Agenda item

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) (PN5)

This is an application to construct a slurry lagoon to store the digestate produced from the Anaerobic Digestion (AD) plant at Worton Farm near Yarnton.The AD facility has been receiving waste since September 2010 and it is now fully operational. The plant is generating the digestate product which can be used as fertiliser in agricultural fields. Outlets for material are in the process of being secured but there is still a need to secure a lagoon to capture the quantities of digestate produced as a result of the AD process. The slurry lagoon measures approximately 170m in length and 60m in width at its widest edge. 2.4 metre high security fencing is proposed around the perimeter of the lagoon which has an approximate total volume of 26,800m³ with an anticipated digestate capacity of 22,000m³.

The report outlines the consultation responses received, comments from third parties, relevant Development Plan and other policies and key considerations for the Committee to take account in determining the application together with the views and recommendation of the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure).

Itis RECOMMENDED subject to a legal agreement to secure a contribution of £17,746 to the public access/pedestrian/cycle routes that planning permission be granted for the development proposed in Application 10/01852/CM subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) but to include the matters set out below.

Conditions to include:

1.                        Compliance condition.

2.                        Commencement date.

3.                        Site used for digestate slurry from the AD plant only.

4.                        Floodlighting details, only intruder lighting out of hours.

5.                        Development to be carried out in accordance with submitted planting scheme.

6.                        Bund and fencing to be erected in accordance with agreed plan

7.                        Effective silencers.

8.                        Site signage on A40 to be kept to a minimum.

9.                        Sweeping on and adjacent to the site.

10.                   Odour Control scheme to be submitted and agreed (to include temporary cessation of pumping if required).

11.                   Sustainable surface water drainage scheme to be submitted.

EIA Informative: for flood risk and water courses, environmental permit, contamination and hydrology.

The Committee considered (PN5) an application to construct a slurry lagoon to store digestate produced from an anaerobic digestion plant at Worton Farm.

Simon Eaton referred to local support for the original AD proposal which had recognised potential benefits to the environment and had contained adequate health, environmental and odour controls.  However, the current proposal for an open lagoon, the largest of its type in the UK, presented considerable risks for health and the environment as well as being in the Green Belt.   He referred to industry standard PAS110 regarding certification of the digestate stored within the lagoon and the need to store such material under cover in order to minimize risk of recontamination and gaseous emissions.  An independent examination had suggested that the material had a rich nutrient value and while pasteurization was an effective treatment the digestate was prone to recontamination with an enhanced risk of medical infections from wind borne pathogens and bacterial spores. The current proposal allowed for a 200% increase in storage capacity to 60,000 tonnes in a very large open lagoon.  He referred to a similar enterprise in Devon which had used bags to store digestate and if the Committee were minded to approve the application it should be modified to allow for temporary permission to enable the site to be restored to Green Belt with alternative farm storage found which the Company had so far failed to do.  There were enormous risks and local residents should be afforded protection.

He responded to questions from:

Councillor Tanner – he was not aware of any odour problems emanating from the Devon operation.

Councillor Hannaby – the footpath running alongside the site was well used and approximately 20 metres from the boundary of the site.

Councillor Seale – there had been support for the original proposal even though it had been in the green belt as it had been proposed to store material in vessels but the subsequent proposal was bigger, would produce more material and would be stored in an open lagoon.  Residents recognised the benefits of the process but wanted to find a solution which minimised the risks.  They would be happy with a cover even though it would have a greater impact on the green belt.

Councillor Fitzgerald-O’Connor – the digestion process at Worton took longer than the process in Devon so the end product was less concentrated but could nevertheless present a health problem.

Harry Waters referred to three issues regarding this application and process. Firstly the process involved a longer digestion period which meant bugs would not survive and odour problems would be removed. He confirmed that there had been no reported problems concerning odour.  Secondly regarding health concerns all relevant agencies had stated that there were no exceptional risks.  Independent tests had been carried out and material would be clear of bugs at the end of the digestion process.  It was proposed to monitor airborne bacteria but the risks of recontamination were no greater than those presented by existing areas of standing water.  Thirdly regarding the green belt the lagoon would significantly reduce the need to transport material off site and it had been estimated that local storage would reduce HGV movements by up to 2,000 pa.  Covering the lagoon would present significant operational difficulties and all professional bodies/agencies had stated that that would not be required.  However, if there were significant problems then the Company had undertaken to review the process immediately.

He responded to questions from:

Councillor Hayward – the digestion process at Worton was considerably longer than at the Devon facility where material was stored in a semi digested state and therefore more smelly.

Councillor Seale – Agrivert were looking to reduce HGV movements and this proposal would do that.  It would be feasible to cover the facility although there would be significant difficulties.  Alternatives such as storage in bags also presented difficulties such as greater land take with bags prone to filling with sediment very quickly.  A tank system would need 2 very large tanks severely reducing the environmental credentials of the operation.

Councillor Sanders – he could not guarantee that there would be no recontamination but a longer digestion period had been set in order to minimise that risk.  He stressed that there was a risk of recontamination from local land.

Councillor Crabbe –  material consisted of a black liquid with a 6% dry solid content.  Rain water would not affect its basic state and the facility had been designed to take up maximum rainfall.

Councillor Reynolds – the end material was high in nitrogen with no heavy metal content which could be readily absorbed because of its liquid state.  Agrivert were familiar with regulations relating to spreading such material.

Councillor Jones – statements regarding the size of the lagoon had been exaggerated and because of the long digestion period there was nothing in the final material to attract flies.

Councillor Purse – the accommodation for rainfall storage had been calculated on the basis of 1 in 1,000 year flood event and recommended by the Environment Agency in the flood risk assessment.

Councillor Hannaby – he was disappointed that Nicola Blackwood had not contacted him to discuss the application as he was confident he would have been able to allay some of her fears.  He reiterated the lack of objection from various agencies and was confident that the integrity of the adjacent footpath could be preserved.

Councillor Lorraine Lindsay-Gale – the Company had tried unsuccessfully to negotiate contracts with local farmers.  However, there was a market for this end product and the Company would continue to pursue that.  In the meantime it was beneficial to have local storage next to a local outlet.

Councillor Michael Gibbard speaking as local member referred to concerns in 2008 regarding the original application when reassurances had been given that nothing would escape from the process and there would be a maximum of 20,000 tonnes, all of which would be disposed of on local farms.  Those levels had now risen to 60,000 tonnes with no means of disposal and local residents were left with a state of the art AD facility but with an open lagoon.  Permission was now being sought to meet special circumstances which had arisen from an unsuccessful marketing strategy by the applicant.  The lagoon had already been constructed and if agreed posed a huge potential environmental risk.  He was surprised there had been no request from the Environment Agency to cover the facility and referred to references which had been made to PAS110 controls.  He considered any permission would be unsafe and that a temporary permission should be granted for one year to enable an alternative marketing strategy to be established and a sealed cover provided.

Mr Hamilton presented the report and suggested a possible additional condition requiring the operator to establish a satisfactory complaints procedure.  He also confirmed that the Environment Agency would, through the permit process , monitor emissions and was satisfied that the proposed conditions should  meet concerns expressed regarding amenity and health issues.

Responding to:

Councillor Sanders - he confirmed that the Environment Agency had not objected to the open lagoon which had been designed to take the proposed level of material and flood water based on a 1 in 1000 year event. No surrounding farms had agreed to take material other than Hall Farm but exportation of material off site to the A40 could be conditioned. It would also be possible to impose a maximum figure on the time allowed for processing material in the digestion period.  If a temporary permission was granted then it would require a reasonable period of time to be set and the recommendation now before the Committee amended to remove the request to secure contributions towards provision for public access.

Councillor Hayward – if odour problems occurred then the process would stop until those problems had been satisfactorily dealt with.

Councillor Seale – the site already had a local liaison committee which met regularly and was attended by a planning officer and chaired by the Local Member. No wildlife issues had been raised during consultation.

Mr Dance confirmed that the AD plant had been considered carefully against green belt policy taking into account good transport links, close location to markets and other existing operations nearby.

Councillor Hannaby expressed some concerns regarding the potential effect on the adjacent footpath and the permanency of the operation. However, based on the promise of fewer hgv movements and proper enforcement she was willing to accept the opinion of experts regarding levels of risk. 

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Hannaby, seconded by Councillor Tanner and carried 13 votes to 1) that subject to a legal agreement to secure a contribution of £17,746 to the public access/pedestrian/cycle routes that planning permission be granted for the development proposed in Application 10/01852/CM subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) but to include the matters set out below.

Conditions to include:

1.                  Compliance condition.

2.                  Commencement date.

3.                  Site used for digestate slurry from the AD plant only.

4.                  Floodlighting details, only intruder lighting out of hours.

5.                  Development to be carried out in accordance with submitted planting scheme.

6.                  Bund and fencing to be erected in accordance with agreed plan

7.                  Effective silencers.

8.                  Site signage on A40 to be kept to a minimum.

9.                  Sweeping on and adjacent to the site.

10.             Odour Control scheme to be submitted and agreed (to include temporary cessation of pumping and temporary cover if required).

11.             Sustainable surface water drainage scheme to be submitted.

12.             To ensure that other than for access to immediate local farm(s) all traffic to use the haul route onto the A40 to avoid unnecessary traffic through local villages.

EIA Informative: for flood risk and water courses, environmental permit, contamination and hydrology.

Local liaison arrangements (which already existed encompassing all operations on the Cassington site) to be strengthened

To seek to set a minimum period of time which food waste spent in the digestion process.