14 JULY 2011
Minutes of a Special meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council
Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 2.00 pm when there were present:
Councillors
Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
B Cabbell Manners (Vice-Chairman)
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
P W High
S J Partridge
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
J A Wyatt
P Terrington (Priory Ward)
T FitzPatrick (observer)
Officers
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Miss J Medler - Senior Planning Officer
Miss K Witton - Landscape Officer
Mr R Thompson - Soil Consultant
(48)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
An apology for absence was received from Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones. There
were no substitute Members in attendance.
(49)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there was no items of urgent business which she wished to
bring before the Committee.
(50)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Mrs A R Green declared a personal interest in this application as she
knew some of the objectors.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes declared a personal interest as he was a Member of
Norfolk County Council.
All Members declared that they had received representations in respect of this
application.
(51)
WEYBOURNE - PF/09/1270 - Installation of buried electrical cable system in
connection with off-shore wind farm; Land from Weybourne to Great Ryburgh
for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
The Committee considered the Officer’s report.
Development Committee
1
14 July 2011
Public Speakers
Mr Bolton (representing Parish Councils of Salthouse, Thursford, Stibbard and
Kelling)
Mr Church (Gunthorpe Parish Council)
Mr Smith (Ryburgh Parish Council)
Mr Ross, Mr Boesen and Mrs Runciman (objecting)
Mr Petterson (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Pudding Norton had been omitted from the
list of Parishes on page 1 of the report. She also referred to page 23 of the report
and clarified that six months related to the length of time the vehicular access would
be kept open for construction traffic and not the length of time it would take to lay
each 700m section.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a letter of support had been received from
the Holkham Estate referring to benefits to the local economy and the need for
renewable energy. The Garden History Society had no objection subject to no
damage being done to the heritage landscape and referring to the need for a
landscape appraisal and plan.
The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee a letter from a soil consultant
which had been submitted by an objector. The Council’s soil consultant considered
that the letter contained no new information and did not disagree with what had been
proposed by the applicants and the Council’s soil consultant.
A letter had been received from an objector reiterating previous objections,
particularly concerning possible re-routing around Croxton and contamination from
the cable. The applicants had advised that the cable was not a possible source of
contamination and would be left in situ following decommissioning.
A copy of an email had been received regarding directional drilling and impact on
wildlife. The objector considered that hedgerows could be removed in their entirety
without destroying them, using a proven method. The Landscape Officer had advised
that it was theoretically possible to transplant hedges but was sceptical that an
agricultural hedge could survive if removed twice, and that there were advantages to
planting new whips.
A further letter of objection had been received from a previous objector in respect of
soils and soil heating, and had asked that it be made known to the Committee that he
did not set out to mislead Members.
The Chair of Fulmodeston Parish Council had expressed concern that the application
lacked sufficient detail.
The applicant’s Solicitor had raised comments regarding a proposed condition to
prevent the commencement of development pending approval of the wind farm. Any
such condition would not permit development of stage 1 until DECC consent had
been granted for the wind farm, or development of stage 2 until such consent had
been granted for that stage.
The Planning Legal Manager reported that a further long response had been received
by email from Mr and Mrs Runciman of Croxton Farm in respect of information
contained in the Appendices to the report. This email was received on the morning of
the meeting and there had been little time to consider its contents. However, it
Development Committee
2
14 July 2011
claimed that a number of statements were inaccurate and its themes were largely
repetitive of letters already received from the objectors. It also suggested that
conditions should be imposed on the applicants by the landowners. However,
conditions were an issue for the Local Planning Authority. The Planning Legal
Manager stated that there was a cut-off point where further representations could not
be taken into account.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that all objections had been carefully considered,
the applicants had provided responses to the objections raised and expert consultees
had been consulted.
The Head of Planning and Building Control reported in full the comments of
Councillor D Young, Member for High Heath Ward, who could not be present at the
meeting. He had expressed concerns regarding the impact on the countryside,
agriculture and tourism, width of the trench and the length of the route. He did not
consider that the amount of energy produced would be sufficient to offset the harm
caused by the work. He requested refusal of this application. However, he requested
a number of conditions in the event of the Committee being minded to approve the
application, in respect of hedgerows, watercourses, dust, road closures, soil and
reinstatement works.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle stated that Parish Councils in her Ward had expressed
concern regarding damage to the environment and the countryside, and general
upheaval and traffic during the works. She stated that specific queries from
landowners had been addressed by the applicants.
Councillor Mrs A R Green stated that whilst she was not opposed to wind farms either
on or off shore, this was a mammoth scheme which would scar the countryside and
endanger the livelihoods of farmers. She stated that agricultural land was precious
and considered that some would not be able to be farmed and crop rotation would be
impossible. She questioned how the machinery would get access through the rural
road network. She considered that there was no comparison between the proposal
and the Sheringham Shoal project. She considered that an offshore route should be
found and referred to the East Coast Transmission Network which could be
developed by 2020. She considered that the application was premature as the
outcome of the Little Dunham sub-station appeal was unknown and that there were
other ways of meeting renewable energy targets. She considered that Dudgeon had
not answered all the questions. She proposed refusal of the application in its present
form.
Councillor P Terrington, Member for Priory Ward, considered that there was
conflicting evidence in this case. He was not convinced that the applicants had
demonstrated that there would be no detrimental effect on the environment,
landscape and recreational activities in the area. He considered that there was
bound to be an impact on tourism and the landscape. He was particularly concerned
at the lack of information regarding the crossing of the River Stiffkey, and also the
Wensum. He stated that the crossing work appeared to start in the flood plain. He
considered that there would be an environmental impact and that this aspect required
further assessment. He was surprised that licences could be given for wind farms
without consideration of infrastructure. He referred to the dispute regarding the outer
harbour in Wells-next-the-Sea which supplied the wind farms. He considered that it
would be wrong to approve the application at this stage given the uncertainty
regarding the Little Dunham sub-station and uncertainty regarding stages 1 and 2.
He considered that further information was required before the application could be
considered.
Development Committee
3
14 July 2011
The Chairman questioned Mr Petterson on the issues raised by Members. Mr
Petterson stated that references to a 40m trench were incorrect. The trench itself
was 1.6m wide and identical to Sheringham Shoal. The impact on soil would be
identical to Sheringham Shoal where crops were already growing successfully. He
stated that the applicant would be prepared to consider hedgerow transplantation.
He referred to the proposed condition to restrict construction pending offshore
consents for each stage, and stated that no construction would take place unless
there was a station to connect to as it was expensive to build a cable route. The
Highway Authority had been consulted regarding road closures and disruption would
be minimised. He stated that NNDC Officers had taken advice with regard to soil
impacts. Impact on food production would be for one year. Each section would be
open for no longer than six months in terms of traffic and access. The cabling work
would take a maximum of 14 days, which was the longest time any resident would
suffer noise and dust. He stated that knowledge of soil management had moved on a
great deal since the 1960s. He stated that a comprehensive environmental statement
which accompanied the original application had addressed the recreation and tourism
issues, to which no objections had been raised. In terms of details, he stated that far
more information had been provided for this application than for the Sheringham
Shoal.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners questioned the need to connect to Little Dunham substation rather than those at Salle or Kings Lynn and the need for four separate
trenches rather than one large trench. He also referred to the differences in soil type
along the route in relation to the type of cabling to be used.
Mr Petterson replied that all the capacity had been taken at Salle and Kings Lynn. In
total, 100 locations had been investigated and Little Dunham was considered to be
the best in terms of environmental impact. Up to four trenches were proposed as
cables needed to be spaced out because of electrical interference. Stages 1 and 2
would require one trench each. The smallest trench possible would be dug and
backfilled as soon as possible. Soil types would be assessed on a field by field basis
and the type of cable could be changed at each junction box as appropriate.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes asked if it would be possible to double-deck the cables.
He also asked if a scheme could be set up to support local causes, and possibly to
build a bridge over the Wensum at Great Ryburgh.
Mr Petterson replied that double-decking the cables was not possible because of the
need to space them out. He was hesitant to discuss community initiatives ahead of
consent as it could be seen as a bribe for permission. However, schemes had been
set up for all major projects.
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee that Government advice in
respect of Section 106 Obligations required planning benefits to be directly related to
the development and reasonably related in terms of type and scale. It was not
appropriate to discuss the issue at this stage.
Councillor Mrs A R Green expressed concern with regard to possible soil heating and
the effect it could have on crops.
Mr Petterson stated that the cables had been designed to run cold under normal
operating conditions. The loss of heat from the cables would be loss of energy and
would therefore be minimised. Any heating effect would be very localised. He added
that the cables would be at least one metre below ground.
Development Committee
4
14 July 2011
Councillor M J M Baker expressed concern that there was nothing in the application
concerning mitigation of the impact on agriculture and tourism, which were the main
industries in North Norfolk. He also expressed concern that Members, as the
decision makers in this case, had not been kept informed by the applicants. He
questioned the conclusion in the summary environmental statement regarding the
operational phase of the onshore electrical connection having no impact unless major
repairs were required.
Mr Petterson replied that the impact on landscape and tourism had been covered in
the environmental statement. He stated that the vast majority of people in the District
and the majority of farmers affected by the route did not share Councillor Baker’s
concerns or those of the objecting speakers. Information had been supplied to the
Officers. He stated that the operational phase referred to related to the operation of
the wind farm. The Environmental Statement had been assessed and supported by
statutory consultees.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that Westwood Farm was a comparatively small tenant
farm and the proposed route would affect 20% of the land. He asked if it was
possible to consider a further amendment to the route.
Mr Petterson replied that compensation would be paid. This would be an open-ended
arrangement for as long as the land was affected. Farming operations would not be
compromised. The route changes that had been made so far had largely been at the
request of farmers. The applicant had liaised with landowners and had been working
with them to minimise the impact. The applicant would consider any amendment to
the route put forward by the farmer, but it would need to be considered in terms of its
environmental impact.
In answer to a question by Councillor Mrs A R Green, Mr Petterson stated that
surveys would be undertaken pre- and post-construction at the applicant’s cost to
assess any negative impacts.
In answer to questions by the Chairman, Mr Petterson confirmed that if only stage 1
were approved then only stage 1 would be carried out. The cable route would cost
£100m and therefore the cable for stage 2 would not be installed unless it was
confirmed that it would go ahead. With regard to the working corridor, it was safer to
assume a width of 40 metres, although this was the worst case scenario and would
be avoided where possible. If stage 2 were carried out the soils would be piled onto
stage 1.
Councillor S J Partridge asked why the farm by farm soil assessment had not been
carried out already and the information placed before Members. He considered that
insufficient detail with regard to trenching and directional drilling areas had been
supplied. He expressed concern at the impact on Westwood Farm.
Councillor M J M Baker expressed concern at the impact of this proposal on the
countryside and the agriculture and tourism industries. He considered that a green
audit should be carried out in respect of this project and that there was no proof of
sustainability. He was unhappy that further information had not been forthcoming
from the applicants despite requests to provide it. He seconded Councillor Mrs
Green’s proposal to refuse this application.
Development Committee
5
14 July 2011
Councillor B Cabbell Manners expressed concern regarding the impact on soil,
particularly light soil. He referred to his own experience of soil damage which was
still evident thirty years after a gas pipeline was laid through his land. He stated that
landowners would be compensated but tenant farmers would not. Whilst this was a
civil matter he considered that it needed to be dealt with. He requested more
evidence of the need for four trenches. He stated that if the proposal were only for
two trenches he would on balance be inclined to support it.
Councillor S J Partridge asked if impact on the landscape was a sufficient reason for
refusal.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that if the Committee were minded to refuse this
application it would be necessary to set out clearly and precisely the planning
reasons for refusal. He stated that issues in respect of compensation were not
material in his view. It was difficult to speculate on which reasons could be
substantiated and defensible on appeal. Landscape was a subjective issue and there
was no Officer support for refusal on this basis. It would be necessary to seek advice
on this matter.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that he was mindful of the fact that
a neighbouring authority was awaiting the outcome of a major appeal, which could in
itself be material in terms of clarifying the way the project was viewed nationally. He
suggested that if Members were minded to refuse it might be preferable to defer the
application to await the outcome of the appeal.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes considered that whilst the proposal would impact on the
landscape for up to three years, any damage would be temporary and therefore he
supported the application.
In response to a question from Councillor Mrs A R Green regarding Human Rights,
the Planning Legal Manager stated that the Human Rights Act did not refer to the
right to make a living. He referred to the assessment in the report and stated that the
Council could interfere with the rights quoted where the national interest was a
consideration. In his opinion, there were no other Human Rights issues that were
relevant to this case.
In answer to Members’ questions the soil consultant stated that he had little to add to
his report. With regard to soil structure, he stated that there was evidence that if the
work was done properly with regard to pre-survey work, and stripping of top soil and
trenching carried out when the soil was relatively dry by competent operators,
reinstatement could be carried out effectively. It was necessary to have a proper and
detailed soil management plan in place. With regard to soil heating, there was no
specific detail in respect of cable operating temperature and the temperature gradient
away from the cable and its effect on growing crops. This could present an
operational problem if it caused a growth difference.
Councillor S J Partridge supported the suggestion to defer this application to seek
further information on the issues that had been raised during the debate.
Councillor M J M Baker expressed concern that the need to undertake the work when
the soil was relatively dry could reduce the period available for construction and lead
to disruption for many years. He requested further information on this aspect.
Councillor J A Wyatt requested information concerning soil heating.
Development Committee
6
14 July 2011
Mr Petterson referred to correspondence and information that had been provided in
respect of thermal heating and thermal profiles. There would be detailed soil
management plans and it was possible that some soils could be handled during the
winter months. The two-year period allocated for construction contained sufficient
flexibility and was based on the worst case scenario. It was not anticipated that a
longer period would be required.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners supported the comments made by the soil consultant.
He asked whether stage 2 could be omitted and a further application submitted for
stage 2 if necessary.
Mr Petterson replied that the applicant had agreed to conditions regarding stage 2.
There had been advances in the laying of utilities below sensitive landscapes in the
last 15 years and good practice would be followed. The project would be tightly
restricted and monitored prior to and during construction.
The Head of Planning and Building Control advised the Committee that the omission
of stage 2 could only be considered if the application were deferred on that basis.
In answer to a question by the Chairman, Mr Petterson stated that the Inspector’s
decision on Little Dunham could be issued very shortly.
Councillor S J Partridge proposed deferral of this application to request that stage 2
be deleted from the current application and to investigate the issues raised by
Members. This was seconded by Councillor B Cabbell Manners.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that the safest course of action was to defer the
application and requested the proposer and seconder of the motion to refuse this
application to withdraw the proposal.
Councillor Mrs A R Green, the proposer of the motion, declined as she considered
that there were serious issues regarding soil heating which had not been addressed.
She reiterated her proposal to refuse the application in its present form.
The Senior Planning Officer reminded the Committee that a letter had been received
from a previous objector regarding the issue of soil heating and to which she had
referred during her presentation.
Councillor M J M Baker withdrew his seconding of Councillor Mrs Green’s proposal.
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions
That consideration of this application be deferred for the following
reasons:
1. To await the outcome of the inquiry in respect of Little Dunham substation.
2. To seek the applicants’ views as to whether they are willing to delete
stage 2 from the current application.
3. To request the applicants to reconsider the precise route at
Westwood Farm, Great Ryburgh.
Development Committee
7
14 July 2011
4. To seek further information on the short-term impact on tourism and
agriculture.
5. To seek the applicants’ view as to the use of horizontal directional
drilling across the Rivers Stiffkey and Wensum.
6. To seek further information in respect of soil heating.
The meeting closed at 4.30 pm.
Development Committee
8
14 July 2011