Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M S Jones and Mrs H N J Powell.

Councillor T M Trollope-Bellew requested that a note should be made in the minutes that he had received an email from West Deeping Parish Council and it was his understanding that this email had gone to all members of the Committee and a separate email from the Parish Clerk, on the same matter (minute 81).

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee held on 6 February 2017, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the site visit to Veoli, Long Leys Road, Lincoln, be agreed as a correct record.

(Councillor Ms T Keywood-Wainwright arrived in the meeting during consideration of this item).

Since the publication of the report further correspondence had been received from the Welland and Deepings Internal Drainage Board, South Lincolnshire Fenlands Partnership, West Deeping Parish Council together with the response of the Planning Manager. The correspondence and response were detailed in the update to the Committee which was available for viewing on the Council's website.

Iain Stowe, an objector, commented as follows:-

·         The Committee had received letters of objection from the West Deeping Parish Council and he did not propose to elaborate on them.

·         There was already a sand and gravel processing plant within 200 metres of the proposed Cemex plant belonging to Breedon which extracted from the Rectory Farm site neighbouring the Cemex area along its east boundary. Material was conveyed along the northern boundary of the Cemex area, under King Street and then down to the west side of the plant.

·         The original location for the processing plant was well screened with developed vegetation and trees, was a decent distance from the nearest residential housing and there would be no reason for the West Deeping community to object to its continued use.

·         The processing plant operated by Breedon on the adjoining quarry would be well placed to process extracted material from the northern end of the Cemex area via its existing conveyor system. It was understood from their management that they intended to apply to extract the MS29 site, once the location was confirmed. They were well placed to do so by extending their existing conveyor system.

·         The conclusion was that if common sense could prevail there was simply no need for this second plant. This was not a new suggestion as it was the intention of RMC Aggregates & LaFarge (now Breedon) to do just this in 2001, document A9 refers.

·         There were significant traffic safety issues developing at the junction of King Street and the A1175. If this application was permitted there would be three accesses in simultaneous operation, all within 400 metres of the junction.

·         The Breedon plant offered sequential processing of material extracted from their existing site, the Cemex site and the MS29 site thus reducing the peak traffic movements by spreading them over a longer period.

·         A sensible overall strategy for extraction around West Deeping.

·         The Committee's support was sought for a review of the processing and traffic stemming from extraction consents existing and impending around West Deeping was required by all of the parties.

·         The Committee's should refuse the application to enable Planning, Cemex and Breedon to jointly consider more appropriate ways forward.

James Brown, representing the applicant, commented as follows:-

·         The West Deeping site was originally granted permission in October 1997 and proposals were formally implemented by CEMEX in 2007.  The site was a replacement for Manor Pit quarry where reserves would be exhausted by July 2017. The site was a consented and implemented stand-alone site for mineral extraction where it had been accepted that a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

(Note: Councillor D Brailsford arrived during consideration of this item)

Andy Watson, an objector, commented as follows:-

·    The main objections were statutory nuisance based on method of operation, demonstrable non-compliance with clean air legislation and anomalies with the planning application/consultation.

·         There was widespread concern amongst local residents over the application allowing a return to ‘business as usual’ reflected by the objections received.

·    Substantiated complaints submitted to local government with accompanying diaries, videos and photos shows smoke, contrary to RHI guidelines emanating from the applicant’s chimney.

·      Clean wood with a low moisture content emits neither black smoke, nor acrid fumes, giving rise to legitimate health concerns for the young families and elderly residents adjacent.  Disappointingly this media evidence was not received by the planning officer for consideration.

·    There was a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of many properties in the vicinity of the proposed site.

·         Recurring themes in the objections submitted were inability to enjoy outdoor spaces, dry laundry or open windows.  This issue could not be reconciled with the planning officer’s report, specifically paragraphs 120, 123 of the NPPF and Policy DM 3 of the local plan context.

·    This chimney posed a statutory nuisance in accordance with clean air legislation and would appear to have been operated with waste material which was prohibited, given the nature of the applicant’s business. If the recommendation proceeded and the issues seen previously were noted again, local residents would pursue an Abatement Notice, citing a statutory nuisance to limit activity until compliance was consistently maintained, with the assistance of all relevant authorities.

Councillor W J Aron, the local Member, commented as follows:-

·       He knew the applicant and had attended Horncastle Town Council when the application had been considered and only one objection had been received. The Town Council had expressed concern about emissions, the height of the flue and the materials burnt.

·       The application should comply with regulations.  There was evidence of acrid black smoke. Had the modifications to reduce smoke been successful and when were the modifications carried out? Officers stated that the modifications had been requested by the District Council's Environmental Health Officer and implemented by the applicant with the only caveat that a request was made by the EHO that any planning permission granted should include a condition restricting the types of materials that could be burnt.

·       If the Committee was minded to approve the application then the conditions needed to be rigorously enforced so that residents were able to sit in their gardens.

·    Comments made by the Committee and the response of officers included:-

·       What was being burnt to create the smoke? Officers stated that the applicant had on occasions put painted wood in to the boiler. Officers stated that they were unaware when the last complaint in connection with the proposed development had been received and that the Environmental Health Officer did not object to the application provided a condition was imposed.

·       The responsibility for ensuring compliance with air emissions regulations under the statutory nuisance legislation was the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.