Agenda and minutes

The Chief Executive reported that under the Local Government (Committee and Political Groups) Regulations 1990, he had appointed Councillors B Adams and Mrs P Cooper to the Committee, in place of Councillors R P H Reid and S P Roe, respectively, for this meeting only.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs A M Newton, Mrs M J Overton MBE, R P H Reid and S P Roe.

The Chairman stated, on behalf of the Committee, that all Members had been lobbied by email in connection with minute No's 6 and 7. In his particular case he had passed the emails to the planning officer. The Chairman added that he had had no direct contact with any of the objectors and had only spoken briefly to Amanda Suddaby who had spoken against the application at the previous meeting of the Committee and would be speaking again at this meeting (minute 6).

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee held on 9 April 2018 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the site visit by the Committee held on 9 May 2018, be agreed as a correct record.

(Note: Councillor M J Storer arrived in the meeting at 10.35am just before the commencement of this item.

The Chairman reminded the Committee that only those Members who had attended the site visits on 9 May were able to debate and vote on the application)

Since the publication of the report further responses to consultation had been received and were detailed in the update to the Committee which was published on the Council's website and had been sent to the Committee before the meeting. Officers stated that responses to consultation had also been received since the publication of the update asking questions about whether planning procedures in connection with the extension of time had been correctly followed. Officers stated that these issues had been addressed at the previous meeting and that the 2014 permission had been legally implemented.

Officers stated that the Committee, at its previous meeting, had requested details of vehicle movements associated with the development.  The traffic movements associated with the site could be split into four categories and the meeting was informed of the phases as follows:-

1. Construction Phase – 300 in/300 out over a seven week period, with an additional 10 vehicle movements of heavy goods vehicles and 4 vehicle movements with low loaders and the occasional movement of cars/vans.

2. Operational Phase – eight week duration involving 126 traffic movements to bring the drill and ancillary equipment to the site and 126 movements to remove the equipment from the site.

3. Operational Testing Phase – should oil be found this would be collected by tanker together with any associated water and taken to a facility offsite. It was anticipated that this would involve 6 tankers for oil and 2 tankers for water in a month. 32 heavy commercial vehicle movements in the first week setting up the site and a small number of vehicles would be visiting the site during this period.

4. Restoration Phase – should insufficient reserves not be identified the number of vehicles could be 600 as in the first phase but this all depended on the retention of the access track but would not exceed 600.

Amanda Suddaby, an objector, commented as follows:-

·         The site visit made by the Committee would have allowed Members to view the highway conditions leading to the site.

·         There were inaccuracies in the application which should have been found with scrutiny.

·         There was a lack of clear information in connection with the application.

·         Road improvements would not mitigate impact and breached three pre-commencement conditions: 12c, 13 and 16.

·         The objectors asked for documentary evidence that Condition 12 had been satisfied.

·         The applicant had breached their conditions already by accessing their site from the wrong direction (by use of the route over the level crossing), removed soil without archaeological examination and driven over soft verges close to dykes.

·         The proposed 300mm stone layer overlaying the liner was insufficient and in line with manufacturer's guidance or Environment Agency guidelines.

·         The archaeology of the area had not been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

(Note: Councillor A H Turner MBE left the meeting.

Only those members of the Committee who had attended the site visit on 9 May 2018 were able to debate and vote thereon)

Since the despatch of the report further responses to consultation had been received and were detailed in the update sent to the Committee and placed on the Council's website. In a addition a further condition was proposed as follows:-

Notwithstanding the details contained within 'The Construction Traffic Management Plan' approved in condition 12 above, the signage illustrated in Drawing No. 3299(2) PO5 Rev A – 'Site Entrance Detail & Sightlines' shall be erected and shall be retained and maintained for the duration of the development.

Reason: In the interests of the safety of users of the public highway and the safety of users of the site.

Officers stated that since the update had been circulated the following additional responses to consultation had been received:-

·    72 representations had been received but these did not raise any other issues that were not already captured in the Committee report or update.

·    A petition with 115 signatures had been received.

·    A petition with 206 signatures had been received on the morning of the meeting giving reasons for refusal, amongst others, as contamination of the River Bain, the upper Bain valley, the effects on tourism and the constant flow of HGVs.

Officers stated that the planning application for Biscathorpe was similar to the application submitted for North Kelsey in that it involved a request to extend the permission granted in 2015. Officers stated that the applicant had implemented the conditions requested in the 2015 permission before the expiry date.

Elizabeth Williams, an objector, commented as follows:-

·    13 more objections had been received from the Donnington on Bain area. (These were handed over to the Planning Officer at the meeting).

·    The effects of pollution from the application site on the River Bain.

·    The danger posed by fast moving traffic on the B1225 on the site entrance/exit.

·    The applicant had commenced work on the site after the 2015 permission had expired.

·    Local people were worried and stressed because they had not been consulted on the application and if the application was more people would suffer stress.

·    There would be 24 hours of flaring of gas which contained poisons.

·    Over 1000 HGV visits to the site.

·    There was a protected chalk stream in close proximity to the site and treated waste would be leaked in to the stream. There was no margin for error as the application site was very close to the stream.

·    The effects of the application on the environment and local people.

·    The applicant had submitted insufficient information.

Elizabeth Williams responded to questions from the Committee as follows:-

·    She stated that she lived in Lincoln and had lived in Lincolnshire for 50 years.

·    She stated that she did not have a car and used the bus and train.

·    In connection with who she had consulted she stated that she had visited the area and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Jane Hill, an objector, commented as follows:-

·         There appeared to be some ambiguity about the size of the incinerators and the hours of burning.

·         The applicant had stated his wish to burn 30 dogs and cats a day which would mean the incinerator operating for 30 hours (1 animal an hour).

·         She understood that two cremations could not take place at the same time.

·         Other crematoriums existed in a 15 mile radius to the application site, with one less than one mile away.

·         The application site was on a green field site.

·         The prevailing winds would lead to smoke from the incinerators coming towards her property.

·         Local vets' services were already well catered for and clinical waste from the medical practice where she worked was already incinerated locally.

·         There would only be few local jobs created.

·         An increase in traffic movements on a rural road used by horse riders.

·         The proposal to use water from a local drainage ditch in the event of a fire could be affected by the fluctuation in water levels.

·         The front of the building seemed to be out of proportion to the waste unit.

·         The application before the Committee today had changed since the original application.

No questions were asked by the Committee of the objector.

Jon Bayley, the applicant, commented as follows:-

·         The application had been given careful consideration by West Lindsey District Council, the Environment Agency and the Fire and Rescue.

·         There had not been any changes to the building design since the application was submitted adding that a two storey building was not proposed. It was proposed to use the existing buildings for the development.

·         It was proposed to only cremate dogs and cats.

·         There had not been any objections to the application from highways and there would only be an increase of one vehicle an hour.

·         The application was a small scale development and there was a need.

·         The area was suitable for such a facility.

·         Employment would be created and this would help the local economy.

·         He requested the removal of conditions 3 and 5 as soakaways were in place.

·         The Internal Drainage Board was satisfied about the use of the drainage ditch to provide water in the event of a fire.

·         The Environment Agency was satisfied with the application.

Officers explained why it had been necessary to retain conditions 3 and 5. Officers had visited the site, noted that the drainage ditch had sufficient water in it and that highways had considered that Carr Road was able to cope with the increased traffic.

On a motion by Councillor D McNally, seconded by Councillor N H Pepper, it was –

RESOLVED (unanimous)

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

The Committee received a report in connection with the outcome of an appeal following the Council's decision to refuse planning permission relating to Mick George Limited's application for the extraction of limestone and the importation of sustainable inert fill to achieve a beneficial restoration of a proposed quarry located off Gorse Lane, Denton. The Inspector had upheld the decision made by the Committee on 3 October 2016.

Councillor B Adams, as the local Division Member for the area, stated that local people wished to place on record their appreciation for the work undertaken by officers on this application.

RESOLVED

That the decision of the Planning Inspectorate be noted.