9. Planning Statement Addendum Land adjacent to Dinnington Road, Woodsetts Construction of a well site and creation of a new access track, mobilisation of drilling, ancillary equipment and contractor welfare facilities to drill and pressure transient test a vertical hydrocarbon exploratory core well and mobilisation of workover rig, listening well operations, and retention of the site and wellhead assembly gear for a temporary period of 5 years on land adjacent to Dinnington Road, Woodsetts, Rotherham. June 2018 Planning Application Addendum Construction of a well site and creation of a new access track, mobilisation of drilling, ancillary equipment and contractor welfare facilities to drill and pressure transient test a vertical hydrocarbon exploratory core well and mobilisation of workover rig, listening well operations, and retention of the site and wellhead assembly gear for a temporary period of 5 years on land adjacent to Dinnington Road, Woodsetts, Rotherham. PEDL304 June 2018 PEDL304 June 2018 Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Documents submitted during the application process 5 3. New information to address Reasons for Refusal 8 4. Overview and Conclusions 9 Appendix 1: Officers Report to Board 10 Appendix 2: Minutes of Board meeting 11 Appendix 3: Decision Notice 12 Appendix 4: Appeal Decision 13 Appendix 5: Letter to Highways England 21 December 2017 14 Appendix 6: Letter to RMBC Highways 21 December 2017 15 Appendix 7: Letter to RMBC Planning 21 December 2017 16 Appendix 8: Email response on Drainage matters 3 January 2018 17 Appendix 9: Letter to RMBC Planning 15 January 2018 18 Appendix 10: Swept Path analysis M1, J31, 16 January 2018 19 Appendix 11: Letter to RMBC Planning 23 January 2017 20 Appendix 12: Archaeological Evaluation Report January 2018 21 Appendix 13: Letter to RMBC Planning 8 February 2018 22 Appendix 14: Breeding Bird Survey 23 Appendix 15: Public Consultation Materials 24 Contact Matthew Sheppard [email protected] 13 Jun 2018 1. Introduction 1.1 This report has been prepared to accompany a resubmitted planning application for a vertical well and associated testing for the purpose of geological exploration. The application was originally submitted on 25 October 2017 and sought permission for Construction of a well site and creation of a new access track, mobilisation of drilling, ancillary equipment and contractor welfare facilities to drill and pressure transient test a vertical hydrocarbon exploratory core well and mobilisation of workover rig, listening well operations, and retention of the site and wellhead assembly gear for a temporary period of 5 years on land adjacent to Dinnington Road, Woodsetts, Rotherham. 1.2 The application was reported to the 8 March 2018 Planning Board meeting with an officer recommendation of refusal on the following ground: The Council considers that the supporting ecological information provided with the application is deficient to determine the application. The application red-edge site area lies approximately 25m from Dewidales Ancient Woodlands (eastern block) and there is significant built development less than 50m of the woodland boundary. The applicant has submitted insufficient evidence to justify this limited buffer protection area. The Council further notes that due to the lack of an adequate bat, badger and breeding bird survey, it cannot fully assess the potential future adverse impact on the adjacent wildlife and local ecology. Accordingly the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the development can satisfactorily mitigate the potential for harm to the ecology of the surrounding rural environment, contrary to paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework which indicates that if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided then planning permission should be refused. 1.3 Members resolved to add a further reason for refusal relating to highway safety and conflicts with other road users, and delegated the detailed wording of that reason to officers. The decision was issued on 9 March 2018 with the additional reason for refusal worded as follows: The Council consider that the proposed development, which will significantly increase the number of HGV movements through the village of Woodsetts, the surrounding highways and at the junction with the proposed access on Dinnington Road, would give rise to unacceptable highways safety issues, including increased likelihood of conflict with vulnerable road users such as cyclists, equestrians, children and the elderly such that it would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework which expects developments to include safe and suitable access for all people. 1.4 The Officer’s report can be found at Appendix 1 and the Minutes of the Board meeting at Appendix 2. The Decision notice can be found at Appendix 3. 1.5 An identical application was submitted on a site off Common Road, near Harthill. Whilst the site is in a different location, the developments are identical and the reasons for refusal put forward at the subsequent appeal were very similar. The Harthill application was the subject of a non-determination appeal. The Council put forward 1 two reasons for refusal that were later relied on at the Inquiry and then either withdrawn, or attempted to be withdrawn. 1.6 The Appeal decision can be found at Appendix 4. Highways 1.7 Immediately prior to the Inquiry, officers recommended removing the highways reason for refusal as the appellant had submitted some clarification on highways information. Members resolved to maintain the reason and subsequently appeared at the Inquiry to defend the reason on their own behalf. 1.8 This is relevant to the current application as in both cases there is / was a lack of professionally qualified highways evidence to substantiate the reason for refusal. Indeed, officers for the Woodsetts application confirmed the following at the Planning Board meeting: The route from the A57 roundabout is capable of satisfactorily accommodating the number and size of vehicles likely to be generated, particularly in view of the infrequency of the movements along this route. Given the temporary nature of this plan, safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved. The impact in transport terms is unlikely to be severe so we have no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions.1 1.9 This suggests that an Inspector is unlikely to find that there is a severe highways effect and therefore that there is no sustainable highways reason for refusing permission. 1.10 The appeal decision for the Harthill site has now been issued by the Planning Inspectorate. The appeal has been allowed and the highways reason for refusal has been over turned. 1.11 After noting that officers finally reached a positive recommendation in respect of traffic issues, he notes the grounds which were retained as objections on Members request: The Council’s position is however that the latest information from the appellant does not overcome its concerns in relation to highway safety. Specific concerns include: hedgerow damage; traffic enforcement; forward visibility; cyclists and horse riders; traffic backing up between passing places; and vehicle breakdown. (Para 31) 1.12 The Inspector later concluded that: The Council’s technical officers have not raised any objection to the analyses….. The Council’s remaining objections to the proposal however include the accuracy of the modelling, but no reasoned evidence has been put forward in support of this position. In view of the lack of any technical objection, I give this element of the Council’s objection limited weight. (Para 55) 1 Taken from a transcript obtained from the webcast of the committee meeting 2 And From all of the above points, I am satisfied that there would be no residual, cumulative and severe impacts from the proposal that would make it unacceptable on transport grounds. (Para 64) I therefore conclude that the proposal would not necessarily have an unacceptable impact on the existing uses of the highways in the surrounding area. I further conclude that it thus would not conflict with the NPPF. (Para 65) 1.13 The Inspector has clearly made his decision based on the technical evidence, and has given little weight to the points raised by members, as these were not supported by evidence of any harm. We consider that the same approach would be adopted in respect of the highways reason for refusal proposed by members for the Woodsetts application. 1.14 This application has been re-submitted to offer an opportunity to rectify that decision and thus to avoid the potential for a second appeal, and the associated costs claims that may be made in light of the lack of evidence behind the reason for refusal. Ecology 1.15 The ecology reason for refusal has the same basis as the reason put forward for the development at Harthill. The essential issue is that officers did not consider that there is adequate ecological survey information available to conclude that there is not a significant effect. At the Harthill Inquiry, the Council confirmed that the effect was not likely to be significant and subsequently withdrew the ecology reason for refusal. 1.16 This is relevant to the current application, as there is an equal amount of survey information available for the Woodsetts site and indeed this has now been supplemented by further information, which is provided in Section 3 of this report. We consider that this addresses the concerns previously held by the Council’s ecology officer. 1.17 The Inspector in the Harthill case concluded that: I accept that the development could have a negative, but not significant, impact on features of biodiversity value for the period of the development. I am however satisfied that impact has been, and would be, minimised through the design, layout, construction and operation of the development and by the incorporation of suitable mitigation measures. These would avoid a residual adverse impact on biodiversity and maintain ‘no net loss’.