Agenda item

Full application for use of site to construct new primary substation at Land West of Branches Lane, Holbeach, Spalding (report of the Development Manager enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Development Manager upon which the above application was to be determined, including their recommendations, copies of which had previously been circulated to all members. 

Members debated the matter and fully explored the details of the application in light of prevailing policies and guidance, with the following comments being raised:

• The temporary car park had been shown on the plan but not mentioned on the report. Would this be conditioned to ensure it was restored to agricultural land?
  • Officers responded that if planning consent were granted, temporary access and car parking would generally be covered by permitted development rights so would only require separate consent if it were to become a permanent feature.
• Requested that underground cabling be made a condition to avoid pylons being put in place.
  • Officers confirmed that electrical infrastructure was covered by permitted development rights and pylon construction could not be controlled through planning conditions in this case.
• Disappointed that suggested hedging on the north side was discounted.
• Questioned the need for a substation in Fleet that would service Holbeach and why other sites had not been looked into.
  • Officers confirmed that the applicant had provided a statement that explained the process of choosing the site and how other sites were discounted.
• Queried why the application was referred to Chairman’s Panel first rather than automatically being presented to Planning Committee, given SHDC’s strong support.
  • Officers responded that SHDC was not the applicant or the landowner and therefore constitutionally, the application was correctly presented to Chairman’s Panel first.
  • It was also added that the SHDC had been involved in assessing district-wide energy needs which had shown that current network capacity would be exhausted by 2027 and an upgrade was required in this area, not the choosing of a particular site.
  • The Council’s involvement in this application was strategic, based on energy capacity planning rather than operationally choosing a site. Without a new substation the district would not be able to deliver housing and industry at the levels set out in the Local Plan.
• Would the building itself ensure that noise levels from operation were kept to a minimum?
  • Officers responded that there was a condition included for a construction management plan but in terms of the operation of the substation, the Council’s Environmental Protection team had not raised any concerns.
• The notion that this building was visually similar to agricultural buildings across the district and therefore didn’t need to be screened was incorrect as most agricultural buildings were expected to have some sort of screening.
• Were the conditions relating to any screening and biodiversity actually enforceable?
  • Officers confirmed that they were enforceable, and the screening involved would be a landscaping scheme to soften the visual impact rather than full screening.
• Could the landscaping condition go further to insist that screening was put in place on all sides of the building?
  • Officers responded that there were two separate conditions included for landscaping and boundary treatments. Discussions had been undertaken with the applicant around further planting but this was not possible within the confines of the site.
  • There was a danger that a more stringent condition could lead to the substation not being built.
• Welcomed the update to energy infrastructure in South Holland.
• Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue had objected with regard to fire hydrants, was a condition included to overcome this?
  • Officers confirmed that this would be secured through the building regulations scheme rather than a planning condition.
• The application stated that there were no hazardous materials on site. Was this correct given that the transformers would be filled with mineral oil?
  • Officers confirmed that this part of the application form related to existing site conditions.
• Suggested that the wording on condition four be amended to read ‘prior to consent of use’ rather than ‘occupied’.
  • Officers confirmed that this could be amended if the Committee agreed to this.
• Would access and highways improvements be completed prior to the consent of use or done prior to construction? The condition also stated that the signing off of the completion of works would be done by the local planning authority, should this not be the highways authority?
  • Officers responded that final highways and access improvements would usually be done prior to the consent of use.
  • The applicant would be required to submit an application to the local planning authority to discharge the condition. As part of this process the highways authority would be consulted, and the local planning authority would then discharge the condition.
  • The wording of condition four could be amended to ensure it was clear there was a requirement for the applicant to submit an application to discharge the condition.

The full debate was not repeated here as a livestream of this Planning Committee Meeting could be viewed on South Holland District Council’s Facebook page for a limited period of time, in line with the Democratic Services Privacy Notice.

AGREED:

That permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined at section 9.0 of the report, and the following amendments to condition four:

·         Word ‘occupied’ to be replaced with ‘prior to consent of use’

·         Addition of wording to make it clear the applicant was required to submit an application to discharge the condition.

(Moved by Councillor Bingham, Seconded by Councillor Beal)

Oral representations were received in respect of the above application in line with the Council’s scheme of public speaking at Planning Committee meetings:

Supporter: Paul Greco (NGED) (Applicant)