Agenda item

Full planning application for the construction and operation of a 7.5MW gas peaking generation plant to include: an electrical substation, gas kiosk, gas engines, access, CCTV, lighting and associated works.

Public Participation

Ms Deanna de Roche, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Mr David Holtum, local business owner, spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Francis Morland, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Alan Siviter, agent to the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Gordon King, on behalf of Westbury Town Council, spoke in objection to the application.

David Cox, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report which recommended that the Committee delegates authority to the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission, subject to planning conditions and informatives, following the completion of a s106 legal agreement pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure a £23,333.31 developer contribution to mitigate against the environmental air quality effects in Westbury.

Reference was made to the presentation slides (Agenda Supplement 1) and officers explained the site area and its location with respect to neighbouring businesses within the trading estate. Officers detailed the make-up of the proposal, namely; five gas engines, electrical substation, exhaust stack, gas kiosk and oil tank. The proposed elevations and plans were then clarified alongside pictures of the site and surrounding areas for further context. The Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) was shown, and officers displayed extracts from the Westbury Air Quality Management Plan (WAQMP), Air Quality Assessment and IQAM Guidance. It was noted that these slides alongside the report, concluded that the percentage change in concentration relative to Air Quality Assessment Level was moderate and at ‘Level 2’ in the WAQMP. Furthermore, it was explained that Wiltshire Council has sought a Counsel Opinion, a copy of which was included within the Agenda Pack, and officers went on to detail the headline bullet points. Officers highlighted that if Members were minded to approve the application, then the £23.3k developer contribution could be used to fund improvements to the A350 itself to help improve traffic flow through the town and to aid in the Council’s commitment to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030.

Key issues highlighted included: principle of development; supporting energy supply; impact on climate change/carbon neutrality; environmental impacts (especially air quality); neighbouring impacts; highways impacts; impact upon the setting of a local Heritage Asset; flood risk; and ecology impacts.

Members of the Committee, the Local Unitary Member, Cllr Matthew Dean, and other Local Member, Cllr Gordon King, as invited by the Chairman, were given the opportunity to ask technical questions to the officer. The main points of focus included: the intention for each facet of the proposal eg: the oil tank; individual contribution of the development to NO2 levels in AQMA, disparity between the application and Wiltshire Council’s climate change pledge; the Counsel Opinion; site safety; a focus on traffic; employment losses; visual intrusion; and the £23.3k contribution.

In response, officers clarified that the individual contribution of the development to the NO2 levels in the AQMA was predicted to be 0.04 µg/m3 and although this would be exceeding the AQS objective of an annual mean NO2 set at 40 µg/m3, the increase was minimal and therefore Wiltshire Council Environmental Health Officers had no objections subject to s106 developer financial contributions to assist the Council in improving Air Quality within its Westbury AQMA. The climate change pledge to be “net-zero” by 2030 was discussed and officers noted that the Counsel was referred to the air quality supplementary document which would be subject to public consultation. With regard to site safety and concerns surrounding the storage of oil and gas near residential areas and offices, officers noted that Dorset & Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service had not been consulted, however it was highlighted that no objections had been received.

Officers further explained that the application was focused on analysing the impact of the application itself alongside the cumulative impact of the recent developments within the area, specifically applications 19/10947/FUL and 20/06775/WCM and as such, would have considered all point sources such as roads and railways. It was confirmed by officers that 6 jobs would be created by the development, but that they would not be on-site and would instead be remote based jobs. It was further explained that as the site had been used as a car park, this was not generating any jobs and as such should not be used as an argument towards going against officer recommendations as it had no basis in planning policy. Officer then reiterated the proposed elevations and highlighted that the application would be situated inside a trading estate and therefore visual aesthetics had not been considered a priority. Officers went on to explain the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding process and how it could be used for this application if approved. Finally, officers explained that the air quality impact on neighbouring residences was detailed in the report but highlighted that it was substantially low and as such, officers had not raised any objections.

Members of the public, as detailed above, had the opportunity to address the Committee and speak on the application. In response to points raised during the statements, officers reiterated that Members could only consider what was included within the application. Furthermore, officers noted that Wiltshire’s closest gas-powered station was located in Bristol and as such, there was the potential that a local gas-powered station could result in high energy efficiency. Cllr Dean requested that his objection to the Planning Officer’s comments was minuted as he felt that there was no basis for his claims with regard to planning policy. Officers further noted that the Queen’s Counsel had accepted that the approach proposed was the best method moving forward.

Local Unitary Member, Cllr Matthew Dean, addressed the Committee and detailed his objections to the application, specifically: environmental impacts and the cumulative impact upon air quality within Westbury; the lack of any similar projects within the area and therefore no clear success record of implementing the Air Quality Supplementary Planning Document; the concerns of local businesses in the area alongside employment risks; and no guarantee of further funding on top of the £23.3k developer contribution.

Cllr Suzanne Wickham then moved to refuse the application against officer recommendations on the basis of concerns surrounding air quality and the cumulative effect that the application would have when combined with other recent developments within the area. Cllr David Vigar seconded the motion.

During the debate, officers drew attention to the fact that if Members were minded to refuse the application then officers would need to consider that a specialist may need to be outsourced if the application came to appeal. It was further reiterated that Members would be going against the professional views of officers and noted that the Council’s climate change pledge should not form part of the motion as the decision must be based only on planning policy. Members further discussed air quality concerns in the area with regard to the traffic generated on the A350 and the lack of a clear mitigation plan, and illnesses linked to poor air quality. Members again raised their concerns regarding employment on the area to which officers encouraged Members to not consider within the motion for the reasons explained during technical questions. Officers explained that if Members were minded to refuse then the motion should cite Core Policy 55.

At the conclusion of the debate a vote was taken on the motion to refuse the application against officer recommendations on the basis of the exacerbation of an area of existing poor air quality, therefore failing to protect public health, environmental quality and amenity contrary to Core Policy 55.

Following which, it was:

Resolved

The Committee REEFUSED the application against officer recommendations as the proposal, by reason of its scale and nature in proximity to the Westbury Air Quality Management Area, would exacerbate an area of existing poor air quality. The proposed mitigation measure would not, in practice, offset the nitrogen dioxide emissions effectively and would therefore fail to make a positive contribution to the aims of the Air Quality Management Strategy. The proposal would also, therefore, fail to protect public health, environmental quality and amenity contrary to adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy 55.