A year ago we reported on the latest plans for a biodigester plant near Bressingham in South Norfolk. Over the nine years since it was first proposed, the project has consistently aroused opposition from local people. This week the saga took another step forward when South Norfolk District Council agreed to reject the latest application. But the battle is probably not over yet, and the issue has highlighted problems with our planning systems.
Development projects like this often attract controversy. The issues are rarely clear cut, or matters of right or wrong, but of conflicting goods. People who approve of a policy in principle often object when it impinges on their neighbourhood. And there can be serious practical problems even with well-intentioned initiatives.
The Deal Farm plan
The plan was to build a large biodigester plant at Deal Farm, Bressingham, near Diss. Most of it has already been built. The plant would take in agricultural waste, notably pig and poultry manure, but also crops grown specifically for the purpose, as “feedstock”. The digestion process would convert this into gas to feed into the national gas network’ carbon dioxide for industrial use’ and “digestate” (organic fertiliser) for use on local farms.
The developers argued that the latest revised proposals would make a valuable contribution to the government’s objectives for carbon reduction and improving the environment. If true, it would be a win for the world, for the developer and for the farmer. For that reason, government has subsidised such plants, and there are currently over 600 around the country, including 45 in East Anglia.
The objectors
Most of the 361 protestors, who include local MPs and Parish Councils, did not object to the principle of a biodigester. But they did vehemently object to its location. This is, of course, very common with planning applications, since most people would prefer not to have new development, be it houses or industrial developments, near their homes. And this can be a real financial cost to local residents if house values can fall, and the Committee were told that at least one local resident has been unable to sell his house because of uncertainty about the project.
The objections
The Committee considered a 40 page report from the Planning Officer, and heard from several protestors in person. There were eight causes for concern, but probably the most serious concern was with the level and nature of traffic required to bring in the feedstock and take away the digestate. The objectors pointed out that the roads around the site are all single-track rural roads, widely used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders, and they queried whether the roads could cope physically with the more and heavier vehicles, even if the developers provided the 36 passing places in the current recommended route.
The developers claimed that, by comparison with current agricultural traffic, heavy goods traffic would be reduced, because feedstock would be gathered locally, gas would be piped away, and digestate would be used on local farms. Objectors pointed out that there were no agreements with neighbouring farms to provide feedstock or to use digestate. So there was a risk that both would need to be transported over much longer distances. They also pointed out that the latest application would mean the plant running at well below the capacity for which it was designed, and they suggested that, once operational, activity would be scaled up, whatever agreement had been reached.
Trust and Local Authority powers
Two critical issues in cases like this are public trust in the proposers, and the power of the Local Authority.
The protestors made it clear, in written submissions and presentations to the Committee, that they do not trust the developers or the farmer on whose land the plant has been built. They point out that the plans and the firms involved have changed repeatedly over a nine-year period. Although the plans have not been approved, the plant has largely been built already.
The second issue is the power of the Local Authority. The biggest concern was with the source and volume of feedstock used, which would determine the levels of traffic. The proposer claimed that most traffic would be very local. They gave intended figures for traffic movements, proposed to build 36 passing places on the narrow roads, and made specific proposals about routes which lorries would take. However, the roads are public rights of way, which means that drivers could choose to ignore any agreement which the developer made.
It was clear that, if the Council agreed to these, and even if it set up processes for monitoring traffic movements, its power to act if the conditions were broken were very limited. The Council’s only options would be Court action which could result in a fine, but nothing more, or to intervene directly to dismantle the plant, which would be difficult, expensive and controversial. So their only option, if they did not trust the developer’s assurances, was to reject the application: which they did.
The saga continues
The case before the Committee this week was a strong one. The Planning Officer’s report outlined the issues and arguments, and explained clearly the legal basis for his recommendation to reject the application. For the protestors, this week’s decision is clearly a win.
But it is unlikely to be the end of the story. Although the Council has voted to reject the proposal, and to begin proceedings to require the present structures to be dismantled, the developers have invested a lot of money in this. They will be very reluctant to give up now. So, it is likely that the issue will go to appeal.
The Committee was told that this is one of the largest planning issues they have ever considered. It has already consumed a lot of Officer time over nine years, and an appeal represents a large potential legal cost to the Council. Developers often have deeper pockets, and sometimes rely on the fact that Councils simply cannot afford cost of fighting, even when their case is strong.
The government has said that it wants to reform our planning laws. One reform would be to ensure that Local Authorities have stronger powers to enforce conditions in planning cases like this.
