Agenda item

Report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance).

Report of the Executive Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) setting out an application for the change of use to energy generation and installation and operation of three gas engines and ancillary development.

The application sought planning permission for the change of use of the site for energy generation (Sui-Generis) and the installation and operation of three gas engines and ancillary development to provide additional electrical power generation (at peak times/reserve capacity) for input into the National Grid.  The ancillary development would include the erection of a gas kiosk, a clean oil tank and a waste oil tank, as well as some alterations to the existing building.

The gas engines would be approximately 13m in depth and 6m in width.  The gas engines would each have cylindrical exhaust flues 12m in height from the ground level with a diameter of approximately 0.5m.  Two gas engines would be oriented east to west, and be located on the west corner of the site.  The third gas engine would be located at the south east corner of the site, close to the street, and at right angles to the road.

The gas kiosk would be located to the front of the existing building, along the north east boundary with a shallow hipped pitched roof.  The structure would be approximately 5.8m in width, 2.6m in height and 2.6m in depth.

The oil tanks would be located along the south boundary of the site, between the gas engines.  The waste oil tank would be approximately 1.5m in width and depth, with a height of 1.2m.  The clean oil tank would measure approximately 2.3m in depth, 3.2m in width and 1.4m in height.

Reason for Committee Consideration

This application is presented to the Development Management Committee because Councillor Chesterman has called the application to committee for the following reason;

“This application is out of keeping with the intended use for the area ie small industrial and office accommodation. The applicant has not taken the necessary readings from the areas that will be most affected. This will cause an impact on employees, most of whom are local, with regard to noise and air quality pollution which could prove detrimental to their health.”

Additionally the proposal represents a departure from the development plan given the location of the site within a designated employment area.

Three items of late representation had been received in the form of objections.

Mr Andy Dingle (Objector) spoke against the application.

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Councillor L.Chesterman spoke against the application.

For clarity, the Committee was asked to note that Councillor L.Chesteman had called in the application as Ward Councillor.

The following points were made during the discussion which ensued:-

Ø  Members expressed concerns regarding the impact the proposed change of use would have on the amenity value to the neighbouring commercial properties in terms of noise levels; impact of increased traffic movements; parking of commercial vehicles and insufficient infrastructure.  The employment site was for small industrial units with office accommodation.  The development would provide few employment opportunities as only two full time operatives would be required in addition to service engineer visits. 

Ø  Concerns were also raised by Members regarding the detrimental loss of light to the industrial unit adjoining the application site.

Ø  Further concerns were expressed regarding the emission of airbourne particles and air pollution bearing in mind the relative close proximity to a primary school and residential area.  Members sought clarification regarding whether the proposed flues would have a filtration system to deal with the emissions.

Ø  Officers, in response to questions from Members, informed that the Fire and Rescue had been consulted on the fire implications of the development and not been consulted in their capacity for Civil Defence.  Officers went on to confirm that a bund would be part of the conditions as would continuing noise testing.

Ø  In response to discussions regarding potential health and safety risks together with car parking concerns for the residential properties the Chairman advised against including these as reasons for refusal.  Sites of this nature were built to very high safety standards and were normally very good.  Emissions from the flue, would according to published research, be negligible.  The Chairman stated that he disagreed with view that the development would increase the existing parking issues and that the proposal would be an overdevelopment of the site. Officers reminded the Committee that there had been no objection to the application from the Highways department.

In summary the Committee agreed the reasons that the development should be refused for the following reasons:-

·           The proposed development would be a departure from the current local plan in which it was defined as employment land but there would be little employment.  The deployment of three huge gas turbines constituted a significant overdevelopment of the site. 

·           The impact the proposed development would have on the immediate neighbouring industrial properties would be unacceptable. 

It was then moved by Councillor S.Markiewicz, seconded by Councillor M.Birleson, that

RESOLVED:

(12 voting for, 3 against)

That planning permission for application 6/2016/1848/FULL notwithstanding the Officer’s recommendation for approval be refused for the following reason:

REASON: The proposal by virtue of its Sui Generis use would result in an unacceptable loss of employment land. Furthermore, by virtue of its scale, height and general layout, the proposal would comprise an overdevelopment of the site resulting in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring business premises and the character and appearance of the area. As such the proposals fail to comply with Policies EMP1, EMP2, D1 and D2 of the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 2005.

POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT

The decision has been made taking into account, where practicable and appropriate the requirements of paragraphs 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework and material planning considerations do not justify a decision contrary to the development plan (see Officer’s report which can be viewed on the Council's website or inspected at these offices).