Agenda item

Change of use of land to store wood and agricultural products for biomass energy including installation of 3 storage bays, siting of a portable office block and a portable toilet block and addition of a fence and gate

Recommendations: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the addendum, which confirmed that following publication, the applicant had submitted an amended application which removed the originally proposed office and toilet. The existing access was to be retained, and the site layout amended so that the proposed bays would be sited to the north of the existing building. In addition, the Planning Statement had been amended regarding traffic and trees, with a scheme in Enfield suggested as a similar scheme that had been approved. Opinions from the applicant’s agent regarding development within the Green Belt were also included.

Addressing these points, officers confirmed that, with regard to traffic, the Planning Statement stated that ‘the maximum amount of two-way vehicle trips possible per day would be 90’. However, no Transport Assessment had been submitted. The scheme in the London Borough of Enfield was not considered to be a similar proposal for various reasons, including that it was sited amongst existing farm buildings rather than being detached from them. No alternative site analysis had been submitted to support the agent’s contention that the proposed development was not possible anywhere else other than a Green Belt location.

Although the removal of the proposed office and toilet reduced the impact of the proposed development, the installation of 3 storage bays and the addition of a fence and gate would have an industrial appearance and still cause substantial harm to the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt.

As it was considered that the Council’s concerns had not been fully addressed, the application was recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in the report (as amended in the addendum).

A written submission was read to the Committee on behalf of petitioners objecting to the application, key points of which included:

·         The application was harmful to the Green Belt and did not demonstrate ‘very special circumstances’ to set aside the presumption against such development, and was contrary to Hillingdon Policies DMEI 4 and DME 7.

·         It was proposed that the site would become a storage and distribution facility for the raw material biomass, not production. This storage use was very different to agricultural use.

·         The proposed use of the agricultural land would be visually intrusive.

·         The traffic generated by the site would have an adverse impact on local roads and road users. Traffic generation as a result of the proposal had  not been adequately considered.

·         The previous application for placing 36 shipping storage containers on the site, with significantly less suggested traffic movement, was refused for similar reasons to those suggested by petitioners for the current application.

A written submission was read to the Committee on behalf of the applicant, key points of which included:

·         Following publication of the officer’s report, the application had been amended to remove the issues regarding traffic and trees. This also removed the office and toilet block, which were not necessary for the development to function, and made the development less industrial.

·         The new site layout kept the existing access and opened the site up, allowing for greater manoeuvrability within the site, removed confusion over the accesses, and set back the concrete bays so they were no longer visible from Ducks Hill Road.

·         Regarding the very special circumstances test to overcome harm to the Green Belt, this was met for four reasons:

o   The development was a renewable energy project and could export enough material to biomass plants around London per year to power the equivalent of 19,500 households. A similar development to that submitted had been approved by Enfield Borough Council at Holly Hill Farm within the Green Belt.

o   The development could not be sited elsewhere, as such a  development would not be economically possible at a commercial site within the Borough due to high land values and expenses.

o   A large amount of the material would come from trees on land owned by Hillingdon. Red Squirrel Tree Surgery, who currently hold Hillingdon Council’s contract to manage the trees in the Borough, had agreed to send all the material produced under their contract, enabling it and the Borough to reduce their carbon footprint instead of sending it for composting.

o   The fourth reason was farm diversification and land use; the use of the land for the proposed development was not very different from what it was currently being used for, and would integrate well with existing operations.

·         The development would benefit the farm, as well as the local environment and businesses, and would significantly contribute to renewable energy targets.

Members supported the officer’s recommendation to refuse, as it was considered that the proposed development constituted an inappropriate use of the Green Belt. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.*

*Cllr Higgins was present but did not vote, as he joined the meeting partway through the item.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.