Minutes of Special North Area Panel 25 April 2007

NORTH AREA PANEL


Special Meeting held 25th April, 2007

PRESENT:		Councillors Trevor Bagshaw (Chair), Alan Hooper and Graham Oxley.

		Representatives of Panel Partners:-
		Councillor Norman Garratt	-	Ecclesfield Parish Council
		Councillor Vic Bowden	-	Sheffield City Council
		Councillor Kath Granger	-	Ecclesfield Parish Council

		City Council Officers:-
		Anne Blantern	-	Area Co-ordinator
		Andy Nolan	-	Environmental Strategy
		Emma Wells	-	Forward and Area Planning
		Paul Gordon	-	Forward and Area Planning
		Matthew Rush	-	Area Action Officer
		Lucia Lorente-Arnau	-	Development Services
		Mark Hible	-	Activity Sheffield

		Approximately 32 members of the public and representatives of Panel Partners attended the meeting.

………………..

					Action
1.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
	Apologies for absence were received from Councillors David Baker, Alison Brelsford, Martin Brelsford, Martin Davis, Patricia Fox and Vickie Priestley.

2.	PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
	There were no questions or petitions received by the Panel.

3.	RENEWABLE ENERGY SCOPING AND FEASIBILITY FOR SHEFFIELD - A CHAPELTOWN FOCUS
	A presentation concerning renewable energy options for Sheffield and the approach in relation to major planning applications was made to the Panel by Andy Nolan, Head of Environmental Strategy and Emma Wells and Paul Gordon, Forward and Area Planning, Sheffield City Council.
	Against a background of depleting fossil fuel reserves and climate change, the Council had been set certain targets by the Government to both reduce carbon dioxide emissions and to increase the proportion of electricity generated from renewable sources. Sheffield had local targets, which stated that 10.6 mega watts of electricity should be generated by renewable means by 2010.
	A Renewable Energy Scoping and Feasibility had been undertaken to assess the potential renewable energy resource for wind, biomass, solar power and heat pump and the findings of this study had been reported to the Council's Cabinet on 28th March, 2007. The study found that Sheffield had substantial potential renewable energy resources, the most significant being wind energy. Whilst the proximity of the Peak District and high density of buildings would significantly restrict the number of potential sites for development, some initial sites had been identified for further feasibility work and these included sites for wind generation: Hesley Wood, Smithy Wood, Westwood Country Park and Butterthwaite Farm; and for biomass: Blackburn Meadows and Carbrook. Potential hydro sites had also been identified for small scale schemes.
	The Council's Cabinet supported the main findings of the study and the strong supporting policies relating to renewable energy in the forthcoming Sheffield Development Framework. Cabinet also approved the Renewable Energy Delivery Strategy and the development of Council land for renewable energy schemes where appropriate. The Council had entered into pro-active dialogue with the Peak District National Park and was committed to identifying more sites for Renewable Energy Projects within the Council's land portfolio.
	Emma Wells explained the pre-planning process during which an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) would be undertaken, taking account of local environmental data and considerations such as natural species, landscape conservation, nature conservation and the distance to dwellings and roads. Other assessments would include noise, ecological assessments including a bird nesting survey, site plans and information on connection to the National Grid.
	The relationship to wind turbines and current Unitary Development Plan policy was set out in policies GE27 (Alternative Energy Sources) and GE28 (Wind Energy). The Sheffield Development Framework would also include elements within the Core Strategy relating to renewable energy and protection of the natural environment as well as within City policies, criteria relating to determining planning applications.
	Consultation would be undertaken with neighbouring Local Authorities and with the public as the developer was expected to hold consultation events with the public to explain proposals and answer questions. The public would also be able to comment on any planning application using the existing processes either on line or in writing and the public would also have an opportunity to comment upon proposed planning policies relating to the Sheffield Development Framework.
	Paul Gordon outlined the Code of Practice for planning application consultations. Pre-application requirements included notification to owners/occupiers and tenants; additional publicity and consultation, which would include a value added test to allow useful dialogue with the community and to assist hard to reach groups; options for additional consultation, including media coverage and public meetings organised through the Area Panel; consultation statements which would state all events organised and consultation responses, planning representations and a statement of how proposals had been amended; and the validity of the consultation would then be judged.
	Post application, requirements included notifications to neighbours, Parish Councils and other groups and wider neighbourhood notification and community consultation. Statutory site notices were also required and in relation to environmental assessments, a notice was required on site for 21 days, giving 14 days in which to comment upon the assessment and locations in which the assessment could be viewed. Other major applications would require advertisement in a local paper.
	Post decision, those making representations, the secretaries and heads of groups and organisers and heads of petitions would be notified and full decision details would be on the Council's website from a weekly schedule.
	A number of questions were asked by members of the public and responses were made by the Council Officers present and by the Chair, Councillor Trevor Bagshaw, as follows:-

	· Responding to a question concerning how the Council was to achieve the generation of 10% of electricity needs from renewable energy sources by 2010, Andy Nolan acknowledged the challenge of Government targets and stated that there were already small scale schemes producing energy from renewable sources. It was emphasised that the drive to reach such targets would not be to the cost of people living near potential sites for the generation of renewable energy.

	· In relation to solar energy, solar panels were installed on a small scale in the United Kingdom but were unlikely to produce power on an industrial scale. Developers would be required to produce a proportion of their own energy requirements by renewable means and this could be conditioned through the planning process when the Sheffield Development Framework is adopted. It was necessary to consider a range of technologies for the creation of energy.

	· Responding to a question as to whether energy conservation was also being given priority by the Council, Andy Nolan stated that the need to reduce consumption was recognised and it was a fact that 34% of carbon emissions in the City was from people’s homes. There were methods and initiatives to insulate people’s homes and to encourage people to change their behaviour in relation to consumption.

	· A member of the public stated that there might be other sites in the City suitable for wind generation other than those identified in the vicinity of Chapeltown and in response Andy Nolan stated that the Council were looking at the entire City to identify potential sites for renewable energy generation. The four sites, which were considered by the Council's Cabinet had the fewest constraints. It might be that all or none of the four sites identified at the time of reporting would be used and each site would be considered on its own merits and would be subject to a feasibility study. Developers would decide whether they would be interested in developing these sites commercially.

	· A member of the public wished to know the number of wind turbines that would be developed on these sites and was informed that the four sites identified had enough of the correct conditions for the Council to undertake further work and that further discussions would be held with the public.

	· A member of the public asked whether there would be any direct benefits to the North of Sheffield if sites were developed for renewable energy generation and in response Councillor Trevor Bagshaw stated that there might be mechanisms by which developers could contribute to improvements through funds generated by planning gain, although at this time all discussions in relation to these sites were at an early stage.

	· Was it the case that even if many people objected the application for a renewable energy generation site would still be successful? Paul Gordon responded that objections in relation to planning applications had to be ones that were permissible under the planning process and the final decision in relation to an application was made on the basis of planning rules. Councillor Trevor Bagshaw stated that this meeting was the first stage in opening up a dialogue with local people in relation to renewable energy and a process would be followed in relation to considering the feasibility of the proposed site and in relation to consultation with members of the public. Examples of small energy generation schemes included at the new Castle College which would have small wind turbines; at Kelham Island Brewery where a water mill would be reinstated to generate power for brewing and, for larger scale regeneration projects, the public would have an opportunity to engage.

	· A member of the public asked how independent the Planning Department would be in considering applications for planning consent, where that consent related to land owned by the Council and in response Paul Gordon stated that there was a clear procedure for dealing with applications where the Local Authority was the owner of the piece of land.

	· A member of the public pointed to concerns in relation to the safety of wind turbines, including a case where the tips of blades of a wind turbine had flown off of the turbine blades. Andy Nolan responded that any developer of a site for wind turbines would take advice in relation to the management design and health and safety of the site a consideration would need to be given as to the proximity of any site to residential areas.

	· A member of the public asked a question in relation to progress in the development of Hesley Wood and in response the Chair, Councillor Trevor Bagshaw stated that a request had been made by the Area Panel that Renaissance South Yorkshire inform the Panel of progress in relation to the proposals. He clarified that the other proposals for Hesley Wood were separate from the proposals in relation to a site for wind generation.

	· A member of the public expressed concern that the Smithy Wood site was an important natural habitat.

	· A member of the public stated that the sites identified were all green field and considered that there had been enough pollution caused to the area in the past and siting of a wind generation site at any of the locations would be destructive, cause additional pollution and noise.

	· A member of the public expressed concern at the implications for the City's carbon footprint if trees were removed from sites such as Hesley Wood. In response, Andy Nolan stated that the development of sites for energy generation through renewable means would also seek to protect and enhance the natural environment and developers would be encouraged to maximise bio diversity and tree coverage.

	· Discussion was held in relation to the semi-urban and rural nature of much of the North area of the City and Councillor Trevor Bagshaw referred to the potential development of a rural strategy for the North of the City as had been done in Rotherham.

	· Andy Nolan responded to a question in relation to the timescale for increasing the generation of renewable energy, acknowledging that this was a big challenge for the Local Authority, although he stated that the public were more aware of the requirement to develop such renewable energy schemes now than in the past. He believed that the target of 2010 for generation of 10.6MW of renewables was achievable, with the right schemes.

	· In relation to the possible benefit to the Council from a developer seeking to site a renewable energy scheme in the City, the Panel were informed that the Council's key objective was to meet the targets set in relation to renewables and in cases where the Council owned the land in question the arrangements for dealing with any income to the Local Authority had not been decided. Where the land was not Council owned, the Local Authority would act in his role as Planning Authority.

	· A member of the public stated that his perception was that wind generation was the priority for the Council, although he felt that wind turbines were expensive and had a large carbon footprint themselves before and during installation and would cause additional noise and a blot on the landscape. In response, Andy Nolan stated that the Council had made no firm plans in relation to the height of turbines and that the four sites that had been presented to the Council's Cabinet had potential for wind generation, although there were also other sites identified which had potential to generate energy from, for example bio mass. Developers would have a duty to discuss the impacts for any sites with members of the public who might be affected due to noise, the management of land and aesthetic considerations. The Council recognised that it now needed to make clear to developers that it wished to, where appropriate encourage the development of sites for renewable energy generation.

	· Councillor Trevor Bagshaw informed members of the public that should they wish to continue discussion or request further meetings in relation to this topic or others they should inform the Panel and this could be done through completion of forms which were available at the meeting.

	· A member of the public referred to the instability of spoil heaps on the Hesley Wood site and suggested that if the site were to be used these spoil heaps/slag heaps should be made stable. The question also pointed to the implications of such a task, which would involve the removal of spoil on a large scale and an increased pollution by the use of vehicles and would take a long time. In addition, if spoil heaps were removed, it was likely that noise from the motorway would be increased. Andy Nolan responded that such information would come out of any feasibility study.

	· Concern was expressed that the cost of installation involved in the development of wind turbines should be balanced against the payback in terms of energy generation, which was thought to be approximately 15 years, and in response Councillor Trevor Bagshaw stated that this was a consideration for the developers.

	· A member of the public asked whether any consideration had been given to the life cycle of wind turbines and the costs involved including issues relating to disposal and Councillor Trevor Bagshaw suggested that the Council might need to employ an independent technology assessor to answer such questions in relation to which Elected Members would also need assurance.

	· A question was asked in relation to the potential for a better site elsewhere in the City such as Redmires for the generation of wind energy and in response Andy Nolan stated that if an application were to be put forward for any site the City Council would need to examine that application and take into account all relevant considerations and Councillor Trevor Bagshaw added that it was likely that the constraints at the Redmires site would relate to the Peak District National Park and would be different to constraints at sites in the vicinity of Chapeltown.

	Discussion was held in relation to the Smithy Wood site including the detail of plans for the site and changes to highway serving the site. The Smithy Wood site application related to business units and there had been numerous opportunities for consultation. Vehicles had access to the M1 in order that they could avoid residential areas. A benefit of the site was the generation of employment for local people. Plans for the Smithy Wood site had been made available to the Parish Council and could be viewed at Parish Council Offices and at Howden House. The access road to the site had been planned so as to avoid an area of natural history interest and harm to ancient woodland. There would be roads on the site to serve the development.
	There were concerns at increased levels of traffic on Cowley Lane and Ecclesfield Common accessing the M1 motorway and Councillor Trevor Bagshaw referred to the Plan for Travel in Chapeltown which had been the subject of meetings of the Area Panel and it was intended to bring further reports to the Panel in relation to the Plan for Travel in Chapeltown.
	Members of the public expressed concern at the implications of increased traffic on the Smithy Wood site, which were likely to affect existing highways in Chapeltown by increasing traffic volume. Councillor Trevor Bagshaw referred to the need for Highways Officers to address such concerns and to promote the use of public transport to the site.
	A member of the public also referred to the increase in heavy goods vehicles on Salt Box Lane and The Wheel. Reference was also made to the traffic lights at the junction of Nether Lane/Cowley Hill.
	A member of the public referred to notification of an application relating to Smithy Wood which could be viewed by the public until the 11th May and during office hours and stated that this was a short time frame in which members of the public could view the application and make comment and suggested that because of this and the intervening Bank Holiday an increased time period should be allowed. In response, Paul Gordon stated that he would contact the relevant Development Control Team and ask that the questioner be contacted direct.				Paul Gordon
	A member of the public referred to the increasing height of the development at Smithy Wood. Paul Gordon stated that he would investigate this matter and reply to the questioner.
	The Panel gave thanks to the City Council Officers for attending the meeting and for their contribution and the comments and responses made were noted.

4.	DATE OF NEXT MEETING
	The next meeting of the Area Panel would take place on Wednesday, 23rd May, 2007, at Bradfield School, Kirk Edge Road.

How useful is this page?

[ Comment On This Page? ]

Browsealoud |