Friday, 16 February 2018

Update on planning appeals for biogas plant at Higher Fraddon

Last week, many local residents and I attended a planning hearing into the appeals for two applications to modify aspects of the biogas plant at Higher Fraddon.

I have just been informed that the appeal inspector has ruled in favour of Fraddon Biogas Ltd and agreed the requested changes. 

Am I surprised? No. Am I annoyed? Damn right.
In summary, both applications related to condition 14.

(i) The condition agreed by the previous appeal inspector stated that the types of HGVs accessing the site must be agreed in writing through the condition, but the operators wanted this to be left very open-ended and not to specify the principal use of the “duoliner” vehicle that they had previously pledged they would use during the planning process.

(ii) In addition, they sought to modify condition 14 (by increasing the number of small vehicles to the plant).

On behalf of the Parish Council, I submitted a detailed planning statement in opposition to the two appeals and along with others made the arguments at the actual hearing.

The operators also submitted an appeal for costs, ie. that Cornwall Council should pay Fraddon Biogas Ltd costs as they had been “unreasonable.”

This was rejected and, in the supporting text, there was some limited criticism of the appellants as follows:

“10. I do not believe that the Council’s stance has been unreasonable as such. It has responded to complaints received from the local community, the local councillor and the Parish Council. I believe the previous Inspector in framing condition 14 did have in his mind the use of the Duoliner – indeed he saw during his site visit (as I did) the use of this vehicle in operation. I have no doubt whatsoever that the appellant at the 2016 appeals made great play about its benefits. I can therefore fully understand why the Council has sought to negotiate its use as the primary vehicle. I find no criticism in that as the vehicle, by the applicant’s own admission, is more efficient, quieter and has greater manoeuvrability. I was impressed by a particular comment from a local resident who whilst acknowledging the swept path analysis undertaken by the applicant’s consultants, nevertheless pointed out that the HGVs would need to utilise much of the carriageway width with some of the larger HGVs also needing to ‘oversail’ the adopted carriageway to negotiate the 90 degree bend. I saw some evidence of this during my site visit with rutting of grass verges at several points along the highway.

“11. Whilst the local highway authority did not raise objection on highway grounds, the local planning authority is charged with considering wider amenity and convenience issues in addition to technical highway matters. I have no doubt that pedestrians in particular have to be particularly watchful of traffic using this lane. I do not believe that the Council can be criticised in the stance that it has adopted, which was a precautionary stance in all respects. Evidence is not confined to hard technical evidence; planning is bound by both objective and subjective assessments.”

No comments: