Issue - meetings

RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment). 

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.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

            The officer detailed the background to the application and explained that on 4 August 2015 planning permission 053393 was granted for the 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 permission required the development to cease 5 years from commencement.  The Section 73 planning application was to amend the condition to require that the development shall cease 15 years from commencement.  The fundamental reason was cited as the government had altered the funding and subsidy schemes applicable to a range of renewable energy schemes, and the private investment funding sources who would finance the development would require a return and repayment on the investment over a longer time period that the currently consented 5 year period.

            The applicant, Mr D. Levis spoke in support of the application.  He reiterated the reason for the extension to the time for the repayment of the investment.  He confirmed that, following comments at the meeting on 22 June 2016, the plant was not experimental, unproven or for the testing of component parts.  It was for demonstrating a commercially working plant on a small scale to potential funders.  Since the original application the plant had received an environmental permit which demonstrated that there was no danger to human health or the environment.  The equipment would be fully compliant with emissions regulations and the plant would be continually monitored to ensure ongoing compliance.  The lease required the site to be left in the same condition as it originally existed or better.

            The Local Member, Councillor David Roney, proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said his concerns at the last meeting had been addressed in full in the report before Members today.

            Councillor Mike Peers said at the site visit in July 2016 and in the original Committee report Members were advised that the payback period would be over 5 years.  He felt that it was a flaw in the business case of the applicant and was not a material condition for Members to consider the variation of condition.  Councillor Richard Jones expressed similar concerns, commenting that the finances of a company were not for consideration by Members.

            The officer explained that the original timeframe of 5 years was not imposed based on any technical or environmental reasons.  If the applicant had applied for a longer payback term in July 2016 then the recommendation for approval would have been the same.

            The Planning Strategy Manager added that a similar application had been approved by Members in March 2016 on the payback time for two Solar Farms being changed.

            In summing up, Councillor Roney said the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60