Decision Maker: Development Panel
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
Rae McGrath spoke against the application.
Richard Davidson spoke against the application on behalf of the Parish Council
Ward Councillor Jim Lister spoke against the application
The agent, Rachel Lightfoot spoke in support of the application
The report recommend refusal and to pursue enforcement action.
The report outlined the application and detailed the main issues within the report as follows:
· Principle of Development
Policy S19 of the Local Plan (Part 1) seeks to promote and encourage the development of renewable and low carbon energy resources given the significant wider benefits
· Design/Visual Impact
The chimneys are viewed in context of large farm buildings and against the backdrop of the line of pylons. They assimilate into the environment of existing buildings, and do not exert a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the locality, in accordance with policies S4 and S33.
The proposal is acceptable in terms of air quality; however the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal is acceptable with regards to noise.
The supported noise reports demonstrate an unacceptable level of noise is produced by the units. The proposal is contrary to policies S2, S4 and S32.
· Heritage Impact
In terms of impact on the heritage asset, the proposal is acceptable and in line with Policy S27.
· Highway issues
The proposal will be unlikely to have a material effect on existing highway conditions.
The application is for the change of use of an existing farm building to a biomass CHP. The development seeks the retention of 1 Biomass CHP unit and 2 RHI units within the building, with the external alteration to the building including the construction of 3 external chimneys.
Members noted the representations received in respect of the application, the main grounds of which were set out in the report. They noted specifically the setting of the listed building and discussion ensued with reference to the photographic images displayed at the meeting. A specific query was raised by members as to the consequences of the plant being removed and the sourcing of an alternative heat and energy supply, for example from the grid.
Councillor Miskelly then moved to refuse the application as per the officer’s recommendation; this was seconded by Councillor Cockburn
A vote was taken on the motion for refusal, 9 voted in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention
The motion was carried.
Refused as per officer recommendation
Report author: Kelly Hampson
Publication date: 13/12/2018
Date of decision: 11/12/2018
Decided at meeting: 11/12/2018 - Development Panel