Agenda item

The following applications will be considered in the morning session of the meeting (from 11am):

·  21/00419/EFUL Resourceful Earth Ltd, Charlton Field Lane, Queen Charlton.

The Committee considered:

A report by the Head of Planning on various planning applications.

An update report by the Head of Planning is attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes.

Oral statements by members of the public and representatives on items.  A copy of the speakers’ list is attached as Appendix 2 to these minutes.

RESOLVED that in accordance with the Committee’s delegated powers, the applications be determined as set out in the Site Visit decisions list attached as Appendix 3 to these minutes.

Item No. 1

Application No. 21/00419/EFUL

Site Location: Resourceful Energy Anaerobic Limited Resourceful Earth Ltd, Charlton Field Lane, Queen Charlton, Bristol, Bath And North East Somerset Development of an Anaerobic Digester Facility (including retention of the existing Feedstock Reception Building, Digester Tank (x5), Storage Tank, CHP Engine (x4), Transformer, GRP Substation, GRP Technical Room (x5) and Gas Equipment) to produce both gas and electricity for injection into the local grid networks, alongside the restoration of the former Queen Charlton Quarry Site with ecological and landscape enhancements

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to refuse.

A representative from Compton Dando parish Council spoke against the application.

A representative of the local objectors spoke against the application

The agent spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Alistair Singleton, local ward member, felt that the application falls short of what is required on the site and a large digester is not suitable on this site. The last application to come forward was a much smaller and better planned application but this new application is too large an operation for the site. The applicant has not justified the very special circumstances for development in the green belt, there is not enough waste in the local area for the planned development and feels there is enough capacity available elsewhere in the local area already for the planned waste site. The planned need for maize would make the site untenable as the transport to get this amount of material from distances outside of the local area would mean further journeys and more vehicle movements so outweighs the perceived environmental benefits outlined in this application.

Councillor Paul May, local ward member, felt the officers report is exceptional and agrees with the officer’s decision to reject this application, the site is in the wrong place and has been ruined by past owners of the site, and if approved would have serious effects on the local community. There are not enough details on the traffic movements and narrow lanes nearby would cause major increased disruption around the site. The need for enforcement action on the existing site is needed as there are already infraction son the site that need to be dealt with and cannot be used as a justification to increase the size of the site as they are already in breach of what is allowed on this site.

Councillor Paul May read out a Statement on Behalf of Councillor Lisa O’Brien, local ward member, 750 additional homes in near proximity since the last application, uncovered dumping/storage sites for the waste will also lead to more smells emitting from the site and more vehicle movements per day in the maize harvest, with spores from the maize for 8 weeks traveling through the local area by road from far and wide, the local farmers should not be encouraged to grow more maize as this crop is not positive for the soil as it creates more run off and effects the fertility of the soil,  causing serious damage to the land. This local land would be better used for food production as would reduce food milage and there is no need for this extra capacity for this planned site as there is already oversupply in the local area for this function.

Councillor Alan Hale, local ward member, highlighted the traffic and transport issues in the area highlighting several pinch points and increased pollution this application would produce. He felt there is a significant chance of the increased collisions on the roads due to these extra HGV movements on the local roads that are not suitable due to various restricted locations close to the site. 112 extra HGV journeys a day and 196 extra during the harvest period.

The Case Officer responded to a question as follows:

·  she was not able to respond to the question in regard to the detrimental effects of growing maize and any way of mitigating the perceived detriment with the perceived benefits of the digester.

Cllr Hounsell felt that the planning case for showing very special circumstances for building in the green belt has not been met, and that the applicant has only looked at opportunities this application is perceived to give and not actually shown any special circumstances for this site. The applicant has not shown that they have done enough to look for a more suitable site for this facility. The wider highway issues caused by this development in a mainly rural location not suitable for HGV movements that would be required. The closest lorry park to this site is Gordano services so in the applicants plan for lorry movements this means that HGV’s and waste will be coming from and traveling from much further afield than is expected in the application. In the application it states that there will be minor adverse harm due to decrease in air quality for those living nearby especially for vulnerable groups, so surely this evidence provided shows that loss of amenity for those living nearby. There is already increased massing and height which is unauthorised. Effects the openness of the green belt site. Incompatibility of highways plan with the travel plan for Queen Charlton

Cllr Hounsell Moved that the application is refused in accordance with the case officer’s report with further reasons regarding loss of amenity for those living nearby due to an adverse harm due to decrease in air quality for those living nearby especially for vulnerable groups, Incompatibility of construction management plan with the travel plan for Queen Charlton, loss of openness of the green belt in the southern quarry section. Seconded by Cllr Clarke.

Cllr Davis not the right place for this facility and supports the case officer’s recommendation and highlights the increased number of objectors for this facility.

Cllr Appleyard supports the case officer’s recommendation

Cllr Jackson agreed with Cllr Hounsell especially as there has been no justification in this location as there is no local need for this facility

Cllr Hodge wanted clarification for the extra reasons for refusal

The senior planning officer clarified how the extra reasons would affect the reasons for refusal

The Highways officer is aware of a new scheme for Queen Charlton but has not had adequate detail to suggest that the plan could not be able to be carried out alongside this.

Cllr Hounsell suggested that his motion is amended to state that there is potential for conflict for the construction management plan with the travel plan for Queen Charlton

The motion was put to the vote, and it was RESOLVED unanimously to REFUSE the application subject to the conditions set out in the report, and three additional reasons regarding loss of amenity for those living nearby due to an adverse harm due to decrease in air quality for those living nearby especially for vulnerable groups, potential for conflict for the construction management plan with the travel plan for Queen Charlton, loss of openness of the green belt in the southern quarry section.