Agenda and minutes

The Head of Paid Service reported that under the Local Government (Committee and Political Groups) Regulations 1990, he had appointed Councillor R A Renshaw to the Committee, place of Councillor Mrs J E Killey, for this meeting only.

The Chairman stated that all members of the Committee had been lobbied by objectors in connection with minute 62.

The Chairman reminded the Committee that only those Members who had attended the site visit on 28 March 2018, could speak and vote on the application. (Minute 63)

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee held on 5 March 2018, be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the site visit held on 28 March 2018, be agreed as a correct record.

(Note: Councillor R P H Reid arrived in the meeting during consideration of this application)

Amanda Suddaby, an objector, commented as follows:-

·         The original application was temporary and Condition 1 gave a date to cease and restore the site. Yet, questionably, it was being treated as if the work had only to commence in that time frame.

·         The request to extend was received after the permission had lapsed. The planning department had stated that this was a new planning application.

·         Very few people were aware of the application when it was submitted three years ago.

·         Lack of clarity regarding activities at the site by the applicant.

·         The Committee should re-consider the whole application again as this was an entirely new application.

·         The Committee should consider the shortcomings of Egdon's failed application in North Lincolnshire and avoid repeating the same errors at this site.

·         At Egdon's North Lincolnshire site, the applicant had used 300mm of stone over the protective layer. The Public Inquiry for Egdon's North Lincolnshire site found that 600-800mm would be required to ensure adequate protection yet at the North Kelsey site the applicant was proposing to use only 300mm. This would mean the need for more HGV movements on the local highway.

·         Doubted the applicant's ability to withstand any accidents and therefore was a bond required from the applicant to offset the public's financial risk.

·         Uncertainty for the local community as the application had been on-going for three years and now the community could face another three years of uncertainty.

·         Requested that the Committee should not let this application proceed due to the industrialisation of agricultural land and effects on wildlife habitat.

·         83, not 67, online objectors including three villages and Caistor Town Council had requested refusal of the application.

·         Photographs of the site and surrounding area were circulated to the Committee.

Amanda Suddaby responded to questions from the Committee as follows:-

·    Did the objector want the Committee to make a site visit to the site or did they want the Committee to refuse the application as it was unclear from the objector's comments? Amanda Suddaby stated that this was a decision for the Committee to make and while a site visit would help ideally refusal of the application was the most favoured option.

·    How many properties were in the vicinity of the application site as the area looked sparsely populated? Amanda Suddaby stated that there were about six properties near the junction of the B1434 and Smithfield Road. She stated that Smithfield Road was well used by the public and that local villages were concerned about the increased traffic passing through their villages.

·    A Member commented that the photographs submitted by the objector clearly showed rutted and flooded roads.

Paul Foster, representing the applicant, commented as follows:-

·  The applicant wished to complete the construction of the site, drill an exploratory borehole and carry out production testing. Therefore, a variation of Condition 1of the planning permission granted in December 2014 was required to allow this to take place,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

(Note: Councillors S R Kirk, Mrs M J Overton MBE and M J Storer left the meeting before consideration of this item and did not return. Councillor D Brailsford left the meeting during consideration of this item and returned during consideration of this item)

William Hawkes, representing the applicant, commented as follows:-

•        Anaerobic Digesters were now common.

•        The report was balanced and the conditions were satisfactory.

•        The gas to grid plant proposed was more efficient than an electricity to          grid plant.

•        It was proposed to upgrade the access to the site from Fen Road from           gravel to concrete.

Responses by the applicant to questions from the Committee included:-

• How much agricultural land was set aside for the Anaerobic Digester? The applicant stated his plant would in the main use waste products not crops. Straw from land growing wheat would also be used. He was unable to provide statistics in connection with the use of silage.

• It was noted that the applicant proposed to store pig slurry in a lagoon near to the application site and that odour could be caused when the lagoon was refreshed. The applicant stated that there was only an odour when the lagoon was disturbed. The applicant understood that the extra pig slurry came from a nearby farm.

Councillor B Aron, the local Member, stated that he had been requested to attend this meeting by East Keal Parish Council and sought reassurance that there were suitable conditions in place to address the highways issues including a reduction in HGVs using Fen Lane, the need to maintain Fen Lane, the need for footpaths for pedestrians on Fen Lane and that there were sufficient passing places for vehicles. He stated that East Keal Parish Council preferred any slurry to be transported by pipeline to the site which would help to reduce the number of HGVs using Fen Lane. He stated that the landscaping of the northern boundary of the site was welcomed.

Officers stated that Condition 4 addressed the provision of landscaping, Condition 5 addressed the issue of odour and Condition 7 ensured the provision of passing places for HGVs.

The Chairman stated that the Committee had visited the site on 28 March 2018, noted the number of HGVs using the site and added that the highway concerns were addressed in the conditions.

On a motion by Councillor I G Fleetwood, seconded by Councillor N H Pepper, it was –

RESOLVED (10 votes for and 0 votes)

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