Anaerobic digestion facility at Land West of Ashton Road, Ashton Keynes

What was proposed

The application proposed a facility processing agricultural feedstock into biomethane, digestate and captured carbon dioxide, with associated buildings, plant and a new access.

“Proposal The proposal is for the construction and operation of an anaerobic digestion (AD) facility on approximately 7 ha of agricultural land off Ashton Road. The facility would process around 91,000 tonnes of agricultural feedstock per annum, comprising rotational break crops (rye, maize, grass), straw, farmyard manure, slurry and a small proportion of poultry litter, predominantly sourced from farms within a 10-mile radius (see figure 3 below).”

“The AD process would produce approximately 10 million m³ of renewable biomethane annually, transported by biomethane-fuelled road tankers to the applicant’s gas injection hub at Banbury, together with natural digestate fertiliser (c.120,000 tpa) for local agricultural use and high-grade CO₂ for commercial distribution.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was about seven hectares of agricultural land west of Ashton Road, in open countryside within the wider Cotswold Water Park landscape.

“Site Description The application site comprises approximately 6.99 ha of agricultural land located immediately west of Ashton Road, around 2 km north of Ashton Keynes and close to the Wiltshire– Gloucestershire border. The land sits within the wider Cotswold Water Park landscape, a large area shaped by historic mineral extraction and now characterised by a mosaic of restored lakes, agricultural land, leisure uses and holiday accommodation.”

“Located in open countryside, outside any defined settlement boundary. • Not within a designated landscape; the Cotswold National Landscape lies approximately 5 km to the northwest, and the North Wessex Downs National Landscape approximately 17 km to the south. • The site is within Flood Zone 1, and avoids SSSIs, ancient woodland and heritage assets.”

Officer report

Planning history

No relevant planning history was identified for the site.

“There is no relevant planning history pertaining to the site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because identified harms could be mitigated and renewable energy, carbon-reduction and rural economic benefits outweighed residual harm.

“Officers conclude that, subject to conditions and a legal obligation securing off-site ecological mitigation, the identified harms are limited and can be acceptably mitigated. Significant weight is afforded to the renewable energy, carbon reduction and rural economic benefits of the…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Most technical consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while the Council’s Landscape Officer objected and parish councils maintained strong concerns.

“Strong and continued objection despite amendments; core issues remain unaddressed. • Industrial-scale development inappropriate in rural Cotswold Water Park setting. • Harm to tourism economy; AD plant incompatible with a visitor-based landscape and risks loss of local jobs. • Very narrow and dangerous access routes (Ashton Road and B4696 crossroads – noted accident cluster).”

“Maintains strong objection; JBA hydrological technical note supports refusal. • Applicant fails to recognise unsuitable location; significant landscape harm. • Serious concerns about proximity to Ann Edwards Primary School and playgroup; risks to children not assessed. • No proper assessment of emissions (SOx, NOx, PM, ammonia, CO₂/CH₄), odour or cumulative air quality effects (including existing Shorncote WwTW odours).”

Officer report

Residents’ views

Objections focused on traffic, landscape, odour, pollution, flooding, ecology, tourism and children’s safety; supporters cited farming, renewable energy and biodiversity benefits.

“The most common and strongly expressed concerns relate to: • Proximity to Ann Edwards Primary School and South Cerney Playgroup, with safeguarding and health risks for children. • Odour and air quality impacts, particularly under prevailing wind conditions. • Traffic and highway safety, with fears of severe cumulative impacts on already dangerous rural roads.”

“Economic benefits for local farmers through feedstock supply and digestate use. • Contribution to renewable energy and energy security, helping meet net zero targets. • Environmental benefits, including waste recycling, soil improvement, and biodiversity gains. • Alignment with national policy and climate objectives, supported by industry associations.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Objectors, supporters, the applicant and parish and ward councillors addressed the committee, including objections from South Cerney and Ashton Keynes representatives.

What members debated

Members debated landscape harm, highway consultation, environmental risks, agricultural land, restoration and whether consultation with Gloucestershire County Council Highways and Thames Water was needed.

“Members queried the scope of the highways assessment, including whether impacts on the Spine Road and roads outside Wiltshire had been assessed and whether Gloucestershire County Council had been consulted. Officers advised that Wiltshire Highways assessed the local highway network based on the applicant’s stated routing, traffic levels, accident data, and junction capacity, and concluded that residual cumulative impacts would not be severe in NPPF terms.”

“Members debated the updated motion to refuse, with some highlighting that they felt deferral was a better option to get the opinion of Gloucestershire County Council Highways first before making a final decision. Members noted their disappointment that there was no officer from Wiltshire Council Highways, or the Landscape officer who had commented on the application in attendance at the meeting.”

Minutes

The votes

The motion to refuse on landscape and highway grounds fell, then members voted to defer the application.

“The motion to refuse based on landscape harm (CP51) and the impact on the local highways network (CP61) was put to the vote and the motion fell.”

“A brief debate followed where Members suggested that Highways officers should attend the meeting when this application came back, and that some would not include consultation with Thames Water in the motion to defer as those issues were covered by the consultation with the Environment Agency which had taken place.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The application was deferred so Gloucestershire County Council Highways and Thames Water could be consulted.

“Cllr Newbury then proposed a motion to defer the application, to allow consultation with Gloucestershire County Council Highways and Thames Water. This was seconded by Cllr Howard Greenman.”

“To DEFER the application so that consultation with Gloucestershire County Council Highways and Thames Water could take place.”

Minutes