Agenda item

The Chair and Vice Chair had visited the site the previous day.

The Head of Planning introduced the report setting out the reasons for approval as outlined in the report.

The Head of Planning confirmed that the Applicant felt it necessary to install a permanent track to deal with both routine maintenance and any urgent situations following the incident at Toddbrook reservoir.  The Authority was giving great weight to the public interest aspect of the application.

The following spoke under the Public Participation at meetings scheme:

·         Tania Snelgrove, Senior Project Manager, Canal and River Trust, Applicant.

Ms Snelgrove stated that this was a high risk reservoir owing to potential risk to life and as such the Trust strongly considered that there were imperative reasons in the overriding public interest to install a permanent track to enable ongoing monitoring, maintenance, and essential safety works, repair and emergency access.

Ms Snelgrove acknowledged that that alternative measures had been seriously considered.  This proposal minimised the effect on blanket bog but that works must go ahead during the summer.

The Natural Environment and Rural Economy Team Manager stated that there would be hydrological impact on the surrounding area but minimised to a certain degree as parts of the track used an existing conduit so that there is an existing effect but there would be additional indirect effect. This is why the compensatory measures proposed exceeded the loss of habitat.

Ecological surveys undertaken to consider potential impacts were queried as to their extent, not just in terms of depth but also distance, as this would be relevant for considering species such as short eared owl.

Concern was also expressed about the disturbance during construction works potentially within the breeding season to moorland species.  Operational use of the proposed track would have little impact on birds, however the construction would have a greater impact especially during the breeding season.  The conclusions of the HRA were predicated upon work being done outside the breeding season – if work took place within the breeding season he was of the opinion that the conclusions would be different.

Ms Snelgrove provided the following further explanatory information in response to questions from the Chair:

• That the Canal and River Trust have a reciprocal agreement with Yorkshire  Water under the Water Act 2003 for use of the water in this reservoir and elsewhere.

o  That a permanent track was necessary to access the site which would historically have been accessed by canal, and by tractors and trailers and tracked tractors which was hard going, they became bogged down and damaged the which damage the peat landscape, and more recently on foot, carrying all the materials, which has made things very difficult indeed

o  The required amount of safety work has been very difficult to achieve. This has led to a position under s10 of the Reservoirs Act 1985 whereby significant safety works are now mandated – firstly the provision of permanent access for maintenance, including works on the spillway, and for emergency access for example getting plant and materials to repair a breach in a speedy way

• Very large plant and equipment cannot be moved by helicopter and use of helicopters alone would be insufficient in the case of a rapid release of water

The following motion was proposed:

That, notwithstanding significant  issues around public safety, this application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The public safety issue does not create an Imperative Reason of Over-riding Public Interest justifying a permanent track through the Natural Zone.
2. Alternative solutions have not been explored thoroughly enough given what is understood to be required (in terms of building work and regular maintenance) such that the requirement to demonstrate that there are no alternative solutions has not been fully made out to the satisfaction of Members, in particular by use of a temporary track.
3. Insufficient satisfaction that the proposals would result in acceptable impacts on this peatland habitat and in particular on nesting birds. 

The motion was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

To REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

1. The public safety issue does not create an Imperative Reason of Over-riding Public Interest justifying a permanent track through the Natural Zone;
2. Alternative solutions have not been explored thoroughly enough given what is understood to be required (in terms of building work and regular maintenance) such that  the requirement to demonstrate that there are no alternative solutions has not been fully made out to the satisfaction of members, in particular by use of a temporary track; and
3. Insufficient satisfaction that the proposals would result in acceptable impacts on this peatland habitat and in particular on nesting birds.