Transcript

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. I hope you can hear me. It doesn't sound like I can hear myself. Can you hear me? No? Hello? Hello? Oh, green light on. Hello? Don't run away. Oh, he's gone. Yeah. I have got the master. Hello? Hello? No. He just ran off. Well, I think someone needs to. Just try yours. Put yours on. Good morning. Hello? Hello? Hello? Hello? Hello? No, no. Well, can you hear that? Oh, can you hear it now? Can you hear it now? No, stop messing about. Stop messing about. I can hear you because I'm close to you. Oh, shut up. I can hear you because I'm close to you. Oh, shut up. Do this one work? Yeah. That one works, but mine. Right. Well, I'll have to take over, Mr Chairman. I bet I've got a microphone. Well, we just need, sorry about that, folks. I'm using this one, but that one's definitely not working. Oh, that's fine. Just got my extra button so I can shut people off my knee to the power. Okay, guys, welcome to Franklin Planning for today. Sorry about that, slight malfunction. Can I first of all go through what we refer to as our general housekeeping? Our first item, of course, is fire exits. No, there are two fire exits on this wall here, quite clearly marked. There is another one at the end of the corridor past the lavatories and, of course, the entrance store where you came into the building. We have not got a test plan for today, so if we hear a fire alarm go off, we will treat it as genuine, and we will vacate the building and congregate in the car park. Phones and various devices, could you make sure they switch to silent or switched off? If they do go off, then it's a £10 fine to the chairman's charity. Now, that's not me as the chairman of this committee. It's the chairman of the council itself who also happens to be my vice chairman and in the last throes of his time as a chairman, and he has got two chosen charities, which he will tell you about now, of which your money will go to if you decide to interrupt my meeting. Oh, I've got a green light, yeah. For I'd say that, Mr Chairman, I'd like to publicly thank you for supporting me and my charities. You've all turned up to all my events, provided raffle prizes and spent the most money to try and win them back, so you can see a top call until they were. And it's for the Suvam and Lycim Home Hospice, which is doing a lot of work in connection with the Breckland Council and Sam's baby bereavement society, who are looking to fund bereavement suite to be placed at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital of Kingsland. So any donations would be really appreciated. Thank you. OK, that's only if your phone goes off. We're not going to try and get money off you as you leave the building. I promise. OK, our next item, procedure. The procedure is as each application, which is only one today, is read out. I've got a list of names of people who are registered to speak, and if you'd like to come and sit where the gentlemen sitting on the right hand side, and I will give you a lot of times when you can speak. That follows the presentation from the officers, and after that, then be open to questions from the members, and at which time after that, we will make a decision on the application. Next item, introductions. On my left hand side, I have Mike Horne, who is the solicitor to the council, who makes sure that everything's above board. On our far back, on our far left, we have Laura Waters, who is our, I wrote it down for us a nice title, and I can't find it. Planning policy manager. Yes, she's a planning policy manager. My right hand woman is Rebecca Collins, who definitely makes sure that everything presented correctly for me. She does all the work, and I take all the credit, which is how it's done. And of course, we have our lovely Julie Britton, who is Democratic Services, who takes the minutes, and we have Chris Fitzgerald, who is our chap who makes sure you're in the room and you're in the right place, and doing the right things. So, moving on, we go to the agenda. Item one is the minutes, and it's to confirm the minutes of the meeting held on the 9th of April. Do I have your agreement that I can sign these off as correct? Great. Thank you. Thank you, Julie. That's yours. There we go. Our next item is item two, apologies and substitutes. Do we have any at all, Julie? Thank you, Chairman. I just have one apology from Councillor Harvey, and we have no substitutes in attendance. That's lovely. Thank you very much. Item three is declarations of interest and representations received. I will take them as we raise the item itself. Item four, Chairman's announcements. Thank the members who are going to be present tomorrow for my Chairman's Panel, and if we will be after you again, I think, for other panels as they arrive, and also a very important news, which was a big surprise for today, is Ruth, one of our ladies here, must have had a quite day. She's polished the bell. So, it's very important to me. It's very clean, very tidy, and I didn't even realise that we've come up that colour. It's important things. Right. Item five, sorry? I will in a minute. The Gerger law, into whatever it's called, item five requested to defer applications. Do we have any? No, we don't. Items of urgent business? No, we don't. So, local plan update, item seven, and I'm going to hand over to Laura for that, please. There we go. Thank you, Chair. Yes, local plan update. So, the paperwork for Cabinet on the 13th of May is in the public domain. So, this is the Cabinet report, the draft local plan, and I just wanted to highlight in page nine of the Cabinet report is a link to the policies map showing all the sites allocated, employment sites and so on. Subject to Cabinet approval on the 13th, we are expecting the consultation to begin on the 3rd of June. Do we have questions at all? Any members? No. Okay, thank you very much. So, item eight, we have deferred applications, which we're not bringing any of those to this meeting today. So, we go to our schedule for item nine, and that's at Necton, and I have a list of people who are wishing to speak. Oh, thanks, Laura, you're leaving us. Thank you. Bye-bye. I've got Fraser Bateman, who has already sat down. I've got James Shearingham of French and Paris Council. If you'd like to come to the right-hand side, please, sir. Who is an objector. I've got Sasha Lloyd Rutherford, who's the applicant. Colin Turnbull, who's the agent, and we also have Lucy Shearingham and Paul Hado, who are objectors. Okay, Lucy Shearingham and Paul Hado, I don't know if you realise, but because there was the only application and there was always a dispute over extending times, I have decided to extend to three minutes. So, I know you may have shortened it. Yeah, practice it in front of the bathroom mirror, but don't rush. So, don't go, just take your time and add other things as long as they sound interesting. You can finish with a little joke or something like that. It's fine, just like a wet and reception. Okay, so I'm going to hand over to you, please Rebecca, and you're going to take it on. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. So, this is application 3PL20230848. It's a full application, and it's for the construction and operation of a greener grid park. So, the application site is adjacent to the south of the existing Necton substation, and the greener grid park will provide critical grid balancing services. It's like a tongue twist to that. To strengthen and stabilise the electricity network and to facilitate the connection of more renewable energy to the grid, the proposed development will not generate any additional electricity, nor will it result in any direct operational transmissions of CO2. There is no battery storage proposed, and the national grid has specifically identified the east of England as requiring a stability need. It's going to be one of those mornings. So the site is to the north east of the village of Necton and is located in the open countryside. It's immediately adjacent to the Necton substation, which benefits from consent to be extended to the east and west by the national grid and to service the nationally significant Norfolk Vanguard and Boreas wind farms. Vanguard and Boreas substations are also to be developed to the east, and there is a drainage pipeline also running to the east of the application site. The cable corridor running to the north will connect to the existing substation and the main site compound to the south of the existing substation. Existing access and temporary access proposed to the A47 to the west, and temporary access is required due to the volume of traffic using the existing access during the Vanguard and Boreas works and the national grid works. And once operational, access from the existing route will then be the primary access to the site. There is a BNG, sorry, a biodiversity net gain area within the red line to the northeast of Ayurvedad, which is 1.27 hectares of agricultural land, and this land will be converted into neutral grassland to suit the biodiversity net gain requirements. Why is this not working? So the site is located in open countryside and it's well separated from Necton settlement boundary, as you can see by the arrow shown on this plan. It is accepted that there are unlikely to be any suitable or available brownfield sites within the settlement boundary for a development of this scale. And whilst there is no requirement for the applicant to assess alternative sites for such a development, an alternative site assessment has been submitted with the application. And this sets out that the technical requirement to connect the proposed greener park to the National Grid substation must be within a 600 metre cable length distance. And locating the greener park further from the substation will require larger buildings and plant items, so the scale of it will be increased. And Necton substation was chosen due to the timescales allowed for connecting to the grid an assessment of substations that have physical space for that new connection to provide that stability to the grid. So the information submitted concludes that the much of the land within the search area was constrained due to being grade two agricultural land in the vicinity of the site, and the application site is mostly grade three land and that's set out in the report. That the Vanguard and Boris DCO schemes also acted as a constraint as they have cable corridors and easements which affect the availability of land and we have a slide to show you later. And that means there has to be a slight gap between the scheme and the Necton substation to create a corridor for those cable routes and access. There were no brownfield sites identified within the search area and the proposed site was the preferred option due to it being of a suitable shape and size for the technical requirements, a short connection to the grid of around 300 metres, the site being clear and developable and an existing permanent access to the highway. Sorry, I don't know why that's not working. So this is just the aerial photography showing the layout of the site with the principal area being to the south of the site and then connections, the other routes showing your connections and cabling routes. So the site is rural by nature as it surroundings as you can see from the aerial photography. Necton village lies to the south west of the site and you can just see the corner of it there on the slide in front of you and the A47 lies to the west. The application site extends approximately 12.78 hectares and the main compound for the equipment is 1.92 hectares. This field is currently used for agricultural purposes of subgrade 3A good quality agricultural land and it's bordered by mature hedgerows along the western boundary adjacent to the A47. There is agricultural land remaining to the east and the south and other than farmsteads, the closest residential dwellings are situated approximately 600 metres to the south of the application site on St Andrew's Lane in Necton. The site lies approximately a kilometre to the north of the Necton Conservation Officer and Conservation Area and is also approximately 1.1 kilometres from the closest listed buildings which are sighted within a cluster within the village of Necton. So the main compound is located to the south of the Necton substation and an area for landscaping to provide screening is shown on the slide in dark green just to the south as a substation there for you. There is existing vegetation and there's the element shown in the lighter green colours for you on the plan and there's a drainage pipeline running to the south east, that's this one, and temporary access in yellow up there for you. An existing access in grey which is to be utilised following the use of the temporary access which is only in place to the Norfolk and Boreard, the amount of traffic required for all those developments to happen at the same time. This is a better zoomed in version of the plan showing that darker green area of landscaping, the temporary access running up to the A47, the permanent access in grey which will be used after the construction and these lighter greens are existing blocks of landscaping that exist already surrounding the application site and then you can see here the gap which needs to be left to allow for the cabling and access and then the existing substation there just to the north of it and the red line wraps around and that's all to do with the cabling and linkages that are required to stabilise the grid network in that location. This plan we've put in just to show that it is quite a constrained area in this location about where the actual substation can go in terms of the set out in your port, the agricultural grade land, the separation that's required for the cabling, for the Vanguard and Boreard swim farms so just to show you that they did have quite a constrained, developable site when bringing this site forward. So with the application the applicants have submitted some proposed sections that show the building and apparatus within the main site compound. The tallest of the apparatus with the high voltage yard is nearly 12 metres high and the tallest building is 11 metres high which is the compensator building. The buildings will be coloured shades of green and brown in accordance with the landscape consultants recommendations as set out in the report and the details of colour and finish to the palisade and fences and CCTV posts are to be agreed via a planning condition. The applicant has submitted some CGI's to demonstrate that once the landscaping is fully development of 15 years after construction that will demonstrate the extent of the landscaping its thickness and height and that it will as you see shadow and screen that part of the development at 15 years will come on to that at the minute. There's a note here to say the colours aren't accurate. And again just to show it with the substation behind you in the other direction about that landscaping that is to be provided just that will be to the south of the proposed equipment. And there's just some site photos to show the existing access point that exists currently. That's the field where the apparatus will stand and then looking back to the existing vegetation that exists on the site. This is the access heading towards the A47 and then the excess, sorry, that was the temporary access, this is the, sorry, the previous one was where the temporary access point was going on, this is the permanent access to the site. So in terms of the planning assessment, there were seven representations have been received, mainly regarding concerns with the siting of the proposal rather than an in principle objection to the scheme itself. Next and parish council have objected the application and state that the proposal does not follow the recommendation of the independent landscape assessment prepared in support of the draft neighbourhood plan and CPRE have objected due to the conflict with policy EMVO5 landscape concerns, insufficient planting, noise and light concerns. So looking at the application in detail, so the application has been considered in principle having regard to policies Geno1, EMVO10 and NTN7 of the neighbourhood plan which support proposals for renewable energy and low carbon development where the impact is or can be made acceptable. The MPPF is supportive of transition to a low carbon future and it instructs local planning authorities not to require applicants to demonstrate the overall need for a newable or low carbon energy and approve the application if the impacts are or can be made acceptable. Within the MPPG there's no hard and fast rules about suitable areas for renewable energy and how these should be identified but in considering locations it advises that local planning authorities will need to ensure they take account of the requirements of the technology and critically the potential impacts on the local environment including from the cumulative impacts. National planning policy statements are a material planning consideration particularly EM1, 3 and 5 and these recognise that large scale energy generating projects will inevitably have impacts particularly of sighted in rural areas. The UK government has declared a climate emergency and net zero by 2050 and NSPS has recognised significant large and small scale energy infrastructure is required to meet this 2050 target. Policy Geno5 of the Breckland local plan seeks to restrict development outside of adopted settlement boundaries but it is accepted that a site of this scale was unlikely to be found within the settlement boundary and where any effects could be suitably mitigated. There is a requirement to be in close proximity to the existing net and substation where there is an identified need for energy management and net and greener energy park is one of the stability pathway phase three projects awarded by national grid as part of the effort to deliver long-term sustainability for the national electricity network which will help to reduce the carbon intensity of the grid. Given that there is a presumption in favour of renewable low carbon energy as set out in policy EMV 10 of the Breckland local plan and the MPPF then the principle of development is considered acceptable subject to the impacts of that development being made acceptable. With regards to the loss of agricultural land and the submitted information sets out that the main compound is proposed to be located on sub grade 3A good quality agricultural land. Land around next sub-circification is a mixture of grade two and sub grades 3A and 3B. It is not possible to locate the development on sub grade 3B land due to the shape of the compound and the shape of the land parcels themselves. Also there is the technical constraints which require the siting of the apparatus within 600 metres of the substation. So when assessing adjacent DCOs the secretary and say concluded with regards to the vanguard and barogast that the loss of higher grade agricultural land should not be assessed as significant as it is a small percentage of the agricultural resource in Norfolk and some structural public benefits justify that loss. In addition to that the proposed landscaping scheme planting and BNG to be carried out will somewhat mitigate some of the loss of the agricultural land and on the basis of the stability that the proposal provides and the support of low carbon energy then the loss of agricultural land in this instance is considered acceptable and in line with the inspectors conclusions when he considered the DCOs. With regard to the design landscape a layout policy EMVO 5 seeks new development to contribute to and where possible enhance the local environment by recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The site is situated within the mid Norfolk national character area and is not located within a designated landscape area. Breckland Council appointed an independent landscape consultant to consider the submitted scheme and the applicant provided a local visualisation assessment and environmental colour assessment in support of their applications. Our independent landscape consultant survives that the LVA was sufficient for a reason judgement to be maimed on the development and he agrees the effects on the site will be moderate major adverse in the short term and long term and he agrees with effects on the character area E6 as being moderate adverse in the short term and minor moderate adverse in the long term. With regards to the A47 he considers motorists will have filtered views especially during winter but planting will render after year 15 effects to be minor adverse and some views from the property in the north east of Neptune during construction moderate adverse but mitigated by planting over time. Their main concern was the site was constrained by the DCO the easements and cables which limited the scope of a landscaping scheme and in conclusion they had regard to the policies within the Breckland neighbourhood plan within the Breckland local plan and the Neptune neighbourhood plan and the draft policies and view that there would be an adverse impact on the landscape without an additional landscaping scheme. Members will obviously be aware that having regard to the development plan is Section 386 and the development plan you have to have regard to adopted policies and give them due weight unless material considerations indicate otherwise. With regards to the Neptune neighbourhood plan the officer report submitted with the application says that we are still waiting the inspectors report on the reg 16 and therefore it can only be given limited weight. For members information we have had the inspectors report into the next neighbourhood plan and therefore it now has weight and the policies contained within that plan have due weight and must be had regard to in the determination of this application. A specific reference is policy NTN2 which is the landscape character assessment which sets out that as appropriate to their scale nature and location and to ensure they can serve the essential landscape heritage and rural character of the parish development proposals should demonstrate how they have regard to and conserve or enhance the landscape character and the setting of the parish and also there is no unacceptable impact on key and important views. Now as already set out our independent landscape consultant has set out that there will be a minor moderate adverse apologies harm from the limited landscaping that is available in this location but does recognise that at the 15 year period this landscaping will provide and lower those impacts. The resultant of this is there is conflict with the Breckland policies with regards to landscape mitigation and the views of motorists on the A47. However your other material planning considerations members are that there is a technical need to be close to the substation that the constraints of the DCO schemes and cable corridors they must remain free of development and planting and this limits the available area close to the site where landscaping can be placed. Whilst our landscape consultants consider it to be a weakness of the scheme to rely on unrelated planning it is noted that the DCO schemes will be providing mitigation planted to the north and northwest that will provide additional screening along the A47 and the 15 year effects from the landscaping proposed are considered to be minor adverse with planting providing a significant level of screening after 15 years. The deliverability of the renewable energy has been balanced against the level of harm to the landscape and the applicants provided detailed information regarding the constraints and sighting of the development and the reason that more landscaping mitigation cannot be offered and this is set out in the officer report. The level has been increased the maximum they could following the public consultation event and allowing for the constraints of the land and this development is supported in principle and lightens with the local and national goals on climate change and renewable energy. Policy EMVO 10 of the Breckley local plan requires assessment of harm against benefits and this development worldwide critical grid balancing services to strengthen and stabilise the electricity network and to facilitate the connection of more renewable energy generation to the grid and this is in line with the national planning policy framework in this regard. The harm that is caused is localised and limited to specific receptors which mitigates the extent of harm and non-compliance with policies EMVO 10 and EMVO 5. The proposals are called with Gen.01 as they can provide landscaping enhancements which will not alleviate all the visual impact but it will improve the natural environment in this location and as per and will also include ecological enhancements and biodiversity net gains. Having regard to the planning garants given the partial non-compliance and constraints of the site and the limited sensitivity of the A47 structures these all fall in favour of development owing to the benefits of the scheme and the application although a partial conflict has been found with the development plan there is in principle the proposals do are called with the development plan as a whole given that the scheme is to provide that national goal in terms of climate change and renewable energy so although there is conflict with the development plan in terms of landscaping it is considered that that conflict is outweighed by the material planning considerations and the benefits of the proposals and what it will provide in this location. With regards to ecology BNG 10% became mandatory for planning applications on the 12th but the application was submitted prior to this so is actually exempt from this requirement nevertheless a 13.11% biodiversity net gain is proposed which is over the 10% as set out in the national requirements. The site is not located within a statutory or non-statutory designated site for nature conservation and it is considerable distance from the SPA and it is not considered the impact on habitat sites will be a constraint. Our consultant ecologist has satisfied that the information submitted in support of the application is satisfactory and no concerns are raised regarding the cumulative effects of development in this location. Sky like Wilbur sky lark were recorded within the arable farmland and there will be a loss or displacement of two territories to make the development acceptable the application of rose creating another neutral grassland habitat at the landscape and biodiversity mitigation planting land the BNG land to the southeast of the main part of the site to enhance the site's foraging and nesting habitats for sky larks. The ecologist raised no objections on this basis subject to conditions and natural England have also been consulted and also raised no objections. With regards to flood risk and drainage the site loads wholly within flood zone one and is it not susceptible to surface water flooding. An attenuation pond and drainage pipeline are proposed for surface water and the LFA have no objections following amendments to the flood risk assessment and a condition requiring development to be built in accordance with the approved documents. With regards to amenity this is a rural location with the closest residential dwelling approximately 450 metres away. A noise assessment and outline construction environmental management plan have been submitted with the latter and conditioned and proposed acoustic barriers as mitigation models at a higher four metre we were positioned around both the coolas within the application site. Environmental health raised no concerns through the cumulative impacts and raised no objection to the application's substance to the development being carried out in accordance with the details submitted and subject to conditions limiting noise levels. With regards to contaminated land the site is currently in agricultural use so there's risk of contamination being present within the soils and/or sorry so there's no risk of contamination being present within the soils the groundwater and the phase one environmental survey death survey submitted with the application concludes a low risk. The contaminated land offers a raised no objection so long as the development proceeds in line with the application details and subject to a condition to deal with any unexpected contamination and a full ecological construction construction ecological management plan will also be conditioned. With regards to air quality the site is not expected to produce any admissions during operation the baseline as per the DCO determinations were considered that dust emissions from construction works vehicles and plants will be the main quality factors to address. Construction could overlap with the DCO scheme so cumulative impacts are important to consider in this regard however the submitted information concludes that residual risk would be negligible and the impact on dust soiling in human health would not be significant subject to mitigation measures. The air quality officer raises no objection subject to construction dust mitigation recommendations including the development of a dust management plan being included within the finalised construction environmental management plan and that will be secured by condition. Minerals in an area in the eastern part of the site that was required for drainage pipeline is identified as having sand and gravel resource NCC, Norfolk County Council have been consulted but have not responded to the application and given the proposed development within the consultation area is restricted to the drainage pipeline there's not considered to be significant potential for affecting the future use of the area for mineral extraction. With regards to highways the transport statement and construction traffic management plan has been submitted the site will be accessed via the existing substation access from the A47 to the west. Construction traffic will utilise a proposed temporary route to the south of the existing access due to the ongoing construction of the DCO schemes and the land will be fully restored. There are no objections from national highways, Norfolk County Council highways, following some amendments that were made by the application and a construction traffic management plan will be required via pre-commencement condition. With regards to heritage there are no designated heritage assets located within closed proximity, one kilometres to the north of the site loads within one kilometres to the north of next and conservation area at said officer last time it is also approximately 1.1 kilometres from the closest listed building within next and to the south west. Archaeological and heritage statements have been submitted with the application and they conclude lessons and substantial harm to the significance and setting of the listed buildings which are partially shielded from the site by existing buildings. The historic building officers raise no objection on this basis. With regards to archaeology there is low potential for medieval agricultural land management remains and high potential for post-mediva agricultural and land management remains. The historic environment survey service raises no objections to the application subject to condition requiring a program of archaeological mitigation work. With regards to nutrient neutrality the site is located outside of the catchment area of the sites identified by Natural England. It does not involve the creation of overnight accommodation and as such is unlikely to lead to significant effect as it were not uninvolved in an increase in population in this catchment and in addition the development is a type which is not considered a high water use and it has been screened as unlikely to have a significant effect. With regards to environmental impact assessment the development is considered to potentially fall under 0.3A of column one of schedule two which relates to industrial installations for the production of electricity steam and hot water or it can fall under 0.10A of column one of schedule two which relates to industrial estate development projects. A screening opinion advising that an environmental statement was not required was issued by the council on the 13th of July 2023. Given the nationally significant adjacent schemes cumulative impact has been assessed but the council remains a review that the proposal will not result in significant environmental effects and therefore no EAA can be required. Neither is considered the proposed development result in significant cumulative environmental impacts as assessed throughout the report. With regards to trees information was submitted that sets out the re-temporary loss of trees for the temporary access which are proposed to be replanted and the loss of a short section of hedgeray for the permanent access which is considered to be insignificant. There may also be a loss of a small section of hedgeray for the cable route which would be replanted if possible. The only potential location for some small trees to be impacted is the proposed cable route if the cable alignment cannot be locally adjusted on site to avoid the removal of any trees and these will be replanted if this happens. The tree officer has no objections to the application on this basis and full landscaping details are required by conditions. With regards to planning obligations there's no necessity to have a planning obligation off the scheme however the biodiversity net gain requirement of 13.11% will be secured within a parcel of land within the red line boundary by condition. In conclusion to the application when looking at the development plan as a whole the proposal is not considered to call with policies Gen O5, EMVO 10.1 and EMVO 5 of the Brecken local plan in their entirety. However there is compliance with the development plan as a whole taking into account the support for renewable carbon energy overall in the development plan and as set out in policy ECO10 of the Brecken local plan and that would be the presiding policy given the nature of the development. And there are also compliance with other relevant policies that have been discussed throughout the officer report with regards to the sustainable development, historic environment, amenity, ecology and trees etc and these include policies Gen O1, Gen O3, EMVO 6, EMVO 7, EMVO 8 and EMVO 2 of the Brecken local plan. There are also significant material considerations that support the grant of permission including the national planning policy framework with specific reference to section 14 and Harrogast 157 and 163 which promote development of low carbon and renewable energy. Accordingly this application is recommended for approval subject conditions. And just one final point members we have had a letter from George Freeman MP setting out his concerns about the potential impact on the landscape. I have covered this off but just to be clear it is accepted that the landscape impact is the main issue with the proposal however the technical constraints require the location was in 600 metres at the existing substation and a location further away would require larger buildings and electrical apparatus in addition to that more land would be required for cable corridors. The site is heavily constrained by DCO easements and cables which limits the scope of the landscaping scheme. The landscape state consultants considered that the 15 years effects to be minor adverse with planting providing significant level of screening. The amount of land for landscaping mitigation is increased to the to the maximum the applicant could secure following the public consultation event and the planning and balance assessment falls in favour of the development owing to the benefits of the scheme which are considered to outweigh the landscape impact in this instance. And with regards to the cumulative impact the cumulative impact were assessed during the determination process the local planning authority considers that the consented DCO schemes in extension to the existing substation comprise the baseline conditions for which to assess the proposal against. No consultation considered there to be any significant cumulative environmental impacts from the development proposed and the landscape consultant that we used concurs with the landscape visual assessment that was provided with the application and their approach to cumulative schemes in the development and that there was no additional cumulative effect on the landscape and that it didn't leave to any greater minor adverse or minor beneficial for visual receptors. So on that basis members we are recommending this one for a previous subject condition. Thank you Rebecca. We've got Fraser Baton please. Next and Paris Council you have three minutes. That's better. Right Mr Chairman thank you. Whilst next and Paris Council accept that the Green and Grid Park perform a necessary function in making the national grid more resilient and efficient we are not satisfied by either the site selection or the proposed mitigation of the visual impact of this industrial scale project in a principally rural location. We believe the site selection has been driven by what national grid have dictated and not based on a proper evaluation of alternatives. Several alternative locations within the 600 metre preferred zone were rejected as apparently the land was either unavailable of the owner not known. There is already a very significant national grid substation there and the choice of a site closer to the edge of the village brings this industrial complex even closer to residential areas when it could actually have been further away. The site is far from ideal as is heavily constrained by the national grid site on the north eastern boundary and on the south and western boundaries is hard up against the proposed underground cable route for the Boris and Vanguard substations. This reduces the area available for mitigation to a strip that varies from 14 metres to 42 metres in width which is going to be partly scrub with a row of trees along the site fence hardly adequate for the establishment of a woodwind block to effectively mitigate the visual impact of the site. Necta neighbourhood plan which has already been referred to has come back from examination and will go to referendum in July so as it's been stated it already has some weight. In particular policy NTN2 should apply protecting Necta's landscape character. It states proposals must proportionate to the development demonstrate how the landscape characteristics of the site and its vicinity have been considered in preparing the scheme and having regard to the guidance contained in the Necta landscape assessment and they should demonstrate how having regard to and conserve or enhance the landscape character and the settings for the parish as referenced in the landscape assessment. Now in the landscape assessment the area adjacent to this proposed site is NEC 3 and it's characterised by small blocks of deciduous trees mainly oak and ash. So the management of the area should avoid any further loss of landscape structure. A new woodland planting in response to the substation expansion plans should reflect the woodland blocks seen to the northeast corner of the parish. The landscape consultant retained by Breckland commented on the landscape mitigation proposed and he says he remains of the view that the scale of the neighbourhood local landscape character area is a finer grain study which is more appropriate to the scale of the site than the district level character areas. Now if Breckland Council are minded to approve this application it suggested that the detailed planting areas, densities, positions, species and particular the sizes of the trees that at the time of planting should be considered and discharged at a condition stage. For example by planting more mature trees in order to have a better mitigation in the first 15 years. The sample given in the report by the applicant is that they will reach 8.5 metres in 15 years and we've heard that the infrastructure is going to be 11 metres for the buildings and 12 metres for the other apparatus. Thank you. Thank you. I'm next got James Sherringham please, French and Paris Council. You have three minutes as well sir. Thank you. I'm representing French and Paris Council who were not notified of this planning application which we found surprising and disappointing as a neighbouring parish to Necton with villagers who will have a clear site of the development from their homes and on their daily travels. The Council feel the original poor planning decision to allow the first substation on a Greenfield site on top of a hill next to the second busiest road in Norfolk with an entry and exit on the A47 on a blind summit was wrong. This should certainly not give other companies can't blush to keep adding more planning applications onto this site already suffering from oversized industrial scale infrastructures. The parish object stems from the poor site selection. The lack of any visual mitigation from a northern the French side, the potential dangers and other construction site poses to road users on this already dangerous stretch of road. We believe that the site selection decision from site selection assessment was done in such a way to provide sat craft the site they wanted from an economical commercial viewpoint. Without the proper evaluation of alternatives not on a Greenfield site which is presently growing our food but at Brownfield sites which there are locally. It is also ridiculous to make owner not known excuse with the land the registry available it beggars belief. Looking at the mitigation plans and viewing of the site from view point five from France's direction it is clear there's no visual mitigation planned and although the current substation electoral infrastructured would be visible in front of the planned scat craft in infrastructure its solid building would have a compounding visual effect not only creating a visual solid structure but also enhancing the visibility of electrical infrastructure from the substation. I farm on the other side the A-47 from the substations and have been deluged with requests from various companies for land to build compensators on. They all assume show me that planning will not be an issue because it's a national project. This is not the case here which has been decided by you Brecklin Council and it is not necessary for the running of the substations or planning would have been submitted with the original does not application. Interestingly they all gave the impression that once the compensators were built it would be very lucrative for the land owner and probably the company to add battery storage and solar laser. This will fill in the remaining arable land down to Nixon rather nicely. We as a family have said no to all of these applications. French and connecting parish council want you to say no which is what you should do. Both neighbourhoods have suffered enough already. Thank you. I've got a Sashaloid Rutherford please who's the applicant three minutes please. Good morning. My name is Sashaloid Rutherford. I'm the project manager. So good morning and my name is Sashaloid Rutherford and I'm a project manager at Stockcraft for Nectin Greener Grid Park. I'm here today to urge you to support our proposal. Nectin Greener Grid Park provides stability resilience and security to Britain's electricity network. The main components that achieve this are called synchronous compensators which are large electrical machines with built-in flywheels. This technology can replace the spinning turbines of traditional power stations but without emitting any CO2. Renewable sources continue to make up an ever greater share of our energy supply. On some occasions in recent years in order to stabilise the grid the renewable supply has had to be paused but still paid for with fossil fuel power plants also being switched on. Projects like Nectin Greener Grid Park have been identified by National Grid to stop this happening in the future. For Norfolk residents Nectin Greener Grid Park would help to keep the lights on secure our green energy supply and contribute to reducing electricity bills. The final proposal has evolved to take into account feedback from officers, independent experts and the community. In response to feedback we've made extensive changes to our proposals. We've removed battery storage from the scheme, designed to save construction access, made efficient use of a site constrained by other developments and land agreements, conducted a colour study to propose recessive building colours and proposed extensive landscaping. We're also creating a habitat for birds, invertebrates and small mammals and in doing so we're achieving an overall biodiversity net gain of over 10%. We believe this is the best possible version of the proposals and we are grateful to your officers and the local communities for playing a part in informing our plans. During the construction phase of our Greener Grid Park project we work with local business groups and provide opportunities to get involved. At a recent project Keith Greener Grid Park in Scotland over £1.6 million was invested into the local supply chain and a community fund of £20,000 per year was provided. We hope to provide a similar level of benefit here which would be delivered separately following an investment decision by Sepra. In summary the proposals before you today will support in the fight against climate change, solve a lasting issue with our grid network, avoid and minimise local impacts and reduce energy bills. I fully endorse the recommendation of your officers and I hope that you can support our plans. Good morning everybody and my name is Colin Turnbull and I'm Director of DWD, the Planning Consultancy Supporting Stackcraft on this project. As such as mentioned the final design of the proposal has been carefully developed, influenced by feedback from officers, experts and the local community. We initially sought pre-application advice from your officers back in June 2022 so that's nearly two years ago and that's how long we've been working away on this project. We sought feedback on three site locations and the documentation that would be required for planning application. Following our community consultation in spring 2023 we removed battery storage from this project and we've had extensive discussions with national highways and that's resulted in us proposing a temporary construction access to prevent any safety impacts on the A47. So most electricity transmission infrastructure is constrained in terms of how it must look and function. This means that when we plan these projects we pay special attention to the elements that weaken influence and that's things like the site shape, the sighting and the boundary treatments. So in this location we are particularly constrained due to the wind farm connection DCOs and national grid zone access needs and the consequent land availability in this location. But we have proposed substantial boundary treatments so previously the landscaping to the south was going to comprise a mixture of woodland and scrub but following the landscape officer's comments we altered this to create an entirely woodland block. So your officer's view is that policies ENV05 and GEN05 are not complied with in their entirety. These policies quite rightly seek to enhance the character and beauty of the countryside and restrict development outside of settlement boundaries. So this is an unusual formal development it can't be located within settlement boundaries as requires a location near to the substation. We have provided all the evidence we can to explain that we have made efficient use of this constrained site. It's in close proximity to a busy substation. This is due to existing planning permissions and land agreements in all directions. The submitted photo montages demonstrate that the project would be well screened and set back from sensitive receptors. We carried out a colour study at the request of your landscape officer to ensure that the colours chosen for the main buildings will recede in longer views and there's a wide range of conditions proposed which would control the landscaping and planting details and I note that they do include the size of those plants that is already referenced in the conditional wording. So the project would provide a biodiversity in that gain of over 80% that's 80% for hedger units and over 10% for habitat units. So the overall percentage is about 13%. It's a significant benefit of the projects and your officer's report identifies the extensive local and national need for this development. It would improve the stability of the national grid and reduce carbon emissions, factors which are important in the planning balance. So we're very grateful to your officers and local communities during our consultation exercise. We've taken the time to reflect on and improve the appearance of this essential infrastructure. So the proposals before you are the best possible version of this project. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have Lucy Sheringham, please, three minutes. I'm a local resident and object to this planning application on its bad sighting and access. This unnecessary infrastructure is in a rural area on a greenfield site close to a village. I and others have experienced the effects of the vanguard, boreas and the national grid extension construction works taking place near to the proposed site. These developments have two access points and countless signs and traffic measures in place. Unfortunately, all of this caused mass confusion amongst construction traffic and therefore on a daily basis, we and others witnessed traffic turning around in local residents driveways, pub and shop car parks, turning across the A47 dangerously, using laybys to illegally turn around to avoid traveling eight miles the wrong direction. Stackcraft are proposing to put a third construction access point on the A47. This will only make things worse. The national highways have raised a lot of concern throughout this application, asking for an amended transport assessment to include cumulative transport impacts from vanguard and boreas, which has still not been submitted by the applicant. Their transport statement also states there's been no accidents outside of the current substation entrance. However, this doesn't consider data from 2023 when an accident occurred directly outside the site entrance. Stackcraft have also stated they will work with neighbouring developers to resolve any cumulative problems when they arise, but sadly this may well be too late. Thank you. Thank you. We now have Paul Hado please, again three minutes. Good morning. As a local resident, I object to this application. Its site selection factors do not comply with the electricity networks, national policy, EN-5 and scheduled nine of the Electricity Act 1989, which state in particular local topography needs to be considered, which Stackcraft's site selection assessment does not. There is no visual impact to assessment criteria as part of their site selection. The assessment criteria they've used are very commercially driven, which provides Stackcraft the location they wanted in the first place. Alternative locations, namely, A alternative location ASL-05 in their assessment, is less visually impacting. It has the same grade land as what they're proposing at the moment, and it has access via a farm track, which requires an extension but negates the need for an additional A47 access point. These sites were disregarded due to the cable length and land rights. The cable is already cutting across the land within the DCO, a national grid. Why can't they renegotiate a different route for a better location? It comes down to a lack of a commercial agreement that they need to go and get. Why should the landscape and the locals suffer, because the developer doesn't want to pay more to position their site further away with a longer cable? We recognise that if it was positioned further away, even outside the 600 metres, there would be more land required. However, this would be the correct land in the correct location, but it might not be at their correct cost, which is what it all comes down to. Regardless of site selection, their site mitigation is poor. At a local consultation, I specifically asked for additional mitigation on the northern side and for the applicant to investigate a bund. I was physically laugh out the room. Yet these are still missing from their plans. In accepting this application, Breckland would benefit from over £100,000 in business rates annually. I hope Breckland aren't blinded by this, and I hope you disregard it in your decision-making process. It is not nearly enough compensation for the local community and does not make up for the dis-benefit to the countryside this application causes. It's open to questions from members. Councillor CLARK, please. Thank you, Chairman. I've got the question and a comment to our officer. First question is, if you can confirm a distance from this facility to the nearest residential property, that's one question. Can you also confirm, I think, looking at the conditions under 10.2 that the land which is used for temporary access, it does say it would be fully restored to an existing condition, including hedgerows. I'm grateful if you just confirm and clarify those two points. Thank you. Do you mean 10.2 or condition 10? It's not the same condition that I've got. So it's 450, sorry. Sorry. I just want to make sure I tell you tell you the right thing. 450 metres, the nearest residential. And do you mean in the event the apparatus was no longer required, then we have a condition for everything to revert back, as was the previous site, is that what you mean? Following construction. So there will be the loss of those two sections of hedgerows that I mentioned and they will be replanted if possible. But the landscape strategy will guide that once we have the final route and we know that they're going lost, is that what you meant? Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councillor Caiberg, please. Thank you, Chairman. Nectons are a fairly remote part of the national grid. Is that the main reason this is chosen as a site for stability or is it that most substations will need similar stabilisation? Thank you. Would the applicants like to answer that? Will you pay attention? I'll allow a brief reply. Yes, so the east of England was identified as an area by national grid systems operator as an area that needed additional grid stability and Necton's substation was then identified as a substation that had availability for a point of connection in the timescale that national grid required. Thank you. I've got Councillor Airtle, please. That's it. Can I have some clarification around the Necton neighbourhood plan, please, because you said that Becky, that Reg 16 had come back, but this gentleman said that that's actually gone through examination. Now, I've gone through examination, but the examination report isn't available on our website, so I'd like to see that report to see what it says, so I've got the most up-to-date information. We do have the inspector's report. As I set out in the presentation, the inspector has endorsed policy TNT2, but only the second part of the policy. He's removed the first part, and I read out verbatim what that second part of the policy says. No one except all impact on the key features. But you're saying the first bit has been removed? The text at the start of that policy has been removed because the inspector thought that was repetitive, and the remaining bit is as appropriate to their scale, nature and location, and to ensure that they can serve the essential landscape heritage and rural character of the parish, development proposals should demonstrate how they have regard to and conserve or enhance the landscape character and setting of the parish as referenced in the net and landscape assessment, and will ensure that there's no unacceptable impact on the key features of the important views identified on the policies map. So, I don't know when this application first came in to us to be assessed. I just want to be clear of when in the timeline or if the applicant has taken proper consideration of the Nectin neighbourhood plan and this revised policy as amended by the examiner, because it's very difficult. You'll appreciate not having it there in black and white for me to read verbatim, and I'm really keen to understand on that basis, I'd like to know from the gentleman from Nectin why he perhaps still feels that the proposal does not comply with that revised examiner, it revised policy as written by the examiner. I'm sort of riding a bit blind here because I don't have it black and white. Rebecca first please. Thank you. So, just to be really clear, you have to, now we've had the inspector report, you have to give weight to the Nectin plan and that policy within it, and I've read out what the policy is within it. The applicants in preparing their information have had regard to earlier versions of the Nectin plan and the submission version, and also as our independent landscape consultant. I just want to be really clear, members, but what we're saying to you here is there is a landscape impact from this development that isn't being mitigated by the planting that's being proposed as part of that strategy, and that although that planting that is being proposed has been enhanced to the absolute maximum in accordance with our own individual landscape consultants advice with the applicants landscape consultants. There is a harm here, and that would conflict with our policies, EM VO2 and Gen O1, as well as NTN2, but what we're saying to you members is that harm is outweighed by the other material planning considerations of the constraints of the development and that it needs to be located in this location because of the cable locations and because of the location of the Nectin substation and obviously the overriding material consideration of the principle of development being acceptable and the MPPF saying you don't need to justify why you need a balance to renewable energies in locations where they propose to locate that type of development. So just to be really, really clear, there is conflict with policies on terms of landscaping and landscape impact, but we are saying to you members that those conflicts outweigh by the other material considerations, obviously it's completely within your remit to balance those other material considerations in terms of that landscape harm. Sorry, I know that they wanted to speak to the applicants as well. Did you want a response from Mr Baitman, did you want a response or you would? Okay, Mr Baitman, are you prepared to? Yes, Chairman. The wording has been slightly modified but doesn't change the essence or the meaning of it. It had repetitive statements in there so that's just been changed but essentially NTN2 refers to the character assessment that we had done and it's in the character assessment that they refer to the characteristic of the area of block planting, substantial areas of wood which will be visually noticeable and also have more chance of survival in the long term rather than very narrow strips of planting. So it's maintaining that character that they're referring to. Does that answer your question? Yes, it does. I have a further question. Much was made this morning of the fact that other land may have been available but couldn't track down the ownership of it which seems to be a pretty thin argument to me. You can't in this day and age find out who the owners is. Are we saying that absolutely there is no other land available in that vicinity for these complex areas or are we just taking those gospel that we've got to go with this particular site for financial reasons? Has that been explored in terms of that piece of land that apparently we cannot find the ownership of it? If we could find the ownership of that and that could be built on that piece, is the technology still, will the technology allow that? It sounds like the last clue in a crossword to me but I'm going to see if the applicant or agent has any type of comment regarding the not being able to find the ownership of a piece of land? Certainly, Chair. So we provided an alternative site assessment voluntarily because we wanted to really explain the technical constraints that these kinds of projects face. The search for sites began in 2022 some years ago now and we shared three row sites with the planning officers through the pre-application advice service that they offer. This was the site, you know, the site that's before you now is the site that was suggested out of that pre-application advice. So since then we haven't gone on a process of searching for every landowner on every alternative piece of land around there, we think that would have necessitated going back for more pre-application advice and it would have been contrary to the pre-application advice that we received. So I take the point that there are degrees of effort you can go to to find land owners. I work on some much bigger projects where we spend, you know, a year or two sometimes looking for owners. There is some time constraint to this project so what we're trying to do is deliver this infrastructure in a certain sort of efficient time scale. Rebecca, please. Hi, members. I just need to remind you that you need to consider the development proposals in front of you and not what they could be. There is no requirement in planning policy, national or local, to do a sequential assessment of other sites. The applicants have looked at other sites through their process and volunteered some information in that regard, but there is no sequential assessment requirement to look at alternative sites when developing these proposals and in your report at paragraph 1.15 it does refer to a recent court case judgment in the Bramley Solar Farm versus the Secretary of State for leveling up and housing in communities which says that just in finding that the PPG does not mandate the consideration of alternatives still less that a sequential test should be adopted and the best that it can be said is that in cases such as this it should be shown that the use of agricultural land has been demonstrated to be necessary and that can involve an assessment of potential alternatives. So you are only looking at whether agricultural land is necessary which if you remember in my presentation right at the beginning it is unlikely that we will be able to find a site of this scale within a settlement boundary and obviously it needs to relate to the substation and any development of this scale and kind within a settlement boundary is likely to have a greater impact and therefore in that regard agricultural land is necessary given there is no brownfield land in this immediate location and therefore you are not required to consider whether there are other appropriate sites in the determination of this application that's not on material planning consideration. Okay, Councillor BAMbridge please. Thank you, Chairman. I do actually have four separate questions but they are fairly simple ones. I'm sure the first three back you can probably answer in about two words. So first of all you mentioned the SPA in your SPU at the beginning. What is the SPA and where is the extent of it? Sorry, I know what an SPA is but is it just skylarks or other stuff as well? Do you know off the top of your head the SPA? Oh, is he looking up as well? I'm afraid off the top of my head I don't know the distance to the SPA. What was your other question next one, let's move on. I think it's quite important because they are a European designation that we are clear on what effect the development would have on the SPA. I suspect the wider development of Nectin which has been approved through this committee has already affected it to a substantial extent anyway. Second thing is with the mitigation site will that be in public ownership, use access or does that remain in some sort of private ownership? What is your intention with that land? The Woodland block, sorry if I can clarify, the Woodland block to the south of the site, the mitigation landscaping to the south of the site. Yeah, it's just planning to plant landscape belt trees but it would be staff craft, it wouldn't be for public access but it would be obviously adjacent to high voltage equipment. Okay, no public access due to the proximity of high voltage equipment. Okay, next question. The next question is the question that was raised about the screening. It seemed to me that possibly there is room for some negotiation on the screening for the site. I'm not entirely certain that I agree with Mr Bacon on planting more mature trees, more mature trees don't necessarily grow that much faster but I do think that from a Breckland point of view we could have more negotiation on screening with local people. It apparently doesn't fit in with what's growing on the site at the moment. I don't live there but I drive past that obviously every week the same is most of us. Okay and there was a final question. Well the final question was the odd one. Now I accept that Mr Shearingham may not be an expert in this area although he may be, I may be maligning him but he said with a certain amount of confidence that a site like this was not necessary and I assumed he meant adjacent to this power station. Now is that a fact? We've been told by other people it's not and I just wanted to be clear in my mind how important this is to the national grid in terms of electricity and I know all about the cables coming through that coming through my ward but it just seemed to me to be a statement made with a remarkable confidence which I couldn't justify in what else I'd heard. Well rather than have it repeated by Mr Shearing would you like a response from the applicants and then we'll see if Mr Shearingham agrees with their response? Well either from the applicant or from our officers I don't mind. Yeah I'll put it to the applicants. Are you happy to respond? Yeah I can respond and say again that this project is part of the national grid systems operator stability pathfinder phase three initiative and the previous two that came before it also were specific projects around grid stabilization so this area at the east of England and then following on next substation were identified to be the place that the stability was required and therefore where the development should be. Sorry. There you go. I think what is required here is a bit more particularity. I think what is being asked is how necessary is this development in precisely this area and when I say precisely this area i.e. right there and what happens actually as far as you're concerned if it's more than 600 meters away I think that is what is being asked. Thank you for the clarity sorry about that I can clarify further so I think whilst maybe I explained why it should be in adjacent to net and substation this site specifically one of the considerations when we are designing and locating a green grid path like this is the cable route is a large part of the overall infrastructure and when you site a green grid park further away from a substation there's a number of reasons I think we're minimizing that length of the cable so they sort of include but aren't really limited to things like electrical efficiency and responsiveness so reducing cable losses there's environmental disruption so reducing disruption on agricultural land and hedgerows and other environmental features there's infrastructure disruption so reducing interaction with roads, overhead lines, drainage systems and then there is also the consideration of the financial viability of the project which is crucial to providing the service to national grid that's required. And if I could just maybe just add on a policy point because I'm a planning consultant and you know the NPPF is clear that there isn't a need for applicants to set out a need case for each form of low carbon generation and each type of generation in each location you know so we have an electricity system where the national grid system operator as Sasha has said identifies needs and it has various means and forward planning tools available to it and they identify where these are best located. Companies like Stackcraft then look for the best sites at those substations but as I say the the national planning policy framework doesn't require us to set out a very sort of you know top-down sort of need case and that's why we didn't submit one you know we've gone for a voluntary approach of showing the sighting that we've considered in the local area but as to the reasons national grid chose Necton and what would happen if it didn't take place here that would be for a national grid to speak to. Okay um cancer bandwidth were you happy with that explanation? I don't know if the happy is quite the right term but I'm satisfied that I understand more about it now than I did when I asked the question so thank you for that. I'd be even more happier if I had some response on the on the SBA and if by magic so Necton's obviously here and then it is outside of Necton to the north where the where this apparatus and the substation is and then this gray like bobbly bit this is the SBA so you can see it's a significant distance it's past Necton past Pecanum and the stone curlies are to the south with the SBA majority to the south habitats to the south but that is the SBA that blobby bullet but ignore these this is outside our boundary it's this gray section here so you're a significant distance away from the SBA and natural england and our ecologist raised no objection to the application. No that was it I just thought that there was a skylark SBA in there somewhere that I didn't actually know about there is of course an SBA just to the north of that which wasn't shown on there. No it's within that map. Okay members any further questions at all? No you're all satisfied? Thank you. Okay with that we're going to go to the vote so on this item at Necton land south of Necton substation 3pl 2023 0848 in in full format your officer's recommendation is one of approval could show of hands please and those against zero and any abstentions one okay thanks very much this item is approved thank you we have a couple of more items to do and then we have a session to follow as well so I am going to break for coffee now so if you'd like to take your break now for okay the proper chairman has decided we just take two more items so so item 10 is applicators determined by the deputy chief executive which is there for your information and also for your information item 11 appeals summary and with that the agenda is complete for today on that item so the planning committee for today is now closed and we will move on [BLANK_AUDIO]