Agenda item

The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.

 

Members noted the information from the AB Update List relating to  comments made by the Open Spaces and Highways Departments, as well as the recommendation for an additional condition restricting the height of any future external transformer or other plant and machinery to 4.2m.

 

The Committee was addressed by local Ward Councillor Peter Lloyd Jones, who spoke objecting to the proposal on behalf of the residents of Farnley Close.  He argued inter alia:

 

·       That the residents of Farnley Close were advised when they bought their properties that the area behind their houses was protected from development;

·       The original location for a substation was on Sandymoor to service  the new housing developments, however it was found that a second one would be needed; 

·       Due to cabling  issues associated with two substations, it was decided by SPEN to move to a new location on Windmill Hill Avenue and build a larger capacity substation; and

·       The outlook for the residents of Farnley Close will be greatly affected by the development of this substation.

 

The Committee was then addressed by local Ward Councillor Ryan, who also spoke against the proposal.  He stated that he did not object to the substation itself, just its location.  He cited the following inter alia:

 

·       It was understood that the Grid in the area needed reinforcing to accommodate new developments and for the future;

·       This proposal imposed issues for the existing residents of Farnley Close who have, in some cases, lived there for 30 years.  The view from their properties would be detrimental and affect the value of their homes;

·       The substation being proposed was huge – 30m x 24.5m x 24.5m and was only 2 metres from the site boundary;

·       The site is outside the Sandymoor South boundary;

·       This was a departure from the DALP and the site is allocated Greenbelt land;

·       There was a query relating to the ownership of the land; and

·       It was hard to believe that this was the only available site for a substation.

 

Councillor Ryan requested that the Committee refuse the application and that the Applicant looks for a site located in Sandymoor.

 

Mr Cove, a representative of the Applicant, then addressed the Committee.  In response to the query regarding the ownership of the land, he confirmed that SPEN had owned it since 2001.  He made the following comments inter alia:

 

·       Homes England was a public body that funded new and affordable housing in England;

·       The proposal was for a substation which was a critical piece of infrastructure needed for the supply of power to new homes and existing homes in Windmill Hill, Sandymoor and Murdishaw;

·       The smallest footprint possible was used;

·       Biodiversity and planting strategies would be included;

·       Trees measuring 4.5 metres would be planted along the boundary line immediately after the development was complete;

·       Sound levels from the substation would be kept to minimum; and

·       There were no objections received from any of the statutory consultees.

 

In summary he added that this was an essential piece of infrastructure required for future development and urged the Committee to support the recommendation.

 

Members discussed the following:

 

·       The original site and the subsequent relocation of the substation to Windmill Hill Avenue;

·       The ownership of the land;

·       Material considerations in respect to requesting the substation be relocated to Sandymoor;

·       Sympathy was felt for the residents of Farnley Close in relation to proximity of the substation, its size and the potential for devaluing of house prices;

·       Open space calculations and loss of greenspace;

·       The cabling of the substation; and

·       Public consultations carried out.

 

One Member moved a refusal, based on the location being unsuitable, this was seconded.

 

In response to the Committee’s debate, Officers clarified that requesting the Applicant to move to another location was not a material consideration, as the application before the Committee must be determined as it is, in line with planning policies.  It was also confirmed that property values and land ownership were not material considerations and that a valid reason for refusal had not been given.  

 

The Legal Advisor concurred with this, adding that if Members were minded to refuse, then a valid, defendable reason must be presented before a vote can be taken by the Committee.

 

After hearing the Planning Officer’s and Legal Officer’s advice, the motion to refuse was withdrawn by the seconder. 

 

It was commented that the proposal was not just for Sandymoor housing developments but was also required to ensure resilience of the Grid in the area for the future.

 

The Officer’s recommendations were moved and seconded and the Committee voted to approve the application by a majority, subject to the conditions listed below.

 

RESOLVED:  That authority be delegated to the Director – Planning and Transportation, in consultation with the Chair or Vice Chair, to approve the application subject to satisfactory resolution of the outstanding highway and drainage matters and subject to conditions relating to the following:

 

1.     Standard 3 year timescale for commencement of development;

2.     Specifying approved and amended plans;

3.     Materials condition(s) requiring submission and agreement of details;

4.     Implementation of a scheme of bat and bird boxes and brash piles in accordance with details to be submitted and approved;

5.     Submission and agreement of tree protection plan and arboricutural method statement;

6.     Requiring all fencing and switch rooms doors to be colour coated dark green;

7.     Restricting hours of construction;

8.     Submission and agreement of a construction environmental plan including RAMs for terrestrial mammals;

9.     RAMs for amphibian species;

10. Protecting nesting birds;

11. Securing implementation of landscaping as agreed;

12. Submission and agreement of a Landscape Environmental Management Plan;

13. Controlling external lighting;

14. Drainage conditions;

15. Requiring noise levels from fixed plant and equipment on site, measures at the perimeter of the site not exceed 27dB(A);

16. Completion validation testing with respect to noise; and

17. Requiring levels to be carried out as approved.