Agenda item

Since the publication of the report two further representations had been received from local residents, as detailed in the update, which had been circulated to the Committee and published on the Council's website.

Alan Presslee, representing the applicant, commented as follows:-

·         The committee report before you had addressed the context of these proposals comprehensively, explaining the background to the current application and presenting a fair and balanced assessment.

·         In summary, we propose to amend a number of conditions of the extant planning permission, brought about principally by the difficulties in sourcing a consistent supply of farm waste (manure), which had originally been intended as the majority feedstock source.

·         Furthermore, the Renewable Heat Incentive Regulations required new anaerobic digester plants to secure at least half of the biogas generated from waste. However, this proved to be very difficult when using just manure as it generated only a third of the biogas per tonne that maize could produce. As a consequence, implementing the permitted scheme/conditions would carry a high risk of the entire tariff payment being lost through the use of underperforming feedstock, and thereby rendering the entire project un-fundable/un-viable.

·         We had therefore sought the Council’s approval to adapt conditions of the extant permission, to facilitate a more diverse feedstock, and some corresponding changes to the plant layout. There was no increase to the consented annual feedstock throughput proposed, just the mix of available feedstock types.

·         The application was supported by a revised Transport Statement, noise assessment, odour assessment/management plan, and flood risk assessment/surface water drainage strategy, together with revised plant layout/elevations, addressing the proposed changes to on-site plant and operational changes (i.e. feedstock mix).

·         As the report indicated, your Highways and Drainage Officers, together with Highways England, the Environment Agency and South Kesteven District Council, had raised no objections to these proposals.

·         The report acknowledged that the application proposals accord in full with the policies of the Development Plan, particularly those concerned with traffic and amenity impacts.

·         I hope the Committee would feel able to support these proposals. I am accompanied by Mr Scott-Kerr of the applicants; and would respond to any questions arising.

Alan Presslee responded to questions from members as follows:-

·    Maize feedstock would be sourced within five miles of the plant.

·    It was proposed to bring manure in from poultry sheds and other food wastes within a 45 mile radius and a transport contract had been agreed for this purpose. There was no proposal to increase the overall tonnage for the plant.

·    The replacement of the "Mississippi Paddle Dryer" by a pasteurisation plant was explained and digestate from the pasteurisation plant would be spread on fields within a five mile radius of the site.

Officers responding to questions explained that the total tonnage of the of feedstock processed at the application site would not exceed 55,000 tonnes per annum but what is now sought is to remove the restriction on the proportion of waste permitted, which is currently 33,000 tonnes, so that there is no limit on the amount of waste imported provided it does not exceed 55,000 tonnes per annum.

Comments by members included the relatively modest variation in the conditions requested by the applicant and an enquiry about the effects of the future increase in the use of feed wastes instead of maize which seemed to be a new development.

On a motion by Councillor T R Ashton, seconded by Councillor P A Skinner, it was –

RESOLVED (unanimously)

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report.