P
17/20 | The Chairman of the Planning Committee agreed to hear the officers report, public representations and member debate in relation to items 20/0692/FUL, 20/0693/FUL, 20/0625/VARY and 20/0647/VARY as one, as all items related to the same development.
The Planning Officer outlined planning application 20/0692/FUL Land At RSPB Saltholme (South), Cowpen Bewley, Billingham Provision of SUDs pond for Saltholme South (Approved under application 18/2079/FUL).
Planning permission was sought for the provision of a SUDs pond to serve a gas fired generating facility for the generation of electricity during generation shortfall and to meet peak supply demands.
Following the detailed civil design process, the SUDS ponds to serve the facility needed to be relocated. The new location meant a very slight amendment to the original red line boundary for the host scheme and as such a separate consent was required to approve its new location.
The application was presented to Committee so that the application was considered in parallel with the new Section 73 applications also included on the agenda.
The application had been considered in full and objections from residents were noted. It was however, considered that the revised scheme was acceptable and broadly in accordance with planning policy and recommended for approval with conditions as detailed within the main report.
The consultees that had been notified and the comments that had been received were detailed within the main report.
Neighbours were notified and the comments received were detailed within the main report.
The planning policies and material planning considerations that were relevant to the consideration of the application were contained within the main report.
The Planning Officers report concluded that for the reasons outlined within the main report the proposed development was not considered to have any significant impacts on the character of the area, ecology, drainage or features of an archaeological interest. The application was therefore recommended for approval subject to those conditions specified within the main report.
The Planning Officer outlined planning application 20/0693/FUL Land At RSPB Saltholme (North), Cowpen Bewley, Billingham Provision of a SUDs pond to serve Saltholme North (Approved under 18/2082/FUL)
Planning permission was sought for the provision of a SUDs pond to serve a gas fired generating facility for the generation of electricity during generation shortfall and to meet peak supply demands.
Following the detailed civil design process, the SUDS ponds to serve the facility needed to be relocated. The new location meant an amendment to the original red line boundary for the host scheme and as such a separate consent was required to approve its new location.
The application was presented to Committee so that the application was considered in parallel with the new Section 73 applications also included on the agenda.
The application had been considered in full and objections from residents were noted. It was however, considered that the revised scheme was acceptable and broadly in accordance with planning policy and recommended for approval with conditions as detailed within the main report.
The consultees that had been notified and the comments that had been received were detailed within the main report.
Neighbours were notified and the comments received were detailed within the main report.
The planning policies and material planning considerations that were relevant to the consideration of the application were contained within the main report.
The planning Officers conclusion was that the proposed development was not considered to have any significant impacts on the character of the area, ecology, drainage or features of an archaeological interest. The application was therefore recommended for approval subject to those conditions specified within the main report.
The Planning Officer outlined planning application 20/0625/VARY Land North West Of National Grid Site; Cowpen Bewley Road; Billingham Section 73 application to vary conditions 2 (plans), 3 (materials and colours), 4 (levels), 5 (SUDs), 9 (landscaping softworks), 10 (maintenance softworks), 13 (noise) of planning approval 18/2079/FUL.
Planning permission was sought to vary some of the conditions on application 18/2079/FUL which was given approval for a gas fired generating facility (GFGF) for the generation of 49.99MW electricity to facilitate regional distribution during generation shortfall and to meet peak supply demands.
There was a change to the plans recommended for approval an the updated site plan was shown during the presentation.
The principle of development had been accepted and therefore only the proposed revisions could be considered.
A number of objections had been received and additional technical information supplied in relation to noise. All documents and comments had been considered in full and the application was recommended for approval subject to conditions contained within the main report.
The consultees that had been notified and the comments that had been received were detailed within the main report.
Neighbours were notified and the comments received were detailed within the main report.
The planning policies and material planning considerations that were relevant to the consideration of the application were contained within the main report.
The Planning Officers report concluded that planning permission be granted with Conditions for the reasons as specified within the main report.
The Planning Officer outlined planning application 20/0647/VARY Land North West Of National Grid Site; Cowpen Bewley Road; Billingham Section 73 application to vary condition(s) 2. (approved plans), 3. (Materials and Colours), 4. (Levels) 5. (SUDS), 9 (Landscaping softworks) 10.(Maintenance softworks) 13. (Noise) of planning approval 18/2082/FUL.
Planning permission was sought to vary some of the conditions on application 18/2082/FUL which was given approval for a gas fired generating facility (GFGF) for the generation of 49.99MW electricity to facilitate regional distribution during generation shortfall and to meet peak supply demands.
There was a change to the plans recommended for approval and the updated site plan was shown during the presentation.
The principle of development had been accepted and therefore only the proposed revisions could be considered.
A number of objections had been received and additional technical information supplied in relation to noise. All documents and comments had been considered in full and the application was recommended for approval subject to conditions contained within the main report.
The consultees that had been notified and the comments that had been received were detailed within the main report.
Neighbours were notified and the comments received were detailed within the main report.
The planning policies and material planning considerations that were relevant to the consideration of the application were contained within the main report.
The Planning Officers report concluded that Planning permission be granted with Conditions for the reasons as specified within the main report.
Objectors attended the meeting and given the opportunity to make representations on all four applications. Their comments could be summarised as follows:
- The character and sound of the application was of a type and quality which warranted a more detailed investigation than that which had been carried out.
- It had been identified that the low frequency tone omitted from the facility was uncharacteristic. The usual background sound within the vicinity was measured on road traffic dB(A) scale, which was used widely. The proposed facility type of sound would be low frequency, like a helicopter in the distance.
- The noise would always be there.
- Residents requested access to noise data for the plant radiators.
- A request was made that in the event the scheme could not comply with the proposed noise levels contained within the table at condition 09 of the main report, wording should be added to that condition making the applicant responsible and that the plant should cease to operate until conditions could be met.
- It was felt that the noise of the plant facility was set too close to the World Health Organisations limit of 40 decibels, therefore leaving no room for noise creep or uncertainty which could have an adverse impact on residents. Other authorities within the country had much stricter rules in terms of noise creep
- Residents believed the development was closer than 1 kilometre to local properties.
- The Applicant was now seeking to increase operational hours of the plant which would put current and future residents of Cowpen Bewley at risk of noise pollution.
- Discussion took place around loss of green space and the adverse effect noise pollution would have on wildlife within the area, particularly the effect on bats and owls when hunting.
The applicant and the applicants noise consultant attended the meeting and were given the opportunity to make representation. Their comments could be summarised as follows:
- The noise of the plant was predicted to be close to that of 40 dB(A).
- Noise levels within the vicinity of the plant already exceeded the 40dB(A) limit and ranged from 44 to 50 dB(A), therefore if there were health effects to be considered, noise levels were already exceeding this.
- The World Health Organisation stipulated an annual average for noise levels. The plant was not going to be operational every single night nor 365 days a year.
- In terms of the noise being characterised as a helicopter in the background, this low frequency sound would be removed by silencers.
- The high levels of noise limits which had been conditioned by Stockton Borough Council were stringent and would be difficult to measure as they were below the current level of noise in the area. Noise limit rating level was a protective limit.
Officers were given the opportunity to respond to comments / issues raised. Their responses could be summarised as follows:
Ambient noise levels, had also been assessed in great detail, and although it was acknowledged that an additional clause was suggested to be added to the ‘Control of noise during operational phase’ condition, Officers felt that the current proposed conditions were stringent, and the plant, when complete would be in line with the conditions in terms of noise levels.
Environmental Health had put a great deal of consideration in terms of noise reports and assessments. It had already been highlighted that the World Health Organisation set acceptable noise levels as an average over a whole year and the plant would not be in operation all year round.
Officers clarified that the plant was approximately 1Kilometre from the village. Figures were calculated using GiS and map based systems to predict noise levels.
Concerns raised in terms of loss of green space, ecology and impact on wildlife, this was considered in 2018 when approval of the plant was granted.
Members were given the opportunity to ask questions / make comments. These could be summarised as follows;
- Brief discussion was had in terms of how the increase in dB(A)’s impacted on the increase in noise levels.
- Clarity was sort as to the number of conditions that had been included within the proposed application.
- Members queried the difference between the original Rolls Royce engines which had originally been proposed compared to the newly proposed Mann gas engines and the increase from 42dB(A) to 53dB(A) when both plants were running simultaneously?
- The impact of sudden noise levels was discussed as well as the RSPB’s concerns in terms of the impact this would have on bird wildlife, particularly Redshanks.
- Some Members agreed with the suggestion that the plant should cease to operate if noise levels were not adhered to as detailed within condition 09 of the main report.
- Members also agreed that if the plant was only 1 kilometre away from residents and 40 dB(A) was the noise limit, then there was no margin for error, and therefore this should be looked at again.
- A request was also made as to when and how often the plants would be in operation?
- Questions were raised as to why noise data for the radiators had not been provided at the request of residents.
- Clarity was sought in terms of both plants sharing infrastructure, specifically, the gas delivery unit. Although the plans had detailed this the main report stated that both plants would not share the same infrastructure.
Officers were given the opportunity to respond to comments / issues raised. Their responses could be summarised as follows:
Officers clarified the number of conditions were varied on 20/0625/VARY and 20/0647/VARY. It was also highlighted that work had already started on site since the original approval in 2018 and some conditions had been discharged or included the application plans and documents
- The Applicant had stated that the newly proposed Mann gas engines were superior, efficient, were turbo charged, which meant that the engines came with both a low-pressure and high-pressure compressor. The engines should significantly reduce fuel consumption and emissions. In terms of the increase in noise levels the RSPB had confirmed the increase in noise levels should both plants be operating a simultaneously was acceptable and the revised noise reports had been made available to all ecology bodies.
Where concerns had been raised relating to bird wildlife, Officers had spoken with Natural England and the RSPB who were fully on board. There was a cut off 55 dB(A) where birds could be disturbed however this noise level should not be reached, therefore causing no disturbance to the birds.
In terms of suggestions to amend condition 09 (Control of noise during operational phase) relating to noise levels and shutting the plant down should noise levels be breached. Officers were unsure as to whether this could be amended due to technical operations of the plant, however assured the Committee that noise checks would be on going and 28 days checks would be imposed. It was also highlighted that it would be difficult to monitor the 28 day checks if the plant had to cease operating.
The plant would be operational when there was a sudden surge at peak times where the plant would supply the grid with additional electricity. The limit on hours could be 3500 hours a year, but exactly when it would run was unknown and could not be controlled. The number of hours the plant would run was controlled by the Environment Agency.
There was no specific data for the radiators due to commercial sensitivities, however the predicted sound levels had been provided and were lower than the background noise level.
Where concerns had been raised relating to the two plants sharing the gas delivery unit, Officers confirmed that limited infrastructure could be shared as long as the plants operated separately.
A motion was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred to a future meeting of the Planning Committee due to a lack of information.
A vote took place and the motion was refused.
A vote then took place for each of the agenda items separately as follows: |
