Agenda item

To determine the application.

Jennifer Seaman presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure from Jane Eyeington, in objection to the application.

Ms Eyeington stated that that whilst she fully understands the need for ‘green energy’, this should not be at the expense of everything else, including the environment that has been here thousands of years. She added that she would like to raise concerns with regard to all ecological effects having been investigated in depth, including the effect on bats, and, in her view, sufficient surveys have not yet been carried out as required under the law, to avoid harm to the bats, which, is her belief, should be done before planning permission is granted.

Ms Eyeington expressed the opinion that the Anaerobic Digester (AD) plant is not in keeping with the Fenland environment and is spoiling the outlook of the countryside. She added that the original planning application, was for a larger plant and this was rejected, and questioned whether planning laws have changed and asked whether it was felt acceptable to increase the size of the current AD plant, with any increase making a bigger impact and an eyesore even worse.

Ms Eyeington added that the original AD plant was supposed to provide planting to landscape the border, providing cover and this was to be maintained, which has not been done and, therefore, not providing the screening required in the original planning consent. She added that even since raising this point, nothing has been done to rectify the problem and expressed the view that this does not bode well for installation and maintenance of the new boundary planting for the extension.

Ms Eyeington highlighted that the screening proposed must be of a mature planting, with evergreen included, otherwise the plant is fully exposed for 6 months of the year and stated that it must also ensure it is fully maintained. She stated that the lighting on the existing and new proposed extension is, in her view, excessive and whilst she understands the need for security, the plant is manned 24/7, with a multitude of CCTV cameras and questioned the need for so many lights. She added that the revised lighting plan, puts in more lights, not less, and the height is still 18 ft and the excessive lights around the plant is causing lighting pollution, having a detrimental effect on the environment and wildlife.

Ms Eyeington stated that there has been no LUX report on the intensity of the lighting, which effects all wildlife and bats, which should be undertaken before permission is granted not after. She added that she understands that the new extension to the plant will be using mainly straw and highlighted that straw is already used by the existing plant, and the waste left over from the site is dumped on the field next to her property, which she stated will only increase with the extension.

Ms Eyeington stated that the AD plant seem to take no responsibility for this waste as it is on the associated farmers land and she added that she has been advised that this waste would be removed within 3 months, and it has not happened, as it is still there. She stated that the A142 is a busy single carriage way road, which the plant uses for access and, in her opinion, any increase in traffic, especially slow tractors and heavy good vehicles, will cause the whole local area problems.

Ms Eyeington explained that she has had very large vehicles turning up at her door, intended for the plant, which has caused inconvenience for her family as they then need to open her gates to allow them onto her paddock to turn around and, therefore, signage is needed so there is no access via her track, and better information given to delivery drivers so this does not happen.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation procedure, from Mr Steve Ripley, the applicant.

Mr Ripley explained that the AD plant will produce transport fuels and will produce bio methane, which will be certified green methane. He added that going forward, he will be using straw at the plant, which is a residue from the production of wheat and the straw will have a high concentration of energy in it and its digestibility is lower.

Mr Ripley stated that the process will use heat, biology,and enzymes in an anaerobic environment to fully digest and the process has to be thinned down considerably by using processed water. He added that the technology used will be a leading example of renewables and once produced the bio gas will be separated from the bio methane in order to capture the carbon dioxide, which will then be chilled to turn it into a liquid and then that will be sent to the food and beverage sector.

Mr Ripley stated that there will be the need to employ additional people and explained that the project will ensure a reduction in emissions by using residues and capturing the CO2, which does not become carbon neutral, it becomes carbon negative and is a massive step forward.

Members asked Mr Ripley the following questions.

·         Councillor Cornwell asked Mr Ripley to clarify whether it is new technology which is being introduced at the site? Mr Ripley stated that it is not new, but it is refined and specific to the nature of the work being carried out at the plant. He added a great deal of research development has been carried out and it is all to do with pre-treatment of the raw materials which is assisted with enzymes designed to assist with the nature of the biomass. Councillor Cornwell stated that the plant is using a waste product rather than a prime product which is being used on the original site. Mr Ripley stated that the product being used is a residue and it is consistent product and in plentiful supply. He added the product when broken down will release carbon back into the atmosphere. Councillor Cornwell asked whether there will be an odour from the new processing system? Mr Ripley stated that maize is approximately 30% dry matter and having been preserved and fermented there will quite a sweet smell omitted from it, whereas straw is approximately 90% dry matter and is basically odourless. Councillor Cornwell asked for clarity that the waste is going to be transferred into pellets? Mr Ripley stated that it is pellets that will be used in horticulture as a peat replacement.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis asked for clarity with regard to vehicle movements in and out of the site and asked for confirmation that it is 4 heavy goods vehicles entering and exiting the site each day?. Mr Ripley confirmed that this was correct. Councillor Mrs Davis asked for information as to how the pellets are transported? Mr Ripley stated that the pellets are transported via a lorry and the straw used is brought in by lorries as well.

·         Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Ripley what his intentions are to ensure that his business is considerate towards the neighbouring properties? Mr Ripley stated that he is planning to have a meeting with Ms Eyeington and discuss the development and work out solutions to any problems that can be foreseen.

·         Councillor Miscandlon referred to light pollution and stated that the upward glare from the lighting at the plant is quite significant and he asked Mr Ripley what mitigation is being put in place to correct the issue? Mr Ripley stated that he has just been made aware of the issue and he stated that there are several factors to be considered, safety, security, and observation. He added that the Police have advised him that from a security perspective the lighting is important at the plant and he stated that good lighting is important with regards to safety and observation. Mr Ripley stated that he is going to undertake a study to investigate the lighting aspect and it is his understanding that there are areas of the site where timers can be placed on certain lights and will be motion activated, which will assist with the issue of light pollution and save electricity.  He explained that he is also going to review the lux level of the existing lighting and see if it can be toned down slightly and added that he is also going to look at the necessity of some of the lighting. Councillor Miscandlon stated that he appreciates the necessity of the lighting from the perspective of the Police, but added that the light beam does not need to shine so high into the sky and added that shades can be fitted to alleviate and control the issue.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Sutton asked planning officers to clarify a condition with regard to working hours for the plant where the officer’s report states that the operating hours are Monday to Sunday from 7am to 7pm and he questioned whether the condition should be altered to reflect the deliveries to the site, as well as the operating hours of the site, as the plant is a 24 hour operation. Jennifer Seaman stated that condition 17 specifically deals with deliveries to the site, which is 7 to 7, Monday to Sunday and she added that it is an applicant specific request that the working hours be 7am to 7pm on the extended site. She added that the existing site can operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and confirmed that deliveries are restricted from 7am to 7pm.

Members asked questions, made comments, and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that he is intrigued by the process and where it is. He added that he is relived that the site is not going to be serviced by tractors and trailers and is pleased to hear that Mr Ripley is going to be a good neighbour. Councillor Cornwell expressed the view that he is concerned with the effect of the vegetation from the exit point from Greys Farm onto the main road, which does cause poor visibility out on to the main road and is also concerned with regard to the closeness of the pre-determined mini town close to Chatteris which will be developed in time, but he added that the utility provision and services are already in place and he will support the application as it also includes an element of new technology.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he is also pleased to hear that the company wish to work with their closest neighbour, and it is a positive step. He added that the surrounding trees and bushes will cover up the area and the site will be not be visible. Councillor Sutton stated that he is pleased to hear that the applicant will review the lighting at the site and he added that officers have worked with the applicant to bring the proposal forward and he will be supporting the application.

Proposed by Councillor Miscandlon, seconded by Councillor Cornwell and agreed that the application be APPROVED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillors Connor, Mrs Davis and Miscandlon, registered in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Local Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they had been lobbied on this item)