Agenda and minutes

None were received.

Councillor S P Roe declared an interest in agenda item 5.1 (minute 64). He reported that his daughter lived within 200 meters of the site entrance and that he would leave the meeting for consideration of this item.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 18 January 2021, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee received a report in connection with an objection to the lengths of a new 50mph speed limit proposed along sections of the A631 and a request for the proposed 30mph speed limit extension outside De Aston School to be extended further into the existing 40mph limit.

The report detailed the proposal, the objection received and the comments of officers on the objection.

Members were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report and some of the comments made included the following:

·         It was noted that this proposal was a step in the right direction and would have a benefit to the local community and make school children safer.

·         A question was asked whether consideration could be given to reducing the speed limit to 40mph just before entering Ludford village. It was noted that speed limits around the nearby junction could be re assessed at a later date.

On a motion by Councillor T R Ashton, seconded by Councillor D Brailsford,   it was:

RESOLVED (Unanimous)

That the request to extend the proposed 30mph speed limit be rejected and the objection to the proposed 50mph speed limit be overruled, so that they could be advertised and introduced as consulted upon, subject to the consideration of any further objections received.

The Committee received a report in connection with the outcome of a pedestrian crossing survey carried out in response to a request for a crossing facility at Newbridge Hill, Louth, as shown in Appendix A of the report.

The report detailed the outcome of a survey and the need to seek the approval of this Committee to advance from a Zebra crossing to a Puffin on the basis of site constraints.

Members were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report. It was reported, following a question from a member that the possibility of introducing waiting restrictions near the mini roundabout would be reviewed in the future.

On a motion by Councillor D McNally, seconded by Councillor T R Ashton,   it was:

RESOLVED (Unanimous)

That the submission of a funding bid for a feasibility study and design for the installation of a Puffin Crossing at Newbridge Hill, Louth, at the location detailed on Appendix A of the report, be supported.

The Committee received a report in connection with a request for the reduction of the existing 50mph speed limit to 30mph on the A153, Greylees, as detailed on Appendix B of the report. Investigations had indicated that this site was a 'Borderline Case', as defined within the Council's Speed Limit Policy.

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

RESOLVED (Unanimous)

That the proposed speed limit be approved so that the necessary consultation process to bring it into effect may be pursued.

(Councillor S P Roe left the meeting for consideration of agenda item 5.1 (minute 64) in relation to his previously declared interest earlier in the meeting)

The Committee received a report which sought planning permission by DS Developing Limited (Agent: MAZE Planning Solutions) 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; hard standing areas for accessing the processing plant and for parking of cars, commercial vehicles and trailers used in connection with the operation; alterations to the existing site access from Jerusalem Road; and all associated development, including landscaping at Jerusalem Farm, Jerusalem Road, Skellingthorpe.

The application was the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment submitted, pursuant to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and an Environmental Statement submitted in support of the application. The Environmental Statement assessed the potential impacts of the proposed development along with the mitigation measures proposed to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy any significant adverse impacts.

It was reported that this was a very complex proposal and, like the previous application, there were a wide range of issues which needed to be carefully considered, including the principle of the development, highways, odour, noise, lighting, landscape and visual impacts, the natural environment, the historic environment, flood risk and drainage, design and alternatives.

It was reported that since the agenda had been published, a further representation had been received from North Kesteven District Councillors - Councillor Goldson and Councillor Johnston. A copy of their joint statement had been attached to the update which had been circulated to the Committee the previous Friday and published on the website.

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

Andrew Watt, Agent for the applicant, MAZE Planning Solutions, spoke on behalf of the applicant and made the following points:-

·         Since 2019, the applicant’s team had been working to directly address the Committee’s reasons for refusal of the first application.

·         The principle of redevelopment was to provide an entirely new and thoroughly modern processing plant, replacing the existing A.Hughes and Son operation. The replacement plant that was proposed in the planning application complied with the County and District Council’s Development Plan policies. The housing component of the 2019 development had been a key policy sticking point, so it had been deleted from the scheme. Other concerns were technical – relating to odour, noise and contaminated land. The applicant had carried out further work on those topics, all of which were documented in the updated Environmental Statement and further submissions made during consideration of the current application. The result of that additional work was the Officer recommendation for approval of planning permission.

·         The District Council was happy that all of its previous concerns had been addressed, and there was an absence of any objections from key statutory consultees, including the Environment Agency, Historic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

The Committee received a report which sought planning permission byEnvirotyre UK Limited (Agent: Robert Doughty Consultancy Limited) to remove condition 6 of planning permission B/16/0217 – To allow outside storage of tyres when the site was not in operation at Reed Point, Spalding Road, Sutterton.

It was reported that further to the publication of the agenda, the applicant had provided a plan showing the areas and quantities of tyres to be stored outside. The plan was attached to the update which had been circulated to the Committee the previous Friday and published on the website.

The storage areas accorded with the Environment Agency guidelines for storage of waste (pile sizes and distances from boundaries/buildings) and planning officers were therefore confident that the storage as shown could be incorporated into a variation of the existing Environmental Permit.

David Matthews an objector, was unable to attend the meeting but had requested his objection be read out at the meeting. The following points were read out by the Democratic Services Officer as follows:-

·         'I spoke at the original hearing when the planning officer promised him personally and the meeting in general that the extremely dangerous suggestion that tyres that were made of oil, very volatile, be left in the open outside working hours.  In 2004 in Kirton, within 5Km of the site, it was graphically demonstrated the risks (Health and Safety Act 1974 and later EU directives still in English law) were not acceptable.  If anyone was killed both the operator and the council were guilty of manslaughter'.

·         I am of the opinion that the operator accepted the original conditions and should be made, for the safety of the residents of Sutterton and beyond to keep to them or close down.  I am extra very concerned, as a retired professional Engineer, who understands these things, for both my own health and that of my neighbours, particularly, like me, those who live to the East of the site with a normally prevailing West wind'.  

Mr Matthews had asked that it be made clear that he would consider himself an expert in this issue.

Lewis Smith, Agent, spoke on behalf of the applicant and made the following points:-

·         Envirotyre had been operating from the purpose-designed site at Sutterton since 2015. During that time, the business had continued to thrive and now employed 20 local people. The operation was very straightforward in that waste tyres were brought to the site and then put in bales which were used to line landfill sites around the country.

·         The company accepted waste tyres from surrounding district and county councils, large businesses, and all the way down to the local famer

·         The business provided an essential service within the county and there was a need for a businesses such as Envirotyre.

·         The site at Sutterton was constructed for this use, from scratch, following the cessation of the former haulage use.

·         A new building had been erected, and a new concrete yard constructed under which there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.