Full planning consent has been given by North East Lincolnshire Council for a £130 million development project for a biomass-fuelled energy plant in the Port of Immingham.

A decision notice giving the go ahead to build the plant has been issued to project developer Real Ventures (Immingham) Ltd.

The plant will have an electrical output of 49 MegaWatts, enough to provide the power requirements of 90,000 homes.

The Reality Energy Centre is a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant and will use sustainably sourced wood pellets as fuel. It will provide hundreds of new jobs – between 200 and 250 of them during a 30 month long construction and commissioning period and an estimated 35 permanent posts during its 25 year operational lifespan.

Detailed plans for the construction of the Centre, occupying a 3 hectare site owned by Associated British Ports (ABP), will now begin, with the plant becoming operational in 2015.

Ray Tucker, chief executive officer of Real Ventures, said:

“We are very pleased to be able to announce our first planning approval from an exciting portfolio of renewable energy projects.

“We are now proceeding to secure funding for the final design and construction work for the Immingham project.

“We are grateful for the speedy but thorough and professional way North East Lincolnshire Council has dealt with our planning application. We also very much appreciate the fantastic support from staff at ABP in the Port of Immingham.”

Following the decision, Jason Longhurst, the council’s head of development, said:

“We are extremely pleased to grant this exciting new development planning permission. Real Ventures have been an exemplar of a pro-active business and a pleasure to work with. They engaged with us from the outset and we have been able to work together to overcome any issues and move this development forwards.

“Our message is clear – North East Lincolnshire is open for business and remains at the forefront of the expanding European renewable energy industry.”

Liberal Democrat MP Julian Huppert has called on Prime Minister, David Cameron to rethink a major shake-up of planning policy to protect the environment.

Julian joined 44 other MPs in a letter to express their fears for the future of the countryside from the planning reform.

“We realise there are some serious problems with the drafting that would make it difficult for the government to realise fully its ambitions for planning reform and to be the ‘greenest ever’,” the letter, which was leaked to the Daily Telegraph, said.

“We all support a simpler system with more local control, but this should not come at the expense of the ability of planning to protect and enhance the environment.”

The letter proposes changes to the National Planning Policy Framework and says the final document should make explicit reference to:

? The need to use suitable brownfield land for development before green fields in order to prevent unsustainable urban sprawl;

? The intrinsic value of the ordinary, undesignated countryside which is loved so much by the local communities we represent;

? A commitment to genuinely sustainable development that does not prioritise short term economic interests over long term quality of life and wellbeing.

“An effective planning system is central to protecting our rural areas from urban sprawl and inappropriate, sporadic development,” the letter adds.

“We ask you to ensure that the final NPPF enables us to secure the growth and development the nation needs while safeguarding one of our most valuable environmental assets, the English countryside, for future generations.”

Julian said:

“It is vitally important that we get this planning document right to make sure that our countryside is given the protection it needs for future generations. Mistakes that we make now will not be easily undone and could impact on our environment for years to come. We need more housing around Cambridge, especially affordable housing. But I believe it is possible to achieve this while also protecting the countryside.”

Greg Mulholland, Member of Parliament for Leeds North West, has today sponsored a Parliamentary motion, supporting the right of town and parish councils to appeal against the granting of planning permissions to which they had objected to during consultation.

Currently, Town and Parish Councils and Welsh Town and Community Councils are statutory consultees on planning matters and can object to the granting of planning permission in their area; however, if that permission is granted they have no right of appeal.

Martin Caton MP has put forward a Presentation Bill and has tabled an EDM calling for a change to rules, to allow councils the right to appeal against decisions they objected to when consulted, in the same way that developers can when their applications for planning permission are declined.

Mulholland has lent his support to the Parliamentary motion giving local councils the same rights as developers in the planning permission application process.

Greg commented:

“Local councils should have the same rights as the developers that seek to change the landscape of towns and villages. It is unfair that the process of planning permission is skewed towards the developer; both should be allowed to appeal decisions taken by planning departments provided they are founded on genuine grounds. Securing the interests of local communities should be our top priority.”

“The implementation of these proposals would be good news for this area and specifically would give local councils the ability to stand up for their communities. It is so important we allow councils to have more input into the decisions made for local people, this is something I have been pursuing for some time now and will continue to argue for.”

Liberal Democtar Communities Minister, Andrew Stunell, has said that councils should consider amending their planning policies to make it easier for disused farm buildings to be converted into affordable homes said .

The average house price in rural England has more than doubled over the past ten years to more than£250,000, but the average salary is still £21,000, and the number of people on social housing waiting lists in rural areas has risen to 750,000.

Mr Stunell has called on farmers to look for disused farm buildings that could be converted into new affordable homes for local people, and for councils to look favourably on their planning applications.

This would fulfil a Coalition Agreement commitment to make the building of Homes on the Farm easier, by encouraging the redevelopment of disused agricultural buildings as new and affordable housing.

Mr Stunnell said:

“Farmers are the custodians of our countryside, managing thousands of acres of rural land across England, but when they want to make disused buildings available for new homes, they can often face an uphill battle to get planning permission in the face of their council’s development plans.

“As more young people are unable to afford to live in rural areas and village schools, shops and pubs struggle to survive, farmers are ideally placed to help bring the community together to help reverse this trend.

“That’s why I want to make it easier for farmers to offer Homes on the Farm for local people. One small step for councils will offer a significant opportunity for communities to get the new and affordable homes their villages need. I want farmers to take their place at the forefront of this rural revolution alongside their local councils, to make farm buildings available, and to work with their local communities to shape the sustainable development of their countryside so it can remain a vibrant place to live for generations to come.”

National Farmers Union planning adviser Ivan Moss said:

“The Home on the Farm scheme is an excellent opportunity for farmers who want to use their outbuildings for a constructive purpose. It should also sustain the rural economy by providing homes for those working in it.

“The NFU will watch with interest the outcomes of the first applications from farmers to their local councils to convert disused buildings into affordable homes and hope that councils will be equally eager to be pioneers in the scheme.”

A survey of local residents has been carried out at the request of Ward Councillors Peter Bailey and Les Bonner to find the attitude of residents of the Laceby Acres Estate who are affected by the Open Plan Order.  An unprecedented 30% (202 replies from 672) of residents responded to the survey, and of these 138 would like to see the order removed and 64 were against.

The Planning Committee resolved to accept the recommendations of the planning department that the Order be retained with the following comments:

• Planning applications for boundary treatments in the area covered by the Open Plan Order will be free of charge.
• All residents are to be informed of the new policy for planning applications in the area.
• There will in future be a more sympathetic treatment of applications for boundary treatments.
• New material considerations to be taken into account in considering future applications will include the fear of crime, and road safety.
• Walls or fences that have been in place for more than four years are immune from enforcement action.

Cllr Les Bonner said:

“Cllr Bailey and I would like to thank the residents of Laceby Acres for co-operating in this survey in such great numbers, and the Planning Department for their help and support. It gives me great satisfaction to see local residents taking such an active part in determining the future of their neighbourhoods, as cooperation between the residents and the Council can only be of benefit to the area.

Although the Open Plan Order remains in place we have secured a significant change in policy which will mean that future applications for walls and fences in this area will be treated in a more sensible and sympathetic way than in the past.  If any resident needs any help or advice they can contact a planning officer through the Council call centre on 01472 313131, myself at les.bonner@nelincs.gov.uk, or Councillor Bailey at peter.bailey@nelincs.gov.uk “

“We need a fair planning system that is responsive to people’s needs,” said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Simon Hughes.

Commenting as the Government’s new Infrastructure Planning Commission [IPC] starts to accept applications from developers, Simon Hughes said:

“The Government’s planning stitch-up means big energy projects like dirty coal and new nuclear loom dangerously large.

“Local people with reasonable objections will find that the chips are stacked against them.

“Britain faces being locked in to a reckless and expensive energy mix which would be a colossal mistake.

“We need a fair planning system that is responsive to people’s needs and geared to the rapid development of renewable power.”

 This article was written by Vince Cable and appeared in today’s Mail on Sunday

Our homes are our castles. Or perhaps not, after Surrey farmer Robert Fidler was ordered last week to demolish his four-bedroom ‘castle’ built secretly (behind straw bales) without planning permission.

This case illustrates the different ways we look at planners.

To some, they are bullies who spend taxpayers’ money stopping people doing what they want. To others, they provide valuable protection against greedy developers, inconsiderate neighbours, ugly buildings and loss of open space. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

People feel equally passionate when their own application is turned down.

Or it could be a developer, who wants to put up a block of houses creating traffic and parking problems and reducing green space. The developer will claim the project provides badly needed homes. If those are for the homeless, the mentally ill or ex-prisoners the emotional temperature rises on both sides.

Most difficult of all are big developments – a new town or estate, a motorway, a power station or an airport expansion. Quality of life is set against wider economic interests.

These questions arouse deep feelings. While there is little we can do as individuals to save the planet, we can exercise some control over our local environment. That is why public meetings on big issues – even the Iraq War – attract dozens while proposals to allow housing on playing fields or a police custody suite in a residential area pack in hundreds.

Development also touches on our deep attachment to home ownership. When people have mortgaged to the hilt to buy a home and poured their energies into DIY, they will fight to the last ditch against planning blight.

Most of us are deeply ambivalent about development. We want to do our own thing with our own homes; but we live very close together in a society with rules and want to see people who cynically break them – like Mr Fidler – put in their place.

We value our freedom to drive and park; it is other people who create parking problems and congestion. We value our own property improvements; it is other people who ‘overdevelop’.

We want new jobs; but not a factory down the road or a windmill or aircraft noise keeping us awake. We poke fun at NIMBY – Not In My Back Yard – syndrome, but we are all NIMBYs. Planning is about striking a balance between expansion and conservation. There will never be a ‘right’ answer.

Many people are left with a lingering sense of injustice and a grudge against the council. Sometimes they suspect officials and councillors of being corrupt – though corruption is worse in national than local politics. Sometimes party politics muddies the waters too.

One difficult issue is retrospective approval for those who built without permission. Sometimes neighbours are anxious to see ‘punishment’ for an ‘illegal’ building and are frustrated that the system allows retrospective application. Mr Fidler has discovered, the hard way, that deliberately breaking the rules has painful consequences.

But I have sympathy for some of my constituents fighting off a similar fate: houseboat owners who built multi-storey boats having been initially told that the rules allowed it; the family who built a porch only a few inches too wide; a woman told to remove her new roof because the tiles were the wrong shade of red. Genuine mistakes should be treated sympathetically.

The appeals system is also unfair.

A developer can appeal against a rejection of planning permission leading to a review by a government inspector. But if an objector loses there is no right of appeal. So there is a bias towards developers.

Big supermarkets routinely apply, are turned down, appeal, lose, reapply, are turned down at appeal and appeal again until they get their way. That is harassment and bullying. But the small shopkeepers affected by superstores cannot appeal once a decision has gone the wrong way.

And in future big projects will be fast-tracked through a quango to bypass the objectors.

The Government has created an unaccountable monster. If a big corporation with Government backing decides your area is right for an incinerator, an airport or a nuclear power station, you will be powerless.

The system is fiercely protective of conservation areas, national parks and anywhere hosting badgers, bats, snakes or newts (or which attracts the attention of Prince Charles).

The Green Belt is still largely respected. But for millions of people in pleasant but unpretentious towns there are fewer safeguards. ‘Garden grabbing’ by developers is a particular worry.

Planning can be tiresome, bureaucratic and sometimes painful – as for Mr Fidler with his 21st Century castle. But without it our quality of life would be far worse.

Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable

May I thank the residents of Laceby Acres who turned out on Wednesday evening to discuss with Planning Officers and Lib-Dem Ward Councillors the future developments on their estate.

Over thirty people attended to put their views over the possible reinstatement of development rights so that small walls and fences could be erected without the need for planning permission.

Their feelings, together with those from the many who have returned the Council’s Questionnaire, will be communicated to the Planning Commitee shortly.

As an exercise in public consultation it has been a success and we are pleased that so many people wished to be involved in this way.

Community pride and concern is alive and well among the residents of Laceby Acres.We are proud to serve them.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Bailey and Les Bonner

Yarborough Ward Councillors

The Liberal Democrat Ward Councillors for the Yarborough Ward are holding a special surgery at Laceby Acres school at  6.30 on 20th January.

 Your Ward Councillors have been concerned that Laceby Acres residents have been receiving inconsistent decisions on planning applications for boundary walls and fences, and we have requested a consultation be undertaken with a view to having the order lifted.

You should have already have received a consultation Questionnaire from the Planning Department, and it will help us greatly if you could send in the questionnaire as soon as possible giving your views on the open plan order.

In case you have any questions about the planning order, or any other planning matter, we have arranged for one of the planning officers to attend, and your Ward Councillors will also be in attendance if you have any other queries about council services.

“We cannot have a rigorous immigration system if we do not count people out as well as in,” said Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary.

Commenting on the Office of National Statistics’ projection that the population could rise to 70m by 2029, Chris Huhne said:

“Population forecasts in 30 years are particularly uncertain when we don’t know how many people live here now after Labour and the Tories abandoned exit checks, which are the way of ensuring short-term visa holders do not overstay.

“We cannot have a rigorous immigration system if we do not count people out as well as in.

“Some parts of the country, like Scotland, need and want more population while others, like the South East, are at the limit of environmental sustainability. That is why the Liberal Democrats propose a regional points-based system to ensure that legal migrants fit our needs.”