Agenda item

Officers gave a presentation on this item and made the following points:

·       Local Development Orders allowed an LPA (Local Planning Authority) to

introduce new permitted development rights. They were subject to statutory consultation period and require formal adoption by the LPA

·       The area within the city covered by the Local Development Order was shown

·       The LDO had the following aims and objectives: (a) deliver the infrastructure to enable the distribution of low carbon energy sources (b) achieve reductions in the Council’s CO? emissions and contribute to the city’s aim of carbon neutrality by 2030 (c) align with ambitions set out in the One City Climate Strategy and the Bristol Core Strategy

·       Permitted development rights related to heating transmission and distribution system and ancillary infrastructure, above ground infrastructure, and reinstatement works within the defined order and subject to conditions

·       The scope of the LDO was clarified as follows: (a) The scope of the LDO is for a heating transmission and distribution network with ancillary infrastructure only and is required to ‘join the dots’ between the heat source and the connection to individual buildings (b) It does not give consent for heat sources that may provide heat to the network in the future (c) It does not give consent for connections from the heat network to individual buildings

·       The following restrictions on development were noted: (a) above ground infrastructure limitations, (b) trench depth/width limitations, (c) above ground pipework limitations (d) EIA development threshold, (e) limiting

above ground development within boundaries of heritage designations (f)

limiting development within boundaries of environmental designations

(g) where Article 4 directions are in place (h) development on sites identified as parks, woodland or playing fields

·       Conditions included design, biodiversity, protected species and protected sites, development within boundaries of heritage assets, completion of an environmental management plan and an assessment of high risk coal mining areas

·       Details were set out of other statutory requirements, timeframes for Local Planning Authority approval and for a monitoring and review process

·       The consultation process had lasted from 14 December 2022 to 20 January 2023 ie a 38 day consultation period, with 39 representations having been received on the order

·       There had been responses as follows: 6 in support, 26 neutral and 7 objections. Main objections raised related to Parks and green spaces, Construction phase impacts, Traffic and transport. Amendments made in response to these were: removal of development on sites identified as parks, woodlands and playing fields from the Order, addition of Condition 12, ‘High Risk Coal Mining Areas’ and the addition of requirements to the Construction Environment Management Plan

In response to members’ questions, officers made the following points:

·       The defined coal mining areas would be identified and assessed in Health and Safety terms

·       A condition on the LDO (Local Development Order) would ensure that any highway would be restored to its original condition. A trench could be dug up to 4 metres in depth and there was no requirement to go beyond this. Road would not need to be widened. Since this was new infrastructure, the LDO would not operate in areas where it was not practical

·       A similar approach had been adopted for some past schemes such as the Temple Quarter Enterprise Zone and Temple Island in respect of urban

agriculture.

·       The Committee was only empowered to consider planning issues since it was a planning mechanism. The delivery of the heat network across the city avoided the need for lots of future small scale technical planning applications

·       The LDO did not provide any additional powers to use new sources of heat and would need to be subject to their own application. It allowed flexibility to link into whatever sources of heat were required. However, any high carbon heat network would struggle to meet the controls in this legislation although there was no specific mechanism to place a restriction under the act

·       The LDO placed restrictions in height and volume, if a site was within a designated heritage area and proposed a programme of a Construction Management Plan. In addition, a Section 50 licence would be required to install infrastructure

·       The LDO streamlined the process but still required conditions for each proposal. The lifetime of the LDO was 20 years and could be reviewed

·       The Centre for Sustainable Energy supported the use of Heat Networks – the alternative would be a heavily oriented approach around electricity which would be extremely expensive

·       Road closures would be advertised in advance and all conditions would be made through the planning record. The issue of carbon intensity was beyond the scope of the order

·       The LDO was the planning mechanism to deliver the strategy but the strategy itself will be set separately as required subject to each individual planning application

·       No response had been received to the Equalities Impact Assessment from Bristol City Council’s Equalities Officer

·       Each future proposal operating under the LDO would be subject to controls relating to designated areas, height and volume in addition to a Construction Management Plan

·       The network would be subject to need and would be rolled out once a commercial agreement had been made with a customer to meet that contractual obligation. It would therefore not be installed ahead of time

·       Any proposal to add permissions would be beyond the scope of the network and would be subject to any future planning applications

·       The costs to citizen and the residents of Bristol were not part of the consideration. The Committee was considering the mechanism of the LDO as proposed not the principle of it

Councillors made the following points during debate:

·       The requirement for the LDO referred to a heating transmission system. However, there was nothing within it that guaranteed a reduction in carbon despite being an aim of it. This was a massive development in terms of scale and it was a cause for concern that work could take place without appropriate checks for costs of materials. There was also a very minor EQIA statement

·       If each planning application was considered when it was submitted, it did not seem appropriate to approve this LDO rather than follow the normal planning process

·       It was reassuring that controls would be agreed at Committee. It was noted that this was just a framework to assist with the approach with pipes only being installed as required

·       There were plenty of safeguards in place and it addressed concerns about any future piecemeal approach

·       This was a practical and pragmatic approach to provide infrastructure for alternative heat energy sources

·       Whilst a heat network and the delivery of low carbon energy sources were acknowledged within the proposal, it was not clear whether the public had fully understood the implications of what was being proposed. If there had been greater clarity on this, there might have been further objections

·       There had been a briefing on this proposal several weeks ago which had clarified how it would operate

Councillor Ani Stafford-Townsend moved, seconded by Councillor Chris Jackson and upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED (5 for, 1 against, I abstention) that the Local Development Order be adopted.

·        

·        

·