Minutes:
Item 6b
Application DC/21/00357
Proposal Planning Application - Erection of plant and machinery for development and operation of a standby energy generation facility (resubmission of withdrawn application DC/20/02035)
Site Location CHILTON – Land North East of, Church Field Road, Chilton Industrial Estate, Chilton, Sudbury, Suffolk
Applicant Balance Power Projects Ltd
43.1 A break was taken from 10:07 am until 10:12am, after application number DC/21/01073 and before the commencement of application DC/21/00357.
43.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the contents of the tabled papers, the location and layout of the site, the purpose and use of the buildings on site, and the officer recommendation of approval.
43.3 The Case Officer responded to questions from members on issues including: how the hours of usage would be recorded, whether gas fuel is considered as a low carbon technology, and the weight given to the Governments white paper referred to in the committee report.
43.4 The Environmental Management Officer responded to questions from members on issues including: the initial objection to the proposal and reasons behind the change in that consideration.
43.5 The Case Officer responded to further questions from Members on issues including: what will happen to the site after 20-25 years of use, the number of houses benefitting from the energy generated by the site, and the reason for referral to the committee detailed in the report.
43.6 The Environmental Management Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: whether any data was available relating to electrical outages in the area, and how many of these facilities would be built across the country as a whole.
43.7 Members considered the representation from Tony Foster who spoke on behalf of Chilton Parish Council.
43.8 The Parish Council representative responded to questions from Members on issues including: the planning policies used to base the Parish Councils objections on, whether the Parish Council had met with the applicants, and whether the Parish Council accepted the comments from the Statutory Consultees.
43.9 The Case Officer responded to questions from members regarding how the objections were submitted.
43.10 Members considered the representation from Robert Lindsay who spoke as an objector.
43.11 The objector responded to questions from Members on issues including: low carbon energy.
43.12 Members considered the representation from Robert Gandy who spoke as the agent.
43.13 The agent, and the applicant Jack Hulme, responded to questions from Members on issues including: whether there is any opportunity for the plant to be converted to an alternative fuel in the future, why this location was chosen, the amount of noise anticipated from the development, the hours of operation of the facility, how the hours of use would be monitored and limited, and whether the facility would operate every day or only when required.
43.14 Members considered the statement from Ward Member Councillor Margaret Maybury, which was read out by the Governance Officer.
43.15 Members considered the representation from Councillor Clive Arthey who spoke as a Ward Member.
43.16 The Ward Member responded to questions from Members on issues including: the suitability of any alternative uses for the site.
43.17 Members debated the application on issues including: whether the site is suitable for the proposed use, the location of residential housing in relation to the site, and the environmental impact.
43.18 The Strategic Projects and Delivery Manager provided clarification to Members regarding the role that the proposal plays in relation to the Councils policies.
43.19 Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the lack of employment generated by the facility, heritage issues, who would benefit from the installation at the site, and the amount of homes serviced by the facility.
43.20 Councillor Beer proposed that application be approved as set out in the officer recommendation
43.21 The motion was seconded by Councillor Mclaren.
43.22 Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the use of fossil fuels and the sustainability of the facility, and the potential increase in noise levels.
43.23 The Environmental Management Officer and the Strategic Projects and Delivery Manger responded to questions from Members on issues including: the increase in noise levels.
43.24 Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the local need for the facility, and the amount of electricity being generated by the facility.
43.25 By 5 votes to 5. The Chair used their casting vote against the proposal. The motion was lost.
43.26 Councillor Jamieson proposed that the application be refused for the reasons as detailed below:
The proposal comprising a fossil fuel powered standby energy generation facility, would not represent sustainable development by reason of the Environmental harm caused by the burning of a fossil fuel that would increase carbon emissions in the locality contrary to Policies CS13 and CS15 of the Babergh Local Plan 2011-2031 Core Strategy (2014).
The application fails to comply with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate otherwise.
43.27 The motion was seconded by Councillor Hinton.
43.28 By 5 votes to 5. The Chair used their casting vote in favour the motion.
It was RESOLVED:
Refuse planning permission for the following reason:
The proposal comprising a fossil fuel powered standby energy generation facility, would not represent sustainable development by reason of the Environmental harm caused by the burning of a fossil fuel that would increase carbon emissions in the locality contrary to Policies CS13 and CS15 of the Babergh Local Plan 2011-2031 Core Strategy (2014).
The application fails to comply with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate otherwise.
Supporting documents: