Synthetic fuel facility at Land Off Little Rose Lane, Swindon

What was proposed

The application proposed a temporary synthetic fuel facility with solar panels, containers, gas storage domes, water tanks, fencing and associated infrastructure.

“Rivan Industries Ltd Rivan Industries Ltd Unit 4 Admiral Hyson Industrial Estate London SE16 3PA United Kingdom Background 1. This application has been brought to Planning Committee for determination at the request of Blunsdon Parish Council and Councillor Nick Gardner. Summary of Recommendation 2. Planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions. Proposals 3.”

“Rivan’s synthetic fuel generator combines three core technologies: • A calcium-looping Direct Air Capture (DAC) system to supply carbon dioxide (CO2) • An alkaline water electrolyser to split hydrogen (H2) from water. • A sabatier reactor to produce methane (CH4) from carbon dioxide (CO2) and Hydrogen (H2) inputs. 6.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier environmental screening found the project was not EIA development, while a previous solar local development order supported renewable energy use at the site.

“There is a Significant Unscheduled Archaeological Feature covering the southern section of the Site. Relevant planning history 16. S/EIA/24/1113- EIA Screening Opinion issued by SBC on 17 th September 2024 confirmed that the proposed development is not EIA development. The application submission now includes gas storage domes and water storage tanks that were previously not included with the Screening Opinion submission.”

“The additions have been fully assessed within the accompanying environmental documentation submitted as part of the full planning application and it is the Local Planning Authority’s (LPA) view that there are no known changes to the environmental conditions on the ground that would require changes to the baseline of the assessment that concluded the development is not EIA development.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because the facility’s renewable energy, climate, economic and biodiversity benefits outweighed its identified planning harms.

“The assessment of the proposals has identified that the development would result in some landscape and visual harm, less than substantial harm to the setting of the Broad Blunsdon Conservation Area and Scheduled Monument at Castle Hill, and the temporary loss of the Grade 3 agricultural land. 96.”

“Overall, the significant benefits of the proposed facility that directly support the local and national strategies of aiming for net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, reducing the economic impacts associated with climate change and the medium to long term reduction in energy costs associated with renewable energy, contributing to the economic benefits associated with the renewable sector including employment opportunities as well…”

Officer report

What consultees said

Most consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while the Landscape Officer objected because of the proposals’ visual impact.

“In essence, the Parish Council views the proposal as a high-risk, poorly planned industrial development that is inappropriate for a rural location and fails to meet the standards of sustainable development. 19.”

“It is recommended the applicant contact the Environment Agency to discuss issues likely to be raised 21. Swindon Borough Council Drainage: No objection subject to conditions. Swindon Borough Council Local Highways Authority: No objection subject to conditions. Swindon Borough Council Landscape: (summary comments) Object due to visual impact of the proposals. 24.”

Officer report

What residents said

Residents and the Parish Council raised concerns about safety, traffic, landscape, archaeology, ecology, consultation, technology, policy compliance and the 30-year duration.

“The comments received can be summarised as follows: • Unacceptable harm to the rural landscape and setting of Blunsdon • Industrialisation of the countryside • Highway safety and capacity • Potential public safety concerns from gas storage • Fire safety concerns • Explosive risk • Noise pollution • Equipment drawings are shown as illustrative • Proposals not carbon neutral as suggested • Consultation process on the application by the Council is flawed • Misleading public…”

“…fails to comply with local and national planning policies. They recommend that the developer undertake a series of major actions to address widespread concerns before the application can be reconsidered.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The meeting heard from ward councillors, the applicant, two objectors and a parish councillor.

The committee’s debate

Members discussed countryside policy, submitted benefits, alternative sites, heritage concerns, renewable energy need and the site’s previous solar permission.

“Policy IN4 is one of the policies within the Local Plan that can permit development in the countryside outside of rural settlement boundaries. • The applicant has provided evidence as to the benefits of the proposals. Unless the local planning authority has evidence to suggest that this evidence is incorrect, these figures are accepted as correct.”

“The NPPF does not require that the need for renewable energy be demonstrated or justified. The Council’s conservation officer visited the site and has formally raised their concerns, which have been weighed by officers as part of the planning balance. • The proposed development site does not sit within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (/National Landscape Area), and it is not a protected landscape.”

Minutes

The vote

Members rejected the motion to refuse permission by five votes to three and approved the motion to grant permission by the same margin.

“Three Councillors were in favour of the proposal by Councillors Jake Chandler and Matthew Vallender to refuse planning permission and five were opposed to the proposal.”

“Five Councillors were in favour of the proposal by Councillors Abdul Amin and Neil Hopkins to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the Case Officer’s report, and three were opposed to the proposal.”

Minutes