Agenda item

The Director for Place recommended that in respect of application 3/25/0917/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.

 

The Principal Planning Officer set out the context of the application and the application site in the wider area in and around Stocking Pelham. He said that the application had been accompanied by a landscape and visual impact assessment.  The Principal Planning Officer summarised in detail the proposed development.

 

Members were presented a series of visuals, elevation drawings and photos that showed the views and location of the site. The Principal Planning Officer explained that some trees and hedgerows would need to be cut back and managed to facilitate access and visibility splays.

 

The Principal Planning Officer set out the intending routing for construction vehicles and said that there would no vehicles heading westwards through Stocking Pelham. He drew members attention to the risk management plan and the outline battery safety management plan. He also commented on the assessment of the application against the national fire chief council guidance on fire safety.

 

Members were updated in respect of the drainage strategy for the site, and the strategy had been reviewed by the LLFA, and they were no satisfied subject to conditions in the report. The Principal Planning Officer summarised the late representations that had been received and Members were updated on a number of amendments to the heads of terms in respect of the Section 106 legal agreement.

 

Ian DeBurgh-Marsh addressed the committee in objection to the application.

 

Jonathan Cooper addressed the committee in support of the application. He was asked questions by the Development Management Committee.

 

Councillor Colin Berthoud and Dani Fuimicelli addressed the committee on behalf of Stocking Pelham Parish Council. They were asked questions by the Members of the Development Management Committee.

 

Councillor Geoffrey Williamson addressed the committee as the local ward Member.

 

In reply to a question regarding the Crabbs Lane (Crabbs Green) site by Officers, where an application for a BESS had been refused in 2025, the Principal Planning Officer set out the main planning considerations as to why that planning application had been refused by officers.

 

Members asked a number of questions regarding noise, heritage impact, the route to be taken by HGVs involved in the implementation of these proposals, fire safety and the shutting down of equipment in the event of fire and contaminated water and the cumulative impact of five BESS schemes in this area.

 

The Principal Planning Officer said that this application was different in that Environmental Health had not objected to the application at Dellows and application site at Crabbs Green was closer to more residential properties in Stocking Pelham and Crabbs Green. Members were advised that Dellows was further from residential receptors and there were less of them.

 

Members were advised that the noise mitigations at Crabbs Green had been a lot more substantial to achieve worst result than would be the case at Dellows. The planning balance on this application was more in keeping with the other BESS applications that had been recommended for approval.

 

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed to Members that the site at Dellows was 4.1 hectares and in terms of the acoustic barrier, Environmental Health were very aware of the issue of low frequency noise. Further information was submitted to assess the impact of low frequency noise as Environmental Health had concerns that there was not much information submitted in that regard.

 

Members were further advised that details were available in the background documents and all of the above details regarding noise mitigation could be secured by the planning conditions. This included details of an example of a planted acoustic wall which would have more of a mass than an acoustic fence.

 

The Principal Planning Officer explained that in terms of the routing of construction traffic to and from Dellows, the traffic could use the previously approved route without vehicles travelling through the village.

 

Members were advised that both Essex County Council and Hertfordshire County Council had considered that the proposed route was acceptable, and any impacts would be manageable.

 

The Principal Planning Officer said that any runoff from the site in terms of drainage would be directed to a drainage basins and then this would discharge into the water course. He set out in detail the mitigations that would be implemented in the event of a fire or a battery malfunction to prevent the discharge of water from the basin to the outfall.

 

 

In reply to a query regarding the impact on the area of five BESS schemes and the cumulative impact, the Principal Planning Officer said that Essex County Council could have requested further information regarding traffic mitigation, and they would have done so if they had sufficient concerns that the highways impact would be unacceptable.

 

Members were advised that no such request had been received and there was a condition that the Highways departments be consulted on the final version of the construction traffic management plan.

 

The Interim Team Leader (Strategic Applications) advised that the cumulative impact in terms of noise, traffic, heritage impact and landscape character and visual impact were all key considerations that were critical to the decision making of the committee. He said that all of these points were addressed in the report on a cumulative basis.

 

Members were advised that it was not for the local planning authority or the planning inspectorate to place a limit on an area as part of determining planning applications. He said that the report covered in considerable detail that there was limited intervisibility between the two sites.

 

The landscape officer had advised that the application was an acceptable scheme in respect of landscape harm and the cumulative impact, and the impact of this particular site was moderate at worst.

 

The Interim Team Leader (Strategic Applications) said that each application had to be considered on its own merits on a case-by-case basis in respect of noise. Members were advised that the impact on listed buildings had been covered in the late representations sheet that had been published.

 

The Interim Team Leader (Strategic Applications) said that each application had to be considered on its own merits on a case-by-case basis in respect of noise.

 

The Principal Planning Officer and the Interim Team Leader (Strategic Applications) addressed Members at length in respect of landscape harm, the noise impact and also on the impact on listed buildings and the conservation of heritage assets. The public benefits, which Members must give significant weight to, would outweigh those harms. Members were reminded that the NPPF did allow the public benefits to outweigh any identified harm to the setting of the heritage assets.

 

At this point in the meeting, 9:55 pm, Councillor Watson proposed and Councillor Thomas seconded, a motion that the meeting would continue for 20 minutes beyond 10 pm.

 

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.

 

RESOLVED – that the meeting continue for 20 minutes beyond 10 pm.

 

The Legal Adviser said that the matter of the cumulative impacts was part of the weighting in the balance, and this was a difficult consideration for the committee. She said that the government guidance for significant national infrastructure projects recognises the dilemma facing Members.

 

Members were advised that they should be making proportionate assessments based upon the information available at the time. The Legal Adviser said that Members had to consider what was before them in the context of this application. The threshold of harm was a difficult question, and Members had a difficult task in balancing the planning considerations set out in the report weighted against the public benefits.

 

Councillor Estop proposed and Councillor Thomas seconded, a motion that application 3/25/0917/FUL be granted planning permission subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report and also subject to the following amended/additional conditions (the amended wording of condition 24 is to be finalised in consultation with Chair of the Development Management Committee).

 

Condition 17:  Acoustic Boundary Treatments

17.      First use of the development shall not take place until a detailed specification of acoustic boundary treatment in general conformity with the Noise Impact Assessment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, which shall comprise a plantable retaining wall structure (rootlock or similar). The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to first use of the development and retained for the lifetime of the development.

 

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of the surrounding area, including residential occupiers in accordance with East Herts District Plan policy EQ2.

Condition 24: Development in accordance with acoustic report

24        During operation, the Site must operate ensuring that there are no audible tones between 20 Hz and 315 Hz in third octave bands at any existing residential dwelling. Tones may be determined objectively through measurement at the residential dwelling, following guidance given in BS 4142 and relevant Standards. Where tones are found to be present, remedial action will be required to mitigate the particular tone, with details of further mitigation measures to be submitted for approval to the local planning authority. During all periods, the Site must operate within the operational noise levels as noted in the E3P Noise Impact Assessment Reference: 51-401-R1-3 with rating levels of no more than 37 dB LAeq,1hr during the day and 25 dB LAeq,15mins during the night, in accordance with BS 4142.

Reason: in order to safeguard the amenity of nearby residents and the surrounding area, in accordance with East Hertfordshire District Plan policy EQ2.

New condition 28: Landscaping

28        Prior to the first occupation / use of each phase of the development hereby approved, full landscaping details for that phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include:

•      Hard surfacing materials;

•      Soft landscaping proposals intended to screen the development;

•      Retained landscape features;

•      Planting plans detailing schedule of plants, species, planting sizes and density of planting

•      An implementation timetable.

 

Thereafter, the site covered by that phase shall be landscaped in full accordance with the approved details and implementation timetable.

 

Reason: To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by appropriate landscape design, in accordance with Policies DES3 and DES4 of the East Herts District Plan (2018).

New condition 29 (landscape implementation)

29        All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Any trees or plants that, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die, or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size and number as originally approved, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.

 

Reason: To ensure the maintenance of landscaping, in accordance with Policy DES3 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.

 

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.

 

RESOLVED – that application 3/25/0917/FUL be granted planning permission subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report and also subject to the following amended/additional conditions (the amended wording of condition 24 is to be finalised in consultation with Chair of the Development Management Committee):

 

Condition 17:  Acoustic Boundary Treatments

17.      First use of the development shall not take place until a detailed specification of acoustic boundary treatment in general conformity with the Noise Impact Assessment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, which shall comprise a plantable retaining wall structure (rootlock or similar). The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to first use of the development and retained for the lifetime of the development.

 

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of the surrounding area, including residential occupiers in accordance with East Herts District Plan policy EQ2.

Condition 24: Development in accordance with acoustic report

24.       During operation, the Site must operate ensuring that there are no audible tones between 20 Hz and 315 Hz in third octave bands at any existing residential dwelling. Tones may be determined objectively through measurement at the residential dwelling, following guidance given in BS 4142 and relevant Standards. Where tones are found to be present, remedial action will be required to mitigate the particular tone, with details of further mitigation measures to be submitted for approval to the local planning authority. During all periods, the Site must operate within the operational noise levels as noted in the E3P Noise Impact Assessment Reference: 51-401-R1-3 with rating levels of no more than 37 dB LAeq,1hr during the day and 25 dB LAeq,15mins during the night, in accordance with BS 4142.

Reason: in order to safeguard the amenity of nearby residents and the surrounding area, in accordance with East Hertfordshire District Plan policy EQ2.

New condition 28: Landscaping

28        Prior to the first occupation / use of each phase of the development hereby approved, full landscaping details for that phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include:

•      Hard surfacing materials;

•      Soft landscaping proposals intended to screen the    development;

•      Retained landscape features;

•      Planting plans detailing schedule of plants, species, planting sizes and density of planting

•      An implementation timetable.

 

Thereafter, the site covered by that phase shall be landscaped in full accordance with the approved details and implementation timetable.

 

Reason: To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by appropriate landscape design, in accordance with Policies DES3 and DES4 of the East Herts District Plan (2018).

New condition 29 (landscape implementation)

29        All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Any trees or plants that, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die, or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size and number as originally approved, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.

 

Reason: To ensure the maintenance of landscaping, in accordance with Policy DES3 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.