Campaigners fighting the building of gas generators in Midsomer Norton have been disappointed to be told that they are not able to challenge the way permission was granted.

The group had contacted B&NES to argue that the process of giving permission to build the systems was not properly carried out.

They argued that the decision should have been presented to the planning committee - not delegated to officers - and it did not fit in with the council policies on renewal enegy.

But B&NES deny all the claims telling resident Abi Nimmo, they were " satisfied that the planning decision was correct and in compliance with both national and local planning policy."

Local councillor Shaun Hughes disagrees and is continuing to support the claim that any decision to allow the building to go ahead should have gone to committee for councillors and public to debate.

He is backing the group based around to explore alternatives.

Full details about what is planned on the site can be found here:

Midsomer Nub News

Abi Nimmo told Nub News : " There clearly needs to be an overhaul of the process inline given our climate change emergency, declared March 2019 . One where such plans can't simply be passed, especially those that include ongoing use of fossil fuels. I would like to see a committee with an independent climate change panel, representation from at least two local residents."

The text of the letter is :

I am sorry that you have felt the need to complain in this instance and I will respond to each point of your complaint below but wish to reassure you that Bath & North East Somerset

Council takes customer feedback such as this very seriously, as we aim to continuously improve the service we provide.

I understand that one of your principal concerns is that this planning application should have been referred to the Planning Committee rather than be delegated to officers.

The Council has protocols in place to ensure that applications are referred to committee when this is deemed necessary. In this case, because of the conflict between the case officer's

recommendation and the views of the town council, the application was referred to the Chair of the committee so that he could decide whether to call it to committee; this is in line with the Council's adopted protocol (the 'Scheme of Delegation'). In this particular case however the Chair of the Committee was content for the application to be determined by officers as it

complied with planning policy. I appreciate of course that you do not agree with that decision but ultimately it was a matter for his judgement.

With regards to the notification of neighbours, a number of neighbouring properties were notified of this planning application as was the Town Council. I appreciate that some would have

preferred the formal notification exercise to encompass a much wider geographical area. Given that correspondence were received from a significant number of local residents however, I am satisfied that the community were well aware that the application had been submitted. Further

neighbour notification therefore would have been of little value.

To clarify, Bath & North East Somerset Council does not own the application site and has no legal interest in it. The Council's only involvement with this site/proposal is in exercising its

regulatory function as local planning authority.

I note your concerns regarding the ecological impact of the development. The Council's planning policies seek to limit the impact of new development on ecology and biodiversity interests and for this reason the Council's ecologist is

consulted in respect of all applications with a potential ecological impact.

The Council's ecologist ultimately concluded that the impact of this development on ecology and diversity would be acceptable subject to conditions, and in addition was able to

secure further and extended areas of new planting and habitat enhancement.

The reference in the case officer's report to Policy CP3 is simply to confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, that that policy is not relevant to this particular application. Policy CP3 deals with

renewable energy whereas the proposed generators are to be gas-fired.

I note your suggestion that the decision be reversed and/or referred to the Planning Committee

but the decision has been taken. There is no justification in the Council revoking the planning permission as I am satisfied that the planning decision was correct and in compliance with both

national and local planning policy.....

The officer's Delegated Report outlines that assessment and concludes that the proposed development is ultimately acceptable in planning terms and compliant with planning

policy. This position was explained to the Chair of the Planning Committee (as set out in Chair Referral Report) and he made an informed decision to delegate the matter to officers rather than

call it to committee.