Agenda item

Temporary planning permission for 25 years for the development and operation of a Transitional Hybrid Energy Project and associated infrastructure including access (2021-08-16 Amended Plans to extend red line, include additional landscaping and landscape details and temporary construction compound, and additional landscape and air quality details submitted 20/04/21 and 21/05/21).

The committee considered application P20/S4706/FUL for temporary planning permission for 25 years for the development and operation of a Transitional Hybrid Energy Project and associated infrastructure including access (2021-08-16 Amended Plans to extend red line, include additional landscaping and landscape details and temporary construction compound, and additional landscape and air quality details submitted 20/04/21 and 21/05/21).on land to the west of Wallingford Road adjacent to sewage works between Goring and South Stoke.

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting.

The planning officer reported that the application had been called in by the local ward councillor on the basis of visual impact, development within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and effect upon community amenity.  The application was for temporary planning permission for a transitional hybrid energy project, designed to provide standby electricity from four containerised gas-powered generators in connection with transitions to renewable power sources at larger stations.  The site at present could only be seen from the south of Goring and was screened to the north and west.

The committee were shown slides of the site’s location, as presently viewed, and with projected landscaping at one- and 15-years’ maturity. A slide depicting the bund viewed from the south, and images of the site viewed from the Wallingford Road were also shown to the committee.  The planning officer also reported that the application had received no objections from technical officers and statutory consultees, including the Chilterns Conservation Board.

Councillor Sonia Lofthouse, a representative of Goring on Thames Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.

Councillor Andrew Scrivener, a representative of South Stoke Parish Council, spoke objecting to the application.

Mr. Paul Jenkins, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. In response to a question from the committee regarding his suitability to make a comment on the merits of the application, Mr. Jenkins declared that he was a qualified electrical engineer and a fellow of the institute of engineering and technology and a professional in the field for 35 years. In his view the assumptions taken to justify the development were incorrect, principally that there were no major electricity users in the distribution area served by this connection.  He added that nitrous oxide could be emitted from the generators, which was toxic.

Mr. Richard Dew, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application.

Mr. Dominic Gates, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application.

Ms. Madeleine Bastawrous, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application.

Mr. Ruarith Mitchell, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. In response to a question from the committee regarding the future value and relevance of the development, Mr. Mitchell stated that domestic boilers currently being produced and fitted were designed to run off a 25% hydrogen mix. Also in response to a question regarding the height of proposed flues, he reported that the generators operated at a very high temperature and that the height was necessary to ensure adequate dispersal of exhaust gases over a wider area.

In response to a question from the committee regarding the benefit of the development to the local community, Mr. Mitchell responded that the proposal would ensure a security of supply, which would be feeding into the local area. Small gas-powered stations such as these were required to deal with the transition to a mixed renewable supply, which necessitated rapid initiation and turning off.

In response to a question regarding air quality, the planning officer confirmed that air quality levels were acceptable and accordance with policy EP1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan and policy 14 of the Goring Neighbourhood Plan. Also, he had not received any further evidence regarding air quality which would have led him to recommend refusal.

Mr. Robert Chamberlain, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

The democratic services officer had sent to the committee prior to the meeting a statement by Jenny Hedge, Chair of Trustees, of the Anne Carpmael Charitable Trust.

The democratic services officer had also sent to the committee prior to the meeting statements from the following persons;

Ms. Anna Povey, a local resident

Mr. Alan Harrison, a local resident

Mr. Jeremy Lazenby, a local resident

Councillor Maggie Filipova-Rivers, the local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. The democratic services officer had sent to the committee prior to the meeting a statement by Councillor Filipova-Rivers.

Councillor Filipova-Rivers and the committee referred to paragraph 6.21 of the report, which stated that, ‘‘…planning permission should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest”. The planning officer was asked about the definition of a ‘major development’ and whether this constituted such a proposal. He replied that this was always a matter of judgment and that although he would not recommend refusal, the committee was entitled to form a view. The senior planning officer advised that although the National Planning Policy Framework provided good information for planning officers on nature, scale and impact, there was limited definitive guidance available on the size of applications regarding the definition of a major application. Officers took into account other applications in the district as precedents. However, although it was unusual to receive applications within the AONB, impact upon that area was a key factor to make a judgment upon.

The committee remained concerned at this proposal in the AONB, which it considered to be a ‘major development’ and would be unacceptably harmful to character and appearance of a valued landscape and were minded to refuse planning permission.

A motion moved and seconded, to refuse planning permission was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: that planning permission is refused for application P20/S4706/FUL for the following reasons;

1.    Harmful to the character and appearance of the local landscape.

2.    Harmful to the visual amenity of this part of the AONB.