Agenda item

This application for a 500kW anaerobic digestion plant and for the change of use of a barn to an education centre had been considered at a previous meeting of the Committee but decision had been deferred pending a site visit which took place on 25 November 2013.

Since the submission of the report further information had been received as follows:-

Applicant – owns and manages over 1200 acres of arable farmland on that estate.  The maize would be grown on the estate following the norms of crop rotation for best yield

The bulk of the farm estate is situated off roads which would be used to deliver the maize to site.  This is no different from the routes used when harvesting crop and delivering it to the grain storage facilities, and would represent an increase in the amount of arm traffic.

There are a variety of locations within a five mile radius that could be used to provide the chicken litter and we will enter into a formal agreement if planning is successful.

Local Residents – further comments have been received from local residents whose comments are already captured in the report.  The comments are as follows (summarised):-

·         Question why cattle manure is being removed from the site and does not appear to be included in the proposal but chicken manure would be imported to the site

·         Consider that too much of an assumption is made regarding the prevailing wind direction from the South-West and contend that on many occasions the wind will blow from other directions.

·         Do not consider the application meets the criteria of the relevant policies of the development plan nor the National Planning Policy Framework.  In particular draw out the locational criteria that it must be sited on a site used as an intensive livestock unit.

·         Also concerned that the site will be illuminated and fear the impact this would cause.

·         Have viewed the Committee Report and wish to object to this recommendation as the relevant traffic data has not been properly addressed.

·         Calculated potential traffic movements associated with importing 11,000 tons of maize to the site to be one trailer every 20 minutes for up to 12 hours per day, 7 days per week, plus movements to educational centre and 9,000 tonnes of digestate to be removed during planting season.

·         Concerned that traffic data for the proposed development and current movements have not been forthcoming from the applicant.  Note that the farm and fields have been rented out for some time and consequently conclude the applicant is operating a property rental business and not an operational farm which is why the traffic data for the farm is not available.

To date the necessary highway data to assess the application against relevant policies has not been provided and therefore the application is invalid.

Head of Planning Response – the applicant has not suggested that the anaerobic digestive plant is in connection with intensive livestock units and lack of compliance with this locational element of policy WLP11 is addressed in the Committee Report.

Secondly, it is not proposed that the plant is illuminated and this is addressed by a condition prohibiting any external lighting.

In respect of highways, the Highway Officer has acknowledged that as a result of this proposal it is likely that vehicle movements in the locality will increase and that by bringing maize to store at the farm will concentrate those movements at the application site.

Concludes that if there is little or no evidence of any existing issues from the existing extensive farm use, it is unlikely that the additional use proposed will have any detrimental effect on the highway network.

Neil McBride upated the Committee on comments made by the applicant since the update document had been produced:

·         The applicant had requested a deferment of the application in order to carry out a survey on protected species in the area and a condition requiring a bat survey to be undertaken would be included;

·         There would be four HGV movements per week to and from the site on the local highway network and would not be required to travel through Woodhall Spa.  Traffic using the study centre would be minimal.

The application was being recommended for approval subject to the conditions in the report.

Brian Olive, an objector addressed the Committee as follows:

·         As a resident living close to the site, he felt it was the wrong place for the proposed development.  With no arable farmland on site, all 11 thousand tonnes of maize for the anaerobic digester would be grown on land at an adjacent farm and transported, creating lots of traffic.  All access roads were single track;

·         He questioned why the digester could not be sited on the farm where the maize was to be grown. 

Lewis Smith representing the applicant addressed the Committee:

·         The maize would be grown on the estate and would remain on the estate, however the chicken litter would be transported to the site from neighbouring farms;

·         The litter would be stored correctly and would be piped to the digester, therefore reducing odour;

·         The education centre will teach about renewables;

·         No objections had been received from highways or environmental health. 

During consideration of the application, the following points were noted:

·         There were concerns from Members regarding the proposed location of the anaerobic digester due to the distance to the maize crops and also the single track lanes that surrounded the site;

·         It was suggested that passing places be constructed to enable safe passing of large vehicles under a Section 278 agreement.

A motion by Councillor H N J Powell, seconded by Councillor W S Webb, to refuse the application, on the grounds that the application did not meet the requirements in paragraphs 109 and 126 of sections 11 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework was requested and upon being put to the vote, the motion was lost (2 votes for, 5 against and 8 abstentions) following which;

On a motion by Councillor D C Hoyes and seconded by Councillor I G Fleetwood it was

RESOLVED (7 votes for, 2 against and 6 abstentions)

That the application be deferred pending receipt of further information in respect of highways improvements required for the introduction of passing bays within the surrounding highway network.