{"id":1433,"date":"2020-02-18T20:13:39","date_gmt":"2020-02-18T20:13:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/backup.act.stringerhj.co.uk\/oldsite\/?p=1433"},"modified":"2020-03-04T18:42:31","modified_gmt":"2020-03-04T18:42:31","slug":"heathfield-power-station-application-unanimously-rejected-by-teignbridge-planning-committee","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/backup.act.stringerhj.co.uk\/oldsite\/index.php\/2020\/02\/18\/heathfield-power-station-application-unanimously-rejected-by-teignbridge-planning-committee\/","title":{"rendered":"Heathfield Power Station application unanimously rejected by Teignbridge planning committee"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

First ACT\u2019s Fuad Al-Tawil spoke against the application: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe council\u2019s unanimous and brave decision to declare a Climate Emergency inspired a huge number of us to act together to help the council fulfil their pledge of Net Zero Emissions for Teignbridge by 2025.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Please give us, and the country, a lead to show that you are serious about doing this.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDespite\nall our efforts we find that the updated report has actually embellished the\nmisinformed evidence from the first report.  Some of this \u2018evidence\u2019 gives\nhalf the story, some skews the facts and quite a few are simply\ninaccurate.  This pseudo-evidence is then used to justify the development\nas being needed and complying with the CCC statements, the NPPF and LP\npolicies.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf this\nis plant is intended to meet \u2018peaking\u2019 electricity demands as implied by the\ndeveloper, it should only operate at the times indicated by WPD\u2019s most recent\ntender for peaking plant in this area. \nThis equates to ~5% of the time, yet the applicant intends to operate it\nfor ~50% of the time with no limits to stop that going to 80-90%.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cEven\nworse, the declared operating period directly blocks additional renewable\ngeneration whether local or elsewhere.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here is the full text of Fuad\u2019s speech,<\/a> which regrettably was cut short by the bell.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fuad was followed by Ben Wallace for the applicant. Mr. Wallace recited\nparagraph 3.3.1 of NPP EN-1 as justification for the application: \u201cAs\na result, the more renewable generating capacity we have the more generation\ncapacity we will require overall, to provide back-up at times when the\navailability of intermittent renewable sources is low. If fossil fuel plant\nremains the most cost-effective means of providing such back-up, particularly\nat short notice, it is possible that even when the UK\u2019s electricity supply is\nalmost entirely decarbonised we may still need fossil fuel power stations for\nshort periods when renewable output is too low to meet demand, for example when\nthere is little wind.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cllr Sally Morgan, ward councillor for Bovey ward, then spoke passionately about the impact on the Bovey environment, followed by Cllr Avril Kerwell, also a councillor for Bovey ward, who echoed Cllr Morgan’s sentiments. These were followed by a succession of councillors speaking against, including Cllr Nutley, Cllr Keeling and Cllr Wrigley, who cited Dinorwig as a long established example of storage and urged us to write to government to get things changed. Several members spoke of the need to use existing green alternatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cllr Jackie Hook then spoke, emphasising that this was not a council proposal but from a private company. She pointed out the factual inaccuracies in the applicant’s statement and stated that the application was clearly counter to policies S7 and EN3. She noted that para 3.3.1, which the applicant relied on, was written in 2011 and states that electricity can’t be stored, this policy only states that there might be a need for fossil fuelled plant. This need has not been proven. Cllr Hook also spoke of the need for planning officers to consider both sides of the argument. Cllr Clarence spoke about water power as a long established resource that we are not using. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The motion was then put to a recorded vote, where all the committee voted unanimously to reject the application.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some points that emerged from the discussion were:<\/p>\n\n\n\n