Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Formation of Biofertiliser Lagoon with fenced enclosure and formation of access road with turning area.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

46.2          This application was for the formation of a biofertiliser lagoon with fenced enclosure and formation of access road with turning area.

46.3          The Planning Officer explained that the application, which was submitted in full, sought the installation of a lined and covered biofertiliser storage lagoon, bunds, fencing, associated means of access and landscaping including the removal of existing hedgerows on approximately a 0.8 hectare parcel of agricultural land to the east of the B4079. The lagoon would be used for the storage of biofertiliser produced by anaerobic digestion, including from the applicant’s anaerobic digestion plant in Toddington. The application advised that the lagoon would be used by local agricultural enterprises to meet growing crops needs and during the open spreading season the fertiliser would be transferred to the adjoining land via an umbilical spreading system. The National Planning Policy Framework stated that planning policies and decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses could invest, expand and adapt and significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development. In respect of the rural economy, the National Planning Policy Framework also stated that planning decisions should enable the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses and this lent weight in favour of the economic dimensions of sustainability as defined in the Framework. There would be some harm to the landscape arising from the proposal which was explained in the Committee report and that was a factor that weighed against the proposal in the overall planning balance, but the landscape impact was tempered by the site context, design approach, landscape mitigation and by virtue that the application site was not identified as a ‘valued’ landscape in the development plan. Further to consultation with consultees, and subject to the imposition of suitable conditions, Officers considered there would be an acceptable impact relating to residential amenity, highway safety, flood risk and drainage, ecology and loss of hedgerows/vegetation. It was therefore concluded that the proposed development was generally supported in principle by the National Planning Policy Framework. Whilst there would be some impacts on the area, as identified, it was considered that the benefits of the proposal outweighed the harm and the application was therefore recommended for permission.                   

46.4          The Chair invited a representative of the applicant to address the Committee. He indicated that it was his role, as a senior manager in the business, to assist with the management of the company’s waste treatment sites and national biofertilizer management operations, the latter of which was particularly relevant to the application before the Committee today. The representative thanked all of the relevant departments, regulators and the local community who had both commented and taken an interest in the proposal and expressed his gratitude to everyone including his company who demonstrated an ongoing commitment to local and national sustainability projects like the one before the Committee today. Whilst he acknowledged that the process to date had been a bit drawn out, he stressed that his company was completely sympathetic to peoples thoughts and concerns, however, it was felt strongly that this site was perfect for the development given the rural location and the direct access to the land where the biofertiliser would be applied. In addition, with only several campaigns operating each year, only minimal disruption would be created. The operation also worked within a closed environment with all mechanised parts and pumps situated on the lorries and not permanently aligned with the site. Over the last year, issues had been noted with fly tipping at the entrance to the site so the applicant offered complete commitment to the safety and security of the site, ensuring that any illegal activity in that regard was quashed. There would be complete commitment to high standards and landscaping and environmental and ecological improvement and diversity was at the core of what the business was all about. The applicant indicated that he could confidently and proudly reiterate that the company shared a common goal of focussing business efforts towards enhancing the environment, strengthening the economy and social wellbeing as a community. The planning application had been collated and submitted to develop a storage facility for liquid biofertiliser produced and certified by a local award-wining anaerobic digestion facility operator. As a company it currently managed approximately 600,000 tonnes of biofertiliser in both liquid and solid form with operations including the transportation, storage and spreading of biofertilisers. The other storage lagoons it had developed and operated mirrored the format and high standard of the one relating to the current application. Biofertilisers had been used in farming for over a hundred years and modern applications offered benefits of enhanced treatment, high levels of readily available nitrogen, trace elements and importantly organic matter. Soil health globally and locally was entering a state of emergency with desertification being a very real problem with over 50% of global topsoil’s being depleted over the last 150 years. Restoring soil lost by erosion was an extremely moderate process and it could take 500 years for 2.5cm of soil to shape which, again, reiterated the need for biofertiliser application on our soils.

46.5          One of the local Member’s for the application site noted that there had been quite a lot of objections from the local community particularly relating to odour, highway and environmental issues. She indicated that she wished to go through a few points detailed in the Committee report and check that sufficient conditions would be applied to the application should it be permitted. In particular, she wished to be assured of the ongoing commitment to maintaining this site in accordance with the Environment Agency requirements. She indicated that there were major concerns about contamination and runoff which could affect the habitat of the Great Crested Newts which were in the locality and were a protected species; it was feared that any water runoff would go into the local surrounding landscape. She referred to Page No. 33 of the Committee report which detailed the comments of the Environment Agency and particularly highlighted Paragraph 4.12 in relation to the containment lagoons and the development complying fully with the terms of The Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (England) (SSAFO) Regulations 2010 and as amended 2013; Paragraph 4.13 which recommended that a comprehensive Construction Quality Assurance Plan (CQA) be submitted to the authority based on the design considerations presented by a Structural Engineer; Paragraph 4.14 which recommended that the lagoons containing biologically degradable material would require an under drainage layer and sump and Paragraph 4.15 which recommended that consideration be given to provision of effective escape routes in the event a person fell into the lagoon. She questioned whether all these matters had been covered in the application together with the necessary maintenance going forward. In Paragraph 4.16, the Environment Agency was asking for prior notification of any new, reconstructed or enlarged slurry store, silage clamp or fuel stores and the Council’s own Landscape Officer had concerns about the visual impact of the bund with a 2.4m fence on top and was suggesting that this should be controlled by planning condition. The Member noted that the application was being recommended for permit, as opposed to a delegated permit, and questioned whether sufficient conditions had been applied to ensure it would have minimal visual impact. She referred to previous instances where fencing had been put up after the event and it had not always looked good, therefore she required assurances that this would be adequately covered in the conditions applied to this application. She sought assurance that properties would not be affected by odour, she could see from the report that Teddington and Oxenton Villages had been considered but there were other isolated settlements along the A435 which included the travelling showmen’s site and she wished to check that this development had been included in the assessment as to whether it could potentially be affected by odour from this application site. The Planning Officer indicated that, in terms of the Environment Agency comments, the proposal would be managed and had to be developed in accordance with the SSAFO Regulations 2010 and 2013 therefore the applicant had to comply with those standards. In terms of Paragraph 4.13, this related to earth banked lagoons where the banks were raised above ground level and the embankment slope was steeper than 1 in 2.5 but as the embankment structure in respect of this application would not exceed the 1 in 2.5 depth slope there was no requirement for a CQA; it was the case that the geo membrane light liners proposed were fairly robust and would be regularly inspected by the applicant and the application included, in the design and access statement, a leak detection system that would be put in place. However, ultimately should a leak occur, it would be a matter for the Environment Agency and Environmental Health to deal with and the Environment Agency would oversee the management under the SSAFO Regulations. In terms of odour impact on neighbouring properties, Environmental Health had been consulted on the application and was satisfied that there would not be any unacceptable impact on residents; that was not to say that there would not be some odour particularly when spreading was taking place but as this was an agricultural activity in any event it was not considered that the application would result in an adverse impact on receptors. In terms of the point on fencing, it was recommended that a condition be imposed to control the details of the fencing. The Development Manager referred to the local Member’s reference to a travelling showmen’s site and clarified that the development to which she referred was in fact a gypsy site that had recently been granted planning permission and, although not shown on the plans, it was no nearer to the application site than other developments that had been assessed and found to be acceptable in terms of impact from this application. Further assurance was sought that the lagoon would only be used for bio mass waste and the Planning Officer stated that the application was for a biofertilizer lagoon for treated waste and that was the basis on which the application had been considered and would be determined.

46.6          It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation. In seconding the motion the Member compared the application to how food waste was dealt with as he understood that there was a lagoon at Wingmoor Farm where the bi-product of the gas creation was stored before it was shipped out to various farms. In debating the motion one of the local Member’s referred to the lagoon at Wingmoor Farm and the problems with odour, not only for those living in the local area but also for miles around. It was her view that the application site was not the right place for this lagoon as it would impact on local villages and there was also a potential impact on the Garden Town which would be coming forward in the future. She was not convinced that ongoing maintenance would ensure there would not be any contamination from runoff into the surrounding landscape and on that basis she could not support the application. Another Member referred to a similar lagoon in his village and explained that before the content was pumped onto the land, a tractor was used like a whisk to stir it up, this process went on for about 18 hours and created a smell in the village albeit something that the village was used to this would not be the case in the areas affected by this proposal and potential growth areas such as the Garden Town. Another Member referred to gas leakage from the lagoon and queried whether it would be covered to combat odours. The Planning Officer confirmed that there would be a floating cover coloured black to minimise the impact on the landscape. In terms of gas leakage another Member referred to Paragraph 4.14 of the Officer report which contained a comment from the Environment Agency as follows: “All geomembrane liners are susceptible to leakage which may allow biologically degradable material under the lagoon liner. Anaerobic conditions evolve gas which inflates the liner and allows more liquid to leak, generating more gas and further inflation of the liner until failure occurs. Therefore we recommend that lagoons containing biologically degradable material will require an under drainage layer and sump to allow collection of any leaked liquid and a system to vent any small quantities of gas evolved.” On this basis she asked whether there was a condition attached that covered this recommendation from the Environment Agency. The Planning Officer indicated that currently there was not a condition specifically requesting those details, although the applicant had indicated that protection systems would be put in place so it would be possible to add a condition asking for the exact details but this would also be part of the role of the Environment Agency. The Chair enquired as to why such a condition had not been included and the Planning Officer indicated that, as the proposal would have to be developed in accordance with the Environment Agency guidelines, it was almost a double regulation but it was a condition that could be imposed to give the authority more certainty. One of the local Member’s reiterated that this was her concern with this application as she did not feel that the conditions were robust enough to cover all of the issues that had been raised in the report in particular in relation to ongoing maintenance, and on that basis she could not support the application which she believed would have a fundamental affect on the area which abutted the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). She maintained that the conditions should cover all of the points raised by the Environment Agency on Page No. 33 of the report and also that of the Council’s Landscape Officer to ensure that there were sufficient conditions that covered any eventuality of rainwater runoff that could contaminate the local area and surrounding landscape. The Development Manager indicated that in terms of the issues raised by the Environment Agency set in Paragraphs 4.12 to 4.16 with the absence of the gradient of the bund and also the surface water runoff it was possible to look at the conditions to make sure that the planning permission would address the issues raised. He indicated that the view had been taken that those matters should be addressed through the legislation but he understood Members desire for greater certainty. He indicated that it would be an option for the Committee to delegate authority to him to make sure all those points were addressed by conditions and if he felt that this could not be achieved then the application would be brought back to Committee. The proposer and seconder of the motion to permit indicated that they were prepared to amend their motion to a delegated permit in order to encapsulate the conditions discussed. Further concern was expressed about the risk of pollution and damage to the environment due to inadequate monitoring and the Development Manager indicated that he was sure the local community and Members would be monitoring the situation and any concerns would be raised with the proper authorities to ensure the site was operated in the right way. Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That permission be DELEGATED to the Development Manager subject to conditions being added to ensure the requirements of the Environment Agency are met as set out in Paragraphs 4.12 to 4.16 of the Officer report with the exception of conditions in relation to the gradient as the embankment slope was proposed to be less than the 1 in 2.5 gradient requiring a CQA Plan and surface water runoff.