Agenda item

(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 Environment Agency (EA) and the Environmental Health Officer not the Waste Planning Authority.  Officers stated that the role of planning was to consider the land use implications of the development and the matter of air emissions was the responsibility of other agencies.  It had to be assumed that the other regulators would undertake the necessary action to address any air emission issues and this was not a matter for the Planning Authority.

·       The ultimate police force was the local community and they should report any problems to the Environmental Health Officer.

·      What happened to all of the wood used on the applicant's site before the biomass boiler was installed? Officers stated that the applicant had shredded the wood and removed off site for recycling/reuse. 

·       Was there a sufficient water supply to the site and had the Fire and Rescue Service been consulted? Officers stated that the Fire and Rescue Service had not been consulted on this particular application but were aware of the scrapyard and inspected the site to ensure fire regulations were complied with.

·       Officers stated that when the boiler first came into operation there had been problems but following advice from the Environmental Health Officer the applicant had made the necessary improvements.

·       In response to comments made in connection with the Energy from Waste plant at North Hykeham this was an industrial size plant and the issues here had been in connection with the visual impact of the plume of smoke from the chimney stack rather than the content of the plume of smoke which was addressed by other legislation under the control of the EA.

The Committee concluded that the conditions attached to the planning permission needed to be rigorously monitored and that the Council's Enforcement/Monitoring Officers should visit the site on a regular basis.

On a motion by Councillor T M Trollope-Bellew, seconded by Councillor I G Fleetwood, it was –

RESOLVED  (7 votes for, 4 votes against and 1 abstention (Councillor D Brailsford because he had arrived during consideration of this item)

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