Agenda item

The Committee received a report which sought planning permission by DS Developing Ltd for the demolition of the existing animal by-products processing plant and all associated installations; and the construction of a new animal by-products processing plant, comprised of: raw material reception and processing buildings; engineers building; boiler house; oxidiser building and flue; DAF plant; effluent treatment plant; bio filter bed; general office; weighbridge and weighbridge office; hardstanding areas for accessing the processing plant and for parking of cars; commercial vehicles and trailers used in connection with the operation; residential development to provide three environmentally sustainable eco affordable homes and one manager's house for the processing plant; alteration to the existing site access from Jerusalem Road; and all associated development, including landscaping at Jerusalem Farm, Jerusalem Road, Skellingthorpe.

It was reported that further to the publication of the agenda, a letter from the applicant, a representation from Newark and Sherwood District Council and a further representation from a local resident had been received and were set out in the update which had been circulated to the Committee the previous Friday.

Officers guided members through the report and set out the main issues to be considered in the determination of this application.

Mr James Birch, spoke on behalf of Doddington Parish Council as an objector to the application and made the following points:

·         The recommendation to refuse permission based on 6 planning criteria was applauded.

·         The rendering plant was only in Skellingthorpe for historical reasons, it was believed that if this was a green field application there was no possible way that the Council would authorise a new plant beside a village of 4000 people and in line of sight of Lincoln Cathedral and a mile from Doddington Hall, a tourist attraction with 300,000 visitors per year.

·         It was hoped a combination of stronger environmental laws, climate change resistance and common sense would mean this facility was forced to close in the next 30 years.  If the rebuilding of the plant was allowed, it was an endorsement of a plant on this inappropriate site for a long time into the future.

·         There were claims that newer equipment would mean a less noxious atmosphere, it was the transporting lorries which were the real problem.  The applicant claims that the output level of the new facility would be the same as the current one.  That was clearly not the plan.  The LEO Group had spent £6m on the freehold of the site and would have to spend at least another £20m building the new plant and then demolishing the old one.  They were sophisticated business people and were not going to invest £26m for no increase in revenue.  It could be concluded that the new plant would either have a much higher output or they would decide to keep the old facility once the new one was up and running.

·         The scale of the proposed investment would logically mean that a new plant would mean more output and that would mean far more lorries smelling badly and congesting the small village roads.

·         This planning application was a cover for a struggle for control of the site between the new freeholder Leo Group and the current tenant Lincoln Proteins who had a lease until 2041, but did not bid enough when the freehold came up for sale.  The four houses applied for on the site were only there because Leo Group could terminate the tenants lease if planning permission for housing became available on the site.

No questions were asked to the objector.

John Drabble spoke on behalf of the applicant and made the following points:

Housing

·         He would review housing, transport, odour and noise.

·         Members would be aware of the site's close proximity to Skellingthorpe village, and that the previous NKDC Local Plan settlement boundary passed along the Jerusalem Road frontage, well past the area now proposed for housing.  The application site was not in an isolated area of countryside, which was the relevant NPFF reference. This was conveyed in the before and after images of the site development.  The proposed housing was a component of a larger regeneration scheme that could provide environmental benefits.

·         There would be no greater operational movements than currently – there was no stated intensification.  The report concluded no adverse impacts on capacity or safety, accord with relevant Policies, and a s106 Agreement could be secured to prevent HGV's travelling through the village.

Odour

·         In terms of odour, the Officer report misrepresented the odour assessment.  The submissions made it clear that the most stringent of the odour benchmarks was assessed.

·         The use of real measured emissions data from an operational plant, using 3 lines not 2 was entirely appropriate and robust.

·         The worse-case, maximum odour concentration did not exceed the most stringent odour standard at any existing or proposed property.

·         The existing plant processed Category 1, 2 and 3 material and used older, less efficient abatement plant than proposed.  Vehicles would be modern, enclosed with hydraulic covers.  The weighbridge would be deeper into the site, with passing possible so the potential for queuing would be reduced.

Noise

·         In terms of noise, the applicant's Regulation 25 response was compliant with BS4142, contrary to the report.

·         Night time HGV movements would result in a negligible impact above existing background

·         On short term concurrent operations during commissioning, a restriction on noisy commissioning activities at night time could be conditioned.

·         Existing properties would be 2 to 3 times more distant from the nearest process building in the proposed site configuration.  The short term commissioning process could be suitably managed.

In closing,

·         On housing, members would be aware that the Court of Appeal clarified NPFF Policy, in that proposals cannot be considered to be isolated  if there are other dwellings nearby.  The dwellings would not suffer from poor amenity.  The Manager's house was not an operational requirement, and could be omitted.

·         There were no objections raised by statutory bodies – Highways England and LCC Highways Authority, the Environment Agency, Natural England or Historic England.

·         There were benefits to the proposals, including improved air emissions, an improved and safer site access, better screening for noise, benefits in visual impact and no significant environmental effects as detailed in the 850 page ES.  The assessments were not deficient, and the applicant fully accepts appropriate conditions to manage construction and operations.

Members were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the applicant and the following was noted:

·         It was queried why it was thought the odour assessment was not correct.  It was noted that the moderate odour benchmark was 3, and the odour on site was 1.5.

·         The model was based on the highest recorded emissions.

·         The applicant was asked to explain how the proposed processes were different to the current ones and how this would lead to a reduction in odour.  The Committee was advised that there were three categories of waste, and the Penrith plant processed category three only.  This site would process categories 1, 2 and 3.  The odours would be controlled by a thermic oxidation process.

·         The new plant would also be compliant with BAT and environmental permits.

·         Emissions would also be improved as it was proposed to include a mains gas connection for fuel.  The current plant used tallow fuel.

·         It was commented by one member that this was a commercial site, yet there were plans for four dwellings, the reasoning behind a managers house was accepted, but the reasoning for the additional three dwellings was queried.

·         It was queried why an alternative access had not been included.  Members were reminded that as this was the access outlined in the application, an alternative could not be suggested.  It was proposed to improve the existing access to the site to allow HGV's to pass each other.

·         It was queried whether there was an intention to increase throughput at the new facility.  It was acknowledged that this was an investment by the applicant, but they did not need to increase throughput in order to increase profit.  An increase in throughput was not required to make the plant viable.

·         In relation to odour, members were advised that stringent and offensive were the same measure.

·         The site had to comply with current operational conditions, but for the new site, the environmental permitting would be more stringent.

·         It was very important to understand the expected odour and what level the smell would be in the future if the application was approved.  The new site would be significantly further back than the current one was.  The nearest properties were 115 and 118m from the existing processing buildings, when the new site was built they would be 290 and 336m away.  The new property would be 188m from the nearest processing building.  The odours would be improved due to the thermal oxidation process as it was a vastly improved method of destroying the odours that it captured.

·         The new build would need to be completely enclosed and would have a negative pressure air lock so the odour could not escape.  This would be covered by the environmental permit.

The Committee was provided with the opportunity to discuss the application and information presented and some of the points raised included the following:

·         It was commented that the tour of the site was very interesting, but it was highlighted that the odour on the site was very strong, and one member commented they were shocked by the strength of the odour. 

·         It was highlighted that at the time of the visit, one of the doors of the facility was partly open and it was difficult to determine whether this had contributed to the strength of the odour.

·         It was noted that if there was an opportunity for a new modern building that was able to get rid of the smell and the noise and was better controlled and further from the village and something could be put in place to manage traffic, then the Committee would need to approve it.  However, there was not the assurance that the new facility would deliver on any of these factors.

·         It was acknowledged that the site was licensed with the Environment Agency.

·         There was a need to make a decision based on the application as presented, and a member commented that they could not support the application as presented, and would agree with the officer recommendation for refusal.

·         Another member commented that on balance of what they had heard, they were happy to second the motion to refuse. 

·         The main issue was the residential element, which was not just outside of the local plan policies but would be located next to one of the most offensive forms of industrial process.  Members commented that they were pleased to have had the opportunity to visit the site and appreciated that the properties were incredibly close to the location of the facility.

On a motion by Councillor L A Cawrey, seconded by Councillor T R Ashton, it was:-

RESOLVED (6 in favour, 1 abstention)

            That following consideration of the relevant development plan policies, planning permission be refused.