Transcript

(whistle) Oh, good evening, good afternoon, colleagues, welcome to today's planning committee. I welcome to members of the public, and we've got members of the press now and other fellow Councillors that have come along. Just a apology for the delay to this meeting. I apologise for the delay in the disruption, but I want to apologise for the reason why we delayed this meeting and defer this meeting because I think getting in touch with 151 objectors was fairly important and that's why we put this meeting back to today in order that those, the members of the public, were probably consulted as part of our protocol. So, having said that, the first item on the agenda is notification to those present that the meeting will be recorded and streamed online. I've also been informed that the camera isn't panning in on speakers, so it is permanently showing the whole room which will also show members of the public, so I just want members of the public to be aware that you'll be, well, certainly the front rows will be live on YouTube for everybody to see. Normally, we're panning on speakers, but it's not doing that unfortunately. Second item on the agenda is apologies for that for since, Catherine. Thank you, Chair. I have Councillors, Aimee, Sadington, Smith and Harris. Thank you. I generate them three declarations of interest by members and officers. I'll declare an interest on behalf of myself, Councillor Dales and Councillor MELTON that we are members of Trent Bali internal drainage board. Any other declarations of interest? No? Okay. Oh, sorry, Councillor MELTON. Just to say that I actually live in the parish there in Kiliman Stateville. Thank you, Councillor MELTON. So there are no minutes for this one as it's an extraordinary meeting. So the first item on the agenda is the agenda item four, which is Landoff State Road, Airm, Julia. Thank you, Chair. So members, we begin on page three of the agenda to consider an application for full planning permission for the construction and operation of a battery energy storage system, transformers and substation and associated infrastructure on Landoff State Road in Airm. This is a complex and controversial proposal and has therefore required the detailed and lengthy report before you today. There are also a number of late items that need to be reported to you in relation to this application, and they have been circulated already to all members before the meeting. And I will take those as having been read by members and that you take those into account, obviously, in your decision-making process. I would also advise that since the late item schedule was circulated, we have received a further three letters of objection, and one of those has been one from the Airm Kellemen State Thought Parish Council. All the issues raised are considered within the report and the late item schedules. So the site is an unusual shape comprising of two main fields. We've got the western field here, the narrow one at the top, and then we've got the larger eastern field here. Here is the village of Airm. We've got State Thought Village here. Along the northern boundary of the site, we've got the A617 here that runs. Then you've got Main Road that comes off the A617 and goes up towards Upton. Then you've got State Thought Road, which forms the eastern boundary of the site running around here. Here you've got the national grid, the existing national grid substation that's State Thought. Just off the aerial, you can see the outskirts of the power station. Sorry. Okay, so the site comprises of approximately 25 and a half hectares of agricultural land, and as we saw on the site this morning, there are overhead electricity power lines that cross the site in two places. You've got one that crosses the northern narrow section at the site here, and then it comes down and crosses this corner of the eastern field here. They are obviously supported by pylons. There are pylons outside the application site as well that all head the overhead power lines towards the substation at State Thought. The boundaries of the site are bounded by roads, are largely defined by hedgerows and trees, which we saw this morning, but they are intersected by some field accesses. The nearest residential properties to the site are those in the south-western corner, which are just here and they're largely centred around what's called a pop bus close. So they're the nearest residential dwellings to the site. The nearest property is 60 metres away from the actual site boundary, but there is a distance of 192 metres between that property and the compound, which is the nearest built form of the development. The nearest dwellings to the batteries are these properties here, which are on the outskirts of Aaron, and they are approximately 380 metres away from the proposed nearest battery units. For the benefit of members who missed the site meeting this morning, I'll just run through some photographs. This is the existing field access, that front main road. This is the view back towards the A617 with existing planting around the boundary. This is looking towards across the western field from main road, so this is the planting along the A617 that you can just see here. This is the A617 boundary with hedgerows and trees. This is a field access of the A617 into the site, and you can obviously see the pylons and overhead power lines there in the photograph. This is looking back west from the A617 towards Michael Barrow Hill, which is just here in the background, and that's looking down into the eastern field, looking to the south. And now we're on State Thought Road. This was the field access that we stopped this morning on State Thought Road. That's the view outside the site, running along the road, which is here. That's the northern view, and then this is the southern view from that same field access, again outside the site, looking down towards State Thought Road. This is the view into the site from the State Thought Road existing field access. So if we look now at what are the constraints we've got around the site, the red shaded areas are conservation areas. So this is air and conservation area, Kellum, and Upton Conservation Area. And the black lines that you can see are public rights of way, and obviously these are the main roads in blue. Within the conservation areas, there are a number of listed buildings, grade 1 and grade 2 listed buildings, and there's also a scheduled ancient monument within air and conservation area. All the distances referred to in the report in relation to heritage assets, or relate to the distance from the site boundary itself, rather than the actual built development that's proposed on the site. I'll just draw your attention to this public footpath here, which runs at Michael Barrow Hill, which is obviously the high point. Most of this land is fairly flat, but Michael Barrow Hill is the one high point relative to the site. So in relation to constraints on the site, this plan shows the dark green areas is grade 3a agricultural land, which means it is the best and most versatile agricultural land. And then you've got a small central area in light green, which is grade 3b, which is the lower grade and is not best and most versatile. Then down here you've got the flooding constraints, which show the blue shaded areas in the central area and on the edge there, that's flood zone 3a, which means that is at high risk of fluvial flooding. And then you've got two areas of white here and here, which are flood zone 1, which means they are low risk of fluvial flooding. So when we look at the proposed layout of the proposed scheme, the main access is from main road over here, and an access road will be created that runs along the southern boundary of that field. It will require a small element of hedge rows, approximately 13 metres of hedge row to be taken out here to enable that access between the two fields. So here we have the 82 containerized battery units in rows, double row there and a single row here, and they've each got an associated power unit with them. Here we've got the compound which contains four 132 kilowatt transformers in red here, and we've got two 400 kilowatt transformers in the blue area here. In the southwestern corner we've got two water basins, so this one here is designed to accommodate surface water flooding, so it's effectively a sustainable urban drainage system. And this basin here is for flunch storage compensation, which allows for the containers that are in the flood zone, positioned in the flood zone, that compensates for those batteries and prevents floodwater leaving the site and flooding anywhere elsewhere. So stay thought road you'll see here, there is an access to the site. This access will be used for two things, one to transport the six abnormal loads that will be required to transport the transformers onto the site, and once those are onto the site that access will only be used for emergency vehicles only. So the main access to the site will remain from main road. All the construction traffic will come from main road along the access road there, and once the site is operational that will remain the main access to the site. Initially there was an access proposed here off the A617 as part of the application, but that was negotiated out basically on grounds that it was only going to be a temporary access, and it was felt the harm to hedgerows and trees in order to form that access for a temporary period was not acceptable, so the construction traffic will now use the main road, the main access point from main road now. Along the part of the northern boundary here and along the eastern boundary, this is a mostly 28 metre deep woodland planting buffer, and you can see that it extends out towards the southern boundary too. The pink areas here are landscape buns, so these are basically 2 metres high, and along the northern section here of the bund, an acoustic fence will be added to the top of the bund. So this is the bund along the northern section here, the section of the bund, it's 2 metres high, and then above that for 2 metres you've got the acoustic barrier on top, and then the other two southernmost buns would be designed like this, they're 2 metres high with sloping gradients each side, and along the eastern boundary of the battery units, there will be 4 metre high acoustic barriers. So this is some typical elevations of the compound, post-compound facility, the compound infrastructure would have a maximum height of 12 metres. Again, we show the elevation of the compounds. This is the elevations of the battery container units, and you can see that they are raised on clints off the ground, and these are approximately 850 metres high off the ground, and that gives the overall dimensions of the proposed battery unit. So this shows the master landscaping scheme with the additional new planting along the boundaries. In the southwestern corner here, the application is proposing a new wildflower meadow to be planted, and additional hedgerow and tree planting will be proposed along the western boundary here, and additional planting along the southern boundary here. The proposal will take approximately 20 to 24 months to be constructed, so it's a good two-year period. In terms of other landscape, this shows a cross-section through the site at year one. So we've got three different cross-section showing. We've got A to A in this location here, B to B in this location here, and C to C in this location here. So this is A to A, this is B to B, this is C to C, and it shows right from the houses in Aram, existing planting, this is outside the site, till you hit State Thought Road here, and then you have the proposed new planting within the site, and the proposed compound area here. So that shows planting in year one cross-sections across the site, and then this shows the same cross-sections across A, B, and C in the same locations, and this is year 15. So you can see here planting on the other side of the A617, then you've got the road, then you've got existing planting along the 617, and then you have the new planting buffer in this location here, before you hit the containerized battery unit. And that's the same for B to B, so you've got houses in Aram here, in this location, then you've got this field, which is in this location here to the east of State Thought Road, then you hit State Thought, you've got existing planting, then you hit State Thought Road here, then you have the new buffer planting, which is within the site, and then this is within the site till you hit the landscape fund with the planting on top there. So this is a plan showing the proposed main access to the site from Main Road. We thought this morning that there's an existing field access. Now the existing field access is actually located here, so this morning I told you that the new access would actually be to the east of that, but it's not, it's actually to the west. So this is the new access road that is to the west of the existing field access, which is here, approximately positioned here. So the light green shaded area here is the hedgerow to be translocated. So because of the visibility displays that are required to make this access safe, the existing hedgerow in this western direction here needs to be taken out in order to make that visibility safe. So the new that existing hedgerow, sorry, will be translocated into this shaded light green area here, and also parallel to the access road here. And this plan also shows a new native hedgerow being planted in this location here, which is practically running parallel with the translocated hedgerow. So again, that's additional planting benefit as part of the scheme. On the western side of the new access, you can see a new hedgerow being planted there, sorry. So a new hedgerow plant is planted around the sweeping western side of the road and the translocated hedgerow is on the eastern side of the road. And this would form a retained field access for the farmer here. So these are photo montages that have been submitted of the site. This is along the A617, I think, let me just double check on it. Yeah, so this is, no, this is stay thought road, sorry. So this is along the stay thought road looking to the, oh, that's very small. I think it's looking to the south west of the site from stay thought road. So this is the existing photo montage. This would be the photo montage in year one. So you can see elements of the infrastructure here and further down here. And then the next one shows the same location in year 15 with the buffer landscaping in place here. So this is another photo montage of the existing looking into the site from stay thought road. This is the existing. This is year one with some of the infrastructure showing. And then this is year, sorry, that's year one. Oh, I'm going the wrong way, sorry. That's year 15. Yeah, this is the existing view from stay thought road. This is year one from that same view with some of the infrastructure showing. And this is year 15 with the buffer planting matured. This again is a view from stay thought road looking up the eastern, eastern field. This is the existing montage. This is the year one montage where you can see the infrastructure above the hedgerow. And this is the year 15 montage of the same view with the additional planting along that boundary. So as I said earlier, the proposal will take 20 to 24 months to be constructed. So these are compound areas that have been identified within the site to be used during the construction process. And this area here is for parking of construction employees. The proposal includes biodiversity net gain, which is something that is being offered by the applicant as part of the application. It's not a requirement as part of this proposal because it was validated prior to the environment being enacted. So the biodiversity net gain that is being offered is over and above a benefit to the scheme. A number of the, sorry, the late item schedule has updated the biodiversity net gain figures because they have had to be recalculated with a number of different amendments to the scheme. So the biodiversity net gain now calculated is 28.09% gain of habitat units and a 42.26% gain for hedgerow. And this, these supersede the figures set out in the report but they've been captured within the late items and within the amended conditions. So this BNG represents positive weighting in the overall planning balance. The proposed development would store electricity as chemical energy in lithium batteries and then import and export electricity when it's required by the national grid but it does not in itself generate electricity. So a best acts as a storage for energy generated by renewable sources of wind and solar so that it can be stored when demand is low and then fed into the grid system when the demand is high. This allows less waste of renewable generated electricity and greater efficiency and flexibility in electricity supplies. So it effectively would balance the peaks and the troughs and reduces reliance on fossil fuels and reduces carbon emissions. The development would be for a temporary 40 year period only and after that all infrastructure would be removed and the land restored and this would be controlled both through condition and through a legal obligation. So the application on the agenda today seeks permission for, sorry, the application that follows this application on the agenda seeks permission for the construction of a cable route from this application site to the existing Stathor National Grid substation. So just so that you're aware that there is a functional link between the two applications that are on the third and fourth on the agenda. So turning quickly to console tea responses we've had, we haven't had any objections raised by statutory or non-statutory consultees although concerns were raised in relation to the tree and landscape officer of the Council. But those concerns have largely now been addressed by a hedgerow survey that has been undertaken to demonstrate that the hedgerow that would be translocated as part of the visibility display to the main access is not an important hedgerow as defined by the hedgerow regulations

1. So both Ayrum, Kellam and Stathor parish councils and Kellam parish council object to the proposal on the basis of the reasons set out on pages 18 and 19 of the agenda and in addition to that we've had 151 letters of objection which are referred to in the report as well as six additional letters that are listed on the late items and three additional letters that weren't published on the late items as they were received afterwards. So the report summarises the objections on pages 21 and 22 of the agenda and officers have made comments in relation to those summarised on late items schedule which members will have read and can take into account in your decision making. The agent has also submitted a number of late items which are also on your schedule which members should note which includes clarification of matters within the report which are attached at Appendix 3 and proposed amendments to conditions attached at Appendix 4. So in determining this application it's necessary to balance the strong general presumption in favour of applications for renewable energy and its supporting infrastructure against the environmental impacts of that development and any social and economic benefits. So you have a detailed technical report before you members which sets out all the material planning considerations. It's noted that significant objections have been received from local parish councils and local residents which have been read and given appropriate weight in the recommendation before you. Both national and local planning policy place great weight on the creation of energy through renewable schemes and where those impacts of those developments can be made to be acceptable. The scheme would have very significant benefits to support the transition to net zero and would help and secure stability and security of energy supplies and therefore attracts significant positive weight. 25 hectares of flat agricultural land and its openness and associated electrical infrastructure in overhead lines and pylons are part of the character of this existing site along with existing planting around boundaries. So the proposed best scheme would substantially change the visual appearance from open agricultural use to an industrial appearance. The landscape character is found to have a moderate adverse impact in year one but then reducing to minor impact in year 15 due to mitigating landscaping. The visual impact would be reduced to a certain extent by the flat topology of the site and from some receptors this is moderate to major in year one but then reduces to moderate to minor adverse by year 15. So the overall moderate to minor landscape character harm is identified and minor visual harm is identified. The report also mentioned that there would be a loss of 11.7 hectares of grade three which is best and most versatile agricultural land as a result of the development that is acknowledged and a limited sequential test has been carried out to see if the development could be located on lower grade agricultural land but there is a question on whether policy DM8 is actually applicable to this application which is mentioned within the report. The agent argues that DM8 is not applicable to the consideration of this application that's set out in late items. So the loss of this agricultural land which is best and most versatile would be tempered by its temporary loss for only 40 years and then this loss would be restored and go back to agricultural use. In flood risk terms the proposal passes the sequential and exception tests and does not increase flood risk elsewhere. In terms of fire, safety and potential pollution these have been considered and are acceptable and such concerns were not upheld at the recent public inquiry for the similar development on the land on the road. The report has found moderate to high level of harm to the setting of air room conservation area, a moderate harm to kelem conservation area and minor harm to Upton conservation area and also their associated list of buildings. However clear and convincing justification has been made for this type of development. The harm is less than substantial and the environmental benefits of improved biodiversity, net gain and community benefits in supporting the transition to low carbon energy generation results in the harm identified being outweighed by these public benefits. I've mentioned the ecology enhancements that the scheme would present. So in relation to other aspects such as highway safety, residential meanity, archaeology, drainage minerals, noise and lighting these are all neutral impacts in relation to the development and can be acceptably controlled through the imposition of conditions. So overall the officers have looked at the benefits versus the harms and have resulted in a recommendation of approval in balancing those competing material considerations. So it is recommended for approval subject to a completion of a section 106 agreement to secure the and maintain and monitor the biodiversity net gain and ecological mitigation measures, the decommissioning details and a highway condition survey which is required because of concerns and relation to potential damage to main road during the construction process and also subject to the conditions set out before you but as amended in the late item schedule rather than the conditions that are set out within the report. Thank you chairman. Thank you Julie for a very comprehensive report. Before I move on I'm just going to ask for a brief adjournment for one minute just while I have a conversation with one of the committee members. Thanks. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Thanks for that colleagues. Right as per our protocol and just for a benefit to members of the public part of our protocol in order to enter into the debate myself and the vice chairman move the officer's recommendation but that gives no indication of how we will go to the end of the day just in order to engage the debating process. So I will move the recommendations for approval and the changes to the conditions in section 10 of the report. I second this. Right anybody want to comment make contribution councilor Melton. Thank you chair. I thought I would make a statement early in the process. Sorry councilor Melton we have to speak as my fault we do have speakers so before you win. I have Patrick Grant who's an objector. Sorry Patrick missed that. The right hand button turns the mic off. You have three minutes and when you leave the right hand button turns the mic off again. I'll let you know when you've got 30 seconds. I'm sorry it's only three minutes because I know this is important but there you go. All right cheers thanks. Okay dear members our villages are on the brink of being transformed from a peaceful rural community into a sprawling industrial complex. The recent approval of state thought best sets of worry and precedent threatened to surround with intrusive industrial infrastructure. Over the past couple of years our communities have endured significant stress and anxiety with application after application being proposed right on our doorsteps. Currently in the pipeline we have state thought best, errand best, calum solar and best, great north road solar and best, Enzo state thought best and many more. Our community already show the significance on pleasant infrastructure such as state thought power station and substation in the power lines emanating from these facilities. This makes the remaining open countryside around our villages even more precious to us yet rather than acknowledging this burden the playing department view our community as fair game damaged goods have at them. Well no we're not just going to stand by silently and let the destruction of our local environment continue unchecked enough is enough. We understand the need to reduce carbon emissions and the presumption in favor of renewables however this should not be misinterpreted as at any cost. Best can and should be situated away from residential areas. The applicants assert that situating best at the point of connection minimizes transmission losses and improves system efficiency with absolutely no quantification or scientific supporting data. The planning department go on to take this unverified assertion at face value constructing the entirety of their report around it without any further challenge or scrutiny. Studies show that electrical transmission losses are approximately one only one percent per kilometre for median voltage distribution lines. Furthermore if immediate proximity to the substation is truly necessary why are we seeing a proliferation of best proposals further and further out now all the immediately adjoining farmlands and applications on it. I'll tell you why maximized profits. Documentation from the applicant demonstrates their contempt for our community with derisive claims of negligible visual impact despite the following proposed features. 82 battery shipping containers four meters high and one meter concrete stilts cause a flood risk. A substation with six transforms up to 12 meters high two and a half meter industrial metal fencing and lighting all around the site 33 car parking spaces 39 CCTV cameras mounted on five meter high poles named but a few. These elements will not blend seamlessly into our rural landscape with negligible visual impact. In conclusion this is not a debate about the necessity of green infrastructure it's about prioritizing private corporate profit over the well-being of our community. Our villages are being completely besieged with the cumulative impacts of multiple projects threatening to encircle us entirely. We're not against progress but we are against reckless and sensitive planning that disregards the essence of our communities and represents the tyranny of the majority. I urge you the planning committee not to stand up for green washed private profit or overzealous westernness to vanity targets but for those who elected you to represent them by considering the devastating impacts of this proposal in our community and refusing it. Please protect the raw character and quality of life that we value so so dearly. Thank you. Thank you. I've got another speaker who's Councillor Ian Brady from Arrim Kellerman's State Health Average Council. Again Councillor Brady you've got three minutes and I'll let you know when you've got 30 seconds left. Just before I stop and I just clarify one thing it was mentioned Arrim Kellerman's State Health is the same parish it has one parish council not three it was mentioned in the in the presentation. Okay thanks. Okay so good afternoon. We see further attempts by this council to industrialise the countryside for its own financial gain. Planning officer's report makes reference to the recent best appeal within state law. This should not be applied as a blueprint to other applications as the details are unique to the state law. A point outlined by the inspector. The parish council maintains their stance that this application should be refused for the following reasons. The proposed site comprises grade 3a and 3b agricultural land according to the applicant. This is a lower designation than prescribed on the natural England classification maps which identified it as a better grade too. Why has this not been challenged by the planning officer or confirmed by independent testing? Grade 3a is still considered best agricultural land and equates to 23 hectares of a 25 hectare site. A further government statement made on the 15th of May states that this best agricultural land should not be being used for these purposes. Why is this being ignored? Accumulative impact assessment to weigh up the combined effects of all the applications within the parish and the immediate area has not been conducted and should have been as set out in the Town and Country Planning Act. It is incorrect for the planning report to state that NCC highways have approved highways objected and set out additional requirements which are still outstanding as per their last statement on the 19th of April. The fire service also stated in their response that the road widths and some access points will not effectively accommodate the standard Dennis Sabre fire appliance. Why is this being ignored? Fire safety is still a major concern for residents and the risk of thermal runaway fire and toxic fumes still pose an immense threat that is constantly dismissed by this council. The noise impact assessment is not extensive enough to provide a realistic baseline. The proposed sound barrier will be ineffective as it only covers one third of the equipment height. Furthermore, it is based on too many assumptions and then reduced by a factor of 10 for good measure. Why? Again, unchallenged. The proposed screening is inadequate 12 metre high electrical transforms and switch gear will dominate over a 4 metre high deciduous shrub. These will be clearly visible from the fringes of air and staethal and the opton. Revise planting to create a mature tree line around the entire site with increased shrub infill is required. In conclusion, we do not see this as an appropriate development or that it is sympathetic to the location. There are no technical reasons why it must be here. It could be located further out. There are plenty of brownfield sites available. It is astonishing to see again that the planning team are accepting the developers word carp launch without any form of challenge or independent verification. This council has given us one monster already. We do not need a second. Battery storage itself is not a source of green or renewable power. It generates nothing. The parish council and the residents maintain their position that this application should be refused. Thank you. Thank you. We also have the agent Chris Calvert. Chris. Again, you've got three minutes and I'll tell you when you've got 30 seconds left. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of the applicant in support of this application. We welcome the officer recommendation to grant planning permission and I only intend to make a small number of key points. For most, your officers have set out a very clear assessment of the scheme and how it accords with the development plan, this being the starting and finishing point for the dissemination of this application. At no point do your officers advise that there is any breach of planning policy. In fact, the report makes it clear that the scheme accords with your development plan and the MPPF. When the planning balance is applied, any of the harms that have been identified are outweighed by the very substantial benefits in supporting the transition to net zero, helping to secure stability and security and energy supply, biodiversity enhancement, new trees and hedgerows. Your officer's advice is that none of the scheme's impacts taken either individually or cumulatively would be so significant to justify a refusal of planning permission. A key element of the scheme is to be ensured that the development is contained within a substantial landscape setting. Through design iteration, the scheme has now secured the retention of existing hedgerows along the main road by a translocation. This would complement the planning of new hedgerows and trees that would sit alongside the retention of farmland within the site. Only 30% of the proposal is for physical development and that's considerate to the manner of flood risk, highways access and noise mitigation. The submitted landscape and visual assessment concludes that despite the extent of the proposed development, the total extent of the landscape and visual effects would be localised and limited in nature. The report sets out where your officers do not materially differ from that position. We understand the concern of the local community towards fire safety risk and the thorough assessment of this matter is set out within the report, which I need not repeat. However, I must stress that SSE are a highly reputable firm for whom safety is paramount for their own staff and their communities into which they develop. They have a proven track record in the safe delivery and operation of battery sites and other complex energy schemes. I note that fire safety matters were not contested by the LPA, the recent best public inquiry and that no objections have been raised by the fire officer in this particular case. To conclude, this is a well-conceived scheme that has attracted no objections from statutory consultees and on the basis, I commend the officers' recommendation that fire permission should be granted. Thank you. Thank you. I'll just flag one thing up for you, Julia, before I bring Councillor MELTON in and that was clarification. If nobody can give it now, I'll come back to your clarification that Councillor Brady make on the highways, whether anything was outstanding. So if you can come back to our later, I'll bring Councillor MELTON in. Thank you, Chair. I was just about to say before we got sidetracked with the real speakers from the village and so on, that as the only member of the Planning Committee that's close to the site, I think I thought it was appropriate that I say a few words. I may reserve the right to intervene later on as well. The problem that initially concerns me is the rather casual way that the balance of goods and bads is presented and although the agent is not incorrect in saying that the balance may well benefit the community around the whole district as a whole, it doesn't take into account the negative effect of a very small rural community and the wording of the application and the wording of the officers' comments does reflect a view that perhaps there aren't enough people living locally to cause a big enough problem. I have two main concerns. One is the fire risk which I don't think has been shown to be negligible although the agent was pointing out that the fire officer hadn't made a direct comment about it. But connected with the fact that all the batteries as they appear on the screen at the moment, all the batteries are in the area that is most likely to be flooded. So if there is a fire and the effects of battery fires are pretty well known, if there is a fire, the effect of that can be spread quite easily, not just to the local area in terms of fumes, but through the waterways they can be spread to the people of Newark and beyond to the sea. If it's that serious. So there are concerns that I think we need to take into account and one of the comments from the village was that this council has ended up with letting us into a state-thought battery energy storage system. That was actually incorrect. It was the inspector who has done that and I'm not sure that we expressed in the inquiry all of the things as thoroughly as we commented on them in the meeting that was held about state-thought best. In other words, I'm not sure that we defended as positively as we ought to have done the issue of fire and other other things. So I am minded not to approve of this, but I reserve my right to thank the council now to the council of dales. Thank you chair. I would just like to start by echoing what council and melton has just said that we often sit here as committee members and completely agree with on a personal level with statements made by parish chairs or individual villages. Unfortunately, as a planning committee member, we have to work within the planning framework. We did refuse the previous application. The planning committee did refuse it. It was the appeal inspector that overturned that and unfortunately that brings with its significant costs and also reputational damage to the planning authority itself. And if we're overturned too many times, then we lose our independence in terms of making our own planning decisions. So I just wanted to set that as a backdrop just so that you're aware of the framework within which we have to operate. There are things about this application that concern me. So what we have to do is find the material planning reasons that would justify a refusal of that. I still maintain that with 92% of this site being grade 3a agricultural land. I think I said last time, is it right to take green in order to be green? I'm not sure that it is. Page 29 on the report refers to the ministerial statement which says that we do need to consider the cumulative impacts of this. Although I'm not sure what the cut-off position is at which we say there's no more. There are no guidelines for us on this which makes our position quite precarious, I think. I hear what parish chairs say is there a need to chair to clarify or confirm any of the detail that this report is based upon. And I would point specifically to the noise report element of this. I wish I could find where I'd written down my notes about it. So there's somewhere in the report it says the assessment is considered to have been inaccurate with admitted levels that have been assumed and reduced by a factor of 10. I would just like to ask officers if that is correct. Is there any doubt about the noise levels from this site? And I was previously on Hoops application, very concerned about the fire risk. Again, I'm not sure that we're allowed to attach material weight to that as a planning committee. And so yeah, I don't like this one at all, I don't really know what. Happy to listen to the debate and then see if we can read a decision. Thank you sir. Thanks Council Dales. Just commenting on the position of the planning committees as a whole if you like. We do have to take into account obviously local objections to just amplifying Council Dales point. You do take into account local objections as long as they're based on material planning considerations. But we do have to make decisions on behalf of the district as a whole. And it is often very difficult for board members particularly with controversial planning applications to come to this committee and actually perform that function effectively. It's very difficult. And I think that the difficulty for all of us is summed up on the way here this morning to come in here this morning to the side visit which I thought was very instructive to the side visit because you showed the topography and the impact quite clearly. But on the way here I was writing through a village and there was a vote green side. And in the same garden it said no to solar panels. That is the quandary that is before the principal, before the planning committee today. This is a sustainable application but it has impact and that's what we have to balance as a planning committee. Councillor WILGUST. Thank you Chair. There are a number of things in this planning application that concern me. But I would like to say to the officers it's been well put structured and well put together a report. First thing, just a general thing about this that concerns me. What is this 40 year planning application? We've seen a number of these now with solar farms and this and I think something needs to be done on a national policy on this because I'm very very uncomfortable when they say 40 years and you know that that is probably not going to be the case. Yeah, maybe the 40 years for the end of the battery life but if we still need them they're going to be used that same site and they are going to be replaced under another planning application. So I think it's a little bit disingenuous to the population to say 40 years as a general view. I just want to look at a few things that would concern me if I live nearby and one of the things is the issue of lithium batteries. Until the most commonly used lithium nickel magnesium cobalt oxide or lithium ion phosphate batteries, the key risk of these is basically thermal runaway as we've seen pictures of them exploding and this can be caused by a physical damage, misused manufacturing, aging, temperature fluctuation. There are lots of reasons why it can be caused and if it does happen then you get fire, you get explosion, you get release of toxic gases and the gases can range from various things but including hydrogen fluoride which is particularly nasty but it has a very short life. It reacts with water, turns into hydrofluoric acid and disappears quite quickly but it's still an issue that people would be concerned about. Batteries are caused by various British standards. There is a lot of British standards on these, on the installation and the use of them and I've done a lot of research on that and I'm pretty comfortable with the British standards and the way and the processing and the way the manufacturers are controlled because a lot of the old cases of these going and catching fire have been down to manufacturing issues and I believe there's a lot more quality control that's being built into that nowadays. One of the issues that did give me some concern is talking about the physical separation of the units. That's specified in the document NPFA 855 and it gives various standards separation for the different types of batteries because the lithium ion phosphate batteries are different from the magnesium type and they put separation distances and they suggest them in feet with a suggested separation of five feet for the lithium fluoride batteries and for the nickel magnesium 15 feet. Our documentation suggests 2.5 meters which is good to me that fits in with it and they've got the hours sustainable firewalls so that personally satisfies me with the design on site. Well then I've read something else which I thought was worth bringing to the council. I read the NFCC which is a national fire chief's national fire chief's council on particularly on this document on the grid scale BESS systems so they've written a document for fighting basically on how they should look at this and page three of that document says yes there's six meter separation between the units and the roads with hard standing to accommodate fire services in all conditions and our stress in all conditions okay. Now with a flood zone in that area we know we've had flooding in there and they're actually putting them on stilts yeah my concern would be that if there was a flood and then the fire service tried to get in with that separation even if they were going to let the thing burn it wouldn't particularly be very helpful and I think some additional consideration needs to be put into place on the separation of these units I can't dictate that but it's just a concern that I have based upon that particular document okay so moving on and I have to and I'm and again as as those people have said you know we are stuck with the planning what is a material planning consideration here I'm personally broadly satisfied with the safety installation from what I've read um so and going on NPPL para 157 basic estates that planning system should support the transition transition to a low carbon uh carbon future yeah which is key to this that's what we really should be trying to do um the grid infrastructure is in place and it's local and yes there'll be some cost savings and moving it close to it and yes there is an argument to say well couldn't they extend it I don't know I'm not that qualified to do that but I'm hoping that somebody's actually looked to that and the reasons behind it but it does make sense the closer you can put it to infrastructure the most cost effective way of doing that you know so that makes sense to be logically to me visually the landscaping and biodiversity net gain is acceptable over time and it is over time because it will take time for some of that to go there our own core policy 10 gives a council commitment to tackling climate change BESS schemes help with this but also they're critically comprehensive one of the things that really hasn't been mentioned is that they contribute to grid frequency yeah it's not just a storage capacity yeah one of the issues we've had with the coal fire power station going down the big looks a metal that we're generating we will this frequency instability and this can be used to actually stabilize the frequency of the grid so they are needed and there are other ways of doing it but they're also massive units that are being built the recent appeal that has gone through that is my major concern it is a material planning consideration we have to take into consideration and the cost to the taxpayers and the cost to New York and Shield District Council and it has been considerable and we do have to consider that in the and factor that in there and we also talk about the fluid generally about flooding on the quality of the farmland well that farmland is a quality but it also floods now in my area alone the moment with the issues we have with climate change in our areas we've had so much rainfall that if you go around my part of the world and I go it's not in my backyard but you know you go into Lexington you go into fields around there some of the actual farms are actually producing probably you know 30-40% of what they have produced in the past because of rainfall and we talk about why we're getting the rainfall or we're getting the rainfall because potentially of climate change so how do we fix climate change yeah and we're into this circular argument we've got to do something do we do nothing or do we make some changes now unfortunately when you make changes somebody suffers a bang on two you know we've got it we want we want to switch your telly you know our televisions on we always will all want to charge out electrical cars if you've got them I wouldn't but it's something that you know we've got to consider and and weighing everything in there I'm minded to support the office of the recommendations on this thank you thanks council august uh just as a aside there was a debate on politics live today where solar panels came up and the head of the cbi was actually making the similar comment about farmland that is suffered because of flooding and therefore is less productive there would probably be not a brownfield development but she mentioned the fact that you know they're the brownfield for farmers because farmers can actually get more out of the land probably 40 years time if they stay for 40 years if these were the perfect size to put either solar panels or things like this on because the farmland is becoming not as productive as it was before so that was an argument that was had today on a you know on a one of the top political programs on the on the BBC so it agrees with your view you didn't see it but you that I'm saying you agree with the head of the cbi um anybody else council order thanks chair um council august I'm really glad you just touched on that about the farmers and I said I think I said this actually in our meeting last month uh yeah uh last time and I think it is really interesting because if we was to do a real genuine data driven order of how productive and unproductive our agricultural land is now now we are significantly feeling the impacts and we are getting on the forefront of climate change ourselves as a country I think some of these criteria would change now um so I'd just be interested to know I know we can't answer that but nationally when when we will be updating and looking at those sites because we're almost basing our decisions on data that's quite old now um so that was just tailing off your point um I'm really really struggling with this I'm still undecided so I hope the debate carries on um you know of course national policy national planning places a great huge amount of weight on these type of developments but also ourselves you know we declared a climate emergency and as part of this it was to improve carbon reduction emission schemes and you know I appreciate while this isn't generating renewable energy as we said it is helping us capture renewable energy that often gets wasted during the day when people aren't using it and then um you know lost in the evenings peak times six to nine when we need that and then we have to draw in on fossil fuel emissions so I understand you know these applications importance on that stability of relying on green energy so of course I want to support it but I do have some some concerns my first is just a comment you know never fenced to the officer but quite a few times reading that report she kept saying just 40 years I think we have we can't say just just 40 years because no sorry she was saying only 40 years you know 40 years could be to many residents the rest of their lives or the half of the first start of their life so I think we can't we can't say just anymore um very happy with the bng I think it's actually really inspiring to see a development come forward with voluntary bng when they didn't have to and they have succeeded even the the minimum of 10% they've they've actually doubled that so from a biodiversity perspective it's fine but I did have a question that I would like answering so condition 7.2 says to decommission and restore the site at the end of the 40 year period but what about all of the new woodland planting wildflower meadow creation how does that come into it will that will be restricted back and restored back to agricultural land or are you talking about just the infrastructure because that I would really like that clarity um what page what page is that um I just I just put you said 7.2 7.8 oh no wait just condition 7 doesn't relate no sorry whatever I'll put it up put the wrong is it after after the development's finished and it's decommissioning yeah it basically I pulled out the stuff it says to decommission and restore the site at the end of the 40 year period in the report so I want to know if that also applied to all this new planting habitat creation or not um with the screening you know it's great to project into the 15 years and see that screening and I think that is quite realistic that is what the site would look like in 15 years time but personally I'm thinking why are we making residents wait 15 years we could bring this forward if the developer was to put in more significant size planting from the offset of course it's going to take time to establish that gap in and to fill that in with shrubbery and things but I am a bit disappointed that considering we have said in this report what a big visual impact it's going to have is what's right in the middle of these three conservation areas I feel that we that it's letting down residents making awake 15 years to see that benefit and it is a shame their planting aspirations won't be going better to bring that that time down so I would have liked to have seen that um and yeah I just wanted to also ask a question on the what one of the parish councilors said about this accumulated impact and that we have not conducted a full assessment and this concerns me that statement and I just wanted to ask if that was true there was any way to that okay thank you there's been a number of questions raised I mean I raised the one about highways counciles raised a couple I think council wildlife raised couple Julia can you come back yeah so the highway comments weren't um saved on to the council's website but they have been saved now so they're visible there for people to say so they're on the website now yeah and when was when when was the recent highways comments made 30th of May 13th of May 30th of May okay and the other questions that councilor raised about the condition about decommissioning um well as it stands at the moment we the the decommissioning would result in the loss of the bng but if if members felt strongly about that maybe we could incorporate that as part of the decommissioning within the section 106 so that the biodiversity net gain that is planted on the site would be retained rather than converting back to agricultural use and if that's what members want to do then then we could do that as part of the section 106 obligation kind of undermines the best and most versatile land though if if members were yeah yeah what's best I mean a wildflower meadow or a field full of mains you know from a bng point of view so wildflower meadow every time yeah uh council melton and then councilors bors thank you um yep I did reserve the right to to come back and and speak um the the issue of 40 years is something of a well rye amusement in my case at my age 40 years is permanent and um really what I would like to follow through with the biodiversity issue is that if we're looking at the point of getting greater biodiversity and 28 meters of trees over several hundred yards of road edge will increase biodiversity quite significantly I think over the 40 40 year period it would be a nonsense to me to strip that out as part of the condition of this proposal um I mean I'm growing trees on some lander and it will outlast me and the purpose of those trees partly is for the creation of wildlife and to offset the energy that I've used over my lifetime so it would be a matter of regret and I'd probably come back in a haunt of the place if that was going to be stripped out in 40 years time thanks council members councilors bors thank you chair um I've got several concerns about the site but they've all been raised by previous speakers and also members of the panel um I've got one particular question in terms of the north side uh the north part of the site um the one that's parallel to the 617 um it seems to be blank um and I'm just a bit concerned that as that is is that what's going to happen with that part of the site in between the access road and the 8617 I believe it's remains as agricultural land so my I guess my hypothetical question which nobody in the room would probably answer is um why would somebody buy a piece of land and then let and then not do anything with it there's a note of cynicism in my voice at that point and I'll leave it at that the access road travels along that isn't it Julia the access road travels along that okay councilor sorry council brooks thank you basically I think I couldn't put the arguments better than council while bus did um I follow his arguments what I've got concerns is about our um councilors wanting to determine exactly what will happen in 40 years time with returning the land living in a village where the pit closed um nine years ago now that land originally when the pit was opened in 1926 was supposed to be put back into its original form it doesn't happen we can't influence the future to that extent we can say we can say we would like it returned to but in 40 years time there isn't a single person in this room who can influence what the national state will be what the state of energy will be things are moving so fast lithium won't be heard of in 20 years time let alone 40 years time in my opinion so I'm looking at councilor wild goes because you may know better than I but I don't think we should put further conditions on what the land has got to be returned to I think by just the nature of history we have to leave it fairly open what is appropriate at the time and I we can't dictate anything nobody in the right mind will take out the trees surely but we can't say that we just do not know so I wouldn't support putting another condition in councilor you wanted to come back it was just to say I still haven't had my last question answered about the cumulative impact and I can see it in the letter as well that we've chosen to ignore requests for cumulative effects assessment to be undertaken required by the town and country planning act that's what concerned me I just wanted to ask if that was that was real yeah so so in in the report there's a section on cumulative impact on page page 75 of the agenda so that deals with cumulative impacts in relation to the state thought application that has already been approved so it's been considered as within that section of the report so it's it's in the report the cumulative impact it takes into account the inspector's decision not our decision on the state thought bus yeah thank you from from my point of view I mean I mean 30 40 years ago these battles you were done I've said it before this committee I'll say again these battles were done over open cast coal mining and there was a massive presumption in favor of open cast coal mining they were needed for energy coal is hardly used anymore in in coal fired power station they they closed out as council the world was mentioned and and yourself council brooks and the amount of times I in another life previously represented communities who were fighting against open cast coal mining time and time and time again and national policy and planning framework road rough shot over local concerns as mr grand said but we are a planning committee and we work within those guidelines those guidelines are policy guidelines that are set down nationally from national government we develop a framework for locally for us to be able to implement plans to the best of our ability for on behalf of everybody in Newark and Sherwood district council that's what we're elected to do and that's a difficult task that's a difficult difficult balance to make but the presumption in favor of these developments these are the open cast coal mines of the 21st century and they will come they are coming thick and fast and if you want a changing policy of this then you have the ideal opportunity to change policy of this whether it would change with another government is another matter I'm not getting into politics at all but that's where national policy is set that's what we work under as all councillors on this planning committee in an apolitical way but national policy is set by government and that's what we have to balance again again with our own development plan as well comparing this to the monster that we were supposed to have forgiven permission for which we didn't council dale said we actually refused we didn't give give the community a monster the planning inspector did and that as council vulgar said is needs to be a material consideration and to actually say that we we do not make decisions based on a financial gain on this council but we have to take into account the the planet the precedent of an inspector's decision on a very very similar application an application that was that was our decision was overturned and that is a material planning consideration that we have to take are there any other comments anybody wants to make a comment council more so maybe just point this one that's get the answer hopefully for me that's in here or piece you spoke about to you spoke about hydrofluoric acid being one of the products of a fire that is obviously going to go into the waterways as you are pouring water on one of these containers that's going to go what is the environmental impact of that acid into the waterways it's going to make its way into the trend should this happen what is the what is the impact i like to know that the full impact on aquatic life on ground water it's not you know it's not so because fire the risk of fire this is unproven untested technology as such the risk of fire is not known so this this is a hypothetical sort of question but one of these goes up you're putting literally thousands upon thousands of gallons of water to try and put out a lithium fire what is the actual impact is it an inert acid they do nothing does anybody know i don't think we have that expertise councilor is this you want to come out and try i have a degree in biochemistry and i've studied in organic and organic chemistry so i do have some understanding but what i can say is hydrofluoric acid is one of the worst acids you can actually come across so you don't get it on your hands you don't get it on your fingers it can get it on there it can take 24 hours for it to come out and it's a horrible acid to deal with but it's also extremely strong so basically it starts off as you know you're turning to hydrofluic acid as water mixes with the gas you'll get into the ground water and it will react with the first organic thing it comes across a bit of grass a bit of anything bit of soil it will bubble it will fizz and in the quantities you're dealing with it will have probably very many more effects now i say that because the main just major source of hydrofluoric acid is actually volcanoes okay and people in Iceland are living around them all the time and that is where your main tons of hydrofluoric acid will come from rain water from volcanic activity so you know in the context of a container burning up and because if they have got their mathematics right it will be one container if they have a major problem because it should be isolated from everything else yeah it should be pretty many more before the beginning councilor i'm just conscious of one question certainly the council Brady raised and i think councilor olden asked as well was this reduction in a factor of 10 i don't think we've had an answer to that one i think council dale's you mentioned that one the noise i mean i i googled the noise and find out what 87 it's between 87 and 73 decibels which is a lo and mower to a coffee grinder that's the that's thing i mean that that's a lo and mower was about 87 decibels a hoover a vacuum cleaner is about 83 down to a hair dryer and a coffee grinder so that's the noise that we're talking about but i i would like the question answering about the reduction by a factor to 10 so obviously we have noise experts within the council in our environmental health department all the noise information that's been submitted with the application has gone via those technical officers they've looked at the report they have checked the noise readings that were presented within it and they are perfectly satisfied with the report that's been brought forward and they're satisfied that there would be no impact from noise that would be above levels that would cause a nuisance and levels of nuisance is that over 100 decibels i think we're discussed yeah yes i think i'm further comfortable with the exact number it's over a hundred hundred decibels all right hope that helps answer the question yeah so the the noise information presented says that noise levels from the development will not go five decibels above existing factor noise and that's condition so yeah thank you okay i mean i'm conscious that as well with the statutory council teas there is not one single objection from a statutory council team which again weighs heavily when we have to take decisions like this council melton final speaker sorry it was it's a question actually when we were talking in the previous application that has now been passed by the inspector there was initially the each container was going to have fire suppression in the container and then it changed to not having i don't remember reading what the containers are likely to have is there fire suppression in each container or is the assumption that the fire will run itself out i can't just remember the service do you live yeah so the the assumption is that that the units would burn itself would let it would let burn itself out rather than have water suppression but in any event there there is a condition put on the commission that deals with fire safety requirements so that all those are tested by the fire officer before before they're agreed and that includes your concern about spacing so there is a condition condition 21 i think that specifically refers to justification of spacing between units so all these things you know we're aware of and have been covered this space sorry the spacing per se meets the required safety requirements what i was saying is that a document i read from the chief i suggest that they need a wider spacing not necessarily for the safety of the units but for access is is all i was saying so i said that somebody just maybe needs to double check that and see if it's valid and if it is um if you think about it if there is movement if there is a way of moving the units apart it's got to make it safer there's going to be a less chance so if it's 10 feet or 12 feet 12 feet i'd rather take you know if there is that room for maneuvering in the tunnel thank you thanks um as we know types of energy generation there's always risks risk with nuclear power stations as risk with coal fire power stations and gas fire power stations and those have to be factored in and and weighed in the balance of everything um we have to come to a decision um it has been moved and i'll move the officers recommendation for approval uh and with the changes to in section 10 to the conditions which are outlined in the lay representations i'll move approval to i have a seconder counselor uh check up sorry sorry mary's so it's been moved in second that we approve with the amended conditions all those in favor of approval against the world's 11 people in this room but there now it's only 10 for reasons i shall explain but but i will use my cussie vote to approve with the officer's recommendations okay uh agenda item five for london jason to stay thought substation stay thought road stay thought julia yes yeah yeah sorry bring counsel tip back in you you [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] >> Here you go, Lindy going home, you feel okay, all right. Council have been unwelled, you've been unwell, I know it's, yeah. I'll just have an adjournment for a couple of minutes and then we'll go on to the next item. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] So as you can see from the aerial, the red line plan is an odd shape and it proposes that it connects the proposed best development with the grid as I've already mentioned. It runs along at a length of 230 meters along Stathorpe Road and then terminates in the substation. So the total site area is approximately 2.25 hectares and the route would cross Stathorpe Road and also Pingley Dyke which runs along the course of the proposed cable. So we have properties nearby in the Hopworth's close as we looked on the previous application and they're located just here. But it basically runs along the route of the road and the Pingley Dyke there and then around into the substation here. The Airm Conservation Area is approximately 25 meters to the northeast of the site and there is also a Grade 2 listed building which is Manner House in Stathorpe which is sort of south to west of the site some distance away. Obviously Airm Conservation Area contains a number of listed buildings including a Grade 1 church and Grade 2 buildings and also a scheduled ancient monument. The southern part of the site is located within flood zone 3A so it is at high risk of fluvial flooding but the northern part of the site is within flood zone 1. The proposal would involve digging 2 holes basically so one would be dug in the launch area which is approximately 20 meters wide and would dig down to 3 meters in depth and then that would be within the best development area. And then the reception pit would be 15 meters long and 3 meters deep and that would be obviously within the substation. So along the top you can see the cross section through from the launch pit here to the reception pit here. This is the position of Pingley Dike here so there is a distance of at least 5 meters between the river bed of Pingley Dike and where the cable would run underneath. So the cable at this point would be a maximum of 9 meters below the existing ground level. So the idea is that having built, having dug the holes they would use horizontal directional drilling in order to install the cables along the route. And this is a cross section of the cables you can see that the cables are sort of collected into three main routes as part of the scheme. The two objections have been received from any consultees. We have had objections from Aaron Kellermann's State Thought Parish Council and Upton Parish Council which are summarised on page 98 of the agenda. Also had comments received from 12 local residents or third parties that have been summarised on page 99. In relation to the impacts given the majority of the development would be underground, no harm has been identified in relation to landscape character, visual amenity or the setting of heritage assets. Impacts on archaeology can be adequately dealt with by condition and there have been no unacceptable impacts in relation to residential amenity, highway safety, flood risk or biodiversity and ecology matters are set out in the report before you. During the site visit this morning members queried what would happen to this application if the best application were refused. But obviously we're not in that position now. But anyway, planning law basically says that each application we would have a duty to consider and determine any application that's before us and we would have to do that on the basis of the planning merits of that particular application. Rather than on the basis of any other decision that were made on a different application. So local opposition is from the parish councils and residents and they are all noted and been taken into account. However, in the absence of a sound planning reason to refuse the application, it is recommended for approval based on the condition set out on pages 106 to 108 of the agenda. Thank you chair. Thank you. In line with our protocol, I'll move the recommendation to approve in the report. I second it. Can I before I explain, just ask a question about just curiousness on condition four, Julia regarding the archaeological mitigation strategy, which is required. I note on the previous application, there was an archaeological mitigation regarding archaeological science as well. And I just wonder from an enforcement point of view, who would enforce the fact that if this, if it wasn't done in line with the mitigation strategy, is that something our planning enforcement team would actually undertake? Okay. Right. Thank you. Any questions or comments to the officers? We have, I think we have a speaker, we've got only one speaker in the case of this time. This is the applicant agent, Mr. Calvert. Mr. Calvert. Once again, three minutes and I'll let you know when you've got 30 seconds. Thank you again for the opportunity to address her and I am being respectful of the local community. When I say this, I do welcome the approval of the best scheme. This proposed cable will allow the development that you've just approved to connect to the national grid and deliver the benefits that you've just taken into account. However, as your panel says, just reiterated and endorse, each application must be treated on its own merits. As your office's report makes clear, the impacts of this proposal are minimal. There is no conflict with the development plan and the imposition of suitably worded planning conditions. The will ensure that the LPA will have control of a matters such as archaeology on that basis, I endorse your office's recommendation. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Any questions or comments? Thank you, Chair. Just one question really, in turn to the route which is chosen, it would be on paper looking at the maps to see that we're going to be going under the road, we're going along near to housing. Why wasn't there a straighter route on the other side of the road and then across it once really is my question? I'm sure somebody's done that survey, but any clarity would be helpful. Are you able to answer that, you knew? We have to determine the application before us, so we weren't at liberty to ask or question why. If this was acceptable, then obviously we were going to recommend approval. It wouldn't be anything to do with not having to purchase any of the agricultural and on the other side of the road, I suppose. You're going on to that because hypothetical question. I note the cynicism in your voice again, Councillors, as well. Okay, any further questions or comments? Oh, it has been moved and seconded. We approve with the conditions that are attached. All those in favour, approval? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Thank you, that's approved. A gender item. Sorry, any against? Sorry, sorry, I do apologise. One against, two against. Sorry. Any abstentions? Nobody left a upstate? No. Okay. A gender item 6, a shady obviously will roll to Beaufort and Oliver. Thank you, Chairman. This proposal is a shady oaks at Spalford and is for the change of use to form fire gypsies in trouble of pictures on a permanent basis. And is located here on to the south of Eagle Road near Spalford. As you'll see from the aerial on the screen, this is a roughly rectangular shaped site. As I said, to the east of Spalford and south of Eagle Road. And it is adjacent to an existing gyps in trouble of sight, which was recently allowed at planning appeal. The site is in flood zone 3A and therefore high risk of fluvial flooding. The proposal itself, as I say, is a change of use to form fire gypsies in trouble of pictures. And that's on a permanent basis. And each pitch would comprise one static and one tour. You can see here, for those not on the site visit this morning, some useful images of what the site looks like today. We have the adjacent site, which includes a number of statics, as you can see on the top left picture there. And as I say, a permission was granted through the recent planning appeal for four gypsies in trouble of pictures on a permanent basis on that site. And that is material to the decision that you will need to think about today. I'll just travel through some images again here. You can see the conifers and landscaping around the plot. And we note here the gates that you can see from Eagle Road, which is if you were on the trip this morning, where we stopped. And some images from within the site. If you look at the right hand image, the gate that you can see from the road is in that right at the end of that image. And again, these are some images from the other side of the site, the east side of the site. And here a useful overview of what is being proposed. And the approved scheme is greyed out on the right hand side. And the new what is before you tonight is the green and five pictures. That's three at the bottom side of the roadway and two to the top. And please note that the gates that you saw where we parked up on the bus would be removed as part of the scheme. And there's a conditioning place to ensure that that would happen. Obviously the report sets out in detail the policy starting point. And essentially officers have come to the view that there are environmental conditions problems with this proposal. Flood zone, I've already mentioned flood zone. Any anybody knows or people know that there's incredibly limited services in the meanity. There's a very limited bus service. Is it safe to walk from this site to the village? There are clearly challenges in terms of the location. These issues were dealt with in the recent appeal decision. And I would recommend you're referring back to that appeal because the balancing act here is that there are environmental challenges. It's not a suitable location on that basis. Essentially, our lack of five year land supply for it to in trouble of sites is an absolutely critical consideration. And from an officer point of view, we are minded to take the inspector's view on the last appeal and give weight to that, a greater weight to that issue than the site specific challenges. So yes, it's an open country side. Core policy five sets out a range of criteria which any proposal needs to satisfy. We recognize that there is conflict with that. And although the size number of pictures proposed would have further negative impact, exactly as the inspector found, we as officers think that the significant unmet need for gyps and traveler pictures in the district is a significant issue. We also know the landscaping around the site. The conifers are a bit of an abrupt landscape feature and that's noted. We know that that's not a positive landscape feature, but it is there. So members will need to think about the existing site arrangements. Going back to the flood risk issue, yes, the site is at risk of flooding, but the environment agency is confirming. If you think about the flood defences along the trend and the actual levels of the site, there is not risk to life and limb. And that mitigation measures can be achieved through conditions that are out in the suggested conditions, but essentially the environment as you have not raised an objection to the proposal. As I say, the site in terms of landscape is well screened. And again, we recognize the view of erosion of the character of the landscape, but that the screening of the grass areas will help to soften it. And we've not identified any harm in terms of impact on residential amenity and highway issues have been resolved throughout the application. And the existing access to that northwest part of the site would be closed to address those highway concerns. And therefore, highways have no objections subject to condition. So in conclusion, offices feel that there's a significant unmet need for determining travelling pitches. And that weighs very favorably to the contribution of five further pitches and, you know, to our five year land supply. In contrast, we accept that the proposal conflicts with numerous different plan policies by virtue of the location, access to services, harm to character and appearance, but we would draw attention to the report's conclusion, which is that the harm identified is outweighed in our view by the significant benefits associated with providing additional pitches. The recommendation of approval is subject to the conditions on pages 133 to 136. Thanks Oliver. Again, as part of our proposal, I'll move the approval with the conditions outlined. I second it. We do have a speaker. John McArthur representing Spauldard Parish meeting. And this time, John, I'm going to stick to you in three minutes this time. And remember, after you've spoken, please retake your seats. Cheers. Thank you very much and give me the opportunity to address the committee. Just a quick refresher with regard to some of the numbers that impact on Spauldard. The proposal sees nine GRT dwellings in total at the site, which constitutes 17% of the total dwelling stock in the handler, which we feel is this proportionate. And to that, 27 static or mobile homes plus touring band accommodation at four seasons leisure and more next door with more farm. We feel that this is already dominating Spauldard. We have 91 settled residents against an estimated 36 GRT occupants, which would be at Shady Oaks, which equates to 29% of the overall population. Start adding in other non-domiciliary numbers at adjacent sites. It starts to make the settled community actually a minority grouping. Fire risk assessment has been talked about. Screening, it also creates a fire safety hazard. Safety guidance suggests a 10-meter gap between safe static vans and conifers. Shady Oaks planning submission details three meters to the boundary. Environmental factors, additional traffic movements would equate to 8,500 extra vehicle movements per annum. With limited parking on the site, visitor parking is likely to be accommodated through grass verge parking. The site was doing unsuitable as a location in the first place, given proximity services and lack of a minority, which is still the case. Quality of life at the site would be low graded, in my opinion. Flood risk, well documented, much relies on the flood bank. The other side of the A1133, which fails spectacularly, this year with local flam flooding up until mid May. This leads on to sewage treatment at the site. The site has a benefit of a septic tank, which relies on foul water being discharged to ground. Given that no percolation test related to the drainage bed ever took place, it's highly likely that groundwater is contaminated during winter months. Specification is for the tank. In terms of processing, it provides adequate sewage treatment from 16 people. Latest flow figures suggest 2,000 litres a day for 13 people, 5,433 people. People latter warrant connection to mains foul drainage or EEA permitting to general binding rules. There appears to be no residential occupancy for months until around the 11th of June, and new activity was noted. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Dailers. Thank you, Chair. Firstly, can I just thank officers. I'm Chair and Vice Chair for allowing the site visit this morning. I think it was necessary for the context of this site to be understood. As Councillor MacArthur has just said, it's a small hamlet, just 4 to 6,000. I think about 90 residents. I'm just going to – we keep referring to the previous appeal, and I was there. I'm just going to rattle through the fact that the appeals inspector did acknowledge all the reasons that this site wouldn't have been allowed. It was allowed because we didn't have a development plan in place. So Special Policy III and CP4 require new development to be in villages with sustainable access to a newer carbon area or principal villages and have a range of local services. Smaller has none of those. It's not well situated for access to facilities that we refer to a public transport system, but actually you'll be lucky to find it. And DM8 details, development is supported within the open countryside. This is never fallen within that category, but I think that's always been acknowledged. There's no point referring to landscape, character and appearance this time because the site is already there. But the appeals inspector did say that the intended residents and occupiers on this site should be gypsy or traveler and consistent with the definition of that. And there was a need to allow people to come away from tolling your lane, living decent conditions and we all acknowledge that. And she also referred to the human rights of families and questions in the question and the best interests of the children. And of course we all support that, but I do mention that for a reason. Now I just want to mention at this point that condition term about appeals said that there should be no more than one static and one touring caravan to be stationed on each pitch at any one time and with two parking spaces. So to turn to the current application, Councilman Carver has already referenced the fact that this is not a caravan site in isolation. There are others and I accept that they're different in nature, but we're talking about now a community that's becoming quite transient. There's up to 40 caravans, I believe, on when we'll farm four seasons. Not the same, but they're not permanent homes. Although I did note this morning that the gates to Shadia, it's now referred to it as a caravan park. But coming specifically to this application, I think four families with that configuration on that site and not within the flood zone three area was comfortable. I think putting nine families into that site. We're now looking at overintensive. There's no amenity block on this site. There's no amenity spaces intended for families with children. It should be in the best interest of children. There's no amenity spaces, no play area. Spalford doesn't have any amenity space or play area. And even if it did, you couldn't get to them because there's no... We did find a park that was about as long as this desk. That's it. And there's no street lighting. The vehicle road is a busy one. We didn't have the air glory. It's trundling up and down to day, unfortunately. But just me, normally they're there. So I think that the intensiveness of this proposal, I don't think that we would allow this intensity for a housing development. And I don't think that we should be applying different standards to a gypsy and traveler community as we would afford our bricks and mortar community. I don't think there's enough parking here. Where are the visitors going to park? I think Councilor MacArthur would refer to the fact that parking happens on the verges. Not material planning, consideration. I accept that. But we are in flood zone 3a here. And these are the most vulnerable of dwellings. And we won't allow permanent sites on a tall lane because the access is through flood zone 3a. And I accept this is not the access, but this is actually caravans that are in that flood zone 3a. And it has been a very different flood landscape this time. And of course, I think that we are now starting to substantially alter the nature of this hamlet. So you've referred essentially to the fact that we didn't, at the appeal, we were in a position where we did not have a development plan. We were able to talk about intent and we all knew that we meant it. But of course, there's no evidence to support that. So we would say that, wouldn't we? But I think we are in a different position now. We have a plan before the inspector. And we are assured in a forum that an emerging plan does carry some weight. And I think that it is possible. And I am arguing that we should afford some weight to the fact that we have now a plan before the inspector. We've acquired Beaver Ironworks. We've granted permission at Shady Oaks. At Best Thought, at Chestnut Lodge. At Aquilodge. We're investing in flood defences on tall lane. I don't know how many sites, pictures we've created since the appeal application. I want to say it's about 35. I can't remember some total of those. But I'm putting for the committee that we are in a different position now. That we have an emerging plan. It does carry some weight. And that the cumulative impact of more caribans here is not good for the hamlet of sulfur bone. I don't think it's good for the people that are going to be living there either. So, thank you, Chair. Thanks. I remember when we discussed this at the last project. We deferred it for the side of the city. Which I think was useful to show the context of the site itself. In relation to the hamlet, which is a small hamlet. You know, Council MacArthur said about 91 people. I remember Matlon saying that the cumulative impact of population on such a small hamlet has never been, to his knowledge, had not been tested. Whilst I'm not keen to test things like that. I would like a comment from the officers on whether that has been tested. Because we've got no figures as to how this is changing the community and where we draw the line. Because this would be admittedly for a variety to be given. But this could be an additional 36 people altogether. I mean an impact on a hamlet which has 91 people. And with the cumulative impact of the other things. I'm just wondering, I'm just looking to Oliver or Lisa to actually say, you know, where is the line drawn? On the impact of a community of people rather than the development. This is a tough one because the planning case law view would be obviously each case on its own merits. And the specific issues raised through the actual application. It's very difficult to start to translate different sites and different issues. And I mean, obviously in this particular case, the officer view is that yet we know that there is a population increase we're going from four to nine. And obviously we can't hide away from the fact that you've got a very small settlement with very limited facilities. And you're effectively doubling, more than doubling what's been already approved. I think that's officers understand that. I think the challenge here for us is that given the location, given the specific of what's being proposed here as officers, we feel that it is not going to unduly dominate the village itself. We're talking about people. And the challenge for officers is that we've got a very specific policy challenge, which is that we don't have. We're not meeting that need in the district. And I know that's, you know, officers are fully aware of the sensitivity and the challenge for local communities. I mean, the other thing I would add as an officer to this is that the conifer hedges, you know, that doesn't make you feel like this is a community that's being integrated, but rather the one that's being hidden away. And actually, if we refer to the national government advice on dealing with gypsy and traveler science, that's actually one of the things they say you shouldn't do. The challenge here is we've got an approval through appeal. My answer to your question really is that if I deal with the site in front of us and the specific nature of it, I don't think as officers we can say that it's going to be unduly impactful. But we understand where you're coming from. But I'll just confer the leads. We're not aware of any specific cases that we can think of where that contrast has been given. I think it's a very difficult one to make. As Matt Lam has previously said, you know, sometimes, you know, members may feel strongly enough that they want to test that. My officer advice in this particular case is to look at the site specific issues. We have noted fully in our report that this does have significant problems in terms of its sustainable, not being a sustainable location. However, we go back to how much weight do you give that versus the not meeting or five years. We understand that's challenging. I'm conscious that this application is for five additional units, not nine. I think we probably would be having a very different conversation if it was the nine in front of us today. But I'll take your point. It is the five in front of us. Councillors pause. Thank you, Chair. I certainly take on board and agree with the vast majority of what Councillor Dales was mentioning there. I think in particular what concerns me is the lack of immunity block and how few facilities that the site has access to die. So in terms of the plan for the site, that concerns me. I think what concerns been broader terms, links with what Oliver was saying, it is always of concern that a minority community seems to be forced into the least favorable areas. And the gypsy and traveller community are particularly in that vein. And, you know, that they are looking to this site because it is needed. You know, there is a requirement for these sites. But, you know, I think we need to make sure that this site is appropriate for a development for the correct number of people with the right amount of resources. And, again, how far would we be having similar conversations if this was a community of a different ethnic minority grouping other than gypsy and travellers. We would be looking at them in terms of housing density, in terms of immunity, and in terms of integration into the community. So, you know, the fact that this is a gypsy and traveller community is neither here nor there. It is simply a group of people that want to live in a nice part of the world. But they need to have opportunity the same as everybody else. Thank you. Thanks Councillors. Can I ask the Mayor to indicate it? Yes, Chair, thank you. I thought this site was useful. Thank you very much for organising it. I just wanted to look at this from the other end of the telescope. We are talking about imposing an extra community on a small community without amenities. Perhaps we should be talking to other departments or groups of people within the Council to check on how the amenities could be improved for the whole village, including perhaps new residents who could benefit from footpaths or shops or buses or whatever amenities would make this a more livable site. And I take what Councillor Sporvers has said. I think the other thing that I would just raise from having seen the site is that the existing four units don't look like that anyway. First of all, they're in line with each other and there are more than four of them. So I'm just a bit concerned that there's a degree of retrospectivity here and how are we as a Council dealing with that in terms of enforcement is a question. Thank you. The local plan, which is up for adoption, but hasn't been fully adopted yet, which has got the figures in for the KFC travel community. Obviously, we've moved on since the appeal and I've always understood that they do have to give weight to that, depending on how close it is to being fully accepted. So I guess the question I'm asking is how close are we to having that fully accepted and would they put 90% weight on it, because that would impact on whether we chose to accept or not this planning application. Do you see what I mean? Yeah, Councilman. Thanks, Chair. A few points. I completely echo Councillor Dells Council's' concerns about the no amenity of green space, pay areas and amenity block, etc. However, I just want to remind people on this committee that we're not forcing families to move here. These will be choosing this site of their own accord. You know, we're not, isn't a forced relocation. And whilst it's not the ideal site, kind of what Councilman was saying is turning that telescope is this site probably still might be better than the very cramped or homeless conditions that some of the families are living in now. And I hear what Councillor Dells is saying that we are in a much better position, but even with all the sites she's just listed, we are still not meeting our demand. So, I think with the substantial landscaping, with the conifers and stuff, it's offering the site a lot of privacy and screening. However, I've just heard from an officer that's probably not a good thing, but in regards to the rest of the village, it does give them that privacy. And I understand the frustrations of this population increase in the burden that could be, but I'm struggling to understand what burden that would have. If there is no local facilities, they're not over. You know, what is the burden going to be? They're not piling in pubs, taking over jobs. You know, I'm struggling to understand what that would be other than increased vehicle movements in that in that handler. So, yeah, I would have loved to have seen an amenity block on there, but I just think we just got, we're not meeting our need. And I think it puts it into perspective and it makes you realise how privileged you are, that even a site like this, there is enough for pain that might be perceived to us as very cramped and ideal, families would leap at the chance to live in. So, just given a different perspective on it. No, I mean, council more. Yeah, thanks. Looking at the plan as it is, this is not a GRT site. There are no amenity blocks. I think a pitch was defined as a static room for a tour or two vehicles and an amenity block, something like that. You know, I mean, watching so many programs reading up so much on GRT tradition and I'll look, they don't use bathrooms in toilets inside their caramels, goes against everything that they stand for. So, they all need an amenity block, or at least one big block between them, which was shown to us at Chestnut Lodge. I want to see its proper set of plans, because these aren't proper. They're on our amenity blocks here, as Tim said, the caravans at the month answer allies, the caravans that are there have got skirts around them now. They're pretty well settled. I have a problem believing this is going to be a GRT site. I really do. I'd like to see proper plans before we do anything else with them. Thanks. Coming back to Council Dale's point about the plan that's out of consultation, and I know we could have an argument about how long is a piece of string, how much weight we can attach them. It's not an allocated sign. This is in that plan. I'm drawn to page 115, where the middle bullet points, weight should all show be attached to. Effective use of previous developed brownfields to untidy or derelict lands. Sites being well planned, coming back to Council, or soft landscaping is such a way to positively enhance the environment and increase its openness. Weight should be attached to that. Promoting opportunities for healthy lifestyles, such as ensuring adequate landscaping and play areas for children. Weight should be attached to that. Not enclosing a site with so much hard landscaping, high walls or fences that the impression may be given that the site and its occupants are deliberately isolated from the rest of the community. Weight should be attached to that as well. Coming back to Council and Milton's point, regarding we may be looking at it from the other end of the telescope and finding out what facilities they want. The people who live in small food might be happy with no facilities. Not everybody wants a shop. Not everybody wants a boat. I think we have to respect that as well. This is a hamlet in the purest of turns. There are developments around it. I'm just trying to weigh what I'm concerned about as this committee is dealing with a shortfall in the district of GRT sites. What I don't want this committee to do is make do with bad sites because of that. I really don't want to do that because we should, as Council has posted, we should be looking when we put calls out for sites and people. We should be trying to get to the best of both worlds for people. This is just how it seems that we're being pushed into a corner of making do with the site that is not really designed for it. Council, you want to come back? Yeah, I just wanted to draw a parallel between Spolford as a hamlet and Stathorpe as a hamlet. We don't have any shops, we don't have any pubs, we don't have a church. And yet the plan was foisted upon Stathorpe and Kellam of having a big industrial site. So, what's source for the goose is source for the gander. If we are not in a position to be able to make proper facilities available for the gypsy and the travel community, I think we need to be sympathetic at least to the issues that we're presented with here. Yes, it would be good to have, I mean it isn't, perhaps we should insist, as Council have said, on a better plan, but we are presented with what we've got. I think we've got to make a decision on that. Agreed, good point, well made. Councillor Brooks? The picture of the site as it is at the moment is a bit disturbing because the permissions being given for the first half of that. And yet it looks nothing like it and as somebody pointed out the skirts around some of the caravans, how much power have we got to enforce that bit before we agreed to another bit, otherwise it just becomes unmanageable. That's a question that was asked of Holivar this morning regarding enforcement on whether this could be up to Councillors by whether this is actually a GRT site, which is not planning consideration, but it is an enforcement issue. Holivar, do you want to spell that out again? Yes, thank you Chairman, yes, absolutely right and the key thing is that we've noted the concerns raised locally about whether this scheme, the adjacent scheme is in accordance with the plans, that is with our enforcement team and it's something that we are investigating, but that is outside of the red line before you and shouldn't be relevant to your decision. Tim, did you want to comment? It's just to try to get the position on the development plan because I did say, you know, how much more weight should we be given to it? Thank you, yes, so the examinations due to commence at the beginning of November, so probably some time we commence in the fourth of November. There are unresolved objections to the policy in relation to a GRT, so it is very limited weight that can be attached. And of course, we don't know the outcome of the plan, obviously we hope that the inspector will like all of it and won't suggest any changes, but there is always that risk that changes could be suggested that the council, as a whole, obviously it's a document that goes to full council for approval isn't agreed with. So, some weight, but not a significant amount. Okay, but coupled with what I said earlier, where weight should also be attached to those form only points, well from three is on page. The site being well planned or self landscape in such a way, particularly on the environment, promoting opportunities for healthy lifestyle. They're part of our development plan currently, part of our policies, and this site means none of them, absolutely none of them, which concerns me. And I've just given reasons for refusal there, and I'm minded to move it, based on those issues. Okay, I will move that we refuse it, based on the fact that it's not a well planned site. It's not promoting opportunities for healthy lifestyles, such as ensuring adequate landscaping. I don't know the policy numbers, but I'm sure people can fill them in. And it's not enclosing the sites with so much as hard landscaping, but as high walls and fences, I'll come to you a bit brighter. But the impression may be given that the sites and these occupants are deliberately isolated from the rest of the community, near what we can say. I'd just say I was minded to move it, but it has been moved and seconded for approval, all those in favor of approval. All those against. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. Any abstentions? Tim? Tim. So, I will move refusal, based on the reasons I've previously outlined, which also include in the developing plan that's out for concentration. The fact that it isn't an allocated site. On the fact that it is not, as those bullet points attached, it's not promoting opportunities for healthy lifestyles, it's not a site that is well planned. And it's also a site that is given the impression these occupants are deliberately isolated from the rest of the community. And also the additional population of five sides, which could be another 20 people on a hamlet of 91 people. And I think that would be useful to be tested. If we are, if we are the first to test it, then let's be the first to test it. Councillor MELTON. Just before we move to a vote on whether we're refusing to or not, what I would like to do is to address the issue of the immunity and of the design. And I think there ought to be associated, if we are refusing it, that ought to be associated with a responsibility on New York and Sherwood District Council to try and ameliorate the situation. Positively, rather than simply refusing. In which case, then you're proposing deferral for further negotiations? Councillor interjecting. I'd like to propose deferral for further negotiations. We have deferred this once already, and we are outside the period for non-determination, which could be an appeal. My own personal view would be refusal, but does anybody want second-cancer suppose as deferral? No. So it has been proposed and seconded for refusal based on the reasons I outlined earlier. All those in favour of refusal? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Any against? Abstentions? Some two abstentions. And obviously, we need a refunded vote for that, do we? Yeah. Thank you. Councillor MELTON. Councillor MOORE. Councillor OLDEN. Councillor RAINBOW. Councillor SHAPCHA. Councillor SPOORS. Councillor WALGEST. Thank you, colleagues. Another interesting and exhilarating planning committee, which I will ponder on for many years to come. Probably. Okay. Thanks for attending and thanks for your contributions. As always, they were all very valuable. Thank you. Councillor interjecting. Thank you. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. [ Silence ]