Issue - meetings

That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the original 5 year permission was granted on the basis that the proposed application involved unproven technology and a further 10 years of unproven technology was unacceptable            .

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. 

                        The officer advised that in August 2015 planning permission was granted for installation and operation  of a mobile advanced thermal treatment plant (ATT) and associated operations in existing buildings comprising a 1MW pyrolysis unit and associated gas engine.  Condition 4 of the application required that the development shall cease 5 years from commencement.  The application for consideration by the Committee was to amend the condition to require that the development shall cease 15 years from commencement.  The reason for the application was that the funding sources would require a return and repayment on investment over a number of years so the time currently consented was not sufficient.

Councillor David Roney proposed that the application be deferred which was duly seconded. 

Councillor Peers asked for clarification on the reasons for deferral.

Councillor Chris Bithell queried the reference to a temporary facility on page 77 of the report.  He suggested that permission be granted on a permanent basis with the condition that if the site was not required it was cleared and left in a tidy state if operations ceased to function.

Councillor Richard Jones commented on the reason for the application which was financial and said this was not a planning consideration.  He expressed the view that the application should be refused and not deferred. 

Councillor David Roney concurred with the views expressed by Councillor Jones, and said he wished to withdraw his proposal for deferral and proposed  refusal against the officer’s recommendation which was duly seconded.

Councillor Richard Lloyd said he could see no reason why 15 years was needed and the applicant could reapply after 15 years. 

Councillor Derek Butler spoke in support of the application and said there were no issues with the operation of the site.   Councillor Gareth Roberts also said there was no reason to oppose the application. 

Councillor Mike Peers referred to the fundamental reason for the application, which was that the funding sources required a return on investment over a number of years and the time currently consented was not sufficient.  He said  this was not a planning consideration and supported refusal of the application.    

The officer advised that the proposed development had not yet been implemented and therefore there was no impact on the local community.  He said  the 5 year term had been granted on the original application  because it had been requested by the applicant.  He explained that the application complied with all of the planning policies and a 15 year period would give further control to ensure the site was not left in a derelict state.

Councillors Richard Jones and Mike Peers stated that the application had been granted with condition No.4 because the technology was new, unproven, and a pilot development.

The Chairman invited Councillor David Roney to sum up.  Councillor Roney outlined his reasons for proposing refusal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22