Agenda item

Further to minute number 96 the report of the Chief Planning Officer asks Members to consider the change of use and extension of building from a workshop and storage to a combined heat and power plant and the storage of Fuel at Moor Lodge Caravan Site 103, Blackmoor Lane, Bardsey, Leeds.

 

(Report attached)

Further to Minute 96 the report of the Chief Planning Officer provided Members with information requested at the meeting held on 1^st December 2016.

 

Members had deferred this application so that more information could be provided in relation to the proposed Combined Heat and Power unit (CHP) to be installed at Moor Lodge Caravan Park.

 

The information was set out at paragraphs 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 in the submitted report. It related to the process, the amount of power to be generated and emission levels.

 

One objection letter had been received from Chris Finn on behalf of a number of local residents. Mr Finn was at the meeting and informed the Panel that the site would require the installation of a District Heating Scheme to distribute the heat produced by the power plant to the house, shower block and workshop. He said that the distance between the shed where the CHP was to be located and the buildings to be heated would not make the system efficient.

 

Mr Finn said that he had read a document by The Green Consultancy which questions the use and efficiency of CHP systems. This document had been submitted with the letter of objection.

 

Mr Finn expressed his view that the proposed size of the CHP could provide power to 300 plus homes and had concerns that the unit was being installed to produce more energy than was required by the site in order to sell to the National Grid.

 

Mr Dewar the DPA Planner attended the meeting along with Matthew Dowley from the company that supplies ArborElectroGen systems.

 

Members were informed that this particular CHP unit was one of the most advanced and was encouraged by Government.

 

Members were also informed that the application to extend the building was to house the hopper not the CHP unit. 

 

Cllr. Cleasby expressed his concerns in relation to the storing of wood to be chipped and used in the burner.

 

Members were advised that the CHP would burn only G50 woodchips which had to be purchased through an approved supplier. The site would not be storing wood or chipping wood to be used in the burner.

 

Cllr. Procter advised the meeting that he knew something about moisture content in woodchips as he had previously had business interests at Drax Power Station. He explained that he had not been at the previous meeting when this application had been presented.

 

Cllr. Procter said that he was considering this application with an open mind and reiterated the Legal Officers clarification of the Code of Conduct for Elected Members.

 

Cllr. Procter expressed his concerns that the CHP seemed to be large given that it was only to be used to power and heat the workshop, the house, the shower block and the dryers.

 

Members were informed that if the unit was not required through summer the unit would be turned off and powered down. Members noted that the output from the unit proposed was about 100Kw

 

The Panel were informed that the applicant had spoken at length with Environmental Health who had provided a full report as part of the submitted report. An Officer was also present at the meeting to answer questions.

 

Members noted that Condition 10 set out in the submitted report related to the height of the flue which is set at a height above that of a person so that any pollutants are not ingested. The height of the flue was within DEFRA guidance.

 

Members were advised that the report provided a clear and full explanation which was within the NPPF Guidance in relation to the change of use and the extension of an existing building to house the hopper.

 

Members still raised concerns in relation to the amount of storage for the woodchips and the moisture content of stored woodchips.

 

Officers advised Members that a condition could be added in relation to storage of woodchip.

 

Cllr. Procter listed a number of concerns as follows that he had in relation to the application and the report submitted;

·  No full planning history for this site

·  Caravans do not use the site all year

·  Storage conditions of woodchips

·  The amount of energy produced by the CHP and that it would be used to supply the National Power Grid as income.

·  Proposed a condition be added to prevent linking to the National Grid

 

Planning Officers explained that they had provided information on previous planning history that was deemed relevant to the application.

 

The Environmental Officer informed Members that Ofgen provided incentives for the installation and use of these systems. DEFRA had undertaken a significant amount of research on these CHP’s and provided guidance on these systems. He explained that only a specific type of fuel could be burnt in these units and that the woodchips wood be delivered each month, therefore would not be stored over long periods or be affected by moisture. The Officer said that should the wrong fuel be burnt then the CHP unit would stop working.

 

Members were advised that pollutant levels are set and would be monitored by Ofgen.

 

Cllr. Procter expressed his view that the CHP was to be used to produce energy that would be sold to the National Grid and not used as a localised power source for the caravans.

 

The Chair drew attention to paragraphs 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 of the submitted report specifically 1.5 which set out the output levels of the unit proposed on this site.

 

Cllr. Procter said that it was the fear of residents that this CHP was to be used as a power plant and he said that caution should be exercised in considering this application for CHP. He said that CHP’s could be installed in any back garden without planning permission.

 

Members noted advice of the legal Officer in relation to Section 206 of NPPF with regard to recommendations being relevant, precise and reasonable.

 

The Legal Officer said that it may be considered unreasonable to impose a condition to stop the link to the National Grid.

 

Cllr. Procter advised that he was unable to support the application as it stood and moved a motion to reject the recommendations within the report, and as such, to refuse the submitted application.

 

The motion was seconded by Cllr. Wilkinson.

 

At this point the meeting was adjourned in order for procedural advice to be sought. The meeting was then reconvened and upon being put to the vote, the motion was not carried.

 

Following this, consideration of the item continued, with the following comments being submitted by Members:

·  That surplus energy from solar panels is sold back to the National Grid

·  That surplus heat could be used to control the moisture in the woodchips

·  Lack of storage for the woodchips

·  The size of the vehicle to be used to deliver woodchips. It was noted that a smaller vehicle to deliver the woodchips would increase the amount of trips that would be required

·  The submitted report had provided the information as requested by Members at the previous meeting.

 

RESOLVED – To grant permission subject to the specified conditions set out in the submitted report and for two additional conditions to be added as follows;

a)  Location and integrity of the storage for the woodchip pellets

b)  That only G50 woodchip pellets will be used in the burner

 

Following the conclusion of this item, Members raised concerns and requested that clarity be sought in respect of the procedure by which a motion is considered and voted upon part way through a debate, and also in respect of what matters can be considered by the Panel when dealing with an application which has been the subject of previous consideration following deferral.

 

The Chair agreed that there was a need for a consistent approach and that this issue should be considered at a Plans Chairs meeting and then by Joint Plans Panel for discussion.