Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

Adrian McNeece addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Jane Orsborn spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of application 3/14/1827/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director referred Members to the late representations summary in respect of information regarding habitats on this site, local flooding and a summary explaining the principles of anaerobic digestion.  Members were advised that the National Grid had no objections to the application.

Councillor P Ruffles commented that as regards the special circumstances and the Green Belt, there would be no improvement in the landscape resulting from the proposed development.  He expressed concerns regarding the road traffic elements of the proposed development.

Councillor Ruffles referred to policy TR20 in relation to the importance of clear and precise information regarding traffic generation from other sites owned by the applicant.  The Director confirmed that greater certainty could be produced and the relevant condition could be linked to a plan that clearly identified the sites owned by the applicant that would be contributing material for the digester.  The applicant would have to seek permission in future should they wish to vary the condition.

Councillor P Moore sought clarification on what Officers felt were the very special circumstances that led them to recommend approval of planning permission in the Green Belt.  The Director advised that the 2012 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) encouraged the move to a low carbon economy for small scale energy generation.  Members were reminded that one third of East Herts was made up of Green Belt land and East Herts Local Plan policies supported sustainable energy generation.

The Director confirmed that Officers had concluded that the impact of the proposed development would be minimal and there were strong policy presumptions in favour of sustainable development.  Officers felt that weight could be given to these beneficial aspects such that harm was clearly outweighed and very special circumstances were thereby evident.

Councillor M Newman stated that he was fully supportive of the recommendation and he was a firm believer in energy generation that did not utilise fossil fuels.  He commented that anaerobic digestion was a very efficient method of energy generation that did not rely on wind or the sun.

The Chairman referred to the evidence of flooding from Brickendon Brook along Brickendon Lane.  She expressed concerns regarding the narrow and sub-standard nature of this road along its entire length from the B158 through to Brickendon.

The Director confirmed to Councillor N Symonds that some of the material for the digester would come from the land holdings of Clements Farm and would therefore not affect the public highway.  Members were reminded that Officers had control over the specific locations where material could be moved from for the digester.  The Director stated that it would be in the applicant’s interest to utilise on site storage and to ensure the efficient movement of the material.

Councillor K Crofton stated that the site was at a low level and was located a long way from the road.  He did not feel that anyone would be adversely affected by the vehicular movements associated with this application.  He commented that the cattle and slurry and associated odours were already present and he felt that all of the concerns had been satisfactorily addressed by Officers.

Councillor G Jones referred to the relatively insignificant increase in traffic resulting from a development that would clearly be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  He referred to the 3 particular areas highlighted in the report whereby the application had to be justified by very special circumstances.

Councillor Jones concluded that the site would be very difficult to see and the Green Belt arguments regarding the benefits of renewable energy provision and the diversification of agricultural businesses were very much subjective judgements.

The Director advised that Members had to assign weight to all of the matters under consideration rather than restricting their thought processes to any one single issue.  He concluded that Members had to decide whether the benefits of the application clearly outweighed the potential for harm to the Green Belt and therefore very special circumstances were demonstrated.

Councillor M Alexander proposed and Councillor P Moore seconded, a motion that application 3/14/1827/FP be refused on the basis that the application constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt and was therefore contrary to policy GBC1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee rejected the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/14/1827/FP, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.        The application site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt as defined in the East Hertfordshire Local Plan wherein permission will not be given except in very special circumstances for development for purposes other than those required for mineral extraction, agriculture, small scale facilities for participatory sport and recreation or other uses appropriate to a rural area. No such special circumstances are apparent in this case, and the proposal would therefore be contrary to policy GBC1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Summary of Reasons for Decision

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012, East Herts Council has considered, in a positive and proactive manner, whether the planning objections to this proposal could be satisfactorily resolved within the statutory period for determining the application. However, for the reasons set out in this decision notice, the proposal is not considered to achieve an acceptable and sustainable development in accordance with the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.