Agenda item

Application seeking retrospective planning permission for the retention of a biomass boiler, flue, and associated housing within the car park together with a 2.1 metre high boundary fence and lowering of the associated boiler pipework below and behind the top of the fence – ST ANTHONYS. Members noted that in relation to the first (withdrawn) application (ref: 141434) a petition of 14 signatures and a further 3 letters of objection had been received.  In relation to the current application three letters of objection had been received.

The relevant planning history for the site was detailed within the report.  The observations of the Specialist Advisor for Pollution and Licensing were also summarised.

The committee was reminded that there had been two Planning Committee site visits to the application site to assess the impact of the proposals.  This application related to the retention of a biomass boiler, flue and associated housing being used to provide heating to an existing business on a long standing industrial estate.  The Council instructed a consultant AECOM to confirm the findings of the Air Quality Assessment submitted with the application. AECOM had concluded that the modelling demonstrated that even if the boiler ran at full load throughout the year with background concentrations based on the kerbside monitor, the effect of the boiler emissions would still be negligible.  Members were advised that to refuse the application on matters relating to pollution given the Council’s consultant response would create a scenario that exposed the Council to a costs claim if challenged at appeal.

The committee was advised that page 16 of the report, paragraphs 2 and 3 from the top should be deleted as they had been inserted in error.

An additional objection from Mrs Geering had been received following the consultants response to the Air Quality Assessment and was summarised as follows:

‘The documents were estimated based on assessments of the potential air quality impact.  The smell and dust had not been addressed. The document did not give an accurate indication of the impact of the boiler on the lives of residents.  This large industrial unit should not be placed alongside residential housing and finally how would the site be monitored if planning permission was approved’.

Mrs Geering addressed the committee in objection stating that the structure was unsightly and its position was detrimental to the surrounding properties.  The air quality had been impacted.

Councillor Mattock, Ward Councillor, addressed the committee in objection stating that whilst she was not against biomass boilers, their placement should be given consideration.  The boiler could be re-sited in a more suitable location so as to avoid any detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.

Councillor Tutt, Ward Councillor, addressed the committee in objection stating that he endorsed the comments made by the previous speakers, particularly with regard to the location and proximity to neighbouring residential properties.

Mr Brewer, applicant, addressed the committee in response stating that the boiler was an effective and environmentally friendly method of heating his premises.  He also stated that the impact of 15k to 30k daily vehicle trips around the site should be taken into account when considering pollutants and dust particles in and around the site  There had been an estimated 2g of fly ash produced in an 18month period.  The boiler had been positioned to aid parking and operational requirements at the site.

The committee expressed concern regarding the location and proximity to neighbouring residential properties.

Councillor Jenkins advised the committee that he had attended a site visit at the request of a resident opposed to the scheme.  He stated that he did not discuss the application and was only in attendance to observe and better understand the objectors concerns.  He was accompanied by Councillor di Cara.

RESOLVED: (Unanimous) That permission be refused on the grounds that the proposal by reason of its height/mass/bulk and siting close to the boundaries of the site would result in an unneighbourly and overly dominant structure that would materially affect the amenities and enjoyment of the adjacent residential dwellings/plots.