Agenda item

It was proposed by Councillor Haines and seconded by Councillor Kerswell and

RESOLVED

That permission be refused for the following reasons:

1)    The development proposes electricity production from natural gas. The proposal as described in the application will not contribute to the goal embedded in policy S7 of seeking to achieve reductions in carbon emissions across the district.

2)    No information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal has been designed to minimise its carbon policy footprint in accordance with Policy EN3.

(19 for and 0 against)

The Committee considered the reports of the Business Manager – Strategic

Place Development Management together with comments of public speakers, additional information reported by the officers and information detailed in the late representations updates document previously circulated.

The Business Manager reported a further representation since the update sheet that had raised no new issues.

Public Speaker – Objector: Spoke on Teignbridge’s declaration of a climate emergency, the aim for Teignbridge to become carbon neutral by 2025, the lack of need for the plant, the plant is described as peaking but in the application it is suggested it will be active 50% of the time, the plant will produce 5 kilotons of emissions which is contrary to Policy EN-3, and concerns about air pollution caused by the plant.

Public Speaker – Supporter: Spoke on the need for backup power if other forms of energy are not sufficient to meet demand, the need for local electricity, no outstanding concerns from the Environmental Health Officer, the impact on climate will be minimal, and most types of renewable energy aren’t sufficiently developed to be utilised continuously.

Comments from Councillors included: Negative environmental implications for Teignbridge and the wider environment, South Hams District Council had rejected a similar application a year ago, no plans to mitigate carbon dioxide, 4000 potential operational hours a year at 11 hours a day, potential for the site to operate for 24 hours a day, not enough information provided, new energy storage schemes need to be discussed, the site is less than 200 meters away from a SSSI, the site is close to a bridge used by cyclists who will suffer as a result, the site is too far from air quality monitoring equipment, contrary to policies EN-3 and S7, goes against Teignbridge declaration of a climate emergency, large amount of letters of objection, Bovey Tracey Town Council had rejected the application, the application doesn’t provide adequate opportunity to transition to renewable energy, NOX causes respiration problems, air pollution results in fatalities, the air quality in the area is already poor due to the A38, the plant is in close proximity to a school, surprise that officers had not raised objections, the site will require the removal of several trees which is problematic for the environment, ClientEarth had raised objections, goes against the national planning policy framework, the UK needs to adhere to the Paris Agreement, possibly contrary to Policy S6, the plant will also be damaging to neighbouring wards, there is support from the central government for green energy, the report doesn’t contain enough detail and is incorrect in several places such as including nuclear energy in the  renewable energy category, lack of insurance that conditions would be adhered to, if the plant operates outside of peaking times then it will prevent renewables from accessing the grid, the plant will operate for 20 years which is too long, the applicants’ website suggests that the plant will be in operation for longer than just peaking times, Teignbridge should seek out the lowest carbon option, several of the documents supplied are outdated for example one from 2011 claims that electricity cannot be stored but it can, Committee should approve applications that are needed and this one isn’t, possibly contrary to policy EN-11, Teignbridge should use turbines and harness water power especially in the winter when it snows, and there are plenty of alternatives to this type of plant.

It was proposed by Councillor Haines and seconded by Councillor Kerswell and

RESOLVED

That permission be refused for the following reasons:

1) The development proposes electricity production from natural gas. The proposal as described in the application will not contribute to the goal embedded in policy S7 of seeking to achieve reductions in carbon emissions across the district.

2) No information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal has been designed to minimise its carbon policy footprint in accordance with Policy EN3.

(19 for and 0 against)

Note: The refusal of this application was contrary to advice detailed in the agenda report. The Committee considered that the application was unacceptable for the reasons listed above and below.

Statement of reasons:

The reasons for refusal were that the power plant would not comply with Policies EN-3 and S7, as well as a lack of local need for the plant.