Temporary operation for exploratory borehole and associated infrastructure. (Report to follow)

The Technical Specialist Planning Officer introduced the report, explaining that an appeal against non-determination had been made in respect of the application for a temporary operation for an exploratory borehole and associated infrastructure, and therefore a decision would be made by the Planning Inspectorate.  The Committee were therefore asked to confirm what decision it would have made on the application, had the appeal against non-determination not been lodged.  The North Planning Committee had previously considered the application at its meeting on 24^th October, at which they were minded to refuse the application.

Chris Hesketh, local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which a number of points were raised including the following:

·         His objections were legitimate and plan based, they focused on four specific areas;

1)    The Slurry Lagoon – the risk of damage to the Slurry Lagoon needed proper assessment;

2)    Sound Levels – the noise limit should be 40dB;

3)    Contamination of natural drinking water supplies that were present within close proximity to the site;

4)    The detrimental effect on a legally protected hedgerow; and

·         It was clear that that the application was not in the best interests of the public or the County.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15.1) Councillor Steve Davenport, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the room, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item. During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         Members had educated themselves on the issues surrounding the application; and

·         He urged the Committee to reaffirm the decision to refuse the application for the benefit of Shropshire.

Having considered the submitted plans, the majority of Members present expressed their objection to the application.

RESOLVED:

1)    That had the decision still been before the Council, thatplanning permission be refused for the following reasons:

The application would be contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS6 and CS18 as it:-

-       Had not been adequately demonstrated that the proposed development can be undertaken without adverse impact upon residential and local amenity due to the disturbance from noise emissions.

-       Had not been adequately demonstrated that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact upon private water supplies in the area through contamination or damage resulting from site preparation, drilling and restoration operations, and the passing of vehicles across the site and access track

-       Had not been adequately demonstrated that the proposed development, including the preparation of the site and subsequent reinstatement, can be undertaken without causing pollution of groundwater and surface water from the failure of the slurry lagoon caused by damage resulting from the number, frequency and type of vehicles travelling past it

-       Is considered that the benefits of the proposed scheme, in establishing the characteristics of the underlying coal measures, would not outweigh the potential harm to the area as set out above. 

2)    That the Council’s statement of case for the appeal against non-determination is predicated on the issues as set out in section 2.4 of the Planning Officers report.