGS) opened in May 1995 (commissioned by ). It is located in close proximity to the village of East Knapton and approximately 10 km to the east of Malton. Third Energy Ltd supplies their gas-powered station at Knapton with natural gas from the Vale of Pickering Gas Fields (also referred to as the Ryedale Gas Fields), which is delivered by pipeline to KGS where it is treated and utilised for power generation in a gas-fired turbine. The natural gas is used to generate electricity that can provide power the equivalent of up to 40,000 homes when run at full capacity.

2.12 The wells in the Vale of Pickering Gas Fields produce gas from the Permian Zechstein limestones (Kirkham- Abbey Formation - KAF) and the Carboniferous sandstones (Namurian formation). The active elements of the Vale of Pickering Gas Fields comprise six well sites within the County Council administrative boundary at the following locations: - - Wath Hall, Low Marishes - Alma Farm (east), Kirby Misperton - Alma Farm (west), Kirby Misperton - Wellfield Farm, - Habton Lane, Great Habton - Malton Road, Pickering

2.13 In November 2006 Ryedale District Council granted planning permission ref. 06/00609/73 under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the variation of Condition 4 on planning approval ref. 3/114/51/PS to authorise the use of Knapton Generating Station for a further 10 years to 19 May 2018. It is the Applicant’s intention to apply to extend the life of the Knapton Generating Station before the expiry of planning

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/4

23

permission in 2018 although this will be subject to a separate planning application to be considered on its own merits by Ryedale District Council.

Ebberston Moor South Well Site

2.14 The Ebberston Moor South Well Site was granted permission ref. NYM/2007/0901/FL by the North York Moors National Park Authority (from hereon referred to as NYMNPA) in December 2007. The permission was for the drilling and siting of temporary borehole and access for exploration, testing and evaluation of hydrocarbons. The site was constructed by Moorland Energy Ltd in late 2008 and exploratory drilling commenced in 2009.

2.15 A further planning permission ref. NYM/2010/0871/FL was granted by NYMNPA in December 2010 for the variation of Condition no. 1 of planning permission NYM/2007/0901/FL to allow the retention of existing wellsite for a further two years.

2.16 In June 2012, following a public inquiry held in October-November 2011, planning permission was granted by both NYCC (ref. NY/2010/0159/ENV) and NYMNPA (ref. NYM/2010/0262/EIA) for a development known as the ‘Ryedale Gas Project’ (Moorland Energy Ltd). The approved development comprises the following: -

 Natural gas production from the existing Ebberston South Well Site near Givendale Head Farm, Ebberston;  the construction of two underground gas pipelines from the existing well site to a new Gas Processing Facility;  a new access road between the A170 and the proposed Gas Processing Facility  a Gas Processing Facility at Hurrell Lane, Thornton-le-Dale; and  an Above Ground Installation (AGI) which allows connection into the existing National Transmission System (NTS) pipeline to the south of the Hurrell Lane Gas Processing Facility on land off New Ings Lane.

2.17 At the time of writing this Committee Report planning permission ref’s NYM/2010/0262/EIA and NY/2010/0159/ENV have not been implemented.

2.18 In December 2013 and April 2014 planning permissions were granted by NYMNPA (ref. NYM/2013/0593/EIA) and NYCC (ref. C3/13/01195/CPO) respectively for natural gas production from the existing Ebberston Moor 'A' wellsite (2.5km north of the Ebberston Moor South wellsite); and construction of a 15.3 km long 8” steel underground pipeline from the Ebberston Moor ‘A’ Wellsite to Knapton Generating Station, East Knapton, Malton.

2.19 Following the grant of planning permission for the abovementioned EMA-KGS scheme, a formal application for a groundwater permit was submitted by the applicant to the Environment Agency (EA) under the EPR 2010 and a permit (Permit Ref. EPR/AB3593DU) was granted in May 2014. A Radioactive Substances (RSR) Permit covering the disposal of produced water containing naturally occurring radioactive substances (NORM) has also been obtained

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/5

24

(Permit Ref. EPR/SB3730DE). The assessment has considered the cumulative effects of injecting water with the EMA Well Site which holds a groundwater permit to inject water. The permit allows injection of up to 1,900m3/day (11,951bbl/day) of produced water into the Sherwood Sandstone from the EMA well site.

2.20 At the time of writing this Committee Report planning permission ref’s NYM/2013/0593/EIA and C3/13/01195/CPO have not been implemented.

Update on duplicate application under consideration by the NYMNPA 2.21 The planning application boundary straddles the National Park administrative boundary and therefore the application for planning permission falls to be jointly determined by North Yorkshire County Council and the North York Moors National Park Authority (NYMNPA). Therefore an identical planning application was submitted to the North York Moors National Park Authority. The decisions made will relate to that part which lies in their respective administrative area albeit still looking at the proposed development holistically.

2.22 On 19 March 2015 planning application ref. NYM/2014/0587/EIA (identical planning application) was reported to the NYMNPA Planning Committee. The officer recommendation was conditional approval and the conclusion of the report to Members stated “It has been reasonably demonstrated that there are not significant risks from the project to water pollution or land stability. Given the lack of environmental harm and the benefits to the nation of an improvement to the nations ‘bridge’ to a mixed energy supply, that exceptional circumstances apply to justify this form of major development in a National Park. In summary the planning balance considered to lie in favour of approval of planning permission”. Members of the Committee resolved to defer a decision on the application pending receipt of further information pre- determination in respect of groundwater impacts and land stability for consideration by NYMNPA officers and the AMEC hydrogeologist.

Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) & (Environmental Impact Assessment) (EIA) Regulations 2011

2.23 The proposed pipeline is 2.1km short of the 16km threshold for it being a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). The proposed development is considered EIA development under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and as such an Environmental Statement accompanies the planning application. The Environmental Statement contains extensive background information including chapters on Site and Development Description, EIA Methodology, Alternative and Design Evolution, Construction Methodology and Programme, Ecology and Nature Conservation, Landscape & Visual Assessment, Traffic and Transportation, Noise and Vibration, Air Quality, Flood Risk, Hydrology and Drainage, Produced Water Disposal, Cultural Heritage, Economics and Ground Conditions and Contamination.

2.24 In addition an Environmental Permit Application has been submitted by the applicants to the Environment Agency for a radioactive substances activity

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/6

25

(the produced water is known to be naturally radioactive, and production and re-injection of water is therefore deemed a radioactive substances activity and subject to Environmental Permitting Regulations).

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 Full planning permission is sought for natural gas production and water re- injection at the existing borehole at the Ebberston Moor South well site; the construction and drilling of a second borehole for water production and re- injection; the construction of a 13.9km long 12” diameter steel underground pipeline from Ebberston Moor South well site to transfer natural gas to the Knapton Generating Station and installation of a new gas reception module at the Generating Station on land to the Ebberston Moor South wellsite, Ebberston Common Lane, Snainton -interconnecting pipeline- to Knapton Generating Station, East Knapton, Malton.

3.2 The proposed development seeks planning permission to effectively combine elements of the two extant planning permissions (unimplemented) referred to in paragraphs 2.16 and 2.18 of this report. The development would comprise the following:

 Gas production and water re-injection from the existing borehole well at the Ebberston Moor South Well Site;  Drilling a second borehole for water production and re -injection at the Ebberston Moor South Well Site;  Construction of an 12” (300 mm) diameter steel underground pipeline from the existing Ebberston Moor South Well Site to deliver natural gas and condensate (liquid naturally generated with gas extraction) to the Knapton Generating Station at East Knapton where it will be used to produce energy; and  Construction of equipment to receive the gas at Knapton Generating Station.

Ebberston Moor South Well Site (within the National Park)

3.3 The existing Ebberston Moor South Well Site is 1.61ha in area and comprises a drilling platform, an existing borehole and associated wellhead and well cellar. The site is enclosed by a 2 metre high post and wire fence. The Well Site is surrounded by woodland plantations on three sides and is accessed from the west via a 750 metre long dedicated access road off Ebberston Common Lane.

3.4 The existing well site would be developed to allow for gas production. The development of the site for construction and operation would comprise of a construction compound, laydown area for pipes, workforce facilities – messing, catering and offices, security cabin, 19 parking spaces, potable water tank and a 1MW diesel fuelled electric generator. The main equipment at the Well Site would include, one gas production and water re-injection well, one water production and reinjection well, site office, fire water tank (50 cubic

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/7

26

metres), pipeline pig trap area, water separator building, gas fired heater, water storage tank, 1 MW diesel generator and a closed circuit television (CCTV) tower.

3.5 The existing borehole at the EMS Well Site would be used for gas production and re-injection of water. The volume of gas to be produced is anticipated to be up to 15 million standard cubic feet per day (mmscf/d) and would be extracted from deep below ground in the Permian Kirkham Abbey Formation (KAF) reservoir. The gas, produced water and condensate would flow from the well head on the Ebberston Moor South well site through a flow line, into the three phase separator. The inlet separator would operate at the pipeline pressure with the rate of flow limited by the energy generating capacity at KGS. The three-phase wellhead separator would then separate the gas and condensate from the produced water, before transfer of the gas and condensate along the pipeline to the KGS. The wellhead pressure would provide the driving force for the liquid and gas flow. Pig launchers would allow the pipelines to be inspected and/maintained but will not be used during normal operation.

3.6 A new borehole just to the north of the existing borehole within the Well Site would be constructed for the purpose of producing water and water re- injection. The water produced during the production of gas is from the gas reservoir within the Permian Kirkham Abbey Formation (KAF). The borehole would help reduce the water level within the gas reservoir and improve the flow rate of gas. The produced water is highly saline with salt concentrations greater than would be found in seawater and contains naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORMs). The applicant proposes to re-inject the produced water through the new borehole into the Triassic Sherwood Sandstone which is located above the KAF as shown on the conceptual cross section drawing attached to this report at Appendix 4. The applicant states that the combined rates of injection at the EMS Well Site and Ebberston ‘A’ Well Site will not exceed the 1,900m3/day (11,951bbl/day) rate that has been permitted. The water found in the KAF and Sherwood Sandstone beneath the well site is not used for drinking water (more than 35 km from groundwater used for drinking water).

Proposed pipeline corridor route

3.7 The northern extent of the pipeline would be located within the elevated plateau at the edge of Wykeham Forest in the National Park. From the Ebberston Moor South Well Site, the pipeline corridor would follow a westerly alignment for approximately 1.7 km to the south west of Givendale Head Farm before then following a north east-south west alignment through a section of the Dalby Forest in the National Park (Givendale Rigg). The pipeline corridor would then take a north-south alignment east of Stonygate Moor and Warren House then southwards crossing the A170 where the road dips between the villages of Allerston and Wilton. The pipeline corridor then continues across agricultural land in the Vale of Pickering before crossing the River Derwent, the railway line between York and Scarborough and terminating at KGS where

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/8

27

it would connect into a pipeline inspection gauge Receiver Module within the KGS.

The proposed pipeline

3.8 The underground pipeline would be a 12” (300mm) diameter steel pipeline to deliver natural gas and condensate (liquid naturally generated with gas) from the Ebberston Moor South Well Site to KGS. The pipeline would be laid in at a depth of 1.1 metres within a 1.8 metre wide-open trench, top soil would be stored separately from subsoil in individual rows along the edge of the construction working corridor ready for covering/reinstatement after installation as shown on the cross section drawing attached to this report at Appendix 5. A 360 degree tracked excavator would be used for the soil stripping and trench excavations. The pipeline would be lowered into the trench using side boom tractors or equivalent plant. The trench would then be backfilled with the excavated soils to provide in excess of 1 metre cover of the pipe to avoid any modern farm machinery potentially striking the pipeline. During pipeline installation the working corridor would 30 metres in width and 13.9 km long (total area of 62 hectares).

3.9 It is proposed that the construction of the pipeline would progress continuously from the EMS Well Site southwards along the pipeline route and terminate at KGS. The pipeline would be buried for the entire 13.9km. During construction of the pipeline, lengths of pipe would be strung out along the line parallel to the trench. The pipes would then be welded together to make a continuous pipeline with all the welds subject to inspection and non- destructive test. The pipeline would be accompanied by a fibre optic communications cable. Once construction has been completed, a 10-metre easement would be maintained during the operational lifetime of the proposed pipeline for maintenance purposes.

3.10 In terms of pipeline storage during construction the applicant does not propose any intermediate compounds in the pipeline route north of the A170, but a compound for pipe storage and welfare facilities would be required adjacent to Grange Farm on Wilton Ings Lane to the south of the A170. A further pipe storage facility and additional welfare facilities would be located at KGS to supply the pipeline route south of the River Derwent.

Knapton Generating Station (KGS)

3.11 The gas arriving at KGS from the Ebberston Moor South Well Site will be used as fuel-gas to generate power. The proposed development includes works to install a pipeline and pipeline inspection gauge Receiver Module at KGS to receive the gas pipeline. The gas treatment would be undertaken using existing facilities at the KGS.

Access (to Well Site, KGS and for pipeline construction)

3.12 The access to the Ebberston Moor South Well Site would be via existing access roads comprising the A170 via Ebberston Lane and Ebberston

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/9

28

Common Lane. The existing access to Knapton Generating Station would be unchanged. Access to the pipeline corridor would be from the local road network including: A170; B1415 Penniston Lane; Allerston Lane; Marishes Lane and B1258 Malton Road where the pipeline crosses these roads. The applicant states that construction traffic will not be allowed to access the site south of the A170 through the villages of Wilton, Allerston or Ebberston. Vehicular access along Malton Lane will be required for HGVs as well as LGVs and private vehicle traffic. Traffic turning into and out of the site entrance would occur where the pipeline route crosses the A170, the B1258 and Wilton Ings Lane. The site traffic routes are shown on the drawings attached to this report at Appendices 6-8.

3.13 The application is accompanied by a detailed traffic and transportation assessment which identifies the A170 as the most heavily trafficked road in the vicinity of the application site. The proposed traffic management plan has been orientated to using the A64, the B1258 and the A170 between Snainton and the site. The applicant states that this routing has been adopted to reduce to a minimum the vehicle movements passing through Pickering and Thornton-le-Dale as these communities are already affected by the existing traffic using the A170. One of the main access points is at the A170 between Wilton and Allerston. In this location it is proposed that vehicles would approach the pipeline crossing point from the east and would turn right to access the northern part and left to access the southern part of the pipeline route. The applicant proposes that a “traffic management schemes on the A170 and B1258 will avoid causing delays of any magnitude to drivers, with the maximum time spent stationary at lights being no more than for lights at an urban road junction. Avoidance of any unnecessary lights or operation of lights when there is no traffic entering or leaving site will also reduce the magnitude of any effect”.

3.14 The applicant anticipates that the accesses from the A170 into the fields north and south of the road would most likely use the existing field entrances near the crossing point but the final positions would be determined during the detailed design stage. The applicant acknowledges that sight lines from the entrances are marginal and, to improve safety, road traffic signs would be erected to warn approaching traffic of manoeuvring vehicles. A speed restriction would also mitigate the effects on safety of sub-standard sight lines. Traffic lights would be used to control both the traffic on the A170 and construction plant crossing the road. The applicant proposes that the details of phasing and response timing of the lights be confirmed in the detailed design stage. The proposed traffic controls at the A170 site crossing are shown on the drawing attached to this report at Appendix 9. In summary, the proposals for safe access off the A170 during construction are: -

1. A 40mph speed restriction on the A170 in the vicinity of the pipeline crossing for a period of 8 weeks, extending at least 300 metres either side of the proposed works; 2. All HGV traffic to approach the site from the east;

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/10

29

3. All HGV traffic to turn left from the A170 onto the southern pipeline section. Any deliveries to the northern section shall then cross the A170 under the control of the traffic lights; 4. All traffic exiting the site shall be controlled by traffic lights.

3.15 In addition to a traffic management plan the application is accompanied by vehicle swept paths to demonstrate that articulated HGVs can safely manoeuvre through the junctions of minor roads with the A170 and these swept paths are shown for the A170/B1258 junction and for the A170/Ebberston Lane junction and therefore no mitigation is required for these junctions.

3.16 It is proposed that a method such as auger boring, directional drilling or a suitable alternative method would be used to limit surface disturbance when crossing roads. The Environmental Statement indicates that the pipeline would be constructed over a 23-week period with an anticipated 18 HGV movements per day associated with the pipeline installation.

Landscaping along pipeline corridor

3.17 The proposed landscaping works would involve some ground modelling works associated with felling of woodland. Additional works within the pipeline corridor would include soil preparation, tree and vegetation planting and seeding once the pipeline has been constructed.

Drainage

3.18 During construction, all drains severed by the trench digging operation would be identified and recorded and the most appropriate method of reinstatement discussed and agreed with the land owner or his agent. If necessary, new lateral and header drains would be laid to outfalls to replace drains rendered inoperative by the pipeline. It is proposed that along the northern extent of the pipeline route between the well site and the A170 drainage would be reliant on the natural drainage of the land with the majority of surface water infiltrating into the ground. In contrast, south of the A170 where the ground is impermeable, existing field drains would be modified to ensure that drainage of the fields remains unaffected by the presence of the pipeline.

Hours of working

3.19 The proposed working hours during construction would be 07:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday and 07:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays. The drilling activities at the Ebberston Moor South Well Site (anticipated to be up to 30 days duration for the first well and up to 60 days for the second well) will be undertaken 24 hours a day. The applicant proposes that all construction work outside these hours is subject to prior notification and written agreement with the NYMNPA and/or NYCC.

Employment

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/11

30

3.20 The applicant states that the development would create approximately 50 jobs during the construction period (short term, temporary) and 3 additional jobs when the scheme is operational. Furthermore the development would safeguard the existing 23 full time jobs at Knapton Generating Station.

Proposed development timeframe

3.21 If planning permission is granted the applicant envisages that construction would commence in 2015 with gas production to follow in 2016. The construction of the facilities and structures required on the Ebberston Moor South Well Site, the KGS and the construction of the pipeline would occur simultaneously. The applicant states that it is anticipated that construction will be completed in 8 months. The gas production associated with the development is expected to be up to 15 years duration.

Restoration

3.22 Whilst the Ebberston Moor South Well Site would be restored at the end of the operational life of the development (anticipated to be 15 years) the pipeline would be left in situ with the ends capped to avoid further disturbance of the ground.

4.0 Consultations

4.1 As required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 and the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 formal consultation has been undertaken with the following bodies, agencies and organisations. Formal consultation in respect of this application began in September 2014. As required by the Regulations, notification of the Secretary of State (National Planning Casework Unit) of the planning application was undertaken on 1 September 2014.

4.2 On 11 March 2015 consultees were notified of the receipt of the ‘AMEC Technical Note Application Review- Groundwater pollution and land stability’ document from the North York Moors National Park Authority.

4.3 North York Moors National Park Authority (NYMNPA)- in response to the numerous objections which raised concerns about the impact upon hydrogeology the National Park Authority commissioned consultancy AMEC to undertake an independent review of the hydrogeological information submitted with the application. The AMEC report was received by NYMNPA in late February 2015. On 19 March 2015 the planning application was reported to the NYMNPA Planning Committee with a recommendation for the grant of conditional planning approval. Members of the Committee resolved to defer a decision on the application pending receipt of further information pre- determination in respect of groundwater and land stability for consideration by NYMNPA officers and the AMEC hydrogeologist.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/12

31

4.4 Ryedale District Council (Planning)- responded on 20 October 2014 and supports the proposal subject to considerations and conditions to cover habitat restoration and enhancement, impact on hedgerows, a CEMP, hours of construction, attenuation of noise from equipment, machinery and vehicles, notification of work and noise monitoring, and noise level limits, odour management plan and to limit extraction to conventional natural gas with no hydraulic fracturing of any part of the gas reservoir.

4.5 Ryedale District Council (Environmental Health Officer)- responded on 20 October 2014 and requests conditions to cover a CEMP, hours of work, attenuation of noise from equipment, machinery and vehicles, notification of work and noise monitoring, and noise level limits, odour management plan and to limit extraction to conventional natural gas with no hydraulic fracturing of any part of the gas reservoir.

4.6 Scampston Parish Council- has not commented on the application.

4.7 Ebberston & Yedingham Parish Council- has not commented on the application.

4.8 Allerston & Wilton Parish Council- did not comment following the initial consultation on the application.

4.8.1 On 15 March 2015, in response to the notification of the receipt of the AMEC Technical Note from the NYMNPA, Allerston & Wilton Parish Council made the following comments:-

“Allerston Parish Council is very concerned that the phrase used concerning Allerston Water that the drilling will Probably not contaminate the drinking water (emphasis added by the Parish Council). We would like to point out that Allerston Water supplies over 100 properties and farms including a herd of milking cows and would like to know what measures the company will take a) to prevent any contamination b) how are they going to monitor the drinking water in Allerston to make sure they have not caused any contamination? c) what measures will be put in place to supply these properties with clean drinking water in event of any contamination either short term or long term. The Parish Councillors feel that to say PROBABLY shows little or no regard to the 250 – 350 people who drink this water daily and more should be done to prevent any contamination (emphasis added by the Parish Council)”.

4.9 Snainton Parish Council (sent under Officer discretion as neighbouring Parish adjacent to wellsite)- has not commented on the application.

4.10 NYCC Arboricultural Officer- responded on 3 September 2014 and has no objections from an arboricultural viewpoint in respect of the application details.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/13

32

4.11 Highway Authority- responded on 31 October 2014 and highlight that the A170 is a traffic sensitive route and as such there will be restrictions as to when the traffic management arrangements proposed to enable access to the site can be implemented. It is recommended the applicant discuss any programme of construction with the Highway Authority as soon as is practicable. The Highway Authority confirmed that there are no highway objections to this proposal subject to conditions being attached to any permission granted to cover the construction of accesses, precautions to prevent the deposit of mud on the highway, a highway condition survey, on- site parking and storage of materials, the prior approval and construction of off site highway improvement works, a restriction on access via the A170 to avoid weekends and Bank Holidays, a construction traffic environmental management plan and an informative to protect public rights of ways in the area.

4.12 NYCC Public Rights of Way Team- has not formally responded although the consideration of the impact upon rights of way is included in the Highway Authority response which includes a request for an informative to ensure rights of way are not adversely affected by the development.

4.13 Head of Emergency Planning (NYCC)- responded on 1 September 2014 and confirmed that they have no comments on the application but would be interested in any emergency procedures in place once the development progresses.

4.14 NYCC Heritage - Landscape Team- responded on 10 September 2014 and states that there are no substantial grounds for objection to the development for most of the route (which already has separate consents under previous permissions), and concurs generally with the conclusions of the LVIA. The Principal Landscape Architect does acknowledge that there would be impacts on the setting of the National Park during construction. The Principal Landscape Architect requests conditions to cover timing/phasing of the work to minimise intrusion and disturbance for recreational users, avoid poor soil conditions and reduce disruption to normal agricultural operations for the areas traversed. In addition a condition requiring details, before work commences, of hard and soft landscape works associated with the development (fencing, surfacing, ground modelling, soiling, cultivation, planting, seeding, establishment and replacement, aftercare) and similarly a detailed scheme will be needed for restoration and aftercare following decommissioning.

4.15 NYCC Heritage - Archaeology- responded on 1 September 2014 and stated that given that the diversity of known archaeological heritage assets, coupled with the lack of previous archaeological research, that field evaluation should take place along the route of the pipeline in support of any planning application and to advise a mitigation strategy. The present evaluation/mitigation strategies all target known archaeological or areas adjacent to them. The evaluation strategy should be extended to comprise a geophysical survey of the route of the pipeline as a minimum, preferably with

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/14

33

targeted trial trenching of anomalies of interest. It was recommended that this element of the work takes place prior to the determination of the application.

4.15.1 On 22 October 2014 the County Archaeologist revisited their initial response and stated that whilst the scheme would benefit from the additional geophysical survey, given that the previous application was permitted with a condition, in this instance there is not sufficient new archaeological evidence to merit an objection. Therefore, in this instance, the County Archaeologist has no objection and recommends an archaeological condition should the application be approved.

4.16 NYCC Heritage – Ecology- responded on 9 September 2014 and confirmed that the development would not impact on any statutory protected sites (SAC, SPA) due to separation distances and the absence of proposals which would directly impact upon the qualifying features of the protected sites. The County Ecologist has considered applicant’s ‘Report to Inform Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) Screening’ and contained with the Environmental Statement and has completed a stage 1 HRA screening assessment which concluded that there will be no significant impacts on the River Derwent SAC.

4.16.1 The County Ecologist acknowledges that there are several SINCs within a 2km radius of the application site. However, it is unlikely that any Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) would be adversely affected by the proposals. The County Ecologist agrees with the applicant’s Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) which states that the potential impacts of the proposed works to local habitats would not be significant.

4.16.2 With regard to protected species it was identified by the County Ecologist that a number of trees, and tree groups, within the pipeline corridor have the potential to support roosting bats. The County Ecologist states that the protection of retained trees and tree groups (T5, T15, T38 and TG3) through root protection areas should be covered by condition. The County Ecologist agrees with the applicants conclusion that there is no reasonable likelihood of bat roosts being affected by the proposals.

4.16.3 With regard to badgers the County Ecologist agrees with the proposed mitigation measures during construction works (infilling of excavations and use of ramps) and also recommends a pre-commencement badger survey to ensure no badgers are harmed or foraging areas affected. The County Ecologist requests that both of those recommendations are secured by condition.

4.16.4 The County Ecologist notes that suitable habitat for species such as goshawk and nightjar were found to be scarce in the NYCC area which would be impacted by the proposed development. However, in accordance with the recommendations of the applicant’s Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) in order to avoid harm to widespread farmland and woodland bird species the timing of the works shall avoid bird-breeding season (March to the end of August).

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/15

34

4.16.5 With regard to reptiles the County Ecologist states that the works within the NYCC area would be unlikely to result in any permanent long-term losses of reptile habitat. The mitigation measures proposed within the ES, which describe how harm to reptiles would be avoided during the proposed works, should be implemented and a detailed reptile mitigation method statement should be secured by condition.

4.16.6 The County Ecologist notes that the ES recommends that water vole surveys on those ditches with potentially suitable habitat are undertaken prior to the commencement of construction. The County Ecologist concurs with this and advises that the pre-commencement water vole survey is secured by condition.

4.16.7 The County Ecologist agrees with the applicant’s conclusions that there is no reasonable likelihood of great crested newts, otter or white-clawed crayfish being affected by the proposals.

4.16.8 The County Ecologist has requested that a planning condition is included to require the applicant to submit a detailed habitat restoration scheme in response to the development.

4.16.9 The County Ecologist has advised that the proposed mitigation measures to be applied during construction (summarised in Table 6.15 of the ES) are acceptable and should form a part of the proposed Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).

4.16.10The County Ecologist states that opportunities to provide ecological enhancements as a part of the scheme should be explored by the applicant. In this case, potential enhancement measures could include increasing the botanical diversity of impacted ditches, creating species-rich hedgerows in appropriate areas and erecting bat and bird boxes.

4.16.11 On 12 March 2015 the County Ecologist confirmed that there are no further comments to make in relation to this application and the additional information (AMEC report).

4.17 Highways Agency- responded on 22 September 2014 to confirm that there are no objections to the application.

4.18 Ministry of Defence (Defence Infrastructure Organisation)- responded on responded on 10 September 2014 to confirm that the Ministry of Defence have no safeguarding objections to the proposal.

4.19 Forestry Commission- has not commented on the application.

4.20 Natural England- responded on 4 September 2014 and with regards to internationally and nationally designated sites highlight that the application site is within or in close proximity to a European designated site (also commonly referred to as Natura 2000 sites), and therefore has the potential to affect its interest features. The application site is in close proximity to the North York

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/16

35

Moors Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC), the Ellers Wood and Sand Dale SAC and the River Derwent SAC which are European sites. The sites are also notified at a national level as the North York Moors, Ellers Wood and Sand Dale and River Derwent Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). The proposal is also close to the Troutsdale and Rosekirk Dale Fens SSSI.

4.20.1 Natural England highlight that in considering the European site interest, as a competent Authority under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, NYCC should have regard for any potential impacts that a plan or project may have. This would comprise information to demonstrate that the requirements of Regulations 61 and 62 of the Habitats Regulations have been considered by the Authority, i.e. the inclusion of a Habitats Regulations Assessment. Natural England states that to assist the Authority in screening for the likelihood of significant effects, Natural England advises that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on any European site, and can therefore be screened out from any requirement for further assessment.

4.20.2 Natural England has no objections to the application in terms of potential impacts upon internationally and nationally designated sites.

4.21 Yorkshire Water Services Limited- responded on 13 October 2014 and highlight that the pipeline is proposed to cross water mains at three locations. Yorkshire Water request the inclusion of conditions to cover the protection of the public water supply pipelines and a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to include protection of groundwater.

4.22 Eddsfield Airfield- has not commented on the application.

4.23 Environment Agency- responded on 1 October 2014 and from a groundwater perspective, recommended conditions and informatives and has advised on regulatory requirements and has also recommended a number of flood risk related conditions.

4.23.1 The Environment Agency notes that the northern half of the proposed pipeline intersects Corallian Limestone (a principal aquifer) and superficial deposits of sand and gravel overlying Ampthill Clay and Kimmeridge Clay in the southern half. The Corallian Limestone is highly vulnerable to any polluting activity. The extreme northern portion of the proposed pipeline route (underlain by the Corallian Limestone principal aquifer) falls inside Source Protection Zone 2 (SPZ2) of Scarborough’s drinking water supply boreholes.

4.23.2 The Environment Agency stated that before the application is progressed the applicant would need to provide a justification as to why this pipeline has to pass through SPZ2 (i.e. that there is an ‘unavoidable need’).

4.23.3 The applicant responded to the Environment Agency on 14 November 2014. The applicant stated that the existing well site is within the SPZ2 and there is an existing permission for a short stretch of pipeline westwards from the wellsite within SPZ2 for which the EA raised no objections subject to a

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/17

36

number of conditions to protect the water environment. The applicant highlights that in granting the permission the Secretary of State was satisfied that the development would not have an adverse impact upon the groundwater protection zone. The pipeline proposed as part of the application under consideration follows the route previously approved. Furthermore the applicant states that the Environmental Statement demonstrates that the construction and operation of the pipeline would not have any adverse impact upon the groundwater protection zone. The applicant concluded that given the existing wellsite is within SPZ2, any pipeline route to the site would need to cross part of the SPZ2, making the route therefore unavoidable.

4.23.4The Environment Agency requested the inclusion of 6 conditions relating to groundwater protection and two conditions on flood risk together with informative advice to the applicant.

4.24 English Heritage- responded on 2 September 2014 and acknowledge that the proposed works are to take place across a rich archaeological landscape significant for its extensive and highly visible earthwork remains of the prehistoric period. Many of these features, most notably the dyke systems and groups of burial mounds are designated as Scheduled Monuments. English Heritage initially stated that the application be deferred to permit the compilation and implementation of an agreed scheme of assessment of the archaeological potential of the application site and thereafter the creation of an agreed mitigation strategy.

4.24.1 On 17 November 2014 English Heritage made further comments to clarify their position in light of the NYMNPA and NYCC Archaeologists accepting there is not sufficient new archaeological evidence to merit an objection and that an archaeological condition should the application be approved. English Heritage confirmed that they are content to support this approach.

4.24.2 On 17 March 2015, in response to the notification of the receipt of the AMEC Technical Note from the NYMNPA, English Heritage stated that they have considered the additional information and do not wish to offer any comments on this occasion.

4.25 Yorkshire Wildlife Trust- has not commented on the application.

4.26 Campaign to Protect Rural England- has not commented on the application.

4.27 RSPB- has not commented on the application.

4.28 Health & Safety Executive- responded on 9 September 2014 and stated that their principal concerns are the health and safety of people at work and those affected by work activities. Therefore HSE cannot usefully comment.

4.29 Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) - has not commented on the application.

4.30 National Grid Plant Protection Team- responded on 18 September 2014 to lodge a holding objection to the proposed development which will cross the

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/18

37

National Grid High-Pressure Gas Pipeline (Feeder 06 Pickering to Burton Agnes).

4.30.1 On 20 November 2014, the National Grid confirmed no objections to the development subject to the inclusion of a condition requiring the submission of a detailed Method Statements and Risk Assessment detailing how the Applicant intends to cross the National Grid High-Pressure Gas Pipeline (Feeder 06 Pickering to Burton Agnes) and an informative to require that the Applicant enters into a Deed of Consent with the National Grid.

4.31 Fire and Rescue Service- has not commented on the application.

4.32 Northern Gas Network- has not commented on the application.

4.33 Thornton IDB- has not commented on the application.

4.34 NY Police Architectural Liaison Officer (PALO)- did not comment following the initial consultation on the application.

4.34.1 On 12 March 2015 the PALO confirmed there are no comments to make.

4.35 Network Rail - has not commented on the application.

Notifications

4.36 National Planning Casework Unit- has been notified of the receipt of the planning application accompanied by an Environmental Statement.

4.37 Cllr Janet Sanderson- responded on 15 September 2014 to give the views of residents in her division without prejudice, reserving her final opinion and decision for the planning committee meeting. The public consultations run by Third Energy for this application have been exemplary. The residents views are broadly in line with the findings of the applicants Public Consultation meeting and are summarised as follows: -

 The residents and opposition groups welcome the application because it negates the need for infrastructure duplication (including pipelines) wherever this may be - Thornton le Dale, Ebberston forest or any other village.

 The potential for the water injection well to create problems for the aquifer was of great concern to residents but it should noted that the matter has been compounded by emotive information put out by pressure groups reacting to possible unconventional shale gas production.

 The construction work during the summer months would be an issue with the tourism trade and operational work should be conditioned to mitigate any disruption at seasonal times of the year.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/19

38

 The problem of HGV traffic on Ebberston Common Lane road which is in very poor condition with few passing places and little room to pull over as a stream runs along the side of the road and there is a steep bank on the opposite side.

 The residents and Parish Council have ongoing issues with this stretch of the A170 in terms of increased traffic and safety.

5.0 Advertisement and Representations

5.1 The planning application was advertised by means of eight Site Notices posted at various points along the proposed pipeline route and surrounding area on 5 September 2014 (which expired on 26 September 2014) and also a Press Notice which appeared in the Malton Gazette and Herald on 10 September 2014 (which expired on 24 September 2014). The application was advertised as proposed development affecting: - the setting of a Grade II Listed Building; - the site of Scheduled Monuments; and - rights of way to which Part 3 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 applies.

5.2 With regard to neighbour notification, the occupiers of the following 14 properties were notified by letter on 1 September 2014: (1) Givendale Head Farm, Snainton (2) Warren House, Allerston (3) Cliff Edge Farm, Allerston (4) Wilton Gatehouse, Wilton (5) Hayfield, Wilton (6) Lane End Farm, Wilton (7) New House, Wilton (8) Wilton Grange Farm, Wilton (9) Crayke Hall, Yedingham (10) Crayke Hall Cottage, Yedingham (11) Newstead Grange, Yedingham (12) Wath House Farm, (13) Knapton Lodge, West Knapton (14) Difford Farm, West Knapton

5.3 In addition, on 1 September 2014, a notification letter was also sent to Frack Free North Yorkshire who had stated an interest in commenting on the application.

5.4 The County Planning Authority has received a total of 149 objections to the proposed development from members of the public. The locations of the objectors are shown on the plan attached to this report at Appendix 3. In addition to the individual objections on 24 October 2014 the County Planning Authority received a 17-page detailed objection from Frack Free Ryedale and Frack Free North Yorkshire. The objection document covers the reinjection of waste water and well-site; alternatives site assessment; public engagement and information; landscape, environment and wildlife; archaeology; traffic; and

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/20

39

the pipeline. The reasons for the objections are set out below in no particular order: -

Re-injection of produced waste water and pollution

 the wellsite is within the source protection zone (SPZ2) of the Corallian Limestone aquifer and within 250 metres of Zone 1 (SPZ1)  The chemistry of the produced water is highly saline and radioactive, with many chemical parameters exceeding drinking water or environmental quality standards  re-injection of produced waste water will contaminate underground aquifers/groundwaters  Yorkshire Water have stated that the re-injection wells might ‘directly affect their asset’  There are 13 groundwater extraction licences in the vicinity of the well site – the closest being Givendale Head Farm, which is 500m away.  can the Sherwood Sandstone layer absorb the amount of water envisaged (10.4 million cubic metres)?  ensuring safety of water supply is even more important than ensuring our energy supplies  thousands of gallons of water is needed for this operation, what happens during drought?  well casings and joints degrade over time, if well casing fail radioactive waste water could pass into the drinking water supply  the chronic risks will be present in perpetuity owing to the nature of the installation, which creates a pathway between the aquifers  the technology and the procedures are untested. More importantly, the consequences of failures are very far reaching and there are no measures that can be taken to reverse accidents.  There is no discussion of other methods of disposing of the produced waste water. Other solutions, such as pipelining the water into the Vale for treatment and recycling, or pre-treatment of the water on-site before re-injection, are not discussed.  this will set a precedent for disposal of toxic water from fracking within sensitive areas  There is no proposed treatment process for the waste water before it is re-injected into the ground  the applicant’s Best Available Technology (disposal by re-injection) is driven by financial considerations and is not the best available environmental option  no evidence is presented in the documentation that disposal of radioactive waste water into a different strata to the gas-producing strata has now become BAT or BPEO  All previous applications for disposing of waste water have either involved returning the water to the producing strata from which it came, or pipelining produced waste water for treatment before subsequently being transferred to a third party processor to ensure the water is treated appropriately and recycled.  objection to environmental permit for radioactive substance activity

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/21

40

 Third Energy’s proposals are based on a conceptual model using third party information and water analysis from Kirby Misperton, which is 9 miles away and from Ebberston B, which is nearly 3 miles away. No recent geological or water testing has been carried out at the Ebberston South site in order to assess the risks of produced water disposal.  The design information should be made publicly available before either the planning application or environmental permit application are determined. This has not been done in this application and there is no specific information on the borehole construction  there is no guarantee that the natural geology will control the polluted waste water  this technology has not been tested in the UK and the precautionary principle should be applied  There is no quantitative assessment of the potential emissions from the well-site to groundwater.  There is no baseline water quality data to describe the water environment. The quality of the produced water and of the Sherwood Sandstone has been assessed but the groundwater quality in the shallow aquifers, including the Corallian Limestone aquifer, has not been tested. There is therefore not a baseline against which to measure future changes in water quality.  “A huge amount of water is to be injected under pressure into the supposed containing layer of Sherwood Sandstone but nothing other than a conceptual model supported by no tested practice in the UK mainland of re-injecting into a non-producing strata proves it will work”.  Over time the toxic water may migrate vertically and laterally through the fractured rock and via the "significant geological faulting"  The Environment Agency has failed to conduct any independent survey or analysis of the geology or water composition in the area, and is simply relying on clearly flawed data that is presented to them by the applicant.  the disposal of waste water in this way shows a complete lack of respect for nature  the applicant proposes that the injection operation will be designed to keep the pressure forcing the produced water into the Sherwood Sandstone below the point of fracture. However should injectivity not succeed at this level of pressure, what will he do – raise the pressure or close down the operation? In the US, operators have often exceeded their agreed pressure  the geological faulting, which will make drilling difficult, will also be an easier way for this waste water to migrate in any direction  Faults can act as conduits or barriers to groundwater flow. The lack of assessment of the risks arising from faults is considered a significant failing in the application; it is imperative that the applicant and regulators have a full understanding of the role of the local fault system prior to the application decision being made.  the pollution of water will affect crops, animals and wildlife and will cause cancer and deformities

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/22

41

 untested technology poses a genuine risk to the health and wellbeing of both people and wildlife in the area.  The damage would be irreversible if a pollution event were to be realised, the impact on the Corallian Limestone aquifer and shallow local aquifers could be severe and long lasting  the safety mitigation measures relating to spills, site drainage, groundwater and other aspects of site construction and maintenance are inadequate  “Greed, human error and miscalculation of the technical risks involved means we cannot trust the assurances of the companies concerned”.  “Don't allow this to happen as it will turn the area into a toxic waste dump where nobody would want to live or visit and will cause people to die”.  “lt’s troubling that short-term financial gains for a corporation could be seen as more important than other factors such as the long-term future of the environment”  No amount of regulation and conditional permits can stop accidents happening and this application is too risky.

Site Selection

 The existence of a Petroleum Exploration Development Licences (PEDL) carries no weight in planning terms and the applicants’ Planning and Sustainability Statement states that the boundary of the PEDL licence prevents other alternative site selection. It is noted that this application is made in partnership between two companies who hold all the current PEDLs in the wider locality. Therefore the PEDL boundary cannot be used as a valid argument in this regard for the location of the proposed new well-sites.  the case for Ebberston Moor South to be the most suitable site for accessing this reserve has not been made.  no alternative sites have been put forward for sites outside of the National Park

National Park & Local Economy

 The proposed works conflict with national parks policies as they are not compatible with the maintenance of openness for the countryside and do not protect or enhance the countryside.  The gas reserve of Ebberston gas field is not of national significance and this is not exceptional circumstances.  The proposed development is considered by the applicant to not be of ‘national significance’, and as such should be rejected under Section 116 of the NPPF  the National Park should not be a testing ground for potentially dangerous new procedures  the National Park should not be open to industrialisation and the area is threatened by overdevelopment  “The National Parks were never created to act as a dump for toxic waste” NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/23

42

 The application will set a precedent for wells in the National Park and unconventional gas extraction  the proposed development will have little or no impact on the local economy in terms of number of jobs provided  The works are close to Dalby Forest and may affect tourism in the area  Dalby Forest is one of the darkest skies in the UK for astronomy will they still be able to retain this status with the proposed lighting?  increase in traffic, noise and general disruption, particularly during the construction phase of the project, will have a damaging effect on tourism in the area  incompatible with Ryedale’s two main economies agriculture and tourism  it may have a negative impact on tourism in the National Park- the noise pollution created during the 3-month drilling stage, which would require drilling to continue 24 hours a day, would deter visitors from visiting the area, damaging the tourist business in the area.

Seismic Activity

 studies from the USA show that waste water re-injection is a major cause of seismic activity  waste water re-injection is linked to the increase in earthquakes in Oklahoma

Traffic

 Increase in traffic on A170 during construction period  Large number of HGVs travelling through villages, on narrow moorland lanes and roads causing congestion  Road improvements will be required to make junctions and bends safe for large HGVs  The main access road from the A170 has a steep uphill gradient in many places. All HGV movements need to be made with many low gear changes, thus greatly increasing emissions and noise. This will have a significant impact on the tranquillity in this area of the National Park.

Amenity

 the 24/7 drilling will create constant noise and light pollution for 3 months  the Moor to Sea cycle path will be compromised by both the construction of the site, and the site itself  “the social damage is immeasurable…a development such as this is likely to lead to young people looking to leave the area. This will disintegrate communities”.  The application also requires moving a public footpath

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/24

43

Ecology

 the noise and light pollution will have an adverse affect on wildlife (birds, bats, badgers) which maybe in contravention of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.  the landscape and flora and fauna of the National Park should be protected at all costs

Carbon emissions

 The development of the gasfield is incompatible with the Government’s legal obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  There should be a move away from fossil fuels towards cleaner energy such as hyrdo, wind and solar

Community consultation

 There was only one public exhibition event and local residents only received leaflets advertising the event only 48 hours before it was due to take place.

 the application states that the feedback at the event was positive but there is no discussion of what was asked or how the feedback was either given or collated. There is also no record of who attended.

 none of the exhibition display boards, leaflets or adverts mentioned re- injection boreholes – they only mention a ‘water disposal well’.

 the company failed in its duty to engage in open and clear public engagement on this matter and information provided by the company was wholly inadequate, and was also misrepresented in the application

Pipeline Route

 The pipeline will cross the River Derwent which contained protected species such as otters and water voles  The pipeline ditch south of the A170 may intercept the shallow water table. This will most likely necessitate the dewatering of the ditch to enable construction activities to be completed.  Dewatering has the potential to derogate water features and groundwater uses  A more detailed hydrogeological survey is required to identify pipeline sections likely to be subject to dewatering and provide an assessment of the likely influence of dewatering activities and any necessary mitigation measures  The pipeline will cross areas of archaeological importance from the prehistoric period which have not been adequately researched or documented  the decision should be deferred until a full and complete study has been done on the archaeology of the area NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/25

44

Others

 The adverse effect on property value in the area

5.5 The Frack Free Ryedale and Frack Free North Yorkshire objection document dated 24 October 2014 is accompanied by a Hydrogeological Report produced by H Fraser Consulting Ltd and request the report is considered as independent supporting evidence for the objection. The report concludes that further information is required on the following:-

environmental performance to be monitored in the future

provided and implications for long term aquifer management assessed

and restoration should be provided n B site should be made

management of rainwater, run-off, and produced water, including any treatment and storage systems should be provided clude monitoring of groundwater quality at the site, at local groundwater abstractions, and of any site discharges should be provided -specific environmental management and pollution response procedures should be provided to maintain the integrity of the bentonite mat during construction should be provided.

along the pipeline route, to include an assessment of impacts on designated conservation areas and wildlife habitats.

regard to injection volumes, and the Ebberston A permit rescinded or transferred appropriately s should be provided

injection pressures should be made

operation clude pre-treatment of produced water

5.6 On 14 November 2014 the agent representing the applicants submitted a formal response to the matters raised by consultees and those groups and members and members of the public who raised objections to the application.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/26

45

5.7 In light of the number and nature of objections the NYMNPA received in respect of the proposal to re-inject produced water at the Ebberston Moor South wellsite, the Park Authority obtained (in February 2015) an independent focused review of the hydrogeological information entitled ‘AMEC Technical Note Application Review- Groundwater pollution and land stability’.

5.8 The County Planning Authority has received one representation from a member of the public in support of the proposed development. The reasons for the support are summarised and quoted below in no particular order: -

o The local hysteria is unjustified o “in the present climate anything associated with gas exploration and production finds itself under attack from the media and the 'anti' groups who present many negative myths, untruths and possibilities but little in the way of proven facts”. o The anti fracking groups are professionally organised by people who do not live in the local area but have the audacity to act as if they speak for the people of Ryedale. o The anti fracking groups encourage people to copy templates they have written to object to the application and then request that the people customise them a little so that they do not look identical. o “it is easy for people to object but most people who generally are quite happy with the application do not have the same driving force behind them to actually write in with their approval. This then gives a biased view that most people are objecting when actually most are very content with life in Ryedale and the gas industry with everyone working together without any problems”. o “I wish to give my positive support for the gas industry in this area. Gas exploration and extraction has occurred in the Vale of Pickering and surrounding areas for many decades and we have all managed to co exist very happily with no problems. I see no reason for this to change”. o The gas company has always acted with great integrity and honesty and there has never been any issues or incidents with the existing gas industry and infrastructure in Ryedale o The company engages with the local community when they apply for planning permission o “I am fearful that outside influences will ruin the special relationship we have with the gas industry within this area. Most people wouldn't know how many gas wells there are or even where they are situated as they are so well screened”. o The energy supply is needed to keep the economy going o “Economically it will ultimately be good for our area. They have been here for decades and we have all lived and worked together very happily”.

6.0 Planning Guidance and Policy

National Planning Policy 6.1 The policy relevant to the determination of this particular planning application provided at the national level is contained within the National Planning Policy

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/27

46

Framework (NPPF) (published 27 March 2012) and also the National Planning Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

6.3 The overriding theme of Government policy in the NPPF is to apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision-making this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay (if plans are up-to-date and consistent with the NPPF). The Government has set down its intention with respect to sustainable development stating its approach as “making the necessary decisions now to realise our vision of stimulating economic growth and tackling the deficit, maximising wellbeing and protecting our environment, without negatively impacting on the ability of future generations to do the same”. The Government defines sustainable development as that which fulfils the following three roles:  An economic role – development should contribute to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation;  A social role – development supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities; and,  An environmental role – development that contributes to protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment and as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.

6.4 The NPPF advises that when making decisions, development proposals should be approved that accord with the Development Plan and when the Development Plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, permission should be granted unless  any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or  specific policies in this framework indicate development should be restricted.

6.5 This national policy seeks to ensure that there are positive improvements in people’s quality of life including improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure.

6.6 Paragraph 28 within Section 3 (Supporting a prosperous rural economy) of the NPPF states that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. This, inter alia, includes the promotion of the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/28

47

6.7 Paragraph 32 within Section 4 (Promoting sustainable transport) of the NPPF states that plans and decisions should take account of whether opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site; safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

6.8 Paragraph 58 within Section 7 (Requiring good design) of the NPPF identifies 6 objectives that planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that new developments:  “function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development;  establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit;  optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses (including incorporation of green and other public space as part of developments) and support local facilities and transport networks;  respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation;  create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion; and  are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.”

6.9 Paragraph 103 within Section 11 of the NPPF (Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change) states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere.

6.10 Within Section 11 of the NPPF it is clear that the effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account.

6.11 Paragraph 109 within Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) of the NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, minimising impacts on biodiversity, preventing development from contributing to or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution.

6.12 Paragraph 112 within Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) of the NPPF states that “Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/29

48

agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality”.

6.13 Paragraph 115 of the NPPF advises that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks. Paragraph 116 states that:

“Planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of:

(i) the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy; (ii) the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and (iii) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.”

6.14 Paragraph 118 within Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) of the NPPF sets out a number of principles for determining planning applications which aims to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Paragraph 118 states: “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles (inter alia): if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused”.

6.15 Paragraph 120 within Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) of the NPPF states that to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution, decisions should ensure that the development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area should be taken into account.

6.16 Section 12 of the NPPF provides the context for conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Paragraph 128 within Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the NPPF states that “Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation”.

6.17 Paragraph 132 within Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the NPPF states that “when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset,

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/30

49

great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional”.

6.18 Paragraph 134 within Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the NPPF states “Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use”.

6.19 Paragraph 135 within Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the NPPF requires consideration of the application on the significance of non-designated heritage assets.

6.20 Section 13 of the NPPF (Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals) sets out principles for facilitating the sustainable use of minerals. Paragraph 142 of the NPPF acknowledges the essential role that minerals play in supporting sustainable economic growth and quality of life. The NPPF seeks to ensure that there is “sufficient supply of material to provide the infrastructure, buildings and energy and goods that the Country needs”. The NPPF also acknowledges that “minerals are a finite resource” and can “only be worked where they are found”.

6.21 Paragraph 144 of the NPPF provides considerations relevant to the determination of planning applications, including the benefits of minerals extraction; ensuring that no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety arise from the development; ensuring that any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions are controlled.

6.22 Paragraph 144 of the NPPF states that “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should (inter alia):  Give great weight to the benefits of the mineral extraction, including to the economy;  ensure, in granting planning permission for mineral development, that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety, and take into account the cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality; and  ensure that any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any blasting vibrations are controlled, mitigated or removed at source, and establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties; and

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/31

50

 provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions, where necessary. Bonds or other financial guarantees to underpin planning conditions should only be sought in exceptional circumstances.

6.23 Paragraph 147 states that, when planning for on-shore oil and gas development, Minerals Planning Authorities should: “…clearly distinguish between the three phases of development (exploration, appraisal and production) and address constraints on production and processing within areas that are licensed for oil and gas exploration or production.”

National Policy Statement for Energy Infrastructure (2011) 6.24 In addition to the NPPF, there is a suite of National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure. The suite includes an overarching Policy Statement for Energy Infrastructure and accompanying Statements relating to the following:-  Fossil Fuel  Renewable Energy  Gas Supply (including gas and oil pipelines)  Electricity Networks  Nuclear Power

6.25 The above-mentioned Statements are, in particular over-arching Policy Statement EN-1 and gas supply infrastructure and gas and oil pipelines EN-4, a clear indication of the Government’s policy direction in respect of these matters and contain statements to the effect that they may be material in determining planning applications under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). They may, therefore, constitute a material consideration to which due regard must be made in the consideration of the application which is the subject of this report.

6.26 EN-1 sets out the Government’s aims to secure the transition to a low carbon energy system. The particular gas infrastructure requirements that it supports are those to facilitate gas importing and storage.

6.27 EN-4 sets out particular considerations in relation to gas supply infrastructure including pipelines, such as noise and vibration, biodiversity, landscape and visual amenity impacts, impacts on soil and geology, and impacts on water quality.

National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (2014) 6.28 On 6 March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched the National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) web-based resource. This was accompanied by a Written Ministerial Statement which includes a list of the previous planning practice guidance documents cancelled. The NPPG supports the national policy contained within the NPPF. The guidance relevant to the determination of this application is contained within the following sections: - - Air Quality

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/32

51

- Climate Change - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment - Environmental Impact Assessment - Light Pollution - Minerals - Natural Environment - Noise - Water supply, wastewater and water quality

6.29 The main guidance relevant to this application is Planning Practice Guidance in relation to ‘Minerals’ and the sections relating to ‘Planning for minerals extraction’ (Section 3 of PPG) and ‘Planning for Hydrocarbon extraction’ (Section 9 of PPG).

6.30 The Minerals guidance acknowledges that minerals ‘make an essential contribution to the Country’s prosperity and quality of life’. Section 3 of the Minerals PPG states that: “Mineral planning authorities are encouraged to plan for minerals extraction using Ordnance Survey-based proposals maps and relevant evidence provided by the minerals industry and other appropriate bodies. This approach will allow mineral planning authorities to highlight areas where mineral extraction is expected to take place, as well as managing potentially conflicting objective for use of land.”

6.31 Section 3 advises mineral planning authorities that they should plan for the steady and adequate supply of minerals in one or more of the following ways:

1. “Designating Specific Sites – where viable resources are known to exist, landowners are supportive of minerals development and the proposal is likely to be acceptable in planning terms. Such sites may also include essential operations associated with mineral extraction; 2. Designating Preferred Areas, where are areas of known resources where planning permission might reasonably be anticipated. Such areas may also include essential operations associated with mineral extraction; and/or; 3. Designating Areas of search – areas where knowledge of mineral resources may be less certain but within which planning permission may be granted, particularly if there is a potential shortfall in supply.”

6.32 Section 9 (Planning for Hydrocarbon Extraction – ‘Determining the Planning Application’) states that: “Mineral planning authorities should take account of Government energy policy, which makes it clear that energy supplies should come from a variety of sources. This includes onshore oil and gas … Mineral planning authorities should use appropriate planning conditions … to mitigate against any adverse environmental impact …”

6.33 Section 9 also states, under ‘Aftercare and Restoration’ that:

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/33

52

“Mineral planning authorities will ensure the proper restoration and aftercare of a site through imposition of suitable planning conditions and, where necessary, through section 106 Agreements. For hydrocarbon extraction sites where expected extraction is likely to last for a short period of time, it is appropriate for the mineral planning authority to impose a detailed set of planning conditions as part of the planning application.”

The Development Plan 6.34 Whilst the NPPF is a significant material consideration, under Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, planning authorities continue to be required to determine each planning application in accordance with the planning policies that comprise the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan for the determination of this particular application comprises the following:  The extant ‘saved’ policies of the North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan (adopted 1997); and  The extant policies of the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013).

6.35 Emerging local policies may also be afforded weight in the determination process, depending on their progress through consultation and adoption. In this respect, it is worth noting that the following document contains emerging local policies that may be of relevance to this application:  Joint Minerals and Waste Local Plan Issues and Options Document (North Yorkshire County Planning Authority, the City of York Council and North York Moors National Park Authority, February 2014).

6.36 At the current stage, it would not be appropriate to give any significant weight to this emerging document. However, its development is an indication that the current local policy context needs to be updated, to bring it in line with national policy and a more up to date evidence base.

6.37 The NPPF states that for the purposes of decision-taking, the policies in the Local Plan should not be considered out of date because they were adopted prior to the publication of the NPPF. However, the policies contained within the NPPF are material considerations which local planning authorities should take into account from the day of its publication.

6.38 If, following the 12 month transitional period given to local planning authorities to ensure compliance of their Local Plans with the NPPF, a new or amended plan has not been adopted, due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF (paragraph 215 of the NPPF). The closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the NPPF the greater the weight that may be given.

6.39 Therefore, relevant policies within the NPPF have been set out above and within the next section the relevant ‘saved’ policies from the North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan (1997) are outlined and the degree of consistency with the NPPF is considered. This exercise is not applicable to the policies contained within the recently adopted ‘Ryedale Plan: Local Plan Strategy’

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/34

53

(Adopted September 2013) as the Local Plan Strategy is a post-NPPF adoption and has been deemed to be in compliance with the general aims of the NPPF.

North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan ‘saved’ policies 6.40 The Planning and Compensation Act 1991 placed a duty on each County Council in England and Wales to prepare a Minerals Local Plan. The North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan was adopted in 1997 under the 1991 Act. In the absence of an adopted Minerals Core Strategy and in accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as of 27 September 2007 only the ‘saved’ policies can now be considered as comprising of the Development Plan.

6.41 The ‘saved’ policies relevant to the determination of this application are the general policies from Section 4 of the North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan (adopted December 1997) which seek to protect the environment and local amenity from potential harm from minerals development: - Policy 4/1 - Determination of Planning Applications - Policy 4/6a - Nature Conservation and Habitat Protection – Local - Policy 4/10 – Water Protection - Policy 4/13 - Traffic Impact - Policy 4/14 - Local Environment and Amenity - Policy 4/15 – Public Rights of Way - Policy 4/18 – Restoration to agriculture - Policy 4/20 - Aftercare

6.42 In addition, Section 7 of the North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan (1997) contains a number of ‘saved’ policies relating to oil and gas development, including; - Policy 7/5 - Production Wells - Policy 7/6 - Development Scheme - Policy 7/7 - Development of new reserves - Policy 7/10 - Restoration - Policy 7/11 - Retention of features

6.43 The aforementioned ‘saved’ policies from Sections 4 and 7 of the North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan (1997) are outlined in more detail in the following paragraphs.

6.44 ‘Saved’ Policy 4/1 – Determination of Planning Applications, states that: “In considering an application for mining operations, the Minerals Planning Authority will need to be satisfied that, where appropriate:- (a) the mineral deposit on the application site has been fully investigated; (b) the siting and scale of the proposal is acceptable; (c) the proposed method and programme of working would minimise the impact of the proposal; (d) landscaping and screening has been designed to effectively mitigate the impact of the proposal; (e) other environmental and amenity safeguards would effectively mitigate the impact of the proposals;

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/35

54

(f) the proposals and programme for restoration are acceptable and would allow a high standard to be achieved; (g) a high standard of aftercare and management of the land could be achieved; (h) the proposed transport links to move the mineral to market are acceptable, and (i) any cumulative impact on the local area resulting from the proposal is acceptable.”

6.45 The NPPF does not mention the matters raised in points a), b), c), d).

6.46 Where criterion e) is concerned, Paragraph 144 of the NPPF states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that any unavoidable emissions or vibrations are controlled or mitigated (if it is not possible to remove them at source).

6.47 With regard to criteria f) and g), Paragraph 144 of the NPPF states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions, where necessary.

6.48 Criterion h) of ‘saved’ Policy 4/1 does not conflict with the provisions of the NPPF; however, there are differences in the objectives. Criterion h) states that transport links should be acceptable whereas paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that improvements to the transport network should be considered, therefore, the NPPF should be given more weight in this instance.

6.49 Criterion i) of ‘saved’ Policy 4/1 is consistent with paragraph 144 of the NPPF. Paragraph 144 states that in granting permission for mineral development the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality should be taken into account.

6.50 ‘Saved’ Policy 4/6A ‘Nature Conservation and Habitat Protection – Local’, states that in making decisions on planning applications, the Mineral Planning Authority will protect the nature conservation or geological interest of Local Nature Reserves and of other sites having a nature conservation interest or importance, and will have regard to other wildlife habitats.

6.51 This Policy is consistent with paragraph 109 of the NPPF. Paragraph 109 states that that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity.

6.52 ‘Saved’ Policy 4/10 ‘Water Protection’ states that ‘Proposals for mining operations and the associated depositing of mineral waste will only be permitted where they would not have an unacceptable impact upon surface or groundwater resources’.

6.53 This policy is considered to be consistent with Paragraph 143 of the NPPF which states that when ‘preparing Local Plans, local planning authorities

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/36

55

should set out environmental criteria, in line with policies in the NPPF, against which planning applications will be assessed so as to ensure that permitted operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the flow and quantity of surface and groundwater…’.

6.54 ‘Saved’ Policy 4/13 – ‘Traffic Impact’, states that where rail, waterway or other environmentally preferable modes of transport are not feasible, mining operations other than for , oil and gas will only be permitted where the level of vehicle movements likely to be generated can be satisfactorily accommodated by the local highway network.

6.55 This Policy does not conflict with the provisions of the NPPF, however, there are differences in the objectives in that paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that improvements to the transport network should be considered, therefore, the NPPF guidance should be given more weight in this instance.

6.56 ‘Saved’ Policy 4/14 – Local Environment and Amenity, states that proposals for mining operations and the associated depositing of mineral waste will be permitted only where there would not be an unacceptable impact upon the local environment or residential amenity.

6.57 This Policy is considered to be consistent with paragraph 144 of the NPPF. Paragraph 144 states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural environment and human health and should take into account cumulative impacts of a development in a locality.

6.58 ‘Saved’ Policy 4/15 – Public Rights of Way, states that where proposals would interrupt, obstruct or conflict with use of a public right of way development will only be permitted where satisfactory provision has been made in the application for protecting the existing right of way or for providing alternative arrangements both during and after working.

6.59 The NPPF makes no explicit reference to public access or the protection of public rights of way but supports sustainable modes of transport.

6.60 ‘Saved’ Policy 4/18 – Restoration to Agriculture, states where agriculture is the intended primary after-use, the proposed restoration scheme should provide for the best practicable standard of restoration. Such restoration schemes should, where possible, include landscape, conservation or amenity proposals provided that these do not result in irreversible loss of best and most versatile land.

6.61 This Policy is consistent with paragraph 144 of the NPPF. Paragraph 144 states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards.

6.62 ‘Saved’ Policy 4/20 – After-care, states that planning permissions which are subject to conditions requiring restoration to agriculture, forestry or amenity

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/37

56

(including nature conservation) will additionally be subject to an aftercare requirement seeking to bring the restored land up to an approved standard for the specified after-use. Normally this requirement will run for a period of five years following restoration. Additionally, where forestry and amenity (including nature conservation) after-uses are proposed, the Mineral Planning Authority may seek to secure longer-term management agreements.

6.63 This Policy is considered to be consistent with paragraph 144 of the NPPF. Paragraph 144 states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards.

6.64 ‘Saved’ Policy 7/5 - Production Wells - “Proposals for the conversion of previously "short term" exploration and appraisal borehole sites into production wells will be approved only when they make full provision for an improved standard of landscaping, protection of local amenity and site restoration.” The NPPF does not include any specific policy in relation to gas production wells and it is considered that weight can be given to this ‘saved’ policy of the NYMLP.

6.65 The explanatory text accompanying this Policy states that the “County Council will resist the possibility of every individual hydrocarbon discovery being regarded as a separate oil or gasfield in its own right. Sustainable development principles require maximum integration and elimination of duplication. Therefore, for development purposes, definition of a "gasfield" or "oilfield" should, where relevant, be regarded as consisting of several relatively small deposits in a single area brought together into one set of proposals. It is recognised that this does not fit neatly with the licensing system under which several companies may be active in an area. However it is considered to be in the best interests of the North Yorkshire environment to minimise duplication of surface infrastructure and to encourage companies to work together on development schemes” (NYMLP, 1997).

6.66 ‘Saved’ Policy 7/6 - Development Scheme - “The Mineral Planning Authority defines a gasfield or oilfield as including a number of separate hydrocarbon reservoirs within a single area, irrespective of licence rights and obligations. Planning permission for commercial production will be granted only within the framework of an overall development scheme relating to all proven deposits within the gasfield or oilfield. Where appropriate, applications should be accompanied by an Environmental Statement and schemes should provide for the full development of the proven field.”

6.67 This Policy seeks to ensure that commercial production takes place only within the framework of an overall development scheme relating to all proven deposits within the gasfield or oilfield. The NPPF does not include any specific policy in relation to frameworks for the development of gasfields and it is considered that weight can be given to this ‘saved’ policy of the NYMLP.

6.68 ‘Saved’ Policy 7/7 - Development of New Reserves - “Unless such development would be technically impracticable or environmentally

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/38

57

unacceptable, planning permission for the development of oil or gas reserves as yet undiscovered will only be granted where the development utilizes existing available surface infrastructure or pipelines.”

6.69 This Policy requires that, unless impracticable or environmentally unacceptable, permission for the development of new reserves (undiscovered at the time of preparation of the NYMLP) will only be granted where the development uses existing available surface infrastructure or pipelines. The NPPF does not include any specific policy in relation to the use of existing infrastructure and it is considered that weight can be given to this ‘saved’ policy of the NYMLP.

6.70 ‘Saved’ Policy 7/10 – Restoration – seeks to ensure that proposals for oil and gas developments put forward applications that make provision for the full restoration of the application site and its related means of access to a beneficial after use within a defined period to ensure that sites are returned to a beneficial use with minimal delay. The NPPF does not include any specific policy in relation to oil and gas developments but paragraph 144 of the NPPF states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards. It is, therefore, considered that weight can be given to this ‘saved’ policy of the NYMLP.

6.71 ‘Saved’ Policy 7/11 – Retention of features - this Policy addresses such circumstance that might arise by proposals seeking to retain features required at the operational stages of the development. In such circumstance, such proposals to retain features such as an access or areas of hard-standing, these will be only approved where a clear agricultural or other benefit can be demonstrated. The NPPF does not include any specific policy in relation to retention of features associated with the development of gasfields and it is considered that weight can be given to this ‘saved’ policy of the NYMLP.

‘Ryedale Plan: Local Plan Strategy’ (Adopted September 2013) 6.72 Furthermore, also at the local level, consideration has to be given to the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013). The introduction to the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013) states that “The purpose of the Ryedale Plan is to encourage new development and to manage future growth whilst ensuring that change across the District is based on a presumption in favour of sustainable development”.

6.73 The Local Plan Strategy (2013) document states that “the Plan acts as a local expression of national policy. It establishes local policies which comply with national policy (NPPF) but which also provide a specific local policy response which reflects the distinctiveness of this District and best integrates local social, economic and environmental issues”. The policies relevant to the determination of this application are: -  Policy SP13 - ‘Landscapes’;  Policy SP14 - ‘Biodiversity’;  Policy SP15 ‘Green Infrastructure Networks’  Policy SP16- ‘Design’

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/39

58

 Policy SP17 - ‘Managing Air Quality, Land and Water Resources’;  Policy SP19 – ‘Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development’; and  Policy SP20 - ‘Generic Development Management Issues’.

6.74 SP13 ‘Landscapes’ seeks to protect and enhance the quality, character and value of Ryedale’s diverse landscapes. Specifically in relation to ‘Landscape Character’ the policy states that: “Development proposals should contribute to the protection and enhancement of distinctive elements of landscape character that are the result of historical and cultural influences, natural features and aesthetic qualities including:  The distribution and form of settlements and buildings in their landscape setting;  The character of individual settlements, including building styles and materials;  The pattern and presence of distinctive landscape features and natural elements (including field boundaries, woodland, habitat types, landforms, topography and watercourses);  Visually sensitive skylines, hill and valley sides; and  The ambience of the area, including nocturnal character, level and type of activity and tranquillity, sense of enclosure/exposure”.

6.75 SP14 ‘Biodiversity’ states “In considering proposals for development – Proposals which would have an adverse effect on any site or species protected under international or national legislation will be considered in the context of the statutory protection which is afforded to them. Proposals for development which would result in loss or significant harm to: Habitats or species included in the Ryedale Biodiversity Action Plan and priority species and habitat in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan; Local Sites of Nature Conservation Importance or Sites of Geodiversity Importance; Other types of Ancient Woodland and ancient/veteran trees, will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that there is a need for the development in that location and that the benefit of the development outweighs the loss and harm. Where loss and harm cannot be prevented or adequately mitigated, compensation for the loss / harm will be sought. Applications for planning permission will be refused where significant harm cannot be prevented, adequately mitigated against or compensated for. Loss or harm to other nature conservation features should be avoided or mitigated. Compensation will be sought for the loss or damage to other nature conservation features, which would result from the development proposed. Protected sites, including Internationally and nationally protected sites and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation are identified on the adopted Proposals Map.”

6.76 SP15 ‘Green Infrastructure Networks’, inter alia, seeks to protect and enhance Public Rights of Way and Open Access Land and where practicable securing multi-user access.

6.77 Policy SP16- ‘Design’ states, inter alia, that “To reinforce local distinctiveness, the location, siting, form, layout, scale and detailed design of new

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/40

59

development should respect the context provided by its surroundings including:  Topography and landform that shape the form and structure of settlements in the landscape  The structure of towns and villages formed by street patterns, routes, public spaces, rivers and becks. The medieval street patterns and  historic cores of Malton, Pickering, Kirkbymoorside and Helmsley are of particular significance and medieval two row villages with back lanes are typical in Ryedale  The grain of the settlements, influenced by street blocks, plot sizes, the orientation of buildings, boundaries, spaces between buildings and the density, size and scale of buildings  The character and appearance of open space and green spaces including existing Visually Important Undeveloped Areas (VIUAs) or further  VIUAs which may be designated in the Local Plan Sites Document or in a Neighbourhood Plan. Development proposals on land designated  as a VIUA will only be permitted where the benefits of the development proposed significantly outweigh the loss or damage to the character of the settlement  Views, vistas and skylines that are provided and framed by the above and/or influenced by the position of key historic or landmark buildings and structures  The type, texture and colour of materials, quality and type of building techniques and elements of architectural detail.”

6.78 SP17 ‘Managing Air Quality, Land and Water Resources’, inter alia, includes references to protecting land resources such as best and most versatile agricultural land, reducing flood risk and the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS).

6.79 SP19 ‘Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development’ carries forward the presumption contained in the NPPF and states that the Council will take a positive approach when considering development proposals and “always work proactively with applicants jointly to find solutions which mean that proposals can be approved wherever possible, and to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area”. The policy states that “planning applications that accord with the policies in this Local Plan (and, where relevant, with policies in Neighbourhood Plans) will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise”. The policy also contains the text from the NPPF which is set out in paragraph 6.4 of this report which advises of instances where there are no policies relevant to the application or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision.

6.80 SP20 ‘Generic Development Management Issues’, with regard to character states “New development will respect the character and context of the immediate locality and the wider landscape character in terms of physical features and the type and variety of existing uses”.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/41

60

7.0 Planning Considerations

7.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that all planning authorities must determine each planning application in accordance with the planning policies that comprise the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In light of the abovementioned policies the main considerations in this instance are the principle of the proposed development, the objections to the development including the reinjection of produced water and risk perception, the impact of the pipeline on the Source Protection Zone (SPZ2), the impact that the proposed development may have on land resources, crossings and the pipeline installation, flood risk and drainage, landscape and visual impact, local amenity, traffic and transportation, public access, the historic environment, habitats, nature conservation and protected species and employment.

Principle of the development

7.2 The NPPF reflects the Government’s overall commitment to secure economic growth aimed at the creation of jobs and prosperity and particularly the support for sustainable economic growth in rural areas (paragraph 28). It also highlights that minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth (paragraph 142 & 144).

7.3 The proposed development would involve the piping of gas from the existing surface infrastructure at the Ebberston Moor South well site along a new 13.9km long 12” diameter underground pipeline to the existing Generating Station at Knapton together with water production and re-injection at the Ebberston Moor South well site in the National Park.

7.4 It is acknowledged that there is some conflict with ‘saved’ Policy 7/7 of the NYMLP which encourages the use of existing available pipelines in preference to duplication but the development would avoid duplication of surface installations in accordance with ‘saved’ Policy 7/7. The pipeline would form part of a wider network which serves a number of gasfields for which licenses have been approved within the Vale of Pickering and Ebberston Moor area and would therefore comply with ‘saved’ Policy 7/6 of the NYMLP (1997). Furthermore, the development is a joint venture between Third Energy and Moorland Energy and it would effectively combine elements of the two extant planning permissions (unimplemented) referred to in paragraphs 2.16 and 2.18 of this report, namely the Ryedale Gas project and the EMA-Knapton gas pipeline. As a result the benefits are two-fold in that the development would utilise existing infrastructure at both the well site and KGS and combine the two extant permissions so to avoid duplication arising from the implementation of two separate and competing projects. This is considered to be a material consideration which should be afforded significant weight in the decision making process.

7.5 Members will recall that the planning permission) granted by NYCC in April 2014 (ref. C3/13/01195/CPO) permitted the construction of a 15.3 km long 8” underground pipeline from the Ebberston Moor ‘A’ Wellsite to Knapton NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/42

61

Generating Station, East Knapton, Malton. The Ebberston Moor ‘A’ Wellsite is 2.5km north of the Ebberston Moor South wellsite. The current proposed development under consideration would follow much of the same consented pipeline route. The length of pipeline route from Ebberston Moor South wellsite to the Dalby Forest and to the north and east of Warren House will follow the same route as part of the pipeline consented by the Secretary of State in June 2012 (Ryedale Gas Project). The only sections of the proposed pipeline route which does not have consent is from south of Warren House to the A170, a distance of 1.5km.

7.6 The applicant states that significant reserves of gas have been discovered at the well site and elsewhere within the Ebberston Moor gas field. The proposed development forms part of the phased development of the Ebberston Moor Gas Field, to transfer the extracted gas via a pipeline to KGS where the sour gas would be burned to produce energy. There is national support for energy infrastructure to help manage the UK’s need to import gas and the NPPF recognises the benefits of mineral extraction to the national economy. Furthermore, the Government supports an appropriate mix of technologies to meet the Country’s energy demands and gas has a role to play.

7.7 Since the granting of the extant permissions the Government has published a significant amount of planning policy and guidance relating to unconventional gas extraction (‘fracking’). However, it is not considered that there has been any significant national or local policy changes since the previous two principle permissions to warrant a refusal on existing or changed policy grounds alone. Therefore, having regard to the national and local policy and guidance summarised above it is considered that the principle of the proposal for the utilisation of natural gas extraction from an existing well site and piped to the existing generating station to create electricity is considered to be acceptable subject to the effect of the development upon the local environment and wider landscape, highway safety and local amenity.

Opposition to the applications

7.8 NYCC has received approximately 150 objections to the application and it is understood that the NYMNPA received approximately 200 objections regarding the duplicate application. The most significant environmental objections to the development relate to the proposals at the existing Ebberston Moor South well site within the North York Moors National Park administrative area. A number of objections raise concerns based on the perceived similarity to the concerns relating to hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’) that is used in the extraction of unconventional gas or oil from deep tight shales. In summary the objections include the risks of groundwater pollution, the role of geological controls on pollution, borehole integrity, injection rates and the risk of seismicity, the use of conceptual models, the lack of an independent analysis or survey, that the application may set a precedent for future applications and that a pre-cautionary principle against the development should be adopted.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/43

62

7.9 The aforementioned objections were considered in the NYMNPA report to their Planning Committee on 19 March 2015. It is not considered necessary to deliberate such objections in detail in this report although for completeness the main issues will be explained in the subsequent paragraphs of this report. 

7.10 Firstly, a number of objections have made direct links between the proposal under consideration and similarities with hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’) that is used in the extraction of unconventional gas or oil from deep shales. It is important to note that the application does not propose the use of ‘fracking’ techniques and also the NYMNPA Committee report for the Ebberston Moor South well site includes a planning condition, should permission be granted, which would only permit the extraction of conventional natural gas by conventional drilling methods and would not permit drilling down to the Bowland-Hodder Shale horizons or hydraulic fracturing of any part of the gas reservoir resource. It should be noted that should NYCC members resolve to grant planning permission there would be no duplication of planning conditions specific to the Ebberston Moor South well site on a permission granted by NYCC as Minerals Planning Authority. The Ebberston Moor South well site falls within the NYMNPA administrative area and therefore, should NYMNPA grant permission, it would be within their remit to include planning controls in respect of matters such as injection rates, extraction quantity and methods, removal of above ground well site structures and site restoration etc).  7.11 A number of objections have raised concerns about risks from pollution. In considering such objections it is important to note that planning and other regulatory regimes are separate, but complementary. The planning system controls the development and use of land in the public interest and, as stated in paragraphs 120 and 122 of the NPPF, this includes ensuring that new development is appropriate for its location taking account the effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution. The focus of the planning system is on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land and the impacts of those uses, rather than any control processes, health and safety issues or potential pollutants themselves where these are subject to approval under other regimes. The NPPF advises that local planning authorities should assume that these regimes will operate effectively.  7.12 There are several layers of regulation associated with the exploration and production of gas which, in addition to local planning authorities, involves the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency.

7.13 The Environment Agency’s Environmental Permits are issued under Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2012 (EPR) and the process requires the detailed technical investigations to examine the potential risks and the use of best available technology and best practice. In this instance the proposed development borehole would require a mining waste permit for the management of extractive wastes and a permit for the management of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) wastes NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/44

63

(such as produced water, sediments and scales) will also be required. The Environment Agency have advised that the development may also require a groundwater permit, an Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) permit, a groundwater investigation consent followed by a water abstraction licence and also a water discharge activity permit.

7.14 With regard to the produced water re-injection process, which is subject to the Environmental Permitting consenting regime, in line with the abovementioned NPPF policy it is not a planning authority’s role to duplicate the control of processes which the Environment Agency exercise. However, numerous objections were received in relation to the risks of the produced water re- injection process and the Planning Authority should be satisfied that such matters can be satisfactorily addressed. On this point the NYMNPA took the decision that in order to ensure the NYMNPA can “satisfy itself at a ‘high level’ that the hydrogeology concerns have been satisfactory addressed other than relying on the Environmental Permitting Regime” commissioned an independent hydrological and hydrogeological review of the project (‘AMEC Technical Note Application Review- Groundwater pollution and land stability’). The findings of the AMEC report are referred to in the following sections of the report. 

Reinjection of produced water

7.15 At the EMS well site the applicant proposes the reinjection of the waste water produced from the gas producing strata (the Permian Kirkham Abbey Formation) into the Sherwood Sandstone Layer. All the produced water is highly saline and contains Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORMs) in its composition, along with other chemicals associated with drilling. The injection of water into the water already present in the Sherwood Sandstone would occur more than 35km from groundwater aquifers.

7.16 The objections from the anti fracking groups state a concern that the re- injection of the ‘produced water’ into different strata to that drilled for the gas reserve is based on a conceptual model and is a new technique untested onshore. The anti-fracking groups and individual objectors are concerned that with the large amount of water to be injected into the Sherwood Sandstone layer and the pressure of the injection when combined with the natural geology (faulting) indicates that there would be considerable risk of migration of produced waste water into aquifers (i.e. contamination of groundwater used for drinking water).

7.17 The applicant states that the diameter and construction of the existing borehole will physically limit the amount of water that can be injected into the Sherwood Sandstone to a maximum of 573m3/day (3,500bbl/day). In order to achieve higher rates of production and injection, it is also proposed to construct a second borehole to extract water from the KAF and inject it into the Sherwood Sandstone.

7.18 The applicant states that the “injection pressure will always be maintained below the material strength of the Sherwood Sandstone formation and

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/45

64

therefore below the pressure required to fracture or displace the rock. There is consequently a negligible risk of induced seismicity as a result of produced water injection”.

7.19 The NYMNPA, following consideration of the findings of the Independent Hydrogeological Report, stated in their Committee report to Members that the main issue “is the mismatch between the significant risk mitigation afforded by the limiting of water injection rates to 556m3/d and distance to the most relevant Helmsley-Filey fault against the applicants suggested possible maximum injection rate of 1344m3/d. In the absence of evidence to demonstrate that the upper 1344m3/d rate has the same or similar risk mitigation it is recommended that a planning condition be imposed to secure the risk mitigation”. Therefore, the NYMNPA Committee report included a planning condition which, if planning permission is granted by NYMNPA, would limit the daily produced water injection to a maximum of 556 m³/d at the Ebberston Moor South well site.

7.20 In terms of the risk of seismicity and in light of the planning condition referred to above the injection pressure would not exceed the fracture pressure and continuous monitoring would ensure pressures do not rise too high or too quickly. On this matter the NYMNPA Committee report concluded that officers were satisfied that “having regard to the suggested planning conditions and to the detailed protection of the various dimensions to the Environmental Permitting Regime, it is not considered that there are grounds to warrant a refusal of planning permission on hydrogeological grounds in respect of pollution and ground stability”.

Risk perceptions

7.21 The objections demonstrate that there are fears held by the public due to the nature and location of the development. The perceived risks largely relate to the proposed injection of produced water at the EMS well site into the Sherwood Sandstone. There are worse case scenarios and emergency events described in the objections such as well casing failure or groundwater migration affecting drinking water, seismic activity and the release of radioactive substances, toxic and explosive gases to the atmosphere. Such concerns held by the public may constitute a material planning consideration even if the actual risk is low.

7.22 However the actual risk has been quantified and assessed by the applicant’s groundwater consultant in the Environmental Statement which in turn has been verified by the independent AMEC hydrogeological report commissioned by the NYMNPA.

7.23 In brief the independent hydrogeological report found that having regard to the mitigation proposed, AMEC considers the applicant’s position that the potential ‘significant’ effects can be reduced to ‘not significant’ (including contamination of watercourses and aquifers which support public water supplies and induced seismicity) although it should be noted it is effective delivery of the mitigation which delivers the risk reduction.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/46

65

7.24 It is considered that subject to planning controls in the form of conditions and the incorporation of the proposed mitigation (regulated by the Environment Agency permit) the actual risk to the environment and public is very low and, therefore, whilst the perceived risk is a material consideration, it should be afforded limited weight in the decision making process.  Pipeline and the Source Protection Zone (SPZ2)

7.25 The Environment Agency initially raised concerns that the short section of pipeline which leads to the EMS well site would pass through the Source Protection Zone 2 (SPZ2) of the Corallian Limestone principle aquifer which feeds Scarborough’s drinking water. The Environment Agency stated that they would only permit pipelines to passes through SPZ2 if the applicant can demonstrate that their siting within these areas is unavoidable.

7.26 The applicant responded to the Environment Agency and stated that the existing well site is within the SPZ2 and there is an existing permission for a short stretch of pipeline westwards from the wellsite within SPZ2 for which the Environment Agency raised no objections subject to a number of conditions to protect the water environment. The applicant highlighted that in granting the permission the Secretary of State was satisfied that the development would not have an adverse impact upon the groundwater protection zone. The pipeline proposed as part of the application under consideration follows the route previously approved. Furthermore the applicant states that the Environmental Statement demonstrates that the construction and operation of the pipeline would not have any adverse impact upon the groundwater protection zone. The applicant concluded that given the existing wellsite is within SPZ2, any pipeline route to the site would need to cross part of the SPZ2, making the route therefore unavoidable. The Environment Agency has not raised any further concerns or objections and request the inclusion of conditions relating to groundwater protection and flood risk together with informative advice to the applicant.  Community engagement

7.27 With regard to objections that are critical of the applicant’s pre-submission community engagement exercise it is evident that the applicant held a pre- submission public exhibition although the effectiveness is a matter disputed by the anti-fracking groups. However, whilst best practice at the national level in the PPG and local level in NYCC’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) encourages developers to engage with the public prior to submitting an application it is not a statutory requirement and no weight is to be afforded to such objections in the decision making process.

Devaluation of Property

7.28 A number of concerns have also been raised with regard to the potential negative impact of the development on the local housing market in terms of property prices. However, whilst a genuine concern to residents, the potential

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/47

66

adverse effect on property prices and land value is not a material planning consideration and is not afforded any weight in the decision making process.  Land Resources

7.29 The proposed route of the pipeline corridor would affect a combination of land used for agricultural, forestry or access purposes. However the majority of the land affected by the pipeline corridor is in agricultural use which includes approximately 4km of the route considered to be ‘Best and Most Versatile’ agricultural land. Section 11 of the NPPF and Policy SP17 of the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013) seek to minimise the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land to new development. There are concerns that the development would be incompatible with Ryedale’s agricultural economy in terms of operation farms and productive capacity of farmland directly affected by the development both during and after construction.   7.30 The proposed development would impact upon a large stretch of agricultural land and therefore the land resource cannot be fully protected. However, due to the extent of the pipeline route and the rural location of the development in the Vale of Pickering, the proposed underground pipeline to link the Ebberston Moor South well site to KGS cannot be located elsewhere to avoid impacting upon agricultural land.

7.31 During pipe installation topsoil and subsoil would be stripped and stockpiled in rows along the edge of the construction working corridor to be distributed on completion of the construction activities. The trench would be backfilled with in excess of 1 metre of topsoil and subsoil to cover the pipe to avoid any modern farm machinery potentially striking the pipeline from above. Therefore soils would be retained at the construction site and re-used during the reinstatement of the agricultural land and associated drainage. The applicant has demonstrated that the installation of the pipeline could be managed to minimise the impact upon the agricultural land and the land reinstated so there is not an irreversible loss of agricultural land in accordance with the aforementioned national and local policy.

7.32 It is considered that the need for the development and specifically the requirement to bury the pipeline within the ground outweighs the temporary disruption to the use of the land resource and the development is in compliance with the guidance contained within the NPPF and Policy SP17 of the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013).  Crossings and pipeline installation

7.33 The pipeline route would cross various features along its route including the Scheduled Monuments in its northern extent, the railway, the River Derwent and a number of roads. The applicant proposes the use of auger boring, directional drilling or alternative suitable installation techniques where appropriate to limit surface disturbance.

7.34 Auger boring involves a length of pipe being moved through the ground beneath the obstacle by an auger tool in the pipe which removes the spoil NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/48

67

from the face of the pipe. In contrast directional drilling would involve drilling the reception hole and then pulling the pipe through it. Once the pipe has reached the end of the crossing, it forms part of the permanent pipeline. These options would be used for the construction of the pipeline crossings rather than open cut techniques because they cause less surface disturbance.

7.35 The proposed development would cause short-term disruption to landowners but the proposed remediation scheme to return the land to farmland indicates that the pipeline can be accommodated without permanent loss of agricultural land. It is therefore considered that the development would not result in a significant adverse impact upon local agriculture and the rural economy and would not conflict with Section 3 of the NPPF.

7.36 In addition, where the proposed pipeline would cross existing high pressure pipelines, high voltage electricity or other third party services will be clearly identified by the owner of the service and hand excavated within the last metre on both sides.  7.37 The National Grid initially lodged a holding objection to the proposed development which will cross the National Grid High-Pressure Gas Pipeline (Feeder 06 Pickering to Burton Agnes). However following negotiations with the applicant in respect of their proposed crossing details the National Grid confirmed that their holding objection can be overcome by a condition requiring the applicant to enter into a Deed of Consent to protect National Grid assets. If planning permission is granted the requirement for a Deed of Consent can only be covered by an informative whereas a condition shall be included requiring the submission of detailed Method Statements and Risk Assessment to ensure that the development would not have an adverse impact upon National Grid infrastructure.

7.38 The proposed pipeline would pass under the York – Scarborough Railway line immediately north of KGS. Network Rail have not commented on the application although in line with the Network Rail requirements included in planning permission reference C3/13/01195/CPO it is considered prudent to include an informative on any grant of planning permission to cover the requirement for an easement to pass under the railway.

7.39 It is considered that the development would not have an unacceptable impact upon existing installations, infrastructure and features in the area and would not conflict with the NPPF or ‘saved’ policy 4/1(c) of the NYMLP (1997).   Flood Risk and Drainage

7.40 The proposed pipeline would affect land adjacent to the River Derwent and its associated flood plain (Flood Zones 2 & 3 immediately to north and south of the river). Paragraph 103 of the NPPF states that “when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere”. The Environmental Statement includes a Flood Risk

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/49

68

Assessment which concludes that the proposal development would not exacerbate or add to the risk of flooding.

7.41 With regard to land drainage the applicant proposes that the drainage of the land crossed by the pipeline would be preserved. During construction, all drains severed by the trench digging operation would be identified and recorded and the most appropriate method of reinstatement discussed and agreed with the landowner. The applicant states that, if necessary, new lateral and header drains will be laid to outfalls to replace drains rendered inoperative by the pipeline.

7.42 The fields affected by the pipeline route south of the A170 that are located within Flood Zone 1 are kept free of flooding by the network of drains and dikes that cross the area. The applicant highlights that these watercourses must be maintained to avoid groundwater levels rising and causing floods. To the south of the railway sands and gravels form a minor aquifer in the superficial deposits.

7.43 The objector’s hydrogeological report states that there is the potential for the pipeline ditch to intercept the shallow water table south of the A170, in which case there may be a requirement to dewater the ditch during construction activities.

7.44 The applicant’s proposals state that to ensure dewatering of sections of the pipeline ditch the water course crossings will be flumed with approved designs prior to commencement of construction and the water flow would not be interrupted or diverted. This would involve pipes laid within the watercourse over a length greater that the maximum crossing of construction traffic, a ‘terram’ or similar fabric layer and granular fill material deposited to a level to match the surrounding ground level. Upon completion of construction the materials would be removed and the watercourse reinstated.

7.45 The dewatering would be undertaken by either excavation sump and pump through filtration system into the existing watercourse or by the ‘well point system’ which is standard temporary method for controlling water ingress and would only cause temporary water derogation. The dewatering would be design for minimal disruption and the applicant has confirmed that the pipeline construction would take place during summer when the water tale is at its lowest. All dewatering activities would be subject to Environment Agency and Water Drainage Board approval prior to construction. The adverse impacts caused by any require dewatering would be short term and localized and mitigation measures are to be incorporated to reduce the impacts.

7.46 In addition, in compliance with Policy SP17 of the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013), Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) would be used to reduce flood risk, improve water quality, assist groundwater recharge whilst also providing amenity and wildlife benefits. The Environment Agency has raised no objections to the development subject to the inclusion of specific flood risk conditions. It is considered that the development would not increase flood risk within the River Derwent flood plains nor have an adverse impact

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/50

69

upon the water environment and the development is in compliance with the guidance contained within the NPPF, ‘saved’ Policy 4/10 and 4/14 of the NYMLP (1997) and Policy SP17 of the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013).

Landscape and Visual Impact

7.47 The Environmental Statement includes a full Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) and a Landscape Strategy Plan. The majority of the pipeline route within North Yorkshire is through low-lying arable farmland in the Vale of Pickering.

7.48 During construction the pipeline corridor would have a 30 metre working width. The elements of the construction works that would have the most significant visual effect (albeit temporary) would be the presence and movements of plant and vehicles, the site compound, soil stripping and material storage during the installation of the pipeline. However the pipeline construction activity in the working corridor would be a moving event; activity remaining in one location for a relatively short period.

7.49 There would be localised adverse visual impacts during construction and due to the topography of the landscape in the Vale of Pickering the temporary disturbance along the route of the pipeline would be potentially visible from further afield. The County Council’s Principal Landscape Architect acknowledges that there could be views from public rights of way and some residential properties during construction. It is considered that temporary screening would not be required in this instance given the mobile nature of the pipeline construction corridor and views of the construction corridor from roads within the Vale of Pickering would be generally screened by intervening hedgerows.

7.50 The County Council’s Principal Landscape Architect has acknowledged that in terms of the potential for cumulative landscape effects the current application under consideration is preferred scheme as there is clear benefit in a combined development as opposed to the construction of the two previously consented routes.

7.51 The Landscape Strategy Plan for the development identifies the existing planting to be retained, removed, and proposed. The proposed landscaping works would involve ground modelling works associated with felling of woodland. In addition the works would include soil preparation, tree and vegetation planting and seeding once the pipeline has been constructed.  7.52 The pipeline working corridor would run parallel to a plantation of trees (Avenue Plantation at Knapton Lodge) and it is important that root protection areas are established and that trees are protected and avoided during construction. It is proposed that conditions are imposed should any grant of planning permission be forthcoming to ensure that work takes account of the potential for damage to existing planting adjacent to the pipeline route.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/51

70

7.53 The proposed development includes plans to restore the agricultural landscape, through which the pipeline route passes once the pipeline has been completed to an equivalent quality to that prior to construction. This would include the reinstatement of hedgerows and field boundaries immediately following construction. A planning condition could be imposed should a grant of planning permission be forthcoming to secure the implementation of proposals for landscape mitigation.

7.54 With regard to the proposed works within the existing KGS to install a new gas reception module adjacent to the existing gas reception infrastructure it is considered that in light of the existing mature vegetation on the site perimeter with a significant canopy cover will ensure there is no landscape or visual impact.

7.55 The County Council’s Principal Landscape Architect has not raised any concerns about residual impacts on amenity, views or landscape character within the Vale of Pickering. A Landscape Strategy has been developed which would include replacement planting which would aim to enhance and complement the local landscape character. It is considered that whilst there would be temporary disturbance within the landscape during construction the development, once complete, would be accommodated with the rural landscape and there would be minimal landscape and visual impact in the long term. It is considered that the development would not have an unacceptable impact upon the landscape character of the area nor visual amenity and complies with the NPPF, ‘saved’ policies 4/1 and 4/14 of the NYMLP (1997) and policies SP13, SP16 and SP20 of the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013).  Local Amenity

7.56 The route of the pipeline working corridor would pass isolated residential properties however the construction activities would be mobile within the working corridor and any impacts would not be ‘fixed’ in one location during construction (the working corridor would be a moving event). The District EHO has highlighted that during pipeline construction noise and dust are potential issues for the nearby sensitive receptors which, at the closest point, stand approximately 100 metres from the pipeline corridor. However the EHO acknowledges that “the construction of the pipeline will be transitory and limited in duration with respect to any single noise receptor”. The EHO does not anticipate any undue disturbance to sensitive receptors and is satisfied that any potential for noise disturbance during the pipeline construction could be adequately controlled by restricting the hours of work during construction which would be covered by the CEMP. There would be no odour issues associated with the installation of the pipeline. With regard to vibration it is not anticipated that the occupants of residential properties would be disturbed or damage caused due to the separation distance from the pipeline construction machinery. A planning condition requiring the approval of the CEMP could be imposed should any grant of planning permission be forthcoming. With regard to the proposed works in the National Park at the existing Ebberston Moor South well site the District Council (Planning & Environmental Health) has

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/52

71

requested the inclusion of conditions requiring an odour management plan, restrictions on the method of drilling for the gas (conventional extraction) and has also set noise limits and requirements for noise monitoring for the well site. As these matters fall within the NYMNPA administrative area those conditions are not required to be duplicated on any planning permission granted by NYCC for the development.

7.57 With regard to the potential for light pollution security lighting is proposed at the construction compound. However the applicant states that steps would be taken to minimise upward and outward light pollution. In addition, the Applicant would ensure that only the minimum area would be lit, for the minimum period of time. The lighting would correspond with the working hours which could also be restricted by condition. In addition a condition could be included to ensure the prior approval of the lighting scheme prior to the commencement of development should Members be minded to resolve to grant planning permission.  7.58 For these reasons, it is considered that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on local amenity and complies with the NPPF, ‘saved’ policies 4/1 and 4/14 of the NYMLP (1997) and policies SP17 and SP20 of the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013).  Traffic and Transportation

7.59 The Environmental Statement indicates that the pipeline would be constructed over a 23-week period with an anticipated 18 HGV movements per day associated with the pipeline installation. The applicant has confirmed that delivery and construction hours would be between 07:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday and 07:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays.

7.60 The application is accompanied by a detailed traffic and transportation assessment which includes a traffic management plan including details of proposed access arrangements to the pipeline route off the A170 and B1258 Malton Road and from Marishes Lane and Malton Lane. The applicant states that the vehicular access points to the pipeline working corridor would be near to, but not necessarily at, the point where the line of the pipeline crosses a road and therefore the applicant proposes to use existing field entry points. The applicant also proposes highways measures to include pre-entry road surveys, traffic light controls where appropriate, and advance warning signs erected either side of the access point, which would be chosen to ensure adequate sight lines, and the entrance design would enable unsupervised safe access and egress.

7.61 The Highway Authority confirmed that there are no highway objections to this proposal subject to conditions being attached to any permission granted to cover the construction of accesses, precautions to prevent the deposit of mud on the highway, a highway condition survey, on-site parking and storage of materials, the prior approval and construction of off site highway improvement works, a restriction on access via the A170 to avoid weekends and Bank Holidays, a construction traffic environmental management plan and an informative to protect public rights of ways in the area. NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/53

72

7.62 With regard to level crossings in the area the applicant has confirmed that there is no intention for any general use of crossings by construction traffic and private although any exceptions to this, which may include movement of machinery that might need to cross the railway from one section of the pipeline to the other, will be under the direct supervision of a Network Rail linesman. This requirement can be detailed in an informative which would be attached to any grant of planning permission. The vehicle routing and details of any potential requirement for passage over a railway crossing could be included in the construction traffic management plan to be secured by condition should planning permission be granted. In light of the above it is not anticipated that the traffic arising from the pipeline construction period would have an adverse impact upon Network Rail infrastructure or the safe operation of the railway in the area.

7.63 Once the construction phase is complete, there will be minimal traffic relating to the operation of the development. It is not anticipated that the construction traffic would cause any disturbance at unreasonable hours. It is considered that the bulk transport of material by road is necessary given that other nonroad transportation is not feasible in this locality and furthermore the traffic generated will not have an unacceptable impact on the local community and complies with the NPPF, ‘saved’ Policy 4/13 of the NYMLP (1997) and Policy SP20 of the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013).  Public Access

7.64 There are a number of Public Rights of Way affected by the proposed pipeline route. The applicant has identified a number of PRoWs in their ES which are either affected by the construction work by virtue of being a nearby visual receptor or directly impacted by the route of the pipeline construction corridor.

7.65 The supporting text for ‘saved’ Policy 4/15 contained within the NYMLP (1997) highlights that the public rights of way network is an important means of accessing and enjoying the countryside. It is therefore important that this network and the public using it are protected from mineral-related development. The policy indicates that operators will be required to protect existing users and to provide acceptable alternative arrangements with a measure of segregation from mineral activities.

7.66 It is proposed that the impact on footpath users during construction would be mitigated through implementing footpath diversion orders for the duration of the works. These matters could be covered by the inclusion of conditions and informatives on any permission granted for the development.

7.67 Any potential detrimental effect upon the enjoyment of the use of the network of footpaths and bridleways in the area would be on a temporary basis during the construction period after which existing routes would be reinstated. It is considered that subject to the temporary closure/diversion of footpaths and bridleways affected by the pipeline installation the development would not conflict with the NPPF, ‘saved’ Policy 4/15 of the North Yorkshire Minerals

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/54

73

Local Plan (1997) or policies SP15 and SP20 of the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013).  The Historic Environment

7.68 The Environmental Statement has highlighted that archaeology from the prehistoric to the post-medieval periods is present within the assessment area and the scheme as a whole would impact upon Scheduled Monuments of National Importance.

7.69 English Heritage has acknowledged the impacts of the development upon Scheduled Monuments of National Importance and the wider landscape, which is of considerable archaeological importance. English Heritage have highlighted that the area is significant for its extensive and highly visible earthwork remains of the prehistoric period, most notably the dyke systems and groups of burial mounds. English Heritage initially stated that the application be deferred to permit the compilation and implementation of an agreed scheme of assessment of the archaeological potential of the application site and thereafter the creation of an agreed mitigation strategy.

7.70 However, following further discussions between the applicant, English Heritage, NYMNPA and the County Archaeologist, it was accepted that there is not sufficient new archaeological evidence to merit an objection and that an archaeological condition would be appropriate should the application be approved.

7.71 The archaeological monitoring and recording arrangements proposed and secured by condition would ensure the development would have negligible impacts on archaeology. It is considered that the development would have ‘less than substantial harm’ (paragraph 134 of NPPF) and the physical impact can be mitigated through the implementation of directional drilling beneath the Scheduled Monument and by securing an agreed archaeological mitigation strategy. Therefore an informative could be included to advise the applicant of the requirement for Scheduled Monument Consent before work on site commences and also a condition requiring that a comprehensive Written Scheme of Investigation for the archaeological strategy is agreed. This approach would allow for the development of a strategy for mitigation in accordance with Section 12 of the NPPF.

7.72 A section of the proposed pipeline construction corridor would run parallel to the Grade II listed property at Knapton Lodge which stands approximately 100 metres west of the pipeline corridor and whilst not physical affecting the building it could be considered to affect its setting. The construction activities would be a temporary feature in the landscape and would not be located adjacent to Knapton Lodge for any significant length of time. Furthermore the applicant has confirmed that the construction methods will take account of root protection requirements to ensure the development does not undermine the established plantation of trees to the east of the property (‘Avenue Plantation’). Upon completion of the pipeline installation it is not anticipated

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/55

74

that the development would have any long term impact upon the setting of the Grade II listed property.

7.73 The existing plantation to the east of the property would provide a visual and physical buffer between the pipeline construction corridor and the Grade II listed Knapton Lodge. It is therefore considered that as a result of the separation distance and the intervening planting the proposed development would cause less than substantial harm to the heritage asset. Furthermore the pipeline installation, once complete, would not give rise to material harm to the setting of Knapton Lodge and the development would not conflict with the guidance in Section 12 of the NPPF.  Habitats and Nature Conservation

7.74 The proposed pipeline would run underneath the River Derwent, approximately 6km upstream from the River Derwent Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The pipeline crossing at the River Derwent follows the alignment which was approved in April 2014 (permission ref. C3/13/01195/CPO). However, there are objections that have highlighted concerns that the pipeline crossing of the River Derwent would adversely affect nature conversation and protected species. Due to the nature of the development there is potential that drilling activities underneath the river during construction could result in increased sedimentation of the designated section of river and impact upon the fish populations for which the river is designated (also a SSSI). As the competent Authority (North Yorkshire County Council) a required to undertake a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) of the proposed development due to the potential for likely significant effects on a European site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects).

7.75 The County Ecologist has considered applicant’s ‘Report to Inform Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) Screening’ contained with the Environmental Statement. The report provides information on the type of drilling proposed to be undertaken under the River Derwent, the depth of drilling, impacts on underlying geomorphology and the distance from the river where trenching would stop and directional drilling would begin. The applicant proposes non open-cut horizontal directional drilling techniques to construct the pipeline beneath the River Derwent to minimise disturbance to the watercourse and river habitats. This technique is a non-intrusive and trenchless method of installing underground pipes, conduits and cables in a shallow arc along a prescribed bore path by using a surface launched drilling rig. The entry and exit pits would be outside of the flood plains so to minimize any possible effect on the River Derwent.

7.76 The County Ecologist has completed a stage 1 HRA screening assessment which concluded that there will be no significant impacts on the River Derwent SAC. This conclusion is in line with the Natural England advice that “the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on any European site, and can therefore be screened out from any requirement for further assessment”.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/56

75

7.77 With regard to non-designated habitats the County Council’s Ecologist notes that the proposed pipeline working corridor would affect largely arable land of low nature conservation value and woodland blocks and is satisfied that the potential impacts of the proposed works would not be significant.  Protected Species & Biodiversity

7.78 The Environmental Statement indicates that the likely ecological implications are limited to potential impacts on breeding birds, bats, badger, water vole and reptiles and the applicant proposes to set out all the necessary steps to mitigate ecological impacts to an acceptable level during the construction phase.

7.79 The County Council’s Ecologist is satisfied that the development would not have a significant ecological impact subject to the inclusion of conditions requiring the protection of retained trees and tree groups (for bats), updated pre-commencement species surveys and the implementation of habitat restoration plans.

7.80 With regard to ecological enhancement, paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that “opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged”. The County Council’s Ecologist has requested that the applicant considers the inclusion of ecological enhancements as a part of the scheme. In this case, potential enhancement measures could include increasing the botanical diversity of impacted ditches, creating species-rich hedgerows in appropriate areas and erecting bat and bird boxes. This is capable of being secured by planning condition if planning permission is granted.

7.81 There are no statutory protected sites (SSSI SPA/SAC, RAMSAR sites) or local designations (SINCs) that would be impacted by the proposed development. The County Council’s Ecologist has no objections to the proposed development subject to the imposition of the aforementioned conditions and it is considered that there would be no significant adverse impact on any statutory protected sites or on any locally designated SINCs. The development is therefore considered to be in compliance with the NPPF and would not conflict with ‘saved’ Policy 4/6A of the NYMLP (1997) or Policy SP14 of the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013).  Employment

7.82 The proposed development would create approximately 50 direct jobs during the construction phase and once operational would create three jobs for the applicant’s employees relating to the management of operations at the site and site management along with indirect jobs. In addition the development, which would support the generation of power at KGS for up to 15 years, would help safeguard the employment of the 23 existing employees at KGS.

7.83 The development would beneficial effect on employment and it is considered that the development would have a positive impact upon the local economy

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/57

76

through the generation of local employment opportunities and economic activity which is supported in national planning policy in the NPPF.  8.0 Conclusion

8.1 The proposed development would effectively combine elements of the two extant planning permissions (unimplemented), namely the Ryedale Gas project (Moorland Energy) and the EMA-Knapton gas pipeline (Third Energy). The implementation of the proposed development would avoid duplication and would utilise existing infrastructure at both the EMS well site and KGS. This is considered to be a significant material planning consideration in favour of the scheme.

8.2 Notwithstanding the resolution of the NYMNPA Planning Committee on 19 March 2015 to defer a decision, the officer recommendation, as contained in the report to members, concluded “that ‘exceptional circumstances’ apply to justify this form of major development in a National Park” and that “it has been reasonably demonstrated that there are no significant hydrogeological risks from the project to water pollution or land stability”. Furthermore there are no objections to the proposed development from any statutory consultees.

8.3 It is considered that the proposed development overall, is consistent with the aims of national planning policy and guidance, the ‘saved’ policies from the adopted North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan and ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’. The proposal would sustain energy supply and the contribution of mineral-related employment to the local economy and would not result in material harm to the landscape character nor have an unacceptable impact upon the environment and local amenity.

8.4 This report and any subsequent resolution by Members of the Committee, whilst making reference to the development proposal as a whole, are made only insofar as the part of the application which lies under the jurisdiction of the County Council as County Planning Authority. It is considered that there are no material planning considerations to warrant the refusal of this application for natural gas production and water re-injection at the existing borehole at the Ebberston Moor South well site; the construction and drilling of a second borehole for water production and re-injection; the construction of a 13.9km long 12` diameter steel underground pipeline from Ebberston Moor South well site to transfer natural gas to the Knapton Generating Station and installation of a new gas reception module at the Generating Station.

9.0 Recommendation

9.1 For the following reasons: i) The development is in accordance with the ‘saved’ policies of the North Yorkshire Minerals Local Plan (1997), the policies of the ‘Ryedale Plan- Local Plan Strategy’ (2013) and overall is consistent with the NPPF (2012);

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/58

77

ii) The proposal does not conflict with the abovementioned policies as it is considered that the existing highway network is capable of handling the volume of traffic generated by the development, the visual impact of the proposed development can be mitigated through condition, the environmental impacts of the proposed development can be controlled, neighbouring residential properties will not be adversely affected and there are no other material considerations indicating a refusal in the public interest;

iii) The imposition of planning conditions will further limit the impact of the development on the environment, residential amenity and the transport network; and

iv) Having taken into account all the environmental information submitted as part of this planning application included within the Environmental Statement

That, PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1. The development to which this permission relates must be implemented no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this Decision Notice.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the application details dated 8 August 2014 and the Environmental Statement dated August 2014 and the ‘Approved Documents’ as listed on the Decision Notice and the following conditions which at all times shall take precedence.

3. Tree protection measures as set out in BS5837- 2012 ‘Trees in relation to construction’ shall be provided for retained trees adjacent to the pipeline corridor prior to the development hereby approved being commenced and shall thereafter be retained throughout the lifetime of the construction works. During construction there shall be no parking of vehicles, siting of compounds or materials stored within the vicinity of any of the retained mature trees or hedgerows adjacent to the application site.

4. No development shall take place within the application area until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the County Planning Authority.

5. The details submitted in pursuance of Condition 4 shall be preceded by the submission to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing, and subsequent implementation, of a scheme of archaeological investigation to provide for: (i) The proper identification and evaluation of the extent, character and significance of archaeological remains within the application area; (ii) an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/59

78

archaeological significance of the remains; This shall be followed by the submission of: (iii) proposals for the preservation in situ, or for the investigation, recording and recovery of archaeological remains and the analysis and publishing of the findings, it being understood that there shall be a presumption in favour of their preservation in situ wherever feasible; These proposals shall be approved by the County Planning Authority in writing, and implemented before any development authorised by this permission shall commence.

6. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, no works are to be undertaken which may create an obstruction, either permanent or temporary, to the Public Rights of Way adjacent to the proposed development nor to the route of the claimed Public Right of Way until all works connected with the Temporary Closure Orders have been carried out to the satisfaction of the County Highways Authority and the appropriate notices have been issued. Once the works are complete the surfaces of the affected Public Rights of Way shall be reinstated to the same condition as they were prior to the works commencing on site.

7. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures recommended for protected species as set out in Chapter 6 of the submitted Environmental Statement (ES) dated August 2014.

8. Prior to the commencement of development surveys for badger and water vole (as referred to in Chapter 6 of the submitted Environmental Statement (ES) dated August 2014) shall be completed to ensure that any presence can be taken into consideration in line with the relevant legislation. These surveys must be undertaken at the appropriate time of year by a suitably qualified ecologist and a report detailing changes in the status of these species and any additional mitigation measures that may be required shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for written approval.

9. Prior to the commencement of development a detailed reptile mitigation method statement shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. The development shall then proceed only in strict accordance with the approved scheme.

10. Prior to the commencement of development a habitat restoration scheme detailing the type and source of materials to be used, methodologies to be utilised, timing of the works and details of initial aftercare and longer-term maintenance shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. The development shall then proceed only in strict accordance with the approved scheme.

11. Prior to the commencement of development details of biodiversity enhancement features to be incorporated in the detailed design of the project shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. The development shall then proceed only in strict accordance with the approved scheme.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/60

79

12. Prior to the commencement of any development a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. This plan shall detail the following:

1. An assessment of the risks posed to groundwater quality during the construction phase. 2. The implementation of mitigation measures designed to protect groundwater 3. Details of the size, location and design of any site compounds, including how any potentially polluting materials will be stored to minimise the risk of pollution 4. No amount of fuel/oil greater than a 10 litres shall be stored in a portable container 5. All other fuel/oil to be stored in proprietary tanks with integral bunding with a capacity equal to not less than 110% of the capacity of the tank. Such tanks shall be not more than 2 years old at the time of installation on site and shall be located on a bunded, impervious hardstanding with a capacity of not less than 110% of the largest tank or largest combined volume of connected tanks. 6. All replenishment of tanks and containers and all refuelling of vehicles, plant and equipment shall take place within that bunded, impervious hardstanding. 7. Outside the normal hours of operation of the site on which they are deployed, all vehicles and plant operating shall be parked or stored on bunded, impervious hardstandings with a capacity not less than 110% of the fuel/oil that can be stored in the storage facilities, vehicles, plant or machinery that they are intended to accommodate. 8. Details of a protocol to deal with any pollution that may occur during the course of construction. 9. Details of how the requirements of the approved plan will be disseminated to all relevant staff/contractors throughout the construction period.

The development shall then proceed only in strict accordance with the approved plan.

13. With the exception of the initial site establishment phase, no construction work or movement of HGVs to and from the site shall take place unless between the following times: -  Monday to Friday: 07.00 - 18.00  Saturdays: 07.00 - 13.00

No construction work or movement of HGVs to and from the site shall take place on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays. The applicant shall make provision for notifying in writing the County Planning Authority and neighbouring residents 5 days in advance of any night time working within the application site.

14. There must be no raising of ground levels in the flood plain. All excess spoil

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/61

80

arising from the works must be removed from the floodplain. Any spoil stockpiles which are to be stored within the flood plain should be done so in broken heaps, positioned parallel to the flood flow.

15. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a scheme of crime prevention measures to be implemented during the construction period shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of arrangements for site security (including plant and machinery) and material storage during the construction period. Thereafter the construction period shall proceed in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.

16. All soils excavated to allow for the installation of the pipeline shall be retained in stockpiles within the application site and shall be used during the reinstatement of the surface of the land following the installation of the pipeline. Topsoil and subsoil shall be stored separately. During soil movement and handling operations, machinery shall be routed to avoid the compaction of soils.

17. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a detailed landscape strategy and maintenance programme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The development shall then proceed only in strict accordance with the approved scheme.

18. No external lighting associated with the development hereby approved shall be installed in the application site until details of the lighting and the times of their illumination have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and shall be maintained in working order.

19. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a detailed Method Statements and Risk Assessment detailing how the Applicant intends to cross the National Grid High-Pressure Gas Pipeline (Feeder 06 Pickering to Burton Agnes) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the National Grid. The development shall then proceed only in strict accordance with the approved schemes.

20. Prior to each phase of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority) no development shall take place until a scheme that includes the following components shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the County Planning Authority:

1. Conduct a water features survey along the route of the pipeline and to an appropriate distance beyond to determine any water features, including springs, boreholes and water courses, that may be impacted by the earth works and pipeline. 2. Treatment and removal of suspended solids from surface water run-off during construction NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/62

81

3. Disposal of foul drainage and surface water 4. Seal roof drainage at ground level 5. Storage of materials 6. Storage of chemicals 7. Storage of oil 8. Storage of hazardous materials 9. Pressure testing of the pipeline 10. Method of working 11. Phasing of development 12. Maintenance and after-care of the site 13. Provision of road and wheel cleaning facilities 14. Proposed scheme for monitoring

Any such scheme shall be supported, where necessary, by detailed calculations; include a maintenance programme; and establish current and future ownership of the facilities to be provided. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or any details as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the County Planning Authority.

21. Notwithstanding the details submitted for the proposed development of the site, there shall be no: 1. de-watering of the site; 2. interruptions to ground or surface water flows; without the written consent of the County Planning Authority

22. There shall be no movement by construction or other vehicles between the highway and the application site (except for the purposes of constructing the initial site access) until that part of the access(es) extending 15 metres into the site from the carriageway of the existing highway has been made up and surfaced in accordance with the approved details and the published Specification of the Highway Authority. All works shall accord with the approved details unless otherwise approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Any damage during use of the access until the completion of all the permanent works shall be repaired immediately. Before the development is first brought into use the highway verge/footway shall be fully reinstated in accordance with the scheme approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.

23. There shall be no access or egress by any vehicles between the highway and the application site until details of the precautions to be taken to prevent the deposit of mud, grit and dirt on public highways by vehicles travelling to and from the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. These facilities shall include the provision of wheel washing facilities where considered necessary by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. These precautions shall be made available before any excavation or depositing of material in connection with the construction commences on the site and be kept available and in full working order and used until such time as the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority agrees in writing to their withdrawal. NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/63

82

24. There shall be no HGVs brought onto the site until a survey recording the condition of the highway listed below have been carried out in a manner approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Within one month of the commencement of gas production from the existing wellsite, or any time prior to that date which shall have been agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority, the applicant shall carry out a second survey recording the condition of the same highways. The survey shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval and thereafter any works reasonably required in order to rectify any damage to the public highway resulting from traffic arising from the construction, installation and erection of any infrastructure required for the commencement of gas production from the existing wellsite including pipeline installation shall be completed to the satisfaction of the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. A further survey shall be undertaken by the applicant within one month of the completion of decommissioning and restoration works to the site (if applicable) in the manner as described above. a) Ebberston / Ebberston Common Lane – unclassified road, whole length b) A170 High Street – twenty metres east and west of the junction with Ebberston Lane c) Wilton Ings Lane – from the junction of the B1415 to the pipeline crossing d) Marishes Lane – from the junction of the B1258 to the pipeline crossing. e) Link road between B1258 and A170 Snainton

25. There shall be no establishment of a site compound, site clearance, demolition, excavation or depositing of material in connection with the construction on the site until proposals have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority for the provision of: (i) on-site parking capable of accommodating all staff and sub-contractors vehicles clear of the public highway (ii) on-site materials storage area capable of accommodating all materials required for the operation of the site.

The approved areas shall be kept available for their intended use at all times that construction works are in operation. No vehicles associated with on-site construction works shall be parked on the public highway or outside the application site.

26. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a Construction Traffic Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Construction Traffic Environment Management Plan shall identify the measures and procedures that will be implemented to manage vehicle access to and from the site including the proposed routing to be used by HCV traffic. The routes to be used by HCV construction traffic shall be as described in the appropriate sections of the submitted Environmental Statement but with the amendment that all HCV traffic shall be limited to 25 miles per hour along the whole length of Ebberston Common Lane, Malton Lane and Marishes Lane. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority, once approved NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/64

83

the Construction Traffic Environmental Management Plan shall be adhered to at all times and until the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority agree in writing that its operation can be withdrawn.

27. There shall be no excavation or other groundworks, except for investigative works, or the depositing of material on the site in connection with the construction of the access road or building(s) or other works until:

(i) The details of the following off site required highway improvement works, works listed below have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority: a. Provision of a vehicle holding area on Penniston Lane b. Provision of temporary measures at the bends on Malton Lane to allow HGV movements c. Carriageway haunching and patch repairs on Malton Lane.

(ii) A programme for the completion of the proposed works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority.

28. There shall be no excavation or other groundworks, except for investigative works, or the depositing of material on the site until the following highway works have been constructed in accordance with the details approved in writing by the County Planning Authority under condition number 27: a. Provison of a vehicle holding area on Penniston Lane b. Provision of temporary measures at the bends on Malton Lane to allow HGV movements c. Carriageway haunching on Malton Lane.

29. There shall be no vehicles permitted to arrive, depart, be loaded or unloaded via the A170 during weekends or on a Bank Holiday.

30. Prior to each phase of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority), no development shall take place until a scheme that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the County Planning Authority:

1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: all previous uses; potential contaminants associated with those uses; a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors; potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. 2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. 3. The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/65

84

giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. 4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

31. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the County Planning Authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

32. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details describing the means of protecting the three public water supply pipelines (listed within the YW consultation response dated 13 October 2014) that are laid within the development boundary have been submitted to and approved by the County Planning Authority and it has been proven to the satisfaction of the County Planning Authority that the protection works have been fully and properly implemented. The details shall include protective measures during the construction phase of the development and the means by which future access for repair and maintenance of the pipes is assured.

Reasons

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

2. To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved application details.

3. To protect retained trees and hedgerows along the pipeline corridor.

4 & 5. The site is of archaeological interest.

6. To protect public rights of access in the area.

7 - 11. In the interests of protecting and enhancing the ecological value of the site.

12. In order to enable the County Planning Authority to retain control over the scale of activity at the site.

13. In the interests of highway safety and the general amenity of the area.

14. To ensure that there is no loss of flood storage, and existing flood flow routes

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/66

85

are not altered, thereby ensuring that flood risk to others is not increased and to allow for the free passage of any possible future flood flows.

15. In the interests of site security during construction and the prevention of crime.

16. To protect soil resources.

17. In the interests of protecting and enhancing the landscape character of the area.

18. In the interests of the general amenity of the area.

19. To protect National Grid pipelines and infrastructure.

20. To protect the water environment.

21. To manage risk of obstruction to groundwater flow

22. In the interests of both vehicle and pedestrian safety and the visual amenity of the area.

23. To ensure that no mud or other debris is deposited on the carriageway in the interests of highway safety.

24. In the interests of highway safety and the general amenity of the area.

25. To provide for appropriate on-site vehicle parking and storage facilities, in the interests of highway safety and the general amenity of the area.

26. To avoid interference with the free flow of traffic and to secure safe and appropriate access and egress to the site in the interests of safety and convenience of highway users and the amenity of the area.

27. To ensure that the details are satisfactory in the interests of the safety and convenience of highway users.

28. In the interests of the safety and convenience of highway users.

29. To avoid conflict with vulnerable road users.

30. Protection of the water environment is a material planning consideration and new development should not harm the water environment. This proposal poses a threat to water quality because it crosses through Source Protection Zone 2 of Scarborough’s drinking water supply and through a principal and secondary aquifer.

31. Protection of the water environment is a material planning consideration and new development should not harm the water environment. This proposal poses a threat to water quality because it crosses through Source Protection Zone 2 of Scarborough’s drinking water supply and through a principal and secondary NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/67

86

aquifer.

32. In order to protect the public water supply network.

Informatives

Condition 22- Access Construction- You are advised that a separate licence will be required from the Local Highway Authority in order to allow any works in the adopted highway to be carried out. The ‘Specification for Housing and Industrial Estate Roads and Private Street Works’ published by North Yorkshire County Council, the Highway Authority, is available at the County Council’s offices. The local office of the Highway Authority will also be pleased to provide the detailed constructional specification referred to in this condition.

Condition 28- Section 278- There must be no works in the existing highway until an Agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 has been entered into between the Developer and the Highway Authority.

Public Rights of Way- Adjacent public rights of way No works are to be undertaken which will create an obstruction, either permanent or temporary, to the Public Right of Way adjacent to the proposed development. Applicants are advised to contact the County Council’s Access and Public Rights of team at County Hall, Northallerton via [email protected] to obtain up-to-date information regarding the line of the route of the way. The applicant should discuss with the Highway Authority any proposals for altering the route.

Cultural Heritage English Heritage advises the applicant that Scheduled Monument Consent shall be obtained prior to the commencement of work on site.

Protection of Yorkshire Water Apparatus The applicant is advised to refer to the list of water mains contained within the YW consultation response dated 13 October 2014. A minimum of 300mm clearance is required where new third party apparatus crosses any of the above mentioned water mains. The depth of the water mains is unknown and the developer must locate the mains on site before pipe laying commences. Any potential conflict between the water mains and the proposed pipeline should be notified in the first instance to: [email protected] who can also provide the developer with further information regarding the required pipe protection measures

National Grid Prior to crossing any National Grid pipeline/assets, with either pipelines, cables, construction traffic (Heavy loads, which require load protection for the pipeline) or other services the applicant is required to enter into a Deed of Consent with the National Grid.

Network Rail Pipeline route- An easement will be required to pass under the railway and the applicant is urged to consult with the Network Rail easements section to discuss requirements.

Construction traffic - The applicant is reminded of the need to inform Network Rail of their passage over the crossing (particularly slow and heavy vehicles), and the need to make good any damage to the surface caused by the passage of such vehicles.

Nesting Birds

Vegetation clearance work shall take place outside the main nesting season; approximately NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/68

87

the beginning of March to the end of August. - wherever possible. However, birds can occasionally nest at any time of year. If any work (including site clearance work), is likely to take place when birds may be nesting, either in any trees/shrubs/walls to be affected, or in any potentially suitable building, these parts of the site should be thoroughly checked by a qualified Ecologist prior to vegetation removal.

Environment Agency- Water Environment

Given the sensitivity of the water environment along the pipeline’s route and in the vicinity of the proposed gas production, it is important to be aware of the following informatives (which will be addressed in detail at the permitting stage): a) no oil-based drilling methods should be used in strata shallower than, and including, the Corallian Group aquifer. b) no oil-based drilling methods should be used in strata deeper than the Corallian Group aquifer unless all shallower strata are cased off and pressure tested to ensure no loss of drilling fluid into the shallower strata. c) details of the drilling muds must be agreed with the Environment Agency on submission of a drilling method statement and WR – 11 form, and mining waste permit. d) no potentially contaminating substances should be allowed to enter groundwater in strata shallower than, and including, the Corallian Group aquifer. e) any boreholes should be constructed in such a way so as to cause no contamination between, and including, any overlying drift deposits and Corallian Group aquifer. f) any boreholes should be constructed in such a way so as to cause no contamination between, and including, the Corallian Group aquifer and any underlying deposits. g) boreholes should be decommissioned according to Environment Agency guidelines in ‘Decommissioning Redundant Boreholes and Wells’ and best available technique. h) under Section 198 of the Water Resources Act 1991, British Geological Survey (Maclean Building, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, OX10 9BB) shall be informed of the intention to sink a well or borehole, and be sent a copy of all details of drilling logs i) under ‘The Borehole Sites and Operations Regulations 1995’ the HSE must be notified when drilling boreholes more than 30 metres deep into used or disused mining areas. The regulations define “mining area” as land within one kilometre in a horizontal or other direction of workings in a mine, or where a licence to mine for minerals has been granted.

Environment Agency- Regulatory advice to the applicant

Drilling a minerals borehole now requires a mining waste permit issued under Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2012 (EPR). Operations will require a mining waste permit for the management of extractive wastes which may include drill cuttings, spent drilling muds and drill fluids, flowback fluids, waste gases and any wastes left underground.

If the operation involves any kind of ‘well stimulation’ that produces oil or gas, then it is highly likely that a radioactive substances EPR permit for the management of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) wastes (such as produced water, sediments and scales) will also be required. This will include the re-injection or transfer of produced water which is found to be ‘in scope’.

Depending on the proposed activities and the local hydrogeology, operators may also need to consider applying for an EPR groundwater permit. The Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 make it an offence to cause or knowingly permit a groundwater activity unless authorised by an environmental permit which we will issue. A groundwater activity includes any discharge that will result in the input of pollutants to groundwater.

If you are planning to flare large quantities of gas, you may also be required to have an NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/69

88

Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) permit.

You will also need to notify us of your intention to construct or extend a boring for the purpose of searching for or extracting minerals using Form WR - 11 under the Water Resources Act 1991 (Section 199(1)). A drilling method statement should be submitted alongside the Form WR – 11 and any drilling should be carried out to this approved statement.

A reinjection borehole is proposed as part of this application. Third Energy already holds a permit for the injection borehole at Ebberston Moor A (Permit Number EPR/AB3593DU) As this permit applies to this specific location, if the location were to change, Third Energy would need to apply for a new permit.

A groundwater abstraction borehole is also proposed and this will require a groundwater investigation consent followed by a water abstraction licence if you plan to abstract more than 20 m3/day for your own use rather than purchasing water from a public water supply utility company,

A water discharge activity permit may be required if surface water run-off becomes polluted.

We strongly recommend that you contact us (the EA) for pre-application advice before submitting any permit applications.

Environment Agency- Rivers consent

Formal consent under the Water Resources Act 1991 will be required from for any main river watercourse crossings. Both permanent and temporary works will be required. It is noted that the applicant intends to use an appropriate directional drilling method. All watercourse crossings of no main rivers will likely require consent under the Land Drainage End 8

Act 1991 from either NYCC in their role as Lead Local Flood Authority or the relevant Internal Drainage Board. All works must be completed in accordance with PPAGE5.

Approved Documents

Ref. Date Title --- 8 August 2014 Application Form --- August 2014 Environmental Statement (including Technical Appendices & Figures) --- August 2014 Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary --- August 2014 Design & Access Statement --- August 2014 Planning and Sustainability Statement --- August 2014 Outline Safety Document P010 6 August 2014 Site Location Plan P011 6 August 2014 Application Site Boundary P012 8 August 2014 Gas Extraction Location Plan P101- P112 5 August 2014 Detailed Site Layout Sheets 1-12 P013 7 August 2014 Typical Indicative Pipeline Cross Section P25 19 Sept 2012 Indicative Section P_01 Rev A July 2014 Site Location Plan P_02 Rev A July 2014 Existing Site Plan P_03 Rev A July 2014 Existing Site Sections P_04 Rev A July 2014 Proposed Site Layout NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/70

89

P_05 Rev A July 2014 Proposed Sections Figure 8.5 March 2014 Proposed Traffic Control at Site Crossing of A170 Figure 8.7 --- Footpath Diversion south of Wilton Ings Lane Figure 8.8 --- Proposed Layby on Penniston Lane EMJV-EMS-PL-DRG- 14 May 2014 Knapton Generating Station- Revised Plot 003 Rev 1 Plan 3250-4005 Rev B --- Gas Reception Module

Statement of Compliance with Article 31 of the Town and Country Development Management Procedure Order 2012

In determining this planning application, the County Planning Authority has worked with the applicant adopting a positive and proactive manner. The County Council offers the opportunity for pre-application discussion on applications and the applicant, in this case, chose to take up this service. Proposals are assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework, Replacement Local Plan policies and Supplementary Planning Documents, which have been subject to proactive publicity and consultation prior to their adoption and are referred to in the reason for approval. During the course of the determination of this application, the applicant has been informed of the existence of all consultation responses and representations made in a timely manner which provided the applicant/agent with the opportunity to respond to any matters raised. The County Planning Authority has sought solutions to problems arising by liaising with consultees, considering other representations received and liaising with the applicant as necessary. Where appropriate, changes to the proposal were sought when the statutory determination timescale allowed.

D BOWE Corporate Director, Business and Environmental Services

Background Documents to this Report:

1. Planning Application Ref Number: C3/14/00970/CPO (NYCC ref no NY/2014/0275/ENV) registered as valid on 19 August 2014. Application documents can be found on the County Council's Online Planning Register by using the following web link: https://onlineplanningregister.northyorks.gov.uk/register/ 2. Consultation responses received. 3. Representations received.

Author of report: Alan Goforth

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P&RF Committee Ebberston Moor South Wellsite/71

90

91 73 Appendix 1- Application Site

commrep/73 92 74 Appendix 2- Constraints Plan

commrep/74 93 75 Appendix 3- Representations Plan

commrep/75 94

Appendix 4- Conceptual Model - Cross Section

95 77

Appendix 5- Typical Indicative Pipeline Cross Section

commrep/77 96

Appendix 6- Proposed Site Traffic Routes

97 79

Appendix 7- Proposed Site Traffic Route (north)

commrep/79 98 80

Appendix 8- Proposed Site Traffic Route (south)

commrep/80 99

Appendix 9- Proposed Traffic Control at Site Crossing of A170

100 ITEM 4

North Yorkshire County Council

Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee

31 March 2015

C8/53/125F/PA - Planning Application accompanied by an Environmental Statement for the purposes of the Change of Use of Biomass Renewable Energy Facility to Waste Management Facility with Advanced Thermal Treatment, with Extensions to the Existing Buildings and Amendments to Existing Site Layout on Land at the former Arbre Power Station, Selby Road, Eggborough, Goole on behalf of Drenl Ltd (Selby District) (Osgoldcross Electoral Division)

Report of the Corporate Director – Business and Environmental Services

1.0 Purpose of Report

1.1 To determine a planning application accompanied by an Environmental Statement for the change of use of biomass renewable energy facility to waste management facility with Advanced Thermal Treatment, with extensions to the existing buildings and amendments to existing site layout on land at the former ARBRE Power Station, Selby Road, Eggborough, Goole on behalf of DRENL Ltd (Distributed Renewable Energy Networks).

1.2 This application is subject to 65 objections having been raised by members of the public and objections from Eggborough Parish Council, Parish Council and District Councillor Mary McCartney and is, therefore, reported to this Committee for determination.

2.0 Background

Site Description

2.1 The proposed development site is the former Arable Biomass Renewable Energy (ARBRE) facility which occupies land west of the A19, Selby Road, Eggborough in the District of Selby. The site is located adjacent to A19 which connects Junction 34 of the M62 with the town of Selby which lies approximately 6 miles to the north of the site. The site location is shown on drawing ref. GPP/D/EGG/13/01 ‘Site Location Plan’ dated 30/07/13 attached to this report at Appendix 3.

2.2 The proposed application site is outlined in red on drawing ref. GPP/D/EGG/13/02 Rev 2 ‘Site Plan’ dated 30/07/13 (see Appendix 4) and amounts to approximately 4.2 hectares in area. The legacy of the former renewable energy facility remains largely intact on the site. The existing buildings are redundant and comprise a range of industrial buildings, which together formed the ARBRE Biomass Renewable Energy facility. The buildings and structures remaining on site comprise the following: -

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

101

 A large wood fuel storage building positioned centrally within the site;  An office building;  the tall gasifier building and gas compressor;  the rotating equipment building;  the wood fuel dryer;  a workshop building;  nitrogen storage compound;  a process effluent treatment plant;  fuel storage compound;  the cooling plant;  the pump house;  filter beds;  information centre (prefab unit); and  the remnant hardstanding parking areas and internal access road.

2.3 The existing site and ARBRE facility is currently owned by Hargreaves Services PLC. The applicant has a long term lease agreement with the landowner to develop and operate the facility.

2.4 Access to the site is gained off Selby Road which leads directly onto the A19 and then onto the M62. Due to the development of the former renewable energy facility, the site already has an existing access point off Selby Road which is currently used by Hargreaves Services PLC who serve as a HGV distribution centre from the application site.

2.5 An industrial complex (North Point Business Park) which consists of a small modern commercial and industrial complex consisting of several units is immediately south of the proposed development site. The land immediately to the north is occupied by the Roall Waterworks. Approximately 50 metres north of the proposed development site there are three residential properties (no.’s 1, 2 & 3 Roall Waterworks). Further beyond this lies a commercial plant and machinery auction centre operated by Euro Auctions Ltd which is 85 metres north of the site boundary. Further to the north (400 metres) is a linear collection of residential properties (Roall Hall & Roall Manor Farm and Cottages) and small businesses which line the northern side of Roall Lane.

2.6 Eggborough Power Station is approximately 500 metres to the east of the proposed development site and is a 2000MW coal-fired power station which is served by both rail and road. In addition to coal, Eggborough Power Station also burns biomass which is blended with pulverised coal before it reaches its boilers.

2.7 Aside from the two residential properties identified approximately 50 metres to the north of the application site, the nearest residential settlement is the village of Eggborough which is 500 metres to the south of the proposed development site. Further north, east and west of the application site, the land use is predominately agricultural land with settlements such as Kellington (1.5km), Beal (3.1km) and Kellingley (3.6km) to the west, West Haddlesey (2.1km) and (2.2km) to the north and Hensall (2.1km) to the east.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

102

2.8 The proposed development site does not fall within, or in close proximity to any ‘sensitive areas’. The site is not in close proximity to any nationally designated geological or ecological sites (SAC, RAMSAR, SPA, SAC, SSSI, NNR) or landscapes (National Parks, AONB’s, Heritage Coasts, National Trails) or Article 1(5) land (Conservation Area), Listed Buildings or Scheduled Ancient Monuments. The site is not in close proximity to any locally designated sites for nature conservation (SINCs). There are overhead powerlines and towers approximately 100 metres to the north of the northern boundary of the site. The site is located in Flood Zone 1 which is defined in the Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework as land having a less than 1 in 1000 annual probability of flooding from rivers or the sea. There are no Public Rights of Way immediate to the site. The nearest Public Right of Way to the application is path number 35.27/6/1 which lies approximately 50 metres to the north-east of the site. There is also a pond within the site to the east of the existing buildings and hardstanding areas.

2.9 A plan showing the application site is attached to this report at Appendix 1.

Planning History

2.10 The ARBRE Biomass Renewable Energy facility was granted planning permission ref. 8/53/125A/PA by Selby District Council on 16 January 1997. The approved development is described on the planning permission as an “electricity generating plant using wood fuel together with ancillary plant and building and associated access and landscaping”. The planning permission is subject to a total of 16 planning conditions and the power generating plant is restricted to being fuelled by short rotation coppicing and forestry residue (Condition 16). The conditions required the prior approval of external construction materials, a landscaping scheme, the site access, internal access roads and highway improvement works, and the approval of proposals for the disposal of waste generated by the development and external lighting. In addition the permission requires the sheeting of vehicles to prevent dust, restrictions on HGV movements to between 0800-1800hours Mon-Fri and 0800-1230hours on Saturdays and noise, dust, odour and stack emission (smoke) monitoring. The permission was also subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.

2.11 It was planned that the fuel requirements of the ARBRE Scheme would come from a mix of willow coppice and digested sewage sludge (waste) and that it would generate 10MW of electricity (requiring 40-45,000 dry tonnes of chipped wood per annum as fuel). The ARBRE Biomass Renewable Energy facility was completed but was only briefly operational due to economic constraints. The facility ceased operations in 2002. The buildings which comprise the ARBRE facility remains largely intact. The applicant describes the existing site and ARBRE facility as “an under-utilised local asset awaiting re-development”.

2.12 On 19 November 2013 a ‘Scoping Opinion’ (ref. NY/2013/0298/SCO) for the proposed development was issued by the County Planning Authority under Regulation 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

103

Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011. The ‘Scoping Opinion’ confirmed the topics the Environmental Statement should contain.

2.13 With regard to community consultation the applicant states that pre- application engagement with the local community comprised a two day Public Exhibition. In addition the applicant states that over 3,000 letters, together with a leaflet, were posted to residents within approximately a 3 kilometre radius of the site. The Public Exhibitions were held at the Westfield Community Centre, Westfield Court, Eggborough on the 25th and 26th March 2014 and approximately 70 residents attended the event over the 2 days. The applicant has included details of the consultation material and public exhibition boards within their Environmental Statement. Whilst pre-application community consultation is encouraged by the County Planning Authority (see NYCC’s Statement of Community Involvement document) it is not a mandatory requirement and the methods used and how an applicant reports on feedback received and how it was incorporated in the proposal is at the discretion of the applicant.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 Full planning permission is sought for the change of use of the existing Arable Biomass Renewable Energy (ARBRE) facility to waste management facility with an integrated Advanced Thermal Treatment facility (ATT), with extensions to the existing buildings and amendments to existing site layout on land at the former ARBRE Power Station, Selby Road, Eggborough, Goole.

3.2 The proposed development seeks planning permission for a waste management facility to accept and treat up to 200,000 tonnes per annum of biomass, commercial and industrial (C&I) and municipal solid waste (MSW) to generate 10MW of renewable electricity per annum, sufficient to provide the electrical needs for approximately 18,000 homes. The fuel for the ATT Facility would be the non-recyclate biogenic material segregated from commercial and industrial (C&I) and municipal solid waste (MSW) arisings.

3.3 The received waste material would be sorted and separated with the recovery of recyclables which would be bulked up and transported off-site for re-use. The remaining residual unrecyclable biogenic material would be fed into the Advanced Thermal Treatment facility (ATT) and processed by ‘gasification’ to produce electricity. The following paragraphs describe the processes involved in order.

Waste Reception

3.4 The waste material would be imported to the site in HGV’s, Refuse Collection Vehicles (RCVs) and Roll on Roll off ‘Ro-Ro’ vehicles. The vehicles would enter the site via the existing access and weighbridge and travel north along the internal road and then reverse into the extended Waste Reception Building to unload into a pit and hopper. It is proposed that when vehicles are inside the building the roller shutter doors would be closed to ensure that noise and odour emissions are contained. The doors of the Waste Reception Building would be closed except during vehicles entry and exit.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

104

Waste Recycling and Feedstock Generation

3.5 The waste would be fed from the pit and hopper into the waste separation facility within the Waste Reception Building. This would separate the recyclables from the non-recyclables.

3.6 The material would be initially separated by screening drums into different size fractions which would then be followed by magnetic separators so that the recyclable ferrous and aluminium removed from the waste material. A belt separator would then separate the belt transported material into light-weight and heavy fractions. The heavy materials would fall down in the transfer area onto a heavy material outfeed belt beneath the air belt separator. The light- weight fraction, (cardboard, paper, plastics and films) with low specific gravity, is separated by an airstream from the heavy materials.

3.7 An optical spectrometer would assess the spectral characteristics of these light materials and are optimised for the required sorting tasks. When the sensors detect material to be sorted out the materials are separated from the material flow by jets of compressed air. The sorted material is divided into two or three fractions in the separation chamber.

3.8 The final stage of material sorting involves hand-picking stations. The applicant states that the residual material, normally transported to landfill, will be shredded into a form suitable for use as a fuel. This fuel would be used locally to produce electricity whereas the recyclables would be bulked up and removed from site.

3.9 The bulked recyclables would form the main output from the site and the applicant anticipates that it would comprise approximately 100,000 tonnes per annum of recyclable material which will include materials such as glass, plastic and inert waste. This will be transported off-site for reuse at a suitable facility.

3.10 The applicant states that there would be no hazardous waste received at the site and no external handling, processing or storage of waste materials.

Fuel handling systems (Feedstock) and Gasifier

3.11 The fuel feedstock would comprise the residual non-recyclable material, comprising of mostly biogenic material, typically disposed of at landfill. The feedstock would be blended to create a homogeneous and constant fuel and would be fed into a fuel bunker via a front end loader.

3.12 The fuel would be transferred from the bunker via a walking floor to conveyors and then to the metering bin in front of the Gasifier where screw feeders push the feed into the gasification grate inside the furnace. The furnace would then convert all fuels under varying conditions. The gasification process recovers energy from the waste derived fuel and the resultant gases are used to create

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

105

steam at superheated conditions and this steam is used to generate electricity.

Steam Turbine and Generator Set

3.13 The steam generated from the fuel gasification is used in a steam turbine and generator set to convert energy in the steam into electricity. Immediately prior to the steam turbine steam extraction occurs, a small proportion of the steam is extracted at the high pressure stage exit to supply heat to the de-aerator and steam ejectors. A secondary extraction valve at the same point can be used to extract heat for heating purposes (e.g. district heating system or process heat). That is, the facility is CHP ready.

3.14 An air-cool condenser (ACC) would be employed to cool the exhaust steam from turbine exit back to liquid state (condensate) to avoid otherwise high water consumption. The applicant states that the steam turbine is a best in class system extracting significant energy from the steam. A residual amount of very low grade heat can be extracted from the ACC.

Gas Cleaning & Ash Handling System

3.15 The proposed flue gas cleaning and pollution control consists of urea injection for De-NOx, lime injection for acid gas neutralisation, and activated carbon powder injection for absorption and removal of any harmful substances. The bag filter module is designed to have the capacity to remove sub-micron dust particles keeping within emission levels.

3.16 The waste produced by the process is in the form of bottom ash and fuel ash of which 10 tonnes per day would require disposal. The applicant states this can be used as a resource or sent to landfill.

Energy Output and Grid connection

3.17 The applicant anticipates that the facility will generate 10MW of electricity (equivalent to the demand of 18,000 homes) which would be exported to the National Grid. The proposed facility would be connected to the local area network owned and operated by Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) through a 66/11 kV transformer and switchgear. The underground cables enter from Northern Powergrid’s (Yorkshire) system. The cables to the proposed facility from the substation are already routed underground to a building housing auxiliary plant transformers and 11kV switchgear at the southern end of the application site.

Site infrastructure (existing and proposed built development)

3.18 The proposed development would utilise existing on-site infrastructure which was developed to facilitate the former ARBRE Renewable Energy scheme. The existing infrastructure is to be subject to adaptation and extensions (774m2 of new floorspace) and the buildings and structures which comprise the development are described below.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

106

Waste Reception Building

3.19 The existing building to be used as the Waste Reception building is positioned centrally within the site and the rectangular building is orientated north-south as shown on the ‘Site Layout’ drawing attached to this report at Appendix 5. The building measures 15 metres in width by 45 metres in length and stands at a height of 15.5 metres. The building is steel clad.

3.20 The applicant proposes an extension to the Waste Reception Building off the north elevation. The extension would measure 15 metres in width by 22 metres in length and stands at a height of 15.5 metres. There would be roller shutter doors within the north facing elevation.

ATT Building (previously the Gasifier Building)

3.21 The existing building, which is located immediately to the south of the Waste Reception Building, housed all the plant items associated with converting the wood fuel into biogas for use in the gas turbine and heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) plant for the ARBRE facility. The building is 15 metres wide, 28 metres long and 31.5 metres high. It has been constructed using steel cladding, with a cowl roof and open base.

3.22 The applicant proposes three extensions to the building to accommodate the ATT plant. The proposed extensions are shown as 2a, 2b, and 2c on the ‘Overall Site Layout Plan including Landscaping’ drawing dated 28/08/13 attached to this report at Appendix 7. The three extensions would be 27 metres high to meet the eaves of the existing building for the northern (2b) and southern (2a) extensions, and 6 metres high for the eastern extension (2c) as shown on the ‘Site Elevations’ drawing attached to this report at Appendix 6.

Turbine Hall (previously the Electricity Generation Building)

3.23 The building proposed to be used as the Turbine Hall is attached to the western side of the proposed ATT Building. It is the former building for the electrical generation plant for the ARBRE facility. The former ARBRE facility within the building was complete with acoustic enclosures, where appropriate, to ensure low noise levels and a good working environment for the staff. The building fabric was designed to accommodate noise suppression where appropriate. The building is 18 metres wide, 25 metres long and 15.5 metres high.

Site Office

3.24 The site office building for use as part of the proposed development is a detaching building to the east of the Waste Reception Building. The facility includes a reception area, individual offices, a laboratory, food preparation area and toilets. The building is 17 metres wide, 10 metres long and 5 metres high and was constructed within an in situ concrete frame with facing brick.

Workshops and High Voltage Equipment Building

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

107

3.25 The workshops and high voltage equipment building for use as part of the proposed development is a detaching building to the west of the Turbine Hall. It was constructed to house electrical plant and as a maintenance facility. It was divided into two sections isolating the workshop from the high voltage equipment to ensure safety and allow only authorised access. The building is approximately 21 metres wide, 10 metres long and 7 metres high.

High Voltage Substation

3.26 The high voltage substation located at the southern end of the site is owned and operated by Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) and provides metering equipment and isolation of the plant from the 66kV local grid. It consists of a control room approximately 5 metres wide, 6 metres long and 4 metres high containing control equipment and meters. The switchgear and metering transformers are approximately 4 metres high and are housed in a compound approximately 25 metres long by 12 metres wide surrounded by a chain link security fence to allow only authorised access.

Ancillary Structures

3.27 The proposed development would also require the installation of ancillary structures. A chimney stack fan unit would be installed to the west of the existing 41 metre high chimney stack. A total of four silos (for the storage of Lime, Carbon, WRSA, Ash, Fire Water) would be installed to the east of the ATT building and each silo would stand at a height of 11 metres. There would be air coolers installed to the rear of the site (west) and they would stand at a height of 18.2 metres. In addition to the east of the Waste Reception Building there would be a fire water silo (11 metres high) and two carbon filters each standing 4 metres high.

3.28 The applicant states that the proposed building extensions and ancillary structures would be designed to be in keeping with the existing on-site infrastructure. The use of colours and materials would replicate the existing on-site infrastructure.

Site Preparation

3.29 The proposed development would utilise the existing buildings already on site and therefore the only site preparation works required would be to remove the former ARBRE Energy technology from within the buildings and to install the ATT facility. In addition to the internal alterations for the ATT facilty the construction of the proposed extension to the northern elevation of the proposed Waste Reception Building would take place at the same time.

3.30 The applicant states that the preparation of the site to accommodate the proposed development would take approximately 3 months. During this period, construction operations would take place between the following hours:

0700 – 1800 Monday to Friday 0700 – 1300 Saturday

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

108

No construction works will take place on Sundays or Public Holidays.

3.31 The works required internal to the buildings such as the installation of the equipment may take place outside of these hours. During the 3 months site preparation period the applicant anticipates that there will be up to 20 daily HGV movements and 134 construction staff (cars, light vans) associated with the construction of the proposed building extensions, refurbishment of the existing buildings, necessary landscaping working and plant installation.

Traffic

3.32 On the basis of handling the maximum potential of 200,000 tonnes of inputs per year and approximately 100,000 tonnes of outputs per year, it is estimated that the proposal will generate the following approximate traffic movements once operational:

Load Size No. of No. of Total Approx. HGV (T) Imports/Day Exports/Day Movements 25 29 (58) 15 (30) 88

3.33 Over the proposed working day the 88 HGV movements equate to approximately 10 HGV movements per hour (5 vehicles visiting the site per hour). Collections would take place throughout the day, which would result in deliveries being spread throughout the day and it is this pattern that is considered in the Transport Statement. Up to 42 additional vehicles (84 vehicle movements) would be needed for staff and visitors. There are existing parking bays to the east of the proposed Waste Reception Building. Therefore the application proposes a total of 172 two-way daily movements.

3.34 The application is accompanied by a Transport Statement which considers the potential traffic impacts of the proposal associated with any increase in vehicular movements and the extent of impact within the existing highway network.

Site Drainage & Flood Risk

3.34 All site surface run-off would be directed, via a site drainage system incorporating a settlement tank and an oil-water separator, to Ings and Tetherings Drain. A surface water pipe connecting the site to Ings and Tetherings Drain was laid as part of the construction of the ARBRE facility.

3.35 All process wastewaters and ancillary wastewaters such as domestic wastewater generated on site would be treated in the on-site wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). The treated effluent will be discharged to Ings and Tetherings Drain under consent from the Environment Agency.

3.36 The applicant proposes that during site preparation works, the implementation of drainage control measures would significantly reduce the potential for any effects on the water environment. Provision and adequate maintenance of surface drainage systems would ensure that contamination of surface run-off

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

109

is minimised and that uncontrolled drainage does not enter nearby water features.

3.37 The applicant has stated that all plant and equipment operating at the site would be maintained in a good condition in order to prevent leakages of fuel or hydraulic fluid. In the unlikely event of any accident which allowed leakage or spillage, any soils affected would be excavated immediately and removed from site to a suitably licensed waste disposal facility.

3.38 The applicant states that as part of the environmental management procedures, monitoring of treated process effluent released to the Ings and Tetherings Drain will be undertaken.

3.39 The application site is within Flood Zone 1 which is defined as having a ‘very low’ probability of flooding however due to the site area (4.2 hectares) being greater than 1 hectare the application is required to be accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA).

3.40 The Environment Agency’s flood plain map confirms there is no flood risk from fluvial flooding and the site is not located within an area identified by the Environment Agency as a Groundwater Source Protection Zone, a Groundwater Vulnerability Zone or overlaying a major or minor aquifer.

3.41 The applicant’s FRA concludes that the proposal complies with the requirements of the Sequential Test, and there are no identified serious risks of flooding. The existing drainage system would ensure that the application site and surrounding areas are protected from surface water run-off generated by the proposed development.

Landscaping

3.42 The areas of existing and proposed planting are shown on the ‘Overall Site Layout Plan including Landscaping’ drawing dated 28/08/13 attached to this report at Appendix 7. The applicant proposes the removal of an area of young mixed plantation woodland in the northern part of the application site. The tree species present mostly comprise deciduous species and include silver birch Betula pendula, ash Fraxinus excelsior and a number of willows including Sallow Salix rubens. There is also some scrub species, including dog rose, elder and bramble. To compensate for the area of vegetation to be removed an area of amenity grass in the north-western corner of the application site would be planted with trees and shrubs, comprising primarily deciduous native species to complement those already located within the site.

Site Security, CCTV, lighting and fire safety

3.43 The applicant proposes to retain the existing site security measures which comprise an anti-climb wire fence along the site perimeter together with a 2 metre high steel palisade security gate at the site entrance. There is also existing CCTV cameras installed at points around the existing buildings to assist in recording activity at the site.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

110

3.44 There are no proposals for additional lighting beyond the existing installations. At present the site is lit by lampposts and downward facing lights mounted onto the existing buildings. The lights would only be used during hours of darkness, when the site is operational; they will be controlled by a timer, which will switch them off at the end of the working day, leaving the site in darkness overnight.

3.45 There is an existing firewater reservoir tank on the west side of the site. The applicant states that water will be drawn from the reservoir by fire pumps to supply a site ring main, hydrants and sprinkler systems. A fire water silo (11 metre high) is proposed to be installed on the eastern side of the waste reception building.

3.46 An impermeable firewater lagoon would receive runoff of fire water so to prevent uncontrolled off-site drainage. The applicant states that this will provide a means of containment and on-site storage of fire water until its quality can be established and it may then be suitably disposed of. An impermeable high density polyethylene liner will prevent possible ingress to the groundwater.

Hours of operation

3.47 The deliveries of waste and the export of recyclable material will take place between the hours of 08.00 to 17.00 Monday to Saturday and waste will not be accepted on Sundays or Bank Holidays. The management and processing of waste (feedstock) will take place between the following hours:

 Waste Management Facility- 24 hours Monday to Saturday (no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays)  ATT Plant - 24 hours Monday to Sunday

Employment and the Local Economy

3.48 The applicant states that during its operational phase, the plant would generate approximately 40 full time jobs. Furthermore, it is likely that up to 200 additional direct jobs would be created for construction and site preparation. The applicant highlights that it envisaged that a number of indirect and induced jobs would be created, because of the need to service the site. Typically, these relate to the provision of a wide variety of goods and services, including specialist engineering assistance for plant maintenance. The applicant argues that the facility would provide beneficial socio-economic effects through the generation of additional local employment opportunities and economic activity.

4.0 Consultations

4.1 As required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 and the Town and Country Planning NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

111

(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 formal consultation has been undertaken with the following bodies, agencies and organisations. The consultee responses as summarised within this section of the report relate to responses to the initial consultation on the planning application (September 2014) and the subsequent re-consultation following the receipt of the letter from the agent representing the applicant dated 21 January 2015. The letter from the agent dated 21 January 2015, whilst providing clarification on certain aspects of the development, was not considered ‘further information’ for the purposes of Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Regulations) 2011. The information contained in the letter dated 21 January 2015 does not relate to the “main” or ”significant” environmental effects to which a development is likely to give rise (see National Planning Policy Guidance at Paragraph: 047 Reference ID: 4-047-20140306). The submitted information relates only to points of detail or clarification and is not therefore of a substantive nature supporting the submitted Environmental Statement. The letter from the agent dated 21 January 2015 also commented on the matters raised in the initial consultation responses and the proposals for planning conditions to be imposed and was the subject of re-consultation in the interests of completeness. The content of the letter has been included in the description of the proposal in Section 3 of this report. The first consultation commenced on 25 September 2014 and re-consultation took place on 13 February 2015. As required by the Regulations, notification of the Secretary of State (National Planning Casework Unit) of the planning application was undertaken on 8 October 2014 and 13 February 2015.

4.2 Selby District Council (Planning)- responded on 16 October 2014 and have no detailed comments on the application, however the Authority should give consideration to cumulative impacts with respect to impacts on landscape character, noise air quality and impact on highways.

4.2.1 On 5 March 2015, in response to reconsultation, Selby District Council (Planning) confirmed that the District Council have no further comments to make in respect of the additional information received in respect of the application.

4.3 Selby District Council (Environmental Health)- responded on 16 October 2014 and acknowledge the inclusion of the noise impact assessment and the air quality assessment in the ES.

4.3.1 The EHO recommends that the Authority seeks the advice of an Air Quality specialist to fully assess the air quality report and ensure the proposed development and the cumulative effect of the development together with other combustion sources in the locality complies with the NPPF and local air quality objectives.

4.3.2 With regard to noise impact the EHO recommends that any planning permission includes a condition restricting hours of construction work to 0800 to 1800 hours Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1300 hours on Saturdays with no work on Sundays or Bank Holidays. The EHO states that during the operational phase the mitigation measures contained in Section 7.2 and 7.3 of

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

112

the noise impact assessment are implemented and that the noise levels specified at table 7.2 are not exceeded.

4.3.3 On 5 March 2015, in response to reconsultation, the District EHO acknowledges that the applicant has agreed to the inclusion of conditions that were recommended and therefore the EHO has no further comments in relation to noise during the construction or operational phases. In respect to Air Quality it is noted that the previous consultation response recommended that an air quality specialist was employed to verify the report’s findings. The District EHO reiterates this recommendation.

4.4 Environment Agency- responded on 15 October 2014 and has no objection to the application. The Environment Agency confirm that the installation will require an EPR permit before it can be brought into operation. The Environment Agency acknowledge that the site is outside any Source Protection Zones and there are no significant risks to the aquifer from this development. The Environment Agency highlight that water quality issues would be addressed through the Environmental Permitting regime.

4.4.1 On 13 February 2015, in response to reconsultation, the Environment Agency confirmed that they have no further comments and their previous response dated 15 October 2014 still applies.

4.5 Yorkshire Water Services Ltd- responded on 23 October 2014 and confirmed that the Flood Risk Assessment (prepared by G P Planning Ltd - Report D007-02 dated 28/08/2014) is satisfactory from Yorkshire Water's viewpoint. Yorkshire Water note that company records indicate a large 24 inch diameter live water main crosses through part of the red line site boundary. Therefore Yorkshire Water has requested that if planning permission is granted a condition is included in order to protect the local aquatic environment and Yorkshire Water infrastructure. In their response Yorkshire Water also include informative advice in respect of water supply, drainage and trade effluent.

4.5.1 On 22 January 2015 Yorkshire Water provided an extract from the statutory map which indicates the line of the water mains parallel to the north and east boundaries of the site.

4.5.2 On 23 February 2015, in response to reconsultation, Yorkshire Water states that the contents of the agent's letter dated 21 January 2015 are noted, with regards to Yorkshire Water's condition of 6 metres either side of the centre- line of the public water main, that is recorded crossing the site.

4.6 NYCC Heritage – Archaeology- responded on 13 October 2014 and has no objection to the application.

4.6.1 On 23 February 2015, in response to reconsultation, the County Development Management Archaeologist confirmed that the proposed development has no known archaeological constraint and there are no objections to this application.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

113

4.7 NYCC Heritage – Ecology- responded on 6 October 2014 and confirmed that there is unlikely to be an impact on any statutory or non-statutory designated sites, protected species or notable habitats and therefore no further survey works is required.

4.7.1 The County Ecologist notes that there is limited potential for nesting birds to be disturbed during works within the area of plantation and therefore as a precaution it is recommended that a condition is attached to any planning permission requiring tree felling and pruning works to be undertaken outside the bird nesting season.

4.7.2 The County Ecologist supports the proposed planting of an area of grassland with native deciduous trees. However, the area could provide further biodiversity enhancements by incorporating features such as log piles using wood from the area to be felled. The future management of this area, along with any hedgerows and grassland should be managed in such a way that promotes biodiversity, to provide further enhancements to the scheme.

4.7.3 On 17 February 2015, in response to reconsultation, the County Ecologist confirmed that they welcome the request for a condition to require tree felling and pruning works to be undertaken outside the bird nesting season has been accepted by the applicant.

4.7.4 The County Ecologist acknowledges the applicant’s proposal to prepare a Landscape and Habitat Management Plan, to be submitted under planning condition prior to the commencement of development. The County Ecologist is satisfied that this will be appropriate in order to deal with the safeguarding of existing vegetation on site, the creation of new areas of habitat and biodiversity enhancements. The County Ecologist highlights that the plan will also need to cover the future monitoring and management of these areas.

4.8 NYCC Heritage - Principal Landscape Architect- responded on 9 October 2014 and has no objections to the development in principle. The Principal Landscape Architect highlights the lack of proposals for protection of existing vegetation, lack of long term maintenance and management of existing and proposed vegetation and lack of mitigation of the visual intrusion of the extensions through use of materials and colours that are less reflective, particularly the extensions to the ATT building which will add bulk to an already intrusive feature. The Principal Landscape Architect acknowledges that this information would be welcome but otherwise conditions could be applied to cover a landscape scheme and the approval of material and colours.

4.8.1 On 13 February 2015, in response to reconsultation, the Principal Landscape Architect confirmed she has no objections in principle to the proposed development. The Principal Landscape Architect is satisfied with the applicants approach to submitting (under a planning condition) a Landscape and Habitat Management Plan prior to the commencement of development. The Principal Landscape Architect requests that the Landscape and Habitat Management Plan sets out measures to protect existing and proposed

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

114

vegetation during site preparation, construction and during the operational period.

4.8.2 The Principal Landscape Architect welcomes the applicant’s willingness to accept a condition imposed on a grant of planning permission for information to be submitted on the colours and finishing of cladding and roofing at the proposed building extensions prior to the commencement of development. The Principal Landscape Architect has stated some concern about the visual impact of the ATT building, which is too high to be screened, but it would be feasibile to reduce the overall impact through the use of more recessive colours and materials and the details can be agreed through a planning condition.

4.9 Highway Authority- responded on 10 December 2014 and note that the application is for the change of use of an existing industrial site and the existing site access is suitable for the traffic generated by the proposed development. As a result the Highway Authority recommended that conditions are attached to any planning permission granted for the development relating to the following matters: the prevention of mud on the highway, the incorporation of a Travel Plan and the approval and implementation of a Construction Method Statement.

4.9.1 On 25 February 2015, in response to reconsultation, the Highway Authority confirmed that there are no local highway authority objections to the proposed development (conditions referred to in Highway Authority response dated 10 December 2014 still apply to any permission granted).

4.9.2 On 9 March 2015 the Highway Authority submitted a formal recommendation which superseded the Highway Authority's recommendations dated 10 December 2014 & 25 February 2015. The Highway Authority recommends that conditions are attached to any planning permission granted for the development relating to the following matters: the prevention of mud on the highway, the incorporation of a Travel Plan and the approval and implementation of a Construction Method Statement.

4.10 Kellington Parish Council- responded on 4 November 2014 and object to the application for the following reasons:

 Never seen such a large scale planning application with so little information or detail;  there are already sufficient infrastructure in England to enable the UK to meet the EU target of reducing waste sent to landfill;  DEFRA has withdrawn £217.1 million of funding for three waste PFI projects, after finding that the 29 projects that already have funding are ‘sufficient’ to meet the EU’s 2020 landfill diversion targets;  If the large scale projects are not needed to enable the UK to meet the EU target of reducing waste sent to landfill, then clearly neither is the small scale DRENL proposal;  The applicant has no idea where the waste would be sourced from, what it will be, or therefore whether there is a demand or need for this plant;

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

115

 The waste will be delivered in a range of vehicles and the applicant has no idea how many vehicle movements there will be;  there is no detail as to where the waste will be sourced from nor what it will be nor whether in the 200,000 tonnes there will be enough non- recyclable or non-inert waste to fuel the ATT;  There are silos for ash etc, there is no mention as to how this will be transported off site;  The applicant has not provided plans of the recycling facilities nor the storage bunkers for the various recyclable material; paper, card, glass, aluminium, other metals, plastics, asbestos, and inert materials;  the Waste Reception and Storage Building will not be large enough for this activity to take place and for the storage of recyclable materials, inert materials and the non-recyclable material that will be fed into the ATT Facility;  The Parish Council contend that the applicants intention is simply to remove metals and other inert waste and to burn everything else and that their proposal does not conform to the Waste Hierarchy nor to the National Planning Policy for Waste;  The lack of information means that it is impossible for the applicant to show that the development would be sustainable, conform to the Waste Hierarchy, Nearest Appropriate Installation (NAI), Proximity Principle, or to show that there a ‘proven need’ for this Incinerator;  It has not been demonstrated that the site complies with the ‘proximity principle’ and that the site is well located geographically to the source of waste as required by PPS 10 and criterion j) of saved policy 4/1 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan;  It has not been demonstrated that opportunities for recycling and composting have been explored as required by PPS 10 and saved policy 5/10 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan;  The proposals do not comply with criteria a) b) and c) of saved policy 6/1 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan as the need for the incinerator has not been demonstrated and proposals do not include the selective recycling of waste;  The proposal does not conform with the Waste Hierarchy, which is a key feature of European legislation, enshrined in law through The Waste (England and Wales) Regulation 2011 as the applicant cannot show what the waste will be, nor where it will be sourced from. Clearly that being the case then it impossible for the applicant to prove that waste burnt in the incinerator could not be recycled, reused or composted;  The Application fails to meet the ‘Nearest Appropriate Installation (NAI) test of PPS 10 and there is no proof that the proposal will conform to the ‘Waste Hierarchy’; and  Kellington Parish Council therefore urge this application be rejected.

4.10.1 On 27 February 2015, in response to reconsultation, Kellington Parish Council re-sent the abovementioned letter of objection.

4.10.2 On 6 March 2015 Kellington Parish Council made further comments as follows:-

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

116

“Within a box 7 miles by 1 mile we have:  Two coal fired power stations  Glass works and chemical plants in Knottingley  At Ferrybridge they are building an incinerator that will burn half a million tonnes of waste every year  The Saint Gobain Glassworks at Eggborough

In addition to this Peel were granted permission for an incinerator at Kellingley Colliery a few weeks ago and before the 12th March we are expecting the decision that will give the go ahead for a gas fired power station just this side of Knottingley. And of course we have the M62 and the M62 Air Quality Management Area as well as the busy A1M, A645 and A19.

A recent report highlighted the environmental damage done by diesel engines, pollutants of concern including nitrogen dioxide and fine particulates. 60,000 people die every year because of air pollution.

It is hard to understand how the cumulative impact of all the traffic associated with Drenl's proposal on top of what is already there, what the Peel and gas fired power station will add, is not been taking into account. If they were then this proposal would be rejected”.

4.10.3 On 11 March 2015 Kellington Parish Council made further comments as follows:-

“DRENL fail to mention Drax, the largest coal fired power station in western Europe. Britain has nine (9) coal fired power stations with three of these (Ferrybridge, Eggborough and Drax) being located in or close to the district. All nine plants are listed in the Dirty Thirty, the 30 most polluting power plants in the EU according to data published by CAN (Climate Action Network). The three local plants collectively produce 40 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually or 40% of the UK total from coal powered stations. If you add the others (Southmoor and Ferrybridge waste incinerators + the new gas station) along with the chemical plants and glassworks plus the busy M62 we will have in the south of Selby an extraordinary amount of cumulative impact. DRENL say (para 8.2.6 of the Environmental Statement) that: A detailed assessment of those topics has been carried out by experts in their field, the findings of which conclude that no significant environmental effects are likely to arise. None of the potentially significant environmental effects are therefore likely to come close to the thresholds of acceptability. But, these "experts" have missed a number of polluting plants, including the largest coal fired power station in Western Europe. They mention Ferrybridge at 8.9Km to the west but not the much larger Drax 9Km to the east. Their work does not really stand up to scrutiny. On this, the application may even be open to a judicial review if approved. Kellington Parish Council support the comments made by Selby District Council's Environmental Health Officer, dated 5th March 2015; namely;

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

117

In respect to Air Quality it is noted that the previous consultation response recommended that an air quality specialist was employed to verify the report’s findings. If this has not been carried out I would reiterate this recommendation.”

4.10.4 On 13 March 2015 Kellington Parish Council made further comments as follows:-

“Following the approval of the Knottingley power project by the Secretary of State. Please see below additional information which Kellington Parish Council want adding to their objection of the above planning application. Knottingley Power Project - EN010050 gets the green light from Pickles.

In addition to the Peel Incinerator, both construction and waste delivery traffic we now face three years of the construction traffic for this gas fired power station and 7 kilometre gas pipeline. The Euro Auction site is going to be used to store everything related to the gas pipe including the pipes. They will then be travelling through local villages.

All this on top of the large amount of traffic that the current industry in the area attracts.

And then we are going to suffer with the construction traffic and waste deliveries (HGVs, Dustbin wagons and Skip wagons) because of the Drenl proposal.

AND, if Drenl get the go-ahead then Hargreaves and their 20 or so wagons that are currently illegally operating (no planning permission) from the Arbre site will move out and we will be back to them overnight parking on the roads in and around Eggborough”.

4.11 Eggborough Parish Council- responded on 9 October 2014 and request that the application is refused. The reasons are summarised below:

 The incinerator will have a negative impact upon respiratory disease through further pollution in the area;  A Dust Management Plan and a Cumulative Impact Assessment on dust and air quality must be part of any planning application;  In light of the Ferrybridge waste incinerator currently being built the Parish Council question where the waste will come from and ask if it will be burning waste from overseas;  The site does not comply with the proximity principle as required by PPS10 and part J of Policy 4/1 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan;  By allowing more incinerators to be built than are needed waste will end up being burnt instead of recycled in conflict with the waste hierarchy; and  It will result in a major increase in HGV's on local roads and the applicant’s routing proposals will be dependant on where the waste will be coming from. The increase in traffic will contribute to existing road safety problems including a recent fatality next to the M62 roundabout at Junction 34. NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

118

4.11.1 On 8 December 2014 Eggborough Parish Council confirmed that they support the letters sent to NYCC by Kellington Parish Council and Selby District Councillor Mary McCartney.

4.11.2 On 5 March 2015, in response to reconsultation, Eggborough Parish Council re-sent the abovementioned letter of objection.

4.11.3 In addition Eggborough Parish Council made the following comments regarding the recent additional information received that need to be taken into account:

“- The applicant didn't answer or respond to our questions about Air Quality Monitoring. - Under the new waste management proposals they do not cover adequately the part in Para 5 with regard to the cumulative impact of existing and proposed waste disposal facilities on the well being of the local community, including any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. - They do not know the capacity of existing and potential transport infrastructure. - They assume that an A class road must have extra capacity”.

4.12 Highways Agency- responded on 15 October 2014 and has no objections to the development.

4.12.1 On 20 February 2015, in response to reconsultation, the Highways Agency confirmed no objections to the development.

4.13 Natural England- responded on 1 October 2014 and confirmed that the proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes.

4.13.1 On 20 February 2015, in response to reconsultation, Natural England confirmed that the advice provided in their previous response dated 1 October 2014 applies equally to this re-consultation although Natural England made no objection to the original proposal.

4.14 NYCC Public Rights of Way Team- has not commented on the application.

4.15 Coal Authority- responded on 29 September 2014 and confirmed that the application site does not fall with the defined Development High Risk Area and is located instead within the defined Development Low Risk Area. If this proposal is granted planning permission, it will be necessary to include the Coal Authority’s Standing Advice within the Decision Notice as an informative note to the applicant in the interests of public health and safety.

4.15.1 On 18 February 2015, in response to reconsultation, the Coal Authority reconfirmed that if this proposal is granted planning permission, it will be necessary to include The Coal Authority’s Standing Advice within the Decision Notice as an informative note to the applicant in the interests of public health and safety.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

119

4.16 Ministry of Defence (DIO)- has not commented on the application.

4.17 English Heritage- responded on 10 October 2014 and state that the application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.

4.17.1 On 5 March 2015, in response to reconsultation, English Heritage re-sent the abovementioned letter dated 10 October 2014.

4.18 Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire)- did not comment following the initial consultation on the application.

4.18.1 On 23 February 2015, in response to reconsultation, Northern Powergrid provided details of Yorkshire Electric apparatus (cables and overhead lines) in the area. Northern Powergrid states that it is essential that overhead cables are not damaged by contractors actions and that groundcover should not be altered either above cables or below overhead lines, in addition no trees should be planted within 3 metres of existing underground cables or 10 metres of overhead lines.

4.19 Civil Aviation Authority- has not commented on the application.

4.20 Robin Hood Airport- has not commented on the application.

4.21 Leeds Bradford International Airport (LBIA)- did not comment following the initial consultation on the application.

4.21.1 On 20 February 2015, in response to reconsultation, LBIA confirmed that the proposal has been reviewed against aerodrome safeguarding parameters and the proposals are unlikely to conflict with aviation interests in regard to Leeds Bradford International Airport.

4.22 Yorkshire Wildlife Trust- responded on 16 October 2014 and is satisfied that the ecological surveys provide sufficient information to assess impacts on wildlife. In terms of air quality YWT state that the Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 Power Station is not included in the assessment of cumulative impacts of pollutants and may need to be included. Also the YWT is concerned that the number of developments of this type may mean that there is insufficient residual waste to enable operation. It is possible that there will be too much capacity in the wrong areas which will generate extra traffic and carbon emissions.

4.23 Health and Safety Executive (Hazardous Substances Consent)- responded on 7 October 2014 and highlighted that as the proposed development lies within the consultation distance of a major accident hazard pipeline (ref. 2670 - Chapel Haddlesey/Eggborough Glass), the Authority should arrange for PADHI+ to be used to consult HSE for advice on this application.

4.24 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (North of England)- has not commented on the application.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

120

4.25 NHS North Yorkshire and York- has not commented on the application.

4.26 Sherburn Aero Club Ltd- has not commented on the application.

4.27 Walton Wood Airfield- has not commented on the application.

4.28 National Grid Plant Protection Team- responded on 26 September 2014 and confirmed that they have no objections to the application.

4.28.1 On 17 February 2015, in response to reconsultation, the National Grid confirmed it has identified that it has no record of apparatus in the immediate vicinity of the site. National Grid therefore has no objection to these proposed activities.

4.29 CE Electric UK- has not commented on the application.

4.30 Selby Area IDB- has not commented on the application.

4.31 Wakefield Metropolitan Borough Council- has not commented on the application.

4.32 NY Police Designing out Crime Officer- responded on 22 January 2015 and notes the comments on security in Section 4.9 of the Applicant’s Planning Statement and has no concerns or issues to raise regarding the proposal.

4.33 On 16 February 2015, in response to reconsultation, the NY Police Designing out Crime Officer confirmed that further to the response dated 22 January 2015 he has no additional comments to make in relation to ‘Designing Out Crime’.

4.33 NY Fire and Rescue Service- have not commented on the application.

Notifications

4.34 National Planning Casework Unit- was notified of the application by letter.

4.35 Cllr John McCartney- was notified of the application by letter.

5.0 Advertisement and Representations

5.1 The planning application was advertised by means of four Site Notices posted on 1 October 2014 (which expired on 22 October 2014). The site notices were posted at the site entrance off Selby Road, on Roall Lane to the north of the site, in the village of Eggborourgh to the south-west and in the village of Kellington to the west. In addition a Press Notice appeared in the York Press on 2 October 2014 (which expired on 16 October 2014).

5.2 With regard to neighbour notification, the occupiers of the following 31 properties were notified by letter on 8 October 2014:

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

121

 1 Roall Waterworks, Roall Lane, Kellington  2 Roall Waterworks, Roall Lane, Kellington  3 Roall Waterworks, Roall Lane, Kellington  Wernick, Roall Lane, Kellington  Euro Auctions (UK) Ltd, Roall Lane, Kellington  P B Tyres, Roall Lane, Kellington  P A Building and Civil Eng Ltd, Roall Lane, Kellington  Roall Hall Farm, Roall Lane, Kellington  RPM Contractors, Roall Lane, Kellington  William Keys & Sons Ltd, Roall Lane, Kellington  AMP Electrical, Roall Lane, Kellington  Hensall Mechanical Services Ltd, Roall Lane, Kellington  Slater Services, Roall Lane, Kellington  Roall Manor, Roall Lane, Goole  1 Roall Manor Cottages, Roall Lane, Goole  2 Roall Manor Cottages, Roall Lane, Goole  The Old Barn, Roall Lane, Goole  Magical Marketing Ltd, Roall Lane, Goole  Eggborough Sports & Social Club, Eggborough, Goole  Eggborough Power Station Ltd, Eggborough, Goole  Tranmore Farm, Tranmore Lane, Eggborough  St Gobain Glass (UK) Ltd, Weeland Road, Eggborough  Barker & Stonehouse, North Point Business Park, Eggborough  ECOM, Unit 2, North Point Business Park, Eggborough  Pawletts (BM) Ltd, Unit 1, North Point Business Park, Eggborough  LED, Unit 3, North Point Business Park, Eggborough  Fluid Pumps, Unit 6, North Point Business Park, Eggborough  Tilemaster (Yorks) Ltd, Unit 7, North Point Business Park, Eggborough  C T Safety Barriers Ltd, Unit 9, North Point Business Park, Eggborough  AJN Signage, Unit 8, North Point Business Park, Eggborough  Russells (Kirkbymoorside) Ltd, North Point Business Park, Eggborough

5.3 On 13 February 2015 the neighbours as listed in paragraph 5.2 of this report and the objectors referred to in paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 were notified of the receipt of the letter from the agent representing the applicant dated 21 January 2015.

5.4 The County Planning Authority has received a total of 65 objections to the proposed development. The locations of the objectors are shown on the plan attached to this report at Appendix 2. The reasons for the objections are summarised and quoted below in no particular order: -

 Traffic;  The addition HGVs in the area (Kellington and Eggborough villages) will add to the existing dangerous road conditions  Vehicles do not obey speed limits  An increase in HGV traffic will increase the risk of serious accidents.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

122

 further increase in HGVs in the village  Kellington Lane is used as a rat run by drivers who do not know the area

 Employment  “will it employ local people?”

 Cumulative impact/over-development of industrial facilities;  There is enough industry here  “Another case of decisions made by people who say 'put it anywhere but not near me'”  there are two other incinerators within 3 miles  “we do not need this unneeded incinerator”

 Air pollution & Noise- Impact upon human health;  potential health hazard, toxic waste  odour  it will attract rats  “these companies do not tell us what exactly they are burning”  “Reassurances should be given that if the pollution fumes and noise become unbearable to the community that the company will have to be closed down”  high levels of pollution causes a high rate of disabilities a birth  “The people of Kellington and Eggborough should be compensated through council tax for all the extra traffic noise and pollution”  “the site was originally intended to burn environmentally friendly 'willow' - grown by local farmers”  how will emissions be monitored and how frequently

 Impact upon character of village  The village should stay rural and peaceful  the countryside is already blighted  People will not want to move to the area (100 new homes being built)

 Location- waste should be treated where it is produced.  “NY planning believe the area should be used as the worlds largest dump”  why do we have to be the dustbin of England  step too far and totally unfair on the village  we are disposing other peoples waste from outside the area  “people have lost all interest in politics, politicians and councils as they no longer represent people only there own careers”  where is the waste coming from

 Waste Policy  The development should be refused as the National Planning Policy for Waste states: “consider the extent to which the capacity of existing operational facilities would satisfy any identified need”

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

123

 The applicant has no idea where the waste will come from and as such by default this plan must be refused in line with the proximity principle  it is not demonstrated that this site complies with the proximity principal as required by PPS10 and part J of Policy 4/1 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan.

 Operational Questions  Is incineration the easiest option?  Will they utilise the heat generated?  What will happen to the waste ash?  Where is the education for the public (and businesses) to reuse, recycling and make better purchasing choices to reduce general waste?

5.5 In addition on 13 November 2014 the County Planning Authority received a letter of objection from Selby District Councillor Mary McCartney and a further letter was received on 28 February 2015. The following is summary of the letters:-

 District Cllr McCartney fully supports the objections from both Eggborough and Kellington Parish Councils  the applicant cannot say where their waste will be sourced from, so it cannot conform to the ‘proximity principal’ and should be refused.  A waste incinerator is under construction at Ferrybridge Power Station which when phase two is complete will burn a billion tonnes of waste per year along with the Peel proposal at Kellinglley Colliery and NYCC’s own incinerator at Allerton Park mean that the existing facilities along with the others with planning permission would satisfy any identified need. The proposal is not required to satisfy identified need and should be rejected.  This site is not an identified site for waste management.  There is nothing in the application to show that the applicant has considered ‘opportunities for on-site management of waste where it arises’  The cumulative impact of existing and proposed waste disposal facilities in regards to heavy traffic on the local roads will adversely impact on the amenity and road safety of the local community.  the idea of a business plan involving skip hire companies transferring waste to Drenl’s proposed site cannot be said to be sustainable, nor can it be said that it will comply with the waste hierarchy or the proximity principal  The applicant has not shown that this will not prejudice movement up the waste hierarchy, indeed all the evidence in the application shows that this proposal will not comply with the waste hierarchy.

6.0 Planning Guidance and Policy

National Planning Policy

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

124

6.1 The policy relevant to the determination of this particular planning application provided at the national level is contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (published March 2012) and also the National Planning Policy for Waste (published October 2014).

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

6.3 The overriding theme of Government policy in the NPPF is to apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision-making this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay (if plans are up-to-date and consistent with the NPPF). The Government has set down its intention with respect to sustainable development stating its approach as “making the necessary decisions now to realise our vision of stimulating economic growth and tackling the deficit, maximising wellbeing and protecting our environment, without negatively impacting on the ability of future generations to do the same”. The Government defines sustainable development as that which fulfils the following three roles:

 An economic role – development should contribute to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation;

 A social role – development supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities; and,

 An environmental role – development that contributes to protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment and as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.

6.4 The NPPF advises that when making decisions, development proposals should be approved that accord with the Development Plan and when the Development Plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, permission should be granted unless:

 any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

 specific policies in this framework indicate development should be restricted.

6.5 This national policy seeks to ensure that there are positive improvements in people’s quality of life including improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure. NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

125

6.6 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF states that core land-use planning principles should underpin both plan-making and decision taking. Land-use planning should:

 Support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change, and encourage the reuse of existing resources, including conversion of existing buildings, and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy)  Encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously development (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value.

6.7 Paragraph 32 within Section 4 (Promoting sustainable transport) of the NPPF states that plans and decisions should take account of whether opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site; safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

6.8 Paragraph 58 within Section 7 (Requiring good design) of the NPPF identifies 6 objectives that planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that new developments:

 “function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development;  establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit;  optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses (including incorporation of green and other public space as part of developments) and support local facilities and transport networks;  respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation;  create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion; and  are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.”

6.9 Paragraphs 93-98 within Section 10 (Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change) of the NPPF Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change. Paragraph 93 indicates that planning has a key role in “supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure”.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

126

6.10 Paragraph 97 encourages local planning authorities to recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources in order to increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy. Local planning authorities are urged to have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources; and design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily.

6.11 Paragraph 98 states that “when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should:

 not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and  approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local planning authorities should also expect subsequent applications for commercial scale projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets the criteria used in identifying suitable areas”.

6.12 Within Section 11 of the NPPF it is clear that the effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account.

6.13 Paragraph 109 within Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) of the NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, minimising impacts on biodiversity, preventing development from contributing to or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution.

6.14 Paragraph 111 states “Planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value. Local planning authorities may continue to consider the case for setting a locally appropriate target for the use of brownfield land.

6.15 Paragraph 118 within Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) of the NPPF sets out a number of principles for determining planning applications which aims to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Paragraph 118 states: “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles (inter alia): if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused”.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

127

6.16 Paragraph 120 within Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) of the NPPF states that to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution, decisions should ensure that the development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area should be taken into account.

National Planning Policy for Waste (published October 2014)

6.17 The National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW) replaces ‘Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management’ (PPS 10) published in 2006 and is to be considered alongside other national planning policy for England - such as in NPPF (2012), Defra’s Waste Management Plan for England (2013) and the National Policy Statements for Waste Water and Hazardous Waste (2012 and 2013 respectively).

6.18 Paragraph 1 of the NPPW states that the Government’s ambition is to “work towards a more sustainable and efficient approach to resource use and management”. The NPPW sets out the “pivotal role” that planning plays in delivering the country’s waste ambitions with those of relevance to this application being as follows:

 “delivery of sustainable development and resource efficiency, including provision of modern infrastructure, local employment opportunities and wider climate change benefits, by driving waste management up the waste hierarchy (see Appendix A of NPPW);  ensuring that waste management is considered alongside other spatial planning concerns, such as housing and transport, recognising the positive contribution that waste management can make to the development of sustainable communities;  providing a framework in which communities and businesses are engaged with and take more responsibility for their own waste, including by enabling waste to be disposed of or, in the case of mixed municipal waste from households, recovered, in line with the proximity principle;  helping to secure the re-use, recovery or disposal of waste without endangering human health and without harming the environment; and  ensuring the design and layout of new residential and commercial development and other infrastructure (such as safe and reliable transport links) complements sustainable waste management, including the provision of appropriate storage and segregation facilities to facilitate high quality collections of waste”.

6.19 It should be noted that a footnote is included in the National Planning Policy for Waste for the reference in bullet point three to the “proximity principle”. The footnote refers to Schedule 1, Part 1, paragraph 4 of The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (S.I 2011/988) for the principles behind the term proximity (as well as self-sufficiency). The reference states the following;

“(1) To establish an integrated and adequate network of waste disposal installations and of installations for the recovery of mixed municipal waste collected from private households, including, where such NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

128

collection also covers such waste from other producers, taking into account best available techniques. (2) The network must be designed to enable the European Union as a whole to become self-sufficient in waste disposal and in the recovery of mixed municipal waste collected from private households, and to enable the to move towards that aim taking into account geographical circumstances or the need for specialised installations for certain types of waste. (3) The network must enable waste to be disposed of and mixed municipal waste collected from private households to be recovered in one of the nearest appropriate installations, by means of the most appropriate technologies, in order to ensure a high level of protection for the environment and human health. (4) This paragraph does not require that the full range of final recovery facilities be located in England or in Wales or in England and Wales together”.

6.20 Paragraphs 2 to 6 of the NPPW relate to the preparation of Local Plans in respect of the evidence base, identification of need, identifying suitable sites and Green Belt protection and are not directly relevant to the determination of planning applications for waste management facilities.

6.21 In relation to the determination of planning applications, Paragraph 7 of the NPPW states that Waste Planning Authorities should:

 “only expect applicants to demonstrate the quantitative or market need for new or enhanced waste management facilities where proposals are not consistent with an up-to-date Local Plan. In such cases, waste planning authorities should consider the extent to which the capacity of existing operational facilities would satisfy any identified need;

 recognise that proposals for waste management facilities such as incinerators that cut across up-to-date Local Plans reflecting the vision and aspiration of local communities can give rise to justifiable frustration, and expect applicants to demonstrate that waste disposal facilities not in line with the Local Plan, will not undermine the objectives of the Local Plan through prejudicing movement up the waste hierarchy;

 consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity against the criteria set out in Appendix B and the locational implications of any advice on health from the relevant health bodies. Waste planning authorities should avoid carrying out their own detailed assessment of epidemiological and other health studies;

 ensure that waste management facilities in themselves are well- designed, so that they contribute positively to the character and quality of the area in which they are located;

 concern themselves with implementing the planning strategy in the Local Plan and not with the control of processes which are a matter for the pollution control authorities. Waste planning authorities should work on NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

129

the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced;

 ensure that land raising or landfill sites are restored to beneficial after uses at the earliest opportunity and to high environmental standards through the application of appropriate conditions where necessary”.

6.22 The criteria set out in the first two bullet points are not material to the determination of this application, as the Local Plan (2006) pre-dates current national policy (2014).

6.23 Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the NPPW relate to planning applications for non- waste development and the monitoring and reporting of waste and are not directly relevant to the determination of this application.

6.24 Appendix A of the NPPW comprises a diagram of the ‘Waste Hierarchy’ which is unchanged from that included in PPS10.

6.25 Appendix B of the NPPW sets out the ‘Locational Criteria’ to be assessed by Local Planning Authorities in determining applications for waste management facilities, as follows:-

a. “protection of water quality and resources and flood risk management; b. land instability; c. landscape and visual impacts; d. nature conservation; e. conserving the historic environment; f. traffic and access; g. air emissions, including dust; h. odours; i. vermin and birds; j. noise, light and vibration; k. litter; and, l. potential land use conflict”.

6.26 It is considered that criteria a, c, d, f, g, h, I, j, k, and l are relevant to the determination of this application and these are set out in full below:

“a. protection of water quality and resources and flood risk management Considerations will include the proximity of vulnerable surface and groundwater or aquifers. For landfill or land-raising, geological conditions and the behaviour of surface water and groundwater should be assessed both for the site under consideration and the surrounding area. The suitability of locations subject to flooding, with consequent issues relating to the management of potential risk posed to water quality from waste contamination, will also need particular care.

c. landscape and visual impacts Considerations will include (i) the potential for design-led solutions to produce acceptable development which respects landscape character; (ii) the need to protect landscapes or designated areas of national NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

130

importance (National Parks, the Broads, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coasts) (iii) localised height restrictions. d. nature conservation Considerations will include any adverse effect on a site of international importance for nature conservation (Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation and RAMSAR Sites), a site with a nationally recognised designation (Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserves), Nature Improvement Areas and ecological networks and protected species. f. traffic and access Considerations will include the suitability of the road network and the extent to which access would require reliance on local roads, the rail network and transport links to ports. g. air emissions, including dust Considerations will include the proximity of sensitive receptors, including ecological as well as human receptors, and the extent to which adverse emissions can be controlled through the use of appropriate and well- maintained and managed equipment and vehicles. h. odours Considerations will include the proximity of sensitive receptors and the extent to which adverse odours can be controlled through the use of appropriate and well-maintained and managed equipment. i. vermin and birds Considerations will include the proximity of sensitive receptors. Some waste management facilities, especially landfills which accept putrescible waste, can attract vermin and birds. The numbers, and movements of some species of birds, may be influenced by the distribution of landfill sites. Where birds congregate in large numbers, they may be a major nuisance to people living nearby. They can also provide a hazard to aircraft at locations close to aerodromes or low flying areas. As part of the aerodrome safeguarding procedure (ODPM Circular 1/20035) local planning authorities are required to consult aerodrome operators on proposed developments likely to attract birds. Consultation arrangements apply within safeguarded areas (which should be shown on the policies map in the Local Plan). The primary aim is to guard against new or increased hazards caused by development. The most important types of development in this respect include facilities intended for the handling, compaction, treatment or disposal of household or commercial wastes. j. noise, light and vibration Considerations will include the proximity of sensitive receptors. The operation of large waste management facilities in particular can produce noise affecting both the inside and outside of buildings, including noise and vibration from goods vehicle traffic movements to and from a site. Intermittent and sustained operating noise may be a problem if not

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

131

properly managed particularly if night-time working is involved. Potential light pollution aspects will also need to be considered.

k. litter Litter can be a concern at some waste management facilities.

l. potential land use conflict Likely proposed development in the vicinity of the location under consideration should be taken into account in considering site suitability and the envisaged waste management facility”.

6.27 It should be noted that the National Planning Policy for Waste does not contain any guidance on dealing with unallocated sites.

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) (2014) 6.28 On 6 March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) web- based resource. This was accompanied by a Written Ministerial Statement which includes a list of the previous planning practice guidance documents cancelled. The NPPG supports the national policy contained within the NPPF. The guidance relevant to the determination of this application is contained within the following sections of NPPG and detailed in the subsequent paragraphs of this report: -

 Air Quality  Design  Flood Risk and Coastal Change  Health and Wellbeing  Natural Environment  Noise  Renewable and low carbon energy  Travel plans, transport assessments and statements in decision-taking  Waste

NPPG- Air Quality

6.29 The NPPG confirms that legally binding limits exist for concentrations of all major air pollutants outdoors, including particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) as well as nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The NPPG states that particulate matter and NO2 “can combine in the atmosphere to form ozone, a harmful air pollutant (and potent greenhouse gas) which can be transported great distances by weather systems”.

6.30 The NPPG goes on to state that planning should take air quality impacts from new development into account “where the national assessment indicates that relevant limits have been exceeded or are near the limit”. The national assessment is identified as the annual assessment Defra undertake using monitoring and modelling information.

6.31 The NPPG explains that an assessment of whether national objectives is being met are undertaken by unitary and district authorities through the local NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

132

air quality management (LAQM) regime. If the objectives are not being met, the relevant authority “must declare an air quality management area and prepare an air quality action plan”.

6.32 With regard to new developments, the NPPG identifies that air quality could be a relevant material consideration where: “the development is likely to generate air quality impact in an area where air quality is known to be poor…where the development is likely to impact upon the implementation of air quality strategies and action plans and/or….lead to a breach of EU legislation”. The NPPG states that air quality impacts could arise from significant traffic generation, new point sources of air pollution, and construction impacts e.g. dust arisings which could affect nearby sensitive locations.

6.33 If air quality could be a concern, the NPPG advises that Local Planning Authorities may want to know about:

 “The ‘baseline’ local air quality;  Whether the proposed development could significantly change air quality…; and/or  Whether there is likely to be an increase in the number of people exposed to a problem with air quality…”

6.34 The NPPG also notes that the Environment Agency can provide help on large or complex processes by identifying Environmental Permit requirements and whether there may be any significant air quality issues at the Permit stage.

6.35 In terms of possible mitigation for an impact on air quality, the NPPG states that mitigation options will be “locationally specific” and “proportionate to the likely impact”, and that these can be secured through appropriate planning conditions or obligations. Suggested examples of mitigation provided in the NPPG include amendments to layout and design to increase distances between sources of air pollution and receptors; the use of green infrastructure to increase the absorption of dust and pollutants; control of emissions and dust during both construction and operation; and the provision of funding towards measures which have been identified to offset any air quality impacts arising from new development.

NPPG - Design

6.36 The guidance states “Good design responds in a practical and creative way to both the function and identity of a place. It puts land, water, drainage, energy, community, economic, infrastructure and other such resources to the best possible use – over the long as well as the short term”.

6.37 When determining applications, the NPPG advises that “Local planning authorities will assess the design quality of planning proposals against their Local Plan policies, national policies, and other material considerations”. Where buildings “promote high levels of sustainability”, the NPPG advises that planning permission should not be refused on the basis of concerns about

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

133

whether the development is incompatible with an existing townscape, if good design can mitigate the concerns.

6.38 In general, the NPPG states that “Development should seek to promote character in townscape and landscape by responding to and reinforcing locally distinct patterns of development…while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation”.

6.39 In relation to landscape impacts, the NPPG advises that development can be integrated into the wider area through the use of natural features and high quality landscaping. In addition, the NPPG promotes the creation of green spaces and notes that high quality landscaping “makes an important contribution to the quality of an area”.

NPPG - Flood Risk and Coastal Change

6.40 The guidance states “Developers and applicants need to consider flood risk to and from the development site, and it is likely to be in their own best interests to do this as early as possible, in particular, to reduce the risk of subsequent, significant additional costs being incurred. The broad approach of assessing, avoiding, managing and mitigating flood risk should be followed”.

NPPG - Health and Wellbeing

6.41 The NPPG advises that health and wellbeing should be taken into consideration by Local Planning Authorities in their decision making, including “potential pollution and other environmental hazards, which might lead to an adverse impact on human health”.

NPPG - Natural Environment

6.42 This section explains key issues in implementing policy to protect biodiversity, including local requirements. It reiterates that “the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that pursuing sustainable development includes moving from a net loss of biodiversity to achieving net gains for nature, and that a core principle for planning is that it should contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution”.

NPPG - Noise

6.43 This section advises on how planning can manage potential noise impacts in new development. In terms of decision taking on planning applications its states that Authorities should take account of the acoustic environment and in doing so consider whether or not a significant adverse effect is occurring or likely to occur; whether or not an adverse effect is occurring or likely to occur; and whether or not a good standard of amenity can be achieved. It also states that “neither the Noise Policy Statement for England nor the National Planning Policy Framework (which reflects the Noise Policy Statement) expects noise to be considered in isolation, separately from the economic, social and other environmental dimensions of proposed development”.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

134

NPPG- Renewable and low carbon energy

6.44 The NPPG recognises the benefits of increased energy production from renewable and low carbon sources, as it will contribute to “a secure energy supply, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to slow down climate change and stimulate investment in new jobs and businesses”.

6.45 In terms of relevant planning considerations, generally the NPPG notes that “Renewable energy developments should be acceptable for their location”.

NPPG-Travel plans, transport assessments and statements in decision-taking

6.46 The NPPG notes that Travel Plans and Transport Assessments can “positively contribute to:

 Encouraging sustainable travel;  Lessening traffic generation and its detrimental impacts;…and  Improving road safety”.

6.47 The NPPG sets out the anticipated scope and content for such documents, and notes that Travel Plans should be monitored for a length of time and at a frequency which is appropriate to the scale of the development.

NPPG- Waste

6.48 With regard to the Waste Hierarchy the guidance states that “driving waste up the Waste Hierarchy is an integral part of the National Waste Management Plan for England and national planning policy for waste” and “all local planning authorities, to the extent appropriate to their responsibilities, should look to drive waste management up the hierarchy”.

6.49 The guidance states, in respect of the use of unallocated sites for waste management facilities, that applicants should be able to demonstrate that the envisaged facility will not undermine the waste planning strategy through prejudicing movement up the Waste Hierarchy. If the proposal is consistent with an up to date Local Plan, there is no need to demonstrate ‘need’.

6.50 With regard to expansion/extension of existing waste facilities the guidance states that “the waste planning authority should not assume that because a particular area has hosted, or hosts, waste disposal facilities, that it is appropriate to add to these or extend their life. It is important to consider the cumulative effect of previous waste disposal facilities on a community’s wellbeing. Impacts on environmental quality, social cohesion and inclusion and economic potential may all be relevant”.

6.51 The guidance includes advice on the relationship between planning and other regulatory regimes. On this matter it states “The planning system controls the development and use of land in the public interest. This includes consideration of the impacts on the local environment and amenity taking into account the criteria set out in Appendix B to National Planning Policy for Waste. There exist a number of issues which are covered by other regulatory regimes and NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

135

waste planning authorities should assume that these regimes will operate effectively. The focus of the planning system should be on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land and the impacts of those uses, rather than any control processes, health and safety issues or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under other regimes”.

6.52 The guidance states that “the role of the environmental permit, regulated by the Environment Agency, is to provide the required level of protection for the environment from the operation of a waste facility. The permit will aim to prevent pollution through the use of measures to prohibit or limit the release of substances to the environment to the lowest practicable level. It also ensures that ambient air and water quality meet standards that guard against impacts to the environment and human health”.

National Waste Management Plan for England (2013)

6.53 National waste planning policy in England forms part of a wider national waste management plan to meet the requirements of the Waste Directive. As previously set out, the UK Government adopted the National Waste Management Plan for England (NWMP) in December 2013.

6.54 It should be noted that “This Plan provides an overview of waste management in England… It is not, therefore, the intention of the Plan to introduce new policies or to change the landscape of how waste is managed in England. Its core aim is to bring current waste management policies under the umbrella of one national plan”.

6.55 The NWMP identifies a commitment to achieving a zero waste economy. It states that: “In particular, this means using the “waste hierarchy” (waste prevention, re-use, recycling, recovery and finally disposal as a last option) as a guide to sustainable waste management”. Later on, it identifies that the waste hierarchy is “both a guide to sustainable waste management and a legal requirement, enshrined in law through the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011. The hierarchy gives top priority to waste prevention, followed by preparing for re-use, then recycling, other types of recovery (including energy recovery), and last of all disposal (e.g. landfill).

6.56 The NWMP recognises that it is: “important to make sure that waste is optimally managed, so that the costs to society of dealing with waste, including the environmental costs, are minimised”. It goes on to state: “The key aim of the waste management plan for England is to set out our work towards a zero waste economy as part of the transition to a sustainable economy. In particular, this means using the “waste hierarchy” (waste prevention, re-use, recycling, recovery and finally disposal as a last option) as a guide to sustainable waste management”.

6.57 In addition, the NWMP identifies that “The Government supports efficient energy recovery from residual waste – of materials which cannot be reused or recycled – to deliver environmental benefits, reduce carbon impact and

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

136

provide economic opportunities. Our aim is to get the most energy out of waste, not to get the most waste into energy recovery. Defra has produced a guide to energy from waste to provide factual information to all of those interested in the development of such facilities including developers, local authorities and local communities”.

6.58 It is noted within the NWMP that “The Environment Agency is the main regulator of waste management in England. Among its responsibilities are the determination of applications for environmental permits required under Article 23 of the revised Waste Framework Directive; and carrying out inspection and other compliance assessment activities” (page 12). In addition, “The waste producer and the waste holder should manage waste in a way that guarantees a high level of protection of the environment and human health. In accordance with the polluter-pays principle, the costs of waste management shall be borne by the original waste producer or by the current or previous waste holders. The distributors of products potentially share these costs. The polluter-pays principle ensures that those responsible for producing and holding waste are incentivised to reduce and/or manage their waste in a way that reduces impacts on the environment and human health”.

6.59 In terms of the location of new waste infrastructure, the NWMP highlights that “The Government’s ambitions for waste highlight the importance of putting in place the right waste management infrastructure at the right time and in the right location. We aim to have the appropriate waste reprocessing and treatment infrastructure constructed and operated effectively at all levels of the waste hierarchy to enable the most efficient treatment of our waste and resources”.

6.60 The NWMP also refers to the nearest appropriate installation principle, advising that: “The revised Waste Framework Directive establishes the principle of ‘proximity’. This is within the context of the requirement on Member States to establish an integrated and adequate network of waste disposal installations for recovery of mixed municipal waste collected from private households. The requirement includes where such collection also covers waste from other producers. The network must enable waste to be disposed of, or be recovered, in one of the nearest appropriate installations, by means of the most appropriate methods and technologies, in order to ensure a high level of protection for the environment and public health. The Directive also requires that the network shall be designed in such a way as to enable Member States to move towards the aim of self-sufficiency in waste disposal and the recovery of waste. However, Member States must take into account geographical circumstances or the need for specialised installations for certain types of waste and the Directive makes it clear that each Member State does not have to possess the full range of final recovery facilities. This principle must be applied when decisions are taken on the location of appropriate waste facilities”.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

137

6.61 In relation to planning decisions, the NWMP states: “All local planning authorities should have regard to both the waste management plan for England and the national waste planning policy when discharging their responsibilities to the extent that they are appropriate to waste management”.

The Development Plan

6.62 Under Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 planning authorities are required to determine each planning application in accordance with the planning policies that comprise the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan for the determination of this particular application comprises the following:

 The extant ‘saved’ policies of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan (adopted 2006);  The extant policies of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan (2013); and  The ‘saved’ policies of the Selby District Local Plan (2005).

6.63 Emerging local policies may also be afforded weight in the determination process, depending on their progress through consultation and adoption. In this respect, it is worth noting that the following document contains emerging local policies that may be of relevance to this application:

 Joint Minerals and Waste Local Plan Issues and Options Document (North Yorkshire County Planning Authority, the City of York Council and North York Moors National Park Authority, February 2014).

6.64 At the current stage, it would not be appropriate to give any significant weight to this emerging document. However, its development is an indication that the current local policy context needs to be updated, to bring it in line with national policy and a more up to date evidence base.

6.65 The NPPF states that for the purposes of decision-taking, the policies in the Local Plan should not be considered out of date because they were adopted prior to the publication of the NPPF. However, the policies contained within the NPPF are material considerations which local planning authorities should take into account from the day of its publication.

6.66 If, following the 12 month transitional period given to local planning authorities to ensure compliance of their Local Plans with the NPPF, a new or amended plan has not been adopted, due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF (paragraph 215 of the NPPF). The closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the NPPF the greater the weight that may be given.

6.67 Therefore, relevant policies within the NPPF have been set out above and within the next section the relevant ‘saved’ policies from the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan (adopted 2006) and the Selby District Local Plan (adopted 2005) are outlined and the degree of consistency with the NPPF is considered. This exercise is not applicable to the policies contained within the NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

138

recently adopted ‘Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan’ (adopted 2013) as the Local Plan Strategy is a post-NPPF adoption and has been deemed to be in compliance with the general aims of the NPPF.

North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan (NYWLP) (adopted 2006)

6.68 In the absence of an adopted Joint Minerals and Waste Local Plan and in accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as of 27 September 2007 only the ‘saved’ policies can now be considered as comprising of the Development Plan. The ‘saved’ policies relevant to the determination of this application are:

 4/1 – Waste Management Proposals  4/3 – Landscape Protection  4/18 – Traffic Impact  4/19 – Quality of Life  5/1- Waste Minimisation  5/2 – Waste Recovery  5/3 – Recycling, sorting and transfer of industrial, commercial and household waste  5/10 – Incineration of Waste

‘Saved’ Policy 4/1 – Waste Management Proposals

6.69 This Policy states: Proposals for waste management facilities will be permitted provided that: a) the siting and scale of the development is appropriate to the location of the proposal; b) the proposed method and scheme of working would minimise the impact of the proposal; c) there would not be an unacceptable environmental impact; d) there would not be an unacceptable cumulative impact on the local area; e) the landscaping and screening has been designed to effectively mitigate the impact of the proposal in a way that is sympathetic to local landscape character; f) where appropriate, adequate provision is made for the restoration, aftercare and management of the site to an agreed afteruse; g) the proposed transport links are adequate to serve the development; and, h) other environmental and amenity safeguards would effectively mitigate the impact of the proposal; i) it can be demonstrated that the proposal represents the Best Practicable Environmental Option for dealing with the waste; j) the location is geographically well located to the source of the waste thereby according with the proximity principle.

6.70 This ‘saved’ Policy of the NYWLP is directly relevant to the development currently under consideration. In accordance with paragraph 214 of the NPPF, an analysis of consistency shows the NPPF to be silent on matters raised in criteria a), b), i) and j). With regard to criterion f), Paragraph 144 of the NPPF states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

139

should provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the imposition of appropriate conditions, where necessary.

6.71 As the NPPF does not provide specific waste policies, the NPPW has also been reviewed in relation to the proposed development in terms of compliance with criteria a), i) and j). There is nothing specifically related to criteria b) and f) within the NPPW.

6.72 With regard to criterion a) this is consist with the NPPW which sets out locational criteria for waste management facilities and states that the type and scale of the facility should be taken into account when deciding on appropriate locations.

6.73 In terms of criterion i), the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) is a set of procedures with the goal of managing waste and other environmental concerns. BPEO assessment is a method for identifying the option that provides “the most environmental benefit” of “least environmental damage”. The technique is not reflected in NPPW or the NPPF, but the principles of putting forward the most sustainable option i.e. movement of waste up the waste hierarchy is set out in NPPW. Therefore, although criterion i) does not conflict with the provision of NPPW it should be given less weight for this reason. NPPW reflects the proximity principle set out in criterion j), therefore, this point should be given weight.

6.74 ‘Saved’ Policy 4/1 g) is consistent with the provisions of the NPPF insofar as supporting the adequacy of transport links, however, there are differences in the objectives that criterion g) states that transport links should be adequate, whereas the NPPF states that improvements to the transport network should be considered. Therefore, the NPPF guidance should be given more weight in this instance because it goes a step further in supporting those developments comprising improvements to transport links.

6.75 In terms of criteria c), d) and h) of ‘saved’ Policy 4/1 the NPPF states that developments should contribute to and enhance the local environment, not give rise to unacceptable risks from pollution, and that cumulative effects should be taken into account. The wording in ‘saved’ Policy 4/1 states that there should not be unacceptable impacts and that safeguards should mitigate the impacts. Although there is a slight difference in emphasis the provisions of the policy are generally consistent with the NPPF and should be given weight.

6.76 Criterion e) of ‘saved’ Policy 4/1 requires that landscaping and screening should mitigate the impact of the development, being sympathetic to local landscape character. Therefore, it is considered that the policy is consistent with the relevant policies of the NPPF, but more emphasis should be given to protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. Greater weight should therefore be given to the NPPF in this instance because it goes a step further in protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.

‘Saved’ Policy 4/3 – Landscape protection

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

140

6.77 This ‘saved’ policy advises that waste management facilities will only be permitted “where there would not be an unacceptable effect on the character and uniqueness of the landscape. Wherever possible, proposals should result in an enhancement of local landscape character”.

6.78 In its reasoned justification, ‘saved’ Policy 4/3 advises that in considering development proposals, the Authority will expect developers to respect and enhance the special character and distinctiveness of features which make specific landscapes locally important. Where waste management proposals are determined to be compatible with the local landscape by virtue of siting, scale and design, possibilities for the enhancement of the character of the local landscape should also be explored.

6.79 This specific ‘saved’ policy is considered to be relevant and full weight can be given to ‘saved’ Policy 4/3 as the NPPF makes clear that the effects of development on the landscape, including the potential sensitivity of an area to adverse landscape impacts, should be taken into account.

‘Saved’ Policy 4/18 – Traffic impact

6.80 This ‘saved’ Policy addresses transport issues and advises that waste management facilities will only be permitted where the level of vehicle movements likely to be generated can be satisfactorily accommodated by the local highway and would not have an unacceptable impact on local communities.

6.81 ‘Saved’ Policy 4/18 does not conflict with the aims and objectives of the NPPF, however, there are differences in that the NPPF states that improvements to the transport network should be considered, therefore, the NPPF guidance should be given more weight in this instance.

‘Saved’ Policy 4/19 – Quality of life

6.82 This ‘saved’ Policy seeks to ensure that waste management facilities will be permitted only where there would not be an unacceptable impact on the local environment and residential amenity.

6.83 It is considered that full weight can be given to ‘saved’ Policy 4/19 as the NPPF makes clear that the effects of pollution on the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account.

‘Saved’ Policy 5/1 – Waste Minimisation

6.84 This ‘saved’ Policy states that: “Proposals for major development should include a statement identifying the waste implications of the development and measures taken to minimise and manage the waste generated. Permission will not be granted where this has not been adequately addressed”.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

141

6.85 It is considered that full weight can be given to ‘saved’ Policy 5/1 as the NPPF states that one of the key roles of the planning system is to minimise waste.

‘Saved’ Policy 5/2 – Waste Recovery

6.86 This ‘saved’ Policy states that: Proposals for facilities relating to the recovery of waste will be permitted subject to adequate environmental and amenity safeguards at the following locations as shown on Inset Maps No. 1 & 2 a) Barnsdale Bar Landfill & Quarry b) Jackdaw Crag Proposals outside these areas will be considered in light of other policies of Chapter 5.

6.87 As a policy specific to the Local Plan area the NPPF is silent on matters set out in this policy.

‘Saved’ Policy 5/3 – Recycling, sorting and transfer of industrial, commercial and household waste

6.88 ‘Saved’ Policy 5/3 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan is considered relevant to the determination of this application as the development involves the sorting, bulking up and recycling of waste materials. The policy advises that ‘Proposals for facilities for recycling, sorting and transfer of industrial, commercial and household wastes will be permitted provided that:

a) The proposed site is suitably located with an existing, former or proposed industrial area of a character appropriate to the development; or b) The proposed site is suitably located within a redundant site or building; c) The proposed site is appropriately located within or adjacent to active or worked out quarries or landfill sites; and d) The operations are carried out in suitable buildings; and e) The highway network and site access can satisfactorily accommodate the traffic generated; and f) That in appropriate cases it does not prejudice the restoration and afteruse of the quarry or landfill site; and g) The proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on local amenity or the environment’.

6.89 Criterion a), b) and d) are broadly consistent with national policy in the NPPF and NPPW in terms of new development on previously developed land, and can therefore be afforded full weight in the determination process.

6.90 Criterion c) and f) are not relevant to the application under consideration. The locational criteria set out in Appendix B of NPPW, which are to be used when determining proposals for waste facilities include considerations relating to traffic and amenity, which criterion e) and g) comply with and can therefore be afforded full weight.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

142

‘Saved’ Policy 5/10 – Incineration of Waste

6.91 This ‘saved’ Policy states that: Proposals for the incineration of household, commercial and nonhazardous industrial waste will be permitted only after opportunities for recycling and composting have been explored and provided the following criteria are met: a) the proposed site is suitably located within an existing, former or proposed industrial area of a character appropriate to the development; or b) the proposed site is suitably located on land formerly occupied by waste management facilities of a character appropriate to the development; or c) the proposed site is suitably located on areas of contaminated, despoiled or previously derelict land; and d) the highway network and site access can satisfactorily accommodate the traffic generated; and e) the proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on local amenity or the environment.

6.92 Criterion a) and b) are broadly consistent with national policy in the NPPF and NPPW in terms of new development on previously developed land, and can therefore be afforded full weight in the determination process.

6.93 The locational criteria set out in Appendix B of NPPW, which are to be used when determining proposals for waste facilities include considerations relating to traffic and amenity, which criterion d) and e) comply with and can therefore be afforded full weight.

6.94 Additionally, the NPPF encourages the re-use of previously developed land. Criterion c) is in compliance with this and can be afforded full weight.

6.95 In addition to the abovementioned ‘saved’ policies contained within the NYWLP it should be noted that paragraph 5.46 of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan relates to “Other Methods of Energy Recovery” and states: “There are a number of other developing technologies to recover energy from waste including Gasification, Pyrolysis and Anaerobic Digestion…If a proposal comes forward for this type of development during the Plan period then these will be judged on their merits taking account of the policies of the Plan”.

Selby District Core Strategy (2013)

6.96 The Selby District Core Strategy is the long-term strategic vision for how the District will be shaped by setting out a number of broad policies to guide development. The policies relevant to the determination of this application are:

 SP1 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development  SP2 - Spatial Development Strategy  SP13 - Scale and Distribution of Economic Growth  SP15 - Sustainable Development and Climate Change  SP16 - Improving Resource Efficiency  SP17 - Low-carbon and Renewable Energy  SP18 - Protecting and Enhancing the Environment NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

143

 SP19 - Design Quality

Policy SP1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development 6.97 Policy SP1 of the Selby District Core Strategy states ‘When considering development proposals the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. It will always work proactively with applicants jointly to find solutions which mean that proposals can be approved wherever possible, and to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area. Planning applications that accord with the policies in the Local Plan15 (and, where relevant, with policies in neighbourhood plans) will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where there are no policies relevant to the application or relevant policies are out of date (as defined by the NPPF) at the time of making the decision then the Council will grant permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise – taking into account whether:

 Any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole; or

 Specific policies in that Framework indicate that development should be restricted’.

Proposals Map

6.98 At the time of writing this report the adopted Proposals Map from the Selby District Local Plan (2005) forms the Proposals Map for the Selby District Core Strategy (2013) subject to any alterations where the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan proposed to amend the designations in the Proposals Map.

6.99 The adopted Proposals Map for Eggborough (Inset Map 27) shows the application site with hatched lines to illustrate a site with a ‘Significant Employment Permission’. The application site is outside of the Development Limits of Eggborough and the land to the south and south-east as ‘Employment Development Sites’.

6.100 No amendments associated with Inset Map 27 were submitted as part of the adoption of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan.

SP2: Spatial Development Strategy 6.101 Policy SP2 sets out the principles guiding the location of all forms of new development in Selby and includes a statement relevant to the determination of this application. It states that the location of future development within Selby District will be based on the following principles (inter alia):

“...(c) Development in the countryside (outside Development Limits) will be limited to the replacement or extension of existing buildings, the reuse of buildings preferably for employment purposes, and well-designed new buildings of an appropriate scale, which would contribute towards and NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

144

improve the local economy and where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, in accordance with Policy SP13; or meet rural affordable housing need (which meets the provisions of Policy SP10), or other special circumstances”.

SP13: Scale and Distribution of Economic Growth 6.102 Policy SP13 of the Selby District Core Strategy states that “Support will be given to developing and revitalising the local economy in all areas”, with the most relevant considerations for this application being as follows:

“B. Strategic Development Management 1. Supporting the more efficient use of existing employment sites and premises within defined Development Limits through modernisation of existing premises, expansion, redevelopment, re-use, and intensification.

C. Rural Economy In rural areas, sustainable development (on both Greenfield and Previously Developed Sites) which brings sustainable economic growth through local employment opportunities or expansion of businesses and enterprise will be supported, including for example: 1. The re-use of existing buildings and infrastructure and the development of well-designed new buildings; 2. The redevelopment of existing and former employment sites and commercial premises;

D. In all cases, development should be sustainable and be appropriate in scale and type to its location, not harm the character of the area, and seek a good standard of amenity”.

Policy SP15: Sustainable Development and Climate Change 6.103 Policy SP15 of the Selby District Core Strategy relates to Sustainable Development and Climate Change and specifically Part B is of relevance to this application, and states:

“B. Design and Layout of Development In order to ensure development contributes toward reducing carbon emissions and are resilient to the effects of climate change, schemes should where necessary or appropriate:

a) Improve energy efficiency and minimise energy consumption through the orientation, layout and design of buildings and incorporation of facilities to support recycling;

b) Incorporate sustainable design and construction techniques, including for example, solar water heating storage, green roofs and re-use and recycling of secondary aggregates and other building materials, and use of locally sourced materials;

c) Incorporate water-efficient design and sustainable drainage systems which promote groundwater recharge;

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

145

d) Protect, enhance and create habitats to both improve biodiversity resilience to climate change and utilise biodiversity to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation;

e) Include tree planting, and new woodlands and hedgerows in landscaping schemes to create habitats, reduce the ‘urban heat island effect’ and to offset carbon loss;

f) Minimise traffic growth by providing a range of sustainable travel options (including walking, cycling and public transport) through Travel Plans and Transport Assessments and facilitate advances in travel technology such as Electric Vehicle charging points;

g) Make provision for cycle lanes and cycling facilities, safe pedestrian routes and improved public transport facilities;

h) Incorporate decentralised, renewable and low-carbon forms of energy generation (in line with Policy SP16 and Policy SP17).

Policy SP16: Improving Resource Efficiency 6.104 Policy SP16 of the Selby District Core Strategy in relation to improving resource efficiency sets out what the Council will require in terms of residential developments and allocated sites, and is not of direct relevance to the proposal. However, the pre-text to both this policy and Policy SP17 Low- Carbon and Renewable Energy (see below) is, identifying that:

“Recovering energy from waste adds value before final disposal (after other opportunities for recycling or composting have been explored)” (paragraph 7.40). It goes on to state that: “In the light of known planned schemes, and the existence of local coal mines and traditional coal fired power stations, Selby District is particularly well placed to exploit opportunities for carbon capture, clean coal technology and coal bed methane as well as potential for appropriate biomass, energy from waste and combined heat and power (paragraph 7.42).

Understanding the potential for the supply of and demand for renewable and low-carbon in a local area is an essential starting point in considering the opportunities to move to low-carbon communities (paragraph 7.45).

Studies at sub-regional level (2004 and 2005) reviewed technical constraints and opportunities for renewable energy developments and undertook some landscape sensitivity assessment (paragraph 7.46).

Evidence from the studies has been used to establish local targets for indicative potential, installed, grid-connected renewable energy within Selby District of 32 megawatts by 2021 (paragraph 7.47).

A further sub-regional study assessed the potential for the full range of renewable energy technologies in the District as well as looking at the possible constraints to implementation as a basis for further local studies

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

146

and ultimately potentially identifying local targets. The current target of 32 MW by 2021 may therefore be revised. The range of renewable technologies includes: Solar thermal, Photovoltaics, Wind, Biomass, Fuel cells, Energy from waste (Biological and Thermal), Hydro, Heat pumps, Wave and Tidal, and CHP or CCHP (paragraph 7.48).

It is appropriate to adopt renewable energy targets locally through the Core Strategy based on the substantial evidence available at regional and sub-regional level. The Council will continue to encourage the provision of new sources of renewable energy generation, provided any harm to the environment and other adverse impacts are minimised and clearly outweighed by the need for and benefits of the development” (paragraph 7.49).

6.105 The Policy states that “In order to promote increased resource efficiency unless a particular scheme would be demonstrably unviable or not feasible, the Council will require (inter alia):

b) Strategic Development Sites identified in the Core Strategy and key sites identified in future Local Plan documents to derive the majority of their total energy needs from renewable, low carbon or decentralised energy sources. Developers to investigate particular opportunities to take advantage of any or a combination of the following for example (inter alia): i) Local biomass technologies, ii) Energy from waste (in accordance with the County Waste Policies), and iii) Combined Heat and Power schemes”.

Policy SP17: Low-carbon and Renewable Energy 6.106 The following points of Policy SP17 are relevant to this application:

“C…All development proposals for new sources of renewable energy and low-carbon energy generation and supporting infrastructure must meet the following criteria: i. are designed and located to protect the environment and local amenity or ii. can demonstrate that the wider environmental, economic and social benefits outweigh any harm caused to the environment and local amenity, and iii. impacts on local communities are minimised.

Schemes may utilise the full range of available technology including; a) Renewable energy schemes, which contribute to meeting or exceeding current local targets of 32 megawatts by 2021 or prevailing sub-regional or local targets…”

Policy SP18: Protecting and Enhancing the Environment 6.107 Policy SP18 of the Selby District Core Strategy seeks to sustain the high quality and local distinctiveness of the natural and manmade environment. A number of points within Policy SP18 are of relevance to the proposed development, as follows:

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

147

“The high quality and local distinctiveness of the natural and man-made environment will be sustained by (inter alia): 1. Safeguarding and, where possible, enhancing the historic and natural environment including the landscape character and setting of areas of acknowledged importance…

3. Promoting effective stewardship of the District’s wildlife by: a) Safeguarding international, national and locally protected sites for nature conservation, including SINCS, from inappropriate development. b) Ensuring developments retain, protect and enhance features of biological and geological interest and provide appropriate management of these features and that unavoidable impacts are appropriately mitigated and compensated for, on or off-site c) Ensuring development seeks to produce a net gain in biodiversity by designing-in wildlife and retaining the natural interest of a site where appropriate…

7. Ensuring that new development protects soil, air and water quality from all types of pollution.

8. Ensuring developments minimise energy and water consumption, the use of non-renewable resources, and the amount of waste material”.

Policy SP19: Design Quality 6.108 “Proposals for all new development will be expected to contribute to enhancing community cohesion by achieving high quality design and have regard to the local character, identity and context of its surroundings including historic townscapes, settlement patterns and the open countryside.

Where appropriate schemes should take account of design codes and Neighbourhood Plans to inform good design. Both residential and non- residential development should meet the following key requirements:

a) Make the best, most efficient use of land without compromising local distinctiveness, character and form. b) Positively contribute to an area’s identity and heritage in terms of scale, density and layout; c) Be accessible to all users and easy to get to and move through; d) Create rights of way or improve them to make them more attractive to users, and facilitate sustainable access modes, including public transport, cycling and walking which minimise conflicts; e) Incorporate new and existing landscaping as an integral part of the design of schemes, including off-site landscaping for large sites and sites on the edge of settlements where appropriate; f) Promote access to open spaces and green infrastructure to support community gatherings and active lifestyles which contribute to the health and social well-being of the local community; g) Have public and private spaces that are clearly distinguished, safe and secure, attractive and which complement the built form; h) Minimise the risk of crime or fear of crime, particularly through active frontages and natural surveillance;

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

148

i) Create mixed use places with variety and choice that compliment one another to encourage integrated living, and j) Adopt sustainable construction principles in accordance with Policies SP15 and SP16. k) Preventing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water, light or noise pollution or land instability. l) Development schemes should seek to reflect the principles of nationally recognised design benchmarks to ensure that the best quality of design is achieved”.

‘Saved’ Policies of the Selby District Local Plan (2005)

6.109 Notwithstanding the adoption of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan in 2013, referred to above, some of the policies in the existing Selby District Local Plan (adopted in 2005 and saved in 2008 by Direction of the Secretary of State) remain extant. As these policies pre-date the adoption of the NPPF, weight can be afforded to them depending on their consistency with the NPPF. Those of relevance to this application and the weight than can be attached to them are discussed in turn below. The ‘saved’ policies considered relevant to the determination of this application are:

- ENV1- Control of Development - T1- Development in Relation to the Highway network - T2- Access to Roads - EMP11- Exceptional Major Industrial and Business Development

‘Saved’ Policy ENV1- Control of Development 6.110 This policy states that “…development will be permitted provided a good quality of development would be achieved” and sets out a number of points which the District Council will take account of in considering proposals for development: 1) The effect upon the character of the area or the amenity of adjoining occupiers; 2) The relationship of the proposal to the highway network, the proposed means of access, the need for road/junction improvements in the vicinity of the site, and the arrangements to be made for car parking; 3) The capacity of local services and infrastructure to serve the proposal, or the arrangements to be made for upgrading, or providing services and infrastructure; 4) The standard of layout, design and materials in relation to the site and its surroundings and associated landscaping; 5) The potential loss, or adverse effect upon, significant buildings, related spaces, trees, wildlife habitats, archaeological or other features important to the character of the area; 6) The extent to which the needs of disabled and other inconvenienced persons have been taken into account; 7) The need to maximise opportunities for energy conservation through design, orientation and construction; and 8) Any other material considerations”.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

149

6.111 It is considered that limited weight can be attached to ‘saved’ Policy ENV1 as the NPPF makes clear that the effects of pollution on the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account. However, with regards to transport, the NPPF states that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe and, therefore, only limited weight may be given in this instance.

‘Saved’ Policy T1- Development in Relation to the Highway network 6.112 ‘Saved’ Policy T1 of the Selby District Local Plan (2005), states that development proposals should be well related to the existing highways network and will only be permitted where existing roads have adequate capacity and can safely serve the development, unless appropriate off-site highway improvements are undertaken by the developer. It is considered that ‘saved’ Policy T1 is consistent with the NPPF and should be given full weight in the determination of this application. This is because the objectives in the NPPF state that improvements to the transport network should be considered.

‘Saved’ Policy T2- Access to Roads 6.113 ‘Saved’ Policy T2 states that “Development proposals which would result in the creation of a new access or the intensification of the use of an existing access will be permitted provided:

1) There would be no detriment to highway safety; and 2) The access can be created in a location and to a standard acceptable to the highway authority.

Proposals which would result in the creation of a new access onto a primary road or district distributor road will not be permitted unless there is no feasible access onto a secondary road and the highway authority is satisfied that the proposal would not create conditions prejudicial to highway safety”.

6.114 It is considered that limited weight can be attached to ‘saved’ Policy T2 as the NPPF, with regards to transport, states that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe and, therefore, only limited weight may be given in this instance.

‘Saved’ Policy EMP11- Exceptional Major Industrial and Business Development 6.115 Policy EMP11 provides for exceptional major industrial and business development. It states:

“In exceptional circumstances, large-scale business or industrial development for occupation by a single large operator and any related development directly linked to its operation may be permitted provided:

1) The development would result in substantial employment or other economic benefits;

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

150

2) There are clear and substantive reasons why the proposed development cannot be implemented on land allocated for business or industrial development in accordance with Policy EMP2; 3) The site is not situated within green belt, a locally important landscape area, an historic park and garden or an area of archaeological importance, and the proposal would not harm acknowledged nature conservation interests; 4) The proposal would seek to minimise the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land and no suitable alternative site is available; 5) The proposal would be well related to the strategic highway network, and would not create conditions prejudicial to highway safety; 6) The proposal would be well related to the existing public transport network or would incorporate measures to ensure the employment opportunities are accessible to the potential workforce by a variety of transport means; 7) The proposal would achieve a high standard of design, materials and landscaping appropriate to the locality; and 8) The proposal would not have a significant adverse effect on residential amenity in nearby settlements”.

6.116 This Policy is generally considered to be compliant with the NPPF, which includes the same steer on all of the points 1-8 in ‘saved’ Policy EMP11. It is therefore considered that this Policy can be afforded full weight.

7.0 Planning Considerations

7.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In light of the abovementioned planning policy and guidance it is felt that the main considerations in this instance are the principle of the development, need, location and the ‘proximity principle’, the design, landscape and visual impact, vermin and birds, security and safety, the traffic impact, the impact upon the environment and local amenity (air quality, odour, dust & noise), employment, flood risk and site drainage and ecology.

Principle of the development

7.2 The Selby District Core Strategy (2013) promotes the re-use of previously developed land (PDL) consistent with the NPPF and states as one of the main objectives in the Spatial Strategy and Core Policies as being “Promoting the efficient use of land including the re-use of existing buildings and previously developed land for appropriate uses in sustainable locations giving preference to land of lesser environmental value”.

7.3 The proposed development would utilise the redundant buildings and infrastructure of the former Arable Biomass Renewable Energy (ARBRE) facility which was permitted in 1997, implemented, but the use ceased in 2002 and the infrastructure has been left dormant. The proposed development comprises the conversion and extension of an existing building and the reuse of previously developed (brownfield) land which is not of high environmental

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

151

value and thus complies with the core planning principles set out in paragraph 17 of the NPPF and also paragraph 111 of the NPPF in respect of land-use planning decisions that encourage the effective use of land.

7.4 The North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan (NYWLP) (2006) places emphasis on the siting of waste management facilities within existing, former or proposed industrial areas. The previously permitted use was not primarily for waste management however it was of an industrial nature which involved a fraction of waste material (sludge) with the purpose of generating renewable energy. The proposed facility would utilise existing infrastructure such as offices, reception and processing buildings, substations and transformers, which have remained since the closure of the former ARBRE Biomass Renewable Energy facility in 2002.

7.5 The principle, in land use planning terms, of an energy from waste facility on this site has already therefore been established in principle and it is considered the proposed waste management facility would be suitably located at the former ARBRE site subject to detailed consideration of the environmental affects in the following sections of this report.

7.6 The proposed waste management facility comprises two main elements. The first being to sort, bulk up and recycle as much of the imported commercial, industrial and household waste as possible. Secondly, to use the residual waste to generate electricity by a gasification plant at the site. The relevant NYWLP ‘saved’ policies are 5/3 (recycling) and 5/10 (incineration) respectively.

Recycling

7.7 The proposed facility includes ‘front end’ recovery of incoming waste (estimated to be 100,000 tonnes per year). All incoming waste material would be fed into pre-sorting technology which would be used to separate the recyclable material from non-recyclable residual material, which would comprise mostly biogenic material which is typically disposed of at landfill. The proposed facility does seek to move all incoming waste up the ‘waste hierarchy’ and is sustainable in accordance with the NPPF and the NPPW.

7.8 It has been established that the site selected for (re)development is acceptable in principle in accordance with the NPPF’s emphasis on the reuse of previously developed (brownfield) land and the reuse of sites and buildings for employment purposes encouraged by spatial policies SP2 and SP13 contained within the Selby District Core Strategy (2013).

7.9 Furthermore NYWLP ‘saved’ policy 5/3 directs waste recycling operations to sites defined as suitable on the basis they are “an existing, former or proposed industrial area of a character appropriate to the development” (5/3a), or within a “redundant site or building” (5/3b) and that the “operations are carried out in suitable buildings” (5/3d). It is considered that in terms of site suitability the development, subject to built extensions and minor adaptions, would fulfil each of the aforementioned criteria. The planning

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

152

considerations in respect of the potential impacts upon highways (5/3e), local amenity and the environment (5/3g) are considered later in this report.

Advanced Thermal Treatment

7.10 NYWLP ‘saved’ policy 5/10 states that facilities for waste incineration should only be permitted “only after opportunities for recycling and composting have been explored”. It should be noted that this policy was drafted with conventional incineration in mind but the policy principals it contains are considered generally relevant to the ATT proposals in this application, which shares a number of similar characteristics to conventional incineration. As stated above the development does include provision for the front-end recycling of imported waste material which would involve the sorting and separation of recyclables which are then bulked up and transported off-site for re-use as an alternative to disposal by landfill.

7.11 The remaining residual unrecyclable biogenic material would be fed into the Advanced Thermal Treatment facility (ATT) and processed by ‘gasification’ to produce electricity. Waste Local Plan ‘saved’ policy 5/10 directs waste incineration operations to sites defined as suitable on the basis they are “an existing, former or proposed industrial area of a character appropriate to the development” (5/10a), or “located on land formerly occupied by waste management facilities of a character appropriate to the development” (5/10b).

7.12 It is evident that the proposed development relates to a former industrial site occupied by the redundant buildings of the former renewable energy facility and thus compliant with criteria (a) of ‘saved’ Policy 5/10. It is further noted that when the ARBRE renewable energy facility was first developed it was planned that the fuel requirements would come from a mix of willow coppice and digested sewage sludge. Whilst the willow coppice element of the fuel cannot be considered as waste, the same cannot be said for the digested sewage sludge. The applicant therefore argues that an element of the former ARBRE scheme falls under the category as a waste management facility. It is therefore, considered reasonable to take the view that the proposed development shares some direct similarities to that of the ARBRE facility in compliance with Policy 5/10 (b). The planning considerations in respect of the potential impacts upon highways (5/10d), local amenity and the environment (5/10e) are considered later in this report.

7.13 The proposed ATT facility would generate approximately 10MW of renewable/low carbon energy for export to the local grid providing sufficient power for up to 18,000 properties. In determining this application significant weight is attached to the demonstrable need for renewable/low carbon electricity generation at national level which is national planning policy in paragraphs 93-98 of the NPPF which in this case is expressed at the local level in policies SP15, SP16 and SP17 of the Selby District Core Strategy (2013).

Need

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

153

7.14 A number of objections to the application have made reference to a lack of need for the proposed facility in light of waste arisings and an oversupply of Energy from Waste (EfW) projects in the region and wider UK.

7.15 The proposed ATT facility is primarily an Energy from Waste facility (with front end recycling). In terms of demonstrating need, paragraph 98 of the NPPF states that “when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should (inter alia) not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also to recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting down greenhouse gas emissions”. Furthermore paragraph 7 of the NPPW states that waste planning authorities should only expect “to demonstrate the quantitative or market need for new or enhanced waste management facilities where proposals are not consistent with an up-to-date Local Plan”. However, such a requirement is not relevant to the determination of this application, as the NYWLP (2006) pre-dates current national policy (2014).

7.16 Whilst there is no requirement for the applicant to demonstrate need for the development, the applicant’s Environmental Statement includes a needs assessment to demonstrate the main waste management benefits of the proposed development.

7.17 The applicant’s arguments are based on the waste arising and waste capacity data contained within the following documents: The Yorkshire and Humber Regional Spatial Strategy (2008), DEFRA Survey of Commercial and Industrial Waste Arisings (2011) and the Urban Mines Study: Feedstock Availability for the Allerton Waste Recovery Park (2012).

7.18 The applicant states that the data sources indicate that there is 7.5 million tonnes of residual municipal solid waste (MSW) and commercial and industrial (C&I) waste requiring treatment in the region (Yorkshire and Humber Regional Plan) although according to the Urban Mines study, there is a requirement to treat approximately 5.8 million tonnes of waste which is consists of 2.3 million tonnes of waste currently sent to landfill and 3.5 million tonnes of residual waste.

7.19 It is therefore considered that there is a requirement for additional waste management capacity of upto 5.8 million tonnes to deal with the waste being diverted from landfill and also to secure the management of the total residual waste. The applicant has identified eight Energy from Waste facilities within the region which are known to have been constructed and are operational and provide capacity for 639,600 tonnes of waste. The applicant argues that this is evidence that there is a considerable shortfall in existing capacity when compared to the waste arisings.

7.20 It is acknowledged that there are a number of facilities that either benefit from planning permission or are in the planning system, which could have an influence on the capacity requirements in the future. However recent appeal decisions indicate that the correct approach is to take into account only

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

154

existing operational capacity as there is no certainty that permissions would lead to operational developments.

7.21 For the purposes of determining this application it is considered prudent to undertake an assessment of the need for the proposal as a waste management facility. The matter of waste arisings and capacity was raised recently in the determination of the Southmoor Energy Facility at Kellingley Colliery. In consideration of this matter (Planning Application ref. C8/2013/0677/CPO), the Committee report referred to a detailed appraisal by North Yorkshire County Council of the capacity which either currently exists or is planned in the Yorkshire and Humber region to deal with C&I waste via methods other than landfill.

7.22 If all the consented facilities within the region were to become operational, and they were to operate using solely residual C&I waste, the maximum tonnage of operational capacity they could provide for the region would be estimated at 2,196,050 tonnes. With the capacity provided by existing operational facilities identified as being 335,000 tonnes, the total operational and proposed capacity for dealing with C&I waste can be estimated at 2,531,050 tonnes as a maximum. This still falls short (by 2,348,950 tonnes) of providing sufficient capacity for the overall C&I arisings for the Yorkshire and Humber region to be diverted from landfill: the lowest recordings of C&I waste arisings for the region sit at 4,880,000 tonnes per annum (in 2009/2010).

7.23 However these conclusions are made with a number of caveats in that they assume that all of the consented developments will be simultaneously operational which is unlikely in the Energy from Waste market. Secondly, the conclusions also assume that all of the considered developments will operate solely on C&I waste when in reality there is potential for all of the proposed developments to handle other waste streams such as MSW, agricultural waste and biomass fuel.

7.24 The proposed development proposes the management of 200,000 tonnes per annum of biomass, commercial and industrial (C&I) and municipal solid waste (MSW). The objections which raise concerns about whether the applicants would actually be able to attract waste to the facility are noted, however, this is principally a matter for the market and not an issue to which the planning authority can attach significant weight. The waste arisings and existing operational capacity have been explored and it is acknowledged that the exact figures are difficult to gauge in light of emerging permitted capacity and uncertainty about the exact scale of current and expected future arisings, particularly for C&I waste. However it can be concluded that the development would be unlikely to result in an overcapacity scenario and would contribute to the capability within the Yorkshire and Humber region to manage residual waste further up the hierarchy by diverting waste from landfill to recovery.

7.25 The drive for renewable energy generation and sustainable waste management stems from the EU level and is carried forward in UK legislation and is expressed in national planning policy (NPPF & NPPW). The proposed development is considered to be in accordance with the national commitment to maximising landfill diversion and the generation of renewable energy.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

155

Location and the ‘proximity principle’

7.26 The application site is within an area characterised by a range of uses including major power generation infrastructure comprising the two large power stations at Eggborough and Drax and a third located at Ferrybridge (in Wakefield, outside the authority area). The principle of a renewable energy scheme involving a fraction of waste materials on the application site has been established by planning permission reference 8/53/125A/PA in 1997. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this report the suitability of the site for a waste management facility involving the generation of energy from waste is considered broadly acceptable in planning terms.

7.27 However a number of objections have argued that the site is not an appropriate location for a waste management facility and have raised concerns that the proposed facility does not meet the ‘proximity principle’ set out in NYWLP ‘saved’ Policy 4/1, which states that proposals for waste management facilities will be permitted providing that “the location is geographically well located to the source of the waste thereby according with the proximity principle”.

7.28 In addition objections, including those from the Parish Councils, have made reference to the facility receiving waste from other parts of the country and that it is unnecessary for the local population to suffer the impacts of a development which is not dealing with waste from that area, and that waste should be recycled or disposed of close to its source.

7.29 The source of the waste is not known at this stage of the determination process as no waste contracts have been agreed and the development has been put forward as a merchant facility, but the facility would deal with C&I waste, with a proportion of MSW depending on the availability of contracts.

7.30 It would not be appropriate to restrict the source of input materials through planning controls. The contracts and source of waste material is a commercial matter and, in accordance with recent case law, the costs associated with the transport of the waste and market forces would regulate the waste movement such that the facility would be likely to represent the ‘Nearest Appropriate Installation’ (in respect of the ‘proximity principle’) for the treatment of that waste.

7.31 Overall, it is considered that the proposed facility would contribute to the delivery of an integrated and adequate network of waste management installations by providing a waste recovery facility. It offers an opportunity to move waste up the ‘waste hierarchy’ and divert it away from the less sustainable option of disposal to landfill, and given the conclusions on the need for capacity to deal with waste arisings in the region, it is considered that the capacity to be provided by the facility would help ensure that waste can be dealt with at the ‘Nearest Appropriate Installation’ and help ensure its management in accordance with the ‘proximity principle’ of the National Planning Policy for Waste.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

156

Design, landscape and visual impact

7.32 Whilst the site has not been operational for the purpose of the ARBRE facility since its construction 15 years ago the physical structures on site are established features in the local industrial landscape. The existing site boundary is well-established and well-vegetated and the proposed development would utilise the existing on-site industrial scale infrastructure. The applicant’s proposals include three minor extensions to the former gasifier building to accommodate the ATT plant and a 330m² extension off the north elevation of the Waste Reception Building. The tallest structure is the existing 41 metre high chimney stack which would be unaltered. The most prominent new built development would be the three extensions to the ATT building shown as 2a, 2b, and 2c on the ‘Overall Site Layout Plan including Landscaping’ drawing dated 28/08/13 (see Appendix 7 of this report) which would stand 27 metres high to meet the eaves of the existing building.

7.33 The Principal Landscape Architect has commented that “the extensions to the ATT building which will add bulk to an already intrusive feature” but concedes that the existing building is too high to be screened. The Principal Landscape Architect has stated that it would be feasible to reduce the overall visual impact through the use of more recessive colours and materials in the construction of the new extensions.

7.34 The Principal Landscape Architect has confirmed that there are no objections to the development subject to a condition to secure the prior approval of the colours and finishing of cladding and roofing for the proposed building extensions.

7.35 The Principal Landscape Architect sought reassurances from the applicant in respect of proposals for the protection of existing vegetation and the long term maintenance and management of existing and proposed vegetation. The applicant has confirmed their willingness to submit a Landscape and Habitat Management Plan prior to the commencement of development which would include the detailed measures to protect existing and proposed vegetation during site preparation, construction and during the operational period.

7.36 The development site is previously developed land and not subject to any local or national landscape designations. The site is visibly of an industrial nature and sits within a partly industrial setting with a skyline dominated by the large structures which comprise the nearby power stations. The scheme is well-designed and would be visually compatible with the local landscape in terms of scale, height and massing and would not result in any unacceptable adverse landscape or visual effects in compliance with ‘saved’ Policy 4/3 of the NYWLP (2006), Policy SP19 of the Selby District Core Strategy (2013) and national policies in respect of design contained within paragraph 58 of the NPPF and paragraph 7 of the NPPW.

Vermin and Birds

7.37 A number of objections have raised concerns that the development will attract rats to the area. Within Appendix B of the NPPW, in respect of ‘Locational

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

157

Criteria’ for waste management facilities, paragraph (i) sets out considerations in respect of vermin and birds. There is an acknowledgement in the NPPW that this matter is especially an issue for landfill sites although it can be a problem for other waste management facilities which handle household or commercial wastes.

7.38 The applicant’s proposed mitigation is to ensure that all waste delivered to the site is deposited, unloaded, sorted, bulked up and loaded only within the waste transfer station building and the doors shall be closed during those times except for the entry and exit of vehicles. In addition there are no proposals for the external handling, processing or storage of waste materials. If planning permission is granted a planning condition would be attached to the permission to ensure the proposed mitigation measures are implemented. It is considered that in light of the aforementioned mitigation measures and that no waste is to be stored in the open, the proposal would not cause any negative impacts in terms of attracting vermin and birds to the area and would not conflict with the NPPW on this matter.

Security and safety

7.39 The proposed development would utilise existing site security features such as the anti-climb wire fence along the site perimeter and the 2 metre high steel palisade security gate at the site entrance. In addition there is CCTV coverage across the site and provisions for fire safety would take the form of fire water silo and reservoir tank. There have been no objections from the police or fire services and, in addition, LBIA have reviewed the development against aerodrome safeguarding parameters and confirmed that the development is unlikely to conflict with aviation interests. With regard to underground cables and pipelines and overhead power lines guidance has been provided by the relevant operators and advice shall be included on any planning permission granted to ensure the operator takes the necessary steps to ensure safe construction and operation of the facility. It is considered that the design of the development demonstrates a proportionate approach to security and safety matters. In light of the above it is considered that the development would not conflict with the requirements of Policy SP19 (g & h) of the Selby District Core Strategy (2013).

Traffic Impact

7.40 The application is accompanied by a Transport Statement which considers the potential traffic impacts of the proposal associated with any increase in vehicular movements and the extent of impact within the existing highway network.

7.41 The application proposes a total of 172 two-way daily movements of which 88 two-way movements would be HGVs. The waste material would be imported to site bulked up on 20 tonne HGVs. The Transport Statement concludes that the development would result in a net increase of 32 two-way daily movements when compared to the existing use (Hargreaves Services PLC HGV distribution centre). In addition, when compared to the consented use it would result in a net increase of 62 two-way vehicle movements.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

158

7.42 The Transport Statement includes anticipated routing of HGVs and states that the majority of vehicular movements would arrive at the site via the A19/Selby Road junction (90%), with 80% of vehicles originating from the M62. The remaining 10% of traffic would route via Selby Road (west).

7.43 The Transport Statement includes accident records which indicate that are no highway safety issues that would be exacerbated by the proposed development. It also confirms the existing site access has acceptable visibility splays and sufficient on-site parking provision. There are proposals within the Transport Statement for the production of a Travel Plan to encourage staff to travel to the site by sustainable modes of transport in accordance with policy SP15 of the Selby District Core Strategy (2013) and the NPPF and also a Construction Method Statement to manage highways impacts arising during the construction period.

7.44 The Transport Statement concludes that the construction traffic associated with the proposed development would have a ‘minor’ impact on all identified links and the proposed operational traffic will have a ‘minor’ impact on all links other than Selby Road (east) where a ‘moderate’ impact is likely. The stretch of road affected only measures approximately 120 metres in length (to join the A19), there are no highway safety or congestion issues, pedestrian facilities are provided and the carriageway is of sufficient width to accommodate HGV movements.

7.45 The Highway Agency has raised no objections and similarly the Highway Authority has raised no objections or concerns subject to the inclusion of planning conditions on any permission granted to cover the prevention of mud on the highway, the incorporation of a Travel Plan and the approval and implementation of a Construction Method Statement.

7.46 It is considered that the development proposals would not result in any adverse impact to the surrounding highway network nor would it have a detrimental effect on highway safety and capacity. The NPPF, at paragraph 32, advises that development should only be prevented on transport grounds where the impacts are ‘severe’ and it is considered that there are no reasons to refuse the application on such grounds. The vehicle movements would not have an unacceptable impact in terms of highway safety or capacity and the traffic generated can be satisfactorily accommodated in compliance with ‘saved’ policies 4/18, 5/3(e) & 5/10(d) of the NYWLP (2006), ‘saved’ policies ENV1, T1 & T2 of the Selby District Local Plan (2005) and the national planning policy contained within the NPPF.

The environment and local amenity- Air Quality (including odour and dust)

7.47 A number of objections from local residents have raised concerns about air quality and pollution from the stack. In considering such objections it is important to note that planning and other regulatory regimes are separate, but complementary. The planning system controls the development and use of land in the public interest and, as stated in paragraphs 120 and 122 of the NPPF, this includes ensuring that new development is appropriate for its

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

159

location taking account the effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution. The focus of the planning system is on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land and the impacts of those uses, rather than any control processes, health and safety issues or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under other regimes. The NPPF advises that local planning authorities should assume that these regimes will operate effectively.

7.48 The application is accompanied by an Air Quality Assessment which includes atmospheric dispersion modelling of emissions to atmosphere from an Advanced Thermal Treatment (ATT) facility. The modelling was undertaken for scenarios that represented the normal operating conditions as well as abnormal operating conditions, with the facility operating at maximum output and discharging emissions to atmosphere via the existing 41 metre tall chimney. It should be noted that the application site and surrounding area does not fall within an AQMA.

7.49 The main potential sources of odour from the proposed facility are likely to be from the waste reception, storage and handling and waste processing through ATT Facility. The odours associated with the waste reception, storage and handling will be minimised by ensuring the activities are only undertaken within the closed building. In addition the air within the waste reception building would be extracted and passed through an odour control unit (carbon filtration system) prior to its release into the atmosphere. This would ensure that the potential for fugitive odour release during the reception and handling of waste is minimised. There will be no external storage or handling of materials at the facility in order to minimise the potential for fugitive emissions of odour.

7.50 The carbon filters shown on the ‘Site Elevations’ drawings (attached at Appendix 6 of this report) are considered to represent Best Available Techniques (BAT) for the abatement of odour from waste processing activities, and should ensure that odour release from the ATT facility is controlled effectively.

7.51 The Air Quality Assessment considered the impact of odour release from two carbon filters associated with the ATT facility and showed that odour concentrations at nearby residential properties will not be a reasonable cause for complaint by people living and working in the vicinity of the ATT facility.

7.52 With regard to dust there are proposals for the sheeting of the vehicles transporting waste materials and also the handling of material within the building with closed doors once unloaded.

7.53 The applicant’s Air Quality Assessment includes a Cumulative Impact Assessment which was undertaken for emissions from the ATT Facility in conjunction with those from other similar developments (built, planned or permitted) in the locality including the proposed EfW facilities nearby in Knottingley, Southmoor (Kellingley) and Ferrybridge. The results from air

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

160

dispersion modelling confirmed that the cumulative impact of emissions from the various facilities would be within relevant Air Quality Strategy objective values, and can be screened out as insignificant in relation to Environment Agency guidance.

7.54 The District EHO has been unable to provide a view as to whether the impact upon air quality is likely to result in an unacceptable impact on the local environment and residential amenity. The District EHO has instead recommended that the Authority seeks the advice of an Air Quality specialist to fully assess the air quality report and ensure the proposed development and the cumulative effect of the development together with other combustion sources in the locality complies with the NPPF and local air quality objectives. The District EHO has not raised an objection to the development although the recommendation that advice is sought from an Air Quality specialist has been reiterated by the two Parish Councils who oppose the planning application.

7.55 The proposed development if granted panning permission would be subject to the controls of an Environmental Permit and regular inspection by the Environment Agency. This would include for example, in the event that odour is found beyond the site boundary, the operator would be required to prepare an Odour Management Plan to be agreed with the Environment Agency. The environmental permit would set operational conditions which will incorporate the pollutant emission limit values (ELVs) for co-incineration plant as specified by the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED). The Air Quality Assessment states that the results showed that pollutant emissions from the ATT facility would not result in exceedences of the objective limits defined within the Air Quality Regulations or relevant Environmental Assessment Levels from Environment Agency Horizontal Guidance Note H1 Annex F.

7.56 The Environmental Permit will only be granted if the Environment Agency, Health Protection Agency and other statutory consultees are satisfied that the development would not cause any unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. The Environmental Permit assessment should include cumulative impacts. It is considered that the emissions from the site could be adequately monitored and controlled under the environmental permitting regime. A planning condition would not be appropriate to control the level of emissions from a proposed development where they are subject to pollution control. The controls exercised under the regulatory pollution regime exist to prevent or mitigate harm from development and any grant of planning permission for the development would not inhibit the relevant regulators from refusing a permit application should they consider it would cause demonstrable harm.

7.57 The existence of alternative statutory means of controlling pollution is a material consideration to be to be taken into account in determination of applications for development which would also be subject to those other forms of statutory control. The planning system should not be operated so as to duplicate environmental controls.

7.58 The overall conclusion of the Air Quality Assessment based on detailed modelling of emissions from the proposed ATT Facility is that the potential

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

161

impact on local air quality is likely to be low and unlikely to pose a significant threat to the health of local residents or people working nearby.

7.59 Notwithstanding the acknowledged concerns of objectors with regard to a number of environmental matters relating to the proposed development, it is considered that, if planning permission is granted, the facilities design and the mitigation measures proposed would sufficiently control the dust and odour emissions arising from the facility and it would not give rise to any amenity issues associated with air pollution/emissions rendering no conflict with the national policy contained within the NPPF and NPPW and would be compatible with the aims of ‘saved’ policies 4/19, 5/3(g) and 5/10(e) of the NYWLP (2006), ‘saved’ Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan (2005) and policies SP17, SP18 and SP19 of the Selby District Core Strategy (2013).

The environment and local amenity- Noise

7.60 The planning application is accompanied by a noise impact assessment (NIA) of the potential noise impacts of the proposed development. The assessment is made in relation to BS4142:1997 in terms of noise criteria at the nearest residential properties, WHO guidance for night-time sleep disturbance criteria, BS8233: 2014, National Planning Policy Framework and the National Policy Statement for England. The NIA comprises daytime, evening and night time noise monitoring and predictions at four locations as follows: Meadow Lodge Care Home, Kellington (west of the site), Roall Lane (north-west of the site), to the rear of Stuart Grove, Eggborough (south-west of the site) and the rear of dwellings adjacent to Roall Waterworks (north of the site).

7.61 During the construction phase there would be a variety of noise sources in use at different stages and their associated activities will vary from day to day. The highest noise levels relative to nearest receptors are likely to occur during site preparation, infrastructure works and building construction. The NIA includes mitigation measures to control noise to an acceptable level including treatment of noise at source or by acoustic cladding treatments or a combination of both. During construction measures may include restriction on operating hours, selection of quieter plant, local screening techniques and routing of equipment to site. Such measures will be defined within the Construction Environmental Management Plan. The NIA advises that with standard site construction practices and mitigation measures, a negligible to minor adverse effect is likely to occur.

7.62 For operational noise, the applicant proposes the introduction of appropriate mitigation measures relative to building design and attenuation measures relative to the nearest residential receptors, to ensure that the resultant noise levels are within appropriate guidance and standards. The measures are based on the employment of Best Available Techniques (BAT) to mitigate any potential peak noise sources. The NIA advises that with appropriate mitigation measures within the detailed design, there is likely to be a neutral to minor adverse effect on the locality during the operational phase.

7.63 The existing building was designed and constructed with acoustic enclosures to ensure low noise levels and a good working environment for the staff. In

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

162

addition it is proposed that the doors on the waste reception building are closed except for delivers and this can be secured by condition on any permission granted so to reduce noise from the operation of the development.

7.64 The cumulative effect of existing noise levels from Eggborough Power Station and any other noise sources in the vicinity of the proposal has been considered in the Noise Impact Assessment. The assessment of the potential combined effects show that with noise mitigation there would be no increase in existing ambient noise levels and therefore no cumulative impact is likely to arise.

7.65 With regard to noise impact the District EHO has no objections and has recommended that any planning permission includes a condition restricting hours of construction work to 0800 to 1800 hours Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1300 hours on Saturdays with no work on Sundays or Bank Holidays. The EHO states that during the operational phase the mitigation measures contained in Section 7.2 and 7.3 of the noise impact assessment are implemented and that the noise levels and the four nearest receptor positions specified at table 7.2 are not exceeded.

7.66 The noise impact assessment concludes that any resultant noise from construction, operation and traffic movements will fall within limits set by appropriate guidance and standards. The proposed development is unlikely to give rise to unacceptable levels of noise, both during construction and the operation of the proposed facility. It is considered that the proposal is unlikely to conflict with ‘saved’ policies 4/19, 5/3(g) and 5/10(e) of the NYWLP (2006) or paragraph 109 the NPPF or Appendix B of the NPPW.

Employment

7.67 The application site is a former biomass renewable energy facility which has not operated for almost 15 years although the redundant buildings remain intact and are proposed to be returned to use as part of a waste management/energy from waste facility. The Selby District Proposals Map from 2005 currently forms part of the Selby District Core Strategy (2013). It should be noted that the map for Eggborough (Inset Map 27) shows the application site as a site with a ‘Significant Employment Permission’. The site is within an established industrial area and the facility would offer local employment opportunities in the form of 40 full times jobs and 200 additional jobs during the site preparation and construction phase.

7.68 It is considered that the development would have a positive impact upon the local economy and the generation of additional local employment opportunities and economic activity is supported in national planning policy in paragraph 1 of the NPPW and at the local level in policies SP2 and SP13 of the Selby District Core Strategy (2013) and ‘saved’ Policy EMP11 of the Selby District Local Plan (2005).

Flood Risk and site drainage

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

163

7.69 The application site is within Flood Zone 1 which is defined as having a ‘very low’ probability of flooding however due to the site area (4.2 hectares) being greater than 1 hectare the application is required to be accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment.

7.70 The Environment Agency’s flood plain map confirms there is no flood risk from fluvial flooding and the site is not located within an area identified by the Environment Agency as a Groundwater Source Protection Zone, a Groundwater Vulnerability Zone or overlaying a major or minor aquifer.

7.71 The applicant’s FRA concludes that the proposal complies with the requirements of the Sequential Test, and there are no identified serious risks of flooding. The existing drainage system would ensure that the application site and surrounding areas are protected from surface water run-off generated by the proposed development.

7.72 The Environment Agency has raised no objections to the development and it is considered that the development would not increase flood risk nor have an adverse impact upon the water environment and the development is in compliance with the guidance contained within the NPPF and NPPW.

Ecology

7.73 The application site is not within close proximity to any local or nationally designated nature conservation sites. The potential ecological impacts that have been identified relate to tree felling and pruning works and nesting birds and as a precautionary response it will be required that such work is undertaken outside the bird nesting season.

7.74 The County Ecologist supports the proposed planting of an area of grassland with native deciduous trees in the north-western corner of the application site and acknowledges the applicant’s proposal to prepare a Landscape and Habitat Management Plan, to be submitted under planning condition prior to the commencement of development should permission be granted. The County Ecologist is satisfied that the Landscape and Habitat Management Plan will be the appropriate mechanism for the safeguarding of existing vegetation on site, the creation of new areas of habitat and biodiversity enhancements and the future monitoring and management of these areas.

7.75 The County Ecologist has confirmed that there is unlikely to be an impact on any statutory or non-statutory designated sites, protected species or notable habitats and that no further survey work is required. There are no ecological objections to the development subject to the inclusion of a restriction on the timing of tree felling and pruning works and the requirement for the prior approval of the Landscape and Habitat Management Plan.

7.76 It is considered that the proposed development would not result in loss or significant harm to any sites of ecological value or be detrimental to nature conservation interests and there are some limited opportunities for new areas of habitat and biodiversity enhancements in compliance with paragraph 109 of

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

164

the NPPF and policies SP15 and SP18 of the of the Selby District Core Strategy (2013).

8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 The proposed development comprises the conversion and extension of an existing building and the reuse of previously developed (brownfield) land which is not of high environmental value. Furthermore the application site is currently of industrial character comprising redundant buildings suitable for reuse for a waste management facility. It is considered that the proposed development complies with the core planning principles set out in paragraph 17 of the NPPF and paragraph 111 of the NPPF in respect of land-use planning decisions that encourage the effective use of land and this is given considerable weight in the decision making process. In addition the proposals to reuse the site and buildings for employment purposes is encouraged by the spatial policies SP2 and SP13 contained within the Selby District Core Strategy (2013) and also considered to be compatible with ‘saved’ NYWLP policies (5/3a, b & d) and 5/10 (a & b) in respect of the development of suitable buildings within a redundant site in an existing industrial area. . 8.2 The proposed development seeks to manage waste up the ‘waste hierarchy’ from disposal to re-use (recycling) and recovery (energy from waste) and as a result the facility would generate 10MW of renewable/low carbon energy. The development would contribute towards the Government’s commitment to divert waste from landfill and focus on renewable/low carbon electricity generation. It is considered that the development is consistent with the national planning policy on waste management and energy which is afforded significant weight in the planning considerations.

8.3 The proposed development would have a positive impact upon the local economy in terms of job creation and there would be no significant or unacceptable individual or cumulative environmental effects. The potential impacts upon the environment, local amenity and the highways network can be controlled through the imposition of planning conditions and there are no material planning considerations to warrant the refusal of this application.

9.0 Recommendation

9.1 For the following reason(s):

i) The development is in accordance with the ‘saved’ policies of the North Yorkshire Waste Local Plan (2006), the policies of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan (2013), the ‘saved’ policies of the Selby District Local Plan (2005) and overall is consistent with the NPPF (2012) and NPPW (2014);

ii) The proposal does not conflict with the abovementioned policies as it is considered that the existing highway network is capable of handling the volume of traffic generated by the development, the visual impact of the NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

165

proposed development can be mitigated through condition, the environmental impacts of the proposed development can be controlled, neighbouring residential properties will not be adversely affected and there are no other material considerations indicating a refusal in the public interest;

iii) The imposition of planning conditions will further limit the impact of the development on the environment, residential amenity and the transport network; and

iv) Having taken into account all the environmental information submitted as part of this planning application included within the Environmental Statement

That, PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1. The development to which this permission relates must be implemented no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this Decision Notice.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the application details dated 29 August 2014 as amended by letter from the agent dated 21 January 2015 and the list of ‘Approved Documents’ at the end of the Decision Notice and the following conditions which at all times shall take precedence.

3. No construction works shall take place except between the following times:

08.00 – 18.00hrs Mondays to Fridays 08.00 – 13.00hrs Saturdays.

And at no times on Sundays and Bank (or Public) Holidays.

4. The vehicular movements associated with the development hereby permitted to, from or within the application site shall only take place between 0800 and 1700 hours Mondays to Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

5. The mitigation measures contained in Section 7.2 and 7.3 of the noise impact assessment ref. R14.0901/DRK, dated 08/09/2014 shall be implemented and the noise levels specified in tables 7.1 and 7.2 shall not be exceeded.

6. Prior to the commencement of the development, a detailed Landscape and Habitat Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The plan shall include a scheme for the protection and management of existing and proposed NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

166

vegetation and habitats during site preparation, construction and during the operational period. A strategy for the long term monitoring, protection and management of all areas of planting, habitats and biodiversity enhancements shall also be included, setting out measures for ensuring that its landscape, screening and biodiversity value is maintained and enhanced for the life of the development.

7. Prior to the commencement of aboveground construction work development details of materials, colours and finishes of the proposed building extensions (cladding and roofing which minimise visual intrusion of buildings) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.

8. There shall be no access or egress by any vehicles between the highway and the application site until details of the precautions to be taken to prevent the deposit of mud, grit and dirt on public highways by vehicles travelling to and from the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. These facilities shall include the provision of wheel washing facilities where considered necessary by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. These precautions shall be made available before any excavation or depositing of material in connection with the construction commences on the site and be kept available and in full working order and used until such time as the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority agrees in writing to their withdrawal.

9. Prior to the development being brought into use, a Travel Plan shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. This shall include: a. the appointment of a travel co-ordinator b. a partnership approach to influence travel behaviour c. measures to encourage the use of alternative modes of transport other than the private car by persons associated with the site d. provision of up-to-date details of public transport services e. continual appraisal of travel patterns and measures provided through the travel plan f. improved safety for vulnerable road users g. a reduction in all vehicle trips and mileage h. a programme for the implementation of such measures and any proposed physical works i. procedures for monitoring the uptake of such modes of transport and for providing evidence of compliance.

The Travel Plan shall be implemented and the development shall thereafter be carried out and operated in accordance with the Travel Plan.

10. No development for any phase of the development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement for that phase has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the County Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority. The approved Statement shall be NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

167

adhered to throughout the construction period for the phase. The statement shall provide for the following in respect of the phase: a. the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors b. loading and unloading of plant and materials c. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development d. wheel washing facilities e. a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works

11. No building or other obstruction shall be located over or within 6.0 (six) metres either side of the centre line of the large water mains, which cross the site as shown on the water mains plan provided by Yorkshire Water on 22 January 2015.

12. All waste delivered to the site shall be deposited, unloaded, sorted, bulked up and loaded only within the waste transfer station building. All door openings on the waste transfer station building shall be closed during waste sorting and screening operations. There shall be no external handling, processing or storage of waste materials.

13. The site shall be developed with separate systems of drainage for foul and surface water on and off site.

14. There shall be a maximum of 88 HGV movements associated with the development in any single day. Vehicles entering and leaving the site shall be monitored and the applicant shall be required to provide the County Planning Authority with weighbridge records within 7 days of any written request from the County Planning Authority.

15. All vehicles involved in the transport of waste material to and from the site shall be effectively enclosed and securely covered in such a manner as no material may be spilled on the public highway. This shall include the use of sheeting or skip nets where appropriate.

16. There shall be no access or egress between the highway and the application site by any vehicles other than via the existing access with the public highway via Selby Road. The access to the public highway shall be kept free from potholes, clean and maintained in a good standard of repair to the satisfaction of the County Planning Authority throughout the whole duration of the development hereby permitted.

17. The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), dated 28/08/14.

18. The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling report, produced by GF Environmental Limited, dated September 2014.

19. A copy of the planning permission and any agreed variations, together with all the approved plans shall be kept available at the site office at all NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

168

times.

Reasons

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

2. To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the application details.

3. In the interests of amenity.

4. In the interests of amenity.

5. In the interests of amenity.

6. This is to safeguard the screening value of existing and proposed planting in the interests of visual amenity.

7. In the interests of visual amenity.

8. To ensure that no mud or other debris is deposited on the carriageway in the interests of highway safety.

9. To establish measures to encourage more sustainable non-car modes of transport.

10. To provide for appropriate on-site facilities during construction, in the interests of highway safety and the general amenity of the area.

11. In order to allow sufficient access for maintenance and repair work at all times.

12. In the interests of amenity and to prevent nuisance from vermin, rats and birds.

13. In the interests of satisfactory drainage and sustainable drainage.

14. In the interests of highway safety and the general amenity of the area.

15. In the interests of highway safety and the general amenity of the area.

16. In the interests of highway safety and the general amenity of the area.

17. To reduce the impact of flooding to the proposed development.

18. In the interests of amenity.

19. To ensure that site personnel are aware of the terms of the planning NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

169

permission.

Informatives

(1) Nesting Birds Vegetation clearance work shall take place outside the main nesting season; approximately the beginning of March to the end of August. - wherever possible. However, birds can occasionally nest at any time of year. If any work (including site clearance work), is likely to take place when birds may be nesting, either in any trees/shrubs/walls to be affected, or in any potentially suitable building, these parts of the site should be thoroughly checked by a qualified Ecologist prior to vegetation removal.

(2) Environmental Permit This installation will also require an EPR permit before it can be brought into operation. The applicant is advised to contact the Environment Agency’s National Permitting Service on 03708 506 506 for further information

(3) Water Resources If the developer envisages that a private supply may be required, it is likely that they will need to apply for an abstraction licence from the Environment Agency. Further information regarding the EA’s approach to licensing, along with local water availability, can be found in the Aire & Calder Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS) Licensing Strategy, available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/abstraction-licensing-aire-and- calder-strategy Any applications for abstraction licences in this location are likely to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The Environment Agency therefore recommends early engagement with us to discuss any such application in more detail.

(4) Yorkshire Water

Water Supply - The exact line of the large 24 inch diameter live water main will have to be determined on site under Yorkshire Water Services supervision. It may be possible for the main to be diverted under s.185 of the Water Industry Act 1991. These works would be carried out at the developer's expense. The cost of these works may be prohibitive. - For further information and advice, the Distribution Asset Manager should be contacted at the following address: Customer Services & Networks (Water Network Assets - South & East), Thorncliffe Hall/Area Office, Newton Chambers Road, Thorncliffe Park, Chapeltown, , South Yorkshire S35 2PQ. - A water supply can be provided under the terms of the Water Industry Act, 1991.

Drainage - Surface water disposal -subject to Environment Agency / Local Land Drainage Authority / Internal Drainage Board requirements). NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

170

Trade Effluent - There may be a trade effluent pipe(s) within the site. Trade effluent may only be discharged to sewer with the prior consent of Yorkshire Water. A trade effluent is any liquid, other than domestic sewage, which is wholly or partly produced in the course of any business. The developer is required to consult with Yorkshire Water's Industrial Waste Section (telephone 0845 1242424) on any proposal to discharge a trade effluent to the public sewer network.

(5) Northern Powergrid

It is essential that overhead cables are not damaged by contractors actions and that groundcover should not be altered either above cables or below overhead lines, in addition no trees should be planted within 3 metres of existing underground cables or 10 metres of overhead lines.

(6) The Coal Authority’s Standing Advice

Approved Documents

Ref. Date Title 29/08/14 Planning Application Form 10/09/14 Planning Statement, with Appendices 10/09/14 Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary 10/09/14 Environmental Statement, with Appendices GPP/D/EGG/13/01 30/07/13 Site Location Plan GPP/D/EGG/13/02 Rev 2 30/07/13 Site Plan TRANT14-EGG-001 Rev A 28/08/13 Overall Site Layout Plan including Landscaping TRANT14-EGG-004 Rev A 28/08/13 Site Layout TRANT14-EGG-002 Rev A 28/08/14 Site Elevations TRANT14-EGG-003 Rev A 28/08/14 Miscellaneous Plant and Equipment Details R14.0901/DRK 08/09/2014 Noise Impact Assessment, produced by Noise & Vibration Consultants Ltd --- September Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling report, 2014 produced by GF Environmental Limited --- Nov 2013 Transport Statement, produced by Bancroft (revised Consulting Ltd September 2014) --- 14/01/14 Ecological Appraisal, produced by FPCR Environment and Design Ltd --- 09/09/14 Landscape and Visual Amenity Appraisal --- 28/08/14 Flood Risk Assessment

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

171

Statement of Compliance with Article 31 of the Town and Country Development Management Procedure Order 2012

In determining this planning application, the County Planning Authority has worked with the applicant adopting a positive and proactive manner. The County Council offers the opportunity for pre-application discussion on applications and the applicant, in this case, chose to take up this service. Proposals are assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework, Replacement Local Plan policies and Supplementary Planning Documents, which have been subject to proactive publicity and consultation prior to their adoption and are referred to in the reason for approval. During the course of the determination of this application, the applicant has been informed of the existence of all consultation responses and representations made in a timely manner which provided the applicant/agent with the opportunity to respond to any matters raised. The County Planning Authority has sought solutions to problems arising by liaising with consultees, considering other representations received and liaising with the applicant as necessary. Where appropriate, changes to the proposal were sought when the statutory determination timescale allowed.

D BOWE Corporate Director, Business and Environmental Services

Author of report: Alan Goforth

Background Documents to this Report:

1. Planning Application Ref Number: C8/53/125F/PA (NYCC ref no NY/2014/0292/ENV) registered as valid on 11 September 2014. Application documents can be found on the County Council's Online Planning Register by using the following web link: https://onlineplanningregister.northyorks.gov.uk/register/ 2. Consultation responses received. 3. Representations received.

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

172

Appendix 1- Application Site

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

173

Appendix 2- Representations Plan

NYCC – 31 March 2015 –

174

Appendix 3- Site Location Plan

175 4

Appendix 4- Site Plan

commrep/4 176

Appendix 5- Site Layout

177 6

Appendix 6- Site Elevations

commrep/6 178 7

Appendix 6- Site Elevations (cont..)

commrep/7 179 8

Appendix 6- Site Elevations (cont…)

commrep/8 180 9

Appendix 7- Overall Site Layout including Landscaping

commrep/9 181 10

Appendix 8- Miscellanous Plant & Equipment details

commrep/10 182 ITEM 5

North Yorkshire County Council

Planning and Regulatory Functions Committee

31 March 2015

Items dealt with under the Scheme of Delegation

Report of the Corporate Director – Business and Environmental Services

The Items reported below have been determined between: 28 January – 10 March Inclusive

A. COUNTY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT

NY/2015/0036/A30 Ripon Grammar School, Clotherholme Road, Ripon, North Yorkshire, HG4 2DG Decision Letter : 12 February 2015 Application for the approval of details reserved by condition No. 5 of Planning Permission Reference No. C6/31/608/BM/CMA which relates to materials storage, vehicle parking areas and a Site Management Plan on land at Ripon Grammar School, Clotherholme Road, Ripon, North Yorkshire, HG4 2DG on behalf of Ripon Grammar School Details APPROVED

C2/15/00361/CCC (NY/2015/0021/73A) County Hall Campus, Racecourse Lane, Northallerton, North Yorkshire, DL7 8AE Decision Notice: 5 March 2015 Planning application for the purposes of the retention of temporary prefabricated office unit No. Y135 on land at County Hall Campus, Racecourse Lane, Northallerton, North Yorkshire, DL7 8AE (Romanby and Broomfield Electoral Division - Hambleton District) PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED subject to conditions

NY/2015/0015/NMT Selby Abbey Primary School, New Lane, Selby, North Yorkshire, YO8 4QB Decision Notice: 25 February 2015 Application for a non-material minor amendment for the section of roof line lowered on the northern elevation, two door entrances removed on the northern elevation, two door entrances moved to replace windows and art stone cills on the northern elevation and realignment of fencing within the car park area relating to planning permission C8/19/83E/PA on land at Selby Abbey Primary School, New Lane, Selby,

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P & R F Committee Items Dealt with Under the Scheme of Delegation/1

183

North Yorkshire, YO8 4QB on behalf of Corporate Director, Children and Young People's Services Details APPROVED

C2/15/00080/CCC (NY/2014/0337/73A) County Hall Campus, Racecourse Lane, Northallerton, North Yorkshire, DL7 8AE Decision Notice: 5 March 2015 Planning application for the purposes of the retention of Elliot Unit No. 6102 on land at County Hall Campus, Racecourse Lane, Northallerton, North Yorkshire, DL7 8AE (Romanby and Broomfield Electoral Division - Hambleton District) PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED subject to conditions

NY/2014/0373/A30 Seamer and Irton Community Primary School, Denison Avenue, Seamer Scarborough, North Yorkshire YO12 4QX Decision Letter : 17 February 2015 Application for the approval of details reserved by condition No's 5 & 7 of Planning Permission Reference No. C4/14/01522/CC which relates to on-site parking, on-site materials storage and a tree root protection method statement on land at Seamer and Irton CP School, Denison Avenue,Seamer, Scarborough,North Yorkshire, YO12 4QX on behalf of Seamer and Irton Community Primary Details APPROVED

C6/79/8697/D/CMA (NY/2014/0361/FUL) Oatlands Infant School, Hookstone Road, Harrogate, North Yorkshire, HG2 8BT Decision Notice: 11 February 2015 Planning application for the purposes of the removal of existing roof coverings, repair timbers, insulate and re-instate roof coverings, all to match existing. on land at Oatlands Infant School, Hookstone Road, Harrogate, North Yorkshire, HG2 8BT (Harrogate Oatlands, Pannal and Lower Wharfedale Electoral Division - Harrogate District) PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED subject to conditions

C8/2014/01326/CPO (NY/2014/0352/FUL) Carlton in CP School, Townend Avenue, Carlton, Goole, DN14 9NR Decision Notice: 29 January 2015 Planning application for the purposes of the erection of a gazebo on land at Carlton in Snaith CP School, Town End Avenue, Carlton, Goole, DN14 9NR (South Selby Electoral Division - Selby District) PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED subject to conditions

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P & R F Committee Items Dealt with Under the Scheme of Delegation/2

184

C2/14/02522/CCC Alverton Community Primary (NY/2014/0346/FUL) School, Mount Road, Northallerton, North Yorkshire, DL6 1RB Decision Notice: 28 January 2015 Planning application for the purposes of the Creation of footpath and removal of a tree on land at Alverton Community Primary School, Mount Road, Northallerton, North Yorkshire, DL6 1RB (Northallerton Electoral Division - Hambleton District) PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED subject to conditions

C5/63/2014/15322 Parish Church Primary School, (NY/2014/0340/FUL) Brougham Street, Skipton, BD23 2ES Decision Notice: 5 March 2015 Planning application for the purposes of the erection of 1.5 m high mesh welded fencing to be erected on top of the existing stone wall, construction of a MUGA sports enclosure and erection of two storage sheds on land at Parish Church Primary School, Brougham Street, Skipton, BD23 2ES (Skipton East Electoral Division - Craven District) PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED subject to conditions

C2/15/00482/CCC (NY/2014/0026/FUL) Knayton CEP School, Stockton Road, Knayton, Thirsk, North Yorkshire, Y07 4AN Decision Notice: 9 March 2015 Planning application for the purposes of the erection of a shelter on land at Knayton CEP School, Stockton Road, Knayton, Thirsk, North Yorkshire, Y07 4AN (Thirsk Electoral Division - Hambleton District) PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED subject to conditions

B. COUNTY MATTER DEVELOPMENT

NY/2014/0383/A30 Brotherton Quarry, Byram Park Knottingley, North Yorkshire Decision Letter: 16 February 2015 Application for the approval of details reserved by condition No's 7, 16 & 17 of Planning Permission Reference No. C8/2013/1064/CPO which relates to noise monitoring on land at Brotherton Quarry, Byram Park Knottingley, North Yorkshire on behalf of Darrington Quarries Ltd Details APPROVED

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P & R F Committee Items Dealt with Under the Scheme of Delegation/3

185

NY/2014/0325/A30 Settrington Quarry, Settrington, North Yorkshire, YO17 8NP Decision Letter : 16 February 2015 Application for the approval of details reserved by condition No.9 of Planning Permission Ref No. C3/117/59A/IDO which relates to the erection of the cabin on site on land at Settrington Quarry, Settrington, North Yorkshire, YO17 8NP on behalf of Fenstone Quarries Limited Details APPROVED

NY/2015/0039/SCR Kirby Misperton A Wellsite - KM8 Production Well Decision Letter: 9 March 2015 Request for a formal Screening Opinion in respect of a proposal for upto five water monitoring boreholes comprising three shallow boreholes (upto 10 metres in depth) within the KM8 wellsite, one deep borehole (up to 220 metres in depth) within the adjoining KM1 wellsite and one additional borehole if warranted within the KM8 wellsite SCREENING OPINION ISSUED

DAVID BOWE Corporate Director – Business and Environmental Services Author of Report: Andrea Taylor

Background Documents: None

NYCC – 31 March 2015 – P & R F Committee Items Dealt with Under the Scheme of Delegation/4

186