Agenda item

Decision:

That the application is deferred to enable an independent expert opinion to be sought on whether the output of electricity produced on site makes the proposal a commercial project as opposed to the submitted householder scheme and that if it is so determined, the application is referred back to Rutland County Council.

Noting comments made during the public speaking session by:

·         Clifford Bacon (Parish Clerk – Clipsham Parish Meeting)

·         Richard Turpin (Parish Clerk – Careby, Holywell and Aunby)

·         Tony Dighton

Together with:

·         Objections received from Careby, Holywell and Aunby Parish Meeting

·         Representations from Clipsham Parish Meeting

·         No objections from Lincolnshire County Council Highways

·         No objections in principle from Planning Policy

·         Comments made by Rutland County Council Highways requesting a lorry routing agreement for the site and keeping a vehicle movement log similar to the adjacent quarry.

·         Environmental Protection request for conditions to be attached

·         No objections from Rutland County Council Environmental Protection but request for conditions to be imposed.

·         11 Representations received as a result of publicity

·         Provisions within the National Planning Policy Framework and the South Kesteven Core Strategy and supplementary planning documents

·         Information contained with the additional information document on operational information and energy output.

The case officer referred to a presentation from Arbor heat and power that had previously been circulated to Members.  After discussions with the agent it had been confirmed that the information contained within the document had been compiled in February 2013 and did not reflect the current intentions of the application and had no relevance to the planning application.

Discussion on the application included whether there was sufficient noise attenuation measures in place, the routing of the HGV’s and whether a routing agreement was required, the number of deliveries to the site and the amount of output from the bio mass units. During the course of the discussions it became apparent that Members had concerns about the applicant’s affirmation that the application was for domestic use rather than commercial due to the figures that had been submitted and the evidence given by those who had spoken on the application.  

It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused, contrary to the planning officer’s recommendation to approve the application, the reason being that the application was contrary to planning policy EN1.  The Business Manager Development Management and Implementation did not accept the reason for refusal as defensible and therefore the proposition was ‘minded to refuse’ and a cooling off period would be invoked to allow members to submit reasons for refusal.

(Cllr Charmaine Morgan left the meeting at 5.46pm)

(Cllr Brenda Sumner left at 5.47pm)

(Cllr Brenda Sumner returned at 5.50pm)

A recorded vote was taken on the proposition ‘minded to refuse’ against the officer recommendation to approve.

For                                                                              Against

Councillor Mike King                                              Councillor Barry Dobson

Councillor Helen Powell                                        Councillor Mike Exton

Councillor Judy Stevens                                        Councillor Robert Reid

                                                                                    Councillor Nick Robins

                                                                                    Councillor Judy Smith

                                                                                    Councillor Ian Stokes

                                                                                    Councillor Brenda Sumner

Councillor Brian Sumner

                                                                                    Councillor Martin Wilkins

                                                                                    Councillor Rosemary Woolley

The proposition was lost.

The Business Manager Development Management and Implementation and the Solicitor to the meeting clarified the position following which a new proposal was put forward that the application be deferred toenable an independent expert opinion to be sought on whether the output of electricity produced on site makes the proposal a commercial project as opposed to the submitted householder scheme and that the application be referred back to Rutland County Council for their views if it was found that it was a commercial application rather than domestic.  The proposal was seconded and on being put to the vote agreed. 

 (Cllr King left the meeting at 18.08pm)