DOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 16 JANUARY 2014

REPORT OF THE REGENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGER

a) DOV/13/0716 – Erection of an anaerobic digestion plan and silage clamps, the formation of bunds, drainage ponds and associated hard- standing and landscaping, Great Cauldham Farm, Cauldham Lane, Capel-le-Ferne.

Reason for Report: The number of third party contrary views. b) Summary of Recommendation

Grant planning permission. c) Planning Policy and Guidance

Dover District core Strategy (CS)

• DM1 states that development will not be permitted on land outside the rural settlement confines unless specifically justified by other development plan policies, or it functionally requires such a location, or it is ancillary to existing development or uses.

• DM3 relates to commercial buildings in the rural area, stating that permission for new commercial development will only be given when it is located at a rural Service Centre of a Local Centre and is consistent with the scale and setting of the settlement, or is at a village, provided that it would not generate significant travel demand and is in other respects consistent with the scale and setting of the settlement. It states that in all cases, development should be within rural settlement confines, unless it can be demonstrated that no suitable site exists, in which event it should be located adjacent to the settlement unless there is a functional requirement for it to be located elsewhere.

• DM11 states that development that would increase travel demand outside the settlement confines will not be permitted, unless justified by development plan policies. Development that would generate high levels of travel will only be permitted within the urban areas that are well served by a range of means of transport.

• DM13 states that parking provision should be a design-led process, based upon the characteristics of the site, the locality, the nature of the development and its design objectives.

• DM15 states that development that would adversely affect the character or appearance of the countryside will only be permitted if it meets certain criteria, which are: o It is within an allocation made in Development Plan Documents), or; o It is justified by the needs of agriculture; o It is justified by a need to sustain the rural economy or rural economy; o It cannot be accommodated elsewhere; and o It does not result in the loss of ecological habitats. o Measures to reduce any harmful effects on countryside character.

• DM16 states that development that would harm the character of the landscape, as identified through the process of landscape character assessment will only be permitted if it is in accordance with allocations made in DPDs and incorporates necessary avoidance and mitigation measures, or it can be sited to avoid. Reduce harm and/or incorporate design measures to mitigate the impacts to an acceptable level.

• DM17 states that certain development will not be permitted in Groundwater source Protection Zones (SPZ) 1 and 2 unless safeguards against possible contamination are provided. Developments include septic tanks, storage tanks, development that may include activities that would pose a high risk of contamination (unless effluent can be directed out of the SPZ, proposals for manufacture/use of organic chemicals and sustainable urban drainage systems.

National Planning Policy Framework

• The NPPF states that at its heart is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, to be seen as a golden thread running through decision- taking. It sets out three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental and provides twelve principles that should undertake decision-taking. • One of the core principles of the NPPF is to support the transition to a low carbon future and encourage the use of renewable resources. • It states that planning should support the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure, which is seen as central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. • Local Planning Authorities should have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources. • Applications should be approved if the impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. • It states that great should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. d) Relevant Planning History

DOV/13/506 – screening opinion for anaerobic digestion plan – EIA not required. e) Consultee and Third Party Responses

Principal Ecologist : will defer to the AONB unit.

Environmental Protection : No objection, subject to conditions ( full comments in body of report ).

County Highways : No objection ( full comments in body of report ).

Rural Planning Limited : No objection. The land is of Grade 4 agricultural quality and the proposal would not involve the loss of best and most versatile farmland. The proposal should benefit the farm, by way of farm business diversification and also be by way of integration with farm production, with the farm providing the source feedstock material and receiving in turn the digestate by-product for use as fertiliser on the land.

Environment Agency : No objection, subject to conditions.

Southern Water : No objection, subject to a condition in relation to drainage.

Natural England : No objections. The site is in close proximity to Folkestone Warren Site of Scientific Interest. The proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes.

AONB Unit : No objections subject to conditions. Provides the following advice:

“The applicant has provided a planting plan and compensatory planting. To seek to ensure that this industrial-style function does not impact on the conservation and enhancement of the Kent Downs AONB, the AONB unit has provided suggests of additional planting of a more joined-up network and better screening of the access road.

The proportion of the holding required for biomass and the impact that the biomass plan would affect the overall farming practices and landscape implications should be considered. The AONB unit has advised that this could be controlled by way of a condition to restrict import of feed to farm waste from other holdings.

A condition should be attached to restrict the import of feedstock to neighbouring farms to ensure that the traffic movements would not be increased.

A condition should be attached to ensure that at the end f the useful life of the plan, all structures and hard-standings are demolished and removed and the land is restored to agricultural use.”

Capel-le-Ferne Parish Council : Raises a number of concerns and suggests measures and conditions, in summary: • Conditions to ensure that appropriate noise levels are adhered to; • Measures to ensure that odour is controlled; • Concern that the silage clamps would be uncovered; • Concern that other waste may be used as a feed. There should be a prevention of food waste from being used and to ensure that only crops grown on the land should be used as feed; • A condition should require screening from the public footpath; • Ensure that there is no adverse impact on neighbouring properties; • There appears to be no benefit to the neighbourhood and no requirement to employ additional employees. Requests that this be investigated further; • Requests a disaster management plan to set out how potential major problems would be dealt with; • Any future changes should require planning permission; • The percentage reduction in cereal crop yield is of concern. Any additional reductions should require planning permission; • Concern that crops would be grown specifically for the plan and the anticipated environmental impact; • If the farm is unable to produce enough feed-stuff, this would require additional traffic movements. Concern over Cauldham Lane being used, which is an extremely narrow, highly inhabited country lane, unsuitable for this type of traffic movement; • Foul odours, close to the village; • Traffic problems and heavy lorry movements; • Environmental damage in an AONB.

Third party letters of representation 198 letters have been received, which includes 196 letters of objection, one letter of support, one letter of comment and a petition objecting to the development.

Letters of objection :

• The AD plan should only be used by Great Cauldham farm; • Volume of traffic; • Implications if the ‘Alkham Valley Road route is blocked (lorries would have to go through the village); • Sat navs would take lorry drivers through Cauldham Lane; • Surrounding lanes are narrow; • The plan is too close to the village; • Access; • Odour; • The existing use of slurry is a problem for the village; • The EA has been unable to stop emissions, it can only minimise them; • There have been a number of explosions at the German plants; • Pollution to the water course; • Noise from plant and traffic; • Once the digesters are constructed, they could start taking food waste, which would have odour implications; • Storage before and after the waste is sealed in the digester would cause odour; • A condition should be attached to prevent future adaptation; • No benefits to Capel; • No employment or social benefits to the village; • Environmental damage to the AONB; • Industrialisation in an unspoilt area; • Other brown-field sites could have been used instead; • Growing crops specifically for industrial purposes would allow the land to be re-designated and allow future development; • Agricultural land that is suitable for growing cereal crops should not be used for growing crops for ‘green’ electricity, as it will increase the reliance on imports.

A petition with 370 signatures has been submitted, raising concerns relating to odour, increased traffic, reclassification of agricultural land to housing development, environmental damage to the AONB and heavy lorry movements through narrow country lanes.

Letters of support :

• The proposal is a good idea.

Letter of comment :

• Supportive of developments that generate energy in an environmentally friendly way, but concerned about the access and odour. f) 1. The Site and the Proposal

1.1 Great Cauldham Farm is located between Folkestone and Dover and extends to 566ha of arable and grassland, with an additional 15ha of woodland, which is coppiced to heat the farm house and cottage.

1.2 The site is undulating in nature and rises up in all directions. A farm access track runs parallel to Alkham Valley Road.

1.3 The A20 lies to the north. Agricultural land and woodland lie to the west and beyond this, Havenfield Hall, which is separated by extensive woodland. Agricultural land lies to the south, much of which is owned by the applicant. Hope Farm lies some 900m to the south of the site. There is a steep bank to the east, with agricultural and beyond. The Great Cauldham Farm complex is located to the south- east, which comprises a number of farm buildings, the farm office and two residential properties.

1.4 The proposal seek full planning permission for the erection of an anaerobic digestion plan. This would be a renewable electricity source, using the process of anaerobic digestion of agricultural feed- stocks for export to the electric grid.

1.5 The proposal would comprise two digester tanks (the largest tank would be 35m diameter and 12m in height), a digestate storage tank, a pre-tank (4m high), a feedstock feeder (20.5m by 3m and just under 4m in height), silage clamps to store the feed-stock (83m by 5.15m and 3m in height), a yard area, a CHP generator (12m by 3m and 3m high), control rooms (4m high) and access roads.

1.6 Underground pipe-work would connect the digesters to the CHP and gas upgrade equipment.

1.7 A bund would be constructed along the north, south and north-western sections of the site, to provide visual screening and to meet the Environment Agency’s required pollution prevention measures, by allowing containment in a potential pollution incident. The bund would be 1.5m height and would be seeded to grass and planted with native species.

1.8 Water infiltration basins would be installed to allow for the collection and soak-away of clean rain-water.

1.9 Landscaping is also proposed, to include planting and mounding along some of the boundaries and planting of woodland.

1.10 The process involves breaking down organic matter in the AD digesters. This will be a mixture of feed-stock – such as maize, grass, rye grass and manure. The grass silage and whole crop rye grass (8,000 tonnes) would be sourced from the area farmed by the applicant and the manure (4,000 tonnes) would be from within the farmed area and from local livestock farmers that the applicant already receives farmyard manures from. This would be delivered via the access to the north of the site, which leads onto the Alkham Valley Road. The feedstock hopper would be loaded each morning.

1.11 The process produces a gas, which is then used as a fuel to drive a generator, which produces electricity and heat. The heat generated by the CHP unit would be used to heat the digester tanks and other buildings at the main farmyard.

1.12 Once digested, the remaining material ‘the digestate’ is used as a high quality soil conditioner and fertilizer, which can be used to replace inorganic fertilisers, which are currently brought in to be used on the farm.

1.13 The renewable energy produced would feed into the national Grid and provide a diversified income for the farming business and is intended to provide a long-term source of income to the farming business.

2. Main Issues

2.1 The main planning issues are:

o Principle of development; o Loss of agricultural land; o Impact on the AONB and surrounding countryside; o Biodiversity; o Impact on surrounding residents (noise and odour); o Highways implications.

3. Assessment

Principle of development

3.1 The NPPF requires the proposal to meet the sustainability objectives, meeting the economic, social and environmental roles that are set out in the NPPF. It also states that applicants should not be required to demonstrate the overall need for renewable energy and that Local Planning Authorities should recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting green-house emissions.

3.2 in respect of the Core Strategy policy context, CS Policy DM1 resists development in the countryside, unless supported by other policies or functionally requiring such a location. Policy DM2 states that permission for new commercial development will only be provided in areas outside settlement confines if it can be demonstrated that there is a functional requirement for it to be located elsewhere.

3.3 The applicant provides a number of site specific advantages, including:

- Grade 4 land; - Located close to electrical distribution; - No environmental designations on the land; - Visual impact would be limited; - Proximity to the Alkham Valley Road and the A20; - Not a flood zone.

3.4 There is considered to be a functional requirement for this proposal – as it needs to be located adjacent to the files that provide the feedstock and benefit from the digestate.

3.5 The applicant puts forward the benefits of this type of energy production, in that it can provide a constant supply of energy (compared to wind and solar) and has a low noise generation. The gas can be stored if there is no demand and the process has three useful outputs (electric, heat and digestate fertiliser).

3.6 The proximity of the fields to the plan increases the sustainability of the proposal – reducing the length of journeys needed to transport the feedstock and digestate. Transport issues are examined in further detail below .

3.7 The proposal provides a renewable energy source, which is supported by the NPPF, providing an environmental role and contributing to the sustainability of the scheme.

3.8 The proposal would result in the loss of Grade 4 agricultural quality land and as such, would not involve the loss of ‘best and most versatile’ farmland. There is no objection respect of the loss of this agricultural land and the Council’s Agricultural Advisor, (Rural Planning Limited) does not raise objection to the proposal. Moreover, the Kent Downs AONB Unit does not object to the scheme (subject to appropriate conditions being attached) and suggest that a condition be attached to ensure that the land is restored to its current state once the lifetime of the plan has ended.

3.9 The proportion of the holding required for biomass and the impact that the biomass plant would affect the overall farming practices and landscape implications should be considered. The applicant has set out that the proposal would have agro-economic benefits for the working of the farm and the Council’s Agricultural Advisor has advised that the proposal would benefit the farm through diversification. The proposal would integrate with farm production, providing clear benefits in respect of economic and environmental sustainability, by using the feedstock grown at the farm to provide the energy and then using the digestate by-product for use as fertiliser on the land. The Kent Downs AONB Unit has advised that this could be controlled by way of a condition to restrict import of feed to farm waste from other holdings.

Impact on the AONB and countryside

3.10 The site falls within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in a valley. The NPPF stresses that weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty of AONBs. CS Policy DM15 also states that development that would result in the loss of, or adversely affect the character or appearance of the countryside will only be permitted if it meets certain criteria, including it if is justified by the needs of agriculture.

3.11 A landscape and Visual Impact Assessment has been undertaken and submitted as part of the application. This concludes that the scale of the adverse effects on the character of the immediate landscape are of a moderate level of significant, but this is contained within a relatively small area of land predominantly contained within a radius of 1km of the proposed plant.

3.12 The views attained of the site, during the officer site visit at and around the site, does substantiate this conclusion. Its location on low- lying land in a valley means that the site is not visible from many vantage points.

3.13 The Kent Downs AONB Unit has advised that additional planting should be required by way of condition to ensure that this industrial- style function does not impact on the conservation and enhancement of the Kent Downs AONB and if this is carried out, it raises no objections. Accordingly, with appropriate additional landscaping, which can be secured by condition, the visual impact on the AONB and under landscape would be limited.

Biodiversity

3.14 The NPPF states that biodiversity should be conserved and enhanced. The site is in close proximity to Folkestone Warren Site of Scientific Interest. Natural England has raised no objections and has advised that the proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes.

Impact on surrounding residents

Ebbsfleet Farm, Ebbsfleet Lane, Ramsgate

3.15 The proposal has understandably generated considerable objections from local residents, who are concerned at the implications of the working of the plant, particularly in relation to odour. For this reason, the Environmental Protection Officer and Planning Officer have visited a very similar development in the Thanet district, which was granted planning permission in 2012, to see ho such a business operates.

3.16 In respect of potential odour, officers visited the site in the morning, when the hopper was being filled – when odour would potentially be at its worst. At the site, the odour was minimal. There are properties some 200m away (closer than the nearest properties at this site) and it is understood from the Environmental Protection Department at Thanet District Council that there have been no complaints since the plant first started operating.

3.17 In respect of noise, the Plant Manager ran the pumps that pump the feed-stock from the hopper into the digester. These operate automatically (but not constantly) and create a low humming sound. The pumps are not enclosed however it is understood that no complaints have been received.

3.18 The manager also ran the stirrers, which stir the feed-stock when it is in the digester. The digesters are well insulated and the noise generated from the stirrers in negligible and not considered to be a concern.

3.19 Overall, the site is very clean and appears to be efficiently operated and officers were satisfied that any impact on residential properties would be minimal.

Noise

3.20 The application sets out that construction noise would be limited to a six month period and would not be undertaken on Sundays or Public Holidays, restricted at all times to reasonable working hours. This is considered to be acceptable.

3.21 the application further states that noise from the plant, when operational, would not be any greater than from a conventional farm system and the anaerobic digestion process itself is silent. Noise- generating elements would be at least 400m from the nearest receptors.

3.22 The Environmental Protection Officer has advised that the supporting information indicates that although the site is located in a rural setting, background noise levels are elevated, due to local road traffic sources and grain-drying equipment. The information also includes specific details of pumps, mixers, CHP unit and quotes figures from works on another site in Germany.

3.23 Some mitigation measures are included in the application submission, however, there are no details of sound levels anticipated at residential receptors. The Environmental Protection Officer advises that attaching a condition to control the noise level of plant machinery and equipment is reasonable if the expectations of the developers prove correct, should be easily achievable.

3.24 Based on the information provided and having been present when the plan machinery was in operation at Ebbsfleet farm, officers are satisfied that any noise generated from the plant can be adequately controlled and is unlikely to cause problems for surrounding residents. Actually the noise is likely to be no more than would normally be associated with existing farming activities on the site.

3.25 The suggested condition would read:

Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, showing that, when operating, the design and installation of all items of fixed plan shall be such that the cumulative noise level LAeq Tr arising from the plant, measured or predicted at 1 metre from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive premises, shall be a rating level 5dB (A) below the background noise level LA90 Tbg. The measurement and/or prediction of noise shall be carried out in accordance with BS4142:1997. All plant and machinery shall be maintained in full working order to maintain this rating level . Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring residential properties.

This would allow Environmental Protection Officers to monitor noise generated and act if noise levels were in excess of those referred to.

Odour

3.26 The application provides details on all elements of the plan and the potential for odour emissions, which is worth setting out in detail.

3.27 Digesters and the anaerobic process : The generated biogas would be within sealed gas storage domes. The application states that the plant would not release odours other than those expected from the storage of silage on a farm.

3.28 Silage : silage would be stored within a silage clamp, which would be covered at all times, apart from one open face of the clamp and during transfer of material out of the clamp. The area of silage disturbed each day would be small and undertaken for a very limited period. It would have an ‘agricultural’ odour.

3.29 Digestate : The digestate would be produced within sealed tanks. The only potential for odour emission would be during transfer. It would have a very low odour potential because it has already been broken down within the digestion process.

3.30 Biogas : If there is an excess of gas (which has been advised is very unlikely), this would be burned off through a flare stack and this would control emissions.

3.31 Farmyard manure : Manure would be stored within the silage clamps, which have an effluent collection system and are a sealed unit.

3.32 Loading of the feed-stock feeder : Feed-stock would be transferred once a day and would be done over a short period, to avoid raising odour.

3.33 Potential for fugitive emissions : The process is a sealed system, which means that there is limited potential for fugitive emissions. The plant would be constantly monitored and problems should be eliminated before a gas release issue would occur.

3.34 Emissions : There would be two potential sources of emission from the exhaust of the CHP plant and the emergency gas flare, which would comply with the relevant UK emissions legislation.

3.35 The nearest residential receptor is approximately 380m from the process. The Environmental Protection Officer has advised that in terms of potential for odour complaints, it is likely that the incoming feedstock and other silage materials could give rise to odours and airborne transfer is possible during movement of digestate. The spreading of digestate onto the land could itself cause odour problems.

3.36 However, this practice is controlled under the Code of Practice ‘Protecting our Water Soul and Air’ . It is also synonymous with the normal working of a farm.

3.37 Moreover, the use of the digestate as a fertilising agent on the land would reduce the amount of fertiliser including chicken manure, sewage and paper sludge) that is currently being spread on the land. The digestate is much less pungent than these currently use fertilisers and so would reduce the malodour problems that have historically existed in the area.

3.38 Whilst the applicant has advised that an Odour Management Plan is intended, the Environmental Protection recommends that the following condition is included:

Prior to first use, an Odour Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The land shall identify clear measures that will control and mitigate odours to minimise disturbance at residential properties in the vicinity. These approved measures shall be put in place prior to the first use of the plant and maintained as such hereafter.

3.39 The site is likely to operate within the permit regime of the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 and will operate under a permit issued by the Environment Agency or an exemption. In either case, it is expected that controls on odour emissions will be enforced by the regulator. The applicant would have to operate an Environmental Management System and would face a Closure Order from the Environment Agency if not adhered to. EA are satisfied with the process.

3.40 Overall, it is considered that the application addresses concerns over possible odour emissions for the process and indicates a low risk of offensive odours causing a problem.

Highways implications

3.41 In addition to the original submitted details, county Highways requested further information on traffic movements to establish the impact the proposal would have on the local road network.

3.42 The applicant has provided the detailed information relating to the frequency of existing and proposed vehicle movements, when they take place, what they are carrying and how this would change as a result of the proposal. The main access route for the AD plant would be via the access from Alkham Valley Road. The application states that the operation of the AD plant would reduce exports of goods (which use the Cauldham Lane access) by 40% - or 71 fewer round trips a year.

3.43 The information sets out that the plant would generate an extra 21 round trips per annum, compared to the existing farm operation. This is based on:

o The number of movements saved through not importing the same volume of manure; o The trips generated by feedstock harvest; o Farmyard manure delivery; o Digestate spreading.

3.44 The application states that 500 acres (out of 1250 acres) would be used for growing feedstock for the MP plant. The rest of the farm would be farmed as normal. The digestate would be used for fertiliser, which would replace the 8,500 tonnes of farmyard manure and organic wastes imported each year.

3.45 Maps have been provided to show the rotation of the feedstock for the plant, showing that it would make sense to use the ‘Alkham Valley Road access, to prevent full trailers having to go down the steep bank from the farm.

3.46 County Highways has provided the following comments on the highway implications or the scheme.

3.47 The current farming operations generate HGV and agricultural movements for the delivery and collection of crops to and from the farmyard and delivery/spreading of sewage sludge and organic paper wastes. Approximately 40% of the existing farm holding would be used to produce crops for the anaerobic digestion plant, which would give a similar reduction in movement of crops by HGV from the farmyard. The import of sewage sludge and organic wastes for spreading on the farmland would also no longer be necessary, as the digestate from the plant would be spread on the farmland instead.

3.48 The plant would generate agricultural vehicle movements, in bringing crops from the farmland to the plant, the import of farmyard manure waste to the plant (in much smaller quantities than currently imported to the farm) and the spreading of digestate produced by the plan on the farmland.

3.49 Overall, there is likely to be a small increase in vehicle movements on the highway in the course of a typical year. The applicant has advised that access to and from the plant would be from Alkham Valley Road and Cut Throat Lane. The spread of land within the farm-holding is such that access and egress using this route is more direct for the majority of the land, than using Cauldham Lane.

3.50 Therefore, whilst there may still be HGV and agricultural vehicle movements in Cauldham Lane associated with the conventional farming operations that are to remain, there is unlikely to be an increase in movements in Cauldham Lane as a result of the proposal and in fact more likely an overall reduction in movements in Cauldham Lane if access to and from the plan is solely via Alkham Valley Road and Cut Throat Lane. In any case agricultural related vehicle activity cannot be controlled.

3.51 The applicant has also advised that the landholding is more than sufficient to supply the needs of the plant. There should therefore not be any need to import feedstock grown on other farms.

3.52 On balance, County Highways has no objection in respect of highways matters, subject to access/egress to and from the plant being made via the Alkham Valley Road/Cut Throat Lane route, as identified in the application.

Conclusion

3.53 There is policy and Government support for sustainable energy production and this proposal would provide a sustainable energy source, whilst also enabling farm business diversification. The main issues relating to this scheme are highways implications, noise and odour issues and the impact of the plant on the character and appearance of the AONB.

3.54 The proposal is unlikely to significantly increase the number of traffic movements associated with the farm and any increase would be via Alkham Valley Road, rather than Cauldham Lane.

3.55 The concerns raised by local residents are understood, given the scale of the operation and the nature of the proposal, which involves breaking down organic matter and spreading the digestate. However, officers are satisfied that, with controlling conditions in place, the operation of the plant would not result in unacceptable odour or noise levels for local residents.

3.56 The plant would be located in an isolated position, but subject to appropriate landscaping being provided, would preserve the character and appearance of the AONB.

3.57 Overall therefore, the proposal is considered to comply with policy and would be acceptable in respect of its impact on the wider area. g) Recommendation

I PERMISSION BE GRANTED, subject to conditions to include:- (1) Standard time limit; (2) Approved plans and details; (3) Details of all external lighting; (4) Submission of an Odour Management Plan; (5) Submission of a scheme to show the noise levels of plant and machinery; (6) Access/egress to and from the plant (including construction and maintenance vehicles) made via the Alkham Valley Road/Cut Throat Lane route, from specified fields; (7) Details and a plan for soft landscaping (to be agreed in consultation with Kent Downs AONB Unit); (8) Restriction of import of feed and farm waste from other holdings; (9) Restriction on type of feedstock used; (10) Demolition of plant, structures and hard-standings once the plant has ceased use and land restored to agricultural use; (11) Surface water drainage details; (12) A remediation strategy to be submitted if contamination found on site;

II Powers be delegated to the Head of Regeneration and Development to settle any necessary planning conditions and matters in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by Planning Committee.

Case Officer

Sarah Platts