Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, County Offices, Newland, Lincoln LN1 1YL

Contact: Steve Blagg  Democratic Services Officer

Items
No. Item

49.

Apologies/replacement members

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J E Killey and M J Storer.

 

50.

Declarations of Members' Interests

Minutes:

Councillor I G Fleetwood requested that a note should be made in the minutes that he knew the applicant when he was a member of West Lindsey District Council and that he was not a close friend.

51.

Minutes of the previous meeting of the Planning and Regulation Committee held on 5 February 2018 pdf icon PDF 144 KB

Minutes:

RESOLVED

 

That the minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee held on 5 February 2018, be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

52.

Minutes of the site visit to Planning Application No.B/17/0477, Boston Renewable Gas Ltd, Brotherton, held on 28 February 2018

Minutes:

The Committee noted that as the planning application had been withdrawn the site visit by the Committee on 28 February 2018, had not been necessary. Officers stated that training for Members in connection with Anaerobic Digesters would be arranged in the future.

53.

Traffic Items

54.

Traffic Regulation Orders - Progress Review pdf icon PDF 70 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee received a report of the position on all current Traffic Regulation Orders and petitions received since the last report to the Committee.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the report be noted and that the petitions be received.

55.

County Matter Applications pdf icon PDF 1011 KB

56.

For the installation of an agricultural anaerobic digestion facility and associated plant and equipment including underground pipework and landscaping at land west of B1192, adjacent to Premier Composite, Langrick Road, Brothertoft - Boston Renewable Gas Ltd - B/17/0477 pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Minutes:

This application had been withdrawn.

57.

Construction of a lined and covered lagoon for the storage of anaerobic digester digestate at Harpswell Grange, Harpswell Lane, Harpswell - Adam Duguid - 137107 pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Adam Duguid, the applicant, commented as follows:-

 

·         This was the third digestate lagoon supporting the Anaerobic Digester   plant at Hemswell Cliff.

·         The lagoon was the same size as the current lagoons.

·         The current lagoons had operated successfully.

·         There was a local source of crops/food waste which, from a farming aspect, was ideal for the operation of the lagoons.

·         The digestate would be supplied to the lagoon by an above ground pipeline although there was now the potential for part of this to run underground *.

·         A pipeline meant that it would not be necessary to use HGVs to transport liquid waste from the Anaerobic Digester to the lagoon.

·         A neighbour who had objected to a previous planning application for a lagoon on his land now supported this application because odours had proven not to be a problem as they had feared.

 

The applicant responded to questions from the Committee:-

 

·         Following a query about the length of the pipeline above ground, the applicant indicated that this would be 2.5km, (not l.5km as previously described*).

·         How much of the digestate was proposed to be used on the land? The applicant stated that it was proposed to use all of the digestate on his neighbour's land.

·         What type of cover was proposed for the lagoon? The applicant stated that the cover was similar to covers used for swimming pools and that it would be sealed.

·         Leak prevention measures would be needed where the pipeline passed near the drain. The applicant stated that the pressure in the pipeline was constantly monitored and any reduction in pressure was investigated, adding that while there was a risk of leaks 97% of the digestate was water based and non-hazardous.

·         What safety measures were in place to prevent members of the public falling into the lagoon? The applicant stated that it was proposed to install a high fence around the lagoon and to put signs up warning the public. The applicant stated that hydrogen sulphide collected on the surface of the lagoon was dangerous.

·         A Member stated that similar safety measure had been installed at the applicant's two other lagoons and no issues had been reported.

·         Was 10 days sufficient time to pipe digestate to the lagoon? The applicant stated that three to four weeks was more ideal as two weeks was tight and added that piping did not take place at night.

·         Was the fencing capable of keeping out larger animals? The applicant confirmed that the fencing prevented larger animals like deer and foxes entering the lagoon.

 

Officers confirmed that the 1.2m high fencing provided suitable protection, that the lagoon was not located near to any Public Rights of Way and that it was the local Parish Councils that had raised concerns about potential environmental issues not the Environment Agency.

 

(* It should be noted that the application as submitted did not propose the installation of an underground pipeline and therefore if the applicant did propose to do this, separate consent would be required.

 

Comments made  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

 

 
 
dot

Original Text: