Report of the Head and Development Manager recommending a formal response be submitted on the revised proposals for a biomass fuelled electricity generating station at the above address, attached.
Minutes:
The Panel considered the report of the Planning and Development Manager recommending a formal response be submitted on the revised proposals for a biomass fuelled electricity generating station at the above address. (Copy of the report circulated with the agenda and appended to the signed minutes)
Mr Brighton (Developer), Ms Grove (objecting) (local resident), Mr Galton, Ms Gil-Arranz and Dr King-Ly (objecting) (No Southampton Biomass), Councillor Moulton and Councillor Vinson (objecting)were present and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.
The presenting officer recommended a revised recommendation (ii) to the Panel seeking agreement that the City Council reserves its position on the issue until it has reviewed the findings of the Health Impact Report. The presenting officer also reported that 4.25 should refer to “off-site” landscaping.
RESOLVED unanimously that:
(i) The recommendations and findings of the report are noted and a HOLDING OBJECTION based on the submitted details and a lack of information is reported formally to Helius by 3rd August 2012 in response to their formal pre-application consultation with the City Council under Section 42 of the Planning Act 2008. A summary of the recommendations is attached at Appendix 3. The following recommendations were amended and the City Design Manager’s response (Appendix 5) was amended, detailed as follows;
(ii) it is recommended to Helius that any formal application to the National Infrastructure Directorate (NID) should be supported by a Health Impact Report (HIR) as required by Policy CS10 of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy (2010). The City Council reserves its position on this issue until it has reviewed the findings of the HIR.
(iii) Delegation be given to the Planning and Development Manager to comment following consultation with the Chair of the Panel on the adequacy of the consultation exercise when notified by NID. This requires a 14 day turnaround from receipt; and
(iv) Despite the objections raised by the Council delegation is given to the Planning and Development Manager to work with the applicants to prepare a draft Development Consent Order (‘planning conditions’) and draft Development Consent Obligation (‘S.106 legal agreement) for submission to the NID in due course. The obligation is to include as a minimum:
(a) Employment & Skills Training;
(b) Off-site landscaping
(c) Strategic and Site Specific Transport Contributions;
(d) Off-site heat user study;
(e) TV reception study (pre and post construction);
(f) Highway Condition Survey (pre & post construction); and
(g) Off-site air quality monitoring
Amended recommendations
Recommendation – Biomass Plant on Operational Port
No objection to the principle of a biomass development on operational port land providing at least 62.5% of the biomass material is delivered to the site by sea. Whilst no objection is raised to the principle of development an OBJECTION is raised to the proposed scale of operation as it exceeds both the Category 5 (50,000T) and Category 6 (90-600,000T) plant size specified in the submission Minerals and Waste Local Plan and supporting documentation. In addition, further justification is required with regard to the proposed size of the operation and the choice of locations within the Port where other less sensitive locations may be possible. Furthermore, it is considered that the promoter cannot claim to be totally committed to being a sustainable business if they are to use non-renewable sources to heat their on-site office space (as indicated at paragraph 3.12.20 of the technical submission) and do not commit to BREEAM or another measure for sustainable building. This should be revisited. It is also unclear how the other ‘ancillary’ operations will be powered.
Recommendation – Landscape & Visual Effect
The relocation of the Primary Development Area further away from the nearest residential neighbours with the clear improvements to the Foundry Lane viewpoint are noted. The proposed options are, however, not acceptable on the grounds of being of inappropriate scale, massing, height, poor architectural and landscape quality. It is the opinion of the City Council that they will have a negative visual impact on local amenity and the skyline of the city for the reasons given by the Council’s City Design Manager in the response dated 3rd July 2012. An assessment of the plant at night, to show the proposed lighting, is also missing from the current submission. An objection will be submitted in the event that a formal application for these current proposals is lodged. It is the Council’s opinion that the need for the development does not outweigh the harm that would be caused by its implementation as currently proposed.
The response from the City Design Manager’s response dated 3rd July 2012 will read as follows (Appendix 5):
“The three architectural solutions are presented as a ‘dressing up exercise’ and do not yet demonstrate architecture that is sensitive to place. This should not be necessary because the form and function of the engineering proposal should be driving the architectural solution.The site is in a gateway location situated alongside the busiest approach into the city and so the buildings/structures will become a landmark and should be symbolic of the Council's aspirations and approach to high quality design and its sustainability credentials. As with the Thames Barrier the interplay between the architect and the engineer should result in a memorable architectural form. There are examples where high quality architecture has produced visually interesting solutions such as the Marchwood Incinerator (designed by leading infrastructure architect Jean Robert Mazaud) which demonstrates how a simple approach to the structural form and colour treatment can successfully minimise the visual impact of a large structure. An imaginative approach to the design of chimney stacks has been taken near Heathrow, just off the M4, at the Lakeside Energy from Waste Incinerator; here three chimneys have been wrapped in an open stainless steel spiral structure that distracts from the utilitarian form of the chimneys. The choice of materials and colour is also important. A more neutral palette of colours that reduces the apparent size of the tall structures when set against a predominantly grey sky would be appropriate. This might be accented by colours characteristic of the port or maritime location and a feature lighting scheme could be used to dramatically light up the development at night, celebrating a memorable architectural form.”
Supporting documents: